EPM 144 Course Reader - Part A PDF

EPM 144: PLANNING URBAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COURSE
SYLLABUS
Lecturer: Kenyanito Toure
CORRESPONDENCE
Office: Rm 317
Instructors email: k.toure@pwaniuniversity.ac.ke
Office Phone: Ext 147
Mobile: 0724844923, 0786844923
OVERVIEW
Infrastructure and public services are essential to any city or town, but their importance is
overlooked by most people. Most of us just expect that our homes will have clean water coming
out of the faucets or reliable electricity to power our gadgets. A good number hopes that someone
attends to the burgeoning mountains of garbage that bloat the cityscape. Keeping a citys lifelines
in good working order may not be the most glamorous aspect of urban planning, but its one of the
more important because its the foundation on which most other activities are built.
Admittedly, Urban infrastructure is a complex and rapidly evolving area within the topic of urban
management. It is part of a city and a vital component of a complex urban system. Its supply and
financing is often the subject of intense political discussion.
In this course, we shall:

dig into the different systems and services supporting cities and towns.
cover ways that infrastructure and public services support the community.
delve into planning approaches for different types of infrastructure and services.
explain how urban plans not only assess community needs for infrastructure and public
services, but also find locations for needed operations and improvements.
This course seeks to equip the learner with theoretical and practical competencies in:
Coordinating infrastructure and public services with land use, housing, and natural resources.
Planning for energy, water, sewerage, telecommunications, and public safety.
Assessing community needs, improvement costs, and environmental impacts.
The thematic topics to be explored are as follows:
1. Concepts and composition.

2. Public utilities planning process.
3. Inter relationship between public utilities and the urban regional planning process.
4. Estimating water consumption requirements, storage, treatment and distribution.
5. Assessment of sewage and other types of waste disposal.
6. Design of utility systems: electricity, telephone, waste disposal, gas and water.
7. Site analysis methods for utilities planning.
8. Management principles for utilities and services planning.
9. Role and efficiency of urban council/government in the provision, maintenance and
management of public utilities.
10. Urban public utilities and the environment
EPM 144 course reader-2013: Planning 3 December 2011

EVALUATION/ GRADING
CATS 30%
END SEMESTER EXAMS: 70%
APPROACH
Combined interactive lectures and directed reading.
COURSE MATERIALS
A course reader will be provided. Supplementary reading material will be availed in class.
Selected References:
Ball, S. (2004). "Planning Needs Specific Credentials." Journal of the American Planning
Association 70(1): 97-97.
James A. LaGro (2007) Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and
Site.
John D. Shilling,(2007) The nexus between infrastructure and environment Evaluation
Cooperation Group, African Development Bank
Mugabi, J., S. Kayaga, et al. (2007). "Strategic planning for water utilities in developing countries."
Utilities Policy 15(1): 1-8.
Neuman, M. and S. Smith (2010). "City Planning and Infrastructure: Once and Future Partners."
Journal of Planning History 9(1): 21-42.
Page, G. W. (2001). "Planning Implications of Water Supply Decisions." Planning Practice and
Research 16(3-4): 281-292.
Spronk, S. (2010). "Water and Sanitation Utilities in the Global South: Re-centering the Debate on
Efficiency." Review of Radical Political Economics 42(2): 156-174.
Susana, (2011). Sustainable Sanitation in Cities, GDRC
UNEP (2010). Sustainable Urban Energy Planning
Vladimir , N., Jack A., and Paul, B (2010)Water Centric Sustainable Communities: Planning,
Retrofitting and Building the Next Urban Environment. John Wiley
EPM 144 course reader-2013: Planning 4 December 2011

1 Concepts and composition
.
1.1 Utilities- Definitions, Characteristics
1.1.1 Urban infrastructure
Urban infrastructure is a broad term used to describe the civil engineering, architectural, and
urban planning projects undertaken in cities to provide inhabitants with the structures that are
necessary for sustainable life.
These interconnected structures provide the framework to sustain an entire urban area. They
include transportation and communications systems; educational and health facilities; water,
gas, and electrical supplies; waste removal; and diverse systems such as prisons, asylums,
housing structures, and additional urban undertakings.
Urban infrastructure includes all facilities that enable its function as a sub system of a city. The
term urban infrastructure can refer to many services, depending on the context in which it is
used (Gleeson, Dong, & Low, 2007). It can generally be classified into physical and social
infrastructure.
Physical infrastructure, commonly known as hard infrastructure, includes stormwater

drainage; roads and transport facilities; telecommunications facilities; water and sewerage
facilities; and other networked services (Gleeson et al., 2007).
Social infrastructure, commonly known as soft infrastructure, includes educational and

health care facilities; sport and leisure facilities; law and order; and public administration
(Gleeson et al., 2007).
Grey & green infrastructure. Some people distinguish between gray infrastructure and green
infrastructure. the former refers to the physical , built infrastructure including roads, bridges
,etc. on the other hand, green infrastructure refers to the interconnected network of open
spaces and natural areas, and includes greenways, wetlands, parks, and forest reserves. the
benefits of green infrastructure are obvious in terms of wildlife habitat and native species , but
a healthy green infrastructure can benefit a community by increasing stormwater infiltration
(and thereby recharging ground water sources and decreasing the risk of flooding) , reducing
the urban heat island effect, and enhancing community interactions.
Proper planning is needed to ensure that gray and green infrastructure can co-exist. Ideally
both infrastructures should be planned simultaneously and complementarily.
The term infrastructure originated in France during the 1800s and was later used in the United
States in reference to military facilities. By the 1920s infrastructure described public works
required for an industrial economy. The term gained popularity in the mid-1970s and emerged
as an area of academic interest during the 1980s, after works such as America in Ruins of
1983 and Rebuilding America's infrastructure of 1984 sparked public-policy discussions about
America's decaying urban infrastructure.
The definition of urban infrastructure has expanded since the 1960s. In that decade, the term
referred mainly to buildings and other permanent assets such as road and water networks
(Gleeson et al., 2007). The expansion of the definition was closely influenced by theories such
as the rational planning model and the disjointed-incremental.
EPM 1-1
E:\EPM 144\EPM 144 course reader-2013.docx December 2011
1.1.2 Urban Public utilities
Urban Public utilities as those essential services or facilities that support human life in the
urban setting. They include water, sewerage, garbage collection, Electricity/power, Telephone,
social infrastructure like education, police stations and other emerging infrastructure services.
1.1.3 Management
Management, derived from the Italian "maneggiare" (handling, especially a horse) is another
catch-all term for the activities of administrating, directing and controlling human groups or
organizations or other entities for the purpose of coordination and accomplishment of one or
several goals. In general, the term management often is used for the goal-directed
employment of human, financial, natural and technical resources.
Practically, management includes the activities
Strategical and tactical planning
Plan implementation
Supervision of plan accomplishment
Controlling, i.e. corrective action
Commanding
Thus, urban infrastructure management covers the whole life-cycle and development of urban
infrastructure policies, capacities and facilities. It includes urban infrastructure planning,
implementation, administration, financing and operation.
The criteria and dimensions of urban infrastructure management are illustrated in figure 1.1.
They comprise an economic and environmental dimension, but social and political dimensions
as well
1.1.4 Urban infrastructural challenges
The Infrastructure Crisis
Despite the importance of infrastructure for economic and social well-being,

we are faced with several problems
Infrastructure in developed countries is old, unreliable, inefficient and in
need of replacement.
The USA is embarking on a major plan relating to infrastructure spending
In developing countries, infrastructure is often not available
Large portions of urban and rural populations in developing countries have
inadequate access to water and sanitation
Power supply is non-existent or unreliable and people are faced with frequent
power-cuts
Quality of road infrastructure is often bad, leading to long travel times and increased
vehicle maintenance costs. Width of roads is also often a constraining factor leading
to traffic jams and blocks.
Several of these problems currently hold true for many areas in Kenya as well.
Today, more than half the worlds population lives in rapidly growing cities. The UN Population
Division forecasts that by 2025 more than two thirds of humanity will reside in urban areas.
About 90 percent of this population boom is largely the result of the rural-to-urban migration
and high birth rates in developing countries. Most of these urban areas cannot keep pace with
population growth. City budgets are inadequate to expand the needed infrastructure, and
consequently the majority of world poverty has also shifted from the country to the city.
Many of society's most pressing issues are now in urban areas. However, because the means
available for building and financing housing and urban infrastructure in many cities are too
limited to meet basic needs, more than 1 billion people worldwide live in urban slums. Most
slum dwellers have neither sufficient nor consistent access to the basic infrastructures and
EPM 1-2
services, creating the potential for disillusionment and hopelessness among slum dwellers,
especially youth. Urban slums risk becoming spaces void of influence when neglected by
governments. Increasingly filling these power vacuums are organized gangs and other criminal
/terrorist factions that dominate daily life within these impoverished communities.
Water and sewage are also urgent infrastructural concerns. Forty percent of urban dwellers
worldwide have no access to safe drinking water or adequate sanitation, and the proportion
increases to over 50 percent when considering only developing countries. In Brazil, 51 percent
of city residents have no connection to sewerage networks and 90 percent of the sewage
collected receives no treatment whatsoever. Slmllar1y, In Shanghai, China, 86 percent of
household waste goes untreated. In these two cities, and hundreds more globally, human
waste ends up in oceans, rivers, and lakes, severely harming the natural environment and
increasing human health risks. Not surprisingly, water-related diseases kill hundreds of
thousands every year.
Transportation is another pivotal concern for today's cities. Many roads in and around poor
cities are dangerous, particularly at night. Large cities often lack properly maintained roads
with sufficient lighting. Busy roads are usually too narrow and only serve one lane of traffic in
each direction. To pass slow-moving vehicles, drivers often....1st enter oncoming lanes of
traffic. This inevitably leads to soaring traffic congestion and high rates of serious and often
fatal traffic accidents. This is evident In Brazil, plagued by one of the wor1d's highest vehicle
mortality rates. Transportation infrastructure is also a challenging issue for rich cities.
Frequently, financing of enormous superhighways for private motor vehicle transit rather than
for efficient means of public transportation leads to traffic congestion, air pollution, and road
rage, among other problems.
Until recently, funding for urban Infrastructure was through the public or private sector. Now, a
growing "third sector" of civil society-that is, public-private partnerships-increasingly shares the
costs and risks involved in such funding. However, this financing can be a contentious topic.
For example, some suggest that powerful international institutions, governments of rich
countries, and multinational corporations have disproportionate influence on local level urban
Infrastructure projects and priorities in developing countries.
Cities in wealthy countries are not without their share of challenges. In prosperous urban areas
when infrastructure projects are not planned well, the poor often suffer the consequences.
Robert Moses, New York(less master builder during the mid 20th century, was criticized for
developing infrastructure projects that were careless and intentionally discriminatory. For
example, on the highways leading to middle-class beaches the designed overpasses too low
for public buses to pass underneath. This blocked working-class bus riders' access to the
beaches. Critics also blame Moses for contributing to urban decay by tearing down housing
and separating large swaths of neighbourhoods with large highways.
Many social and environment problems can be avoided if urban Infrastructure projects are
properly implemented and non-discriminatory. Good infrastructure often provides the
framework for positive and sustainable economic growth in urban areas. complex, however,
and directly linked to larger processes of urbanization, globalization, and the global economy
1.2 Why Plan for Urban Utility Services?

Providing infrastructure and public services is often a dirty, daunting, and complex task
involving significant expenses and financial risks. But adequate infrastructure and public
services are a necessity of any community. Heres why:
Theyre essential to the health of the community. Services like clean water, reliable
power, and safe streets contribute to what planners call the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and its residents. Essential services and infrastructure also support the economic
stability of the community because theyre depended on by factories and other businesses.
They need to be coordinated with other plan components. Theres a close relationship
among infrastructure, public service, and the other components of a plan especially land
use, because most land uses rely on some type of infrastructure or service. For example,
EPM 1-3
plans for new residential areas may need to be closely coordinated with plans for water
system expansion and the installation of sewer lines.
Theyre expensive and long-lasting. Improving and maintaining infrastructure and public
services can be very costly. Making plans that get it right the first time can save money. And
good planning is also essential because most infrastructure and public service improvements
are long-lasting with lifetimes of 30, 50, or 100 years or more and cant be easily
changed after theyre put in place.
They have a significant environmental impact. Communities are increasingly aware of
the environmental impact of these infrastructure and public services, such as the pollution
generated by power plants and the ecological issues associated with water usage. Good
planning helps minimize the impacts of essential services by introducing new technologies and
promoting resource-efficient practices that help avoid negative impacts.
Justify why towns within Killifi County should plan for Urban Utility Services
EPM 1-4
4 Estimating water consumption requirements, storage, treatment and
distribution
Where are we going today? A journey in:
Tracing the history of urban water drainage systems

Appreciating the unique role of urban water supply.
Understanding the functional components of urban water supply systems
Gaining insights as to the different arrangements for urban water provision overtime
Mastering the technical aspects of water supply provision.
Taking a peek at the role of GIS in water resource supply & management
Appreciating the challenges of urban water supply
4.1 Introduction
Urban water infrastructure typically includes water collection and storage facilities at source
sites, water transport via aqueducts (canals, tunnels and/or pipelines) from source sites to
water treatment facilities; water treatment, storage and distribution systems; wastewater
collection (sewage) systems and treatment; and urban drainage works.
Most urban water users require high-quality water, and natural surface and/or groundwater
supplies, called raw water, often cannot meet the quality requirements of domestic and
industrial users. In such situations, water treatment is required prior to its use. Once it is
treated, urban water can then be stored and distributed within the urban area, usually through
a network of storage tanks and pipes. Pipe flows in urban distribution systems should be under
pressure to prevent contamination from groundwaters and to meet various user and fire
protection requirements.
After use, the wastewater is collected in a network of sewers, or in some cases ditches,
leading to a wastewater treatment plant or discharge site. In many urban areas the sewage
system has a dual function. The sewers collect both wastewater from households and the
runoff from streets and roofs during storm events. However, the transport capacity of the
sewer network and the treatment facilities are limited. During intense rainfall, overflows from
the sewage system discharge a mixture of surface runoff and wastewater to the surface
waters. This has a negative impact on the water quality of urban surface waters.
Wastewater treatment plants remove some of the impurities in the wastewater before it is
discharged into receiving water bodies or on land surfaces. Water bodies receiving effluents
from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants may also receive runoff from the
surrounding watershed area during storm events. The pollutants in both point and non-point
discharges will affect the quality of the water in those receiving water bodies.
This chapter begins by tracing the history of urban water infrastructure, before defining its
functional components and discussing the evolving arrangements for its management together
with challenges at global and national levels.
4.2 Historical evolution of urban water infrastructure:
Assigned reading :
http://www.sewerhistory.org/grfx/wh_era/roman1.htm
EPM 144 Reader 4-1 Feb 2012

4.3 Estimating water consumption requirements
A secure water supply is of vital importance for the health of the population and for the
economy.
From the hydrologic perspective, water use can be defined as all water flows that are a result
of human intervention within the hydrologic cycle. A more restrictive definition of water use
refers to water that is actually used for a specific purpose.
Table 4.1 contains definitions of nine such . Urban water supply systems deliver water to most
of these categories of use with domestic and commercial uses being almost entirely
dependent on public deliveries. Several other categories such as industrial, irrigation, and
public uses are also present in urban areas. Some categories are found primarily outside of
urban areas or require large quantities of untreated water, and they tend to be self-supplied.
Measurements of water use are reported as water volumes per unit of time. The volumetric
units include cubic meters, cubic feet, gallons, and liters, and their decimal multiples. In some
cases, composite volumetric units such as acre foot or units of water depth such as inches of
rain may be used. The time periods used include second, minute, day, and year. Because the
annual volumes of water use usually involve large numbers, annual water-use totals are often
reported as the average daily usage rates. Two popular units for measuring total urban
demands are thousand cubic meters per day (Km3/d) and million gallons per day (mgd).

Forecasting the municipal water demand is an important task for water utility agencies,
involving three interrelated activities. The first activity is supply management which refers to
forecasting the water demand so that new supply facilities can be designed, sequenced, and
timed. A second interrelated activity is the demand management to determine the impact of
water price changes, conservation measures, and rationing. The third activity is the collection
of waste water, its treatment and disposal.
The total annual water use is a result of the combined effect of many factors including:
1. the number of inhabitants with access to drinking water,
2. meteorological and climatological conditions,
3. the price of drinking water,
4. the availability of drinking water, and
5. an environmental policy that aims at moderate use of drinking water.
There is no general formula for predicting drinking water demand. Drinking water suppliers
tend to make predictions on the basis of their own experience and historical information about
water demand in their region.
The per capita approach is commonly used to examine the relation between the total annual
water use and population. Naturally, the annual water use would increase as the population
grows. If such a relationship can be established, planners can predict the amount of water use
for the anticipated population growth. Regression analysis is one of the most frequently used

statistical techniques to estimate future water requirements. Here, the first task is to identify
the factors that might affect the water use and include the population size, price of water,
average income, and annual precipitation.
The first step to establish such a relationship is to plot the population size (on the horizontal
axis) versus the corresponding water use (on the vertical axis) in the form of a scatter diagram.
The next step is to develop a mathematical function to describe this upward trend of water use
with respect to the population size. It may be assumed that the water use, Q is linearly related
to population, POP, which can be approximated by the following equation:
(eq 4.1)
in which b0 is the intercept, b1 is the slope of the line, and e is the error term denoting the
discrepancy between the observed water use and that estimated by the straight line equation.
As data points will not exactly fall on a straight line, the error (e) accounts for the failure of the
proposed model to exactly fit the observed data. If e is zero, eq. (4.1) is a deterministic model
in which the water use (Q) is uniquely determined by population (POP). This is a simple linear
regression model containing only one independent variable. A general extension of eq. (4.1)
involving more than one independent variable yields a multiple linear regression model which
can be expressed as:
(eq 4.2)
Once the form of the model is finalized, the next phase of analysis is to estimate the egression
coefficients. Regression analysis is an iterative process; the success in developing a
reasonable model depends largely on the analyst's ability to interpret the resulting model and
to correlate the model behavior with the process under investigation.
Due to the ever-changing nature of social, economic, and political environments in a region,
there are numerous uncertainties in any forecast. Errors in water use forecasts may arise from
inappropriate assumptions made in determining the model parameters. If the population
projections are too high, naturally the demand estimates will be high. An unreasonably high
estimate of economic growth or too high an emphasis on past trends without a basic
understanding of the reasons behind this trend and their sustainability will also produce a high
estimate. Planners, due to their over-enthusiasm in promoting the projects, may also adopt
unreasonable values. Whatever the cause, errors in forecasting produce excess economic
costs which may be avoided through the use of improved approaches. Additionally, improved
methodologies for forecasting water demands are needed to account for: (1) growing number
of conflicts among water uses and water users; (2) increasing realization of interrelationships
among different outputs from WR systems; and (3) increasing scope and scale of WR
development.
4.4 Water Treatment
Before water is used for human consumption, its harmful impurities need to be removed.
Communities that do not have adequate water treatment facilities, a commonproblem in
developing regions, often have high incidences of
disease and mortality due to drinking contaminated water. A range of syndromes, including
acute dehydrating diarrhoea (cholera), prolonged febrile illness with abdominal symptoms
(typhoid fever), acute bloody diarrhoea (dysentery) and chronic diarrhoea (Brainerd diarrhoea).
Numerous health organizations point to the fact that contaminated water leads to over 3 billion
episodes of diarrhoea and an estimated 2 million deaths, mostly among children, each year.
Contaminants in natural water supplies can also include microorganisms such as
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia as well as inorganic and organic cancer-causing

chemicals (such as compounds containing arsenic, chromium, copper, lead and mercury) and
radioactive material (such as radium and uranium). Herbicides and pesticides reduce the
suitability of river water as a source of drinking water. Recently, traces of hormonal substances
and medicines detected in river water are generating more and more concern.
To remove impurities and pathogens, a typical municipal water purification system involves a
sequence of processes, from physical removal of impurities to chemical treatment. Physical
and chemical removal processes include initial and final filtering, coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation and disinfection, as illustrated in the schematic of Figure 4.1.
Fig 4.1 typical processes in water treatment plants.
As shown in Figure 4.1, one of the first steps in most water treatment plants involves passing
raw water through coarse filters to remove sticks, leaves and other large solid objects. Sand
and grit settle out of the water during this stage. Next a chemical such as alum is added to the
raw water to facilitate coagulation. As the water is stirred, the alum causes the formation of
sticky globs of small particles made up of bacteria, silt and other impurities. Once these
globs of matter are formed, the water is routed to a series of settling tanks where the globs, or
floc, sink to the bottom. This settling process is called flocculation.
After flocculation, the water is pumped slowly across another large settling basin. In this
sedimentation or clarification process, much of the remaining floc and solid material
accumulates at the bottom of the basin. The clarified water is then passed through layers of
sand, coal and other granular material to remove microorganisms including viruses, bacteria
and protozoa such as Cryptosporidium and any remaining floc and silt. This stage of
purification mimics the natural filtration of water as it moves through the ground.
The filtered water is then treated with chemical disinfectants to kill any organisms that remain
after the filtration process. An effective disinfectant is chlorine, but its use may cause
potentially dangerous substances such as carcinogenic trihalomethanes. Alternatives to
chlorine include ozone oxidation (Figure 4.1). Unlike chlorine, ozone does not stay in the water
after it leaves the treatment plant, so it offers no protection from bacteria that might be in the
storage tanks and water pipes of the water distribution system.
Water can also be treated with ultraviolet light to kill microorganisms, but this has the same
limitation as oxidation: it is ineffective outside of the treatment plant.

Sometimes calcium carbonate is removed from drinking water in order to prevent it from
accumulating in drinking water pipes and washing machines. In arid coastal areas desalinated
brackish or saline water is an important source of water for high-value uses.
The cost of desalination is still high, but decreasing steadily. The two most common methods
of desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis. Distillation requires more energy, while
osmosis systems need frequent maintenance of the membranes.
4.5 Storage of water
In some urban water systems, the water supply is obtained directly from a river or another
body of freshwater. In others, rivers are dammed and the water supply is distributed from
artificial storages, such as reservoirs.
Dams are built across rivers and streams to create reservoirs to collect water from catchments
to ensure sufficient supply will be available when needed. Dams also have been built for a
range of purposes besides water supply, such as agriculture and hydro-electricity generation.
Water may also be released from a reservoir as an environmental flow to maintain the health
of the ecosystem downstream of the reservoir. It is estimated that the significant reservoirs
built around the world store five billion megalitres of water.
The design considerations such as sizing are based on estimated water demand and can be
easily accessed in the water engineering literature. We will revisit this briefly in later chapters.
4.6 Water distribution
After water has been treated to protect public health, improve aesthetics by removing color
and taste and odour as required, it is ready to be delivered to consumers. The system of
mains and pipes used to deliver the water is known as the distribution, or reticulation, system.
Treated water may be held at a treatment plant or immediately discharged into the system of
mains and pipes that will transport it to consumers taps. On the way it may be held in short-
term storages, usually known as service reservoirs, which are located as close as possible to
where the water will be used.
Sufficient water is required in a local area to supply periods of high demand, as on a hot
summer day. From a design perspective, the needs of fire services usually determine the
capacity of the system.
An important characteristic of a drinking water distribution system is that it is closed, to prevent
contamination by birds, animals or people. In contrast, irrigation water is usually delivered in
open channels or aqueducts.
A significant part of the water supply system lies buried underground. Out of the public eye,
such infrastructure can be overlooked. It is easy to forget how valuable and essential water
distribution systems are to the community. In terms of money spent on supplying water in
Australia, most of it has been invested in the mains and pipes buried under the streets of
towns and suburbs across the country.
Most distribution systems have developed and expanded as urban areas have grown. A map
of a water distribution system would show a complex mixture of tree-like and looped pipe
networks, together with valves and pumps.
Distribution systems require regular cleaning (flushing and scouring), maintenance and a
program to replace pipes and other equipment as they near the end of their useful lives. Water
mains can be expected to have a useful life of 40 to 100 years. Many of the pipes under the
older parts of our cities may be towards the upper end of this range.

4.7 Urban water challenges- Kenya
Water supply. Estimates from the Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation (JMP) show that in 2008 59% of Kenyans (83% in urban areas and 52% in rural
areas) had access to improved drinking water sources. 19% of Kenyans (44% in urban areas
and 12% in rural areas) are reported as having access to piped water through a house or yard
connection. According to the JMP estimates, access to improved water sources in urban areas
decreased from 91% in 1990 to 83% in 2008. In rural areas, however, access increased from
32% to 52% during the same period.[1][14] According to a different definition called "weighted
access" (see above), the 2009 Impact Report estimates that in 2006-2007 only 37% of
Kenyans had access to sufficient and safe drinking water close to their homes at an affordable
price.[15] Significant regional differences in access were reported: the highest level was
registered in the area served by Tetu Aberdare Water and Sanitation Company (72%)
whereas the lowest was recorded in Muthambi in Meru South District (4%). In the capital
Nairobi access for the same period was reported at 35%, as opposed to a less realistic figure
of 46% reported for 2005-2006.
The poor, in particular women and girls, spend a significant amount of time fetching water in
both rural and urban areas. For example, the 2007 Citizen Report Card survey showed that
users of water kiosks in cities fetch water 4-6 times per day. In Kisumu, this meant that a poor
household spent 112 minutes per day to fetch water at normal times, and as much as 200
minutes per day during times of scarcity.
While Kenya has launched broad ranging water sector reform and has stepped up investment
in water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), the country still faces considerable
challenges in reaching the water and sanitation Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Access:13 million Kenyans lack access to improved water supply and 19 million lack access
to improved sanitation. The quality of service of WSPs is closely monitored by the Water
Services Regulatory Board (WASREB) with the aim of promoting comparative competition and
performance improvements. Some of the most important indicators of service quality are water
quality, continuity of water supply and wastewater treatment.
Water quality: As of March 2010, the assessment of water quality in Kenya was based on two
basic indicators. The first indicator provides information on the percentage of drinking water
quality tests carried out by Water Service Providers: on average about 78% of the water
supplied for drinking use was tested in 2006-2007. The second indicator measures the level of
compliance with residual chlorine standards: the latest figure is about 88%. WASREB
published official Drinking Water Guidelines, so it is expected that future Impact Reports will
provide more accurate data. A citizens' report carried out in Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu in
2007 provides information about customers' perception of water quality: around 70% of
households using water from connections to the mains said they found the taste and smell of
water acceptable, and that the water was clear. Even so, the vast majority of respondents treat
water prior to consumption, which shows continuing uncertainty about its quality.
In Kisumu, which receives its water from nearby Lake Victoria, over 40% of citizens report
scarcity of drinking water Continuity of supply. The Impact Report provides data on continuity
of water supply for 55 Water Service Providers in 2006-2007, weighted for distance, waiting
time and affordability. The average number of service hours that Kenyan water utilities provide
is 14 hours. Only in seven WSPs water supply is continuous (Nyeri, Othaya, Eldoret, Malindi,
Meru, Tuuru and Tachaasis). In Nairobi water is provided on average for 16 hours a day and in
Mombasa for 6 hours. Nonetheless, instances of water scarcity (defined as more than five
days without or with insufficient water supply) still occur in Kenya. In 2006 in Kisumu over 40%
of households (both poor and non poor) connected to water mains reported scarcity. The

greatest difference between the poor and non poor was recorded in Nairobi, where poor
households were more than twice as likely to say they experienced scarcity. A higher
percentage of kiosk users reported scarcity than households with mains connections,
suggesting that in times of scarcity kiosks are less likely to receive water than domestic
connections.

5 Sanitation (wastewater) options
Waste water management is concerned with safe collection, treatment and disposal of water.
The consequences of water supply are the generation of waste water, the amount of water
consumed is a function of water produced. After consumption of the supplied water, eighty per
cent is produced as waste water.
5.1 Waste water collection options
There are many more sanitation options than water supply systems, and choosing among
them is complex, owing to technical, institutional, social and financial factors
Fig 5.1 presents a sanitation technology selection algorithm to guide the selection of sanitation
options. Any of the types of sanitation systems, if properly designed, built, operated and
maintained, are capable of achieving secondary and tertiary levels of treatment.
Urban waste water or sanitary facilities can be grouped as follows:
1. On-site sewage systems (pit-latrine, septic tank, bucket latrine

2. Sewer system
3. Centralized vs decentralized systems.
5.1.1 Pit latrines
These are most common in developing countries because its cheap to construct and
affordable to many people. This system is not inferior if it is properly maintained can produce
good results. Suitable site characteristics for construction of pit latrines are as follows:
1. A place with good stable soil to avoid subsidence.

2. Non-waterlogged area to ensure that water does not fill the pit, and does not seep into
surface and ground waterways/watercourses. This prevents water contamination and its
negative health outcomes.
3. It does not require availability of water.
5.1.2 Septic tanks
A septic tank is a watertight underground container designated for wastewater treatment,

where solid components settle in the bottom of the tank, separating from the liquid. This
process allows for a limited digestion (60 percent) of the organic load contained in the
wastewater. The process depends on the relatively long retention time of wastewater in the
septic tank that permits the settlement of solids and the separation and flotation of oils and
greases, and the formation of a layer of scum.
Organic material retained in the bottom of the tank undergoes facultative and anaerobic
decomposition where it is converted to more stable compounds and gases such as carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The ambient air in the septic tank
is generally anoxic, and sludge and scum layers may be completely free of oxygen, where
dissolved oxygen contained in the influent is rapidly depleted by the bacteria, which also
converts complex organic material to volatile organic acids.
Despite the generation of hydrogen sulfide during the natural treatment process, no offensive
odors are generated, since hydrogen sulfide combines with the metals in the accumulated
solids to form insoluble metallic sulfides.
The remaining compounds (sludge) accumulate in the septic tank and are usually dried and
disposed of in landfills. Septic tanks are provided with openings on the top to allow for cleaning
EPM 5-1
C:\Users\agaltoto\Desktop\Chapter1_EPM144_planning for public utilities.docx January 2012
and the removal of accumulated sludge, since prolonged accumulation of scum and sludge
can reduce the effective settling capacity of the tank.
5.1.3 Sewer system
Sewage is a water transport means of conveying wastes from the source. Domestic sewage
conveys wastes from dwellings and the normal business, commercial, and industrial activities
associated with any community, such as restaurants, laundries, and service stations. Sewage
also contains the dissolved inert chemicals from the water supply as well as dissolved and
suspended organic matter from the sources. The primary source of the material in sewage is
the bathroom, kitchen, and laundry. Sewage also contains very high concentrations of bacteria
and viruses. Sewage should always be considered as being a source of enteric pathogens.
Since sewage behaves hydraulically as water, the design engineer is only concerned with the
composition of sewage when it contains substances that may be damaging to the sewer
system or maintenance personnel. Principal substances of concern include those that are
corrosive, present potential fire or explosive hazards, emit toxic fumes, or interfere with
downstream wastewater treatment. Normal domestic sewage does not contain hazardous
constituents other than pathogens. However, poor design or construction can create hazards.
The accumulation of solids can result in the creation of odors as well as corrosive and toxic
gases from the decomposition of the solids.
Domestic sewage is more than 99.9 percent water and generally between 0.05 to 0.075
percent dissolved and suspended solids. The level of organic matter in sewage is indicated by
varying degrees of strength or weakness. A weak sewage generally results from high
infiltration to the sewer system. A strong sewage indicates the presence of industrial
EPM 5-2
5.2 Overarching guidelines for choice of technology
5.2.1 Link water & sanitation
As already stated, a given population will produce a predictable amount of faeces and urine,
and this amount has to be managed properly by whatever means are feasible. A given amount
of water used in a city each day will produce a corresponding amount of wastewater, and it is
irresponsible to increase water supply without making provisions for its safe collection and
disposal after use.
In many cities, a combination of inadequate sanitation, leaky sewers and leachate from septic
tanks and other onsite systems has already irreversibly contaminated overdrawn urban
aquifers (or will do so in the near future); prudent water supply planning would assume that
these aquifers will have to be abandoned and other sources found.
Generally, project planners should always emphasize water conservation, which has the
additional benefit that it will often make it possible to adopt local sanitation solutions and local
management of pathogens.
5.2.2 Technology is not the objective

Municipalities and enterprises are responsible for ensuring safe, reliable, affordable and
sustainable sanitation services. The function of technology is solely to help achieve this
objectivethere is no inherent advantage to any particular or advanced technology. There is
need to guard against unbridled obsession with technocentric, centralized western model of
urban sanitation delivery.
5.2.3 Technology is not the objective
For example, simple on-site sanitation can protect peoples health as effectively as a sewer
system. Generally, planners should aim for robust systems: technologies and institutional
arrangements that depend on readily available local resources and expertise, rather than
imported ones.
5.2.4 Local factors determine technology
There are many good technologies from which to choose, but to ensure sustainability, they
have to be matched to local circumstances. Sound conventional engineering should ensure
that the technologies considered would be suitable under given site conditions such as
topography, climate, geology, available water resources and water table. Other factors
affecting the suitability of a technology include the following:
1. the size and density of the city and of its various communities and service areas;
2. its stage of development, including institutional capacity and the sophistication of local
manufacturing and service industries, and access to spare parts and specialized
equipment (if required);
3. local culture, which will often vary by community, and which greatly influences whether or
not a specific solution is acceptable to users; and users ability and willingness to pay.
5.2.5 Consider Conventional and Innovative Technologies
Effective sanitation can be provided by systems ranging from household pit latrines and pour-
flush toilets to conventional sewerage. If water is scarce (city-wide or locally), then extending
conventional waterborne waste disposal may be inappropriate. In low-income, water-short
areas in particular, which comprise the majority of those needing service, the dont mix
principle should often be applied: keeping faeces and urine apart and using a minimum of
water (ideally zero) for waste disposal, thus reducing the amount of pathogenic material that
has to be treated.
EPM 5-3
5.2.6 Ensure acceptability to users
There are many factors that affect whether a particular package of technologyand how it will
be delivered, managed and paid forwill be acceptable on social, cultural, religious, financial
or other grounds.
Planners cannot assume that people will accept or desire the services offered; they need to
find out firsthand what is appropriate. Social scientists may be needed to determine whether
acceptability can be enhanced by small changes in design or other elements, whether
promotion and education campaigns will be needed, how much demonstration and piloting will
be required ahead of full-scale implementation or whether the obviously correct technical
solution will run into serious problems for reasons that may be obscure to planners.
5.3 Treatment of waste water

Wastewater is either treated in treatment plants, or disposed of in latrines, septic
tanks, or waterways.
5.3.1 Methods of waste water treatment
Some of the available methods for waste water treatment are: t Trickling filter of conventional
method, Stabilization ponds, and Oxidation ponds
(a) Trickling filter of conventional method
Conventional wastewater treatment is made up of three phases primary, secondary, and

tertiary treatment
Primary TreatmentThe aim of the primary stagewhich is mechanicalis to reduce the
velocity and release the pressure of the flow where flow transits from a closed section (sewer)
to an open flow section (chambers). In this primary treatment stage, wastewater flows through
screens where floating and large-size suspended solids are retained. The flow then passes
from the screening chamber to the gritting chamber, where sand and other non-organic
materials of diameters exceeding 2 mm are allowed to settle. The next step is the transmission
of the flow to the primary sedimentation tanks, where 3040 percent of the organic suspended
materials and 50-70 percent of suspended non-organic materials settle in the bottom of the
tank.
Secondary TreatmentSecondary treatment provides biological treatment, whereby

suspended and dissolved organic matters that have not settled in the primary sedimentation
tanks are transformed to settleable suspended matters. This process results from the
activation of aerobic bacteria through aeration and by adding an adequate amount of the
sludge that accumulated in the final sedimentation tank. Three types of biological treatment
are commonly used: contact stabilization, activated sludge, and oxidation ponds. Water
treated by activated sludge and aerated filters are allowed to further settle in a final
sedimentation tank, where flocks of suspended solids formed during the secondary treatment
precipitate in the bottom of the tank forming a layer of sludge
.
Tertiary TreatmentIn some cases, further treatment of water is needed, where nutrients
such as nitrates, ammonias, and phosphates are removed by chemical processes.
(b) Stabilization ponds

(c) Oxidation ponds
EPM 5-4
6 Design of Utilities
6.1 General approaches
6.1.1 Supply driven approach
Traditionally a supply-driven approach was employed in utility planning and management. This
approach was characterized by the following serious flaws:
1. planners and engineers assess needs and decide what type of service to provide without
true consultation with users;
2. investments are costly, both absolute and relative to number of people served;
3. investments are not recovered
4. main beneficiaries are the wealthier neighborhoods that can afford subsidized, but still
high connection charges;
6.1.2 Demand-driven approach
The demand-driven approach main objective is to make service delivery sustainable, among
others by ensuring community participation in selection, planning, implementation, and
operation.
It requires:
1. transforming the role of central government from service provider to enabler;

2. coordinating local agencies responsible for different sectors (water supply, sanitation,
wastewater)and for planning (physical and land use planning, integrated water
management, planning of industrial developments)
3. understanding requirements of users and stakeholders through consultation;
4. learning what resources they have and are willing to use to finance facilities;
5. learning what resources and capacities they have to participate in management operation
and maintenance of facilities;
6. selecting environmentally sound technology appropriate for local physical and
socioeconomic conditions;
7. designing systems, financing mechanisms and institutional support structures that are best
suited to the users needs.
6.2 Water & waste water utility design
6.2.1 Logical framework for municipal waste water management
The logical framework follows a four phased of dynamic, cyclic/iterative and logical consistent
approach summarized in the figure below.
EPM 144 reader 6-1 March 2012

I. Problem Identification
II. Planning
III. Implementation
IV. nforcement & Evaluation
Phase 1: Problem identification

Tasks: Monitor and assess the current situation:
1. focus on areas where most positive impacts can be expected from new wastewater
management;
2. involve local communities and other local stakeholders in the assessment, so raising
public awareness and stimulating participation;
3. identify all stakeholders and key agencies;
4. assess wastewater (both quantity and the quality) from industries and small enterprises
that is mixed with domestic wastewater;
5. assess urban runoff (both quantity and quality) and the frequency with which urban runoff
drains into the wastewater collection system;
6. identify those contaminants that cause most serious harm to human health and the
environment;
7. assess the needs of all stakeholders.
Are staff, funds, facilities, mechanisms in place to implement the tasks?
Phase 2: Planning
Task: Review existing information:
1. national economic and development plans;
2. related sector policies (water supply, solid waste management, land use planning and
zoning, urban development);
3. demographic and socio-economic projections (rate of urbanization; projections on income
-per capita and distribution-, water supply and water demand);
4. the existing legal framework including standards and regulations;
5. the current institutional framework;
6. the current financial framework.
Is access assured to required data and documentation?
Task: Identify potential obstacles and opportunities:

1. obstacles like insufficient institutional capacity or financial resources;
2. opportunities such as collaborating with breweries, food processing and tourism industries
which all require clean water;
Task: Formulate objectives, standards and management plan:

1. make an analysis of technical, economic, and social feasibility of different options;
2. consult and negotiate with all stakeholders;
3. include clear objectives that are measurable and verifiable;
4. allow local flexibility in implementation of regulation;

5. follow a realistic step-wise investment approach;
6. apply spatial differentiation, considering specific physical and socio-economic
characteristics in neighborhoods.
Task: Formal adoption:

1. establish an interagency coordination mechanism between relevant authorities (sectoral
2. synergy) and all levels (from national to local);
3. approve staffing and required organizational changes;
4. adopt policies, goals, standards, and management tools;
5. assign, by legislation, responsibilities among the actors (monitoring, revenue
6. collection, operation, and maintenance);
7. approve the funding allocation.
Phase 3: Implementation
Task: Design management tools

1. provide management tools in the form of regulatory and economic or market-based
instruments
2. support instruments by legislation and other types of authorization.
Task: Organize operational management: on-site versus off-site
1. make a distinction between cheaper on-site sanitation and more complex, expensive off-site
collection and treatment.
Task: Set up institutional arrangements

1. ensure institutional arrangements for management tasks and tools, as well as for
2. capacity building, raising awareness, and public participation.
Phase 4: Enforcement and evaluation
Task: Operational management of water quality:

1. ensure rules that are accepted by society and that can be enforced;
2. ensure strong and objective enforcement when breaking the rules can give economic benefits
Task: Evaluation:
1. provide for regular monitoring and evaluation, so that timely improvements can be introduced
when necessary.

8 MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR URBAN UTILITIES AND
SERVICES PLANNING
8.1 Management defined
In-class discussion
What is urban infrastructure management? 6HHRIWKLVUHDGHU
8.2 Principles for sustainable and inclusive urban utilities and services
planning
From chapter two of this reader, we already gathered that principles are basic rules for
decision-making within the planning framework. For sustainable and inclusive urban utilities
and services planning the the following ten principles have been identified:
1. Sustainability. The sustainability of municipal services has physical, financial, and social
dimensions. Infrastructure must be maintained in good working condition over the long
term, and operated in safe working conditions. The services provided should not only
contribute to public health, but also improve the environment and preserve natural
resources. And tariffs have to avoid creating unacceptable financial risks for the
institutions that deliver the services, while still ensuring affordability for users.
2. Social inclusion. Service providers should pay special attention to providing public services
to segments of society that are normally excluded, such as the poor, migrants, lower
castes, or tribal people, because they systematically have greater difficulty accessing
regular services. Infrastructure should be planned to serve all, and to accommodate
diverse situations of income, education, and use.
3. City-wide expansion consistent with urban growth. Infrastructure investment should reflect
current development patterns and future goals. City-wide provision of services requires
that new infrastructure be developed as cities grow, while simultaneously addressing gaps
in already established areas. A comprehensive approach must accommodate slum
communities, high-density development, economic activities, and the urban periphery,
while preserving traditional urban neighborhoods.
4. Transparency. Without regular data collection and disclosure, it is difficult to monitor and
then improve upon institutional performance. Internally, managers can make good
decisions only if they are presented with good information. External support (from
government or donors or investors) can be effective when the performance of services is
clearly understood. Only when this information is disclosed and communicated effectively
can citizens fairly hold leaders accountable.
5. User participation. Stakeholders should help define service requirements and have a voice
in prioritizing infrastructure projects that will deliver these services. The best way to
understand and plan for these needs and desires is to consult with diverse groups of
residents, business leaders, local government leaders, civic organizations, and technical
8-1
EPM 144_Reader Jan-April 2012
experts. Participation contributes to better-conceived projects and facilitates resolution of
the inevitable conflicts that arise in every complex infrastructure project.
6. Market orientation. To be commercially viable or bankable, the public service has to

sustain itself financially over the long term. This means that costs should be covered by
tariffs and explicit subsidies, and that revenue, costs, and management practices are
predictable and transparent to investors. When services are not commercially viable, a
blend of financial resources from government grants, tariffs, and/or general revenues can
achieve the same service objectives. In this way, grants and donor funding can leverage
rather than crowd out long-term private investment.
7. Institutional capacity. Effective organizations with well-defined areas of responsibility are

needed to provide city-wide, sustainable, and inclusive public services. These
organizations must:
a. establish clear plans and rules for service provision;
b. regulate and monitor service quality;
c. coordinate infrastructure project development (either directly or indirectly through
the private sector); and
d. deliver services efficiently and equitably. Within this mandate, institutions must be
managed professionally, open to public scrutiny, and accountable to their
customers.
8. Local empowerment. The goal for decentralization is for local self-governments to gain
the fiscal powers and functional responsibility needed to provide effective public services.
Strengthening the authority of elected leaders builds public accountability for service
provision and urban management at the local level, where everyday issues can be
addressed more adequately.
9. Public-private collaboration. The roles of the private and public sectors are changing in
India to encourage greater efficiencies and better services. Development activities can be
allocated to the partner who is best positioned and skilled to address the specific
infrastructure service challenge. Local government may directly implement a project or act
as facilitator for private sector delivery. The public sector can improve development
outcomes by concentrating on core public roles, such as environmental monitoring and
social advocacy, and by creating the conditions that allow others to deliver services.
10. Clear policy signals. The central and state governments policy framework sends signals to
local governments that affect behavior and create incentives to provide quality local public
services. Critical factors include providing the means for local governments to work with
the private sector, having a clear division of labor among levels of government to prevent
fragmentation, and structuring the fiscal framework to support local fiscal autonomy.
8-2
9 ROLE & EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC/STATE IN URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION
9.1 The privatization debate

An understanding of the debate on privatization is a useful gateway in exploring the role and
efficiency of public/state actors/ urban councils/local authorities in the provision of urban
infrastructure/ utilities requires. The focus has been on the following five core issues:
9.1.1 Public goods
A public good is defined as something that is:

non-rivalrous i.e. one persons use does not deprive others from using it;
non-excludable i.e. if one person consumes, it is impossible to restrict others from
consuming; and
non-rejectable i.e. individuals cannot abstain from consumption even if they wish to.
Private enterprises supplying market demands fail to provide these types of good because,
once they are produced, they benefit the public at large and cannot be sold to or used up by
individuals. It is often argued that since such goods will not be provided by the private sector,
they must be subsidized and provided by the public sector.
Urban water, drainage and sanitation networks are not pure public goods, but they can provide
important public benefits, including some public protection from infectious diseases. Such
public benefits dominate in the cases of drainage and sanitation. When people dispose of their
wastewater or human waste inappropriately, it is others who bear the burden and, once a
drainage or sanitation system is in place, it is uneconomic to exclude people who are not
willing to pay. Thus, some combination of regulation, subsidized provision or obligatory fees is
likely to be necessary to achieve adequate provision. Water provision clearly provides private
benefits to the receiving household, and it is technically possible to charge people for water on
the basis of how much they choose to use. However, if people are unwilling or unable to
purchase enough water (or good enough quality water) to protect their own health, and
contract infectious diseases as a result, then the health of others is also put at risk. The public
benefits of water provision only really become significant where the private benefits are
insufficient to finance adequate provision.
This is more likely to arise in low-income areas or when people are unaware of the private
health benefits. The case for public sector management is strengthened by evidence of
important public benefits, but it can be very misleading to argue the case for more or less
private sector involvement on the basis of abstract arguments about the extent to which water
and sanitation provide these. The public benefits of having adequate water and sanitation
provision can, at least in principle, be provided through a well-regulated private utility, while the
private benefits can be provided by a well-regulated public utility. Moreover, when vested
interests guide the assessment of public versus private benefits, it can be very difficult to
ascertain their size, although this can be critical to the effectiveness of water and sanitation
utilities, whether they are publicly or privately operated.
9.1.2 Natural monopolies

In comparison with firms operating in a competitive market, monopolists have an incentive to
overprice and under-produce, thereby realizing excess profits (i.e. profits greater than the
normal rate in competitive markets). In most circumstances, overpricing and underproduction
go together, since it is by restricting production that the typical monopolist achieves higher
prices. Natural monopolies can be said to exist if total costs are lower when a single enterprise
produces the entire output for a given market than when any of two or more enterprises divide
the production amongst them. The most common explanation for natural monopolies is
increasing returns to scale, that is, the larger the producer, the lower its average costs.
9-1
Economics suggests that natural monopolies will generally require some form of public
regulation to prevent overpricing, and this has at times been used to justify public ownership
and operation.
Piped water and sewerage networks approximate natural monopolies. Multiple networks
competing for the same consumers will have higher infrastructure costs than a single network.
A natural outcome of market competition would, therefore, be for one network owner to buy
out its competitors and become a monopolist. For some networked services, such as
telecommunications, attempts have been made to unbundle the system and develop a
regulatory system that promotes competition where feasible. For water and sewerage
networks, however, unbundling has proved difficult, and competition is generally restricted to
competition for the market rather than competition within the market.
The extent to which urban water and sanitation provision are natural monopolies should not be
exaggerated, since even limited competition within an urban area can be an important means
of preventing the abuse of monopoly powers. In particular, purposeful measures designed to
create exclusive monopolies should not be confused with the existence of a natural monopoly.
With a true natural monopoly, concession contracts would not have to grant exclusivity to the
concession holder; it would emerge naturally. As early as the mid-nineteenth century, an
alternative means of avoiding monopoly pricing, at least in principle, has been to have private
operators competing for the right to supply a given market for a specified period and to award
this right to the firm offering to sell this water at the lowest price. As this example indicates,
while natural monopolies are an issue, public ownership and operation is by no means the
only response.
Moreover, while private monopolies raise a number of regulatory issues, so do public sector
monopolies. Efficient and equitable regulation may involve different challenges when there is
more private sector participation, but regulatory aspects merge with governance issues and
are critical, however the urban water and sanitation system is managed.
9.1.3 Human rights

The privatization of water has generated much controversy, due to its quality as an essential
human need. In such arguments, water and sanitation are often defined as goods to which
people have a right, regardless of ability to pay. The right of access to clean water and
sanitation at an affordable price is acknowledged in the Dublin Principles, as well as in a
number of other international statements in the water sector.
In international legislation, surprisingly, until recently the right to water was only specifically
articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, in 2002, the United Nations
Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights issued a General Comment declaring that
water is not merely an economic commodity, and that access to water is a human right: The
human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and
acceptable water for personal and domestic uses.
Countries that have ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights are now required to take the necessary steps towards the progressive
achievement of the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including access to
water and sanitation.
Recognition that adequate water and sanitation are human rights does not in itself imply that
the public sector must be the provider of these services and, indeed, the General Comment
does not rule out a role for private enterprises. However, the final version of the statement,
arising from a debate between representatives from public sector, private sector and
independent institutions, omitted opinions on privatization because the members of the
Committee agreed not to politicize the issue, although it is reported that they were unable to
agree because some human rights representatives were strongly opposed to privatization.
The view that human rights are violated by privatization is often based on the assumption that
privatization is accompanied by full cost-recovery through user fees, an interpretation that is
consistent with the emphasis given to cost-recovery in many attempts to promote private
9-2
sector participation, even if it does not coincide with the sort of subsidized privatization many
private operators would favor. More generally, private sector operation of water and sanitation
services on a profit-making basis is probably the most controversial and sensitive issue in the
privatization debate. Many people find it ethically unacceptable for tariffs to be adjusted to
cover the profits of private operators when, for part of the population, this interferes with their
capacity to meet basic needs. Objections are heightened when the profits accrue to
multinational corporations based in the wealthiest countries, while the prices are paid by
people living in poor countries.
In effect, however, the key issues centre on how privatization is implemented, to what extent,
and in what context. There is no inherent conceptual contradiction between private sector
participation and the achievement of human rights, but contradictions will arise in particular
circumstances. Only a critical examination of private sector participation can determine
whether private sector participation is advancing or hindering the realization of a states
obligations to the achievement of human rights. Since human rights have an international
dimension, at least some of these obligations extend beyond the boundaries of the countries
where there is inadequate access to water and sanitation to, for example, donors that are
promoting private sector participation in recipient countries.
9.1.4 Economic goods
The Dublin Principles reinforced the re-conceptualization of water as an economic good,

which can be loosely defined as a good that can command a price in a market. Considering
water as an economic good to be managed by market forces is deemed to bring efficiency and
highest value use. When the public sector provides scarce consumables for free (or at
subsidized prices), people have an incentive to overuse them. However, the goods that most
economists argue are efficiently supplied by private enterprises operating in a competitive
market are not just scarce: their full costs of production are borne by the producer, and their
full benefits accrue to the purchaser. Economics suggests that such goods should generally be
priced at their marginal cost: the cost of providing an additional unit of the good, taking into
account the opportunity cost of not providing it to another purchaser. This is also the price that
economic theory indicates will result given a free and competitive market.
The claim that water is an economic good has been used to justify a shift from treating water
as a public service to a good for which users should pay. This argument is often extended to
support full cost-recovery of water and sanitation infrastructure and services from users, on the
grounds that only then will provision be economically sustainable. Cost-recovery is deemed
preferable on an individual basis; that is, households should pay the full costs of their water
and sanitation provision (i.e. installation, consumption, and operation and maintenance).
Subsidies either from the state or through cross-subsidies between different types of
consumer are opposed because they distort the true cost of service provision.
Politically, however, this can be contentious, as many low-income users are unlikely to be able
or willing to pay the full costs. Moreover, urban water and sanitation services are not ideal
goods for private provision. Water is clearly prone to overuse. But the economics of water and
sanitation pricing are by no means straightforward. Even for water, the right economic price
is hard to define, estimate and charge, and requires meters, which are expensive and difficult
to maintain if water pressure fluctuates.
Moreover, as indicated earlier, cost-based pricing ignores the public benefits of water,
sanitation and drainage. In debating the appropriate role of the private and public sectors,
recognizing water as an economic good can seem to support a strong private sector role. This
is not strictly correct, and depends on how the term economic good which is not widely
used in economics is interpreted. If economic goods are taken to mean the sort of goods
idealized in economic theories of perfect markets, then the case for private provision of
economic goods is strong. But urban water services are not economic goods in this sense any
more than they are pure public goods (and in any case, water utilities rarely operate in a
competitive market). Alternatively, if economic goods are simply taken to be goods that have
an economic value, and to which economic principles apply, then this would also apply to
public goods, and is largely irrelevant to the case for private provisioning.
9-3
In short, while economic issues are central to defining appropriate roles for the public and
private sectors, these issues are merely confused by semantic debates over whether or not
water is an economic good. Historically, many public water utilities have undoubtedly been
under pressure to keep water prices low, even when this is leading to excessive water use
among connected households (and, in some cases, removing a potentially important source of
finance for expanding the water network to unconnected households). Commercial pressures
can undoubtedly play a positive role in driving efficiency improvements. However, privately run
utilities also respond to political pressures, and may have little incentive to improve efficiency
(it depends on the nature of their contract and how it is regulated). Water provision raises a
number of economic and governance issues that cannot simply be resolved by bringing in
private operators, any more than they were resolved in the past by bringing in public
operators.
Given the debate about whether or not water is an economic good and the case for private
provision, one might expect the same arguments to be applied to sanitation. However, in the
policy arena, sanitation is still often regarded as a service that is unsuitable for private
provision.
This presumably reflects the fact that while the private benefits from water are usually
sufficient to create a considerable demand for water, the same cannot be said of sanitation.
Users are less willing to pay for safe sanitation, yet its provision is highly desirable from a
public health perspective.
Various attempts have been made to label as least some parts or types of sanitary facilities
private, based on whether users can generally be expected to pay for safe facilities. On the
one hand, in the case of on-plot sanitation, households are expected to pay for the
infrastructure, although their acquisition of sanitation facilities confers benefits on wider
society.
On the other hand, as noted above, sewerage networks are often treated as a public service
that requires subsidization, even though they may provide some private benefits. This
distinction is reinforced by an organizational difference: while it is comparatively difficult to
organize centralized payments for and quality control of on-plot sanitation, this is
comparatively easy for sewerage networks.
As indicated above, whether sanitation approximates a public or an economic good does not
really determine the appropriate roles for the private and public sector. In practice, a wide
range of interrelated factors come into play, including the public awareness of the benefits of
good sanitation, the existence and acceptance of sanitary laws, the ability and willingness of
different resident groups to pay for sanitation, the political power of those adversely affected
by poor sanitation, the quality of local governance, the state of public finance, and the interests
of private operators. Nevertheless, the evidence of public benefits is one reason why the
provision of sanitation more often stays in public hands.
9.1.5 State failure

The argument for private provision is also often linked to a broader claim that private
enterprises are more efficient than public enterprises. In particular during the early 1990s,
when privately run utilities were rare in low and middle-income countries, it was simply
assumed that the private sector would be more efficient, due to the commercial incentives that
could encourage private operators to seek the highest possible efficiency in order to maximize
commercial returns and reduce possible losses from inefficiency and non-paying customers.
Proponents of this view claim that efficiency gains will benefit all service users and, in
particular, the poor, who will be connected to the system as paying customers. However, this
argument ignores the fact that not all private operators make profits from being efficient (e.g.
they may be able to justify tariff increases on the basis of their inefficiencies, especially if the
regulator is poorly informed), while some publicly operated utilities do face commercial
incentives.
9-4
Furthermore, the position favouring private provision is also supported by the more specific
observation that public water and sanitation utilities have failed to supply services of adequate
quality and coverage.
On the one hand, this failure is often attributed to a lack of government capacity which, when
applied to utilities, leads to a downward spiral of weak performance and low payment levels
for poor services. Despite large amounts of international aid and multilateral loans since the
1950s, public authorities concentrated on central urban areas, leaving peripheries and rural
areas unserved. It is also argued that government-run utilities are often subject to political
interference and/or corruption, especially at the local level.
On the other hand, the precarious state of public water and sewerage utilities is partly
attributed to the public sectors lack of funds and access to finance, which are necessary to
carry out improvement and expansion of services. In many low- and middle-income countries,
public sectors have been affected by indebtedness and other financial problems, at least since
the 1980s. The public sector, especially local and municipal level government, often does not
have access to sources of commercial finance, as it lacks such requisites as assets and
creditworthiness. Over and above any inherent inefficiency, so the argument goes, public
sector financial crises result in badly managed public utilities.
The limited contribution that development assistance can make in the water and sanitation
sector in the South is used as further justification for involving the private sector. The former
UK Minister for International Development emphasized that available development assistance
is nowhere near enough to meet the amount needed to improve water and sanitation provision
in the South, and stressed that the gap in necessary finance could only be filled by the private
sector. Unfortunately, the fact that public and development assistance resources will not
finance the needed improvements does not imply that private finance will. Moreover, when
privatization takes place under extreme financial pressures, this is not conducive to well-
conceived and consultative processes of privatization.
All these factors are claimed to affect low-income groups most negatively, as it is always these
groups that remain unserved. When low income groups lack adequate water and sanitation
provision, they often purchase water from informal vendors, paying per unit prices that are up
to 100 times higher than piped water from the utility. Some argue that this shows that the
ability of the poor to pay is often underestimated, and that they would be able and willing to
pay prices charged by the private sector for a much higher quality service. In this account, the
currently high levels of non-payment for existing public service provision by low income groups
are associated with the fact that the services are poor rather than that the prices are high. A
number of willingness-to-pay studies lead to similar conclusions. In this debate, three points
are worth noting.
First, although the poor do pay high prices for water in some cases, these high prices are often
either for small quantities that are only used for drinking, or only apply for short periods when
water is particularly scarce. Second, many informal water and sanitation entrepreneurs provide
a fairly efficient and reliable service in difficult circumstances. Third, high water payments can
put pressure on already very low incomes, which does not imply that households are not
suffering as a result.
9.1.6 Summary
Assignment: see Wikipedia for a listing of the arguments for and against privatization. Define
privatization.
9.1.7 Reflect
9-5
10 The nexus between urban infrastructure investment and the
environment
Taking the concept of environment in its broadest meaning to include socio-economic

dimensions, we can discern the following benefits and costs that such infrastructure investments
confer to the urban dweller/economy:
1. Reduced road crashes, lowered vehicle breakdowns and associated maintenance costs
following improved road conditions.
2. Savings on productive man hours arising from: time savings for women salvaged from the
drudgery of walking to fetch water and long distances, less traffic jam on roads.
3. Expanded duration/time for business owing to night lights from urban lighting projects. Lack
of access to electricity and cleaner fuels can result in excessive use of coal and firewood for
cooking and heating, leading to high levels of interior air pollution and negative health impacts.
4. A positive correlation between increased investments (improvement) sanitation and reductions
in diarrhea morbidity and mortality has been recorded. In Kenya, WASH-related diseases and
associated conditions (e.g., anemia, dehydration and malnutrition) are the number one cause
of under-five hospitalization and mortality, and over 50% of hospital visits in the country are for
illnesses related to water, sanitation and hygiene.
5. Improvements in girl child performance owing to water and sanitation investments.
6. Greater access to jobs/workplaces and social connectivity: improvements in roads, rail & ICT
infrastructure.
7. Infrastructure improvements contribute to safety, enhanced security and livability of urban
areas e.g. street lighting in informal settlements
8. Green infrastructure confers aesthetic value, reduces psychological stress and checks the
urban heat island effect.
9. Urban infrastructure investments provide direct and indirect employment opportunities.
In addition the following potential mitigatable environmental costs arise from urban infrastructure
investments:
1. Unintelligent, extension of infrastructure such as water into peri-urban areas may encourage
urban sprawl together with associated impacts of heightened motorization which heightens
climate change.
2. Soil erosion attributable to poorly refilled water pipes/ sewage trunks
3. Land take (way leaves)
4. Dust emissions during construction phase
5. Noise emission during construction phase
6. HIV/AIDS & other STIs transmission by migrant workers.
7. Non-pro-poor tariff structures and strict cost recovery approaches can exclude the poor from
service coverage.
8. Poor infrastructure siting can result in ecological damage & environmental injustice e.g. roads
linked to deforestation while landfills maybe disproportionately located in poor neighborhoods.
9. Impacts related to material sources: e.g. where quarry sites & borrow pits are poorly located,
managed danger of disturbance of wildlife corridor, health risk to neighbors (noise & dust) as
well as land scarification.
10. Negative effects of overhead electricity transmission lines including drop in property value,
11. Unsafe treatment and disposal of wastewater contaminates soil, water and has far-reaching
ecosystem-wide effects.

EPM 144 Course Reader - Part A PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EPM 144 Course Reader - Part A PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EPM 144: PLANNING URBAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COURSE

In this course, we shall:

The thematic topics to be explored are as follows:

1. Concepts and composition.

EPM 144 course reader-2013: Planning 3 December 2011

END SEMESTER EXAMS: 70%

Combined interactive lectures and directed reading.

EPM 144 course reader-2013: Planning 4 December 2011

Physical infrastructure, commonly known as hard infrastructure, includes stormwater

Social infrastructure, commonly known as soft infrastructure, includes educational and

1.1.4 Urban infrastructural challenges

The Infrastructure Crisis

Despite the importance of infrastructure for economic and social well-being,

1.2 Why Plan for Urban Utility Services?

Where are we going today? A journey in:

Tracing the history of urban water drainage systems

4.2 Historical evolution of urban water infrastructure:

EPM 144 Reader 4-1 Feb 2012

EPM 144 Reader 4-2 Feb 2012

EPM 144 Reader 4-3 Feb 2012

4.4 Water Treatment

EPM 144 Reader 4-4 Feb 2012

Fig 4.1 typical processes in water treatment plants.

EPM 144 Reader 4-5 Feb 2012

4.5 Storage of water

4.6 Water distribution

EPM 144 Reader 4-6 Feb 2012

EPM 144 Reader 4-7 Feb 2012

EPM 144 Reader 4-8 Feb 2012

5.1 Waste water collection options

Urban waste water or sanitary facilities can be grouped as follows:

1. On-site sewage systems (pit-latrine, septic tank, bucket latrine

5.1.1 Pit latrines

1. A place with good stable soil to avoid subsidence.

5.1.2 Septic tanks

A septic tank is a watertight underground container designated for wastewater treatment,

5.1.3 Sewer system

5.2.1 Link water & sanitation

5.2.2 Technology is not the objective

5.2.3 Technology is not the objective

5.2.4 Local factors determine technology

5.2.5 Consider Conventional and Innovative Technologies

5.3 Treatment of waste water

5.3.1 Methods of waste water treatment

(a) Trickling filter of conventional method

Conventional wastewater treatment is made up of three phases primary, secondary, and

Secondary TreatmentSecondary treatment provides biological treatment, whereby

(b) Stabilization ponds

6.1 General approaches

6.1.1 Supply driven approach

6.1.2 Demand-driven approach

1. transforming the role of central government from service provider to enabler;

6.2 Water & waste water utility design

6.2.1 Logical framework for municipal waste water management

EPM 144 reader 6-1 March 2012

IV. nforcement & Evaluation

Phase 1: Problem identification

Are staff, funds, facilities, mechanisms in place to implement the tasks?

Is access assured to required data and documentation?

Task: Identify potential obstacles and opportunities:

Task: Formulate objectives, standards and management plan:

EPM 144 reader 6-2 March 2012

Task: Formal adoption: