Vol. 1 - Framework For Water Source Protection

Government of Uganda
1
Ministry of Water and Environment
Directorate of Water Resources Management
FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES FOR

WATER SOURCE PROTECTION
Volume 1: Framework for Water Source Protection
Phase 1 – Draft Framework and Guidelines
Draft 2 (20 June 2012)
Prepared by
S. G. Furey (Skat Foundation, St Gallen, Switzerland)
Framework and Guidelines for Water Source Protection
Need for the guidelines
2
/conversion/tmp/activity_task_scratch/594858680.doc
Volumes
Volume 2: Guidelines for Protecting Piped Water Sources
Volume 3: Guidelines for Protecting Point Water Sources
Volume 4: Guidelines for Protecting Multipurpose Reservoirs
Volume 5: Guidelines for Protecting Hydroelectric Power Plants
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Need for the guidelines...................................................................................................................................... 7
Case studies of water source degradation............................................................................................... 10
What are the guidelines for?.......................................................................................................................... 14
Who are the guidelines for?........................................................................................................................... 14
Roles within Water Source Protection........................................................................................................ 15
Conceptual Model: Threat – Pathway – Water Source.........................................................................17
Guidelines Process and Outputs................................................................................................................... 22
Water Source Protection in relation to other plans and processes................................................23
A Framework for Water Source Protection Planning................................................................................ 26
Step 1: Initiation and Preparation................................................................................................................ 27
Step 2: Awareness Raising and Sensitisation of Stakeholders..........................................................29
Step 3: Detailed Catchment Problem Analysis........................................................................................ 32
Step 4: Detailed Catchment Stakeholder Analysis................................................................................. 37
Step 5: Targets, Monitoring and Regulation............................................................................................ 40
Step 6: Identification of Control Measures............................................................................................... 42
Step 7: Preparation and Financing of Water Source Protection Plan.............................................45
Step 8: Implementation, Review and Updating...................................................................................... 54
General Annexes...................................................................................................................................................... 61
ANNEX A: Relevant Ugandan Policy, Legislation and Regulations..................................................61
ANNEX B: Further Information...................................................................................................................... 61
3
ANNEX C: Ugandan Standards...................................................................................................................... 63
List of Tables
Table 1: Over-arching objectives for Water Source Protection.............................................................14
Table 3: T/P/WS – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Over-Abstraction by
Pumping Station Town ‘B’................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 4: T/P/WS – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Industrial Discharge............21
Table 5: Sources of Ugandan Environment Data........................................................................................ 32
Table 6: Hazard Types........................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 7: T/P/WS Table – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Soil Erosion................36
Table 8: Stakeholder Analysis Template......................................................................................................... 37
Table 9: Livelihood Analysis Template............................................................................................................ 39
Table 10: Example of Target Monitoring: River Flows............................................................................... 41
Table 11: Example of Target Monitoring: Water Rationing in Kumbo................................................41
Table 12: Example Targets for Town ‘A’ Water Source............................................................................. 41
Table 13: T/P/WS Table – Example: Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Urban
Runoff.......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 14: Example Roles and Responsibilities Chart................................................................................. 45
Table 15: WSPP Financial Plan........................................................................................................................... 48
Table 16: PART A - Water Source Description Summary.........................................................................51
Table 17: PART B - Aims, Objectives, Targets and Monitoring Summary.........................................52
Table 18: PART C - Risks and Control Measures Summary.....................................................................52
Table 19: PART D - Action Plan Summary..................................................................................................... 52
Table 20: PART E – Financial Plan Summary................................................................................................. 53
Table 21 - Protection Zones............................................................................................................................... 55
List of Figures
Figure 1: Audiences for Guidelines................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Water Cycle............................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4: A catchment area................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 5: Threat-Pathway-Water Source model elements......................................................................19
Figure 6: Example of the Threat – Pathway – Water Source Map.........................................................20
Figure 7: Water Source Protection Guideline Structure........................................................................... 22
Figure 8: Hierarchy of Water Management and Protection Plans........................................................24
Figure 9: Steps in Water Safety Planning to protect water quality......................................................25
Figure 10: Example of a Water Source Catchment Map..........................................................................35
Figure 11: Stakeholder Map................................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 12: Celebrating the opening of a protected spring.....................................................................54
4
Acronyms
CBO Community Based Organisation
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
DEA Directorate of Environmental Affairs
DIM District Implementation Manual
DWD Directorate of Water Development
DWO District Water Officers
DWRM Directorate of Water Resource Management
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
FSSD Forestry Sector Support Department
iNGO International Non Governmental Organisation
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
JAF Joint Assessment Framework
JSR Joint Sector Review
MoAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MoEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development
MoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
MoLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
MWE Ministry of Water & Environment
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
NFA National Forest Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NWSC National Water and Sewerage Corporation
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
T/P/WS Threat-Pathway-Water Source model
TSU Technical Support Unit
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority
WMZ Water Management Zones
WRM Water Resources Management
WSDF Water and Sanitation Development Facility
WSPC Water Source Protection Committee
WSPP Water Source Protection Plan
Glossary
Abstraction Taking water from the environment, generally by motorised or
manual pumping from a well, borehole, lake, river or spring.
Aquifer Any body of water-bearing rock that is highly porous and
permeable to water from which water can be taken, often from
natural springs or from artificially drilled or dug wells or
boreholes.
5
Catchment/ A drainage basin or area of land from which surface water

Watershed / River drains to a single exit point (usually a point on a river or the
Basin estuary where a river enters the sea). Where there is
groundwater, the movement of water is generally more
complex because groundwater drainage does not always follow
the same pattern as the overlying topography.In this report
‘Catchment’ is used by preference but some the literature
refers to ‘watersheds’ or ‘river basins’, which usually have the
same meaning.
Control Measure Actions that can be taken to protect a Water Source.
Hazard The nature of problem arising from the Threat that can harm
the Water Source.
Pathway The physical route through the environment by which a Threat
affects a Water Source. For example, a fuel spillage from a
petrol filling station could affect a Water Source through
groundwater flow or a surface watercourse.
Piped Water Supply A water supply system where a motorised pump is used to
abstract water and supply to the end water system through a
pressurised pipe network.
Risk The likelihood, or probability, of a Hazard having an adverse
impact on a Water Source.
Threat An activity, process, built structure or natural feature that
presents a potential threat to water quality, water quantity or
reliability of water in the environment which is subsequently
used by a Water Source. For example, a Petrol Filling Station is
a Threat because if petrol or diesel gets into public water
supply it will cause health problems.
Water Source For the purpose of these guidelines, a Water Source is a
geographical point, or piece of infrastructure, where water is
taken from the environment and used for a specific socio-
economic purpose, such as water supply, agriculture or
hydroelectricity generation.
Water The organisation responsible for operating and maintaining the
Infrastructure Water Source infrastructure and service, for example, National
Operator Water & Sewerage Corporation is the Water Infrastructure
Operator for the Gaba water works, which is the Water Source
for Kampala’s piped water network.
End Water Users The people who benefit from the Water Source through supply
of drinking water, water for agriculture and livelihoods, water
for fisheries, or water for energy production.
6
Acknowledgement
Producing this document was only possible thanks to the leadership of Dr Callist
Tindimugaya, and the input and guidance from a number of people and organisations
who took part in the consultation process:
Name Organisation Meeting Date(s)
Grace Katuramu Danida 07.03.12, 18.06.12
Pamela Nyamutoka International Institute for 18.06.12, 21.06.12
Rural Reconstruction
Victor Igbokwe International Institute for 21.06.12
Rural Reconstruction
Jane Nabunnya IRC – Triple S Project 07.03.12, 19.06.12
Barbara Nakangu Bugembe IUCN 02.05.12
James Baanabe Ministry of Energy and 22.06.12
Mineral Development
David Cheptoek MWE – DWRM 03.05.12
Dr Callist Tindimugaya MWE – DWRM 01.05.12,
04.05.12, 18.06.12, 21.06.12
Edward Martin Rwarinda MWE – DWRM 03.05.12
Florence Adongo MWE – DWRM 03.05.12
Gwendolyn Kyoburungi MWE – DWRM 03.05.12
Jacob Otim MWE – DWRM 03.05.12
Jeremy Notley MWE – DWRM 18.06.12, 20.06.12
Eng. Aaron Kabirizi MWE – Rural Water 20.06.12
Eng. Christopher MWE – Rural Water 22.06.12
Tumusiime
Eng. Ian Arebahona MWE – Rural Water 07.03.12, 20.06.12, 20.06.12
Helen Mwsae MWE – TSU5 07.03.12
Eng. Christopher Azuba MWE – Urban Water 22.06.12
Eng. Gilbert Kimanzi MWE – Water for Production 22.06.12
Paul Nuwagira MWE – Water for Production 04.05.12
Isaac Mugume National Forestry Authority 19.06.12
Julius Anku National Forestry Authority 19.06.12
Paul Buyerah National Forestry Authority 19.06.12
Richard Waiswa National Forestry Authority 19.06.12
Tom Rukundo National Forestry Authority 19.06.12
Christopher Kanyesigye National Water and Sewerage 02.05.12, 18.06.12
Corporation
Dr Adolf Spitzer National Water and Sewerage 21.06.12
Corporation
Waiswa Arnold NEMA 22.06.12
Berina Uwimbabazi The World Bank 18.06.12, 21.06.12
Sam Mutono The World Bank 07.03.12, 18.06.12
Clarissa Mulders WE Consult 21.06.12
7
Introduction
This volume presents the draft Framework for Water Source Protection Guidelines,
this is then applied in four further volumes that give specific guidance for the
following types of water infrastructure:
 Vol. 2: Piped water supplies (groundwater, surface water abstraction from
lakes, rivers and reservoirs, gravity flow piped schemes from springs)
 Vol. 3: Point water supplies (point source abstractions from wells, boreholes,
springs and surface water, generally in rural and per-urban areas)
 Vol. 4: Multipurpose reservoirs and valley tanks (surface water impoundments

and abstraction from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, surface runoff)
 Vol. 5: Hydroelectric Power Plants (hydroelectric dams, run-of-river

hydroelectric power stations)
The four volumes (2-5) of specific guidance are intended for water infrastructure
managers and District Officers and are intentionally concise to encourage their uptake
and use. However, some users may want, or need, a deeper insight into the water
source protection process. Hence, the purpose of this Framework volume is to
present a systematic guide to producing a Water Source Protection Plan for any type
of water source.
Throughout this document, the process is illustrated using a hypothetical example of

a piped water system for a town operated by the National Water and Sewerage
Corporation (NWSC). Please note that all figures and allocated responsibilities are
for illustrative purposes only.

In Uganda, increasing population density and demand for land has led to widespread
clearing of forested areas and wetlands which act as stores of water and perform
water purification functions. The resulting farm bush landscape is poorly capable of
retaining water, resulting in quick water runoff, soil erosion and water shortages. Even
though Uganda lies in one of the wettest places on earth with an average rainfall of
8
1200 mm per year, water shortages in the dry season are now very common.
Protection of water catchment areas, the areas that drain into the water source, is
therefore crucial to retain water and to ensure sufficient water supply throughout the
year.
In general, there is widespread, and increasing, activity that is potentially harmful to
Uganda’s water environment and the water supply systems that depend on. This
appears to be a combination of increasing population with little or no access to
improved sanitation, and problems caused by inappropriate farming and forestry
practices, and poor quality discharges from industry.
Protection of water catchments in many countries especially those densely populated
is no longer an option but a requirement. Compromised or degraded water
catchments mean that societies that depend on them have either limited access to a
sustainable source of water or consume contaminated water. Agencies responsible for
the provision of drinking water to such communities often resort to expensive water
abstraction technologies or complex treatment processes to render the water safe but
such treatment comes at great cost to the societies and consumers of the water. In
addition, water catchment protection can save money through lower costs for
medication for water borne diseases and less sickness in the working population.
The conventional approach to ensuring high quality water in public water supply
systems is the construction and use of water treatment facilities at the point of
abstraction. While this is generally effective, there is a capital and ongoing cost
associated with these systems therefore it is in the interests of the water utility (and
end water user) that quality of water being pumped from the environment is the best
possible. The dirtier the water, the more intensive (and expensive) the water
treatment that is needed to get the water to an acceptable potable quality. Even then,
there may still be residual problems with micro-pollutants that are difficult to remove
effectively.
Water treatment systems are designed to handle incoming water quality within
defined parameters. If there is a trend of water quality decline then this can reduce
the lifetime of infrastructure or increase the need for further capital expenditure on
further water treatment, such as micro-filtration.
The quantity of water available for human use is affected by a number of complex
factors, both natural and manmade. Specifically, feedback from stakeholders suggests
that soil erosion due deforestation and unsuitable farming practices is a widespread
problem, which reduces the ability of a catchment to store water and buffer river
flows, spring discharges and groundwater levels between wet and dry seasons.
A conventional engineering approach would be to move the abstraction point, or drill
a deeper borehole, to maintain or increase the water yield. However, in some cases
this option may not be financially, legally or technically viable.
9
There are many complex factors that may, or may not, influence the quality of water
abstracted from a borehole, or from a river or lake. It is not possible to engineer the
same level of centralised control on environmental water quality as it is with a water
treatment facility. However, improving environmental water quality has multiple
benefits for all water users in a given catchment. It is therefore in the interests of all
stakeholders including domestic water consumers, farmers, fishermen, foresters and
industries to have a high quality, unpolluted water environment. However, if
responsibilities, actions, regulation and financing are unclear then general decline is
likely to continue.
MWE, and its development partners, aim to ensure that planned water-using and
water-related projects are sustainable by protecting the quality and quantity of water
they use. Protecting the water sources for new, and existing water supplies, is an
increasingly urgent priority.
Case studies of water source degradation

Box 1: Kampala Water Supply at Gaba Water Works
Location Lake Victoria: Kampala/Inner Murchison Bay
Map
Lake Victoria Basin
Commission (2007)
Hotspot: Kampala
and Inner Murchison
Bay
Reported Water quality is one of the main problems being experienced by the lake and the figure below
Problems shows that Kampala is the biggest urban contributors of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),
which is often caused by untreated, or partially treated, sewage. The figure also shows that
Entebbe, Jinja and Masaka also make a significant contribution to the problem relative to
urban areas to other countries.
10
Lake Victoria Basin Commission (2007)

The high nutrient loads from urban and rural runoff have been blamed for algal blooms that
have increased treatment costs, clogged intakes and caused fish kills.
Other pollutants are also a problem: organic/petrochemicals, heavy metals and others which
are potentially harmful to health.
Water hyacinth (an invasive non-native species) has spread prolifically around the lake shore.
Soil erosion is also leading to siltation in some parts of the lake, for example the mouth of the
Kagara River.
Reported There are numerous sources of pollution all around the lake, but the Inner Murchison Bay area
Causes of around Kampala is particularly vulnerable because of the enclosed nature of the lake at that
the point, which has limited water circulation, and the proximity of many sources of pollution 1:
 untreated, or inadequately treated, sewage and wastewater discharges;
Problems
 untreated industrial and commercial discharges;
 storm runoff from the urban area which is not well maintained and where there is
inadequate solid waste collection and management;
The quality Lake Victoria is declining due to numerous point source and diffuse discharges. The
one identified by most commonly by stakeholders are leached chemicals and nutrients from
flower farms on, or near, the lake shore. There are also discharges from factories, abattoirs and
tanneries.
The problems have been amplified because of wetland loss and encroachment: the natural
wetlands on the lake edge have acted a natural filter than helps to remove nutrients, and other
contaminants, from the water2.
Water Many water users are affected by these problems. The most well defined impact is on the Gaba
Sources NWSC Water Works, which supplies the Kampala piped water system. Treatment costs have
Affected reportedly tripled between 2007 and 2010 from an estimate of US$0.3 per cubic meter of water
in 2007 to about US$0.9 per cubic meter.
The poor water quality also leads, paradoxically, to water scarcity for lakeside communities who
are often very poor and cannot afford sufficient water treatment, or are forced to use large
quantities of fuel wood to boil water.
Cost estimates for the problems caused include3:
 The cost of different macrophyte control measures are manual cutting (mean US$ 54 ha/year),
mechanical removal (mean US$189 ha/year), herbicide application (mean US$ 110 ha/year) and
combinations (US$ 45 ha/year)
1
C. Kanyesigye (NWSC), Pers. Comms. 02.05.2012
2
B. Nakangu (IUCN), Pers. Comms. 02.05.2012
3
p. 50 - LAKE VICTORIA BASIN COMMISSION (2007) Regional Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis Of The Lake Victoria
Basin, East African Community, March 2007
11

 Maintain a clear passage for ships to dock at Port Bell in Uganda: US$ 3-5 million p.a;
 ii) Cleaning intake screens at the Owen Falls (Nulubaale) hydroelectric plant at Jinja in Uganda: US$ 1
million p.a.;
 Losses in local fisheries from accumulation of water hyacinth at fishing beaches and landing sites around
the Lake making it difficult or impossible for fishing boats to be launched or recovered: US$ 0.2 million
p.a. but with a very serious local impact;”
Water The NWSC Gaba Water Works is the highest priority water source because it supplies drinking
Source water to Kampala. Improving the water quality arriving at the intake will require action a
Protection Catchment Plan level and through Transboundary partnerships. A Water Source Protection Plan
for Gaba should focus on working with stakeholders in Inner Murchison Bay area, in particular
Kampala City Council, industries discharging into the Nakivubo Channel, NWSC wastewater
treatment works, NEMA, DWRM, DWD, and stakeholders living and working by the lake shore
or encroaching on the wetlands around the Inner Murchison Bay.
12
Box 2: River Mpanga (Hydroelectric Power Plant, Fort Portal and Kamwenge Water Supplies)
Location River Mpanga
Map/Photo
Marfanga, H. (2011)
Reported The River Mpanga, in South West Uganda, originates upstream from Kibale National Park
Problems and flows through a cleft over the 50m Mpanga falls. The river then flows gently along the
boundary of Queen Elizabeth National Park into Lake George Ramsar site. However it has
been reported that river flows have ‘reduced significantly in the last ten years’.
Reported It is thought that the reasons include: deforestation of the mountain slopes, replacement
Causes of the with indigenous tree species with Eucalyptus (which has a very high water uptake),
Problems wetlands degradation, soil erosion and mining of sand and stones from the river banks.
There are also reported problems with pollution from riparian settlements.
Water Sources Fort Portal and Kamwenge water supplies are being affected by the declining yield.
Affected In 2011, an 18MW hydroelectric power plant was commissioned 4, but it is not able to
produce full electricity potential due to erratic river flows.
Water Source A water source protection plan should focus on the land management activities that
Protection leading to soil erosion and loss of water storage in the catchment. Soil water retention is
vital to ensure steady river flows throughout the year for the piped water supplies and the
hydroelectric power generation.
4
Daily Monitor (2011) Mpanga hydro power plant commissioned (http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Technology/-/688612/1106832/-/9huacbz/-/index.html accessed
01.03.2012)
13
Box 3: Mbarara Water Supply (River Ruizi)

Location River Ruizi/Rwizi
Reported The catchment of the River Rwizi the agricultural practices are unsustainable and there are
Problems siltation problems, wetland encroachment and wetland reclamation. One result is low flows in
the river, which affects downstream town abstractions. Lake Wamala
Lake levels in Lake Wamala appear to have fallen over a ten year period between 2001 and
2010. The River Kibimba, which is an outflow from the lake has also declined, to an extent that
after 2006 measurements show little or no flow5.
Reported Falling water levels in the River Rwizi/Ruizi have been attributed to:
Causes of  Agricultural and livestock encroachment into the wetlands
the  Possible decline in rainfall in the catchment over the last 10 years 6;
 Illegal structures in the water courses7.
Problems
 Problems caused by riverbed sand extraction and poor farming practices that are
leading to soil erosion, siltation and water quality problems. 8,9,10
 There are also concerns about the impact of the piloting of the irrigated banana
plantations11.
 There are lot of cattle farms and increasing use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers.
Water In Mbarara town, in South West Uganda, there are not many alternative water sources in the
Sources dry season. There are problems with both the quantity and quality of water available for
Affected abstraction, which is causing frequent water shortages in the dry season.
This river is a source of water for domestic, industrial and agricultural activities for Mbarara
municipality and its environs but there are water quality problems due to poor waste
management, proliferation of motor garages, washing bays, hotels, hospitals, schools and
industrial setups12.
Water The catchment appears to affected by the variety of activities which will have varying affects on
Source the water available for Mbarara town, and other drinking water supplies in the area. Producing
Protection a Water Source Protection Plan for this area would probably require detailed field work to
establish cause-and-effect relationships, and thorough stakeholder engagement to produce an
action plan.
5
MWE-DWRM (2011) “The Declining Trends Of Water Resources In Uganda; A Case study of River Rwizi, Lake Wamala, Lake Victoria Catchments”, Water Resources
Monitoring & Assessment Division, Department of Monitoring and Assessment, DWRM, March 2011.
6
Section 3.1, MWE-DWRM (2011) “The Declining Trends Of Water Resources In Uganda; A Case study of River Rwizi, Lake Wamala, Lake Victoria Catchments”, Water
Resources Monitoring & Assessment Division, Department of Monitoring and Assessment, DWRM, March 2011.
7
NEMA spokesman reported in http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/18/728615
8
SSENGENDO, A. (2010) River Rwizi drying up, New Vision Daily, Aug 12, 2010 (http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/18/728615 accessed 01.03.2012)
9
MUKOMBOZI R (2011) Uganda: Thousands At Risk As River Rwizi Shrinks, The Monitor, Aug 8, 2011 (http://allafrica.com/stories/201108082101.html
accessed 01.03.2012)
10
NTV (2011) Eco Talk – River Rwizi (http://youtu.be/uWsBmhY2qac accessed 01.03.2012)
11
MWE-DWRM/COWI (2010)
12
Kaburuku, (undated) Characterisation Of Water Quality Of River Rwizi (Mbarara Municipality) Using Biological Indicators, Department of
Environmental Management, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Makerere University
14
What are the guidelines for?

These Water Source Protection Guidelines should help the user identify the risk to
their water source and to engage the people and organisations responsible for the
problem in a positive way that lead to a mutually beneficial outcome.
Quite often, the activity or practice that is causing pollution, or is disrupting natural
water flows, is harmful to a wide range of stakeholders. These guidelines help the user
bring those stakeholders together to identify feasible solutions and agree on a Water
Source Protection Plan to achieve them.
While each plan will set its own specific aims, they should work towards the general
aims and objectives set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Over-arching objectives for Water Source Protection
Aim Objectives
1. Improved Water 1.1. Health: Minimise the risk to human and livestock health
Quality
1.2 Equipment: Minimise risk of damage to pumps and water
services equipment (e.g. through corrosion)
2. Reliable Water 2.1 Yield: Ensure adequate yield to meet water supply demand
Quantity
2.2. Reliability: Minimise seasonal disruption or halt long term
declines in water flows/levels
3. Better 3.1 Sustainable Land Management: Increase level and reliability of
Livelihood household income from better farming and forestry practices.
Opportunities
3.2 Poverty Reduction: Develop new sources of income and socio-
economic security through better catchment management.
Who are the guidelines for?

The guidelines are intended to provide practical, step-by-step guidance for project
managers, consultants, and technical staff who are responsible for ensuring that their
water infrastructure is properly planned, designed and maintained. In most cases
these guidelines will be used when preparing a design for a new scheme, or an
upgrade to an existing one. However, a Water Infrastructure Operator may be called
upon to use these Water Source Protection guidelines to help address problems with
an existing installation.
District Officers are likely to play an active role in supporting and monitoring the use
water source protection.
15
Figure 1: Audiences for Guidelines
Roles within Water Source Protection

These guidelines have been made for different stakeholders ranging from regulators,
water users, to project managers. The five main groups of user of these guidelines are
as follows:
 Water Infrastructure Operator
 Water Users
 Catchment stakeholders
 Government monitoring and regulation organisations – in particular the
District Water Officer and District Environment Team.
 Public, Private and NGO sector specialists and support organisations.
The roles they play include the following:
16
Water Infrastructure Operator

The main user of this guidance will be the owner or operator of the Water Source. It is
in their direct interest to lead the process because it is primarily for their benefit. They
will need to understand and go through each step of the process to achieve the
outcome they are after for their water supply, reservoir or hydroelectric power plant.
Before the use of Water Source Protection, the Water Infrastructure Operator would
use the resources at their direct disposal to protect their Source and provide a good
service. For example, NWSC installs water treatment systems to ensure that the quality
of the water they provide to customers meet the necessary legal standards and
guidelines. However, the quality and quantity of water in the environment from which
the water is taken is declining so rapidly in many areas that it is no longer possible or
cost effective to act alone. These guidelines are intended to help the Operator reach
out to other stakeholders and build working partnerships.
Stakeholder Engagement & Planning

The heart of the Water Source Protection process is the resolution of conflict between
different groups, organisations and individuals whose activities depend on and affect
the quantity and quality of water in a river catchment or aquifer.
The Water Infrastructure Operator will need to build trust and work in partnership
with a range of individuals, groups and organisations in their catchment. In part, this
will come about through them understanding the Water Source Protection process
and understanding how to engage with it. The aim is for these groups to work
together to overcome conflicts and help the Water Infrastructure Operator produce a
plan that is to everyone’s mutual benefit.
Technical Design & Implementation

Protecting the water sources from threats, such as pollution, siltation and low water
flows is likely to require interventions that will need technical and financial planning.
These guidelines should help those responsible for designing and costing Water
Source Protection Plans. Engineers using these guidelines should be able to put
forward viable Control Measures options that stakeholders can understand, discuss
and make decisions on.
Monitoring & Regulation

Water Source Protection works within the Ugandan national policy and legislative
framework. It will also need to work within the framework of broader Catchment
Planning that is being developed. In some cases, Permits or other legal permissions
will be needed, in others a statutory process will need to be followed to establish legal
‘Protection Areas’ for the water source catchment. To do this successfully will require
17
the input and oversight from various departments, in particular NEMA and the
directorates of the Ministry of Water and Environment, however, it is anticipated that
it should be the District water and environment officers that take the lead and have
primary authority.
Where a catchment extends across more than one district, the district teams should
co-ordinate and work together, either through the Water Source Protection
Committee, or another suitable forum.
Support, Funding, Capacity Building

Delivering effective Source Protection will be a complex process that in many cases
will require a mix of engineering solutions, training and behaviour change. To do this
successfully, the stakeholders in the catchment are likely to need external support in
terms of access to funding, training and technical advice on issues like sanitation
improvement, improved agricultural skills and practices. This support may come from
relevant government departments, international development partners and NGOs.
These guidelines will help those groups plan their support and capacity building with
local stakeholders to get the best results.
Conceptual Model: Threat – Pathway – Water Source

Water Sources, such as pumping stations, reservoirs and hydroelectric power plants
use natural resources and are therefore vulnerable to changes in the environment,
and in particular the Water Cycle (Figure 2) which deposits fresh water on the land, in
the form of rain, which then flows over the surface of the land or through soil and
rock in the ground.
18
Figure 2: Water Cycle
A catchment is an area of land that drains to a specific point (Figure 3). For our
purposes, we are interested in the area of land that drains water to a pumping station,
a reservoir or a hydroelectric power plant.
Figure 3: A catchment area
The quantity and quality of water reaching the Water Source will vary over time
according to many natural and human factors. In trying to protect our Source, we
must use an analytical model to establish links between cause and effect. For example,
to show a Water Source can be affected by how farmers are managing the land
upstream.
19
To do this a ‘Threat-Pathway-Source’ model has been adapted from good practice

used in other countries. The parts of the model are summarised in the figure below.
Figure 4: Threat-Pathway-Water Source model elements
Figure 5 shows a diagram of a fictional example catchment area. The catchment area
is defined by the broken red line; this is our area of interest when looking for activities
that could be harming our Water Source, in this case a pumping station supplying a
small town piped water system.
Four threats have been identified: an industrial pollution source; soil erosion all
around the catchment; the urban runoff from the town itself; and a major pumping
station for another town, which is taking water out of the catchment.
These Threats affect the Water Source through one or more Pathways. For example,
the Industrial Pollution Point Source discharges toxic chemicals into a stream, the
20
stream flows into the lake and our Pumping Station takes water from the Lake to treat
and sell to customers in the Town.
In this way, because the industry is not paying for the machinery to treat its own
discharges, that treatment cost is being passed to the residents of the downstream
Town, plus all the environmental and human health damage that the industrial
discharge will be doing to other water users in the catchment.
Figure 5: Example of the Threat – Pathway – Water Source Map
Commonly, it is most cost effective solution for society as a whole is to neutralise a

problem as close to the source as possible. This may involve banning particular
chemicals, such as DDT, which are a known pollution hazard. However, some common
liquid wastes, such as sewage, cannot be prevented and in these cases, treating them
before they enter the environment is generally preferable, and sustainable, than trying
to protect every potential water source (i.e. pumping station and handpump)
individually.
The tables below show examples of using the Threat-Pathway-Water Source model
from our fictional case study. The Control Measures are ideas of what to do to reduce
the risk to the Water Source and the End Water User. However, not all these ideas will
be effective, affordable or be compatible with the needs of other stakeholders in the
catchment. That is why stakeholder engagement is central to the Water Source
Protection process.
21
Table 2: T/P/WS – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Over-Abstraction by Pumping
Station Town ‘B’
Stage Hazard/Risk Control Measure (options)
1. Threat (Hazardous Activity) High rates of pumping from a riverside  Reduce pumping rates, particularly at
and release pumping station to supply Town ‘B’ and vulnerable times of year or during drought.
other water users, not much of the  Provide Town ‘B’ with an alternative water
water is returning to the nearby river or source.
Lake ‘C’.
2. Pathway (Water flowing in The Town ‘B’ abstraction is reducing the  Measure river flows and lake levels. If they
the environment – rivers, lakes, flow of water from a nearby river fall below an agreed threshold, then
reservoirs, groundwater, soil, entering Lake ‘C’. Lake levels are pumping should reduce or stop until the
surface runoff) dropping, particular in dry years. water flows recover.
3a. Water Source: Water The lake levels drop below the pumping  Re-build pumping station so that it can take
Infrastructure station intake level. water from Lake ‘C’ when levels are lower.
 Relocate, or build a new pumping station at
another location that is less vulnerable.
3b. Water Source: Impact on Water rationing is imposed  Implement water rationing to ensure fair
End Water User distribution of limited water supplies.
 Find alternative water sources for water
users.
 Reduce water demand by increasing water
efficiency.
Table 3: T/P/WS – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Industrial Discharge
1. Threat (Hazardous An industrial plant is discharging  Factory finds an alternative industrial
Activity) and release untreated liquid waste into a river process that doesn’t produce the harmful
upstream from the Water Source. waste.
 Factory treats waste before discharging into
the environment;
 Factory finds a less sensitive discharge
point.
2. Pathway (Water flowing in Pollutants from the factory travel in the  Measure river and lake water quality. If they
the environment – rivers, lakes, river water and into Lake ‘C’. There is a fall below an agreed threshold, then
reservoirs, groundwater, soil, chance that they can be abstracted by pumping should reduce or stop until the
surface runoff) our Water Source. water flows recover.
3a. Water Source: Water Declining water quality in the lake  Pollution alarm system: if the factory
Infrastructure increases the amount of treatment accidently spills chemicals into the river,
needed to provide good quality water. then they call the downstream abstractors
Hard-to-treat pollutants will increase to warn them. The Water Source can then
water treatment costs. increase water quality monitoring to take
action if the pollution plume reaches them.
 Relocate, or build a new pumping station at
3b. Water Source: Impact on Some pollutants may still get through  Inform local doctors/health professionals to
End Water User and even in low concentrations may look out for symptoms that may be related
cause health problems after a long to particular pollutants (e.g. those that
period. cause cancer or birth defects) and insist
they keep good records that could be used
as evidence later.
22
Guidelines Process and Outputs

These guidelines are intended to be used to create a ‘Water Source Protection Plan’
(WSPP). This plan will be an agreed statement of objectives, actions, funding and
other commitments between all the relevant stakeholders. Figure 6 shows the steps
of the process that will produce a WSPP. Each step is described in the next section.
Emphasis throughout is not just on finding technical solutions but also bring
stakeholders together to agree a common plan of action. Wherever possible the
emphasis is on finding ‘win-win’ situations that improve the livelihoods of everyone in
the catchment. For example, many the of the problems reported have been caused by
poor farming practices and deforestation that in turn cause soil erosion and siltation
problems. Not only are such practices damaging to the water environment (and water
services) but also to the livelihoods of foresters and farmers – loss of soil means loss
of fertility which leads to declining yields. Better land management can boost
productivity and rural incomes, while reducing the impact on the aquatic
environment.
Figure 6: Water Source Protection Guideline Structure
23
Water Source Protection in relation to other plans and processes
The District Implementation Manual (DIM)

Protection of small, point sources (such as handpump boreholes and spring
catchment) is also important for protecting the health and livelihoods of a large
proportion of the population in Uganda, particularly in rural areas.
Guidance for protecting these sources should be included in the District
Implementation Manual (DIM), which is currently being revised. The current main
report of the DIM (2007) makes no mention of water quantity or problems relating to
soil erosion, siltation, landslide, or invasive species (e.g. water hyacinth). There is also
nothing related to small dams, reservoirs or small-hydroelectric power plants.
Water source protection needs to be given great prominence, particularly in the main
manual. While there is more detail in Annex 9.1 on protecting the different types of
water sources this is not reflected in the main report and could be overlooked by
someone using it.
There is also a need to get more consistency in the recommended minimum
distances, and give advice on what to do if it is not possible to achieve them. The
exact distance is not that important, because in reality the movement of contaminants
will depend on a large range of factors which would be to complex and expensive to
measure and model. However, guidance messages need to be consistent to avoid
confusion.
The emphasis of the DIM guidance is on protecting the water quality of sources with
little mention of quantity. There should also be a section on good land management,
and why protecting soils, wetlands and forests is good for livelihoods and good of
improved water supplies.
During 2012 the DIM is being reviewed and revised and Volume 3 on Point Water
Sources is intended to be complement and reinforce the new edition.
Catchment Management Planning

A Water Source Protection Plan (WSPP) is an agreed plan between the Water
Infrastructure Operator and stakeholders what actions need to be taken and who has
responsibility for funding, implementation, monitoring and regulations. In most cases,
these will sit underneath, and contribute to higher level catchment plans (see Figure
7). It is also likely that some WSPPs will become nested within other similar plans, for
example, where one town abstraction point is downstream of another town’s
abstraction.
An important role of the catchment plans, which will not be covered in the WSPPs, is
development control of new activities or structures that could affect the water quality
24
or water resources of a catchment. For example, if a major new factory is proposed

upstream of a water supply point, it will be for catchment management committee to
examine. However, it is likely that the body responsible for that water supply point
would want to be part of the dialogue on whether they would be impacted by this
new activity. If the new activity is given the go-ahead, it may be necessary to update
the WSPPs that are impacted and set up new agreements between stakeholders.
Figure 7: Hierarchy of Water Management and Protection Plans
Note that Water Management Zones were established in 2011 and at the time of
writing work was on-going to develop guidelines for producing Catchment Plans.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

For new schemes, Water Source Protection planning should be done in parallel with
an Environmental Impact Assessment (if required) as both are likely to require similar
skills, data and resources. The additional resources required to undertake water
source protection at the planning, design and EIA stage of a water project will be
much lower than if source protection measures have to be implemented
retrospectively.
The main difference between the two is that EIA assesses the impact of the scheme on
the environment, and Water Source Protection does the reverse: it assesses the
impact of the environment on the scheme.
It is anticipated that future revisions of EIA regulations will incorporate Water
Source Protection Planning as requirement.
Water Permits
Anyone wishing to take water from the environment needs a ‘Water Permit’ from the
Directorate of Water Resource Planning (DWRM). It is proposed that in future DWRM
may request that the applicant prepare a Water Source Protection Plan before
25
permission can be granted. Where a scheme is preparing an EIA (see above) it is only
necessary to do complete the Water Source Protection process once.
DWD Design Manual

It is intended that Water Source Protection will be incorporated into future revisions
of the Directorate of Water Development’s design manual for water schemes so that it
is considered fully during water project development and implementation.
Water Safety Planning

Drinking Water Safety Planning is an internationally recognised process that has the
aim: To consistently ensure the safety and acceptability of a drinking water supply 13.
Water Source Protection forms part of wider approach of Water Safety Planning.
Figure 8 shows the various stages commonly involved in water safety planning which
focuses on ensuring that the quality of the water that reaches the end water user is of
drinking water quality. It looks at each stage of the process from the environment
from which the water is taken, through the water supply infrastructure to the tap
where the end user takes the water.
These guidelines will help water managers protect and improve water quality in first
two stages so that there is an adequate quality and quantity of water reaching the
water abstraction and treatment point.
NWSC already undertake Water Safety Planning and therefore these guidelines are
also intended to help them extend those further to address catchment problems that
affect their sources.
Figure 8: Steps in Water Safety Planning to protect water quality 14
The guidelines also cover other activities, principally protecting reservoirs and dams
from siltation and low flows so that they can perform their functions in providing a
steady flow of water for hydroelectric-power, or a reliable water quality and yield for
agricultural and fisheries use.
13
Bartram J. Corrales L, Davison A. Deere D, Drury D, Gordon B, Howard G, Rinehold A, Stevens M. (2009) Water Safety Plan Manual:
Step-by-step risk management for drinking water supplies. WHO, Geneva
14
taken from “Methods for risk analysis of drinking water systems from source to tap” Techneau (2010)
26
Climate Change
Adapting to more unstable climate is critical to the long term sustainability of
Uganda’s water systems. Water source protection is a complimentary process
because both have the aim of co-ordinating land and water users to improve the
reliability, performance and sustainability. There are number of activities where water
source protection and climate change adaptation (and mitigation) are work together:
» Reduced deforestation and soil erosion/increased forest/vegetation cover and
better soil conservation: protects water sources, reduces risk of landslides and
flooding; water and carbon storage and buffering improved.
» Improved/protected performance of hydroelectric power plants: improves

renewable energy production and reduces demand for fossil fuel energy.
» Wetlands protection and enhancement: Provides water resource benefits,

provides buffering again extreme weather events and provide an important
carbon store.
27
A Framework for Water Source Protection Planning
This section describes the process that the owner or operator of a Water Source, such
as a National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) pumping station, can take to
produce a Water Source Protection Plan (WSPP). This process is a mix of technical
analysis and stakeholder engagement and the timescales involved in implementing
this guidance will largely depend on the size and complexity of the catchment and the
number of stakeholders involved.
These guidelines are generic insomuch as they can be applied to different types of
water infrastructure and activity. The separate volumes use this is generic process as
the basis for more specific guidance for different water infrastructure types.
If these guidelines are being used for a new Water Source, rather than an existing one,
then the time and cost involved in preparing a WSPP should be considered when
choosing a location for a dam, reservoir or abstraction point. Smaller catchments will
generally have fewer risks to assess and manage.
Step 1: Initiation and Preparation

Objective: To identify the problems to be addressed, to set the objectives for the
water source protection and to identify the conditions needed to make water
source protection successful.
Step 1.1 Define the Problem and Objectives

 What is the Water Source that is to be protected?
o What type of Water Source is it?
¨ Water Supply – River Abstraction
¨ Water Supply – Lake/Reservoir Abstraction
¨ Water Supply – Groundwater Abstraction
¨ Water Supply – Spring Abstraction
¨ Multipurpose Reservoir – Online Reservoir
¨ Multipurpose Reservoir – Offline Valley Tank
¨ Hydroelectric – Dam
¨ Hydroelectric – Run of River
28
o Who benefits from its use?

o Who is responsible for owning and running it?
 Why is Water Source Protection needed?
o What are the main problems being experienced by the water source?
o What is likely to happen in the future that may threaten the functionality of
the water source?
o Which stakeholders have identified these problems?
 Is the situation getting worse, better or is it stable?
Step 1.2 Check the water resources policies and strategies for the area
 Is a catchment plan in place? If so, what does it say in relation to this Water
Source or its surrounding area?
 In which Water Management Zone (WMZ) is the Water Source, and what
are the plans and priorities in this area?
See ANNEX A: Relevant Ugandan Policy, Legislation and Regulations for further detail.
Step 1.3 Define the actual, or potential, water source locations

 Where are the water intakes/boreholes/dams used by the Water Source?
Step 1.4 Define the catchment for the Water Source

In most cases the catchment area for the Water Source will be known, but for new
schemes in particular there may be need to map the catchment area so that the right
activities and stakeholders can be included in the water source protection plan.
 Surface water catchments: the topographic land area from which water
drains to reach the abstraction point or dam. This can be done using a
topographic map of the area.
 Groundwater catchments: the aquifer from water is taken and the area of
land where rainfall or surface water recharges the aquifer. For confined aquifers,
the recharge area may be some distance away from Water Source. This can be
done by looking at geological and DWRM water resource maps, but getting
specialist geological advice is strongly recommended.
In some cases, the catchments may be very large (for example the Lake Victoria/Nile
Basin) Then the a decision will need to made whether to:
 Work within the Catchment Management Plan process for that area and not
create a separate Water Source Protection Plan; or
29
 To define a smaller sub-catchment (for example Inner Murchison Bay of Lake

Victoria). The area covered by such a sub-catchment will depend on the nature
of the Threats facing the Water Source: a discharge of toxic chemical waste
could 20 km upstream could have a greater impact on a water supply, than
riverbank encroachment 50 metres away. It therefore needs to be decision
undertaken with the help of technical specialists, and one that may need to be
revisited in later iterations of the catchment analysis (Steps 3 and 4)
As a starting point the following could be followed:
 For river Sources: take into account the land and tributaries that feed into the
river up to 10km upstream of the power station.
 For lake and reservoir Sources: take into account the land area within a 10km
radius of the Source.
This can – and should – be adjusted later as more information becomes available it
become clearer whether the main Threats are close to the Source or a substantial
distance.
Step 1.5 Check activities and composition of Water Management Committees

In many areas, there may be some form of catchment or water user committee that
bring local stakeholders together. It is advisable to use existing structures where
possible rather than establish new ones. However, if working through an existing
structure, be aware that their priorities and geographic coverage may not align with
that of the Water Source, and its owners and users. In most cases it will be necessary
to set up a specific Water Source Protection Committee (WSPC) but there should be
good links with any overlapping water committees so that tension is avoided and co-
operation is forthcoming.
Step 2: Awareness Raising and Sensitisation of Stakeholders

Objective: to involve and inform all stakeholders about the water source
protection and to sensitise all stakeholders about the importance of the activity.
Step 2.1 - Identify stakeholders

Identify individuals and organisations that should be contacted. The aim is to raise
their awareness of the problem to be solved, and why they should care. There are
likely to be several groups:
 Within the catchment of the Water Source:
o Their activities may be harmful to the Water Source;

30
o They may be affected by the same problems that affect the Water
Source;
o They may have little or no involvement or interest in land or water

management;
 Downstream of the Water Source:
o The behaviour or operation of the Water Source may affect them;
o They may be affected by the same problems that affect the Water
Source;
 Not within the same hydrological or hydrogeological area:
o Government agencies and directorates;
o Customers and indirect water users;
o National and International NGOs and Development Partners;
Step 2.2 – Establish a stakeholder Water Source Protection Committee (WSPC)

It is important to get stakeholder engagement early, to establish buy-in to the
process. Later stakeholder analysis (Step 5) may identify other stakeholders who need
to be involved, but this should not hold back on starting the initial meetings and
conversations, as some of that immediate consultation will help uncover further
stakeholders. Starting points for stakeholder consultation can include:
 DWRM staff in Entebbe;
 WMZ and TSU officers from the relevant offices;
 District Water/Environment/Wetlands/Forestry/Natural Resource Officers;
 Civic leadership in District, Sub-counties and Parishes near the Water Source;
 NGOs and CBOs operating the area.
IMPORTANT: While the group should be democratic, it should be made clear

from the start that the owner/operator of the Water Source has ownership of
the process and the eventual Water Source Protection Plan (WSPP) and
therefore has the final say in decisions that affect its own organisation (such as
financial or staffing commitments)
31
Step 2.3 – Organise a sensitisation meeting

A public meeting should be held in a public venue (school hall, community centre or
other public meeting space) that is easily accessible to people from the area
surrounding the Water Source, and held at a time that best suits the majority of
people likely to attend.
In this meeting the idea for water source protection is presented to all stakeholder
and the envisaged protected and protected measures are explained.
IMPORTANT: take care to present it in an open way that isn’t interpreted as
some pre-meditated ‘done deal’ as this can put people on the defensive
immediately and become unhelpful.
The consequences of the water catchment protection activities (better quality of
water, more constant flow, possibly higher prices, and restrictions on land use) should
be clearly presented. All stakeholders should be allowed to freely express their
support, concerns and suggestions to the water catchment protection activities. In
this meeting, problems and conflicts are identified and solutions or other suggestions
are collected in a participatory approach.
If water catchment protection activities make it necessary to include additional people
into the WMC, members can be re-elected or new members added to the WSPC
through democratic voting at this meeting. A draft agenda for this meeting is shown
below:
1. Opening (mayor)
2. Background and goals water catchment protection (president WSCP)
3. Technical aspects (consultant, District Council NRM/Water Officer)
4. Financial aspects (consultant, District Council NRM/Water Officer)
5. Questions and answers
6. Vote on WSCP
7. Closing
The outcome is that the WSCP is strengthened at that awareness of the WSPP process
starts to grow in the local area.
Step 2.4 - Capacity Building and Support

To inform the plan making process it would help to run a series of visits and
workshops with the WSPC, and wider stakeholders, on key aspects that will affect the
plan:
32
 Visit the Water Source (pumping station, reservoir, hydroelectric installation)

and give a tour of its features and the problems caused by upstream
catchment users.
 Visit hotspots around the catchment to show and discuss some of the key
problems that will need to be addressed by the WSPP (e.g. poor solid waste
management, poor drainage and sanitation, deforestation, over-abstraction,
wetland loss, poor farming practices)
 Training on basic concept of hydrology and hydrogeology to raise awareness

of the cause-and-effect links between human activities in the catchment and
problems and costs incurred by the Water Source.
These activities could be done in association with local NGOs and CBOS who are likely
to have useful local knowledge.
Throughout the plan making process, there should be technical support to help the
WSPC tackle some of the challenge, some of which will be technically complex. This
support is likely to come from the WMZ/TSU level, but may involve national level
experts from DWRM and other directorates.
Step 3: Detailed Catchment Problem Analysis

Objective: To fully understand the water and land use challenges and how they
relate the functionality of the water source.
Step 3.1: Collate information about the Water Source

It is important to understand and describe the relevant features and characteristics of
the Water Source that you are trying to protect. This will include details like how much
water is taken from the environment, how is it returned and who uses the water in-
between. Specific information requirements are presented in the separate Guidelines.
Step 3.2: Collate known information about the catchment

As well as collecting information and data about the area immediately around the
Water Source, it is vital to understand the characteristics of the catchment from which
the water is coming to supply it. For all Water Source types this includes:
 Land Area;
 Land Use and Habitats Types and areas;
 Water features: streams, rivers, lakes, artificial canals/drainage channels,
reservoirs, major sewers or pipelines;
33
 Soils, Geology and Aquifers;

 Climatological, Hydrological and Environmental Monitoring Stations, and
data;
 Sanitation coverage data (to get an idea of likely impact from untreated
sewage);
 Planned future activities;
 Registered Water Permits and Waste Discharge Permits (to identity
potentially competing water abstractions and potential point source pollution
sources).
Table 4: Sources of Ugandan Environment Data15
Institution Data Produced
Lands And Surveys Department Topographic Maps
National Forestry Authority Landcover Data, Vegetation Data
Uganda Bureau Of Statistics Socio-Economic
Agriculture Planning Department Crop Data
Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute Soils Data
Meteorology Department Climate Data
Department Of Physical Planning Landuse Data
Makerere University Institute Of Biodiversity Data
Environment And Natural Resources
Ministry Of Health Environmental Health
Directorate Of Water Development Water Quality, Quantity
Ministry Of Energy And Mineral Energy
Development
Wetland Inspections Division Wetlands
NEMA National State Of Environment Reports,
District State Of Environment Reports
Uganda Wildlife Authority Protected Areas
See Annex B2: Sources of Information for Uganda for further detail on where to find
data and information.
Step 3.3: Are there any other Water Sources/Water Source Protection Plan areas
within the catchment?
The Water Source Operator should talk to their local Water Management Zone (WMZ)
office about which problems and issues should be included within their WSPP, and
which should be left alone to be dealt with by Catchment Management Plans.
15
Environmental data and statistics in Uganda, NEMA/UBOS (undated).
(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/UNSD_UNEP_ECA%20Workshop/Uganda.pdf, accessed 07/06/12)
34
If a Catchment Management Plan is already in place, or is in the process of being

prepared or revised, then it should be used as a starting point for analysis and
stakeholder engagement. It could be that some of the problems experienced by the
Water Source have already been analysed and discussed in great depth.
Within the catchment of the Water Source may be another Water Source, such as a
dam or town abstraction, which already has its own Water Source Protection Plan. In
this instance, that plan and the stakeholders involved with it should be included in the
stakeholder engagement.
If the catchment area supplying water to the Water Source crosses an international
boundary then the local WMZ office or DWRM should be contacted. Such issues are
potentially sensitive. Equally, some issues may have already been discussed and
analysed through international organisations such as the Nile Basin Initiative.
Step 3.4: Produce a water balance for the catchment

For new water schemes, it is important to determine whether there is enough water
resource available throughout the year for the Water Source, particularly in very small
catchments.
For existing infrastructure where water shortages are a problem, then a water balance
model can be used to see if the problem is related to changes in rainfall in the
catchment since the scheme was designed.
At its most basic, the following data are needed:
 Monthly rainfall figures (in millimetres, mm);
 Monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET) estimates (in millimetres, mm);
Rainfall (mm/month) – PET (mm/month) = Effective Rainfall (mm/month)
This can be refined further if data is available on existing abstractions and discharges
in the catchment (in cubic metres per month):
This ignores water storage in the catchment so has limited use, and where there is
lake, wetland or highly permeable aquifers make the simple model more complex and
an experienced hydrologist or hydrogeologist should be consulted. However, the
basic water balance should give an estimate of the months in which the Water Source
is likely to be vulnerable to water shortages.
35
If the time, resources and data are available then it can be helpful to develop a
computer software model of the catchment to model water balances, river flows,
sediment transport, or water quality. However, this is generally a highly skilled and
expensive activity to be done by a qualified hydrologist, and will probably only be
done for very large water infrastructure schemes.
If a Catchment Management Plan has been produced for the area then data may have
already collated and analysed to produce some water availability information.
Step 3.5: Identify Threats

Using the list of generic threats (Error: Reference source not found) map the locations
and details of Threats within the catchment area of the Water Source. In deciding
whether an activity is a Threat or not consider whether the activity or site is likely have
one of more the hazards in Table 5
Table 5: Hazard Types
Hazard Type Example contaminants/problems
Quality -  Bacteria.
Biological  Viruses.
 Protozoa.
 Helminths.
Quality -  Nitrate.
Chemical  Arsenic.
 Fluoride.
 Pesticides.
 Other heavy metals.
 Organic toxicants.
 Herbicides.
 Rodenticides.
Quality - Physical  Rubbish and floating debris (plastic bottles, polythene bags.
 Algae and plant material able to cause a blockage.
 Sand, silt, mud and other sediment resulting from soil erosion.
Quality -  Radioactive wastes and by-products from hospitals, industrial, research or military facilities.
Radiological
Quantity – Flow  Reduced river/stream flows.
 Reduced borehole yield.
 Changes to seasonal variability of flows.
Quantity - Level  Reduced lake/reservoir levels.
 Reduced groundwater levels.
 Changes to seasonal variability of lake/reservoir/groundwater levels
Livelihood  Loss of income and nutrition resulting from soil degradation.
 Loss of time, income and education resulting from deforestation and longer trips to collect
fuelwood.
 Loss of time, income and education resulting from water contamination or scarcity leading to
longer trips for domestic water.
Producing a visual representation on a map can help with understanding and

communicating the relationships between the different activities and characteristics of
36
the catchment (Figure 9 shows a diagrammatic example of our hypothetical case

study).
Figure 9: Example of a Water Source Catchment Map
Step 3.6: Identify Pathways

For each Threat, identify one or more pathways through the environment of your
catchment by which the Threat could feasibly affect the Water Source.
If there is no feasible physical link between the Threat and the Water Source, then it
can be discounted from further analysis.
Step 3.7: Socio-Economic Impacts

What impact is catchment degradation having on the local people and the local
economy? Understanding this will help get political and public support for the process
when it is understood that better environmental quality can lead to a healthy
population and stronger economy. It is vital to make the issue relevant to the day to
day lives of ordinary people.
Indicators to look at include:
 Impact on healthcare costs (to families and health services);
 Loss of productive time – due to disruption or poor quality water or
electricity supply;
 Loss of school days – due to illness among pupils or disruption to school
functioning from water or electricity supply disruption;
 Frequency and damage costs of landslides;
37
 Design life of water infrastructure – higher maintenance and replacement

costs due to problems with incoming water.
Compile and summarise the information into a table like the example below. The third
column for Control Measures is left blank for the moment as that comes under Step 6.
Table 6: T/P/WS Table – Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Soil Erosion
1. Threat (Hazardous Deforestation and bad farming
Activity) and release practices are leading to widespread soil
erosion around the catchment.
2. Pathway (Water flowing in Soil, silt and sand is being washed from
the environment – rivers, lakes, the land into streams, rivers and Lake
reservoirs, groundwater, soil, ‘C’
surface runoff)
3a. Water Source: Water Water abstracted has increasing
Infrastructure dissolved solids and suspended solids,
which is increasing treatment costs and
wear of the pumping machinery.
3b. Water Source: Impact on Increasing treatment and maintenance
End Water User cost lead to higher water prices.
Step 4: Detailed Catchment Stakeholder Analysis

Objective: To fully understand the people and organisations that have an
influence on, or are influenced by, the proposed Water Source Protection Plan. To
work out the most likely ways of aligning stakeholder interests to the need of the
WSPP.
Step 4.1 Identify stakeholders

The most critical stakeholders are those:
 Whose interests are most harmed by the current situation, and therefore
are the mostly likely to want, and push for, change;
 Whose activities have been shown, through Step 3, to have the most direct
and likely effect on the Water Source and therefore whose co-operation is most
likely to achieve good results; or
 The most political power or regulatory mandate in the catchment area.
Table is a stakeholder template. It should be updated through the WSPP process
because stakeholder attitudes and roles are likely to change.
Table 7: Stakeholder Analysis Template
Question Answer
1. Stakeholder Name
2. Stakeholder Organisation
38
Question Answer
3. Location
4. Customer/End Water User of the Water Source?  YES
 NO
5. Likely impact of activity in the catchment on the Water  HIGH
Source:  LOW
 UNKNOWN
 NOT APPLICABLE (not in the catchment)
6. Supporter of protecting the Water Source?  YES
 NEUTRAL
 NO
7. Power/Influence in relation to land and water management in  HIGH
the catchment.  LOW
8. Involvement/Interest in relation to protecting the Water  HIGH
Source  LOW
 NONE
Determining the differences between ‘High’ and ‘Low’ is subjective and will be the
result of discussions and looking at stakeholders in relation to each other.
Step 4.2 Map Stakeholders

There are likely to be a large number of stakeholders that will be identified in Step 4.1.
It is important to prioritise attention to those who will have the most influence on the
successful delivery of a WSPP. Figure 10 shows how the answers from Questions 7
and 8 in Table 7: Stakeholder Analysis Template Table 7 can be plotted against each
other to prioritise how closely and often they should be informed or involved in the
decision-making.
Those who fall within the “Manage Closely” should be encouraged to join the
stakeholder group for the WSPP.
39
Figure 10: Stakeholder Map
Step 4.3 Links between poor land and water management, land tenure and
livelihoods
Where a person or organisation is doing an activity that poses a Threat to a
downstream Water Source, it is important to understand why they are behaving in this
way. Two main scenarios can open the door to win-win situations:
 Inefficient practices: soil erosion is often caused by bad land
management. Not only does this cause problems downstream, but it affects the
livelihoods of people responsible by stripping away nutrients and fertility. This
results in lower yields and reduced agricultural incomes. By turning this around,
and implementing better farming and soil management practices, rural
livelihoods can be improved and downstream impacts on Water Sources can be
reduced.
 Externalised Costs: Many treatment and pollution prevent practices are
seen as a cost to companies and therefore often avoided wherever possible.
Polluters will generally only tackle the problem they cause if one or more of the
following come into play:
o It is in their direct commercial interest – i.e. the pollution is directly harming
their own business interests at that site, or other sites.
o Prosecution and the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ if they do not comply with
legal discharge standards and permits. Enforcement of regulation can be
effective but often faces problems and in some cases, the penalties and fines are
lower than taking preventative action and therefore can be an inadequate
incentive.
40
o Reputational risk: poor practices can lead to bad media publicity and
political pressure. If the business is an exporter, it may come under pressure from
multi-national customers who are scrutinising their supply chains as part of
protecting the reputation of their own brands.
o Payment for Watershed Services – the polluter is paid to undertake actions
that will reduce the risk of their activity causing harm, by the water users who will
benefit.
Understanding the land tenure situation in the catchment is critical. The legal status of
land varies throughout Uganda and is complex and political. Poor land management
is often linked to insecure land tenure because farmers are unwilling to invest time,
energy and money into land which they could lose control of at any time.
Table 8 is a template questionnaire for Stakeholder Livelihood Analysis:
Table 8: Livelihood Analysis Template
Question Answer
Stakeholder Name
Stakeholder Organisation
Location
Livelihood/Occupation
Activities that are impacting the

Water Source
Awareness of their impact? AWARE / NOT AWARE
Reasons for continuing with those ¨ Activity generates income

harmful activities ¨ Lack of awareness/training/education on
alternatives
¨ Lack of resources/tools/finance to adopt
better practices
¨ Lack of land tenure security
¨ Not willing to take on activities that incur
additional costs
¨ Cultural/historic reasons
other……
41
Step 4.4 Incentives

Stakeholders are only like to change their behaviour in a way which fits with water
source protection if they are incentivised to do so. The first priority should be to
create ‘win-win’ opportunities, but there will be instances where the person or
organisation taking positive action (or inaction) will not benefit directly. In such cases,
ways should be found provide some form of compensation or social recognition. It is
important to note that stakeholders do not always act out of rational self-interest and
that there are likely to be complex local social, cultural and political issues that will
need to be handled with care.
Step 5: Targets, Monitoring and Regulation

Objective: To establish what monitoring and regulation is relevant and useful to
the successfully establishing and maintaining protection of the water source. To
set targets for success that can be easily and regularly measured.
While issues around targets and regulation need to be considered from the outset,
they can only be looked at once the detailed problem and stakeholder analysis has
been done, otherwise there is likely to be wasted effort looking at issues and
indicators that are not relevant or useful. However, it is important to consider targets,
monitoring and regulation before short-listing Control Measures.
Step 5.1 – Choose Targets, Monitoring and Indicators of Success

The Water Source Protection Committee should choose parameters that should be
routinely measured as indicators of progress. They should be easy to measure and
relate to the objective of the Water Source.
Care should be taken to ensure that where there are indicators that are influenced by
multiple factors, those other factors are also measured. For example, the Table 9 and
Table 10 below show an example from Cameroon where catchment Control Measures
resulted in increased river flows feeding the Water Source, which in turn reduced the
occurrence of water rationing endured by the End Water Users. Rainfall is also
measured to show that the restored river flows are more likely to be due to the
improved catchment management than to changes in rainfall.
Table 9: Example of Target Monitoring: River Flows16
Months 2008 2009 2010 2011

February 10 50 70 150
March 5 20 30 120
Tah, H. M. (2011) Improved Watershed Management – Kumbo Watershed: Experience & Lessons Learned, KivenK
16
development/Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, September 2011

42
April 5 15 15 100
Rainfall (ml[sic]) 2,206 2,460 2,450 -
Units: litres in 20 seconds
Table 10: Example of Target Monitoring: Water Rationing in Kumbo17
Months 2008 2009 2010 2011
February 20 days 20 days - -

March 30 days 30 days 20 days 15 days
April 30 days - 10 days 4 days
Targets always try to be SMART:

Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely.
Targets should relate to the aims and objectives so that there is clear logical path and
it also needs to be clear who will be doing the measurements. Indicators could
include water quality indicators, measured against national standards – such as the
Environmental Water Quality Objectives, being developed by DWRM; or soil erosion
rates, or land use changes, or electricity output. Using existing measured indicators,
such as those used by the annual Sector Performance Report (SPR) is preferable
because there is a greater chance of historical measurements to form a basis for
comparison.
Be aware that collecting data has a cost therefore there needs to be clear funding
support, or use of an existing monitoring system
Table 11: Example Targets for Town ‘A’ Water Source

Aim Objectives Targets/Indicators Monitoring responsibility
1. Improved 1.1. Health: Minimise the 1.1.1 - XX% of drinking 1.1.1. Water Supply operator
Water Quality risk to human and livestock water samples meet (NWSC)
health national and WHO guideline
standards 1.1.2 District Health Officers
1.1.2 – XX deaths/1000
people from water-related
diseases
1.2 Equipment: Minimise 1.2.2 – Pumping station 1.2.1. Water Supply operator
risk of damage to pumps maintenance costs in line (NWSC)
Tah, H. M. (2011) Improved Watershed Management – Kumbo Watershed: Experience & Lessons Learned, KivenK
17
development/Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, September 2011

43
Aim Objectives Targets/Indicators Monitoring responsibility

and water services with expected lifetime costs.
equipment (e.g. through
corrosion)
2. Reliable 2.1 Yield: Ensure adequate 2.1.1 – No. of days with no 2.1.1. Water Supply operator
Water Quantity yield to meet water supply water rationing less <X/year (NWSC)
demand
2.2. Reliability: Minimise 2.2.1 – No. of days with 2.2.1. Water Supply operator
seasonal disruption or halt disrupted/no water supply (NWSC)
long term declines in water <X/year
flows/levels
3. Better 3.1 Sustainable Land 3.1.1 – Increased crop yields 3.1.1 District/Sub-county
Livelihood Management: Increase level due to improve soil Agriculture Office
Opportunities and reliability of household management and fertility
income from better farming
and forestry practices.
3.2 Poverty Reduction: 3.2.1 – Poverty indices 3.2.1 District/Sub-county
Develop new sources of improve Office
income and socio-economic
security through better
catchment management.
Step 5.2 - Regulation: clarify right and responsibilities

An early activity with the Water Source Protection Committee (WSPC) is to clarify legal
rights and responsibilities. This will help inform later debates on what catchment
Control Measures might, and might not, be feasible. Within the scope of the legal
framework it should also be made clear what is practically possible given the resource
constraints faced by government bodies.
Step 6: Identification of Control Measures

Objective: To create a short-list of physical, legal, educational or social actions
that can be undertaken to improve the protection and performance of the Water
Source.
Step 6.1: Short-list catchment Control Measures

Use the generic Control Measures in the Annexes (see Volumes 2-5 for water use
specific options) as a starting point for discussions and analysis on how best to tackle
systematically the problems identified in the previous steps.
The Threat-Pathways-Water Source (T/P/WS) model can help identify Control
Measures, and where they should be used in the catchment. The suitable options
should be listed in the third column of the of the T/P/WS Table.
44
Table 12: T/P/WS Table – Example: Protecting the Water Supply for Town ‘A’ from Urban
Runoff
1. Threat (Hazardous Activity) General urban runoff from rainfall events  Improve solid waste collection and treatment
and release washes away a mix of pollutants, in Town ‘A’
including untreated sewage, soil, fuel  Educate and/or penalise residents and
oils, industrial process chemicals and businesses for dumping waste in ditches and
solid waste. rivers.
 Improve sanitation infrastructure and
education in Town ‘A’.
 Improve pollution prevention measures
installed by high risk businesses (industry,
petrol fuel filling stations).
2. Pathway (Water flowing in The waste material is washed from the  Install trash screens over culverts (and keep
the environment – rivers, lakes, urban area directly into the lake, or via then clear and maintained) to reduce large
reservoirs, groundwater, soil, drainage channels that flow into the lake. solid waste entering the lake.
surface runoff) The aquifer beneath the town is  Implement a Water Protection Zone around
contaminated, which affects nearby wells the pumping station to prevent or control
and boreholes and may seep out into potentially harmful activities.
surface water and affect the town supply,  Gazette and protect any lakeshore wetlands
that may be providing natural pollution
filtration.
3a. Water Source: Water The intake for the pumping station gets  Implement a Water Protection Zone around
Infrastructure blocked by solid waste, causing the pumping station to prevent or control
disruption to the operation. potentially harmful activities.
Declining water quality in the lake  Install trash screens and upgrade water
increases the amount of treatment treatment systems.
needed to provide good quality water.  Relocate, or build a new pumping station at
3b. Water Source: Impact on Water costs go up as water treatment is  Inform water users about why water costs
End Water User increased. If water treatment fails then are going up and link to their own polluting
there is an increased health risk. activities that are contributing to the
problem.
Step 6.2: Identify opportunities for improving livelihoods and reducing poverty
(Win-Win situations)
To build stakeholder confidence in the process it is a good idea to get some positive
results quickly. This is most likely to occur where there is least resistance among
stakeholders. For example, training farmers in soil conservation measures and better
cropping techniques can rapidly reduce soil erosion and improve farmer incomes and
self-esteem.
Confidence builds confidence and should make it easier to negotiate harder
agreements where the direct benefits to the stakeholder responsible for the Threat
are less tangible or immediate.
Step 6.3: Identify Options for Protection Zones

Current Ugandan legislation provides for a range of ‘Protection Zones’ which can
confer levels of regulator protection:
45
 Water Protection Zones (Water Act 1997)
 Protected Forests (National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003)
 Protect Wetlands (National Environment Act 1995, National Environment

(Wetlands; River Banks and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, 2000)).
 Protection zones for river banks (National Environment (Wetlands; River Banks
and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, 2000)).
 Protection zones for lake shores (National Environment (Wetlands; River Banks
and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, 2000).
 Hilly and Mountainous Areas (National Environment Act 1995)
Only Protected Forest Zones have had widespread application and many of these
areas suffer from encroachment and degradation. While these are useful legal tools,
they need legitimacy among the landowners and residents in the catchment, and
surrounding area.
In looking at options for Protect Zones the key questions are how effective they could
be at protecting the Water Source (and wider public interests) and how they would
impact on the livelihoods of those within, or near, the potential zones.
Step 6.4: WSPC Meeting to discuss and short-list Water Source Protection
Control Measures
The Water Source Protection Committee should be meet for a one-day workshop to
short-list Control Measures and take key decisions that will allow the draft Water
Source Proection Plan to be written. An agenda should include the following items:
 An overview of the catchment Threats to the Water Source, why this is
important and who else is affected by the same problems. This may have to
be handled sensitively to keep those causing the Threat on-board with the
process.
 Control Measures should be presented in turn with an opportunity given for
new ideas,
 A workshop activity can be used to look at the advantages and disadvantages
of each in turn. Create a list of the most favourable Control Measures.
 Look at the favoured Control Measures in combination to see how well they
work together, or conflict.
46
 Discuss and agree which stakeholders should be responsible for implementing

each Control Measure, and what they would need (finances, training, technical
support, permits or government support).
Step 7: Preparation and Financing of Water Source Protection Plan

Objective: To produce a Water Source Protection Plan that contains realistic
actions that are allocated to organisations and individuals, supported with an
overall estimate of time and cost.
Step 7.1: Review and update Water Source Protection Objectives

One of the first activities of Water Source Protection is setting the objectives (Step
1.1). These should be revisited by the WSPC to check that they are still valid. Through
the process of analysis and discussion, it could be that previously unthought-of
objectives have become known, or existing ones need a change in their wording.
Step 7.2: Agree roles and responsibilities among stakeholders

Table 13 shows an example of how to set out roles and responsibilities for each
control measure, who is responsible for implementing it and who will provide the
oversight. Also important is the ‘Plan B’ – what should be done if the Control Measure
fails to work or is not implemented quickly? It may be decided that this secondary
measures are worth doing anyway in parallel.
Step 7.3: Agree timeline and milestones

It is important to set commonly agreed goals and timescales so that there is common
understanding of what should be achieved and by when. This links to monitoring and
evaluation and the objectives agreed between stakeholders during the plan making
process.
Table 13: Example Roles and Responsibilities Chart

Water Source: NWSC Abstraction from Lake ‘C’ for Town ‘A’ piped water system
Threat Control Measure Who does To be Who checks Action if the control fails
it? completed it is done? What to do? Who does
by end of: it?
1. Urban Improve solid Town ‘A’ Dec 2013 NEMA Install (or NWSC
Runoff waste collection Council check
from and treatment existing)
Town ‘A’ trash screens
and filters.
Improve NWSC / June 2015 NEMA Increase DEA
sanitation Town ‘A’ protection NWSC
47
by end of: it?
infrastructure and Council and pollution NGOs
education in filtration
Town ‘A’. capacity of
lake shore
wetlands.
Improve pollution Businesses June 2013 Town ‘A’ Take NEMA
prevention in Town ‘A’ Council enforcement
measures action
installed by high against
risk businesses polluters
Implement a NWSC June 2013 MWE Re-examine NWSC
Water Protection incentives
Zone around the and
pumping station awareness
and drainage raising to
channels from encourage
Town ‘A’ to people to
prevent or comply.
control
potentially
harmful activities.
2. Establishing NWSC Dec 2013 DWRM Initiate water NWSC
Pumping monitoring rationing
Station system and plan
for Town thresholds
‘B’
Improve NWSC Dec 2015 Catchment Move NWSC
wastewater Management pumping
infrastructure to Stakeholder station
more return clean Group intake to
water to Lake ‘C’ allow for
lower lake
levels
3. Treat waste Factory Dec 2013 NEMA Warn NWSC Factory
Industrial before discharge operator of pollution operator
Discharge incident
4. Soil Farmer outreach Farming Started by MoAAIF Increase DEA
Erosion education and NGO Jan 2014 protection NWSC
development and pollution NGOs
programme filtration
capacity of
lake shore
wetlands.
48
Step 7.4: Group and bi-lateral meetings to agree financial and in-kind
contributions toward short-listed Control Measures
Financial sustainability of the Water Source Protection Plans will be a critical ongoing
issue. One of the advantages of the process is that the owner/operator of the Water
Source is the clear owner of the WSPP. However, they will have the challenge of
keeping the WSPP partners on-board and contributing to the agreed activities and
targets.
Four types of cost should be considered18, plus a fifth factor: income.
Capital Expenditure (CapEx)

This is the expenditure needed at the beginning of a project to, for example for
building a new structure or setting up a new training programme. This is often
funded from grants from central government allocations, development partners or
NGOs.
Operating Expenditure (OpEx)

This is the cost of keeping a system or programme running. For water supply system,
this will include regular payments for staff salaries, fuel, electricity, and water
treatment chemicals. It is generally expected that this will be covered by user fees or
general taxation.
Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx)

CapManEx is the cost category that is least clearly understood, much less planned for.
CapManEx includes expenditure on asset renewal, replacement and rehabilitation
costs, based upon serviceability and risk criteria. CapManEx covers the work that goes
beyond routine maintenance to repair and replace equipment in order to keep
systems running. Accounting rules may guide or govern what is included under capital
maintenance, and the extent to which broad equivalence is achieved between charges
for depreciation and expenditure on capital maintenance. Capital maintenance
expenditures and potential revenue streams to pay those costs are critical to avoid the
failures represented by haphazard system rehabilitation.
An example would be the replacement of a pump, which even with regular
maintenance will need renewal or replacement eventually, which is likely to be
expensive.
18
Adapted from work done by IRC International Water & Sanitation Centre (http://www.washcost.info,
http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org )
49
Support Expenditure (SupEx)19

SupEx includes expenditure on post-construction support activities direct to local level
stakeholders, users or user groups. In utility management, expenditure on direct
support such as overheads is usually included in OpEx. However, these costs are rarely
included in rural water and sanitation estimates. The costs of ensuring that local
government staff have the capacities and resources to help communities when
systems break down or to monitor private sector performance are usually overlooked.
SupEx also includes macro-level support, planning and policy making that contributes
to the service environment, but is not particular to any programme or project. Indirect
support costs include government macro-level planning and policy-making,
developing and maintaining frameworks and institutional arrangements, and capacity-
building for professionals and technicians.
Income
Income to cover the expenditure incurred by the water source protection is vital.
When looking for solutions, focus should be placed the tangible socio-economic
benefits that can arise from implementing the chosen Control Measures.
The difficulty comes where the individual or organisation that makes the expenditure
is not the one who benefits directly through increased income. In such cases,
approaches such as Payment for Watershed Services (see Box 4) should be considered
because otherwise a lack of equity is likely to damage trust and lead to a failure of the
plan.
Table 14: WSPP Financial Plan

Threat: 1. Urban runoff leading to declining water quality at Water
Control Measure: Improve sanitation infrastructure and education in Town ‘A’.

Who does it? NWSC
Who checks it? NEMA

Item Cost Type Cost Who Contributions
does it?
Partner Amount
Restored and CapManEx $1million NWSC NWSC $0.X million

19
This is a modification of the WASHCost methodology which has ‘Direct Expenditure’ and ‘Indirect Expenditure’ however for the
purposes of these guidelines the two have been combined to simplify the process.
50
Threat: 1. Urban runoff leading to declining water quality at Water

Control Measure: Improve sanitation infrastructure and education in Town ‘A’.
Who does it? NWSC

Who checks it? NEMA

does it?
Partner Amount
Upgraded Development
wastewater Partner
CapEx $0.X million
treatment works
Piped sewerage CapManEx $1million NWSC NWSC $0.X million

system restored
CapEx Development $0.X million
and extended
Partner
$0.X million
Town ‘A’
Council
Latrines CapEx $0.Xmillion Sanitation NWSC

NGO
NGO
Beneficiaries
Improved road CapManEx $X,000/year Town Town Council $X,000/year

drainage Council
OpEx $X00/year Uganda Road $X,000/year
Fund
Sanitation and CapEx $X,000 District NGO In-kind support

hygiene education Health (2 outreach
OpEx $X,000/year
programme Officer staff)
Composting CapEx $X,000 NGO NGO $X,000

scheme with
CapManEx $X00/year Development $X,000
pollution/runoff
Partner loan
controls OpEx $X00/year
Income from $X0,000/year

fertiliser sales.
Box 4: Payment for Watershed Services (PWS)

Principal idea and concept
The basic idea of economic approaches such as payment for ecosystem services is the system of exchange of
51
goods or services with payment on a free basis.

With respect to the management of environmental resources the PWS approach is based on resources which
could have an economic value, such as the price of water or on ecosystem services that are provided by these
environmental resources for human activities such as flood protection or water purification through wetlands.
The economic approach uses the mechanisms of exchange between supplier of goods or services (“sellers”)
and buyers of goods or services in order to achieve a certain target level of impact.
It has to be stressed the fact that the introduction of PWS could be targeted the protection of natural resources
or more on poverty reduction. In any case if PWS should be introduced as a management approach in areas of
high level of poverty and high pressure on natural resources, aspects of poverty alleviation or income
generation should be considered from the beginning in the planning of the PWS.
In order to illustrate the PWS concept, the following is a useful starting point. In one albeit not universally
accepted definition, PWS transactions are: (1) voluntary, (2) between at least one service buyer (3) and at least
one seller (4), focused on a well-defined service (or a land use likely to provide service) and (5) conditional
upon contract compliance.
Concept of services and payment flows in a PWS scheme and in a classic agreement
Seller of Services, eg.

Services =
farmers
eg. sustainable
Landuse
planting forests
positive impact
on water related issue
Payment or
compensation in kind
Government
Buyer of environmental
services, eg. hydro
power company
Classic approach:
Private user of common goods,
Payment of fee for
abstraction eg. abstraction of water
There are two different types of PWS schemes: user-financed schemes or government financed schemes. In
User finance schemes the agreement is the result of negotiation process between buyers and sellers of services.
These are more likely in small scale PWS schemes. In government – financed schemes the government is the
buyer and sets the rules. These PWS schemes are often found in larger scheme.
A PWS transaction could be a variable payment, in cash or in kind, made conditional on a well-defined
outcome. The buyer (payer) of the outcome does not have complete control over the production of the
outcome, whereas the seller has partial or complete control over the production of the outcome. Sellers
participate voluntarily. Buyers may participate voluntarily or they might be forced via regulatory means (Ferrero
2009).
52
Step 7.5: Write the Water Source Protection Plan

A Water Source Protection Plan needs to be clear, specific and concise. The document
can be compiled from the components described in the previous steps:
Part A: Water Source Description

This first sector gives the basic details of the water source, its location and details of
the Water Source Protection Committee.
Table 15: PART A - Water Source Description Summary
PART A WATER SOURCE DESCRIPTION
1. WATER SOURCE NAME:
2. OPERATOR
3. WATER SOURCE TYPE: Piped Scheme / Multipurpose Reservoir /

Hydroelectric Power Plant* / Other…………………….
4. TAKES WATER FROM: Watercourse (River/Stream) / Lake or Reservoir / Spring /
Groundwater*
5. LOCATION: (name, grid reference)
6. SUB-COUNTY:
7. DISTRICT:
8. CATCHMENT PLAN AREA:

9. WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE Victoria / Albert / Kyoga / Upper Nile*
(WMZ)
10. WATER SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE
If using a pre-existing committee then give name and details:
Chair: Position:
Organistion:
Secretary: Position:
Organistion:
Member: Organisation:
*Delete as appropriate
Part B: Aims, Objectives, Targets and Monitoring

The section should describe what the plan is trying to achieve and use the table below
to describe the objectives for each aim, the targets to be met and who will monitor
them.
53
Table 16: PART B - Aims, Objectives, Targets and Monitoring Summary

PART B Aim Objectives Targets/Indicators Monitoring responsibility
1. Improved
Water Quality
2. Reliable Water
Quantity
3. Better
Livelihood
Opportunities
Part C: Description of Threats

This should summarise the analysis of the problems and the Control Measures
undertaken in Steps 1, 3 and 6, supported by some descriptive text.
Table 17: PART C - Risks and Control Measures Summary
PART C Hazard/Risk Control Measure (options)

1. Threat (Hazardous Activity) 
and release
2. Pathway (Water flowing in 
the environment – rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, groundwater, soil,
surface runoff)
3a. Water Source: Water 
Infrastructure
3b. Water Source: Impact on 
End Water User
Part D: Action Plan

The Action Plan should give a description of what Control Measures will be
implemented and the table below can be used to summarise the activities,
responsibilities and deadlines.
Table 18: PART D - Action Plan Summary
PART D Water Source: NWSC Abstraction from Lake ‘C’ for Town ‘A’ piped water system
by end of: it?
54
Part E: Financial Agreement

The financial agreement should summarise the output from the previous parts of Step
7. This should be backed up by individual contracts or semi-formal agreements (such
as a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding) between the Water Infrastructure
Operator and the signatory partners to the WSPP.
Table 19: PART E – Financial Plan Summary
PART E Water Source:
Threat:
Control Measure:
Who does it?
Who checks it?

does it?
Partner Amount
Part F: Evidence Base

This section is likely to be the longest and could be presented a separate volume. Its
purpose to present all the evidence collated during the preparation of plan to make it
clear how the decisions that went into the Action Plan (Part D) were arrived at.
Section D should comprise:
 Minutes of WSPC meetings, wider stakeholder workshops, pubic events and
bi-lateral meeting. Clippings of any media articles.
 A list of Stakeholders engaged and their key points and contributions.
 Technical analysis: relevant data analysis, research and modelling.
 Stakeholder and livelihood analysis – where possible be transparent, however
some of this information may be commercially or socially sensitive.
Step 7.6: Get all key stakeholders to make a public, signed commitment to
delivering the Water Source Protection Plan
If the Water Infrastructure Operator hopes to influence the behaviour of other in their
water supply catchment then they need to establish trust and legitimacy among the
majority of stakeholders. It should be accepted that it is unlikely to get all
55
stakeholders to agree. Wider politics or local social tensions and feuds can sometimes
be stronger than the attraction of mutual self-interest.
A publically signed commitment is a good way of raising morale and confidence,
getting publicity and greater local awareness of the problems and solutions. A public
commitment also provides a lever to hold signatories to account during implement.
Step 8: Implementation, Review and Updating

Objective: To successfully use the plan to achieve the agreed aims and objectives
and to protect the Water Source. To periodically review progress and update the
plan to keep it relevant, useful and used by all partners.
Step 8.1: Implementing Protection Measures as set out in the agreed Water
Source Protection Plan
For implementation to be successful there needs to be clear, well defined roles,
responsibilities, actions and agreed timescales.
For each milestone, such as starting or completing a particular project of activity, it
may be a good idea to get some publicity through local media and a small public
event to generate interest and enthusiasm. Visible progress is important is important
for public and stakeholder moral.
Figure 11: Celebrating the opening of a protected spring
Step 8.2: Establishing Protection Zones

This step is not mandatory but could be important because Protection Zones confer
legal powers that can be very helpful for protecting water sources. In some cases, the
water body may already have been designated (also known as ‘gazetted’). A list is
provided in the 6th Schedule of The National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks And
Lake Shores Management) Regulations, No. 3/2000.
56
Step 8.2a: Choose the type of Protection Zone

There are various types of protection zone provided for in Ugandan legislation for
different contexts (Table 20). While noting that these other types of protection zone
are available, this guidance focuses on the Water Protection Zones from the Water Act
1997, as guidelines for their use have not been previously established. What followers
is a proposal for how this legal measure could be implemented. Take note that the
Act specifies that they are for use for protecting water supply and sewerage
infrastructure and so does not apply to hydroelectric power plants, or other water
uses. It needs to be clarified whether they can be applied to Multipurpose Reservoirs,
but it will be assumed that that they can.
The Control Measures chosen through the WSPP process can be targeted at all or
some of the protection zones so that investment can be more focused on higher risk
areas within the catchment.
This section should undergo detailed consultation and piloting that may lead to
further regulations going to government so that they become statutory and
enforceable.
Table 20 - Protection Zones

Protection Zone Powers Legislation
Water Protection Zone A water authority may: Water Act
(a) establish a protected zone on land adjacent to - 1997
(i) any water, borehole, treatment or other works forming part of a
water supply or from which a water supply is drawn; or
(ii) any sewer, sewerage treatment works or outfall;
(b) erect and maintain fences on or enclose the land under the
protected zone; and
(c) prohibit activities within the protected zone, as it sees fit.
Wetland/River Soil and river bank conservation is promoted, and not doing so is The National
Bank/Lake Shore an offence. Environment
Protection Area The following activities are regulated within the protection area: (Wetlands,
(Full/Partial/Community 1. Brick making. River Banks
Conservation) 2. Recreational activities such as spot fishing, maintenance of green And Lake
spaces. Shores
3. Cultivation. Management)
4. Drainage. Regulations,
5. Commercial exploitation of wetland resources. No. 3/2000
6. Sewerage filtration.
7. Fishing using fish gear and weirs, fish farming and other
aquaculture.
8. Construction of transport and communication facilities such as
roads, railways, telephone lines.
9. Burning.
10. Any exploitative activity which is of a commercial or trade nature,
such as harvesting of papyrus for commercial purposes.
57
Protection Zone Powers Legislation

Forest Reserves Section 6 allows for the creation of forest reserves: The National
(b) a strict nature reserve for the purpose of - Forestry and
(i) protecting streams, rivers, lakes, lakeshores, riverbanks or Tree Planting
wetlands; Act, 2003
(ii) soil, slope and environment protection; or
(iii) protecting the ecosystem;
Section 13 states that:
(1) A forest reserve shall be managed in a manner consistent with the
purpose for which it is declared.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a forest reserve shall not be put under
any use other than in accordance with the management plan.
It also states that:
(b) forests shall be developed and managed so as to –
(v) conserve natural resources, especially soil, air and water quality;
Hilly and Mountainous Not a statutory designation, but:- The National
Areas every land owner or occupier whose land is situated in a Environment
mountainous and hilly area shall take measures - (Hilly And
(a) to reduce water run off through the grassing of medium and steep Mountainous
slopes; Area
(b) to mulch and bund gardens on medium and steep slopes; Management)
(c) to practice agroforestry; Regulations,
(d) to prevent the burning of grass in areas of intensive agriculture or 2000.
on steep slopes.
Water Protection Zones (Surface Water)

It is proposed that there should be three levels of Surface Water Protection Zone:
Surface Water Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1)

This is the area around with the Water Source with the highest level of protection: all
human and animal activities are excluded from this area by use of fencing and regular
patrols. The extent will be limited in both cases by land ownership, compensation and
Human Rights issues which will require detailed stakeholder engagement and
negotiation. Some water-intensive plant species (such as Eucalyptus) should be
prohibited in this area and any existing trees removed and replaced with less harmful
native species.

This should use the same principles set out in The National Environment (Wetlands,
River Banks And Lake Shores Management) Regulations, No. 3/2000 for limiting
harmful activities and encouraging beneficial activities, in addition to the
requirements set out for Zone 3, below.
58
This is rest of the catchment supplying the Water Source that does not fall within
Zones 1 or 2. Within this area, there should be a targeted campaign to ensure that all
qualifying abstractions and locations using Prescribed Substances (Annex E4) and
Prescribed Premises and Trades and (Annex E5) under the The Water (Waste
Discharge) Regulations, No. 32/1998 are Permitted.
Water Protection Zones (Groundwater)

It is proposed that there should be three levels of Groundwater Protection Zone:
Groundwater Protection Zone 1 (GPZ1)

Defined as the 50 day travel time from any point below the water table to the Water
Source borehole (determined by a qualified hydrogeologist). This zone has a
minimum radius of 50 metres.
Within this Zone Prescribed Substances (Annex E4) and Prescribed Premises and
Trades and (Annex E5) under the The Water (Waste Discharge) Regulations, No.
32/1998 should be allowed. In addition, there should be no latrines, open defecation,
burial grounds or livestock pens or sheds within this zone.
Existing premises and users should be encouraged to find alternative substances,
processes or location, or to install pollution prevent measures.
The funding and compensation for taking action would be the subject of negotiation
between all relevant stakeholders.
Groundwater Protection Zone 2 (GPZ2)

Defined by a 400 day travel time from a point below the water table to the Water
Source borehole (determined by a qualified hydrogeologist). This zone has a
minimum radius of 500 metres around the source.
Within this Zone Prescribed Substances (Annex E4) and Prescribed Premises and
Trades and (Annex E5) under the The Water (Waste Discharge) Regulations, No.
32/1998 can be permitted (if they fulfil the requirements of the application process)
but pollution prevent methods and training should be mandatory. A pollution
prevention campaign should include existing businesses and premises.
Groundwater Protection Zone 3(GPZ3)

This is rest of the catchment supplying the Water Source that does not fall within
Zones 1 or 2. Within this area, there should be a targeted campaign to ensure that all
locations using Prescribed Substances (Annex E4) and Prescribed Premises and Trades
and (Annex E5) under the The Water (Waste Discharge) Regulations, No. 32/1998
59
Step 8.2b: Establish legal recognition and byelaws of Protection Zones

The procedure for declaring a Water Protection Zone is not defined in legislation.
However, it should follow a similar process to that for “specially protected areas” as
set out in The National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lake Shores
Management) Regulations, No. 3/2000:
1. The declaration of a Water Protection Zone may be initiated by the district
council on the recommendation of the Water Authority, District Environment
Committee or the Executive Director;
2. Where the District Council initiates the process of declaring a Water Protection
Zone, the District Council shall;
a. inform the Executive Director in writing of its intention;
b. cause an environmental impact assessment to be carried out to
demonstrate the benefits of the protection area and justify its extent
and bye-laws.
c. ensure that the view of the people inhabiting the areas contiguous to
Water Protection Zone are taken into account by convening the
meeting of the Water Source Protection Committee; and
d. prepare and submit a report containing findings in paragraphs (a), (b)
and (c) of this sub-regulation to the Executive Director.
3. The executive Director shall consider the reports submitted under sub-
regulation (2) and (3), and may make recommendations to the Minister.
The byelaws for the Protection Zone should clearly state what activities are and are
not permitted within the zone, and if there is any seasonality or other conditions
attached the restrictions.
Step 8.2c: Pay compensation to those displaced from the Protection Zone
In some cases it may be necessary to relocate activities, businesses or sanitation away
from designated Protection Zones in order to protect the Water Source. In doing so,
the Water Infrastructure Operator should refer to the latest policy on relocation and
compensation arrangements, for example: The Uganda National Land Policy,
Ministry Of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, March 2011
Section 91 of the Water Act 1997 also gives guidance on compensation:
91. Compensation to be paid.
(1) If damage is caused to land in the exercise of powers conferred on an authority by
this Act, the authority shall, if required, compensate all parties interested in the land for
all damage sustained by them in consequence of the exercise of those powers, subject to
this Act.
60
(2) For purposes of this section, "damage to land" means loss suffered as a result of -
(a) deprivation of the possession of the surface of any land;
(b) damage to the surface of land and to any improvements, crops or trees on the land;
Step 8.2d: Physically demarcate Protection Zones

Experience in Uganda has shown that statutory zoning is rarely respected unless
physically marked out so that people using the area can clearly see where they are, or
are not, allowed to go.
Fences and walls are commonly used to demarcate and protect land. However, this
requires land ownership and is expensive to install and maintain, especially for large
areas. In many cases, excluding people from the land is not the aim – what is more
important is to show the areas, such as river banks and lake shores where particular
activities are not allowed or strictly controlled.
Markers can include metal or wooden posts, or stone markers. There should be clear
signage to explain what the zone means and what activities are and are not permitted.
This should be done in English, the local language(s) and using symbols and pictures.
When installed there should be awareness raising campaign to inform people living
near the zone perimeter what it means and what the signs mean.
Step 8.3 Reviewing and updating the Water Source Protection Plan
It is the responsibility of the Water Infrastructure Operator to keen the agreed Water
Source Protection Plan updated. If changes are made that affect other signatories of
the plan then they should be consulted and any new draft sign off.
It is recommended that the plan is reviewed annually and that the annual meeting
includes the following:
 Report on and review activities, progress and spending.
 Report on monitoring results and progress towards achieving the agreed
target(s).
 Report on activities related to high level Catchment Planning and agree on any
modifications to the Water Source Protection Plan that arise from this.
 Report any stakeholder changes (people or organisations that have left the
catchment or changes in organisational representatives).
 Review whether any other stakeholders in the catchment have been identified
who need to be included in the Water Source Protection Plan.
61
General Annexes
ANNEX A: Relevant Ugandan Policy, Legislation and Regulations
Document Location
Water And Sanitation Sector Sectoral Specific http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
Schedules/ Guidelines 2009/10 option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=116
&Itemid=122
Water & Waste Discharge Regulations, 1998 http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=127
&Itemid=122
The Water Resources Regulations, 1998 http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
&Itemid=122
The Uganda Water Act, 1997 http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
&Itemid=122
The National Environment Impact Assessment http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Regulations,1998 eia_egulations.pdf
The National Environment Hilly And Mountainous http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Areas Regulations hilly_and_mountanous_areas_management_regulation
s.pdf
The National Environment Forestry And Tree Planting http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Act forestry_tree_planting_act.pdf
The National Environment Act,1998 http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
national_environment_act.pdf
The National Environment (Wetlands, Riverbanks And http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Lakeshores Management )Regulations wetlands_riverbanks.pdf
The National Environment (Minimum Standards For http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Management Of Soil Quality) Regulations minimum_standards_for%20management_of_soil.pdf
The National Environment (Minimum Standards For http://www.nemaug.org/regulations/
Discharge Of Effluents Into Water Or Land) effluent_discharge_regulations.pdf
Regulations
National Water Policy 1999 http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
&Itemid=122
Ministry of Water and Environment Gender Strategy http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
2010-2015 option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=108
&Itemid=122
Lake Victoria Policy Harmonization - Draft Report http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
&Itemid=122
62
ANNEX B: Further Information
Annex B1: International Guidance and Resources

Title Reference Web Link
Groundwater Protection: Department of Water Affairs and http://www.dwaf.gov.za/
Guidelines for Forestry, Government of South groundwater/NORADToolkit/
Protecting Springs Afric (2004) 3.2%20Guide%20for%20protecting
%20springs.pdf
Healthy wetlands, healthy people Horwitz, P., Finlayson, M. and http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/
A review of wetlands and human Weinstein, P. 2012. Ramsar rtr6-health.pdf
health interactions Technical Report No. 6. Secretariat
of the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, Gland, Switzerland, &
The World Health Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Information Products for Nile Basin Food and Agriculture Organisation http://www.fao.org/nr/water/
Water Resources (FAO) (2011) faonile/products/index.html
Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by- Bartram J. Corrales L, Davison A. http://www.who.int/
step risk management for drinking Deere D, Drury D, Gordon B, water_sanitation_health/
water supplies. Howard G, Rinehold A, Stevens M. publication_9789241562638/en/
(2009) WHO, Geneva index.html
Protecting Groundwater For Health: World Health Organisation (2006) http://www.who.int/
Managing the Quality of Drinking- water_sanitation_health/
water Sources publications/
protecting_groundwater/en/
Water Safety Plans World Health Organisation (2005) http://www.who.int/
Managing drinking-water quality water_sanitation_health/dwq/
from catchment wsp0506/en/index.html
to consumer
Groundwater Quality Protection: World Bank (2004). GW-MATE
defining strategy and setting Briefing Note 8
priorities
Annex B2: Sources of Information for Uganda

Assessment of the Utilisation of Government of Uganda, Ministry of n/a
Groundwater Resources Maps at Water and Environment, January
National and District levels 2012
Groundwater potential maps Government of Uganda, MWE, n/a
Hydrochemical maps Directorate of Water Resource n/a
Water Quality maps Management n/a
Groundwater supply n/a
Technology options maps n/a
Water sources location and Water n/a
supply coverage maps
Hydrogeological characteristic n/a
maps
District Environmental Policies Districts currently available: http://www.nemaug.org/
63

ButeleJa, Masindi, Nakasongola environment_policies.php
District State of the Environment Districts currently available: http://www.nemaug.org/
Reports Arua, Bugiri, Busia, Butalejja, district_s_o_reports.php
Iganga, Jinja, Kabale, Kalangala,
Kamwenge, Kapchorwa, Kisoro,
Kotido, Kumi, Luwero, Mayuge,
Moroto, Moyo, Mpigi, Mubende,
Nebbi, Palisa, Sironko, Soroti,
Yumbe
Sector Performance Reports MWE (Annual) http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
option=com_docman&task=cat_vi
ew&gid=62&Itemid=122
Water Supply Atlas 2010 MWE (2011) http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
Uganda: Atlas of Our Changing NEMA (2009) http://www.grida.no/files/
Environment publications/uganda-atlas-
2009.pdf
Operationalising Catchment Based COWI/DWRM (2011) http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
WRM Report option=com_docman&task=doc_d
ownload&gid=153&Itemid=122
Small Towns Water Supply Data MWE http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?
ANNEX C: Ugandan Standards
Annex C1: Urban Drinking Water Standards20

Parameter Requirements Parameter Requirements
Colour 10 (Platinum scale) Selenium (Se) 0.01 mg/l
Odour Unobjectionable Chromium (Cr6+) 0.05 mg/l
Taste Acceptable Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 mg/l
Turbidity 10 NTU Mercury (Hg) 0.001 mg/l
Dissolved solids 500 mg/l Nitrates (NO-3) 10 mg/l
Chloride (Cl) 250 mg/l
PH 6.5 – 8.5 Fluoride (Fe) 1.0 mg/l
Total hardness (CaCo3) 500 mg/l Phenolic substances (e.g 0.001 mg/l
C6H5OH)
Calcium (Ca) 75 mg/l Cyanide 0.01
Sodium (Na) 200 mg/l Poly Nuclear Aromatic Nil mg/l
Carbons
Magnesium (Mg) 50 mg/l Residual, free chlorine 0.2 mg/l
Barium (Ba) 1.0 mg/l Mineral oil 0.01 mg/l
Iron (Fe) 0.3 mg/l Anionic detergents 0.2 mg/l
Copper (Cu) 1.0 mg/l Sulphate 200 mg/l
Aluminium (Al) 0.1 mg/l Pesticides Trace
Manganese (Mn) 0.1 mg/l Carbon chloroform (CCE, 0.2 mg/l
org. pollutants)
20
MWE (2007) DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL, Version 1, 31 March 2007, Annex 9.2
64
Parameter Requirements Parameter Requirements

Zinc (Zn) 5.0 mg/l Microscopic organisms Nil
(algaes, parasites, toxin
producing org. etc.)
Arsenic (As) 0.05 mg/l Coliforms 0 / 100 ml
Lead (Pb) 0.05 mg/l
Annex C2: Rural Drinking Water Standards 21

Parameter Guideline Values/Acceptable Values Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC)
Hardness (CaCo3) 600 mg/l 800 mg/l
Iron total (Fe) 1 mg/l 2 mg/l
Manganese (Mn) 1 mg/l 2 mg/l
Chloride (Cl) 250 mg/l 500 mg/l
Fluoride (Fe) 2 mg/l 4 mg/l
Sulphate 250 mg/l 500 mg/l
Nitrate (NO3) 20 mg/l 50 mg/l
Nitrite (NO2) 0 mg/l 3 mg/l
TDS – Total Dissolved Solids 1000 mg/l 1500 mg/l
Turbidity 10 NTU 30 NTU
pH 5.5 – 8.5 5.0 – 9.5
E. Coli 0 / 100 ml 50 / 100 ml
Annex C3: Effluent Discharge Water Quality Standards22

Substance Max concentration Substance Max concentration
1,1,1, -trichloroethane 3.0 mg/l 1,1,2.- dichloroethyelene 0.2 mg/l
1,1, 2,- Trichloroethane 1.06 mg/l 1,2- Dichloroethane 0.04 mg/l
1,3- dichloropropene 0.2 mg/l Aluminum 0.5 mg/l
Ammonia Nitrogen 10 mg/l Arsenic 0.2 mg/l
Barium 10 mg/l Benzene 0.2 mg/l
BOD5 50 mg/l Boron 5 mg/l
Cadmium 0.1 mg/l Calcium 100 mg/l
Chloride 500 mg/l Chlorine 1 mg/l
Chromium (total) 1.0 mg/l Chromium (VI) 0.05 mg/l
Cirrus- 1,2 - -- mg/l Cobalt -- mg/l
dichloroethylene
COD 100 Clifford Organisms 10,000 counts/100 ml
Color 300 TCU Copper 1.0 mg/l
Cyanide 0.1 mg/l Detergents 10 mg/l
Dichloromethane 0.2 mg/l Iron 10 mg/l
Lead 0.1 mg/l Magnesium 100mg/l
Manganese 1.0 mg/l Mercury 0.01 mg/l
Nickel 1.0 mg/l Nitrite – N 20 mg/l
Nitrite - N 2.0 mg/l Nitrogen total 10 mg/l
Oil and Grease 10 mg/l pH 6.0-8.0
Phenols 0.2 mg/l Phosphate (total) 10 mg/l
Phosphate (soluble) 5.0 mg/l Selenium 1.0 mg/l
Silver 0.5 mg/l Sulfate 500 mg/l
Sulfide 1.0 mg/l TDS 1200 mg/l
Temperature 20-35°C Tetra Cholera ethylene 0.1 mg/l
Tetrachloromethane 0.02 mg/l Tin 5 mg/l
21
MWE (2007) DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL, Version 1, 31 March 2007, Annex 9.2
22
The National Environment (Standards for Discharge of Effluent into Water or on Land) Regulations, S.I. No 5/1999
65
Substance Max concentration Substance Max concentration

Total Suspended Solids 100 mg/l Tricholoroethylene 0.3 mg/l
Turbidity 300 NTU Zinc 5 mg/l
Annex C4: Prescribed Substances (requiring a Waste Discharge Permit) 23

 Aldrin  FethionIsodrin  Polychlorinated biphenyls
 Atrazine  Flucofuran  Simaxine
 Arsenic  Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)  Copper
 Azinphos-methyl  Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)  Tetracliloroethylene
 Boron  Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane  Tributyltin compounds
 Cadmium and its compounds and related compounds)  Trichlorobenzene
 Carbon tetrachloride  Iron  Trichloroethane
 Chloroform  Lead  Trichloroethylene
 Chromium  Malathion  Trifluralin
 Cyanide  Mercury and its compounds  Triphenyltin compounds
 Cyfluthrin  Nickel  Vanadium
 DDT  Parathion  Zinc
 1.2-Dichloroethane  Parathion methyl  Sulcofuron
 Dichlorvos  PCD’s  Azinphos-ethyl
 Dioxins  Pentachlorophenol (PCP) and its  Substances prescribed by other law
 Endosulfan compounds in force
 Endrin  Perchloroethylene
 Fenitrothion  Permethrin
Annex C5: Prescribed Trades and Premises (requiring a Waste Discharge

Permit)24
 Airports  Hospitals  Slaughtering Works (as may be
 Breweries  Leather tanning factories identified by the Director)
 Mines and processors  Meat processing factories Mineral  Soap factories
 Coffee factories extraction and processing  Soft drink manufacturers
 Commercial fish farms  Oil factories Plastic manufacturers  Steel rolling mills
 Fish processing factories  Sewerage treatment plants  Sugar factories
 Fruit and vegetable processing  Textile factories
factories
23
Second Schedule, The Water (Waste Discharge) Regulations, No. 32/1998.
24
Third Schedule, The Water (Waste Discharge) Regulations, No. 32/1998.
66

Vol. 1 - Framework For Water Source Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol. 1 - Framework For Water Source Protection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol. 1 - Framework For Water Source Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government of Uganda

FRAMEWORK AND GUIDELINES FOR

Phase 1 – Draft Framework and Guidelines

Draft 2 (20 June 2012)

ANNEX C: Ugandan Standards...................................................................................................................... 63

Catchment/ A drainage basin or area of land from which surface water

 Vol. 4: Multipurpose reservoirs and valley tanks (surface water impoundments

 Vol. 5: Hydroelectric Power Plants (hydroelectric dams, run-of-river

Throughout this document, the process is illustrated using a hypothetical example of

Need for the guidelines

Case studies of water source degradation

Location Lake Victoria: Kampala/Inner Murchison Bay

Lake Victoria Basin Commission (2007)

Location Lake Victoria: Kampala/Inner Murchison Bay

Box 3: Mbarara Water Supply (River Ruizi)

What are the guidelines for?

Who are the guidelines for?

Figure 1: Audiences for Guidelines

Roles within Water Source Protection

Water Infrastructure Operator

Stakeholder Engagement & Planning

Technical Design & Implementation

Monitoring & Regulation

Support, Funding, Capacity Building

Conceptual Model: Threat – Pathway – Water Source

Figure 2: Water Cycle

To do this a ‘Threat-Pathway-Source’ model has been adapted from good practice

Commonly, it is most cost effective solution for society as a whole is to neutralise a

Guidelines Process and Outputs

Figure 6: Water Source Protection Guideline Structure

Water Source Protection in relation to other plans and processes

The District Implementation Manual (DIM)

Catchment Management Planning

or water resources of a catchment. For example, if a major new factory is proposed

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

DWD Design Manual

Water Safety Planning

» Improved/protected performance of hydroelectric power plants: improves

» Wetlands protection and enhancement: Provides water resource benefits,

A Framework for Water Source Protection Planning

Step 1: Initiation and Preparation

Step 1.1 Define the Problem and Objectives

o Who benefits from its use?

Step 1.3 Define the actual, or potential, water source locations

Step 1.4 Define the catchment for the Water Source

 To define a smaller sub-catchment (for example Inner Murchison Bay of Lake

Step 1.5 Check activities and composition of Water Management Committees

Step 2: Awareness Raising and Sensitisation of Stakeholders

Step 2.1 - Identify stakeholders

o Their activities may be harmful to the Water Source;

o They may have little or no involvement or interest in land or water

 Downstream of the Water Source:

o The behaviour or operation of the Water Source may affect them;

 Not within the same hydrological or hydrogeological area:

o Government agencies and directorates;

o Customers and indirect water users;

o National and International NGOs and Development Partners;

Step 2.2 – Establish a stakeholder Water Source Protection Committee (WSPC)

 WMZ and TSU officers from the relevant offices;