Cited by 47Water Resources and GovernanceWater Governance and InfrastructureWater Resource Management and Quality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A detailed analysis of evolution of water rights in South Africa: An account of three and a half centuries from 1652 AD to present#

Open access
Tewari, DD·2009·Water SA

Abstract

This study reviews the changing scene of water rights in South Africa over the last three and a half centuries and concludes that they have come full circle, with some modifications, since the invoking of Dutch rule in the Cape in 1652 AD. The study stipulates that adoption of a modern rights structure is a welcome change and a progressive step taken by the democratic government; however, its success depends to a great extent on the institutional efficiency of the state which performs the role of trustee or custodian of the water resource. The responsibilities of trusteeship with respect to managing water rights or permits are met through a decentralised decision-making system. The management of water rights/permits thus depends on the administrative and judicial efficiency of organisations and government departments. Therein lurks thedanger of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, and insecurity of permits, and hence enough potential to stifle the long-term incentives to invest in the water sector.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4314/wsa.v35i5.49196

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

2 more claims about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. VAN KOPPEN BCM (2005) The relevance of the histories of water laws in Europe and its former colonies for the rural poor today. Paper presented at the workshop on African water Laws, 26-28 January, 2005, Johannesburg, South Africa,.
  2. WLRP (WATER LAW REVIEW PANEL) (1996) Fundamental Principles and Objectives for a New water Law in South Africa. Report to the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry of the Water Law Review Panel. January 1996, Pretoria.

Cited by

See all 47

Metadata

Authors
Tewari, D.
Affiliations
University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
Corresponding author
Tewari, DD
Venue
Water SA
Published
2009-12-15
Volume
35
Issue
5
ISSN
0378-4738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155562122
Cited by
43
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
15.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Water SA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Water Resources and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Water Governance and Infrastructure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Resource Management and Quality
Keywords
water rights, South Africa, Cape Colony, water governance, decentralized decision-making, water permits, institutional efficiency, corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review