iii

Performance Report 6

A report to the public from the

Water Resources Management Authority

for the period 2015/2016

WRA is ISO 9001:2008 Certified

iv

March 2017

v

Contents

List of figure .............................................................................................................................................................. vii

List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. viii

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 11

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 13

1.1 Content of the report ............................................................................................................... 13

1.2 Change in management of water resources........................................................................... 14

1.2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 14

1.2.2 Regulation of water resources ......................................................................................... 14

1.2.3 Conservation and protection of water resources .......................................................... 15

1.2.4 Flood and Drought Management ................................................................................... 15

2. Objectives and indicators for assessment of performance ................................................................. 15

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Equitable and efficient water allocation ................................................................................. 16

2.3 Control of pollution of water resources ..................................................................................... 16

2.4 Catchment conservation and rehabilitation measures .......................................................... 16

2.5 Integrated Basin Planning ......................................................................................................... 17

2.6 Protection of vulnerable water resources .............................................................................. 17

2.7 Monitoring compliance to water abstraction and effluent discharge ................................ 17

2.8 Monitoring water quantity and quality ................................................................................. 18

2.9 Improving water use efficiency and economic value for water .......................................... 18

2.10 Information systems for water resource management ......................................................... 18

2.11 Stakeholder participation and networking ............................................................................ 19

3. WRMA Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 20

3.1 Water Allocation ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.1 Permitting of water resources .............................................................................................. 20

3.1.2. Criteria for water allocation ................................................................................................. 34

3.2 Pollution control and catchment conservation ..................................................................... 46

3.2.1 Management of major effluent dischargers ................................................................... 46

3.3 Catchment Management Strategy ........................................................................................... 49

3.3.1 Basin planning tools .......................................................................................................... 49

vi

3.3.2 Conservation and protection of critical catchment ............................................................ 54

3.4 Water Resources Assessment and Monitoring ....................................................................... 57

3.4.1 Effective water allocation process ................................................................................... 57

3.5 Effective pollution control process............................................................................................... 58

3.4.2 Reserve flow maintenance ..................................................................................................... 59

3.5 Economic, Financial Management & Partnerships ................................................................ 68

3.5.1 Financing water resources ................................................................................................ 68

3.7.1 Managing water resources monitoring data and information .................................... 70

3.7 2 Development and Implementation of Open Data Kit (ODK)...................................................... 72

3.7.2 Hydromet Data Assessment and Profiling ......................................................................... 72

3.8 Effective participation of stakeholders in the basin ................................................................... 76

3.9 Flood Management ........................................................................................................................... 77

4. Progress (Trend analysis) and Achievements ............................................................................................. 78

ANNEX 3 DISCHARGE DATA COVERAGE 2015- 2016- ............................................................................ 92

vii

List of figures Figure 4. 1: Progress in permits and Authorizations since 2006 ................................................................. 79

Figure 4. 2: Trend of WRUA formation since 2009 ..................................................................................... 79

Figure 4. 3 Trend of WRUA Formation per Region ..................................................................................... 80

Figure 4. 4 Trend of SCMP Development since 2008 .................................................................................. 80

Figure 4. 5: Trend of SCMP Development Per Region ................................................................................ 81

Figure 4. 6: Trend of EDCP since 2009 ........................................................................................................ 82

Figure 4. 7: Trend of percentage compliance since 2009 ........................................................................... 82

Figure 4. 8: Trend in Surface Water Monitoring since 2008 ....................................................................... 83

Figure 4. 9: Trend in Surface Water Monitoring Stations per station ........................................................ 84

Figure 4. 10 Trends in surface water quality monitoring station nationally ............................................... 85

Figure 4. 11 Trends in Surface Water monitoring stations per Region ...................................................... 85

Figure 4. 12: Trends in % compliance to EDCP and Permit conditions ....................................................... 86

Figure 4. 13: Percentage compliance to EDCP ............................................................................................ 86

viii

List of abbreviations

CAAC Catchment Area Advisory Committee

CETRAD Centre for Training and Integrated Research In ASAL Development.

CMS Catchment Management Strategies

CoK Constitution of Kenya

CSOs Civil society organisations

DPs Development partners

EDCP Effluent Discharge Control Plan

ENN Ewaso Ng’iro North

FY Financial Year

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

GmbH

GW Ground water

KWSCRP Kenya Water Security and Climate Resilience Project

LVEMP Lake Victoria Environmental Management Program

LVN Lake Victoria North

LVS Lake Victoria South

LWF Laikipia Wildlife Forum

MaMaSe Mau Mara Serengeti

M3/day Cubic meter per day

M³/s Cubic meter per second

NGOs Non-governmental organisation

PDB Permit Database

RVC Rift Valley Catchment

SCMPs Sub-catchment Management Plans

SW Surface water

TSS Total Suspended Solids

ix

WKCDD & FM West Kenya Community Driven Development and Flood

Management

WRM Water Resources Management

WRA Water Resources Authority

WRUAs Water Resources Users Associations

10

Foreword

Water Resources Management Authority is the lead agency in water resources

management, as enshrined in the Water Act 2002. The act has been amended and will be

replaced when Water Act 2016 is operationalized. The Act once operationalized will

make extensive provisions on the Authority’s role in regulating

the use and management of water. This report is the 6th

Edition of the Authority’s Performance and highlights aspects

of WRMA's mandate under the Water Act 2002. The report

covers the Financial Year 2015/2016 and focuses on water

allocation, pollution control, catchment protection, basin

planning, water quality and quantity monitoring, economic

value for water, information systems and stakeholder

participation.

Analysis on the performance of WRMA is presented in this report, taking into account

the Authority’s progression since 2009. WRMA continues to improve particularly in

permitting of water use, compliance to payment of water use charges as well as

establishment and development of WRUAs. In particular, the Authority has undertaken

abstraction and pollution surveys which have seen an increase in the number of legal

water abstractors. In regards to pollution, effluent dischargers are engaged to develop

Effluent Discharge Control Plans (EDCP) to protect. It is envisaged that compliance to

EDCP will continue to translate into improvement of water quality as it continues to be

adopted by major water users, both public and private.

The role of the Authority has been enhanced with regard to regulating management of

water resources as more stakeholders both from the public and private sector including

development partners are participating as engraved in the Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM) principles. This is visible in the existing WDC framework which

outlines clear guidelines on stakeholder engagements. WRA is also working towards

strengthening and upgrading its monitoring network to telemetry to ensure efficiency in

real time data acquisition. This will enable the Authority to reduce the data gaps that

characterize manual data collection.

Mohamed M. Shurie

Chief Executive Officer

Water Resources Management Authority

11

Executive Summary

This report contains an assessment of the performance of the Water Resources

Management Authority (WRA) for the period July, 2015 to June ,2016, highlighting on

the seven major areas in water resources management where emphasis have been placed

during the year of reporting. One area that constitutes the core function of WRA and

that has been extensively covered in the assessment is water allocation. Performance in

this area was analysed using the status of permitting process which showed that the total

number of surface water permit applications handled during the year of reporting were

2958, while ground water permit applications were 14852 and 106 for effluent

discharge.

Out of these, 76% were Authorizations while 24% had abstraction permits. Permits are

in categories B, C and D and are liable for payment of water use fees. Category A, water

for social use does not attract water use charges. The highest proportion of surface water

permits in the three categories are in Tana catchment area, constituting about 42%, with

the lowest being Lake Victoria North with 4%. In regard to ground water, Athi

catchment area has about 63% of all the ground water permits while Lake Victoria South

had the lowest with 2%. These figures show that commercial water use is highest in Tana

and Athi and lowest in Lake Victoria North.

The major purposes for water use are public, domestic, livestock, irrigation, industry and

hydropower. The amount of water allocated under permit conditions for various uses is

86.9 million cubic metres (MCM). The uses constitute 95% surface water and 5%

ground. This shows that more efforts are required to protect surface water since it is

more vulnerable to adverse effects. On storage, about 3.88 MCM were developed

through dams and pans, which enhanced water availability.

Pollution control is another major area that directly affects water availability and use,

and is therefore very key in water resources management. The report shows that out of

the 145 major effluent dischargers inventorized, only 28 have permits and are complying

with the discharge conditions, while 80 are improving their systems in accordance with

the Effluent Discharge Control Plan (EDCP). This constitutes 19% and 55% respectively

and implies that more efforts are required in pollution control. On surface monitoring,

about 86% of stations are operational while for ground water the figure is about 74%.

Efforts should be made to have all the stations operational.

On stakeholder participation, the total number of stakeholder that supported WRM

activities were 157 out of which 77 were public, 16 private, 56 civil society organisations

(CSOs) and 15 development partners. Opportunities should be explored to bring in more

stakeholders and strengthen collaboration, leading to more inclusive water resources

12

users associations (WRUAs). By June 2016, 657 WRUAs had been formed out of a

potential of 1237, constituting 53% achievement. The WRUAs with sub-catchment

management plans (SCMPs) were 385, which is 31% and 321 WRUAs SCMP were

implemented.

The report also contains trend analysis on performance, which for permitting indicates

that the numbers have increased from about 200 in 2006 to 4411 in 2016. Detailed

performance analysis, including all other indicators, are found in the text.

13

1. Introduction

1.1 Content of the report

This report highlights the performance of WRMA for the assessment period July 2015 to

June 2016 and has three main components namely: water allocation, water resources

monitoring and stakeholder participation. They are the objectives that formed the basis

of assessment, WRMA performance during the assessment period, and trend analysis

showing the progression in performance based on seven management functions. These

are presented in Chapter 2 from which indicators for assessing performance were

derived. These indicators are used in Chapter 3 to assess WRA performance for the stated

period.

The report emphasizes on equitable water allocation, which is assessed through the

permitting process for both ground and surface water. On permitting, the status of

applications, approvals, authorisations and permits issued have been presented and

discussed together with the amount of water associated with the different levels of

permitting. A water allocation criterion is guided by the water allocation thresholds and

takes into account the different uses, which are mainly six: public, domestic, livestock,

irrigation, industry and hydropower. These have been discussed based on allocation from

both surface and ground water resources. Water allocation plans (WAPs), have been

developed participatorily from data collected during the abstraction survey to ensure

equity and good practice in water sharing. For monitoring compliance to regulations,

WRA enforces the installation of measuring devices among other conditions to ascertain

the actual amount of water abstracted or discharged. The objective on pollution and

catchment conservation was assessed based on the status of effluent discharge from point

source pollution where effluent discharge control plans (EDCPs) are used as a tool to

facilitate improvements towards achieving compliance. For non-point source pollution,

assessment was carried out using pollution surveys where the key effluent dischargers

were identified. On catchment protection, assessment was done using catchment

conservation and rehabilitation measures put in place.

The objective on catchment management strategy implementation was assessed using

basin planning tools. These are WRUAs established, SCMPs developed and implemented.

Along with this is the status of stakeholder participation, conservation and protection of

critical catchments were also assessed. The objective of water resources assessment and

monitoring is presented through effective water allocation process, effective pollution

control process, water resources availability and water resource quality assessment. The

economic and financial management objective is presented in the report through analysis

of improving water use efficiency, and improving investment in water resources

management activities. The report also contains information management as an

14

objective, which is assessed through managing water resources monitoring data and

information. Stakeholder participation is another key area analysed in the report through

effective participation of stakeholders and participatory resolution of complaints.

Chapter 4 contains trends in progress and achievements since operationalization of the

Water Act 2002 in 2005. The trends show how far WRA has come in managing water

resources since the reforms were initiated. Indicators used to show trends are permitting,

point source pollution control, EDCP compliance, water quality and quantity monitoring,

SCMP development, WRUA establishment, and compliance to water use charges. The

trends are presented on a yearly basis for WRA as an organisation and for each region.

Major areas of achievement captured in the report include online data collection and

transmission (ODK), water resources protection, enforcement of compliance, and data

management. These trends and achievements provide useful information in giving

strategic direction for improvement in the management of water resources.

1.2 Change in management of water resources

1.2.1 Overview

The management of water resources has undergone a sequence of transformation from

the time of publication of the first edition of the national Water Master Plan of 1992,

which has since been reviewed in the year 2010. The process saw the establishment of

the Water Resources Management Authority under the Water Act 2002 as an institution

with the sole responsibility of managing water resources in the country. This involves

regulation, conservation, catchment and water resources protection, as well as flood and

drought management. Other areas currently being mainstreamed are climate change and

adaptation, and livelihoods and entrepreneurship pertinent to water resources

management. The execution of these activities has been made possible through six

regional and 26 sub-regional offices and avenues for stakeholder participation, provided

by six catchment area advisory committees (CAACs) and the 657 water resources users

associations (WRUAs) so far established countrywide.

1.2.2 Regulation of water resources

Regulation of water resources is challenging and yet essential for equitable water sharing.

More often than not water is viewed as a social good even though it is getting scarce as

demand increases, hence increasing in economic value. Due to its dual social and

economic nature, regulation of water resources requires active stakeholder participation

and strong regulation. These have been provided through the Water Act 2002, which has

been amended to Water Act 2016. The Water Resources Management Rules of 2007

have been handy in improving and streamlining the use and protection of water

resources with emphasis on control of both abstractions and pollution of surface and

15

ground water. New rules will be developed to implement Water Act 2016 which

conforms to the Constitution of Kenya (CoK) 2010.

1.2.3 Conservation and protection of water resources

WRMA undertook various activities on the conservation and protection of water

resources countrywide. The highlight include: the conservation of Lamu Sand dunes,

construction of sand dams in ASAL areas, riparian conservation, spring protection,

wetland protection, abstraction surveys, installation of roof water harvesting tanks.

WRMA held 6 catchment fora which brought together stakeholders to engage in water

resources emerging issues.

1.2.4 Flood and Drought Management

The Flood management activities were undertaken in the prioritized river basins in which

WRA facilitated the development of Integrated Flood Management Plans. These plans

comprise set of activities whose implementation is undertaken by various sectors in

managing floods. The communities are made resilience in undertaking community flood

early warning and preparedness activities. This includes and not limited to community

flood early warning system that the upstream members use to give alerts to the

downstream members on the water levels in the rivers.

2. Objectives and indicators for assessment of performance

2.1 Introduction

The indicators used to assess WRA performance have been derived based on seven

management functions in water resources management and 21 management objectives to

be realised. . The seven management functions that formed the basis of the assessment

are:

(i) Water allocation, with consideration of social water and environmental water use

(ii) Volume of water per category of use, the main input used in water allocation

planning

(iii) Pollution control and catchment conservation, to reduce adverse effects on water

resources

(iv)Catchment management plan and strategy development for systematic and

participatory management of water resources

(v) Water resources assessment and monitoring for data acquisition and information

generation, for effective management of water resources

16

(vi) Information management and dissemination, for transparent decision making

and good governance

(vii) Stakeholder participation for effective coordination and consensus building for

ownership

The indicators outlined below were used to evaluate the performance of WRMA in the

seven management functions.

2.2 Equitable and efficient water allocation

This indicator emphasizes water resources allocation, which is a means of sharing water

resources among various users taking into account social, economic and environmental

water needs. The process is subject to regulations where permitting is used as a tool that

ensures equity in water sharing among competing uses. The permit takes into account the

different classes of water resources divided into four categories: Category A is reserved

for social water while classes B, C, and D are based on the level of economic water use

where the user pays for the amount of water used. The reserve is set to guide allocation

so that during dry seasons priority is given to basic human needs and the environment.

The system is guided by the water allocation plans (WAPs), where they have been

developed participatory, to ensure equity and good practice in water sharing.

Performance based on this indicator was assessed using the permitting data base and

status of water allocation for both surface and ground water.

2.3 Control of pollution of water resources

Control of pollution entering water sources is done through use of effluent discharge

permits. This is undertaken participatory with the involvement of stakeholders. The

performance on this indicator is based on the inventory of the effluent discharger’s

progress in developing and implementing effluent discharge control plan. The

identification of the key effluent dischargers is done through pollution surveys. The

compliance to the effluent discharge standards is measured through monitoring of the

water resources.

2.4 Catchment conservation and rehabilitation measures

Catchment conservation and rehabilitation measures are carried out to reduce

degradation, which affect water resources directly and indirectly. The measures which are

both on-farm and off-farm are cross cutting in nature, requiring involvement of

stakeholders from public, private, civil society institutions and development partners. To

make it sustainable, the participation of stakeholders has been institutionalised through

water resources users associations using sub-catchment management plans as an

implementation tool. With devolution, county governments are expected to play an

increasing role in conservation. Involvement of development partners is mainly through

17

projects such as Western Kenya Community Driven & Flood Management Programme

(WKCDD & FMP), Upper Tana Natural Resource Management Programme (UTANRMP)

and the Kenya Water Security and Climate Resilience Project (KWSCRP), among others.

In this report, performance on this indicator was assessed through construction of

sediment control structures, spring protection and marking and pegging of the riparian

area through implementation of SCMPs activities.

2.5 Integrated Basin Planning

Integrated basin planning is a way of implementing IWRM which is a holistic framework

for coordination, bringing together diverse, regulatory, policy and planning. WRA

implements this through catchment management strategies (CMS), which is a tool that

considers participation, sustainability, data and status of the water resource for both

surface and ground water. The first set of tools used in assessing basin planning comprise

the number of permits issued, proportion of allocated water with valid permits, major

effluent dischargers complying to EDCPs, and water resources data monitoring stations.

On stakeholder participation, WRUA formation and SCMP development are used in

assessing performance. WRA also engages with stakeholders on a working arrangement

to execute specific activities as provided for in the CMS and this kind of engagement is

also used as a tool for assessment.

2.6 Protection of vulnerable water resources

Vulnerable water resources are those that are prone to degradation and are valuable in

enhancing the status of water resources in terms of quality and quantity. The

vulnerability relates to the status of the catchment areas which, due to their value, are

prone to exploitation and hence need to be protected. Such areas or resources include

springs, wetlands, ground water recharge and riparian zones. The status of conservation

of these areas was used to assess performance on this indicator.

2.7 Monitoring compliance to water abstraction and effluent discharge

Determining the effectiveness of compliance to abstraction and effluent discharge through

permitting is indeed a challenge. As such, installation of measuring devices has been

introduced as one of the conditions to monitor compliance to permitting. WRA is

therefore able to ascertain the actual amount of water abstracted or discharged by water

user. This indicator is measured by the number of measuring devices installed against the

number of permits issued for each use. Regarding effluent discharge, the status of

compliance to EDCPs is also used in assessing performance.

18

2.8 Monitoring water quantity and quality

Water resources quantity and quality monitoring form an essential part of water resources assessment,

a core function of WRA that provides information for determining the status of water resources. The

monitoring applies to both surface and ground water and uses regular gauging stations (RGSs) and

monitoring boreholes for both surface and ground water respectively. This is specific to each of the six

catchment management strategies. The same monitoring stations are used for water quality monitoring

with focus on non-point source pollution. Thus the percentage of functional RGSs and boreholes were

used to assess performance in this report.

2.9 Improving water use efficiency and economic value for water

Efficient water use and economic value for water are increasingly being emphasized by

WRA, as the demand for different water uses increases. Improvement in water use

efficiency requires emphasis since it will result in improved water availability for other

uses. WRA allocates water through permit data base whereby authorizations are first

issued for construction of abstraction works. The timeline given for this is one year after

which the authorization is converted into a permit for water use. Efficiency in water

allocation was measured by time taken to process authorizations within the stipulated

service charter timeline. Categories B, C & D conforms to the ‘user pay’ principle, which

is one of the fundamental principles in integrated water resources management (IWRM).

2.10 Information systems for water resource management

Information systems comprise data, tools and information, and the medium within which

they are processed and packaged for the end user. The relevance of an organisation is

also viewed in terms of how such products are readily availed to the users. The

information system used by WRA to undertake data management consists of the water

resources monitoring system and the permit database. These were used to measure

performance in information system functionality using the respective outputs, namely

data availability and permits processed.

Data is essential for water allocation and permitting, assessment of water resources,

design of various infrastructure developments, forecasting of floods and droughts, and

project management. The role of the section is data management, which includes data

storage, processing, archiving, analysis, retrieval and dissemination. Spatial data is also

collected for GIS mapping. SW data is collected by gauge reader who visit the gauging

stations at least once and at most twice a day to manually read the gauge plate and the

data is recorded in the data sheets and sent to SRO for further transmission to regional

office and Hq national database.

19

2.11 Stakeholder participation and networking

Stakeholder participation is one of the fundamental principles of IWRM and it is essential

for shared commodities such as water resources, while networking is necessary in order

to build synergy and be more effective. Stakeholders involved in water resources

management can be grouped into three: private, civil society organisations/NGOs and

development partners. Those established by WRA are mainly WRUAs. The number of

these stakeholders involved in water resources management, has been used in assessing

WRA performance with regard to this indicator. Along with this is participatory

resolution of complaints in water resources-related problems, a major function of WRMA

that is addressed through WRUAs. The other stakeholders currently playing some role in

water resources management are academics and the faith-based organisations. WRA

intends to formally engage them and will be reporting achievements where they are

involved in a similar way.

20

3. WRMA Performance

3.1 Water Allocation

3.1.1 Permitting of water resources

Permitting is a process through which WRA regulates water abstractions by various users.

It involves the user submitting a prescribed water application form with information on

the details of the Applicant, amount of water to be abstracted, location, mode of

abstraction, relevant assessment fees, as well the proposed purpose of water use. The

application then undergoes a thorough vetting process at all WRA offices after which an

authorisation to construct works is issued to the Applicant. The authorisation to construct

is given to an Applicant for them to prepare the site and fulfil all the conditions as

required by the regulations. Such authorization conditions include but not limited to;

installation of measuring devices, submission of water quality analysis report, as well as

notification to the authority on the various stages of construction to enable the Authority

undertake or organise supervision of works. An authorisation is valid for one year after

which it is either extended for two terms of one year each after completing requisite

application for extension form and paying requisite fees if construction of works have

not been finalized; or a certificate of completion of works is completed by the applicant

to signify that the construction of authorized works is complete.

Once the works are constructed an inspection is carried out by WRA personnel to affirm

that the works were constructed as authorized. If the works are found satisfactory a

water use permit is issued to the Applicant after payment of relevant permit fees. The

permits contain conditions for water use as provided in the Water Resources

Management (WRM) Rules 2007. A water use permit may be issued on a pro-rata basis

depending on the purpose for water use, with 5 years being the maximum validity

period, subject to renewal. Water Permits are issued with conditions such as but not

limited to efficient use of water, maintenance of the works, submission of data on water

use, payment of water use charges, timely renewal and penalties accrued in late renewal,

as well as safe disposal of effluent arising from water use. Non-compliance to permit

conditions is contravention to regulations and offenses are prosecutable under the Act.

Permitting process is the same in all WRMA offices countrywide.

Permitting is given a lot of emphasis because it is the main tool in water allocation which

is WRMA’s core function, coupled with the increasing demand for water and the

declining per capita fresh water availability. Also, the recognition of the economic value

of water and the need for users to appreciate it through water use efficiency requires

extra effort. To achieve this mandate, WRMA has continued to use Permit Database

(PDB), software that facilitates permitting process. The PDB is installed in all WRMA

offices, where applications are received and processed according to the category of

21

permits. The categories range from A, which is the lowest category, to D which is the

highest, depending on the water use impact on water resource as contained in the Water

Allocation Thresholds. Categories A, B and C applications are processed at the regional

offices, while category D, which involves large abstractors with major impact on water

resource are processed at WRMA headquarters. Regional offices can view all the

applications within their sub regions, while all permitting applications can be viewed at

the headquarters.

Permitting data is summarized in Table 3.1 and it includes data on the number of

pending applications, category A approvals, authorizations, permits, as well as the

permitted volumes per region, clearly stated and reflecting the level of engagement in

permitting and performance. The table is structured into three parts: Part 1 contains the

entire permitting data from the applications pending processing to the permits. Part 2

contains all permits alongside valid permits in categories B, C and D. Expired permits that

require renewal are not presented but they form part of all permits. Part 3 contains data

on the permitted volumes of water in m3/day for both surface and ground water.

Performance is therefore measured in terms of the proportion of valid permits and

volumes of water per region. That aside, it should be appreciated that the regions have

different water resource endowment .

22

Table 3.1: Status of permitting comprising applications, authorizations and permits

R

e

gi

o

n

Applicat

ions

pending

processi

ng

Numbe

r of

approv

als

Number

of

authorizat

ions

Numbe

r of

valid

authoriz

ations

Number

of

permits

Number

of valid

permits

Total Co

mbi

ned

S

W

G

W

E

D

S

W

G

W

E

D

S

W

G

W

ED S

W

G

W

E

D

S

W

G

W

E

D

S

W

G

W

E

D

SW G

W

E

D

(S

W,

G

W,

ED)

L

V

N

2

4

4

9 7

4

3

6

4

1

8

4

1

2

5

7

0 2

2

1

3

6

0 70 9

8 0 61

9

4 0

178

46

8

2

5 671

L

V

S

3

5

7

3 3

3

9

6

0 0

6

5

4

6

7

0 4

2

3

4

7

0 78 6

5 3 63

6

3 1

217

66

5 6 888

R

V

C

6

9

2

1

0

6 2

7

3

0 1

9

4

1

2

1

3

5 3

8

6

3

3

2 10

2

3

8

4

1

7 89

3

5

1

1

7 29

2

18

37

2

9

215

8

A

th

i

7

4

1

8

1

7 8 4

6 1

1

8

5

7

7

4

4

1 6

5

2

9

2

1

1 43

3

1

7

8

7

2 41

0

1

7

4

3

2 70

0

97

58

1

1

104

69

T

a

n

a

1

8

1

7

6

1

2

8

0

2

4 2

2

6

2

8

8

8

2

1

4

9

3

9

5

2 66

0

2

6

9

4 56

5

2

5

0

4 118

3

12

57

2

0

246

0

E

N

N

6

2

6

5 5

5

4

2

5 0

5

3

5

6

2

5 3

8

3

5

3

2 21

9

2

1

5

5 16

2

2

0

1

5 38

8

86

7

1

5

127

0

T

O

T

A

L

4

4

5

6

5

4

4

0

2

5

1

2

4

9

2

2

7

0

0

1

1

1

3

1 13

3

5

4

4

7

8

5

7

15

62

2

8

1

8

3

1

13

50

2

7

0

2

2

9

29

58

14

85

2

1

0

6

179

16

All permits Valid permits

Categor

y B

Categor

y C

Category

D

Categor

y B

Category

C

Category

D

Total Co

mbi

ned

S G E S G E S G ED S G E S G E S G E SW G E SW

23

W W D W W D W W W W D W W D W W D W D ,G

W&

ED

L

V

N

3

9

9

2 0

2

1 5

0

1

0 1

0

3

6

9

0

0

21 5

0

10 1

0

70 98 0 168

L

V

S

3

1

6

1 1

3

2 4

2

1

5 0

0

2

9

6

1

1

29 4

0

15 0

0

78 65 3 146

R

V

C

4

3

2

1

3

1

6

2

8

6

8

1

3

1

1

0

3

0

3

5

1

9

9

1

6

26

6

4

1

30

1

0

1

0

102 38

4

1

7

50

3

A

th

i

3

3

1

1

5

8

4 2

8

2

1

8

0

0

2

0

2

3

0

3

2

7

1

5

7

9

2

79

1

8

0

0

20

2

3

0

43

3

17

87 2

222

2

T

a

n

a

5

9

2

2

5

2 4

4

6 5

0

2

2

1

2

0

5

6

6

2

4

1

4

44 2

0

22 9

0

66

0

26

9 4 933

E

N

N

1

4

1

1

5

5 2

6

8

5

0

3

1

0

1

0

0 1

3

4

1

5

4

2

62

4

9

3

10 9

0

219 21

5 5 439

T

ot

al

1

1

7

7

2

3

5

7

2

5

2

7

7

3

1

2

6

1

0

8

1

4

9

0 1

1

2

7

2

3

2

4

2

5

26

1

3

0

4

4

10

7

1

4

3

0

156

2

28

18

3

1

441

1

All permitted volumes (x1000

m3/d)

Valid volumes (x1000 m3/d)

R

e

gi

o

n

Categor

y B

Categor

y C

Category

D

Categor

y B

Category

C

Category

D

Total

S

W

GW SW G

W

SW G

W

SW G

W

SW G

W

SW G

W

SW G

W

COMB

INED

L

V

N

4

.

4 1.8 7.8

0

.

3 214.1

0

.1

4.1

1.8

7.8 0.3

214

.1 0.1

2

2

6.

3

2

.

2 228.5

L

V

S

1.

6 1.4 21.2

0

.

7 2753

0

1.5

1.4

17.

9 0.7

275

3 0

2

7

7

5.

8

2

.1 2777.9

R 5 6.7 18.2 1 1786. 1 4.4 6.2 16. 11. 178 16 1 1 1993.6

24

V

C

1

.

6

2 6

5

.

9

4 3 2.8 2.

9

8

0

9.

4

8

4

.

2

A

th

i

4

.

6

40.

3

103.

7

3

3

.

3 203.0

2

1.

8

4.5

40.

2

95.

8

33.

3 203

21.

8

3

11

.3

9

5

.

4 406.7

T

a

n

a

3

4

3

.

5 5.6

344

.9

1

.

5

8062

6.4

1

0

.

5 335.

3

5.5

338

.1 0.5

806

26.

4

3.

3

8

1

3

1

5

1

7

.

6 81332.4

E

N

N

2

6

.

9 6.2

63.

4

8

.

7 38.8

6

.

9

24.7

6.2

58.

8 8.3

38.

8

6.

3

1

2

9.

1

2

1.

8 150.9

T

ot

al 3

8

6 62

559

.2

5

6

.

1

85621

.5

2

0

5

.

2

374.

5

61.

3

534

.8

54.

4

856

18.1

19

4.

4

8

6

5

6

7

3

2

3

.

3

86890

SW is Surface water, GW is groundwater, and ED is Effluent Discharge

Analysis of performance show that 1,139 applications were pending processing. LVN

(80) had the least number of pending applications (7%), while Rift Valley Catchment

(RVC) had highest number of pending applications at 285 (25%). 39% of the pending

applications were for surface water (SW). LVN had only 24 pending SW applications

where as Tana (181) had the highest number of pending SW applications. Groundwater

(GW) constituted 57% of all pending applications. LVN (49) had the least number of

pending GW applications, while RVC with 210 had the highest number. 4% of the

pending applications were for Effluent Discharge (ED). Lake Victoria South (LVS) had the

least number of pending ED applications at 3, while Tana (12) had the highest number of

pending applications for ED. The analysis suggests that LVN was the most efficient in

processing applications, as indicated by the least number of pending applications.

Category A is applications with the lowest risk of impacting the water resource (WRMA,

2007). Category A approvals for water abstraction neither mature into permits, neither

do they attract water use charges as they are WRA’s contribution to the public as water

allocated for social good. Though category A applications for Effluent Discharge have

lowest impact on water quality, they however attract Effluent Discharge fees as a

measure to deter dischargers from polluting water resources. There were 522 Approvals

25

nationally. 96% of the approvals were for S W (251) and GW (249) water use, while 22

approvals were for ED. Tana (80) had the highest number of SW approvals, whereas Athi

(8) had the lowest. The high values in Tana could be a pointer to larger amounts within

category A threshold, an issue that need to be addressed. On GW, LVN (64), followed

by LVS (60) had the highest approvals, while Tana and Ewaso Ng’iro North (ENN) had

the lowest approvals at 24 and 25 respectively. 4% of all approvals were for ED. LVN

(18) had the highest ED approvals while LVS and ENN had no ED approvals.

Authorisation is a temporary and intermediary stage in permit processing that provides

for water abstraction works to be constructed and other conditions fulfilled before a

permit is issued. The users are therefore obliged to provide feedback to WRA before they

are permitted to use water. However, most water users start abstracting water with

authorisations, which is illegal. There were 11844 category B, C and D authorizations,

with 94% (11131) being GW and SW 5.9% (700). Athi took the lead with 67% (7930)

of the total number of authorizations issued coming from that region, while LVN with

2.5% (298) being the least. 5146 (43%) of all authorizations were valid 73% of all

authorizations in Lake Victoria South (LVS) were valid, while Athi had only 38% valid.

This could be attributed to either the high number of personnel in the form of agents or

representatives of water who act on behalf of water permit applicants in Athi, or lack of

awareness between an authorization and a permit among the applicants for water use.

Lack of personal touch or contact between WRA with the Applicants, and the high

number of applications received as a result of the two cities within the region, against the

validity of a year could also contribute to the high numbers. The number of

authorizations increased while the number of expired authorizations decreased, as

compared to the previous reporting year, which is very positive. The high number of

authorisations is dependent on the number of applications and hence the demand, which

is higher in Athi and least in Lake Victoria South and North. However, in all the six

regions, efforts need to be doubled in order to process authorisations to permits. Figure

3.1 confirms this with authorisations being more than permits in all the six regions.

Figure 3. 1: Comparison of authorizations and permits per region

26

There were 4,411 cumulative permits at the end of the reporting period. 64% of the

permits were for GW (2818), while 35% for SW (1562). ED (31) permits constituted only

1%. Tana region (660) recorded highest SW permits at 42% with 565 valid, while LVN

(70) had the lowest SW permits at 4% of the cumulative SW permits. Athi (1787) took

the lead in GW permits at 63% with LVS (65) trailing at the end with 2% of cumulative

GW permits. 98% (1743) of the cumulative permits in Athi were valid. On ED, RVC (17)

took the lead in cumulative ED permits at 55%, while LVN had no ED permits though

the region is leading in approvals. This indicates lower categorization, especially with the

presence of industries in the region. 100% of the cumulative ED permits in RVC were

valid. 93% (4081) of cumulative permits were valid as at the reporting period.

There were a total of 17916 permit applications in various stages in the permit database

during the reporting period. 14852 comprising 83% were for GW abstraction, while 17%

(2958) were for SW. ED (106) contributed to less than 1%. This implies that 83% of all

permit applications are for GW extraction. Tana had the highest number of SW (1183)

applications at 40%, followed by Athi (700) at 24% while LVN (178) was last in SW

applications at 6%. Athi took the lead in GW processing at 66% (9758) while LVN (468)

was last at 3%. RVC (29) recorded the highest number of ED applications at 27%,

followed by LVN (25) at 24% and Tana (20) at 19%. LVS was least in cumulative ED (6)

applications at 7%. Out of the total permitting figures 10469 (58%) were from Athi, an

indication that Athi was leading in permitting as at the reporting period. 93% (9758) of

the permit applications from Athi were for GW. Athi was followed by Tana (2460) at

14% then RVC (2158) at 12% of all applications. The Lake regions trailed at 4% and 5%

for LVN (671) and LVS (888) respectively in the cumulative number of applications

received. Of all applications, 25% (4411) were permitted, 69% (12,366) had

authorizations and approvals while 6% (1139) were pending processing at different WRA

offices countrywide.

298 532 1312

7930

1152 620

168 146 503

2222

933 439

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

Number of Authorizations Number of Permits

27

Further analysis show that Athi handles the highest number of permitting applications

comprising 58% of all the applications, followed by Tana (14%) and RVC (12%). It then

implies that Athi may require more Water Rights and GW personnel to handle the high

numbers of applications received in the region, especially at Nairobi Sub Region and

Machakos regional offices. With GW comprising 83% of all applications, and majority

being received at Nairobi SRO in Athi, strict allocation guidelines and study need to be

carried out to ascertain the impact of increased drilling of boreholes within Nairobi

Aquifer. The results of the study may inform stricter supervision and control of drilling

process, as well as policy direction in terms of sharing and/or trading of GW permits.

Tana handles the highest number of SW applications. The region could be enhanced with

both Water Rights and SW personnel. Though RVC Processed highest number of ED

applications, it contributed to less than 1% of cumulative applications. Improvement in

this component is necessary to counter pollution especially in the rivers that traverse our

cities. Athi should therefore be enhanced with Water Quality and Pollution Control

personnel to improve on this component. There is also need to enhance enforcement

and inspections to convert the 66% of the authorizations into permits, as well as need

for awareness creation among the water users on the difference between a permit and an

authorization, especially in areas where the applicants are mostly represented by agents

who submit applications on their behalf.

On the permitted volumes, a total of 86,890,000 m3/d was abstracted under permit

conditions. 99.6% (86,566,700 m3/d) of cumulative volumes of permitted water was

abstracted under SW while GW constituted a meagre 0.4% (323,300 m3/d) This is

interesting especially when viewed from the cumulative permits of 83% GW and 17%

SW! Tana contributed 94% (81,314,800 m3/d) of permitted volumes, making the region

the highest in SW abstraction. She was followed by LVS (2,775,800 m3/d) in the second

place at 3% after which RVC (1,809,400 m3/d) took the third place in cumulative SW

abstracted under permit conditions at 2%. ENN (129,100 m3/d) which recorded the least

SW permitted volumes, together with LVN (226,300 m3/d) and Athi (311,300 m

3/d)

contributed less than 1% of the cumulative volumes of SW abstracted under permit

conditions. On GW, RVC (184,200 m3/d) recorded the highest volumes under permit at

57%, followed by Athi (95,400 m3/d) who recorded 30% of the cumulative volumes

under permit. LVS (2,100 m3/d) and LVN (2,200 m

3/d) were the regions with the lowest

cumulative volumes of GW under permit with each contributing less than 1% of the

cumulative volumes. Overall Tana (81,332,400 m3/d) has permitted the highest volumes

of water at 94% followed by LVS (2,777,900 m3/d) at 3% and RVC (1,993,600 m

3/d) at

2% on the third slot. The high volumes of water are attributed to water allocated for

Hydropower development in Tana as will be seen later in this report.

28

Figure 3. 2: Distribution of surface water and ground water across the 6 permit

processing stages

The figures imply that the highest amounts of revenue potential should be expected from

Tana, LVS and RVC since the regions have permitted the highest cumulative volumes of

water under permit. The distribution of permitting data is shown in Figure 3.2 above

which confirms, as earlier mentioned that GW in overall has more applications,

authorisations and permits as compared to SW and ED applications, an indication of

increased GW use. This is could be attributed to dwindling SW resources due to

siltation, pollution and even Climate Change.

Figure 3.3 affirm that Athi has the highest number of permitting applications, where it led

in GW (9753), followed by RVC (1837) then Tana (1257) while LNV (468) was last in

GW permitting. GW demand is highest in Athi and surface water scarce, probably due to

pollution from the major cities in the catchment. Further statistics confirmed that Tana

catchment area was the highest in SW with 1183 applications, followed by Athi (700) and

ENN (388) while LVN (178) was the least. As earlier alluded, ED applications are very

few when compared to GW and SW applications. Ground water use is lower in LVN

and LVS which have more surface water.

Figure 3. 3 Distribution of surface water, ground water and Effluent Discharge

distribution per region

445 654 40 251 249 22 700

11131

13 354

4785

7

1562

2818

31

1350

2702

29 0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED

Applicationspending

processing

Approvals Authorisations validauthorisations

permits valid permits

29

The second part of Table 3.1 shows the number of permits for the three categories B, C

and D. As earlier mentioned, applications are categorised into A,B,C and D depending on

their impact on water resource, where category As having no impact and category D

with major impact, including transboundary waters. As such category D applications

undergo thorough evaluations and are processed at WRA headquarters. Category A

applications do not mature into permits, and as such are issued with Approvals. The

remaining three categories B, C and D have economic value and therefore stakeholders

and interested parties are involved in processing them. Categorization is determined by

the Water Resources Allocation Thresholds for classification of permits. From the data

on figure 3.3 it can be inferred that 81% (3559) of all permits fall under category B, with

the larger abstractions of categories C and D having 13% (595) and 6% (257)

respectively. Tana (592) had the highest number of category B SW permits followed by

Athi (331) while LVS (31) had the least. Athi (1584) had the highest category B GW

permits followed by Tan (252) while LVS (61) was the least in this category. RVC (16) led

in category B ED while LVN had no ED permit at all. Athi (82) was highest with category

C SW permits, followed by ENN (68) while LVN (21) was the last. ENN (3) was the

highest in category C ED Permits followed by LVS (2) while LVN, Athi and Tana had no

category C ED permit. RVC (31) had the highest category D SW permits followed by

Tana (22) and Athi (20). RVC maintained the lead in category D GW permits at 103,

followed by Athi (23) and Tana (12) respectively while LVS has no category D GW

permit.

Figure 3. 4Comparison of all and valid permits per region per category

SW, 178 SW, 217 SW, 292 SW, 700 SW, 1183

SW, 388 GW, 468 GW, 665 GW, 1837

GW, 9758

GW, 1257

GW, 867 ED, 25 ED, 6

ED, 29

ED, 11

ED, 20

ED, 15

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

Comparison of SW, GW and ED distribution

ED

GW

SW

30

As seen in the figure, the number of permits nationally drops from category B to C to D.

This is because of the increase in thresholds of water required, with large incremental

volumes of water as permit category increases. The higher categories require more

stakeholder participation with categories C and D being subjected to Catchment Area

Advisory Committees (CAAC) and Public Notification in the Newspapers. There was no

CAAC in place during the year under reporting period. The time allowed for processing

higher permit categories is also longer, essential for building consensus and balancing

interests, hence fewer permits as the category increases. Among the six regions, Athi had

the highest number of GW permits in category B and was second after Tana in SW

category B while Tana catchment was highest in category B SW permits and second in

category B GW after Athi. RVC had the highest category B ED permits, followed by

Tana. In category C SW permits Athi was highest followed by ENN, while Athi was

highest in GW followed by RVC. ENN had the highest ED category C permits followed

by LVS. In category D RVC was highest in both SW and GW permits followed by both

Athi and Tana in GW and SW respectively. There was no category D ED Permit in all the

regions. High category D Permits in RVC is an indication of high level of compliance by

large abstractors especially around the Lake Naivasha.

Figure 3. 5 Comparison of cumulative permits and valid permits

1177

2357

25 277 312

6 108 149

0

1031

2074

25 276 285

4 106 130

0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED SW GW ED

PermittedCategory B

PermittedCategory C

PermittedCategory D

Valid Category B Valid Category C Valid Category D

31

Comparison of performance based on valid permits indicates that Athi is the best

performer with 97% of permits being valid followed by LVN at 92.3% while ENN trails

the rest with 83.3% valid permits.

Every permit issued has a specific amount of water that the user is allowed to abstract,

store or discharge. A valid permit is an indication of compliance. An analysis of the

volumes of water with permits and those with valid permits is shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3. 6: Comparison of permitted volumes and valid volumes per region

High number of permits do not necessarily translate into high volumes of water

abstracted under permit. Figure 3.6 and Table 3.2 indicate that Whereas Athi regions’

performance was highest in the number of permits, Tana has permitted the highest

volumes of water. As illustrated, the percentage of valid permitted volumes are relatively

high with all of them above 90%. Tana catchment area was the best performer where

the valid permitted volumes for both ground and surface water in categories B, C and D

were 99.97%. ENN was the least performer in comparison, though high by any standard

168 146

503

2222

933

439

155 127

457

2155

819

368

92.3%

87%

90.9%

97%

87.8%

83.8%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

All permits Valid Permits % Valid

99.87% 99.88% 99.52%

98.01%

99.97%

94.83%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

102.00%

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

Cumulative Permitted Volumes (x1000 m3/d SW&GW)

Cumulaitve Permitted Valid Volumes (x1000m3/dSW&GW)

%VALID

32

at 94.83%. LVS, LVN, and RVC followed Tana at 99.88%, 99.87%, and 99.52%

respectively. Overall performance nationally was 99.94% an indication that most

volumes of water are abstracted under valid permits, and which is very commendable.

Table 3. 2Comparison of permitted volumes and valid volumes per region

Region

All

Permits

Valid

Permits

Permitted

Volumes

Valid

Volumes

LVN 168 155 228.5 228.2

LVS 146 127 2777.9 2774.5

RVC 503 457 1993.6 1984

Athi 2222 2155 406.7 398.6

Tana 933 819 81332.4 81309.1

ENN 439 368 150.9 143.1

Total 4411 4081 86890 86837.5

Whereas Athi is highest in permitting followed by Tana and Athi with the Lake regions

trailing, on the permitted volumes Tana is highest followed by LVS then RVC. On the

contrary Athi is third last, ahead of LVN and ENN with total permitted volumes less than

400,000 m3/d.

Figure 3. 7: Comparison of permitted and valid ground water volumes per region

Further analysis indicates that in GW permitting RVC is the best performer having

permitted 57% of the total GW volumes, with 98% of the permits valid. Athi came

second with 30% of the total GW volumes, of which 99.9% were valid. The Lake

regions as expected were lowest with less than 1% permitted GW volumes, but with a

100% validity. Tana was the only region where the valid volumes was less 90% at 53%.

Success in RVC can be attributed to high volumes abstracted from the Lake Naivasha

Lakeland aquifer coupled with high awareness and strengthened partnerships, as well as

2.2 2.1

184.2

95.4

17.6 21.8 2.2 2.1

180.4

95.3

9.3 20.8

0

50

100

150

200

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

Permitted GW Volumes x 1000 m3/d Valid GW volumes x1000 m3/d

33

an active Water Resource Users Association (WRUA). Water users in this area comply

with regulations, which include but not limited to timely renewal of permits. GW

volumes abstracted from the aquifer is also high as compared to other regions, and the

usage is mainly for commercial, which enhances the economic value for water resources.

It is also noted that most of the abstracted volumes in Athi are in category B because the

main use in this region is domestic purposes as compared to RVC where most of GW

abstractions are in category D and used for irrigation which has relatively high water

demand. In LVN and LVS water supplies depend very little on boreholes.

Analysis of usage of surface water based on permitted and valid volumes shows that

Tana catchment area is the highest and way above the other five regions where they

abstract 94% of all the permitted volumes with a near 100% validity. This is shown in

the graph of Figure 3.8 for all the six regions.

Figure 3. 8: Comparison of permitted and valid ground water volumes per region

The figures affirm that majority of permitted water users (81%) are in category B where

they abstract 19% of the allocated volumes. The top abstractors comprise 19% and

abstract 91% of the permitted volumes. Likewise SW constitutes 99.6% (86,527,400

m3/d) of cumulative water abstracted under permit conditions while GW constitutes only

0.4% with 130,100 m3/d. Out of the total surface water permitted of 86.5 MCM, Tana

Region alone had 81.3 MCM. This constitutes about 94% of the total, leaving only 6%

to be shared by the other five regions. This can be attributed to hydropower permitted

allocations which are majorly in Tana region. From the remaining 6%, LVS follows with

3% then RVC at 2%. The lowest was ENN with 0.2% and LVN with about 0.3%. Athi

had 0.5%. Reasons for these low figures vary from one region to the other. In ENN the

low figure can be attributed to water scarcity, while in LNN it can be attributed to

alternative sources, in particular rainfall, which is high in this region compared to the

others. Tana and RVC both had 99.7% of their permits valid, implying that most

226.3

2775.8

1809.4

311.3

81314.8

129.1 226

2772.4

1803.6 303.3

81299.8

122.3

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

LVN LVS RVC Athi Tana ENN

Permitted SW Volumes x 1000 m3/d Valid SW volumes x1000 m3/d

34

volumes are abstracted under valid permits. Figure 3.9 affirms that the highest permits

are category B GW whose permitted volumes are second last of all permitted volumes.

On the contrary category D SW which has the least number of permits have the highest

volumes of water. In summary, SW permitted volumes for all the permit categories are

more than the GW volumes, while the GW permits are more than the SW ones. It

therefore calls for balance and control in such a way that the SW resources are

safeguarded for sustainability even as GW use is explored. Since water allocation

decisions is made on the basis of water availability and quality, investment towards

monitoring such availability and quality is encouraged especially in SW that provides

more than 80% of the total water allocated.

Figure 3.9: Comparison of All Permits and permitted volumes per category

3.1.2. Criteria for water allocation

Permitting is a tool used in water allocation to ensure equity and transparency. Criteria in

water allocation is based on priority of use, where domestic use gets the first priority

among the allocated water, when a water permit application is being considered for

approval (Water Act, 2002). This is based on the fact that the reserve which comprise

water for ecological and basic human needs is not allocated, but should be left in the sub

basin. The purposes for which water use is allocated are mainly six comprising public

water supply, domestic, livestock, irrigation, industrial and hydropower. Irrigation is

usually divided under subsistence and commercial use, where subsistence irrigation is

carried out in an area less than a hectare. Subsistence irrigation has priority over

commercial irrigation. For purposes of this report, irrigation constitutes both subsistence

and commercial use. Table 3.3 shows the water allocated for each purpose from both

386000

62000

559200

56100

85621500

205200

0 40000000 80000000

Cat B Permitted SW volumes

Cat B Permitted GW…

Cat C Permitted SW volumes

Cat C Permitted GW…

Cat D Permitted SW volumes

Cat D Permitted GW…

Permitted Volumes per category

35

SW and GW. Analysis show that the highest volume (99.6%) of SW is allocated for

hydropower generation, which is a non-consumptive use, and this 100% returnable.

Table 3. 3Cumulative volume of water allocated per category of use

Re

gio

n

Volume of water by category of water use up to June 2016 (x 1000 m3/day)

Public

Domest

ic

Livest

ock

Irrigatio

n

Industr

ial Power Other

Total Com

bine

d

S

W

G

W

S

W

G

W

S

W

G

W SW

G

W

S

W

G

W SW

G

W

S

W

G

W SW

G

W

SW&

GW

LV

N

12

5.

7

0.

5

7.

8

6.

9

2.

1

0.

1 4.7

0.

2

52

8.

2

0.

1

467

3.5 0

11.

8

0.

1

535

3.8

7.

9 5361

.7

LVS

12

1.4

0.

5

10

.5

11.

8

0.

3

0.

3

30.

1 1

20

.8

1.

3

244

3.4 0

3.

2

0.

1

262

9.7 15

2644

.7

RV

C

11.

7

2

7.

5

18

.8

26

.8

8.

6

3.

5

17

3.5

18

2.

4

10.

5 4

3126

.8

4.

3

3.

3

1

2.

2

335

3.2

26

0.

7

3613

.9

Ath

i

68

.2

7

3 11

19

2.

8

0.

3

6.

5

32

9.6

64

.9 31

2

8.

8

500

0

1.

6

2

4.

4

3.

7

546

4.5

37

1.3 5835

.8

Ta

na

25

7.

6

11

.9

10

9.

2

38

.9 6

2.

4

94

7.5

13.

1

12.

4

0.

5

8315

34.5 0

61

.9 1

832

929

67

.8 8329

96.9

EN

N

9.

9

5.

6 42

17.

2

4

7

2.

6

83.

8

22

.2

4.

2

0.

7 0.4 0

4.

5

1.

7

191.

8 50

241.

8

TO

TA

L

59

4.

5

11

9

19

9.

3

29

4.

4

6

4.

3

1

5.

4

15

69.

2

28

3.

8

60

7.1

3

5.

4

846

778.

6

5.

9

10

9.

1

1

8.

8

849

922

77

2.

7

850

695

SW – Surface water; GW - Groundwater

98% of the total volume allocated for power is from Tana catchment. Athi and LVN

follows Tana with a combine 1.2% of the total water allocated or power. RVC and LVN

had less than 1% with ENN being the last is allocation of SW for hydropower generation.

Less than 1% was allocated for power from GW. RVC and Athi are the only regions

which have allocated GW for hydropower generation, as a result of geothermal

development.

36

Figure 3. 10: Water allocated for irrigation

SW – Surface water; GW – Groundwater

Among the consumptive uses irrigation is the largest water user with 1,569,200 m3/d

allocated to the sector. Tana catchment has allocated 60% (947,500 m3/d) of the SW

volumes for irrigation making the catchment the highest water user for irrigation

purposes. This could be attributed to the irrigation projects in the catchment. Athi

catchment (329,000 m3/d) followed Tana in SW allocated for irrigation, then RVC took

the third largest SW user for irrigation with a volume of 173,500 m3/d. LVN was the last

fin SW volumes allocated for irrigation. As shown in Figure 3.10 RVC has allocated the

highest GW volumes for irrigation, followed by Athi which has nearly the same

percentage for both SW and GW. The Lake regions have lowest allocations for irrigation

use from both SW and GW. As shown in figure 3.11, Tana allocated more than half of the

total volumes for irrigation followed by Athi and RVC.

4.7 30.1

173.5

329.6

947.5

83.8 0.2 1

182.4

64.9 13.1 22.2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

LVN LVS RVCA Athi Tana ENN

IRRIGATION ALLOCATION x 1000 m3/d

SW GW

37

Figure 3. 11 Combined water allocated for irrigation

Third slot and second consumptive largest water use was allocated for public purpose

with allocation of 594,500 m3/d SW and 199,000 m

3/d GW. Tana allocated 257,600

m3/d (43%) of the total SW allocation for public use, followed by LVN at 21% and LVS

at 20%. ENN was the last in SW allocation for public purpose at 2%. Athi on the other

hand allocated 61% of the GW volumes followed by RVC at 23%.LVS was the least in

GW allocation for public purpose at 0%. From figure 3.12 it is clear that the highest

amount allocated for public use was from Tana catchment, followed by Athi, then LVN

and LVS. Tana’s performance is as a result of the inter-basin transfer where water is

abstracted from tana for use in Nairobi city which is situated in Athi.

LVN, 4.9, 0% LVS, 31.1, 2%

RVCA, 355.9, 19%

Athi, 394.5, 21%

Tana, 960.6, 52%

ENN, 106, 6%

38

Figure 3.12: Water allocated for public use from SW and GW

SW – Surface water; GW – Groundwater

Figure 3. 13: Combined water allocated for public use

Fourth slot and third consumptive largest water use was allocated for industrial use with

allocation of 607,100 m3/d SW and 35,400 m

3/d GW. LVN allocated 528,200m

3/d

125.7 121.4

11.7

68.2

257.6

9.9 0.5 0.5

27.5

73

11.9 5.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

LVN LVS RVCA Athi Tana ENN

PUBLIC USE

SW GW

LVN, 126.2, 18%

LVS, 121.9, 17%

RVCA, 39.2, 5%

Athi, 141.2, 20%

Tana, 269.5, 38%

ENN, 15.5, 2%

PUBLIC USE (SW&GW)

39

(87%) of the total SW allocated for industrial use, followed by Athi at 5% and LVS at

3%. ENN was the last in SW allocation for industrial use at less than 1%. Athi allocated

81% of the GW volumes while LVN was the least in GW allocation for industrial

purposes. From figure 3.13 and 3.14 it is clear that 82%, the highest amount allocated

for industrial use was from LVN catchment, followed by Athi, then LVS.

Figure 3. 14: Water allocated for industrial use from SW and GW

Figure 3. 15: Combined water allocated for Industrial use

528.2

20.8 10.5 31 12.4 4.2 0.1 1.3 4

28.8 0.5 0.7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

LVN LVS RVCA Athi Tana ENN

Industrial water allocation

SW GW

40

It is clear that many industries are in LVN followed by Athi. Fifth slot and fourth

consumptive largest water use was allocated for domestic use with allocation of 199,300

m3/d SW and 294,400 m

3/d GW. Tana allocated 109,200m

3/d (55%) of the total SW

allocated for domestic use, followed by ENN at 21%. LVN was the last in SW allocation

for domestic use at 4%. Athi allocated 65% of the GW volumes followed by Tana and

RVC while LVN was the least in GW allocation for domestic purposes. From figure 3.15

and 3.16 it is clear that the highest amount allocated for domestic use was from GW,

with Athi catchment leading in this sector. Interesting to note also from figure 3.15, is

that most of domestic water is allocated from GW.

Figure 3. 16: Water allocated for domestic use from SW and GW

LVN, 528.3, 82%

LVS, 22.1, 4%

RVCA, 14.5, 2%

Athi, 59.8, 9% Tana, 12.9, 2% ENN, 4.9, 1%

INDUSTRIAL USE (SW&GW)

41

Figure 3. 17: Combined water allocated for domestic use

The least volume allocated from consumptive use was for livestock with allocation of

64,300 m3/d SW and 15,400 m

3/d GW. ENN allocated 47,000m

3/d (55%) of the total

SW allocated for domestic use, followed by ENN at 21%. LVN was the last in SW

allocation for domestic use at 4%. Athi allocated 65% of the GW volumes followed by

Tana and RVC while LVN was the least in GW allocation for domestic purposes. From

figure 3.16 and 3.17 it is clear that the highest amount allocated for domestic use was

7.8 10.5 18.8 11

109.2

42

6.9 11.8 26.8

192.8

38.9

17.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

LVN LVS RVCA Athi Tana ENN

Domestic use

SW GW

LVN, 14.7, 3% LVS, 22.3, 5%

RVCA, 45.6, 9%

Athi, 203.8, 41%

Tana, 148.1, 30%

ENN, 59.2, 12%

DOMESTIC USE

42

from GW, with Athi catchment leading in this sector. Interesting to note also from figure

3.16, is that most of domestic water is allocated from GW.

Figure 3. 18: Water allocated for Livestock use from SW and GW

Figure 3. 19: Combined water allocated for livestock use

2.1 0.3

8.6

0.3 6

47

0.1 0.3 3.5

6.5 2.4 2.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

LVN LVS RVCA Athi Tana ENN

Livestock Use

SW GW

LVN, 2.2, 3% LVS, 0.6, 1%

RVCA, 12.1, 15%

Athi, 6.8, 8%

Tana, 8.4, 11% ENN, 49.6, 62%

LIVESTOCK USE (SW&GW)

43

Table 3. 4: Abstraction surveys and water allocation plans by June 2016

Region No. of

Abstraction

Survey

No. of

abstractors

identified

No. of Illegal

abstractors

identified

No. of

WRUA

%

Abstraction

Survey

44

A cumulative of 44 Abstraction surveys have been undertaken, Tana had the highest

percentage at 32% followed by ENN at 23%. Athi was last at 5%. The total number of

Abstractors identified in the Abstractions surveys were 5,790. Out of these 4370 were

legal abstractors. RVC had the highest number of abstractors at 34% and ENN having the

least at 23%. The surveys were undertaken within 46 WRUAs in the various sub

catchment.

Figure 3. 20: Mapping Abstraction Survey

LVN 3 907 543 5 7

LVS 8 988 381 8 18

RV 7 1978 0 7 16

ATHI 2 750 496 2 5

TANA 14 974 0 14 32

ENN 10 193 0 10 23

Total 44 5790 1420 46 100

45

Table 3.5: Cumulative status of abstractions with measuring devices and permitted

abstractions up to June 2016

Regio

n All Permits

Permit with measuring

devices

% of permits with

measuring

SW

G

W

E

D SW GW SW GW SW GW

LVN 70 98 0 8 18

11.

4 18.4 7.8 2.5

LVS 78 65 3 10 7

12.

8 10.8 9.8 1.0

RVC 102

38

4

1

7 20 129

19.

6

33.

6 19.6 17.7

ATHI

43

3

178

7 2 29 458

6.7

25.

6 28.4 63.0

TANA

66

0

26

9 4 15 42

2.3 15.6 14.7 5.8

ENN 219 215 5 20 73

9.1

34.

0 19.6 10.0

156

2

281

8

3

1 102 727

62.

0

137.

9 100.0 100.0

46

Among the conditions provided in authorisation is that an abstractor should install a

meter for measuring the abstractions before a permit is issued. It is also the responsibility

of the customer to maintain it in order to ensure that it functions effectively. Compliance

to this condition has been challenging and a number of abstractors do not have meters.

Table 3.5 shows the distribution of meters in all the six regions, with Athi being the

highest at 458 followed by Rift Valley at 129. The least is Lake Victoria North with only

seventeen. In the same table, the number of permits is also included, which shows that

only 18.8% of the permits have meters. It is obvious more effort is required through

involvement of all stakeholders to have more operational meters in place for effective

accounting of water consumption.

Table 3.6: Status of surface water storage – Cumulative all regions

Sum of

PAN

Sum of

CLASS A

Dams

Sum of

CLASS B

Dams

Sum of

CLASS C

Dams

Total

LVN 0 1 1506.5 0 1507.5

LVS 0 738 1 1 740

RVC 247 2357 5 1 2610

ATHI 1 1056503.8 11016.50339 9437.168 1076958

TANA 29031 838298 90551 1705912.4 2663792

ENNCA 0 114307.42 22335.194 751 137393.6

Grand Total

(m3) 29279 2012205.22 125415.1974 1716102.568 3883002

%Storage 1 52 3 44 100

Storage is encouraged in water allocation to ensure water is stored and used when

needed, especially when allocating water for irrigation purpose. Total water stored was

3883002m3.Class A dams had the highest volumes stored at 52% followed by Class C

dams at 44%. This could be attributed to the high number of catergory A dams.

3.2 Pollution control and catchment conservation

3.2.1 Management of major effluent dischargers

Management of Effluent Discharge (ED) require identification, Effluent Discharge Control

Plan (EDCP) development, issuance of permit, compliance monitoring and interventions

based on compliance monitoring findings. The ultimate goal in this management is to

47

issue a permit which has a legal and economical implication to deter water bodies’

pollution.

In cognizant of this, the number of identified ED, EDCP developed, permit issued

(number), % compliance (to both EDCP and permit condition) and, order issued and

court cases instituted against defaulters are the indicators used in the analysis of the

performance and progress in management ED.

Table 3. 7: Inventory of effluent discharge and status of compliance to EDCP

Region Number of

Effluent

Dischargers

Number of

Effluent

Dischargers

with EDCPs

Number of

Effluent

Discharger

s without

EDCPs

Number of

Effluent

Discharger

s with ED

Permit

Number of

Effluent

Dischargers

with ED

authorizati

on

%

complian

ce of ED

Monitor

ed

LVN 46 24 22 0 18 55

LVS 33 26 7 3 0 50

RV 41 35 6 17 13 30

Athi 46 14 32 2 6 35

Tana 14 8 6 4 2 62

ENN 85 18 10 5 4 50

National

Total

285 125 83 31 43 47

By June 2016, a total of 125(44%) out of the inventoried Effluent Dischargers (285) had

developed EDCP, and 61 %( 76) of these Effluent Dischargers (ED) with EDCP had

permits or authorization.

ENN had the highest number of effluent dischargers at 85 while Tana had the least a