South Africa has faced a chronic water shortage for many years, with large parts of the country experiencing recurring drought conditions, depleted groundwater, and critically low dam levels in many regions.
While some northern dams (particularly in Limpopo and Mpumalanga) have occasionally been full or near capacity due to localised heavy rainfall, the national water supply system remains deeply dysfunctional. Decades of collapsed governance, rampant corruption, mismanagement, and deliberate neglect of infrastructure have left water treatment plants, pipelines, pump stations, and distribution networks in a state of severe disrepair.
Billions of rand allocated for maintenance and upgrades have been lost to theft, inflated tenders, cadre deployment, and outright looting, resulting in massive non-revenue water losses (often 40–60% in many municipalities), frequent burst pipes, pump failures, and entire communities left without reliable tap water for weeks or months.At the same time, the government continues to impose strict Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and transformation requirements on water use licences for farmers.
New or renewed water-use authorisations under the National Water Act increasingly demand high levels of black ownership, black management control, and preferential procurement—conditions many established commercial farmers struggle to meet quickly. Non-compliance can lead to licence suspension, reduced water allocations, or outright refusal of access to irrigation water, even when dams in their area are full.The combined effect is extremely dangerous for national food security. Commercial farmers—responsible for the overwhelming majority of irrigated crop production (maize, wheat, citrus, vegetables, etc.)—face uncertainty over water rights at the exact moment when reliable irrigation is most needed to offset erratic rainfall and maintain yields. Reduced planting, fallowed land, lower output, and higher food prices are already visible consequences in some provinces.
If water licences are broadly restricted or withdrawn due to unmet BEE targets, while infrastructure continues to decay and corruption prevents meaningful repairs, South Africa risks a sharp drop in domestic food production at a time when global grain and food prices remain volatile and import dependence is risky.In short: dams may sometimes be full in certain areas, but collapsed governance and corruption mean the water never reliably reaches users. Simultaneously forcing aggressive empowerment quotas on water rights without fixing the delivery system creates a double crisis—physical water scarcity in practice, plus policy-induced uncertainty for the farmers who produce the nation’s food. The long-term outcome threatens not only rural livelihoods but the country’s ability to feed itself affordably and consistently.
In South Africa, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE or BBBEE) requirements have a significant and often negative impact on many farmers when applying for, renewing, or transferring water use licences under the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998). The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) increasingly links water licence approvals to BEE compliance, creating serious challenges for commercial farmers—particularly white-owned or established operations—and threatening food security.Key effects include:Licence delays or refusals — Applications or renewals can be stalled or denied if the farm does not meet BEE ownership thresholds (often 25–51% black ownership), black management control targets, or preferential procurement/enterprise development scorecards. Farmers report waiting years for decisions, or licences being granted only on condition of partial or full transfer of ownership.
Forced equity transfers — Some farmers are effectively compelled to sell shares or land to meet BEE criteria to secure or retain water rights. This has led to distress sales, reduced farm sizes, or loss of control over long-held family operations, especially where water is essential for irrigation (e.g., citrus, table grapes, vegetables, maize).
Reduced water allocations — In water-stressed catchments, licences may be granted with lower volumes or stricter conditions if BEE compliance is partial, limiting irrigated hectares and production capacity.
Increased financial pressure — Meeting BEE targets often requires expensive legal, valuation, and restructuring costs (trusts, share schemes, partnerships), while uncertainty over licences discourages investment in irrigation infrastructure, boreholes, or dam upgrades.
Threat to food production — Commercial farmers produce the majority of irrigated crops that feed the nation and drive exports. When water licences are restricted or delayed due to BEE non-compliance, planting reduces, yields drop, food prices rise, and export earnings fall—directly impacting national food security.
Uneven impact — Emerging black farmers often struggle with the same bureaucratic delays, high compliance costs, and lack of capital to meet BEE requirements themselves, meaning the policy can hinder both established and new black entrants.
While the policy aims to redress historical inequalities in water access (where white commercial farmers historically dominated allocations), critics argue it is applied inconsistently, lacks clear guidelines, and prioritises ownership targets over actual water use efficiency, stewardship, or food production outcomes. In practice, many farmers see BEE-linked water licensing as a major additional risk on top of drought, input costs, electricity prices, and disease outbreaks (like FMD), pushing some to exit farming or shift to less water-intensive crops.In short, BEE requirements tied to water licences create uncertainty, delay investment, reduce output, and threaten the viability of irrigated agriculture—ultimately affecting the country’s ability to produce affordable food and maintain export revenue.
WATCH | Minister of Water and Sanitation Pemmy Majodina says many people in Gauteng are using water without paying for it. pic.twitter.com/ydbPqugddM
— SABC News (@SABCNews) February 11, 2026
