Advert
Advert – scroll down
Update – 13 April
Following the high volume of public input, the Department of Water and Sanitation has issued a clarification and scheduled further public consultation meetings for 15, 16, and 20 April. While the Department maintains that they do not intend to restrict access, the 10-year lease cap remains a core part of the proposal. We have included the Department’s full response and presentation below for your review.
Thank you for your e-mail and comment
We acknowledge receipt of your comments. Due to the number of similar comments raised, if you would like further information beyond the information below and attached, the department is proposing a further three online meetings for further discussion where you will be able to request further clarification. Please find attached for ease of reference the proposed regulations as well as presentations made during public engagement.
If you would like to make use of this opportunity you are requested to confirm your attendance on one of the four invitation links below. If the need arises and based on additional comments received the Department may consider further substantive comments after the due date.
The Department of Water and Sanitation (the Department) notes the concerns raised regarding the proposed Regulations for the Management and Control of Government Waterworks and Surrounding State-Owned Land. The Department would like to emphasise that these are Draft Regulations currently in the public consultation phase. This allows the opportunity to provide inputs to the Regulations, so the final Regulations are balanced, well-informed and practical for all involved parties.
The Department would also like to provide clarity regarding the content of the Regulations. The Regulations do not intend to restrict or criminalise the access to dams or the recreational use of dams. They provide the framework to better manage all activities on Departmental dams in a safe, equitable, and sustainable manner.
With regards to land use access, in instances where an individual, club or business lawfully leases state land from the Department they will have access in accordance with the land and dam surface in line with the terms agreed in the lease. The Department’s Land Lease Policy, the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) and requirements as set out in the Department’s application process. Private land inundated by dams owned by the Department has servitudes registered to the Department to enable the storage of water and floodwater and to permit access by the Department to fulfil its functions. The Servitudes further contains conditions to the landowners in terms of access and use of the surface of the dams.
The proposed regulations do not limit access and use of the private land beyond the servitude conditions. Where commercial activities or events on the surface of the dams originate from these private parcels of land a commercial lease is required and stipulated on the lease policy to enable safe access on our dams in line with existing South African Maritime Safety Regulations and Recreational Events Regulations.
Additionally, there has been much discussion regarding the use of gill nets. The regulations do not permit the use of gill nets or nets that catch a high volume of fish or commercial fishing activities without going through the water use authorisation process. This issue has been raised during public meetings and commitments have been made during these meetings to prohibit the use of gill nets i.e. will not be allowed at all. Any further inputs will be considered once the commenting period has closed.
The Department remains committed to balancing public access, infrastructure protection, and sustainable use of Government Waterworks while still supporting the economic activities associated with these waterworks.
Kind Regards
Anet Muir
Chief Director Water Use Compliance and Enforcement
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab Meeting 1: Wednesday 15 April 2026 @ 18h00
Meeting 2: Thursday 16 April 2026 @ 12h00
Meeting 3: Monday 20 April 2026 at 18h00
Analysis of the DWS Claims (from the above response)
The DWS claims there is no intent to criminalise access. However, the draft regulations still state that access is only legal through “authorised points” or via formal agreements. The “gap” between their intent and the actual legal text of the draft is a key point for participants to comment on.
The presentation confirms the 9-year and 11-month lease maximum. This validates the “unbankable” concern—while the Department frames this as a “standard” policy, it doesn’t change the fact that banks generally require 20-year terms for financing.
The DWS clarifies that they only control the “servitude” areas (the land they have a legal right to flood or use). For landowners, the concern remains whether the state’s management of that servitude effectively blocks the use of their remaining private land.
Balanced Overview of the Policy
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Modernisation: Replaces the outdated 1964 regulations with a framework suited to modern environmental and safety needs.
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
Primary Law Conflict: Secondary regulations appear to override the National Water Act (Schedule 1), which entitles citizens to “reasonable recreational use” without a licence.
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Equitable Use: Aims to correct past imbalances by creating formalised public picnic areas and community access cards.
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
Criminalisation: Traditional access (boating/fishing) becomes a criminal offence unless a formal lease or agreement is concluded.
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Economic Growth: Unlocks potential for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), houseboats, and floating restaurants to create local jobs.
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
“Unbankable” Leases: Leases capped at ~10 years (9 years, 11 months) with no automatic renewal make 20-year property bonds impossible to secure.
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Conservation: Implements “Wash Bays” and mandatory monitoring to prevent the spread of invasive species and pollution.
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
De Facto Expropriation: The state claims control over private land below the 1:100-year flood line without compensation to title-deed holders.
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Standardised Safety: Ensures all dams have uniform Aids to Navigation (AtoN) and incident reporting systems.
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
Administrative Burden: Shifts the state’s monitoring and enforcement duties onto private citizens, clubs, and lessees.
Arguments IN FAVOUR (Department Objectives)
Conflict Resolution: Uses “Zoning Maps” to prevent clashes between different users (e.g., skiing vs. angling).
Arguments AGAINST (Potential Threats)
Restrictive Entry: Access is at the “discretion” of a Competent Authority, removing the general public’s right to entry.
Questions and answers
Anyone who lives near, works on, or visits a government-owned dam. This includes property owners with servitudes, fishing and sailing clubs, guesthouses, and the general public who use dams for recreation.
Financial institutions generally require a lease period that matches the length of a mortgage bond (usually 20 years). If a lease is restricted to 9 years and 11 months with no guarantee of renewal, banks are unlikely to grant loans, making it impossible to buy, sell, or improve properties in these areas.
Under the proposed regulations, traditional access is only “legal” if a formal agreement or lease is in place with the Department. Without this, activities like launching a boat or fishing from the shore could be treated as a criminal offence.
Many private landowners have title deeds that extend to the water’s edge. These regulations suggest that the state will take “control and management” of any land below the flood line, even if it is privately owned, without offering compensation.
The NWA is the primary law in South Africa. Schedule 1 of the Act explicitly allows for “reasonable recreational use” of water. There is a legal concern that these new regulations are trying to remove a right that the primary law already gives to every citizen.
The draft regulations
Loading...
Vaal Dam Resource Management Plan (RMP)
Loading...
The Case Study: Vaal Dam
The Vaal Dam is a unique case because, unlike most South African dams, the state does not own a large shoreline buffer. Instead, it operates within a servitude of storage. This means most land around the dam is privately owned, and access has historically been through private estates, sailing clubs, and guest houses.
In the News
Statements and media releases
Click on a logo to view.
Want to display your organisation’s statement? Click here.