Water and sanitation department’s dam regulations could devastate small businesses

Proposed changes to how state-owned dams are managed have sparked fierce pushback from small business owners, property investors, opposition politicians, and waterfront communities, who warn that the regulations could unravel livelihoods built around free public access to water.

Small businesses and communities at risk

Across South Africa’s major dams, entire local economies have taken root around recreational water access, and those who depend on them say the proposed government regulations could pull the rug out from under everything they have built.

Chas Everitt International CEO Berry Everitt describes a web of small enterprises whose survival hinges on unimpeded access to state water.

“If you think about everything from the little restaurants to the guys who maybe hire out boats or fishing equipment, or take people out fishing on the big dams, or take people on hikes around the dams – there are lots of tiny enterprises that depend for a living, and communities depend for a living, on having free access to this water,” he says.

He warns that the damage would not stop at the waterline.

“Any restrictions could not only affect property values but have a negative ripple effect on entire local economies by reducing the demand for the services they provide, including hospitality, boating, angling, camping and retail,” Everitt says.

The Citizen reached out to the department; however, it had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. This article will be updated once a response is received.

What the proposed regulations actually say

Published in Government Gazette No. 53963 on 16 January 2026, the draft regulations were issued by Minister of Water and Sanitation Pemmy Majodina under section 116 of the National Water Act of 1998, and would replace legislation that has been in place since 1964.

The gazette defines “commercial activities” as any use of state water or surrounding land to generate revenue.

This definition is broad enough to capture organised sporting events, tourism activities and even photography shoots, all of which would require written permission from a competent authority before they can proceed.

Crucially, the gazette states that any commercial activity using a government waterwork to generate revenue “will require a commercial lease agreement between the department and the owner of the commercial activity prior to the activity commencing.”

Businesses already operating at the time the final regulations are published would have just six months to conclude such agreements or face being shut down.

The DA’s NCOP spokesperson on water and sanitation, Dr Igor Scheurkogel MP, says the regulations go even further than most people realise.

Under the draft rules, taking photographs at a dam would constitute an illegal activity, and photographers could not access land next to a water surface without first concluding five separate agreements with the department.

“The proposed regulations prohibit access to dams except through formalised leases,” Scheurkogel says.

What it means for waterfront property owners

Beyond local businesses, Everitt says the regulations pose a direct threat to property values around the country’s most sought-after dam-side locations.

He points to major dams – including the Vaal, Hartbeespoort, Gariep, Theewaterskloof, Loskop, Sterkfontein and Pongolapoort – as particularly exposed.

“These dams are not only critical national water assets, but they are also some of SA’s most important lifestyle and tourism destinations. They support boating, fishing, nature tourism, weekend accommodation markets and a wide range of small businesses,” he says.

People buy properties around dams precisely because of what the water offers: boating, water skiing, fishing, and infrastructure like jetties and slipways.

Under the current law, access costs nothing.

The gazette, however, makes clear that even the erection of structures on state land. This includes boating slipways, jetties and marinas, which would require approval from a competent authority and be subject to lease conditions.

“Now what these regulations propose is that you’re going to have to get a licence, or you’re going to have to have an agreement, or at least some kind of lease agreement with the government to be able to use the water in that way,” Everitt says.

“So obviously that’s going to negatively affect the value of those properties or the resale value of those properties.”

“Waterfront property derives much of its value from access and usability. If that access becomes subject to additional approvals, leases or administrative barriers, it changes the investment case for both primary homes and holiday properties,” he adds.

The real-world impact on dam-side businesses

The DA has highlighted concrete examples of how the regulations would work in practice.

It is named Alida Botha, who owns Fish Busters, a fishing tackle store in Deneysville, who would be compelled to sign a formal public-private partnership agreement with the department simply because her business generates income in proximity to the Vaal Dam, even though her store is not on the shoreline itself.

Scheurkogel says this reflects just how broadly the regulations have been drawn.

“Every single business next to dams, regardless whether or not on the shoreline, like Alida Botha, who owns Fish Busters, a fishing tackle store in Deneysville, will have to sign a Private Public Partnership because she is ‘generating’ money from the Vaal Dam,” he says.

The gazette’s own definition of “recreational water use” confirms the breadth of the regulations’ reach.

It encompasses not only sport, tourism and leisure events, but also personal activities, including subsistence fishing, religious and cultural practices, which means communities that have historically fished state dams to supplement their income could find that practice formalised, restricted or eliminated entirely.

“Thousands of people depend on tourism and recreation around state dams. The DA is fighting to remove red tape to entry and reform the regulatory environment to support businesses to grow,” Scheurkogel says.

Communities push back

Opposition to the regulations has also mobilised at the grassroots level.

A Change.org petition launched by Russell Bothma had gathered more than 2,800 signatures by Tuesday, centred largely on the Vaal Dam and Vaal Marina communities.

Bothma argues that the proposals were drawn up without adequate engagement with the people most affected.

“These regulations are introduced without adequate consultation with those of us who will be most affected. There is a significant lack of transparency in the formulation and potential impact of the resource management plans accompanying these regulations,” he says.

The gazette does require that a resource management plan be developed for each dam through a consultative process involving “interested and affected parties.”

However, where no plan exists when the regulations take effect, the competent authority would have up to two years to finalise one, leaving communities in prolonged regulatory uncertainty.

Bothma is calling on the minister to withdraw the proposals entirely, pointing to collaborative approaches used elsewhere in the world as a more effective alternative.

“Research shows that responsible management of water resources can be achieved through community involvement and sustainable practices rather than blanket bans,” he says.