On its 122 km route it passes cities like Maastricht, Maasmechelen, Bree, Weert, Helmond, and 's-Hertogenbosch.

Previous to the construction of the Zuid-Willemsvaart, there were many plans for making a canal from 's-Hertogenbosch towards the Belgian border.

Most of these centered on canalizing the Aa, the stream bed of which is closely followed by the Zuid-Willemsvaart for most of its route.

The problem of the Meuse river was the relatively big height difference upwards of Venlo.

Each with a passage width of 7 m and a length of at least 50 m.[1] In this perspective, the naming of the canal after King William I of the Netherlands on 11 November 1822 is justified.

"South" was added to avoid confusion with two other canals commissioned by and named after the king: the Willemskanaal near Zwolle and the Noord-Willemskanaal in Groningen province.

It was tendered in two lots and consisted of the already present waterway below Smeermaas, through the Caberg to the fortress of Maastricht.

The fourth part stretched from the road between Someren and Asten to the provincial boundary between North Brabant and Limburg.

The renovation of the Grand Canal du Nord on the stretch that was part of the Zuid-Willemsvaart, and the construction or completion of some of its infrastructure.

Executing a lot of works to lead the canal through the fortification of Maastricht, including three tunnels through the walls, and towards the basin.

After a splendid dinner the company arrived back in the basin of Maastricht near 8 o'clock in the evening.

[7] The canal created new possibilities for development of the poor towns on the sandy grounds of North Brabant.

The secession of the southern portion of the country in 1830 created an unexpected situation: the canal was closed for cross-border traffic.

It led to a prolonged closure, but on 22 June 1839 the first barge with a Belgian flag arrived in Helmond from Liège.

In the 1850s irrigation works in the Belgian Campine and surroundings dramatically increased the flow of water to the Zuid-Willemsvaart.

There was no intention to execute these plans on short notice, but some aspects were determined in order to ease later implementation.

A smaller amount came from the Meuse in Limburg, sailed to the Wilhelmina Canal, and then returned.

[17] A clear limit to a further increase were the number and size of the original locks, and the small width (profile) of the canal.

It would lead to the strange situation that for many years the Helmond detour was the widest part of the canal, but was unreachable for larger vessels.

[23] By 1986 the overall project to upgrade the Zuid-Willemsvaart was delayed by financial difficulties, and budget overruns on e.g. the Oosterscheldekering.

[27] A risk analysis showed increased wear and tear of the locks, and more collisions, because ships had become so much larger and used ever stronger engines.

[27][28] The situation was most serious at Lock 3, just east of where the current road between Schijndel and Heeswijk crosses the canal.

[24] In February 1990 minister Hanja Maij-Weggen planned to use the funding allotted for the canal to build the Maeslantkering instead.

There were three options: Widening the existing section; digging a detour around the city; and upgrading the Wilhelmina Canal.

In the mid-nineteenth century some calculations for shipping on the Meuse were given by the manager of the mines of SA John Cockerill.

A Meuse ship Maasschip had an empty draught of 23 cm, and had a cargo space of about 150-160 ton (tonnage).

Therefore, a lower water level could raise the cargo price from 7.30 to 16.30 Belgian francs per wagonload.

[42] For some time this was probably a general statement, indicating that in normal circumstances, ships of 188 cm draught could use the canal, but could not sail the Meuse upwards of Venlo.

Near the Meuse Engelen Lock limited the length of ships to 90 m. In 's-Hertogenbosch Sluis 0, still had the original passage width of only 6.8 m, and a depth of 2.1 m. For the moment, the advantage of these works was therefore limited to a substantial increase in allowed length, and a small increase in the allowed draft, of ships using the canal.

In 2014 the situation south of Veghel was that Lock 4, 5 and 6 were suitable for CEMT class IV,[46] but the canal itself was not.