Imagine the opposite. Right now, the burden of proof is on the applicant. You have to show that there was no awareness among users and that water bodies should therefore be regulated.
If, on the contrary, we allowed some form of temporary regulation, measuring its impact on both the population and the water bodies, and regularly reviewed this regulation, we could have a national standard.
This could make it easier to implement regulations and validate them quickly. The burden of proof would then be on demonstrating that these regulations are not appropriate, rather than demonstrating the opposite, i.e., that regulations are needed, which is currently the case.