La Union Shed

FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 3: SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
Asian Development Bank
LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
WATER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTOR PROJECT
Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) TA No: 7122 - PHI
PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC., PHILIPPINES

in association with
TEST Consultants Inc., Philippines

PÖYRY Environment GmbH, Germany
April 2010
PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC.
This report consists of 12 volumes:
Volume 1 Main Report
Volume 2 Institutional and Financial Assessment of LWUA
Volume 3 Subproject Appraisal Report: Metro La Union Water District
Volume 4 Subproject Appraisal Report: Quezon Metro Water District
Volume 5 Subproject Appraisal Report: Legazpi City Water District
Volume 6 Subproject Appraisal Report: Leyte Metro Water District
Volume 7 Subproject Appraisal Report: City of Koronadal Water District
Volume 8 Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP)
Volume 9 Supplementary Appendices A to G (Technical Aspects)

A Review and Assessment of Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Outside Metro Manila
B Water Sector Laws and Policies
C Assessment of Existing Water Supply Systems in Pilot Water Districts
D Proposed Water Supply Component for Pilot Water Districts
E Non Revenue Water Contract Mechanisms
F Sanitation
G Health
Volume 10 Supplementary Appendices H to J (Social Aspects)

H Socio-economic Survey
I Stakeholder Consultation and Participation
J Indigenous Peoples
Volume 11 Supplementary Appendices K to S (Financial, Implementation Aspects)

K Financial Management Assessment
L Detailed Project Cost and Financing Plans for Water Districts
M Financial Analysis
N Financial History of Water Districts
O Economic Analysis
P Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building
Q Indicators for Measuring Development Objectives and Performance
R Terms of Reference for Consultants (Project Implementation Support
Services)
S Profiles of Priority Water Districts from Long-list
Volume 12 Supplementary Appendices T to V (Safeguard Aspects)

T Initial Environmental Examinations
U Resettlement Framework
V Resettlement Plans
TA No. 7122-PHI: Water District Development Sector Project PPTA – FR Vol. 3 – SPAR: MLUWD
i
SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
List of Contents
Glossary and Acronyms viii
Location Map xii
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Conclusions of Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations............ 2
1.2.1 Socio-economic Survey................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Summary of Stakeholder Consultation Findings ........................................... 2
1.2.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 3
1.3 Water Supply..................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Rationale ...................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Existing Water Supply System ..................................................................... 4
1.3.3 Scope of Proposed Water Supply Component ............................................. 5
1.3.4 Implementation Schedule ............................................................................. 8
1.4 Sanitation .......................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Assessment of Water District Capability ............................................................ 8
1.5.1 Past Performance ........................................................................................ 8
1.5.2 Operating Systems....................................................................................... 9
1.5.3 Non Revenue Water Reduction .................................................................... 9
1.5.4 Institutional Feasibility ................................................................................ 10
1.6 Subproject Implementation .............................................................................. 10
1.7 Subproject Cost, Financing Plan and Financial Analysis ................................. 10
1.8 Economic Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
1.8.1 Economic Internal Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis ......................... 13
2. Description of Study Area ................................................................................... 14

2.1 Bacnotan ......................................................................................................... 14
2.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Physical Features....................................................................................... 14
2.1.3 Population .................................................................................................. 16
2.1.4 Economy .................................................................................................... 19
2.1.5 Social Services .......................................................................................... 20
2.1.6 Development Plans .................................................................................... 21
2.2 Bauang............................................................................................................ 21
2.2.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3 Population .................................................................................................. 23
2.2.4 Economy .................................................................................................... 25
2.2.5 Social Services .......................................................................................... 26
2.3 San Gabriel ..................................................................................................... 28
2.3.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 28
2.3.3 Population .................................................................................................. 29
2.3.4 Economy .................................................................................................... 31
2.3.5 Social Services .......................................................................................... 32
2.4 San Juan ......................................................................................................... 33
2.4.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 33
ii

2.4.3 Population .................................................................................................. 34
2.4.4 Economy .................................................................................................... 36
2.4.5 Social Services .......................................................................................... 37
2.5 San Fernando City .......................................................................................... 38
2.5.1 Location ..................................................................................................... 38
2.5.3 Population .................................................................................................. 39
2.5.4 Economy .................................................................................................... 43
2.5.5 Social Services .......................................................................................... 44
2.6 Waste Disposal Facilities ................................................................................ 46
2.6.1 Drainage .................................................................................................... 46
2.6.2 Sewage Disposal ....................................................................................... 46
2.6.3 Solid Waste ................................................................................................ 47
3. Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations .................................. 48

3.1 Socio-economic Survey ................................................................................... 48
3.1.1 Profile of Households in Subproject Site .................................................... 48
3.1.2 Income and Expenditure Profile ................................................................. 49
3.1.3 Existing Water Service ............................................................................... 49
3.1.4 Sanitation, Health and Hygiene .................................................................. 51
3.1.5 Willingness to Connect/ Willingness to Pay ................................................ 51
3.1.6 Risks and Vulnerabilities ............................................................................ 52
3.1.7 Social Services and Networks .................................................................... 53
3.1.8 Gender Roles, Issues and Concerns .......................................................... 53
3.2 Stakeholder Consultations and Focus Group Discussions............................... 54
3.2.1 Summary of Consultations ......................................................................... 55
3.3 Poverty Analysis, Social Benefits and Recommendations ............................... 60
3.3.1 Poverty Analysis ........................................................................................ 60
3.3.2 Social Benefits ........................................................................................... 60
3.3.3 Gender Analysis ......................................................................................... 60
3.3.4 Indigenous People, Ethnic Minorities and other Vulnerable Groups in
the Subproject area .................................................................................... 61
3.3.5 Social Equity and Environmental Justice .................................................... 61
3.3.6 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 62
4. The Water District and its Existing Facilities ..................................................... 63

4.1 Historical Background ..................................................................................... 63
4.2 Description of Waterworks Facilities ................................................................ 63
4.2.1 Source Facilities ......................................................................................... 65
4.2.2 Treatment Facilities .................................................................................... 66
4.2.3 Transmission Mains ................................................................................... 67
4.2.4 Storage Facilities........................................................................................ 67
4.2.5 Distribution Facilities .................................................................................. 68
4.2.6 Service Connections and Other Appurtenances ......................................... 68
4.3 Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 68
4.4 Field Investigation ........................................................................................... 69
4.4.1 Production .................................................................................................. 69
4.4.2 System Pressure ........................................................................................ 70
4.5 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 70
4.6 Water Use Profile ............................................................................................ 71
4.6.1 Population Served ...................................................................................... 71
4.6.2 Water Consumption ................................................................................... 71
iii
4.7 Water Rates .................................................................................................... 72

4.8 Water System Deficiencies.............................................................................. 72
4.8.1 Water Sources and Quality ........................................................................ 72
4.8.2 Transmission Facilities ............................................................................... 72
4.8.3 Distribution Facilities .................................................................................. 73
4.8.4 Service Connections and Appurtenances ................................................... 73
5. Population and Water Demand Projections ....................................................... 74

5.1 General ........................................................................................................... 74
5.2 Service Area Delineation ................................................................................. 74
5.3 Barangay and Service Area Population Projections ........................................ 74
5.3.1 Past Growth Rates ..................................................................................... 76
5.3.2 Future Growth Rates .................................................................................. 76
5.3.3 Population Projections ............................................................................... 76
5.3.4 Served Population Projections ................................................................... 77
5.4 Water Demand Projections.............................................................................. 78
5.4.1 Domestic Water Demand ........................................................................... 78
5.4.2 Commercial/Industrial Water Demand ........................................................ 79
5.4.3 Institutional Water Demand ........................................................................ 80
5.4.4 Bulk Water Demand ................................................................................... 80
5.4.5 Non Revenue Water (NRW) ....................................................................... 81
5.4.6 Total Water Demand .................................................................................. 81
5.4.7 Number of Service Connections ................................................................. 81
5.4.8 Water Demand Variations .......................................................................... 81
6. Water Resources .................................................................................................. 83

6.1 Water Resources Inventory ............................................................................. 83
6.1.1 Surface Water Inventory............................................................................. 83
6.1.2 Groundwater Resources Inventory ............................................................. 84
6.1.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................. 91
6.2 Recommended Potential Sources ................................................................... 91
6.2.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................ 91
6.2.2 Groundwater .............................................................................................. 92
6.3 Recommended Further Investigations of Potential Sources ............................ 93
6.3.1 Test Well Drilling ........................................................................................ 93
6.3.2 Dug Well Construction ............................................................................... 94
7. Analysis of Options and Alternatives ................................................................. 96

7.1 Water Supply................................................................................................... 96
7.1.1 Additional Water Demand .......................................................................... 96
7.1.2 Water Sources ........................................................................................... 96
7.1.3 Treatment .................................................................................................. 97
7.1.4 Distribution Storage.................................................................................... 97
7.1.5 Non Revenue Water Reduction .................................................................. 98
7.2 Sanitation ........................................................................................................ 99
8. Recommended Plan – Water Supply................................................................. 101

8.1 Water Demand and Service Connection Projections ..................................... 101
8.2 Proposed Sources ......................................................................................... 101
8.3 LWUA Program ............................................................................................. 102
8.4 Proposed Development Plan ......................................................................... 102
8.4.1 Phase I Development Program ................................................................ 102
8.4.2 Development Program Phase II ............................................................... 105
8.5 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. 106
8.5.1 Capital Cost ............................................................................................. 106
iv
8.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost ............................................................. 110

8.5.3 Implementation Program .......................................................................... 110
9. Recommended Plan – Sanitation ...................................................................... 114
10. Assessment of Water District Capability .......................................................... 115

10.1 Water District History..................................................................................... 115
10.1.1 “Privatization” Issue.................................................................................. 115
10.2 Past Performance ......................................................................................... 115
10.2.1 Debt Servicing .......................................................................................... 116
10.2.2 Performance Parameters ......................................................................... 116
10.2.3 Ability to Innovate ..................................................................................... 116
10.2.4 Non Revenue Water Reduction Program ................................................. 116
10.2.5 Meter Reading, Billing and Collection ....................................................... 118
10.2.6 New Connections ..................................................................................... 118
10.2.7 Service Coverage..................................................................................... 118
10.3 Institutional Feasibility ................................................................................... 118
10.3.1 Relationship with LGU.............................................................................. 118
10.3.2 Relationship with LWUA ........................................................................... 119
10.3.3 Structure and Staff ................................................................................... 119
10.3.4 Systems ................................................................................................... 119
10.4 Project Implementation.................................................................................. 120
10.4.1 LWUA Proposed Project .......................................................................... 120
10.4.2 Proposed Set-up for ADB Subproject Implementation .............................. 120
11. Financial Analysis .............................................................................................. 122

11.1 Historical and Existing Financial Performance (2004-2008)........................... 122
11.1.1 Revenues and Expenses ......................................................................... 122
11.1.2 Cash Flow ................................................................................................ 124
11.1.3 Outstanding Obligations ........................................................................... 125
11.1.4 Assets ...................................................................................................... 126
11.1.5 Accounts Receivable - Customers ........................................................... 126
11.1.6 Liabilities .................................................................................................. 127
11.1.7 Financial Ratios ....................................................................................... 127
11.2 Financial Feasibility ....................................................................................... 128
11.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 128
11.2.2 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................... 129
11.2.3 Revenue Forecasts .................................................................................. 131
11.2.4 Project Viability ........................................................................................ 132
11.3 Impact of the Proposed Subprojects on the WD’s Future Financial Operation . 133
12. Economic Analysis ............................................................................................ 135

12.1 Overall approach to Economic Analysis ........................................................ 135
12.2 Economic Rationale ...................................................................................... 135
12.3 Before- and After-Project Situations .............................................................. 136
12.4 Economic Benefits ........................................................................................ 136
12.5 Willingness to Pay ......................................................................................... 137
12.6 Economic Costs ............................................................................................ 138
12.7 EIRR and Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................... 138
12.8 Subproject Beneficiaries ................................................................................ 139
12.9 Project Sustainability ..................................................................................... 139
12.10 Poverty Impact ........................................................................................... 139
v
Figures
1.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements - MLUWD 7

1.2 Location Map of Proposed Septage Treatment Facility, San Fernando City 11
2.1 Location of Metro La Union Water District 15
3.1 Map of Existing and Proposed Service Area – MLUWD 57
4.1 Schematic of Existing MLUWD Water Supply Systems 64
5.1 Present and Future Service Areas – MLUWD 75
8.1 Schematic Diagram of Proposed Development Plan – MLUWD 103

8.2 Phase I Implementation Schedule – MLUWD 112
8.3 Phase II Implementation Schedule – MLUWD 113
10.1 Project Management Organization Structure 121
Tables
1.1 Service Coverage - MLUWD 4

1.2 Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand - MLUWD 5
1.3 Non Revenue Water Requirements – MLUWD 6
1.4 Sanitation Facilities and Coverage, 2000 – MLUWD 8
1.5 MLUWD Past Performance 9
1.6 Total Development Cost (in PhP’000) – MLUWD 11
1.7 Financing Plan (in PhP’000) – MLUWD 11
2.1 Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, Bacnotan 17

2.2 Bacnotan - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population 18
2.3 Bacnotan - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population 18
2.4 Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour, May 2009 – Bacnotan 21
2.5 Bauang Land Areas and Population Densities 24
2.6 Bauang - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population 25
2.7 Bauang - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population 25
2.8 La Union Electric Company, Inc. (LUECO), San Fernando City, La Union
Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour as of May, 2009 27
2.9 La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LUELCO), Aringay, La Union
Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour as of May, 2009 27
2.10 San Gabriel Population Density b Barangay: 2000 and 2007 29
2.11 San Gabriel Population Density b Barangay: 2000 and 2007 30
2.12 San Gabriel - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population 30
2.13 Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, San Juan, La Union 35
2.14 San Juan - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population 36
2.15 San Juan- Leading Causes of Mortality 36
2.16 Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, San Fernando City,
La Union 40
2.17 San Fernando - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population 41
2.18 San Fernando - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population 42
2.19 Sanitation Facilities and Coverage, Metro La Union, 2000 46
3.1 Barangay Coverage and Projected Coverage of MLUWD 55
vi
Tables (continued)
4.1 Source Facilities – MLUWD 65

4.2 Spring and Deepwell Production Figures – MLUWD 69
4.3 WD Deepwell and Lon-oy Production Figures (lps) – MLUWD 70
4.4 Non Revenue Water Analysis – MLUWD 71
4.5 Average Water Consumption – MLUWD 71
4.6 Water Rates – MLUWD 72
5.1 Number of Barangays in Service Area – MLUWD 74

5.2 City/Municipal Growth Rates – MLUWD 76
5.3 Growth Rates – MLUWD 76
5.4 Population Projections – MLUWD 77
5.5 Served Population Projections – MLUWD 77
5.6 Existing Consumption/ Connection – MLUWD 78
5.7 Projected per Capita Consumption – MLUWD 78
5.8 Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (Usage) – MLUWD 79
5.9 Commercial/Industrial Establishments – MLUWD 79
5.10 Projected Unit Commercial Consumption – MLUWD 80
5.11 Projected Commercial/Industrial Connections and Consumption (Usage)
– MLUWD 80
5.12 Projected Bulk Connections and Consumption (Usage) – MLUWD 80
5.13 Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand – MLUWD 81
5.14 Water Demand Variations (cumd) – MLUWD 82
6.1 Well Data Summary – MLUWD 86

6.2 Yield of Existing MLUWD Wells 88
7.1 Additional Water Requirements (2010 – 2025) – MLUWD 96

7.2 Existing Water Storage Facilities – MLUWD 97
7.3 Projected Water Storage Requirements – MLUWD 97
7.4 Non Revenue Water Requirements – MLUWD 98
7.5 Review of Available Septage Treatment Technologies 100
8.1 Projected Number of Service Connections – MLUWD 101

8.2 Projected Water Demand Projections/Water Demand Variations – MLUWD 101
8.3 MLUWD Potential Wellfields 101
8.4 Phase I New Water Sources – MLUWD 102
8.5 Proposed Phase I Water Storage Facilities – MLUWD 102
8.6 Phase II New Water Sources – MLUWD 105
8.7 Phase II New Water Storage Facility – MLUWD 105
8.8 Estimate of Capital Cost - Design YR 2025 (Phase I and II) – MLUWD 106
8.9 Estimate of Capital Cost - Phase I (for Design year 2020) – MLUWD 107
8.10 Estimate of Capital Cost - Phase II (for Design year 2025) – MLUWD 109
8.11 Operation and Maintenance Estimated Cost – MLUWD 111
10.1 MLUWD Past Performance 116

10.2 Non Revenue Water Reduction Measures – MLUWD 117
11.1 MLUWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 122

11.2 MLUWD Water Tariff 123
11.3 MLUWD Operating Expenses 123
11.4 MLUWD Net Income, 2004-2008 124
11.5 Income Statement 2005-2008 – MLUWD 124
11.6 Cash Flow Statements, 2005-2008 – MLUWD 125
vii
Tables (continued)
11.7 Assets and Other Debts, 2004-2008 – MLUWD 126

11.8 Accounts Receivables – Customers (2004-2008) – MLUWD 126
11.9 Aging of Accounts Receivables – MLUWD 127
11.10 Liabilities and Equity, 2004-2008 – MLUWD 127
11.11 MLUWD Financial Ratios, 2004-2008 128
11.12 Total Development Cost – MLUWD 129
11.13 Financing Plan – MLUWD 130
11.14 Proposed Tariff Schedule, 2014 – MLUWD 131
11.15 Other Parameters and Assumptions – MLUWD 132
11.16 Weighted Cost of Capital – MLUWD 132
11.17 Summary Result of FIRR – MLUWD 133
11.18 Summary of Financial Ratios – MLUWD 134
12.1 Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply – MLUWD 136

12.2 Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply – MLUWD 137
12.3 Willingness to Pay (WTP) – MLUWD 137
12.4 EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply – MLUWD 138
12.5 Subproject Beneficiaries, Water Supply – MLUWD 139
12.6 Project Sustainability, Water Supply – MLUWD 139
Appendices
3.1 Socio-economic Survey Results – Metro La Union Water District 141

3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Consultations – MLUWD - April–September 2009 227
3.3 Output of Gender Action Planning Workshop August 6 – 7, 2009 236
3.4 Some Recommendations on Social Dimensions in Subproject
Implementation 238
4 Silver Ionization Process 242
5.1 Population Projections per LGU and Barangay – MLUWD 244

5.2 Water Demand per LGU and Barangay – MLUWD 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025 265
6.1 Surface Water Data – MLUWD 296

6.2 Groundwater Data – MLUWD 308
6.3 Extract from Watcon, Inc. Geo-Resistivity Report June 2009 – MLUWD 343
6.4 Proposed Well Locations and Designs – MLUWD 344
7 Non Revenue Water Improvement Measures – MLUWD 345
10 MLUWD Organization Chart 357
11 Financial Analysis Tables – MLUWD 358
12 Economic Analysis – MLUWD 366
viii
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
ABD Asian Development Bank

AIFC average incremental financial cost
A/R accounts receivable
AP affected person
APIS annual poverty indicator survey
ARI acute respiratory infection
AusAID Australian Aid
barangay village
BNA basic needs approach
BOT build-operate-transfer
BSP basic sanitation package
BWSA Barangay Water and Sanitation Association
CAP community action plan

CBO community-based organization
CCF community consultation forum
CDA Cooperatives Development Agency
CDD community-driven development
CFR case fatality rate
CFT community facilitator team
CLTS community-led total sanitation
COA Commission on Audit
C&P consultation and participation
CPC certificate of public convenience
CSC community sanitation center
CSS city sanitation strategy
CY calendar year
DBL design-build-lease
DBO design-build-operate
DBM Department of Budget and Management
BDP Development Bank of The Philippines
DED detailed engineering design
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DFR draft final report
DHF dengue hemorrhage fever
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOF Department of Finance
DOH Department of Health
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DRA demand responsive approach
DSA delineated service area
DSCR debt service coverage ratio
EA executing agency (LWUA)

EARF environmental assessment review framework
EIA environmental impact analysis
EIRR economic internal rate of return
EMP environmental management plan
EO executive order
EOCC economic opportunity cost of capital
FGD focus group discussion

FMAQ financial management assessment questionnaire
forex foreign exchange
FS feasibility study
FY fiscal year (1 January – 31 December)
ix
GFI government financial institution

GIS geographic information system
GOCC government owned and controlled corporation
GOP Government of the Republic of the Philippines
GR (i) government regulation, (ii) general record (in legal cases)
HDI Human Development Index

HH household
HRD human resources development
IA implementing agency
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
ICC Investment Coordinating Council (NEDA)
ICG internal cash generation
IDAP institutional development action plan
IDC interest during construction
IDCB institutional development and capacity building
IEC information-education-communication
IEE initial environmental examination
IFS Investment and Financial Services (LWUA)
IOL inventory of losses
IPDP indigenous peoples’ development plan
IRA internal revenue allotment
IRR implementing rules and regulations
IT information technology
IWA International Water Association
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KABP knowledge-attitudes-behavior-practices
KFP an adaptation of KAP (knowledge, attitudes and practices)
LCMD Legazpi City Water District

LG local government
LGC local government code
LGU local government unit
LIDAP local institutional development action plan
LIHH low income household
LLI local level institutions
LOI letter of intent
lps liters per second
LWUA Local Water Utilities Administration
MDFO Municipal Development Fund Office

MDG Millennium Development Goals
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MFF Multitranche Financing Facility (ADB)
MIS management information system
MLUWD Metro La Union Water District
MOU memorandum of understanding
MPA Methodology for Participatory Assessments
MTPDP Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
MTPIP Medium-Term Public Investment Program
MWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (Metro Manila)
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resources inventory Authority

NAPC National Anti Poverty Commission
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NGA national government agency
x
NGO non-government organization

NPV net present value
NRW non-revenue water
NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board
NSO National Statistics Office
NSSMP National Sewerage and Septage Management Program
NWRB National Water Resources Board
OCR Ordinary Capital Resources (ADB)

ODA official development assistance
OGCC Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
OJT on-the-job training
O&M operation and maintenance
PD presidential decree
PFI private funding institution
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
PIU project implementation unit
PMO project management office
PMU project management unit
PNSDW Philippine National Standards on Drinking Water
poblacion urban center
PPMS project performance monitoring system
PPTA project preparation technical assistance
PSA poverty and social assessment
psi pounds per square inch
PSP private sector participation
PWSSR Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
QC quality control
QM quality management
QMWD Quezon Metro Water District
RA republic act
RG regional government
RIAP revenue improvement action plan
RRP report and recommendation of the president (ADB)
RWSA Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association
SES socioeconomic survey

SHBC sanitation and health behavioral change
SLA sub-loan agreement

SPAR subproject appraisal report
SSC school sanitation centre
SCSS simplified community sewerage system
SLA subsidiary loan agreement
SWG sanitation working group
SWM solid waste management
TA technical assistance
TB tubercolosis
TOR terms of reference
TOT training-of-trainers
UFW unaccounted-for water

UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
V variation (contract)
xi
VIP ventilated improved pit (latrine)
WASCO Water Supply Coordination Office (NAPC)

WD water district
WHO World Health Organization
WPEP Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project
WQ water quality
WS water supply
WSP water service provider
WSP-EAP Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia Pacific
WSS water and sanitation
WTP willingness-to-pay
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
xii
Location Map
Metro La
Union WD
Quezon
Metro WD Legazpi
City WD
Leyte
Metro WD
City of
Koronadal WD
1
SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1. Based on an evaluation of candidate water districts (WD) on criteria such as

creditworthiness, interest to participate, and readiness, during the Inception Phase of the
PPTA (March 2009), Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) was selected as one of five
pilot WDs to participate in the PPTA for the preparation of subproject appraisal reports
(SPAR).
2. The SPAR is based on data collection field surveys (including a socio-economic

survey), stakeholder consultations and analyses carried out during April-August 2009. A
participatory approach was adopted, involving close consultation with key stakeholders and
target communities which has enabled subproject design and formulation to reflect the views
and aspirations of the WD, local government stakeholders and beneficiary communities. The
subproject was prepared in accordance with relevant national legal requirements and
standards, and ADB requirements, policies, and guidelines.
3. Through this process, interest was expressed by both MLUWD and San Fernando
City and some of the other the Local Government Units (LGU) in the MLUWD franchise area
in cooperating to develop a pilot sanitation (septage management) component—in addition to
the proposed improvements and expansion of the WD’s water supply system.
4. Draft outline technical designs, tariff projections and implementation arrangements

were presented and discussed with national and subproject stakeholders during a workshop
on 26-27 August 2009. Adjustments/ refinements to the subproject design and
implementation program resulting from the workshop were incorporated in the SPAR in the
Draft Final Report (DFR) submitted in November 2009. Furthermore the recommendations
were likewise subjected to a public consultation in San Fernando on 4 September.
5. For the preparation of the DFR it was assumed that sanitation works would be
financed under a grant from AusAID, subject to confirmation. However, during the tripartite
meeting for the DFR held on 16 February 2010, ADB informed that AusAID had changed
their investment priorities, and grant funds were no longer available for sanitation.
6. On 23-24 February 2010, MLUWD were consulted in this new light, to determine
whether they were interested if sanitation was financed from the loan or from their own funds.
The WD decided to forego the sanitation component due to the following reasons:
- MLUWD’s current priority is the water supply component. Currently, they still have a lot
to do to improve their system.
- The sanitation component is partly being addressed in another project of the City of San
Fernando which is funded by USAID and BORDA.
- They can perhaps include the sanitation component at a later time, if they will decide to
have a Phase 2.
7. The format of the SPAR is based on the standard format for feasibility studies as
prepared for the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), the executing agency for the
PPTA.
2
1.2 CONCLUSIONS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY AND STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS
1.2.1 Socio-economic Survey
8. Methodology. A household socio-economic survey was conducted to gather data for

socio-economic, gender, water and health and sanitation profiles for the subproject site. The
tool was designed to provide gender-disaggregated data to determine the distinct situation,
and subproject-related needs and concerns of women and men in the coverage area.
9. Three hundred eighty four (384) respondents were interviewed to reach 95% level of
confidence at 0.1 standard deviation. Stratified random sampling was used to determine the
survey sample, with three levels of stratification—municipality/city, serviced/expansion areas,
and barangays—in both service/expansion sites.
10. Findings. Average household size was 5.11; with about 35% having 3-5 members,
with an average monthly income of about PhP12,950.
11. About 12% of survey respondents had piped water with MLUWD. Poor households
were less likely to be connected (93% were unconnected) than non-poor at 87%. Of those
interviewed, 22% provided water to neighbors or relatives; sharing often ocurres where there
are multiple families in a household; 29% catered to 2-3 families.
12. Some 47% of respondents are willing to connect to water service.
13. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents did not have a water connection with the WD.
However, 44% of non-connected interviewees got water from water vendors and peddlers;
and 5% reported paying for supply of piped water from another’s connection.
14. Of those who were not connected, 42% were willing to connect, with an additional 5%
willing to connect if the system were improved—including those that had incomes below the
household income poverty threshold estimated at PhP6,739.
15. As for their reasons for not being connected, 55% cited that a water service was not
available; high connection charges was cited by 18%, while 15% viewed their present water
source as adequate.
16. Most households (92%) reported satisfaction with their current toilet system. The main
reason for dissatisfaction was due to backflow (44%). Less than a quarter of WD-connected
households (23%) wanted to improve their septage system; and for those who did, 46%
prioritized the installation of a septic tank.
1.2.2 Summary of Stakeholder Consultation Findings
17. Water supply. Stakeholder consultations confirmed the immediate need for the
subproject among those without alternative water sources, especially in urban areas and in
areas with salt water intrusion. The proposed subproject interventions stand to benefit all,
including the poor, and will support LGUs’ development plans.
18. Sanitation. Demand for improved septage was relatively low among households,
indicating the need for social marketing of sanitation. Advocacy and consultations with the
LGUs of San Fernando City, Bauang, Bacnotan and San Juan resulted in the expression of
interest by the LGUs of San Fernando, San Juan and Bauang to partner with the WD in
implementing a sanitation plan. The city of San Fernando is a recipient of two other small
3
grants for sanitation from BORDA and USAID. WDDSP will complement the facilities and
assistance provided by these other two organizations. It was agreed that the water district
will cover the septage requirements of water-connected households.
19. Sanitation hotspots such as slums along river banks and shorelines are prioritized for
assisted improvement or construction of septic tanks. Seashore barangays that are
convergence points for urban poor in public and idle private lands will thus be benefited.
20. Affordability and Willingness to Pay. With the high cost of production, the water
tariff was considered high at PhP230 minimum charge for 10 cubic meters per month for both
domestic and government use, and PhP460 for commercial and industrial establishments.
This was cited as a major deterrent for connection to the WD system, especially among
those with alternative water sources. There were apprehensions that the tariff might become
higher still with the sanitation component or with improved services.
21. Perceived Areas for Improvement. Consultations called for the WD to reduce water
rates, improve water quality (water gets turbid when it rains) and water pressure in existing
service areas. The commercial sector considered water rates onerous, forcing many to install
their own deepwells. However, the proliferation of deep wells is believed to affect the water
table and overall water supply. High non-revenue water was attributed to old pipes and
meters and illegal connections.
22. Social Equity and Environmental Justice. Water rate discount or royalty as water
sources has been requested by the local governments of San Juan and San Gabriel. While
requests have so far not been granted, the move was seen as a way towards more equitable
distribution of benefits since these municipalities have less served barangays, while coping
with the prospect of deteriorating forests in the water catchment areas.
1.2.3 Recommendations
23. The pilot subproject should support strategies to link water and sanitation to the
Project’s overarching goal of poverty reduction. The proposed elements of a plan for the
social dimensions of the subproject reinforce a public service orientation and a Corporate
Social Responsibility agenda consistent with delivery of water and sanitation as a public
service with pro-poor orientation.
24. The subproject should target all households (HH) living within the vicinity of the
network of the piped water system. To expand the reach of subproject benefits while
maximizing cost recovery, the subproject should also set targets to reach disadvantaged
groups (e.g. women-headed HHs and the poor HHs in the slum areas) and other
unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water service such as communal water points.
This may also be through easy installation plans.
25. Households for the sanitation component should be identified in coordination with
NGO partners and the local government units that will undertake a survey of sanitation
facilities. In coordination with local government resources, targets should also be made to
cover all sanitation hotspots for the improvement of septage systems by the end of
subproject loan implementation.
26. Capability building should support community management of water and sanitation
facilities for the poor. Moreover, the WD’s Gender and Development Fund can be a source of
seed capital for water-related livelihood opportunities for the women and the poor. A
microfinance facility could be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is
a revolving fund that may be managed in cooperation with a non-government agency.
4
1.3 WATER SUPPLY
1.3.1 Rationale
27. Over recent years MLUWD has had a high turn-over of customers, whilst the number
of connections has increased by around 15% over the last 12 years the per connection
consumption has decreased by a similar percentage—indicating that current sources are
fully utilized.
28. There is a need to improve the system of MLUWD, as only 17% of its franchise area
population receive water service at present—this is a very low coverage figure for a 30+ year
old WD. Also, consumer’s demands are suppressed and the level of non-revenue water
(NRW) is very high (50-53%). MLUWD needs to reduce the market share of private water
vendors, increase its coverage area and recover disconnected concessionaires due to water
supply loss.
29. The proposed water supply development aims to improve the water supply system of
MLUWD in order to meet the projected water demand for the design year 2025, both in the
existing and proposed service areas.
1.3.2 Existing Water Supply System
30. The present water supply facilities of MLUWD consist of two systems: (i) the first (San
Fernando System or System I) serves Fernando City, Bauang, San Juan and San Gabriel,
(ii) while the and the second (Bacnotan System or System II) serves Bacnotan.
31. The raw water sources are from a combination of surface water (Lon-oy spring/creek),
deep well and shallow well sources. The average production for 2008 was 134 lps. However,
in December 2008, the production was only 116 lps.
32. Table 1.1 shows the service coverage of the WD. As of December 2008 there were
8,184 total active service connections; System I has 8,019 connections, while System II has
165 connections. All connections are metered.
33. Deficiencies. Notable deficiencies of the water system are:

High transmission main pressures in San Gabriel, coupled with poor quality
transmission mains.
High NRW (50-53% of production) due to poor condition of AC (asbestos cement)
pipes and illegal connections.
Limited supply—low pressure prevails in many distribution areas.
Turbidity of water during rainy days at the Lon-oy water intake.
Table 1.1: Service Coverage - MLUWD

Active Bacnotan Bauang San Gabriel San Juan San Total
Connections Fernando
(December
2008)
Total 165 2,542 84 695 4,698 8,184
Residential 163 2,449 84 680 4,383 7,759
Total 40,390 72,600 16,410 34,870 120,410 284,680
Population
Served 984 14,973 504 4,125 27,237 47,823
Population
Service 2.4 20.6 3.0 11.8 22.6 16.8
Coverage (%)
5
1.3.3 Scope of Proposed Water Supply Component
(i) Demand Projections
34. From the existing 65 barangays covered at present, the service area will expand to 85
barangays in 2015, and eventually cover 99 barangays in 2025. Thirty eight percent (38%) of
the franchise area will eventually be covered by year 2025.
35. The projected number of service connections of MLUWD and average day demand
(AveDay) are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand - MLUWD
City Projected Total Connections and Ave Day Demand (cumd)
/Municipality 2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay
Bacnotan 165 144 509 486 984 921 1,464 1,318
Bauang 2,542 2,345 4,120 4,146 5,338 5,198 6,574 6,185
San Gabriel 84 71 238 227 381 355 527 472
San Juan 700 635 1,160 1,135 1,732 1,661 2,354 2,148
San Fernando 4,700 4,785 6,041 6,514 8,949 9,178 11,832 11,330
Total 8,191 7,980 12,068 12,508 17,384 7,313 22,090 21,453
(ii) Water Resources
36. Average production from the Lon-oy Creek is 27 lps (2,333 cumd) while average
production from the wells is 118 lps (10,200 cumd), for a total of 145 lps (12,528 cumd).
37. The results of the geo-resistivity survey conducted by the PPTA identified potential
wellfield in the areas northeast and south of San Fernando City. Construction of additional
wells and induced infiltration wells along the Baroro and Bauang Rivers can be made to
provide additional supply to MLUWD.
38. With the year 2025 maximum-day demands at 301 lps (26,006 cumd), the additional
demands of 156 lps (13,478 cumd) can be obtained from wells to be drilled along the Bauang
River in the Municipality of Bauang and along the Baroro River in the Municipalities of San
Juan and San Gabriel.
(iii) Non Revenue Water
39. A study was conducted on the requirements needed to reduce the level of NRW of the
MLUWD. The study resulted in the recommendations shown in Table 1.3.
40. Such a program if properly implemented could have a potential reduction of the NRW
to a level of 25% or even less. However, the cost of implementing such a program would
necessitate the replacement of all the AC pipes, customer meters and service connections.
This would be an expensive undertaking and subject to strict implementation and monitoring
to achieve the intended results. Besides, the illegal connections, once legitimized, would not
really need replacement capex (capital expenditure). Many components could be taken
cared of by the annual WD repair and maintenance budget.
6
Table 1.3: Non Revenue Water Requirements - MLUWD

Expense Category Sub-Categories Php Capex Cost
(PhP million)
(2010-2015)
NRW Control Production metering, district zone metering, 9.46
leak detection equipment, data logging
equipment
NRW Reduction Customer meter replacements, mains 70
replacement, service pipe replacements,
valve rehab/replacements
Mgmt System Capex GIS and hydraulic modelling 1.4
Total 80.86
41. Since the 2015 projections intend to reduce the NRW level to 32%, and the 2025 to
30%, a capex of 50% of the total program will be budgeted, according to the following plan:
LWUA program (2009 – 2010) PhP10 million
Phase I (2012 – 2014) PhP15 million
Phase II (2018 – 2019) PhP10 million
WD Internal budget (2009 – 2025) PhP5 million.
(iv) Recommended Plan for Water Facilities
42. LWUA program. LWUA is currently preparing a Program of Work (POW) for the
MLUWD of about PhP86 million, of which about PhP50 million is alloted for infrastructure
development. The LWUA POW objective is to provide a water service to Poro Point, San
Fernando, as well as to reduce NRW. The POW1 will be implemented in 2010. Some of the
NRW remedial works required will be undertaken in this POW.
43. Proposed subproject development plan under WDDSP. This development plan
aims to improve the water supply system of MLUWD in to meet the projected water demand
for the design year 2025, both in the existing and proposed service areas.The program
includes the development of new source facilities with the required pumpsets, provision of
new treatment facilities, installation of new transmission and distribution pipelines and
construction of new distribution reservoirs..
44. The recommended plan involves two (2) construction phases: (i) the proposed Phase
I will meet the projected water demand for Year 2020, and is scheduled to be completed in
2014, (ii) while Phase II should be implemented before the Year 2020 to the meet the
demand of the design year 2025.
45. A schematic diagram of the proposed improvements is shown on Figure 1.1.
46. Phase I development program: The Phase 1 development program is estimated to

cost PhP312.5 million ($6.51 million) to include engineering and contingencies. The program
will include the construction of eight (8) wells with pumpsets; treatment facilities for each of
the new sources plus for the Lon-oy source; 59 km of pipelines; construction of four (4) new
reservoirs, plus commissioning of the San Juan reservoir; and NRW measures. The
developments are planned for implementation during 2012-2014.
47. An additional PhP13.8 million ($0.29 million) will be needed for 9,200 connections
(implementation from 2010– 2019), but these can be funded from consumer connection fees.
1
As of September 2009, the LWUA POW has not yet been finalized
7
Figure 1.1: Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements – MLUWD
8
48. Phase II development program: The Phase II development program is estimated to

cost PhP84.27 million ($1.76 million) and will include the construction of three (3) wells with
pumpsets; treatment facilities for each of the new sources, plus the for Lon-oy source; 59 km
of pipelines; construction of two (2) new reservoirs; and 5,370 connections. The
developments are planned for implementation during 2019-2020.
49. An additional PhP8.05million ($0.17 million) will be needed for 5,370 connections
(implementation from 2019-2025), but these can be funded from consumer connection fees.
1.3.4 Implementation Schedule
50. The subproject is scheduled to start in July 2011 with the procurement of NRW
operational system and equipment. Then, well drilling follows after this activity. After
confirmation of the wells of their quality, quantity and location, the detailed engineering
design will commence. The construction of civil works will start after the detailed engineering
design. The subproject is targeted to be completed in December 2013.
1.4 SANITATION
their investment priorities, and funds were no longer available for sanitation.
have a Phase 2.
53. The sanitation component as originally designed (in the DFR) is included in
Supplementary Appendix F for reference.
1.5 ASSESSMENT OF WATER DISTRICT CAPABILITY
1.5.1 Past Performance
54. The strained relationship between the WD and the LGUs starting in 2002 due to a
privatization move of the LGUs, and was a large stumbling block to the WD improvements.
The WD staff suffered from low morale and even its officers were helpless in motivating the
staff to improve the WD’s operations. As the WD was tied up in the legal cases that evolved,
LWUA could not come in to help the WD as the WD was “dissolved”, and hence could not be
offered financial assistance.
55. Table 1.5 summarizes the past performance of the WD along certain performance
parameters.
9
Table 1.5: MLUWD Past Performance

Parameters 2001 2007
Actual Industry Actual Industry
Average “Big WD”
Average
NRW (%) 40 31 55 26
Ave Collection Period 38 44 48 54
(days)
2
Connections/Staff 158 117 117 195
Return on Revenue 21 15 27 17
(%)
No. of connections 7,732 10,107 8,047 12,653
Source: WD Monthly Data Sheet (MDS).
56. As can be expected, the WD suffered in terms of performance efficiency. However,

notwithstanding the drop in operational performance, the WD was able to improve its return
on revenue. Operating cost ranges from 75-85% of operating revenues
57. The population served by the WD is only 17% of the population within its franchise
area. This is a very low coverage figure for a 30+ year old WD and, together with the high
NRW, may have prompted the provincial government to look for private sector options to
improve service coverage and performance.
1.5.2 Operating Systems
58. There are many improvements that should be done with respect to the operating and
financial systems being utilized by the WD. Some of the deficiencies (as of October 2008)
that have been noted are the following:
A. Financial and Management Control:
• There is no daily cash position report, and out of 6 collectors only one is
bonded.
• Expenditures are paid directly from collections.
• Disbursements sometimes lack support documents.
B. Commercial Operations:
• Some services have not been disconnected despite having more than 2
months arrears.
• Employees and government connections are not charged penalties despite
having arrears.
59. The system defects could easily be corrected. And as claimed by WD officials, some
of the practices were made for the WD to gain support against the privatization move.
1.5.3 Non Revenue Water Reduction
60. It is considered that illegal connections are a problem within the MLUWD network.
The General Manager estimated that up to 50% of the losses could be as a result of illegal
connections. The WD had asked LWUA to include NRW reduction in its POW.
2
Includes “job order” personnel.
10
1.5.4 Institutional Feasibility
61. Relationship with LGUs. Since the end of 2008, the LGUs have not pursued their
privatization initiative. The provincial government has, however, requested the WD to
improve both its coverage and efficiency. The WD has since then turned to LWUA for
assistance.
62. Relationship with LWUA. The MLUWD has maintained its cordial relationship with
LWUA. In June 2009, LWUA had approved a PhP86 million financial assistance to MLUWD.
The WD has always been up-to-date in its debt servicing to LWUA.
63. Structure and staff. The organizational structure for the MLUWD had been approved
by the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) and follows the recommended
structure for “Big” water districts. The officers are qualified and have been with the WD for
several years.
64. It is suggested that MLUWD set up a team to focus on the identification and
subsequent conversion of illegal connections to legal paying customers. This is not an easy
task and is something that requires good network knowledge, incentives and penalties,
effective communication and hard work in the field visiting all areas of the network. This is an
area of activity that could be outsourced on a performance basis.
1.6 SUBPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
65. LWUA has approved a PhP86 million financial assistance for the WD involving
transmission pipeline construction and an NRW reduction program (pipeline replacement,
valving, metering). The WD will construct a source in Bauang Municipality as its equity.
66. Since the WD has been adjudged by LWUA as a capable WD, this WDDSP
subproject can be implemented by Administration. LWUA will manage this subproject
together with the WD Construction Division. The LWUA resident engineer will have a
supervision role, while the Construction Division will handle the day-to-day activities of the
subproject—including hiring of construction inspectors and workers, securing of permits and
activity scheduling.
67. The ADB subproject will be tendered to get a contractor(s) responsible for both civil
works and materials. With a contractor, the LWUA will either assign a resident engineer or an
account officer with the WD Construction Division doing most of the construction supervisory
activities.
1.7 SUBPROJECT COST, FINANCING PLAN AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
68. Development Costs. The total development cost for the water supply subproject is
approximately Php341 million ($7.6 million). This is based on the costs presented in the
technical evaluation with additional price contingency to allow for the timing of
implementation. Table 1.6 presents a summary of the development cost for the water supply
system.
69. Financing Plan. The subproject will mainly be financed by ADB through relending by
LWUA to the Water District for the water supply system. ADB loan will finance Php303 million
($6.7 million) while the WD will finance the costs of land acquisition, resettlement and
government taxes amounting to Php45.4 million ($1 million). The financing plan is shown in
Table 1.7.
11
Table 1.6: Total Development Cost (in PhP’000) – MLUWD

Sub-Total
Component Unit Quantity Unit Cost FEC Local Total
Civil Works Equipment Land
1 Source Development
a. Well Drilling/Development m 8 1,000,000 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0
Sub-Total 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 2,904,000 2,497.5 406.6 - 697.0 2,207.1 2,904.1
production meters, valves,
hypochlorinators, etc
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 12,200,000 3,050.0 9,150.0 - 8,296.0 3,904.0 12,200.0
including controls & accessories,
riser pipes, transformers, power
line extension, etc.
c. Gen-set set 8 550,000 440.0 3,960.0 - 3,124.0 1,276.0 4,400.0
Sub-Total 5,987.5 13,516.6 - 12,117.0 7,387.1 19,504.1
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 163,630,080 147,267.0 16,363.0 - 65,452.0 98,178.0 163,630.0
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 29,750,000 28,262.5 1,487.5 - 5,652.5 24,097.5 29,750.0
5 Distribution Facilities ls 1 24,241,140 21,817.0 2,424.0 - 9,696.3 14,544.7 24,241.0
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,000,000 7,200.0 4,800.0 - 3,840.0 8,160.0 12,000.0
7 Resettlement Cost ls 1 2,768,150 - 2,768.2 - 2,768.2 2,768.2
8 Land Acquisition lot 2,600 500 - 1,300.0 - 1,300.0 1,300.0
SUB-TOTAL 218,534.0 38,591.1 4,068.2 99,157.8 162,035.5 261,193.3
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 16,970.3 - - 5,091.1 11,879.2 16,970.3
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 11,313.6 - - 1,131.4 10,182.2 11,313.6
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 4,924.0 20,991.9 25,915.9
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 26,125.3 4,084.8 430.6 2,692.0 30,692.0 33,383.9
GRAND TOTAL 272,943.2 42,675.9 4,498.8 112,996.3 235,780.8 348,777.1
Table 1.7: Financing Plan (in PhP’000) – MLUWD

2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
FUND APPLICATION
Basic Construction Cost - 131,394 125,731 257,125
Land Acquisition/Resettlement 4,068 - - 4,068
Detailed Engineering Design 16,970 - - 16,970
Physical Contingency 203 13,139 12,573 25,916
Price Contingency 1,413 13,565 18,407 33,384
Supervision - 5,781 5,532 11,314
Interest During Construction - - - -
TOTAL 22,655 163,879 162,243 348,777
FUND SOURCE
WD Equity 6,299 19,666 19,469 45,433
Grant - - - -
Others (LGU) - - - -
Sub-Loan 16,356 144,214 142,774 303,344
ADB Sub-Loan 16,356 144,214 142,774 303,344
LWUA Sub-Loan - - - -
TOTAL 22,655 163,879 162,243 348,777
70. Water Tariff. MLUWD last increased the water tariff in 2006. However, it is assumed
that even if there is no subproject, the water tariff will have to be increased in the future to
cover increases in its operational expenses. For purposes of the projection, it is assumed
that water tariffs will increase by 10% every two years in the future.
12
71. A two-time tariff increase is proposed, the first increase in 2011 and the second
increase in 2014. A 10% increase in 2011, even before completion of the subproject, is
necessary for the water district to gain sufficient funds to meet its existing operations.
Another 15% increase is proposed in 2014. From 2016 onwards, it is proposed that water
tariff will have to be increased by 10% to 12% every two years. The proposed increases in
the tariff are less than 60% of the previous tariff and not more than 5% of the family income
of the low income group, which are both in accordance with LWUA’s requirements.
72. Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). A subproject is considered financially

viable if the resulting FIRR of the proposed subproject is higher than the weighted average
cost of capital (WACC) that was used in financing the subproject. An FIRR higher than the
WACC implies that the incremental net revenues generated by the project will be enough to
recover the implementation and operating costs.
73. On the basis of the financing mix and the loan interest of 9.8% and the assumed cost
of equity of 12.0% (the economic opportunity cost of capital), the WACC is 7.06%. Sensitivity
analyses were conducted to determine the effects of adverse changes on a project such as
delay in operation, revenues not realized as expected or increase in capital and O&M
costs.The FIRR results under the five scenarios evaluated (FIRR range 11.72% - 15.33%)
show that the subproject is viable.
74. Affordability of Water Rates. A major consideration in the development of the tariff
schedule is the ability of target beneficiaries to pay for their monthly water bill. It is a standing
policy of LWUA that the minimum charge for residential connections should not exceed 5%
of the family income of the low income group among families connected to the system.
75. For La Union, the estimated monthly income for 2014 is Php10,335.00. Using the
affordability criteria, the minimum monthly bill (minimum charge) of Php291.00 when the
project starts to operate in 2014 is only 2.82% of the estimated monthly income of poor
families. In all subsequent years the minimum monthly bill is less than 5% of the estimated
monthly income. Hence, the proposed level of water tariff is deemed affordable to the low
income or poor families.
76. Impact of the Proposed Subproject on the WD’s Financial Operation. The
Projected Income Statement for the period 2009 to 2041 shows that the Water District will
generate net income for all years of the projection period.
77. Cash Flow Statements are also developed for the same period. It must be noted that
initial analysis shows that the WD’s cash position for the years 2009 is negative. This is due
to the negative beginning balance from year 2008. There would be a need for the WD to
source out funds to remedy their negative cash balances. For the succeeding years, the
statements show that annual cash inflows will be sufficient to cover all annual cash outflows
of the Water District.
1.8 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
78. The economic viability of the subproject was determined by computing the economic
internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the economic opportunity cost of
capital (EOCC) of 15%.3 An EIRR exceeding the assumed EOCC indicates that the
subproject is economically viable.
3
The hurdle rate for water supply investments is prescribed under NEDA-ICC guidelines for project evaluation
which also provides shadow prices for foreign exchange (SER), wage rate for unskilled (SWR) and other non-
tradable components of investment costs.
13
1.8.1 Economic Internal Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis
79. With the stream of economic benefits and costs computed over the 25-year period,
the EIRR of the investments for Metro La Union is 11.9%. The EIRR is lower than the
assumed cut-off rate of 15%.
80. Sensitivity test results based on (i) a 10% reduction in capital costs, (ii) a 10%
reduction in O&M costs, (iii) a 10% increase in resource cost savings, and (iv) a 10%
increase in incremental water show the EIRR remaining below the cut-off rate. At the most,
EIRR increased by one percentage point to 12.8 as a result of a 10% reduction in capital
investments. Of the four key variables that were tested, the water supply subproject was
found to be most sensitive to change in capital costs (SI=0.90) followed by changes in
resource cost savings (SI=0.62) and O&M costs (SI=0.59). The switching value for capital
costs is 111% and for resource cost savings, SV is 161%.
1.8.2 Subproject Beneficiaries
81. At the end of the 25-year period, a total of 14,387 new water service connections shall
have been added to the existing ones. This will consist of 14,017 domestic connections and
370 non-domestic connections. In terms of served population, the investments will directly
benefit an estimated 84,724 residents within the service area.
1.8.3 Subproject Sustainability
82. At full economic cost (i.e., capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC), or the marginal cost of producing each cubic meter of water,
was computed at Php17.1. Considering only capita costs, the AIEC is Php11.1/m3.
83. The average tariff, which was computed by dividing the present value of revenue by
incremental water consumption, is Php27/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC, no
economic subsidy will be required by the subproject. The tariff revenue to be generated by
the subproject during the 25-year period could fully recover all costs, including the full
economic cost of the investments consisting of capital and O&M.
1.8.4 Poverty Impact
84. The water supply subproject is expected to generate a total net economic benefits
(NEB)4 of about Php106 million. Approximately Php115 million will accrue to water
consumers. Local labor will gain about Php39 million while the economy, because of
distortions in the exchange rate, will lose around Php48 million. On balance, the economy as
a whole will gain the entire NEB of Php106 million.
85. The poverty impact ratio (PIR) for the water supply investments is 26 percent which
means that about one-quarter of the NEB will directly benefit the poor. Poverty incidence in
the area is around 36% of all households.
4
NEB is the difference between the present value of subproject net economic and financial flows.
14
2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
86. This chapter describes in the general features of the study area covered by the Metro
La Union Water District (MLUWD). The Metro MLUWD study area consists of the following
five local government units (LGU) in the province of La Union, Luzon island:
1. Municipality of Bacnotan.
2. Municipality of Bauang.
3. Municipality of San Gabriel.
4. Municipality of San Juan.
5. San Fernando City.
87. A location map is shown on Figure 2.1.
2.1 BACNOTAN
2.1.1 Location
88. The Municipality of Bacnotan is bounded on the north by the Municipality of Balaoan,
on the south by the Municipality of San Juan, on the east by the Municipality of San Gabriel,
and on the west by the China Sea.
89. This municipality lies within 16º 42´ to 16º 47´ north latitude and 120º 20´ to 120º 26´
east longitude and is 14.27 kilometers north of San Fernando City, the capital town of the
province.
2.1.2 Physical Features
90. Topography. The Municipality of Bacnotan is generally flat. It has an average

elevation of 4.65 meters above the Mean Lower Water (MLW) level. The plain areas lie in the
western portion while the hilly areas lie on the eastern and northern parts. Barangay Arosip
has the highest point, with a spot elevation of 440 meters above sea level. The plains occupy
about two-thirds of the municipality and are predominantly used for agriculture and
settlement purposes.
91. There are three rivers that drain the municipality of Bacnotan, namely: the Maragayap
River in the north, the Pandan River which runs through the in the middle of the municipality,
and the Baroro River which is located in the southern end of the town. All these rivers
originate from the mountainous areas on the northern and eastern portion of the municipality,
flow westerly, and drain into the China Sea.
92. Vegetation. In the mountainous areas which range along the eastern to the northern
portion of the municipality, forest cover still exists. Predominant trees are ipil-ipil, madre
cacao, teak wood, molave, mahogany, and acacia. A considerable number of bamboo
groves are also found.
93. A very small area, about 8 hectares, have been identified as “underused land” which
is found mostly in the gently to steeply sloping areas where forest cover no longer exists.
This area is covered by grasses, shrubs, and bamboo groves.
94. The total land area of Bacnotan is 7,654.77 hectares (76.55 km2) which is 5.13
percent of the total land area of the province. The urban area (Barangays Poblacion, Quirino,
Nagsimbaanan, and Raois) occupies 613.47 hectares or about 8% of the land area of the
municipality. The remaining 92 % is occupied by the rural area composed of 43 barangays.
15
Figure 2.1: Location of Metro La Union Water District
16
95. Agricultural lands occupy about 3,904 hectares or about 51% of the total land area.
Forest land containing different species of trees such as mahogany, teakwood, acacia, ipil-
ipil, madre de cacao, guava, and bamboo occupy about 100 hectares (1.0 km²). A very small
portion of only 8 hectares are under-utilized open areas containing grasses, shrubs, and
bamboo groves.
96. Climate. To characterize the climate of the area (there is no weather observation
facility in La Union) data from the PAGASA weather stations in Dagupan City and Vigan City
were used, these being the nearest stations and believed to be sharing the same climatic
characteristics with the Municipality of Bacnotan, as well as the other towns in La Union.
97. The climate of Bacnotan is classified as Type I of the Modified Coronas Classification
of the Philippine Climate which is characterized by two pronounced seasons: dry from
November to April, and wet during the rest of the year. The mean rainfall at Dagupan City
and Vigan City stations are 2,391.7 mm and 2,300.9 mm respectively, with an average
number of rainy days of 120 days and 97 days respectively. August has the largest rainfall on
both weather stations, with a monthly average of 608.6 mm and 646.3 mm respectively.
February is the driest month and an average recorded monthly rainfall of 6.1 mm and 2.8 mm
respectively.
98. The warmest month in Dagupan City is April and that for Vigan City May, with monthly
average temperatures of 29.7º C and 29.0º C respectively. The coolest month is January.
99. The northeast monsoon prevails over the municipality from November to May where
northerly winds blow with an average wind speed of 2 meters per second. Southerly winds
blow over the city at an average of 3 meters per second during the rest of the year during the
southwest monsoon. An average of 2 tropical cyclones blow over the area annually.
100. Due to the topography of Bacnotan, flooding and erosion occur during heavy rains.
The run-off water cannot be contained by the existing channels, thereby flooding roads and
agricultural lands. Erosion often results in destroying croplands and covering other low-lying
areas downstream with silt.
2.1.3 Population
101. Demography. As of 2007, the total population of Bacnotan was 38,743 as per census
conducted by the NSO (National Statistics Office). Rural population accounts for 32,815,
representing 84.7% of the total population, while the urban barangays have a population of
5,928, representing 15.3% of the municipal population. The annual growth rate is 1.39% per
annum based on the 2000 and 2007 population data.
102. The study area is composed of 47 barangays covering a total land area of 7,654.77
hectares. With the 2007 population of 38,743, the population density then was about 507
persons per km2. Table 2.1 presents the list of urban and rural barangays showing the land
area and 2007 population densities.
103. Living Conditions. Based on the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, there
were 6,935 housing units in the municipality. Those with galvanized roofs numbered 6,428 or
92.7% of the total. Those with cogon/nipa numbered 419 or only 6%, and those with half-
galvanized and half-concrete numbered only 25.
17
Table 2.1: Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, Bacnotan

POPULATION DENSITY
BARANGAY LAND AREA (Km²) (Persons/Km²)
2000 2007
Agtipal 1.5487 291 318
Arosip 3.1982 124 109
Bacqui 1.5127 268 340
Bacsil 1.7347 323 379
Bagutot 1.6177 127 121
Ballogo 1.4927 437 669
Baroro 1.7154 1,189 1,369
Bitalag 1.6497 780 903
Bulala 1.5017 719 762
Burayoc 1.6077 185 218
Bussaoit 2.1857 268 302
Cabaroan 1.6061 849 1,014
Cabarsican 1.4339 577 725
Cabugao 1.4172 288 301
Calautit 1.5677 355 406
Carcarmay 1.5343 328 368
Casiaman 1.6212 448 487
Galongen 1.9377 497 518
Guinabang 1.5023 576 579
Legleg 1.5662 333 341
Lisqueb 1.5582 476 533
Mabanengbeng 1st 1.4702 167 187
Mabanengbeng 2nd 1.4517 191 207
Maragayap 1.4577 295 356
Nagatiran 1.6072 374 366
Nagsaraboan 1.4502 710 718
Nagsimbaanan 1.3377 511 517
Nangalisan 1.4472 446 509
Narra 1.8342 564 607
Ortega 1.9382 388 372
Oyaoy 2.0932 241 238
Paagan 1.6277 325 331
Pandan 1.4513 670 719
Pangpang 1.4827 105 119
Poblacion 1.7002 1,710 2,004
Quirino 1.6805 663 568
Raois 1.4163 547 628
Salincob 1.6227 332 333
Sapilang 1.5905 537 539
San Martin 1.5523 466 527
Sayoan 1.5337 250 269
Sipulo 1.6227 517 561
Sta. Cruz 1.7892 600 667
Sta. Rita 1.4532 376 427
Tammocalao 1.4777 717 838
Ubbog 1.5336 336 374
Zaragosa 1.4157 373 399
TOTAL 76.5477 463 506
Sources: Municipal Profile, 2008 and NSO Statistics
104. The number of houses not needing repairs numbered 5,282 or 76.2% of the total
while 959 or 13.8% needed major repairs. The remaining 10% were those which were
unfinished, under construction/renovation, dilapidated or condemned during the time of the
census. An over-whelming majority of the houses were single houses (6,675 or 96.3% of the
total number of dwelling units). The floor areas ranged from 30 to 49 square meters with the
median floor area at 40.9 square meters.
18
105. Of the 7,242 households surveyed during the last quarter of 2008, only 795
households or 10.98% had flush toilets. Most of the households, 6,218 or 85.86%, had
water-sealed toilet facilities while 36 households had pit privys. The remaining 193
households had no toilet facilities.
106. Health Conditions. The available data on morbidity and mortality from the
City/Municipal Health Office are those for 2005. Table 2.2 presents the ten leading causes of
mortality and Table 2.3 the leading causes of morbidity. From Table 2.3, it can be noted that
a potential waterborne disease, diarrhea, ranks as the 4th top leading cause of morbidity.
Table 2.2: Bacnotan - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Degenerative Cardiac 126 33

2. CVA-26, MI-9 35 9
3. Cancer 27 7
4. COPD 22 6
5. Diabetes Mellitus 4 1
6. Vehicular Accident 3 1
7. PUD 3 1
8. Medico-Legal 3 1
9. CHF 2 1
10. Electric Shock – Lightning 2 1
Data Source: Municipal Health Office.
Table 2.3: Bacnotan - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population

CAUSES Number Rate
1. AURTI 1,946 513

2. Bronchitis 216 57
3. Pneumonia 158 42
4. Diarrhea 113 30
5. Allergy 95 25
6. HPR 64 17
7. PTB 53 14
8. UTI 53 14
9. Arthritis 47 12
10. Anemia 18 5
11. Otitis Media 18 5
107. Education. The Municipality of Bacnotan has a total of 60 operating public and
private schools which offer elementary, secondary, tertiary education. Elementary education
is available in 19 public schools and 3 private schools. Secondary level education is offered
by 5 educational institutions—2 are public and 3 privately-owned. The lone provider of
tertiary level education is the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University (DMMMSU)
located at Barangay Sapilang.
108. As of 2005, the literacy rate was 99% (10 years old and over). The males had the
advantage at 99.99 % literacy rate compared to the females at 98.82%.
19
2.1.4 Economy
109. Municipal Income and Expenditures. Bacnotan is a 1st class Municipality with a
total revenue in 2005 amounting to PhP62,613,672.12. Of this, the Municipality’s share of the
IRA (internal revenue allotment) was PhP29,646,232.00. The IRA share was growing at
2.81% per year over the past 3 years.
110. Expenditures for the same period was PhP54,102,416.13 for Personnel Services,
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses, and some Capital Outlay. This left a surplus of
PhP8,545,209.12 or 13.65% for the year.
111. Municipal revenues reportedly came from Tax Revenues, Operating and
Miscellaneous Revenues, and its Share from the National Tax Collection.
112. Employment. In the 2000 Population Census conducted by the National Statistics
Office (NSO), Bacnotan had a labor supply of 21,538 which was 60.81% of the population at
that time. These are the people who were 15 years old up to 64 years old. No data were
available at the time of this writing as, indeed, employment was a major concern of this
Municipality. Given that only 5 significant industrial establishments are located in this town,
and almost all other commercial and industrial establishments are single proprietorships, a
large portion of the labor force are either absorbed by the agricultural sector or leave the
Municipality for other cities and municipalities.
113. Agriculture. Agricultural land accounts for about 51% or 3,904 hectares of the total
land area. Major crops include rice, corn, peanuts, mungbean, fruit and leafy vegetables, and
rootcrops. The most promising high value cash crop is mango with a total of 1,200 fruit-
bearing trees planted. Other fruit trees have been planted as cash crops in order to increase
the income of the farming households.
114. The biggest crop is rice wherein 1,883 hectares are planted to this crop yearly. About
880 hectares are irrigated, 980 hectares are rain-fed, and the remaining 23 hectares are for
upland rice.
115. Livestock raising is another major agricultural activity in the Municipality. Most of the
livestock are raised in backyards; a few enterprising raisers are capable of engaging in
commercial or semi-commercial raising of livestock.
116. Basi, a local wine, and vinegar are also produced in large quantities and are sold in
markets and national trade fairs.
117. Commerce and Trade. Based on a 2005 census of Commercial and Industrial
Establishments, there were 636 commercial establishments in Bacnotan, broken down into
28 classifications. The greatest number of commercial establishments are: Sari-sari stores
(comprising 60% of total commercial establishments), Videoke Bars/Beerhouses (4.7%),
Canteen/Eatery (3.93%), General Merchandise (3.77), Video Tape/Computer
Rental/Games/Internet Cafe (2.52%), Wholesaler/Dealer/Distributor (1.89%),
Recreational/Billiard (1.57%), Agricultural/Farm Store (1.57%).
118. Presently, Bacnotan has a public market with 240 stalls on a 1-hectare lot, 3 Rural
Banks, 2 Financing Institutions, 26 Cooperatives, 3 Pawnshops, 6 Real Estate Dealers, and
1 Subdivision Developer.
119. Major Industrial activities include the HOLCIM Phils (a cement manufacturing plant),
the DMMMSU Pig Extension and Research Farm (DPERF), a tobacco redrying plant, a
manufacturer of pyrotechnics, and 70 others.
20
120. Tourism. The major tourist spot of Bacnotan is the Bacnotan Park. It is the public
plaza located in the Poblacion fronting the Municipal Hall with an area of 2.71 hectares. It is
the place where cultural activities during fiestas and celebrations are held. The Park is well-
lighted and has a perimeter fence. Facilities include benches, a center stage, including 2
stages constructed in between. It has comfort rooms, a fountain and a gazebo. Presently, a
multi-purpose gym is almost complete.
121. Other tourism attractions include Guinabang Falls, the Centennial Tree located at
Barangay Carcarmay, and, of course, there are the beaches.
2.1.5 Social Services
122. Health and Sanitation. There are no hospitals in Bacnotan. It has 9 Barangay Health
Stations and 1 RHM & FP clinic. The Barangay Health Stations are manned by midwives and
are strategically located to serve all 47 barangays. However, there are 6 privately-owned
medical and dental clinics in the municipality.
123. Basic health services offered by the Municipal Health Offices include basic health and
medical care, immunization of children, monitoring of nutritional status of children, family
planning, etc.
124. Although WDs are mandated under PD 198 to provide sanitation services (wastewater
collection and treatment services only), this has not been attended to as focus of WDs is
more on the provision of water supply services. The sanitation component is left to the care
of the local government. The sanitation services provided include, among others, monitoring
of water sources other than Level III water sources; monitoring of disposal of excreta,
garbage disposal, and sanitation facilities; disinfection of water sources as needed; issuance
of health certificates, among others.
125. Transportation and Communication. The Municipality can be reached primarily by

land although it is also accessible by sea, the municipality being a coastal town. As of 2005,
Bacnotan has a road network totaling 77,649 kilometers. About 65.6% of these are barangay
roads, 24% are national roads, the rest are provincial and municipal roads. Two major all-
weather national road sections within the region traverse Bacnotan. The primary national
road section is the Manila North Road (Rosario-Laoag Road) and the secondary national
road is the Bacnotan-Luna-Bangar Road.
126. The primary modes of transportation available within the municipality are jeepneys
and tricycles. It has no airport so air transportation to and from Bacnotan is handled by the
San Fernando Airport. Access to Manila, though, is largely through the Manila North Road.
127. Communications service in the municipality is handled by cellular phones,

telephones, telegraph through the Bureau of Telecommunications, postal services, and
wireless communications. The Bureau of Post is manned by seven personnel, namely: one
postmaster, four letter carriers, and two tellers.
128. Power Supply. Electric power of Bacnotan is supplied by the substations of the La
Union Electric Cooperative (LUELCO) which are located at the Poblacion and at the HOLCIM
PHILS (formerly known as the Bacnotan Cement Corporation. The substation at the HOLCIM
PHILS plant serves, partly, 3 barangays, namely: Ballogo, Mabanengbeng 2nd, and Quirino.
129. All 47 barangays are covered by the present power grid. An overwhelming majority of
households are now energized because of the aggressive electrification campaign of the
power supplier earlier. Only a few households located in far-flung areas are not yet
connected.
21
130. The schedule of power rates as applied by the LUELCO are attached as Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour, May 2009 - Bacnotan
CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION POWER RATES (PhP)
BAPA 7.6798/kwh
Residential 7.6826/kwh
Communal Water System 7.6990/kwh
Commercial 7.8354/kwh
Industrial 8.1092/kwh
Public Building 8.2449/kwh
Street Lights 8.5928/kwh
Sale for Resale 6.3686/kwh
Source: LUELCO.
131. Water Supply. Out of the 47 barangays of Bacnotan, 4 barangays are presently
served by the Metro La Union Water District through a separate system. As of April 2009,
Bacnotan has only 162 registered water service connections with the water district, although
the Sanitary Inspectors report that there are 610 households having access to Level III
source.
132. Out of 7,242 households surveyed during the last quarter of 2008, an overwhelming
5,909 households or 81.59% acquired their water supply from 2,658 separate wells—most of
them shallow wells. Another 338 households or 4.68% had access to 11 Level II sources in 9
barangays, while the remaining 385 households or 5.3% sourced their water supply from
sources of undetermined quality.
2.1.6 Development Plans
133. The Municipality of Bacnotan considers 5 major areas where focus is required by the
town’s development planners, namely: (1) Relatively high population growth despite the fact
that the population growth of the Municipality is lower than the provincial rate during the
period 1990 to 2000; (2) High proportion of old-age population compared to the provincial
data requiring more services to deal with morbidity and mortality associated with old-age; (3)
Low industrialization level; (4) Need for more improved health and nutrition status due to
inadequacy of health workers; and (5) Denudation of existing forest areas resulting to
flooding of farms.
134. For the Municipality’s development objectives, the town planners have arrived at the
following: (1) to further reduce population growth to about 1.0% per annum by 2011 to
reduce dependency burdens; (2) to provide adequate services for the old-age population; (3)
to improve health and nutrition status among pre-schoolers and other vulnerable groups for
improved welfare and increased savings for re-investments; (4) to expand the
industrialization base by harnessing the town’s raw material for small industrial activities; and
(5) to prevent further deterioration of forest areas through closer coordination with the DENR
in the enforcement of environmental laws and policies.
2.2 BAUANG
2.2.1 Location
135. The Municipality of Bauang is bounded on the north by the City of San Fernando, on
the south by the Municipality of Caba, on the east by the Municipality of Naguilian, and on
the west by the South China Sea.
22
136. This municipality falls within the longitude 16 º 20´ to 16º 40´and latitude 120º 30’ and
is about 10 kilometers south of San Fernando City and 50 kilometers west of Baguio City.
137. Topography. The municipality has a land area of 7,160 hectares which is only 4.8%
of the provincial land area. Its western portion is lowland which extends to the shores of the
China Sea. Its eastern portion is mountainous with valleys between the mountains. The
tallest mountain is located in the north in Barangay Acao with a peak of about 244 meters.
138. In the urban area, which is located in the central part of the municipality, the
elevation is flat and is between 3 to 4 meters above mean sea level. The Bauang River,
which is the combined flow of the Naguilan and Ribusan Rivers, dissects the Municipality
from east to west and drains into the China Sea. This river is located just south of the town
proper.
139. Vegetation. Of the total land area of 7,160 hectares, about 91.55 percent or 6,555
hectares are certified alienable and disposable lands. The remaining 605 hectares or 8.4
percent are public forestlands. The protected forest area, those within slopes of 50 percent or
over, is estimated to be about 464 hectares. However, most of this protected forest area is
classified as grassland or shrub land.
140. Agricultural lands occupy about 4,302 hectares or about 60 percent of the total land
area. Agricultural crops include rice, corn, tobacco, fruit trees, and other commercial crops.
Built-up areas, open spaces, idle lands, and beaches comprise the remaining 2,253 hectares
or 31.6 percent of total land area.
141. Climate. The climate of Bauang is classified as Type I of the Modified Coronas
Classification of the Philippine Climate which is characterized by two pronounced seasons:
dry from November to April and wet during the rest of the year. The mean rainfall at Dagupan
City and Vigan City stations are 2,391.7 mm and 2,300.9 mm with an average number of
rainy days of 120 days and 97 days respectively. August has the largest rainfalls on both
weather stations with a monthly average of 608.6 mm and 646.3 mm respectively. February
is the driest month and an average recorded monthly rainfall of 6.1 mm and 2.8 mm
respectively.
142. The warmest months are from April to May with monthly average temperatures of
29.4º C. The coolest month is January.
143. The northeast monsoon prevails over the Municipality from November to May where
southwest monsoon. An average of 2 tropical cyclones blow over the area annually.
144. Due to the topography of Bauang, the western portion is flood-prone and erosion-
prone. The banks of the Bauang River are especially at risk during heavy rains where severe
flooding occurs. Tidal flooding is also experienced by coastal barangays on the southern
portion of this municipality.
145. Coastal erosion is prevalent in the entire coastal area of the municipality and most
severely-affected is Barangay Pilar. Its land area prior to 1985 of 20 hectares was reduced to
2.7 hectares in about 20 years.
23
2.2.3 Population
146. Demography. As of 2007, the total population of the Municipality of Bauang was
69,837 as per census conducted by the NSO. Rural population accounts for 56,274,
representing 80.5% of the total population, while the urban component is composed of a
population of 13,563, equivalent to 19.5% of the total population. The annual growth rate is
1.39% per annum based on the 2000 and 2007 population data.
147. The study area is composed of 39 barangays covering a total land area of 7,160
persons per km2. Table 2.5 presents the population density of the urban and rural barangays
as of 2001 and 2007.
148. Living Conditions. Based on the Minimum Basic Needs Survey conducted in 2002,
13,282 households or 93.5% out of the 14,206 households surveyed had houses durable
enough to last at least 5 years.
149. The report on sanitation facilities is more recent. As of March, 2009, only 1,950
households or 15.2% of a total of 12,844 households surveyed had flush toilets. A large
majority of 9,119 households or 71.0% had water-sealed toilets and 1,373 or 10.7% had
sanitary pit privys. Another 176 households used pit privys while 11 households used
communal toilets. The remaining 226 households or 1.8% had no toilet facilities.
City/Municipal Health Office are those for 2008. Table 2.6 presents the ten leading causes of
morbidity and Table 2.7 the ten leading causes of mortality. Diarrhea is the 5th leading cause
of morbidity with 322 reported cases.
151. Education. The municipality offers elementary, secondary, vocational, and tertiary
education. Elementary education is available in 26 public schools and secondary education
is available in 6 public schools and 3 private schools. Tertiary level education as well as
vocational education is provided by only 1 private school. Bauang’s close proximity to
educational centers such as San Fernando City and Baguio City allows the students of
collegiate age to access quality tertiary education and graduate studies.
152. The municipal population has a high literacy rate. It has adequate classrooms at the
elementary level to accommodate the elementary student population. The classroom to
student ratio is 1:37, which is better than the national standard of 1:40. The situation differs
at the secondary level, however—the classroom to student ratio is at 1:53.
24
Table 2.5: Bauang Land Areas and Population Densities
POPULATION DENSITY
2000 2007
Acao 1.1600 3,435 3,432
Baccuit Norte 4.7165 420 471
Baccuit Sur 6.0036 311 361
Bagbag 0.7436 1,506 1,186
Ballay 0.7600 1,921 2,120
Bawanta 0.8000 1,023 1,244
Boy-utan 1.9056 527 577
Bucayab 0.9300 1,260 1,303
Cabalayangan 1.6100 937 976
Cabilisan 4.0800 117 162
Calumbaya 9.3321 250 244
Carmay 0.6000 722 755
Casilagan 4.1686 253 270
Central East (Pob.) 1.6000 2,283 2,628
Central West (Pob.) 4.6845 740 773
Dili 1.5574 1,008 1,235
Disso-or 0.2782 2,750 2,969
Guerrero 2.7543 323 354
Nagrebcan 0.2383 5,350 5,841
Pagdalagan Sur 1.6874 1,335 1,428
Palintucang 1.1500 671 839
Palugsi-Limmansangan 0.9129 1,467 1,656
Parian Oeste 0.7070 1,232 1,542
Parian Este 0.6717 2,355 3,274
Paringao 0.6388 5,991 5,704
Payocpoc Norte Este 0.9335 979 1,159
Payocpoc Norte Oeste 0.6072 2,688 3,011
Payocpoc Sur 0.5237 4,193 5,366
Pilar 0.0428 18,972 10,911
Pudoc 0.5135 2,426 2,898
Pottot 0.2258 4,531 5,350
Pugo 1.7854 1,220 1,475
Quinavite 0.7177 4,105 4,827
Lower San Agustin 0.8676 1,051 1,228
Santa Monica 1.2600 1,079 795
Santiago 3.0509 853 1,114
Taberna 0.8674 1,921 2,128
Upper San Agustin 5.0834 198 226
Urayong 1.4310 980 965
TOTAL 71.6004 885 975
25
Table 2.6: Bauang - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population

CAUSES Number Rate
1. Acute Respiratory Infection 2,788 396

2. Nutritional Anemia 902 128
3. Hypertension 788 112
4. Wounds 483 69
5. Diarrhea 322 46
6. Allergy 289 41
7. Acute Gastritis 158 22
8. Bacterial Conjunctivitis 109 15
9. Pulmonary Tuberculosis 97 14
10. Dengue 48 7
Table 2.7: Bauang - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population

CAUSES Number Rate
1. Degenerative Diseases 122 17

2. Heart Diseases 71 10
3. Pnuemonia 45 6
4. Cancer 18 3
6. Chronic Obstructive 5 1
Pulmonary Disease
7. Vehicular Accident 5 1
8. Hanging 5 1
2.2.4 Economy
153. Municipal Income and Expenditures. Bauang is a 1st class Municipality with an
average 5-year ( 2001 to 2005) annual income of P 78,841,050.70 and expenditures for the
same period averaged P 68,696784.10. Its income is derived from Real Property Tax,
Business Taxes and Licenses, Market Receipts, Receipts from Slaughterhouse and
Cemetery, Fees and other Charges, and Borrowings. Reported actual income of the
City/Municipality in 2005 was P 85,398,466.02 and actual expenditure was P 79,423,743.57
for a surplus of P 5,974,722.45.
154. Employment. Bauang is generally an agricultural municipality, so that a significant

portion of its labor force derives its income from farming. Based on 2004 statistics, the
municipality’s employment rate was 88.04%, which is lower than the provincial average
(89.95%) and the regional average (92.53%). The unemployment rate was much higher for
the female population (18%) compared to the male population (8.77%).
155. Agriculture. Agricultural lands account for about 60% of the municipality’s area.
Major crops include rice which is planted in 1,652 hectares. Most of the palay is planted in
rainfed areas which constitute 84.87 % of the total irrigable area. Only about 250 hectares of
land planted to rice are irrigated. About 305 hectares are planted to green and yellow corn
and some 240 hectares are planted to mango trees. Native and Virginia tobacco are planted
in 508.3 hectares and coconut trees abound along the coastal areas. Some guapple and
grapes are planted, but are mostly backyard crops or planted in small areas.
156. Commerce and Trade. Small commercial establishments and light industrial activities
dominate the business landscape of Bauang. These are concentrated in Barangays Central
26
East and Central West. The number of establishments increased from 308 in 1975 to 2,629
in 2006. In the 1980s, the commercial district of the municipality occupied only about 9
hectares. To date, the commercial district now occupies 22.32 hectares. The increase in
commercial and industrial activity is primarily a result of the decision of investors to locate in
Bauang due to the shortage of space in the City of San Fernando.
157. The hub of trade in the municipality is the Bauang Commercial Center which occupies
6,642 square meters.
158. Presently, there is only one bank in Bauang, i.e. the Rural Bank of Bauang.
159. Tourism. The most significant tourist attraction in the municipality is the grayish sand
beach along the coastline. There are 16 accommodation facilities, but only 6 are accredited
by the Department of Tourism. Only 1 is classified as Class “AA”, 4 are classified as Class
“A”, and 1 is classified as a “Special Interest Resort”.
160. Other tourism-related establishments such as entertainment and disco clubs, apartels,
restaurants, and the like continue to increase in number. Most of these are concentrated in
Barangay Paringao.
161. Health and Sanitation. There are no government hospitals in the municipality. As of
2008, there was 1 Rural Health Unit and 11 Barangay Health Stations. These are manned by
1 doctor, 1 dentist and a dental aide, 2 nurses, 12 midwives, 1 medical technologist, 2
sanitary engineers/inspectors, and 279 active Barangay Health Workers for 12,769
households.
162. There are 3 private medical clinics and 10 private dental clinics.
of the local government. In the case of the Municipality of Bauang, sanitation services
provided include, among others, regular water quality testing of water retailing stations,
testing of wells upon request of well-owners/users, regular inventory of household sanitation
facilities, issuance of sanitary permits to establishments, and issuance of health permits to
food handlers and entertainment workers.
164. Transportation and Communication. The municipality can easily be reached by

land transportation, as the municipality is traversed by 2 major national highways: (i) the
Manila North Road runs through the town from north to south, and (ii) the Bauang to Baguio
Road runs from east to west. In 2000, the municipality had a total road system which is
113.869 kilometers long. Although all the 39 barangays can be accessed by gravel or paved
roads, difficulties are still met during the rainy season, especially in travelling to the upland
barangays.
165. Bauang has neither an airport nor a seaport so travelers must rely on the San
Fernando City Airport or Sea Port to avail of such transport facilities.
166. The municipality has one post office and is manned by one letter carrier. Despite the
increase in population, the volume of mails delivered and posted by the post office dropped
significantly from more than 666,600 in 1996 to only 218,798 in 2005.
27
167. PLDT and DIGITEL lines serve some of the barangays but most still do not have
telephone connections. SMART, GLOBE, AND SUN cellular phone services are available in
the municipality, so are cable and the internet.
168. Power Supply. The La Union Electric Company (LUECO) and the La Union Electric
Cooperative (LUELCO) provide electricity to the municipality. As of 2005, LUECO provided
59% of the electricity needed, while LUECO provided the remaining 41%. Electricity is
available to all barangays.
169. The schedule of power rates of both power companies are shown as Table 2.8 and
Table 2.9.
Table 2.8: La Union Electric Company, Inc. (LUECO), San Fernando City, La Union
Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour as of May, 2009
General Services, X1 7.6750/kwh
General Services, X2 7.1770/kwh
Hospitals 6.3323/kwh
Street Light 6.7370/kwh
Source: LUECO.
Table 2.9: La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LUELCO), Aringay, La Union

Average Rate per Kilowatt Hour as of May, 2009
BAPA 7.6798/kwh
Communal Water System 7.6990/kwh
Commercial 7.8354/kwh
Public Building 8.2449/kwh
Street Lights 8.5928/kwh
Sale for Resale 6.3686/kwh
Source: LUELCO.
170. Water Supply. During the third quarter of 2008, a total of 8,458 or 66.2% out of
12,740 households surveyed used 3,569 Level I sources for their water supply. Another
3,019 households or 23.6% had access to 2 Level III sources—from the water district and
from an independent source. As of April 2009, the water district reported 2,468
residential/government registered water service connections in Bauang plus another 98
commercial accounts, for a total of 2,566 connections.
171. Only 55 households relied on Level II water sources; thus leaving 1,237 households
or 9.7% with no known water supply source.
172. The Municipality of Bauang considered 7 major issues in arriving at its Development
Plan, namely: (1) Increasing population density in the urban areas; (2) Unchecked siltation
and erosion; (3) Rampant illegal fishing and destruction of marine habitats; (4) Pollution in
28
land and water; (5) Low Agricultural land productivity; (6) Deficiency in the quality and
quantity of infrastructure support; and, (7) Low level fiscal autonomy.
173. The town planners took as their objectives: (1) the proper allocation and optimized
utilization of municipal land resources; (2) improve accessibility from rural to urban and all
functional areas; (3) bring quality social services closer to the people; (4) to have an efficient,
effective, and economical local governance; (5) increase purchasing power of its residents;
and (6) to promote orderliness, safety, good health, sanitation, and wholesome environment.
2.3 SAN GABRIEL
2.3.1 Location
174. The Municipality of San Gabriel is bounded on the north by the Municipality of Santol,
on the southwest by the Municipality of San Juan, on the east by the Province of Benguet,
and on the west Municipality of Bacnotan.
175. The San Gabriel town proper is located between 120º 23´ and 120º 30´ longitude and
between 16º 40´ and 16º 45´ latitude. It is 282 kilometers north of Manila and 8 kilometers
north of San Fernando City.
176. Topography. The Municipality of San Gabriel has an area where only about 10% is
relatively flat, that is 100 to 200 meters above sea level. This is where the urban center
(poblacion) and Barangays Bumbuneg and Bucao are located. The remaining land area is
mountainous where the highest elevation is about 1,500 meters above sea level; this is Mt.
Mugong which is located in Barangay Bayabas.
177. There are two major rivers, namely: the Cadaclan River and the Cabassitan River.
The Cadaclan River abuts Barangays Bayabas, Lon-oy, Balbalayang, Daking, Lipay Norte,
Polipol, Bumbuneg, Bucao, and Poblacion. The Cabassitan River flows southwest between
Barangays Siwsiwan and Bucao of San Gabriel and the Barangays Duplas and Dasay of the
Municipality of San Juan. Both are tributaries of the Baroro River in San Juan which drains
into the South China Sea.
178. Vegetation. Because of its topography, San Gabriel has a large forest reserve. It has
a forest cover of 7,394.68 hectares which is the third largest in the Province of La Union and
is 15.26% of the total public forest land of the province. Two forest reserves—namely, the
Bangibang Communal Forest Reserve and the Ken Luquincan Forest—provide lumber and
lumber products abutting barangays and still contain wild game. The Lon-oy Forest
Reservation is being preserved as a source of potable water for the Metro La Union Water
District and the surrounding communities, and also as a source of irrigation water for upland
rice fields.
179. Grasslands and open spaces comprise 3,570.46 hectares or 20.34 % of the total land
area.
180. Built-up areas, both urban and rural barangays, comprise 127.5 hectares which are
less than 1.0% of total land area.
181. Climate. The climate of San Gabriel is classified as Type I of the Modified Coronas
City and Vigan City stations are 2,391.7 mm and 2,300.9 mm, with an average number of
29
rainy days of 120 days and 97 days, respectively. August has the largest rainfalls on both
weather stations, with a monthly average of 608.6 mm and 646.3 mm respectively. February
is the driest month. with an average recorded monthly rainfall of 6.1 mm and 2.8 mm
respectively.
182. The warmest months are from April to May, with a monthly average temperature of
183. The northeast monsoon prevails over the Municipality from November to May where
southwest monsoon.
184. Although the area is not in the typhoon belt of the country, heavy rains cause flooding
and erosion along the river banks. Flash-flooding and siltation are getting worse because of
the gradual denudation of forest areas and watersheds of rivers and creeks.
2.3.3 Population
185. Demography. As of 2007, the total population of San Gabriel is 15,803 as per census
conducted by the NSO. It has a rural population of 13,010 which is 82% of the total
population, while the urban population is 2,793 which is 18% % of the municipal population.
The annual growth rate is 0.83% based on the 2000 and 2007 population data.
persons per km2. Table 2.10 presents the list of barangays showing the land areas of each,
and their 2000 and 2007 population densities.
187. Living Conditions. From the 2000 population census, the municipality had 2,830
housing units, of which 2,806 were occupied. The single house was the most widely-used
structure (97.83% of total number of housing units) with a floor area ranging from 10 to 19
square meters. The average occupancy rate of each house was 5.09.
Table 2.10: San Gabriel Population Density b Barangay: 2000 and 2007
POPULATION DENSITY
2000 2007
1. Poblacion 3.57 648 782
2. Amontoc 16.03 98 106
3. Apayao 70.31 13 11
4. Balbalayang 6.65 86 83
5. Bayabas 10.90 41 39
6. Bucao 4.21 337 403
7. Bumbuneg 5.12 401 426
8. Lacong 15.47 87 92
9. Lipay Este 4.14 100 104
10. Lipay Norte 5.59 99 99
11. Lipay Proper 3.74 93 82
12. Lipay Sur 4.12 148 171
13. Lon-oy 10.84 65 59
14. Polipol 6.12 128 115
15. Daking 7.77 109 119
TOTAL 174.60 85 91
Sources: Municipal Profile, 2008 and NSO Statistics.
30
188. Also in 2000, the NSO Census also showed that 60.2% of the households still used
kerosene for lighting, with 36.4% using electricity despite the fact that it was only in 2003
when electric power was made available to all barangays.
189. Data on toilet facilities is much more recent. As of 2008, 95.92% of 3,292 households
surveyed by the Municipal Health Office had sanitary toilets. However, most of these sanitary
toilets were water-sealed types (2,748 households out of 3,158 households with sanitary
toilets or 87%). Only 67 households had flush toilets and the remaining 343 households still
used sanitary pits. The remaining 134 households used pit privys or had no toilet facility at
all.
190. Health Conditions. The available data on morbidity and mortality from the Municipal
Health Office are shown in Tables 2.11 and 2.12 respectively for year 2008.
191. Education. The Municipality of San Gabriel offers preparatory education, elementary
education, secondary education, and vocational courses. Preparatory education is available
in 1 public school and 2 private schools. Elementary education is available in 13 public
schools, while secondary level education is offered by 1 barangay high school and 1 private
high school. Vocational education is available in 1 public school.
192. The literacy rate is high at 96% in 2001. The males have an advantage at 97% literacy
rate compared to the female population at 94%.
Table 2.11: San Gabriel - Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population

CAUSES Number Rate
1. Respiratory Disorders 3,823 2,319

2. Musculoskeletal Disorders 868 527
3. Dermatologic Disorders 717 435
4. GIT 572 347
5. Pneumonia 519 315
6. Minor Surgery/Injury 474 288
8. Diarrheas 375 227
9. EENT 279 169
10. GUTI 268 163
Source: Municipal Health Office.
Table 2.12: San Gabriel - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Myocardial Infarction 16 10
2. CVA 12 7
3. Cancer 10 6
4. PTB 7 4
5. Pneumonia 5 3
6. CRA-Multiple Organ Failure 5 3
8. Chronic Debilitating Disease 4 2
9. Uremia Syndrome/CHF 3 2
10. CRA-Uterine Atony/Postpartum 2 1
Source: Municipal Health Office.
31
2.3.4 Economy
193. Municipal Income and Expenditures. San Gabriel is a 4th class Municipality with an
annual income in 2008 of PhP31,664,347.23. In 2006, the Municipality received an Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA) of PhP26,057,338.80 which is a large improvement over its 2005
IRA of PhP20,510,715.00.
194. The sources of the Municipality’s revenues were reported to have come from Tax
Revenues, Miscellaneous Revenues, and Share from the National Tax Collection, namely:
Internal Revenue Allotment and Share from the Tobacco Excise Tax. Expenses are incurred
for Personnel Services and Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses.
195. Employment. In 2000, the Municipality of San Gabriel had a labor supply of 8,705
(those 15 to 64 years old); this was about 58.39% of the total population. Of this number,
however, there were 2,107 people (24.2%) who were still of school age (15 to 21 years old)
and were presumably still in school. The labor supply is actually 6,598, most of whom were
working in the agricultural sector. A small number were employed in the business sectors as
owners or employees.
196. Agriculture. The total land area of San Gabriel is 17,553 hectares (175.53 Km2).
Agricultural lands occupy about 6,322.36 hectares or about 36.0% of the total land area.
Agricultural crops include rice, green and yellow corn, peanuts, tobacco, vegetables,
rootcrops, and coconut and mango trees. Tiger grass is also cultivated commercially in 150
hectares of land to support the broom-making industry.
197. San Gabriel has 12 irrigation systems so that it is able to produce a large amount of
rice. However, upland rice and rainfed rice are still cultivated in areas not reached by these
irrigation systems.
198. Commerce and Trade. Small commercial establishments and light industrial activity
dominate the business landscape of San Gabriel. In 2004, 52 establishments were registered
with the municipality, although 159 establishments were listed in the Municipal Profile of San
Gabriel. About half are sari-sari stores and 5 are rice mills. The rest are service
establishments and supply/trading stores. It also has a public market but there are no
reported banks or other types of financial institutions.
199. Tourism. Tourist attractions within the municipality have not been developed. There
are numerous unspoiled natural springs situated in 3 barangays, namely: Amontoc, Bayabas,
and Lon-oy. The Lon-oy Spring is about 10 hectares and is composed of numerous natural
springs and 3 deep waterfalls. Located also in Lon-oy is the Ba’kes Swimming Pool which is
deep as it is wide. It attracts local tourists from neighboring municipalities and some foreign
tourists as well.
200. The Katebbegan Falls is located between Barangays Lipay Sur and Lipay Proper and
is presently accessible only by foot. The bottom of the falls is rich with marine life and is a
good fishing spot. The precipice abounds with wild ornamental plants and wild vegetables.
201. The Tangadan Falls is found between Barangay Amontoc of San Gabriel and
Barangay Dagup of the Municipality of Bagulin, La Union. It consists of several waterfalls of
varying sizes, at the bottoms of which are natural swimming pools.
202. There are three communal forest reserves, several springs and several man-made
pools which are frequented as picnic grounds and swimming areas by vacationers.
32
203. There are 2 wide natural caves which used to be hideouts of the United Armed Forces
in the Far East based in Northern Luzon during the Second World War. These caves are
called Liang Digo and Liang Labaan (liang means “cave” in the Kankanaey dialect.) Inside
these caves are stone and wooden coffins of people of unknown origin.
204. Health and Sanitation. There are no hospitals in San Gabriel. At present, there are
eight Barangay Health Stations and a Main Health Center at the Poblacion. The Main Health
Center is manned by a rural health physician, a public health nurse, a dentist, a midwife, and
2 sanitary inspectors. The 8 Barangay Health Stations are manned by 1 midwife each.
205. Basic health services offered by the Municipal Health Centers include basic medical
care, immunization of infants and children, monitoring of nutritional status, and family
planning.
of the local government and to the individual households. In the case of San Gabriel,
sanitation services provided include, among others, inventory of sanitation facilities, issuance
of health permits, issuance of sanitary permits to establishments, and testing water samples
using the PHC bottles.
207. Transportation and Communication. The Municipality can be reached by land

through two all-weather roads. It has a road network totaling 69.5 kilometers, 45% of which is
concrete and 55% of which is gravel. It also has 13 barangay footbridges with a total length
of 495 meters—the shortest span is 10 meters long and the longest span is 80 meters.
208. San Gabriel is completely land-locked and has no airport. Jeepneys and tricycles are
the most common means of transportation. However, “ball casts” are used occasionally to
transport agricultural produce from the hinterlands where roads are non-existent.
209. The municipality has a post office served by a postmaster and a letter-carrier. It also
has telephone service provided by PLDT and DIGITEL. Cellular phones are also common,
especially with the installation of cell sites at the Poblacion and at Barangay Lacong.
210. Power Supply. Electric power of San Gabriel is supplied by the La Union Electric
Cooperative (LUELCO) which has a substation in Bacnotan. In 2004, the LUELCO supplied
the power requirements of 95% of the municipality’s households on a 24-hour basis. All of
the barangays are energized.
211. Water Supply. During the 4th Quarter of 2008, only 1 barangay was reported to be
served by one Level III water source, i.e. the Poblacion. However, the water district reports
that as of April 2009, 81 residents of the Poblacion are connected out of 556 households
(14.6%) living in the Poblacion and are only 2.3% of 3,561 households living within the entire
municipality. All 15 barangays are served through 99 Level II water sources serving 2,222
households or 62.4% of all households in the municipality. Households numbering 1,168
(32.52%) are served by 967 Level I water sources and are living in 4 barangays including the
Poblacion where 386 households have access to 403 Level I sources.
212. The remaining 248 households (7%) residing in the hinterlands of the municipality
have no known water source.
33
213. The development plans of the Municipal Government hinges on improving the socio-
economic condition of its population. This is seen to be achieved through the improvement of
the livelihood opportunities especially through generating investments in small- and medium-
scale enterprises; development of human resource capabilities towards self-reliance;
enhancement of agricultural productivity to meet local demand and generate surplus;
promotion and the development of locally-based eco-tourism; tapping of water and forest
resources but ensuring the long-term integrity of these resources; and, improvement of the
quality of infrastructure and facilities. San Gabriel is blessed with large forest and water
resources, so the LGU is keen in implementing an integrated community-based forest
resource management in close coordination with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and the upland stakeholders.
2.4 SAN JUAN
2.4.1 Location
214. The Municipality of San Juan is bounded on the north by the Municipality of Bacnotan,
on the south by the City of San Fernando, on the east by the Municipalities of San Gabriel
and Bagulin, and on the west by the China Sea.
215. San Juan town proper is located between 120º 19´ to 120º 25´ longitude and between
16º 39´ to 16º 43´ latitude, and is about 8 km from San Fernando City.
216. Topography. The municipality is generally flat. It has an average elevation of 107
meters above sea level. The lowest portion is only 6 meters above sea level and the highest
portion is at 209 meters above sea level.
217. There is one big river known as the Baroro River. It emanates from the east and
travels to the westward to northward direction and ultimately empties itself into the China Sea
at Barangay Baroro.
218. Vegetation. Prominent economic plants include rice, tobacco, fruit trees, vegetables
and other perennial crops. Vegetative covers in idle lands are usually cogon and wild trees
and shrubs.
219. The total land area of San Juan is 5,966.4 hectares (59.664 km2). Agro-forest lands
occupy about 1,482 hectares mostly found in the northern and southern portions of the town.
These lands are covered with mahogany, bamboo groves, Madre de Cacao, some fruit and
wild trees and vines.
220. Agricultural lands occupy about 3,363 hectares or about 56.36% of the total land area.
Built-up areas comprise 589 hectares (9.87%) of total land area. There are contested lands
(contested by neighboring towns) comprising 505.8 hectares. The rest are occupied by
tourism facilities/spot, fishponds, and a cemetery.
221. Climate. The climate of San Juan is classified as Type I of the Modified Coronas
City and Vigan City stations are 2,391.7 mm and 2,300.9 mm, with an average number of
rainy days of 120 days and 97 days, respectively. August has the largest rainfalls on both
weather stations, with a monthly average of 608.6 mm and 646.3 mm respectively. February
34
is the driest month, with an average recorded monthly rainfall of 6.1 mm and 2.8 mm
respectively.
222. The warmest months are from April to May, with monthly average temperatures of
223. The northeast monsoon prevails over the municipality from November to May where
blow over the municipality at an average of 3 meters per second during the rest of the year
during the southwest monsoon. An average of 2 tropical cyclones blow over the area
annually.
224. Due to the topography of San Juan, flooding and erosion occur during heavy rains.
The Baroro River floods its banks and causes some erosion in Barangays Dangdangla and
Carusipan.
2.4.3 Population
225. Demography. In 2007, San Juan had a total population of 32,952 as per census
conducted by the NSO. Rural population accounted for 28,609, representing 86.8% of the
total population, while the urban (poblacion) areas had a population of 4,343, equivalent to
13.2% of the total population. The annual growth rate is 1.15% based on the 2000 and 2007
population data.
226. The study area is composed of 41 barangays covering a total land area of 5,966.4
area and population densities for 2000 and 2007.
227. Living Conditions. Practically all (99.6%) of the housing units in San Juan are single
dwelling units. Almost half (49%) have bamboo/sawali walls and the other half (47%) have
concrete/wood/half-concrete and half-wood walls. The remaining 4% are made of other
materials. A large majority (76%) have Galvanized Iron or GI roofing and about 22% use nipa
as roofing material. The average floor area is between 10 to 49 m² for a household size of
about 5.6 persons.
228. The houses are of relatively strong quality. About 69% do not need repairs, 24% are
in need of major repairs, and around 7% are under construction or under repair.
229. As of the 1st quarter of 2009, 515 households out of 6,733 or (7.5%) had access to the
water district water supply (Level III). Another 597 households or 8.82% had access to 10
Level II water sources and an overwhelming majority of households (5,644 HH or 83.67%)
had to access/share with 2,993 Level I water sources for their water needs.
230. Almost all of households (98.44%) had sanitary toilets as of the 1st Q of 2009 although
in no barangay, including the poblacion barangays, was there a report of 100% of HHs with
sanitary toilets. Of the total number of households, 5,843 or 86.78% had complete basic
sanitation facilities.
City/Municipal Health Office are those for 2008. Table 2.14 presents the ten leading causes
of morbidity and Table 2.15 the ten leading causes of mortality.
35
Table 2.13: Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, San Juan, La Union
POPULATION DENSITY
2000 2007
Allangigan 1.3392 121 141
Aludaid 1.2528 472 517
Bacsayan 1.3392 462 473
Balbal-losa 1.5408 253 290
Bambanay 0.6912 706 767
Bugbugcao 2.2608 233 252
Caarusipan 1.4400 160 189
Cabaroan 1.2240 956 1,027
Cabugnayan 1.0020 822 816
Cacapian 2.8800 334 393
Caculangan 0.7200 504 538
Calincamasan 1.5408 557 574
Casilagan 0.9216 684 848
Catdongan 1.1808 329 389
Dangdangla 1.1088 707 743
Dasay 2.5344 228 262
Dinanum 2.3328 243 267
Duplas 1.1376 467 505
Guinguinabang 1.2240 392 444
Ili Norte 1.1232 1,978 1,782
Ili Sur 1.2384 1,873 1,891
Legleg 1.1808 408 465
Lubing 1.0656 691 833
Nadsaag 0.9648 780 827
Nagsabaran 3.1536 136 168
Naguirangan 0.9360 669 647
Naguituban 0.7632 1,209 1,236
Nagyubuyuban 0.8784 435 427
Oaquing 0.6192 496 483
Pacpacac 1.2384 334 336
Pagdildilan 1.5408 254 289
Panicsican 0.7056 1,342 1685
Quidem 0.1296 1,281 1,219
San Felipe 3.2544 362 297
Sta. Rosa 0.7632 549 586
Santo Rosario 0.8064 837 916
Saracat 2.1168 219 233
Sinapangan 0.6480 623 670
Taboc 0.9936 2,371 2,696
Talogtog 1.1232 1,000 1,416
Urbiztondo 1.6992 897 1,075
Contested Area 5.0508 - -
TOTAL 59.6640 509 552
Sources: Municipal Profile, 1998 and NSO Statistics
36
Table 2.14: San Juan - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Upper Respiratory Tract Infection 2,047 579

2. Urinary Tract Infection 192 54
3. Acute Tonsilo Pharyngitis 141 40
4. Wounds (All forms) 61 17
5. Bronchial Asthma 52 15
8. Systemic Viral Infection 38 11
9. Hypersensitivity Reaction 36 10
10. Dogbite 36 10
Table 2.15: San Juan- Leading Causes of Mortality

CAUSES Number Rate (%)
1. Chronic Degenerative Heart Disease 59 17

2. Cerebrovascular Disease 26 7
3. Cancer (All forms) 13 4
4. Pneumonia 13 4
6. Accident 5 1
7. COPD 5 1
8. Acute Myocardial Infarction 4 1
9. Congestive Heart Failure 4 1
10. Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 4 1
232. Education. The Municipality of San Juan offers only pre-school, elementary, and
secondary education. Elementary education is available in 16 elementary public and
secondary level education is available in one public secondary school. Its close proximity to
San Fernando City encourages high school and collegiate level students to avail of San
Fernando’s many schools.
2.4.4 Economy
233. Municipal Income and Expenditures. San Juan is a 2nd class Municipality with a
total revenue in 2005 of PhP67,109,888.29. This is a large increase of Php29,765,790.64 or
79.71% over the 2004 revenue of Php37,344,097.65. Total Expenses, on the other hand,
amounted to Php40,813,135.49 in 2005 resulting to a net income for the Municipality of
PhP26,296,752.80. For 2004, total expenses amounted to Php33,202,688.29 resulting to a
net income of Php4,141,409.36.
234. Revenues were reported to come from Permits & Licenses, Service and Business
Income, and other Income. Expenses were for Personnel Services and Maintenance and
Other Operating Expenses.
235. Employment. As of 2008, the employable age group of 15 years old to 64 years old
totaled 20,589 which is 59.15% of the total population. Unfortunately, no other data are
available to show the actual labor force and actual employment because all pertinent records
were destroyed when the municipal hall was flooded a few years back. The Municipal
employees are presently reconstructing all records previously destroyed.
37
236. Agriculture. Agricultural land accounts for about 3,363 hectares or about 56.36% of
the total land area. Major crops include rice, corn, tobacco, vegetables, root crops, fruits, and
fishery products. About half the riceland is rain-fed and the other half is irrigated. There is
also a significant population of chickens, swine, carabaos (water buffalo), and goats.
237. Commerce and Trade. Data on San Juan’s Business/Commercial Establishments

dates back to 1996. A new census was on-going as of this writing.
238. There were 339 establishments then 271 of which were sari-sari stores. The next
closest classification is 23 apartments used for residential purposes. There were 2 animal
feeds manufacturers, 2 warehouses, and 2 construction firms. There was 1 hotel and
restaurant, 1 resort club and restaurant, and 7 beach resorts. The Municipality is principally
an agricultural town so it is not surprising that it had 25 registered rice mills. Being a leader in
pottery making, the town had 50 registered pottery-making firms—all of them in Barangay
Taboc.
239. Tourism. San Juan is considered the surfing capital of the Philippines. Local and
foreign tourists flock to San Juan during the months October and November when the waves
generated by the tail-end of the rainy season are sufficiently strong to make surfing an
exciting recreational activity. There are a few resort/hotels located along the beaches which
cater to the high-income and middle-income levels.
240. The Watch Tower Ruins in Barangay Ili Norte which was built in 1815 to serve as a
look-out point against Muslim pirates called the “Tirongs”.
241. San Juan is well-known for its pottery-making industry which is basically a cottage
industry. The pots are hand-made in Barangay Taboc and are displayed along the national
road for tourists and travelers to appreciate and buy.
242. The San Juan Convent Ruins is located beside the Catholic Church in the Poblacion.
This convent is made of bricks and stone and is one of the biggest convents in Northern
Luzon.
243. Health and Sanitation. There are no hospitals in San Juan. As of 2008, there were
10 Barangay Health Stations managed by 1 doctor, 1 dentist, 2 nurses, 1 medical
technologist, 1 dental aide, 12 midwives, 2 sanitary inspectors, 3 trained birth attendants,
and 228 barangay health workers for 6,714 households. The Municipal Health Office
reported that in 2008 the population of San Juan was 35,366 with an average of 5.27
persons per household.
244. Basic health services offered by the Municipal Health Offices include basic health
services, delivery and immunization of babies, family-planning, and monitoring of the
populations nutritional and over-all health status.
of the local government and of the local residents. In the case of San Juan, sanitation
services provided include, among others, inspection of water supply sources, water
sampling, chlorination/disinfection, inspection of toilet facilities, inspection of food
establishments and public places, etc.
38
246. Transportation and Communication. San Juan can be reached by the national road
(Manila-North Highway). It has no airports or ports and must rely on 75.519 kilometers of
roads for the transport needs of citizens. Almost all of the roads are paved with concrete or
asphalt except for some barangay roads which are still topped with gravel.
247. Numerous buses, jeepneys and tricycles travel through all the roads of San Juan
giving access to the population to public transportation.
248. Available communication facilities include telephones, cell phones (which are now
commonly and widely-used in the municipality), telex, telegraph, television, cable, and postal
services.
249. Power Supply. Electric power of San Juan is supplied by both the La Union Electric
Companies (LUECO) and the La Union Electric Cooperative, Inc (LUELCO). The source of
power supply is the Northern Grid of the National Power Corporation. The whole municipality
is energized.
250. Water Supply. As of the 1st Quarter of 2009, San Juan had 6,733 households, of
which 674 or 10.0% had registered water service connections with the water district. About
8.82% or 594 households had access to 10 Level II water sources spread over 10
barangays. The remaining 5,465 households had access to 2,893 Level I sources spread
over all the barangays, including the urban barangays. No household was reported to be
getting their water needs from undetermined sources.
251. The Development Plan of the Municipality was dated in 1997 and the Municipal
Development Coordinating Officer is still in the process of creating another Plan. The goals
stated then follow the goals of the region and the province, i.e, sustained economic growth,
high productivity and sufficiency in agriculture and industry, increase productive employment,
enhancement of political stability leading to an effective and efficient local government,
promotion of equity and justice, and maintaining environmental and ecological balance.
252. The Municipality’s strategy is adapted from the Northwestern Luzon Growth
Quadrangle Strategy where the focus, then, was agricultural development, tourism, and
marine resource development. Other support strategies include the development of small-
scale industries, developing a Comprehensive Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
developing and even increasing the privatization of social services, increasing municipal
revenues through taxation and implementation of the Local Development Investment
Program, and upgrading infrastructure.
2.5 SAN FERNANDO CITY
2.5.1 Location
253. The City of San Fernando is bounded on the north by the Municipality of San Juan, on
the south by the Municipality of Bauang, on the east by the Municipalities Bagulin and
Naguilan, and on the west by the China Sea.
254. The City is between 16º 34´ - 24.093ʺ N and 16º 38´ - 43.458ʺ N latitude, and between
120º 16´ - 41.638ʺ E and 120º 25´ - 42.305 E longitude, and is 14 kilometers from Bacnotan,
60 kilometers from Baguio City, 145 kilometers from Tarlac City (Province of Tarlac), and 276
kilometers from Manila.
39
255. Topography. The City is located between the foothills of the Cordillera mountain
range to the east and the China Sea to the west. The coastal plain occupies one-fourth (1/4th)
of its total land area and the remaining area is characterized by rugged hills and inland
valleys which are drained by creeks and streams. The present urban area is situated on the
flat areas among seven hills. The highest elevated area is found in the northeast quadrant,
with an altitude of over 400 meters above sea level.
256. Towards the midwestern portion of the City is a peninsula that juts out into the China
Sea which is called the Poro Point, and forms the southern enclosure of the San Fernando
Bay.
257. There are no major rivers within the boundaries of the City, but north of its urban area
is the Carlatan Lagoon which is being utilized as fishponds. To the south is a much smaller
lagoon, also used as fishponds.
258. Vegetation. The City has a small protected forest reserve which occupies about 636
hectares on the eastern portion of the city, and accounts for about 6.7% of its land area. A
much larger forest reserve existed but has disappeared due to slash-and-burn practices and
illegal logging. Many of the slopes are now planted to root crops and fruit trees, cogon grass,
bamboo, ipil-ipil, Madre de cacao, and secondary forest growth.
259. The total land area of San Fernando City is 10,526 hectares (105.26 Km2).
Agricultural land occupies about 7,030 hectares, or about 67% of the total land area. Urban
areas occupy about 2,020 hectares, timberland occupies about 636 hectares, residential
areas occupy about 455 hectares, and the rest are occupied by tourist areas, fishponds, road
rights-of-way, and landfill.
260. Climate. The climate of San Fernando City is classified as Type I of the Modified
Coronas Classification of the Philippine Climate which is characterized by two pronounced
seasons: dry from November to April and wet during the rest of the year. The mean rainfall at
Dagupan City and Vigan City stations are 2,391.7 mm and 2,300.9 mm, with an average
number of rainy days of 120 days and 97 days, respectively. August has the largest rainfall
on both weather stations, with a monthly average of 608.6 mm and 646.3 mm respectively.
February is the driest month, with an average recorded monthly rainfall of 6.1 mm and 2.8
mm respectively.
261. The warmest months are from April to May, with monthly average temperatures of
29.4 C. The coolest month is January.
262. The northeast monsoon prevails over the City from November to May where northerly
winds blow with an average wind speed of 2 meters per second. Southerly winds blow over
the city at an average of 3 meters per second during the rest of the year during the
southwest monsoon. On average, 2 tropical cyclones blow over the area annually.
263. Although the City is not within the country’s typhoon belt, heavy rains still cause flash
floods in the low-lying areas. The Central Business District is also subject to flooding as well
as some of the cultivated lands along the national highway. Eighteen barangays are usually
prone to flooding.
2.5.3 Population
264. Demography. As of 2007, the total population of San Fernando City is 114,813 as per
NSO census data. Rural population accounts for 32,096, representing 27.96% of the total
40
population, while the urban component is composed of 82,716, equivalent to 72.04% of the
total population. The annual growth rate is 1.68% based on the 2000 and 2007 population
data.
hectares. With the 2007 population of 114,813, the population density then was about 1,091
area and 2007 population.
Table 2.16: Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, San Fernando City, La
Union
BARANGAY LAND AREA (Km²) POPULATION DENSITY
(Persons/Km²)
2000 2007
Abut 1.6000 267 313
Apaleng 2.7772 170 163
Bacsil 1.4930 374 378
Bangbangolan 2.0383 192 263
Bangcusay 0.9912 1,099 1,170
Barangay I 0.1598 14,268 14,969
Barangay II 0.1369 4,923 4,324
Barangay III 0.0654 6,865 6,514
Barangay IV 0.0704 12,358 13,281
Baraoas 4.0847 194 236
Bato 1.3142 691 683
Biday 3.3022 694 813
Birunget 1.8400 236 242
Bungro 1.5234 713 812
Cabaroan 0.8955 3,137 3,731
Cabarsican 3.1462 114 121
Cadaclan 3.6960 316 366
Calabugao 2.5224 170 196
Camansi 1.0970 782 727
Canaoay 0.7878 1,707 1,956
Carlatan 0.6920 4,014 4,370
Catbangen 1.3808 5,987 7,037
Dallangayan Este 0.6763 1,087 1,762
Dallangayan Oeste 1.1567 1,292 1,605
Dalumpinas Este 0.8621 1,396 1,452
Dalumpinas Oeste 0.4888 3,443 4,030
Ilocanos Norte 0.0511 28,943 29,706
Ilocanos Sur 0.1148 26,437 27,204
Langcuas 1.4020 862 1,053
Lingsat 1.9651 3,647 3,839
Madayegdeg 0.4297 4,007 4,114
Mameltac 0.9431 1,015 1,495
Masicong 2.9091 124 156
Nagyubuyuban 6.5814 174 186
Namtutan 1.4810 420 349
Narra Este 1.5863 260 293
Narra Oeste 1.2095 346 428
Pacpaco 3.4576 229 250
Pagdalagan 0.7124 3,804 5,073
Pagdaraoan 0.4491 4,571 4,921
Pagudpud 0.7240 2,702 3,184
Pao Norte 5.1084 113 117
Pao Sur 3.6037 121 118
Parian 1.0901 2,620 2,962
Pias 1.6042 631 740
Poro 2.7630 1,893 2,156
Puspus 1.8664 252 222
Sacyud 3.9639 149 139
41
BARANGAY LAND AREA (Km²) POPULATION DENSITY

(Persons/Km²)
2000 2007
Sagayad 1.4947 1,250 1,723
San Agustin 0.4705 3,377 3,998
San Francisco 0.6812 3,830 4,391
San Vicente 1.1381 1,884 2,082
Santiago Norte 0.6165 4,425 4,913
Santiago Sur 2.2617 702 726
Saoay 1.1536 528 619
Sevilla 2.7479 3,500 4,000
Siboan Otong 4.0923 174 175
Tanqui 0.6469 7,558 8,221
Tanquigan 1.5394 508 618
TOTAL 105.2600 970 1,091
Sources: Physico-Socio Economic Profile, 2004 and NSO Statistics.
266. Living Conditions. The latest available data on housing isare for 2000. There were
about 20,204 housing units in San Fernando, of which 25% were built over the last decade.
Most of these, 18,008 units or 90.67% of total units were single houses occupied by 18,790
household or 93.45% of the total population. A large majority of these houses were of good
quality, with only 15% needing any form of major repair.
267. Almost all (95.2%) had galvanized iron/aluminum roofing and more than half (53.4%)
had walls of concrete/brick/stone. Only about 1% of total housing units at that time still had
roofs made from cogon/nipa/anahaw. The median floor areas of the houses were 38.4
square meters, occupied by a household size of an average of 5.12 persons.
268. During the 1st quarter of 2009, a total of 19,230 households were surveyed by the City
Sanitary Inspectors to determine excreta disposal. It was discovered that less than one-fifth
or 19.76% of houses had flush toilets. About 67.1% had water-sealed toilets and 7.1% still
used sanitary pits. About 3.62% shared toilets with other houses and the rest used open pits,
public toilets, communal toilets, or ECOSAN.
269. The entire City is now covered by electric power and availability of liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG) is widespread so that households still using alternative means of lighting and
cooking are minimal, if not almost nil.
270. Health Conditions. The available data on morbidity and mortality from the City Health
Office are those for 2008. Tables 2.17 and 2.18 present the ten leading causes of morbidity
and mortality respectively. From Table 2.17, it can be noted that a waterborne disease, Acute
Gastroenteritis, is the 4th leading cause of morbidity, with 1,283 reported cases.
Table 2.17: San Fernando - Leading Causes of Morbidity per 10,000 Population
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Acute Respiratory Infection 6,536 560

2. Acute Tonsillopharyngitis 1,580 135
3. Urinary Tract Infection 1,541 132
4. Acute Gastroenteritis 1,283 110
5. Hypertension 1,001 86
6. Anemia 588 50
7. Allergy 535 46
8. Bronchitis 473 41
10. Musculoskeletal Syndrome 292 25
Source: City Health Profile, San Fernando City Health Office.
42
Table 2.18: San Fernando - Leading Causes of Mortality per 10,000 Population
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Pneumonia 162 14
2. Cancer 70 6
5. End Stage Renal Disease 23 2
6. Ischemic Heart Disease 22 2
7. Sepsis 20 2
8. Cardio Vascular Disease 19 2
10. Liver Cirrhosis 16 1
Source: City Health Profile, San Fernando City Health Office.
271. In the past 5 years (2003–2007), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) trend in the whole
province of La Union shows a slight increase for two consecutive years (13 infant deaths per
1000 live births for 2004 and 2005). For San Fernando City, IMR is increasing with the
highest rate recorded in 2004 with an IMR of 20.2 within the same span of years. IMR in La
Union Province and San Fernando City has significantly improved compared with the NSO
national baseline recorded in 1998 when the mortality rate among infant was at 46 per 1,000
live births. Moreover, the latest figure of 9.2 and 12.8 infant deaths per 1000 live births for La
Union Province and San Fernando City respectively is are way below the National Objectives
for Health for 2010 target set by the DOH (at 17 per 1,000 live birth) and the Millennium
Development Goal for child health of at least less than 17 infant deaths per 1,000 live births
for the year 2015.
272. Along with the slow progress in attaining these health goals, San Fernando City and
the La Union Province have specific health threats that need to be addressed. These are
concerns that pertain to the double burden of disease. While health problems related to poor
development like infectious diseases, malnutrition, diseases related to water and sanitation
are still not completely controlled, there are indications that so-called lifestyle and
development related diseases are beginning to rise in prevalence. According to the
Provincial and City Health Offices, while infectious diseases are still considered as one of the
leading causes of morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular diseases and other chronic
degenerative diseases are becoming significant contributors to the increasing numbers of
sickness and deaths in the these localities.
273. As of the latest official 2007 FHSIS report to the DOH, San Fernando City and La
Union Province’s public health workers still heavily rely on the assistance of volunteer health
workers or Barangay Health Workers (BHWs) in the delivery of basic public health services.
There are about 3,700 active BHWs in the City and the whole of La Union Province as of
2007. Also, traditional birth attendants (TBAs) still are still considered significant providers of
health services in the city whose numbers are almost the same as the number of public
health midwives (189 Rural Health Midwives vs. 125 TBAs)
274. It is also significant to note that La Union Province’s provision of basic public health
services is considered adequate compared with the national average on health service
utilization or coverage indicators like Fully Immunized Children or FIC (for complete
immunization services for children under 1 year of age), Ante-Natal Care or ANC (for pre-
natal consultation of pregnant women during the entire course of their pregnancy), Skilled
Birth Attendants or SBA (for doctors, nurses or midwives attending to women during actual
delivery), Facility Based Deliveries or FBD (for access of women to facilities attended by
skilled birth attendants during delivery), and Contraceptive Prevalence Rate or CPR (for
access of women of reproductive age to modern family planning method of their choice).
43
275. Incidence of diarrhea among 0-59 months old children (being the vulnerable
population age group) in the localities included in the appraisal is used to indicate the
magnitude of the health problem related to water and sanitation, and hygiene. For La Union,
the 5-year trend (2003 – 2007) of diarrhea incidence among children below 5 years old and
below is declining, with the highest incidence in 2003 at about 9 percent to almost 6 percent
in 2007. For San Fernando City, the trend is somewhat increasing, starting at 7 percent
recorded in 2003 to around 14 percent in 2007. Aside from diarrhea, La Union Province and
San Fernando City also reported cases of Malaria, Dengue, and Typhoid/ Parathyphoid in
the last five years. According to the DOH, La Union Province and San Fernando City have
not reported any disease outbreaks due to water contamination or sanitation-related causes,
in the past 5 years. There are only occasional increases in the incidence of diarrhea but not
at epidemic proportion
276. Education. The City of San Fernando offers elementary, secondary, tertiary and
graduate studies. Elementary education is available in 27 public schools and 19 private
schools. Secondary level education is offered by 6 public schools and 14 private schools.
College education is provided by a state university (Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State
University) and a state college and 12 private colleges while graduate studies can be
accessed from the government state university and 4 private institutions.
277. Vocational/technical courses are available from 10 public vocational schools and 9
private vocational schools.
278. The literacy rate as of 2006 is 97.81%.
2.5.4 Economy
279. City Income and Expenditures. San Fernando is a 3rd class Component City. From
the 2004 Physico-Socio Economic Profile provided by the City Planning & Development
Office, the average annual local government revenue over the period of 6 years from 1995 to
2000 was PhP119,166,954.40. It budgeted an average annual expenditure, over the same
period, of PhP117,118,102.40 for an average annual surplus of PhP2,048,852.02. In 2000,
the City earned PhP221,191,997.11 from Taxes, Operating & Miscellaneous Revenues, and
Economic Enterprise and budgeted PhP195,262,053.06 for the same year for a surplus of
PhP25,929,944.10.
280. Employment. In 2006, the City of San Fernando had a labor supply of 73,447—those
who were 15 years old and above; this was about 63% of the total population. Out of this
number, 31,108 or about 27% were not in the labor force leaving an employable population
of 42,339.
281. Out of those who were in the labor force, 40,239 or 95% are gainfully employed,
leaving 2,100 as unemployed. Of those employed, 17,906 work in the Agriculture, Fishery,
and Forestry Sector; another 17,134 work in the Service Sector; and, the remaining 5,199
are employed in the Industry Sector.
282. Agriculture. In 2000, agricultural land accounted for about 66.8% (7,031.4 hectares)
of the total land area of the City. Agriculture was, and still is, a major source of livelihood in
the City. Major crops include rice to which 3,895 hectares or 52.3% of the agricultural land
was planted. Other major crops include tobacco, fruit and leafy vegetables, fruit trees,
peanuts, and legumes.
283. Commerce and Trade. There were 4,776 registered business/commercial

establishments in 2006. There were 30 hotels/inns/taverns, 6 movie houses, 26 restaurants
and fast food establishments, 16 resorts and beach cottages, and 2 malls. There were also
44
33 banks (commercial, savings, and rural) in the City, making it the financial center of the
entire region.
284. Tourism. The City has its share of cultural and historic spots, scenic areas,
recreational areas, and excellent tourism facilities. Cultural and historic spots include the
Provincial Capitol, which overlooks the City and Poro Point; the La Union Museum; the St.
William’s Cathedral which was initially built from 1773 to 1786 and rebuilt twice since then;
the Pindangan Ruins which are the ruins of a Catholic Church built in 1759 and destroyed in
1786; the Lighthouse at Poro Point; and the Watchtower at Carlatan, which was a look-out
point against marauding Muslim pirates called “Tirongs”. There is also the Bacsil Ridge which
was a battle site between the Japanese and the joint Philippine–American forces in January
of 1945; the on-going archeological diggings in Barangay Cadaclan which shows evidence of
Pre-Hispanic settlements and the existence of trade with other countries; the Monument for
the Unknown Soldiers; and the Executive Memorial Park.
285. There are 7 hills in San Fernando, namely: the Capitol Hill where the Provincial
Capitol is located; the Freedom Park Hill and the Heroes Stairway with its 153 steps; the
Pagoda Hill where the Filipino-Chinese Friendship Pagoda stands; the Bethany Hill on which
the Bethany Hospital, which was built by Protestant Missionaries in the 1920s stand; the
Mirador Hill, the highest point in town where the capitol water reservoir stands; the Mariner’s
Hill which is a navigational reference point for ships and seafarers sailing in the San
Fernando Port; and the Miracle Hill on which the New Miracle Mission Chapel was built atop
a cliff facing the sea.
286. Three kilometers north of San Fernando are the Carlatan and Lingsat Coral Reefs
which are good places to fish and view marine life. There is the 10-hectare Botanical Garden
which is dubbed as the “only real” botanical garden north of Metro Manila and is envisioned
to be the model for the country. There are splendid beaches along the shores of the City
supported by reasonably-priced resorts, hotels, lodging houses, inns, etc.
287. Health and Sanitation. There are 4 Tertiary-general hospitals and 1 Primary-special
hospitals in San Fernando. There are also 22 Barangay Health Stations and 6 Lying-in
clinics. The health services offered by the City include: Basic medical and health care,
Prenatal services, Deliveries, Post-partum care, Immunization, and Family Planning, among
others.
of the local government. In the case of San Fernando City, sanitation services provided
include, among others, inspection of water supply sources, water sampling, disinfection of
water sources, chlorination of households, and inspection of excreta disposal systems.
289. Based on the consultation with the Provincial and City Health Offices, there were
claims that public health campaign on sanitation and hygiene are regularly being conducted
by the local health authorities concerned. These activities range from the conduct of mothers’
class (i.e. bench seminar), food handlers’ class to a more organized activities conducted
yearly such as the DOH-initiated Garantisadong Pambata where clients (mostly mothers) are
given basic health messages including those that deals with sanitation and hygiene. The
Provincial and City Health Offices also regularly collaborate with the public elementary
schools where lessons on basic sanitation and hygiene are incorporated in the school
curricula like proper handwashing technique and food preparation. Aside from information
45
dissemination and educational campaign, the local health office selectively conducts water
chlorination and water testing using PHC (primary health care) media.
290. The San Fernando City Health Office also conducts bacteriological water testing as
part of their routine monitoring of water quality. It also screens food handlers through routine
laboratory testing and issuance of health permits.
291. Transportation and Communication. The City can be reached by road, sea, and air.
San Fernando is 270 km from Manila by the Manila North Road—an all-weather highway—
and is only 60 km fromBaguio City, the summer capital of the Philippines—also through an
all-weather highway. All of the provincial and city roads, totaling 12 km are concrete. Of the
99.5 km of barangay roads, only 12 km are gravel, while the rest are concrete.
292. The seaport is at Poro Point and can handle international as well as inter-island
shipping. The airport is also at Poro Point and handles flights on a regular basis.
293. There are 2 telephone companies in San Fernando City—PLDT and Digitel—with a
total subscriber volume of 12,472 (as of 2006). Subscriptions to all major cell phone
companies are available all over the city, including internet and cable services.
294. Power Supply. As of 2006, all 59 barangays of the City had access to the 2 electric
utilities in the Province of La Union, namely: the La Union Electric Cooperative (LUELCO)
and the privately-owned La Union Electric Company (LUECO). Both derive their power from
the Northern Luzon grid of the National Power Corporation. Of the 20,204 households in the
City at that time, 19,057 or 94.32% had access to electric service from both companies.
295. Water Supply. In the survey of the City’s Health Office conducted during the 3rd
quarter of 2008, a total of 45,992 people out of 122,252 or 37.6% had access to 2 Level III
sources for their water needs. As of April, 2009, the water district reports that there were
4,188 residential and government connections, 320 commercial connections, and 2
wholesale connections covering 28 barangays. Another 1,747 people had access to 15 small
community piped-water supply such as subdivisions.
296. Those who depended upon the 215 public deep wells totaled 12,337 or 10.1% of the
population. Another 1,863 people depended upon 302 privately-owned deep wells. Those
who had access to the 1,563 shallow wells totaled 34,223 or 28.0% of the population and
those who relied upon the 4,495 privately-owned shallow wells totaled 20,039 or 16.4% of
the population. Around 2.0% or 2,438 had access to 92 improved springs and 1,339 had
access to 119 unimproved springs. Another 2,274 relied upon 291 dug wells for their water
needs, and the remaining 7,093 people or 5.8% of the population still relied on doubtful
sources.
297. The Millenium Development Goals Action Plan for 2005 to 2010 of the City lists 8
Goals with their corresponding deliverables:
MDG Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty.
MDG Goal 2: Achieve Universal Education.
MDG Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women.
MDG Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality.
MDG Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health.
MDG Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and other diseases.
MDG Goal 7: Ensure Environment Sustainability.
MDG Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development.
46
2.6 WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
298. This section describes the present means of disposal of run-off, other polluted water
(wastewater), and solid waste. Improper management of these wastes will result in
insanitation to the extent of affecting public health and general cleanliness.
2.6.1 Drainage
299. The poblacions of the municipalities of MLUWD are drained by a system of cement
lined canals located on both sides of the streets. These canals width vary from 0.5 to 1.0
meter and their depth ranges from 1.5 to 2.3 meters. Street canals are often interconnected
at street intersections by concrete culverts with diameters ranging from 0.5 to 1 meter.
300. The existing drainage facilities were constructed primarily for collection and draining
off of storm water runoff. While most of the street canals are dry during non-rainy periods,
they occasionally receive small amounts of domestic sewage. During the rainy season,
surface runoff and solid wastes are carried by the street canals.
2.6.2 Sewage Disposal
301. Metro La Union Water District has no sewerage system. Although PD 198 mandates
water districts to handle wastewater through a sewerage system, this intervention has been
neglected for quite some time due to its prohibitive cost.
302. In the absence of a sewerage system, domestic wastewater, which includes excreta
is collected by septic tanks. However, BOD contents in septic tanks are only partially
removed (about a maximum of 60%5). Thus, still a significant proportion of BOD is left
untreated.
303. The NSO data of 2000 (Table 2.19) show that households using septic tanks are
about 52%. It basically means that the remaining 48 % are at risk of disposing excreta in the
environment in an unsafe manner that consequently degrades the quality of bodies of water
and increases the risk of infection.
Table 2.19: Sanitation Facilities and Coverage, Metro La Union, 2000

Metro La HH Water Water Water- Water- Closed Open Others None
Union 2000 Sealed- Sealed- Sealed Sealed Pit Pit
Septic Septic -Others -Others
Tank Tank – -Shared
Shared
San
Fernando 20,755 9,785 2,184 4,815 2,125 966 829 10 41
Bauang 12,298 5,033 955 3,338 1,489 807 567 20 89
San
Gabriel 2,830 953 144 672 91 620 308 20 22
San Juan 5,950 2,595 679 1,626 495 135 82 282 56
Bacnotan 7,183 2,630 497 2,703 912 246 106 19 70
Total 49,016 20,996 4,459 13,154 5,112 2,774 1,892 351 278
% 100.0 42.8 9.1 26.8 10.4 5.7 3.9 0.7 0.6
Source: NSO, 2000.
5
Philippine Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid, World Bank, 2006
47
304. The PPTA consultation with communities and LGUs revealed that it is an accepted
fact that there are septic tanks in the project area with unsealed bases. This condition
definitely contaminates groundwater, particularly if the water level is shallow.
305. Private desludging companies (e.g. Maclean) operate in the area with a septage fee
of about P 8,000 per septic tank. This is quite expensive compared to the rates in other
subproject areas of about P 3,000. They said that the reason for its high cost is the tipping
fee and travel cost spent to the disposal site located in a wastewater treatment facility in
Baguio City.
306. On the other hand, undesludged septic tanks for more than 5 years would become
inefficient in treating excreta. The accumulation of sludge lessens the space and retention
time needed for treatment. Untreated effluent would consequently go out directly from the
septic tank and flow to drainage going to bodies of water. The public’s exposure to untreated
effluent along the drainage as well as in the bodies of water is a health risk that should be
addressed. Much worse is the presence of open defecation or direct disposal to bodies of
water. NSO figures (Table 2.19) reflect that around 278 households in year 2000 have no
toilets at all! Without addressing these concerns, the exposure level to excreta contamination
of vulnerable groups (i.e. poor, children, marginalized groups) will remain very high.
307. Cognizant of the sanitation and environment issues, the local governments in La
Union had enacted enabling policies that can regulate practices affecting the quality of the
environment; these are as follows:
• Provincial Environmental Protection and Management Code of La Union –
Provincial Ordinance No. 007, series of 2003.
• San Fernando City Sanitation Code – City Ordinance No. 200-11.
• Bacnotan Municipal Environment Code – Municipal Ordinance No. 455, series
of 2007.
308. With the strong political will of the LGUs in Metro La Union to tackle sanitation and
environment issues, donors and NGOs have provided assistance to the area. The Center for
Advanced Professional Studies (CAPS), an NGO, has provided support in Fishermen’s
Village of San Fernando City for ecosan toilets. CAPS also helped the City and Bauang in
preparing their sanitation plans.
309. USAID has developed a project package on septage treatment using lime stabilization
technology. This project is expected to commence in San Fernando City by October 2009 for
18-months duration. Rotary Club International is also providing a grant for sanitation in
support of USAID assistance.
2.6.3 Solid Waste
310. The collection and disposal of solid wastes in San Fernando and Bacnotan are
handled by their respective LGUs. Solid wastes are collected daily by dump trucks and
disposed of or burned at various dumping areas.
311. The towns of San Juan, San Gabriel and Bauang have no public dump site. Residents
burn, dump or compost their own garbage at their backyard sanitation.
48
3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
312. The Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) as a pilot subproject for the WDDSP
represents urban growth patterns in the country. On August 1, 2007, the Philippine
population reached 88,574,614 persons. The country’s total population in 2000 was 76.50
million indicating an average annual population growth rate of 2.04 percent between 2000
and 2007. The urbanization forecast for the Philippines done in 2006 estimated that level of
urbanization may reach 60 percent by 2010, 68 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2030.
313. Region 1, though one of the slowest growing regions in the country with a growth rate
of 1.2%, has San Fernando City and its neighbors that had localities with annual growth
rates that were more than 5%.. At the national level, official data show that 26.9 percent of
Filipino families were found to be poor in 2006, compared to 24.4 percent in 2003. La Union
province ranked 51st (out of the 80 provinces comprising the Philippines) with 31%. The
MLUWD franchise area is increasingly more urbanizied with income inequalities, squatter
settlements, entrenched poverty and lack of safe water and septage systems. Prevailing
problems of urbanization serve as the context of the Water District Development Sector
Project (WDDSP) as a response to the Philippine government’s and the Millenium
Development Goals on poverty reduction through water and sanitation.
3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY
314. As a basis for planning, a household survey was conducted to gather data on socio-
economic, gender, water and health and sanitation situation in the subproject site. The tool
was designed to provide gender-disaggregated data to determine the distinct situation, and
project-related needs and concerns of women and men in the coverage area.
315. At least three hundred eighty four (384) respondents were interviewed to reach 95%
level of confidence at 0.1 standard deviation. Stratified random sampling was used to
determine the survey sample, with three levels of stratification—municipality/city,
serviced/expansion areas, and barangays—in both service/expansion sites. (Please check
Appendix 3.1 for Sampling Frame)
316. Survey results are here summarized. Tables in Appendix 3.1 can also serve as
baseline data against which future project impacts can be assessed and as a guide in the
design of information and education materials and of interventions for identified areas for
improvement.
317. Key findings of the survey were presented to the water district and local stakeholders
for validation and to gather recommendations on identified problems and concerns. A survey
of affected persons was also conducted after finalization of design and location of proposed
structures. The survey forms the basis of the master list of affected persons. An asset
inventory was also conducted along with the validation survey to determine the number and
value of the assets that may be affected by the project. The valuation of affected assets was
done consistent with framework for resettlement.
3.1.1 Profile of Households in Subproject Site
318. The Metro La Union Water District franchise area encompasses 203 barangays in 4
municipalities and 1 city of the province of La Union. As of 2007, the population of the
franchise area was 272,148 with 49,016 households. This is 37% of the provincial population
of 720,972. There were 8,029 service connections combined for households, government
and commercial establishments as of 2008.
49
319. The survey sample had the following characteristics. Average household size was
5.11, with 34.6% having 3-4 or 3-5 members. This gives a household population estimate of
53,257 and a household service connection rate of lower than 15% as of the survey period.
Highest grade of household head was college level for 42.9% of WD connected households
and 23.7% for non-connected households and high school level for 33.3% for WD connected
and 42.9% for non-connected households.
320. Respondents were distributed under a wide occupational range including farming,
business, street vending, and government and private and employment; 23.8% of WD
connected households interviewed were unemployed. There was a high dependency rate
with 48.4% having at 1 – 2 dependents below 14 years old and over 22% with household
members above 65. Average length of stay in the area was 25 years. Majority (81%) of
households belonged to the Ilocano ethno linguistic group. Inter-marriage and migration
patterns may be reflected in the 19% of households that were headed by non-Ilocano; 12
other ethno linguistic groups were represented in the survey.
321. Sole occupancy of dwelling was most common at 82.8% with 41% owning the house
they occupied; 56.5% considered their dwelling units to have been made of strong housing
materials, with 16.7% having mixed but predominately strong housing materials; 81.1% of
those whose houses were made of strong materials were WD water-connected. Two out of
five households in Metro La Union WD (41%) had houses built on their own lots. A little over
one out of five of these households in the area (23%) put up houses on government-owned
lands. Meanwhile, communal ownership of the lot with relatives was reported by one-fourth
of thehouseholds (25%) and very few (6%) rented/leased the lots where their houses were
built on.
3.1.2 Income and Expenditure Profile
322. The survey posted an average monthly income of P12,591, though 20.7% had
incomes of less than P5,000 and another 32.4% had an income range of P5,000 – P9,999.
Estimated household poverty threshold was P6,739 for the survey sample’s average
household size of 5.11 members. This was computed from the official annual per capita
poverty threshold for La Union for 2007 which was pegged at P15,826 for all areas.
323. About 28.6% spent less than P5,000 per month while most (38.6%) spent about
P5,000 – P9,999. Over 70% were unable to save while most of those who could (11.9%) had
less than P1,000 in savings per month. Television (86.2%), cellular phones (81%) and
refrigerators (58.9%) were the most common valuable items of the household.
324. Sixty-two percent of households borrowed money in the last year; major reasons for
borrowing were household expenses (35.7%), business (36%), food (31%), education
(20.2%), health (8.8%), building/renovation of house (8.8%); relatives and friends were main
source of borrowing (46.2%) and 17.2% resorted to informal money lenders locally called “5-
6” due to a ususrious interest rate of 20% per month; 6.3% borrowed from cooperatives, 29%
from micro-finance institutions, and 2.1% each from credit cards, the GSIS/SSS and from
stores.
3.1.3 Existing Water Service
325. Surveyed respondents were divided into those with and without WD pipe connection.
326. With Piped Connection. About 11.9% of survey respondents had piped water with
the WD but in certain areas the water supply was intermittent. Poor households were less
likely to be connected (93.4% were unconnected) than non-poor at 86.6%.
50
327. The survey indicated an average consumption of 28.8 cubic meters at P413.85. Of
those interviewed 22% provided water to neighbors or relatives; sharing often ocurred where
there were multiple families in a household; 28.6% catered to 2-3 families.
328. Issues on sufficiency and perceived quality of water were indicated for certain areas;
additional sources were cited as shallow wells for other domestic uses (using the average
volume of 206.8); purified water refilling stations were the source of drinking water for 1.7%
with an average cost of over P15.33 per day; 4.9% used a pump to increase water pressure.
Overall, 82.9% assessed that water received from piped connection was sufficient for their
needs.
329. On the other hand, there was a demand for improved water services. Water pressure
was considered poor (7.3%) or very poor (4.9%) by 41 WD-connected respondents, although
an improvement in water availability was noted during the rainy season; over 92% cited that
water was available everyday during the rainy period. Performance rating on continuity of
water supply was rated poor (12.2%) or very poor, by 7.3%; reliability of water was
considered poor by 14.6%, regularity of billing and collection was poor by 7.3%; and,
response to customer complaints was assessed to be poor by 17.1% and very poor by 4.9%.
330. The above results may be consistent with the statistics on non-revenue water at 48%
for the franchise area and by aspects of water service that households would like improved.
This was led by perceived high cost of water service: water pressure (17.1%), reduction of
water rates (22%), complaints handling (7.3%), quality of water (4.7%) and billing and
maintenance at less than 5%. Aspects of water quality that were at issue were taste (12.5%),
color (12.2%) and smell (12.2%). Boiling of drinking water was the only treatment (7.3%)
reported by connected households. There was some dissatisfaction with overall water
service, with 37% reporting some level of dissatisfaction with water rates as against
perceived adequacy of service.
331. Without Connection. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents did not have water
connection with the WD. On the other hand, 44% of non-connected interviewees got water
from water vendors and peddlers; in addition, 5.3% reported paying for supply of piped water
from another’s connection. The next most common source was private shallow wells at
45.7%; less common were private deep wells at 3.5%; and public faucets at 0.9%, while
0.3% got water from open dug wells. Female-headed households relied on water vendors at
a higher rate of 24.2% compared to 15% by their conterparts. Shallow wells were the main
sources for bathing (82.2%) and for gardening (83.4%) but only 45.7% used water from
these wells for drinking.
332. Reasons for not being connected were: 54.7% cited non-availability of connection
while another 18.1% considered the connection fee of at least P1,870 plus additional
charges for materials to be too high. Close to 82% of non-connected households assessed
overall quality of water from their current source as extremely or moderately satisfactory all
year round; only 12.9% said source/s were not sufficient during the rainy season.
333. Collecting water took up time; about 97.5% spent 0.5 – 1 hour and 1.3% spent 1.1 to
2 hours collecting water daily by using a pail (86.1%). Water was usually fetched by male
household members (42.5%). Bathing had the highest water use per household at an
average of 32.19 gallons per day, followed by gardening (7.25), cleaning (6.95), cooking
(4.92) and drinking (2.76). Adult female household members (33.5%) and children (11.1%) or
anyone available (12.9%) also fetched water.
51
3.1.4 Sanitation, Health and Hygiene
334. The coverage of safe septage system in both rural and urban areas was limited
except for the market area in San Fernando City. Desludging facilities existed but services
were expensive (P8,000 – P8,500) and without regulation; disposal site of collected waste
was reported to be in Baguio City but the recipient facility which charged a tipping fee of
P1,500 denied hosting wastes from San Fernando City on a regular basis; thus, disposal was
uncertain. Except for the city market of San Fernando, there was no wastewater treatment
plant in the subproject site.
335. Out of 383 cases in La Union, 79.6% of households had water-sealed toilets (flush or
pour flush) connected to septic tanks. The next most common type of toilet system among
8.1% of the households was water-sealed (flush or pour flush) connected to a pit; 9.9%
shared toilets; 1% had no toilet (wrap and throw, arinola, bush, etc.), no one reported using
water-sealed flush or pour flush connected to a drainage. Most households (91.6%) reported
satisfaction with their current toilet system; the main reason for dissatisfaction was due to
backflow (43.8%); less than a quarter of households (23.2%) of MLUWD wanted to improve
their septage system; for those who did, 45.6% prioritized installation of a septic tank.
336. Of 362 households who responded to the question on distance of toilet to a water
source, 29% indicated toilets being 10-14 meters from a water source. Over 52% had toilets
that were between 5 – 20 meters from a water source; only 1.7% admitted to having a septic
tank that was less than 4 meters away from a water source.
337. Sanitation and Hygiene Practices. There was high awareness on hand washing
except for other critical activities involving children. All survey respondents reported washing
hands before cooking, before eating, after using the toilet, before feeding children, and after
washing the children after toilet; but only 57.7% washed hands before breastfeeding. Only
69.8% of female headed households washed hands after changing diapers. Female-headed
households reported higher scores than male-headed households.
338. Children used the toilet as reported by 95.6% of female-headed households, and by
92.6% of male-headed households; children were were also allowed to use the backyard at
2.2% for both female and male-headed households.
339. Water-Related Diseases. Non-connected households transported water from source

using open (86.1%) and closed containers (3.1%); pipe or water hose was also connected to
a neighbor according to 8% of 323 cases; 4.1% of 342 non-connected cases had at least one
member who suffered from a water-related disease during the past year; 1.5% of households
had at least one child who suffered diarrhea; 17.9% of households treated drinking water; on
the other hand, 9.8% of households with WD connection had at least one member who had
suffered a water related disease in the past year with 7.3% of these households boiling
faucet water for drinking.
3.1.5 Willingness to Connect/ Willingness to Pay
340. Water. There was a gap between those who were willing to connect and those who
were willing to pay at least current prices. Of those who were not connected, 41.8% were
willing to connect with another 5.1% that were willing to connect if the system were improved.
Of these, non-poor were more ready to connect at 44.4% than the poor at 37.5%.
341. The average amount of water bill that unconnected households were willing to pay
was P260.55 although a sizable percentage (26.8%) wanted to pay the lowest amount at
P150/month, with another 24.2% wanting to pay no more than P200 per month which was
less than half the average water consumption of almost P414 among surveyed respondents.
52
All income levels had households that were willing to connect although only 24.3% of those
earning less than P5,000 and 48.2% of those that had incomes between P5,000 – P9999
were willing to connect to existing water services. The other income brackets had at least
50% of the households indicating interest to get water service.
342. The need for improved water service (69.4%) and convenience (21%) were the
leading reasons offered by 157 unconnected respondents for wanting piped water service. A
significant percentage (18.5%) was also concerned about health risks from current water
sources. In addition, some 6.4% perceived that water bills were reasonable. On the other
hand, 69.7% of those who were unwilling to connect were satistied with their current water
service; many were reluctant to connect because water bills would be too high (28.6%);
furthermore, connection charges at a base rate of P1,870 without materials was considered
by some to be too high (19.5%) especially where it included additional charges for injection,
pipe laying across roads, etc.
343. As for their reasons for not being connected, 54.7% cited that water service was not
available; high connection charges was cited by 18.1% while 14.9% viewed their present
water source as adequate. High monthly charges were mentioned by 10.5%. Another 67%
had disconnected due to loss of water source/service. On the other hand, 1.2% cited being
on a waiting list for connection. Some 4.1% perceived water to be unsafe as another reason
for not connecting. Most of non-connected households (82.7%) reported availability of water
all year round from existing sources. The rest cited insufficiency during certain times. Most
(71.9%) were moderately satisfied with the overall quality of water from their current sources.
344. For those that were connected, perceived need for improved water service (78%) led
as the motivation of households for staying connected. Second, was worry over health risks
from alternative water sources (19.5%), “increased water bill was not too high,” was cited by
4.9% and convenience was given as reason by 7.3%.
345. Afforability level of connected households in accessing improved water service

converged at P150 – P300 which was the amount given by 61.1% of connected households.
The average amount of monthly water bill that households were willing to pay for improved
services was P295.85.
346. Sanitation. The level of satisfaction with respondents’ current toilets and septic tanks
was high at 91.6%; dissatisfaction rates were higher among women respondents. In contrast,
demand for improved sanitation was significantly lower at 25.7%. For those that saw the
need for improvement, 45.6% preferred installation of septic tanks, 32.2% cited rehabilitation
of septic tank and 26.7% cited desludging. Desludging was sought by 24.6% of non-poor
who were willing to pay for the service; compared to the poor who prefered improving
existing septic tanks (37.9%).
3.1.6 Risks and Vulnerabilities
347. The assessment was intended to help identify the existence of especially vulnerable
households that may require special attention in the design of water and sanitation
components.
348. Poverty Profile. For this study, households were classified between poor and non-
poor computed from official annual per capita poverty threshold estimates for 2007; 36%
were below this poverty threshold. These were lower than official municipal estimates which
was 54.4% for Bauang for the same period.
349. About 3.1% in the Metro La Union WD franchise area ate 1-2 times a day. Male-
headship (76.6%) was more prevalent among poor households. Maternal and infant mortality
53
are poverty indicators. Some 9.4% (of 384 respondents) experienced the death of a child
before reaching the age of 6. The incidence was higher (12.6%) for women-headed
households. Similarly, 4.9% of households had a household member die during pregnancy or
child birth.
350. . Risks and Vulnerability. Seventy three percent of the households in the Metro La
Union WD area experienced at least one kind of calamity. Most common was typhoon (66%).
Significant proportions of the households, 23% and 13% experienced flooding and
earthquake, respectively. Very few witnessed events of fire in their communities.
351. As to direct impacts of calamities to their abode and utilities, only one out of 10
households in the Metro La Union WD had water sources affected by flood. Only 5% of the
households had their septic tanks, latrines or pits affected.
352. Though there was talk about HIV/AIDS in the tourism sector, there was no
documented incidence. Six percent of the households had at least one physically and/or
mentally disabled member. About four out of five of the disabled household members awere
afflicted with physical ailment, 8% were mentally incapacitated and 4% were both physically
and mentally debilitated.
353. Discrimination had been felt by only a very few of the households (2%) in the Metro La
Union WD. Specifically, less than one percent of the households sensed discrimination in
their community because of their social status.
3.1.7 Social Services and Networks
354. Community-Based Organizations. Close to 32% of households had at least one

member with a community organization or association. Women-heahed households were
more likely to be involved in community organizations at 34.5% compared to 30.5% for men-
headed households.
355. Access to Health Services. Respondents sought medical services primarily from
public facilities such as medical centers (45.3%), government hospitals (24%), private
hospitals (16.7%) and private clinics (8.3%). There were 97.6% of survey respondents who
were satisfied with available health services in their locality, with women slightly more
satsfied than men; 70.3% of both female and male-headed households had access to
Philhealth or had assistance on health expenses while 2.6% relied on self-medication.
Significantly more female-headed households (4.5%) relied on self-medication than male-
headed (1.8%) households.
3.1.8 Gender Roles, Issues and Concerns
356. A significant percentage of 28.9% were women-headed households. Women’s

responsibility and role in decision making on hygiene and sanitation was highlighted in such
tasks as supervising children in washing hands (44.1%), cleaning toilet and water containers
(50.8%), removing garbage (41.9%), and cleaning drainage systems (35.7%). The role of
women was even more pronounced in decision making patterns. In male-headed
households, joint decision making was the norm when buying household equipment (55.1%),
renovating the house (55.4%), building septic tanks (54.6%), deciding on economic activity
(58.5%), when bringing children to the doctor (64.5%) and when deciding on water
connection (57.8%). Decision making by wife was the other main response for both female
and male-headed households.
54
357. Women respondents were more critical than men on water quality by expressing
dissatisfaction on taste (women: 33.3%; men: 10%), smell (26.7%), color (30%) and on water
pressure and reduction of water rates.
3.2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
358. Stakeholder consultation was extensive during subproject preparation. It was an

iterative process to comply with ADB’s consultation and participation guidelines for
meaningful and gender-responsive consultations with stakeholders and affected persons and
communities.
359. Major workshops were held at the stage of inception, and design validation. Data
gathering on poverty and social conditions of target clientele used both quantitative and
qualitative tools. Some assessment tools were Key Informant Interview and Focus Group
Discussion (FGD) which were conducted between May – August 2009 when advocacy on
sanitation was also done.
360. Earlier, the reconnaisance survey by the team in April and the socio-economic survey
in May were occasions not only for subproject disclosure but also to scope issues and
concerns on water and sanitation through key informant interview with stakeholders such as
provincial, municipal and barangay officials. Later FGDs allowed for more in-depth
consultation on selected survey results indicating potential issues on water and sanitation.
361. Due diligence was met in verifying the presence of indigenous peoples at the water
source through ocular inspection and interview of residents in the area. Women were part of
the consultion process. Gender orientation and analysis sessions at the Water District in July
and a national Gender Action Planning Workshop in August resulted in the formation of a
GAD Focal Point in MLUWD and the identification of gender issues at the organizarion and
client levels.
362. Dialogue with management and board of directors was ongoing to build consensus on
sanitation and in developing the water and sanitation plans. Two stakeholder consultations
for water district and local levels were also conducted in August as plans for both water and
sanitation were finalized. These validated and solicited recommendations on proposed plans.
(Please check documentation on consultations in Appendix 3.2)
363. Based on initial stakeholder analysis, the following were consulted:

• Water District management, board members, gender focal point and staff.
• Existing and projected clientele and affected people with special attention on women
and the poor—e.g. urban poor, rural poor such as those at water source, and
barangay representatives of selected target areas.
• Affected People—Those who could be directly affected by infrastructure facilities.
• Non-government organizations, women and community-based organizations, urban
poor groups.
• Local government units at the city, provincial, municipal and barangay levels and
local agencies such as those in charge of public health and sanitation, city/municipal
planning and finance, engineering, environment and gender and social welfare of San
Fernando City, Bauang, San Juan, San Gabriel and Bacnotan and the National
Economic Development Agency.
• Private sector such as desludging companies.
• BORDA and USAID as partners on sanitation of San Fernando City.
55
3.2.1 Summary of Consultations
364. Due to loss of water sources, bulk water providers were serving a higher percentage
of the population and charging higher rates. Stakeholder consultations confirmed immediate
need for the subproject among those without alternative water sources especially in urban
areas and in areas with salt water intrusion. The proposed plans stand to benefit all including
the poor.
365. On the other hand, demand for improved septage was relatively low among
households, indicating the need for social marketing of sanitation. Advocacy and
consultations with the LGUs of San Fernando City, Bauang, Bacnotan and San Juan resulted
in the expression of interest by the LGUs of San Fernando, San Juan and Bauang to partner
with the WD in implementing a sanitation plan. The city of San Fernando is a recipient of 2
other small grants for sanitation from BORDA and the USAID. WDDSP will complement the
facilities and assistance provided by these other two organizations. It was agreed that the
Water District will cover the septage requirements of water-connected households.
366. The following is a discussion of consultation results.
367. Needs and Demands. The subproject responds to the dire need of the franchise area
for water service. San Fernando, La Union, and neighboring municipalities are part of the
North Quadrangle, a north Luzon hub for regional commerce and tourism in Southeast Asia.
Bauang and San Fernando have beach resorts while San Juan has surfing sites. San
Fernando City is the Region 1 center for government, trade and education. Poro Point in San
Fernando City was an American base that has been converted into a multi-use zone.
Improvements in water and sanitation were considered important to realize local
development plans as basic infrastructure for growth and development.
368. With a low connection rate of 11%, it is believed that the Metro La Union Water
District needs to reduce the market share of private water vendors, increase its coverage
area and recover disconnected concessionaires due to water supply loss. The current
coverage of 8,000 households respresented half of what used to be MLUWD’s 16,000
connections.
369. MLUWD has at least 203 barangays in its franchise area of 1 city and 4 municipalities
(Table 3.1). Of these, 56 are reached by the water district although many of the barangays,
as of the time of the study, were only partially served. A total of 13 new barangays are
prioritized for the expansion of piped services since even the poblacions of other
municipalities are not fully served or have intermittent service such as in Bacnotan where
water was available between 7 pm to 10 am. Fast growing areas were Cabaroan (3.2%) and
Poblacion (2%).
Table 3.1: Barangay Coverage and Projected Coverage of MLUWD

Municipality/ Total Total Total Number of Number of Number of
City Population Household Number of Barangays Barangays Barangays
(2007) (2000) Barangays Served in Proposed not
(2007) Service Proposed
Area
San Fernando 114,813 20,755 59 21 *(21) 0 17
Bauang 69,837 12,298 39 14 (16) 6 3
Bacnotan 38,743 7,183 47 2 (21) 0 24
San Gabriel 15,803 2,830 17 2 (1) 3 12
San Juan 32,952 5,950 41 17(6) 4 14
Total 272,148 49,016 203 56 (59) 13 70
Source: MLUWD *( ) Service area but now inactive due to lost water source.
56
370. On sanitation, except in the San Fernando Market, the franchise area had inadequate
waste disposal in high density areas. While bottomless septic tanks was a problem, there
was low awareness on the linkage of safe water and sanitation. The high cost of septic tank
improvement was a perceived problem. For this reason, local authorities saw a challenge in
upgrading existing septic tanks even with legislation. The proposed micro-finance facility for
sanitation hot spots and for rehabilitation of individual septic tanks is expected to help but
may take time to recover and revolve.
371. Targeting of Beneficiaries. San Fernando City, with 159 barangays, has no
available water sources; it is targeted as a major beneficiary for improved water services. It
has a business concentration of 114,813 establishments and close to 21,000 households.
Consistent with stakeholders’ demand that water service expansion consider the area’s
growth plans, densely populated centers, the Poro Point, a resettlement site, tourism and the
commercial districts in San Fernando and along the coast have been prioritized, as with the
major population centers of the municipalities of San Juan, Bacnotan and San Gabriel. This
includes the southern barangays of Bauang with no alternate water sources due to salt water
intrusion.
372. The distribution of the proposed service area as shown on Figure 3.1 (map of existing
and proposed service barangays) corrects the present inequity in service coverage across
the political units.
373. Sanitation hotspots such as slums along river banks and shorelines are prioritized for
assisted improvement or construction of septic tanks. Seashore barangays that are
convergence points for urban poor in public and idle private lands will thus be benefited. This
would be in such areas as Payocpoc in Bauang, San Agustin in San Fernando City and the
coastal areas near the Bacnotan Cement plant.
374. Affordability and Willingness to Pay. With the high cost of production, the water
tariff was considered high at P230 minimum charge for 10 cubic meters per month for both
domestic and government use and P460 for commercial and industrial establishments. This
was cited as a major deterrent for connection especially among those with alternative water
sources. There were apprehensions that it might become higher still with the sanitation
component or with improved services.
375. Consultations confirmed that regardless of interest to connect by both poor and non-
poor, a sector was unable to afford piped water service. Moreover, those wtith alternative
water sources such as in Bacnotan and San Juan indicated willingness to connect only if
tariffs were reduced from current levels or not increased significantly. Septic tank
improvement, which requires a higher investment, was even less affordable. Thus, a
microfinance facility was considered helpful.
376. Perceived Areas for Improvement. Consultations called for the WD to reduce water
rates, improve water quality (water gets turbid when it rains) and water pressure in existing
service areas. The commercial sector considered water rates onerous, forcing many to set
up deep wells. The proliferation of deep wells is believed to affect the water table and overall
water supply. High non-revenue water was attributed to old pipes and meters and illegal
connections.
377. On the above issues, the WD staff saw the value of resuming a more pro-active
campaign to directly engage its various publics in communicating solutions and in addressing
issues raised. This was recommended within the framework of its customer and technical
services as well as its gender and development plan. It was noted that community meetings
to also tap clients’ role in NRW reduction and maintenance was part of WD processes that
should be reinstated.
57
Figure 3.1: Map of Existing and Proposed Service Area - MLUWD
378. Social Equity and Environmental Justice. Water rate discount or royalty as water
sources had been requested by the local governments of San Juan and San Gabriel. While
requests were not granted, the move was seen as a way towards more equitable distribution
of benefits since these municipalities had less served barangays while coping with the
prospect of deteriorating forests.
379. On Partnership Building. Partnership strategy was validated as a means to expand

the reach of the project and to ensure sustainability of subcomponents.
• Perceived Role of Local Government Units. The role of local government at the
municipal, city and barangay levels was acknowledged, especially in the areas of
regulation and enforcement on sanitation, zoning and building codes, provision of
land for a sewage treatment plant, community planning and mobilization and
information and education campaigns on hygiene and sanitation. It was noted that
issues on water service could also be addressed using existing network of agencies
58
traveling to barangays to disseminate timely information about their programs and

services. Investment by the local government and other partners in safe water source
development that could be managed by the Water District was seen as a viable
option where there were available water sources as in the case of the municipal
government and Barangay Bacuit Sur in Bauang. Barangay funds were used to
expand water services in the area with technical assistance from the WD.
• NGOs and Community-Based Organizations. Non-government organizations were
represented in the pilot water district. NGOs were issue-based and/or had area-based
operations. There were also those that provided services to urban poor communities
such as the JV Ongpin Foundation and the Ecological Sanitation Project in San
Fernando. The local government of Bauang worked with the Center for Advanced
Philippine Studies on solid waste and sanitation projects in both urban and rural
areas. Ecological sanitation facilities benefiting 35 families were established in Parian
Oeste. The Gawad Kalinga Housing Project in cooperation with Couples for Christ
also had a presence in the area. In addition to NGOs, were state colleges and
universities such as the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University and the
Lorma Colleges which also had extension services.
Women organizations were also well represented in the communities. La Union
Vibrant Women Inc. (LUVWI), the primary women’s organization in La Union had
chapters in all 5 local government units. In rural areas, the Rural Improvement Club
was active in many barangays.
• Water User Groups. Water user.groups were not common in WD and in rural water
works within the franchise area of MLUWD. Communal water and sanitation facilities
were considered viable options but local experience showed this would require some
level of organization to ensure cost recovery and sustainability of maintenance
• Desludging Company. McCleane, a desludging company operating in San Fernando
City, charged at least P8,000 – P8,500 for its services. Its officials reported that sludge
was brought to Baguio City where P1,500 was paid in tipping fee. Local environment
officials have not verified this to be the case and have fears of unsafe disposal
practices. The company welcomed the establishment of a sewage treatment plant and
was willing to pay for use of the facility or to participate as a partner in the sanitation
component of the subproject.
380. Gender and Development. The WD did not implement a Gender and Development
Plan. The Commission on Audit monitored implementation of Gender and Development
funds, mandated to be at least 5% of WD budget. Based on this formula, this could have
been a budget of close to P 3,425,320 for 2008. On the other hand, a Gender Action Plan
(GAP) was prepared by the appointed Gender Focal Point, with LWUA support and as part of
the PPTA. The GAP included gender-responsive policies and activities at the level of the
organization and the clientele. (Please refer to Appendix 3.3 for Gender Action Plan)
381. A consensus was reached in the process of gender and operations analysis as part of
drafting a Gender and Development Plan that a partnership strategy would require new
methods to promote Water for All—that can expand clientele and clientele groups served,
such as the poor. A responsibility center may also need to be assigned and competencies
enhanced to mobilize and manage various partnerships such as with LGUs, the civic/private
sector and user groups and communities. The Gender Focal Point confirmed the
effectiveness of conducting community meetings, once actively practiced by the WD, to
directly engage users’ concerns
382. Summary of Environmental Issues and Concerns. The water district has seen the
loss of half of its concessionaires due to the deterioration of its deep wells. A dependence on
deep wells has raised water rates. Lon-oy, the gravity water source, is also tapped for
59
irrigation. Consultations and a review of development plans documented the following

problems and areas for follow action affecting water supply and sanitation in the 4
municipalities and the City of San Fernando:
• Critical Watershed Conditions. San Gabriel, the location of Lon-oy Forest Reserve,
is the main water source for the MLUWD; it had 6,871 hectares of public forests but
only 510 had effective forest cover. The Bangabang Communal Forest Reserve was
managed by San Juan; it had become a part of Lon-oy and together with Ken
Luquincan Forest in Barangay Lipig Proper were major sources of lumber. The Lon-oy
and Bayabas Forest Reserve was a water source for irrigation of upland farms and for
domestic use of the community. Forests had turned into grasslands and were prone to
erosion, An area of 460 hectares was replanted under the Naguilian River Basin
Program.
Cutting of trees for housing and other uses within the watershed is reported. On the
other hand, the San Gabriel development plan identifies natural and historical sites
with potential to be developed as ecotourism destinations, thus with potential to help
conserve the area for water production.
It was recognized that La Union, including the Water District franchise area, is
vulnerable to loss of water sources—especially as the larger section of watersheds
were outside of their territorial jurisdiction. A regional forum on water resource
management was held in San Fernando City in March 2009 to discuss issues and
mechanisms for collaborative planning action by Regions 1, 2 and the Cordillera
Administrative Region. The North Quadrangle, a development planning unit for
northern Luzon was used as the framework to discuss inter-regional water
sharing/watershed management. It is an ongoing forum that includes the WD.
• Competing Water Uses. The Poro Point, a growing industrial and economic zone
depended on private water sources. It has a pending request for water service. On the
other hand, a big water user within the zone is a golf course. Stakeholders noted the
need for a policy to disallow the use of WD water supply for the purpose of
maintaining the golf course. Other related concerns were the increasing water
requirement of irrigators.
• Changing land uses of watershed – There is intensification of cultivation near water
sources—for vegetables, rice. Related concerns are increased water needs and
pesticide contamination to be addressed in coordination with LGUs and pertinent
agencies.
• Depletion of Underground Water Sources. The WD has lost/reduced production of
deep wells. This is partly attributed to the proliferation of deep wells even in the urban
center. Households and business establishments resorted to drilling in the absence of
watetr service, high water rates and a clear regulatory enforcement on their
establishment. Recommendations were put forward to clarify jurisdiction for monitoring
and enforcement on deep wells towards curbing proliferation by those that could afford
them. This was acknowledged to be difficult in the absence of alternative water
service.
Other environmental concerns for coordination with local government to address were:
poor sanitation along rivers and waterways through discharge of industrial, human,
piggery and other wastes and through non-enforcement of the national law on
easement along rivers—3 meters. There was a noted lack of monitoring of sanitation
provisions in the building code. Furthermore, areas downstream were recipients of
wastes from upstream; thus, the need for coordination of policies and actions with
other local government units. It was noted that discussions could be within the
framework of an existing committee on sanitation and environmental concerns in San
Fernando City for coordination with other political units of the franchise area.
60
3.3 POVERTY ANALYSIS, SOCIAL BENEFITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.3.1 Poverty Analysis
383. At least 28% in the province were below the poverty line in 2006. It was 36% of those
surveyed in May 2009 under the study. These were distributed in urban and rural barangays;
in urban areas, many were migrants in informal settlements. Bulk water providers, with own
water sources, supplied over 40% of unserved/underserved areas as against 15% by the
water district.. Thus the urban poor and those without water connection tended to pay even
more to water vendors. The poor tended to be doubly disadvantaged with lack of access to
safe water and were burdened more heavily with poor water quality since expenses for
boiling or buying drinking water from refilling station would translate as a larger fraction of
their real income. While there was a demand for extension of water service even by the poor,
capacity to pay is sensitive to levels of tariff increase. To benefit the poor, arrangements
would be needed for appropriate affordable services such as communal water tanks/faucets
that may be managed by user groups.
3.3.2 Social Benefits
384. The subproject will benefit both poor and non-poor. Poor households will be a major
beneficiary group of the subproject since served and expansion barangays have
concentrations of poor households.
385. Benefits will include: (i) improved quality of water and improved access to water and
sanitation facilities; (ii) empowerment of local groups (especially women’s group) through
participation in the project design, implementation and maintenance; (iii) reduced cost of
water delivery; (iv) access by women-headed households and the poor to water and
sanitaiton; (v) reduced pollution of ground and surface water and improved environmental
conditions in poor neighborhoods, leading to improved health, higher productivity and
increase in income; (vi) improved management of water sources in coordination with
communities and other agencies; (vii) improved hygiene practices; (viii) employment
generation in civil works will be another direct positive contribution of the subproject to
poverty reduction as with employment and livelihood opportunities for women in community-
based programs for user groups and for watershed management.
386. On the other hand, a risk is that a steep increase in tariffs makes services even less
accessible to the poor. The subproject can facilitate water access by poor communities
through appropriate measures such as the installation of communal water points where
needed. Bulk water allocations can target the poor for affordable access to safe water.
Existing practices such as easy water connection plans and coordination with local
government units for the provision of public faucets or tanks can also be reinforced. The
reach of water delivery services can be expanded by serving organized water user groups
rather than just individuals. Some GAD funds may be allocated for microfinance for
WATSAN-related livelihood opportunities. The component for sanitation and septage
management will prioritize on-site sanitation improvement through microfinance for low-
income areas.
3.3.3 Gender Analysis
387. MLUWD had 28.9% of households headed by women. The proportion of households
that had WD pipe connection showed that female-headed households (15.3%) had better
access to water service compared to male-headed households which were connected at a
rate of 9.2% But the large majority were unconnected. Women shared or took the lead in
decision making in the household such as on the installation of septic tanks or water
61
connection. They also had a major role in hygiene and sanitation and look forward to active
participation in project planning.
388. Inadequate water supply facilities and sewerage systems was a burden on women
because women were also responsible for water collection, for family health maintenance,
and for caring for sick family. Common gender issues are: 1) perceived high water rates and
apprehensions of a steep increase in tariff with project improvement and loan 2) inadequate
consultation on rates and design of common facilities 3) water quality and service concerns
that tended to be noted by women, 4) lack of livelihood opportunities for the poor and the
possibility of water-related income generating projects; 5) need for hygiene awareness—
while women were mostly responsible for cleaning sanitation units they often did so without
any protection; lack hand washing when dealing with babies; 6) poor women were forced to
use contaminated water that was free rather than clean water, which they could not afford; 7)
potential for incorporation of livelihood development plans in the Gender Action Plan for role
of women in sanitation and watershed management; and, for affected persons: 8) the
community may create social and gender issues due to hiring of outside laborers who may
be unaware of the local customs and norms of the community or municipality; 9) disturbance
to the privacy of local women with work on structures.
389. The above gender issues, constraints and opportunities for participation shall be
addressed in the Water District’s Gender Action Plan and in its programs and strategies.
3.3.4 Indigenous People, Ethnic Minorities and other Vulnerable

Groups in the Subproject area
390. Based on the interviews and gathering of information in the communities as well as
SES, no indigenous people will be affected in the subproject area and no ethnic minorities
and other vulnerable groups were found to be adversely affected as a result of the
subproject. The Bago/Kankanaey of San Gabriel was another 10 kilometers from the water
source at Lon-oy. Because the community was located upstream, it was not considered a
feasible target for expansion under the subproject.
3.3.5 Social Equity and Environmental Justice
391. Social and environmental equity considerations were underscored in the demand for
services by underserved municipalities and by the request for royalties or concessionary
water rates by water source municipalities such as San Juan and San Gabriel.
392. The MLUWD franchise area demonstrated vulnerability in the loss of its deep wells
with corresponding loss of half of its served clientele and increases in water production cost,
thus, water rates. Ongoing deterioration of the watershed through human activity is another
matter of critical concern that could jeopardize the viability of cheaper gravity water sources.
Expected population increases through migration and natural growth are likely to compound
any possible impacts of climate change, indicating not only a need to address equity
considerations in the allocation of water/benefits but also a need to integrate investments in
water source sustainability in the WD:’s water development and management plans in
cooperation with LGUs, local communities and other partners.
393. Examples of concrete measures that can be undertaken and integrated into policies
and programs such as the Gender Action Plan, are: i) support for a community-based
watershed management program by the WD; ii) targeting of water source communities for
appropriate water access, iii) payment of user fees that can be tied as incentive for resource
management, and, iv) inter-agency coordination on water supply and watershed
management concerns.
62
3.3.6 Recommendations
394. The pilot subproject should support strategies to link water and sanitation to the
project’s overarching goal of poverty reduction. The proposed elements of a plan for the
social dimensions of the subproject reinforce a public service orientation and a Corporate
Social Responsibility agenda consistent with delivery of water and sanitation as a public
service with pro-poor orientation.
395. Budget for some specific recommendations as discussed below and in Appendix 3.4
are integrated in technical components for water and sanitation as microfinance or pro-poor
allocations such as for public faucets, and in capability building and instituional plans as
technical assistance.
396. Pro-Poor Targeting of Participants. The subproject should target all households
living within the vicinity of the network of the piped water system. To expand the reach of
subproject benefits while maximizing cost recovery, the subproject should also set targets to
reach disadvantaged groups (e.g. women headed HHs and the poor HHs in the slum areas)
and other unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water service such as communal
water points. This may also be through easy installation plans.
397. Households for the sanitation component should be identified in coordination with
NGO partners and the local government units that will undertake a survey of sanitation
facilities. In coordination with local government resources, targets will also be made to cover
all sanitation hotspots for improvement of septage systems by the end of subproject loan
implementation.
398. Capability building shall support community management of water and sanitation
microfinance facility shall be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is
399. Other recommendations are in Appendix 3.4, details of which will be fleshed out
during implementation planning.
63
4. THE WATER DISTRICT AND ITS EXISTING FACILITIES
4.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
400. The water supply system of La Union Metro Water District was originally constructed
in 1924 by the provincial government to serve the town of San Fernando. Cadaclan springs
was the first water source but was later abandoned. In 1960, an infiltration gallery was
constructed in San Gabriel municipality along Lon-oy River to a sedimentation basin and
conveyed to the ground reservoir (constructed 1926) at the San Fernando Poblacion passing
through the municipalities of San Gabriel and San Juan.
401. In 1963, the San Juan municipality constructed its own system using a shallow well
source pumped to a 150 cum ground reservoir (elevation 25 m amsl) located within the town.
402. In 1971, an intake dam was constructed about 12 km east of San Gabriel (280 m
amsl) on the Lon-oy River to supply by gravity the San Gabriel sedimentation basin. Three
years later the San Juan system was interconnected to the transmission line from the
sedimentation tank.
403. In September 1974, the Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) was formed by virtue
of Resolution No. 353 of the Provincial Board of La Union encompassing the towns of San
Fernando (now a city), San Juan, San Gabriel, Bauang and Bacnotan. On April 28, 1975,
LWUA issued CCC No. 016 to the MLUWD.
404. LWUA then assisted the WD from 1975 up to 2000. In 1987, 2 wells were constructed
in Bgy. Ballay, Bauang. The town’s distribution network also became interconnected to the
southern part of the system of the San Fernando system. In 1993 and 1994 additional well
sources were constructed in San Juan municipality to augment the supply in the area.
405. In 1996, the service area of MLUWD expanded to Bacnotan which constructed a
separate water system (System II) with shallow wells as sources. Water is first collected in a
sump tank and pumped to a concrete ground reservoir with an elevation of 38m amsl where
it flows by gravity to the town.
406. In 2002, the WD was “conditionally”6 dissolved by its Board to pave the way for
privatization processes spearheaded by the provincial government. However, the MLUWD
union filed an opposition with a local court which reached the Court of Appeals7. In 2008, the
provincial government had a change of heart and left the WD alone. The impact of the court
case was that during its course there was no development of the service area and indeed
there was a major contraction in the number of connections which affected the operability of
the WD.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF WATERWORKS FACILITIES
407. The present water supply facilities of MLUWD are built up of 2 systems: (i) the first
(San Fernando System or System I) serves Fernando City, Bauang, San Juan and San
Gabriel, and (ii) the second (Bacnotan System or System II) serves Bacnotan. Refer to
Figure 4.1 for a schematic of the existing systems.
6
The WD Board made a resolution dissolving the WD. However before the WD can be dissolved legally several
requirements have still to be met as specified in PD 198.
7
Eventually the Court of Appeals decided in favor of the MLUWD union in 2007.
64
Figure 4.1: Schematic of Existing MLUWD Water Supply Systems
65
4.2.1 Source Facilities
408. Water is supplied to MLUWD from a combination of spring, deep well and shallow well
sources. The average production for 2008 was 134 l/s. In December 2008, the production
was 116 lps. The off-take from all of the sources in January 2009 is shown in Table 4.1—this
is around 20% higher than the 2008 average or 39% higher than the December 2008 figure.
409. System I. The MLUWD is utilizing Lon-oy River as a surface water source for the San
Fernando system. An intake dam was constructed 12 km east of the municipality of the San
Gabriel Poblacion at an elevation 272 m. Water is conveyed via gravity to the sedimentation
basin in Bgy Bumbuneg, San Gabriel at the rate of 26 - 41 lps.
Table 4.1: Source Facilities - MLUWD

Source Output
Depth - m Casing I/s % of
Diameter total
(mm) sorces
San Gabriel
Lon Oy spring/river intake 41 25.40%
Baroro River Basin Deepwells

Well 09 60 250 11.04 6.80%
Well 10 60 250 11.35 7.00%
Well 13 60 250 12.37 7.70%
Well 14 60 250 15.26 9.50%
Well 15 60 250 9.36 5.80%
San Fernando Municipality

Santiago Sur Shallow well no.1 6 600 1.04 0.60%
Santiago Sur Shallow well no.2 6 600 0.64 0.40%
Langcuas Shallow well no.1 6 600 0.62 0.40%
Pagdalagan Norte Shallow well 6 600 0.82 0.50%
Rufina Shallow Wel 6 600 0.91 0.60%
Bauang Municipality
Bauang River Basin Deepwells
Well no.1 31 250 5.5 3.40%
Well no.2 28 250 22.62 14.00%
Well no.3 32 250 20.04 12.40%
Dili Shallow Wells 2.22 1.40%
Bacnotan Municipality
bacnotan Shallow Wells 6
Bgy Nagsaraboan Bacnotan 6 4.19 2.60%
Total 161.3 100.00%

Source: MLUWD production data as of January 2009.
66
410. System 1 has 8 deepwells of which 3 (BDW 1-3) are located in Bgy Ballay, Bauang
about 5 km southeast of the Poblacion (or town proper). The 3 wells range from 28 to 31
meters depth with a 250 mm diameter casing. Water from these wells are pumped directly to
the system via Bauang pumping station (PS) No.1 equipped with a 15-hp submersible pump
with a discharge capacity of 5.55 lps, and Bauang PS No. 2 and 3 which are equipped with
50-hp submersible pumps with a discharge capacity of 22.62 and 20.04 lps respectively.8
411. Five deepwells are located in Bgy Naguirangan, San Juan about 5 km northeast of
the Poblacion. Each is equipped with a 250 mm diameter casing to a depth of 60 meters.
The combined discharge of the 5 wells is 59 lps.
412. System 1 also has 9 shallow wells, 8 of which are in San Fernando City with casing
diameters of 0.6 m (culvert type) and 6 meters depth each. Two wells located in Bgy
Santiago (San Fernando) are equipped with 1-hp centrifugal pumps discharging 1.04 and
0.64 lps. The four (4) wells in Bgy Langcuas are equipped with 1-hp submersible pumps
discharging a total of 3 lps. Two other shallow wells, the Pagdalagan Norte and Rufina Subd
shallow wells contribute a total of 1.53 lps.
413. One of the shallow wells is in Bgy Dili, Bauang about 3 km north of the Poblacion. The
well has a depth of 6 meters equipped with a 1 hp centrifugal pump discharging 2.22 lps.
414. System II. The sources of the Bacnotan Water System consist of 2 shallow wells
located in Bgy Nagsaraboan about 2 km east of the Poblacion. Each of these wells has a
depth of 6 meters. One is equipped with a 1.0 hp centrifugal pump and the other is with a 1.0
submersible pump discharging a total of 4.19 lps. Water from these wells is pumped into a
sump tank where a 15 hp turbine pump discharging about 4.19 lps delivers it to the service
area by gravity.
4.2.2 Treatment Facilities
415. The MLUWD had a bad experience in 2004 in the use of chlorine gas when a chlorine
gas leak occurred and caused some destruction to some agriculture produce; as a result of
this, the WD decided to look for an alternative. The alternative was the use of silver ionization
equipment which claims to destroy both bacteria and viruses with residual effects,9 as well as
the use of chlorine dioxide powder which not only provides additional disinfection and
maintains a chlorine residual but is claimed by the WD to remove earth odor in some of their
sources. Refer to Appendix 4.1 for a further explanation of silver ionization disinfection.
416. The Lon-oy surface water is treated using the San Gabriel Sedimentation Tank which
has a total capacity of 2,800 cum. It is located at an elevation of 115 m in Bgy Bumbuneg,
San Gabriel. For pre -treatment, the WD uses Silver-Copper Ionization equipment and the
use of chlorine dioxide powder. After passing through the sedimentation tank, the water is
again treated using chlorine dioxide and the use of an automatic self-cleaning Screen Filter
(25 microns).
417. Two (2) of the 3 Ballay deepwells are fitted with silver ionization equipment.
418. Two of the 5 Naguirangan deepwells are fitted with the silver ionization equipment and
one (1) which is closest to the distribution line is treated with chlorine dioxide.
419. One (1) of the 4 Langcuas shallow wells and the Pagdalagan shallow wells are fitted
with silver ionization equipments.
8
As of January 2009.
9
Silver ion residual ranges from 29 to 40 ppb.
67
420. For the Bacnotan system, the sump tank is equipped with chlorine dioxide facilities.
421. The MLUWD has its own laboratory, accredited by the DOH, which does
bacteriological, chemical and physical tests on water. Clients include some WDs from La
Union, Pangasinan and private clients from Baguio City.
4.2.3 Transmission Mains
422. The transmission main system supplying the municipalities of San Gabriel, San Juan,
San Fernando and Bauang runs through all the municipalities from San Gabriel in the north
and from Bauang river in the south.
423. In the north (from where more than 60% of the supply comes from) the transmission
main proper begins at the outlet of the settling tank in San Gabriel with a 250mm diameter
main. At the injection point of the Baroro deepwells the transmission splits into two 250mm
mains (ACP and CCI) which then feed on to San Juan.
424. From San Juan the two 250mm pipelines follow the main road to San Fernando (SF)
supplying to the old and new service reservoirs at high level and also continuing at low level
as a direct supply into San Fernando city.
425. In the south (from where around 30% of the supply comes from) the transmission
starts on the outlet of the Bauang deepwells. This is a 100mm ACP main which supplies to
Bauang town proper. The transmission pipeline from Bauang to San Fernando is a 200mm
ACP main.
426. The Bacnotan system has 1.1 km of ACP transmission line.
4.2.4 Storage Facilities
427. System I. The San Fernando system utilizes 4 concrete ground reservoirs, 1 elevated
steel tank and 4 sump tanks.
428. Two concrete ground reservoirs are located in the northern and southern parts of San
Fernando City. The North Reservoir has a capacity of 700 cum at an elevation of 50.6 m.
The South Reservoir with a capacity of 450 cum has an elevation also of 52.3 m. A 200 cum
concrete ground reservoir with an overflow elevation of 30 m amsl serves Rufina Subdivision,
San Fernando. A 200 cum elevated steel tank with a bottom elevation of 32 m serves
Namnama Village. The 1,000 cum Bauang concrete ground reservoir is situated on a hilly
portion in Bgy Dili at elevation 49.3 m. The San Fernando system utilizes 4 sump tanks made
of reinforced concrete:
• The Namnama Sump tank has a capacity of 4.5 cum with an elevation of 52 m amsl.
• The Rufina Sum tank has a capacity of 189 cum at an elevation of 52 m.
• The Bauang Sump Tank has a capacity of 40 cum at an elevation of 18 m.
• The Capitol Sump Tank has a capacity of 25 cum at an elevation of 52 m.
429. System II. The Bacnotan system has its own concrete ground reservoir at Bgy
Nagsaraboan with a capacity of 250 cum and situated at elevation 38 m amsl. The Bacnotan
Sump Tank has a capacity of 12 cum and an elevation of 22 m
68
4.2.5 Distribution Facilities
430. The San Fernando system (System I) serves the municipalities of San Fernando,
Bauang, San Juan and San Gabriel. The distribution network of these municipalities is
interconnected to each other.
431. The Bacnotan system (System II) serves only the municipality of Bacnotan.
432. Pipe types used in both systems consists of PVC, ACP, CCI and GI pipes with
diameters ranging from 25mm to 200mm. The total length of the distribution pipelines of the
2 systems is about 100 km.
4.2.6 Service Connections and Other Appurtenances
433. As of December 2008 there were 8,184 active service connections. System I has
7,596 domestic and 423 commercial/bulk connections. System II has 163 domestic and 2
commercial connections. All connections are metered.
434. A total of 320 (50-300mm) gate valves, 8 butterfly valves (100 – 250mm) and 19
check valves are also incorporated in the various transmission and distribution lines. Seventy
five (75) hydrants are located mostly in the San Fernando and Bauang towns.
4.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
435. The 2 water systems of MLUWD operate on a 24/7 basis.
436. System I. Water is conveyed by gravity via a 12 km transmission line from the Lon-oy
intake to the San Gabriel Sedimentation Basin where it is treated. After treatment, water is
conveyed to San Fernando passing through the town proper of San Juan and San Gabriel by
gravity. The towns of San Gabriel and San Juan are likewise supplied by the transmission
main from the sedimentation tank. There is no pressure reduction into the distribution and the
San Juan high level service reservoir is not being used due to some legal issues regarding
lot ownership.
437. The other major source of System 1 is provided by the 5 Naguirangan deepwells
which pumps water directly into the system, with storage at San Fernando storage
reservoirs. Eight shallow wells (Santiago Sur, Langcuas, Pagdalagan and Rufina) supply
additional water by direct pumping to the distribution main of San Fernando. Booster pumps
are used to maintain pressure to high points of the system and to a reservoir. At San
Fernando the two high level service reservoirs are operated independently. The old reservoir
(no. 1) is used for fire-fighting only. The new reservoir (no. 2) is used to supply a high level
area of San Fernando adjacent to the reservoir. This reservoir is filled once every 2 nights by
closing the low level 150mm and high 200mm bypass into San Fernando proper and using
the booster at the end of the 2- 250mm mains.
438. The Bauang network is supplied from the deepwells along Bauang river and the
transmission main feeds through the town of Bauang and on towards San Fernando. The
Bauang service reservoir adjacent to the Dili shallow well is utilized between the hours of 5
a.m. and 8 p.m. to supply water via the transmission to local distribution areas. The reservoir
is supplied from the Dili shallow well sump which in turn is supplied from the Dili shallow
wells as well as the Bauang transmission system at night time (between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m.).
439. System II. The Bacnotan Water System has its own supply providing services to
about 160 connections only. Supply from 2 shallow wells are collected into a sump tank and
69
then boosted into the Bacnotan concrete ground reservoir wherein it flows by gravity to the
service area.
440. Flow Measurements. All production sites are metered. All meters are operational,
with the exception of the 250mm outlet meter on the San Gabriel settling tank. There is no
flow measurement within the distribution system.
441. O&M Activities. Management of all operational activities is carried out in-house by
MLUWD staff, e.g. meter reading, leak detection, leak repair, meter replacement,
disconnections, maintenance, motor re-winding, etc. In the event of emergency works they
use external contractors if they have insufficient resources to achieve the work in the
required time. The WD practices regular maintenance (reservoir cleaning, meter
replacement, line flushing) on a scheduled basis. Repair maintenance is on a “as needed”
basis.
442. Leak Detection. Leak detection consists of passive/visible detection only; however,
the ground in the MLUWD area is typically sandy soil which means that leakage tends not to
surface making visible leak detection difficult. MLUWD has some leak detection equipment
which is not functioning properly and with the staff inadequately trained in its use. Leaks are
repaired as soon as found with the WD operating on a 24 hour standby service having 2
seven man teams available.
4.4 FIELD INVESTIGATION
443. Field surveys were undertaken in May to June 2009 to determine the actual field
condition and the state of the existing system. The field survey covered investigation of water
sources and the conditions of reservoirs, pump stations and treatment process.
4.4.1 Production
444. A LWUA team made some flow measurements of the 8 deepwell pump stations using
a Portaflow flowmeter on 12-13 November 2008. The LWUA measurements indicated almost
the same production figures being used by the WD, even if the Portaflow measurements
done by LWUA were made for less than hour in each pump station. On March 30-31, 2009,
the WDDSP study team took existing production meter readings using a stopwatch.
Comparative figures, including the WD figures for the month of December 2008, are listed in
Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Spring and Deepwell Production Figures - MLUWD

LWUA Figures WDDSP Figures
WD Figures (lps)
Sources (lps) (lps)
Dec 2008
Nov 2008 March 2009
Lon-oy Source 26.1
BDW-1 4.41 4.5 3.67
BDW-2 21.96 22 25.89
BDW-3 15.61
SJDW-9 3.63 3.0 3.41
SJDW-10 10.49 10 12.73
SJDW-13 11.12 12 13.26
SJDW-14 8.84 8.5 9.79
SJDW-15 5.37 5.8 6.05
70
445. The figures above indicate that the production figures of the WD are somewhat
reliable since the measurements were taken from their production meters over a 1-month
period. A comparison of the WD production figures on April 2008 and compared with those
taken in December 2008 (shown in Table 4.3) shows an almost constant capacity of the
deepwells, with the exception of the Lon-oy source.
Table 4.3: WD Deepwell and Lon-oy Production Figures (lps) - MLUWD

Sources December 2008 April 2008
Lon-oy Spring 26.1 41
BDW-1 4.41 4.5
BDW-2 21.96 22
BDW-3 15.61
SJDW-9 3.63 3.0
SJDW-10 10.49 10
SJDW-13 11.12 12
SJDW-14 8.84 8.5
SJDW-15 5.37 5.8
4.4.2 System Pressure
446. Pressures within the transmission and distribution systems vary—high pressures are
maintained along the transmission line from San Gabriel to San Fernando city and, to a
lesser extent, from Bauang to San Fernando.
447. These transmission lines feed directly into distribution along the route so that within
some localized distribution areas there are also very high pressures (>50m). Pressures
within the distribution in San Juan are high in some areas, whilst within San Fernando City
and Bauang are low to medium (5m to 30m) and vary according to elevation and time of day.
This indicates that network capacity is constrained in some areas; given the reduction in
connections over time, coupled with a reduction in the average consumption per connection,
this indicates that the hydraulic capacity of the network is worsening—(due to increased
tuberculation, physical restriction due to sedimentation or poor valve knowledge etc.).
4.5 WATER QUALITY
448. Water quality tests of all sources were taken from the WD records and in 2006; the
test results show that the physical and chemical quality of all sources was within the
Philippine National Drinking Water Standards (PNDWS) limits.
449. Field measurements for total dissolve solids (TDS) were taken during March 2009 to
determine indication, if any, of high salinity in the wells. The TDS of the wells range from 237
– 327 ppm which passes the standard of 500 ppm. Lon-oy TDS was measured at 90 ppm.
However, the Lon-oy source is observed to be turbid during rainy days.
450. For the month of December 2008, the average chlorine residuals are reflected below:
San Gabriel: 0.61 ppm
San Juan: 0.98 ppm
San Fernando: 0.60 ppm
Bauang: 0.00.
71
4.6 WATER USE PROFILE
451. The data shown in Table 4.4 were taken from the WD records. It shows the non-
revenue water (NRW) for years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and December 2008 of the WD. The
NRW ranges from 50 – 53% of production.
452. NRW does not generate revenue for the WD. It consists of leakages, water used
possibly from illegal connections and other unbilled uses.
453. The WD is, however, using about 2.5% to 4 % of its production for line flushing and for
wastage during initial pumping to flush sand out, especially from the shallow wells.
Table 4.4: Non Revenue Water Analysis - MLUWD

Average monthly Billed
Average monthly Average Number Non-Revenue
Year Consumption
Production (cum) of connections Water (%)
(cum)
2004 331,487 162,192 51
2005 330,470 166,197 50
2006 337,220 165,484 7,828 51
2007 344,013 161,598 7,982 53
10
2008 300,299 142,990 8,184 52
Source: WD Records.
4.6.1 Population Served
454. Based on the 2007 census data, the average number of persons per dwelling unit in
the service area ranges from 5.2 to 5.7 persons. However, it was observed by the WD staff
that many connections serve more than one dwelling unit. This observation was also borne
out in the surveys as reported in Chapter 3.
455. As of December 2008, there were a total of 8,184 active connections, broken down
into 7,809 domestic connections, 373 commercial connections and 2 bulk connections. Using
6 persons per connections served for domestic and 3 persons11 per connection for
commercial, the WD was serving 47,823 people for that period, or 17% of the total population
in its franchise area.
4.6.2 Water Consumption
456. Consumption records of the WD were obtained from April 1997 and December 2008
for comparison purposes. The results are shown in Table 4.5
457. The drop in average consumption is very drastic, indicating a depressed demand
owing to a supply deficiency or drop in pressure. From 1997 – 2008, tariffs were increased
only twice.
Table 4.5: Average Water Consumption - MLUWD

System I System II
1997 2008 1997 2008
Domestic 21.44cum/mo 15.36 cum/mo 19.32cum/mo 13.22 cum/mo
Commercial 56.8 cum/mo 51.21 cum/mo 30.28 cum/mo 15.72 cum/mo
10
Month of December 2008 only.
11
Most of the commercial are sari-sari stores which are basically a household dwelling unit (neighborhood
store). Assuming 50% are sari-sari stores, a commercial connection will therefore serve 3 persons. A socio-
economic survey done by the WD in 1996 shows an average of 4 persons/commercial.
72
4.7 WATER RATES
458. The present schedule of water rates which was approved by LWUA on September
2006 is as shown in Table 4.6 (in Php).
Table 4.5: Water Rates - MLUWD

Diameter Minimum 11–20 21-30 31-40
Classification Over 40
Size Charge cum cum cum
1 / 2” 235 23.95 28.70 36 40.35
Domestic 3 / 4” 373 23.95 28.70 36 40.35
1” 741 23.95 28.70 36 40.35
1 / 2” 465 47.90 57.40 72 80.70

Commercial/Industrial 3 / 4” 741 47.90 57.40 72 80.70
1“ 1,477 47.90 57.40 72 80.70
1 / 2” 695 71.85 86.10 108 121.05

Bulk/Wholesale
3 / 4” 1,109 71.85 86.10 108 121.05
1” 2,213 71.85 86.10 108 121.05
4.8 WATER SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
459. In the course of field investigations and interviews with WD officials and local
residents, notable deficiencies of the water system were identified. The main deficiencies of
the MLUWD system are as follows:
1. High transmission main pressures in San Gabriel, coupled with poor quality
transmission mains.
2. High NRW and limited supply—low pressure prevails in many distribution areas.
3. Turbidity of water during rainy days at the Lon-oy water intake.
4. High NRW due to poor condition of AC pipes and illegal connections
4.8.1 Water Sources and Quality
460. According to the WD officials, the MLUWD has a total of about 15,000 active and
inactive connections. However, due to low pressures as well as inadequate supply or
generally poor service, many customers opted to have their services disconnected. Many
disconnected customers now are relying on shallow wells which are abundant in the different
towns. The drop in average consumption from 1997 to 2008 is very revealing.
461. Inspite of the improvements by the WD in its treatment facilities, one major concern is
sand pumping of some deepwells. If for some unavoidable reasons, the operation of these
wells is stopped, sand pumping during the start-up operation is very apparent.
4.8.2 Transmission Facilities
462. Majority of the WD’s ACP pipes should be replaced as these pipes are causing the
most leaks according to the WD’s technical staff. There are 23 km of ACP mostly connecting
Lon-oy spring. At one time, Lon-oy was measured to be delivering 41 lps while in December
2008, its measured production was only 26 lps. The ACPs were installed in 1980 or almost
30 years ago. Since San Fernando and its neighboring towns have sandy soil, leaks are not
visible.
73
463. The transmission facilities are likewise inadequate or undersized due to the increasing
number of connections from the time they were built.
4.8.3 Distribution Facilities
464. Out of 100 km of distribution pipes, 38 km are ACPs. According to the WDs, these are
the pipes that cause the most breakages. For the year 2008, most major pipe breakdowns
were from these ACPs.
4.8.4 Service Connections and Appurtenances
465. About 30 % of the service connections are still using GI pipes and need to be
replaced by Polyethylene (PE) tubing to reduce breakages.
74
5. POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
5.1 GENERAL
466. This chapter discusses the projections of population and water demand of the service
area of MLUWD. Population and water demand projections for the delineated service area
are the principal bases for the design of the improvement of water supply system. The
projections have significant impact on the facility layout, sizes of pipelines and
appurtenances, construction staging and cost of the project. In this particular study,
population and water demands are projected for the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025.
5.2 SERVICE AREA DELINEATION
467. The future service area of MLUWD (Figure 5.1) has been delineated as per
discussions with WD officials, on the basis of data review and reconnaissance field surveys,
and discussions with concerned local government officials.
468. The present franchise area of MLUWD includes 5 local government units in La Union,
namely: San Fernando City, Bauang, Bacnotan, San Juan and San Gabriel. The franchise
area encompasses 201 barangays while the existing service area12 encompasses 60
barangays.
469. As discussed with MLUWD officials, the existing service area will eventually be
expanded to include several additional barangays, as shown in Table 5.1.
470. Factors considered in the delineation of future service area include willingness to
connect, concentration of population, proximity to existing system or location in relation to the
proposed route of the transmission lines and other technical and economic considerations.
Figure 5.1 shows the present and future service area of the MLUWD.
Table 5.1: Number of Barangays in Service Area - MLUWD

Existing 2015 Service 2025
Towns/City Total Bgys
Service Area Area Service Area
Bacnotan 47 4 9 16
Bauang 39 14 23 27
San Gabriel 15 3 5 5
San Juan 41 16 20 21
San Fernando 59 28 28 30
Total 201 65 85 99
Source: MLUWD GM and staff, June 2009
5.3 BARANGAY AND SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
471. The population projections and the service area were made considering 1) past
population trend, 2) population densities, 3) the potential for growth, 4) general topography,
and 5) physical limits of the urban and local land use regulations. For the towns and cities,
the geometric growth rates were applied, and for the barangay population the ratio method
was used.
12
Areas with service connections.
75
Figure 5.1: Present and Future Service Area - MLUWD
76
5.3.1 Past Growth Rates
472. The analysis of past population growth was based on census data obtained from
NSO. These data were used as the basis for calculating future growth rates for the
City/Municipalities. The annual growth rates of the City/Municipalities of MLUWD from 1990
to 2007 are summarized in Table 5.2, while those of the barangays are tabulated in
Appendix 5.1 (A–E).
Table 5.2: City/Municipal Growth Rates - MLUWD

Province/City Historical Population Growth Rate (%)
/Municipality 1990 1995 2000 2007 ’90-‘95 ’95-00 ’00-‘07
La Union 548,742 597,442 657,945 720,972 1.72 1.94 1.32
Bacnotan 29,568 32,634 35,419 38,743 1.99 1.65 1.29
Bauang 51,573 56,189 63,373 69,837 1.73 2.44 1.40
San Gabriel 12,532 13,489 14,909 15,803 1.48 2.22 0.84
San Juan 25,046 27,795 30,393 32,952 2.10 1.80 1.16
San Fernando 84,949 91,943 102,082 114,813 1.59 2.1 1.69
Source: 1990 – 2007 are NCSO data.
5.3.2 Future Growth Rates
473. The future growth rates were estimated based on field conditions, City/Municipal
development plans, and past population trends. Projection of future population for the
barangays served by the WD used the ratio method, i.e., extrapolating ratio between the
barangays and the City/Municipal population. This is appropriate as analysis of the NSO
projections shows that the annual growth rates of the barangays served by the WD follow the
same trend as those of the City/Municipality.
474. The 5 towns/city have conducted population surveys in 2008. This 2008 data were
also used in extrapolating the projected growth rates. Table 5.3 shows the projected growth
rates for the 5 towns/city up to year 2025.
Table 5.3: Growth Rates - MLUWD

LGU GR ’90-‘95 GR ’95-00 GR 00-08 2008-2025
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Bacnotan 1.99 1.65 1.43 1.40
Bauang 1.73 2.44 1.31 1.30
San Gabriel 1.48 2.22 1,26 1.26
San Juan 2.10 1.80 1.91 1.90
San Fernando 1.59 2.10 1.69 1.60
Note: 2008 population taken from each town. Survey done by Health unit.
5.3.3 Population Projections
475. Table 5.4 shows the population projections for each of the towns/city covered by the
MLUWD, while that of the barangays are shown in Appendices 5.1 A-E.
77
Table 5.4: Population Projections - MLUWD

Projected Population
City /Municipality
2010 2015 2020 2025
Bacnotan 40,390 43,300 46,420 49,720
Bauang 72,600 77,440 82,600 88,120
San Gabriel 16,410 17,470 18,600 19,800
San Juan 34,870 38,310 42,090 46,240
San Fernando 120,410 130360 141,130 152,780
5.3.4 Served Population Projections
476. The served population of the WD resides in the central urban area where the middle
and high income groups of the population and most commercial and institutional
establishments are found. The expansion has been proposed on the following
considerations:
• willingness of the people to connect to the system due to assurance of availability
of safe and adequate water supply;
• natural increase of population; hence, more potential consumers (expansion of
service area due to projected increase of population); and
• proximity to the transmission lines.
477. A random market survey in the service area was conducted by the Consultant in April
2009 to determine the willingness to connect to the water supply system, among other
objectives. It should be noted that the market survey concentrated on proposed expansion
areas and those within the service area not yet served by the WD. Of the total number of
residents in the proposed service area, about 400 were interviewed randomly and asked to
answer the prepared questionnaire. The survey yielded the willingness-to- connect as 42%.
478. Discussions with the management officials of the WD were held on their proposed
barangay expansion areas. Given the barangays which have to be covered by 2025, the
population projections for each town and barangay and their served populations are
elaborated in Appendix 5.2 (A-E), and are summarized in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Served Population Projections - MLUWD

Projected Population
City /Town
2010 2015 2020 2025
Municipal Served Municipal Served Municipal Served Municipal Served
Bacnotan 40,390 980 43,300 3,030 46,420 5,850 49,720 6,970
Bauang 72,600 14,970 77,440 24,330 82,600 31,530 88,120 38,770
San Gabriel 16,410 500 17,470 1,420 18,600 2,270 19,800 3,130
San Juan 34,870 4,140 38,310 6,870 42,090 10,240 46,240 12,400
San Fernando 120,410 27,250 130,360 35,090 141,130 52,280 152,780 68,820
Total 284,680 47,840 306,880 70,740 330,840 102,170 356,660 130,090
% Served 17% 23% 31% 38%
78
5.4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
479. The water demand is estimated to be the sum of the domestic, commercial/industrial,
institutional consumptions and of unaccounted-for-water due to wastage, and leakage in the
system.
480. The factors considered in the analysis of water demand are: 1) general distribution of
income levels, 2) living conditions, 3) housing pattern, and 4) the availability of alternative
sources, i.e. shallow wells. Chapter 3 mentions that there was a positive response to
proposed water service improvement and expansion, with some 47% willing to connect to
water service including those that had incomes below the household income poverty
threshold estimated at P6,739.
5.4.1 Domestic Water Demand
481. The total domestic water demand is a function of the per capita consumption per
income group, the average size of families, and the number of families connected per income
group in the service area. Records show (Table 5.6) that the average consumption is about
13.22 – 15.36m3/month per domestic connection, while persons per connection is about 6.
This translates to an average consumption of 73-85 lcpd. This can be considered a
depressed demand due to source or pressure deficiencies and considering the consumption
patterns from 1997 to 2008.
482. The existing domestic consumption is a consequence of limited supply and pressure
and will definitely increase as more piped water is available to the households. The per
capita consumption as projected is shown in Table 5.7.
483. The WD classifies government buildings and public schools as domestic connections.
The domestic per capita consumption in the service area is projected to increase to 105 lpcd
due to project completion, and decreasing again in 2025 due to tariff adjustments as well as
a natural consequence of pressure reductions due to connection increases.
Table 5.6: Existing Consumption/ Connection - MLUWD
System I System II
1997 2008 1997 2008

21.44cum/mo or 15.36 cum/mo or 19.32cum/mo or 13.22 cum/mo or
Domestic
119 lpcd 85 lpcd 107 lpcd 73 lpcd
56.8 cum/mo or 51.21 cum/mo or 30.28 cum/mo 15.72 cum/mo or
Commercial
1.89 cum/day 1.71 cum/day 1.00 cum/day 0.52 cum/day
Source: WD records.
Table 5.7: Projected per Capita Consumption - MLUWD

13
2008 2010 2015 2020 2025
Domestic, lpcd 85 85 105 105 100
13
The ADB project is projected to be operational starting in 2014.
79
484. From 1995 – 2001, the WD averaged an increase of about 350 connections /year.
From 2001 to 2004, the WD lost about 80 connections per year due to supply and pressure
deficiencies. Starting 2005 the WD experienced an increase of 110 connections per year up
to 2008. In 2004, the WD was able to drill a well and with the increased supply, the
connections began to rise again until March 2009 where reductions in service connections
were again happening.
485. It is assumed that the poor population (low income group) in the service area covered
by the WD will be provided with water either through individual house connections or bulk
meter connections to a community or through self provision due to availability of shallow
wells.
486. The projected domestic water consumption up to 2025 is presented in Table 5.8,
together with the number of domestic /government service connections.
Table 5.8: Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (Usage) - MLUWD

City Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (cumd)
/Municipality 2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn Usage Conn Usage Con Usage Conn Usage
Bacnotan 163 83 502 316 966 609 1,430 858
Bauang 2,449 1,249 3,992 2,515 5,172 3,258 6,352 3,811
San Gabriel 84 43 235 148 375 236 516 310
San Juan 680 347 1,130 712 1,680 1,058 2,284 1,370
San Fernando 4,383 2,235 5,656 3,563 8,480 5,342 11,303 6,782
Total 7,759 3,957 11,115 7,254 16,673 10,503 21,885 13,131
5.4.2 Commercial/Industrial Water Demand
487. The commercial/industrial establishments are mostly located in the urban areas of the
City/Municipality. These include small and medium scale retail stores, hardwares,
drugstores, telecommunication offices, restaurants and hotels among others. Table 5.9 lists
the number of commercial establishments registered in each town.
Table 5.9: Commercial/Industrial Establishments - MLUWD

Total Registered Connected to
Town/City 14 Remarks
with LGU WD (Dec 2008)
60% are sari-sari stores; 9% are
Bacnotan 636 2
restaurants
Increased Commercial due to lack of
Bauang 2,929 93
space in San Fernando
Mostly sari-sari stores and service
San Gabriel 159 0
shops
Mostly sari-sari stores, rice mills,
San Juan 339 20
pottery shops and apartments
Stores, restaurants, resorts, hotels,
San Fernando 4,776 315
movie houses, service shops, banks
Total 8,839 430
14
As of 2006, except for San Juan which is as of 1996.
80
488. In 1997, the WD had 555 commercial connections. In December 2008, the WD had
only 440 commercial connections which went down to 430 in June 2009. Assuming that only
50% of commercial establishments would require piped water, the WD is serving only 10% of
potential commercial connections. The target would be to connect about 20% of the existing
commercial establishments as many of them already have alternative sources of water plus
new commercial entrants. The present average commercial consumption is about 1.70 cumd
with the projected unit commercial consumption shown in Table 5.10.
489. Table 5.11 summarizes the commercial water demand and the number of service
connections up to year 2020.
Table 5.10: Projected Unit Commercial Consumption - MLUWD

15
2010 2015 2020 2025
Commercial
1.70 2.0 2.0 1.90
cumd
Table 5.11: Projected Commercial/Industrial Connections and Consumption (Usage) -

MLUWD
Projected Commercial Connections and Consumption (cumd)
City /Municipality
2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage
Bacnotan 2 3 7 10 18 36 34 65
Bauang 93 158 127 254 165 330 220 418
San Gabriel -- - 3 6 6 12 11 21
San Juan 20 34 30 60 52 104 70 133
San Fernando 315 536 383 766 466 932 526 999
Total 430 731 550 1,096 707 1,414 861 1,636
5.4.3 Institutional Water Demand
490. The WD does not have a separate classification for institutional connections.
Institutions are either classified as government (domestic classification) or commercial
connections (private schools and hospitals).
5.4.4 Bulk Water Demand
491. The WD is currently serving only 2 bulk water users (all in San Fernando) with an
average consumption of about 59 cumd. It is projected that by the year 2025, there will be 2
additional bulk users to be served by the WD. Projected unit demand will be 50 cumd due to
customers already availing of individual connections from the WD. This bulk connection can
likewise be used by the WD to provide for connections to poor income clusters through the
mother meter concept. Table 5.12 gives the projected bulk demand.
Table 5.12: Projected Bulk Connections and Consumption (Usage) - MLUWD

Projected Commercial Connections and Consumption (cumd)
City /Municipality
2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage
Bauang 0 0 1 50 1 50 2 100
San Fernando 2 100 2 100 3 150 3 150
Total 2 100 3 150 4 200 5 250
15
The ADB project is projected to be operational in 2015.
81
5.4.5 Non Revenue Water (NRW)
492. Non-revenue water is the volume of water that goes into the system but does not
generate revenue. Included are wastage, leakage and consumptions from illegal
connections. The existing system has a present unaccounted-for-water of 52%. This value is
assumed to decrease as the present system facilities and operation are improved. LWUA will
be implementing a PhP40 million project in 2009-2010 to increase its source capacity,
augment the carrying capacity of its transmission facilities and to reduce its NRW.
493. The WD is expected to reduce the unaccounted-for-water to 40% in 2010, to 32% in

2015 and to 30% in 2020 and 2025.
5.4.6 Total Water Demand
494. The total average daily demand of the WD is projected to increase significantly as a
result of population growth and the improvement of the standard of living of the residents in
the service area. The average day water demand is expected to increase from 7,980 cumd in
2010 to 12,507 cumd in 2015, to 17,311 cumd in 2020, and to 21,453 cumd in 2025. The
projections on served population, number of service connections and the total water demand
are shown in Table 5.13.
Table 5.13: Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand - MLUWD
City Projected Total Connections and Ave Day Demand (cumd)
/Municipality 2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay
Bacnotan 165 144 509 486 984 921 1,464 1,318
Bauang 2,542 2,345 4,120 4,146 5,338 5,198 6,574 6,185
San Gabriel 84 71 238 227 381 355 527 472
San Juan 700 635 1,160 1,135 1,732 1,661 2,354 2,148
San Fernando 4,700 4,785 6,041 6,514 8,949 9,178 11,832 11,330
Total 8,191 7,980 12,068 12,508 17,384 7,313 22,090 21,453
5.4.7 Number of Service Connections
495. Based on the 2007 census data, the average number of persons per dwelling unit in
the service area ranges from 5.2 to 5.7 persons. However, from the economic-survey done
by the consultants in 2009, some who do not have connections from the WD are getting
water from those who do have connections from the WD. Hence, the population served is
assumed to be 6 for each domestic connection.
496. The projected number of service connections of MLUWD is shown in Table 5.13.
5.4.8 Water Demand Variations
497. Demand variations refers to the fluctuations in the water demand as measured in the
system. Average-day demand is the average of all the daily demands in a year. The
maximum-day demand is the maximum daily demand recorded in a year, while the peak-
hour demand is the maximum hourly water demand in a day. Based on the methodology
used, the maximum-day to average-day ratio of 1.30:1 is generally used for water districts
with served population of less than 30,000, and 1.25:1 for served population of over 30,000.
498. The peak-hour demand is computed by multiplying the average-day demand with the
peak-hour factor. A peak-hour factor of 2.0 was used in this particular study for the years
2010 to 2025.
82
499. The demand variation is presented in Table 5.14.
500. Demands in the different barangays are tabulated in Appenix 5.2 (A-E).
Table 5.14: Water Demand Variations (cumd) - MLUWD
Town/City 2010 2015 2020 2025

Bacnotan Ave Day 144 486 921 1,318
Max Day 180 607 1,151 1,648
Peak Hr 288 971 1,842 2,636
Bauang Ave Day 2,345 4,146 5,198 6,185

Max Day 2,931 5,182 6,497 7,731
Peak Hr 4,690 8,291 10,395 12,369
San Gabriel Ave Day 71 227 355 472

Max Day 89 283 443 590
Peak Hr 143 453 709 944
San Juan Ave Day 635 1,135 1,661 2,148

Max Day 793 1,419 2,076 2,685
Peak Hr 1,269 2,270 3,321 4,295
San Fernando Ave Day 4,785 6,514 9,178 11,330

Max Day 5,981 8,142 11,472 14,163
Peak Hr 9,569 13,027 18,355 22,661
Total WD Ave Day 7,980 12,507 17,311 21,453

Max Day 9,975 15,633 21,369 26,816
Peak Hr 15,960 25,013 34,623 42,905
83
6. WATER RESOURCES
501. Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) obtains its water supply from one (1) surface
source (Lon-oy Creek), and eighteen (18) wells consisting of ten (10) shallow dugwells and
eight (8) deepwells.
502. Average production from the Lon-oy Creek is 27 lps (2,333 cumd) while average
production from the wells is 118 lps (10,200 cumd), for a total of 145 lps (12,528 cumd).
With the year 2025 maximum-day demands at 301 lps (26,006 cumd), the additional
demands of 156 lps (13,478 cumd) can be obtained from wells to be drilled along the Bauang
River in the Municipality of Bauang and along the Baroro River in the Municipalities of San
Juan and San Gabriel.
6.1 WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY
6.1.1 Surface Water Inventory
503. There are two (2) major river systems in La Union: the Baroro River to the north of
San Fernando City that traverses the Municipalities of San Juan and San Gabriel and the
Bauang River to the south of San Fernando City that traverses the Municipality of Bauang.
504. Smaller creeks pass through the central section of the study area, flowing east to west
in a dendritic pattern. Most of these creeks run dry during prolonged dry periods.
505. Baroro River. The Baroro River originates in the mountains northeast of San
Fernando City and flows westerly through the Municipalities of San Gabriel and San Juan
before emptying into the South China Sea.
506. The Lon-oy Creek, which is a major MLUWD water source, is one of the perennial
tributaries of the Baroro River. The Lon-oy Spring complex, which is one of the headwaters
of the creek is located about 12 km east of the San Gabriel Poblacion in Sitio Bakes,
Barangay Lon-oy. The creek also serves as an irrigation water supply source with two (2)
NIA diversion canals constructed downstream of the MLUWD river intake.
507. Streamflow Regime. Records of flow of the Baroro River for 16 years were obtained at
the gauging station located in Barangay Cabaroan, SanJuan, La Union. At this gauging
station, the drainage area is about 129 sq. km. The mean monthly discharge is presented in
Table 6-1A in Appendix 6.1.
508. The Baroro River has a recorded minimum flow of 200 lps (1,700 cumd), which
exclude the MLUWD and the NIA extractions at the Lon-oy Creek and mean flow of 10,046
lps (868,000 cumd). Safe yield of the Baroro River if to be used as surface water supply
source by the MLUWD can be increased by constructing an impounding reservoir. The
LWUA Consultant, Camp Dresser and McKee, in its 1976 Water Supply Feasibility Report,
recommended the construction of an 18 meters high concrete dam or a 22 meters high
rockfill dam at a lower damsite, or a 23 meters high concrete dam or 27 meters high rockfill
dam at the upper site. Should the river be developed as a surface water source, complete
filtration and treatment is necessary to bring the water quality to within the drinking
standards.
509. The Baroro River flow frequency presented in Table 6-1B in Appendix 6.1 shows that
the available flow corresponding to 80 percent probability of exceedance is 980 lps (84,672
cumd). Flow frequency analysis is presented in Figure 6-1 in Appendix 6.1.
84
510. Streamflow measured at the Lon-oy Creek from December 1954 to November 1957
showed minimum discharge of 59.03 lps (5,100 cumd). On May 22, 2009 the total flow
measured was 635.94 lps (54,945 cumd), which includes 52.67 lps (4,551 cumd) MLUWD’s
extraction, 87.63 lps (7,571 cumd) diverted for irrigation and 495.64 lps (42,823 cumd)
excess flow measured 200 meters downstream of the MLUWD and NIA intake structures.
Tables 6-2A and 6-2B in Appendix 6.1 present the calculations of the flow diverted for
irrigation and the creek excess flow, respectively. Figure 6-2 in Appendix 6.1 shows the
location of the measuring stations while Figures 6-3A and 6-3B in Appendix 6.1 show the
Lon-oy Creek and the NIA irrigation canal cross sections, respectively.
511. Bauang River. The Bauang River originates in the mountains east of San Fernando
City and flows in a westerly direction before emptying into the Lingayen Gulf. The Naguilian
River, a major tributary, joins the Bauang River with its confluence located about one (1) km
southwest of the Naguilian Poblacion.
512. No major water extraction facilities were found to exist along the Bauang River.
513. Streamflow Regime. The Bauang River has no streamflow record. Its major tributary,
the Naguilian River, is a perennial river that shares watershed characteristics with the
Bauang River.
514. Records of flows of the Naguilian River were obtained at the gauging station located
in Barangay Mamat-ing Norte, Naguilian, La Union. At this station, the drainage area is about
304 sq. km and the gauge elevation at zero-mark is 34.52 mamsl. The mean monthly river
discharge is tabulated and presented in Table 6-3A in Appendix 6.1.
515. The maximum recorded monthly discharge of the Naguilian River is 94,700 lps (8.18
million cumd) while the minimum recorded discharge is 1,160 lps (100,224 cumd). To
estimate the minimum flow of the Bauang River, correlation with the gauged rivers near the
study area was made and the results presented in Figure 6-4 ion Appendix 6.1. The
minimum flow of the gauged rivers is presented in Table 6-3B in Appendix 6.1. Minimum
flow of the Bauang River is determined at 2,490 lps (215,335 cumd).
516. The flow frequencies of the Naguilian River and the Bauang River in Table 6-3C in
Appendix 6.1, which are calculated from the Naguilian River flow frequency analysis
presented in Figure 6-5 in Appendix 6.1, show that the available flow from the Naguilian
River and Bauang River corresponding to 80 percent probability of exceedance are 3,410 lps
(294,796 cumd) and 5,050 (436,375 cumd), respectively.
517. The streamflow characteristics of the Naguilian River and the Bauang River indicate
that there is sufficient flow available for extraction through direct tapping of the surface flow
or through induced infiltration of the surface and base flows.
6.1.2 Groundwater Resources Inventory
518. Groundwater in the general area of La Union is utilized through wells and small
capacity springs. Wells are used for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes. The
MLUWD utilizes groundwater through shallow dug wells and deepwells.
519. Barangays not served by the existing water supply system obtain their water
requirements from springs and small diameter wells drilled to shallow depths, while
commercial, industrial establishments and some private individuals have their own
deepwells.
85
520. Geology. The low lying coastal areas and narrow river valleys of La Union are
covered with Recent alluvial deposits. Buried beneath the Recent deposits are Quaternary to
Late Tertiary clays, sands and tuffs. At greater depths and exposed in the mountains farther
from the shore are older Tertiary marine sediments (Rosario Formation) overlying a
basement complex of Early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous intrusives and metamorphosed
volcanics. Figure 6-6 in Appendix 6.2 shows the surface geology of La Union.
521. Springs Inventory. No springs of significant discharge have been found in the study
area. Small capacity springs are found 5 - 8 kilometers east of San Fernando City center at
elevation of about 150 meters above mean sea level (mamsl). Minimum dry season flows of
these springs range from 0.1 to 1.2 lps. The largest spring complex known in the area is the
Lon-oy Springs, which is located about 22 kilometers northeast of San Fernando City.
522. Lon-oy Springs. The Lon-oy Springs are a series of small capacity springs and
seepages emanating from the fractures of the steep sedimentary outcrops in Sitio Bakes,
Barangay Lon-oy, San Gabriel that feed the creek that flows into the Baroro River. There is
no individual spring with large discharge that can be directly tapped with a spring box.
523. MLUWD Lon-oy Source. The Lon-oy Source, commonly referred to as Lon-oy Spring
source is actually a river intake constructed on the Lon-oy Creek in 1971 to divert part of the
flows for the San Fernando Municipal Waterworks System. The intake is located in Barangay
Lon-oy, some 10 km east of the San Gabriel town center. The river intake has been the main
source of the San Fernando Municipal Waterworks System during the 1970s and is one of
MLUWD’s major water supply source at present. Part of the excess flows at the intake is
diverted by farmers for irrigation use. The locations of the intake structures are also shown in
Figure 6-2 in Appendix 6.2.
524. The MLUWD extraction from the Lon-oy Creek could not be measured but the flow in
the transmission main at the sedimentation basin located near the San Gabriel Poblacion on
March 31, 2009 was 34.71 lps (3,000 cumd) and 52.67 lps (4,550 cumd) on May 22, 2009.
Average MLUWD production from the Lon-oy Source is 27 lps (2,333 cumd).
525. Well Inventory. A total of twenty five (25) wells were inventoried during the study.
Table 6.1, Well Data Summary, presents the pertinent well data, while Figures 7A – 7C in
Appendix 6.2 show the location of these wells. Stratigraphic logs and well construction
details of six (6) wells are shown in Figures 6-8A to 6-14B in Appendix 6.2.
526. Borehole logs of existing wells indicate that the study area underlain with Recent
alluvial sediments and the Rosario Formation. The Rosario Formation is generally fine-
grained and is considered as poor aquifer. The coralline limestone member in the coastal
areas yields saline water to wells.
527. The more productive wells are drilled in the river valleys of the major river systems,
which include the Bauang River and the Baroro River. These river valleys are underlain with
sand, gravel, clay and silt. Wells drilled along these river systems produced through induced
infiltration and/or leakage through the semi-permeable river deposits.
528. Shallow Wells. The water district taps groundwater through ten (10) shallow wells.
Well Nos. 1 and 2 are located in Barangay Nagsaraboan, Bacnotan, La Union, Well Nos. 11
and 12 in Barangay, Santiago Sur, San Fernando City, Well Nos. 11 - 16 in Barangay
Langcuas, San Fernando City, Well No. 24 in Rufina Subdivision, San Fernando City and
Well No. 25 in Barangay Pagdalagan, San Fernando City. These shallow wells were drilled
from 1991 - 2002 to 6 - 18 meters and cased with GI pipes and reinforced concrete pipe
culverts (RCPC) with diameter ranging from 100 - 700 mm. Production from these shallow
wells ranges from 0.62 - 2.10 lps.
86
Table 6.1: Well Data Summary - MLUWD

SPAR Location Year Depth SWL Test Q Drawdown B C Sp. Cap. T x 10
-3 MLUWD Production
Remarks
2 2 5 2
(m) (m bgl) (lps) (m) (sec/ m ) (sec / m ) (lps/m) (m /sec)
Well No: Constructed (lps)
MLUWD B-6/Nagsaraboan,
1 1982 6.0 1.50 0.75 3.25 - - 0.23 - 2.09 dugwell, operational
Bacnotan, La Union
Bacnotan, La Union
MLUWD N-15/Brgy. Naguirangan,
3 1997 60.0 3.13 14.97 9.19 negative slope of ΣSw/Q versus Q 1.63 2.34 9.36 deepwell, operational
San Juan, La Union
4 1998 40.0 4.70 14.06 22.30 - - 0.63 - 11.04 deepwell, operational
San Juan, La Union
San Juan, La Union
1993 60.0 1.60 25.45 5.76 270.00 2,667 4.42 9.68 11.35 deepwell, operational
San Juan, La Union
6
- 60.0 4.30 12.50 21.71 - - 0.58 5.30 - 1997 Test
San Juan, La Union
MLUWD-CDM TW3/Brgy.
7 1976 36.6 2.40 12.60 14.86 - - 0.85 3.54 - abandoned test well
Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union
8 1999 60.0 5.00 20.45 5.85 - - 3.50 5.34 12.37 dugwell, operational
San Juan, La Union
Coca Cola Co./Brgy. Ligaat, San abandoned due to
9 - 32.0 - - - - - - - -
Fernando City saline water
Coca Cola Co./Brgy. Carlatan, San abandoned due to
10 - 80.0 - - - - - - - -
Fernando City saline water
MLUWD S-2/Santiago, San
Fernando City
MLUWD S-1/Brgy. Santiago, S.
Fernando City
MLUWD L-4/Brgy. Langcuas,San
Fernando City
MLUWD L-2/Brgy. Langcuas,San
Fernando City
MLUWD L-3/Brgy.
Langcuas,SanFernando City
MLUWD L-1/Brgy.
16 - 18.0 1.50 0.64 6.01 - - 0.11 - 0.62 dugwell, operational
Langcuas,SanFernandoCity
I.R.E.D./Brgy. Acao, Bauang, La abandoned due to
17 1974 92.0 6.10 4.70 - - - - - -
Union saline water
MLUWD B-4/Brgy. Ballay, Bauang,
18 - 40.0 - - - - - - - - deepwell, abandoned
La Union
19 - 40.0 - - - - - - - - deepwell, abandoned
La Union
La Union
21 1987 31.0 5.20 28.38 2.66 55.40 1,275 10.67 40.75 5.55 deepwell, operational
La Union
22 2004 30.0 2.94 27.00 5.48 170.00 2,000 4.93 295.00 20.04 deepwell, operational
La Union
MLUWD-CDM TW2/Brgy. Ballay,
23 1976 30.5 4.98 19.50 10.97 - - 1.78 52.00 - abandoned test well
Bauang, La Union
MLUWD-Rufina Subd./Rufina Subd.,
24 - - - - - - - - 0.91 dugwell, operational
San Fernando City
MLUWD-Pagdalagan/Brgy.
Pagdalagan, San Fernando City
87
529. Naguirangan Wells. Along the Baroro River, the MLUWD taps the semi-permeable to
permeable river deposits through deepwells. Eight (8) wells have been drilled but only five (5)
wells are operational to include: Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15), Well No.4 (MLUWD N-9), Well
No. 5 (MLUWD N-14), Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10) and Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13). These
wells were drilled from 1993 – 2003 in Barangay Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union about 10
km northeast of the San Fernando City proper. The wells were drilled to 40 - 60 meters and
installed with 250 mm casings and screens. MLUWD Well Nos. N-11 and N-12 were
abandoned due to very low yields. Test pumping records of Well Nos. 3, 6 and 8 showed
transmissivity ranging from 2.17 – 10.8 x 10-3 m2/sec and specific capacity ranging from 1.78
– 4.42 lps/m of drawdown indicating medium to very good aquifer yielding characteristics.
530. The CDM Test Well No. 3 (Well No. 7) drilled to 36.5 meters in 1976 at the
northeastern bank of the Baroro River also in Barangay Naguirangan showed transmissivity
of 3.83 – 9.64 x10-3 m2/sec and specific capacity of 0.93 lps/m indicating medium to good
aquifer yielding characteristics.
531. Ballay Wells. Along the Bauang River the MLUWD is also tapping the river’s
permeable to semi-permeable deposits through three (3) wells: Well No. 20 (MLUWD B-2),
Well No. 21 (MLUWD B-1) and Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5). These wells were drilled from
1987 - 2004 to 28 - 31 meters and installed with 250 mm casings and screens. MLUWD
Well Nos. B-3 and B-4 were abandoned due to poor water quality and very low yield. Test
pumping records of Well No. 5 showed transmissivity of 265 – 325 x10-3 m2/sec and specific
capacity of 4.93 lps per meter of drawdown indicating aquifer with very good yielding
characteristics.
532. The CDM Test Well No. 2 (Well No. 23), which was drilled to 30.5 meters in 1976 at
the southwestern bank of the Bauang River in Barangay Bucayob showed transmissivity of
6.3 – 97.8 x10-3 m2/sec and specific capacity of 1.78 lps/m indicating very good aquifer
yielding characteristics.
533. Discharge measurements made during the field visit on March 30 – 31, 2009 and the
production records provided by the MLUWD and test pumping results are presented in Table
6.2.
534. Wells that show 30 per cent decline in yield and specific capacity must be investigated
and considered for rehabilitation to restore to its most efficient condition. Deteriorating well
performance is attributed to plugging of the well intakes either with sediments or incrustants,
since static water levels are more or less the same when the wells were constructed.
88
Table 6.2: Yield of Existing MLUWD Wells

Field Test Q MLUWD
Well No: Location Measure- (lps)/ Date Production
ments Records
(lps) (lps)
1 2.09
Bacnotan, La Union
2 Bacnotan, La Union 2.10
MLUWD N-15/Brgy.
6.05 14.97/7-15-
3 Naguirangan, San Juan, La 9.36
1997
Union
MLUWD N-9/Brgy.
3.41
Union
MLUWD N-14/Brgy.
9.79
Union
MLUWD N-10/Brgy.
12.73 25.45/10-23-
1993
Union
MLUWD N-13/Brgy.
13.26 20.45/2-24-
1998
Union
MLUWD S-2/Santiago, San
11 Fernando City 0.64
MLUWD S-1/Brgy.
12 Santiago, S. Fernando City 1.04
MLUWD L-4/Brgy.
13 Langcuas,San Fernando 0.86
City
MLUWD L-2/Brgy.
14 Langcuas,San Fernando 0.75
City
MLUWD L-3/Brgy.
15 Langcuas, SanFernando 0.69
City
MLUWD L-1/Brgy.
16 Langcuas,SanFernandoCity 0.62
MLUWD B-2/Brgy. Ballay,
20 25.89 22.62
Bauang, La Union
21 3.67 5.55
Bauang, La Union
22 Bauang, La Union 27.0/6-21-2004 20.04
MLUWD-Rufina
24 Subd./Rufina Subd., San 0.91
Fernando City
MLUWD-Pagdalagan/Brgy.
25 Pagdalagan, San Fernando 0.82
City
535. Piezometric Conditions. The shallow dug wells in Barangay Nagsaraboan,

Bacnotan; Barangay Santiago, San Fernando City; Barangay Langcuas, San Fernando City;
and Barangay Pagdalagan, San Fernando City exhibited static water levels of 0.5 – 1.5
meters below ground surface.
89
536. In the Naguirangan Wellfield along the Baroro River, the static water levels vary from
1.60 – 5.00 meters below ground surface. In the Ballay Wellfield along the Bauang River, the
static water levels vary from 2.94 – 5.20 meters below ground surface.
537. Exploration for Groundwater. A geo-resistivity survey was carried out on May 20-
21, 2009 by WATCON, Inc. Twelve (12) Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) distributed along
the Bauang River south of San Fernando City and along the Baroro River northeast of San
Fernando City were made. Along the Bauang River, three (3) VES points were done in
Barangay Ballay and two (2) VES points were done in Barangay Bucayob. Along the Baroro
River, five (5) VES points were carried out in Barangay Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union
while two (2) VES points were carried out in San Gabriel, La Union: (1) VES point in
Barangay Poblacion and (1) VES point in Barangay Bumbuneg.
538. Figure 5A-5B of Appendix G – WATCON, Inc‘s Geo-resistivity Report for ADB TA:
7122 – PHI, June 2009 (Appendix 6.3) shows the location of the sounding points while
Figures 6 and 7A-7B present the electrostratigraphic sections. The summary of the deduced
resistivity values determined from the twelve (12) VES points is presented in Table 2 of the
same report. Lithologic logs of existing wells and geologic reports were used to calibrate and
correlate with the obtained resistivity values and aquifer potential.
539. Results of the geo-resistivity survey conducted along the Bauang River show that the
second electrostratigraphic layer that exhibited resistivity values of 156 – 200 ohm-meter is
identified as the potential aquifer section that can be tapped through, shallow drilled wells,
big diameter dug wells and/or collector wells while the third electrostratigraphic layer that
exhibited resistivity value of 20 - 30 ohm-meter in the vicinity of VES 4 and VES 5 is the
potential aquifer that can be tapped through wells drilled to 60 meters. The last section that
exhibited very low resistivity values of less than 1.0 ohm-meter is interpreted to be formations
saturated with brackish to saline water. Two MLUWD wells: B-3 and B-4 (Well Nos. 18 and
19) were abandoned due to saline water pumping.
540. Results of the geo-resistivity conducted along the Baroro River indicate that sections
which exhibited resistivity values of more than 100.0 ohm-meter is identified as the potential
aquifer section that can be tapped through shallow drilled wells, big diameter dug wells
and/or collector wells. The electrostratigraphic layers that exhibited resistivity values of more
than 20.0 ohm-meter in the vicinity of VES 6, VES 9 and VES 11 are the potential aquifer
sections that can be tapped through wells drilled to 30 – 45 meters.
541. A geo-resistivity survey was also conducted PKII Engineers in association with
Woodfields Consultants, Inc. during the water supply feasibility study for the MLUWD in
1996. Eighteen (18) VES points were distributed in the lowlands and flood plains of the study
area. Results of the survey showed the following:
• The alluvial deposit composed of alternating and mixture of sand and gravel, and
probably boulders, occurs along major river systems. The resistivity range values
of the different layers suggest the presence of relatively permeable materials.
• The cumulative thickness of the permeable layers may reach to maximum depth
of 40 meters below ground surface towards the northern section of the survey
area. However, because this layer is often in contact with the saline-contaminated
aquifer, exploitation of the entire freshwater aquifer thickness near the coast may
result to inland movement and/or upconing of saline water.
• Results show that considerable thickness of permeable layers is present along
the major river channels for exploitation of river water through induced infiltration
wells. However, the quantity that may be drawn by pumping will depend on the
available river flows and the permeability of the underlying river deposits.
90
• Two wellfield areas were identified for drilling of test wells: Wellfield along the
Baroro River Channel and Wellfield along the Bauang River Channel.
542. Aquifers and Their Characteristics. The low lying hills of the study area is
underlained with Quaternary to Tertiary sedimentary formation called the Rosario Formation
consists of a sequence of rhythmically interbedded turbidite sandstone, siltstone, shale and
minor conglomerate in the lower section and coarse-grained tuffaceous sandstone and
conglomerate with minor siltstone, shale, patch-reef limestone and basalt flow in the upper
section. The coarse-grained interbeds are moderately permeable, while the fine to medium
grained are impermeable. This aquifer is classified as poor to moderately good.
543. The Quaternary alluvium occupies the lowlands and narrow river valleys. The river
deposits consist of gravel and sand with some clay and silt as observed among wells drilled
along the Baroro River and Bauang River. River deposits are predominantly coarse sand and
gravel at shallow depths underlain by sand mixed with clay and silt. These deposits can be
good to poor aquifers depending on the grain sizes and uniformity and quality of saturating
water.
544. Constant discharge test/recovery tests (CDT/RT) were made on eight (8) of the twenty
five (25) wells. Table 6–6 in Appendix 6.2 presents the summary of the CDT pumping. Test
discharge ranges from 12.50 – 28.38 lps creating drawdowns ranging from 2.66 – 21.71
meters. Specific capacity varies from 0.58 – 10.67 lps per meter of drawdown. Transmissivity
varies from 2.34 – 52.0 x10-3 m2/s, indicating aquifers with medium to very good yielding
properties.
545. Wells drilled along the major river systems that produced through induced infiltration
and/or leakage and are recharged by the river water were evaluated for groundwater
potential. Wells drilled in the Rosario Formation show very poor yields of only 0.62 - 2.10 lps
and specific capacities ranging from 0.10 – 0.31 lps per meter of drawdown.
546. Potential Well Yield from the San Gabriel and San Juan Wellfields: With
instantaneous drawdown of 5 meters, potential well yield from a single well drilled to 30 - 40
meters in the vicinity of VES 6, VES 9 and VES 11 using transmissivity value of 2.30 x10-3
m2/s is 9.59 lps (829 cumd). At VES 9, potential well yield from a single shallow well drilled
to 12 meters with instantaneous drawdown of 1.5 meters and using transmissivity value of
9.7 x10-3 m2/s, is 11.9 lps (1,028 cumd). Actual drawdown from a pumping well however
includes interferences from other pumping wells in the area, effect of long term pumping,
seasonal fluctuation of water level, correction due to decrease of saturated thickness of
aquifer and well losses.
547. Potential Well Yield from the Bauang Wellfield: With instantaneous drawdown of 5
meters, potential well yield from a single well drilled to 60 meters in the vicinity of VES 3 and
VES 4 using transmissivity value of 6.30 x10-3 m2/s is 25.82 lps (2,231 cumd). At VES 1,
VES 2 and VES 3, potential well yield from a single shallow well drilled to 12 meters with
instantaneous drawdown of 1.5 meters and using transmissivity value of 20.0 x10-3 m2/s, is
24.59 lps (2,125 cumd). Actual drawdown from a pumping well however includes
interferences from other pumping wells in the area, effect of long term pumping, seasonal
fluctuation of water level, correction due to decrease of saturated thickness of aquifer and
well losses.
548. Sustainable well yield: Table 6-7 in Appendix 6.2 presents the summary of sustainable
yields in five (5) of the seven (7) MLUWD wells. Using the aquifer and well characteristics
determined from the step-drawdown tests, constant discharge test/recovery tests and
relevant assumptions, the expected total drawdown is calculated for each of the MLUWD
91
wells. The sustainable yields vary from 4.40 lps at Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10) to 26 lps at
Well No. 21 (MLUWD B-1).
549. Hydrological System. Recharge to the aquifer system comes through direct
infiltration of rainfall into the sedimentary and alluvial deposits within the recharge boundary.
Recharge takes place also through underflow of the numerous streams, creeks, and
channels into exposed permeable beds. Natural discharge on the other hand takes place
mainly through the springs that seep along the flanks of the creeks and streams in the area.
Artificial discharge takes place through wells which tap the shallow aquifer.
6.1.3 Water Quality
550. One major problem in the study area is saline water intrusion. Saline water is
observed among wells drilled near the coastline and wells constructed farther the coastline
but drilled to greater depths.
551. Surface Water Quality. The result of the conductivity survey in the 1996 study in the
Baroro, Bauang and other small rivers indicate that seawater inflow could reach 2.5km
upstream of the Baroro River and from 1 – 3 km in some minor rivers in San Fernando City.
552. In Table 6-8 in Appendix 6.1, the water sample from the Baroro River exceeded the
PNSDW’s permissible limits on seven (7) physico-chemical parameters (e.g. color, turbidity,
TDS and chloride) and bacteriological test. Because of poor water quality treatment and
infiltration facilities is needed to bring water quality to within the drinking standards.
Likewise, the Bauang River was observed to be high in color, turbidity and bacteriological
concentration. Poor water quality of the Bauang River will require complete treatment and
infiltration facilities if it will be tapped as a future source.
553. Water sample from the Lon-oy Source showed high turbidity and color and likewise
needs an effective filtration system to reduce excessive color and turbidity during rainy
periods.
554. All the samples tested are positive for coliform bacteria and therefore require
disinfection to make the water potable and safe for drinking.
555. Groundwater Quality. The conductivity survey results showed that high conductivity
was obtained among wells located within 2.5 km from the shoreline, indicating salt water
intrusion.
556. Water sample collected for physical and chemical laboratory tests show that the
Ballay Pumping Station # 1 Well (Well No. 21) passed the PNSDW’s permissible limits.
Water sample from the same well is however is positive for bacteriological contamination.
6.2 RECOMMENDED POTENTIAL SOURCES
6.2.1 Surface Water
557. The Baroro River with a recorded minimum flow of 20 lps (1,700 cumd) and mean flow
of 10,046 lps (868,000 cumd) can be used as future MLUWD water supply source.
Construction of an 18 - 23 meters high concrete dam or a 22 – 27 meters high rockfill dam in
Barangay Bumboneg, San Gabriel, La Union can be done to increase safe yield. Should the
river be developed as a surface water source, complete treatment is necessary to bring
water quality within the permissible limits set by the PNSDW.
92
6.2.2 Groundwater
558. Springs. No springs of significant discharge is found in the study area to be

developed as additional source for MLUWD. The springs located 5 – 8 km from the San
Fernando City center have recorded minimum dry season flows ranging from 0.1 to 1.2 lps
only.
559. Wells. Geo-resistivity survey results identified potential wellfield in the areas northeast
and south of San Fernando City. Construction of additional wells and induced infiltration
wells along the Baroro and Bauang Rivers can be made to provide additional supply to
MLUWD.
560. Bauang Wellfield: In Bauang, La Union, deepwells are proposed to be constructed in

the vicinity of VES 4 and VES 5 in Barangay Bucayab while shallow wells, dug wells or large
diameter collector wells are proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of VES 1, VES 2 and
VES 3, all in Barangay Ballay. It must be noted that VES 4 and VES 5 are located at the
southern bank of the Bauang River while VES 1, VES 2 and VES 3 are located at the
northern bank of the river. Figure 15A in Appendix 6.4 shows the location of the
recommended wellsites. The well parameters are tabulated below:
Deepwells Shallow Wells

Well Depth : 60 meters 12 meters
Well Diameter : 200 mm 250 mm
Expected Yield/Well : 10 – 20 lps 10 – 15 lps
No. of Wells : 4 wells 6 wells
Total Discharge : 40 - 80 lps 60 – 90 lps
561. San Gabriel and San Juan Wellfield: In San Gabriel and San Juan, La Union,
deepwells are proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of VES 6 and VES 9 in Barangay
Naguirangan and VES 11 in Barangay Bumboneg, while shallow wells, dug wells or large
diameter collector wells are proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of VES 9 in Barangay
Naguirangan. The recommended wellsites are shown in Figure 15B in Appendix 6.4. The
well parameters are tabulated below:
Deepwells Shallow Wells

Well Depth : 30-40 meters 12 meters
Expected Yield : 10 – 15 lps 10 – 15 lps
No. of Wells : 3 wells 2 wells
Total Discharge : 30 - 45 lps 20 – 30 lps
562. The combined discharge from the deepwells and shallow wells is 70 – 125 lps and
80 – 120 lps respectively, or a total additional supply of 150 – 245 lps (12,960 – 21,168
cumd). The preliminary well designs are shown in Figures 6-16A to 6-16C in Appendix 6.4.
The wells are proposed to be drilled by percussion drilling method.
563. Large diameter dug and/or collector wells may also be constructed near the river
banks to draw bigger volume water from coarse-grained deposits in direct contact with the
rivers. The preliminary dug well and collector well designs are shown in Figures 6-16D and
Figure 6-16E in Appendix 6.4, respectively.
564. Down-the-hole logging must be performed to determine the permeable sections where
stainless wirewound screens will be placed.
93
565. Sanitary seal of cement grouting on the annular space between the casing and the
borehole should be provided to prevent contamination from surface pollutants. Likewise,
water level sounding pipe shall be installed for aquifer and pump testing that maybe
necessary during future well efficiency evaluation.
566. For proper well maintenance, installation of gravel fill pipe is recommended for the
purpose of refilling the gravel pack shroud.
567. During construction of the well, it is important that qualified personnel is at the site to
see to it that the above mentioned activities are properly observed and also evaluate well
performance and determine aquifer characteristics during test pumping. It is equally
important that an experienced well drilling firm be contracted for the job so that proper
construction methods, techniques and the project's schedule can be met.
568. Simulation of the aquifer system using the aquifer parameters obtained from the newly
drilled well/s should be made to estimate and predict the maximum volume of groundwater
that can be withdrawn without producing undesirable results.
569. Like any other commodity of limited supply, groundwater is a resource that must be
carefully managed. A monitoring program for groundwater data must be initiated. All wells
should have facilities for the measurement of the rate of production, water level and time of
operation. These data should be recorded regularly on standard forms. Water samples for
bacteriological and chemical analysis should be collected regularly to check on
contamination and chemical content of the groundwater.
570. The data from the well monitoring program will provide the Metro La Union Water
District information on the condition of the aquifer, decline of regional water level and early
warning on deterioration of water quality and pump performance. With the available data,
problems like overpumping of aquifer and pollution of groundwater can be predicted.
571. Also, in compliance with regulations on proper groundwater use and management,
Water Rights must be secured from the National Water Resources Board and other
concerned agencies.
6.3 RECOMMENDED FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
6.3.1 Test Well Drilling
572. The absence of shallow infiltration wells tapping the shallow aquifers along the
Bauang River and Baroro River makes it necessary to construct test wells or exploratory
wells in these areas during the initial stage of the design phase of the subproject. Test well
drilling will confirm the quantity and quality of available groundwater prior to finalization of the
water supply system project detailed design.
573. An accurate geologic log can best be obtained through sampling during drilling of pilot
hole. If the area as indicated from the geological composition, show potential for groundwater
availability, the pilot hole should be enlarged to diameter suitable for a production well.
Geophysical logging of the test hole is also recommended to determine the exact locations of
the well intake. Electric resistivity logging is especially common because it is easy and simple
to conduct.
574. Based on the groundwater resources investigation and geo-resistivity survey carried
out by WATCON, Inc. in May 2009, drilling and construction of test infiltration wells in
Barangays Ballay and Bucayab, Bauang, La Union and Barangay Naguirangan, San Juan,
La Union can be undertaken as follows:
94
Bauang (VES 1, 2 and 3) San Juan (VES 9)

Well Depth : 12 meters 12 meters
Expected Yield : 10 – 15 lps 10 - 15 lps
Expected Drawdown : 2 – 3 meters 2 – 3 meters
575. The preliminary well designs are shown in Figure 6-16C in Appendix 6.4. The wells
are proposed to be drilled by percussion drilling method.
576. During exploratory drilling, it is important that qualified personnel are at the site to
monitor and evaluate collected information. Results of pilot hole logging and description of
drilling samples shall serve as basis for the course of action to be taken and preparation of
the final well design.
577. Pumping test aimed at a quantitative evaluation of aquifer and well performance
should also be conducted. Results of test pumping shall serve as basis for further
groundwater development through wells.
6.3.2 Dug Well Construction
578. Based on the geo-resistivity survey carried out by WATCON, Inc. in May 2009,
construction of dug wells can be made in the vicinity of VES 1, VES 2 and VES 3 in
Barangay Ballay, Bauang, La Union and in the vicinity of VES 9 in Barangay Naguirangan,
San Juan, La Union to tap the shallow permeable coarse sand and gravel deposits.
579. Preliminary design of the dug well is shown in Figure16-E in Appendix 6.4. The
diameter of the dug well should be at least 2 - 3 meter if to be constructed manually, to allow
two (2) men to work together at the bottom of the borehole during digging. The well should
be drilled with 3 – 5 meters column of water to tap sizeable thickness of the permeable
deposits. Reinforced concrete pipe culvert (RCPC) can be installed to serve as borehole
liner, which must be provided with openings or perforations to serve as intake and allow
groundwater flow into the well.
580. If large diameter hole can be dug without installing the concrete pipe, the annular
space between the pipe and the hole should be filled with gravel. The gravel pack materials
will serve as filtering media and at the same time improve the hydraulic properties of the
formations just outside the well linings.
581. Since the well will take water from the river, the water quality is extremely affected by
human activities that take place in its immediate vicinity.
582. Design of the dug well should consider the following:

• Diameter of the dug well should be big enough for maximum withdrawal with
small drawdown. Diameter of 2 - 3 meters is recommended.
• Openings/screens sections should be provided.
• Graded gravel and pebble bed should be installed at the bottom of the borehole.
• Concrete seal on the annular space should be placed at 1 – 3 meters from the
surface to prevent contamination from surface pollutants.
• Concrete slab of at 1 - 2 meters in diameter should be provided to serve as
drainage apron.
95
• Test pumping should be conducted to determine aquifer characteristics and water

quality. Results of test pumping shall serve as basis for selection of appropriate
pump and further source development through river infiltration dug wells.
96
7. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
7.1 WATER SUPPLY
7.1.1 Additional Water Demand
583. The current water supply capacity (assumed) of 116 lps or 10,022 cumd to the system
is assumed to be constant for 25 years starting 2009.
584. Presented in Table 7.1 are the projected water requirements of MLUWD up to the
design year 2025.
Table 7.1: Additional Water Requirements (2010 – 2025) - MLUWD
Year Existing Supply (cumd) Maximum Day Demand Peak-Hr Demand

(cumd) (Cumd)
2010 10,022 9,975 15,960
2015 10,022 15,633 25,013
2020 10,022 21,369 34,623
2025 10,022 26,816 42,905
7.1.2 Water Sources
585. Alternative Sources of Supply. Based on the results and recommendations of the
Water Resources Study for MLUWD (Chapter 6), potential additional water sources include
the following:
1. Groundwater from Bauang well field: Deepwells are possible in Barangay

Bucayab ( 60 m depth, diameter of 200 mm with expected yields of 10-20 lps),
while shallow wells (12 meter depth, 250 mm diameter with expected yields of
from 10-15 lps) in Barangay Ballay.
2. Groundwater from deepwells in the existing vicinity of Barangay Naguirangan
and Barangay Bumboneg, and shallow wells in Barangay Naguirangan, San
Juan.
Deepwells Shallow wells
Well Depth 30-40 meters 12 meters
Well Diameter 300 mm 250 mm
Expected Yield 10-15 lps each 10-15 lps each
586. The expansion areas and additional demand identified by the study can be supplied
by wells from both the Bauang and San San Juan well fields at the design parameters
described in the prior section.
587. Assessment of Source Selection. Since the capital cost and operation cost from
both well fields are almost the same, both wellfield sources are deemed equal. Both
wellfields should be used whenever possible to be closer to the demand center.
588. The Bauang river source was ruled out as a potential source for this subproject due to
the additional distance of the intake structure (about 3-5 km from the Bauang well field), as
well as the additional cost of treatment facilities.
589. The Baroro River would need a dam structure plus complete treatment facilities;
hence, was not even considered as an alternative.
97
7.1.3 Treatment
590. Lon-oy Source. The existing treatment of the Lon-oy surface source is a
sedimentation basin plus filter facilities utilizing 25 micron opening. The result is that during
the rainy season, the water becomes turbid and instances do occur when this source has to
be shut off temporarily.
591. For remedial purposes, there is a need to construct filter units in Lon-oy. Option one is
to use modular filtration using 2 micron filter opening. Option 2 is to construct conventional
filter beds.
592. Since Lon-oy capacity is limited to about 40 lps, the cost of option 1 (about PhP20
million16) is not financially justifiable. Even the cost of option 2 (about PhP8 million) is already
financially debatable given the limited source capacity. However, the facilities already exist,
with high head (gravity fed) and quality problems only during heavy rains.
593. Disinfection Facilities. The WD has been using chlorine dioxide and silver ionization
disinfection facilities for the past 5 years. The WD claims that it is effective and that it is much
cheaper than the standard gas chlorine facilities that they used before. It is recommended
that the MLUWD continue to use this treatment process and facilities in all their future
sources.
7.1.4 Distribution Storage
594. Existing Storage Facility. As of December 2008, the WD has a total of 2,800 cum of
storage facilities as shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Existing Water Storage Facilities - MLUWD
City/Municipality Existing (cum)
Bacnotan 250
Bauang 1,000
San Gabriel 0
*San Juan 150*
San Fernando 1,550
Total Capacity 2,800
Note: *San Juan Ground Concrete Reservoir is currently not in use.
595. Storage Requirement. The additional storage requirement was computed at
maximum-day demand and to meet emergency requirements. The projected storage
requirement is as shown in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Projected Water Storage Requirements - MLUWD

Maximum-Day Emergency Operational Storage
Year Demand Requirement Requirement Requirement
(cumd) (cum) (cum) (cum)
2010 9,974 416 1,537 1,953
2015 15,633 651 2,299 2,960
2020 21,639 902 3,038 3,940
2025 26,817 1,117 3,634 4,751
16
Using treatment facility cost used in Butuan WD.
98
596. If source capacities were to be designed at peak hour capacities, the projected
storage requirements would be smaller (about 50%) than those presented in Table 7.3.
However, additional source facilities, the design of the source facilities itself and the larger
diameter new transmission facilities from the sources to the reservoirs plus reinforcement of
the existing transmission would necessitate higher expenditures which would be necessary
at the start of the construction period. It is thus recommended to design the source at max-
day capacity with the reservoirs volume at roughly 18% of max day demand.
7.1.5 Non Revenue Water Reduction
597. MLUWD have comprehensive production metering, with all sources metered and only
one malfunctioning meter on the outlet of San Gabriel SR. The high level of NRW is thought
to be a combination of leakage—due to poor condition of old mains, especially old asbestos
cement mains—and high pressures along some portions of the transmission and into parts of
the distribution; and illegal use of water as a result of the frequent connection and
disconnection that has taken place over the last 12 years or more.
598. A study was conducted on the requirements needed to reduce the level of NRW of the
MLUWD. The study resulted in the recommendations shown in Table 7.4 (details are
presented in Appendix 7.1):
599. Such a program if properly implemented could have a potential reduction of the NRW
to a level of 25% or even less. However, the cost of implementing such a program would
necessitate the replacement of all the AC pipes, customer meters and service connections.
This would be an expensive undertaking and would be subject to strict implementation and
monitoring to achieve the intended results. Besides, the illegal connections, once legitimized,
would not really need replacement capex. Many components will be taken cared of by the
annual WD repair and maintenance budget.
600. Since the 2015 projections intends to reduce the NRW level to 32% and the 2025 to
30%, a capex of about 50% of the total program will be budgeted according to the following
scheme:
LWUA Program: Php10 million (2009 – 2010)
Phase I 12 million (2012 – 2014)
Phase II 8 million (2018 – 2019)
WD Internal budget 5 million (2009 – 2025).
Table 7.4: Non Revenue Water Requirements - MLUWD

Expense Category Sub-Categories Php Capex Cost
(PhP million)
(2010-2015)
NRW Control Production metering, district zone metering, 9.46
leak detection equipment, data logging
equipment
NRW Reduction Customer meter replacements, mains 70
replacement, service pipe replacements,
valve rehab/replacements
Mgmt System Capex GIS and hydraulic modelling 1.4
Total 80.86
99
7.2 SANITATION
601. In the selection of the appropriate system for treating septage, there were two steps
used: (i) review of available technologies, and (ii) evaluation of short-listed alternatives. The
first step reviewed all possible technologies (Table 7.5) and used the following criteria to
determine alternatives:
• land availability and site conditions;
• buffer zone requirements;
• hauling distance;
• fuel costs;
• labour costs;
• costs of disposal;
• legal and regulatory requirements.
602. Based on the criteria, the PPTA shortlisted the following treatment systems:
Alternative 1: Stabilization ponds
Option 1: With settling tanks
Option 2: Without settling tanks
Alternative 2: Constructed wetlands
603. As a second step, another round of criteria was applied to select the best option, such
as:
• Area required for the treatment process
• Capital costs of the treatment facilities
• Operation & maintenance costs
• System robustness and flexibility (fluctuations in the quantity and quality of
septage)
• Long term design criteria and data available
• Treatment efficiency
• Ease of construction (experience of local contractors)
• Ease in O&M (skill of staff, time input of staff)
• Energy requirements of treatment process
• Usability of by-products
• Environmental and health implications
604. Weighing all the advantages over the disadvantages, Alternative 1 Option 2 was
selected by the PPTA as the best alternative to be used in project areas.
100
Table 7.5: Review of Available Septage Treatment Technologies

Treatment Type Advantages Disadvantages Remarks
Aquatic Systems
Low capital cost
Requires large area of
land
Moderate O&M costs
Stabilization Ponds Suitable for the Project
May produce undesirable
Low technical manpower odors
requirement
Requires less land than Requires mechanical
Stabilization Ponds devices and permanent
Aerated Lagoons electricity Not recommendable
Produces few undesirable
odors Needs trained O&M staff
Efficient treatment of TSS Remains largely Suitable for the Project
& bacteria experimental
Constructed Wetlands
Minimal capital and O&M Requires regular
cost harvesting
Terrestrial Systems
Septic Tanks Can be used individually Low treatment efficiency Needs a further
or communal rehabilitation program
Needs maintenance and
Easy to operate disposal of sludge
Sludge Drying Beds Low investment cost and Needs regular operation During dry season
little land requirement suitable;
Not very efficient during
High operation costs rainy season during the rainy season
less efficient
Landfill Low capital cost Needs suitable dumping Not recommendable
area
Risky for the environment

Mechanical Systems
Filtration Systems Needs little land; easy to Mechanical devices Not recommendable for
operate; needed the Project
Maintenance required
Biological Reactors Highly efficient; requires High cost; complex Unsuitable for the Project
little land; suitable for technology, requires
medium communities and highly skilled operators;
urban centres needs energy; needs
much maintenance
Activated Sludge Highly efficient; requires High cost; complex Unsuitable for the Project
little land; suitable for technology, requires
medium communities and highly skilled operators;
urban centers needs energy; needs
much maintenance
101
8. RECOMMENDED PLAN - WATER SUPPLY
8.1 WATER DEMAND AND SERVICE CONNECTIONS PROJECTIONS
605. The projected number of service connections is shown in Table 8.1 while the water
demand projections and demand variations are shown in Table 8.2.
Table 8.1: Projected Number of Service Connections - MLUWD

City/Municipality 2010 2015 2020 2025
Bacnotan 165 509 984 1,464
Bauang 2,542 4,120 5,338 6,574
San Gabriel 84 238 381 527
San Juan 700 1,160 1,732 2,354
San Fernando 4,700 6,041 8,949 11,832
Total 8,191 12,068 17,384 22,751
(In April 2009 and June 2009, connections were down to 8,015 and 7,981 respectively)
Table 8.2: Projected Water Demand Projections/Water Demand Variations - MLUWD

Peak-
Total Non-
Average-Day Demand Maximum-Day Demand Hour
Year Demand Revenue
Demand
(cumd) Water
(cum/hr)
(cumd) (L/s) (cumd) (L/s)
2010 4,788 40% 7,980 92 9,975 115 665
2015 8,504 32% 12,507 145 15,633 181 1,042
2020 12,118 30% 17,311 200 21,639 250 1,443
2025 15,017 30% 21,453 248 26,816 310 1,788
8.2 PROPOSED SOURCES
606. The proposed additional source to be developed to meet the above projected demand
will come from groundwater through wellfields identified in the areas northeast (San Juan)
and south (Bauang) of San Fernando City. The combined discharge from the deep wells and
shallow wells is 70 – 125 L/s and 80 – 120 L/s respectively, or a total additional water supply
of 150 – 245 L/s (12,960 – 21,168 cumd). To meet the 2025 demand, an additional capacity
of about 184 lps need to be added. The well parameters are tabulated in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: MLUWD Potential Wellfields

Bauang Wellfield San Juan Wellfield Combined Wellfield
Water Source Deep Shallow Deep Shallow Deep Shallow
Well Well Well Well Well Well
60; 30 -
Well Depth, m 60 12 30 - 40 12 12
40
Well Diameter, mm 200 250 200 250 200 250
Expected Yield/Well,
10 - 20 10 - 15 10 - 15 10 - 15 10 - 20 10 - 15
lps
No. of Wells 4 6 3 2 6 8
Total Discharge, lps 40 - 80 60 - 90 30 - 45 20 - 30 70 - 125 80 - 120
Total 150 - 245
102
8.3 LWUA PROGRAM
607. LWUA is currently preparing a Program of Work (POW) for the MLUWD of about PhP
86 Million of which about PhP 50 million will be spent for infrastructure development. The
LWUA POW objective is to provide water service to Poro Point, San Fernando, as well as to
reduce NRW. The POW will be implemented in 2010. Some of the NRW remedial works
required will be undertaken in this POW.
8.4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
608. This Development Plan aims to improve the water supply system of Metro La Union
Water District in order to meet the projected water demand for the design year 2025, both in
the existing and proposed service areas.
609. The program includes the development of new source facilities, construction of new
pumping facilities, provision of new treatment facilities, installation of new transmission and
distribution pipelines and construction of a new storage tank. Provision of new service
connections is excluded in the estimate of capital cost as the funds for this will be raised from
the prospective consumers from service connection fees.
610. The recommended plan involves two (2) construction phases. The proposed Phase I
will meet the projected water demand for Year 2020, is scheduled to be completed in 2014,
while Phase II should be implemented before the Year 2020 to the meet the demand of the
design year 2025.
611. The proposed improvements shall be undertaken in accordance with the

established standards set by LWUA.
8.4.1 Phase I Development Program
612. The following improvements are proposed for Phase I (the schematic diagram is
shown in Figure 8.1):
613. Supply Sources. Construction of four (4) new wells located at Brgy. Ballay, Bauang
and four (4) new wells located at Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan. All existing sources will be
retained. The Phase I maximum day demand (MDD) for the year 2020 is 250 L/s, and it will
be supplied by the following:
a) Utilization of all existing sources which could deliver a total capacity of about 116 L/s;
b) Construction of four (4) new wells located at Brgy. Ballay, Bauang and four (4) new
wells located at Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, which are expected to yield a total of
140 L/s. The expected yields of the wells are shown in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4: Phase I New Water Sources - MLUWD
Yr 2020
NEW SOURCE FACILITIES Capacity Expected
No.
(L/s) Yield (L/s)
2 15 30
New Bauang Deepwells
2 20 40
2 15 30
New San Juan Deepwells
2 20 40
Total (L/s) 140
103
Figure 8.1: Schematic Diagram of Proposed Development Plan - MLUWD
104
614. Pumpsets and Generators. This includes the construction of four (4) new well pump
stations at Brgy. Ballay, Bauang and four (4) new well pump stations located at Brgy.
Naguirangan, San Juan. A total of eight (8) new well pump stations will be constructed in or
at new sources in Bauang and San Juan. Each pump station will be equipped with a
submersible pump and motor capable of producing the expected yields of the new water
sources. All pump stations shall be provided with a production meter and a stand-by
generator. (Cost = Php 10.88 million)
615. Treatment/Disinfection Facilities. This will include the provision of a treatment

facility for each pump station as well as the construction of filter beds for the Lon-oy source
after the sedimentation basin. Each of the proposed eight (8) new well pump stations will be
provided with a hypochlorinator to disinfect the water being withdrawn from the new sources.
(Cost=Php 8.624 million)
616. Installation of new transmission and distribution pipelines. New transmission

and distribution lines will be laid in the proposed service expansion while reinforcements will
be laid to improve carrying capacity of pipes which may become inadequate to projected
increased flow. This involves the construction of about 59 km of new pipelines ranging from
75 mm Ø to 350 mm Ø. The main transmission pipes of about 36 km and distribution pipes of
about 23 km will satisfy the demand for YR 2020 service area. This will likewise include the
attendant cost of valves and fittings. (Cost= Php 187.87 million).
617. Storage Reservoirs. All existing operational reservoirs will be retained in Phase I.
The abandoned San Juan 150 cum concrete ground reservoir will be rehabilitated and four
(4) new concrete ground reservoirs with a total capacity of 1,400 cum will be constructed to
meet the need of Year 2020 for operational and emergency storage. The new storage
facilities are shown in Table 8.5. (Cost= Php 29.75 million).
Table 8.5: Proposed Phase I Water Storage Facilities - MLUWD
Required Additional
Storage
Bacnotan 250 -
Bauang 1,000 1-400 cum
San Gabriel 0 1-150 cum
*San Juan 150 1-350 cum
San Fernando 1,550 1-500 cum
Total Capacity 2,950 cum 1,400 cum
*Note: San Juan Ground Concrete Reservoir to be rehabilitated
618. NRW Reduction. A lump sum provision of Php 12 million was provided for pipe
replacements and installation of zone meters.
619. Land Acquisition. This includes land acquisition for the eight (8) new well sites and
two reservoir sites of about 2,600 square meters. (Cost= Php 1.365million).
620. New Service Connections. An additional 9,199 connections will have to be added to
meet 2020 demand. (Cost = Php 13.80 million)
621. Capital Cost Estimates. The total capital cost estimate for Phase I, including
contingencies and engineering, is PhP 312.487 million.
105
8.4.2 Development Program Phase II
622. Source Facilities. Three (3) new wells will be drilled under Phase II, and the
projected maximum day demand (MDD) for the year 2025 of 310 L/s, will be supplied by the
following: (cost=Php3 million):
a) Utilization of all existing sources which could deliver a total capacity of about 116 L/s,
and all new wells completed under Phase I with total rated capacity of 140 L/s.
b) Construction of two (2) new wells located at Brgy. Ballay, Bauang and one (1) new
well located at Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, which are expected to yield a total of 55
L/s. The expected yields of the wells are shown in Table 8.6.
Table 8.6: Phase II New Water Sources - MLUWD
Yr 2020 (Phase I) Yr 2025 (Phase II)
NEW SOURCE
Capacity Expected Capacity Expected
FACILITIES Number No.
(L/s) Yield (L/s) (L/s) Yield (L/s)
New Bauang 2 15 30 1 15 15
Deepwells 2 20 40 1 20 20
New San Juan 2 15 30
Deepwells 2 20 40 1 20 20
Sub-Total (L/s) 140 55
623. Pumpsets. A total of three (3) new well pump stations will be constructed at the new
well sources in Bauang and San Juan. Each pump station will be equipped with a
submersible pump and motor capable of producing the expected yields of the new water
sources. All pump stations shall be provided with production meter and stand-by generator.
(Cost =Php4.15 million).
624. Treatment Facilities. Each of the proposed three (3) new well pump stations will be
provided with a hypochlorinator to disinfect the water being withdrawn from the new sources.
(Cost=Php234,000).
625. Transmission/ Distribution Facilities. This will involve the construction of about
32.1 km of new pipelines ranging from 75 mm Ø to 350 mm Ø. Transmission pipes and
distribution pipes of about 4.5 km and 27.6 km respectively, will satisfy the demand for YR
2025 service area. The schematic diagram is shown in Figure 8.1. (Cost=Php 40.818
million).
626. Storage Facilities. Two (2) new concrete ground reservoirs with a combined capacity
of 600 cum will be constructed during Phase II to meet the need of Year 2025 for operational
and emergency storage. The new storage facilities are shown in Table 8.7. (Cost=Php12.75
million).
Table 8.7: Phase II New Water Storage Facility - MLUWD

New Storage (cum)
2020(Phase I) 2025(Phase II)
Bacnotan 250 - 100
Bauang 1,000 400
San Gabriel 0 150 -
San Juan 150 350
San Fernando 1,550 500 500
Capacity 2,950 1,400 600
627. NRW Reduction. A lump sum provision of Php 8 million was provided for NRW
purposes.
106
628. Land Acquisition. This will involve land acquisition for the 3 new well sites and 2
reservoir sites of about 1,600 square meters. (Cost=Php840,000).
629. Service Connections. To meet the demand of YR 2025, about 5,367 projected new
service connections should be installed. (Cost=Php8.05 million)
630. Capital Cost Estimates. The total capital cost estimate for Phase II, including
contingencies and engineering, is Php84.2712 million.
8.5 COST ESTIMATES
8.5.1 Capital Cost
631. The cost estimates as shown in Tables 8.8 to 8.10 were prepared using the LWUA
In-place Costs of Waterworks Materials and Equipment.
Table 8.8: Estimate of Capital Cost - Design YR 2025 (Phase I and II) - MLUWD
COST ITEM UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL
I. ENGINEERING BASIC COST ITEMS

1.0 SOURCE FACILITIES
New Bauang Deepwells no 6 1,000,000 6,000,000
New San Juan Deepwells no 5 1,000,000 5,000,000
TOTAL 11,000,000
2.0 PUMPING STATION
a.Bauang
Submersible Pump (15 LPS) no 3 400,000 1,200,000
Electrical Works including Generator sets ls 6 550,000 3,300,000
Valves, fittings, and meter ls 6 105,000 630,000
Transformer and accessories set 6 55,000 330,000
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 6 180,000 1,080,000
a.San Juan
Submersible Pump (15 LPS) no 2 400,000 800,000
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 5 180,000 900,000
TOTAL 15,030,000
3.0 WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
a.Bauang
Hypochlorinator & Accessories lot 6 78,000 468,000
a.San Juan
c.San Gabriel
Filter Bed & Accessories lot 1 8,000,000 8,000,000
TOTAL 8,858,000
4.0 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
Pipes ( Approx. 41 km New Reinforcement pipes) ls 1 167,417,500 167,417,500
Valves and Fittings ls 1 10,045,050 10,045,050
TOTAL 177,462,550
5.0 STORAGE FACILITIES
New Concrete Ground Reservoir
Bauang (1-400 cum) cum 400 21,250 8,500,000
San Fernando (1- 500, 1-500 cum) cum 1000 21,250 21,250,000
San Juan (1-350 cum) cum 350 21,250 7,437,500
Bacnotan (1-100 cum) cum 100 21,250 2,125,000
San Gabriel (1-150 cum) cum 150 21,250 3,187,500
107

TOTAL 42,500,000
6.0 DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
Pipes (Approx 50 km New Pipelines for expansion
ls 1 47,432,000 47,432,000
area)
TOTAL 51,226,560
7.0 NRW Reduction
Replacement of pipes, valves and meters ls 1 20,000,000 20,000,000
TOTAL 20,000,000
8.0 SUB-TOTAL 1 326,077,110
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES (10% OF SUB-
32,607,711
TOTAL 1)
ENGINEERING STUDIES (6% OF SUB-TOTAL
21,521,089
1+PC)
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION (4% OFSUB-
14,347,393
TOTAL 1+PC)
TOTAL COST 1 394,553,303
II. NON-ENGINEERING BASIC COST ITEMS
A. LAND ACQUISITION sm 4200 500 2,100,000
CONTINGENCIES (5% OF A) 105,000
TOTAL COST 2 2,205,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST 396,758,303
Note: Item No. III excluded from Total Project Cost

III. SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Service Connections, additional tubing. Excludes
water meters
Bauang no 4,032 1,500 6,048,000
San Fernando no 7,133 1,500 10,699,500
San Juan no 1,659 1,500 2,488,500
San Gabriel no 443 1,500 664,500
Bacnotan no 1,299 1,500 1,948,500
TOTAL 14,566 21,849,000
Table 8.9: Estimate of Capital Cost - Phase I (for Design year 2020) - MLUWD

TOTAL 8,000,000
2.0 PUMPING STATION
a.Bauang
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 4 180,000 720,000
a.San Juan
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 4 180,000 720,000
TOTAL 10,880,000
a.Bauang
108

a.San Juan
c.San Gabriel
Filter Bed & Accessories lot 1 8,000,000 8,000,000
TOTAL 8,624,000
TOTAL 163,630,080
New Concrete Ground Reservoir
Bauang (1-400) cum 400 21,250 8,500,000
San Fernando (1- 500) cum 500 21,250 10,625,000
San Juan (1-350) cum 350 21,250 7,437,500
San Gabriel (1-150 cum) cum 150 21,250 3,187,500
TOTAL 29,750,000
ls 1 22,445,500 22,445,500
area)
TOTAL 24,241,140
7.0 NRW Reduction
Replacement of pipes, valves and meters ls 1 12,000,000 12,000,000
TOTAL 12,000,000
8.0 SUB-TOTAL 1 257,125,220
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES (10% OF SUB-
25,712,522
TOTAL 1)
16,970,265
1+PC)
11,313,510
TOTAL 1+PC)
TOTAL COST 1 311,121,516
A. LAND ACQUISITION sm 2600 500 1,300,000
TOTAL COST 2 1,365,000

water meters
Bauang no 2,796 1,500 4,194,000
San Fernando no 4,250 1,500 6,375,000
San Juan no 1,037 1,500 1,555,500
San Gabriel no 297 1,500 445,500
Bacnotan no 819 1,500 1,228,500
TOTAL 9,199 13,798,500
109
Table 8.10: Estimate of Capital Cost - Phase II (for Design year 2025) - MLUWD

TOTAL 3,000,000
2.0 PUMPING STATION
a.Bauang
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 2 180,000 360,000
a.San Juan
Electrical Works including Generator sets ls 1 550,000 550,000
Pump House (18 s.m.) ls 1 180,000 180,000
TOTAL 4,150,000
a.Bauang
a.San Juan
TOTAL 234,000
Valves and Fittings ls 1 782,970 782,970
TOTAL 13,832,470
San Fernando (1- 500) cum 500 21,250 10,625,000
Bacnotan (1-100 cum) cum 100 21,250 2,125,000
TOTAL 12,750,000
ls 1 24,986,500 24,986,500
area)
TOTAL 26,985,420
7.0 NRW Reduction
Replacement of pipes, valves and meters ls 1 8,000,000
TOTAL 8,000,000
8.0 SUB-TOTAL 1 68,951,890
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES (10% OF SUB-TOTAL
6,895,189
1)
4,550,825
1+PC)
3,033,883
TOTAL 1+PC)
TOTAL COST 1 83,431,787
A. LAND ACQUISITION sm 1600 500 800,000
TOTAL COST 2 840,000

110

water meters
Bauang no 1236 1,500 1,854,000
San Fernando no 2883 1,500 4,324,500
San Juan no 622 1,500 933,000
San Gabriel no 146 1,500 219,000
Bacnotan no 480 1,500 720,000
TOTAL 5,367 8,050,500
8.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost
632. The projected O&M cost is shown in Table 8.11.
8.5.3 Implementation Program
633. The implementation timeline of the proposed improvements, Phase I and Phase II,
are shown on Figures 8.2 and 8.3 respectively.
111
Table 8.11: Operation and Maintenance Estimated Cost – MLUWD

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
YEAR NO. OF CONN. Ave Day SALARIES POWER CHEMICALS MAINTENANCE OTHER O&M TOTAL
2010 8,191 7,980 13,533,551 12,432,530 492,825 7,117,691 9,094,332 42,670,929

2011 8,352 8,151 13,799,563 12,793,290 503,386 7,257,595 9,273,088 43,626,921
2012 8,495 8,162 13,894,058 12,816,497 504,065 7,381,857 9,431,858 44,028,335
2013 8,638 8,163 13,986,663 12,818,607 504,127 7,506,119 9,590,629 44,406,144
2014 9,826 10,959 15,910,275 18,717,360 676,801 8,538,449 10,909,645 54,752,530
2015 12,068 12,507 18,610,024 21,983,193 772,402 10,486,668 12,923,211 64,775,498
2016 13,138 13,366 17,727,559 23,795,435 825,452 11,416,461 13,393,682 67,158,588
2017 14,193 14,393 19,151,107 25,962,109 888,877 12,333,219 14,533,948 72,869,259
2018 15,259 15,280 20,589,497 27,833,423 943,656 13,259,535 15,605,661 78,231,772
2019 16,323 16,298 22,025,190 29,981,109 1,006,525 14,184,114 16,746,174 83,943,112
2020 17,384 17,311 23,456,834 32,118,247 1,069,085 15,106,085 17,882,335 89,632,586
2021 18,451 18,403 24,896,574 34,422,052 1,136,524 16,033,271 19,064,030 95,552,451
2022 19,528 19,435 26,349,807 36,599,274 1,200,258 16,969,146 20,219,312 101,337,797
2023 20,602 20,460 27,798,993 38,761,728 1,263,560 17,902,414 21,369,173 107,095,868
2024 21,660 21,473 29,226,589 40,898,866 1,326,120 18,821,779 22,503,650 112,777,004
2025 22,751 21,453 30,698,713 40,856,672 1,324,885 19,769,820 23,105,277 115,755,366
Assumptions:
1. Compensation Cost ( per Employee) = P161,920.16 per year.
2. Power Cost estimated at P 5.78 per cu. m of water produced from ground sources.
3. Chemical Cost estimated at P 0.17 per cu. m of water produced.
4. Maintenance Cost for the Facilities estimated at P 868.96 per connection.
5. Other O&M Cost estimated at P1,110.28 per connection.
112
Figure 8.2: Phase I Implementation Schedule - MLUWD
113
Figure 8.3: Phase II Implementation Schedule - MLUWD
114
9. RECOMMENDED PLAN – SANITATION
their investment priorities, and grant funds were no longer available for sanitation.
have a Phase 2.
636. The sanitation component as originally designed (in the DFR) is included in
Supplementary Appendix F for reference.
115
10. ASSESSMENT OF WATER DISTRICT CAPABILITY
637. This chapter provides an assessment of the WD capability, not only in implementing
the project, but also in managing the system.
10.1 WATER DISTRICT HISTORY
638. The water district was an original cluster formed by the provincial governor in the late
1970s with NAWASA (National Water and Sewerage Authority) facilities. In September 1974,
the Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) was formed by virtue of Resolution No. 353 of
the Provincial Board of La Union encompassing the towns of San Fernando (now a city), San
Juan, San Gabriel, Bauang and Bacnotan. On April 28, 1975, LWUA issued CCC No. 016 to
the MLUWD.
639. MLUWD was a recipient of 2 loan packages from LWUA as well as borrowing from a
government bank to finance its own building. The WD was constantly paying its loan
obligations, but expanding only at a connection growth rate of 2% (1999-2002); it had water
quality problems in some areas and a non-revenue water (NRW) rate of almost 50%. Many
private companies wanted to buy or have a concession with it given its potential market. The
district resisted all attempts of privatization and the governor took steps to dissolve the
district so ownership could be assumed by the province and thereafter be privatized.
640. In 2002, the WD was “conditionally” dissolved by its Board to pave the way for
privatization processes spearheaded by the provincial government. The provincial
government even paid in the balance of the loan the WD had with LWUA. However, the
MLUWD union filed an opposition. When the governor was replaced (2007 elections), the
new governor did not pursue the privatization efforts.
10.1.1 “Privatization” Issue
641. After the WD Board passed a resolution dissolving the WD in 2002, the provincial
government filed a petition with the La Union RTC (Regional Trial Court) to declare the
MLUWD as legally dissolved in October 2004. The WD employee organization (MLUWD-
WATER) filed their opposition and the case eventually reached the Court of Appeals (CA)
when the MLUWD-WATER filed a special civil action for certiorari on the grounds that the
lawyers representing the Provincial Government and the WD did not have prior authority to
represent both offices. The CA agreed with the MLUWD-WATER and dismissed the petition
of the provincial government.
642. The case could have proceeded since the provincial government lost only due to a
technicality. However, when the governor was replaced during the 2007 elections, the new
governor did not share the sentiments of his predecessor and left the WD alone.
643. In 2008, when the provincial government was audited by COA (Commission on Audit),
the COA ruled that the funds used for paying the LWUA loans was not budgeted, and hence
was not proper. The provincial government then negotiated with LWUA for return of the funds
and has, at present, lost interest in the privatization process.
10.2 PAST PERFORMANCE
644. The strained relationship between the WD and the LGU starting in 2002 was a large
stumbling block to WD improvements. The WD staff was suffering from low morale and even
its officers were helpless in motivating the staff to improve its operations. As the WD was tied
116
up in the legal case LWUA could not come in to help the WD as the WD was “dissolved”, and
hence could not be offered financial assistance. The WD is categorized as a “Big” WD by
LWUA.
10.2.1 Debt Servicing
645. The WD has always been up-to-date in its debt servicing to LWUA.
10.2.2 Performance Parameters
646. Table 10.1 summarizes the past performance of the WD along certain performance
parameters.
647. As can be expected, the WD suffered in terms of performance efficiency.

Notwithstanding the drop in operational performance, the WD was able to improve its return
on revenue. Operating cost ranges from 75-85% of operating revenues
Table 10.1: MLUWD Past Performance

Parameters 2001 2007
Actual Industry Actual Industry
Average “Big WD”
Average
NRW (%) 40 31 55 26
Ave Collection 38 44 48 54
Period (days)
17
Connections/Staff 158 117 117 195
Return on Revenue 21 15 27 17
(%)
No. of connections 7,732 10,107 8,047 12,653
Source: WD Monthly Data Sheet (MDS).
10.2.3 Ability to Innovate
648. In its desire to improve operations while at the same time reduce its operating cost,
the WD has made several innovations from 2000-2007—without LWUA’s assistance.
649. The WD has installed variable speed drives at 2 of their deepwells in San Juan which
will reduce its power bills.
650. The MLUWD had a bad experience in 2004 in the use of chlorine gas. When a
chlorine gas leak occurred in 2004 and caused some destruction to some agriculture
produce, the WD decided to look for an alternative. The alternative was the use of silver
ionization equipment which claims to destroy both bacteria and viruses with residual
effects18, as well as the use of chlorine dioxide powder which not only provides additional
disinfection and maintains a chlorine residual but is claimed by the WD to remove earth odor
in some of their sources. The WD had been sucessful in the use of these treatment methods
in both effectivity and cost reduction.
10.2.4 Non Revenue Water Reduction Program
651. MLUWD has comprehensive production metering, with all sources metered, and only
one malfunctioning meter on the outlet of San Gabriel SR. The high level of NRW is thought
17
Includes “job order” personnel.
18
Silver ion residual ranges from 29 to 40 ppb.
117
to be a combination of leakage—due to the poor condition of old mains, especially old

asbestos cement mains—and high pressures along the transmission and into parts of the
distribution system; and illegal use of water as a result of the frequent connection and
disconnection that has taken place over the last 12 years or more.
652. The WD has realized that there is a need to reduce its NRW to acceptable levels and
has been trying to eliminate illegal connections and repair leaks. Table 10.2 illustrates the
WD’s activities towards this end.
653. There is no illegal use management team in the company. Illegal connections or
illegal use is reported either by the general public or by meter readers and operation staff
when found. When illegal connections are found the perpetrator is fined according to
company policy and either regularized or disconnected. MLUWD gives a reward to the
person reporting the illegal connection equal to 20% of the assessed penalty.
The general manager estimated that up to 50% of the losses could be as a result of illegal
connections. The conversion of illegal connections to legal connections is a double win for
any utility with a reduction in the NRW as well as a revenue gain for no additional production
or distribution costs.
656. There is no planned replacement of customer meters; however, when meters are
identified as not working correctly—either by meter reading staff or by customers—the
suspect meters are tested for accuracy. The MLUWD meter management team has portable
testing equipment and if this indicates a problem the meters are taken out and either
rehabilitated or scrapped. The results of on-site testing indicate that of meters reading
outside a tolerance of +/- 5% approximately 40% are under reading and 60% are over
reading.
657. One major problem faced by MLUWD is the inclusion of fine sand within the network
form boreholes in the Baroro well field. Customer meters have strainers but in spite of this
some particles still pass though into the meter affecting performance. As a result of this
MLUWD have initiated a random meter cleaning program to try and mitigate the effect; they
are also considering installing sand separators to reduce the amount of sand getting into the
system.
Table 10.2: Non Revenue Water Reduction Measures - MLUWD

Activity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Illegal connections 38 40 26 25 18
Detected
Pipeline Leaks No data No data 36 31 40
repaired
Connection Leaks no data No data 1,406 1,320 1,560
repaired
Source: WD Records.
118
10.2.5 Meter Reading, Billing and Collection
658. Meter reading is carried out by a team of 4 meter readers who operate over a 22-25
day cycle. The meter reader reads the meter and reports the reading to the head office. After
a period of 2 days the bill is delivered to the customer by the meter reader. Recording of the
meter reading is done by hand and then inputed to the billing system at the head office. At
the moment MLUWD does not have any computerized recording devices; however, there is
an item in the 2009 budget to purchase some.
659. MLUWD has payment points at the head office in San Fernando, San Juan sub office
and the Rural Bank at Bauang. If payment hasn’t been received after 60 days (1 month
arrears plus the current period) a disconnection notice is issued and a temporary
disconnection is carried out whereby the meter is plugged.
660. Collection of delinquent accounts is carried out using roaming service collectors who
visit customers directly to request payment.
10.2.6 New Connections
661. The new connection process follows the model typical in most water districts. There
are two staff responsible for customer connections and complaints. Applications for
connection are submitted to the customer service staff who then send the application to the
engineering team to survey and decide whether the connection can be supplied. If it can they
estimate the cost of the connection. The estimate is sent back to the customer service team
who then notifies the customer and finalises the contract. Once payment has been received
from the new customer the instruction is given to install the connection.
662. When estimating, MLUWD give free labour for the first 15m of the connection. All
materials are paid for by the customer. The average length of connection in built up areas is
around 5m. This can vary a great deal in the more rural areas where service pipes can be up
to 100m long.
663. Connections are installed in the name of the owner of the property being connected
and billing is made c/o the tenant. The responsibility for obtaining excavation permits for the
connection installation rests with the applicant rather than the water district.
664. People living in informal settlement areas without title can be connected by MLUWD
provided the barangay captain of the area certifies that the applicant is a known resident.
10.2.7 Service Coverage
665. In Chapter 5 “Population and Demand Projections“, it is estimated that the population
served is 17% of the population within the MLUWD franchise area. This is a very low
coverage figure for a 30+ year old WD and, together with the high NRW rate, may have
prompted the provincial government to look for private sector options to improve service
coverage.
10.3 INSTITUTIONAL FEASIBILITY
10.3.1 Relationship with LGU
666. Although the WD has many stakeholders, it is the LGU relationship which is most
critical to its sustainability. As mentioned, the WD has been left alone by the provincial
119
government. The provincial government has, however, requested the WD to improve both its
coverage and efficiency. The WD has since then turned to LWUA for assistance.
10.3.2 Relationship with LWUA
667. MLUWD has maintained its cordial relationship with LWUA. In June 2009, LWUA
approved a PhP86 million financial assistance to the WD on a 50:50 loan–grant mix.
10.3.3 Structure and Staff
668. The organizational structure for the MLUWD had been approved by the DBM
(Department of Budget and Management) and follows the recommended structure for “Big”
water districts. The officers are qualified and have been with the WD for several years.
669. Since the WD has not been able to request DBM for an upgrading of personnel due to
the “privatization” issue, the WD only has an approved 40+ permanent plantilla (legally
sanctioned) positions. This number is small for a WD which spans 5 towns/city with 8,000
connections. The WD therefore resorted to the hiring of “job orders”19 staff but in the process
has hired more than what is necessary. As of October 2008, the WD had a connection/staff20
ratio of 97:1, when the minimum should be 120:1. Appendix 10.1 shows the organizational
chart of the WD.
10.3.4 Systems
670. There are many improvements that should be done with respect to the operating and
financial systems being utilized by the WD.
671. Some of the deficiencies (as of October 2008) that have been noted are the following:
A. Financial and Management Control
• There is no daily cash position report.
• Out of 6 collectors, only one is bonded.
• Expenditures are paid directly from collections.
• Disbursements sometimes lack support documents.
B. Commercial Operations
• Some services have not been disconnected despite having more than 2 months
arrears.
• Employees and government connections are not charged penalties despite
having arrears.
The system defects could easily be corrected. And as claimed by WD officials,
some of the practices were made for the WD to gain support against the
privatization move.
C. Mapping System
MLUWD does not have GIS (geographic information system); however, theythe WD
has a number of different network drawings that record the location of their assets.
Implementation of a simple GIS would greatly improve the WD’s ability to manage both
network and customer data.
19
Contractual staff.
20
Includes 40 regulars, 6 casuals and 37 job order staff.
120
10.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
10.4.1 LWUA Proposed Project
672. LWUA has approved a PhP86 million financial assistance for the WD involving
transmission pipeline construction and an NRW reduction program (pipeline replacement,
valving, metering). The WD will construct a source in Bauang as its equity.
673. Since the WD has been adjudged by LWUA as a capable WD, this project will be
implemented by Administration. LWUA will manage the project together with the Construction
Division of the WD. The LWUA resident engineer will have a supervision role while the
Construction Division will handle the day-to-day activities of the project including hiring of
construction inspectors and workers, securing of permits and activity scheduling.
10.4.2 Proposed Set-up for ADB Subproject Implementation
674. The proposed overall project organization management structure is shown on Figure
10.1.
675. A Water District Implementing Unit (WDIU) within MLUWD will act as the central
coordinating body for subproject implementation, and be headed by the Construction Division
Manager or a senior professional within WD ranks.
676. The ADB subproject will be tendered to get contractors responsible for both civil
works21 and materials. Another implementation scheme would be the design-build scheme.
677. With contractors, the LWUA will either assign a resident engineer or an account officer
with the WD Construction Division doing most of the construction supervisory activities.
21
Well drilling works will be tendered separately.
121
Figure 10.1: Project Management Organization Structure
Ministry of Health
Asian Development
Bank (ADB)
Local Water Utilities
Administration
(Executing Agency)
National Level Project

Steering Management Unit Institutional Development Project Management and
Committee (PMU) and Capacity Building Advisory Consultants:
Consultants - Project management
- Detailed engineering
design and supervision
- Preparation of contract
documents
- Assistance with bidding
procedures
- Construction supervision
- Preparation of
resettlement plans
Water District
Implementation Units
(WDIUs)
Contractors for Water

Supply Component
Direction, reporting, supervision

Coordination
Capacity building
Source: PPTA Consultant
122
11. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
678. The financial analysis is done in three levels: (i) an examination of the historical and
existing financial performance of the Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD); (ii) an
evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed subproject under WDSSP; and (iii) an evaluation
of the financial sustainability taking into account the impact of the proposed subproject to the
future operation of MLUWD. The analysis presents the results of such evaluation and
recommends options for improved service delivery, cost recovery and financial sustainability.
11.1 HISTORICAL AND EXISTING FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (2004-2008)
679. The approach and methodology used in the assessment includes (i) an analysis of
historical trends in absolute values as well as in percentages, and (ii) ratio analysis. The
study period covers 2004 to 2008 utilizing audited financial reports for 2004 to 2006 and the
WD’s internal annual reports for years 2007 and 2008 when official audit reports are not yet
available. It examines MLUWD financial state through a review of its income statements,
balance sheets and cash flow statements, and existing loan repayments. Available
secondary data such as the monthly data sheets and current year budget were also used as
references for some discussions.
11.1.1 Revenues and Expenses
680. Operating Revenues. The MLUWD derives 95% of its revenues from water sales
and the remaining 6% from other water revenues such as service income, fines and
penalties, interest income and miscellaneous income.
681. Average growth rate of revenues for the period 2004-2008 is 6% per annum with 2007
having the biggest growth rate at 17 % per annum. The rise in revenues was due to the
implementation new tariff rates in mid 2006. However, revenues were slightly down by 3% in
2008 due to unsustained service connection growth brought about by water supply problems.
Table 11.1 summarizes the MLUWD revenues from its operations.
682. Water Sales are based on water tariff which was last adjusted in May 2006, through
Board Resolution No.009 dated March 15, 2006. The water district has implemented a 30%
tariff adjustment from the previous Php177.00 and Php354.00 minimum charge for the
residential and commercial, respectively. Part of the resolution states that a 10% increase in
rates is supposed to be implemented in 2008 and another increase in 2010, but these
increases were not implemented due to non-approval and adoption of the WD Board of
Directors. Details of the current water tariff are shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.1: MLUWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 (Php)

Year Operating Revenues Increase (Decrease)
2004 54,765,003
2005 57,153,513 4%
2006 60,437,824 6%
2007 70,649,181 17%
2008 68,508,395 -3%
Average 6%
123
Table 11.2: MLUWD Water Tariff (Php)

Commodity Charge (Php/cu.m)
Minimum 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Classification Charge cu.m. cu.m cu.m cu.m.
Domestic/Government 230.00 23.95 26.70 36.00 40.35
Commercial/Industrial 460.00 47.95 57.45 72.00 80.75
683. Operating Expenses. The operating expenses (OPEX) increased from Php45.6
million in 2004 to Php 52 million in 2008, or an average annual increase of 4% (Table 11.3).
OPEX has generally increased over the years with the highest rate of increase in 2006 at
10%, due to the payments made for Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) differential amounting
to Php 6.7 million. A total of Php 29 million has been disbursed also for the same purpose for
the years 2007 and 2008.
684. OPEX comprises (i) personnel services (PS) (ii) maintenance and other operating
expenses (MOOE) and (iii) interest and other debt service charges. PS include salaries and
wages, bonuses, allowances, additional compensation and benefits, clothing allowances and
contributions to various government agencies. PS share an average of 27% of the total
OPEX and were generally maintained at around Php13 million per annum for the last five
years.
685. The MOOE which includes other services, utilities, supplies, materials, bad debts and
depreciation, constituted almost half of the portion of the total operating expenses. On the
average, MOOE shared almost 71% of the total expenses and increased at an average rate
of 7% per annum. The highest MOOE figured at Php 39.5 million in 2007 mainly due to
higher power costs and disbursement for employees’ cost of living allowances.
686. Interest and other financing charges shared 2% of the total OPEX and gradually
declining in more recent years. The MLUWD temporarily suspended their debt service
payments when the Provincial Government settled all water district’s loans to LWUA in 2004.
Please see related discussion under Outstanding Obligations section.
Table 11.3: MLUWD Operating Expenses (Php’000)

Ave.
Expenses 2004 % 2005 % 2006 % 2007 % 2008 % Annual
Inc.
Personnel 12,889 28% 13,720 29% 13,876 27% 13,621 26% 13,146 25% 27%
Services
MOOE 29,723 65% 32,089 68% 37,660 73% 39,509 74% 39,220 75% 71%
Financial 3,076 7% 1,117 2% 102 0.2% 30 0.1% - - 2%
Charges
Total 45,688 100% 46,926 100% 51,637 100% 53,160 100% 52,366 100%
OPEX
% Change 3% 10% 3% -1% 4%
687. Net Operating Revenues. The MLUWD has attained favorable results from its
operations as shown by the increasing trend in net income of Php 9.7 million in 2004 to Php
17.1 million in 2008 (Table 11.4). The rising trend in net operating income can be attributed
to the implementation of new water tariffs in 2006 and due to respite from loan repayments to
LWUA.
124
Table 11.4: MLUWD Net Income (Php’000), 2004-2008

Year Operating Revenues % Operating Expenses % Net Income %
2004 55,379 100% 45,688 83% 9,691 17%
2005 58,043 100% 46,926 81% 11,117 19%
2006 61,147 100% 51,637 84% 9,510 16%
2007 71,745 100% 53,160 74% 18,584 26%
2008 69,512 100% 52,366 75% 17,146 25%
Average 79% 21%
688. The operating ratio, which is the ratio of OPEX to revenues, averaged at 79%, leaving
an average net profit margin of about 21%. Operating costs were highest in 2006 at 84%
while net income margin was highest in 2007 at 26%. Table 11.5 presents the detailed
results of the MLUWD operations for the years 2004 to 2008.
Table 11.5: Income Statement 2004-2008 (Php)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Operating Revenues
Water Sales 51,976,428.00 54,199,198.00 58,053,506.84 67,373,749.99 65,459,645.33
Domestic
Institutional
Commercial
Other Operating Revenues 3,402,237.00 3,843,841.00 3,093,461.98 4,370,761.85 4,052,006.76
Total Operating Revenues 55,378,665.00 58,043,039.00 61,146,968.82 71,744,511.84 69,511,652.09
Operating Expenses
Payroll 12,888,991.00 13,720,223.00 13,875,643.80 13,620,940.65 13,145,558.88
Power Cost 13,786,019.00 17,174,998.00 20,285,922.13 19,991,925.54 16,653,934.43
Chemicals 881,527.00 681,726.00 1,496,077.81 1,664,292.25 956,481.36
Maintenance 5,976,399.92 5,409,000.00 4,285,596.75 5,670,721.83 6,976,918.88
Other O&M 7,435,000.08 7,102,449.00 9,510,738.45 9,988,521.69 10,076,644.26
Franchise Tax
Bad Debts 274,373.00 285,411.00 307,502.09 357,027.00 338,060.61
Depreciation 1,369,337.00 1,435,712.00 1,774,361.11 1,836,668.98 4,218,096.60
Total Operating Expenses 42,611,647.00 45,809,519.00 51,535,842.14 53,130,097.94 52,365,695.02
Net Operating Income 12,767,018.00 12,233,520.00 9,611,126.68 18,614,413.90 17,145,957.07

Less: Interest Expense 3,076,061.00 1,116,797.00 101,527.00 30,053.64 0.00
Net Income 9,690,957.00 11,116,723.00 9,509,599.68 18,584,360.26 17,145,957.07
11.1.2 Cash Flow
689. The MLUWD cash flow comes from (1) operating activities, (ii) investing activities, and
(iii) financing activities. Cash flow from operating activities includes receipts from water sales
and other operating income while disbursements include payment of operating expenses
including salaries and remittances to government agencies. Cash inflow from investing
activities includes interest income from investments and bank deposits while cash outflow
pertains to additions and improvement of property, plant and equipment. Cash flow from
financing activities is composed of loan proceeds and debt servicing.
690. The MLUWD operations for the last 4 years resulted in a negative cash position, with
significant decreases in 2007 and 2008, due to payment of employees’ benefits amounting to
Php29.5 million. Further discussions with the WD reveal that they are currently reviewing
with COA Auditors their accounting entries in vouchers payable to reconcile the accounts.
The collections from water sales and other water revenues showed an average increase of
7% towards the end of 2008. Cash inflows in 2007 increased by 17% due to the
implementation of new tariff rates. Cash was generally expended for operations and funds
125
which were previously earmarked for debt servicing were disbursed to pay employees salary
differentials. The water district had a negative cash position of Php 1.39 million in 2008. Per
COA Audit Report, the MLUWD needs to reconstruct the cash account balances through the
performance of bank reconciliation. This is currently being undertaken by the water district.
691. Table 11.6 presents the MLUWD cash flow statement from 2005 to 2008. Cash flow
statement for 2004 was not available since the water district still needs to reconstruct the
accounts.
Table 11.6: Cash Flow Statements, 2005-2008 (Php)

2005 2006 2007 2008
Sources of Cash
Collection of Revenues - CY 54,389,285.86 56,884,761.46 66,783,962.36 65,403,335.73
Collection of Receivables - PY (net of bad debt)
Other Receipts 4,853,002.96 6,193,569.22 5,711,906.24 5,713,054.98
Total Sources of Cash 59,242,288.82 63,078,330.68 72,495,868.60 71,116,390.71
Uses of Cash
Capital Expenditures
Payment of Cola Diffential 1,420,350.00 6,147,340.00 12,591,450.37 17,048,242.25
O & M Expenses and Working Capital 55,236,015.29 65,587,170.64 60,419,112.44 54,897,577.34
Reserves 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Uses of Cash 56,656,365.29 71,734,510.64 73,010,562.81 71,945,819.59
Increase(Decrease) in Cash 2,585,923.53 -8,656,179.96 -514,694.21 -829,428.88

Add: Cash Balance, Beg. 6,015,407.17 8,601,330.70 -54,849.26 -569,543.47
Cash Balance, End. 8,601,330.70 -54,849.26 -569,543.47 -1,398,972.35
11.1.3 Outstanding Obligations
692. MLUWD loans from LWUA and the Land Bank of the Philippines were paid by the
Provincial Government (PG) in 2004. The payment of loans was made by the PG with the
intention of dissolving the operations of the water district. The case was brought to court in
October 2004 and litigation ensued, but the case was eventually dismissed in favor of
MLUWD in November 2006.
693. The MLUWD financial statements still reflect outstanding loans to LWUA of Php 10.4
million as of 2008. This account had not been closed due to lack of proper documents to
support full payment of their loan to LWUA by the Provincial Government. There was also a
contention on the part of MLUWD on LWUA allowing the settlement by the Provincial
Government without proper notification and documentation.
694. As of June 2009, The Metro La Union WD is applying for a new loan from LWUA
under the Non-Lwua Initiated Funds (NLIF) in a form of a 50%loan/ 50%grant mix amounting
to Php 86.597M. This is composed of Php 20 million for NRW program, Php 39 million for
expansion program and Php 27.5 million as repayment of loan to the Provincial Government.
The MLUWD is eligible to avail of the new loan under the criteria of Waterless Municipalities
having served only 16% of its service coverage area with a majority served on a rationed
water schedule basis in the towns of San Fernando, Bauang, San Juan, San Gabriel, and
Bacnotan. This loan has been applied in order to: (i) minimize impact of loans on relatively
high water rates; (ii) to finance its operational and development requirements to increase
water production and service connections; (iii) to expand its area coverage to the Poro Point
Special Economic Zone; (iv) to reduce its Non-Revenue Water of 48%; (v) to settle its
outstanding obligation to the Provincial Government amounting to Php 27M.
126
11.1.4 Assets
695. The MLUWD total assets is composed of 85% fixed assets and 15% current assets.
Cash showed negative balances at the onset of 2006, as previously discussed. Table 11.7
presents the MLUWD assets for the years 2004 to 2008.
Table 11.7: Assets and Other Debits, 2004-2008 (Php)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fixed Assets
Fixed Assets in Operation 99,473,604.00 104,873,936.00 108,723,378.04 111,208,520.88 114,851,981.71
Less: Accum. Depreciation 26,768,376.00 28,317,873.00 30,457,359.83 32,360,116.48 38,959,640.65
Net Fixed Assets in Operation 72,705,228.00 76,556,063.00 78,266,018.21 78,848,404.40 75,892,341.06
Add: Work-in-Progress 1,305,620.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fixed Assets 74,010,848.00 76,556,063.00 78,266,018.21 78,848,404.40 75,892,341.06
Current Assets
Cash 6,015,407.00 8,601,331.00 -54,849.26 -569,563.47 -1,398,992.35
Special Deposits and Misc. Funds 837,163.00 837,163.00 837,163.30 1,032,121.90 1,032,121.90
Investments 0.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 481,067.09 481,067.09
Accounts Receivable 9,278,072.00 9,255,097.00 10,053,883.15 10,402,468.19 10,215,257.71
Inventory 3,389,916.00 4,438,283.00 5,599,031.66 5,465,078.51 3,200,626.92
Prepayments 257,800.00 256,800.00 451,050.30 264,800.30 264,800.30
Other Current Assets 55,512.00 55,512.00 55,512.35 55,512.35 55,512.35
Total Current Assets 19,833,870.00 23,744,186.00 17,241,791.50 17,131,484.87 13,850,393.92
Reserves
TOTAL ASSETS 93,844,718.00 100,300,249.00 95,507,809.71 95,979,889.27 89,742,734.98
11.1.5 Accounts Receivable - Customers
696. Total accounts receivable (AR) from water sales is at Php 8.29 million as of December
31, 2008, which is a 15% increase compared to receivables of Php 7.23 million in 2004
(Table 11.8). The total allowance for bad debts increased by Php 1.3 million from 2004 to
2008 or an average increase of 12% per annum. The annual provision for bad debts is at
4% of total AR-Customers, while total allowance for bad debts as a percentage of receivable
averaged at 37%. The following table presents the trend of accounts receivable from water
sales as well as the allowance for bad debts for the five year period under review.
697. However, the balances of accounts receivable as presented in the aging of

receivables do no match with the balances with the controlling accounts. Past due accounts
is about 84%, majority of which or 75% is 120 days past due (Table 11.9).
Table 11.8: Accounts Receivable - Customers, (2004-2008)

2004 %Inc 2005 %Inc 2006 %Inc 2007 %Inc 2008
AR- Customers 7,234,384 0% 7,226,332 11% 8,001,445 4% 8,333,242 -0.4% 8,297,317
Allowance for Bad Debts 2,300,226 12% 2,585,637 12% 2,892,985 12% 3,246,198 10% 3,584,259
Net AR 4,934,158 4,640,695 5,108,460 5,087,044 4,713,058
Bad Debts Expense 274,373.00 4% 285,411.00 8% 307,502.09 16% 357,027.00 -5% 338,060
Allowance % of AR 32% 36% 36% 39% 43%

Bad Debts % of AR 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
127
Table 11.9: Aging of Accounts Receivable (Php’ million)
Days 2007 % 2008 % Jun-09 %

1 - 30 days 1,596 14% 1,843 14% 2,017 16%
31 - 60 days 767 7% 891 7% 746 6%
61 - 90 days 317 3% 308 2% 282 2%
91 - 120 days 249 2% 257 2% 156 1%
over 120 days 8,631 75% 9,606 74% 9,776 75%
Total 11,560 100% 12,905 100% 12,977 100%
11.1.6 Liabilities
698. As of December 31, 2008, total current liabilities comprise about 40% of the total
liabilities and equity, while long-term loans payable registered at 12%. Total equity
represents 45% of the total, while total debt is at 125% of total equity.
Table 11.10: Liabilities and Equity, 2004-2008 (Php)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable 37,940,120.00 62,174,518.00 67,173,931.85 49,104,466.23 35,209,653.88
Customers' Deposits 1,516,777.00 1,598,769.00 1,675,024.21 1,834,902.21 1,996,143.71
Current Maturities 1,835,114.00 152,125.00 248.35 248.35 248.35
Total Current Liabilities 41,292,011.00 63,925,412.00 68,849,204.41 50,939,616.79 37,206,045.94
Long-Term Debts (LTD)
Loans Payable 12,905,716.00 10,471,139.00 10,471,139.06 10,471,139.06 10,471,139.06
Deferred Credits 2,051,054.00 1,606,235.00 2,008,088.85 2,067,506.22 2,106,667.06
Total LTD 14,956,770.00 12,077,374.00 12,479,227.91 12,538,645.28 12,577,806.12
Total Liabilities 56,248,781.00 76,002,786.00 81,328,432.32 63,478,262.07 49,783,852.06

Equity
WD Contribution
Capital Contribution Government 2,120,248.00 2,120,248.00 2,120,247.50 2,120,247.50 2,120,247.50
Other Paid-in Capital 22,508.00 22,508.00 22,508.40 22,508.40 22,508.40
Retained Earnings 35,453,181.00 22,154,707.00 12,036,621.49 30,358,871.30 37,816,127.02
Total Equity 37,595,937.00 24,297,463.00 14,179,377.39 32,501,627.20 39,958,882.92
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 93,844,718.00 100,300,249.00 95,507,809.71 95,979,889.27 89,742,734.98
11.1.7 Financial Ratios
699. The four key financial indicators that are being considered by LWUA are the current
ratio, net operating ratio, debt-equity ratio, and debt service coverage ratio. As presented in
Table 11.11, MLUWD’s liquidity position still remains to be seen as current ratio posted a low
0.37:1 in most recent years. This means that the water district do not have enough
resources to pay for its maturing obligations.
700. The operating ratios for the past five years indicated a downward trend, from a high of
83% in 2004 to 75% in most recent years. With debt-servicing remaining at status quo, and
revenue base increased due to increase in tariff, the debt service coverage ratio showed a
favorable but declining trend. Likewise, net income posted twice as much from 2004 to
2008.
128
Table 11.11: MLUWD Financial Ratios, 2004-2008

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Current Ratios 0.48 0.37 0.25 0.34 0.37
LTD to Equity 0.34 0.43 0.74 0.32 0.26
Operating Ratio 83% 81% 84% 74% 75%
Debt Service Coverage 1.55 1.48 1.01
Collection Efficiency 65% 63% 69% 72%
Non-Revenue Water 50% 46% 48% 49%
701. The weak cash position of the MLUWD can be attributed to low collection efficiency
rate, posting an average of 66% for the last five years. This was further aggravated by its
high non-revenue water at 48%. Further adjustment will be made and favorable cash
position maybe reflected upon correction of errors in the WD books of accounts per COA
audit finding.
702. Based on the LWUA industry average wherein MLUWD fall under the medium-sized
category, collection efficiency rate is at 94%, NRW at 27%. This shows that the water
district’s performance still needs improvement in terms of collection drive, meter
maintenance, leak repairs and campaign against illegal connections.
11.2 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
11.2.1 Introduction
703. This section presents an evaluation of the financial viability of implementing the
proposed improvements for the water supply system of Metro La Union Water District
(MLUWD) under the Water District Development Sector Project.
704. Following ADB and LWUA guidelines22, four basic indicators for the financial viability
of a water supply project have been identified. These are the following:
• Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). It is the discount rate at which the net
revenues generated by the project are equal to zero. A project is considered
financially viable if the computed FIRR is at least equal to the weighted average cost
of capital (WACC) that is used in financing the development of the proposed water
supply subproject.
• Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). It measures the solvency of the water district
and shows how many times debt service for a given period is covered by operations.
DSCR should at least be 1.3 starting project full operational stage.
• Annual cash balance. Projected annual cash balances should show positive ending
position all throughout project operation. Projected annual financial statements are
prepared to demonstrate financial implication of the proposed subproject to the yearly
financial position of the water district.
• Tariff affordability. Minimum residential water charge should not be more than 5% of
the average monthly income of the low income group.
22
ADB, Financial Management and Analysis of Projects (2005) and LWUA, Project Operations Manual (2008).
129
11.2.2 Cost Analysis
705. The water supply component aims to provide improved and effective water supply
service to the consumers of MLUWD up to the year 2025 and beyond. This plan involves
development of new source facilities, provision for pumping station with disinfecting facilities,
installation of new transmission and distribution lines for existing and extension areas,
construction of new storage reservoir and NRW reduction.
706. The basic development (investment) cost of the proposed subproject and the
operating and maintenance costs are prepared on an annual basis for the purpose of the
financial analysis. These costs are estimated in 2009 prices. Increases in costs due to
inflation are covered through a provision for price contingencies for the capital costs and
relevant inflation factor for each of the O & M cost items.
707. Development Costs. The total development cost for the water supply subproject is
approximately Php 349 million. This is based on the costs presented in Chapters 8 and 9
with additional price contingencies to allow for the timing of implementation.
708. The subproject is scheduled to start implementation by the second half of year 2011
and is targeted to be completed by the end of 2013, such that full operation of the subproject
will be by 2014. Acquisition of land required for the subproject and conduct of detailed
engineering design, however, have to be done in 2011 prior to construction works. Table
11.12 presents a summary of the development costs.
Table 11.12: Total Development Cost (in Php’000)

Sub-Total
Civil Works Equipment Land
a. Well Drilling/Development m 8 1,000,000 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0
Sub-Total 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 2,904,000 2,497.5 406.6 - 697.0 2,207.1 2,904.1
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 12,200,000 3,050.0 9,150.0 - 8,296.0 3,904.0 12,200.0
c. Gen-set set 8 550,000 440.0 3,960.0 - 3,124.0 1,276.0 4,400.0
Sub-Total 5,987.5 13,516.6 - 12,117.0 7,387.1 19,504.1
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 163,630,080 147,267.0 16,363.0 - 65,452.0 98,178.0 163,630.0
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 29,750,000 28,262.5 1,487.5 - 5,652.5 24,097.5 29,750.0
5 Distribution Facilities ls 1 24,241,140 21,817.0 2,424.0 - 9,696.3 14,544.7 24,241.0
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,000,000 7,200.0 4,800.0 - 3,840.0 8,160.0 12,000.0
7 Resettlement Cost ls 1 2,768,150 - 2,768.2 - 2,768.2 2,768.2
8 Land Acquisition lot 2,600 500 - 1,300.0 - 1,300.0 1,300.0
SUB-TOTAL 218,534.0 38,591.1 4,068.2 99,157.8 162,035.5 261,193.3
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 16,970.3 - - 5,091.1 11,879.2 16,970.3
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 11,313.6 - - 1,131.4 10,182.2 11,313.6
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 4,924.0 20,991.9 25,915.9
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 26,125.3 4,084.8 430.6 2,692.0 30,692.0 33,383.9
GRAND TOTAL 272,943.2 42,675.9 4,498.8 112,996.3 235,780.8 348,777.1
709. Financing Scheme. The subproject will mainly be financed by ADB through
relending by LWUA for the water supply component. ADB loan will finance Php303 million of
the water supply while the WD will finance the cost of land acquisition, resettlement and
government taxes amounting to Php45 million. The financing plan is shown in Table 11.13.
130
Table 11.13: Financing Plan (in Php’000)
2011 2012 2013 TOTAL

FUND APPLICATION
Basic Construction Cost - 131,394 125,731 257,125
Land Acquisition/Resettlement 4,068 - - 4,068
Detailed Engineering Design 16,970 - - 16,970
Physical Contingency 203 13,139 12,573 25,916
Price Contingency 1,413 13,565 18,407 33,384
Supervision - 5,781 5,532 11,314
Interest During Construction - - - -
TOTAL 22,655 163,879 162,243 348,777
FUND SOURCE
WD Equity 6,299 19,666 19,469 45,433
Grant - - - -
Others (LGU) - - - -
Sub-Loan 16,356 144,214 142,774 303,344
ADB Sub-Loan 16,356 144,214 142,774 303,344
LWUA Sub-Loan - - - -
TOTAL 22,655 163,879 162,243 348,777
710. and Maintenance Costs. For the computation of subproject viability, incremental
costs as a result of the subproject are used in the evaluation. Projections for both the
“without project” and “with project” situation are done.
711. Without the Project O&M. Projected operating and maintenance costs without the
project are based on actual O&M costs of the Water District as presented in their revenue
and expense statements for the years 2004 to 2008. It is assumed that there will be very
minimal increases in connections hence there will be no increases in the number of
personnel, power and chemicals. The maintenance cost of facilities and other O & M costs
will, however, increase by 5% per year due to natural wear and tear of the facilities.
712. With the Project O&M. Operating and maintenance costs include: 1) salaries and
wages of the WD personnel who will be assigned to manage the daily operation of the
project; 2) power and fuel; 3) chemicals for the treatment of water; 4) maintenance cost for
the facilities; and 5) other operating and maintenance items. The costs are presented in
Chapter 8 and are expressed in constant 2009 prices. These costs are then adjusted to
current prices by using the following escalation factors: 5% for personnel services; 10% for
power/fuel costs; 10% for chemical costs; 7% for maintenance and 7% for other O & M costs.
713. Other Costs. Depreciation Cost. Depreciation cost is considered a non-cash

expense; however, for purposes of estimating the net income of the Water District, it is
considered as an expense in the Income Statement. Annual depreciation costs for the new
facilities are calculated using the straight-line method based on the service life of each
specific facility. The calculated total annual depreciation cost for the new facilities is
estimated at Php6.023 million annually. For the existing facilities, the depreciation expense of
Php4.218 million, as reflected in the Water District’s 2008 Income Statement, is assumed as
the annual depreciation expense.
714. Debt Service. Annual debt service for the Project is also included in the financial
income statements and is estimated based on preliminary discussions with LWUA Project
Office. The lending terms for the purpose of this study are as follow:
• Maturity period of 30 years (including grace period)
• Grace period on principal payment of 3.5 years (construction period plus 1 year after
project completion);
131
• Fixed interest rate of 9.8% per annum.

• Semestral payment computed at equal amortization.
• Foreign exchange risk to be borne by the WD.
715. Based on the above loan terms and conditions, annual amortizations will be in the
amount of Php32.286 million and will be paid during the period 2015 to 2041. Interest will be
paid during the grace period for actual loan releases.
716. The Water District also has existing loans and these are included in the analysis.
The debt service schedule for both existing and project loan are shown in Appendix 11.2.
11.2.3 Revenue Forecasts
717. Water Revenue is estimated for each of the three types of connections-- residential,
commercial and institutional. Estimates of annual water revenues are based on the total
billed water for the year and the corresponding tariffs for the same year.
718. Water Tariff. Without the Project. Metro La Union Water District last increased the
water tariff in 2006. It is assumed that even if there is no project, the water tariff will have to
be increased in the future to cover increases in its operational expenses. For purposes of
the projection, it is assumed that water tariffs will have to be increased by 10% every two
years in the future.
719. With the Project. A two-time tariff increase is proposed, the first increase in 2011 and
the second increase in 2014. A 10% increase in 2011, even before completion of the project,
is necessary for the water district to gain sufficient funds to meet its existing operations.
Another 15% increase is proposed in 2014. The proposed tariff schedule for the three types
of connections for 2014 is presented in Table 11.14. From 2016 onwards, it is proposed that
water tariff will have to be increased by 10% to 12% every two years. The proposed
increases in the tariff are less than 60% of the previous tariff and not more than 5% of the
family income of the low income group, which are both in accordance with LWUA’s
requirements.
Table 11.14: Proposed Tariff Schedule, 2014

Residential Commercial Institutional
Minimum Charge 291.00 582.00 291.00
11 – 20 cu.m. 30.40 60.60 30.40
21 – 30 cu.m. 36.30 72.60 36.30
31 – 40 cu.m. 45.50 91.10 45.50
above 40 cu.m. 51.10 102.10 51.10
720. Revenue Water. Without the Project. As mentioned earlier, since the existing
facilities are already nearing its maximum operating capacities, it is assumed that there will
be no further additional connections after 2013 so that the volume of revenue water will
remain constant from year 2013 onwards. Any increase in projected revenue is then due to
assumed increase in water tariff as discussed earlier.
721. With the Project. Revenue water used in the evaluation is based on the results of the
projection of water demand as presented in Chapter 5. According to the recommendations
of the technical study, the proposed improvements in the water supply system of Metro La
Union Water District can provide the water requirements of the projected beneficiaries up to
year 2025. Revenue water is therefore assumed to increase up to year 2025 and revenue
water from 2025 onwards is assumed to remain constant at the 2025 level.
132
722. Other Parameters and Assumptions. Other assumptions and parameters used in
the projection of revenues are given in Table 11.15.
Table 11.15: Other Parameters and Assumptions

Reserve Funds 1% of total revenues, increasing to 5% in year 2015 onwards
Accounts Receivable 5% of preceeding year's total revenues
Inventories 2 months of chemical supplies and maintenance
Bad Debt Expense is 1% of total revenues
Other Revenues 15% of gross water sales based on actual
Franchise Tax 2% of total operating revenues
Collection Efficiency 94% based on historical performance
11.2.4 Project Viability
723. Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). One of the more accepted financial
viability indicators for government projects is the financial internal rate of return. A subproject
is considered financially viable if the resulting FIRR of the proposed subproject is higher than
the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) that was used in financing the subproject. An
FIRR higher than the WACC implies that the incremental net revenues generated by the
project will be enough to recover the implementation and operating costs.
724. On the basis of the financing mix and the loan interest of 9.8% and the assumed cost
of equity of 12.0% (the estimated economic opportunity cost of capital), the WACC is 7.06%.
Table 11.16 shows the computation of the WACC.
Table 11.16: Weighted Cost of Capital

Financing Component
ADB Loan WD Equity
A. Amount (Php'000) 303,344 45,433 348,777
B. Weighing 86.97% 13.03% 100.00%
C. Nominal cost 9.80% 12.00%
D. Tax Rate 0.00% 0.00%
E. Tax-adjusted nominal cost 9.80% 12.00%
F. Inflation rate 1.90% 9.30%
G. Real cost 7.75% 2.47%
H. Weighted component of WACC 6.74% 0.32% 7.06%
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (Real) 7.06%
725. Sensitivity analyses are likewise conducted to determine the effects of adverse
changes on a project such as delay in operation, revenues not realized as expected or
increase in capital and O & M costs. The scenarios evaluated and the summary results of the
analyses are presented in Table 11.17 with details shown in Appendix 11.4. The results
show that the subproject is viable under the five scenarios evaluated.
133
Table 11.17: Summary Result of FIRR

Scenario FIRR (%) NPV (Php’000)
Base Case 15.33 323.187
1-Year Delay in Operation 13.70 276.179
Capital cost plus 10% 14.15 295.523
O & M costs plus 10% 14.73 291.557
Revenues less 10% 13.39 231.998
All costs +10%, Revenues -10% 11.72 175.110
726. Affordability of Water Rates. Projected annual financial statements are prepared to
demonstrate financial implication of the proposed subproject to the yearly financial position of
the Water District.
727. A major consideration in the development of the tariff schedule is the ability of target
beneficiaries to pay for their monthly water bill. It is a standing policy of LWUA that the
minimum charge for residential connections should not exceed 5% of the family income of
the low income group among families connected to the system.
728. For this study, classification of households according to socio-economic status was
done using the 2007 per capita thresholds such that those that fall below the poverty
threshold are categorized as poor and conversely, those above the threshold level are
considered non-poor. Different threshold levels are used corresponding to the geographic
location of the study area. The 2007 income level is then adjusted to 2014 levels by
assuming an annual increase of 5% per annum.
729. For La Union, the estimated monthly income for 2014 is Php10,335.00. Using the
affordability criteria, the minimum monthly bill (minimum charge) of Php291.00 when the
project starts to operate in 2014 is only 2.82% of the estimated monthly income of poor
families. In all subsequent years the minimum monthly bill is less than 5% of the estimated
monthly income. Hence the proposed level of water tariff is deemed affordable to the low
income or poor families.
11.3 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SUBPROJECTS ON THE WD’S FUTURE

FINANCIAL OPERATION
730. Projected Income Statement for the period 2009 to 2041 are developed and shown in
details in Appendix 11.5. The projections show that the Water District will generate net
income for all years of the projection period.
731. Cash Flow Statements are also developed for the same period. It must be noted that
initial analysis shows that the WD’s cash position for the years 2009 is negative. This is due
to the negative beginning balance from year 2008. There would be a need for the WD to
source out funds to remedy their negative cash balances. For the succeeding years, the
statements show that annual cash inflows will be sufficient to cover all annual cash outflows
of the Water District. The projected cash flow statements are also shown in Appendix 11.6.
732. Projected Balance Sheet for the study period showing the Water District’s projected
assets as against liabilities and equity is presented in Appendix 11.7. Further, selected
financial ratios are computed to provide an indication of the Water District’s future financial
performance.
• Current Ratio is above 2.0 from 2011 onwards which means that the liquidity of the
Water District is satisfactory;
• Debt Equity Ratio shows that the capital structure consists mostly of loan financing;
134
• Net Profit Ratio of above 0.08 shows that the current operation is profitable and
shows significant improvement in the later years; and the
• Water District is solvent with Debt Service Coverage Ratio higher than the standard
1.3 for all years.
733. Annual ratios from 2011 to 2040 are shown in the following table and in Appendix
11.8.
Table 11.18: Summary of Financial Ratios

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Current Ratio 0.97 3.85 6.44 6.49 5.56 5.44 6.23 19.37 23.76 19.88 14.72 12.76
Debt to Equity Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.25 1.44 2.57 2.40 2.36 0.81 0.45 0.30 0.17 0.05
Net Profit Ratio 73% 73% 70% 81% 78% 70% 68% 66% 85% 85% 93% 91%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 5.34 1.68 1.60 1.86 3.48 2.12 2.92 1.91 3.05
135
12. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12.1 OVERALL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
734. This section of the Report presents the results of the economic evaluation of the
proposed investments for improving water supply in Metro La Union that were described in
detail in the preceding chapters. The economic feasibility results were derived following the
procedures described in Appendix 12, using data and assumptions that are summarized in
the appendix as well.
735. The economic analysis was undertaken in accordance with the principles and
procedures set out in the ADB Handbook for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply
Projects (1999) and related ADB guidelines23 as well as LWUA’s Project Operations Manual
(2008). The period of analysis extends over 25 years from the start of Project implementation
in 2011 up until 2035. Costs and benefits were quantified at September 2009 prices and
were converted to their economic cost equivalents using shadow prices. Both costs and
benefits were treated as increments to a situation “without project”.
736. The economic viability of the subproject was determined by computing the economic
internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the economic opportunity cost of
capital (EOCC) of 15%.24 An EIRR exceeding the assumed EOCC indicates that the
subproject is economically viable. The viability of the investments was then tested for
changes in key variables such as capital costs, O&M costs, resource cost savings, and
incremental consumption through sensitivity analysis. Distributional and poverty impact
analysis was also undertaken to determine how much of the net economic benefits resulting
from the investments will directly benefit the poor.
12.2 ECONOMIC RATIONALE
737. The proposed investments for Metro La Union is a component of a larger Water
District Development Sector Project (WDDSP) which aims to improve population access to
piped water supply in the area as well as in four other districts that are being served by the
Metro Quezon WD, Legazpi City WD, Leyte Metro WD, and City of Koronadal WD.25 The
project will form part of the Government’s overall development plan for the water sector
which also aims to achieve the targets set under the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG).26
738. MLUWD, which now operates and maintains the existing water supply system, will
also operate and manage the new investments. Direct involvement of the Government in the
provision of improved water supply services stems from the lack of participation of private
and non-government sectors in its development. The lack of investments for improving
existing services will continue to deprive an increasing number of people of this essential
service which could have long-term impact on their health and well-being. Government’s
involvement in this Project will address this market failure through the exercise of its basic
functions of (i) allocating resources for the provision of basic needs, and (ii) distributing
23
Include the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (1997) and the Framework for the Economic and
Financial Appraisal of Urban Development Projects (1994).
24
The hurdle rate for water supply investments is prescribed under NEDA-ICC guidelines for project evaluation
which also provides shadow prices for foreign exchange (SER), wage rate for unskilled (SWR) and other non-
tradable components of investment costs.
25
WDDSP includes, under a second phase, the Cabuyao (Laguna) WD, Laguna WD, Camarines Norte WD,
Sorsogon WD, and possibly Metro Leyte for new source development, in addition to the five pilot WDs.
26
MDG goals refer to reducing extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), reducing child mortality (Goal 4), combating
major diseases (Goal 6), and improving access to improved water supply and basic sanitation services (Goal 7).
136
resources to effect equity where market and private decisions (or lack of it) have not resulted
in efficient allocation and service provision especially to the poor.
12.3 BEFORE- AND AFTER-PROJECT SITUATIONS
739. At present, 29% of the estimated 157,420 service area population (approximately
26,237 households) have access to piped water supply. The remaining population depends
on shallow wells (84%), deep wells (9%), and other sources of water (7%). Existing
production capacity is 10,022m3/day.
740. About 45% of the existing non-connected households, however, have expressed
interest to connect to MLUWD’s piped water supply network and are willing to pay
Php261/month, or Php17.1/m3, for water.
741. Based on the proposed investments, the number of new connections, volume of
production, and service coverage are projected as shown in Table 12.1.
742. After completion of the investments in 2013 and up until 2025, total supply will more
than double to 22,118m3/day from the current level of 10,022m3/day. The additional supply
capacity will enable some 13,717 households to directly connect to the system, benefiting an
estimated 82,302 people. In addition, some 370 non-domestic users, consisting mostly of
commercial establishments, will also gain access to the expanded piped network. Service
coverage will increase from the current level of 29% to 54% by 2025.
Table 12.1: Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply: 2009, 2015,
2020 &2025
2009 2015 2020 2025
Service area population 157,420 199,418 230,199 247,307
3
Projected water demand (m /day) 4,688 8,504 12,118 15,017
3
Production capacity (m /day) 10,022 22,118 22,118 22,118
No. of residential connections 7,618 11,515 16,673 21,885
No. of non-domestic connections 416 553 711 866
Total population served 45,708 70,740 102,159 133,893
Service coverage (%) 29.0 35.5 44.4 54.1
12.4 ECONOMIC BENEFITS
743. The economic viability of the proposed investments in water supply was determined
considering the following benefits: (i) resource cost savings on non-incremental water in
terms of avoided costs of producing, collecting, treating and storing non-piped water because
of a shift in demand to piped water supply, (ii) the economic value of incremental water due
to increased supply, (iii) the economic value of water that would have been lost due to non-
technical reasons, (iv) the value of time saved (or avoided income loss) for not having to
collect water from existing non-piped sources, (v) medical cost savings due to reduced
morbidity rates for waterborne diseases, and (vi) avoided income loss (productivity savings)
because of reduced incidence of diseases. For the health benefits, the impact of the
investments was measured by focusing solely on diarrhea, among other waterborne
diseases27 in the area, because of data limitations.
27
Other diseases are typhoid, dengue, and amoebiasis.
137
744. The parameters and values used in quantifying the economic benefits of water supply
improvement are shown in Table 12.2.
745. There are other benefits that could result from improved water supply but such
benefits as income generated from the use of water for livelihood purposes and the multiplier
effect of increased income, among others, were not included in the analysis for lack of data.
Table 12.2: Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply

2015 2020 2025
Number of residential connections 11,515 16,673 21,885
Number of non-domestic connections 553 711 866
Total number of service connections 12,068 17,384 22,751
3
Average economic cost of water storage (Php/m ) 8.2 - 8.2
Average economic cost of treatment (Php/day) 7.2 - 7.2
Average economic cost of producing water (Php/m3) 6.7 - 6.7
Ave. time spent in collecting water (min/day) 49 - 49
% of time water collection is done by adults 57 - 57
Residential water consumption (lpcd) 105 105 105
3
Production capacity provided by the Project (m /d) 12,096 12,096 12,096
Non-revenue water (%) 32 30 30
Non-technical losses (%) 8 8 8
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for under-5 (per 1,000) 10 - -
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for over-5 (per 1,000) 36 - -
Morbidity reduction for under-5 (%) 20 20 20
Morbidity reduction for over-5 (%) 6 19 22
Average number of days-sick 2.9 - -
Average medical cost per diarrhea case (Php/day) 203 - -
Ave. economic wage rate for unskilled labor (Php/day) 144 - -
12.5 WILLINGNESS TO PAY
746. As gathered through the socioeconomic survey conducted in April 2009, data on
willingness to connect (WTC) and willingness to pay (WTP) for water supply services are
given in Table 12.3.
747. Forty-five percent (45%) of the existing non-connected households have indicated
interest to connect to MLUWD’s improved water supply system and are willing to pay an
average of Php261/month, or Php17.1/m3, for water. The amount is lower than the actual
average monthly bill of current users of Php357/month. On a per unit basis, based on
monthly average consumption of 15.3m3/household, this WTP translates to Php17.1/m3
which is lower than the existing average domestic tariff of Php28.5/m3.
Table 12.3: Willingness to Connect (WTC) and to Pay (WTP)

Mean Value
Willingness to connect to an improved water supply service (%) 44.7

Willingness to pay for water (Php/month) 260.6
3
Willingness to pay for water (Php/m ) 17.1
138
12.6 ECONOMIC COSTS
748. Economic costs were derived from the financial estimates of capital investments and
O&M costs presented in Chapter 11, after eliminating all duties and taxes and multiplying the
net results by the appropriate price conversion factors (CF). Traded and non-traded
components of costs were estimated for which the following CFs were applied: shadow
exchange rate for traded goods of 1.2, shadow wage rate factor of 0.6 for unskilled labor,
and a CF of 1.0 for non-traded components. These parameters are prescribed under NEDA-
ICC guidelines for evaluating Philippine projects.
749. By applying the above conversion factors, the weighted overall CF for capital costs for
water supply was computed at 1.05. For O&M costs, the computed CF was 0.96. Using
these conversion factors, the economic cost equivalents of the proposed capital investments
(including the cost of replacing some assets that are expected to have outlived their useful
economic life during the 25-year projection period) and O&M are approximately Php307
million and Php744 million, respectively.
750. The economic life of major physical assets were assumed at 50 years for transmission
mains, 50 years for distribution pipes, 50 years for treatment plant (15 years for equipment),
50 years for storage facilities, and 15 years for pumps.
12.7 EIRR AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
751. Given the stream of economic benefits and costs over the 25-year period, the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of the investments for Metro La Union is 11.8%. The
EIRR of the subproject is lower than the assumed cut-off rate of 15% (see computations in
Annex 12-1 of Appendix 12).
752. Sensitivity tests results based on (i) a 10% reduction in capital costs, (ii) a 10%
reduction in O&M costs, (iii) a 10% increase in resource cost savings, and (iv) a 10%
increase in incremental water show the EIRR remaining below the cut-off rate. At most, the
EIRR increased by one percentage point to 12.8 as a result of a 10% reduction in capital
investments. Of the four key variables that were considered and tested, the water supply
subproject was found to be most sensitive to change in capital costs (SI=0.90) followed by
changes in resource cost savings (SI=0.62) and O&M costs (SI=0.59). The switching value
or the % change required for EIRR to drop to the cut-off rate for capital costs is 111% and for
resource cost savings, SV is 161%. Table 12.4 summarizes the results of the base case
analysis and the sensitivity tests.
Table 12.4: EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply

1
NPV EIRR %
2 3
Scenario (SLR mill.) (%) SI Change SV
Base case -56.1 11.8
10% decrease in capital costs -34.9 12.8 0.90 -10 111%
10% decrease in O&M costs -44.6 12.5 0.59 -10 171%
10% inc. in resource cost savings -44.1 12.5 -0.62 10 -161%
10% inc. in incremental water -55.0 11.8 -0.04 10 -2306%
1
NPV = Net Present Value discounted at EOCC of 15%
2
SI = Sensitivity Indicator (ratio of % change in EIRR to % change in variable)
3
SV = Switching Value (% change in variable required for NPV to become zero)
139
12.8 SUBPROJECT BENEFICIARIES
753. At the end of the 25-year period, a total of 14,387 new water service connections shall
have been added to the existing ones. This will consist of 14,017 domestic connections and
370 non-domestic connections. In terms of served population, the investments will directly
benefit an estimated 84,724 residents within the service area. The impact of the investments
in terms of connections and population served are indicated in Table 12.5.
Table 12.5: Subproject Beneficiaries

Domestic Non-Dom. Total Population
Conn. Conn. Conn. Served
Water supply 14,017 370 14,387 84,724
12.9 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
754. At full economic cost (i.e., capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC), or the marginal cost of producing each cubic meter of water,
was computed at Php17.1. Considering only capita costs, the AIEC is Php11.1/m3 (Table
12.6).
incremental water consumption, is Php27/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC, no
economic subsidy will be required by the subproject.
756. The tariff revenue to be generated by the subproject during the 25-year period could
fully recover all costs, including the full economic costs of the investments consisting of
capital and O&M.
Table 12.6: Project Sustainability, Water Supply

Value
3
AIEC (Php/m )
Economic capital + O&M (full cost) 17.1
Economic capital cost only 11.1
Economic O&M only 9.1
3
Average tariff at EOCC of 15% (Php/m ) 27.0
Economic cost recovery (%)
Capital + O&M cost 157%
Capital cost only 243%
O&M cost only 294%
12.10 POVERTY IMPACT
consumers, many of whom are current users of water from wells and other sources and who
are expected to connect to the improved piped water supply system to be made possible
through this Project. Local labour, for which a significant amount of person-days will be
needed for construction of the new facilities and their eventual operation, will gain about
Php39 million. The economy, because of distortions in the exchange rate, will lose around
28
140
Php48 million. On balance, the economy as a whole will gain the entire NEB of Php106
million.
758. The poverty impact ratio (PIR) for the water supply investments is 26 percent which
means that about one-quarter of the NEB will directly benefit the poor (see computations in
Annex 12-2 of Appendix 12). Poverty incidence in the area is around 36% of all households.
141
APPENDIX 3.1: SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY RESULTS –

METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
1. INTRODUCTION
1. The following household survey was conducted in May 2009 as part of the formulation
of a sector investment plan for urban water and sanitation under the Water District
Development Sector Project PPTA (Project Preparation Technical Assistance). The PPTA’s
objective was to (i) formulate a sector investment project (WDDSP) in the urban water supply
and sanitation sector with funding from ADB and other investment sources, and, (ii) prepare
implementation support and institutional development programs addressing sector reform,
governance and public awareness.
2. A key task of the PPTA was the preparation of a Subproject Appraisal Report (SPAR)
for 5 pilot water districts that participated in the PPTA. These were:
1. Metro La Union Water District, La Union Province, Luzon.
2. Quezon Metro Water District, Quezon Province, Luzon.
3. Legazpi City Water District, Albay Province, Luzon.
4. Leyte Metro Water District, Leyte Province, Visayas.
5. Koronadal City Water District, South Cotabato Province, Mindanao.
3. The SPARs’ subproject scope, cost estimates, financing plan and feasibility were
prepared based on an analysis of the existing situation, local development plans and
priorities and findings from field surveys. The household survey generated empirical data on
the target participants.
4. At least 384 respondents were interviewed to reach a 95% level of confidence at 0.1
standard deviation. Stratified random sampling was used to determine the survey sample,
with three levels of stratification—municipality/city, serviced/expansion areas, and
barangays—in both service/expansion sites.
5. The survey result is here summarized. The tables also serve as baseline data against
which future project impacts can be assessed and as input in the design of information and
education materials and of interventions for identified areas for improvement.
6. Some variables that were covered were:

• Demographic characteristics
• Gender roles and preferences
• Profile on health and hygiene practices
• Poverty groups, indicators and responses
• Identification of community organizations
• Sources of vulnerability and responses
• Water and sanitation situation, attitudes, perceptions and preferences
o access to facility and sanitation maintenance practices
o attitude towards water and sanitation services
o demand by service type (water and sanitation)
o sources and levels of water supply accessed
o perceptions on sanitation and water and service quality
o affordability and willingness to pay
142
7. Certain data sets were disaggregated by water district connection (connected or non-
connected households) or cross-tabulated by gender and poverty characteristics,
corresponding to the different sections of this report. Section 1 is a profile of respondents.
Section 2 contains comparisons for connected and non-connected households. Sections 3
and 4 are profiles on water and sanitation by WD-connected or non-connected households.
Section 5 covers characteristics and preferences of poor and non-poor respondents.
8. An additional section covers gender disaggregated data by female or male-headed

households on such variables as roles and access to resources, or by male or female
respondents on attitudes and preferences. The sections are follows:
1. Socio-economic profile of households
2. Socio-economic profile of households classified by type of household
3. Water consumption and preferences of wd-connected households
4. Water consumption and preferences of wd-connected households
5. Water supply and sanitation preferences by socio-economic status of
households.
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Socio-Economic Profile of Households: Metro La Union 143
Water District
II. Socio-Economic Profile of Households Classified by Type 163

of Household: Metro La Union Water District
III. Water Consumption and Preferences of WD-Connected 172

Households: Metro La Union Water District
IV. Water Consumption and Preferences of Non-Connected 183

Households: Metro La Union Water District
V. Water Supply and Sanitation Preferences by Socio- 194

Economic Status of Households: Metro La Union Water
District
Annexes:
1 Gender Tables 197
2 Distribution of Sample Households for the WDDPS Household Survey 225
143
I. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS: METRO LA UNION WATER

DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Number of Household

Members
Total number of HH
Percent
members
1-2 9.1%
3-4 34.6%
5-6 34.6%
7-8 15.1%
9-10 2.3%
More than 10 4.2%
Average Household Size 5.11
N Cases 384
About one out of ten households (9%) in Metro La Union WD have only one or two members,
while about seven out of ten (69%) households have three to six members. Twenty-two
percent of households are composed of more than six members. The average household
size in Metro La Union WD is 5.11.

Members who are 14 Years Old and Below
Total number of HH
members 14 years old and Percent
below
None 29.9%
1-2 48.4%
3-4 18.5%
5-6 2.3%
7-8 0.5%
9-10 0.3%
Average number of HH
members 14 years old and 1.47
below
N Cases 384
Three out of ten households in Metro La Union WD (30%) do not have young household
members who are 14 years or below. On the other hand, a great majority of the households
(67%) have one to four young household members while a very few of these households
144
(<5%) have more than four young household members. The average number of young
household members in Metro La Union WD is 1.47.

Members who are 65 Years Old or Older
Total number of HH
Percent
members 65+ years old
None 76.8%
1-2 22.4%
3-4 0.3%
5 or more 0.5%
N Cases 384
About four out of five households in Metro La Union WD (77%) do not have household
members who are 65 years old or older. Meanwhile, a little over one in every five households
(22%) have one or two older person/s household members and very few (<1%) have more
than two older persons as household members.
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households Living

in the Dwelling Unit
Number of HHs in the

Percent
dwelling unit
1 77.3%
2 18.8%
3 2.6%
4 or more 1.3%
N Cases 384
Most of the households in Metro La Union WD (77%) are sole occupants of their dwelling
units. There are some households (23%) who share their dwelling units with one or more
households.
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Households by Length of Stay in the Barangay
Number of years in the

Percent
barangay
Less than 10 years 25.3%
10-19 years 20.0%
20-29 years 16.8%
30-39 years 13.2%
40-49 years 11.8%
145
50 years or over 12.9%
Average length of stay in

25 years
the barangay (in years)
N Cases 380
One-fourth of the households in Metro La Union WD (25%) were in their barangay of current
residence for less than 10 years. On the other hand, half (50%) of the households have
stayed in their barangay between 10 and 39 years. Another one-fourth (25%) of the
households have stayed in the barangay for 40 years or more. On the average, households
in Metro La Union WD have stayed 25 years in their barangay of current residence.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household Income
Total Monthly
Percent
Household Income
No income 0.5%
Less than P5,000 20.7%
P5,000 - 9,999 32.4%
P10,000 - 14,999 20.2%
P15,000 - 19,999 11.1%
P20,000 - 29,999 8.0%
P30,000 - 39,999 2.7%
P40,000 - 49,999 1.6%
P50,000 or more 2.9%
Average Total Monthly P 12,591

Household Income
N Cases 377
More than half of the households in Metro La Union WD (53%) have incomes within the
P5,000 – P9,999 bracket. Meanwhile, one-fifth of the households (20%) have an income of
at least P10,000 but below P15,000. Only three percent of the households belong to the
highest income bracket (P50,000 or more). The average monthly household income in Metro
La Union WD district is P12,591.
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household

Expenditure
Total Monthly
Percent
Household Expenditure
P3,000 - 4,999 20.0%
P5,000 - 9,999 38.6%
146
P10,000 - 14,999 15.8%

P15,000 - 19,999 8.9%
P20,000 - 29,999 3.9%
P30,000 - 49,999 3.6%
P50,000 or over 0.6%
Average Total Monthly

Household Expenditure P 10,704
N Cases 360
A few of the households in Metro La Union WD (9%) have a total monthly household
expenditure of less than P3,000. Meanwhile, about six in ten households (59%) spend on
average P3,000 to P9,999 per month. Some of the households (16%) have a total monthly
household expenditure of P10,000 to P14,999. Another 17% of the households spend
P15,000 or more per month. On the average, monthly household expenditure in Metro La
Union WD is P10,704.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Households by Average Total Monthly Household

Savings
Average Total Monthly

Percent
Household Savings
None 73.5%
P1,000 - 1,999 6.1%
P2,000 - 2,999 2.7%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.8%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.8%
P5,000 or over 4.2%
N Cases 377
There is high incidence of lack of savings in Metro La Union WD as observed among three-
fourths of the households (74%). More than one-tenth of the households (12%) have average
monthly savings of less than P1,000; and one out of ten households (10%) has an average
monthly savings of at least P1,000 but not more than P4,999. Very few of the Metro La
Union WD households (<5%) have more than P5,000 average monthly savings.
Table 9. Ownership of Valuable Items by Households
Percent of
Valuable items
Households
Transport (car, motorcycle,
tricycle) 25.8%
147
Truck 0.8%
Television 86.2%
Refrigerator 58.9%
Telephone/Cellular phone 81.0%
Washing machine 44.5%
Air Conditioner 7.6%
Personal computer 17.0%
Electric water pump/
overhead tank 15.2%
Others items: e.g., DVD
player, fan, videoke, etc. 46.6%
N Cases 383
A great majority of the households in Metro La Union WD own television sets (86%) and
telephone/cellular phone (81%). About six out of ten households (59%) own a refrigerator
while less than half of the households (45%) own a washing machine. Worth noting is the
fact that one in every four households in the area (26%) owns some means of transport, e.g.
car, motorcycle or tricycle. Only a few of the Metro La Union WD households could afford the
luxury of owning a personal computer (17%) or an air conditioner (8%).
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Households by Gender of the Household Head
Gender of the
Percent
Household Head
Male 71.1%
Female 28.9%
N Cases 384
Headship by a male household member is common in Metro La Union WD which is reflected

by the seven out of ten households (71%) headed by males.
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ethnic Affiliation of the

Household Head
Ethnic Affiliation of
Percent
Household Head
Ilocano 80.7%
Tagalog 6.8%
Bisaya (Cebuano) 3.2%
Bicolano 1.9%
Ifugao-Non 0.3%
Davaoeno 0.3%
Pampangeño 0.6%
Pangasinan 0.6%
Waray 0.5%
148
Igorot 0.3%
Itneg 0.3%
Masbateno 0.3%
Karkamaeg 0.3%
No Info 5.0%
N Cases 384
Expectedly, the ethnic affiliation of most of the household heads in Metro La Union WD is
Ilocano (81%). Households with non-Ilocano head comprise 19% of households in the area.
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Highest Grade Completed by

the Household Head
Highest Grade Completed by

Percent
the Household Head
No schooling 0.8%
Elementary 17.1%
High School 41.8%
Vocational training 14.5%
College and over 25.8%
N Cases 380
Two out of five households in Metro La Union WD have heads with high school education
(42%), while less than one in five of these households have heads who reached elementary
education (17%). One-fourth of the households in (26%) are headed by college-educated
persons. Households headed by a person with no schooling is almost nil in the area.
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Current Occupation of the

Household Head
Current Occupation of the

Percent
Household Head
Farming or fishing 15.1%
Own business 10.4%
Government employee 4.4%
Private employee 7.8%
Temporary laborer 5.5%
Street vendor 1.6%
Retired/Pensioner 7.6%
Unemployed 16.2%
Others 31.3%
N Cases 383
149
Some of the households in Metro La Union WD (16%) have unemployed heads. One-tenth of
the households in the area (10%) have household heads that are self-employed in business.
Meanwhile, very few of these households are headed by persons who are either a
government employee (<5%) or a private employee (8%). A significant proportion, however,
of the households in Metro La Union WD (15%) are headed by farmers or fishermen.
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the House

Occupied
Ownership Status of
Percent
the House
House owner 82.8%
Caretaker 3.6%
Rent-free occupant 7.0%
Renter 4.9%
Others: relatives, etc 1.6%
N Cases 384
Eight out of ten households in Metro La Union WD (83%) own their houses. Renters only
account for five percent of the households in the area.
Table 15. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot on

which House is Built
Ownership Status of
Percent
the Lot
Owned 41.1%
Caretaker 4.4%
Rented/Leased 5.7%
Common property with other
family members or relatives 25.3%
Government land 23.4%
Others 2.6%
N Cases 384
Two out of five households in Metro La Union WD (41%) have houses built on their own lots.
Interestingly, a little over one out of five of these households in the area (23%) put up houses
on government-owned lands. Meanwhile, communal ownership of the lot with relatives is
reported by one-fourth of these households (25%) and very few of them (6%) rents/lease the
lots where their houses are built.
150
Table 16. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Building/House
Type of building/house Percent
Single 88.5%
Duplex 8.9%
Apartment/condominium/town
house 1.3%
Commercial/industrial/
agricultural bldg 0.8%
Others 0.5%
N Cases 383
Single-detached house is the most popular type of dwelling unit in Metro La Union WD as
exemplified by 89% of households in the area. Duplex units are reported by about one in
every ten households in the area (9%).
Table 17. Percentage Distribution of Households by Materials that Predominantly

Make Up the Dwelling Unit
Observed materials that make

Percent
up the dwelling unit
Strong materials 56.5%
Light materials 14.1%
Mixed but predominantly strong
materials 16.7%
Mixed but predominantly light
materials 7.6%
Salvaged/makeshift materials 5.2%
Mixed but predominantly
salvaged materials 0.0%
N Cases 384
About one in every four households in the district of Metro La Union WD (73%) have dwelling
units made up of strong materials or mixed but predominantly strong materials. In contrast,
one out of five households in this area (22%) lives in a dwelling unit which is of light materials
or mixed but predominantly light materials.
Table 18. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility
Type of Toilet Facility Percent
Water-sealed (flush or pourflush)

connected to sewerage system 0.0%
connected to septic tank 79.6%
connected to pit 8.1%
151

connected to drainage 0.0%
Non-water sealed (ventilated
improved pit, sanitary pit privy,
closed pit) 1.0%
Non-water sealed (open pit privy,
overhang) 0.0%
Shared toilet 9.9%
Public toilet 0.3%
No toilet (wrap and throw, arinola,
bush, sea/marshland , river 1.0%
N Cases 383
Four out of five households in Metro La Union WD (80%) have water-sealed toilets
connected to a septic tank. A few of the households (8%) have water-sealed toilets
connected to a pit, and a negligible few of the households (<5%) do not have toilets.
Table 19. Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction of Households and Reasons Cited for

Dissatisfaction (Multiple Responses) with Current Toilet System
Indicators Percent
Percent of households satisfied

with current toilet system 91.6%
Percent of households
dissatisfied with current toilet
system 8.4%
N Cases 383
Reasons for dissatisfaction

Backflow 43.8%
Foul odor 37.5%
Combination of backflow
resulting to foul odor and
inconvenience 15.6%
Rodent infestation 0.0%
Flies/Insects 3.1%
N Cases 32
Satisfaction over their current toilet system is generally high in Metro La Union WD as
reported by almost all of the total households (92%). Among the households dissatisfied with
their current toilet system, the most predominant reasons for dissatisfaction cited are
backflow of water (44%) and foul odor (38%).
152
Table 20. Percentage Distribution of Households by Estimated Distance of Septic

Tank from Source of Water
Distance of septic tank to

Percent
nearest water source
0-4 meters 1.7%
5-9 meters 16.9%
10-14 meters 29.0%
15-19 meters 18.8%
20-29 meters 20.4%
30-39 meters 4.7%
40-49 meters 0.8%
50 meters or over 7.7%
Average Distance (in meters) 20.0 meters
N Cases 362
A great majority of the households in Metro La Union WD (66%) do not meet the 25-meter
minimum distance of septic tank to nearest source of water as set in the National Sanitation
Code as their septic tanks are located less than twenty meters from the nearest water
source. On the other hand, more than ten percent of the households (13%) have septic tanks
that are 30 meters or more from the nearest water source.
Table 21. Percentage Distribution of Households Willing to Improve Septage System

and Type of Improvement Preferred
Indicators Percent
Percent of HHs that would like

23.2%
to improve septage system
N Cases 384
Type of improvement preferred

Installation of septic tank 45.6%
Improvement/ rehabilitation
32.2%
of existing septic tank
De-sludging of septic tank 26.7%
N Cases 90
A little less than one-fourth of the households in Metro La Union WD (23%) are willing to
improve their septage system. Types of improvements preferred are mostly in the installation
of septic tank (46%), improvement of existing tank (32%) and de-sludging services (27%).
153
Table 22A. Percentage Distribution of Households who are Willing to Pay for
Improvement of Septage System and Amount Willing to Pay (In Pesos)
Indicators Percent
Percent of households willing to

pay for installation of septic 38.9%
tank
N Cases 90
Amount willing to pay

Less than P10,000 33.3%
P10,000 - 14,999 38.9%
P15,000 - 19,999 11.1%
P20,000 – 25,000 5.6%
More than P25,000 11.1%
N Cases 36

pay for improvement/
23.3%
rehabilitation of existing septic
tank
N Cases 90

P5,000 - 9,999 15.0%
P10,000 - 14,999 20.0%
P15,000 or over 10.0%
N Cases 20
About two in every five households in Metro La Union WD district who are willing to improve
their septage system (39%) are willing to pay for the installation of septic tank. A third of
them (33%) are willing to pay less than P10,000 for the septic tank installation, and two-fifth
(39%) are willing to spend P10,000 to P14,999 for this kind of improvement. On the other
hand, 23% of the Metro La Union WD area households who are willing to improve their
septage system are also willing to pay for the rehabilitation of their existing septic tank.
Among these households, more than half (55%) are willing to pay less than P5,000 while
about three out of ten households (30%) are willing to pay P10,000 or more for the
rehabilitation of their septic tanks.
154
Table 22B. Percentage Distribution of Households who are Willing to Pay for
Improvement of Septage System and Amount Willing to Pay (In Pesos)
Indicators Percent

pay for de-sludging of septic 26.7%
tank
N Cases 90

P1,000 - 1,999 0.0%
P2,000 - 2,999 37.5%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.0%
P4,000 - 4,999 6.3%
P5,000 - 5,999 18.8%
P7,000 - 7,999 18.8%
P9,000 - 9,999 0.0%
P10,000 or more 6.3%
N Cases 16
Twenty-seven percent of the households in Metro La Union WD district who are willing to
improve their septage system are willing to pay for septic tank de-sludging. Among these
households, 12% are willing to spend less than P1,000 for the de-sludging of their septic
tanks. Meanwhile, 44% of these households are willing to pay at least P1,000 but not over
P5,000 for this improvement in their septage sytem. Interestingly, 44% of them are willing to
pay P5,000 or more.
Table 23. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Sources of Water

(Multiple Responses)
Primary Source(s)
Percent
of Water
Piped connection 18.2%
Shallow well 83.6%
Water vendors 38.0%
Deep well 9.4%
Public/Street faucet 0.8%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 0.5%
Rain 0.5%
N Cases 384
155
Shallow well is the top primary source of water in Metro La Union WD as reported by four out
of five households (84%). Many households in this district (38%) reported that they also get
water from water vendors. Some of the households in the area (18%) source their water
from piped connections. Very few households in Metro La Union WD get their water from
other sources like deep well (9%), spring/river/pond/stream (<1%), rain (<1%) and
public/street faucet (<1%).
Table 24. Percentage Distribution of Households which are WD-Connected and Non-
connected
WD-Connection Percent
WD-connected Households 10.7%

Non-connected Households 89.3%
N Cases 384
About nine in every ten households in Metro La Union WD (89%) do not have water district
connection.
Table 25A. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Percent of households whose members wash
hands:
Before cooking 99.0%
N Cases 384
Washing with:
With soap and water 91.1%
With water only 4.2%
Others 4.7%
N Cases 380
Before eating 99.2%

N Cases 384
Washing with:
Others 4.7%
N Cases 381
After using the toilet 99.5%

N Cases 384
156
Washing with:
Others 5.0%
N Cases 382
Before breastfeeding 57.7%

N Cases 52
Washing with:
Others 3.7%
N Cases 27
Hand washing, as personal hygiene and health practice, is observed by almost all
households in Metro La Union WD before cooking (99%), before eating (99%), and after
using the toilet (100%) with the exception of hand washing before breastfeeding for which
only 58% of the households reported they do so. Consistently, almost all of the households
that reported washing do it with soap and water.
Table 25B. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Percent of households whose members wash
hands:
Before feeding children 83.0%
N Cases 94
Washing with:
Others 9.0%
N Cases 78
After changing diapers 69.8%

N Cases 63
Washing with:
Others 2.3%
N Cases 43
After washing the children 89.8%

after toilet
157
N Cases 127
Washing with:
Others 6.2%
N Cases 113
It can also be observed from Table 25B that hand washing is practiced by most of the
households in Metro La Union WD before feeding children (83%), after changing diapers
(70%) and after washing the children after toilet (90%). Almost all of these households also
reported washing with soap and water.
Table 25C. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Place where children/infants

go for toilet purposes
Toilet 93.5%
Gutter/water canals 0.0%
River 0.0%
Garden/backyard 2.2%
Urinals/urinola 0.9%
Disposable diapers 3.4%
N Cases 322
Places where children/infants go for toilet are negligible in unusual latrines (gutter/water
canals, river, garden/backyard, urinals, diapers) as almost all of the households in Metro La
Union WD (94%) use conventional toilets for the purpose.
Table 26. Percentage Distribution of Households by Various Health and Food

Security Indicators
Indicators Percent
Number of times household eats in a day

1-2 times a day 3.1%
3 times a day 91.4%
4 times or more 3.9%
No information 1.6%
% of households who have children who died

9.4%
before reaching the age of 6 years
158
% of households who have at least one

member who died during pregnancy or 4.9%
childbirth
N cases 384
In terms of food security, almost all of the households in Metro La Union WD (95%) eat at
least three times a day.
Looking at the health condition in Metro La Union WD, death of a child five years old or
below was experienced by nine percent of the households in the area. Also, five percent of
the Metro La Union WD households have had a death of a female member due to pregnancy
or childbirth.
Table 27A. Access to Loans and Borrowings of Households
Indicators Percent
% of households with
member(s) who ever 62.0%
borrowed money
N Cases 384
Number of times household

member(s) borrowed during
the past year
0 9.5%
1 30.6%
2 30.2%
3 10.3%
4 4.7%
5 2.6%
6 0.9%
7 0.4%
8 2.2%
9 0.0%
10 0.9%
More than 10 times 7.8%
N Cases 232
Among the 62% percent of the households in Metro La Union WD that have member/s who
have ever borrowed money, three out of five (61%) have members have borrowed money
once or twice during the past year. Thirty percent of these households have members who
159
have borrowed money more than twice in the past year while about ten percent of these
households do not have members who borrowed money during the same period.
Table 27B. Access to Loans and Borrowings of Households
Indicators Percent
Sources of credit
Relative/Friend 46.2%
Five-Six 17.2%
Micro-finance institution 29.0%
Cooperative 6.3%
Bank 7.1%
Employer 2.1%
GSIS/SSS 1.7%
Store 0.8%
Credit card 2.1%
Palay/Copra buyer 0.0%
Pawnshop 0.0%
N Cases 238
Purpose for borrowing

Household expenses 35.7%
Business/Farm inputs 36.1%
Food 31.1%
Education 20.2%
Medical expenses 8.8%
Pay off debt 3.4%
Build/Renovate house 8.8%
Purchase/Repair of 2.9%
furniture/appliances
Fiesta/Entertainment 0.4%
N Cases 238
Informal credit sources such as relatives and friends, are the top credit sources in Metro La
Union WD as cited by 46% of households. Other main sources of credit by the households
are micro-finance institutions (29%), five-six (17%) and banks (7%).
At 36% of households in Metro La Union WD, business/farm inputs and household expenses
lead as the main purpose for borrowing. Other main purposes for borrowing as reported by
households in this district are for food (31%) and education (20%).
160
Table 28. Calamity Experiences of Households
Indicators Percent
Percent of households that have ever

experienced any kind of calamity in the 72.7%
community
Percent of households that have ever

experienced any of the following in the
community
Earthquake 12.8%
Flood 22.9%
Typhoon 66.4%
Fire 0.5%
Landslide 0.0%
Percent of households whose water source

9.9%
has ever been affected by flooding
Percent of households whose septic

tank/latrine/pit has ever been affected by 4.9%
flooding
N Cases 384
Seventy three percent of the households in the Metro La Union WD have ever experienced
at least one kind of calamity, particularly typhoon (66%). Significant proportions of the
households, 23% and 13% have also experienced flooding and earthquake, respectively.
Only very few have witnessed events of fire in their communities.
As far as direct impacts of calamities to their abode, lifelines and utilities are concerned, only
one out of 10 households in the Metro La Union WD had water sources affected by flood.
Only 5% of the households have their septic tanks, latrines or pits affected.
Table 29. Disability and Experiences of Discrimination Among Households
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at least one

6.3%
member who is disabled
N Cases
Form of disability of household member(s)

Physical 79.2%
Mental 8.3%
Both physical and mental 4.2%
161
No information 8.3%
N Cases 24

member who has been discriminated in the 1.8%
community

member who has been discriminated 0.0%
because of disability

member who has been discriminated in the 0.3%
community because of social status
N Cases 384
Six percent of the households in the Metro La Union WD have at least one physically and/or
mentally disabled member. About four out of five of the disabled household members are
afflicted with physical ailment, 8% are mentally incapacitated and 4% are both physically and
mentally debilitated.
Discrimination has been felt by only a very few of the households (2%) in the Metro La Union
WD. Specifically, less than one percent of the households have sensed discrimination in their
community because of their social status.
Table 30. Household Access to Health Insurance Benefits and Other Forms of
Assistance
Indicators Percent

member who is a member of PhilHealth or 69.8%
has any health insurance coverage

member who has received any form of 22.9%
assistance for health expenses
N Cases 384
Seven out of ten households in the Metro La Union WD have at least one member who is a
member of PhilHealth or has any health insurance coverage. Moreover, 23% of the
households have accessed monetary assistance from people or other institutions to cover
medical expenses at the time of sickness of their member(s).
162
Table 31. Membership in Community Organizations and Voting Exercise
Indicators Percent

member who is a member of any 30.7%
community organization

member who is a member of the following
organizations:
Homeowners’ association 2.9%
Cooperative 2.9%
Women’s association 4.9%
Savings association 1.0%
Religious organization 4.2%
Other organizations 19.0%
N Cases 384
Percent of households whose eligible

members have voted during the last 84.1%
election
N Cases 384
Reasons of household member(s) for having

not voted during the last election
Not registered 72.5%
Not interested 0.0%
Busy 2.5%
Sick or away during the election 20.0%
No information 5.0%
N Cases 40
About three out of ten households in the Metro La Union WD have at least one member who
is a member of any community organization. The most popular organizations participated in
by the household members are the women’s association and religious organizations. Other
community organizations cited include senior citizens’ clubs, micro-lending associations,
peoples’ organizations (farmers, drivers, fishermen) and barangay death aid associations.
Eighty four percent of the households in the Metro La Union WD have at least one eligible
member who voted during the last election, be it national or local. Of those households with
eligible members who did not cast their votes, the most cited reason was that they were not
registered voters. Some were either sick or physically away at the time of the election.
163
II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED BY TYPE OF

HOUSEHOLD: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households Living

in the Dwelling Unit
Type of Household
Number of HHs in the WD- Non- Total
dwelling unit connected connected
HHs HHs
1 81.0% 76.9% 77.3%
2 19.0% 18.7% 18.8%
3 0.0% 2.9% 2.6%
4 or more 0.0% 1.5% 1.3%
N Cases 42 342 384
The proportion of eighty-one percent of connected households with sole household

occupants is considerably higher than the 76.9% in non-connected households. Noticeably,
connected households have at most households in the dwelling unit while non-connected
households have two to four or more. Multiple households in a dwelling unit is higher in non-
connected (23.1%) than those in connected households (19%).

Members
Type of Household
Total number of HH WD- Non- Total
members connected connected
HHs HHs
All members
1-2 9.5% 9.1% 9.1%
3-4 33.3% 34.8% 34.6%
5-6 35.7% 34.5% 34.6%
7-8 16.7% 14.9% 15.1%
9-10 2.4% 2.3% 2.3%
10 or more 2.4% 4.4% 4.2%
Average Household Size 5.02 5.12 5.11
N Cases 42 342 384
164

Members (CONTINUATION)
Type of Household
Total number of HH members WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Members 14 years old and below
None 31.0% 29.8% 29.9%
1-2 50.0% 48.2% 48.4%
3-4 19.0% 18.4% 18.5%
5-6 0.0% 2.6% 2.3%
7-8 0.0% .6% .5%
9-10 0.0% .3% .3%
Average Number of HH members

14 years old & below 1.33 1.49 1.47
N Cases 42 342 384
Members 65 years old or over

None 69.0% 77.8% 76.8%
1-2 31.0% 21.3% 22.4%
3-4 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
5 or more 0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
N Cases 42 342 384
Average household size for connected households is 5.02 while it is 5.12 in non-connected
households. The average number of fourteen years old and below in households is 1.33 in
connected households and 1.49 in non-connected households.
Connected households (31%) have more elderly members (aged 65 years and over) than
non-connected households (22.2%).
165
Table 3. Percentage of Households by Length of Stay in the Barangay
Type of Household
Number of years in the WD- Non- Total
barangay connected connected
HHs HHs
Less than 10 years 23.8% 25.4% 25.3%
10-19 years 19.0% 20.1% 20.0%
20-29 years 9.5% 17.8% 16.8%
30-39 years 16.7% 12.7% 13.2%
40-49 years 7.1% 12.4% 11.8%
50 years or over 23.8% 11.5% 12.9%
Average length of stay in the

barangay 28 years 25 years 25 years
N Cases 42 338 380
Connected households that have been staying in their barangay of current residence for 30
years or over is 47.6%, a percentage considerably higher than the 36.5% of non-connected
households. Consequently, the average length of stay of connected households in the
barangay (28 years) is longer than those of non-connected households (25 years).
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Households by Average Total Monthly

Household Income (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Total monthly income WD- Non- Total
of the HH connected connected
HHs HHs
No income 2.4% 0.3% 0.5%
Less than P 5,000 9.8% 22.0% 20.7%
P 5,000 - 9,999 24.4% 33.3% 32.4%
P 10,000 - 14,999 22.0% 19.9% 20.2%
P 15,000 - 19,999 14.6% 10.7% 11.1%
P 20,000 - 29,999 17.1% 6.8% 8.0%
P 30,000 - 39,999 4.9% 2.4% 2.7%
P 40,000 - 49,999 2.4% 1.5% 1.6%
P 50,000 and over 2.4% 3.0% 2.9%
Average Total Monthly Household

Income P 15,746 P 12,206 P 12,591
N Cases 41 336 377
166
Non-connected households have lower average monthly income of P12,206 compared to

P15,746 monthly earnings of connected households. Households earning less than 14,999
are 75.2% of the non-connected households and 56.2% of the connected households. There
are more households without earnings in connected households (2.4%) than those in non-
connected households (0.3%).
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Households by Average Total Monthly

Household Expenditure (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Total Monthly Household WD- Non- Total
Expenditure connected connected
HHs HHs
Less than P3,000 2.5% 9.4% 8.6%
P3,000 - 4,999 5.0% 21.9% 20.0%
P5,000 - 9,999 40.0% 38.4% 38.6%
P10,000 - 14,999 17.5% 15.6% 15.8%
P15,000 - 19,999 20.0% 7.5% 8.9%
P20,000 - 29,999 5.0% 3.8% 3.9%
P30,000 - 49,999 10.0% 2.8% 3.6%
P50,000 or over 0.0% 0.6% 0.6%
Average total monthly household

expenditure (in Pesos) P 13,444 P 10,362 P 10,704
N Cases 40 320 360
Consistent with their incomes, the average monthly household expenditure of connected
households (P13,444) is higher than in non-connected households (P10,362). Apparently,
more connected households (35%) spend from P15,000 or over than non-connected
households (14.7%). Conversely, the proportion of non-connected households (69.7%)
spending less than P10,000 is higher compared to the connected households with 47.5%.

Savings (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Average Total Monthly WD- Non- Total
Savings connected connected
HHs HHs
None 65.0% 74.5% 73.5%
Less than P1,000 20.0% 11.0% 11.9%
P1,000 - 1,999 2.5% 6.5% 6.1%
P2,000 - 2,999 5.0% 2.4% 2.7%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.0% 0.9% 0.8%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.0% 0.9% 0.8%
167
P5,000 or over 7.5% 3.9% 4.2%
N Cases 40 337 377
The proportion of households without savings is higher among the non-connected

households than among the connected households.
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of the Household Head
Type of Household
Sex of the Household WD- Non- Total
Head connected connected
HHs HHs
Male 59.5% 72.5% 71.1%
Female 40.5% 27.5% 28.9%
N Cases 42 342 384
Majority of the households are headed by male. The proportion of male-headed households
among the WD-connected households is 59.5%; 72.5% among the non-connected
households.

the Household Head
Type of Household
Highest Grade Completed by the WD- Non- Total
Household Head connected connected
HHs HHs
No schooling 0.0% 0.9% 0.8%
Elementary 9.5% 18.0% 17.1%
High School 33.3% 42.9% 41.8%
Vocational training 14.3% 14.5% 14.5%
College and over 42.9% 23.7% 25.8%
N Cases 42 338 380
There is a higher proportion of highly educated household heads among the connected
households (42.9%) compared to the non-connected households). Non-connected
households have 42.9% household heads who have reached the high school level compared
to the 33.3% of the connected households. Further, more household heads in non-
connected households (18%) have elementary education compared to heads of connected
households (9.5%). Data shows that household heads in connected households are able to
achieve higher education than those in non-connected households.
168
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Households by Current Occupation of the

Household Head
Type of Household
Current Occupation of the WD- Non- Total
Household Head connected connected
HHs HHs
Farming or fishing 7.1% 16.1% 15.1%
Own business 16.7% 9.7% 10.4%
Government employee 11.9% 3.5% 4.4%
Private employee 9.5% 7.6% 7.8%
Temporary laborer 2.4% 5.9% 5.5%
Street vendor 0.0% 1.8% 1.6%
Retired/Pensioner 16.7% 6.5% 7.6%
Unemployed 23.8% 15.2% 16.2%
Others 11.9% 33.7% 31.3%
N Cases 42 341 383
Unemployment of the household head is more prevalent among the connected households
with 23.8% compared to non-connected households with 15.2%. Private and government
employees are currently in 21.4% of connected households but less in non-connected
households with 11.1%. Business endeavors are undertaken by more households with
connection (16.7%) than in non-connected households (9.7%). Likewise, household heads
dependent on pension is higher in connected households with 16.7% than in non-connected
households with 6.5%. On the other hand, occupation on farming and fishing are engaged in
by more in households without connection (16.1%) than those with connection (7.1%).
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the House

Occupied
Type of Household
Ownership Status of WD- Non- Total
the House connected connected
HHs HHs
House owner 81.0% 83.0% 82.8%
Caretaker 7.1% 3.2% 3.6%
Rent-free occupant 7.1% 7.0% 7.0%
Renter 2.4% 5.3% 4.9%
Others: relatives, etc 2.4% 1.5% 1.6%
N Cases 42 342 384
More than eighty percent of the households own the houses they occupy. A higher
proportion of connected households (19%) do not own the houses they reside in as
compared to 17% of the non-connected households.
169
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot on

which House is Built
Type of Household
Ownership Status of WD- Non- Total
the Lot connected connected
HHs HHs
Owned 66.7% 38.0% 41.1%
Caretaker 4.8% 4.4% 4.4%
Rented/Leased 2.4% 6.1% 5.7%
Common property with other
family members or relatives 26.2% 22.2% 22.7%
Government land 0.0% 26.3% 23.4%
Others 0.0% 2.9% 2.6%
N Cases 42 342 384
Ownership of occupied lot is more common among the connected households (66.7%) than
among the non-connected households (38%). Shared ownership with relatives is also higher
among connected households (26.2%) than in non-connected households (22.2%). A big
proportion of non-connected households (26.3%) are residing on houses built on government
lands.
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Building/House
Type of Household
Type of building/house WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Single 95.2% 87.7% 88.5%
Duplex 2.4% 9.7% 8.9%
Apartment/condominium/
townhouse 2.4% 1.2% 1.3%
Commercial/industrial/agricultural
bldg 0.0% 0.9% 0.8%
Others 0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
N Cases 42 341 383
Almost all of the homes of connected households (95.2%) and 87.7% of non-connected
households are of the single detached type. There are more duplex type homes among non-
connected households (9.7%) than in connected households (2.4%). Likewise, households in
apartments/condominiums/ townhouses are greater in connected households (2.4%) than in
non-connected households (1.2%).
170
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Materials that Predominantly

Make Up the Dwelling Unit
Type of Household
Observed materials that make up WD- Non- Total
the dwelling unit connected connected
HHs HHs
Strong materials 81.0% 53.5% 56.5%
Light materials 9.5% 14.6% 14.1%
Mixed but predominantly strong
materials 7.1% 17.8% 16.7%
materials 2.4% 8.2% 7.6%
Salvaged/makeshift materials 0.0% 5.8% 5.2%
Mixed but predominantly salvaged
materials 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 42 342 384
Dwelling units made up of strong and mixed but predominantly strong materials are observed
in 88% of connected households and 71.3% of non-connected households. On the other
hand, houses made up of light materials and mixed but predominantly light materials are
more common among the non-connected households (22.8%) than in connected households
(11.9%).
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Sources of Water

Type of Household
Primary Source of Water WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Piped connection 100.0% 8.2% 18.2%
Public/Street faucet 0.0% 0.9% 0.8%
Deep well 2.4% 10.2% 9.4%
Shallow well 38.1% 89.2% 83.6%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
Rain 0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
Water vendors 28.6% 39.2% 38.0%
N Cases 42 342 384
Primary sources of water of most households are from shallow wells (83.6%) and water
vendors (38%). Water from piped connection is availed of by 18.2% of the total households.
Specifically, 38.1% of households with piped connection still get water from shallow wells,
28.6% purchase water vendors and 2.4% pump water from deep wells. Non-connected
171
households obtain water mostly from shallow wells (89.2%), water vendors (39.2%), deep
well (10.2%) and piped connection (8.2%).
Type of Household
Type of Toilet Facility WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
connected to septic tank 100.0% 77.1% 79.6%
connected to pit 0.0% 9.1% 8.1%
connected to drainage 0.0% 1.2% 1.0%
improved pit, sanitary pit privy,
closed pit) 0.0% 11.1% 9.9%
Non-water sealed (open pit privy,
overhang) 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
Shared toilet 0.0% 1.2% 1.0%
Public toilet
No toilet (wrap and throw, arinola,
bush, sea/marshland , river 42 341 383
N Cases 213 172 385
Practically all of the WD-connected households and 77.1% of non-connected households

use the water-sealed toilet connected to septic tank. More than one-fifth of the non-
connected households use toilet facilities which are either connected to pit, shared/ public.
Some 1.2% of the non-connected households have no toilets at all.
172
III. WATER CONSUMPTION AND PREFERENCES OF WD-CONNECTED

HOUSEHOLDS: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Reason for Water Connection

Reason(s) Percent
Convenience 82.9%
Health safeguard against
24.4%
water-borne diseases
Reliability of water supply 19.5%
Status symbol (lifestyle) 2.4%
Inadequacy of other
19.5%
sources
Cheaper 4.9%
N Cases 41
As reported by eight out of ten households in Metro La Union WD (83%), convenience is the
leading reason for water connection. The other main reasons for water connection as cited
by households in Metro La Union WD are as safeguard against water-borne diseases (24%),
reliability of water supply (20%) and inadequacy of other sources (20%).
Table 2. Volume and Cost of Water Consumption of WD-Connected Households
Indicator Amount N Cases

WD water consumed by
connected household per 28.8 cu.m. 38
month (In Cu. Meter)
Average monthly water bill that
WD-connected household P 413.85 41
pays (In Pesos)
On the average, the monthly volume of water consumption by households in Metro La Union
WD is 28.8 cubic meters and their average monthly water bill is P413.85.
173
Table 3. Average Volume of Additional Water from Other Sources Used by WD-
Connected Households (In gallons per day)
Average Volume
Source N Cases
(gal/day)
Public faucet - -
Private deep well - -
Private shallow well 206.8 6
Spring/River/ Stream/ - -
Pond
Rain - -
Water vendors 5.0 1
Purified water refilling 1.7 3
station
The leading additional water source in terms of average daily volume among Metro La Union
WD households is private shallow well at a daily average of 207 gallons. Water vendors and
purified water refilling stations are the other additional water sources among the households
using on daily average of five and two gallons per day, respectively.
Table 4. Average Cost per Day (in Pesos) of Additional Water Collected from Other
Sources of WD-connected Households
Average Cost
Source N Cases
(in Pesos)
Public faucet - -
Private shallow well - -
Pond
Rain - -
Water vendors 4.00 1
station
The most expensive source of additional water is the purified water refilling station with
households in Metro La Union WD spending P15 per day for additional water from this
source. The average daily cost of additional water for households in Metro La Union WD
from water vendors is P4. No cost is reported for additional water collected from private
shallow wells in the district.
174
Table 5. Average Time Consumed (in minutes per day) to Collect Additional Water from
Other Sources by WD-connected Households
Average
Source Time N Cases
(min/day)
Public faucet - -
Pond
Rain - -
Water vendors 0.0 1
station
It takes about six minutes on average for WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD
to collect additional water from private shallow well, which is the source of water that gives
the longest time consumed to collect additional water.
Table 6. Average Distance (in meters) of Other Water Sources from the Dwelling
Unit of WD-connected Household
Average
Source N Cases
Distance (meters
Public faucet - -
Pond
Water vendors - -
Purified water refilling - -
station
The average distance of private shallow wells from the dwelling units of WD-connected
households in Metro La Union WD is eight meters.
175
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Other

Households/Families Using Water from Their Piped Water Connection
Indicators Percent
% of Households providing piped
22.0%
water to neighbors/ relatives
N Cases 41
Number of other households/families

using water from piped water
1 household/family 42.9%
2 households/families 28.6%
5 or more households/ families 0.0%
N Cases 7
More than one in every five of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (22%)
shares their piped water to neighbors or relatives. Of these households sharing water from
water district-connected piped water, 43% share water with one household/family, 29% with
two and three households/families and none share their piped water with four or more
households/families.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Households by Availability of Piped Water during

Ordinary Days (Number of Hours in a Day)
Availability of piped water during

Percent
ordinary days
Less than 5 hours a day 4.9%
5-9 hours a day 4.9%
24 hours a day 80.5%
N Cases 41
Four out of five WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (81%) enjoy a 24-hour
piped water supply during ordinary days. Conversely, about one-fifth of the WD-connected
households in the area (19%) do not enjoy this round-the-clock availability of piped water.
176
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Households by Availability of Piped Water

during Ordinary Days (Number of Days in a Week)
Availability of piped water

Percent
during ordinary days
3 days in a week 2.4%
7 days a week 95.1%
N Cases 41
Almost all of the WD-connected households in the Metro La Union WD district (95%) have
available piped water supply seven days of the week.

during Summer (Number of Days in a Week)

Percent
during summer
7 days a week 95.1%
No information -
N Cases 41
Almost all of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (95%) enjoy the
availability of water, every day of the week, even during the summer season.

during Rainy Season (Number of Days in a Week)

Percent
during rainy season
Everyday of the week 92.7%
N Cases 41
177
During the rainy season, nine out of ten WD-connected households In Metro La Union WD
district (93%) enjoy the availability of water, seven days of the week.
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Level of Satisfaction on the

Quality of Piped Water
Level of Satisfaction Percent

Taste
Extremely unsatisfied 12.5%
Moderately unsatisfied 27.5%
Moderately satisfied 42.5%
Extremely satisfied 15.0%
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied 2.5%
Smell
Color
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Level of Satisfaction on the

Quality of Piped Water (CONTINUATION)

Overall quality of water
N Cases 41
There are differences in the satisfaction level of Metro La Union WD-connected households
when asked about the four aspects of water quality, i.e., taste, smell, and color. More than
half of the households in Metro La Union WD are moderately or extremely satisfied with the
taste (58%) and color (54%) of their piped water. About seven out of ten WD-connected
households in Metro La Union WD (66%) reported satisfaction with the smell of their piped
178
water. In general, three out of five WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (63%)
are satisfied, either moderately or extremely, with the overall quality of their piped water.
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households Using Pump to Increase Pressure,

Description of Current Pressure of Piped Water, Sufficiency of Water from
Piped Connection, and Percentage with Storage Tank
Indicators Percent
Percent of households using pump
to increase the pressure of piped 4.9%
water
N Cases 41
Description of current pressure of

the household’s piped water
Very adequate 22.0%
Adequate 65.9%
Poor 7.3%
Very poor 4.9%
N Cases 41
Only five percent of WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD use pump to increase
the pressure of their piped water which is supported by the fact that most of these
households (88%) described their piped water pressure to be either very adequate or
adequate.
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households Using Pump to Increase Pressure,

Description of Current Pressure of Piped Water, Sufficiency of Water from
Piped Connection, and Percentage with Storage Tank (CONTINUATION)
Indicators Percent
Percent of households who said
that water received from piped
82.9%
connection is sufficient for basic
domestic needs
N Cases 41
Percent of households willing to get

additional water needs from the 42.9%
WD piped connection
N Cases 7
Percent of households with storage

tank 9.8%
N Cases 41
179
Average Capacity of storage tank 111.0

(in cubic meters)
N Cases 3
More than four out of five WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (83%)
recognized sufficiency of piped water for their basic domestic needs. In addition, less than
half of the WD-connected households in this district who perceive insufficiency of piped water
for basic domestics needs (43%) see the need for additional piped water from WD
connection.
One-tenth of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (10%) have water

storage tanks. The average storage capacity of the tanks of these households is 111 cubic
meters.
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households with at Least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases during the Past Year and
Percentage of Households Treating Water from the Faucet
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at least
one member who suffered from
water-related diseases during the 9.8%
past year (April 2008-March
2009)
N Cases 41
Percent of households that treat

water from the faucet before 7.3%
drinking
N Cases 41
Among the WD-connected households in a Metro La Union WD, one out of ten (10%) have
at least one household member who suffered water-related diseases from April, 2008 to
March, 2009. Seven percent of the WD-connected households in the area treat their water
from the faucet before drinking.
Table 15A. Service Performance Rating of Metro La Union WD by Connected

Households
Performance Rating Percent

Continuity of water supply
Very Poor 7.3%
Poor 12.2%
Neutral 12.2%
Good 51.2%
Very Good 17.1%
Reliability of water meter
Very Poor 0.0%
180
Poor 14.6%
Neutral 9.8%
Good 63.4%
Very Good 12.2%
N Cases 41
About seven out of ten WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (68%) rate the
continuity of their water supply from good to very good. On reliability of water meter, three-
fourths of the WD-connected households (76%) rate it as very good or good. It is interesting
to note that one-tenth of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD remained
neutral when rating the continuity of their water supply (12%) and reliability of their water
meter (10%).
Table 15B. Service Performance Rating of Metro La Union WD by Connected

Households (CONTINUATION)
Performance Rating Percent

Regularity of billing and collection
Very Poor 0.0%
Poor 7.3%
Neutral 17.1%
Good 63.4%
Very Good 12.2%
Response to customer complaints

Very Poor 4.9%
Poor 17.1%
Neutral 22.0%
Good 43.9%
Very Good 12.2%
Repair time/services
Very Poor 4.9%
Poor 24.4%
Neutral 22.0%
Good 36.6%
Very Good 12.2%
Overall water supply service

Very Poor 9.8%
Poor 17.1%
Neutral 12.2%
Good 53.7%
181
Very Good 7.3%
N Cases 41
Metro La Union WD is rated as good to very good in terms of regularity of billing and
collection by three-fourths of the WD-connected households in the area (76%). Less than
three in every five WD-connected households in the area (56%) rate the response to
customer complaints to be either good or very good, while less than half of the these
households (49%) have the same positive rating on repair services. For the overall water
supply service of Metro La Union WD, three out of five WD-connected households (61%) rate
it good to very good while 27% gave a negative rating (poor to very poor).
Table 16. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that WD-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services
Amount willing to pay Percent

P1,000/month 0.0%
P 900/month 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0%
P 700/month 2.4%
P 600/month 2.4%
P 500/month 14.6%
P 450/month 7.3%
P 400/month 0.0%
P 350/month 4.9%
P 300/month 7.3%
P 250/month 17.1%
P 200/month 22.0%
P150/month 22.0%
Average Amount of Monthly

P 295.85
Water Bill Willing to Pay
N Cases 41
Less than half of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD (44%) are willing to
pay P200 or less to access improved water supply services. About a quarter of the WD-
connected households (24%) are willing to spend P250 to P300 for improved water supply
services, while almost one-third (32%) are willing to pay more than P300. None of the WD-
connected households in the area are willing to pay P800 or more to access an improved
water supply service.
182
Table 17. Reason(s) of Households for Staying Connected with Piped Water System
Reason for staying connected Percent

Convenience 7.3%
Really want/need the improved
water service 78.0%
Worried about the health risks of
drinking water from other
sources 19.5%
Increased water bill is not too
high 4.9%
N Cases 41
Perceived need for improved existing water supply service as reported by 78% of WD-
connected households in Metro La Union WD is the leading reason of households in this
area for staying connected with piped water system. The other reasons for staying connected
with piped water system conveyed by the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD
are the perceived health risks posed by consuming water from other sources (20%),
convenience (7%) and the not too high increase in water bill (5%).
Table 18. Aspects of WD Services that Households Want to be Improved (Multiple

Responses)
Aspect of WD Services Percent

Water pressure 17.1%
Complaints handling 7.3%
Reduced water rates 22.0%
Repairs 0.0%
Billing 4.9%
Quality of water/
4.7%
clean water
Maintenance of pipes 4.2%
N Cases 41
Most of the WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD reported reduced water rates
(22%) and water pressure (17%) as the main aspects of water services they want to be
improved. The other aspect of WD services that WD-connected households in the area
perceive to need improvement is complaints-handling as reported by seven percent of the
WD-connected households.
183
IV. WATER CONSUMPTION AND PREFERENCES OF NON-CONNECTED

HOUSEHOLDS: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
Table 1A. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of

Water for Various Uses
Water Source Percent

Drinking
Piped water (not own
5.3%
connection)
Public faucet 0.9%
Private deep well 3.5%
Private shallow well 45.7%
Spring/River/ Stream/ Pond 0.3%
Water vendors & peddlers 44.0%
Open dug well 0.3%
Cooking
6.5%
connection)
Public faucet 1.8%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 0.9%
N Cases 343
Less than half of non-connected households in Metro La Union WD source their drinking
water from private shallow wells (46%) and from water vendors and peddlers (44%). A very
few of these non-connected households in the area (5%) identified piped water (but not own
connection) as their source of drinking water.
As for water used for cooking, four out of five non-connected households in Metro La Union
WD (79%) reported getting it from private shallow wells. A very few of these non-connected
households in the district named piped water they do not own (7%) and water
vendors/peddlers (5%) as their main source of water used for cooking.
184
Table 1B. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses (CONTINUATION)

Bathing
5.6%
connection)
Public faucet 1.5%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 1.2%
Gardening
3.1%
connection)
Public faucet 1.7%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 0.7%
N Cases 343
With the available sources of water for non-connected households in Metro La Union WD,
private shallow well is identified to be the lead source of water. Four out of five non-
connected households in the area (82%) source their water used for bathing from private
shallow wells. Same source was reported for water used for gardening as reported by most
non-connected households (83%).
Only very few of the non-connected households in the district get their bathing water (6%)
and gardening water (<5%) from piped water but not their own connection. Interestingly,
some of the non-connected households in the area source their bathing water (8%) and
gardening water (9%) from private deep wells.
185
Table 1C. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses (CONTINUATION)

Cleaning
4.5%
connection)
Public faucet 1.5%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 1.5%
N Cases 343
Consistently, most non-connected households in Metro La Union WD collect water used for
cleaning from private shallow wells (82%). Private deep well seems to be another source of
water used for cleaning as reported by nine percent of the non-connected households in the
area.
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households Paying for Supply

of Piped Water from Other Household’s Connection
Indicators Percent
Percent of households paying

for supply of piped water 36.7%
from other’s connection
N Cases 24
To whom paying
Neighbor/Relative who has
90.9%
own WD piped connection
No information 9.1%
N Cases 11
Many non-connected households in Metro La Union WD district (37%) that access piped
connection from others are paying for that piped water supply. Nine out of ten of these
households in Metro La Union WD (91%) are paying either to a neighbor or a relative who
has WD piped connection.
186
Table 3. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Not Being Connected to the

Piped Water System (Multiple Responses)
Reason for not being

Percent
connected
Connection is not available 54.7%
Connection fee too high 18.1%
Present water source is
14.9%
adequate & satisfactory
Monthly charges too high 10.5%
House is being rented 2.6%
Disconnected 7.0%
WD piped water not
4.1%
safe/clean
Waiting list for connection 1.2%
N Cases 342
Non-availability of water connection leads as a reason for not being connected to piped water
as reflected in the responses of more than half of the non-connected households in Metro La
Union WD (55%). The other leading reasons for not being connected to piped water are the
high connection fee, current adequate water sources and high monthly charges as reported
by 18%, 15% and 11% of the non-connected households, respectively.
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Perceived/

Observed Availability of Water Service in their Household
Availability of water service Percent

Perceived/Observed availability
of water service in the
household
Sufficient all year round 82.7%
Insufficient during dry
12.9%
season
Insufficient sometimes 3.2%
Insufficient mostly 0.0%
No information 1.2%
N Cases 342
Percent of non-connected
12.1%
households with storage tank
N Cases 339
Most of the non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (83%) perceive that water
service in the household is sufficient all year round. Only a few of these non-connected
households in the area (17%) reported insufficiency of water at certain times. Some of the
non-connected households in the water district have water storage tanks as reported by 12%
of the households.
187
Table 5. Average Volume of Water Consumption of Non-connected Households by

Type of Use (In gallons per day)
Volume of Water Consumption

Type of Use (gal/day) N Cases
Minimum Maximum Average
Drinking 0.25 112.00 2.76 337
Cooking 0.25 42.00 4.92 336
Bathing 4.00 169.00 32.19 336
Gardening 0.25 127 7.25 281
Cleaning 0.25 264 6.95 331
In general, among non-connected households in Metro La Union WD, more water is used in
bathing with a daily average household consumption of 32 gallons. Other fundamental uses
of water among non-connected households in this district are gardening and cleaning, with a
daily average consumption of seven gallons per household. The average daily water
consumption of non-connected households for cooking and drinking are five and three
gallons, respectively.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Persons Usually

Fetching Water from the Source
Person(s) usually fetching

water from source Percent
Adult male household
member(s) 42.5%
Adult female household
member(s) 33.5%
Children 11.1%
Anyone available 12.9%
N Cases 334
Two in every five non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (43%) district admitted
that adult male household members are the usual fetchers of water from its source.
Meanwhile, one-third of the non-connected households in the district (34%) claim that the
persons usually fetching water from its source are adult female household members.
188
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Means of

Transporting Water
Means of transport Percent

Water truck 1.5%
Tricycle 0.9%
Carry using pail/open
86.1%
containers
Carry using closed
3.1%
containers
Pipe or water hose
8.0%
connected to neighbor
Carry using both closed &
0.0%
open containers
Bicycle/Motorcycle 0.0%
Own car/jeepney 0.3%
Push cart 0.0%
N Cases 323
Most of the non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (86%) carry water using pail or
any other open container from the water source to their dwelling units. A very few of non-
connected households in the district (8%) use pipe or water hose connected to a neighbor.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Total Time Spent

Collecting Water per Day (In number of hours) and Schedule of Collecting
Indicators Percent
Total time spent
0.5 – 1 hour 97.5%
1.1 – 2 hours 1.3%
2- 4 hours 0.3%
5 hours or more 0.9%
N Cases 319
Schedule of collecting
Morning 21.6%
Evening 1.6%
Afternoon 1.3%
Anytime 75.6%
N Cases 320
189
Half of an hour to an hour per day is spent collecting water by almost all of the non-
connected households in Metro La Union WD (98%). A very few non-connected households
(<5%) spend more than an hour daily in collecting water.
For three-fourths of the non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (76%), there is no

particular time of the day scheduled for water collection as they do it anytime. However, a
considerable proportion of non-connected households in the district (22%) prefer to collect
water in the morning.
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Level of

Satisfaction on the Quality of Water from their Current Sources

Taste
Smell
Color
N Cases 339
When rating the different aspects of water quality such as taste, smell and color, the level of
satisfaction of most non-connected households in the district reflects uniformity. Almost all of
the non-connected households affirmed their satisfaction with the taste (91%), smell (95%)
and color (95%) of their water. Also, almost all of the non-connected households in Metro La
Union WD (94%) are moderately to extremely satisfied with the overall quality of their water.
190
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households with at Least One

Member who Suffered from Water-related Diseases during the Past Year
and Percentage of Households Treating Water from the Faucet
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at
least one member who suffered
from water-related diseases 4.1%
during the past year (April 2008-
March 2009)
N Cases 342
% of HH with at least one adult

member who got sick with:
Diarrhea 2.9%
Amoebiasis 0.0%
Gastroenteritis 0.0%
Dysentery 0.0%
Skin diseases 0.0%
N Cases 342
% of HH with at least one child

member who got sick with:
Diarrhea 1.5%
Amoebiasis 0.6%
N Cases 342
Average number of days sick

with:
Diarrhea 2.9 (12 cases)
Amoebiasis 4.5 (2 cases)
Average cost of medication for:

Diarrhea P 203
Amoebiasis P 198
Percent of households that treat

water from the faucet before 17.9%
drinking
N Cases 341
Only four percent of the non-connected households in Metro La Union WD have a member
who suffered from water-related diseases mainly diarrhea during the past year, from April
2008 to March 2009. About one-fifth of the non-connected households in the district (18%)
treat water from the faucet before drinking.
191
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households Willing to Connect

to the WD Water Supply System
Indicators Percent
Percent of non-connected households willing to
41.8%
connect with the existing water supply system
N Cases 342
Percent of non-connected households willing to

connect if existing water supply system will be
improved (out of the households who do not 5.1%
want to connect to the existing water supply
system)
N Cases 195
Absolute proportion of non-connected households

44.7%
willing to connect to the water supply system
N Cases 342
Two in every five non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (42%) is willing to

connect with the existing district water supply system. Among the non-connected households
who do not want to connect to the existing water supply system, very few (5%) are willing to
connect if improvements are made on the existing system. On the whole, improved or not
improved, less than half of non-connected households in the area (45%) are willing to have
their own connection with the piped water system.
Table 12. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Their Willingness/

Unwillingness to Connect to the WD Piped Water System (Multiple
Responses)
Willingness/ Unwillingness to Connect to the

Percent
WD Piped Water System
Reason for willingness to connect
Convenience 21.0%
Really want/need the improved water service 69.4%
Worried about the health risks of the water from
18.5%
current source
Water bill is not too high 6.4%
N Cases 157
Reason for unwillingness to connect

Happy with our existing water source 69.7%
Monthly water bill is too high 28.6%
Connection charge is too high 19.5%
Do not own land/house occupied 4.9%
192
Do not really want/need the improved service 3.2%

Not worried about the health risks from my
0.0%
existing water source
N Cases 185
About seven in every ten non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (69%) stated
that their leading reason for their willingness to avail of piped water connection is their need
from improved water service. While some of the non-connected households in the area
(21%) claimed they will avail of the piped water connection because of convenience, the
reasons of other non-connected households are their health risk worries with their current
water source (19%) and their perceived inexpensive water bill collected by the Metro La
Union WD (6%).
The leading cause of unwillingness to connect to the existing water supply system is
contentment with their existing water source as seen from the response of seven out of ten
non-connected households in Metro La Union WD (70%). Interestingly, 30% of the non-
connected households in the district perceive the monthly water bill to be too high, hence
their reluctance to connect to the existing water supply system. Moreover, one-fifth of the
households in the Metro La Union WD district (20%) cited high connection charges as a
reason that keeps them from connecting to the existing water supply system.
Table 13. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that Non-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services
Amount willing to pay Percent

P1,000/month 1.3%
P 900/month 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0%
P 700/month 0.0%
P 600/month 2.0%
P 500/month 7.2%
P 450/month 1.3%
P 400/month 2.0%
P 350/month 4.6%
P 300/month 8.5%
P 250/month 22.2%
P 200/month 24.2%
P150/month 26.8%
Average Amount of Monthly

P 260.55
Water Bill Willing to Pay
N Cases 153
About three in four non-connected households in Metro La Union WD who are willing to pay
if they were to connect to the water district (73%) are willing to pay within the range of P150
to P250 per month. Twenty seven percent of these non-connected households in the area
193
are willing to pay P300 to P1,000 per month. Generally, the average amount of monthly
water bill that non-connected households are willing to pay is estimated to be at P261 in
Metro La Union WD.
Table 14. Willingness to Connect by Total Household Monthly Income among Non-
connected Households
Percent of
Total Household Monthly
HHs willing to N cases
Income
connect
No income 100.0% 1
Less than P5,000 24.3% 74
P5,000 - 9,999 48.2% 112
P10,000 - 14,999 43.3% 67
P15,000 - 19,999 36.1% 36
P20,000 - 29,999 56.5% 23
P30,000 - 39,999 37.5% 8
P40,000 - 49,999 60.0% 5
P50,000 or more 50.0% 10
Total 41.8% 342
There seems to be no distinct pattern between the willingness of non-connected households

to connect with the current water supply system and their total household monthly income.
About a fourth of non-connected households with less than P5,000 monthly income (24%)
are willing to connect to the current water supply system. Less than half of the non-
connected households in the district with monthly income that falls between P5,000 and
P19,999 declared their willingness to connect to the existing water supply system. More than
half of the non-connected households in the district who have a monthly income of P50,000
or more (60%) are willing to connect to the existing water supply system.
194
V. WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PREFERENCES BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC

STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Socio-Economic Status of Households
Socio-Economic Status Percent

Poor 35.7%
Non-poor 64.3%
N Cases 384
For this study, classification of households according to socio-economic status was done
using the 2007 per capita poverty thresholds – such that those that fall below the poverty
threshold are categorized as poor, and conversely, those above the threshold level are
considered non-poor. Different threshold levels are used corresponding to the geographic
location. The urban poverty threshold used for Metro La Union WD is P17,249. Data shows
that there are more non-poor households (64%) in Metro La Union WD compared to the poor
households (36%).
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Headship by Socio-

Economic Status
SE Status
Total
Poor Non-poor
Male-headed 76.6% 68.0% 71.1%
Female-headed 23.4% 32.0% 28.9%
N Cases 137 247 384
Regardless of the socio-economic status, households in Metro La Union WD are mostly

headed by males. Although it can be observed from the above table that male-headship is
more prevalent among the poor households (77%) compared to the non-poor households
(68%).
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Households by Water Pipe Connection Status by

Socio-Economic Status
SE Status
Poor Non-poor Total
WD-Connected 6.6% 13.4% 10.9%
Non-connected 93.4% 86.6% 89.1%
N Cases 137 247 384
In general, it seems that there are few WD-connected households in Metro La Union WD.
Even with the low WD coverage in the area, the stark difference in water pipe connection
between poor and non-poor households can still be observed. There are more non-poor
households in Metro La Union WD (13%) that are WD-connected compared to the poor
households (7%).
195
Table 4. Preference for Septage System Improvement by Socio-economic Status of

Households
SE Status
Indicator Total
Poor Non-poor
Percent of HHs that would like to
24.0% 26.7% 25.7%
improve septage system
N Cases 121 225 346
Type of improvement preferred

Installation of septic tank 31.0% 52.5% 45.6%
Improvement/ rehabilitation of
37.9% 29.5% 32.2%
existing septic tank
De-sludging of septic tank 31.0% 24.6% 26.7%
N Cases 29 61 90
Percent of households willing to pay

for:
Installation of septic tank 28.0% 49.1% 42.7%
N cases 25 57 82
Improvement/ rehabilitation of
40.0% 22.4% 28.4%
existing septic tank
N cases 25 49 74
De-sludging of septic tank 34.6% 28.0% 30.3%
N Cases 26 50 76
Poverty in Metro La Union WD does not seem to impact on the desire for an improved
septage system. About a fourth of households in the area (24% poor households and 27%
non-poor households) would like to improve their current septage system.
There are marked differences in the type of improvements preferred by poor and non-poor
households in Metro La Union WD. More non-poor households in the district have preference
for installation of septic tank (53%). Meanwhile, improvement/rehabilitation of existing ones
(38%) and de-sludging of septic tank (31%) is more common among the poor households in
this district.
As expected, more non-poor households in Metro La Union WD (49%) are willing to pay for
the installation of a septic tank, while, there are more poor households that are willing to pay
for the rehabilitation of existing ones (40%) and de-sludging services (35%).
196
Table 5. Willingness to Connect to the Existing/Improved Water Supply System by

Socio-Economic Status of Households
SE Status
Indicator Total
Poor Non-poor
households willing to connect to 37.5% 44.4% 41.8%
the existing water supply system
N Cases 128 214 342
households willing to connect if
existing water supply system will
be improved (out of the 6.4% 4.3% 5.1%
households who do not want to
connect to the existing water
supply system)
N Cases 78 117 195
Absolute proportion of non-

connected households willing to
41.1% 46.8% 44.7%
connect to the water supply
system
N Cases 128 214 342
In Metro La Union WD, willingness to connect to the existing piped water system is higher
among the non-poor non-connected households (44%) than poor non-connected households
(38%).
Those who refused to be connected to the existing system were further asked about their
willingness to connect if existing water supply system would be improved. More poor non-
connected households (6%) than non-poor non-connected households (4%) gave positive
responses.
Generally, improved or not improved existing water supply system, four out of ten poor non-
connected households in Metro La Union WD (41%) are willing to have their own connection
with the piped water system, while about almost half of the non-poor non-connected
households (47%) are willing to be connected to the piped water system.
197
ANNEX 1
Gender Tables
198
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households

Occupying the Dwelling Unit by Household Headship
HH Headship
Number of Households Male- Female- Total
headed HHs headed HHs
1 80.2% 70.3% 77.3%
2 17.9% 20.7% 18.8%
3 1.8% 4.5% 2.6%
4 or more 0.0% 4.5% 1.3%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Size by Household

Headship
HH Headship
Number of Household Members Male- Female- Total
1-2 8.1% 11.7% 9.1%
3-4 32.6% 39.6% 34.6%
5-6 38.5% 25.2% 34.6%
7-8 16.1% 12.6% 15.1%
9 - 10 2.6% 1.8% 2.3%
More than 10 2.2% 9.0% 4.2%
N Cases 273 111 384

Members 14 Years Old and Below by Household Headship
Number of Household Members HH Headship

14 Years Old and Below Male- Female- Total
None 23.8% 45.0% 29.9%
1-2 53.5% 36.0% 48.4%
3-4 20.5% 13.5% 18.5%
5-6 1.8% 3.6% 2.3%
7-8 0.0% 1.8% 0.5%
9-10 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
N Cases 273 111 384
199

Members 65 Years Old or Over by Household Headship

65 Years Old or Over Male- Female- Total
None 83.5% 60.4% 76.8%
1-2 15.8% 38.7% 22.4%
3-4 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
5 or more 0.4% 0.9% 0.5%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Households by Length of Stay in the Barangay by

Household Headship
HH Headship
Length of Stay in the Barangay Male- Female- Total
Less than 10 28.0% 18.3% 25.3%
10 – 19 years 23.2% 11.9% 20.0%
20 – 29 years 17.3% 15.6% 16.8%
30 – 39 years 9.6% 22.0% 13.2%
40 – 49 years 11.8% 11.9% 11.8%
More than 50 years 10.0% 20.2% 12.9%
N Cases 271 109 380
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household Income

by Household Headship
Total Monthly HH Headship

Household Income Male- Female- Total
No income 0.0% 1.9% 0.5%
Less than P5,000 23.0% 14.8% 20.7%
P5,000 - 9,999 33.8% 28.7% 32.4%
P10,000 - 14,999 18.6% 24.1% 20.2%
P15,000 - 19,999 10.4% 13.0% 11.1%
P20,000 - 29,999 7.4% 9.3% 8.0%
P30,000 - 39,999 3.0% 1.9% 2.7%
P40,000 - 49,999 1.5% 1.9% 1.6%
P50,000 or more 2.2% 4.6% 2.9%
N Cases 269 108 377
200
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household

Expenditure by Household Headship
Total Monthly HH Headship

Household Income Male- Female- Total
Less than P3,000 7.0% 12.6% 8.6%
P3,000 - 4,999 22.2% 14.6% 20.0%
P5,000 - 9,999 40.1% 35.0% 38.6%
P10,000 - 14,999 16.0% 15.5% 15.8%
P15,000 - 19,999 7.4% 12.6% 8.9%
P20,000 - 29,999 3.5% 4.9% 3.9%
P30,000 - 49,999 3.9% 2.9% 3.6%
P50,000 or over 0.0% 1.9% 0.6%
N Cases 257 103 360

Savings by Household Headship
Average Total Monthly HH Headship

Household Savings Male- Female- Total
None 73.5% 73.4% 73.5%
Less than P1,000 11.6% 12.8% 11.9%
P1,000 - 1,999 6.7% 4.6% 6.1%
P2,000 - 2,999 2.6% 2.8% 2.7%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.0% 2.8% 0.8%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.7% 0.9% 0.8%
P5,000 or over 4.9% 2.8% 4.2%
N Cases 268 109 377
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Household Members

Currently Working or Employed by Household Headship

Currently Working or Employed Male- Female- Total
None 6.2% 22.5% 10.9%
1-2 members 85.7% 68.5% 80.7%
3-4 members 7.0% 6.3% 6.8%
5 or more members 1.1% 2.7% 1.6%
201
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 10. Proportion of Households With at Least One Member Who Had Borrowed
Money during the Past year by Household Headship
HH Headship
Indicator Male- Female- Total
Proportion of households with at
least one member who had
61.5% 63.1% 62.0%
borrowed money during the
past year
N Cases 273 111 384

Household Head by Household Headship
Highest Grade Completed by HH Headship

Household Head Male- Female- Total
No schooling 0.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Elementary 14.1% 24.5% 17.1%
High School 41.5% 42.7% 41.8%
Vocational training 17.8% 6.4% 14.5%
College and over 25.9% 25.5% 25.8%
N Cases 270 110 380
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Occupation of Household Head

HH Headship
Occupation of Household Head Male- Female- Total
Farming or fishing 19.1% 5.4% 15.1%
Own business 8.1% 16.2% 10.4%
Government employee 5.1% 2.7% 4.4%
Private employee 11.0% 0.0% 7.8%
Temporary laborer 7.7% 0.0% 5.5%
Street vendor 0.7% 3.6% 1.6%
Retired/Pensioner 4.4% 15.3% 7.6%
Unemployed 8.8% 34.2% 16.2%
Others 34.9% 22.5% 31.3%
N Cases 272 111 383
202
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of House

Occupied by Household Headship
Ownership Status of House HH Headship

Occupied Male- Female- Total
House owner 81.0% 87.4% 82.8%
Caretaker 4.8% 0.9% 3.6%
Rent-free occupant 8.1% 4.5% 7.0%
Renter 4.4% 6.3% 4.9%
Living with relatives 1.8% 0.9% 1.6%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot

Occupied on Which House is Built by Household Headship
Ownership Status of the Lot HH Headship

Occupied on Which House is Male- Female- Total
Built headed HHs headed HHs
Owned 39.9% 44.1% 41.1%
Caretaker 5.5% 1.8% 4.4%
Rented/Leased 4.8% 8.1% 5.7%
Common property w/ other
26.0% 14.4% 22.7%
family members/relatives
Government land 20.9% 29.7% 23.4%
Others 2.9% 1.8% 2.6%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 15. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of House/Building Occupied

Type of House or Building HH Headship

Occupied Male- Female- Total
Single 88.2% 89.2% 88.5%
Duplex 8.5% 9.9% 8.9%
Apartment/condo/townhouse 1.5% 0.9% 1.3%
Commercial/industrial or
1.1% 0.0% 0.8%
agricultural bldg
Others 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
N Cases 272 111 383
203
Table 16. Percentage Distribution of Households by Observed Materials that Make Up

the Dwelling Unit by Household Headship
Observed materials that make HH Headship

up the dwelling unit Male- Female- Total
Strong materials 57.5% 54.1% 56.5%
Light materials 13.9% 14.4% 14.1%
Mixed but predominantly
16.8% 16.2% 16.7%
strong materials
6.6% 9.9% 7.6%
materials
Salvaged/makeshift materials 5.1% 5.4% 5.2%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 17. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Water Sources (Multiple

Responses) by Household Headship
HH Headship
Primary Water Source Male- Female- Total
Piped connection 18.3% 18.0% 18.2%
Shallow well 83.5% 83.8% 83.6%
Water vendors 34.4% 46.8% 38.0%
Deep well 9.9% 8.1% 9.4%
Public/Street faucet 0.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
Rain 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 18. Proportion of Households that Have WD Pipe Connection by Household

Headship
HH Headship
Indicator Male- Female- Total
Proportion of households that
9.2% 15.3% 10.9%
have WD pipe connection
N Cases 273 111 384
204

Owned/Used by Household Headship
Type of Toilet Facility HH Headship

Owned/Used Male- Female- Total
Water-sealed (flush/pourflush)
76.1% 88.3% 79.6%
connected to septic tank
Shared toilet 12.1% 4.5% 9.9%
Water-sealed (flush/pourflush)
8.5% 7.2% 8.1%
connected to pit
improved pit, sanitary pit 1.5% 0.0% 1.0%
privy)
No toilet (wrap and throw,
arinola, bush, sea/marshland , 1.5% 0.0% 1.0%
river )
Public toilet 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
N Cases 272 111 383
Table 20. Proportion of Survey Respondents Satisfied with Current Toilet System
Owned/Used and Willing to Improve Current Septage System by Household
Headship
HH Headship
Indicators Male- Female- Total
Proportion of survey
respondents satisfied with
90.8% 93.6% 91.6%
current toilet system
owned/used
N Cases 273 110 383
Proportion of survey
respondents willing to improve 28.3% 19.8% 25.7%
current septage system
N Cases 240 106 346
Table 21a. Hygiene and Sanitation Practices by Household Headship
HH Headship
Percent of households whose

members wash hands before 98.5% 100.0% 99.0%
cooking
205
N Cases 273 111 384

eating
N Cases 273 111 384

members wash hands after 99.3% 100.0% 99.5%
using toilet
N Cases 273 111 384

breastfeeding
N Cases 40 12 52
Table 21b. Hygiene and Sanitation Practices by Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship

feeding children
N Cases 69 25 94

changing diaper
N Cases 48 15 63

washing the children after toilet
N Cases 91 36 127
206
Table 22. Percentage Distribution of Households by Place where Children &Infants go

for Toilet Purposes by Household Headship
Place where Children &Infants HH Headship

go for Toilet Purposes Male- Female- Total
Toilet 92.6% 95.6% 93.5%

Garden/backyard 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
Urinals/urinola 0.9% 1.1% 0.9%
Disposable diapers 4.3% 1.1% 3.4%
N Cases 231 91 322
Table 23. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Times Household Eat

in a Day by Household Headship
Number of Times Household HH Headship

Eat in a Day Male- Female- Total
1-2 times a day 2.9% 3.6% 3.1%
3 times a day 93.4% 86.5% 91.4%
4 times or more 2.6% 7.2% 3.9%
No information 1.1% 2.7% 1.6%
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 24. Child and Maternal Mortality Experience by Household Headship
HH Headship
Percent of households with
children who died before 8.1% 12.6% 9.4%
reaching the age of 6
N Cases 273 111 384
Percent of households with

member who died during 3.3% 9.0% 4.9%
pregnancy or while giving birth
N Cases 273 111 384
207
Table 25. Percentage Distribution of Households by Health Facility Sought for Medical
Services by Household Headship
Health Facility Sought for HH Headship

Medical Services Male- Female- Total
Health center 46.2% 43.2% 45.3%
Private clinic 9.2% 6.3% 8.3%
Government hospital 24.9% 21.6% 24.0%
Private hospital 14.7% 21.6% 16.7%
Self medication 1.8% 4.5% 2.6%
Others 3.3% 2.7% 3.1%
Percent of survey respondents

satisfied with available health 97.8% 97.2% 97.6%
services in their locality
N Cases 273 111 384
Table 26. Access to Insurance and Assistance for Health Expenses, and Participation
in Community Organization by Household Headship
HH Headship

least one member who has
69.7% 71.8% 70.3%
Philhealth or any health
insurance coverage
N Cases 273 111 384

least one member who gets
22.9% 28.6% 24.6%
any form of assistance for
health expenses
N Cases 273 111 384

least one member who is a
member of any 30.5% 34.3% 31.6%
organization/association in the
community
N Cases 273 111 384
208
Table 27a. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Decision-making

Patterns by Household Headship
Member of Household who HH Headship

decides Male- Female- Total
When to buy household equipment

Husband 22.1% 7.3% 17.8%
Wife 16.9% 35.5% 22.3%
Both husband/wife 55.1% 16.4% 44.0%
Other member(s) 5.9% 40.9% 16.0%
N Cases 272 110 382
Table 27b. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Decision-making

Patterns by Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
Member of Household who HH Headship

decides Male- Female- Total
When to renovate the house

Husband 27.3% 6.3% 21.2%
Wife 8.1% 36.0% 16.2%
Other member(s) 9.2% 42.3% 18.8%
N Cases 271 111 382
When to build a toilet/septic tank

Husband 29.7% 8.1% 23.4%
Wife 6.6% 34.2% 14.6%
Other member(s) 9.2% 43.2% 19.0%
N Cases 273 111 384
On the family’s economic activity

Husband 18.4% 3.6% 14.1%
Wife 16.9% 43.2% 24.5%
Other member(s) 6.3% 38.7% 15.7%
N Cases 272 111 383
To bring the children to the doctor when sick

Husband 12.8% 3.7% 10.2%
209
Wife 17.4% 46.3% 25.7%

Other member(s) 5.3% 35.2% 13.9%
N Cases 265 108 373
On water connection
Husband 27.4% 5.4% 21.0%
Wife 7.0% 37.8% 16.0%
Other member(s) 7.8% 38.7% 16.8%
N Cases 270 111 381
Table 28. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Responsibility

Patterns by Household Headship
Member of household who is HH Headship

responsible Male- Female- Total
Supervising/reminding the children to wash hands
Husband 7.4% 1.0% 5.6%
Wife 39.9% 55.1% 44.1%
Other member(s) 5.8% 28.6% 12.1%
N Cases 258 98 356
Cleaning the toilet and water containers

Husband 10.7% 0.9% 7.9%
Wife 51.7% 48.6% 50.8%
Other member(s) 11.8% 43.2% 20.9%
N Cases 271 111 382
Removing garbage
Husband 19.6% 0.9% 14.1%
Wife 39.9% 46.8% 41.9%
Other member(s) 14.4% 45.0% 23.3%
N Cases 271 111 382
Cleaning drainage/sewage systems

Husband 24.4% 3.3% 18.0%
Wife 31.5% 45.7% 35.7%
210
Other member(s) 12.7% 42.4% 21.6%
N Cases 213 92 305
211
A. WD-CONNECTED HOUSEHOLDS
Table 29. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Reason for Water

Connection by Household Headship
HH Headship
Reason for Water Connection Male-
headed Female- Total
HHs headed HHs
Convenience 83.3% 82.4% 82.9%
Health safeguard against water-borne
25.0% 23.5% 24.4%
diseases
Reliability of water supply 25.0% 11.8% 19.5%
Status symbol (lifestyle) 0.0% 5.9% 2.4%
Inadequacy of other sources 20.8% 17.6% 19.5%
Cheaper 4.2% 5.9% 4.9%
N Cases 24 17 41
Table 30. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households Providing Water to

Neighbor/ Relatives by Household Headship
HH Headship
Percentage of WD-connected
Households providing water to 29.2% 11.8% 22.0%
neighbor/ relatives
N Cases 24 17 41
Number of other households/families

using water from the household’s piped
water
1 household/family 33.3% 100.0% 42.9%
2 households/families 33.3% 0.0% 28.6%
5 or more households/ families 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 6 1 7
Household is being charged by WD at:

Residential rate 95.8% 94.1% 95.1%
Commercial rate 4.2% 5.9% 4.9%
N Cases 24 17 41
212
Table 31. Proportion of WD-connected Households with at least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases Last Year Due to Consumption of
Water Supplied by Household Headship
HH Headship
Percent of WD-connected Households

with at least one member who suffered
from water-related diseases last year 12.5% 5.9% 9.8%
due to consumption of water supplied
by the water district
24 17 41
N Cases
Percent of WD-connected Households

that treat water from faucet before 4.2% 11.8% 7.3%
drinking
N Cases 24 17 41
Table 32a. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Observed

Pressure and Sufficiency of Piped Water and Use of Water Pump/Tank by
Household Headship
HH Headship
Observed Pressure of Piped Water
Very adequate 25.0% 17.6% 22.0%
Adequate 62.5% 70.6% 65.9%
Poor 8.3% 5.9% 7.3%
Very poor 4.2% 5.9% 4.9%
N Cases 24 17 41
Percent of Households using water pump

8.3% 0.0% 4.9%
to increase the pressure
N Cases 24 17 41
Percent of Households with water

8.3% 11.8% 9.8%
storage tank
N Cases 24 17 41
213
Table 32b. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Observed

Pressure and Sufficiency of Piped Water and Use of Water Pump/Tank by
Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
Percent of Households receiving water

from piped water connection that is 83.3% 82.4% 82.9%
sufficient for their basic domestic needs
N Cases 24 17 41
Percent of Households willing to get

additional water needs from the WD 40.0% 50.0% 42.9%
piped connection
N Cases 5 2 7
Table 33. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that WD-connected Households are Willing to
Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services by Household Headship
HH Headship
Amount Willing to Pay Male- Female- Total
P1,000/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P 900/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 700/month 4.2% 0.0% 2.4%
P 600/month 4.2% 0.0% 2.4%
P 500/month 25.0% 0.0% 14.6%
P 450/month 4.2% 11.8% 7.3%
P 400/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 350/month 4.2% 5.9% 4.9%
P 300/month 8.3% 5.9% 7.3%
P 250/month 16.7% 17.6% 17.1%
P 200/month 12.5% 35.3% 22.0%
P150/month 20.8% 23.5% 22.0%
N Cases 24 17 41
214
Table 34. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Preferred Aspect

of Water District Services Prioritized for Improvement by Household
Headship
Aspect of Water District HH Headship

Services Male- Female- Total
Water pressure 16.7% 17.6% 17.1%

Billing 4.2% 5.9% 4.9%
Complaints handling 12.5% 0.0% 7.3%
Reduced water rates 29.2% 11.8% 22.0%
Repairs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Others 37.5% 64.7% 48.8%
215
B. NON-CONNECTED HOUSEHOLDS
Table 35a. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses by Household Headship
HH Headship
Source of Water Male- Female- Total
For Drinking
5.3% 5.3% 5.3%
connection)
Public faucet/ hydrant 0.4% 2.1% 0.9%
Deep well 4.5% 1.1% 3.5%
Shallow well 47.8% 40.4% 45.7%
Spring/River/Stream/Pond 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
Water vendors & peddlers 41.3% 51.1% 44.0%
Open dug well 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
For Cooking
6.9% 5.4% 6.5%
connection)
Deep well 7.3% 5.4% 6.8%
Shallow well 79.8% 76.3% 78.8%
Open dug well 1.2% 0.0% 0.9%
For bathing
5.6% 5.3% 5.6%
connection)
Deep well 8.1% 8.5% 8.2%
Shallow well 82.7% 80.9% 82.2%
Open dug well 1.6% 0.0% 1.2%
N Cases 248 94 342
Table 35b. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
Source of Water Male- Female- Total
For gardening
2.4% 4.8% 3.1%
connection)
216

Deep well 9.2% 9.6% 9.3%
Shallow well 85.5% 78.3% 83.4%
Open dug well 1.0% 0.0% 0.7%
N Cases 207 83 290
For cleaning
4.6% 4.4% 4.5%
connection)
Deep well 8.3% 9.9% 8.7%
Shallow well 83.0% 81.3% 82.5%
Open dug well 1.7% 0.0% 1.2%
N Cases 241 91 332
Table 36. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Reason for Not

Being Connected to Water District by Household Headship
Reason for Not Being HH Headship Total

Connected to Water District Male- Female-
Connection is not available 55.2% 53.2% 54.7%
Connection fee too high 19.4% 14.9% 18.1%
Present water source is
15.7% 12.8% 14.9%
adequate & satisfactory
Monthly charges too high 11.3% 8.5% 10.5%
House is being rented 2.8% 2.1% 2.6%
Disconnected 5.6% 10.6% 7.0%
WD piped water not safe/clean 4.0% 4.3% 4.1%
Waiting list for connection 1.2% 1.1% 1.2%
N Cases 248 94 342
217
Table 37. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Observed

Availability of Water Service in the Household and Ownership of Water
Storage Tank by Household Headship
HH Headship
Observed availability of water
service in the household
Sufficient all year round 81.0% 87.2% 82.7%
Insufficient during dry season 14.5% 8.5% 12.9%
Insufficient sometimes 3.6% 2.1% 3.2%
Insufficient mostly 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 248 94 342
Percent of Non-connected
Households with water storage 12.6% 10.9% 12.1%
tank
N Cases 247 92 339
Table 38. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Person Fetching

Water from Source by Household Headship
Person Fetching Water from HH Headship Total

Source Male- Female-
Adult male household

46.1% 33.3% 42.5%
member(s)
Adult female household
27.8% 48.4% 33.5%
member(s)
Children 12.0% 8.6% 11.1%
Anyone available 14.1% 9.7% 12.9%
N Cases 241 93 334
218
Table 39. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Means of

Transporting Water from the Water Source by Household Headship
Means of Transporting Water HH Headship

from the Water Source Male- Female- Total
Water truck 1.3% 2.2% 1.5%
Tricycle 0.9% 1.1% 0.9%
Carry using pail/open
84.8% 89.2% 86.1%
containers
Carry using closed containers 3.9% 1.1% 3.1%
Pipe or water hose connected
8.7% 6.5% 8.0%
to neighbor
Carry using both closed &
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
open containers
Bicycle/Motorcycle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Own car/jeepney 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
Push cart 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 230 93 323
Table 40. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Total Time Spent

for Collecting Water per Day (In number of hours) and Schedule of
Collecting by Household Headship
HH Headship
Total time spent
0.5 – 1 hour 90.6% 95.7% 92.0%
1.1 – 2 hours 1.2% 1.1% 1.2%
2- 4 hours 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
5 hours or more 0.8% 1.1% 0.9%
N Cases 245 93 338
Schedule of collecting
Morning 22.6% 13.8% 20.2%
Evening 1.2% 2.1% 1.5%
Afternoon 1.6% 0.0% 1.2%
Anytime 66.5% 81.9% 70.8%
No Information 8.1% 2.1% 6.4%
N Cases 248 94 342
219
Table 41. Proportion of Non-connected Households with at least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases Last Year Due to Consumption of
Water Supplied by Household Headship
HH Headship
Households with at least one
member who suffered from
water-related diseases last 4.8% 2.1% 4.1%
year due to consumption of
water supplied by the water
district
N Cases 248 94 342
Households that treat water 16.9% 20.2% 17.8%
from faucet before drinking
N Cases 248 94 342
Table 42. Willingness to Connect to WD Water Supply System of Currently Non-

connected Households by Household Headship
HH Headship
households willing to connect
40.7% 44.7% 41.8%
with the existing water supply
system
N Cases 248 94 342
households willing to connect if
existing water supply system
will be improved (out of the 6.2% 2.0% 5.1%
households who do not want to
connect to the existing water
supply system)
N Cases 145 50 195
220
Table 43. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Their Willingness/

Unwillingness to Connect to the WD Piped Water System by Household
Headship (Multiple Responses)
HH Headship
Water District Male- Female- Total
Reason for willingness to

connect
Convenience 23.2% 15.6% 21.0%
Really want/need the
71.4% 64.4% 69.4%
improved water service
Worried about the health risks
of the water from current 18.8% 17.8% 18.5%
source
Water bill is not too high 3.6% 13.3% 6.4%
N Cases 112 45 157
Reason for unwillingness to

connect
Happy with our existing water
67.6% 75.5% 69.7%
source
Monthly water bill is too high 30.1% 24.5% 28.6%
Connection charge is too high 20.6% 16.3% 19.5%
Do not own land/house
5.9% 2.0% 4.9%
occupied
Do not really want/need the
3.7% 2.0% 3.2%
improved service
Not worried about the health
risks from my existing water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
source
N Cases 136 49 185
Table 44. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that Non-connected Households are Willing to
Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services by Household Headship
HH Headship
Amount Willing to Pay Male- Female- Total
P1,000/month 1.8% 0.0% 1.3%
P 900/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 700/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 600/month 2.7% 0.0% 1.9%
P 500/month 6.3% 8.9% 7.0%
P 450/month 0.9% 2.2% 1.3%
221
P 400/month 0.0% 6.7% 1.9%

P 350/month 3.6% 6.7% 4.5%
P 300/month 10.7% 2.2% 8.3%
P 250/month 18.8% 28.9% 21.7%
P 200/month 25.0% 20.0% 23.6%
P150/month 28.6% 20.0% 26.1%
N Cases 112 45 157
Table 45. Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Current Toilet System by Gender of Survey

Respondents
Gender of Respondent
Indicators Total
Male Female
satisfied with current toilet 92.5% 91.4% 91.6%
system
dissatisfied with current toilet 7.5% 8.6% 8.4%
system
N Cases 93 290 383
Reasons for dissatisfaction

Backflow 57.1% 40.0% 43.8%
Foul odor 28.6% 40.0% 37.5%
Combination of backflow
resulting to foul odor and 14.3% 16.0% 15.6%
inconvenience
Rodent infestation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flies/Insects 0.0% 4.0% 3.1%
N Cases 7 25 32
Table 46. Satisfaction Level on the Quality of Water District Piped Water by Gender of
Survey Respondents
Satisfaction Level Total
Male Female
Taste
Extremely unsatisfied 10.0% 13.3% 12.5%
Moderately unsatisfied 10.0% 33.3% 27.5%
Moderately satisfied 40.0% 43.3% 42.5%
Extremely satisfied 40.0% 6.7% 15.0%
Neither satisfied nor
0.0% 3.3% 2.5%
unsatisfied
Smell
222

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
unsatisfied
Color
9.1% 3.3% 4.9%
unsatisfied

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
unsatisfied
N Cases 11 30 41
Table 47. Water District Service Performance Rating by Gender of Survey

Respondents
Performance Rating Total
Male Female
Continuity of water supply
Very Poor 9.1% 6.7% 7.3%
Poor 9.1% 13.3% 12.2%
Neutral 0.0% 16.7% 12.2%
Good 54.5% 50.0% 51.2%
Very Good 27.3% 13.3% 17.1%
Reliability of water meter
Very Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Poor 18.2% 13.3% 14.6%
Neutral 0.0% 13.3% 9.8%
Good 72.7% 60.0% 63.4%
Very Good 9.1% 13.3% 12.2%
Regularity of billing and collection
Very Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Poor 0.0% 10.0% 7.3%
Neutral 18.2% 16.7% 17.1%
Good 63.6% 63.3% 63.4%
Very Good 18.2% 10.0% 12.2%
Response to customer complaints
Very Poor 9.1% 3.3% 4.9%
223
Poor 27.3% 13.3% 17.1%

Neutral 9.1% 26.7% 22.0%
Good 45.5% 43.3% 43.9%
Very Good 9.1% 13.3% 12.2%
Repairtime/services
Very Poor 9.1% 3.3% 4.9%
Poor 36.4% 20.0% 24.4%
Neutral 9.1% 26.7% 22.0%
Good 36.4% 36.7% 36.6%
Very Good 9.1% 13.3% 12.2%
Overall water supply service
Very Poor 18.2% 6.7% 9.8%
Poor 18.2% 16.7% 17.1%
Neutral 0.0% 16.7% 12.2%
Good 54.5% 53.3% 53.7%
Very Good 9.1% 6.7% 7.3%
N Cases 11 30 41
Table 48. Aspects of WD Services that Survey Respondents want to be improved by

Gender of Survey Respondents (Multiple Responses)
Performance Rating Total
Male Female
Water pressure 18.2% 16.7% 17.1%
Complaints handling 9.1% 6.7% 7.3%
Reduced water rates 9.1% 26.7% 22.0%
Repairs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Billing 18.2% 0.0% 4.9%
Quality of water/clean water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Others 45.5% 50.0% 48.8%
N Cases 11 30 41
Table 49a. Satisfaction Level on the Quality of Water from Various Sources of Non-
connected Households by Gender of Survey Respondents
Male Female
Taste
0.0% 0.8% 0.6%
unsatisfied
Smell
224

0.0% 0.8% 0.6%
unsatisfied
Color
0.0% 0.8% 0.6%
unsatisfied
N Cases 82 260 342
Table 49b. Satisfaction Level on the Quality of Water from Various Sources of Non-
connected Households by Gender of Survey Respondents (CONTINUATION)
Male Female
0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
unsatisfied
N Cases 82 260 342
Table 50. Proportion of Survey Respondents who are Satisfied with Available Health
Services in Their Locality by Gender of Respondent
Health Facility Sought for Gender of Respondent

Total
Medical Services
Male Female
Percent of survey respondents
satisfied with available health 96.7% 97.9% 97.6%
services in their locality
N Cases 92 285 377
225
ANNEX 2
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE
WDDSP HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
226
DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

Municipality/Bgy # of HHs
Barangay Sample HHs
Code (2007)
TOTAL 33,072 384
Bacnotan 2,156 25
Serviced Barangays 1,448 17
Bgy 1 Nagsaraboan 211 17
Proposed Expansion 708 8
Bgy 2 Baroro 470 8
Bauang 9,721 113

Bgy 3 Baccuit Norte 444 32
Bgy 4 Paringao 729 52
Proposed Expansion 2,521 29
Bgy5 Payocpoc Norte Este 216 29
San Juan 4,430 51

Bgy 6 Cabaroan 231 20
Bgy 7 Panicsican 229 19
Proposed Expansion 1,032 12
Bgy 8 Taboc 528 12
San Fernando 15,430 179

Bgy 9 Barangay IV (Pob.) 186 17
Bgy 10 Dalumpinas Oeste 392 37
Bgy 11 Poro 1,254 116
Bgy 12 San Agustin 407 9
San Gabriel 1,335 16

Serviced Barangays 559 7
Bgy 13 Poblacion (Besang) 559 7
Bgy 14 Bucao 339 9
227
APPENDIX 3.2: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS - MLUWD

APRIL – SEPTEMBER, 2009
Stakeholder Office/People Objective Date (2009)/ Gender of Result

Met Venue Participants
LGU Bauang MPDC, Health FGD to secure June 4 F–8 Interest to participate in
and Sanitation, interest to Bauang M–4 sanitation pilot;
Engineer, participate as Municipal Very low water coverage;
Gender and sanitation pilot; Hall willingness to connect
Social Welfare, follow up on with improved WD
Environment survey results services; bottomless
Officers septic tanks; LUVWI as
main women’s
organization; urban poor
along shore
LGU San Mayor MPDC, FGD to secure June 4 F-4 San Fernando City
Fernando Health and interest to San M-7 expressed interest to join
Sanitation, participate as Fernando WD on sanitation, was
Engineer, sanitation pilot City Hall willing to donate land for
Gender and the STP and was willing
Social Welfare, to accept septage from
Environment other municipalities for a
Officers fee; WD would be
responsible for billing
which may be tacked into
water charges for
connected households.
LGU Bacnotan City Planning, FGD to secure June 4 F–4 Interest to participate in
Health and interest to Bacnotan M-8 sanitation pilot for
Sanitation, participate as Municipal confirmation by Mayor;
Engineer, sanitation pilot; Hall Very low water coverage;
Gender and follow up on willingness to connect
Social Welfare, survey results with improved WD
Environment services; bottomless
Officers septic tanks; LUVWI as
main women’s
organization;
concentration of informal
settlers near Bacnotan
Cement; shared septic
tanks a possibility
WD Management – Gender July 15 F–2 8 members were
GM, orientation and Board Roam, M–2 designated as Focal
Administrative planning for WD Point/technical point for
and conduct of GAD;
Engineering gender Initial GAP activities
chiefs appreciation identified
session for staff;
Organization of
Focal point
WD Gender Focal Gender July 16 M–4 Organization of Gender
Point of WD orientation and Board Room, F-6 Focal Point; gender
and 2 LWUA analysis; focus WD issues identified and
representatives group discussion ways to address these in
on an action plan discussed;
survey result, proliferation of deep
sanitation and wells, needs regulation;
water concerns Proposed sanitation
and on proposed measures validated
228

sanitation Community, gender-
strategies responsive and pro-poor
processes to be
enhanced
Desludging McClean KI on operations July 15 M-1 P8,000 – P8,500
company and interest to Baguio as disposal site
participate in Interested to participate,
project even acquire more trucks
if needed
LGU San Juan Mayor and FGD on July 16 M-3 Willingness to participate
Municipality technical staff sanitation and Mayor’s in sanitation pilot; water
water and social Office coverage too low; need
issues and to improve service to
concerns attract water connection;
San Juan is water source
and thus needs higher
coverage; water rates are
too high; payment of
royalties or discounts on
water rates; deep wells
response to high water
rates
LGU San USAID, FGD to discuss July 15 M–4 Roles and arrangements
Fernando and BORDA, WD. partnership City Hall F–1 for complementation
funding LGU San arrangements on worked out; WD to cover
agencies Fernando sanitation septage of water-
connected HH
LGU San LGU and WD FGD to firm up July 16 F–1 Operating arrangements
Fernando on sanitation WDDSP joint City Hall M-4 finalized
mechanisms on
sanitation
LGU La Union Provincial Project disclosure April NGO profiles
Province Governor, and data Provincial Need to oordinate water
Provincial gathering, KI, Capitol improvement with local
planning office, Scoping on water development plans
health and and sanitation Water sources outside of
sanitation issues, potential La Union/Region 1
offices partners and Provincial thrusts/data on
regional and health and sanitation
provincial obtained
priorities and
resources;
project
NEDA NEDA Chief, Scoping of issues April M–2 Watershed issues of La
planning, and potential NEDA Office F–1 Union and regional
poverty and partners; KI on initiative on watershed
gender and plans and management, gender
development programs on mainstreaming services
focal persons water and for LGU and government
sanitation; corporations,
resources on Water planning in context
gender of development plan
mainstreaming Poro Point
LGU Barangay Barangay Ocular July 15 F–2 Urban poor squatting on
Urban poor Ssecretary, inspection, Key San Agustin private land along shore;
WD Informant Barangay, SF tenured settlers; have
interview to inadequate septage;
validate urban microfinance and
229

poor issues and livelihood options
concerns needed; no user
maintenance of donated
public toilet; padlocked
by Barangay Health
Worker
Urban poor Family Key informant on June 4 F–1 Housing project has own
resettlement representative alternative Fisherman’s M–1 water with dry sanitation
site in urban poor sanitation system Village system;
housing and to follow up (resettlement NGO assistance in
on survey results site), SF community;
neighborhood organizing
for water and sanitation;
own water system;
minimal bills for water;
monthly house
amortization at P400;
increasing prosperity of
neighborhood but
delinquencies occur
Public 5 Mayor and Disclosure and September 4, F – 13 Water and sanitation
Consultation agency consultation on 2009 M - 13 plans, coverage area,
to disclose the representatives proposed plans Midtown roles of partners
WDSSP of 5 LGUs, for water and Restaurant, validated; participants
project to NGO sanitation San expressed support for on-
project representatives Fernando going survey and IOL;
affected for vulnerable City Operational concerns
household, groups, women discussed and responded
LGUs, NGOs, and to by WD
environment
WD workshop WD board Validation of August 26 – M -3 Water and sanitation
on project member, GM proposed plans 27 F-1 plans validated
components, and technical for SPAR INNOTECH, Discussed issues and
costings, staff Quezon City concerns on the project
capacity components
development
and social
safeguards
(environment
and
resettlement)
230
Multi-sectoral Consultation on Sanitation

San Fernando City
15-16 July 2009
Venue: City Hall, San Fernando City
Data: July 15, 2009
Participants: Boni Magtibay and Ms. Ancheta of McClean
Agenda: Firm up coordination between projects assisting San Fernando City on Sanitation.
Participants: Boni Magtibay for WDDSP, The City Mayor, TWG on septage management,
Rotary club representatives, Dave Robbins of USAID, Ms Ancheta of McClean, Mr. Rimando
of Water District
There were two meetings conducted. First meeting was the USAID-LGU discussion of
USAID assistance where WDDSP was invited to attend on 15 July 2009. The second
meeting (15 July 2009) was exclusive to WDDSP, LGU and WD to discuss institutional
arrangements.
Major points of discussion:
• USAID will provide at least $ 100,000 grant assistance to be matched by Rotary Club.
The City government will provide one hectare of lot as a counterpart. Lime
stabilization is the technology proposed by USAID to treat septage.
• Dave Robbins emphasized the coordination of all resources coming in for sanitation
to maximize synergy. USAID assistance which will be implemented starting October
2009 could be Phase 1 of the septage management system while the ADB
assistance which may start by 2012 could be Phase 2.
• Boni presented the proposed institutional arrangements for WDDSP Sanitation

component. The LGU has the following concerns:
-How to integrate and handle lime stabilization and waste stabilization ponds
considering that one hectare is available at the moment for septage
treatment?
-Another group, BORDA, is offering to develop and design septage

management system in the city with constructed wetland as a technology.
-How to handle WD and non-water District customers for desludging and

collection of fees?
Agreement reached are as follows:

• Since USAID project (which is LGU-managed) is already assured of
implementation with commitments already set for all partners, the LGU will pursue
this and use the available 1 hectare lot for the project.
• For ADB project which will come later in 2012, the LGU is willing to allocate
another hectare of land near the landfill site once the project is approved for
implementation. They will charge tipping fees in the use of the land.
231
• BORDA may participate in the detailed engineering design for waste stabilization
pond.
• To delineate responsibilities and coverage of proposed projects, the LGU agreed

for this arrangement. ADB project to cover customers of Water District while
USAID project will cover non-WD customers.
• Other LGUs may participate in the septage management program but have to pay
tipping fees. Specific arrangements will be determined later.
• Private sectors (e.g. desludgers) may participate thru contracts with WD.
• LGU is interested to acquire vacuum trucks thru USAID project or their own funds
as a back-up in case private sector or WD trucks fail to operate or the desludging
fees become exorbitant. This is a form of controlling desludging fees.
Key Informant Interview and Consultation

McClean (Desludging Company)
July 16, 2009
Venue: San Fernando City Hall
Participant: Boni Magtibay for WDDSP and Ms. Ancheta of McClean
Agenda: Inform McClean representative about the sanitation component of WDDSP, gather
data and explore areas of cooperation
Obtained information, such as:
• 2 trucks are available with a capacity of 5 cubic meter.

• Desludging fee is about P 8000-8500 since treatment site is at Baguio City with a
tipping fee of about P 1,500 per truck load.
• Willing to participate in the septage management program
232
Consultation on Sanitation Component and Water Issues and Concerns

San Juan
16 July 2009
Venue: San Juan Municipal Hall
Participants: Boni Magtibay, WDDSP, the municipal mayor and one technical staff
Agenda: Inform the LGU about the sanitation component of WDDSP and secure
leadership’s interest to participate; discuss water related concerns
Matters Arising:
The mayor was willing to participate in the sanitation program with the following concerns:
• Cost of WD water is high. This might become higher with the sanitation component.
• Discount or royalty for the use of water has been requested but no action
• Electricity is cheaper than water, thus more households are not connecting to water
supply and instead installing private deep wells. Monthly electricity bill for average
households is only P 200 while for water supplied by water district is about P 400 or
more per month.
• Water tariff has to be reviewed to have reasonable price for the residents of San Juan
where some of water sources are located in the municipality.
233
Gender Orientation and Analysis and Consultation on Sanitation

Metro La Union Water District
July 16, 2009
Venue: Metro La Union Water District
Participants: 4 men, 4 women designated as Gender Focal Point; 2 representatives of

Gender Focal Point – LWUA; 2 participants from WDDSP
Agenda: Conduct gender orientation for GAD focal point to discuss basic gender concepts
and feedback result of survey to identify gender issues and prepare for National Gender
Action Planning Workshop; discussion on proposed sanitation plans; discussion on
operational concerns that can be addressed in a gender-responsive manner
Matters Arising from Discussion
• Gender Issues
o Organization Focused
Staffing/hiring rules involve gender stereotypes – men as engineers
and women for office work – check for gender discrimination n hiring
Lack gender orientation; gender trained staff left service - gender
orientation needed for staff and management
o Client-Focused
Many women-headed households due to migration for work; most are
not connected
Lack income source – water delivery improvement with role of women
and community organizations in management of common water
points (as against delivery truck servicing individuals)
• Operational Concerns that can be addressed in a gender-responsive manner
• Low connection rate/no water source
• High NRW – increased role of community and women organizations in NRW
reduction; improved community relations through community meetings
• Perceived high rates, low water pressure, water quality concerns of clients –
improve interpersonal communications
• High water rates considered onerous (P460 for first 10 cubic meters) by
commercial sector, resulting in increased construction of deep wells, which in
turn affect overall supply, including those of WD.
• Addressing complaints – increased coordination between field and office
personnel to reduce inconsistencies in implementation of policies – Gender
Focal Point as an interdepartmental body can be a participatory forum for
addressing operational concerns in gender-responsive manner
• Sanitation - Feedback on Plans
• How to control the price of desludging? Water District to coordinate with
desludging company
• Are communal septic tanks feasible? Doable. It can be tucked into water bill for
those connected; with future bulk water connection
234
Public Consultation on WDDSP

La Union WD Coverage Area
September 4, 2009
Venue - Midtown Restaurant, San Fernando City
Participants – representatives of 5 component LGUs, NGOs, agency representatives.
Agenda – Presentation of water and sanitation improvement plans for validation’ information
on ongoing activity to survey affected persons and properties
Proceedings:
Presentation of plan components, target areas, beneficiaries and proposed facilities, ADB
financing and grant component and schemes for sanitation, proposed roles of LGU in
sanitation component, expected social and environmental impacts of construction, etc.
Comments, Questions and Answers
1. When is construction? Need to see to it that it does not affect traffic on schoold days
Excavation permit will be sought and plans made for public safety and convenience in
coordination with contractor, WD and LGUs; also, cooperation on right of way issues
to be sought before construction; not allowed to excavate more than 300 meters
2. How to implement septage management with bottomless septic tanks?

Septage management program has institutional component with LGU to enact
required ordinance for standard design; component for rehabilitation of septic tanks;
revolving fund for rehabilitation; mechanisms to access fund to be worked out with
LGUs; continuing dialogue in participatory process; MPDCs can already initiate plans
to improve septic tanks.
3. When it rains, septage floats all around

City sewerage is expensive so government is pushing septage management
4. Does piggery in San Gabriel contaminate water supply for Cabaroan?

The piggery now has biogas production.
5. Water supply is threatened. There is deteriorating water quality. How to implement

septic tank improvement? (directed to Engr. Ducusin)
Bldg code requires 3 chambers for new constructions; old septic tanks are a
problem. Septage management has facility for rehabilitation of septic tanks.
6. At Bumbuneg, one was seen swimming in the reservoir.

WD: 24-hour guard posted but will check.
7. On avoiding proliferation of structures on road right of way
235
Pass and enforce barangay resolution. This will avoid problems during project
implementation
8. Message of Romeo Padilla on behalf of Mayor Ortega of San Fernando – “Thank

you. We hope we all enjoy clean water. We will be supportive of survey.”
236
APPENDIX 3.3: OUTPUT OF GENDER ACTION PLANNING WORKSHOP -

MLUWD
August 6 – 7, 2009
1. The following is the result of a national workshop on Gender and Development

workshop held in August 6-7, 2009. All pilot water districts under the WDDSP sent 3
representatives each as designated Gender focal point persons. The objective of the
workshop was to identify gender issues and concerns during the planning phase of the
WWDSP. Gender issues identified in each water district will be the bases for Gender Action
Plans. One or two issues were treated in the following action plan.
2. It was agreed that these action plans will be presented to the management and board
of directors so that the GAP can be funded out of the 5% Gender and Development Fund
mandated by the government. It was also agreed that LWUA will continue to work with the
pilot districts follow up sessions on Gender and Development appreciation sessions and in
the GAP implementation.
Metro La Union Water District

Gender Action Plan for 2009-2010
Prepared by GAD Focal Point
GAD
Programs/ Gender- Strategies/ Budget
Objectives Performance
Projects Related Activities to address Schedule Allocation
Targets Indicators
Issues gender issues (in P’000)
Organizational-Focus
GAD Lack of GAD To create GAD To conduct in-house Attendance of all Last week of For
Awareness awareness awareness trainings with WD employees August 2009 realignment
among WD among WD assistance from
employees, employees LWUA, ADB, and P50,000
board and GAD personnel (at
management least 2 resource
speakers)
Quality Water service Familiarization, To conduct training Number and type April 2010 P200,000
Control and quality orientation of for female laboratory of complaints and
concerns the female aide requests for
employee who laboratory
will be assigned To provide a direct analysis received
as laboratory phone line (or by the laboratory
aide hotline) for the aide
female laboratory
aide Computerization
of WD records
To procure 1 unit relative to quality
desktop computer control
Improvement To rehabilitate, To procure brand Assignment of 3 July 2010 P700,000

of service replace, and new service vehicles male and one
operations check up all old female metering
water meters To conduct personnel
training/orientation
for one female
employee* to be Updated old
assigned with the water meters P100,000
237
GAD
Programs/ Gender- Strategies/ Budget
Objectives Performance
Projects Related Activities to address Schedule Allocation
Targets Indicators
Issues gender issues (in P’000)
Metering Section
To procure 1 unit
desktop computer
Wellness of To organize a To improve the To develop the All MLUWD September P2,500,000
WD wellness club health of male rooftop area of the employees may 2010
employees and female MLUWD building as avail of gym
employees a gym services for free;
walk-ins will be
To procure physical charged a
fitness equipment minimal fee
*Should be computer literate
238
APPENDIX 3.4: SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF

SUBPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
1. Based on analysis of results, the incorporation of the following recommendations for a

participatory, socially inclusive, gender-responsive plan shall be supported through technical
assistance and pro-poor provisions for water and sanitation.
2. Promotion of Social and Environmental Equity. The Water District shall

incorporate social and environmental equity into its program development and
implementation so that no segment of the population bears a disproportionate share of the
risks and consequences of environmental pollution and that there is equitable sharing of
water as an environmental benefit as well as sharing of costs in the upkeep of water
resources.
3. Pro-Poor Targeting of Participants. The Project shall target all households living
within the vicinity of the network of the piped water system. To expand the reach of project
benefits while maximizing cost recovery, the project shall also set targets to reach
disadvantaged groups (e.g. women headed HHs and the poor HHs in the slum areas) and
other unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water service such as communal water
points. This may also be through easy installation plans.
4. Households for the sanitation component shall be identified in coordination with NGO
partners and the local government units that will undertake a survey of sanitation facilities. In
coordination with local government resources, targets will also be made to cover all
sanitation hot spots for improvement of septage systems by the end of project loan
implementation.

microfinance facility shall be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is
6. Micro-finance and Livelihood Options. A micro-finance facility shall be set up to

ensure participation in septic tank installation/improvement of targeted participants in
sanitation hot spots. A cost recovery scheme shall be established to enable others to benefit
from the revolving fund. The WD’s Gender and Development Fund and other sources may
be accessed to support water and sanitation-related livelihood options of women and urban
poor groups.
7. Partnership Strategy. A partnership strategy shall involve the WD with local

government units, NGOs, community based organizations, the private sector and the WD
clientele in achieving the aims of the project. The strategy uses community mobilization
techniques and takes advantage of the mandate of local government units in implementing
national projects including water and sanitation improvement and water resource
management.
Role of NGO/CBOs. NGOs will be engaged to support the PMU and local governments
in mobilizing communities and delivering essential training for water and sanitation user
groups and Community Based Organizations in planning, monitoring, and evaluating
sanitation and hygiene improvement. NGOs will also receive training support for this role.
Role of LGUs. Local authorities acknowledge that the passage and enforcement of
legislation on environmental sanitation is a role of local government. LGUs shall also be
invited to play an active role in service delivery planning and administration functions and
community leaders will be invited to actively participate in the Project's awareness
239
campaign. A Social Marketing Plan for sanitation and shall be prepared as part of
technical assistance at implementation phase at the sectoral level.
8. Public Relations and Social Marketing of Hygiene and Sanitation. Lack of

awareness on the linkage of safe water and sanitation shows that septage management
depends for its success on effective advocacy and public awareness through information,
education and communication.
9. Social marketing of sanitation and implementation of pro-poor targets and the need to
more actively engage the WD’s various publics on identified water issues and concerns
requires a redefinition of current customer service orientation into the broader realms of
public relations and corporate social responsibility, consistent with the WD’s mandate to
deliver basic public goods such as water and sanitation.
10. Thus, the preparation of a social marketing plan shall be an area of assistance under
the WDDSP’s sectoral capability building component. A plan shall be prepared in
coordination with LGUs, agency and NGO/CBO partners.
11. Community Organization and Formation of Water User and Sanitation

Associations especially for Common Facilities. The main objective of these associations
will be to ensure the sustainability of the WSS facilities by delegating some O&M duties and
responsibilities to community members including the collection of water and sanitation tariffs.
Full disclosure and agreement with beneficiaries will be facilitated through joint assessment
and planning. User groups will each be composed of at least 10 HHs who reside proximate
to each other and decide to cluster to avail of the common services (water standpipes and
community latrines) and agree on the mechanism for participation in project implementation.
12. Moreover, the WD’s Gender and Development Fund can be a source of seed capital
for water-related livelihood opportunities for women and the poor. A microfinance facility shall
be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is a revolving fund that may
be managed in cooperation with a non-government agency.
13. Capacity Building, Training and Institutional Linkages. Capacity building will be
directed at both individuals and organizations for effective and sustainable operation of water
and sanitation facilities.
14. LGUs have a mandate for delivery of safe water and sanitation to their constituents.
Decentralisation has shifted roles and responsibilities to local governments and stakeholders.
Many of these actors struggle with their newly assigned roles for which they are not fully
'equipped' in terms of financial resources, knowledge, methodologies, tools and experiences.
Strengthening these intermediate actors is crucial to achieving good governance.
facilities for the poor. Participation of disadvantaged groups will be made possible through
skills development, training and provision of linkages to institutions, which will ensure access
of technical services and financial support. Representatives of households which were
organized as user groups will be given thorough orientation on the project, roles and
expectations as well as skills training to enable them to undertake their expected tasks.
Technical assistance shall be provided in the preparation of a Social Marketing Plan on
sanitation and of public relations and communications program that is attuned to the
principles of public service in the delivery of water and sanitation.
16. Gender and Development. GAD is a key strategy for inclusive and sustainable
development. It is central in water and sanitation. Ensuring both women and men’s
240
participation improves project performance. Gender issues can be addressed in the project
components in the following ways:
The Project will strengthen the role of women in planning and operation and management
of facilities (i) capacity building and training on the role and responsibility of women, and
planning of development activities that involve them; (ii) training workshops on gender
sensitization for men and women; (iii) representation of women in user group/community
planning committee.
Community-level project activities. (i) NGOs and CBOs to form/strengthen women/user
groups in neighborhoods for social mobilization activities. (ii) Women will be represented
in the planning of infrastructure and facilities for water, sanitation services. (iii) Poor
people and women headed households will be targeted for appropriate service delivery;
(iv) Employment opportunities in civil works will be made available to interested women
from poor households. Thirty percent of employment opportunities will be reserved for
women from the low income communities; (v) Women’s groups will be represented in the
management of new facilities; (vi) Training and social mobilization campaigns for project
beneficiaries will ensure active participation of women. Women will be the primary target
for public health and hygiene campaigns. (vii) Women community volunteers will be
trained for health and hygiene campaigns; (viii) Women-headed households will be target
beneficiaries of micro-finance facilities; (ix) linkaging for livelihood options for interested
and qualified user groups.
Gender and Environment. The WD shall coordinate with the Provincial Gender and
Development Office for active participation of the sector in the office’s Gender and
Environment initiatives.
Staffing. The Gender Focal Point and Gender Action Planning shall be institutionalized;
with technical assistance from a national consultant on social dimensions and gender and
development.
17. Special Projects and Community Based Watershed Management. The critical
role of watershed communities in natural resource management shall be acknowledged in an
implementation plan for the project. For instance, the community mobilization and education
plan or the gender action plan can address their concerns on water and sanitation and
enhance the role of watershed communities in the maintenance of fresh water sources.
18. Sustainable resource management can be promoted by empowering watershed

communities to be active participants in social fencing and watershed management.
Community-based resource management and support for alternative livelihood options may
be promoted and supported by linkaging for alternative livelihood options and Capability
Building activities.
19. Consultations recommended that the subproject also target poor areas/households for
the delivery of water services and that participatory processes ensure that the needs of the
poor are addressed in the most appropriate and affordable way. Easy installation
arrangements could reduce a barrier to water connection.
20. Sanitation hotspots were identified such as informal settlements along shorelines.
While affordability issues were acknowledged for sanitation and the urban poor, there were
recommendations from local government (e.g. San Fernando) that a sanitation program for
the urban poor should not be free but should entail a cost recovery scheme. Learning from
the experience of similar projects in the area, prioritizing project participants will be demand-
driven. Willingness to participate will be secured as against donations of common toilets and
septic tanks that had to be padlocked due to absence of commitment by users for operation
and maintenance. Thus, sanitation improvement will entail interest of users, social
preparation with possible NGO facilitation.
241
21. Partnership with NGOs, local government and other agencies could facilitate
awareness raising and planning in target communities for appropriate schemes for
installation and maintenance of sustainable on-site sanitation facilities. While there was a
preference for individual sanitation system, there was openness to the idea of shared septic
tanks among local governments and households as a way to address affordability concerns.
242
APPENDIX 4: SILVER IONIZATION PROCESS
1. Silver ionization is a dispersive process that introduces long-lived, stable, positively

charged silver ions into the water system. The ions bond electro-statically with negative sites
on bacterial cell walls and denatured proteins. Ionization thus disperses and destroys
biofilms and slimes that can harbor different types of the bacteria. Silver based water
purification systems offer a reliable and cost effective alternative to chlorine, a chemical that
is increasingly coming under fire for the carcinogenic by-products it leaves in water.
Insufficient evidence has been found on the possible health effects of long-term exposure to
silver ionization.
2. Silver ions (Ag+) penetrate the core of the microorganism by bonding to various parts
of the cell, such as the DNA and RNA, cellular proteins and respiratory enzymes, causing all
life support systems in the cell to be immobilized. As a result, there is no more cellular growth
or cell division, causing bacteria to no longer multiply and eventually die out. The ions remain
active until they are absorbed by a microorganism. Silver ionization affectivity does not
depend on water temperature. When silver is used, less maintenance to the water system is
required.
Production of Silver Ions
3. Silver ionization is brought about by electrolysis. An electric current is created through

silver, causing positively charged silver ions to form. During ionization, atoms turn into
cations or anions. When silver ionization is applied, positively charged silver (Ag+) ions are
formed
4. The electrodes are placed close together. The water that is disinfected flows past the
electrodes. An electric current is created, causing the outer atoms of the electrodes to lose
an electron and become positively charged. The larger part of the ions flows away through
the water, before reaching the opposite electrode. The number of ions that is released
increases, when electric charges are higher. The electrodes should be in good condition.
When the water is hard or fouling takes place as a consequence of water hardness and
quality, there will be a decrease in electrode release and the additional effect will decrease.
These electrodes suffer from less limestone formation and fouling
5. The concentration of silver ions in the water should be sufficient. The required
concentration is determined by the water flow, the volume of water in the system, the
conductivity of the water and the present concentration of microorganisms.
6. Silver ionization affectivity is determined by the presence of chlorine. Chlorine causes

silver-chlorine complex formation. When this occurs, silver ions are no longer available for
disinfection. Silver ionization affectivity also depends on the pH value of the water.
Benefits and Drawbacks
7. Silver ionization effectively deactivates Legionella bacteria and bio film and it
improves water quality. Silver ionization has a larger residual effect than most other
disinfectants because the ions remain in the water for a long period of time. Because of its
local affectivity, the effect is larger than that of ultra-violet disinfection. Silver Ionization is
effective throughout the entire water system, even in dead-end points and parts of the
system that contain slow-running water. Silver Ionization is non-corrosive; it causes less
strain on the distribution system. Because of a decrease in the use of chemicals, the lids and
pumps are not affected. Furthermore, shower heads, tanks and taps are not contaminated.
243
Ionization is regarded as more cost-effective and easier to maintain than the alternative of
hyper chlorination; it does not involve safety concerns that chlorination does, and ionization
provides a safety buffer of some weeks or months in case of mechanical failure. The silver
electrodes are very small and ionization is applied directly from the electrodes; there are no
transport and storage difficulties.
8. When dissolved solid concentrations are high, silver will precipitate. This means silver
ions are no longer available for disinfection. Silver ions easily react with chlorines and
nitrates that are present in the water, causing them to no longer be effective.
Standards
9. The World Health Organization's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality states, "It is
unnecessary to recommend any health-based guideline for silver as it is not hazardous to
human health.” (WHO, Guidelines drinking water quality, 3e edited) EU
The European Union does not dictate any standards considering silver concentrations in the
water. (EU Drinking water directive 98/83/EC, 1998) USA The United States dictates a
maximum value of 0.1 mg/L of silver. (EPA, National Secondary Drinking Water regulations,
2002). In the United States, several drinking water production companies use copper-silver
ionization as an alternative for chlorine disinfection and to prevent the formation of
disinfection byproducts. The standard for trihalomethanes was decreased by EPA from 100
to 80 µg/L.
10. When copper-silver ionization is combined with chlorine disinfection, it is an excellent

disinfection mechanism to deactivate viruses and bacteria. Copper-silver ionization can
deactivate Legionella bacteria and other microorganisms in slow-running water and still water
244
APPENDIX 5.1: POPULATION PROJECTIONS PER LGU AND BARANGAY -

MLUWD
245
APPENDIX 5.1.A: BACNOTAN, LA UNION

Projected
BARANGAY Population Ratio Population Ratio Population Ratio Population Projections
Ratio
1995 1995 2000 2000 2007 2007 2010 2015 2020 2020
Agtipal 411 0.0128 451 0.0128 493 0.0127 0.0127 513 550 590 632
Arosip 368 0.0114 396 0.0113 348 0.0090 0.0080 323 346 371 398
Bacqui 384 0.0119 405 0.0115 514 0.0133 0.0120 485 520 557 597
Bacsil 516 0.0160 561 0.0160 658 0.0170 0.0168 679 727 780 836
Bagutot 192 0.0060 206 0.0059 196 0.0051 0.0051 206 221 237 254
Ballogo 580 0.0180 653 0.0186 998 0.0258 0.0270 1,091 1,169 1,253 1,344
Baroro 1,849 0.0575 2,040 0.0580 2,348 0.0606 0.0610 2,464 2,641 2,832 3,035
Bitalag 1,186 0.0369 1,286 0.0366 1,489 0.0384 0.0371 1,498 1,606 1,722 1,846
Bulala 977 0.0304 1,079 0.0307 1,145 0.0296 0.0302 1,220 1,308 1,402 1,503
Burayoc 264 0.0082 297 0.0084 351 0.0091 0.0094 380 407 436 468
Bussaoit 501 0.0156 585 0.0166 659 0.0170 0.0174 703 753 808 866
Cabaroan 1,162 0.0361 1,363 0.0388 1,629 0.0420 0.0455 1,838 1,970 2,112 2,264
Cabarsican 738 0.0229 828 0.0236 1,040 0.0268 0.0290 1,171 1,256 1,346 1,443
Cabugao 362 0.0112 408 0.0116 426 0.0110 0.0113 456 489 525 562
Calautit 512 0.0159 556 0.0158 636 0.0164 0.0160 646 693 743 796
Carcarmay 450 0.0140 504 0.0143 564 0.0146 0.0148 598 641 687 736
Casiaman 692 0.0215 727 0.0207 790 0.0204 0.0202 816 875 938 1,005
Galongen 922 0.0287 963 0.0274 1,003 0.0259 0.0236 953 1,022 1,096 1,174
Guinabang 745 0.0231 865 0.0246 870 0.0225 0.0225 909 974 1,044 1,120
Legleg 463 0.0144 521 0.0148 534 0.0138 0.0140 565 606 650 697
Lisqueb 672 0.0209 741 0.0211 831 0.0214 0.0216 872 935 1,003 1,075
Mabanengbeng 1st 244 0.0076 245 0.0070 275 0.0071 0.0071 287 307 330 353
Mabanengbeng 2nd 268 0.0083 278 0.0079 300 0.0077 0.0075 303 325 348 373
Maragayap 384 0.0119 430 0.0122 519 0.0134 0.0138 557 598 641 687
Nagatiran 601 0.0187 645 0.0183 589 0.0152 0.0150 606 650 696 746
Nagsaraboan 965 0.0300 1,029 0.0293 1,041 0.0269 0.0245 990 1,061 1,137 1,219
246
Nagsimbaanan 642 0.0200 684 0.0195 691 0.0178 0.0160 646 693 743 796
Nangalisan 570 0.0177 601 0.0171 736 0.0190 0.0180 727 779 836 896
Narra 950 0.0295 1,035 0.0294 1,113 0.0287 0.0288 1,163 1,247 1,337 1,433
Ortega 699 0.0217 752 0.0214 721 0.0186 0.0170 687 736 789 846
Oyaoy 458 0.0142 505 0.0144 498 0.0129 0.0132 533 572 613 657
Paagan 466 0.0145 529 0.0150 538 0.0139 0.0142 574 615 659 707
Pandan 840 0.0261 973 0.0277 1,043 0.0269 0.0266 1,074 1,152 1,235 1,324
Pangpang 142 0.0044 156 0.0044 177 0.0046 0.0048 194 208 223 239
Poblacion 2,627 0.0817 2,907 0.0827 3,407 0.0879 0.0930 3,756 4,027 4,317 4,628
Quirino 1,178 0.0366 1,114 0.0317 954 0.0246 0.0220 889 953 1,021 1,095
Raois 755 0.0235 775 0.0220 890 0.0230 0.0230 929 996 1,068 1,144
Salincob 490 0.0152 539 0.0153 540 0.0139 0.0147 594 637 682 731
Sapilang 873 0.0271 854 0.0243 858 0.0221 0.0210 848 909 975 1,045
San Martin 635 0.0197 724 0.0206 818 0.0211 0.0212 856 918 984 1,055
Sayoan 351 0.0109 383 0.0109 412 0.0106 0.0107 432 463 497 532
Sipulo 758 0.0236 839 0.0239 910 0.0235 0.0235 949 1,018 1,091 1,169
Sta. Cruz 975 0.0303 1,074 0.0305 1,194 0.0308 0.0309 1,248 1,338 1,434 1,538
Sta. Rita 512 0.0159 546 0.0155 620 0.0160 0.0156 630 675 724 776
Tammocalao 906 0.0282 1,060 0.0302 1,239 0.0320 0.0330 1,333 1,429 1,532 1,642
Ubbog 459 0.0143 516 0.0147 573 0.0148 0.0149 602 645 692 741
Zaragosa 479 0.0149 528 0.0150 565 0.0146 0.0148 598 641 687 736
Municipal Totals 32,176 1.0000 35,156 1.0000 38,743 1.0000 1.0000 40,390 43,300 46,420 49,760
247
APPENDIX 5.1.B: BAUANG, LA UNION

Projected
Ratio
1995 1995 2000 2000 2007 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025
Acao 3348 0.0596 3,985 0.0629 3,981 0.0570 0.0585 4,247 4,530 4,832 5,155
Baccuit Norte 1742 0.0310 1,979 0.0312 2,221 0.0318 0.0320 2,323 2,478 2,643 2,820
Baccuit Sur 1599 0.0285 1,867 0.0295 2,170 0.0311 0.0315 2,287 2,439 2,602 2,776
Bagbag 1022 0.0182 1,120 0.0177 882 0.0126 0.0110 799 852 909 969
Ballay 1333 0.0237 1,460 0.0230 1,611 0.0231 0.0231 1,677 1,789 1,908 2,036
Bawanta 811 0.0144 818 0.0129 995 0.0142 0.0135 980 1,045 1,115 1,190
Boy-utan 704 0.0125 1,004 0.0158 1,099 0.0157 0.0157 1,140 1,216 1,297 1,383
Bucayab 951 0.0169 1,172 0.0185 1,212 0.0174 0.0168 1,220 1,301 1,388 1,480
Cabalayangan 1489 0.0265 1,508 0.0238 1,572 0.0225 0.0215 1,561 1,665 1,776 1,895
Cabisilan 440 0.0078 476 0.0075 659 0.0094 0.0087 632 674 719 767
Calumbaya 2074 0.0369 2,330 0.0368 2,273 0.0325 0.0315 2,287 2,439 2,602 2,776
Carmay 376 0.0067 433 0.0068 453 0.0065 0.0066 479 511 545 582
Casilagan 994 0.0177 1,055 0.0166 1,127 0.0161 0.0155 1,125 1,200 1,280 1,366
Central East (Pob.) 3467 0.0617 3,652 0.0576 4,204 0.0602 0.0600 4,356 4,646 4,956 5,287
Central West (Pob.) 3526 0.0628 3,466 0.0547 3,622 0.0519 0.0500 3,630 3,872 4,130 4,406
Dili 1448 0.0258 1,570 0.0248 1,924 0.0275 0.0275 1,997 2,130 2,272 2,423
Disso-or 686 0.0122 765 0.0121 826 0.0118 0.0116 842 898 958 1,022
Guerrero 754 0.0134 890 0.0140 974 0.0139 0.0138 1,002 1,069 1,140 1,216
Nagrebcan 917 0.0163 1,275 0.0201 1,392 0.0199 0.0199 1,445 1,541 1,644 1,754
Pagdalagan Sur 1937 0.0345 2,252 0.0355 2,410 0.0345 0.0340 2,468 2,633 2,808 2,996
Palintucang 732 0.0130 772 0.0122 965 0.0138 0.0130 944 1,007 1,074 1,146
Palugsi-Limmansangan 1248 0.0222 1,339 0.0211 1,512 0.0217 0.0215 1,561 1,665 1,776 1,895
Parian Oeste 815 0.0145 871 0.0137 1,090 0.0156 0.0151 1,096 1,169 1,247 1,331
Parian Este 1721 0.0306 1,582 0.0250 2,199 0.0315 0.0310 2,251 2,401 2,561 2,732
Paringao 3264 0.0581 3,827 0.0604 3,644 0.0522 0.0560 4,066 4,337 4,626 4,935
Payocpoc Norte Este 865 0.0154 914 0.0144 1,082 0.0155 0.0150 1,089 1,162 1,239 1,322
248
Payocpoc Norte Oeste 1336 0.0238 1,632 0.0258 1,828 0.0262 0.0270 1,960 2,091 2,230 2,379
Payocpoc Sur 1656 0.0295 2,196 0.0347 2,810 0.0402 0.0460 3,340 3,562 3,800 4,054
Pilar 922 0.0164 812 0.0128 467 0.0067 0.0060 436 465 496 529
Pudoc 1059 0.0189 1,246 0.0197 1,488 0.0213 0.0225 1,634 1,742 1,859 1,983
Pottot 910 0.0162 1,023 0.0161 1,208 0.0173 0.0179 1,300 1,386 1,479 1,577
Pugo 1696 0.0302 2,178 0.0344 2,633 0.0377 0.0400 2,904 3,098 3,304 3,525
Quinavite 2760 0.0491 2,946 0.0465 3,464 0.0496 0.0470 3,412 3,640 3,882 4,142
Lower San Agustin 886 0.0158 912 0.0144 1,065 0.0152 0.0148 1,074 1,146 1,222 1,304
Santa Monica 1120 0.0199 1,360 0.0215 1,002 0.0143 0.0130 944 1,007 1,074 1,146
Santiago 2198 0.0391 2,602 0.0411 3,399 0.0487 0.0490 3,557 3,795 4,047 4,318
Taberna 1418 0.0252 1,666 0.0263 1,846 0.0264 0.0265 1,924 2,052 2,189 2,335
Upper San Agustin 804 0.0143 1,008 0.0159 1,147 0.0164 0.0170 1,234 1,316 1,404 1,498
Urayong 1151 0.0205 1,403 0.0221 1,381 0.0198 0.0190 1,379 1,471 1,569 1,674
249
APPENDIX 5.1.C: SAN GABRIEL, LA UNION

Projected
Ratio
1995 1995 2000 2000 2007 2007 2010 2015 2020 2020
Amontoc 1,421 0.1038 1,567 0.1051 1,699 0.1075 0.1080 1,772 1,887 2,009 2,138
Apayao 834 0.0609 943 0.0633 771 0.0488 0.0544 893 950 1,012 1,077
Balbalayang 555 0.0405 571 0.0383 554 0.0351 0.0320 525 559 595 634
Bayabas 443 0.0324 442 0.0296 424 0.0268 0.0260 427 454 484 515
Bucao 1,122 0.0820 1,418 0.0951 1,697 0.1074 0.1200 1,969 2,096 2,232 2,376
Bumbuneg 1,922 0.1404 2,052 0.1376 2,183 0.1381 0.1380 2,265 2,411 2,567 2,732
Lacong 1,188 0.0868 1,341 0.0899 1,417 0.0897 0.0892 1,464 1,558 1,659 1,766
Lipay Este 377 0.0275 413 0.0277 432 0.0273 0.0275 451 480 512 545
Lipay Norte 475 0.0347 553 0.0371 554 0.0351 0.0350 574 611 651 693
Lipay Proper 341 0.0249 349 0.0234 307 0.0194 0.0170 279 297 316 337
Lipay Sur 581 0.0424 608 0.0408 706 0.0447 0.0424 696 741 789 840
Lon-oy 707 0.0516 709 0.0476 635 0.0402 0.0380 624 664 707 752
Poblacion 2,117 0.1546 2,312 0.1551 2,793 0.1767 0.1900 3,118 3,319 3,534 3,762
Polipol 813 0.0594 783 0.0525 703 0.0445 0.0300 492 524 558 594
Daking 793 0.0579 848 0.0569 928 0.0587 0.0525 862 917 977 1,040
250
APPENDIX 5.1.D: SAN JUAN, LA UNION

Projected
BARANGAY Population Ratio Population Ratio Population Ratio Population
Ratio
1995 1995 2000 2000 2007 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025
Allangigan 189 0.0068 170 0.0056 189 0.0057 0.0057 199 218 240 264
Aludaid 537 0.0193 592 0.0195 648 0.0197 0.0199 694 762 838 920
Bacsayan 575 0.0207 619 0.0204 634 0.0192 0.0180 628 690 758 832
Balballosa 344 0.0124 390 0.0128 447 0.0136 0.0140 488 536 589 647
Bambanay 474 0.0171 488 0.0161 530 0.0161 0.0161 561 617 678 744
Bugbugcao 458 0.0165 527 0.0173 569 0.0173 0.0173 603 663 728 800
Caarusipan 214 0.0077 231 0.0076 272 0.0083 0.0085 296 326 358 393
Cabaroan 1,003 0.0361 1,170 0.0385 1,257 0.0381 0.0381 1,329 1,460 1,604 1,762
Cabugnayan 744 0.0268 824 0.0271 818 0.0248 0.0250 872 958 1,052 1,156
Cacapian 924 0.0332 962 0.0317 1,131 0.0343 0.0330 1,151 1,264 1,389 1,526
Caculangan 353 0.0127 363 0.0119 387 0.0117 0.0115 401 441 484 532
Calincamasan 735 0.0264 858 0.0282 884 0.0268 0.0268 935 1,027 1,128 1,239
Casilagan 564 0.0203 630 0.0207 782 0.0237 0.0250 872 958 1,052 1,156
Catdongan 354 0.0127 389 0.0128 459 0.0139 0.0145 506 555 610 670
Dangdangla 709 0.0255 784 0.0258 824 0.0250 0.0255 889 977 1,073 1,179
Dasay 546 0.0196 579 0.0191 664 0.0202 0.0200 697 766 842 925
Dinanum 468 0.0168 566 0.0186 623 0.0189 0.0191 666 732 804 883
Duplas 532 0.0191 531 0.0175 575 0.0174 0.0173 603 663 728 800
Guinguinabang 465 0.0167 480 0.0158 543 0.0165 0.0165 575 632 694 763
Ili Norte (Pob.) 2,045 0.0736 2,222 0.0731 2,001 0.0607 0.0580 2,022 2,222 2,441 2,682
Ili Sur (Pob.) 2,058 0.0740 2,319 0.0763 2,342 0.0711 0.0720 2,511 2,758 3,030 3,329
Legleg 470 0.0169 482 0.0159 549 0.0167 0.0167 582 640 703 772
Lubing 634 0.0228 736 0.0242 888 0.0269 0.0280 976 1,073 1,179 1,295
Nadsaag 655 0.0236 753 0.0248 798 0.0242 0.0242 844 927 1,019 1,119
Nagsabaran 458 0.0165 430 0.0141 530 0.0161 0.0158 551 605 665 731
Naguirangan 585 0.0210 626 0.0206 606 0.0184 0.0180 628 690 758 832
251
Naguituban 818 0.0294 923 0.0304 943 0.0286 0.0288 1,004 1,103 1,212 1,332
Nagyubuyuban 285 0.0103 382 0.0126 375 0.0114 0.0114 398 437 480 527
Oaquing 266 0.0096 307 0.0101 299 0.0091 0.0096 335 368 404 444
Pacpacac 319 0.0115 414 0.0136 416 0.0126 0.0125 436 479 526 578
Pagdildilan 338 0.0122 391 0.0129 445 0.0135 0.0140 488 536 589 647
Panicsican 845 0.0304 947 0.0312 1,189 0.0361 0.0380 1,325 1,456 1,599 1,757
Quidem 150 0.0054 166 0.0055 158 0.0048 0.0050 174 192 210 231
San Felipe 1,043 0.0375 1,177 0.0387 968 0.0294 0.0300 1,046 1,149 1,263 1,387
Santa Rosa 383 0.0138 419 0.0138 447 0.0136 0.0136 474 521 572 629
Santo Rosario 651 0.0234 675 0.0222 739 0.0224 0.0224 781 858 943 1,036
Saracat 432 0.0155 463 0.0152 493 0.0150 0.0148 516 567 623 684
Sinapangan 381 0.0137 404 0.0133 434 0.0132 0.0131 457 502 551 606
Taboc 2,423 0.0872 2,356 0.0775 2,679 0.0813 0.0800 2,790 3,065 3,367 3,699
Talogtog 1,079 0.0388 1,123 0.0369 1,591 0.0483 0.0388 1,353 1,486 1,633 1,794
Urbiztondo 1,289 0.0464 1,525 0.0502 1,826 0.0554 0.0600 2,092 2,299 2,525 2,774
Municipal Totals 27,795 30,393 32,952 34,870 38,310 42,090 46,240
252
APPENDIX 5.1.E: SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION

BARANGAY Population Ratio Population Ratio Population Ratio Projected Ratio Population
1995 1995 2000 2000 2007 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025
Abut 407 0.0044 427 0.0042 501 0.0044 0.0043 518 561 607 657
Apaleng 442 0.0048 472 0.0046 454 0.0040 0.0037 446 482 522 565
Bacsil 470 0.0051 559 0.0055 564 0.0049 0.0051 614 665 720 779
Bangbangolan 421 0.0046 392 0.0038 536 0.0047 0.0046 554 600 649 703
Bangcusay 938 0.0102 1,089 0.0107 1,160 0.0101 0.0101 1,216 1,317 1,425 1,543
Barangay I (Pob.) 2,489 0.0271 2,280 0.0223 2,392 0.0208 0.0180 2,167 2,346 2,540 2,750
Barangay II (Pob.) 693 0.0075 674 0.0066 592 0.0052 0.0045 542 587 635 688
Barangay III (Pob.) 615 0.0067 449 0.0044 426 0.0037 0.0030 361 391 423 458
Barangay IV (Pob.) 1,125 0.0122 870 0.0085 935 0.0081 0.0078 939 1,017 1,101 1,192
Baraoas 606 0.0066 794 0.0078 965 0.0084 0.0090 1,084 1,173 1,270 1,375
Bato 741 0.0081 784 0.0077 898 0.0078 0.0078 939 1,017 1,101 1,192
Biday 1,972 0.0214 2,292 0.0225 2,685 0.0234 0.0240 2,890 3,129 3,387 3,667
Birunget 347 0.0038 435 0.0043 446 0.0039 0.0039 470 508 550 596
Bungro 967 0.0105 1,086 0.0106 1,237 0.0108 0.0120 1,445 1,564 1,694 1,833
Cabaroan (Negro) 2,396 0.0261 2,809 0.0275 3,341 0.0291 0.0300 3,612 3,911 4,234 4,583
Cabarsican 289 0.0031 359 0.0035 382 0.0033 0.0033 397 430 466 504
Cadaclan 1,028 0.0112 1,168 0.0114 1,352 0.0118 0.0120 1,445 1,564 1,694 1,833
Calabugao 406 0.0044 428 0.0042 495 0.0043 0.0043 518 561 607 657
Camansi 571 0.0062 858 0.0084 798 0.0070 0.0070 843 913 988 1,069
Canaoay 1,196 0.0130 1,345 0.0132 1,541 0.0134 0.0136 1,638 1,773 1,919 2,078
Carlatan 2,884 0.0314 2,778 0.0272 3,024 0.0263 0.0250 3,010 3,259 3,528 3,820
Catbangen 8,707 0.0947 8,267 0.0810 9,717 0.0846 0.0846 10,187 11,028 11,940 12,925
Dallangayan Este 824 0.0090 735 0.0072 1,192 0.0104 0.0100 1,204 1,304 1,411 1,528
Dallangayan Oeste 1,194 0.0130 1,495 0.0146 1,856 0.0162 0.0180 2,167 2,346 2,540 2,750
Dalumpinas Este 864 0.0094 1,204 0.0118 1,252 0.0109 0.0109 1,312 1,421 1,538 1,665
Dalumpinas Oeste 1,202 0.0131 1,683 0.0165 1,970 0.0172 0.0180 2,167 2,346 2,540 2,750
Ilocanos Norte 1,430 0.0156 1,479 0.0145 1,518 0.0132 0.0128 1,541 1,669 1,806 1,956
253
Ilocanos Sur 3,036 0.0330 3,035 0.0297 3,123 0.0272 0.0250 3,010 3,259 3,528 3,820
Langcuas 833 0.0091 1,208 0.0118 1,476 0.0129 0.0140 1,686 1,825 1,976 2,139
Lingsat 6,639 0.0722 7,167 0.0702 7,545 0.0657 0.0620 7,465 8,082 8,750 9,472
Madayegdeg 1,449 0.0158 1,722 0.0169 1,768 0.0154 0.0156 1,878 2,034 2,202 2,383
Mameltac 873 0.0095 957 0.0094 1,410 0.0123 0.0120 1,445 1,564 1,694 1,833
Masicong 308 0.0033 362 0.0035 455 0.0040 0.0042 506 548 593 642
Nagyubuyuban 790 0.0086 1,143 0.0112 1,226 0.0107 0.0107 1,288 1,395 1,510 1,635
Namtutan 502 0.0055 622 0.0061 517 0.0045 0.0050 602 652 706 764
Narra Este 346 0.0038 412 0.0040 465 0.0041 0.0042 506 548 593 642
Narra Oeste 387 0.0042 418 0.0041 518 0.0045 0.0042 506 548 593 642
Pacpaco 762 0.0083 793 0.0078 863 0.0075 0.0072 867 939 1,016 1,100
Pagdalagan 2,383 0.0259 2,710 0.0265 3,164 0.0276 0.0282 3,396 3,676 3,980 4,308
Pagdaraoan 2,104 0.0229 2,053 0.0201 2,210 0.0192 0.0190 2,288 2,477 2,681 2,903
Pagudpud 1,557 0.0169 1,956 0.0192 2,305 0.0201 0.0220 2,649 2,868 3,105 3,361
Pao Norte 595 0.0065 579 0.0057 596 0.0052 0.0050 602 652 706 764
Pao Sur 470 0.0051 436 0.0043 426 0.0037 0.0030 361 391 423 458
Parian 1,851 0.0201 2,856 0.0280 3,229 0.0281 0.0282 3,396 3,676 3,980 4,308
Pias 900 0.0098 1,013 0.0099 1,187 0.0103 0.0104 1,252 1,356 1,468 1,589
Poro 5,356 0.0583 5,231 0.0512 5,956 0.0519 0.0518 6,237 6,753 7,311 7,914
Puspus 411 0.0045 471 0.0046 415 0.0036 0.0044 530 574 621 672
Sacyud 514 0.0056 590 0.0058 552 0.0048 0.0052 626 678 734 794
Sagayad 892 0.0097 1,869 0.0183 2,576 0.0224 0.0250 3,010 3,259 3,528 3,820
San Agustin 1,483 0.0161 1,589 0.0156 1,881 0.0164 0.0161 1,939 2,099 2,272 2,460
San Francisco 2,673 0.0291 2,609 0.0256 2,991 0.0261 0.0260 3,131 3,389 3,669 3,972
San Vicente 1,793 0.0195 2,144 0.0210 2,370 0.0206 0.0206 2,480 2,685 2,907 3,147
Santiago Norte 1,951 0.0212 2,728 0.0267 3,029 0.0264 0.0264 3,179 3,442 3,726 4,033
Santiago Sur 1,061 0.0115 1,587 0.0155 1,641 0.0143 0.0143 1,722 1,864 2,018 2,185
Saoay 480 0.0052 609 0.0060 714 0.0062 0.0065 783 847 917 993
Sevilla 8,503 0.0925 9,619 0.0942 10,990 0.0957 0.0960 11,559 12,515 13,548 14,667
Siboan-Otong 664 0.0072 712 0.0070 717 0.0062 0.0060 722 782 847 917
254
Tanqui 4,398 0.0478 4,889 0.0479 5,318 0.0463 0.0463 5,575 6,036 6,534 7,074
Tanquigan 755 0.0082 782 0.0077 951 0.0083 0.0082 987 1,069 1,157 1,253
Municipal Totals 91,943 102,082 114,813 120,410 130,360 141,130 152,780
Barangay Totals 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
255
APPENDIX 5.2: WATER DEMAND PER LGU AND BARANGAY - MLUWD
A: 2010
B: 2015
C: 2020
D: 2025
256
APPENDIX 5.2. AA: Bacnotan

Bacnotan
2010 Water Demand (cumd)
Barangay Population Served Pop RatioServed No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Dom Com/Ind Bulk Total
Agtipal 513 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Arosip 323 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bacqui 485 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bacsil 679 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bagutot 206 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Ballogo 1,091 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Baroro 2,464 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bitalag 1,498 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bulala 1,220 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Burayoc 380 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bussaoit 703 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1,838 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabarsican 1,171 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabugao 456 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Calautit 646 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Carcarmay 598 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Casiaman 816 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Galongen 953 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Guinabang 909 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Legleg 565 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lisqueb 872 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 1st 287 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 2nd 303 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Maragayap 557 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Nagatiran 606 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
257
Nagsaraboan 990 210 0.212 35 - 35 18 0.4 30 37 60

Nagsimbaanan 646 192 0.297 32 - 32 16 0.4 27 34 54
Nangalisan 727 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Narra 1,163 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Ortega 687 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Oyaoy 533 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Paagan 574 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pandan 1,074 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pangpang 194 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Poblacion 3,756 498 0.133 82 2 84 45 0.4 75 94 151
Quirino 889 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Raois 929 84 0.090 14 - 14 7 0.4 12 15 24
Salincob 594 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sapilang 848 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
San Martin 856 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sayoan 432 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sipulo 949 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sta. Cruz 1,248 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sta. Rita 630 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Tammocalao 1,333 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Ubbog 602 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Zaragosa 598 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Municipal Totals 40,390 984 0.024 163 2 0 165 87 144 180 288
258
APPENDIX 5.2 AB: Bauang

Bauang
Barangay Population Served Pop Ratio Served No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Acao 4,247 2,079 0.490 345 3 348 181 0.4 302 377 604
Baccuit Norte 2,323 1,383 0.595 229 3 232 122 0.4 203 254 406
Baccuit Sur 2,287 1,224 0.535 203 2 205 107 0.4 178 223 356
Bagbag 799 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Ballay 1,677 810 0.483 135 0 135 69 0.4 115 143 230
Bawanta 980 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Boy-utan 1,140 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bucayab 1,220 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabalayangan 1,561 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabisilan 632 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Calumbaya 2,287 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Carmay 479 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Casilagan 1,125 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Central East (Pob.) 4,356 1,683 0.386 269 23 0 292 176 0.4 294 367 588
Central West (Pob.) 3,630 450 0.124 62 26 88 76 0.4 126 158 253
Dili 1,997 807 0.404 134 1 135 70 0.4 117 146 233
Disso-or 842 60 0.071 10 0 10 5 0.4 9 11 17
Guerrero 1,002 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Nagrebcan 1,445 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pagdalagan Sur 2,468 2,067 0.837 338 13 351 194 0.4 324 405 648
Palintucang 944 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Palugsi-Limmansangan 1,561 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Parian Oeste 1,096 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Parian Este 2,251 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Paringao 4,066 2,511 0.618 411 15 426 235 0.4 392 490 784
259
Payocpoc Norte Este 1,089 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0

Payocpoc Norte Oeste 1,960 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Payocpoc Sur 3,340 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pilar 436 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pudoc 1,634 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pottot 1,300 165 0.127 27 1 28 15 0.4 26 32 52
Pugo 2,904 486 0.167 81 0 81 41 0.4 69 86 138
Quinavite 3,412 714 0.209 116 6 122 69 0.4 116 145 231
Lower San Agustin 1,074 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Santa Monica 944 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Santiago 3,557 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Taberna 1,924 534 0.278 89 0 89 45 0.4 76 95 151
Upper San Agustin 1,234 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Urayong 1,379 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Municipal Totals 72,600 14,973 0.206 2449 93 0 2542 1,407 2,345 2,931 4,690
260
APPENDIX 5.2 AC: San Gabriel

San Gabriel
Barangay Population Served Pop % Served No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Amontoc 1,772 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Apayao 893 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Balbalayang 525 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bayabas 427 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bucao 1,969 30 0.015 5 0 5 2.55 0.4 4 5 9
Bumbuneg 2,265 60 0.026 10 0 10 5.1 0.4 9 11 17
Lacong 1,464 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lipay Este 451 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lipay Norte 574 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lipay Proper 279 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lipay Sur 696 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lon-oy 624 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Poblacion 3,118 414 0.133 69 0 69 35 0.4 59 73 117
Polipol 492 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Daking 862 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Municipal Total 16,410 504 0.031 84 0 0 84 43 71 89 143
261
APPENDIX 5.2 AD: San Juan

San Juan
Allangigan 199 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Aludaid 694 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bacsayan 628 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Balballosa 488 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bambanay 561 78 0.139 13 0 13 7 0.4 11 14 22
Bugbugcao 603 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Caarusipan 296 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1,329 36 0.027 6 0 6 3 0.4 5 6 10
Cabugnayan 872 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cacapian 1,151 210 0.182 35 0 35 18 0.4 30 37 60
Caculangan 401 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Calincamasan 935 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Casilagan 872 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Catdongan 506 42 0.083 7 0 7 4 0.4 6 7 12
Dangdangla 889 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Dasay 697 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Dinanum 666 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Duplas 603 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Guinguinabang 575 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Ili Norte (Pob.) 2,022 705 0.349 114 7 121 70 0.4 117 146 233
Ili Sur (Pob.) 2,511 840 0.335 137 6 143 80 0.4 133 167 267
Legleg 582 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Lubing 976 264 0.270 44 0 44 22 0.4 37 47 75
Nadsaag 844 60 0.071 10 0 10 5 0.4 9 11 17
Nagsabaran 551 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
262
Naguirangan 628 72 0.115 12 0 12 6 0.4 10 13 20

Naguituban 1,004 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 398 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Oaquing 335 108 0.323 18 0 18 9 0.4 15 19 31
Pacpacac 436 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pagdildilan 488 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Panicsican 1,325 336 0.254 55 2 57 31 0.4 52 66 105
Quidem 174 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
San Felipe 1,046 - 0.000 - 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 474 306 0.645 51 0 51 26 0.4 43 54 87
Santo Rosario 781 222 0.284 37 0 37 19 0.4 31 39 63
Saracat 516 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sinapangan 457 30 0.066 5 0 5 3 0.4 4 5 9
Taboc 2,790 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Talogtog 1,353 108 0.080 18 0 18 9 0.4 15 19 31
Urbiztondo 2,092 723 0.346 118 5 123 69 0.4 114 143 229
Municipal Totals 34,870 4,140 0.119 680 20 0 700 381 635 793 1269
263
APPENDIX 5.2 AE: San Fernando

San Fernando
Abut 518 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Apaleng 446 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bacsil 614 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bangbangolan 554 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bangcusay 1,156 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Barangay I (Pob.) 2,167 1,782 0.822 273 48 321 221 0.4 368 460 736
Barangay II (Pob.) 542 513 0.947 80 11 1 92 110 0.4 183 228 365
Barangay III (Pob.) 421 417 0.989 37 65 1 103 179 0.4 299 374 598
Barangay IV (Pob.) 939 798 0.850 123 20 143 97 0.4 161 202 322
Baraoas 1,084 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bato 939 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Biday 2,890 942 0.326 153 8 161 92 0.4 153 191 305
Birunget 470 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Bungro 1,445 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cabaroan (Negro) 3,612 585 0.162 96 3 99 54 0.4 90 113 180
Cabarsican 397 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Cadaclan 1,445 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Calabugao 518 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Camansi 843 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Canaoay 1,638 510 0.311 85 0 85 43 0.4 72 90 145
Carlatan 3,010 1,914 0.636 305 28 333 203 0.4 339 423 677
Catbangen 10,187 1,506 0.148 242 18 260 154 0.4 257 321 513
Dallangayan Este 1,204 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Dallangayan Oeste 2,167 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Dalumpinas Este 1,312 909 0.693 151 1 152 79 0.4 131 164 262
264
Dalumpinas Oeste 2,167 1,377 0.635 228 3 231 121 0.4 202 253 405
Ilocanos Norte 1,541 483 0.313 79 3 82 45 0.4 76 95 151
Ilocanos Sur 3,010 1,878 0.624 308 10 318 174 0.4 290 363 580
Langcuas 1,686 270 0.160 45 0 45 23 0.4 38 48 77
Lingsat 7,465 4,122 0.552 672 30 702 394 0.4 656 820 1312
Madayegdeg 1,878 297 0.158 47 5 52 32 0.4 54 68 108
Mameltac 1,445 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Masicong 506 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 1,288 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Namtutan 602 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Narra Este 506 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Narra Oeste 506 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pacpaco 867 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pagdalagan 3,396 1,836 0.541 300 12 312 173 0.4 289 361.25 578
Pagdaraoan 2,288 1,893 0.827 313 5 318 168 0.4 280 350 560
Pagudpud 2,649 1,290 0.487 209 12 221 127 0.4 212 265 423
Pao Norte 602 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Pao Sur 361 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Parian 3,396 153 0.045 23 5 28 20 0.4 34 42 67
Pias 1,252 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Poro 6,237 162 0.026 23 8 31 25 0.4 42 53 84
Puspus 530 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sacyud 626 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Sagayad 3,010 - 0.000 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
San Agustin 1,939 6 0.003 1 0 1 1 0.4 1 1 2
San Francisco 3,131 138 0.044 22 2 24 15 0.4 24 30 49
San Vicente 2,480 747 0.301 124 1 125 65 0.4 108 135 216
Santiago Norte 3,179 540 0.170 89 2 91 49 0.4 81 102 163
Santiago Sur 1,722 48 0.028 8 - 8 4 0.4 7 9 14
Saoay 783 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
265
Sevilla 11,559 1,335 0.115 216 13 229 132 0.4 220 276 441
Siboan-Otong 722 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
Tanqui 5,575 792 0.142 131 2 133 70 0.4 117 146 234
Tanquigan 987 - 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
266
APPENDIX 5.3 BA: Bacnotan

Bacnotan
Agtipal 550 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Arosip 346 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bacqui 520 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bacsil 727 145 0.200 24 - 24 15 0.32 22 28 45
Bagutot 221 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Ballogo 1,169 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Baroro 2,641 528 0.200 88 - 88 55 0.32 82 102 163
Bitalag 1,606 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bulala 1,308 265 0.202 44 1 45 29 0.32 43 54 87
Burayoc 407 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bussaoit 753 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1,970 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabarsican 1,256 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabugao 489 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Calautit 693 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Carcarmay 641 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Casiaman 875 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Galongen 1,022 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Guinabang 974 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Legleg 606 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Lisqueb 935 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 1st 307 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 2nd 325 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Maragayap 598 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Nagatiran 650 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
267
Nagsaraboan 1,061 303 0.286 50 1 51 34 0.32 49 62 99

Nagsimbaanan 693 300 0.433 50 - 50 32 0.32 46 58 93
Nangalisan 779 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Narra 1,247 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Ortega 736 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Oyaoy 572 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Paagan 615 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pandan 1,152 230 0.200 38 - 38 24 0.32 36 44 71
Pangpang 208 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Poblacion 4,027 814 0.202 134 3 137 91 0.32 133 166 266
Quirino 953 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Raois 996 199 0.200 33 - 33 21 0.32 31 38 62
Salincob 637 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sapilang 909 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
San Martin 918 246 0.268 40 2 42 29 0.32 43 54 86
Sayoan 463 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sipulo 1,018 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sta. Cruz 1,338 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sta. Rita 675 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Tammocalao 1,429 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Ubbog 645 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Zaragosa 641 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
268
APPENDIX 5.3 BB: Bauang
Bauang
Acao 4,530 2,412 0.532 400 4 404 260 0.32 382 478 765
Baccuit Norte 2,478 1,992 0.804 330 4 334 216 0.32 318 397 635
Baccuit Sur 2,439 2,112 0.866 350 4 354 229 0.32 336 420 672
Bagbag 852 173 0.204 28 1 29 20 0.32 29 37 58
Ballay 1,789 1,206 0.674 200 2 202 130 0.32 191 239 382
Bawanta 1,045 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Boy-utan 1,216 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bucayab 1,301 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabalayangan 1,665 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabisilan 674 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Calumbaya 2,439 494 0.202 81 2 83 55 0.32 81 102 162
Carmay 511 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Casilagan 1,200 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Central East (Pob.) 4,646 2,190 0.471 350 30 1 381 331 0.32 486 608 972
Central West (Pob.) 3,872 1,104 0.285 170 28 198 163 0.32 240 300 480
Dili 2,130 1,329 0.624 220 3 223 145 0.32 213 266 425
Disso-or 898 303 0.337 50 1 51 34 0.32 49 62 99
Guerrero 1,069 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Nagrebcan 1,541 308 0.200 51 - 51 32 0.32 48 59 95
Pagdalagan Sur 2,633 2,325 0.883 380 15 395 269 0.32 396 495 792
Palintucang 1,007 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Palugsi-Limmansangan 1,665 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
269
Parian Oeste 1,169 234 0.200 39 - 39 25 0.32 36 45 72

Parian Este 2,401 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Paringao 4,337 2,928 0.675 480 16 496 334 0.32 492 615 984
Payocpoc Norte Este 1,162 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Payocpoc Norte Oeste 2,091 421 0.201 70 1 71 46 0.32 68 84 135
Payocpoc Sur 3,562 715 0.201 119 1 120 77 0.32 113 141 226
Pilar 465 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pudoc 1,742 351 0.202 58 1 59 39 0.32 57 71 114
Pottot 1,386 366 0.264 60 2 62 42 0.32 61 77 123
Pugo 3,098 603 0.195 100 1 101 65 0.32 96 119 191
Quinavite 3,640 1,104 0.303 180 8 188 129 0.32 190 238 381
Lower San Agustin 1,146 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Santa Monica 1,007 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Santiago 3,795 765 0.202 126 2 128 84 0.32 123 154 246
Taberna 2,052 603 0.294 100 1 101 65 0.32 96 119 191
Upper San Agustin 1,316 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Urayong 1,471 294 0.200 49 - 49 31 0.32 45 57 91
Municipal Totals 77,440 24,334 0.314 3,992 127 1 4120 2,819 4,146 5,182 8,291
270
APPENDIX 5.3 BC: San Gabriel

San Gabriel
Amontoc 1,887 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Apayao 950 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Balbalayang 559 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bayabas 454 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bucao 2,096 180 0.086 30 0 30 19 0.32 28 35 56
Bumbuneg 2,411 303 0.126 50 1 51 34 0.32 49 62 99
Lacong 1,558 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Lipay Este 480 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Lipay Norte 611 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Lipay Proper 297 59 0.200 10 - 10 6 0.32 9 11 18
Lipay Sur 741 148 0.200 25 - 25 16 0.32 23 29 46
Lon-oy 664 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Poblacion 3,319 726 0.219 120 2 122 80 0.32 117 146 234
Polipol 524 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Daking 917 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Municipal Total 17,470 1,417 0.081 235 3 0 238 154 226 283 452
271
APPENDIX 5.3 BD: San Juan
San Juan
Allangigan 218 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Aludaid 762 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bacsayan 690 120 0.174 20 - 20 13 0.32 19 24 38
Balballosa 536 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bambanay 617 180 0.292 30 0 30 19 0.32 28 35 56
Bugbugcao 663 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Caarusipan 326 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1,460 120 0.082 20 0 20 13 0.32 19 23 37
Cabugnayan 958 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cacapian 1,264 273 0.216 45 1 46 30 0.32 45 56 89
Caculangan 441 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Calincamasan 1,027 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Casilagan 958 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Catdongan 555 120 0.216 20 0 20 13 0.32 19 23 37
Dangdangla 977 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Dasay 766 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Dinanum 732 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Duplas 663 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Guinguinabang 632 126 0.200 21 - 21 13 0.32 20 24 39
Ili Norte (Pob.) 2,222 987 0.444 160 9 169 119 0.32 175 218 349
Ili Sur (Pob.) 2,758 981 0.356 160 7 167 115 0.32 169 211 338
Legleg 640 128 0.200 21 - 21 13 0.32 20 25 40
Lubing 1,073 363 0.338 60 1 61 40 0.32 59 73 117
272
Nadsaag 927 150 0.162 25 0 25 16 0.32 23 29 46

Nagsabaran 605 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Naguirangan 690 96 0.139 16 0 16 10 0.32 15 19 30
Naguituban 1,103 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 437 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Oaquing 368 150 0.408 25 0 25 16 0.32 23 29 46
Pacpacac 479 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pagdildilan 536 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Panicsican 1,456 486 0.334 80 2 82 54 0.32 80 100 160
Quidem 192 38 0.200 6 - 6 4 0.32 6 7 12
San Felipe 1,149 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Santa Rosa 521 363 0.697 60 1 61 40 0.32 59 73 117
Santo Rosario 858 363 0.423 60 1 61 40 0.32 59 73 117
Saracat 567 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sinapangan 502 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Taboc 3,065 606 0.198 100 2 102 67 0.32 99 123 197
Talogtog 1,486 303 0.204 50 1 51 34 0.32 49 62 99
Urbiztondo 2,299 915 0.398 150 5 155 105 0.32 154 192 307
273
APPENDIX 5.3 BE: San Fernando

San Fernando
Barangay Population Served Pop % Served No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Abut 561 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Apaleng 482 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bacsil 665 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bangbangolan 600 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bangcusay 1,251 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Barangay I (Pob.) 2,346 2,070 0.882 320 50 370 302 0.32 444 554 887
Barangay II (Pob.) 587 576 0.982 90 12 1 103 131 0.32 192 240 384
Barangay III (Pob.) 456 450 0.986 41 68 1 110 212 0.32 312 389 623
Barangay IV (Pob.) 1,017 870 0.856 135 20 155 125 0.32 184 230 368
Baraoas 1,173 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bato 1,017 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Biday 3,129 1,230 0.393 200 10 210 146 0.32 215 268 429
Birunget 508 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Bungro 1,564 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cabaroan (Negro) 3,911 915 0.234 150 5 155 105 0.32 154 192 307
Cabarsican 430 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Cadaclan 1,564 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Calabugao 561 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Camansi 913 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Canaoay 1,773 606 0.342 100 2 102 67 0.32 99 123 197
Carlatan 3,259 2,250 0.690 360 30 390 287 0.32 422 527 844
Catbangen 11,028 1,860 0.169 300 20 320 229 0.32 337 421 674
Dallangayan Este 1,304 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Dallangayan Oeste 2,346 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Dalumpinas Este 1,421 963 0.678 160 1 161 103 0.32 151 189 302
274
Ilocanos Norte 1,669 609 0.365 100 3 103 69 0.32 101 127 203
Ilocanos Sur 3,259 2,013 0.618 330 11 341 230 0.32 338 423 676
Langcuas 1,825 483 0.265 80 1 81 52 0.32 77 96 154
Lingsat 8,082 4,785 0.592 780 35 815 561 0.32 826 1032 1651
Madayegdeg 2,034 564 0.277 90 8 98 73 0.32 107 134 214
Mameltac 1,564 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Masicong 548 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 1,395 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Namtutan 652 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Narra Este 548 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Narra Oeste 548 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pacpaco 939 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pagdalagan 3,676 2,262 0.615 370 14 384 261 0.32 384 480 768
Pagdaraoan 2,477 1,995 0.805 330 5 335 218 0.32 320 401 641
Pagudpud 2,868 1,479 0.516 240 13 253 177 0.32 261 326 521
Pao Norte 652 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Pao Sur 391 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Parian 3,676 441 0.120 70 7 77 58 0.32 85 107 171
Pias 1,356 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Poro 6,753 1,920 0.284 300 40 340 56 0.32 82 103 164
Puspus 574 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sacyud 678 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Sagayad 3,259 - 0 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
San Agustin 2,099 60 0.029 10 0 10 6 0.32 9 12 19
San Francisco 3,389 246 0.073 40 2 42 29 0.32 43 54 86
San Vicente 2,685 966 0.360 160 2 162 105 0.32 154 193 308
Santiago Norte 3,442 729 0.212 120 3 123 82 0.32 120 150 240
Santiago Sur 1,864 120 0.064 20 20 13 0.32 19 23 37
Saoay 847 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
275
Sevilla 12,515 1,965 0.157 320 15 335 232 0.32 341 426 681
Siboan-Otong 782 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Tanqui 6,036 1,089 0.180 180 3 183 119 0.32 176 219 351
Tanquigan 1,069 - 0.000 0 0 0.32 0 0 0
Municipal Totals 130,360 35085 0.269 5656 383 2 6041 4216 6200 7750 12400
276
APPENDIX 5.4 CA: Bacnotan

Bacnotan
Agtipal 590 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Arosip 371 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacqui 557 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsil 780 251 0.322 41 1 42 28 0.3 40 50 80
Bagutot 237 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Ballogo 1,253 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Baroro 2,832 908 0.321 150 2 152 99 0.3 141 176 282
Bitalag 1,722 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bulala 1,402 449 0.321 74 1 75 49 0.3 70 87 140
Burayoc 436 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bussaoit 808 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan 2,112 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabarsican 1,346 230 0.171 38 1 39 26 0.3 37 46 74
Cabugao 525 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calautit 743 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Carcarmay 687 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casiaman 938 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Galongen 1,096 188 0.172 31 1 32 21 0.3 31 38 61
Guinabang 1,044 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Legleg 650 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lisqueb 1,003 210 0.209 35 35 22 0.3 32 39 63
Mabanengbeng 1st 330 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 2nd 348 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Maragayap 641 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagatiran 696 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
277
Nagsaraboan 1,137 409 0.360 68 1 69 45 0.3 64 80 128

Nagsimbaanan 743 399 0.537 66 1 67 44 0.3 62 78 125
Nangalisan 836 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra 1,337 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Ortega 789 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Oyaoy 613 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Paagan 659 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pandan 1,235 396 0.321 66 1 67 43 0.3 62 77 124
Pangpang 223 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poblacion 4,317 961 0.223 158 4 162 108 0.3 154 192 307
Quirino 1,021 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Raois 1,068 328 0.307 54 1 55 36 0.3 52 64 103
Salincob 682 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sapilang 975 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
San Martin 984 399 0.405 65 3 68 47 0.3 67 84 134
Sayoan 497 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sipulo 1,091 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sta. Cruz 1,434 242 0.169 40 - 40 25 0.3 36 45 73
Sta. Rita 724 120 0.166 20 20 13 0.3 18 23 36
Tammocalao 1,532 243 0.159 40 1 41 27 0.3 39 49 78
Ubbog 692 - 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Zaragosa 687 116 0.169 19 - 19 12 0.3 17 22 35
Municipal Totals 46,420 5,849 0.126 966 18 - 984 644 921 1,151 1,841
278
APPENDIX 5.4 CB: Bauang
Bauang
Acao 4,832 2,853 0.590 473 6 479 310 0.3 442 553 885
Baccuit Norte 2,643 2,220 0.840 367 6 373 243 0.3 347 434 695
Baccuit Sur 2,602 2,577 0.990 427 6 433 281 0.3 401 501 802
Bagbag 909 241 0.265 40 1 41 27 0.3 39 48 77
Ballay 1,908 1,467 0.769 243 4 247 161 0.3 230 287 459
Bawanta 1,115 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Boy-utan 1,297 221 0.170 36 1 37 25 0.3 36 44 71
Bucayab 1,388 236 0.170 39 1 40 26 0.3 38 47 76
Cabalayangan 1,776 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabisilan 719 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calumbaya 2,602 690 0.265 114 3 117 78 0.3 111 138 221
Carmay 545 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casilagan 1,280 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Central East (Pob.) 4,956 2,406 0.485 385 33 1 419 358 0.3 512 640 1024
Central West (Pob.) 4,130 1,236 0.299 191 30 221 180 0.3 258 322 515
Dili 2,272 1,674 0.737 277 4 281 183 0.3 261 326 521
Disso-or 958 636 0.664 105 2 107 70 0.3 100 125 200
Guerrero 1,140 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagrebcan 1,644 433 0.264 72 1 73 47 0.3 67 84 135
Pagdalagan Sur 2,808 2,502 0.891 409 16 425 290 0.3 414 517 828
Palintucang 1,074 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Palugsi-Limmansangan 1,776 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
279
Parian Oeste 1,247 333 0.267 54 2 56 38 0.3 55 68 109

Parian Este 2,561 436 0.170 72 2 74 49 0.3 70 88 141
Paringao 4,626 3,333 0.721 546 20 566 384 0.3 548 685 1096
Payocpoc Norte Este 1,239 211 0.170 35 1 36 24 0.3 34 43 68
Payocpoc Sur 3,800 1,001 0.263 166 2 168 108 0.3 155 194 310
Pilar 496 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pudoc 1,859 493 0.265 81 2 83 55 0.3 79 98 157
Pottot 1,479 570 0.386 94 3 97 65 0.3 93 116 185
Pugo 3,304 999 0.302 166 2 168 108 0.3 155 193 309
Quinavite 3,882 1,668 0.430 273 10 283 192 0.3 274 343 549
Lower San Agustin 1,222 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Santa Monica 1,074 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Santiago 4,047 1,069 0.264 177 3 180 117 0.3 167 209 335
Taberna 2,189 1,023 0.467 170 2 172 111 0.3 158 198 317
Upper San Agustin 1,404 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Urayong 1,569 414 0.264 68 1 69 45 0.3 64 81 129
Municipal Totals 82,600 31,528 0.382 5,172 165 1 5,338 3,638 5,198 6,497 10,395
280
APPENDIX 5.4 CC: San Gabriel

San Gabriel
Barangay Population Served Pop Ratio served No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Amontoc 2,009 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Apayao 1,012 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Balbalayang 595 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bayabas 484 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bucao 2,232 408 0.183 68 1 69 45 0.3 64 80 127
Bumbuneg 2,567 546 0.213 90 2 92 61 0.3 87 108 173
Lacong 1,659 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Este 512 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Norte 651 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Proper 316 83 0.262 14 - 14 9 0.3 12 16 25
Lipay Sur 789 206 0.262 34 - 34 22 0.3 31 39 62
Lon-oy 707 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poblacion 3,534 1,026 0.290 170 3 173 113 0.3 161 201 322
Polipol 558 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Daking 977 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Municipal Total 18,600 2,269 0.122 375 6 0 381 248 355 443 710
281
APPENDIX 5.4 CD: San Juan

San Juan
Allangigan 240 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Aludaid 838 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsayan 758 183 0.242 30 1 31 21 0.3 30 37 60
Balballosa 589 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bambanay 678 282 0.416 47 1 48 31 0.3 45 56 89
Bugbugcao 728 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Caarusipan 358 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1,604 231 0.144 38 1 39 26 0.3 37 46 74
Cabugnayan 1,052 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cacapian 1,389 363 0.261 60 1 61 40 0.3 57 71 114
Caculangan 484 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calincamasan 1,128 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casilagan 1,052 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Catdongan 610 174 0.285 29 1 30 20 0.3 29 36 57
Dangdangla 1,073 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dasay 842 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dinanum 804 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Duplas 728 - 0.000 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Guinguinabang 694 186 0.268 31 1 32 21 0.3 30 38 61
Ili Norte (Pob.) 2,441 1,155 0.473 187 11 198 140 0.3 200 250 399
Ili Sur (Pob.) 3,030 1,215 0.401 199 8 207 141 0.3 202 252 403
Legleg 703 189 0.268 31 1 32 21 0.3 31 38 61
Lubing 1,179 696 0.591 115 3 118 78 0.3 112 140 223
Nadsaag 1,019 258 0.253 43 1 44 29 0.3 41 51 82
Nagsabaran 665 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
282
Naguirangan 758 129 0.170 22 0 22 14 0.3 19 24 39

Naguituban 1,212 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 480 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Oaquing 404 207 0.512 34 1 35 23 0.3 33 42 67
Pacpacac 526 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pagdildilan 589 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Panicsican 1,599 867 0.542 143 4 147 98 0.3 140 175 279
Quidem 210 56 0.264 9 - 9 6 0.3 8 10 17
San Felipe 1,263 221 0.175 36 1 37 25 0.3 36 45 71
Santa Rosa 572 459 0.802 76 2 78 52 0.3 74 92 147
Santo Rosario 943 522 0.554 86 2 88 58 0.3 83 104 166
Saracat 623 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sinapangan 551 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Taboc 3,367 912 0.271 150 4 154 103 0.3 146 183 293
Talogtog 1,633 810 0.496 134 2 136 88 0.3 126 158 253
Urbiztondo 2,525 1,122 0.444 184 6 190 128 0.3 183 228 365
Municipal Totals 42,090 10,237 0.243 1,680 52 - 1,732 1,163 1,661 2,076 3,321
283
APPENDIX 5.3 CE: San Fernando

San Fernando
Abut 607 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Apaleng 522 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsil 720 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bangbangolan 649 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bangcusay 1,355 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Barangay I (Pob.) 2,540 2,409 0.948 372 60 432 354 0.3 506 632 1012
Barangay II (Pob.) 635 624 0.983 98 12 1 111 136 0.3 194 242 388
Barangay III (Pob.) 494 486 0.984 46 70 1 117 219 0.3 313 391 626
Barangay IV (Pob.) 1,101 990 0.899 154 22 176 141 0.3 201 252 403
Baraoas 1,270 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bato 1,101 191 0.173 31 1 32 22 0.3 31 39 62
Biday 3,387 2,319 0.685 379 15 394 269 0.3 384 480 768
Birunget 550 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bungro 1,694 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan (Negro) 4,234 1,374 0.325 225 8 233 158 0.3 225 282 451
Cabarsican 466 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cadaclan 1,694 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calabugao 607 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Camansi 988 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Canaoay 1,919 1,164 0.606 193 3 196 127 0.3 182 227 364
Carlatan 3,528 2,700 0.765 433 35 468 342 0.3 489 612 979
Catbangen 11,940 2,919 0.244 474 25 499 349 0.3 498 623 996
Dallangayan Este 1,411 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dallangayan Oeste 2,540 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dalumpinas Este 1,538 1,239 0.805 206 2 208 133 0.3 191 238 381
284
Ilocanos Norte 1,806 789 0.437 130 4 134 90 0.3 128 160 256
Ilocanos Sur 3,528 2,250 0.638 369 12 381 256 0.3 366 458 733
Langcuas 1,976 1,284 0.650 213 3 216 140 0.3 200 250 400
Lingsat 8,750 5,976 0.683 976 40 1 1,017 745 0.3 1064 1330 2128
Madayegdeg 2,202 1,347 0.612 219 12 231 162 0.3 231 289 462
Mameltac 1,694 292 0.172 48 1 49 32 0.3 46 58 92
Masicong 593 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 1,510 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Namtutan 706 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra Este 593 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra Oeste 593 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pacpaco 1,016 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pagdalagan 3,980 2,958 0.743 485 16 501 338 0.3 482 603 964
Pagdaraoan 2,681 2,337 0.872 387 6 393 255 0.3 365 456 730
Pagudpud 3,105 1,842 0.593 300 15 315 219 0.3 312 391 625
Pao Norte 706 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pao Sur 423 - 0 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Parian 3,980 906 0.228 147 9 156 110 0.3 158 197 315
Pias 1,468 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poro 7,311 2,235 0.306 350 45 395 311 0.3 444 554 887
Puspus 621 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sacyud 734 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sagayad 3,528 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
San Agustin 2,272 336 0.148 56 1 57 37 0.3 53 66 106
San Francisco 3,669 495 0.135 81 3 84 57 0.3 81 102 163
San Vicente 2,907 1,461 0.503 242 3 245 158 0.3 226 283 453
Santiago Norte 3,726 1,542 0.414 255 5 260 170 0.3 243 304 487
Santiago Sur 2,018 684 0.339 114 114 72 0.3 103 128 205
Saoay 917 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
285
Sevilla 13,548 5,298 0.391 868 30 898 607 0.3 867 1084 1734
Siboan-Otong 847 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Tanqui 6,534 1,845 0.282 306 4 310 200 0.3 286 358 573
Tanquigan 1,157 - 0.000 - - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Municipal Totals 141,130 52,277 0.370 8,480 466 3 8,949 6,424 9178 11472 18355
286
APPENDIX 5.5 DA: Bacnotan

Bacnotan
2025 Water demand (cumd)
Agtipal 632 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Arosip 398 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacqui 597 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsil 836 357 0.427 59 2 61 39 0.3 56 69 111
Bagutot 254 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Ballogo 1,344 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Baroro 3,035 1284 0.423 212 3 215 133 0.3 190 238 381
Bitalag 1,846 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bulala 1,503 637 0.424 105 2 107 67 0.3 96 119 191
Burayoc 468 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bussaoit 866 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan 2,264 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabarsican 1,443 461 0.319 76 2 78 49 0.3 70 88 141
Cabugao 562 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calautit 796 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Carcarmay 736 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casiaman 1,005 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Galongen 1,174 376 0.320 62 2 64 41 0.3 58 73 117
Guinabang 1,120 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Legleg 697 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lisqueb 1,075 426 0.396 70 2 72 46 0.3 65 82 131
Mabanengbeng 1st 353 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Mabanengbeng 2nd 373 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Maragayap 687 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagatiran 746 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
287
Nagsaraboan 1,219 518 0.425 85 2 87 55 0.3 79 98 157

Nagsimbaanan 796 498 0.626 82 2 84 53 0.3 76 95 151
Nangalisan 896 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra 1,433 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Ortega 846 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Oyaoy 657 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Paagan 707 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pandan 1,324 562 0.425 93 2 95 59 0.3 85 106 170
Pangpang 239 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poblacion 4,628 1104 0.239 182 4 186 117 0.3 167 209 334
Quirino 1,095 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Raois 1,144 453 0.396 75 1 76 47 0.3 67 84 134
Salincob 731 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sapilang 1,045 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
San Martin 1,055 492 0.466 80 4 84 56 0.3 79 99 159
Sayoan 532 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sipulo 1,169 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sta. Cruz 1,538 487 0.317 81 1 82 50 0.3 72 90 144
Sta. Rita 776 243 0.313 40 1 41 26 0.3 37 46 74
Tammocalao 1,642 549 0.334 90 3 93 60 0.3 85 107 171
Ubbog 741 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
Zaragosa 736 235 0.319 39 1 40 25 0.3 36 45 72
Municipal Totals 49,760 8682 0.174 1,430 34 - 1464 923 1318 1647 2636
288
APPENDIX 5.5 DB: Bauang
Bauang
Acao 5,155 3300 0.640 545 10 555 346 0.3 494 618 989
Baccuit Norte 2,820 2454 0.870 404 10 414 261 0.3 373 467 747
Baccuit Sur 2,776 2748 0.990 453 10 463 291 0.3 415 519 831
Bagbag 969 372 0.384 61 2 63 40 0.3 58 72 115
Ballay 2,036 1728 0.849 285 6 291 182 0.3 261 326 521
Bawanta 1,190 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Boy-utan 1,383 534 0.386 88 2 90 57 0.3 81 101 162
Bucayab 1,480 564 0.381 93 2 95 60 0.3 85 106 170
Cabalayangan 1,895 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabisilan 767 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calumbaya 2,776 886 0.319 146 4 150 95 0.3 136 170 272
Carmay 582 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casilagan 1,366 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Central East (Pob.) 5,287 2628 0.497 419 38 2 459 424 0.3 605 756 1210
Central West (Pob.) 4,406 1377 0.313 212 35 247 194 0.3 277 346 553
Dili 2,423 2022 0.834 334 6 340 212 0.3 303 378 605
Disso-or 1,022 972 0.951 160 4 164 104 0.3 148 185 296
Guerrero 1,216 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagrebcan 1,754 561 0.320 92 3 95 61 0.3 87 109 174
Pagdalagan Sur 2,996 2682 0.895 438 18 456 297 0.3 424 530 849
Palintucang 1,146 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Palugsi-Limmansangan 1,895 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
289
Parian Oeste 1,331 428 0.322 70 3 73 48 0.3 68 85 136

Parian Este 2,732 927 0.339 153 3 156 98 0.3 139 174 279
Paringao 4,935 3738 0.757 611 24 635 412 0.3 589 736 1178
Payocpoc Norte Este 1,322 422 0.320 69 2 71 45 0.3 65 81 130
Payocpoc Sur 4,054 1286 0.317 213 3 216 133 0.3 191 238 381
Pilar 529 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pudoc 1,983 634 0.320 104 3 107 68 0.3 97 122 195
Pottot 1,577 774 0.491 127 4 131 84 0.3 120 150 239
Pugo 3,525 1395 0.396 231 3 234 144 0.3 206 258 412
Quinavite 4,142 2241 0.541 366 15 381 248 0.3 354 443 709
Lower San Agustin 1,304 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Santa Monica 1,146 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Santiago 4,318 1372 0.318 227 4 231 144 0.3 205 256 410
Taberna 2,335 1443 0.618 239 3 242 149 0.3 213 266 426
Upper San Agustin 1,498 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Urayong 1,674 530 0.317 88 1 89 55 0.3 78 98 156
Municipal Totals 88,120 38775 0.440 6,352 220 2 6,574 4,329 6,185 7,731 12,370
290
APPENDIX 5.5 DC: San Gabriel

San Gabriel
Amontoc 2,138 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Apayao 1,077 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Balbalayang 634 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bayabas 515 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bucao 2,376 636 0.268 105 2 107 67 0.3 95 119 191
Bumbuneg 2,732 789 0.289 130 3 133 84 0.3 120 149 239
Lacong 1,766 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Este 545 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Norte 693 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Lipay Proper 337 109 0.324 18 1 19 13 0.3 18 22 36
Lipay Sur 840 267 0.319 44 1 45 28 0.3 40 51 81
Lon-oy 752 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poblacion 3,762 1326 0.352 219 4 223 139 0.3 199 248 397
Polipol 594 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Daking 1,040 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Municipal Total 19,800 3127 0.158 516 11 0 527 330 472 590 944
291
APPENDIX 5.5 DD: San Juan

San Juan
Allangigan 264 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Aludaid 920 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsayan 832 268 0.322 44 2 46 30 0.3 43 54 86
Balballosa 647 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bambanay 744 384 0.516 63 2 65 42 0.3 59 74 119
Bugbugcao 800 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Caarusipan 393 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan 1762 342 0.194 56 2 58 37 0.3 53 67 107
Cabugnayan 1156 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cacapian 1526 456 0.299 75 2 77 49 0.3 70 87 139
Caculangan 532 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calincamasan 1239 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Casilagan 1156 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Catdongan 670 225 0.336 37 1 38 24 0.3 34 43 69
Dangdangla 1179 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dasay 925 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dinanum 883 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Duplas 800 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Guinguinabang 763 246 0.323 40 2 42 28 0.3 40 50 80
Ili Norte (Pob.) 2682 1326 0.494 214 14 228 155 0.3 221 277 443
Ili Sur (Pob.) 3329 1449 0.435 237 9 246 159 0.3 228 284 455
Legleg 772 246 0.319 41 1 42 26 0.3 37 47 75
292
Lubing 1295 1026 0.792 169 4 173 109 0.3 156 195 311
Nadsaag 1119 363 0.324 60 1 61 38 0.3 54 68 108
Nagsabaran 731 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Naguirangan 832 165 0.198 27 1 28 18 0.3 26 32 52
Naguituban 1332 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 527 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Oaquing 444 261 0.588 43 1 44 28 0.3 40 49 79
Pacpacac 578 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pagdildilan 647 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Panicsican 1757 1245 0.709 205 5 210 133 0.3 189 237 379
Quidem 231 73 0.315 12 0 12 7 0.3 10 13 21
San Felipe 1387 440 0.317 73 1 74 46 0.3 65 81 130
Santa Rosa 629 552 0.878 91 2 93 58 0.3 83 104 167
Santo Rosario 1036 681 0.657 112 3 115 73 0.3 104 130 208
Saracat 684 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sinapangan 606 0 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Taboc 3699 1518 0.410 250 6 256 161 0.3 231 288 461
Talogtog 1794 1323 0.737 218 5 223 140 0.3 200 251 401
Urbiztondo 2774.4 1326 0.478 218 6 224 142 0.3 203 254 406
Municipal Totals 46240 13916 0.301 2284 70 0 2354 1504 2148 2685 4296
293
APPENDIX 5.3 DE: San Fernando

San Fernando
Barangay Population Served Pop Ratio served No. of Connections Demand NRW Ave Day Max-Day Peak-Hr
Abut 657 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Apaleng 565 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bacsil 779 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bangbangolan 703 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bangcusay 1,467 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Barangay I (Pob.) 2,750 2,748 0.999 423 70 493 387 0.3 553 691 1105
Barangay II (Pob.) 688 684 0.995 108 12 1 121 138 0.3 197 246 393
Barangay III (Pob.) 535 510 0.954 50 70 1 121 213 0.3 304 380 609
Barangay IV (Pob.) 1,192 1,113 0.934 173 25 198 151 0.3 216 270 432
Baraoas 1,375 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bato 1,192 381 0.320 63 2 65 41 0.3 59 74 118
Biday 3,667 3,384 0.923 555 18 573 367 0.3 525 656 1049
Birunget 596 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Bungro 1,833 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cabaroan (Negro) 4,583 1,830 0.399 300 10 310 199 0.3 284 355 569
Cabarsican 504 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Cadaclan 1,833 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Calabugao 657 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Camansi 1,069 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Canaoay 2,078 1,728 0.832 285 6 291 182 0.3 261 326 521
Carlatan 3,820 3,135 0.821 505 35 540 370 0.3 528 660 1056
Catbangen 12,925 3,984 0.308 649 30 679 446 0.3 638 797 1275
Dallangayan Este 1,528 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dallangayan Oeste 2,750 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Dalumpinas Este 1,665 1,515 0.910 251 3 254 156 0.3 223 279 447
294
Ilocanos Norte 1,956 969 0.496 159 5 164 105 0.3 150 187 300
Ilocanos Sur 3,820 2,487 0.651 408 13 421 270 0.3 385 481 770
Langcuas 2,139 2,082 0.973 345 4 349 215 0.3 307 383 613
Lingsat 9,472 7,167 0.757 1172 45 1 1,218 839 0.3 1198 1498 2396
Madayegdeg 2,383 2,127 0.892 347 15 362 237 0.3 338 423 676
Mameltac 1,833 584 0.318 96 2 98 62 0.3 88 110 176
Masicong 642 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Nagyubuyuban 1,635 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Namtutan 764 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra Este 642 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Narra Oeste 642 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pacpaco 1,100 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pagdalagan 4,308 3,654 0.848 600 18 618 394 0.3 563 704 1126
Pagdaraoan 2,903 2,676 0.922 443 6 449 277 0.3 396 495 792
Pagudpud 3,361 2,202 0.655 359 16 375 246 0.3 351 439 702
Pao Norte 764 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Pao Sur 458 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Parian 4,308 1,368 0.318 223 10 233 153 0.3 218 273 437
Pias 1,589 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Poro 7,914 2,550 0.322 400 50 450 335 0.3 479 598 957
Puspus 672 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sacyud 794 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Sagayad 3,820 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
San Agustin 2,460 612 0.249 101 2 103 64 0.3 92 115 184
San Francisco 3,972 744 0.187 122 4 126 81 0.3 115 144 231
San Vicente 3,147 1,956 0.621 324 4 328 202 0.3 289 361 577
Santiago Norte 4,033 2,352 0.583 389 6 395 245 0.3 350 437 699
Santiago Sur 2,185 1,248 0.571 208 208 125 0.3 178 223 357
Saoay 993 - 0.000 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
295
Sevilla 14,667 8,601 0.586 1416 35 1,451 916 0.3 1309 1636 2617
Siboan-Otong 917 - 0 - 0 0.3 0 0 0
Tanqui 7,074 2,601 0.368 431 5 436 268 0.3 383 479 766
Tanquigan 1,253 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
296
APPENDIX 6.1: SURFACE WATER DATA - MLUWD
Table 6 – 1A Mean Monthly Discharge of Baroro River

Table 6 – 1B Baroro River Flow Frequency
Table 6 – 2A Calculation of Streamflow Diverted for Irrigation
Table 6 – 2B Calculation of Lon-oy Creek Excess Flow
Table 6 – 3A Mean Monthly Discharge of Naguilian River
Table 6 – 3B River Discharge Correlation
Table 6 – 3C Flow Frequency of Naguilian River and Bauang River
Table 6 – 8 Water Quality Test Results
Figure 6 – 1 Baroro River Flow Frequency Analysis

Figure 6 – 2 Lon-oy Creek Measuring Stations Location Map
Figure 6 – 3A Lon-oy Creek Cross Section
Figure 6 – 3B Irrigation Canal Cross Section
Figure 6 – 4 River Discharge Correlation
Figure 6 – 5 Naguilian River Flow Frequency Analysis
297
TABLE 6 - 1A
MEAN MONTHLY DISCHARGE OF BARORO RIVER (cu.m/sec.)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1959 1.07 0.71 1.00 0.40 5.72 8.79 16.96 31.95 23.03 5.54 5.46 3.46
1960 3.53 1.39 1.29 1.90 9.58 6.98 18.70 74.33 12.43 10.81 3.12 1.51
1961 1.28 1.58 1.99 1.90 4.60 23.60 46.11 30.86 33.20 12.87 4.53 2.60
1962 1.65 1.27 1.18 0.93 1.85 7.22 45.88 31.54 28.63 7.69 2.90 1.98
1963 1.19 0.71 0.40 0.32 1.02 20.10 14.36 11.31 41.64 7.68 2.97 1.64
1964 0.58 0.31 0.27 0.23 2.56 9.24 5.75 62.56 32.06 14.25 9.29 6.23
1965 2.75 1.64 1.25 1.23 4.90 15.84 19.18 12.38 12.52 5.48 4.06 2.03
1966 1.55 1.25 1.18 1.23 12.88 5.89 9.29 25.05 28.16 5.13 4.55 2.76
1967 1.55 0.94 0.85 1.18 1.41 24.38 24.58 34.77 22.52 49.69 5.89 5.84
1968 3.88 1.57 1.11 0.75 0.68 2.91 32.14 56.57 48.42 10.38 2.43 1.46
1969 0.93 0.97 0.55 ***** 1.39 6.28 65.41 22.47 32.23 7.02 1.82 1.16
1970 0.90 0.74 0.57 0.67 1.98 4.13 6.27 7.87 4.08 1.20 0.88 0.36
1971 0.35 0.28 0.50 0.22 0.50 11.10 13.38 41.68 4.37 ***** ***** *****
1972 5.52 4.97 2.73 2.03 3.87 5.94 16.96 22.83 6.31 4.31 3.18 2.63
1973 1.76 1.20 0.56 ***** ***** ***** 8.16 10.24 9.52 17.42 4.25 2.97
1974 1.40 0.53 0.28 0.10 0.05 1.45 16.26 17.88 67.56 18.52 1.91 2.67
Mean 1.87 1.24 0.97 0.82 3.31 9.62 22.46 30.90 25.44 11.87 3.58 2.46
Note : ***** INDICATES MISSING DATA, NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF STATISTICAL PARAMETERS.
298
TABLE 6 – 1B – BARORO RIVER FLOW FREQUENCY
% Equaled Baroro River

or Exceeded Discharge*
cum/s
100 0.38
90 0.61
80 0.98
70 1.56
60 2.50
50 3.99
40 6.37
30 10.17
20 16.23
10 25.92
0.1 41.20
Drainage area (DA), sq km 129
Note: *Discharge is calculated from the flow frequency equation:
Q = 41.389*e to the power (-0.0468*%exceedance)
299
TABLE 6 – 2A CALCULATION OF STREAMFLOW DIVERTED FOR

IRRIGATION
Obs. Width Depth Depth of Cum. Actual Counts/sec Velocity Ave Vel Ave Area Q
Pt. Meas. Reading Reading at Pt. Vel at
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm/s) (cm/s) sect (cm2) ( cm/s)
(cm/s)
134000 (Initial reading)

A 0 0 0.6d 134000 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B 20 19 0.6d 134199 199 6.6 22.6 22.6 11.3 190 2,148
C 20 28 0.6d 134521 322 10.7 31.8 31.8 27.2 470 12,782
D 20 28 0.6d 134896 375 12.5 36.5 36.5 34.1 560 19,121
E 20 26 0.6d 135318 422 14.1 40.7 40.7 38.6 540 20,851
F 35 24 0.6d 135666 348 11.6 34.1 34.1 37.4 875 32,730
Total 115 87,632
Flow at Irrigation Canal (lps) 87.63

Location: Sitio Bakes, Brgy. Lon-oy, San Gabriel, La Union Coordinates
Sream Name: Lon-oy Creek Latitude: 16o 41' 40"
o
Date 22-May-09 Longitude: 120 29' 23"
Time: 10:55 AM Elevation: 300 mamsl
Weather: Sunny Measured by: POYRY-TCI

Remarks: Used current meter.
TABLE 6 – 2B CALCULATION OF LON - OY CREEK EXCESS FLOW

(Downstream of the Lon-oy River Intake)
Observ Dist. Depth Depth of Cumul. Actual Counts/sec Velocity Ave Vel Ave Vel Area Q
Pt. Meas. Reading Reading at Pt. at sect
2
(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm/s) (cm/s) (cm/s) (cm ) (cum/s)
135400 (Initial reading)
A 0 0 135400 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0
B 30 156 0.2d 135766 366 12.2 35.7 35.4 17.7 2340 41,465
0.6d 136117 351 11.7 34.4
0.8d 136489 372 12.4 36.2
C 40 180 0.2d 136888 399 13.3 38.7 31.3 33.4 6720 224,245
0.6d 137175 287 9.6 28.6
0.8d 137439 264 8.8 26.6
D 40 130 0.2d 137834 395 13.2 38.3 35.4 33.4 6200 206,893
0.6d 138204 370 12.3 36.1
0.8d 138528 324 10.8 32.0
E 20 0 138528 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 1300 23,036
Total 130 495,638
Tributary Flow (lps) 495.638
Location: Sitio Bakes, Brgy. Lon-oy, San Gabriel, L. U. Coordinates

o
Sream Name: Baroro River Tributary (Lon-oy) Latitude: 16 41' 40"
Date 22-May-09 Longitude: 120o 29' 23"
Time: 11:30 AM Elevation: 290 mamsl
Weather: Sunny Measured by: POYRY-TCI
Remarks: Used current meter.
300
TABLE 6 - 3A
MEAN MONTHLY DISCHARGE OF NAGUILIAN RIVER (cu.m/sec)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1946 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 32.50 179.63 55.11 29.09 25.39 10.83 6.37
1947 3.91 2.94 3.25 6.41 9.90 44.21 35.38 31.38 36.40 79.63 114.26 8.88
1948 4.84 3.67 2.44 3.47 24.43 15.38 47.55 113.61 67.20 29.23 10.10 8.75
1949 4.25 3.72 3.41 2.84 3.21 18.03 44.61 35.76 67.39 74.80 6.38 8.00
1950 4.22 2.97 2.61 2.88 11.78 20.61 98.43 178.57 53.18 49.97 9.76 5.10
1951 3.73 2.97 2.32 2.85 9.12 42.49 69.05 136.30 54.27 11.25 6.08 3.41
1952 2.90 2.09 1.99 2.96 15.58 27.30 29.27 76.73 45.55 18.67 8.10 3.91
1953 2.45 2.08 1.94 2.12 7.88 37.40 54.13 114.23 51.21 14.70 63.44 10.90
1954 4.99 3.66 4.53 8.08 8.59 13.98 20.23 54.82 48.63 30.09 21.00 4.14
1955 2.21 2.16 1.99 2.45 8.53 19.44 38.15 40.99 36.20 25.79 13.48 5.41
1956 3.04 2.49 2.28 3.45 11.79 12.97 25.11 74.78 144.06 39.86 14.12 7.34
1957 4.79 3.16 3.10 3.00 3.46 46.32 27.60 54.32 97.34 24.80 14.34 5.70
1958 3.49 2.51 1.91 1.75 4.30 53.05 96.46 44.76 86.36 27.60 7.31 4.44
1959 3.44 3.11 2.91 1.73 6.60 21.80 28.23 67.82 55.53 13.02 18.38 6.35
1960 2.97 3.58 2.54 5.31 16.24 22.60 35.90 230.97 42.33 28.75 9.56 5.03
1961 3.64 2.88 3.24 2.64 6.33 50.21 155.71 106.83 90.05 38.30 9.30 4.08
1962 3.12 2.63 2.39 2.33 3.21 12.06 109.75 76.04 82.47 21.32 4.50 2.77
1963 2.35 2.14 2.04 2.08 3.15 100.31 66.52 34.56 185.41 16.74 6.50 4.27
1964 2.52 2.00 1.93 2.16 8.71 42.20 21.84 205.56 96.15 48.64 20.30 15.08
1965 4.83 3.14 3.74 5.40 33.71 83.43 88.02 66.38 54.92 28.50 11.40 4.52
1966 2.71 2.07 2.03 2.06 45.31 40.19 51.21 107.42 158.58 23.15 14.23 7.57
1967 4.50 4.75 3.48 4.82 5.49 56.65 26.78 149.85 81.76 63.93 95.07 4.06
1968 2.76 2.46 2.10 1.68 2.09 4.75 54.94 144.48 134.12 32.87 4.27 3.37
1969 3.38 2.69 2.33 2.41 8.06 45.29 113.65 71.76 108.22 46.07 11.08 4.67
1970 3.45 2.59 2.39 2.38 27.23 56.27 40.85 94.18 99.09 37.28 19.25 7.86
MEAN 3.52 2.85 2.62 3.21 11.86 36.78 62.36 94.70 80.23 34.01 20.92 6.08
Gauging Station : Mamating Norte
301
TABLE 6– 3B
RIVER DISCHARGE CORRELATION
Gauged Rivers Area Minimum Flow

(sq. km.) cum/sec
1. Baroro River 129 0.18
2. Naguilian River 304 1.16
3. Maragayap River 36 0.01
Ungauged River
1. Bauang River 450 2.49*
* Calculated from the Equation :

Minimum Q = 3E-06*(%Exceedance)raised to the power (2.2309)
TABLE 6–3C FLOW FREQUENCY

OF NAGUILIAN RIVER AND BAUANG RIVER
% Equaled Naguilian River Bauang River

or Exceeded Discharge* Discharge**
cum/s cum/s
100 1.40 2.07
90 2.18 3.23
80 3.41 5.05
70 5.33 7.89
60 8.33 12.32
50 13.00 19.25
40 20.31 30.07
30 31.73 46.97
20 49.57 73.37
10 77.42 114.61
0.1 120.40 178.23
Drainage area (DA), sq km 304 450
Note:
*Discharge of Naguilian River is calculated from the flow frequency equation:
**Discharge of Bauang River is calculated from Naguilian River Discharge

by factor 450/304 = 1.48
Q = Discharge of Naguilian River*1.48
302
TABLE 6 - 8A TABLE 6 - 8B
WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS - WELLS WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
NSDW* Naguilian River Lon - oy Creek Lucob Upper Bauang Lon- oy Creek Pagdalagan River Bacnotan River Calumbaya River Palintocan River San Fernando River Baroro River
Parameters Permissible Dapagan Creek Pascual River Brgy. Lon - oy Brgy. Pagdalagan Brgy. Bacnotan Brgy. Calumbaya Brgy. Palintocan
Limits Creek
Temperature °C 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10
Color TCU 15 60.00 30.00 19.00 10.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 30.00 5.00 5.00 30.00
Odor unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
Turbidity NTU 5 23.50 10.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 11.00 1.70 12.00 1.10 2.00 19.00
pH 6.5 -8.5 7.70 6.00 6.00 6.30 8.10 6.53 6.74 6.64 6.50 6.70 6.50 2.35*
Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 309.00 45.50 65.00 84.50 58.00 356.00 410.00 303.00 319.00 828.00
Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 94.00 48.00 52.00 74.00 115.00 25.00 238.00 250.00 88.00 175.00 113.00 175.00
Hardness mg/l CaCO3 300 99.00 28.00 36.00 60.00 63.00 40.00 228.00 188.00 129.00 208.00 19.00 257.00
Acidity mg/l CaCO3 19.00 58.00 39.00 39.00 58.00 38.00 77.00
++
Calcium Ca mg/L 75 24.20 7.20 6.40 15.20 3.50 75.00 63.00 40.00 62.00 51.00 28.00 20.00
++
Magnesium Mg mg/L 50 3.60 2.43 4.86 5.35 4.80 50.00 17.00 22.00 12.00 19.00 12.00 51.00
Carbonates CO3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Flouride mg/L 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 31.00 290.00 305.00 107.00 214.00 260.00 214.00
Potassium mg/L na na na na na na na
Sodium mg/L 200 na na na na na na
Sulfates Na2SO4 200 23.20 5.36 3.02 5.36 30.60 na na na na na na na

-
Chloride Cl mg/L 200 12.00 3.66 3.66 1.83 24.00 5.00 20.00 55.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 288.00
++
Iron Fe mg/L 1.0 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.40 nil 0.10 0.80 na 0.40 0.90
Lead 0.01 na nil na na na nil na
Copper mg/L 1.00 0.01

++
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.1 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.30 0.012 nil nil 0.00 nil na nil 0.15
Zinc mg/L 5.0 0.010
Date of Sampling 20/05/1975 04/12/1975 12/5/1975 08/12/1975 13/10/1997 13/10/1997 13/10/1997 13/10/1997 13/10/1997 12/10/1997 12/10/1997
303
FIGURE 6 - 1
BARORO RIVER FLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

1
AT DISCHARGE POINT IN BARANGAY CABAROAN, SAN JUAN, LA UNION
Frequency Intervals, cum/s Total

Year Less than 0.50 to 1.00 to 2.00 to 5.00 to 10.00 to More than
0.50 1.00 2.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 30.00
1959 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 12
1960 4 2 2 3 1 12
1961 4 3 2 3 12
1962 1 5 1 2 1 2 12
1963 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 12
Frequency, f
1964 3 1 1 4 1 2 12
1965 3 4 1 4 12
1966 4 2 3 3 12
1967 2 3 2 3 2 12
1968 2 3 3 1 3 12
1970 1 5 2 2 2 12
1972 7 3 2 12
1974 3 1 3 1 3 1 12
Σ 10 15 35 28 24 28 16 156
Xn=Σ/n 0.77 1.15 2.69 2.15 1.85 2.15 1.23 12
Σj 12.00 11.23 10.08 7.38 5.23 3.38 1.23
Σj/Nx100 100.00 93.59 83.97 61.54 43.59 28.21 10.26
Note:
1
Naguilian Gaging station is at Cabaruan Bailey Bridgealong San Juan Road
0 0
at lat. 16 -40'- 50" and long. 120 -22' -50". Drainage area = 129 sq km
N = months of the year
n = number of observation years = 13
f = observed frequency: number of months of the year during which discharge was within a
given frequency interval
Σ = total number of months during which the flow was within a given discharge for the period
Σj = cumulative number of months
Xn = average frequency
Σj/Nx100 = cumulative frequency in percent reported graphically against discharge
Frequency Intervals of Naguilian River
% Exceedance vs. Discharge

% of exceedance Q, cum/s
35
30
93.59 0.5
Discharge, cms
83.97 1 25
61.54 2 20 y = 41.389e-0.0468x
43.59 5 R2 = 0.9907
15
28.21 10 10
10.26 30
5
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Frequency equation:
% Equalled or Exceeded
304
Station Width Distance Depth, d

A 0 0 0
B 30 30 156
C 40 70 180
D 40 110 130
E 20 130 0
FIGURE 6 - 3A
LON - OY CREEK CROSS SECTION
A B C D E
water surface
0
Depth of water, cm
50
100
150
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance (cm)
305
Station Width Distance Depth, d

A 0 0 0
B 20 20 19
C 20 40 28
D 20 60 28
E 20 80 26
F 35 115 24
FIGURE 6 - 3B
IRRIGATION CANAL CROSS SECTION
A B C D E F
water surface
0
10
Depth of water, cm
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance (cm)
306
FIGURE 6 - 4
RIVER DISCHARGE CORRELATION
Gauged Rivers DA Minimum Flow
(Sq. km.) cum/sec
1. Baroro River 129 0.18
2. Naguilian River 304 1.16
3. Maragayap River 36 0.01
Ungauged River
1. Bauang River 450 2.49*
* Calculated from the Equation :
Minimum Q = 3E-06*(%Exceedance) raised to the power (2.2309)
Drainage Area vs. Minimum Q
1.4
Minimum Discharge (cum/s)
1.2
y = 3E-06x2.2309
R2 = 0.9999
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Drainage Area (Sq. Km)
307
FIGURE 6 - 5
NAGUILIAN RIVER FLOW FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

1
AT DISCHARGE POINT IN BARANGAY MAMATLING, NAGUILIAN, LA UNION
Frequency Intervals, cum/s Total

Year 2.00 to 5.00 to 20.00 to 50.00 to More than
Less than 2.00 2.50 to 5.00
2.5.00 20.00 50.00 100.00 100.00
1947 0 3 3 4 1 1 12
1948 1 3 3 3 1 1 12
1949 0 5 3 2 2 12
1950 0 4 3 2 2 1 12
1951 1 4 3 1 2 1 12
1952 1 1 3 3 3 1 12
1953 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 12
1954 0 4 3 4 1 12
1955 1 3 0 4 4 12
1956 2 2 4 2 1 1 12
Frequency, f
1957 0 5 2 3 2 12
1958 2 0 4 1 2 3 12
1959 1 0 3 4 2 2 12
1960 0 3 4 4 1 12
1961 0 5 2 1 2 2 12
1962 2 5 1 1 2 1 12
1963 4 2 2 1 1 2 12
1964 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 12
1965 4 2 2 4 12
1966 3 1 2 3 1 2 12
1967 5 1 1 4 1 12
1968 1 3 4 1 1 2 12
1969 2 3 2 2 1 2 12
1970 2 2 2 3 3 12
Σ 8 28 76 59 56 41 20 288
Xn=Σ/n 0.33 1.17 3.17 2.46 2.33 1.71 0.83 12
Σj 12.00 11.67 10.50 7.33 4.88 2.54 0.83
Σj/Nx100 100.00 97.22 87.50 61.11 40.63 21.18 6.94

Note:
Naguilian1 Gaging station is at approximately 4 kms upstream of bridge on Highway No. 9.
0 0
at lat. 16 -55'- 16" and long. 120 -25' -0". Drainage area = 304 sq km
N = months of the year
n = number of observation years = 24
f = observed frequency: number of months of the year during which discharge was within a
given frequency interval
Σ = total number of months during which the flow was within a given discharge for the period
Σj = cumulative number of months
Xn = average frequency
Σj/Nx100 = cumulative frequency in percent reported graphically against discharge
Frequency Intervals of Naguilian River

120
% of exceedance Q, cum/s 100

Discharge, cms
80
97.22 2 -0.0446x
y = 120.94e
87.50 2.5 60
R2 = 0.9784
61.11 5
40
40.63 20
21.18 50 20
6.94 100
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Frequency equation: % Equalled or Exceeded
308
APPENDIX 6.2: GROUNDWATER DATA - MLUWD
Table 6 – 6 Test Pumping Results Summary

Table 6 – 7 Sustainable Yield Summary
Table 6 – 8A Water Quality Test Results - Wells
Figure 6 – 6 Geologic Map

Figure 6 – 7A-7C Well Location Maps
Figure 6 – 8A Borehole Logs and Well Construction : Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15)
Figure 6 – 8B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15)
Figure 6 – 8C SDT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15)
Figure 6 – 9 Borehole Logs: Well No. 4 (MLUWD N-9)
Figure 6 – 10A Well Design: Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10)
Figure 6 – 10B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10)/1993 Test
Figure 6 – 10C CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10)/1997 Test
Figure 6 – 11A Borehole Logs: Well No. 7 (MLUWD - CDM TW 3)
Figure 6 – 11B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 7 (MLUWD – CDM TW 3)
Figure 6 – 12A Borehole Logs : Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13)
Figure 6 – 12B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13)
Figure 6 – 13A Borehole Logs and Well Construction : Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
Figure 6 – 13B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
Figure 6 – 13C SDT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
Figure 6 – 14A Borehole Logs: Well No. 23 (MLUWD – CDM TW 2)
Figure 6 – 14B CDT/RT Plots and Analysis: Well No. 23 (MLUWD – CDM TW 2)
Appendix 6 – 1A CDT/RT Data: Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15)

Appendix 6 – 1B SDT Data: Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15)
Appendix 6 – 2A CDT/RT Data: Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10) /1993 Test
Appendix 6 – 2B CDT/RT Data: Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10) /1997 Test
Appendix 6 – 3 CDT/RT Data: Well No. 7 (MLUWD-CDM TW 3)
Appendix 6 – 4 CDT/RT Data: Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13)
Appendix 6 – 5A CDT/RT Data: Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
Appendix 6 – 5B SDT Data: Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
Appendix 6 – 6 CDT/RT Data: Well No. 23 (MLUWD-CDM TW 2)
Appendix 6 – 7A Calculation of Long Term Pumping Water Level: Well No. 3
(MLUWD N-15)
Appendix 6 – 7B Calculation of Long term Pumping Water Level: Well No. 6
(MLUWD N-10)
Appendix 6 – 7C Calculation of Long term Pumping Water Level: Well No. 8
(MLUWD N-13)
Appendix 6 – 7D Calculation of Long term Pumping Water Level: Well No. 21
(MLUWD B-1)
Appendix 6 – 7E Calculation of Long term Pumping Water Level: Well No. 22
(MLUWD B-5)
309
TABLE 6 - 6
TEST PUMPING RESULTS SUMMARY
Depth SWL Test Q Drawdown Sp. Cap. T B C

SPAR Well No: Remarks
-3 2 2 2 5
(m) (m bgl) (lps) (m) (lps/m) (x10 m /sec) (sec/ m ) (sec / m )
negative slope
3 60.0 3.13 14.97 9.19 1.63 2.34 dugwell, operational
of ΣSw/Q versus Q
5 60.0 4.47 23.14 17.98 1.29 dugwell, operational
60.0 1.60 25.45 5.76 4.42 9.68 - - dugwell, operational

6
60.0 4.30 12.50 21.71 0.58 5.30 - - 1997 Test
7 36.6 2.40 12.60 14.86 0.85 3.54 - - abandoned Test Well
8 60.0 5.00 20.45 5.85 3.50 5.34 - - dugwell, Operational
21 31.0 5.20 28.38 2.66 10.67 40.75 55.4 1,275 deepwell, operational
22 30.0 2.94 27.00 5.48 4.93 295.00 170 2,000 deepwell, operational
23 30.5 4.98 19.50 10.97 1.78 52.00 - - abandoned Test Well
SWL – static water level Sp. Cap. – specific capacity

B – formation loss factor T – transmissivity
C – well loss factor CDT – constant discharge test
Q – discharge RT – recovery test
310
TABLE 6 - 7
SUSTAINABLE YIELD SUMMARY
Spar Well Location Depth SWL Total PWL First Saturated Available Sustainable Actual Limiting
No. (m) ( m bgl) Drawdown ( m bgl) Screen Thickness, H Drawdown Yield Withdrawal Factor
(m) (m bgl) (m) 20%H (lps) (lps)
(m)
Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan,

3 60 3.13 11.04 14.17 21.00 56.87 11.37 9 9.36 20% H
La Union

6 60 4.30 10.10 14.40 22.50 55.70 11.14 4 11.35 20% H
La Union

8 60 5.00 10.72 15.72 24.00 55.00 11.00 19 12.37 20% H
La Union
Brgy. Ballay, Bauang,

21 31 5.20 4.94 10.14 no data 25.80 5.16 25 5.55 20% H
La Union
Brgy. Ballay, Bauang,

22 30 2.94 5.24 8.18 21.00 27.06 5.41 14 20.04 20% H
La Union
311
TABLE 6 - 8A
WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS - WELLS
NSDW* Well No. 23 Well No. 7 Well No. 21 Naguilian River Lon - oy Creek Lucob Upper
Parameters Permissible (MLUWD - CDM TW2) (MLUWD - CDM TW3) (MLUWD B - 1) Dapagan Creek Pascual
Limits Brgy. Ballay, Bauang Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan Brgy. Ballay, Bauang Creek
Temperature °C 30.10
Color TCU 15 2.00 6.00 5.00 60.00 30.00 19.00 10.00
Odor unobjectionable
Turbidity NTU 5 1.00 2.00 1.00 23.50 10.00 3.00 5.00
pH 6.5 -8.5 6.70 7.90 6.92 7.70 6.00 6.00 6.30
Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 325.00 260.00 255.00 309.00 45.50 65.00 84.50
Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 259.00 210.00 150.00 94.00 48.00 52.00 74.00
Hardness mg/l CaCO3 300 213.00 134.00 178.00 99.00 28.00 36.00 60.00
Acidity mg/l CaCO3 19.00

++
Calcium Ca mg/L 75 83.00 106.00 52.00 24.20 7.20 6.40 15.20
++
Magnesium Mg mg/L 50 1.20 28.00 12.00 3.60 2.43 4.86 5.35
Carbonates CO3 0.00
Flouride mg/L 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 183.00
Potassium mg/L na
Sodium mg/L 200 na
Sulfates Na2SO4 200 2.00 0.00 na 23.20 5.36 3.02 5.36

-
Chloride Cl mg/L 200 41.00 32.00 10.00 12.00 3.66 3.66 1.83
++
Iron Fe mg/L 1.0 0.00 nil nil 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.00
Lead 0.01 na
Copper mg/L 1.00 0.01

++
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.1 0.00 0.00 nil 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.30
Zinc mg/L 5.0 0.010
Date of Sampling 3/4/1976 4/21/1976 5/20/1975 12/4/1975 12/5/1975 12/8/1975
NOTE: PNSDW - Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water
312
TABLE 6 - 8B
WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
Bauang Lon- oy Creek Pagdalagan River Bacnotan River Calumbaya River Palintocan River San Fernando River Baroro River
River Brgy. Lon - oy Brgy. Pagdalagan Brgy. Bacnotan Brgy. Calumbaya Brgy. Palintocan
30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10
20.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 30.00 5.00 5.00 30.00
unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
1.00 8.00 11.00 1.70 12.00 1.10 2.00 19.00
8.10 6.53 6.74 6.64 6.50 6.70 6.50 2.35*
58.00 356.00 410.00 303.00 319.00 828.00
115.00 25.00 238.00 250.00 88.00 175.00 113.00 175.00
63.00 40.00 228.00 188.00 129.00 208.00 19.00 257.00
19.00 58.00 39.00 39.00 58.00 38.00 77.00
3.50 75.00 63.00 40.00 62.00 51.00 28.00 20.00
4.80 50.00 17.00 22.00 12.00 19.00 12.00 51.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31.00 290.00 305.00 107.00 214.00 260.00 214.00
na na na na na na na
na na na na na na
30.60 na na na na na na na
24.00 5.00 20.00 55.00 10.00 25.00 25.00 288.00
0.04 0.40 nil 0.10 0.80 na 0.40 0.90
na nil na na na nil na
0.012 nil nil 0.00 nil na nil 0.15
10/13/1997 10/13/1997 10/13/1997 10/13/1997 10/13/1997 10/12/1997 10/12/1997
313
LITHOLOGY SELF - POTENTIAL (millivolts) RESISTIVITY(ohm - feet) WELL DESIGN
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 0 50 100 150 200

0 0
0 0
5 5
6
10 10
12 12
15 15
Sand, fine to medium grained 20 20

21
25 25
27 27
30 30 30
Sand, fine to medium grained
33
34
35 35
36
Sand, coarse grained with pebbles
39 39
40 40
41
Sand, coarse grained
44
45 45 45
Sand, coarse grained with pebbles
48
49
50 50
52
Sand, coarse grained
55 55
57
200mm 0 SUMP PIPE
Sand, fine grained
60 60 60 60
PUMPING TEST DATA

STATIC WATER LEVEL 3.13 m bgl
DRAWDOWN 8.42 m
TEST Q 14.97 lps
SPECIFIC CAPACITY 1.78 lps/m
-3 2
TRANSMISSIVITY 2.33x10 m /sec
PROJECT: OWNER: DRILLER: LOGGED/PREPARED BY: DATE LOGGED: SHEET CONTENT/S FIGURE
LOGGED BY:
DRILLING OF (1) ONE PRODUCTION WELL BOREHOLE LOGS AND
WELLGEL INDUSTRIAL
FOR METRO LA UNION WD IN BRGY. METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT RECOMMENDED BY: WELL CONSTRUCTION 6 - 8A
CORP.
NAGUIRANGAN, SAN JUAN, LA UNION PREPARED BY:
WELL NO. 3 (MLUWD N-15)
314
Constant Discharge Test
5
6
7
Water Level, m bgl
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 10 100
Time (min) 1000 10000
0
Discharge, l/s
5
10
15
20 Q ave = 14.97 lps
25
1 10 Time100
(min) 1000 10000
Recovery Test
3
Water Level, m bgl
8
1 10 Time100
(min) 1000 10000
TESTING PERIOD : 15-Jul-97 to 18-Jul-97

DURATION OF PUMPING : 72 hrs 4,320 mins
DURATION OF RECOVERY : 11 hrs 660 mins
3
DISCHARGE, Q : 14.97 l/s 53.89 m /hr
STATIC WATER LEVEL, (swl) 3.13 m bgl
PUMPING WATER LEVEL, (pwl) 12.32 m bgl
DRAWDOWN, (s) pwl-swl 9.19 m
3
SPECIFIC CAPACITY : Q/s 1.63 l/s/m 5.9 m /hr/m
WELL POTENTIAL MEDIUM
TRANSMISSIVITY : 0.183Q/ds
2 2
at Constant Q : 2.18E-03 m /s 7.9 m /hr
2 2
at Recovery : 2.49E-03 m /s 9.0 m /hr
2 2
Average : 2.34E-03 m /s 8.4 m /hr
AQUIFER POTENTIAL MEDIUM
PLOTS AND ANALYSIS OF CONSTANT DISCHARGE / RECOVERY TESTS FIGURE

Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15) 6 - 8B
315
Groundwater Level (m bgl vs. Time) Specific Drawdown vs. Discharge
5
Step No. 1
B and C Values
Water Level, m bgl 6
1000
7
800
9
Σsw/Q (s/m2)
10
swl =2.59 m bgl
1 10 Time (min) 100 1000 600
7
Step No. 2
400
8
Water Level, m bgl
200
10
Water Level, mbg
11
12
swl =7.83 m bgl 0
1 10 100 1000 0 0.003 0.009Q (10-3 m0.012
0.006 Discharge, 3
/s) 0.015 0.018
Time (min)
Formation Coefficient (B) =

Well Loss Coefficient (C) = negative slope of ΣSw/Q versus Q
7
Step No. 3
8
Drawdown vs. Discharge
Water Level, m bgl
0
10
1
11
2
12
swl =8.65 m bgl
1 10 100 1000 3
Time (mnin)
Σdsw (m)
4
7
Step No. 4 5
8 6
Water Level, m bgl
9 7
8
10
9
11
10
swl =9.24 m bgl
12 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
1 10 100 1000
Time (min) Discharge, Q (l/s)
2
Sw = B*Q + C*Q + 0.183*Q/T*Log(t2/t1)
2
Transmissivity (T) = 10.50E-03 m /s based on dsw of the 5th step.
Pumping Period: July 18, 1997
Duration per Step: Q1 = 120 min, Q2 =120 min, Q3 = 120 min, Q4 = 120 min
Step dsw Σdsw Q Σdsw/Q BQ CQ2 swc Well Loss Well Eff. Q/Σdsw Q/swc
-3 3 2
m m 10 m /s s/m m m m % % l/s/m l/s/m
1 6.07 6.07 10.00 607 - - - - - 1.65 -
2 0.37 6.44 11.00 585 - - - - - 1.71 -
3 0.39 6.83 12.50 546 - - - - - 1.83 -
4 0.80 7.63 15.00 509 - - - - - 1.97 -
Formation Loss Factor, B = cannot be analyzed s/m2 Well Loss Factor, C = cannot be analyzed 2
s /m
5
Transmissivity, T = 10.50E-03 2
m /s
PLOTS AND ANALYSIS OF STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST FIGURE

Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15) 6 - 8C
316
WELL NO. Well No.4 (MLUWD N-9)

LOCATION: Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union
OWNER: Metro La Union Water District
WELL DEPTH: 60.0m
STATIC WATER LEVEL: 5.00 mbgl
PUMPING WATER LEVEL: 10.85 mbgl
DISCHARGE(Q) 20.45 lps
SPECIFIC CAPACITY: 3.49 lps/m
YEAR CONSTRUCTED: 1998
DEPTH WELL DESIGN LITHOLOGIC LOG DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES
0
Top soil, sandy loam
Sand and gravel with boulders
5
Fine to coarse sand with clay from 7-8 m
10
Sandy clay
15 Fine sand
20 Coarse sand with gravel

250mm 0 (10")
25 Gray clay
Fine sand
30
Coarse sand with gravel
35 Fine sand
40
TD =
45
Gray shale(gravel with boulders at 41m - 42m)
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
FIGURE
BOREHOLE LOGS: WELL NO. 4 (MLUWD N-9) 6-9
317
WELL NO. Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10)

WELL DEPTH: 61.5m
10
15
20
25
30 250mm 0 (10")
35
40
45
50
55
60
TD =
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
FIGURE
WELL DESIGN: WELL NO. 6 (MLUWD N-10) 6 - 10A
318
5
W ater Level, m bgl
10
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
26
D ischarge, l/s
25.5
Q ave = 25.45 lps
25
24.5
24
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
Recovery Test
1
2
W ater Level, m bgl
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
TESTING PERIOD : 23-Oct-93 to 25-Oct-93

3
STATIC WATER LEVEL, (swl) 1.60 mbgl
PUMPING WATER LEVEL, (pwl) 7.36 mbgl
3
WELL POTENTIAL GOOD
2 2
2 2
2 2
Average : 9.68E-03 m /s 34.9 m /hr
WELL POTENTIAL GOOD

Well No. 6 (MLUWD Well No. 10 / 1993 Test)
6 - 10B
319
23
W a ter Le vel, m bgl
24
25
26
27
28
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
10
D is charge, l/s
11
12
13
14
15 Q ave = 12.50 lps
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
Recovery Test
1
2
W a te r Le vel, m bgl
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
TESTING PERIOD : 21-Jun-04 to 22-Jun-04

DURATION OF RECOVERY : na hrs na mins
3
3
WELL POTENTIAL POOR
2 2
2 2
at Recovery : na m /s na m /hr
WELL POTENTIAL GOOD
PLOT AND ANALYSIS OF CONSTANT DISCHARGE TEST FIGURE

Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10 / 1997 Test) 6 - 10C
320
WELL NO. Well No. 7 (MLUWD - CDM TW 3)

LOCATION: Near Highway Bridge, San Juan, La Union
WELL DEPTH: 36.5m
SPECIFIC CAPACITY:
0 Top soil(silt)
Fine to coarse sand with silt
5 Fine to coarse sand and fine to medium gravel with silt
10
15 Gray clay with fine sand

200mm 0 (8")
20
25
30
Fine to coarse sand
35
TD =
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
FIGURE
BOREHOLE LOGS: WELL NO. 7 (MLUWD - CDM TW 3) 6 - 11A
321
13
14
W ater Level, m bgl
15
16
17
18
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
0
D ischarge, l/s
Q ave = 12.60 lps

5
10
15
20
1 10 100(min)
Time 1000 10000
Recovery Test
2
W ater Level, m bgl
5
1 10 100(min)
Time 1000 10000
TESTING PERIOD : 20-Apr-76 to 21-Apr-76

DURATION OF RECOVERY : 17 hrs 1,020 mins
3
3
2 2
2 2
2 2
Average : 3.54E-03 m /s 12.8 m /hr
AQUIFER POTENTIAL MEDIUM

Well No. 7 (MLUWD-CDM TW3) 6 - 11B
322
WELL NO. Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13)

WELL DEPTH: 60.0m
5 Brown clay with silt
10 Sandy clay
Fine sand
15 Clayey sand
Fine sand
20
Sandy clay
25
30 250mm 0 (10")
35
40
Fine and coarse sand
45
50
55 Coarse sand with clay

Sandy clay
Shale and clay
60
TD =
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
FIGURE
BOREHOLE LOGS: WELL NO. 8 (MLUWD N - 13) 6 - 12A
323
8
Water Level, m bgl
10
11
12
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
10
Discharge, l/s
15
20
25
30 Q ave = 20.45 lps
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
Recovery Test
3
Water Level, m bgl
8
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
TESTING PERIOD : 24-Feb-98 to 27-Feb-98

DURATION OF RECOVERY : 2.5 hrs 150 mins
3
3
2 2
2 2
2 2
Average : 5.34E-03 m /s 19.2 m /hr
AQUIFER POTENTIAL GOOD

Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13) 6 - 12B
324
LITHOLOGY SELF - POTENTIAL (millivolts) RESISTIVITY(ohm - feet) WELL DESIGN
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 0
0 0
5 5
6
7
9
10 10
10
Sand, fine grained
14
15 15
Sand, fine grained with minor presence of clay
17
Clay, admixed with gravel 18
19
Clay, gray stickyt 20 20
21
Clay, with minor presence of gravel
23
24
Clay, with fine silty sand
25 25
26
Clay, with gravel, fine to medium grained 27
with minor presence of shells
28
250mm 0 SUMP PIPE
Clay, with fine silty sand
30 30 30 30
31
35 35 35 35
PUMPING TEST DATA

STATIC WATER LEVEL 5.42 m bgl
DRAWDOWN 3.00 m
TEST Q 27.00 lps
SPECIFIC CAPACITY 9.00 lps/m
PROJECT: OW NER: CONTRACTOR: LOGGED/PREPARED BY: DATE LOGGED: SHEET CONTENT/S FIGURE
LOGGED BY:
DRILLING OF (1) ONE PRODUCTION WELL BOREHOLE LOGS AND
FOR METRO LA UNION WD IN BRGY. PP SAN JOSE WELL WELL CONSTRUCTION
METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT RECOMMENDED BY: 6 - 13A
BALLAY, BAUANG, LA UNION DRILLING WELL NO. 22 (MLUWD B-5)
PREPARED BY:
325
6
Water Level, m bgl
10
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
30
Discharge, l/s
25
20
15
10
5 Q ave = 27 lps
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
Recovery Test
2
Water Level, m bgl
9
0 1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
TESTING PERIOD : 21-Jun-04 to 22-Jun-04

3
3
2 2
at Constant Q : 325E-03 m /s 1171.5 m /hr
2 2
at Recovery : 265E-03 m /s 952.5 m /hr
2 2
Average : 295E-03 m /s 1062.0 m /hr
WELL POTENTIAL EXCELLENT

Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5) 6 - 13B
326
Groundwater Level (m bgl vs. Time) Specific Drawdown vs. Discharge
3
Step No. 1 B and C Values
400
Water Level, m bgl 4
300
6
swl =2.94 m bgl
Σsw/Q (s/m )
2
7
1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
200
5
Step No. 2
6
100
Water Level, m bgl
0
Water Level, m bgL
9
0 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018 0.021 0.024 0.027 0.03
swl =5.57 m bgl Discharge, Q (10-3 m3/s)
10
1 10 100 1000
Time (min)
Formation Coefficient (B) = 170 s/m2

5 2 5
Step No. 3 Well Loss Coefficient (C) = 2,000 s /m
6
Water Level, m bgl
7
Drawdown vs. Discharge
8
0
9
1
swl = 7.42 m bgl
10
1 10
Time (min)
100 1000 2
BQ
3
swc (m)
5
Step No. 4
6
4
Water Level, m bgl
7
5
CQ2
8
6
9
swl = 8.12 m bgl 7

10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1 10 100 1000 Discharge (lps)
Time (min)
Sw = B*Q + C*Q2 + 0.183*Q/T*Log(t2/t1)
Transmissivity (T) = 206.00E-03 m2/s based on dsw of the1st step.
Pumping Period: June 21, 2004
Duration per Step: Q1 = 60 min, Q2 =60 min, Q3 = 60 min, Q4 = 60 min
2
Step dsw Σdsw Q Σdsw/Q BQ CQ swc Well Loss Well Eff. Q/Σdsw Q/swc
-3 3 2
m m 10 m /s s/m m m m % % l/s/m l/s/m
1 2.63 2.63 13.50 194.53 2.30 0.36 2.66 14% 86% 5.14 5.08
2 1.85 4.47 19.50 229 3.32 0.76 4.08 19% 81% 4.36 4.78
3 0.70 5.17 24.00 216 4.08 1.15 5.23 22% 78% 4.64 4.59
4 0.27 5.44 27.00 202 4.59 1.46 6.05 24% 76% 4.96 4.46
2 2 5
Formation Loss Factor, B = 170 s/m Well Loss Factor, C = 2,000 s /m
Transmissivity, T = 206.00E-03 2
m /s
PLOTS AND ANALYSIS OF STEP-DRAWDOWN TEST FIGURE

Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5) 6 - 13C
327
WELL NO. Well No. 23. (MLUWD - CDM TW 2)

LOCATION: Brgy. Ballay, Bauang, La Union
WELL DEPTH: 30.5m
0
Silt, fine gravel, boulders
5 Gray clay
Very coarse sand to medium gravel
Coarse to very coarse sand
10
Sandy clay
15
200mm 0 (8")
Fine to coarse sand with clay
20
Fine to medium gravel, coarse to very coarse sand with silt
25
Very fine sand with silt

30
TD = 30.48m
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
FIGURE
BOREHOLE LOGS: WELL NO. 23 (MLUWD - CDM TW2) 6 - 14A
328
13
14
Water Level, m bgl
15
16
17
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
10
Discharge, l/s
15
20
25 Q ave = 19.50 lps

30
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
Recovery Test
3
Water Level, m bgl
8
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (min)
TESTING PERIOD : 2-Mar-76 to 3-Mar-76

DURATION OF RECOVERY : 2.5 hrs 150 mins
3
3
2 2
2 2
2 2
Average : 52.00E-03 m /s 187.4 m /hr
AQUIFER POTENTIAL GOOD

Well No. 23 (MLUWD-CDM TW 2) 6 - 14B
329
APPENDIX 6 - 1A
CONSTANT DISCHARGE TEST DATA RECOVERY TEST DATA
Name : Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15) Testing Period : July 18, 1997
Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, Duration : 660 mins
La Union
Testing Period : July 15 - 18, 1997
Duration : 4320 mm
Ave. Discharge : 14.97 lps
Measuring Point: 0 m agl
Casing Diameter: 250 mm
TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL
(min) (m bgl) (min) (m bgl) (min) (m bgl) (min) (m bgl) (min) (m bgl) (min) (m bgl)
0 3.13 240 11.64 3240 11.97 0 12.32 240
1 7.17 270 11.69 3420 11.94 1 6.86 300
2 8.18 300 11.74 3600 12.00 2 6.24 330
3 8.61 330 11.79 3780 12.06 3 5.96 360
4 8.82 360 11.83 3960 12.24 4 5.81 390
5 9.01 420 11.85 4140 12.34 5 5.67 420
6 9.12 480 11.86 4320 12.32 6 5.58 450
7 9.23 540 11.86 7 5.50 480
8 9.32 600 11.87 8 5.43 540
9 9.40 720 11.94 9 5.36 600
10 9.46 780 11.96 10 5.31 660
12 9.55 840 11.96 12 5.22
14 9.64 900 11.98 14 5.14
16 9.70 1020 11.97 16 5.07
18 9.76 1140 12.08 18 5.02
20 9.81 1260 12.07 20 4.97
25 9.96 1380 11.78 25 4.87
30 10.11 1500 11.55 30 4.78
35 10.42 1620 11.35 35 4.70
40 10.49 1740 11.44 40 4.64
50 10.71 1860 11.61 50 4.54
60 10.81 1980 11.68 60 4.46
70 10.92 2100 11.79 75 4.31
80 11.03 2220 11.77 90 4.27
90 11.12 2340 11.69 105 4.21
120 11.32 2520 11.61 120 4.15
150 11.43 2700 11.67 150 4.07
180 11.50 2880 11.79 180 3.99
210 11.59 3060 11.88 210 3.92
330
APPENDIX 6 - 1B
STEP DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
Name : Well No. 3 (MLUWD N-15) Measuring Point (m agl) : 0.54
Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union Static Water Level (m bmp) : 2.59
Date Conducted : July 18, 1997 60 Hp Pump Setting (m agl) : 54
No. of Steps : 4 Steps and 60 mins/step Casing Diameter (mm) : 250
Ground Elevation (m amsl) : Volumetric (l) : 210
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5

TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q
(min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s)
0 2.59 0 7.83 0 8.65 0 9.24
1 6.66 10 1 8.75 11 1 9.48 12.50 1 10.30 15.00
2 6.85 10 2 8.77 11 2 9.50 12.50 2 10.33 15.00
3 7.10 10 3 8.79 11 3 9.51 12.50 3 10.37 15.00
4 7.26 10 4 8.81 11 4 9.51 12.50 4 10.39 15.00
5 7.34 10 5 8.82 11 5 9.52 12.50 5 10.40 15.00
6 7.42 10 6 8.83 11 6 9.54 12.50 6 10.41 15.00
7 7.49 10 7 8.86 11 7 9.54 12.50 7 10.43 15.00
8 7.54 10 8 8.87 11 8 9.55 12.50 8 10.43 15.00
9 7.58 10 9 8.87 11 9 9.56 12.50 9 10.44 15.00
10 7.63 10 10 8.90 11 10 9.57 12.50 10 10.44 15.00
12 7.69 10 12 8.91 11 12 9.59 12.50 12 10.46 15.00
14 7.76 10 14 8.93 11 14 9.60 12.50 14 10.47 15.00
16 7.82 10 16 8.96 11 16 9.61 12.50 16 10.48 15.00
18 7.86 10 18 8.97 11 18 9.63 12.50 18 10.49 15.00
20 7.90 10 20 8.99 11 20 9.64 12.50 20 10.50 15.00
25 7.97 10 25 9.02 11 25 9.67 12.50 25 10.54 15.00
30 8.06 10 30 9.04 11 30 9.68 12.50 30 10.55 15.00
35 8.12 10 35 9.08 11 35 9.70 12.50 35 10.56 15.00
40 8.20 10 40 9.09 11 40 9.71 12.50 40 10.57 15.00
45 8.24 10 45 9.14 11 45 9.72 12.50 45 10.59 15.00
50 8.30 10 50 9.17 11 50 9.74 12.50 50 10.61 15.00
55 8.33 10 55 9.19 11 55 9.74 12.50 55 10.64 15.00
60 8.37 10 60 9.19 11 60 9.78 12.50 60 10.64 15.00
331
APPENDIX 6 - 2A
Name : Well No. 6 (MLUWD Well No. 10/ 1993 Test) Testing Period : Oct. 25, 1993
Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan , La Union Duration : 360 mins
Testing Period : Oct. 23 - 25, 1993
Duration : 2220 mins
Measuring Point : 1.2 m agl
Casing Diameter : 200 mm
0 1.60 160 6.93 1740 7.49 0.0 7.36 180 2.32
1 5.70 180 6.84 1800 7.46 0.5 5.26 240 2.25
2 5.80 210 6.80 1860 7.44 1.0 3.16 300 2.18
3 5.95 240 6.88 1920 7.45 1.5 3.13 360 2.10
4 6.00 300 6.92 1980 7.42 2.0 3.11
5 6.01 330 6.95 2040 7.42 2.5 3.09
6 6.04 360 6.95 2100 7.36 3.0 3.08
7 6.10 420 7.04 2160 7.36 3.5 3.07
8 6.11 480 7.07 2220 7.36 4.0 3.06
9 6.14 540 7.10 4.5 3.05
10 6.17 600 7.14 5.0 3.04
12 6.20 660 7.17 6.0
14 6.22 720 7.24 7.0 3.03
16 6.26 780 7.25 8.0
18 6.28 840 7.27 9.0 3.00
20 6.31 900 7.28 11.0 2.98
25 6.38 960 7.28 13.0 2.94
30 6.43 1020 7.28 15.0 2.91
35 6.48 1080 7.32 20.0 2.87
40 6.50 1140 7.33 25.0 8.78
50 6.57 1200 7.36 30.0 2.76
60 6.63 1260 7.36 35.0 2.70
70 6.68 1320 7.39 40.0 2.67
80 6.69 1380 7.42 50.0 2.64
90 6.75 1440 7.43 60.0 2.55
100 6.81 1500 7.45 70.0 2.49
110 6.82 1560 7.45 80.0 2.46
120 6.83 1620 7.46 90.0 2.43
140 6.85 1680 7.49 120.0 2.40
332
APPENDIX 6 - 2B
Name : Well No. 6 (MLUWD N-10/ 1997 Test) Testing Period : na

Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union Duration : na mins
Testing Period : June 21 - 22, 1997
Measuring Point : 0 m agl
0 4.30 360 25.95 0.0 180
1 23.75 420 25.97 0.5 240
2 24.92 480 25.97 1.0 300
3 25.14 540 25.97 1.5 360
4 25.16 600 25.98 2.0
5 25.17 660 25.98 2.5
6 25.19 720 25.99 3.0
7 25.19 780 26.00 3.5
8 24.82 840 26.00 4.0
9 25.00 900 26.01 4.5
10 25.42 960 26.01 5.0
12 25.44 1020 26.01 6.0
14 25.45 1080 26.02 7.0
16 25.45 1140 26.02 8.0
18 25.45 1200 26.02 9.0
20 25.46 1260 26.01 11.0
25 25.47 1320 26.01 13.0
30 25.48 1380 26.01 15.0
35 25.48 1440 26.01 20.0
40 25.53 1500 26.01 25.0
50 25.55 30.0
60 25.58 35.0
90 25.60 40.0
120 25.66 50.0
150 25.76 60.0
180 25.73 70.0
210 25.93 80.0
240 25.94 90.0
300 25.95 120.0
333
APPENDIX 6 - 3
Name : Well No. 7 (MLUWD-CDM TW3) Testing Period : April 20 - 21, 1976
Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, La Union Duration : 1020 mins
Testing Period : April 20, 1976
Casing Diameter : mm
0 2.40 38 15.00 1200 16.43 0 17.26 38 2.94
1 12.59 40 15.02 1260 16.48 1 3.48 40 2.93
2 11.71 45 15.01 1320 16.46 2 3.38 45 2.91
3 13.86 50 15.03 1380 16.50 3 3.32 50 2.89
4 14.14 55 15.00 1440 16.51 4 3.29 55 2.87
5 15.33 60 15.07 1500 16.49 5 3.25 60 2.86
6 15.50 70 15.15 1560 16.49 6 3.24 70 2.83
7 15.13 80 15.21 1620 16.49 7 3.21 80 2.80
8 15.18 90 15.27 1680 16.52 8 3.19 90 2.78
9 15.07 100 15.25 1740 16.54 9 3.18 100 2.76
10 14.52 110 15.24 1800 16.49 10 3.16 110 2.74
11 14.65 120 15.23 1860 16.66 11 3.15 120 2.71
12 14.73 150 15.25 1920 16.58 12 3.14 150 2.69
13 14.76 180 15.30 1980 16.73 13 3.12 180 2.64
14 14.99 240 15.62 2040 16.68 14 3.10 240 2.59
15 15.01 300 15.64 2100 16.68 15 3.10 300 2.54
16 14.99 360 15.64 2160 16.67 16 3.10 360 2.50
17 15.00 420 15.61 2220 16.68 17 3.08 420 2.48
18 15.02 480 15.95 2280 16.70 18 3.07 480 2.41
19 15.18 540 15.92 2340 16.72 19 3.06 540 2.34
20 15.13 600 15.92 2400 16.74 20 3.05 600 2.34
22 15.14 660 15.93 2460 16.71 22 3.03 1020 2.29
24 14.75 720 15.95 2520 16.73 24 3.02
26 14.81 780 15.96 2580 16.82 26 3.01
28 14.78 840 16.07 2640 17.08 28 3.00
30 14.76 900 16.13 2700 17.05 30 2.99
32 14.83 1020 16.22 2760 17.32 32 2.98
34 15.08 1080 16.17 2820 17.22 34 2.96
36 15.01 1140 16.22 2880 17.26 36 2.96
334
APPENDIX 6 - 4
Name : Well No. 8 (MLUWD N-13) Testing Period : Feb. 27, 1998
Location : Brgy. Naguirangan, San Juan, Duration : 150 mins
La Union
Testing Period : Feb. 24 - 28, 1998
Duration : 4,320 mins
0 5.00 240 9.75 4320 10.85 0 10.85
1 8.20 270 9.80 1 6.80
2 8.50 300 9.95 2 6.50
3 8.55 330 10.00 3 6.25
4 8.80 360 10.00 4 6.10
5 8.85 420 10.05 5 6.05
6 8.85 480 10.05 6 6.05
7 8.85 540 10.20 7 6.02
8 8.90 600 10.20 8 6.00
9 8.90 660 10.30 9 5.98
10 8.95 720 10.30 10 5.90
12 9.00 900 10.35 12 5.88
15 9.00 960 10.35 14 5.80
16 9.00 1080 10.35 16 5.78
18 9.05 1200 10.40 18 5.75
20 9.05 1320 10.40 20 5.70
25 9.05 1500 10.45 25 5.65
30 9.10 1620 10.45 30 5.60
35 9.10 1800 10.55 35 5.55
40 9.30 1980 10.55 40 5.52
45 9.30 2100 10.55 45 5.50
50 9.40 2400 10.55 50 5.45
60 9.50 2700 10.60 55 5.45
70 9.50 2880 10.80 60 5.40
90 9.60 3000 10.80 70 5.35
120 9.65 3300 10.80 90 5.25
150 9.75 3600 10.80 120 5.20
180 9.75 3900 10.80 150 5.00
210 9.75 4200 10.85
335
APPENDIX 6 - 5A
Name : Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5) Testing Period : June 22 - 23, 2004
Location : Brgy. Ballay, Bauang , La Union Duration : 660 mins
Testing Period : June 21 - 22, 2004
0 2.94 150 8.40 0.0 8.42 180 5.53
1 8.13 180 8.40 0.5 240 5.53
2 8.14 210 8.40 1.0 5.58 300 5.53
3 8.36 240 8.40 1.5 330 5.53
4 8.35 270 8.40 2.0 5.56 360 5.52
5 8.35 300 8.40 2.5 390 5.52
6 8.37 330 8.40 3.0 5.56 420 5.52
7 8.38 360 8.40 3.5 450 5.52
8 8.38 390 8.40 4.0 5.56 480 5.51
9 8.39 420 8.40 4.5 540 5.51
10 8.39 450 8.40 5.0 5.55 600 5.50
12 8.39 480 8.39 6.0 5.55 660 5.50
14 8.38 540 8.40 7.0 5.55
16 8.40 600 8.40 8.0 5.55
18 8.39 660 8.40 9.0 5.55
20 8.39 720 8.40 10.0 5.55
25 8.40 780 8.42 12.0 5.53
30 8.40 840 8.42 16.0 5.53
35 8.39 900 8.42 20.0 5.53
40 8.39 1020 8.41 25.0 5.53
45 8.39 1140 8.41 30.0 5.53
50 8.40 1260 8.41 35.0 5.53
55 8.40 1380 8.42 40.0 5.53
60 8.40 1500 8.42 50.0 5.53
70 8.40 60.0 5.53
80 8.39 70.0 5.53
90 8.40 80.0 5.53
100 8.39 90.0 5.53
120 8.40 120.0 5.53
336
APPENDIX 6 - 5B
STEP DRAWDOWN TEST DATA

Name : Well No. 22 (MLUWD B-5) Measuring Point (m agl) : 0
Location : Brgy. Ballay, Bauang, La Union Static Water Level (m bmp) : 2.94
Date Conducted : June 21, 2004 Pump Setting (m bgl) :
No. of Steps : 4 steps and 60 mins/step Casing Diameter (mm) :
Ground Elevation (mamsl) : Volumetric (l) : 210
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5

TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q
(min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s) (min) (m bgl) (l/s)
0 2.94 0 5.57 0 7.42 0 8.12
1 5.50 13.50 1 7.35 1 8.08 1 8.38
2 5.56 2 7.40 2 8.09 2 8.39 27.00
3 5.56 3 7.40 18.00 3 8.10 3 8.39
4 5.55 4 7.40 4 8.10 4 8.39
5 5.55 5 7.40 5 8.11 5 8.39
6 5.55 6 7.41 6 8.11 6 8.39
7 5.56 7 7.41 21.00 7 8.11 24.00 7 8.39
8 5.56 8 7.41 8 8.11 8 8.40
9 5.56 9 7.41 9 8.11 9 8.40
10 5.56 10 7.41 10 8.11 10 8.39
12 5.56 12 7.41 12 8.11 12 8.40
14 5.56 14 7.40 14 8.11 14 8.40
16 5.56 16 7.40 16 8.12 16 8.40
18 5.56 18 7.40 18 8.11 18 8.39
20 5.56 20 7.41 20 8.11 20 8.39
25 5.56 25 7.42 25 8.12 25 8.39
30 5.56 30 7.42 30 8.11 30 8.39
35 5.56 35 7.43 35 8.12 35 8.39
40 5.56 40 7.41 40 8.12 40 8.39
45 5.57 45 7.41 45 8.12 45 8.39
50 5.56 50 7.41 50 8.12 50 8.40
55 5.57 55 7.40 55 8.12 55 8.40
60 5.57 60 7.42 60 8.12 60 8.40
337
APPENDIX 6 - 6
Name : Well No. 23 (MLUWD - CDM TW 2) Testing Period : March 4 - 5, 1976

Location : Brgy. Bauang, La Union Duration : 120 mins
Testing Period : March 2 - 4, 1976
Measuring Point: 0 m agl
0 4.98 40 15.26 1260 15.93 0 15.95 40 4.95
1 14.32 45 15.29 1320 15.93 1 5.07 45 4.96
2 14.77 50 15.31 1380 15.83 2 5.03 50 4.96
3 14.94 55 15.30 1440 15.93 3 5.01 55 4.96
4 15.10 60 15.30 1500 15.92 4 5.00 60 4.96
5 15.44 70 15.30 1560 15.92 5 4.90 70 4.96
6 14.87 80 15.33 1620 15.92 6 4.99 80 4.96
7 15.05 90 15.34 1680 15.85 7 4.99 90 4.96
8 15.13 100 15.36 1740 15.84 8 4.98 100 4.96
9 15.40 110 15.68 1800 15.92 9 4.98 110 4.96
10 15.68 120 15.82 1860 15.88 10 4.97 120 4.96
11 16.01 150 15.83 1920 15.93 11 4.97
12 16.21 180 15.83 1980 15.93 12 4.97
13 14.84 240 15.83 2040 15.94 13 4.97
14 14.81 300 16.12 2100 15.95 14 4.97
15 14.81 360 15.85 2160 15.94 15 4.97
16 14.81 420 15.85 2220 15.93 16 4.96
17 14.77 480 15.98 2280 15.94 17 4.96
18 15.23 540 15.87 2340 15.94 18 4.96
19 15.24 600 16.05 2400 15.93 19 4.96
20 14.97 660 15.90 2460 15.93 20 4.96
22 15.15 720 15.92 2520 15.92 22 4.96
24 15.28 780 15.95 2580 15.94 24 4.96
26 15.33 840 15.97 2640 15.96 26 4.96
28 15.33 900 16.16 2700 15.95 28 4.96
30 15.31 960 15.96 2760 15.95 30 4.96
32 15.29 1020 15.95 2820 15.94 32 4.96
34 15.27 1080 15.98 2880 15.95 34 4.96
36 15.28 1140 15.95 36 4.96
38 15.23 1200 15.93 38 4.96
338
APPENDIX 6 - 7A
CALCULATION OF LONG TERM PUMPING WATER LEVEL
WELL NO. 3 (MLUWD N - 15)
Parameters Projected Discharge Units
Specific Capacity 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 lps/m
s2/m5
Discharge Rate, Q 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.0120 m3/s
3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 lps
48 95 143 190 gpm
Transmissivity, T 0.00234 0.00234 0.00234 0.00234 m2/s

First Hour Pumping Time, t1 3600 3600 3600 3600 seconds
Long Term Pumping Time, t2 20736000 20736000 20736000 20736000 seconds
Depth of Well 60 60 60 60 m bgl
Saturated Thickness, H 56.87 56.87 56.87 56.87 meters
2H 113.74 113.74 113.74 113.74
swtotal (as confined aquifer) 4.35 6.71 9.06 11.42 meters
sw in water table aquifer: 4.54 7.16 9.93 12.88
Drawdown Components:
BQ 1.47 2.94 4.42 5.89 meters
slt 0.88 1.76 2.65 3.53 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.18 0.45 0.87 1.46 meters
CQ2 0.37 0.74 1.10 1.47 meters
Total 4.90 7.90 11.04 14.35 meters
SWL 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 m bgl
PWL 8.03 11.03 14.17 17.48 m bgl
Top of screens 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 m bgl
Available sw, 20% m 11.37 11.37 11.37 11.37 meters
NOTE:
Based on test pumping results and long term drawdown analysis of the aquifer, the well can sustain a yield
of 9 lps (143 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 percent of the saturated thickness.
339
APPENDIX 6 - 7B

WELL NO. 6 (MLUWD N - 10 / 1997 TEST)

2 5
s /m
3
Discharge Rate, Q 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 m /s
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 lps
32 63 95 127 gpm
2
Transmissivity, T 0.00530 0.00530 0.00530 0.00530 m /s
2H 111.40 111.40 111.40 111.40
BQ 2.76 5.52 8.28 11.03 meters
slt 0.26 0.52 0.78 1.04 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.25 0.68 1.39 2.45 meters
2
CQ 0.69 1.38 2.07 2.76 meters
Total 5.96 10.10 14.51 19.28 meters

SWL 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 m bgl
PWL 10.26 14.40 18.81 23.58 m bgl
NOTE:
340
APPENDIX 6 - 7C
WELL NO. 8 (MLUWD N - 13)

2 5
s /m
3
13.00 16.00 19.00 22.00 lps
206 254 301 349 gpm

2
2H 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00
BQ 2.97 3.66 4.34 5.03 meters
slt 1.68 2.06 2.45 2.84 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.46 0.63 0.84 1.09 meters
CQ2 0.74 0.91 1.09 1.26 meters
Total 7.85 9.27 10.72 12.21 meters
SWL 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 m bgl
PWL 12.85 14.27 15.72 17.21 m bgl
NOTE:
341
APPENDIX 6 - 7D
WELL NO. 21 (MLUWD B - 1)

2
Formation Loss Factor, B 55.40 55.40 55.40 55.40 s/m
2 5
Coefficient of Well Loss, C 1,275 1,275 1,275 1,275 s /m
3
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 lps
238 317 396 475 gpm

2
2H 51.60 51.60 51.60 51.60
BQ 0.83 1.11 1.39 1.66 meters
slt 0.25 0.34 0.42 0.51 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.21 0.27 0.33 0.41 meters

2
CQ 0.29 0.51 0.80 1.15 meters
Total 3.58 4.22 4.94 5.72 meters
SWL 5.20 5.20 5.20 5.20 m bgl
PWL 8.78 9.42 10.14 10.92 m bgl
Top of screens no available data m bgl
NOTE:
342
APPENDIX 6 - 7E
WELL NO. 22 (MLUWD B - 5)

2
Formation Loss Factor, B 170 170 170 170 s/m
2 5
Coefficient of Well Loss, C 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 s /m
3/
Discharge Rate, Q 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 m s
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 lps
158 190 222 254 gpm

2
2H 54.12 54.12 54.12 54.12
BQ 1.70 2.04 2.38 2.72 meters
slt 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.30 0.36 0.43 0.51 meters

2
CQ 0.20 0.29 0.39 0.51 meters
Total 4.22 4.72 5.24 5.78 meters
SWL 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 m bgl
PWL 7.16 7.66 8.18 8.72 m bgl
NOTE:
343
APPENDIX 6.3: EXTRACT FROM WATCON INC. GEO-RESISITIVITY SURVEY

2009 REPORT - MLUWD
Appendix G WATCON, Inc. Geo-resistivity Report for ADB TA: 7122-PHI

June 2009 (Selected Sections for Metro La Union Water District)
344
APPENDIX 6.4: PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS AND DESIGNS - MLUWD
Figure 6 – 15A Recommended Well Site Map: Bauang Wellfield

Figure 6 – 15B Recommended Well Site Map: San Gabriel and San Juan Wellfields
Figure 6 – 16A Preliminary Well Design: San Juan and San Gabriel Wellfields
Figure 6 – 16B Preliminary Well Design: Bauang Wellfield
Figure 6 – 16C Preliminary Well Design: Shallow Drilled Wells
Figure 6 – 16D Preliminary Well Design: Shallow Dug Wells
Figure 6 – 16E Preliminary Well Design: Collector/Ranney Wells
345
APPENDIX 7: NON REVENUE WATER IMPROVEMENT MEASURES - MLUWD
1. NRW improvement has been considered in terms of both asset and operational
activity improvement. These are reported on separately below.
1. NRW ASSET IMPROVEMENT
2. There is scope for investment in NRW reduction by MLUWD in a number of areas.

The types of investment that should be considered are itemized below with a brief summary
of the rationale for the investment.
1.1 FLOW MEASUREMENT – MACRO LEVEL
3. MLUWD have comprehensive production source metering in place—this is reflected in

the reported level of NRW which in 2008 was 53%. Only one production meter was reported
as being defective—this was the outlet of San Gabriel reservoir. It is anticipated by MLUWD
that this will be replaced within the next year, so it has not been included for in the
investment expenditure. Future replacement of meters should be carried out in accordance
with the useful life.
1.2 DISTRICT METERING
4. In order to target operational resources and investment, the division of water networks
into discrete areas into which flows are continuously measured is commonly undertaken
(district metering). This is particularly useful when NRW levels are relatively low, either to
make further reductions or to sustain the achieved levels of NRW into the future.
5. The size of district meter area depends on a number of factors, including network
layout and connectivity; investment and operating cost of installed infrastructure; resources
available to manage and monitor; etc.
6. As a first step for costing purposes it is proposed that areas of between 3,000 and
5,000 connections are set up.
7. The meter installation should be provided with a bypass in order that meter
maintenance can be easily undertaken—the bypass should be sized as one diameter lower
than the main line.
8. Estimated requirements are given below:

Bacnotan. There is no need currently to subdivide the measurement of flow in
Bacnotan area. The outlet flow meter on the service reservoir is sufficient to provide
the level of control an understanding necessary in this small system.
San Juan. San Juan has a small number of connections that would currently only
merit one district meter area based on number of connections. The town is supplied
from the transmission main between San Gabriel and San Fernando city; however,
none of the off-takes from the transmission mains are currently metered.
To simplify the measurement of flow in both the transmission and distribution systems
in this area it is proposed to install flow meters on both transmission mains upstream
and downstream of San Juan.
346
On the upstream side of San Juan the meters should be installed before the off-takes
to Barangay Cacapian and Barangay Sta. Rosa; on the downstream side of San Juan
they should be installed after the off-takes to Egida compound and Villa San Juan.
A total of 4 no. 250mm meters will be required; 12 no. isolation valves and 4 no.
meter chambers.
Installation of these four meters will allow step testing to be carried out within the area
to identify areas of highest loss.
San Fernando City. San Fernando has the most complex distribution system, with
more than 4,500 connections. As with San Juan it is probably most effective at this
stage to measure the flow into San Fernando through both transmission mains from
San Juan as well as from Bauang. The high level area supplied from Service
Reservoir No.2 should also be continuously metered.
By measuring the flow in this way it will also be possible to monitor the losses along
the transmission lines from San Juan to San Fernando. This will require 1 no. 250 mm
meter on each of the transmission mains from San Juan located upstream of the
50mm off-take to the Oceana Apartment; and 1 no. 250 mm meter on the
transmission main from Bauang to San Fernando to the south of the off-take along
Carabasa Road. In addition, a flow meter should be installed on each of the 250mm
outlets of the two high level reservoirs in San Fernando to measure fire-fighting flow
when it occurs, and the high level housing area in San Fernando.
A total of 5 no. of 250mm meters will be required; 15 no. of isolation valves and 5 no.
chambers.
Bauang. Bauang currently contains around 2,500 connections. Assuming that the
flow to San Fernando from Bauang is measured (see above) there is no need at this
stage to install further metering to measure flows in the Bauang area.
1.3 PRESSURE CONTROL
9. Transmission Main Pressure Control. The main source of water for the network comes
from San Gabriel and is transmitted by gravity approximately north-south to San Fernando
city. The distance is considerable and high pressures are required at the source end in order
to ensure supply to San Fernando City.
10. Pressures in the transmission at San Juan are around 100 psi (70m) and entering San
Fernando are around 60 psi (40m)—whilst this is necessary for the transmission it is quite
likely that this too high for the distribution off the transmission main, and the use of pressure
reduction off the transmission mains should be evaluated.
11. Distribution Main Pressure Control. Pressures within the distribution networks
operated by MLUWD differ quite significantly. There is likely to be scope for pressure
reduction in the San Juan distribution network given the transmission main pressure of 70m
reported above. The scope for pressure reduction in San Fernando and Bauang is less
certain and can only be assessed after more rigorous analysis.
12. For purposes of preliminary costing a provision has been included for pressure
reduction in the San Juan area. This includes for 3 no. 150mm PRVs; 9 no. 150mm isolation
valves; and 3 no. PRV chambers.
1.4 MAINS REPLACEMENT
13. A key component in the reduction of NRW is the replacement of leaking mains. In the
347
absence of detailed condition information an estimate of the required investment in mains

replacement can be made from knowledge of the existing network materials and general
characteristics of these mains.
14. ACP accounts for approximately 50% of the MLUWD network (see details in
Supplementary Appendix C); however, its condition is considered, by water district staff, to
be poor. For estimating purposes provision has been made for replacing the ACP within the
distribution at the rate of 8 km per year, commencing with the smallest size first—further
detailed analysis will be required to confirm the scheduling of replacement.
1.5 CUSTOMER METER REPLACEMENT
15. The age of meters in use in MLUWD is wide ranging. At present the company doesn’t
have a policy or programme for proactive customer meter replacement. MLUWD does have
meter testing facility where it tests meters that have been reported as not reading properly.
16. An interesting finding has been the potential of customer meters to over-read on what
would appear to be a significant basis (around 50% of meters tested by MLUWD meter
testing team were found to be over-reading)—reasons suggested for this are inclusion of air
within the mains and secretion of fine sand coating within velocity flow meters. Further
analysis of this is suggested during the feasibility stage of the project preparation as this may
have an effect on the impact of meter replacement programs.
17. Customer meter management usually has two components: planned meter
replacement, and ad-hoc meter replacement.
18. Planned meter replacement policy tends typically to be based on a fixed period for
replacement—usually between 5 and 10 years depending on the particular company,
requiring meter change out irrespective of actual performance.
19. Ad-hoc meter replacement is carried out based on meter condition as reported by
meter readers, customers etc., and analysis of historic meter readings as part of the billing
process.
20. Given the problem of meter blockage that is experienced in MLUWD a meter
management program similar to that in place in Legazpi would probably be of benefit to
MLUWD.
21. For this reason no planned replacement program is suggested; however, it would be
prudent to assume a high degree of replacement is required in the initial years of the
refurbishment program, requiring purchase of new meters for initial replacement. Provision
has been made for replacement of 50% of the existing meter stock over the investment
period—i.e. 800 per year.
1.6 REPLACEMENT OF GI SERVICE CONNECTIONS
22. The need for a blanket service connection change out programme depends on the
condition of service pipe materials and historic installation practice. Service mains are
currently being replaced by MLUWD on a needs basis, the replacement material being Poly
Ethylene (PE). It was estimated by MLUWD staff that around 30% of services (2,400 in
number) are GI.
23. Based on this, a cost provision has been included for replacing these over a period of
3 years—800 per year.
348
1.7 VALVE REHABILITATION PROGRAM
24. Valves are an essential component of a pipe network, allowing isolation of small parts
of the network so that operational situations like burst mains or interconnections can be
managed without affecting large numbers of customers.
25. The networks in MLUWD appear to have a good proportion of valves—around 350 for
the whole system. One problem with valve maintenance faced by most water districts is the
asphalting or concreting over of control valves—it is suggested that a program of valve
rehabilitation be included in the investment plan for MLUWD.
26. For costing purposes a provision has been made for the 5-year investment period
based on the installation of 1 valve per every 1,000 connections. An average cost equivalent
to the cost of a 150mm valve has been used; however, the provision can be used for valves
of any size. Based on this a total of 8 valves will be replaced per year.
1.8 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
27. There are a number of tools and types of equipment that are necessary to enable the
efficient operation of a water utility. These include: GIS Mapping Systems; Billing systems;
Hydraulic model of the transmission and distribution systems; Meter reading recording
devices and/or on the spot billing technology; Leakage detection equipment; Portable flow
and pressure logging technology.
28. GIS and Mapping. Geographical information systems technology is now well tried
and tested for utility operation and provides a very useful platform for recording details of
physical assets—location, type, age, condition; as well as for recording customer
consumption, billing and payment information.
29. MLUWD has very rudimentary map records, based on as-built construction drawings
from pipeline projects over the years. There would be very large benefits of creating a GIS for
the MLUWD.
30. Billing System. MLUWD billing system should be reviewed at the WDDSP feasibility
stage to see whether it is sufficiently robust for the task and/or whether it can be further
customized to the benefit of MLUWD.
31. If the system is not sufficiently robust alternative options should be considered at the
feasibility stage.
32. Hydraulic Modelling. Construction of hydraulic models to water supply systems

provides many benefits to the water utility. This may be in terms of improved knowledge of
network asset types and condition; better understanding of water usage across the network;
use of the model to simulate changes and improvements to the network; design of district
meter and pressure reduction areas; support to strategic resource planning; etc.
33. The hydraulic model should be built with the support of consultants but ownership and
use should rest with MLUWD.
34. Meter Reading Automation. The automation of meter reading through the use of
hand held computer technology up- and down-loaded to a computerized billing system both
simplifies and speeds up the meter reading process and potential for recording and
downloading errors; it also reduces the likelihood of meter fraud by restricting the information
visible to the meter reader.
349
35. An extension of this technology will also allow bills to be issued on the spot to
customers, simplifying and speeding up the billing process.
36. This has not been costed for as MLUWD have budget in FY 2009 for purchase of this
equipment.
37. Leakage Detection. Provision of appropriate and adequate leakage detection and
training in its use is essential if physical losses are to be managed to minimal levels.
38. Proposed equipment listing for MLUWD would be:

Leak Noise Correlators – 2 units;
Electronic listening equipment – 3 units;
Pipe locating equipment (all materials) – 2 sets;
Noise loggers – 3 sets;
39. Flow and Pressure Monitoring Equipment. Sufficient flow and pressure data
logging equipment should be provided to allow field testing of the largest district area over an
extended time period.
Dual flow & pressure loggers – 20 no.

Single channel pressure loggers – 30 no.
Heavy duty laptop computers – 1 no.
40. Provision should also be made for maintenance and replacement of this equipment
and associated batteries, cables etc.
1.9 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
41. Table 1 is a summary of the assets included in the capital investment requirements.
350
Table 1: NRW Capital Investment Requirements - MLUWD

Quantities
Expenditure Item
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NRW MANAGEMENT/CONTROL COSTS

District Metering
Mechanical Meters
250 9
Meter Installation valves
250 27
Chamber construction - 2m x 1.5m x 2m 9
Leak Detection/Pipe Location Equipment
Leak Noise Correlator 2
Electronic Listening Sticks 3
Noise Loggers - set 3
Pipe Location Equipment - All Materials 2
Data Logging Equipment
Dual Flow & Pressure Loggers 20
Pressure loggers 30
Hardware purchase - computer 1
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX

Customer Meter Replacement
1/2" 400 800 800 800 800 400
Pressure Reduction (PRVs)
150 3
Chamber construction - 2m x 1.5m x 2m 3

Isolation valves
150 9
Mains replacement
PVC
200 7,590 4,591
150 6,746 410
100 4,000 8,000 8,000 1,254
Service Pipe replacement
1/2" 800 800 800
Valve Rehabilitation
150 4 8 8 8 8 4
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COST

GIS
Software Purchase & Implementation 1
Hardware Purchase - Computers 1
Hydraulic Modelling
Software - Epanet Freeware 1
Hardware Purchase - Computers 1
Model Building 1
351
2. NRW OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
2.1 LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
42. MLUWD are not proactively carrying out leak detection and repair activity. These are
key activities in the reduction and control of NRW.
43. Further, the analysis of ILI (Infrastructure Leakage Index) (included in Supplementary
Appendix C, para 114) demonstrates the need for significant improvement in the
management of physical losses from the network.
44. It is suggested that MLUWD set up a team to more proactively manage leak detection
and repair—this could be either in-house or could be contracted out either on a rate basis or
a performance basis or combination of both—with supervision responsibility remaining with
MLUWD.
45. The current level of leaks within the system is unknown; however, an attempt at
estimating the number of distribution leaks (mains equal to or less than 300mm diameter)
has been made based on an average number of leaks per km of main. The estimated
number of leaks to be repaired per year along with an estimate of the repair cost to be
included in the operational budget are shown in Table 2. No attempt has been made to
attribute savings to the leaks repaired.
46. MLUWD should ensure that adequate budget for leak repair is provided in their
expense forecast.
Table 2: Estimated Distribution Main Line Leaks and Costs - MLUWD
Diameter Leaks/yr/ Network No. Of Leak Repair

(mm) km Length (m) Repairs Cost (PhP)
300 0.25 323 0 0

250 0.5 34,371 17 86,359
200 0.5 24,994 12 53,300
150 1 11,859 12 37,016
100 2 22,800 46 121,365
75 3 8,291 25 50,542
50 4 32,872 131 247,725
TOTAL 244 596,308
2.2 ILLEGAL LOSS REDUCTION
The conversion of illegal connections to legal connections is a double win for any utility, with
a reduction in the NRW as well as a revenue gain for no additional production or distribution
352
2.3 WATER AUDIT
49. It is recommended that MLUWD adopt the IWA water audit methodology as described
in Supplementary Appendix C, para 108, as a performance measurement tool. A key part of
this is the recording of unbilled authorised consumption within the water district—this is being
done by MLUWD—and using this information to inform operational decisions.
50. Quantifying the amount of water used for operational activities allows comparison to
be made with the cost of mitigating the need for the operational use, e.g. if water used for
flushing was quantified and a value assigned to it, it would be possible to calculate when
remedial action such as swabbing or scouring would have a greater cost benefit.
2.4 OUTSOURCING OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES
51. MLUWD currently carry out all operational activity in-house. As they are a rapidly
growing organization with some positions unfilled there is scope for MLUWD to enter into out-
sourcing contracts to support the efficient operation to the business. Similarly for specific and
enhanced programs of activity (e.g. a crash leak detection and repair program) it may be
beneficial to undertake some of the work through outsourcing to have a quick impact.
52. Outsourcing can be used for many of the routine activities, either individually or in
combination, e.g.
meter reading;
billing;
collection;
meter replacement;
reduction of illegal connections;
leak detection;
leak repair;
M&E maintenance activity;
NRW reduction.
53. All these contracts should be set up with performance in mind—rewarding out
performance and penalizing under performance. For performance contracts to be successful,
however, the risk-reward criteria and payment mechanisms need to be clearly thought out in
order to reinforce the desired performance. Such contracts should also be regarded as a
partnership rather than a one-sided opportunity by either party to gain benefit at the expense
of the other.
54. The use of outsourcing contracts brings with it the requirement for effective
supervision—this should be viewed as an opportunity to develop staff within the water district
and appropriate capacity building activity undertaken.
55. Supplementary Appendix E shows the types of outsourcing that can be carried out
and suggests some performance criteria that could be used to improve utility efficiency.
3. NRW IMPROVEMENT COSTS
3.1 COSTING RATIONALE
56. NRW reduction activities fall into both capital investment (pipelines, meters, PRVs,
specialist equipment, etc.) and operational expense categories (leak repair, equipment
licensing and battery replacement). Both of these categories are further described below.
353
1. Capital Investment. Capital Investment costs can be broken down into investment for
control and management of NRW reduction activity (production metering, district metering,
specialist equipment purchase, etc.) and investment that directly leads to reduction of NRW
(pipe replacement, pressure reduction, meter replacement, etc.).
2. A further type of cost presented here is for Management System Capex—this is
related more to effective utility management but impacts on NRW reduction performance in
terms of supporting the activities carried out in NRW management, and so has been included
here.
3. Operational Activity Costs. Operational activity costs have also been considered in
relation to NRW Control, NRW Reduction and Management Systems.
4. NRW Control operational expense covers licensing and batteries for the Control
Capex assets (leak detection equipment, data loggers etc.).
5. NRW Reduction operational expense covers leak repair.
6. NRW Management System operational expense covers licensing and batteries for the
management system assets.
57. Costs have been prepared for the period 2011 to 2016 consistent with the financial
requirements of the PPTA for inclusion in the relevant section of the financial model for
MLUWD. In practice, many of these types of costs will continue into the future (although at
different levels) as part of a regular asset management planning process
58. Table 3 shows a summary of all proposed investment expenditure items for MLUWD.
Costs are in Philippine Peso.
59. It is interesting to note that capital investment costs account for 96% of total costs and
that almost of 85% of total cost is related to reduction of NRW, with only 10% being related to
control.
60. Table 4 shows the detailed breakdown of these costs by expense category. Costs are
in Philippine Peso.
61. Unit costs that have been used in the analysis are based on costs provided included
in LWUA Form No. 21 where possible, and also costs kindly provided from the Engineering
Department of Maynilad Water.
Table 3: Summary of Proposed NRW Investment Expenditure - MLUWD

EXPENSE CATEGORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL % of TOTAL
NRW CONTROL CAPEX 5,763,000 3,701,428 0 0 0 0 9,464,428 10.0%
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX 7,307,883 12,497,079 12,497,079 16,301,823 20,193,847 11,647,640 80,445,351 84.6%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CAPEX 1,340,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,340,000 1.4%
Total Capex 14,410,883 16,198,507 12,497,079 16,301,823 20,193,847 11,647,640 91,249,779 96.0%
NRW CONTROL OPEX 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000 0.1%

NRW REDUCTION OPEX 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 3,580,474 3.8%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPEX 0 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 172,500 0.2%
Total Opex 596,746 631,246 631,246 706,246 631,246 631,246 3,827,974 4.0%
TOTAL ANNUAL 15,007,629 16,829,753 13,128,325 17,008,069 20,825,093 12,278,886 95,077,754

TOTAL CUMULATIVE 15,007,629 31,837,382 44,965,706 61,973,775 82,798,868 95,077,754
354
Table 4: Detailed NRW Cost Breakdown - MLUWD
EXPENSE CATEGORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL % of TOTAL
NRW CONTROL CAPEX 5,763,000 3,701,428 0 0 0 0 9,464,428

Production Metering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
District Metering 0 3,701,428 0 0 0 0 3,701,428 39.1%
Leak Detection/Pipe Location Equipment 2,300,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,300,000 24.3%
Data Logging Equipment 3,463,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,463,000 36.6%
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX 7,307,883 12,497,079 12,497,079 16,301,823 20,193,847 11,647,640 80,445,351
Customer Meter Replacement 480,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 960,000 480,000 4,800,000 6.0%
Pressure Reduction (PRVs) 1,815,344 0 0 0 0 0 1,815,344 2.3%
Mains replacement 4,905,720 9,811,440 9,811,440 13,616,184 19,020,208 11,060,821 68,225,813 84.8%
Service Pipe replacement 0 1,512,000 1,512,000 1,512,000 0 0 4,536,000 5.6%
Valve Rehabilitation 106,819 213,639 213,639 213,639 213,639 106,819 1,068,194 1.3%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CAPEX 1,340,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,340,000

GIS 795,000 0 0 0 0 0 795,000 59.3%
Billing System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Hydraulic Modelling 545,000 0 0 0 0 0 545,000 40.7%
Meter Reading Automation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
MIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
TOTAL CAPEX 14,410,883 16,198,507 12,497,079 16,301,823 20,193,847 11,647,640 91,249,779
NRW CONTROL OPEX - - - 75,000 - - 75,000

Licensing & Batteries 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000 100.0%
NRW REDUCTION OPEX 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 3,580,474
Leak Repair 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 596,746 3,580,474 100.0%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPEX 0 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 172,500

Licensing & Batteries 0 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 34,500 172,500 100.0%
TOTAL OPEX 596,746 631,246 631,246 706,246 631,246 631,246 3,827,974
3.2 ESTIMATED VOLUME OF NRW REDUCTION DUE TO CAPITAL INVESTMENT
62. Table 5 shows an estimate of volume savings as a result of activity carried out in
relation to capital investment. No estimate has been prepared for the impact of pressure
reduction in San Juan, due to lack of data.
63. For the pipe replacement it has been assumed that there will be a 10% loss from the
new asset, so only 90% of the potential savings are achieved for the duration of the 5-year
period—this is to recognise the fact that there will be some background losses “built into” the
new asset.
355
Table 5: Estimated Volume Savings - MLUWD

Annual Potential Volume Saving Due to Investment Activity - m
3
Leakage
Main Diameter Saving Per
Investment Category Rate -
- mm Item - 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
l/min/Km 3
m /yr/km
Mains replacement - 5 breaks per km 600 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Leak volume per leak assumed the same 450 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
as for pipe repair 400 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 30.00 15,768 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 25.00 13,140 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 20.00 10,512 0 0 0 0 79,786 48,261
150 15.00 7,884 0 0 0 53,185 3,232 0
100 10.00 5,256 21,024 42,048 42,048 6,591 0 0
75 7.50 3,942 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 5.00 2,628 0 0 0 0 0 0
Potential Annual Savings 21,024 42,048 42,048 59,776 83,019 48,261
Loss Factor 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Forecast Annual Savings 18,922 37,843 37,843 53,799 74,717 43,435
Note: Savi ngs attri butable i n Year = 50% of Potentia l Savings attributable in Year 9,461 18,922 18,922 26,899 37,358 21,717
due to i mple mentati on timi ng effe ct Savings from Prior Year 18,922 18,922 18,922 18,922 18,922
100% of pote ntial recognis ed in s ubs eque nt ye ars Savings from Prior Years 37,843 37,843 37,843 37,843
Savings from Prior Years 37,843 37,843 37,843
Savings from Prior Years 53,799 74,717
74,717
Annual Saving 9,461 37,843 75,686 121,507 185,765 265,759
Cumulative Saving 9,461 47,304 122,990 244,498 430,263 696,022
3 3
Meter Replacement - Estimated Volume Saving - 2.0 m /mth/meter m /year 24 9,600 19,200 19,200 19,200 19,200 9,600
Note: Savi ngs attri butable i n Year = 50% of Potentia l Savings attributable in Year 4,800 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 4,800
due to i mple mentati on timi ng effe ct Savings from Prior Year 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600
Savings from Prior Years 19,200 19,200
19,200
Annual Saving 4,800 19,200 38,400 57,600 76,800 91,200
Cumulative Saving 4,800 24,000 62,400 120,000 196,800 288,000
3
Service pipe relacement - Estmated Volume Saving 1 l/hr/service m /year 8.8 0 7,008 7,008 7,008 0 0
Note: Savi ngs attri butable i n Year = 50% of Potentia l Savings attributable in Year 0 3,504 3,504 3,504 0 0
due to i mple mentati on timi ng effe ct Savings from Prior Year 0 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008
Savings from Prior Years 7,008 0
0
Annual Saving 0 3,504 17,520 24,528 28,032 21,024
Cumulative Saving 0 3,504 21,024 45,552 73,584 94,608
3
Volume Savings Related to Capital Investment - m Total 14,261 60,547 131,606 203,635 290,597 377,983
Cumulative 14,261 74,808 206,414 410,050 700,647 1,078,630
3.3 COST BENEFIT OF NRW REDUCTION INVESTMENT
64. The value of savings made by reducing NRW depends upon the volume of water
saved and whether it is sold or allows reduction in production output.
65. In networks with a fully satisfied demand the value of the saving lies in the cost of
production and distribution, i.e. the losses saved serve to reduce the production requirement.
In networks that are resource limited the value of the saving in NRW is equal to the value of
revenue less the variable cost of production and distribution, i.e. the losses saved are sold to
customers at the applicable tariff rate.
66. The MLUWD system is resource limited so the economic justification of NRW
investment is related to the sales value of water saved.
67. Table 6 shows a simple calculation of payback period for each of the components of
the five-year capital investment program, based on the forecast of savings made as a result
of the investment and operational activity.
68. This demonstrates the potential for savings as a result of work carried out—it does
rely, however, on good quality of workmanship and properly targeted expenditure.
356
Table 6: NRW Payback Period - MLUWD

5 Year 5 Year Payback
5 Year Capex
Capex Component Volume Value Saving Period
(PhP) 3
Saving - m (PhP) Years
Mains replacement 68,225,813 696,022 17,678,949 12.49
Meter Replacement 4,800,000 288,000 7,315,200 3.91
Service Pipe Replacement 4,536,000 94,608 2,403,043 8.99
Total Capex incl. Non Reduction 95,077,754 1,078,630 27,397,192 12.05
Average Tariff - PhP/m3 34.7

3
Variable Production Cost - PhP/m 9.3
Value of Saving - PhP/m3 25.4
357
APPENDIX 10: MLUWD ORGANIZATION CHART
358
APPENDIX 11.1: DETAILED PROJECT COST – MLUWD (Php’000)
Sub-Total Taxes & Totals (excl

Civil Works Equipment Land Duties tax)
a. Well Drilling/Development m 8 1,000,000 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0 857.1 7,142.9
Sub-Total 8,000.0 - - 2,400.0 5,600.0 8,000.0 857.1 7,142.9
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 2,904,000 2,497.5 406.6 - 697.0 2,207.1 2,904.1 311.2 2,592.9
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 12,200,000 3,050.0 9,150.0 - 8,296.0 3,904.0 12,200.0 1,307.1 10,892.9
c. Gen-set set 8 550,000 440.0 3,960.0 - 3,124.0 1,276.0 4,400.0 471.4 3,928.6
Sub-Total 5,987.5 13,516.6 - 12,117.0 7,387.1 19,504.1 2,089.7 17,414.4
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 163,630,080 147,267.0 16,363.0 - 65,452.0 98,178.0 163,630.0 17,531.8 146,098.2
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 29,750,000 28,262.5 1,487.5 - 5,652.5 24,097.5 29,750.0 3,187.5 26,562.5
5 Distribution Facilities ls 1 24,241,140 21,817.0 2,424.0 - 9,696.3 14,544.7 24,241.0 2,597.3 21,643.8
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,000,000 7,200.0 4,800.0 - 3,840.0 8,160.0 12,000.0 1,285.7 10,714.3
7 Resettlement Cost ls 1 2,768,150 - 2,768.2 - 2,768.2 2,768.2 296.6 2,471.6
8 Land Acquisition lot 2,600 500 - 1,300.0 - 1,300.0 1,300.0 139.3 1,160.7
SUB-TOTAL 218,534.0 38,591.1 4,068.2 99,157.8 162,035.5 261,193.3 27,985.0 233,208.3
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 16,970.3 - - 5,091.1 11,879.2 16,970.3 1,818.2 15,152.1
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 11,313.6 - - 1,131.4 10,182.2 11,313.6 1,212.2 10,101.4
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 4,924.0 20,991.9 25,915.9 2,776.7 23,139.2
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 26,125.3 4,084.8 430.6 2,692.0 30,692.0 33,383.9 3,576.9 29,807.1
G RAND T O T AL 272,943.2 42,675.9 4,498.8 112,996.3 235,780.8 348,777.1 37,369.0 311,408.1
359
APPENDIX 11.2: DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE – MLUWD (Php’000)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040
Proposed WDSSP Loan
Disbursement 16,356 144,214 142,774 - - -
Capitalized Interest - - - - - -
Operational Interest - 5,136 19,234 29,728 29,665 29,402 29,112 28,794 28,443 28,057 27,633 27,166 26,652 26,086 25,463 21,278 14,526 3,631
Principal - 2,621 2,884 3,173 3,492 3,843 4,228 4,653 5,120 5,634 6,200 6,822 11,007 17,760 28,655
Debt Service - 5,136 19,234 29,728 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286
Loan Outstanding 16,356 160,570 303,344 303,344 300,723 305,743 305,577 305,063 304,167 302,851 301,071 298,782 295,932 292,466 288,320 254,771 190,537 76,794
Less: Current Portion - 2,621 2,884 3,173 3,492 3,843 4,228 4,653 5,120 5,634 6,200 6,822 7,507 12,113 19,543 15,389
Foreign Exchange Loss - - - - 7,904 3,007 2,978 2,947 2,912 2,873 2,831 2,784 2,733 2,677 2,615 2,198 1,526 440
Long-Term Portion 16,356 160,570 303,344 300,723 305,743 305,577 305,063 304,167 302,851 301,071 298,782 295,932 292,466 288,320 283,428 244,857 172,520 61,846
Existing Loans
Operational Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Principal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Loan Outstanding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Less: Current Portion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Long-Term Portion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summary
Operational Interest - 5,136 19,234 29,728 29,665 29,402 29,112 28,794 28,443 28,057 27,633 27,166 26,652 26,086 25,463 21,278 14,526 3,631
Principal - - - - 2,621 2,884 3,173 3,492 3,843 4,228 4,653 5,120 5,634 6,200 6,822 11,007 17,760 28,655
Debt Service - 5,136 19,234 29,728 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286
Loan Outstanding - - 303,344 303,344 300,723 305,743 305,577 305,063 304,167 302,851 301,071 298,782 295,932 292,466 288,320 254,771 190,537 76,794
Less: Current Portion - - - 2,621 2,884 3,173 3,492 3,843 4,228 4,653 5,120 5,634 6,200 6,822 7,507 12,113 19,543 15,389
Long-Term Portion 16,356 160,570 303,344 300,723 305,743 305,577 305,063 304,167 302,851 301,071 298,782 295,932 292,466 288,320 283,428 244,857 172,520 61,846
360
APPENDIX 11.3: PROJECTED WATER TARIFF – MLUWD (Php)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Domestic/Residential -
Minimum Charge 230.00 230.00 253.00 253.00 253.00 291.00 291.00 320.00 320.00 352.00 352.00 387.00 469.00 647.00 812.00 1,140.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 23.95 24.00 26.40 26.40 26.40 30.40 30.40 33.40 33.40 36.70 36.70 40.40 48.80 67.30 84.40 118.50
21 - 30 cu.m. 28.70 28.70 31.60 31.60 31.60 36.30 36.30 39.90 39.90 43.90 43.90 48.30 58.40 80.50 101.00 141.90
31 - 40 cu.m. 36.00 36.00 39.60 39.60 39.60 45.50 45.50 50.10 50.10 55.10 55.10 60.60 73.40 101.20 126.90 178.30
41 - up 40.35 40.40 44.40 44.40 44.40 51.10 51.10 56.20 56.20 61.80 61.80 68.00 82.30 113.60 142.50 200.30
Institutional - -
Minimum Charge 230.00 230.00 253.00 253.00 253.00 291.00 291.00 320.00 320.00 352.00 352.00 387.00 469.00 647.00 812.00 1,140.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 23.95 24.00 26.40 26.40 26.40 30.40 30.40 33.40 33.40 36.70 36.70 40.40 48.80 67.30 84.40 118.50
21 - 30 cu.m. 28.70 28.70 31.60 31.60 31.60 36.30 36.30 39.90 39.90 43.90 43.90 48.30 58.40 80.50 101.00 141.90
31 - 40 cu.m. 36.00 36.00 39.60 39.60 39.60 45.50 45.50 50.10 50.10 55.10 55.10 60.60 73.40 101.20 126.90 178.30
41 - up 40.35 40.40 44.40 44.40 44.40 51.10 51.10 56.20 56.20 61.80 61.80 68.00 82.30 113.60 142.50 200.30
Commercial/Industrial - -
Minimum Charge 460.00 460.00 506.00 506.00 506.00 582.00 582.00 640.00 640.00 704.00 704.00 774.00 936.00 1,292.00 1,621.00 2,278.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 47.90 47.90 52.70 52.70 52.70 60.60 60.60 66.70 66.70 73.40 73.40 80.70 97.70 134.80 169.10 237.60
21 - 30 cu.m. 57.40 57.40 63.10 63.10 63.10 72.60 72.60 79.90 79.90 87.90 87.90 96.70 117.00 161.40 202.50 284.50
31 - 40 cu.m. 72.00 72.00 79.20 79.20 79.20 91.10 91.10 100.20 100.20 110.20 110.20 121.20 146.60 202.40 253.90 356.70
41 - up 80.70 80.70 88.80 88.80 88.80 102.10 102.10 112.30 112.30 123.50 123.50 135.90 164.50 227.00 284.70 400.10
Affordability of Proposed Water Rates

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Average Income per month 8,098 8,503 8,928 9,374 9,843 10,335 10,852 11,395 11,964 12,563 13,191 13,850 17,677 22,561 28,794 36,749
Minimum Charge (MC) 230.00 230.00 253.00 253.00 253.00 291.00 291.00 320.00 320.00 352.00 352.00 387.00 469.00 647.00 812.00 1,140.00
Add: Sanitation Fee (P/cum) - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Minimum Charge 230.00 230.00 253.00 253.00 253.00 291.00 291.00 320.00 320.00 352.00 352.00 387.00 469.00 647.00 812.00 1,140.00
% of MC to Average Income 2.84% 2.70% 2.83% 2.70% 2.57% 2.82% 2.68% 2.81% 2.67% 2.80% 2.67% 2.79% 2.65% 2.87% 2.82% 3.10%
Increase in Water Rates 10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 12% 12%
Increase in Income (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
361
APPENDIX 11.4: FINANCIAL INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN – MLUWD (Php’000)
Base Hypothesis Sensitivity Analyses

1 Year Delay in
Year Incremental Incremental Project Incremental Incremental Incremental Project
Project Operation Project Project Project
Net Net Cost Net Net Net Cost Net
Cost Cost O&M Cost Revenues Cost Revenues O&M
Revenues O&M Revenues O&M Revenues O&M (+10%) Revenues O&M (+10%)
(+10%) (-10%) (-10%) (+10%)
2011 21,242 (21,242) 21,242 (21,242) 23,366 (23,366) 21242 (21,242) 21,242 (21,242) 21,242 (21,242)
2012 - - 150,315 (150,315) - - 150,315 (150,315) - - 165,346 (165,346) - - 150315 (150,315) - - 150,315 (150,315) - - 165,346 (165,346)
2013 - - 143,836 (143,836) - - 143,836 (143,836) - - 158,220 (158,220) - - 143836 (143,836) - - 143,836 (143,836) - - 158,220 (158,220)
2014 19,445 2,227 - 17,218 - - - - 19,445 2,227 0 17,218 19,445 2,450 0 16,995 17,500 2,227 0 15,273 17,500 2,450 0 15,051
2015 36,159 11,161 - 24,998 19,445 2,227 - 17,218 36,159 11,161 0 24,998 36,159 12,278 0 23,882 32,543 11,161 0 21,382 32,543 12,278 0 20,266
2016 62,580 12,402 - 50,179 36,159 11,161 - 24,998 62,580 12,402 0 50,179 62,580 13,642 0 48,938 56,322 12,402 0 43,921 56,322 13,642 0 42,680
2017 62,166 16,912 45,254 62,580 12,402 - 50,179 62,166 16,912 0 45,254 62,166 18,604 0 43,562 55,949 16,912 0 39,037 55,949 18,604 0 37,346
2018 85,780 21,015 64,765 62,166 16,912 - 45,254 85,780 21,015 0 64,765 85,780 23,116 0 62,664 77,202 21,015 0 56,187 77,202 23,116 0 54,086
2019 85,711 25,403 60,308 85,780 21,015 - 64,765 85,711 25,403 0 60,308 85,711 27,943 0 57,768 77,140 25,403 0 51,737 77,140 27,943 0 49,197
2020 109,281 29,703 79,578 85,711 25,403 - 60,308 109,281 29,703 0 79,578 109,281 32,674 0 76,608 98,353 29,703 0 68,650 98,353 32,674 0 65,679
2021 108,185 34,165 74,020 109,281 29,703 - 79,578 108,185 34,165 74,020 108,185 37,581 70,604 97,366 34,165 63,202 97,366 37,581 0 59,785
2022 129,087 38,418 90,669 108,185 34,165 - 74,020 129,087 38,418 90,669 129,087 42,260 86,827 116,178 38,418 77,760 116,178 42,260 0 73,918
2023 115,441 42,568 72,873 129,087 38,418 - 90,669 115,441 42,568 72,873 115,441 46,825 68,616 103,897 42,568 61,329 103,897 46,825 0 57,072
2024 129,973 46,561 83,413 115,441 42,568 - 72,873 129,973 46,561 83,413 129,973 51,217 78,757 116,976 46,561 70,415 116,976 51,217 0 65,759
2025 116,260 47,766 68,494 129,973 46,561 - 83,413 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2026 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2027 116,260 47,766 13,517 54,978 116,260 47,766 13,517 54,978 116,260 47,766 16,220 52,274 116,260 52,543 13517 50,201 104,634 47,766 13,517 43,352 104,634 52,543 14,868 37,223
2028 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2029 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2030 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2031 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2032 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2033 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2034 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2035 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2036 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2037 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2038 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2039 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2040 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
2041 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 47,766 - 68,494 116,260 47,766 68,494 116,260 52,543 63,718 104,634 47,766 56,868 104,634 52,543 0 52,092
FIRR 15.33% FIRR 13.70% FIRR 14.15% FIRR 14.73% FIRR 13.39% FIRR 11.72%
NPV 323,187 NPV 276,179 NPV 295,523 NPV 291,557 NPV 231,998 NPV 175,110
362
APPENDIX 11.5: PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT – MLUWD (Php’000)
Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Operating Revenues
Water Sales 63,512 68,542 77,121 78,564 87,671 108,631 137,209 270,292 359,129 495,540 621,605 873,311
Domestic 39,790 44,081 49,389 50,202 56,083 71,749 93,815 193,576 256,703 354,209 444,320 624,238
Institutional 5,498 5,502 6,052 6,052 6,650 7,250 8,700 15,440 23,353 32,223 40,420 56,787
Commercial 18,224 18,959 21,679 22,310 24,938 29,632 34,695 61,276 79,073 109,108 136,865 192,285
Other Operating Revenues 9,527 10,281 11,568 11,785 13,151 16,295 20,581 28,381 37,709 52,032 65,269 91,698
Total Revenues 73,039 78,823 88,689 90,348 100,821 124,926 157,791 298,672 396,837 547,572 686,874 965,009
Operating Expenses
Payroll 13,146 13,803 14,493 15,218 15,979 20,306 24,939 40,119 67,011 85,525 109,155 139,312
Power Cost 16,654 17,820 19,067 20,402 21,830 26,252 32,991 67,604 120,616 169,170 237,269 332,782
Chemicals 956 1,052 1,157 1,272 1,400 1,090 1,368 3,050 6,088 9,804 15,790 25,430
Maintenance 6,980 7,842 8,811 9,899 11,121 11,976 15,738 31,796 58,364 81,858 114,810 161,027
Other O & M 10,077 11,322 12,720 14,291 16,055 15,301 19,394 37,640 68,211 95,669 134,180 188,195
Franchise Tax 1,461 1,576 1,774 1,807 2,016 2,499 3,156 5,973 7,937 10,951 13,737 19,300
Bad Debts 24 43 46 49 53 57 62 107 182 279 407 573
Depreciation 4,218 4,218 4,218 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241 10,241
Total Operating Exp. 53,515 57,675 62,285 73,179 78,696 87,722 107,890 196,531 338,649 463,498 635,590 876,862
Net Operating Income 19,524 21,148 26,404 17,169 22,126 37,204 49,901 102,141 58,188 84,074 51,284 88,147
Less: Interest Expense 0 0 0 5,136 19,234 29,728 37,569 30,931 28,078 23,476 16,051 4,071
Foreign Exchange Loss 7,904 2,873 2,615 2,198 1,526 440
Net Income 19,524 21,148 26,404 12,033 2,892 7,476 4,429 68,337 27,494 58,400 33,707 83,635
363
APPENDIX 11.6: PROJECTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT – MLUWD (Php’000)
Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Sources of Cash
Collection of Revenues - CY 59,702 64,430 72,493 73,850 82,411 102,113 128,977 254,074 337,581 465,808 584,309 820,912
Collection of Receivables - PY (net of bad debt) - 3,427 3,856 3,928 4,384 5,432 6,860 13,515 17,956 24,777 31,080 43,666
Other Receipts 9,527 10,281 11,568 11,785 13,151 16,295 20,581 28,381 37,709 52,032 65,269 91,698
Proceeds of Loan - - 16,356 144,214 142,774 - -
LWUA and NLIF
WDDSP 16,356 144,214 142,774 - -
Total Sources of Cash 69,228 78,138 104,274 233,776 242,719 123,839 156,419 295,969 393,246 542,616 680,658 956,275
Uses of Cash
Equity - 6,299 19,666 19,469 - -
Project Investment - 16,356 144,214 142,774 - -
Debt Service-
Existing Loans - - - - - - - - - - - -
Proposed Loan - - 5,136 19,234 29,728 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286
Total Debt Service - - - 5,136 19,234 29,728 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286 32,286
Foreign Exchange Loss - - - - - - 7,904 2,873 2,615 2,198 1,526 440
O & M Expenses and Working Capital 69,663 56,731 56,077 60,891 66,173 74,688 94,166 179,755 319,508 440,679 608,873 842,696
Reserves 635 685 771 786 877 3,259 6,860 13,515 17,956 24,777 31,080 43,666
Franchise Tax 1,461 1,576 1,774 1,807 2,016 2,499 3,156 5,973 7,937 10,951 13,737 19,300
Corporate Income Tax - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Uses of Cash 71,759 58,993 81,276 232,499 250,543 110,173 144,372 234,402 380,302 510,891 687,502 938,388
Increase(Decrease) in Cash (2,530) 19,145 22,998 1,277 (7,824) 13,666 12,047 61,567 12,944 31,725 (6,844) 17,888
Add: Cash Balance, Beg. (1,399) (3,929) 15,216 38,213 39,491 31,667 45,333 232,155 494,390 577,269 673,399 680,437
Cash Balance, End. (3,929) 15,216 38,213 39,491 31,667 45,333 57,379 293,721 507,334 608,993 666,555 698,325
364
APPENDIX 11.7: PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET – MLUWD (Php’000)
Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
ASSETS
Fixed Assets
Fixed Assets in Operation 114,852 114,852 126,179 219,446 382,508 463,629 463,629 463,629 463,629 463,629 463,629 463,629
Less: Accum. Depreciation 43,178 47,396 51,614 61,855 72,096 82,337 92,578 143,784 194,990 246,195 297,401 348,606
Net Fixed Assets in Operation 71,674 67,456 74,565 157,591 310,411 381,292 371,051 319,845 268,639 217,434 166,228 115,023
Add: Work-in-Progress 11,327 81,940 81,122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Fixed Assets 71,674 67,456 85,893 239,531 391,533 381,292 371,051 319,845 268,639 217,434 166,228 115,023
Current Assets
Cash (3,929) 15,216 38,213 39,491 31,667 45,333 57,379 293,721 507,334 608,993 666,555 698,325
Working Fund and Special Deposits 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032
Accounts Receivable (net) 8,500 9,143 9,869 10,605 11,429 12,458 13,768 24,049 39,882 60,397 87,122 122,859
Accounts Receivable- others 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502 5,502
Inventory (3,779) 1,323 1,381 1,442 1,506 1,573 1,644 2,054 2,578 3,246 4,099 5,187
Investments 481 481 481 481 481 481 481 481 481 481 481 481
Prepayments 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265
Other Current Assets 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Total Current Assets 8,127 33,017 56,798 58,873 51,936 66,699 80,126 327,159 557,130 679,971 765,111 833,706
Reserves 635 1,321 2,092 2,877 3,754 7,013 13,873 67,455 150,381 258,907 401,345 592,604
TOTAL ASSETS 80,436 101,793 144,782 301,281 447,223 455,003 465,050 714,459 976,150 1,156,312 1,332,683 1,541,332
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable 2,307 2,516 2,745 2,997 3,274 3,578 3,913 6,172 9,875 16,023 26,349 43,873
Current Maturities 0 0 0 0 0 2,621 2,884 4,653 7,507 12,113 19,543 15,389
Customers' Deposits 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996 1,996
Other Current and Accrued Liabilities 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072 4,072
Total Current Liabilities 8,375 8,584 8,813 9,065 9,342 12,267 12,865 16,893 23,450 34,203 51,960 65,330
Long-Term Debts (LTD)
Loans Payable 10,471 10,471 26,827 171,041 313,815 311,194 316,214 311,542 293,899 255,328 182,991 72,317
Deferred Credits 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107
Equity
Capital Contribution - Gov't 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120
Donated Capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Paid-in Capital 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Retained Earnings 57,340 78,488 104,892 116,925 119,817 127,293 131,721 381,775 654,551 862,530 1,093,482 1,399,436
Total Equity 59,483 80,631 107,035 119,068 121,960 129,436 133,864 383,918 656,694 864,673 1,095,625 1,401,579
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 80,436 101,793 144,782 301,281 447,223 455,003 465,050 714,459 976,150 1,156,312 1,332,683 1,541,332
365
APPENDIX 11.8: PROJECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Current Ratio 0.97 3.85 6.44 6.49 5.56 5.44 6.23 19.37 23.76 19.88 14.72 12.76
Debt to Equity Ratio 0.18 0.13 0.25 1.44 2.57 2.40 2.36 0.81 0.45 0.30 0.17 0.05
Net Profit Ratio 73% 73% 70% 81% 78% 70% 68% 66% 85% 85% 93% 91%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 5.34 1.68 1.60 1.86 3.48 2.12 2.92 1.91 3.05
366
APPENDIX 12: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - MLUWD
1. INTRODUCTION
1. This note presents the economic feasibility evaluation of the proposed investments in
water supply for Metro La Union.29 It describes the overall approach to economic analysis,
the data and assumptions used, the procedures for estimating economic costs and benefits,
the results of the analysis in terms of economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and poverty
impact ratio (PIR), and an assessment of the long-term economic sustainability of the
proposed investments. It also discusses the overall impact of the investments in terms of the
estimated number of new service connections and population that will gain direct access to
the improved water supply system to be made possible by the Project.
2. This section starts with a general overview of the macroeconomic environment and
the current situation in the water supply sector in the Philippines as well as in Metro La Union
as background for a clearer understanding of the context of the Project and for assessing its
economic impact.
2. MACROECONOMIC / SECTORAL CONTEXT
3. Before the global economic slowdown hit the country in 2008, the Philippine economy
has been growing at annual rates averaging 5.7%. From 5% in 2005, GDP growth increased
to 5.4% in 2006 and further accelerated to its highest rate of 7.2% in 2007. However, in
2008, largely as a result of the global economic downturn, the economy grew at a much
slower pace of only 4.6%. The pace of growth further decelerated up until the middle of 2009
but which seemed to have picked up some steam during the second half of the year. By the
end of 2009, economic growth is projected to reach 1.6%. In 2010, it is expected to gradually
accelerate to 3.3%.30 Inflation is currently at its lowest level and is expected to average 4% in
2009 and 4.5% in 2010.
4. Despite the consistent, positive growth of the domestic economy during the past
years, however, poverty incidence in the country still remains high. In 2006, the number of
families falling below the poverty line was estimated at 26.9%31. Although no recent poverty
estimates have yet been released for both national and regional levels which reflect the
possible impact of the current economic downturn, it is generally believed that the number of
poor has risen. As an indicator, the latest Social Weather Survey undertaken by the Social
Weather Station (SWS) indicates that self-rated poverty during the fourth quarter of 2008
was up to 52%, from the average of 50% in 2007.32 Based on the socioeconomic survey
conducted by the Project, Metro La Union has a poverty incidence of 36%.
5. In the water supply sector, the situation across the country and in the Project area,
needs further improvement. Available statistics show that 80% of the country’s current
population have access to safe water supply but only 67% percent are connected to piped
network.33 Still a large proportion of the population depends on non-piped sources such as
shallow wells and deep wells, most of which are unprotected, and on more unsafe sources
like rivers and streams.
29
Covers 65 of the total 201 barangays in San Fernando City and the municipalities of Bacnotan, Bauang, San
Gabriel and San Juan that are being served by the Metro La Union Water District.
30
Latest revision of the growth forecasts, ADB Economic Outlook, Philippines, 2009.
31
Latest official poverty estimate from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB).
32
The Social Weather Survey was conducted on November 22-December 1, 2008.
33
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap, 2008.
367
6. The Philippine Government has set a target of achieving population service coverage
for safe drinking water of 92%-96% by 2010.34 Under the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG), the target coverage is 86.8%.
7. In Metro La Union, service coverage for piped water supply is currently estimated at
29%.
3. ECONOMIC RATIONALE OF THE PROJECT
8. The proposed investments in water supply are designed to increase service coverage
for piped, treated water supply in the area. Providing safe water is not only one of the
Government’s important economic and social objectives but also addresses the MDG goals
of: (i) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), reducing child mortality (Goal 4), (iii)
combating major diseases (Goal 6), and (v) improving population access to improved water
supply and sanitation services (Goal 7).
9. The proposed investment for Metro La Union is a component of a larger Water

District Development Sector Project (WDDSP) which includes the Metro Quezon WD,
Legazpi City WD, Leyte Metro WD, and City of Koronadal WD.35
10. The Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) will partly finance but fully implement,
operate and manage the investments as it does for the existing system. Direct intervention
by Government in the provision of improved water supply stems from the lack of participation
of other sectors, particularly the private investors, in its development. With a growing
population, the lack of investments in capacity expansion and proper maintenance of the
facilities will continue to deprive an increasing number of the population of this essential
service which could have long-term effects on their health and well-being.
11. Government’s involvement in this Project is therefore aimed at addressing this market
failure in the provision of improved water supply services. In doing so, the Government will
be exercising two of its basic functions, namely: (i) allocating resources for the provision of
basic needs, and (ii) distributing resources to effect equity where market and private
decisions (or lack of it) have not resulted in efficient allocation and service provision
especially to the poor.
4. OVERALL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12. The economic analysis of the proposed investments in water supply was undertaken
in accordance with the principles and procedures set out in the ADB Handbook for the
Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects (1999) and related guidelines36 as well as
LWUA’s Project Operations Manual (2008). The analysis was undertaken over a 25-year
period although most investments have useful economic life that extends beyond this time
horizon. Costs and benefits were quantified at constant September 2009 prices and as
increments to a situation “without project”.
13. The economic feasibility of the subproject was determined by computing the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the assumed economic
opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) of 15%37. An EIRR exceeding EOCC indicates that the
34
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan, 2004-2010.
35
The Water District Development Sector Project (WDDSP) includes the following alternative subproject:
Cabuyao (Laguna) WD, Laguna WD, Camarines Norte WD, and Sorsogon WD in addition to the five pilot WDs.
36
Includes the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (1997) and the Framework for the Economic and
Financial Appraisal of Urban Development Sector Projects (1994).
37
Per NEDA-ICC Project Evaluation Procedures and Guidelines. ADB sets an EOCC of 10%-12% for similar
projects.
368
subproject is economically viable. The robustness of the subproject’s EIRR was then tested
for changes in key variables such as capital costs, O&M costs, water consumption, number
of connections, and other economic benefits through sensitivity analysis. Distributional and
poverty impact analysis was also undertaken to determine how much of the net economic
benefits accruing from the investments will directly benefit the poor.
5. DEMAND FORECASTS
14. Water demand projections were prepared by the Project as basis for facility design
and subsequent analysis (see Chapter 5 – Population and Water Demand Projections - for
more detailed discussion of the methodology and results of the projections). Water demand
in the Project area was forecast using a per capita domestic water consumption of 85 lpcd for
residential connections and 53m3/connection/month for non-domestics which are all derived
from actual 2009 figures.
15. Table 12-1 shows the projected population and water demand in 2015, 2020 and
2025. In 2015, total service area population was projected at 199,418 while water demand is
forecast to reach 8,504m3/day. In 2020, the projections are 230,199 for population and
12,118m3/day for water demand. By 2025, population and water demand are expected to
reach 247,307 and 15,017m3/day, respectively.
16. MLUWD’s existing water production capacity is about 10,022m3/day. The demand for
piped water remains high, as indicated by the willingness to connect (WTC) data obtained
through the socioeconomic survey that was conducted in the area in April 2009.
Table 12-1: Population and Water Demand Forecasts: 2015, 2020 &
2025
2015 2020 2025

Total city/municipality population 306,880 330,880 356,880
Service area population 199,418 230,199 247,307
3
Water demand (m /day) 8,504 12,118 15,017
6. BEFORE- AND AFTER-PROJECT SITUATIONS
17. At present, 29% of the service area households have access to MLUWD’s piped
water supply. The remaining non-connected households largely depend on shallow wells
(84%) while others on deep wells (9%), and other sources of water (7%).
18. Domestic piped water consumption is currently at 85 lpcd. At an average household

size of 6 members, each household consumes an average of about 15.3m3/month. Non-
piped water users, on the other hand, consume around 11.5m3/month.
19. The results of the socioeconomic survey also show that about 45% of the existing
non-connected households are willing to connect to MLWD’s piped water supply system.
20. Based on the proposed investments, the number of service connections, volume of
production, and service coverage were projected as shown below.
21. After completion of the investments in 2013, total supply will more than double the
current level of 10,022m3/day to 22,118m3/day. The additional capacity will enable
approximately 13,717 households to connect to the system until 2025, directly benefiting an
estimated 82,302 persons. In addition, some 370 non-domestic users consisting mostly of
369
commercial establishments will also gain direct access to the expanded piped network.
Service coverage will increase from the present level of 29% to about 54% by 2025.
Table 12-2: Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply: 2009, 2015,
2020 & 2025
2009 2015 2020 2025
Service area population 157,420 199,418 230,199 247,307
3
Projected water demand (m /day) 4,688 8,504 12,118 15,017
3
Production capacity (m /day) 10,022 22,118 22,118 22,118
No. of residential connections 7,618 11,515 16,673 21,885
No. of non-domestic connections 416 553 711 866
Total population served 45,708 70,740 102,159 133,893
Service coverage (%) 29.0 35.5 44.4 54.1
7. ECONOMIC BENEFITS
22. The economic and social impact of an improved water supply could include the
following: (i) time saved from not having to collect water from distant wells or other water
sources which could be used for productive activities, (ii) health benefits in terms of lower
medical expenditures and reduction of long-term debilitating effects of waterborne diseases,
(iii) improved income opportunities through home-based livelihood activities that use the new
water supply, (iv) multiplier effects from increased incomes and new enterprises based on
improved water supply, (v) wider social mobilization that could lead to the empowerment of
women and greater social cohesion, (vi) development of wider access to credit and improved
financial management skills, and (vii) wider social and political system that could influence
government policies and bring about more balanced representation.
23. The economic analysis of the water supply investments for Metro La Union focuses
on four types of benefits for which data are available. The benefits consist of: (i) resource
cost savings on non-incremental water in terms of avoided costs for producing, collecting,
treating and storing water from non-piped sources, (ii) economic value of incremental water
due to increased supply, (iii) economic value of non-technical losses, (iv) time saved from not
having to collect water which could translate to avoided income loss or productivity gains for
those gainfully employed or engaged in income-generating activities, (v) medical cost
savings due to reduced morbidity rates, and (vi) avoided income loss (productivity savings)
because of reduced incidence of diseases.
24. Resource cost savings represents the foregone costs of producing, collecting,
treating and storing non-piped water due to the shift in demand to piped water supply as a
result of the Project. Total resource cost savings were computed based on the estimated
demand and the economic cost of non-piped water. Based on the socioeconomic survey
results, the average economic cost of storage using storage tanks, drums, buckets and other
storage facilities is about Php8.2/m3. This amount was computed based on the cost of
storage tank (Php20,000), drums (Php300) and buckets (Php150) as well as the frequency
distribution of their usage among households of 9%, 11% and 80%, respectively. The
economic cost of producing water, based on the annualized cost of constructing and
operating deep/shallow wells, was estimated at Php6.7/m3. Filtering and/or boiling, which are
the common methods used by households for treating their water, costs an average of about
Php7.2/day in economic price.
25. The value of incremental water was derived by multiplying the quantity of additional
water consumed by the average of the supply price and demand price, or willingness to pay
(WTP). At present, the average domestic tariff (which was computed by dividing actual water
370
sales revenue by billed consumption volume) in the area is Rs28.5/m3. The average WTP for
water, based on the socioeconomic survey, is Php261/month or Php17/m3.
26. Non-technical water losses were estimated at 10% of the current NRW of 40%. This
is expected to be reduced to 8% by 2025 as a result of the investments in NRW reduction.
The economic value of water loss was computed by multiplying the amount of water lost due
to non-technical reasons by the average of supply price and WTP.
27. Based on the survey results, collecting water from wells and other non-piped sources
requires an average of about 49 minutes. More than half (57%) of the time, it is the adult
male or female member of the household who collects water. Existing daily wage rate in the
area is Php240 and applying a SWRF of 0.6 translates the financial wage to economic wage
for unskilled worker of Php144/day. The time spent in collecting water is therefore valued, in
economic price, at around Php4.8/day.
28. The health impact of improved water supply considered in this analysis does not
encompass all types of waterborne diseases38 known to exist in the area because of data
limitations. The evaluation was confined only to diarrhea for which DOH and local health
units have more reliable estimates. Such cases as typhoid fever, dengue, and amoebiasis
are not adequately supported with data.
29. Health statistics obtained from the Department of Health (DOH) indicate that in 2008
about 5.8% of the under-5 year old population within the service area had diarrhea and were
given oral rehydration solution (ORS). This statistics translates to a morbidity rate for this
most vulnerable age-group of about 5 per 1,000 population. For other age-groups including
adult population, the socioeconomic survey revealed that 4.1% of the households had at
least one member who got sick of diarrhea last year. The incidence figure are deemed to
reflect only those cases that are believed to have been reported to government
hospitals/clinics in the process of securing medical treatment and is estimated to account for
just about 30% of the total number of actual cases that occurred which should include those
that may have been treated in private clinics, have resorted to self-medication, sought
alternative cures or simply been ignored for poverty reasons. It was estimated that morbidity
rate for under-5 and over-5 years old are 10 and 32 per 1,000 population.
30. Reduction in morbidity incidence was assumed at 20% for under-5 year olds and 22%
for those above-5 years during the life of the subproject. This assumption was based on
World Health Organization’s (WHO) data that estimated morbidity reduction rates from
22.7% to 37.5%. Another study estimated diarrhea reduction at 36%.39
31. On the average, also based on the survey results, it takes 2.9 days for diarrhea
patients to fully recover from sickness. The average cost of medication that was gathered
through the survey is Php203 per day (for more acute cases, the number of days-sick and
health care cost could be much higher).
32. Because of the number of days that an adult (especially one who is gainfully
employed) is kept out of work because of diarrhea, income lost is also an important
consideration in the analysis of the impact of improved water supply. The avoided loss-of-
income benefit was computed based on the number of days that a patient is sick by the wage
rate. Based on local labor statistics, the average labor wage in the area is Php240/day, or for
unskilled worker, about Php144/day in economic price.
38
Other diseases that are known to have occurred in the area are typhoid, dengue, and amoebiasis.
39
Esrey, S.A., Potash, J.B. Roberts, L and Shiff, C. Health Benefits from Improvements in Water Supply and
Sanitation – Survey and Analysis of the literature on Selected Diseases. WASH Technical Report No. 66.
371
33. The parameters and values used in quantifying the economic benefits are given in
Table 12-3 below.
34. Resource cost savings, the value of incremental water, the value of water saved, the
value of time saved for not collecting water, and the health benefits described above
constitute the set of economic benefits that was considered in determining the economic
viability of the proposed investments. Other benefits such as, among others, improved
income arising from the use of water for livelihood purposes and the multiplier effect of
increased income and new enterprises because of improved supply, though important in
terms of economic impact, were not included in the analysis in the absence of data and the
difficulty of quantifying them.
Table 12-3: Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply

2015 2020 2025
Number of residential connections 11,515 16,673 21,885
Number of non-domestic connections 553 711 866
Total number of service connections 12,068 17,384 22,751
Average economic cost of water storage
(Php/m3) 8.2 - 8.2
Average economic cost of treatment (Php/day) 7.2 - 7.2
Average economic cost of producing water
(Php/m3) 6.7 - 6.7
Ave. time spent in collecting water (min/day) 49 - 49
% of time water collection is done by adults 57 - 57
Residential water consumption (lpcd) 105 105 105
Production capacity provided by the Project
(m3/d) 12,096 12,096 12,096
Non-revenue water (%) 32 30 30
Non-technical losses (%) 8 8 8
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for under-5 (per 1,000) 10 - -
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for over-5 (per 1,000) 36 - -
Morbidity reduction for under-5 (%) 20 20 20
Morbidity reduction for over-5 (%) 6 19 22
Average number of days-sick 2.9 - -
Average medical cost per diarrhea case
(Php/day) 203 - -
Ave. economic wage rate for unskilled labor
(Php/day) 144 - -
8. WILLINGNESS TO PAY
35. The willingness of the existing households to connect (WTC) to, and to pay (WTP)
for, piped water supply were also obtained through the socioeconomic survey and the data
are presented in Table 12-4.
36. About 45% of the non-connected households indicated that they are willing to
connect to MLUWD’s improved water supply system and are also willing to pay Php261 per
month for water. The amount is lower than the actual average monthly bill of current users of
Php357/month. On a per unit basis, based on the monthly average consumption of
15.3m3/household, this WTP translates to Php17.1/m3 which is lower than the existing
average domestic tariff of Php28.5/m3.
372
Table 12-4: Willingness to Connect (WTC) and to Pay (WTP)

Mean Value
Willingness to connect to an improved water supply service (%) 44.7

Willingness to pay for water (Php/month) 260.6
3
Willingness to pay for water (Php/m ) 17.1
9. ECONOMIC COSTS
37. The financial capital investments presented in Chapter 11 (Financial Aspects) were
converted to their economic cost equivalent by removing all taxes and duties and then
applying appropriate conversion factors to traded, unskilled labour and non-traded
components. Traded and non-traded components were estimated from the detailed financial
cost estimates. The unskilled labour cost component was calculated at 18% of total cost of
civil works.
38. A shadow exchange rate factor (SERF) of 1.2 and a shadow wage rate factor
(SWRF) of 0.6 were applied to the traded and unskilled labour components of costs following
the NEDA-ICC guidelines for evaluating local investment projects. For non-traded
components, the conversion factor is 1.0.
39. By applying the above conversion factors, the weighted overall CF for capital costs
was computed as shown in Table 12-5. Using a conversion factor of 1.05, the economic cost
equivalent of the financial investments (including the cost of replacing some assets that have
outlived their useful life during the 25-year period), amounts to approximately Php307 million.
40. For O&M costs, the CF is 0.96 (Table 12-6) and the total economic costs is Php744
million.
41. The economic life of physical assets were assumed at 50 years for transmission
mains, 50 years for distribution pipes, 50 years for treatment plant, 50 years for
storage/reservoir facilities, and 15 years for pumps (see additional assumptions in Table 12-
7).
Table 12-5: Conversion Factor for Capital Costs, Water Supply
Proportion Weighted
Cost Component % C.F. CF (%)
Traded 31 1.20 38
Non-traded
Unskilled labour 4 0.60 3
Others 64 1.00 64
Total 100 105
Conversion Factor 1.05
Table 12-6: Conversion Factor for O&M Costs, Water Supply

Proportion Weighted
Cost Component % C.F. CF (%)
Traded 10 1.20 12
Non-traded
Unskilled labour 15 0.60 9
Others 75 1.00 75
Total 100 96
Conversion Factor 0.96
373
Table 12-7: Economic Life of Physical Assets, Water Supply

Economic Life (Yrs)
Physical Assets C. Works Equipment
Source (wells) 30 15
Source (spring) 50 50
Water treatment plant 50 15
Pumping station 50 15
Transmission pipes 50
Storage/reservoir 50 50
Distribution pipes 50
Service connections 50 15
Flow meters/pressure reducing valves 50 15
Buildings 50 15
10. EIRR AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
42. Given the stream of economic benefits and costs over the 25-year period, the EIRR
of the proposed water supply investments for Metro La Union is 11.8% (see computations in
Annex 12-1) which is lower than the assumed EOCC of 15%.
43. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the robustness of the EIRR for changes
in some key variables. The scenarios include: (i) a 10% decrease in capital costs, (ii) a 10%
decrease in O&M costs, (iii) a 10% increase in resource cost savings, and (iv) a 10%
increase in the value of incremental water.
44. The results of the sensitivity tests, as presented in Table 12.8, show that a 10%
reduction in capital investments or O&M costs and the same-rate increase in resource cost
savings raise EIRR by about one percentage point to about 12.8%. For the other scenario of
reducing incremental water, the impact is much less. The EIRR was found to be most
sensitive to change in capital costs (SI=.90) followed by change in resource cost savings
(SI=.62) and in O&M costs (SI=.59). The impact of a change in incremental water is much
less (SI=.04). The switching value for capital costs is 111% while for resource cost savings,
the SV is 161%.
Table 12-8: EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply

1
NPV EIRR %
2 3
Scenario (SLR mill.) (%) SI Change SV
Base case -56.1 11.8
10% decrease in capital costs -34.9 12.8 0.90 -10 111%
10% decrease in O&M costs -44.6 12.5 0.59 -10 171%
10% inc. in resource cost savings -44.1 12.5 -0.62 10 -161%
10% inc. in incremental water -55.0 11.8 -0.04 10 -2306%
1
NPV = Net Present Value discounted at EOCC of 15%
2
SI = Sensitivity Indicator (ratio of % change in EIRR to % change in variable)
3
SV = Switching Value (% change in variable required for NPV to become zero)
11. SUBPROJECT BENEFICIARIES
45. Table 12-9 provides estimates of the total number of beneficiaries of the proposed
investments up until the end of the 25-year period. This includes households and non-
domestic establishments that would have direct connection to the improved water supply
system.
374
46. A total of 14,387 service connections are expected to be generated by the

investments, consisting of 14,017 house connections (97%) and 370 non-domestic
connections (3%). In terms of population, this translates to around 84,724 residents of Metro
La Union.
Table 12-9: Subproject Beneficiaries, Water Supply

Domestic Non-Dom. Total Population
Conn. Conn. Conn. Served
Water supply 14,017 370 14,387 84,724
12. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
47. At full economic costs (i.e., capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC) or the average marginal cost of producing each cubic meter
of water was computed at Php17.1. Considering only capital costs, the AIEC is about
Php11.1/m3.
the incremental water consumption, is Php27/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC, no
economic subsidy will be required.
49. The tariff revenue to be generated by the subproject could fully recover all costs,
including the full economic cost of the investments consisting of capital and O&M.
Table 12-10: Project Sustainability, Water Supply

Value
3
AIEC (Php/m )
Economic capital + O&M (full cost) 17.1
Economic capital cost only 11.1
Economic O&M only 9.1
3
Average tariff at EOCC of 15% (Php/m ) 27.0
Economic cost recovery (%)
Capital + O&M cost 157%
Capital cost only 243%
O&M cost only 294%
13. DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND POVERTY IMPACT
consumers, many of whom are current users of water from wells and other sources and who
are expected to connect to the expanded piped water system provided under this Project.
The labour sector, for which a significant amount of person-days will be needed for the
construction of the new facilities and their eventual operation, will gain about Php39 million.
The economy, because of distortions in the current exchange rate, will lose around Php48
million. On balance, the whole economy will gain the entire NEB of Php106 million.
51. The poverty impact ratio (PIR) of the water supply investments is 26%, which means
that about one-quarter of NEB will accrue to the poor who are expected to come mostly from
the area where poverty incidence was estimated, based on the socioeconomic survey, at
40
375
36% of households. Annex 12-2 presents the details of the distributional and poverty impact
analysis of the investments.
376
Annex 12-1
EIRR & Sensitivity Tests, Metro La Union Water District
(Values in Php million)
Res. Cost Increm. Non-Tech Time Med Cost Prod. Total Eco. Capital O&M Total Net. Eco. Sensitivity Tests
Year Savings Water Losses Savings Savings Savings Benefits Costs Costs Costs Benefits -10% Invst. -10% O&M +10% RCS +10% IM
2011 0.0 19.5 19.5 -19.5 -17.6 -19.5 -19.5 -19.5

2012 0.0 138.3 138.3 -138.3 -124.5 -138.3 -138.3 -138.3
2013 0.0 132.4 132.4 -132.4 -119.1 -132.4 -132.4 -132.4
2014 7.4 3.3 1.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 13.9 8.8 8.8 5.1 5.1 6.0 5.7 5.3
2015 17.7 11.4 3.7 4.7 0.2 0.1 37.7 17.3 17.3 20.4 20.4 22.2 21.9 21.3
2016 22.6 11.7 4.3 5.9 0.3 0.1 45.0 19.3 19.3 25.7 25.7 27.6 27.5 26.4
2017 27.4 11.8 5.1 7.2 0.5 0.1 52.1 24.1 24.1 28.0 28.0 30.4 30.1 28.6
2018 32.3 11.9 5.6 8.5 0.6 0.1 58.9 4.4 28.6 33.1 25.9 26.3 28.7 28.4 26.3
2019 37.2 11.9 6.4 9.8 0.7 0.2 66.1 33.5 33.5 32.6 32.6 36.0 35.5 32.9
2020 42.0 12.0 7.2 11.0 0.9 0.2 73.3 38.3 38.3 35.0 35.0 38.8 38.1 35.1
2021 46.9 12.0 8.0 12.3 1.0 0.3 80.5 38.3 38.3 42.2 42.2 46.0 45.6 42.2
2022 51.8 12.1 8.8 13.6 1.0 0.3 87.6 38.3 38.3 49.3 49.3 53.1 53.2 49.2
2023 56.8 12.2 9.6 14.9 1.0 0.3 94.7 38.3 38.3 56.4 56.4 60.2 60.8 56.3
2024 61.6 9.8 9.6 16.2 1.0 0.3 98.5 38.3 38.3 60.2 60.2 64.0 65.0 59.9
2025 66.6 9.9 10.4 17.5 1.1 0.3 105.6 38.3 38.3 67.4 67.4 71.2 72.7 67.0
2026 67.5 10.2 10.6 17.7 1.1 0.3 107.5 12.4 38.3 50.7 56.8 58.0 60.6 62.2 56.5
2027 68.0 10.6 10.8 17.9 1.1 0.3 108.7 38.3 38.3 70.5 70.5 74.3 75.9 70.1
2028 68.0 11.0 11.0 17.9 1.1 0.3 109.3 38.3 38.3 71.0 71.0 74.8 76.4 70.7
2029 68.0 11.4 11.1 17.9 1.1 0.3 109.8 38.3 38.3 71.6 71.6 75.4 76.9 71.3
2030 68.0 11.8 11.2 17.9 1.1 0.3 110.4 38.3 38.3 72.1 72.1 75.9 77.5 71.9
2031 68.0 12.2 11.4 17.9 1.1 0.3 110.9 38.3 38.3 72.7 72.7 76.5 78.0 72.4
2032 68.0 12.6 11.5 17.9 1.2 0.3 111.5 38.3 38.3 73.2 73.2 77.1 78.6 73.0
2033 68.0 13.1 11.7 17.9 1.2 0.3 112.1 38.3 38.3 73.8 73.8 77.6 79.1 73.6
2034 68.0 13.5 11.8 17.9 1.2 0.3 112.7 38.3 38.3 74.4 74.4 78.2 79.7 74.2
2035 68.0 13.9 11.9 17.9 1.2 0.3 257.3 38.3 38.3 219.0 219.0 222.8 224.3 218.9
NPV -56.1 -34.9 -44.6 -44.1 -55.0

EIRR 11.8% 12.8% 12.5% 12.5% 11.8%
377
Annex 12-2
Distribution of Net Economic Benefits, Metro La Union WD

Economic Distribution of Net Economic Benefits
Financial Economic Minus Gov't/
PV CF PV Financial Utility Economy Labor Consumers Total
Benefits:
Total benefits 525.7 410.7 -115.0 -115.0 -115.0
Costs:
Investments -civil works, equipment, non-labor, etc. -179.3 1.2 -215.1 -35.9 -35.9 -35.9
Installation (labor) -44.5 0.6 -26.7 17.8 17.8 17.8
Operation (labor) -51.9 0.6 -31.2 20.8 20.8 20.8
Electricity -110.0 1.1 -122.1 -12.1 -12.1 -12.1
Other operating costs -70.7 1.0 -70.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total costs -456.4 -465.8 -9.4 -9.4
Net benefits 982.1 876.5 -105.6 982.1 -105.6

Gains and losses 982.1 -48.0 38.6 -115.0 857.7
Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR)

Gov't/
Economy Consumers Labor Total
Gains and losses (NEB-NFB) -48.0 -115.0 38.6 -124.4
Financial return utility 982.1 982.1
Benefits 934.2 -115.0 38.6 857.7
Proportion of poor 0.27 0.36 0.36

Benefits to poor 251.3 -41.4 13.9 223.8
Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR) 26%

La Union Shed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

La Union Shed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME 3: SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT

Asian Development Bank

LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION

WATER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTOR PROJECT

Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) TA No: 7122 - PHI

PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC., PHILIPPINES

TEST Consultants Inc., Philippines

Volume 1 Main Report

Volume 2 Institutional and Financial Assessment of LWUA

Volume 3 Subproject Appraisal Report: Metro La Union Water District

Volume 4 Subproject Appraisal Report: Quezon Metro Water District

Volume 5 Subproject Appraisal Report: Legazpi City Water District

Volume 6 Subproject Appraisal Report: Leyte Metro Water District

Volume 7 Subproject Appraisal Report: City of Koronadal Water District

Volume 8 Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP)

Volume 9 Supplementary Appendices A to G (Technical Aspects)

Volume 10 Supplementary Appendices H to J (Social Aspects)

Volume 11 Supplementary Appendices K to S (Financial, Implementation Aspects)

Volume 12 Supplementary Appendices T to V (Safeguard Aspects)

SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: METRO LA UNION WATER DISTRICT

Glossary and Acronyms viii

Location Map xii

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1

2. Description of Study Area ................................................................................... 14

2.4.2 Physical Features....................................................................................... 33

3. Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations .................................. 48

4. The Water District and its Existing Facilities ..................................................... 63

4.7 Water Rates .................................................................................................... 72

5. Population and Water Demand Projections ....................................................... 74

6. Water Resources .................................................................................................. 83

7. Analysis of Options and Alternatives ................................................................. 96

8. Recommended Plan – Water Supply................................................................. 101

8.5.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost ............................................................. 110

9. Recommended Plan – Sanitation ...................................................................... 114

10. Assessment of Water District Capability .......................................................... 115

11. Financial Analysis .............................................................................................. 122

12. Economic Analysis ............................................................................................ 135

1.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements - MLUWD 7

2.1 Location of Metro La Union Water District 15

3.1 Map of Existing and Proposed Service Area – MLUWD 57

4.1 Schematic of Existing MLUWD Water Supply Systems 64

5.1 Present and Future Service Areas – MLUWD 75

8.1 Schematic Diagram of Proposed Development Plan – MLUWD 103

10.1 Project Management Organization Structure 121

1.1 Service Coverage - MLUWD 4

2.1 Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, Bacnotan 17

3.1 Barangay Coverage and Projected Coverage of MLUWD 55

4.1 Source Facilities – MLUWD 65

5.1 Number of Barangays in Service Area – MLUWD 74

6.1 Well Data Summary – MLUWD 86

7.1 Additional Water Requirements (2010 – 2025) – MLUWD 96

8.1 Projected Number of Service Connections – MLUWD 101

10.1 MLUWD Past Performance 116

11.1 MLUWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 122

11.7 Assets and Other Debts, 2004-2008 – MLUWD 126

12.1 Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply – MLUWD 136

3.1 Socio-economic Survey Results – Metro La Union Water District 141

4 Silver Ionization Process 242

5.1 Population Projections per LGU and Barangay – MLUWD 244

6.1 Surface Water Data – MLUWD 296

7 Non Revenue Water Improvement Measures – MLUWD 345

10 MLUWD Organization Chart 357