The Water Resources Management Act 24 of 2004 will change the water regime in Namibia dramatically. Section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act provides for this change by excluding private ownership of water from the new water law dispensation. This study focused on section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act and the implication that this section will have on property rights in the Namibia. The dissertation firstly outlines the historical development of ownership of water in Namibia. It is indicated that private ownership of water was an established principle under Roman-Dutch law. A further examination of Roman-Dutch law reveals that surface water could be divided into private and public water. Public water belonged to the whole nation, while ownership of private rivers was vested in the land owner. Under South West Africa’s water legislation, the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 8 of 1912 and the Water Act 54 of 1956 maintained the distinction between public and private water. However, the Water Act of 1956 expanded the definitions of both public and private water, and acknowledged that the land owner where the water found its source or flowed over, could exercise the exclusive use rights of such water. The Water Resources Management Act has been approved and published in the Government Gazette. However, it has not yet come into force as a date for commencement of the Act, as prescribed by section 138(1)(b), has not yet been determined by the Minister. Once the Act is in force, the Water Act will be repealed as a whole. Section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act will abolish the private ownership of water in Namibia. This is clearly in violation of article 16 of the Namibian Constitution of 1990, which provides for private ownership of water when read with article 100. Therefore, the research concludes that the Water Resources Management Act will dramatically affect property rights in Namibia. Under the Water Resources Management Act there will be no private ownership of water, and the affected person will have no recourse under the Act to claim compensation. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The Water Resources Management Act 24 of 2004 will change the water regime in Namibia dramatically. Section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act provides for this change by excluding private ownership of water from the new water law dispensation. This study focused on section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act and the implication that this section will have on property rights in the Namibia. The dissertation firstly outlines the historical development of ownership of water in Namibia. It is indicated that private ownership of water was an established principle under Roman-Dutch law. A further examination of Roman-Dutch law reveals that surface water could be divided into private and public water. Public water belonged to the whole nation, while ownership of private rivers was vested in the land owner. Under South West Africa’s water legislation, the Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 8 of 1912 and the Water Act 54 of 1956 maintained the distinction between public and private water. However, the Water Act of 1956 expanded the definitions of both public and private water, and acknowledged that the land owner where the water found its source or flowed over, could exercise the exclusive use rights of such water. The Water Resources Management Act has been approved and published in the Government Gazette. However, it has not yet come into force as a date for commencement of the Act, as prescribed by section 138(1)(b), has not yet been determined by the Minister. Once the Act is in force, the Water Act will be repealed as a whole. Section 4 of the Water Resources Management Act will abolish the private ownership of water in Namibia. This is clearly in violation of article 16 of the Namibian Constitution of 1990, which provides for private ownership of water when read with article 100. Therefore, the research concludes that the Water Resources Management Act will dramatically affect property rights in Namibia. Under the Water Resources Management Act there will be no private ownership of water, and the affected person will have no recourse under the Act to claim compensation. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL.M.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL. M.

The concept "beneficial use" plays a pivotal role in South African water law reform. It forms the foundation of the mechanism to make water use rights available for the reform of the allocation of water use entitlements. The mechanism involves that water use rights that were unexercised in the two years before the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 are not defined as existing lawful water uses. Where the concept "beneficial use" is utilised to cancel unexercised water use rights, it can cause potential hardship. Some people whose rights have been cancelled believe that they should be able to rely on the property clause in section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 to either have the legislation declared unconstitutional or to demand compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation. Section 25(4) states, however, that the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources. It is clear from this that reforms to bring about access to water are allowed by the property clause. One of the main questions discussed in this thesis was whether section 32 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 that made more water available for distribution for reform purposes by cancelling unexercised water user rights, leads to an arbitrary deprivation or an expropriation of property. It should be noted that section 32 of the National Water Act did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, as sufficient reason exists for water law reform. A possible constitutional challenge based on the lack of due process of law because of the retrospective operation of the section may possibly be averted because of the existence of section 33 of the National Water Act. Section 33 of the Act mitigates hardship by allowing unexercised water uses to be declared existing lawful water uses in certain circumstances where a good reason for the non–exercise of the water use right existed. Even in cases where section 33 does not prevent section 32 from being regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of property because there still was not a proper procedure, the government will probably be able to show that the limitation in section 32 is, in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of 1996, reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Despite the fact that section 25(1) prohibits arbitrary deprivations, it does not prohibit the government from regulating competing rights to use water even though some people may be negatively affected by the regulation. Because the Minister merely acts as public trustee of the nation's water resources on behalf of the national government in terms section 3(1) of the National Water Act, it cannot be claimed that the government acquired the cancelled water use rights. A claim that compensation should be paid for an expropriation of property will therefore not succeed. Compensation is only payable in terms of section 22(6) and section 22(7) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 for a loss of existing water entitlements, such as existing lawful water uses or existing licences. A court should thus consider interpreting section 25 by providing for compensation where an individual was unfairly burdened and was therefore denied the protection of the equality clause in section 9 of the Constitution when his unexercised water use rights were cancelled by section 32. The concept "beneficial use" currently restricts the content of the water use entitlement existing in terms of section 4 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The loss of the entitlement when inter alia a licence for an existing lawful water use is refused, is not protected by the payment of compensation when water is used in an unfair or disproportionate manner, because such utilisation would not be regarded to be beneficial use. It became apparent that in terms of the current water law dispensation in South Africa, the possibility of compensation for an amendment of a water use licence and the refusal of a licence for an existing lawful water use implies that a water use entitlement is a right in property. The fact that section 22(7) of the National Water Act states that the amount of the compensation must be determined in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution implies that the legislature also recognises that a water use entitlement is constitutional property. Section 22(7) of the National Water Act underlines the basic premises of the National Water Act by subjecting the amount of the compensation that is payable to the same limitations that restrict the entitlement to use the water. The stipulations of section 22(7) draw the attention to the fact that the exercise of both existing lawful water uses and water use licences as rights in property is subject to basic principles of the National Water Act such as the Reserve and the concepts "public trusteeship" and "beneficial use" of the water resources. The fact that compensation is only payable when there has been severe prejudice to the economic viability of an undertaking implies that water use entitlements have to be exercised at the time of the application for the compensation to be payable. The concept "beneficial use" – in the sense that a water use must not be wasteful or polluting and in the sense that only water use entitlements that are being exercised are protected – thus restricts the water use entitlement as a property right. During the research, American and Australian water law reform and their interpretation of their property clauses were compared to water law reform in South Africa and the South African property clause. Furthermore, Australian policy to encourage more beneficial water use by the trade in water entitlements or allocations, was also discussed. South Africans will likely in future be encouraged to trade in water use entitlements or allocations. The objective with allowing the trade in water use entitlements or allocations is to encourage people to rather use water for uses with a high value instead of uses with a lower value. In this way the concept "beneficial use" may be broadened to include water allocation or entitlement trading. However, it was argued that a disproportionate impact on third parties would mean that water allocation or entitlement trading would in some cases not be regarded as beneficial use anymore. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The concept "beneficial use" plays a pivotal role in South African water law reform. It forms the foundation of the mechanism to make water use rights available for the reform of the allocation of water use entitlements. The mechanism involves that water use rights that were unexercised in the two years before the promulgation of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 are not defined as existing lawful water uses. Where the concept "beneficial use" is utilised to cancel unexercised water use rights, it can cause potential hardship. Some people whose rights have been cancelled believe that they should be able to rely on the property clause in section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 to either have the legislation declared unconstitutional or to demand compensation. Section 25 of the Constitution of 1996 prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property and states that property may only be expropriated for a public purpose or in the public interest, subject to compensation. Section 25(4) states, however, that the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources. It is clear from this that reforms to bring about access to water are allowed by the property clause. One of the main questions discussed in this thesis was whether section 32 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 that made more water available for distribution for reform purposes by cancelling unexercised water user rights, leads to an arbitrary deprivation or an expropriation of property. It should be noted that section 32 of the National Water Act did not constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, as sufficient reason exists for water law reform. A possible constitutional challenge based on the lack of due process of law because of the retrospective operation of the section may possibly be averted because of the existence of section 33 of the National Water Act. Section 33 of the Act mitigates hardship by allowing unexercised water uses to be declared existing lawful water uses in certain circumstances where a good reason for the non–exercise of the water use right existed. Even in cases where section 33 does not prevent section 32 from being regarded as an arbitrary deprivation of property because there still was not a proper procedure, the government will probably be able to show that the limitation in section 32 is, in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of 1996, reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Despite the fact that section 25(1) prohibits arbitrary deprivations, it does not prohibit the government from regulating competing rights to use water even though some people may be negatively affected by the regulation. Because the Minister merely acts as public trustee of the nation's water resources on behalf of the national government in terms section 3(1) of the National Water Act, it cannot be claimed that the government acquired the cancelled water use rights. A claim that compensation should be paid for an expropriation of property will therefore not succeed. Compensation is only payable in terms of section 22(6) and section 22(7) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 for a loss of existing water entitlements, such as existing lawful water uses or existing licences. A court should thus consider interpreting section 25 by providing for compensation where an individual was unfairly burdened and was therefore denied the protection of the equality clause in section 9 of the Constitution when his unexercised water use rights were cancelled by section 32. The concept "beneficial use" currently restricts the content of the water use entitlement existing in terms of section 4 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998. The loss of the entitlement when inter alia a licence for an existing lawful water use is refused, is not protected by the payment of compensation when water is used in an unfair or disproportionate manner, because such utilisation would not be regarded to be beneficial use. It became apparent that in terms of the current water law dispensation in South Africa, the possibility of compensation for an amendment of a water use licence and the refusal of a licence for an existing lawful water use implies that a water use entitlement is a right in property. The fact that section 22(7) of the National Water Act states that the amount of the compensation must be determined in accordance with section 25(3) of the Constitution implies that the legislature also recognises that a water use entitlement is constitutional property. Section 22(7) of the National Water Act underlines the basic premises of the National Water Act by subjecting the amount of the compensation that is payable to the same limitations that restrict the entitlement to use the water. The stipulations of section 22(7) draw the attention to the fact that the exercise of both existing lawful water uses and water use licences as rights in property is subject to basic principles of the National Water Act such as the Reserve and the concepts "public trusteeship" and "beneficial use" of the water resources. The fact that compensation is only payable when there has been severe prejudice to the economic viability of an undertaking implies that water use entitlements have to be exercised at the time of the application for the compensation to be payable. The concept "beneficial use" – in the sense that a water use must not be wasteful or polluting and in the sense that only water use entitlements that are being exercised are protected – thus restricts the water use entitlement as a property right. During the research, American and Australian water law reform and their interpretation of their property clauses were compared to water law reform in South Africa and the South African property clause. Furthermore, Australian policy to encourage more beneficial water use by the trade in water entitlements or allocations, was also discussed. South Africans will likely in future be encouraged to trade in water use entitlements or allocations. The objective with allowing the trade in water use entitlements or allocations is to encourage people to rather use water for uses with a high value instead of uses with a lower value. In this way the concept "beneficial use" may be broadened to include water allocation or entitlement trading. However, it was argued that a disproportionate impact on third parties would mean that water allocation or entitlement trading would in some cases not be regarded as beneficial use anymore. / Thesis (LL.D.)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.