Briefing by the Department on the National Water Amendment Bill; with Deputy Ministers

Video The Portfolio Committee was briefed on the National Water Amendment Bill, where the Department of Water and Sanitation presented proposed legislative reforms and Members engaged in extensive discussion on transformation, water allocation, and implementation risks. It was said that the Bill seeks to address historical inequalities in water allocation, clarify legal gaps in the National Water Act, and strengthen equitable redistribution mechanisms such as compulsory licensing and tighter regulation of unused water rights. The Department’s presentation explained that South Africa’s pre-1994 riparian water rights system entrenched inequality, with most water still concentrated in commercial agriculture. Despite some progress in allocating water to historically disadvantaged individuals, significant disparities persist. Key challenges identified included indefinite retention of water rights, private water trading, and limited ability to reclaim unused allocations. The Bill therefore proposes reforms such as a “use-it-or-lose-it” principle, restrictions on private trading of water use rights, stronger equity provisions, and improved planning cycles for national water strategy and resource protection. Members broadly supported the need for transformation but raised concerns about implementation. The most prominent issues included risks to food security and agricultural productivity, potential job losses, uncertainty in water rights enforcement, and the practical definition of “non-use” under the proposed framework. Members repeatedly requested clearer evidence on food security, employment impacts, and safeguards for legitimate temporary non-use of water linked to seasonal farming cycles, drought, and infrastructure constraints. A key part of the discussion focused on intergovernmental coordination. Members debated whether transformation should be pursued through water law alone or through broader land and agricultural reform. While some Members supported the Bill as a necessary constitutional instrument for redress, others cautioned against unintended economic consequences and called for deeper consultation with agriculture, land reform, and environmental departments. Towards the end of the meeting, the Chairperson clarified procedural issues around political party engagements with the Department, confirming that parties may directly request meetings or briefings without going through the Committee. He also proposed procedural follow-ups: the desirability vote on the Bill was postponed for two weeks, Members were invited to submit further questions, and the deadline for constituency questions was extended to the end of the first week of June. The meeting concluded with agreement to continue deliberations after additional written inputs are received and with encouragement for further technical engagement between Members and the Department before the Bill proceeds to its next stage.