Though not listed among the critical requirements for sustainable management of water facilities, bylaws are crucial to ensure good use and maintenance of sources. Communities through their Water User Committees often institute bylaws but enforcement is usually an uphill task. In the recent Northern Region Learning Forum organised by Triple-S Uganda, participants visited a community in Amuca Sub County in Lira district which has successfully enforced water source bylaws for two years. What has been their experience?
Published on: 20/06/2012
Residents of Adel Village in Lira district are enjoying a steady supply of water, thanks to the strict bylaws instituted at their source. St John’s Chapel borehole was constructed in 2010 by Link To Progress (LTP), an NGO operating in Lira district. But unlike some cases where sources are donated to communities without plans for operation and maintenance, LTP took time to work with the community to constitute and train a nine-member Water User Committee (WUC). The organisation even went further and together with the community developed bylaws to manage the source. It is the strict observance of these laws that has brought a smile to many a water user in this village.
The laws address issues which may seem petty, but with serious implications on the management of the source. Such issues include fighting and quarrelling; user participation in maintenance activities; non-payment of user fees; and cleanliness of containers among others. It is these very basic issues, which if not dealt with, can result in breakages, vandalism which eventually lead to non-functionality of sources.
The committee members drafted the laws and shared them with LTP, who then helped to refine and finalise. The bylaws were also shared with the village Local Council, before being introduced to all community members in a water user meeting.
Many people did not know the importance of the laws. Many did not understand what the laws actually meant, while others obstinately refused to observe them. Sylvia Imat, the caretaker recalls that when they introduced the bylaw requiring all users to fetch water in clean containers many thought it only applied to the outside and not the inside of their jerry cans. So people only washed the outer part of the containers leaving the inside full of grime.
Through continued sensitisation and strict monitoring, people have started taking the bylaws very seriously. Florence Ogwal, the WUC chairperson explains that the bylaws are displayed at the church notice board. They are also repeated to the members every time they hold a users’ meeting, which is bimonthly. The caretaker on duty is also tasked to explain the laws to new users. But most importantly, people know the laws because they participated in drafting them in November 2010. “People in this area used to think that the NGO which constructed the source would also come and repair it, but they were sensitised by LTP and now they know better,” Ogwal says.
The community agreed on fines that are payable at the breach of the law and these are stipulated clearly. For example, a user who comes to the source with a dirty container is liable to pay a fine of 500shs (US$0.2). Those who engage in brawls are fined 10,000shs (US$ 4) while those who are found quarrelling and using inappropriate language are fined 5000shs (US$2). Indeed some residents have got a lashing for breaking the rules. In one case, an errant water user stole a jerry can from the borehole and when he was caught, he was given a fine of 5000shs (US$2.2). In another case, the head of one household did not want to pay the water user fees saying he fetched from another source. Once he was caught fetching from the borehole and was fined 5000shs (US$2.2).
Both the WUC and the community members agree that the observance of bylaws has indeed benefitted them greatly. Having a functional source in the area has resulted into reduced distances in the search for water and better livelihoods especially for those whose businesses depend on water supply. One elderly woman, Grace Akello is particularly happy because the bylaws allow vulnerable people like her to use the borehole without queuing up. Meanwhile the work of the WUC has been greatly eased. “When we started it was difficult to collect fees, now the people are better sensitised. There is no more fighting for water, just a few quarrels remain. The work of the WUC has been eased greatly,” treasurer Cyprian Owiny says.
As part of source management, the WUC also holds monthly meetings for the executives and bi-monthly meetings for the water users. During the meetings, user fees are collected and accounted for, as indicated in the table below.
| Fees collected since November 2010 | UGX 899,750 |
| Capital contribution source drilling | UGX 100,000 |
| Facilitating LTP constructors | UGX 116,000 |
| Seedlings purchase | UGX 10,000 |
| Tools purchase (spanner) | UGX 3000 |
| Nails Purchase (repair) | UGX 16,000 |
| Facilitating WUC travel to sub county office | UGX 17,000 |
Members of the WUC explain that enforcing the bylaws has been a daunting task. When reminded to observe the rules, some community members often insult or even fight the caretaker. Sylvia Imat, a caretaker even wishes that another committee could be elected soon so that the mantle can be passed on. As such the committee decided that the caretaker role should be rotational with different members taking turns every month. They are also considering the idea of paying the caretaker a small fee. Additionally, the WUC decried the community’s poor attendance of meetings and refusal to pay user fees.
Accountability: The WUC seems to have a challenge with the management of funds, especially those collected in fines. For example, the treasurer could not account for funds raised in fines saying he had misplaced the book of records. He said that they were planning to use the funds to facilitate the caretaker – but most community members were not aware of that decision. As for the use of the collections from the monthly user fees, the treasurer said that they are trying to venture into the practice of providing soft loans for users, but so far only the WUC members were allowed to access the loans. Moreover, the source does not have a bank account so the funds are all kept at the home of the treasurer. This raised suspicion among the other users who pay their fees duly. “The committee complains that we don’t want to pay user fees. Let them first give us accountability and also tell us why they are the only ones who borrow from the fund,” Ojok Charles, a community member complained.
• The Adel community called for more visitors to come see their source and share some experiences on source management. They also think that the coming of visitors will encourage them to work harder on maintaining their source because community members always listen to “visitors” advice.
• Accountability: In order to reduce suspicion among the users, the WUC should always display accountabilities in public places. This applies to both the user fees and the collections from fines. It would actually be prudent to open a bank account to avoid the risks associated with keeping money in the treasurer’s house.
• Operation and Maintenance: With the guidance of extension staff, the WUC should develop a proper operation and maintenance plan.
• Enforcement: The WUC should enforce all bylaws not just some.
Lydia Mirembe
20 June 2012
