Rehabilitation of Hand-dug Wells and Protected Springs

Abstract

The study area covers 24 km2 of Magwagwa I sub-location of North Mugirango/Chache Location in Kisii District of Nyanza Province in Kenya. The area of study was limited in order to have a thorough and compherensive field inventory of the existing traditional hand-dug wells and protected springs within the available time of thesis writing. The present population density of 332 persons per squarekilometre is experienced. The area is of high agricultural potential with deep and fertile soils. The primary agricultural outputs are tea, coffee, pyrethrum, bananas, maize, pineapples, together with limited dairy farming. Three main water resources which offer good opportunities in the provision of potable water are surface water (rivers), groundwater (hand-dug wells) and rainwater harvesting. River Sondu within the vicinity of the study area gives 96 % reliable yield of 51 000 m3/day. The area has also 220 existing traditional hand-dug well sprivately owned and 39 permanent springs which are in communaluse. This gives an indication of groundwater potential for exploitation. The area experiences an average annual rainfall of 1500 mm which means that roof catchment is possible. The bacteriological water analysis results of the watersources revealed the cxtent of water pollution. Only 3 % of the water sources investigated had no faecalcoliform organisms in 1OO ml of water sample. Applying the current WHO guidelines, 97 % of the all traditional water sources investigated were unacceptable. No hand-dug well had faecal coliforms within the acceptable range by WHO guidelines. Due to the scarcity of water and high production costs for new water schemes the goals have by necessity to be set realistic. The rehabilitation methods recommende for hand-dug wells and protected springs is based on economic factors, availability of local materials and labour with no co##licated and expensive maintenance infrastructure. The methods have been selected after an evaluation of the sources of water pollution and thus trying to eliminate the pollution for future water use. Different rehabilitation alternatives are selected for suitability and not prestige, but convenience and aesthetis are not overlooked. No features that exhaust the techinal, economic or social resources of the community have been selected. The rehabilitation of these sources provide the community with safe and abundant water from a reliable, accessible and socially acceptable sources at the lowest cost. The rehabilitation costs per capita for different rehabilitation alternatives for hand-dug wells range between 215 KES and 419 KES. The rehabilitation costs per capita for protected springs range between 7 KES and 44 KES. To reduce the rehabilitation cost per capita for the hand-dugwells, five families per wel are recommended contributing amaximum of 2000 KES for the rehabilitation. /Kir09