World Development 136 (2020) 105155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Who pays for water? Comparing life cycle costs of water services among
several low, medium and high-income utilities
Anna Libey b, Marieke Adank a, Evan Thomas b,⇑
a
IRC WASH, Bezuidenhoutseweg 2, 2594 AV The Hague, The Netherlands
b
Mortenson Center in Global Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 4001 Discovery Dr, UCB 608 Boulder, CO 80303, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Universal access to safe drinking water will require an investment of over $140 billion in capital expen-
Accepted 18 August 2020 ditures to meet the targets set by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The World Bank
Available online 8 September 2020 estimates that recurring operations and maintenance costs for basic water and sanitation (WASH) ser-
vices will rise from about $4 billion to over $30 billion per year by 2030, significantly outweighing capital
Keywords: costs for basic WASH services. Yet, available funding from regional, national and international sources
Life cycle cost regularly prioritizes capital investment in new water infrastructure, leading to significant unfunded oper-
Service delivery
ation and maintenance mandates for service providers operating in low-income settings where consumer
Foreign aid
Cost recovery
payments cannot practically cover operating costs. Capital maintenance is deferred, leading to poor util-
Utility business models ity financial performance and decreased service for water customers. In this paper, we present indicative
Global funding models, valuation of existing assets, and expenditures of four medium-sized urban water utilities
in low, middle, and high-income communities representing a broad range of operating contexts. Yet we
find common operating challenges. None of the four utilities are spending enough on capital maintenance
to sustain service levels, and we find that the gap between the life cycle costs of water service delivery
and associated revenues of water services ranges from $1 to $17 per customer each year. Discounting life
cycle costs by service and coverage levels further widens the funding gap. All utilities would need addi-
tional funding to reach universal access with full coverage of life cycle costs, ranging from 6% of budgets
to nearly 8 times current funding levels. This would not be economically or politically feasible through
tariffs alone, which are already currently subsidized in all contexts. The contribution of progressive tax
monies to subsidize services is taken for granted in high-income contexts and unavailable in poorer ones
that must rely on insufficient and irregular foreign aid or national budget allocations in strained econo-
mies. These findings contrast with a commonly shared view in the global development sector that local or
at minimum regional financial sustainability of water supplies is achievable. Consequently, our findings
suggest that national governments and international donors should acknowledge that long term support
of local water service delivery is both necessary, appropriate, and likely more cost-effective than current
funding models.
Ó 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Background
Ensuring universal access to adequate and sustainable water
services will require considerable investments in new infrastruc-
ture, but also into mechanisms and systems to ensure sustainable
water service provision. It will also require ensuring continuous
funding of the recurrent expenditure needed to ensure sustainable
service provision.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anna.libey@colorado.edu (A. Libey), adank@ircwash.org
(M. Adank), ethomas@colorado.edu (E. Thomas).
The Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank (Hutton &
Varughese, 2016) estimated that extending basic water, sanitation
hygiene services to reach universal access between 2015 and 2030
would cost an average of about $28.4 billion per year (including
$5.5 billion for urban water). They found this to be more or less
in line with current levels of funding for the sector, provided
resources are targeted to the needs. Ensuring universal access to
safely managed water and sanitation services would require aver-
age capital investments of $86.9 billion per year (including $37.6
billion for urban water), which amounts to more than three times
current investments. Hutton & Varughese (2016) further estimated
that the required annual global expenditure on operation and
maintenance for safely managed water and sanitation would rise

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105155
0305-750X/Ó 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
from $18.0 billion in 2015 to $128.8 billion by 2030, outweighing
capital expenditure by 1.6 times by 2029. Ensuring funding for
these increasing costs is a clear challenge to meeting the Sustain-
able Development Goals.
Funding for covering these costs comes from three main
sources, commonly referred to as the ‘‘3Ts”: Tariffs from customers
(including user contributions and household investments); Taxes
from domestic taxpayers; and Transfers from national govern-
ments or international donors (OECD, 2009; WHO, 2017; Pories
et al., 2019; Danert & Hutton, 2020). Repayable financing does
not constitute revenue as such, but it is a means for bridging a
finance gap. The costs of repayable financing are often absorbed
through tariffs, unless a subsidy is provided to write off part of
the debt (WHO, 2017).
Several international donors emphasize national and local self-
sufficiency in providing basic services. For example, the World
Bank’s water supply strategy includes supporting ‘‘the ability of
service providers to fully cover their operations and maintenance
costs and access investment funds as needed to expand and
improve services and leverage markets” (The World Bank Group,
2017)..The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) currently has an overarching policy theme named the
‘‘Journey to Self-Reliance” that includes national-level self-
sufficiency in providing water services (USAID, 2018).
Self-sufficiency implies that tariffs (and taxes) are expected to
play an important role in covering the full (life cycle) costs of water
service provision. However, as water service provision is consid-
ered a public good, governments often feel pressure to keep tariffs
low (Pories et al., 2019). In addition, low service levels often result
in low revenues. As a result, many water service providers struggle
to raise sufficient funds to cover operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs and create a surplus that could potentially be used to mobi-
lize commercial borrowing for future expansion or asset renewal.
Based on 2013 data from 605 developing country utilities,
Leigland et al. (2016) observe that only 17 percent of these utilities
managed to cover their O&M costs and create sufficient surplus.
The 2019 Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and
Drinking-water (GLAAS) reported that more than half of the 96
countries surveyed indicated that household tariffs are insufficient
to recover operations and basic maintenance costs. The survey also
revealed an average gap between identified needs and available
funding of over 60%, leading to maintenance delays, infrastructure
deterioration and increases in service downtime. Filling this fund-
ing gap is challenging, as two-thirds of global WASH funding is
already derived from household contributions (World Health
Organization & UN-Water, 2019). If revenues from tariffs are not
enough to cover the costs of operation, then service providers can-
not carry out long-term asset management, fund new capital
expenditure or raise finance. As a result, water service providers
have grown dependent on grant funding from budget allocations
and ODA to finance investments.
Improving global access to safe drinking water has typically
involved national governments and multilateral donors providing
funding for capital investment for the construction of new schemes
or expansion of existing ones through taxes and transfers. Globally,
$16 billion is invested annually in expanding water and sanitation
access without consideration for sustainable sources of funding
and operations and maintenance (O&M) models that could greatly
improve the quality of services to customers (Kingdom et al.,
2018). There is also limited focus on sector reforms, improving
management and efficiency, and removal of bottlenecks in the flow
of financial resources (Pories et al., 2019). Winpenny et al. (2016)
observed that 91 percent of all ODA commitments to the water
sector from 2010 to 2014 was allocated to project-type interven-
tions and only one percent was allocated to experts and technical
assistance. Accordingly, operations, maintenance, and capital
maintenance remain underfunded.
Tariffs from water customers along with taxes and external
transfers comprise revenue for water service providers, but usually
do not cover the full expenditure required for ensuring the provi-
sion of adequate and sustainable water services. Reaching ‘‘sus-
tainable cost recovery” by finding the appropriate mix of the 3Ts
while keeping tariffs affordable and attracting private finance is a
challenge for even the most well-run water service providers.
Hukka and Katko (2015) highlighted a growing funding gap for
water services present worldwide. Theorizing on the causes with
reference to case studies in Kenya, North America, and Europe,
the authors blame unviable pricing and over-zealous cost-
recovery regimes. The. The effect is deferment of maintenance
and replacement expenditures by utilities, which will lead to decli-
nes in service quality (Hukka & Katko, 2015).
This paper contributes to the discussion about the viability of
self-financing of life cycle costs required for ensuring sustainable
water service provision by assessing and comparing current and
required levels of expenditure related to the life cycle costs of
water service provision and level and sources of funding covering
these costs for four medium-sized water utilities in low, medium
and high income countries (Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya and the
USA).
Quantitative comparisons of water utilities in low-income con-
texts are rare. The literature largely reflects studies of economic
efficiency in high-income countries where regulatory data may
be more available (González-Gómez & García-Rubio, 2018). In
2008, Berg & Marques found very few quantitative studies on
water utility performance from Africa and Asia – only 7% of all
reviewed literature (S. Berg & Marques, 2011). A more recent
review found only a third of published studies of utility efficiency
in low-income countries include service quality variables, includ-
ing leakage, water quality, continuity of service, and service area
coverage (Cetrulo et al., 2019). This review also found no published
quantitative studies for three of the four countries in this study –
Cambodia, Ethiopia, or Kenya. Consequently, our review considers
these operating contexts and characteristics.
In addition to contributing to the sectoral and academic dis-
course, this paper anticipates the application of the life cycle cost-
ing methodology will provide the case utilities (and beyond) with
renewed insights into their financial situation and the benefits of
strong financial monitoring, recordkeeping and use of the life cycle
costs approach for planning. This may lead to increased under-
standing of life cycle thinking, including examination of long-
term costs and potential economic, environmental, or societal
risks. Comparisons of life cycle costs across different contexts
and income levels could serve to improve decision-making by gov-
ernment and other key actors, including increased allocations of
funding where it is needed, and higher prioritization of mainte-
nance for long-term sustainable operation of water facilities.
2. Methodology
In this paper, we compare four semi-urban water utilities, pro-
viding water services in low, middle- and high-income settings in
four countries, and highlight the disparities between the concep-
tions and realities of self-sufficient local financial support for water
services. The four cases are the Boulder Water Utility in Boulder,
Colorado, United States, the Woliso Water Sanitation and Sewerage
Enterprise (WWSSE) in Oromia, Ethiopia, the Lodwar Water and
Sanitation Company (LOWASCO) in Turkana County, Kenya, and
the Kampong Chamlong Water Supply Utility in Kandal Province,
Cambodia – representing a high-income, two low-income, and
one middle-income country, respectively. These four utilities were
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
selected as a convenience sample and represent a broad range of
operating contexts with common operating challenges.
This study focuses on the life cycle costs of utility-managed
water supply and the sources of funding for covering these costs
in medium-sized towns. Life cycle costing estimates the average
annual expenditure required for serving the intended population
with an adequate level of water services. The boundaries of the
systems considered in this study start at the acquisition of source
water (ground or surface) and end with the delivery of (treated
or untreated) drinking water to the consumer. This section intro-
duces the collected data (2.1) and presents the methodology for
assessing the following: the level of service that utilities are pro-
viding (2.2); current and required expenditure related to these ser-
vice levels (2.3); the value of the infrastructure (2.4); the current
sources of funding (2.5); and the price people pay to access water
services (2.6).
2.1. Data collection and calculation of full costs of water service
delivery
In order to assess the life cycle costs of utility-managed water
service provision in medium size towns in different contexts, the
sources of funding of these costs and the potential gaps, data
was collected from mix of primary and secondary sources. The
International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation
Utilities (IBNET) provides access to data on levels of service and
service provider performance indicators (including their financial
health) from many utilities worldwide (International
Benchmarking Network, 2017). However, the data available from
IBNET for this paper’s cases from Kenya and Ethiopia were found
to be unreliable compared to published data and raw data provided
by the utilities themselves. Data were unavailable for the Cambo-
dia and the United States cases.
Therefore, primary and secondary data was mainly collected
from the four selected utilities themselves. Utility asset invento-
ries, expenditures, budgets, and revenue reports were collected
with the support of the DFID-funded REACH Programme, Catholic
Relief Services, and Millennium Water Alliance in Kenya, IRC and
the USAID-funded Sustainable WASH Systems Learning Partner-
ship in Ethiopia, and the Cambodian Water Supply Association. In
Boulder, utility expenditures and revenue amounts were collected
for the 2017/2018 fiscal year from public city budgets and the
infrastructure inventory was provided by the US EPA’s Safe Drink-
ing Water Information Systems (SDWIS) database and the City of
Boulder.
The data quality available varied widely across the contexts.
Whereas it is common for water utilities in the United States to
conduct asset inventories and valuations yearly, conducting life
cycle cost analyses in the other cases required visiting facilities
to estimate costs and functionality of assets. Two out of four utili-
ties (Woliso and Lodwar) had incomplete capital investment
records and unclear dates of capital maintenance expenditures.
In Lodwar, Kenya, real-time functionality information of all bore-
holes is publicly available through remote reporting sensors
(Turman-Bryant et al., 2019). In other cases, the functionality of
infrastructure was determined from the latest available site reports
or asset inventories. Abandoned schemes were assumed to be at
the end of their useful life and therefore either replaced or made
obsolete.
2.2. Assessing service levels
By assessing the level of water services provided by the four
studied utilities, expenditure related to water service provision
can be put in context. Furthermore, an assessment of the current
level of service provided against the ideal (expected) level of ser-
3
vice can be used to project expected expenditure in case of full cov-
erage at the ideal level of service, based on the current
expenditure.
The JMP water service ladder differentiates between limited
and basic water services, based on accessibility (whether or not
improved water services are available within a 30-minute round
trip) and between basic and safely managed services based on
accessibility (accessible on premises), reliability (available when
needed) and quality (free from contamination) (WHO & UNICEF,
2017).
Using the JMP water ladder, this study gives an indication of the
main level of service provided by the studied utilities by
measuring:
- Accessibility of water services, based on the types of access
points available to water users: mainly through household con-
nections on premises (safely managed), public water points (as-
sumed to be within a 30-minute round trip and hence providing
basic services) or a mix of the two types of access points;
- Availability (reliability) of water services, in terms of the aver-
age hours of service in a day and days of the week: daily supply
of at least 12 h per day is considered ‘available when needed,’ in
line with the global benchmark proposed by JMP (WHO &
UNICEF, 2017).
- Quality: Adding in a simplified indicator for water quality reg-
ulatory compliance is preferred, but only one of the four utilities
in this study (Boulder, Colorado) was able to provide water
quality testing schedules and results. We therefore assess the
potential for provision of water supply which is free from con-
tamination by assessing the presence of water treatment
facilities.
Coverage is also considered, given that service areas may not
extend to the full population, and that there may be potential
water customers within the service area not accessing service.
The percentage coverage is calculated by dividing the number
served within the service area by the full population.
The level of provided water services is furthermore assessed
based on the average amount of water consumed per person per
day. The daily domestic water consumption is considered an indi-
cator of the overall level of service, as water consumption is
expected to be influenced by accessibility of water services (in
terms of type of access point and associated distance and time to
collect water), perceived water quality, reliability, and affordability
of the service for customers.
A target minimum consumption is set to 60 L per capita per day
(lpcd). The 60 lpcd target, known as ‘‘maintaining” under an emer-
gency scenario, is defined as meeting all consumption and basic
hygiene needs plus a little extra for food growing (WHO Regional
Office for South-East Asia, 2005). Where domestic water consump-
tion is less than that, the percentage of water demand met is calcu-
lated by dividing actual consumption by the target consumption of
60 lpcd. The required expenditure of ensuring adequate production
to supply 60 lpcd to the entire population of the service area,
where current coverage is less than 100 percent, is estimated based
on current expenditure and consumption levels in relation to the
percentage of population water demand currently met.
2.3. Assessing current expenditure and life cycle costs of Utility-
Managed water services
Required expenditure for the provision of sustainable water ser-
vices at a certain service level can be grouped into the following
life cycle cost categories: capital expenditures (CapEx), operations
and minor maintenance expenditures (OpEx), capital maintenance
expenditures (CapManEx), cost of capital or debt service (CoC),
4 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
direct support expenditures (ExDS), and indirect support expendi-
tures (ExIS). This categorization is adapted from the Gates
Foundation-funded WASHCost project for identifying and commu-
nicating the life cycle costs of water and sanitation infrastructure,
which in turn builds on Sherif and Kolarik (1981) (Fonseca et al.,
2011).
This paper focuses on the CapEx, OpEx, CapManEx, and CoC
related to utility-managed water service provision. These include
all expenditures related to construction and maintenance of infras-
tructure and extraction, treatment, and delivery of water to house-
holds, including billing and administrative functions.
Direct support includes regulation and the provision of ongoing
capacity building and technical support to utilities by local govern-
ment, external support agents or utility networks, while indirect
support refers to the creation of the enabling environment, includ-
ing sector policies and strategies, regulatory and normative frame-
works, joint sector review and planning, and national-level
capacity development. The costs related to these activities are dif-
ficult to assess, are generally not (expected to be) covered by util-
ities, and are, therefore, not considered in this paper.
The cost categories were assessed from utility budgets and
expenditures as follows:
- CapEx is assessed in terms of all expenditure on the develop-
ment and construction of new water supply infrastructure. This
was commonly found in capital improvement plans or donor
reports instead of annual budgets. CapEx is used to calculate
asset valuations of the utility, including capital replacement
value and net book value, based on original prices, age of the
asset, and accumulated straight line depreciation.
- OpEx is assessed in terms of all annual expenditure on opera-
tion and minor maintenance related to the provision of water
services by the utility. Expenditures on salaries and transporta-
tion for spare parts, treatment chemicals, and travel by opera-
tors and technicians are also considered as part of OpEx
(Cashman et al., 2014).
- CapManEx is spending on rehabilitation, renewal, or replace-
ment of assets – whether due to planned end of life or early
equipment failure. In this study, actual CapManEx is compared
to the estimated required spending to keep assets in good work-
ing order. CapManEx is the hardest for utilities to estimate and
budget for, and it is the most likely cost category to be deferred
when there are funding shortages. This is unfortunate given
that replacing poorly maintained assets is always more costly
than preventive maintenance (Hukka & Katko, 2015). Estimated
required CapManEx is assessed by adding up CapEx in the years
they occur and discounting to a base year to estimate a capital
replacement value. The capital replacement value is then nor-
malized by dividing by the estimated useful lifespan of the
component, and then by the number of persons (after
Cashman et al., 2014). Where original capital expenses or exact
years are unavailable, the replacement costs of the asset are
estimated based on current prices or bills of quantities. Only
quantities discounted to the same year can be added together
to account for inflation and currency exchange rates.
- CoC is expenditure on financial services and interest on debt.
This cost category is minimal when the utility does not cur-
rently have a loan.
Non-revenue water (NRW) can also be quantified as a cost, as
it is lost revenue from water sales. NRW is defined as the percent-
age difference by volume of water produced versus sold to cus-
tomers (C. van den Berg, 2015). In the cases of Lodwar and
Boulder, this was calculated from sales data, while it was provided
directly by the utilities in the cases of Kampong Chamlong and
Woliso.
2.4. Utility asset valuation
The utility asset valuation or total infrastructure investment is
the present value of all historical CapEx costs. Utility asset valua-
tions are compared to contextualize the costs of service delivery.
This is calculated via two methods: 1) Capital replacement value,
estimating the current cost if all assets were re-purchased new
today by summing capital expenditures from every year and dis-
counting to a base year (net present value), and 2) Net book value,
estimating the current valuation of all the utility’s assets if they
were sold today based on their age and depreciation since pur-
chase or construction. In this study, both methods of valuation
are used to compare the level of investment in infrastructure, the
state of financial preparedness, and planning for the end of life.
In a review of 256 life cycle assessments of urban water infras-
tructure, a volume-based functional unit was found to be the most
common choice (Byrne et al., 2017). However, as the authors note,
calculating life cycle costs per cubic meter consumed is not appro-
priate for comparisons across different regions or countries, as
done in this study. This is because of the different marginal costs
from differing quantities and qualities of domestic water consump-
tion related to differences in climate, infrastructure capabilities,
and culture (Byrne et al., 2017). To compare expenditure and rev-
enues between different size utilities, annual expenditures, rev-
enues, and valuations were instead assessed per person served.
Facility lifespans were estimated based on international guide-
lines by the World Bank (Hutton & Varughese, 2016). Individual
component lifespans were estimated following United States engi-
neering design guidelines as international or country-specific ones
were unavailable (Kirk & Dell’Isola, 1995). Infrastructure lifespans
are an essential part for calculating annualized aggregate costs
but are commonly rough estimates made by engineers and manu-
facturers. Water meters, for example, are estimated to last 25 years
by Kirk and Dell’Isola (1995), while standard practice in Cambodia
is to account for a lifetime of just 10 years (Cambodian Water
Supply Association, 2018). The actual lifespan can be considerably
shorter than the estimated useful lifespan due to harsh conditions,
poor quality of maintenance, unreliable flows, or other factors.
Cost estimation is the most variable source of error, and all
efforts were made to find historical bills from contractors, but
where those were unavailable, present-day prices and cost bench-
marks were used to calculate the capital replacement values and
net book values. For small utility piped water supplies, as in the
case studies, the cost of accessing bulk water may have been
underestimated because the cost data accessed are likely to have
underestimated future costs due to increasing water demand or
scarcity.
Amounts in local currencies have been converted to 2018 prices
using GDP deflators to account for inflation, where Base Year
Cost = Cost (Year X) * GDP deflator (Year X) and converted to Uni-
ted States dollars using official 2018 exchange rates1.
2.5. Assessing sources of funding
Utility sources of funding were investigated to find their origi-
nation as one of the 3Ts (taxes, transfers, or tariffs) or repayable
financing.
Funding from public or private entities could include municipal
bonds, grants, or loans. Before repayable financing is offered, credit
worthiness is commonly measured by the O&M cost recovery ratio
1
Values for purchasing power parity (PPP) would have been ideal to account for
artificial distortions of currency prices in the exchange market to better compare
expenditures across countries. However, insufficient data was available in the World
Bank’s databank for all years, making the valuations and funding gaps identified in the
study less comparable across the four cases.
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
(OCCR). The OCCR is calculated by dividing yearly revenue by
yearly operational and maintenance expenses (OpEx). An OCCR
number less than 1 would signify that revenue collection is not suf-
ficient to cover operational expenses, an OCCR of 1 means the util-
ity is breaking even, and an OCCR of greater than one means the
utility is earning more revenue than necessary to cover immediate
operational expenses. An OCCR of 1.5 or greater has been sug-
gested as a benchmark for attracting private finance (Eberhard,
2018).
Tax money can fund utilities on an ongoing basis or in one-off
grants. Tracing the source of those funds is important to determine
they are actually taxpayer monies and not transfers in the low-
income contexts. In the United States, utilities commonly depend
on revenue other than tariffs such as property taxes to cover OpEx
(Rahill-Marier & Lall, 2013). Taxpayer-funded investments that
generate revenue such as bond proceeds or energy generation (as
part of water transmission lines in one case) are also grouped with
tax revenue.
Transfers were identified through donor-supported grants –
mostly in the form of donated infrastructure or tied funds rather
than currency.
A tariff is the price set for water and paid by customers to access
and consume water. Tariff revenues were listed in budgets as util-
ity revenue from monthly water billing and sales as well as con-
nection fees, fines for late payment, and any other charges
applied to water customers on a non-recurrent basis. Tariffs may
be further disaggregated by customer type: domestic, institutional,
or commercial. Common tariff structures include free basic con-
sumption, volumetric, increasing blocks, and budget-based rates.
Budget-based rates are similar to an increasing block rate struc-
ture, except that each customer’s block is set based on an efficient
level of consumption, usually intended to cover indoor water usage
and not outdoor irrigation (Mayer et al., 2008).
2.6. Assessing user Contributions: Tariffs and unit price of water
A common vehicle for demand-side subsidy, tariff prices were
analyzed against utility revenue, production, and consumption by
domestic customers to identify average prices paid per volume
accessed and consumed. This approach simplifies the different tar-
iff structures to a cross-comparable volumetric tariff in US dollars
per cubic meter of water sold that includes the full price paid to
access water. The average domestic customer price paid per cubic
meter, or the unit price of water, is calculated by taking the total
revenue collected in a year from domestic customers in tariffs, con-
nection fees, fines, or meter rental, and dividing that by the total
domestic water consumption in a year.
The unit price of water is also disaggregated by percent cover-
age of the two types of access (public water point or private con-
nection) since users of private metered water services and users
of public kiosks or tap stands consume and pay for water via vastly
different scales and methods.
3. Introduction to study utilities
The four studied water utilities manage different types of water
schemes in different climatic zones and provide different levels of
services. Lodwar in Turkana, Kenya has a desert climate with a
maximum of 186 mm per year, while Boulder, Colorado is moun-
tainous and averages 400 mm of rain in a year. Woliso in Oromia
Region, Ethiopia and Kampong Chamlong in Kandal Province, Cam-
bodia are more tropical and average more than 1,200 mm of rain
per year (Climate-Data.org, 2019). The four cases are managed by
a public utility apart from Kampong Chamlong, where a private
utility is in place. Despite these differences, some similarities allow
5
for comparison. All four communities are medium-large towns of
70,000–120,000 people served by a single private or public water
utility, and they have some thematically similar financial and plan-
ning challenges. An overview of the four utilities is shown below in
Table 1.
3.1. Lodwar Town, Turkana County, Kenya
Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company (LOWASCO) is a public
utility in Turkana County, Kenya established in 2007 with a service
population of roughly 103,830 individuals. About 87% of its service
area is covered by 28 public kiosks and 6,785 private connections
(Kenya RAPID, 2017). Between 4,000 to 7,500 m3 are pumped each
day from 13 functioning boreholes out of 19 using a mixture of
solar, grid, and solar/diesel hybrid energy. Current domestic con-
sumption averages 11 L per capita per day (lpcd) and the NRW is
between 37 percent (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd,
2017) and 49 percent (Kenya RAPID, 2017).
LOWASCO struggles to meet some national key performance
indicators according to Kenya’s Water Services Regulatory Board
(WASREB, 2018). LOWASCO earned a score of ‘‘not acceptable”
for drinking water quality, non-revenue water, water coverage,
hours of supply, personnel expenditures as a percentage of total
O&M costs, and O&M costs coverage. Low community income, an
arid, drought-prone climate, high rates of non-functionality of
boreholes, insufficient storage, and high levels of non-revenue
water impede efforts to invest in improving or expanding services.
LOWASCO also faces challenges with high electricity bills, illegal
connections, non-payment of bills, and leakages. The utility’s
2017 Annual Financial report estimated that water production
costs LOWASCO $0.44 per cubic meter and the water tariff is
$0.32 per cubic meter, leading to a net loss of approximately
$40,816 per month (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd,
2017).
3.2. Kampong Chamlong water supply Utility, Kandal Province,
Cambodia
The Kampong Chamlong water utility treats surface water from
the Tonle Toch River and serves approximately 56,781 individuals
out of 71,877 on the outskirts of the Phnom Penh greater
metropolitan area in Kandal Province, Cambodia. The water utility
is privately operated and was established in 2010 with the con-
struction of a 100 m3/h water treatment plant and 27 km of the
piped network under the USAID Cambodia Micro, Small, and Med-
ium Enterprise (MSME) Project (England, 2012). The plant was
recently upgraded to 150 m3/h capacity and consists of a conven-
tional treatment process with coagulation, sedimentation, a rapid
sand filter, chlorine disinfection, and storage in an elevated tank.
Construction was financed in a matching incentive-based pay-
ment process, where 50 percent of the capital investments and
50 percent of the connection fees for households were subsidized
by USAID (England, 2012). In 2016, UNICEF funded 30 percent of
the capital cost of expanding the piped network into three new vil-
lages (B. Sang, personal communication Dec 17, 2018). Since then,
the privately-managed utility has been financially viable with
domestic and commercial/institutional tariffs providing 100 per-
cent of revenue collection and coverage of operating costs
(Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018). The utility also has
access to commercial finance for service expansions and subsidiz-
ing connection fees for poor users.
3.3. Woliso water supply and Sewerage Enterprise, Oromia, Ethiopia
Woliso is a zonal capital town in the Oromia region of Ethiopia,
110 km southwest of Addis Ababa with a total population of
6 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
Table 1
Utility Overview.
Lodwar, Kenya
1.2 Service area population 77,544
1.3 Median yearly household income $63
1.4 Persons per private connection 10
1.5 Persons per public water point 1200
1.6 Utility ownership Public
1.7 Water Source Groundwater
1.8 Treatment type Chlorination
Sources: (Kenya RAPID, 2017) (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018), (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2017), (National Institute of Statistics &
Ministry of Planning, 2018), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC, 2017), (Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise,
2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018).
2
National ‘‘other urban” median household income. (National Institute of Statistics & Ministry of Planning, 2018)
3
Nearby Cheliya District in West Shoa Zone. (Geleta et al., 2018)
118,725 in 2019. The town public utility, the Woliso Water Supply
and Sewerage Enterprise (WWSSE), was formed in 1982 with the
construction of a river intake and rapid sand filter treatment plant
for $4 million under the GIZ funded 12 Towns Project (G. Disassa,
personal communication June 20, 2019). From 2004 to 2016, bore-
holes were drilled to augment the supply. However, both the reser-
voir capacity and supply are currently insufficient. 31.4% of the
population is covered according to the national standard of 60 L
per capita per day consumption. The town receives 9 h per day
or 3–4 days per week of interrupted supply (Adank et al., 2018).
WWSSE has been consistently awarded the top-performing util-
ity rank in the region, yet it only delivers half of the growing pop-
ulation’s water demand. About 10 percent of households are
estimated to pump water from the distribution system to overhead
water tanks to increase pressure and buffer intermittent supply –
an example of coping mechanisms, which come at additional costs
incurred by the household to increase the level of service provided
by the utility (G. Dissassa, personal communication June 20, 2019).
In 2019, construction started on a major system expansion to
meet the water demand of the town with two new well fields, stor-
age reservoirs, and an expanded distribution system at an esti-
mated cost of $10 million (GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC,
2018). This project is not included in our analysis which runs
through 2018.
3.4. City of Boulder Water Utility, Colorado, United States
The City of Boulder is a town of 103,163 of which 33,000 are
university students and seasonal residents. There are two major
dammed reservoirs and water treatment plants that supply the
town: the Barker Reservoir feeding the Betasso Water Treatment
Plant, built in 1962, and the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Plant, built in 1969. The water service provider is a publicly owned
utility funded by an ‘‘enterprise fund,” and not directly supported
by taxes. Boulder’s water utility enterprise fund covers administra-
tion, operations, maintenance, financing, debt service, and billing.
Enterprise funds are designed to be predominantly funded by user
charges from water customers. Unique to this mountain town is
the hydropower generation built into pressure-reducing valves in
the main transmission lines which harvest and sell electricity dur-
ing their descent in elevation.
4. Findings
This section presents the findings from the four utilities pre-
sented above on the level of water services they provide, the value
of their assets, their current expenditure and revenues, their tariffs
and unit price of water, and required expenditure and funding
gaps.
Kampong Chamlong, Cambodia Woliso, Ethiopia Boulder, USA
71,877 118,725 108,707
$8,9032 $6333 $88,400
7.69 6.08 3.40
n/a 720 n/a
Private Public Public
Surface water Surface and groundwater Surface water
Filtration and disinfection Filtration and disinfection Filtration and disinfection
4.1. Service level
The coverage and quality of the utility services are compared in
Table 2.
The proportion of people in the service area which are served by
the utility water services (2.1) is not 100 percent in any of the cases
except for Boulder.
Service reliability (2.2), or intermittency of supply, ranges from
only 9 h a day in Woliso (or 3 days out of 7 in the week) to 24 h.
Except for Woliso, the utilities meet the reliability benchmark of
water service provision of at least 12 h per day.
Water quality is also an important factor, measured here by proxy
of treatment type, as regulatory compliance information was not
available for all four cases (2.3). The three utilities with filtration
and disinfection are assumed to meet the water quality benchmark
of free from contamination. In Lodwar, where a chlorine residual
was only detected in 70% of water samples, the population with
safely managed services is discounted accordingly (WASREB, 2018).
The proportion of the population in the service area with house-
hold connections is indicated in the table as well (2.4). This is the
population potentially receiving safely managed water services (on
premises, available when needed, and free from contamination).
As water services in Woliso do not meet the reliability bench-
mark and are, therefore, not considered to be ‘‘available when
needed;” both the 65% of the total population with access to house-
hold connections, as well as the 18% which access water services
off premises, only have access to basic services. Seventy percent
of the piped water supply in Lodwar is free from contamination,
so only 32% are assumed to have access to safely managed services
(70% of 2.4). The 30% of the household connection users assumed
to receive untreated water and all public water kiosk users are
assumed to have access to basic services. In Kampong Chamlong,
where the 79% of the total population in the service area is served
with household connections, all people served are expected to have
access to safely managed water services. In Boulder, 100% of people
in the service area have access to safely managed services.
The daily domestic water consumption (2.7) and the percentage
of water demand met (2.8) are quantified according to a benchmark
of 60 lpcd. In Lodwar, Kampong Chamlong, and Woliso, the average
water consumption is well below 60 lpcd, and the percentage of
water demand met is accordingly low. In Boulder average water con-
sumption amounts to 366 lpcd. It should be noted that the high con-
sumption includes outdoor irrigation water use in the summer,
whereas wintertime use is 62 lpcd, suggesting the 60 lpcd bench-
mark is applicable across contexts for meeting water demand.
4.2. Asset valuations
Table 3 presents the original capital investments (3.1, 3.2) in
today’s dollars versus the current valuation of those investments
(3.4) considering inflation and depreciation (3.3).
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155 7

Table 2
Service Levels.

Lodwar, Kenya Kampong Chamlong, Woliso, Ethiopia Boulder, USA

Cambodia
2.1 Proportion of total population served with at least 85% 79% 84% 100%
basic services
2.2 Reliability: Hours per day of service (average in a 19 24 9 24
week)
2.3 Quality: Treatment type Chlorination (70% residual filtration and filtration and filtration and
detected) disinfection disinfection disinfection
2.4 Accessibility: Population in service area with 46% 79% 65% 100%
household connections
2.5 Population in service area with safely managed 32% 79% 0% 100%
services
2.6 Population in service area with basic water services 53% 0% 84% 0%
2.7 Average domestic consumption (liters per capita 11 43 25 366
served per day)
2.8 Percentage water demand met (total population 16% 57% 35% 610%
consuming 60 lpcd)

Sources: (WASREB, 2018), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018).

Woliso’s water utility is valued at just over $700 thousand (3.4)
out of $1.2 million in original investments (3.1), the smallest and
least expensive of the utilities. Kampong Chamlong’s utility is val-
ued at $1 million (3.4) out of $2 million in original investments
(3.1). Lodwar’s utility is values at $3.2 million (3.4) out of $3.6 mil-
lion (3.1), with relatively smaller accumulated depreciation (3.3)
due to more recent construction.
The capital infrastructure, including water storage, treatment,
and distribution systems in Boulder are valued at an estimated
$1 billion (2018) (3.1). The valuation of assets was based on the
2018 Capital Improvement Plans (City of Boulder Public Works
Utilities Division, 2018) and matched calculations for the treated
water distribution system valuation of the 2019 Asset Inventory
and Maintenance (AIM) Project. The AIM project report states that
‘‘adequately funding aging infrastructure and reliability improve-
ments is perhaps the largest utility challenge near- and long-
term” (Grooters et al., 2019).
When these valuations are normalized by the service area pop-
ulation (3.2), the values are more comparable across the cases.
Woliso, has the smallest capital investments per capita at $10,
while Boulder has the largest at $9,460, representing both the
age of the infrastructure, quantities of water produced, and differ-
ent technologies (boreholes versus multiple dams and water treat-
ment plants). Kampong Chamlong has the second smallest per
capita value of infrastructure, of $28, and Lodwar has $47, the high-
est among the low and middle-income countries.
In Kampong Chamlong, Woliso, and Boulder the accumu-
lated depreciation (3.3) is nearly 50% of total investments,
which suggests the infrastructure in place is not being
renewed through regular capital maintenance or is overdue
for capital replacements of components, which translates into
decreasing service levels and production over time. Lodwar
has re-invested regularly in new storage tanks and boreholes;
however, this is partially due to shorter lifespans of equipment
than predicted.
The value of the infrastructure investments per capita reflect
the service levels in each case. Woliso faces a challenge supplying
all residents with just $1.2 million in investments, and there is
such low reliability of supply that the service area is classified as
0% safely managed. $3.6 million has been invested in Lodwar, but
NRW is 50%, meaning most of this investment is not being used.
Kampong Chamlong has a lower NRW of 17% and reaches 80% of
its service area with safely managed services for $2 million. Boul-
der clearly offers superior service levels to the other three with
$1 billion in investments, or 3 orders of magnitude more.
4.3. Current utility expenditure and revenue
Figure 1 presents an overview of the utility expenditures of the
four studied utilities for the fiscal year 2017–2018. It shows the
portions of expenditure that utilities are using for new construc-
tion (Capital Expenditure), infrastructure rehabilitation and
replacements (Capital Maintenance Expenditure), recurrent oper-
ating and minor maintenance expenditure including salaries
(Operating and Minor Maintenance Expenditure), and finance costs
(Cost of Capital).
Notably, the two utilities with access to private equity (Kam-
pong Chamlong and Boulder), spent 22 and 15 percent of their
expenses on repaying loans and in profits for shareholders, labeled
‘‘cost of capital.” The less than one percent spent on cost of capital
in Lodwar and Woliso was spent on bank service charges.
Operational expenditures were the largest category for Lodwar
and Woliso (91 and 72 percent, respectively) compared to Kam-
pong Chamlong and Boulder, which each spent just a quarter of
expenditure on operations.
Utilities were found to spend between 5 and 29 percent of total
expenditures on CapManEx. As asset condition may be hard to
assess when pipelines are underground, as these costs are hard
to estimate per year. Boulder addresses this with a capital mainte-
nance program funded at $3.5 million per year for replacement of
6 km of pipeline annually (City of Boulder Public Works Utilities
Division, 2018).
The proportion of expenditure spent on CapEx varied between
the four cases during 2017/18 due to different stages of construc-
tion. Boulder is in the middle of a capital improvement plan for a
new source water transmission line and water treatment plant
upgrades and spent 47 percent of its budget or $300 per capita
on CapEx.
Based on an evaluation of tariff determinations in Scotland and
Jamaica, Shugart & Alexander (2009) observed that the part of the
tariff that was to be used for covering operational expenditure ran-
ged between 30 and 70 percent, the part to be used for covering
capital maintenance ranged between 10 and 30 percent, and the
part to be used to cover cost of capital was between 10 and 35 per-
cent. These ranges are in no way comprehensive but do generally
align with the categorical breakdown seen in Figure 1 of non-
CapEx, except in the cases of Lodwar and Woliso, in which expen-
diture is heavily dominated by OpEx.
The different sources of utility revenue are shown in Figure 2,
divided into tax revenue, transfers, domestic tariffs, and commer-
cial & institutional tariffs.
8 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155

Table 3
Asset Valuations (all 2018 USD).

Lodwar, Kenya Kampong Chamlong, Cambodia Woliso, Ethiopia Boulder, USA

3.1 Total infrastructure investments (capital replacement value) $3,623,604 $2,026,154 $1,213,301 $1,028,372,848
3.2 Per capita value of infrastructure $47 $28 $10 $9,460
3.3 Accumulated depreciation -$413,028 -$1,016,645 -$511,009 -$576,237,847
3.4 Net book value $3,210,576 $1,009,509 $702,292 $452,135,001

Sources: (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018), (Kenya RAPID, 2017), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC, 2017),
(Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder Public Works Utilities Division, 2018), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018), (US EPA, 2019).

Figure 1. 2017–2018 Expenditures per capita by category, scaled to 100% of total expenditure Sources: (Kenya RAPID, 2017), (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd,
2018), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018).

Figure 2. 2017–2018 Sources of utility funding, scaled to 100% of total funding Sources: (Kenya RAPID, 2017), (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018),
(Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018).

Commercial and institutional tariffs make up the majority of
revenue in Lodwar since the county government buildings are
the largest customers of water in town, while in Kampong Cham-
long there is no tax, transfer, or commercial & institutional revenue
because the privately-owned network is only serving clients
through household connections. LOWASCO in Lodwar, Kenya was
the only utility amongst the four that received foreign aid (trans-
fers) in 2017/18, in the form of a capital grant of $157 thousand
from the Kenyan Water Services Trust Fund. Transfers were an
even larger proportion of the Lodwar utility revenues in 2014
(38%) (International Benchmarking Network, 2017). Notably, all
but Boulder received no tax revenue, meaning the local and
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
national governments are not funding utilities from public funds.
In Boulder, 56% of revenue is sourced from taxpayer-funded invest-
ments – including hydropower revenue, rent and interest on
investments, and bond proceeds. This is despite the fact that on
paper, there are no taxpayer funds supporting the City of Boulder
Utility Enterprise Fund.
Lodwar, Kampong Chamlong, and Boulder each made a modest
profit per capita, while Woliso lost $0.38 per capita. Cost and fund-
ing categories with amounts per capita are also found in the Sup-
plementary Materials.
Shown in Table 4 are indicators for operating and total expendi-
ture cost coverage from utility funding and the percentages of non-
revenue water.
The funding/expenditure ratio is also called the revenue/ex-
penditure or R/E ratio and measures cost recovery of all expen-
diture. Woliso is the only case not to have covered expenses in
2018.
The OCRR values for all four utilities were above 1.0 in 2018,
meaning all operating costs were covered by revenue. Woliso
and Lodwar have the lowest OCRR. This is in line with the high pro-
portion of total expenditure that these two utilities spent on oper-
ations, as shown in Figure 1, and the low amounts of water
consumption and resulting tariff revenue. Kampong Chamlong
and Boulder, on the other hand, both have OCRRs above 4, suggest-
ing that there is a surplus of revenue over operating expenses and
more than ¾ of revenue can be set aside for major repairs, asset
renewal and rehabilitation (CapManEx), and expansion (CapEx).
All four utilities scored much higher than their own national aver-
ages. Utilities in the United States on average reported an operat-
ing cost recovery ratio of 1.48, while utilities in Kenya reported
an average of 0.97, utilities in Ethiopia an average of 0.80, and util-
ities in Cambodia an average of 2.57 (International Benchmarking
Network, 2018).
Unaccounted for water or non-revenue water percentages were
estimated to be between 8% (Boulder and 49% (Lodwar). Boulder’s
water treatment system operates under high pressure and non-
revenue water is likely low because leaks or water losses during
break events are quickly detected and fixed. Commercial losses
are also minimal in Boulder. The other utilities all identified leaks,
pilferage, broken equipment, or non-payment of bills as causes of
non-revenue water. NRW is linked to revenue collection efficiency
as well, where meter readings and bills are inaccurate. Intermittent
supply in Woliso and Lodwar also likely reduces accuracy of meter
Table 4
Cost coverage and non-revenue water.
Lodwar, Kenya
4.1 Funding/Total expenditure ratio (F/E) 1.28
4.2 Operating cost recovery ratio (OCRR) 1.48
4.3 Percentage non-revenue water (NRW) 37 – 49*%
Sources: (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City
of Boulder, Colorado, 2018).
Table 5
Utility tariff structures.
Lodwar, Kenya
3.1 Tariff structure Increasing block
3.2 Unit price of water $/m3 $0.38
3.2a Private household connections tariff $/m3 $0.33
3.2b Public water point tariff $/m3 $0.98
Sources: (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018), (Kenya RAPID, 2017), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC, 2017),
(Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018), (City of Boulder Public Works Utilities Division, 2018), (International
Benchmarking Network, 2018).
9
readings, since meters are calibrated within a certain window of
accuracy, contributing to the high rates of NRW.
4.4. Tariffs and unit price of water
Table 5 includes the calculated average prices paid for water
(5.2, 5.2a, 5.2b) and the percentage of non-revenue water (5.3) of
the four utilities. Where there is a range given for NRW, there
was a difference between the utility reported NRW and the calcu-
lated NRW (calculated values are marked with an asterisk) for the
same period. The average domestic customer price paid per cubic
meter or unit price of water (3.2) is an average of both access
methods and includes tariffs paid per volume as well as non-
volumetric costs, such as connection fees, meter rental, and fines
paid.
The four cases have three different tariff structures, necessitat-
ing a calculation of a flat unit price of water for comparisons. Public
connections and private household connections are also operated
under different tariff structures in Lodwar and Woliso, where pub-
lic water points exist.
In Lodwar, public kiosks are managed by a private operator who
runs a small store with household products and charges $0.02 per
20L jerrican, or $0.98/m3 (3.2b), receiving 40% of the revenue.
However, those with private household connections pay just
$0.33/m3 for a monthly consumption of 0–6 m3 (3.2a) (the lowest
block). Woliso sets the public tap stand tariff much cheaper at
$0.15/m3 (3.2b). For household connections, the price of water in
the lowest block is also low at $0.17/m3 for 0–2 m3, but much of
the tariff revenue collected includes connection fees, meter rental,
and late fees, making the average household water bill $0.43/m3
(3.2a). The unit price to access and consume water from all sources
in Woliso is higher at $0.9/m3 (3.2) based on actual consumption.
In Kampong Chamlong, there are two volumetric rates applied to
household connections based on customer type: regular customers
pay $0.57/m3, while the poor receive a subsidized rate of $0.37/m3
(3.2a). Boulder water customers pay the highest rate for water, at
$1.27/m3 (3.2), although this is lower when water users use signif-
icantly less than their budgeted allotment.
The average tariffs paid or unit costs to access and consume
water (3.2) are all above regional averages, except in Boulder.
The 2018 GWI Global Water Tariff Survey found that the average
tariff in North America is greater than $4/m3, while South Asia
had the lowest tariff, under $0.40/m3 on average, and Sub-
Kampong Chamlong, Cambodia Woliso, Ethiopia Boulder, USA
1.16 0.86 1.04
4.60 1.19 4.36
17* 25% 29% 7.86%
Kampong Chamlong, Cambodia Woliso, Ethiopia Boulder, USA
Volumetric based on customer type Increasing block Budget-based rate
$0.50 $0.90 $1.27
$0.37–0.57 $0.43 $1.27
NA $0.15 NA
10 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155

Saharan tariffs averaged $1.25/m3 (GWI, 2018), based on a bench-
mark of an urban household of four using 15 m3/month (123 L/per-
son/day). When adjusted for actual consumption in the four case
studies, water customers in Lodwar, Kampong Chamlong, and
Woliso are paying $0.27, $0.45, and $0.65 more, respectively, per
cubic meter of water than the regional averages.
4.5. Full costs of water service delivery and funding gaps
Table 6 presents the 2017/18 funding, expenditure, and the net
profit per capita. It compares these values to the required annual
expenditure and funding to fully fund CapManEx and reach 100%
service coverage. The funding per year of water services (6.1) in
the cases was $2 in Woliso, $8 in Lodwar and Kampong Chamlong,
and $671 in Boulder per capita. Total expenditure (6.2) in the three
lower-income contexts was $3–7 per person, while in Boulder
$645 was spent per person. In all the towns but Woliso, the utilities
made a (modest) profit (6.3).
Table 6 also presents the annual expenditure required for main-
taining and renewing assets (CapManEx), calculated from the cap-
ital replacement values and lifespans of utility infrastructure.
Estimated required annual CapManEx per capita (6.4) are recog-
nized as the minimum expenditure per year which may be held
in a sinking fund to account for future expenditure related to major
repairs and asset renewal, along the lifespan of the assets. While
required CapManEx per capita (6.4) appears low in Lodwar, this
is potentially an underestimation as a consequence of not having
robust estimates of the extent and condition of the water distribu-
tion system and off-grid power supplies.
None of the utilities are currently spending enough to cover the
required annual expenditure, including CapManEx. In all four cases,
actual CapManEx in 2017/18 was less than the calculated recom-
mended levels, with a gap per person of $0.60 (Lodwar), $2 (Kam-
pong Chamlong), $5 (Woliso), and $43 (Boulder) (6.5). Utilities that
spend or put away the required CapManEx each year will be able
to finance replacement of an asset at the end of its useful lifespan
without spending from other budgets or taking on debt. Boulder
has aging infrastructure - underspending on capital maintenance
may not have resulted in decreased service levels yet, but it is a con-
siderable risk for ensuring adequate future water service provision.
Finally, Table 6 presents the estimated required annual expendi-
ture and net profit for a scenario with higher service levels 100%
coverage of the total population with at least basic services and pro-
duction high enough for an average consumption of 60 lpcd. To esti-
mate the required annual expenditure for 100% coverage (6.8), the
total required expenditure (6.6) is divided by the percentage of
water demand actually met (2.8). In Boulder, there is no difference
between the required total expenditure (6.6) and the required total
expenditure assuming 100% coverage (6.8) because the daily water
consumption already exceeds minimum needs, while in the other
cases the required expenditure significantly increases because of
the low proportion of the total water demand that is currently met
(2.8). The low water consumption can be a result of insufficient
water production (underinvestment for the population size), high
NRW (3.3), or low water demand (e.g. because of barriers to afford-
ability or presence of alternative sources).
Table 6 shows that for all four utilities the 2017/18 tariff rev-
enue and other sources of funding are insufficient to cover the
required annual expenditure for delivering and sustaining ade-
quate services (at least basic services and 60 lpcd) to all, highlight-
ing a funding gap ranging from $2 per person in Kampong
Chamlong to $41 in Lodwar (6.9). This calculation further reflects
increased tariff revenue from increased water production and sales
in the higher service level scenario. These funding gaps are also
expressed as a percentage of the total funding received in
2017/18, where Boulder would need 2%, Kampong Chamlong
25%, Lodwar 350%, and Woliso 780% of current resources (6.10).
5. Discussion
5.1. Utility service levels and valuation benchmarks
The WASHCost project found that total capital expenditure for
small piped schemes amounted to between $32–140 per person
in several rural areas and small towns (Burr & Fonseca, 2013).
These findings are similar to ours in Lodwar ($47) and Kampong
Chamlong ($28), but substantially more was invested in Boulder
($9,460) per person and substantially less in Woliso ($10), con-
tributing to the differing service levels across in the four contexts.
Using national expenditures, the World Bank estimated similar
unit costs of types of water-supply infrastructure (Hutton &
Varughese, 2016). The benchmarks for rural piped on-plot approx-
imately match the actual investments made by the medium-sized
towns of Kampong Chamlong and Lodwar. Lodwar’s investments
are valued at $3 more than the Kenyan benchmark for rural piped
on-plot. The actual investments in Kampong Chamlong are $12 less
than the Cambodian benchmark for rural piped on-plot, which may
be because the town of 71,877 is denser than a rural area. Woliso is
$45 less than the benchmark for Ethiopian piped on-plot services.
The United States was not included by Hutton & Varughese (2016).
5.2. Tariffs and subsidies
Across all four cases average tariffs are higher than regional
averages, yet the total tariff revenues are insufficient to cover

Table 6
Utility life cycle costs and funding gaps (all in USD, 2018).

Lodwar, Kampong Chamlong, Woliso, Boulder,

Kenya Cambodia Ethiopia USA
6.1 2017/18 Funding/capita $8 $8 $2 $671
6.2 2017/18 Expenditure/capita $6 $7 $3 $645
6.3 2017/18 Net profit/capita $2 $1 -$0.38 $27
6.4 Required annual CapManEx/capita $1 $4 $6 $138
6.5 Actual – required spending on CapManEx/capita -$0.60 -$2 -$5 -$43
6.6 Required total annual expenditure at current level of service (including required $7 $9 $9 $688
CapManEx)/capita
6.7 Net profit with required annual expenditure (including CapManEx)/capita $1 -$1 -$7 -$17
6.8 Total required annual expenditure for delivering water services with 100% coverage and $60 $12 $20 $688
water demand met
6.9 Funding gap for reaching 100% coverage (including projected revenue increase)/capita -$41 -$2 -$15 -$17
6.10 Gap as a percentage of current funding 350% 25% 780% 2%

Sources: (Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd, 2018), (Kenya RAPID, 2017), (Cambodian Water Supply Association, 2018), (GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC, 2017),
(Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise, 2019), (City of Boulder, Colorado, 2018), (City of Boulder Public Works Utilities Division, 2018).
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
annual expenditure in Woliso, Lodwar, and Boulder. Kampong
Chamlong is the only utility studied with 100% of revenue from tar-
iffs and cost coverage from tariffs. The other three cases relied on
non-tariff funding. Transfers outweighed tariffs in Lodwar, Woliso
had a net loss in 2018, and Boulder sourced the majority of funding
from tax revenues. Yet tariffs remain a key area of reform for utility
financial stability and a delivery vehicle for water customer sub-
sidy (demand-side subsidy).
Increasing block tariffs are designed to provide affordable water
to the poor, who are expected to consume less water than more
wealthy households and will be able to benefit from lower tariff
rates set for lower consumption levels. However, much has been
written recently about how these subsidies are often poorly tar-
geted and rarely effective pro-poor policy (Andres et al., 2019,
Borja-Vega et al., 2019, Cook et al., 2020). Both Woliso and Lodwar
apply increasing block tariffs with low bottom block prices and
high thresholds and accordingly face challenges with recovering
costs. While low-income users reliant on public sources pay more
per unit of volume in some cases and less in others, upgrading to a
private household connection may be out of reach because of high
non-volumetric costs (which may be initial costs such as connec-
tion fees, meter rental fees, or fines for unpaid bills).
The simplest tariff structure studied, volumetric based on cus-
tomer type, may be the most transparent and effective for deliver-
ing subsidy to the poor. In Kampong Chamlong, households with a
private connection pay a flat $0.57/m3 while ‘‘special customers”
only pay $0.37/m3. In this way, wealthier households cross-
subsidize water sales to the poor. Kampong Chamlong has also
used transfers effectively in the past to subsidize expansion into
new neighborhoods by covering a percentage of connection fees
to new customers – as these non-recurrent costs are some of the
highest barriers to piped services and ideal targets for subsidy
(Andres et al., 2019).
Boulder is the only water utility without a demand-side subsidy
delivered by tariff pricing. The budget- based rate tariff structure
prioritizes water conservation by rewarding those who consume
less than the amount of water budgeted for their property size
with lower rates. This is not a pro-poor subsidy as lower-income
residents are more likely to own or rent smaller, older, and/or less
water-efficient properties and may live with more individuals,
therefore using higher volumes of water. Arguably, pro-poor water
pricing is not needed in Boulder as incomes are high and prices
already low. A typical yearly water bill in Boulder is $169 per per-
son, meaning the effective rate charged to households is $1.27 per
cubic meter including all fees, fines, meter rental, and water sales.
Yet, per capita expenditures add up to $645 – leaving a gap of $475
per person per year met through other sources than water tariffs.
The utility, therefore, benefits from a supply-side subsidy of non-
water service-related revenue. Categorized under taxes, revenue
from taxpayer-funded investments in hydropower, rental property,
and bond proceeds all serve to fund 56% of water service delivery
in Boulder.
5.3. Funding gaps and strategies
The funding gaps identified in Table 6 represent a simplified
method for comparing life cycle costs across different water utili-
ties in different contexts and cannot be used as cost estimates
for service expansions. However, a globally applicable method for
estimating the additional revenue (and potentially outside funding
from transfers) needed to adequately cover capital maintenance
could be useful, as capital maintenance is underfunded globally.
The budget gaps, when contextualized with current sources of util-
ity revenue and expenditure, indicate ill-preparedness for asset
end-of-lifespan renewal which will lead to further deterioration
of service levels.
11
Additional funds are needed in all cases to adequately fund Cap-
ManEx and reach universal access, ranging from 2% of funding in
Boulder, 25% in Kampong Chamlong, 350% in Lodwar, and 780%
in Woliso 7 (6.10). The needed resources cannot be sourced only
from improved cost recovery, as they are 3–7 times greater than
current funding levels in Lodwar and Woliso.
The tension between achieving universal access to water and
prioritizing cost recovery for water service delivery has long been
recognized (Jaglin, 2002). Utility performance and tariff affordabil-
ity also affect households’ willingness and ability to access and pay
for water services. Poor service levels lead to lower revenues and
increasing tariffs lead to lower usage, a double negative feedback
loop that can be hard to escape, preventing investments in
improved services. Unreliable services and intermittent supply also
lead to low consumer confidence, lower willingness to pay, and
higher rates of non-revenue water, making cost recovery more dif-
ficult. Lowering levels of non-revenue water could have an imme-
diate effect on utility financial viability without raising tariffs, yet
most utilities find it difficult to bring non-revenue water down to
the single digits as in Boulder.
The conventional approach to closing this funding and service
gap is a combination of increasing tariffs and lowering NRW water
(by lowering water losses and increasing revenue collection effi-
ciency). Improved billing systems linked to improved service deliv-
ery could benefit poor consumers who are already paying high
prices to cope with unreliable water supplies, yet raising tariffs
may increase water insecurity without additional anti-poverty
measures (Stoler et al., 2020).
Low levels of cost recovery from tariffs are part of the drivers
behind underinvestment in CapManEx and low service levels, but
they are not the full story and are definitely not the sole solution.
This conventional strategy ignores that some high-performing util-
ities serving wealthy communities, such as Boulder, rely on over
50% of revenue from taxes to subsidize service delivery and keep
tariffs low. These findings suggest that the benchmark of 80% of
revenue from user contributions and tariffs (World Health
Organization & UN-Water, 2019) may not be an appropriate goal
everywhere.
Only 35% of utilities included in the World Bank’s IBNET data-
base cover O&M costs from revenue and just 14% over total expen-
diture from revenue, making Kampong Chamlong part of the top
14% globally for cost coverage (Andres et al., 2019). The other three
utilities, heavily reliant on outside funding via transfers or taxes
are more the norm for water utilities. With OCRRs close to 1.0, like
in the cases of Woliso and Lodwar, significant additional funding is
needed to service O&M before service expansion or improvements
could be considered as currently little to no funds can be set aside
to cover debt service.
6. Conclusion
This study compared how four example utilities in low, middle,
and high-income countries are funding and delivering water ser-
vices to households. While selected as a convenience sample to rep-
resent a broad range of operating contexts, we found common
operating challenges that are instructive when designing policies
and expectations of water utilities especially in low-income settings.
Local experts familiar with each of these utilities reviewed the anal-
ysis presented in this paper and concurred that the general findings
reflected the operating conditions and challenges in each context.
We found that financial solvency and coverage of operating
costs from revenue are not enough to meet the required expendi-
ture (including CapManEx) for ensuring sustainable water service
provision, much less funding system expansion needed to improve
intermittent services and reach universal access among any of the
12 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
four utilities studied. High-income communities like Boulder may
be provided with higher quality services but still struggle with
funding and planning for irregular costs of repairs and replace-
ments of existing assets, despite supply-side subsidies comprising
56 percent of utility revenue.
Lest the example of Boulder be viewed as an exception, it is
worth noting that subsidization of water management and service
delivery is common in high-income countries. In the United States,
not only are municipal water utilities providing subsidized services
with help in part from a variety of federal grants and loans admin-
istered by the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018),
but the federal government provides extensive agricultural water
subsidies among even the wealthiest agricultural producers
(Lustgarten & Sadasivam, 2015). Still, there remains a large invest-
ment gap for water-related infrastructure in the United States esti-
mated at $126 billion in 2020 (Hukka & Katko, 2015).
The finance gaps we found between the full costs of service deliv-
ery and current revenue collection across a spectrum of water utili-
ties highlights a global gap in funding for capital maintenance and
insufficient cost recovery. We caution that poorly performing utilities
cannot improve service levels and expand while striving for local self-
sufficiency. While tax bases in low-income countries are growing, the
amount of subsidy needed to fill funding gaps cannot be sourced
from taxes or national governments unless public funding of the
water sector is significantly increased, leaving one additional source:
regular funding programs from international donors. International
transfers to subsidize water services will continue to be required well
past the short 5–10 year commitments commonly seen.
We suggest that focusing on improved, accountable and cost-
effective mechanisms for subsidies sourced from either transfers
or taxes to cover an increased share of costs will build up operating
cost recovery ratios to levels sufficient to cover much-needed cap-
ital maintenance and attract private finance without increasing
tariffs beyond affordability. Consequently, our findings suggest
that national governments and international donors should
acknowledge that long term support of local water service delivery
is necessary, appropriate, and likely more cost-effective than the
current funding models.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Anna Libey: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft. Marieke Adank: Methodology,
Validation, Writing - original draft. Evan Thomas: Conceptualiza-
tion, Writing - original draft, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the support of the Millennium Water Alliance,
Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, AECOM, mWater, IRC, CARE,
IRC Wash, SweetSense Inc., the Afar Regional Water Bureau and the
county government of Turkana in Kenya. The authors especially
thank James Harper, Lauren Stover, Bernadin Sang, and Styvers
Kathuni for their contributions.
References
Adank, M., Godfrey, S., Butterworth, J., & Defere, E. (2018). Small town water
services sustainability checks: Development and application in Ethiopia. Water
Policy, 20, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2018.004.
Andres, L., Thibert, M., Lombana Cordoba, C., Danilenko, A. V., Joseph, G., & Borja-
Vega, C. (2019). Doing More with Less : Smarter Subsidies for Water Supply and
Sanitation. World Bank..
Berg, S., & Marques, R. (2011). Quantitative studies of water and sanitation utilities:
A benchmarking literature survey. Water Policy, 13(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wp.2011.041.
Borja-Vega, C., Garcia Morales, E. E., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2019). Incidence of Subsidies
in Residential Public Services in Mexico: The Case of the Water Sector. Water, 11
(10), 2078. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102078.
Burr, P., & Fonseca, C. (2013). Applying a life-cycle costs approach to water. 94.
Byrne, D. M., Lohman, H. A. C., Cook, S. M., Peters, G. M., & Guest, J. S. (2017). Life
cycle assessment (LCA) of urban water infrastructure: Emerging approaches to
balance objectives and inform comprehensive decision-making. Environmental
Science: Water Research & Technology, 3(6), 1002–1014. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C7EW00175D.
Cambodian Water Supply Association. (2018). Kampong Chamlong Financials.
Unpublished raw data.
Cashman, S., Gaglione, A., Mosley, J., Weiss, L., Ashbolt, N. J., Cashdollar, J., Xue, X.,
Ma, C., & Arden, S. (2014). Environmental and cost life cycle assessment of
disinfection options for municipal drinking water treatment. US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA 600/R-14/376; p. 104).
Cetrulo, T. B., Marques, R. C., & Malheiros, T. F. (2019). An analytical review of the
efficiency of water and sanitation utilities in developing countries. Water
Research, 161, 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.05.044.
City of Boulder, Colorado. (2018). 2018 Annual Budget Volume 2 (p. 268). https://
www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2018_Approved_Budget_FINAL_
ONLINE_3.20.18-1-201803221143.pdf?_ga=2.101647497.922286630.
1555615681-1063337527.1554749608.
City of Boulder Public Works Utilities Division. (2018). 2018 Capital Improvement
Plan.
Climate-Data.org (2019). Climate data for cities worldwide. https://en.climate-data.
org/.
Cook, J., Fuente, D., & Whittington, D. (2020). Choosing Among Pro-Poor Policy
Options in the Delivery of Municipal Water Services. Water Economics and
Policy, 1950013. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X19500139.
Danert, K., & Hutton, G. (2020). Shining the spotlight on household investments for
water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): Let us talk about HI and the three ’T’s.
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 10(1). https://doi.org/
10.2166/washdev.2020.139.
Eberhard, R. (2018). Access to Water and Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Part 1
Review of Sector Reforms and Investments, Key Findings to Inform Future
Support to Sector Development (p. 88). GIZ. http://www.oecd.org/water/GIZ_
2018_Access_Study_Part%20I_Synthesis_Report.pdf.
England, M. (2012). FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID’S ‘‘CAMBODIA
MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES II/BUSINESS ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT” PROJECT (p. 210). http://www.value-chains.org/dyn/
bds/docs/844/FinalEvaluationMSMECambodia.pdf.
Fonseca, C., Franceys, R., Batchelor, C., McIntyre, P., Klutse, A., Komives, K., . . .
Snehalatha, M. (2011). Briefing Note 1a Life-cycle costs approach. 40.
GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC. (2017). Draft Feasibility Design Review Study
Report (Woliso Town Water Supply and Sanitation Project Design Review,
Contract Administration and Construction Supervision, p. 127).
GEDAG Consultancy Service PLC (2018). Detail Design Review Report Final (Woliso
Town Water Supply and Sanitation Project Design Review, Contract
Administration and Construction Supervision, p. 135).
Geleta, T., Mengistu, A., & Gesese, S. (2018). Analysing the Impact of Credit on Rural
Households’ Income in the Case of Cheliya District, West Shoa Zone, Oromia
National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Global Economics, 6(304), 8. https://
doi.org/10.4172/2375-4389.1000304.
González-Gómez, F., & García-Rubio, M. A. (2018). Prices and ownership in the
water urban supply: A critical review. Urban Water Journal, 15(3), 259–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2018.1436187.
Grooters, S., Kvasnicka, D., & Shuler, L. (2019). The 2019 Asset Inventory and
Maintenance Project – Executive Summary (p. 4). City of Boulder Public Works
– Utilities Division.
GWI (2018). Global Water Tariff Survey. Global Water Intelligence.
https://globalwatersecurity.org/content-hub/2019-02-11/What-does-the-world-
pay-for-water.
Hukka, J. J., & Katko, T. S. (2015). Appropriate Pricing Policy Needed Worldwide for
Improving Water Services Infrastructure. Journal – AWWA, 107(1), E37–E46.
https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0007.
Hutton, G., & Varughese, M. (2016). The Costs of Meeting the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene. The
World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/K8543.
International Benchmarking Network. (2017). IBNet Benchmarking Database.
https://database.ib-net.org/DefaultNew.aspx.
International Benchmarking Network. (2018). IBNet Tariffs Database. IBNet Tariffs
Database. https://tariffs.ib-net.org/.
Jaglin, S. (2002). The right to water versus cost recovery: participation, urban water
supply and the poor in sub-Saharan Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 14
(1), 231–245. Doi: 10.1177/095624780201400119.
Kenya RAPID. (2017). Rapid Assessment for Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company
(Contract No: MWA/BFA 2017001). Millenium Water Alliance.
Kingdom, B., Lloyd-Owen, D., Trémolet, S., Kayaga, S., & Ikeda, J. (2018). Better Use of
Capital to Deliver Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Services (p. 49).
World Bank.
 A. Libey et al. / World Development 136 (2020) 105155
Kirk, S., & Dell’Isola, A. (1995). Appendix C Maintenance and Replacement
Estimating Data. Life Cycle Costing for Design Professionals. McGraw-Hill.
Leigland, J., Trémolet, S., & Ikeda, J. (2016). Achieving Universal Access to Water and
Sanitation by 2030 The Role of Blended Finance. 20.
Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd. (2017). Lodwar Water and Sanitation
Company Ltd Annual Financial Statement for the Year Ended 30th June 2017 (p.
34) [Annual Report].
Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Ltd. (2018). Revised Annual Reports and
Financial Statements for the Financial Year Ending June 30, 2018.
Lustgarten, A., & Sadasivam, N. (2015, May 28). Federal Dollars Are Financing the
Water Crisis in the West. Scientific American. https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-dollars-are-financing-the-water-
crisis-in-the-west/.
Mayer, P., Deoreo, W., Chesnutt, T., & Summers, L. (2008). Water budgets and rate
structures: Innovative management tools. Journal – AWWA, 100(5), 117–131.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2008.tb09636.x.
National Institute of Statistics, & Ministry of Planning (2018). Cambodia Socio-
Economic Survey 2017 (p. 106). Kingdom of Cambodia. http://www.nis.gov.kh/
nis/CSES/Final%20Report%20CSES%202017.pdf.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Managing
Water for All: An OECD Perspective on Pricing and Financing. IWA Publishing.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucb/detail.action?docID=3121052
Pories, L., Fonseca, C., & Delmon, V. (2019). Mobilising Finance for WASH: Getting
the Foundations Right. Water, 11(11), 2425. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w11112425.
Rahill-Marier, B., & Lall, U. (2013). America’s Water: An exploratory analysis of
Municipal Water Survey Data (p. 45). Columbia Water Center. https://blogs.
ei.columbia.edu//wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Aquanauts_Study_Data_
RELEASE.pdf.
Sherif, Y. S., & Kolarik, W. J. (1981). Life cycle costing: Concept and practice. Omega,
9(3), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(81)90035-9.
Stoler, J., Pearson, A. L., Staddon, C., Wutich, A., Mack, E., Brewis, A., ... Zinab, H.
(2020). Cash water expenditures are associated with household water
insecurity, food insecurity, and perceived stress in study sites across 20 low-
and middle-income countries. Science of The Total Environment, 716. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135881 135881.
The World Bank Group. (2017, April). Water Supply [Text/HTML]. Water Supply.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/watersupply.
13
Turman-Bryant, N., Nagel, C., Stover, L., Muragijimana, C., & Thomas, E. A. (2019).
Improved Drought Resilience Through Continuous Water Service Monitoring
and Specialized Institutions—A Longitudinal Analysis of Water Service Delivery
Across Motorized Boreholes in Northern Kenya. Sustainability, 11(11), 3046.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113046.
US Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Effective Funding Frameworks for
Water Infrastructure. Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center.
https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/effective-funding-frameworks-
water-infrastructure.
US EPA. (2019). SDWIS Federal Reports Search. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/sfdw/
f?p=108:6:::NO:::.
USAID (2018). Acting on the Call: A Focus on the Journey to Self-Reliance for
Preventing Child and Maternal Deaths (p. 75). United States Agency for
International Development. https://www.usaid.gov/actingonthecall/2018-
report.
van den Berg, C. (2015). Drivers of non-revenue water: A cross-national analysis.
Utilities Policy, 36, 71–78. Doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2015.07.005.
WASREB. (2018). Impact Report Issue No. 10 A Performance Report of Kenya’s
Water Services Sector 2015/16 and 2016/17 (No. 10). https://wasreb.go.ke/
impact-report-issue-no-10/.
WHO (2017). UN-Water GLAAS TrackFin Initiative: tracking financing to sanitation,
hygiene and drinking-water at national level (TrackFin Initiative, p. 112)
[Guidance Document]. UN-Water. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/
10665/259899/9789241513562-eng.pdf?sequence=1.
WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia (2005). Minimum water quantity needed
for domestic uses (Technical Note No. 9; WHO/SEARO Technical Notes for
Emergencies, p. 4). World Health Organization. https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/
evaluation/watsan2005/annex_files/WHO/WHO5%20-%20Minimum%20water%
20quantity%20needed%20for%20domestic%20use.pdf.
WHO, & UNICEF (2017). Safely managed drinking water-thematic report on
drinking water. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
Woliso Water, Sanitation, and Sewerage Enterprise. (2019). Woliso WWSSEE 2017/
2019 Fiscal Year Data. Unpublished raw data.
World Health Organization, & UN-Water (2019). NATIONAL SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT
DRINKING-WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE: GLOBAL STATUS REPORT 2019
(p. 144). https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/glaas-
report-2019/en/.