Ground Rainwater Harvesting – A general description of how it works.

Ground rainwater harvesting can be an excellent alternative to a borehole – especially if the water table is deep or the water is not suitable for human consumption.

For many rural communities a ground rainwater harvesting system with high capacity storage is a cost effective alternative to a drilled borehole – is easy to maintain – and far less likely to break down.

Ground rainwater harvesting involves the capture and storage of rain using the same principle as rooftop rainwater harvesting – except the rain is harvested from the ground instead of from a roof.

A moderately sloping area or hillside of approximately 100 paces X 100 paces is required to catch the rain. If the ground is flat it is possible to create an artificial slope using community labor. Shallow channels – no deeper or wider than a hand-span – are dug into the slope to guide water from the top to a collection point at the bottom of the slope. The channels guide the fallen rain – and all run in towards the collection point.

The collection point is a waist high U-shaped wall 10 paces wide at the open end with a smooth sloping cement floor inside the U. The deep end is at the closed end of the U and should be two hand-spans deeper at the closed end than at the open end.

A one inch hole is drilled approximately one hand-span up from the floor in the center of the closed end of the wall to allow the collected water to escape. The hole is covered with gauze. A pipe is fitted into the hole and directs the escaping collected water into the top of a cement sand and charcoal filtration box with a removable lid. The removable lid allows access to change the sand and charcoal as required. The top of the filtration box must be level with the floor of the collection point

An outlet pipe at the base of the filtration box directs the now filtered water into a properly constructed 200,000 litre capacity cement tank. The top of the tank must be level with the base of the filtration box. The tank should be fully enclosed with a cement manhole to allow access for cleaning or repairs. A secure tap is fitted to the tank to enable water to be accessed

The whole area – including the collection point – is enclosed using 4 strand post and wire fencing to keep animals out of the water collection zone – and trees are planted within the fenced area. Trees will assist in building up good ground cover over time and mean that the water delivered to the collection point will become increasingly cleaner.

This system requires about half an hour of steady to heavy rain to fill the 200,000 litre tank.

Additional tanks can be added over time using monies raised by charging a small fee for water.

Maintenance involves keeping the water collection point clean and free of any debris or settled mud – ensuring that the fence is always in a good state of repair and that animals cannot enter the water collection zone at any stage – keeping the pipes, taps and tanks in a good state of repair – changing the sand and charcoal as required in the filtration box – collecting a small fee for water to pay for maintenance and additional tanks – nurturing, tending and protecting the trees within the fenced area and not allowing them to be harvested for firewood.

This system can be completely maintained locally. Our experience is that the most effective management of these systems occurs when women have responsibility for their care, maintenance, management and development.

The cost of this system – with one tank – is approximately 750,000 KSH. Costs can be reduced by using community labor – providing clean sand and gravel for all cement work and providing stone for the masonry work locally. Technical specifications are available on request from the Africa Water Bank – although each system needs to be professionally surveyed to ensure adjustments are made to suit local conditions. For more information contact the AfricaWaterBank.

How the Africa Water Bank works…

The Africa Water Bank (AWB) was established in 2008. It is a not for profit organization – however it works differently to many NGO’s. It is open to partnership with any community or group that does not have access to clean drinking water.

It has an unusual way of working. It is a development organization – not just a charity – so there is an expectation that the communities it partners with will play an important part in the development of the water-point – in fact it only partners with communities that are prepared to do just that.

It usually provides up to 85% of funding but the community must have a strong water-point committee and be committed to owning, managing and maintaining the water-point once it is complete.

The AWB’s first preference is usually to install a ground rain-water harvesting system with high capacity storage and sand and charcoal box filtration – or alternatively a hand-pump on a drilled borehole – the reason being these systems can be fully maintained at a community level. Generator sets with submersible pumps are no longer recommended.

The community must develop its own management and maintenance plan – train two managers – fence the water-point – build animal troughs – have a tree planting program – agree to the charging of a small fee for the water – dig holes for pit latrines in agreed sites and have a development plan for the future development of the water point. They also have to raise 15% of the total costs and provide clean sand and gravel and blocks for any cement work that is necessary.

The AWB will only work with communities that are prepared to do – and in fact do these things. The AWB also believes good water management is equally important to the provision of clean water and therefore promotion of awareness about the need to care for existing water resources is its other objective. It uses its Facebook and web pages for this purpose. It also conducts educational community workshops about caring for existing water resources.

50% of donated water-points either fail or become dysfunctional within 18 months – due mainly to poor management and maintenance. The AWB has a 98% success rate and even though some think it too strict AWB installed water points remain functional.

The AWB has assisted in the development of more than 350 new water-points since 2008 and repaired nearly as many dysfunctional ones. The AWB works in Mali, Niger, South Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia and Kenya. It will soon complete a major project in South Sudan (100 boreholes) before commencing a similar one in Pokot County in Kenya.

A weekly blog is posted each Monday on its FaceBook page – past blogs can be found under DISCUSSIONS on the same page. A short quote, statistic or fact is posted each day to keep people informed about the Africa Water Bank and the water crisis and to provide advice about how individuals and communities can better care for their existing water resources.

Copies of AWB community agreements are available on request. Once a community indicates it is prepared to fulfill its commitments as per the agreement – a representative of the Africa Water Bank will visit the community to assess where they are up to and if necessary provide assistance or information to get them started. The AWB only then matches the community with an appropriate donor. The AWB stresses that it does not undertake any construction until the partner community has fulfilled all of its obligations. We have found this usually takes about 12 months.

The provision of clean water in Africa will save more lives than any other intervention.

Nearly half of all claimed aid not even delivered

Much less aid is being delivered in Africa than we have been led to believe. Many bemoan the billions of aid dollars that have supposedly flooded into Africa over the past forty-odd years with precious little to show for it – but research by the British NGO ActionAid and others has demonstrated the pathetic reality behind the official figures.

It is not always possible to determine what constitutes overseas development assistance in any country’s budget – debt relief, spending on military bases and even diplomatic and migration services are often classified as aid – seriously distorting official figures. Much aid, in fact, directly benefits the donor country, as it is tied to the purchase of goods and services from the donor. This makes little sense in terms of costs or efficiency – food purchased through tied aid, for example, is about 40 percent more expensive than what could be acquired through open market transactions. As a result, sub-Saharan Africa effectively loses about 2.5 billion dollars of the annual aid it receives.

Tied aid is part of a larger category referred to as phantom aid. ActionAid claims that in addition to tied aid, phantom aid involves a ‘failure to target aid at the poorest countries, runaway spending on overpriced technical assistance from international consultants, tying aid to purchases from donor countries’ own firms, cumbersome and ill-coordinated planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting requirements, excessive administrative costs, late and partial disbursements, double counting of debt relief, and aid spending on immigration services.’ All of this reduces the value of actual aid being delivered. Of the $80 billion reported as aid granted in 2010 it is estimated that less than $42 billion was actual aid.

In real aid terms, the US spends 0.06 percent of its Gross National Income, less than one-tenth of the UN’s 0.7-percent target. With the exceptions of five small northern European states, the prospect of the developed world ever reaching a real 0.7 percent of GNP in overseas development assistance is nonsense. None of the large European countries are even close.

Between meagre aid, phantom aid, tied aid, and aid pilfered along the way, it is far from clear how much of an impact aid actually makes on Africa – although ironically we now know that much of it is at least benefitting donor countries.

I am certainly not opposed to properly managed and directed aid – but I am opposed to donor countries claiming they are delivering aid which they are clearly not – especially when the four major killers in sub-Saharan Africa – diarrhea, malaria, measles and pneumonia – diseases for which there are low cost, safe treatments readily available – continue to kill nearly 3 million children each year.

The provision of clean water alone – without any other medical interventions whatsoever would save 2 million lives each year – the cost – about 7 billion dollars – or the same amount that is spent prosecuting the war in Afghanistan every 60 days.

Check List 30 elements of success for waterpoint development in Africa

What does a successful community water supply system in Africa look like? The four broad areas below outline what makes a water point work – and keep working.

Technical

• A competitive contracting market exists – and a choice of contractors is available
• Appropriate technology has been selected – in consultation with local people – and is suitable for the geo-technical characteristics of the site (such as shallow well vs pumped borehole vs rainwater harvesting).
• Contractors are technically proficient – have a track record – and are able to construct good-quality infrastructure.
• Proper quality control/supervision of construction is available and is effective.

Social

• The community water management committee is strong – understands the options available and is representative and attentive to both men’s and women’s views.
• There is an agreed process for fixing access rights and prices.
• People are willing to pay the agreed price.
• Income is recorded correctly.
• Funds are safeguarded against misuse and accumulate year on year.
• There is a process for resolving conflicts.
• Access for the poor or vulnerable is protected.

Repair and maintenance

• Two community members are trained in basic maintenance and management of the water point
• Maintenance practices are properly understood by all community members.
• Everyone understands how to use the pump properly and reduce wear and tear.
• Revenues are sufficient to pay for recurrent repairs and any investment required for a new or upgraded system
• There is a clear process for deciding on a repair/investment.
• There is clear responsibility for who calls for a mechanic and when.
• Skilled mechanics are available.
• Repair costs are known and a market exists.
• The mechanic can source spare parts in a timely fashion.
• There is a rapid mechanism, such as cell phone number, for contacting mechanics.
• The committee regularly accounts transparently to the community about how it has used funds.

Local government (community/district)

• The status of all existing water points is known and in the public domain.
• The existing coverage of water supply and sanitation in the area is known and in the public domain.
• There is a process for prioritizing budgets/interventions and coordinating NGO/donor contributions.
• Capacity exists to contract and supervise works.
• Decision makers are accountable to their constituents.
• Processes are in place to share knowledge and experience on water and sanitation between communities in the District/County.
• Good technical advice is given and available to communities to help them solve water point problems.
• Communities are empowered to find solutions to their own water and sanitation issues.

The development of new technologies means that ground and rooftop rainwater water harvesting coupled with high storage capacity and simple filtration systems is often the best solution to clean water shortages.

Many people still believe that a drilled borehole is the best solution to their water problems – even though in Africa deep-drilled boreholes have the highest failure rate of all water-points – with more than 50% failing or becoming dysfunctional within 18 months.

Research undertaken by the Africa Water Bank indicates the most successful water points are those which are (1) well managed and (2) able to be maintained locally.

These include – hand dug wells, managed natural springs, rooftop and ground rainwater collection systems and well fenced and managed dams and pans.

Of the drilled boreholes those equipped with a hand pump are more likely to be successful than those requiring a generator set and a submersible pump because their maintenance is more likely able to be done locally – but overall drilled boreholes are the least reliable of all water points.

New technologies and the progressive addition of high storage capacity means that a properly constructed ground and/or rooftop rainwater collection system is often a better and more cost effective alternative to a drilled borehole – particularly if the borehole requires a generator and submersible pump.

The research showed that even where there was a drilled borehole the development of a rainwater collection system proved a valuable back up – by taking pressure off the borehole or providing an alternative water source when the borehole required maintenance or repair.

In Kenya where the water table in many of the areas experiencing extreme water shortages is very deep and the cost of drilling and equipping a borehole very expensive the development of ground rainwater collection systems with high storage capacity is increasingly seen as a viable and cost effective alternative. High storage capacity means that with good management clean drinking water can be guaranteed for periods up to two years – even if there is no rain – but perhaps more importantly – the whole system can be managed and maintained locally.

Is aid a good thing or a bad thing?

Two hundred years ago the debate concerning Africa was dominated by Christian missionaries. Today it is more likely to be dominated by economists – and they fall into two schools – those who support free trade and are opposed to the provision of aid and those who are opposed to free trade and support the provision of aid.

The free trade – anti aid group believe that African countries should not subsidize or protect any producers, should trade freely on the global market and allow non African industries to trade freely on theirs. They also believe that aid handicaps countries by creating aid-dependency and by killing incentive, motivation and entrepreneurship.

Those opposed to free trade and supportive of aid believe that free trade disadvantages African countries because they have to abide by free trade rules or be penalized with loan and aid reductions, while wealthy countries can ignore these rules at will – with no threat of penalty. They believe that aid is essential to build the infrastructure and strengthen the institutions which African countries need if they are to have any chance of reducing poverty.

And as with most things – the best solution lies somewhere between these two positions. Fairly open trade most of the time is justified – absolutely free trade one hundred percent of the time is an extremist position and is not. Aid that is properly planned and managed will usually work well – whereas aid that is not planned and is poorly managed will usually be wasted.

The Africa Water Bank provides assistance to people in Africa who do not have access to clean water – but is conditional on recipients complying with a number of key conditions – one of which is they provide twenty percent of the total cost of the project. Remarkably – we have a waiting list in excess of one thousand communities – all of which have raised their twenty percent contribution and complied with all of the other conditions. Does this aid work? You bet it does.
——————————————–

The provision of clean water in Africa will save more lives than any other intervention

Clean Water – the problem politicians do not want to talk about.

The number of people in Kenya without access to clean drinking water is currently 16 million and increasing by nearly 3000 every single day. By 2030 the number of Kenyans without access to clean drinking water will be in excess of 35 million – yet there is no mention of this in the Vision 2030 Document – nor is there a realistic strategy for addressing it.

This is not just a story made up to frighten people – it is well documented and researched fact – apparently too uncomfortable for any government to talk about publicly.

Certainly part of the problem is drought caused by climate change. Significant areas of northern, western and south western Kenya have experienced reductions in annual rainfall by as much as 25% over the last 15 years. This has reduced flow rates in rivers and streams – caused lakes to shrink and groundwater to dry up – and in turn caused wells and boreholes to fail.

However the major reasons for the water crisis are entirely people driven. They are deforestation, pollution, poor management and planning of and for existing water resources and unsustainable population growth. All of these are dramatically affecting the quality of Kenya’s water – and all are ballooning problems that are simply not being tackled.

Deforestation and chemical fertilizer run-off have increased salinity and acidity levels and lowered the ph content of water throughout Kenya – often rendering it unsuitable for human consumption. Charcoal harvesters continue to do massive damage to Kenya’s forests and major water catchment areas. Sewerage, mining and industrial pollution is at unprecedented levels. The country is experiencing a population explosion that is unsustainable – and water management has probably never been so ineffective. These are the indigestible truths.

New carefully planned and explained strategies and programs are now urgently needed to meet the crisis. The drilling of boreholes and digging of wells by government, NGO’s and international aid agencies is no longer enough – and has probably not been for the last decade at least. There is evidence that half of drilled boreholes fail anyway due to poor management. Boreholes are no longer the solution in many places – they are too expensive – too difficult to maintain – and increasingly too unreliable.

So what is the solution? Perhaps the first thing is some public honesty about the gravity of the situation. It is a national problem and it will require a national effort to address. Everyone has to take a more responsible attitude to water. Politicians have to start talking about it – as do the media. Certainly governments, business and industry all need to place it much higher on their priority lists – and individuals – farmers – graziers – and householders all have to become more aware and more responsible.

The actual solutions – both small and large scale are probably very similar – ground and roof-top rainwater harvesting – storage – and treatment. Certainly new technologies are available to easily capture enough clean rain water to meet Kenya’s needs. On a small scale they can be very cost effective at a family and community level – and on a larger major public capital works scale they are essential to meet the needs of rapidly expanding urban populations and rural townships.

It even makes economic sense to invest in clean water – economic studies show that every dollar invested in clean water returns between nine and eleven dollars in public benefit. There is probably no better investment for government.

But the first thing is some truth about the enormity of the water crisis. It will be far easier to address if everyone understands how serious the problem is – and people will be far more likely to play a role in its solution if they know their well-being depends on it.

A complete lack of political will in most of continental Africa to invest in large scale public water supply infrastructure means the responsibility for providing clean water has fallen largely to individual communities and international donors. While hardly an ideal situation – in a continent where the number of people without access to clean water is likely to increase from 450 million in 2011 to 500 million in 2015 – it is possible for most communities to develop appropriate low cost systems that can at least provide clean drinking water – and that can be extended over time to provide water for other purposes. As long as there is potable ground water the preferred community water supply system in Africa is a borehole and pump. Provided the water table is no deeper than 80-100 meters it is usually possible to install a hand-pump to lift the water to the surface – however if the water table is any deeper a generator and submersible pump are required – more than doubling and often tripling the cost – and usually meaning that local maintenance and management is impossible. As a result 50% of donated water-points in Africa fail within 18 months of installation – the principal causes being inadequate maintenance and poor management. The development of more innovative ground and roof-top rain water harvesting techniques combined with high capacity storage and easily maintained water filtration systems now provide cost effective alternatives to drilled boreholes and pumps – and mean that money saved can be used to increase storage capacity – but the real advantage is that these systems can be easily managed and maintained locally – meaning failure is unlikely. Better a well functioning simple water supply system than a broken technologically advanced one that no one can repair. With the additional use of locally built fences – water troughs for animals away from the water collection points – tree planting programs – locally built storage tanks – floating anti-evaporation dam covers and effective community based management and maintenance – communities in Africa are able to secure and improve their clean water supply. These systems not only provide clean water – they also assist in causing people to recognize the need to better look after their existing water resources. In the end the African water crisis can only be resolved by Africans doing just that.

Water donors need to ensure community ownership.

Nearly half of all donated water points in Africa fail or become dysfunctional within 18 months of construction – due mainly to a failure to manage or maintain them properly.

The Africa Water Bank estimates that approximately 50,000 water points in Africa (with a value in excess of $US500 million) constructed in the last five years are now not working properly or not working at all.
Well intentioned donors often fail to take into account critical factors that can mean the difference between a successful or a failed community water point.

Research shows that water points where communities have been closely involved in each stage of development and have contributed something towards their cost are likely to be successful. Community ownership is a key factor.

Appropriate technology is also important. The community needs to have the ability to undertake the bulk of maintenance and repair in its own right – which means choosing the right technology in the first place – and then training people within the community to undertake the maintenance.

It is often better to have a straight forward functioning rain water harvesting system with high capacity storage – which a community can maintain – as opposed to a deep borehole with a generator and submersible pump that no one in the community can repair when it breaks down – which it inevitably will.

A strong community water management committee is another factor for success. A successful water point is always properly managed, well maintained and usually one where community members pay a small usage fee to cover maintenance and ongoing running and development costs. It costs money to provide clean water.

Finally a well fenced water point with animal troughs outside of the fence and strategically placed trees and pit latrines located at appropriate distances from the water point are also important success factors.

The Africa Water Bank has developed a thirty point check list for communities interested in developing a built to work and last water point. It is available on request.

The African water crisis will not be solved by foreign aid or the efforts of donors – but only by the efforts and determination of Africans. Certainly aid and donors can support Africans in addressing the crisis but it will only be resolved by Africans taking the lead actions to deal with it.

The African water crisis is just as much about looking after existing water resources as it is about developing new clean water points – and whereas aid and donors can assist in financing new water points it is up to Africans to manage and take care of the existing water resources and any new ones.

The crisis is caused by a combination of five major factors – drought caused by climate change – deforestation – pollution – poor management of existing water resources – and unsustainable population growth. It is possible to do something about four of these.

I was heartened recently to hear from three separate communities about the steps they had taken to better manage, protect and develop their water points and supply.

Each of these communities had asked the Africa Water Bank for assistance and in each case we insisted the community had to take certain steps and actions as a condition of that assistance. Each community was required to strengthen their water management committees – fence their water point – build troughs outside of the fence – commence a tree planting program – and start to collect a small water users fee from each user to pay for maintenance and development of alternative water supply systems (all had opted for ground rain water harvesting and high capacity storage with filtration as an alternative). They had to take these actions in their own right.

In each case these communities not only improved the management, maintenance and protection of their water points but also put in place processes to develop alternative and back up systems – and all at very little cost using community based leadership, know how and labor.

Each of these communities have realized that there is a great deal they can do on their own and are now looking at extending their community based actions to address other issues impacting on their local water supply including overgrazing, sewerage and agricultural pollution, deforestation, stream protection and even sustainable population levels.

It is community based actions such as these that will help address the African water crisis – actions that are led and implemented by Africans. The role of aid and donors should become one of clear support provision.