Much neglected sanitation

So, I’ve kind of neglected the whole ‘sanitation’ part of ‘urban water and sanitation’, so let’s have that as a focal point for this next blog post.

The original Drawers of Water study (White et al. 1972), indicated four means of transmission of water-related diseased;

1.     Water-washed

2.     Water-borne

3.     Water-based

4.     By water-related insect vectors

Since this study, there has been an increased emphasis placed on the importance of water and sanitation and trying to reduce the transmission of diseases through these routes.

Looking at Showers’ (2002) findings, we can see that the majority of people in urban areas use some form of latrine for household sanitation. In Kampala, and many other regions on Africa, the use of pit latrines is extremely common. Liquids put in latrines are expected to infiltrate into—and be purified by—the surrounding soil. Solids are buried, dumped in rivers, or added to municipal water-borne waste streams. Very few households actually have access to water-borne sanitation, and sewage treatment plants are rare. The sewage treatment plants that do exist lack the basic regular maintenance they require, or are insufficient in dealing with the type and amount of materials they receive (Showers 2002).

But could the use of pit latrines be what is contaminating the water? Well in areas where there are heavy rainfall events, for example in Kampala, these have been observed to coincide with pathogenic contamination of groundwater and disease outbreak. Therefore, this makes the springs unfit to drink during heavy rainfall events. The recharge is flushing faecal matter into the spring catchment and that is deteriorating the quality of that spring water. Domestic and industrial wastes have polluted groundwater, streams and coastal regions all over the continent. Amongst other factors, pit latrines are polluting groundwater, not only in areas of significant rainfall, but in all climates and soil types. If you were in the lecture, you would have also seen Richard give an example of what ‘helicoptering’ consists of, which essentially involves hurling human waste, through the air, as far away as possible. This then contaminates other areas, especially as you can’t control where it lands (…bear with me – this isn’t my ideal topic of conversation either!). Sealed latrines are thought to be a short-term solution to stop contamination of nearby water sources, with the long-term alternative being central sewage systems (Showers 2002).

I focussed on Bulawayo, Zimbabwe in my last post. So, let’s have a look at the city again. Due to water scarcity, the residents have had to find alternative water sources. Such sources consist of borehole, well and bowsers (provided by the Bulawayo City Council). In Khumalo (the high-income suburb), more or less 88% of the households had access to an improved water source, whereas in Mpopoma (the low-income suburb), residents had to obtain water from boreholes that were more than one kilometre away, thus reducing these residents’ water consumption. Together, the low water quality and low water consumption in Mpopoma made residents more susceptible to diseases. They were more subject to contaminated water due to ‘reliance on water from burst pipes and other open sources’  , as well as plenty of chances for contamination of collected water during transportation from borehole and bowsers which were located far away from households (Nyemba et al. 2010). Diseases and further contamination of water in Mpopoma compared to Khumalo are likely because residents of Mpopoma face more severe water scarcity. They don’t have the means to store water for flushing, and so would rather use open spaces or ‘bush toilets’. All of this combined, leads to worsened conditions of sanitation.