A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County

Research Report Research Report

Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership

A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT OF KITUI COUNTY

Cliff Nyaga, University of Oxford January 2019

Prepared by: Cliff Nyaga, University of Oxford Reviewed by: Mike Thomas, Rural Focus; Eduardo Perez, Global Communities; Karl Linden, University of Colorado Boulder (UCB); and Pranav Chintalapati, UCB.

Acknowledgements: The Kitui County Government would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Further, the Kitui County Government appreciates its longstanding partnership with the University of Oxford and UNICEF Kenya through various collaborating programs, including the DFID-funded REACH Program.

The leadership received from Emmanuel Kisangau, Kennedy Mutati, Philip Nzula, Augustus Ndingo, and Hope Sila — all from the County Ministry for Water Agriculture and Livestock Development — throughout the audit exercise is appreciated. The sub-county water officers were instrumental in logistics planning and in providing liaison between the field audit teams, communities, and County Ministries for Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development and Administration and Coordination. A team of local enumerators led field data collection: Lucy Mweti, Grace Muisyo, Abigael Kyenze, Patrick Mulwa, Lydia Mwikali, Muimi Kivoko, Philip Muthengi, Mary Sammy, Ruth Mwende, Peter Musili, Annah Kavata, James Kimanzi, Purity Maingi, Felix Muthui, and Assumpta Mwikali.

The technical advice and guidance received from Professor Rob Hope of the University of Oxford and Dr. Andrew Trevett of UNICEF Kenya throughout the planning, data collection, analysis, and preparation of this report is very much appreciated.

Front cover: This Katanu Hand pump was developed in the late 1990s by the Government of Kenya and is the main water source for Nzamba Village in Ikutha Ward, Kitui. Photo credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.

About the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership: The Sustainable WASH Systems Learning

Partnership is a global United States Agency for International Development (USAID) cooperative agreement to identify locally-driven solutions to the challenge of developing robust local systems capable of sustaining water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) service delivery. This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through USAID under the terms of the Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-16-00075. The contents are the responsibility of the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. For more information, visit

www.globalwaters.org/SWS , or contact Elizabeth Jordan ([email protected]).

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Kenya (left) and map of Kitui County showing the eight sub-counties (right)..................14 Figure 2. Sample report on the ONA dashboard providing a quick analysis of audit data............................21 Figure 3. Photo menu of ONA web showing image data submitted by enumerators....................................22 Figure 4. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources located mapped through the water audits in 2011,
2016, and 2017.........................................................................................................................................................24

Figure 5. Distribution of water sources mapped by type, number, and proportion of the total 3,126 sources.......................................................................................................................................................................25

Figure 6. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources mapped by sub-county.......................................................27 Figure 7. Kitui seasonal rainfall anomalies (left) and distribution of infrastructure (earth dams, hand pumps, and rock catchments) developed over time (right)..........................................................................28

Figure 8. Reported annual reliability of surface and sub-surface dams...............................................................28 Figure 9. Functionality status of all water sources mapped on the day of audit...............................................29 Figure 10. Functionality of all water sources mapped on the day of audit by source type............................30

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County

3

Figure 11. Functionality status of all water sources mapped and counted by sub-county.............................31 Figure 12. Kitui County investors by number of water sources developed .....................................................32 Figure 13. Leading investors in leading water infrastructure installed since 2000...........................................33 Figure 14. Cumulative unadjusted investment (USD) in leading source types since 2000.............................34 Figure 15. Cumulative unadjusted USD investment made in piped schemes from 2000 to 2017...............35 Figure 16. Functionality of hand pumps across the different management options documented................36 Figure 17. Leading cause of mechanical breakdown in non-operational hand pumps registered.................37 Figure 18. Dry periods for the 32 percent of hand pumps that reported unreliable supply.........................37 Figure 19. Water distribution pressure for piped schemes (left) and the primary energy source(s) in pumped schemes (right) ........................................................................................................................................38

Figure 20. Operation status of piped schemes by the energy sources used for water pumping.................39 Figure 21. Reported broken features in partly-functional and non-functional piped schemes on the day of the water audit.........................................................................................................................................................41

Figure 22. Reported cost of major repairs completed in 2 years and the volatility of repair costs............42 Figure 23. Actors involved in fixing the most recent breakdown in piped schemes.......................................43 Figure 24. Downtime for all failures reported by piped schemes during the audit.........................................44 Figure 25. Common preventive maintenance tasks done in rural piped schemes...........................................44 Figure 26. Leading reasons for scheme close-down at certain times of the year............................................45 Figure 27. Reliability against condition of piped scheme........................................................................................46 Figure 28. Maximum one-way distance (kilometers) travelled by households to piped scheme sources
(left) and density of piped scheme investments per capita and per km²(right).......................................47

Figure 29. Variation of TDS (ppm) levels across the eight sub-counties of Kitui ............................................49 Figure 30. Domestic and productive water uses recorded in the audit.............................................................49 Figure 31. Reported key monthly expense items in piped schemes by value...................................................50 Figure 32. Reported collection efficiency range by piped schemes for billed revenues .................................51

4

Figure 33. Documented management options in piped schemes.........................................................................51 Figure 34. Number of employees by the employing entity....................................................................................52 Figure 35. Proportion of piped scheme employees occupying observed roles................................................53 Figure 36. Mean monthly salary reported by job/role in piped schemes...........................................................54 Figure 37. Mean monthly salary (USD) for piped scheme staff against education attained...........................54 Figure 38. Reported primary and secondary alternative sources of drinking water for piped scheme users ...........................................................................................................................................................................58

Figure 39. Functionality of piped schemes by sub-county......................................................................................60

List of Tables

Table 1. Number of water sources mapped by type, and their distribution by sub-county .........................26 Table 2. Number of major breakdowns recorded in piped schemes in 2 years..............................................42

5

Acronyms

CBO DFID

Community-Based Organization Department for International Development

KIMWASCO Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company

KITWASCO Kitui Water and Sanitation Company

MAWL O&M ONA PPP

Kitui County Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development Operation and Maintenance A web and mobile app product for field data collection Public-Private Partnerships

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal Self-Help Group

SHG SWS

Sustainable WASH Systems

TDS

Total Dissolved Solids

UCB

University of Colorado Boulder United States Agency for International Development Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Water Services Regulatory Board Water Management Committee Water Service Provider or Water Utility

USAID WASH WASREB WMC WSP

6

Foreword

This county water audit has been conducted at a strategic point in time when we really want to determine how much water is accessible to the people of Kitui. Under the leadership of Her Excellency, The Governor Charity K. Ngilu, provision of clean and reliable water is the development manifesto pillar number one for Kitui County Government. This is informed by the multiple benefits that come with access to reliable and safe water: improved health for the population, improved access to good nutrition, and creation of time for other livelihood activities. It is a common thing in many rural areas of Kitui to see women and even children sitting in long queues waiting to fetch water. Sometimes this water is not easily accessed, and the people are forced to dig deep and risky sand wells to get water. It is the desire of our governor through the Water Department to make this water available at the homestead level and remove the burden on women of carrying water with their backs. Due to the expansiveness of Kitui County, water access is still low in terms of coverage and quantity. Quite a significant population walk long distances in search of water and queue for long hours waiting to draw water. This situation is unacceptable and forms our thrust in planning for investment.

This report has produced a very useful inventory of both functional and non-functional rural water facilities to facilitate evidence-based decision making. It shows the facilities to direct our investments toward, and at the same time it underscores the need for inclusion of a kitty for maintenance in the budgeting process. The report also identifies key actors and their contribution in the water and sanitation sector, and this forms a useful database for strengthening coordination and hence improving service delivery. As I have observed in just about a year in this office, for smooth implementation of WASH programs, a proper information management system is paramount. Data management is a key factor in giving us baselines, setting targets, and monitoring progress over time. The county water audit provides a rich data set that will require frequent updating by all WASH actors in the county. This will ultimately improve sectoral coordination and inform improved planning and better policies and practices, which will accelerate Kitui County’s achievement of the sustainable development goals to ensure universal water access by 2030. My office will strive to establish this information system and always encourage relevant collaboration by all partners.

I want to take this opportunity to register my sincere appreciation to the organizations who have given their best energy, time, expertise, and financial resources to make this work a success. The support that we have received so far and continue to enjoy from the University of Oxford, UNICEF Kenya, and Rural Focus through the USAID Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership is immense and highly appreciated. I will not forget to thank my team in the Water Department for being available to support this process whenever they are needed.

Thank you all.

Emmanuel Kisangau, County Minister for Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development

7

Executive Summary

Kitui County is one of 47 counties in Kenya, located approximately 160 kilometers (km) east of Nairobi City. The county has an estimated population of 1,221,000 people, with 14 percent located in urban areas and 86 percent in rural parts of the county. The county established two water service providers (WSPs), Kitui Water and Sanitation Company (KITWASCO) and Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company (KIMWASCO). The WSPs are licensed and regulated by the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) to manage water and sanitation services in Kitui County. According to WASREB, in 2017, KITWASCO and KIMWASCO served 32 percent of the county population (approximately 360,000 people), in predominantly urban areas due to limited network coverage in rural parts of the county. County-wide estimates indicate that 42 percent of the combined rural and urban population have access to at least a basic water service. Performance of the rural water sub-sector has not been comprehensively documented; hence, an information gap exists on water coverage and quality of service for a large segment of the county population.

To fill this gap, the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership (SWS), funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the REACH Program, funded by the Department for International Development (DFID), conceptualized and supported a water audit in 2016 and 2017. The water audit aimed to locate major rural water infrastructure and collect information on installation and operational performance to inform county planning, investment, institutional development, and dialogue on sustainability.

The University of Oxford developed a water audit instrument with the county government and piloted it in Mwingi North Sub-County. The team recruited and trained local enumerators and collected data using the Open Data Kit mobile platform in Mwingi North Sub-County in August 2016, and for Kitui’s remaining seven sub-counties from November to December 2017. The water audit targeted major and equipped infrastructure, namely hand pumps and piped schemes, and nonequipped sources that skirted the equipped infrastructure. The analysis in this report therefore reflects major infrastructure, rather than a systematic survey, and it is possible that not every water source in the county was located and mapped.

Results of the Water Audit

Cumulatively, the audits mapped 3,126 equipped and non-equipped water sources spread across Kitui County. In terms of number of equipped sources, 687 hand pumps (22 percent) and 460 piped schemes (15 percent) were audited. In terms of non-equipped sources, 655 sand dams (21 percent), 613 earth dams (20 percent), 268 shallow wells (9 percent), 89 rock catchments (3 percent), 28 springs (1 percent), and 52 incomplete boreholes (2 percent) were documented. On the day of the audit, 60 percent of all sources mapped were fully functional and 40 percent were either partly working (15 percent) or not working at all (25 percent). By number of sources developed, NGOs are the leading investor (37 percent) in county water infrastructure, followed by national and county governments (23 percent) and community-funded development (10 percent). For 11 percent of the sources mapped, respondents credited funding for infrastructure development to bilateral and multilateral donors. More bilateral and multilateral donors than reported here may have invested in the Kitui County water sector, given that they constitute a primary grants source for NGOs. In terms of value of investment, piped scheme sources account for more than half of the total investment (unadjusted) made in Kitui County since 2000, followed by earth dam sources. For 19

8

percent (86) of piped schemes where cost information was available, the total value of the capital investment was $5.22 million (unadjusted).

Reliability of water sources is a key issue for Kitui County, stemming from a climate-related lack of year-round availability of water at sources mapped. Climate analysis suggests that there is a high inter-seasonal rainfall variability and extreme drought risk in some parts of the county. When paired with infrastructure mapped, the analysis suggests that many surface water sources (i.e., rock catchments, earth dams, and hand pumps) have been constructed in areas of sequential dry periods.

Results for Hand Pump Sources

A hand pump was defined as a well or borehole with hand-operated mechanical pumping equipment installed for groundwater abstraction. Afridev is the dominant hand pump type in Kitui County (86 percent), followed by the India Mark II hand pump (7 percent). Two out of three hand pumps supply water all year round, while the remainder, 32 percent, experience periods of decreased flows, especially in the months of August, September, and October. Pump rods (32 percent), foot valves (28 percent), and rising main pipes (31 percent) constituted the most broken parts in nonoperational hand pumps.

Results for Piped Scheme Sources

A piped scheme was defined as a water source (whether borehole, rock catchment, shallow well, earth dam, or sand dam) that incorporates a water distribution network and/or includes pumps, tanks, valves, meters, pipeline, kiosks, and standpipes, among other features. In total, 460 piped schemes were audited, 454 of which were fully completed and six under construction. On the day of the audit, 56 percent of the completed piped schemes were fully functional, 15 percent were partly functional, and 28 percent were not working. The most broken features in the piped scheme constituted the pipe network (17 percent), generators (13 percent), boreholes (12 percent), pumps (10 percent), and storage tanks (10 percent). Twenty-five percent of the breakdowns experienced in

the 2 years of the audit were resolved within 7 days, while it took up to 30 days to resolve 46 percent of the breakdowns reported. On average, pipe network and vandalism-related failures took a shorter time to fix (169 and 159 days, respectively) compared to pump failures, which took 352

days on average to fix. Kitui County Government is the most active entity involved in fixing breakdowns, for 32 percent of the piped schemes, followed by local technicians, for 30 percent of the schemes. Regarding reliability of service, the average duration of water supply for fully operational piped schemes at the time of the audit was 9.1 hours every day, and performance in this metric varied by sub-county, functionality, and overall maintenance condition of schemes.

Most piped schemes rely on pumping (79 percent), either wholly or partially, for distribution of water. The main sources of energy used for pumping are generators (53 percent) and solar energy (23 percent). Hybrid sources of energy combining a primary and a backup power source were documented in 13 percent of the piped schemes. The team documented over 28,000 cubic meters (m³) of installed water storage capacity in 831 storage tanks, which translates to an average storage of two tanks per piped scheme, each with 33 m³capacity. Overall, a metering ratio of 50 percent was recorded for source or production points and 76 percent for connections to households, institutions, standpipes, and kiosks. Sixty-seven percent of the piped schemes did not record meter readings despite having a meter.

9

Ninety-five percent of the piped schemes did not treat water before distribution to users, while 21 (5 percent) indicated they practice some form of water treatment. Commonly used water-treatment methods were chlorination (12 piped schemes) and flocculation (6 piped schemes). Users from 17 percent of all piped schemes expressed concerns over the quality of their water source. The main issues reported relate to salinity or salty taste of water (53 percent) and assumed contamination (14 percent), from reports of stomach aches or diarrhea after drinking water from the piped scheme source. Water supplied by piped schemes is primarily used for domestic purposes — namely drinking, washing, bathing, and cooking — and for productive uses (brick making and irrigation).