&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
UJLM
Source Water Protection: A Training
Manual for Communities in Nicaragua
A Project of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the
United States Agency for International Development
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency (4606M)
EPA 816-R-02-003
www. epa. gov/safewater
February 2002
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Source Water Protection
A Training Manual for Communities in Nicaragua
A Project of The United States Environmental Protection Agency
and
The United States Agency for International Development
Prepared by
Horsley & Witten, Inc.
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1: Introduction to Source Water Assessment and Protection in Nicaragua
1.1 Background
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Source Water Protection
1.4 The Training Manual
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Community Health
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Sources and Health Effects of Common Drinking Water Contaminants
2.3 Drinking Water Standards
Chapter 3: Benefits from Source Water Protection
3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health
3.2 Environmental Benefits
3.3 Conclusion
Chapter 4: Source Water Protection Areas
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Surface Water Sources
4.3 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Wells
4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of Contamination
4.5 Ranking of Potential Sources of Contamination
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Developing a Community Source Water Management Plan
5.1 Introduction
5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection and Management in
Nicaragua
5.3 Assessing the Current State of Drinking Water Management in a Community
5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based Source Water Management Plan
5.5 Water Supply Treatment in Conjunction with Source Water Protection
5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies
Chapter 6: Public Participation - A Primer
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Six Components of Successful Public Participation
6.3 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Case Studies from Pilot Projects
7.1 Overview
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Ocotal
7.4 Esteli
7.5 Matagalpa
Chapter 8: Innovative and Alternative Technologies
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Innovative and Alternative Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua
Chapter 9: Sources of Information
9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations
9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations
9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations
9.4 Educational and Research Institutions
9.5 Documents from the Pilot Projects that May Be Useful
List of References
Glossary of Terms
Glossary of Acronyms
-------
List of Figures
Chapter 1
1.1 What is EPA?
1.2 What is US AID?
1.3 What is a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA)?
1.4 The Impact of Hurricane Mitch
Chapter 2
2.1 Graphs of Public Water Sources in Nicaragua / Access to Drinking Services / Sanitary Disposal
Services
2.2 Laboratory Capacity-Building Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua
2.3 Testing for Coliform Bacteria
2.4 What Is Total Coliform Test?
2.5 What Is Fecal Coliform Test?
2.6 Potential Drinking Water Contaminants and Contaminant Sources in the Three Pilot Project
Communities
2.7 Water Borne Diseases
2.8 Metals Commonly Found in Drinking Water and their Possible Sources in Nicaragua
2.9 Special Risk of Contaminated Drinking Water to Children
2.10 pH scale
2.11 Interpreting EPA Standards and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines
2.12 Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection in Nicaragua
Chapter 4
4.1 Paths of Water Through a Surface Watershed
4.2 Paths of Water Through a Zone of Contribution to a Well
4.3 Source Water Protection Area
4.4 Source Water Protection Area for a Well
4.5 The B oundary of a Watershed...
4.6 Delineating a Watershed for a Surface Drinking Water Source
4.7 Source Water Protection Area for a Well Based on the Calculated Fixed Radius Method
4.8 Using the Volumetric Flow Equation in the Calculated Fixed Radius Method
4.9 Candidate Source Water Protection Areas for Drinking Water Wells in Esteli
4.10 Source Water Protection Area for a Well Using the Uniform Flow Equation
4.11 Three-Tiered Source Water Protection Area for a Well
4.12 List of Potential Contaminants and Contaminant Sources for Wells in Esteli
4.13 Point Sources and Non-Point Sources of Contamination
4.14 Inventories of Potential Contaminant Sources for Four Wells in Esteli
4.15 Simple Example of a Source Water Protection Area in Which the Potential Contaminant Sources Have
Been Mapped
4.16 Ranking Matrix of Potential Source and Contaminants
4.17 Representative Values for Nutrient Loading Rates for Various Sources
Chapter 5
5.1 Steps to a Source Water Management Plan
5.2 Initiation of Source Water Protection in Ocotal
5.3 A Meeting of Stakeholders...
5.4 Example Management Goals and Target Dates for a Source Water Management Plan
5.5 Source Water Management Tools and Possible Implementing Agencies
5.6 Monitoring the Quality of Source Water...
5.7 Local Water Agency
5.8 Time Frame for Developing a Source Water Management Plan
Chapter 6
6.1 Why Should I Protect the Public Drinking Water Source...
6.2 Public Participation in Source Water Protection in Matagalpa
6.3 Sample Press Release
6.4 Flow Chart of Pubic Participation in Source Water Management
Chapter 7
7.1 Report of the Student Ecological Brigade for The Rio Dipilto during the 2000-2001 Coffee Season
7.2 Results of the Coffee Picker Surveys, May 2001
-------
Acknowledgements
The Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the interest and involvement of the United States Agency for International Development in funding this project
to assist Nicaragua in developing its source water protection program. EPA also thanks United States Department of Agriculture for its support and cooperation.
EPA was responsible for managing funding and for significant technical input and review. Offices within EPA that contributed to the development of this project
were the Office of Water and the Office of International Activities. EPA staff persons specifically involved in this work were Dr. Marilyn Ginsberg, Ron Hoffer,
Stephanie Adrian, Chuck Job, and Stan Austin.
EPA extends a special thank you to the individuals and organizations in the communities of Esteli, Matagalpa, and Ocotal in Nicaragua for their interest and coop-
eration in establishing pilot projects upon which to base the national source water protection program. Also, EPA thanks the US AID office in Managua, and the
agencies of Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), and
Aqueducts and Sewerage of Matagalpa (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa) for their assistance and guidance.
EPA thanks Horsley & Witten, Inc. for serving as contractors on the project, and Pan American Health Organization for providing translation and publication serv-
ices for the manual.
-------
1
Introduction to Source Water Assessment and
Protection in Nicaragua
1.1 Background
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Source Water Protection
1.4 The Training Manual
Satellite image of Hurricane Mitch.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001
1.1 Background
The Nicaragua source water protection technical assistance
project, of which this training manual is a part, stems from
a Hurricane Mitch relief effort initiated shortly after that
disaster struck in 1998. The two agencies primarily respon-
sible for assisting Nicaragua in the development of its
source water protection program are the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In
conjunction with USAID, EPA has been working with three
pilot project communities in Nicaragua to introduce some
approaches to drinking water management used in the
United States. EPA is providing technical assistance to
these communities to assist them in adapting and implementing the US approaches to source water assess-
ment and protection and to facilitate work in the communities to aid them in establishing source water pro-
tection programs of their own. The project has culminated in the preparation of this source water protection
training manual and several training sessions for people involved with water resource protection and man-
agement throughout the Hurricane Mitch affected areas of Nicaragua.
The objectives of the workbook are to present useful information to workshop participants on the basic ele-
ments of source water protection, facilitate the development of community drinking water protection pro-
grams, and enable communities to reduce the impact of future natural disasters on water supplies. The audi-
ence for the manual is predominantly community leaders, regional government officials, local and national
water utility representatives, engineers, health agencies, educational organizations, consultants, non-govern-
mental organizations, and graduate level university students.
1.2 Introduction
This training manual is about protecting the quality of
drinking water sources in Nicaragua. Clean drinking
water is a precious commodity. Both quality and quanti-
ty issues routinely present major challenges to commu-
nities. One of the difficulties in addressing these issues is
the lack of 'source water protection' programs.
Protection of all surface and ground water resources in
Nicaragua is an admirable but unrealistic goal. However,
focused efforts to protect those surface waters and
ground waters that serve as sources of drinking water
(generally called ' source water') is not only possible, but Protection of children's health is a major objective of
vital to the health of every community. Drinking water drinking water protection efforts in Nicaragua.
sources include surface waters, like rivers and streams,
and ground water underneath the land surface, accessed through small community wells and larger city wells.
Clean drinking water is critical to reduce, or even eliminate, the
occurrence of many devastating illnesses, especially among
children and the elderly. Clean water can also enhance local
economies by improving the quality of life, and potentially
attracting professionals and businesses to locate in an area,
thereby boosting the prosperity of a community. Local com-
munities in Nicaragua can play a pivotal role in protecting pub-
lic health by protecting drinking water supplies from potential
sources of contamination.
Drinking water sources include rivers and streams.
What is EPA?
The EPA is an executive level agency under the Office of the President of the United States. The mis-
sion of the EPA is "to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment." Programs with-
in the purview of the EPA include drinking water protection, air quality, hazardous waste cleanup, sur-
face water quality, coastal resource protection, wetlands, human health, environmental management
and waste management. The EPA is one of the primary governmental organizations that is responsible
for protecting human health and natural ecosystems, and plays a major role in the regulation, protec-
tion and improvement of the water resources of the United States. Source: EPA, 2001.
Figure 1.1
-------
What is US AID?
The US AID is a United States governmental agency that provides technical assistance to developing
countries "recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms." The
Agency works in six areas: economic growth and agricultural development, population, health and nutri-
tion, environment, democracy and governance, education and training, and humanitarian assistance. It
has individual missions in many countries around the world including Nicaragua (Managua).
Source: US AID, 2001.
1.3 Source Water Protection
Protecting drinking water sources involves several steps, including:
1. Identifying all sources of existing or future water supplies for a community
(discussed in Chapter 4).
2. Performing an assessment of those sources by:
-Delineating source water protection areas (SWPAs) (discussed in Chapter 4);
-Inventorying potential contaminant sources in those areas (discussed in Chapter 4);
-Ranking potential contaminant sources (discussed in Chapter 4); and
-Increasing public awareness/involvement (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6),
3. Developing a management plan to reduce the potential impacts of contaminants on drinking water
sources (discussed in Chapter 5).
These steps comprise a process called 'source water
protection.' In order to achieve comprehensive source
water protection, a community must identify, evaluate,
and manage its source waters. Effective source water
protection programs involve collaborative efforts
among the people who use and impact the water
resource to ensure the safety of that resource.
Residents, local officials, water agencies, businesses,
and farmers in a community all fall into a group of peo-
ple known as 'stakeholders.' Stakeholders can repre-
sent a variety of social, cultural and economic back-
grounds and values, and it is essential that a source
water protection program considers and incorporates
these differences. While varying points of view may
In order to achieve comprehensive source water protec- make consensus difficult to reach, best efforts must be
tion, a community must identify, evaluate, and manage 111
made to balance opinion.
its source waters.
Successful source water protection requires extensive stakeholder involvement as a protection program is
developed and implemented. With stakeholder involvement, everyone in a community has the opportunity
to participate in shaping a drinking water protection program that best fits the needs and resources of the com-
munity. A protection program developed by just a small number of individuals with minimal public partici-
pation is unlikely to succeed because there is insufficient personal investment in the program by affected indi-
viduals and groups in the community. A clear understanding of social, cultural, and economic differences is
essential to meeting the goals of overall public participation. The general public would be unlikely to feel
committed to the goals of the program. However, with extensive involvement of stakeholders in the planning
process, people are far more likely to support implementation of actions to protect the drinking water supply.
Source water protection is best accomplished at the local level of government. Community residents have
the largest stake in protecting their own water supply. Community members can work together with local,
regional, and national government agencies, taking advantage of existing governmental and non-governmen-
tal programs and services to enhance drinking water protection.
It is important to recognize that community drinking water sources are not governed by community bound-
aries. Water sources can often be affected by activities and land uses occurring in other cities and towns with-
in the same source water protection area. Therefore, cooperation with and involvement of neighboring com-
munities are critical components of water supply protection. Communities often share a water source such
as a river or ground water aquifer, only a portion of which is used as a drinking water supply. It is the por-
tion used for drinking water purposes that must be protected from potential sources of contamination.
Crop cultivation (left) is a potential source of drinking
water contamination due to the use of agrochemicals
With stakeholder involvement, everyone in a
community has the opportunity to participate in
shaping a drinking water protection program.
-------
What is a Source Water Protection Area (SWPA)?
A Source Water Protection Area is that land area that does one of two things:
Source Water Protection Area
Watershed
Boundary
Public
Drtnklrig
Water
Intake
Mouth of River
1. contributes overland flow of water to a
stream, river, or lake that serves as a drinking
water supply, or
Public Drinking
Water Well
2. contributes water that flows
to a well that supplies drink-
ing water to a population.
1.4 The Training Manual
This training manual provides a step-by-step guide for communities to develop a source water protection pro-
gram. It supplies information on how a community or group of communities can collaborate to develop and
implement a local drinking water protection plan, and how various interest groups in communities can be
involved in the process. The manual is designed as an instructional and reference guide for a variety of agen-
cies, organizations and individuals interested in developing and implementing local drinking water assess-
ment and protection programs in Nicaragua. The manual is based, in part, upon experiences gained in the
three pilot project communities of Ocotal, Esteli, and Matagalpa. The source water protection experiences in
each of these municipalities are described in detail in Chapter 7. Examples from the pilot projects are used
throughout the manual to illustrate different approaches that may be useful for community source water pro-
tection efforts in Nicaragua.
The Impact of Hurricane Mitch
The 1998 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean was the deadliest in over 200 years. Hurricane Mitch
was the worst of the storms, a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds over 200 mph. It
was responsible for more than 11,000 deaths. Nicaragua was one of the counties hardest hit by
Hurricane Mitch. Torrential rains caused widespread flooding and landslides that severely affected the
northwestern Pacific coast, the north-central region, and the northeastern Atlantic coast.
Figure 1.3
This satellite image of Hurricane
Mitch shows the immense size of the
storm as it hit Central America.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 2001.
The aftermath of Hurricane Mitch underscored a tremendous need to develop local programs to manage
and protect source waters in Nicaragua. The impact of Hurricane Mitch on Nicaragua's water and san-
itation systems was tremendous. The damage and problems continued to multiply days and months after
Mitch, due to the deforestation caused by the storm. Severe erosion and mudslides overloaded the
already damaged water and sanitation systems. Many communities in Mitch-affected areas were with-
out potable water for extended periods after the storm. The threat of waterborne disease was widespread
as a result of contamination of rivers and streams used for drinking water.
Figure 1.4
-------
^^>v-
- , -- -*. lfc " ^k^».J* *
V-- -.1
>; \
"- -- "v'
s ;"
*^^t. ^"-,1"-
*V **.'^' >;~-
- >^?;:
-A »- * *^*
The heavy rains of Hurricane Mitch caused dramatic erosion
in many streambeds (above). This erosion, exacerbated by
deforestation of the hillsides contributed to contamination of
surface drinking water supplies. The rainfall also washed
such huge volumes of sediment into the rivers that sand
removal was still ongoing in many areas (right) two years
after the storm.
Reconstruction projects have been undertaken to repair and replace the water and sewer systems dam-
aged or destroyed by the hurricane. Emergency health campaigns helped to prevent outbreaks of
waterborne diseases following the disaster. But the effects of the hurricane are still visible in
Nicaragua and other regions of Central America. Much of the worst devastation following the
Hurricane was felt in areas where land uses and water and sanitation services were inadequate prior to
the disaster. While it would be impossible to completely control pervasive drinking water contamina-
tion during a storm as destructive as Hurricane Mitch, it is possible to reduce the impact of future
events, as well as to make dramatic improvements in water quality under normal weather conditions.
This training manual is designed in large part to assist Nicaraguan communities as they develop their
source water protection programs. These programs will provide the communities with a greater degree
of resiliency in terms of drinking water quality in the event of future natural disasters like Hurricane
Mitch.
Figure 1.4 (continued)
-------
2
Water Quality and Community Health
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Sources and Health Effects of Common Drinking Water Contaminants
2.3 Drinking Water Standards
Typical freshwater stream in northern Nicaragua.
2.1 Introduction
Clean drinking water plays a very important role in
the health of a community. While most cities in
Nicaragua are able to provide treatment for the
municipal drinking water supply, the situation is
vastly different in rural areas. In rural areas, the
number of residents receiving treated water is con-
siderably smaller, and use of untreated drinking
water supplies is common. According to the Pan
American Health Organization (PAHO), approxi-
mately 37 percent of the estimated total Nicaraguan
population of 4.46 million people has access to treat-
ed drinking water (distributed by piping systems).
The urban population is estimated to be 63.7 percent
100-
Q. Q.
Public Water Sources
in Nicaragua
70%
LJ
30%
Ground Water Surface Water
100-
o
TO
n
Q.
0 50-
5
n-
A
ccess to Drinking Services
93%
12%
Urban
Rural
100-
% of Population
3 8
Sanitary Disposal Services
87%
54%
Urban
Rural
of the total population, or approximately 2.84 mil-
lion people (PAHO, 1999). Of that urban popula-
tion, it is estimated that 93 percent has access to
drinking water services, while only 12 percent of the
rural population has similar access. Forty-two per-
cent of the total population has access to sanitary
disposal services (including the use of latrines). Of
the urban population, 87 percent benefit from such
services, but only 54 percent of the rural population
does (PAHO, 1999).
Community access to clean drinking water can be
improved by protecting drinking water sources and
managing them for contaminant reduction and pre-
vention for both present and future uses. In 1990, 70
percent of the public water supply systems in
Nicaragua used ground water, while the remaining
30 percent used surface water (PAHO, 1998). While
ground water is generally more protected from con-
tamination than surface water, ground water supplies
can be extremely difficult to clean up once they
become contaminated. They are underground and
therefore impossible to see, and water underground
moves relatively slowly, meaning that once contam-
ination enters the ground water, it can take many
years to show up in drinking water wells. These fac-
tors cause ground water remediation to be very dif-
ficult, and make protection of these waters from ini-
tial contamination extremely important.
The majority of surface drinking water supplies in
Nicaragua that receive treatment uses a combination
of filtration, settling basins, aeration, chemical addi-
tives (to assist in contaminant removal), and chlori-
nation. Chlorine is the most commonly used disin-
fectant worldwide because it is highly effective
against microbes, is widely available, and is inex-
pensive relative to other treatment options. Water
from surface sources must be filtered of sediments
and organic matter prior to chlorination.
Chlorination of turbid water can be ineffective and
chlorine can react with the organic matter to form
harmful byproducts such as trihalomethanes,
haloacetic acids and chlorite (EPA, 200la). Further,
the amount of chlorine needed to treat all of the
harmful bacteria in turbid water can far exceed safe
levels for humans.
Treatment plants, such as the one in Matagalpa, also
use other chemicals to remove bacteria. For exam-
ple, aluminum sulfate and calcium oxide are added
to the water in specified amounts during the treat-
ment process, based on the quality of the influent
water (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, et al., 1999).
These chemicals act as coagulants, and promote
removal of suspended sediment, thereby enhancing
the treatment process.
Drinking water is aerated during the treatment process to
reduce contaminate levels.
Figure 2.1
Settling chambers are used to remove sediment from drinking
water.
It is important to note that typical water treatment
systems for either surface or ground water supplies
do not remove some categories of contaminants, par-
-------
ticularly nitrates, organic chemicals, and dissolved
metals. For example, a drinking water source con-
taminated with agricultural chemicals, namely fertil-
izer and pesticides, or with metals like arsenic or
copper from a mining operation, would not be
cleansed by treatment processes that remove
microbes. Prevention and management of pollutants
in a source water area, therefore, play a key role in
helping to protect drinking water.
For people who do not receive treated drinking
water from a public water supply system, simple fil-
tration methods can be helpful. A sand filter can
remove many contaminants from a surface supply of
drinking water, including clays and silts, some
microorganisms, natural organic matter, iron, and
magnesium (EPA, 1999). Sand filters can be used in
individual homes or by small groups of several near-
by households, as is done in some households in the
Dipilto River watershed north of Ocotal. They can
also be installed to serve a larger number of people,
such as occupants in a hotel or workers at a coffee
farm. Selva Negra coffee plantation resort in
Matagalpa uses sand filtration to treat water near its
source on the mountainside before it is delivered to
the hotel and the workers' community.
After water has been filtered, it is possible to disin-
fect it in the home with chlorine, which can be pur-
chased in liquid form in local stores. It is extremely
important that people read, understand, and follow
the directions for using this type of disinfectant
because chlorine and its byproducts can be toxic to
human health if used improperly (Proyecto Cuencas
Matagalpa, et al., 1999). While chlorination affects
the taste of water, and may be objectionable to some
people, the benefits of its use far outweigh the risks
of exposure to microbes in drinking water.
2.2 Sources and Health Effects of
Common Drinking Water Contaminants
A variety of both natural and man-made contami-
nants can affect drinking water quality. Typical
drinking water contaminants include microbes,
Laboratory Capacity-Building Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua
Water quality testing for drinking water throughout Nicaragua is generally carried out at the centralized
MINSA and ENACAL laboratories located in Managua. In some areas, smaller regional laboratories
perform basic water quality testing such as bacteriological tests, temperature, pH, and nitrite/nitrate tests.
However, the current laboratory system in Nicaragua suffers from inadequate resources for routine test-
ing and monitoring, detailed water quality testing, proper technician training, and modern equipment.
A current project administered by PAHO, part of the United Nations system, is working to build the
capacity of the central laboratories of MINSA, ENACAL, and a university laboratory, by providing train-
ing and equipment. The laboratory capacity-building portion of this project receiving significant funding
from EPA. Eventually this capacity-building program will serve as the foundation for laboratory accred-
itation in Nicaragua, and capacity building in the regional laboratories.
This work is part of PAHO's Regional Plan of Action to Improve Access to and Quality of Drinking
Water in Latin America, which was a product of the 1994 Summit of the Americas. Similar improve-
ments are being implemented concurrently in El Salvador through the same program.
Figure 2.2
nitrates, solvents and petroleum products, pesticides,
and metals. The relative occurrence of these cate-
gories of contaminants in drinking water in
Nicaragua is largely unknown because of limited
water quality testing capabilities in the country.
However, routine bacterial testing does occur at
most if not all of municipal drinking water treatment
facilities, and laboratory data generally indicate sig-
nificant levels of total and fecal coliform bacteria in
surface water being used for drinking water supplies.
Bacterial data for ground water sources, such as in
Esteli, was not available in the regional laboratory
analysis data sheet provided by the Nicaraguan
Aqueduct and Sewer Company (ENACAL), and
may not be collected at many ground water well
sites (ENACAL - Esteli, 1999).
Morbidity and mortality data for water borne ill-
nesses is maintained by the Ministry of Health
(MINSA), and can provide some insight into the lev-
els of harmful bacterial exposure possible attributa-
ble to contaminated drinking water. Such data from
exposure to the other types of contaminants (nitrates,
solvents, pesticides, and metals) do not generally
exist for Nicaragua. However, there is a reasonable
likelihood that some or all of these contaminants are
present in drinking water, depending on the location
of the water supply and land uses in the area.
Without water quality data to reveal the levels of
these contaminants, it is impossible to speculate how
they may be affecting the health of the population.
However, general background information of the
health effects of exposure to these contaminants is
provided in the sections that follow.
The contaminants described in this chapter are like-
ly to affect water quality, to some extent, in every
community in Nicaragua. The most pervasive con-
taminants, based on observation of land use and
human activity, are probably microorganisms and
nitrates. Depending on the intensity of agricultural
and/or industrial activity in a source water area, sol-
vents and petroleum products, pesticides, and metals
may or may not pose a significant risk to human
health. The degree of risk can be determined large-
ly through the source water assessment process
described in Chapter 4.
2.2.A Microbial Contaminants
What Are They and What Are the Sources?
Sometimes open defecation takes place in unvegetated areas,
where people congregate and wait. Here, coffee pickers wait
for a truck to bring their bags of coffee to a drying facility.
Microbes are microscopic life forms. Certain
microbes normally inhabit the intestines of humans
and animals and aid in digestion. While most
microbes are harmless and many even perform ben-
eficial functions, pathogenic microbes can cause ill-
ness when ingested with drinking water or food.
Harmful microbes include certain bacteria, viruses,
and protozoa. These invisible contaminants can get
into drinking water in several ways:
direct urination or defecation by humans and/or
animals near or into a stream, river or lake used for
drinking water;
discharge from a sewage treatment plant inside a
source water protection area; and
overflow of waste from poorly constructed or
flooded latrines in a source water protection area,
especially near wells and surface waters.
This drawing shows a magnified view of a bacterium, invisi-
ble to the naked eye.
-------
Testing for Coliform Bacteria
Coliform bacteria are typically found in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals, but can also be
found naturally in the environment. Because they are generally associated with human and animal fecal
matter, the presence of coliform bacteria is used as an indicator for other harmful pathogens in drinking
water associated with human and animal fecal matter. Human bacterial pathogens include Escherichia
coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp. and V. cholerae. Two tests are used to identify potential fecal con-
tamination: the total coliform test and the fecal coliform test. The total coliform test is used to determine
general levels of bacterial contamination while the fecal coliform test specifically indicates the presence
of bacteria originating from fecal matter.
Figure 2.3
What is a Total Coliform Test?
The most common method of testing for total coliforms is the membrane filter method. This is a simple
method that can provide results within 24 hours. To perform the total coliform test, 100 ml of water is
filtered through a sterile membrane with pore diameter small enough that the bacteria remain on the fil-
ter membrane. The membrane is then placed in a dish on a growth medium and incubated in a small spe-
cialized oven for 24 hours. After the incubation period, each individual coliform microbe will have
grown into a visible colony on the filter membrane, and can be counted. The result of the test is pre-
sented as number of bacterial colonies per 100 ml of water. Typically, a drinking water supply is con-
sidered clean only when zero colonies per 100 ml of water are present.
(source: Madigan, et al., 2000; Gaudy and Gaudy, 1980)
Figure 2.4
What is a Fecal Coliform Test?
A fecal coliform test indicates only the presence of fecal coliforms, which are a subset of total coliform
bacteria. Fecal coliforms grow only in the intestines of humans and animals. The membrane filter
method is used for this test as well, but the growth medium and the incubation temperature are different.
Bile salts are included in the growth medium so that bacteria that do not grow in human and animal intes-
tines do not grow in the medium, and the incubation temperature is increased slightly. Again, results are
measured in colonies per 100 ml of filtered water, and water is only considered clean if the test reveals
zero colonies growing on the medium.
(source: Madigan, et al., 2000; Gaudy and Gaudy, 1980)
Figure 2.5
The presence of microbes in a water supply is deter-
mined by laboratory tests that culture indicator bac-
teria on a special growth medium (see text boxes at
left). The results of these tests predict the likelihood
of the presence of harmful microorganisms in the
water.
What Are the Human Health Effects?
When certain microbes enter a human body they can
cause people to get sick. Different microbes cause
different illnesses. The most common illness caused
by ingestion of water contaminated with fecal bacte-
ria is dysentery, an infectious disease marked by
dangerous hemorrhagic diarrhea. Children can suf-
fer serious dehydration, and in severe cases, may
even die. Other common waterborne illnesses asso-
Children can suffer serious effects, particularly dehydration,
from waterborne diseases.
ciated with microbes in drinking water include
cholera, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever (Evans and
Brachman, 1991).
Potential Drinking Water Contaminants and Contaminant Sources in the
Three Pilot Project Communities
Community
Esteli
Matagalpa
Ocotal
Potential Contaminant
Solvents
Petroleum Products
Nitrates
Bacteria
Bacteria
Natural Organic Material:
coffee husks, honey water
Pesticides
Bacteria
Natural Organic Material:
coffee husks, honey water
Pesticides
Potential Source
Machinery, furniture factories,
auto repair shops
Gas stations, factories
Sewage, fertilizer
Waste and wastewater
Waste and wastewater
Coffee processing
Coffee farms, agriculture
Waste and wastewater
Coffee processing
Coffee farms, agriculture
Figure 2.6
-------
w
vi
Tl
en
su
ed
Cl
sp
di
Water Borne Diseases
ater borne diseases are caused by different types of microbial organisms, including bacteria, protozoa,
ruses, and parasitic worms, that can be transmitted in water to humans from other humans and animals.
lese harmful microbes generally thrive in the gastrointestinal tract of humans or animals and are pres-
t in the environment when they are excreted. Once in the environment, these microbes have varying
rvival times, but can be transmitted via surface runoff, on food, or through direct contact with infect-
humans and animals (Evans and Brachman, 1991).
lolera, cryptosporidiosis, typhoid fever and enteric fever caused by Escherichia coll are all commonly
read via water when the diseases are present in the human population. A general list of water borne
seases and information on their transmission is provided in the figure below.
Common Waterborne Diseases Transmitted Through Contaminated Drinking Water
Disease
Cholera
Cryptosporidiosis
Salmonellosis
Shigellosis
Typhoid Fever
Primary Routes of Transmission
Stool to Water
Stool to Water
Stool to Food
Stool to Human
Stool to Water
Urine to Water
Contaminated Food
Figure 2.7
Microbial contamination of drinking water poses a
significant threat to human health in Nicaragua. A
cholera epidemic hit Nicaragua and other Latin
American countries in the early and mid-1990s. A
cholera control campaign in Nicaragua, which
involved improved sanitation and public education,
brought the number of cholera cases back under con-
trol, but only after the control campaign was again
challenged by Hurricane Mitch in 1998. In 2000,
the number of reported cases of cholera in Nicaragua
was down to eleven (PAHO, 2001).
According to MINSA, however, dysentery remains a
threatening public health problem in Nicaragua
(MINSA, personal communication, November,
2000). In 1990, for example, the number of report-
ed deaths due to diarrhea was 2,166 (PAHO, 1998).
The numbers of reported cases of diarrhea in 1993
and 1994 were 255,000 and 264,366, respectively
(PAHO, 1999). It can be reasonably assumed that a
large proportion of these cases is attributable to
ingestion of contaminated drinking water, as
opposed to poor hygiene or contaminated food,
although the exact proportion is unknown. By 1996,
the number of reported deaths due to diarrhea had
been reduced to just 82 due to national control
efforts (PAHO, 1999), but the number of cases con-
tinues to be high.
Intestinal infectious diseases like dysentery and
cholera are of additional concern because they are
among the leading causes of death of children under
one year of age (PAHO, 1998). Of the 2,166 report-
ed deaths from diarrhea in Nicaragua in 1990, 75
percent were children under the age of one (PAHO,
1998).
Source water protection can play an integral role in
the prevention of outbreaks of disease, such as
dysentery and cholera, caused by microbial contam-
ination of drinking water and food. Cholera and
dysentery can be propagated through both inade-
quate sanitation and contaminated drinking water.
Managing land uses, identifying and managing
potential contaminant sources, and planning for the
future can all contribute to reduced risk to these dis-
eases and can help to limit the magnitude of future
disease outbreaks.
2.2.B Nitrates
What Are They and What Are the Sources?
Nitrates are molecules comprised of nitrogen and
oxygen in the chemical form NO3. Nitrates are nat-
urally occurring in low levels in the environment as
part of the nitrogen cycle. The greatest sources of
nitrates are agricultural fertilizers, but human and
animal wastes can also contribute nitrates to the
environment.
Nitrates can affect both surface and ground water
drinking supplies. Treating drinking water contami-
nated with nitrates is expensive, and can be compli-
cated by the presence of other types of contaminants.
While nitrate concentrations can vary over time due
to atmospheric sources, agricultural inputs, and
weather conditions, it is reasonably safe to assume
that nitrates are affecting drinking water quality in
Nicaragua, and should be a target of source water
management efforts.
Cattle wastes washing into rivers and streams are a significant
source of nitrogen and bacterial input to drinking water supplies.
-------
What are the Human Health Effects?
Elevated levels of nitrates in drinking water are of
concern because of their potential effect on infants,
young children, and pregnant women. Nitrates
above 10 mg/1 in drinking water can cause blue baby
syndrome (methemoglobinemia), an illness charac-
terized by oxygen starvation in the blood, which can
lead to mental retardation and, in severe cases, even
death. Ingesting nitrates is also associated with ele-
vated cancer risk, especially gastrointestinal cancers.
2.2.C Solvents and Petroleum Products
What Are They and What Are the Sources?
Some businesses and industrial operations use petro-
leum-based chemicals or man-made organic sol-
vents in the course of performing their work. For
example, automotive repair shops often use and dis-
pose of a variety
of solvents or
petroleum prod-
ucts including
motor oil and
degreasers.
Painting opera-
tions use paint
thinners, varnish-
es, oils and
stains. Gas sta-
tions store and
deliver fuel. All
of these materials can pollute drinking water if they
are not handled, stored, or disposed of safely.
What Are the Human Health Effects?
Solvents can pose significant health risks to people
of all ages, especially when ingested routinely over
long periods of time, even at seemingly low concen-
trations. Many organics are associated with an
increased risk of cancer in all age groups. They are
also linked to liver problems and can impair the nor-
mal function of the circulatory and nervous systems.
Women may experience reproductive difficulties,
and children are at a high risk of developing a spec-
trum of health problems related to exposure to these
chemicals in drinking water (EPA, 200Ib, online:
www. epa.gov/safewater/mcl. html).
2.2.D Pesticides
What Are They and What Are the Sources?
A pesticide is "any substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating any pest" (EPA, 200Ic).
Pesticides include insecticides, which are intended
to kill or repel insects; fungicides, which are intend-
ed to kill fungi; and herbicides, intended to kill
unwanted weeds and plants. In Nicaragua, common
pesticides include gramoxone (a herbicide),
methamidophos (an insecticide), endosulfan (an
insecticide), and metalaxyl (a general use fungicide).
When chemicals such as these are used to control
weeds and insects in crop production or to control
household pests, they can contaminate drinking
water supplies either by way of disposal or in runoff.
The active ingredients in most pesticides are usually
either synthetic organic compounds (such as those
Ridomil is a trade name for Metalaxyl, a fungicide used on
crops in Nicaragua.
listed above), or toxic metals, like copper or arsenic
(use of arsenic was more common in the past than it
is today). These chemicals are poisonous to humans
and can cause short-term effects like headaches,
nausea and vomiting, and/or long-term impacts like
nervous system damage and cancer.
What Are the Human Health Effects?
The health effects of exposure to pesticides through ingestion in drinking water are similar to those of sol-
vents. Pesticides are also organic chemicals, and the health effects are often similar. Liver and kidney prob-
lems, as well as increased cancer risk, have been connected to pesticide exposure through drinking water
(EPA, 200Ib).
Children are especially at risk when they routinely ingest significant concentrations of pesticides in drinking
water. There are "critical periods" in human development when exposure to a toxin is particularly damaging.
For example, pesticides may harm a child by blocking absorption of important food nutrients necessary for
normal healthy growth. Also, if a child's excretory system is not fully developed, the body may not fully
remove pesticides. (EPA, 200Id)
2.2.E Metals
What Are They and What Are The Sources?
Metals can occur naturally in drinking water sources by leaching from the soil. Metals are also associated
with a range of human sources including urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater dis-
charges, oil and gas production, mining, and farming. In acidic soil conditions (low pH), metals that are
clinging to sediments from natural or human sources can be released into ground and surface water by leach-
ing from the soils. These metals include naturally occurring trace elements such as lead, mercury, iron, and
copper. Concentrations of these metals at greater than trace levels are often associated with industrial or min-
ing agriculture. Metals in drinking water can also originate from organometallic compounds used in organic
pesticides (for example, the fungicide copper sulfate) or from wood and leather preservation processes (which
often use tin or arsenic) (Manahan, 1994). Lead and other metals can also leach from old water distribution
pipes when drinking water is very acidic (low pH).
What Are The Human Health Effects?
Although at low levels metals are important in the human diet, at
high levels they can be dangerous to human health and the envi-
ronment. Metals can be a serious source of contamination in drink-
ing water. Once metals are dissolved in water, they become avail-
able for biological uptake. Metals above standards can be toxic to
aquatic life, and can have significant negative human health effects
when ingested through drinking water. Some metals can interfere
with human and animal nervous system function and others can
cause reproductive and developmental problems. For example,
inorganic arsenic in drinking water is associated with high inci-
dences of skin cancer and other cancers (WHO, 1993). Copper can
have gastrointestinal effects, although the exact levels above which
adverse human health effects are seen are not well defined. Lead can accumulate in the human skeleton and
can inhibit enzyme development and calcium metabolism in infants and children. Lead is also toxic to the
Mining operations can be a source of metals
in drinking water.
-------
central and peripheral nervous systems (WHO, 1993). While the most common source of lead in drinking
water is plumbing and distribution pipes, additional industrial sources are possible and should be managed
(WHO, 1993)
Metals Commonly Found in Drinking Water and their Possible Sources in Nicaragua
pH Scale
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Effects of ingestion in
Drinking Water
Skin damage, circulation
system problems,
increased risk of cancer
Kidney Damage
Short term exposure:
gastrointestinal distress;
Long term exposure:
liver or kidney damage
Infants and children:
delays in physical or
mental development;
Adults: kidney problems,
high blood pressure
Sources in Nicaragua
Erosion of natural deposits, mining
byproduct, runoff from glass and
electronics production wastes
Corrosion of galvanized pipes,
erosion of natural deposits,
discharge from metal refineries,
leachate from disposed batteries
and paints
Corrosion of household plumbing
systems, erosion of natural deposits,
mining byproducts
Corrosion of household plumbing
systems, erosion of natural deposits
Figure 2.8
Special Risk of Contaminated Drinking Water to Children
Diseases and ailments caused by exposure to various contaminants typically pose a greater risk to chil-
dren than to adults. Infants and children may be especially sensitive to health risks posed by organic
chemicals (solvents, petroleum products, and pesticides) and metals for several reasons:
their internal organs are still developing and maturing;
in relation to their body weight, infants and children eat and drink more than adults, potentially
increasing their exposure to chemicals in food and water; and
certain behaviors, such as playing on floors or treated outdoor areas, or putting objects in their
mouths, increase children's exposure to chemicals used in homes and neighborhoods.
Figure 2.9
pH is a measurement of the acidity of a substance,
based on the concentration of hydrogen ions pres-
ent. It provides an understanding of the general
conditions in the medium being tested, for exam-
ple, soils, streams and ground water. pH is present-
ed on a log 10 scale from 1 to 14, with neutral being
pH 7. The pH of natural surface water and ground
water vary considerably from one location to
another due to the natural conditions of the area,
but monitoring of pH changes can provide a good
indication of possible contamination of a water
source.
Figure 2.10
Gastric Fluids
Volcanic Soils
Acid
Mine Drainage
Orange Juice
Tomato Juice
Acidic Soils
Cabbage
Urine
Pure Water
Sea Water
Baking Soda
Alkaline Soils
Ammonia Solution
Soapy Water
Bleach
Liquid Drain Cleaner
2.3 Drinking Water Standards
Most countries seek to protect public health by setting legal stan-
dards for drinking water quality. In the United States, drinking
water suppliers are required to test for an extensive list of pollu-
tants ("priority" pollutants) on a routine basis, and if a violation of a standard is reported, corrective
measures must be taken.
Both the EPA National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996; EPA, 200la online) and the World Health
Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (original version published in 1984 and
1985 and revised edition published in 1993 and 1996; WHO, 1996) can be used as references for safe
drinking water standards for common contaminants. These standards provide a basis on which govern-
ments worldwide can manage, monitor and regulate drinking water quality for the protection of human
health. Both documents are available on the internet. The EPA Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Standards can be located on the internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/estandares.html. The World
Health Organization Drinking Water Guidelines can be found on the internet in English at
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ.
-------
Interpreting EPA Standards and WHO Drinking Water Guidelines
The units of measure applied to both the EPA standards and WHO guidelines are "parts per million"
(ppm, also expressed as milligrams per liter or mg/1) and "parts per billion" (ppb, also expressed as
micrograms per liter or mg/1). These concentrations are extremely minute. One part per million can be
thought of as the equivalent of one minute in two years. One part per billion can be thought of as one
second in 32 years. Yet, these minute concentrations are the levels at which impacts to human health
have either been documented or extrapolated from research, based on an average person's daily exposure
to the contaminants through drinking water (WHO, 1996). It is therefore important to be mindful that
even small quantities of certain chemicals entering water can contaminate a large volume of drinking
water.
With regard to bacterial contaminants, the drinking water standards are commonly described in number
of organisms per 100 milliliters of water (the amount which is commonly filtered for the test). Both the
EPA Drinking Water Standards and the WHO Guidelines set the limit of fecal coliforms and other
microbes in drinking water at zero (undetectable). While contact with just a single disease organism can
cause disease, the higher the concentration of that organism in a volume of drinking or bathing water, the
higher the risk of contracting the disease with which that organism is associated. Testing for viruses and
protozoa is not common, as the tests are specialized and expensive.
MINSA is responsible for defining the national drinking water quality standards in Nicaragua for all pub-
lic supplies of water, such as those managed by ENACAL. Water quality testing is carried out at the
national water quality laboratory in Managua as well as at several smaller regional laboratories. While
improvements to Nicaragua's laboratory capacity are in process (see "Laboratory Capacity-Building
Program for Drinking Water Quality in Nicaragua" in this chapter), the quality of all public drinking
water in Nicaragua can still not be ensured up to the standards. This is a primary reason in support of a
source water protection program in Nicaragua.
Data collected by MINSA show that surface water entering
the Ocotal treatment plant from the Rio Dipilto exhibits bac-
terial contamination.
Figure 2.11
Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection in Nicaragua
Several national laws in Nicaragua outline the potential significant roles of other agencies in source water
protection in Nicaragua. These laws are described in more detail in Chapter 6, but are summarized here:
The Ley 290, the Ley de Organization, Competencias y Procedimientos del Poder Ejecutivo (1998), out-
lines the responsibility of all national government agencies.
Ley 217 , the Ley General del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales (1996), establishes the respon-
sibility of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) for regulating and setting
national environmental standards.
Decree Number 33-95, Disposiciones Para el Control de la Contamination Provientes de las Descargas
de Aguas Residuales Domesticas, Industriales, e Agropecuarias (1995), sets maximum limits on various
contaminant concentrations in the discharge of different categories of household, industrial and agricul-
tural wastes into sewer systems and surface waters.
Figure 2.12
-------
Benefits from Source Water Protection
3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health
3.2 Environmental Benefits
3.3 Conclusion
Clean water is fundamental to the health of human populations and ecosystems. Beyond the benefit to public
health, there are a number of economic, social and environmental advantages stemming from source water
protection. However, accounting for all the advantages of source water protection in economic terms is dif-
ficult, and the human benefits provided by an unimpaired water supply are rarely explained in the tradition-
al form of economic valuation. Consequently, clarifying the benefits of source water protection is usually
done in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner.
3.1 Direct and Indirect Benefits to Human Health
The most obvious benefit of clean drinking water is maintaining public
health. Water-related diseases worldwide are estimated to cost at least
$125 billion/year in direct medical expenses and lost work time (Gleick,
1998). While improved management of potential contaminant sources
will not remove all sources of contamination, it can significantly reduce
them. A reduction in contaminants affecting the water resource under- Source water protection can benefit
standably then translates into a reduction in both direct and indirect costs coffee workers and others by improv-
attributable to drinking water contamination. inS drinking water quality and reducing
risks of some illnesses.
3.1.A Family Benefits
The social benefits of source water protection are best expressed in terms of avoided impacts and their asso-
ciated costs. Generally speaking, an increase in water quality can be expected to result in a decrease in dis-
ease, especially in infants, children and the elderly. Costs associated with treating disease, including travel
to medical facilities, time away from work, and the cost of medication, can be very burdensome, especially
among impoverished or low-income families and individuals. According to PAHO (1998), the average cost
per patient to provide health care services and drugs per illness episode was estimated at 30 cordobas for chil-
dren ages 0-5 years and 65 cordobas for children over 6 years of age. Depending on the illness, the govern-
ment health center may bear much of the cost, although in some cases the patient's family must bear the bulk
of the health services cost.
Whether paid by the government or patients, the
costs of water borne diseases in Nicaragua are sig-
nificant. The average per capita income in 1999 was
just less than 4000 cordobas, or approximately
US$300 (World Bank, 2001). The annual per capi-
ta cost of medical attention resulting from contami-
nated drinking water could be as much as one to
even five percent of the average per capita income,
depending on the number of medical visits required
in a year (World Bank, 2000).
Many drugs used to target diseases such as tubercu-
losis, malaria, dengue, and sexually transmitted dis-
eases, as well as drugs to improve the health of
mothers and children, should be available free of
charge at local health centers (PAHO, 1998).
However, the availability of drugs in 1996 averaged
only between 60 and 70 percent of the actual need
(PAHO, 1998). Clearly, a reduction in illnesses can
reduce the strain on an already limited supply of
drugs, save significant expenses, and reduce demand
on the limited number of trained medical technicians
(tecnicos) in the country.
Clean water is fundamental to the health of human populations
and ecosystems.
Illness has other implications for families as well. It
can cause both physical and emotional stress, espe-
cially if a family member needs care for an extend-
ed time. Care requirements for an ill child or an
elder are likely to preclude carrying out of regular
household duties or earning daily wages to support a
household. Family income can be reduced at the
same time that money is needed for medical expens-
es. School attendance can also go down due to ill-
ness or to the need to care for a family member with
an illness.
Protecting drinking water sources from contamina-
tion could reduce the illness-related costs to fami-
lies. When the savings to an individual household
due to availability of clean water are multiplied
across a community or watershed, the total econom-
ic value is considerable.
3.1.B Community Economic Benefits
Effective water resource protection at the commu-
nity level can provide a stimulant to the economy
at both local and national levels.
Ecotourism could be advanced in areas with safe
drinking water.
-------
For example, dependable potable water and an effi-
cient drinking water delivery system may increase
the potential for investment by foreign or domestic
companies seeking locations with a solid infrastruc-
ture.
Well-protected and well-managed drinking water
sources also increase the overall quality of life in a
community, and can enhance recreational values in a
source water area. Healthy and inviting surface
waters (rivers, streams, lakes) provide opportunities
for fishing, swimming and bathing. Ecotourism can
be advanced as a potentially prosperous business
venture if people know there are recreational oppor-
tunities and access to a safe source of drinking water
in an environmentally attractive area. Property val-
ues may also increase over time with improvements
in the quality of both surface and ground water
resources.
Finally, source water protection reduces the need for
water treatment. The cost of maintenance and
repairs for a community drinking water treatment
plant that is stressed by excessive levels of contami-
nants can be disproportionately high. Source water
protection can help reduce suspended solids in a
river (caused by erosion) as well as bacterial loading
from livestock and open human defecation.
Sediment loads can interfere with the efficiency of a
treatment plant, as can sporadic excess loads of bac-
teria.
Good management of a surface source water protec-
tion area can reduce the potential for excessive loads
of pollutants to a river. It can also result in more
consistent water quality conditions in a surface
water source, and thus help ensure efficient and cost-
effective operation of the treatment facility.
Source water protection for drinking water wells can
also be effective in reducing water treatment needs
and associated costs. Chemicals, such as petroleum
products or solvents, that may leach into the ground
from surface spills, gas stations and other potential
sources can eventually reach ground water.
Leaders involved in source water protection
efforts may enhance their capacity to accom-
plish other key tasks in a community.
Ground water contaminated by these chemicals can
be very expensive to treat, and in some cases may
render a drinking water source unusable. By pro-
tecting the area around a drinking water well, the
risks of serious contamination and associated treat-
ment costs can be minimized and the source of
drinking water can be conserved for long-term use.
In areas such as Esteli that depend primarily on
ground water pumped through a series of wells
located throughout the city, the benefits of source
water protection are readily apparent.
3.1.C Capacity Building Benefits
The process of source water assessment and protec-
tion can build significant capacity to address other
important local issues. Protecting source water is a
broad, long-term community undertaking that
requires establishment of a comprehensive network
of stakeholders. The gains earned from forging ties
among stakeholders, including individuals in the
community, non-governmental organizations, business associations, schools, and governments, can be sig-
nificant and enduring. Leaders involved in directing a source water protection program may gain sufficient
political standing to accomplish other key tasks within a community. Also, the benefits of successful source
water protection in one town can inspire other communities, thereby broadening the impact of one commu-
nity's success.
3.2 Environmental Benefits
While this manual focuses predominantly on source water protection for the purpose of improving drinking
water quality, there are considerable environmental gains to be achieved from safeguarding water resources.
A healthy ecosystem able to support the array of flora and fauna native to Nicaragua, generally requires a
water source free of significant pollution. When overland flow of water picks up excessive levels of nutrients,
chemicals, or harmful microorganisms on its way to join a river or stream, environmental problems can result.
Unnatural constituents in water can cause an imbalance in the aquatic environment that may become evident
through a change in the animal or plant community, loss of one or more species, and/or an overabundance of
one species or group of species, for example an algal bloom.
The Lago Puerto Viejo along the Pan American Highway north of Managua is an example of a surface water
ecosystem experiencing an overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. The overgrowth is most likely due to an exces-
sive amount of nutrients (probably phos-
phorous) in the surface water and/or
ground water entering the lake. It can be
reasonably assumed that the excess nutri-
ents are coming from fertilizer used on
surrounding agricultural land. While
water quality tests could help character-
ize the condition of the aquatic environ-
ment, the thick coverage of aquatic vege-
tation likely indicates the lake is eutroph-
ic, meaning that it suffers from an accel-
erated growth rate of aquatic plant
species. Eutrophication leads to oxygen-
starved conditions in a surface water
body. It is often true that highly eutro-
phied lakes such as Lago Puerto Viejo are
unable to support normal populations of
fish, amphibians
plants.
and native aquatic Lago Puerto Viejo
If surface runoff rainwater infiltrating the ground picks up contaminants from a chemical dump or from mine
tailings for example, it can carry those materials into the ground water system. When contaminated ground
water discharges to a lake, stream, river, or even the ocean, it can damage ecosystems in the receiving waters.
In general, ecosystems free of significant contaminant stress are more healthy than contaminated ecosystems,
and therefore are better able to provide a normal range of natural benefits.
-------
3.3 Conclusion
Source water protection has significant human health, economic, social and environmental benefits. A com-
munity with safe drinking water is a more healthy community, experiencing fewer social costs associated with
illness and enjoying more potential for economic well-being. Source water protection efforts can result in
immediate benefits, especially if a single problematic contaminant, such as bacteria, is identified and signif-
icantly reduced. The greatest advantage of these efforts, however, is the potential for long-term protection of
drinking water sources. A comprehensive source water protection program can improve the quality of life
for individuals, families, communities, and the nation for generations to come.
-------
Source Water Protection Areas
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Surface Water Sources
4.3 Delineating and Mapping Protection Areas for Wells
4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of Contamination
4.5 Ranking Potential Sources of Contamination
4.6 Conclusion
What is a Source Water Protection Area?
A Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) is defined as the area that
supplies water to a public water supply, ground water well, or sur-
face water intake. It is this area through which contaminants are
likely to pass and eventually reach the ground water well or sur-
face water intake. The SWPA can be delineated using one of sever-
al methods, which are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
4.1 Introduction
The first step in protecting drinking water is to identi-
fy the geographic area(s) that provide drinking water
to a river intake or to a well. Such an area is either 1)
the watershed area contributing water to that part of a
river or stream that is used as a source of drinking
water, or 2) a zone of contribution to a well (that is,
the land area beneath which water flows to a well that
extracts drinking water from the underground
aquifer).
After rain water reaches the earth's surface, it gener-
ally either seeps into the ground to the underlying
aquifer (recharge) or flows overland (runoff) into the
nearest downstream surface water body (see Figure
4.1). Protecting source water requires consideration
Watershed
Boundary
Precipitation
UH
of the entire watershed area, or the zone of contribu-
tion through which potential drinking water flows
before it is withdrawn from a river or public well.
The simplest way to protect drinking water is to pro-
tect and manage the way land is used within the
SWPA. The first step in protection is to delineate the
source water area and show it on a map. For exam-
ple, Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show the source water pro-
tection area for a surface water source (an intake on a
river), and the source water protection area for a
ground water source (a well) respectively. These
maps provide a candidate SWPA for each drinking
water supply.
Figure 4.1 Paths of Water Through a Watershed
Watershed
Area Boundary
Source Water
Protection Area
Watershed
Boundary
Public
Drinking
» Water
Intake
Source Water
Protection Area
for a Well
Well
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
What are Watersheds and Watershed Areas?
Watershed: The land area (sometimes referred Watershed Area: The land area from which
to a drainage basin) from which water drains water drains to a point on a receiving body of
into a receiving body of water (including lakes, water (Figure 4.2).
ponds, wetlands, embayments, estuaries, and
oceans) or to the terminus of a river, stream, or
tributary (Figure 4.4).
1 Overland Flow \2 Ground Water Flow \3 Shallow Subsurface Stormflow
-------
4.2 Delineating and Mapping Source Water Protection
Areas for Surface Water Sources
Source water protection areas for surface water and ground water
sources are delineated using different methods.
The boundaries of a surface watershed are sometimes obvious. Often,
the hills or mountains surrounding the drainage basin form clear bound-
aries and the shape of the watershed can be easily visualized. Where the
watershed boundary is less easily visualized, a topographic map is used.
The boundary of a watershed can be defined by asking for any point X
on the map: "If a drop of water falls here, will it eventually flow to the
mouth of the river or stream of concern?" The answer can be determined
by tracing the flow path of the drop from higher elevations to lower ele-
vations, its direction always staying perpendicular to topographic con-
tour lines. If the answer is yes, then that point is within the watershed.
If the answer is no, then that point falls outside. However, it is impor-
tant to note that every point falls within some watershed, even if it is not
the current watershed of concern. Figure 4.4 illustrates this point.
Figure 4.4
The boundary of a watershed can be defined by asking, "If a drop of
water falls to the ground at point X, will it eventually flow into the river
or stream of concern?"
How are watershed area limits drawn for surface water sources? First,
the point along the surface water body that marks the drinking water
intake is located on the topographic map. All of the land uphill from this
point, and from which water drains, is the watershed area. This is com-
monly a subset, or sub-watershed, of a larger watershed associated with
an entire river. The upper boundary of the watershed area coincides with
the boundary of the watershed (Figure 4.5). The boundary along the
down gradient edge of the SWPA will be estimated using a topographic
map as a reference. All the water in the watershed area will flow down
gradient through this single point. Starting at the intake location, a line
is drawn along the land surface that is directly perpendicular to every
contour line on the topographic map. The upper boundary of the water-
shed area will likely be easily defined based on topography. The down
gradient boundary will likely have to be estimated since this boundary
does not usually coincide with the natural watershed boundary. Figure
4.5 illustrates this point.
In some cases, the available topographic maps may not present enough
detail or may not be at a scale useful to delineate the watershed area. In
these cases, individuals will need to visit the stream and tour the water-
shed in order to estimate the boundaries of the watershed area based on
observation.
Watershed areas can be subdivided to facilitate different levels of pro-
tection. In general, those portions ('sub areas') closest to the drinking
water intake will have the shortest travel time and the shortest distance
over which particulates may be naturally removed, and therefore might
be placed under a higher level of protection or management. Definition
of sub-areas allows communities to prioritize protection and manage-
ment activities within the watershed area. Other criteria that can be used
to subdivide protection areas include soil type, vegetation and slope of
the ground within the SWPA.
4.3 Delineating and Mapping Source Water Protection
Areas for Wells
Many public water supplies are wells that pump water from a ground
water aquifer. For example, the community of Esteli pumps its drinking
water from a series of 16 wells that are located in and around the city.
As in most urban centers, these wells are susceptible to contaminants
from surface activities and land uses, such as oil from cars and buses,
pesticides and fertilizers from local agricultural fields, or release of
industrial chemicals. Discharges of pollutants from land uses at the sur-
Source Water Protection Area
Watershed
Boundary
Public
Drinking
Water
Intake
Mouth of River
Figure 4.5 Delineating a watershed for a surface drinking water source. The area
contributing to a surface water intake is commonly a subset of a larger
watershed.
face can mingle with rainwater as it infiltrates downward and reaches the
aquifer, possibly having a negative effect on the quality of drinking
water pumped by the wells.
When a well is pumped, it pulls water from the underground aquifer,
causing water surrounding the well to move towards the well. Water that
falls on the land surface and recharges the aquifer may eventually get
pumped back out of the ground through a well.
The land area that contributes water to the well is the zone of contribu-
tion for the well. Figure 4.6 is a very simplified cross sectional diagram
showing how water flows through a zone of contribution to a well.
Using information about the physical characteristics of the aquifer, the
rainfall and recharge rate (how fast the water seeps into the soil and
reaches the aquifer below) in the local region, and the rate of pumping
of the well, we can estimate the boundary of the well's zone of contri-
bution, which may serve as the source water protection area (SWPA).
-------
Figure 4.6 Paths of Water Through a Zone of Contribution
to a Well
The following methods are applicable to places like
Esteli where there are sand or sand and gravel
aquifers. In other places where the aquifers are frac-
tured rock, mapping source water protection areas
for wells is more difficult. Extensive drilling and
geophysical investigation are required to accurately
understand the subsurface network of rock fractures
that may hydraulically connect to a given drinking
water well. However, this manual does not go into
detail on methods to accurately delineate source
water protection areas for wells in these circum-
stances. The amount of investigation and analysis
required is beyond the scope of this training. In the
United States, some states have faced this problem.
In general, the United States program recommends
using a 1/4 mile (approximately 400 meters) radius
until more site-specific information can be gathered.
Source Water Protection Area for a Well Based on the
Hydrologic Balance Equation in the Calculated Fixed Radius
Method
Well Pumping (Q) = Recharge (R)
edge of the pumping rate of the well
and the recharge rate for the aquifer.
The recharge rate can often be estimat-
ed by determining the annual rainfall
and subtracting estimates of evapotran-
spiration (evaporation plus the transpi-
ration from plants) and surface runoff
over the course of a year.
The radius of the circle that defines the
protection area is determined by the
following equation:
Figure 4.7
1. Calculated Fixed Radius. In these methods of
delineating source water protection areas for a well,
a circle is drawn around the well based upon hydro-
logic data, such as recharge rate or time of travel of
ground water.
One calculated fixed radius method is based upon a
hydrologic balance between the pumping rate and
the recharge rate. This method uses a simple equa-
tion based on the volume of water drawn to the well
during a specified time period, and requires knowl-
r= yQ/Rn
Where r = radius of the protection area (feet)
Q = well pumping rate (cubic feet/year)
R = recharge rate (feet/year)
Another type of calculated fixed radius method uses
the volumetric flow equation. This equation allows
the volume of the aquifer from which water flows to
a pumping well, over a specified amount of time, to
be calculated. Based on that volume, the correspon-
ding radius of the protection area on the ground sur-
face can be determined. If the goal is to protect the
(Further information may be found at the EPA web-
site (www.epa.gov)).
A number of different methods may be used to delin-
eate source water protection areas for wells (that is,
the zone of contribution of ground water to a well).
Usually, the method that is used will depend on the
amount and types of data that can be obtained, as
well as the availability of a technical staff.
Delineation methods include:
Calculated Fixed Radius
Analytical Methods
Numerical Methods
Hydrogeologic Mapping
dcy
X
wellhead from specific known contaminants, the
travel time can be specified to correspond with the
probable decay rate or sorption rate of a contaminant
of concern so that the amount of contaminant that
reaches the well is minimal or zero. However, little
is known about these rates in ground water.
Therefore, communities often base protection radii
on management priorities. In the U.S., a communi-
ty can use radii that coincide with a estimated travel
times of the ground water that are considered to be
reasonably protective. These travel times are 2 years
(especially when the concern is coliform bacteria) or
5 or 10 years when other contaminants are the pri-
mary concern.
Use of the volumetric flow equation requires knowl-
edge of the pumping rate of the well, the travel time
for water to reach the well, the porosity of the
aquifer (determined by type of material in the
All of these methods are described briefly here, but
we will only provide detailed examples of the first
two methods. These first two methods are common-
ly used and provide a very useful starting point for
community-based source water protection. The
remaining two methods require a great amount of
data, technical skill, and computer modeling, and are
therefore less easily implemented.
H
Figure 4.8 Volume of Aquifer Needed to
Supply the Well, Using the
Volumetric Flow Equation in the
Calculated Fixed Radius Method
aquifer), and the length of the well screen (from well
construction records). The volumetric flow equation
can be used in the following form to determine the
radius of the protection area:
r =
Qt
nH
Where r = radius of the protection area
Q = well pumping rate (feet)
t = travel time to well (years) (based on community's
management priorities)
n = porosity of the aquifer
H = length of the well screen (feet)
3
-------
Candidate Source Water Protection Areas for DrWking Water Welte\in Esteli
University students in Esteli have delineated candidate
SWPAs for all 16 drinking water wells in the city. They
worked with representatives from ENACAL to gather data
on locations of the wells and pumping rates, and estimat-
ed the rate of recharge of precipitation to be about 50 per-
cent of the total rainfall in the region. These SWPAs are
only suggestions and have not been adopted as legally
recognized protection areas.
Figure 4.9
-------
2. Analytical Methods. A number of analytical
methods have been developed to predict the ground
water flow patterns surrounding a pumping well.
Analytical methods often require the input of hydro-
geologic parameters, for example, transmissivity,
porosity, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity,
and saturated thickness of the aquifer. Analytical
methods generally involve computer modeling.
These methods simulate the movement of ground
water as a function of pumping rates, aquifer char-
acteristics and water table conditions. One type of
analytical method that utilizes the uniform flow
equation has been commonly used. This equation,
like other analytical methods, requires more detailed
hydrogeologic data than the previous method.
Specifically, the pumping rate of the well, the
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, the saturated
thickness of the aquifer, and the hydraulic gradient
of the aquifer are required data. This equation pro-
vides the down-gradient (XL) and lateral limits (YL)
of the protection area around the well.
The uniform flow equation can be solved for the
down-gradient and lateral limits of the protection
area, as shown below:
X, =-
Q
Equipotential Lines
Flow Lines - -K
Y, =±
2nKbi
Q
2Kb!
Figure 4.10 Source water protection area for a well using the
uniform flow equation
Where:
Q = Pumping rate of well (cubic feet/day)
K = Hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
b= Saturated thickness (feet)
i = hydraulic gradient (rise/distance)
The uniform flow lines (Figure 4.10) indicate the
direction of flow of the ground water. The equipo-
tential lines indicate lines of equal water table eleva-
tion within the ground water aquifer. The line inter-
secting the equipotential lines at right angles and
passing through the three points designated on Figure
4.10 (XL, -YL, and +YL) forms a parabola that
delineates the down-gradient and lateral limits (that
is, the ground water divide) of the protection area.
The method does not indicate where the up-gradient
limit is located. One way to estimate the up-gradient
limit is to combine this method with the calculated
fixed radius approach. The up-gradient boundary of
the protection area calculated by the uniform flow
equation would then be located where the area of the
entire protection area is equal to the area calculated
using the calculated fixed radius method.
3. Numerical Methods. Numerical methods gen-
erally require a computer program and more exten-
sive field data. These methods allow for two- and
three-dimensional modeling of aquifers. The study
area is divided into a computer-generated grid to
which values of water table elevation, hydraulic con-
ductivity, and aquifer thickness are assigned. The
model then simulates changes in the water table ele-
vation in each grid in response to pumping of the
well. The resulting depression in the water table is
then used to delineate the protection area. An exam-
ple of a computer model that uses numerical meth-
ods is MODFLOW, a frequently used program
developed by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) to simulate ground water flow. This method
requires specialized expertise in hydrogeologic and
computer modeling, and may, therefore, be imprac-
tical for most communities.
4. Hydrogeologic Mapping. Hydrogeologic map-
ping can be used to map flow boundaries based on
geologic, geomorphic, geophysical and dye-tracing
information. Because of these requirements, it is
best suited to smaller aquifers with near-surface
flow boundaries. This method requires specialized
expertise in geological and physical mapping, dye
tracing methods, and flow boundary analysis and
may therefore be impractical for most communities.
Source water protection areas for wells can also be
delineated using a combination of the methods pre-
sented above. This approach may be helpful in des-
ignating different levels of protection within the
overall protection area. For example, Figure 4.11
shows a three-tiered source water protection area for
a well. Zone I represents an arbitrary fixed radius at
100 meters. Zone II is based on an analytical flow
model, and Zone III is based on hydrogeologic map-
ping.
It is important to note that the candidate SWPAs for
wells can overlap with one another or can be too
large for a community to effectively manage. For
example, in the case of the candidate SWPAs delin-
eated by the university students in Esteli, the SWPAs
overlap such that almost the entire land area of the
town would fall within a protection area (see Figure
4.9). As a result, management of these SWPAs may
prove very difficult. In order to balance the size of
a SWPA with the effective manageability of the
SWPA, it may be necessary to alter the delineation
method or assumptions in order to decrease the area
of the candidate SWPA(s) by reducing them before
they are finalized.
Zone I- 100m radius
Zone II - Primary recharge area
_ _i Zone III - Secondary recharge
Figure 4.11 Three-tiered source water protection area for a
well.
4.4 Identifying Potential Sources of
Pollution
Once the protection area around a community drink-
ing water source has been delineated, the next step is
to identify and map the potential contamination
within the protection area. Common potential
sources of contaminants in the pilot project commu-
nities, and probably in many communities in
Nicaragua, are manure from livestock (especially
cattle), pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural
fields, solvents and petroleum products from auto-
motive repair shops or garages, and discharge water
and coffee husks from coffee processing facilities.
Potential sources of contaminants can be identified
by researching and observing the activities that
occur within a mapped source water protection area
-------
List of Potential Contaminants and Contaminant Sources for Wells in Estelf
Potential Sources
(Commercial and/or Industrial)
Automotive Factories
Cement Factories
Chemical Processes of Hydrocarbons
Construction/Demolition
Laundromat
Dry goods Factory
Repair and Manufacture of Electrical Products and Electronics
Bus and Taxi Terminal
Processing of Foods
Funeral Services and Cemeteries
Repair and Manufacture of Furniture
Gas Station
Hardware Store and Lumber yard
Deposits of Trash
Manufacture of house products
Deposits of scrap iron
Laboratories
Centers of repair of machines
Centers Doctors and veterinarians
Metallurgical factories
Military Bases
Mining/extraction of sand and gravel
Office buildings
Photograph development
Petroleum Residue
Manufacture of plastic and synthetic products
Centers of sale
Tanks of underground storage
Treatment of wood
Processing of wood
Potential Sources
(Municipal and/or Residential)
Airports
Centers of treatment of potable water
Parks
Houses
Latrines
Colleges
Highways
Stations of public services
Centers of treatment of water grays/blacks
Potential Sources
(Agricultural and/or Rural)
Handling of animals
Agriculture
Liquid lagoons and remainders
Handling of forests
Storage of fertilizers, Pesticides, and petroleum
Type of Contaminant
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Dusts, Metals, Sediments, and Solvents
Solvents
Acids, Metals, Solvents, and PCBs
Acids, Metals, Solvents, PCBs, and Dusts
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, and Solvents
Nutrients, Pesticides, and Solvents
Metals and Solvents
Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, and Solvents
Metals, Pesticides, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, Sediments, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, PCBs, and Solvents
Metals, Pesticides, Petroleum Residue, Radioactive
Remainders, and Solvents
Metals, Sediments, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Dusts, Metals,
Wastes, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Smoke, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and
Solvents
Acids, Metals, and Solvents
Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Creosote, Metals, and Solvents
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Type of Contaminant
Acids, Antifreeze, Metals, Petroleum Residue, and Solvents
Acids, Metals, PCBs, and Solvents
Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments
Bacteria, Nutrients, Pesticides, Petroleum Residue, Sediments, and
Viruses
Bacteria, Nutrients, and Viruses
Creosote, Metals, Pesticides, and Solvents
Petroleum Residue and Sediments
Acids, Creosote, Metals, and Solvents
Bacteria, Nutrients, Metals, Solvents, and Viruses
Type of Contaminant
Acids, Bacteria, Microbes, Solvents and Viruses
Acids, Metals, Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments
Bacteria, Microbes, Nutrients, Solvents, and Viruses
Nutrients, Pesticides, and Sediments
Nutrients, Pesticides, and Petroleum Residue
such as was done in Esteli by the students at National
Autonomous University of Nicaragua (Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Nicaragua)/University Center of the Northern
Region (Centre Universitario de la Region Norte). Experience
shows that certain potential contaminants are often associated
with specific activities, land uses, or industries. For example,
bacteria in drinking water are generally associated with cattle
or human waste, and pesticides are generally associated with
agricultural practices. A list of potential sources of contami-
nation in Nicaraguan communities and the associated contam-
inants is provided in Figure 4.12 developed by the
UNAN/CURN students.
There are four main steps involved in identifying potential
sources of contamination. At a minimum, Step 1 should be
completed. Information collected in Step 1 can be supple-
mented by completing Steps 2 and 3. Step 4, mapping, is a
very important tool to help decision-makers interpret the infor-
mation collected in previous steps.
1. Review the public records
To begin the process of identifying potential sources of con-
tamination, a search of available public records should be con-
ducted. Municipal or other government-issued maps may
show the location of potential sources of contamination like
gas stations, automobile repair shops, factories, or wastewater
outfalls. Land-use maps can identify areas where non-point
sources of contamination such as agricultural runoff and
stormwater runoff from roads may be of concern. If available,
tax records, land use or property maps, and other government
records can be useful in identifying potential sources of con-
tamination.
One of the best resources to help identify potential sources of
contamination will be local environmental and water supply
officials and agencies. Fire departments, planning officers,
health departments and public works departments may have
information. The local agency managing the water system
may already be aware of activities within the area that threaten
the water supply, and may have records of contaminant
sources. Students at a nearby university may also be of assis-
tance in identifying and locating contaminants and sources of
concern.
Point Sources and Non-Point Sources of
Contamination
Some potential contaminant sources are easier to
map than others, because they are located at dis-
tinct points, while other sources, such as agricul-
tural runoff, occur over a larger area. These two
different types of contaminants are referred to as
point sources and non-point sources, respective-
ly. Point sources of contamination have a single
identifiable location, such as an outfall pipe from
a sewage treatment plant. This type of contami-
nation is often easier to monitor, control, and
regulate than non-point source pollution. Non-
point sources of contamination do not have a sin-
gle point of origin. Instead, they are diffuse, and
include the following:
Fields, which contribute agricultural runoff
that may contain agrochemicals (pesticides
and fertilizers) and/or bacteria from live-
stock;
Roads, which contribute runoff that may con-
tain metals and oils from vehicles; and
Communities of roofs, which as a whole act
as a diffuse source and which can contribute
bacterial and inorganic pollutants to surface
runoff and infiltrating water during rain
events.
The nature of non-point sources makes them
more difficult to control and regulate. However,
they are often responsible for the largest amount
of contamination in source waters.
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.13
2. Interview people who know about the area
The people who live and work within the source
water protection area can provide very valuable
information that may not be found in the public
records. Shop owners can provide a wealth of infor-
mation on the materials and practices they employ.
Local inhabitants often make observations that can
add to the knowledge of possible contaminant
sources in the area. These people may know where
a certain outflow pipe is located, or they may be
-------
Inventories of Potential Contaminant Sources for Four Wells in Esteli
Wells Number 9 and Number 19 (Combined
Potential Sources
(Commercial and/or Industrial)
Residual water
Mill
Bread store
Illegal Waste
Processing of wood
Mechanics shop
Hair salon
Potential Source
(Municipal and/or Residential)
Latrines
Residual Water
Colleges
Potential Source
(Agricultural and/or Rural)
Handling of animals
Inventory)
Number of Facilities
4
2
5
1
2
2
3
Present?
(amount)
For all of the population
3
1
Present?
(amount)
2
Types of Contamination
Soap, detergent, bacteria, virus, and nutrient
Soap and Detergent
Detergent and Soap
Solid Waste
Acids, gasoline, glue, antifreeze, solvents and metals
Acids, antifreeze, solvents, metals and gasoline
Dyes, oxygenated water, permanent, soap, shampoo
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus
Soap, detergents and chlorine
Metals, pesticides and solvents
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus and organic waste
Well Number 14
Potential Source
(Commercial and/or Industrial)
Carpentry factory
Saw mill
Bus Terminal
Illegal waste
Mill
Tobaco factory
Photographic studio
Coffee packaging factory
Mechanic shop
Brick floor factory, Laundamat,
latrines and tubes
Wooden box factory
Potential Source
(Municipal and/or Residential)
Latrines
Causes
Houses
College
Potential Source
(Agricultural and/or Rural)
Handling of animals
Present?
(amount)
2
3
1
3
4
5
1
1
5
1
1
Present?
(amount)
For all of the population
5
All the district
3
Present?
(amount)
2
Types of Contaminants
Soap, solvent and varnish
Metals and solid waste
Metals and oils
Solid waste
Soap and detergent
Fats, solid waste
Solid waste
Solid waste and oils
Gasoline, oil, fat and solid waste
Disolvent, oil, dyes, cement, metals
Fat. Solvent, sellador, glue
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus
Bacteria, sediments and solid waste
Bacteria, virus, garbage
Detergents, chlorine and soap
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus and organic waste
Well Number 8
Potential Source
(Commercial and/or Industrial)
Brick factory
Mill
Bread store
Illegal waste
Furniture factory
Mechanics shop
Washing of cars
Hair salon
Potential Source
(Municipal and/or Residential)
Latrines
Residual Water
Houses
College
Potential Source
(Agricultural and/or Rural)
Handling of animals
Present?
(amount)
2
4
1
3
9
4
1
1
Present?
(amount)
For all of the population
2
All the district
5
Present?
(amount)
2
Types of Contaminants
Organic Material
Soap and Detergent
Oil
Solid Waste and Metals
Acids, gasoline, glue, antifreeze, solvents and metals
Gasoline
Lubricants. Oil, paint
Oxygenated Water
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus
Soaps, detergents and chlorine
Bacterias, solid waste
Chlorine and detergent
Types of Contaminants
Bacteria, virus and organic waste
aware of a certain business's disposal practices or past prac-
tices. Local officials are another excellent source of input
on public contamination sources.
3. Walk/tour the source water protection area
Perhaps the most useful method to collect information on
public contamination sources is by walking or touring the
source water protection area and visiting the locations iden-
tified as having potential sources of contamination. Talking
with the owners/operators, observing their operations, and
reading product labels can be very revealing. Foot surveys
will also provide verification of contaminant source loca-
tions and may unveil additional potential contaminant
sources.
Students in Esteli collected potential contaminant source
inventories for the 16 candidate source water protection
areas in their town by walking through the protection areas
they had delineated. To compile detailed inventories, they
spoke with local business owners, observed local practices,
and noted the type and number of potential sources and
associated contaminants. Figure 14 presents a sample of
Watershed
Area Boundary
..rXM V-
Common Clothes
Washing Location
Source Water
Protection Area
y^Watershed
' Boundary
Public
, Drinking
Water
Intake
e
Well
Furniture Factory
Students in Esteli touring the source water protection area.
four of the inventories from Esteli. The students
decided to combine the inventories for Wells 9 and
19 because the protection areas overlapped almost
entirely.
4. Map the contaminant sources
Once the potential sources of contaminants in the
source water protection area are identified, the final
step is to map their location on a
source water protection map. An
example of a mapped source water
protection area in which the potential
contaminant sources have been identi-
fied is shown in Figure 4.15. The
mapped areas should show the public
supply well location(s) or drinking
water intake locations as well as the
potential contaminant sources.
Figure 4.15 Simple example of a source
water protection area in which
the potential contaminant
sources have been mapped.
Source Water
Protection Area
for a Well
Not to Scale
Figure 4.14
Protection of source water requires a collaborative community approach. It is therefore critically impor-
tant to maintain good relationships with all stakeholders even in cases where they may be responsible for
release of potential contaminants. This objective should be kept in mind while touring a source water
protection area. The process of performing the contaminant source inventory may be a good opportunity
to begin a dialogue, with people living and working in the protection area, about source water protection
and the connections between health and drinking water protection. Chapter 9 provides more ideas about
where to find additional information on the drinking water supply and potential contaminant sources in
your town.
7
-------
4.5 Ranking of Potential Contamination
Sources
After all of the major potential sources of contami-
nation have been identified and mapped, ranking of
those sources will help to guide the management
strategy developed by a community or its represen-
tatives. Financial resources available for source
water management are commonly limited.
Therefore, every effort should be made to direct
management efforts to the most important locations
and the most harmful contaminant sources. Ranking
the threats from each potential source of contamina-
tion based on the magnitude of the threat, allows for
development of an efficient management strategy.
protect drinking water sources from contamination.
The basis for ranking contaminants is the decision of
and overseen by the Source Water Management And
Planning Committee (see Chapter 5). It is useful to
develop a simple matrix to compare the threats of
public contaminant sources. Some may be more
harmful to human health than others. Some may be
easier to control and/or cheaper to manage than oth-
ers. Some may be reaching the water supply in
greater concentrations than others. Proximity of the
contamination source to the water resource, the type
of contaminant, the quantities of hazardous materi-
als on a property, travel times and natural degrada-
tion of chemicals, and management practices of the
owner/operators are also important considerations.
Figure 4.16 shows an example of a basic ranking
Representative Values for Nitrogen Loading Rates for Various Sources
matrix that might be developed by a community in
Ranking Matrix of Potential Sources and Contaminants
Source
Bus Terminal
Gas Station
Open Defecation
Cattle grazing
Furniture Factory
Contaminants
Oil and grease
Oil and grease
Bacteria
Bacteria
Solvents, oil
and grease
Proximity
to Well"
4
4
4
2
2
Travel Time
to Well"
4
4
3
2
3
Quantity of
Contaminant1
5
5
5
5
2
Natural
Degradation"
4
4
2
2
4
Total Rank
(Average)
4.25
4.25
3.5
2.75
2.75
a) 1 = far, 5 = close
b) 1 = long time, 5 = long time
c) 1 = small, 5 = large
d) 1 = very rapid, 5 = slow
Figure 4.16
Ranking of potential sources of drinking water con-
tamination can be performed, as is done in the
United States, for example, by the entity responsible
for delivering water, or by the local health or sanita-
tion board. Ranking can also be done by a commit-
tee or by a group that represents the various stake-
holders in the protection area. The ranking of con-
tamination sources provides an important piece of
information for the source water managers and
stakeholders. It is from this ranking that members of
the public are able to contribute informed input on
planning protection activities. Source water man-
agers can look at a list of priority sources of con-
tamination and decide upon appropriate actions to
Nicaragua.
One fundamental consideration in ranking potential
contaminant sources is the relative amount (or
"load") of pollutant, which might be generated by
each source within the watershed. For example, one
source might be cattle (a non-point source of con-
tamination). If cattle have free access to a river that
serves as a water supply, the potential nitrogen load
from those cattle could be estimated. If it is known
that there are 80 head of cattle grazing in the source
water area within close or direct proximity to the
river, and each head of cattle generates approximate-
ly 73 kg of nitrogen per year in manure (Lander, et
al., 1998), the loading of nitrogen can be estimated
at 5,840 kg/yr from the cattle.
Land Use Loading Rate
Atmospheric Deposition on Forest Landa
Atmospheric Deposition on Agricultural/rural Landa
Atmospheric Deposition on Urban Industrial Landa
Latrinea
Cattle"
Horseb
Agriculture3
Pasture*
6.4 kilograms/hectare/yr
13.3 kilograms/hectare/yr
21.2 kilograms/hectare/yr
2.5 kilograms/person/yr
73 kilograms/animal/yr
54 kilograms/horse/yr
4.9 - 8.9 kilograms/hectare/yr
14.6 kilograms/hectare/yr
a) Source: EPA. 1999. Tools for Watershed Protection: A Workshop for Local Governments. Prepared by
Inc. for US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
b) Source: MA DEP No Date. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Nitrogen Modelin
Horsley & Witten, Inc. for the MA DEP, Division of Water Supply.
Horsley & Witten,
g. Prepared by
Figure 4.17
Based on that estimate, the cattle farm could be
ranked in a matrix against other sources in terms of
importance and potential impact to the water supply.
A cattle farm with cattle roaming in the river would
likely be given a high rating, perhaps a 5 on a scale
of 1 to 5 (5 being of greatest concern), since it has
the potential for major negative impacts to water
quality. However, if the same number of cattle are
restrained from access to the river, and direct flush-
ing of cattle urine and feces into the river are miti-
gated, that source of contamination would likely
receive a lower rating, perhaps a 2 or 3, as it does not
pose as great a threat to water quality. Similar meth-
ods can be used for other potential non-point pollu-
tant sources, such as pesticide use on agricultural
lands or fecal bacteria from humans and cattle in the
source water protection area.
A point source of contamination like a sewage out-
fall pipe might receive a rating of 5 if the discharge
were close enough to a water source as to pose a
serious threat to water quality. However, it might
receive a 3 if the sewage is treated before being
released and if it is located on the outer perimeter of
the area of contribution to a water source.
Contamination sources that might receive a ranking
of 1 or 2 would be perhaps a hair salon that utilizes
small quantities of hazardous materials, a small
chemical user that complies with waste disposal
guidelines or regulations set by the environment
ministry, or a coffee farm, if it were organic and
treated its coffee processing waste.
4.6 Conclusion
Source water assessment includes all the steps out-
lined in this chapter: delineation of the SWPA,
inventory of potential contaminant sources, and
ranking of those sources. These steps lay the foun-
dation for the development of a management plan to
protect the source water area. Stakeholders can then
play a vital role in determining what actions might
be most effective to protect and manage the drinking
water sources. A guide to developing a management
plan is presented in Chapter 5. The key to success
of a source water management plan is to provide a
mechanism for the general public to participate in
the development and implementation of the manage-
ment plan. A primer on public participation in
source water management is provided in Chapter 6.
The next step in source water protection is to devel-
op a program to include the public in shaping a com-
munity source water protection plan.
-------
5
Developing a Community Source Water Management Plan
5.1 Introduction
5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal Framework for Source Water Protection and Management in Nicaragua
5.3 Assessing the Current State of Drinking Water Management in a Community
5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based Source Water Management Plan
5.5 Water Supply Treatment in Conjunction with Source Water Protection
5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies
5.1 Introduction
Once the Source Water Assessment (Chapter 4) has
been completed, a management plan can be devel-
oped to protect the community's drinking water
sources. This chapter describes activities that are
essential in establishing an effective source water
management plan, including:
assessment of the current management of local
drinking water;
development of a consensus-based management
plan;
identification and selection of a set of manage-
ment tools to help carry out the source water
management program;
coordination of source water protection
with centralized treatment,
and
Before developing a source water management plan,
it is important to understand the legal basis for
watershed protection and drinking water protection
that already exists in Nicaragua.
5.2 A Review of the Existing Legal
Framework for Source Water Protection
and Management in Nicaragua
Several laws have been enacted in Nicaragua that
provide a legal basis for drinking water protection
and environmental protection. Law 290, the Law of
Organization, Competencies and Procedures of the
Executive Power, (Ley de Organization,
exploration of local
management
options.
How many people receive
waterfront the local public
water supply?
Competencias y Procedimientos del Poder
Ejecutivo, 1998), outlines the responsibilities,
including those pertaining to environmental protec-
tion, of all national government agencies. In accor-
dance with this law, several national agencies are
accountable for various aspects of environmental
protection, environmental monitoring and natural
resource use (Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources [Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales], no date).
This law establishes MARENA's responsibility for
protecting the environment through formulating and
managing national policy, setting environmental
quality standards, overseeing compliance with those
standards, administering a system of environmental
impact assessment, and controlling activities that
may contaminate the environment (MARENA, no
date). The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(Ministerio de Agricultura y Forestal) is responsible
for administering policies for agricultural and
forestry development in Nicaragua. MAGFOR also
must coordinate with MARENA to develop propos-
als for ecological protection programs, "with empha-
sis on the conservation of soils and water (MARE-
NA, no date)." The Nicaraguan Aqueduct and
Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de
Acueductos y Alcantarillados) is responsible for
providing potable drinking water and sanitation
services nationally. It has a division called the Rural
Areas Division of the Nicaraguan Aqueduct and
Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de
Acueductos y Alcantarillados - Division de Areas
Rurales) that is responsible for rural areas. The
Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) promotes
environmental health and good hygiene among the
population, formulates standards for hygiene and
environmental health, and controls the quality of
water for human consumption.
The law most directly pertaining to drinking water
protection is Law 217, the General Law of the
Environment and Natural Resources (Ley General
del Medio Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales) (pub-
lished in the Diario Oficial in 1996). This law estab-
lished MARENA's responsibility for regulating and
What major problems exist
with regard to the public
drinking water supply?
What are the trends in popu-
lation and land use?
Who manages the local
drinking water supply?
What organizations are
already in the community and
are concerned with drinking
water?
What other entities are
organized and active in
drinking water protection?
-------
setting national environmental standards. Title III
outlines MARENA's responsibility to carry out envi-
ronmental laws and uphold natural resource use
standards. Title IV addresses environmental laws
and standards for environmental quality and the con-
trol of contamination of air, water and soil.
Another law, the Disposiciones Para el Control de la
Contamination Proveniente de las Descargas de
Aguas Residuales Domesticas, Industriales, y
Agropecuarias, Decree Number 33-95, was passed
in 1995 in an effort to control contamination of
water from various discharge sources in Nicaragua.
This law sets maximum limits on various contami-
nant concentrations in the discharge of different cat-
egories of household, industrial and agricultural
wastes into sewer systems and surface waters.
Implementation of Decree Number 33-95 falls under
the jurisdiction of MARENA.
Municipalities also share in the responsibility for
environmental health and drinking water protection
as outlined in the Ley de Municipios (Ley 40 and
261) (MARENA, no date). They are responsible for
rational use and conservation of natural resources,
developing local initiatives for environmental pro-
tection, and contributing to national efforts to moni-
tor and control environmental quality.
Municipal officials, local representatives from MAGFOR,
MINSA, and MARENA, and local leaders from NGO's meet
in Ocotal, Nicaragua to discuss the local source water protec-
tion project.
Together, these laws provide legal environmental
framework to support development and implementa-
tion of a national program or network of programs
for source water protection in Nicaragua. Because
the number of government entities tasked with pro-
tecting, monitoring and using natural resources in
Nicaragua is large, coordination is suggested.
Designating a lead agency for source water protec-
tion is often helpful for organizing discussion and
actions toward source water protection, as discussed
in later sections of this chapter.
5.3 Assessing the Current State of
Drinking Water Management in a
Community
The development of a source water management
plan should begin with an assessment of the current
status of local drinking water management and local
watershed management programs. It should then
build upon the programs and institutions already in
place within the community. Therefore, the first
step is to examine the existing management structure
and identify the organizations involved. The
answers to the following questions will facilitate an
assessment of the current approach to management
of the local drinking water supply:
Who manages the local drinking water supply?
Is it a local water utility, such as AYAMAT in
Matagalpa, a national water utility, such as
ENACAL, or some other entity?
How many people receive water from the local
public water supply? Where do they live? Who
lives in the source water protection area, and do
they all receive water from the public water sup-
ply?
Who works or lives in the source water protec-
tion area that does not utilize the public water
supply?
What existing local, regional, national and inter-
national institutions and organizations are con-
cerned with drinking water, public health and/or
environmental resources and are active in the
community?
What other entities in the community are organ-
ized and active and could become involved in
drinking water protection?
What are the trends in population and land use
within the source water protection area?
What major quality and quantity problems exist
with regard to the public drinking water supply?
What problems can be expected in the future?
In researching the answers to these questions, it will
be necessary to talk to the mayor's office, the health
department, MINSA, the ENACAL office, and vari-
ous other agencies, individuals, and organizations in
the community. The goal of this step is to under-
stand the current management arrangements so that
a new effort to protect source waters can build upon
the system that already exists. This assessment will
also help determine where there may be strengths
and weaknesses in the current management struc-
ture, which will help direct development of the man-
agement plan.
5.4 Developing a Consensus-Based
Source Water Management Plan
Once the current state of drinking water management
is documented, efforts to develop a management plan
for drinking water sources can be initiated. One key to
developing and implementing a successful drinking
water source management plan is involvement of the
local government. The Mayor's office should be
involved in the development of the plan, and the
Mayor should be briefed on the source water protec-
tion issues. The involvement of municipal depart-
ments is also recommended, for example the Planning
Department (where zoning may be administered) and
the Health Department (where water quality monitor-
ing may be coordinated).
Another key to a successful source water management
plan is involvement of stakeholders and community
members. Both of these groups should be permitted
and encouraged to participate in the development of
the management plan. These groups include people
who not only drink the water and benefit from a clean
source of water, but can also affect the quality, and
even the quantity of the water supply. Management
plans depend to a significant degree on public and
stakeholder support and participation. Without the
input and support of both stakeholders and communi-
ty members, a management plan may overlook or
incorrectly address important issues, and may there-
fore be extremely difficult to put into practice.
There are several steps that should be followed in
developing a community-based source water manage-
ment plan. These efforts build on the information that
has already been collected in the Source Water
Assessment (Chapter 4), the public participation phas-
es of the program (Chapter 6), and the assessment of
current source water management (described above).
Steps to a Source Water Management Plan
1. Initiate the Source Water Protection Process
2. Form the Source Water Management Planning Committee
3. Define Collective Management Goals
4. Define the Time Frame of Your Management Goals
5. Develop a List of Management Options to Achieve the Management Goals
6. Determine the Primary Implementing Body for the Plan
7. Choose Management Tools and Develop a Detailed Management Plan
8. Review and Update Management Plan
Figure 5.1
-------
5.4.A. Initiate the Source Water Protection
Process. Developing a source water management
plan is most likely a combined effort among the
local, regional, and national governments, stake-
holders such as industries and NGO's, and commu-
nity residents. From experience with the pilot proj-
ects in Esteli, Matagalpa and Ocotal, it is clear that
clean drinking water is a prime concern among peo-
ple in the communities. The idea of a long-term pro-
gram to manage and protect drinking water sources
has met with positive responses in these pilot project
towns. Such a program, however, requires leader-
ship to initiate it and strong management to carry it
out.
At the local level, a source water protection program
can be initiated by the entity that has legal authority
to do so, which may be the office of the Mayor.
Leadership for the program can come from munici-
pal and/or quasi-municipal departments with person-
nel that understand the circumstances surrounding
source water management within their specific com-
munity, including general land uses, social and
health concerns, and economic issues.
As discussed in Section 5.3, the local source water
protection effort should build off of the existing
institutional structure within each city. The institu-
tional structure of each city can vary, and each may
be slightly different. 'Institutional structure' refers
to the variety of agencies that play a role in day-to-
day city management. Examples may include:
departments within the Alcaldia;
educational institutions present in the city;
non-governmental organizations functioning in
the town;
multilateral and bilateral aid projects established
in the town;
health centers; and
the drinking water management agency.
5.4.B Form the Source Water Management
Planning Committee. A fundamental component
of a source water protection program is establish-
ment of a committee to write a source water protec-
tion plan and assist in its implementation. The enti-
ty with the legal authority to initiate source water
protection in the community should draw on local
human resources to form a committee on source
water management. The committee can then be
charged with the responsibility to develop the plan.
There are several options for the composition of this
Source Water Management Planning Committee. It
can be made up of stakeholders, health profession-
als, water utility managers, or some combination of
these groups. This committee should, with oversight
from either the local government or the local water
utility, take the lead in development of a local source
water management plan. Part of the Source Water
Management Planning Committee's role should be
to organize a forum, such as a series of public meet-
ings, for public participation and input in the devel-
opment of the management plan (see Chapter 6:
Public Participation). The local government, with
the support of the committee, can also work with
other local governments, and the national govern-
ment (probably ENACAL in the case of Nicaragua)
to develop the appropriate structure for a national
source water protection program.
Who are 'Stakeholders'?
Any specific interest group, company, or
organization that is affected by water quality,
affects water quality, or may be affected by the
management of a source water protection area
falls into the stakeholder category. This list
will likely be quite long for any given protec-
tion area. For example, local associations of
cattle ranchers or coffee growers as well as stu-
dent environmental awareness groups might all
share a specific interest in the quality and man-
agement of the drinking water source, and
should all be considered stakeholders. Just as
the general community's input is integral to the
success of the management plan, so is the input
of all stakeholder groups in a source water pro-
tection area.
Figure 5.2
Initiation of Source Water Protection in Ocotal
At the initiation of the Ocotal pilot project, repre-
sentatives from the Mayor's office brought togeth-
er a group of stakeholders to discuss source water
issues. This group could become the basis for a
source water management planning committee.
The participants at the meeting included a wide
variety of non-governmental and governmental
organizations involved in drinking water and
health issues in Ocotal. The attendees represented
the following organizations:
Movimiento Comunal (Community
Movement)
Association of Women in Development
(AMDES)
INAFOR
MARENA
MAGFOR
World Relief/ Auxilio Mundial
MINSA
High School of Biologists and Ecologists of
Nicaragua (COBEN) - Ocotal
Office of the Mayor (Alcaldia)
5.4.C Define collective management goals.
An effective source water management plan must have
a clearly-stated set of goals. Different stakeholders or
stakeholder groups may prefer different management
goals. Members of the public may also other view-
points. It is critical that the process of establishing
goals be done in a manner that builds consensus. In
some localities, the management goals may be quite
clear, but in most cases, this step can be expected to
require significant discussion. Management goals
should be defined in measurable terms. Clear goals
provide strong guidance for developing management
options, and allow accurate assessment of the effec-
tiveness of the management plan over time.
All interested stakeholders and members of the public
should have input into defining the source water man-
agement goals, and every effort should be made to get
as many affected people involved in the decision-mak-
ing as possible. A recommended forum for discussion
is a well-publicized, open public meeting. The broad-
er the involvement of stakeholders and the public in
this process, the more likely the plan is to succeed.
-------
A meeting of stakeholders in a small source water protection area in northern
Nicaragua may have an invitee list as follows:
ENACAL
Any interested
citizens
ENACAL-DAR
Alcaldes from all
towns involved
Coffee growers
association
MINSA
University Students studying
Environmental Management
High School Environmental
Awareness Group
Cattle farmers
association
MAGFOR
Rice producers
association
Local Businesses:
Local gas station manager
Furniture Finishing Factory
Owner/Manager
MARENA
Figure 5.3
Water treatment
plant operator
The substance of the management goals should
be driven primarily by the source water assessment
for the protection area (Chapter 4) and by the input
of stakeholders and the public. It is important that
stakeholders and the public are made aware of the
assessment information so that they have all the nec-
essary information to engage in an informed discus-
sion. A management goal may be based on achiev-
ing better water quality, for example, reducing fecal
coliform bacteria to a certain level at the drinking
water intake or reducing the concentration of nitrate
to a specified level. Alternately, a management goal
may be defined using human health parameters, such
as a 50% reduction in the incidence of diarrhea in
children. Management goals may also address uses
of land and water, such as reducing the number of
cows roaming in the river by 75 %, or increasing the
use of latrines by permanent and seasonal residents
in the watershed by 90 %.
5.4.D Define the time frame of the management
goals. Another important component of the source
water management plan is the time frame in which
the goals are to be reached. It is common to have
both short-term and long-term management goals.
Using examples from Section C above, a short term
management goal may be a documented increase in
the use of latrines; a medium term goal could be a
numerical reduction in the number of cows with free
access to rivers; and a long term management goal
may be a measured improvement in water quality.
An example timetable is shown in Figure 5.4.
5.4.E Develop a list of local management options
to achieve the management goals.
While energy, interest and support from the commu-
nity and stakeholders is essential to a program's suc-
cess, management of a source water protection pro-
gram is generally a joint venture between the nation-
al and local government. On the national level, the
agency in charge of drinking water management, for
example, ENACAL, would be the most likely and
logical agency to oversee the program.
Collaboration with the Ministry of Health is neces-
sary to appropriately address the human health risks
from the drinking water contaminants of concern.
The national government will also benefit from local
collaboration in the local assessment and implemen-
tation of a national source water protection program.
However, a national framework for source water
protection would provide additional needed finan-
cial, legal, technical and organizational support from
the national government.
Municipalities can use their local regulatory author-
ity to promote source water protection by employing
one or a combination of tools, such as:
Incorporate watershed management costs into the
local water rates to cover some costs associated
with the source water protection program. Local
water management agencies, such as AYAMAT
in Matagalpa, or the local offices of ENACAL
could include a very small fee within the water
rates specifically for watershed management
efforts, such as public education or construction
of community wash stations.
Develop zoning regulations for specified land
uses within source water protection areas. For
example, in a town that depends primarily on
ground water, such as Esteli, it may be helpful to
develop a zoning map based on the source water
protection areas for the wells that would exclude
certain risky commercial and industrial land uses
from those areas.
Develop a framework for conservation ease-
ments to conserve natural lands in protection
areas. For example, a local non-profit organiza-
tion may be interested in conserving some natu-
ral land for ecotourism, environmental health
and/or source water protection. By providing a
framework for easements to be instituted, the
likelihood of the land actually being protected is
increased.
Provide tax incentives (and reduce disincentives)
for improvements in land use, household and
industrial practices and the use of innovative and
alternative technologies that reduce source water
contamination. For example, there is currently
an improvement tax levied on coffee farmers
that build coffee husk collection basins. These
basins allow coffee farmers to ferment the husks
into fertilizer rather than disposing of them
directly into surface waters. Conversely, a tax
break would actually provide more incentive for
coffee farmers to invest in these basins.
These tools and others are described in more detail
below. In general, management tools fall into one of
two categories: regulatory and non-regulatory.
Example Management Goals and Target Dates for a Source
Water Management Plan
Management Goal
Increase use of latrines to 90% of population
Reduce fecal coliform counts at drinking water Intake by 75%
Reduce annual Incidence of diarrhea In children by 50%
Reduce the number of cows grazing directly in the river by 75%
Target Date
1 -3 years
3-5 years
3-5 years
3-5 years
Figure 5.4
-------
Regulatory Tools:
Regulatory tools may include zoning, health regula-
tions, performance standards and best management
practices. These may not currently exist, but are
worthy of consideration.
Zoning Regulations. The purpose of zoning is to
separate incompatible land uses by assigning dif-
ferent areas for each use (e.g., commercial, resi-
dential, industrial, agricultural) and setting stan-
dards for the uses permitted in each zone. A
zoning board of the local municipal government
usually determines zoning regulation. Under the
umbrella of zoning regulation, the type of land
uses, the density of land uses, and the allowable
practices for each land use type can be regulated.
For example, a zoning map could be used to reg-
ulate agricultural practices in a given area such
that pesticide use in that area may not exceed a
prescribed level. Similarly, certain types of
industry that pose high risks to water quality
may be prohibited in identified source water pro-
tection areas around drinking water wells.
Health Regulations. A health regulation can be
adopted by a municipality to protect drinking
water. Health regulations can include prohibi-
tion of dwellings and latrines within a buffer area
around a well or surface water intake or prohibi-
tion and control of the use of certain pesticides in
a delineated source water protection area for a
drinking water intake or a well.
Performance Standards. A local health or water
board may impose a requirement that any water
discharges to the ground or to a surface water
body must meet certain water quality limits. For
example, a surface water discharge may be
required to have undetectable levels of bacterial
contamination, low nutrient concentrations or
limited levels of metals and organic chemicals.
Best Management Practices. A community reg-
ulatory authority could require residents and
businesses to employ certain techniques called
best management practices (BMPs), to minimize
the discharge of pollutants into drinking water
sources. Examples of BMPs might include fenc-
ing of livestock away from surface waters, regu-
lar removal of solids in latrines, and the use of
infiltration basins to minimize contaminant load-
ing to surface waters from storm water runoff.
Tax Breaks. Tax breaks from the local or nation-
al government may help to promote positive
source water protection improvements and
actions among individuals and companies. For
example, tax breaks could be awarded for
improvements such as pretreatment of discharge
water from industry or improved on-site land use
management, or for a contribution to a public
education campaign.
Non-Regulatory Tools:
Non-regulatory management tools can be very effec-
tive in protecting drinking water by providing infor-
mation and opportunities for involvement.
Education. Public education campaigns can be
carried out by many different groups in a com-
munity, depending on the interest and resources
of those groups. Educational efforts are often an
effective way to spread the word about issues,
especially in cases where general awareness is
low. For example, as part of the Ocotal pilot
project, students in a local environmental
brigade carried out an educational campaign to
teach coffee workers, cof-
fee farm owners, and cattle
ranchers about the connec-
tion between their activi-
ties, various land uses, the
quality of the water they
drink, and their personal
health.
The use of conservation easements for ecologi-
cal and natural resource conservation in Latin
America is a relatively new and exciting prac-
tice. The first Latin American conservation
easement (servidumbre ecologica) was instated
in 1992 in San Ramon de Tres Rios, near San
Jose, Costa Rica after the idea was introduced to
Central America by the Iniciativa para la
Conservation de Tierras Privadas de Centre
America (Mack, 1997). Since then, over 35 con-
servation easements have been negotiated
throughout Central America and Mexico
(Charney, 2000).
Conservation easements can protect vital source
water areas. In some cases, a conservation ease-
ment can open a natural area to use by the pub-
lic for low-impact activities such as hiking while
still maintaining ecosystem integrity. Easements
can be a useful tool for protecting undeveloped
Conservation Easements.
Conservation easements
are land use rights that are
turned over from a private
landowner to a town,
national government, indi-
vidual or conservation
group in exchange for
some financial reward,
usually in the form of a tax
break. The owner of the
land retains title to the
property, but gives up the
right to develop that land.
s
]
ource Water Management Tools and Possible Implementing Agencies
Management Tools
Possible Implementing Agency
Regulatory
Zoning Regulation
Health Regulation
Performance Standards
Best Management Practicies
Tax Breaks
Zoning Board, Office of the Mayor
MINSA, Office of the Mayor
MINSA, ENACAL, MARENA
Office of the Mayor, MARENA, MAGFOR
Office of the Mayor, ENACAL, National Government
Non-Regulatory
Education
Conservation Easement
Water Quality Monitorings
Local Drinking Water Management
Economic Incentives
Office of the Mayor, School Group, ENECAL, MINSA,
Non-Governmental Organization
Office of the Mayor
School Group, ENECAL, MINSA, Non-Governmental
Organization, MARENA
ENACAL, Office of the Mayor
National Government, Municipal Government
"igure 5.5
-------
areas within a source water protection area
around a well. However, the benefits to the
landowner must be significant and there must be
enough confidence in legal land rights structures
to ensure that the easement will be upheld in per-
petuity.
Water Quality Monitoring. Monitoring the qual-
ity of source water is a very useful and important
management tool. Monitoring allows a commu-
nity to identify water quality issues and track the
successes and failures over a period of months or
years. It also enables a community to identify
water quality problems as they arise. An impor-
tant part of source water protection is monitoring
the quality of the water supply at different points
in the delineated source water protection area.
Ongoing water quality monitoring allows the
community to recognize threats to drinking
water and identify contaminant sources. It
allows rapid identification of contaminants and
enables timely response. Monitoring programs
can be expensive, but a collaborative approach
that utilizes local funds, volunteer aid, and
national support can make a comprehensive
monitoring effort economically feasible.
Water quality data can be useful not only to a
specific source water protection program, but
also for universities, environmental and other
non-governmental organizations, health offi-
cials, and local or national government entities
interested in further study of water quality relat-
ed issues. Water quality monitoring can be car-
ried out by a national agency, such as MINSA or
ENACAL, by the local municipal government,
or by local citizen groups, which can be extreme-
ly effective. While laboratory services are not
accessible to most communities in Nicaragua at
the present time, affordable water quality moni-
toring kits are available from several companies.
These test kits generally allow field-testing of
pH, temperature, nitrates, fecal or total coliform
bacteria, and some metals. Therefore, the water
quality results can be obtained rapidly in the
Monitoring the quality of source water is a
very useful and important management tool
Figure 5.6
field rather than requiring water quality tests to
be performed in a laboratory. Laboratory water
quality testing on a routine basis may be expen-
sive and/or logistically difficult due to travel
between the sample location and the laboratory.
When taking water quality samples, it is impor-
tant to properly document the sampling process
and sampling conditions for future reference.
An example of a basic water quality sampling
field data sheet that could be used for documen-
tation is presented in this chapter.
Local Drinking Water Management. Another
non-regulatory tool is the establishment of a
local water control or authority (for example,
AYAMAT in Matagalpa) (see Figure 5.7). Local
control of the water source and water treatment
and distribution system can be beneficial to the
community because a local board may be able to
react to local needs more directly and rapidly
than a national agency.
Economic Incentives. A final tool that can be
considered under the non-regulatory framework
is the development of economic incentives to
encourage landowners and businesses to take
Water Quality Sampling Field Data Sheet
Stream (Well) Name/Number:
Watershed Name:
Municipality:
Department:
Geographic Location:
Sampling Site Name and Number (if any):
Physical Description:
Investigators:
Date:
Time:
Weather in the Past 24 hours:
(storm, rain, showers, overcast,
clear/sunny)
Current Weather:
(storm, rain, showers, overcast,
clear/sunny)
Comments:
Sampling information:
Sample Number
Parameter
Field Measurement
action to protect water quality. This may be in
the form of a government grant or favorable
financing for loans to make improvements that
help to protect source water. Examples of posi-
tive improvements include a settling basin for
recovering coffee husks, construction of a biodi-
gestion chamber for coffee processing discharge
water treatment, or construction of a community
clothes washing station. Government grants
could also support public education campaigns
on local source water protection.
5.4.F Determine the primary implementing body
for the plan. In order to implement the manage-
ment plan effectively, there must be a managing
body to oversee the effort. This agency would take
the lead on actions contained in the management
plan. It would also coordinate with other agencies
and organizations to implement each management
tool and monitor success. Depending on the tool,
coordination would take place between the lead
agency and another government body, such as
MINSA, MARENA, MAGFOR, ENACAL, the
Alcaldia, or a local water board, or a local organiza-
tion, such as a school, a non-governmental organiza-
tion, or a local association. In some cases, a new
group could be formed for the purpose of imple-
menting one or more of the management tools.
Figure 5.5 presents the source water management
tools discussed in the previous section and the pos-
sible implementing agencies.
5.4.G Choose management tools and develop a
detailed management plan. The final step in the
management plan process is to assemble all the plan
components into one concise document that is made
publicly available. The final management plan will
likely include a set of management tools to achieve
between one and four management goals in a given
time frame. The set of tools could be chosen with
stakeholder input at a public meeting or hearing in
which the benefits and drawbacks of the tools are
presented to the public. A variety of criteria could
be used to decide on which tool to use to address a
given source water problem. Some tools might be
more easily implemented than others, some might
address the problem faster than others, or some
might be less expensive to implement than others.
The goals (discussed in Section C) should be very
clearly stated at the beginning of the plan. The plan
should document stakeholder and public concerns,
and identify who is responsible for implementing
each management tool in the plan. Before finalizing
the management plan, it is generally a good idea to
make the final draft available to stakeholders and the
public for a comment period. This will provide all
stakeholders and the public with the opportunity to
review the plan, express any concerns and have those
concerns addressed before the plan is finalized.
During development of the management plan, there
are several important issues that should be kept in
mind. Managing a drinking water source is not a stat-
ic process, but an anticipatory (and dynamic) task.
Because conditions change with time, there should be
-------
provisions in the management plan to deal with unpre-
dictable shifts in conditions and/or priorities. It is rec-
ommended that the following points be addressed in
the planning process:
Plan for new water sources in addition to those
already in use. A growing community will need to
look for alternative sources of water. Identifying
potential future drinking water sources allows the
community to protect those sources for future use.
Protection may involve special zoning or limited
land uses in areas around possible future wells, and
may help to direct the pattern of development to
ensure a safe drinking water supply in the future.
Develop a contingency plan. It is a good idea for
the community to have a contingency plan for
alternative drinking water sources. Even with a
proper management plan, accidents can happen
and a primary drinking water source can become
contaminated or a water treatment facility can be
disrupted. For example, if ground water is the
main source of drinking water, having a large stor-
age tank filled at all times, which could be used in
an emergency, might be appropriate. In other situ-
ations, it may be appropriate to close off a con-
taminated ground water well and draw drinking
water from alternative wells. To the extent possi-
ble, a community should have a plan to warn citi-
Local Water Agency
An example of a local water agency in Nicaragua that
appears to be achieving management success is AYA-
MAT (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa).
AYAMAT is a semi-private spin-off from ENACAL in
Matagalpa, established in the 1990s. AYAMAT is man-
aged similarly to a private company but also works in
cooperation with ENACAL. It has been successful in
managing the issue of limited water quantity in the city
of Matagalpa. AYAMAT has been working with the
local Mayor's office and the local watershed protection
project Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to carry out better
water supply management for the city and surrounding
areas.
Figure 5.7
zens of a contamination incident, provide an alter-
native drinking water source, repair problems in a
water treatment facility, remove the source of con-
tamination, and treat the contaminated water so
that it can be returned to use.
5.4.H Review and Update Management Plan.
Ensure flexibility in your management plan. Because
the future can rarely be predicted, flexible manage-
ment is a critical characteristic of an effective drinking
water protection program. Conditions in the commu-
nity may change, and the plan that is developed today
may not be the best plan three or five years from now.
In order to build flexibility into the source water man-
agement, the planning committee should continue to
meet periodically to monitor the implementation and
effectiveness of the management plan, and to update
and adjust the plan to address changing conditions and
concerns. In addition, the committee should continue
to maintain an open dialogue with stakeholders and the
general public, most likely through open information-
al meetings or newspaper announcements.
5.5 Water Supply Treatment in
Conjunction with Source Water Protection
The first defense in providing potable water to an
entire community is adequate protection of the drink-
ing water resource itself. Once a drinking water
source is contaminated, especially a ground water
source, it can be extremely difficult and costly to
clean. Many pollutants, especially some synthetic
chemicals, are very persistent and cannot be broken
down easily in nature. In many cases, only a relative-
ly small amount of pollutant can contaminate a large
volume of water. Effective protection can keep treat-
ment costs relatively low and provide more people
with access to clean water. However, comprehensive
protection of drinking water sources is a long-term
process, and may not always succeed. In that case,
communities must treat their drinking water, as is cur-
rently the case throughout Nicaragua.
In general, treatment of surface water supplies provid-
ed at centralized treatment centers involves filtration,
flocculation, and chlorination. The drinking water
treatment process is generally effective in the removal
of bacterial contamination, sediments, and many con-
taminants that adsorb onto sediments, including pesti-
cides and other organic compounds. Ground water
treatment is usually less extensive because ground
water sources are usually less prone to contamination,
especially by bacteria. Ground water is naturally fil-
tered as it infiltrates through the ground and reaches
the aquifer, so it generally has fewer contaminants
than surface water. Treatment of ground water often
ranges from no treatment to simple disinfection, usu-
ally by chlorination. However, typical treatment
regimes for surface and ground waters are only mar-
ginally effective in the removal of dissolved contami-
nants including organic compounds, metals and nutri-
ents.
Source water protection therefore plays a key role, not
only in improving raw water quality for people who
obtain their water before it is treated, but also in reduc-
ing human exposure to harmful chemicals and con-
stituents that are not removed in the treatment process.
Many people in rural areas where centralized potable
water systems are unavailable drink water taken
directly from a stream or river. For these people,
source water protection is likely the only line of
defense against certain forms of contamination, such
as microbes or pesticides, in their drinking water.
A management plan can be used to prevent contami-
nants, including those that are difficult to treat, from
ever reaching the drinking water source in significant
concentrations. Bacteria and sediment that can usual-
ly be handled by a treatment plant at moderate levels
can, in excessive amounts, overload the plant, requir-
ing longer treatment time and more intense chlorina-
tion. Sometimes a treatment plant is unable to suffi-
ciently remove high amounts of contaminants in the
intake water. Decreased levels of contamination enter-
ing a treatment plant can help to maintain a more
dependable contaminant removal process over a
longer period of time.
Time Frame for Developing a Source Water
Management Plan
The time frame for development of a community source
water protection plan should be approximately one year.
A typical schedule is as follows:
initiation of source water management program (one
month)
formation of the source water management planning
committee (one month)
organization of first public meeting (one month)
compilation of public comments (one month)
development of draft management plan (four months)
public comment on draft plan (one month)
revisions to draft plan (two months)
presentation of final plan (one month)
review and updating of source water management
plan (periodically)
Figure 5.8
5.6 Local Management of Water Supplies
Direct local management of water supplies is not com-
mon in Nicaragua. Other countries, including the
U.S., have shown that local management can allow for
more responsive management, and create the opportu-
nity for collaboration among local agencies. For
example, a local water agency can work with the
municipal planning office, the local tax office and
other local offices to adapt health and land use regula-
tions and community management plans for better
source water protection. A local water agency can
underwrite costs by collection of water use fees.
Consequently, a local water entity can be run more like
a business than a public agency, with efficient opera-
tion and maintenance and more dependable service.
This capacity can have important implications for the
health of a community.
-------
Public Participation - A Primer
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Six Components of Successful Public Participation
6.3 Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
Protecting the quality of drinking water begins with
people. The people who live in the watershed area
of a drinking water intake or in a zone of contribu-
tion to a well have a very important role to play. The
kinds of things they do on a daily basis have a direct
effect on the quality of drinking water. The more
people understand their role in both protecting and
impacting water quality, and the more they partici-
pate in taking action to safeguard water quality, the
better the management of the water resource, and the
better the health of people in the community.
Therefore, public participation is the most critical
element of a successful source water protection pro-
gram. Without a comprehensive, well-planned
effort to include the public in development and
implementation of a source water management plan,
it is unlikely that the program will be successful.
Protecting the quality of drinking
water begins with people.
"Why should I protect the public drinking
water source if I don't drink water from that
source?" People who live in the watershed area of a pub-
lic drinking water intake or zone of contribution of a well
but who do not receive treated water delivered from that
intake or well might wonder why they should take action to
protect the quality of that water. By protecting the greater
source water area, which may also include streams, rivers or
wells where they get their own water, people also protect
their own water quality and their own health. They will also
be contributing to the environmental health of the area.
Similarly, a business that operates within a source water pro-
tection area, but may not use the public water supply, should
take action to prevent possible contamination of public
drinking water sources for the benefit of their customers and
workers who do use public water.
Figure 6.1
6.2 Seven Components of Successful Public Participation
Public participation is the process by which all interest groups (stakeholders and the general public) in a com-
munity are provided the opportunity to make their views known on drinking water issues and protection, and
to contribute to designing a drinking water source protection plan. An effort must be made to include the full
range of community opinion in discussion of approaches to protection of drinking water sources so that all
issues are brought to light and an appropriate and workable source water protection strategy can be devel-
oped.
Public participation is important to source water protection because it:
-Builds networks among key individuals in a community who will implement source water protection
measures,
-Identifies needs and priorities with respect to source water protection in the community;
-Provides education and information to all residents of a community;
-Focuses public attention on the issue of source water protection;
-Sets up a framework for community support of protective action;
-Builds momentum for the program; and
-Provides the benefit of input and experience from a broad cross-section of the community.
Public participation has many components, all of which should be considered when developing a source water
protection plan. These components potentially include direct involvement of stakeholders in the source water
management planning committee (see Chapter 5), involvement in general public informational meetings
through submission of written and oral comments, and participation in community events such as art contests
and demonstration projects. Additional components include development and distribution of educational
products that target the public at large, for example fact sheets, posters, radio ads, brochures, and artwork.
There are seven main components to a success-
ful public participation effort:
1. Public Introduction to Local Source Water
Issues
A general public meeting can be a very effective
way to introduce the issues relating to the local
drinking water source, such as existing and poten-
tial problems with contamination of source waters
and the impacts that contamination may be hav-
ing on public health. Assuming that local gov-
ernment will take the lead on source water pro-
tection and management in the community, an
effective approach, based on local source water
protection programs in the U.S., would be as fol-
lows. First, the entity with legal authority to ini-
tiate source water protection efforts (in the case of
Nicaragua this is probably the Mayor) would ini-
tiate a public informational meeting. During this
meeting, open to everyone in the community,
Public participation is the process by which stakeholders make
their views known.
-------
including all stakeholders and the general public,
local government representatives would introduce
the subject of source water protection and related
issues. Then, attendees would have an opportunity
to respond with ideas, comments, questions and con-
cerns.
2. Formation of a Source Water Management
Planning Committee
Depending on the approach of the local authority
initiating the source water protection program, a
small committee of individuals interested in devel-
oping a management plan would be convened either
prior to, or after, a general open meeting of all stake-
holders and the public. This committee is the same
Source Water Management Planning Committee
introduced in Chapter 5, and might be composed of
stakeholders, health professionals, local water utility
managers, or some combinations of these groups.
The job of this committee would be to develop the
source water management plan according to the
process presented in Chapter 5. This work would
most likely be done under the direction of the local
government or local water utility. The committee
would also be charged with involving stakeholders
and the general public periodically in the plan devel-
opment process (presented in the remainder of this
chapter). Later, when the management plan is writ-
ten and finalized, the Source Water Management
Planning Committee could transform to an imple-
mentation committee and become responsible for
review and modification of the plan on a regular
schedule, for example every year or two years.
3. Obtaining Public Input
Once the Source Water Management Planning
Committee is formed, one of its first actions should
be to develop a schedule of events for obtaining pub-
lic comment prior to and during development of the
plan. Public participation via meetings is the pri-
mary mechanism to involve all stakeholders and
members of the public. It is critical to clearly invite
public and stakeholder comment, emphasize the
openness of the process, and assure that all public
and stakeholder input will be given careful consider-
ation. Effective ways to publicize meetings and to solicit input on plan components are newspaper and radio
announcements, posters, fliers, and word of mouth.
Access to the public participation process is an important element to include when planning for public input.
The lead agency needs to consider how it will reach people and organizations in remote areas of the commu-
nity, as well as people with mobility, hearing, or literacy challenges.
4. Presentation of the Draft Source Water Management Plan for Public Comment
The next step in public participation would be to hold a public meeting to present the draft plan to all stake-
holders and the community. An explanation of what the management plan seeks to accomplish is important
at this stage. Stakeholders and the general public would then review and comment upon the committee's draft
proposed source water management plan. Then comments would be collected in an organized manner, often
in writing or through an additional public meeting.
Public Participation in Source Water Protection in Matagalpa
A public participation meeting was held in Matagalpa on January 18, 2001, as part of the community's
pilot project. Approximately 50 stakeholders, including cattle ranchers, coffee farmers, government rep-
resentatives, teachers and students, with a vital interest in the source water protection areas around
Matagalpa, attended the daylong meeting. The group discussed sources of contamination affecting their
drinking water and some possible management strategies to control those sources. This meeting pro-
vided an organized forum for stakeholders and members of the public to voice their own thoughts and
and react to other's ideas. The outcome of the meeting was development of a list of potential contami-
nant sources and a list of alternatives and management strategies for the source water areas. The pres-
ence and participation of a large number of stakeholders, members of the public, and government rep-
resentatives at this meeting provided strong incentive for further development of a source water man-
agement strategy for Matagalpa.
The schedule for public input should, at a
minimum, include an initial meeting, a mid-
project update and input meeting, and a draft-
plan presentation meeting. Some communi-
ties may wish to develop a more regular
schedule of meetings at which stakeholders
and the public can provide input to the plan-
ning committee on a regular basis, as the
source water protection plan is developed.
Figure 6.2
5. Coordination with Neighboring Communities
Coordination within a community, and between
communities, can greatly increase the success of a
source water management plan, and thus the pro-
tection of key water resources. The boundaries and
extent of water resources, such as a river or ground
water aquifer, usually do not coincide with the bor-
ders of a single community or town. Therefore, the
effectiveness of actions taken in one community to
protect its water source may be somewhat limited if
similar actions are not taken by other communities
sharing a given water source. Developing a source
water management plan that is compatible with,
and supportive of, the plans of other communities
sharing the same water source increases the overall
effectiveness of the individual community plans.
Coordination with upstream communities, such as between
Ocotal and its upstream neighbor Dipilto (pictured here), can
greatly increase the success of a management plan.
-------
6. Media involvement
Involvement of the media during development of a source water management plan can assist the process of
plan development in a variety of ways. In addition to helping inform stakeholders and the public and increas-
ing public involvement, the media can play a role in encouraging community support for a source water pro-
tection program. Visibility in the media can also communicate the need for financial and technical assistance
to government bodies, national and international NGOs, and lending institutions. A simple press release
(such as that shown in Figure 6.3) can be used by the Source Water Management Planning Committee to
inform the media during development of a management plan.
Initiate Source Water
Protection Efforts
(Local Authority)
Press releases such as this one, can be
used by a Source Water Management
Planning committee to inform the media
of a source water management planning
meeting. Source: Local Government
Environmental Assistance Network,
2001. OnlineToolboxwww.lgean.org.
Sam,
Contact: [Wame,
iPtmnc #\
"
S.i!.-
""« "- Won. nm^ «" *>»IWP. To ,, ,, ra,"'uT "'«>*>" ** u> fi*
""""""""'
Hold Initial Public Meeting
on Source Water Management
Form Source Water
Management Committee *
Draft Source Water
Management Plan
Flow chart of Public Participation
in Source Water Management.
* note: this step can come before or
after one initial public meeting.
\
Present Source Water Management
Plan to the Public
Finalize Source Water
Management Plan
Figure 6.4
Public Review
and Comment
Implement Source Water
Management Plan
Figure 6.3
Review and Revise
Source Water Management Plan
7. Regular review and modification
One key to the success of a source water management plan is to maintain an open dialogue with stakehold-
ers and the public beyond the plan development stage (presented in Chapter 5). The Source Water
Management Planning Committee should institute a vehicle for regular comment or review of the manage-
ment plan once it has been implemented. This can be a good source of information for the committee about
how well the plan is working and what elements of the plan are effective or ineffective. In addition, a simi-
lar open dialogue should be maintained for all modifications to the plan in subsequent years after the plan is
initially adopted.
6.3 Conclusion
A source water management plan developed through public participation represents a consensus on how to
best manage the drinking water sources for a community. The benefits gained from this process include
awareness in the community about the issues relating to the protection of drinking water, institution of coop-
erative networks within the community, and commitment among stakeholders and community members to
implement and uphold the management plan. The public participation process tremendously increases the
potential for successful source water protection.
-------
7
Case Studies from Pilot Projects
7.1 Overview
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Ocotal
7.4 Esteli
7.5 Matagalpa
7.1 Overview
In an effort to develop a meaningful approach to assisting communities in Nicaragua with development of
their own source water protection programs, the project began with three pilot projects in communities
impacted by Hurricane Mitch. The pilot projects used different methods to address various aspects of source
water management.
In Ocotal, local high
school students inter-
ested in environmen-
tal issues carried out
a source water pro-
tection education
campaign. A com-
mittee of representa-
tives from the
mayor's office and
environmental and
health organizations
operating in Ocotal
worked together to
define the target
audience and create
local environmental
education program,
Proyecto Cuencas
Matagalpa, organized a
large public meeting to
bring together stake-
holders in the surround-
ing watersheds to dis-
cuss protection of the
city's surface water
sources. This meeting
Local stakeholders attend a public participation meeting on provided a torum tor
source water protection in Matagalpa. local farmers, ranchers,
teachers, non-governmental organizations, students,
and government representatives, and others, to voice
their ideas about the threats to drinking water quali-
ty in their area and what could be done to reduce
them. The stakeholders also learned about source
water protection from several speakers, including
AYAMAT and Proyecto Cuencas representatives,
and listened to each other express their opinions as
well.
This drawing by three local
school children was used in the
educational brochures distributed
in Ocotal.
three educational brochures. The students used the
brochures, as well as a survey they had created, to
inform cattle ranchers, coffee farmers and seasonal
coffee workers about actions they could take to pro-
tect their drinking water source.
A significant portion of Matagalpa's drinking water
comes from several watersheds surrounding the city.
The local water supply agency, AYAMAT, and a
Students in Esteli talk with workers in a furniture factory dur-
ing an inventory of potential contaminant sources.
Students at Esteli's campus of the National
Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN) pro-
vided extensive time and effort to initiate a compre-
hensive source water protection endeavor in that
city. The students learned how to delineate source
water protection areas for each of the city's drinking
water wells, and then inventoried the potential
sources of contamination for each protection area.
7.2 Introduction
This chapter describes the three pilot projects that
provided considerable basis for the preparation of
this training, which is designed to assist Nicaraguans
with development of programs to protect communi-
ty drinking water sources. The purpose of the pilot
projects was to provide technical assistance to the
target communities while establishing approaches
and methodologies for source water protection that
could be applicable on a national level. The work in
the pilot communities served to introduce ideas for
watershed protection, test assumptions, gain reaction
and input, and undertake initial actions to accom-
plish source water protection.
The selection of the pilot communities, Ocotal,
Esteli and Matagalpa, was based on an initial assess-
ment of conditions and opportunities for source
water protection in areas damaged by Hurricane
Mitch. After tentative selection, the leadership of
each community was consulted to explore its inter-
est and willingness to participate. The three towns
ultimately included as part of the project represent
locations of different population and geographic
area, with differing source water management
issues, in three distinct regions of the Mitch-affected
areas of Nicaragua.
Each pilot project was designed to address a partic-
ular issue in source water management and, through
empowerment to local stakeholders, to implement a
specific component of source water protection:
Esteli: delineate source water protection areas
for wells;
Ocotal: gain coordination and cooperation
among various entities and communities in the
watershed, and provide public education about
contaminant sources;
Matagalpa: develop effective public participa-
tion in watershed management by identifying
potential sources of contamination and enumer-
ating management solutions.
-------
While the objective of the overall project has been to
support the development of comprehensive source
water protection programs in Nicaraguan communi-
ties, the pilot projects were limited to just one or two
components in order to focus the work and develop
meaningful products within a relatively short time
frame. For each pilot project, short-term objectives
were identified, approaches to meet objectives
undertaken, results recorded, and future needs iden-
tified. The experience gained in the pilot towns has
been integrated into this manual.
Summaries of the pilot project case studies are pre-
sented below. In addition to illustrating the unique
circumstances of each community, the summaries
present a concise overview of the source water pro-
tection process in Nicaragua, and how it might be
expected to unfold in localities beyond the pilot proj-
ect communities.
Mayor Marta Adriana Peralta was closely involved in development of the
Ocotal pilot project.
The pilot project in Ocotal was initiated in
July, 2000, following a meeting between EPA
representatives and Mayor Marta Adriana
Peralta, during which drinking water protec-
tion and its importance for the health of the
community was discussed. Thanks to the
enthusiastic support of the Mayor and her
staff, the project got underway quickly, led
by a small working group of key individuals
concerned with water resources and water-
shed management. The working group,
organized by staff in the Ocotal Alcaldia,
included community associations and non-
governmental agencies, national agencies
such as MAGFOR and MARENA, and inter-
national organizations working in Ocotal on
issues related to water quality, watershed
management, and public health.
7.3 Ocotal
7.3.A Objectives
Develop partnerships among entities concerned with water quality in the community
Develop partnerships between Ocotal and the upstream communities in the source water area
Increase public awareness of source water issues and personal roles in protecting drinking water sources
7.3.B Project Summary
Ocotal is a town of approximately 25,000 people, located along the Rio Dipilto in the Nueva Segovia
Department in north-central Nicaragua. Ocotal depends on a central drinking water system that draws from
an intake along the Rio Dipilto just upstream of the city. The water is first treated at a central facility using
filtration, sedimentation, and chlorination. While the treatment plant is one of the more advanced in
Nicaragua, high loads of bacteria from storm water runoff and sediment from erosion occasionally upset the
balance of the treatment process and jeopardize the quality of delivered water. Upsets to the drinking water
treatment system were particularly problematic in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.
The permanent population of the Rio Dipilto watershed above Ocotal is 6,000 inhabitants, which swells to
24,000 during the four months of the coffee harvest. Approximately 25 percent of the permanent population
within the watershed does not receive treated drinking water (IRENA, 1993). Instead, water is taken direct-
ly from the river for household use. Therefore, both the population served by the central delivery system and
the population taking untreated water from the source stand to benefit from improved protection and man-
agement of source waters. This potential for improved drinking water quality provided the impetus for the
source water protection pilot project in Ocotal.
Initially, the working group held several discussions
to identify key water quality, source water protection
and public health issues in the Rio Dipilto watershed,
and the most effective ways to begin to address them.
Key questions raised in the meetings included:
What are the most serious water quality prob-
lems affecting the health of the community?
What are the most significant potential sources
of those water quality problems?
Who can and should be involved in remedying
these problems?
What management techniques should be consid-
ered?
The identified water quality issues included cattle
roaming freely in the river, runoff from coffee pro-
cessing flowing directly into streams, lack of use of
latrines by seasonal and permanent coffee workers,
and deforestation and erosion. After the working
group meetings, members of the group, along with
EPA representatives, toured the watershed to
observe the activities relating to identified water
quality concerns.
After completion of the meetings and watershed
tours, the working group developed a sequence of
steps to begin to address identified watershed pro-
tection needs. Targeted public education was pre-
dicted to yield the greatest impact in terms of over-
all watershed protection. Three of the problems
identified through the meetings and field visits were
selected as priorities for action, based on general
consensus among the working group members.
These issues were:
contamination of the river by cattle,
the lack of latrine use by seasonal coffee work-
ers, and
the absence of latrines available for use by sea-
sonal and permanent workers in the coffee fields.
Members of the Ocotal working group and EPA representa-
tives toured the watershed.
The Ocotal working group identified the need for increased
use of latrines by seasonal coffee workers.
2
-------
The working group identified other threats to the
quality of the drinking water source, but it was
agreed that these matters could be addressed later in
the source water protection effort. Those additional
water quality issues included improperly treated and
disposed coffee wastes (husks and honey water),
improperly disposed trash, and deforestation.
The Ocotal working group determined that broad
public outreach on the priorities for action could be
accomplished through the development and distribu-
tion of a series of educational brochures. The
brochures would deliver a clear, concise source
water protection message to the target groups asso-
ciated with the
identified priori-
ty problems: cat-
tle ranchers, cof-
fee farmers, and
coffee pickers.
In order to raise
community
awareness,
school children
were invited to
design a logo for
the brochures.
EPA representa-
The influx of seasonal coffee workers tlves developed
during the coffee harvest quadruples the text and graphics
area's population north of Ocotal. for separate
brochures on
each issue. Each brochure displayed the winning
logo. Following revision and approval by the work-
ing group, 300 copies of the brochures were deliv-
ered to the Mayor's office for distribution.
The culmination of the educational campaign was
delivery of the brochures to the target populations in
the watershed. Under the leadership of COBEN (the
local school of Nicaraguan biologists and eologists)
a group of environmentally concerned high school
students was organized into two brigades to assist
with the public education effort. The students iden-
tified a set of coffee farms and cattle ranches within
the watershed that they then visited once a week for
7 weeks. Small groups of students interviewed 9
coffee farm owners, 34 coffee pickers, and 11 cattle
ranchers during their visits to get an idea of their
environmental awareness and how that awareness
increased over the course of the 7-week campaign.
During each visit, students also distributed
brochures and discussed water quality issues. The
students used a questionnaire (a copy of one is
included in this chapter) for guidance in their dis-
cussion and interviews with each audience.
Responses from the people interviewed were posi-
tive, and the connection between water quality, indi-
vidual action, land uses and health was conveyed
successfully, according to the report compiled by the
students at the conclusion of the educational cam-
paign (a copy of the report pertaining to coffee pick-
ers is provided in this manual).
The logo for the educational brochure used in Ocotal was
developed by three school children.
7.3.C Outcomes and Accomplishments
The educational effort in Ocotal brought together a
variety of stakeholders, all of who had interest in
water resources and their management. The spec-
trum of stakeholders included businesses, residents,
farmers, transient and permanent farm
workers, local government, water treat-
ment and delivery managers, non-govern-
ment organizations and students ranging
from elementary to high school levels. In
addition, cooperation among the several
communities present in the watershed
(Ocotal, Dipilto, Las Manos) was initiat-
ed for the purpose of source water protec-
tion. This effort helped to open new
avenues of communication and strength-
en ties between the communities in work-
ing towards the common goal of drinking
water protection. An increased awareness
now exists on the part of the upstream
communities that their actions to protect
water quality can not only improve their
own drinking water, but could also
improve the water quality of downstream
communities. An emerging sense of stew-
ardship supports the prospect of contin-
ued progress in watershed protection for
the Rio Dipilto area. It is anticipated that
a regional philosophy toward source
water protection will become more preva-
lent as communities experience the bene-
fits of collaboration.
Figure 7.1
The principal outcome of the Ocotal pilot
project was a heightened awareness of water quality issues both in the community itself and in upstream
areas. The community also gained first hand experience in designing and carrying out a public education
campaign. As a result, students, coffee workers, coffee farmers, cattle ranchers and their families have an
increased understanding of the primary health issue in their community: drinking water quality. Through the
endeavors of the working group, connections have been made between workers, students, communities, local
government offices, and local organizations.
7.3.D Future Endeavors
Ocotal has established a firm foundation for continued efforts in source water protection. Primary drinking
water issues have been identified, practical experience in designing and implementing a public education
campaign gained, and groundwork laid for the necessary cooperative efforts that will provide optimal pro-
tection of the drinking water resources in the future. A program to protect source water in Ocotal has begun
in earnest, and efforts to implement a comprehensive source water protection plan, once it is developed, have
a great likelihood of success.
In
Entr
Non
Non
Ubi
Are
No.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII
IX.
forme del trabajo realizado por brigadistas ecologicos en la cuenca de
el rio Dipilto en la temporada de cafe 2000-2001.
evista para los ganaderos:
ihre de el productor
ibre de la finca
sacion
is de cultivo
de cabeza de ffanado
^Cuantos trabajadores contrata cada a o en su finca?
Permanente H M
Temporales H M
^,C6mo maneja los desechos de la finca?
<^asulla
A
-------
Preparado por: Lie. Myriam Cruz Peralta, Presidente COBEN- Ocotal y Srita. Maria Patricia Lopez Aguilar, Responsable de Brigadas
Ecologicas- Ocotal
En el periodo de realization de las encuesta se seleccionaron a dos Brigadas Ecologicas, conformada por estudiantes de secundaria de V
ano de el Colegio Fe y Alegria integrado por los jovenes: Brigada" Las Golondrinas" (7 mujeres) y Brigada" Los Chacales" (8
hombres).
Estos jovenes brigadistas se movilizaron en grupos de tres en las fincas cafetaleras de Dipilto Viejo, El Volcan y Las Manos en el
municipio de Dipilto, visitaron un total de nueve fincas cafetaleras, en las cuales realizaron un total de treinta y cuatro entrevistas a
cortadores de cafe de ellos (12 mujeres) y (22 hombres) estas personas entrevistadas ano con ano regresan a las mismas fincas a cortar
cafe y lo hacen acompanados de sus hijos menores y su companera o companero.
Asi contestaron a las preguntas los cortadores de cafe
I. ^Esta preocupado por la calidad de el agua que toma?
Esta sucia y contaminada, sale oscura y con mal sabor, les preocupa que se puedan enfermar porque sale de la quebrada (rio),
porque es necesario clorarla, por la salud de su familia, por la pulpa de el cafe.
II. ^Sabe usted que cuando las personas y los animales tiran desechos al rio pueden enfermarse al tomar de esta misma agua?
Si:
No, explique por favor:
Si, porque al tomarla ellos mismos pueden morir, porque ellos la consumen, esta infestada, por las enfermedades, se contamina su
organismo, perjudica la salud, el desaseo. Hay microbios que viven en los excrementos y orina, humana y animal, que no pueden
ser vistos. Cuando llueve, si hay excrementos en las partes altas del rio (cuenca), estos desechos pueden caer al rio llevando
consigo los microbios. Si hay ganado en el rio o cerca de el, estos microbios en los desechos tambien caeran al rio. Cuando bebe
agua que contiene estos microbios invisibles puede darle fiebre, diarrea, vomitos, dolor de estomago, dolor corporal, y
deshidratacion. A veces estos sintomas pueden causar la muerte, especialmente, a infantes, nifios y ancianos.
III. i, Se ha enfermado alguien en su familia recientemente, o conoce a alguien que haya estado enfermo por las causas anteriores?
Si, la enfermedad fue causada por haber tornado agua "sucia."
No, estamos contentos que siga saludable aunque otras personas no hayan tenido la misma suerte.
Si, se han enfermado presentando dolores de estomago. Se enfermaron los ninos solamente dos, los restantes dijeron que no
porque hierven o cloran el agua.
IV. Hay cosas que se pueden hacer para proteger el agua de los microbios; entre estas se destacan:
Usar las letrinas disponibles
Mantener las vacas fuera de el rio ( entre mas lejos de el rio mejor)
Incluso los afluentes son importantes porque ellos suplen al rio
V. i Preferiria usar letrina si existieran? Si, No ^Por que?
Por que necesitan hacer sus necesidades, si no hay tienen que hacerlas al aire libre y luego enterrarlos, para prevenir
enfermedades, para evitar la contamination, por las moscas, para protegerse, por que es necesario tenerlas, ayuda a nuestra salud,
por limpieza y seguridad, es importante para evitar los microbios.
VI. ^Considera que debe cuidar su salud, utilizar las letrinas y cambiar algunos habitos de higiene?
Concienciar a los que la usan
Para cuidar nuestra salud
Lavarse las manos
Clorar o hervir el agua
Para no contaminar el agua
Para mantener limpio
Vivir aseados
Lavar los alimentos
Mantener las letrinas cerradas por las moscas
Porque haciendolo al aire libre podemos contraer enfermedades
Tapar el agua
Usar papel higienico y quemarlo
Limpiar o cambiar las letrinas
No mantener animales en la cocina
VII. Brinde su opinion sobre:
El uso de las letrinas.
Mantener el ganado fuera de el rio.
Se pude hacer esto, y si no se puede £Por que no?
Puede sugerir algunas otras cosas para que esto pueda hacerse (el uso de las letrinas y alejar al ganado de el rio)?
Es importante usar letrinas, se puede mantener limpia la letrina, es primordial tenerla para que nadie se enferme,
donde hay agua puede haber ganado por que tienen microbios, es importante por la salud, se debe llamar la atencion a
personas que no mantienen limpia la letrina, porque se mantiene el agua limpia y se protege la salud, el ganado debe
estar encerrado, las letrinas son muy utiles, es necesario hacer buen uso de las letrinas y mantenerlas aseadas, es una
buena medida para evitar enfermedades y contaminar el agua.
VIII. i, Hay algunas otras acciones que puedan ser tomadas para mantener los excrementos (humanos / de animales ) fuera
de el alcance de el rio?
El uso de las letrinas.
Es dificil por que mucha gente busca el campo para hacer sus necesidades; por ejemplo: en una fmca de 80
trabajadores solo 3 usan letrina.
Se debe enterrar los excretos.
Se debe mantener tapada la letrina.
Mantener los animales encerrados.
No llevar el ganado al rio.
Usar los excretos como abono.
Beber agua de pozo.
Orientar a la poblacion sobre el asunto de las letrinas.
Aumentar el numero de letrinas en las fincas.
Dejarla de abono en la fmca.
Meterla en un hoyo, despulpar en seco el cafe, dejarle de abono.
Figure 7.2
-------
7.4 Esteli:
7.4.A Objectives
Delineate Source Water Protection Areas (SWPA) for Esteli wells
Inventory potential contaminant sources for all SWPAs for all wells
Rank potential contaminant sources in all SWPAs for wells
Engage students, mayor's office, and other key agencies and organizations in the city in a source water protection effort
Develop coordination between the university and the mayor's office
7.4.B Project Summary
The city of Esteli was chosen as a pilot project com-
munity for several reasons: the relatively large size
of the community, the fact that Esteli depends on
ground water sources for its drinking water, the
presence of the University Center of the Northern
Region of UNAN (UNAN-CURN) there, and inter-
est on the part of the Mayor. An exploratory meet-
ing with the Mayor took place in July, 2000, and a
project to delineate the source water protection areas
for wells in Esteli was launched soon thereafter.
Esteli is served by 16 drinking water wells, most of
which are located in or immediately adjacent to the
urban center. During initial discussions with the
Mayor, concern for the longevity of these wells
became evident, as did the community's interest in
developing a base of technical information about the
wells and surrounding areas that would assist in the
management of these drinking water sources. EPA
representatives were aware of the existence of a
branch of UNAN located in Esteli, and, with the
support of the Mayor's office, approached the direc-
tor of the Environment and Natural Resource
Management Program about student participation in
a source water protection area delineation project for
the drinking water wells in the city. The director of
the program, Dr. Ramona Rodriguez Perez, enthusi-
astically supported the proposal, and worked closely
with EPA representatives to formulate a credit proj-
ect for third year graduate students in the environ-
mental and natural resource management program.
The woodworking factory and tile
factory, shown here, were toured
by UNAN-CURN students as part
of their inventory of potential
sources of contamination.
The UNAN-CURN
delineation project
involved 25 students
who participated in
two EPA training ses-
sions, one in
November, 2000, and
one in January, 2001.
During the first class,
students learned how
to perform delin-
eations of source
water protection areas
for wells, using the calculated fixed radius equation
(based upon recharge and pumping rates) presented
in Chapter 4 of this manual. After the first class, the
students calculated candidate radii for all 16 wells
serving the city. They then developed a map show-
ing the circular source water protection area for each
well. These calculations were based on an estimat-
ed recharge rate (assumed to be 50% of the annual
precipitation rate), and 100% of the pumping capac-
ity of each well, as suggested by the trainer for this
first exercise. During the second class, EPA repre-
sentatives verified the protection area calculations
and provided instructions on methods to inventory
potential sources of contamination within the
mapped areas.
The second classroom session was immediately fol-
lowed by a field trip to identify potential sources of
contamination in one of the delineated areas and to
collect information needed for the ranking process.
The students chose a protection area for a well near
the UNAN-CURN campus and walked throughout
the protection area as a group with the EPA repre-
sentatives. A variety of potential contaminant
sources were investigated, including a woodworking
shop, a tile factory, road runoff, and sewage and
storm water discharge pipes from homes and busi-
nesses. Students' knowledge of the importance of
positive collaboration in the pursuit of drinking
water protection goals was put into practice during
discussions with owners and operators of potential
contamination sources. The field trip concluded
with a visit to the site of the well that currently draws
water from the delineated area they had just toured,
underscoring the potential impact of activities with-
in the protection area on drinking water quality.
During the months following the second class, the
students identified potential sources of contamina-
tion in each of the delineated source water protection
areas. They first developed a list of potential
sources of contaminants that applied specifically to
the land uses and
industries in their
town, and then walked
throughout each pro-
tection area to directly
investigate all the
potential contaminant
sources. In the
process of the investi-
gation, the students
talked with shop own-
ers and other local
people about the
chemicals used, stored
or disposed of at their
facility, business or
home. They also col-
lected data on methods used by local shops and fac-
tories for chemical and waste storage and disposal.
The students will use this information in the future
when they rank the potential contaminant sources,
based on potential risk and other factors, in order to
develop management options. (Ranking of potential
contaminant sources is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 4.) This inventory exercise provided the
students a clear understanding of the potential
threats to the drinking water supply, and provided a
basis for discussion of drinking water protection
with the business owners, workers, and local agen-
cies.
The final piece of the UNAN-CURN graduate class
project will be to rank the potential sources of con-
tamination based on a set of chosen criteria, such as
travel time to the well, quantity of contaminant, or
type of contaminant. (Ranking is discussed in more
detail in Chapter 4.) Ranking sources will help the
students to evaluate the potential risk to drinking
water supplies from the sources. This information
will then be shared with the municipal government
to facilitate efforts to implement source water pro-
tection measures.
As the students worked on the source water area
delineations, word about the project spread within
-------
The students at UNAN-CURN
delineated the source water pro-
tection area and conducted an
inventory of potential contami-
nation sources for Well #18 in
Esteli, pictured here.
the community. Others
began to take an interest
in the project, in particu-
lar, AMCRE (Association
of Municipalities of the
Esteli River Watershed).
Thanks to the initiative of
the university, AMCRE
became involved in the
project. Applying its Geographic Information
System (GIS) capabilities, AMCRE will work with
students to digitize the maps of the source water pro-
tection areas for the Esteli wells. This effort will
make the source water protection area information
compatible with a variety of software applications,
and thus highly useful to other institutions working
in the area on natural resource management and
drinking water and watershed protection.
The students also established a working relationship
with the local office of ENACAL, which supplied
information on well locations, pumping rates, and
other design specifics. Project results will be made
available to the ENACAL office to assist in opera-
tion and management decisions, and in planning for
future service needs. A continued working relation-
ship among the University, the municipality,
AMCRE and ENACAL can move the source water
protection effort forward into the management
stages. Currently, the project is being carried ahead
primarily by the work of the students at UNAN-
CURN. Over time, the political leadership of the
municipality and ENACAL most likely will become
integral players in implementing management
options. The students and professors at UNAN-
CURN hope to continue working on the topic of
source water protection with future classes, and to
maintain the working partnerships established dur-
ing this project. Continued involvement of students
at the University is likely to strengthen source water
protection efforts in Esteli.
7.4.C Outcomes and Accomplishments
Students in the source water protection class at UNAN-
CURN each received a certificate of completion.
A number of noteworthy achievements resulted
from the Esteli case study effort. The most out-
standing of these was demonstration of the value of
involving University students in providing technical
support for drinking water protection efforts. The
interest, competence, and dedication of the students
and faculty involved in this project indicate that
expansion of university involvement in source water
protection efforts throughout Nicaragua would be a
valuable component of long-term programs.
In terms of the UNAN-CURN class specifically
involved in the pilot project, the students developed
skills and understanding that can be put to work in
the immediate future. Their determination that
almost every part of the city of Esteli falls within a
protection area, established an important connection
for the students between land use and the potential
for drinking water contamination. Other projects
related to the delineation effort are being developed
and collaborative efforts between the University and
the local government to develop components of a
source water protection program have begun.
As a result of this project, the city of Esteli now has
a calculated and mapped set of candidate source
water protection areas, and corresponding invento-
ries of potential contaminant sources, for its 16
drinking water wells. The students can now use this
information as a tool in pursuing the next steps in
source water protection, along with the help of
ENACAL, the municipality, AMCRE and other
stakeholders.
Another positive outcome of the pilot project was
development of a comprehensive inventory of
potential contaminant sources in each source water
protection area, and the ranking of potential sources
of contamination within each of these areas. It is
anticipated that this information will be of consider-
able benefit to the local government, which has indi-
cated a strong interest in initiating a comprehensive
drinking water protection program for the city.
7.4.D Future Endeavors
Professors at the University have expressed an inter-
est in continuing to develop coursework relative to
drinking water protection. This will likely be cov-
ered as part of the Physical Chemistry and
Toxicology track in the Natural Resource
Management Masters program (Gestion en Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) at UNAN-CURN
at UNAN-CURN Esteli. The students who received
the training as part of the pilot project may continue
with efforts to protect drinking water in Esteli or
undertake similar work elsewhere. Indications from
the Mayor's office are that the work of the students
will contribute significantly to source water protec-
tion efforts in the community, and that this project
has provided the impetus to begin to assemble a
citywide strategy for drinking water protection.
The students who have participated in the pilot project in
Esteli may continue with efforts to protect drinking water in
Esteli or elsewhere.
The contributions of the agencies and individu-
als involved in the pilot project efforts in Ocotal,
Esteli and Matagalpa have been invaluable in
Nicaragua's effort to establish a national pro-
gram to protect drinking water sources. Their
assistance is greatly appreciated.
6
-------
7.5 Matagalpa
7.5.A Objectives
Public participation in source water protection
Enhanced local management of drinking water sources
Development of a wash basin demonstration project
7.5.B Project Summary
Matagalpa is a mid-sized city lying at the con-
fluence of the Rio Molino Norte and the Rio
San Francisco. Matagalpa draws its water from
three major sources: the Rio Molino Norte, the
Rio San Francisco and the Rio Aranjuez. AYA-
MAT is also currently investigating the possi-
bility of drawing additional water from ground
water sources in the Sebaco Valley, Chaguitillo.
The pilot project in Matagalpa built upon the
activities of an existing network of local water-
related groups, and focused on facilitating dis-
cussion of drinking water issues among stake-
holders in the various watersheds that supply
surface drinking water to Matagalpa. The
source water protection areas for the combined
surface and ground water drinking water
sources in the Matagalpa region are vast. A local environmental education program, Proyecto Cuencas
Matagalpa, has mapped these source areas for its own educational purposes, so the watershed boundaries
around Matagalpa are generally recognized and understood by the community and water resource and envi-
ronmental managers in the region. The effort by Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to delineate the watersheds
and educate the community on the subject appears to have greatly facilitated source water protection efforts
and management activities in and around Matagalpa.
Matagalpa is unique in that its drinking water is managed by an innovative prototype organization called
AYAMAT AYAMAT is a semi-private entity related to ENACAL working to manage protection and delivery
of drinking water in a sustainable and efficient manner, with limited involvement by ENACAL. Matagalpa is
also unusual in that it has a very strong, well-established environmental organization in place in the commu-
nity. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa works with local community members and students to provide environ-
mental education, promote environmental campaigns at the local level, and support innovative, environmen-
tally friendly, and economically beneficial alternatives to habitual activities that contribute to the degradation
of drinking water sources. The Matagalpa pilot project capitalized on the successes of these institutional
arrangements to initiate a sustained public involvement program for the source water protection areas.
The first step in developing the source water protection program in Matagalpa was to work with AYAMAT
and Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa to organize a stakeholder meeting to discuss the major problems affecting
A community clothes washing station in Matagalpa could help pre-
vent bacteria and harsh soaps from flowing directly into the river.
drinking water quality, and to develop new ideas and
options for mitigating those problems. On January
18, 2001, representatives of EPA, AYAMAT and
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa facilitated a meeting of
approximately 50 stakeholders who had been identi-
fied and invited to participate by AYAMAT and
Proyecto Cuencas. Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa
was able to use its existing network from its ongoing
environmental education and outreach work to iden-
tify a large group of stakeholders from throughout
the surrounding watersheds. The stakeholders repre-
sented the following interests:
Members of Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa
Local government officials
Town water committees
MARENA-Matagalpa
National Forestry Institute (INAFOR) - Matagalpa
Health organizations
Small Producers Association of Molino Norte (a
watershed that supplies drinking water to
Matagalpa)
Cattle ranchers
Farmers (large- and small-scale): vegetables,
grains, corn, coffee
Tree nursery operators
Dairy farmers
School teachers
Students from National Agrarian University in
Managua
The first half of the day was devoted to key topics in
watershed management, including:
source water assessment and the benefits of pro-
tection;
the role of public participation in protection of
drinking water sources;
the Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa and current
efforts underway to improve and protect source
waters for Matagalpa drinking water; and
alternative technologies and practices to address
potential contamination associated with the coffee
industry.
In the afternoon, EPA representatives led a discus-
sion of the major contaminant issues in the source
water areas of Matagalpa, and what might be done to
mitigate the contaminants. The meeting became
lively at points, with participants expressing their
ideas over a spectrum of economic, political, educa-
tional and social perspectives. While significant dif-
ferences of opinion emerged over the course of the
meeting, many vital issues were put forth for discus-
sion. Ultimately, the group identified nine signifi-
cant sources of contamination:
Honey waters from coffee processing
Trash - plastics, wrappers, glass
Cattle ranching
Clothes washing directly in the rivers
Dairy farming
Leather processing
Pesticides and chemicals used in high volumes on
flower farms
Sewage waste
Deforestation (effects on quality and quantity of
water)
The discussion clearly bolstered the process of
source water protection. Several of the participants
made a point to say that the meeting was well worth
the time spent and they were glad to have participat-
ed. Others felt the community needed to have more
meetings of a similar nature to discuss issues and
initiate action. In general, the group concluded that
more education on drinking water quality and pro-
tection was needed in the watershed communities.
One of the major themes emerging from the public
meeting was the need for and interest in alternative
technologies to reduce negative impacts on water
quality and watershed ecosystems. Alternatives dis-
cussed included the following:
Use of coffee pulp as an organic fertilizer;
Use of biogas instead of wood;
Reduced use of water in coffee processing;
Treatment of honey water;
Use of the inner coffee husk to form energy bricks
-------
to reduce wood consumption;
Use of more efficient ovens; and
Use of community clothes-washing stations locat-
ed away from the river.
Participants in the public participation meeting in Matagalpa
tour the coffee waste treatment technologies at Selva Negra.
7.5.C Outcomes and Accomplishments
Based on the feedback of participants, the Matagalpa
public meeting was clearly effective in raising the
level of awareness of watershed issues, and in gen-
erating interest to resolve them. Some of the more
notable successes were the large number of partici-
pants, the broad representation of diverse interests
from a large geographical area, and the considerable
interchange that took place among the presenters
and audience. Such interaction is a critical element
of the source water protection process. The presence
of several government representatives at the meet-
ing, from international, national and local levels,
gave people a sense that their ideas and comments
mattered, and further added to the momentum gen-
erated by the meeting. In the future, further discus-
sion of issues surrounding source water protection
and management can be hosted through the outreach
network of Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa.
The Matagalpa public meeting was also an opportu-
nity to showcase one of the leading examples of
local source water management in Nicaragua. It was
evident from the discussions over the course of the
day that AYAMAT is in a unique position to react to
the issues brought up at the meeting and to work
with the watershed communities to continue the
effort of source water protection. As more people
become aware of the existence and operation of enti-
ties like AYAMAT, local communities may be stim-
ulated to apply the model to their own situations and,
in the process, bring source water protection efforts
closer to home.
Leaders from Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa and AYAMAT use
this watershed map (above) and 3-dimensional model (below)
to point out potential contamination sources and drinking
water intake locations.
7.5.D Future Endeavors
The Matagalpa public meeting laid the foundation
for a highly participatory public involvement
process in the creation of a source water protection
plan for the region. EPA representatives promoted
the idea of further meetings as a means of keeping
attention focused on water quality issues and gener-
ating action.
During the public meeting, one of the issues raised
was the impact of clothes washing on river water
quality. From this discussion emerged the idea of
constructing a community wash station set back
from the river and supplied by water diverted from
the river. The wash water could be directed to an
infiltration area to prevent discharge directly to the
river. This wash station, which could accommodate
a small number of families, could be used as a
demonstration project for other similar projects in
the future. Such a facility could serve as a model
and encourage broad scale use as a means to protect
surface water quality.
-------
Innovative and Alternative Technologies
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Innovative and Alternative Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua
8.1 Introduction
We are continually increasing our own awareness
about the negative impacts of human activity on
environmental resources. For example, the use of
rivers to discharge industrial and municipal waste-
water, the application of agrochemicals to crops, and
the practice of burying hazardous wastes have been
recognized as major causes of environmental dam-
age and, in some cases, human health problems. In
response, communities and societies around the
globe have begun to undertake efforts to adapt activ-
ities and to develop innovative practices that better
protect resources and ecosystems.
In particular, many effective innovative and alterna-
tive technologies have been developed to address
water pollution problems both at the community and
the individual level. Conventional practices, such as
disposing of coffee husks and honey waters from
coffee processing directly into a surface water body,
washing clothes directly in a river, and allowing cat-
tle to roam directly into a river to drink, sometimes
have associated environmental costs like pollution
of water resources. Innovative and alternative tech-
nologies are ways of meeting community needs such
that negative environmental impacts are reduced or
eliminated.
Some innovative and alternative technologies are
now being applied in communities in Nicaragua that
are working to reduce contamination in the water-
sheds, achieve cleaner drinking water, improve envi-
ronmental health, realize cost savings, and limit the
overuse of resources.
The benefits to drinking water quality from the use
of innovative and alternative technologies can be
significant. Therefore, a chapter of this manual is
devoted to summarizing several of these. As drink-
ing water resource management plans are devel-
oped in the communities of Nicaragua, it is impor-
tant to consider how and where innovative and
alternative technologies can be employed. Whether
taken as a direct application of the alternatives pre-
sented here, an adaptation of them, or a formulation
of altogether new approaches, innovative technolo-
gies can significantly increase the success and/or
reduce the cost of a drinking water protection pro-
gram both at a national and local level. Water
resource managers and other leaders should pursue
opportunities for developing new and alternative
technologies.
It should be noted that three of the innovative and
alternative technologies presented in this chapter
could result in pollution of groundwater. The bene-
fits gained from clothes washing stations, cattle
watering troughs away from surface waters, and
latrines all rely on the process of filtration for con-
taminant removal. The percolated water can eventu-
ally reach the ground water, with the slight possibil-
ity of carrying with it nutrients, viruses and bacteria
from cattle waste, human waste and clothes washing
water. These technologies could potentially cause
pollution of groundwater resources. While these
technologies may not be ideal in terms of protection
of water supplies, they do provide a marked
improvement over direct discharge to surface waters
that serve as sources of drinking water.
Finally, it is also important to note that in Nicaragua,
personal property taxes or improvement taxes may
be imposed on certain types of new construction.
This fact may act as a deterrent to individuals who
might otherwise employ an alternative technology.
A significant initial investment, sometimes required
to institute a technology, might also be a disincentive
for implementation. An effort to eliminate such dis-
incentives could include working with the local
municipality to develop a program of tax breaks or
other incentives as part of the source water protec-
tion and management plan (see Chapter 6 for further
discussion).
Firewood collection contributes to unstable conditions on hill-
sides leaving them vulnerable to erosion.
8.2 Innovative and Alternative
Technologies Applicable in Nicaragua
1) Fuel bricks from coffee husks (cascarillas)
According to Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, a water-
shed protection program in Matagalpa, fuel bricks
(briquetas) can produce more energy than a similarly
sized log of firewood. Several neighborhoods in the
north of Matagalpa have begun using briquetas for
fuel (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, 2000) instead of
wood. The coffee husk bricks can replace some of the
need for firewood, which is already sparse on many
hillsides due to previous deforestation. Further cut-
ting of trees for firewood promotes unstable condi-
tions on hillsides, and leaves the terrain vulnerable to
erosion. Erosion of soils from the hillsides can cause
heavy sedimentation in rivers and streams, which can
impact the quality of drinking water sources. Using
coffee husks for fuel bricks or purchasing fuel bricks instead of firewood can slow the rate of deforestation
on hillsides. The recycling of coffee husks in this manner also reduces the practice of discharging husks
directly into surface waters, which is a typical means of disposal during the coffee harvest season.
Fuel bricks produce more energy than a similarily sized log
of firewood.
-------
2) Composting of coffee husks (pulpa de cafe) for fertilizer
Coffee husks can also be composted (allowed to decom-
pose in a pile) and used for fertilizer the next year. Coffee
husk composting requires construction of a sump or basin,
usually built of cement or brick, in which the coffee husks
can settle out of the honey waters. The honey waters are
diverted elsewhere for further treatment and the coffee
husks are moved to a compost area. A separate area near
the settling basin must be designated where the husks can
be composted. This area can be a simple hand-dug hole in
the ground or just an open space for a compost pile. It is
estimated that recycling husks from a coffee farm can pro-
vide fertilizer for approximately 20 percent of that farm
(Kuhl, 2001), potentially cutting fertilizer costs by 20 per-
cent. Cost savings on fertilizer can therefore cover the ini-
tial construction cost for the settling basin rather quickly.
Coffee husk composting can be instituted on a farm of any
size.
Coffee husks can be collected, composted, and turned
into fertilizer.
3) Biogas production from biodigestion of honey waters in coffee production
Honey waters produced in wet coffee processing
(lavado del cafe) are extremely high in organic mate-
rial (such as sugars). When this material is broken
down by naturally occurring bacteria, methane gas is
produced. This process is called biodigestion, and can
be carried out in a biodigester tank (see photo at
right). The methane is captured within the tank and
delivered to homes via simple pipe systems for use in
cooking. Use of biogas as a fuel is usually only effi-
cient when it can be produced near the area where it is
used. The gas can be used as a cooking fuel in place
of wood.
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa has been working with
area coffee farms to construct and implement the use
of biodigesters to produce biogas. At least four farms
have begun to use the biogas they are producing in
their biodigesters (Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, 2000).
Biogas produced from the decomposition of coffee husks can
be collected and used as a fuel source.
4) Clothes washing station
Washing clothes in a river can contribute significant
amounts of bacteria and soaps to the river. By wash-
ing clothes away from rivers, the pollution load from
soiled clothes and soap can be minimized or eliminat-
ed. Clothes washing stations for small communities or
neighborhoods can be constructed in convenient loca-
tions away from rivers. Typically, a pipe is construct-
ed and water is transported via gravity or pumped from
the river to a cement wash station at least 100 meters
from the edge of the river. The discharge water from
the wash station is directed to a specified location to
infiltrate into the ground before it returns to the river.
Washing clothes away from rivers prevents bacteria and soap
from entering a surface drinking water source.
Infiltration allows bacteria to be filtered out of the water by the soil, and absorption or uptake of the nutrients
in soap to take place. Any water returning to the river via underground flow has lower levels of pollutants.
Ready-made washbasins, as well as piping, fittings, and valves can be purchased in most large towns.
A community may wish to form a small management board to take care of maintenance and management of
a community wash station. Money is usually required for upkeep of the system, or for power for a water
pump, if one is used. Possible sources of funds include the local government, water utilities, non-govern-
mental organizations working in the area, and user fees. Each community must determine the best method to
support the day to day operation and maintenance of a wash station.
5) Watering troughs
Keeping cattle or other livestock out of rivers and
streams is essential to protecting surface water quali-
ty. Excrement and urine from livestock can be a
major source of drinking water pollution. One method
to restrain livestock is to fence off surface water bod-
ies and provide animals with an alternative source of
drinking water. A trough of water located well away
from a river or stream can be supplied with water
from upstream via a gravity pipe or by pumping it up
from the river if necessary. While construction of
troughs and fences may require a significant initial
investment, and maintenance needs can be high, the
benefits to water quality from reduced bacteria and
nitrogen entering a surface drinking water supply can
be considerable. Similar to wash basin projects,
sources of funds might include local governments,
water utilities, non-governmental organizations work-
ing in the area, and user fees.
Water troughs must be provided for livestock restrained from
rivers and streams by use of fencing.
-------
6) Public/community latrines
One of the sources of bacterial inputs to rivers and
streams is overland runoff of human waste. In an
effort to reduce open defecation in unvegetated areas,
especially roadsides, communities could invest in
public latrines in critical locations. Such locations
might include bus stops, coffee pick-up stations, mar-
kets, and other sites where people typically gather for
periods of time. Public latrines would need to be sited
and built in a manner protective of water supplies.
They should be located away from rivers and streams
and should be designed to ensure that wastes are fil-
tered into the ground rather than carried off in any
storm runoff to a surface water body.
Public latrines in gathering places like local markets can reduce the need for open
defecation.
7) Sand filters
Sand filters can be used for cleansing relatively small volumes of surface water or spring water for individual dwellings and
small communities at higher elevations where bacterial contaminants are less likely to occur in high concentrations. Ideally,
sand filters would be used as one step in a series of water treatment steps that would also include disinfection, such as chlo-
rination. However, even in the absence of possible further treatment options, filtration of drinking water is a worthwhile
practice. Because of the relatively limited capacity of sand filters to reduce contamination levels in water, they are only
practical in areas where bacterial and other contaminant inputs are relatively low. Typically, the least contaminated surface
waters occur close to the water sources in the upper watersheds. An example of a region that could benefit from increased
use of sand filters is the higher elevations in the Rio Dipilto watershed.
Sand filters can be effective in filtering out some particulate matter, such as suspended sediments and particulate metals from
water. Basic sand filtration can also remove some bacteria that may be attached to particulate matter in the water. Water is
diverted from a stream or river and dispersed at a slow rate of flow through a container of sand, collected at the bottom of
the container, and piped by gravity flow to the home or homes using the supply. Sand filters of varying sizes can be con-
structed depending on the volume and flow of water to be cleaned on a daily basis. It is very important to size the sand fil-
ter appropriately for the volume and flow of water being treated in order to allow for the maximum contaminant removal.
An improperly sized or maintained sand filter could be virtually ineffective, or could harbor growth of bacteria or build-up
of contaminants within the sand bed. The sand should be clean and should be replaced frequently, depending on the level
of bacterial contamination of the water. Finally, the top of the sand filter should be covered, while still maintaining plenty
of open air circulation for the sand and water, in order to prevent contamination from animals.
-------
Sources of Information
9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations
9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations
9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations
9.4 Educational and Research Institutions
9.5 Documents from the Pilot Project Arena That May Be Useful
One of the most important pieces in the source water protection
process is accessing the available body of information about the source
water area of interest. There is no need to start from scratch when
information may already exist about: land uses in the watershed, water
quality, topography, water distribution, current management, and other
relevant topics. In addition, experiences from source water protection
efforts in other areas can be helpful in planning a local effort. Below
is a list of possible sources of information in local communities and in
the greater national and international community that may be of help.
A majority of this contact information was gathered from web sites
hosted by the organizations listed below, and is as current as the infor-
mation provided on the web site. All web site locations and contact
information otherwise collected are current as of May, 2001.
9.1 Nicaraguan Local and National Government Organizations
Local Alcaldia
Planning and land use information
Statistics about population, land uses, local programs
Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ENACAL)
Km 5 !/2 Carretera Sur
Contiguo a la Casona E.E.U.U.
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-265-0861
Fax: 505-265-0981
Local offices may also be able to provide:
Well Information
Water Service and Distribution Information
Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa (AYAMAT)
Contiguo a Interbank
Matagalpa, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-6125461, 6122979
Fax: 505-6123148
Institute Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales (INETER)
Direccion de Recursos Naturales
Frente a la Policlinica Oriental del Seguro Social
Apdo. Postal 2110
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-249-2756
Fax: 505-249-1890
Topographic maps
Map of major watersheds in Nicaragua
Map of average annual precipitation in Nicaragua
Map of average high precipitation in post El-Nino years in
Nicaragua
Hydrogeologic Maps and Cross-sections
Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal (MAGFOR)
www.magfor.gob.ni (Spanish)
Agricultural and forestry resources
Soil information
Land use information
Planning and land use information
Statistics about population, land use programs
Ministerio de Salud (MINSA)
Complejo Nacional de Salud "Dra. Conception Palacios"
Costado Oeste Colonia Primero de Mayo
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-289-7274, 289-7235
www.minsa.gob.ni (Spanish)
Public health information
Water quality information in some water treatment plants
Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA)
Direccion General del Ambiente y Recursos Hidricos (DGA)
Km 12 Vi Carretera Norte
Apartado Postal 5123
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-263-2095/263-2088
Fax: 505-263-2088/263-2354
Asociacion Municipios de la Cuenca y Subcuencas Tributarias
delRioEsteli (AMCRE)
Esteli, Nueva Segovia, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-713-7725
Fax: 505-713-6721
amcre@ibw.com.ni
9.2 Foreign Government and Multilateral Organizations
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Home Page
www.epa.gov/OW/index.html (English)
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Home Page
www.epa.gov/safewater (English)
El agua potable y la salud: lo que Ud. debe saber
www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/apsalud.html (Spanish)
Estandares de Agua Potable en Los Estados Unidos
www.epa.gov/safewater/agua/estandares.html (Spanish)
Drinking water contaminants - Fact Sheets
www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html (English)
-------
Safe Drinking Water Help Line:
www.epa.gov/OGWDW/drinklink.html (English and Spanish)
Tel: 800-426-4791 (toll free from the US)
US Peace Corps
Colonia Bolonia
Canal 2, Ic. Abajo, 2 cuadra al sur
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-266-7033/ 266-7034/ 266-7035/ 266-7036
Fax: 505-266-1392
US Agency for International Development (USAID)
Nicaragua Mission
De la Loteria Nacional, 200 metros abajo
Frente a Syscom
Pista Sub-Urbana, Apartado Postal C-167, zp-13
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-267-0502
Fax: 505-278-3828
www.usaid.org.ni (English)
USAID Environmental Health Project
Del Hotel Colon Ic. al sur, 1 /^ arriba, Los Robles
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-270-2380, 505-270-2517
Fax: 505-278-4961
www.ehpnicaragua.org.ni (Spanish)
The World Bank
De los Semaforos de la Centroamerica
400 mts. Abajos, segundo piso Edificio SYSCOM
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-270-000
Fax: 505-270-0077
www.worldbank.org (English)
United Nations Development Program
Rotonda El Gueguense
Plaza Espana 400 mts al sur
Apartado Postal 3260
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-266-3191, 505-266-3193, 505-266-3195
505-266-1701, 505-266-3155
Fax: 505-266-6909
www.undp.org.ni (Spanish)
The World Health Organization
Home Page
www.who.int/home-page/index.es.shtml (Spanish)
Links to Environment and Health related information
http://www.who.int/home/map_ht.html#Environment and
Lifestyle (English)
Drinking water quality information and
contaminant guidelines
http: //www. who. int/water_sanitati on_health/Water_quality/
drinkwat.htm (English)
http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/indexeng.html (Spanish)
Pan American Health Organization
Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana
Complejo Nacional de Salud
Apartado Postal 1309
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-289-4200, 505-289-4800
Fax: 505-289-4999
www.ops.org.ni (Spanish)
Information about health, links to technical documents and references
about diseases and disease prevention, databases, and contact infor-
mation
Comite Coordinador Regional de Instituciones de Agua Potable y
Saneamiento de Centroamerica, Panama y Republica Dominicana
(CAPRE)
Avenidas Central y Primera, Calle 5
Edificio la Llanuca, Piso 15
Apdo. Postal 5120-1000
San Jose, Costa Rica
Tel: 506-222-4392/257-6054
Fax: 506-222-3941
9.3 Non-Governmental Organizations
CARE International
Sandy's Carretera a Masaya
Ic. abajo, /^ c. al lago
Apartado Postal 3084
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-267-8395, 505-278-3834, 505-278-0018,
505-278-0115
Fax: 505-267-0386
CARE International supports rural water, sanitation and preventive
health projects in communities in Nicaragua. These projects include
PALES A, the El Viejo Potable Water project, the Latrines and Health
Education Project, and the Water for Today and Tomorrow project.
For more information, visit www.care.org.ni. (Spanish)
Amigos de las Americas
Amigos de las Americas, a Non-governmental organization from the
United States, brings volunteer teams to work with small communi-
ties on sanitation, environmental education, and drinking water proj-
ects, as well as on other community development issues.
In Nicaragua, AMIGOS' partner organization is CARE International
(see above).
Auxilio Mundial - World Relief
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-265-3415, 505-265-3430
Agua Para la Vida
2311 Webster Street
Berkeley, CA 94705, USA
Tel: 510-643-8003,510-528-8318
Fax: 510-643-5571
Agua Para la Vida is a non-profit organization started in 1987 to help
start small rural Nicaraguan communities to construct their own
drinking water systems.
9.4 Educational and Research Institutions
Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigation y EnseiTanza (CATIE)
7170 CATIE
Apdo. Postal 19-7170
Turrialba, Costa Rica
Tel: 506-556-6081, ext. 337
Fax: 506-556-6166
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa
Edificio Alcaldia de Matagalpa
Planta Alta
Matagalpa, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-612-2850
cuencama(S)ib w.ni. com
-------
Environmental education project to protect the watersheds around
Matagalpa
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua (UNAN)
UNAN - Managua
ENEL Central 3 Km al Sur
Apartado Postal: 663
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-278-6769
Fax: 505-277-4943
www.unan.edu.ni (Spanish)
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua (UNAN)
Centre Universitario Region Norte (CURN)
Programa de Gestion en Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales
Esteli, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-713-2437, 505-713-6890
Universidad Centroamericana de Managua (UCA)
Pista de la Resistencia, semaforos de ENEL SOOmts. al este
Apartado Postal #69
Managua, Nicaragua
Tel: 505-2783923
Fax: 505-2670106
www.uca.edu.ni (Spanish)
Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria (UNI)
Campus "Simon Bolivar"
Avenida Universitaria, Managua, Nicaragua
Campus "Pedro Arauz P.," Costado Sur Villa Progreso
Managua, Nicaragua
Apartado Postal 5595
Tel: 505-267-0274, 505-249-4287
Fax: 505-267-3709
www.uni.edu.ni (Spanish)
Universidad Nacional Agraria (UNA)
Km 12 1/2, Carretera Norte
Apartado postal No. 453, Managua
tel: 505-2331619
fax: 505-2331950
www.una.edu.ni (Spanish)
Escuela Agricola Panamericana Zamorano
www.zamorano.edu.hn (Spanish and English)
Latin American Network Information Center
www.lanic.utexas.edu (English)
Links to helpful websites in Latin America, by region or country,
under the topics of sustainable development, economics, government,
media, social sciences and more.
Centre Panamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria y Ciencas del Ambiente
(CEPIS)
http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org (Spanish and English)
Virtual library of information about health, water quality and sanita-
tion in Latin America.
9.5 Documents from the Pilot Project Arena That May Be Useful
Esteli
"Esteli Municipal Development Plan" (in Spanish).
Basic Information for the Implementation of a Plan for the
Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Watersheds that
are Used for Potable Water Supply in the Departments of Esteli,
Madriz and Nueva Segovia." ENACAL, Northern Technical
Assistance Unit.
Environmental Rehabilitation Plan - Southern Rio Esteli Watershed.
Preliminary Version. National Service of Watershed Management
(SENOC), MARENA, the Interinstitutional Commission for the
Recuperation and Conservation of the Rio Esteli Watershed
(CICRE), and German Social Technical Cooperation Service (DED).
Water Quality Data for Drinking Water Wells in Esteli, Complete
Physical Chemical Analysis Performed in Regional Laboratory,
Urban Sector, Municipality of Esteli. 1999. ENACAL - Esteli.
Esteli Water Supply Plan showing locations of public water supply
wells.
Ocotal
Municipal Governments of Dipilto and Ocotal, Nueva Segovia.
Process of Improvement of Citizen Participation for Sustainable
Development. Intermunicipal Forum of Dipilto, Ecological
Situation of the Rio Dipilto. August 19, 1997.
Project Document: A Green Ocotal to the 21st Century. Municipal
Government of Ocotal and Community. Forest Management and
Reforestation in Ocotal Region.
Map of Barrios in Ocotal.
1999 Population projection (urban and rural) in Ocotal, by age
group and sex.
Matagalpa
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa. Bulletin. 2000. Matagalpa,
Nicaragua.
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa. Environmental Education Modules.
2000. Matagalpa, Nicaragua.
Potential Land Use within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in
Matagalpa
Actual Versus Potential Land Use within Two Major Drinking Water
Watersheds in Matagalpa
Soils within Two Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa
Potential Evapotranspiration within Two Major Drinking Water
Watersheds in Matagalpa
Proposed Forestry and Forest Protection within Two Major Drinking
Water Watersheds in Matagalpa
Changes in Land Use for Annual Cultivation and Coffee within Two
Major Drinking Water Watersheds in Matagalpa
Hydrologic Conditions within Two Major Drinking Water
Watersheds in Matagalpa
-------
General
Enlace Special Issue. Special Issue 72, Year 2000. Local stories
relating experiences in improving local living conditions and how to
better prepare for emergencies such as Hurricane Mitch.
Environmental Education Program. Watershed Restoration,
Multiple Water Use, Water Contamination, and Water Resource
Conservation. Information and Presentation from Lie. Msc. Manual
Silva and Lie. Msc. David Rios O. Ecological consultants in educa
tion and environment.
Watershed Protection Pamphlet. GreenCOM El Salvador Project,
US AID and the Academy for Educational Development.
-------
References
Chapter 1
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001]. Home Page of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Online: www.epa.gov.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), [2001]. Mitch: The Deadliest Atlantic
Hurricane Since 1780. NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Online:
www. ncdc. noaa.gov/ol/reports/mitch/mitch. html.
United States Agency for International Development (US AID), [2001]. Home Page of the United States
Agency for International Development, Online: www.aid.gov.
Chapter 2
Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados)
(ENACAL) - Esteli, [1999]. Physical chemical lab analysis of drinking water quality. Urban Sector,
Municipalidad of Esteli, 1999. Laboratorio Regional. ENACAL U.A.T.N. Control de Calidad de Agua.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [1999]. Drinking Water Treatment. EPA 810-F-99-013.
December 1999.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] a. Disinfection Byproduct Information. US EPA
EnviroFacts Warehouse. Online: www.epa.gov/enviro/html/icr/dbp.html (as of June 20, 2001).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Online: www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] c. What is a Pesticide? US EPA Office of Pesticide
Programs. June 20, 2001. Online: www.epa.gov/opp00001/whatis.htm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [2001] d. Why Children May be Especially Sensitive to
Pesticides. US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. February 21, 2001. Online:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/food
Evans, A.S. and PS. Brachman, [1991]. Bacterial Infections of Humans: Epidemiology and Control.
Second Edition. Plenum Medical Book Company, New York. p. 20-23.
Gaudy, A.F. and E.T. Gaudy, [1980]. Microbiology for Environmental Scientists and Engineers.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. p. 670-685.
Madigan, M.T., J.M. Martinko, and J. Parker., [2000]. Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 974-975.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)
(MARENA), [no date]. Manual Sobre Regulaciones de Calidad Ambiental. Direccion general de
Calidad Ambiental Asesoria Legal de MARENA. Financiado por PASMA-DANIDA/MARENA.
Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) (MINSA), [November 17, 2000]. Personal communication by
Horsley & Witten, Inc. with Maritza Obando and Victor Calixto. MINSA, Managua, Nicaragua.
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1998]. Health in the Americas, 1998 Edition, Volume II.
p. 382-390.
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1999]. Nicaragua: Basic Country Health Profiles,
Summaries 1999. Online: www.paho.org.english/sha/prflnic.htm.
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [2001]. Number of cholera cases in the Americas 1991-
2000. Online: www.paho.org/English/HCP/HCT/Cholera_cases_1991-2000.htm.
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, MINSA, AYAMAT, and MECD, [1999]. Modulo: Situacion higienico
sanitaria en las cuencas Molino Norte y San Francisco y barrios norte de Matagalpa. Matagalpa,
Nicaragua.
World Health Organization (WHO), [1993]. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd Edition.
Volume 1: Recommendations. Geneva, World Health Organization. Online:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ/Chemicals (as of June 20, 2001).
World Health Organization (WHO), [1996]. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 2nd Edition.
Volume 2: Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information. Geneva, World Health Organization.
Online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/GDWQ (as of June 20, 2001).
Chapter 3
Gleick, Peter H., [1998]. The World's Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources 1998-1999.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), [1998]. Health in the Americas, 1998 Edition. Volume II.
World Bank, [2000]. Nicaragua at a Glance. Online:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/nic_aag.pdf. September 12, 2000.
World Bank, [2001]. Nicaragua Poverty Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities for Poverty
Reduction. Volume 1: Main Report. World Bank Report No. 20488-NI. February 21, 2001.
Manahan, Stanley E., [1994]. Environmental Chemistry. Sixth Edition. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p.
179-188.
-------
Chapter 4
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [1999]. Tools for Watershed Protection: A Workshop for Local
Governments. Prepared by Horsley & Witten, Inc. for US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds.
Lander, Charles H., David Moffitt, and Klaus Alt, [1998]. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure
Relative to Crop Growth Requirements. Appendix II: Manure Characteristics. Resource Assessment and
Strategic Planning Working Paper 98-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. February, 1998.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), [No Date]. Nitrogen Modeling.
Prepared by Horsley & Witten, Inc. for the MA DEP, Division of Water Supply.
Chapter 5
Charney, Alexandra. August [2000], Prototipo Expendiente de Una Servidumbre Ecologica. Masters
Project/Internship for The Nature Conservancy. Ecuador.
Mack, Stephen A.J.D. [1997], Las servidumbres ecologicas en America Central - Conservation
Easements in Central America. Costa Rica: COMBOS, CEDARENA, The Nature Conservancy.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)
(MARENA), [no date]. Manual Sobre Regulaciones de Calidad Ambiental. Direccion general de Calidad
Ambiental Asesoria Legal de MARENA. Financiado por PASMA-DANIDA/MARENA.
Chapter 7
Institute Nicaraguense de Recursos Naturales y el Ambiente (IRENA), [1993]. Plan de Desarrollo de la
Cuenca del Rio Dipilto. Servicio Nacional de Ordenamiento de Cuencas (SENOC). February. Managua,
Nicaragua.
Chapter 8
Kuhl, Mausi., January, [2001]. Personal Communication. January 18, 2001. Matagalpa, Nicaragua.
Proyecto Cuencas Matagalpa, [2000]. Bulletin. Matagalpa, Nicaragua.
-------
Glossary of Terms
Aquifer: A subsurface unit of rock or sediment characterized by formations and/or sediments capable of storing and transmitting water in sufficient quantities to supply pumping wells.
Biodigestion: Bacterial breakdown of organic material, such as that found in discharge waters from coffee processing, that produces methane as a byproduct.
Compost: A mixture of decaying organic matter used to improve soils and provide nutrients.
Conservation Easement: A legal mechanism under which a private landowner relinquishes land use rights to a town, national government, individual or conservation group in exchange for
some financial benefit to the land owner.
Ground Water: Water beneath the earth's surface.
Pesticide: Any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests including weeds, insects and fungus.
PH test: A measurement of a substance to show whether it is acidic or basic based on the concentration of hydrogen ions present.
Recharge: Water, typically from precipitation, that seeps into the ground and reaches a ground water aquifer.
Runoff: Precipitation that does not seep into the ground, but flows down slope over the land surface to the nearest surface water body.
Source Water Protection Area (SWPA): An area that supplies water to a public water supply, ground water well, or surface water intake.
Stakeholders: Any individuals or groups, such as local farmers, trade organizations, government entities, local businesses, and community residents with an interest in the quality of drinking
water and management of source water areas.
Surface Water: Water occurring at the land surface, including streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries and the ocean.
Uniform Flow Equation: A mathematical equation that can be solved to delineate the down-gradient and lateral limits of a source water protection area for a well.
Volumetric Flow Equation: Equation that can be used in the Calculated Fixed Radius method to delineate a source water protection area for a well.
Watershed: The land area that contributes water to the mouth of a river or stream, or to a lake.
Watershed Area: The land area from which water drains to a point on a receiving body of water.
Zone of Contribution: The land area through which recharge occurs and beneath which water flows to a pumping well.
-------
Glossary of Acronyms
AMCRE: Association of Municipalities of the Esteli River Watershed (Asociacion de Municipios de la Cuenca del Rio Esteli)
AYAMAT: Aqueducts and Sewerage of Matagalpa (Acueductos y Alcantarillados de Matagalpa)
CFR: Calculated Fixed Radius method, used to delineate a source water protection area for a well. The basic equation used is r = (Q/Rp)l/2, where r = radius of the protection area (feet), Q
well pumping rate (cubic feet/year) and R = recharge rate (feet/year).
COBEN: High School of Biologists and Ecologists of Nicaragua (Colegio de Biologistas y Ecologistas de Nicaragua)
CURN: UNAN University Center of the Northern Region (Centre Universitario de la Region Norte)
ENACAL: Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados)
ENACAL-DAR: Rural Areas Division of the Nicaraguan Aqueduct and Sewer Company (Empresa Nicaraguense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados - Division de Areas Rurales)
EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
GIS: Geographic Information System
INAFOR: National Forestry Institute (Institute Nacional Forestal)
INETER: Nicaraguan Institute of Territorial Studies (Institute Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales)
MAGFOR: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Ministerio de Agricultura y Forestal)
MARENA: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales)
MINSA: Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud)
PAHO: Pan American Health Organization
UNAN: National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua)
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
WHO: World Health Organization
-------
------- |