Document 526 POST IMPLEMENTATION REPORT...

526 – Post Implementation Report

Oregon State University

Lela, Kenya

Lela Community Water Project

of 50

Document 526

POST IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

CHAPTER: Oregon State University

COUNTRY: Kenya

COMMUNITY: Lela

PROJECT: Lela Community Water Project

PREPARED BY

Zachary Dunn

Nicholas Kusanto

Katherine Lanfri

Sonja Michelsen

Jeff Randall (Mentor)

James Teeter

October 1, 2013

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USA www.ewb-usa.org

http://www.ewb-usa.org/



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Table of Contents

Post Implementation Report Part 1 – Administrative Information ............................................................... 4

1.0 Contact Information ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Travel History ............................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Travel Team .................................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 Health and Safety .......................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Incident Reports ........................................................................................................................ 5

5.0 Monitoring .................................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 6

6.1 Project Budget ........................................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Hours .............................................................................. 8

7.0 Project Disciplines ........................................................................................................................ 8

8.0 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 8

9.0 Acronym Definitions .................................................................................................................... 8

Post Implementation Report Part 2 – Technical Information ........................................................................ 9

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 9

2.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 11

4.0 TRIP DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 12

5.0 COMMUNITY INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 13

5.1 Description of Community ...................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Community Relations ............................................................................................................. 14

6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 15

6.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 15

6.2 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 15

6.3 Difference Between Planned and Actual Implementation ...................................................... 19

6.4 Drawings ................................................................................................................................. 20

6.5 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................................... 22

6.6 Education ................................................................................................................................ 22

7.0 MONITORING APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 23

7.1 Current project monitoring ...................................................................................................... 23

7.2 Monitoring of past-implemented projects ............................................................................... 23

8.0 COMMUNITY AGREEMENT/CONTRACT ............................................................................ 31

9.0 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................................... 32

10.0 LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................ 36



Lela, Kenya


of 50

11.0 PROJECT STATUS .................................................................................................................... 36

12.0 NEXT PHASE OF THE PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 37

13.0 PROFESSIONAL MENTOR ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 38

13.1 Professional Mentor Name and Role ...................................................................................... 38

13.2 Professional Mentor Assessment............................................................................................. 38

13.3 Professional Mentor Affirmation ............................................................................................ 39

14.0 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 40

14.1 Memorandum of Understanding ............................................................................................. 40

14.2 Well Site Land Donation Letter .............................................................................................. 42

14.3 Catholic Diocese of Nakuru Laboratory Test Report .............................................................. 43

14.4 Field Testing (Easygel Coliscan) Results ................................................................................ 44

14.5 Student Rainwater Catchment System (RWC) Survey Results .............................................. 45

14.6 Community Well Usage Survey Results ................................................................................. 46

14.7 Lela Primary School Board Building Expansion Proposal ..................................................... 47



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Post Implementation Report Part 1 – Administrative Information

1.0 Contact Information

Name Email Phone Chapter or

Organization

Project Lead Katherine

Lanfri [email protected] EWB-OSU

President Nick Kusanto [email protected] EWB-OSU

Mentor #1 Jeff Randall CH2M Hill (retired)

Faculty Advisor Dr. Lewis

Semprini OSU

Health and

Safety Officer Katherine

Lanfri EWB-OSU

Assistant

Health and

Safety Officer James Teeter EWB-OSU

Education

Lead

Sonja

Michelsen EWB-OSU

Community

Contact Charles

Olang’o Lela, Kenya

Community

Contact Paul Olang’o Nairobi, Kenya

2.0 Travel History

Dates of Travel Assessment or Implementation Description of Trip

December 14 - 29, 2009 Assessment Initial Community and Health

Assessment

June 8 - 26, 2011 Assessment Technical Assessment for Water

Source Development

July 9 - August 3, 2012 Implementation Construction of drilled well,

rainwater catchment system

June 10 - July 11, 2013 Implementation

Construction of drilled well,

assessment of previous

implementations

3.0 Travel Team

# Name E-mail Phone Chapter or

Organization Student or

Professional 1 Katherine Lanfri [email protected] EWB-OSU Student

2 Sonja Michelsen EWB-OSU Student

3 James Teeter EWB-OSU Student

4 Jeff Randall CH2M Hill

(retired) Professional



Lela, Kenya


of 50

4.0 Health and Safety

4.1 Incident Reports

Did any health or safety incidents occur during this trip? ___Yes X No

5.0 Monitoring

Project

Type

Project

Discipline(s)

Date of

Completion

(m/d/y)

Functionality Periodic

Maintenance

Demonstration of

Knowledge

Transfer 0-

50%

50-

75%

75-

100%

Water

Supply

Source

Development 7/9/12 50-75% Yes Yes



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.0 Budget

6.1 Project Budget

Project ID: 5091

Type of Trip: Implementation

Exchange Rate: 1 USD = 85 KSH

Trip Expense Category Estimated

Expenses Actual Expenses

Direct Costs

Travel

Airfare $6,500 $7,984

Taxis/Drivers $700 $311

Travel Sub-Total $7,200 $8,295

Travel Logistics

Exit Fees/ Visas $100 $200

Inoculations $300 $320

Insurance $215 $292

Licenses & Fees $0 $0

Medical Exams $0 $356

Passport Issuance $0 $ 0

Misc. (phone minutes, first aid kit,

mosquito nets) $500 $254

Travel Logistics Sub-Total $1,115 $1,422

Food & Lodging

Lodging $250 $392

Food & Beverage (Non-alcoholic) $625 $599

Food & Lodging Sub-Total $875 $991

Labor

In-Country logistical support $340 $435

Local Skilled labor $0 $0

Misc. $0 $0

Labor Sub-Total $340 $435

EWB-USA

Program QA/QC $3,675 $3,675

EWB-USA Sub-Total $3,675 $3,675

Project Materials & Equipment

Well drilling and construction $15,000 $15,047

Water quality testing $300 $871

Project Materials & Equipment Sub-

Total $15,300 $15,918

TOTAL $28,505 $30,736



Lela, Kenya


of 50

EWB-USA National Office Use:

Indirect Costs

EWB-USA

Program Infrastructure $1,225 $1,225

Sub-Total $1,225 $1,225

TRIP GRAND TOTAL (Does not

include Non-Budget Items) $29,730 $31,961

Non-Budget Items:

Additional Contributions to Project

Costs

Community

Labor $100 $35

Materials $0 $0

Logistics $150 $109

Cash $200 $0

Other $0 $0

Community Sub-Total $450 $144

EWB-USA Professional Service In-

Kind

Professional Service Hours 200 314

Hours converted to $ (1 hour = $100) $20,000 $31,400

Professional Service In-Kind Sub-

Total $20,000 $31,400

TRIP GRAND TOTAL (Includes

Non-Budget Items) $50,180 $63,505

Chapter Revenue:

Funds Raised for Project by Source Raised Before

Trip Actual Raised by

end of Trip

Source and Amount

Rotary $7,000 $7,088

Grants – EWB-USA Program $4,000 $0

Corporate Grants $0 $9,000

Individuals $5,700 $5,446

Special Events $5,200 $9,602

EWB-USA Program QA/QC Subsidy $3,900 $3,900

Total $25,800 $35,036



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.2 Professional Mentor/Technical Lead Hours

Name of Professional Mentor Pre-trip

hours During trip

hours Post-trip

hours Total Hours

Jeff Randall 40 256 18 314

7.0 Project Disciplines

Water Supply X Source Development X Water Storage ____ Water Distribution ____ Water Treatment X Water Pump

Structures ____ Bridge ____ Building

Energy ____ Fuel ____ Electricity

Information Systems ____ Computer Service

Sanitation ____ Latrine ____ Gray Water System ____ Black Water System

Civil Works ____ Roads ____ Drainage ____ Dams

Agriculture ____ Irrigation Pump ____ Irrigation Line ____ Water Storage ____ Soil Improvement ____ Fish Farm

___ ____ Crop Processing

Equipment

8.0 Project Location

Latitude: 34.398536 Longitude: -1.123123

9.0 Acronym Definitions KEBS – Kenya Bureau of Standards KSH – Kenyan Shilling (local currency)

lpcd – liters per capita per day

LWWC – Lela Women’s Water Committee

MMW – Migori Ministry of Water

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

NGO – Non-Governmental Organization

OSU – Oregon State University

WHO – World Health Organization



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Post Implementation Report Part 2 – Technical Information

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From June 10th to July 11th 2013, the Oregon State University chapter of Engineers Without Borders USA

(EWB-OSU) traveled to Lela, Kenya for the second implementation of the Lela Community Water Project

(LCWP), recognized by EWB-USA as project number 5091.

The LCWP was started in 2008 to address the lack of reliable safe water for residents of Lela. The long-

term goal of the project is to provide 15 liters per capita per day (lpcd) of water for all residents of Lela and

to meet World Health Organization (WHO) standards for water quality and access.

Located in southwest Kenya, Lela is an agrarian community of approximately 2,000 people. EWB-OSU is

currently working with Operation H2O, an NGO that focuses on well drilling and community capacity

building in Kenya, to help meet Lela’s need for clean water. During the July 2013 trip, the Lela Women’s

Water Committee (LWWC) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with EWB-OSU and

Operation H2O, affirming their commitment to managing Lela’s previously implemented and new water

sources.

The LCWP began in 2008 when the LWWC submitted a project application to EWB-USA. EWB-OSU

adopted the LCWP in 2009, and has committed to partnering with Lela through 2014. Currently, the

LCWP is the only project within EWB-OSU’s Kenya program. The first assessment trip was completed

in December 2009 (health assessment and community needs survey) which was followed by a second

assessment in June 2011 (technical water source assessment). An alternatives analysis was completed and

concluded that the best options for water access were drilled community water wells and rainwater

catchment systems. The first implementation trip took place in July 2012. It involved expanding the

rainwater catchment system at the Lela Primary School, drilling a well and installing an Afridev hand

pump.

During the June 2013 implementation trip, a borehole was successfully drilled to approximately 230 feet

and fitted with an Afridev hand pump. A reinforced brick and concrete well pad was constructed around

the borehole to protect the water source from contamination. The measured well yield was about 20 liters

per minute (lpm).

There were no deviations from the approved design for this project. Due to the unknown nature of

subsurface, the travel team completed final design plans on-site for the well. The final design is shown in

the as-built designs provided in section 6.4.

The well was completed and operational before the team left Lela. The community was responsible for

parts of the construction such as the fence surrounding the well and a gate. The fence was constructed

while the travel team was in the community; the community planned to install the gate shortly after the

team left.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of EWB-OSU’s second implementation trip to Lela was to drill a community water well and

to assess both the previously implemented rainwater catchment system at the Lela Primary School and the

2012 water well. The 2012 well has become known locally as Lela A, and the 2013 well as Lela B. The

purpose of this report is to explain how the trip contributed to the goals of the LCWP and to characterize

the future of EWB-OSU’s partnership with the Lela community. This report is divided into several

sections including program background, community information (Section 5), project summary (Section

6), and monitoring (Section 7).



Lela, Kenya


of 50

3.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

EWB-OSU adopted the Lela Community Water Project (LCWP) in 2009. Two assessment trips were

completed (2009, 2011) which focused on assessing community needs, surveying public health,

completing a technical water source assessment, and mapping the community using GPS. An alternatives

analysis was carried out in 2011 and considered several options for implementation including a drilled

well in combination with a diesel or solar powered electric pump, rainwater collection, or surface water

treatment and distribution. The sustainability of diesel and solar pumps were ruled out because of the high

cost of long-term maintenance/replacement and operation. The cost of diesel fuel was considered

prohibitive for Lela, while the potential for theft of solar panels and lack of trained maintenance

technicians and spare parts ruled out a solar-electric system. Water quality testing has shown that surface

water sources are highly contaminated with bacteria and would require substantial operating costs for

treatment.

The goal of the LCWP is to provide 15 liters per capita per day (lpcd) of water for all residents of Lela

and to meet World Health Organization (WHO) standards for water quality and access. In the context of a

school, WHO also recommends 2 liters per student per day. Following is the stated goal of this project,

based on WHO recommendations:

Provide 2 lpcd for students at the Lela Primary School for the purposes of drinking & hygiene Provide 15 lpcd for community members for the purposes of drinking, cooking, hygiene, and

laundry

o During all seasons/months

o Meeting or exceeding WHO recommendations for quality and access Access less than 500 meters away for all households At least one water point for every 250 people Flow rate of at least 7.5 lpm at each access point Safe water quality for the intended purpose

Ultimately, EWB-OSU determined the best option for a first implementation was to drill a community

water-well fitted with a hand pump and to build a rainwater catchment system at the Lela Primary School.

These systems were successfully implemented in July of 2012. Following these implementations, EWB-

OSU decided to drill a second well in Lela to further increase the supply of potable water in a different

area of the Lela community.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

4.0 TRIP DESCRIPTION

From June 15 to July 5, 2013, three EWB-OSU student travelers and one professional mentor worked in

Lela. The primary objectives of the trip were as follows:

Supervise the drilling and installation of a water well and hand pump

Participate in community building activities

Promote and coordinate education and training opportunities regarding the new well

Assess the past implemented rainwater catchment system and well

The well was successfully implemented during the trip (see section 6.0). The well is being managed by

the LWWC, who installed a chain and lock on the pump handle for the purpose of management before the

team left Lela. The LWWC also built a fence around the well pad and agreed to install a gate to protect

the area from cattle, sheep, and goats.

A large component of the 2013 implementation trip also included the assessment of the rainwater

catchment system and Lela A. Physical inspection, user interviews and water quality tests were used to

for assessment and to prepare for future monitoring.

The travel team met weekly with the LWWC to discuss past and future management of both wells. The

management of the water catchment system was discussed with the Lela Primary School Board at several

meetings. Representatives from the Ministry of Water and the Ministry of Health also traveled to Lela to

conduct workshops on the use, operation, maintenance, and management of the water systems.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

5.0 COMMUNITY INFORMATION

5.1 Description of Community

Lela is a community in the Migori district of the Nyanza province in southwestern Kenya, about 50

kilometers from Lake Victoria. It is home to an estimated 2,000 people. The majority of community

members are subsistence farmers and business people in neighboring markets. Diets consist of foods such

as kale, maize, potatoes, mangoes, oranges, avocado, papaya, guava and cassava. Dholuo is the mother

tongue of those born in Lela. The children learn English and Kiswahili in school though elders tend to

speak limited English in favor of Dholuo and Kiswahili.

Lela currently relies on a variety of methods to obtain water, varying seasonally. The community

experiences two wet seasons and two dry seasons each year (see Figure 5.1.1). During the wet seasons,

various surface water sources are available including surface pits, two hand dug wells, the Ore River, and

a marsh area that has filled in behind an earthen dam across a tributary of the Ore River. These sources

are often highly contaminated and reportedly dry up during Lela’s driest seasons, with the exception of

the Ore River and marsh area, which are perennial. Some community members have tin roofs and use

them to collect rainwater by installing small sections of gutters leading to collection buckets and barrels.

Figure 5.1.1 - Annual precipitation pattern in Lela

During the dry seasons, residents have historically had two main options for obtaining water: walk as far

as five kilometers one-way to a well located in the town of Bondo, or walk several kilometers to the Ore

river forming the southern boundary of Lela. Bondo has two borehole supplies. The first, located at the

northwest end, is fitted with a hand pump. The second, located at the northeast end, is fitted with a diesel

pump and storage tank. This diesel pump is the main supply for the town as it has a higher capacity, but

Lela community members claim to not use this source as it is further away. The community of Lela has

made efforts to improve local water availability and quality through the creation of the LWWC. It was

this committee that initially contacted EWB-USA to request assistance. The LWWC made it clear to

EWB-OSU that their desired solution was a community well, due to their familiarity with the success of

such wells in neighboring communities.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

As a result of the July 2012 implementation, Lela gained access to an improved water source. Lela’s 2012

community well, located near the center of the community, is pumped by hand using an Afridev hand

pump. There are approximately 115 households within a 500-meter radius of the new well, although

people throughout the entire community reportedly use the well. An expanded rainwater catchment at the

Lela Primary School is providing water to students during the school day via four 10,000 liter water

storage tanks. Both systems and their usage are discussed in detail in section 7.0.

5.2 Community Relations

The relationship between EWB-OSU and the Lela community has been positive and constructive

throughout the life of the program. EWB-OSU maintains regular contact with the Lela community via

weekly phone calls between the project coordinator and Lela’s elected village elder, Charles Olang’o and

his son, Paul Olang’o. The 2013 implementation trip reinforced previous relationships. Some of the key

partners during this implementation and their contributions are listed below:

Operation H2O (represented by Mr. Melchizedeck Okello) managed all aspects of well

construction including drilling, pump installation, and testing.

Johnstone, community fundi (craftsman), former chairman of the Lela Primary School board and

principal technician in the construction of the past-implemented rainwater catchment system,

assisted in the assessment and inspection of the system and in advising of solutions to repairs to

the system as described in section 7.2.

The Olang’o family hosted the travel team, prepared meals, arranged transportation, and provided

space for meetings with the LWWC. Paul Olang’o served as guide and translator to the travel

team during their stay in Kenya.

The LWWC facilitated meetings and committed to managing Lela’s second new community water well.

EWB-OSU signed a Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix 14.1) with the LWWC at the start of

the 2013 trip. The document was signed by all parties and copies were left with Charles Olang’o. This

document outlines the commitment made between the two parties and Operation H2O, including the

construction of a fence around Lela B and providing a bank statement of LWWC’s account for collecting

funds. The bank statement was requested for EWB-OSU to understand the LWWC involvement and

commitment to pay Operation H20 200 USD, as previously agreed to during the 2012 implementation

trip. To date, this payment has not been made. The committee has agreed to pay the amount in full as

soon as the remaining half of the funds are collected.

The community has demonstrated a strong commitment to managing their new infrastructure. The fence

that the LWWC agreed to build around the well pad was completed within a week of the well’s

completion. A chain and lock were also installed on the pump handle to secure the well when it is not in

use. Lela B will be operated similarly to Lela A, with a community member unlocking it every day from

10am to 4pm. This allows for the committee to regulate usage and collect fees on-site. These

developments are all encouraging to EWB-OSU.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

6.1 Project Description

To continue striving towards the LCWP’s goal of accessible water for all community members, this

implementation trip’s focus was to implement a second drilled well and hand pump, for all community

members to use for domestic purposes. Community and capacity building were key objectives that were

carried out in parallel to these implementations to ensure community ownership and sustainability.

Secondary objectives of the trip were to assess the status of Lela A and rainwater catchment system

implemented in 2012. This was important to understand those systems and their effectiveness as well as

to gauge their sustainability in the community.

6.2 Summary

Before drilling commenced, a hydrogeologic survey commissioned by Operation H20 prior to the team’s

arrival was performed at three locations chosen by the LWWC. The well’s ultimate location was based on

the survey data, the technical mentor’s recommendation and consideration for accessibility to the well. The

land for the well site was donated by a community member to be converted into public land; a letter

certifying this donation can be found in Appendix 14.2. The site required some preliminary preparation

such as hand grading to level the well site and clearing several banana trees.

The drilling, construction of the well and installation of the hand pump were managed by Operation H2O.

A permit to drill was obtained from the Water Resources Management Authority in Kenya prior to the start

of construction. The well was drilled to a depth of approximately 230 feet with a yield of about 20 liters per

minute. The Afridev hand pump’s maximum yield is 20 liters per minute. The initial effluent water was

turbid, but as the well was developed the water continuously cleared. Throughout the 12-hour drawdown

test the water’s turbidity varied from clear to cloudy. The team (including the professional mentor)

determined that much of the turbidity is caused by out-gassing of air dissolved naturally in the ground water

or introduced during drilling.

The well pad (see Figure 6.2.1) was constructed around the borehole by Operation H2O, to protect the

groundwater from surface contamination, and a fence was built by the Lela community to keep domestic

livestock away from the well head area. The well pad consists of a gravel foundation with a reinforced

concrete slab and brick and concrete finished curbing. The fence was constructed with wooden posts and

barbed wire.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 6.2.1 – Well Pad during construction

Water samples collected from the newly-drilled well following disinfection and installation of the hand

pump were sent to the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru (CDN) water quality laboratory. The results (see Table

6.2.1, Appendix 14.3) showed all parameters are well within WHO limits.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Table 6.2.1 – CDN water quality results of Lela B Well

Parameter Units Sample 1 Sample 2 KEBS / WHO Limits

pH - 6.73 6.69 6.5-8.5

Turbidity NTU 0 0 5

Alkalinity total (pH=4.5) mg CaCO3/l 241.5 218 1000

Hardness total mg CaCO3/l 155.9 155.5 500

Total Dissolved Solids (residue dried at 180°C)

mg/l 196.2 196.1 1500

Calcium (Ca2+) mg/l 31.5 34.9 250

Iron (Fe2+) mg/l 0.1 0.2 0.3

Magnesium (Mg2+) mg/l 51.9 51.8 100

Total Reactive Phosphorous (P) mg/l 0 0 -

Chloride (Cl-) mg/l 4.5 7.5 250

Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3- -N) mg/l 6.4 6.3 50

Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.47 0.59 1.5

Manganese (Mn2+) mg/l 0 0 0.4*

Arsenic (As) mg/l 0 0 10

* In the case of manganese, it was discovered that the CDN’s adopted KEBS (Kenya Bureau of Standards) WHO standard was

incorrectly reported as 0.1 mg/l. The actual standard is 0.4 mg/l (WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2008, p. 398)

In addition to the lab tests, field testing was conducted on Lela B. The results (see Appendix 14.4)

revealed the presence of non-E coli. coliform in the well water.

The presence of coliform in the field test was unexpected given that the first groundwater was

encountered beneath 15 meters of low permeability sandy clay/clayey sand, a 6 meter cement grout

surface seal was installed, and the well casing/screen assembly and pump were thoroughly disinfected

with 6 liters of 3.5% m/v bleach solution. There are two probable explanations, both involving the gravel

pack’s installation. Because the gravel pack was installed from 6 to 70 meters below ground surface and

the 5-inch casing and screen assembly only had about 14 meters of screen distributed over this interval,

much of the installed gravel pack was not directly contacted by the bleach solution poured down the

inside of the 5-inch well casing and screen assembly.

The first possibility is that the gravel pack was contaminated prior to installation. The pack that was

delivered pre-bagged was not thoroughly washed at the source. However, it was the same pack (size and

source) used in Lela A which experienced no issues with contamination. The second, and in EWB-OSU’s

opinion more likely, possibility relates to the 8" temporary surface casing (installed at a depth of +0.7 to

0.3 meters) that was withdrawn after surface seal installation. During construction, when the gravel pack



Lela, Kenya


of 50

was shoveled in the top of the annulus between the temporary surface casing and the permanent 5-inch

casing (installed at a depth of +70 to 0.5 meters) and screen assembly, bits of biologically active material

near surface soil below 0.3 meters were carried to depth within the gravel pack layer. Because of the

likely poor oxygen and nutrient conditions in the deep groundwater, the originally near-surface

biologically active organisms are anticipated to die-off over time. We strongly recommend retesting next

year to confirm this hypothesis.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.3 Difference Between Planned and Actual Implementation

The well construction followed the planned procedure and design with a few minor exceptions. The Lela

B well site, located within banana plantations, required the transplantation of two banana trees for

construction space as well as leveling of the land to allow access for a drilling rig. This work was carried

out quickly by volunteers in the community and did not significantly delay construction.

The depths and lengths of the PVC screens, gravel pack and cement surface grout varied from the well

design proposed in the pre-implementation report due to the variable nature of groundwater. An as-built

schematic of the well (Figure 6.4.1) can be found below in section 6.4.

Upon completion of the well (but prior to well pad construction), a drawdown test was conducted for 12

hours rather than for 24 hours as recommended in the pre-implementation report. The length of the test

was shortened due to the test starting late in the day and mechanical issues with the generator running the

electric pump. It was determined by the travel team, mentor, and Mr. Okello that the duration of the

drawdown test was satisfactory to establish a sustainable well yield or capacity.

The well pad construction followed the original design with the exception of the addition of a standing

pad outside the curbing to allow easier access to and use of the pump handle.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.4 Drawings

Figure 6.4.1 – As-built well schematic

Figure 6.4.1 shows a cross-section of the well. The 5-inch PVC well casing and screen assembly was

lowered into the 7.5-inch drilled borehole. A majority of the slotted PVC casing (well screen) lies

between 82 and 221 feet because this zone produced the highest groundwater discharge during drilling.

The bottom 10-foot section of well screen was installed so that the gravel pack below the main screened

interval could be flushed.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 6.4.2 – As-built well pad schematic

Figure 6.4.2 depicts the plan and cross section views of the well pad. The well pad was slopped parallel to

the natural ground surface to carry excess pumped water away from the well head. The recorded

dimensions of the well pad are accurate to within about 6 inches.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

6.5 Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance training was addressed in multiple ways. The travel team’s direct influence was

during meetings held with the community, the LWWC, the school board and Mr. Okello. Discussion during

these meetings included troubleshooting operation and maintenance of the previous water systems,

organizing and clearly articulating who is responsible for maintenance and regulation, and defining the fee

structure. The LWWC is in charge of the operation and maintenance of Lela B. The committee decided that

members of the water committee will pay 20 KSH per month to use the well and non-members will pay 2

KSH per 20-liter bucket, both to fund repairs to the well if necessary. The treasurer will collect those funds

on-site during the hours the well is opened. In the event a repair is necessary, Charles Olango will contact

Mr. Okello, who will provide a recommendation for repair of the well. Workshops were also held in the

community by the local ministries of Public Health and Water in order to educate community members

about correct operations and maintenance procedures to ensure the longevity and sustainability of the

systems.

6.6 Education

The travel team held multiple meetings throughout the trip with the LWWC and other community members,

during which the importance of operations and maintenance and usage regulation of the systems was

discussed. The team made it clear that the community’s ongoing participation was vital to the long term

success of the project, and that it was in their best interest, not just that of the EWB-OSU team.

To reiterate these points, the EWB-OSU team arranged for the local ministries of Public Health and Water

to come to Lela to perform workshops with community members. The representatives from each ministry

addressed the importance of implementation of each of the systems using approaches relevant to their

background. The Ministry of Health discussed the need for clean water and how to most efficiently use the

water from the new well to help prevent waterborne disease. They also educated the community about

sanitation and affirmed the importance of constructing a barrier around the well to prevent livestock

contamination. The Ministry of Water addressed topics related to water sources and sanitation. The Ministry

of Water also held a hands-on workshop at the Lela B well site to demonstrate the technical operation of

the Afridev pump and the maintenance requirements that will prolong the life of the implemented systems.

The Ministry of Gender and Development is scheduled to hold a workshop in Lela in the near future. One

of the focuses of the workshop will be financial management related to the well as well as effective project

leadership.

EWB-OSU considered it to be much more effective for community members to hear lessons from local

professionals (especially from people who reside in the same district) than to listen to members of a foreign

NGO. The ministries have extensive experience working with locals regarding public health and

maintenance of water systems. In addition, they were pleased to have the chance to offer their public

services to rural areas of the Migori District.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

7.0 MONITORING APPROACH

7.1 Current project monitoring

Lela B was functioning as designed when the travel team left Lela.

7.2 Monitoring of past-implemented projects

The July 2012 implementation trip consisted of constructing a well and expanding the rainwater

catchment system at the Lela Primary School.

7.2.1 Functionality Status

Lela A (2012 Well)

The well is functioning as designed and has a yield of about 20 lpm from the Afridev hand pump

(unchanged since implementation). There were no visual signs of damage or wear to either the pump or

well pad. The community built a fence around the well to keep out livestock, although a gate was still

needed. The exact number of users of Lela A is unknown, but there are 53 registered members of the

LWWC who use the well for individual and/or household needs. The community member who opens and

closes the well reported that over 50 non-registered members also use the well. Informal discussions with

other community members revealed women walking from all parts of the community to obtain water.

Surveys regarding more detailed usage of Lela A were conducted as part of the project monitoring plan. A

random selection of people were surveyed based on their distance from the well. Figure 7.2.1.1 below

shows the distribution of well usage surveys. This evaluation was used to gain a rough idea of well

usage. No correlation was found between distances from Lela A and water usage per person. The amount

of water collected from the well during the dry seasons increased by an average of 60% from the wet

season due to the lack of usable surface water. A majority of the interviewees use the well water for

drinking and cooking, and supplement their water needs for bathing and cleaning with other water

sources. A table showing comprehensive information from these surveys can be found in Appendix 14.6.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 7.2.1.1 – Distribution of well usage surveys in Lela

The number of households within a 500m radius of Lela A were counted and compared to the number of

households within the community to assess community access. EWB-OSU has defined proper

accessibility as less than 500m distance. A representation of this radius relative to the community can be

seen below in Figure 7.2.1.2.

Lela border

Ore River (Lela border)

-

Lela A

Lela B



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 7.2.1.2 – Areas with access (<500m distance) to drilled wells

By comparing the number of households within the radius to the estimated total number of households in

the community, it was found that with Lela A, approximately 20% of the community has access to water

as defined by the project objectives.

Lela B radius

Lela A radius

-



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Water samples collected from Lela A were sent to the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru (CDN) water quality

laboratory for testing. The results (see Table 7.2.1.1, Appendix 14.3) show that the water met WHO

standards for all parameters.

Table 7.2.1.1- CDN water quality results of Lela A

Parameter Units Sample 1 Sample 2 KEBS / WHO Limits

pH - 6.88 6.61 6.5-8.5

Turbidity NTU 1 0 5

Alkalinity total (pH=4.5) mg CaCO3/l 217.9 235.6 1000

Hardness total mg CaCO3/l 192.4 187.5 500

Total Dissolved Solids (residue dried at 180°C)

mg/l 214 211.8 1500

Calcium (Ca2+) mg/l 31.1 33.5 250

Iron (Fe2+) mg/l 0.2 0.1 0.3

Magnesium (Mg2+) mg/l 64.1 62.5 100

Total Reactive Phosphorous (P) mg/l 0 0 -

Chloride (Cl-) mg/l 16.6 18.6 250

Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3- -N) mg/l 7.6 5.8 50

Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.04 0.47 1.5

Manganese (Mn2+) mg/l 0 0 0.4

Arsenic (As) mg/l 0 0 10

Results from the CDN were supplemented by field testing using Easygel, a coliscan water testing kit. The

results (see Appendix 14.4) show no coliform presence in Lela A.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Rainwater Catchment System

The rainwater catchment system on the Lela Primary School is not functioning as designed. The tanks

have rain water in them and the school teachers and children use the water. However, there have been

modifications to the system that have changed the system’s functionality. Reportedly, a few weeks prior

to the team’s arrival, the community removed the lids from the tanks allowing debris and sunlight to

enter. The first flush pipes on Tanks 2, 3 and 4 were cut short (see Figure 7.2.1.3 for numbering system);

Tank 1, constructed prior to EWB-USA involvement in the community, does not have a first flush

system. The modifications were reportedly made because the school children who were hanging on the

pipes. By making the first flush pipes shorter, they do not serve their designed purpose of capturing all of

the first flush off the roof and therefore the water entering the tanks is not as clean as it could be. In

addition, two of the caps for the first flush pipes were not removable thus negating any ability to routinely

clean of the first flush solids from the shortened pipes.

Figure 7.2.1.3. – Numbering system of rainwater catchment tanks

Water levels were estimated in the tanks to determine relative usage of each tank. These levels are

included in Table 7.2.1.2. Primary school teachers explained that Tank 1 was opened the most often as it

is the easiest to monitor (the administrative building is just north of Tank 1). The remaining tanks were

reportedly opened if Tank 1 ran out and otherwise on a rare basis. The basin in Tank 3 was completely

full of debris and trash, preventing water collection without re-clearing the basin.

Table 7.2.1.2 – Water levels in rainwater catchment storage tanks

Tank Percentage of tank holding water

1 > 25%

2 75%

3 > 90%

4 < 50%



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Water samples collected from the four tanks of the rainwater catchment system were sent to the CDN

water quality laboratory for testing. The results (see Table 7.2.1.3, Appendix 14.3) show that the water

met WHO standards for almost all parameters evaluated by the CDN. Areas of concern are highlighted in

grey.

Table 7.2.1.3 – CDN Water quality results for rainwater catchment system

Parameter Units Tank

No. 1 Sample

1

Tank

No. 1 Sample

2

Tank

No. 2 Sample

1

Tank

No. 2 Sample

2

Tank

No. 3 Sample

1

Tank

No. 3 Sample

2

Tank

No. 4 Sample

1

Tank

No. 4

Sample

2

KEBS

/

WHO

Limits

pH - 7.17 7.23 7.93 7.66 7.22 7.27 7.62 6.97 6.5-

8.5

Turbidity NTU 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5

Alkalinity total

(pH=4.5) mg

CaCO3/l 11.8 11.8 11.8 23.6 17.7 17.7 11.8 5.9 1000

Hardness total mg CaCO3/l

9.3 60.9 9.3 5.3 5.3 2.4 11.4 16.2 500

Total

Dissolved

Solids (residue dried at 180°C)

mg/l 9.6 14.1 3.3 5 5.1 6.2 8.5 16.4 1500

Calcium (Ca2+) mg/l 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.5 4.1 1.7 250

Iron (Fe2+) mg/l 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Magnesium

(Mg2+) mg/l 3.1 20.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.8 3.8 5.4 100

Total Reactive

Phosphorous (P) mg/l 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Chloride (Cl-) mg/l 2 3.5 1.5 1 3 0.5 1 2 250

Nitrate +

Nitrite(NO3- -N)

mg/l 4.2 3.2 3 3.3 2.8 3.6 3.7 3.2 50

Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.03 0.62 0.02 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 1.5

Manganese

(Mn2+) mg/l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4

Arsenic (As) mg/l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

The results show that the water from tank 1 does not meet WHO standards for iron. Iron levels above 0.3

mg/l, while noticeable in taste, do not pose a direct health hazard (WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water

Quality, 2008, p. 390).



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Results from the CDN for the rainwater catchment were supplemented by field testing using Easygel, a

coliscan water testing kit. The results (see Table 7.2.1.4, Appendix 14.4 for full results) show non-e.coli

coliform presence in all 4 tanks. E. coli was present in Sample 1 of Tank 4.

Table 7.2.1.4 – Easygel Coliform results for rainwater catchment system tanks

RWC Tank 1 RWC Tank 2 RWC Tank 3 RWC Tank 4

Sample 1 Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

E. coli (per 100 ml) 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0

Coliform (per 100

ml) 600-700 TNTC TNTC TNTC TNTC 300 900 160

Immediately following the testing, a meeting was summoned with the school board to discuss the water

quality results. The board decided that the water would be treated immediately with WaterGuard, a

sodium hypochlorite disinfectant. This was decided so as to not waste the water in the tanks during the

dry season. The board originally planned that during the students’ vacation in August, the tanks would be

drained, cleaned and disinfected with bleach and the lids reinstalled. As of mid-September, the tanks have

not been cleaned. EWB-OSU is presently communicating with Mr. Olang’o via weekly phone calls about

community plans to remedy this important issue.

Following discussion of the sanitary effects of shortening the first flush pipes, plans were devised by the

school board and Mr. Johnstone to reinstall the original length pipes and construct brick barriers around

the tanks to prevent interference from children. Other alternatives were discussed, including a mechanism

to secure the first flush pipes. At the time of the travel team’s departure, materials had begun to be

collected for the brick barriers. EWB-OSU will remain in contact with Mr. Johnstone to stay updated on

their system repairs.

Brief surveys held with a random selection of students at the Lela Primary School show a usage of 1-2

liters per student per day for drinking, hand washing, cooking, and first aid. Complete results from this

survey can be found in Appendix 14.5.

7.2.2 Periodic Maintenance

Lela A (2012 Well)

For Lela A, the community constructed a fence around the well (as agreed upon in the memorandum of

understanding) and purchased a chain and lock. A man in the community was charged with unlocking the

well at 10 am and locking it again at 4 pm. In the time the travel team was in the community, the well

schedule was not strictly followed. At the LWWC meetings, the individual in charge of locking/unlocking

the well mentioned that he was not being paid. Upon inspection of Lela A, it was clear that the well was

in regular use due to the foot-traffic and the vegetation at the runoff location. There were two separate

animal feces in the fenced well area which was a concern for contamination.

Prior to Lela A’s implementation, EWB-OSU requested a small payment from the community, 200 USD.

When this sum was not collected, EWB-OSU and the LWWC agreed the Lela community would collect

funds over the 2012-2013 year in order to make the payment during the June 2013 trip. In June 2013, a

bank statement was requested in order to make sure the funds had been collected. Initially, there was

some confusion regarding how the money was being managed by the LWWC; EWB-OSU believed a

bank account was in use when instead the money was kept locally and managed in the community.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Through meetings with the LWWC the confusion was remedied during the implementation trip. The full

amount had not been raised, but fees are still being collected for use of the well.


The rainwater catchment system was expanded by EWB-OSU on the July 2012 implementation trip. The

Lela Primary School is in charge of operation and maintenance of this system. Upon visual inspection by

the travel team the roof and gutters were clean. However, the first flush pipes were cut to a fourth their

original length because school children were playing with (and breaking) the initial pipes. Of the first

flush pipes that could be opened, they were clean and appeared to be regularly drained.

One of the water catchment tanks was leaking where the tap exited the tank. According to community

members, this was due to people twisting the tap to try to access the water. Upon inspection of the water

in the tanks, the travel team was also concerned with the quality of the water in the tanks. The lids for the

tanks were removed by the community to check water levels prior to the travel team’s arrival, but the lids

were left off thus jeopardizing the water’s cleanliness.

7.2.3 Demonstration of Knowledge Transfer

Lela A

Lela A is managed by the LWWC. This committee meets regularly to manage the operation (opening /

closing, inspection, fee collection, maintenance) of Lela A. Fees are collected for well use in order to

enable to community to handle ongoing operation and maintenance.


The water catchment system is operated by the Lela Primary School Board. The board (specifically the

village fundi) regularly check the tanks for breakages and water levels. The board has also observed

problems and implemented solutions. The first flush pipes broke because the children were hanging on

the pipes, so the board had the pipes cut short. There have also been issues with leaking tanks due to the

tap pipe getting twisted by people attempting to access the water. The board has created a plan and bought

bricks to build a wall to protect the tanks from this type of tampering.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

8.0 COMMUNITY AGREEMENT/CONTRACT

The official means of agreement between the Lela Community and EWB-OSU is a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU). The travel team brought a copy of the MOU to Lela and held a signing ceremony

with the LWWC at the beginning of the trip, on July 15, 2013. A signed copy is included in Appendix

14.1.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

9.0 PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

Figure 9.0.1 - Lela Women’s Water Committee with travel team

Figure 9.0.2 - Rainwater catchment system truncated first flush pipe



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 9.0.3 - Drilling rig

Figure 9.0.4 - Well casing installation



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 9.0.5 – Well Pad Construction

Figure 9.0.6 - Completed Lela B with Afridev hand pump



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Figure 9.0.7 - Completed Lela B with fence constructed by community



Lela, Kenya


of 50

10.0 LESSONS LEARNED

Community Engagement

- EWB-OSU was interested in the LWWC’s financial management and suggested using a bank. The

LWWC in actuality were not using the bank due to high fees inquired. However, the LWWC

posed to be doing so because EWB-OSU did not articulate that the financial management was the

main concern, and the bank was a mere suggestion.

Cultural Interactions

- Meetings generally started several minutes or even hours after they were scheduled to begin.

- To accomplish tasks in the travel team’s schedule, a buffer of one or two hours was included in

order to be punctual at important events.

- While translation was required for all meetings and interactions, the community seemed to

appreciate (and was entertained by) the travel team’s attempt to learn greetings and phrases in the

local Dholuo language.

- The travel team received several invitations to schools and households throughout the community

by members and friends of the host family. A majority of these invitations resulted in direct or

indirect requests for funding for personal projects outside of EWB-OSU’s realm.

The “Child” Factor

- The first-flush pipes on three rainwater catchment tanks at the Lela Primary School were broken

by children playing on them. The system design accounted for hurricane-force winds, but not the

impact of ten-year-old children.

Health and Safety

- EWB-OSU did not experience any moments of health and safety concern due to constant

accompaniment by the local guide and translator, Paul Olang’o.

Foreign Financial Transactions

- EWB-OSU discovered that global money transfer companies offer cheaper and more expedited

alternatives to standard wiring at banks in many cases.

11.0 PROJECT STATUS

Implementation Continues Monitoring Cancelled X



Lela, Kenya


of 50

12.0 NEXT PHASE OF THE PROGRAM

EWB-OSU expects to monitor the Lela community for a period of one or two years before closing the

project. The LWWC developed a process for collecting funds from well users of Lela A. However, during

the 2013 implementation trip, the travel team observed that individuals struggled to make monthly

payments due to financial hardship. The community showed promising desire to improve the organization

of collecting funds for both Lela A and Lela B. EWB-OSU expects that managing two wells will be hard

for the community and thus monitoring is needed to assess their progress over one or two years before

deciding to fully close the project or continue the partnership with Lela.

The rainwater catchment tanks were heavily used and needed maintenance one year following their

completion. The Lela Primary School Board would like to build a wall surrounding each of the four tanks

to protect the first flush system and deter vandalism. Also, a lockable lid covering the spigot was needed

to protect the fragile spigot. EWB-OSU was excited to hear the community wants to improve the

rainwater catchment system and will continue discussion with the school board over the next year via

phone calls to Mr. Johnstone. The school board also proposed the expansion of the primary school. This

proposal can be found listed under Appendix 14.7.

Further discussion will take place with the chapter to solidify and develop detailed future plans for the

project.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

13.0 PROFESSIONAL MENTOR ASSESSMENT

13.1 Professional Mentor Name and Role

Jeff Randall, Travel Team Member, Professional Mentor.

13.2 Professional Mentor Assessment

Many factors contribute to the success of this second implementation project. Many of them are the same

ones that contributed to the success of the first project. The keys to success fall into two broad

categories—Individuals and Project Principals/Processes.

Key Individuals:

-country well system installation general contractor (representing NGO Operation H2O).

Having a trustworthy and honest and local (southwestern Kenya) in-country team member who

coordinated the drilling, aquifer testing, well head completion, and pump installation removed a large

burden from the project team and overall resulted in a superior well system. Moreover, he will likely

provide advice to the community regarding future maintenance. Once again, the modest payment for his

services was paid back many times over.

-country “guide, interpreter, protector”. Having a trustworthy and honest local team

member involved 24/7 with the project during our stay in Kenya allowed the rest of the team to focus on

the work at hand. Paul’s is highly respected by the community and when he spoke either translating the

teams questions and discussions for the local audience or leading the discussion in Dholuo to augment the

team’s ideas, he was listened to and his words carried a great deal of weight. Once again, the tiny stipend

paid to Paul by the project was an investment with an incredible return.

chael Olang’o, host family. Having a host family to take primary care of the team’s

safety, housing, and basic cooking needs also greatly increased productivity by allowing the team to focus

more time and energy on the project. Both Paul Olang’o and his parents Charles and Rachael also acted as

active community liaisons and greatly increased the team’s access to the many dimensions of the

community.

the rainwater collection system AND is a School Board Member (and is highly respected by the local

community), his liaison between the team and the school board was key to bringing the team’s observed

deficiencies to the Board’s direct attention for discussion.

Key Project Principles and Processes :

As with the Key Individuals, the principals and processes keys to success of this 2013 implementation

were basically the same as last year.

-OSU team from the initial project assessment through post implementation

on the Lela community’s specific ability (culturally and monetarily) to operated and maintain the built

infrastructure. Moreover, the team’s focus when dealing with the Community was always to stress the

fact that the infrastructure was the community’s and that they were totally responsible for the future

success of the systems EWB provided.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

-OSU team’s relentless pursuit of community participation at every step and obtaining

approval and buy-in both verbally and ultimately in writing. The LWWC meetings essentially facilitated

by Paul Olang’o helped the community to more fully and clearly understand their REQUIRED role in

management of the two water wells and he lead the discussion of possible solutions also of great

importance for the long-term sustainability of the project.

team left the States, especially regulatory agency well drilling permits and related paperwork and local

community or property owner access agreements and rights-of-way, etc. This is a critical project

milestone because permits and permit revisions, and local permissions can take a great deal of time and

often extra money that is typically not included in the project team’s travel schedule or budget.

13.3 Professional Mentor Affirmation

I endorse this report as written and acknowledge my participation in the implementation of the project as

described.



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.0 Appendices

14.1 Memorandum of Understanding



Lela, Kenya


of 50



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.2 Well Site Land Donation Letter



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.3 Catholic Diocese of Nakuru Laboratory Test Report



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.4 Field Testing (Easygel Coliscan) Results

Rainwater Catchment System (RWC)

RWC Tank 1 RWC Tank 2 RWC Tank 3 RWC Tank 4

Sample

1

Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

Sample

1

Sample

2

pH 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4

Hardness (ppm) 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0-25

Alkalinity (ppm) 0-80 0 0-80 0 0 0-80 0-80 0-80

Nitrate (ppm) 0 20 0 0-20 0 0 0 0-20

Nitrite (ppm) 0 0 0 0 >0 0 0 0

Turbidity >5 % <5% 5% <5% 15% 10% 5% <5%

E. coli (per 100

ml) 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0

Coliform (per 100

ml)

600-

700 TNTC TNTC TNTC TNTC 300 900 160

Drilled Wells

Lela A Lela B

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2

pH 7.6 7.6-8 6.8 6.8

Hardness (ppm) 120-250 120-250 250-425 250-425

Alkalinity (ppm) 240 240 120-180 180-240

Nitrate (ppm) 10 10 0 0

Nitrite (ppm) 0 0 0 0

Turbidity 0% 0% 0% >5%

E. coli (per 100 ml) 0 0 0 0

Coliform (per 100 ml) 0 0 120 160



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.5 Student Rainwater Catchment System (RWC) Survey Results

Student

Surveyed

Amt. Water

Used (L/day) Use Additional information

1 4 Drinking

2 1 Drinking, Hand washing

3 1 Drinking, Cooking

4 1 Drinking Stated water is also used at

school for first aid emergencies

5 1.5 Drinking

6 2 Cooking, Dish washing

7 2 Drinking

8 2 Drinking Does not like taste of water

9 2 Drinking, Cooking

10 1.5 Dish washing

11 0 - Does not think water is clean



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.6 Community Well Usage Survey Results

Interviewee Distance to

Lela A (m)

Use* Treatment Type of

Treatment

Amt. Used,

Wet Season

(lpd)**

Amt. Used,

Dry Season

(lpd)**

1 718 D, B, C, W X Boils for

drinking 12 24

2 459 D, B, C, W X Boils 30 30

3 773 D, C X UV 3.3 10

4 126 D, B, Ag X Boils for

drinking 40 120

5 - D, C, W X Boils for

drinking 16.7 16.7

6 130 D, B, C, W 40 40

7 683 D, C 2.5 10

8 676 D 0 11.4

9 1027 D 10 10

10 135 D, C, W 25 25

11 332 D, C X Waterguard*** 8.6 17.1

12 346 D X Waterguard 2.9 2.85

13 1160 D X Waterguard 16 24

14 - D, C 15 20

15 385 D, C,W 16 24

* B=bathing, C=cooking, D=drinking, W=washing laundry, Ag=agriculture

** Determined by amount of water interviewee collects for household divided by amount of persons in household

*** Locally-sold sodium hypochlorite disinfectant

Calculated Average Use, Wet Season = 15.9 lpd

Calculated Average Use, Dry Season = 25.7 lpd



Lela, Kenya


of 50

14.7 Lela Primary School Board Building Expansion Proposal



Lela, Kenya


of 50

Document 526 POST IMPLEMENTATION REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of Document 526 POST IMPLEMENTATION REPORT...