U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–262PDF 2006

THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS: EVALUATING U.S.

STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE ACCESS TO SAFE

WATER AND SANITATION

BRIEFING AND HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 29, 2005

Serial No. 109–127

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

LARA ALAMEH, Professional Staff Member 

JEAN CARROLL, Full Committee Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

BRIEFERS 

Ms. Vanessa Tobin, Chief, Water Environment Sanitation Section, United 

Nations Children’s Fund ..................................................................................... 6

Mr. Olav Kjorven, Director of the Energy and Environment Group, Bureau 

for Development Policy, United Nations Development Program ..................... 11

WITNESSES 

The Honorable John F. Turner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and 

International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 30

Ms. Jackee Schafer, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Economic 

Growth, Agriculture and Trade, U.S. Agency for International Development ...................................................................................................................... 34

Mr. Peter Lochery, Senior Advisor on Water, Sanitation and Environmental 

Health, CARE USA .............................................................................................. 54

Geoffrey D. Dabelko, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Change and Security 

Project ................................................................................................................... 62

Mr. Malcolm S. Morris, Chairman, Millennium Water Alliance ......................... 68

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Vanessa Tobin: Prepared statement ............................................................... 8

Mr. Olav Kjorven: Prepared statement .................................................................. 13

The Honorable John F. Turner: Prepared statement ........................................... 32

Ms. Jackee Schafer: Prepared statement ............................................................... 37

Mr. Peter Lochery: Prepared statement ................................................................ 55

Geoffrey D. Dabelko, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 64

Mr. Malcolm S. Morris: Prepared statement ......................................................... 70

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Record ........................................................................ 87

(1)

THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS: EVALUATING 

U.S. STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE ACCESS TO 

SAFE WATER AND SANITATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee will come to order. This portion 

of the testimony is characterized as a briefing. So the Committee 

briefing will come to order. 

Water-related illnesses claim the life of one child approximately 

every 8 to 15 seconds, killing an average of 3,000–5,000 children 

a day and up to 5 million people annually. To put it into perspective for those of us sitting here today, that is the equivalent of full 

seating capacity at Yankee Stadium, multiplied by 87. 

The statistics associated with global water issues are shocking. 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 1.2 billion 

people don’t have access to safe water, and 2.4 billion people lack 

access to basic sanitation. According to the UN Task Force on 

Water and Sanitation, more than ‘‘half the people in the developing 

world are suffering from one or more of the main diseases associated with inadequate provision of water supply and sanitation.’’

Time is of the essence. Members of this Committee should bring 

the same courage and constructive contributions to this debate as 

they have to the HIV/AIDS pandemic discussions in their efforts to 

bring an end to the water crisis. Evidence shows strong linkages 

exist between access to safe water and sanitation and other development sectors, including the areas of public health, economic development, education, gender equality, and agriculture. If we are to 

combat some of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of our 

time, we as policymakers need to find innovative mechanisms and 

solutions that combine technology and diplomacy and ensure access 

to safe water and sanitation to those in need. 

We should not let a paralysis of political will among ourselves or 

those in the Administration prevent the United States Government 

from pursuing policies that seek to enhance the coordination of 

water-related programs in our foreign policy. Safe water is a vital 

strategic resource, and there can be no sustainable development or 

long-term security without it. 

2

I want to thank Congressman Blumenauer for his leadership in 

confronting this issue and introducing H.R. 1973, the ‘‘Water for 

the Poor Act of 2005,’’ the general focus of today’s briefing and 

hearing. This legislation would amend the Foreign Assistance Act 

by broadening specified areas of development assistance objectives. 

It is a tangible effort toward creating a coordinated plan of action 

by the Administrator of the United States Agency for International 

Development regarding our involvement in helping to ameliorate 

the global water crisis by making affordable and equitable access 

to safe water and sanitation in developing countries, a strategic 

part of our foreign assistance programs. 

Mr. Blumenauer, I look forward to working on this legislation 

with you and our colleagues in the Senate who have drafted a similar bill. I also want to say that the late Senator Paul Simon had 

a significant role in drawing my attention to this issue. I hope that 

the Senator’s memory will be respectfully and appropriately served 

through final legislation that continues his visionary legacy. 

The Administration has taken some noteworthy actions in response to these challenges. The Water for the Poor and Clean 

Water for People initiatives, equaling almost $1.5 billion combined, 

are positive contributions that will advance the UN Millennium 

Development Goals and implement the Johannesburg Plan by 2015 

to reduce the number of people by one-half who have no access to 

safe drinking water and sanitation. Accordingly, the international 

community has designated the 10-year period between 2005 and 

2015 as ‘‘The International Decade for Action—Water for Life.’’ 

Meeting the benchmarks set by the Millennium Development Goals 

would require the international community to double its current 

level of funding for water programs. However, I believe that meeting these benchmarks requires more than increasing assistance. 

Attention needs to be paid to the way funds are distributed. For 

example, data suggest that the countries most in need of access to 

safe water and sanitation have received the least amount of donor 

assistance. 

As with the HIV/AIDS crisis, the lack of safe water and sanitation is more than a threat to humanity. It is also an enormous 

threat to global development and our national security. I quote Assistant Secretary John F. Turner when he testified before Members 

of this Committee last year:

‘‘The CIA reports that, by 2015, nearly half of the world’s population will live in countries that are water stressed.’’

In addition, there are over 260 river basins shared by two or more 

nations. For example, 10 riparian nations all vie for the water resources of the Nile River. The relationship between water and politics is rapidly emerging as countries compete for and attempt to lay 

claim of critical water sources. 

Today’s briefing and hearing will examine the role of water 

projects in our foreign assistance programs and provide further insight on how we can improve the United States’ strategy to ensure 

access to safe water and sanitation to those in need of this fundamental source of life. 

We have three distinguished panels before us today representing 

the Bush Administration, the United Nations and water experts 

3

from the nongovernmental community. I look forward to hearing 

from our distinguished briefers and witnesses. 

I now yield to my colleague and friend, Ranking Democratic 

Member Tom Lantos, for any opening remarks he may wish to 

make. 

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to commend you for calling this important hearing on the 

global water crisis. I particularly want to commend you, at a time 

when it is so fashionable to be preoccupied with the crisis of the 

moment, for focusing attention on a long-term crisis of global ramifications. It is typical of your statesmanlike approach to the field 

of international relations. In the interest of stability world wide, 

and in keeping with your co-humanitarian values, the United 

States must do all within our power to ensure that people everywhere have safe water and access to sanitation. 

I also want to welcome, at the outset, this opportunity for a timely discussion of the Water for the Poor Act, authored by my good 

friend and distinguished colleague, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, of 

which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. This critical legislation urges the Administration to address global water issues, particularly clean water and sanitation, as a major priority in U.S. foreign policy and authorizes new programs to make this policy a reality. In introducing this bill Mr. Blumenauer demonstrates, yet 

again, his extraordinary commitment to sustainable development. 

I look forward to working with him on this issue in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, we have all heard the apocalyptic warnings that 

the wars of the next century will be about water. However, the reality is far more complex than that. There is no doubt that more 

and more regions will be threatened by lack of water as populations continue to grow, as current fresh water sources are degraded, and as environmental and climatologic conditions change. 

The potential for conflicts is considerable in more than 200 

places where river and lake basins are bordered by two or more 

countries. We cannot allow this potential to be realized. It would 

threaten not only our national security, but the security of millions 

of people worldwide. While the prospect of future water conflicts is 

real, it certainly is not inevitable. Water has proven to be a productive pathway to cooperation and confidence building, even among 

warring nations and even as conflicts erupt over other issues, as 

long as the political will exists to work cooperatively. 

No place is this cooperation more apparent than in the Middle 

East. The Governments of Israel and Jordan, and the Palestinians, 

have recognized the importance of finding common ground on 

water concerns. They have all continued to honor the commitments 

undertaken in their bilateral agreements on water. In particular, 

I note the Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement of 1994, and the 

Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement of the following year. As a 

result of these, millions have access to clean water and sanitation, 

stopping the needless spread of disease and hunger. 

But for every such success story there are many more where the 

narrative is not optimistic. In fact, the situation in much of the 

world is extremely bleak. An estimated 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and almost 2.5 billion have no basic 

sanitation. Each year more than 3 billion people suffer from waterVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

related diseases, from which 3 to 4 million die, and most victims 

are children under 5. We can only expect conditions to worsen as 

populations grow and water resources are depleted. 

This dire situation is not lost on the international community. 

Under the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, the 

world community has pledged to cut in half the proportion of the 

world’s population lacking access to safe water and sanitation by 

the year 2015. 

But progress in meeting this goal is abysmally slow. Next month 

the G–8 leaders will meet to discuss ways to achieve these goals. 

I urge the leaders of the world’s industrialized countries to commit 

more resources so that millions more people can experience the 

benefits of clean water and sanitation. 

I urge our own country’s representatives to this meeting to take 

up the moral challenge, and to lead the discussion and policymaking on this crucial topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Normally the custom of 

this Committee is to recognize Members for 1-minute statements at 

the outset should they desire to make them so that we can get to 

the witnesses. 

However, Mr. Blumenauer is here, and as he is the chief sponsor 

of the bill which we are focusing on today, I am happy to yield to 

him such time as he may wish. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your extraordinary courtesy, and I won’t take but a minute. I have an extensive 

statement which I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record. 

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Candidly, your eloquent statement from the 

outset, Mr. Chairman, and your continued interest, and Mr. Lantos’ opening, I think, said it all, and far better than I would. 

Let me just say that I deeply appreciate your leadership and continued interest in this. I appreciate the reference to the late Senator Paul Simon. I, too, have read his book. I had a chance to visit 

with him a little bit, and I think he has helped shape and inform 

all our efforts. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that your reference to AIDS is appropriate. You have characterized how more loss of life and suffering 

actually occurs day in and day out around the world, and is easier 

for us to remedy. 

My personal commitment is to work with you and the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, who have served as mentors 

for me and with me on this legislation to be able to move it forward. 

I hope that we will be able to add this as another chapter in the 

distinguished partnership that the two of you have forged with this 

Committee. I think it would be worthy of the work that you have 

done in other areas. 

I would, however, make one further comment to express my appreciation for the way that the staff of both the Majority and the 

Minority have been working in crafting this legislation; Lara 

Alameh, Robin Roizman, others here, working here with Judah 

Ariel on my staff, to be able to advance this. It is deeply appreciated. 

5

The work product will tell the tale, but I will conclude, and just 

have my statement entered, and look forward to hearing from our 

distinguished witnesses. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. One minute statements, if any. Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. I will try to take less than that, Mr. Chairman. I also 

want to express my appreciation for your leadership, and Mr. 

Blumenauer’s, and Mr. Lantos’. Those were marvelous statements. 

There was a Dutch historian at the beginning of the last century 

named Heusen, who once argued that the beginning of civilization 

was centered around water management and water. And it is 

amazing how as time has elapsed we have given such little attention to the basics. 

As has been noted, this is a matter of will and not of sophisticated science. It is common sense engineering, and common sense 

politics. So if there is a will, this can be mastered. 

In terms of the depth of the problem, Mr. Chairman, you indicated it very profoundly, and I strongly support your efforts. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would like to join those who are praising your wisdom and leadership in having this particular hearing today, and bringing this legislation forward. I would like to congratulate my colleague, Mr. 

Blumenauer, on his foresight as well. 

We have to understand that water shortages are not a result of 

Mother Nature. Yes, there are places that have a lack of water because of Mother Nature. Civilization must try to deal with Mother 

Nature in a way to overcome the challenges that she gives us. 

The lack of water that I see in the world today is due to war, 

political corruption, and the other pestilence that plague mankind 

and not just a lack of this resource. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, 

that we take this issue seriously enough to be able to demand more 

than just the spending of money, which I would support. We must 

also demand a quality of activity and an honesty of the activity 

that flows from that expenditure of money, and with that, the 

peace and prosperity, and well-being of humankind depends on 

water, and I thank you for your leadership. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes, I, too, want to join with the others to thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this most critical issue to the attention of our Committee, and to begin to look at the global water 

crisis. 

I come from a State whose major battles are over water. The 

northern part of California has the water, and in the southern 

part, we have the desert. I predict at the turn of this century the 

biggest battles in our legislature will be over water, and how to get 

it down to the desert. 

I come from Micronesia, a country that has the largest rainfall, 

400 inches a year, but doesn’t know how to use or treat its water. 

While I was there in service to our country, there was a cholera 

6

epidemic. We had to immediately educate the people on how to 

sanitize and puritize the water. This issue has to be an ongoing 

focus of our Committee, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for at 

least these minutes that we will have to focus on it, and the experts that you have gathered today. Thank you, and I yield back 

my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Watson. Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. No, thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee of California. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say thank you 

very much to you and Mr. Lantos for holding this hearing and welcoming the witnesses. I recognize and understand the extreme importance of safe water and holding this hearing. 

I just wanted to comment with regard to some of my visits to 

HIV and AIDS clinics and hospitals in Africa. Oftentimes when 

women can’t or don’t want to breast feed those who are infected 

with HIV and AIDS, and don’t have the proper medication, there 

is a huge problem with regard to formula, because the water they 

need to use to make the formula for the babies is unsafe. 

Therefore, this hearing is very important, because the health 

ramifications for children and women are enormous. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No, thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Our first witness is Ms. Vanessa Tobin, Chief 

of the Water, Environment, and Sanitation Section of UNICEF. 

Prior to holding her current position, Ms. Tobin worked as a civil 

engineer for the British Government. 

A national of the United Kingdom, Ms. Tobin obtained her Masters of Science in Public Health from the London School of Hygiene 

and Tropical Medicine. Ms. Tobin also holds a Master’s Degree in 

Public Administration from Harvard University. 

Mr. Olav Kjorven is Director of the Energy and Environment 

Group at the United Nations Development Program. Prior to his 

current position, he was Norway’s Secretary of State for International Development. 

Prior to working for the Norwegian Government, he was Director 

of International Development at the Center for Economic Analysis. 

He holds a Master of Arts in International Affairs from George 

Washington University. We will now proceed with the briefing portion, and Ms. Tobin, you may go first. 

STATEMENT OF MS. VANESSA TOBIN, CHIEF, WATER ENVIRONMENT SANITATION SECTION, UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S 

FUND 

Ms. TOBIN. Chairman Hyde, Distinguished Members of the 

House Committee on International Relations, thank you for inviting me to address you today on the status of the global water crisis 

and its impact on children. 

Mr. Chairman, the latest statistics show that there are still 2.6 

billion people without improved sanitation facilities, over half of 

the developing world’s population, and 1.1 billion still using water 

from unimproved sources. 

7

Let us not forget that in most developing countries the definition 

of access to water is an improved water source at a distance of less 

than one kilometer from the house that provides one bucket of 

water for each family member each day. 

In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40 percent of the population 

do not have easy access to a safe water supply, and about 64 percent do not have access to basic sanitary facilities. There are graveyards of broken and abandoned water supply systems, obsolete 

drilling rigs, and inappropriate systems. 

The toll on children is particularly high. Every day unsafe water 

and a lack of basic sanitation together kill almost 5,000 children 

under the age of 5. Millions more are pushed to the brink of survival by repeated bouts of diarrhea, leading to chronic malnutrition, and stunted growth. 

A lack of water and sanitation is also linked to many other serious diseases that kill and stunt the development of children, including worms, HIV and AIDS, trachoma, fluorosis and arsenicosis. 

Poor access to water particularly affects women and children who 

are typically responsible for the provision of water in the household. In areas where safe water sources are located at a distance, 

girls and sometimes boys, are often obliged to miss school to help 

fetch water. 

Target 10 of the Millennium Development goal is to help reduce 

by one-half the proportion of people without sustainable access to 

safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015. This is only a 

milestone on the road to achieving the goal of universal access, 

which will require at least one full decade after the Millennium Development goal target. 

Our estimates of the additional costs of meeting the Millennium 

Development Goals for water and sanitation vary widely, around 

11 billion per year. Current allocations are less than half this minimum figure needed, but increasing resources is only half of the solution. We must also work to ensure that governments are 

prioritizing services for the poorest with the right and appropriate 

approaches. 

The recent publication released by WHO, the World Health Organization, and by UNICEF, Water for Life, Making it Happen, 

makes clear that achieving the target of the MDGs for access to 

safe drinking water and basic sanitation will bring a payback 

worth many times the investment, up to $34.00 per dollar spent. 

For almost 40 years, UNICEF has supported water, sanitation, 

and hygiene, in as many as 91 developing countries. Over 50 percent of the $160 million that we spent last year was dedicated to 

our emergency response. 

While our major focus is the survival, growth, and development 

of young children, we also give high priority to boosting education 

through water sanitation and hygiene to schools. 

Our experience shows that programs such as these are key to encouraging enrollment, particularly for girls. UNICEF has learned 

from its experience that the following aspects make a real difference in targeting the poorest: Involving communities, particularly women, in the planning and management of water supply 

services; using simple and low-cost technologies that can be maintained by the communities with technical support when needed; 

8

1 Helminth is a worm classified as a parasite. Common helminthes include roundworm, tapeworm, pinworm, fluke, and trichina spiralis. 

paying equal attention to water, sanitation, and hygiene to gain the 

health impact that is so sorely needed in many of these developing 

countries; and having supportive policies and budgetary allocation 

to support decentralized management of particularly rural water 

supply and sanitation services. 

Mr. Chairman, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 will make this 

crucial development priority a specific policy objective of the United 

States foreign assistance programs, and ensure that additional resources are allocated to meeting these basic needs, which are consistently cited as development priorities by communities themselves. 

UNICEF is committed to working with the United Stats Government to support both governments and partners in extending water 

supply and sanitation services to those most in need to truly make 

a difference in the life of the poorest. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tobin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. VANESSA TOBIN, CHIEF, WATER ENVIRONMENT

SANITATION SECTION, UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND

Chairman Hyde, distinguished members of the House Committee on International 

Relations, thank you for inviting me to address you today on the status of the global 

water crisis and its impact on children. 

Mr. Chairman, much progress has been made in the provision of water and sanitation since 1990. Both water and sanitation coverage rates have increased, and 

more than a billion people have gained access to improved drinking water and sanitation facilities. However, there are still 2.6 billion people without improved sanitation facilities—over half of the developing world’s population—and 1.1 billion still 

using water from unimproved sources. 

Let us not forget that, although 83 percent of the population of developing countries has access to improved drinking water sources, only 42 percent of that population has access to water through a household connection or a yard tap. In most 

developing countries, the definition of ‘‘access to water’’ is an improved water source 

at a distance of less than one kilometer from the house that provides a minimum 

of 20 liters per person per day—that is one bucket of water for each family member 

each day. 

We still have the challenge of ensuring that water provided is safe. In many developing countries, there is still insufficient attention given to regular water quality 

monitoring, particularly for rural areas. There may be another one billion people 

who lack access to safe water that is free from both microbial and chemical contamination. 

Africa, home to about 13 percent of the world’s population, remains the greatest 

challenge globally in accelerating access to both water and sanitation services. Large 

displaced and refugee populations, countries in conflict, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic exacerbate this situation. In 2002, in sub-Saharan Africa, approximately 42 

percent of the population did not have easy access to a safe water supply, and about 

64 percent did not have access to basic sanitary facilities. 

In many countries in Africa, there are graveyards of broken and abandoned water 

supply systems, obsolete drilling rigs, and inappropriate systems. We cannot afford 

to repeat past mistakes in planning and constructing water supply systems that are 

not easily maintained. Existing financial resources for the water sector in Africa are 

still too heavily allocated to upgrading services for the already-served high and middle income population—rather than supporting sustainable services for the poorest 

and most vulnerable. 

Inadequate and unsafe water, poor sanitation, and unsafe hygiene practices are 

the main causes of diarrhea, and diarrhea is the second largest killer of children 

under five years of age. Diarrhea is also linked to malnutrition; persistent diarrhea 

episodes can cause and exacerbate severe malnutrition and result in long-term 

growth stunting. Lack of adequate water, sanitation and hygiene are also linked to 

many other serious diseases that kill and stunt the development of children, including helminth infections,1 Guinea Worm disease, trachoma, fluorosis and arsenicosis. 

9

2 Boys are usually more involved in watering cattle, girls in hauling water for household use. 

3For example, in Ethiopia (WaterAid, 2001) and Nigeria (UNICEF Country Office Annual Report, Nigeria) 4Guarcello et al, 2004, and others 5World Bank, 2001 and other sources (e.g. De Benoist and Ling. Anaemia in school-aged children, 1998) 6 Nokes and Bundy, 1993. 

7Partnership for Child Development, 2002; Sakti et al, 1999 8 View this report on the UNICEF website at http://www.unicef.org/media/files/

JMPl05ltext.pdf. 

HIV/AIDS, for example, is intricately linked with water and sanitation, as 

unhygienic environments and poor hygiene practices result in chronic diarrhea, 

which is a leading cause of death in people living with HIV/AIDS and is associated 

with further depression of the immune system and an increase in opportunistic infections. 

Poor access to water particularly affects women and girls, who are typically responsible for provision of water in the household and maintaining a hygienic environment. This means that where adequate services are not available, the burden of 

fetching water, often from long distances, falls disproportionately on women and 

children. 

Water availability in households is an important factor in the enrolment, attendance and dropout rates of children. In areas where safe water sources are distant, 

girls—and sometimes boys2—are often obliged to miss school to help fetch water. 

This is most often seen in African countries with low water coverage rates,3 but this 

situation has also been documented in various countries in Asia, the Middle East, 

and Latin America.4

Illness caused by poor sanitation and hygiene conditions in communities can also 

have a significant impact on education. Helminth infections—including roundworm, 

hookworm and schistosomiasis—affect about 400 million school-aged children a 

year.5 These parasites aggravate malnutrition and retard children’s physical and 

mental development. Helminth infections have been shown to have a significant 

negative impact on school attendance6 and on the ability to learn.7

The 2000 Millennium Declaration commits governments around the world to a 

clear agenda for combating poverty, hunger, illiteracy, disease, discrimination 

against women and environmental degradation. Target 10 of Goal 7 (ensuring environmental sustainability) is to reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Like all targets, it is 

time-bound, to be met by 2015. 

The ‘‘Decade of Water for Life’’ was launched by United Nations in New York in 

March this year. The Decade calls for a commitment to action in order to halve by 

2015 the number of people with no access to safe water or basic sanitation, in line 

with the Millennium Development Goals. 

A recent assessment shows that progress towards the MDG drinking water and 

sanitation targets is mixed. Even if the MDGs are met in full by 2015, it is sobering 

to realize that there will still approximately 850 million people without access to 

safe water, and 1.85 billion without access to improved sanitation facilities. It is, 

therefore, important to underline that while UNICEF is fully committed to achieving MDG target 10, this is only a milestone on the road to achieving the goal of 

universal access to water and sanitation. This will require at least one full decade 

after the MDG target date of 2015, and it will require a sharply increased effort 

from present levels. 

Estimates of the additional (over and above current spending) costs of meeting the 

MDGs vary widely, from US$7 billion to US$30 billion per year. What is clear is 

that total Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the sector (at approximately 

US$3 billion per year) is currently less than half this minimum figure. Of this ODA, 

the bulk goes to middle income countries, while only 12 percent goes to those countries in which less than 60 percent of people have access to an improved water 

source. Increasing resources is only part of the solution—we must also work to ensure that Governments are prioritizing services for the poorest, rather than continuing to allocate resources on the basis of ‘‘all for some rather than some for all.’’

The recent publication released by UNICEF and WHO in May 2005, ‘‘Water for 

Life: Making it Happen,’’ 8 makes clear that achieving the target of the Millennium 

Development Goals (MDGs) for access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation 

will bring a payback worth many times the investment. Such access brings health 

and dignity, and will transform the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people. 

The humanitarian case for action is blindingly apparent. The economic case is just 

as strong. 

10

The long-term cost to society of not meeting the MDG water and sanitation targets is several times greater than the cost of constructing the water and sanitation 

systems required. A recent comprehensive cost-benefit analysis study showed that 

the investment return—in measurable socioeconomic benefits—would be a minimum 

of three dollars on every dollar spent improving water and sanitation services. In 

some cases, the return would be as high as $34 for every dollar spent. WHO estimates that if everyone had access to basic water and sanitation services, the health 

sector would save more than US$11 billion in treatment costs, and people would 

gain 5.5 billion productive days each year due to reduced diarrheal disease. 

UNICEF supports water, sanitation and hygiene activities in more than 90 countries. The largest water, sanitation and hygiene country programs are concentrated 

in Africa and Asia. The current staff level is 210 professionals, and expenditure was 

$160 million in total in 2004, which was 12 percent of total UNICEF program expenditure. Of this expenditure, 52 percent was for emergencies 

Working directly with community-based organizations and communities and families themselves, UNICEF helps to ensure that households have access to a clean and 

secure supply of water and safe and convenient sanitary facilities, primarily focusing on support to poor rural communities. Through hygiene promotion and environmental sanitation programs, UNICEF works towards maximizing the health benefits, focusing in particular on the survival, growth and development of young children. 

UNICEF also works to make schools healthier and more attractive to children, especially girls, through school-based water, sanitation and hygiene programs. 

Healthier children are more effective learners, and girls who spend less time fetching water have more time for school. In more than 70 countries, we are helping to 

build separate and decent sanitation facilities in schools that reduce dropout rates, 

especially among girls. And hygiene promotion in schools creates conditions where 

children themselves are agents of change in their families and communities. 

In emergency situations, safe water and sanitation is critical. UNICEF frequently 

takes the lead in the provision of water and sanitation services in crises around the 

world, including in tsunami-affected countries. 

Today, our current strategic focus is also on supporting the development of enabling policy environments, institutional capacity building, the development and 

demonstration of new programme approaches, and support and advice to governments and implementing agencies. 

UNICEF learned from experience that the following aspects make a real difference when targeting the poorest:

• Involvement of the communities particularly women, in the planning and 

management of water supply services;

• Using simple and low-cost technologies that could be maintained by the communities with technical support when needed by a mandated and accountable 

agency;

• Paying equal attention to water supply, sanitation and hygiene; and

• Having supportive policies and budgetary allocations to support decentralized 

management of rural water supply and sanitation services are critical to success.

The experience, expertise and credibility built over 40 years of working with governments and communities gives UNICEF a unique position in the sector. In many 

countries, UNICEF is one of the few agencies that work both at the field level with 

communities, and also provide continuous support to governments at the national 

level. This gives UNICEF a ‘‘place at the table’’ to advocate for change when necessary, and the in-country evidence on which to base its recommendations. UNICEF 

has expertise and a track record in producing results that count. 

To summarize, development and poverty reduction are not possible without safe 

and reliable water supplies for household use and for small-scale productive use including household vegetable production and livestock; access to, and regular use of, 

safe sanitation facilities; habitual hand-washing and other key hygiene practices; 

and a healthy, hygienic environment. 

Mr. Chairman, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’ will make this crucial development priority a specific policy objective of United States foreign assistance programs, and ensure that resources are allocated to meeting these basic needs, which 

are consistently cited as development priorities by communities themselves. 

The findings and strategy contained within the Act are sound with regard to the 

analysis of the problem and to the methods outlined to reach the poorest in a sustainable and coordinated manner. UNICEF is committed in working with the 

United States Government to support Governments and partners in extending water 

11

supply and sanitation services to those most in need to truly make a difference in 

the lives of the poorest. 

Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Kjorven. 

STATEMENT OF MR. OLAV KJORVEN, DIRECTOR OF THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT GROUP, BUREAU FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

Mr. KJORVEN. Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member, Mr. Lantos, 

Distinguished Members of the House Committee on International 

Relations, I would like to thank you for your invitation to speak on 

the important issues that the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 addresses, and welcome this opportunity to brief you on the work of 

the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), to increase access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries. 

For over 40 years, UNDP has been working to support the poor 

across the globe to gain access to safe drinking water and improved 

sanitation as part of the organization’s broad development agenda. 

First and foremost, our experience shows that improved access to 

water services and improved sanitation, coupled with sound management of water resources, contributes to improved livelihoods 

and productivity, improved human health, higher economic growth, 

and gender equality. Investments in water and sanitation are 

strong development drivers. 

There is no development possible without water, and there is no 

healthy ecosystem that does not depend on water for its survival. 

We are convinced that water is not only vital for life and essential 

for development, but also a priority for contributing to the achievement of all of the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs. 

We ask ourselves can poverty and hunger be eradicated or maternal health improved, or child mortality reduced, or gender inequalities addressed without improved access to water and sanitation? 

The answer is no. These goals cannot be met without water and 

sanitation, and this is one of the strongest and most important reasons why in my view the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 is so important. 

The table at the end of my written brief provides an illustration 

of the critical links between water and all the other MDGs. It also 

includes an illustration of the link between access to water and 

sanitation, and gender equality, and empowerment of women. 

In Yemen, for instance, with support from the UNDP, women’s 

groups represented by the Supreme Council for Women worked 

with the Ministry of Planning, and in close coordination with other 

international agencies, to bring gender prospectus into their country’s poverty reduction strategy. 

However, Mr. Chairman, our experience also shows that local capacity constraints often pose a severe limitation to the achievement 

of the MDGs. This is where the focus of UNDP’s water program 

lies, highly complimentary to that of UNICEF. 

Through our effective water governance program, we aim to address some of the capacity constraints that exist in developing 

countries, to improve access to water and sanitation services. 

12

Effective water governance provides an enabling environment 

through policy, legal, and institutional frameworks for sustainable, 

equitable, and economically efficient use and development of water 

resources. 

This includes support to strengthen the protection and management of the water sources and catchment areas that all water supplies fundamentally depend on. We have to make sure that there 

is water running through the pipes that we build. 

UNDP supports the development of good practice mechanisms to 

promote integrated management of water resources. Our experience also shows that political will and commitment, motivated with 

enough awareness and backed with sufficient capacity, are key elements that determine the capabilities of governments to formulate 

integrated water resource management plans, and not the least to 

implement them. 

With support from UNDP, several Arab countries, including 

Egypt and Lebanon, have improved their national water policies 

and integrated water resource management plans. 

With the support from the U.S. State Department, our water 

governance program also promotes increased cooperation between 

countries that share water resources, such as in the Nile, the 

Mekong, the Niger, and other strategic river basins. 

The U.S. State Department’s support to UNDP Transboundary 

Rivers Program is a critical element to promote peace and stability 

in many regions. Water is a source of tension between countries, 

but it can also be an entry point for collaboration. 

This program is highly complimentary to the global environment 

facility if they are in international waters, where the entry point 

is to protect the ecological integrity of shared water resources. 

Through our network in over 130 countries, UNDP works in 

partnership with national and local public sector institutions, civil 

society organizations, bilateral and multilateral agencies, and the 

private sector. 

This presence on the ground throughout the developing world 

represents a potential opportunity for making accelerated progress 

on water and sanitation, and for preventing conflicts over water resources. 

At the national level, UNDP carries significant responsibilities 

for coordinating all UN development efforts to maximize the impact 

and to ensure that advice and support to governments are consistent in the area of water. 

UNDP and UNICEF take active roles in water specific coordination mechanisms, namely UN-Water. UN-Water will contribute to 

increased country level coherence and aid harmonization through 

improved communication, information exchange, and collaboration. 

As world leaders prepare for the 2005 World Summit in September, it is clear that in terms of the progress needed to achieve 

the goals in the next 10 years, this is a defining moment for the 

world to make the course changes necessary to eradicate extreme 

poverty. 

It is therefore not only a review, but also a unique opportunity 

to inject new vigor and a renewed commitment to meet the goals 

by the 2015 deadline. Mr. Chairman, the legislation you are considering draws much needed attention to safe water and sanitation, 

13

1Driving Development by Investing in Water and Sanitation: Five Facts Support the Argument (SIWI, 2005) 

and the suffering that is experienced around the world, particularly 

by the poor, who often have no access to these vital services. 

We welcome this renewed interest and focus in Washington on 

what needs to be done not only to reduce by 50 percent the total 

number of families without access to water and sanitation, but also 

to ensure that such programs are developed in a sustainable manner and led by effective management. 

We welcome the continued interest and leadership of the United 

States on this vital issue. Thank you again for permitting me to 

brief the Committee. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kjorven follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. OLAV KJORVEN, DIRECTOR OF THE ENERGY AND ENVI- RONMENT GROUP, BUREAU FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOP- MENT PROGRAM

Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Mr. Lantos, distinguished members of the 

House Committee on International Relations, I would like to thank you for your invitation to speak on the important issues that the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’ 

addresses, and welcome this opportunity to brief you on the work of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to increase access to safe water and sanitation in developing countries. 

For over 40 years, UNDP has been working to support the poor, across the globe, 

to gain access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation, as part of the 

organisation’s broad development agenda. 

First and foremost, our experience shows that improved access to water services 

and improved sanitation, coupled with sound management of water resources, contributes to improved livelihoods and productivity, improved human health, higher 

economic growth and gender equality. Investments in water and sanitation are 

strong development drivers. There is no development possible without water, and 

there is no healthy ecosystem, that does not depend on water for its survival. 

These investments generate broad economic benefits that considerably outweigh 

the costs; they are critical for growth in all sectors and help eradicate poverty. The 

implications of investments in water and sanitation on GDP growth are astounding. 

Analyses indicate that a 0.3% increase in investments in household access to safe 

water is associated with a 1% increase in GDP. Furthermore, poor countries such 

as Kenya, Cambodia or Uganda with improved access to clean water and sanitation 

services have shown an annual average growth of 3.7%, whereas countries with the 

same per capita income but without improved access had an average annual per 

capita GDP growth of only 0.1% 1. 

We are convinced that water is not only vital for life, and essential for development, but also a priority for contributing to the achievement of all the Millennium 

Development Goals (MDGs)—eight goals that represent a commitment by Governments at the 2000 UN Millennium Summit to make rapid progress on development 

issues by 2015. Not only is there an MDG target of halving, by 2015, the proportion 

of people without safe drinking water and basic sanitation, but water and sanitation 

services are essential to all the MDGs. We ask ourselves, can poverty and hunger 

be eradicated (MDG1), or maternal health improved (MDG 5), or child mortality reduced (MDG 4), or gender inequalities addressed (MDG3) without improved access 

to water and sanitation? The answer is ‘No’! These goals cannot be met without 

water and sanitation; and this is one of the strongest and most important reasons 

why—in my view—the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’ is so important. 

The table at the end of this brief provides an illustration of the critical links between water and all the other MDGs. It also includes an illustration of the link between access to water and sanitation and gender equality and the empowerment of 

women. Our programmes in India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Yemen have illustrated 

that participatory approaches that provide equal opportunities for women and men 

to access water resources leads to greater equality, effectiveness, and sustainability. 

In Yemen, for instance, with support from UNDP, women’s groups, represented by 

the Supreme Council for Women, worked with the Ministry of Planning and in close 

coordination with other international cooperation agencies to bring gender perspectives into the country’s MDG-based Poverty Reduction Strategy. 

14

However, Mr. Chairman, our experience also shows that local capacity constraints 

often pose a severe limitation to the achievement of the MDGs. This is where the 

focus of UNDP’s Water Programme lies. Through our ‘Effective Water Governance’ 

programme we aim to address some of the capacity constraints that exist in developing countries to improve access to water and sanitation services. Effective water 

governance provides an enabling environment—through policy, legal and institutional frameworks—for sustainable, equitable and economically efficient use and development of water resources. We have to make sure there is water running through 

the pipes that we build. 

Our Water Governance Programme, through Cap-Net (a network of capacity 

building institutions), builds local capacities and ownership through education and 

training and empowers stakeholders and communities with the knowledge and ability to make decisions that directly affect their lives. UNDP supports the development of ‘‘good practice’’ mechanisms to promote integrated management of water resources. Our experience also shows that political will and commitment—motivated 

with enough awareness and backed with sufficient capacity—are key elements that 

determine the capabilities of governments to formulate integrated water resources 

management plans (per Johannesburg Plan of Implementation Targets) and to further implement them. With support from UNDP, several Arab countries including 

Egypt and Lebanon have approved their national water policies and Integrated 

Water Resource Management plans. 

With support from the U.S. State Department, our Water Governance Programme 

also promotes increased cooperation between countries that share water resources 

(in the Nile, Mekong, Niger, and other strategic river basins). The U.S. State Department support to UNDP’s Transboundary Rivers Program is a critical element 

to promote peace and stability in many regions. Water is a source of tension between countries; but it can also be an entry point for collaboration. 

Through our network of over 130 country offices, UNDP works in partnership 

with national and local public sector institutions, civil society organizations, bilateral and multi-lateral organizations, the private sector and other UN partner agencies. The potential for coordination and complementarities is enormous. 

At the national level, as part of UN-Water (an interagency coordination mechanism), UNDP supports the United Nations Development Group, Resident Coordinators, and the UN country teams by encouraging and facilitating participatory system-wide exchanges of information and dialogue on policy and operational issues. 

UN-Water will contribute to increased country-level coherence and aid harmonization through improved communication, information exchange and collaboration. 

At the local level, UNDP works in partnership with central and local government 

and civil society organizations to strengthen decentralized and community-based 

water resources management and water supply and sanitation. Through communitycentered programmes, such as the Community Water Initiative, active in Tanzania, 

Kenya, Uganda, Mauritania, Sri Lanka and Guatemala, UNDP supports community 

mobilization and capacity building that empowers communities and local authorities 

to manage water resources and provide water supply and sanitation services that 

are affordable to the poor. 

Finally, as world leaders prepare for 2005 World Summit in September, it is clear 

that in terms of the progress needed to achieve the Goals in the next ten years this 

is a defining moment for the world to make the course changes necessary to eradicate extreme poverty. It is, therefore, not only a review, but also a unique opportunity to inject new vigour and a renewed commitment to meet the goals by the 

2015 deadline. 

Mr. Chairman, the legislation you are considering draws much needed attention 

to safe water and sanitation and the suffering that is experienced around the world, 

particularly by the poor, who often have no access to these vital services. We at 

UNDP welcome this renewed interest and focus in Washington on what needs to 

be done, not only to reduce by 50% the total number of families without access to 

water and sanitation, but also to ensure that such programs are developed in a sustainable manner and led by effective management well attuned to the needs of local 

communities. UNDP welcomes the continued interest and leadership of the United 

States on this vital issue. 

Thank you for permitting me to brief the Committee and I look forward to your 

questions.

15

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Kjorven, UNDP is the leading UN agency for development. What percentage of your budget goes to water projects? 


22262a0001.eps
16

Mr. KJORVEN. I cannot tell you precisely the percentage that goes 

to water projects, but we do have water projects in some 80 countries, and we are talking about a portfolio of well above $400 million. 

Mr. LEACH. In terms of deliverability, there are many ways and 

many institutions that work in compatible purposes; individual 

governments, the UN, et cetera. Do you have any advice to the 

Congress on the methodologies of deliverance? 

Where do you think the focal point should be and how the United 

States should proceed? 

Mr. KJORVEN. I think the international system of the Development Corporation System has come a long way in recent years in 

getting itself better organized at the country level, and through the 

leadership of at not at least the World Bank and the International 

Monetary Fund, but also with contributions from agencies such as 

UNDP, we today have pretty much an agreed course of action at 

the country level, especially in the poorest countries where their 

needs are the biggest, precisely in the areas of water and sanitation. 

That is through the poverty reduction strategies that the governments themselves are responsible for developing, and I think the 

key challenge for both multilateral agencies and for bilateral agencies is to effectively coordinate themselves around that framework 

of poverty reduction strategies so that we ensure that there is coordinated and consistent approaches that are synergistic, rather 

than chaotic, which has been the case in the past. 

I think we have an excellent opportunity now to really move forward over the next 10 years thanks to this new framework. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was curious if either of our witnesses had some specific comments about the legislation that has been drafted that we have titled the Water for the 

Poor Act that has been introduced. You both referenced it, but I 

wondered if you could elaborate a little bit for our benefit about 

how you see that dovetailing with the problem and the opportunities, and if you have a critique of what is there, or what is not? 

Ms. TOBIN. Mr. Blumenauer, I think the bill has been very well 

crafted. I would comment on three aspects that may be worth 

strengthening. I think a stronger focus on the countries that are 

suffering the most, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where the 

coverage rates are the lowest, and the focus of the bill particularly 

on some of those countries. 

The second focus is the role of non-government organizations 

(NGOs), and the important role that they can play in working with 

governments and with bilateral and multilateral agencies. 

In particular, NGOs work very closely with us in terms of mobilizing and working closely with communities, and ensuring the sustainability aspects when we are supporting low cost appropriate 

technologies. 

The third aspect is that I think it would be helpful to have an 

allocation specified within the bill that would be devoted particularly for rural remote poor communities for water and sanitation. 

17

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No questions. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. I would like to know are you concentrating—and 

Africa comes to mind, but where are you concentrating your efforts 

in terms of the water quality and AIDS? 

Ms. TOBIN. In terms of our programs from UNICEF which support health, education, water and sanitation, child protection, our 

programs are focused in more than 150 countries. 

We have a particular focus on HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. We are supporting water and sanitation programs in 90 countries, but our major focus are priority countries, and of the 60, 

about 40 of those countries are in Africa. 

So our focus on water and sanitation is on those countries because sub-Saharan Africa is not on track at the moment to reach 

the Millennium Development Goals for either water or sanitation. 

The world is not on track for sanitation, but for water, Africa is 

particularly lagging on water supply. 

Ms. WATSON. Do you have a privatized list that you can share 

with us? There are so many different charitable groups. One that 

I know of very well is Water for Africa, the Rotarians. 

I was wondering if there is any coordination of effort focused on 

these areas where AIDS is pandemic? There are certain areas that 

I would like to see some coordinated efforts so that we can utilize 

the services and the contributions that are provided most effectively. 

So if you can share that list with us, then I possibly can ask 

those that are working in these programs to work with UNICEF, 

and in terms of spreading what little services and help they can 

provide more effectively in these areas? 

Ms. TOBIN. We would be happy to share that list with you. Also, 

to state that we obviously coordinate with the other UN agencies. 

Our focus has been very much on the more remote rural poor communities in terms of water supply and sanitation. Obviously our coordination with other areas, and our focus on child survival, and 

the focus on working with HIV and AIDS programs, has been a priority for my own agency. 

Ms. WATSON. Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa, I know, suffered 

under the apartheid regime and after President Mandela took over. 

I know that they were putting in one water station per village, and 

so it seems to me that these efforts that have already begun need 

to be joined, and we need to be more effective because water is the 

means for life. 

It also carries within it the diseases that are killing off millions, 

and I am just wondering, does EPA work with you to test water 

in various areas? 

Ms. TOBIN. We have worked with the EPA on two aspects. The 

first on water quality monitoring, primarily also with our major 

partner, the World Health Organization. We have also teamed and 

launched at the World Summit on sustainable development a 

project with the Environmental Protection Agency on children’s environmental health, the monitoring of indicators. That is another 

area that we work with the EPA on. 

18

Ms. WATSON. I am sitting here trying to think of a way that we 

could zero in and better coordinate our efforts. Maybe the Committee could come up with a resolution naming all these different 

projects and asking for some kind of coordination, and we will have 

to decide which department of government it should be housed in. 

But I think that is needed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Watson. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 

Tobin, you mentioned in your original testimony that there are 

graveyards of equipment that have been left over throughout these 

countries of inappropriate water projects. Maybe you could expand 

a little bit for us? 

Ms. TOBIN. We estimate in Africa that 30 percent of water supply 

systems are not functioning. Some of those systems were inappropriately designed for ability to maintain those water supply systems. Some of them have a plethora of different types of systems 

installed, and they are very difficult to standardize in terms of providing supplies and equipment for those systems, in terms of ensuring that people were trained in maintenance. Also the life span 

of some of those systems was as such that after 10 years they were 

no longer functioning. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do you think that the failure that you are 

talking about at that level was due to, let’s say, benign but benevolent ideas and plans, or was some of this caused by corruption? 

That people paid their friends in order for that system to be accepted, even though in the long run it wasn’t going to work? 

Ms. TOBIN. I think some of the aspects is the obvious inappropriateness of the design of the programs themselves, but also I think 

it is very much, too, to prioritize sufficient attention for operational 

maintenance costs, both on behalf of the donor community, but also 

on behalf of governance and local government, that this is given attention. 

As I stated, right now a definition of water may be just one bucket of water per person per day. Therefore, there has to be plans in 

place that when people can afford to pay that they are able to upgrade their services. So plans, and maintenance, and support. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would tend to think that some of the 

systems and some of the money that has been spent already, and 

maybe a large chunk of money that has been spent already, perhaps went in the Third World, and perhaps decisions were made 

where in the long run they knew that things were not as good, but 

somebody’s pal was making some money on it. 

I take it from your testimony, from both of the witnesses, that 

you believe that overall economic development of a country, in 

terms of a goal for water, is not really what you are asking for. 

What you are asking for is for us to target those on the poorest 

levels just to make this a humanitarian effort, and to go directly 

to those people as sort of a rescue mission, and help to make sure 

that they have the water that they need, rather than the more 

grandiose approach of, we know how to save this country by giving 

them an overall economic plan that includes water. Does that make 

sense to you, and which side are you coming down on? 

19

Mr. KJORVEN. Well, there is clearly a need for more humanitarian approaches in countries, and in regions where there is a humanitarian crisis as such. But that can only be a short term kind 

of response. 

In our view, in the UNDP, there is no other way around it than 

to patiently and painstakingly build the kind of governance capacity that one must have to make the interventions sustainable. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me note that when we go in that direction, and in areas where governments are corrupt, it is almost 

impossible for us from the outside to come in and to accomplish 

what you are talking about. 

But in terms of trying to save these people whose children are 

now dying of diarrhea, et cetera, that may be something that is doable. You mentioned in your testimony, Ms. Tobin, about simple 

and low cost technology that we could put to work to save those 

human beings from a horrible death. 

I can’t imagine children dying of these diseases like that when 

we can actually save some of them. What did you mean by simple 

and low cost technology? 

Ms. TOBIN. Just to go back to your last point on allocation of resources before I will go specifically to the technology. The allocation 

of resources is still going to the high- and middle-income populations from governance. 

So that allocation of existing resources to those that do not have 

services is an important criteria in terms of present policies. On 

technologies, there are a broad range of technologies we support in 

different situations. 

My agency has been very involved in the development of simple 

low cost technologies, which are supported by many of the NGOs 

that are present here today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you give us some examples? 

Ms. TOBIN. Hand pumps on bore holes, or on improved wells, is 

one example; small rain water harvesting systems, small pipe 

water supple schemes; household water treatment, which is a very 

low cost effective strategy, which can directly reduce diarrhoeal diseases by up to 40 percent. 

We tend to look at the figures of child deaths, but the disease 

burden, in terms of modality, and impact on ability to learn, are 

also enormous figures still out there, too. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Did you 

want to say something, Mr. Kjorven? 

Mr. KJORVEN. If I may, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Sure. 

Mr. KJORVEN. Yes. I think experience has taught us that we can 

achieve very good important things through humanitarian intervention as such, but again the sustainability of those interventions 

are very vulnerable if the government’s assistance continues to be 

fragile, and if we don’t see necessary progress. 

We see a lot of good examples also of community-targeted interventions. For instance, where NGOs, religious communities that 

are present on the ground, the churches and so on, really are the 

actors that make the interventions sustainable locally. 

20

But we also see increasingly in many countries that have been 

crisis-ridden in the past that governments are able to reform themselves and make progress, and where we see the indicators in 

terms of people’s quality of life going up because we are able to 

make progress both on the delivery of the actual equipment, but 

also the governance system improves. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I hope we have a second round, Mr. Chairman, for further discussion. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Ms. Lee of California. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask you, Ms. 

Tobin, a couple of questions. I mentioned earlier the issue with regard to unsafe water in the whole area of mixing formula for babies. 

You have done work, and you are doing work in sub-Saharan Africa, and I have visited many hospitals as I said earlier, and the 

choices that women have often times are deadly. It is either breast 

feed their babies if they have the virus, or use unsafe water for 

mixing the formula. Terrible choices. 

I am wondering, what are you seeing and how do you see this 

evolving? And secondly, in terms of prepackaged formula, do you 

see more of that now in sub-Saharan Africa being provided for 

women who need safe water and who have HIV and AIDS, and 

who can’t breast feed their children? Can you just kind of talk to 

us a little bit about what is going on there? 

Ms. TOBIN. Of course we have a very active program on the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Obviously, 

UNICEF is a very, very strong promoter of breast feeding. In most 

cases, we will obviously encourage the mother to breast feed. 

If the mother decides not to breast feed, then alternatives need 

to be provided, and safe water is important. We do support household water treatments, and simple chlorination of water. 

We have also have a number of projects that we are working on 

with both universities and private sector companies on household 

water treatment technologies for more heavily contaminated water 

that can be used for mixing for breast milk substitutes. 

Also in general for families that basically at this moment in time 

will not get access to an improved water supply in the near future. 

Ms. LEE. I agree, and I think it is absolutely correct to encourage 

women to breast feed. In fact, many cultures encourage that, and 

that is probably the main—I mean, that is the way that you feed 

children for all of the obvious reasons. 

When the pharmaceuticals and the medications are not available 

for women who choose to breast feed and who want to breast feed, 

but don’t have access to the drugs, then what do you see as the option if there are no safe water facilities? 

Ms. TOBIN. UNICEF follows the UN’s guidelines on this, and 

that obviously counseling is needed, and you are absolutely right, 

access to counseling at the moment is constrained. It is something 

that we are working on. 

Our new executive director is very committed to strengthening 

and increasing support to the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and one of those components is voluntary counseling and testing. 

21

But also information on infant feeding and providing that counseling to the mother so that she can make an informed choice and 

access to that information at the moment. We support programs to 

provide it, and we need to increase the number of women that we 

are reaching. 

Ms. LEE. Sure, and making an informed choice is absolutely necessary, but what if the choices are both pretty deadly? If the mother has the virus, and if the medications aren’t available, and if 

there are no avenues for safe water? 

Ms. TOBIN. If that is the case, then the mother should continue 

to breast feed, because the risk factors in terms of contaminated 

water and the risk factor of the child dying from diarrhea are far 

greater. 

In that case there is no question. The advice is that the mother 

continues to breast feed. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was glad to see that in 

your testimony it was pointed out that this is one of the Millennium Development Goals that our President, and our Congress, 

and the American people, all have responsibility in making sure 

that we live up to making happen, and safe drinking water is key 

to so much of the other development goals being achieved. 

I think that one of my colleagues asked a question about what 

is low-tech, and Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the record 

some information I have here from PSI about their disinfecting 

drinking water and saving lives. 

[The information referred to follows:]

22


22262a.eps
23


22262b.eps
24

Ms. MCCOLLUM. They have a low-tech solution that they call an 

SWS, and it is being used very successfully, and it lists the countries in here; Malawi, Afghanistan, India. And what that is, is that 

it shows people how to use chlorine bleach. They have the full 

chemical name in here, but basically it is chlorine bleach, and how 

to use that at point of use so that water is drinkable. But of course 

that water has to go through some testing and to see if even that 

is a solution. 

When I was with CARE, they used the low-intake plastic pipes 

that I saw in Peru, and they had the village involved in not only 

the treatment, but building the water supply so that they could 

work with the next village. Ownership into that has really made 

it successful. But I would like to ask you, sir, a question. Recently, 

I had the opportunity to visit the country of Chad, which is hosting 

many refugees from The Sudan. 

The UN refugee camp that was there was trucking water in. 

They had people from all over doing geological surveys, and people 

from all over the world trying to help. But what was going on in 

the meantime was that the wells that the villages in Chad were 

being stressed from all the visitors and people coming through 

prior to the UN coming in and setting up the refugee camp. 

What happens to your budget, to your plans, as you have to address needs in these refugee camps? Does that mean that you have 

more needs that go unmet, and more people who get put on the 

waiting list keeping you from helping us, and the United States, 

hopefully as President Bush goes to the Millennium event in Scotland, from us reaching those goals? What do we need to do to make 

that happen? 

Mr. KJORVEN. Thank you. What is very clear is that over the 

past decade increasingly, but the trend is really longer than that, 

at least 20 years old, a growing share of international resources 

available to the developing world have been going to humanitarian 

crisis. 

Since the overall envelope has not had a tendency of significantly 

growing, especially not or certainly not in the 1990s, and the early 

part of this decade, now we might see a reversal. That basically 

means that resources for long term development have become more 

limited relatively speaking to dealing with complex emergencies. 

So this is something that we all as an international system are 

trying to come to terms with in these disasters and catastrophes. 

On the other hand, the United Nations Development Program 

works primarily in the field of development. 

Our resources do not get taken away from us to put into crisis 

handling as such, and it is another part of the UN system that 

deals with crisis. However, overall resources for development, yes, 

comes under stress as we are struggling to deal with the complex 

emergencies. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I bring that up because 

there was some discussion when I was with a group of international parliamentarians that there were signals coming from the 

United States Government that we were going to count our humanitarian aid as part of the funds going toward the Millennium Development Goals. 

25

If we do that, we are doing the right thing by reaching out and 

helping people in immediate crisis. But when we do that and we 

count that as our development aid, that just pushes the years back 

further and further in which we can see these countries begin to 

stand up on their own and move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Mr. Blumenauer for his initiative 

on the legislation, and to you for convening this extremely important hearing. 

Let me just ask you about our briefers from the United Nations. 

The USAID has made the point, and Jacqueline Schafer, Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, will also testify that the USAID will 

greatly exceed its commitment to water investments. 

The 3 year total for the Water for the Poor Initiative obligations 

almost doubled the original commitment announced by Secretary 

Powell in 2002. Then it was $970 million pledged, and now the 

total is $1.9 billion. 

And my first question is whether or not you think that is adequate, or what is your sense about that commitment? But also are 

other countries also stepping up to the plate to provide those kinds 

of resources? 

And, secondly, I knew Jim Grant very well, and now I see Marty 

Rendon, who is a great friend of all humanitarian causes, and who 

worked previously for the Hunger Committee with Tony Hall, now 

our current Ambassador for the World Food Program. And Jim 

Grant never missed an opportunity to reach into his pocket and 

bring out a packet of oral rehydration salts when you would talk 

to him. While we are looking to expand capacity and resources, better modalities for government, and good governance, as it was 

pointed out in much of this testimony. 

Are we doing enough in the area of meeting the existing, compelling need for oral rehydration salts, so that those who have bouts 

of diarrhoeal disease, which to the best of my knowledge is still the 

leading killer of children in the world, do get that low-cost, lowtech, and life-saving intervention? Please, answer those two questions, if you could. 

Ms. TOBIN. Thank you. On the issue of resources, many countries 

now—and I think the World Summit on Sustainable Development 

was a turning point, in terms of focusing energy and attention on 

the unfinished business of supporting water and sanitation—the 

British, the Minister of Overseas Development, has made a statement that they will increase their resources for water and sanitation. The Netherlands, I know, is considering a number of proposals at the present time. 

There is the EU water facility, which is reviewing a series of proposals, particularly focused on the Caribbean, Africa, and the Pacific, for support to both urban and water supply programs. 

I think that there are certainly countries that are stepping up, 

but it is very important to prioritize. Those countries obviously do 

need assistance the most. I am not aware of the breakdown of support from USAID, in terms of the present allocation. 

As I stated, I think sub-Saharan Africa, and looking at the coverage rates in some of the countries, particularly countries like 

26

Ethiopia, there certainly is a need for support, particularly to countries with low coverage for both water and sanitation. 

On the issue of oral rehydration, it is still an integrated top priority for us. We send obviously in our emergency assistance, it is 

a major part of what happens, but also for our regular control of 

diarrhoeal disease programs, and we have supported that with the 

World Health Organization. 

And certainly as part of our child survival efforts, it is still supported and a major part of what UNICEF does. 

Mr. KJORVEN. Just a brief supplement from our side. Obviously 

there are two sides to the equation, and it is true that until at least 

a couple of years ago that the overall trend in terms of assistance 

to water sanitation was going down, unfortunately. 

Other issues had more priority from the donor countries basically. But that seems now to have been reserved. The other side 

of the equation is the government in the countries concerned. Quite 

frankly water and sanitation have not always been high on their 

agenda in many developing countries, especially when it comes to 

meeting the needs of poor communities. 

But that also in many countries is starting to change, and so we 

now have a window of opportunity where both donor agencies, and 

governments in the north, and the countries of the developing 

world are seeing the same problem more or less in the same way 

and are ready to move forward. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for calling this hearing. I also want to commend my colleague and friend from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, for introducing 

this legislation. 

We have 191 member countries that make up the United Nations, and I understand that the total UN budget was about $1.34 

billion. We are expending $1 billion a week in fighting the war in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. It comes down to the point that I wanted to 

make here, is the fact that there is always the problem of limited 

resources. And I think the problem is plainer than just talking 

about this particular issue of water. When you say water, health 

and sanitation are just as important and critical. 

But what can you possibly do with $1.34 billion trying to meet 

the needs of 191 countries? Of course, I am aware also that 25 percent of that $1.34 billion comes from this country. And I am also 

aware that our country has been heavily criticized for not giving 

enough. Is that a fair statement as representatives of the United 

Nations; that we are not giving enough? 

Mr. KJORVEN. I think what is quite abundantly clear is that 

there is a shortage of resources to meet the needs out there. That 

is very clear. On the other hand, the picture isn’t quite as bleak 

as the Honorable Representative has stated, because fortunately 

the $1.34 billion are basically the assessed contributions to the UN 

from the member countries. 

In addition to that, many governments, including that of the 

United States, give significant additional resources for developVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
27

ment. That is channeled through UNDP, UNICEF, and many other 

channels. 

So the overall international aid envelope is now approaching, if I remember correctly, for all international aid roughly $70 billion 

dollars. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. $70 billion? 

Mr. KJORVEN. $70 billion. And UNDP, to speak for ourselves, we manage about $4 billion of those billions. So obviously we have resources to put to good use. On the other hand, the needs out there 

are so much bigger. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am just curious, and I am not a psychoanalyst, but why is it that we have a tsunami in Southeast Asia 

that the whole world’s attention is given. In fact, there was a bidding war among the countries as to how much they were willing 

to offer to give assistance to the victims, over 140,000 people that 

lost their lives. 

Japan started bidding with $500 million, and Germany with $400 million. Our country didn’t do too well initially, but I think 

we are earmarked for about $900 million to give to this disaster in 

Southeast Asia. 

But when it comes to the genocide in Darfur, where over 300,000 

lives have been lost, I hardly hear a peep out of anybody, and to 

say that this was not a worse disaster, where the United Nations 

and other countries of the world should really focus on. 

I realize that this may not be on the issue of water, but I think 

there is a greater problem that I am trying to focus on here. If we 

can’t do it on these basic fundamental issues, then how can we possibly give assistance on the issue of water itself if we can’t even 

address—why is it when something like this happens, and when it 

happens in Africa, nobody wants to talk about it? 

And I suspect that there are probably not even enough resources. 

Over 300,000 lives have already been lost, and I humbly consider 

that to be a genocide, and I wondered, am I missing something 

here? Or is this some psychological makeup where if it happens 

anywhere else in the world, we are there giving help? But if it happens in Africa, we don’t seem to be giving much attention to this, 

and I suspect that probably no other region of the world has more 

water-related issues, or problems, or needs than Africa. Am I 

wrong on this, Ms. Tobin? 

Ms. TOBIN. On the issue of Darfur, the United States has given 

support to UNICEF for water supply and sanitation for the displaced population in Sudan and in Chad, along with other countries. 

Certainly the extent of the situation there has really meant a lot 

of mobilization at the UN, agencies working together to respond in 

a coordinated way to address the problem. We are coordinating the 

UN and the NGO response for water supply and sanitation there. 

And we have had our challenges in responding to the situation, 

but we are doing our best and utmost to provide safe water and 

sanitation to everyone as quickly as we possibly can. Certainly——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My time is up, but I just want to give my 

question again. If you were to put priorities on a regional basis, 

what region would you say is the number one critical need as far 

as water is concerned? I guess Africa. 

28

Ms. TOBIN. Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And perhaps it may be our legislation could 

more specifically target Africa as the basis of our direct assistance, 

rather than trying to paint the whole world and suggest that even 

though two-thirds of the world’s population is in the Asia-Pacific 

region, but would you agree that my humble observation that Africa is the number one priority as far as water is concerned? 

Ms. TOBIN. I think for water supply the priority is the sub-Saharan Africa. I agree. It does not mean that attention is not needed 

in other regions, such as South Asia. But certainly the top priority 

for water supply is sub-Saharan Africa. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I also commend the Chairman 

for having this very important hearing on the global water crisis. 

I wondered, does your organization work closely with the UN Convention to combat desertification, and how are you interrelated? 

Mr. KJORVEN. Well, the UNDP is very much engaged in supporting the implementation of the convention to combat 

desertification, and again that is particularly of relevance to subSaharan Africa, where the problems of land degradation, particularly in the drylands areas, make up the lion’s share of that continent, is a key development and poverty issue. 

The reality is that just as often as we have been struggling to 

help countries reduce the problem of poverty, we also see, because 

of land degradation, that new population groups actually fall into 

poverty, because there is a lack of appropriate management of land 

resources, and plus other trends, such as climate change and climate variability, which are key issues as well. 

But we are working very closely and through the global environment facility, we have an instrument that is targeting interventions and to support countries to improve management of land in 

order to reverse desertification and improve the productivity of 

rural drylands in Africa. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me ask this. Is there—there are areas where—

I know a specific area where water management is not done as well 

as it could be. Very specifically, Egypt feels that it controls the 

Nile, and that the Nile River belongs to Egypt. That the history of 

Egypt has to do with the Nile, and anybody that has anything to 

do with the Nile must check with Egypt first. Of course, Egyptians 

probably don’t know geography too well, because the Nile does not 

start in Egypt. 

It happens to be privileged to flow through Egypt, and therefore 

the fertile crescent bed in the development of world culture was a 

benefactor. One of the problems in my opinion of the Sudan is that 

Egypt does not want two Sudans because they control Sudan and 

the water. And they have gone along with genocide and anything 

that the Government of Sudan does from Khartoum because of the 

flow of the Nile. It actually threatened Ethiopia with aggression if 

they tamper with the flow. 

And the Nile begins in Ethiopia and in Uganda, and it does not 

begin in Egypt. And there were some plans some 8 or 9 years ago 

that Ethiopia was interested in trying to prevent much of the wasted water that evaporates by altering some of the flow, which would 

29

have benefitted Ethiopia, and reduced the waste, and really had no 

impact on the flow of the Nile. 

And as a matter of fact, it had been much more efficient. Egypt 

said that any alteration was to them almost like a declaration of 

war. Has the UN been able to talk—because we were really interested in taking this case to a world court to determine who has jurisdiction over water that emanates out of that land—has there 

been any discussion, or have you heard of any of this quiet discussion that has gone on, regarding the Nile and Ethiopia and the 

source of the Nile in that manner? 

Mr. KJORVEN. Thank you very much. UNDP, together with several other agencies, and also supported significantly by the United 

States, has been working with all the riparians to the Nile for several years. Working very quietly to help the 10 countries that make 

up the whole river basin come together to try to change the paradigm that you refer to, with a kind of zero sum competition between the countries. 

And where you are right is that Egypt has tended to be the 

strong player in that game. This has changed rather significantly 

in recent years. We now have come to a point where the 10 governments share a commission and try to move forward together on the 

agenda of managing the Nile for the common good, and for all 

countries to come out as winners, rather than one country against 

all the others. 

Even Egypt and Ethiopia are now cooperating on the issues that 

were before totally off-subject. So we see a significant change, even 

though we still—the Nile is still in a sense formally governed by 

a treaty, and that goes back to, I think, the 1950s, and according 

to many observers gives Egypt more rights relatively speaking than 

other countries. 

However, even within that framework the riparian members of 

the Nile Basin Initiative, all 10 of them, or at least 9 with the exception of Eritrea, they are moving forward. And it is a significant 

achievement that is being made, not least thanks to support by the 

United States. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Tobin 

and Mr. Kjorven, thank you very much for a very illuminating testimony, and we appreciate it. We now will let you go, and invite 

our next panel forward. 

Mr. John Turner was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State 

for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

on November 13, 2001. Prior to his appointment, he was President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the Conservation Fund, a national 

non-profit organization dedicated to public-private partnerships to 

protect land and water resources. 

Assistant Secretary Turner received a Master of Science degree 

in Wildlife Ecology from the University of Michigan. Coincidentally, 

Mr. Turner recently returned from an official trip to the Jordan 

River Basin, where he researched water and sanitation issues. 

Ms. Jacqueline Schafer was appointed Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture, and 

Trade, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, in September 2002. 

30

She served as Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in the cabinet of Governor Jane D. Hall between 

1999 and 2002. Prior to that, she was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment by President 

George H.W. Bush. 

Mr. Turner, would you please proceed with a 5-minute summary, 

if you can do so. Your full statement will be made a part of the 

record. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. TURNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning 

and thank you and the other Members, especially Congressman 

Blumenauer, for prompting us all this morning to focus on the 

global crisis on access to water and sanitation, and I also appreciate your reference to my recent trip to the Jordan River basin to 

look at the issues of water and sanitation. That was motivated in 

part by the hearing that you conducted last year on that subject. 

Mr. Chairman, obviously there are many reasons that we should 

focus on this morning’s subject, and why we should all care about 

it. 

First, simply, for humanitarian reasons. As Dr. Tobin and others 

have pointed out, approximately 5,000 people die each day from 

preventable diarrhoeal diseases. This is a daily count somewhat 

equivalent to two World Trade Centers. 

Most of these deaths as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, are children under the age of 5. That is a child dying somewhere in the 

world every 15 seconds due to unsafe water, inadequate sanitation, 

and poor hygiene, a situation that I don’t think that any of us can 

tolerate. 

Sanitation is equally as important, especially for women and 

young girls. Many girls simply fail to attend school due to the lack 

of sanitation facilities and basic privacy. 

A second reason is the obvious link between health and economic 

development. Currently, over 50 percent of the world’s hospital 

beds are filled with patients suffering from water-related diseases. 

The World Health Organization estimates that by reducing by 

half the proportion of people that lack access to safe water and adequate sanitation, the world would save nearly $90 million annually. 

In agrarian-based developing countries the economic dependency 

on water is even greater. When it rains, economies prosper; when 

it doesn’t rain, those countries that lack the capacity to store and 

save water experience economic decline, food in security, and even 

famine. 

A third reason water is important is for stability reasons. Over 

40 percent of the world’s population live in more than 260 watersheds that are shared by two or more countries. As water becomes 

scarce, tensions over shared resources are likely to rise, both within countries and among countries. 

Fourth, I think we all recognize that water is an important tool 

in building democracies. Water is a motivator. People want to be 

31

invested in decisions that affect their well-being, and daily quality 

of life. They welcome participatory decision-making, transparency, 

and accountability associated with water use at the local, national, 

and regional levels. 

So what is the U.S. currently doing? Just briefly, at the State Department, our bureau works closely with USAID and other agencies to build strong connections between our diplomatic and development efforts. 

In our work, three shared priorities have emerged. First, we 

must combine water and health in any forward looking strategy. 

Two, we must promote integrated water resource management; and 

third, we all have to work to develop creative approaches to financing. 

The majority of U.S. assistance in these areas is implemented 

through multilateral partnerships among U.S. agencies with other 

donor nations, NGOs, and the business sector. 

For example, on the priority of water and health, at the recent 

UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the United States 

joined in the launch of the Health Through Water Partnership, 

which brought together a number of donor nations and international organizations. 

On integrated water management, the Department has worked 

with USAID and an international NGO called the Global Water 

Partnership to build a multi-donor program aimed at strengthening 

the capacities of countries to manage water, now being applied in 

15 different countries. 

The priority of financing is a major challenge. Meeting the long 

term water supply, sanitation, and waste water treatment needs in 

developing countries will require significant funding. 

The U.S. has pioneered an approach using partial loan guarantees and pooled financing that reduces investment risks to stimulate local currency investment for water-related infrastructure. These guarantees can leverage $10 to $20 for every dollar invested by the U.S. For example, in the Indian State of Tamil Nadu, 

a United States investment of approximately $400,000 mobilize 

nearly $6.4 million in private and public funding to provide water 

and sanitation services to some 600,000 people. 

We have learned a number of lessons over the past few years. 

First, saving lives requires that we address water sanitation and 

hygiene together. 

Second, our efforts must be demand driven. Stakeholders, especially local communities, must be involved. 

Third, we must seek sustainable approaches. This requires that 

countries have the capacity to maintain and operate infrastructure 

and manage water properly over the long term. 

Fourth, we must consider the cultural context of specific water 

interventions and technologies; and finally, the resources needed 

will far exceed the ability of any one donor or of all donors. 

So we must look to mobilize local capital, mitigate investment 

risks, and support local entrepreneurship. The good news is that I 

believe the United States and its partners are implementing some 

very successful strategies. 

Turning to H.R. 1973, while the Administration is not taking a 

formal position on this proposal, we are pleased to convey that the 

32

basic thrust of this legislation is strongly compatible with the approaches of the Administration and meeting the critical challenges 

of improving access to water and sanitation. 

We appreciate the bill’s recognition of the vital role that partnerships of other governments, the private sector, NGOs, and others 

can play. In looking forward, Mr. Chairman, the challenge for the 

world community is, obviously, how do we scale up our collective 

efforts to leave a more positive legacy for future generations and 

the globe? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to any 

questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. TURNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AF- FAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Chairman Hyde and other Members of the International Relations Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the global water 

crisis and U.S. strategies to increase access to safe water and sanitation. I will 

present a brief overview of the global water situation and then quickly highlight 

some of the efforts the Department has taken to address these issues along with 

a few comments on the proposed ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005.’’

THE GLOBAL WATER SITUATION

I can think of few challenges as important as water and sanitation for us to take 

on. Today, it is likely that more than 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking 

water; 2.6 billion people lack access to proper sanitation. Each year, over 3 billion 

people suffer from water related diseases: 2–5 million die. The CIA reports that, by 

2015, nearly half of the world’s population will live in countries that are waterstressed (i.e., have less than 1,700 cubic meters per capita per year). 

Why should we care? For humanitarian and health reasons: Each day, approximately 5,000 people die from preventable diarrhoeal diseases alone. This number 

does not include the millions of people with compromised immune systems, such as 

those with HIV/AIDS, or those suffering from malnutrition, where chronic exposure 

to unsafe water can be a key contributing factor in their death. Most of these deaths 

are in children under 5 years of age—that’s a child dying every fifteen seconds due 

to unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene. This human cost is 

unfathomable. Sanitation is equally as important—especially for women and girls. 

Women who don’t have access to sanitation facilities must often defecate in public 

or hold it in until nightfall. Many girls fail to attend school due to the lack of private sanitation facilities. These are conditions that undermine human well-being 

and dignity. 

We should also care for development reasons: Currently, over 50% of the world’s 

hospital beds are filled with patients suffering from water-related diseases. The 

WHO estimates that by reducing by half, the proportion of people that lack access 

to safe water and adequate sanitation the world would save nearly $90 billion annually. India alone loses 73 million working days per year due to the lack of clean 

water and inadequate sanitation. In agrarian-based developing countries the economic dependency on water is even greater—when it rains, economies can grow; 

when it doesn’t, those countries that lack the capacity to store and save water experience economic decline and food insecurity, even famine. We have seen cases where 

water mismanagement and water pollution can reduce GDP by more than 2%—

that’s enough to keep a country in poverty, or if remedied, set it on a path towards 

economic growth. Hurricane Mitch reminded us all of the tremendous economic 

damage that floods can bring to a region. Water is also a good investment. Depending on the region, investing a dollar in water supply and sanitation can yield as 

much as $34 in return. 

Water is also important for stability reasons. More than 260 watersheds are 

shared by two or more countries. Over 40% of the world’s population live in a shared 

basin. As water becomes scarce, tensions over shared resources are likely to rise—

both within countries and among countries. Promoting joint management and using 

water to build trust and cooperation in conflict-prone regions are important tools in 

reducing the risks of future conflicts. 

Finally, water can be an important tool in building democracies. Water is a 

motivator. Everyone everywhere wants reliable access to safe water. People want to 

33

be invested in decisions that affect their well-being. They welcome participatory decision making, transparency and accountability associated with water use at the 

local, national and regional levels. I recently heard an interesting story from a 

friend at Water Partners International—a U.S.-based NGO working internationally 

on water. He recounted a statement from one participant in a water project in Honduras that electing a representative to his community water committee was the first 

time in his life that he had voted. That’s democracy, that’s how to build a culture 

of democracy. 

In sum, the lack of access to safe water and sanitation, along with poor water 

management undermines human health and dignity, reduces economic productivity, 

and contributes to instability. 

OUR APPROACH

So what are we doing? OES works closely with USAID to build strong connections 

between our diplomatic and development efforts—an approach which has tremendous support within the Department and is yielding significant results internationally. On water, three shared priorities have emerged: water and health; integrated 

water resources management; and financing. The majority of U.S. assistance in 

these areas is captured under USAID’s ‘‘Water for the Poor’’ initiative which our 

USAID colleagues will discuss shortly. I will highlight some work in each area to 

give you an example of how we work together and a sense of what can be done to 

address the global water crisis. 

On water and health, the Department and USAID have been working CDC/HHS 

and other U.S. agencies to reduce the incidence of diarrheal disease in a number 

of ways including: increasing access to technologies to disinfect and safely store 

water at the household level (commonly known as ‘‘point-of-use’’ water treatment); 

promoting hygiene education; and supporting risk-based vulnerability analyses of 

water supply systems (known as water safety plans). The point-of-use approach is 

particularly appealing for two reasons: First, it can save lives now. Second, it’s market-based. In other words, many of these technologies can be locally manufactured 

and distributed at a profit for local entrepreneurs. Over time, our hope is that subsidies for these products can be reduced and, with the proper social marketing, the 

number of users will grow on their own. The international community has been 

hesitant to accept this approach. Over the years, the Department and USAID’s efforts through the G8 and other international fora have generated broader interest. 

At the thirteenth session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development last 

April, for example, the United States joined in launching the ‘‘Health through 

Water’’ partnership which brought together a number of donors including the UK, 

Australia, the WHO and UNICEF to mobilize resources and stimulate greater action 

around point-of-use and water safety plan approaches. 

On integrated water resources management, the Department has worked with 

USAID and an international NGO called the Global Water Partnership to build a 

multi-donor program aimed at strengthening the capacity of countries to manage 

water. Currently, more than five donor governments invest resources through this 

program in over fifteen countries around the world. One of these partners, the Netherlands, brings more than money to the partnership—they bring Royalty. The 

Crown Prince of Orange serves as a patron of the Global Water Partnership and 

works with us to raise the profile of these issues. Within the UN, we established 

the Shared Waters Initiative to strengthen cooperative management of shared water 

resources. Through this initiative, we are working to support regional dialogue in 

a number of key basins throughout the world—including the Nile—with donor partners such as the GEF, World Bank, Sweden and the Netherlands. 

Meeting the long-term water supply, sanitation and waste water treatment needs 

in developing countries will require money. Estimates vary, but it is clear that tens, 

perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed annually. Much of this will 

have to come from within the countries themselves. USAID pioneered an approach 

using partial loan guarantees that reduces investment risks to stimulate local currency investment in water-related infrastructure. With the backing of the U.S. 

Treasury, these guarantees leverage ten to twenty dollars for every dollar invested. 

Combined with financing mechanisms like those we have used in the United 

States—such as pooled funds and revolving funds—these approaches can provide 

sustainable financial support for both large scale projects and local entrepreneurs. 

In the Indian State of Tamil Nadu, for example, a U.S. investment of approximately 

$400,000 will mobilize nearly $6.4 million to provide water and sanitation services 

to an estimated 600,000 people. 

Together, the Department, USAID and EPA have worked through a number of 

international fora to increase the adoption of this approach among bilateral donors, 

34

international financial institutions and multilateral organizations. We have also 

sought out partners that can complement this approach to leverage additional resources. For example, the Department and USAID’s Office of Development Credit 

are now working with Japan in three countries to combine our loan guarantee 

mechanism with concessional lending from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation to support local infrastructure development. 

A WAY FORWARD

We’ve learned a number of lessons over the past few years. First, saving lives requires that we address water, sanitation and hygiene together. The health benefits 

will appear when we approach these needs in an integrated holistic manner. Second, 

our efforts must be demand-driven. Stakeholders must be involved. Third, we must 

seek sustainable approaches. This requires that countries have the capacity to maintain and manage infrastructure. When we help drill a well, we must ensure that 

it is done within the broader context of water use and reuse, considering agricultural needs, waste disposal, and longer-term groundwater quality. Fourth, we must 

consider the cultural context of specific water interventions and technologies. What 

works in Boise, might not work in Bangladesh. Finally, the resources needed will 

far exceed the abilities of any one donor—or all the donors—to provide. So, we must 

look to mobilize local capital, mitigate investment risks and support local entrepreneurship. And we must work in partnership—building coalitions with other countries, multilateral institutions, the private sector, faith-based group, and NGOs. In 

other words, diplomacy and development must go hand-in-hand. 

The good news is that the State Department and USAID have already been successfully working in this manner on water. 

WATER FOR THE POOR ACT OF 2005

While the Administration has not taken a formal position on the ‘‘Water for the 

Poor Act of 2005,’’ we are pleased to convey that the basic thrust of this legislation 

is strongly compatible with the Department’s views regarding the critical importance of these issues and the role that partnerships with governments, the private 

sector, NGOs and others can play. Success requires strong linkages between our diplomatic and development efforts; coordination among the agencies; partnerships 

with multilateral institutions and regional organizations—such as UN organizations, the World Bank, and the African Ministerial Council on Water; and engagement with the NGO, private sector and foundation communities. The Department, 

in close cooperation with USAID, is actively engaged in such an effort. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this committee on behalf of the 

Department of State. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Ms. Schafer. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JACKEE SCHAFER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, AGRICULTURE AND TRADE, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. SCHAFER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of Administrator 

Andrew Natsios of the United States Agency for International Development to discuss both the strategic approach and the concrete 

actions that USAID is taking to promote access to safe water and 

sanitation in developing countries. 

My State Department colleague has described the enormity of 

the global water challenge with great compassion and conviction. 

To achieve the Millennium Declaration drinking water target for 

2015 alone, for example, new services would need to be provided 

for 260,000 people every day between 2002 and 2015. 

The situation for sanitation is even more dramatic, and at least 

350,000 more people per day would require improved access to 

sanitation services. But access to services or lack thereof tells only 

part of the story. Solving the problem will require us to think beyond the hardware, the wells, the plumbing connections, to underVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
35

stand the roles of women, children, communities, and the local private sector, and to reform the national and municipal institutions 

that manage water supply and sanitation services, and protect the 

water resource itself so that today’s solutions endure for future 

generations. 

Building on more than five decades of engagement in the international water sector, USAID is an active participant in forging a 

globally accepted set of strategic principles for confronting the 

world’s water challenges. 

The water action plan agreed to by the G–8 countries at Evian, 

France, in 2003, fully reflects USAID’s strategic direction, and the 

five core principles in this plan provide a useful framework to understand how our agency is addressing global water security. 

These principles are to promote good governance, number one. 

That is, working to ensure that decisions about water resources are 

based on transparent, participatory and democratic institutions, 

with political commitments at the highest levels in each country to 

make necessary reforms and investments in the water sector. 

Two, utilize all financial resources. That is, employing donor assistance in a catalytic way to help committed countries tap the 

enormous amount of private sector financing available, while making public investments more efficient and sustainable. 

Three, building infrastructure by empowering local authorities in 

local communities. That is, creating local capacity to address water 

supply and sanitation needs through sound management from 

catchment to consumer, and ensuring fiscal responsibility for the 

ongoing maintenance of the water systems. 

Four, strengthening monitoring, assessment, and research; that 

is, fostering stewardship of the water resource itself by monitoring 

and assessing the quality and quantity of water resources to guarantee that there is sufficient clean water for personal health and 

hygiene, crops and livestock, municipal and industrial uses, and 

fish and wildlife, and their habitats. 

And, five, reinforce engagement of international organizations. 

That is, working constructively with others in the international 

water community, including donors, foundations, governments, 

faith-based and other non-profit organizations, community groups, 

universities, and the private sector, to bring our collective resources and expertise to bear on the global water challenge. 

Turning each of these principles into reality require just the 

kinds of strengths that USAID brings to the table, including our 

worldwide long-term field presence in more than 100 countries 

around the globe, and our capability to apply solutions that are appropriate to local circumstances. 

In the few minutes that I have, it is impossible to provide you 

with an in-depth view of USAID’s entire water portfolio, and so I 

ask with your permission, Mr. Chairman, that my full prepared 

statement be included in the record of this hearing. 

I would like to take this opportunity to go a little further from 

the introduction that Mr. Turner gave you about our Water for the 

Poor Initiative, and describe this program in a little bit more detail. 

For the past 3 years—that is, 2003, 2004, and 2005—USAID has 

been carrying out a government pledge to invest at least $970 milVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
36

lion directly in international water management activities, and to 

leverage millions more in private sector resources. 

The Water for the Poor Initiative was announced in 2002 at the 

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) by Secretary 

Powell and signaled the Administration’s commitment to U.S. global leadership in the water sector in three interrelated areas: Water 

supply and sanitation, watershed protection, and agricultural and 

industrial water productivity. 

As we end the 3-year initiative at the end of this fiscal year, as 

Mr. Smith pointed out, I am happy to report that USAID will 

greatly exceed the commitment to our water investment commitment at WSSD, and our total obligations are expected to reach $1.9 

billion, almost doubling the original pledge. 

I am running out of time to give you some details about what we 

have done with those water resources, but they fall into three categories; water supply and sanitation, watershed management, and 

water efficiency. Let me give you two examples if you will permit 

me. 

Beyond the direct number of people served—and we believe we 

are reaching 12 million additional people already for water supply, 

and 21 million additional people for sanitation services—we are 

particularly interested in maximizing the human health benefits 

associated with the infrastructure investments that we are making. 

What lies behind these figures is important, and we have learned 

what it takes to ensure that today’s water supply and sanitation 

investments last into the future. 

One innovative example is the safe water system which was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 

promoted by USAID, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization, 

and dozens of other public and private organizations in 28 countries. 

The safe water system includes the provision of locally-produced 

water disinfectant and safe water storage containers, and the promotion of improved hygiene behaviors to reduce diarrhoeal diseases 

in children under 5 years old, and other vulnerable populations. 

My second example is to tell you about the West Africa Water 

Initiative, or WAWI, for which is a partnership of 13 private and 

public organizations, where $5.5 million of USAID resources has 

been matched with $36 million from private organizations, such as 

the Conrad Hilton Foundation, World Vision, and UNICEF. 

The objective of this program is to invest in small scale potable 

water supply and sanitation activities in rural and periurban areas 

in Ghana, Mali, and Niger. And by 2008, a minimum of 825 bore 

holes and 9,000 latrines are anticipated, reaching more than 

450,000 people. 

The social, financial, and environmental sustainability of these 

systems is paramount for the WAWI partners, and all partners are 

insisting on investing heavily in community mobilization, governance, policy development, hydrogeological analysis, information 

management, income generation, and hygiene behavior changes as 

essential complements to the hardware investments that are made. 

So we are trying to take what is called a holistic approach to providing safe affordable water, and that is sustainable in these remote communities in this portion of Africa. 

37

I could go on and give you some more details. It is in my prepared testimony, but I don’t want to go too far beyond the 5-minute 

allocation. So I will conclude my statement there and say that I 

would be happy to try and answer any questions that the Committee Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Schafer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. JACKEE SCHAFER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH, AGRICULTURE AND TRADE, U.S. AGENCY FOR

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Introduction 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, for the 

opportunity to appear before you today as you consider the U.S. Government’s strategies to combat global water challenges, including access to safe water and sanitation in the developing world, and H.R. 1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005.’’ 

My summary statement, along with the submitted written testimony, responds to 

the Committee’s request for information on each of the topics listed in your letter 

of invitation to testify. 

The global water challenge is indeed large, but we are making progress. USAID’s 

interventions are strategic and focus on creating the enabling environment for 

sound governance and financing, creating partnerships in the public and private sectors, and leveraging resources. 

While it is correct to place emphasis on the delivery of water supply and sanitation services, we recognize that there is demand for reliable sources of clean water 

across multiple sectors in every country. USAID and other federal agencies involved 

in the delivery of technical assistance in the water sector remain committed to promoting the efficient management and development of water resources, consistent 

with the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), tailored to 

local conditions, and in partnership with government, private sector, and civil society institutions wherever we work. 

We are more clearly articulating a shared understanding of the central role that 

water security plays in virtually all areas of the U.S. international development 

agenda. All of USAID’s major goals and several U.S. national interests are affected 

by our success in achieving integrated water resources management, including 

peace and national security, economic and food security, human health, ecological 

sustainability, humanitarian response, and democracy and human rights (see Box 

1). 

BOX 1—WATER AND THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST

• Peace and National Security. Water security at the local, national, and 

transboundary scale can contribute enormously to promoting a peaceful and 

secure world, fostering local and international cooperation, and preventing a 

myriad of foreign policy, diplomatic, and security problems.

• Economic and Food Security. Sustainable water resources management has 

significant implications for promoting economic growth and agricultural productivity worldwide, and can yield concrete benefits for U.S. private sector 

abroad.

• Human Health. Water insecurity has a direct bearing on the health of billions 

of people around the world, due to insufficient water, water contamination 

from human activities, and poor sanitation and hygiene practices.

• Ecological Sustainability. Appropriate water quantity and quality guarantee 

the sustainability of ecosystems upon which human societies and economies 

depend today and in the future.

• Humanitarian Response. Actions to predict, prevent, prepare for, mitigate, 

and respond to natural and human caused water-related disasters can help 

protect huge populations, especially the most vulnerable, and limit damage to 

billions of dollars in property and infrastructure necessary for economic survival.

• Democracy and Human Rights. Democracy and water security are mutually 

reinforcing goals, and democratic forms of governance are both a requirement 

for and a product of sustainable, integrated water resources management 

(IWRM). 

38

1See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000 (http://

daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N00/631/37/PDF/N0063137.pdf?OpenElement) and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation 2002 (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/

WSSDlPOIlPD/English/POIToc.htm) 2http://www.g8.fr/evian/english/navigation/2003lg8lsummit/summitldocuments/

waterlalg8lactionlplan.html 

The U.S. Strategic Framework in International Water 

USAID has worked in the water sector since the 1960s. In the early decades of 

its work, the Agency engaged in a wide range of water-related activities, including 

dam construction, irrigation works and agricultural practices, water and sanitation 

infrastructure, and capacity and institution building across the entire spectrum. 

With lower funding levels in recent decades, as well as an increased emphasis on 

the human, social, economic and political dimensions of water resources management, interventions moved away from capital infrastructure activities toward the 

policies, laws, institutions, operational strategies, and financing necessary to build 

upon and sustain progress over the longer-term. In strategic states such as Egypt, 

Jordan, West Bank/Gaza, and most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, USAID continues to invest in capital infrastructure, including public works for water supply 

and sanitation. USAID also undertakes capital projects in post-emergency humanitarian and reconstruction response, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or the recent 

South Asia tsunami. Such capital intensive projects have been the exception. Our 

strategic approach has been to work with countries that have made clean water and 

public health a national goal to improve water sector institutions and reform water 

and sewerage utilities so they are financially sustainable and capable of providing 

reliable and affordable water to their people. 

Since 1998, USAID has become increasingly engaged in the international dialogue 

on water, sharing the Agency’s technical experience and promoting policy initiatives 

and development models at globally recognized events, including the World Water 

Forums (2000; 2003), the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 2002), 

and the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD, 2004; 2005). USAID has 

supported the USG commitment to the internationally agreed goals contained within the Millennium Declaration and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation related to water, sanitation, and water resources management (see Box 2).1

BOX 2—SHARING AN INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT

USAID is working with other U.S. Government agencies and the international community to accelerate and expand international efforts to achieve 

both United Nations Millennium Declaration Goals and the Johannesburg Plan 

of Implementation resolutions related to water, sanitation and Integrated Water 

Resources Management (IWRM):

‘‘Halve, by the year 2015......the proportion of people who are unable to 

reach or afford safe drinking water’’ (Millennium Declaration)

‘‘Halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach 

or to afford safe drinking water....and the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation.’’ (Johannesburg Plan)

‘‘Develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency 

plans by 2005, with support to developing countries......’’ (Johannesburg 

Plan) 

Water: A G–8 Plan of Action (2003) 

Building on the outcomes of these international events and declarations, the G8 

countries agreed to a ‘‘Water Action Plan’’ at the G8 Summit at Evian, France in 

2003.2 This Plan lays out principles that reflect USAID’s strategic direction in the 

international water sector, and provides a useful framework to understand the 

Agency’s programming priorities for water supply, sanitation, and water resources 

management. 

The Plan lays out five major areas in which USAID is currently taking a significant leadership role in its international water programs:

• Promoting good governance;

• Utilizing all financial resources;

• Building infrastructure by empowering local authorities and communities;

• Strengthening monitoring, assessment, and research; and

39

• Reinforcing engagement of international organizations

While each of these areas will be discussed separately, USAID’s water sector activities individually and collectively incorporate and integrate all of these core strategic principles to maximize the effectiveness of the Agency’s investments. 

Promoting good governance is at the very heart of the U.S. international water 

sector strategy. USAID actively promotes an integrated water resources management approach, emphasizing transparent and capable institutional and legal frameworks from the local to the river basin, watershed, or coastal landscape scale. The 

Agency’s interventions furthermore work to build the political will and commitment 

of countries to ensure both adequate delivery of water, sanitation, and hygiene services and the sustainability and protection of the water and watershed resources and 

ecosystems upon which these services depend, including lakes, reservoirs, rivers, 

groundwater, and coastal/estuarine zones (see Box 3). 

BOX 3—PROMOTING GOOD GOVERNANCE

• Integrated river basin management, governance, and institutional strengthening has been the focus of efforts in Morocco’s Souss-Massa River Basin, 

where USAID’s investment over 10 years has improved water resources management and developed a model for basin governance that can be replicated 

throughout the country.

• In the Okavango River Basin in Southern Africa, a new USAID 

transboundary activity will work to strengthen the capacity of the regional 

river basin commission and participating governments to reform policies, improve water management planning, and encourage more efficient utilization 

of water resources among competing sectors. The project will develop the capacity of communities to manage water and ecological resources in a sustainable manner.

• A long-standing program in the 326,000-hectare Panama Canal Watershed

supports watershed and land use management to ensure efficient operation 

of the Canal, protect biodiversity, and enhance livelihoods of residents. Institutional strengthening at the watershed scale is coupled with local governance support and promotion of best practices to maintain vegetative cover, 

protect water quality, and strengthen protected areas management.

• In Jamaica, USAID is the leader on a ‘Ridge-to-Reef’ approach in target watersheds and coastal areas, focusing on reducing the impact of contamination 

from agricultural runoff and nutrient-rich sewage effluent through interventions for improved agricultural practices and watershed management, education, and enforcement. The program utilizes a participatory governance approach to identify and prioritize interventions and has established extensive 

stakeholder and community consultations to achieve local ownership and commitment.

• In Indonesia, USAID has linked the delivery of services in water supply, sanitation and hygiene to upper watershed management and the maintenance of 

the environmental services provided by intact systems. A focus on improved 

health through integrated water supply and sanitation services, hygiene behavioral change, food security, and healthy ecosystems is undertaken through 

the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making, the full engagement of 

the public and private sectors, as well as the proper policy and enabling environment for financial and environmental sustainability.

• USAID’s support to Romania replaces a centralized governance approach with 

a participatory, demand-driven system for more sustainable water resources 

management. Through participation in Water Users Associations (WUAs), 

farmers in the Danube River Valley were trained in improved irrigation and 

soil management practices. Ongoing training and technical assistance supports WUAs and relevant agencies with WUA organization, management, financial administration, and operation and maintenance of irrigation systems.

• USAID has supported a worldwide program to improve integrated lake and 

reservoir basin management, with pilot projects in India, Nicaragua, 

Kyrgyzstan, Philippines, Armenia, Ethiopia, and Indonesia. The effort established an international network of lake basin managers for increased awareness and exchange of information. It also develops and distributes best management practices, develops and provides access to lake basin management 

tools, and provides technical assistance for capacity building in select lake 

basin communities and countries. Partners included LakeNet, the InterVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
40

national Lake Environment Committee, the Japanese Prefecture of Shiga, the 

World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, and lake managers and researchers from over 25 countries.

• Integrated water resources management is a major focus of USAID’s assistance to Jordan and supports the effective use of reclaimed water, the promotion of irrigation efficiency, the reduction of unaccounted-for municipal 

water, and improved cost recovery. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation 

(MWI), with USAID support, has helped satisfy the rapidly growing demands 

of communities, industries, and farmers in the face of very limited water resources. As the leading donor in the water sector, USAID has provided a mix 

of construction activities, technical assistance, and institutional strengthening. 

Utilizing all financial resources from the public and private sectors is absolutely 

necessary to address the enormous water challenges facing the developing world. 

Access to clean drinking water and adequate sanitation in particular will only become a reality through substantial private sector investment and public-private investments in the protection of water source areas. Mobilizing these resources is a 

formidable challenge and will require significant legal and regulatory reforms and 

interventions, credit enhancements, commercial advisors and managers, an enabling 

public sector, and a public willing to pay market-based rates for water. USAID is 

a global leader in promoting innovative models to leverage capital for water and 

wastewater infrastructure through loan guarantees and other credit enhancements, 

revolving funds, private sector partnerships, payments for environmental services, 

and enhanced donor coordination (see Box 4). 

BOX 4—UTILIZING ALL FINANCIAL RESOURCES

• In India, USAID used its Development Credit Authority (DCA) as a credit enhancement for the pooled financing of several municipal urban infrastructure 

projects. DCA is a proven and effective tool that permits USAID to issue partial loan guarantees to private lenders to achieve economic development objectives, helping mobilize local capital in creditworthy but underserved markets. 

In the state of Tamil Nadu, $6.4 million was made available to participating 

municipalities, providing benefits to an estimated 593,000 people. The pooled 

financing mechanism supported by DCA will provide investment funds to 

small and medium urban local bodies (ULBs) to implement water and sanitation projects, which will benefit low-income populations. USAID also used a 

DCA guarantee to support the second pooled municipal bond issuance to improve and expand provision of water and sewerage services in the Bangalore 

Metropolitan Area, through a $21.7 million bond for eight municipalities.

• DCA credit enhancement in South Africa, complemented by technical assistance and utility performance standards, is supporting water and sanitation 

service expansion. Municipal management improvements are matched with 

capital investment, resulting in expanded quality and quantity of water and 

sanitation services to the urban poor. This effort builds on successful financing of earlier water projects, such as municipal loans to the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council, which the DCA helped place with ABSA Bank.

• Private sector participation in the infrastructure sector has historically been 

limited in Egypt. With USAID assistance, however, the Ministry of Housing 

and the South Sinai governorate in Egypt agreed to outsource the operations 

and maintenance for an entire water system covering nine cities, including 

plants, pumping stations, and networks. Under this new arrangement, the 

governorate focused on contract management and collections, and held the 

contractor accountable for performance through a performance-based contract. 

With a DCA guarantee, local commercial banks will provide up to $40 million 

in loans to improve and expand water and wastewater services, and serve as 

a model for replication in other parts of the country.

• In the Philippines, as part of the U.S.-Japan Clean Water for People Initiative announced at WSSD, USAID and JBIC launched the ‘‘Municipal Water 

Loan Financing Initiative’’ (MWLFI) with local partners, the Development 

Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and the Local Government Unit Guarantee 

Corporation (LGUGC). The MWLFI will facilitate the financing of local water 

supply and sanitation programs by combining Japanese development assistance funds with a matching amount of private sector Philippines resources 

41

guaranteed by LGUGC and DCA. The ‘‘Philippines Water Revolving Fund’’ 

was also initiated based on a U.S. state/local model, and the government of 

the Philippines is receiving assistance to make the necessary regulatory 

changes to establish the fund. This model is being followed closely by the governments of other Asian countries.

• In Mexico, USAID supported the development of a national regulatory framework that allows for the creation of municipal bonds. Having achieved success, USAID’s partners are now working with municipalities to structure favorable bond issuances that enable the municipalities to tap the local capital 

market to finance vital infrastructure projects.

• Working with a variety of partners in Latin America and Asia, USAID is exploring ways to link payment by downstream users for environmental services 

provided by upland watersheds, as a way to promote watershed management. 

USAID projects in Jamaica, Tanzania, and Panama are in various stages of 

analysis, development and implementation of such mechanisms to support financing of environmental services provided by healthy watersheds, including 

safeguarding water supplies and reducing sedimentation into hydroelectric 

dams. 

USAID programs are likewise committed to building infrastructure by empowering 

local authorities and communities through programs that promote community ownership and participation; decentralized and transparent governance; household level 

technologies for basic sanitation and safe drinking water; and the vital role that 

women play in meeting community water, sanitation, and hygiene goals. USAID is 

especially committed to improving the reach of our foreign assistance mandate by 

increased involvement in public-private alliances, and created the Global Development Alliance (GDA) to support the development and consolidation of such partnerships. By forging and supporting alliances in the water sector, USAID is helping to 

mobilize the ideas, efforts, and resources of governments, businesses, and civil society to address the need for water supply, sanitation, and sustainable financing (see 

Box 5). 

BOX 5—BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE BY EMPOWERING LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND

COMMUNITIES

• The West Africa Water Initiative (WAWI) is a $42 million, seven-year partnership of thirteen private and public organizations created in 2002 by the 

Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. WAWI’s objective is to invest in small-scale potable water supply and sanitation activities in rural and peri-urban areas in 

Ghana, Mali, and Niger, with these activities serving as the entry point for 

an integrated approach to water resources management and development. 

USAID’s commitment as part of this alliance is about $5.5 million to be spent 

over four years (FY02–05), matched by over $18 million from the Hilton Foundation, and an equal amount from the other partners. The full range of activities that will be undertaken by all partners includes enhanced governance 

and the enabling environment, well drilling and rehabilitation, alternative 

water source development, construction of latrines, household and school 

based sanitation and hygiene education, community mobilization, 

hydrogeological analysis, policy development, livelihoods, income generation 

and food security, information management, and gender mainstreaming. By 

2008, a minimum of 825 boreholes, 100 alternative water sources for income 

generation, and 9,000 latrines are anticipated, reaching more than a 450,000 

people. The WAWI partnership is currently engaged in strategic planning 

about the future, including consideration of how to replicate and scale up its 

model. 

Partners: Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, USAID, World Vision, WaterAid, 

UNICEF, Desert Research Institute (DRI), Winrock International, the Cornell 

International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD), Lions 

Clubs International, the International Trachoma Institute, the World Chlorine 

Council, the U.N. Foundation, and Helen Keller International.

• The Safe Drinking Water Alliance is a strategic public-private collaboration 

to develop innovative program approaches for ensuring the safety of household water intended for human consumption. In late 2003, USAID, Johns 

Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs, CARE, Population Services International, and Procter & Gamble 

42

joined forces to leverage their respective expertise and resources to better understand the behaviors and motivations for choosing particular technologies 

for treating household water, share the knowledge gained, and identify opportunities for scaling up successful efforts to ensure safe drinking water. USAID 

is supporting the Alliance with $1.4 million to implement programs in Pakistan, Haiti, and Ethiopia which leverage in-kind and financial contributions 

from Procter & Gamble estimated at approximately $3.5 million, as well as 

technical and program support resources from the other partners. 

Partners: USAID, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs, CARE, Population Services International 

(PSI), and Procter & Gamble

• USAID is launching a new global Community Watershed Partnership with 

The Coca-Cola Company to provide grants in eligible beneficiary countries to 

support community watershed protection and improved water supply and 

sanitation for the world’s poor. Projects will involve collaboration among 

USAID Missions and implementing partners, local and national governments, 

and local Coca-Cola bottlers to develop and implement a range of activities 

appropriate for each country. In the first year, the $2.3 million partnership 

will initiate activities in Mali, Bolivia, and one other location to be selected 

through a competitive grants process. 

Partners: USAID, The Coca Cola Company, and the Global Environment 

and Technology Foundation 

Sound water resources management requires strengthening monitoring, assessment, and research in order to support water resources management decision-making with sound science and information. USAID is supporting data-collection and information management in most of its country-level programs. For example, in the 

Okavango River Basin in southern Africa and the Kura-Aras Basin of the South 

Caucasus, transboundary information collection, management, and data-sharing 

protocols are fundamental to the larger tasks of river basin management. Other examples include the installation of automated meteorological stations to improve the 

regional network for weather and snowmelt data collection in the five Central Asian 

Republics; remote sensing and GIS analysis applied to drought forecasting in Africa 

and lake basin management in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia; and participatory water 

quality monitoring in the Pastaza River in Peru. The Agency also supports sectorlevel applied research through its core support to international research networks 

and universities (see Box 6). 

BOX 6—STRENGTHENING MONITORING, ASSESSMENT, AND RESEARCH

• Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs) are communities of U.S. 

Land Grant Universities that work with developing country agricultural research systems, international agricultural research centers, U.S. agribusinesses, private voluntary organizations, developing country colleges and 

universities, USAID, and other federal agencies such as USDA. Water-related 

applied research, development of decision-support methods, development and 

dissemination of technical tools and approaches to increase efficiency and sustainability, and building of local capacity for participatory governance and 

management are promoted through CRSPs that focus specifically on Pond Dynamics/Aquaculture (PD/A) and Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM).

• The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is an 

association of public and private members supporting a system of 15 International Agricultural Research Centers that work in more than 100 countries. 

The CGIAR mobilizes cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. The Group’s 

mission is to contribute to food security and poverty eradication in developing 

countries through research, partnerships, capacity building, and policy support thereby promoting sustainable agricultural development based on the 

sound management of natural resources. USAID provides core support to several CGIAR centers, including the International Water Management Institute 

(IWMI) and the World Fish Center. In addition, since 2000, IWMI staff members have participated in long-term secondments to the USAID Water Team.

• USAID is supporting development of a methodology to determine the needs 

for Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. In late 2003, USAID, The Nature ConserVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
43

vancy and the University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center launched 

an ambitious project to develop and apply low-cost methods for assessing 

changes in volumes, pulsing, and quality of water to estuaries, and to work 

with governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to formulate action 

strategies to begin to address the consequences of such changes. Pilot initiatives are underway in both the Dominican Republic (the Yuna River/Samana 

Bay) and in Mexico (Laguna de Terminos), and a Methods Guide will be available in early 2006.

• Methodologies and approaches adapted to the developing country context in 

Water Resources and Watershed Economic Valuation have also been advanced 

by USAID through pilot activities in Latin America and elsewhere, documentation of lessons learned, and dissemination of a ‘‘how-to’’ manual for 

USAID officers to integrate valuation approaches in their water management 

programs. 

Finally, USAID collaborates with other donors and international actors to reinforce engagement of international organizations in the common goal to avert a world 

water crisis and meet the global challenges to provide water supply, sanitation, and 

sustainable water resources and watershed management for all. USAID works with 

national governments, financial institutions, and others to leverage capital from private domestic markets through sub-sovereign lending, guarantee and insurance 

schemes for risk mitigation, and sovereign and foreign exchange risk coverage. The 

Agency also engages at the highest levels with major international organizations 

(including the UN agencies, International Financial Institutions (IFIs), other bilateral donors, international public-private networks, non-governmental organizations) 

to advance collaboration on integrated water resources management (see Box 7). 

BOX 7—REINFORCE ENGAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

• USAID has partnered with the U.S. Department of State and the Global 

Water Partnership (GWP) to advance the development of Integrated Water 

Resources Management (IWRM) Plans at the national level in three target 

countries—El Salvador, Ethiopia and Indonesia. The project seeks to improve 

management of water resources and increase access to safe drinking water 

and sanitation through building national capacity to develop, manage, and 

implement integrated water plans; strengthen civil society involvement in the 

development planning process; and support transparent and accountable 

water governance in each focus country. In addition, the process will promote 

greater engagement by countries with the donor and NGO communities to develop specific activities that address priority needs. Progress made by the 

focus countries will serve as a model for ‘‘bottom-up,’’ partnership-driven approach to sustainable development and strengthens a mechanism other donors can use to support country efforts to develop integrated water resource 

management plans.

• Along with other major international organizations including the World Bank 

and UNICEF, USAID is a founding member of The Global Public-Private 

Partnership for Handwashing with Soap, which works to reduce the incidence 

of diarrheal diseases in developing countries by promoting changed hand 

washing behaviors. The initiative brings together the public sector, soap companies, and leading research institutions, making use of market and consumer studies to develop professional campaigns targeting high-risk groups 

such as children and mothers. Campaign channels include mass media, direct 

consumer contact, and government programs. Initiatives are active in Ghana, 

Nepal, Peru and Senegal. A global team closely monitors and synthesizes experiences to enable the continued development of state-of-the-art programs 

worldwide. Other partners include The World Bank and WSP, the London 

School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Academy for Educational Development, USAID, UNICEF, the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership, and 

soap manufactures such as Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, and 

Unilever.

• The Cities Alliance was launched by the World Bank and United Nations 

Centre for Human Settlements (UN-Habitat) in 1999, with members including all the G–7 governments plus Brazil, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, 

the Asian Development Bank, UN-Habitat, the United Nations Environment 

Programme, the World Bank, and local authorities, represented by United 

44

Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and Metropolis. Alliance partners have 

joined forces to expand the level of resources reaching the urban poor, by improving the coherence of effort among on-going urban programs, and by more 

directly linking grant-funded urban development cooperation with investment 

follow-up. Created in 2002, The Community Water and Sanitation Facility 

(CWSF) within the Cities Alliance increases access to water and sanitation 

by providing grants to catalyze community-endorsed construction of improved 

water and sanitation services, and risk sharing and innovative financing. 

CWSF, through partnerships with private sector businesses, foundations, 

NGOs, CBOs, bilateral donors, multi-lateral development banks, and national 

and local governments will mobilize resources to support the efforts of slum 

dwellers and municipal governments to scale-up improvements in water access and sanitation. 

Coordination and Implementation of Water Activities at USAID 

Consistent with all of USAID’s work, the Agency’s portfolio of water activities is 

largely (but not exclusively) comprised of activities led by more than 100 Regional 

and Bilateral Missions and their implementing partners. Guided by our belief that 

water resource management problems and development challenges are best addressed by locally driven solutions, in locally appropriate ways, our worldwide portfolio of activities in 78 countries is designed and implemented in direct consultation 

with local and national partners and in the context of USAID country strategic 

planning. All activities emphasize and track measurable outcomes. 

The Agency targets and tracks progress in 13 categories of water-related activities, including those related to: (1) water supply, sanitation, and wastewater management; (2) natural resources management; (3) economic development and food security; and (4) disaster preparedness. As for technical and sectoral areas of focus, 

an analysis of USAID’s portfolio and expenditures reveals that Regional Bureaus 

and Missions are engaged in a broad spectrum of water activities across all sectors. 

For example, we have activities focused on the health and welfare of rural households (water supply, point of use water treatment and safe storage of water in the 

household, sanitation, and hygiene promotion), on the needs of urban areas (infrastructure and improved utility operations), on economic growth (often with emphasis 

on energy and industry), on food security (irrigated agriculture and soil/water quality), and on disaster management and humanitarian response. 

To complement these targeted, locally demand-driven efforts, we strive to ensure 

that lessons learned are shared across the Agency’s portfolio, and that an IWRM 

approach increasingly informs strategic plans and activity designs. In this way we 

continually endeavor to capture the best of USAID’s local experience while sharing 

knowledge about the best of the world’s experience with our Mission program staff. 

Our Agency Water Team is a good example of how we are working to coordinate 

across sectors, across Bureaus and Missions, and across agencies. We have several 

units at USAID/Washington that work on various parts of the integrated water resources management challenge, and these include our Urban Programs Team, our 

new Engineering and Infrastructure Office, our Office of Development Credit, our 

Global Health Bureau, our Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and each of our 

four Regional Bureaus. All of these units and more participate on our extended 

Agency Water Team which provides Mission support, knowledge management, and 

technical leadership in interagency processes and international fora. In this fashion, 

we coordinate internally, while contributing to and keeping abreast of the latest developments and best practices in the field of IWRM. 

Beyond this considerable pool of technical expertise within the Agency, our implementation partners bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to our collective efforts. Our partners include universities, NGOs, faith-based organizations, international institutions (including the CGIAR centers), and a number of highly experienced private firms involved in the delivery of water services for decades. USAID’s 

long-term presence in target countries provides a particular advantage in such collaborations, by establishing continuity with foreign governments and other partners, 

and providing necessary contextual perspective to achieve the aims of IWRM. 

USAID Investment and Impact in the Water Sector 

Water for the Poor Initiative 

In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the $970 million U.S. Government ‘‘Water for the Poor’’ Signature Initiative at the World Summit for Sustainable 

Development in Johannesburg. The three-year initiative has provided substantial 

45

resources to improve sustainable management of water resources and address needs 

for increased access to water and sanitation. 

Over the two and a half years since WSSD, USAID has made major progress in 

addressing the serious water resource management concerns facing developing countries around the world in each of the three component areas of the Initiative:

• access to clean water and sanitation services;

• improved watershed management; and

• increased water productivity. 

Summary of Investments to Date 

USAID will greatly exceed its commitment to water investments made at WSSD. 

The three-year total ‘‘Water for the Poor’’ Initiative obligations almost double the 

original commitment announced (with $970 million pledged, and an estimated actual total of $1.9 billion invested).

• Included in the ‘‘Access to Clean Water and Sanitation Services’’ category are 

projects involving construction and rehabilitation of water treatment plants, 

water and sewer networks, wells, and sewage treatment plants, as well as 

health and hygiene promotion programs that will vastly increase the health 

impact of infrastructure investments. Over the three years of the Initiative, 

USAID originally committed to providing $510 million in programs worldwide 

for water supply, sanitation and health projects. In the first two years of the 

Initiative, and excluding expenditures in Iraq, USAID actually invested about 

$400 million in over 60 countries to improve water services, sanitation, and 

wastewater treatment services to underserved populations. Estimates for the 

third year of the Initiative indicate an additional $392 million to be spent, 

bringing the three-year total for the category (not counting Iraq) to $792 million. Water supply, sanitation, and wastewater obligations in Iraq from 

FY03–05 add another $562 million to this amount, for a grand total of $1.31 

billion over three years. In addition, USAID’s Development Credit Authority 

has helped secure loan portfolio guarantees in South Africa, The Philippines, 

Morocco, India, Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Honduras, and Ukraine, all expected to leverage over $228 million in private funds for water supply and 

wastewater services to supplement direct assistance.

• The second principal component of the Water for the Poor Initiative is ‘‘Improved Watershed Management.’’ USAID committed to investing nearly $400 

million over the three-year Initiative to integrate surface water, aquifer, and 

coastal zone issues to protect watersheds and better manage water and coastal resources. Activities include the development of policies, institutions, and 

management strategies at the regional, national, and local scales for improved watershed management and interventions to reduce water pollution. 

In the first two years of the Initiative, USAID invested $189 million on integrated watershed and coastal area management in over 50 countries, excluding Iraq. An additional $103 million is estimated to be spent in 2005, bringing 

the three-year total for the category (less Iraq) to $292 million. Iraq expenditures from FY03–05 add about $5 million more, for a grand total to $297 million over three years. The original target of $400 million was based on 

straight-line projections from prior year obligations, and the shortfall during 

this recent three-year period is explained by shifting priorities and programs, 

including greater investments in the other two components of the Water for 

the Poor Initiative.

• The final component of the Water for the Poor Initiative is ‘‘Increased Water 

Productivity’’. In many parts of the world, water is becoming a constraint to 

economic growth and food production. Increasing diversions of surface water, 

over-abstraction of groundwater, and water quality deterioration threaten the 

sustainability of the resource and, in turn, the food production systems and 

economies. The productivity of water use can be improved in the agricultural, 

industrial, and commercial sectors. However, at the global level, agriculture 

consumes more than 70 percent of the freshwater used, and some of the most 

significant savings can be made by improving the efficiency of water use in 

that sector. In some countries, such as many in sub-Saharan Africa, there is 

potential to couple conservation and demand management with further development of water resources for agriculture and aquaculture. As part of the 

Water for the Poor Initiative, the United States committed to investing $60 

million over three years to ensure that agricultural and industrial water use 

is as productive as possible. In the first two years of the Initiative, USAID 

invested $184 million in water productivity activities in 40 countries. In 2005, 

46

$43 million additional is expected to be spent, bringing the three-year total for 

the category (less Iraq) to $227 million. An additional $23 million has been 

spent in Iraq from FY03–05, making the grand total invested in this category 

$249 million over three years.

The Water for the Poor Initiative commitment and actual obligated amounts for 

the three years of the Initiative are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED USAID OBLIGATIONS WATER FOR 

THE POOR INITIATIVE—FY 2003–2005

(millions of dollars) 

CATEGORY 

YEAR 

2003 2004 2005 ALL 

YEARS 

TOTAL WITHOUT IRAQ

Water Supply, Sanitation, Hygiene 159.86 239.825 391.83 791.515

Watershed Management 105.656 83.338 103.154 292.148

Water Productivity 115.606 68.414 42.815 226.835

SUBTOTAL 381.122 391.577 537.799 1310.498

IRAQ ONLY

Water Supply, Sanitation, Hygiene 218.863 324.935 17.8 561.598

Watershed Management 4 1 0 5

Water Productivity 0 22.652 0 22.652

SUBTOTAL 222.863 348.587 17.8 589.25

GRAND TOTAL INCLUDING IRAQ 603.985 740.164 555.599 1899.748

Summary of Impacts to Date 

Among the major results achieved since the onset of the Initiative in the 78 countries where the Agency has implemented water programs, USAID can report that:

• Over 12,163,000 people in developing countries have received improved access 

to clean water supply;

• Over 21,395,000 people have received improved access to adequate sanitation;

• Over 2,400 watershed governance groups were convened and supported to undertake ongoing basin-scale, integrated water resources decision-making to 

address a diversity of water uses and needs; and

• Over 203 watershed management plans have been developed and approved by 

stakeholders at the watershed or basin scale.

Beyond these raw numbers, the types of interventions funded by USAID have contributed to a permanent shift in the way in which water resources management and 

water supply and sanitation service delivery are approached in the countries served, 

including:

• Improved institutions and enabling policies to permit mobilization of domestic 

capital from public and private sources to meet the needs of unserved populations in water supply and sanitation;

• Enhanced capacity of communities, governments, civil society, and the private 

sector to manage water resources and provide services in an efficient and effective manner;

• Strengthened structures for transparent, democratic governance, decisionmaking, and conflict resolution about water resources shared among many 

users;

47

3WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme. Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. 2004. 4WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme. Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. 2004. 5World Panel on Financing Infrastructure, Michel Camdessus Chair. Financing Water for All. 

March 2003. 

• Increased opportunities for constructive partnerships between the public and 

private sectors, and among donors and international institutions;

• Increased sustainability of the natural resource base required to provide 

water services and process waste products;

• A more integrated vision and technical approach that links benefits from 

water resources management to other development goals including health, 

economic growth, education, and democracy and governance. 

Looking Ahead: Water in the USAID Strategic Framework 

The Agency is presently revising its approach to strategic planning, in general, 

moving beyond individual country strategies towards a core set of shared Agency 

Program Components, coupled with regional strategic frameworks that more comprehensively and strategically identify needs and priorities. Water-related activities 

are directly addressed in 3 of the 40 program components that will be explicitly targeted and tracked in the new Agency framework, and indirectly addressed in many 

others. One of USAID’s new program components and associated common indicators 

deals directly with improving access to clean water and sanitation. 

Our Regional Bureaus are now developing their own strategic frameworks consistent with the overall USAID program components, while remaining focused on 

the comparative advantage that USAID has within their region, and the mix of 

international interests and factors that must be considered in designing development assistance activities. Those regional frameworks are just emerging, but some 

can be expected to focus on the central role that successful water resources management plays in achieving and sustaining development objectives, including the reduction of conflict. 

Financing water infrastructure is another major development challenge. For the 

Middle East alone, for example, to raise region-wide coverage to 90 per cent for 

water supply and 80 per cent for sewerage and sanitation, the World Bank estimates that additional water investment requirements are on the order of $5 billion 

annually. Funds from the international donor community are expected to meet less 

than 5 per cent of the financing needs. Access to clean drinking water and sanitation for much of the world will only become a reality through substantial municipal 

and private sector investment. USAID believes that regional solutions will play an 

important role in resolving serious water shortages, and our emerging Regional Bureau strategic frameworks will support the establishment of enabling environments 

and pooled financing mechanisms needed to attract municipal and private sector investment for water infrastructure. 

All regions where USAID works are committed to addressing water resources 

management and water supply and sanitation service delivery in the most strategic 

and appropriate ways possible within the context of other national priorities, as well 

as Agency and U.S. government commitments and funding realities for each region. 

Donor Coordination 

To achieve the drinking water target in the Millennium Declaration for 2015, an 

additional 1.2 billion people will need access from 2002 to 2015. This number translates into providing new services for 260,000 people every day until 2015. The situation for sanitation is even more dramatic, and at least 1.8 billion will require sanitation from 2002 to 2015, or 350,000 new people per day.3

The total costs of meeting these 2015 targets depend on the type and level of service that will be provided, and the strategies employed to reduce the service deficit. 

The choice of countries, the urban-rural balance of the target group, the specific subpopulations targeted, and the technologies and service standards applied will all 

have a significant bearing on actual costs to meet these goals. Using the most basic 

standards of service and technology, it is estimated that the 2015 goals could be attained at an extra annual investment cost of about $10–12 billion.4 However, providing full water and sewerage connections and primary wastewater treatment to 

unserved urban populations would raise the annual cost of the 2015 goal to $17 billion for water and $32 billion for sanitation and sewerage, or a total of $49 billion 

annually.5

Going beyond water supply and sanitation alone, in 2000 the World Water Commission estimated that to meet the full range of water needs by 2025—including agVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
48

6World Water Commission. World Water Vision: A Water Secure World. The Hague. 2000. 

and Global Water Partnership. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action. The Hague. 

2000. 7Global Water Partnership. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action. The Hague. 

2000. Alternative estimates for the water supply and sanitation subsector only were provided 

by the World Panel on Financing Infrastructure (2003) based on analysis in the mid-1990s, 

where financing sources were assessed to be domestic public sector 65–70%, domestic private 

sector 5%, international donors 10–15%, and international private companies 10–15%. 8Overall donor estimates in Box 8 uses the DAC definition of water supply and sanitation 

which includes activities related to water resource policy, planning and programs, water legislation and management, water resource development and protection, water supply and use, sanitation, and education and training when associated with an activity that is primarily water supply and sanitation. Dams and reservoirs used for irrigation and hydropower, aid to the water 

sector extended within multi-sectoral programs, direct budgetary support, and loans are not included in this estimate. Source for Box 8: Tearfund, 2004. Making Every Drop Count: An Assessment of Donor Progress Towards the Water and Sanitation Target. Middlesex, UK. 

riculture, environment, energy, and industry, as well as water supply and sanitation—about $180 billion would be required each year in new investments, not including operations, maintenance, or repairs (or $4.5 trillion dollars over the full 25 

year period).6

The global water community is confronting this reality by taking a closer look at 

where resources are currently coming from, and where they must be increased in 

the future. Current estimates are that financing to address all water investment 

needs in developing countries is drawn from a mix of several sources including:7

• domestic public sector financing at the national or local level (from taxes, user 

fees, public debt, etc.) [64% of total expenditures];

• direct investments from domestic private sources [19% of total expenditures];

• direct investments from international private sources [5% of total expenditures]; and

• international sources of support and cooperation (including multilateral and 

bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA)) [12% of total expenditures]. (see Box 8) 8

BOX 8—INTERNATIONAL DONORS AND THE WATER SECTOR

An analysis of donor data in the water supply and sanitation subsector alone reveals that in recent years total aid allocations have averaged about $3 billion 

a year. ODA for water supply and sanitation remained relatively stable in the 

1990s, at about 6% of overall bilateral aid and 4-5% of multilateral aid. In 2005, 

all water-related funding represented about 6.8% of the total USAID budget, 

and water supply and sanitation obligations specifically accounted for about 5% 

of the entire Agency budget (including the budget for countries where there 

were no water investments at all). 

Although virtually all major donors invest at least to some degree in water 

resources management, worldwide the water sector is dominated by a handful 

of donors. From 1999-2001, Japan was by far the largest investor in the water 

supply and sanitation subsector, accounting for about one-third of total aid to 

this category (35%). Activities funded by six other donors added up to a further 

45%: the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) (11%), Germany (11%), USAID (8%), France (5%), the UK (5%), and the European Commission (5%). 

What is clear from these figures is that diverse financing sources have, and will 

continue to have, an important and distinct role to play in ensuring a sustainable 

and secure water future for the world. Each aspect of water resources management 

will require a unique combination of funding that may depend more heavily on some 

of these sources than on others. In all subsectors, however, it is certain that the 

majority of future investments must increasingly derive from an appropriate balance of self-regenerating domestic public as well as domestic and international private capital sources. This reality will more than ever require collaboration and cooperation among multiple actors from the public and private sectors within countries and throughout the international community. 

The responsibility for forging the enabling environment necessary for sustainable 

financing as part of overall better water governance throughout the world is ultimately the responsibility of local actors. These processes are unlikely to take hold 

49

in many places, however, without increasingly coordinated partnerships among external donors, domestic public bodies, the private sector, and civil society. Technical 

assistance plays a catalytic role. Targeted and strategic expenditures of development 

assistance funds can and do help promote advances in the sustainable management 

of water resources through good governance. 

USAID’s comprehensive strategy for integrated water resources management, as 

reflected in the five principles of the Evian G8 Water Action Plan, directly confronts 

this reality with catalytic and effective approaches to change. By ‘‘promoting good 

governance;’’ ‘‘utilizing all financial resources;’’ ‘‘building infrastructure by empowering local authorities and communities;’’ ‘‘strengthening monitoring, assessment, 

and research;’’ and ‘‘reinforcing engagement of international organizations,’’ the conditions are created to encourage public and private sector investment, and maximize 

the impact, sustainability, and replicability of USAID interventions. Such support 

is most effective when directed to locally owned strategies that encourage innovative 

processes and approaches, broaden the menu of tools and options available, leverage 

internal and external support and investments, and build capacity in civil society 

and the public and private sectors alike. 

USAID views on H.R. 1973 and Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, as you have now heard, USAID is making solid progress on our 

water resources management and development programs worldwide, and we are 

doing so with the same goals and approaches as are outlined in H.R. 1973. We are 

highly committed to contributing to the Millennium Declaration and the WSSD Plan 

of Implementation, and to influence the direction of others similarly committed. The 

scope of the challenge and the limited resources available to address it argue that 

we must be highly strategic and catalytic at every opportunity. 

And I believe we are. We are placing strong emphasis on innovative financing, 

partnerships (both public-public and public-private), building the right enabling environment that will attract new private capital, and enhancing the capacity of governments and their institutions responsible for all aspects of water resources management—protecting sources, delivering services, and promoting public health. We 

are promoting community-based approaches while simultaneously advancing the 

practice of river basin and transboundary river basin management in many areas 

of the globe. Although much of our emphasis is on the delivery of water supply and 

sanitation services, we are also focused on the broader development objectives that 

are intimately connected to successful water resources management. The U.S. has 

considerable experience and expertise to share in all of these areas and more, but 

progress will hinge on our ability to foster the political commitment to provide safe 

drinking water and basic sanitation for people in countries that have multiple, 

pressing needs on their development agendas. This most emphatically includes reforming water sector governance, and establishing financially sustainable water sector institutions, including water and sanitation service providers, and establishing 

clear objectives and performance indicators. 

H.R. 1973 describes well the key challenges and gives due emphasis to the human 

health and economic impacts. USAID is already in full support of the bill’s intent 

to achieve improved international coordination, new and innovative financing, and 

community-based approaches that involve civil society in helping to achieve equitable access to safe water and sanitation. 

I think that we can be proud of the leadership that the United States has demonstrated in recent years on these issues, and that we have positioned ourselves 

well to maximize further U.S. contribution and impact on the challenges of global 

water security. Thank you very much once again for the opportunity to testify before 

this Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee Members 

may have.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Schafer. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say that 

the first four witnesses, the depth of information that has been provided has been extraordinarily helpful, and I think that there is a 

lot here for us to chew on, both in your summary and for the material that all four witnesses have provided. And I, for one, am looking forward to doing that. 

I would ask, Mr. Turner, and I appreciate your testimony that 

what we have done with the legislation is basically consistent with 

the approach of the Administration, because it was crafted in that 

fashion. 

50

I was there, as you know, in Johannesburg in 2002, and I was 

impressed with parliamentarians from around the world and how 

our Government worked with them, to me it was a highlight, and 

a very positive signal. 

So everything that we have done here is an attempt to try and 

build on that commitment and follow through. And I would appreciate either now or in the future if you can help us find out if there 

are things that are in the legislation that can be further fine-tuned 

so that the Administration statement that it is basically in agreement with the principles can translate into something that is actually supportive of the legislation. 

Because I would like this to be a bipartisan monument to our 

seizing on an issue, and working with the Administration, with the 

Committee, both Parties, and just moving forward to accomplish 

that. 

Do you have any notion of any further fine-tuning or adjustment 

that needs to be made? 

Mr. TURNER. No, Congressman. I again want to thank you and 

congratulate you for the focus and the very thoughtful items in the 

bill. I read it personally, and as you can appreciate, when you get 

administrative comments on a bill it has to be—and we will do 

that, vetted through the interagency process, and in cooperation 

with the White House. 

But we would be happy to submit what we hope are constructive 

comments on the bill. Thank you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. Ms. Schafer. My friend, Mr. Smith, talked about the $1.9 billion. Can we break that down between what is going to Iraq, Afghanistan, and maybe the West 

Bank-Gaza, versus what is going to the rest of the world? 

I am just trying to get the numbers in my head on how much 

is tied up with other geopolitical activity, versus more narrowly focused on the wider piece. Not that I am interested in it not being 

spent in those communities. I think it is being—there is a lot of 

need in the restoration of Afghanistan. 

Mr. Turner and I have talked about this before, but just a sense 

of what is going to be sustainable over time, because there was 

some extraordinary investments made in them. 

Ms. SCHAFER. Mr. Blumenauer, I can take a stab at that for you. 

I am going to use 2004 figures, because we have pretty much of a 

complete picture for Fiscal Year 2004. Our 2005 data is good as of 

90 days after the appropriation bill passed, and so it still has some 

time to play out. 

So let’s just take a look at the 2004 figures, and if you just look 

at water supply and sanitation, and not all the categories of the 

Water for the Poor Initiative, but just water supply and sanitation, 

the total for spending that USAID has made with all of our sources 

of funds was $564,760 million, or $565 million if you round it up. 

Of that, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, West Bank Gaza, accounted for $393 million. Afghanistan would be about another $29 million. So 

there is no doubt that in the Middle East and in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, if you look at just the water supply and sanitation figures, a 

vast majority of the funds goes there. 

And the reason for that is that in those countries, we are spending money on water infrastructure projects, per se. We are actually 

51

building drinking water supply facilities, and waste water treatment facilities. 

That is not how we operate in the rest of the world, except perhaps in the situation like Sudan or post-hurricane situations in 

Central America, where we might build some smaller-scale facilities to provide water or sanitation. 

Most of the work that we do, as I tried to describe in my statement, is policy-related work, and technical assistance, and training, 

so that when the capital investments are made, people know how 

to take care of them, and know how to sustain them over a long 

period of time. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

Chairman HYDE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Smith 

of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of you for your tremendous testimony, 

and for the good work that you are doing. Clean water does not get 

the kind of focus it ought to get, and I think the point that you 

made earlier, Secretary Turner, about how currently over 50 percent of the world’s hospital beds are filled with patients suffering 

from water-related diseases, certainly demonstrates just how important clean water really is. 

As we all know in the U.S., we have a major problem with contamination of water, whether it be through lead or chemical pollutants, and water-borne diseases seem to also be a major problem in 

developing countries. 

But as many of these countries industrialize, they will obviously 

face a new set of challenges to keep their water supply as pure as 

humanly possible. And on the issue of supply, you might just want 

to briefly just touch on that. 

I remember back in the 1980s that Bob Rowe, the former Chairman who hailed from my State, and a very good friend of mine 

still, he used to make the point that because of industrial processes 

and the like, that we in the U.S. were facing a water crisis in 

terms of actual supply, and because of very poor means of trying 

to utilize our supply. And we were not digging the wells deep 

enough, or we were not treating our aquifers with the kind of respect that they certainly deserve. 

And we see that problem actually realized in New Jersey. But 

my question or questions are, one, Secretary Turner. You made the 

point that depending on the region, investing a dollar in water supply and sanitation can yield as much as $34 in return. 

If you would not mind elaborating on that, because I think that 

is a very powerful statement. Regarding good governance, combined with another point you made, Ms. Schafer, about building infrastructure, does your office try to bring in water authorities in 

the U.S. and other industrialized countries who have an enormous 

amount of expertise, and who have successfully faced the challenges of keeping their water supplies clean? 

I often visit the water supply or the water authorities in my own 

district. They are always improving best practices, and the same 

goes for water sanitation efforts with regards to dealing with 

sludge and things of that kind. 

52

Are they brought in to any advisory capacity? Do they ever partner with developing countries like Nigeria, or anywhere else, on 

setting up a turnkey operation on a sanitation effort? Because they 

certainly have written the book, in my view. 

Mr. TURNER. Well, Congressman, you touched on several points. 

One of the things that we are trying to do is in integrated water 

resource management and to go into very impoverished countries 

with other donor partners like Ethiopia, and like El Salvador, Indonesia, and 13 or 15 other countries, and is to try to get those countries as they develop their national plans on poverty reduction that 

they integrate water. 

And not only integrate water, but their ministries, so that their 

Agriculture Ministry, their Finance Ministry, their Environment 

Ministry, their Forestry Ministry, are all working together on the 

overall concept of water and sanitation as part of their overall 

planning. 

Perhaps related, as Ms. Schafer referred to, we find that a lot of 

the work to do is in the area of governance, effective governance. 

Do they have the right policies in place, and the right regulations, 

and do they recognize property rights? And do they have good scientists, and is it transparent, and do they involve the communities? 

So I think that effective governance, whether interested in education, or HIV/AIDS, or economic development, environmental protection, or with providing water, some of the best work that we do 

in impoverished countries is to help them with effective governance. 

The water contamination issue, we try to send technical teams, 

and we bring people here from impoverished countries through the 

work of EPA and USDA. We certainly have been focused on the 

issue of lead, and persistent organic chemicals through the POPs 

and PIC Treaty. 

We will be considering some legislation on that. Mercury is a 

contaminant that the U.S. has led an international effort to focus 

on recently. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAFER. In further response to Mr. Smith’s question, we 

are very pointedly looking to U.S. models and institutions like the 

various water and sewer authorities that you referenced in New 

Jersey to transfer information about how to go about financing 

water and waste water treatment facilities, particularly in countries that have capital markets that are either developed or are developing, and need some further strengthening. 

The model that we have adopted in the United States of financing revolving funds, that is, appropriations from Congress going to 

States to establish water and waste water revolving funds, is something that we have discovered has application in the developing 

world. 

We discovered first that India had found this example all by 

itself, and a number of Indian States, Tamil Nodu being one, and 

Karnatala being another, are looking at this pooled financing and 

ability to raise money in the bond market to supplement appropriations that they might get from the State or national government 

and then lend those to the smaller communities at favorable rates. 

53

That example is also underlying the U.S.-Japan Clean Water for 

People effort, and Japan is very active of course in Asia generally, 

and that is where a great deal of their water program goes. And 

we are working with our missions in the Philippines, Indonesia, 

India, in that region, to establish the basis for creating revolving 

funds and other innovative financing arrangements in order to 

serve largely urbanized populations in those countries. 

The applications in Africa are limited, but we still think, in 

South Africa, that we have got some examples of where this approach might work as well. 

Eastern Europe is probably the best case where we might be able 

to use the United States model immediately. 

We recently held a conference in Bucharest with seven of our 

missions and country teams in countries such as Armenia and 

Montenegro, Croatia, Ukraine, Russia. And all of them are interested in creating the United States-style resolving fund. They have 

access to capital, and they are looking at these models, along with 

a lot of development technical assistance to strengthen the institutions to use those funds, and to be able to answer the water and 

waste water treatment needs. 

So, yes, we were invited to participate there—New York, Maine, 

and maybe a couple of other infrastructure finance authorities—

these State bond banks—to show them how we go about doing this. 

And of course they are very quick to take this on board and are 

anxious to apply it in their countries. So the answer to your question is emphatically yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so much. 

Chairman HYDE. I wonder if Mr. Payne and Mr. Rohrabacher 

would be kind enough to hold their questions until after the next 

panel. We have another panel and I am anxious to get to them before we are called over for a vote. So would you be kind enough to 

hold back? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Is that all right with you, Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. I appreciate that. 

Mr. PAYNE. I just wanted to note though that only 6.5 percent 

of the funds that was pledged by the United States for the Water 

Poor Initiative is going to sub-Saharan Africa, and that is where 

the greatest need is, and 94 percent is going to Afghanistan, and 

Iraq, and other places. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. We will thank you, Mr. Turner, and 

Ms. Schafer, for very instructive testimony. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. The next panel will please come forward. 

Mr. Peter Lochery is the Senior Advisor on Water and Sanitation 

for CARE USA. Some of Mr. Lochery’s recent activities includes 

strengthening local water management in Egypt, Jordan, and the 

West Bank, and supporting the establishment of water and sanitation for the urban poor, an alliance focused on developing new business models to serve the urban poor. Mr. Lochery holds a Master’s 

Degree in Public Health Engineering from Imperial College, the 

University of London. 

54

Mr. Geoffrey Dabelko is Director of the Environmental Change 

and Security Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center 

for Scholars. He is a principal investigator for the Navigating Peace 

Water Initiative, a multi-year effort to foster innovative thinking 

on key fresh water challenges. 

Mr. Dabelko is also a lecturer at Georgetown University’s School 

of Foreign Service, and he holds a Master of Arts and a Ph.D. in 

Government and Politics from the University of Maryland. 

Mr. Malcolm Morris is Founder and Chairman of the Millennium 

Water Alliance, an alliance of American non-governmental organizations who are working to bring safe water and sanitation to those 

who lack sufficient access. 

Mr. Morris is Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Stewart Information Services Corporation, and President and Chief Executive Officer of Stewart Title and Guarantee Company. He holds 

a Doctor of Juris Prudence from the University of Texas. 

Mr. Lochery, would you please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER LOCHERY, SENIOR ADVISOR ON 

WATER, SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, CARE 

USA 

Mr. LOCHERY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lantos, and Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. H.R. 1973, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005, will 

be landmark legislation. 

Thank you, Chairman Hyde, for convening this hearing and moving the bill forward. Thank you, Congressman Blumenauer, for introducing the bill. Thank you, Members of the Committee, who 

have co-sponsored the bill. 

On behalf of the more than 1 billion people who do not have access to an improved water source, and the 2.6 billion who do not 

have access to safe and secure sanitation, we thank you. 

During my testimony, 20 children will die from water- and sanitation-related diseases. During this day, 130 classrooms of children 

will die from water and sanitation related diseases. During this 

month as many people who have died from water- and sanitationrelated diseases have died from the recent Asian tsunami. 

Let me tell you how this bill is going to help. First, this bill gives 

water and sanitation a foreign policy priority. For too long, water 

and sanitation have been the forgotten tsunami. This bill recognizes that water and sanitation is a cornerstone of development. 

Why is this so? 

Because amongst other compelling reasons, people who are alive 

and well can go to work. Children who are not hauling water can 

go to school, and functioning states must have adequate water and 

sanitation services, and the United States has national security interests in preventing states from failing. 

Secondly, this bill directs USAID to develop a strategy. This 

strategy should address challenges such as transparency and accountability in the delivery of water and sanitation services in developing countries. It should address equity in the delivery of services, ensuring that those most in need get access to improved water 

and sanitation. 

55

It must address developing the capacity of local governments and 

the local private sector so that they are able to deliver services and 

support the maintenance of the services, and the backlog and bureaucracy in putting existing funds to work are removed. 

Once again, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005 will be a landmark change in American policy. Thank you again for inviting me 

to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lochery follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. PETER LOCHERY, SENIOR ADVISOR ON WATER, 

SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, CARE USA 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lantos and members of the Committee, my 

name is Peter Lochery. I am CARE’s Water Team Leader. I am also a Board member of three small non-profits: Building Partnerships for Development in Water and 

Sanitation, the Millennium Water Alliance, and Water Advocates. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present testimony this morning on behalf of CARE and for your leadership in taking up this critical issue. 

My testimony will describe CARE’s perspective on the global water crisis including the linkages between safe water and sanitation and other areas of development, 

the role of non-governmental organizations in helping to ameliorate water challenges in developing countries, and our views on H.R. 1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor 

Act of 2005’’. 

1. CARE

CARE was founded in 1946 to assist in the post-war reconstruction of Europe. 

Today CARE is one of the world’s largest relief and development organizations, and 

is dedicated to ending poverty. CARE carries out a wide variety of programs in the 

areas of agriculture and natural resources, basic and girls’ education, health (including reproductive health, children’s health, and water, sanitation and environmental 

health), and small economic activity development. 

CARE has implemented water and sanitation activities for forty-eight years, 

reaching over 10 million people in 20,000 communities in more than 40 countries, 

through an investment of over $350 million. CARE’s current portfolio includes over 

100 projects with significant water activities in 39 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin 

America and the Middle East. Funding is provided by multi and bi-lateral agencies, 

host governments, private corporations and individuals, and the communities 

served. 

CARE’s approach to water and sanitation activities reflects the organization’s 

breadth of experience. During the 1960s, CARE focused on the provision of water 

supply hardware to poor rural communities in the developing world. As experience 

grew over the next forty years, the focus of activities gradually shifted from supplydriven provision of pumps and pipes to approaches driven by demand. These included working with households, communities and local organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) to increase sustainable access to safe water, promote 

sanitation, and improve hygiene behavior. Most recently, the emphasis has been on 

integrating water and sanitation activities with watershed management and productive uses of water such as micro-irrigation, and supporting local people and institutions in the integrated management of water resources at the local level. Although 

75 percent of CARE’s water projects are rural, CARE has undertaken an increasing 

number of urban projects in the last decade. These include water supply, drainage, 

sanitation, and solid waste management. 

2. THE GLOBAL WATER CRISIS

In the coming decades, access to water may become a more critical problem than 

access to food, primary health care or education. 

2.1 Overview 

The world faces severe challenges to meet the growing demand for water and at 

the same time maintaining water quality. New sources of water are increasingly expensive to exploit, potentially restricting new water supplies to the better-off. In 

many developing countries agricultural water consumption far exceeds domestic and 

industrial use. As populations grow, increasing agricultural demand competes with 

demand from urban areas and industry and threatens supplies to important wetland ecosystems. 

56

1Water scarcity is defined as annual renewable water resources of less than 1,000 m3 per capita. 2 In Tanzania, 12 percent more children were found to attend school when safe water was 

available within 15 minutes rather than one hour from their home. 

It is estimated that 2.7 billion people living in the developing world will experience severe water scarcity1 by 2025. The bulk of this population will be in seventeen 

food-scarce countries of the semi-arid regions of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In 

rain-fed arid agricultural areas, including large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, China, 

the Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and parts of Latin America, water scarcity during prolonged dry seasons constitutes a serious challenge to 

the very subsistence of large populations. Over-exploitation of groundwater, particularly through its inefficient and over use, also poses a major threat to food security, 

environment and health. This threat involves the draw down of freshwater aquifers 

due to indiscriminate mining of groundwater on the one hand and rising water tables of saline water resulting from over-irrigation on the other. 

A new politics of scarcity is emerging as rural areas, cities, regions, and neighboring countries compete for a limited and shrinking supply. Conflict over water has 

the potential to develop both between and within countries, between regions within 

a country, between communities and within populations in a community. Of the 

three principal forces that create scarcity and its potential to incite conflict or dispute—the depletion or degradation of the resource, population growth and unequal 

distribution or access—it appears that unequal distribution or access often plays the 

most important role. 

The global water crisis is not just about water as a resource for economic welfare; 

it is also about public health. Domestic water supplies are increasingly threatened 

by pollution from industrial waste, untreated sewage, and chemicals in agricultural 

runoff. More than one billion poor people lack access to safe drinking water. About 

2.6 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation and are forced to live in degrading and unhealthy environments. An estimated 2.1 million people, mostly children under five, die every year from preventable water-related diseases. Women and 

children, who are often the most vulnerable members of society, suffer most when 

access is poor or lacking. 

Unsafe water and inadequate sanitation significantly increase the burden of disease among immune-compromised populations and undermine progress in treatment 

and care. HIV/AIDS patients suffer frequent debilitating bouts of diarrhea, and 

caregivers struggle to maintain hygienic conditions without water and sanitation. 

Using contaminated water to take with drugs or to mix feeds for children increases 

the risk of diarrhea and disease. 

In many societies, women and children are responsible for collecting water. This 

can involve several hours of arduous work each day walking to and from distant 

water points; reduce the time available for childcare, household and productive activities; and prevent children2 from attending school. It also potentially increases 

women and girls’ exposure to sexual harassment, rape and contracting HIV. Lack 

of sanitation may also subject women to harassment when they seek privacy on the 

outskirts of the village or town to defecate and limit the times when they can defecate. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of the schools in the world, perhaps as 

many as half, do not have safe water, adequate sanitation and hygiene education. 

Infrastructure must be accompanied by improved hygiene if the transmission of disease is to be prevented. In addition, safe and separate sanitation for girls, particularly adolescents, is an important factor in maintaining and increasing school attendance by girls. There is also evidence that suggests that learning and attention 

span decline when pupils are dehydrated. 

War and conflict often destroys not only community infrastructure and livelihoods, 

but also social capital and trust. Programming conducted in highly sensitive, volatile 

post-war contexts can fall victim to disorganization, distrust and resistance from 

members of the community. However, implementing water and sanitation programs 

in such an unstable environment can actually present a unique opportunity to rebuild a solid and sustainable foundation of community infrastructure, involvement, 

trust and peace. 

Poor people themselves consistently place lack of water as one of their main poverty indicators and give it first priority in their own visions of the future. This is 

because the poor, particularly rural populations, continue to be the most vulnerable 

to changes in water availability and are the least able to cope with variations. They 

are at grave risk if there is a failure to find solutions to water management and 

environmental sanitation. An effective way of ensuring their right to water, through 

addressing the risks and uncertainties they face over access, is essential. Without 

57

it, their capacity to achieve long-term livelihood security, including a healthy and 

secure living environment, and escape poverty is substantially reduced. 

2.2 Current trends 

Statistics on water and sanitation are produced by the Joint Monitoring Program 

of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children Fund 

(UNICEF) based on data reported by 152 countries. Table 1 combines the results 

for the 40 most populous countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and compares 

the results in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2002.

Table 1. Drinking water and sanitation coverage (percent) for 

Africa, Asia and Latin America combined, subdivided into 

urban and rural (1970–2002) 

Year 1970 1980 1990 2002

Urban water 65 74 82 95

Rural water 13 33 50 72

Urban sanitation 54 50 67 81

Rural sanitation 9 13 20 37

The table shows a pattern of steady progress over the last three decades, but 

there is still a huge task ahead because many people remain without services. 

2.3 Water Coverage 

There has been some progress in global water provision, and some countries have 

the potential to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the proportion of people without access to an improved water source between 1990 and 

2015. Indeed, the percentage of people in the world with access to an improved 

water source rose from 77 percent in 1990 to 83 percent in 2002. However, the situation is particularly troubling in Sub-Saharan Africa where over 287 million people 

are without access, only 55 percent of rural residents have access, and 13 countries 

are lagging behind and need major external assistance to get back on target. 

Africa is one of the fastest urbanizing regions due to drought, conflict and loss 

of jobs in rural areas. However, the vast majority of the population is still located 

in hard-to-reach rural areas where 45 percent of the population does not have access 

to an improved water source. This is an average figure and hides countries like 

Ethiopia where less than 20 percent of the rural population has access. 

In South Asia and East Asia, the gross number of people without access to improved sources is comparable to Africa, but the percentage without access is much 

smaller because of the larger populations involved. Sub-Saharan Africa is also more 

dependent on outside aid than countries such as India where 90–95 percent of investment in the water sector comes from the government and internal sources.

Table 2: Access to improved water sources subdivided by region, 2002 

(in millions) 3

Region Total 

Population 

Served 

(%) Unserved 

Sub-Saharan Africa 685 397 (58) 287

South Asia 1,480 1,245 (84) 234

Southeast Asia 535 421 (79) 114

East Asia 1,374 1,071 (78) 302

Latin America 536 475 (89) 60

World-wide Total 6,225 5,149 (83) 1,075

3WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2005. 

58

As can be seen from the above map, the vast majority of countries with less than 

75 percent coverage are located in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

2.4 Sanitation coverage: a world-wide problem 

The figures for sanitation are worse than those for water in almost all regions. 

Sanitation coverage has increased more slowly, and the numbers without access are 

much larger. Two billion of the 2.6 billion people lacking adequate sanitation live 

in Asia. In India, for example, where major improvements have been achieved in 

water supply, less than 31 percent of the population has adequate sanitation. 

Among those countries with the 27 lowest rates of coverage—those in which no more 

than one third of residents have access to improved sanitation—18 are in Sub-Saharan Africa and eight in Asia. 

Sanitation coverage has only improved by a modest nine percent over the past 10 

years. Improving access to sanitation is particularly challenging and the current advances will not be enough to achieve the goal set at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg of halving the proportion of people without access to improved sanitation between 1990 and 2015. Compared to water interventions, we know much less about successful sanitation programs. Access to sanitation in rural areas is half that of urban areas, and over 2 billion people without 

access live in rural areas.

Table 3: Sanitation coverage subdivided by region, 2002 (in millions) 

Region Total 

Population 

Served 

(%) Unserved 

Sub-Saharan Africa 685 248 (36) 436

South Asia 1,480 539 (31) 941

Southeast Asia 535 328 (61) 207

East Asia 1,374 626 (45) 749

Latin America 536 399 (75) 136

World-wide Total 6,225 3,606 (58) 2,618


22262c.eps
59

4 ‘‘Getting to boiling point: Turning up the heat on water and sanitation’’, WaterAid, 2005. 

5 Hutton G & Haller L. ‘‘The Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at 

the Global Level’’, WHO, 2004. 6 A scorecard assessment of developing country and donor progress, CARE, Oxfam, WaterAid 

et al, 2004. 7 A scorecard assessment of developing country and donor progress, CARE, Oxfam, WaterAid 

et al, 2004. 

Sanitation is a worldwide problem. According to the United Nations Midterm Assessment, five regions (Eurasia, Oceana, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Asia) are not on track to meet the WSSD Goal.

2.5 Sector Performance 

The performance of the water and sanitation sector in delivering sustainable 

water and sanitation services remains inadequate when measured against the internationally agreed targets. Why should this be so? A recent 14 country study4 identified seven key ‘‘concerns’’. 

Prioritization. There are two compelling reasons for prioritizing water and sanitation. When poor people have a voice, access to safe water is very often their top priority. This proved to be the case recently in Ethiopia when USAID asked communities to prioritize amongst a range of child survival interventions. The second reason is that people cannot escape poverty without safe water and sanitation. The 

WHO has estimated that $84 billion worth of benefits are being lost annually in the 

developing world because of the failure to meet the MDG targets for water and sanitation5. However, very few developing countries prioritize water and sanitation in 

their planning and budgeting processes6, and official development assistance for 

water supply and sanitation projects from the OECD countries and the major international financial institutions declined from a peak of $3.9 billion in 1995 to $1.5 

billion in 2002 before rising to $2.7 billion in 2003. 

Transparency. There is a shortage of data on how and to what extent developing 

country governments use their water and sanitation budgets. This makes it difficult 

to analyze what is happening in the sector in order to expose inefficiency and inequity, and tackle vested interests that prevent money from being used for the 

unserved and underserved. 

Equity. Water sector aid from the OECD countries has been channeled to relatively few countries. From 1997–2001, the ten largest recipients received 48 percent of the total (although this was reduced from over 60 percent during 1995–96). 

China, India, Vietnam, Peru, Morocco and Egypt were among the top ten in both 

periods, with Turkey, Indonesia, Tunisia and Sri Lanka slipping out of the top ten 

to be replaced by Mexico, Malaysia, Jordan and the Palestinian administered territories in the second period. In 2001–2002, only 12 percent of the total aid to the 

water sector went to countries where less than 60 percent of the population had access to an improved water source, a group which includes most of the least developed countries7. A similar pattern of discrimination against the very poor can occur 


22262d.eps
60

8 ‘‘Getting to boiling point: Turning up the heat on water and sanitation’’, WaterAid, 2005. 

9 Investing in Development, UN Millennium Project, 2005. 

within countries where middle class urban inhabitants benefit at the expense of 

slum dwellers and people in rural areas. Piped systems can, for example, require 

user contributions that are beyond the means of the poor. 

Sector coordination. ‘‘Overlapping water and sanitation projects along with multiple funding and reporting systems results in inequalities and confusion. The lack 

of sector coordination frequently manifests itself in the variety of technology and 

equipment used in projects and different, often contradictory, operational practices 

leading to poor sustainability of water supply systems.’’ 8 For example, a rural water 

and sanitation project in Mozambique had to convince the provincial governor to intervene when another agency distributed free and subsidized spare parts that 

threatened the viability of a private sector supply chain. Once the subsidized spare 

parts were off the market, a sustainable supply of spare parts was achieved and 

availability increased. 

Capacity. Many developing countries are decentralizing and devolving responsibility for water and sanitation to the district level. In theory, this is a positive step 

as it puts responsibility for water and sanitation at a level of government that is 

more approachable and accountable to the users. In practice, district government 

often has neither the financial resources nor the skilled staff to carry out its responsibilities. This is particularly true in remote locations where housing, schools and 

public services are poor or non-existent, and qualified government staff members are 

unwilling to serve. Bureaucracy and lack of capacity are proving to be bottlenecks 

in a number of countries and result in major delays in expenditure. 

Privatization. The major international water companies have shown little interest 

recently in the traditional privatization models often proposed as a condition for a 

loan or credit. The high level of risk involved with these contracts and the weak 

regulatory environments have dissuaded most bidders. For example, German multinational RWE Thames has stated that they do not wish to see forced private sector 

involvement. Other approaches are beginning to show some success: a public-private 

partnership in Uganda is introducing effective competition alongside the organizational and political changes necessary for efficient utility operation. 

The small-scale local private sector plays an extensive role in constructing water 

and sanitation facilities, and can also provide hygiene education, promote sanitation, and train communities in operation and maintenance. The small-scale private 

sector is sometimes the only source of water for poor communities although the poor 

can pay a high price for this service, particularly in peri-urban communities that 

do not have access to municipal facilities. 

A more sensitive, context driven approach to privatization is required. 

Expenditure and aid. Traditional thinking suggests that large investments for 

centralized infrastructure with per capita costs of several hundred dollars are required. While large investments are needed in urban centers in developing countries, appropriate technology and lower levels of service can be used to significantly 

reduce per capita costs. In rural areas, investments of $30–50 per capita are adequate for water supply, hygiene education and sanitation particularly where communities play a role in sourcing local materials and constructing the facilities. 

Calculating the financing gap between the resources available to a country and 

what is needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for water and sanitation is a two-stage process. First, one must analyze sector efficiency, i.e. what resources are actually available and are they being used efficiently. And second, one 

must assess the amount of additional resources required at a realistic per capita 

rate. The latest UN calculations9 suggest that aid for water and sanitation needs 

to more than double in 2006 to $7 billion to increase the total annual investment 

to more than $30 billion. 

3. THE ROLE OF NON–GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

There is a broad range of NGOs that address water-related issues. Some are concerned with implementation, others engage in advocacy, and yet others undertake 

both. CARE is part of the last group and I can best explain what we consider to 

be the role of a NGO in the water sector by describing our water strategy. 

Within CARE, we use the opportunities water programming presents to address 

not only the human condition through access to basic services but also the underlying causes of poverty such as poor governance, inequitable distribution of resources and social exclusion based on gender, class and ethnicity. 

Our goal embodies the elements of water security (equitable access, efficient use 

and sustainable management):

61

10The strategic objectives are increased sector investment, well-informed public participation, 

inclusion of stakeholder concerns and practices in policy and planning, full sharing and use of 

expertise and experiences, and decentralized and holistic management of water. 

‘‘To enhance the livelihood security of poor rural and urban communities 

through equitable access, efficient use and sustainable management of limited 

and dwindling water resources’’.

This goal reflects CARE’s commitment to serve individuals and families in the 

poorest communities in the world, but it also requires work at national and international levels, a range of interventions, and multiple partners including the private 

sector. Through a process of analysis, we identified five strategic objectives10 and 

four intermediate objectives that contribute to our strategic goal and form a framework for our water programming. The four objectives are to: 

#1. Increase our capacity to promote and provide quality services in water, hygiene 

and sanitation, and within agriculture and natural resource programming. 

While CARE cannot hope to directly satisfy the enormous needs of those who lack 

basic services, our involvement in facilitating service provision is important. In addition to making a direct contribution to a substantial number of communities, the 

implementation of sustainable projects that are replicable elsewhere provides opportunities for innovation and learning lessons, and builds credibility and relationships 

for undertaking advocacy. 

#2. Strengthen the capacity of stakeholders, particularly at the local level, to fulfill 

their roles and responsibilities in the sector. 

CARE assists communities and local governments to define their rights, roles and 

responsibilities within an institutional framework for participatory planning and 

management. Securing the rights of communities to water is an important part of 

this process. Particular attention is paid to the needs, roles and skills of women as 

critical planners and users of water and sanitation systems, and as monitors of 

water resources. 

#3. Build a broad-based constituency to advocate for the rights and needs of people 

to access water for health and productivity. 

This is not just about building a constituency that is aware and supportive of 

water-related issues, but about helping people see the world, and their place in it, 

in a different way. Helping poor people gain access to water and sanitation is not 

just a moral obligation, it contributes to security and prosperity in an increasingly 

inter-connected international environment. 

#4. Develop strategic partnerships and alliances with international organizations, 

governments, academia, non-governmental organizations, communities and the 

private sector. 

CARE recognizes that building relationships with partners with skills and experience that complement CARE’s expertise is imperative to broadening program impact. CARE also develops partnerships with the communities it serves and with 

local organizations that share CARE’s vision and values. CARE seeks ways to ensure that power and accountability are shared, to facilitate consensus on sectoral 

issues, and to build the capacity of partners. Such processes are critical where a 

range of actors must collaborate in project design and implementation. 

4. H.R. 1973—THE ‘‘WATER FOR THE POOR ACT OF 2005’’

Global access to water and sanitation has most recently been addressed at a series of meetings held by both the State Department and the Aspen Institute, bringing together government agencies, corporations, foundations, and non-governmental 

agencies with an interest in water. These meetings provided a forum to share information and lessons learned, and set the stage for the development of a broad consensus on potential roles for different U.S. actors, which has never existed before. 

Leaders in Congress have propelled the issue forward with the introduction of 

H.R. 1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’, and a complementary bill in the 

Senate, S. 492, the ‘‘Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act of 2005’’. Both bills establish access to water and sanitation as a priority in the fight against global poverty, 

require the development of a strategy, which addresses some of the outstanding 

gaps expressed earlier in this testimony, and provide an opportunity for the U.S. 

Government to further define its role in this important arena. 

Moving forward, my main concern is that the sums appropriated in fiscal year 

2006 and subsequent years are adequate to carry out the provisions and activities 

outlined in both pieces of legislation. I would also highlight the importance of deterVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
62

mining appropriate financing mechanisms—whether it be grants, loans, investment 

insurance or loan guarantees—to address water and sanitation needs. For example, 

in peri-urban and rural areas, where the use of loans for water and sanitation is 

in its infancy, grants are typically a more effective financing mechanism. 

5. CONCLUSION

The U.S. affirmed its commitment to improving access to water and sanitation 

worldwide at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Now is the time 

to realize that commitment. Greater international assistance and cooperation is 

needed to reach the internationally agreed upon goals of reducing by half the proportion of people without safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015. H.R. 

1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’ and its counterpart in the Senate are 

important steps forward. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this Committee and to 

Chairman Hyde for raising the profile of this issue. I would also like to extend special thanks to Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Jim Leach, E. Clay Shaw, Jr., and 

Tom Lantos, who spearheaded efforts to develop this important piece of legislation. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to advance H.R. 1973, a critical tool 

that will help promote affordable and equitable access to water and sanitation for 

the world’s poor.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lochery. Dr. Dabelko. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY D. DABELKO, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SECURITY PROJECT 

Mr. DABELKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. It is a real honor, and I thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss water and sanitation, and U.S. foreign assistance. 

The Water for Poor Act of 2005 is an exciting piece of legislation 

that I believe will go a long way toward meeting these challenges, 

and raising the priority of water and sanitation in U.S. foreign policy. 

Previous witnesses have given a very clear picture of the global 

water challenges that we face, literally discussing how we are trying to safeguard the lives of billions of people without access to safe 

water or adequate sanitation. 

But we are also discussing issues of utmost importance to U.S. 

national security. Reducing human suffering, encouraging development, and building goodwill, increases our security by reducing 

poverty and the underlying sources of instability around the world. 

I would like to focus on three points, Mr. Chairman. First, the 

United States can enhance its national security by increasing 

water and sanitation foreign assistance to developing countries. 

Second, integrating water and sanitation programs into other 

sectors will make water and sanitation programs more effective, 

but also improve the results of programs in other sectors, such as 

health, agriculture, education, economic development, and, in fact, 

conflict prevention. 

And, third, very briefly, improving donor coordination and increasing multilateral efforts would make water and sanitation foreign assistance more effective as well. Let’s turn first to the threats 

and opportunities, frankly, in the national security realm. 

Today, we see evidence of increasing water scarcity and declining 

water quality contributing to political tensions—and even violence—that directly impact U.S. security interests at home and 

abroad. 

Increasing water scarcity in Kenya pits herders and farmers in 

increasingly violent clashes in Northern Kenya. Local communities 

63

in China are standing up to polluting industries that foul the water 

supplies, sometimes leading to violent conflicts between the local 

people and the local authorities. 

Civil protests, in part sparked by dramatic hikes in water prices, 

have contributed to the paralysis of successive governments in Bolivia. The connections are clear. Improved water and sanitation are, 

in fact, the bedrock of development, and a key step in addressing 

poverty and the underlying causes of insecurity. 

But while developing countries face this new global crisis that 

threatens their stability, the donor community is not responding 

with sufficient aid that can help avert these threats. 

And as we heard in earlier testimony, most of the U.S. water development aid is given to just a handful of countries. Yet, water 

and sanitation sector aid is not necessarily well matched with either the water and sanitation need, or the geopolitical need to address poverty and stability. 

The United States could do more to address water and sanitation 

issues across sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the location of key 

fragile and failing states. Africa’s share of USAID water and sanitation assistance, excluding integrated health programs and disaster relief, is around 7 percent, as the Congressman indicated. 

Such a water peacemaking strategy could generate dividends beyond just water. It builds trust and serves as an avenue to talk 

when parties are in conflict or stalemated on other issues. 

It forges people-to-people relationships as demonstrated by the 

Good Water Makes Good Neighbors program in the Middle East by 

Friends of the Earth Middle East, which the Committee heard testimony about last May. 

And since 1999, the Nile Basin Initiative, which was also discussed earlier, facilitated by the UN, the World Bank, and with 

support from USAID, among others, has regularly brought together 

the ministers of all 10 riparians in the basin, where they are negotiating a shared vision for sustainable development. 

So I would echo the gentleman’s testimony about this being 

something that is turning a corner, and while not explicitly a 

peacemaking strategy, this coming together in fact has some of 

these properties. 

The U.S. Government should support and encourage efforts to 

apply lessons learned from this prominent effort in other basins, 

such as it is in, say, the Okavango basin, where oil-rich Angola, 

Botswana, and Namibia have some of the same issues at stake. 

Not only can cooperative water management help prevent conflict, but it can also help resolve wars that are caused by other 

problems. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan 

was not initially caused by water, but in order for India and Pakistan to have a sustained peace, they must negotiate the usage of 

water. 

Finally, there are some signs that cooperative water management can help countries recover from war and emerge from postconflict reconstruction safer, healthier, and more stable. 

The transboundary Mesopotamia Marshlands program has 

brought Iraqi and Iranian scientists together for the first time in 

29 years under UN auspices. By establishing joint water management structures, and promoting dialogue and cooperation—albeit at 

64

very initial stages—among these former combatants, we can hope 

that steps may help prevent the reemergence of conflict. 

Let me turn briefly to my second point, integrating water and 

sanitation programs into other sectors that will make both the 

water and sanitation—and the other linked sector—programs more 

effective. 

Both donors and recipients face sectoral and departmental stovepipes that impede efforts to address water’s fundamental role in 

development. Developing countries must move from recognizing the 

link between water and development, to adopting integrated steps 

to improve water and sanitation at the national and local levels. 

More government agencies, beyond the ministries of water, environment, or development, should incorporate water’s benefits for 

the economy, for agriculture, health, education, and security, into 

their budgets and their policies. 

The Water for the Poor Act could be a critical step toward this 

goal. And what we ask of developing countries we need to do ourselves; increased collaboration across bureaus and offices within 

the U.S. Government would capitalize on key links to the wide 

range of development goals that water has, with its connections to 

health, education, economic development, and conflict prevention. 

Some of these linkages are being acted upon by different offices 

within the U.S. Government. The State Department’s excellent 

water team, particularly in the Middle East, has made very constructive impacts on water and conflict connections with very limited resources. 

The new USAID Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation 

has put these issues together with water and conflict. Mr. Chairman, I will just mention my third point, improving donor coordination and increasing multilateral efforts, which appears prominently 

in the Water for the Poor Act, and I won’t expand here. 

I will just say, in conclusion, that the time is right for the United 

States to act on water and sanitation while it is a low-cost and 

high-return investment on foreign assistance. 

It is critical to act now before the negative security impacts become more apparent, and while the benefits are still within reach. 

Of course, clean water will not directly prevent terrorism, but reducing human suffering and encouraging development, and building goodwill, increases our security by reducing poverty and the 

underlying grievances around the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dabelko follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY D. DABELKO, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SECURITY PROJECT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss safe water and sanitation and U.S. foreign assistance. 

We are all aware of the devastation wrought by HIV/AIDS on sub-Saharan Africa. 

However, developing countries in Africa and elsewhere face another severe crisis 

that demands our help. Three to four million people—using half of the hospital beds 

in the world—die each year from another silent killer: unsafe water. The vast majority of these victims are children, struck down by waterborne typhoid, cholera, diarrhea, and dysentery, and virtually all live in developing countries. Lack of water 

also impedes the social and economic development of those who survive: women and 

girls in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa must walk an average of six kilometers 

to fetch water—each way—preventing them from going to school or working outside 

65

1For more on Friends of the Earth Middle East and its Good Water Makes Good Neighbors 

program, see http://www.foeme.org/. 

the home. And millions more are too sick from chronic waterborne illness to attend 

school at all. 

The victims of dirty water need our help. The United States government has an 

active program, but we can do more, and we can do it better. The ‘‘Water for the 

Poor Act 2005’’ goes a long way towards this goal. I would like to focus on three 

key points related to the legislation before the Committee:

1. The United States can enhance its national security by increasing water and 

sanitation foreign assistance to developing countries. Furthermore, water 

management offers unique opportunities to build peace between parties in 

conflict.

2. Integrating water and sanitation programs into other sectors will make 

water and sanitation programs more effective—and improve the results of 

programs in other sectors, such as health, agriculture, education, economic 

development, and conflict prevention.

3. Improving donor coordination and increasing multilateral efforts would make 

water and sanitation foreign assistance more effective.

1. The United States can enhance its national security by increasing water and sanitation foreign assistance to developing countries. Furthermore, water management offers unique opportunities to build peace between parties in conflict. 

Why should the United States increase its foreign assistance to help developing 

countries improve their access to safe water and sanitation? Simply put, safe water 

will make us all safer. Without it, neighboring users sometimes come to blows. For 

example, increasing water scarcity in Kenya pits herder against farmer, and urban 

dweller against rural peasant. Communities in China are standing up to industries 

that pollute water supplies, sometimes leading to violent confrontations between the 

protesters and local officials. Civil protests, in part sparked by dramatic hikes in 

water prices, have contributed to the paralysis of successive Bolivian governments. 

The connections are clear. Improved water and sanitation are the bedrock of development. A healthy, productive labor force requires safe drinking water, for example, and women’s education and empowerment require adequate water sanitation. 

Development is key to building democracy and ensuring state stability. But while 

developing countries face this new global crisis that threatens their stability, the 

donor community is not responding with the aid necessary to avert these threats. 

Most of United States’ water development aid is given to a handful of countries 

(Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, and West Bank/Gaza). Geopolitical interests certainly shape any foreign policy, and no one is naı ̈ve enough to 

suggest ignoring these interests. However, our aid in the water and sanitation sector is nearsighted. Africa’s share of USAID water and sanitation assistance, excluding integrated health programs and disaster relief, is only 7 percent. In 2000–2001, 

only 12 percent of total OECD water sector aid was delivered to countries where 

less than 60 percent of the population has access to an improved water source. 

While these statistics predate the $970-million ‘‘Water for the Poor 2003–2005’’ initiative announced by the administration at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, donors are still doing too little to address the water crisis. 

The increasing scarcity and declining quality of water, however, not only threaten 

U.S. national security, but also offer opportunities. Increasing global leadership in 

water and sanitation would improve the United States’ international stature while 

helping to alleviate poverty, build democracy, and provide humanitarian assistance. 

In addition, instead of focusing heavily on the threats posed by water scarcity, the 

United States could also more actively exploit the peacemaking potential of water 

management. We could leverage opportunities to manage water problems in ways 

that build confidence, trust, and peace between parties in conflict. 

Such a ‘‘water peacemaking’’ strategy could generate dividends beyond water. 

First, it builds trust and serves as an avenue to talk when parties in conflict are 

stalemated on other issues. Second, it establishes habits of cooperation among 

states, some with little experience cooperating, such as in the Kura-Araks basin in 

the Caucasus or in other states of the former Soviet Union. Third, it forges peopleto-people or expert-to-expert relationships, as demonstrated by the ‘‘Good Water 

Makes Good Neighbors’’ program in the Middle East.1

Two hundred and sixty-three rivers are shared by two or more countries, providing ample opportunities for states in conflict to share water. Water is frequently 

used as a lifeline for dialogue and cooperation during conflict. Some examples:

66

2Wolf, Aaron T., Shira B. Yoffe, & Marc Giordano. (2003). ‘‘International waters: Identifying 

basins at risk.’’ Water Policy 5, 29–60. 3Wolf, Aaron T., Annika Kramer, Alexander Carius, & Geoffrey D. Dabelko. (2005). ‘‘Managing water conflict and cooperation.’’ In Worldwatch Institute, State of the world 2005: Redefining global security (pages 80–95). New York: Norton. 4See the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) Secretariat’s website at http://www.nilebasin.org/.

5 Haavisto, Pekka. (2005a). ‘‘Environmental impacts of war.’’ In Worldwatch Institute, State 

of the world 2005: Redefining global security (pages 158–159). New York: Norton. 

llll. (2005b). ‘‘Green helmets.’’ Our Planet 15(4), 21–22. 6World Health Organization. (2004). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level. Geneva: World Health Organization. 

• The Indus Waters Treaty stayed in force despite three major wars between 

India and Pakistan since its signing in 1960.

• Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand formed the Mekong Committee in 

1957 and continued exchanging water data throughout the Southeast Asian 

wars of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

• From the 1980s until the early 1990s, while both nations were formally at 

war, water managers for Israel and Jordan held secret ‘‘picnic table’’ talks to 

arrange sharing the water from the Jordan and Yarmuk rivers.

Despite the warnings of impending ‘‘water wars’’—especially in the Nile River 

Basin—research indicates that nations do not go to war over water.2,3 Since 1999, 

the Nile Basin Initiative, facilitated by the UN Development Programme, the World 

Bank, and the Canadian International Development Agency, and supported in part 

by USAID, has included all the Nile’s riparians in ministerial-level negotiations to 

formulate a shared vision for the basin’s sustainable development.4 While not explicitly a peacemaking effort, this cooperative program provides vital avenues for dialogue and promises tangible advances in development, thus reducing tensions.

The U.S. government should support and encourage efforts to apply lessons 

learned from such prominent efforts. In another ‘‘basin at risk,’’ Angola, Namibia, 

and Botswana want to use the Okavango River in potentially incompatible ways, 

which could reopen old wounds in this former war zone. Basin-wide institutions 

such as the Okavango River Commission, however, are actively fostering cooperation 

to meet the countries’ changing needs and head off conflict. In one of its few multilateral water projects, USAID is supporting this fragile water basin institution as 

it tries to peaceably meet the region’s water, sanitation, and development needs. 

Not only can cooperative water management help prevent conflict, but it can help 

resolve wars caused by other problems. For example, neither the conflict between 

Israel and Palestine nor the conflict between India and Pakistan was caused by 

water scarcity. Nevertheless, water resources are key strategic assets that each 

party must agree how to share before conflict can end. By dedicating working 

groups to negotiating water issues, the respective peace processes have explicitly 

recognized the importance of shared water resources. 

Finally, cooperative water management can help countries recover from war and 

emerge from post-conflict reconstruction safer, healthier, and more stable. As Pekka 

Haavisto, head of UNEP’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit, writes in State of the 

World 2005, efforts to restore the transboundary Mesopotamian marshlands have 

brought Iraqi and Iranian scientists together for the first time in 29 years.5 By helping establish water management structures that promote dialogue and cooperation 

among former combatants, these steps may prevent the reemergence of conflict.

But the future of water conflict and cooperation may not look like the past. Soon, 

for example, Chinese plans for eight hydropower dams on the headwaters of the 

Mekong River may have dramatic implications for the countries downstream—

Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam—if, as some predict, these dams 

will disrupt rice cultivation and the river’s rich fisheries. 

2. Integrating water and sanitation programs into other sectors will make water and 

sanitation programs more effective—and improve the results of programs in 

other sectors, such as health, agriculture, education, economic development, and 

conflict prevention. 

Both donor and recipients face the challenges posed by sectoral and departmental 

stovepipes that fail to recognize water’s fundamental role in development. Although 

research on the economic benefits of improved water and sanitation is somewhat 

limited, the WHO estimates that the $11.3 billion annual investment needed to 

meet the drinking water and sanitation targets in the MDGs would return $84 billion each year, and save health agencies $7 billion in health care costs and individuals $340 million.6 School attendance would jump by an extra 272 million days a 

year, and children under 5 would gain 1.5 billion healthy days. A WaterAID study 

67

7See http://www.wateraid.org/whatlweldo/wherelwelwork/6301.asp 8See, for example, programs such as those at Oregon State University http://

www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/ and the Universities Partnership for Transboundary Waters 

http://waterpartners.geo.orst.edu/. 

of the impacts of improved water and sanitation in Madagascar found that the 

water projects had reduced child illness and infant mortality rates.7 The time saved 

from fewer long walks to gather water left children more time to study. Offering 

water in the schools led to improved sanitation and hygiene. New community-based 

organizations emerged from water user associations, thus illustrating how water 

management can help build democratic institutions. 

Developing countries must move from recognizing the link between water and development to adopting integrated steps to improve water and sanitation at the national and local levels. More government agencies—beyond the ministries of water 

or environment—should incorporate water’s benefits for the ecosystem, economy, agriculture, health, education, and security into their budgets and policies. The Water 

for the Poor Act 2005 could be a critical step towards this goal: the U.S. government 

should seek to obtain visible and vocal support from developing-country leaders for 

integrating efforts and increasing public ‘‘on-budget’’ funding for water and sanitation. These on-budget resources should not be limited strictly to water, environment, 

or development ministries, but extend to finance, health, education, agriculture, and 

infrastructure ministries. External funding, whether from bilateral donors, international organizations, or NGOs, will inevitably rise and fall over time. But the support under discussion should help generate additional on-budget resources for water 

and sanitation from recipient governments. 

And what we ask of developing countries, we need to do ourselves. Collaborations 

across bureaus and offices would capitalize on key links to a wide range of development goals. The new USAID Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, for example, is a cross-cutting department that examines water and conflict across the 

world, as described in its forthcoming Water and Conflict Toolkit. To support the 

objectives of the Water for the Poor Act 2005, the Committee should add funding 

for training the next generation of water managers. Many U.S. universities and institutes are well-positioned to arm Americans and international managers alike 

with skill sets that go beyond engineering and hydrology to include development 

and agricultural economics, law, ecology, public health, urban planning, and foreign 

and security policy. This support for interdisciplinary training will, in the long run, 

help overcome the stovepiping that plagues many water and sanitation efforts on 

the ground and within donor agencies today.8

3. Improving donor coordination and increasing multilateral efforts would make 

water and sanitation foreign assistance more effective. 

Water is naturally multilateral: it pays no respect to national boundaries. This 

poses a challenge for donors used to looking at problems from a bilateral, not regional or purely local, perspective. As the Committee considers the Water for the 

Poor Act 2005, it should recognize the challenges that arise from donor dollars flowing to national governments, while water supply and sanitation are typically managed and funded at local levels. 

This state-to-state funding path also constrains most donors from taking regional 

approaches, which could address larger water problems across ecosystems. The 

United States should build on its regional efforts, as well as work more often with 

multilateral institutions to escape the bilateral constraints of USAID. In addition, 

a multilateral approach could help the United States operate in regions where it is 

constrained by its perceived alliances with one country or group. 

The United States is not alone in its interest in expanding water programs. The 

portfolios of at least 20 UN entities include water. The World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility, and the British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Japanese, and 

Swedish aid agencies have made integrated water programs a key priority. The 

Water for Poor Act calls for USAID to review its own programs and derive lessons 

from its efforts. However, the review could be even more productive if it also included a selection of water and sanitation programs from leading international organizations, bilateral donors, and overseas NGOs. 

This crowded field produces a dizzying array of programs and policies, which can 

undercut each other. Coordinating donor efforts could reduce the burden on alreadytaxed aid recipients, who complain that some donors give them insufficient funds, 

set unrealistically short time frames, change priorities midstream, require burdensome reporting, establish competing programs, impose inappropriate models, and 

are unwilling to collaborate. Through regular, high-profile forums, the U.S. government should continue to encourage coordination and increased funding for water 

68

and sanitation. While a ‘‘Global Fund for Water’’ modeled on the Global Fund for 

HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria may not be a politically viable or efficient alternative, 

there is still dramatic room for improving coordination among international organizations and bilateral donors. 

Conclusion 

Every eight hours more people die from waterborne disease than were killed in 

the September 11th attacks. Of course clean water will not directly prevent terrorism, but reducing human suffering, encouraging development, and building goodwill increases our security by reducing poverty and underlying grievances around 

the world, including in key countries and communities of strategic concern to the 

United States. As stated in the 2002 National Security Strategy, ‘‘Poverty does not 

make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and 

corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels 

within their borders.’’ Poor water and sanitation are key causes of this destabilizing 

poverty, and addressing these poor living conditions can be central to improving 

broad-based U.S. national security. 

Note 

I am a federal employee at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 

the official memorial to the nation’s 28th president housed within the Smithsonian 

Institution. I am testifying in my own personal capacity and my comments do not 

reflect the views of the Woodrow Wilson Center. In the interest of full disclosure, 

I would like to note that for the past five years, the Wilson Center’s Environmental 

Change and Security Program has also received funding from the U.S. Agency for 

International Development in the amount of $500,000—$625,000 per fiscal year for 

activities on population dynamics, environment, and foreign policy. Funding for the 

Environmental Change and Security Program’s Navigating Peace Initiative on 

water has been provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. For more information, please visit www.wilsoncenter.org/ecsp

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. Mr. Morris. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MALCOLM S. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, 

MILLENNIUM WATER ALLIANCE 

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you. Chairman Hyde, Congressman 

Blumenauer, and Distinguished Members of the Committee on 

International Relations, thank you for drilling new ground with 

this historical hearing on water. 

The Water for the Poor Act well lays out both the problem and 

the need for very clear action. I am Chairman of a Fortune 1000 

company, who considers it a privilege to have discovered first-hand 

the need for clean water on a trip to Africa in 1990, which led to 

the founding of Living Water International. 

Later, the Millennium Water Alliance was launched after the 

World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. We brought 

together in collaboration for the first time U.S. 501[c][3] organizations focused on providing water to poor and developing countries. 

My testimony will focus a moment on Ethiopia for brevity, where 

70 percent, or 42 million people, lack access to clean drinking 

water, their greatest need. The provision of sanitation is critical 

and boosts the health benefits of clean water. 

Following these interventions, health and hygiene training becomes imperative. Here is a plan that works. Rural areas are most 

lacking in access to clean water all over Africa, about 53 percent. 

A secretariat is first formed in the country. Standards for water 

quality, types of pumps, applicable regulations, are established and 

the secretariat then provides a single source of transparent reporting both to donors and to governments. 

Partner meetings are held at water project sites to induce constructive criticism, knowledge sharing, and development of best 

69

practices among the providers of water and sanitation. The MWA 

builds capacity to appropriately deploy available money for water 

developments in each country. 

The MWA works at the community level with local officials, 

forming a community board of both men and women to oversee the 

community’s water needs. Available options are discussed, including the expense of operating a facility. 

Once a solution is selected the MWA works with community 

members, who provide great participation in its implementation, 

and with participation comes ownership. Each implementing team 

includes apprentices so that production capacity can be doubled 

each year. With this model, starting out with only $1.5 million in the first 

year, and doubling expenditures and capacity only one each year, 

water sanitation, health and hygiene training, can be expanded to 

virtually every citizen within a 10-year time frame. 

Based on the initial experience of the MWA, we could provide 

basic water sanitation, health and hygiene training to 42 million 

people in Ethiopia, at a cost of $1.68 billion. This is not all from 

the United States. This is money from all world donors and the 

Ethiopian Government itself. 

The MWA is committed to training the local population to create 

capacity in water, sanitation, health, and hygiene. The process 

helps lay the groundwork to establish businesses that can be 

launched and will be available for continuing maintenance and future upgrading of community water systems. 

If those countries being granted debt relief this week coming up 

would spend much of the former debt payments on providing clean 

water and sanitation, those countries would be able to supply 

water and sanitation to all of their communities within a decade, 

using a model of efficient implementation. 

As a businessman, I understand the many competing needs that 

all leaders are faced with. However, if no provision is first made 

for clean water, I predict that no country will ever rise out of its 

poverty and will always be an international burden. 

Without clean water, these countries will be back at a future G–

8 table with further requests for debt relief. Faced with 50 percent 

of the hospital beds of the world filled because of water-related diseases and huge losses of labor hours, we have a virtual silent tsunami that buries any potential for economic development. 

As a humane society, we want to throw everything that we can 

at treating illnesses. However, we must also vaccinate against 

these illnesses, and that vaccination is clean water. 

Peter Agre of Johns Hopkins University received the Nobel Prize 

for Chemistry in 2003 for the discovery that every cell of the 

human body contains a channel through which only one thing can 

pass, and that is water. Water channels are key, he says, to crucial 

activities, such as making the heart beat, the brain function, and 

the limbs move. 

And with 100 trillion cells in your body, without clean water that 

is 100 trillion ways for something to go wrong. Dr. Richard Garrison, a professor at the University of Texas Health Sciences in 

Houston, has written a universal health coverage plan, and from 

that, I quote:

70

‘‘By any account, the first, most effective implementation would 

be the provision of pure drinking water. Therefore, LEVEL 

ONE of the vertically integrated healing arts is the provision 

of drinking water.’’

Disease in a society can radiate out from any contaminated 

source. Every citizen must be fully aware of the preciousness of 

this resource, and guard their right and their responsibility. 

The things considered by most folks to be appropriate to the physician are not nearly as effective at preventing or treating disease 

as is the provision of pure drinking water. Therefore, the vertically 

integrated healing art should start at the drinking water level. 

Adequate supplies of clean water provides huge benefits for the 

whole global community as well. My company, a public company, 

had its Canadian operations totally shut down by the SARS epidemic, spread through a lack of adequate quantities of water for 

simple handwashing in China. 

HIV/AIDS patients cannot successfully be treated without access 

to clean water, and their caregivers must have access as well. A 

new water-borne disease, Hepatitis E, has broken out in the Central African Republic and spread into Chad and Darfur. 

I fully encourage the passage of H.R. 1973. We must quit spending our dollars to fix recurrent problems and not addressing their 

root cause. It is much less costly to fix the root cause. 

Not one Member of Congress would be reelected if members of 

their district were told that there were better things to spend 

money on than clean water, and their constituents did not have 

clean water. 

The people in other countries are no different. Their children die 

while they languish without clean water, unable to develop and 

staying in squalor, and forever dependent on us. 

The Water for the Poor Act will make it a major objective of the 

United States foreign assistance to promote good health, economic 

development, poverty reduction, women’s empowerment, and environmental sustainability, by providing assistance to expand access 

to safe water and sanitation, and improving hygiene for the people 

around the world. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MALCOLM S. MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, MILLENNIUM WATER

ALLIANCE

Chairman Hyde and distinguished members of the House Committee on International Relations, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on H.R. 

1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005’’. 

First I commend Congressman Blumenauer for introducing this vital legislation 

which well lays out both the problem and the need for clear action. 

I am Chairman of a Fortune 1000 company who was privileged to discover first 

hand the need for clean water on a trip to Africa in 1990 which led to the founding 

of Living Water International. Later, the Millennium Water Alliance was launched 

just after the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. It brought together in collaboration for the first time, U.S. 501 C–3 organizations that were totally devoted to providing water or had large components providing water to developing countries. I am attaching a brief history of the Millennium Water Alliance. 

My testimony will focus on Ethiopia for brevity but my comments are translatable 

to many countries. 70% or 42 million people in Ethiopia lack access to clean drinking water. Just drinking water is the greatest need. The provision of sanitation is 

critical and boosts the health benefits of clean water. Once water and sanitation are 

71

provided it is critical to break past habits and teach people to utilize these new 

interventions. 

Let’s focus on a plan that works. First, emphasis is on rural water and sanitation. 

Rural areas are most lacking in access to clean water all over Africa. 

A Secretariat is first formed in the country consisting of a manager and a financial officer. The Secretariat draws interested parties together from member organizations, US AID, UNICEF, Country water ministries and even local water NGO’s. 

Standards for water quality, types of pumps, and applicable regulations are established. The Secretariat oversees collection of information on finances and service levels and provides a single source of information to governments and funding agencies. 

The Secretariat holds partner meetings at water projects sites to induce constructive criticism, knowledge sharing and development of best practices among the providers of water and sanitation. 

The World Bank has designated funds for Ethiopia but the country itself does not 

have the capacity to appropriately deploy the money for water development. 

The MWA works at the community level with local officials. A community water 

board of men and women is created to oversee the community’s water needs. The 

MWA then works with local officials and board to ascertain what system is appropriate to meet their needs. Available options are discussed including the expense of 

operating a facility. Once a solution is selected, the MWA works with community 

members who provide great participation in its implementation. 

Each implementing team includes extra members to apprentice with the goal of 

being able to split teams and double production capacity within one year. Systems 

are open to inspection and other teams are welcome to study for purposes of replication. With this model starting out with only $ 1.5 million in the first year and doubling expenditure and capacity only once each year, water, sanitation and health 

and hygiene training can be extended to virtually every citizen within a ten year 

time. The total cost for Ethiopia in today’s dollars, approximately $1.68 Billion. 

The MWA is committed to training the local population to create capacity in water 

and sanitation, health and hygiene. In the process, indigenous population will have 

been trained in bookkeeping, teaching and trade skills which will allow them to turn 

their expertise gained into ongoing business skills to continue maintenance and the 

development of more advanced water systems. 

If those countries being granted debt relief would agree to spend all such former 

debt payments on providing clean water, I believe those countries would each be 

able to supply water and sanitation to all their communities within a decade. This 

is using a model of efficient implementation as described with guidance like the 

MWA provides. 

As a businessman, I understand the many competing needs leaders are faced 

with. However, if no provision is first made for clean water, I predict no country 

will rise out of its poverty and will always be an international burden. Without 

clean water, those countries will be back at a future G8 table with the same request 

for debt relief once again. Faced with 50% of the hospital beds of the world filled 

because of water related disease, 80% of premature death and sickness from bad 

water and huge losses of labor hours, we have a silent tsunami that buries any potential for economic development. As a humane society we want to throw every 

thing we have at treating the illnesses. However, we must instead vaccinate against 

the illness. That vaccination is clean water. 

Peter Agre of Johns Hopkins received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2003 for 

the discovery that every single cell of the human body contains a channel through 

which only one thing can pass and that is water. Water channels are key to such 

crucial activities as making the heart beat, the brain function and the limbs move. 

With 100 trillion cells in your body, there are one hundred trillion ways to get sick 

without clean water. 

Dr. Richard L. Garrison, Professor, University of Texas-Houston, Health Science, 

Department of Family Practice and Country Medicine has written a plan on a universal coverage health system. From that, I quote: ‘‘By any account, the first, most 

effective implementation would be the provision of pure drinking water. Therefore, 

LEVEL ONE of the vertically integrated healing arts is the provision of pure drinking water. This must include every individual universally, because disease in a society can radiate out from any contaminated focus. Every citizen must be made fully 

aware of the preciousness of this resource so that they will guard their right and 

their responsibility. 

Most people would not consider drinking water issues to be the business of the 

physician. However, everyone would admit upon reflection that the things considered by most folk to be appropriate to the physician are not nearly as effective at 

preventing or treating disease as is the provision of pure drinking water. Therefore, 

72

if drinking water is not an issue for the health system, then it must be conceded 

that other systems have more impact on health than does the health system. This 

ought not to be! Therefore, the vertically integrated healing arts should start at the 

drinking water level.’’ I will be happy to provide a full copy of this paper. 

Adequate supplies of clean water provide a huge benefit for the whole global community as well. The SARS epidemic spread due to lack of adequate quantities of 

water for simple hand washing. HIV/Aids patients cannot be successfully treated 

without access to clean water and their caregivers are exposed as well. In the Central African Republic, there is an outbreak of a new disease called Hepatitis E. This 

disease is being spread through the water and has reached Chad and into Darfur. 

I fully encourage the passage of H.R. 1973. We must quit spending dollars to fix 

recurrent problems and not addressing the root cause. It is much less costly to address the problem and fix it. Not one member of Congress would be reelected if 

members of their district were told that there were better things to spend money 

on than clean water on if their constituents did not have access to clean water. The 

people are no different in other countries which we let languish without clean water, 

unable to develop and staying in squalor and forever therefore dependent on us. The 

Water for the Poor Act will make it a major objective of united States foreign assistance to promote good health, economic development, poverty reduction, women’s empowerment and environmental sustainability by providing assistance to expand access to safe water and sanitation and improving hygiene for people around the 

world.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [presiding]. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and again as Henry 

Hyde exits, I would like to thank him for his leadership in actually 

bringing this legislation to a hearing today, and of course the author of the legislation as well. 

There are just a couple of things that I am at odds with, and 

there are a couple of things that I agree with. First of all, I don’t 

think that we have any apologies to make as Americans that sometimes we make investments, humanitarian investments, that also 

relate to our strategic needs as a people. 

There is nothing wrong with that, and the fact that we are 

spending so much money in the Middle East, if it would help bring 

peace, that is a wonderful thing, because that would then free tremendous other resources that we could use for more humanitarian 

purposes or other humanitarian purposes. 

That is one of the reasons that I consider myself a supporter of 

the Red Sea to Dead Sea Project, that would enormously increase 

the amount of water available in that area of Jordan, Israel, and 

the West Bank, and what will be Palestine. 

Because when you look at what is going on in the West Bank, 

the walls that they are going to supposedly build around the West 

Bank, a lot of it had to do with walling off water resources. And 

until anybody recognizes that and looks at that, and sees that as 

a motive, we are not going to be able to solve that problem. 

So let’s increase the water level of supplies in that area and it 

will be easier to bring peace to that area. Billions of dollars would 

then be freed from militarism to more humanitarian efforts. 

It seems to me that what we have here today, and from the testimony that I have heard, it is very similar to what we heard in the 

debate over what type of development aid we should have in the 

past. 

And microenterprise used to be a real controversial—or at least 

it wasn’t an accepted principle. The idea that we should have micro 

efforts aimed at individuals, and helping people in need, rather 

than mega projects that would develop entire economies, et cetera. 

73

And in the end, microenterprises has become very popular now 

because it ensures at least a certain amount of progress in a society. Mega projects quite often don’t go anywhere unless you can get 

control of the corruption in a society. 

So a micro approach, whether it is economic, or whether we are 

talking about water, is a way to get around the corruption that prevents the type of progress that we are looking for. 

That is why I would think that what we need to do is try to find 

focus, and this legislation is aimed at this, Water for the Poor. How 

do we make sure that we get clean water to those people whose 

children are now dying, who end up in hospitals costing huge 

amounts of money for the society? 

How do we get directly to them and get around perhaps corrupt 

governments that we would have to deal through if we had a bigger 

project in mind? And with that in mind, I wonder if we can again 

talk about some of the—is the answer here trying to get people—

number one, we and the last witnesses talked about wells, and improving wells, and things like that in Africa. But do we also need 

to, for example, have packets of water that can be put into clean 

water for a family, or something like that? It seems to me that you 

could drop bleach or whatever it is into—one drop of bleach might 

clean out the bacteria from the water. 

Is that the approach that we should take, or should we take instead building aqueducts for countries so that water can be transported from one place to another? Which is the approach that is the 

best, and I will open that up to the panel? 

Mr. MORRIS. The approach that we are taking is a people-to-people approach. It is at the grassroots level, and is working at the 

very local level, and not with the—other than working with the 

central government to establish standards that are acceptable 

within a country, we work straight at the local level. 

So there is no corruption that enters in. It is a people-to-people 

effort, and involves the community, and self-help, and training. 

These are not mega projects. Most of the people in urban—even 

urban sub-Saharan Africa, do have access to clean water. 

If you are well enough to be able to afford it, you can buy clean 

water. There are interventions such as you are speaking of using 

chlorination, household chlorination, that are fine in certain circumstances where there is a fairly clean source of water available. 

Most of what we are dealing with in the areas that we work with 

is really not susceptible to that treatment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You mentioned community development. In 

fact, maybe that is someplace in between the individual humanitarian effort and having to go through a centralized government, 

and maybe some other thoughts on that? 

Mr. LOCHERY. I think in answer to your question, it is important 

to realize that as we progress in understanding how to bring water 

and sanitation services, particularly to the poor, we open up new 

technologies. 

Five or 10 years ago, people were not talking about point of use 

water treatment. Now it is being talked about quite extensively. 

And what I mean by point of use water treatment is what CDC and 

many other partners have been promoting, in the form of simple 

dosing with sodium hyperchlorates. 

74

Proctor and Gamble marked a product. It is called Pure, and it 

comes in a packet, and is more expensive, but not only does it disinfect the water, but also takes out any sediment that is there, and 

there are other point of use methods. 

But I think we need to keep an open mind and if I can use the 

phrase which the British use, there are horses for courses. In other 

words, you need different types of race horses for different types of 

race courses. And it is important. Sometimes we do not adapt. 

The second point that I would like to make is that we do need 

to work with governments. I mean, we can work directly people-topeople as NGOs, and we work with local organizations. But we also 

work with government, and one of the reasons that we work with 

government is that if we look at Ethiopia, for example, if you look 

at their water budget, how much are they spending at the moment 

in their budget? 

They are spending about 38 percent of their budget each year. 

So they don’t have enough to reach the Millennium Development 

goal in Ethiopia, but it comes from two reasons. One, inability to 

spend the money that they have already, and secondly, they need 

additional money. 

So we have to free up those funds that countries already have, 

and work with them to reduce bureaucracy at different levels within the government. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 

just one final note. The corruption level in some of these countries—I mean, including Ethiopia—if we could just—frankly, to ask 

people here to spend more of their hard-earned money for countries 

whose governments just wink and nod, and there is corruptions at 

the highest levels, it is not realistic. 

When you talk about going to bypass those governments and trying to get directly to the people, that is a realistic assessment, because Americans, like everybody else, have good hearts. It tears us 

apart to think of children dying needlessly. 

But don’t expect us to think that corruption level—that unless 

that comes down, there is no way that we are going to be able to 

channel more resources that have to go through those governments. 

Mr. PAYNE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Payne, you are next. 

Mr. PAYNE. Oh, okay. Thank you. You know, there is no question 

there is corruption. I think though that we have these 

hypotheticals in our mind that all the money is going to corruption. 

And if you have a way to quantify and know exactly how much 

corruption is going on, I would appreciate—Mr. Rohrabacher, I am 

responding to your question. I know that your colleague is chatting. 

Excuse me. 

But I just wanted to say that if you have quantifiable evidence 

that the water program has this tremendous amount of corruption, 

I would appreciate it if you could get that information. I think we, 

in many instances, hallucinate sometimes, and come up with these 

problems. 

We know that corruption exists, but to say specifically that there 

is a certain thing happening at a particular place, I think that does 

75

a disservice to those taxpayers that you are talking about, who do 

not want to see their money go into corruption. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would be happy to answer that question. If 

the question is aimed at me, I would be happy to answer. If you 

would yield. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, your time was up. I am using up my time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thought you were asking me a question. 

Mr. PAYNE. No, I was just making a statement to you, and perhaps some other time we could have a colloquy, but I do think that 

I would question the validity of your off-hand statement that there 

is a tremendous or exorbitant amount of corruption in the water 

program in Ethiopia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Excuse me, but let me note that I never said 

the water program in Ethiopia. I said corruption in the Ethiopian 

Government. 

Mr. PAYNE. We are talking about water, and that is what we are 

focusing on right now. Anyway, just quickly, I guess my time is almost expired, but I just would like to indicate that I think that we, 

and my colleague, talked about the fact that—and I agree that we 

need to support our friends, and that our programs should have 

some national security component to it. It should have something 

to do with our allies, but when 94 percent of the water for the poor 

is going simply basically to the war on terror, then I question when 

5,000 people are dying a day because of water-related illnesses, 

what we will finally end up doing is concentrating on Afghanistan, 

Iraq, et cetera, and find that we are creating other heavens for terrorism. 

A lot of times a penny wise is a penny foolish, and I think if we 

can target programs to prevention, and we don’t necessarily create 

problems that we find, but I just wonder how—and anyone could 

answer it, but how are we going to come close to our Millennium 

Challenge Account of having the water problem by 2015 at the current rate? 

And that will be just my last question, do you think we can reach 

the goal at this time, and if not, what do we have to do to alter 

it? I also had a question about—and not really water related, but 

about this whole locust question. 

And I would hope that the Millennium Challenge Account folks 

could look at that, because under colonialism, there was a regional 

approach to locusts. They laid their eggs at a particular time, and 

if you know that water is going to come into a particular area, you 

can kill the eggs before they hatch, and the problems that Mali had 

with these tremendous locust problem. 

I would like to talk to the Millennium Challenge. I met with the 

President of Niger, and they said that it would probably not be 

very costly at all to reconvene this regional group of individual 

countries that could prevent the terrible tragedy that we saw with 

millions of locusts. 

And 30 years ago, it would have been located by the regional colonial groups, and they would go into spray or to kill the lavas before they would hatch, but without that cooperation. 

So I think that might be something that we would like to talk 

to the Millennium Challenge people about. It is not directly water 

76

related, but I think if we stretch it somewhat, we can see that if 

it wasn’t for water, these eggs would not hatch. 

But just in relation to the goals and what could be done, if anyone would like to address that in the remaining minute that I have 

left. 

Mr. MORRIS. I would just like to make a comment. I have just 

returned from two countries in Africa to review the operations of 

the Millennium Water Alliance. And having gone to Kenya and met 

with President Kibaki, who was elected to end corruption, and then 

had a stroke, and I think lost a little bit of ground there. But he 

came up on national TV at a meeting with us, and made a commitment to take water to 20 million people in Kenya on national TV. 

Within hours all over the country, that word was out. 

We are going to be doing two major projects over the summer as 

a result of that meeting. These are headlines in the Kenyan paper 

right here about American support coming to Kenya for water. A 

Presidential well, which is underway right now. President Kabiki 

will have the ministers of finance, water, health, and education, 

along with 10 members of Parliament, who have agreed to do water 

projects in their districts. 

And at this nationally televised event, the President will challenge all 210 members of Parliament of Kenya to do likewise and 

complete one or more water projects in each of their districts. 

He will reiterate that the provision of clean water is key to the 

economic development, health of the nation, and critical to the ability of that nation to educate its children. 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with corruption. This is at the 

local level. A second project is the peace well. You all spoke of the 

peace situation, at the dedication of the peace well where 21 children were killed in the 30 days before we arrived, and the President at that well dedication will proclaim that all over the world 

water has been the trigger for conflict. 

Even in Kenya, our own children have been killed in conflicts 

over water, but with the dedication of this peace well, water will 

become known as the trigger for peace in Kenya. 

And the Kenyan Parliament has reacted by passing a discretionary constituency fund, devoting 2.5 percent of its Federal budget, allocated among each member of Parliament to use for the most 

pressing needs in each member’s district. Again, the President is 

asking each member to devote a part of their discretionary account 

to water. 

They have additionally established a new Khs180 million fund 

for water projects that will be done in these key areas of critical 

conflict, up in the northern areas where it is very hot. 

And we cannot—I think as an international community, we cannot let this opportunity pass, and the poor of the country suffer because a government is not yet perfect. And Kenya has not qualified 

for the Millennium Challenge Account. It has not qualified for debt 

forgiveness, and they want to use this water effort as a key way 

to show the world that we can do something with the United 

States. 

And there is not going to be any corruption involved. And I will 

be leading Members of our Congress to Kenya for the dedication of 

77

that peace well in Kenya. I would invite your participation in helping bring our two nations together. 

And I want to reiterate in the light of the latest headlines that 

this is not a paid junket. This is a key opportunity for our nation 

to begin implementing the practice of water diplomacy. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I am just stunned, Mr. Chairman, with 

just that the testimony keeps getting better and the focus on it. I 

just want to thank our witnesses. I look forward to following up 

with each of them. 

I am in a slight difficulty. I have an amendment on the Floor 

that I need to get to in a moment, but I have been a huge fan of 

what CARE is doing and being able to focus in a very practical way 

makes a big difference, I think, for people to understand the motivation and the intensity that we need to have for the legislation. 

Dr. Dabelko, your focus on these three elements, and integrating 

it into our work is something that I think we want to take back 

to our Committee to be able to reinforce what we are trying to do, 

and why. 

And I just confess, Mr. Morris, that in your testimony when you 

talked about the example in Ethiopia of being able to tie the links 

together with a sustained plan over time, and being able to channel 

resources that we are giving to people, I love the notion about tying 

debt forgiveness. 

And in your observation that in many places there are people 

who are paying a lot of money now. Mr. Chairman, this is something that I think we can work on together, because many of these 

desperately poor countries, there is a huge amount of money that 

is being spent now on inadequate, unreliable water, that if we can 

provide the framework, as Mr. Morris was talking about, we can 

leverage that in a way that we can achieve the Millennium Development Goals. 

And I want to express my appreciation. I would like to follow up 

with each of the three of you as we try and fine-tune this and extend the network, because the same way that I think Mr. Morris 

talked about, giving water as an example for some of these countries that from a distance look like basket cases. But if we give 

them something concrete that will provide momentum, they can 

help them come together. 

Mr. MORRIS. Absolutely. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I truly believe that this legislation is something that we can do on this Committee that is bipartisan, that is 

cost effective, that meets our other objectives, and that will have 

a healing impact. 

So I deeply appreciate the work that the Committee has done to 

this point, and these panels, as we were talking a moment ago, 

have just been superb, in terms of ammunition that we can use. 

And I think helping give a broader sense of the urgency for this, 

because we will have had 600 children lose their lives needlessly 

in the course of this hearing, and it is that sort of focus, I think, 

that can help us make a difference. And I just am deeply appreciative for what people have done. Thank you. 

78

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Blumenauer, and thank you for your extraordinary leadership on 

this issue. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Now we need to go save Amtrak. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I’m with you. Now, we are joined by 

John Culberson, a Distinguished Member from the State of Texas, 

who is a Member of the Appropriations Committee. I yield such 

time as he would like. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blumenauer, 

and Mr. Payne, I want to pledge to you on my behalf to work with 

you on the Appropriations Committee to spearhead the effort on 

appropriations to make sure that the money that Congress sets 

aside for this noble and invaluable purpose is actually spent. 

I know that you all have to run, but I want to ask the witnesses, 

and Mr. Morris in particular, how much money has the Appropriations Committee set aside for the development of safe clean drinking water in Africa over the last 2 years, and how much has actually been spent by USAID? 

Mr. MORRIS. I think that it was about $50 million a year, and 

I think it was around $7 million the first year, and $10 million the 

second year. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So only 7 to 10 total has been spent of a total 

of about how much? 

Mr. MORRIS. Fifty million a year. Seven million the first year, 

and I think 10 million the second year. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So, $17 million out of $100 million? I want the 

Members to let that sink in, because this is the problem, and it is 

why I am here. Malcolm Morris is a constituent and someone that 

I admire immensely. Malcolm has no personal stake in this. He is 

a very successful businessman from Houston. His parents founded 

Stewart Title. Malcolm is doing this out of the goodness of his 

heart, and the depth of his faith and conviction of how important 

this is for the people of the Third World. 

I have come to admire Malcolm immensely. I believe that the 

United States should do everything in our power to shift our foreign aid focus from handing out sacks of wheat and radios, portable 

radios, to providing safe clean drinking water, because it does indeed revolutionize these Third World countries, and liberate 

women, and improve health. 

Malcolm has been doing that with Living Water in Houston, 

based out of Houston, that you founded. And USAID has said the 

right things, and has committed to do the right things, but they 

simply are not doing it. 

Seventeen million dollars out of $100 million appropriated, and 

so the appropriators need to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

authorizers. The bill looks terrific. 

I have just scanned it and looked through it, and I would encourage you to add some language to make USAID, to require them, 

to implement what the President envisions, and what this Committee envisions, and what the Congress has envisioned. 

And that is to provide safe clean drinking water to these people 

who are just desperate for it. All the mechanisms are there, aren’t 

they, Malcolm? I mean, you have been able to go in and talk to the 

Committee very briefly about your success in Ethiopia and in 

79

Kenya of what you have done so far with the resources that you 

had at hand. 

Mr. MORRIS. USAID committed only $800,000 to Ethiopia 

through the MWA. Vanessa Tobin, who is behind me, and I made 

a trip. We flew 9 hours and drove 18 hours through Ethiopia in a 

1-week period. And I just want to tell you that we went to the area 

of Tigray. There were triple the planned number of people using 

one bore hole. We talked to them, and we said to the assembled 

community that we are from the United States. 

Our friends in America understand that water is life, and because we love them, and they, along with USAID, have provided 

the money for MWA to work in your community and provide this 

new water source. 

And I want to tell you that if every one of you could have been 

there, the vote would have been 100 percent out of the Congress, 

because the people clapped, and they jumped, and they danced, and 

they screamed their support for the United States. 

There was no animosity. This was basic grassroots diplomacy 

and action. They told us later that the only time that community 

had seen aid before from the United States was in times of famine. 

But now USAID, with us, has come with water to help them 

produce their own crops, and avoid the pangs of famine. I could do 

nothing better than to support this bill and give you that good report. 

Mr. PAYNE. That was just the point that I was trying to make 

earlier when I talked about the very small amount that was going 

into sub-Saharan Africa, and if we can show that America cares, 

if we show projects like this, if we show people that we do want 

to see their children grow up and women be free, and so forth, we 

can prevent the 95 percent that we are spending in Iraq and the 

West Bank, and all the rest. 

In other words, if we can nip the grounds for terrorism in the 

bud by small programs like that, then we don’t have to spend the 

95 percent over there. 

Mr. CULBERSON. If the gentleman will yield. There is no question 

that the goodwill that is generated by this type of work is just extraordinary, and you do revolutionize lives. It turns people’s lives 

around in these countries. 

And the point that I really wanted to make was not only to come 

to personally thank you, Malcolm Morris, for your superb work in 

this area, but all of you who have worked in water, to vouch for 

this good man’s good heart, and his character, and the work that 

he has done. 

But also as appropriate to impress upon you as the authorizers 

that it is just absolutely inexcusable for 83 percent of the money 

to be sitting there unspent. And $100 million set aside for this purpose, and we cannot get USAID off the dime to make it happen. 

On the Appropriations Committee, we have a long tradition of 

obviously not wanting to get into the authorizing area. We don’t 

want to intrude on the jurisdiction of other Committees to pass authorizing legislation. 

But as a new Member of the Committee, it has been very frustrating to me. Are we on the Appropriations Committee simply to 

be a light switch, maybe a dimmer switch, to turn on or off the 

80

money, with no authority to make sure that the bureaucracy is actually enforcing the law that you have passed? 

I think we need to work together to change the rules of this 

House so that the Appropriations Committee can be the enforcers, 

and we can pass and come up with non-substantive procedural 

mechanisms to ensure that the bureaucracy doesn’t get the money 

until they can prove that they are enforcing the law that you pass. 

Otherwise, we will continue to see this pattern, and this is true 

not only in this Committee with USAID, but in many other areas, 

with transportation, with the Federal Aviation Administration, 

with all the agencies of the Federal Government. The bureaucracy 

does not move until we work together. 

And I really want to work with you, and you have my commitment, Mr. Chairman, to do everything in my power to work with 

you not only in supporting this bill, but I hope that we can amend 

it in a way. 

And perhaps the House rules as well, so that the Appropriations 

Committee can force USAID to do the right thing, and follow the 

will of Congress and this President in providing safe clean drinking 

water to these people and these countries who need it so desperately, and are so grateful for it. And what you have obviously done was so little, $800,000, and 

look at the result. Imagine what we could do if they would just 

spend the money we appropriated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Malcolm. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. John, thank you very much for being 

here as a Member of the Appropriations Committee. Obviously we 

work hand-in-glove on some of the issues, and it is important to 

send the message that delay is denial for the 5,000 people who die 

every day due to water-borne and diarrheal diseases. 

Delay certainly does not in any way advantage them, plus the 

many more millions for whom a very serious illness results. I do 

appreciate your comments, and you for joining us here today. 

I do have just a couple of questions before I conclude the hearing, 

unless Mr. Payne has some additional questions as well. Thank you 

all for your testimony, as it was extraordinary. Mr. Blumenauer 

and I were talking earlier about how this gives us additional ammunition to promote this extremely vital cause. 

Dr. Dabelko, I became aware of the water issue back in the early 

1980s, but particularly regarding the treatment aspect, such as 

oral rehydration and the like. I know that USAID, to its credit, has 

a very robust program in places like Egypt and elsewhere, where 

children have been saved because of the administration of the salts 

and glucose. 

It does work, but obviously going to the root cause is the easy 

way to do it, and you gentlemen are doing an extraordinary job. Dr. 

Dabelko, obviously with your work on the Center for Scholars, 

higher education training seems to me to be one of the most important things you do. 

The information transfer is successful if we can convey the best 

practices sooner rather than later, perhaps by bringing over people 

who could learn in our universities, and perhaps working with you. 

What is being done to train up a generation of people in the developing worlds? 

81

I had asked Ms. Schafer earlier about the whole issue of sustainability as it relates to debts, or as I should say, bonds. I couldn’t 

say debt, although it is debt. That kind of mechanism is important, 

however, because I do believe that is how we keep our sanitation 

capability alive and well. 

None of us would own a home if we didn’t take out a mortgage. 

It just does not work that way. You can’t have all that money up 

front, and foreign aid only goes so far. But on the technical side, 

are we training up a generation of men and women throughout the 

world, particularly in Africa, who can bring back to their villages 

and hamlets the knowledge of how to clean up their water? 

Mr. DABELKO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a most 

welcome question, and I think you really put your finger on a critical need as you highlight, for example, the financial mechanisms. 

It introduces a whole set of different skills that the new generation of water managers have to have. It has to go beyond hydrology, beyond engineering, especially as we talk about going to local 

programs that are much more integrated into a whole development 

package with education, and health, and agriculture, and such. 

So, I am pleased to say that there are programs in the United 

States that are very strong. In fact, one in Congressman 

Blumenauer’s district, at Oregon State University, in the Geography Department, really has this philosophy that a broad set of 

skills are necessary. 

I think that it would be fair to say that there is a lot of room 

for additional people and resources to be trained in this diverse set 

of skills, and that we do have the universities and the programs 

that could do that. 

Perhaps not enough of them have this broad focus, but it would 

certainly be very valuable, in overcoming some of the narrow sectoral approaches, to actually train the folks that are going to be 

doing it in these broad approaches from the very beginning. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. To the best of your knowledge, and 

I think you might be more likely to know this, does the Fulbright 

Scholarship Program or any of our State Department and foreign 

aid or higher education programs, include a component that tries 

again to train up a generation? 

I know that we do it in the business area. Actually, not so long 

ago, I visited a number of Fulbright Scholars in Vietnam and spoke 

to them, and I didn’t ask the question, frankly, are any of you into 

dealing with water resources and the like? But is that something 

that is being done? 

Mr. DABELKO. Sir, to the best of my knowledge, it is not explicitly made a focus of our program, but it could be in part, depending 

on what the person coming here was interested in doing. 

There are some small programs supported by private foundations 

that are targeted toward bringing people in a broad set of development areas, including water and resources management, over for 

relatively short visits, though not necessarily for the amount of 

time that they might need to really develop the skills. But it is certainly an area that would be rich and ripe for growth. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes, Mr. Lochery. 

Mr. LOCHERY. I just wanted to make a comment on financial 

mechanisms. Whereas, there is significant experience on the proviVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
82

sion of loans and credit guarantees for urban water and sanitation, 

experience on providing loans for water and sanitation in periurban 

areas and also in rural areas is much more scant. 

One of the reasons for this is that people are very poor. They are living on $1 or $2 a day. But there is some initial experience, and 

there are clearly some opportunities for providing a mix of loans 

and grants to rural people for water and sanitation. 

But I mention that it is a mix of loans and grants that is being 

tried at the moment, and I think that we do have to sort of bite 

the bullet here and realize that for many poor people in rural areas 

that they do need a grant. They just don’t have the resources to 

pay back a loan. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Foreign Affairs Assistance Act 

will be up on the Floor probably the week of the 17th, and I would 

like to look into the possibility of doing an amendment if it will 

scope this out to see if it has any validity. But that it would direct 

some of our higher education grants to at least look into trying to 

again train up some people in this area, because to the best of my 

knowledge, it is not happening, but I don’t know one way or the 

other. We will ask that question of the State Department and 

USAID as well, to see if they know of any breakout to try to direct 

some of this money into that area. 

And in terms of the grants, I take your point that grants rather 

than loans certainly would be much more advantageous for local 

authorities to do this. Let me just ask you, Mr. Morris, because you 

raised this, but all three of you might want to answer this, but on 

the issue of grant relief. Senator Rick Santorum and I, in the past, 

have introduced legislation on debt relief. He was successful in getting a portion of that attached to Henry Hyde’s bill on AIDS, the 

$15 billion Omnibus Bill. 

Now, as far as you know, very often when we talk about how 

that money will be used, it is in much more general terms than I 

would like. I would like very specific, delineated usages of the 

money that is saved for debt relief. 

But you make a very powerful point that the money should really 

be put—hook, line, and sinker—into the water issue. Do all of you 

agree with that? I mean, given all the competing priorities that we 

have? I mean, is this the one that we really should be saying, this 

is where we make a difference? Mr. Morris. 

Mr. MORRIS. I want to say that I have tried to make things simple to people. Whether building a company, building a country, 

building a house, you start with a foundation. And water is the 

foundation. 

You might have money set aside for a roof, or for walls, or windows, et cetera, but if you don’t start with your foundation, the 

house will collapse. And water is the foundation. It is not the end. 

But when people have clean water and they don’t have diarrhea, 

they can then do for themselves. We have put water out there for 

a school, and we gave it for people to use the water. It cost us 

maybe $5,000 to put in a well. 

The people built two-, three-story stone classrooms. The school 

holds 325 students. The school, in 4 years and from scratch, scores 

number one in the western district of Kenya. We spent $5,000 giving the people water so that they could do as a community, and be 

83

healthy, and have water for access for building, and build for themselves. 

When people do for themselves, it makes them much more proud, 

and gives them ownership, than if you come in and do aid for them. 

Now, the worst thing that we do is to try to create a world of people dependent on foreign aid. 

Giving people water again gives them the ability to start out in 

life and do something on their own. And that is why I am so focused on this area. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes? 

Mr. DABELKO. I would just say, generally, if there are means and 

incentives to get water and sanitation on budget in the recipient 

countries, then that is certainly a goal that should be part of any 

package that this House passes. 

I think that, by definition, foreign assistance will always be a 

small percentage of the money that is spent in any given country 

on water and sanitation. And so raising those totals in the recipient government is critical. 

Mr. LOCHERY. I think it gets back to the issue of prioritization 

and I don’t think we are seeing enough developing countries 

prioritize water and sanitation. Once they start to prioritize water 

and sanitation, it begins to appear in their poverty-reduction strategy papers. 

Incidentally, there was a review of, I think, 14 poverty-reduction 

strategy papers across sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia, and only two 

mentioned water and sanitation in any significant fashion. 

I think once water is prioritized, then governments will make 

their own decisions about how they are going to use debt relief. I 

think one needs to be a little bit cautious about instructing governments about how they are going to use debt relief. 

Furthermore, I think there needs to be a more careful look at 

what funds governments have available for water and sanitation, 

and how they are using them, and what the shortfall is. 

And then that will indicate what additional funds they have, and 

clearly debt relief would be important then for making up those 

funds. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. But on the other hand, every dollar 

of debt relief is another name for a foreign aid dollar. So, having 

at least some condition on the strings, it would seem to me that 

sends a message of priority from our part. It is found money in a 

sense for them as well. 

Let me ask just one final question on good governance, which obviously is a very big issue. To the best of your knowledge, do any 

of you know if the programs that we sponsor, like the National Endowment for Democracy, but especially like IRI and others who 

train up politicians and people—and usually the focus there as we 

all know is on getting access to the media, and creating a civil society, and having good transparent elections—but it seems to me 

that it would also be an opportune time to say to that local mayor 

who is not a candidate for mayor that there should be some training in the area of clean water and sanitation. 

I remember a mayor running in my district years ago, and she 

did become the mayor. She said that my platform is to talk garVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
84

bage. If I talk garbage, I get elected, because that is our main problem. We have a very serious garbage problem. 

In my district, we have had serious problems with national priority listing sites under the Super Fund. We probably have more 

garbage in my district than any other State. Our State has more 

than any other State in the country per capita. 

So we know a little something about garbage, and it is an issue, 

and in this case, toxic waste, that we are always trying to educate 

ourselves on. And it seems to me that by including this perhaps in 

the curriculum, that there is not a whole lot that you might be able 

to convey when IRI or some other group is training up politicians 

in developing countries. 

But clean water seems to be something that they could grasp 

very, very easily, and without having to go right to the consultant, 

like we do some days in our States. But if you could speak to that. 

Is that being done to the best of any of your knowledges? 

Mr. MORRIS. I would just make a comment on one quick recent 

example that I have experienced. President Ravalomanana of 

Madagascar was educated at Abilene Christian College and served 

as mayor of the city. He found out, if you take care of water and 

sanitation issues, this is key. 

He got elected President just because he took care of those issues 

as mayor. He is very popular, and he is very, very committed to 

taking water to all of the country of Madagascar. 

I have found—I mean, after President Kabiki of Kenya made the 

statement and went on public television, when I got to visit with 

President Girma the following Monday in Ethiopia, he was saying 

that we don’t want to take 10 years. We want to take 7 years. And 

I said that you can’t do it in 7 years. We can do it in under 8, but 

we can’t do it in 7. 

They just opened the door and rolled out the red carpet, if you 

can take care of water. Start surveying the people in these countries and you are asking what their number one needs are, it is in 

water, education, sharing openness of our politicians, bringing politicians here for education, I think is very key. 

But again the very first time I ever went to Africa in 1990, the 

first thing that probably happened to me in government was being 

asked for a bribe to get equipment out in order to help the people, 

and I told them that no, the equipment was already paid for, and 

belonged to the lord, and they shut up about it, and I have never 

had another person ask since. 

And we work again at the local grassroots level. People at the 

grassroots level, at the mayoral, at the community level, boy, you 

start taking money away from their water sanitation projects, you 

are going to be in trouble. So that forces a lot of focus, if you will, 

on the politicians at that level. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I think this issue of transparency, so 

that when people demand services, which they do, politicians at different levels cannot avoid dealing with that demand. They can’t get 

it under the carpet. They have to deal with it. 

And then we will see them starting to decide that they need to 

use the resources that are available to them for water and sanitation. So I think it is the opening up of those channels from the 

grassroots to let people express their demand and give voice, and 

85

then it makes it much more difficult for people, for politicians, to 

divert monies to other purposes. 

I want to thank you gentleman for your testimony and look forward to staying in touch with you going forward, and we do appreciate it. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(87)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Lantos, for your interest in this 

issue and for your leadership in working to raise the profile. 

The topic of this hearing may be the global crisis in water and sanitation, but its 

subject is really the millions of girls who can’t go to school today because they need 

to spend hours walking to gather water for their families, the hundreds of thousands of hours of productivity for economic growth that will be lost because half of 

the developing world is sick from a water related disease, and the 10,000 people who 

will have died unnecessarily by the end of today. 

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the 

United States and 185 other countries agreed to the goal of cutting in half the percentage of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation by 2015. The 

challenge is large, but can be met. Over the last 20 years, 2 billion people have 

gained access to clean water and 600 million have gained access to sanitation services. 

I introduced legislation, H.R.1973, the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act,’’ which many of 

the members of this Committee have cosponsored. It makes increasing access to safe 

water and sanitation in an affordable and equitable way a major purpose of U.S. 

assistance, calls for a strategy to meet specific goals and benchmarks, and expresses 

policy in support of integrating water into other development aims, such as health, 

education, and economic growth. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid. 

‘‘Water comes from God,’’ the joke goes, ‘‘but He forgot to put pipes in the ground.’’ 

I believe that we’ve developed many of the technologies and financing mechanisms 

to take over where God left off. 

Now, as we await next week’s G–8 Summit focusing on Africa and extreme poverty, I hope that the United States and other donor countries will step up and do 

our share in creating sustainable and affordable access to water and sanitation for 

the very poor. The Water for the Poor Act is designed to make that happen. 

The Copenhagen Consensus group of economists—a group skeptical of foreign 

aid—rate investments in water and sanitation as some of the best and most effective investments in development, growth, and ending poverty. This is not assistance 

that ends up in Swiss bank accounts. Instead it puts local people to work and saves 

children’s’ lives. 

Before I close, I want to thank a number of the groups that have worked with 

my office to create this legislation: Water Advocates, a new advocacy group in DC 

focusing on global water issues, CARE USA, Mercy Corps, the National Wildlife 

Federation, the Millennium Water Alliance, the US-India PAC, and the Institute for 

Multi-track Diplomacy. I also want to thank Robin Roizman from the Democratic 

staff and Lara Alameh from the Republican staff for all the work they’ve done to 

make this hearing possible. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about exactly what the United 

States can do to work with developing countries to make this natural resource available to people in the right quantity, with the right quality, at the right time. 

88

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this critically important hearing this morning. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how to best address the global 

water crisis. 

Nothing is more essential to a healthy and productive society than the inexpensive and safe access to potable water. Unfortunately, there are still two major problems facing the global water supply; availability and quality. 

Water shortages adversely affect sanitation, irrigation, and even crop production. 

It is estimated that approximately 2 billion people living in roughly 40 countries are 

currently affected by water shortages and/or poor water quality. 

These critical shortages and health concerns disproportionately affect the world’s 

poor and developing countries, mostly located in Africa and Asia. In fact 50% of developing populations live in water poverty, with no underground sewage, toilets, or 

even latrines and more than 5 million people each year die due in part to easilypreventable waterborne diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery and cholera. 

This problem does not just affect poor and developing countries; it directly impacts the United States national security, where the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the 

world’s largest natural water providers, which provides water to ranchers and farmer in eight American States, from South Dakota to Texas, is quickly being depleted 

without replenishment. As a result, nation-wide aquifer levels are dropping to historic lows year by year, which may adversely affect America’s agricultural output 

and our economic security. 

As we sit here today and hear expert testimony on the global water crisis, we 

must remain committed to providing the utmost water availability and quality to 

all the people of the world. 

Through research, development, and implementation, we can utilize new scientific 

technologies and practices, such as desalination, treadle pumps, drip irrigation, and 

developmental sustainability; combined with approving The Water for the Poor Act 

(H.R. 1973), introduced by my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, which I 

proudly co-sponsor and domestic global water aims including the United Nation’s 

Millennium Declaration, we can make a firm attempt to slow down the pace of this 

global crisis. 

The next world war should not be fought over access to clean and potable water. 

Once again Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SRINIVAS VUTHOORI, M.D., US INDIA BUSINESS ALLIANCE, 

EXECUTIVE MEMBER; SCRYPTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., CEO AND FOUNDER; THE

MYR CORPORATION, CEO AND FOUNDER

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hyde for holding this 

hearing and for allowing me to provide testimony before this Committee on what 

I believe to be the most easily preventable morbidity—water borne diseases. 

As a practicing physician in the United States who has experience in the developing world, and as an entrepreneur and an executive committee member of the US 

India Business Alliance, I appreciate the enormity of humanitarian and economic 

aspects this legislation will have on this preventable morbidity. This is why I 

strongly support this bill. 

Morbidity, the rate of disease, due to water borne diseases in populations of developing nations vary as high as up to 80%. This is related strongly to poor sanitation, 

unsafe drinking water and lack of access to water sources. 

The relationship between economic growth from human capital and reduction of 

morbidity is overlooked by many developing nations. In today’s global economy, the 

importance of this could not be any more emphasized. This Bill proposes to mobilize 

and leverage the financial and technical, and managerial expertise of businesses, 

governments, nongovernmental organizations and civil society in the form of public 

private alliances. 

This legislation addresses the economic aspect of unsafe water many times and 

is completely correct. The bill states that every dollar spent on safe water would 

yield an economic return of $3 and $34, depending on the region. In other words, 

an investment of $1,000,000 would yield an economic gain between $3,000,000 and 

$34,000,000. This is millions of dollars that the global economy is losing due to a 

preventable problem, but through this legislation could easily gain. Affecting more 

than 2.4 Billion lives, even a small reduction in morbidity will affect the quality of 

lives of millions and translates to gain of potentially billions of hours of otherwise 

lost human capital. This Bill proposes to encourage reforms and increase the capacVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:28 May 05, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062905\22262.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
89

ity of foreign governments to formulate and implement policies that expand access 

to safe water and sanitation. 

The top twenty water borne disease include (Anemia, Arsinicosis, Ascariasis, 

Campylobacter, Cholera, Cyanobacterial toxins, Dengue, Dengue Hemorrhagic 

Fever, Diarrhea, Drowning, Fluorosis, Dracunculiasis, Hepatitis, Japanese Encephalitis, Lead Poisoning, Leptospirosis, Malaria, Malnutrition, Methemoglobinemia, 

Oncocerciasis, Tinea, Scabies, Schistosomiasis, Spinal injury, Trachoma, Typhoid 

and Paratyphoid). 

In medicine, we are taught to practice of the doctrine ‘‘prevention is better than 

cure’’. However, there are few diseases in medical practice which are out-and-out 

preventable. 

The cost for development of any single new drug and vaccines to fight the above 

list of diseases ranges in the amount of 800 million dollars from research and development, clinical trials to production, marketing and delivery. 

This wide spectrum of water borne diseases as mentioned above are preventable 

by money spent on infrastructural changes providing safe water and sanitation and 

would eliminate the need for billions for dollars spent on treatment. 

The unified global approach to the eradication of smallpox in 1980 has set the 

stage for landmark achievements through enactment of governmental policies. 

I would like thank Chairman Hyde and Congressman Blumenauer and their staff 

for supporting and introducing this Bill. 

In my opinion, the acceptance of this Bill has the ability to have an impact on 

both the global economy as well as humanitarian effects that will far surpass the 

mammoth achievement of the WHO’s historic fight on eradication of smallpox. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT, WATER ADVOCATES

IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 1973, THE WATER FOR THE POOR ACT OF 2005

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lantos, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our support for H.R. 1973, the 

‘‘Water for the Poor Act of 2005.’’ We also want to commend Representative 

Blumenauer for sponsoring this bill, his many cosponsors for supporting it, and to 

express our appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership and support you 

are showing by way of this hearing. 

Water Advocates is a new US non-profit dedicated to increasing American public 

and private support for safe, affordable and sustainable supplies of drinking water 

and adequate sanitation around the world. Water Advocates’ board members are the 

executives of WATERLINES, CARE, WaterAid, Water for People, and 

WaterPartners International. In addition to being the President of Water Advocates, 

I am head of WATERLINES, an all-volunteer non-profit organization that has provided technical help and funding for drinking water projects in over 200 rural communities in 12 developing countries. Neither Water Advocates nor WATERLINES 

is seeking to receive public funding. 

As you know, 1.1 billion people across the world lack access to safe drinking water 

and 2.6 billion have no adequate sanitation. Developing countries themselves bear 

the primary burden to address this problem, and they are already investing 80% 

of the funding needed for their water infrastructure. But the US, by increasing its 

aid for safe and affordable supplies of water, can both complement this indigenous 

effort and leverage new public and private funds. 

We are heartened by the ‘‘Water for the Poor Act,’’ and its Senate counterpart, 

the ‘‘Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act.’’ (S. 492). These bills would make access 

to safe water and sanitation for developing countries a specific policy objective of 

the US foreign assistance program. 

H.R. 1973, which urges increased Official Development Assistance via ‘‘an appropriate balance of grants, loans, investment insurance, [and] loan guarantees,’’ significantly increases America’s ability to provide safe and affordable water and adequate sanitation. 

Private-sector charitable organizations, including those whose executive officers 

make up the Water Advocates board of directors, are already doing a great deal to 

address this serious problem, but more must be done. We urge strong bi-partisan 

support for the Water for the Poor Act, because we believe it will meet pressing humanitarian needs. This proposed legislation will do the following:

• Save lives and reduce disease: Water-related diseases currently kill between 

2 and 5 million people annually (and nearly 4,000 children a day) and cause 

80% of the developing world’s sicknesses (including cholera, typhoid, trachoma and schistosomiasis).

90

• Reduce hunger: The chief cause of malnutrition is often not lack of food supplies but contaminated water supplies (that trigger diarrheal dehydration and 

prevent nutrients in available food from being absorbed by the body).

• Improve economic development: Sick people often cannot work and half the 

world’s hospital beds are filled with those suffering water-related disease. A 

study by the Stockholm International Water Institute and the World Health 

Organization has shown that every $1 invested in safe water and sanitation 

yields a return of between $3 and $34.

• Strengthen education: Children are often kept home from schools to help collect water. UNICEF estimates that half of the world’s schools lack drinking 

water and sanitation. (Without access to latrines, studies show, adolescent 

girls are less likely to attend schools.)

• Empower women: Women across Africa and Asia walk an average of 6 kilometers daily to collect (often contaminated)drinking water.

• Encourage grass-roots democracy: In certain corners of the developing world, 

the first votes ever cast by citizens will be for the local water-committee.

USAID has long supported drinking-water and sanitation projects abroad, but 

current levels of funding are woefully inadequate. Recent US Administration statements—from President Bush’s ‘‘Water for the Poor Initiative’’ to American commitments made at the Johannesburg Summit—provide strong support for clean water 

in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This bill builds on those expressions of support. 

H.R. 1973 will further encourage the rising level of interest in water among private sources of US funding. Across the US—from civic groups like Rotary, to faith 

communities, to corporations and private philanthropies—a deeper understanding of 

the worldwide casualty toll caused by contaminated water is bringing with it unprecedented new levels of private funding and support. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on this important issue. We strongly support this legislation. 

91

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. PETER LOCHERY, SENIOR ADVISOR

ON WATER, SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, CARE USA


22262d0001.eps
92


22262d0002.eps
93


22262d0003.eps
94


22262d0004.eps
95


22262d0005.eps
96


22262d0006.eps
97


22262d0007.eps
98


22262d0008.eps
99


22262d0009.eps
100


22262d0010.eps
101


22262d0011.eps
102


22262d0012.eps
103


22262d0013.eps
104


22262d0014.eps
105


22262d0015.eps
106


22262d0016.eps
107


22262d0017.eps
108


22262d0018.eps
109


22262d0019.eps
110


22262d0020.eps
111


22262d0021.eps
112


22262d0022.eps
113


22262d0023.eps
114


22262d0024.eps
115


22262d0025.eps
116


22262d0026.eps
117


22262d0027.eps
118


22262d0028.eps
119

Æ


22262d0029.eps