The State of Drinking Water in Ecuador
Distribution, Infrastructural, and Social Issues
General Water Risk
The correlation between water quality and a country's development status is one that can often not go unnoticed in most environments. Developing countries typically have a harder time accessing and sanitizing an adequate amount of safe water to sustain a community. However, in places such as South America that is fairly developed and has the resources to supply water to its residents, the diversity of water quality in the continent is puzzling. Most specifically, the country of Ecuador is ranked one of the highest in terms of being at risk when it comes to safe, clean water.
As seen on the map below, Ecuadors annual water risk is high to extremely high for most of continental Ecuador and all of the Galapagos Islands.
Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas
Degrading Infrastructure/ Technologies
One of Ecuador's major problems in water delivery is the lack of technology and infrastructure available to survey, transport, sanitize, and report the water available to the people. One of the major ones being inadequate technologies that allow for the efficient and even transfer of water to both rural and urban areas. Like many countries, it is significantly easier to deliver clean drinking water to more urban areas, due to the advancements seen more in cities. Because of this, more rural areas are experiencing water shortages or contaminated supplies.
The water risk analysis map above presents an option for "Untreated Connected Wastewater". Upon clicking that, you'll find that about 90+% of households all over Ecuador have untreated connected wastewater.
Furthermore, the lack of advancements also lead to a significant downfall in communication and reportings. Surveillance technologies are not nearly as accurate and collective as one may hope for. This often leads to a misrepresentation of an area, and an uneven distribution of the water source. This also leads to higher contamination levels in the sources, due to the technologies/ protocols not regulating certain pollutants as well as they should. Kayser et al., 2015
Legal Contamination Protocols
Furthermore, when compared to other South American countries, Ecuador has the lowest protocols when it comes to testing/ regulating against contamination and harsh chemicals. In addition to several other standards, most of the SA countries test the pH and turbidity, aluminum content, chloride, manganese, iron, zinc content, total hardness, and total dissolved solids. However, Ecuador is the only country that chooses to omit all of these standards from its testing procedure. In all other contaminant protocols, Ecuador seemed to follow the the third and fourth editions of the WHO guidelines very closely. Pinto et al., 2012
In Ecuador, monitoring and enforcing water qualities laws has been cited to be one of their biggest obstacles. The Ministry of Health is responsible for conducting these studies to ensure the quality of the water delivered to people is in fact safe. However, the surveillance is significantly deterred by the fact Ecuador does not have adequate technologies and resources to successfully conduct accurate water quality tests. Kayser et al., 2015
Governmental Assistance
In Ecuador, the Drinking Water Quality Governance is split into many different parts. On a national level, the DWQG is split between the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Ministry of Health, and National Security of Water. On a municipal level, the governments are responsible for granting water service delivery to both rural and urban areas of the country. This is mostly done in urban areas by the municipality providing water service to the capital city and promoting efficient distribution and access. On the other hand, in rural areas, committees (Juntos de Agua) are appointed to deliver the water services, and act as a link between the municipalities and the citizens in rural areas. The different ministries are responsible for overseeing the efficiency and even distribution of this water transfer.
Although this may seem like a well thought out, dimensional system, it induces quite a bit of problems. The main one being communication issues. Because the system has so many parts and players, bad communication is a very common obstacle in Ecuador. This often leads to an uneven distribution of water supply, falsely reporting water scarcity and needs, contamination errors, or discrepancies between protocols in different areas. This also has been proven to reduce technological advancements in more rural areas, due to lack of outreach and awareness. With a system as intricate and diverse as this, communication errors are inevitable, which can lead to a lack of representation and awareness. Kayser et al., 2015
Table 1 illustrates the ineffectiveness of government intervention in Ecuador. The low rating shows the cracks in their water management system. Kayser et al., 2015
Unequal Distribution
As explained above, the distribution of water services throughout Ecuador is not as even as it should be. The more urban, developed areas have a significantly easier time obtaining and sanitizing their water supply. The rural areas have to rely more on the municipalities for their water supply, which leaves a lot of room for error and false reporting. Furthermore, the technologies available more in urban areas allow for a greater guarantee of cleaner water, opposed to rural, which experiences more contamination. The governments on a national and municipal scale need to work on ensuring the rural areas of Ecuador are being accurately represented and taken care of as well as the urban areas. Kayser et al., 2015; Pinto et al., 2012
Case Studies
Cotacachi
Cotacachi is an agricultural area that has high precipitation between the months of October and May. Agriculture and farming are the primary means of income in the area, putting a high stress on water needs. This is coupled with low education levels in the area, due to most children dropping out of school by the 7th grade to aid their family's labor business.
As a result of massive deforestation and erosion of the drainage basin, many people who rely on the untreated mountain water are having a hard time collecting enough to sustain their household and agricultural needs.
In conjunction with the natural degradation occurring in the area, institutional changes have also had a massive impact on the resident's water supply. The first example is the national government switching the management of public irrigation systems to farmer beneficiaries. This obviously induced bias into the water management.
Furthermore, regional authorities were given higher authority to regulate water activity in their area. Regardless of having the best intentions for their individual area, the disparities between the different authorities inevitably induces miscommunication and error.
This is all coupled with the Water Act of 1972, which introduced subsidies for irrigation and potable water. This reduced the ability of the area to turn to a market based system when it came to water. This also discourages improvements in watershed management and water rights. The subsidies make people more comfortable in their current situation, due to the state selling water at such a low price, which thus hinders improvements.
A failure in governmental assistance has led to the citizens seeking outside assistance in order to build their own drinking water system. Studies even go to show that people would be willing to pay more for clean drinking water if it meant they would be able to meet their drinking water needs. These price increases would not be little either. The significant increase in tariffs and water prices is still favored amongst residents if it means they will have easier access to their water supply and better management.
Rodriguez and Southgate, 1970
Esmeraldas Province
Many rural villages in northern Ecuador rely not on treated or imported water, but water straight from natural sources such as streams and rivers near their homes and villages.
The Onzole, Cayapas, and Santiago Rivers are three large rivers in Northern Ecuador that each have various small communities living on their banks. The first image to the right is a small village on the Onzole River. In the second figure, which can be accessed using the arrow on the right side of the screen, the three rivers in the study area are highlighted. The study villages are shown using the red dots along the rivers.
Out of five villages studied in this region, two used untreated piped water, two relied on surface water from nearby fast-moving rivers, and one relied on the surface water from a small stream.
60% of people in the study villages would dispose of their fecal matter out in the open by either digging a hole or putting it directly into the same river that many people drink out of.
Out of the people who use the rivers for their drinking water which comprises about 68% of the study population, 60% of those households said they did not treat their water before consumption.
Untreated water and fecal contamination have lead to high rates of diarrheal diseases in the villages along this river.
The third figure on the right E. coli present in the water compared to days of storage. Graph C is E. coli in all in-home storage containers and graph D is the presence of E. coli in storage containers that were suspected to be contaminated at the point of use.
Researchers determined if the containers were contaminated between the first and last samples taken by a higher concentration of E. coli in the last sample.
People in this region often drink straight from the river, so focusing efforts on preventing in-home recontamination will not necessarily solve the problem.
Efforts should be focused on both educating the community about the dangers of drinking straight from the river, teaching proper waste disposal methods, and giving them the resources to prevent in-home recontamination.
Levy et. al, 2008.
San Cristobal, Galapagos Islands
Because of its remote location, the water situation in the Galapagos Islands is completely separate from that of continental Ecuador.
In 2010, 90% of homes on San Cristobal island had piped water, but the new water treatment facility was not yet up and running and the water quality was questionable.
For years residents did not trust the cleanliness of the water and only drank bottled water. The piped water was used solely for household purposes. Clean water was often imported in large blue jugs, like the ones seen in the photo to the right.
When the island didn't have a wastewater treatment facility and dumped their wastewater directly into the ocean, the hospital on the island reported elevated cases of water-borne illnesses and similar gastrointestinal infections.
All of these occurrences were consistent with "fecal bacteria exposure". This made residents skeptical of their water quality and many chose to either boil their water before use or use it solely for purposes other than consumption.
The implementation of a new Drinking Water Treatment Plant (DWTP) in 2013 left the community at less risk at the point-of-source. However, the lack of education surrounding storage in the home left point-of-use contamination still a prominent factor in infections and illnesses.
The first graph to the right compares both gastrointestinal infections and urinary infections for San Cristobal and Santa Cruz. It is important to note that Santa Cruz has a higher population than San Cristobal, so this could explain why Santa Cruz has a higher number of cases overall.
There is a slight but clear downward trend for San Cristobal after the new water treatment facility was introduced.
The second chart provides case numbers for the study parameters and occurrences of E. coli in the water.
E. coli MPN<1 indicates a safe level of E. coli in the water, E. coli MPN between 1 and 10 is "intermediate" level, and E. coli MPN>10 indicates a high level of contamination.
Less month = last cleaned the cistern within the last month
Month-Year = last cleaned the cistern within 1-12 months ago
Over Year = either never cleaned the cistern or lasted cleaned it over 1 year ago
The water treatment plant, based on this data, helped the community on San Cristobal and lowered their occurrences of infections or illnesses associated with fecal bacteria exposure. It is still important, however, to educate families about in-home contamination and proper cleaning methods for their cisterns.
It is also important to note that this is only representative of the water situation in San Cristobal, Galapagos. Santa Cruza, Isabela, and Floreana have different methods and issues for their drinking water as well.
Houck et. al, 2019.
Future Recommendations
Improved infrastructure and increased education about safe water practices should both be at the forefront of any efforts to improve water sanitation and decrease water-related illnesses in Ecuador.
While these are two vastly different issues, they are the most prominent factors that contribute to water-related illnesses. Improving infrastructure will decrease contaminants either from the point-of-source or from processes involved in distribution.
Providing better education to residents in Ecuador will help to decrease point-of-use contamination. Sometimes, even if water is not contaminated coming into the home, contamination can occur without proper sanitation of cisterns or other containers where water is stored. Educating people about this issue and providing them with simple solutions is both a cheap and effective method to prevent extraneous water-related illnesses that are not related to infrastructural failures or treatment inconsistencies.
Just improving the infrastructure, just improving distribution, or just educating households about contamination will not improve the situation. As seen in the case studies, Ecuador has a myriad of issues that contribute to the occurrences of water-related illnesses both in continental Ecuador and in the Galapagos Islands. In order to prevent illnesses and improve the situation in the long-term, there must be collaboration between the government, private water treatment companies, and NGOs that focus on community development and environmental health.
References
Houck, K. M., Terán, E., Ochoa, J., Zapata, G. N., Gomez, A. M., Parra, R., . . . Thompson, A. L. (2019). Drinking water improvements and rates of urinary and gastrointestinal infections in Galápagos, Ecuador: Assessing household and community factors. American Journal of Human Biology, 32(1). doi:10.1002/ajhb.23358
Levy, K., Nelson, K. L., Hubbard, A., & Eisenberg, J. N. (2008). Following the water: a controlled study of drinking water storage in northern coastal Ecuador. Environmental health perspectives, 116(11), 1533–1540. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11296
Kayser, Georgia L., et al. “Drinking Water Quality Governance: A Comparative Case Study of Brazil, Ecuador, and Malawi.” Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, 5 Feb. 2015, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114002470?casa_token=QEOMQxm9aU4AAAAA%3AFKYAaOFH-Kxwls_BBr1DS-xntnHSbYpGSHt1yZ6SUfZwXbxp2dqf4btKAHLvzdb0nNOYhvz4nXw.
Rodríguez, F., and Doug Southgate. “Water Resources Management and Willingness to Pay: The Case of Cotacachi, Ecuador.” VTechWorks Home, Watkinsville, Ga.: SANREM CRSP, 1 Jan. 1970, vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/65698.
Vívian Gemiliano Pinto, Léo Heller, Rafael Kopschitz Xavier Bastos; Drinking water standards in South American countries: convergences and divergences. J Water Health 1 June 2012; 10 (2): 295–310. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2012.087
