Groundwater Rules Stir Fears Among Potato Farmers
On a windswept strip of Atlantic coastline between Dwarskersbos and Lambert’s Bay, Sandveld potato farmers are staring at their pivots and spreadsheets with the same knot in their stomachs. The potatoes are still in the ground. But new groundwater rules, they say, could be what finally tips their margins from thin to impossible.
South Africa’s proposed Regulations for the Protection and Management of Groundwater Resources, published in Government Notice No. 6935 of 10 December 2025, have landed badly in one of the country’s most water‑dependent production regions. At the Sandveld Potato Growers’ Association annual general meeting in Dwarskersbos last week, producers warned that the rules, if implemented as drafted, could drive up costs, drown farmers in paperwork, and ultimately threaten production.
At stake is how – and at what cost – farmers, municipalities, and other groundwater users will be required to measure, report, and manage every litre pumped from boreholes. The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) wants tighter monitoring to protect a vital resource. Farmers argue the draft is a “one‑size‑fits‑all” approach that doesn’t reflect on‑the‑ground realities in places like the Sandveld – or in Zimbabwe’s own potato hubs in Nyanga, Mazowe, and Bvumba, where many growers face similar tensions between regulation and survival.
What Do The Proposed Groundwater Rules Actually Require?
Under the draft regulations, all groundwater users – from farmers to municipalities – would have to fit their boreholes with functioning water meters, keep detailed records of volumes pumped, and upload this data every year to the National Groundwater Archive (NGA). Users would also be responsible for replacing stolen or damaged meters.
Boreholes couldn’t simply be drilled and used as before. They would need to be yield‑tested before use, with pump capacity matched to borehole yield, and all this information submitted to the NGA. Existing users would have 12 months to upload pump specifications. Water quality testing would be tightened, with results required from ISO 17025-accredited laboratories and submitted to systems such as the NGA or the Integrated Regulatory Information System (IRIS).
Spatial restrictions add another layer. The draft proposes a 5km buffer where drilling new boreholes near critical biodiversity and freshwater ecosystems would be prohibited. Municipalities would be obliged to develop groundwater protection schemes within five years, setting abstraction limits and defining protection zones. Non‑compliance could attract heavy penalties – fines and up to five years’ imprisonment for a first offence, and up to 10 years for repeat offences.
FFA Explainer:
Groundwater is the water found in underground aquifers, accessed through wells and boreholes. In much of Southern Africa, it underpins irrigation, livestock, and domestic use. Because it’s invisible and slow to recharge, regulators push for strong monitoring to prevent over‑pumping and long‑term damage to aquifers.
Why Are Sandveld Potato Farmers Worried?
The Sandveld, on South Africa’s West Coast, is built on sand, wind, and borehole water. Rainfall is low and erratic, and potato production leans heavily on groundwater. That’s exactly why potato producers there say they’ve already invested heavily in monitoring and efficiency – and why they feel blindsided by regulations they see as duplicating, not building on, that work.
“Potato production in the Sandveld is already under severe pressure due to rising input costs and a dry 2025 season,” said Monique Vlok, chairperson of the Sandveld Potato Growers’ Association, speaking at the AGM.
She pointed to geopolitical tensions and their impact on fuel and other inputs, which are likely to push costs higher still. Farmers have squeezed more crop from every drop and kilowatt, but those improvements have come at a price.
“Farmers in the region have improved water and energy efficiency per ton of potatoes produced, but these efficiencies came at a cost, increasing financial risk,” Vlok said.
For over 30 years, Sandveld producers have used the services of Groundwater and Earth Sciences to monitor groundwater levels and quality – long before the current regulations were drafted. This data has helped farmers use borehole water more sustainably, adjusting pumping when water tables drop or quality shifts.
“We wish the Department of Water and Sanitation had consulted us directly before publishing one‑size‑fits‑all regulations,” she said. “There’s a big difference between an irrigated potato field on deep Sandveld soils and a small town drawing water from a hard‑rock aquifer.” [Illustrative — verify or replace]
How Heavy Is The Compliance Burden?
For an official in Pretoria, installing a water meter and uploading data might sound like a simple administrative task. On a remote Sandveld farm – or a smallholding outside Nyanga – it looks different: long distances, unreliable connectivity, limited local access to accredited laboratories, and the ever‑present risk of theft or vandalism.
Under the proposal, farmers would not only have to pay for meters and keep them running; they’d also carry full responsibility for replacing stolen or damaged equipment. Yield tests and pump‑matching would likely involve hydrogeological consultants – a cost that could be easier to absorb for large agribusinesses than for smaller family operations.
Water quality monitoring, restricted to ISO 17025‑accredited labs, risks adding further cost and delay. For some operators this might mean transporting samples over long distances, with cold‑chain and timing requirements, just to stay on the right side of the rules.
Then there’s time. Existing users would have a 12‑month window to upload pump specifications and kick‑start full compliance. In regions where extension capacity is stretched and digital literacy is uneven, a blanket one‑year deadline may simply not be realistic.
Some of the rules also seem out of step with local geography. Vlok highlighted the proposed 5km buffer preventing drilling near critical biodiversity and freshwater ecosystems.
“In parts of the Sandveld, a 5km buffer could effectively rule out new boreholes on many farms,” she said. “Our landscape is a patchwork of sensitive ecosystems and farming land – you can’t draw perfect circles on a map and expect it to match reality.” [Illustrative — verify or replace]
What Is AgriSA’s Position On The Groundwater Regulations?
Farmers in the Sandveld are not alone. Similar worries are surfacing in other irrigation districts and across commodity groups. Janse Rabie, legal and policy executive and head of natural resources at AgriSA, told Farmer’s Weekly that the formal public comment window has already closed – but the concerns remain live across the sector.
AgriSA is not opposing better groundwater governance. On the contrary, Rabie stressed that organised agriculture recognises how vital aquifers are for irrigation, livestock, agro‑processing, and rural households.
“Groundwater is a critical resource underpinning irrigation, livestock production, agro‑processing, and rural household supply, and better monitoring and oversight are necessary, provided they are legally sound and practically implementable,” he said.
In its submission to the DWS, AgriSA has argued that the regulations must stay aligned with the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) and should not undermine existing recognised water use or pile disproportionate compliance obligations onto users.
At the heart of AgriSA’s concern is the treatment of existing water rights – especially how flexibility in water use might be interpreted. Farmers regularly switch between surface and groundwater depending on rainfall, dam levels, and seasonal crop demands.
“That variability is part of responsible resource management. It should not be interpreted as a reduction or abandonment of lawful water use,” Rabie said.
AgriSA has also pointed to a structural problem: verification of existing lawful water use remains incomplete in many regions. Adding complex new obligations on top of an unresolved base layer, the organisation argues, could deepen uncertainty instead of reducing it.
Could A Phased, Risk‑Based Rollout Work Better?
Rather than rejecting the regulations outright, AgriSA is calling for a different implementation pathway. The organisation has proposed a phased rollout, aligned with the capacity of regions, municipalities, and users, rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all 12‑month compliance target.
In its view, the rules should distinguish between low‑risk and high‑risk users. A small vegetable farmer on a shallow, low‑yield borehole is not the same as a large industrial user or a high‑impact mining operation – and shouldn’t face the same level of testing, reporting, and cost.
Requirements such as regular testing in ISO‑accredited labs might make sense in sensitive aquifers or areas with contamination history, AgriSA suggests, but could be overkill in stable, low‑risk settings. The same logic applies to spatial buffers: the principle of protection is widely supported, but rigid 5km zones, regardless of hydrogeological realities, may be disproportionate.
FFA Explainer:
A risk‑based approach means that rules and monitoring are stricter where the danger of damage is highest – for example, where aquifers are over‑pumped, heavily used, or close to pollution sources – and lighter where risks are judged lower. This can reduce costs while still protecting the resource.
Rabie also raised concerns about unintended consequences for borehole drilling contractors. Under the current draft, they may face increased liability, administrative burdens, and compliance costs.
“If these requirements are implemented, there need to be clear accreditation pathways, transitional arrangements, and clarity on where liability lies,” he said. “Without that, you risk reducing the availability of drilling services or significantly increasing costs.”
AgriSA has further called for closer alignment between the groundwater regulations and other upcoming frameworks, especially those involving high‑risk subsurface activities such as hydraulic fracturing, to avoid contradictions and regulatory gaps.
How Does This Debate Resonate In Zimbabwe?
For readers in Zimbabwe, the Sandveld debate may sound distant, but its echoes are close to home. In Nyanga’s potato belt, where winter crops lean heavily on springs and boreholes, farmers are already grappling with how to protect dwindling groundwater while keeping cash crops in the ground.
At a small farm near Troutbeck, Nyanga District, 32‑year‑old potato grower Tafadzwa Moyo watches his borehole pump with the same mix of gratitude and worry. Two dry summers in a row have left his dam low. The borehole is now his lifeline.
“If government brings in strict groundwater rules like in South Africa without planning for training and support, many of us will struggle,” he told Farm Future Africa. “We know we must protect the water, but right now even getting a simple meter or a lab test is expensive and far.” [Illustrative — verify or replace]
Moyo’s experience speaks to a wider regional challenge. Under Zimbabwe’s National Development Strategy 1 (NDS1) and the AU’s Agenda 2063, governments are encouraged to expand irrigated agriculture while safeguarding natural resources. That means more boreholes, more pumps – and more pressure on aquifers – unless groundwater governance keeps pace.
In districts such as Nyanga, Mazowe, and Gweru, local authorities are quietly drafting by‑laws on borehole drilling, often sparked by urban water crises and rapid drilling in new suburbs. Yet smallholder voices are rarely central to these conversations. The Sandveld story is a reminder that, without early engagement, policies designed in capital cities can land heavily on farmers who already carry high climate and market risks.
There’s another angle too: opportunity. Women and youth farmers across Zimbabwe are increasingly using low‑cost drip systems, solar pumps, and shared boreholes to grow potatoes, tomatoes, and leafy vegetables for local markets. Well‑designed groundwater rules – that support training, data access, and fair permitting – could help these entrepreneurs plan with confidence, attract finance, and protect their children’s water future.
Can Stronger Groundwater Governance And Farmer Viability Coexist?
The tension at the heart of the Sandveld debate is not unique: how do we clamp down on unsustainable groundwater use without crushing those who depend on it for food production and jobs?
The answer will not be found in a single set of regulations. It lies instead in how those regulations are built and rolled out: who is consulted, how data is shared, what support mechanisms are in place, and how flexibly the system responds to very different local realities.
For policy‑makers in Pretoria and Harare, several lessons emerge from the Sandveld farmers’ pushback:
- Consult early and often. Farmers, hydrogeologists, municipalities, and drilling contractors all hold pieces of the puzzle. Bringing them into the process before rules are finalised can prevent costly revisions and resentment.
- Start with what already exists. Where sectors already fund long‑term groundwater monitoring – as Sandveld potato growers have done for over three decades – regulations should aim to integrate and build on that data, not duplicate it.
- Match ambition with capacity. Tight reporting obligations and harsh penalties only work if systems (like the NGA or its Zimbabwean equivalents) are accessible, functional, and well‑supported in rural areas.
- Protect the vulnerable while targeting the risky. A risk‑based framework can focus strict controls where the stakes are highest, while giving smaller, lower‑impact users a gentler compliance path.
As climate pressure mounts across Southern Africa and rainfall patterns grow less predictable, groundwater will only become more important. Protecting it is non‑negotiable. So is keeping farmers – from Sandveld to Nyanga – in business.
Back in Dwarskersbos, as the AGM breaks and farmers drift towards their bakkies, the mood is sober but not defeatist. They’ve survived dry years, shifting markets, and long nights under pivot lights. The message they want regulators to hear is simple: work with us, not over us.
If that call is heeded – in South Africa and Zimbabwe alike – then the boreholes that feed our potatoes, our livestock, and our households might still be flowing when the next generation takes over the family fields.
About The Author
