Main source of water for drinking and for other domestic use Table 8.10 presents information on household main sources of drinking water. The commonest sources of drinking water in the district were bore-hole/Pump/Tube well (49.5%) followed by river and stream (27.8%). Only 5.3 percent of the households used pipe born water outside their dwelling units. Those who used mainly protected wells represented only about 1.1 percent of households. This means that more than half (55.3%) of the households had access to potable water (pipe-borne plus borehole). Variations exist in the main source of drinking water between urban and rural localities.

Borehole/pump/tube well water was the main source in both urban and rural areas, accounting for a proportion of 22.3 percent and 51.7 percent respectively. Households that used pipe-borne drinking water outside their dwelling units constituted 46.5 percent in urban areas but constituted only 2.0 percent in rural localities. In rural localities, 29.8 percent used river/stream water as the main source of drinking water as against 3.6 percent in the urban areas.

With regard to households main source of water for other domestic uses, just like the case of drinking water, majority (46.2%) of the households depend on boreholes. This was followed by rivers (30.8%), with 33.1 percent in rural areas and 3.1 percent in urban localities. Other sources with significant patronage by households include; dugouts (7.6%), protected well (1.1%), public taps (2.0%) and pipe borne outside dwelling (5.3%). However, households depending on these types of water sources are largely found in the urban areas.

Bathing and toilet facilities 

Table 8.11 presents the distribution of the type of toilet facilities available to households in the district. For the district as a whole, 7,862 of households had no toilet facility of any sort. 56 While only 584 of the households used the public toilets. This situation can have a lot of health implications. The use of the water closets (WCs) and the KVIP was very limited. Only nine households in the district had water closets, while 169 used the KVIP.

The pit and other types of latrines were relatively uncommon in the district. Members of households with inadequate toilet facilities or with no toilet facility at all resorted to open defecation. This has significant implications for the transmission of infection, and consequently, for the health and well-being of communities, which, in turn may have an impact on productivity negatively.

Table 8.11 shows the distribution of bathing facilities of households in the district. A bathing facility refers to a place where members of the household take their bath. The data makes a distinction between the availability of a separate room for bathing in the living quarters, an open cubicle for bathing in the house, a public bathhouse and other forms of bathing space.

 Method of waste disposal 

Table 8.12 shows that 4,072 of households disposed of their solid waste in open space at public dumps and 513 disposed of their solid waste into public containers. Significant numbers of households either had their solid waste dumped indiscriminately (3,035) or burned (106). The table indicates that 5,767 of the households threw their liquid waste onto the street/outside.

Another 1,990 of households threw their liquid waste either onto the compound, while 208 of the households threw their liquid waste into gutters. Only 104 of households disposed of their liquid waste through plumbing systems into gutters. Apart from public dumping in containers where the urban (267) and the rural (246) households were almost the same the rural areas appear better off than the urban areas in terms of both solid (rubbish) and liquid waste disposal.