Public Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities for Strategic Sustainable Domestic Water Management. A Case of Iringa Region In Tanzania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper may be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
Many Thanks for this remark
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper analyses the current water policy in Tanzania and focuses the attention on the case of the Iringa region. The author states that there is a lack of access to safe drinking water for many Tanzanians due to poor water services and water resource management. There is no comprehensive management of resources (surface water and groundwater) which causes pollution and overexploitation problems. This, together with the difficulties to develop and apply legislation makes a big problem for satisfied the water services demand and uses.
The Iringa region (The study area) is an area of about 36,000 Km2 and a population of about 151,000 inhabitants. Agricultural activities (about 85% of the regional GDP) are the main water use demand (not valued on the paper). The water supply services are provided by many surface water sources with frequent droughts events which influence the quality of water in this region.
The document devotes a great space to the water qualitative analyses in the region (almost 8 pages), which seem to be the real problem of water issues of the region. Meanwhile, water quantitative problems are provided in a few pages. There is no assessment of the availability of resources, both surface and groundwater.
Only household water services are considered in water uses. No estimation of water irrigation use or other water uses. In order to consider integrated water services strategically, this seems important to identify. The paper describes the household/domestic services, but it does not analyze these services.
The conclusions are very simple and inconsistent. The paper concludes that water public management is better than water private management, but it does not provide any data or information to support this assertion, which only addresses with the gap of prices between private and public wells. There are any analyses about cost recovery, subsidies, investments or quality services.
I don’t know the meaning of reasonable tariff. Is it based on cost recovery issues? Cross-subsidies? …
Do the author considered the economy of scales in the size of the wells? I am not sure when I read this sentence: “Rural-based WSSAs/COWSO must learn and implement best practices from urban WSSAs that irrespective of higher operation and maintenance expenses they still provide water to urban communities at relative low tariff compared to rural water supplies”. Of course, the water tariffs of the most unpopulated rural areas are higher than in most populated urban areas. There is no evidence to support the assertion, data or information.
At least, why only 3-5 laboratories can improve management and minimize operations expenses? There are not information, methodology or something like it to support this.
Author Response
This paper analyses the current water policy in Tanzania and focuses the attention on the case of the Iringa region. The author states that there is a lack of access to safe drinking water for many Tanzanians due to poor water services and water resource management. There is no comprehensive management of resources (surface water and groundwater) which causes pollution and overexploitation problems. This, together with the difficulties to develop and apply legislation makes a big problem for satisfied the water services demand and uses.
Thanks for the remark
The Iringa region (The study area) is an area of about 36,000 Km2 and a population of about 151,000 inhabitants. Agricultural activities (about 85% of the regional GDP) are the main water use demand (not valued on the paper). The water supply services are provided by many surface water sources with frequent droughts events which influence the quality of water in this region.
Thanks for the remark
However, agricultural activities have only been given as highlights over firsthand notice on how they virtually influence water supply. No detailed information is given because the subject is widely known, and would be unnecessary to repeat here.
The document devotes a great space to the water qualitative analyses in the region (almost 8 pages), which seem to be the real problem of water issues of the region. Meanwhile, water quantitative problems are provided in a few pages. There is no assessment of the availability of resources, both surface and groundwater.
Thanks for the remark
Water Quality has occupied many pages because of associated figures that carry important message, and they are also oriented from secondary data. Quantitative problems are rather straight forward with a mix of conceptual suggestions in addition to experimental findings. Critical information is captured, and they have been restricted to minimal for concise understanding.
An Assessment of the availability of surface and groundwater resources have been added in the manuscript.
Only household water services are considered in water uses. No estimation of water irrigation use or other water uses. In order to consider integrated water services strategically, this seems important to identify. The paper describes the household/domestic services, but it does not analyze these services.
Thanks for the remark
Yes, the paper does not consider other integrated water uses in detail. The strategy presented herein considers best practices on how such waters allocated for domestic could be sustainable. In fact, they originate from an integrated approach and hence their permissible use, but poor practice on their use are addressed here, and their management strategy is presented which virtually serves for other integrated advantages.
The conclusions are very simple and inconsistent. The paper concludes that water public management is better than water private management, but it does not provide any data or information to support this assertion, which only addresses with the gap of prices between private and public wells. There are any analyses about cost recovery, subsidies, investments or quality services.
Thanks for the remark
Visited projects were donor-funded ones, hence cost recovery, subsidies, investments and or quality services were not criteria for the management that is only given to maintain the service. This was one of the reasons for poor observed practices regarding water supply management because even the public supplying management feels that available infrastructures are for granted. Private based supplies do consider these features, and the proposed strategy concludes that feasible means that take into account their investment and operation costs shall be applied.
Useful remark from this comment has been worked on the manuscript regarding poor practices in public water supplies being associated with non-consideration or experience of investment expenses.
I don’t know the meaning of reasonable tariff. Is it based on cost recovery issues? Cross-subsidies? …
Thanks for the remark
Reasonable Tariff means the cost that is affordable by water users in consideration of quality service provided.
Do the author considered the economy of scales in the size of the wells? I am not sure when I read this sentence: “Rural-based WSSAs/COWSO must learn and implement best practices from urban WSSAs that irrespective of higher operation and maintenance expenses they still provide water to urban communities at relative low tariff compared to rural water supplies”. Of course, the water tariffs of the most unpopulated rural areas are higher than in most populated urban areas. There is no evidence to support the assertion, data or information.
Thanks for the remark
Economies of scale could be the culprit for observed cost discrepancies. But very unfortunate, urban-based supplies are regulated using third party organ on their tariff; rural-based are rather based on their sole decision on how much to charge, there are no sound basis on determination of tariff other than village meetings. Furthermore, their operating expenses are quite incomparable (i.e too cheap) compared to urban supplies that have increased costs in many treatment stages and supply infrastructures.
At least, why only 3-5 laboratories can improve management and minimize operations expenses? There is not information, methodology or something like it to support this.
Thanks for the remark
The idea of 3-5 laboratories arises from current 16 water laboratories. Thus, with current observations and trends on water quality testing, it is seen that expenses compensated for running such laboratory diversity can be ommited and subsided on analytical cost where majority will be capable of realizing the service affordably.
Reviewer 3 Report
The theme of the paper is very good and useful. We should have appropriate water quality monitoring, not too costly for the conditions. Among others, the use of references is substantial.
However, the paper needs quite a bit of editorial work. I have marked on the manuscript several of them such as:
sometimes too complicated sentences refer to the tables in the text before the table use of Capital Initials define e.g. WSSA when mentioned for the first time singular/plural forms of verbs in some cases the text needs clarification
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The theme of the paper is very good and useful. We should have appropriate water quality monitoring, not too costly for the conditions. Among others, the use of references is substantial.
Thanks for the remark
However, the paper needs quite a bit of editorial work. I have marked on the manuscript several of them such as:
Thanks for the remark
Done!
sometimes too complicated sentences refer to the tables in the text before the table use of Capital Initials define e.g. WSSA when mentioned for the first time singular/plural forms of verbs in some cases the text needs clarification
Thanks for the remark
Done!
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate very much the comments and efforts of the authors in order to show their case of study. However, there are many factors and variables missing in this research. We cannot propose a sustainable strategy for water supply and sanitation services without a socioeconomic study. In this way, we cannot understand what is available or affordable. And we would not have a clear picture of what is the ability to pay for providing water services.
The paper still fails to address the economic costs of the services. And without this item and the socioeconomic analysis, it is not possible to say nothing about a reasonable tariff, an affordable price (not a cost), or any conclusion about a sustainable strategy. I’m sorry, but I cannot find any data or information able to give me a standard criterion for assessing a strategic sustainable domestic water management.
Never the less, if we consider the content of the paper, maybe we can change the title towards water supply quality management issues, instead of strategic sustainable domestic water management.
And, of course, what is the methodology, information, criteria that support this sentence: Only three to five fully furnished water laboratories are satisfactory in the country. It is not clear in the document.
Author Response
I appreciate very much the comments and efforts of the authors in order to show their case of study.
Thanks for the remark
However, there are many factors and variables missing in this research. We cannot propose a sustainable strategy for water supply and sanitation services without a socioeconomic study. In this way, we cannot understand what is available or affordable. And we would not have a clear picture of what is the ability to pay for providing water services.
Thanks for the remark
Done!
The paper still fails to address the economic costs of the services. And without this item and the socioeconomic analysis, it is not possible to say nothing about a reasonable tariff, an affordable price (not a cost), or any conclusion about a sustainable strategy.
Thanks for the remark
I have added a brief clarifying statement for this; references are best utilized for similar economic cost approaches studied elsewhere.
I’m sorry, but I cannot find any data or information able to give me a standard criterion for assessing a strategic sustainable domestic water management.
Thanks for the remark
Table 4 provide guidance on data to rely on when assessing the proposed strategy. It should be recalled that rural-based entities are not considering investment cost, as for the case of urban supplies in this study. Thus, any cost observed in the table provides basic information on assessing the strategy validity.
Never the less, if we consider the content of the paper, maybe we can change the title towards water supply quality management issues, instead of strategic sustainable domestic water management.
Thanks for the remark
Relying on the quality will not be an excellent approach herein; the quantity and quality observations are adequate to account the stated title. It should be noted that the economic aspect flows throughout the paper content, rather than a strict headed section.
And, of course, what is the methodology, information, criteria that support this sentence: Only three to five fully furnished water laboratories are satisfactory in the country. It is not clear in the document.
Thanks for the remark
Line 175 clearly states the availability of 16 water laboratories in Tanzania, and yet the water quality assessment is not adequate accomplished. One of the key observational concerns being furnishing such laboratory diversity, and their continued operations. Thus, for the service to be affordable and sustainable to all citizens, laboratories need to be reduced in number so that they can easily be excellently furnished and operated in order to serve the majority at an affordable price sustainably.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The content of the manuscript is of local interest and I encourage it to submit it to the local journals for dissemination of the findings for the benefit of the other target areas of the country.
Water supply and sanitation authorities (private or public) are the authorities under the government. These authorities impose strategies but the authorities cannot be strategies as themselves. What are the current water supply and sanitation management practices of the country? Objectives of the study are not clear. Why did authors suddenly introduce Iringa? What is its background? Why is it different from other similar areas? Does Iringa have ideal water management practices?
Method section does not help readers to understand what authors did and with what purpose. What are the different heavy metals tested and what methodologies and protocols were followed? How was trend analysis performed? How was water quality perception measured? What questions were asked and to whom, to how many users?
The whole article is difficult to read through and lacks interest to the readers. It seems like it is a report prepared by an institution for informing their activities rather than an article of some interest to the international scientific audiences.
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented paper is interesting however it has limited interest to international readers, once it is focused in Tanzania. The results do not allow the extrapolation to other areas? At least in the discussion, other case studies should be pointed out, in order to improve its interest. Also its novelty is limited.
The title is too ambitious once the paper does not present any management strategy but only the results of a case study. These results are very valid and if presented in a different way with the proper discussion, have potential to be published in an international journal. Confrontation with others similar case studies of other countries is mandatory.
The paper extension is not in line with its scientific soundness..
