Final Submission - Ndolo. F.
-
Upload
kavita-ndolo -
Category
Documents
-
view
20 -
download
1
Transcript of Final Submission - Ndolo. F.
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
Feasibility Study for a Community Water Project in
Misuuni, Machakos County
By Ndolo Festus Kavita, F16/1288/2010
A project submitted as a partial fulfilment for the requirement for the award of
the degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
2015
Abstract
Water is crucial not only for sustaining life but also for socio-economic development of a
community. Its availability in the right quality and quantity at the required time and space
remains a great challenge. This is more so evident in rural areas in Kenya. In this particular
report, focus was on Misuuni area in Machakos County. Before embarking on a water
project, it is crucial to know its impacts and assess the feasibility of meeting the objectives
without any major drawbacks. This particular study sought to find out the ability of the
proposed water supply system to sufficiently provide water to residents, institutions and
businesses in the area.
Misuuni experiences 5-6 months of continuous dry weather and in some instances years of
continuous dry periods. Currently, good resource management practices like the Integrated
Water Resources Management Approach (IWRM) adopted by the Kenyan government
demand participation of users including communities in the decision making processes
concerning the water resources. Therefore, the study consulted various stakeholders in the
community seeking their input on various issues. Their input was key in investigating the
water supply situation and assessing its strengths, as well as highlighting its downfalls and
suggesting appropriate counter measures to ensure that the residence of the study area receive
sufficient and safe water supplies. This study was conducted using a mix of methods i.e.,
simple tests (water quality), door to door interviews with residents, administering
questionnaire to the water users.
The options considered were; the drilling of a new borehole with water kiosks at different
points in the community, the abstraction of water from existing sources with basic treatment
where required and the use of rain water catchment as a supplement to the water supply
system. Feasibility was considered according the ability to meet the legal requirements, water
ii
quality standards, provision of the quantity demanded and acceptability by the community.
After analysis of the existing systems, laboratory tests and calculations. Based on all the
results, the study recommended the use of rain water catchment as an initial short-term
mitigation followed by the rehabilitating of the existing sources by treating dam water by
slow sand filtration system, optimization of Manos Unidas borehole and incorporation of
Patrick Mailang’a’s borehole in the public supply system by with a water supply system to
various water kiosks.
iii
Dedication
This project is dedicated to the Misuuni community, for they understand the struggles of
living without adequate water. The output of this project will have a direct impact in their
life.
I also dedicate my work to my family who have provided support, both in material and in
person in undertaking this project. They have helped collect samples, administer
questionnaires and with general research concerning the area.
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge, first of all, the input of my supervisor, Eng. Gitonga, in the
course of doing this project. His guidance has been crucial in doing this project.
Also, the help of Ms. Wambui of the Environmental Health laboratory cannot go without
note. Her assistance in conducting the qualitative analysis of the various water samples was
very important in the completion of my work.
I would finally like to acknowledge the input of my lecturers throughout the five years of my
civil engineering undergraduate program at the University of Nairobi. The various things I’ve
been taught have been helpful in completing this project.
v
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Definition .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3
2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Desk Study .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Reconnaissance stage .................................................................................................. 4
2.3. Fieldwork stage ........................................................................................................... 5
2.4. Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6
3.1. Physical Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6
Location .............................................................................................................................. 6
Topography ......................................................................................................................... 6
Climate................................................................................................................................ 7
3.2. Socio-Economic Conditions ........................................................................................ 7
Population ........................................................................................................................... 7
Administration .................................................................................................................... 7
vi
Institutions .......................................................................................................................... 8
Commercial centres ............................................................................................................ 9
Physical infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 9
Willingness to pay for water ............................................................................................... 9
Diseases [waterborne] ....................................................................................................... 10
3.3. Existing water supply condition ................................................................................ 11
Rivers ................................................................................................................................ 11
Earth dams ........................................................................................................................ 12
Boreholes .......................................................................................................................... 14
Rainwater Collection ........................................................................................................ 16
3.4. Existing Demand ....................................................................................................... 19
Institutional Demand ........................................................................................................ 19
Commercial Demand ........................................................................................................ 20
Domestic demand ............................................................................................................. 20
3.5. Existing Quality......................................................................................................... 20
4. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.1. Water Demand Projections........................................................................................ 28
Domestic Consumption Projection ................................................................................... 28
Commercial Demand Projections ..................................................................................... 29
Institutional Demand Projections ..................................................................................... 29
vii
Demand vs Supply Deficit ................................................................................................ 30
4.2. Overview of Options ................................................................................................. 32
Borehole Drilling .............................................................................................................. 32
Utilization of Existing Water Resources .......................................................................... 33
Rainwater Collection as Supplement ................................................................................ 35
4.3. Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 36
Option 1; Drilling a New Borehole .................................................................................. 39
Option 2; Rehabilitation of Existing Resources ............................................................... 41
Option 3; Rain Water Collection as Supplement .............................................................. 46
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 50
5.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 50
5.2. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 51
Capacity of Works ............................................................................................................ 51
Time of Implementation ................................................................................................... 51
Operation and Maintenance Requirements ....................................................................... 52
Cost of Implementation .................................................................................................... 52
Selected Alternative .......................................................................................................... 53
6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TESTS ................................................................................ 56
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................ 60
viii
APPENDIX C; Manos Unidas Borehole Usage Log ............................................................... 66
APPENDIX D; Water Quality Standards (EMCA) ................................................................. 67
APPENDIX E; Independent Test Results ................................................................................ 68
APPENDIX F; WRMA FORMS ............................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX G: MAP OF THE PROPOSED BOREHOLE PLUS SUPPLY SYSTEM ......... 82
APPENDIX H; Quotation for borehole drilling ...................................................................... 84
APPENDIX I; Photos .............................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX J; SSFs - FURTHER DETAILS .......................................................................... 90
APPENDIX K; Hydro-geological survey report for proposed borehole site .......................... 92
ix
Table of Figures
Figure 3-1 Map of the project area ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3-2 Water Source - Consumption. ................................................................................ 17
Figure 3-3 Water Retrieval Difficulties. .................................................................................. 17
Figure 3-4 Retrieval Demographics ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-5 Water Consumption - Agriculture. ......................................................................... 18
Figure 3-6 Volume of Water Stored ........................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-7 Reported Waterborne Illness. ................................................................................. 21
Figure 3-8 Particles Present in Water ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-9 Percentage of Homesteads That Treat Their Water ............................................... 22
Figure 3-10 Drinking Water Descriptions ............................................................................... 23
Figure 3-11 Filtration Methods Used for Water Treatment ..................................................... 23
Figure 3-12 Water Quality Reference. ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 4-1 WRMA water permit application process .............................................................. 38
Figure 6-1Illustration of a slow sand filter with a regulating valve and a subsequent reservoir
.................................................................................................................................................. 91
Figure 6-2 Principle of a slow sand filter................................................................................. 91
x
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Institutional demand of water per day ..................................................................... 19
Table 3-2 Commercial demand per day ................................................................................... 20
Table 3-3 Laboratory results for Kathaana River water sample .............................................. 24
Table 3-4 Laboratory results for Kathuku Dam water sample ................................................ 25
Table 3-5 Laboratory results for Misuuni Dam water sample ................................................. 25
Table 3-6 Laboratory results for Miumbuni Secondary School Borehole water sample ........ 26
Table 3-7 Laboratory results for Phillip Ndolo Treated Water sample ................................... 26
Table 3-8 Laboratory results for Lazarus’ homestead rain water sample ................................ 27
Table 3-9 Laboratory results for Manos Unidas Borehole water sample ................................ 27
Table 4-1 Population projections ............................................................................................. 28
Table 4-2 Domestic water demand projections ....................................................................... 29
Table 4-3 Commercial water demand projections ................................................................... 29
Table 4-4 Commercial water demand projections ................................................................... 30
Table 4-5 Summary of Water Demand Projections ................................................................. 30
Table 4-6 Summary of demand and supply deficit .................................................................. 31
Table 4-7 Typical treatment performance of slow sand filters. ............................................... 43
Table 4-8 Breakdown of cost for ground water options .......................................................... 44
Table 4-9 Revenue from water sales ........................................................................................ 44
Table 4-10 Breakdown of costs for filtration plants ................................................................ 45
Table 4-11 Revenue from sale of treated water ....................................................................... 46
Table 4-12 Quantity supplied by roof catchment vs demand .................................................. 47
Table 4-13 Cost estimations for Rain water harvesting ........................................................... 48
xi
Table 4-14 Comparative costs after Rain water system........................................................... 49
Table 5-1 Demand vs Supply Conclusion ............................................................................... 50
Table 6-1 Independent Test Results by EWB-USA team ........................................................ 68
Table 6-2 Features of SSFs ...................................................................................................... 90
xii
List of Abbreviations
APHA American Public Health Association
AWWA American Water Works Association
CBO Community Based Organization
EDTA Ethylenediamine Tetraacetic Acid
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act
EWB-USA Engineers without Borders, United States of America
FTU Formazin Turbidity Unit
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M Operations and Maintenance
pH Pondus Hydrogenium
PHE Public Health Engineering
ppm parts per million
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WHO World Health Organization
WRMA Water Resources Management Authority
xiii
List of Symbols
mg CaCO3/L Calcium Carbonate in milligrams per litre
mg Cl/L Chloride in milligrams per litre
mg F/L Fluoride in milligrams per litre
mg Fe/L Iron in milligrams per litre
mg TSS/L Total Suspended Solids in milligrams per litre
mg TDS/L Total Dissolved Solids in milligrams per litre
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Water is a basic human need. Life depends on the availability of water. However, it is not
just about the availability but also the characteristics of the water that matters the most. For a
proper life, water must be available of good quality and sufficient quantity. Quality standards
are globally set by WHO and locally in Kenya set as per the EMCA act of 2006. Quantity
needs are determined by the user’s need.
In Kenya’s rural areas, water availability in quality and quantity is a major problem. The
sessional paper no. 1 of 1999 on national water policy on water resources management and
development provided the policy direction to address these challenges. The Water Act 2002
birthed from this paper was developed with the principles such as to equitably allocate water
for all Kenyans and acceleration of supply and distribution of water in rural areas through
special funding. Misuuni area in Machakos County is one such rural area in need of a water
supply system.
The Machakos County government had set among its development priorities, the need to
provide water to every household. This, as stated in their goals, was to be done by drilling
boreholes, digging water pans and developing existing water resources. Since the task was
expensive, the county government sought to achieve this goal in conjunction with donors and
community groups. Misuuni area was a benefactor of such, through donor funding from
EWB-USA for a water supply project in conjunction with Misuuni Self Help Group. The
project sought to provide safe drinking water to the community by drilling a borehole. It also
sought to find enough water to irrigate the land. Therefore, a feasibility study was required to
establish the viability of the borehole idea, find out alternatives and to recommend the
appropriate action to be taken.
2
1.2. Definition
A feasibility study is a thorough evaluation of a proposed activity undertaken in order to
formulate a description of the most desirable actions to be taken. Feasibility of a project
implies that it will effectively serve its intended purpose without any serious negative
impacts. The feasibility of a project is measured by specifying the project objectives and also
specifying the notes for measuring success. Generally, feasibility studies precede technical
development and project implementation. Perceived objectivity is an important factor in the
credibility of the study for potential investors at lending institutions. It must therefore be
conducted with an objective, unbiased approach to provide information upon which decisions
can be based.
In this specific case, the objective was to find out whether the proposed water supply
proposals could sufficiently supply water of desirable quality and quantity. The specific
objectives of the water supply project were;
(i) Provision of sufficient drinking water to residents of Misuuni area throughout the
year.
(ii) Provision of water for irrigation within Misuuni area.
The potential negative impacts were:
(i) Expense in implementation
(ii) Low uptake by residents
(iii) Environmental deterioration
The rules of measurement of the success of the project were:
(i) Water Quality – The water quality must confer to the required standards.
(ii) Water Quantity – The project must supply enough water for the desired uses.
3
(iii) Economy – The recommended course of action must be within the budget cap
of the donor and also have operation economic value.
(iv) Legal feasibility – The prepared system should not conflict with legal
requirement and must also meet the required legal steps.
1.3. Objectives
With such objectives of the water supply project stated, and the rules of measurement of
achievement specified, the objectives of this feasibility study were;
(i) Survey of existing conditions
(ii) Analysis of suggested course of action
(iii) Analysis of alternatives
(iv) Recommendation of course of action
4
2. METHODOLOGY
In order to achieve the set objectives, there were a number of stages required. In the case of
this study they were;
(i) Desk study
(ii) Reconnaissance
(iii) Fieldwork
(iv) Analysis
The specifics of these stages are stated below:
2.1. Desk Study
In this stage, available information was obtained from relevant websites/organizations and
studied. This involved;
Studying the map of the area
Studying the legalities undertaken for a water supply project.
Obtaining online information pertaining to this specific project and also general data
on such a project.
Planning on the steps to be taken in accomplishing this study
2.2. Reconnaissance stage
This involved an initial visit to the Misuuni area. Its purpose was to identify the aspects that
need further study and eliminate options that are obviously infeasible. This involved:
General survey of the study area
Familiarisation with authorities/stakeholders
Determination of equipment needed in further data collection
5
2.3. Fieldwork stage
This was a thorough visit to the area and to the pertinent authorities. It was a much more
detailed study of existing conditions and obtaining of the data needed for further analysis.
The actions undertaken here were:
(i) Mapping of area; by photography and obtaining maps
(ii) Mapping suggested water points
(iii) Analysis of topography
(iv) Questionnaires – These were given to schools and hospitals for data on school
attendance and hospital records
(v) Interviews; These were done as listed below;
Households - Household surveys were conducted related to the entire
homestead. Twenty homesteads were surveyed, with a total of 249 individuals
represented in the survey. This consists of about 12% of Misuuni’s population
(about 2000 people).
Farms
Community groups
(vi) Sampling - For laboratory purposes, samples of water were taken. These were
done by use of sampling bottles from PHE lab of the University of Nairobi.
2.4. Analysis
The acquired data from the above studies was analysed in this section of work to obtain
useful information in regards to the study. This involved further studying of the maps,
tabulating the laboratory results, selection of appropriate photos and calculations based on
obtained data. Then, conclusions were made from the analysed data.
6
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Before any course of action was considered it was key to analyse the study area. The existing
conditions surveyed in this study were divided into these categories:
(i) Physical conditions
(ii) Socio-economic conditions
(iii) Water supply conditions
These categories were studied as follows:
3.1. Physical Conditions
Location
Misuuni village, is located in Kathiani Sub-county of Machakos County. It is located about
40 km from Machakos town and 70 km from Nairobi.
Topography
Below is a map from Survey of Kenya, dated 1976 and although it is a bit outdated, it depicts
the vertical profile more accurately.
Figure 3-1 Map of the project area
7
The area enclosed by the red envelope shows a rough boundary of the area under study.
Altitude data from the map indicates that the highest point is 1460 meters above sea level and
the lowest is 1400 meters above sea level. The area generally slopes outwards to the rivers,
with several streams feeding into the rivers through valleys. The earth dams are located at the
mouths of the major valleys
Climate
According to the Agro-climatic map of Kenya (Braun, 1980) the climate of the study area is
semi-humid to semi-arid zone (zone IV to V), characterized by a low, bi-modal rainfall and
high evaporation. The total average annual rainfall can be estimated to be in the range of 450
mm to 600 mm which falls mainly during two distinct rainy seasons. The long rains are
expected between March and May and the short rains between October and December.
The mean monthly temperature varies between 22◦C and 28◦C. July is the coldest month
while October and March are the hottest.
3.2. Socio-Economic Conditions
Population
The estimated population during the study period was around 2,000 scattered over an
estimated area of 6 kilometres long by 3 kilometres wide, and dispersed on either side of a
central dirt road bisecting the village area. The households were fairly distributed with a few
clustered areas.
Administration
The area is governed by Machakos County Government. It’s within the jurisdiction area of
Kathiani Sub-County. Water-related activities are coordinated through the sub-county water
engineer in Kathiani.
8
There is one police post in Miumbuni.
Institutions
There were five schools in the area. These were;
(i) two public primary schools,
Misuuni Primary School
Miumbuni Primary School
(ii) two private primary schools
Miumbuni AIC Junior Academy
Miumbuni Preparatory Academy
(iii) a public secondary school
Miumbuni Secondary School
The local dispensary, Miumbuni Dispensary, was the only medical institution in the area. It
served an average of 50 patients per day and used an average of 350 litres per day.
Miumbuni Primary School Survey.
This is one of the schools visited during the study to investigate and understand the impact of
water scarcity on the day to day life of the students in school. From the school attendance
record about 10-20 students per day were absent, with a large percentage of them speculated
to be due to water-borne diseases. The principal confirmed that about 100 students are out of
school at least once in a term due to water borne diseases. Generally, an hour or two is wasted
daily by the majority of the students so that they can travel to retrieve water for the school
and their homestead. Also, it was discovered that the school barely has enough water to keep
it running efficiently.
9
Commercial centres
There were three markets in the area; Miumbuni, Misuuni and Musaalani. Each had a few
businesses that used water. The major consumers of water in the markets were hotels,
butcheries and bars. The local shops mainly used water for basic cleaning of facilities.
There were a few private agricultural farms that relied entirely on irrigation from rivers, earth
dams and boreholes. The amount of water used and the method of supply for these were
studied.
Physical infrastructure
Power supply
The area is fairly connected to the power grid though the uptake is distributed mostly to
commercial businesses that require electricity. Only a few homes are connected.
The hospital and secondary school are connected. Solar power and generators are commonly
used. Solar power must be considered.
Willingness to pay for water
Generally, 40% of the population were already paying for drinking water especially during
the dry season. Only those with the means, about 10%, would pay for irrigation water.
Uptake depended on viability in terms of profit and not most residents were entrepreneur-
minded. They would rather fetch from rivers near the farms than pay for water for irrigation.
This meant that during the dry season, most farms would lay idle.
The institutions were willing to pay for water because they are funded by the government and
it’s a basic need for operation.
Businessmen were willing to pay if it improved profitability.
10
Diseases [waterborne]
A portion of the survey also asked about water quality and the homesteads’ experience with
sickness. Moreover, inquiries were made at the local clinic about their records. In regards to
health, 85% of the homesteads surveyed have experienced sickness due to the water and out
of those individuals, 82% reported that they have experienced sickness that was severe
enough to keep them out of school or work for a significant amount of time (on average 16
days). According to the surveys conducted at the school in Misuuni, there was a reported 100
absences per term.
The primary source of healthcare for people in Misuuni, besides the local dispensary, is the
Kathiani Hospital, which is significantly far from most of the homes, such that is accessibility
to the hospital is an adverse task. It is located about 5 km from Misuuni. Moreover, the
nearby health dispensary can only accommodate two patients at a time (mostly maternity
patients). A survey conducted at Kathiani Hospital and at community dispensary delineated
that the most common cause of these illnesses is due to the wide usage of contaminated water
in drinking, cooking, and domestic use. It was reported that in the six to twelve months
previous to the study, cases of bilharzias, diarrhoea, bloody diarrhoea, and leishmaniasis had
been received. At the dispensary, 300 of the patients received were under the age of five,
while 200 of the patients they received were over the age of five. The dispensary served
about 50 people per day and used about 250 litres of water daily. It was reported from
surveys that the peak season for diarrhoea cases included the dry season (around August to
late September) and the harvest season (around March to May). This appears to corroborate
the aforementioned data stating that the water during the dry season is of a poorer quality.
11
3.3. Existing water supply condition
The existing water sources were divided into the following categories;
(i) Rivers
(ii) Earth Dams
(iii) Boreholes
(iv) Rainwater Harvesting
Rivers
There were two rivers in this area which actually run along the border lines of the study area.
These rivers were Muvaa and Kathaana. Both of these rivers were seasonal. They had
flowing water for four months annually. There were stagnant ponds within the rivers that
lasted for about two months after river flow had ceased. The rivers had bridges without
culverts hence trapping water behind them to form temporary reservoirs that in some cases
could hold water for up to four months in a year.
River water was mainly used for irrigation of adjacent farms and for animals. However, some
families that lived nearer to the river than other water sources, opted to use river water for
domestic purposes because of the long distances and also, because of ignorance of the
potential impacts of using such water for domestic purposes.
Kathaana River
This river is on the Eastern side of the area under study. There was no existing data on river
flow quantities. Based on interviews, the river usually flows for about four months in a year,
during the rainy season. There was only one bridge reservoir along this river. This was the
only watering point considered in the study. It was designated as Mutanda, which is the local
name used for it.
12
At Mutanda, water had three uses; livestock use, irrigation of adjacent farms and domestic
use. Livestock use was the most common use, as was also for all the other water points along
this river. Irrigation was the secondary use. The farms were small scale and the average size
of a farm was one acre. The main crops irrigated were vegetables, for both subsistence
purposes and small-scale commercial purposes. Sometimes the water was used for domestic
purposes.
From the field study, water samples were taken and laboratory tests conducted to assess the
water quality.
Muvaa River
This river flows along the western boundary of the study area. There was also no existing
data on flow quantities. Based on interviews, the river flows for about six months in a year.
There were three bridges and only two had reservoirs. Therefore, only these two were
considered for further study and water-sampling. They were designated as Kithuka and
Kithanze water points. The reservoirs at both points were quite small so they only held water
for about one month after river flow ceased.
Water from both points was mainly used for livestock, irrigation of adjacent farms and for
domestic purposes.
Earth dams
These are whereby earth embankments are constructed to trap run-off water and create a
reservoir. In the study they were categorized into two;
(i) Public dams
(ii) Private dams
13
The earth dams retained water longer than the rivers and the water was also observed to be
cleaner, during the rainy season but the quality would deteriorate during the dry season.
However, they would still dry up due to insufficient rainfall coupled with a growing demand.
Water was fetched directly from the dam either by hand-carried containers, or transported on
bicycles, wheelbarrows and animal driven carts.
All the public dams were studied and two of the private dams were randomly selected as
representative samples.
Public Dams
There were three public earth dams in this area namely,
a) Misuuni,
b) Kwa-Kathuku
c) Kwa-Lazarus
They were situated near the markets and were fairly accessible. However, there is a
significant percent of the populace who live quite a distance away from the dams.
Water from these dams was used for domestic purposes, agriculture, in schools and for
businesses. Only Kathuku dam was used for livestock drinking because of the lack of an
alternative source for that. For the others, livestock drinking was prohibited because there
were rivers nearby for such purpose.
For each of the dams, measurements were taken to calculate the capacity and water samples
for laboratory analysis of the water quality.
Kwa-Lazarus dam had been recently constructed by the county government and started
functioning in October 2014 when rains started. The rains were short lived so it was only
14
filled to about a quarter capacity. Since it was quite new, there was not sufficient information
to be obtained on usage and useful storage per year.
Private Dams
These were usually constructed and used to the owner’s specific needs and regulations. There
were of smaller size than the public dams. There were several such dams and two were
considered; Phillip’s and John’s dams.
Phillip’s dam was used for irrigation, domestic supply and livestock. The domestic water was
pumped to tanks and treated before use. The irrigation water is also pumped into elevated
tanks and then allowed to flow by gravity to the farms.
John’s dam was used mainly for domestic supply and livestock. Occasionally it would be
used for irrigation too.
Boreholes
In the attempt to increase water resources and to provide clean drinking water, there had been
efforts to sink boreholes in the area, usually by donor-funding. There were three dug for the
public namely, Manos Unidas, Musaalani Egyptian Project and Miumbuni Secondary School.
Only one was functioning without significant problems, i.e. the Manos Unidas borehole in
Misuuni village. There was one private borehole, owned by one Patrick Mailang’a.
Water from the boreholes was mainly used for domestic purposes. Borehole water was
usually hard water therefore compromising taste and mineral content. Water samples from
each boreholes were taken for laboratory analysis. Readings from the various meters and
records available were also taken to get the yield from each borehole. Below are details about
these boreholes;
15
Manos Unidas Borehole
This was a project conducted by a donor organisation from Spain, namely, Manos Unidas.
Their main objectives were to supply clean drinking water, water for domestic use and water
for irrigation. Residents who could afford piping had water pumped to their houses from the
borehole. There was a huge irrigation farm, located near the borehole, which entirely relied
on irrigation with water from the borehole. Initially, the borehole project had a planned water
distribution system via water kiosks in various parts of Misuuni but only two of such kiosks
were fully functional.
Access to the borehole’s water by some residents of this area was limited because of long
distances. This water was also obtained at a fee hence only those with the necessary funds
could have a stock enough for a full tank or for farming. The fee was Ksh. 3.00 per 20-litre
container of water. Most people using this facility would fetch just enough water for drinking,
usually 40 litres per week for one household.
The yield of this borehole is 20 cubic meters per day. There are 5 elevated tanks on site with
a storage capacity of 100 m3.
Musaalani Borehole
This was a project done in corporation with the Egyptian government, in 2002. Its sole
objective was to provide clean drinking water. The borehole had a hand pump installed on
site to help in drawing water. However, the project collapsed after a few months for unknown
reasons. No checks or repairs had been attempted to determine and remedy the cause.
Miumbuni Secondary School Borehole
This was a project also done by the Egyptian government in 2002, to supply water for use in
the school. The school had a water tank for storage. There were no borehole logs available.
16
The borehole sometimes has very low yields. Attempts have been made to remedy the
problem but the main cause for the problem is yet to be identified.
Patrick’s Borehole
By the time of this study, it had just been recently drilled and it was noted that it had
comparatively higher yields. The output capacity per day is 33m3. The boreholes supplied
water to his house, to water kiosk where it’s sold to the public at Ksh. 3.00 per 20-liter
container and to his farm for irrigation. The owner had installed elevated water tanks for
storage whose capacity is 40 m3 and also to enable flow by gravity to a water kiosk and to
irrigation farms.
Rainwater Collection
During the rainy season, a few households collect rain water by the use of roof gutters for
storage in tanks. This method was exclusive to those with the means to afford a water tank
and also a corrugated sheet roof.
Usually this water was exclusively used for drinking. Water for all other domestic purposes
was drawn from other sources. In some cases where the owner had a large roof and a
sufficient storage tank, this method sustained an all year round drinking water supply. As in
the case of privately owned dams, the public is allowed restricted access to these tanks for
drinking water in rationed portions in the case of severe drought.
It was noted that roof gutters were not regularly cleaned so there was accumulation of
sediments into the tanks. Counts were made of the number of households with rainwater
collection. Readings of the volumes of storage were made and where there were not
available, measurements were done to compute volumes. Water samples were taken from
randomly selected rainwater collection tanks for further analysis in the laboratory.
17
Below are some charts depicting data on the water sources and the existing water supply
condition.
Figure 3-2 Water Source - Consumption.
Figure 3-3 Water Retrieval Difficulties.
18
Figure 3-4 Retrieval Demographics
Figure 3-5 Water Consumption - Agriculture.
19
Figure 3-6 Volume of Water Stored
3.4. Existing Demand
This was analysed by splitting the demand in to several categories. These categories were;
(i) Institutional demand – water needed at schools and hospitals
(ii) Commercial demand – water needed at commercial centres
(iii) Domestic demand – water for needed for residential use
Institutional Demand
The table below shows institutional demand as from the surveys conducted.
Name of institution Attendance per day water consumption (m3/day)
Miumbuni Sec. School 450 6.8
Primary schools 400 5
Dispensary 300 0.35
Police Station 10 0.20
TOTALS 12.35
Table 3-1 Institutional demand of water per day
20
Commercial Demand
The table below shows the demand from commercial establishments operating in the area.
Business activity Number of each Total m3/day
Hotels/restaurants 7 1.5
Slaughter houses 2 0.2
Butcheries 6 0.96
Shops/kiosks 34 2.04
Hair and beauty 9 1.08
Commercial Farms 1 2.5
TOTALS 8.28
Table 3-2 Commercial demand per day
Domestic demand
From the survey. Most homesteads have an average of 5 to 6 household members. From the
exact calculations of the households surveyed the total demand per day is 5.308 m3/day. By
extrapolation of this number to reflect the entire population, the total domestic water demand
in the area is 42.64 m3/day.
3.5. Existing Quality
To obtain date on quality there were two phases;
Administering questionnaire, conduction interviews and visual observations.
Laboratory analysis of collected water samples.
Those who were surveyed were asked to determine the quality of their water, using
a scale from 10 to 250, with 10 being the most clear and 250 being the least clear. It was
determined that the quality of the water varies between the wet and dry seasons. The average
21
water quality reported for the wet season was 50 per the test comparison samples and the
average water quality reported for the dry season was 125. Furthermore, 55% of the
homesteads surveyed reported described the water as “sour” and 35% described the water as
“dusty/muddle,” along with other negative descriptions. During the dry season, the water
contained more particles and the water was not as transparent, in comparison to the wet
season when fewer particles and clearer water was observed. Although 95% of the
homesteads reported particles present in their drinking water, only 45% of the homesteads
consistently filter their water and 10% of the homesteads rarely treat their water. The most
common filtration methods were straining through a cloth and using the chemical ‘Water
Guard’. However, many homesteads chose not to use ‘Water Guard’ because it was either too
expensive or because they had been misinformed that ‘Water Guard’ caused birth defects.
Below are charts of data obtained from the initial survey with questionnaires.
Figure 3-7 Reported Waterborne Illness.
22
Figure 3-8 Particles Present in Water
Figure 3-9 Percentage of Homesteads That Treat Their Water
23
Figure 3-10 Drinking Water Descriptions
Figure 3-11 Filtration Methods Used for Water Treatment
Figure 3-12 Water Quality Reference.
24
For laboratory tests, samples of 7 water sources were considered. These were; Kathaana
River, Misuuni Dam, Kathuku Dam, Manos Unidas Borehole, Miumbuni Secondary School
borehole, Rain Water and Phillip Ndolo’s home-treated water. These samples were then
analysed for the following parameters; turbidity, pH, colour, fluoride ion content, chloride ion
content, hardness, total solids, suspended solids. Four sources were considered for coliform
test which were; Kathaana River, Misuuni Dam, Kathuku Dam and Manos Unidas Borehole.
Since it was not possible to E. Coli tests in the University of Nairobi, test data conducted by
an independent team in August 2014 were considered. Other test data was also obtained from
the results send by this team. The procedure followed for each testing method is found in the
appendix. Below are tables, showing the results obtained from laboratory analysis for each
sample;
Parameter Units Results WHO standard KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.266 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 4.4 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 152 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.70 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 10 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 44 Max 250 Max 250
Suspended Solids mg/L 120 Max 1000
Total solids mg/L 3.4 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml 39 - -
Table 3-3 Laboratory results for Kathaana River water sample
25
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.569 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 330 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 66 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.36 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 140 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 41 Max 250 Max 250
Total solids mg/L 20.4 Max 30 Max 30
Suspended Solids mg/L 240 Max 1000 240
Coliform MPN/100ml 64 - -
Table 3-4 Laboratory results for Kathuku Dam water sample
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.876 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 310 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 96 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.29 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 210 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 39 Max 250 Max 250
Suspended Solids mg/L 1250 Max 1000 -
Total solids mg/L 36.4 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml 23 - -
Table 3-5 Laboratory results for Misuuni Dam water sample
26
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.457 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 0.8 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 348 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.55 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 5 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 136 Max 250 Max 250
Total solids mg/L 8.3 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml - -
Table 3-6 Laboratory results for Miumbuni Secondary School Borehole water sample
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.334 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 4.6 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 72 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.78 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 5 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 30 Max 250 Max 250
Suspended Solids mg/L 160 Max 1000 Max 1000
Total solids mg/L 1.8 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml - -
Table 3-7 Laboratory results for Phillip Ndolo Treated Water sample
27
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.485 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 0.6 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 32 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 8 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 5 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 16 Max 250 Max 250
Total solids mg/L 0.3 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml - -
Table 3-8 Laboratory results for Lazarus’ homestead rain water sample
Parameter Units Results WHO standards KEBS standard
Fluoride ion mg F/L 0.178 Max 1.5 Max 1.5
Turbidity FTU 0.9 Max 5 Max 5
Total hardness mg CaCO3/L 60 Max 500 Max 300
pH 1-14 scale 7.56 6.5 – 8.5 6.5 – 8.5
Colour Hazen 5 Max 15 Max 15
Chloride ion mg Cl/L 150 Max 250 Max 250
Total solids mg/L 12.9 Max 30 Max 30
Coliform MPN/100ml Nil - -
Table 3-9 Laboratory results for Manos Unidas Borehole water sample
The results above have been compared with standards to check for conformity. From that
comparison it is clear that the sources that can provide safe domestic and drinking water are
rain water collection, the boreholes and the treated dam water. The untreated dam water and
river water are unsafe for drinking and domestic use.
28
4. ANALYSIS
4.1. Water Demand Projections
The method adopted for preparing the water demand projections has been to analyse water
consumption for each category separately and provide forecast for 2016, 2020 and 2025
which are respectively the immediate, immediate future and future design horizons.
Domestic Consumption Projection
Domestic consumers constitute the largest category of consumers. The consumption per
person in litres per day has been projected and combined with the population projections in
order to derive the total domestic water demand. The population is projected to grow at 4%
per annum for the next four years and then at 6% per annum for the next ten years.
Also taken into account is the proximity to water source, the income level, the price of water
and the quality of supplied water. The tables showing both the population projections and
domestic water demand projections are shown below;
Year Population
Present (2014) 2000
2016 2117
2020 2638
2025 3561
Table 4-1 Population projections
29
Year Water demand (m3/day)
Present (2014) 42.64
2016 47.12
2020 61.11
2025 82.49
Table 4-2 Domestic water demand projections
Commercial Demand Projections
Commercial water demand is expected to rise at a rate at east equivalent to the growth in
population and in line with the performance of the area’s economy. A growth rate of 5% is
assumed.
Year Commercial demand (m3/day)
Present (2014) 8.28
2016 8.96
2020 10.95
2025 14.06
Table 4-3 Commercial water demand projections
Institutional Demand Projections
The institutional water demand is dealt with on a more general basis. It is assumed that this
demand grows in sync with population growth and also in line with economic growth. The
assumed growth is 5%.
30
Year Institutional demand (m3/day)
Present (2014) 12.35
2016 13.38
2020 15.71
2025 20.15
Table 4-4 Commercial water demand projections
Demand vs Supply Deficit
Below is a table showing the totals from water demand projections.
Category Demand in m3/day
2014 2016 2020 2025
Domestic demand 42.64 47.12 61.11 82.49
Commercial demand 8.28 8.96 10.95 14.06
Institutional demand 12.35 13.37 15.71 20.15
TOTALS 63.27 69.45 87.77 116.7
YEARLY TOTALS in m3/year 23,093.55 25,349.25 32,036.05 42,595.5
Table 4-5 Summary of Water Demand Projections
The only available water sources at the moment whose capacity can be gauged is rainwater
collection and borehole water. The other sources are not viable for current supply unless they
are treated so they were not analysed as supply volumes. Only about 4% of the population
had means to afford and had installed rain water collection systems on their roofs with
enough storage for year round supply of drinking water. The supply was however not enough
31
for any other purpose besides drinking. Dam water and river water were unsafe for drinking
without treatment, but were a considerable supply of water.
The maximum capacity of Kathuku dam was an average of 32,572 m3 per year. However, it
was usually at 1/3 capacity which is 10,857 m3. Misuuni dam had a capacity of 10,908 m3 but
was also usually at 1/3 capacity throughout the year, which was 3,636 m3 per year. For both
dams, once the rainy season was over, the water quality would deteriorate such that only half
of the aforementioned quantity was useful storage. Hence combine, the capacity from dams is
7, 246.5 m3 per year. This figure also considered sedimentation.
The Manos Unidas borehole has a daily yield of up to 20 m3/day which amounts up to 7,300
m3 per year. The yield of the Miumbuni Secondary School borehole is estimated to be about 3
m3 per day. This amounts to about 1090 m3 per year. In total therefore, the publicly used
supply systems yield a supply of 15,636.5 m3 per year which falls short of the current demand
of 23,093.55m3 per year. Only the borehole water out of the publicly available supplies is
safe for drinking. This leaves a further deficit of 14,703.55m3 per year.
The above date is represented on the table below
Source Capacity (m3/year) Safe Supply Capacity (m3/year)
Kathuku Dam 10,857 -
Misuuni Dam 3.636 -
Manos Unidas Borehole 7300 7300
Miumbuni Secondary School
Borehole
1090 1090
TOTAL 15636.5 8390
Demand – Supply Deficit 7,457.05 14,703.55
Table 4-6 Summary of demand and supply deficit
32
As per the above computations, the selected measures must be able to meet the needs as
indicated above. The options shall thus be evaluated in terms of ability to meet this deficit.
Since there is already a current deficit, then it must be met as soon as possible hence the
option should be viable immediately.
4.2. Overview of Options
The options were chosen with regard to viability and also acceptability by the community.
There were three options considered:
(i) Borehole drilling
(ii) Rehabilitation of existing water resources
(iii) Rainwater collection as supplement
Borehole Drilling
This was the community’s preference. It was mainly chosen based on their knowledge. The
common perception in the area is that borehole is safer for drinking and is guaranteed
throughout the year. This option involved drilling a borehole at a specific site centrally
placed within the area. A plot of land had already been identified and a hydrographic survey
was already done by the landowner.
The suggestion was to drill a borehole here with the necessary pumping station. Water is to
be pumped to storage tanks elevated above the ground. From there, it would flow by gravity
to water “kiosks” in six different points in the areas. The water points were fairly distributed
to serve residents, commercial centres and public institutions. Pumping would be required to
some areas where the slope doesn’t allow flow by gravity. [Pipes laid to these sources by the
33
community]. There was no treatment suggested for the groundwater, in the initial plans.
This was partly because the locals assumed groundwater was safe for drinking.
A map of the intended supply system is shown in the appendix.
Utilization of Existing Water Resources
This option was based on the argument that the existing sources, if well managed and
coordinated, could have been sufficient to meet the need. This would involve several
undertakings for different sources to improve quality and increase uptake.
For clearer analysis, the various possible measures were analysed in two categories;
(i) Ground water options
(ii) Surface water options
The suggested options are discussed briefly below;
(i) Groundwater Options
There were three existing boreholes in the area that could have either been optimized in use
or repaired to increase the water supply. The various options are discussed below;
a. Optimization of Manos-Unidas Borehole
The Misuuni Manos-Unidas borehole was not being used to maximum capacity. It could still
be utilized to supply water to current users. It could serve the Misuuni Market by the
construction of a water kiosk there. There would be no need for storage in this case, just
construction of water kiosks. Flow would happen by gravity from the on-site tanks.
It was also noted that it would improve supply to repair broken pipes to two existing water
kiosks that weren’t functional and to install meters in all the water points to facilitate
measurement of the water (for payment). Revenue from sales would be used for O&M.
34
b. Incorporation of Patrick’s Borehole
Patrick Mailang’a was willing, at a fee, to be incorporated into the public water supply
system by using his borehole to supply the surrounding area with water. There already was a
water kiosk outside his home with sufficient storage and a meter. Water was being sold at
Ksh. 3 per 20 litre container.
The idea involved setting up two other water kiosks; one near the Miumbuni Preparatory
School and another at the Ngiti water point as shown in the appendix map. Every kiosk
would have a meter and a storage tank. Sales from the water kiosk would go directly to
Patrick Mailang’a. Maintenance would also be from the funds collected through such fee.
Surface Waters
Dams and rivers are the main sources of surface water in this area. If rehabilitated, improved
and their use controlled, water yields could increase. Several options were considered here:
a. Differential use/Restricted Access
To monitor and regulate use, it was suggested to fence the dam boundaries. This would
prevent people from dirtying the water by wasting which the boundaries and also monitors
water use. For the various dams, proper regulations on use would set. For instance, pumping
water for irrigation would be billed to help in maintenance or also, putting a cap on the
maximum amount of water pumped must be set. Also, at Kwa Kathuku Dam, livestock could
be denied direct access. Instead, water could be pumped to a watering point for livestock.
This would alleviate water contamination by faecal matter.
35
b. Filtration of Dam Water
For abstraction from site and use in the surrounding areas, water from the dams could be
treated. Since dams are the main source of water for domestic use this could provide a safe
supply. For this system, four tanks could be set up. One for sedimentation to reduce turbidity
and settle-able solids, two for slow sand filtration to disinfect the water and then one elevated
tank for storage to allow flow by gravity. Two pumping stations would be needed; one for
pumping water from the dam to the sedimentation tank and another for pumping water up to
the storage tank.
At Misuuni dam, this could supply three water points, one at Musaalani market and another
at a settlement near the proposed boreholes site and one on site.
For Miumbuni market and the surrounding residential areas, a similar water system would be
set up with water being drawn from Kathuku dam. Three water points would be set up too;
one at Miumbuni market, one at a settlement near the dam and one onsite at Kathuku dam.
c. Rivers
These shall be left to livestock and irrigation of nearby farms. For livestock there shall be no
control. For irrigation, in order not to deplete the water resources available for livestock;
there shall be set up controls as per riparian rights.
Rainwater Collection as Supplement
From reconnaissance studies, it was observed that rainwater collection is a viable option.
This was suggested especially for institutions with high demand water demand. It was an
option with one time investment and supplied considerable quantity. It was considered to
have rainwater collection from roots of following institutions:
Secondary School
36
Primary Schools
Police Post
Dispensary
The collected water supplied would last for a considered amount of time in a year, in most
cases, more than 6 months. It would require fixing water gutters on roofs, buying storage
tanks, doing some treatment in case of compromised quality and periodic maintenance. No
billing is required. This would supplement water from other sources.
4.3. Evaluation of Alternatives
This delved deeper into the suggested options and analysed them according to the
measurements of success. Key features of each possible options were further broken down
specifics and analysed.
Before getting into each option, one by one, it must be noted that the legalities concerned
with each of them are quite similar. So below is an overview of legal feasibility issues.
Legal feasibility
According the water act of 2002, every water resource is vested in the State, subject to any
rights of user granted by or under the act or any other written law. The right to the use of
water from any water resource is vested in the Cabinet Secretary in charge of the Ministry of
Water, except to the extent that it is alienated by or under the act or any other written law.
The act also creates WRMA which is in charge of the following as pertain this particular
project;
i. to develop principles, guidelines and procedures for the allocation of water
resources;
ii. to receive and determine applications for permits for water use
37
iii. to monitor and enforce conditions attached to permits for water use;
iv. to regulate and protect water resources quality from adverse impacts;
v. in accordance with guidelines in the national water resources management
strategy, to determine charges to be imposed for the use of water from any water
resource;
vi. to gather and maintain information on water resources and from time to time
publish forecasts, projections and information on water resources;
vii. to liaise with other bodies for the better regulation and management of water
resources;
It is therefore key to ensure that the process as required by WRMA is followed for each of the
steps. Each option will be analysed as per the ability to meet these requirements and also
checked whether there are measure already taken to ensure the conditions are met.
The permit application process is as follows;
38
Figure 4-1 WRMA water permit application process
Also, as per the act, a "community project" means a project approved by the Authority and
operating under a permit for one or more purposes which are;
(a) connected with the use of water or the drainage of land situate entirely, or for the most
part, within a given area; and
(b) classified by the Authority, with the approval of the Minister, as community purposes;
which has been declared by the Authority, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a
community project for the purposes of this Act
This project thus as per the above sufficiently meets the requirements to be classified as a
community project.
39
Option 1; Drilling a New Borehole
Legal feasibility – first of all a water searching permit is applied for, which has already been
done. After that, a hydrological survey is done. This has already been done. The results are
compiled in a report after which a drilling permit is applied for in the regional WRMA office.
This has already been done. The land rights and the water rights required have been hence,
required and every legal step followed. Only the drilling is yet to be done at this point. All the
relevant certifications and approvals are attached in the appendix.
Water quality feasibility – According to the results in the analysis section of this report, all
boreholes within this area have a safe supply of water for domestic use. It is expected
therefore that the water will be of good quality. The only concern is the hardness which could
affect the pumping machinery and pipe system.
Water quantity feasibility – The two boreholes closes to the borehole proposed site have a
yield of 33 m3 and 20 m3 per day. The yield is expected to be within the range of 28 to 47 m3
per day. The deficit required for the current demand is about 40.5 m3 per day. This means that
this borehole has the probability of between 75 – 95% of meeting the deficit.
Economic feasibility – the major concern for this option is the amount of money required an
s one time investment. The quotations indicated in the appendix indicate a sum of about 1.5
million shillings as the initial capital for drilling the borehole. The purchase of water tanks,
their erection, and construction of water kiosks with laying of pipes for water supply
altogether will cost another 1.75 million bringing the cost of the project to 2.75 million. Most
of the manual labour as agreed by the community group will be voluntary. This initial amount
makes it very expensive. It is the most expensive of all the options. Especially in terms of
first time investment. The water would be supplied at a rate and based on studies and using
the Manos Unidas borehole project as a reference, there is a chance of making enough money
40
for maintenance of the project. Water is usually sold at 3 shillings per 20 litres. For farms and
other bulk supply demanded, the rate is 40 cents per litre. A meter is installed on all water
kiosks and on site to measure all water that is sold and to keep a log against the monies
collected. A record by the community group showing previous sales from their first borehole
project is attached in the appendix. It is projected that the average daily collection will be
2,000 to 3,000, which amounts to a maximum of 1 million shillings per year and a minimum
of 700, 000 shillings. This money will be used to pay for the maintenance which includes;
staff, generator fuel, pump maintenance, water supply system repairs. These shall be logged
and since the community project is externally audited, there shall be accountability in the
financial handling of all payments.
Operational Feasibility – for the operation of this project, a good design and a systems
approach is crucial. The design proposed is pumping water to elevated tanks and then
allowing flow by gravity to other parts of the area. This is feasible because the area is higher
than most of the area. The additional elevation due to the elevated tanks makes it possible to
supply some points which are a bit higher than the borehole location. Labour is also required
on site for pumping, running of recurrent sales, maintenance and security. Since all the labour
besides professional labour such repair of pumps. For recurrent technical jobs such as fuelling
of generator and operation of pumps, the staff shall be trained. Operation for this particular
option is therefore feasible.
41
Option 2; Rehabilitation of Existing Resources
Legal Feasibility – for the ground water options, permits will be required for the expansion
of works. Since there are already permits for the existing boreholes systems, the legal
requirements would land easement documents for the pipes to be laid and the kiosks to be
constructed and also approval of works by the county council of Machakos. This is subject to
the submissions of the engineering and architectural designs of work. It will also be required
to have a written agreement with Mr Patrick Mailanga concerning the incorporation into the
public system.
For surface water options, it shall be required to acquire land easement for construction of the
facilities suggested, water permit for abstraction of water from the dams for treatment and
distribution and approval of all construction works by the county council authorities.
The suggestion to set community rules for the separated uses of water would require public
sensitization. It would be difficult to set up written laws as this would involve engaging
WRMA and there would be several legal fees required so instead, there should be mutual
agreement within the community for differential water use. This would help in preventing
contamination of dam, water by livestock.
Operational Feasibility - For the groundwater options the operational and maintenance
works will be as before. Since it’s only an expansion of works, no extra training is required.
Only labour for sale of water at the new water points will be required. The major concern is
the maintenance of pipe and repairs to be conducted and by hiring a professional plumber this
can be easily done.
For the surface water plan, initial training of the staff operating the filtration plant is
necessary after which they can train others. Slow Sand filters have a very high self hep
compatibility hence the locals can be trained to run it. Since the CBO would oversee the
42
implementation of the project, it would provide the initial labour force required. There O&M
practices for SSF required are mainly for cleaning the filter and this can easily be done since
the system provides for two filters. Hence as one operates, the other can be cleaned. Material
for the plant shall be locally sourced and provided by the community for free so maintenance
and replacement should not pose a problem. The pumps for the system require fuel and
periodic maintenance. The funds for these shall come from the sales of water from this
treatment plant. Operational costs are incurred almost solely from the cleaning of the filter
beds. No chemicals or other materials are needed for the process. No compressed air,
mechanical stirring, or high-pressure water is needed for backwashing. There is thus a saving
not only in the provision of plant but also in the cost of fuel or electricity
Water Quantity Feasibility – The groundwater option for expansion works at Manos Unidas
and repair of the pipes/water kiosks would only improve the distribution system. It would not
add any more water into the existing system but rather eases access to it. It would be expected
that the water point at Misuuni market would cater for all commercial needs at the market
amounting up to 1.53 m3/day. However, the incorporation of Patrick’s borehole into the
system would plug in only half of his yield, amounting to 16.5 m3 per day or 6022.5 m3 per
year.
For the surface water plans, the only supply added will be safe supply of domestic water.
Since water from the dam will also be used for other purposes only ½ the water in Misuuni
dam will be treated by filtration annually. As for Kathuku dam, the fraction of water treated
will be 1/3 because livestock supply is required, besides the other uses. Initially the water
would have been unsafe for domestic use but after treatment, the supply would be as follows;
Kathuku Dam – 3619 m3 per year
Misuuni Dam – 1818 m3 per year
43
The summation of both the groundwater and surface water options would provide a total
supply of 11, 459.50 m3 per year of safe domestic water. It would meet 78% of the demand
for needed safe supply of water.
Water Quality Feasibility – the groundwater plans are okay in terms of water quality. The
existing boreholes have been tested for water quality and all standards are meant.
The surface water option incorporates slow sand filtration to disinfect the water. Slow sand
filtration is an extremely efficient method for removing microbial contamination and will
usually have no indicator bacteria present at the outlet. If the effluent turbidity is below 1.0
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), a 90 to 99% reduction in bacteria and viruses is
achieved (NDWC 2000). To reduce turbidity to such levels, a sedimentation tank has been
provided and also a basic filter will be put in the pipes linking the sedimentation tank to the
SSF so as to reduce turbidity. Slow sand filtration is generally not effective for the majority
of chemicals. However, it can be argued that chemical standards for drinking water are of
secondary concern in water supply subject to severe bacterial contamination (WHO 1996). A
summary of the effectiveness of SSFs is shown in the table below;
Highly effective for Somewhat effective for Not effective for
- Bacteria
- Protozoa
- Viruses
- Turbidity
- Heavy metals (Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb)
- Odour, Taste
- Iron, Manganese
- Organic Matter
- Arsenic
- Salts
- Fluoride
- Trihalomethane (THM) Precursors
- Majority of chemicals
Table 4-7 Typical treatment performance of slow sand filters.
44
The water in the dams has no trace of chemicals found that would need disinfection therefore
this option is feasible for provision of safe water for domestic use.
Economic Feasibility – For the groundwater options, it would be one time investments in
lying of pipes and construction of water kiosks. The breakdown of costs is as follows;
Item Cost (Ksh)
Manos Unidas Construction of one water kiosk + fitting of meter +
installation of tap
Purchase and Laying of pipes to water kiosk
Repair of water pipes + installation of meters at 2 water
kiosks
45, 000
56,000
23,500
Incorporation
of Patrick’s
Legal fees for agreements
Construction of two water kiosks + fitting of meter +
installation of tap
Purchase and Laying of pipes to water kiosk
5,000
90,000
147,000
TOTALS 366,500
Table 4-8 Breakdown of cost for ground water options
It is projected that this will have a direct uptake with sales per day as follows;
Water point Sales per year (Ksh.)
Misuuni market 56,395
Manos Unidas water points 182,500
Patrick’s water points 547,500
TOTALS 786,395
Table 4-9 Revenue from water sales
The collected revenue will be enough for fuelling and maintenance operations throughout the
year. Therefore the groundwater option will be self-sustainable after implementation.
45
As for the surface water option, the costs will be mainly for construction works, pumps
required and the pipes. Land will be provided by the community as well as labour and the
locally available materials such as sand and gravel. There will be a cost for initial training of
personnel who will be running the plant. The breakdown of costs for the treatment plant and
related works is generally as follows;
Location Item Cost (Ksh.)
Misuuni Dam Construction of SSFs and RC sedimentation
tank
Piping and pumping system on site
Elevated storage tank + supporting structure
Construction of three water kiosks + laying
of pipes + installation of meter
325,000
37,000
128,000
105,000
Kathuku Dam Construction of SSFs and RC sedimentation
tank
Piping and pumping system on site
Elevated storage tank + supporting structure
Construction of three water kiosks + laying
of pipes + installation of meter
325,000
37,000
128,000
145,000
TOTALS 1,230,000
Table 4-10 Breakdown of costs for filtration plants
It is projected that there will be a 90% uptake at the markets and a 75% uptake in the
settlements hence the sales of water will collect revenue as follows;
46
Source Revenue per Year (Ksh.)
Misuuni Dam 204,525
Kathuku Dam 447,851
TOTALS 652,376
Table 4-11 Revenue from sale of treated water
It is projected that the cost of pumping water the basic O&M cost (fuel + staff) will be
sufficiently covered by the revenue collected hence the treatment option will be self-
sustaining.
The total cost of rehabilitation of existing sources is Ksh. 1,596,500 and all the suggested
plans are one time investments which are self-sustainable.
Option 3; Rain Water Collection as Supplement
Legal Feasibility – There are no legal requirements for trapping rain water using roof
catchment system. Therefore, this option is legally feasible.
Operational Feasibility – This system would be easy to operate since all water would be
directed to tanks and fetched from there. There would be no pumping required and
maintenance would be minimal. The only maintenance to be done would be the cleaning of
roofs every now and then and repair of gutters.
Water Quality Feasibility – From the water tests done on the sampled roof-collected rain
water within the area, the water would be safe for drinking and all other domestic uses. No
extra treatment would be required. To improve quality it is advisable to install a water filter at
the entry point of water into tanks from roof gutters. This would trap sediments from roofs.
Also, it would be further improve quality to clean the roofs periodically.
47
Water Quantity Feasibility – The water collected from a roof catchment system is
dependent on the area of the roof and the intensity of rainfall in the area. The formula used in
calculations is;
Q = KIA where;
K is a coefficient, I is rainfall intensity and A is area of catchment roof
The area of all roofs at the institutions that would be used for roof catchment were measured
and the total flow calculated and the results tabulated below and then compared with demand
for each of the institutions. All the primary schools have been summed up together as in the
analysis for demand because the design is similar for all, having 8 classrooms, a detached
kindergarten block and a detached staff office block.
Institution Roof Area
(m2)
Quantity
(m3/year)
Demand
(m3/year)
Deficit
(m3/year)
%
Mitigated
Dispensary 108 86.4 127.75 41.35 68%
Miumbuni Sec. 740 592 1870 1278 32%
Primary Schools 1560 1248 1350 102 92%
Police Station 68 54.4 73 18.6 75%
Table 4-12 Quantity supplied by roof catchment vs demand
For the above, it is plain that although it is not enough to meet all the demand it mitigates the
demand to some percentage above 50% except for Miumbuni Secondary School. In the case
of Miumbuni secondary school, the borehole providing safe drinking water of 1090 m3 per
year hence the deficit mitigated increases to 73% from the projected 32%.
As an initial measure then this option is viable for now and will also provide to future needs.
However, this option does not help with domestic demand or commercial demand.
48
Economic Feasibility – The cost for this option is a one-time investment. The O&M costs
are negligible and would only be for cleaning of roofs and gutters. The initial cost involves
setting up concrete bases for all tanks, installation of roof gutters, purchase of litre tanks for
storage, installation of taps and filters. The total cost breakdown is as indicated below;
Institution Item Cost (Ksh.)
i. Sec. school
ii. Primary schools
iii. Police Station
iv. Dispensary
Reinforced concrete bases for tanks,
4x4
129,600
129,600
129,600
129,600
i. Sec. school
ii. Primary schools
iii. Police Station
iv. Dispensary
Purchase of tank of capacity
- 15, 000 litres
- 12,000 litres
- 8,000 litres
- 10, 000 litres
186,000
143,000
78,000
104,700
i. Secondary
school
ii. Primary schools
iii. Police Station
iv. Dispensary
Purchase of gutters for roofs
- 120 m
- 260 m
- 14 m
- 20 m
10, 200
22,100
1,190
1,700
i. Sec. school
ii. Primary schools
iii. Police Station
iv. Dispensary
Installation of gutters, taps and placing
tanks
4,000
10,000
2,000
2,000
TOTALS 1,083,290
Table 4-13 Cost estimations for Rain water harvesting
49
As a mitigation effort for institutional water demand, the one-time cost of this option would
be Ksh. 1,083,290.
The current deficit is met by purchasing water at Ksh. 3 per 20 litres delivered from nearby
dams which not even safe for drinking. The primary schools cannot afford to pay for water so
the students have to fetch themselves from nearby dams hence precious time is lost walking
long distances. The total cost for buying water by the institutions is thus Ksh. 603,987.50.
The breakdown for the cost mitigation per institution is as shown below. The calculation have
considered that the rain water collection only meets needs up to a certain percentage;
Institution Cost of Rain
Collection System
Current Cost of
Water per Year
(Ksh.)
Cost with Rain
Water Collection
per Year (Ksh.)
Miumbuni Sec. School 329,800 117,000 31,590
Dispensary 238,000 19,162.50 1,533
Police Station 209,600 10,950 2,738
Table 4-14 Comparative costs after Rain water system
For the above three institutions, there’s economic gain because this one time investment
saves a greater amount of money and is therefore advisable.
50
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion
In accordance with the set objectives for this project and the discussion found ion the analysis
chapter above, the following conclusions can be drawn from this investigation.
1. The water needs of the community were determined primarily based on accessibility
to a water source and the general availability of clean water. The Misuuni community
requires non-available clean water for domestic uses such as but not limited to
drinking, cleaning, sanitation, and personal farm use. Currently, only the boreholes
and personal home rain-water catchment systems have a good supply of safe domestic
water. With the lack of clean water individuals from the community are susceptible to
waterborne disease and are prone to miss days of work and school.
2. The present total water demand vs the water supplied are as follows;
Capacity (m3/year) Safe Supply Capacity (m3/year)
Supply 15636.5 8390
Demand 23093.55 23093.55
Demand – Supply Deficit 7,457.05 14,703.55
Table 5-1 Demand vs Supply Conclusion
The current water resources are not enough in quantity and are lacking, even more in
Quality and are therefore there’s a need for new water supply system. This new water
system must be able to meet the current need either fully or to a suitable percentage.
3. The availability of clean water will substantially improve the quality of life for the
overall Misuuni community. Further the availability of clean water will allow for
51
increased productivity in the agricultural sector, both in terms of crops grown and
available human capital.
5.2. Recommendations
In the selection of the most viable alternative source of water for the Misuuni community,
several factors were taken into account. These were;
i. Capacity of the works
ii. Time of implementation
iii. Cost of implementation
iv. Operational and maintenance requirements
Capacity of Works
(i) The borehole option has a capacity of an estimated 28 m3 to 47 m3 per day. Given the
50% success rate of the borehole yield predictions in the area, this is not enough to
meet the current demand but it mitigates it by about 59% hence it would require to be
implemented in conjunction with another option. It is not a sure option and true data
can only be determined from actual drilling.
(ii) The rehabilitation of existing water resources would yield an estimate of 32 m3 per
day. This would leave a deficit of 5.1 m3 currently and but would not be able to cope
with future demand.
(iii) The rain water collection option would mitigate the water shortage in institutions by
83% percent if current rainfall statistics remain the same. It would provide the
institutions with a combined supply of 1980.80 m3 compared to a unmet demand of
2306.25 m3 per year
Time of Implementation
52
(i) The borehole option would take between six months and a year to implement. This
would include drilling and construction of all relevant works. Taking 2015 to be the
year of implementation, this project can be commissioned to meet this target
(ii) The rehabilitation of the existing supplies would be in phases and could take between
one year and one and a half years to implement mainly because of the technical, legal
and operational issues that must be coordinated. 2017 is the realistic date of possible
completion.
(iii) Rain water collection at the public institutions could be implemented by the end of
2015.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
(i) The borehole option will be gravity flow so most O&M costs will be for the generator
on borehole site and for pipes.
(ii) The major cost in the rehabilitation of existing sources would be operations of water
treatment as well as generator and pump maintenance cost.
(iii) The only O&M cost in the rain water harvesting case would be cleaning of rooftops
and repair of roof gutters which is very cheap.
Cost of Implementation
(i) The cost of implementation for the borehole would be Ksh. 3,523,459. It is a one-time
initial investment which O&M costs catered for by sales from water kiosks.
(ii) The cost of the rehabilitation of existing sources would be Ksh. 1,596,500. The O&M
costs would be catered for by sales of water at the water kiosks.
(iii) The cost of mitigation by rain water harvesting would be Ksh. 1,083,290. The O&M
costs are negligible.
53
Selected Alternative
The immediate mitigation of the water scarcity by rain water harvesting in institutions was
chosen as the first measure based on its economy and also the ability to mitigate the
institutional demand beyond 50% in each case.
For a follow up project, the rehabilitation of existing water sources was chosen as the viable
option because of the ease in implementation, economy and ability to meet a greater
percentage of the current demand than the borehole option. The borehole option would
require further field studies to check for suitability of other sites and also, there’s a chance
that it could be fully operational to the projected output. The filtration of dam water by use of
SSFs guarantees clean water without a high initial cost. Slow sand filtration systems are
characterised by a high reliability and rather low lifecycle costs. It is recommended to
implement it in phases. First at Misuuni Dam then afterwards in Kathuku Dam.
54
6. REFERENCES
Government Press (2002). Act No. 8 of 2002 - Water Act
Government Press (2006). The Environmental Management and Co-Ordination (Water
Quality) Regulations, 2006
Dezuane, J. (1997). Handbook of Drinking Water Quality, 2nd Edition, Published by John
Wiley and Sons. Edmunds,
American Water Works Association (1990). Water Quality and Treatment: A Handbook
of Community Water Supplies – 4th Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc.
Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Water Quality Sampling Manual, 3rd Edition,
Published by EPA.
Gray, N. F. (2008). Drinking Water Quality: Problems and Solutions, 2nd Edition,
Published by Cambridge University Press.
Hem, J.D. (1967). Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural
Waters, Published by United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2007). Kenya Standard: KS 459 – 1:2007, Part 1.
Letterman, R.D. (1999). A Handbook of Community Water Supplies, 5th Edition,
Published by McGraw Hill.
Linsley, R.K and Franzini, J. B (1979). Water Resources Engineering, 3rd Edition,
Published by McGraw Hill, Inc, New York.
Leonard, L Ciaccio, (1973). The 2009 Population and Housing census: Counting Our
People for Development, Volume 1, Published by the Central Bureau of statistics.
55
Ministry of Water and Irrigation. (2005). Practise Manual for Water Supply Services in
Kenya, Part A, Published by the Government Press.
National Research Council. (2006b). The Examination of Waters and Water Supplies, 7th
Edition, Published by J. and A. Churchill Ltd.
UNESCO and WHO. (1996). Water Guideline for Drinking Water Quality, Volume 1,
Published by WHO.
Huisman L. and Wood, W.E. (1974), Slow Sand Filtration, Published by WHO
BRIKKE, F.; BREDERO, M. (2003): Linking Technology Choice with Operation and
Maintenance in the context of community water supply and sanitation. A reference
Document for Planners and Project Staff. Geneva: World Health Organization and IRC
Water and Sanitation Centre.
Internet sources
i. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/waterquality.html
ii. http://www.nema.go.ke/
iii. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html
iv. http://www.wrma.or.ke/
v. http://www.mit.edu/course/21/21.guide/reports.htm
vi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feasibility_study
vii. http://www.machakosgovernment.com
viii. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professional_and_Technical_Writing/Feasibility
ix. http://oasisdesign.net/water/treatment/slowsandfilter.htm
56
APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TESTS
Field water samples obtained and tested in the laboratory. The following tests were carried
out.
a) PH
Apparatus and reagents
i. pH Meter.
ii. Beaker
Procedure
Approximately 75ml of the sample was placed in 100ml beaker. Carefully, the electrodes of
the pH meter were raised out of the beaker they are kept in and rinsed with distilled water.
Drops of water were wiped from electrodes. The electrodes were then immersed in the beaker
containing the sample. The selection was then switched to pH. The pH was read directly from
the meter. The selector switch was then turned to “CHECK”. The electrodes were then raised
carefully, rinsed with distilled water and replaced in the beaker of distilled water.
b) Chloride ion concentration
Apparatus and reagents
i. Potassium chromate solution.
ii. Silver Nitrate solution (0.0141N)
iii. Conical flask
iv. Pipette
v. Burette
57
Procedure
100ml of sample water was poured into the conical flask. 1ml of Potassium Chromate
solution was added. This was titrated with standard silver nitrate solution with constant
stirring until a slight red precipitate appeared. The guideline value set for aesthetic quality of
water is 250mg/L of chloride. Therefore the sample of water is below the guideline value.
c) Colour
Apparatus and reagents
i. Nessler cylinder.
ii. Lovibond nessleriser.
iii. Standard Hazen disc No. N5A.
Procedure
The Nessler cylinder was filled with water. It was then transferred to the right hand
compartment of a Lovibond nessleriser and used in conjunction with a white light cabinet.
The colour was then matched against the Standard Hazen disc No. N5A.The reading was then
obtained directly in degrees haven. The guideline value set for aesthetic quality of water is
15TCU (True Colour Units).
d) Turbidity
Apparatus and reagents
i. Turbimeter (Model 2100A).
ii. Pipette.
58
Principle of a Turbimeter
The Turbimeter 2100A operates on the principle that light passing through a substance is
scattered by particulate matter that is suspended. A strong light is passed upward through a
cell containing a sample under test during which the beam, proportional to turbidity present,
it is scattered at 90 ̊ and received by photo-multiplier tube. The light energy is then converted
to an electrical signal which is measured by the instrument. The Turbimeter is fitted with 4
sample cells; when measuring turbidities on 0 -1000 FTU a cell riser is inserted into the
holder to raise the sample cell. The riser decreases the light path length resulting in increased
linearity in measurement of high turbidities. Calibration of the equipment is based on
Formazin and unit of measurement is FTU. The sensing range is changed by turning the
range switch on the panel.
Procedure
The Turbimeter was switched on and allowed to warm up for 110minutes before taking any
measurements. 30ml of the sample was than pipetted into a clean sample cell. The sample
was then compared to the given standards and one having turbidity closest but greater than
that of the sample chosen. The turbidity was read in units of FTU. (Formazin Turbidity Units.
The guideline value set for aesthetic quality of water is 5NTU (Nephelometric turbidity
units).
e) Total hardness
Apparatus and reagents
i. Ammonia buffer solution
ii. N/50 EDTA solution
iii. Total hardness indicator tablets.
59
Procedure
50 ml of the sample was pipetted into a conical flask, 1 ml of ammonia buffer solution and
one total hardness indicator tablet (crushed with one rod end) were added. Standard N/50
ETDA solution was titrated with constant stirring until the colour changed from purple to
blue. Total hardness was calculated as mg CaCO3/l (=ml EDTA×20)
60
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE
Please fill out the following survey questions. We are collecting information on the current
water situation we can better aid the Misuuni Village with their water crisis. This survey is
completely anonymous, the information you supply will be completely confidential and used
only for us to better understand the local area.
Family
1.) How many people live in your home?
Male Members____ Female Members____
Water Source
1.) Where do you get your water from (Check all that apply)?
Piped Water Public Tap
Clean Well Clean Spring
Rainwater Collection Bottled Water
Water Truck/Cart Surface Water
Other ________
2.) What is your main source of water?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
61
Water Consumption
1.) Do you farm?
Yes No
2.) If you do farm, list the crops you produce.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3.) How much of each crop do you produce?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4.) Do you have anyone who helps with the farming?
Adult Males____ Adult Females____
Youth Males____ Youth Females____
5.) How do you irrigate your crops?
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
62
Health
1.) What is the water quality (directly from the source)?
Please circle the colour your water most resembles
Are there many particles (dirt, gravel) present in your water?
Yes No
Please describe the taste of your water (Metallic, bitter, sour)
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
2.) Have you ever felt that your drinking water made you ill?
Yes | No
3.) Did your sickness cause you to miss work/school?
Yes | No
If yes, how many days did you miss? _________________
4.) Do you know anyone who has felt sick from drinking water?
Yes | No
___________________________________________________
63
5.) If you were sick, what type of treatment did you receive?
Health Post/Hospital
Home Treatment
No Treatment
Other (Specify) ____________
_____________________________________________________
Water Usage
1.) Do you store your water at home?
Yes No
If so, where do you store it? _______
How much water do you have in storage? ______
____________________________________________________
2.) What does your family use water for?
(_____ Washing Clothes) (___ Bathing) (___ Cooking)
(____ Drinking) ( _____ Farming)
(_____ Other-[Please Specify _______])
64
Water Retrieval
1.) How often does your family go to retrieve water?
________________________________________________
2.) How long does the collected water last?
________________________________________________
3.) Who retrieves this water?
________________________________________________
4.) List any difficulties you have had while retrieving water (Hazards/Obstacles)
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
5.) What type of containers do you use to carry water? Please describe the containers; are
they used for anything else? How clean are they?
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
65
Water Filtration
1.) Do you treat your water?
Yes No Don’t Know
2.) If yes, how do you treat it (Select all that apply)?
Boiling
Water Filter
Let it stand and settle
Strain it through a cloth
Bleaching
Let it sit in the sun
Other ________
___________________________________________________
General Comments
If you have any comments or questions about the survey please put them below.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
66
APPENDIX C; Manos Unidas Borehole Usage Log
67
APPENDIX D; Water Quality Standards (EMCA)
68
APPENDIX E; Independent Test Results
Manos Unidas
Borehole
Kathuku Dam Rain Water
Collection
Misuuni
Alkalinity 240 40 40 240
E. Coli No Trace Count; 19 Count; 7 Count; 7
Table 6-1 Independent Test Results by EWB-USA team
69
APPENDIX F; WRMA FORMS
1. Application for search for water permit
70
2. Ground water/Borehole Form
71
3. Borehole Completion Certificate
72
4. Borehole completion record
73
74
75
76
77
5. Application for water permit
78
79
80
81
82
APPENDIX G: MAP OF THE PROPOSED BOREHOLE PLUS
SUPPLY SYSTEM
KEY;
Yellow: School
Red Cross: Health Centre
Blue: Rivers access points
1- Kathaana River
2- Muvaa River
83
3- Mvaa River
Green: Existing Boreholes
1- School Borehole
2- Patrick Mailang’a’s
3- Borehole 3- Manos Borehole
Purple: Dam
1- Usiumu Dam
2- Misuuni Dam
3- Mbiti Dam
4- Kathuku Dam
Red: Proposed Water Taps (except for Manos water point)
1- Miumbuni Water Point
2- Kavoi Water Point
3- Ngatata Water Point
4- Ngiti Water Point
5- Manos Water Point
Blue Pin: Proposed Drill Site
84
APPENDIX H; Quotation for borehole drilling
85
86
87
APPENDIX I; Photos
88
89
90
APPENDIX J; SSFs - FURTHER DETAILS
Working Principle
Freshwater flows through a sand-bed with a thin layer populated by
microorganisms. Hereby, the water gets purified through various
biological, physical and chemical processes.
Capacity/Adequacy Primarily small, rural communities due to large land requirements
Performance
Removes turbidity, protozoa, pathogens, viruses and heavy metals.
100–300 litres per hour per square metre of surface)
Costs 100–300 USD per square
Self-help
Compatibility
Very high
O&M Simple, low costs
Reliability Very high if properly operated and maintained
Main strength
Simplicity; can be constructed, operated and maintained by the
community; often no need for pumps/electricity
Main weakness
Large land requirements; excessive turbidity (>30 NTU) in the fresh
water can cause the filter to clog rapidly (BRIKKE & BREDERO 2003)
Table 6-2 Features of SSFs
91
Figure 6-1Illustration of a slow sand filter with a regulating valve and a subsequent reservoir
Figure 6-2 Principle of a slow sand filter
92
APPENDIX K; Hydro-geological survey report for proposed
borehole site
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108