Bacteriological Risk Analysis of Rural Water Supply Schemes In Western Development Region of Nepal

SHEELVA SHAKYA1*, MADHAV N. SHRESTHA2 and SUMAN K. SHAKYA3

1. School of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development (SchEMS), Kathmandu, Nepal.

2. School of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development (SchEMS), Kathmandu, Nepal.

3. Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO), Kathmandu, Nepal.

The study assessed the bacteriological risk of rural water supply schemes. The six different Districts of Western Development Region were selected which represents all three major ecological regions of Nepal. The study covered total 68 schemes focusing on the rural drinking water supply of Gorkha, Kaski, Lamjumg, Nawalparasi, Syangja and Tanahu districts of Nepal. Water Samples were collected from source, reservoir tank, tap stand and household level. The water when travels from source to distribution line, and to household, density of the Fecal Coliform was found to increase. Total water samples collected were 497, out of which 109 were from source, 116 from reservoir tank, 136 from tap and 136 from household level. The water quality in terms of bacteriological parameter such as Fecal Coliform showed variation of the values in the different points of water distribution. The study revealed water supplied in rural drinking water schemes do not meet the WHO drinking water standard and maximum population were under high risk of fecal contamination.

Keywords: Bacteriological risk analysis, Rural water supply schemes, Western Development Region of Nepal.

Introduction

Nepal is predominantly a rural country with nearly 85 percent population living in rural area. Sixty six percent of the rural population has an access to piped water, and others are dependent on locally available water sources such as spring, stream and tube well for drinking and household uses. The per capita water consumption in the rural area is 45 liter as compared to 60 liter in the urban area. (ADB, 2006)

One of the major problems of the rural areas is the extremely poor health condition associated with an environmental sanitation. Of the total consumption of water in the domestic sector, only 2% of water is used for drinking purpose, rest 98% is used for cleaning and hygiene (ADB, 1985). There is an acute shortage of safe and clean drinking water, hygienic sanitation and other basic health care. Some of the advantages of having water available at village taps are saving of time ( opportunity to engage in other income generating activities especially to women ) and its positive impact on the users on health, domestic hygiene (toilet facilities), environmental hygiene (drainage pattern) and socio economic gain (water haulting time) (Pyakurel, 1994). A community water supply can be of great benefit to the health and the well being of people to whom it serves, it can be, on the other hand, cause of disease and a serious threat to the public health if the delivered water is contaminated. Recurrent outbreaks of water borne epidemics and increasing number of patients and high infant mortality rate due to water related diseases indicates that only supplying of drinking water is not sufficient to improve public health status unless supplementary effort is made both on quantity as well as quality aspect of water supply and sanitation (Sharma, 1993).

Infectious disease caused by bacteria, viruses and protozoa or by other helminthes parasites are the most common and wide spread health risk associated with drinking water. The diseases are transmitted particularly through human and animal excrete, particularly feaces (WHO and UNICEF, 2004). Many studies have related to very high content of coliform bacteria in portable water in both Terai and hilly regions of Nepal. In rural area 16.7% to 33.3% and in urban area 70 to 100% water samples were found to be contaminated with coliform bacteria. Almost all piped water supply are contaminated during rainy/summer season, and water quality is far from satisfactory. Serious efforts are needed to reduce bacterial contamination in potable water (Sharma, 1994).

There is clear and convincing evidence that the nation faces a worsening series of local and regional water quantity and quality problems, largely as a result of poor water allocation, wasteful use of the resource, and lack of adequate management action. Water resources constraints and water degradation are weakening one of the resource bases on which human society is built.

This study aims to make an evaluation of water supply schemes distributed in the rural areas, concentrated on major issues namely; bacteriological risk analysis and association with types of sources, number of taps and population under risk. This study draws the real situation of rural water supply schemes and identifies its strength, weakness and gaps and makes feasible recommendation to improve the situation. * Corresponding author: Email: sheelvashakya@gmail.com

1

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in six districts of Western Development Region of Nepal; Gorkha, Kaski, Lamjung, Nawalparasi, Syangja and Tanahu. This region covers an area of 29398 Sq. Km and lies between 27 030' and 29020' latitude, and 82049' and 85015' longitude. The total population is about 4,571,013 (CBS, 2001). The study area covered representations from all the three major ecological regions of Nepal namely; Terai, Hill and Mountain. The study covered a total of 68 rural drinking water supply schemes of six districts.

Tools and Technique of Data Collection

The study mainly focused on two part of the study – questionnaire survey and laboratory analysis for water samples. Primary data used in the study was collected by using questionnaire method. A set comprising two questionnaires were used for the study so as to gather information on the technical knowledge, attitude and practice of the beneficiary population.

Community Interview Questionnaire : This was used to gather information on the community participation on operation and maintenance of the systems. Interview with focus groups such as Water User Committee (WUC) was held to gather information on technical details of the schemes.

Household Interview Questionnaire : This was used to assess the knowledge and attitude of the respondents in personal, domestic and environmental health and community participation. Same questionnaire was used for two different target groups on the basis of different living standards; one elite and another underprivileged household.

Collection of Water Samples

Water Samples were collected from source, reservoir tank, tap and household level, to investigate the risk level in the current rural drinking water supply schemes. Total water samples collected were 497.

Bacteriological Water Quality Analysis/ Fecal Coliform Count

The laboratory analysis of water samples was done to examine the bacteriological water quality using the Membrane Filter Method (MFM) to detect the presence and its risk level of Fecal Coliform to human health in study area. This technique is filtration of known volumes of diluted or undiluted water samples through 0.45-m-pore Millipore filters and incubation of these filters directly on Endo medium. Colonies of Fecal Coliform were show up with a characteristic metallic sheen and they were counted (Shakya, 1995). Risk measurement was carried out by using WHO Risk measurement grade assigned as Bacteriological Risk Grade (BRG) that is presented in Table 1 (WHO, 1993).

Table 1. WHO Risk measurement and Bacteriological Risk Grade

FC Count/ 100mlBacteriological Risk Grade

( BRG )Risk Grade

0 1 No Risk1-10 2 Low Risk

11-100 3 High Risk101-1,000 4 Very High Risk

Representative Bacteriological Risk Value (RBRV)

Representative Bacteriological Risk Value (RBRV) is defined as the value calculated to a district which is the total sum of the product of total population served for a scheme and its BRG to the total population served for the District. The calculation of this value shows the total population under different level of risk and comparison between different Districts.

Data Procession

Qualitative analysis with adequate support by quantitative information was done using a computerized database and relevant statistical tools like Karl Pearson’s coefficient Correlation (R). Interpretations of values are done as shown in Table 2 (Gupta and Kapoor, 2000).

2

Population Served for scheme 1 × BRG1 + Population Served for scheme 2 × BRG2 + Population Served for scheme 3 × BRG 3 + and so on …………

Total Population Served by schemes in a district.RBRV =

Table 2. Interpretation of R2 valuesS.N R2 Value Relationship1. 0.00 - 020 Negligible2. 0.21 – 0.40 Low3. 0.41 – 0.70 Substantial4. 0.71 – 1.00 High

Results and Discussions

Assess on Bacteriological Water Quality (fecal coliform count/ 100ml) at different points of water distribution

Bacteriological water quality analysis from the six districts showed different levels of risk to human health according to WHO standard and risk to health. Fecal Coliform count per 100 ml water samples showed variation on the values in the four different sampling points of water distribution system. Summary of maximum and minimum values is presented in Table 3. The trend of Fecal Coliform Count from water source to household of six districts showed the similar trend in increased in values of Fecal Coliform from water source to household.

Table 3. The maximum and minimum values of Fecal Coliform Count / 100ml, and Summary on Total number of schemes and water samples collected at four points of Water Distribution

District

TotalNo of

Schemes

Source Reservoir Tank Tap Household GrandTotal

Num Max MinNum Max Min Num Max Min Num Max Min

Gorkha 10 20 120 0 17 84 0 20 138 0 20 206 61 77Kaski 10 17 33 0 23 73 0 20 72 2 20 209 0 80

Lamjung 3 3 54 0 3 91 51 6 97 66 6 113 78 18Nawalparasi 20 27 82 0 32 188 3 40 130 10 40 256 0 139

Syangja 9 12 35 0 13 124 0 18 123 13 18 218 8 61Tanahu 16 30 32 0 28 181 7 32 249 0 32 498 18 122

Average 59 0 123 10 135 15 250 27Total 68 109 116 136 136 497

*Num: Total Number of water samples collected Max: Maximum value of fecal coliform count/100ml Min: Minimum Value of fecal coliform count/100ml

Comparison on Representative Bacteriological Risk Value (RBRV) of six districts

Average value of all RBRVs showed the risk level increase from water source to household level in all Districts. The average value at source was 1.95 that increase in reservoir tank to 2.7 and again in tap it become 3 and finally in household it was maximum with 3.32 as presented in Table 4. RBRV showed that Lamjung was at highest level of contamination at source, reservoir tank and household where as Syangja was highly contaminated at tap. The average value of RBRV clearly shows that there was an increase in the slope of fecal coliform value from source to household. Reason in variation in RBRV of different districts was mainly due to different level of awareness on health and sanitation, geological setting around the drinking water scheme and community participation.

Table 4. RBRV of Drinking water from water source to household level of six DistrictsDistrict Source Reservoir Tank Tap Household Gorkha 1.9 2.8 3 3.6Kaski 1.8 2.4 3 3.1Lamjung 2.4 3 3 3.7Nawalparasi 2.1 2.6 2.9 3Syangja 1.6 2.5 3.1 3.2Tanahu 1.9 2.9 3 3.3Average RBRV 1.95 2.7 3 3.32

Comparison of different Source Type with its Bacteriological Risk Grade (BRG)

There were total 68 schemes with three types of sources namely ground water, spring and stream. Out of three types of source examined, stream was more likely to be contaminated than spring source as presented in Table 5. More risk of contamination of stream source was due to pollution like human settlement and animal farming in upstream, domestic and agricultural runoff, and landslide due to deforestation. The study found that the contamination of water at source point were due to lack of protection against surface contamination, poor drainage system, unsanitary environment at surrounding of water source, lack of protection against silt and open defecation. In some case, nonfunctional masonry or concrete wall or spring box, unscreened intake and

3

unprotected fencing around and other external factor like heavy rainfall during monsoon period were the reasons of contamination.

Table 5. Total Number of Source Types of Drinking water and its Bacteriological Risk Grade

Source TypeBacteriological Risk Grade

No Risk Low Risk High Risk Very High Risk Grand TotalGround water 1 - - - 1

Spring 16 11 10 - 37Stream 7 14 8 1 30

Grand Total 24 25 18 1 68 Examine on the total number of Taps under different Bacteriological Risk Grade (BRG)

From every scheme, water samples were collected from two tap stands, which was 10% of sampling size. The total 136 water samples were collected from 1337 taps. The study of the number of taps with its BRG’s value showed that 85% of total were at high risk, 8% at very high risk and 5% were at low risk as shown in Figure 1. The risk level was more in taps as compared with source and reservoir tank. The study revealed that the increase of fecal contamination in taps was due to leakage in main pipes and breakage or erosion in tap stands and poor drainage system of waste water around parish like open hole collection or collection in farmland, exposure of pipes near tap stand, unhygienic environment around parish like open defecation of animal and human, and open solid waste disposal and poor sewage management.

85%

5%2%

8%

High Risk

Low Risk

No Risk

Very High Risk

Fig. 1. Comparison of total number of Taps and its Risk level in Percentage

Study on trend of Fecal Coliform from source to household

The water at source level had very few number of Fecal Coliform, but as it traveled from source to the distribution line the concentration of fecal coliform found to be increased and value was high in the household point. The R 2

values showing relationship between Fecal Coliform counts found in sources and households are presented in Table 6. R2 value is highest for Lamjung district that revealed higher level of contamination at source has high degree of contamination at household. The risk was at the highest level in household which was mainly due to lack of proper cleaning practice of water containers, poor knowledge and handling practices, lack of education and awareness on health and sanitation, lack of technology dissemination on water treatment practices.

Table 6. Districts wise R2 ValuesDistricts R2

Gorkha 0.02Kaski 0.06Lamjung 0.99Nawalparasi 0.20Syangja 0.03Tanahu 0.41

Conclusion and Recommendation

The study instigated that, level of fecal coliform presence in water supplies in the rural drinking water schemes were mostly above the WHO standard. The average fecal coliform was found to be lowest in the source but the level of risk was very high in household level. Roughly maximum population under study was under high risk of fecal contamination and water was not found to be suitable for drinking purpose. This study showed the requisite of treatment plant for drinking water supply in Lamjung and Syangja districts. The main reason of such risk was due to lack of attention on health and hygiene. The people were more focused on quantity of water availability than on quality aspect of drinking water and due to their hardship of lives, they have least prioritized the quality

4

aspect. The health status of people and the sanitary pattern of water quality vary with different caste, status and ethnic group.

The regular maintenance should be followed to control pollution and water availability, proper sanitation and hygienic practices. People should be well aware on appropriate use of water, preventive measures and pace of technology evolution. Thus, the water source even if it looks clean and clear may not be safe for drinking purpose according to bacteriological point of view. Hence to ensure safe water, it has to conduct regular monitoring of rural water supply from concerned local authority.

References

ADB (1985). Nepal Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Profile. Asian Development Bank, Manila.ADB (2006). Asia Water Watch 2015- Are countries in Asia on track to meet Target ten of the MDG?CBS (1999/2001). Statistical Year Book of Nepal, Government of Nepal/NPC. Central Bureau of Statistic, Nepal.Gupta, S.C. and Kapoor, V.K. (2000). Fundamentals of Mathematical Statistics, 9 th edition, pp. 10.1-10.3, Sultan Chand and Sons Educational Publishing, New Delhi, India.Pyakural, D.C., (1994). Water Quality Surveillance and Monitoring in Nepal – Practices and Development Program.Shakya S. K., et al (1995). Microbiological water quality of Kathmandu city water supply. Indian J. Environmental Protection, IJEP 15 (10): 771-775.Sharma, A.P. (1993). Study of Bacteriological Standard of Drinking Water of Nepal. A Report submitted to National Committee for Man and Biosphere, Nepal.Sharma, A.P. (1994). Water Pollution in Nepal. Science Universal, vol. 4, pp:16-21.WHO (1993). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2nd edition, Vol. 1 Recommendations, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.WHO and UNICEF, (2004). Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target: A mid term assessment of progress. UN, New York.

5