SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Sat, 26 Jul 2014 07:08:02 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb UPGro: major research grant for groundwater & poverty studies in Sub-Saharan Africa - by: SeanFurey UPGro: Unlocking the Potential for Groundwater for the Poor is a UK-funded research programme, and we at Skat/RWSN are the Knowledge Brokers. So we're excited to announce a new call for research proposals:

This £12m programme is an international programme funding interdisciplinary research, generating evidence and innovative tools to enable developing countries and their partners in sub-Saharan Africa to use groundwater in a sustainable way for the ultimate benefit of the poor.

This call is for outline Consortium Grant proposals which will provide an opportunity for the world's best researchers to undertake large-scale, complex and interdisciplinary social and natural science research addressing the programme's aim of enabling sustainable use of groundwater for the benefit of the poor. It is also an opportunity to further develop interdisciplinary teams that bring together developing and developed country scientists.

Proposals are invited for funding of up to £1·9m (FEC). This call has a total available budget of up to £7·6m. Projects will be funded for a maximum duration of four years.

For more details visit:

If you want to look for potential Consortium partners, we are encouraging people to post who they are, where they are and their research interests on the RWSN Groundwater group:

It would be great to see some studies that include a sanitation-groundwater component!


WG 11 (groundwater) Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:01:02 +0000
Sanitation and Groundwater: Guidelines for assessing the risk to groundwater from on-site sanitation (from 2001) - by: F H Mughal Guidelines for Assessing the Risk to Groundwater from On-site Sanitation (ARGOSS). I'm attaching the publication, which, I'm sure, must be useful for the colleagues on this forum.

F H Mughal]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:14:42 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: Juergen
thanks for the input; the 50-days rule is also applicable in the European Union, as far as I do know. Anyway, apart from good practices in well construction - these are really well and long-term established standards...-, the behaviour of virus might be very different from the behaviour of bacteria -as e. coli- in groundwater.

We should be careful on judging on transport of organic matter and bacteria around newly built wells and wells approaching their mid-term life expectance (i.e., from 10 to 25 years) since around older wells we might find well-established bodies of organic -living- matter of algae and bacteria forming organic fleeces around the well and possibly enabling e. coli and other not-so-harmless bacteria to reproduce, spread and survive longer in groundwater. Evidence for this is known, e.g., from the spread of f. cholerae in the Sundarbans in India and Bangladesh, where even seasonal influences as algae growth in rivers at the inset of the monsoon have their effect on bacteria inside wells fairly distant from these rivers.

Again, wells built following the established standards are the first and best protection against groundwater pollution through organic matter - and only samples taken from such wells allow hydrogeological guesstimates (or better) of transport distances and possible spatial extensions of plumes of pollution and transport velocities. All data taken from wells not corresponding to such standards, such as I mentioned from Sindh, just display faecal contamination or -generally- organic substances in the groundwater around these wells, without allowing judgement on the source of contamination itself.

Best regards,

WG 11 (groundwater) Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:13:50 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: kanalwolf
I will be most happy to have a look at this "wheel" and see if it is still rolling, once it surfaces again.

So many good thougths have been thougth already, but we need to polish them once in a while (and put this on websites like SuSanA), otherwise they get lost.

Kind regards,
WG 11 (groundwater) Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:39:45 +0000
Re: new publication: Assessing and forecasting groundwater development costs in Sub-Saharan Africa - by: kanalwolf thank you for sharing this information on the publication from Xenarios and Pavelic.
Comparing costs for developing groundwater resources in different countries and consideration of the cost barriers to a safer water supply is an important topic, which is not widely published with useful quantitative data.
I can also recommend Paul Pavelic´s earlier work on managed aquifer recharge, a good introduction is available at:

Deaar Mohammad dear others,
You are raising important questions for groundwater management and as a hygrogeologist i agree that this worth discussing. However, I u understand that in SuSanA we are asked to focus on the links between Sanitation and Groundwater, e.g.:
1. Planning of sanitation systems which do not contaminate groundwater bodies
2. Planning of groundwater based water supplied which are not at risk from wastewater systems
3. Reuse of (treated) wastewater for managed groundwater recharge (or artificial recharge)

You will find a quite active group in topic 3 also at:

I agree that are certainly a lot more options to implement artificial recharge with stormwater and, where drinking water quality aquifers are not directly at risk, also treated wastewater can be used for artificial recharge.

With regard to questions of overexploitation, intrusion of brackish groundwater etc I am happy to discuss a specific question, but would rather not think that we can cover all the hydrogeology science in this forum.

With best regards,
Leif Wolf]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:26:33 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: AquaVerde
Actually, i would think that it could be a good idea if SuSanA would gather some key information on well siting and seperation distances adapted to low tech environemnts in a kind of factsheet document

above I mentioned a little program from WRC "Made in South Africa" from the end 90', the results of it been: "separation distances adapted to low tech environments in a kind of fact-sheet document" based on various soil conditions.

Maybe some SUSANA-colleagues could "dig" the nice document/program out at WRC ( by using own informal connection to the Commission, instead of SUSANA is "inventing the wheel again".

If I remember well the established "50-days-rule" is applied by this little WRC-program too.
In Germany this "50-days-rule" is still the first starting point for any well-plannings by DIN (German Industrial Standard)

Best egards,
WG 11 (groundwater) Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:40:59 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: kanalwolf
I am sure that the well established "50-days-rule" is a useful concept to come up with some initial guidance for separation distances based on an assumed E-coli inactivation time of 50 days.

However, given the increased knowledge about viruses and also about the stochastic nature of this contamination problem, authorities in New Zealand have come up with a number of lookup tables for seperation distances for different aquifer settings and different thicknesses of the vadose zone, based on some quite convervative stochastic modelling.

You find the new Zealand Guidelines here:

"Guidelines for separation distances based on virus transport between on-site domestic wastewater systems and wells"
I have replied in a different thread in a similar manner, but i discovered that the link was not working.

The look-up tables are provided at the end of the document. Of course, they do not replace some hydrogeologic expertise.

As already mentioned by Jürgen, good practices in well design, well construction (appropriate sealing), well disinfection & pumping after contaminating flood events and and taking care of the immediate surrounding of the wellhead seam to be good first measures.

Actually, i would think that it could be a good idea if SuSanA would gather some key information on well siting and seperation distances adapted to low tech environemnts in a kind of factsheet document

Kind regards,
WG 11 (groundwater) Sun, 18 Aug 2013 15:03:10 +0000
new publication: Assessing and forecasting groundwater development costs in Sub-Saharan Africa - by: muench
I thought some of you may find the information on this groundwater publication useful (see below).



Von: Vogel, Horst GIZ LC
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. August 2013 11:21

Dear Colleagues,

Groundwater is the prime water resource in many rural areas on the African continent.

Greater use of groundwater is also a pre-requisite for improved adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Yet, the costs associated with groundwater development are prohibitively high and poorly defined. A recent study on Assessing and forecasting groundwater development costs in Sub-Saharan Africa (see here identifies
and disaggregates the costs of groundwater development in 11 Sub-Saharan African countries.

Best regards,

Horst M. Vogel

Horst Michael Vogel Ph.D.
Head of Programme (PGL)
Caribbean Aqua-Terrestrial Solutions

Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
CARICOM-CARPHA: Environmental Health and Management Unit
P.O. Box 1111
Morne Fortune
Saint Lucia]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:48:59 +0000
Re: [Wg11] WG: Groundwater in Africa - by: fppirco
Thank you for sending information  ,In  south west Asia  countries such Iran,Afghanistan are rely on ground water as main resources ,unfortunately
annual raining rate decreased in recent years together with  increasing temperature  arose progressively sever drought consequence , extra exploitation of ground water resources without any balance  recharging  for water using replacement cause sever drop aquifers and watershed  level , water quality changing because of  brackish water movement to fresh water aquifer make great concern .
I hope W11 group will move to pay more attention to these concerns and offer some proposals (for example ground water aquifers resources
artificial  recharging)  with bio remediation and other simple practical approach for rural area or small urban communities.

With best regards;

Mohammad Mojtabaei
Fanavar Pajoheash Pooya FPPIR CO
P.O Box:91865-358
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:54:51 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: F H Mughal
Thank you for sharing useful information. I'm particularly delighted to read the information about Sindh, you gave. Thank you for that. If you have more information/reports on Sindh, please share those as well.


F H Mughal]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:44:39 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: AquaVerde
End 90's I used in South Africa a little computer based (on diskette) simple program from WRC, to determine possible contamination by VIPs before projects started. As fare I remember, one of the inputs been soil conditions. Unfortunately I lost the little program and the booklet by a flooding later on.

Maybe this little program it is still in use in South Africa as an improved version. Do anybody know this little WRC-program too?

Detlef SCHWAGER]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:56:26 +0000
Re: The Impact of Pit Latrines on Groundwater Quality - by: Juergen
usually, the distance between the point of pollution and the well should be equal to the distance corresponding to 50 days of groundwater flow. According to the aquifer, this may range from just a few meters to several hundred meters. Flow velocity of groundwater can be deduced from pumping tests or through tracer tests; however,

these norms were established based on results obtained from max. survival times of e. coli in groundwater in cool climates (N. America, Europe) and the survival of e. coli in regions as Sindh, where groundwater temperatures are generally above 25° C, are suspected to be different(longer), so greater distances would be needed. When water testing after the 2010 floods in Sindh, we found e. coli in almost all wells within the villages, at distances of > 100m, we frequently found NH4 (ammonium), which in field testing is usually attributed to bacterial activity in groundwater.

Due to the depths and poor design of almost all wells, we couldn't determine the source of pollution with certainty (animal faeces being found al around the wells) nor it's depth location within the aquifer (usually, pollution 'feathers' tend to extend laterally from the main direction of groundwater flow, but take much time / long distances to seep down into deeper sections of the aquifers).

Conventional 'good practices' in well construction might help to provide drinking water quality to the rural poor in Sindh in many areas.]]>
WG 11 (groundwater) Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:31:19 +0000