plan 74Arsenic Safe Drinking Water: Gaighata Phase 2

Summary

Self-supporting community- based mitigation program that provides arsenic safe water using modified dugwells along with public education on water related health effects.

  • Thumb_pw55.jpg_113007
  • Thumb_pw50a.jpg_113007

Background

Project Well, PW, (2001) has developed a self-supporting community-based mitigation program to provide arsenic safe water to the villagers of the districts of N 24 Parganas of West Bengal, India. There are 22 blocks in this district. PW has been operating in the parts of the blocks namely, Deganga and Habra 1 where the population drinking arsenic contaminated water >50 PPB are 87,334 and 66,685 respectively, and drinking >10 PPB are 133460 and 106374 respectively (In India the drinking water standard for arsenic, according to the Bureau of Indian Standard, is 50 PPB). Experts from various disciplines are advisors of this program. The primary objective of Project Well is to encourage the use of modified conventional dugwell through small community-based groups, comprising 10-20 families, to manage the new source of arsenic safe water and make it sustainable.The program began with the first dugwell in 2001. The outcome of the one-year research program was published in 2003 (Ref: Smith, M. M., T. Hore, et al. "A dugwell program to provide arsenic-safe water in West Bengal, India: preliminary results." J Environ Sci Health Part A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38(1): 289-99, see pdf file below). In total, 45 dugwells were constructed in different villages. The map of the target area with the location of the dugwells is available at http://projectwellusa.org/maps/maps.htm. The villages under the Kolsur panchayat have been reported to be severely affected, with 75% of their tubewells contaminated.. In the next two years forty dugwells will be introduced in the Gaighata block where the number of people drinking water containing arsenic >50 PPB is estimated to be about 106,000, and those who are drinking >10 PPB number about 155,000.

Location

West Bengal, , India

Attachments

  • Pdf BPR_Budg...
  • Pdf BPR_Budg...
  • Pdf village_...

Focus

Primary Focus: Drinking Water - Community
Secondary Focus: Hygiene Education

People Getting Safe Drinking Water: 1,491

registers are being created. data is not entered in the computer yet.

School Children Getting Water: 212

registers are being created, data is not entered in the computer yet.

People Getting Sanitation: 0

People Getting Other Benefits: 1,498

Public health education on arsenic health effects and personal hygiene is given to all the dugwell beneficiaries. A training program on the maintenance of the dugwells (including chlorination) is given to develop a sense of ownership and to make the program sustainable. There are five field workers working on the dugwell program who are selected from the arsenic afflicted villages. They are involved in site selection, village meetings during site selection, followed by construction of the wells and also follow up the on the technical faults of the dugwells and the numebr of users. The villagers are also shown VCDs on how to improve personal health and hygeine through proper practices. The office of Aqua Welfare Society is located in the village and the coordinator and the account asistant / data entry person travel from Kolkata to meet with them weekly. Trades like well-digging, pottery, and masonry, are required for the dugwell program and are benefiting from work generated by the project.

Application Type: Program Funding

Start Date: 2008-01-01

Completion Date: 2008-12-31

Technology Used:

Modified conventional dugwells are constructed at carefully selected sites. The diameter of each dugwell is one meter and the depth is generally less than 30 feet. The design and practice of the Project Well dugwells differ from the traditional ones mainly in the following ways:1. A layer of coarse sand six inches wide envelops the outer wall of the concrete cylinder;2. The mouth of the well is covered with a nylon mosquito net and a tin sheet that is padlocked;3. Water is extracted using hand pumps to reduce potential bacterial contamination;4. Flexible pipes that float with the fluctuating water table are installed. 5. The dugwells are disinfected once a month with sodium hypochlorite solution containing 5% chlorine, following USEPA guidelines.The water in these shallow dugwells originates from rainwater or surface water from the surrounding water bodies that have low arsenic concentrations.

Phases:

One Phase.

Community Organization:

The local government bodies like the Block Development office and gram panchayats will be notified about the more dugwells to be constructed in their area so that they can be invlolved in the program. At the proposed villages the field workers will organize villages meetings. Door-to-door campaigning is carried out, during which field workers cover the methods of the program and distribute information sheets on the effects of arsenic poisoning. After a few meetings with the prospective beneficiaries, the communities donate sites. (The dugwell is not constructed on any government property). The sense of ownership develops from the very start by this donation of a plot of land for the dugwell that is shared by the neighbors. After approval of the selected sites by the experts, based on the local geology and existence of arsenic contaminated tubewells, the community-based groups are formed.The family that donates the land becomes the chief caretaker. To maintain the well, training is given to an educated person of the community who is capable of measuring the volume of water in the well, from which the dose of disinfectant is determined. A user-friendly chart is given as a guide for the dose of disinfectant to be applied. In the areas where it is hard to find literate persons, a field worker chlorinates the water. Every month Rs. 10/- (25 U.S. cents) is to be collected from the beneficiary families for the maintenance of the well. The maintenance includes purchase of the disinfectant, repairing any wear and tear of the well, and measurement of arsenic once a year. The sense of ownership and investment develops amongst the users as they pay to obtain arsenic safe water.

Government Interaction:

Ancillary activities:

Project Well keeps a database evaluating the use of the dugwells with the help of a map and excel file that relates the two components: DW identifying number and the number of users. The excel file also contains the quality of water. Apart from this the field workers take notes on all the technical wear and tear of the dugwells that are fixed by the consumers if there is enough amount of collected funds otherwise the cost is subsidized from the Project fund. Consumers are visited monthly during the first year and quarterly later, by the grass root level field workers and ask about outbreaks of diarrhea and dysentery among users of each dugwell. There have been no such outbreaks linked to any particular dugwell water use over a period of five years.

Other Issues:

Research and Development is ongoing on the dugwells in which the water contain organic odor and high fecal coliform that occurs mainly when the dugwell is fairly new. The water is treated with lime and in case of high level of fecal coliform the water is treated regularly with theoline, the disinfectant that contains 5% chlorine. Villagers are advised not to use the water for a few days during the period of shock treatment. Some villagers complain about the slight odor of chlorine for which a new program has been introduced in July 2006 to assess the efficacy of the locally available cheap domestic filters that would remove the unwanted smell. The analysis of the observation is under process of writing and will be publised shortly. The earthen filters are the cheapest about 80-100 INR and affordable and favored by the villagers because it also keeps water cool that is appreciated almost throughout the year. The only limitation of such filters is the need to handle with care.

Maintenance Revenue:

For 40 dugwells USD1360

Maintenance Cost: $34

Metrics:

Prior art before metrics

Cost: $16,628


Construction of 20 new dugwells:8354; Water analysis:1316; Transport:608;Training, Awareness and Follow-Up:5529; Office expenses: 820. Total:16628

Co Funding Amount: $5,165

Project Well Private donors

Community Contribution Amount:

Community contributes the land to construct the dugwell and Rs.10/- (25 cents) per month for maintenance of the dugwell. The earthen filter if needed to remove any sort of odor is subsidized only for the first time.

Fund Requested: $11,716

Implementing Organization: Aqua Welfare Society, West Bengal, India

All the members are in honorary position and they are from various disciplines. The key founding members are Dr. Meera M Hira Smith, PhD (Geography), Treasurer and Director of Project Well, California, USA and researcher in the School of Public Health, Arsenic Health Effects Research Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Timir Hore, Ph.D (Hydro-geology), Technical advisor of Project Well, New Jersey, USA. Mr. Protap Chakraverti, (Geology) advisor of Project Well and Ex-director of Geological Survey of India, Kolkata Prof. Allan H Smith, (Epidemiology), President of Project Well and Professor and Principal Investigator of Health Effect Studies on Arsenic in School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley.

The other members and advisors of Project Well are Ms. Cynthia Green (Environmental Engineer) Secretary of Project Well and masters candidate in Environmental and Water Resources Engineering, University of Texas. Ms. Jane Liaw, MPH, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Ms. Lisa Booker, Oakland, California, USA.
*Prof. Richard Wilson, PhD, Physics, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA.

Honorary Members of Aqua Welfare Society, Kolkata, India are Mr. Amal Ghosh, (Lawyer), President. Mr. Uday Mukherjee, (Geology)t, Secretary. Ms. Alpana Hira-Davidson, MSc, Treasurer. Other members are Mr. Protap Chakraverti, Geology. Dr. Xavier Savarimuthu, PhD, Environmental Science. Mr. Somendranath Banerjee, Geology. Mr. Punurdan Dutta, Social Worker. Other members are Mrs. Rajashree Hira, Social Worker, Ms. Monimala Mishra, MSc. Teacher. The Project Coordinator (2008) is Mr. Suprio Das, Chartered Electrical Engineer and the account assistant and computer person is Mr. Sekhar Pal, M.Com, 2nd year in MSW. Field Workers are Mr. Dennis Baroi, Mrs. Farida Bibi, Mr. Biswajit Karmakar, Mr. Asit Mondol and Mrs. Shilpi Poddar.

Attachments

  • Pdf BPR_Budg...
  • Pdf BPR_Budg...
  • Pdf village_...
  • 2 participants | show more

    Too many approaches to arsenic mitigation?

    Ned Breslin of Water for People

    I wonder if there are too many individual approaches to arsenic mitigation - there are so many organizations, so many technologies, etc. I wonder how this programme hopes to shape debate on arsenic mitigation so that lessons learned can be applied by others.

    I wonder if there are too many individual approaches to arsenic mitigation - there are so many organizations, so many technologies, etc. I wonder how this programme hopes to shape debate on arsenic mitigation so that lessons learned can be applied by others.

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      Sorry for the delay in reply due to travel. Yes, there are many approaches but in pockets of villages, unfortunaltely the remote villages are left out. Several approaches have failed due to discontinuation of maintenance of the arsenic removal filters. The government is still implementing deep tubewells that are decided by the local pan...

      Sorry for the delay in reply due to travel.
      Yes, there are many approaches but in pockets of villages, unfortunaltely the remote villages are left out. Several approaches have failed due to discontinuation of maintenance of the arsenic removal filters. The government is still implementing deep tubewells that are decided by the local panchayet and in Feb of this year within 8 feet from the dugwell # PW7 that was constructed in 2002 and was being used very well a so called ‘deep’ tubewell was installed that contained arsenic concentration 80 PPB and the dugwell contained 6 PPB, tested in summer. The government has plans to cover all the villages with pipelines within the next few years. Wonder when would such pipeline reach the people living in the areas where the bus route is more than 10 km away such as in some villages in Gaighata close to Bangladesh border. Our approach is to go to those villages where dugwells are feasible and it would take several years for the pipeline water supply to be implemented. I can send pictures of deep tubewells close to dugwells if anybody wants to see. A pdf ppt, presented at the Royal Geographic Society at London in August, is available in the Richard Wilson’s website (arsenic) that is linked from Project Well website’s ‘other links’. Please read responses to the following questions to get more information. Thank you.

  • 2 participants | show more

    Sanitation + phase 1 learnings

    Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

    The Phase I of this project was completed with partial success. Can you expand on any adaptation to the learnings from the previous project? In addition to the cow-dung issue, is anything being done about sanitation? Other than relocating away from water source? Do people have adequate access? Or is it just public space? If so, can we i...

    The Phase I of this project was completed with partial success. Can you expand on any adaptation to the learnings from the previous project?

    In addition to the cow-dung issue, is anything being done about sanitation? Other than relocating away from water source?

    Do people have adequate access?
    Or is it just public space? If so, can we introduce ecosan or other sanitation?

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      Construction of all the 20 dugwells were completed by June 2007. By partial success it means that people (600) have not started drinking water. By now a little more than 300 are using the well water and the remaining have not started due to (1) report of the bacteria tests are still pending and (2) there are few who do not like the taste ...

      Construction of all the 20 dugwells were completed by June 2007. By partial success it means that people (600) have not started drinking water. By now a little more than 300 are using the well water and the remaining have not started due to (1) report of the bacteria tests are still pending and (2) there are few who do not like the taste of the water that has a slight organic or earthy smell and mainly the chlorine odor. Effort is and will be carried on to educate the people on the benefits of the dugwell water. It is very important that the members of the panchayet also cooperate because the government of West Bengal still does not support dugwells because of the issue of susceptibility of disease caused by bacteria overlooking the fact about chlorination altogether and discussion in the published articles and at conferences. In Gaighata there was enough support from the Block Development Office and the Public Health Officer is very much involved in the field who also attends some village meetings and health meetings whenever possible. We just need to wait and observe the response of the people in Gaighata PWSET2 area for which the data will be tracked monthly for one year followed by quarterly in the following years until the dugwells become sustainabe.

      Technical issue and learnings: The depth of dugwells were tried to be increase by using longer pipes still could be increased due to severe sand boiling at around 14 feet in some areas and the maximum depth obtained this year is 23.5 feet instead of 30 feet that would have been ideal to get water through out the year. The average depth is 20 feet. So in the coming year at every proposed site a very small diameter hole will be bore prior to the construction to get the composition and depth of different layers of sediments that hopefully will also detect any historical cowdung pit. The cost of such boring will be less than US$20. Any suggestions from experts on deepening holes of 3 feet diameter considering the geology of Gaighata will be highly appreciated.

      Sanitation: Most of the villagers in Gaighata (PWSET2 area) have pit latrines introduced by Dr. Mondol, the PH officer of BDO. For which I was informed that Dr. Mondol received some sort of acknowledgement for which he had to travel to New Delhi. I have seen few such latrines in November. Don’t have the exact data. But in the PWSET1 area including Habra may need a few. If BPR is interested in introducing sanitation would it be through PW-Aqua Welfare Society or other organization? PW-AWS has only arsenic safe water in their agenda of by-laws that will need to be revised if sanitation is introduced. Need to discuss.

  • 2 participants | show more

    Flash chlorination

    Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

    I'm curious about the flash chlorination. I see that you use the mawtka filter in conjunction with the well to remove the chlorine taste. I wasn't able to find much information on it except on Project Well's website. If the chlorination done once a month and people still must consider purchasing another filtration option, does your WASH E...

    I'm curious about the flash chlorination. I see that you use the mawtka filter in conjunction with the well to remove the chlorine taste. I wasn't able to find much information on it except on Project Well's website. If the chlorination done once a month and people still must consider purchasing another filtration option, does your WASH Edcuation and outreach include a formal workshop on those options and the pros and cons of each? It sounds as if you have received feedback from some beneficiaries about their preferences, and it might be an added benefit for your users to have a choice in how they ensure that their water is clean and they like the taste.

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      The cost of one mawtka filter is US$2-3 max. The filter is comprised of 2 earthen pots and the top one is fitted with a simple charcoal filter to remove any sort of odor and also the impurities in some cases sand and silt particles. The picture of such filter is on page 4 of the NL 2006 published in 2007. Filter is not required in all t...

      The cost of one mawtka filter is US$2-3 max. The filter is comprised of 2 earthen pots and the top one is fitted with a simple charcoal filter to remove any sort of odor and also the impurities in some cases sand and silt particles. The picture of such filter is on page 4 of the NL 2006 published in 2007. Filter is not required in all the dugwells for the water quality of some dugwells is excellent.
      The response of the villagers at the workshops is very poor. Firstly they are least concerned about their health for they do not know that they can live a better healthy life just by drinking potable water and practicing good personal hygeine. The turnout at any awareness programmes, unless organized by the local panchayats, is poor. At occasions they were being dragged from the home to attend and auto rickshaws were hired to provide them transport. Well snacks is a big attraction where mostly children turn up. It is a total waste. After several episodes PW-AWS have taken an approach of doing door-to-door visits and health meetings in small groups. At the health meetings a movie is shown and at a suitable time the movie is stopped for about 40 minutes when an interactive health education is carried out with the help of short film or ppt on arsenic health effects, knowledge on bacteria and polluted water and why chlorination is important etc and also on practice of proper personal hygeine.

      Selection of Mawtka filter: The earthen ‘mawtka’ filter was selected after a research program using three different types of filters of different manufacturers with steel and plastic body too. Followed by blind tasting of 20 water samples, collected from different sources including deep tw, shallow tw, raw water from the dw, dugwell water passed through the earthen, steel and plastic filters. The tasting and filling up of a qustionnaire was done by 16 people from the local village of Bamondanga and experts of AWS and PW. The analysis show that the taste of water of the mawtka filter and deep tubewell were almost same. The paper on this research program is almost completed and will be published soon.
      The users would love to get any water that is free and they do not need to maintain and we are trying to change the trend through health meetings. As today farmers know the benefit of fertilizers and insecticides similarly someday the users will experience the effects of the chlorinated water on their health and will learn and practice chlorination. Arsenic Removal Filters are not supported by PW-AWS because (1) its maintenance is much more expensive than dugwell and (2) the sludge may become a burden on the future generation.
      Thanks for your query.

  • 2 participants | show more

    government involvement

    Gemma Bulos of A Single Drop

    How do you include the local government? I see that the field workers do most of the campaigning. What is the ideal role that the local government would play?

    How do you include the local government? I see that the field workers do most of the campaigning. What is the ideal role that the local government would play?

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      This is a tough question. The village representative called ‘panchayat’ are most powerful in determining what to be done in the village and where including the awareness programs, sites for water supply, roads too for their personal gain. Atleast with the selection of dugwell site we follow science that enabled us to rule out sites prop...

      This is a tough question. The village representative called ‘panchayat’ are most powerful in determining what to be done in the village and where including the awareness programs, sites for water supply, roads too for their personal gain. Atleast with the selection of dugwell site we follow science that enabled us to rule out sites proposed by them in the past. But currently 8 historical dugwells have been either closed or will be closed due to installation of deep tubewell right next to dugwells and also there are plans for pipelines to traverse in those areas. It is excellent that pipelines are going where dugwells are because dugwells are considered as short term method as long as the pipelines are maintained well. Recently survey has been carried out in areas where pipelines have already been installed and people are using the pipeline water but they do not want the dugwell to be sealed (filled-in and closed) because they do not trust the quality of the pipeline water that may get turbid in the next monsoon or supply may fail due to power failure during severe storms. Such dugwells will be closed after one year of observation so that the materials can be re-used at other spots.

      The government office at the district level is BDO (block development office) and at Gaighata they were very cooperative because their office did not receive any plan on pipeline distribution yet. They have allowed free access of the NGO, Aqua Welfare Society, to the villages and the medical doctor of BDO accompanied them at several village meetings. So far there was no protests in the villages except in one area that was encoutered during site selection. The site was cancelled and relocated.

      For one year two field workers from the arsenic affected villages where dugwells are installed are engaged to help in selection of sites, forming CBGs (community based groups) at every dugwell and training them to administer chlorine and other wear and tear. The work of the field workers also include creating registers of the consumers and record the number of users and their complaints, if any, and also the quality of water monthly. The data is used for tracking to solve existing or any new problems that may be social, technical or even financial for maintenance. It is the political problem that is hard to solve. Any suggestions will be highly appreciated. We have tried many ways but failed in the PWSET1 area.

      Role of the govt: In Gaighata at the preliminary meeting it has been discussed that after one year of paying the service of the 2 field workers by PW-AWS the BDO would pay. (Ideally the payment of these 2 field workers are supposed to come from the maintenance fund collected from the CBGs that is still in theory and discussed in the article on dugwell that was published in 2003. Practically it will take several more years, until they see the benefit of arsenic safe, chlorinated water). We still need to see what happens. If the BDO does recruit the existing field workers to oversee the dugwells it would be great and data tracking by Project Well through AWS will still be carried on by getting data from the recruits and the data will be cross checked from time to time.
      Thank you very much for all the questions and I will be happy to send reports and articles, if they are not available from the website, upon request.

  • 3 participants | show more

    Budget question

    Rajesh Shah of Blue Planet Network

    I am confused by the 2 budgets (one for 10 and one for 20 wells). You are asking for 20 but the numbers don't add up (other funding sources) and the final ask is for the 10 wells. Can you please clarify? Also, it might be useful to submit budgets in excel format so people can see the calculations and verify and play around with numbers....

    I am confused by the 2 budgets (one for 10 and one for 20 wells).

    You are asking for 20 but the numbers don't add up (other funding sources) and the final ask is for the 10 wells.

    Can you please clarify?

    Also, it might be useful to submit budgets in excel format so people can see the calculations and verify and play around with numbers. The pdf is done prettily but not as useful.

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      Yes uploaded both to show that with construction of 10 dugwells the cost is US$ 11,716 and to construct 10 more the total cost is US$16,628. The difference is US$4912 that is the cost of construction of 10 dugwells. (Please see the budget in excel and correct it if there is any error.) But fund required is US$5433 to cover the construct...

      Yes uploaded both to show that with construction of 10 dugwells the cost is US$ 11,716 and to construct 10 more the total cost is US$16,628. The difference is US$4912 that is the cost of construction of 10 dugwells. (Please see the budget in excel and correct it if there is any error.) But fund required is US$5433 to cover the construction, water analysis and transportation of materials and more field visits. There are other expenses that are not included like printing of newsletters and calendars, health meetings (Rs.500/- is the latest figure per meeting at Gaighata to hire the TV monitor, VCD player, back up battery), observing water quality of few dugwells that fall in the R&D category plus cost of repair of wear and tear that is subsidized by PW-AWS because in some areas people are still not willing to pay for the maintenance.
      Also, it might be useful to submit budgets in excel format so people can see the calculations and verify and play around with numbers. The pdf is done prettily but not as useful.
      Will upload the excel file shortly. Please bear with the dial-up line from overseas.
      Thank you for your queries.

      • Rob Bell of El Porvenir

        Meera, I share Rajesh's confusion here. I am understanding you correctly that you are asking for 20 wells and $11716? The funding difference is being co-funded? Too bad you do not have sanitation in your bylaws, I definitely encourage you to look into adding that. Thanks for your efforts though. Rob

        Meera,

        I share Rajesh's confusion here. I am understanding you correctly that you are asking for 20 wells and $11716? The funding difference is being co-funded?

        Too bad you do not have sanitation in your bylaws, I definitely encourage you to look into adding that.

        Thanks for your efforts though.

        Rob

    • Rob Bell of El Porvenir

      Meera, I share Rajesh's confusion here. I am understanding you correctly that you are asking for 20 wells and $11716? The funding difference is being co-funded? Too bad you do not have sanitation in your bylaws, I definitely encourage you to look into adding that. Thanks for your efforts though. Rob

      Meera,

      I share Rajesh's confusion here. I am understanding you correctly that you are asking for 20 wells and $11716? The funding difference is being co-funded?

      Too bad you do not have sanitation in your bylaws, I definitely encourage you to look into adding that.

      Thanks for your efforts though.

      Rob

  • 2 participants | show more

    I may have inserted the wrong data in Number of people 'getting' safe drinking water.

    Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

    Hi Rajesh, 1) In the section where "Number of people getting safe drinking water" the current number of people who are already 'getting' (present continuous tense) water from dugwells has been inserted. And I think, after going through the old proposals, it should be the number of people who will get water from the next year's water sup...

    Hi Rajesh,
    1) In the section where "Number of people getting safe drinking water" the current number of people who are already 'getting' (present continuous tense) water from dugwells has been inserted. And I think, after going through the old proposals, it should be the number of people who will get water from the next year's water supply. If that is so, then the number would be 600 instead of 1491. I think this number is crucial to calculate the cost per head.
    2) What is the cost for sanitation per head, USD30 as in case of water?
    Thank you
    Meera

    • Rajesh Shah of Peer Water Exchange

      Thanks for the correction. It should be 600. Also, when we say children getting safe drinking water, it refers to school projects, not to children included in the above number (no double counting). 2) Don't have a number yet, varies more wildly than the cost per person of drinking water. We have much less data (BPR). Also revenue models ...

      Thanks for the correction.

      It should be 600.
      Also, when we say children getting safe drinking water, it refers to school projects, not to children included in the above number (no double counting).

      2) Don't have a number yet, varies more wildly than the cost per person of drinking water. We have much less data (BPR). Also revenue models for sanitation are tough, making long-term sustainability an issue.

      • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

        Thanks for clarification. The number of children need to be taken off too since there is no school project.

        Thanks for clarification. The number of children need to be taken off too since there is no school project.

    • Meera Hira-Smith of Project Well

      Thanks for clarification. The number of children need to be taken off too since there is no school project.

      Thanks for clarification. The number of children need to be taken off too since there is no school project.

  • Rating: 7

    review by (only shown to members)

    The need for arsenic mitigation is tremendous. This project is good in that it is reaching an area outside of the government pipeline, but it is just a drop in the bucket unless efforts are made to create a model that is being scaled up and replicated by others to impact the many many thousands of people being affected.

  • Rating: 7

    review by (only shown to members)

    Arsenic contamination is being dealt with different technologies, but the cause of contamination needs to be ascertained and worked on.

  • Rating: 8

    review by (only shown to members)

    Tough area to work in - the abundance of clear water (though containing arsenic) make it a challenge.

  • Rating: 7

    review by (only shown to members)

    Definitely should look into sanitation as a complement to the water projects. Good luck.

  • Rating: 9

    review by (only shown to members)

    - The project is well planned to provide arsenic safe water to the community.
    - The low cost technology is perfect in order to originate low arsenic safe water from the surrounding water bodies.
    - The involvement of homogenous group is good.

  • Not Reviewed

    by (only shown to members)

  • Rating: 9

    review by (only shown to members)

    They have a proven track record for this program. Since they have many projects already underway, I wouldn't mind seeing an in depth study on health improvement.

Name Status Completion Date Amount Assigned
Arsenic free dugwell (PW74GDP1) funded by BPR & Glen Ridge RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW73SU13) funded by BPR & Glen Ridge RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW75GDP2) funded by BPR & Glen Ridge RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW76GDP3) funded by BPR & Glen Ridge RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW77GDP4) funded by BPR & Glen Ridge RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW78SU14) funded by BPR & Bloomfield RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW79SU15) funded by BPR & Bloomfield RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW80GDP4) funded by BPR & Bloomfield RC Complete - Unsuccessful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW81SU16) funded by BPR & Bloomfield RC Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,171
Arsenic free dugwell (PW82SU17) funded by Blue Planet Run Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $1,177
Project Well Self-funded - See the # PW83 to PW92 for detail Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
REFER TO INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS UPLOADED: Arsenic Safe Drinking Water: Gaighata Phase 2 Complete - Successful Sep 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW83DUM2) funded by Project Well Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW84DUM3) funded by Project Well Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW85JDN4) funded by Project Well Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW86RMN4) funded by Project Well Pvt. Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW87RMN5) funded by Project Well Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW88JDN1) funded by Rustam Stolkin, Jennifer and Philip Milner, London, UK Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW89RMN7) funded by Project Well Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW90SML3) funded by Group Mosaique, Sagney, Canada Complete - Unsuccessful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW91SU19) funded by David Kalman and Cecil Hudson, Seattle, WA Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0
Arsenic free dugwell (PW92SU17) funded by Group Mosaique, Sagney, Canada Complete - Successful Dec 2008 $0