Coping with water scarcity in water-rich environments: an integrated assessment of rooftop rainwater harvesting in the hills of Nepal

L. Domnech*, H. Heijnen** and D. Saur*** * Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Edifici C, Campus UAB, 08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Valls), Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: domenech.laia@gmail.com) Environmental Health Advisor, World Health Organization. UN House, P.O.Box 108 Pulchowk, Kathmandu, Nepal. (E-mail: hanheijnen@gmail.com) *** Department of Geography, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Campus UAB, 08193, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Valls), Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: david.sauri@uab.cat) ABSTRACT During the rainy season, rooftop rainwater is the most convenient drinking water supply alternative for many Nepalis. For communities high up the hill sides, it is often the sole source of drinking water. Since 1996 more than 11,000 household rainwater harvesting tanks have been built in the rural areas of Nepal to supply drinking water to communities facing acute water scarcity. The NGO sector has been the main promoter of these technologies. This paper aims to elaborate an integrated assessment of the socioeconomic, institutional and environmental aspects that stimulate or hamper the successful introduction of this technology. Special attention has been devoted to user practices and perceptions since users are responsible for managing rainwater quantity and quality. Data have been gathered from 10 rural communities of Nepal through household survey, group discussion and water quality testing. Key sector stakeholders were also interviewed. This paper shows that harvested rainwater makes indeed an important difference to its users. Significant impacts on health and livelihood improvement are reported. To further promote rational use of rainwater, an enabling policy and stronger local governance are needed. This will facilitate the scaling up of rainwater harvesting in rural Nepal and enhance water security, livelihood and community health. KEY WORDS Rooftop rainwater harvesting; integrated assessment; public perceptions; Nepal INTRODUCTION Water in Nepal is not scarce in absolute terms. Most of the populated areas of the country receive more than 1500mm of precipitation each year while certain areas may receive up to 5000 mm. Despite the abundant rainfall, many households either do not have access to an improved source of water or they receive a very unreliable service. According to the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2006, 17.9% of the Nepali households do not have access to an improved source of water (Ministry of Health and Population et al, 2007). The challenges to address to attain universal coverage are significant since the unserved frequently belong to the poorest sector of the population or they are located in remote areas (ADB et al, 2006). Rainwater harvesting may be an optimal solution for households located higher up the hill sides where gravity flow systems are unfeasible and motorised pumps are either too expensive or impracticable
**

due to lack of electricity. In urban settings water supply is intermittent and disruptions of the service are frequent throughout the year. Many urban dwellers are installing rainwater harvesting systems to confront the chronic water shortages suffered. In the terai area rainwater harvesting may also emerge as a good alternative to supply safe water in arsenic contaminated areas. This paper attempts to offer an integrated assessment of rainwater harvesting in the hills of the country with special focus on the driving forces that influence the achievement of a long lasting and widespread installation of this local technology. Rooftop rainwater harvesting is conceived as a hybrid of natural and cultural factors. While nature governs the climatic conditions and the precipitation regime, culture determines the type of technology utilised, the willingness to harvest rainwater and the management practices. In other words, a number of disciplines interact to define the feasibility of rainwater harvesting in a given locality. This complexity needs to be dealt through a holistic approach to allow the integration of knowledge from different fields as well as the generation of new relevant knowledge for decision-making (Tbara, 2003). Technological aspects are certainly considered but major attention is devoted to socioeconomic and institutional aspects as these are considered critical to advance rainwater harvesting in Nepal. In the first part of the paper we deal with institutional and financial considerations with major implications at the national level. In the second part, we explore users practices and perceptions which are particularly relevant at the community level. In the final part, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the delivery process are analysed. CASE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY Rainwater harvesting is becoming increasingly popular in the hills of Nepal. More than 160 communities rely on rainwater to meet their daily drinking needs. Five districts were selected to conduct field work: Kaski, Syangia, Palpa, Gulmi and Doti. Two communities from every district- in total ten communities with at least two years of experience with rainwater harvesting- were included in the sample. In each community, the relationships between rainwater harvesting and the users were explored by conducting household surveys, focus group discussions, key-informant interviews, participant observations and water quality testing. In total, 120 households equally distributed among the selected communities were surveyed. The household survey consisted of two parts: a socioeconomic questionnaire to explore consumer perceptions and management practices and a technical questionnaire to assess operation and maintenances practices and the condition of the systems. Water quality was tested in half of the households surveyed, i.e. 60 systems. Oxfam-DelAgua Portable Water Testing Kit from the University of Surrey was used to check pH, turbidity, temperature and E.coli in every water sample. At the national level, the main stakeholders of the sector were also interviewed. It was reported that most sector agencies adopt the same type of technology to promote rainwater harvesting. Likewise, the systems included in the sample share common features. They are all household systems and the ferrocement jar is their central element. In most communities the ferrocement jar has 6.5 m3 capacity but older tanks of 2 m3 were also found in few communities. Households with 2 m3 tanks usually had two tanks with a total storing capacity of 4 m3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Institutional arrangements to promote rainwater harvesting in rural Nepal Since the eight plan period (1992-1997) Government and NGOs have closely collaborated to scale up water supply and sanitation services in Nepal (Sharma, 2004). The Department of Water Supply and Sewerage with Finnida (Government of Finland) support and Helvetas (Swiss Association for International Cooperation) have greatly contributed to spread rainwater harvesting in rural Nepal with the construction of more than 9000 and 700 tanks respectively. Many other organisations have also constructed rainwater harvesting systems, yet in smaller numbers. The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation National Policy (2004) encourage the leadership of the local community to identify, select, implement and manage a desired project. Rooftop rainwater harvesting involves indeed a high level of local governance as rainwater harvesting systems are operated and managed either by a family unit or by a users committee. Rural communities play a central role during project implementation but in contrast, their role during the pre-development phase is somewhat limited. Rural communities are very often unaware of the benefits and possibilities that rooftop rainwater offers and therefore, unable to demand its installation and even less likely to construct such systems on their own initiative. Similarly, implementers may not consider rainwater harvesting as a water supply alternative due to lack of information and costing. National authorities can foster the application of rainwater harvesting through policies and other type of incentives. A national policy on rainwater harvesting was approved as a working policy in 2009 to advocate and ensure an optimum use of rainwater harvesting. Above all, the role of Local Government Bodies is decisive to launch awareness campaigns and monitor the management of rainwater harvesting systems. So far, the involvement of Local Government Bodies is considered rather modest in all the phases of the delivery process which may be attributed to: (i) their reduced capacity caused by the conflict that has affected the country since 1996; (ii) lesser priority given to household level water supply services as these are more difficult to manage; (iii) the high cost of rainwater harvesting technologies; (iv) the remoteness of the communities and households that use rainwater harvesting. Private companies are considered almost absent in the rainwater harvesting sector, as self-initiation systems are very rare in the rural areas. Self initiation of rainwater harvesting systems can be encouraged by increasing market involvement, accessibility to credit and public private partnership initiatives. One of the few examples of this type of initiatives in Nepal can be found in the Biogas Supported Programme which facilitates access to micro-credit to build rainwater harvesting systems in conjunction with biogas plants. Financial arrangements to promote rainwater harvesting in rural Nepal If the capital cost is the only element taken into consideration, rainwater harvesting is rather costly compared to other water supply technologies. Other aspects such as cost of operation and maintenance or social and environmental benefits are often given little consideration during decision making.

Rainwater harvesting systems are unaffordable for rural households at current market rates and therefore, external support is critical to promote their implementation. In 2008 the total cost of a rainwater harvesting system with a storage capacity of 6.5m3 was estimated at around US$ 855 including local and non-local materials, CGI sheet roof, labour and transportation costs. For the most part, the cost of the system is subsidized by the supporting agency and only 23% is contributed by the benefiting household. Community people usually contribute local materials and unskilled labour. Survey results show that users do not perceive the cost as being too high since only 14% of the respondents opined that the cost (or effort) they had to pay for the system was high. This may be a reflection of the tough conditions of their daily water chores. Operation and maintenance expenses are low and they are assumed in full by users. Rainwater harvesting systems do normally not use energy. On average, every household of the sample spent US$3.5 as well as 6 hours per year to carry out regular maintenance tasks of the system. At the same time, 34.2% of the households had not spent any money to maintain the system. In contrast, users of motorised pumps which are getting increasingly popular in the hilly communities of Nepal, need to pay a monthly tariff of around US$ 1.30. Some members of the community are unable to bear this cost and therefore, they are excluded from using the lifting system. All members of the community can usually afford operation and maintenance expenses of rainwater harvesting but equity is not always guaranteed in terms of accessibility. Disadvantaged households were sometimes receiving fewer subsidies than better off households. Those households which were not able to contribute all the materials required were given a jar of 2m3 while the rest of the households received a bigger jar of 6.5 m3. Few households were even left out of the programme due to their inability to contribute the required materials or due to lack of space. Rainwater harvesting programmes need to incorporate special indicators to target efficiently the most in need. Community people and rainwater harvesting: critical issues Social acceptability At first, users may not be willing to install rainwater harvesting systems due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty about its usefulness. Demonstration systems and strong mobilisation campaigns are usually required to build awareness on the opportunities rainwater harvesting offers. In this study public perceptions of experienced rainwater harvesters have been captured. The overall level of satisfaction of the users towards their rainwater harvesting system was found to be very high. Most users (78.3%) were fully satisfied with their rainwater system, 10.8 % were somewhat satisfied and 10% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Only 1% of the users expressed to be somewhat dissatisfied. The level of satisfaction varied significantly depending on the community studied. Those communities having smaller tanks were the least satisfied. The highest levels of satisfaction were found in Kaski and Syangia where rainfall is more abundant. The level of satisfaction slightly decreases while looking at specific aspects like water quantity, quality, taste and clearness. Respondents showed the highest level of satisfaction for taste and clearness and the lowest for water quantity.

The most controversial aspect in terms of acceptability is the use of rainwater for drinking purposes. A small proportion of the households surveyed (11.5%) refused to drink rainwater. Social constructions and traditional beliefs are behind this disapproval. The most common reason for not drinking rainwater is the distrust towards rainwater quality. Nepalese traditional beliefs assert that still water or stored water is basi (impure). Nepalese prefer drinking free flowing water because this is considered chokho (ritually pure) (Dixit, 2002). Other concerns raised by some households include the side effects of collecting water from rusting roofs and the low mineral content of rainwater (particularly of iron). Some users also dislike rainwater taste. Due to its low mineral content, rainwater may have a particular taste or lack of taste compared to mineral-rich water (WHO, 2007). In addition, leaching of new ferrocement tanks may create a problem of taste (Pathak & Heijnen, 2006). Furthermore, temperature of drinking water is culturally a critical issue in Nepal. Nepalese usually correlate the fact of getting a cold or being sick with the temperature of the water they drink. Some users stated that drinking rainwater causes a cold. Finally, few users declared not to be drinking rainwater because their system was not properly maintained. Women headed households may face difficulties to maintain the system in a good condition because they are unable to clean the tank and the roof catchment area. Water management Rainwater harvesting fulfils the absolute water needs of the household during the rainy season, which normally runs from June to September. In contrast, during the dry season rainwater cannot be employed in all uses and therefore, users should manage rainwater with care. Four types of rainwater management during the dry season were identified among rainwater harvesters: (i) water is used for all purposes until the tank is empty, (ii) water is only used for drinking and cooking purposes, (iii) water is carefully used for all uses but washing clothes and bathing, (iv) women lock the tank (with a padlock) at the end of the rainy season in order to have rainwater available during the driest period of the year, that is when the alternative water sources available are further, (v) some water is always kept in the tank for emergency situations. Around 10% of the users, mostly those having small families, affirmed that rainwater could meet more than 95% of their water needs. Rainwater harvesting becomes extremely valuable for elder people living on their own. In Syangia where rainfall is abundant rainwater was able to meet around 85% of the water needs while in Gulmi or Doti where rainfall is less, rainwater harvesting could only meet 65% of the water needs. The uses that receive the highest priority are drinking, cooking and washing cooking utensils. More than 85% of the households stated to use rainwater for drinking, cooking and washing cooking utensils during the dry season and 50% of the household stated to use it for ablution and latrine flushing as well. Washing clothes and bathing are the least prioritised uses, as they can be undertaken in the alternative water source without being necessary to carry water up to the household. One popular measure to maximise the use of rainwater is the reutilization of wastewater for the kitchen garden.

Operation and maintenance practices Little is known about the condition of rainwater harvesting systems after few years of operation and about how users operate and maintain rainwater harvesting systems. These practices are critical to minimise the chances of water contamination and ensure an effective and long lasting performance of the systems. Rainwater harvesting systems of the sample had been in operation between two and six years. A set of eight indicators were used to determine the condition of the systems. According to these indicators, 55.2% of the systems were in a good condition, 30.1% of the systems were in a fair condition and 14.7% of the systems presented a poor condition (table 1). Only 2.5% of the sampling systems were not in operation. Table 1. Indicators to measure the condition of the rainwater harvesting systems
INDICATORS Overhanging branches on the roof Condition of gutters Cover condition Tank condition Nylon mesh condtion First flush device condition Outlet condition Puddles around the tank TOTAL GOOD 82.1 % 80.3% 88% 64.1% 69.2% 88.9% 84.6% 75% 55.2% FAIR 17.1% 7.7% 29.1% POOR 17.9% 2.6% 4.3% 6.8% 30.8% 11.1% 2.6% 25% 14.7%

12.8% 30.1%

The indicator that scored the lowest was the condition of the ferrocement tank. Few tanks were leaking due to inadequate technical design and lack of curing during construction. These results show the importance of curing the tanks during the rainy season when water is easily available. It is also critical to keep the right proportion of cement and sand while building the tank. Sometimes contractors try to save cement to reduce costs. Alternatively, quite a few tanks presented severe external cracks and damp in the walls. The tank should be brushed clean and painted from time to time to prevent further deterioration and leakages. Survey results show that 84.2% of the households had painted the tank at least once. The nylon mesh that prevents debris and other dirt from entering the tank had been removed in 30.8% of the systems or it was in a very bad condition. Many households stated that they could not replace the nylon mesh because it was not available in the local market. Spare parts should be easy to access by community people. Separating the first millimetres of precipitation is an effective means of preventing that the impurities accumulated in the catchment area during a dry spell reach the tank (Thomas and Martinson, 2007). In 11.1% of the systems the first flush device was not operational, either because it was blocked by debris or because it had been removed. The wind damaged some of the first flush devices and users removed the pipe instead of repairing it. The cap of the first flush pipe was also lost or damaged in quite a few systems. Users were using stainless steel drinking cups, corncobs and pieces of wood to replace it. Some households are afraid of water loss and therefore, they either keep the first flush open only for very few minutes or they do not use it. Another critical aspect of rainwater harvesting in the rural areas is the local capacity to repair and maintain the systems which not only needs to be built but also retained.

About 10% of the users had carried out major repairs of the rainwater harvesting system: 7.4% of the users had repaired the gutter and 5% had repaired leakages in the tank. In all the communities visited the implementing organisation had trained a few members of the community on how to repair the systems. Nevertheless, in two of the communities visited no one was capable to repair the systems because the skilled persons had either migrated or were not willing to undertake the task. This lack of capacity poses a serious risk on the sustainability of the intervention. Water quality Water quality was tested in 60 systems. The most relevant parameter determining the suitability of rainwater for drinking purposes is E.coli. E.coli is a good indicator of the presence of faecal contamination and was detected in 9% of the samples. According to WHO guidelines, thermotolerant coliforms should not be detectable per 100ml of water sample (WHO, 2004). In the rural areas of developing countries water resources often contain some faecal contamination and therefore, a more realistic standard may be no more than 10 faecal coliforms per 100 ml (Fujioka, 1994). The number of colonies detected was between 1 and 10 in 7% of the samples. In 2% of the systems the number of colonies was higher than 100 CFU/100 ml which involves a significant risk for human health. The presence of E.coli was very much related with the condition of the scheme. For example, E.coli was detected in systems having plants on the roof, no mesh, the first flush device blocked or the lid not sealing properly. These results contrast with the findings of a study conducted in Kefalonia Island (Greece). E.Coli was found in 40.9% of the samples (Sazakli, 2007). Similarly, in Thailand E.coli was detected in 40% of the rainjars sampled (Pinfold et al, 1993). The lower concentrations of E.coli registered in the tanks sampled may be attributed to the fact that the samples were taken at the end of the rainy season and therefore, the accumulation of potential carriers of E.coli in the catchments area was less likely. A follow-up visit in May 2009 to two communities, at the end of an extended dry season, recorded 75% of the tanks with E.coli counts per 100 ml below 10 (sample size 12 tanks in three separate clusters). Turbidity values were all below 5 NTU, in line with WHO standards. pH was quite alkaline in all systems due to the cement used to construct the tank. pH measurements ranged from 7 to 10.2 and on average pH was above 8.4. Even though WHO standards for drinking water recommend values of pH between 6.5 and 8.5, the effect of alkalinity of water is not known to be hazardous to human health (Gould and Nissen-Petersen, 1999). Temperature measurement ranged from 20C to 25C. This parameter is not relevant in terms of health but may affect users acceptability of rainwater. Socioeconomic benefits of rainwater harvesting at the community level The high level of satisfaction registered is explained by the large number of benefits rainwater harvesting brings about to the communities in the hills. Rooftop rainwater harvesting provides safe water within household premises. Users were asked to compare their present practices with their practices before the installation of the rainwater harvesting system to analyse the changes triggered by the new technology (table 2). The most appreciated benefit and also that providing major returns in health and livelihood improvement is the reduction of the time invested in fetching water. During the rainy season, every household saves on average 6.4 hours per day. Most women

(81.8%) employ the time saved in reproductive activities such as taking care of children, cooking or cleaning. Prior to the intervention many women had to get up at midnight to fetch water and sometimes they had to leave their children alone at home. The additional time available allows 66.1% of the women to rest better and therefore, enjoy better health. On the other hand, almost half of the households employ part of the time saved in income generating activities such as kitchen gardening and livestock rearing. Women have also more time available to participate in social activities and management activities such as studying, trainings or accounting. Table 2. Benefits of rainwater harvesting at the community level
Indicator Time spend fetching water during the rainy season Time spend fetching water during the dry season Use of water per household Washing hands Use of latrine Suppression of diarrhoea Expenditure on medicines Attendance to school Kitchen garden Vegetables selling Livestock Business Unit hours/dayhousehold Before the intervention 6.4 After the intervention 0 Improvement - 6.4

hours/dayhousehold litres/dayhousehold times per day Percentage of households Percentage of households US$/year Percentage of households Percentage of households Percentage of households Percentage of households Percentage of households

6.4 134 7 31 US$53 3.33% -

2.4 173 13 81.5 US$41 8.33% -

-4 39 (29%) 6 85% of the respondents use it more frequently - 50.5 - US$12 88.5% of the children attend more regularly 77.3% have improved their kitchen garden 5% 33.3% have more livestock 4.2% have started a new business

Beneficiaries also affirmed to use more water after the installation of the rainwater harvesting system. Survey results show that the use of water was increased by 29%. The major availability of water is directly correlated with better hygiene practices. Two indicators show important improvements in this field. The use of latrine is radically enhanced and users wash hands more frequently. As a result, the incidence of diarrhoea is significantly reduced among rainwater harvesters, 81.5% of the users stated not to suffer from diarrhoea since the installation of the rainwater harvesting system. During focus group discussion users also highlighted the reduction of the number of accidents, as villagers do not need to fetch water during the rainy season when paths become more dangerous. These health and hygiene improvements lead to a reduction on the consumption of medicines; the expenditure on medicines was reduced by 22.5% after the installation of the rainwater harvesting systems. Besides health benefits, positive impacts on livelihood improvement were also reported. Rainwater harvesting favours food security and an improved diet. Three quarters of the

households surveyed had improved their kitchen garden and one third had obtained more livestock after the installation of the rainwater harvesting system. In few households the installation of the rainwater harvesting system also contributed to expand income generating activities, 8.2% of the households were selling vegetables from the kitchen garden while 4.2% started new businesses (chicken farm, restaurant, veterinary, etc). Rainwater harvesting has also remarkable impacts on education. Children, especially girls, do not need to spend that much time fetching water and women are able to prepare their children to go to school on time. Around 89% of the families having children going to school stated that the attendance of their children had improved. School teachers also corroborated remarkable changes in school attendance. The noteworthy impact of rainwater on education is expected to bring long term benefits to these communities. Finally, rainwater harvesting also favours enhanced community unity. Fewer arguments among villagers occur after the installation of the systems. Women do not need to queue or rush in order to obtain water. Some users also highlighted that rainwater had stopped the social discrimination they were suffering while fetching water due to the caste system, as higher castes were always getting priority while fetching water. CONCLUSIONS The twenty-year vision (1997-2017) of the government of Nepal seeks universal water supply coverage by 2017. Rainwater harvesting may contribute significantly to the achievement of this goal, as this water alternative may be the most convenient solution for many unserved communities in the hills. Up to now, the role of international agencies has been crucial to promote rainwater harvesting in the rural areas. In the years to come, the involvement of national authorities should also progressively grow to build awareness on the advantages of this local technology and ensure the correct utilisation of the systems that are already in operation. The operational rainwater harvesting policy approved this year (2009) is due to become a central element of this process. Another tool available to foster a proper use of this alternative technology is the water safety plan which is in development in Nepal for rainwater harvesting. Some implementation challenges of rainwater harvesting are underlined throughout the paper. Even though few households refused to drink rainwater, the overall level of acceptability towards rainwater was found to be very high and water quality was generally good. Operation and maintenance practices were at times inadequate and this could prove a serious risk to the long lasting performance of the systems and the health of the consumers. Users are responsible for the correct running of the systems ultimately but local government bodies have also a crucial role to play in this field. They have the capacity to launch awareness campaigns at the local level and they are able to undertake follow up activities periodically. Active participation of the private sector is critical. The high level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries and the high returns on health and livelihood improvement enhances the willingness of users to build a rainwater harvesting system on self-initiation. Clearly rainwater harvesting systems can not be built everywhere. But where rainfall is adequate during the monsoon, and alternative water sources quickly dry out in the dry season, harvesting should be considered. Public-private partnership appears as a good

formula to promote rainwater harvesting systems. Self-initiation will become possible when the market offers more ready-made construction materials and advice. Many rainwater harvesters declared to be willing to pay to obtain another tank but some type of support such as micro-credit should be made available as the full cost of the tank is beyond the capacity of most households. Further incentives need to be explored to consolidate systematic rainwater harvesting as part of the existing culture of hill communities. REFERENCES ADB, WHO, ESCAP and UNDP (2006). Asia Water Watch 2015: Are Countries in Asia on Track to Meet Target 10 of the Millennium Development Goals? ADB, WHO, ESCAP and UNDP, Manila, Geneva, Bangkok and New York. Dixit, A. (2002). Basic Water Science. Nepal Water Conservation Foundation. Fujioka, R.S. (1994). Guidelines and Microbial Standards for Cistern Waters. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on rainwater catchment systems, Nairobi, Kenya. Eds. Bambrah, G.K., Otieno, F.O., Thomas, D.B. pp 393-398. Gould, J. and Nissen-Petersen, E. (1999). Rainwater catchment systems for domestic supply: Design, construction and implementation. ITDG publications. Ministry of Health and Population, New ERA, and Macro International Inc. (2007). Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2006. Kathmandu, Nepal. Pathak, N. and Heijnen, H. (2006). Health and hygiene aspects of rainwater for drinking. 32nd WEDC International Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2006. Pinfold, J.V., Horan, N.J., Wirojanagud, W. and Mara, D. (1993). The bacteriological quality of rainjar water in rural northeast Thailand. Water Research 27, (2), 297-302. Sazakli (2007). Rainwater harvesting, quality assessment and utilization in Kefalonia Island, Greece. Water Research 41, 2039-2047. Sharma, S., Koponen, J., Gyawali, D. and Dixit, A. (2004). Aid under stress. Water, Forests and Finnish Support in Nepal. Himal Books. Institute of Development Studies. University of Helsinki. Tbara, J.D. (2003). Participacin cualitativa y evaluacin integrada del medio ambiente y de la sostenibilidad. Aspectos metodolgicos en cuatro estudios de caso. Doc. Anl. Geogr. 42, 183-213. Thomas, T.H. and Martinson, D.B. (2007). Roofwater Harvesting. A Handbook for Practitioners. IRC. WHO (2007). Plan of work for the rolling revision of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/rainwater.pdf (Accessed 5 June 2009).

10