ASSESSMENT OF BOREHOLE WATER QUALITY AND CONSUMPTION IN YEI

COUNTY SOUTH SUDAN

BY

LIKAMBO WILLIAM

BSc. WST (MAK.)

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

AWARD OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

APRIL, 2014

0
DISCLAIMER

I Likambo William declare that the contents in this study are of my own research, no part of it is
plagiarized work and this thesis has not been submitted for a degree in any other University.

Signature:……………………………….. Date………………………..

Likambo William

Candidate

I confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the above named candidate
under the supervision of:

Associate Professor James Okot-Okumu

Department of Environmental Management

Signature................................................ Date................................................

Supervisor

i
DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my son Adoke Samuel who was born during the course of this study and
my Wife MaleniMarlen who was the source of courage to me.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to thank my supervisor Associate Professor James Okot-Okumu for the tireless effort he
put into my work. I am greatly indebted to my parents Mr. Angupale Moses and Mrs. Margaret
Angupale, my brother Amule Data Paul, my father in law Mr. Ocotoko Isaac for the endless
support they accorded me throughout the period of my studies. I want to thank Hon. James Baba,
Mrs. Ssali Cate for standing with me during hard times. I am also greatly indebted to my
employers IAS and the staffs especially Pr. James Dema, Mr. Luka Wani and Mr. James Taban
(Water quality Analyst) for supporting me during the pursuit of this Masters. May the Lord God
Almighty richly reward you all.

I want to thank my research assistants Mr. James Ozo, and Mr. James Taban for working with
me and helping me in many areas. God bless the works of your hands. I will always remain
grateful to my classmates Mugarura Michael, Okiror Paul, Zizinga Alex, Tunywane Isaac, David
Mawa, Ratemo Sam, Chono Jane, Nakityo Cathy, Irumba Imma, Ababo Peace, Shaban Janet,
Saida Ramadan, Bogezi Carol, Muhumuza Moses, Muhumuza Elias, Assimwe Agnes, Bavakure
Richard, Okedi Brian, Kyarikunda Monica and Antonia Nyamukuru for keeping the spirit of
unity throughout the study period. May God see you through in all spheres of life.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................. i

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. xi

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.2.1 Main Objective............................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................ 4

1.2.3 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Justification ........................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 6

2. GROUNDWATER ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Ground water occurrence ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Host lithology................................................................................................................. 6

2.1.2 Groundwater flow .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Groundwater quality ............................................................................................................ 7

2.2.1 Water Parameters ........................................................................................................... 7

iv
 2.2.1.1 Physico- chemical Parameters .............................................................................................. 7
2.2.1.2 Micro-biological parameters ............................................................................................... 12
2.2.1.3 Categories used for water quality assessment ..................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Leaching of pollutants into groundwater ..................................................................... 13

2.3.2. Contaminant transport in groundwater ....................................................................... 14

2.4. Borehole site selection ....................................................................................................... 15

2.4.1. Purification of groundwater by Soil ............................................................................ 15

2.4.2. Recommended distance between domestic water wells and sources of pollution ...... 15

2.5. Impacts of consuming contaminated water........................................................................ 16

2.6. Impact of Dry and Wet Seasons on groundwater Quality ................................................. 16

2.7. Need for Groundwater exploitation ................................................................................... 17

2.7.1 Water security .............................................................................................................. 18

2.7.2 Borehole water Availability and Accessibility ............................................................ 18

2.8. Integrated water resources Management. .......................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 21

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 21

3.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1. Location of Yei County .............................................................................................. 22

3.1.2 Sample site selection .................................................................................................... 23

3.1.3 Population Distribution across Yei County ................................................................. 23

3.1.4 Mapping of the Study area ........................................................................................... 25

3.1.5 Sample sites and areas of data collection ..................................................................... 25

3.2 Determination of seasonal variations in borehole water quality ......................................... 26

3.2.1 Collection and Preparation of Samples ........................................................................ 26

3.2.2.1 Physico-chemical Analyses................................................................................................. 26

v
 3.2.2.2 Micro-biological Analyses .................................................................................................. 27
3.2.2.3 Quality Control ................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.0 Determination of seasonal variations in borehole water consumption ........................ 27

3.3.1 Calculation of Daily per capita borehole water consumption (LCPD) ........................ 28

3.3.2 Design of Survey.......................................................................................................... 28

3.4 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 29

3.4.1 Level of pollution analysis using Pollution Index (Pi) ................................................ 29

3.4.2 Intra variation data analysis ......................................................................................... 29

3.4.3 Inter variation data analysis ......................................................................................... 29

3.4.4 Impact of distance of household from borehole on daily per capita water consumption
............................................................................................................................................... 29

3.4.5 Impact of household size on daily per capita water consumption ............................... 29

3.4.6 Impact of changing seasons on borehole water consumption ...................................... 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.2 Summary of Physico-chemical and Microbiological parameters ................................ 31

4.2 Intra Variations of borehole water parameters.................................................................... 33

4.2.1 Physico-chemical Parameters ...................................................................................... 33

4.2.1.1 Intra Variations in the rural areas ........................................................................................ 33

4.2.1.2 Intra variations in the urban areas ....................................................................................... 33
4.2.1.3 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of Physico-chemical water parameters assessed in the
rural and urban areas ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.2 Intra variation of Chemical parameters........................................................................ 34

4.2.2.1 Intra variations in the rural and urban areas ........................................................................ 35

4.2.2.2 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of chemical water parameters assessed in the rural and
urban areas ...................................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.3 Intra Variations of Micro-biological parameters ......................................................... 37

vi
 4.2.3.1 One way ANOVA summary ............................................................................................... 37
4.2.3.2 Intra variations in the rural and urban areas ........................................................................ 37
4.2.3.3 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of micro-biological water parameters assessed in the
rural and urban areas ....................................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Inter Variations of Water Quality Parameters .................................................................... 38

4.3.1 Inter variation of physico-Chemical parameters .......................................................... 38

4.3.1.1 t test 2 sample analysis summary ........................................................................................ 38

4.3.2 Inter variation of Chemical parameters........................................................................ 39

4.3.2.1 T test 2 sample analysis summary ....................................................................................... 39

4.3.3 Inter Variations of Micro-biological Parameters ......................................................... 39

4.3.3.1 Summary of t test 2 sample analysis ................................................................................... 39

4.4 The Level of borehole water pollution................................................................................ 40

4.4.1 Statistical variance of Physico-chemical parameters from WHO values ............................... 41

4.4.1.2 Comparison of the selected Physico-chemical parameters with WHO recommended values
........................................................................................................................................................ 42
4.4.2 Statistical Variations of Chemical parameters from the WHO recommended values . 42

4.4.2.1 Pollution index for Chemical parameters ............................................................................ 43

4.4.2.2 Comparison of Chemical parameters with recommended values ....................................... 44
4.4.3 Statistical Variations of Micro-biological parameters from the WHO recommended
values .................................................................................................................................... 46

4.4.3.1 Categorization of water quality based on Micro-biological parameters ............................. 46

4.4.3.2 Variations in micro-biological parameters from permissible limits .................................... 48
4.5 Results of Borehole water Consumption patterns ............................................................... 49

4.5.1 Demographics of Households and Respondents .......................................................... 49

4.5.1.1 Frequency distribution of households and respondents ...................................................... 49

4.5.2 A summary of Average daily per capita borehole water consumption ........................ 51

4.5.3 Variation from the Minimum recommended value (27L/person/day) ......................... 52

4.5.3.1 Summary of T test one sample analysis .............................................................................. 52

4.5.4 Impact of Distance from borehole on seasonal per capita water consumption............ 53
vii
 4.5.4.1 A summary of Genstat output ............................................................................................. 53
4.5.4.2 Effect of distance from borehole on daily per capita water consumption ........................... 54
4.5.5 Effect of household size on daily per capita consumption .......................................... 55

4.5.5.1 A summary of regression equation trend lines .................................................................... 55

4.5.5.2 Effect of household size on daily per capita consumption .................................................. 57
4.5.6 Effect of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption ......... 58

4.5.6.1 Summary of t test 2 sample analysis results........................................................................ 58

4.5.6.2 Effect of changing seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption ..................... 59
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................... 61

5.1 Physico-Chemical Parameters ............................................................................................ 61

5.3 Micro-biological Parameters ............................................................................................... 64

5.4 Consumption Patterns ......................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 67

6.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 67

6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 68

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 70

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 90

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Classification of water hardness as CaCO3 mg/L (EPA, 1986).

Table 2.2 Classification of water micro-biological limits (DWAF, 1996).
Table 2.3 Classification of Landfill sites based upon their hydrology after Barber.
Table 2.4 Safe distance between boreholes / wells and source of contaminants (Romero, 1970).
Table 3.1 Population density in each Payam in Yei County, (SSCCE, 2010)
Table 4.1 Summary of the Physico-chemical and Micro-biological Parameter results
Table 4.2.1 Statistical variations of Physico-chemical parameters within the rural and urban
Table 4.2.2 Statistical variations of chemical parameters within the rural and urban
Table 4.2.3 Statistical variations of microbiological parameters with the rural and urban
Table 4.3.1 Statistical variations in Physico-chemical parameters between the rural and urban
Table 4.3.2 Statistical variations in chemical parameters between the rural and urban
Table 4.3.3 Statistical variations of micro-biological parameters between the rural and urban
Table 4.4.1 Statistical variation of Physico-chemical parameters from WHO values
Table 4.4.2 Statistical variations of chemical parameters from WHO values
Table 4.4.3 Statistical variations of microbiological parameters from WHO values
Table 4.5.1 Frequency distribution of respondents and demographics of households surveyed
Table 4.5.2 Summary of borehole water consumption in Yei County.
Table 4.5.3 Statistical variation of daily per capita consumption from the WHO min. value
Table 4.5.4 Statistical variations of daily per capita borehole water consumption
Table 4.5.5 Regression equations showing relationships between household size and per capita borehole
water consumption
Table 4.5.6 Statistical variations of daily per capita borehole water use in dry and wet seasons

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 3.1 Map of Yei County

Fig 3.2 Schematic description of sample site selection
Fig 3.3 Map of Yei county showing selected boreholes in the rural and urban Payams
Fig 3.4 Schematic description of the design of survey for borehole water consumption
Fig 4.2.1a Variations of pH
Fig 4.2.1b Variations of TDS
Fig 4.2.2a Variations of Nitrate
Fig 4.2.2b Variations of CaCO3
Fig 4.2.2c Variations of Iron
Fig 4.2.2d Variations of Fluoride
Fig 4.2.3a Variations of Total coliforms
Fig 4.2.3b Variations of Faecal coliforms
Fig 4.41a Comparison of pH with recommended values
Fig 4.4.1b Comparison of TDS with recommended values
Fig 4.4.2a Comparison of Nitrate levels with WHO recommended values
Fig 4.4.2b CaCO3 mg/L levels in borehole water
Fig 4.4.2c Recommended limits of CaCO3 by DWAF and WHO
Fig 4.4.2d Comparison of Iron concentrations with WHO values
Fig 4.4.2e Comparison of Fluoride concentrations with WHO values
Fig 4.4.3a Total coliform counts in borehole water
Fig 4.4.3b Total coliform classification according to DWAF and WHO
Fig 4.4.3c Faecal coliform counts in borehole water
Fig 4.4.3d Faecal coliform classification according to DWAF and WHO
Fig 4.5.4 Effect of distance from borehole on amount of water consumed
Fig 4.5.5a Rural Households < 500m from borehole
Fig 4.5.5b Rural households >1km from borehole
Fig 4.5.5c Urban households <500m from borehole
Fig 4.5.5d Urban households >1km from borehole
Fig 4.5.6a Rural households<500m from borehole
Fig 4.5.6b Rural households >1km from borehole
Fig 4.5.6c Urban households<500m from borehole
Fig 4.5.6d Urban households >1km from borehole

x
ACRONYMS

(OH)- Hydroxide
BGS British Geological Survey
Ca2+ Calcium ion
CaCO3 Water Hardness as Calcium carbonate
Cfu Colony Forming Units
Cl- Chloride ion
CO2 Carbon dioxide
2-
CO3 Carbonate ion
CU Copper
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC Dissolved Oxygen Content
DS Dry Season
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, South Africa
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
F- Fluoride ion concentrations
FC Faecal Coliform
Fe2+ Low levels of Iron concentration
FeS2 Iron sulfide
+
H Hydrogen ion
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
-
HCO3 Bicarbonate ion
HNO2 Nitrous Acid
IAS International Aid Services
IWSSD International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade
LCPD Liters per person per capita per day
MDEQW Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Division
MDG Millennium Development Goals
Mg2+ Magnesium ion
+
Na Sodium ion
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NH4+ Ammonia
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
3-
NO Nitrate ions
NO3-N Nitrate ion Concentration
xi
NOC Nitroso Compounds
pH Acidity or Alkalinity of water
Pi Pollution Index
PO43- Phosphate ion
SE State of the Environment
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
2-
SO4 Sulphite ion
SSCCSE South Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation
SSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission
TC Total Coliform
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UNEP United Nation Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
V.I.P Very Improved Pit Latrines
WGAASD Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking- water
WHO World Health Organization
WS Wet Season
WSTF Water Sanitation Trust Fund.
WWDR World Water Day Report
WWF World Water Forum

xii
ABSTRACT

The health risks associated with individual borehole water quality and quantity consumed is not
clear for a third world nation like South Sudan. Spatial distribution of Physico-chemical and
microbiological parameters were assessed from the rural and urban areas of Yei County in South
Sudan. Water samples were collected and analyzed in the Wet Season (Mid June to July 2011)
and Dry Season (February to Mid-March 2012). Factors affecting daily per capita borehole
water consumption were also assessed.
The results showed that Physico-chemical parameters; pH ranged from (6.0-8.1) in the dry
season, (5.5 – 7.5) wet season. Others all in (mg/L); TDS varied from (14 – 309) in dry season,
(18.3-321.1) wet season; NO3-N ranged from (0.000 – 3.8) in the dry season, (0.000-4.0) wet
season, CaCO3 (12-115) in the dry season, (12-111) wet season, Fe2+ ranged from (0.001 – 0.1)
in the dry season, (0.001-0.1) wet season and F- ranged from (0.12-2.01) in the dry season, (0.19-
2.2) wet season. Micro-biological parameters; TC (cfu/100ml) ranged from (0-70) in the dry
season, (0-100) wet season. FC ranged from (0-46) in the dry season, (0-75) wet season. All
values increased in the wet season apart from pH that decreased. Urban boreholes produced
slightly more acidic water than rural boreholes. Physico-Chemical parameters were not
significantly affected by changing seasons (p>0.05) but had a significant effect on pH, TC and
FC in the urban (p<0.05), while there was no significant effect in the rural (p>0.05). TDS, NO3-
N, CaCO3, and F- values were all far below the WHO standards of drinking water in both
seasons with all significance levels (<0.01). TC and FC in drinking water varied significantly
from WHO values (p<0.05). Rural areas had no intra variations in all the parameters for both
seasons (p>0.05). There were significant inter variations in pH, TDS, NO3-N, CaCO3, F-, TC and
FC in both dry and wet seasons, all significances were (p<0.05). Distance from borehole,
household size and changing seasons significantly affected daily per capita borehole water
consumption (p<0.05). Consumption in Yei county varied from (4 – 23.8) in the wet season, (6.7
-29.5) dry season. Urban areas had higher amounts of consumption compared to rural.
Households <500m from boreholes had higher daily per capita water consumption than those
>1km away. It is therefore recommended to treat boreholes with pollution levels beyond the
WHO limits. Survey of borehole drilling sites must be done prior to drilling to prevent areas of
potential hazard to groundwater. There is need to increase accessibility to water resources.

xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Background

According to Chapman (1996) and BGS, (2001), groundwater is easily the most important
component of the hydrological cycle, an important source of potable water in Africa and
constitutes about two thirds of the freshwater resources of the world. Surface water is not evenly
distributed or accessible to large sections of the global population (Diane, 2004; McDonald and
Kay, 1988). Groundwater provides a reasonably constant supply for domestic use, livestock and
irrigation, which is not likely to dry up under natural conditions thereby buffering the effects of
rainfall variability across seasons (Hamil and Bell, 1986; Calow et al., 2011). In many arid and
semi-arid areas of Africa borehole water is a means of coping with water deficiencies in areas
where rainfall is scarce or highly seasonal and surface water is extremely limited (David, 2011).

Boreholes sampled varied from 30m – 50m deep, but water was found in the levels between 7 to
20m. Dynamic water level is the level water drops to when the pump is operating due to draw
down. Static water level is the level water rises due to infiltration and capillary action (IAS, 2008).
Groundwater appears as vulnerable as surface water due to water table being near the soil surface
and layers topping the table being permeable, and superficial sources of pollution being numerous
(Boutin, 1987; Singh et al., 2012). There is practically no geological environment at or near the
earth’s surface where pH will not support some form of organic life (Chapman, 1996). Pathogenic
bacteria can survive long underground and may have a life span of about 4 years (Hamil and Bell,
1986). Boreholes and wells locally distort the natural flow field and create a path that opens up an
additional possibility of heat and mass transfer between rock formations / aquifers, surrounding
and atmosphere (Berthold 2010; Akpoveta, 2011). Indiscriminate waste disposal, poor agricultural
practices, septic tanks, pit latrines and graves near boreholes, poor well construction, contribute to
borehole water contamination (Sunnudo-Wilhelmy and Gill, 1999; Egwari and Aboaba, 2002; Lu,
2004; McHenry, 2011). These account for the presence of coliform bacteria in borehole water.

World population cannot be sustained without access to safe water (Braunstein, 2007). It is
therefore important to conjunctly consider both water quality and quantity in water resources
management (Xinghui et al., 2009). Borehole water becomes unsuitable for domestic use as a
resource due to contamination that makes it unfit (Holmes, 2007). The aim of water quality
1
management is usually to minimize the health risks associated with either direct or indirect use of
water (Udom et al., 2002). Standards and guidelines in water quality stem from the need to protect
human health (Minh et al., 2011). Contamination of water has increasingly become an issue of
serious environmental concern after years of pollution (Akpoveta et al., 2011; Silderberge, 2003).
Natural water contains many dissolved substances: contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, heavy
metals, nitrates and salt have polluted water supplies due to inadequate treatment and disposal of
wastes from humans and livestock, industrial discharges and over use of limited water resources
(Singh and Mosley, 2003).

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the minimum daily per capita water
consumption to be 27 liters/person/day. However, many people manage with far less than 27 liters
(Fraceys et al., 1991). This could be because approximately 70% of the renewable water resources
are unavailable for human use or under developed or unevenly distributed (Minh et al., 2011;
Gleick, 1993). Drought, desertification and other forms of water scarcity are already estimated to
affect as many as one third of the world’s population, affecting consumption and migration
patterns in many parts of the world (Talafre and Knabe, 2009). The increasing population pressure
and rising demand for food and other services has increased demand for water (Nobumasa, 2006;
Rodak and Silliman, 2011). This has increased reliance on groundwater resources thereby creating
challenges among which are the provisions of adequate quantity and quality of water (WWDR,
2011). Those that are faced with a serious water shortage must either limit their use or make do
with used untreated water (Clarke, 1991).

Water scarcity can stifle a nation’s economy, fuel conflicts and negatively impact the environment
(Minh et al., 2011). However, borehole water development in Africa is seen as more amenable to
poverty targeting than surface water (Kai and Jeroen, 2009; Xinghui et al., 2009). Moreover, it is a
low cost option in the long run (Dhawan, 1991). According to (Jan et al., 1993), social-economic
conditions improve through improvement of community water supply. This can be achieved
through water security which is described as the outcome of the relationship between the
availability, accessibility and use relationships (Calow et al., 2011). Accessibility to water reduces
effort and time required to collect water hence reduction of workload on women, thus increasing

2
the quantity of daily per capita water consumption thereby increasing production activities such as
crop washing, especially small scale gardening (Cairncross, 1987).

Management is the uncertainty about the future availability of water (Minh et al., 2011). This
uncertainty is because policy responses have concentrated on food needs and less on mobilization
of resources for water interventions, despite evidence that access to safe water is of a serious and
inter-related concern (Calow et al., 2011). The fact that water is not easily accessible to large
sections of the global population defines the central management problem of borehole water
resources (McDonald and Kay, 1988). Water resources policy should integrate equity, gender,
efficiency and environmental consciousness (Weiwei et al., 2009). Women can play several
complementary ways such as health educators and supervisors of water programmes. This
improves the protection of public from water borne or related diseases since women are the
primary providers of water at household level in Africa (SPIDER International Ltd, 1995)

Identifying the factors that affect domestic water quality and consumption is very important in
management of available water resources (Keshavarzi et al., 2006). This research endeavors to
assess and identify anthropogenic, geographic and hydrological factors impacting borehole water
quality and study the borehole water consumption patterns in the selected rural and urban areas of
Yei County South Sudan.

1.1 Problem Statement

According to the WHO report (2010), South Sudan lacks adequate improved water resources, with
only 40% of the water resources improved, thus 60% of the water resources are faced with
pollution beyond the WHO maximum permissible limits. This inaccessibility to clean water poses
a risk of water borne diseases as indicated by rampant water borne diseases like typhoid and
diarrhea.

The World Health Organization recommends that the minimum daily amount of water per person
should be 27litres. It is not clear how much water is explored per capita in Yei County; however it
is obvious that many manage far less than 27 liters a day. Yei county had a population of 23,519 in
3
1983 and 201,443 people in 2010 (SSCCSE, 2010). This population is still increasing and
according to Economy Watch 2011, the birth rate of Yei is at 2.14%.

The major source of water in Yei is borehole water, however, with this high birth rate coupled with
high rate of refugee returnees, reliance on borehole water resources is increasing creating
challenges of provision of adequate quality and quantity water. MDG.7C. Seeks to half the
population of those without access to safe water. Yei County is in a crisis of increasing water
scarcity coupled with poor water quality and communities reject some borehole water during
specific seasons. There is a gap in knowledge of anthropogenic, geological and hydrological
factors impacting on borehole water quality and the patterns of borehole water consumption to
identify areas with water stress, and understand consumption patterns, like the effects of distance
from the borehole, household size and changing seasons on daily per capita borehole water
consumption.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 Main Objective

This study was aimed at assessing borehole water quality and consumption patterns in Yei County.

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study were,

1. To examine seasonal variations in borehole water quality in the rural and urban areas of
Yei County, South Sudan.
2. To assess the effect of distance from water source, household size and changing seasons on
borehole water consumption in the rural and urban areas of Yei County, South Sudan.

4
1.2.3 Hypotheses

i. There is no significant variation of the selected physico-chemical and

microbiological parameters of the borehole water from the WHO maximum
permissible limits in the urban and rural areas
ii. There is no significant intra and inter seasonal variations of physico-chemical and
microbiological parameters of borehole water in the rural and urban areas of Yei
county.
iii. There is no significant effect of distance of household from the borehole, household
size and changing seasons on the daily per capita amount of borehole water
consumed.

1.3 Justification

According to the SSCCE (2010), boreholes and hand pumps provide up to 69.6% of the potable
water in Central Equatoria State, with surface water providing 22.5% of the water needs of the
communities, other water sources like rain and external supplies like tankers and piped water
contribute about 8.9%. The population in Yei cannot be sustained without reliable access to safe
water and adequate quantity. The high birth rate has led to increased reliance on borehole water.
Many consumers rejected borehole water in specific seasons especially during the wet season,
citing sudden change in water taste, appearance or odor, hence the need to determine quality in the
dry and wet seasons. Wet Season analysis was done from Mid-June to July 2011 and Dry Season
from February to Mid-March 2012.

This research will contribute to MDG 7c by determining water quality parameters and
recommending for suitable action or creating awareness about water quality and water borne
diseases. This research will also identify areas of water stress where less water is available for use,
affecting the per capita consumption. The information from this research will be used to guide
government agencies, researchers and other development organizations like NGO’s to develop
strategies, policies and institutional infrastructures to provide quality and accessible water
resources to communities.

5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2. GROUNDWATER

2.1. Ground water occurrence

The principle source of borehole water / groundwater is meteoric water, that’s to say;
(precipitation from rain, sleet, snow and hail), juvenile water and connate water (Gleick, 1993).
Groundwater occurs in many geological formations. Nearly all rocks in the upper part of the
earth’s crust possess voids or pores filled with water or air; this is the vadoze / unsaturated zone.
At greater depths, all empty voids are filled with water, this is the saturated zone, and hence
groundwater refers only to the saturated zone below the water table. In consolidated rocks the only
voids may be the fractures or fissures. The volume of water that will drain under gravity from
initially saturated rock mass to the total volume of that rock is called the specific yield of that
material. All water that occurs naturally beneath the earth’s surface, including saturated and
unsaturated zones is called sub-surface water (Chapman, 1996).

2.1.1 Host lithology

Groundwater occurs in association with geological materials containing soluble minerals; therefore
its geochemistry varies with host lithology and level of aquifer (Railsback et al., 1996; Bruehl,
2011; Sanden et al., 1986; Homsby, 1999). Low land area aquifers are large but water security is
compromised by limited and poor quality surface water, restricted access to the aquifer via
borehole and greater demand (Calow et al., 2011). Groundwater with low values of NO3-, Cl- has
zones characterized by confined aquifer conditions, while zones with higher DO, NO3- and
seasonally variable Cl- are characterized by unconfined aquifer conditions (Heejun and Kang-Kun,
1997). Limey soils and rocks release calcium ions to ground water. Materials bearing Iron Sulfide
release iron. Granites may release Fluoride to groundwater. Connate and fossil water may
contribute to Chloride in water. Ions all increase with depth while nitrate reduces with depth
(Foster and Hirata, 1988).

2.1.2 Groundwater flow

Water aquifers are large in extent (1-10km) yet have variations in physical and chemical properties
at small scales (1-l00m). This poses a challenge in predicting transport from a potential leakage
source to the receptor (Sirila et al., 2010). Transport of contaminants in soil is an important

6
problem for different flow scales, from the fractured rocks to large underground aquifers
(Hamrnon, 2011).

The rate, residence time and direction of groundwater flow, the movement of micro-organisms,
pathogenic bacteria and viruses depends on the size of the pores on reactions within media, on the
amount of food available and on their life span which affects its quality (Vladimir, 2003; Sanden,
1986). Deep, consolidated formations are characterized by slow groundwater movement, long
residence times, ample opportunity for dissolution of minerals and therefore often poor natural
water quality. These formations are confines under thick sequences of low permeability clays and
are less vulnerable to anthropogenic influences (Chapman, 1996).

2.2. Groundwater quality

The quality of water is of vital concern for mankind since it is directly linked with human welfare.
According to Ranjana (2010), the quality of public health depends to a greater extent the quality of
groundwater. Though groundwater quality is believed to be quiet good compared to surface water,
its quality is the sum of natural: geology of the environment and anthropogenic influences:
withdrawal, land use change, and solid waste dumping (Chapman, 1996). Water quality parameters
reflect the level of contamination in water resources and show whether water is suitable for human
consumption. Contaminated water is unacceptable due to health effects, poor taste and aesthetic
value to consumers (Suthra et al., 2009).

2.2.1 Water Parameters

Physico-Chemical and Micro-biological parameters of water indicate the safety of potable water
(Macdonald and Kay, 1986) and their analysis is important for public health and pollution studies
(Kot et al., 2000).

2.2.1.1 Physico- chemical Parameters

Temperature, pH, Colour, Turbidity, Total Dissolved Solids, Electrical Conductivity, Odour and
Taste are the most important Physico-chemical properties of groundwater in relation to its quality.

pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) available in water. The acidity of groundwater is due to
the presence of organic acids in the soil as well as those of atmospheric origin infiltrated to the
water (Chapman and Kimstach, 1996). Acid rain contains dissolved Carbon dioxide (CO2),

7
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or Sulphur dioxide (SO2) often yields an elevated Hydrogen ion (H+) ion
concentration and Carbonic acid (HCO) and may cause serious threat to groundwater pH (Hamil
and Bell, 1986). The pH of rainwater is about 5.7 (Krauskopf and Bird, 1994). Increase in acidity
is also attributed to the oxidation of reduced Sulphur compounds in the soils of the areas (Efe et
al., 2005). The pH affects the solubility and toxicity of metals by influencing chemical kinetics of
important constituents. Other acids such as HNO3, HNO2 and humic acid are formed as a
consequence of the decomposition of organic matter and sulphuric acid is produced when minerals
such as pyrite (FeS2) breakdown. High pH levels make water to become less corrosive
(Gustafsson, 2003).

Alkalinity is a water characteristic that shows the capacity of water to neutralize acids by accepting
Hydrogen ions (H+) and preventing sudden changes in the acidity levels of water. Alkalinity is due
to the presence of two forms of the Carbonate anions (HCO3-), (CO32-) and (OH-) that act as buffer
system (Chris, 2012). Borates, phosphates, silicates and other bases also contribute to alkalinity if
present in groundwater. Inorganic ligands (anions) form complexes with metals (cations), this
removes free divalent toxic metal ions such as Cd2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, Zn2+ or methyl-metal complexes.
Metal complexes are not biologically available and hence not toxic. Alkalinity is an important
property when determining the suitability of water for other uses such as irrigation, or mixing with
pesticides and when treating contaminated water. Alkalinity is measured in CaCO3 mg/L.
According to Fakoyode (2005), pH that is near to neutral (pH 7) is indicative of unpolluted water.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) readily dissolves in water as illustrated in equation 1. The dissolved CO2
(aq) reacts with water molecules to form Carbonic acid (H2CO3) as shown by equation 2 and
Carbonic acid is very unstable and quickly dissociates into H+ and a Bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) as
demonstrated in equation 3.

At pH 6.3, the amount of CO2 dissolved in water equals the amount of bicarbonate ion (HCO3-).
Dissolved carbon dioxide is dominant when pH is <6.3. At higher pH, basic water, HCO3-
dissociates to yield H+ and a Carbonate ion (CO32-) as per equation 4.

CO2(g) ↔ CO2(aq) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....(1)

CO2(aq) + H2O(l)↔H2CO3(aq)…………………………………………………………………..........(2)
8
H2CO3 ↔H+ + HCO3- (pH 6.3)……………………………………………………..……………. (3)

HCO3-↔H++ CO32- (pH 10.3).………………………………………………………….………... (4)

At pH 10.3, the bicarbonate ion concentration equals the carbonate ion concentration. CO32- is
dominant at pH >10.3 and HCO3- dominates between pH 6.3 and 10.3. The pH of most natural
water falls in the range of 6 to 9 because of the bicarbonate buffering (Chris, 2012).

Total Dissolved Solids: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), is defined as the concentration of all
dissolved minerals in the water. Natural waters contain a variety of both ionic and uncharged
species in various amounts and proportions that constitute the Total Dissolved Solids (Agbaire and
Oyibo, 2009). TDS in groundwater are due to enhancements of weathering of minerals from acids
produced as byproducts of the degradation process. Hence TDS is a geochemical parameter that
closely links the bulk conductivity to microbial degradation of hydrocarbon (Atekwanna et al.,
2004). High TDS, greater than 1000 mg/L, is commonly objectionable or offensive to taste.

TDS is a function of temperature and pH. At higher temperatures and lower pH groundwater
dissolves more minerals. Sources of ion TDS include hard water ions (Ca2+, Mg2+, HCO3- and
CO32-), fertilizer in agricultural runoff (NH4+, NO3-, PO43-, and SO42-), urban runoff / salinity from
tidal mixing, minerals or irrigation water (Na+, Cl- and K-) and Acidic rainfall (H+, NO3-, SO32- and
SO42-).

Poor chemical quality of water is a health risk in the long term for consumers. Urban waste waters
are often high in nutrients concentrations (macronutrients Na, Ca, P, K, Mg and micronutrients Fe,
Zn, Cu,) and other chemicals which can stress the bacterial populations, in rainy seasons they are
washed to the groundwater by infiltration (Thomas, 1995). The chemical composition of
groundwater may be altered by the precipitation of ions from solution to form insoluble
compounds.

Nitrate: Nitrate contamination of groundwater results from leaching of fertilizer, septic tank
leachate, unsewered sanitation, pit latrines, animal waste or human waste mineralization of
decomposing or oxidation of decaying matter by soil micro-organisms (Beauchamp, 2003;
Spalding and Exner, 1993; Suthra et al.,2009). Unutilized urea leached to groundwater for micro-

9
organisms to degrade is also another source of groundwater nitrate (Singh, 2012). According to
USGS (2012), nitrate concentrations of greater than 3mg-N/L indicate a fairly direct connection of
water with source of pollution.

Nitrate can readily be transported beneath the soil zone because it is relatively soluble and not
prone to ion exchange (Stumm and Morgan, 1996). Nitrate can be endogenously reduced to nitrite,
which can then undergo nitrosation reaction in the stomach with amines to form a variety of N-
nitroso compounds (NOC). These compounds are carcinogens, thereby causing health hazards like
impairing the ability of the blood to carry oxygen (Blue-baby syndrome or infantile
methemoglobinemia), gastrointestinal cancer, Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, adsorptive
secretive functional disorders of the intestinal mucosa, multiple sclerosis, Non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma and hypertrophy of thyroid (Suthra, 2009) and (Macdonald and Kay, 1986). In
Aarlborg Denmark, water had a relatively high nitrate content of about 30mg/l and there was a
slightly greater frequency of stomach cancer (Hamil and Bell, 1986). Nitrate contamination can be
treated by technologies such as ion exchange; denitrification and reverse osmosis or anaerobic
reduction in the subsurface which can limit Nitrate contamination of groundwater (Kapoor and
Viraraghavan, 1997)

Calcium carbonate: Hardness refers to the ability of water to form suds with soap. Hard water
leaves a ring in the bathtub, forms soap curds in clothing, and builds up scale in boilers and kettles
(Wittmann et al., 1998). Hardness is divided into two: Carbonate hardness Ca (HCO3)2 and non-
Carbonated hardness Mg (HCO3)2. Non hardness is due to presence of salts such as Calcium
Chloride (CaCl2), Magnesium Sulphate (MgSO4) and Magnesium Chloride (MgCl2) (APHA,
1998; Burton and Pitt, 2002; Chris 2012). Any hardness greater than the alkalinity represents non-
Carbonate hardness is measured as Calcium Carbonate mg/L. Hardness is classified as soft,
moderately hard, hard and very hard (EPA, 1986). Areas with limestone formations have a higher
hardness and alkalinity due to the dissolution of Bicarbonates and Carbonates. Calcium in
groundwater is derived from Calcite, Aragonite, Dolomite, Anhydrite and Gypsum. In igneous and
metamorphic rocks calcium is supplied by the feldspars, pyroxenes and amphiboles and the less
common minerals such as Apatite and Wollastonite (Chris, 2012). Water hardness is an important
component of water because it has a bearing on the portability of water. Water can be classified

10
based on its hardness according to table 2.1. This helps to distinguish water for human
consumption and other uses.

Table 2.1.Classification of water hardness as CaCO3 mg/L (EPA, 1986).

Classification CaCO3 equivalent (mg/L)

Soft < 75
Moderately hard 75 - 150
Hard 150 - 300
Very Hard >300

Iron: Iron is not toxic, but imparts objectionable taste to water and may leave brown stains on
porcelain and in clothing. Objectionable taste is due to reduced form (Fe2+ and HS), on exposure to
air, water becomes reddish brown due to Ferric Hydroxide and prolonged consumption of such
water may lead to liver disease (Ranjana, 2010). Largest contributors of iron in groundwater are
minerals contained within the underlying bedrock, soil and sand, the most common is Ferrous Iron
and borehole, limestone, shale and coal which often contain the Iron rich mineral Pyrite, acidic
rain also releases Iron into groundwater (BGS, 2003; Lenntech, 2009). Iron content increases with
depth (Dennis, 2002).

An aquifer in which groundwater is in a mildly oxidized state and a near neutral pH, the most
likely Iron is Fe3+ and is tied up in solid phases (BGS, 2003). At a given temperature changing
from their oxidized form / giving up of electrons (Fe3+ and SO2-) to the reduced (accepting
electrons) form requires a decrease in redox potential (dissolved oxygen) or a decrease in pH.
3+
Nitrate to Nitrogen gas, Fe (insoluble) to Fe2+ (soluble), Sulphate to Hydrogen Sulphide and at
very low redox potential, Methane formation occurs (Drever, 1982). Reduction / treatment of iron
can be achieved by using a water softener, Potassium Permanganate or green sand filters and
aeration (addition of oxygen to water) all aid in precipitation of Iron.

Salts may be concentrated in the groundwater as result of evaporation and transpiration. This
depends on vegetative cover, warmth, soil type, and climate (Soveri, 1985).

11
2.2.1.2 Micro-biological parameters

Total and Faecal coliforms: According to Bodoczi (2010), the sanitary quality of water is
appreciated by the presence or absence of pathogenic micro-organisms indicated by presence of
coliforms. There is practically no geological environment at or near the earth’s surface where pH
will not support some form of organic life, also at this depth water pressures are not high enough
to deter microbial activity (Chapman, 1996). Pathogenic bacteria can survive long underground
and may have a life span of about 4 years (Hamil and Bell, 1986). Coliform group of bacteria are a
large group of disease causing bacteria that inhabit intestine of man and animals (Sigh et al.,
2011). WHO (1985), specified that potable drinking water should be devoid of total and faecal
coliforms in any given water source, MPN (maximum permissible number) of 0cfu/100ml.

Faecal Coliforms: Faecal Coli presence are the most reliable indicators of faecal bacterial
contamination of surface and groundwater waters in different countries (WHO, 1989). Faecal
coliform bacteria are bacteria found in faeces, they are subset of a larger group of organisms
known as coliform bacteria which are facultative anaerobes that can survive in the absence of
oxygen, gram negative, non-spore forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose, producing
gas and acid at about high temperatures of 35OC. Human waste contaminant in water causes water
borne diseases such as diarrhea, typhoid, hepatitis and flu-like symptoms such as nausea, vomiting,
fever (FAO, 1995). High coliform counts in water samples are an indication of poor sanitary
conditions in the community. According to Adekunle et al., (2007) and (Hamil and Bell, 1986)
inadequate and unhygienic handling of solid wastes in the rural and urban areas leads to high
concentrations of microbial organisms.

In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the ground water rule in the
United States to keep microbial pathogens out of public water sources to reduce disease incidence
associated with disease causing micro-organisms (EPA, 2012).

12
2.2.1.3 Categories used for water quality assessment
The microbial content is a very important water quality parameter because of its bearing on human
health. Water can be classified based on microbial quality as shown in table 2.2; for human use
safely.

Table 2.2. Classification of water micro-biological limits (DWAF,1996)

Parameter Good Marginal Poor
-1 -1 -1
TC 10 cfu.100 ml 11-100 cfu.100 ml > 100 cfu.100 ml
-1 -1
FC 0 cfu.100 ml 1-10 cfu.100 ml > 10 cfu.100 ml

Cfu = colony forming units, good = fit for human consumption, poor = poses a health risk
1. Good (negligible risk of microbial infection; fit for human consumption)
2. Marginal (slight risk of microbial infection; must be treated before consumption)
3. Poor (risk of infectious disease transmission; not fit for human consumption)

2.3.1 Leaching of pollutants into groundwater

Leachate contains dissolved organic substances, chemically reduced inorganic substances like
Ammonia, Iron, and Manganese which vary according to the hydrology of the site and the
chemical and physical conditions within the site

The migration of contaminants is controlled by advection in the fracture, exchange between the
fracture and the matrix, sorption and molecular diffusion in the low permeability matrix, organic
content, saturation level of groundwater, pH, grain size porous matrix, iso-electric point of virus,
colloids and bacteria in groundwater aquifers impact contaminant migration rates by either
facilitation if they have a smaller retardation factor (Bekhit et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2008; John
and Rose, 2005 ). The aquifer is eventually recharged by the influent seepage of surface water, so
that some proportion of the pumpage from the borehole is now obtained from the surface source
(Hamil and Bell, 1986; Christiansen et al., 2008).

13
2.3.2. Contaminant transport in groundwater
The flow in ground water is generally slow and the response to surface and subsurface pollution
loading is often gradual and contamination levels occur due to natural process of precipitation,
infiltration and recharge to aquifers (Hammon, 2011; Homsby, 1999). Migration of dangerous
contaminants and agrochemicals through the vadoze zone is a possible pollution pathway for
vulnerable drinking water resources (Andricevic et al., 2011). Table 2.3 shows the classification
of land fill sites based upon their hydrology, this can be used by managers to identify appropriate
sites used for filling of wastes that result to minimal or no ground water contamination.
However, borehole construction defects such as insufficient casing depth, improper sealing of the
space between the casing and the borehole, corroded or cracked borehole casing and poor well
seals or caps can allow sewage, surface water or insects to carry coliform bacteria into the
borehole (MDEQW, 1999; Kinniburg and Edmunds, 1986).

Table 2.3. Classification of Landfill sites based upon their hydrology after Barber, (1982)

Designation Description Hydrology

Fissured site, or site with rapid Material with well developed Rapid movement of leachate
subsurface liquid flow secondary permeability via fissures, joints or through
features coarse sediments. Possibility
of little dispersion in the
groundwater or attenuation of
pollutants
Natural dilution, dispersion Permeable materials with little Slow movement of leachate
and attenuation of leachate or no significant secondary into the ground through an
permeability unsaturated zone. Dispersion
of leachate in the
groundwater, attenuation of
pollutants (sorption,
biodegradation) probable
Containment of leachate Impermeable deposits such as Little vertical movement of
clay or shales, or sites lined leachate-. Saturated conditions
with impermeable materials or exist within the base of the
membranes landfill.

14
2.4. Borehole site selection
Location of boreholes far from any source of potential pollution avoids water contamination
(Akpoveta, 2011). Assessment of the type and loads of contaminants transported from landfill site
to the adjacent aquifer and the extent of leachate plumes within the groundwater is used for site
investigation and borehole positioning based on geophysical measurements and positioning based
on the Bayesian expert system for flow field modeling (Abbaspour et al., 2000).

2.4.1. Purification of groundwater by Soil

As water passes through fine grained porous media such as soil and rock, impurities are removed
by filtration. Some substances react with minerals in the soil/rock and some are oxidized and
precipitated from solution (Homsby 1999). Adsorption may also occur in argillaceous or organic
material (Adekunle et al., 2007). According to Vladimir (2003), the capacity to retain, adsorb,
detoxify and immobilize micro pollutants such as nutrients, organic chemicals and metals is not
constant. Land use can impact soil retention potential for micro pollutants. High organic matter
content in soil causes a high retention potential for micro-pollutants (Vegter, 1995). A higher
organic matter content causes a high retention potential for micro-pollutants. There is a decrease in
organic carbon when soil becomes barren (MacDonald and Kay, 1986). Movement of pathogens
through unconsolidated strata to deep water supply wells is unlikely (Kinniburg and Edmunds,
1986).

Physical barriers can be used to contain groundwater contaminants of subsurface origin. The
design of such barriers normally emphasizes the achievement of low hydraulic conductivity to
reduce advective contaminant transport (Hillel and Rabideau, 2000).

2.4.2. Recommended distance between domestic water wells and sources of pollution
Ground water pollutants have the ability to move through soil particles to the groundwater, soil
purification processes can break thus rendering groundwater highly susceptible to pollution. Hence
the need to locate boreholes and wells at recommended safe distances from potential contaminants
as in Table 2.4.

15
Table 2.4.Safe distance between boreholes / wells and source of contaminants (Romero, 1970).

Source of pollution Distance (m)

Septic tank 15
Latrines 45
Cemetery 250
Sewage farms 30
Infiltration ditches 30
Percolation zone 30
Pipes with watertight joints 3
Other pipes 15
Dry wells 15

2.5. Impacts of consuming contaminated water

Impact of water borne diseases on children is greater than the combined impact of HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria (WGAASD, 2010). Many people drink borehole water without any form
of treatment, because of lack of access to basic methods of water treatment and ignorance of
hazards associated with the ingestion of contaminated water (Anaele, 2004).

Several cases of infections due to consumption of contaminated water by pathogenic bacteria have
been reported in many parts of the world, sometimes causing epidemics followed by loss of human
life (Angulo et al., 1997). In the 19th C in Britain, it was a common practice to obtain groundwater
and to dispose off sewage via earth closets; this resulted into contamination of groundwater and
outbreak of cholera. Typhoid broke out in Corydon, after an infected workman defecated into a
borehole, while chlorination equipment broke down. Yorkshire was affected by gastroenteritis in
1980 as a result of the Braham borehole becoming contaminated by leaking sewer and a polluted
surface stream which passed within 8m of the well (Angulo et al., 1997). At least 30,000 people
per day die in the third world because they have inadequate water and sanitation facilities (United
Nations, 2010). The control of water pollution in developing countries is a necessity.

2.6. Impact of Dry and Wet Seasons on groundwater Quality

Seasonal variations change the aesthetic quality of the water and bring discomfort amongst
consumers. Seasonal variations in water quality arise due to variations in ecological activity,
precipitation and geology of the area. Artesian boreholes / rock wells constructed in

16
unconsolidated sediments tend to respond slowly to rainfall, possibly several days or weeks later
because of the poor permeability of the confining layer (MGS, 2012). When boreholes penetrate
fractured material in an area of thin overburden, they respond quickly to percolated water from the
rain (Singh et al., 2012). The eco-system, characteristics of the surrounding area, residence time
and geological characteristics affect the physico-chemical and micro-biological seasonal variations
of groundwater parameters (Howarth and McGillivray, 2001; Sanden, 1986).

2.7. Need for Groundwater exploitation

Boreholes and wells are groundwater types that form an integral part of water supply systems in
rural and urban areas especially in Africa, and therefore are indispensable because of inadequate
public water supply systems (Pickering and Owen, 1995; MacDonald et al., 2005; Calow et al.,
2010). Over one billion people lack access to clean safe water worldwide, up to 300 million rural
people in Sub Sahara Africa have no access to safe water supplies and this is on the rise (NAS,
2009). There is an increasing demand for large amounts of water as health and sanitation improve
(Agnew and Anderson, 1992). Without safe water near households, the health and livelihood of
families can be severely affected (United Nations, 2010; MacDonald et al., 2005). Borehole water
use is associated with a lower childhood risk to diarrhea compared to surface water in Bangladesh
(Wu et al., 2011). To solve such issues relating to water borne diseases, boreholes can provide safe
and convenient water supply since it is evenly distributed, affordable with quiet good quality and
not affected by seasonal changes hence its sustainable(Cloutier and Rowley, 2011; Akpoveta,
2011; Adekunle et al., 2007). The only realistic option for meeting rural water demands is through
groundwater exploitation (MacDonald et al., 2005). A large population of the world especially in
sub-Sahara Africa depends on groundwater as their main source of domestic water (Sha, 2004),
this is because it is accessible anywhere, less capital intensive to develop and maintain and is less
susceptible to pollution and seasonal fluctuation, naturally has good quality (Bresline, 2007)

Water resources availability is of significance to regional social-economic development and is seen

as a limiting factor in human development (Xinghui et al., 2009; McDonald and Kay, 1988;
Clarke, 1991). Groundwater plays a vital role in the development of arid and semi-arid zones
(Ranjana, 2010) and its development especially borehole water in Africa is seen as more amenable
to poverty targeting than surface water (Kai and Jeroen, 2009). A greater proportion of household

17
income may need to be spent on water delivered from private sources, such as tankers to
supplement lack of water locally (Sirila et al., 2010).

2.7.1 Water security

Water security mapping can help identify vulnerable areas and changes to monitoring systems can
ensure early detection of pollution problems (Akpoveta, 2011). Water security includes efforts in
reduction of effort and time required to collect water, reduction in workload of women,
improvement of availability of water, increasing the quantity of water consumed per capita per day
and increasing production activities such as crop washing especially small scale gardening as
social conditions which could be improved by developing community water supply (Jan et al.,
1993). Increasing the coverage of groundwater based rural water supplies can significantly
increase the reliance of rural communities to climate variability (Calow et al., 2011).

2.7.2 Borehole water Availability and Accessibility

About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, of all the water on earth approximately 3%
is fresh water and less than 1% of the world’s fresh water is accessible for human use (Suthra et
al., 2009). Water shortages and difficulties in accessing water affect domestic and productive
livelihoods of communities. Proximity to water resources increases per capita consumption and
encourages water use for vegetation and fruit production (Lane and Robinson, 2002). Therefore,
there is need to increase reliability of sources by improving water coverage and prioritizing
vulnerable areas (Calow et al., 2011).

The world is facing a water crisis and it is indispensable that there is not enough clean water
available to meet today’s populations’ needs (Agnew and Anderson, 1992; WWF, 2000; Evan and
Slobodan, 2011). Access to adequate supplies of good quality drinking water continues to be
limited among many rural and peri- urban communities of Africa, despite several years of water
improvement programmes (Musa et al., 1999; Mireilleet al., 2011). Climate change alters
hydrological cycle ranging from evaporation, precipitation, runoff, groundwater to re-charge,
decreasing seasonal rainfall trends (McGuire et al., 2002; Akpodiogaga and Odjugo, 2010; (Edet et
al., 2011). The trend of the world per capita water consumption is decreasing as population grows
due to limited and depletion of water resources (Nobumasa, 2006). This crisis results into

18
concentration of users around the limited sources of water, thus increase in contamination and
transmission of water borne diseases (Edet et al., 2011).

2.8. Integrated water resources Management.

Over 2.6 billion people are not using improved sanitation and nearly 900 million people are not
using an improved source of drinking water worldwide (WGAASD, 2010). According to the WHO
report (2010), South Sudan lacks adequate improved water resources, with only 40% of the water
resources improved, thus 60% of the water resources are faced with severe pollution.

Water is monitored and managed so that development may be sustained over a long term through
provision of adequate and quality water (Mitchell, 1990; Lu, 2004). Awareness of increasing water
scarcity has driven efforts for improved water resources infrastructure and management strategies,
hence global modeling of water resources in terms of supply and demand (Evan and Slobodan,
2011; Silliman and Rodak, 2011). Changes on earth surface were negligible until population
numbers started to increase (Goldewijk, 2000; Lu, 2004). Fresh water is no longer taken for
granted as a plentiful and always available resource. The issue is developing effective water
management tools which enable us to match local water supply and demand in terms of both
quality and quantity (Shafique et al, 2001; Qin and Xu, 2011; Jeffrey, 2000).

The results of groundwater quality are representative of the actual site conditions and interpreted in
the context of those conditions thus, groundwater pollution is site specific (Zemansky, 2000;
Homsby 1999). In management of boreholes, identification of factors that contribute to
groundwater contamination is important in reducing the risks posed by them (Ellap and Komur,
2007; Vanclooster. 2005; Rosenbom et al., 2009). The quality of water is to be determined and if
contaminated disinfected before use (Miranda et al., 2011; Hamil and Bell, 1986).

Policy responses have concentrated on food needs and less on mobilization of resources for water
interventions, despite evidence that access to safe water is a serious and inter-related concern
(Calow et al., 2011). Water resources policy on planning and allocation should integrate equity,
efficiency and environmental consciousness. A stable water rights system should be strengthened
in multi dimensions, focusing on security and flexibility to be an effective incentive for
development and conservation of water resources (Weiwei et al, 2009).

19
Community participation in the planning of water services delivery in rural community is vital in
meeting water needs because their expectations are met (Koekemoer, 2009; Sirila et al., 2010;
Talafre and Knabe, 2009).

Gender inequality is manifested through women’s lower status, income, power in making
decisions, opportunities, and access to education services / resources when it comes to water and
sanitation (WSTF, 2009). A successful management of water resources can be achieved with full
involvement of women in several complementary ways such as health educators and supervisors of
water programmes (Jan et al., 1993; SPIDER International Ltd., 1995).

20
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area

Yei is a county in the Central Equatoria State of South Sudan. Its geographic coordinates are 4° 6'
0.00"N, 30° 40' 12.00"E (Latitude: 4.1000; Longitude: 30.6700). Its altitude ranges from 600 to
3000m above sea level. The terrain of Yei consists of mainly flat plateau with medium mountains.
Yei River flows across the county to meet the various water needs of the people. The climate is
tropical and the annual rainfall varies from 700 to 1300mm of rainfall. Yei has two rainy seasons,
the first starts from April to July and the Second from August to December. The average daily
temperatures vary between 25oCand 35oC.

In 2010 Yei had a population of 201,443 people (SSCCE, 2010). This number is still increasing
due to the high rate of refugee returnees coupled with the high birth rate of 2.14% (Economy
Watch, 2011). Fig 3.1 below shows the map of Yei County located in Central Equatoria State,
Republic of South Sudan.

21
3.1.1. Location of Yei County

Fig 3.1. Map of Yei County, South Sudan (UNDP)

22
3.1.2 Sample site selection
The figure 3.2 shows the schematic description of sample site/borehole selection across the
Payams in Yei County. A Payam in South Sudan is an equivalent of a County in Uganda.

Fig 3.2. Schematic description of sample site selection

3.1.3 Population Distribution across Yei County

Population density or population distribution across the land criterion was used to determine rural
and urban areas. Yei County has five payams, three rural payams were randomly chosen and one
urban Payam was purposively chosen using the population density criterion. Table 3.1 shows the
population density of the payams in Yei County as per 2010 statistics.

Table 3.1 Population density in each Payam in Yei County, (SSCCE, 2010)

Payams in Yei county Population Area (sq.km) Density (people/sq.km)

Otogo 28986 1048.7 27.6
Lasu 15676 1889.8 8.3
Mugwo 21735 1145.6 19.0
Yei Town 111268 987.87 112.6
Tore 23778 1595.7 14.9
Total 201443 6667.67 30.2
23
Three (3) Payams: Otogo (27.6 people per square Km), Lasu (8.3 people per square Km) and
Mugwo (19 people per square Km) were chosen to represent the rural Payams. Yei town was
densely populated with a vast majority living there (112.6 people per square Km), therefore it was
chosen to be the urban Payam. Since Yei town was the only area that was densely populated, it
was divided into 3 parts i.e. Yei Town area 1, Yei Town area 2 and Yei Town area 3. Simple
random sampling was used to select fifteen (15) boreholes from the rural and fifteen (15) from the
urban. Five (5) boreholes from each of the 3 rural payams and five (5) from each of the 3 areas of
the urban Payam were selected for sampling.

24
3.1.4 Mapping of the Study area
Garmin GPS 60 was used to obtain geographic co-ordinates of each borehole. ESRI ARC GIS
version 9.3 was used to map study area and sampling points in Yei County.

3.1.5 Sample sites and areas of data collection

The figure 3.3 is a map of Yei county showing the locations of various rural and urban boreholes
selected for this study. The boreholes are named according to their respective villages.

Fig 3.3 Map of Yei County showing selected boreholes

25
3.2 Determination of seasonal variations in borehole water quality

3.2.1 Collection and Preparation of Samples

Each borehole was flushed for 3 minutes to remove any externally induced contamination. The
borehole taps were disinfected with Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) and neutralized with Sodium
Thiosulphate (Na2S2O3) to eliminate any contamination due to anthropogenic activity or any
external natural occurrence.

Glass water bottles (250mls) were sterilized by addition of Sodium Thiosulphate (0.1ml). The
boreholes were then pumped to fill the water bottles leaving an air space of 2.5cm to create space
for oxygen such that organisms do not die before testing in the laboratory. The bottles were
marked for identification using the labels for each borehole. The bottles were then transported to
the laboratory in an insulated box to prevent external factors like high temperatures from changing
some of the water parameters. Analysis commenced within 12hrs of sampling (APHA, 1998).

3.2.2.1 Physico-chemical Analyses

The Physic-Chemical parameters pH and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS in mg/L) were measured.

A multi-purpose pH meter model D46 (pH/MV/OC meter) was used to determine the pH of the
borehole water. TDS meter - 4-HMD was used to determine the Total Dissolved Solids in borehole
water. All the physical parameters were measured on site. Each borehole was pumped for about 3
minutes to flush out the water that had got external influence. The borehole was then pumped to
fill a bucket. These parameters were all measured by dipping the respective instruments into the
bucket.

Nitrate (NO3-N), Calcium hardness as Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), Iron LR, and Fluoride (F-)
were the Chemical parameters analyzed using the Wagtech test instructions. Palin test kit and
Wagtech photometer 5000 was used to determine the frequency readings. Respective calibration
charts were then used to determine concentrations of these parameters.

26
Water samples were analyzed in the laboratory of IAS, Yei office. All parameters were measured
on the same day of sampling. Some safety and complementary instructions were also got from
(APHA, 1998).

3.2.2.2 Micro-biological Analyses

Indicator organisms Total coliforms and Faecal Coliforms in colony forming units/100ml
(cfu/100ml) were analyzed from the water bottles named in 3.2.2 using Wagtech Potalab 2
(APHA, 1998).

3.2.2.3 Quality Control

The quality parameters were analyzed in triplicate to yield a mean that showed the trueness
(Valcarel, 2000). Analytical quality control was ensured by blanks and standard solutions which
ensured the accuracy and reproducibility of the results (Akpoveta et al., 2011)

3.3.0 Determination of seasonal variations in borehole water consumption

The data for this study was collected from a survey of households who obtained their water from
the boreholes both in the rural and urban using a structured questionnaire (Appendix 18). For each
borehole, ten (10) households were randomly selected using simple random sampling criteria. Five
households were less than 500m from the borehole and five were more than 1km from the
borehole. The questionnaire addressed seasonal domestic borehole water use patterns,
characteristics such as gender, age, employment levels which depicted income, education levels
and household size.

Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants. These included County Water
Department officials, Borehole water committees, Public Health Centre (PHC) and Public Health
Unit (PHU) workers, and Payam chiefs. Key informant interviews were held to get information
about the distribution of boreholes across Yei County, waterborne diseases related to consumption
of borehole water and per capita water consumption.

27
3.3.1 Calculation of Daily per capita borehole water consumption (LCPD)

Equation 5 shows the equation used for calculation of daily per capita borehole water consumption
(Keshavarzi et al., 2006).

Liters/person/capita/day (LCPD) = Liters consumed in household/da.......................................... (5)

Household size (No.)

3.3.2 Design of Survey

Three hundred households in Yei County that obtain their water from boreholes were surveyed.
The rural and urban Payams each had One hundred fifty (150) households interviewed. Figure 3.4
shows schematic description of the design of the survey for borehole water consumption.

Fig 3.4 Schematic design of the survey

28
3.4 Data Analysis

3.4.1 Level of pollution analysis using Pollution Index (Pi)

Pi was used to show the level of pollution of borehole water by each parameter. The critical value
being 1.0 and values greater than 1.0 indicate significant degree of pollution while values less than
1.0 show no pollution/ danger of pollution (Akpoveta et al., 2011).

Pollution index (Pi) according to Akpoveta et al. (2011) is expressed as a function of the
concentration of individual parameter values against the baseline standard (WHO permissible
value). It is given as below in equation 6.

Pollution index (Pi) = Concentration…………..……………………………………………….... (6)

Standard

The statistical significance of pollution was then affirmed by T test one sample analysis, to
compare each parameter value with the WHO permissible standard for drinking water (WHO,
1985). Classification of water hardness as calcium carbonate and micro-biological pollution levels
categorized by (EPA, 1986) and (DWAF, 1996) respectively were also used to analyze the
pollution levels of borehole water in the different localities.

3.4.2 Intra variation data analysis

One Way ANOVA was used to compare the spatial variations of physico-chemical and micro-
biological parameters within the rural and within the urban for both seasons.

3.4.3 Inter variation data analysis

T test 2 sample analysis was used to compare the spatial variations of physico-chemical and micro-
biological parameters in the rural with those from the urban and also determine the statistical inter
seasonal (dry and wet) on borehole water parameters.

3.4.4 Impact of distance of household from borehole on daily per capita water consumption
Genstat vr 13.3 ANOVA general treatment structure (no blocking) was used to show the statistical
effect of distance from the borehole on per capita water consumption.

3.4.5 Impact of household size on daily per capita water consumption

Simple regression analysis was used to show the statistical effect of household size on the daily per
capita consumption of borehole water. All statistical statements reported are at the P<0.05 levels.

29
R2 gives the percentage of variance in the dependent variable (daily per capita consumption) which
is predictable from the independent variable (Household size). It shows the extent to which
independent variable can predict the dependent variable. The closer the R2 is to 1.0 the better the
fit of regression line and greater the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable or
the better the explanatory power. These regression trend lines can be used to predict effect of
population increase on per capita water consumption.

3.4.6 Impact of changing seasons on borehole water consumption

T test 2 sample analysis was used to compare the effect of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita
borehole water consumption.

30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the results and discussions of the data collected from the seasonal borehole
water quality and consumption patterns in Yei County. The Physico-Chemical parameters analysed
included pH and TDS. The Chemical parameters included Nitrates (NO3-N), Calcium hardness as
Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) and Iron (Fe2+). The Micro-biological parameters included Total
Coliform (TC) and Faecal Coliform (FC).

The results on borehole water consumption focused on the impacts of distance to the boreholes,
number of house hold members and seasonality on daily per capita consumption in liters per
person per day. Generic information about sex, age groups, education levels and kind of
employment was also derived from the questionnaire. The results of the rural areas were compared
to those in the urban to determine the impact of population density or urbanization on borehole
water quality and consumption.

4.1.2 Summary of Physico-chemical and Microbiological parameters

Physico-chemical parameters; pH reduced during the wet season, and the urban areas produced
more acidic borehole water compared to the rural areas. Total dissolved solids increased during the
wet season, with the urban boreholes producing water with higher values compared to the rural.
Nitrate, Calcium Carbonate and Iron concentrations in borehole water all increased during the wet
season. However, unlike other chemical parameters, Calcium Carbonate concentrations in the rural
areas were greater than those in the urban areas. Micro-biological parameters; Total coliform and
Faecal coliform bacteria count in borehole water increased during the wet season. The wet season
had higher counts in both parameters compared to the dry season (Table 4.1).

31
Table 4.1 Summary of the Physico-chemical and Microbiological parameter results

Location Dry Season Wet Season

Parameters Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean

pH Rural 6.7 8.1 7.4 6.3 7.5 7

Urban 6 7.8 6.9 5.5 7.3 6.5

TDS (mg/L) Rural 14 223 97.6 55.5 230 113.1

Urban 44.8 309.6 144.9 49.1 321.1 156.7

Nitrate (mg/L) Rural 0 2.61 0.331 0 2.8 2.369

Urban 0.002 3.8 1.157 0.015 4 1.257

Calcium carbonate Rural 39 115 74.3 46 111 79.4

(mg/L) Urban 12 98 52.9 12 110 58.2

Iron (mg/L) Rural 0.002 0.07 0.027 0.002 0.1 0.031

Urban 0.001 0.1 0.017 0.001 0.103 0.022

Fluoride (mg/L) Rural 0.15 1.2 0.56 0.19 1.5 0.68

Urban 0.12 2.01 0.98 0.19 2.2 1.1

TC (cfu/100ml) Rural 0 30 6.5 0 40 9.6

Urban 15 70 37.4 20 100 54.7

FC (cfu/100ml) Rural 0 12 2.6 0 21 4.5

Urban 5 46 19.7 12 75 34.3

32
4.2 Intra Variations of borehole water parameters

4.2.1 Physico-chemical Parameters

One way ANOVA was used to find the statistical variation of parameters within the rural and
within the urban areas of Yei County.

The (Table 4.2.1) below shows statistical variations of Physico-Chemical parameters within the
rural and within the urban in the same season. This was to show significant differences of these
parameters in borehole water spatially and identity immediate impacts on borehole water quality.

Table 4.2.1 Statistical variations in Physico-chemical parameters within the rural and within the
urban
Rural Areas Urban Areas
Variate F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)
Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
pH 0.376 0.352 0.389 0.490
TDS (mg/L) 0.276 0.246 0.723 0.719

4.2.1.1 Intra Variations in the rural areas

From the one way ANOVA (Table 4.2.1), the statistical variation of the selected Physico-chemical
parameters in rural areas during the dry and wet season were all p>0.05. Therefore there was no
statistical difference of Physico-Chemical parameters within the 3 rural areas (Otogo, Lasu and
Mugwo) during the dry season and also during the wet season. The dry season had no effect on the
spatial variation of physical parameters in the rural areas. The wet season had no significant effect
on variation of pH and TDS in the rural areas.

4.2.1.2 Intra variations in the urban areas

The statistical variation of the selected Physico-Chemical parameters within the urban areas during
the dry and during the wet season were all p>0.05. Therefore there was no statistical difference of
Physico-chemical parameters within the 3 urban areas (Yei Town area 1, Yei Town area 2 and Yei

33
Town area 3) during the dry and wet seasons. Figures 4.2.1a and 4.2.1b show intra and inter spatial
variations in physical parameters of borehole water in the rural and urban areas for both seasons.

4.2.1.3 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of Physico-chemical water parameters assessed in
the rural and urban areas

Fig 4.2.1a Variations of pH Fig 4.2.1b Variations of TDS (mg/L)

4.2.2 Intra variation of Chemical parameters

One way ANOVA was used to statistically determine Variations of Chemical parameters within
the Rural and within the urban areas as shown in (Table 4.2.2) below.

Table 4.2.2 Statistical intra variations in chemical parameters within the rural and within the urban

Rural Areas Urban Areas

Variate (mg/L) F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)

DS WS DS WS
Nitrate 0.607 0.606 0.171 0.168
Calcium carbonate 0.359 0.371 0.507 0.464
Iron 0.781 0.678 0.269 0.479
Fluoride 0.594 0.480 0.488 0.518

34
4.2.2.1 Intra variations in the rural and urban areas
From the one way ANOVA (Table 4.2.2), the statistical variation of the above chemical
parameters within rural areas and within urban areas were all p>0.05 in both seasons. Therefore
there was no significant variation in these parameters within the rural and urban areas in each
season.

Figures 4.2.2a - 4.2.2d show intra and inter spatial variations in Chemical characteristics of
borehole water in the rural and urban areas for both seasons.

35
4.2.2.2 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of chemical water parameters assessed in the rural and urban areas

Fig 4.2.2a Variations of Nitrate Fig 4.2.2b Variations of CaCO3

Fig 4.2.2c Variations of Iron Fig 4.2.2d Variations of Fluoride

36
4.2.3 Intra Variations of Micro-biological parameters

4.2.3.1 One way ANOVA summary

The (Table 4.2.3) below shows statistical micro-changes in micro-biological parameters in
borehole water within the areas of same locality and during the same season. This provides data to
be used as a management tool to protect and manage borehole water resources during the different
seasons.

Table 4.2.3 Statistical variations of micro-biological parameters within the rural and urban
Rural Areas Urban Areas
Variate (cfu/100ml) F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)
Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
TC 0.293 0.225 0.778 0.822
FC 0.325 0.249 0.555 0.617

4.2.3.2 Intra variations in the rural and urban areas

From the one way ANOVA (Table 4.2.3), the statistical variation of micro-biological parameters
in rural and urban areas were all p>0.05 in both seasons. Therefore there was no statistical
difference in micro-biological parameters within the 3 rural areas and also within the 3 urban areas
for both seasons. Figures 4.2.3a and 4.2.3b show intra and inter spatial variations in micro-
biological parameters of borehole water in the rural and urban areas for both seasons.

37
4.2.3.3 Intra and Inter seasonal variations of micro-biological water parameters assessed in
the rural and urban areas

Fig 4.2.3a Variations of Total coliforms Fig 4.2.3b Variations of Faecal coliform

4.3 Inter Variations of Water Quality Parameters

A statistical comparison between rural and urban Parameters and a the effect of dry and wet
seasons on parameters was done using T test 2 sample analysis

4.3.1 Inter variation of physico-Chemical parameters

4.3.1.1 t test 2 sample analysis summary

It is important to compare water quality in the rural areas with that from urban areas. This helps to
identify impacts of population density and human activity on water quality. The (Table 4.3.1)
below shows statistically how different rural physical borehole water quality paramters are from
the urban parameters.

Table 4.3.1 Statistical variation in Physico-Chemical parameters between the rural and urban

Variate F probability (0.05)

Dry Season Wet Season
pH 0.0031 0.0031
TDS (mg/L) 0.0931 0.0724

38
From the t test 2 sample analysis (Table 4.3.1), significance variations between the rural and urban
pH of borehole water were all p<0.05. Therefore pH in the rural areas varied greatly from the pH
in urban areas for both seasons. While TDS significance values were p>0.05 for both seasons.
Therefore there was no significant difference in TDS concentrations between the rural and urban
area borehole water for both seasons.

4.3.2 Inter variation of Chemical parameters

4.3.2.1 T test 2 sample analysis summary

Rural water quality varies from that of the urban, this may affect the level of occurrence of water
borne diseases in these areas. The (Table 4.3.2) below shows how the chemical parameters in
borehole water vary statistically from the two areas.

Table 4.3.2 Statistical variations of chemical parameters between the rural and urban areas

Variate (mg/L) F probability (0.05)

Dry Season Wet Season
Nitrate 0.037 0.031
Calcium carbonate 0.017 0.023
Iron 0.226 0.362
Fluoride 0.025 0.038

From the t test 2 sample analysis (Table 4.3.2), NO3-N, CaCO3, and F-, were all p<0.05 for both
seasons. Therefore there was significant difference between the rural and urban borehole water
concentrations of these parameters during the dry and wet season. While Iron significance
variations were p>0.05 in both season, therefore there was no significant difference in the iron
levels in the rural compared to those in the urban in both seasons.

4.3.3 Inter Variations of Micro-biological Parameters

4.3.3.1 Summary of t test 2 sample analysis

High population density and intense human activity contribute to the micro-biological quality of
water. It is therefore important to statistically compare the micro-biological quality of water in the
39
rural areas with that from the urban areas to show the levels of variation as in the (Table 4.3.3)
below.

Table 4.3.3 Statistical variations in microbiological parameters between the rural and urban

Variate (cfu/100ml) F probability (0.05)

Dry Season Wet Season
TC 4.19x10-7 1.1x10-8
FC 1.11x10-6 3.32x10-7

From the t test 2 sample analysis (Table 4.3.3), total coliform and faecal coliform counts were
significantly different between the rural and urban during both the dry and wet seasons p<0.05.

4.4 The Level of borehole water pollution

Pollution index by Akpoveta et al., (2011), water quality classification by DWAF (1996) for total
and faecal coliforms (Table 2.2), clasification by EPA, (1986) for water hardness as Calcium
Carbonate (Table 2.1) and a comparision with WHO recommended values for the other parameters
were used to determine the level of pollution and variation of parameters from the recommended
values (Appendix 1). The pollution index for each parameter are shown on Appendices 11-13.

40
4.4.1 Statistical variance of Physico-chemical parameters from WHO values

The table 4.4.1 below shows the summary of the results of t test one sample statistical analysis,
comparision of physical-chemical parameters with WHO standard values.

Table 4.4.1 Statistical variations of the selected physical-chemical parameters from WHO values

Rural Areas Urban Areas

Variate F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)
Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
pH 0.00055 1 0.439 0.00138
-13
TDS(mg/L) 1.77x10 2.464x10-13 2.99x10 -10
9.65x10-10

From the t test one sample analysis (Table 4.4.1), Physico-chemical parameter values of TDS in
the rural and urban borehole water varied significantly from the WHO permissible limits in both
dry and wet seasons. The significance levels were all p<0.05. pH significance values during the
wet season in rural areas (1.0) and in the dry season in urban areas (0.439) were p>0.05, therefore
there was no significant difference in the pH values of borehole water in the rural areas during the
wet season and dry season in the urban areas from the pH 7.0 of pure drinking water.

From the pH pollution index of borehole water (Appendix 11a and 11b), in the rural areas during
the dry season, 86.7% of the boreholes had pH values greater than pH 7 of pure drinking water,
while 13.3% had their pH values less than 7 during the dry season (pH 6.7 – 8.1). In the wet
season, 66.7% of the boreholes had pH values significantly greater than 7.0 while 33.3% of the
boreholes had pH values less than 7 (pH 6.3 – 7.5)

In the urban areas, 60% of the boreholes had pH values greater than 7, while 40% had their pH
values less than 7 during the dry season (pH 6.0 – 7.8). In the wet season, 20% (pH 5.5 – 7.3) of
the boreholes had water pH greater than 7, while 80 % had pH less than 7. Therefore borehole
water became more acidic in the wet season compared to the dry season.

The pollution index for TDS showed that the water was not polluted as per the parameter, all were
Pi<1.0. There was a general increase in the Pi of TDS in the wet season compared to the dry
season in both rural urban areas, which showed that values increased in the wet season.
41
4.4.1.2 Comparison of the selected Physico-chemical parameters with WHO recommended
values

To show the intensity of water pollution, physical parameters were compared with recommended
values according to WHO. The figures 4.4.1a and b show their graphical variations.

Fig 4.4.1a Comparison of pH with recommended values Fig 4.4.1b Comparison of TDS with recommended values

4.4.2 Statistical Variations of Chemical parameters from the WHO recommended values

The (table 4.4.2) below shows the summary of the results of statistical comparision of chemical
parameters with WHO standard values. To show how significantly different they were from the
recommended values.

42
Table 4.4.2 Statistical variations of chemical parameters from WHO values

Rural Areas Urban Areas

Variate (mg/L) F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)
Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
Nitrate 1.39x10-16 4.30x10-16 9.16x10-14 1.57x10-13
Calcium carbonate 3.95x10-12 3.61x10-12 9.7x10-13 6.14x10-12
Iron 0.559 0.919 0.062 0.254
-8
Fluoride 5.94x10 0.014 0.0044 0.023

From the t test one sample analysis (Table 4.4.2); Nitrate, Calcium Carbonate and Fluoride
concentrations in the rural and urban borehole water varied greatly from the WHO maximum
permissible limits in both dry and wet seasons, p<0.05. However, Iron levels in the rural and urban
areas were not significantly different from the WHO permissible limits in both dry and wet season,
p>0.05.

4.4.2.1 Pollution index for Chemical parameters

From the pollution index (Appendix 12a and 12 b), Chemical parameters (Nitrate and Calcium
Carbonate) were all Pi<1.0. This showed that all the parameters were far below the maximum
recommended values by WHO in drinking water. While Pi of Iron and Fluoride showed some
boreholes had concentrations of greater than the WHO maximum recommended values where Pi
>1.0. The increase in Pi during the wet season showed that these parameters increased in
concentration during the wet season as compared to the dry season.

43
4.4.2.2 Comparison of Chemical parameters with recommended values

To show the intensity of water pollution, chemical parameters were compared with recommended
values according to WHO. The figures 4.4.2a – 4.4.2e show their graphical variations. This aids
decision makers to make appropriate changes.

Fig 4.4.2a Comparison of Nitrate levels with WHO recommended values

44
Fig 4.4.2b CaCO3 mg/L levels in borehole water Fig 4.4.2c Recommended limits of CaCO3 by DWAF and WHO.

Fig 4.4.2d Comparision of Iron concentrations with WHO values Fig 4.4.2e Comparision of Fluoride concentrations with WHO values
45
4.4.3 Statistical Variations of Micro-biological parameters from the WHO recommended
values

The (Table 4.4.3) below shows the summary of the results of statistical comparision of micro-
biological parameters with WHO standard values. This is to show how significantly different they
were from the recommended values, this helps decision makers to draw governing laws and
measures to protect health effects on humans

Table 4.4.3 Statistical variations of microbiological parameters from WHO values

Rural Areas Urban Areas
Variate (cfu/100ml) F probability (0.05) F probability (0.05)
Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
TC 0.0067 0.0035 4.3x10-7 1.41x10-7
FC 0.0078 0.0071 2.98x10-6 1.2x10-6

From the t test one sample analysis (Table 4.4.3), total coliform and faecal coliform counts in the
rural and urban borehole waters varied greatly from the WHO maximum permissible value of 0
cfu/100ml in both the dry and wet seasons. There significant levels were all p<0.05.

4.4.3.1 Categorization of water quality based on Micro-biological parameters

From the (Table 2.2 and Appendix 13a and 13b), in the rural areas using, Total Coliform count
(cfu/100ml) classification: 86.7% of the boreholes were categorized as good, 13.3% were marginal
while 0% were poor during the dry season. While in the wet season, 60 % were good, 40% were
marginal with 0% poor. Total coli form count increased in the wet season though not to the worst
levels. Faecal coli form count classification: 33.3% of the boreholes were categorized as good,
60% were marginal while 6.7% during the dry season. While in the wet season, 26.7 % were good,
60% were marginal with 13.3% poor. Faecal coliform count in borehole water increased in the wet
season.

In the urban areas using Total coliform count classification: 0% of the boreholes were categorized
as good, 100% as marginal, and 0% as poor during the dry season, while in the wet season, 0%
46
were categorized as good, 93.3% were marginal and 6.7% were poor. Faecal coliform count
classification: 0% of the boreholes were categorized as good, 13.3% as marginal, and 86.7% as
poor during the dry season, while in the wet season, 0% were categorized as good, 0% were
marginal and 100% were poor. Hence faecal coliform increased in borehole water during the wet
season. Total and faecal coliform contamination was greatest in the urban areas. Fig 4.3a and 4.3c
show TC and FC counts as compared to figures 4.3b and 4.3d recommended limits.

47
4.4.3.2 Variations in micro-biological parameters from permissible limits

Fig 4.4.3a Total coliform counts in borehole water Fig 4.4.3b TC (cfu/100ml) classification according to DWAF and WHO

Fig 4.4.3c Faecal coliform counts in borehole water Fig 4.4.3d FC (cfu/100ml) classification according to DWAF and WHO
48
4.5 Results of Borehole water Consumption patterns

4.5.1 Demographics of Households and Respondents

A total of 300 households were surveyed in Yei County, one hundred fifty (150) were from the
rural areas of Otogo, Lasu and Mugwo Payams and one hundred fifty (150) were from the urban
areas of Yei Town 1, Yei Town 2 and Yei Town 3. Each of these areas had fifty (50) households
surveyed. Each household had 1 respondent who was either head of households (husbands / wives)
or in charge of the households.

4.5.1.1 Frequency distribution of households and respondents

The (Table 4.5.1) below is a summary of the gender of respondents, marital status, age groups as
got from each household, levels of education attained and employment.

49
Table 4.5.1 Frequency distribution of respondents and demographics of households surveyed
Urban Yei % % %
Characteristic Rural areas County Rural Urban Yei county
Gender of respondents
Female 118 121 239 39.33 40.33 79.7
Male 32 29 61 10.67 9.66 20.3
Marital Status
Married 97 90 187 32.33 30 62.33
(Polygamous) (35) (21) (56) (18.72) (11.23) (29.95)
Single 21 12 33 7 4 11
Divorced 21 30 51 7 10 17
Widowed 11 18 29 3.67 6 9.67
Age groups
Adults (>18yrs) 500 576 1076 49.8 59.9 54.7
Teenagers (13-17) yrs 206 188 394 20.5 19.6 20.1
Children (1-12) yrs 298 197 495 29.7 20.5 25.2
Education levels
None 541 343 884 53.9 35.7 45
Primary 371 414 785 36.9 43.1 39.9
Secondary 78 147 225 7.8 15.3 11.5
Tertiary 14 57 71 1.4 5.9 3.6
Employment levels
None 500 489 989 49.8 50.9 50.3
Self employed 357 301 658 35.6 31.3 33.5
Informal 120 120 240 11.9 12.5 12.2
Formal 27 51 78 2.7 5.3 4.0

50
The survey in Yei county as per the (Table 4.7.1), Gender: 239 respondents (79.7%) were females,
the rural areas had 118 females (39.33%) while 121 respondents were from the urban areas
(40.33%).Sixty one (61) of the respondents were males (20.3%), the rural areas had 32 male
respondents (10.67%) while 29 were from the urban areas (9.66%).

Marital Status: From (Table 4.9.1), 187 respondents were married (62.33%) out of which 56 were
polygamous (29.95%). In the rural areas 97 were married (32.33%) out of which 35 were
polygamous (18.72). In the urban areas 90 were married (30%) out of which 21 were polygamous
(11.23%). The study area had 33 single respondents (11%). The rural area had 21 single
households (7%), while the urban had 12 single respondents (4%). Fifty one (51) of the
respondents were divorce (17%), the rural areas had 21 divorced respondents (7%) while the urban
had 30 which made a percentage of 10. The widowed respondents in Yei County were 29 which
was a percentage of 9.67%, the rural areas had 11 widowed respondents (3.67%) while the urban
areas had 18 which was (6%).

Age groups: Age groups were categorized into three (3) i.e. Adults ≥18 years, Teenagers (13 -17
years) and children (0-12) years. The study area had 1,076 adults (54.8%), the rural areas had 500
adults (25.4%) while the urban areas had 576 adults (29.3%). The rural areas had the largest
number of adults. The study area had 394 teenagers (20.1%), the rural areas had 206 (10.5%) and
the urban areas had 188 (9.6%). The rural areas had the largest number of teenagers. The study
area had four hundred ninety five (495) Children (25.2%), the rural areas had 298 (15.2%) and the
urban areas had 197 (10%).

4.5.2 A summary of Average daily per capita borehole water consumption

The (Table 4.5.2) below shows a summary of the minimum, maximum and average daily per
capita borehole water consumption in both dry and wet seasons and the effect of distance from
borehole water resource on the consumption of water.

51
Table 4.5.2 Summary of borehole water consumption in Yei County
Rural Urban
Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean
Dry season (L/person/day) 8.8 21 13.1 12.5 29.5 17.1
Wet season (L/person/day) 4.0 20 9.7 6.7 23.8 12.7
<500m from B/H 6.7 21 12.8 10.0 29.5 18.7
>1Km from B/H 4.0 18.8 10.0 6.7 26.0 14.7

Generally from (Table 4.5.2), more borehole water was consumed by households during the dry
season and the amount of consumption reduced with increase of distance of household from the
water source. The maximum daily per capita amount of borehole water consumed was 29.5L and it
was in the urban areas during the dry season by the household which was less than 500m from the
borehole. The least amount of borehole water consumed was 4L/person/day, this was recorded
during the wet season by a household more than 1km from the borehole.

The daily per capita borehole water consumption was higher in urban areas compared to the rural
areas in both seasons (Appendix 16 and 17).

4.5.3 Variation from the Minimum recommended value (27L/person/day)

4.5.3.1 Summary of T test one sample analysis

The WHO organization recommends that the minimum daily water consumption per person be
27L/person/day. The (Table 4.5.3) below shows how statistically different borehole water
consumption in Yei county is different from the recommended minimum value.

Table 4.5.3 Statistical variation of daily per capita consumption from the WHO recommended
value
Urban Rural
F probability F probability
(0.05) (0.05)
Dry Season 0.0003 1.7x10-6
Wet Season 0.000236 7.5x10-6
<500m 0.017518 0.000901
>1km 0.004154 0.000129
52
From (Table 4.5.3), there was a significant statistical variation of daily per capita amount of
borehole water consumed from the minimum recommended value of 27L/person/day by WHO.
The significant was pronounced in the rural areas compared to the urban, and more so during the
wet season when other sources of water become available for consumption. The significance also
increased with increase of distance of household from the water source, with the rural areas being
more affected than urban areas.

4.5.4 Impact of Distance from borehole on seasonal per capita water consumption

The study area had a total of 300 households, 150 were less than 500m from the borehole and 150
were more than 1km from the water source. Genstat vr 13.3 ANOVA general treatment structure
(no blocking) was used to show the statistical effect of distance from the borehole on per capita
water consumption.

4.5.4.1 A summary of Genstat output

Distance of households from water source affects the amount of daily water use, the (Table 4.5.4)
below shows the statistical effect of distance on the amount of water consumed, by comparing the
amount of the water consumed by the households that were less than 500m from borehole with
those that were more than 1km from the borehole.

Table 4.5.4 Statistical variations of daily per capita borehole water consumption

Analysis of variance
Variate (daily per capita water consumption) F pr.
Rural Per capita consumption in Dry season (L/day) <.001
Rural Per capita consumption in Wet season(L/day) <.001
Urban Per capita consumption in Dry season(L/day) <.001
Urban Per capita consumption in Wet season(L/day) <.001

53
From the ANOVA summary (Table 4.5.4), impact of distance on per capita consumption in the
rural and urban areas was significant all (<0.001) for both dry and wet seasons, which were all
p<0.05. There is a significant effect of distance from the borehole on daily per capita water
consumption in Yei County. The per capita water consumption is dependent on the distance from
the borehole. Figure 4.5 shows the graphical effect of distance from the borehole on daily per
capita water consumption across the selected study areas in Yei County for both seasons.

4.5.4.2 Effect of distance from borehole on daily per capita water consumption

Fig 4.5.4 Effect of distnace from borehole on amount of water consumed. DS=Dry Season,
WS=Wet Season.

54
4.5.5 Effect of household size on daily per capita consumption

From (Fig 4.5.5a – 4.5.5d), the simple regression analysis equations in the rural and urban areas
are summarized in the (Table 4.5.5) below.

4.5.5.1 A summary of regression equation trend lines

Household size affects the amount of daily water consumption per person. The (Table 4.5.5) below
shows the statistical impact of household size on the amount consumed per person.

Table 4.5.5 Regression equations showing relationships between household size and per capita
borehole water consumption

Distance Rural areas Urban areas

DS WS DS WS
y=-0.265x+16.2 y=-0.318x+13.93 y=-0.509x+25.31 y=-0.285x+19.41
<500m R2=0.087 R2=0.114 R2=0.397 R2=0.151
y =-0.138x+13.29 y=-0.095x+8.656 y = 0.234x+19.63 y=-0.136x+12.65
>1Km R2=0.052 R2=0.020 R2=0.031 R2=0.012

From the regression equations on (Figures 4.5.5a -4.5.5d), summarized on (Table 4.5.5), during the
dry season in the rural areas, an increase in household size reduced the per capita water
consumption, while in the urban areas, during the dry season an increase in household size
increased the daily per capita borehole water consumption for households more than 1km from
water source.

During the wet season in the rural areas an increase in household size reduced per capita borehole
water consumption for households >1km from the water source. However, the relationship was not
strong with R2=0.0020. The households <500m from borehole, an increase in household size led to

55
slight increase in per capita water consumption. During the wet season in the urban areas, an
increase in household size reduced the daily per capita amount of borehole water consumption as
indicated by the negative regression equation. Since R2 values were nearing 1.0 for households
<500m and >1km, there was a great explanatory power of the effect of household size on daily per
capita water consumption.

56
4.5.5.2 Effect of household size on daily per capita consumption

Fig 4.5.5a Rural Households < 500m from borehole. Fig 4.5.5b Rural households >1km from borehole.

30 y = -0.234x + 19.63

Daily per capita borehole water

R² = 0.031

consumption (L/person/day)
25
Dry
20 Season
15
Wet
10 Season
5 y = -0.136x + 12.65
0 R² = 0.012
0 5 10 15
Household size

Fig 4.5.5c Urban households <500m from borehole Fig 4.5.5d Urban households >1km from borehole

57
4.5.6 Effect of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption

4.5.6.1 Summary of t test 2 sample analysis results

Dry and wet seasons affects the amount of borehole water consumption, the (Table 4.5.6) below
shows statistical variation in the amount consumed per person in the rural and urban areas during
the dry and wet season.

Table 4.5.6 Statistical variations of daily per capita borehole water consumption in dry and wet
seasons
Variate (Comparing Dry and Wet seasons) F probability (0.05)

Daily per capita consumption in Rural areas 0.48445

Daily per capita consumption in Urban areas 2.2x10-5
Daily per capita consumption in Yei county 5.3x10-5

From the results of the t test 2 sample analysis (Table 4.5.6), there was a significant effect
(5.3x10-5) of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption in Yei County
p<0.05. Therefore the amount of daily per capita borehole water consumption during the dry
season was different from that during the wet season. Figures 4.5.6a - 4.5.6d show the graphical
effect of changing seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption in both the rural and
urban areas.

58
4.5.6.2 Effect of changing seasons on daily per capita borehole water consumption

Fig 4.5.6a Rural households<500m from borehole Fig 4.5.6b Rural households >1km from borehole

Fig 4.5.6c Urban households<500m from borehole Fig 4.5.6d Urban households>1km from borehole

59
However, there was no significant effect (0.48445) of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita
borehole consumption in the rural areas p>0.05. Therefore the amount of daily per capita borehole
water consumed in the rural areas was not statistically different during the dry and wet seasons.
The per capita consumption in the rural areas did not vary greatly in both seasons. There was a
significant effect (2.2x10-5) of dry and wet seasons on daily per capita borehole consumption in the
urban areas p<0.05. Therefore, the daily per capita consumption in the urban areas in the two
seasons was statistically different.

60
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 Physico-Chemical Parameters

pH: The lower pH values in the wet season are attributed to rain water which was charged to
groundwater. The pH of rainwater is about 5.7 (Krauskopf and Bird, 1994). Low pH in borehole
water near the defaecation sites and dump sites is attributed to Sulphur and amino acid compounds
from human and animal excreta. The Organic matter depletes oxygen resulting in a negative redox
potential, creating an elevated Dissolved Oxygen Content (DOC) in soil which facilitates
biological activity, the Carbon dioxide, Ammonia, Methane (humic acid) produced during
decomposition of the waste materials percolates (Adekunle et al., 2007; Efeet al., 2005). Under
such conditions, Fe2+ is dissolved and if the redox potential becomes low enough, Sulphate is
transformed to Hydrogen Sulphide (Efe et al., 2005). Increase in TC and FC counts increase
during the wet season leads to slight decrease in the pH of the borehole water (Korkka-Niemi and
Laikari 1994).

In comparison to this study, effect of wet and dry seasons on borehole water pH produced
contrasting results with those found by Agbaire and Oyibo (2009) in Abraka Ethiope, Nigeria in
their study of seasonal borehole water quality where borehole water became alkaline in the wet
season (pH 6.2 to 8.00) and acidic in the dry season (pH 6.3 to 7.1), though the range of their pH
values were similar.

Similar results were found on studies done on borehole water and groundwater pH. A study on
boreholes by Korkka-Niemi and Laikari (1994) showed that the water pH ranged from acidic to
alkaline. A study of borehole water in Nigeria by Eniola et al. (2005), showed that pH of borehole
water fell within the range of 6.54 to 7.80. A study of the impact of seasonality on borehole water
pH by Heejun and Kang-Kun, (1997) showed that pH ranged from 5.5 to 7.2 during the dry season
and 5.5 to 6.6 during the wet season.

Groundwater becomes more acidic during the wet season. This pH range is close to neutrality and
would allow the growth of most bacterial species. A comparison of groundwater quality of deep
exploited aquifers in Jiangyin city by Quing-hai et al. (2007), China showed that pH of borehole
water increased in acidity from the year 1998 to 2005 though values were still within the WHO
61
acceptable limits. This is an indication that groundwater becomes more acidic with population
growth, industrialization and civilization. The WHO maximum permissible limits of drinking
water pH lie between 6.5 – 8.5.

Total Dissolved Solids: Similar results were attained in a study of boreholes by Agbaire and Oyibo
(2009) who showed that TDS concentrations varied from Ugep area (44.47mg/L) and Anantigha
area (157.59 mg/L) in Nigeria. They also studied variations in Abraka Ethiope, which showed that
TDS values were higher in the wet season (0.39 to 7.11mg/L) compared to the dry season (0.00 to
2.11mg/L). They attributed this to different forms of leachate during the rain season. According to
Edet and Worden (2009), the high concentrations in TDS and EC can be attributed to seawater
influence, changing seasons and tidal periods. Agbaire and Oyibo (2009), found the values in both
seasons to be far below the WHO permissible limits.

In contrast to this study, results of borehole water quality in Kotputli town, India by Ranjana
(2010), showed that during dry season, concentrations of solids were higher than rainy season.
According to Chapman (1996), a higher TDS concentration during the dry season only happens in
shallow groundwater affected by evapotranspiration which increases the proportions of the TDS

Nitrate: Similar results were found in a study of groundwater quality by Munoz-Carpena et al.,
(2005) in South Florida agricultural area U.S.A. who showed that some nitrate concentrations were
below the WHO acceptable limits of 10mg/L while others were above the limit. The study also
showed higher Nitrate concentrations in the rainy season. A study by Adekunle et al., (2007) of
groundwater quality in a typical rural settlement in Southwest Nigeria showed that Nitrate levels in
some borehole water exceeded the WHO permissible limits of 10mg/L. Another study by Hedge
and Puranik (1996) revealed that borehole water in Hubli city India was polluted by Nitrate and
concluded that all the groundwater samples were unsuitable for drinking without treatment
especially during the rainy season. It is apparent that many countries in Europe and probably the
World are suffering from nitrate pollution or are likely to do so in the nearby future (Hamil and
Bell, 1986).

Calcium carbonate: Similar results were found in South Korea by Heejun and Kang-Kun, (1997)
who showed that groundwater had 12.1 to 61mg/L CaC03 at the end of dry season and 15.2 to

62
85.3mg/L during the wet season. Water hardness increased during the wet season. A study of
seasonal variations in some physico-chemical properties of borehole water in Abraka, Nigeria by
Agbaire and Oyibo (2009) showed that some water samples were soft, since had concentrations
below 75mg/L CaCO3 and the water under study was all potable. Low concentrations of ions and
metals are due to the non acidic nature of the water. Solubility of metals hence increase in ions is
permissible at pH values less than 5 (Etu-Efiofor and Od igi, 1983)

Iron: Similar results were found in a study by Ocheri (2010), Benue State, Nigeria who showed
that more boreholes had Iron concentrations above the WHO permissible limits of 0.03 mg/L
during the rainy season, and during the dry season few had concentrations exceeding the
permissible limits. A study in Ghana showed that some of the boreholes contained excessive iron
concentrations. Water from these boreholes has been rejected due to coloration effect (Peligba et
al., 1991).

Contrasting results about seasonal effect were found by Edet and Worden (2009), whose
concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.06 during the dry season and 0.01 to 0.04 during the wet
season, with a higher concentration during the dry season compared to the wet season. However,
the general iron values were similar to the ones in this study.

Fluoride: Similar results were found in a study by Suthra et al. (2009), in Northern Rajasthan
India who showed that Fluoride concentrations varied from 0.014 to 0.13mg/L. According to
Feenstra et al., (2007), fluoride concentrations in borehole water in Kenya, South Africa and India
can range from under 1mg/L to more than 35mg/L. Fluoride in groundwater may be due to the
interaction between water and fluoride bearing minerals in host rock. Concentrations in different
areas vary according to the geological formation and amount of rainfall.

A water quality assessment in rural Cambodia showed that a shallow aquifer was chemically less
of a health risk than deep aquifer, however, micro-biological contamination was considerable in
boreholes and shallow wells and contamination can be removed by simple household water
treatment (Bennett et al., 2010) and (Sampson, 2008). A study of groundwater in Kotputli town,
India by Ranjana (2010), showed that there were no major seasonal variations in chemical
properties of borehole water, he attributed it to the fact that the rainfall in the state was below

63
average, and groundwater recharge was very little. A study on boreholes by Korkka-Niemi and
Laikari (1994) showed that if the water pH ranges from acidic to alkaline, this causes the degree of
mineralization to vary from weak to strong and the chemical composition of groundwater will
relatively be close to that of the soil topping. The acidity or alkalinity of water is related to the soil
pH of the region (Takem et al., 2010).

5.3 Micro-biological Parameters

Total and Faecal coliforms: Presence of faecal coliforms or Escherichia coli is used as an
indicator for the presence of any of water borne pathogens (Chukwurah, 2001; Okpokwasili and
Akujobi, 1996). This research found out that most boreholes had TC and FC counts greater than
the WHO recommended value of 0cfu/100ml. The wet season had higher counts than the dry
season, with the urban boreholes being more contaminated than the rural.

Similar results were attained in a study by Adekunle et al., (2007) of groundwater quality in a
typical rural settlement in Southwest Nigeria which showed that Total and Faecal coliform counts
in borehole water exceeded WHO permissible limits though some met the permissible limit of 0
cfu/100ml. The wet season had greater TC and FC counts compared to the dry season. The effect
of distance from pollution sources was much more defined for faecal and total coliform counts. A
study by Potgieter et al., (2005) in Limpopo province, South Africa showed that coliform counts in
borehole water were increased in the wet season due to leaching to ground water. Study by
Rogbesan et al. (2002) who found that borehole water with the highest total coliform count also
have the highest faecal coliform count (Rogbesan et al., 2002).

Bacteriological analysis of borehole water in Uli, Nigeria by Ibe and Okplenye (2005), found
faecal coliform colonies vary from 4-74 cfu/100ml. Highest counts were consistently found in the
sample from Cagramento Lodge, where the borehole was located in an unsanitary environment,
near a pit latrine. A study of borehole water by Nyati (2004) in Binduraperi- urban areas
Zimbabwe showed that borehole water had seasonal fluctuations, with higher total and faecal
coliform counts in the wet season. Here cases of typhoid, cholera and dysentery were reported
from the provincial hospital. A study by Musa et al., (1999) in Omdurman, Northern Sudan among

64
nomadic pastoralists showed that faecal coliform counts were in excess of WHO standards, and the
highest values were at the end of the rainy season.

Contrasting seasonal results were found in a study by Bodoczi (2010), in Romania where the
values were highest in dry season/ summer when air temperatures were high causing the increase
in the micro-organism development. Indicator values were higher in areas that were situated near
heavy anthropogenic influence and urbanization (Bodoczi, 2010)

Lack of sanitary facilities and availability of V.I.P. pit latrines, discharge of waste water without
prior treatment, indiscriminate dumping of waste contribute to borehole water contamination
where people still practice open defaecation (Potgieter et al., 2005; Nola et al., 2011 and Erah et
al., 2002) A study of coliform contaminants in Ibadan city Nigeria by Olusegun (2010) and
supported by Anaele (2004), showed the pollution of boreholes was due to indiscriminate drilling
of boreholes near pit latrines toilet and poor drainage systems. According to Potgieter et al.,
(2005), the contamination depends on seasonal variations and resistance of particular bacteria to
environmental conditions. The low TC and FC count in the dry season is attributed to the water
being low in the dry season, due to lack of recharge, this affects the oxygen content which in turn
decreases the multiplication of bacteria (Brady and Ray 1996). Low temperatures in the dry season
could also reduce the amount of Oxygen available and hinder the bacterial process (Money, 1988).
A water quality assessment in rural Cambodia showed that a shallow aquifer was chemically less
of a health risk than deep aquifer, however, micro-biological contamination was considerable in
shallow boreholes. However, contamination can be removed by simple household water treatment
(Bennett et al., 2010; Sampson, 2008).

5.4 Consumption Patterns

Similar results were reported in a study by Sandiford et al., (1990) in Nicaragua who showed that a
decrease in the distance from household to the water source from 1000m to 10m was associated
with an increase in per capita water consumption of 20%. Proximity to water resources increases
per capita consumption and encourages water use for vegetation and fruit production (Lane and
Robinson, 2002). A study by Calow et al., 2011, found per capita water consumption to be up to
3L/person/day in Mozambique. Therefore, there is need to increase reliability of sources by
improving water coverage and prioritizing vulnerable areas.

65
A study by Keshavarzi et al., (2006), in Ramjerd area Iran and supported by Sandiford et al.,
(1990) showed that household size, age and educational levels of the household affect per capita
water consumption and concern for use of water for hygiene. Manual hand pumps reduce the
amount of per capita borehole water consumption since a lot of energy is used to produce little
amounts of water and create congestion at water points increasing water related conflicts (Cloutier
and Rowley, 2011). Water is subjected to ownership, trade and pricing based on supply and
demand economics and others consider it a common good, subject to principles of human rights
and environmental protection (Braunstein, 2007). These conceptual dynamics lower the daily per
capita consumption of borehole water.

66
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

Dry and wet seasons had impacts on all borehole water parameters determined. They all increased
in the wet season except for pH that decreased in the wet season; therefore borehole water became
more acidic in the wet season. Generally there was a higher degree of water pollution in the wet
season even to objectionable levels in some boreholes. There was variation in all the parameters
between the rural and urban areas, where Total and Faecal coliforms varied significantly. Water
pH, Total coliform and Faecal coliform affected mostly urban boreholes while iron concentrations
were higher in rural boreholes which could be attributed to the impact of high anthropogenic
activity.

Distance from borehole, household size and changing seasons all affected amount of borehole
water consumed in liters per person per capita per day. Generally the rural communities consumed
less amounts of water on daily per capita basis compared to the urban communities in both
seasons. Daily per capita water consumption was higher in dry season compared to the wet season
due to the lack of other water sources like seasonal surface waters and rain water.

67
6.2 Recommendations

1. Local communities, borehole management committees together with County Health

Personnel should Monitor anthropogenic activities near the boreholes and carry out
sanitary inspections so that hygiene and sanitation is maintained around the borehole water
resources. Safe distance between the borehole and potential sources of groundwater
pollution as per (Table 2.4) should be considered. Development of management and
monitoring strategies for each borehole is necessary since groundwater pollution is site
specific. Regular water quality assessments and treatment of polluted water be conducted.

2. South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (SSRRC) in partnership with NGO’s
should conduct Water Security Mapping to help identify vulnerable areas where there is
high water stress, such that these areas are given priority when it comes to allocation of
boreholes.

3. The Government through County water department should explore and employ Water
harvesting and Conservation Techniques across Yei County, since borehole water which is
the main source of domestic water is not evenly distributed. This is registered successful in
West Mundri County, Western Equatoria, especially in Schools and hospitals.

4. There is need for increased number of boreholes in Yei County especially in rural areas
where very low amounts of daily per capita water consumption were recorded. This could
increase daily per capita consumption by reducing congestion, and proximity since
increased access to water resources is associated with a lower risk of water borne diseases.

5. NGO’s together with County water technicians should use Submersible solar pumps to
create water yards such that several taps are made available from a single borehole to solve
the issue of slow manual hand pumps which also increase the time for collecting water.
Aweil County in Northern Bahre-Gazel and Raja County in Western Bahre-Gazel have
employed water yards from single boreholes and consumption of water has increased in
these areas.

68
6. There is need for formation of borehole management committees and training of local
borehole technicians in case of breakdowns. In Mundri West County, water technicians
repair minor damages.

7. The Central Government should come up with water policies to govern water resources
development and use across the Nation. This should be accompanied by institutional
framework to implement the policies; this promotes equity and sustainability in water
resources use.

69
REFERENCES

Abbaspour et al., (2000). A contaminated site investigation: comparison of information gained

from geophysical measurements and hydro geological modeling. 40- 2000. 365-380.

Adekunle I.M., Adetunji M.T., Gbadebo A. M and Banjoko O.B. (2007). Assessment of
Groundwater Quality in a Typical Rural Settlement in Southwest NigeriaInt. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health, 4(4), 307-318

Adrian T. McDonald and David Kay, (1988). Water Resources Issues and Strategies.

Agbaire P.O. and Oyibo P.I (2009). Seasonal variation of some Physico-chemical properties of
borehole water in Abraka, Nigeria. African Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry Vol. 3 (6), pp.
116-118.

Agnew A. A., and Anderson E.W., (1992). Water Resources in the Arid Realm, Paperback. ISBN-
10:0415079691

Akpodiogaga-a P, Odjugo O (2010). General Overview of Climate change Impacts in Nigeria. J

Hum Ecol. 29(1): 47-55

Akpoveta O.V., Okoh B.E., and Osakwe S.A. (2011). Quality Assessment of Borehole Water used
in the Vicinities of Benin, Edo State and Agbor, Delta State of Nigeria. Current Research in
Chemistry, 3: 62-69.

Alcamo J. Doll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rosch T. (2003). Development and testing of
the water GAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 2003:48(3):317 – 37.

American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and
the Water Environmental Federation (WEF), (1998). Standard Methods for Examinations of Water
and Wastewater, 20th ed. United Book Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland

Anaele A. (2004). Boreholes: Harbinger of Death. The Punch of 27th October, pp. 42

70
Anawara, H.M., J. Akaib, K.M.G. Mostofac, S. Safiullahd and S.M. Tareqd, (2002). Arsenic
poisoning in groundwater health risk and geochemical sources in Bangladesh. Environ. Int., 27:
597-604.

Andricevic, R. Srzic, V. Gotovae, H. (2011). Risk characterization for toxic chemicals transported
in aquifers. Adv water Resourdoi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.009

Angulo, F.J., S. Tippen, D.J. Sharp, B.J. Payne, C. Collier, J.E. Hill, T.J. Barrett, R.M. Clark, E.E.
Geldreich, H.D. Donnell and D.L. Swerdlow, (1997). A community waterborne outbreak of
Salmonellosis and the effectiveness of a boil water order. Am. J. Public Health, 87(4): 580-584.

Apps JA et al. (2010). Evaluation of potential changes in groundwater quality in response to CO

leakage from deep geologic storage. Transp Porous Media 2010; 82 (1):215–46.

Atekwanna E.A., Estella A.A., Rebecca S. R. (2004). The relationship of Total Dissolved Solids
measurements to bulk electrical conductivity in an aquifer contaminated with hydrocarbon.
University of Missouri-Rolla. USA

Banton, O. and Bangoy, M. (1997). Hydrogéologie, Multi Science Environnementale Des Eaux
Souterraines. PUQ-AUPELF, Saint Foy Edn., Québec, pp: 460.

Barber, C. (1982). Domestic Waste and Leachate, Notes on Water Research, No. 31, Water
Resources centre, Medmenham, England.

Beauchamp, J. (2003). Qualité et Pollution Des Eaux Souterraines,Cours Université de Picardie

Jules Verne, Retrievedfrom: www.U-Picardie.fr/beauchamp/cours, pp: 10.

Bekhit H.M., El-Kordy M.A., Hassan A.E., (2009). Contaminant transport in groundwater in the
presence of colloids and bacteria : Moderldevelopment and verification. Irrigation and
HydraulicsDepartment, CairoUniversity. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 108 (2009) 152-167.

Bennett, H.B., Shantz, A., Shint, G., Sampson, M.L. and Meschket, J.S. (2010). Characterisation of
the water quality from open and rope-pump shallow wells in rural Cambodia. Water Sci Technol.
2010;61(2):473-9.
71
Berthold S. (2010). Synthetic Convection Log- Characterization of vertical transport processes in
fluid- filled boreholes. 10, 01217 Dresden, Germany, Journal of Applied Geophysic 72.

Biswas, A.K. (2005). An Assessment of future Global water Issues, Third World Centre for water
management, Atizapan Mexico. Water Resources Development Volume 21, No. 2, 229-237.

Bodoczi, A. (2010). The Seasonal Quantitative Distribution Of Coliform Germs In The Arieş
River (Romania) Water Affected By Pollution

Boutin, C. (1987). L’eau des nappes phréatiques superficielles, une richesse naturelle vitale mais
vulnérable. L’exemple des zones rurales du Maroc. Sci. Eau, 6: 357-365.

Brady C.N and Ray R.W. (1996) Nature and properties of soils. USA. Prentice Hall International
Edition.ISBN 0-13-243189-0.

Braunstein, J. (2007). Trading the Rain, Should the World’s fresh water resources be an
international traded commodity? University of Pittsburgh, Graduate school of public and
international affairs, 3601 posvarhall.USA

Bresline E., (2007). Sustainable Water Supply in Developing Countries. Water for People. Paper
No. 194-1. nbresline@waterfor people.org.

British Geological Survey (BGS), (2003). Technical Report

British Geology Survey (BGS). (2001). Groundwater quality: Uganda

Bruehl, D. (2011). Underground water.URL: http://www.geocities.com/Rain

Forest/4619/index.html accessed on 18/08/2011, at 9:24pm

Burton, G. A., Jr., and R. E. Pitt, ( 2002). Storm Effects Handbook: A Toolbox for Watershed
Managers, Scientists, and Engineers.Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL..

Cairncross, S. (1987) "The Benefits of Water Supply", Developing World Water, Hong Kong:
Grosvenor Press Int'l, pp. 30-34.
72
Calow C. Roger, Alan M. McDonald, Alan L. Nicol and Nick S. Robins, (2011).Groundwater
Security and Drought in Africa. Linking Availability , Access and Demand.

Calow Roger, C., Alan M. McDonald, Alan L. Nicol and Nick Robins S. (2011).Groundwater
Security and Drought in Africa. Linking Availability , Access and Demand.

Chambon, P. (2011). A risk assessment tool for contaminated sites in Low permeability fractured
media. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 124(2011)82-98.

Chapman, D. (1996). Water Quality Assessments. A guide to use biota, sediments and water in
environmental monitoring, Second Edition. University Press, Cambridge.

Chapman, D. and V. Kimstach, (1996). Selection of Water Quality Variables. Water Quality
Assessments: A Guide to the use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring.
Chapman edition, 2ndEdn. E & FN Spon, London, pp: 595.

Chris, W.P. (2012). Water Quality: Alkalinity and Hardness. University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss540. Retrived on 25th July 2011 at 1:00pm

Christiansen, C.M., Riis, C., Christensen, S.B., Broholm, M.M., Christensen, A.G., Klint, K.E.S.,
Wood, J.S.A., Bauer-Gottwein, P., Bjerg, P.L., (2008). Characterization and quantification of
pneumatic fracturing effects at a clay till site. Environmental Science & Technology. 42 (2), 570–
576. )

Chukwurah, E.I. (2001). Aquatic Micro-biology Otoba press limited Onitsha, Nigeria.

Clarke R., (1991). Water: The International crisis. London. Earthscan.

Clarke, R. (1991). Water the International Crisis. Earth scan publications Ltd. London.

Cloutier M. and Rowley P. (2011). The feasibility of renewable energy sources for pumping clean
water in sub-Saharan Africa: A case study for Central Nigeria. CREST. Loughborough University,
Leics UK. Renewable energy 36(2011) 22202226.

73
David S.G. Thomas, (2011). The Environmental Impact of Groundwater Exploitation in African
Grasslands. Examples and a Case study from the Kalahari Region. SCIDR, Departemt of
Geography, University of Sheffield S102TN, UK.http://books.google.co.ke/books? Retrived on
27th 02 2012, 09:07pm

Davies E.G.R and Simonovic S.P. (2011). Global Water Resources Modelling with an intergrated
model of the social –economic –environmental systems.

Davies, R. Calow, MacDonald, A., J. and J. Chilton, (2005). Developing groundwater: A guide
torural water supply, ITDG publishing.

De, A.K. (1989).Environmental Chemistry.Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi, India. pp. 42-43.

Dennis, N. (2002). Natural Variations in the Composition of Groundwater. Groundwater

Foundation, Springfield Oregon

Dhawan BD., (1991). Developing Groundwater Resources Merits and Demerits.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4397370 Retrieved on 27th 02 2012, 09: 49pm.

Diane M.L. (2004). State of surface water protection: A summary of critical Environmental
Statues. University of Massachusetts.

Donald, C. Reid, A. C. Cooper, D.E. Elaine, W. Brian, A. (2002).The quality of drinking water
from private water supplies in Aberdeen Shire, UK.

Drever, J.I., (1982). The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood

Drury, M.J., Jessop, A.M., and Lewis, T.J., (1984). The detection of groundwater flow by precise
temperature measurements in boreholes.Geothermics 13, 163–174

DWAF, (1996). White paper on National water policy. Pretoria, South Africa.

DWAF, (2001). White paper on Basic Household and Sanitation. Pretoria, South Africa.

74
EconomyWatch.com.(2011). The Economic Statistics. URL:
http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/Sudan/Population_Growth_Rate/ accessed on
25th July 2011 at 12:07 pm.

Edet A. and Worden R. (2009) Monitoring of Physical parameters and evaluation of the chemical
composition of river and groundwater in Calabar (Southeastern Nigeria).

Edet A., Ukpong A. J. and Ekwere A. S. (2011). Impact of climate change on groundwater
resources: An example from cross River State, South eastern Nigeria. Department of Geology,
University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria

Edet A., Worden R. (2009) Monitoring of Physical parameters and evaluation of the chemical
composition of river and groundwater in Calabar (Southeastern Nigeria).

Efe S.I., Ogban F.E., Horsfall M.Jnr., and Akporhonor E.E. (2005). Seasonal variations of
physico-chemical characteristics in water resources Quality in western Niger Delta Region Nigeria
J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Mgt. 9(1): 191-195.

Egwari L., and Aboaba O.O. (2002). Bacteriological quality of domestic waters. Rev.
SaudePublica, 36(4): 513-520.

Ellap, H. and Komur, A. (2007). Evaluation of water quality parameters for the Mamasin dam in
Aksaray city in the Central Anatolian part of Turkey by means of artificial neural networks.
Springer-verlag

Eniola K.I.T., Obafemi D.Y., Awe S.F., Yusuf I.I. and Falaiye O.A. (2007).Effects of Containers
and storage conditions on Bacteriological Quality of Borehole Water.Nigerian Journal of Micro-
biology, 21:1578 – 1585.

EPA, US (1986). EPA Method : 130.2: Hardness, Total (mg/L as CaCO3) (Titrimetric, EDTA).
Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (MCAWW) (EPA/600/4-79/020).

EPA, US (2012), Ground Water Rule (GWR). Water.epa.gov. Retrieved on 04/06/2012. 11:00 am

75
Erah O.P., Akujieze C.N., and Oteze G.E. (2002). The Quality of Groundwater in Benin City:A
baseline study on inorganic chemicals and microbial contaminants of health importance in
boreholes and open wells. Trop. J. Pharmaceu. R., 1(2): 75-82.

Etu-Efiofor, J.O. and Odigi M.I. (1983). Water supply problems in the eastern niger delta. J.
Mining Geol., 20: 183-193.

Evan Davies G.R., Slobodan Simonovic P. (2011). Global Water Resources Modeling with an
integrated model of the social-economic- environmental system. Advances in Water Resources,
vol. 34, no.6, pp.684-700

Evan, G.R. Slobodan P.S. (2011). Global water resources modelling with an integrated model of
the social-economic –environmental system.

Fakayode, S.O. (2005). Impact Assessment of industrial Effluent on Water Quality of the
Receiving Alaro River in Ibadan Nigeria.AjeanRagee 10:1-13

Falken M. (1986). Global resources and International conflict, in westing, A (ed.) Stockholm
International peace research Institute, Stockholm.

FAO, (1995). Land and Water Development. Technical Paper Series, No. 1. Rome, Italy.

Feenstra L., and Vasak J. (2007). Fluoride in groundwater: Overview and evaluation of removal
Merthods.

Foster, S.S.D. and Hirata, R. (1988). Groundwater Pollution Risk Assessment.Pan American
Centre for Sanitary Engineering nd Environmental Sciences, Lima.

Franceys, R., Pickford, J and Reed, R. (1991), A guide to the Developing and Managing
Community Water Supplies of on-site Sanitation, Geneva: World Health Organization.

Galloway G. and Pentland R. (2005). Securing the Future of groundwater Resources in the Great
Lakes Basin. Groundwater 43, no. 5:737- 743.

76
Gleick Peter H. (1993). Water in Crisis. A guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. Pacific
Institute for studies in Development, Environment and Security Stockholm Environment Institute.

Gleick, Peter H. (1993). Water in Crisis. A guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources. Pacific
Institute for studies in Development, Environment and Security Stockholm Environment Institute.

Goldewijk, K.K. (2000). Three Centuries of Global Population Growth: A Spatial referenced
population Density. Database for 1700-2000. Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP),
Bithoven, The Netherlands.

Granneman, N.J., Hunt R.J., Nicholas J.R., Reilly T.E., and Winter T.C., (2000). The importance
of groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 00 –
4008. Lansing Michigan: USGS.

Gustafsson, J. (2003). The monitoring programme for the impacts of the road salting on
groundwater. 289, ISBN 952-11-1512-2.

Hagerty, D.J. and Pavoni, J.L. (1973). Geologic aspects of landfill refuse disposal. Engng Geo.,
7,219-230.

Hamil, L. and Bell, F.G. (1986). Ground water Resource Development. Butterworths 8, 255-275.

Hammon, H. Ginzbury, I. Boulerh cha, M. (2011). Two relaxation-times Lattice Bottzmann

Schemes for solute transport in unsaturated water flow, with a focus on stability, Advances in
water Resources 34(2011) 779-793

Heath, R.C. (1989). Basic Ground-Water Hydrology.U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2220, 84p.

Heejun S. and Kang-Kun L. (1997). Characterisation of a Ground Water Hydrochemical System

Through Multivariate Analysis: Clustering into Ground water zones. Incheon, Korea.

Hegde S. And Puranik S. (1996). Groundwater Quality Studies of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal

Areas, Kamataka, in Proceedings of IX convention of Indian Geological Congress. Pp236-39.
77
Hillel, R. and Rabideau, A.J. (2000). Approximate analysis of the containment of contaminated
sites prior to remediation, Water science and Technology, 42 (1-2), 319-324.

Holmes, J. (2007). Climate Change and Water resources, Water Aid, UK charity registration
number 288701.

Homsby, A.G. (1999). How Contaminants reach groundwater. Soil and water science Department,
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.

Howarth W. and McGillivray D. (2001).Water Pollution and Water Quality Law.Shaw and sons.
Great Britain.

Howarth W. and McGillivray D. (2001).Water Pollution and Water Quality Law.Shaw and sons.
Great Britain.

http://www.un-igrac.org/publications/1472012:06:04 Retrieved, 5:41

Huang, S., Pollack, H.N., Shen, P.-Y. (2000). Temperature trends over the past five centuries
reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403, 756–758.

Ibe S.N and Okplenye J.I. (2005). Bacteriological Analysis of borehole water in Uli, Nigeria.
African Journal of Applied and Environmental Biology vol 7, 116-119.

International Aid Services (IAS), (2008): Borehole water report. South Sudan, Juba.

Ioannis, K. T. Aristeidis, G. K. Ioannis N.D. Daniela, J. (2011). Severe climate –induced water
shortage and extremes in crete, a letter.

Jamrah, A. Al, A. Prathapar, S.F. andHarrasi, A.A. (2008). Evaluating greywater reuse potential
for sustainable water resource management in Oman. Environ Monit. Assess 2008 137:315-327

Jan, D. Gerry, G. and Michael W. (1993). Developing and managing Community water supplies,
Wood Oxford Development Guidelines No. 8, UK.

78
Jarup L. (2003). Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Brit Med Bull 2003; 68(1):167

Jeffrey, P. (2000). Perspectives on alternative water sources in Europe and Middle East, School of
water Sciences, Crainfield University, Bedfordshire MK430AL UK

John, D.E. and Rose J.B. (2005). Review of factors affecting microbial survival in ground water.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 39: 7345-7356

Julie C. Chambon, Philip J. Binning, Peter Jorgensen R., Poul Bjerg L. (2011). A risk assessment
tool for contaminated sites in low-permeability fractured media.Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
124.82-98.

Kai W. and Jeroen W. (2009). Politics of Water: A survey. April 24. http:// book.google.co.ke/
retrieved on 27th 02 2011, 09:46 pm

Kapoor, A., Viraraghavan, T. (1997). Nitrate removal from drinking water review. J. Environ.
Eng. 123 - 4.371–380.

Kazemi AK. (2004). Temporal changes in the physical properties and chemical composition of the
municipal water supply of Shahrood, norrtheastern Iran. Hydrogeol Jour 12:723-734

Keshavarzia A.R., Sharifzadeh, M., KamgarHaghighia A.A., Amina S., and Keshtkara S. (2006).
Bamdada Rural domestic water consumption behavior: A case study in Ramjerd area, Fars
province, I.R. Iran.Water Research 40 (2006) 1173- 1178.

Khosronejad A. K., Seokkoo, B. and Imam, S.F. (2011). Curvilinear immersed boundary method
for simulating coupled flow and bed morphodynamic inter-actions due to sediment transport
phenomena. Adv water reourdoi: 10.1016/j.advwatres. 2011.02.017

Kinniburg, D.G. and Edmunds, W.M. (1986). The susceptibility of UK ground waters.

Koekemoer, R. (2009). Community Participation in the Planning of water Services delivery in

rural Community in Limpopo Province a minor dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

79
requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Social Impact Assessment, Faculty of Humanities ,
University of Johannesburg.

Korkka-Niemi, K. and Laikari H. (1994). Development of groundwater quality in Finnish wells in

1958-1991 based on geological and technological factors and human activities. In: Suokko, T. and
J. Soveri, (Eds.), Future groundwater-Resources at risk. Proc. Int. Conf. Eds, Helsinki, Finland, pp:
13-16.

Kot, B., Baranowski R. and Rybak A. (2000).Analysis of mine waters using X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry. Polish J. Environ. Stud., 9: 429-431

Krauskopf, K.B., and Bird, D.K. (1994). Introduction to Geochemistry, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York, 640p

Lane, J. ed. and Robinson, P. (2002). Upgraded Family Wells in Zimbabwe : household-level
water supplies for multiple uses. (Field note / WSP; no. 7). [online] Nairobi, Kenya: World Bank.
<http://www.wsp.org/filez/pubs/af_bg_zm_wells.pdf> and
http://www.washdoc.info/docsearch/title/123819.Retrieved on 27th 02 2012, 10:00pm

Langford, M. ( 2005). The United Nations concept of water as a human right: a new paradigm for
old problems? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 21(2): 273–282.

Lenntech, (2009). Iron in groundwater, Lenntech water treatment and purification holding B.V,
Rotterdamseweg, Netherlands.

Liberti L., Lopez A., Notarnicola M., Barnea N., Pedahzur R and Fattal B., (2000). Comparison of
advanced disinfectioning methods for municipal waste water re-use in agriculture. Water sci.
Technol. 42 215-220.

Lu, X.X. (2004).Vulnerability of water discharge of large Chinese rivers to environmental

changes: an overview Adv.waterResourDoi: 10.1007/s10113-004-0080-0

80
MacDonald, A., Davies, J., Calow, R. and Chilton, J. (2005). Developing groundwater: A guide to
journal water supply, ITDG publishing.

Maine Geological Survey, MGS, (2012). Seasonal Variations.URL: http://maine.gov/doc.

Retrieved 04:06:2012, 5:15pm

McDonald A.T and Kay D. (1986).Water Resources Issues and Strategies.

Mcguire B, Mason I, Kilburn C. (2002) Natural Hazards and environmental Change. London:
Arnold, pp. 53-63

McKinney C. (2011). Groundwater Protection in McHenry County .Water Resource Manager

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Division, MDEQW, (1999). Groundwater

Section Coliform Bacteria and Well Water Sampling.

Minh Phung T. Pham, James W. Castle and John H. Rodgers Jr., (2011).Application of water
quality guidelines and water quantity calculations to decisions for beneficial use of treated water.

Miranda- Rios, M. Luna-Pabello, V.M. Orta de Vela’squez, M.T. and Barrera-Godinez J.A.
(2011). Removal of Escheriachia coli from biological effluents using natural and artificial mineral
aggregates.Mexico D.F.04510.

Mireille E. N., Nola M., Djuikom E., Ewoti O.V.N. and Luciane M. (2011). Abundance of Faecal
Coliforms and Pathogens E. coli strains in Groundwater in the Coastal Zone of Cameroon (Central
Africa), and Relationships with Some Abiotic Parameters. Journal of Biological Sciences 3(6):
622-632, 2011 ISSN: 2041-0778. Maxwell Scientific Organization.

Mitchell B. (1990). Integrated Water Management. International Experiences and Perspectives.

Publisher: New Delhi CBS PUB. Great Britain.

Money D.C. (1988) Climate and Environmental System. London Uwin Hyman Limited. ISBN 0-
7135-2844-3.

81
Munoz- Carpena R., Ritter A., and Li Y. C. (2005). Dynamic factor analysis of groundwater
quality trends in an agricultural area adjacent to Everglades National Park. Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology, 80 (2005) 49– 70

Musa H.A., Shears P., Kafi S., and Elsabag S.K. (1999). Water quality and public health in
Northern Sydan: A case study of rural and peri-urban communities. Department of Medical
Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Sudan. 87(5):676-
82

National Archives of Scotland (NAS), (2009). Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Document.

National Research Council, Committee on USGS Water Resources Research, (2000). Investigating
groundwater systems on Regional and National Scales. Washington, D.C: National Resources
Council.

Nobumasa, H. (2006). Water Crisis and multifuctionality/ecosystem services-meeting the

challenge. Paddy water Environ 4:163-166.

Nola, M., Njiné, T. Djuikom, E. and Sikati V. F. (2002). Faecal coliforms and faecal streptococci
community in the underground water in an equatorial area in Cameroon (Central Africa): The
importance of some environmental chemical factors. Water Res., 36: 3289-3297.

Nola, M., Noah, O.V. Ewoti, M. Nougang, F. Krier, N.E. Chihib, J. Hornez, P. and Njiné, T.
(2011).Assessment of the hierarchical involvement of chemical characteristics of soil layer
particles during bacterial retention in central Africa.Int. J. Environ. Poll., pp: 46.

Nyati, H. (2004). Evaluation of the microbial quality of water supplies to municipal, mining and
squatter communities in the Bindura urban area of Zimbabwe. Water Science Techno 2004:
50(1):99-103. Bindura University

Ocheri, M.I, (2010). Seasonal Variation in Iron Rural Groundwater of Benue State, Middle Belt,
Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 9 (9):892 – 895, 2010. ISSN 1680 - 5194.
82
Okpokwasili, G.C. and Akujobi, T.C. (1996). Bacteriological indicators of tropical water quality.
Environ. Toxicol. Water Quality 11:77-82.

Olusegun, P.A. (2010). Lead and Coliform contaminants in potable groundwater sources in
Ibadan, South – West Nigeria.Journal of Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology Vol. 2(5),
pp. 79-8

Parker, B.L., Chapman, S.W., Guilbeault, M.A. (2008). Plume persistence caused by back
diffusion from thin clay layers in a sand aquifer following TCE sourcezone hydraulic isolation.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 102 (1–2), 86–104.

Pelczar, M. J., Chan, E. C. S., and Noel R. K. (2005): Microbiology. 5th Edition, Tata McGraw
Hill, New delhi. Pp. 571.

Peligba, K.B., Biney, C.A. and Antwi, L.A. (1991). Trace metal concentration in boreholes water
of upprr region and Accra plain, Ghana, Water, Air and Soil Poll., 59: 333-345.

Pickering, K.T., Owen L.A. (1995). Water Resources and Pollution. In; Introduction to Global
Environmental Issues.Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane London EC 4P4EE pp. 133-151.

Potgieter, N., Mudau LS., Maluleke, F.R.S. (2005). The Micro-biological Quality of Private and
Communal Boreholes in the Tshitale-Hlanganani Region of the Limpopo Province, South
Africa.University oof Venda

Putnam, S.N., Chapman, D.S. (1996). A geothermal climate change observatory: first year results
from Emigrant Pass in northwest Utah. J. Geophysics. Res. 101, 21877–21890.

Qin, X.S. and Xu, Y. (2011).Analyzing urban water supply through an acceptability-index-based
interval approach.

Quing-hai, D., Feng-shan M.A., Ren-mao, Y., and Bing-Kui, Y. (2007). Geological Environment
Problems Caused by Controlling Groundwater Exploitation in Jiangyin City. J China Univ Mining
&Technol 2007, 17(1): 0085–0089

83
 nd
Raghunath, H.M. (1990). Ground Water. Wiley Eastern Limited, 2 edt. New Delhi, India. p. 563.

Railsback, L., Bruce, B., Polly A., Freeney, T.P., Goddard, E.A., Goggin, K.E., Hall, A.S, Jackson,
B.P. McLain, A.A., Orsega, M.C., Rafter, M.A., and Webster J.W. (1996) A survey of the major-
element geochemistry of Georgia groundwater: Southeastern Geology, v. 36, p. 99-122.

Rajana A. (2010). Physico-Chemical Analysis of some Groundwater Samples of Kotputli Town

Jaipur, Rajasthan India. Vol. 1, No.2, 111-113

Rogbesan, A. A., Eniola, K. I. T., and Olayemi, A. B. (2002). Bacteriological Examination of

some Boreholes within University of Ilorin. Nigerian Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 117 –
223.

Romero, J.C. (1970). The movement of bacteria and viruses through porous media, Groundwater,
8, No. 2.37-48.

Rosenbom, A.E., Therrien, R., Refsgaard, J.C., Jensen,K.H., Ernstsen, V.,Klint, K.E.S. (2009).
Numerical analysis of water and solute transport in variably-saturated fractured clayey till.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 104 (1–4), 137–152.

Sampson M., (2008). Water quality assessment of hand dug wells. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ideas
at Work. Available at: <http://bit.ly/KRU7hZ>

Sanden P., Bergstrom S., and Gardelin, M. (1986). Modelling Groundwater Levels and Quality.
SMHI, 601 76 Norrkoping.

Sandiford P., Gorter A.C., Orozco J.G., and Pauw, J.P. (1990). Determinants of domestic water use
in rural Nicaragua. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 93 (6), 383–389.

Sayjad, MM, Rahim S., and Tahir SS. (1998). Chemical Quality of Groundwater of
Rawalpindi/Islamabad, Pakistan 24th WEDC Conference Islamabad Pakistan.pp.101-105

Sha, (2004). MDE Water Quality Bank.

84
Shafique N.A., Fulk F., Autrey B.C., and Flotemersch, J. (2001). Hyperspectral Remote Sensing
of water Quality parameters for large rivers in the Ohio River Basin.

Shelton TB (2002).Interpreting drinking water quality London EC4P4EE. pp. 78-81.

Silderberg, M.S. (2003). Higher Education Chemistry.The Molecular Nature of Matter and
Change, McGraw Hill.

Silliman, S. and Rodak, C. (2011). Probabilistic risk analysis and fault trees: Initial discussion of
application to identification of risk at a wellhead. Adv Water Resource.Vol. 21, No. 2, 229–237.

Singh, B., Khurana S.C., Manish K., Tadav N., and Yadav R. (2012). Seasonal Variation of
Coliforms and Nitrate in Groundwater Quality in Kanpur Metro. India. International Journal of
Research in Chemistry and Environment Vol. 2 Issue 2 April 2012(207-209) ISSN 2248-9649

Singh, R.P. and Kapoor, R.C. (1989).Groundwater quality of Kanpur city.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,
India, 59(B), II

Singh, S. and Mosley, L.M. (2003). Trace metal levels in drinking water on VitiLevu, Fiji Islands.
S. Pac. J. Nat. Sci., 21: 31-34.

Sirila E.R., Maxwell, R.M., Nacarre-Sitchler, A.K. and McCray, J.E. (2010). A quantitative
methodology to assess the risks to human health from carbon dioxide leakage into ground water.
Advwater resource .

South Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation (SSCCSE), (2010). Statistical Year Book
for Southern Sudan, Juba.

Soveri, J. (1985). Influence of melt water on the amount and composition of groundwater in
quater-nary deposits in Finland. ISBN 951-46-9056-7

Spalding R.F., and Exner M.E. (1993). Occurrence of nitrate in groundwater a review. J. Environ.
Qual. 22 3392–402.

85
SPIDER International Ltd, (1995). Water Resources Atlas of the River Nile Basin, for the
Canadian International Development Agency. Burundi, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda,
Sudan, Tanzanian, Uganda and DRC.

State of the Environment, (2003). Key Environmental Issues: Water Quality Degradation 29. DPR
KOREA

Stockholm Environment Institute, (2005). Sustainable pathways to attain the MDGs: Assessing the
key role of water, energy and sanitation.

Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J. (1996). Aquatic Chemistry, 3rd edition.Wiley-Interscience, New
York, 1022 pp.

Sunnudo-Wilhelmy, S.A. and Gill, G.A. (1999).Impact of the clean water Act on the levels of
Toxic Metals in Urban Estuaries the Hundson River Estuary Revisited. Environ. Sci. Technol., 33:
3471-3481.

Suthra, .S. Bishnoi, P., Singh, S. Mutiyar, P.K., Nema, A.K. and Patil, N.S. (2009). Nitrate
contamination in groundwater of some rural areas of Rajasthan, Department of Civil engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology New Delhi India

Takem, G.E. Chandrasekharam, D. Ayonghe, S.N. and Thambidurai, P. (2010).Pollution

characteristics of alluvial groundwater from springs and bore wells in semi-urban informal
settlements of Douala, Cameroon, Western Africa. Environ. Earth Sci., 61: 287-298.

Talafre J. and Knabe F. (2009). United Nations World Water Assessment Programme Special
Report, Climate Change and Water, an overview from the world water Development Report 3:
Water in a changing World, UNESCO.

Thomas, O. (1995). Analyse microbiologique dans . Métrologie des eaux résiduaires.

Edn.Cebedoc, pp: 125-139

86
Tijani MN, Loehnert EP, Uma KO. (1996) Origin of saline ground waters in the Ogoja area,
Lower Benue Trough, Nigeria. Journal of African Earth Sciences 23(2): 237-252

nd
Todd, D.K. (1980). Ground Water Hydorlogy.2 edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York,
USA. pp. 10-138. 14

Udom, G.J. Ushie, F.A. and Esu, E.O. (2002).A geochemical survey of groundwater in Khana and
Gokana local government area of Rivers State, Nigeria.J. AppliedSci. Environ. Manage., 6: 53-59.

UNEP, (2009). United Nation Environment Programme Post Conflict Report Gaza Strip.

UNESCO, (1978). Management of natural resources in Africa-traditional strategies and modern

decision making, MAB Technical Note 9, Paris.

United Nations (1997). Comprehensive assessment of the freshwater resources of the world
(overview document). World Meteorological Organization, Geneva.

United Nations, (2010). Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking- water.

United State Geological Survey (USGS), (2012). http://www.usgs.gov, 08/ 06/2012 11:45AM.)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), (1986). Method : 130.2: Hardness,
Total (mg/L as CaCO3) (Titrimetric, EDTA). Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes (MCAWW) (EPA/600/4-79/020).

Valcarel, M. (2000).Principles of Analytical Chemistry. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New

York.

Van Oort, E. (2003). Physical and Chemical stability of shales. New Orleans, USA. Shell E and P
co. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 38, 213-235.

Vanclooster M. (2005). Effective approaches for modeling Groundwater load of surface applied
chemicals, Department of environmental Sciences and Land use planning, Universite Catholique
de Louvain Croix du sud 2, Belgium
87
Vegter, J. (1995). Soil protection in the Netherlands, in Heavy Metals: Problems and Solutions,
(W. Salomons, P.Mader, and U. Fo”rstner, eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Vladimir N. (2003). Water Quality, Diffuse pollution and watershed management. Second Edition.
John Wiley and sons, Inc. Boston.

Vo¨ro¨smarty C.J, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers R.B. (2000) Global water resources:
vulnerability from climate changes and population growth. Sciences 289:284–288.

Wang, S, Jaffe P.R. (2004). Dissolution of a mineral phase in potable aquifers due to CO releases
from deep formations; effect of dissolution kinetics. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45(18–
19):2833–48.

Water and Sanitation Trust Fund (WSTF), (2009). Annual Report UN Water HABITAT.

Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking- water (WGAASD) (2010).

Weinthal, E. Vengosh, A. Mavei, A. Gutierrez, A. and Kloppman W. (2005). The water crisis in
the Gaza strip: Prospects for Resolution. Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Weiwei, S., Dawen, Y., Heping, H. and Kenji, S. (2009).Water Resources Allocation Considering
the water use flexible limit to water shortage: A case study in the Yellow River Basin of China.
Water Resour Manage (2009) 23:869-880

Wittmann E., P. Cote, Medici, C. Leech J. and Turner, A.G (1998).Treatment of hard borehole
water containing low levels of Pesticide by Nano filtration. Desalination 119(1998) 347-352.

World Health Organization (WHO), (1985). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality.Vol. 1.World
Health Organization.Geneva, p.129.

World Health Organization (WHO), (1985). International Standards for Drinking Water.pp 10-15.

World Health Organization (WHO), (1989).World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking
Water Quality. Vol. 1.World Health Organization. Geneva, p.129.
88
World Health Organization (WHO), (2010). World health statistics: Health status indicators,
World health, Health services – statistics, Mortality, Morbidity, Life expectancy, Demography
Statistics. ISBN 978 92 4 156398 7 (NLM classification: WA 900.1). Publications of the World.

World Health Organization (WHO), (2010). World health statistics: Health status indicators,
World health, Health services – statistics, Mortality, Morbidity, Life expectancy, Demography
Statistics. ISBN 978 92 4 156398 7 (NLM classification: WA 900.1). Publications of the World

World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). Water, sanitation and hygiene links to health.
http//:www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/facts2004/en/print.html.

World of Resources Institute, (1989). World Resources 1988- 89, Basic Books Inc., New York.

World Water Assessment Programme-3, (2009). The United Nations World Water Development
Report 3: Water in a Changing World. Paris: UNESCO publishing and London: Erath scan.URL:
www.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/. Accessed on 09/08/2011 at 8:20pm.

World Water Day Report (WWDR), (22 March 2011): Water for Cities: Responding to the Urban
Challenge.

World Water Forum (WWF), (2000). 2nd World Water Forum. The Hague, the Netherlands.

Wu, J. Mohammad, Y. Streatfield, P.K. Van Green, A. Escamilla, V. Akita, Y. and Emch, M.
(2011). Impact of tubewell access and tubewell depth on childhood diarrhea in Matlab,
Bangladesh. Environ Health. 2011 Dec 22;10:109.

Xinghui, X. Zhifeng Y. and Yuxiang W. (2009). Incorporating Eco-environmental Water

Requirements in Integrated Evaluation of Water Quality and Quantity- A case study for the Yellow
River. Water Resour Manage (2009) 23:1067-1079.

Zemansky, G.M. (2000). Interpretation of Groundwater chemical quality data. Compass

environmental, inc, 3000W. 19th Court, Lawrence Kansas 66047-2300

89
APPENDICES

Appendix 1. The WHO maximum permissible limits for Drinking water

WHO Guide line

S/No. Parameters values Rationale

Physico-Chemical

1 pH 6.5 - 8.5 Aesthetically acceptable

2 Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) ≤ 500 Taste of water is good

3 Nitrate (mg/L) 10 Aesthetic effect

4 Calcium hardness (mg/L) 150 Acceptable taste

Brownish discoloration,
5 Iron Total LR (mg/L) 0.03 metallic taste

6 Fluoride (mg/L) 1.5 Tooth staining

7 Chloride (mg/L) 250 Acceptable taste

Micro-biological

8 Total Coliform (cfu/100ml) 0 Clinical infections

9 Faecal Coliform (cfu/100ml) 0 Clinical infections

90
Appendix 2. Summary of the Physico-Chemical and Microbiological parameter results

Location Dry Season Wet Season

Parameters Minimum Maximum Mean Minimum Maximum Mean

pH Rural 6.7 8.1 7.4 6.3 7.5 7

Urban 6 7.8 6.9 5.5 7.3 6.5

TDS (mg/L) Rural 14 223 97.6 55.5 230 113.1

Urban 44.8 309.6 144.9 49.1 321.1 156.7

Nitrate (mg/L) Rural 0 2.61 0.331 0 2.8 2.369

Urban 0.002 3.8 1.157 0.015 4 1.257

Calcium carbonate Rural 39 115 74.3 46 111 79.4

(mg/L) Urban 12 98 52.9 12 110 58.2

Iron (mg/L) Rural 0.002 0.07 0.027 0.002 0.1 0.031

Urban 0.001 0.1 0.017 0.001 0.103 0.022

Fluoride (mg/L) Rural 0.15 1.2 0.56 0.19 1.5 0.68

Urban 0.12 2.01 0.98 0.19 2.2 1.1

TC (cfu/100ml) Rural 0 30 6.5 0 40 9.6

Urban 15 70 37.4 20 100 54.7

FC (cfu/100ml) Rural 0 12 2.6 0 21 4.5

Urban 5 46 19.7 12 75 34.3

91
Appendix 3. Seasonal Variations in pH values between the rural and urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town Yei Town Yei Town

Payam area Payam area Payam area
OtogoPayam LasuPayam MugwoPayam 1 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 7.3 7.1 7.5 7.0 7.3 7.2 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.3 7.0

2 7.5 7.2 8 7.5 6.7 6.3 6.0 5.5 7.8 7.1 7.1 6.6

3 7.3 6.7 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.5 7.6 7.3 6.5 6.3 7.0 6.5

4 7.5 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.2 6.6 6.3 6.0 7.0 6.5 7.2 6.8

5 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.2 8.1 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.7 5.7 7.0 6.7

BH= Borehole, DS= Dry Season, WS= Wet Season.

Appendix 4.Seasonal Variations in Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) between the rural and
urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town Yei Town

Yei Town Payam area Payam area
OtogoPayam LasuPayam MugwoPayam Payam area 1 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 69.0 76.6 79.5 86.1 56.7 63.2 44.8 49.1 287.2 300.5 67.0 71.4

2 90.1 93.9 100.0 110.2 223.0 230.0 140.8 157.4 67.3 76.4 71.2 80.5

3 14.0 18.3 158.3 166.7 67.3 84.8 75.9 81.3 67.1 71.1 231.5 257.0

4 95.5 94.4 95.2 94.5 79.5 83.1 215.0 232.9 215.6 236.9 144.1 150.6

5 77.7 80.0 212.0 220.0 46.9 55.5 309.6 321.1 163.5 186.3 73.1 78.3

92
Appendix 5. Seasonal Variations in Nitrate (mg/L) between the rural and urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town
Mugwo Yei Town Yei Town Payam area
Otogo Payam Lasu Payam Payam Payam area 1 Payam area 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.032 0.020 0.026 0.011 0.015 0.002 0.019 1.200 1.600

2 0.023 0.025 0.038 0.050 2.100 2.300 1.080 1.220 1.120 1.180 2.510 2.510

3 0.025 0.025 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 3.800 4.000 0.002 0.025 0.035 0.340

4 0.021 0.028 2.610 2.800 0.001 0.001 2.650 2.720 1.000 1.008 0.060 0.080

5 0.021 0.021 0.042 0.045 0.028 0.030 2.410 2.610 1.450 1.500 0.030 0.035

Appendix 6. Seasonal Variations in Calcium carbonate (mg/L) between the rural and urban
boreholes

RURAL URBAN

YEI TOWN YEI TOWN YEI TOWN

OTOGO LASU MUGWO PAYAM PAYAM PAYAM
PAYAM PAYAM PAYAM AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 3

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 45 49 80 85 39 46 56 60 77 88 45 54

2 79 81 70 74 95 101 19 15 24 32 59 65

3 108 111 60 75 80 81 34 39 57 57 84 87

4 115 108 55 60 75 80 51 59 98 110 50 61

5 85 103 85 90 44 47 67 71 60 63 12 12

93
Appendix 7. Seasonal Variations in Iron (mg/L) between the rural and urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town
Yei Town Yei Town Payam area
OtogoPayam LasuPayam MugwoPayam Payam area 1 Payam area 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 0.040 0.041 0.020 0.025 0.040 0.045 0.021 0.024 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.006

2 0.023 0.025 0.035 0.030 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.003 0.034 0.001 0.001

3 0.060 0.060 0.021 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.030 0.031

4 0.020 0.024 0.002 0.003 0.070 0.100 0.002 0.023 0.026 0.030 0.100 0.103

5 0.010 0.012 0.030 0.033 0.005 0.008 0.023 0.028 0.006 0.005 0.025 0.029

Appendix 8. Seasonal Variations in Fluoride (mg/L) between the rural and urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town
Yei Town Yei Town Payam area
OtogoPayam LasuPayam MugwoPayam Payam area 1 Payam area 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 0.40 0.50 0.45 0.49 0.31 0.36 0.21 0.27 1.78 1.82 0.57 0.83

2 1.00 1.20 0.15 0.19 1.20 1.40 1.50 1.66 0.35 0.48 1.01 1.10

3 0.50 0.70 1.00 1.23 0.20 0.23 0.99 1.20 1.00 1.01 1.36 1.47

4 1.10 1.50 0.32 0.38 0.25 0.28 2.01 2.20 1.45 1.60 0.12 0.19

5 0.45 0.50 0.35 0.42 0.72 0.81 1.38 1.43 0.31 0.35 0.67 0.90

94
Appendix 9. Seasonal Variations in Total Coliform (cfu/100ml) between the rural and urban
boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town
Otogo Lasu Mugwo Yei Town Yei Town Payam area
Payam Payam Payam Payam area 1 Payam area 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 7 5 30 40 3 5 30 40 35 56 70 100

2 0 0 15 17 10 15 40 70 50 75 35 55

3 10 16 8 18 0 0 25 30 34 65 15 40

4 0 2 1 3 0 0 50 75 15 20 65 75

5 5 8 2 4 7 11 45 50 32 40 20 30

Appendix 10. Seasonal Variations in Faecal Coliform (cfu/100ml) between the rural and the
urban boreholes

RURAL URBAN

Yei Town
Yei Town Yei Town Payam area
OtogoPayam LasuPayam MugwoPayam Payam area 1 Payam area 2. 3.

BH DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS DS WS

1 2 1 12 21 1 2 13 19 13 28 46 75

2 0 0 6 9 4 7 23 55 22 35 13 24

3 5 8 3 7 0 0 14 17 16 35 15 37

4 0 0 0 1 0 0 25 42 5 12 33 46

5 3 5 1 2 2 5 24 37 24 35 10 17

95
Appendix 11a. Pollution index for Physical parameters

LOCATION PH TDS

Dry Wet Dry Wet

Season Season Season Season

1.04 1.01 0.14 0.15

RURAL
1.07 1.03 0.18 0.19

1.04 0.96 0.03 0.04

1.07 1.00 0.19 0.19

1.06 1.03 0.16 0.16

1.07 1.00 0.16 0.17

1.14 1.07 0.20 0.22

1.06 0.99 0.32 0.33

1.07 1.01 0.19 0.19

1.06 1.03 0.42 0.44

1.04 1.03 0.11 0.13

0.96 0.90 0.45 0.46

0.99 0.93 0.13 0.17

1.03 0.94 0.16 0.17

1.16 1.07 0.09 0.11

96
Appendix 11b. Pollution index for physical parameters in the urban areas

LOCATION PH TDS

Dry Wet Dry Wet

Season Season Season Season

0.93 0.93 0.09 0.10

URBAN
0.86 0.79 0.28 0.31

1.09 1.04 0.15 0.16

0.90 0.86 0.43 0.47

1.00 0.93 0.62 0.64

0.93 0.93 0.57 0.60

1.11 1.01 0.13 0.15

0.93 0.90 0.13 0.14

1.00 0.93 0.43 0.47

0.96 0.81 0.33 0.37

1.04 1.00 0.13 0.14

1.01 0.94 0.14 0.16

1.00 0.93 0.46 0.51

1.03 0.97 0.29 0.30

1.00 0.96 0.15 0.16

97
Appendix 12a. Pollution index for Chemical parameters in Rural borehole water

Nitrate CaCO3 Iron Fluoride

Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet

Season Season Season Season Season Season Season Season

0.000 0.000 0.225 0.245 1.333 1.367 0.267 0.333

RURAL
0.002 0.003 0.395 0.405 0.767 0.833 0.667 0.800

0.003 0.003 0.540 0.555 2.000 2.000 0.333 0.467

0.002 0.003 0.575 0.540 0.667 0.800 0.733 1.000

0.002 0.002 0.425 0.515 0.333 0.400 0.300 0.333

0.003 0.003 0.400 0.425 0.667 0.833 0.300 0.327

0.004 0.005 0.350 0.370 1.167 1.000 0.100 0.127

0.000 0.000 0.300 0.375 0.700 0.733 0.667 0.820

0.261 0.280 0.275 0.300 0.067 0.100 0.213 0.253

0.004 0.005 0.425 0.450 1.000 1.100 0.233 0.280

0.002 0.003 0.195 0.230 1.333 1.500 0.207 0.240

0.210 0.230 0.475 0.505 0.067 0.067 0.800 0.933

0.000 0.000 0.400 0.405 0.867 1.000 0.133 0.153

0.000 0.000 0.375 0.400 2.333 3.333 0.167 0.187

0.003 0.003 0.220 0.235 0.167 0.267 0.480 0.540

98
APPENDIX 12b. Pollution index for Chemical parameters in Urban borehole water
Nitrate CaCO3 Iron Fluoride

Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet

Season Season Season Season Season Season Season Season

0.001 0.002 0.280 0.300 0.700 0.800 0.140 0.180

URBAN
0.108 0.122 0.095 0.075 0.133 0.200 1.000 1.107

0.380 0.400 0.170 0.195 0.033 0.067 0.660 0.800

0.265 0.272 0.255 0.295 0.067 0.767 1.340 1.467

0.241 0.261 0.335 0.355 0.767 0.933 0.920 0.953

0.000 0.002 0.385 0.440 0.033 0.233 1.187 1.213

0.112 0.118 0.120 0.160 0.100 1.133 0.233 0.320

0.000 0.003 0.285 0.285 0.067 0.100 0.667 0.673

0.100 0.101 0.490 0.550 0.867 1.000 0.967 1.067

0.145 0.150 0.300 0.315 0.200 0.167 0.207 0.233

0.120 0.160 0.225 0.270 0.133 0.200 0.380 0.553

0.251 0.251 0.295 0.325 0.033 0.033 0.673 0.733

0.004 0.034 0.420 0.435 1.000 1.033 0.907 0.980

0.006 0.008 0.250 0.305 3.333 3.433 0.080 0.127

0.003 0.004 0.060 0.060 0.833 0.967 0.447 0.600

99
APPENDIX 13a. Micro-biological water quality classification according to DWAF, (1996).

Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season

TC category TC category FC category FC category

7 G 5 G 2 M 1 M

0 G 0 G 0 G 0 G

10 G 16 M 5 M 8 M

0 G 2 G 0 G 0 G

5 G 8 G 3 M 5 M

30 M 40 M 12 P 21 P

15 M 17 M 6 M 9 M

8 G 18 M 3 M 7 M

1 G 3 G 0 G 1 M

2 G 4 G 1 M 2 M

3 G 5 G 1 M 2 M

10 G 15 M 4 M 7 M

0 G 0 G 0 G 0 G

0 G 0 G 0 G 0 G
RURAL
AREAS 7 G 11 M 2 M 5 P

TC: Total coliform, FC: Faecal coliform, G: Good quality, M: Marginal quality, P: Poor quality.

100
APPENDIX 13b. Micro-biological water quality classification according to DWAF, (1996).

Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season

TC category TC category FC category FC category

30 M 40 M 13 P 19 P

40 M 70 M 23 P 55 P

25 M 30 M 14 P 17 P

50 M 75 M 25 P 42 P

45 M 50 M 24 P 37 P

35 M 56 M 13 P 28 P

50 M 75 M 22 P 35 P

34 M 65 M 16 P 35 P

15 M 20 M 5 M 12 P

32 M 40 M 24 P 35 P

70 M 100 P 46 P 75 P

35 M 55 M 13 P 24 P

15 M 40 M 15 P 37 P

65 M 75 M 33 P 46 P
URBAN
AREAS 20 M 30 M 10 M 17 P

TC: Total coliform, FC: Faecal coliform, G: Good quality, M: Marginal quality, P: Poor quality.

101
Appendix 14. Summary of average consumption per area of study

Distance <500m <500m >1km >1km

Location DS WS DS WS

Otogo 13.7 10.3 11.8 7.3

Rural areas Lasu 15.2 12.5 12.4 8.7

Mugwo 13.5 11.4 11.9 7.8

Yei town 1 20.1 15.3 17.8 10.0

Urban areas Yei town 2 21.1 17.1 18.4 12.3

Yei town 3 20.4 18.0 17.3 12.5

DS= Dry Season WS= Wet Season

102
 Appendix 15. Average Household members and respective daily per capita water
consumption
<500M from the water source >1KM from the water source

Av.
Av. Av.
Av. Consumption Consumption
consumption Average consumption
Av. H/H size Dry Season Wet Season H/H size Dry Season Wet Season

Otogo 6.2 13.9 10.8 6.7 11.9 7.5

Rural Lasu 6.4 15.2 12.5 6.2 13.2 8.8

Mugwo 7.3 14.2 12.2 7.4 12.0 7.7

Yt1 8.0 21.9 16.2 6.0 18.3 10.4

Urban Yt2 6.8 22.0 17.5 5.8 18.5 12.3

Yt3 6.3 21.3 18.6 5.6 18.0 12.9

YEI
COUNTY 6.8 18.1 14.6 6.3 15.3 9.9

103
Appendix 16. Seasonal Per capita borehole water consumption data in the selected three rural areas

RURAL AREA 1 (OTOGO PAYAM) RURAL AREA 2 (LASU PAYAM) RURAL AREA 3 (MUGWO PAYAM)

H/H
H/H H/H H/H H/H H/H
B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS

<500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H <500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H <500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H

O1 6 12.5 10.0 7 10.0 5.7 L1 7 14.3 11.4 11 11.8 7.3 M1 4 15.0 15.0 7 10.7 5.7

O1 4 12.0 10.0 5 10.0 8.0 L1 3 18.3 13.3 5 13.0 11.0 M1 6 12.5 8.3 9 10.6 6.7

O1 6 13.0 8.3 6 11.3 6.7 L1 4 17.5 15.0 7 14.3 11.4 M1 8 12.5 11.3 7 10.7 7.9

O1 10 11.5 8.5 12 10.7 6.3 L1 5 18.0 15.0 4 15.0 8.8 M1 6 10.8 10.0 8 10.6 6.9

O1 4 13.8 12.5 3 11.7 6.7 L1 6 15.0 13.3 10 9.0 4.0 M1 15 13.3 10.7 11 11.8 7.3

O2 9 12.0 10.0 9 10.6 7.8 L2 10 11.0 8.0 7 12.9 7.1 M2 11 15.0 12.7 7 12.9 8.6

O2 4 13.8 12.5 4 12.0 8.8 L2 4 15.0 15.0 4 13.8 10.0 M2 11 17.1 14.5 5 13.0 9.0

O2 5 10.0 8.0 9 11.7 6.7 L2 9 14.4 11.1 14 14.3 11.4 M2 5 19.0 18.0 9 14.2 8.9

O2 5 13.0 9.0 4 9.5 5.0 L2 13 16.9 13.8 5 15.0 8.0 M2 10 13.5 10.0 7 14.3 11.4

O2 3 13.3 13.3 6 10.8 5.8 L2 4 17.5 15.0 6 13.3 8.3 M2 6 18.0 13.3 4 14.5 8.8

O3 9 13.9 10.0 10 9.8 6.0 L3 8 13.1 12.5 11 13.6 7.3 M3 5 12.0 10.0 16 10.2 7.5

O3 10 13.5 9.0 8 11.9 5.0 L3 9 15.6 11.1 5 13.0 8.0 M3 2 16.5 15.0 4 9.5 7.0

O3 4 13.3 10.0 9 11.4 6.7 L3 7 15.7 12.9 6 11.7 6.7 M3 8 11.6 11.3 7 11.4 5.7

104
O3 3 15.0 13.3 4 10.8 10.0 L3 6 15.0 13.3 4 13.8 10.0 M3 10 11.8 9.0 5 14.0 8.0

O3 10 12.8 8.0 3 15.0 13.3 L3 5 14.0 10.0 5 15.0 8.0 M3 3 15.0 13.3 15 8.9 6.0

O4 3 15.0 13.3 4 12.5 10.0 L4 8 17.5 15.0 5 12.0 8.0 M4 11 11.8 10.9 8 11.6 7.5

O4 8 13.5 8.5 4 18.8 10.0 L4 6 16.7 13.3 11 13.2 9.1 M4 6 11.7 10.0 4 8.8 5.0

O4 8 11.6 9.1 10 12.8 7.8 L4 5 14.0 12.0 5 12.0 12.0 M4 8 9.4 6.9 4 9.5 5.0

O4 7 16.4 11.4 9 10.9 6.4 L4 5 16.0 12.0 3 11.7 10.0 M4 5 14.0 10.0 4 12.0 7.0

O4 9 14.2 11.1 5 11.6 6.0 L4 5 14.0 12.0 6 13.3 8.3 M4 9 8.9 6.7 4 12.0 6.3

O5 5 18.0 14.0 7 12.1 5.7 L5 9 14.4 11.1 4 12.0 6.3 M5 8 12.5 12.5 11 14.1 10.9

O5 4 15.0 15.0 6 13.3 6.7 L5 4 13.8 10.0 3 13.3 6.7 M5 6 19.2 16.7 4 13.3 10.0

O5 7 17.1 12.9 5 13.6 8.0 L5 5 14.0 12.0 7 12.9 10.0 M5 10 16.0 15.0 6 13.0 6.7

O5 10 14.0 11.0 8 12.5 10.0 L5 9 14.4 12.2 4 15.0 12.5 M5 6 15.8 13.3 10 14.5 10.0

O5 3 20.0 10.0 11 13.2 9.1 L5 4 14.5 12.5 2 15.0 10.0 M5 3 21.0 20.0 8 12.9 9.4

105
 Appendix 17. Seasonal Per capita borehole water consumption data for the three urban areas in Yei County
URBAN AREA 1 URBAN AREA 2 URBAN AREA 3

H/H H/H H/H H/H H/H H/H

B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS B/H No. DS WS No. DS WS

<500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H <500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H <500m from B/H > 1Km from B/H

Y11 7 21.4 10.0 8 16.3 7.5 Y21 7 24.7 20.0 4 20.0 10.0 Y31 4 20.8 20.0 2 19.0 13

Y11 6 24.2 16.7 8 16.6 7.5 Y21 4 24.5 15.0 5 21.0 16.0 Y31 3 25.0 20.0 4 18.8 14

Y11 4 21.3 15.0 6 16.7 10.0 Y21 3 29.3 20.0 7 19.3 13.6 Y31 5 20.0 16.0 6 18.3 13

Y11 11 17.3 13.6 4 23.8 10.0 Y21 6 24.2 16.7 8 17.9 10.0 Y31 3 22.7 20.0 8 19.8 13

Y11 5 23.0 16.0 9 15.3 6.7 Y21 7 24.3 21.4 5 21.0 16.0 Y31 5 17.6 12.0 9 13.1 9

Y12 5 25.0 20.0 10 24.3 14.0 Y22 9 21.1 16.7 10 18.5 14.0 Y32 11 17.7 17.3 9 17.2 12

Y12 7 22.9 17.1 5 21.6 15.0 Y22 9 18.7 15.6 3 18.3 11.7 Y32 6 22.2 20.0 4 21.3 14

Y12 5 27.0 18.0 6 23.3 10.0 Y22 8 20.6 17.5 8 19.1 12.5 Y32 4 23.3 22.5 3 17.7 17

Y12 4 23.8 15.0 5 24.0 16.0 Y22 5 25.0 20.0 5 18.0 12.0 Y32 8 20.6 17.5 10 15.8 12

Y12 3 26.7 20.0 4 22.5 12.5 Y22 3 25.0 16.7 5 23.0 15.0 Y32 5 20.0 17.0 7 17.9 11

Y13 9 21.4 15.6 7 16.4 8.6 Y23 6 19.2 13.3 8 18.1 12.5 Y33 2 27.5 22.5 8 19.4 14

Y13 6 20.8 20.0 5 14.0 8.0 Y23 4 29.5 22.5 9 17.0 11.1 Y33 9 17.0 16.1 4 17.5 10

Y13 4 23.3 15.0 3 17.7 10.0 Y23 9 23.1 20.0 10 18.0 13.5 Y33 12 20.3 16.7 4 17.5 11

Y13 8 23.8 15.0 6 16.7 10.0 Y23 6 23.3 20.8 4 18.8 10.0 Y33 11 16.2 13.6 4 17.5 15

106
Y13 18 17.1 13.3 3 20.0 11.7 Y23 10 18.3 15.5 6 16.7 10.0 Y33 4 25.0 23.8 7 14.0 11

Y14 6 23.0 16.7 5 15.0 8.0 Y24 12 18.3 16.7 5 15.6 9.0 Y34 10 19.8 16.0 6 16.3 12

Y14 22 15.8 13.6 6 12.5 6.7 Y24 6 20.0 16.7 6 18.3 12.5 Y34 6 22.2 16.7 5 18.0 12

Y14 6 18.8 13.3 6 16.3 10.0 Y24 4 21.3 15.0 7 17.6 11.4 Y34 5 21.0 20.0 4 22.0 18

Y14 5 22.0 16.0 7 16.4 11.1 Y24 6 23.0 15.8 4 15.0 12.5 Y34 8 22.3 20.0 5 17.0 11

Y14 5 24.6 16.0 9 19.4 11.1 Y24 9 18.7 16.1 3 26.0 13.3 Y34 4 18.8 17.5 4 17.0 15

Y15 7 18.3 17.1 5 14.0 8.0 Y25 7 17.1 14.3 4 14.5 10.0 Y35 10 20.0 18.0 5 20.0 12

Y15 7 22.6 17.1 5 17.6 12.0 Y25 9 19.2 15.6 6 19.2 13.3 Y35 4 20.8 18.8 3 18.3 12

Y15 24 14.6 12.5 5 19.6 10.0 Y25 4 22.0 20.0 5 17.6 16.0 Y35 3 26.7 20.0 5 16.0 12

Y15 4 23.8 20.0 6 19.7 12.5 Y25 10 20.5 18.8 4 15.8 10.0 Y35 8 21.9 20.6 9 18.9 16

Y15 11 25.3 21.8 8 17.5 12.5 Y25 6 19.2 15.8 3 19.3 11.7 Y35 8 24.1 22.5 5 21.6 16

107
Appendix 18. Questionnaire

Dear respondent,

You have been selected in the above titled study which is being carried out as part of an education
research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Master’s of Science degree in
Environment and Natural Resources of Makerere University. Your co-operation in filling this
questionnaire will lead to the success of the survey. Responses shall be treated confidentially and
apply only for education purposes.

Date of Survey:……………………………………..

Name of Respondent:………………………………

Signature of Respondent:…………………………..

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. SEX: (i) Male (ii) Female

2. AGE: (i) (10-18) (ii)(19-25) (iii) (26-40) (iv) (41-60) (v) (61 and above)

3. MARITAL STATUS: (i) Single (ii) Married (iii) Divorced (iv) Widowed

108
 4. Details of your Household:
Members of Number Sex Age Employment Education Water
Household level consumed/day in
litres

Formal Informal/ part Self None Borehole Other

time employed sources

Head of the
House/Father

Spouse/Wife

Sons

Daughters

External Family
members

Hint on level of education: (i) Primary (ii) Secondary (iii) Vocational (iv) Tertiary

109
 5. What are the sources of the water that you consume as a household? (i) Borehole water
(ii) Rain water (iii) River water (iv) Stream water (v) Well water
State any other sources of water that you use?.................................................................
6. What is the overall number of 20 liter jerry cans of water that you use as a family.
Considering all sources of water?...........................
7. How many 20 liter jerry cans of borehole water tdo you use as a family
in?.........................................................
8. Is the amount of water you use as a family sufficient for you? (i) Yes (ii) No
9. Would you consume more amounts of water given the right conditions? If so How many
more liters would you consume?.....................................................................................
10. Is there any variations in amount of water consumed in dry and wet seasons? If yes, by
what amounts………………………………………………………………………………
11. What are the major hindrances in use of more water for your household?
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
12. Do you boil borehole water before drinking? (i) Yes (ii) No
If yes, why?.....................................................................................................................
13. What negative things have you found with the water itself/ Quality?
(i) Taste (ii) colour (iii) Odor
State any other thing that you dislike about the water?....................................................
14. What human activities are being carried out about 30m from the borehole?
(i) Toilet establishment (ii) Animal farm (iii) Agricultural practices
(iii) Grave yard (iv) Petrol Station
State any other activities………………………………………………………………….
15. What challenges have you faced or identified with the use of borehole water resources? (i)
Quantity (ii) Quality (iii) Distance (iv) Seasonality (v) Fees
(vi) Restrictions to the amount of water consumed per household
(vii) Management (viii) Congestion . If management state areas of concern
………………………………………………………………………………………………
State any other challenges?..................................................................................................

110
16. What are your observations about the quality of borehole water, comparing the dry and wet
seasons………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

17. What suggestions do you have for improving borehole water quality and services?
(i)……………………………………………………………………………….
(ii)………………………………………………………………………………..
(iii)……………………………………………………………………………….
(iv)……………………………………………………………………………….

111