Drilled 6 boreholes next to clinics maintained by MSH, providing water to the nearby community. H20+ unifies health, water, sanitation, and education activities at the community level for a maximum technical synergy and cost-effectiveness.

Narrative

The Pallisa project was funded by the S.L. Gimbel Foundation through Blue Planet network, and done in partnership with Management Sciences for Health. ILF and its partners were charged to provide clean water at six health centers. ILF was able to successfully install six boreholes, each with a trained Water User Committees in the Pallisa District of Eastern Uganda. The grant's intent, as described in the award and agreement letter, was to "Enable sustainable clean water and associated education and health benefits for up to 3,900 people in rural communities in Eastern Uganda." ILF was able to exceed this goal by providing access to drinking water to the six health centers, and also to a total of 7,037 individuals.

All of the water sources from this project are deep boreholes that have aquifers sourced in the basement. Biological and chemical water quality analysis confirmed that all the water sources are providing clean water that meets or exceeds Uganda National standards for drinking water. Five of the six boreholes were sited on the health center compound, and the last was sited 150 meters away, because of the lack of groundwater presence on the health center compound. The flow rates for each of the six boreholes were very good, and two of the boreholes (Kanyum and Opweteta) have a flow rate that is high enough (>3 m3/hr) to support a submersible pump. Indian Mark U3M hand pumps were installed on all the water sources which are rustproof and have a long time interval between repairs. A borehole commissioning ceremony was held and district, sub-county, WUC chairman, LC1 and community members were invited. There was a strong turnout of 50 invited guests and another 50 community members at Kanyum borehole. During the ceremony, the borehole at Kanyum was dedicated to Amuge Theresa, an elderly woman, who donated the land for the health center.

H2O Health Plus' first priority was for ILF, as Blue Planet Network's member and expert in water, hygiene, and sanitation project implementation, to conduct thorough evaluations and baseline surveys of the water and sanitation needs of each community, school, and health clinic in the Pallisa District. ILF collected information including population density, distance to closest water source, geological and hydrological surveys, community readiness and ownership, location of health clinics and schools, and health and education indicators. ILF's full implementation process is summarized through 12 steps, from beneficiary selection to completion of a functioning borehole and fully trained Water User Committee.

The beneficiary selection began with a list of health centers provided by the District Health Office, in coordination with MSH. Unfortunately, none of these centers were good candidates for boreholes, either because they were located within 100 meters of a water source, or boreholes had been previously attempted and had come up dry at those sites. From there ILF performed site assessments at 17 health clinics and visited 36 water sources to select a final six health clinics. These six were selected based on four criteria: closest water point, size of community, groundwater potential and likelihood of siting borehole within health clinic grounds, and whether the health clinic admits patients overnight or has a maternity ward. The sites chosen were then confirmed with the District Water Office and District Health Office. Once the locations were selected, the second step was for ILF to administer baseline surveys at the village level. These surveys are meant to gather information in four focus areas: current water access, the sanitation situation, hygiene practices, and household social-economic situation. These surveys allow ILF and its staff to understand the situation and the needs of the particular region in order to have the most impact and ensure the sustainability of the projects. Prior to ILF’s intervention, the community members living around the health clinics chosen were gathering their water from unprotected springs, protected springs, and shallow and deep boreholes. Their source depended on the village; some had boreholes on the other side of the village from the clinic, others did not. Most of the people traveled between 1/2km and 5km to gather their water. The overwhelming majority of people collecting water were women and children. Latrine coverage ranged from 68%-89%. The third step is borehole siting. Selecting the exact location is based on the presence of groundwater and required setbacks, and not on individual desires, local politics or community factions in order to ensure that the best location is selected.

The fourth step is for ILF to facilitate the creation and training of a WUC for each borehole. These committees are created in order to ensure proper usage, continued functionality and borehole oversight during the lifespan of the borehole. Seven trainings were conducted by ILF's Sanitation and Hygiene team during this project, one at each successful borehole and one at the Kachuru site before the decision was made to change sites because of low groundwater yield. These committees, along with the VHTs, are elected by their community and are trained to lead in the operation and maintenance of the water points to ensure continuous functionality and sustainability on behalf of the community

The next four steps, drilling, borehole completion, borehole development and slab casting, each went well and resulted in six functioning boreholes. While twelve boreholes were drilled, ranging in depth from 27.90m to 47.85 meters, six boreholes ended up being dry due to the geological constraints. The final six boreholes were completed with 4 1/2 inch plastic casing, gravel packed above the screen casing and a sanitary seal installed with cement to the surface. All six completed boreholes produce clear water, with the concrete slabs easily installed. A signpost with the names of ILF, donors and implementing partners, as well as the DWO number, date and village, was placed at each borehole site.

Step 9 is the pump (aquifer) test, and each of the six boreholes far exceeded the national standards. Next, the hand pump was installed in the borehole, each with an Indian Mark U3M. This was a new model for ILF, and was requested by the District Water Office. This model has the benefit of having no iron parts that could rust, increasing its functional longevity. Step 11 is to test the quality of the water. All six water sources provided drinking quality water that met or exceeded national chemical and biological standards. The chemical analysis was performed by a technical lab and administered by the Ugandan National Government, and ILF WASH team conducted the biological analysis. Finally, a borehole completion report was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment for all six successful boreholes and four of the non-successful boreholes per national guidelines.

  • Impact Assessment (M&E) Phase Project completed on 30 Apr, 2013 Implementation Phase
    Scott Patterson ( International Lifeline Fund ) 2 Days after start 3 Dec, 2012

    Meeting MSH: Emamu John, Dr. Isabirye Fred, Siraj and the DHI.

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    This meeting focused on the roles to be executed by each implementing partner paying attention
    and discussions on progress made with respect as status date.

    The H2O+ concept paper attributes the following roles:
    MSH’s Role:
    i. MSH will take primary responsibility for conducting baseline surveys and gathering all
    information relevant to clean water and sanitation activities, including population density,
    distance to closest water sources, latrine coverage and assessment of community’s
    capacities.
    ii. MSH will likewise be responsible for mobilizing the communities to support project
    implementation, including preparatory activities (e.g., road-clearing) and assistance to the
    ILF drilling team during the borehole production phase.
    iii. MSH and ILF will work together to promote community responsibility for operations and
    maintenance, including establishing and training local water user committees and setting up
    of a water usage fee system.
    Hygiene and Sanitation:
    iv. MSH will take responsibility for: (1) setting up/training village hygiene/health teams on
    proper hygiene practices such as hand washing, safe water transport/storage and point-ofuse
    water treatment; and (2) monitoring the performance of those teams in regard to
    education of community members on those practices.
    v. H20+ will partner with local non-profit organizations to implement CLTS, including local
    affiliates of Lutheran World Foundation and Plan International as well as NETWAS –
    Uganda. The CLTS approach is an important component of H2O+, as it will help H20+
    identify leaders across the targeted districts and increase community support for all aspects
    of the project.
    Monitoring and Evaluation:
    vi. MSH will oversee on-the-ground M&E, which will include periodic on-site visits, data
    collection/evaluation, and training staff to use BPN’s text-messaging tracking tools to
    collect and transfer data. Monitors will report on indicators such as water usage/flow rates,
    borehole conditions, latrine coverage, hand-washing facilities/practices, clinic visits and
    school attendance.
    Discussions centerd around the roles of the different partners namely ILF and MSH (Star E) whereupon the
    following information was realsied:
    • MSH had no background information of the listed roles and responsibilities as stated above.
    The informationb was not shared earlier.
    • With regards to water point management. Some health centres already have boreholes and the
    health centre management can be interviewed to know how the water source is being managed.
    • Within the list of sub-counties, particular health facilities were zeroed in for the field visit:
    o Agule HC III
    o Apopong HC III
    o Obutet HC II
    o Nagwere HC III
    International Lifeline Fund, P. O. BOX 70, Lira
    www.lifelinefund.org
    o Mpongi HC III
    o Kabwangasi HC III4.
    Items to followup later.
    • MSH to share dates ofconducting baseline survey.
    • ILF to share sample baseline survey questionnaire.

  • Implementation Phase Project started on 1 Dec, 2012 Preparation Phase
    • confidential
    Scott Patterson ( International Lifeline Fund ) 1 Day before start 30 Nov, 2012

    Note for internal use

    Scott Patterson ( International Lifeline Fund ) 10 Days before start 21 Nov, 2012

    Borehole construction completed

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Borehole construction completed and successful at Obutet HC II

    Scott Patterson ( International Lifeline Fund ) 17 Days before start 14 Nov, 2012

    First borehole implemented at Obutet Health Clinic II

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    The first borehole we are implementing in Palisa District is at Obutet Health Clinic II. It is located in Gogonyo Sub-County, Village: Ogurutapa, 437 Households. The borehole was drilled within the fenced compound of the health clinic to a total depth of 27.9 m with a healthy water flow rate. photo 082 of drilling rig at health clinic.

    • Thumb_medium_obutet_pic
    • peer
    Rajesh Shah ( Peer Water Exchange ) About 1 Month before start 23 Oct, 2012

    Note of David meeting Betty

    Status: Pending

    Operating Status:

    Hi all,

    I look forward to hearing more about Palissa. As we learned in talking to WSSCC NGO's are choosing to work with the national and local govs to implement. Palissa is one of the WSSCC districts.

    I believe that one reason is because of the leadership of Betty Bigombe, Minister for Water and the Environment. She moderated the 3 hour session on Gender and Water in Stockholm. I ended up "serving her dinner", at the reception that evening. This approach may be an alternative for H2O Health Plus, especially since MSH is working through the same Village Health Teams.

    Best,
    David
    ReachScale I David_Wilcox

    Dear David -

    Thank you very much for getting in touch.

    It was absolutely wonderful to chat with you.

    I think there are many opportunities, especially if one moves smartly to secure funds amids the competition for resources.

    I hope you have a productive visit to New York.

    My very best to Jackson Kaguri.

    Warm regards,

    Betty

    • Docx Palissa_...
    • confidential
    • peer
    Rajesh Shah ( Peer Water Exchange ) About 1 Month before start 22 Oct, 2012

    Note for internal use

    • confidential
    • peer
    Rajesh Shah ( Peer Water Exchange ) About 1 Month before start 15 Oct, 2012

    Note for internal use

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 3 Months before start 16 Sep, 2012

    Meeting with the District Water Office

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Meeting District water office: Mr Onyango,Patrick (DWO), Mr. Gadala.
    General Water Situation:
    • Some counties are water stressed not due to inequality in service provision but due to variation in groundwater potential. These sub-counties are Kameke, Gogonyo and Agule.
    • There are critical requirements demanded by the district in a WASH implementation.
    o Gender equity in formation of a WuC atleast 50% woman, 100% women even better.(Atleast the treasurer should be a woman).
    o Land Agreements to avoid an individual personalizing the facility in the future.
    o A three year O and M plan.
    o Community map showing potential sites for putting a water point.
    Challenges
    • Salty water close to the lake.
    • Within the Town Council, the town water supply is not safe/effective-initially system drew water from filtration galleries and minimally treated. But currently the system has failed and as a result turbid water is produced due in part to papyrus.
    • WEDA is targeting ODF in the villages in which they are implementing. A water source comes as a reward for an ODF free situation.
    • Actionaid mostly into sensitization in schools(management of water sources not taken into account so much).
    • In Kakoro/Kabwangasi there is an NGO Lodoi Development Fund which addresses WASH in particular hygiene and Sanitation and also implements alternative technologies and protected
    Springs.
    • With regard s to general HC situation in terms of water supply, RUWASA had implemented some boreholes in some health centres. Although some difficulty comes about in implementing,
    management systems and incase facility breaks down it’s unclear who repairs it in the absence of a management structure. Attempts should be made to integrate the community (who are also
    water users) to the health centre personnel who manage the water point.
    • Need to advocates strong bylaws implementation.
    • Need for buck up to the bylaws for better implementation.
    • Politicians increasingly becoming a problem in implementation by interfering with implementation of punitive measures that may be implemented to members of the community.
    • District undertakes repairs beyond 200,000/=.
    • Need to stress preventive maintenance so that the chances of boreholes breaking down are minimized.
    • Need to stress proper financial management.

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 3 Months before start 15 Sep, 2012

    Meeting with the District TB/Leprosy Coordinator

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Meeting District TB/Leprosy Coordinator
    • Program is very welcome in Pallisa.
    • Water and Sanitation coverage in Pallisa is quite low. (Water at 50% and sanitation less than 30%)
    Challenges likely to be expected:
    • Land wrangles due to population pressures. Average household has 8 children.
    • Collection of water user fees (Operation and maintenance).
    • Lax attitude of communities to take care of water points. Need for additional sensitization.
    • Implementation of software is very important t and should not be undervalued should, there is need to maintain the safe water chain as provision of a safe water source is further undermined by a break in the safe water chain.
    • Copies of MoU, agreements, terms of references should be presented to the respective offices.

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 3 Months before start 5 Sep, 2012

    Site visit - 2nd visit August - September

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Second trip made 27th August to 1st September 2012.
    I. Purposes of the trip.
    • Ascertain available institutional structures-Leadership (chief, councilors, and government officials) and specifically priorities with respect to water resources management.
    • View existing water sources and conformity with ILF standards i.e fence, state of compound, physical BH maintenance.
    • Ascertain the role of women and youth with respect to water.
    • Determine present costs associated with water.
    • Ascertain present expertise and skills Administrative; technical; financial; leadership.
    • Ascertain community education and training needs wth respect to water, hygiene and sanitation.
    • Review present updated water supply figures, quality; distance; quantity (expected consumption after upgrading) coverage figures.
    • Sanitation facilities Toilets, disposal systems; washing hands;
    prevalence.
    • Financial prospects-Improved per capita income to support O&M.
    • Public facilities Schools; clinics, hospitals; transport; recreation centr
    • Population Expected rate of increase and controlling factors.
    • Informal settlements (urbanization) and effects on sustainability

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 3 Months before start 2 Sep, 2012

    Meeting with Wera Development Agency

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Meeting WEDA (Wera Development Agency) being funded by water Aid and EU.
    Profile:
    • WEDA stands for Wera Development Agency, named after Wera the origin of the organization located in Amuria district, it was founded
    • It has been in Pallisa for one year.(Since June 2011).
    • Has 5 staff on the groundwater officers (software) present in the sub-counties of Gogonyo, Agule, and Bulangira, Kinji in Kibuuku district. Impelmenttation in the sub-counties started when Kibuuku was still Pallisa district.
    • WEDA covers 33 communities, has srilled 3 water points so far located in Tirinyi, Agul and Gogonyo sub-counties.

    Challenges
    • New districts emerging necessitating double coordination and loss of information retention.
    • Salty water points sometimes necessitating drilling more than once. (water point in Gogonyo was disconnected and
    • CLTS triggers but not very good at retention (the pressure wanes off) Therefore CLTS has been combined with cluster.
    • By-laws are seldom implemented and this contributes to the lax attitude among the community members.
    • The fishing communities are hard to deal with since they are very mobile.
    • Initial capital contribution a challenge-there’s a trust problem in some project areas.
    • A problem with the accountability mechanism (money sent to sub-county can not be tracked).
    • Lack of local materials to fence the water points.
    • District officials require funding for filed visits prior to the actual visit.

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 3 Months before start 2 Sep, 2012

    Meeting with Palissa DHO and CAO

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    1. Meeting Pallisa DHO
    • The project is very welcome in Pallisa since water, sanitation/hygiene and health are interconnected.
    • Adviced ILF to meet the relevant stakeholders and CAO who is the administrative head of the district since a lot od documentation exists that can be of help.

    2. Meeting CAO Pallisa -Mr. Mboge Isa.
    • Welcome the team and the program to Pallisa.
    • Reiterated the low coverage of water and sanitation in the district.
    • Pledged to render the necessary support for a smooth implementation of the activity.
    • The activity is very important because in addition to helping people it also contributes to the
    MDGs.
    • Noted that the government budgets for water and sanitation but owing to little resources, only a small coverage increase is realized each year.
    • Noted that as wew go to implement, O and M needs to be put in the core of the activities to be implemented. Currently any facilities have been put in health centres and other establishments
    but O and M remains an issue.

    Nicholas Mancus ( International Lifeline Fund ) 5 Months before start 2 Jul, 2012

    Safe access to water and challenges faced

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    Like many parts of Uganda, 64% and 14% of the water collection is done by women and children respectively. But out of the existing water points ,the water user committees are composed of 47%
    Female and 53% male.
    The is a relatively high knowledge of safe water chain with 79% of respondents making efforts in keeping the water from contamination and a further 50% using two containers for drawing drinking
    water.
    Of the respondents, 86% have latrines. This is a huge contrast from the average latrine coverage of 67.5% mainly due to the relatively urban nature of the locations of the health facilities.
    The respondents have a fairly good knowledge of the dangers of open defecation with 50% saying it brings sicknesses, 21% saying it’s not a good practice and a further 7% going further to suggest
    punitive measures that should be instituted for combating the vice.

    Challenges faced:
    • Initially activities were not properly coordinated. It took some time for operations to gain momentum; as such some objectives of the mission were not fulfilled.
    • Language barrier-this problem was mitigated by the use of MSH personnel for interpretation purposes.
    • The data collected was from a very small sample and hence cannot be extrapolated to be representative of the water and sanitation situation in a wider area.

    Vahid Jahangiri ( International Lifeline Fund ) 7 Months before start 30 Apr, 2012

    Conclusion and recommendations for the implementation of the project

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    From both key informant and individual interview responses, it is undoubtedly clear access to water remains a big problem in Pallisa. However, a few practical concerns with respect to this
    program are still not addressed.

    • No agreement or MoU exists as yet and these are required prior to implementation.
    • Sharing of information seems to have not been effectively done. MSH had no idea what was spelt out in the concept paper as their roles and responsibilities.
    • In all the health centers there was ongoing construction works, this poses an hitherto unforeseen challenge. The water demand in the presence of in-house patients (admissions)
    will exponentially increase. Various countries have various demands for water in hospitals in terms of litres per bed. The effect of this to the project is that there will be need to drill
    boreholes that can be motorized. This consequently means bigger size of casings and therefore resurrects an old problem of machinery capacity.
    In terms of material sourcing-a relatively large supplier of pump parts was identified in
    Mbale town whose prices are more less within range of the Kampala suppliers.
    • While it’s recognized that a remarkable water shortage exists. Drilling of boreholes in the
    health centers may lead in some cases to the spacing of boreholes being less than 500m
    from each other. This may have some hydrogeological consequences, a further in depth
    study will be done and clarification needs to be sought from district water department.
    Properties of the wells located near the health facilities especially Nabwere, Mpongi and Agule need to be closely studied to avoid drilling a borehole within the cone of influence of the existing well as it ends up affecting the functionality of the current wells.
    • Formation of water user committees needs to take into consideration participation of health centre staff and surrounding communities which will be using the water.

    Vahid Jahangiri ( International Lifeline Fund ) 7 Months before start 26 Apr, 2012

    First visit to the site in April

    Status: Complete - Successful

    Operating Status:

    First trip 24th -26th April 2012-Reconnaissance trip.
    Purpose: Technical feasibility, map out key actors in WASH, have a look at IPA chlorine
    dispensers and their usage.

    Findings:
    • Safe water coverage at 50%
    • High chances of collapsing formations, and salty water and dry wells near the lake.
    • Sub-counties in dire need: Butebo, Kameke, Kibaale, Kamuge, Akisimi.
    • Geologically average depth of overburden 20m but extending to 30m in other areas.
    • Average depth of boreholes range from 50 to 60 meters.
    • Recommended casings dimensions (8” temporal, 5” permanent).
    • Mapping out of major WASH actors in the district. WEDA.

Drilled 6 boreholes next to clinics maintained by MSH, providing water to the nearby community. H20+ unifies health, water, sanitation, and education activities at the community level for a maximum technical synergy and cost-effectiveness.

Narrative

The Pallisa project was funded by the S.L. Gimbel Foundation through Blue Planet network, and done in partnership with Management Sciences for Health. ILF and its partners were charged to provide clean water at six health centers. ILF was able to successfully install six boreholes, each with a trained Water User Committees in the Pallisa District of Eastern Uganda. The grant's intent, as described in the award and agreement letter, was to "Enable sustainable clean water and associated education and health benefits for up to 3,900 people in rural communities in Eastern Uganda." ILF was able to exceed this goal by providing access to drinking water to the six health centers, and also to a total of 7,037 individuals.

All of the water sources from this project are deep boreholes that have aquifers sourced in the basement. Biological and chemical water quality analysis confirmed that all the water sources are providing clean water that meets or exceeds Uganda National standards for drinking water. Five of the six boreholes were sited on the health center compound, and the last was sited 150 meters away, because of the lack of groundwater presence on the health center compound. The flow rates for each of the six boreholes were very good, and two of the boreholes (Kanyum and Opweteta) have a flow rate that is high enough (>3 m3/hr) to support a submersible pump. Indian Mark U3M hand pumps were installed on all the water sources which are rustproof and have a long time interval between repairs. A borehole commissioning ceremony was held and district, sub-county, WUC chairman, LC1 and community members were invited. There was a strong turnout of 50 invited guests and another 50 community members at Kanyum borehole. During the ceremony, the borehole at Kanyum was dedicated to Amuge Theresa, an elderly woman, who donated the land for the health center.

H2O Health Plus' first priority was for ILF, as Blue Planet Network's member and expert in water, hygiene, and sanitation project implementation, to conduct thorough evaluations and baseline surveys of the water and sanitation needs of each community, school, and health clinic in the Pallisa District. ILF collected information including population density, distance to closest water source, geological and hydrological surveys, community readiness and ownership, location of health clinics and schools, and health and education indicators. ILF's full implementation process is summarized through 12 steps, from beneficiary selection to completion of a functioning borehole and fully trained Water User Committee.

The beneficiary selection began with a list of health centers provided by the District Health Office, in coordination with MSH. Unfortunately, none of these centers were good candidates for boreholes, either because they were located within 100 meters of a water source, or boreholes had been previously attempted and had come up dry at those sites. From there ILF performed site assessments at 17 health clinics and visited 36 water sources to select a final six health clinics. These six were selected based on four criteria: closest water point, size of community, groundwater potential and likelihood of siting borehole within health clinic grounds, and whether the health clinic admits patients overnight or has a maternity ward. The sites chosen were then confirmed with the District Water Office and District Health Office. Once the locations were selected, the second step was for ILF to administer baseline surveys at the village level. These surveys are meant to gather information in four focus areas: current water access, the sanitation situation, hygiene practices, and household social-economic situation. These surveys allow ILF and its staff to understand the situation and the needs of the particular region in order to have the most impact and ensure the sustainability of the projects. Prior to ILF’s intervention, the community members living around the health clinics chosen were gathering their water from unprotected springs, protected springs, and shallow and deep boreholes. Their source depended on the village; some had boreholes on the other side of the village from the clinic, others did not. Most of the people traveled between 1/2km and 5km to gather their water. The overwhelming majority of people collecting water were women and children. Latrine coverage ranged from 68%-89%. The third step is borehole siting. Selecting the exact location is based on the presence of groundwater and required setbacks, and not on individual desires, local politics or community factions in order to ensure that the best location is selected.

The fourth step is for ILF to facilitate the creation and training of a WUC for each borehole. These committees are created in order to ensure proper usage, continued functionality and borehole oversight during the lifespan of the borehole. Seven trainings were conducted by ILF's Sanitation and Hygiene team during this project, one at each successful borehole and one at the Kachuru site before the decision was made to change sites because of low groundwater yield. These committees, along with the VHTs, are elected by their community and are trained to lead in the operation and maintenance of the water points to ensure continuous functionality and sustainability on behalf of the community

The next four steps, drilling, borehole completion, borehole development and slab casting, each went well and resulted in six functioning boreholes. While twelve boreholes were drilled, ranging in depth from 27.90m to 47.85 meters, six boreholes ended up being dry due to the geological constraints. The final six boreholes were completed with 4 1/2 inch plastic casing, gravel packed above the screen casing and a sanitary seal installed with cement to the surface. All six completed boreholes produce clear water, with the concrete slabs easily installed. A signpost with the names of ILF, donors and implementing partners, as well as the DWO number, date and village, was placed at each borehole site.

Step 9 is the pump (aquifer) test, and each of the six boreholes far exceeded the national standards. Next, the hand pump was installed in the borehole, each with an Indian Mark U3M. This was a new model for ILF, and was requested by the District Water Office. This model has the benefit of having no iron parts that could rust, increasing its functional longevity. Step 11 is to test the quality of the water. All six water sources provided drinking quality water that met or exceeded national chemical and biological standards. The chemical analysis was performed by a technical lab and administered by the Ugandan National Government, and ILF WASH team conducted the biological analysis. Finally, a borehole completion report was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment for all six successful boreholes and four of the non-successful boreholes per national guidelines.

Sustainability

Creating and measuring long-term impact

To ensure proper usage, continued function and borehole oversight throughout the wells’ lifespan, ILF facilitates the creation and training of a Water User Committee (WUC) at each borehole. The WUC members are elected by their community and trained by ILF’s Sanitation and Hygiene team. The committee is charged with leading the operation and maintenance of the water points to ensure sustainability on behalf of the community. The WUC is trained and in charge of:
• Maintaining cleanliness at water points,
• Collecting water user fees,
• Mobilizing funds for the repair of the water points in case of breakdown,
• Ensuring accountability to the community and local authority,
• Enforcing water and sanitation bylaws set by the community,
• Reporting to the relevant local authority any problem developing at the water point,
• Educating the users on proper usage of the water point,
• Ensuring the functionality of the water point at all times,
• Settling minor disputes arising at the water point and forwarding major ones to local leaders,
• Keeping good records of the water point.

The Water User Committees are a key piece of ILF’s sustainability model. The committee is responsible for collecting the funds to maintain the boreholes and keep them in working condition in order to maximize their impact and provide the most water to the community possible. The committees empower the community to take ownership of the new water source and ensure its longevity without the assistance of ILF or other NGOs.

Other Issues

Unusual and unexpected issues faced during project execution

Challenge 1: Siting and Drilling
The geology and hydrogeology of the Pallisa area is different than Lango Sub-Region. This difference was great enough to affect the siting, drilling, and pump test steps of implementation.

The basement in Pallisa is very hard in places (e.g. Chelekura and Putti), much harder than is encountered near Lira. This gave our weak compressor and old hammer much trouble, which translated into slow drilling rates of penetration (as low as 0.2 to 1 m in 4 hours), consuming more fuel, wearing out drill bit (because of the old hammer not hammering properly and smearing the bit on the rock), and increased drill times. There was one location – Kanyumu - that had clay rich overburden for which ILF used a mud pump to drill. This resulted in a quickly drilled borehole with little fuel consumed (the mud pump uses less than 10 L of diesel a day compared to 75 L of the air compressor). Information from offset (nearby drilled) boreholes was withheld by DWO, which prevented ILF from doing its diligence in predicting the subsurface material and character.

As a result, conducting the geophysical surveys took some learning and more time was spent on each survey to be more confident in drill location. The extra time paid off in five [of six] successful locations. The one unsuccessful location was Kachuru. The groundwater at Kachuru is not present in large enough quantity to fulfill the meager needs of a hand pump. ILF attempted to drill three boreholes in Kachuru, each attempt resulting in low yielding boreholes and unable to provide a water source.

After the third attempt at drilling a borehole in Kachuru, ILF decided to attempt drilling in a new location – Opweteta. Again, ILF faced similar challenges as in Kachuru, with the first attempt resulting in a low-yield of water from the aquifer. The following borehole was unsuccessful because of technical failures where the temporary casing was broken in the borehole and could not be retrieved, forcing the drilling of a new borehole – ILF had a similar situation in Putti. These unsuccessful boreholes delayed project completion and increased project cost. ILF attempted a third time to drill in Opweteta, with success at yielding a good flow of water. However the borehole could not be set on site of the health clinic, rather being set 150 meters from the Health Centre compound.

Challenge 2: Operational Logistics
Since ILF is based in Lira and usually operates from its Lira office, operating in Pallisa (210 km and 6 hours from Lira) was complicated by great distance from office, lack of support staff, and lack of local knowledge (e.g. mechanics, welding shops, suppliers, contacts, etc.). ILF was not able to rely on its logistics department to the degree it would have if working from Lira, which forced WASH staff to take on most of these activities (e.g. shopping, procurement, vehicle repair and maintenance, equipment repair, etc.). The day drive from Lira also forced ILF to change its work schedule from a 5-day work week with weekends off to working 11 of 14 days with 11 nights in Pallisa. This significantly raised the cost of providing per diem to ILF staff and forced the employees away from families for extended periods of time. The result was increased costs, more down time, and more travel time.

Challenge 3: Relationship with District Officials
The working relationship with DWO was not as beneficial as it could be, even with ILF’s efforts to accommodate their requests. The District Water Office of Pallisa did not trust ILF’s implementation process, skills or equipment. For the first two boreholes ILF was constantly questioned of our methods, to the point of testing us as to whether our staff was knowledgeable to carry out the work. Not until ILF had completed two successful boreholes with no dry holes did the DWO ease up and start trusting ILF’s work quality. ILF believes that by the end of the project we had built their confidence of our work.

The DWO was reluctant to share information with ILF, including public data that they had stored in their office. ILF had to beg to get a few copies of the data, but was never provided all that was requested and that was available. At the beginning of the project the DWO, had requested ILF to installed larger diameter casing than is part of our standard operating procedure. At the time ILF’s equipment was not capable of installing the size casing being requested. ILF had technical justification and experience to support our equipment, installation method and casing size, which met their need. ILF had to be very firm in defending the casing size, so much so, as to threaten to pull equipment off site and return in six months once the desired equipment could be procured to meet their need.

DWO was unreliable in completing tasks that they agreed to complete. Specifically, for the borehole commission, the DWO failed to invite district and sub-county officials to the event forcing ILF to do so.

In selection of the health centers, the DWO had no on the ground information about the water supply needs for the health centers in their district. ILF spent many days driving around the district visiting health centers performing site assessments. Many of these were a waste of time and money, illustrated by us arriving on site of health centers that had brand new boreholes drilled only months before.

Learnings

Knowledge of project and process for sharing

Lesson Learned 1: Siting and Drilling
As drilling is one of the single most expensive aspects of implementing the boreholes more awareness and attention should be given to it in the planning and budgeting process. The difficult drilling conditions were a significant factor in the high costs and delay of Phase One and it is important to take this factor into consideration in future projects. Unsuccessful boreholes happen; they can be minimized but not eliminated. It would be wise in the future to inform implementing partners, and other interested parties, the likely success rates, and discuss how communication of events surrounding unsuccessful boreholes should be handled. ILF is currently in the process of upgrading several significant components of the drilling rig that will increase its capability and will make a positive impact on drilling rates and time in the future. Partnering with cooperative DWOs and sharing information before the project would make assessments of subsurface conditions more accurate.

Lesson Learned 2: Operational Logistics
Operating outside Lango Sub-Region is much more expensive for ILF because of per diem costs, transport time and costs, and time spent doing logistics’ tasks. In future projects outside Lango Sub-Region ILF will need one dedicated logistics staff based in the area that will be responsible for logistics, vehicle maintenance and repair, procurement, receiving and storing equipment and supplies, and security. They will need to have their own vehicle to complete the expected tasks. Budgeting for the additional travel, per diem and personal staff needs to be considered.

Lesson Learned 3: Relationship with District Officials
It is important to cultivate a relationship with local officials when implementing a project in a new district. ILF showed flexibility when faced with administrative delays from the district officials before the start of its activities, allowing for the successful completion of each borehole. Working in collaboration with district officials enables the ILF’s projects to move forward and ensures that each community continues to benefit from clean water boreholes.

Impact

People Impacted: 2610

People Getting Safe Drinking Water: 2610

Our six boreholes were located at or near six different health centers in the Pallisa District. The Obutet borehole benefits 2,610 people, Nagwere benefits 540 people, Putti benefits 900, Kanyum benefits 969, Chelekura benefits 1,373, and Opweteta benefits 645 people. Prior to drilling the boreholes, baselines surveys were administered by ILF to establish how many people were located in the area and would be using the boreholes for drinking water.

People Getting Other Benefits: 15000

The six boreholes will provide daily access to clean drinking water to 7,037 individuals. Moreover, due to the location of each borehole – at or near a health clinic, it is expected that an additional 15,000 individuals will gain access to clean drinking water over the lifespan of the borehole. These additional individuals include the clinic workers and the clinic visitors. Typically, each clinic serves 30 villages, or 15,000 people each year.

Funding

Funded:
$97,430
Final Cost:
$97,430
$42,494:
S L Gimbel Foundation
$54,936:
International Lifeline Fund

Plan/Proposal