NextBillion - A WDI Publication

In Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs), water is more than a basic need: It is a lifeline. Yet despite billions in donor investments in water infrastructure over the past two decades, much of rural Kenya remains underserved.

This is certainly true in Turkana County, where fragile water systems routinely collapse under the weight of neglect. The root cause? A chronic failure to fund and manage operations and maintenance (O&M). Too often, new infrastructure is built only to be abandoned within years due to lack of follow-up.

Recognizing this persistent gap, in 2021-2023 LeFil Consulting partnered with Oxfam Kenya to design and pilot an innovative market-based approach to managing rural water systems, with the support of the Turkana County Government and international donors. Two years after the program’s conclusion, partners in Turkana are still adapting and testing the model, building on the pilot’s results and lessons learned. I’ll share some of those lessons below, exploring their implications for other water-focused businesses and initiatives serving rural communities.

The problem: Capital-heavy, maintenance-poor

Over the last 20 years, Kenya has received massive donor funding for water systems (including a nearly fourfold increase between 2006 and 2009). Yet between 2000 and 2015, the share of the population with access to at least basic drinking water rose by just 12 percentage points, from 46% to 58%. In our view, one of the main reasons why these investments have not resulted in proportional improvements for citizens is the stark disconnect between an excessive focus on capital expenditures and an insufficient focus on keeping systems running. The standard model for donor-funded water projects only pays for setting up the infrastructure, with hardly any provision for O&M. Communities are left to fend for themselves afterwards, often after one-time basic governance and technical training.

In the ASALs, the consequences of this imbalance have been especially grim. Roughly one third of rural water systems are dysfunctional at any given time, and nearly two-thirds start malfunctioning within three to five years of installation. The implications for health, productivity and community resilience in these regions are dire.

The pilot: A new model for Water Operations and Maintenance

Our one-year pilot aimed to break this cycle by testing a new model across 60 standalone, solar-powered water schemes in Turkana. We designed the model based on six core assumptions:

• Proper O&M will extend the lifespan of infrastructure and reduces long-term costs.
• Local committees and county governments lack the capacity to manage O&M effectively.
• Private operators, if properly incentivized, can deliver high-quality O&M at scale.
• Cost-benefit analysis will prove that investing in O&M makes more sense than repetitive capital spending.
• Improved services will lead to greater community ownership and willingness to pay.
• Digital tariff collection (via mobile money) can reduce leakage and boost revenues.

To test these hypotheses, the pilot compared the 60 target schemes to 22 control schemes that received no intervention. A private O&M company was hired to carry out routine maintenance and emergency repairs, with performance-based contracts. LeFil and Oxfam managed coordination, oversight and data analysis.

Key findings: Impact and challenges

Reduced breakdowns and repair costs: Target schemes received 15 times more repairs than control schemes (116 curative repairs in total), mostly to address small or medium breakdowns. This proactive maintenance led to fewer catastrophic failures: Only 2% of target schemes required total reconstruction, compared to 9% of control schemes. Estimated savings in avoided reconstruction costs amounted to almost US $79,000 annually. More importantly, the intensity of breakdowns fell by 61% in the second half of the pilot, suggesting that good maintenance prevents further deterioration.

Improved functionality and water quality: By the end of the pilot, only 4% of target schemes were non-functional (down from 5%), while 9% of control schemes had collapsed. Preventative maintenance also led to improvements in water safety: Only 5% of target schemes still showed E. coli contamination by the end of the pilot, compared to 26% at baseline. Security also improved: hazardous incidents were reported in just 5% of target schemes versus 18% in the control group.

Digital payments — a promising start, with hurdles: At baseline, mobile access was low: Just 35% of households had mobile phones. By the end, 89% of target schemes had used mobile money to pay water tariffs at least once. Communities expressed interest in continuing digital payments, though challenges remain, including cumbersome requirements by mobile money operators and poor agent coverage in remote areas.

Poor community engagement and payment performance: Perhaps the most surprising result: Despite better service, community satisfaction was lower in the target group (28%) than in the control group (65%). Why? We believe this is likely because of the two groups’ differing expectations: Target communities were promised fully functional systems, and were thus more critical when these weren’t delivered on time – especially given the fact that the O&M service provider incurred some delays in completing repairs. Tariff collection also underperformed: Communities in the target group paid only 5% of what could have been collected in a best-case scenario, and 82% of schemes did not collect enough tariff to cover the salaries of local staff consistently throughout the pilot. In fact, only 8% of salary costs were covered by collected tariffs.

Financial sustainability 

The one-year pilot cost about US $240,000, 99% of which was covered by donors and the county government. Most of these costs were tied to repairs and maintenance, with only 1% going to local staff and fuel. However, the need for curative repairs decreased throughout the pilot (with a 61% reduction in the second semester). This suggests that, if the pilot were converted into a longer-term program, O&M costs would be significantly lower in subsequent years, thanks to early investments in repairs which pay off over time.

Our study suggests that with annual funding of around US $150,000, this model can be maintained across 60 water schemes — still far cheaper than the US $250,000 the control group would need for repairs and reconstruction in the absence of O&M.

To cover this gap sustainably, the report proposes an innovative solution: a 7% “O&M tax” on all new water infrastructure funded by donors. This would ensure that the long-term costs of maintenance are built into the project from the start.

Unfortunately, as of 2025, this idea remains politically and socially challenging, given recent tax increases in Kenya. Instead, discussions have shifted toward advocating for better allocation of existing government resources to the water sector, particularly for quality management and O&M.

Lessons for future water interventions

The pilot generated a wealth of insights for future water interventions:

• The need for strong local presence: The O&M operator’s limited investment in local operations hampered delivery. Future service providers must build local capacity from day one. Current efforts include working with established service providers to set up spare parts shops in sub-county centres to reduce delays.
• Data is power: The pilot produced unprecedented intelligence on infrastructure status, enabling faster, smarter responses, especially during droughts.
• Community dynamics are complex: Despite improved infrastructure, user satisfaction lagged. This underscores the need to manage expectations and involve communities more deeply from the outset.
• Digital payments require more than tech: While mobile money helped reduce tariff leakage, its design doesn’t yet suit rural realities. Future iterations must tailor digital solutions to user capacity and context. Building on this, recent efforts have focused on community-friendly solutions, such as exploring the possibility of allowing in-kind contributions as payment (e.g., paying with livestock).
• O&M is complex, but vital: This pilot was management-heavy and required constant oversight. While this adds to costs, the alternative — i.e., wasted infrastructure — is far more expensive.

Conclusion: A blueprint for water resilience

Despite its challenges, the pilot demonstrated that investing in O&M pays off. Not only are well-maintained water schemes more reliable and resilient, but the cost of keeping them functional is lower than replacing them every few years. When implemented correctly, this model creates a win-win for donors, governments and, most importantly, communities.

That said, success hinges on getting three elements right:

• A committed service provider with the capacity and incentive to deliver high-quality, timely O&M
• A robust coordination mechanism with clear roles, real-time data and responsive oversight
• A sustainable funding model, such as an O&M fund backed by infrastructure taxes or pooled tariffs

As climate change and population pressures increase the strain on rural water systems, the need for durable, efficient service delivery will only grow. The results of the Turkana pilot may not be perfect, but its approach offers a powerful alternative to the status quo of build-neglect-rebuild. Building on these learnings, Oxfam is engaging with local authorities to support a government-led process of professionalisation of O&M, whereby the water utility could take a stronger role in managing community-level operations, including tariffing and employment of community staff, to ensure financial sustainability.

In an era where infrastructure is often seen as a one-off achievement, the Kenya O&M pilot is a reminder that sustainability lies not in building more, but in maintaining better. With thoughtful design, strong partnerships and adaptive learning, rural communities can access water not just today, but tomorrow and for years to come.

To learn more about our O&M pilot for rural water schemes in Turkana, watch our short video or access our full report.

Cecilia Gamba is a Junior Partner at LeFil Consulting.

Photo credit: poco_bw