“Clarification” on dam access regulations raises more questions than answers

The Department of Water and Sanitation’s recent attempt to clarify its proposed regulations on the management and control of government waterworks during a series of additional public participation meetings on 15, 16 and 20 April has failed to resolve key concerns and instead deepened uncertainty about legal and practical implications. AfriForum today submitted supplementary written comments to the Department, posing 60 questions arising directly from the Department’s subsequent explanation. This follows the organisation’s formal submission of comments on 13 April against the proposed regulations published on 16 January.

According to AfriForum, the fact that a clarification process has resulted in 60 additional questions points to a fundamental problem with the regulatory framework itself.

“If the Department’s clarification was effective, it would have reduced uncertainty. Instead, it has exposed how unclear and internally inconsistent the proposed framework really is,” says Marais de Vaal, AfriForum’s Advisor for Environmental Affairs.

AfriForum explains that the uncertainty ultimately centres on three key issues that go to the heart of the regulations, namely whether access to dams for recreational purposes is a lawful public activity or a permission granted by the state, what the legal basis is for the system of approvals, leases and agreements and to what extent the Department is claiming control over private land and existing rights.

“These are not abstract concerns. It arises directly from the Department’s own documents. When the proposed regulations are read together with the Resource Management Plans and the Lease Policy, it suggests a system where access depends on state permission and where long-standing recreational use may be placed in doubt,” explains De Vaal.

AfriForum emphasises that, despite assurances that the regulations do not intend to restrict access or criminalise recreational use, the legal effect of the framework remains unclear and, in some respects, contradictory.

AfriForum also cautions against dismissing these concerns as alarmist, emphasising that the questions raised are rooted in basic principles of legality and public administration. “It is easy to label criticism as alarmist, but the reality is that we are asking very basic legal questions. If the Department cannot provide clear answers to these questions then the problem lies with the regulations, not with those raising concerns about them,” says De Vaal.

AfriForum supports reasonable and lawful regulation of water resources, but warns that a process marked by ambiguity, shifting explanations and unresolved contradictions risks undermining public trust. The organisation has called on the Department to provide clear, written responses to the 60 questions raised and to reconsider the proposed regulations considering the concerns identified.

To support AfriForum’s efforts to protect public access to water resources and hold government accountable, visit www.afriforum.co.za for more information.