case study on water supply

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Case Studies that Demonstrate the Benefits of Water Reuse

This page describes the ways that water reuse is used to benefit communities across the United States and highlights example projects from across the U.S. that describe how a particular benefit drove the adoption of water reuse. Water reuse projects often provides multiple benefits, which can make water reuse more attractive.

On this page:

General information about the benefits of water reuse

• Details about the benefits of water reuse and example projects

Water reuse is used across the nation to provide a wide range of benefits including:

• Increase water supply
• Lower pollution in rivers, streams, and lakes
• Recharge underground aquifers
• Restore freshwater habitats
• Prevent flooding
• Build parks and recreational spaces
• Create new jobs

Benefits provided by reuse projects

This section describes the many benefits of water reuse projects and links users to case studies that provide project descriptions, information on policy considerations and financial and contractual information. 

Reliable Water Supply

Climate change is causing more severe droughts. Also, as populations expand, cities and towns need more water to support new homes and businesses. Water reuse can help cities and towns meet these growing water needs - even during droughts - because it creates a sustainable and reliable water supply from water that would be otherwise lost. Water reuse is also often cheaper than constructing new reservoirs or desalinating seawater.

Examples of Reliable Water Supply

• LA County diverts stormwater for beneficial reuse to reduce experienced water stress
• Native American tribe utilizes treated municipal wastewater for irrigation and wetland restoration
• City in Kansas uses lagoon system to treat wastewater for golf course irrigation ( low-input technology )
• Microsoft reuses water which helps improve local groundwater supply in Washington State

Improved Water Quality

Pollution can degrade water quality and make surface waters too dirty for recreational, drinking, or wildlife habitat uses. Water reuse collects and treats polluted water so that it can be used again within a community. This practice reduces pollutant discharges, such as nutrients, while increasing the reliability of community water supplies. 

Examples of communities using water reuse to improve water quality 

• Fairfax, Virginia reuses water for landscaping and industrial cooling water
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation holds an onsite non-potable reuse competition to address rural water needs
• Brooklyn, NY leverages new development project to reduce potable demand and improve sewer capacity

Infrastructure Resilience

Climate change is threatening U.S. communities with more frequent and intense floods, droughts, and sea level rise. Flooding can overwhelm our sewers; droughts make drinking water scarcer; and sea level rise threatens to mix salty water into our fresh drinking water. Water reuse can help lower the volume of stormwater that flows into city sewers and help cities to secure a water supply that does not depend on the rain.  Water reuse can also be used to create freshwater barriers underground that prevent seawater from contaminating drinking water. 

Examples of  water reuse supporting  Infrastructure Resilience  

Ecological restoration.

Habitat loss threatens wildlife and the ability of ecosystems to freely provide humans with food, clean water, and clean air. Water reuse can help restore ecosystems by providing them with a consistent water source. For example, wetlands can be created near wastewater treatment plants, and reused water can be used to help maintain health streamflow to support aquatic species. In arid regions, such as the desert southwest, treated wastewater and stormwater may be the sole source of water for important habitats.

Examples of communities using water reuse to support ecological restoration 

• Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Florida treats wastewater onsite for toilet flushing
• Georgia city reuses treated wastewater for landscape irrigation and wetland maintenance

Social Benefits 

People highly value greenspace, parks and natural areas because they provide social, cultural and recreational benefits. Water reuse projects can help create new greenspaces in cities through green infrastructure projects, preserving wildlife habitats, and sustaining the stream flow in culturally important water bodies. 

Examples of water reuse supporting social benefits 

Economic resilience .

Water reuse can benefit the local economy of a community by lowering the overall cost of infrastructure over its lifetime. For example, water reuse projects that capture and treat stormwater before infiltrating it into the ground can help prevent sewers from being overwhelmed with too much water. This lowers the cost to clean up sewer overflows and to treat the smaller volume of sewage flowing into the downstream wastewater treatment plant. Water reuse investments can also create new kinds of green jobs in the public and private sector and lower the cost of finding, buying, and transporting conventional water supplies from further away.     

Examples of water reuse providing economic resilience

Critical water access .

Due to their remoteness and small size, rural and underserved communities in the U.S. may lack access to adequate or reliable water and wastewater treatment services.   Water reuse can be an way to improve water supplies or sanitation. Onsite water reuse is especially attractive in areas where it is impractical to build large, centralized treatment plants. 

Examples of water reuse supporting critical water access in communities 

• Water Reuse Home
• Basic Information
• WRAP Online Platform
• Recent and Upcoming Activities
• Latest Quarterly Update
• Resource Hub by End-Use
• Water Reuse Information Library
• REUSExplorer Tool

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Case study suggests new approach to urban water supply

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

If you live in the developed world, safe water is usually just a faucet-turn away. And yet, global warming, drought conditions, and population growth in coming decades could change that, ushering in an era of uncertain access to water.

Now an MIT-based research team has evaluated those potential problems and, based on a case study in Australia, suggested an alternate approach to water planning. In a new paper, the researchers find there is often a strong case for building relatively modest, incremental additions to water infrastructure in advanced countries, rather than expensive larger-scale projects that may be needed only rarely.

More specifically, the study looks at the city of Melbourne, where a 12-year drought from 1997 to 2009 led to construction of a $5 billion facility, the Victorian Desalination Plant. It was approved in 2007 and opened in 2012 — at a time when the drought had already receded. As a result, the plant has barely been used, and its inactivity, combined with its hefty price tag, has generated considerable controversy.

As an alternative, the study suggests, smaller, modular desalination plants could have met Melbourne’s needs at a lower price.

“If you build too much infrastructure, you’re building hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in assets you might not need,” says Sarah Fletcher, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), who is the lead author of the new paper.

To be sure, Fletcher adds, “You don’t want to be in a situation where you have less water supply than you have demand.” As such, the study does not argue that a single solution applies to all cases, but presents a new method for pinpointing the best plan — and notes that in many cases, “moderate investment increases, together with flexible infrastructure design, can mitigate water-shortage risk significantly.”

The new paper, “Water Supply Infrastructure Planning: Decision-Making Framework to Classify Multiple Uncertainties and Evaluate Flexible Design,” was recently published online in the Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management , and will appear in the October 2017 print volume.

The co-authors are Fletcher, who is also affiliated with MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change; Marco Miotti, a PhD student in IDSS; Jaichander Swaminathan, a PhD student in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering; Magdalena Klemun, a PhD student in IDSS; Kenneth Strzepek, a research scientist at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and an emeritus professor of engineering at the University of Colorado; and Afreen Siddiqi, a research scientist in IDSS.

Siddiqi visited Melbourne during its historic drought and learned from local experts about the city’s challenging water-supply problem. The genesis of the current study comes from Siddiqi’s investigation into the Melbourne case and assessment that the complex problem of urban water security lies at the intersection of engineering design and strategic planning.   

The MIT team’s new framework for water-supply analysis incorporates several uncertainties that policymakers must confront in these cases, and runs large numbers of simulations of water availability over a 30-year period. It then presents planners with a decision tree about which infrastructure options are best calibrated to their needs.

The significant uncertainties include climate change and its effects on rainfall, as well as the impact of water shortages and population growth.

In studying the Melbourne case, the researchers looked at six infrastructure alternatives, including multiple types of desalination plants and a possible new pipeline to more-distant sources, and combinations of these things.

“The main methodological contribution for the paper is this framework to look at different uncertainties of different types and put that all together in one piece of analysis,” Fletcher says.

The results highlight a vexing problem in water-access planning: Shortages can be acute, but they may last for relatively short periods of time.

For instance, the team ran 100,000 simulations of 30-year conditions in Melbourne and found that in 80 percent of all years, there would be no water shortages at all. And yet, for the years where drought conditions did hold, large water shortages were more common than minor water shortages.

As a result, when costs were factored into the analysis, simply building no new infrastructure was the best option around 50 percent of the time. However, doing nothing was also the “worst-performing alternative” around 30 percent of the time.

That’s why the option of building smaller desalination plants can make sense. The Melboune plant that was built can produce 150 million cubic meters of water per year. But in the MIT team’s simulations, building a desalination plant half that size usually works well: It was the best-performing option in 20 percent of the simulations, and in the top three of 90 percent of the simulations. It was never, in all 100,000 simulations, the worst or second-worst-performing option. 

Moreover, Fletcher points out, building smaller at first gives planners the ability to bring a new plant online more quickly and then scale up if needed.

“You only build a certain number of modules in the beginning, and you can add a certain number later,” Fletcher says. “That’s different than building a small plant and then another small plant. You’re being proactive and planning to adapt in the future.”

So thinking small, in this scenario, make considerable sense. But as the researchers acknowledge, the exact results of their study would likely vary from region to region, depending on all the climate and population factors that affect water supply.

Even so, they think their new study framework can at least help planners make the case that building on a smaller scale may position cities and countries best in the long run. Or, as Siddiqi puts it, “building on a smaller scale, but planning big” may be the optimal approach.

“We’re used to building large-scale desalination plants, and there’s less of history of building more modular plants,” Fletcher says. “It’s challenging because these are large investments with long lifetimes. But if you think of a modular plant as an insurance policy against drought, maybe you want to have it around.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Paper: “Water Supply Infrastructure Planning: Decision-Making Framework to Classify Multiple Uncertainties and Evaluate Flexible Design”
• Institute for Data, Systems, and Society
• Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Related Topics

• Climate change
• Infrastructure
• Desalination
• Sustainability

Related Articles

Water problems in Asia’s future?

Game for climate adaptation

The high value of water

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Has remote work changed how people travel in the U.S?

Read full story →

Physicist Netta Engelhardt is searching black holes for universal truths

MIT community members gather on campus to witness 93 percent totality

Extracting hydrogen from rocks

When an antibiotic fails: MIT scientists are using AI to target “sleeper” bacteria

MIT engineers design flexible “skeletons” for soft, muscle-powered robots

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit

• Steps to Resilience
• Case Studies
• Addressing Water Supply Risks from Flooding and Drought

Extreme weather can threaten water supply

Flowing rivers reduced to dry channels. Dairy cows that produce less milk. And residents who normally rely on well water filling up plastic jugs from hoses at public libraries and fire stations.

The map shows drought conditions—ranging from "abnormally dry" to "extreme drought"—in the Northeast during the fall of 2016. Click on the image for a larger view.

This was the scene in New Hampshire during the fall of 2016, when a severe drought struck areas of the Northeast. Though a formal attribution study of the drought—a study that can tell us how much of the credit or risk for an event should go to global warming and how much should go to natural weather patterns or random climate variability—has not yet been completed, some water-supply professionals are concerned that the drought may be connected to climate change. 

The Third National Climate Assessment released in 2014 notes that drought and heavier storms will increase in the Northeast as the planet continues to warm. As evidence, the report cites that precipitation falling during “very heavy precipitation events” increased by more than 70 percent between 1958 and 2010 in the region. It also notes that increased temperatures—which cause greater evaporation and earlier spring and winter snow melt—will bring more droughts.

The summer of 2016, therefore, with its dismal rainfall and many 90°-plus days, seemed like a harbinger of what’s to come. The drought stressed both natural water resources and those of city water managers, raising concerns that the region’s water sector will become less resilient over time.

Water supply vulnerabilities

Main Street in downtown Keene, New Hampshire.

Keene, New Hampshire, has been a leader in climate change planning and mitigation. For nearly a decade, city officials in the picturesque hamlet have been planning for climate change and the extreme weather it brings, putting special emphasis on efforts to protect their water supply.

For instance, they’ve identified and prohibited further development in and around the city’s 200-year floodplain, and they’ve also adopted new design standards that require extra space for snow stacking during winter. In addition, they’ve conducted numerous vulnerability assessments, as well as updated capital improvement and hazard mitigation plans.

Still, one of the key vulnerabilities that city leaders needed to explore further was the future of their water assets. The city gets its water from two reservoirs, built in 1910 and 1931, that are located outside the city limits, and from two well-fields that supplement its surface water supply. Studies have shown that prolonged drought combined with more intense storms and large amounts of run-off can impact the overall volume, turbidity, and total organic carbon (TOC) concentration of municipalities’ water supplies.

Risk assessment tools for water managers

To better prepare for extreme weather events and their impact on the water supply, Keene water department officials Donna Hanscom, Aaron Costa, and Ben Crowder, along with a group of water department staff, spent six months in 2016—from February through July—working with officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through a series of calls, webinars, and one in-person event, agency officials and city water managers walked through a climate change risk assessment process.

A key component of the process was using the EPA’s Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT)—specialized software designed for water managers. Users can apply pre-packaged climate data within the tool, or they can add their own climate data for improved accuracy.

When selecting their data, Hanscom, Costa, and Crowder realized that one of CREAT’s weather stations is directly on a dam within the city limits. Even though this data was highly localized, they wanted to make their dataset even more specific by including additional statistics that measured precipitation from different perspectives. To do that, they included statistics from a 100-year and 500-year storm dataset, as well as monthly precipitation measurements, in addition to the pre-set annual precipitation dataset. At the end of the exercise, CREAT generated a comparison of the potential costs of climate change impacts versus costs of implementing adaptation measures.

An overview of the CREAT assessment results for the Keene exercise.

In a one-and-a-half day exercise, Keene’s water utility managers and engineers were able to assess the utility’s vulnerability to extreme rainfall events—both a 100-year and a 500-year storm scenario—as well as prolonged periods of drought on their reservoir’s turbidity and total organic carbon levels. The results raised some concern in the water department, because they have already seen their TOC concentrations double during high rainfall events. Increased TOC levels require more chemical treatments to clean the water, which produces extra waste. 

Planning for implementation

Keene’s water utility is planning to implement some of the adaptation strategies identified through the CREAT process in the coming years. For example, Keene is working on a watershed management plan to analyze the effectiveness of efficiency and conservation measures during drought. They are also analyzing overall water yield.  Additionally, the team is looking at alternative treatments to address turbidity and TOC problems, and to reduce the amount of water lost in sewers due to frequent cleanings of the filters. Finally, Keene plans to  focus on the extreme weather effects related to wastewater in a future assessment using CREAT.

Alyssa Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Nancy Averett, freelance writer.

Ellen Wagner. CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ , via Flickr

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Water Supply Challenges in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Central Kazakhstan

Alua omarova.

1 Department of Public Health, Karaganda Medical University, Gogol Street 40, Karaganda 100008, Kazakhstan; ur.liam@2191_aula (A.O.); zk.umgk@vehsilak (M.K.); zk.umgk@avotebmagamsod (R.D.)

Kamshat Tussupova

2 Division of Water Resources Engineering, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden; [email protected]

3 Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University, Box 221, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

Peder Hjorth

Marat kalishev, raushan dosmagambetova.

Rural water supplies have traditionally been overshadowed by urban ones. That must now change, as the Sustainable Development Goals calls for water for all. The objective of the paper is to assess the current access to and the perceived water quality in villages with various types of water supply. The survey was carried out during July–December 2017 in four villages in central Kazakhstan. Overall, 1369 randomly selected households were interviewed. The results revealed that even though villagers were provided with tap water, significant numbers used alternative sources. There were three reasons for this situation: residents’ doubts regarding the tap water quality; use of other sources out of habit; and availability of cheaper or free sources. Another problem concerned the volume of water consumption, which dropped sharply with decreased quality or inconvenience of sources used by households. Moreover, people gave a poor estimate to the quality and reliability of water from wells, open sources and tankered water. The paper suggests that as well decentralization of water management as monitoring of both water supply and water use are essential measures. There must be a tailor-made approach to each village for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of providing rural Kazakhstan with safe water.

1. Introduction

The target task of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7.C was to halve the number of the population with no access to safe drinking water and basic sanitary facilities by the year 2015 [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Through implementing this target, the proportion of people who have access to a basic drinking water service grew from 81% to 89% from 2000 to 2015 [ 4 , 5 ]. However, a weakness of the MDGs monitoring was an insufficient attention to water safety [ 1 , 6 ], which became a key element of the target task for water supply and sanitation upon design of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6).

According to the United Nations Resolution 64/292: “The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses” [ 2 , 7 ]. Therefore, SDG 6.1 call for full coverage of safely managed drinking water by 2030. The “Safely managed drinking water” indicator includes the three following conditions: accessible on premises, available when needed and free from contamination [ 8 , 9 ].

This goal is a huge challenge for all countries, not only for low- and middle-income ones [ 10 ]. The commitment to “leave no one behind” requires a focus on rural areas, which is typically neglected [ 4 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. About 844 million people on Earth do still not have access to basic water supplies and 79% of them are rural residents [ 14 ]. At the same time, 2.1 billion people have no safely managed drinking water supply system service. This means that 14.9% of the urban- and 45.2% of the rural population need improved services [ 9 ].

A person needs 50 to 100 litres of water per day to meet physiological and hygienic needs [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. People facing a limit of 20 litres per capita per day will therefore be exposed to a high level of health concerns. Rural residents usually live in worse economic conditions than urban ones and this affects the volume of water use [ 18 , 19 ].

Kazakhstan is one of the countries on the Eurasian continent that experiences the most severe water shortages. Water shortage and its poor quality have been determined as vital issues threatening the future prosperity of the country [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, in Kazakhstan the coverage of water supply in the urban and rural areas differ significantly. Approximately 90% of urban people have access to safely managed drinking water, whereas in the rural areas this rate is only 28% [ 5 , 23 ]. Therefore, rural areas constitute the greatest challenge in the efforts to provide safe water for all.

The objective of the paper is to assess the current access to and the perceived water quality in the villages with various types of water supply. Although official statistics on water access per person in each village are available, that do not reflect the complex realities of the current situation. Therefore, a questionnaire survey was carried out in villages in the central part of Kazakhstan to illustrate this complexity and the obtained data was compared with the official one. The factors affecting the volume of water consumption and preferences to use alternative sources among centralized water supply users were identified. In addition, people’s satisfaction with the quality of drinking water and the reliability of different services were evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. source description.

Drinking water is domestic water used for both drinking and hygiene purposes [ 24 ]. It can be supplied from different sources. Figure 1 shows the six available sources for such water in Kazakhstan. Centralized water provision is distributed through taps and standpipes, with water supplied from either surface or groundwater and this water is usually treated. Standpipes are provided along the pipelines at specified intervals. However, tap water inside a house is available only at the expense of a house owner. The government provides the centralized water supply, therefore the local administrative authority shall regularly check it for the presence of contaminants. Decentralized water supplies from boreholes and wells do not have any delivery services to houses and can be used public or individual. A permit for drilling new boreholes and wells is provided by the local administrative authority based on prior investigation of the field. They are also intended to do regular water quality tests throughout the operation period. However, the population sometimes use unregistered boreholes and wells, which means no control by the local administrative authority. Other sources of drinking water, such as tankered water and water from open sources, are not considered safe. However, due to the absence of water supply alternatives tankered water is included in official statistics and is regarded as a makeshift measure for drinking water supply provision for the population. Water is delivered to villages in a tanker, usually once a week and people pay for each litre on site. A company selected by the local administrative authority is responsible for a timely delivery and for the quality of water. Finally, an open source can be a spring, river or lake. They are completely absent in the official statistics and are utilized by individuals [ 25 ].

Sources of drinking water.

Rural people have to use multi-sources due to the lack of a stable water supply system in the villages. Households usually classify them based on their purpose for using water [ 26 ]. For instance, tap water for drinking, wells for hygiene, rainwater and thawed water for garden irrigation, etc.

2.2. Area Description

The study was carried out in the Bukhar-Zhyrau district (49°57.21′ N–73°43.01′ E, 500–700 m elevation, 14,576 km 2 ), located in the central part of Kazakhstan. The climate is continental with an average temperature of +19 to +21 °C in July and −15 to −17 °C in January, in addition to an average annual precipitation of 300–350 mm. The topography is flat and most of the territory of the district is covered by the Kazakh Uplands. A population of 64,683 (in 2017) live in 67 villages scattered throughout the region [ 27 ].

Groundwater is the main water resource and the population is provided with various types of water supply. Centralized piped water supply is used by 51,752 people, including 6083 standpipe users and 45,669 in-house water conduit users. Decentralized water supply is used by 12,431 people, including 9001 borehole users and 3430 well users. Finally, tankered water is used by 500 people [ 27 ]. To make a complete pattern of basic advantages and disadvantages of water supply in the region under study four villages, each with the largest percentage of users of one of the three types of water supply, were selected for further investigation ( Table 1 ): Botakara with mixed (both centralized and decentralized), Dubovka and Karazhar—centralized, and Asyl—tankered water supply.

Number of population in investigated villages by type of water supply according to the official data and the sample size.

2.3. Questionnaire Development

The questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a pilot study conducted by Tussupova et al. [ 28 , 29 ] in the Kazakh and Russian language, since both Kazakh and Russian speakers reside in the region under study. An ethical approval was obtained from the Bioethics Committee (Karaganda State Medical University, Karaganda, Kazakhstan, Protocol #110 of 17.10.2016) and the questionnaire was accepted during a session of the Scientific Evaluation Committee (Karaganda State Medical University, Karaganda, Kazakhstan, Protocol #6 of 14.06.2017). This study was approved and verified by the local administrative authority of Bukhar-Zhyrau district. The respondents were aware that participation therein was voluntary and that they could renounce providing any information at any time without reasons. All the persons polled signed an informed data collection consent statement.

The aim of the questionnaire was to assess what sources were used by the rural population and their satisfaction with the quality and quantity of the drinking water supply. The questionnaire covered the following topics: type of source mostly used for drinking purposes, reasons for searching for other water sources despite having a tap at home, volume of water consumption, time spent on water collection, additional purchase of bottled water, household water treatment methods, perceived quality and reliability of water supply systems.

2.4. Sample Collection

2.4.1. calculation of sample size.

The survey was carried out during July-December 2017. First, the official data provided by the local administrative authority for information about water supply systems available in the given region was studied. Then 1369 randomly selected households in four villages were interviewed. Finally, the obtained data was analysed aided with STATISTICA 13.3 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) software. The sample size was calculated using the following formula [ 30 ]:

where n is the required sample size; p and q is a part and its inverse value in each class of the general totality ( p = 0.5; q = 0.5); Z α is a constant (set by convention according to the accepted α error and whether it is a one-sided or two-sided effect) as shown on Table 2 :

Critical values of Z for standardized normal distribution.

N is general totality amount ( N 1 = 6252; N 2 = 4114; N 3 = 1035; N 4 = 294); ∆—the difference in effect of two interventions which is required (estimated effect size) (∆ = 5% ):

Provided inevitable loss amongst the participants in the course of the study (for various reasons), the calculated sample size was increased by 20%:

In the course of questionnaire survey 25 persons resigned from the investigation: four from Botakara; three from Dubovka; seven from Karazhar, and 11 from Asyl. Thus, the total number of the respondents was 1369 instead of 1394.

2.4.2. Calculation of Water Consumption

Those households that use the tap pay for each m3 of water according to the meter readings. The respondents indicated the volume of water consumption ( x ) according to the payment receipts for the last month. When analyzing, water consumption per person per day (L) was calculated by the following formula:

Households that use sources without any delivery services collect and store water in tanks. During the interview, the respondents indicated the volume of tanks ( x ) and how often they had to fetch water. According to the findings, water consumption per person per day (L) was calculated as follows:

2.5. Description of Respondents

The questionnaire included the answers of one family member over 18 years who was responsible for water use from each household. The overall burden of collecting and using water in population is usually much higher in women than in men [ 31 ]. Our results have also confirmed this fact, since 63% of respondents were women and the remaining 37% were men. The respondents were between 19–70 years old. On average, 80% of them had lived in the studied villages from birth and each household included one to nine persons. Since the selection of the households was randomized, the level of education within the communities surveyed was not specifically studied.

3.1. Villages with Access to Tap Water

Comparing the official data from Table 1 and the collected data from Table 3 , it was found that the residents often used alternative water sources, even though they were provided with tap water supply. According to official data, 42.55% of the population of Botakara village had a water pipe in a house and 7% of them used standpipes outdoors, but only 25.35% of the respondents indicated taps as a source of drinking water and 51.44%—standpipes. In addition, 34.49% of the villagers had registered boreholes, and 15.96% had registered wells in their yards. Nevertheless, our data showed that only 16.51% and 6.74% used this kind of sources.

Percentage of respondents by the drinking water sources according to the collected data.

The situation was different in Dubovka village. There, 100% of the population was provided with centralized water supply and 98.06% of them had water taps inside their houses ( Table 1 ). However, nearly half of the respondents indicated alternative water points as a source of drinking water due to the time limited water service ( Table 3 ). Private unregistered boreholes and wells were used by 23.52% and 17.34% of the respondents, respectively. Moreover, 15.44% of villagers preferred to use water from natural open sources.

A similar situation was observed in Karazhar village. According to the data in Table 1 , 100% of the population was provided with centralized water supply. Nevertheless, as many as about 78% of the respondents indicated other water sources: 28.57% had unregistered boreholes, 31.31% unregistered wells and 18.24% independently brought water from natural open sources ( Table 3 ). The central water supply in the village was served all year round on a scheduled basis, four hours in the morning and three in evening. According to the respondents’ description, tap water was muddy. Therefore, people had to let water run for a long time, as well as to settle and boil it before each use.

The amount of used water depended on a source of water supply used by households and the time required to transport water from a source to a house. The linear regression between the volume of water consumption, a water supply source and the time spent on water collection was moderately downhill (R = −0.633; p = 0.01) ( Figure 2 ). This relationship showed that in 99% of cases with increasing time of water transporting, its consumption decreased. A type of water source and the time of water transportation to a house explained 40% of the variation in water consumption among the respondents, the remaining 60% of the variation was caused by influence of other unaccounted factors.

Water consumption in terms of a water supply source used by households and the time spent on water collection.

As shown in Figure 3 , 27.21% of the respondents in Botakara, 27.55% in Dubovka and 17.63% in Karazhar bought bottled water. However, Karazhar village differed from the other two in the frequency and quantity of buying bottled water. In Botakara and Dubovka 50% of people who bought bottled water did this irregularly, while in Karazhar villagers had to purchase it two or three times a week. In the first two villages, residents bought average 4.18 and 4.71 litres at a time respectively. In Karazhar this number was 6.2 litres.

Additional purchase of bottled water.

Some households treated drinking water at household level ( Figure 4 ). In Karazhar 49.54% of the respondents used some methods of household treatment, while this number in Botakara and Dubovka was 26.28% and 25.42% respectively. For this treatment, 76.07% of the respondents who purified water in Karazhar said that they used a factory filter. More than half of them changed a filter once a month and spent an average of 885 tenge (US $2.48 as on August 31, 2018) on each piece.

Use of household water treatment methods in the villages.

Multiple p-level comparisons by the Kruskal-Wallis test showed that water from taps in houses, outdoor standpipes and boreholes was no different in satisfaction with the quality of drinking water and reliability of sources according to the respondents ( Table 4 ). Quality and reliability are not independent factors. System breakdown impacts both quantity and quality, as the water is frequently of poor quality after such an event. Thus, reliability was essentially a measure of how often there was a problem concerning the delivery of water of an acceptable quality. In Dubovka and Karazhar villages, there were statistically significant differences in the quality indicators of water taken from wells and open sources, in contrast to water from the sources mentioned above. The villagers in Dubovka who used wells and open sources were not satisfied with its quality and reliability, as they rated them as “poor” (81% and 71.73% respectively) and “unreliable” (94.06% and 86.7% respectively). Almost the same situation was observed in Karazhar: 66.87% of villagers were not satisfied with the quality of water from wells and 74.77% from open sources. Also, 76.6% and 85.11% of the respondents considered the use of wells and open sources respectively to be unreliable.

Level of satisfaction with the quality of used drinking water and reliability of sources according to the respondents’ assessment.

1 Significant at p < 0.05.

Figure 5 shows the subjective assessment of the price and quality of drinking water given by the respondents depending on a used water source on a scale from one to ten. They stated the quality of drinking water in points in accordance with their impression, where one point was low and ten points was good quality. The price was converted into points based on the impression of the cost of drinking water, where one point was acceptable and ten points was expensive. The ratio of quality and price was calculated as follows:

Subjective assessment of quality-price ratio on drinking water by the respondents.

The residents of Botakara gave a high estimate in comparison with the other two villages; the estimates in Karazhar were very low (not above 5.7 points for taps and standpipes). The assessment given by the villagers fell depending on a used water source in the following sequence: tap > standpipe > borehole > well > open source. In most cases, people believed that the costs of an agreement with a third party for drilling a well as well as independent water transportation from open sources did not conform to water quality. This number for water from wells in Botakara was estimated at 4.14 points, in Dubovka at 2 points and in Karazhar at 1.7 points. The residents of the last two villages also used open sources and rated them at 1.97 and 1.35 points respectively.

3.2. Villages with Tankered Water

In Kazakhstan, a number of villages have an acute water shortage due to the lack of sources in their territory. It is estimated that the economic condition of the villages is poor. The population is provided with limited volumes of tankered water, the quality of which is doubtful. At the time of the study, in the Bukhar-Zhyrau district, there were four similar villages. One of them was Asyl, where 294 people lived. All people there used tankered water. The distance of water delivery was 17 km from a water source.

In Asyl village, the collected data coincided with the official ones, but the reason was the absence of alternative source of drinking water supply in the territory. There was only one tanker for the whole settlement, which brought water once a week according to the schedule (every Friday at midday local time). Therefore, when the transport broke down, the population had no drinking water for two–four weeks. Water tankers must be cleaned and disinfected before use at least once every three months [ 32 ]. According to the interview with the driver, this requirement was not always met.

The average water consumption in the village was 41.67 litres per person per day. Some residents stated that they spent an average of 103 minutes (for round trip) for self-delivery of water from alternative sources to a house. The data showed that 68.78% of the respondents bought bottled water as needed for drinking and cooking only. In case of water shortage or lack of delivery, most villagers used rainwater and thawed water for hygiene purposes.

In the village 44.44% of residents indicated that they regularly treated drinking water at home, 24.87% of them boiled water before consumption, and 67.72% used a factory filter. However, the issue was that the population did not know how to operate it properly. This was evident from the fact that 50.26% of those who used filters at home had not changed them it from the moment of purchase.

In Asyl village, the level of satisfaction with the quality of water and reliability of the source was very low ( Table 5 ). Since 77.78% of residents believed that, its quality was “poor”, and 98.94% estimated the reliability of tankered water supply as “unreliable”. Furthermore, villagers considered that the price of tankered water was not in line with its quality. They rated it at only 2 points.

Level of satisfaction with the quality and reliability of tankered water supply according to the respondents’ assessment.

4. Discussion

Tap water installed in villages by the government was not able to fully satisfy the populations’ drinking water demands. There had been some constant interruptions in the systems due to technical problems, which in turn worsened the quality of the supplied water. The quality was further reduced, because the population had underused the system’s capabilities [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Even though villagers were provided with tap water by the government, significant numbers used water from alternative sources of an unknown quality. When analyzing the reasons that led to this situation, it turned out that respondents most often indicated in the questionnaire the following: doubts regarding the quality of tap water; use of other sources by habit, as they were accustomed to it during water scarcity; and availability of cheaper or free water sources. The villagers also explained that scheduled water supply was the reason for searching for other water sources despite having a tap at home. This was especially the case during summer time, when water consumption increased due to garden irrigation.

Another problem concerned the quality of water supply for the residents from unregistered boreholes and wells in the villages. These boreholes and wells were not tested for compliance with the sanitary standards before and during the operation. Due to acute water supply shortage, the population also had to use water from open sources; brackish water from underground sources recommended only for domestic purposes as well as rain and thawed water. This situation was regarded as highly unsatisfactory.

A study of the water use characteristics was greatly significant for a sustainable development of rural regions, especially in countries with a deficiency of water resources. The more time people spent on water transportation from a source to a house, the less water they consumed to the detriment of their physiological and hygienic needs. Moreover, the amount of water used dropped sharply with decreased quality or inconvenience related to a source of water supply used by households.

Water consumption among taps, standpipes and boreholes users was found to be 50 to 200 litres per person per day, while this number among open sources and tankered water users did not reach 50 litres per day. Other factors affecting the amount of water consumption included religious obligations, water price, family income and climate condition, as well as relations and intentions in regard to preservation of water resources [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

The population considered additional purchase of bottled water and treating water at home to be desperate measures. Bottled water was needed in periods of acute water shortage, when percentage of purchase was especially high in the village with tankered water. Water was treated at home in villages where residents doubted the water quality and took responsibility for its additional treatment. People who were the most satisfied with the quality of used drinking water and reliability of sources lived in Botakara, because they did not use water from open sources, and it was in this area where the majority of boreholes and wells had been registered. The less satisfied people lived in Dubovka and Karazhar due to low quality of water from wells and open sources, and in Asyl because of tankered water. People gave a poor estimate to reliability of these sources, although they still consumed the water from them.

In spite of the fact that the government tries to provide rural regions with tap water supply, the study has revealed various challenges in this endeavour. It is necessary to find a balance between the quantity and quality of water. In villages where there is a need to prioritize access to sufficient water quantity, the water consumption can be increased by means of timely repair and maintenance of the system, which is in turn a guarantee of uninterrupted supply of drinking water. In villages where the water quality is the dominant factor, priorities should be directed to appropriate drinking water treatment methods and training to encourage the population to choose the right water source. To this end, there should be an emphasis on making the healthy benefits of tap water associated with its high microbiological quality widely known. Moreover, to reduce the stress on limited water resources, there is a need for a more effective management and implementation of water preservation measures as well as improvement of the technical conditions of water supply lines, and sewage facilities. There is also a need for efficient and hygienic water use training for the population.

The villagers thought that the costs of an agreement with a third party for drilling a well and independent water transportation from open sources as well as the price of tankered water were not in line with its quality. Even while there was one source of water for taps and standpipes in each village, satisfaction with its quality and reliability varied due to technical problems in water supply plants. Upon their assessment of the price and quality of drinking water subject to the water source used, the respondents gave more points to tap water than to standpipe in all villages under investigation. This was because in this case they estimated the quality of the water as well as the convenience service. Obviously, water from the centralized system cannot be considered to be safe as long as users occasionally prefer other, uncontolled sources.

5. Conclusions

Decentralization of water management, monitoring of both water supply and water use and a tailor-made approach to each village are necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals objective of providing rural people with safely managed drinking water. Providing safe water supply to rural Kazakhstan will be a tremendous challenge that the government needs to tackle as soon as possible.

It is only in cooperation with the local community, government bodies can identify systemic sustainability problems, and develop and implement policies for water access in premises; water that is available as needed and free from contamination. This cooperation will also ensure sustainable public health and bring economic benefits to villages. Consequently, this analysis of consumer demand on the existing water supply systems in the villages and people’s preferences in choosing the source of drinking water can contribute to more effective water supply planning and, thereby, support a sustainable development of rural regions.

Author Contributions

A.O. and K.T. planned the structure of the study. A.O. studied the official data, and performed the questionnaire survey. A.O. carried out the analysis of collected data with supervision from K.T. A.O. wrote the first version of the paper; K.T., P.H. and M.K. contributed in an equal manner to the paper by adding comments and writing parts of the final paper, R.D. assisted in replying to the reviewer comments and making the final corrections of the paper.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Performance evaluation of existing water supply system: a case study

• Short Communication
• Published: 28 April 2022

Cite this article

• A. K. Mishra 1 ,
• J. S. Sudarsan 2 ,
• C. R. Suribabu 3 &
• S. Nithiyanantham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7144-300X 4  

163 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

The water supply system is one of the important hydraulic infrastructures in providing water to consumers. In Nepal, most of the water supply systems are managed by the water supply users’ committee (WSUC). In the present study, it is aimed to evaluate its institutional performance as the system reaches close to the end of design periods. Three water supply systems located in the three different wards are considered in the study. To gather relevant information as per methodology, water quality tests and field observations were carried out to collate primary data and various published field and research reports and related publications were reviewed for secondary data. Furthermore, the technical performance of the water supply system was analyzed based on water supply coverage, per capita consumption, water production for population, water quality test, and physical structure index. The analysis of the results indicates that 69.43% of the area is covered by piped water supply with per capita supply of 50.44 lpcd. The production of water was found as 0.13 m 3 /day/person. The quality of water at the source is found within National Drinking Water Quality Standards (NDWQS) limit and physical structure efficiency is worked out as 51%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

APHA. (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (20th ed.). Washington: American Public Health Association.

Google Scholar  

AS. 1998. Water quality—sampling—guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples. Australia and NewZealand standards (AS/NZS 5667.1.1998).

Bohara, B. 2016. Water quality index of southern part of the Kathmandu Valley, Central Nepal, evaluation of physical water quality parameters of shallow wells. Bulletin of the Department of Geology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Vol. 19, pp. 45–56.

Brikke, F. (2000). Operation and maintenance of rural water supply and sanitation systems. A training package for managers and planners . IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and World Health Organization.

Danilenko, A., Berg, C., Macheve, B., & Moffitt, L. J. (2014). The IBNET water supply and sanitation blue book 2014 . IBNET.

DWSS. (2011). Nationwide coverage and functionality status of water supply and sanitation in Nepal, 2011. Kathmandu: National Management Information Project, Department of Water Supply and Sewerage (DWSS).

Merz, J., Nakarmi, G., Shrestha, S. K., Dahal, B. M., Dongol, B. S., Schaffner, M., Shakya, S., Sharma, S., & Weingartner, R. (2004). Public water sources in rural catchments of Nepal’s middle mountains-issues and constraints. Environmental Management, 34 (1), 26–37.

Article   Google Scholar  

Mishra, A. K. (2018). Sustainability and risk assessment of Salyankot water supply project in post-earthquake scenario. International Journal of Operations Management and Information Technology, 8 (1), 1–30.

Mishra, A. K. (2019). Water finance assessment in drinking water supply system. Saudi Journal of Economics and Finance, 3 (9), 383–394.

Mishra, A. K., & Acharya, S. R. (2018). Performance assessment of Salyankot water supply project in post-earthquake scenario of Nepal. Journal of Advanced Research in Geo Sciences & Remote Sensing, 5 (3&4), 23–40.

Mishra, A. K., & Karna, A. K. (2019b). Assessment of management transfer process of water supply systems in Sunsari District of Nepal. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 7 (1), 1–24.

Mishra, A. K., Karna, A. K., & Dhakal, N. (2019a). Assessment of performance of functional and partial functional water supply systems in Sunsari District of Nepal. Journal of Advanced Research in HR and Organizational Management, 6 (1), 1–15.

MOPPW. (2004a). Rural water supply and sanitation national policy, 2004a. Kathmandu: Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MOPPW).

MOPPW. (2004b). Rural water supply and sanitation strategic action plan, 2004b. Kathmandu: Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MOPPW).

MOPPW. (2009). Urban water supply and sanitation national policy, 2009. Kathmandu: Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MOPPW).

Mosler, H.-J. (2012). A systematic approach to behavior changeinterventions for the water and sanitation sector in developing countries: A conceptual model, a review, and a guideline. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22 , 431–449.

NPC. 2071.Thirteenth plan (fiscal year 2070/71–2072/73, 2071. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission (NPC).

Shrestha, S. D., Karmacharya, R., & Rao, G. K. (1996). Estimation of groundwater resources in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Journal of Ground Hydrology, 38 , 29–40.

Sudarsan, J. S., Annadurai, R., & Nithiyanantham, S. (2018). A study on quality characteristics of packaged drinking water sold in and around Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Environment and Sustainable Development, 17 (2/3), 228.

Suribabu, C. R., Sudarsan, J. S., & Nithiyanantham, S. (2019). Performance and technical valuation of candle-type ceramic filter for water purification. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources., 39 , 6561.

WB. 2009b.Water operators partnership—Africa utility performance assessment. Accessed 02 Oct 2014.

WB. 2009a.The capacity development results framework: A strategic and results-oriented approach to learning for capacity development. Accessed 28 Sep 2014.

WB. 2010. Sustainable management of small water supply systems in Africa, practitioners’ workshop report, October 6–8, 2010. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.

WB. 2012. Guide to evaluating capacity development results. Accessed 28 Sep 2014.

WECS. 2005. National water plan, 2005. Nepal: Ministry of Water Resources, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS).

Yilmaz, E., & Koc, C. (2014). Physically and chemically evaluation for the water quality criteria in a farm on Akcay. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, Part, 6 , 63–67.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all who assisted in conducting this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Madan Bhandari Memorial Academy Nepal, Pokhara University and Research Coordinator at United Technical College, Chitwan, Nepal

A. K. Mishra

School of Construction Management (SOCM), National Institute of Construction Management and Research (NICMAR), 25/1, Balewadi, NIA Post Office, Pune, 411045, India

J. S. Sudarsan

Centre for Advanced Research in Environment, School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, 613401, India

C. R. Suribabu

Post Graduate and Research Department of Physics (Ultrasonic/NDT and Bio-Physics Divisions), Thiru. Vi. Kalyanasundaram Govt Arts and Science College (Affiliation-Bharadhidasan University, Thiruchirapalli), Thiruvarur, Tamilnadu, 610003, India

S. Nithiyanantham

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Nithiyanantham .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mishra, A.K., Sudarsan, J.S., Suribabu, C.R. et al. Performance evaluation of existing water supply system: a case study. Int J Energ Water Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-022-00195-z

Download citation

Received : 04 November 2021

Accepted : 05 April 2022

Published : 28 April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-022-00195-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Hydraulic infrastructures
• Water supply system
• Water quality
• Structural efficiency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Water Supply Challenges in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Central Kazakhstan

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Public Health, Karaganda Medical University, Gogol Street 40, Karaganda 100008, Kazakhstan. [email protected].
• 2 Division of Water Resources Engineering, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected].
• 3 Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University, Box 221, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected].
• 4 Division of Water Resources Engineering, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected].
• 5 Department of Public Health, Karaganda Medical University, Gogol Street 40, Karaganda 100008, Kazakhstan. [email protected].
• 6 Department of Public Health, Karaganda Medical University, Gogol Street 40, Karaganda 100008, Kazakhstan. [email protected].
• PMID: 30813591
• PMCID: PMC6427320
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16050688

Rural water supplies have traditionally been overshadowed by urban ones. That must now change, as the Sustainable Development Goals calls for water for all. The objective of the paper is to assess the current access to and the perceived water quality in villages with various types of water supply. The survey was carried out during July⁻December 2017 in four villages in central Kazakhstan. Overall, 1369 randomly selected households were interviewed. The results revealed that even though villagers were provided with tap water, significant numbers used alternative sources. There were three reasons for this situation: residents' doubts regarding the tap water quality; use of other sources out of habit; and availability of cheaper or free sources. Another problem concerned the volume of water consumption, which dropped sharply with decreased quality or inconvenience of sources used by households. Moreover, people gave a poor estimate to the quality and reliability of water from wells, open sources and tankered water. The paper suggests that as well decentralization of water management as monitoring of both water supply and water use are essential measures. There must be a tailor-made approach to each village for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of providing rural Kazakhstan with safe water.

Keywords: access to water; drinking water sources; perceived water quality; reliability of water supply systems; rural area; volume of water consumption.

• Drinking Water / standards
• Rural Population
• Surveys and Questionnaires
• Water Quality
• Water Supply / standards
• Water Supply / statistics & numerical data*
• Water Wells
• Drinking Water