Introduction: When Access to Water Becomes a Regulatory Issue

Across residential neighbourhoods, private homes, estates, commercial premises and industrial facilities, boreholes have become an important source of water. Families invest substantial sums in drilling, submersible pumps, water storage, treatment systems and electricity to secure a resource that is fundamental to everyday life.

Against this background, the Lagos State Government’s efforts to regulate borehole drilling and groundwater abstraction through the Lagos State Water Regulatory Commission (LASWARCO) have generated an important public-interest debate.

The government maintains that regulation is necessary to protect groundwater resources, prevent contamination, ensure water quality and promote sustainable water management. These are legitimate environmental and public-health objectives. The controversy, however, is not simply whether government should regulate groundwater. The more fundamental questions are whether the law distinguishes domestic boreholes from commercial abstraction, whether householders can be required to obtain paid licences, and whether the charges being demanded are properly authorised by law.

1. The controversy: What exactly is the government enforcing?

The controversy intensified in late October and early November 2026 following warnings by LASWARCO that borehole operators who failed to obtain the necessary permits could have their facilities sealed and face prosecution.

On 29 October 2026, Premium Times reported that the Commission had warned prospective borehole drillers and groundwater abstractors to obtain the necessary approvals. The Commission’s stated concerns included groundwater quality, land subsidence and long-term water security.

On 7 November 2026, the Lagos State Government responded to public criticism by insisting that it had not introduced a new borehole tax. The Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, maintained that the exercise was enforcement of existing regulatory requirements under the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017, particularly Section 312(1)(xvii).

The government’s clarification is important, but it does not resolve the central legal question. The issue is not whether Lagos State has power to regulate groundwater. It clearly does. The issue is whether the government’s interpretation and enforcement of that power properly recognises the exemptions and distinctions contained in the same legislation.

2. The legal framework: What does the 2017 Law provide?

The primary legislation considered in this article is the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017. Three provisions are particularly relevant.

A. Section 253(1): The domestic borehole exemption

Section 253(1) provides that a person may, without obtaining a licence from the Corporation, construct, dig or extend a borehole in residential premises for the purpose and to the extent necessary to supply water for the domestic needs of a household.

Section 253(1) expressly contemplates the construction or extension of a borehole in residential premises for household domestic water needs without obtaining a licence from the Corporation.

This is arguably the most important provision in the current debate. The legislature did not merely provide an administrative concession for homeowners. It expressly recognised that a person may construct or extend a borehole in residential premises without obtaining a licence, provided the borehole is intended to meet the domestic water requirements of the household.

The exemption is tied to the purpose and extent of groundwater abstraction. It is not a blanket exemption for every borehole located within residential premises. Section 253(2), moreover, requires compliance with applicable regulations concerning the construction of wells and boreholes.

B. Section 259: Domestic and non-domestic boreholes

Section 259(1) requires every borehole to be situated in a hygienically suitable environment and protected against pollution. Section 259(2) provides for prior authorisation and an appropriate groundwater abstraction licence for a borehole other than one for domestic use.

The words “other than those for domestic use” are crucial. They demonstrate that the legislature contemplated different regulatory treatment for domestic and non-domestic boreholes.

Section 259(3) also provides a public-health safeguard: where borehole water is certified to be hazardous to health, its supply for consumption may be prohibited temporarily or permanently.

C. Section 312: LASWARCO’s regulatory powers

The government relies substantially on Section 312. Section 312(1)(xvii) empowers the Commission to regulate and approve groundwater abstraction, consumption, supply and distribution. Section 312(1)(xviii) further empowers it to regulate the sinking, operation and management of boreholes and water wells, including the formulation and implementation of necessary rates and charges.

These are substantial regulatory powers. They provide a statutory foundation for monitoring groundwater extraction, regulating commercial water operators, controlling excessive abstraction and ensuring compliance with appropriate standards.

However, the existence of general regulatory powers does not automatically eliminate the specific domestic-use exemption under Sections 253 and 259. The provisions should be read harmoniously: Section 312 gives the Commission broad regulatory authority, while Sections 253 and 259 provide specific rules for domestic boreholes.

Accordingly, LASWARCO may regulate the technical and environmental aspects of domestic boreholes, but compelling every domestic homeowner to obtain a groundwater abstraction licence would appear inconsistent with the express statutory exemption. There is an important qualification: Section 312(1)(xviii) expressly covers the sinking and operation of boreholes. Whether the Commission may impose non-licensing registration, inspection or technical compliance requirements on domestic boreholes depends on the applicable regulations and the precise nature of the requirement.

3. Can the government impose fees on domestic borehole owners?

This is where the revenue-generation concern becomes particularly relevant. Section 312(1)(xviii) gives the Commission authority to formulate and implement necessary rates and charges. Sections 335 to 339 also establish a statutory framework for applications, licensing and licence fees.

In particular, Section 339 provides that fees and charges specified in respect of a licence are to be determined with regard to the total costs and expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the Commission in performing its regulatory functions and achieving its objectives. This is a cost-related framework, not an unrestricted authority to impose any amount the Commission considers convenient.

Three questions therefore arise:

1. What is the legal basis for the charge? The government should identify the statutory provision, regulation or lawful determination authorising each charge.
2. What regulatory function does the fee represent? A charge for processing a commercial abstraction licence is distinguishable from a charge imposed on a homeowner who is expressly exempt from obtaining such a licence.
3. How was the amount determined? Section 339 requires the Commission to have regard to its actual or anticipated regulatory costs. A fee should have a rational relationship with the relevant regulatory functions.

Section 332(3) is also relevant. In making tariff determinations, the Commission is required, wherever possible, to ensure that the costs of regulation do not exceed the benefits and to articulate the trade-offs between regulatory costs and service standards.

Calling a payment a regulatory fee rather than a tax does not conclude the legal inquiry. The government must still demonstrate that the charge is authorised, applies to the person being charged and was determined in accordance with the statutory framework.

It would be premature to characterise the current exercise as an unlawful tax without examining the actual fee schedule, regulations and enforcement notices. Equally, the government’s denial that it has introduced a new tax does not, by itself, establish that every charge being demanded is lawful.

4. The public water supply question: Why are residents drilling boreholes?

Any serious examination of borehole regulation in Lagos must consider the condition of public water infrastructure. It would be incomplete to examine the government’s regulatory powers without considering why residents have become increasingly dependent on privately constructed boreholes.

On 20 October 2026, Premium Times reported that the Lagos Water Corporation had revised its earlier water coverage estimate. The Corporation stated that it had 34,424 registered plot connections and estimated that these served approximately 1.65 million residents, representing about 8.3 per cent of Lagos State’s population of over 20 million.

The Corporation explained that its connections were plot-based and could serve multiple households. It also acknowledged that water production remained significantly below installed capacity, citing ageing infrastructure, electricity constraints and rehabilitation challenges.

These figures require careful interpretation. The 8.3 per cent figure is the Corporation’s estimate of people served through registered plot connections; it is not necessarily a measure of the proportion of residents receiving continuous, reliable potable water. Nevertheless, the figures illustrate the scale of the public water supply challenge.

Against this background, boreholes are not merely commercial investments. For many households, they are essential infrastructure. A homeowner who spends millions of naira drilling a borehole, installing pumps, purchasing generators or inverters, treating water and maintaining the system is effectively financing a private alternative to public water supply.

This does not mean that private borehole owners should be free to contaminate groundwater or engage in unsustainable extraction. It means that regulatory policy should recognise the social and economic circumstances that have made private boreholes necessary.

5. Environmental protection: The government’s strongest argument

It would be incorrect to dismiss borehole regulation entirely as a revenue-generation exercise. There are genuine environmental concerns associated with uncontrolled groundwater extraction, particularly in a rapidly urbanising coastal environment such as Lagos.

A. Groundwater contamination

Poorly constructed boreholes can create pathways through which contaminated surface water, sewage and other pollutants enter underground water sources. This is particularly concerning in densely populated areas where buildings, septic tanks, soakaways and drainage infrastructure may be close to one another.

B. Saltwater intrusion

Lagos has extensive coastal and lagoon environments. Excessive groundwater extraction in vulnerable coastal aquifers can alter groundwater pressure and encourage saline water to move into freshwater aquifers, gradually compromising water suitability.

C. Land subsidence

Excessive groundwater withdrawal can, under certain geological conditions, contribute to the compaction of underground formations and land subsidence. The extent of this risk depends on local geology, aquifer characteristics and the volume of groundwater extracted. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume that every household borehole creates a subsidence risk.

D. Sustainable groundwater management

Groundwater is a shared natural resource. Although a borehole may be physically situated within privately owned or occupied premises, the aquifer from which it draws water does not necessarily belong exclusively to that landowner. The state consequently has a legitimate interest in preventing over-extraction, protecting aquifer quality and ensuring that groundwater remains available for future generations.

The environmental argument for regulation is substantial. The real question is whether regulation is properly targeted at activities that create environmental risks or unnecessarily extends financial and administrative obligations to ordinary domestic users.

6. General regulatory powers and specific statutory exemptions

An important principle of statutory interpretation is that legislation should be read as a whole, with provisions interpreted harmoniously wherever possible. Where a statute makes a specific provision for a particular subject, a general provision should not ordinarily be interpreted in a manner that defeats the specific provision.

This principle is relevant to the relationship between Sections 253, 259 and 312 of the Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017. The government cannot simply point to the Commission’s general power to regulate borehole operations and conclude that the domestic licensing exemption has ceased to have effect.

At the same time, homeowners cannot interpret the domestic exemption as an unrestricted entitlement to construct boreholes without regard to applicable environmental and construction regulations.

• Domestic boreholes are expressly exempted from the licensing requirement under Section 253(1), subject to Section 253(2).
• Non-domestic groundwater abstraction is expressly subject to licensing under Section 259(2).
• The Commission has broader powers to regulate borehole operations and groundwater abstraction under Section 312.
• Any fee or licence requirement must have a valid statutory basis and apply to the relevant category of activity.

This interpretation preserves environmental protection while giving effect to the legislature’s decision to distinguish domestic water needs from commercial or other non-domestic abstraction.

7. Can LASWARCO seal a domestic borehole or prosecute its owner?

The threat of sealing boreholes and prosecuting operators deserves particular legal scrutiny. The 2017 Law contains penalties and sanctions for regulatory violations, including certain instances of operating without a required licence, unauthorised groundwater abstraction and failure to pay prescribed licensing fees. The law also contemplates regulatory measures, including sealing in specified circumstances.

Where a homeowner falls within the express exemption in Section 253(1), the government cannot simply treat the absence of a licence as an offence without first addressing that exemption.

The position may be different where a homeowner operates a commercial water supply business; a borehole supplies water to third parties for commercial purposes; an industrial facility extracts groundwater for manufacturing or other non-domestic purposes; or the borehole is constructed or operated in breach of applicable environmental or technical regulations.

The fact that a borehole is situated within a residential estate does not automatically make its use domestic. Equally, its location on residential property does not automatically make its use commercial. The actual purpose, scale and nature of the abstraction must be considered.

Enforcement must remain within the limits of the law. The Commission should identify the applicable statutory requirement, establish the alleged breach and follow the prescribed enforcement procedure. A threat of sealing cannot substitute for establishing that the particular owner is subject to the licensing requirement.

8. Judicial authorities on statutory interpretation

Nigerian courts have consistently maintained that statutory provisions must be interpreted in their proper legislative context.

In General Cotton Mill Ltd v Travellers Palace Hotel (2019) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1669) 507, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that provisions of a statute must be read together as a composite whole rather than interpreted in isolation.

Similarly, in Umeano v Anaekwe (2022) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1827) 516, the Supreme Court emphasised that statutory provisions should be interpreted harmoniously with the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation.

The principle that a specific provision should not ordinarily be defeated by a general provision is also recognised in Abukakar v Nasamu (No. 1) (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1330) 407.

These authorities support reading Sections 253, 259 and 312 together. The Commission’s broad regulatory powers must be exercised consistently with the specific legislative treatment of domestic boreholes. The precise application of these authorities to the present controversy remains a matter for legal argument and, ultimately, judicial determination.

9. What should a fair and legally defensible policy look like?

A balanced regulatory framework should distinguish between different uses of groundwater instead of applying a uniform licensing and charging regime to every borehole.

Beyond this classification, the following reforms would improve public confidence:

1. Publish a clear domestic borehole exemption policy. LASWARCO should expressly state how Section 253(1) applies to ordinary household boreholes.
2. Separate registration from licensing. If domestic borehole information is required for groundwater mapping, the Commission should explain the legal basis and purpose. Registration should not become a disguised licensing requirement.
3. Publish the complete fee schedule. Every applicable fee should be accompanied by its statutory basis, calculation method, purpose and category of persons liable to pay it.
4. Make groundwater monitoring transparent. Publish periodic reports showing groundwater quality, extraction levels, areas vulnerable to saline intrusion and locations where excessive abstraction poses identifiable risks.
5. Prioritise commercial and industrial abstraction. Enforcement resources should be directed proportionately towards activities with the greatest potential environmental impact.
6. Improve public water infrastructure. Regulation must go hand in hand with investment in waterworks, distribution pipelines, treatment facilities and reliable public connections.
7. Establish an effective complaints mechanism. Residents should be able to obtain written clarification on whether their borehole falls within the domestic exemption and challenge an incorrect demand.

10. The accountability question: Who regulates the regulator?

The Lagos State Water Regulatory Commission is not intended to operate without accountability. Section 311(1) states that its objective is to protect the long-term interests of consumers concerning the price, quality and reliability of water-sector services. Section 311(2) requires the Commission to consider the interests of consumers, including low-income and vulnerable customers.

Section 332 requires regulatory costs and benefits to be considered when determining tariffs and charges. Sections 353 and 354 provide for audited accounts, annual reporting and financial accountability, including reporting on the Commission’s performance against approved targets.

If the Commission is intensifying borehole regulation, the public is entitled to know:

• How many boreholes have been registered or licensed?
• How many are domestic, commercial and industrial?
• What is the total revenue collected from borehole-related licences, permits and charges?
• How much is spent on groundwater monitoring and environmental protection?
• What measurable improvements have resulted from the regulatory programme?
• What proportion of Lagos residents now have access to reliable public water supply?

These are legitimate questions of public accountability. Regulatory authority comes with corresponding obligations of transparency and accountability.

11. What residents should do when confronted with a licensing demand

Residents should not assume that every demand issued by a regulatory officer is automatically lawful. Equally, they should not ignore legitimate environmental compliance notices. A homeowner whose borehole is used exclusively for household domestic needs should consider the following steps:

1. Request a written notice identifying the statutory provision under which registration, licensing or payment is demanded.
2. Clearly establish that the borehole is situated within residential premises and is used exclusively for household domestic purposes.
3. Ask whether the demand relates to technical inspection, registration, a groundwater abstraction licence or an annual regulatory charge.
4. Where a demand appears inconsistent with Section 253(1), formally draw the Commission’s attention to the statutory exemption.
5. Retain copies of all correspondence, payment demands and enforcement notices.
6. Where enforcement is threatened notwithstanding the exemption, seek appropriate legal advice and consider available administrative or judicial remedies.

The purpose should not be to obstruct legitimate environmental regulation but to ensure that regulatory authorities operate within the limits of their statutory powers.

12. Conclusion: Environmental protection must not become an excuse for unnecessary financial burdens

The regulation of groundwater in Lagos State is not inherently objectionable. On the contrary, a densely populated coastal city facing groundwater contamination, saline intrusion, inadequate sanitation infrastructure and increasing water demand requires a responsible system of groundwater management.

The government is entitled to protect groundwater resources. It is also entitled to regulate commercial water abstraction, industrial groundwater use and activities that threaten public health or environmental sustainability. However, the existence of regulatory authority does not mean that every regulatory measure is automatically lawful, necessary or proportionate.

The Lagos State Environmental Management and Protection Law 2017 makes an important distinction between domestic and non-domestic boreholes. Section 253(1) expressly permits the construction and extension of domestic boreholes in residential premises without obtaining a licence, subject to the construction regulations contemplated under subsection (2). Section 259 reinforces that distinction.

Those provisions cannot be ignored simply because Section 312 confers broad regulatory powers on LASWARCO. The government’s insistence that it has not introduced a new borehole tax is therefore not the end of the discussion. The more important question is whether the specific charges and licensing requirements being enforced are consistent with the legislation.

Where residents have had to invest their personal resources to provide water for their households because public water infrastructure has not adequately met their needs, government must exercise particular care before introducing additional financial and administrative burdens.

A regulatory framework that protects groundwater while respecting the statutory exemption for domestic boreholes would serve both environmental and public interests. A framework that disregards that exemption, imposes unexplained charges or threatens residents with enforcement action without establishing their legal obligations would raise serious questions about the proper exercise of statutory authority.

Water is an essential resource. Its protection is a legitimate responsibility of government. But so is ensuring that the exercise of regulatory power remains lawful, transparent, proportionate and responsive to the needs of the people.

The ultimate measure of successful water regulation should not be the number of boreholes registered, licences issued, fees collected or facilities sealed. It should be the extent to which Lagos residents have access to safe, affordable and reliable water.

Principal legislation, judicial authorities and research sources