Clean Drinking Water

Vincent Casey is a Programme Manager in WaterAid’s Technical Support Unit, specializing in water resources and water security. He has worked for WaterAid since 2004. He holds a postgraduate degree in Environmental Engineering and an undergraduate degree in Geology. GlobalPost spoke with him about what the newly released World Health Organization guidelines mean for WaterAid, what we may take for granted, and how geologists and environmental specialist determine the basis of our clean drinking water.  

At last count, 2.6 billion people still lacked access to flush toilets. What are the real-world implications of this statistic? In which ways are we talking our flushing toilets for granted? What don't we understand about what it means to have a flushing toilet in terms of water sanitation and safety?

The statistic is from the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme. It refers to the number of people who lack access to “improved sanitation”, not flush toilets. The JMP define “improved sanitation” as consisting of flush or pour flush toilets linked to piped sewerage, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with a slab or composting toilets. Flush toilets are not the most appropriate sanitation solution in areas where there is no piped sewerage or water supply distribution system. The real world implications of the statistic are that billions of people, mostly in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa do not have any facilities for safe disposal of human excreta, meaning they are exposed to a multitude of disease risks through contact with fecal matter in the environment, impacting negatively on health and livelihoods. Citizens in many high income countries have the luxury of not having to worry about safe disposal of excreta following huge investments in sanitation and public health.

In some cases, the solutions for providing cleaner drinking water to people have caused long-term problems- for example, arsenic in groundwater. Do the WHO guidelines address this in a sustainable way?

Arsenic occurs naturally in groundwater as the result of the weathering of arsenic bearing minerals in rocks. Where arsenic has been found to occur at concentrations above the WHO safe limit, or above national government standards, some governments and NGOs have marked affected handpumps as yielding hazardous water unfit for human consumption. These water sources can still be used for washing and housekeeping. The WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality propose that threats to heath in water supplies are mitigated using Water Safety Plans. This is a sound framework for assuring water quality, including efforts to mitigate arsenic. The Water Safety Plan framework has required some fine tuning for use in low income communities but is essentially based on sound principles of identifying health based targets, safe water sources, source protection, ongoing risk assessment and mitigation of any threats to water quality.

The second leading cause of death in children under the age of five is diarrhea. With the deadline for the Millenium Development Goals four years away- and approximately 4100 children dying each day from diarrheal diseases, where do you believe funds from orgs such as USAID, GHI, the Global Fund should be directed? (education, infrastructure, filters etc?)

Contaminated drinking water is not the only source of the intestinal pathogens which cause diarrhea. Other pathogen transmission routes include food and unwashed hands. These transmission routes cannot all be blocked by one intervention such as a filter or a handpump. There is no silver bullet. A combination of improved sanitation, hand washing, water quality and water quantity interventions are required to address all of these transmission routes. This requires a mixture of hygiene promotion, sanitation promotion, improved water supply infrastructure, safe household storage and treatment if necessary. Focusing on one solution, filters for example, will not address the whole problem. Filters will not continue to remove contaminants from water unless they are properly managed. Filters will not bring distant water sources closer to the home. Filters will not make low yield, unreliable water sources more reliable. Filters will not reduce the burden of carrying water. Filters are not a substitute for the political action required to protect water sources and ecosystems from pollution or to ensure that communities have reliable access to water sources. Filters are part of a broader solution that includes education, hygiene and sanitation promotion and infrastructure.

When it comes to access to clean water and sanitation, there seems to be a gap between urban areas and rural areas, often in the same countries. Moreover, studies show that people who are better off are often the ones who are most often able to take advantage of water sanitation programs. What are some of the ways that this can be solved?

Permanent water, sanitation and hygiene services for poor and marginalized communities must be prioritised in national plans and budgets. The emphasis must be on initiation of services that last in the long term, not just as long as it takes a pump to break down, a pipe to leak or a toilet pit to fill up.

In which ways will the new WHO guidelines change the way that Wateraid operates?

WaterAid have a organisational guidelines for drinking water quality and each WaterAid country programme has a water quality policy which is tailored to the national context. These are updated when there are changes to national or WHO guidance. The new WHO 2011 guidelines do not differ significantly from the previous version in relation to WaterAid’s focus. The areas of relevance for WaterAid are Water Safety Planning and standards for arsenic, fluoride, nitrates and microbiological contaminants.