In the previous article, I discussed safe water from source to household and reflected on my SIWES experience at the Kwara State Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency (RUWASSA). One important lesson from environmental health practice is that protecting drinking water begins before a sample reaches the laboratory.
This is where sanitary inspection becomes important. A sanitary inspection is an on-site assessment used to identify conditions that could allow contamination of a drinking-water source. Instead of asking only whether contaminants are already present, the inspection asks a preventive question: what conditions around the source could allow contamination to occur?
The World Health Organization describes sanitary inspection as a simple but powerful risk-assessment tool, particularly useful for small water supplies. It uses structured checklists to identify risk factors and guide corrective action (WHO, 2024).
For communities that depend on boreholes, this approach is especially relevant.
Why a Borehole Is Not Automatically Safe
Borehole water is often regarded as cleaner than surface water because it comes from underground. However, groundwater can still become contaminated when pollutants enter the soil and reach the aquifer.
The condition of the borehole surroundings therefore matters.
During sanitary inspection, an environmental health professional may examine the borehole platform, drainage, nearby toilets, septic systems, waste-disposal areas, stagnant water, animals, flooding and other activities that could introduce contaminants.
WHO’s sanitary-inspection guidance for motorized boreholes specifically considers the construction and protection of the borehole and conditions that may affect water safety (WHO, 2026).
A good inspection does not mean that every identified risk has already contaminated the water. It means that a possible pathway for contamination exists and should be controlled.
A Kwara Case Study
A useful local example comes from research conducted in Oke-Ose, Abantan and Idi-Igba, communities in Ilorin East Local Government Area of Kwara State.
The researchers assessed 21 wells and six boreholes. Their investigation included sanitary surveys, microbiological testing and physicochemical analysis.
The study found total coliforms in both well and borehole water, while faecal coliforms were not isolated from the sampled sources. Importantly, only 16.7% of the borehole supplies and 19.0% of the wells satisfied the study’s bacteriological criteria for potable water (Abdulsalam & Sule, 2020).
The result provides an important lesson. A water source can be widely used by a community without necessarily meeting all the requirements for safe drinking water.
It also demonstrates why sanitary inspection should be combined with water-quality testing. Inspection identifies possible risks, while laboratory analysis provides evidence about the condition of the water itself.
What Would an Inspector Look For?
Imagine arriving at a community borehole for a routine inspection.
The first consideration would be the physical condition of the water point. Is the borehole properly protected? Is the concrete apron intact? Is water draining away from the platform, or does it collect around the borehole?
Standing water around a water point is undesirable because it can create unsanitary conditions and provide opportunities for contamination.
The inspector would also look at nearby sanitation facilities. Is a pit latrine, septic tank or wastewater-disposal point close enough to create a possible contamination pathway? Is there evidence of leakage or overflow?
Waste disposal would also be considered. If refuse is dumped near the borehole, rainwater may carry pollutants through the surrounding soil.
Other questions concern animals and human activities. Can livestock reach the water point? Are people washing clothes or bathing around it? Are chemicals, fuel or other potentially hazardous materials stored nearby?
These observations can be recorded systematically using a sanitary-inspection checklist.
My SIWES Experience at RUWASSA
My SIWES experience at RUWASSA helped me appreciate why this kind of preventive assessment matters.
As an Environmental Health Science student, I had already encountered concepts such as environmental hazards, sanitation, water safety and disease prevention in the classroom. SIWES provided an opportunity to understand how those ideas connect to professional environmental-health responsibilities.
The experience reinforced something I learned throughout my training: environmental health is not simply about identifying a problem after it has occurred. It is about looking for risks early and finding ways to prevent them.
The late Professor Henry Sawyer was among the lecturers who contributed to my academic foundation, particularly in understanding environmental health as a discipline requiring observation, scientific reasoning and practical intervention.
When I think about water safety now, I do not see only the water coming from a borehole. I think about the source, the surrounding environment, the infrastructure, the people using it and what could happen between the source and the household.
Technology Makes Inspection Stronger
Sanitary inspection does not have to depend entirely on paper and observation.
Digital tools can make field assessments more useful. GPS can record the location of water points and nearby hazards, while GIS can help map boreholes, sanitation facilities, drainage networks and other environmental features.
Photographs can provide a visual record of conditions observed during inspection. Digital forms can also make it easier to store inspection results and compare changes over time.
This fits the broader direction of modern water-safety management. WHO’s guidance for small water supplies emphasizes proactive risk management, sanitary inspections and surveillance rather than relying only on occasional laboratory testing (WHO, 2024).
For environmental health professionals, combining field observation, digital mapping and laboratory evidence can provide a clearer picture of water-supply risks.
Inspection Must Lead to Action
Inspection is useful only when identified problems are addressed.
A damaged borehole platform should be repaired. Poor drainage should be corrected. Nearby waste should be removed and future dumping prevented. Sanitation facilities that pose contamination risks should be properly managed.
Boreholes also require technical maintenance. WHO recommends appropriate construction and protection of boreholes, cleaning and disinfection after construction, water-quality testing before commissioning, and further testing where necessary, including after flooding or maintenance (WHO, 2026).
This shows that water safety is not a one-time exercise.
A borehole that passed an inspection several years ago may develop problems later. Infrastructure deteriorates, communities expand and activities around water points change.
Regular inspection is therefore part of keeping a water supply safe.
The Wider Kwara Experience
The need for continued monitoring is also demonstrated by research from Offa Local Government Area of Kwara State. A 2026 study examined drinking-water sources across 20 communities, including boreholes, hand-dug wells and surface streams. The researchers found differences in water-quality characteristics among the sources. Boreholes generally had lower turbidity than the sampled streams, while some stream samples exceeded the study’s reported WHO turbidity guideline (Adeniyi et al., 2026).
Although Offa is outside Ilorin, the study illustrates a wider point for Kwara State: water sources can differ considerably, and assumptions about safety should be replaced by assessment and evidence.
Conclusion
Sanitary inspection is one of the simplest but most useful tools available to environmental health professionals. It allows potential contamination risks to be identified before they become larger problems.
The Ilorin East case study shows why this matters. Researchers found microbiological concerns in sampled water supplies and concluded that residents needed greater awareness of hygienic practices and protection of their water sources (Abdulsalam & Sule, 2020).
My SIWES experience at RUWASSA strengthened my understanding of this preventive approach. Water safety begins with the source, but it does not end there.
A protected borehole, good drainage, appropriate sanitation, regular inspection, water-quality testing, proper maintenance and responsible community practices all contribute to safer water.
For environmental sanitation technology, the lesson is straightforward: sometimes the most important information about water is not found by looking at the water alone. It is found by looking carefully at everything around it.
References
Abdulsalam, Z. B., & Sule, I. O. (2020). Assessment of the potability of water sources in some rural communities in Ilorin East, Kwara, Nigeria. Science World Journal, 15(1).
Adeniyi, A. G., et al. (2026). Microbiological and physicochemical evaluation of drinking water sources in rural communities of Offa Local Government Area, Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews.
World Health Organization. (2024). Sanitary inspection packages – a supporting tool for the Guidelines for drinking-water quality: small water supplies. World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2024). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: small water supplies. World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2026). Sanitary inspection package: drinking-water—borehole with a motorized pump. World Health Organization.
