National Water Bill

Meeting report

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE AGRICULTURE, WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY
6 May 1998
THE NATIONAL WATER BILL

Documents handed out:
Draft National Water Bill (available at http://www-dwaf.pwv.gov.za)
Department's Response to Public Submissions (available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/committees/water/replies.pdf)
Proposed amendments (available shortly)

The process of the meeting was to address the bill, clause by clause suggesting amendments where necessary, and flagging sections would be needed so as to return to it for debate.

CHAPTER 1
The pre amble of the document was excluded as it was going to be looked at as a whole at a later stage.

Clause 1 and 2:
Concern was raised by UCT Law Unit with respect to the definition of `aquifer’ and a possible need for more refined conditions. Mr. Nell was concerned about the definition of a `reserve’ and said that the aspects of it were not clear. There was also no definition for `catchment’ and water management institution. Mr Cronje (ANC) proposed that water`s primary source was rain and clouds therefore cloud seeding should be addressed. In line 16 the word `resource’ will be inserted. There was no comment on subclauses 2, 3, 4, 5.

Clause 3:
There was no comment on this clause.

Clause 4:
There was no comment on this clause.

CHAPTER 2
Clause 5:
It was decided that there will be a slight amendment to the strategy once the points of view of the public are considered. Mr Nell noted `may not be earlier than 30 days’ and was concerned whether it implied that it could be longer than 30 days. The department was to list the consultation process to specify this adequately. A concern was also raised as to the importance for publishing the revised strategy.

Clause 6:
Mr. Cronje proposed to insert `integrated catchment’ before the word `management’.
Referring to page 14 of the Department's Response to Public Submissions, the Chairperson, Ms Love, noted that the UCT Law Unit proposed a mechanism to include co-ordination of catchment management, covering aquifer, and that on pages 20-21 Business South Africa was concerned with the classification system being preliminary and whether it needs adjustment for the future.

Clause 7:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 8:
From the Department's Response to Public Submissions, Business South Africa proposed that before `management’ should be `integrated resource’ and a definition of water management should be clarified here.

Clause 10:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 11:
No comment was made on this clause.

CHAPTER 3:
Clause 12:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 13:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 14:
Cosatu asks for a definition of `preliminary’ and wanted to know if consultation was needed for preliminary strategy in pages 114-115 of the Department's response to Public Submissions. The answer given to that was in the affirmative.

Clause 15:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 16:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 18:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 19:
Mr Nell proposed after the words `right to use the land; ` other person on the land’ should be inserted on page 25 of the Department's response to Public Submissions. Another proposal was to insert `occupies or uses’. It was decided that the department would make a suggested amendment here. Regarding subclause19.3 if no responsible authority arose, the responsibility fell onto the department. In subclause 19.6 ` Proportionally’ should be replaced by `to the extent of’. Furthermore it was decided to add `jointing and severely’ which leaves the institution to prosecute one person who must pay, and who can then claim from others involved. Mr Nell was not happy with this suggestion. The section would be debated again.

Clause 20:
UCT Law Unit indicated short term emergencies must have a defined period in pages 26-27 of the Department's response to Public Submissions. Also on page 27, the Wildlife Society indicated the infringement of measures should not only be in emergencies but pollution control in general.

CHAPTER 4:
Clause 21:
In general for this chapter the word `licence’ was used and due to past impressions it should be changed to permit or entitlement. It is therefore important to find a distinction between all three.

Clause 22:
If a problem is small enough, you do no have to go through the entire process, therefore it is more flexible according to page 54; 41.4 of the Department's response. Page 38 of the same document, `severe prestigious’ Mr Nell notes that the English and Afrikaans do not relate. The Wildlife Society raises issues of concern on determining water quality may make inappropriate delays in page 32 of the Department's response. Regarding 2.6 Mr Nell will give an amendment.

Clause 23:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 24:
It was decided to delete the last part.

Clause 25:
Mr. Cronje might make an amendment on page 35 in the new document.

Clause 26:
The department would amend 1d and 1e of page 38 in the Department's response to Public Submissions. Also add `and licences’ where the wording is relative to authorities relating to water use.

Clause 27:
Cosatu proposed health and safety in page 46 of the Department document. It was decided that subclause 27b D; 1 and 2 may be changed by the department. On page 39 of the proposed amendments `J’ would be added by the department.

Clause 28:
Mr. Nell might possibly amend that clause.

Clause 29:
It was decided that the word `may’ between `authority and `attach’ be replaced by `must’. Mr. Nell objected to this amendment. Also subclause 29 1 I would have its` number changed.

Clause 30:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 31:
No comment was made on this clause.

Clause 32:
Subclause 32.1 would have an adjustment from 2 years to 5 years.

Clause 33:
An extension would occur from 2 years to 5 years.

Clause 34:
The committee felt that it would like a limit to time.