By Rareview NewsDesk
For millions of residents of Lagos, finding water is not a matter of convenience. It is a daily struggle that begins with checking whether a tap is running, negotiating with a water vendor, switching on a pumping machine or ensuring that the borehole serving their homes has not run dry.
In many neighbourhoods, the promise of public water supply has become so remote that residents have built their lives around private alternatives. Just like power supply. Boreholes, wells, water vendors and water tankers have become essential components of household survival rather than optional conveniences.
It is against this background that the Lagos State Government, through the Lagos State Water Regulatory Commission (LASWARCO), has renewed its campaign against unauthorised borehole drilling and groundwater extraction, warning that offenders risk prosecution and the sealing of their facilities.
The warning, issued on October 29 by the commission’s Executive Secretary, Barr. Oluwabukola Khadijah Adeyemo, has provoked a fundamental question: how does a government that has acted indifferent to provide adequate public water supply justify threatening residents who have had to find their own means of accessing one of life’s most basic necessities?
For critics, the timing and tone of the announcement amount to adding insult to injury. Rather than acknowledging the hardship imposed on residents by years of neglect of public water supply and explaining how the state intends to address it, government appears more interested in asserting regulatory authority over the very alternatives people have adopted to survive.
The concern is not necessarily that groundwater should be left unregulated. Poorly constructed boreholes, contaminated underground water and indiscriminate abstraction can create serious environmental and public health problems. The question, rather, is whether the state is pursuing responsible regulation or displaying an unreasonable show of power against citizens who have been left to provide for themselves.
A water crisis government cannot wish away
The scale of the challenge is evident in figures disclosed by the Lagos Water Corporation (LWC).
In an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in October, the corporation’s Deputy Director, Corporate Affairs and Brand Management, Rasaq Anifowoshe, disclosed that LWC had 34,424 registered connections and that its average daily water production in 2025 was 7.21 million gallons.
The corporation’s installed production capacity was approximately 210 million gallons daily, against an estimated state demand of 540 million gallons.
The initial report, based on an average household size of six people per connection, put the number of residents served at approximately 206,444, representing 1.03 per cent of Lagos’ estimated 20 million population.
LWC subsequently challenged that interpretation, explaining that its connections were plot-based and could serve several households. Using an average of 48 residents per plot, it revised its estimated coverage to approximately 1.65 million people, or 8.3 per cent of the state’s population.
The correction is important and should not be ignored. However, even the revised estimate leaves a substantial proportion of Lagos residents outside the corporation’s stated network coverage. More importantly, the production figure remains a major concern: 7.21 million gallons daily is only about 3.4 per cent of the corporation’s installed capacity and approximately 1.3 per cent of estimated state demand.
In other words, the problem is not merely the number of connections. It is also the enormous difference between what the state says it can produce, what it actually produces and what its residents need.
For households without reliable public supply, these figures are not abstract statistics. They translate into money spent on water every day, time lost searching for it and the additional cost of electricity or fuel required to pump and store it.
A NAN report published on October 28 documented the experiences of residents in Mafoluku, Ikorodu, Ajao Estate and Ikosi, among other communities.
Mrs Calista, who has lived in Church Street, Mafoluku, for nearly 40 years, said her household depended on boreholes and water vendors.
“It is shameful that a big city like Lagos cannot provide water for its residents,” she said.
She explained that residents paid N100 for a keg of borehole water but could spend N250 or more buying from vendors during prolonged power outages.
In Ikorodu, Larry Owolabi said his household depended on a compound well that often produced insufficient water during the dry season.
“Water and light are the basic things needed in a house for comfort, but I have never enjoyed that comfort in Lagos,” he said.
In Ajao Estate, Abosede Ayola said she had been born in Lagos but had never seen government water connected to homes in her community. Another resident, Favour Anyanwu, said her household spent N4,000 every two weeks on sachet water and that residents also contributed towards electricity costs for boreholes serving their flats.
“The country is not smiling and one is still budgeting for basic amenities that should be provided by the government,” Anyanwu lamented.
These accounts reveal the human cost of the water deficit. For many households, the borehole is not a business venture or a luxury investment. It is the difference between having water for cooking, bathing, washing and sanitation and having to purchase every container from someone else.
When the regulator’s warning sounds like a threat
It is against this reality that LASWARCO’s latest announcement has generated resentment.
Adeyemo said the commission had observed with concern the unauthorised and indiscriminate drilling of boreholes and groundwater abstraction across Lagos.
She maintained that LASWARCO was empowered under the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law, 2017, to regulate borehole drilling, groundwater abstraction and water supply services.
“Drilling or abstracting groundwater without LASWARCO authorisation is illegal and punishable under the Law,” she said.
The commission also warned that it would not hesitate to seal facilities found operating in violation of the law and prosecute those responsible.
The regulator’s concerns are not without merit. It cited the risks of groundwater contamination, land subsidence and threats to the long-term sustainability of the state’s underground water resources.
But the announcement has left many residents wondering whether the government understands the circumstances that have made private boreholes indispensable.
To citizens already spending substantial portions of their income to secure water, the threat of prosecution and sealing can sound less like environmental protection and more like an attempt to punish them for a failure they did not create.
Ambassador Emeka Tiapeey Okwuokei, in a public reaction to the directive, questioned the morality of threatening residents who had been compelled to find alternative sources of water because government had failed to provide adequate public supply.
His argument was that a government whose water corporation serves only a fraction of the population should first confront its own shortcomings before threatening to criminalise the means through which citizens meet their basic needs.
He also questioned the absence of clear information on permit charges, penalties and concessions for low-income households, warning that the new enforcement approach could become another financial burden on residents.
The sentiment reflects a wider public concern: government should be seen as a partner in solving the people’s problems, not an authority waiting to punish them for adopting practical solutions where public services are inadequate.
The law contains an exemption the regulator must explain
Perhaps the most significant issue in the controversy is that the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law, 2017, does not impose a blanket licensing requirement on every private household borehole.
Section 253(1) of the law is explicit. It provides that a person may construct, dig or extend a well or borehole in residential premises without obtaining a licence from the Lagos Water Corporation, where the facility is intended to supply water to the extent necessary for the domestic purpose of a household.
Section 253(2), however, requires the construction or extension to comply with applicable regulations governing wells and boreholes.
Section 259 reinforces the distinction. It requires every borehole to be located in a hygienic environment and protected against pollution. It further provides that a borehole other than one for domestic use must obtain the appropriate groundwater abstraction licence from the Lagos Water Corporation.
The implication is important: the law recognises domestic household boreholes as a distinct category and expressly exempts them from the licensing requirement specified in Section 253.
Consequently, LASWARCO’s broad statement that all intending drillers and groundwater abstractors must obtain permits requires clarification. It should not be interpreted as automatically making every household borehole illegal without a licence.
There are legitimate questions about the boundary between a borehole serving one household and a facility supplying several flats, an estate, a hotel or a commercial water business. The law’s wording makes the purpose and extent of domestic supply relevant, and the regulator should explain how it interprets these categories.
It should also clarify whether it is demanding compulsory registration, technical inspection, a construction permit or a groundwater abstraction licence from households that fall within the statutory domestic-use exemption.
A regulator cannot reasonably expect citizens to comply with requirements that are not clearly explained, particularly where the law itself appears to distinguish between domestic and non-domestic use.
Regulation or another revenue window?
Another concern arising from the announcement is the possibility that borehole regulation could become an additional revenue-generating avenue for government officials.
This is a public perception, not an established finding that LASWARCO or its officials are pursuing an improper financial motive. Nevertheless, it is a concern that deserves attention, particularly in a state where residents already pay for water, electricity to pump it, maintenance of borehole equipment and the services of private vendors.
Where government announces compulsory permits, threatens prosecution and promises to seal facilities without publishing a clear schedule of fees, the process naturally invites suspicion.
How much will a household pay to obtain approval? Will there be separate charges for application, inspection, registration, water testing and renewal? Will existing boreholes be required to obtain retrospective approval? Will landlords pass the cost to tenants? Will low-income households receive any exemption or concession?
These are not minor administrative questions. They determine whether regulation will protect public health or become another cost imposed on people already struggling with the unbearable cost of living.
The concern is also about enforcement discretion. An unclear permit regime can create opportunities for arbitrary demands, unofficial payments and selective enforcement. A resident who cannot immediately produce a document may become vulnerable to pressure from officials or intermediaries claiming to represent the regulator.
The state should not dismiss such concerns as resistance to regulation. The best way to prevent abuse is to publish the legal requirements, approved fees, application procedures, timelines, appeal mechanisms and enforcement guidelines.
If the objective is environmental protection, the government should be willing to demonstrate that the process is transparent, affordable and free from opportunities for extortion.
Environmental protection is necessary, but it must not become a weapon
There is a strong argument for regulating groundwater extraction in Lagos.
The state’s rapid population growth and urban expansion have placed pressure on underground water resources. Poorly constructed boreholes can provide pathways for sewage and other pollutants to enter groundwater. In areas where wastewater disposal is inadequate, the risk of contamination is particularly serious.
In August 2025, the state government raised concerns about contaminated borehole water in the Lekki axis, warning that residents could be exposed to health risks because of inadequate wastewater treatment.
Uncontrolled abstraction can also affect groundwater levels and, under certain geological conditions, contribute to land subsidence or saltwater intrusion.
These are genuine public-interest issues. Residents have a right to safe water, and the government has a responsibility to prevent activities that endanger public health or damage shared natural resources.
But the existence of environmental risks does not justify treating every borehole owner as a potential offender.
The sensible approach would be to identify high-risk locations, establish technical standards for drilling, require appropriate construction methods, conduct affordable water-quality tests and enforce restrictions against operators whose activities pose demonstrable risks.
Government should also provide public education on safe borehole construction, minimum separation distances from septic tanks and soakaways, appropriate well depth, water testing and proper decommissioning of abandoned boreholes.
A policy that focuses on these measures would be more convincing than one whose most prominent message is the threat to seal facilities and prosecute residents.
Government’s own projects must answer for the deficit
The controversy also raises questions about the performance of public water infrastructure and the billions of naira allocated to improving it.
According to NAN’s October 28 report, Lagos State allocated approximately N37.49 billion in 2025 to two major water infrastructure programmes: N16.86 billion for improving 15 existing mini and micro waterworks and N20.62 billion for Adiyan Phase II.
Adiyan Phase II is designed to add 70 million gallons daily to the state’s production capacity.
The 2026 budget also provided N4.92 billion for improving existing mini and micro waterworks and N26.02 billion for Adiyan Phase II.
However, budgetary allocations and recorded expenditure do not automatically translate into water flowing from residents’ taps. NAN reported that the second-quarter 2026 budget implementation report recorded approximately N1.04 billion in expenditure on Adiyan Phase II, representing four per cent of its annual allocation.
The public is entitled to know the present status of the project, the reasons for any delays, the actual production gains from rehabilitation works and when communities without reliable public supply can expect improvement.
The state cannot measure its water policy only by the money allocated or the number of projects announced. Its performance must ultimately be judged by the quantity of safe water reaching households, the reliability of supply and the affordability of the service.
For residents who have waited years for public water, another announcement of rehabilitation or expansion is not enough. They need to see results.
A government should not punish people for filling a gap it has left
At the heart of this controversy is a question of public responsibility.
Water is indispensable to life, public health, sanitation and human dignity. When public supply is inadequate, households must find alternatives. They cannot suspend their need for water until government completes a project or repairs a distribution network.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the state’s response to a widespread dependence on private water sources should begin with threats of prosecution and sealing, rather than a clear acknowledgement of the hardship residents face and a credible plan to address it.
The government may argue that regulation is necessary to protect underground water resources. That argument deserves consideration. But it must also recognise that the people whose boreholes it now seeks to regulate are often responding to the absence of reliable public supply.
The approach matters. A government that begins by acknowledging its shortcomings, explaining the environmental risks and offering affordable compliance measures is more likely to earn public cooperation than one that appears to lead with threats.
There is also a question of proportionality. A household borehole used to meet basic domestic needs should not be treated in the same way as a commercial operation extracting large quantities of groundwater for sale. The law itself recognises a distinction, and enforcement must respect it.
LASWARCO should therefore urgently clarify the scope of its October 29 directive, particularly in relation to Section 253(1) of the 2017 law. It should publish the applicable regulations, fee schedules, technical standards and procedures for existing and proposed boreholes. It should also explain the safeguards against arbitrary sealing and unofficial demands for payment.
More fundamentally, the Lagos State Government owes residents a transparent account of why actual water production remains so far below estimated demand and when its investment in public water infrastructure will translate into reliable supply.
The concern is not that Lagos should abandon groundwater regulation. It is that regulation must not become another instrument through which citizens are made to pay for the consequences of inadequate public services.
For a family that spends money every day to obtain water because the public tap has remained dry for years, the threat of losing its borehole is not merely an administrative inconvenience. It strikes at the household’s ability to meet a basic need.
The government should be protecting residents from unsafe water, not making access to water more difficult for those already struggling to obtain it.
Until public supply becomes reliable, affordable and widely accessible, a policy that appears to criminalise the survival strategies of ordinary people will remain difficult to defend.
Lagos residents do not need a government that merely reminds them of its power to regulate their water sources. They need one that demonstrates its capacity and willingness to provide water in the first place.