The search for responsible and accountable water management practices has
generally overlooked belief systems, perception, reality and attitudes. Yet
these all play a part in sustainable water management most especially in the
Third World Countries. The aim of this paper is to see how such cultural and
indigenous issues contend with the formal State initiatives for efficient water
resources management in Akwa Ibom state, Nigeria. The study used key
contending State water management principles, namely water rights, cost
recovery and environmental sustainability and compared with local practice to
see commonalities and differences. Meetings, interviews, observations and
focus group discussions were used to collect the data. The ideal points for such
data collection were the Cross River Basin Development Authority (CRBDA)
projects which served as intersection points between formal, state-based
institutions and the informal community-based practices. In the result, it was
observed that the key water management principles adopted by the State could
not fit well with the prevailing local practices and contexts. Expectedly, the
needed cooperation from the locals for those projects was weak and lacking. A
number of factors lent explanations and these bordered on the perception and
attitudes to water by the locals and compounded by the hydrological
characteristics of the study areas. For instance, the notion of linking water with
the supernatural agency stultifies any formal efforts at cost recovery. This is
likely going to be so in the nearest future given sufficient water supplies from
the natural sources. Since the “scarcity value” has not been appreciated, it is
likely that the locals will continue to perceive any formal water management
initiatives as financially taxing rather than improving their overall conditions.
Consistent with the above local impression, the study further observed that
current state policies and programmes on water carry no elements intended for
the improvements of the lives of people but meaningless projects, which is of
meaningless impacts on the lives of the intended beneficiaries. A number of
recommendations proffered include inclusive governance that takes on the
views of the locals, incentive practices and cost effective project targeting.