Research Report

Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership

A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AUDIT OF KITUI COUNTYCliff Nyaga, University of OxfordJanuary 2019

Research Report

PHO

TO C

RED

IT: C

LIFF

NYA

GA

/UN

IVER

SITY

OF

OX

FORD

2

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 (EJordan@usaid.gov).

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 3

Table of Contents

Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Kitui County Water Audit ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Approach and Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Audit Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Opportunities for Sustainability of Rural Water Services ..................................................................................... 56

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Annex A: Kitui County Water Audit Methodology ................................................................................................ 63

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

4

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

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 5

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

6

Acronyms

CBO Community-Based Organization

DFID Department for International Development

KIMWASCO Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company

KITWASCO Kitui Water and Sanitation Company

MAWL Kitui County Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ONA A web and mobile app product for field data collection

PPP Public-Private Partnerships

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SHG Self-Help Group

SWS Sustainable WASH Systems

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

UCB University of Colorado Boulder

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

WASREB Water Services Regulatory Board

WMC Water Management Committee

WSP Water Service Provider or Water Utility

7

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

8

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 non-

equipped 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

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 9

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 non-

operational 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 m3 capacity. 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.

10

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).

Commercial Performance of Piped Schemes

Nine in 10 piped schemes administer a “per jerrycan” tariff, and users generally pre-pay for water at

the collection point using cash. A small proportion of piped schemes (5 percent) charge households

a monthly flat fee of $0.77 on average for unlimited water access. The average sales price for a 20–

22 liter jerrycan of water is $0.03, and credit sale of water to households is practiced in one-third of

the piped schemes. For tariff payment, 1 in 2 piped schemes reported that at least 40 percent of the

revenue is not collected from users due to non-compliance. A sizeable proportion of piped schemes

(42 percent) reported having an active bank account for purposes of revenue and savings

management, while 33 percent of the piped schemes do not bank revenues and entrust a committee

member with cash storage. Mobile banking is an emerging alternative embraced by 5 percent of the

piped schemes audited. The leading operational expenditure items are fuel or electricity (42

percent), salaries (36 percent), and repair and maintenance (13 percent).

Governance and Management

Eighty-two percent of piped schemes are managed by users or communities through elected

representatives or water management committees (WMCs). The typical size of a WMC is 10

elected members, and half of the WMCs represent up to 100 households or members. Generally,

the WMC has equal representation of men and women. Two in three piped schemes are legally

registered as self-help groups (SHGs) or community-based organizations (CBOs) with the

department for social services in Kenya, have formalized by-laws to regulate their conduct, and

regularly prepare minutes of their WMC meetings. Some of the cross-cutting management

weaknesses documented by the audit include failure to maintain technical performance records and

books of accounts, develop plans and budgets, and conduct regular and independent audits.

A total of 711 people are employed in the county to support operations of piped schemes. On

average each piped scheme employs two staff members to fill the common roles of kiosk attendant,

pump operator, or watchman. Sixty-nine percent of the scheme employees attained primary school-

level qualification, and less than 3 percent attained tertiary or college-level qualification. The average

monthly salary paid to employees was $42 and varied based on the role and level of education.

Opportunities for Rural Water Service Sustainability

Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) entrenches water and sanitation as a right, and

Article 21 obligates county governments to take steps to ensure they progressively realize this right.

The water audit methodology provides a low-cost and adaptable approach for other county

governments in Kenya to establish a baseline status of water services and advance service provision

in their jurisdiction areas. For Kitui County, 3,126 sources spread over an area of 24,194 square

kilometers (km2) were mapped at an all-inclusive cost of $80,000.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 11

To better promote sustainability of rural water services, Kitui and other county governments need

to: (1) integrate climate risk analysis in the selection of water source type and location for

investment to mitigate drought risks and improve service reliability; (2) explore potential benefits of

a standardization policy for technologies deployed by actors, considering that multiple brands of

equipment have been installed over time and considering the added complexity to repair and

maintain service provision; (3) build capacity of WMCs to embrace simple but essential practices and

systems of operations management to improve performance; and (4) address the widespread land

disputes that are documented and review the traditional model by WASH actors wherein “land

contribution” by communities is linked with sustainability.

Even when all the equipment is working, the water audit shows that piped schemes close operations

in the wet season because users shift to using free surface and groundwater alternatives. The

primary alternative is shallow wells, which are an unimproved source and expose users to health

risks. Use of alternative sources in the wet season also negatively impacts business viability of piped

schemes, and there is thus a need to counter these deep-rooted behavioral issues to achieve

sustainable and universal water service coverage.

Kitui County’s water strategy aims to reduce the distance covered to water source by county

households to 2 km by 2022. The water audit provides indicative figures of the average distance

covered by households for each sub-county and accentuates inequalities. There is an opportunity for

Kitui County Government to enshrine the “distance to source” metric in relevant county policies on

resource allocation and to target resources or investments in the coming years to specifically

address inequalities.

Finally, there is an opportunity to (1) establish an information management system or database to

build on the baseline information provided by the water audit and (2) design an updating mechanism

to enable cost-effective monitoring of the county water sector. For better management and

monitoring of water infrastructure, Kitui and other county governments will also need to develop

unique identification format and physical tagging of water points.

Conclusion

The audit provides an invaluable data set of key water sources and a baseline status of water services

in Kitui County. It suggests that investments in county water infrastructure have grown considerably,

but sustainability of water services remains a challenge. Non-functionality of water sources is the

main drawback to the county’s goal of ensuring that improved water and sanitation services are

available and accessible to all by 2030, as outlined in the Kenya Vision 2030 blueprint for the water

and sanitation sector.

Commissioning a database to hold the water audit data set, coupled with an updating mechanism,

will support efficient monitoring of the county water sector. Targeted support of the rural water

sub-sector is necessary to improve performance of the popular community management model. This

may include integration of public-private partnership (PPP) models of operation and maintenance

(O&M) for rural sources to amplify performance.

County governments in Kenya are tasked by the constitution with ensuring universal water service

access, and leveraging the private sector would complement their finances, technology, and expertise

in delivery of this mandate. This will require creation of better policies and incentives to attract the

12

private sector and investment of county resources to accelerate uptake of novel PPP models at

scale.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 13

Introduction

Overview of Kitui County

Kitui County is one of the 47 counties of Kenya and is located about 160 kilometers (km) east of

Nairobi City. Kitui is Kenya’s sixth-largest county, covering an area of 30,496.51 square kilometers

(km2), of which 6,302.7 km2 are occupied by Tsavo East National Park. The county topography is

generally low-lying and falls within the altitude range of 400 to 1,800 meters (m) above sea level.1

Administratively, Kitui County is further sub-divided into eight sub-counties: Kitui Central, Kitui

West, Kitui East, Kitui South, Kitui Rural, Mwingi North, Mwingi Central, and Mwingi West (see

Figure 1). Each sub-county is composed of several wards, and each ward represents several villages.

There are a total of 40 wards and 246 villages in Kitui County.2 The sub-counties, wards, and villages

are governed by appointed officers of Kitui County Government, namely sub-county administrators,

ward administrators, and administrators.

Kitui County’s population was 1,012,7093 in 2009 and was composed of a 53 percent (531,427)

female and 47 percent (481,282) male population. The county’s annual population growth rate is

approximately 2.1 percent and slightly lower than the national average population growth rate of 2.6

percent. In 2018, the county’s estimated population was 1,221,001 people. Kitui Central was Kitui

County’s most densely populated sub-county, with 238 people per km2, and Kitui East was the least

populated, with 29 people per km2. The county average was 50 people per km2. The average

household size was five people per household.

1 Kitui County Government (2013), First Kitui County Integrated Development Plan 2013–2017:

Planning for Sustainable Socio-Economic Growth and Development. 2 Kitui County Villages Act 2015, Part III. Available at:

http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/KituiCountyVillagesAct2015.pdf (Accessed June

4, 2018). 3 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2009), The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Kikanga Sand Dam in Matinyani Ward, Kitui, was audited on November 21, 2017. Photo Credit: Cliff

Nyaga/University of Oxford

14

The two main urban centers in the county are Kitui Town and Mwingi Town, which together

account for 14 percent of the county population. The remaining 86 percent of the county population

is categorized as rural.

Kitui County falls in the semi-arid climatic zone of Kenya and is mostly dry and hot, with

temperatures ranging between 14°C during the coldest months (July through August) and 34°C

during the hottest months (January through March). The maximum mean annual temperature ranges

between 26°C and 34°C, whereas the minimum mean annual temperature ranges between 14°C and

22°C. The county receives between 500 and 1,050 millimeters (mm) of rainfall annually, with average

rainfall of 900 mm a year. The topography of the landscape influences the amount of rainfall received.

The highland areas of Mumoni Hills to the north, Kitui Central, Mutitu, and Endau Hills receive 500

to 1,050 mm per year, while the drier lowlands stretching from the north (Tseikuru, Kyuso, Mwingi,

Ngomeni, Nguni, and Nuu) through the Yatta plateau, the eastern areas (Mutito and Mwitika), and

southern areas (Mutomo and Ikutha) receive less than 500 mm.4 Kitui County has two rainy seasons:

May through June (long rains) and September through October (short rains). The short rains are

more reliable and are the county’s principal productive season. The long rains usually provide about

30 percent of crop production, mainly pulses, including green grams and pigeon peas.

4 Kenya Meteorological Service (2015), Kitui County Climate Information Services Strategic Plan.

Available at:

http://www.adaconsortium.org/index.php/component/k2/item/download/51_c1737bfaf1145ef5fcf15d

d148e6b742 (Accessed June 11, 2018).

Figure 1. Map of Kenya (left) and map of Kitui County showing the eight sub-counties (right)

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 15

Devolution of Water Services in Kenya

Articles 6, 174, 175, and 176 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) created a two-tier system of

governance comprised of one national government and 47 county governments. The responsibility

to provide water and sanitation services in Kenya is now devolved and a function of county

governments. In addition, Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya entrenches water and sanitation as

a constitutional right by recognizing the right to “reasonable standards of sanitation” and “clean and

safe water in adequate quantities.” This obligation, as per Article 21, should be delivered by the

county governments and requires them to take steps to ensure they progressively realize this right.

Linked with this, the Government of Kenya is implementing its economic blueprint, the Kenya Vision

2030,5 which seeks to make Kenya a newly industrializing middle-income country providing high-

quality life for all its citizens by 2030. The blueprint, among other objectives, outlines the goal of

delivering universal access to water and sanitation by 2030 and identifies priority investments.

Kenya officially endorsed the sustainable

development goals (SDGs) in late 2016, at

which time it was already in the eighth year

of implementing the Kenya Vision 2030,

executed in five-year cyclic Medium-Term

Plans. By the time the SDGs were adopted,

the second Medium-Term Plan (2013–2017)

and the first County Integrated Development

Plan for the same period were in their third

year of implementation. Preparation of the

third Medium-Term Plan and the second

County Integrated Development Plan for the

period of 2018–2022 is complete, and these

plans have further mainstreamed the SDGs.

The Water Act (2016)6 provides the policy

framework for alignment of Kenya’s water

sector to the devolved structure of

government described in the Constitution of

Kenya and clarifies mandates of the various

national, regional, and local-level sector

institutions and actors. The Water Act

mandates county governments to establish

Water Service Providers (WSPs) and the

Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB)

to license, regulate, and maintain an

information system of water service levels

5 Government of Kenya, 2007. Kenya Vision 2030: A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya. 6 The Water Act, 2016, Part IV. Available at:

http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Acts/WaterAct_No43of2016.pdf (Accessed March 7,

2018)

Eighty-nine rock catchment sources (non-equipped)

were mapped in Kitui County. Photo Credit: Cliff

Nyaga/University of Oxford.

16

and quality, among other roles. As of 2017, 88 WSPs in Kenya were regulated by WASREB, including

two WSPs established by Kitui County Government.7

Kitui County Government owns two WSPs, Kitui Water and Sanitation Company (KITWASCO)

and Kiambere-Mwingi Water and Sanitation Company (KIMWASCO). These WSPs are licensed and

regulated by WASREB to provide water services in the county, in accordance with a set of

regulations and quality standards established by WASREB.8 However, the two WSPs currently serve

roughly one-third (390,000) of the total county population (1,221,001) due to various constraints

that include limited infrastructure coverage, inefficient operations, inadequate water resources,

urbanization, and unprecedented demand or population growth. The remainder of the county

population is partly served by rural sources or schemes that play a critical role in closing the water

access gap. These sources have been developed by different actors, including national and county

government agencies, bilateral and multilateral donors, NGOs, churches, philanthropists, and users

or communities. County-wide estimates indicate that 42 percent of Kitui County’s population has

access to at least a basic water service (i.e., time taken for a return trip to collection point is 30

minutes or less).9

Almost all small rural schemes are unlicensed and unregulated by WASREB, and availability of

information on their functionality, performance, and service quality is limited. For Kitui County

Government to develop and actualize its water service delivery goals, develop realistic investment

plans and policies, and accurately inform national-level monitoring, there is a need to shed light on

performance, impact, and the potential role of rural schemes in transforming county water service

delivery.

At the national level, WASREB is leading various initiatives to bring more rural water supply schemes

under its regulation. Key among them is a review to develop simple and relevant indicators that will

allow county governments to efficiently monitor and report to WASREB on performance of rural

schemes in their jurisdiction area. Further, in recognition of challenges with the traditional rural

water service delivery model in which operation and management of infrastructure is often left to

local communities with limited capacities, WASREB is developing public-private partnership (PPP)

models for potential adoption by county governments and sector actors to address some of the

fundamental issues and increase sustainable water service access. This may also help to bridge the

$12 billion funding gap required for Kenya to deliver universal water access by 2030.10

7 Water Services Regulatory Board (2018), Impact Report, Issue 10: A Performance Report of Kenya

Water Services Sector 2015/2016 and 2016/2017. Available at: https://wasreb.go.ke/impact-reports/

(Accessed August 1, 2018). 8 Water Services Regulatory Board (2018). Water Services Regulatory Board’s Website. Available at:

https://wasreb.go.ke/water-service-regulations/ (Accessed August 1, 2018). 9 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2018), 2015/2016 Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey,

Kenya. 10 Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources & JICA (2014), The Project on the

Development of the National Water Master Plan 2030.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 17

Kitui County Water Audit

What Is a Water Audit?

A water audit entails undertaking a comprehensive assessment of equipped sources (see Box 1)

across construction details and operation performance, including: location details, technical

specifications of parts or features, maintenance history, reliability, water quality, breakdown history,

maintenance practices, commercial performance, management, and governance structures in place.

Selected water quality parameters — namely pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS),

and temperature — are measured using a probe meter. Data collected include image files of the

water source documentation, meter reading records, and physical infrastructure.

The University of Oxford developed the water audit methodology and piloted it in Mwingi North

Sub-County in August 2016 with funding from the REACH Program.11 The audit for the remaining

seven (of eight) sub-counties of Kitui was supported by the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning

Partnership (SWS), a global United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded

initiative to identify locally-driven solutions to the challenge of developing robust systems capable of

sustaining water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services. Implementation of SWS is ongoing in

11 REACH is a global research program to improve water security for 5 million poor people in South

Asia and sub-Saharan Africa by delivering world-class science that transforms policy and practice.

https://reachwater.org.uk

Box 1: Definition of source types

Equipped sources

• Piped scheme: a water source (whether borehole, rock catchment, shallow well, earth dam,

or sand dam) incorporating a water distribution network and/or including pumps, tanks,

valves, meters, pipeline, kiosks, and standpipes, among other features.

• Hand pump: a well or borehole with a hand-operated pumping mechanism installed for

groundwater abstraction.

• Water kiosk: a WSP-operated or -managed kiosk that forms an extension of its network.

Non-equipped sources

• Borehole: a machine-drilled source that is not equipped, whether under construction,

abandoned, or stalled.

• Rock catchment: a reservoir created by storing runoff from a rock surface or catchment.

• Shallow well: a large-diameter, hand-dug hole in the ground for abstraction of groundwater.

It may include a bucket and rope mechanism for water abstraction.

• Earth dam: a reservoir created by excavating open ground to collect and store surface

runoff, with a pipe network installed to prevent direct drawing of water by people and/or

livestock.

• Spring: the natural flow of groundwater from an aquifer to earth’s surface, both protected

and unprotected.

• Sand or sub-surface dam: a small wall built above ground and into the riverbed of a seasonal

river to accumulate sand upstream and obstruct groundwater flow resulting in water storage

below ground level.

18

Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Cambodia by a consortium of eight partners led by the University of

Colorado Boulder (UCB).

In Kenya, SWS will be implemented over 5 years, from 2017 to 2021, by the University of Oxford,

UNICEF Kenya, and Rural Focus. This program of work aims to test, demonstrate, learn, and share

knowledge on the application of systems-based approaches to improving sustainability of rural water

services. The geography of focus is Kitui County, working in close partnership with the County

Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Livestock Development (MAWL).

Goals of the Audit

The broad objective of the water audit was to conduct an objective assessment of all major water

infrastructure and provide evidence on the status of rural water services in Kitui County. The audit

also sought to inform dialogue and consensus building on issues that need to be addressed to

achieve sustainability of rural water services.

The specific objective was to locate and map all equipped rural water infrastructure and collect

information on installation details and operational performance to inform county dialogue, planning,

policies, and investment decisions at MAWL. In addition, the audit would provide the basis for the

development of a water service monitoring system for Kitui County Government. Non-equipped

water sources, defined as sources with no distribution network or pumping mechanism installed (see

Box 1), were also audited, although less extensively compared to equipped sources.

Kwa Muithya shallow well in Mutonguni Ward of Kitui was developed by community members in 2008.

The well is unreliable during the dry season due to receding of groundwater table. Photo Credit: Cliff

Nyaga/University of Oxford.

19

Approach and Methodology

County-Level Consultations

The audit scope, tools, and work plan were developed and reviewed with MAWL and adapted prior to

commencing field work to align with Kitui County Government’s plans and needs. MAWL undertook

formal introduction of the water audit activity to relevant ministries, including the County Ministry for

Administration and Coordination, and to local county government officers to encourage their

cooperation and support of the field data collection activity.

Recruitment and Training of Enumerators

A one-tier recruitment process for enumerators involved circulation of the terms of reference, with

more than 300 applicants expressing interest. The desired threshold was a water-related diploma (or

higher) qualification; prior experience in WASH-related surveys or research, preferably in Kitui; and

proficiency in the local language, Kamba. The team shortlisted 23 potential candidates and conducted

face-to-face and phone interviews. Fourteen enumerators and two12 team leaders were then selected

and trained for 5 days, November 6–10, 2017. The first three days of the training covered the audit

purpose and approach, rural water sources and their characterization, audit tool questions, their

meaning and translation to Kamba for uniformity of understanding, and the use of the adopted mobile

field data collection platform, which integrates a web (ONA) and mobile app (Open Data Kit) product.

Participants were also trained in data management and submission using the Open Data Kit app.

A pilot exercise was conducted on day four of the training to simulate the actual field data collection.

For logistical convenience, training and piloting were both done in Mwingi North (Kyuso Ward), and the

group of 16 enumerators was split into two, with eight enumerators in each group. Each group visited

three different water source types and conducted interviews with the WMCs (for piped scheme

sources) and users if available on site (for kiosks, hand pumps, and non-equipped sources). On day five,

all data collected in the pilot exercise were reviewed and several changes made to the audit instrument

to accommodate all emerging issues and enumerator feedback.

Field Data Collection

Field data collection kicked off on November 13, 2017 with three field teams of 4 to 6 enumerators

each. Team A, with six enumerators, covered Mwingi Central, Kitui East, and Kitui South Sub-Counties.

Team B, with four enumerators, covered Mwingi West and Kitui Rural Sub-Counties. Team C, with four

enumerators, covered Kitui West and Kitui Central Sub-Counties.

12 A third team leader, also part of the audit team, was a staff of the SWS program and did not require

recruitment and training.

20

Each team was headed by a team leader with a

minimum of an undergraduate degree

qualification whose daily role included logistics

management, pre-arranging audit meetings with

WMCs for piped schemes, data quality control,

including checks for completeness, and

managing online submission of completed audit

forms. A project manager was responsible for

the overall audit exercise; their primary role

was to provide technical support to field teams

if/when required and data quality control. Team

leaders pre-arranged meetings with WMCs in

close liaison with local county officers (sub-

county water officers, ward administrators, and

village administrators), who had received a

prior directive from Kitui County Government

to support the field activity. Audit meetings

would often be held at the water source site

and followed by a “transect walk” with the

WMC across the distribution network to map

and assess the condition of key infrastructure

features at the scheme in question, including

storage tanks, generators, pumps, standpipes,

valves, and kiosks.

Each enumerator was provided with a tablet

computer, a handheld GPS (where the tablet’s

GPS functionality was weak), a power bank (where the tablet battery did not last for a full day), a map of

the assigned sub-county, and stationery. Locally sourced motorcycle taxis (boda bodas) were used to

provide transport for efficient movement from one water source to another.

A daily target was set in which each enumerator was expected to audit one piped scheme and at least

five other non-equipped sources. The audit instrument for piped schemes was more detailed and

therefore longer. It required a meeting with a WMC to complete, unlike other source types. Field data

collection ended on December 23, 2017, with teams spending between 27 and 36 working days

(including Saturdays) in the field.13

13 The team that covered Mwingi West and Kitui Central Sub-Counties took 27 days to complete field

work.

WMC members for a hand pump source convene for

the water audit exercise. Photo Credit: Cliff

Nyaga/University of Oxford.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 21

Data Quality Control and Cleaning

Data quality checks were performed daily and at two levels. First, at the end of the day, the team leader

checked completed surveys in the Open Data Kit for any inadequacies before online submission to the

ONA server for web access. The team leader would also tally visited water sources against the

inventory provided by MAWL to ensure all known sources in a target village were located and audited.

The project manager would then access data submitted to ONA web on the previous day for further

quality checks. Figure 2 shows a sample report available on the ONA dashboard, which allowed for a

quick appraisal of teams and submitted data.

Submitted data were triangulated using Excel analysis, which the audit instrument was designed to allow.

Image files on ONA web (see Figure 3 below) were used to visually validate some of the discrepancies

noted, such as the wrong distinction between some of the rare hand pump types. A daily report was

provided to team leaders seeking clarification and/or specifying sources to be re-audited by enumerators

to fill material gaps if noted.

Figure 2. Sample report on the ONA dashboard providing a quick analysis of audit data

22

The final phase of data cleaning began immediately after completion of field data collection. In general,

this involved deleting duplicates for sources where enumerators had been sent for a repeat audit

exercise. Distinct outliers in the data set were also isolated for further verification and correction. This

process resulted in minor adjustments, especially in cases where GPS coordinates had been manually

entered due to commission errors. Eight duplicate water points were deleted from the data set in

addition to a few other corrections of individual data elements. The cleaned data were then merged

with data sets from previous audits (for Mwingi North Sub-County) to enable a comprehensive county-

wide analysis.

Water Audit Limitations

1. The primary goal of the audit was to locate and assess major water infrastructure comprising hand

pumps and piped schemes. Because non-equipped sources that skirted the hand pumps and piped

schemes were targeted and mapped, it is unlikely that all non-equipped sources were found. The

“kiosk” source type represents WSP-managed infrastructure; they were not a priority for the audit

but were included following a request from Kitui County Government to provide them with an

additional layer of information.

2. The water audit covered seven sub-counties and excluded Mwingi North Sub-County, where a

similar exercise was conducted in 2016 (for piped scheme sources) and 2011 (for hand pump

sources). Data sets collected from these different periods were updated with the available

information and merged for analysis to provide the county-wide picture included in this report. For

some of the metrics, required information was not available for updating.

Figure 3. Photo menu of ONA web showing image data submitted by enumerators

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 23

3. The Mwingi North Sub-County data set that was collected in 2011 and 2016 and is included in this

analysis is composed of equipped sources only (i.e., piped schemes and hand pump source types).

However, for the remaining seven sub-counties, key findings on both equipped and non-equipped

sources (see Box 1) are reported.

4. The water audit data were collected in greater detail for piped schemes than any other source type,

mainly because they comprise the key infrastructure in rural geographies providing safe14 drinking

water to rural households. Piped

schemes also serve relatively more

people than point sources, and the

water audit sought to provide

empirical evidence to support

planning and investments by the

county WASH actors in

development, operation,

maintenance, and monitoring of

this type of infrastructure.

5. Information on piped schemes was

sourced primarily through

interviews with WMCs and

scheme operators and, where

possible, by inspection of scheme

records. In many cases,

construction and operations

records were either unavailable or

limited, and enumerators

frequently relied on self-reporting

by WMCs to fill gaps. Accordingly,

it is important to recognize that

this may have increased the risk of

bias or inaccuracy of some of the

responses or data collected and

reported.

14 The nature of piped scheme construction prevents outside contamination. A few of them incorporate

basic water treatment, mainly sedimentation and chlorination.

Water from piped schemes is supplied to households through

multiple collection points, mainly water kiosks and standpipes.

Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.

24

Audit Results

Water Sources, Distribution, and Coverage

Figure 4. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources located mapped through the water audits

in 2011, 2016, and 2017. The map is not exhaustive because it is likely that more non-

equipped sources have been installed but were not located.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 25

The combined water audits have located and mapped 3,126 water sources to date, spread across Kitui

County (see Figure 4). Non-equipped sources are predominant, followed by equipped sources. Among

the equipped sources, hand pumps comprise the most installed infrastructure in the county at 22

percent (687), followed by piped schemes at 15 percent and water kiosks at 9 percent. The water audit

mapped 274 KIMWASCO- and KITWASCO-managed water kiosks, of which 3 in 5 are located in

Kitui’s two urban sub-counties (Mwingi Central and Kitui Central).

Across Kitui County, 454

completed piped schemes were

audited and most (357) rely on

boreholes as their water source.

Fifty distribute water from rock

catchment sources, 20 depend

on spring sources, 16 depend on

shallow wells, and 6 piped

schemes supply surface water

from earth dam sources. The

remaining 11 piped schemes get

water from multiple sources, a

combination of a sub-surface

dam (or sand dam) and

river/stream source or an earth

dam and a river/stream source.

A total of 687 hand pumps were

mapped. Of these, 82 percent

were installed on hand-dug wells

(wide diameter) while 18

percent were installed on

machine-bored boreholes.

Boreholes, 52, 2%

Earth Dams, 613, 19%

Handpumps, 687, 22%

Piped Schemes, 460, 15%

Rock Catchments, 89,

3%

Sand Dams, 655, 21%

Springs, 28, 1%

Shallow wells, 268, 8%

Kiosks, 274, 9%

Figure 5. Distribution of water sources mapped by type, number,

and proportion of the total 3,126 sources

26

Table 1. Number of water sources mapped by type, and their distribution by sub-county

Among all non-equipped sources, sand dams (21 percent) comprise the most installed infrastructure,

followed by earth dams (19 percent), shallow wells (8 percent), rock catchments (3 percent), boreholes

(2 percent), and springs (1 percent), as indicated in Figure 5.

Fifty-two non-equipped boreholes were mapped in the audit, 22 of which were under construction,

while the remaining 30 were drilled and abandoned. This occurred for various reasons but was mainly

due to a lack of funds to complete installation, low yield (inadequate source), and water quality-related

issues such as reported colored water and high salinity. Almost all springs (26 out of 28) are located in

four sub-counties of Kitui: Kitui Central, Mwingi Central, Kitui East, and Mwingi West. An additional 20

spring sources with water distribution infrastructure installed were documented but are categorized

under piped schemes in line with the definitions used in this report.

By geographical spread, Figure 6 shows that most water infrastructure is installed in Mwingi Central (17

percent), Kitui South (15 percent), and Kitui Rural (15 percent) Sub-Counties.15 The types and number

of sources in each sub-county vary widely, as detailed in

15 Data for Mwingi North was collected in 2011 and 2016 and captures information related to hand

pump and piped scheme sources only.

Sub-County/

Source Type

Kitui

Central

Kitui

East

Kitui

Rural

Kitui

South

Kitui

West

Mwingi

Central

Mwingi

North

Mwingi

West

Grand

Total

Boreholes 3 5 8 5 2 16 4 9 52

Earth dams 31 77 61 142 71 147 2 82 613

Hand pumps 71 94 114 87 81 95 78 67 687

Piped schemes 35 62 36 97 37 68 49 76 460

Rock

catchments

13 3 36

22

15 89

Sand dams 36 77 176 73 74 64

155 655

Springs 12 5 1 1

4

5 28

Shallow wells 52 41 49 22 39 51 1 13 268

Water kiosks 96 7 19 15 56 68

13 274

Total 336 381 467 478 360 535 134 435 3,126

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 27

.

Reliability of water sources is a key issue stemming from a climate-related lack of year-round availability

of water at sources mapped. An analysis of the 1,132 dams and ponds mapped shows that 1 in 2

dams/pans do not supply water throughout the year (see Figure 7). This is more pronounced for surface

dams (rock catchments and earth dams), compared to sub-surface dams or sand dams.

11%

12%

15%15%

12%

17%

4%

14%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Kitui

Central

Kitui East Kitui

Rural

Kitui

South

Kitui

West

Mwingi

Central

Mwingi

North

Mwingi

West

Pro

rport

ion (

%)

Num

ber

of So

urc

es

Sub-Counties of Kitui

Distribution and the proportion of all water sources mapped by sub-counties

of Kitui (n=3,126)

Earth Dams

Sand Dams

Handpumps

Piped Schemes

Rock Catchments

Shallow wells

Boreholes

Springs

Kiosks

Proportion, out of

the 3,126 sources

Figure 6. Distribution of the 3,126 water sources mapped by sub-county

28

A detailed analysis of rainfall anomalies for Kitui County was performed using CHIRPS — a quasi-global

(spanning 50°S–50°N and all longitudes), high-resolution (0.05°) precipitation data set from 1981 to

present — to create rainfall trend analysis and seasonal drought patterns. Figure 7 (left) affirms that

there is a high inter-seasonal rainfall variability and extreme drought risk in the eastern and southern

parts of the county (deep brown patches). When layered with infrastructure mapped during the audit

85

330

52

562

69

313

180

338

17

150171

147

0

8760

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

All Dams Rock Catchments Earth dams Sand Dam

Is water available at the source (dam/pond) all year

round? (n=1132)

Don’t Know No No response Yes Don’t

Know

7%

No

50%

No

respo

nse

30%

Yes

13%

Is your dam/pond reliable

all year round? (n=1132)

Maps of Kitui showing rainfall variability (left) and infrastructure distribution (right), including the

longitude (x-axis) and latitude (y-axis) to indicate location.

Figure 7. Kitui seasonal rainfall anomalies (left) and distribution of infrastructure (earth dams, hand pumps, and

rock catchments) developed over time (right). Adapted from Ellen Dyer (University of Oxford),

Reach Program, 2018.

Figure 8. Reported annual reliability of surface and sub-surface dams

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 29

(right), the analysis suggests that surface water sources (i.e., rock catchments, earth dams, and hand

pumps) have been constructed in areas of sequential dry periods. These sources are vulnerable to

ensuing climate extremes and are rendered unreliable during dry periods; it is therefore paramount for

Kitui County Government and its partners to ensure that future infrastructure investments consider

such definite drought risks.

Functionality of All Sources Mapped

The water audit sought to establish functionality of each source mapped, this being one of the key

performance indicators used in the sector to ascertain quality of the water service accessible to users.

Functionality was defined using the following criteria: (1) full functionality, (2) partial functionality for

sources that are broken but working sub-optimally, and (3) non-functional status for sources broken and

not working at the time of the audit. Figure 9 shows operation status registered on the day of the water

audit, with 60 percent of all water sources in

Kitui County fully functional and 40 percent

either partly working (15 percent) or not

working at all (25 percent).

Functionality varies by the type of source (see

Figure 10) and by administrative unit (see Figure

11). Generally, the highest functionality was

recorded for springs (89 percent), perhaps due

to the rudimentary maintenance skill required

for this source type, while a high non-

functionality was recorded for water kiosks16

(68 percent), hand pumps (55 percent), and

piped schemes (44 percent), all of which are

sources that are mechanized or incorporate

water distribution infrastructure.

16 No audit meetings were pre-arranged for WSP-managed kiosks. It is possible that the reported non-

functionality was partly associated with closure or lack of demand due to rains in the audit period.

Operational

60%Partly

operational

15%

Not

operational

25%

Figure 9. Functionality status of all water sources

mapped on the day of audit

30

Mwingi North and Kitui South Sub-Counties lead in terms of the proportion of sources that are

operational, whereas Mwingi West and Kitui Central lag behind all other sub-counties. One possible

contributing factor for Mwingi North’s accomplishment may be the FundiFix model,17 a PPP initiative led

by the University of Oxford and UNICEF Kenya in partnership with Kitui County Government to

address the functionality of rural water infrastructure. FundiFix is an insurance-based model that has

provided repair and preventive maintenance service to local communities and institutions managing

piped schemes and hand pumps since 2016. The FundiFix model works by incubating county-based

enterprises to provide the maintenance service — and in turn deliver year-round functionality — for

reliable water access to rural communities, schools, and health facilities. At scale, the model offers an

alternative pathway for Kitui and other county governments in Kenya to rapidly achieve universal

drinking water service coverage.

17 A rural PPP model for maintenance of rural water services, by the University of Oxford and UNICEF

Kenya, under incubation in Kitui County and that worked in Mwingi North at the time of the audit. For

more information: http://www.oxwater.uk/model.html or www.fundifix.co.ke.

76%

45%56%

63%76%

89%

59%

32%

15%

17%

15%

29%14%

11%

11%

16%

8%

38% 28%

6%8%

0%

28%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Earth Dams Handpumps Piped

Schemes

Rock

Catchments

Sand Dams Springs Shallow wells Water Kiosks

Functionality by water source type (n=3,126)

Operational Partly operational Not operational

Figure 10. Functionality of all water sources mapped on the day of audit by source type

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 31

County WASH Partners and Investments

The 3,126 water sources mapped represent investments in the county water sector dating back to 1952

by a diverse range of actors comprised of government, NGOs, multilateral and bilateral donors,

churches, private philanthropists, and local communities. For 20 percent of the sources mapped,

development of infrastructure was financed through a collaborative effort of two or more organizations.

50% 64% 60% 67% 62% 60% 72% 55%

28% 26% 28% 21% 20% 28% 21% 18%

336

381

467478

360

535

134

435

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%K

itui C

entr

al

Kit

ui Eas

t

Kit

ui ru

ral

Kit

ui South

Kit

ui W

est

Mw

ingi

Centr

al

Mw

ingi

No

rth

Mw

ingi

West

Tota

l So

urc

es

(no)

Funct

ional

ity

(%)

Name of sub-County

Functionality of all sources by sub-county (n = 3,126)

Operational Partly operational Not operational No of sources

Figure 11. Functionality status of all water sources mapped and counted by sub-county

32

By number of sources, NGOs are the leading investor (37 percent) in Kitui County water infrastructure

development (see Figure 12). Key players include CARITAS, AMREF, World Vision, German Agro

Action, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, Anglican Development Services, Sahelian Solutions

Foundation, Africa Sand Dam Foundation,

Dorcas Aid, ACK Church, LDS Church,

Samaritans Pulse, and Action Aid. For this

analysis, churches and foundations that have

supported infrastructure development are

categorized under NGOs. Bilateral and

multilateral programs (e.g., the National

Agriculture and Livestock Extension Program)

were quoted in 11 percent of the sources

mapped and include JICA, Germany, GIZ, GTZ,

Kfw, USAID, DANIDA, the European Union,

Italy, Egypt, UK Aid, the World Bank, UNICEF,

World Food Program, and the Food and

Agriculture Organization. It is worth noting that

the analysis was based on reported details by

WMCs and site branding because records were

not available for verification in most cases. It is

therefore likely that more bilateral donors than

reported here have invested in the Kitui County water sector, as they constitute the primary source of

grants for NGOs. Communities or users and individual philanthropists have financed development of 10

percent of the sources — mainly shallow wells, earth dams, and hand pumps — in most instances with

co-funding from other partners.

National and county government agencies — including MAWL, Tanathi Water Service Board,18 Water

Sector Trust Fund, National Drought Management Authority, National Water and Pipeline

Corporation,19 a former national ministry of Arid Lands and Northern Development, and the

Constituency Development Fund — funded the construction of 23 percent of all infrastructure audited.

Investors or donors who supported infrastructure development were not known for 19 percent of the

sources, and even where this information was provided, documentary evidence was in most cases not

availed by WMCs for validation. The private sector is predominantly involved in construction of new

water infrastructure in the county through contracting and employed by the above-mentioned funders.

Private sector involvement in one-off rehabilitation and repair works was also documented, although at

a relatively small scale. An emerging thematic area for the rural sector is how to attract private sector

enterprises in the repair and maintenance space to principally increase functionality of water

infrastructure. For Kitui County, FundiFix (through a local social enterprise, Miambani) is one such

model that is already serving this market.

18 In transition to become a Water Works Development Agency in line with the Water Act (2016). 19 In transition to become a National Water Storage and Harvesting Authority in line with the Water

Act (2016).

Miltilateral

/Bilateral

11%

Community

10%

Don’t

Know

19%

Government

23%

NGO

37%

Figure 12. Kitui County investors by number of water

sources developed

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 33

An analysis of capital investment data for both equipped and non-equipped sources dating back to 2000

shows that by number of sources, piped schemes, earth dams, and shallow wells dominate the

infrastructure developed between 2000 and 2017. The leading financier has been the government and

NGOs, with the exception of shallow wells, where communities have been more actively involved (see

Figure 13). By value of investment, Figure 14 suggests that piped schemes account for more than half (62

percent) of the total investment (unadjusted) in water infrastructure made over the same period,

followed by earth dams.20

Investment data for piped schemes were collected in two phases. In the first phase, enumerators

interviewed and examined scheme documentation with WMCs as part of field data collection for the

water audit. Gaps were identified following analysis of the data, and the second phase involved

contacting the different actors reported to have financed development of piped schemes of interest (i.e.,

NGOs, donors, government agencies, etc.) to obtain information on the accurate cost infrastructure

development. The first round yielded factual and estimated cost data for 12 and 77 piped schemes,

respectively. Follow-up with the various organizations yielded correct data for 74 piped schemes. Data

sets from both phases were consolidated to provide an accurate record of the 86 (19 percent) piped

schemes analyzed in this report.

20 Investment or construction cost data were available for 212 earth dams, and supporting documents

were unavailable for validation purposes.

12

%

23

%

5% 8

%

5%

11

%

4%

50

%

7%

5%

27

%

2%

23

%

15

%

25

%31

% 37

%

4% 8

%

14

%19

%

34

%

17

%

62

%

51

%

EA

RT

H

DA

MS

PIP

ED

SC

HE

M

ES

SH

AL

L

OW

WE

LL

S

HA

ND

P

UM

PS

SA

ND

DA

MS

Lead ing investors in earth dams, p iped schemes , sha l low wel l s ,

hand pumps, and sand dams

Bi/Multilateral Community No Data Government NGO

Figure 13. Leading investors in leading water infrastructure installed since 2000

34

The total unadjusted capital investment of the above-mentioned 86 piped schemes, developed in Kitui

County over the period of 1950–2017, is equivalent to $5.2 million.21 Figure 15 reveals that $5.08

million (unadjusted) was invested in the 82 piped schemes developed between 2000 and 2017, and 90

percent ($4.6 million) of this investment was realized from 2011 onward. This coincides with the

decentralization of water service provision mandate in Kenya.

21 1 United States dollar (USD) = 100 Kenya shillings (January 2019).

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Cum

mula

tive

Inve

stm

ent

(USD

)

Year of Investment

Cummulative USD investment in selected water source types since 2000

Earth Dams (n=43) Handpumps (n=21)

Piped Schemes (n=82) Sand Dams (n=24)

Wells (n=44)

Figure 14. Cumulative unadjusted investment (USD) in leading source types since 2000

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 35

Equipped Water Sources

Hand Pump Sources

Detailed information was collected for 609 out of the 687 hand pumps mapped in the audit.22 The data

suggests that the Afridev hand pump type is dominant (86 percent), followed by the India Mark II23 hand

pump type (7 percent). Variants of the Tara pump (eight in total) and the Tany pump (three in total)

were found and mapped; however, these hand pumps exhibited a high non-functionality rate of 75

percent and 100 percent, respectively. It was not possible to identify 5 percent of the hand pumps on

the day of audit24 due to missing super structure.

Most hand pumps (87 percent) are managed by user communities through WMCs and are formally

registered with the government of Kenya as community-based organizations (CBOs) or self-help groups

(SHGs). Seven percent of the hand pumps are privately owned or managed, and local institutions (i.e.,

schools and health facilities) manage 2 percent of the hand pumps mapped. Privately owned or managed

hand pumps exhibited a higher functionality measure compared to those managed by users or

communities (i.e., CBOs or SHGs) and schools (see Figure 16).

22 In total, 687 hand pumps were mapped by the combined audits. 23 This also lumps several India Mark II extra-deep well type hand pumps mapped in the audit. 24 Theft or vandalism of surface parts was the main reason for missing hand pump super structure and,

in a few instances, safe storage by community members following a breakdown.

5 6 7 10 11

13 17

23

31

44

61

84 86

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2009

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Cum

mula

tive

no. of pip

ed s

chem

es

Cum

mula

tive

Inve

stm

ent

(USD

)

Year of Investment

Unadjusted USD investment in piped schemes (n=80)

Cumm. Investment Cumm. Piped Schemes

Figure 15. Cumulative unadjusted USD investment made in piped schemes from 2000 to 2017

36

Generally, as shown in Figure 17, pump rods (32 percent), foot valves (28 percent), and rising main pipes

(31 percent) constitute the most broken parts in non-operational hand pumps. Even when the pumping

or mechanical system is working, 2 in 3 hand pumps supply water reliably (i.e., all year round) and the

remaining 32 percent experience dry periods due to decreased groundwater flows, especially in the dry

season period from July to September (see Figure 18).

40%33%

77%

36%

19%

11%

16%

9%

41%56%

7%

55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

CBO/SHG Other Private owner School

Funct

ional

ity

Stat

us

& L

eve

l

Management/Ownership option

Functionality of hand pumps by management model (n=600)

Operational Partly operational Not operational

Figure 16. Functionality of hand pumps across the different management options documented

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 37

21%

24%

24%

31%

24%

27% 28%

27%

32%

25%

18%

25%

19% 2

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Fai

lure

rat

e (

%)

Hand pump features/parts

Poportion of non-operational hand pumps by the reported broken part on

the day of audit (n=223 )

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Pro

port

ion r

elia

ble

/unre

liable

(%

)

Month of the year

Proportion of hand pumps with reliable (or unreliable) water supply by

month, in an average year (n=195)

%Reliable %Unreliable

Figure 17. Leading cause of mechanical breakdown in non-operational hand pumps registered

Figure 18. Dry periods for the 32 percent of hand pumps that reported unreliable supply

38

Piped Scheme Sources

The water audit mapped 460 piped schemes, 454 with construction completed and six under

construction at the time of the audit. The latter have been excluded from the results.

Technical Performance

Energy sources: The majority of piped scheme sources rely on pumping (79 percent), either full or

partial, for distribution of water to users. The main sources of energy for pumping documented were

generators (53 percent) and solar energy (23 percent), as shown in Figure 19. Hybrid sources of energy

combining a primary and a backup power source were encountered in 13 percent of the piped schemes.

Over 30 generator brands and over 16 solar module brands have been installed in Kitui County, based

on documented evidence from the water audit.

For pumped and combined flow piped schemes, performance of the pumping technology adopted was

examined by juxtaposing the different options with functionality level. Figure 20 shows that hybrid-

powered piped schemes (i.e., those that use a combination of a generator with a grid or solar power

source) and grid-powered piped schemes recorded higher functionality levels than pure generator and

pure solar-powered schemes. In addition, pure solar-powered piped schemes recorded a higher

functionality rate (61 percent) compared to pure generator-powered schemes (55 percent). However,

fewer pure solar-powered piped schemes were operational compared to hybrid-powered schemes,

suggesting that augmentation of the power supply of a piped scheme by introducing an alternative or

backup power supply may have a positive outcome on functionality.

The analysis above does not attempt to simulate the implication of capital expenditure and operating

expenditure of respective energy technologies on functionality due to insufficient data. It is therefore

important to consider financial sustainability in selection of an appropriate energy source. Further

37%

21%

42%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Pum

pin

g+

Gra

vity

Gra

vity

flo

w

Pum

pin

g

Proportion of pumped, gravity, and

combined flow schemes (n=454)

53%

8%4%

11%

23%

1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Gense

t

Gense

t+G

rid

Gense

t+Sola

r

Gri

d

Sola

r

Sola

r+G

rid

Win

dm

ill

Common sources of power for

pumped piped schemes (n=355)

Figure 19. Water distribution pressure for piped schemes (left) and

the primary energy source(s) in pumped schemes (right)

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 39

studies are also needed to conclusively quantify influence of the different energy sources or pumping

technologies on the functionality of piped schemes.

Figure 20. Operation status of piped schemes by the energy sources used for water pumping

Water storage: Storage tanks are an important feature in a piped scheme; their purpose is to allow

low-cost water distribution by gravity, provide supply buffer in periods of peak demand, and guarantee

short-term water supply during a network outage. The 450 piped schemes with complete data available

accounted for over 28,000 cubic meters (m3) of installed storage capacity in 831 storage tanks. This

translates to an average storage of two tanks, of 33 m3 capacity each, installed in each piped scheme.

Concrete and masonry material tanks accounted for 76 percent of the total installed capacity, plastic

tanks accounted for 16 percent, and steel tanks accounted for 8 percent. In terms of volume, 90 percent

of the installed storage was in good working condition on the day of the audit, and the remaining 10

percent had fallen into disuse due to breakdown of the tank and, in limited cases, inadequate water

pressures impeding flows in some sections of the distribution network. In terms of number of tanks,

plastic or polyethylene material tanks manifested a higher failure rate compared to tanks of other

material. The leading cause of failure for plastic tanks was breaching or cracking.

Metering: Regular monitoring of water distribution in a WSP is an important element of ensuring

prudent management of the service. Information on volume of water abstracted and distributed to users

may guide WSP managers in quantifying supply and demand, capturing wastage or losses, prioritizing

investments, and improving billing practices. In this regard, the water audit located and mapped 235

production meters and 3,179 user meters (for schools, clinics, kiosks, standpipes, and households), all

installed and functional for the purposes of monitoring the water service. Overall, a metering ratio of 50

percent was recorded for production points and 76 percent for consumption points. For the latter, yard

15%11%

16%20%

8%

55%

61%

69%64%

83%

30%28%

16% 16%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Genset Solar Grid power Genset+Grid Genset+SolarPro

pro

tion o

f pip

ed s

chem

es

(%)

Energy source for pumping

Functionality status of piped scheme across the main sources of energy used

(n=323)

Partly Operational Operational Not operational

40

or household connections (85 percent) and clinics (83 percent) reported the highest metering levels,

while community standpipes (19 percent) and kiosks (59 percent) were the least metered. On the day of

the water audit, WMCs in just 10 percent of the piped schemes produced a record of their monthly

meter readings, albeit with gaps, while 67 percent of the schemes did not keep a record of meter

readings at all. This implies limited management of operations data and their application in decision

making. In a rural piped scheme context, the WMC is ideally responsible for overseeing scheme

operations, including reading of meters to effectively account for water abstraction, sales, and losses;

however, the water audit findings suggest that this is not being done.

Novel technologies for monitoring water usage have emerged and give greater focus to improving

accuracy of information and automation to enable remote and real-time access to information. “Water

ATMs” are an example of such technologies and allow high-frequency monitoring of both volumes and

revenues, relevant to both rural and urban water supply contexts. A water ATM is an automated water

vending machine that works like a regular bank ATM, the main difference being that it provides water

instead of money. Water ATMs dispense water to users based on prepaid tariffs and are installed at

public water points such as kiosks or standpipes to achieve varied objectives, including accountability,

increased water sales revenue, low operation costs, reduced non-revenue water, among others. A

University of Oxford research team developed a Water Data Transmitter25 that measures volume of

water dispensed by a hand pump and transmits the data, via a global system for mobile communication

network, to a bespoke online dashboard on which a hand pump breakdown can be flagged and

functionality validated, supported by background analytics. More than 1,000 water data transmitters have

been installed in rural Africa and Asia and continue to support rural water service design and delivery to

local communities and schools. Sweetsense is an Internet of Things company that has also developed

sensor technology26 to support performance or functionality monitoring of borehole-type sources,

linked to a user interface. Such technologies may augment traditional metering technologies and provide

richer empirical evidence to support policies and design of robust institutions for rural water

sustainability.

Infrastructure performance: The audited schemes provide water services through 2,961 household

connections, 649 water kiosks, 317 connected schools, 182 standpipes, and 48 connected health

centers. For the partly-operational and non-operational piped schemes, the audit sought to establish

specific infrastructure components that were broken. Figure 21 confirms that pipe networks (17

percent), generators (13 percent), boreholes27 (12 percent), pumps (10 percent), and storage tanks (10

percent) constitute the most broken infrastructure. Other noteworthy issues that disrupt scheme

operations include theft and vandalism of generators and solar pumping equipment, as well as disputes

over land ownership.

WMCs were asked to provide details of all breakdowns experienced in the last 2 years, including

duration, repair cost, who financed the repairs, type of repair, and whether or not the issue was

25 Further information available at http://www.oxwater.uk/technology.html. 26 Further information available at http://www.sweetsensors.com/our-technology/. 27 This is general and reported where communities did not have details of the specific part that was

broken.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 41

resolved. Table 2 shows that 1 in 2 piped schemes had experienced at least one major breakdown

within the 2-year period of the water audit. Further analysis of the data suggested that, in terms of cost,

scheme failures caused by pump, generator, pipe network, or storage tank breakdown are among the

costliest types of failure to resolve and expose users to shocks due to relatively high volatility (standard

deviation > $400) of repair costs (see Figure 22). Again, using a threshold of $500 to differentiate

between major versus minor repair needs, an assessment of the investment required to fix defects

observed by enumerators on the day of audit indicates that 58 percent (261) of the piped schemes

required over $500 to fix outstanding defects, while 28 percent (129) of the piped schemes required

less than $500 to return to “normal” working condition. Just 14 percent (64) of the piped schemes were

in good working condition and required no rehabilitation or repairs.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

No o

f Pip

ed S

chem

es

Number of piped schemes against infrastructure components

(n=406 - 428)

Broken Functional

Figure 21. Reported broken features in partly-functional and

non-functional piped schemes on the day of the water audit

42

Table 2. Number of major breakdowns recorded in piped schemes in 2 years

Breakdowns in the Last 2 years Number of Piped Schemes Total Breakdowns

0 160 0

1 195 195

2 40 80

3 7 21

4 3 12

7 1 7

Piped schemes (n) 406

Mean breakdowns in 2 years 0.8

394

-

177

-

1,279

438

-

290

470

1,867

148

429

85

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Std D

ev.

(Ksh

)

Tota

l C

ost

of R

epai

rs

Major piped scheme failures reported in 2 years

Total USD cost and standard deviation for major repairs completed in 2 years

(n=82)

Sum of Cost of Repair

STD Dev

Figure 22. Reported cost of major repairs completed in 2 years and the volatility of repair costs

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 43

Repair duration and maintenance practices: Nine in 10 piped schemes do not store spare parts

for regular repair and maintenance; those that do typically stock pipes. Overall, Kitui County

Government (both the sub-county and head office) is the most active entity involved in fixing

breakdowns in 32 percent of the piped schemes, followed by local technicians in 30 percent of the piped

schemes28 (see Figure 23). In terms of the magnitude of breakdown, the county government is typically

active in fixing major breakdowns, while local private technicians and scheme employees are commonly

active in the repair of minor breakdowns. The rule of the thumb in the sector has been that tariffs

charged by rural schemes should at least cover the costs of system repair and maintenance while

government complements this with support for assets replacement and network extension. However,

government activity was also documented in minor repairs, although marginally, in 1 in 5 piped schemes.

Based on self-reported timelines, 1 in 4 breakdowns experienced in the 2 years of the audit were

resolved within 7 days. It took up to 30 days to resolve 46 percent of all breakdowns reported by piped

schemes (see Figure 24). The downtime varied based on the type of failure; generally, pipe network and

vandalism-related failures took a shorter time to fix (169 and 159 days, respectively, on average)

compared to pump failures, which took the longest time to fix (352 days on average).

28 Analysis is based on 250 piped schemes for which the most recent infrastructure breakdown had been

resolved.

23%

5%

4%

30%

1%

1%

19%

3%

1%

1%

9%

1%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

County Govt - Water Dept

NGO/Donor

National government

Local technician

Local technician, sub-County govt

MCA/Politican

Other

Scheme plumber

Scheme plumber, County govt

Scheme plumber, Local tech

sub-County govt

Constituency dev. fund

Water utility

Who s

olv

ed t

he las

t bre

akdow

n

No. of piped schemes (n=159)

Figure 23. Actors involved in fixing the most recent breakdown in piped schemes

44

The audit also sought to establish whether preventive maintenance of infrastructure is a norm for rural

piped schemes, and the results show that 4 in 5 piped schemes regularly carry out at least one

preventive maintenance task. Figure 25 suggests that commonly performed tasks are pipeline inspection

for bursts or leaks (61 percent) and storage tank inspection (63 percent). Tasks performed by fewer

schemes include monitoring pump meters or gauges, pump maintenance, solar equipment cleaning, and

generator maintenance.

25%

21%

14%12%

10%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1 to 7 8 to 30 31 to 90 91 to 180 181 to 365 >365

Pro

port

ion o

f fa

ilure

s fixed (

%)

Number of Days

Downtime (days) for all failures reported by piped schemes in the 2 years to the

audit (n=240)

All failures

21%8%

23%14% 12%

61%

38%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Gense

t Se

rvic

ing

Sola

r C

lean

ing

Inpect

ing

Pum

phouse

for

defe

cts

Pum

p s

erv

icin

g

Read

ing

pum

p

gauge

s/m

ete

rs

Pip

elin

e

insp

ect

ion

Mete

rs

insp

ect

ion

Tan

ks

insp

ect

ion

Proportion of piped schemes by maintenance tasks done (n=451)

Figure 24. Downtime for all failures reported by piped schemes during the audit

Figure 25. Common preventive maintenance tasks done in rural piped schemes

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 45

Reliability of water service: One in 5 (23 percent) piped schemes close operations at certain times

of the year, mainly due to low user demand in the rainy season. Availability of free alternative sources of

water in the rainy season causes a slump in scheme revenues; respondents linked this to schemes’

inability to finance operations in such periods (see Figure 26).

For this analysis, reliability was defined as the average hours in a day that water was available for

collection at yard taps, kiosks, or standpipes when there was no breakdown. For greater accuracy, only

the data for fully operational schemes were analyzed. Reliability was derived from the number of days

water was supplied in a week and the average daily hours of water service reported by WMCs. Results

show that fully operational piped schemes supplied water for 9.1 hours every day at the time of the

audit. Performance in this metric varied by sub-county: Kitui East (10.2 hours per day) and Kitui Central

(10.7 hours per day) recorded the highest reliability, while Kitui South (8.0 hours per day) and Kitui

West (8.3 hours per day) had the least-reliable water service in the county. These figures are unadjusted

for close-downs during the wet season.

41%

19%

0%

9%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Low demand

Lack of resources

Operator leave

Cant Afford to run Scheme

Other reason

Porportion of piped schemes that reported seasonal close-downs (n=93)

Lack of revenue

Figure 26. Leading reasons for scheme close-down at certain times of the year

46

Juxtaposing reliability with the condition

of piped scheme, as determined by

enumerators, for fully operational piped

schemes only, Figure 27 suggests that

newly constructed and well-maintained

working piped schemes provided a more

reliable service than poorly maintained

working schemes, which may underscore

the importance of maintenance in

improving quality of water services. This

analysis does not incorporate correlated

service quality indicators — such as per

capita water access — due to insufficient

data, and therefore further studies are

necessary to corroborate this inference.

Distance to piped scheme sources:

The audit sought to measure progress made by Kitui County toward achieving its goal of ensuring that

all county households have access to drinking water within 2 km. The distances reported here are not

actual or observed but rather estimated and provided by WMCs during the water audit. Results show

that at the time of the audit no sub-county had achieved Kitui County Government’s goal of providing

drinking water service within 2 km of households (see Figure 28, left). Analysis of the maximum one-way

distance travelled by households to piped scheme sources showed that the county average ranges

between 6.4 km (if we include non-operational schemes) and 6.9 km (fully operational schemes only).

There is wide intra-county variance, and the reported distance to source is lowest for Kitui West (3.4

km) and Kitui Central (3.2 km) households and above the county average in Mwingi Central (9.6 km),

Kitui South (8.1 km), and Kitui East (7.4 km) Sub-Counties. Figure 28 (right) provides the density of

piped scheme investments mapped in each sub-county, per capita and per land area, in km2. The figure

implies that the foremost sub-counties (Kitui Central, Mwingi West, and Kitui West) are the smallest in

terms of land mass and yet have the highest density of piped scheme investments per km2.

Future investments in Kitui will need to advance equity to reduce the distance travelled to the source by

households in the more expansive and sparsely populated sub-counties of Kitui. Furthermore, despite

Mwingi West Sub-County recording the highest density of piped scheme investments both per capita

and per km2, the low functionality of piped schemes (48 percent fully operational) eroded progress and

meant the sub-county ranked third, with households covering 4.8 km to the source on average. This

suggests that investment in restoration of broken piped schemes may potentially reduce the distance

travelled by users to the source.

8.8 9.3

7.3

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

New schemes Well maintaned

schemes

Poorly maintained

schemes

Ave

rage

dai

ly h

ours

of su

pply

Maintenance condition operational piped schemes

Average daily hours of water supply for

operational piped schemes, by condition

(n=253)

n=29 n=24 n=200

Figure 27. Reliability against condition of piped scheme

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 47

Water quality and uses: Of the 454 piped schemes audited, 431 (95 percent) did not treat water

before distribution to users, whereas 21 (5 percent) indicated that they practice some form of water

treatment. Commonly used water-treatment methods were chlorination (12 piped schemes) and

flocculation (6 piped schemes).29

Seventeen percent (77 piped schemes) expressed concerns over the quality of their source. The primary

water quality issues reported relate to salinity or salty taste of water (53 percent) and assumed

contamination from reports of stomach aches or diarrhea by users after drinking water from their

respective piped scheme source (14 percent). Observed teeth discoloration (1 percent) and animal

droppings in water (1 percent) were also mentioned, while 30 percent of the piped schemes did not

provide an explicit reason for their concerns.

29 It was not possible to ascertain the treatment method, if any, used by three piped schemes.

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Kitui

Centra

l

Kitui

East

Kitui

Rural

Kitui

South

Kitui

West

Mwingi

Centra

l

Mwingi

North

Mwingi

West

Grand

Total

Maximum (one-way) distance (Km) covered to

Source

County Target

-

0.00010

0.00020

0.00030

0.00040

0.00050

0.00060

0.00070

0.00080

-

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.080

Kit

ui C

entr

al

Kit

ui Eas

t

Kit

ui R

ura

l

Kit

ui South

Kit

ui W

est

Mw

ingi

Centr

al

Mw

ingi

No

rth

Mw

ingi

West

Density of piped schemes by sub-county

All PS per KM2

Working PS per KM2

All PS per Capita

Working PS per Capita

Figure 28. Maximum one-way distance (km) travelled by households to piped scheme

sources (left) and density of piped scheme investments per capita and per km2 (right)

48

The enumerators tested the water quality in piped

schemes using portable handheld meters, where

schemes were operational and a water sample

available. The following parameters were checked:

electrical conductivity (mS), TDS (ppm), pH, and

temperature (see Box 2).

Results showed that high salinity is widespread and

more profound in borehole sources. The mean TDS

for 223 piped schemes where a sample was available

was 1,190 ppm. TDS values above the threshold

(1,500 mg/l) set by the Kenya Bureau of Standards

and WASREB guidelines30 were recorded in Mwingi

North, Mwingi Central, Mwingi West, and Kitui East

Sub-Counties (see Figure 29). The water pH in 51

(24 percent) of 211 measured piped schemes fell

outside the 6.5 to 8.5 range set by the World

Health Organization and Kenya Bureau of Standards

for drinking water.

The water audit provides clues on localities where

salinity and other quality-related issues are likely to

occur; however, further studies are necessary to

spatially map out the geophysical and

hydrogeological properties of the water resource in

high resolution to support the delivery of safe

drinking water.

30 Water Services Regulatory Board (2008) Guidelines on Drinking Water Quality and Effluent Monitoring.

Available at: https://wasreb.go.ke/downloads/Water_Quality_&_Effluent_Monitoring_Guidelines.pdf.

Box 2: Water quality parameters tested

Electrical conductivity: a measure of the

saltiness of water done on a scale from 0 to

10,000 microsiemens per centimeter (uS/cm).

TDS: a general indicator of water quality that

measures the combined total of organic and

inorganic substances that are dissolved in

drinking water, in parts per million (ppm). EC

meters that also read TDS use a correction

factor that varies between 0.5 and 0.8 to

convert a quantity expressed in uS into an

equivalent TDS value expressed in ppm.

Temperature: EC of drinking water changes

with its hotness or coldness, and a higher

temperature will generally give a higher EC

reading.

pH: a measure of the relative amount of free

hydrogen and hydroxyl ions to determine how

acidic (pH of less than 7) or basic (pH of

greater than 7) drinking water is.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 49

In 4 of 5 schemes, water is used for domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, washing, and bathing) and

livestock watering. Productive uses, specifically brick making (42 percent) and irrigation (30 percent),

were also recorded in numerous piped schemes (see Figure 30) and form a significant part of rural

water use in Kitui County. These productive uses were consistently recorded across all source types,

water qualities, and tariffs. In one piped scheme, water was used for fish farming, in addition to domestic

uses.

Because of Kitui County’s semi-arid climate, low water service coverage in rural areas, and water-

intensiveness of the productive uses documented by the audit, further studies are needed to quantify the

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Kit

ui

centr

al

Kit

ui eas

t

Kit

ui

rura

l

Kit

ui

south

Kit

ui

west

Mw

ingi

centr

al

Mw

ingi

nort

h

Mw

ingi

west

TD

S (p

pm

)

TD

S (p

pm

)

sub-County

TDS (ppm) levels recorded in piped schemes by sub-county (n=223)

85%

84%

91%

91%

83%

42%

30%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Drinking

Cooking

Bathing

Washing

Livestock

Brick making

Irrigation

Other

Common uses of water supplied by the piped schemes (n=460)

Figure 29. Variation of TDS (ppm) levels across the eight sub-counties of Kitui

Figure 30. Domestic and productive water uses recorded in the audit

50

impact and trade-offs between domestic and productive water uses. As highlighted in the previous

section, limited metering and record keeping made it difficult to analyze and quantify the volumes and

value of water supplied for domestic uses, irrigation, brick making, and fish farming.

Commercial Performance

Tariffs and revenues management: Nine in 10 piped schemes administer a “per jerrycan” (most

jerrycans have a 20–22 liter capacity) charge for water sold, and users typically pre-pay using cash at the

drawing point. For livestock, the same tariff is applied and a livestock unit (goat or cattle) is often the

equivalent of a jerrycan. The average sales price for a jerrycan of water is $0.03 ($0.029 for members31

and $0.031 for non-members). A few piped schemes (5 percent) charge users a monthly flat fee of

$0.77, on average, for unlimited water access.

Based on complete and self-reported data of 216 piped schemes, representing over $60,000 worth of

monthly expenses, fuel and electricity (42 percent) and salary (36 percent) costs constitute the bulk of

rural piped schemes’ expenditures (see

Figure 31). Repair and maintenance is a

distant third at 13 percent. The 216

schemes reported capital expenditures

equivalent to $165,000 in the previous

year (2016–2017) spent on pipeline

extensions (55 percent), major repairs

(42 percent), and loan repayments (3

percent).

Reported revenue collection efficiency by

WMCs was relatively high, and 1 in 2

schemes reported collecting over 60

percent of its billed income (see Figure

32). However, credit sale of water to

households is common, as affirmed by

one-third of the piped schemes audited.

A sizeable proportion (42 percent) of

piped schemes reported having an active bank account for the purposes of revenue and savings

management and stated monthly banking of collected cash as their preferred frequency. The total savings

held in bank accounts of all 112 piped schemes that made regular savings amounted to $78,000. Notably,

one-third (33 percent) of the WMCs reported that they entrust a committee member with cash

storage, locally referred to as “mattress banking.” Mobile banking (Mpesa/Mshwari) is an emerging

savings alternative that had been embraced by 5 percent of WMCs at the time of the audit.

31 Members contributed in-kind or financially toward establishment of the SHG or CBO or toward the

development of the water source. They have voting rights, may be entitled to lower tariffs, and, in some

schemes, collect dividends.

Salaries

36%

Repairs

13%Admin

3%Allowances

5%

Fuel

42%

USD 60,000 in monthly operating

expenditures (n=216)

Figure 31. Reported key monthly expense items

in piped schemes by value

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 51

Maintaining books of accounts, preparing budgets, and conducting regular and independent audits are

not common practices. Just 1 in 10 piped schemes attempt to audit their records annually, and this was

often done informally, by fellow WMC members. The observed poor accounting for income and

expenses remains a key limitation to independent and sound analysis to ascertain scheme and sector-

level financial performance and guide sustainability measures.

Governance and Management

Nearly all (82 percent) piped schemes are

managed and operated by the beneficiary

communities, through elected

representatives or WMCs, usually set up

for each scheme (see Figure 33). The

remainder of the schemes are managed by

local institutions that include schools (8

percent), local NGOs and churches, WSPs,

and health facilities. In institution-operated

schemes, the management running the

respective institution doubles as the

scheme management. Private individuals in

Kitui County manage 4 percent of the

piped schemes, which is a significant

contribution to rural water service

provision in the county.

26%

24%

24%

13%

12%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

81-100%

61-80%

41-60%

21-40%

0-20%

Coll.

effic

iency

ban

d

Proportion of piped schemes (n=337)

Community

82%

Hospital

1%

NGO/Church

2%

Individual

4%

School

8% WSP

2%

County

Govt

0%

Who manages piped schemes? (n=452)

Figure 32. Reported collection efficiency range by piped schemes for billed revenues

Figure 33. Documented management

options in piped schemes

52

Two in three community-run piped schemes are formally registered as SHGs or CBOs32 with the

department of social services in Kenya, are guided by by-laws, and regularly prepare minutes of their

committee meetings. The typical size of a WMC is 10 elected members who represent the interests of

community members or shareholders. Generally, there is equal representation of men and women in

the WMCs for piped schemes. In operational schemes, the sitting committee had been in office for a

mean duration of 4 years at the time of the audit. One in three WMCs reported they had met once or

twice in the previous year to deliberate scheme management matters.

Figure 34 provides a distribution of all employees working in the audited piped schemes and suggests

there are at least 711 people directly employed in the schemes, the majority in community-managed

piped schemes (600), followed by schools-managed piped schemes (52).

Of the 711 employees documented, the leading employee roles observed were kiosk attendants (59

percent), pump operators (12 percent), and watchmen (12 percent), as shown in Figure 35. The average

number of employees in a piped scheme was two (range 0–20), and one employee would often assume

more than one role for small schemes. Additional roles were documented in bigger schemes, including

that of plumber, scheme manager, revenue collector, meter reader, and pipeline inspector or patroller.

The highest qualification attained by most of the scheme employees (69 percent) was primary-level

education, and less than 3 percent held tertiary/college-level or higher qualifications. This suggests a

limited ability of the rural water sector to attract highly trained professionals.

32 A legally registered group or association with membership drawn from the local level and established

to solve issues within a community. CBOs and SHGs are formally registered by the Government of

Kenya through its Ministry for Gender, Children, and Social Development.

Community , 600

Hospitals/Clinics, 3

NGOs, 7

Private

owner, 31

Schools, 52WSPs, 17

Kitui County, 1

Number of piped scheme employees (n=452)

Figure 34. Number of employees by the employing entity

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 53

The average monthly salary in the county piped schemes and for staff holding the aforementioned roles

was $42 per month, based on available data for 521 employees. This varies ($30–$100) depending on

position or role (see Figure 36). Furthermore, higher-educated scheme employees earned a higher

monthly salary on average, though still significantly lower than the set minimum wages for the relevant

occupation and skill category in Kenya,33 of between $82 per month (for a night watchman) and $133

per month (for an unskilled artisan), as shown in Figure 37.

Figure 35. Proportion of piped scheme employees occupying observed roles

33 The Labour Institutions Act: The Regulation of Wages (General) (Amendment) Order, 2017. Available at:

http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/LegalNotices/2017/LN111_2017.pdf (Accessed June 4,

2018).

59%

1%

2%

3%

1%

3%

12%

0%

12%

2%

5%

0%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Kiosk attendant

Kiosk attendant/watchman

Line patroller

Manager

Meter reader

Plumber

Pump operator

Treasurer

Watchman

Pump operator/Watchman

Kiosk attendant/Pump operator

Secretary

Revenue collector

Proportion of employees by observed roles (n = 521)

54

The typical layout of piped scheme infrastructure comprises a source, pumping equipment, pipe network

and its accessories, storage tanks, and water collection points. The water audit sought to establish

ownership of land on which these piped scheme features are built. In 55 percent of the piped schemes,

assets have been built on CBO- or SHG-owned land, while in 21 percent of the schemes, land is wholly

or partially provided by private individuals through formal or informal agreements. Regardless, these

agreements are weak, given the widespread disputes documented during the audit between the WMCs

40

48

57 60

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Primary Secondary Tertiary University

Month

ly a

vera

ge s

alar

y, U

SD

Highest education qualification attained

Mean monthly salary (USD) by education level (n=521)

$30 $39

$57

$46 $

60

$31

$59

$48

$30 $40 $46

$50

$100

$50

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fund c

olle

cto

r/w

atch

man

Kio

sk a

ttendan

t

Kio

sk a

ttendan

t/w

atch

man

Lin

e p

atro

ller

Man

ager

Mete

r re

ader

Plu

mber

Pum

p o

pera

tor

Tre

asure

r

Wat

chm

an

Pum

p o

pera

tor/

Wat

chm

an

Kio

sk a

ttendan

t/Pum

p

opera

tor

Secr

eta

ry

Reve

nue c

olle

ctor

Mean monthly salary by employee role (n=521)

Figure 36. Mean monthly salary reported by job/role in piped schemes

Figure 37. Mean monthly salary (USD) for piped scheme staff against education attained

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 55

and the land owners. In many of the noted disputes, post-agreement demands for further financial or in-

kind compensation have ensued and affected service delivery.

The commonplace approach adopted for many years by donor and NGO projects in Kenya was that the

beneficiary communities would contribute land and, at times, free labor during infrastructure

construction, while the donor or NGO would provide construction materials and technical expertise.

As a result, in instances where the community did not own any land, an individual would be approached

to “contribute” part of their land in return for free water for the life of the piped scheme. However, this

approach appears to have incentivized context-inappropriate practices such as the use of water for

irrigation, brick making, water resale, and non-payment of tariffs by the land owners and usually their

extended family members, among other malpractices. Some of the reported implications included loss of

scheme revenues and lack of resources for repair and maintenance. In extreme cases, violence led to

closure of schemes and denied affected communities access to the water service.

56

Opportunities for Sustainability of Rural Water Services

Upscaling of the Water Audit Methodology

The County Governments Act of 2012, section 104, obligates the 47 county governments in Kenya to

regularly develop integrated plans containing their medium-term priorities and comprising a 5-year

County Integrated Development Plan, 10-year sectoral plan, and a Geographic Information System-based

10-year spatial plan. The first integrated plans spanning 2013–2017 were developed by counties and

adopted toward the end of 2013. In the second round, counties sought to align plans for 2018–2022

with the Kenya Vision 2030 blueprint and the SDGs. The development process for the current

integrated plans was completed in 2018.

The water audit methodology provides an approach for Kitui and other county governments in Kenya to

inform the integrated plans development process. For WASH planning, a water audit is key to establish

the correct water service baselines and provide a basis to continually monitor implementation progress

of the various county strategy documents against goals. The information can also guide counties to set

realistic objectives in their future planning. The audit methodology, in Annex A, advocates for low-cost

mobile survey solutions for data collection and management and is easily adaptable to other counties.

The audit instrument (available upon request) is also adaptable to varying geographies with flexibility to

embody local dynamics relating to water services.

For Kitui, 3,126 water sources spread over an area of 24,194 km2 (excluding 6,302 km2 county land in

Tsavo National Park) were mapped over a cumulative period of 4 months (including preliminaries) with

a combined team of 22 enumerators and at an all-inclusive cost of $80,000. The benefits of information

Water meter for the borehole at Skyokithumbi Farmers piped scheme in Kwamutonga/Kithumula

Ward, Kitui. Photo Credit: Cliff Nyaga/University of Oxford.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 57

collected through the exercise unequivocally exceed the cost, and therefore an opportunity exists for

both national and decentralized governments to adopt, adapt, and scale up the water audit methodology.

Identification Tagging of Water Sources

The audit data set provides location information for each water source or point mapped based on the

local administrative units (including sub-county, ward level, and village level details), local name, and GPS

coordinates. A notable issue from this approach is the similarity of local names for different and even

same water source types at the lowest administrative level (same sub-location and village). For clustered

sources, e.g., those less than 10–15 m apart34 in the case of the subject audit, the GPS positions would

overlap when plotted on a map and would make on-site identification onerous, depending on the

measurement error of GPS technology used for mapping.

A unique identification format to identify each water source is proposed, which will require a county

policy on (1) a standard format for unique identification of sources, (2) physical tagging of all water

sources following the agreed identification formation, and (3) setup of an off-site catalogue to manage

water source or point information, including their assigned identity. In the subject water audit, the

source coding format “sub-county name/ward name/village name/source type initials/count, in terms of number

of sources mapped” was used and provides a starting point for the dialogue between Kitui or other

counties and their WASH actors to develop an appropriate identification policy for water sources.

Improving Operational Sustainability of Rural Water Sources

Climate risk analysis for Kitui County suggests a high intra-county variability of seasonal rainfall, with

extreme dry events more pronounced in some parts of the county than others. Coincidentally, most of

the surface water sources (rock catchments, hand pumps, and earth dams) have been built in these high-

risk areas, which exposes them to dry periods and undermines their reliability. In the future, integration

of climate risk analysis in selection of water source type and location for investment is recommended to

mitigate this aspect and deliver a more reliable water service.

Presence of multiple brands of installed equipment (e.g., in the case of generators and solar pumping

systems) suggests complexity of supply chains for parts and expertise needed to keep these diverse

technologies properly maintained and working in rural and remote contexts. A county dialogue on

potential benefits of a standardization policy for technologies installed by actors in relation to future

repair and maintenance burden of the infrastructure is paramount.

Limited record keeping and absence of or non-adherence to operation and management best practices

in piped schemes — such as stocking of spares, convening of regular WMC meetings, service monitoring

and meter reading, banking and accounting for revenues, and conducting annual and independent audits

— was noted and ultimately weakens accountability and governance systems required for good

performance of schemes and, eventually, the quality of water service provided. There is an opportunity

to continuously build the capacity of WMCs to embrace simple but essential practices and systems of

operation and management, which may increase sustainability of the rural water service in Kitui.

34 The average accuracy range recorded by tablet computers used in the audit.

58

The water audit recorded many unresolved issues in piped schemes where infrastructure was

constructed on private land. The widespread land disputes call for a rethink of the traditional model by

WASH actors, where “land contribution” by communities for water infrastructure development has

been advocated and is assumed to contribute to sustainability of the service.

Improving Consistent Use of “Safe” and Reliable Sources

Leading causes of piped scheme closure identified in this audit report are (1) mechanical breakdown of

equipment or network and (2) the wet season, which leads to low user demand for paid water due to

the availability of surface and groundwater alternatives. As shown in Figure 38, unimproved sources

(shallow wells) constitute the immediate alternative source of water for the majority of piped scheme

users, despite their high vulnerability to contamination, as well as droughts and associated health risks.

This suggests that, even when piped schemes are working, users may still switch to unimproved

alternative water sources, especially during the wet season, so that they do not pay tariffs. Other than

the adverse effects on household health and productivity, the shift to use of such alternative sources

also affects scale of operations and impacts O&M viability because many piped schemes are not able to

collect adequate revenues to cover their operation costs and end up closing operations during the wet

season. Therefore, to sustainably advance the provision of universal, safe, and reliable water services in

rural Kitui County and other similar contexts, system approaches that not only seek to deliver 24/7

functionality of infrastructure but also seek to understand and address local practices and behavioral

drawbacks are required.

15%

13%

21%

26%

13%

7%

36%

41%

P R IMARY SECONDARY

Earth Dam Piped Scheme Spring Shallow well

Proportion of piped schemes by alternative source used

Figure 38. Reported primary and secondary alternative

sources of drinking water for piped scheme users

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 59

Advancing Policy on Ensuring Water Access within 2 km of Every County

Household

The draft Kitui County Water Services Strategy aims to reduce the distance covered by households to a

water source to 2 km on average by 2022. The water audit results show that good progress has been

made, yet inequalities between sub-counties remain. The audit has provided an indicative maximum

distance covered by households to a water source in all eight sub-counties as of 2017 (2016 for Mwingi

North Sub-County), which allows the Kitui County Government to target its investments in the coming

years to specifically address this emerging issue. This will require a delicate balance to achieve both

equality and equity, as the results show that the smallest sub-counties have a higher density of piped

schemes per km2 compared to the more expansive, rural, and sparsely populated sub-counties of Kitui.

This has partly contributed to the latter lagging behind the former in terms of distances travelled by

household to source. Therefore, enshrinement of the “distance to source” metric in the relevant county

policies as part of the criteria for allocation of county resources will be a critical first step to address

this inequality.

The audit results also show that ensuring all piped schemes are working would potentially reduce the

average distance to source. As such, policies that ensure that all water infrastructures continue to

operate many years after construction may potentially insulate Kitui and other counties from non-

functionality-related erosion of water service coverage.

Enabling Rural PPPs for Water Services Delivery

The predominant community (CBO or SHG) model of operating and managing rural water

infrastructure in the county has not delivered full functionality, especially for the more complex sources

(hand pumps and piped schemes). Exploring integration of the community management model with

targeted PPPs may strengthen the capacity to resolve the high non-functionality and other issues

highlighted by the audit and may enable better sustainability of the sector. WMCs in 79 percent of the

piped schemes confirmed interest in FundiFix’s maintenance service, which implies demand for PPPs.

The FundiFix model is an example of a rural PPP based on the insurance logic that is advancing four

pillars for drinking water sustainability: (1) monitoring, (2) professional maintenance service provision at

scale, by incubating a local social enterprise, (3) sustainable finance, and (4) coordination by government.

In the FundiFix model, the community (through WMCs) and local institutions managing rural water

infrastructure enter into performance-based contracts with a locally established FundiFix enterprise for

guaranteed maintenance and repair of broken water infrastructure within 3–5 days. FundiFix has been

working in Kitui County though a local enterprise, Miambani, since mid-2016 and has seen increased

functionality of piped schemes and hand pumps. Disaggregating functionality by sub-counties is one

indication; for example, better performance of piped schemes (69 percent) was recorded for Mwingi

North (see Figure 39), coinciding with FundiFix’s presence in the sub-county. The FundiFix model has

guaranteed reliable water services for 57,000 people in Mwingi North thus far, including schools and

health facilities.

At the current scale of FundiFix’s operations in Kitui County, community or user payments are

insufficient to cover local costs of maintenance service provision. For the last 2 years, FundiFix has been

60

underwritten by a Kitui County Water Services Maintenance Trust Fund that is part of a

learning/research activity. Coincidentally, Kitui County’s Water Strategy seeks to improve service

delivery and sustainability of installed water infrastructure by reducing the repair response time from 3

months to 1 week on average by 2022. FundiFix’s results demonstrate an opportunity for the county to

build partnerships with the private sector and expedite the realization of this objective.

In addition to the FundiFix model, different private-sector-based water service delivery models aimed at

improving performance and quality of water service in rural and low-income areas have been developed

and piloted in Kenya and other countries. These include private operator/management contracts, lease

contracts, professionalized management, and delegated management contracts, among others.35 Kitui

and other county governments could consider these models to strengthen rural water service delivery.

This would allow them to strengthen focus on policy development, monitoring and regulation, planning,

and coordination roles. Engaging the private sector would also contribute to the financing strategy

adopted by many county governments of mobilizing the private sector to realize their development

targets. Accordingly, to advance universal access to safe and affordable drinking water service in rural

Kenya, a conversation is needed to (1) ascertain which PPP models are appropriate for interested

counties, (2) develop required policies and institutions to support such models, and (3) allocate smart

investments or incentives for adoption of the selected models at scale and in return for impact.

35 Water Sector Trust Fund (2017), Service Delivery Model Toolkit for Sustainable Water Supply.

Available at: https://waterfund.go.ke/publications (Accessed August 23, 2018).

49%57% 53% 57% 59% 65% 69%

48%

14%15% 19% 10%

14%11% 8%

26%

37%28% 28% 33% 27% 24% 22% 26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Kitui

Centr

al

Kit

ui Eas

t

Kitui

Rura

l

Kitui

South

Kitui

West

Mw

ingi

Centr

al

Mw

ingi

Nort

h

Mw

ingi

West

Piped schemes functionality by sub-county (n=454)

Operational Partly-Operational Not Operational

Figure 39. Functionality of piped schemes by sub-county

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 61

Water Services Information Management System

This report provides a baseline status of county water sector performance as of December 2017;

however, there is currently no systematic mechanism in place to capture and update most changes that

have happened since. For that reason, audits provide a solid basis for county governments to

commission water services monitoring systems or databases to resolve this shortcoming. A database

that is linked to an updating mechanism may ensure that the audit data set remains up to date in the

future and provide a more efficient tool for progressive tracking of changes in the sector. A simple

inaugural database capable of managing prioritized key performance indicators is proposed, to be

followed by a phased and carefully managed upgrade down the road informed by successes, challenges,

and learning from piloting. The monitoring regime adopted by the national water sector regulator,

WASREB, provides a relevant benchmark for adaption by Kitui and other counties that the database

initiative would need to align to.

The database would underpin future decision-making by county governments and their stakeholders on

water services delivery, including planning and targeting of investments especially for O&M of already-

audited sources and development of new water sources. Such networking in a unified monitoring system

may further promote collaborative behavior among stakeholders through information sharing and

possibly lead to more impactful interventions. For Kitui County, the county-led WASH forum meetings

held quarterly with stakeholders and co-facilitated by UNICEF Kenya and SWS are an opportunity to

conceptualize and operationalize the database, continually examine performance of the water services

sector, and reflect on implications in terms of what needs to change to bring about sustainability.

62

Conclusion The audit results suggest that investments in county water infrastructure have grown considerably;

however, sustainability of water services remains a challenge. High non-functionality due to

infrastructure breakdown is a principal weakness, with far-reaching implications on reliability and other

water service quality indicators.

Kitui County falls within the arid/semi-arid climate zone, and an analysis of seasonal rainfall anomalies

reveals high intra-county variability, with the implication that selection of location and type of future

infrastructure investments will need to consider the inherent risk of drought, especially for surface

water sources. For instance, earth dam sources account for the second largest investment by value but

demonstrate a high vulnerability to droughts. High salinity was recorded and appears more pronounced

in some parts of the county than others, and further studies are necessary to develop detailed water

quality maps. Incidences associated with possible contamination of sources were also reported, yet 95

percent of the piped schemes do not treat drinking water before distribution. WMC’s capacity to collect

and use operational data is limited and thus there is an opportunity for ongoing capacity building to

improve financial management, accountability, and wider governance structures. The audit findings point

to the need for continued monitoring and targeted support of the rural water sub-sector for sustainable

drinking water services to be achieved.

The audit has provided a baseline status of water services as of December 2017. Meanwhile, many

changes continue to take place. Building on the data set by establishing a monitoring system to keep this

information up to date may be the most cost-efficient way for Kitui County Government to monitor and

manage its water services sector. This would involve development of a modest database in the early

phase to ease recognition of gaps and moderate dialogue on how best to progressively fill them, with

gradual improvements informed by learning. The database would provide a basis for Kitui County

Government to coordinate all WASH actors, monitor services, and ensure that their interventions

respond to emerging evidence from sector performance reports. The reports would also inform county-

and national-level strategies, polices, and targeting of investments.

The responsibility for universal water service delivery in Kenya ultimately rests on county governments,

a formidable task requiring major financial investments. There are prospects for county governments to

leverage the private sector for finances, technology, and expertise to complement their resources.

Nationally, the Government of Kenya through the National Treasury is supportive of PPP initiatives,

having enacted the PPP Act (2013) and Regulations (2014) that established a PPP unit to provide

technical, legal, and financial support to various government agencies, including county governments, to

undertake PPP projects. In addition, the Water Act (2016) allows county governments in Kenya to

engage the private sector for water services provision through contracting, and WASREB has, through

the collaborative efforts of national WASH actors, developed alternative models for water services

delivery in rural areas. One of the promising models is FundiFix, an insurance-based PPP rural water

infrastructure maintenance that has successfully worked in Kitui County and demonstrated results.

Therefore, creating better policies and incentives for the private sector, and investing resources to

accelerate the uptake of novel models of rural water service delivery, may reinforce efforts by county

governments to deliver a sustainable drinking water service for all.

A Water Infrastructure Audit of Kitui County 63

Annex A: Kitui County Water Audit Methodology

Objectives

1. To map and audit all of the water sources in Kitui County, including equipped sources (piped

schemes and hand pumps) and non-equipped sources (boreholes, rock catchments, shallow

wells, earth dams, springs, and sand dams).

2. To collect information in adequate detail to provide:

o an inventory of rural water infrastructure components;

o baseline key performance indicators and benchmarking related to technical operations,

financial management, and governance at water supply schemes; and

o a broader understanding of existing maintenance practices and challenges.

3. To provide key information for MAWL to assist with strategic planning, investments, and service

delivery improvements.

4. To provide key information for further development of models for water infrastructure

maintenance.

Outputs

The following outputs will be produced and shared with MAWL:

1. a summary report on the county water services situation; and

2. data files on all water sources mapped and audited (Excel).

Methodology

Collaboration: The activity shall actively engage MAWL officers (county and sub-county level) and

county administration officers (at sub-county, ward, and village levels). Meetings will be pre-arranged

with the management structure of each equipped source through the village administrators and sub-

county water office. Current management (committees, school boards, and individuals) will be asked to

prepare all their available scheme documentation for the meeting to increase the likelihood of

committee members and documents being available.

For non-equipped sources, no meetings will be pre-arranged, and information will be collected from

secondary sources including on-site locals or users, village administrators, signs, and other branding

installed on site. This is in addition to geodata and imagery that will be collected by the enumerator.

Respondents: Enumerators will conduct the survey with the management team (all adults over 18

years of age), who are responsible for operation and management of the water scheme. In the case of a

committee, the chairperson, secretary, and treasurer should be present where possible. Other

committee members may be present depending on availability.

Officials such as ward and village administrators will provide a preliminary list (name, type, contact, and

history) of all known water sources in their jurisdiction area but will be discouraged from being present

during the survey to avoid bias. However, results may be triangulated using separate interviews with key

informants where necessary.

64

Confidentiality and participation: Enumerators will introduce themselves, present the objectives of

the research, and explain that the information given will be available to MAWL, as well as used for

research purposes, and that participation is voluntary. All participants will be asked to confirm their

name, position, contacts, age (>18 years), and willingness to participate. Respondents can choose to

participate anonymously.

Data collection: A digital survey tool using the software ONA will facilitate data collection and analysis

using tablets. Key information on water source, infrastructure, operations, usage, water quality,

management, and finance will be gathered from participants. Some discussion and probing may be

needed to elicit the response, and answers will be cross-checked by the enumerator for consistency.

Additional details, observations, and qualitative data will be recorded by enumerators in a notebook and

submitted as “notes” in digital form. A mapping exercise will generate a sketch map of the scheme

components and nearby alternative sources, as well as key points of interest (schools, markets, clinics,

etc.), and photos will be taken of the different infrastructure components.

Where available, and where consent is given, photos of the following documentation will be taken:

• meter readings for the past 12 months,

• financial records (income and expenditure) for the past 12 months and bank statements,

• registration certificates of management body,

• constitution or by-laws, and

• minutes of the most recent management meeting.

Water will be tested for pH, EC, TDS, and temperature parameters using handheld Hanna meters.

Staff: Enumerators recruited will be required to:

• have had formal diploma or degree training in water resources technology, water engineering,

or other related field with experience in rural water supply;

• have some experience in a community engagement or facilitation role;

• speak fluent Kamba and be familiar with Kitui County; and

• attend a 5-day training on the survey tool, including a piloting exercise.

Duration

Approximate field time to be allotted to complete the work in seven sub-counties of Kitui based on

available data is 42 days, working with 14 enumerators.

Number of schemes: The audit will cover the more than 1,348 known water sources, as per the Kitui

County Government’s inventory.

To learn more about the Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partnership, visit: www.globalwaters.org/SWS

University of Oxfordhttp://www.ox.ac.uk/Cliff Nyaga cliff.nyaga@smithschool.ox.ac.uk