A cobalt water pump casts its shadow across an imagined landscape of changing seasons. Original conceptual painting about the continuing care behind dependable water services, not a depiction of an actual project.
How shared responsibility and dependable maintenance keep community water services working
By Arbab Naseebullah Kasi, Chief Executive Officer - CEO, Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc.
The first water from a new community pump is a moment worth celebrating. People have worked, planned and waited for it. Yet the value of that investment will be decided partly on quieter days: when a seal wears out, when the usual caretaker is away, when a repair payment is delayed, or when a test raises a concern about water quality.
Those days deserve a place in the original plan. A water point needs people who can report a problem, people equipped to respond, and money that can reach the repair before an ordinary fault becomes a prolonged interruption. It also needs a clear route for checking whether the water is safe.
This is a practical challenge for community leaders, public authorities, funders and service providers. The question is how to make a useful installation dependable enough to support everyday life, while continuing to improve the level of service people receive.
The need remains substantial. The WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme reported that 2.1 billion people lacked safely managed drinking water in 2024, including 106 million using surface water directly. Rural safely managed coverage improved from 50 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2024. Progress is real, and the unfinished work is enormous. WHO and UNICEF household water update.
Understand what a working pump can tell us
A functioning pump tells us that its equipment can deliver water at the time it is checked. That is useful information. It leaves several important questions unanswered: whether water is available throughout the year, whether the journey is manageable, and whether the supply meets health requirements.
The JMP defines safely managed drinking water as water from an improved source that is accessible on the premises, available when needed, and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination. An improved source with a collection round trip of no more than 30 minutes, including queuing, can meet the definition of a basic service even if it does not meet all the safely managed criteria. JMP drinking water service ladder.
A reliable communal pump away from people's homes may therefore represent an important improvement without qualifying as safely managed household water. Honest reporting should explain that distinction. Communities deserve recognition for genuine progress and clarity about what still needs to change.
Research also cautions against compressing service performance into a single yes or no. A 2025 study in PLOS Water examined a cross-sectional dataset of 1,682 handpumps across ten sub-Saharan African countries. Its alternative indicators captured different aspects of performance, including breakdowns, downtime and continuity. The researchers found that combining the studied indicators would lose important information and that the thresholds chosen could substantially change assessments. This was an analysis of monitoring measures, not a trial proving one maintenance model superior. McManus and colleagues on handpump performance.
For a local team, the implication is practical: agree what good service should look like, then keep records that can show whether people are receiving it.
Decide who acts before a breakdown happens
Consider an illustrative community with one heavily used water point. This is a planning example, not a reported project or a description of Feel Worldwide Foundation's activities.
One morning, the pump produces very little water. A resident tells a committee member, who assumes someone else will contact the mechanic. The mechanic eventually hears about the problem but does not know who can authorize the visit. A small repair is delayed by an unanswered administrative question.
Now imagine the same fault under a clearer arrangement. A named contact records the report and tells residents when the next update will come. An authorized person contacts the repair provider. A backup contact can act if the usual person is unavailable. The service provider explains the diagnosis, the parts needed and the expected next step. If the fault exceeds the provider's capacity, it goes to a named technical or public authority.
These arrangements do not prevent every interruption. They reduce the chance that responsibility disappears between several well-intentioned people.
Before commissioning or rehabilitating a water point, write down who owns the asset, who operates it, who approves spending, who performs repairs and who oversees safety. These roles may belong to different institutions. Confirm their agreement rather than assigning responsibilities to an organization that has not accepted them.
Include a realistic escalation route for serious damage, repeated faults, source failure or a safety concern. A village contact should not be expected to resolve an aquifer problem or authorize specialist work simply because their telephone number is on the noticeboard.
The wider institutional challenge is documented. WHO's January 2026 summary of the GLAAS 2025 report says the analysis drew on 105 countries and territories. Fewer than 13 percent of countries reported sufficient financial and human resources to implement their water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) plans, while 64 percent reported overlapping responsibilities across government institutions. These are system-level findings, not estimates of how many community pumps fail. They explain why clear plans also need funded capacity behind them. WHO summary of GLAAS findings.
Make repair possible in ordinary conditions
A maintenance plan should be tested against an ordinary difficult week. The vehicle is busy. The nearest supplier is out of stock. The technician who knows the equipment is away. Can the service still respond?
Start with an equipment record that a qualified repairer can use: the pump or system model, relevant installation records, available manuals, previous repairs and compatible parts. Store a copy where the responsible institution can retrieve it when committee membership changes. Avoid making the entire service dependent on one person's memory or private phone.
Ask a qualified provider which parts should be locally stocked, which require advance ordering, and how to verify their quality. Buying the cheapest available component is not useful if it does not fit or cannot withstand the intended use. The appropriate stock will depend on the technology, expected faults, transport and supplier reliability. This article is a planning guide, not a repair manual.
UNICEF's framework for sustainable water services offers useful checks: access to technicians and spare parts, written responsibilities, information about income and expenditure, and financing mechanisms that support affordability and continuity. Its central value is to connect the service provider, public institutions and community instead of leaving sustainability to a single committee. UNICEF sustainability framework.
Local participation remains essential. Residents can explain when queues are worst, which messages are understood and what makes reporting difficult. Technical tasks should sit with people who have the necessary competence, tools and support. Volunteers deserve manageable responsibilities and a route to help when a problem exceeds their role.
Give maintenance a budget that can survive reality
Repair funding is easier to discuss before equipment fails. A budget should distinguish routine operating costs, planned maintenance, smaller repairs and larger rehabilitation or replacement. It should also identify who is responsible for each cost and what happens if the expected income does not arrive.
Here is a deliberately simplified illustration using fictional currency units. It is arithmetic for a planning discussion, not a price estimate or a recommended tariff.
- Assume a service needs 120 units each month for its agreed operating and maintenance provision. - If 80 households each contribute 1 unit, the planned household income is 80 units and the monthly gap is 40 units. - If only 60 units are actually collected, the gap becomes 60 units. Changing the spreadsheet does not remove that shortfall.
The response should begin with understanding the situation. Is the cost estimate credible? Are households unable to pay, dissatisfied with service, unclear about the fee, or waiting for seasonal income? Has a promised subsidy failed to arrive? Each explanation calls for a different remedy.
An affordability arrangement needs explicit funding and fair, understandable eligibility. It should avoid public disclosure of household hardship. A contribution system that appears balanced on paper may still exclude people who cannot meet its timing or amount. Local law, public obligations and community circumstances must guide decisions about tariffs and access.
Funders can help by asking to see the whole service budget, including any confirmed external support. Before accepting a major asset, the responsible institution should understand its future costs. If continuing support is uncertain, record that uncertainty and plan for it. A hoped-for grant should not appear as dependable revenue.
Keep safety checks separate from repair checks
Clear-looking water and a smoothly moving handle do not establish that a supply is safe. Mechanical performance and drinking-water quality need distinct attention.
WHO's 2024 guidance for small water supplies emphasizes health-based, locally appropriate standards, preventive risk management and independent surveillance. Its companion sanitary inspection packages help identify on-site factors that could lead to contamination. An inspection supports risk management; it should not be presented as a substitute for the required water-quality testing. WHO small water supply guidelines and sanitary inspection packages.
Agree with the responsible health or water authority who will inspect and sample, which parameters and schedules apply, who receives results, and what corrective action follows. Plan how residents will receive understandable advice and access an appropriate alternative when authorities identify a problem. Repairs, flooding or unusual changes should be handled under the locally applicable safety procedures.
Do not improvise treatment doses, declare safety from a photograph, or assume that one satisfactory result guarantees future quality. The relevant qualified authorities should guide testing, treatment and decisions about continued use.
Measure the experience as well as the equipment
A modest service record can be useful if somebody reviews it and acts on what it shows. Start with questions the team can answer consistently rather than a long form that nobody has time to complete.
Record when a problem was first reported, when the provider responded and when service was restored. Note the cause, action and repeat faults where known. Define the reporting period and how missing information will be handled. An unexplained blank should not silently become a day of successful service.
Track safety inspections and test results in their own record, with the responsible professional's interpretation and corrective actions. Record residents' concerns about access, queues and affordability. Share a plain-language summary that protects personal information and gives people a way to question it.
An illustrative comparison shows why detail matters. Two water points could each experience four days without service during a month. At one, the interruption is a single four-day event. At the other, it is four separate one-day events. The total downtime is identical, but the pattern may require different investigation and communication. Neither figure tells us whether water quality was satisfactory.
Ask residents what the records miss. Could someone with limited mobility reach and use the facility? Were updates available to people without phones? Did a repeated queue make the service impractical at a particular time? These are questions for direct local inquiry, not assumptions to fill with a distant observer's judgment.
Make the next funding decision a service decision
Supporters often see an installation photograph before they see a maintenance account. Both deserve attention. A useful proposal should explain the immediate need, the responsible institutions, the technical basis for the work and how the service will be supported after the initial funding ends.
Before funding a new water point, ask whether an existing source can be safely restored or whether a different approach would better meet local needs. The answer requires local technical assessment and community input. Rehabilitation is not automatically the right choice, and a new installation is not automatically progress if its operating arrangements remain unresolved.
Consider what practical contribution would make an agreed plan stronger. It might be professional training, reliable spare-parts procurement, approved testing capacity, transparent financial administration or funding for a defined period of service. Confirm suitability with the responsible provider before offering equipment. An unfamiliar donated pump can bring an unfamiliar maintenance burden.
Success should be described in terms that people can verify. Report the period covered, the service delivered, interruptions and remaining problems. Keep estimates separate from measured results. Avoid converting a repair count into an unsupported claim about illnesses prevented or lives transformed.
There is dignity in being able to organize a day without first wondering whether the usual water source will work. There is dignity, too, in knowing who will listen when it does not. Dependable maintenance is one way institutions show that the people using a service continue to matter after the opening ceremony.
The next useful step can be small. Bring the relevant residents, provider and public authority together around one water point. Review its condition and records. Identify an unresolved responsibility or funding gap, agree who can act, and check whether the action happened. That is a practical beginning for care that lasts.
If you have relevant expertise, resources or a locally grounded proposal for strengthening community services, open a partnership conversation with Feel Worldwide Foundation Inc. Describe the need, location, responsible partners and contribution you can offer. Any possible collaboration would need review for suitability, capacity and agreed responsibilities. You can also support the Foundation's wider mission through a donation, subject to the purpose and terms of the giving option you choose. This invitation does not announce a Foundation water program or promise funding for a particular project.
