The government insists it is enforcing existing groundwater regulations, not introducing a new tax. But the 2017 law protects domestic boreholes from licensing requirements, while limited public water supply and an ambiguous permit system raise difficult questions about environmental protection and residents’ rights.
The Lagos State Government may have denied introducing a new tax on private boreholes, but the controversy has exposed a much bigger problem than the description of its latest regulatory exercise.
At the heart of the dispute is a difficult question about the relationship between environmental protection and access to water: how far can a government go in regulating groundwater when millions of residents depend on privately funded boreholes because reliable public water remains largely inaccessible?
For many Lagos households, a borehole is not a luxury or a commercial investment. It is the infrastructure that makes daily life possible.
The government says its renewed enforcement is about protecting underground water resources, preventing contamination and securing the state’s long-term water supply. Yet civil society organisations argue that the authorities are threatening households whose domestic boreholes are expressly protected from licensing under the same law being invoked to justify enforcement.
The disagreement has become a test of the government’s ability to regulate a vital natural resource without transferring the consequences of inadequate public infrastructure to ordinary residents.
Lagos insists there is no new borehole tax
Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, said on Saturday, November 7, that the government had not introduced a new tax on private boreholes.
He explained that the ongoing exercise concerned the regulation of borehole drilling and groundwater abstraction under existing environmental and water resource management laws.
According to Wahab, Section 312(1)(xvii) of the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017 empowers the Lagos State Water Regulatory Commission (LASWARCO) to regulate and approve groundwater abstraction, consumption, supply and distribution.
He maintained that the initiative was necessary to prevent the environmental consequences associated with indiscriminate groundwater extraction.
Groundwater regulation, he argued, is an internationally recognised practice designed to protect underground water resources, prevent contamination, mitigate land subsidence and ensure long-term water security.
Wahab said LASWARCO had intensified efforts to secure compliance with existing permit requirements.
“The characterisation of regulatory compliance measures as a newly introduced ‘borehole tax’ is inaccurate and does not reflect the policy being implemented,” he said.
The commissioner acknowledged the difficulties residents face in accessing potable water and said the government remained committed to investing in infrastructure to expand public water supply.
He also urged residents to rely on official communication channels for information about government policies.
But his clarification left an important question unanswered: Do residents with boreholes used exclusively for household purposes actually need a licence or permit, and are they required to pay any regulatory fee?
The distinction matters because the law appears to make specific provisions for domestic boreholes.
What the 2017 law actually says
An examination of the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017 reveals provisions that complicate the government’s broad enforcement message.
Section 253(1) expressly permits a person to construct, dig or extend a well or borehole in residential premises without obtaining a licence from the Lagos State Water Corporation, provided the facility supplies water for the domestic needs of a household.
The exemption is not unlimited.
Section 253(2) requires anyone constructing or extending a domestic borehole to comply with regulations governing the construction of wells and boreholes.
Section 259 reinforces the distinction.
Subsection (1) requires every borehole to be located in a hygienically suitable environment and protected against pollution.
Subsection (2), meanwhile, states that a borehole other than one intended for domestic use must have the appropriate groundwater abstraction licence.
The implication is important.
The law recognises the authority of the state to protect groundwater and regulate borehole construction. At the same time, it distinguishes household water requirements from other forms of groundwater abstraction.
Section 312(1)(xvii) gives LASWARCO powers over groundwater abstraction, while subsection (xviii) authorises it to regulate the sinking, operation and management of boreholes and water wells.
These broader regulatory powers must be understood alongside the specific domestic-use exemptions in Sections 253 and 259.
The distinction is between regulating how a borehole is constructed and protecting groundwater, on the one hand, and requiring every household to obtain a licence to access its own domestic water supply, on the other.
The government has not publicly explained how its current enforcement approach reconciles these provisions.
The permit system raises another question
There is another reason residents may be confused.
LASWARCO’s publicly available borehole application form lists several categories, including public water supply, individual domestic boreholes and industrial boreholes.
The form also requests borehole information, technical documentation and evidence of payment of a prescribed fee.
While the document does not establish that every domestic borehole owner must pay a fee, its inclusion of individual domestic boreholes as an application category raises legitimate questions about how the commission administers the statutory exemption.
Does the form apply to domestic households seeking voluntary registration, technical assessment or construction clearance?
Does the commission distinguish between an application for commercial groundwater abstraction and domestic borehole construction?
Are households expected to pay any charges, and, if so, under which specific legal provision?
These are not minor administrative details. They determine whether an enforcement exercise intended to protect the environment could inadvertently become a financial and legal burden on households.
A categorical denial of a new tax does not resolve those questions.
Public water supply remains the bigger problem
The dispute is unfolding against a substantial water infrastructure deficit.
The Lagos Water Corporation initially disclosed that it had 34,424 registered connections, representing approximately 1.03 per cent coverage of a population estimated at more than 20 million.
It subsequently revised the figure.
In a clarification published on October 20, the corporation explained that its connections were registered by plot rather than individual household. Using an average of 48 residents per plot, it estimated that the network served approximately 1.65 million people, or 8.3 per cent of the state’s population.
The revised figure is more representative of the corporation’s stated connection model. Nevertheless, it means that approximately 91.7 per cent of Lagos residents remain outside its estimated network coverage.
Even that estimate does not establish that every person within the connected areas receives consistent, reliable water.
The production figures present another concern.
According to data reported by the News Agency of Nigeria, Lagos Water Corporation produced an average of just 7.21 million gallons daily in 2025, against estimated demand of 540 million gallons per day.
Its installed production capacity was approximately 210 million gallons daily.
The gap between installed capacity and actual production illustrates why access to water remains a persistent challenge, despite the existence of major public water infrastructure.
For residents, the consequences are immediate.
In an NAN interview, Calista, a resident of Church Street, Mafoluku, Oshodi, described her household’s dependence on boreholes and water vendors after nearly four decades without reliable public supply.
“It is shameful that a big city like Lagos cannot provide water for its residents,” she said.
She explained that residents paid about ₦100 for a keg of borehole water but could spend ₦250 or more purchasing from vendors when electricity interruptions prevented boreholes from operating.
Another resident, Favour Anyanwu, said her household spent ₦4,000 every fortnight on sachet water.
Such accounts illustrate the financial burden carried by residents who must effectively purchase water through alternative arrangements.
For these households, a domestic borehole is not simply an environmental issue. It is a response to an essential service gap.
The environmental dangers are real
The concerns raised by the Lagos Government should not be dismissed.
Uncontrolled groundwater extraction can create serious environmental problems, particularly in a densely populated coastal city with complex geological conditions.
Poorly constructed or badly located boreholes can expose groundwater to contamination from sewage, septic systems, industrial waste and other pollutants.
Excessive abstraction can also reduce groundwater pressure and contribute to land subsidence and saline intrusion in vulnerable coastal aquifers.
A 2020 study by researchers Ikuemonisan and Ozebo, published through the University of Lagos repository, used satellite and geodetic observations to examine land subsidence across Lagos.
The research found subsidence rates ranging from approximately 2mm to 87mm annually during the periods examined. The highest rates were observed around coastal areas and locations where heavy structures had been built on reclaimed land.
The researchers identified excessive groundwater exploitation, urbanisation and land reclamation among the factors contributing to the problem.
This is an important scientific argument for groundwater monitoring.
However, the findings do not establish that ordinary household boreholes are individually responsible for the city’s subsidence problems.
The environmental risks associated with extracting millions of litres of groundwater for commercial and industrial purposes are not necessarily equivalent to those associated with a household drawing water for cooking, bathing and drinking.
Effective regulation should recognise that difference.
It should focus on scientific evidence, extraction volumes, aquifer vulnerability, borehole construction standards and the actual environmental impact of individual operations.
Commercial groundwater users have faced enforcement too
The controversy also brings renewed attention to the commission’s previous dealings with large commercial groundwater users.
In December 2024, LASWARCO sealed facilities belonging to Nigerian Bottling Company, FrieslandCampina WAMCO and Guinness Nigeria over unauthorised groundwater extraction.
The commission’s Director of Technical Services, Olowu Babatunde, said the agency had engaged the companies for more than seven years, but some had only partially complied with regulatory requirements while others had failed to comply.
He explained that the companies were extracting large quantities of groundwater for commercial purposes.
The enforcement showed that the government had previously acted against major industrial water users.
It also provides an important comparison for the present controversy.
The Our Water Our Right Africa Coalition (OWORAC), which represents more than 50 national and regional organisations and community groups, argues that the government must demonstrate that its enforcement is directed proportionately at high-volume commercial abstractors rather than households.
The coalition’s complaint is not simply that groundwater should remain unregulated. It is that the government should not treat domestic survival and commercial exploitation as equivalent activities.
“A government that actively absolves itself of the constitutional duty to deliver water cannot legitimately turn around to criminalise and extort citizens who were forced to become their own mini-water authorities and service providers despite paying heavy taxes to the state,” the coalition said.
It has also warned against any attempt to seal domestic boreholes or prosecute residents without recognising the exemptions contained in the 2017 law.
Coalition threatens legal action and mass resistance
Following LASWARCO’s warning, OWORAC threatened coordinated action across Lagos if government task forces attempted to enter residential communities, demand allegedly unlawful permits or seal domestic boreholes.
The coalition called for an immediate clarification of the law, rehabilitation of existing waterworks, expansion of public water supply and stronger enforcement against large-scale commercial extractors and industrial polluters.
It also opposed the privatisation of the Lagos Water Corporation, arguing that access to water should remain a fundamental public service.
The groups described water as a fundamental human right and warned against policies that could force residents into greater dependence on private water providers.
Their threat of resistance raises the possibility of a wider confrontation if the commission proceeds without explaining the precise scope of its enforcement powers.
Lagos must clarify the rules before enforcement escalates
The government has a legitimate responsibility to protect groundwater resources.
Lagos cannot afford indiscriminate drilling, contamination of underground aquifers or excessive extraction that threatens long-term water security.
But environmental regulation must be legally precise, scientifically justified and proportionate.
The first responsibility of the government should be to publish a clear distinction between domestic, commercial and industrial boreholes, alongside the specific approvals, fees and construction requirements applicable to each category.
LASWARCO should also explain whether existing domestic boreholes require registration, what inspection powers it intends to exercise and under what circumstances a household facility may lawfully be sealed.
The commission should publish the relevant regulations and an accessible fee schedule rather than leave residents to interpret conflicting messages and application documents.
At the same time, the government must demonstrate measurable progress in rehabilitating existing waterworks and expanding reliable public supply.
The argument over borehole regulation cannot be separated from the question of public accountability.
Lagos needs groundwater protection. It also needs a functional public water system.
A government that asks residents to protect an underground resource must be prepared to show that it is delivering its own side of the water security bargain.
The central issue is not whether Lagos can regulate boreholes. It can.
It is whether the government will enforce the law as written, respect the exemption for domestic household wells and provide the public water infrastructure that would make millions of residents less dependent on the ground beneath their homes.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.