plan 217San Isidro, (Province of Matagalpa, Municipality of Matiguas, Nicaragua) integral drinking water project

Summary

A gravity water project delivering 70 liters/day per inhabitant and a latrine to individual houses, education for maintenance, long term hygiene and sanitation, the preservation and reforestation of the watershed. Will make possible drinking water for

Background

The population uses mostly running water from ravines including that in the private property of near-by ranch-owners. We have verified that these are extremely polluted. There are no previous sytems. But there exists fairly near the upstream community of Quirragua an abundant spring that allows delivering water not only to Quirragua but to San Isidro and to an additional community (El Carmen).

Location

San Isidra, Province of Matagalpa, Municipality of Matiguas, Nicaragua

Attachments

  • Xls Pres_Pro...
  • Xls aire6.0.xls
  • Xls DIBUJO_D...
  • Unknown Reporte_...
  • Xls croquis_...
  • Doc Proyecto...

Focus

Primary Focus: Drinking Water - Community
Secondary Focus: Sanitation - Community

People Getting Safe Drinking Water: 394

74 families , 56 women . 298 children
Present population survey is by APLV

School Children Getting Water: 335

Children from surroundings of village attend this school and water and latrines will be available there.

People Getting Sanitation: 437

The whole village population +the outside children attending school

People Getting Other Benefits: 398

Hygiene education, a program that stretches over several years reaches all homes and is incorporated in the school. Capacity building is inherent in the organization of the village prior to project. Fish farming made possible by water system is under study for this project.

Application Type: Project Funding

Start Date: 2009-10-15

Completion Date: 2010-08-15

Technology Used:

The presence of this abundant spring which is unusually easy to protect from pollution and drying up suggest a gravity system as the obvious first choice. These systems are the specialty of APLV which has designed and help build 60 of them- all presently functioning. The basic components are a spring-catching and protecting construction, a buried conduction line to a holding tank evening out the supply over the day, and a distribution network leading to individual water taps all by gravity.
APLV has developed advanced design tools for such systems which have performed excellently

Phases:

Once the community is ready, (which this one is) the project will be carried out in one stage.

Community Organization:

The community has been organized. Family have each individually signed a commitment to work the required number of men-days. A CAPS ( (committee charged both to organize the daily work schedule during construction and to learn and provide maintenance after construction) has been formed. Monthly rates por family have been established to cover maintenance and its tools. The project is kept under observation by APLV for 4 to 6 months and is thereafter formally handed over to the community as its owner. The spring has been formally handed over to that community and to the other two ( El Carmen and Quirragua) by its former owner.

Government Interaction:

The project is endorsed, facilitated and modestly financed by the municipality of Matiguas

Ancillary activities:

Reforestation is one component of our training of the community. Monitoring of baby health and measurement of the impact of our program on baby development is another. The amelioration of the diet of the farmers thru fish farming is contemplated.

Other Issues:

This undertaking should of course be the responsibility of the local and central governments. While municipalities are just beginning to contribute to such projects, their resources allow them to be only minorcontributors. However they may play an important role for instance in helping enforce the national law guaranteeing communal access to springs and other sources of water as well as using their facilities (trucks) for material transport. Both are the case with the municipality of Matiguas.

Maintenance Revenue:

The maintenance costs are totally assumed by the community thru monthly payments collected by the CAPS. The CAPS is responsible for the management of the fund. Maintenance costs are minimal and estimated at 40/month.

Maintenance Cost: $480

Metrics:

Prior art before metrics

Cost: $48,839

This is external cost, (excluding community contribution.
Including it:: $62,906,
See attachment

Co Funding Amount: $4,462

APLV general fund , 2000
Municipality of Matiguas 2462

Community Contribution Amount: $14,067

Contribution in man-days of work @ 4$ per day:
3210.
Monetary contribution (part payment of individual water stands, food for technical personnel, tools for maintenance) 1057

Fund Requested: $44,377

Implementing Organization:

Attachments

  • Xls Pres_Pro...
  • Xls aire6.0.xls
  • Xls DIBUJO_D...
  • Unknown Reporte_...
  • Xls croquis_...
  • Doc Proyecto...
  • 2 participants | show more

    cost numbers

    Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

    I am sorry i am not able to digest the attached budget. There needs to be a summary which shows the totals that you have put in the application. In your application: - Cost: 48,639 - Co-fund: 4,462 - Request: 44,377 So at least one number is off. I would also suggest to include community contribution in the total cost/value of the projec...

    I am sorry i am not able to digest the attached budget. There needs to be a summary which shows the totals that you have put in the application.

    In your application:
    - Cost: 48,639
    - Co-fund: 4,462
    - Request: 44,377

    So at least one number is off.
    I would also suggest to include community contribution in the total cost/value of the project.

    Thanks.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      Rajesh: you are right there is an error of $200 in the total which has now been corrected. There were other (trancribing errors of mine (number of beneficiaries in the El Carmen project ). For which I plead mea culpa. I also have now made a distinction between external cost of the projects, which does not include the large contribution-m...

      Rajesh:
      you are right there is an error of $200 in the total which has now been corrected.
      There were other (trancribing errors of mine (number of beneficiaries in the El Carmen project ).
      For which I plead mea culpa.
      I also have now made a distinction between external cost of the projects, which does not include the large contribution-mostly in kind- of the beneficiaries themselves, and total cost which does include it. One can have two views about this contribution. Mine is that the larger it is the more secure the future of the project, (up to the point where that contribution becomes unrealistic).
      Gilles Corcos

  • 2 participants | show more

    Jenna Saldaña of El Porvenir

    Hello Gilles, I'm curious about a few things. 1. I'm surprised that the cost of transporting materials is more than the cost of the construction materials. You mention in the proposal that the municipality is willing to support the project, and I wonder if they can't help with the transportation. Having lived in Nica, I do understand t...

    Hello Gilles,

    I'm curious about a few things.

    1. I'm surprised that the cost of transporting materials is more than the cost of the construction materials. You mention in the proposal that the municipality is willing to support the project, and I wonder if they can't help with the transportation. Having lived in Nica, I do understand that working with remote communities makes it costly to transport the materials.

    2. I was looking at the schedule for project implementation and wanted to ask about the break at 6/7 months. It appears there will be a month with no project construction. Is this due to weather? Or the cycle of agriculture as you mention at the end of the proposal?

    3. What are the medidores? Will you be monitoring water usage?

    4. I have not kept up with your work for the last few years and am pleased to see that you're doing reforestation. Perhaps you were doing that before, and I was just unaware.

    Jenna Saldana, El Porvenir

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      1) That's a misunderstanding. Our team calls construction material the cement, gravel sand and concrete iron, but doesn't include the piping which is the main construction material expense. If you go back on the budget, you'll see that the total material expense before IVA and contingency is $4257+9715=$13,4972 while transport is $4628. ...

      1) That's a misunderstanding. Our team calls construction material the cement, gravel sand and concrete iron, but doesn't include the piping which is the main construction material expense. If you go back on the budget, you'll see that the total material expense before IVA and contingency is $4257+9715=$13,4972 while transport is $4628.
      But... we also think that the transport rates are too hign and we're engaged in a thorough review of more competitive bidding and logistical choices .
      We expect some help for local transport from the Matiguas Alcalde but we have not been able to give it a $ value..
      2) The break in the schedule of construction. I had not noticed it. I am inquiring with our Nica coordinator about it. It may be an estimated conflict of schedule for our skilled masons and our promotoros. I'll get back to you on that.
      3) Medidores. These are water meters. They were imposed on us by one sponsor a while back (Japanese Embassy) and frankly I was skeptical at first.( I thought they would promptly be sold) . But I have turned around: when coupled with monthly family payments that become steep when the family uses more than its allotment of water they definitely decrease unreasonable water consumption, increase individual interest in faucet maintenance and they only increase modestly the cost of puestos.
      4) Reforestation. Yes we have started on that in 1995 and always had a full time reforester. But the main difficulty of the program as you are probably aware is that for gravity systems the watersheds (cuencas) of the spring are almost invariably owned by someone who does not belong to the village and whose selling price is too high for the village to afford (unless the community is very large). So the physical control of the whole area to protect and reforest is a tricky thing to manage and I'd be glad to read of good suggestions on this site.

      • Jenna Saldaña of El Porvenir

        Thanks for the answers, Gilles. Interesting about the water meters--I would have thought the same: that they would be promptly sold. Who collects payments? Is there a base price for the allotted water and then costs more above that? The way I read what you wrote is that it works like US cell phones: you get a certain number of minutes,...

        Thanks for the answers, Gilles.

        Interesting about the water meters--I would have thought the same: that they would be promptly sold. Who collects payments? Is there a base price for the allotted water and then costs more above that? The way I read what you wrote is that it works like US cell phones: you get a certain number of minutes, but if you go above, they charge a lot per minute.

        How does it work that where the spring is is owned by someone else? Is the ground around the spring legalized in the name of the community? What about the area where the tubes run?

        The owner of the land I'm assuming doesn't participate in the education talleres? If so, s/he would understand the need for reforestation. Where does the owner of the land's water come from? Understanding that his/her water may run out some day may motivate the owner to do reforestation.

    • Jenna Saldaña of El Porvenir

      Thanks for the answers, Gilles. Interesting about the water meters--I would have thought the same: that they would be promptly sold. Who collects payments? Is there a base price for the allotted water and then costs more above that? The way I read what you wrote is that it works like US cell phones: you get a certain number of minutes,...

      Thanks for the answers, Gilles.

      Interesting about the water meters--I would have thought the same: that they would be promptly sold. Who collects payments? Is there a base price for the allotted water and then costs more above that? The way I read what you wrote is that it works like US cell phones: you get a certain number of minutes, but if you go above, they charge a lot per minute.

      How does it work that where the spring is is owned by someone else? Is the ground around the spring legalized in the name of the community? What about the area where the tubes run?

      The owner of the land I'm assuming doesn't participate in the education talleres? If so, s/he would understand the need for reforestation. Where does the owner of the land's water come from? Understanding that his/her water may run out some day may motivate the owner to do reforestation.

  • 2 participants | show more

    Overall budget

    Stef Lambrecht of Protos

    If I understand the overall project, the spring and main line will supply three villages : Quirragua (grant of 10.000 USD asked to BPR), San Isidro (grant of 44.000 USD) and El Carmen (67.000 USD). What will happen if BPR just accepts one of the three sub-projects ?

    If I understand the overall project, the spring and main line will supply three villages : Quirragua (grant of 10.000 USD asked to BPR), San Isidro (grant of 44.000 USD) and El Carmen (67.000 USD). What will happen if BPR just accepts one of the three sub-projects ?

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      I hope that all three projects will be approved so that they will eventually be financed. However we are not held to carrying them all out at the same time. The Quirragua project is the one that captures the spring so it can be built separately or ahead of the others Gilles Corcos

      I hope that all three projects will be approved so that they will eventually be financed. However we are not held to carrying them all out at the same time. The Quirragua project is the one that captures the spring so it can be built separately or ahead of the others
      Gilles Corcos

  • 2 participants | show more

    Details of water system

    Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

    Would you supply me with the detailed design of the water system and a complete list of materials? Gracias....Lynn

    Would you supply me with the detailed design of the water system and a complete list of materials? Gracias....Lynn

    • Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

      Thanks for the details of the water system, however it is not clear from the information the following: The overall length of the tubing;size of the tube; price of tube; the height difference between points; and the flow in the tube for the following : 1) the spring to the break pressure tank in the El Carmen conduction line 2) from ...

      Thanks for the details of the water system, however it is not clear from the information the following:
      The overall length of the tubing;size of the tube; price of tube; the height difference between points; and the flow in the tube for the following :

      1) the spring to the break pressure tank in the El Carmen conduction line
      2) from the break pressure tank to the El Carmen tank
      3)from the El Carmen tank to the San Isidro tank
      4) from the spring to the Quirrawa tank

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        Answer 2 to Lynn : Lynn : here are the answers to your questions : Conduction lines: From spring to El Carmen BPT . Max=min flowrate = 1.83l/sec. level difference 156.5m. Pipe diameter distribution:343m 1” SDR 26. 1285m 1.25” SDR 32.5. 37m 1.5” SDR32.5. total 1665m, total cost $1443. From BPT to El Carmen holding tank: level difference ...

        Answer 2 to Lynn :
        Lynn : here are the answers to your questions :

        Conduction lines:
        From spring to El Carmen BPT . Max=min flowrate = 1.83l/sec. level difference 156.5m. Pipe diameter distribution:343m 1” SDR 26. 1285m 1.25” SDR 32.5. 37m 1.5” SDR32.5. total 1665m, total cost $1443.
        From BPT to El Carmen holding tank: level difference 34m,
        357m of 2” SDR32.5
        137m of 2” SDR26
        868m of 2” SDR17
        1323m of 2.5” SDR32.5
        348m of 2.5” SDR177
        495m of3” SDR 32.5
        5m of 3” SDR 26
        Total 4495m , cost $13,923 + 1 automatic air valve ($19)
        From El Carmen holding tank to San Isidro holding tank:
        Max &min flow rates 0.71l/sec. level difference 195m.
        106m of ½”SDR 13. 1053m of ¾” SDR17
        193m of 1” SDR 26 .

        Total 1331m , cost $756.
        From spring to Quirragua holding tank,
        Max and min flow rates 0.35l/sec. level difference 26.1 m
        119 m of ½” SDR 13
        203m of ¾” SDR 17
        Total 322m cost $160.

        I have used an average change rate over the design period between cordobas and dollars.

        I am a bit curious about the use you wish to make of this very detailed information.
        Gilles Corcos

        • Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

          Dear Gilles, Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

          Dear Gilles,
          Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

      • Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

        Dear Gilles, Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

        Dear Gilles,
        Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      Answer 2 to Lynn : Lynn : here are the answers to your questions : Conduction lines: From spring to El Carmen BPT . Max=min flowrate = 1.83l/sec. level difference 156.5m. Pipe diameter distribution:343m 1” SDR 26. 1285m 1.25” SDR 32.5. 37m 1.5” SDR32.5. total 1665m, total cost $1443. From BPT to El Carmen holding tank: level difference ...

      Answer 2 to Lynn :
      Lynn : here are the answers to your questions :

      Conduction lines:
      From spring to El Carmen BPT . Max=min flowrate = 1.83l/sec. level difference 156.5m. Pipe diameter distribution:343m 1” SDR 26. 1285m 1.25” SDR 32.5. 37m 1.5” SDR32.5. total 1665m, total cost $1443.
      From BPT to El Carmen holding tank: level difference 34m,
      357m of 2” SDR32.5
      137m of 2” SDR26
      868m of 2” SDR17
      1323m of 2.5” SDR32.5
      348m of 2.5” SDR177
      495m of3” SDR 32.5
      5m of 3” SDR 26
      Total 4495m , cost $13,923 + 1 automatic air valve ($19)
      From El Carmen holding tank to San Isidro holding tank:
      Max &min flow rates 0.71l/sec. level difference 195m.
      106m of ½”SDR 13. 1053m of ¾” SDR17
      193m of 1” SDR 26 .

      Total 1331m , cost $756.
      From spring to Quirragua holding tank,
      Max and min flow rates 0.35l/sec. level difference 26.1 m
      119 m of ½” SDR 13
      203m of ¾” SDR 17
      Total 322m cost $160.

      I have used an average change rate over the design period between cordobas and dollars.

      I am a bit curious about the use you wish to make of this very detailed information.
      Gilles Corcos

      • Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

        Dear Gilles, Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

        Dear Gilles,
        Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

    • Lynn Roberts of Agua Para La Salud (APLS)

      Dear Gilles, Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

      Dear Gilles,
      Thank you for the information. I was checking your hydraulics program against ours. The design you have selected is very similar to ours. I like the way you have used multiple tube sizes to "bend" the hydraulic grade line to save costs in tubing.

  • 3 participants | show more

    Questions: number beneficiaries, water supply system, community contribution

    Joe Madiath of Gram Vikas

    Gram Vikas thanks you for your project submitted. We would like to ask you few questions: 1. Could you clarify please the total number of beneficiaries? The numbers mentioned in the application doesn't match the ones in the attached document. How many people and families will be getting safe drinking water and will have access to sanitat...

    Gram Vikas thanks you for your project submitted.

    We would like to ask you few questions:

    1. Could you clarify please the total number of beneficiaries? The numbers mentioned in the application doesn't match the ones in the attached document. How many people and families will be getting safe drinking water and will have access to sanitation?

    2. We had been using gravity flow for water supply system in many villages we work particularly in those un-electrified. San Isidro village doesn't have electricity? Is that why you have chosen gravity flow for water supply? In the attached document you were mentioning that the distance between spring water and village is 13 km. It is rather far which makes it costly as well maintenance costs will be high. Have you looked also at other options (bore wells, dug wells, biodiesel water-pumping)?

    3. You mentioned among challenging factors that could interfere with the project - the negativity of community members when it comes to participate with labour. We are interested to know how do you address this negativity to assure people will be committed, involved and will contribute (especially 14 067 USD is large amount of money for community contribution)?

    4. We would also like to ask for clarifications regarding the total project costs (total amount of project costs is 62 906 USD in the attached document and 48 639 USD in the application).

    Thank you!

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      1) number of beneficiaries:The project is designed and sized to provide the alloted amount of water not to the present population but to a population calculated (normally) )15 years hence with an estimated growth rate. It is that population which we consider the beneficiaries. 2) a.The conduction line for San Isidro itself is only 1331 ...

      1) number of beneficiaries:The project is designed and sized to provide the alloted amount of water not to the present population but to a population calculated (normally) )15 years hence with an estimated growth rate. It is that population which we consider the beneficiaries.
      2) a.The conduction line for San Isidro itself is only 1331 meters. b. Keep in mind that the spring feeds three communities strung along the conduction lines.The total conduction line cost is to divide beteen these three communities.
      c. maintenance costs are almost non existent for the conduction lines according to our 60 odd gravity systems we have built over the last 20 years, alll still operating.
      d. none of the alternatives to a gravity system that you have mentioned are as desirable as the latter: The communities involved are extremely dispersed and one would have to dig a very large number of wells to take care of that population. There is as you guessed no electricity there or near by and water pumping would not alleviate the problem of multiple wells being necessary.
      3. This is a bit of a misunderstanding. The negative factor mentioned was purely speculative: "If the population lost its enthusiam for the project....etc.." In fact this has occured very rarely in our long experience with this type of project. We decide

      • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

        Its great to hear about the longevity of your systems. Here, the systems i am overseeing (different urban setting) don't even last a few years. Tree roots grow and crack pipes. Other factors such as traffic and construction impact joints, etc. Do you have a way to detect and fix leaks? Spare pipes and joining skills? Thanks, Rajesh

        Its great to hear about the longevity of your systems.

        Here, the systems i am overseeing (different urban setting) don't even last a few years. Tree roots grow and crack pipes. Other factors such as traffic and construction impact joints, etc.

        Do you have a way to detect and fix leaks? Spare pipes and joining skills?

        Thanks,
        Rajesh

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          by Gilles Corcos, APLV: No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially ...

          by Gilles Corcos, APLV:

          No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially zero trouble with road crossings.

          For the detection of leaks:
          We use a water pressure test before filling the trenches over short lengths of assembled pipes ( 100 m. or so). Once the trenches are filled up again, leaks may or may not be directly noticed. For the conduction line, part of the maintenance taught to the village committe consists in comparing what leaves the spring box through the conduction line and what arrives at the tank at the end of the line. For the distribution network detecting a leak is sometime more difficult if it does not appear at the surface. Large leaks are detected from disfunction of parts of the network. On the other hand since the flow rate of each faucet taken individually is (predicted and) measured and recorded as part of the project termination any modification of this flow rate can be detected in the future if suspected. In fact as I mentioned before this has been a rare occurence. A more important source of water waste is an even small set of faucets in bad shape.

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        by Gilles Corcos, APLV: No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially ...

        by Gilles Corcos, APLV:

        No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially zero trouble with road crossings.

        For the detection of leaks:
        We use a water pressure test before filling the trenches over short lengths of assembled pipes ( 100 m. or so). Once the trenches are filled up again, leaks may or may not be directly noticed. For the conduction line, part of the maintenance taught to the village committe consists in comparing what leaves the spring box through the conduction line and what arrives at the tank at the end of the line. For the distribution network detecting a leak is sometime more difficult if it does not appear at the surface. Large leaks are detected from disfunction of parts of the network. On the other hand since the flow rate of each faucet taken individually is (predicted and) measured and recorded as part of the project termination any modification of this flow rate can be detected in the future if suspected. In fact as I mentioned before this has been a rare occurence. A more important source of water waste is an even small set of faucets in bad shape.

    • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

      Its great to hear about the longevity of your systems. Here, the systems i am overseeing (different urban setting) don't even last a few years. Tree roots grow and crack pipes. Other factors such as traffic and construction impact joints, etc. Do you have a way to detect and fix leaks? Spare pipes and joining skills? Thanks, Rajesh

      Its great to hear about the longevity of your systems.

      Here, the systems i am overseeing (different urban setting) don't even last a few years. Tree roots grow and crack pipes. Other factors such as traffic and construction impact joints, etc.

      Do you have a way to detect and fix leaks? Spare pipes and joining skills?

      Thanks,
      Rajesh

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        by Gilles Corcos, APLV: No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially ...

        by Gilles Corcos, APLV:

        No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially zero trouble with road crossings.

        For the detection of leaks:
        We use a water pressure test before filling the trenches over short lengths of assembled pipes ( 100 m. or so). Once the trenches are filled up again, leaks may or may not be directly noticed. For the conduction line, part of the maintenance taught to the village committe consists in comparing what leaves the spring box through the conduction line and what arrives at the tank at the end of the line. For the distribution network detecting a leak is sometime more difficult if it does not appear at the surface. Large leaks are detected from disfunction of parts of the network. On the other hand since the flow rate of each faucet taken individually is (predicted and) measured and recorded as part of the project termination any modification of this flow rate can be detected in the future if suspected. In fact as I mentioned before this has been a rare occurence. A more important source of water waste is an even small set of faucets in bad shape.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      by Gilles Corcos, APLV: No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially ...

      by Gilles Corcos, APLV:

      No doubt our rural settings make it easier to preserve underground piping. A one meter trench depth is always mandatory The main risks are the crossing under ravines and rivers and of course design or installation errors that place piping of insufficient strength in areas of high pressure. We have had essentially zero trouble with road crossings.

      For the detection of leaks:
      We use a water pressure test before filling the trenches over short lengths of assembled pipes ( 100 m. or so). Once the trenches are filled up again, leaks may or may not be directly noticed. For the conduction line, part of the maintenance taught to the village committe consists in comparing what leaves the spring box through the conduction line and what arrives at the tank at the end of the line. For the distribution network detecting a leak is sometime more difficult if it does not appear at the surface. Large leaks are detected from disfunction of parts of the network. On the other hand since the flow rate of each faucet taken individually is (predicted and) measured and recorded as part of the project termination any modification of this flow rate can be detected in the future if suspected. In fact as I mentioned before this has been a rare occurence. A more important source of water waste is an even small set of faucets in bad shape.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      to carry out a project only after we are satisfied that the population will carry out its contribution without fail. Each individual family is required to commit itself to the number of man-dyas of work we estimate is required. And once these commitments are made they are quite rarely repudiated. 4. $66,768 is the total cost of the projec...

      to carry out a project only after we are satisfied that the population will carry out its contribution without fail. Each individual family is required to commit itself to the number of man-dyas of work we estimate is required. And once these commitments are made they are quite rarely repudiated.
      4. $66,768 is the total cost of the project , including a $14,067 contribution mostly in work -equivalent on the part of the beneficiary community (evaluated at the rate of $3/day of work for one person) + $2462, a cash contribution from the municipality and $2000, a contribution by Agua para la Vida. The balance ( requested of the donor should have been given as $44, 377 rather than $48,639
      Gilles Corcos, APLV

      • Joe Madiath of Gram Vikas

        Thank you so much for your clarifications. Coming back to the first question - if this is the future estimated population for San Isidro what is the current population of San Isidro village and of the other two villages that will eventually benefit of the water spring too. You were mentioning that the costs for conduction line will be s...

        Thank you so much for your clarifications.

        Coming back to the first question - if this is the future estimated population for San Isidro what is the current population of San Isidro village and of the other two villages that will eventually benefit of the water spring too.

        You were mentioning that the costs for conduction line will be split between 3 communities. If 66 768 USD is total cost for San Isidro village what would be the the total costs for all 3 communities?
        Thank you,
        Cristina

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other servi...

          1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other services which causes isolated farmers to come to the recently equiped communities.

          2. $66, 768 is only the cost of San Isidro if you include the value of the community's work contribution which for these gravity flow systems is considerable even at $3 per man day of work. We include that contribution to show the commitment of the beneficiaries. But is not properly a cost to the outside contributors. That cost added for the three projects is $166,338 (for the integrated projects, not for just the water projects).
          Gilles Corcos

          • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

            Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

            Thank you for the dialog.

            Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
            I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

            Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

            Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

            I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

            Regards,
            Rajesh

            • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

              dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

              dear Rajesh:
              I am dividing your questions in three:
              -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
              - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
              -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
              Taking the fist question first:
              If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

              For the second question:

              On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
              Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
              Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

              Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

              Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
              Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
              Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

          • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

            dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

            dear Rajesh:
            I am dividing your questions in three:
            -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
            - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
            -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
            Taking the fist question first:
            If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

            For the second question:

            On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
            Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
            Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

            Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

            Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
            Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
            Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

        • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

          Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

          Thank you for the dialog.

          Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
          I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

          Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

          Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

          I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

          Regards,
          Rajesh

          • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

            dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

            dear Rajesh:
            I am dividing your questions in three:
            -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
            - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
            -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
            Taking the fist question first:
            If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

            For the second question:

            On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
            Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
            Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

            Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

            Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
            Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
            Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other servi...

        1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other services which causes isolated farmers to come to the recently equiped communities.

        2. $66, 768 is only the cost of San Isidro if you include the value of the community's work contribution which for these gravity flow systems is considerable even at $3 per man day of work. We include that contribution to show the commitment of the beneficiaries. But is not properly a cost to the outside contributors. That cost added for the three projects is $166,338 (for the integrated projects, not for just the water projects).
        Gilles Corcos

        • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

          Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

          Thank you for the dialog.

          Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
          I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

          Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

          Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

          I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

          Regards,
          Rajesh

          • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

            dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

            dear Rajesh:
            I am dividing your questions in three:
            -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
            - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
            -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
            Taking the fist question first:
            If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

            For the second question:

            On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
            Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
            Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

            Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

            Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
            Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
            Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

        Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

        Thank you for the dialog.

        Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
        I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

        Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

        Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

        I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

        Regards,
        Rajesh

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

        dear Rajesh:
        I am dividing your questions in three:
        -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
        - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
        -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
        Taking the fist question first:
        If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

        For the second question:

        On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
        Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
        Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

        Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

        Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
        Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
        Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

    • Joe Madiath of Gram Vikas

      Thank you so much for your clarifications. Coming back to the first question - if this is the future estimated population for San Isidro what is the current population of San Isidro village and of the other two villages that will eventually benefit of the water spring too. You were mentioning that the costs for conduction line will be s...

      Thank you so much for your clarifications.

      Coming back to the first question - if this is the future estimated population for San Isidro what is the current population of San Isidro village and of the other two villages that will eventually benefit of the water spring too.

      You were mentioning that the costs for conduction line will be split between 3 communities. If 66 768 USD is total cost for San Isidro village what would be the the total costs for all 3 communities?
      Thank you,
      Cristina

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other servi...

        1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other services which causes isolated farmers to come to the recently equiped communities.

        2. $66, 768 is only the cost of San Isidro if you include the value of the community's work contribution which for these gravity flow systems is considerable even at $3 per man day of work. We include that contribution to show the commitment of the beneficiaries. But is not properly a cost to the outside contributors. That cost added for the three projects is $166,338 (for the integrated projects, not for just the water projects).
        Gilles Corcos

        • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

          Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

          Thank you for the dialog.

          Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
          I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

          Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

          Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

          I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

          Regards,
          Rajesh

          • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

            dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

            dear Rajesh:
            I am dividing your questions in three:
            -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
            - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
            -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
            Taking the fist question first:
            If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

            For the second question:

            On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
            Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
            Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

            Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

            Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
            Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
            Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

        Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

        Thank you for the dialog.

        Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
        I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

        Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

        Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

        I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

        Regards,
        Rajesh

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

        dear Rajesh:
        I am dividing your questions in three:
        -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
        - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
        -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
        Taking the fist question first:
        If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

        For the second question:

        On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
        Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
        Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

        Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

        Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
        Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
        Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other servi...

      1. The total present beneficiary population for the three communities is 591. The population for which the project is designed is nearly twice that. Note that if often occurs with our projects that the additional population is not so much the result of a large birth rate as it is the attraction of the availability of water and other services which causes isolated farmers to come to the recently equiped communities.

      2. $66, 768 is only the cost of San Isidro if you include the value of the community's work contribution which for these gravity flow systems is considerable even at $3 per man day of work. We include that contribution to show the commitment of the beneficiaries. But is not properly a cost to the outside contributors. That cost added for the three projects is $166,338 (for the integrated projects, not for just the water projects).
      Gilles Corcos

      • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

        Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

        Thank you for the dialog.

        Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
        I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

        Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

        Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

        I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

        Regards,
        Rajesh

        • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

          dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

          dear Rajesh:
          I am dividing your questions in three:
          -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
          - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
          -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
          Taking the fist question first:
          If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

          For the second question:

          On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
          Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
          Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

          Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

          Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
          Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
          Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

        dear Rajesh:
        I am dividing your questions in three:
        -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
        - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
        -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
        Taking the fist question first:
        If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

        For the second question:

        On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
        Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
        Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

        Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

        Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
        Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
        Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

    • Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

      Thank you for the dialog. Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round? I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination. Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed. Yes, transporti...

      Thank you for the dialog.

      Are the nearby water sources (ravines) all year round?
      I assume when you mean polluted, it is mainly biological contamination.

      Can we not use biosand filters to filter the water? At either household or community water. Or filters of the type our friend Ron Rivera of Potters for Peace championed.

      Yes, transporting the water will likely remain as it is today, and the volume used will not be able to grow to 70 liters a day per person.

      I agree it is not the most optimal solution, but at least an interim one, or one that we can spread far more widely and quickly.

      Regards,
      Rajesh

      • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

        dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

        dear Rajesh:
        I am dividing your questions in three:
        -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
        - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
        -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
        Taking the fist question first:
        If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

        For the second question:

        On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
        Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
        Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

        Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

        Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
        Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
        Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

    • Gilles Corcos of Agua Para la Vida (APLV)

      dear Rajesh: I am dividing your questions in three: -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring? - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of p...

      dear Rajesh:
      I am dividing your questions in three:
      -Is there not a better way to decrease the cost of access to a sufficient amount of drinking water using a different approach than a gravity flow system from a spring?
      - Is it not preferable, given a fixed amount of available money, to provide a small amount of safe water to a lot of people rather than a larger amount at a higher cost?
      -Should we bother with very dispersed populations except perhaps by providing them with minimal drinking water from individual house filters?
      Taking the fist question first:
      If you look at the detail of our budgets (broken down by parts of the project) you will notice that a very large part of the cost is that of the distribution network from the tank to the individual taps. That fraction of the cost varies with the geography of the community and of its spring. But it reflects the very dispersed nature of Nicaraguan villages. For San Isidro for instance we have 1331 m of conduction line but 8992 m of distribution network, and distribution networks need to have a greater overall flow capacity than conduction lines because they have to accommodate peak demand. So the distance from the spring to the village is not the main issue and using (torrents in ravines) would only complicate the design and construction by requiring expensive pre-filters, settling channels and filters that springs usually do not need and that require more complex maintenance. Gravity flow from a good spring IS the option of choice in this case.

      For the second question:

      On the issue of a small quantity of water for the many vs. a larger quantity for fewer:
      Many public health field studies have found that the quantity of water provided is at least as important as its quality. Concretely the amount of water needed for personal hygiene makes the difference between drinking & cooking water and aliments which are contaminated or not. So there is a minimum need below which the health issue is really not dealt with. That minimum is not reached with house filters.
      Note however that the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive: it makes good sense to equip those outlying houses that a water network cannot reach, with individual water filters of which there are a great variety and which cost little. That is assuredly better than nothing. But the impact on health of that sort of water access is very limited.

      Finally, should we bother about scattered populations?

      Once it is understood that there are many ways of bringing healthy water to rural populations but that each method: (RWH, hand dug wells with manual pumps, drilled wells with mechanical-electrical pumps, gravity-flow systems from springs or from streams , filtering of contaminated water by several different techniques, even desalination, and some others) comes with very different advantages and disadvantages including of course cost, so that the choice between several of them is not clear-cut, (apples and oranges), there remains the fundamental question :
      Because money access is limited, do we only go after the most cost-effective populations and leave the others without decent water? Years ago in the region of Matagalpa APLV picked up some really difficult and relatively expensive projects (that had been turned down by all other available water agencies) –precisely because the villages involved had nobody else to turn to. This tends to be our attitude to this day.
      Breslin has already dealt adequately with that issue. But in the end the question is: Do we want to qualify the statement that adequate drinking water is a right for all? That seems to be a good subject for debate.

  • Rating: 6

    review by (only shown to members)

    making safe water more convenient is good. you should get written permission to create a pond and run pipe on the owners land. the law may grant access but may not allow for construction of a water system. Your educational component is key to sustainability. given the facts most will work toward the health of their family.

  • Rating: 9

    review by (only shown to members)

    The overall project for the three villages proposed is very similar in cost and execution to multiple projects we have done in Guatemala on similar terrain. It would be my suggestion to fund all three of the projects since sometimes doing only part produces envy amongst the other communities and gives the project a disadvantage in the beginning by dividing the communities. Working together on the other hand for a common goal solidifies the three communities in a common project. I would give the project a lessesr rating (7) if only one of the communities is accepted and a higher rating (9) if all three are accepted.

  • Rating: 6

    review by (only shown to members)

    The design of the project seems to be OK.
    But the're might be a problem with the proposed budget - can BPR finance this whole program (and this draining the whole available budget to one single parnter) ?
    And what is the relevance of financing only a small part when the rest of the communities are still without water ?

  • Rating: 4

    review by (only shown to members)

    This is a good proposal. The rating is a reflection of the funders' requirements.

    For BPR and its constituency one metric is cost/beneficiary. This does not reflect the need of the people, nor any criticism of the approach. It is to more with fundraising.

    Realizing that 2 similar projects are also proposed, BPR will try and support the one with maximum co-funding, minimizing the impact BPR's statistics. The others can be kept on the PWX website as 'requiring funding' to see if other funders (esp. institutions) are interested.

  • Rating: 8

    review by (only shown to members)

    El Porvenir and APLV have worked together on projects in the past, and APLV always did an excellent job. I visited one shared project in 2004 and was impressed with the work of APLV, that they stayed on schedule, and in how they worked with the community.

  • Rating: 6

    review by (only shown to members)

    Seems like a worthwhile project, but I did find the application a little bit confusing in places, and it does seem costly. However, they do seem to be experienced at carrying out these projects

Name Status Completion Date Amount Assigned
San Isidro, (Province of Matagalpa, Municipality of Matiguas, Nicaragua) integral drinking water project Complete - Successful Oct 2010 $44,377