This is a phrase I hear almost daily here. And it is true. The provision of water to Kisayani has had dramatic effects. The occurrence of water borne diseases had been cut by around 50%; the value of land in Kisayani had grown by over 1000%; people walked less than 1 hour to fetch water compared to 6 hours previously; and people were irrigating crops and fruit trees generating income and increasing food security for their families.
 |
| Umani Springs |
Yet the reality is that in Kenya it is estimated 60% of people have access to safe water. In the rural areas such as where I am now, the number is closer to 40%. Kisayani is therefore fortunate to have the water supply project as are the tens of thousands of others getting their water from Umani Springs.
 |
| straight from the source |
While this post was originally supposed to be about the general picture of water in Kenya, some recent unsettling findings this past week cause me to combine the two, the former offering context.
- - -
In 1974, Kenya pledged to give each of its citizen’s access to clean water. Despite making some positive strides, the government had taken on more than they could handle and were unable to fulfil the promise. In 2000, the Millennium Development Goals (agreed upon also by Canada and all UN states) pledged that by 2015 they would half the number of people in the world without basic access to water. Again in ~2002, Kenya created a vision that by 2030 all would have access to clean water.
This was done by a complete restructuring of the water sector via the Water Act (2002) in Kenya. This is one of the central areas of focus of my project. Without boring you with the details of the 200 page legal document, the bill supposedly invests all power over the regulation, conservation and licensing of water to the Minister of Water, while also decentralizing water service provision by handing over water systems to communities and private companies—water provision and services is too much for just the government to reside over.
Yet some projects such as the Kisayani Water Project were already in the hands of community management during the restructuring phase. Once financed by a NGO, the ownership of this project and it’s management was invested in a community self-help group: the Kisayani Community Christian Development Programme (KCCDP). The project was completed in 2003 and the Water Act passed in 2002, although it is still being implemented and enforced to this day. Thus, the Kisayani Water Project was developed in a time of transition of management (and still is).
 |
| Njoki and I at the Athi River |
My research is examining the sustainability of the water project in Kisayani and the management of the spring.
At the moment, there are several evident problems indicating threats to it’s sustainability: some people who once got water no longer do; some are using water to irrigate while other have none to drink; and both the demand and population are clearly growing. One of the pressing issues that keeps coming up i is how there is less water in the pipe or/and less water from the Spring itself. In fact, the river that leads downstream of the springs has shrunk drastically. The river once had a 2-3m deep riverbed, but now is a small trickling stream. Even 4 years ago I was told one could swim in the river. This is just one of the many indicators that show the Spring is undergoing some major challenges.
At the moment, there are several evident problems indicating threats to it’s sustainability: some people who once got water no longer do; some are using water to irrigate while other have none to drink; and both the demand and population are clearly growing. One of the pressing issues that keeps coming up i is how there is less water in the pipe or/and less water from the Spring itself. In fact, the river that leads downstream of the springs has shrunk drastically. The river once had a 2-3m deep riverbed, but now is a small trickling stream. Even 4 years ago I was told one could swim in the river. This is just one of the many indicators that show the Spring is undergoing some major challenges.
While I do not have the skill or capacity to measure the flow of the Spring, I had the idea that this new water project (Mtito Andei) would by law require an Environmental Assessment which I hoped would include data on the flow of the Spring and whether or not this new project was feasible. I also have the advantage of working under my professor who had once done the Environmental Assessment for the Kisayani Project and had flow data from the 80s to the late 90s.
After weeks of hunting this document down, I finally met with representatives of the WRMA who are in charge of examining the flow of the spring and permitting allowable withdraws. They not only had the EIA report from 2009, but also a Hydrological Report of the Umani Springs done just this July. They also had the power of granting or not granting the permit to the new water project, so these reports would surely show that where was enough water since it had already been approved.
The report revealed that there was enough water; in fact the report stated there was plenty of water! It claims the current abstractions along with the new proposed project would withdraw just 6% of the total flow. This wasn’t very reassuring, however. The report done in 2001 by my professor Dr. Spaling found that the Kisayani Project along with the other projects was withdrawing closer to 60% of the total flow of the river (not 6%). Since the anecdotal evidence from the local people indicated that the spring and the river downstream was significantly less today than 10 years ago, and the fact that there was a new project much larger than any existing project, something didn’t add up.
 |
| looks like 7 |
Trying to figure out where they got their flow data from, I contacted WRMA again, who is supposed to be measuring regularly the flow of the spring. Yet, what I got from them was about 10 individual sporadic data points from 1987-2011. The data points from the 80s to 2001 confirmed the data used by my professor that the flow of the spring averaged 18.5 million L/day. Yet the data points from 2009 and 2011 somehow showed 82 million L/day (4x as much). The latest data seems to have been used by the hydrological report which showed how the total projects added to 6% total abstraction from the natural flow. No one really knows who made the measurements either, the meters at the spring were stolen long ago.
 |
| without piped water |
Furthermore, these reports are unclear on how many projects are even at the source. One report says there are two legal ones, one says 4, while WRMA people themselves say 6. My observation at the spring itself (see post from mid-sept) shows 7 individual pipelines.
 |
| with piped water |
I hope that I am wrong, and that there is plenty of water. But my assumption is that there is not enough water for all of the existing (struggling) projects let alone this new mammoth project. Perhaps the local politician for the area, happening to reside in Mtito Andei has pushed this project through to please his constituency, thereby putting at risk the spring and all communities downstream as well as all those reliant on abstractions and pipelines. I have heard it as if it were a catchphrase, that “Water is Life”. This is indeed true. The communities I have seen with water and without have been stark differences. It would be heart breaking to see this community become one without water and suffering from even more severe shortages.
I hope I am wrong about the spring.
Great work, Geoff! Love your excellent blogs. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete