Non-revenue water

Last updated

Non-revenue water (NRW) is water that has been produced and is "lost" before it reaches the customer. Losses can be real losses (through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses) or apparent losses (for example through theft or metering inaccuracies). High levels of NRW are detrimental to the financial viability of water utilities, as well to the quality of water itself. NRW is typically measured as the volume of water "lost" as a share of net water produced. However, it is sometimes also expressed as the volume of water "lost" per km of water distribution network per day.

Contents

Components and audits

The International Water Association (IWA) has developed a detailed methodology to assess the various components of NRW. Accordingly, NRW has the following components: [1]

In many utilities the exact breakdown of NRW components and sub-components is simply not known, making it difficult to decide about the best course of action to reduce NRW. Metering of water use at the level of production (wells, bulk water supply), at key points in the distribution network and for consumers is essential to estimate levels of NRW (see Water metering).

In most developed countries, there are no or very limited apparent losses. For developing countries the World Bank has estimated that, on average, apparent losses – in particular theft through illegal connections – account for about 40% of NRW. [2] In some cities, apparent losses can be higher than real losses. Reducing apparent losses from illegal connections is often beyond what a utility can achieve by itself, because it requires a high level of political support. Illegal connections are often in slums, which means that their regularization in some cases particularly affects the poor. A water audit is a key tool to assess the breakdown of NRW and to develop a program for NRW reduction. Often a distinction is made between unvalidated and validated water audits. [3] [4] Unvalidated water audits are desktop studies that include many estimates and their results can have an error range for real losses of ± 50% or more. Its main value is to identify where it is necessary to reduce the uncertainty of the water audit through validation. Validating water audits is a complex process that involves testing of production water meters, testing of a representative random sample of customer meters, eliminating systematic errors created through the billing process and validating the number of illegal connections through aerial mapping, field surveys or cross-references between various existing databases. [5] In developing countries it is rare to find utilities that have undertaken validated water audits, and even in developed countries they are not systematically used. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has developed Water Audit Software which allows utilities to rate the overall degree of validity of their water audit data. Guidance on loss control planning is given based upon the credibility of the data and the measure of losses displayed by the water audit. [6] [7]

NRW is sometimes also referred to as unaccounted-for water (UFW). While the two terms are similar, they are not identical, since non-revenue water includes authorized unbilled consumption (e.g. for firefighting or, in some countries, for use by religious institutions) while unaccounted-for water excludes it. [8]

Indicators

The most commonly used indicator to measure NRW is the percentage of NRW as a share of water produced. While this indicator is easy to understand and indeed has been widely used, it has increasingly been recognized that it is not an appropriate indicator to benchmark NRW levels between utilities or even to monitor changes over time. When losses in terms of absolute volume are constant the percentage of NRW varies greatly with total water use, i.e. if water use increases and the volume of losses remains constant the percentage of NRW declines. This problem can be eliminated by measuring NRW not as a share, but in terms of absolute losses per connection per day, as recommended by the International Water Association (IWA). [9] Nevertheless, the use of percentage figures to compare levels of NRW remains common despite its shortcomings. The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation recommends to use different indicators (percentage, losses per connection or losses per km of network) together. [8] Losses per kilometer of network are more appropriate to benchmark real losses, while losses per connection are more appropriate to benchmark apparent losses.

The concept of NRW as an indicator to compare real losses of water utilities has been criticized as flawed, particularly because real losses depend to some extent on factors largely outside the control of the utility, such as topography, age of network, length of network per connection and water use per capita. As an alternative indicator for the measurement of real losses an Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) has been developed. The ILI is defined as the ratio of Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) to Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL). [10]

Overview of NRW levels

Expressed as a share of produced water

The following percentages indicate the share of NRW in total water produced:

Expressed in cubic meters per network length

The following figures are expressed in cubic meters per kilometer of distribution network per day:

These levels are given per km of network, not per connection.

Benefits of NRW reduction

The World Bank has estimated the total cost of NRW to utilities worldwide at US$14 billion per year. Reducing by half the current levels of losses in developing countries, where relative losses are highest, could generate an estimated US$2.9 billion in cash and serve an additional 90 million people. [35]

Benefits of NRW reduction, in particular of leakage reduction, include

Leakage reduction may also be an opportunity to improve relations with the public and employees. A leak detection program may be highly visible, encouraging people to think about water conservation. [37] The reduction of commercial losses, while politically and socially challenging, can also improve relations with the public, since some consumers may disgruntled to know that others are underbilled.

In the specific context of the United States NRW reduction can also mean reduced legal liability and reduced insurance payments. [36]

Programs to reduce NRW

Reducing NRW is a complex process. While some programs have been successful, there are many pitfalls.

Successful programs

In the following cities high levels of non-revenue water have been substantially reduced:

These successes were achieved by both public and private utilities, in every continent, in emerging countries as well as very poor countries, in large cities and smaller towns. All required a long-term commitment by utility management and the government – local or national – over a period of at least four years.

Pitfalls of programs

Many programs to reduce NRW have failed to achieve their objectives, sometimes from the onset and sometimes only in the long run. Often they focus on real losses without sufficient attention being paid to apparent losses. If programs achieve an initial reduction in NRW levels, they often increase again over the years to the same or even higher levels than before the program. Both apparent and real losses have a natural tendency to increase if nothing is done: more leakage will occur, there will be more defective meters, and information on customers and networks will become more outdated. In order to sustain NRW at low levels, investments in fixing leaks and replacing meters are insufficient in the best case and ineffective in the worst case. To achieve permanent results, management procedures related to a utility's organization, procedures and human resources have to be changed. [46] Additionally the implementation of an Intelligent Pressure management system is an efficient approach to reduce the total real losses in the long term. It is one of the most basic and lucrative forms of optimizing a system and generally provides fast investment paybacks. [47]

According to a study by the World Bank some of the reasons why NRW levels in developing countries have not been reduced significantly are the following. [48]

Physical loss reduction is an ongoing, meticulous activity with few supporters among the

following:

  • Politicians: there is no "ribbon cutting" involved.
  • Engineers: it is more "fun" to design treatment plants than to fix pipes buried under the road.
  • Technicians and field staff: detection is done primarily at night, and pipe repairs often require working in hazardous traffic conditions.
  • Managers: it needs time, constant dedication, staff, and up-front funding.

Nor is the reduction of commercial losses very popular among the following:

  • Politicians: unpopular decisions might have to be made (disconnection of illegal consumers or customers who don't pay).
  • Meter readers: fraudulent practices might generate a substantial additional income.
  • Field staff: working on detecting illegal connections or on suspending service for those who don't pay their bills is unpopular and can even be dangerous.
  • Managers: it is easier to close any revenue gap by just spending less on asset rehabilitation. (letting the system slowly deteriorate) or asking the government for more money.
— World Bank, The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water in Developing Countries

Another source quotes the seven most frequent reasons for failure of NRW reduction programs as follows:

Optimal level

There is some debate as to what is an economically optimal level of leakage [49] or, speaking more broadly, of NRW. From a financial or economic point of view it is not appropriate to try to reduce NRW to the lowest possible level, because the marginal cost of reducing NRW increases once the cheaper options have been exploited. Once the marginal cost of reducing NRW exceeds the marginal benefits or water savings, an economic optimum has been achieved. [50] Benefits should be measured through reduced production costs if reduction of NRW results in lower water production, through the avoided costs of additional supply capacity if the system is close to the limit of its capacity and demand is growing, or through the value of water sold if reduction of NRW results in additional water sales. The latter can be done by valuing water through water tariffs (financial value) or through the willingness to pay by customers (economic value). There are fewer financial incentives for a utility to reduce NRW if water production is cheap, if there is no or little metering (so that revenues thus are independent of actual consumption), or if volumetric tariffs are low.

In the United Kingdom the assessment of economic levels of leakage has a long history. The first national study on the topic was published in 1980 setting down a methodology for the assessment of economic leakage levels. This led to the implementation of sectors (District Metered Areas) in most water companies in the UK. The findings were reported in a major national research program in 1994. As a result of a drought in 1995/96 a number of companies initiated major leakage management programmes based on economic assessments. The situation in other parts of the world is quite different from the UK. Particularly in developing countries sectorisation is very rare and proactive leakage control limited. The benefits of pressure management are not widely appreciated and there is generally no assessment of the economic level of leakage. [51]

From a public health and drinking water quality point of view it is being argued that the level of real water losses should be as low as possible, independently of economic or financial considerations, in order to minimize the risk of drinking water contamination in the distribution network.

The World Bank recommends that NRW should be "less than 25%", while the Chilean water regulator SISS has determined a NRW level of 15% as optimal in its model of an efficient water company that it uses to benchmark service providers. [52] In England and Wales NRW stands at 19% or 149 liter/property/day. [53]

In the United States the American Water Works Association's (AWWA) Water Loss Control Committee recommended in 2009 that water utilities conduct annual water audits as a standard business practice. AWWA recommends that water utilities should track volumes of apparent and real losses and the annual cost impacts of these losses. Utilities should then seek to control excessive losses to levels that are economic for the water utility. [54] In 1999 the California Urban Water Conservation Council identified a 10 percent benchmark for non-revenue water. [55]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply</span> Provision of water by public utilities, commercial organisations or others

Water supply is the provision of water by public utilities, commercial organisations, community endeavors or by individuals, usually via a system of pumps and pipes. Public water supply systems are crucial to properly functioning societies. These systems are what supply drinking water to populations around the globe. Aspects of service quality include continuity of supply, water quality and water pressure. The institutional responsibility for water supply is arranged differently in different countries and regions. It usually includes issues surrounding policy and regulation, service provision and standardization.

Guyana, meaning "land of many waters", is rich in water resources. Most of the population is concentrated in the coastal plain, much of which is below sea level and is protected by a series of sea walls. A series of shallow reservoirs inland of the coastal plain, called "water conservancies", store surface water primarily for irrigation needs. Key issues in the water and sanitation sector in Guyana are poor service quality, a low level of cost recovery and low levels of access.

Public water supply and sanitation in Germany is universal and of good quality. Some salient features of the sector compared to other developed countries are its very low per capita water use, the high share of advanced wastewater treatment and very low distribution losses. Responsibility for water supply and sanitation provision lies with municipalities, which are regulated by the states. Professional associations and utility associations play an important role in the sector. As in other EU countries, most of the standards applicable to the sector are set in Brussels. Recent developments include a trend to create commercial public utilities under private law and an effort to modernize the sector, including through more systematic benchmarking.

Water supply and sanitation in Indonesia is characterized by poor levels of access and service quality. More than 16 million people lack access to an at least basic water source and almost 33 million of the country's 275 million population has no access to at least basic sanitation. Only about 2% of people have access to sewerage in urban areas; this is one of the lowest in the world among middle-income countries. Water pollution is widespread on Bali and Java. Women in Jakarta report spending US$11 per month on boiling water, implying a significant burden for the poor.

In 2020, 97.7% of Indians had access to the basic water and sanitation facilities. India faces challenges ranging from sourcing water for its megacities to its distribution network which is intermittent in rural areas with continuous distribution networks just beginning to emerge. Non-revenue water is a challenge.

Water supply and sanitation in China is undergoing a massive transition while facing numerous challenges such as rapid urbanization, increasing economic inequality, and the supply of water to rural areas. Water scarcity and pollution also impact access to water.

The Philippines' water supply system dates back to 1946, after the country declared independence. Government agencies, local institutions, non-government organizations, and other corporations are primarily in charge of the operation and administration of water supply and sanitation in the country.

Water privatization in Metro Manila began when the then President of the Philippines, Fidel Ramos, instructed the government in 1994 to solve what he called the water crisis in Manila by engaging with the private sector. In 1997, two concession contracts for the Eastern and Western halves of Metro Manila were awarded after an open competition. The concessions represent the largest population served by private operators in the developing world. Both winning companies, Maynilad Water Services in West Manila and especially Manila Water in East Manila, submitted bids with extremely low water tariffs. The tariffs proved to be too low to finance the investments needed to improve performance, especially after the East Asian financial crisis and the devaluation of the Philippine Peso.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Uganda</span>

The Ugandan water supply and sanitation sector made substantial progress in urban areas from the mid-1990s until at least 2006, with substantial increases in coverage as well as in operational and commercial performance. Sector reforms from 1998 to 2003 included the commercialization and modernization of the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) operating in cities and larger towns, as well as decentralization and private sector participation in small towns.

Drinking water supply and sanitation in Pakistan is characterized by some achievements and many challenges. In 2020, 68% Pakistanis, 72% Indians, 54% Bangladeshi had access to the basic sanitation facilities. Despite high population growth the country has increased the share of the population with access to an improved water source from 85% in 1990 to 92% in 2010, although this does not necessarily mean that the water from these sources is safe to drink. The share with access to improved sanitation increased from 27% to 38% during the same period, according to the Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation. There has also been considerable innovation at the grass-root level, in particular concerning sanitation. The Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi and community-led total sanitation in rural areas are two examples of such innovation.

Public water supply and sanitation in Denmark is characterized by universal access and generally good service quality. Some salient features of the sector in the Denmark compared to other developed countries are:

Water supply and sanitation in the Netherlands is provided in good quality and at a reasonable price to the entire population. Water consumption is one of the lowest in developed countries at 128 litres per capita per day and water leakage in the distribution network is one of the lowest in the world at only 6%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales</span>

Public water supply and sanitation in England and Wales has been characterised by universal access and generally good service quality. In both England and Wales, water companies became privatised in 1989, although Dwr Cymru operates as a not-for-profit organisation. Whilst independent assessments place the cost of water provision in Wales and England as higher than most major countries in the EU between 1989 and 2005, the government body responsible for water regulation, together with the water companies, have claimed improvements in service quality during that period.

Water supply and sanitation in Jordan is characterized by severe water scarcity, which has been exacerbated by forced immigration as a result of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the Six-Day War in 1967, the Gulf War of 1990, the Iraq War of 2003 and the Syrian Civil War since 2011. Jordan is considered one of the ten most water scarce countries in the world. High population growth, the depletion of groundwater reserves and the impacts of climate change are likely to aggravate the situation in the future.

Water supply and sanitation in Malaysia is characterised by numerous achievements, as well as some challenges. Universal access to water supply at affordable tariffs is a substantial achievement. The government has also shown a commitment to make the sector more efficient, to create a sustainable funding mechanism and to improve the customer orientation of service providers through sector reforms enacted in 2006. The reform creates a modern institutional structure for the water sector, including an autonomous regulatory agency, an asset management company and commercialised state water companies that have to reach certain key performance indicators that will be monitored by the regulatory agency. The government has also stated its intention not to embark on new private sector contracts for water provision, after a bout of such contracts during the 1990s showed mixed results.

Water supply and sanitation in Japan is characterized by numerous achievements and some challenges. The country has achieved universal access to water supply and sanitation, has one of the lowest levels of water distribution losses in the world, regularly exceeds its own strict standards for the quality of drinking water and treated waste water, uses an effective national system of performance benchmarking for water and sanitation utilities, makes extensive use of both advanced and appropriate technologies such as the jōkasō on-site sanitation system, and has pioneered the payment for ecosystem services before the term was even coined internationally. Some of the challenges are a decreasing population, declining investment, fiscal constraints, ageing facilities, an ageing workforce, a fragmentation of service provision among thousands of municipal utilities, and the vulnerability of parts of the country to droughts that are expected to become more frequent due to climate change.

Urban water supply in Guinea was privatized from 1989 until 2003 during the presidency of Lansana Conte. His government initiated water privatization for two reasons: First, the World Bank had made private sector participation in urban water supply a condition for a new credit, after the public water utility had been unable to improve service quality under a previous World Bank credit. Second, the government wanted to reduce the budgetary burden from the national public water utility, which was overstaffed and had been unable to collect bills.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water management in Dhaka</span>

Water management in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh and a city with 20 million inhabitants, faces numerous challenges such as flooding, poor service quality, groundwater depletion, inadequate sanitation, polluted river water, unplanned urban development, and the existence of large slums where more than one third of its population lives. Residents of Dhaka enjoy one of the lowest water tariffs in the world, which limits the utility's capacity to invest. The utility in charge of water and sanitation in Dhaka, DWASA, addresses these challenges with a number of measures. It says that in 2011 it achieved a continuous water supply 24 hours per day 7 days a week, an increase in revenues so that operating costs are more than covered, and a reduction of water losses from 53% in 2003 to 29% in 2010. For these achievements DWASA, got a "Performer of the Year Award" at the Global Water Summit 2011 in Berlin. In the future DWASA plans massive investment to replace dwindling groundwater resources with treated surface water from less polluted rivers located up to 160 km from the city. In 2011 Bangladesh's capital development authority, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha, made rainwater harvesting for new houses mandatory in an effort to address water scarcity and reduce flooding.

Water supply and sanitation in Nairobi is characterised by achievements and challenges. Among the achievements is the expansion of infrastructure to keep pace with population growth, in particular through the construction of the Thika Dam and associated water treatment plant and pipelines during the 1990s; the transformation of the municipal water department into an autonomous utility in 2003; and the more recent reduction of water losses – technically called non-revenue water – from 50 to 40%.

A water audit (domestic/household), similar to an energy audit, is the method of quantifying all the flows of water in a system to understand its usage, reduce losses and improve water conservation. It can be performed on a large scale for a city or a state as well on a smaller scale for irrigation projects, industries, and buildings. The audit can begin with an extensive approach to generate the water balance using available data and estimates which helps in identifying specific areas to concentrate in further stages.

References

  1. ↑ International Water Association:[www.fondazioneamga.it/public/lambertfe19maggio06.pdf ], August 2003, accessed on November 29, 2009
  2. ↑ World Bank, December 2006: The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water in Developing Countries, p. 3
  3. ↑ American Waterworks Association:Water Wiser:Water Audits and Loss Control, accessed on November 8, 2009
  4. ↑ Johnson, Paul V.: Unaccounted-for water puzzle: More than just leakage. Florida Water Resources Journal, February 1996
  5. ↑ Paul Fanner:Driving down water loss:validating water audits for accurate NRW management, in:Water 21, Magazine of the International Water Association, December 2009, p. 53-54
  6. ↑ American Water Works Association:Water Loss Control, retrieved on May 2, 2013
  7. ↑ American Water Works Association:M36: Water Audits & Loss Control Programs manual, Third Edition, retrieved on May 2, 2013
  8. 1 2 International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation(IB-NET): Non-Revenue Water at the International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (IB-NET) Archived 2006-10-07 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ↑ Water 21, Journal of the IWA, April 2006, p. 30
  10. ↑ A.O. Lambert and R.D. McKenzie:Practical Experience in using the Infrastructure Leakage Index Archived 2006-09-24 at the Wayback Machine , International Water Association Conference 'Leakage Management: A Practical Approach', Lemesos, Cyprus, November 2002, accessed on November 8, 2009
  11. ↑ "Singapore's National Water Agency". Archived from the original on November 29, 2016. Retrieved November 29, 2016.
  12. ↑ "Adhya Tirta Batam".
  13. ↑ "VEWIN". Archived from the original on June 8, 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2012.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Metropolitan Consulting Group: VEWA - Vergleich europaeischer Wasser- und Abwasserpreise, p. 4 of the executive summary The study states that its methodology allows for an accurate comparison, including water used to flush pipes and for firefighting.
  15. ↑ Mohamed Benouahi and Satoru Ueda:Accountable Water and Sanitation Governance:Japan's Experience, in:Water in the Arab World. Management Perspectives and Innovations, World Bank, 2009, p. 131-156, retrieved on January 6, 2011
  16. ↑ Lanier C. Luczon and Genieson Ramos:Sustaining The NRW Reduction Strategy: The Manila Water Company Territory Management Concept and Monitoring Tools, Introduction, 2012, retrieved from the website of the International Water Association on February 15, 2012
  17. ↑ Private Sector Participation and Regulatory Reform in Urban Water Supply: The Middle East and North African Experience, Edouard Perard, OECD Experts' Meeting on Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation in Africa, Paris, December 1, 2006
  18. ↑ "Metropolitan Waterworks Authority" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 16, 2014. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  19. ↑ Taqsem Khan:The performance challenges of Dhaka WASA, in Global Water Intelligence:Focusing on performance, Global Water Summit 2011, p. 50-52.
  20. ↑ Superintendencia de Servicios Sanitarios (SISS) (2007). "Informe de gestión del sector sanitario 2006" (PDF) (in Spanish). Retrieved February 13, 2008.[ permanent dead link ], p. 63
  21. ↑ "Pencapaian Palyja". PALYJA. Retrieved December 29, 2017.
  22. ↑ USAID/Miyahuna:Lost Water and Lost Revenue Reduction Program. Diagnosis, Planning and Implementation. Presentation, Amman, 14 February 2011
  23. ↑ (in Spanish) Comisión Nacional de Agua (CONAGUA): Estadísticas del agua en México, 2007 Archived 2011-09-30 at the Wayback Machine , p. 123
  24. ↑ Jakarta Water Supply Regulatory Body:The First Ten Years of Implementation of the Jakarta Water Supply 25-Year Concession Agreement (1998-2008) Archived 2011-07-27 at the Wayback Machine (A Draft Translation), by Achmad Lanti, Firdaus Ali, Agus Kretarto, Riant Nugroho, Andi Zulfikar as Board Members of the Jakarta Water Supply Regulatory Body Period 2005-2008, 2009, p. 128-130
  25. ↑ World Bank, June 2018, Water Security Outlook for Kosovo http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/496071548849630510/Kosovo-Water-Security-Outlook-Report.pdf
  26. ↑ USAID. "SUWASA Nigeria: Water Sector Reforms in Bauchi State" . Retrieved April 16, 2012.
  27. ↑ Asian Development Bank, Melissa Alipalo, Anand Chiplunkar, Mai Flor: Yerevan Water Supply. Going Private Gradually - Armenia makes gains taking transitional route through private water Archived 2009-11-17 at the Wayback Machine , August 2008
  28. ↑ Whichwaynigeria.net:Regulating to revive water supply in urban Nigeria Archived 2009-12-08 at the Wayback Machine , August 22, 2009 by JOACHIM EZEJI, accessed on November 29, 2009. The author quotes a 2003 World Bank report saying that: "Lagos State Water Corporation holds the dubious distinction of having the highest recorded level of unaccounted-for-water in the world. Only 4 percent of its water production capacity goes towards the creation of revenue."
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 DANVA:Water in figures. DANVA's Benchmarking and Water Statistics 2010, quoting OFWAT for figures outside Denmark, retrieved on April 16, 2012
  30. ↑ , Profile of the German Water Sector Archived 2014-08-03 at the Wayback Machine , p. 55, Figures were converted from a per-hour basis to a per-day basis
  31. 1 2 3 4 5 6 OFWAT. "International comparison of water and sewerage service 2007 report" (PDF). Retrieved January 10, 2014.
  32. 1 2 3 Greg Browder:Stepping Up: Improving the performance of ChinaÕs urban water utilities, World Bank, 2007, p. 12
  33. ↑ National Water Study Archived 2008-11-12 at the Wayback Machine , WS Atkins Ireland p. 7
  34. ↑ World Bank:Water in Bucharest:A Utility's Efficiency Gains under a Concession Archived 2012-03-24 at the Wayback Machine , February 2011, Viewpoint Note No. 326, by David Earhardt, Melissa Rekas and Martina Tonizz
  35. ↑ World Bank, December 2006: The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water in Developing Countries, p. v
  36. 1 2 Lahlou, Zacharia M.: Leak Detection and Water Loss Control, National Drinkingwater Clearinghouse at West Virginia University, 2001, p. 2
  37. ↑ Lahlou, Zacharia M.: Leak Detection and Water Loss Control, National Drinkingwater Clearinghouse at West Virginia University, 2001, p. 1
  38. 1 2 3 Philippe Marin, Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Water Utilities Experiences in Developing Countries, World Bank, 2009, p. 76-88
  39. ↑ Altinbilek, Dogan (2006). "Water Management in Istanbul". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 22 (2): 241–253. doi:10.1080/07900620600709563. S2CID   153480716.
  40. ↑ Asian Development Bank:Every Drop Counts. Learning from good practices in eight Asian cities [ permanent dead link ], 2010, accessed on September 26, 2010
  41. ↑ Manila Water:Operational Performance Archived 2011-07-14 at the Wayback Machine , retrieved on February 27, 2011
  42. ↑ World Bank:Burkina Faso - Urban Water Sector Project, Project Appraisal Document, Annex 1:Country and Sector Background, 30 April 2009, accessed on August 10, 2010
  43. ↑ WASH Names in the News:Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority Wins Stockholm Industry Water Award 2010 Archived 2011-07-18 at the Wayback Machine , June 11, 2010
  44. 1 2 Global Water Intelligence:Debtors impact Veolia Maroc's cashflow, February 2010, p.8
  45. ↑ World Bank: IDA at Work:98 Percent of the Population has access to safe water in Senegal
  46. 1 2 Michel Vermersch and Alex Rizzo: Designing an action plan to control non-revenue water, in: Water 21, Magazine of the International Water Association, April 2008, p. 39-41
  47. ↑ J. Thornton, R. Sturm and G. Kunkel: Controlling Real Losses - Pressure Management, in Water Loss Control, 2008, McGraw-Hill, p. 301-343
  48. ↑ World Bank, December 2006: The Challenge of Reducing Non-Revenue Water in Developing Countries, p. 7-8
  49. ↑ D. Pearson and S.W. Trow Calculating Economic Levels of Leakage, Leakage 2005 - Conference Proceedings, accessed on November 8, 2009
  50. ↑ Wyatt, Alan S.:Non-Revenue Water: Financial Model for Optimal Management in Developing Countries, RTI Press, June 2010.
  51. ↑ D. Pearson and S.W. Trow Calculating Economic Levels of Leakage, Leakage 2005 - Conference Proceedings, p. 12-13, accessed on November 8, 2009
  52. ↑ SISS Water supply and sanitation in Chile#Efficiency(water losses)
  53. ↑ OFWAT. 2008. Water industry facts and figures Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Machine
  54. ↑ American Water Works Association, M36 Publication, 3rd Edition, Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 2009
  55. ↑ Richard G. Sykes, Andrew K. Enos and Ronald L. Bianchetti, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, California, USA:Monitoring and Managing Unaccounted for Water, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Efficient Water Use in Urban Areas - Innovative Ways of Finding Water for Cities, 8 to 10 June 1999, quoted on the website of UNEP's International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.