012 Phi Tacr 05 PDF

FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 5: SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Asian Development Bank
LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION
WATER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTOR PROJECT
Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) TA No: 7122 - PHI
PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC., PHILIPPINES

in association with
TEST Consultants Inc., Philippines

PÖYRY Environment GmbH, Germany
APRIL 2010
PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC.
This report consists of 12 volumes:
Volume 1 Main Report
Volume 2 Institutional and Financial Assessment of LWUA
Volume 3 Subproject Appraisal Report: Metro La Union Water District
Volume 4 Subproject Appraisal Report: Quezon Metro Water District
Volume 5 Subproject Appraisal Report: Legazpi City Water District
Volume 6 Subproject Appraisal Report: Leyte Metro Water District
Volume 7 Subproject Appraisal Report: City of Koronadal Water District
Volume 8 Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP)
Volume 9 Supplementary Appendices A to G (Technical Aspects)

A Review and Assessment of Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Outside Metro Manila
B Water Sector Laws and Policies
C Assessment of Existing Water Supply Systems in Pilot Water Districts
D Proposed Water Supply Component for Pilot Water Districts
E Non Revenue Water Contract Mechanisms
F Sanitation
G Health
Volume 10 Supplementary Appendices H to J (Social Aspects)

H Socio-economic Survey
I Stakeholder Consultation and Participation
J Indigenous Peoples
Volume 11 Supplementary Appendices K to S (Financial, Implementation

Aspects)
K Financial Management Assessment
L Detailed Project Cost and Financing Plans for Water Districts
M Financial Analysis
N Financial History of Water Districts
O Economic Analysis
P Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building
Q Indicators for Measuring Development Objectives and Performance
R Terms of Reference for Consultants (Project Implementation Support
Services)
S Profiles of Priority Water Districts from Long-list
Volume 12 Supplementary Appendices T to V (Safeguard Aspects)

T Initial Environmental Examinations
U Resettlement Framework
V Resettlement Plans
TA No. 7122-PHI: Water District Development Sector Project PPTA – FR Vol. 5 – SPAR: LCWD
i
SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
List of Contents
Glossary and Acronyms viii
Location Map xii
1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Conclusions of Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations . 1
1.2.1 Summary .......................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Recommendations ............................................................................ 2
1.3 Water Supply ........................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Rationale ........................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Existing Water Supply System .......................................................... 3
1.3.3 Scope of Proposed Water Supply Component ................................. 4
1.3.4 Implementation Schedule ................................................................. 5
1.4 Water District Capability and Subproject Implementation ........................ 7
1.5 Subproject Cost, Financing Plan and Financial Analysis ......................... 8
1.6 Economic Analysis ................................................................................ 10
1.6.1 Economic Internal Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis ............. 10
1.6.2 Subproject Beneficiaries ................................................................. 10
1.6.3 Subproject Sustainability ................................................................. 10
1.6.4 Poverty Impact ................................................................................ 11
2 Description of Study Area ......................................................................... 12

2.1 Location ................................................................................................. 12
2.2 PhysicaL Features ................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Topography ..................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Vegetation ....................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Climate ............................................................................................ 12
2.3 Population ............................................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Demography ................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Living Conditions............................................................................. 15
2.4 Health and Sanitation ............................................................................ 16
2.4.1 General Health ................................................................................ 16
2.4.2 Water and Health-related Aspects .................................................. 17
2.4.3 Sanitation Facilities ......................................................................... 18
2.4.4 Education ........................................................................................ 19
2.5 Economy ............................................................................................... 20
2.5.1 City Income and Expenditures ........................................................ 20
2.5.2 Employment .................................................................................... 20
2.5.3 Agriculture ....................................................................................... 20
2.5.4 Commerce and Trade ..................................................................... 21
2.5.5 Tourism ........................................................................................... 21
2.6 Social Services ...................................................................................... 22
2.6.1 Health and Sanitation...................................................................... 22
2.6.2 Transportation and Communication ................................................ 22
2.6.3 Power Supply .................................................................................. 23
ii
2.6.4 Water Supply .................................................................................. 24

2.7 Development Plans ............................................................................... 24
3 Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations ....................... 25

3.1 Socio-economic Survey ......................................................................... 25
3.1.1 Profile of Households in Project Site ............................................... 25
3.1.2 Income and Expenditure Profile ...................................................... 26
3.1.3 Existing Water Service .................................................................... 26
3.1.4 Sanitation, Health and Hygiene....................................................... 27
3.1.5 Willingness to Connect/ Willingness to Pay .................................... 28
3.1.6 Risks and Vulnerabilities ................................................................. 29
3.1.7 Social Services and Networks......................................................... 30
3.1.8 Gender Roles, Issues and Concerns .............................................. 30
3.2 Stakeholder Consultations and Focus Group Discussions .................... 30
3.2.1 Summary of Consultations .............................................................. 31
3.3 Poverty Analysis, Social Benefits and Recommendations..................... 35
3.3.1 Poverty Analysis ............................................................................. 35
3.3.2 Social Benefits ................................................................................ 35
3.3.3 Gender Analysis.............................................................................. 36
3.3.4 Indigenous People, Ethnic Minorities and other Vulnerable Groups .. .....
in the Subproject Area .................................................................... 36
3.4 Summary and Recommendations ......................................................... 37
3.4.1 Summary ........................................................................................ 37
3.4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................... 37
4 The Water District and its Existing Facilities ........................................... 39

4.1 Historical Background............................................................................ 39
4.2 Description of Waterworks Facilities ...................................................... 40
4.2.1 Water Sources ................................................................................ 40
4.2.2 Transmission and Distribution network ........................................... 42
4.2.3 Treatment ....................................................................................... 42
4.2.4 Distribution ...................................................................................... 43
4.2.5 Storage Facilities ............................................................................ 43
4.2.6 Service Connections ....................................................................... 44
4.3 Service Area Coverage ......................................................................... 44
4.4 Organization and Management ............................................................. 44
4.4.1 Organization.................................................................................... 44
4.4.2 Operation ........................................................................................ 44
4.4.3 Non-Revenue Water (NRW) ........................................................... 45
4.5 Deficiencies of the Existing System ....................................................... 50
5 Population and Water Demand Projections ............................................. 51

5.1 General.................................................................................................. 51
5.2 Service Area Delineation ....................................................................... 51
5.3 Barangay and Service Area Population Projections .............................. 51
5.3.1 Past Growth Rates .......................................................................... 51
5.3.2 Future Growth Rates....................................................................... 53
5.3.3 Population Projections .................................................................... 53
5.3.4 Served Population Projections ........................................................ 53
5.4 Water Demand Projections.................................................................... 54
iii
5.4.1 Domestic Water Demand ................................................................ 54

5.4.2 Commercial/Industrial Water Demand ............................................ 54
5.4.3 Institutional Water Demand ............................................................. 55
5.4.4 Non Revenue Water (NRW)............................................................ 55
5.4.5 Total Water Demand ....................................................................... 55
5.4.6 Number of Service Connections ..................................................... 55
5.4.7 Water Demand Variations ............................................................... 55
6 Water Resources ........................................................................................ 57

6.1 Water Resources Inventory ................................................................... 57
6.1.1 Surface Water Inventory ................................................................. 57
6.1.2 Groundwater Resources Inventory ................................................. 58
6.1.3 Water Quality .................................................................................. 62
6.2 Recommended Potential Sources ......................................................... 63
6.2.1 Surface Water ................................................................................. 63
6.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................... 63
6.3 Recommended Further Investigations of Potential Sources .................. 63
6.3.1 Test Well Drilling ............................................................................. 63
7 Analysis of Options and Alternatives....................................................... 65

7.1 Water Supply ......................................................................................... 65
7.1.1 Water Sources ................................................................................ 65
7.1.2 Treatment ....................................................................................... 67
7.1.3 Storage ........................................................................................... 67
7.2 Sanitation .............................................................................................. 68
8 Recopmmnded Plan – Water Supply ........................................................ 70

8.1 Rationale for Subproject ........................................................................ 70
8.2 Water Supply Recommended Plan........................................................ 70
8.2.1 Water Source .................................................................................. 70
8.2.2 Storage Facility ............................................................................... 70
8.2.3 Transmission/Distribution Pipelines ................................................ 70
8.2.4 Service Connections ....................................................................... 72
8.3 Non Revenue Water (NRW) .................................................................. 72
8.3.1 NRW Reduction .............................................................................. 72
8.3.2 NRW Recommended Operational Activity Improvements............... 75
8.3.3 NRW Capital Investment Requirement ........................................... 76
8.4 Implementation Schedule ...................................................................... 78
8.5 Cost Estimates for Improvement and Expansion of System .................. 78
9 Recommended Plan – Sanitation ............................................................. 82
10 Assessment of Water District Capability ................................................. 83

10.1 Water District History ............................................................................. 83
10.2 Technical and Operational Feasibility .................................................... 83
10.2.1 Debt Servicing................................................................................. 83
10.2.2 Performance Parameters ................................................................ 84
10.2.3 “New Technology” Adopted ............................................................ 84
10.2.4 Non Revenue Water Reduction Program ........................................ 84
10.2.5 Service Coverage ........................................................................... 85
iv
10.3 Iinstitutional Feasibility........................................................................... 85

10.3.1 Relationship with LGU .................................................................... 85
10.3.2 Relationship with LWUA ................................................................. 86
10.3.3 Structure and Staff .......................................................................... 86
10.3.4 Systems .......................................................................................... 86
10.4 Subproject Implementation .................................................................... 87
10.4.1 LWUA Proposed Project ................................................................. 87
10.4.2 Proposed Set-up for ADB Subproject Implementation .................... 87
11 Financial Analysis ...................................................................................... 89

11.1 Historical and Existing Financial Performance (2004-2008) .................. 89
11.1.1 Revenues and Expenses ................................................................ 89
11.1.2 Cash Flow ....................................................................................... 91
11.1.3 Outstanding Obligations .................................................................. 92
11.1.4 Assets ............................................................................................. 92
11.1.5 Accounts Receivable ...................................................................... 93
11.1.6 Liabilities ......................................................................................... 93
11.1.7 Financial Ratios .............................................................................. 94
11.2 Financial Feasibility ............................................................................... 94
11.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 94
11.2.2 Cost Analysis .................................................................................. 95
11.2.3 Revenue Forecasts ......................................................................... 97
11.2.4 Project Viability ............................................................................... 98
11.3 Impact of the Proposed Subprojects on the WD’s Future .........................
Financial Operation ............................................................................... 99
12 Economic Analysis .................................................................................. 101

12.1 Overall Approach to Economic Analysis .............................................. 101
12.2 Economic rationale .............................................................................. 101
12.3 Before- and After-Project Situations .................................................... 102
12.4 Economic Benefits ............................................................................... 102
12.5 Willingness to Pay ............................................................................... 103
12.6 Economic Costs .................................................................................. 103
12.7 EIRR and Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................. 104
12.8 Subproject Beneficiaries ...................................................................... 105
12.9 Project Sustainability ........................................................................... 105
v
Figures
1.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements - LCWD 6
2.1 Location Map of Legazpi City 13
4.1 Existing Water Supply System – LCWD 41
5.1 Present and Future Service Areas – LCWD 52
8.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements – LCWD 71
10.1 Project Management Organization Structure 88
Tables
1.1 Total Development Cost (in PhP’000) - LCWD 8

1.2 Financing Plan (in PhP’000) - LCWD 9
2.1 Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, Legazpi City, Albay,
2000 and 2007 14
2.2 Leading Causes of Morbidity, 2008 – Legazpi 17
2.3 Leading Causes of Mortality, 2008 – Legazpi 17
2.4 Sanitation Facilities and Coverage, Legazpi City, 2000 19
2.5 Albay Electric Cooperative Inc. II (ALECO II), Legazpi City, Albay 23
3.1 Location of Slums in Legazpi City, 2008 32

3.2 Flood Prone Areas, Legazpi City 32
4.1 Summary of Existing Well Sources - LCWD 40

4.2 Existing Pipe Sizes and Length - LCWD 42
4.3 Storage Facilities – LCWD 43
4.4 Number and Type of Service Connections - LCWD 44
4.5 Reported Water Production and Billed Volume for Year 2008 - LCWD 46
4.6 Components of Revenue and Non Revenue Water 46
4.7 Estimation of Apparent Losses - LCWD 47
4.8 IWA Water Balance Data for Year 2008 – LCWD 47
4.9 Unavoidable Annual Real Loss - LCWD 48
4.10 Infrastructure Leakage Index - LCWD 48
5.1 Legazpi City Growth Rates 53

5.2 Population Projections – Legazpi City 53
5.3 Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (Usage) – LCWD 54
5.4 Projected Commercial/Industrial Connections and Consumption (Usage)
– LCWD 54
5.5 Projected Institutional Connections and Consumption (Usage) – LCWD 55
5.6 Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand – LCWD 55
5.7 Water Demand Variations - LCWD 56
6.1 Nasisi River and Yawa River Flow Frequencies - LCWD 58
7.1 Additional Water Requirement (2010 to 2025) - LCWD 65

7.2 Additional Water Requirement (2010 to 2025) – LCWD 66
7.3 Water Requirement for Taysan (2010 to 2025) – LCWD 67
vi
Tables (continued)
7.4 Review of Available Septage Treatment Technologies 69
8.1 Storage Requirement for Expansion Area – LCWD 70

8.2 NRW Capital Investment Requirements – LCWD 74
8.3 Estimated Distribution Main Line Leaks and Costs – LCWD 75
8.4 Summary of Proposed NRW Investment Expenditure – LCWD 77
8.5 Detailed NRW Cost Breakdown – LCWD 78
8.6 Implementation Schedule – LCWD 79
8.7 Total Capital Cost Estimate – LCWD 80
8.8 Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate – LCWD 81
10.1 Summary of Performance Parameters – LCWD 84

10.2 NRW Reduction Activities – LCWD 85
11.1 LCWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 89

11.2 LCWD Water Tariff 89
11.3 LCWD Operating Expenses 90
11.4 LCWD Net Income, 2004-2008 90
11.5 Income Statement 2004-2008 – LCWD 91
11.6 Cash Flow Statements, 2005-2008 – LCWD 91
11.7 Details of Existing Loans (as of December 2008) – LCWD 92
11.8 Assets and Other Debts, 2004-2008 – LCWD 92
11.9 Aging of Accounts Receivables – LCWD 93
11.10 Liabilities and Equity, 2004-2008 – LCWD 93
11.11 LCWD Financial Ratios, 2004-2008 94
11.12 Total Development Cost – LCWD 95
11.13 Financing Plan – LCWD 96
11.14 Proposed Tariff Schedule, 2014 – LCWD 97
11.15 Other Parameters and Assumptions – LCWD 98
11.16 Weighted Cost of Capital – LCWD 98
11.17 Summary Result of FIRR – LCWD 99
11.19 Summary of Financial Ratios – LCWD 100
12.1 Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply – LCWD 102

12.2 Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply – LCWD 103
12.3 Willingness to Pay (WTP) – LCWD 103
12.4 EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply – LCWD 104
12.5 Subproject Beneficiaries, Water Supply– LCWD 105
12.6 Project Sustainability, Water Supply – LCWD 105
vii
Appendices
3.1 Socio-economic Survey Results – Legazpi City Water District 106

3.2 Summary of Stakeholder Consultations – LCWD - April–August 2009 202
3.3 List of NGOs Serving Urban Poor and Vulnerable Groups, Legazpi City 216
3.4 Output of Gender Action Planning Workshop August 6 – 7, 2009 217
3.5 Some Recommendations on Social Dimensions in Subproject
Implementation 220
4 Legazpi City Water District Organization Chart 224
5.1 Population Projections 2010-2025 – LCWD 225

5.2 Population Served and Number of Connections Projections – LCWD 227
5.3 Served Populations and Water Demand Projections – LCWD 228
A – 2010
B – 2015
C – 2020
D – 2025
5.4 Water Demand Variation – LCWD 237
6.1 Surface Water Data – LCWD 238

6.2 Groundwater Data – LCWD 246
6.3 Extract from Watcon, Inc. Geo-Resistivity Report June 2009 – LCWD 289
6.4 Proposed Well Locations and Designs – LCWD 290
8 Water Supply Infrastructure and Data - LCWD 291
11 Finanacial Analaysis Tables - LCWD 295
12 Economic Analysis – LCWD 303
viii
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
ABD Asian Development Bank

AIFC average incremental financial cost
A/R accounts receivable
AP affected person
APIS annual poverty indicator survey
ARI acute respiratory infection
AusAID Australian Aid
barangay village
BNA basic needs approach
BOT build-operate-transfer
BSP basic sanitation package
BWSA Barangay Water and Sanitation Association
CAP community action plan

CBO community-based organization
CCF community consultation forum
CDA Cooperatives Development Agency
CDD community-driven development
CFR case fatality rate
CFT community facilitator team
CLTS community-led total sanitation
COA Commission on Audit
C&P consultation and participation
CPC certificate of public convenience
CSC community sanitation center
CSS city sanitation strategy
CY calendar year
DBL design-build-lease
DBO design-build-operate
DBM Department of Budget and Management
BDP Development Bank of The Philippines
DED detailed engineering design
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DFR draft final report
DHF dengue hemorrhage fever
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOF Department of Finance
DOH Department of Health
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DRA demand responsive approach
DSA delineated service area
DSCR debt service coverage ratio
EA executing agency (LWUA)

EARF environmental assessment review framework
EIA environmental impact analysis
EIRR economic internal rate of return
EMP environmental management plan
EO executive order
EOCC economic opportunity cost of capital
FGD focus group discussion

FMAQ financial management assessment questionnaire
forex foreign exchange
FS feasibility study
FY fiscal year (1 January – 31 December)
ix
GFI government financial institution

GIS geographic information system
GOCC government owned and controlled corporation
GOP Government of the Republic of the Philippines
GR (i) government regulation, (ii) general record (in legal cases)
HDI Human Development Index

HH household
HRD human resources development
IA implementing agency
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
ICC Investment Coordinating Council (NEDA)
ICG internal cash generation
IDAP institutional development action plan
IDC interest during construction
IDCB institutional development and capacity building
IEC information-education-communication
IEE initial environmental examination
IFS Investment and Financial Services (LWUA)
IOL inventory of losses
IPDP indigenous peoples’ development plan
IRA internal revenue allotment
IRR implementing rules and regulations
IT information technology
IWA International Water Association
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KABP knowledge-attitudes-behavior-practices
KFP an adaptation of KAP (knowledge, attitudes and practices)
LCMD Legazpi City Water District

LG local government
LGC local government code
LGU local government unit
LIDAP local institutional development action plan
LIHH low income household
LLI local level institutions
LOI letter of intent
lps, l/s liters per second
LWUA Local Water Utilities Administration
MDFO Municipal Development Fund Office

MDG Millennium Development Goals
M&E monitoring and evaluation
MFF Multitranche Financing Facility (ADB)
MIS management information system
MLUWD Metro La Union Water District
MOU memorandum of understanding
MPA Methodology for Participatory Assessments
MTPDP Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
MTPIP Medium-Term Public Investment Program
MWSS Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (Metro Manila)
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resources inventory Authority

NAPC National Anti Poverty Commission
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NGA national government agency
x
NGO non-government organization

NPV net present value
NRW non-revenue water
NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board
NSO National Statistics Office
NSSMP National Sewerage and Septage Management Program
NWRB National Water Resources Board
OCR Ordinary Capital Resources (ADB)

ODA official development assistance
OGCC Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
OJT on-the-job training
O&M operation and maintenance
PD presidential decree
PFI private funding institution
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
PhP, Php Philippine peso
PIU project implementation unit
PMO project management office
PMU project management unit
PNSDW Philippine National Standards on Drinking Water
PPMS project performance monitoring system
PPTA project preparation technical assistance
PSA poverty and social assessment
psi pounds per square inch
PSP private sector participation
PWSSR Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
QC quality control
QM quality management
QMWD Quezon Metro Water District
RA republic act
RG regional government
RIAP revenue improvement action plan
RRP report and recommendation of the president (ADB)
RWSA Rural Waterworks and Sanitation Association
SES socioeconomic survey

SHBC sanitation and health behavioral change
SLA sub-loan agreement

SPAR subproject appraisal report
SSC school sanitation centre
SCSS simplified community sewerage system
SLA subsidiary loan agreement
SWG sanitation working group
SWM solid waste management
TA technical assistance
TB tubercolosis
TOR terms of reference
TOT training-of-trainers
UFW unaccounted-for water

UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
V variation (contract)
xi
VIP ventilated improved pit (latrine)
WASCO Water Supply Coordination Office (NAPC)

WD water district
WHO World Health Organization
WPEP Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Enhancement Project
WQ water quality
WS water supply
WSP water service provider
WSP-EAP Water and Sanitation Program – East Asia Pacific
WSS water and sanitation
WTP willingness-to-pay
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
xii
Location Map
Metro La
Union WD
Quezon
Metro WD Legazpi
City WD
Leyte
Metro WD
City of
Koronadal WD
1
SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1. Based on an evaluation of candidate water districts (WD) on criteria such as

creditworthiness, interest to participate, and readiness, during the Inception Phase of the
PPTA (March 2009), the Legazpi City Water District (LCWD) was selected as one of five pilot
WDs to participate in the PPTA for the preparation of subproject appraisal reports (SPAR).
2. The SPAR is based on data collection field surveys (including a socio-economic

survey), stakeholder consultations and analyses carried out during April-August 2009. A
participatory approach was adopted, involving close consultation with key stakeholders and
target communities which has enabled subproject design and formulation to reflect the views
and aspirations of the WD, local government stakeholders and beneficiary communities. The
subproject has been prepared in accordance with relevant national legal requirements and
standards, and ADB requirements, policies, and guidelines.
3. Through this process, interest was expressed by both LCWD and the City of Legazpi
Local Government Unit (LGU) in cooperating to develop a pilot sanitation (septage
management) component—in addition to the proposed improvements and expansion of the
WD’s water supply system.
4. Draft outline technical designs, tariff projections and implementation arrangements

were presented and discussed with national and subproject stakeholders during a workshop
on 26-27 August. Adjustments/ refinements to the subproject design and implementation
program resulting from the workshop are incorporated in the SPAR in the Draft Final Report
(DFR) submitted in November 2009.
5. For the preparation of the DFR it was assumed that sanitation works would be
financed under a grant from AusAID, subject to confirmation. However, during the tripartite
meeting for the DFR held on 16 February 2010, ADB informed that AusAID had changed
their investment priorities, and grant funds were no longer available for sanitation.
6. On 10-11 March 2010, LCWD were consulted in this new light, to determine whether
they were interested if sanitation was financed from the loan or from their own funds. The
GM consulted with the Board, and later relayed the Board’s decision: they decided to just
drop the sanitation component from the Project package. For the Final Report, it was agreed
that the sanitation component for LCWD will be deleted from the proposal; the Final Report
will only cover the water supply component.
7. The format of the SPAR is based on the standard format for feasibility studies as
prepared for the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), the executing agency for the
PPTA.
1.2 CONCLUSIONS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY AND STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS
1.2.1 Summary
8. Legazpi City has a relatively high average growth rate of over 1.6%. As the service
center of Region 5, the rise of subdivisions, resettlement due to calamities and migration of
2
the poor to urban centers in search of jobs has put pressure on basic services such as water
and sanitation.
9. Within this context, stakeholder consultations confirmed the need for the subproject in
accordance with the city’s development plans for southward expansion. Although there were
some misgivings about the bulk water contract of the Water District—and areas for
improvement were suggested relative to water quality and water rates—on the whole there
was a positive response to the proposed plans for water service improvement and
expansion.
10. Specific recommendations and insights were also forwarded for the implementation of
affordable, pro-poor and gender responsive programs and policies. These called for the
subproject to develop gravity water sources and improve water quality. Feedback also
confirmed participatory and collaborative strategies to enhance water access by the poor
through the pipe system and through communal water points. In coordination with NGOs,
local governments and other agencies, partnerships were also seen as important in
promoting the role of communities, and in the improvement of sanitation facilities and
hygiene practices that could maximize benefits from the increased access to safe water. A
Gender Action Plan included community-based initiatives to address identified gender and
poverty issues.
11. Legazpi City is vulnerable to natural calamities; this in turn highlighted the
vulnerability, especially of the poor, to the loss of water sources, to the increased cost of
water delivery and to the destruction of homes, water and sanitation facilities. While the city
does not manage a designated watershed, the continuing degradation of water resources
coupled with fast population increase signal a need to help ensure the sustainability of water
sources.
1.2.2 Recommendations
12. The pilot subproject should support strategies to link water and sanitation to the
Project’s overarching goal of poverty reduction. The proposed elements of a plan for the
social dimensions of the subproject reinforce a public service orientation and a Corporate
Social Responsibility agenda consistent with the delivery of water and sanitation as a public
service with pro-poor programs.
13. The budget for some specific recommendations is integrated in the technical
components for water and sanitation as microfinance or pro-poor allocations such as for
public faucets, and in capability building and institutional plans as technical assistance.
14. Pro-Poor Targeting of Participants. The subproject should target all households
living within the vicinity of the network of the piped water system. The subproject should also
target disadvantaged groups (e.g. women headed households and poor HHs in the slum
areas) and other unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water services such as
communal water points in collaboration with the city and barangays. This may also be
through easy installation plans that expand the reach of subproject benefits while maximizing
cost recovery.
15. Households for the sanitation component should be identified in coordination with the
LGU that will undertake a survey of sanitation facilities. In coordination with the LGU, targets
will also be made to cover a set percentage of sanitation hotspots for the improvement of
septage systems by the end of the subproject loan implementation period.
16. Micro-finance and Livelihood Options. A micro-finance facility should be set up to

ensure participation in septic tank installation/improvement of communal facilities for
3
interested participants in sanitation hotspots. Part of this could also be leveraged with the
LGU to promote the repair of substandard individual septic tanks. A cost recovery scheme
should be established to enable others to benefit from the revolving fund. The WD’s Gender
and Development Fund and other sources may be accessed to support water and sanitation-
related livelihood options of women and urban poor groups.
1.3 WATER SUPPLY
1.3.1 Rationale
17. The present service area of LCWD includes 53 barangays out of the 70 barangays of
Legazpi City. Barangays Taysan, Lamba and Maslog, located approximately 4 kilometers
away from the existing system, are being proposed by LCWD as its priority area for its
expansion program. Another expansion area being eyed by LCWD for expansion is
Barangay Banquerohan; this barangay is approximately 20 km away from the city center.
18. There is thus a need to increase water production to improve and expand the water
supply system of LCWD in order to meet the projected water demand for the design year
2025, both in the existing and proposed service areas. The expansion area will include
people to be relocated away from the hazard area of the Mayon volcano.
1.3.2 Existing Water Supply System
19. Following the severe damage caused by Typhoon Reming in 2006, at present only six
(6) of 10 previous springs are being utilized to support the water requirement of about 1,000
households in Barangays Upper Arimbay, Bigaa and Bagong Abre. Well sources are still in
place, including the submersible pumps and the hydraulic control structures. Although not in
operation, these facilities are still being maintained regularly by LCWD up to the present
time. From November 2006 up to February 2008, LCWD continued the utilization of these
water sources, despite the reduction of the discharge rate of the spring sources.
20. In March 2007, LCWD entered into a 25-year Bulk Water Supply contract with
Philippine Hydro Inc. for the supply and delivery of 20,000 cubic meters per day of bulk water
to the system of LCWD. The raw water source is the River Yawa.
21. As of May 2009, LCWD has a total of 16,934 metered service connections, covering
53 barangays.
22. LCWD is aware of the need to maintain control of non-revenue water (NRW), and is
concerned by the increase in NRW that has occurred since the commissioning of the bulk
water supply, especially given the cost of the bulk water at PhP13.50/cum. The proactive
meter management strategy is a direct result of this concern. However, other operational
measures such as district metering, leakage management and illegal use management do
not currently appear to be given a high priority—perhaps due to the upfront investment
requirement for metering and leakage management equipment.
23. LCWD reported production and billed volume figures for 2008 were analyzed to
evaluate NRW performance, and show that the reported NRW for 2008 was 21.2%—with a
loss volume of 1.1 million m3.
24. Deficiencies of the Existing System. The main deficiencies concern pressure
distribution and water quality.
25. Pressure Distribution: The existing transmission and distribution network was
designed and constructed in 1981 in consideration of the distance and location of the
4
previous wells and spring sources. Although the pressure distribution is quite balanced
despite the introduction of bulk water to the system, it is still necessary to conduct hydraulic
analysis of the pipe network and reconfigure the pipe sizes and pressure distribution of the
existing system in consideration of future expansion.
26. Water Quality: When bulk water was injected into the system, several complaints were
lodged by consumers regarding poor water quality. The perception was that the increase of
system pressure has caused old and dilapidated pipes to deteriorate; thus, water became
contaminated. As of July 2009, the complaints on poor water quality still continue to mount
despite the completion of the program to replace old and dilapidated pipes, and LCWD’s
continuous flushing and maintenance of the system.
27. LCWD has to look into the effectiveness of the water treatment plant of bulk water by
monitoring treated water at various distribution points.
1.3.3 Scope of Proposed Water Supply Component
28. Water demand. The scope of proposed water supply component is designed to meet
the projected water demand of LCWD for the year 2025. The total average daily demand of
the WD is projected to increase significantly as a result of population growth and the
improvement of the standard of living of the residents in the service area. The average day
water demand is expected to increase from 19,353 cumd in 2010 to 21,775 cumd in 2015, to
24,457 cumd in 2020, and to 27,046 cumd in 2025.
29. Water resources. The Yawa River could support the year 2025 total water demands.
The flow of 848 lps (73,267cumd), which corresponds to 80 per cent of minimum flow as the
limit for extraction is more than thrice the present abstraction from the river.
30. The bulk water supplier could also immediately meet additional demands of 116 lps
(10,000 cumd), considering that the design capacity of the plant is 347 lps (30,000 cumd).
31. The existing wells in the Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields that produce good water quality
can also be used to support the additional LCWD demands. A total of 103.98 lps (8,984
cumd) is available from the two (2) wellfields—79.83 lps from the Bogna Wellfield and 24.14
lps from the Mabinit Wellfield.
32. The absence of wells within the expansion areas of the LCWD covering Barangay
Taysan and Banquerohan makes it necessary to construct test wells or exploratory wells
during the initial stage of the design phase of the subproject. Test well drilling will confirm the
quantity and quality of available groundwater prior to finalization of the subproject detailed
design.
33. Proposed works. The existing service coverage will eventually be expanded to
include the un-served population within the existing service area and additional areas,
particularly Barangay Taysan, Lamba, Maslog and Banquerohan.
34. Taking into account the cost of water between the different alternatives (least-cost
analysis), the following works are proposed:
Re-commissioning of nine (9) existing wells at Bogna and Mabinit well fields. For
the main system, no additional storage facility is recommended if the additional
water source is tapped from existing and new well sources at Bogna and Mabinit
well field.
Well sources for the expansion area of Barangays Taysan, Maslog, Lamba and
Banquerohan (2 new wells).
5
For the main system, reinforcement pipes are recommended at various sections
of the distribution network to accommodate the 2025 flow and minimum pressure
requirement within LCWD main service area.
The service connection is expected to increase from the existing 16,934 to 24,929
by the design year 2025. The additional 7,995 service connections will come from
the unserved portions within the main service area and the four (4) barangays in
the proposed expansion areas.
There is scope for investment in NRW reduction by LCWD in a limited number of
areas.
35. A schematic diagram of the proposed improvements is shown on Figure 1.1.
1.3.4 Implementation Schedule
36. At the start of subproject physical implementation in 2012, construction activities shall
cover recommissioning of 9 existing wells at Bogna and Mabinit well fields, and the
construction of deep well, pumping facilities, storage facilities and transmission/distribution
pipelines and service connections at Barangays Taysan, Lamba, Maslog and Banquerohan.
6
Figure 1.1: Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements - LCWD
7
1.4 WATER DISTRICT CAPABILITY AND SUBPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
37. Water district performance. LCWD is performing very well despite the usual
operational problems it faces with the LGU and some customers. The price arrangements
with the bulk water supplier have driven operating costs significantly, but the WD can now
focus on managing the system—thus improving efficiency in operations.
38. Compared to the industry average, the LCWD was seen to be performing well in
2007. Its production efficiency improved with a significant reduction in NRW. Its collection
effort deteriorated slightly but was still well within industry standards. Its level of profitability
decreased significantly due to higher operating costs but was still higher than the average.
Cost control also deteriorated significantly as a result and suffered in comparison to the
industry standard. Management of personnel was better than the average Large WDs but
the increase in the number of customers over this 3-year period was still lacklustre
considering that LCWD was able to increase its customer base by only 1,774 or by only
10.0%.
39. The water district is presently undertaking a hydraulic network modelling project. The
impacts of this activity on the WD are improvements in operating efficiency and NRW
reduction as this will allow WD engineers to create hydraulic zones and district metering
areas. There will be better understanding of water usage across the network, improved
knowledge of the network asset types and condition, and information acquired will better
support strategic resource planning.
40. The WD realizes that there is a need to reduce its NRW to acceptable levels given the
cost of bulk water supply. It has is to eliminate illegal connections and has made serious
attempts to repair leaks.
41. As of June 30, 2009, the Water District has a total of 17,060 registered connections
and a service coverage of about 55% of the population. Out of 60 barangays with the City’s
boundaries, 53 have already been reached. From 300 connections 27 years ago, the Water
District can be said to be performing satisfactorily.
42. Subproject implementation. A Water District Implementing Unit (WDIU) within

LCWD will act as the central coordinating body for subproject implementation, and be
headed by the Construction Division Manager or a senior professional within WD ranks.
43. Blank
44. Blank
8
1.5 SUBPROJECT COST, FINANCING PLAN AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
45. Development Costs. The total development cost for the water supply subproject is
approximately Php113 million ($2.5 million). This is based on the costs presented in Chapters 8
and 9 with additional price contingencies to allow for the timing of implementation. Table 1.1
presents a summary of the development cost for the water supply system.
Table 1.1: Total Development Cost (in PhP’000) – LCWD

Sub-Total
Component Unit Quantity Unit Cost FEC Local Total
Civil Works Equipment Land
1 Source Development
a. Well Drilling/Development m 1 7,400,000 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0
b. Surface Water / River Intake lot 0 0 - - - - - -
c. Spring Intake & Sump Improvement lot 0 0 - - - - - -
Sub-Total 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 200,000 172.0 28.0 - 48.0 152.0 200.0
production meters, valves,
hypochlorinators, etc
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 3,600,000 900.0 2,700.0 - 2,448.0 1,152.0 3,600.0
including controls & accessories,
riser pipes, transformers, power
line extension, etc.
c. Gen-set set 0 0 - - - - - -
Sub-Total 1,072.0 2,728.0 - 2,496.0 1,304.0 3,800.0
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 37,000,000 33,300.0 3,700.0 - 14,800.0 22,200.0 37,000.0
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 10,000,000 9,500.0 500.0 - 1,900.0 8,100.0 10,000.0
5 Service Connections no 7,995 1,500 7,195.6 4,797.0 - 3,837.7 8,154.9 11,992.6
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,566,984 7,540.1 5,026.7 - 4,021.3 8,545.5 12,566.8
7 Land Acquisition lot 1 2,000,000 - 2,000.0 - 2,000.0 2,000.0
SUB-TOTAL 66,007.7 16,751.7 2,000.0 29,275.0 55,484.4 84,759.4
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 5,462.1 - - 1,638.6 3,823.5 5,462.1
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 3,641.4 - - 364.1 3,277.3 3,641.4
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 1,591.4 6,784.5 8,375.9
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 7,881.7 1,757.8 209.9 795.6 9,932.7 10,728.3
GRAND TOTAL 82,992.9 18,509.5 2,209.9 33,664.8 79,302.4 112,967.2
46. Financing Plan. The subproject will mainly be financed by ADB through relending by
LWUA to the Water District. ADB loan will finance Php97.7 million ($2.17 million) of the water
supply while the WD will finance the cost of land acquisition and taxes amounting to about
Php15.3 million. The financing plan is shown in Table 1.2.
9
Table 1.2: Financing Plan (in PhP’000) – LCWD

2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
FUND APPLICATION
Basic Construction Cost 6,786 38,973 37,001 82,759
Land Acquisition/Resettlement 2,000 - - 2,000
Detailed Engineering Design 5,462 - - 5,462
Physical Contingency 779 3,897 3,700 8,376
Price Contingency 1,003 4,141 5,585 10,728
Supervision 299 1,715 1,628 3,641
TOTAL 16,328 48,726 47,913 112,967
FUND SOURCE
WD Equity 2,214 6,606 6,496 15,316
Sub-Loan 14,115 42,119 41,417 97,651
ADB Sub-Loan 14,115 42,119 41,417 97,651
LWUA Sub-Loan - - -
TOTAL 16,328 48,726 47,913 112,967
47. Water Tariff. LCWD last increased the water tariff in 2008. It is assumed that even if
there is no subproject, the water tariff will have to be increased in the future to cover
increases in its operational expenses. For purposes of the projection, it is assumed that
water tariffs will have to be increased by 10% every two years in the future.
48. A two-time tariff increase is proposed--the first increase in 2011 and the second
increase in 2014. A 20% increase in 2011, even before completion of the subproject, is
necessary for the water district to gain sufficient funds to meet its existing operations.
Another 20% increase is proposed in 2014. From 2016 onwards, it is proposed that water
tariff will have to be increased by 10% every two years. The proposed increases in the tariff
are less than 60% of the previous tariff and not more than 5% of the family income of the low
income group, which are both in accordance with LWUA’s requirements.
49. Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). A subproject is considered financially

viable if the resulting FIRR of the proposed subproject is higher than the weighted average
cost of capital (WACC) that was used in financing the subproject. An FIRR higher than the
WACC implies that the incremental net revenues generated by the project will be enough to
recover the implementation and operating costs.
50. On the basis of the financing mix and the loan interest of 9.8% and the assumed cost
of equity of 12.0% (the economic opportunity cost of capital), the WACC is 7.04%. Sensitivity
analyses are likewise conducted to determine the effects of adverse changes on a project
such as delay in operation, revenues not realized as expected or increase in capital and
O&M cost. The FIRR results under the five scenarios evaluated show that the subproject is
viable with FIRR ranging from 13.18% to 18.35%..
51. Affordability of Water Rates. A major consideration in the development of the tariff
schedule is the ability of target beneficiaries to pay for their monthly water bill. It is a standing
policy of LWUA that the minimum charge for residential connections should not exceed 5%
of the family income of the low income group among families connected to the system.
52. For Legazpi City, the estimated monthly income for 2014 is Php12,217. Using the
affordability criteria, the minimum monthly bill (minimum charge) of Php286.00 when the
project starts to operate in 2014 is only 2.34% of the estimated monthly income of poor
families. In all subsequent years the minimum monthly bill is less than 5% of the estimated
10
monthly income. Hence, the proposed level of water tariff is deemed affordable to the low
income or poor families.
53. Impact of the Proposed Subproject on the WD’s Financial Operation. The
Projected Income Statement for the period 2009 to 2041 shows that the Water District will
generate net income for all years of the projection period.
54. Cash Flow Statements are also developed for the same period. For all years during
the evaluation period, the statements show that annual cash inflows will be sufficient to cover
all annual cash outflows of the Water District.
1.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
55. The economic viability of the subproject was determined by computing the economic
internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the economic opportunity cost of
capital (EOCC) of 15%.1 An EIRR exceeding the assumed EOCC indicates that the
subproject is economically viable.
1.6.1 Economic Internal Rate of Return and Sensitivity Analysis
56. With the stream of economic benefits and costs computed over the assumed 25-year
period, the economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of the water supply investments is 14%
which is slightly lower than the assumed cut-off rate of 15%.
57. Sensitivity test results based on (i) a 10% reduction in capital costs, and (ii) a 10%
reduction in O&M costs show increases in the EIRR by 1.4 percentage points to 15.4% which
are above the EOCC benchmark. Thus, reducing capital and O&M costs by a mere 10%
makes the investments economically viable. On the other hand, an increase in resource cost
savings and incremental water had the opposite effect of lowering the base case EIRR to just
about 13.9% and 13.2% respectively. In these two cases, the EIRR remains below the
EOCC benchmark. Of the four key variables that were considered, the subproject was found
to be most sensitive to change in O&M costs (SI=0.97) followed by decrease in capital costs
(SI=0.94) and increase in incremental water (SI=0.6). Change in resource cost savings has a
very small impact on viability. The switching value for O&M costs is 103% and for capital
costs, 106%.
1.6.2 Subproject Beneficiaries
58. At the end of 2035, a total of 9,188 new water service connections shall have been
added to the existing ones. This will consist of 7,552 residential connections (82%) and 1,636
non-domestic connections (18%). An estimated overall total of 42,394 residents of Legazpi
City will directly benefit from the investments by having direct connection to the piped water
supply network.
1.6.3 Subproject Sustainability
59. At full economic cost (i.e, capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC), or the marginal cost of producing each cubic meter of water,
was computed at Php14.2/m3. Considering only capita costs, the AIEC is Php6.9/m3.
1
The hurdle rate for water supply investments is prescribed under NEDA-ICC guidelines for project evaluation
which also provides shadow prices for foreign exchange (SER), wage rate for unskilled (SWR) and other non-
tradable components of investment costs.
11
60. The average tariff, which was computed by dividing the present value of revenue by
incremental water consumption, is Php23.8/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC, no
economic subsidy will be required. The tariff revenue to be generated by the subproject
during the period could fully recover all costs, including the full economic cost of the
investments which includes capital and O&M.
1.6.4 Poverty Impact
61. The water supply subproject is expected to generate a total net economic benefits
(NEB)2 of about Php45 million. Approximately Php42 million will accrue to water consumers.
The labour sector will gain about Php17 million while the economy, because of distortions in
the exchange rate, will lose around Php14 million. On balance, the economy as a whole will
gain the entire NEB of Php45 million.
62. The poverty impact ratio (PIR) for the investments is 25% which means that one-
quarter of the NEB will directly benefit the poor in the area.
2
NEB is the difference between the present value of subproject net economic and financial flows.
12
2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
2.1 LOCATION
63. The City of Legazpi is located in the midsection of the eastern side of the Province of
Albay, as well as the Bicol Region as a whole. It is bounded on the north by the Municipality
of Sto. Domingo, on the east by the Albay Gulf and the Municipality of Manito, on the west by
the Municipality of Daraga, and on the south by the Municipalities of Pilar and Castilla of the
Province of Sorsogon.
64. The city is approximately at 13º 09´ N latitude and at 123º45´ East longitude and is
about 534 kilometers southeast of Manila via the Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway. It is
centrally-located in the Bicol Region. Figure 2.1 shows the location map of the City of
Legazpi.
2.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES
2.2.1 Topography
65. The City is generally flat at its Central Business District and the urban area, with
slopes ranging from 1% to 7% but with some areas exceeding 18%. Several barangays have
slopes ranging from 23.7% at Dapdap up to 99.8% at Bañadero. The northeastern portion of
the City has an average slope of about 21% with rolling and undulating areas. The northern
barangays have undulating terrain with an average slope of 11.6% and its southern portion is
characterized by rolling mountains, except for Barangay Bagacay where its marshlands are
below sea level.
2.2.2 Vegetation
66. In 2003, Legazpi City still had a forested area of 864.7 hectares. It also had a large
Grassland/Pasture of 4,656 hectares or 22.8 percent of the City’s land area of 20,420.40
hectares. About half of the City’s land area (10,411.48 hectares or 50.99%) was devoted to
agriculture, and the built-up area totaled 3,287.19 hectares or about 16.1% of the land area.
The remaining 1,100 or so hectares were used for Special Uses such as mining/quarrying,
National Park, airport, and military.
2.2.3 Climate
67. The climate of the City of Legazpi is classified as Type II of the Modified Coronas
Classification of the Philippine Climate which is characterized by the absence of a dry
season, with a very pronounced maximum rain period generally in the months of December
and January. There is not a single dry month in this area.
68. On average, 5 to 6 tropical cyclones blow over the area annually. The average
minimum temperature which usually occurs in January and February is about 24ºC and the
average maximum temperature which usually occurs in May is about 31ºC. It rains about 250
days a year in Legazpi City with an average total annual rainfall of about 3,200 mm.
69. As a result of the city’s climate, 41 of its barangays involving 15,802 households are
flood prone. Very heavy rains can result in mudflows from Mayon Volcano which can
adversely affect 2 additional barangays, involving 573 additional families. Of the 41
barangays which are flood-prone, 11 barangays are subject to both flooding and mudflows.
13
Table 2.1: Location Map of Legazpi City
14
70. Damage to buildings and infrastructure are an always present danger as shown by the
passage of Typhoons Milenyo and Reming.
2.3 POPULATION
2.3.1 Demography
71. The population of Legazpi City according to the NSO Census of 2007 is 175,843, with
35,290 household. Urban population accounts for 108,249 which is 61.56% of the total
population, while the rural population accounts for 67,594 which is 38.44% of the total
population. The annual growth rate is 1.63% based on the 2000 and 2007 population data.
72. The study area is composed of 70 barangays covering a total land area of 20,420.40
hectares which includes a National Park of 857.77 hectares. With the 2007 population of
175,843, the population density then was about 870 persons per km2. Table 2.1 presents the
list of urban and rural barangays showing the land area and population for 2000 and 2007.
Table 2.1: Land Area and Population Density of Barangays, Legazpi City, Albay,
2000 and 2007
BARANGAY LAND AREA (Km²) POPULATION DENSITY
2000 2007
Urban:
1. EM’s Barrio 0.4367 3680 4183
2. EM’s Barrio South 0.4266 1418 1848
3. EM’s Barrio East 0.1376 1006 833
4. Sagpon 0.1504 1003 1117
5. Sagmin 0.1521 672 633
6. Banadero 0.3756 1127 1195
7. Bano 0.0882 825 886
8. Bagumbayan 0.3657 3456 3436
9. Pinaric 0.1727 1110 1150
10. Cabugao 0.0859 542 590
11. Maoyod 0.1420 1038 1060
12. Tula-Tula 0.1240 2348 2175
13. Ilawod West 0.0851 712 759
14. Ilawod 0.0893 852 868
15. Ilawod East 0.3581 2108 2292
16. Kawit-East Washington 0.7390 4847 5322
17. Rizal St., Ilawod 0.6192 1349 1730
18. Cabagñan West 0.5661 2396 3094
19. Cabagñan 0.1441 1332 1294
20. Cabagñan East 0.1714 666 727
21. Binanuahan West 0.0790 862 855
22. Binanuahan East 0.1695 1222 1328
23. Imperial Court Subdivision 0.1176 633 750
24. Rizal St. 0.1334 1893 2190
25. Lapu-Lapu 0.1744 1091 1088
26. Dinagaan 0.1305 711 637
27. Victory Village South 0.1001 1042 1106
28. Victory Village North 0.1293 2197 2518
29. Sabang 0.1022 1412 1411
30. Pigcale 0.0870 1965 2152
31. Centro-Baybay 0.1911 1216 1279
32. San Roque 0.3825 5219 5338
33. PNR-Penaranda 0.3087 2532 2746
34. Oro Site-Magallanes 0.0984 1827 2607
35. Tinago 0.0690 737 611
36. Kapantawan 0.7192 583 4144
15
BARANGAY LAND AREA (Km²) POPULATION DENSITY
2000 2007
37. Bitano 0.6380 6341 2797
38. Gogon 1.4631 4699 5498
39. Bonot 0.5723 3815 3614
40. Cruzada 1.3977 3837 5349
41. Bogtong 1.3330 3239 3706
42. Rawis 2.2264 7477 8322
43. Arimbay 1.1360 2923 3421
44. Buraguis 2.4368 3341 3996
45. Dap-Dap 0.2625 1728 1956
Sub-Totals 19.8875
Rural:
46. Tamaoyan 0.5314 1112 1440
47. Pawa 5.2252 2896 3049
48. Dita 0.5109 1349 1586
49. San Joaquin 0.5467 1620 1906
50. Bagong Abre 1.3524 1141 1354
51. Bigaa 1.3173 4954 5199
52. Padang 3.8017 2050 1539
53. Buyuan 4.6441 2737 3162
54. Matanag 4.2172 1364 1618
55. Bogña 5.4693 2928 3257
56. Mabinit 6.7445 1083 1325
57. Estanza 8.3179 3318 4212
58. Taysan 14.6446 7165 10243
59. Puro 2.7547 3670 4084
60. Lamba 2.6739 991 1046
61. Maslog 8.1519 3412 3757
62. Homapon 8.4016 3560 3822
63. Mariawa 9.2108 1361 1414
64. Bagacay 1.7596 1393 1591
65. Imalnod 4.7950 1497 1964
66. Banquerohan 18.1471 5351 6034
67. Bariis 12.7919 1728 1770
68. San Francisco 12.7976 2019 2233
69. Buenavista 14.7739 936 1048
70. Cagbacong 21.9776 2346 2579
Sub-Totals 175.5588
National Park 8.5777
Grand Totals 204.0240
Sources: Physico-Socio Economic Profile, 2008 and NSO Statistics.
2.3.2 Living Conditions
73. The latest available data on housing is in 2000. There were 30,173 housing units
occupied by 30,612 households. Less than half of the households (12,672 or 41.4%) owned
or were amortizing their homes and less than 1/10th (2,408 or 8.0%) were renting. Another
9,829 or 32.1% occupying houses rent-free with the consent of the owners but 3,988 or
13.0% were occupying houses rent-free without the consent of the owners.
74. A large majority of these buildings (27,988 or 91.4%) were single housing units. The
remainder was either duplexes or multi-unit residential buildings. More than half of these
housing units (18,797 or 62.3%) were in good condition. Another 4,872 or 15.9% need major
repairs and 264 units were dilapidated or condemned. Only 4 houses were vacant.
16
75. Out of the 30,173 housing units, 15,862 or 52.6% had galvanized iron or aluminum
roofs, 1,777 or 6.0% had tile/concrete/clay tile roofs, and 1,470 or 4.87% had half-galvanized
iron & half concrete roofs. No data are available for the remaining11,064 housing units.
76. Half of the housing units (15,232 or 50.5%) had concrete/brick/stone walls. Another
5,694 or 18.87% had walls made of wood, 4,884 or 16.2% had walls of half
concrete/brick/stone and half wood, and 3,000 or 10% had walls made of
bamboo/sawali/Cogon/Nipa. The remaining units had walls of other materials like
salvaged/improvised materials.
77. The median floor area was about 25 square meters, with an average occupancy of
5.19 people.
78. In 2008, there were 37,184 households in Legazpi City. Of these, 26,288 or 70.7%
had complete basic sanitation facilities, with the remaining 10,896 or 29.3% using other
means of excreta disposal. This is a modest improvement over 2006 where 67.5% of
households had sanitary toilets.
2.4 HEALTH AND SANITATION
2.4.1 General Health1
79. The available data on morbidity and mortality from the City Health Office are those for
2008. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 present the ten leading causes of morbidity and mortality,
respectively. From Table 2.2, it can be noted that a potential waterborne disease, diarrhea
(all forms), is the 2nd leading cause of morbidity, with 2,802 reported cases. It was also
disturbing to have discovered that diarrhea was the 5th leading cause of under-five mortality
in the City, with 7 reported cases.
80. Infant Mortality Rate in Legazpi in the past 5 years (2004 –2008) shows an increasing
trend. Within this 5 year period, IMR ranges from 13.26 (2004) to 17.75 (2008). However, it
has significantly improved compared with the NSO national baseline recorded in 1998 when
the mortality rate among infant was at 46 per 1,000 live births. Moreover, the latest figure of
17.78 is very close to the National Objectives for Health for 2010 target set by the DOH (at
17 per 1,000 live birth) and the Millennium Development Goal for child health of at least less
than 17 infant deaths per 1,000 live births for the year 2015.
81. Along with the slow progress in attaining these health goals, Legazpi City has specific
health threats that need to be addressed. These are concerns that pertain to the double
burden of disease. While health problems related to poor development like infectious
diseases, malnutrition, diseases related to water and sanitation are still not completely
controlled, there are indications that so-called lifestyle and development related diseases are
beginning to rise in prevalence. According to the City Health Office, while infectious diseases
are still considered as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular
diseases and other chronic degenerative diseases are becoming significant contributors to
the increasing numbers of sickness and deaths in the City.
82. As of the latest official 2007 FHSIS report to the DOH, Legazpi City public health
workers still predominantly rely on the assistance of volunteer health workers or Barangay
Health Workers (BHWs) in the delivery of basic public health services. There are about 370
active BHWs in the City as of 2007. Also, traditional birth attendants (TBAs) still are still
considered significant providers of health services in the city whose numbers are almost the
same as the public health midwives (22 Rural Health Midwives vs. 29 TBAs)
1
Health data are presented in Supplementary Appendix G.
17
Table 2.2: Leading Causes of Morbidity, 2008 - Legazpi
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Upper Respiratory Tract Infection 22,588 1,236

2. Diarrhea, All Forms 2,802 153
3. Infected Wound 2,026 111
4. Pneumonia, All Forms 1,606 88
5. Fever of unknown origin 1,441 79
6. Hypertension 1,273 70
7. Bronchial Asthma 1,257 69
8. TB, All Forms 1,194 65
9. Skin Disease 1,153 63
10. Intestinal Parasitism 818 45
Source: Legazpi City Health Office.
Table 2.3: Leading Causes of Mortality, 2008 - Legazpi
CAUSES Number Rate
1. Pneumonia 264 14
2. Disease of the Vascular System 195 11
3. Disease of the Heart 162 9
4. Neoplasms 93 5
5. TB, All Forms 70 4
6. COPD 52 3
7. Septicemia 50 3
8. Accidents 45 2
9. Diabetes Mellitus 36 2
10. Renal Disease 25 1
Source: Legazpi City Health Office.
83. It is also significant to note that Legazpi City which belongs to the province of Albay,
whose provision of basic services are still considered inadequate compared with the national
average on health service utilization or coverage indicators like Fully Immunized Children or
FIC (for complete immunization services for children under 1 year of age), Ante-Natal Care or
ANC (for pre-natal consultation of pregnant women during the entire course of their
pregnancy), Skilled Birth Attendants or SBA (for doctors, nurses or midwives attending to
women during actual delivery), Facility Based Deliveries or FBD (for access of women to
facilities attended by skilled birth attendants during delivery), and Contraceptive Prevalence
Rate or CPR (for access of women of reproductive age to modern family planning method of
their choice). For all these indicators, the values for the province are lower compared to the
national average.
2.4.2 Water and Health-related Aspects
84. Incidence of diarrhea among 0-59 months old children (being the vulnerable
population age group) in the localities included in the appraisal is used to indicate the
magnitude of the health problem related to water and sanitation, and hygiene. In general, the
5-year trend (2004 – 2008) of diarrhea incidence among children below 5 years old and
below is increasing, starting at about 16 percent in 2004 to about 20 percent in 2008. Aside
from diarrhea, the City Health Office of Legazpi also reported cases of Soil-Transmitted
Helminthiasis, Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever, and Typhoid/ Parathyphoid in the last five years.
18
85. Based on the consultation with the City Health Office, there were claims that public
health campaign on sanitation and hygiene are regularly being conducted by the local health
authorities concerned. These activities range from the conduct of mothers’ class (i.e. bench
seminar), food handlers’ class to a more organized activities conducted yearly such as the
DOH-initiated Garantisadong Pambata where clients (mostly mothers) are given basic health
messages including those that deals with sanitation and hygiene. The City Health Office also
regularly collaborates with the public elementary schools where lessons on basic sanitation
and hygiene are incorporated in the school curricula like proper handwashing technique and
food preparation. Aside from information dissemination and educational campaign, the local
health office selectively conducts water chlorination and water testing using PHC (primary
health care) media.
86. The City Health Office also conducts bacteriological water testing as part of its routine
monitoring of water quality. It also screens food handlers through routine laboratory testing
and issuance of health permits.
87. When it comes to hospital waste management, most of the hospitals in the City resort
to incineration to dispose hospital wastes despite national policy governing this type of
waste. The City plans to organize a more comprehensive management of hospital waste.
88. According to the DOH, Legazpi City has not reported any disease outbreaks due to
water contamination or sanitation-related causes, in the past 5 years. There are only
occasional increases in the incidence of diarrhea but not at epidemic proportion.
2.4.3 Sanitation Facilities
89. The City of Legazpi has no sewerage system. Although PD 198 mandates Water
District to handle wastewater through a sewerage system, this intervention has been
neglected for quite some time due to its prohibitive cost.
90. In the absence of a sewerage system, domestic wastewater, which includes excreta
is collected by septic tanks. However, the BOD content in septic tanks is only partially
removed (about a maximum of 60%2). Thus, still a significant proportion of BOD is left
untreated.
91. The NSO data of 2000 (Table 2.4) shows that households using septic tanks are
about 57%. It basically means that the remaining 43 % are at risk of disposing excreta in the
environment in an unsafe manner that consequently degrades the quality of bodies of water
and increases the risk of infection.
92. The PPTA consultation with communities and LGUs revealed that it is an accepted
fact that there are septic tanks in the subproject area with unsealed bases. This condition
definitely contaminates groundwater.
93. There are private desludgers operating in the area. However, the disposal sites of
septage are unknown. When interviewed by the PPTA, they expressed interest to participate
in the program.
2
Philippine Sanitation Sourcebook and Decision Aid, World Bank, 2006
19
Table 2.4: Sanitation Facilities and Coverage, Legazpi City, 2000

HH
Type of Toilet facilities coverage %
Water Sealed + Septic Tank 15160 50
Water Sealed + Septic Tank -Shared 2173 7
Water Sealed + Others 3750 12
Water Sealed + Others - Shared 1688 6
Closed Pit 3061 10
Open Pit 2174 7
Others 778 3
None 1828 6
Total 30612 100
Source: NSO, 2000.
94. Moreover, households with undesludged septic tanks for more than 5 years would
become inefficient in treating excreta. The accumulation of sludge lessens the space and
retention time needed for treatment. Untreated effluent would consequently go out directly
from the septic tank and flow to drainage going to bodies of water. The public’s exposure to
untreated effluent along the drainage as well as in the bodies of water is a health risk that
should be addressed.
95. Much worse is the presence of open defecation or direct disposal to bodies of water.
NSO figures (Table 2.4) reflect that around 1,828 households in the year 2000 had no toilets
at all! Without addressing this concern, the exposure level to excreta contamination of
vulnerable groups (i.e. poor, children, marginalized groups) will remain very high.
96. The Water Quality Monitoring Report (2002) reflected in the 2008 Socio Economic
Profile of Legazpi City showed that certain sampling sites along Sumagayon River have
below 5 mg/L Dissolved Oxygen level. These were as follows:
EM Barrio South (1.8 mg/L)
Dapdap (2.1 mg/L)
Bagumbayan (3.3 mg/L)
Rizal St. (2.7 mg/L).
97. DAO 34 standards indicate 5 mg/L Dissolved Oxygen as the minimum limit. Going
below the limit would suggest that the water has excessive organic contents which could
come from garbage or untreated wastewater disposed to the river. The practice of
indiscriminate disposal of wastes to the bodies of water has to be controlled by the local
authorities to avoid its impending impact to economy, health and environment.
2.4.4 Education
98. During the school year 2006-2007, Legazpi City had a total of 32 private schools in
operation and 45 public schools in operation at all levels. Three private schools offered only
pre-school education, 5 schools offered only pre-school and elementary education, 5 schools
offered education from pre-school up to high school only, and 3 schools offered the full
course from pre-school up to tertiary level education. Only 1 school offered both elementary
and high school education only, 2 schools offered high school education only, 4 schools
offered high and college education only, 6 colleges offered tertiary education only.
99. During this school year, there were 41 public elementary schools in operation. The
government provided secondary education through 4 high schools and offered tertiary
education through only 1 university – the Bicol University.
20
2.5 ECONOMY
2.5.1 City Income and Expenditures
100. Legazpi City is a 1st class City and is the Capital of Albay Province. From the 2006
City Accomplishment Report provided by the City Planning & Development Office, the
average annual revenue of the City over the period of 3 years from 2006 to 2008 was
PhP419,686,819.40. Over the same period, it had an average obligated amount of
PhP395,391,055.80 for an annual average surplus of PhP24,295,763.60. Its largest revenue
came from its Internal Revenue Allotment which averaged PhP246,933,518.70 per year or
59.0% of the City’s annual revenues over this 3-year period.
101. In terms of Obligation by Sector/Services, General Public Services took the lion’s
share of obligated amounts with an annual average of PhP217,078,610.70 or 55.0% of the
annual average amount obligated. Economic Services, 20% Development Fund, and Health
Services followed a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places, respectively.
2.5.2 Employment
102. In April 2003, Legazpi City had a labor supply of 106,584, age 15 years old and over.
This was about 60.6% of the total population. Of this figure, 38,157 or about 35.8% were not
in the labor force, leaving an employable population of 68,427 or 64.2% of the labor supply.
Employed were 57,136 leaving 11,291 unemployed. However, of the employed population,
13,370 were visibly unemployed so that those who were fully employed totaled 43,766 or
64.0% of the Labor Force.
103. From the 2003 Barangay Socio-Economic Survey, service workers dominate the
City’s occupational groupings, with 46% in the services sector. About 16% were production
and related workers, transport equipment, etc.; 15% comprise the professional, technical and
related workers, clerical workers, administrative, executive, and management workers; 12%
were in sales; and another 12% were in agriculture, animal husbandry, and family workers.
104. It is also interesting to note that there were 326 Overseas Contract Workers from this
City in 2006.
2.5.3 Agriculture
105. In 2007, agricultural land accounted for about 48.0% (9,755.14 hectares) of the total
land area of the City. In the urban barangays, there were 115.25 hectares of agriculture land
which was only 5.8% of the urban land area. In the rural barangays, 55.0% (9,639,89
hectares) of the land area was dedicated to agriculture.
106. About 31.6% of the agricultural land was devoted to crops such as rice, corn, root
crops, vegetables, legumes, fruit trees, and industrial crops. Rice and corn were planted in
1,231 hectares of which 708 hectares were irrigated and the remaining 523 hectares being
rain-fed or planted to upland rice. Coconut trees were planted in 6,747 hectares or 33.0% of
the City’s total land area, national park included. Bananas were planted in almost 300
hectares and fruit vegetables were planted in 190 hectares of land. Leafy vegetables were
planted in about 100 hectares.
107. Industrial crops include pili (a type of nut), coffee, cacao, bamboo, anahaw (a type of
palm leaf, fan-shaped), nipa, and sugarcane.
21
2.5.4 Commerce and Trade
108. In 2006, a total of 2,543 business establishments were registered in Legazpi City. A
total of 2,351 establishments belonged to the services sector most of which were wholesale
and retail trade. There were 257 hotels and restaurants and 223 health and social work
establishments. In the Industry Sector, of the 166 registered establishments, 96 were into
manufacturing and 61 were into construction.
109. Also in 2006, a total of 29 banks were located in Legazpi City. There were 11
commercial banks, 2 government banks, 3 rural banks, 5 savings banks, and 8 unibanks. In
addition, there were 95 non-bank financial intermediaries; these were 9 financing companies,
12 lending investors, 3 savings and loans associations, 47 insurance companies, and 24
pawnshops.
2.5.5 Tourism
110. There are many tourist destinations in the City of Legazpi. There is, of course, the
famous Mayon Volcano with its nearly perfect cone shape. It stands at 8,189 feet, with a
base of about 10 kms radius. The Department of Tourism schedules annual hiking activity on
the slopes of Mayon Volcano.
111. There are two hills which attract tourists, namely the Kapuntukan Hill and the Ligñon
Hill. The Kapuntukan Hill gives a beautiful vista of Legazpi City at night as well as the
neighboring municipalities of Manito and Rapu-Rapu. Ligñon Hill, on the other hand, offers a
good view of Mayon Volcano and the City as well.
112. The beaches called Puro White Beach, Bagacay Beach, and Porta Azul offer good
facilities, and are good places for swimming, boating, scuba diving, fishing, and speed boat
racing.
113. The Liberty Bell is a bronze bell installed by the American Forces in 1945 and is
located in Peñaranda Park in Rizal Street. The Jose Ma. Peñaranda Monument was built as
a tribute to the late Jose Ma. Peñaranda who served as the Governor of Albay from 1834 to
1843. The Headless Monument was constructed as a dedication to the unknown heroes who
died during the Japanese occupation of the City.
114. There is a 40-meter long L-shaped tunnel 7 feet deep used by the Japanese forces as
an arsenal during WWII. It is located at Barangay EM’s Barrio South. There is also the
Legazpi Heroes Memorial Pylon which is 16-meters high and is located in the Commercial
District of the City.
115. The Fluvial Procession is a colorful activity in Legazpi City. It is a traditional

procession at the Albay Gulf by the residents of Barangays Sabang and Pigcale. The image
of the Patron Nuestra Señora de Penafrancia is placed on a decorated motorized banca or
kumpit and paraded in a procession.
116. The Ibalong Festival is a week-long celebration designed to enhance development in

the region, specifically to promote tourism in Legazpi City. The centerpiece of the whole
event is a Mardi Gras-style street presentation featuring the characters of the Ibalong epic.
22
2.6 SOCIAL SERVICES
2.6.1 Health and Sanitation
117. Secondary and tertiary health services are provided by 1 government hospital, 6
private hospitals, 26 government clinics/other health centers/stations, 52 private clinics/other
health centers/stations, and 12 diagnostic laboratories. There are also 25 Barangay Health
Stations—one for each rural barangay. These are manned by 4 doctors, 6 nurses, 2 dentists,
1 medical technologist, 5 nutrition officers, 1 dental aide, 22 midwives, 7 sanitary inspectors,
8 population officers, 29 trained birth attendants, 1 HEPO II, 395 barangay health workers, 6
barangay health assistants, and 3 non-technical personnel.
118. The health services offered by the City include: Basic medical and health care,
Prenatal services, Deliveries, Post-partum care, Immunization, and Family Planning, among
others.
119. Although WDs are mandated under PD 198 to provide sanitation services (wastewater
collection and treatment services only), this has not been attended to as focus of WDs is
more on the provision of water supply services. The sanitation component is left to the care
of the local government. In the case of Legazpi City, sanitation services provided include,
among others, inspection of water supply sources, water sampling, disinfection of water
sources, chlorination of households, and inspection of excreta disposal systems.
2.6.2 Transportation and Communication
120. The City can be reached by road, sea, and air. Legazpi City is about 534 km
southeast from Manila by the Philippine-Japan Friendship Highway—an all-weather highway.
It has several entry and exit points. It is connected in the northeast through the Municipality
of Sto. Domingo, in the southeast through the Municipality of Manito, and in the northwest all
the way to Manila through the Municipality of Daraga.
121. In 2006, the City had a total road network of 196.19 kilometers of which 54.95 km
(28%) were national roads, 40.71 kms. (21%) were city roads, 85.97 km (44%) were
barangay roads, and 14.56 km (7%) were subdivision or private roads. A majority of these
roads were concrete (69%), 9% were topped with asphalt, and 20% were gravel and earth
roads.
122. There are 17 bus companies providing passenger service to and from Metro Manila
and 28 bus companies provided passenger service along the Naga-Legazpi-Tobaco route
including service to the Province of Sorsogon and the Visayas. Separate terminals are
available for buses and jeepneys.
123. Rail service to and from Manila was provided by the Philippine Railroad Company.
However, this was temporarily suspended due to the damage caused by Typhoon Reming
on the railroad infrastructure.
124. Legazpi City has a Base Port which is designated as a principal port because of the
volume of trade, and the available direct land transport services. The Legazpi City Base Port
has a 339 meter long x 30 meter wide wharf, and a RORO facility which is 105 meters long x
15 meters wide RC pier with a 10-meter long x 5-meter wide ramp.
125. This Base Port serves primarily as a collection point for products of other provinces
and islands east and south of Legazpi City. Port services include an open storage area of
1,738 m². Cargo handling is provided by a private arrastre and stevedoring company.
Shipping agents are available in the port and there are 17 third-class tramping vessels
23
transporting goods and passengers to and from Legazpi City and various points in the
Provinces of Albay and Sorsogon. There are also 2 private ports in the City.
126. The Legazpi City Airport is the only trunk line airport in the Bicol Region. It has a
concrete runway of 1,974 meters and can accommodate medium-sized planes like the
Boeing 737. However, the airport operates only at daytime. It handles 6 flights daily by 2
airline companies, namely: the Philippine Airlines (PAL) and Cebu Pacific.
127. Telephone services are handled by Bayantel and Digitel. Both use the SPC-digital
system and have a combined capacity of 19,554 connections. In 2006, there were 8,673
fixed connections. Both companies also provide services for telegraph and telex, serve as
international gateway facility (IGF) operators, and extend services for international long
distance calls.
128. Sun Cellular/Digitel Mobile, Globe Telecom, and Smart Communications, Inc. provide
cellular phone services through 7 cell sites located all over the City. In 2006, the City had 19
NTC-accredited mobile phone service centers and 16 NTC-accredited mobile phone dealers
or retailers.
129. There were 4 internet service providers with DSL services in the City; these are
Digitel, Bayantel, SMART, and PLDT. Internet cafes grew from 17 in 2001 to 80 in 2006.
130. The Legazpi City Post Office still provides mail service, although it is losing out to
competition from private service providers. However, it was still able to post 245,195 letters
and deliver 573,642 letters in 2005—a huge task for 22 letter carriers.
131. There were also 15 AM and FM stations, 3 television stations, and 2 cable televisions
in the City in 2006.
2.6.3 Power Supply
132. As of 2006, the entire City was almost covered by electric power. Of the 33,042
potential household customers of the Albay Electric Cooperative, Incorporated II (ALECO II),
31,348 or 95% were already enjoying the benefits of electric power. The urban barangays
were already completely served and only far-flung sitios or puroks were not served.
133. However, electric service left much to be desired as frequent power outages were
experienced affecting the normal operation of residents, establishments, and institutions.
Also, the high power selling rate of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) to ALECO
was an issue which forced consumers to pay high power rates. Looting of power lines, tower
parts, and other materials; high systems losses due to pilferage; and low voltage supply
affected the ability of ALECO to provide efficient service at reasonable prices.
134. The schedule of power rates as of 2006 is shown in Table 2.5 for ALECO II.
Table 2.5: Albay Electric Cooperative Inc. II (ALECO II), Legazpi City, Albay
AVERAGE RATE PER KILOWATT HOUR as of 2006
CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION POWER RATES (PhP)
Residential 7.77/kwh
Commercial 7.79/kwh
Industrial 7.66/kwh
Others 7.95/kwh
Source: Legazpi City Socio-Economic & Physical Profile – Facts & Figures, Vol. 1.
24
2.6.4 Water Supply
135. In 2008, 27,067 households out of total of 37,184 households or 72.8% had access to
Level III water sources, most of which is provided by the Legazpi City Water District. Another
2,425 households or 6.5% had access to Level II water sources and the remaining 7,692
households or 20.7% had to access Level I water sources.
136. As of 2008, the Water District had 16,890 active connections. Of these, 15,505 were
residential customers, 1,129 were commercial customers, 255 were institutional customers,
and only 1 was industrial.
137. In 2006, only 28 percent of the 25 rural barangays were served and given the number
of active connections registered by the Water District both in 2006 and 2008, it is likely that
modest improvements in this area have been made. Only 607 active residential connections
were added from 2006 to 2008.
2.7 DEVELOPMENT PLANS
138. The City’s Development Plans answers the social, economic, physical, and
environmental problems as well as the needs being faced by the community now and for the
past 5 years. It aims to improve the socio-economic well-being of the people through
employment generation and access to basic social and economic services and facilities
including livelihood opportunities. It looks at the present situations vis-á-vis standards,
establishes the City’s vision over a period of 10 years, and determines detailed objectives
and strategies in attaining its goals.
139. There are common concerns which characterize the goals, objectives, plans and
programs of this development plan. Firstly, there is concern for the low-income and
marginalized families within the City. Plans and programs for Housing; Health and Nutrition;
Education, Sports, and Recreation; Social Welfare and Development; Trade and Commerce;
and Industry all explicitly indicate the City’s desire to uplift the socio-economic status of the
poor.
140. Secondly, there is the desire of the City for sustained growth in Trade and Commerce;
Industry; Transportation, in all its forms; Information and Communication Technology; Land
Use; Tourism; Power and Electricity; Water Resources and Supply; as well as in Health and
Nutrition; Education; and Housing.
141. Thirdly, the concern for the environment is clearly seen in the stated objectives,
strategies, plans, and programs for Environment, Tourism, Forestry, Land Use, Trade and
Commerce, Water Resources and Supply, and Fisheries.
142. Fourthly, the participation of the Private Sector in the development in the City is
desired in almost all of the City’s plans and programs. The attainment of the City’s
Development Plan cannot be achieved without the active participation, or even leadership in
some cases, of the private sector.
143. Lastly, there is the desire to move away from dependence on subsistence agriculture
and from the City’s predominantly agricultural economy to an industrial or, at least, an agro-
industrial economy. Improvement in the City’s infrastructure—roads, ports, communication
facilities, airport, power, water supply—point, in many ways, to the attainment of this goal.
25
3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS
144. Legazpi City Water District (LCWD), as a pilot for the WDDSP, represents urban
growth patterns in the country. On August 1, 2007, the Philippine population reached
88,574,614 persons. The country’s total population in 2000 was 76.50 million, indicating an
average annual population growth rate of 2.04 percent between 2000 and 2007. The
urbanization forecast for the Philippines done in 2006 estimated that the level of urbanization
may reach 60 percent by 2010, 68 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2030.
145. Region 5, though one of the slowest growing regions in the country with a growth rate
of 1.3%, has Legazpi City barangays with annual growth rates that were more than 5%. At
the national level, official data show that 26.9 percent of Filipino families were found to be
poor in 2006, compared to 24.4 percent in 2003. Albay province ranked 38th, with 38% below
the poverty line. The city continues to urbanize, with income inequalities, squatter
settlements, entrenched poverty and lack of safe water and septage systems. Prevailing
problems of urbanization serve as the context of the Water District Development Sector
Project (WDDSP) as a response to the Philippine government’s and the UN’s Millenium
Development Goals on poverty reduction through water and sanitation.
3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY
146. A household survey was conducted to augment secondary data on socio-economic,

gender and water and sanitation profile for the subproject site. The tool was designed to
provide gender-disaggregated data to determine the distinct situation, and project-related
needs and concerns of women and men in the coverage area.
147. At least three hundred eighty five (385) respondents were interviewed to reach 95%
level of confidence at 0.1 standard deviation. Stratified random sampling was used to
determine the survey sample, with three levels of stratification—municipality/city,
served/expansion areas, and barangays—in both served/expansion sites. (Please check
Appendix 3.1 for Legazpi Survey Sample)
148. Survey results are here summarized. Tables are in Appendix 3.1 which can serve as
baseline data against which future subproject impacts can be assessed, and as a guide in
the design of information and education materials and of interventions for identified areas for
improvement.
3.1.1 Profile of Households in Project Site
149. The Legazpi City Water District reaches 53 out of Legazpi’s 70 brangays. As of 2007,
the franchise area had a total population of 179,481, with a household population of 30,612
(2000). This was 15% of the provincial population of 1,190,823. As of 2008, the total number
of connections was 15,770, combined for households and government facilities.
150. Legazpi is one of the most densely populated cities of Albay. It was growing at an
average rate of 1.62% which was higher than the the provincial average of 1.3%. Barangay
growth rates were variable. There were outmigration barangays such as Mariawa and
Padang as there were fast-growing sites such as Taysan (5.83%), Rawis (4.73%) and
Banquerohan (3.34%). Sections of Padang were abandoned due to destruction from storm
Reming and volcanic mudflow.
151. The survey sample had the following characteristics: Average household size was
5.68 with 32.2% having 5-6 members. This gives an updated household population estimate
of 31,598 and a service coverage estimate of 50% as of the survey period. Highest grade of
26
household head was high school (33%) level while 30% completed college or higher.
Respondents were distributed under a wide occupational range including farming, business,
street vending, and government and private employment. Unemployment and dependency
rates were high among the survey sample; 13.3% was unemployed and 14.1% were
temporary labourers; there were 1-2 dependents below 14 years old for 43% of respondents;
there were another 21.3% with 3-4 members below 14 years while there were 21.3% of
respondents with dependents above 65 years old.
152. Average length of stay in the area was 27 years. Majority (93%) of households were
Bicolano. Sole occupancy of dwelling was most common with 91.7% owning the house they
occupied while only 41% owned the lot the house was built on; 37% used strong housing
materials, while 26.8% had a mix of light and strong materials; 52.6% of those that believed
their house was made of mixed but predominantly strong materials had water connection.
Single-detached house was the predominant type of dwelling unit at 94%. Duplex units were
reported by three percent of the households.
3.1.2 Income and Expenditure Profile
153. Average monthly income was P11,094. Some 25% had incomes of less than P5,000
and another 35.8% had an income range of P5,000 – P9,999 or just along the poverty
threshold for Legazpi. Estimated poverty threshold was a household income of about P8,668,
computed from the official annual per capita poverty threshold for Albay for 2007 which was
pegged at P18,343.
154. About 22.2% spent between P10,000-15,000 per month while most (36.8%) spent
about P5,000 – P9,999 per month. Over 65% were unable to save while most of those that
could had less than P1,000 (20.5%) in savings per month. Television (85.2%), cellular
phones (73.2%) and refrigerators (49%) were the most common valuable items of the
household.
155. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of households borrowed money in the last year; major
reasons for borrowing were household expenses (45.3%), business (36.5%), food (29%),
and education (28%). Lack of access to formal credit was indicated. Relatives and friends
were main sources of borrowing for 45%, although 36.1% had access to micro-finance
institutions. Bank borrowing was less at 7.1%.
3.1.3 Existing Water Service
156. Surveyed respondents were divided into those with and without WD piped connection.
157. With Piped Connection. About 55.3% of survey respondents had piped water
connection with the WD. Women had access to service; 57.6% of connections were under
female-headed households while 54.5% were under male-headed households. Poor
households were less likely to be connected (54.5% were unconnected) as against non-poor
at 33% representing a difference of 21.5%. Only 45.4% of those below the poverty threshold
had water connection.
158. From the survey, average consumption was 19.7 cubic meters at P426.76. Of this,
11.7% provided water to neighbors or relatives; this is apart from sharing that often occurred
where there were multiple families in a household; survey showed that 62.5% had only one
household using WDS connection.
159. Issues on sufficiency were indicated for certain areas although 96% claimed they had
water 24 hours a way; additional sources were cited as private shallow wells (44.4%) for
27
other domestic uses; purified water refilling stations were the source of drinking water for
11% with a 7.1 average volume of usage and an average cost of P16.75 per day; 1.4% used
pump to increase water pressure. While overall, 59.3% assessed that water received from
piped connection was sufficient for their needs, respondents gave the following rating for
aspects of water service: water pressure was considered poor (7%), though 82.6% of 214
respondents perceived it to be adequate. However, an improvement in water availability was
noted during the rainy season with 100% indicating that water was available everyday during
the rainy period. Continuity of water supply was rated poor by 2.3% with 68.7% saying it was
“good”; 7.5% cited reliability of meter readings and response to customer complaints to be
poor.
160. Legazpi’s non-revenue water was at 21%. The main issues raised were on water
quality and water rates. Aspects of water service that households would like improved were:
water pressure (6.5%), reduction of water rates (31%), complaints handling (9.3%), repairs
(10.3%), quality of water (35%) and billing and maintenance at 7%.
161. Aspects of water quality that were at issue were taste (21.5%), color (26%) and smell
(12.7%). Overall, 16% were extremely unsatisfied with water quality. Boiling of drinking
water was the only treatment (18.3%) reported by connected households.
162. Without Connection. About forty-four percent (44.4%) of non-connected

interviewees got water from a member’s piped connection; in addition, 90.2% reported
paying for supply of piped water from another’s connection. The most common source was
private shallow wells at 49.7%; less common were private deep wells at 9.6%; a significant
percentage relied on water vendors at 22.2% while 6.3% got water from public faucets.
Female-headed households relied on shallow wells (50%) for most of their drinking, bathing,
cooking, cleaning and gardening needs, but also used public faucets (2.4%) and deep wells
(7.1%) more than their male counterparts (0% and 0.8% respectively); female-headed
households relied on water vendors at a higher rate of 14% compared to 7.5% by their male-
headed counterpart. Private shallow wells led as a source for bathing (64%) and for
gardening (68.2%) as well as for cooking (50.2%). Alternative water sources were available.
Close to 90% of non-connected households assessed water from current sources to be
sufficient all year round.
163. Collecting water was usually done by male household members at 57.2% using pails
or open containers (71.4%); about 84% spent 0.5 – 1 hour per day, collecting anytime water
was needed. Bathing had the highest water use per household at an average of 51.61
gallons per day, followed by cleaning (38.06), gardening (11.83), cooking (7.17) and drinking
(3.97). Women (17.1%), anyone available (20.4%), and children (5.3%) also fetched water.
3.1.4 Sanitation, Health and Hygiene
164. Over 74.8% of the 385 sample households had water-sealed pour-flush toilets with
septic tanks but consultations indicate that many would be old and not built to standard. WD-
connected households were more likely to have water-sealed toilets with septic tank at
91.5% as against 54.1% for non-connected. The next most common type of toilet system
was pour-flush toilet connected to the drainage system at 8.3%; at least 7.8% shared a toilet
while 2.6% had water-sealed pour-flush connected to a pit; some . 3.1% did not have toilets.
165. Overall, 83.6% were satisfied with their current toilet system. Those that were not
complained of backflow resulting in foul odor and inconvenience (42.1%). About 27.5% of
households wanted to improve their septage system, 45.3% of which preferred desludging of
septic tank.
28
166. Of 323 households who responded to the question on distance of toilet to a water
source, 12.3% indicated toilets being less than 4 meters from a water source. Over 52% had
toilets that were between 5 – 20 meters away; the rest exceeded the 20 meter distance.
167. Sanitation and Hygiene Practices. All survey respondents reported washing hands
before cooking, before eating, after using the toilet, before breastfeeding, before feeding
children, and after washing the children after toilet. Less households (91%) washed hands
after changing diapers.
168. Children used the toilet (89.2% in female headed households, and 92.7% in male-
headed households) but were also allowed to use the backyard (4.3% for female-headed
households and less so in male headed households (1.5%).
169. Water-Related Diseases. Non-connected households transported water from source

using open (71.4%) and closed containers (16.2%) or a combination of both (5.2%).
Transport of water through a hose or pipe connected to a neighbor’s water system was
practiced by 7.1% of the 154 non-connected cases; 6.4% of 171 cases had at least one
member who suffered from a water-related disease during the past year and 5.3% of
households had at least one child who had suffered from diarrhea. About 14.1% of
households treated drinking water through boiling. On the other hand, 12.6% of households
with WD connection had at least one member who had suffered a water-related disease in
the past year; 18.3% of these connected households treated faucet water before drinking.
3.1.5 Willingness to Connect/ Willingness to Pay
170. Water. Of those that were not connected, 46.8% were willing to have water service.
There was a margin between non-poor (43.9%) and poor (48.2%), showing that the latter
were more able to afford water service. However, there was expressed interest to connect
among various income grades – 45% of those with incomes of less that P5,000, over 49% of
those between P5,000 – P9,999, 55% of the next percentile to P15,000. Of those earning
P20,000-29,999, only 25% wanted WD connection compared to higher income brackets that
had willlingness rates of 50% or more.
171. There was a gap between current bill payments and how much people were willing to
pay. The average amount of water bill that unconnected households were willing to pay was
P231 although a sizable percentage (45.1%) wanted to pay the lowest option of P150/month,
with another 31.7% wanting to pay no more than P200 per month. These were below the
survey’s average monthly bill of P 426.76 for an average consumption of 19.7 cubic meters.
172. Convenience (59.5%) and the need for improved water service (38.1%) were the
leading reasons offered by unconnected respondents for wanting piped water service. A
significant percentage (11.9%) was also concerned about health risks from current water
sources. In addition, some 9.5% perceived that water bills were reasonable. On the other
hand, 57.5% of those that were unwilling to connect were satisfied with current water supply
and were reluctant to connect saying water bills would be too high (41.4%); furthermore,
connection charges at an average of P4,000 were considered to be too high (24.1%).
173. Affordability was a leading cause for not being connected. High connection charges
were cited as the reason for deciding not to connect by 49.1%; high monthly charges were
mentioned by 25.1%. The minimum monthly charge is P198 for the first 10 cubic meters for
domestic and government users. Another 6.4% had been disconnected. On the other hand,
non-availability of connection was raised by 6.4% and 1.8% cited being on a waiting list for
connection. Some 4.7% perceived water to be unsafe as reason for not connecting. Most of
non-connected households (90.1%) reported availability of water all year round from existing
29
sources. The rest cited insufficiency during certain times. Many (44.4%) were extremely
satisfied with the overall quality of water from their current sources.
174. For those who were connected, perceived need for improved water service (65.4%)
led as the motivation of households for staying connected. Second, was worry over health
risks from alternative water sources, “increased water bill was not too high,” was cited by
16.4% and convenience, by 14.5%.
175. Affordability level of connected households in accessing improved water service

converged at P150 – P300 which was the amount given by 77.5% of connected households.
The average amount of monthly water bill that connected households were willing to pay
after improvement was P302. The average monthly bill of surveyed connected households
was P426.76 although the WD average was lower at P364.21.
176. Sanitation. The level of satisfaction with respondents’ toilets and septic tanks was
high at 83.6%; dissatisfaction rates were higher among women respondents. In contrast,
demand for improved sanitation was significantly lower at 30.5%. For those that saw the
need for improvement, 24.1% preferred installation of septic tanks, 42.6% cited rehabilitation
of septic tank and 33.3% chose desludging. Desludging was sought by non-poor at 57.7%
with 56.8% of non-poor willing to pay for the service; this is compared to 42.6% of the poor
who preferred improving existing septic tank with 34.9% willing to pay for the improvement. .
3.1.6 Risks and Vulnerabilities
177. The assessment was intended to help identify the existence of vulnerable households
that would require special attention in the design of water and sanitation components.
178. Poverty Profile. For this study, certain response categories were classified between
poor and non-poor households. Whereas, the country’s poverty ranking rate was 26.9% in
2006 and Region 5 had decreased from 45.3% in 2000 to 40.6% in 2003 and up to 41.8% in
2006, Albay’s poverty incidence worsened from 34.4% in 2003 to 37.8% in 2006. The survey
shows that the pilot site had 54.3% below the household poverty income threshold of P8,060
Legazpi City. Male-headship (76.1%) was more prevalent among poor households.
179. Maternal and infant mortality are poverty indicators. Some 7% experienced the death
of a child before reaching the age of 6. The incidence was higher (8.1%) for women-headed
households. Similarly, 1.6% of households had a household member die during pregnancy or
child birth.
180. Risks and Vulnerability. As the site of active Mayon Volcano, the area is disaster-
prone; 77% of respondents were severely affected by typhoons, over 40% by earthquakes,
over 99% by floods, 1% by fire and 2% by landslides; furthermore, 50% of water sources and
27.3% of toilets and septic tanks were also affected by a flood.
181. There was no documented incidence of HIV/AIDS in the past years. The survey
sample indicated that 6.2% of households had members with physical and/or mental
disability. Most (79%) had some form of physical disability.
182. Discrimination due to various reasons had been felt by 16% of the households in the
survey. Specifically, 11 percent of the households sensed discrimination in their community
because of their social status. Disability was perceived by less (2%) as a reason for being
discriminated.
30
3.1.7 Social Services and Networks
183. Community-Based Organizations. Membership in people’s organizations is an

enabling/security indicator in the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey; 46.5% of households had
at least one member with a community organization or association. Respondents were
members of a community organization such as women’s groups (18.2%), religious (7.8%)
and home owners associations (2.3%), cooperatives (1.6%) and savings groups (2.6%).
Others (19%) were various organizations such as for peace and order, senior citizens,
brotherhood and livelihood groups which were less common among those interviewed. Over
ninety-eight percent exercised their right to vote in the last election.
184. Access to Health Services. Respondents sought medical services primarily from
public facilities such as medical centers (35.8%), government hospitals (23.4%), and from
private hospitals (11.3%) and private clinics (18.4%). While 85.2% of survey respondents
were satisfied with available health services in their locality, men were slightly more satisfied
than women. 79.4% of both female and male-headed households had access to Philhealth or
had assistance on health expenses; 2.9% relied on self-medication.
3.1.8 Gender Roles, Issues and Concerns
185. Almost twenty-six percent were women-headed households in Legazpi City. The
responsibility and role of men and women in decision making on water and sanitation was
significant, indicating the importance of their active involvement in project planning and
implementation. Women’s dominant role was highlighted in such tasks as supervising
children to wash hands (56.2%), cleaning toilet and water containers (49.9%), removing
garbage (30.1%), and cleaning drainage systems (24.2%). The pattern was even more
pronounced in male-headed households where shared decision making was the norm when
buying household equipment (58.7%), renovating the house (58.4%), building septic tanks
(56.8%), deciding on economic activity (57%), bringing children to the doctor (53%), and on
water connection (60.4%). Decision making by wife was the other main response under both
female and male-headed households.
186. Women were less critical than men on water quality where overall 2.3% were
extremely unsatisfied with both taste and smell and 2.9 were extremely unsatisfied with water
color; for taste expressed dissatisfaction was high at 20.8% by women and 22.2%: by men.
Women also noted dissatisfaction over smell (13.2%), color (26.4%). Water quality and water
rates were key aspects of WD services that survey respondents wanted improved.
3.2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
187. Stakeholder consultation was extensive during project preparation. It was an iterative
process to comply with ADB’s consultation and participation guidelines for meaningful and
gender-responsive consultation with stakeholders and affected persons and communities.
188. Major workshops were held at the stage of inception, and design validation. Other
assessment tools were Key Informant Interview and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) which
were conducted between May – August 2009 when advocacy on sanitation was also done.
189. Earlier, the reconnaissance survey by the team in April and the socio-economic
survey in May were occasions not only for project disclosure but also for stakeholder
identification and to scope issues and concerns on water and sanitation through key
informant interview with other stakeholders such as barangay and municipal officials. Later
FGD allowed for more in-depth consultation on sanitation and identified water issues (e.g.
31
NRW reduction, increasing connection, etc.) as well as on pro-poor policies and actions for
improvement of sanitation and water services.
190. Women were part of the consultation process. Gender orientation and analysis
sessions at the Water District in July and a national Gender Action Planning Workshop in
August resulted in the formation of a GAD Focal Point in CKWD and the identification of
gender issues at the organization and client levels.
191. To build consensus within the water district, management and the board of directors
were kept abreast of plans, survey and consultation results. In addition, two stakeholder
consultations for water district and local levels were also conducted in August as plans for
both water and sanitation were finalized. These validated and solicited recommendations on
proposed plans. (Please check documentation on consultations in Appendix 3.2)
192. Based on an initial stakeholder analysis, the following were interviewed or consulted:
• Water District management, board members, gender focal point and staff.
• Existing and projected clientele and affected people with special attention on
women and the poor—e.g. urban poor and barangay representatives of target
areas.
• Affected People—Those who could be directly affected by infrastructure facilities.
• Non-government organization and urban poor federation—e.g. COPE and Slum
Dwellers Federation.
• Local government units at the city and barangay levels and local agencies such
as those in charge of public health and sanitation, city planning and finance,
engineering, environment, gender and social welfare and urban poor affairs.
• Private desludging company and bulk water provider.
3.2.1 Summary of Consultations
193. Social and environmental concerns and recommendations raised by stakeholders are
summarized below.
194. Targeting of Beneficiaries. WD-service areas include most of the northern and
central barangays. Southern barangays have lagged behind due to a lack of development,
higher elevations and the presence of insurgency groups.
195. Thus, Taysan (pop. 10,000) in the south is targeted as the major beneficiary of
improved water services. It is the most populous barangay of Legazpi City. Moreover,
southern Legazpi is safer from volcanic activity and is being primed as the city’s next growth
and investment area which includes the development of retirement villages. Taysan is also
the location of new subdivisions and a resettlement site for the displaced of Typhoon Reming
that buried whole communities near Mayon.
196. The subproject will benefit both poor and non-poor communities. The resettlement site
in Taysan lacks piped water connection. Aside from those that are able to afford piped
connection, care will also be taken to target the poor for appropriate affordable access to
safe water, thereby expanding the reach of subproject benefits while maximizing cost
recovery. Thus an allocation is set aside to leverage local government resources to reach the
poor through additional public faucets or tanks and/or water delivery services in coordination
with user groups. Consultations show that these even have the potential to grow as livelihood
opportunities for women’s groups or user organizations that will manage these facilities.
197. There is consensus that the urban poor in sanitation hotspots will be prioritized for the
improvement of on-site sanitation facilities through access to microfinance. However, the
32
objective is the improvement of all substandard septic tanks as owner’s equity. Thus, the
lack of demand for improved sanitation shall be strengthened through social marketing.
Stakeholders acknowledged that the magnitude of need highlight the importance of inter-
agency cooperation in targeting the poor for improved services for both water and sanitation.
198. Learning from the experience of similar projects in the area, prioritizing project
participants will be demand-driven. Thus, sanitation improvement will entail social
preparation with possible NGO facilitation. Partnership with NGOs, the urban poor federation,
local government and other agencies could facilitate awareness raising and planning with
target communities for appropriate schemes for installation and maintenance of sustainable
on-site sanitation facilities. While there was a preference for individual sanitation system,
there was openness to the idea of shared septic tanks among local governments and
households as a way to address affordability concerns.
199. Slums in Legazpi City. Urbanization in Legazpi City is characterized by the growth of
slums in 16 urban barangays (Table 3.1). All are in commercial areas within the urban
district, except for Dap-dap, which is in a residential zone. Identified sanitation hotspots are
those along rivers and waterways where the urban poor settled. These are priority target
sites for the provision of communal septic tanks.
Table 3.1: Location of Slums in Legazpi City, 2008

No. Barangay No. Barangay
24 Rizal Street 32 San Roque
25 Lapu-Lapu 33 PNR Peñaranda (PNR Site-Looban)
26 Dinagaan 34 Oro Site
27 Victory Village South 35 Tinago
28 Victory Village North 36 Kapantawan
29 Sabang 37 Bitano
30 Pigcale 39 Bonot
31 Centro Baybay 57 Dap-dap
Source: Legazpi City Socio-Economic Profile, Legazpi City Planning Office, 2008
200. Hazard Areas. A problem area that was identified with respect to housing needs and
in planning provisions for water and sanitation were hazard zones in the city, where houses
were in constant danger of flooding or volcanic eruption. Flood-prone areas are located in the
barangays shown in Table 3.2, and should to be taken into consideration in the design of the
water and sanitation facilities.
Table 3.2: Flood Prone Areas, Legazpi City

No. Barangay No. Barangay
11 Maoyod 30 Pigcale
12 Tula-Tula 31 Centro Baybay
13 Ilawod West 32 San Roque
14 Ilawod 33 PNR Peñaranda
15 Ilawod East 34 Oro Site (Magallanes St.)
27 Victory Village South 36 Capantawan
28 Victory Village North 37 Bitano
29 Sabang 38 Bonot
Source: Legazpi City Socio-Economic Profile, Legazpi City Planning Office, 2008
33
201. Social Acceptability and Affordability:

• Sanitation. The Legazpi City Water District and the city government were first to
express interest to participate in WDDSP’s pilot on sanitation. Furthermore, the City
established a Task Force on Sanitation to facilitate subproject planning and
implementation. Among concerned agencies, sanitation was perceived as a need;
also that sanitation would require water district, local government, community and
private sector cooperation. Since Legazpi City is in a basin and the recipient of
wastes from upstream, the need for cooperation with neighboring political units was
also recognized.
Consensus was built on key areas that were a basis for subproject design. The City
was willing to provide land for the establishment of a sewage treatment plant, in
addition to passing required legislation. It was willing to accept wastes from other
municipalities for a fee. It was acknowledged that the WD would best be
responsible for billing which could be included in water charges for connected
households.
• Water. Consultation feedback confirmed the satisfactory level of interest for water
connection by both poor and non-poor. There were those who cited affordability as
a possible cause for non-connection and were concerned that improvement of
facilities would raise tariffs beyond the capacity to pay of certain segments of the
population. This was especially so as the entry of a bulk water provider more than
doubled water rates to P13.50 per cubic meter compared to over P6.00 before
then.
Feedback and areas for improvement and/or improved communication include: 1)
less reliable water quality due to change in water source where Yawa River was
thought to be unsafe for drinking; 2) bulk provider unduly raised tariffs and that it
would have been cheaper to keep original water sources working; 3) lack of popular
consultation in setting new rates; 4) some neighboring municipalities had cheap
(e.g. P50/month) water systems—continuous water supply could be provided using
gravity sources from the foot of Mayon Volcano; in the same way, water sources by
gravity could be maximized to reduce fuel cost; 5) the urban poor appreciated
LCWD’s promotion of staggered payment of installation fees which benefited many
by allowing them to apply for connection.
Affordability and peace and order were issues in the southern part of the city. A
water system was developed that was put under local government management but
under water district maintenance. The City government saw the water system as
ready for full turnover to the water district. Thus, in addition to the WD’s program of
water delivery and installation of public faucets in critical areas, collaboration with
local government and with other projects was perceived as an option to expand the
reach of safe water service to rural barangays or where there may be difficulties of
access by the WD.
202. On Partnership Strategy:

• The Role of Local Government Units. The role of the city and barangay was
acknowledged by all concerned especially in the areas of regulation and
enforcement on sanitation, zoning and building codes, community planning and
mobilization and information and education campaigns on hygiene and sanitation. It
was pointed out that issues on hygiene, sanitation and water service could also be
addressed using an existing network of agencies traveling to barangays to
disseminate timely information about their programs and services.
• NGOs and Community-Based Organizations. Non-government organizations
(NGO) are represented in Legazpi planning bodies. Urban poor neighborhood
34
organizations facilitated home ownership under the National Home Mortgage and
Finance Corporation. The Slum Dwellers Federation has 21 chapters; it work with
the Urban Poor Affairs Office of the City on issues such as land tenure security.
The Legazpi Slum Dwellers Federation is assisted by the Community Organization
of the Philippines Enterprise Foundation Inc. (COPE), a national NGO. Its mandate
is to strengthen people’s organizations. The NGO and the urban poor federation
expressed willingness to participate in community organizing and mobilization of
their constituents for water and sanitation and sought active participation in
planning and public consultations on water rate increases. (Please check
Appendix 3.3 for list of major NGOs in the service area.)
• Other Projects. Environmental programs exist as well. These include a Clean and
Green Program and the Operation Cyclone to Save Legazpi City’s Rivers—
SASAMACA (Macabalo, Sagumayon, Panal, Tibu, Ruran, Yawa). The city
government has a sanitary landfill and capability building project with AECID
(Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion International para el Desarollo), a Spanish
NGO.
• Water User Groups. Water user.groups are not common in the WD service area
and in rural water works. Communal water and sanitation facilities were considered
viable options to piped connection but would require some level of organization to
ensure cost recovery and sustainability of maintenance.
• Desludging Companies. A desludging company operating in Legazpi City charges
at least P4,000 for its services. Other companies that operate in the city are based
outside of the city. Manual desludging operators are also available without
regulation. Business is poor due to competition and to the nature of many septic
tanks which were bottomless and did not need to be emptied. The company
stressed that the provision of a sewage disposal site was a function of government
and welcomed the establishment of a sewage treatment plant. It is willing to pay as
much as P500 per truckload for waste disposal. Moreover, it is willing to participate
as a partner in the sanitation component of the subproject and hoped that no
external contractor would be brought in to compete with local service providers.
Since private operators work across city limits, these were seen as being able to
bring in additional business for the sewage treatment plant from neighboring towns.
203. Gender and Development. An expressed concern on water and sanitation by certain
groups of women and the poor had reference to project planning and implementation. They
would like that there be a high level of community awareness and participation in project
planning and implementation.
204. The water district is at the initial stages of GAD implementation. As of 2006, the Water
District Board of Directors had a Women Sector representative. The Commission on Audit
monitored implementation of Gender and Development funds which were mandated as at
least 5% of WD budget. This could have been a budget of over P6.5 M for 2008 but the WD
did not implement a GAD action plan.
205. Under the PPTA, a Gender Focal Point was organized and a gender orientation and
analysis session was conducted. The Gender Focal Point drafted a Gender Action Plan
(GAP) for 2010 and for the last quarter of 2009. This initial GAP which addresses one or two
gender issues includes pro-poor and gender-responsive policies and activities at the level of
the organization and the clientele. It addresses some operational and gender concerns such
as the need to increase appropriate water service among female-headed households and in
poor communities through the organization of Barangay Water Associations, etc. Please
refer to Appendix 3.4 for a Gender Action Plan (GAP) for the incoming period.
35
206. Issues and Concerns:

Bulk Water. Perceived problems were raised over water quality and the safety of
Yawa River, as well as the water rate doubling with the entry of the bulk water
provider. Water quality issues have resulted in the growth of water refilling stations to
94. Thus, more communication and greater transparency and participation of
stakeholders in planning of further improvements was urged. NGOs and other urban
poor organizations offered to assist in the process.
Sanitation and Environmental Concerns. It is expected to be difficult to implement
sanitation in urban poor areas where structures are completed without building
permits. In general, there is poor sanitation along rivers—industrial and human
wastes are discharged into waterways. Legazpi City, as a basin, is also the recipient
of wastes from upstream which will require provincial-level coordination.
Consultations also raised other environmental concerns which were perceived to
require inter-agency coordination: One is the need to designate a watershed for
protection. The WD would be willing to participate in the management of a designated
area. Another is that resettlement and informal settlements of the urban poor have
inadequate water and sanitation facilities, affecting the safety of piped water systems.
3.3 POVERTY ANALYSIS, SOCIAL BENEFITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.3.1 Poverty Analysis
207. The subproject will improve water service/quality and targets Taysan as a key
expansion site, and benefit both poor and non-poor. The repair of old pipes will result in
improved water quality which tends to affect the poor disproportionately through double
expenses for drinking water and other needs. Provision of water will not only bring proposed
development in the area but will also will also boost the quality of life of both and non-poor of
the area.
208. Poor households without water connection, such as those in Taysan, tend to pay
more for water service. They also spend more time collecting water and are prone to water-
related diseases. The latter was true as well for some WD-served localities. Sanitation issues
will also be addressed improving over all water quality in the area—e.g. pipes traversing
swamps and septage, manual desludgers operating without regulation and safe disposal,
substandard septic tanks, etc.
3.3.2 Social Benefits
209. The Project will benefit both poor and non-poor. But poor households will be a major
beneficiary group of the project since the expansion area is the most populous barangay with
both poor and non-poor households including a resettlement site. In addition, the Project will
also facilitate water access by poor communities through communal water points as provided
for under bulk water allocations in the technical design.
210. It will reinforce existing practices such as deferred water connection charges and
installation of public faucets or tanks in poor communities. The reach of water delivery
services shall be expanded with plans to serve organized water user groups rather than just
individuals. Some GAD funds may be allocated for microfinance for WATSAN-related
livelihood opportunities. The component for sanitation and septage management will
prioritize on-site sanitation improvement through microfinance for low-income areas.
211. Benefits will include: (i) improved quality of water and improved access to water and
sanitation facilities; (ii) empowerment of local groups (especially urban poor and women’s
36
groups) through participation in the project design, implementation and maintenance; (iii)
reduced pollution of ground and surface water and improved environmental conditions in
poor neighborhoods, leading to improved health, higher productivity and increase in income;
(iv) improved management of water sources in coordination with communities and other
agencies; (v) improved hygiene practices; (vi) employment generation with entry of planned
development projects in the area; (vii) employment generation in civil works will be another
direct positive contribution of the subproject to poverty reduction as with employment and
livelihood opportunities for women in community-based programs for user groups and for
watershed management.
212. On the other hand, a risk is that a steep increase in tariffs makes services even less
accessible to the poor. The Project can facilitate water access to poor communities through
appropriate measures such as the installation of communal water points where needed. Bulk
water allocations can target the poor for affordable access to safe water. Existing practices
such as easy water connection plans and coordination with local government units for the
provision of public faucets or tanks can also be reinforced. The reach of water delivery
services can be expanded by serving organized water user groups rather than just
individuals. Some GAD funds may be allocated for microfinance for WATSAN-related
livelihood opportunities. The component for sanitation and septage management will
prioritize on-site sanitation improvement through microfinance for low-income areas.
3.3.3 Gender Analysis
213. Gender and Development is a strategy for inclusive and sustainable development.
LCWD had 35.7% of households headed by women. Many did not have piped connection.
214. Women shared or took the lead in decision making in the household such as on the
installation of septic tanks or water connection. They also had a major role in hygiene and
sanitation and looked forward to active participation in project planning as well as in forums
to discuss water rate increases and the like. Women’s groups in urban poor communities
expressed willingness to manage public water facilities as a livelihood option.
215. Gender issues of clientele were: (i) Inadequate water supply and quality as well as
inadequate septage systems were a burden on women because women were also
responsible for water collection, for family health maintenance, and for caring for sick family;
ii) apprehensions of steep increase in tariff with project improvement and loan iii) lack of
consultations; iv) lack of livelihood opportunities for the poor, thus of sustainability of
maintenance and need for income generating projects; v) lack of consultation of women
despite their critical role in water and sanitation; vi) need for increased hygiene awareness;
vii) poor women were forced to use contaminated water that was free rather than clean
water, which they could not afford; and, for affected persons; viii) the community may create
social and gender issues due to hiring of outside laborers who may be unaware of the local
customs and norms of the community or municipality; viii) disturbance to the privacy of local
women with work on structures.
3.3.4 Indigenous People, Ethnic Minorities and other Vulnerable Groups

in the Subproject Area
216. Indigenous peoples as a group that retain their territory and way of life are accorded
protection by the project based on ADB’s Policy on Indigenous Peoples as well as the
country’s Indigenous People’s Rights Act.
217. Based on the interviews and gathering of information in the communities as well as
SES, no indigenous people will be affected in the subproject area and no ethnic minorities
37
and other vulnerable groups were found to be adversely affected as a result of the
subproject.
3.4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.4.1 Summary
218. Legazpi City has a relatively high average growth rate of over 1.6%. As the service
center of Region 5, the rise of subdivisions, resettlement due to calamities and migration of
the poor to urban centers in search of jobs has put pressure on basic services such as water
and sanitation.
219. Within this context, stakeholder consultations confirmed the need for the subproject in
accordance with the city’s development plans for southward expansion. There were
misgivings about the bulk water contract of the Water District, and areas for improvement
were suggested relative to water quality and water rates. On the whole, there was a positive
response to the proposed plans for water service improvement and expansion.
220. Specific recommendations and insights were also forwarded in the implementation of
affordable, pro-poor and gender responsive programs and policies. These called for the
subproject to develop gravity water sources and improve water quality. Feedback also
confirmed participatory and collaborative strategies to enhance water access by the poor
through the pipe system and through communal water points. In coordination with NGOs,
local governments and other agencies, partnerships were also seen as important in
promoting the role of communities, and in the improvement of sanitation facilities and
hygiene practices that could maximize benefits from increased access to safe water. A
Gender Action Plan included community-based initiatives to address identified gender and
poverty issues.
221. The city is vulnerable to natural calamities; this in turn highlighted the vulnerability,
especially of the poor, to the loss of water sources, to the increased cost of water delivery
and to the destruction of homes, water and sanitation facilities. While Legazpi City does not
manage a designated watershed, continuing degradation of water resources coupled with
fast population increase signal a need to help ensure the sustainability of water sources.
3.4.2 Recommendations
222. The pilot shall support strategies to link water and sanitation to the Project’s
overarching goal of poverty reduction. The proposed elements of a plan for the social
dimensions of the subproject reinforce a public service orientation and a Corporate Social
Responsibility agenda consistent with delivery of water and sanitation as public service with
pro-poor programs.
223. The budget for some specific recommendations as discussed below and in Appendix
3.5 are integrated in the technical components for water and sanitation as microfinance or
pro-poor allocations such as for public faucets, and in capability building and institutional
plans as technical assistance.
224. Pro-Poor Targeting of Participants. The subproject shall target all households living
within the vicinity of the network of the piped water system. The subproject shall also target
disadvantaged groups (e.g. women headed HHs and the poor HHs in the slum areas) and
other unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water service such as communal water
points in collaboration with the city and barangays. This may also be through easy
installation plans that expand the reach of project benefits while maximizing cost recovery.
38
225. Households for the sanitation component shall be identified in coordination with the
local government units that will undertake a survey of sanitation facilities. In coordination with
local government units, targets will also be made to cover a set percentage of sanitation hot
spots for improvement of septage systems by the end of project loan implementation.
226. Micro-finance and Livelihood Options. A micro-finance facility shall be set up to

ensure participation in septic tank installation/improvement of communal facilities for
interested participants in sanitation hotspots. Part of this can also be leveraged with local
government units to promote the repair of substandard individual septic tanks. A cost
recovery scheme shall be established to enable others to benefit from the revolving fund.
The WD’s Gender and Development Fund and other sources may be accessed to support
water and sanitation-related livelihood options of women and urban poor groups.
227. Details will be fleshed out during implementation planning. Other recommendations
are in Appendix 3.5.
39
4 THE WATER DISTRICT AND ITS EXISTING FACILITIES
4.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
228. The original water supply system of Legazpi City was constructed in 1921 by the
provincial government of Albay. It included Budiao 1 and 2, Banadero spring sources,
transmission lines, distribution lines and service connections. The system used to serve Old
Albay, Municipality of Daraga and Legazpi Port.
229. Legazpi City Water District (LCWD) was formed on July 16, 1981 and was issued
Conditional Certificate of Conformance No. 175 on December 16, 1981. Since then, LCWD
started its operation and management of the water supply system of Legazpi City up to the
present time.
230. A major improvement of the existing system was completed in 1988 financed by
DANIDA and LWUA. The project included the drilling of four (4) wells at Bogna and Mabinit,
transmission and distribution pipelines, hydraulic control structures, reservoirs, service
connections, treatment facility and leak detection.
231. Before the November 2006 occurrence of typhoon Reming in the Bicol region, the
existing water supply facilities of LCWD consisted of the following:
• Ten (10) springs, each provided with either an intake box or collector canal.
• Seventeen (17) wells, each provided with submersible pumps.
• Pumping stations, chlorinator stations and fiberglass filter tanks at barangay
Bigaa.
• Chlorinator at Kapungulan, Ayala and Bogtong springs and chlorinator station
underneath Yawa bridge in Barangay Rawis.
• Water production facilities and hydraulic control structures at Bgys. Bogna and
Mabinit.
• Eleven (11) storage facilities (concrete ground reservoirs, elevated concrete
reservoirs and elevated steel reservoirs).
• Transmission and distribution pipelines.
• PBN (Pambansang Bagong Nayon) sump tank equipped with 50Hp horizontal
pump.
• 15,791 service connections.
232. In November 2006, Typhoon Reming destroyed some of the intake boxes and
collector canals. A significant reduction of spring flows was observed after the typhoon, and
new springs cropped up in the area.
233. At present, only six (6) of the 10 springs are being utilized to support the water
requirement of about 1,000 households in Barangays Upper Arimbay, Bigaa and Bagong
Abre. The well sources are still in place including the submersible pumps and the hydraulic
control structures. Although not in operation, these facilities are still being maintained
regularly by LCWD up to the present time. From November 2006 up to February 2008,
LCWD continued the utilization of these water sources despite the reduction of the discharge
rate of the spring sources.
234. In March 2007, LCWD entered into a 25-year Bulk Water Supply contract with
Philippine Hydro Inc. for the supply and delivery of 20,000 cubic meters per day of bulk water
to the system of LCWD.
40
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF WATERWORKS FACILITIES
235. Figure 4.1 shows the existing system.
4.2.1 Water Sources
236. Spring Sources. Small to large capacity springs exists on the southern slopes of
Mayon Volcano. A total of ten (10) individual and groups of springs with a combined
discharge of 136.82 lps (11,821 cumd) used to support part of the water demand of the water
district. The springs are located at elevation 76 to 100 mamsl. These springs used to serve
the northeastern barangays, extending to the port of Legazpi City.
237. Typhoon Reming in 2006 destroyed some of the springs and most of the collector
canals. At present, only six (6) springs are in operation to support the water requirement of
1,000 households in Upper Arimbay, Bigaa and Bagong Abre.
238. Wells. The water district owns a total of nineteen (19) wells located in Barangays
Bogna, Mabinit, Bigaa and Banadero. Pertinent data on the existing wells are presented in
Table 4.1.
239. Eleven (11) wells in Barangay Bogna were drilled in 1987–1988 to a uniform depth of
25 meters. Some of the wells were redrilled in 2003 to a depth of 26 to 34 meters. Nine (9) of
the wells are equipped with 10 Hp submersible pump and one (1) with a 7.5 Hp submersible
pump.
240. Six (6) wells were likewise drilled on the same period at Mabinit well field, about a
kilometer west of Bogna well field. The wells were originally drilled to a depth of 25 meters,
with three (3) of the wells redrilled to a depth of 26 – 30 meters in 2006.
241. Banadero well was drilled in 1960 to a depth of 73 meters. The well is equipped with a
7.5 Hp that produces 1.06 lps. The well currently operates for six (6) hours daily.
Table 4.1: Summary of Existing Well Sources - LCWD
EXISTING WELLS AT BRGYS. BOGNA AND MABINIT WELL FIELDS
Well No./ Depth Iron TDS Capacity

Remarks
Location (m) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lps)
Bogna Well No.1 30 nil 203 10.71 Standby
Bogna Well No. 2 30 nil 202 7.62 Standby
Bogna Well No. 3 25 1.50 273 Abandoned
Bogna Well No.4 34 1.0 373 11.75 Standby
Bogna Well No. 7 25 2.0 280 13.23 Standby
Mabinit Well No. 1 25 1.20 424 12.43 Standby
Mabinit Well No. 2 25 nil 334 6.64 Standby
Mabinit Well No. 4 25 0.50 494 Abandoned
Mabinit Well No. 6 30 .30 397 10.94 Standby
Banadero Well No.2 85 .10 289 1.06 6-Hour Operation
Bigaa Well No. 1 25 2.40 168 12.20 Standby
Source: LCWD.
41
Figure 4.1: Existing Water Supply System - LCWD
42
242. Bigaa well was drilled in 1995 to a depth of 25 meters. The well is equipped with a 7.5
Hp submersible pump that produce 12.2 lps.
243. Barangay Taysan well was drilled in 2005 to a depth of 41 meters. The well is
equipped with a 5 Hp submersible pump that produces 5.88 lps. Although the well is owned
by LCWD, the system is operated and maintained by the city government and supplies the
water needs of about 300 households in the barangay.
244. Surface Water. There are several rivers and creeks that traverse the study area, the
largest of which is the Yawa River flowing from west to east along the southern end of Mayon
Volcano and passing the service area.
245. The water district currently obtains most of its water requirement from the Yawa River
through a bulk water supply contract with Philippine Hydro Inc. Raw water is extracted from
the river and treated using a high permanent media filtration system. The capacity of the
treatment plant is around 30,000 cumd, with current production at 18,500 to 20,000 cumd.
246. Garnet high rate pressure filters are used to remove particles from the water.
Chlorination takes place on the outlet of the filters, a series of chlorine generators are
installed that take salt and separate the chlorine; chlorination has also to be topped up with
sodium hypochlorite before discharge to the network. Phil Hydro have to maintain output
water quality to PNSDW standards.
247. Previous feasibility studies and periodic flow measurements conducted by the Bicol
River Basin Development Project ( 1982-1985), Kampsax Kruger (1985) and Watcon (2007)
have indicated that the maximum volume of water that can be extracted from the river (80%
of the minimum flow) is about 848 lps (73,267 cumd).
4.2.2 Transmission and Distribution network
248. The total length of the existing transmission and distribution pipelines is 210,638 linear
meters, consisting mostly of uPVC, steel concrete coated and HDPE (high density
polyethylene) pipes with diameters ranging from 50mm to 350mm. The bulk water supply is
currently utilizing the existing 300mm transmission pipeline connected to the Bogna and
Mabinit well sources.
Table 4.2: Existing Pipes Sizes and Length - LCWD

Material 350 300 250 200 150 100 75 50 Total
uPVC 1,570 9,460 2,342 46,870 14,206 34,830 38,650 61,910
Steel 300 400 100
PE
Total 1,570 9,760 2,342 47,270 14,306 34,830 38,650 61,910 210,638
Source: LCWD.
4.2.3 Treatment
249. At present, aeration, filtration and chlorination are the existing water treatment
process and facilities owned by LCWD.
250. These facilities are currently on a standby status. Water from the wells of Bogna and
Mabinit passes and flows through its respective hydraulic control structures (HCS) which
serve as aerators, and chlorinated before distribution to the network. Water from Mabinit is
disinfected at Bogtong chlorination house.
43
251. Water from Buyuan spring sources is treated by means of hypochlorinators. The
Bigaa Pumping Station is the only groundwater source equipped with a filtration system.
Banadero well is treated through chlorination.
4.2.4 Distribution
252. The transmission/distribution network is a combination of GI, steel coated and uPVC
pipes with diameters ranging from 50 to 150 mm.
253. As of this period, LCWD has replaced old GI and steel pipes with uPVC pipes, and the
condition of the network is generally considered to be good. When bulk water supply started
in 2008, non-revenue water (NRW) increased from an average of 21% to about 29%.
254. However, the situation improved with the replacement of old pipes and
repair/replacement of defective service meters and connections. The present NRW is back to
21%, indicating that the current NRW reduction program of LCWD is successful.
4.2.5 Storage Facilities
255. LCWD has nine (9) storage facilities currently in operation. Relevant data and
information on the existing storage facilities are presented in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Storage Facilities - LCWD

Elev Vol Year
Name of Reservoir Location Type Remarks
(m) (cum) Constructed
Elevated
Floating
Camp Simeon Ola Ems Barrio 10.0 Concrete 75 2005
on Line
Reservoir
Elevated Steel
Satellite Market Capantawan 10.0 28 1999 ‘’
Tank
Elevated
Central City Subd.
Cruzada 10.0 Concrete 121.5 1997 ‘’
Phase 2
Reservor
Elevated
Renaissance Garden Cruzada 10.0 Concrete 75 2004 ‘’
Reservoir
Concrete
Imperial Subd. Buraguis 40.0 Ground 2,000 1988 ‘’
Reservoir
Elevated
Bicol University Ems Barrio 10.0 Concrete 75 2005 ‘’
Reservoir
Concrete
Pambansang Bagong
Buraguis 40.0 Ground 220 1984 ‘’
Nayon (PBN)
Reservoir
Concrete
Ridge View Subd. Buraguis 40.0 Ground 128 2005 ‘’
Reservoir
Concrete
Ridge View Subd.
Buraguis 40.0 Ground 177 2005 ‘’
Phase 2
Reservoir
Concrete
Not in
Bogna Reservoir Bogna 84.0 Ground 2,000 2006
operation
Reservoir
Concrete
Not in
Mabinit Reservoir Mabinit 90.0 Ground 2,000 2006
operation
Reservoir
Source: LCWD.
44
256. Bogna and Mabinit reservoirs, with a total capacity of 4,000 cu.m, were constructed in
the vicinity of Bogna and Mabinit well fields to serve as storage facilities for the existing well
sources. However, when bulk water was introduced into the system in 2008, these two (2)
reservoirs were placed on a standby basis, together with the existing wells. Bogna and
Mabinit reservoirs are 40 to 50 meters higher than the bulk water source; thus, they cannot
be operated as storage facilities for the bulk water source.
4.2.6 Service Connections
257. As of May 2009, LCWD has a total of 16,934 metered service connections, covering
53 barangays with a breakdown as shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Number and Type of Service Connections - LCWD
Type of Connection Number of Connections
Domestic/Residential 15,539
Institutional 252
Commercial 1,143
Total 16,934
Source: LCWD.
4.3 SERVICE AREA COVERAGE
258. The present service area of LCWD includes 53 barangays out of the 70 barangays of
Legazpi City. Barangays Taysan, Lamba and Maslog, located approximately 4 kilometers
away from the existing system, is being proposed by LCWD as its priority area for its
expansion program. Another expansion area being eyed by LCWD for expansion is
Barangay Banquerohan; this barangay is approximately 20 km away from the city center.
4.4 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
4.4.1 Organization
259. The water district operates and maintains the water supply system and employs a
total of seventy (70) regular employees, including the General Manager, and twenty six (26)
temporary employees. The organization chart is shown in Appendix 4.
4.4.2 Operation
260. Water from the bulk supply interconnection splits north along the original transmission
main towards the Bonga area where it balances against the spring source supply around the
Rawis area; however, the majority of the water feeds south towards Legazpi and Albay
areas.
261. The southernmost part of the network is a hilly area and LCWD have two booster
systems in place—the first to supply water to the Buraguis area and the second to boost
water to the EMS Barrio area.
262. The Buraguis booster is operated from 12 noon to 12 midnight and supplies a storage
reservoir which the feeds the Buraguis area by gravity. Control of the booster is manual,
based on the level of the Buraguis reservoir water level—this can lead to overflow. The EMS
45
Barrio inline booster pump is operated from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. to supplement peak hour
flow—supply to this area is intermittent—LCWD have plans to install a new 200mm main in
the southern area to allow higher level areas to receive 24-hour supply.
263. At the moment there is no metering within the distribution network to determine the
amount of water going in any direction. With the current operation, the system could be split
into 6 distribution areas as follows: Buraguis pumped supply area; Legazpi southeast;
Legazpi south west; Bonga; spring area; and coast central area.
264. For management purposes the network is split into two areas: Old Albay district and
Legazpi Pier district.
265. The operation of the network is quite balanced; there are a number of control valves
used to control supplies between high level and low level areas—the control mechanisms
and settings are well understood by the operations team.
266. Electrical power is very consistent—in 2008 there were only 10 outages, all of short
duration. LCWD do have back up generation though for the deep well sources, as well as the
Buraguis booster. The water treatment plant (WTP) has back up power for full capacity.
267. Network Pressures. Following interconnection of the WTP supply in February 2008,
pressures in the system increased by around 15 to 20 metres. The opportunity for pressure
reduction in the distribution network is limited, given the geographical layout of the network.
However, there may be some opportunities in limited areas.
268. Operations Activity. Management of all operational activity is carried out in-house by
LCWD staff, e.g. meter reading, leak detection, leak repair, meter replacement,
disconnections, etc.
269. LCWD is serving a 24-hour supply except on some areas with elevations above
20mamsl. Supply in these areas is 16 hours per day with the use of the line booster.
Transmission and distribution of water is by gravity flow.
4.4.3 Non-Revenue Water (NRW)
270. LCWD is aware of the need to maintain control of NRW, and is concerned by the
increase in NRW that has occurred since the commissioning of the bulk water supply,
especially given the cost of the bulk water at PhP13.50/cum.
271. The proactive meter management strategy is a direct result of this concern. Other
operational measures such as district metering, leakage management and illegal use
management do not currently appear to be given a high priority—perhaps due to the upfront
investment requirement for metering and leakage management equipment.
272. NRW Performance. Management of NRW related activities that are taking place is
being carried out in-house by LCWD staff.
273. LCWD reported production and billed volume figures for 2008 were analyzed to
evaluate NRW performance. The results are shown in Table 4.5. This shows that the
reported NRW for the Year 2008 was 21.2%—with a loss volume of 1.1 million m3.
274. Total billed revenues for 2008 were PhP119.68 million, which gives an average tariff
across all categories of consumer of PhP26.26/m3. The average residential tariff was PhP
22/m3.
46
Table 4.5: Reported Water Production and Billed Volume for Year 2008 - LCWD
3 3 NRW
2008 Production - m Water Consumed - m NRW
3
Deepwell Spring New WTP Total Billed Unbilled Total Volume m
Jan 278,392 127,520 0 405,912 358,084 12,604 370,688 35,224 11.8%
Feb 182,507 146,876 104,445 433,828 349,314 12,036 361,350 72,478 19.5%
Mar 53,176 133,437 263,340 449,953 341,168 7,942 349,110 100,843 24.2%
Apr 66,133 145,223 294,429 505,785 368,255 10,179 378,434 127,351 27.2%
May 27,659 115,819 316,718 460,196 402,529 15,748 418,277 41,919 12.5%
Jun 33,047 46,515 380,538 460,100 359,652 5,941 365,593 94,507 21.8%
Jul 45,496 6,104 430,708 482,308 367,062 6,072 373,134 109,174 23.9%
Aug 22,191 47,372 375,583 445,146 396,305 10,080 406,385 38,761 11.0%
Sep 25,690 52,204 382,442 460,336 366,670 9,334 376,004 84,332 20.3%
Oct 32,148 123,839 350,013 506,000 396,292 1,715 398,007 107,993 21.7%
Nov 70,560 120,069 327,833 518,462 392,927 1,099 394,026 124,436 24.2%
Dec 0 0 533,763 533,763 364,164 2,213 366,377 167,386 31.8%
836,999 1,064,978 3,759,812 5,661,789 4,462,422 94,963 4,557,385 1,104,404 21.2%
Source: LCWD.
275. All LCWD sources are metered, the principal source currently being the bulk water
supply from the Yawa river source.
276. IWA Water Balance. Under IWA (International Water Association) best practice
standard, the components of revenue water and non-revenue water are identified as shown
in Table 4.6. This standard is now well recognized across the world and provides a clear
basis for discussion of NRW.
277. The standard identifies three principal components of NRW, namely: unbilled
authorized consumption, apparent Losses and water losses.
Table 4.6: Components of Revenue and Non Revenue Water

Billed Metered Consumption (including
Billed water exported) Revenue
Authorised
Water
Consumption Billed Unmetered Consumption
Authorised
Consumption
Unbilled Unbilled Metered Consumption
Authorised
Consumption Unbilled Unmetered Consumption
System Input
Volume 1
Unauthorised Consumption
(corrected for Apparent Non-
known errors) Losses Revenue
Customer Metering Inaccuracies
Water
(NRW)
Leakage on Transmission an/or
Water Losses
Distribution Mains
Leakage and Overflows at Utility's
Real Losses
Storage Tanks
Leakage on Service Connections up to
point of customer metering
1
- this includes illegal connections and illegal consumption - M Wa ite footnote not IWA
47
278. Unbilled Authorized Consumption. Unbilled authorized use of water is very often
not monitored or measured that includes:
fire fighting (typically fire-fighting flows are not billed for);
operational use such as mains flushing;
any other kind of unbilled use with the recognition of the water utility.
279. LCWD currently do not quantify/record unbilled authorized consumption.
280. Apparent Losses. Table 4.7 shows an estimate of apparent losses for LCWD based
on discussions with LCWD staff during field visits. However, it must be remembered that
these are estimates and the calculation should be refined as better data become available.
Table 4.7: Estimation of Apparent Losses - LCWD
Parameter Legaspi City
Total Connections 15,791

Illegal as Percentage of Total Connections 2%
Estimated Illegal Connections 316
3
Avge. Volume - m /conn/yr 284.3
Estimated Illegal volume/yr 89,796
Illegal volume as % of NRW 7.7%
Estimated Metering Inaccuracies 2%
Estimated Apparent Loss 10%
281. Real Losses. The IWA water balance is used to determine the Current Annual Real
Losses (CARL); this incorporates the values for unbilled authorized consumption and
apparent losses. The 2008 data for LCWD is shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: IWA Water Balance Data for Year 2008 - LCWD
WATER BALANCE Legaspi City
System Input Volume - m3/yr 5,661,789

Billed Authorised Consumption - m3/yr 4,489,824
Non Revenue Water - m3/yr 1,171,965
Unbilled Authorised Consumption - m3/yr 0
Water Losses m3/yr 1,171,965
Apparent Loss % 10%
3
Apparent Losses - m /yr 113,236
Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) 1,058,729
282. Infrastructure Leakage Index. IWA have also developed a best practice standard
indicator for assessing network performance—the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI). It
allows a useful comparison between systems, taking into account network length as well as
operating pressure.
48
283. The ILI is a dimensionless ratio between the Current Annual Real Losses (CARL)
derived above and the losses that will always occur in the network as a function of network
length, number of connections and pressure. This is known as the Unavoidable Annual Real
Loss (UARL) within a network, and is a measure of the combined performance of leak repair,
asset condition/management and the speed and quality of repairs.
284. The calculation of UARL for LCWD is shown in Table 4.9. This indicates that at
current pressures, there will always be unavoidable losses of around 171,000 m3/year. As
pressures increase so as the level of UARL will increase linearly. This is a physical
consequence of improving the pressure level of service in LCWD.
285. The confidence in the use of UARL for systems with average pressures less than 25m
may be lower than for systems with pressures 25m or greater because the assumption of a
linear pressure relationship below 25m has not been tested. However, as a general guide to
performance, it provides a useful reference.
286. Calculation of the Infrastructure Leakage Index for LCWD is shown in Table 4.10. In a
perfectly managed system with no economic constraints the ILI should be equal to 1. The ILI
for LCWD is quite low—indicating that the network is in a reasonable working condition, but
would still require further work on leak repair (including speed and quality) as well as asset
management/replacement to improve the infrastructure condition.
Table 4.9: Unavoidable Annual Real Loss - LCWD
Legaspi City
No. of connections (Nc) 15,791

Length of network (Lm in km) 211
Length of service lines (Lp in km) 95
Avge operating pressure in distribution (P in m) 25
3
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) m 171,479
Table 4.10: Infrastructure Leakage Index - LCWD

Current Annual Real Losses (CARL) 1,058,729
Unavoidable Annual Real Losses (UARL) m3 171,479
` Infrastructure Leakage Index (CARL/UARL) 6.2
287. Leak Detection. No active leak detection is carried out by LCWD. There is no team
dedicated to leak detection activity and only visible leaks are being managed. LCWD has a
Fuji electronic listening device; however, the unit is not operational. Visible main leaks
average around 2 per month. Repair of leaks is carried out by in-house staff. Around 20
minor service line leaks are found per day.
288. Leaks are recorded in a log book, but this is not computerized nor linked to the
mapping system in any way.
289. Illegal Connection and Consumption Reduction Activities. There is no team

dedicated to the reduction of illegal use, be it illegal consumption or illegal connection. LCWD
is relying on reports from meter readers and the general public.
49
290. Whenever apprehended, illegal users are fined with a minimum penalty of PhP2,000
plus the assessed volume of usage during the illegal connection period. LCWD offer an
incentive to people who report illegal activity. The incentive is equal to 70% of the fine paid to
LCWD and is paid on receipt of the fine by LCWD.
291. Customer Meter Management. All customer connections within the system are
metered.
292. Meter Calibration and Replacement. LCWD has a hands-on approach to customer
meter management. All meters are replaced annually on a rolling program. Meters that are
taken out are tested to check their accuracy; if they are working correctly they are cleaned
and stored for re-introduction under the program; if they are out of calibration they are
refurbished and recalibrated whenever possible; if they cannot be re-calibrated they are
scrapped and new meters purchased to replace them. Meters are color coded so that old
and newly replaced meters can be easily identified in the field. The system appears to work
well.
293. The preferred meter brand is ARAD due to the availability of spare parts and the ease
of repair and refurbishment. Within the network, there are also Aquajet, Jensen, and Ace
meters.
294. Meter Reading, Billing and Collection. LCWD has 10 meter readers. For the last 5
years, they have been using on the spot billing and are equipped with Psion organizers and
hand-held printers.
295. Meter readers report any meter problems daily and the maintenance section carries
out the necessary replacement on an as need basis.
296. Costumers are allowed to pay water bills at the water district main office in Legazpi
City. If customers failed to pay within 60 days, they are temporarily disconnected by locking
the meter inlet valve. If no payment is received within 3 weeks after disconnection, they are
permanently disconnected at the main.
297. New Connections. Applications for a new connection are made to the commercial
section of the water district. An engineering survey is carried out; if the distance from the
main to the house is greater than 30m the connection is discouraged. A number of
customers have pumps with which they lift water to roof top storage. This is allowed by
LCWD.
298. There is minimum connection charge of PhP3,500, which includes a registration fee of
PhP1,500.
299. Currently, the customer has to apply to the city council for the excavation permit, if
required. LCWD is currently discussing the idea of a general permit with a bond to cover all
excavation requirements of the water district. This is likely to be implemented soon and will
save a lot of time for LCWD, the city government and future customers.
300. Within squatter areas, individual connections are allowed but meters are clustered
outside of the squatter area for ease of access and to control losses within the area.
50
4.5 DEFICIENCIES OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
301. Pressure Distribution. The existing transmission and distribution network was
designed and constructed in 1981 in consideration of the distance and location of the
previous wells and spring sources.
302. Although the pressure distribution is quite balanced despite the introduction of bulk
water to the system, it is still necessary to conduct hydraulic analysis of the pipe network and
reconfigure the pipe sizes and pressure distribution of the existing system in consideration of
future expansion.
303. Water Quality. When bulk water was injected into the system, several complaints
were lodged by consumers regarding poor water quality. The perception was that the
increase of system pressure has caused old and dilapidated pipes to deteriorate; thus, water
became contaminated.
304. As of July 2009, the complaints on poor water quality still continue to mount despite
the completion of the program to replace old and dilapidated pipes, and LCWD’s continuous
flushing and maintenance of the system.
305. LCWD has to look into the effectiveness of the water treatment plant of bulk water by
monitoring treated water at various distribution points.
51
5 POPULATION AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
5.1 GENERAL
306. This chapter discusses the projections of population and water demand of the service
area of Legazpi City Water District (LCWD). Population and water demand projections for the
delineated service area are the principal bases for the design of the improvement of water
supply system. The projections have significant impact on the facility layout, sizes of
pipelines and appurtenances, construction staging and cost of the subproject. In this
particular study, population and water demands are projected for the years 2010, 2015, 2020
and 2025.
5.2 SERVICE AREA DELINEATION
307. The present franchise area of LCWD is the whole of Legazpi City. The franchise area
covers a total of seventy (70) barangays while the existing service area1 encompasses fifty-
three (53) barangays.
308. The future service area of LCWD has been delineated as per discussions with the WD
officials and on the basis of data review and reconnaissance field surveys, and discussions
with concerned local government officials.
309. As discussed with LCWD officials, the existing service coverage will eventually be
expanded to include the un-served population within the existing service area and an
additional barangays particularly Taysan, Lamba, Maslog and Banquerohan.
310. Factors considered in the delineation of future service areas include the priority areas
of the water district, willingness to connect, concentration of population, proximity to existing
system or location in relation to the proposed route of the transmission lines and other
technical and economic considerations. Figure 5.1 shows the present and future service
areas of the LCWD.
5.3 BARANGAY AND SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
311. The population projections and the service area were made considering 1) past
population trend, 2) population densities, 3) the potential for growth, 4) general topography,
and 5) physical limits of the urban and local land use regulations. Geometric growth rate was
applied to the urban city, and for the barangay populations the ratio method was used.
Adjustments were made to come up with more realistic figures based on existing conditions.
5.3.1 Past Growth Rates
312. The analysis of past population growth was based on census data obtained from NSO
(National Statistics Office). These data were used as the basis for calculating future growth
rates for the City. The annual growth rates for the City of Legazpi from 1990 to 2007 are
summarized in Table 5.1, while those of the barangays are tabulated in Appendix 5.1.
1
Areas with service connections.
52
Figure 5.1: Present and Future Service Areas - LCWD
53
Table 5.1: Legazpi City Growth Rates

City Historical Population Growth Rate (%)
1990 1995 2000 2007 ’90-‘95 ’95-00 ’00-‘07
Legazpi 121,116 141,927 157,010 175,843 3.18 2.04 1.63
Source: 1990 – 2007 are NCSO data.
5.3.2 Future Growth Rates
313. Future growth rates were estimated based on field conditions, the City development
plan and past population trends. Projection of future population for the barangays served by
the WD was done using the ratio method, i.e., extrapolating ratio between the barangays and
the City population. This is appropriate as analysis of the NSO projections show that the
annual growth rates of the barangays served by the WD follow the same trend as those of
the City.
314. The projected growth rates of Legazpi City from 2007 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2025
are 1.51% and 1.33% respectively.
5.3.3 Population Projections
315. Table 5.2 shows the population projections of Legazpi City, while that of the
barangays are shown in Appendix 5.1.
Table 5.2: Population Projections – Legazpi City

City Projected Population
2010 2015 2020 2025
Legazpi City 183,914 197,366 210,819 224,271
5.3.4 Served Population Projections
316. The served population of the WD is concentrated in the poblacion (urban center) area
where the middle and high income groups of the population and most commercial and
institutional establishments are found. The expansion has been proposed on the following
considerations:
• willingness of the people to connect to the system due to assurance of availability
of safe and adequate water supply;
• natural increase of population—hence, more potential consumers (expansion of
service area due to projected increase of population); and
• proximity to the transmission and distribution lines.
317. The annual city population and served population projections are presented in
Appendix 5.2.
318. The foreseen increase in the number of concessionaires is attributed to the following:
• the improvement and expansion of the water supply system;
• willingness of the people to connect to the system;
• the increase of population and the improvement of the standard of living.
54
5.4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
319. The water demand is estimated to be the sum of the domestic, commercial/industrial,
institutional consumptions and of unaccounted-for-water due to wastage, and leakage in the
system.
320. The factors considered in the analysis of water demand are: 1) general distribution of
income levels, 2) living conditions, 3) housing pattern, and 4) the availability of alternative
sources, i.e. shallow wells.
5.4.1 Domestic Water Demand
321. The total domestic water demand is the estimation of the per capita consumption per
income group, the average size of families, and the number of families connected per income
group in the service area. Based on the records of the monthly data sheets of LCWD, the
average consumption is about 23.31m3/month per domestic connection, while the ratio
between persons and connections is 5.2 is to 1. This translates to an average consumption
of 150 lcpd.
322. The domestic per capita consumption in the service area is projected to increase
slightly to 155 lpcd from subproject completion until 2025 due to system improvement and
water quality.
323. The projected domestic water consumption up to 2025 is presented in Table 5.3,
together with the number of domestic/government service connections.
Table 5.3: Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (Usage) - LCWD

Projected Domestic Connections and Consumption (cumd)
2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage Conn Usage
14,757 11,908 16,958 13,685 18,659 15,091 20,351 16,420
5.4.2 Commercial/Industrial Water Demand
324. The commercial/industrial establishments are mostly located in the urban areas of the
City. These include small and medium scale retail stores, hardware stores, drugstores,
telecommunication offices, restaurants and hotels among others.
325. In 2006, the WD had a total of 1,179 commercial connections. The present average
commercial consumption is about 1.00 cumd and is projected to remain constant up to the
year 2025
326. Table 5.4 summarizes the commercial water demand and the number of service
connections up to year 2025.
Table 5.4: Projected Commercial/Industrial Connections and Consumption (Usage) -

LCWD
City Projected Commercial Connections and Consumption (cumd)
2010 2015 2020 2025
Legazpi City 2,316 2,316 2,964 2,964 3,610 3,610 4,259 4,259
55
5.4.3 Institutional Water Demand
327. Table 5.5 summarizes the projected institutional water demand and number of service
connections up to the year 2025.
Table 5.5: Projected Institutional Connections and Consumption (Usage) - LCWD

City Projected Institutional Connections and Consumption (cumd)
2010 2015 2020 2025
Legazpi City 226 678 257 771 288 864 319 957
5.4.4 Non Revenue Water (NRW)
328. Non-revenue water is the volume of water that goes into the system but does not
generate revenue. Included are wastage, leakage and consumptions from illegal
connections. In May 2009, the existing system has a present unaccounted-for-water of 29%.
This figure decreased to 21% with the completion of NRW activities in July 2009 This value is
expected to further decrease as the present system facilities and operation are improved.
5.4.5 Total Water Demand
329. The total average daily demand of the WD is projected to increase significantly as a
result of population growth and the improvement of the standard of living of the residents in
the service area. The average day water demand is expected to increase from 19,353 cumd
in 2010 to 21,775 cumd in 2015, to 24,458 cumd in 2020, and to 27,046 cumd in 2025. The
projections on served population, number of service connections and the total water demand
are shown in Appendix 5.3 (A-D).
5.4.6 Number of Service Connections
330. The projected number of service connections of LCWD is shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Projected Total Connections and Average Day Demand - LCWD
City Projected Total Connections and Ave Day Demand (cumd)
2010 2015 2020 2025
Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay Conn AvDay
Legazpi City 17,298 19,353 20,179 21,755 22,557 24,458 24,929 27,048
5.4.7 Water Demand Variations
331. Demand variations refers to the fluctuations in the water demand as measured in the
system. Average-day demand is the average of all the daily demands in a year. The
maximum-day demand is the maximum daily demand recorded in a year, while the peak-
hour demand is the maximum hourly water demand in a day. Based on the methodology
used, the maximum-day to average-day ratio of 1.30:1 is generally used for water districts
with served population of less than 30,000, and 1.25:1 for served population of over 30,000.
332. The peak-hour demand is computed by multiplying the average-day demand with the
peak-hour factor. A peak-hour factor of 2.0 was used in this particular study for the years
2010 to 2025.
333. The demand variation is presented in Table 5.7.
56
Table 5.7: Water Demand Variations (cumd) - LCWD
Town/City 2010 2015 2020 2025
Legazpi City Ave Day 19,353 21,775 24,458 27,046

Max Day 25,160 28,307 31,794 35,159
Peak Hr 38,707 43,550 48,914 54,091
334. Annual demand variations for Legazpi City between the years 2010 to 2025 are
tabulated in Appendix 5.4.
57
6 WATER RESOURCES
335. Legazpi City Water District (LCWD) obtains its water supply from groundwater through
wells and springs, and from surface water. Current supply is mainly from a bulk surface water
source (Yawa River), springs and two (2) wells. Prior to the utilization of the bulk surface
water source, the LCWD utilized groundwater from eighteen (18) wells and ten (10) springs
with a combined discharge of 289.4 l/s (25,000 cumd).
336. The year 2025 water demand of 370 lps (32,000 cumd) can be obtained entirely from
the Yawa River or from combined surface and groundwater sources.
6.1 WATER RESOURCES INVENTORY
6.1.1 Surface Water Inventory
337. The water district presently obtains almost all of its water supply from the Yawa River
through a bulk water supply contract with the Philippine Hydro, Inc. Raw water is obtained
from the Yawa River and treated using a high rate permanent media filtration system. The
capacity of the existing plant is 30,000 cumd, with the current production at 18,500 – 20,000
cumd.
338. Yawa River. The Yawa River is a major surface water body that flows across the
Legazpi-Daraga area. It originates from the western and southern slopes of Mayon Volcano
and flows eastward before emptying into the Albay Gulf. The drainage area at the gauging
station located 500 meters upstream of the bridge on the Legazpi City – Tabaco National
Road is 60 sq. km.
339. The flow measured by WATCON, Inc. on August 30, 2007 near the treatment plant
was 2,800 lps (241,920 cumd). Figure 6-1 in Appendix 6.1 shows the location of the
measuring station and its cross section, while Table 6-1 in Appendix 6.1 presents the
streamflow calculations.
340. The flow of the Yawa River was also measured on October 1, 1985 during the
preparation of the water supply feasibility study for the LCWD by the Kampsax-Kruger. The
flow at the measuring station about 500 meters upstream of the WATCON measuring station
was 2,235 lps (193,104 cumd).
341. Streamflow Regime. The Yawa River has no long historical flow records. Short-
duration flow records from 1980–1988 taken from the unpublished report of the Department
of Public Works and Highways – Bureau of Research and Standards (DPWH-BRS) are
included in Appendix 6.1. Minimum monthly flow of 1,538 lps (132,883 cumd) and maximum
monthly flow of 12,485 lps (1,078,704 cumd) were observed in May 1986 and November
1985, respectively. The annual mean flow was 5,910 lps (510,624).
342. During the Bicol River Basin Development Project (BRBDP) study in 1982-1985, daily
staff gauge readings were made 1 km upstream of the bridge on the Legazpi–Tabaco
National Road. Extreme minimum flow of 655 lps (56,592 cumd) and extreme maximum flow
of 80,680 lps (6,970,752 cumd) were recorded in November 8, 1984 and November 19,
1983, respectively.
343. To determine the streamflow regime of the Yawa River, the streamflow records of the
Nasisi River was used. The Nasisi River originates from the northwestern slopes of the
Mayon Volcano in the Municipality of Ligao, Albay. The streamflow data of the Nasisi River
58
covering the period November 1951 - December 1970 gives an annual mean discharge of
1,895 lps (163,728 cumd). The drainage area at the gauging station 39 sq. km.
344. The streamflow frequency of Yawa River as generated from the Nasisi River
streamflow frequency is shown in Table 6.1. Results of the frequency analysis indicate that
mean monthly flow of 1,060 lps (91,584 cumd) is available 100% of the time. With 80 per
cent of minimum flow as the limit for extraction, the maximum volume that can be withdrawn
from the Yawa River is 848 lps (73,267 cumd).
Table 6.1: Nasisi River and Yawa River Flow Frequencies - LCWD
Percent Nasisi River Yawa River

Equaled or Exceeded Discharge * Discharge*
3 3
% m /s m /s
100 0.86 1.06

90 0.98 1.21
80 1.12 1.38
70 1.28 1.57
60 1.46 1.79
50 1.66 2.04
40 1.89 2.33
30 2.16 2.65
19 2.49 3.06
11 2.77 3.40
0.5 3.17 3.91
Drainage Area, sq km: 39 48

Drainage Area Ratio: 1 1.231
Note:
* Discharges of Nasisi River are calculated from correlation equation:
Discharge = 3.1938*e to the power (-0.0131*% exceedance)
** Discharges of Yawa River are derived from Nasisi River by factor of 1.231
6.1.2 Groundwater Resources Inventory
345. Groundwater in the general area of Legazpi City is utilized through wells and springs.
Small to large capacity springs exist on the southern slopes of Mayon Volcano. A total of ten
(10) individual and group of springs, with combined discharge of 136.82 lps (11,821 cumd),
was used to support part of the water requirements of the LCWD.
346. Wells are also used for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes. Nineteen (19)
wells have been drilled for the LCWD in Barangays Bogna, Mabinit, Bigaa and Legazpi City
Proper to support the water requirements of Legazpi City residents.
347. Barangays not served by the existing water supply system obtain their water
requirements from springs and small diameter wells drilled to shallow depths, while
commercial, industrial establishments and some private individuals have their own wells.
348. Geology. Legazpi City is underlained with alluvial deposits at the low lying coastal
areas, pyroclastic debris at the slopes of Mayon Volcano and sedimentary rocks at the
59
southeastern boundaries. Figure 6-2A in Appendix 6.2 shows the stratigraphic units present
in the general area of the Southern Bicol Peninsula, while Figure 6-2B in Appendix 6.2 shows
the geologic map of the study area and immediate vicinity.
349. Springs Inventory. The spring sources of the LCWD are located at an elevation of
76–100 meters above mean sea level (mamsl). These springs used to serve the
northeastern barangays extending to the Port of Legazpi City. However, Typhoon Reming in
2006 destroyed some of the spring boxes and most of the collector canals. Significant
reduction of spring flows was observed after the typhoon and new springs were observed in
the area. At present only six (6) of the springs are being used to support the water
requirements of about 1,000 households in Barangays Upper Arimbay, Bigaa and Bagong
Abre. Table 6–3 in Appendix 6.2 presents the springs data summary.
350. Well Inventory. A total of nineteen (19) wells have been drilled by the LCWD in
Barangays Bogna, Mabinit, Bigaa and Legazpi City Proper. Table 6.2 (Well Data Summary)
in Appendix 6.2 presents the pertinent wells information, while Figure 6-3 in Appendix 6.2
shows the location of the wellfields.
351. Bogna Wellfield. There are eleven (11) wells drilled in Barangay Bogna some 5 kms
north of the city proper. The wells are located at the southeastern slopes of Mt. Mayon at an
elevation of about 90 mamsl. The wells were constructed from 1987 to 1988 based from the
recommendations in the Feasibility Study Report made by Kampsax-Kruger in 1987. Only
ten (10) wells were made operational, with one (1) well abandoned due to low yield. Well
logs of seven (7) of the eleven (11) wells are presented in Figures 6-4A to 6-4G in Appendix
6.2. The plots and analysis of constant discharge test (CDT) data of the seven (7) wells are
presented in Figures 6-5.1A to 6-5.11A in Appendix 6.2, while plots and analysis of step-
drawdown test (SDT) data of the seven (7) wells are presented in Figures 6-5.1B to 6-5.11B
in Appendix 6.2.
352. Mabinit Wellfield. The Mabinit wellfield is located in Barangay Mabinit about 5 kms
north of the city proper and a kilometer west of the Bogna Wellfield. Six (6) wells were
constructed from 1987 to 1988. These wells are located at the southeastern slopes of Mt.
Mayon at elevation 90 mamsl. The wells were drilled to a uniform depth of 25 meters and
cased with 250 mm diameter casing and stainless steel screens. Some wells were re-drilled
in 2003 to 26-30 meters and installed with 200 mm diameter casing and stainless steel
screens. Well logs of three (3) of the six (6) wells are presented in Figures 6-4H to 6-4J in
Appendix 6.2. The plots and analysis of the constant discharge test (CDT) data of three (3)
wells are presented in Figures 6-5.8A to 6-5.10A in Appendix 6.2, while plots and analysis of
step-drawdown test (SDT) data of three (3) wells are presented in Figures 6-5.8B to 6-5.10B
in Appendix 6.2.
353. Bigaa Well No. 1. The Bigaa Well No. 1 was drilled to 25 meters in Barangay Bigaa in
1995. This well which is cased with 250 mm steel casing is presently equipped with a10 Hp
submersible pump. Production is 12.22 lps. The Bigaa Pumping Station is the only
groundwater source equipped with a filtration system.
354. Banadero Well No. 1. The Banadero well is one of the original sources of the LCWD.
It was drilled to 73 meters in Barangay City Proper (Albay District) in 1960. This well is
cased with 200 x 150 mm steel casing to 55 meters and with an open hole down 73 meters.
It is presently equipped with a 7.5 Hp submersible pump with production of 1.06 lps.
355. Banadero Well No. 2. This well is cased with 200 mm steel casings down to 85
meters. Well log of this well is presented in Figure 6-4K in Appendix 6.2. The plots and
analysis of the constant discharge test (CDT) and step-drawdown test (SDT) data are
presented in Figures 6-5.11A and 6-5.11B, respectively.
60
356. Barangay Taysan Well. Barangay Taysan Well was drilled in 2005 to 41 meters and
installed with 125 mm diameter casings. During testing after well completion, static water
level was measured at 8 mbgl and with withdrawal of 5.88 lps, the water level dropped to 12
meters. At present, the well is installed with a 5 Hp submersible pump. The well is being
operated and maintained by the city government and supplies the water requirements of
some of the households in the barangay.
357. Piezometric Conditions. Construction of a piezometric contour map could not be

made in the study area due to limited information on piezometric levels in areas other than
the existing Barangay Bogna and Barangay Mabinit wells. However, since there is no
substantial withdrawal in Bogna and Mabinit wellfields at present, the piezometric condition
can be assumed to be more or less within the magnitude of the piezometric contour map
prepared by the Kampsax-Kruger Consultants in 1987.
358. The static water level of the wells at Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields range from 1.06 –
4.05 meters below ground level while ground elevations vary from 75 – 85 mamsl. Based on
the static water levels and well elevations, the piezometric levels within the Bogna Wellfield
and Mabinit Wellfield vary from 74 to 84 mamsl.
359. Generally, groundwater flow from the recharge area in Mt. Mayon diverges towards
the flatter areas. The groundwater flow is generally in a northwest to southeast direction
towards the Albay Gulf. The piezometric gradient derived from the contour map prepared by
the Kampsax-Kruger Consultants is 0.011 to 0.045, being steeper at the upper slopes of Mt.
Mayon and becoming flatter towards the coastal plain. Since there is not much groundwater
withdrawal in the area, the piezometric condition can be assumed to be more or less within
the magnitude of the piezometric contour map prepared by in 1987.
360. Exploration for Groundwater. Geo-resisitivity surveys were carried out by LWUA in
2006, and by WATCON Inc. under this PPTA in 2009.
361. Geo-resistivity survey in Legazpi City by WATCON, INC. The survey was carried out
from May 26–28, 2009. Four (4) Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) were completed in the
vicinity of the existing water sources in Barangay Bogna and Barangay Mabinit, while six (6)
VES were completed in Barangay Taysan. An extract of the report prepared for POYRY-IDP
presented as Appendix G – WATCON, Inc. Geo-resistivity Report for ADB TA: 7122 – PHI,
June 2009 is included in Appendix 6.3 of this report; Figure 22 of the extract shows the
location of the sounding points, while Figures 23A – 23B present the electrostratigraphic
sections. The summary of the deduced resistivity values determined from the 10 VES points
is shown in Table 6 in the extract. Lithologic logs of existing wells and geologic reports were
used to calibrate and correlate with the obtained resistivity values and aquifer potential.
362. The third electrostratigraphic layer that exhibited resistivity values of 70–130 ohm-
meter is identified as the potential aquifer section in Barangay Mabinit and Barangay Bogna
that can be tapped through wells drilled to 165 meters in the vicinity of VES 1 and 142
meters in the vicinity of VES 4. It is clear from these results that the existing Legazpi City
Water District wells in Barangay Bogna and Barangay Mabinit are only partially penetrating
the potential aquifer layer.
363. The fourth electrostratigraphic layer that exhibited resistivity values of 27.6–40.0 ohm-
meter is identified as the potential aquifer section within the proposed expansion area in
Barangay Taysan that can be tapped through wells drilled to 180 meters in the vicinity of
VES 5 and to 200 meters in the vicinity of VES 9.
364. Geo-resistivity Survey in 2006 by LWUA. Geo-resistivity survey carried out by LWUA
in 2006 showed potential aquifer in the Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields down to 43.5–135.2
61
meters. Resistivity values of 80–190 ohm-meter correspond to alternating layers of fine to

coarse sand and boulders, the main aquifer section in the area. These results indicate that
the existing wells in the Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields are only partially penetrating the
potential aquifer section.
365. Aquifers and Characteristics. The general area north and northwest of Legazpi City
is dominated by young volcanic and volcanic derived rocks, while the general area of the city
proper and southeast of Legazpi City is dominated by alluvial deposits, and sedimentary and
volcanic rock units. Mt. Mayon with a core of active volcanic deposits dominates the area,
while the foothills are covered with lava flows and pyroclastic deposits. The pyroclastic
deposits that exhibited medium to high resistivity values, which are described as andesitic
sands, gravel, silts and rounded cobbles and boulders are the productive aquifers in the
area. The aquifer system consists of numerous layers of permeable beds which taken as a
whole, function as one aquifer.
366. Bogna Wellfield and Mabinit Wellfield. Wells drilled to 25 to 30 meters penetrate
alternating layers of fine to coarse sand and boulders.
367. At the Bogna Wellfield, static water level varied from 1.06 – 4.04 mbgl and with test
discharges of 8.30 – 25.65 lps, drawdown varied from 3.69 – 10.05 meters. Specific capacity
varied from 1.07 – 6.96 lps per meter of drawdown, while transmissivity varied from 3.61 –
88.10 x10-3 m2/s, indicating aquifers with medium to very good yielding properties. At the
Mabinit Wellfield, static water level varied from 1.06 – 4.04 mbgl. The test discharges used
ranged from 19.85 – 21.00 lps while drawdowns varied from 3.51 – 7.62 meters. Specific
capacity varied from 2.76 – 5.56 lps per meter of drawdown, while transmissivity varied from
24.2 – 57.6 x10-3 m2/s, indicating aquifers with very good yielding properties.
368. Tables 6-5 and 6–6 in Appendix 6.2 presents the summary of test pumping results.
369. Based on transmissivity value of 10.0 x10-3 m2/s from the existing productive wells in
Bogna and Mabinit wellfields and piezometric gradient of 0.030, the flow in one (1) kilometer
band of aquifer is 300 lps/km. Thus, the fictive flow across the two (2) km Bogna and Mabinit
Wellfields is 1,200 lps (103,680 cumd). Calculations of Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields
groundwater potential are included in Appendix 6.2.
370. The total capacity of the ten (10) Bogna and the five (5) Mabinit wells, which are in
standby status, is 172 lps (14, 867 cumd). Existing wells that produce good water quality is
79.83 lps from the Bogna Wellfield and 24.14 lps from the Mabinit Wellfield, for a total of
103.98 lps (8,984 cumd). With groundwater potential of 1,200 lps (103,680 cumd), the
available groundwater for withdrawal is 1,096 lps (94,694 cumd). Hence, drilling of additional
wells is still possible across the 4 km band of aquifer extending from the Bogna Wellfield to
the Mabinit Wellfield.
371. With instantaneous drawdown of 10 meters, potential well yield from a single well
drilled within the recommended wellfield is 82 lps (7,082 cumd). Actual drawdown from a
pumping well however includes interferences from other pumping wells in the area, effect of
long term pumping, seasonal fluctuation of water level, correction due to decrease of
saturated thickness of aquifer and well losses.
372. Barangay Taysan Area. Based on test pumping results of the Taysan Well, aquifer
potential in Barangay Taysan is not as good as that in the north and northeast of Legazpi
City. Wells drilled to depth 180–200 meters are expected to provide at least 5 lps (432
cumd). However, this needs to be confirmed from wells proposed to be drilled in the vicinity
of VES 5 or VES 9.
62
373. Sustainable yield. Varies from 0.22 lps at Banadero Well No.2 to 15.0 lps at Bogna
Well No. 8 and Mabinit Well No. 5. As shown in Table 6-7A in Appendix 6.2, the limiting
factor is the available drawdown which is taken at 20% of the saturated thickness. The
available drawdown varies from 4.81 – 10.45 meters only.
374. Hydrological System. Recharge to the aquifer system comes through direct
infiltration of rainfall into the pyroclastic deposits within the recharge boundary. Recharge
takes place also through underflow of the numerous streams, creeks, and channels into
exposed permeable beds. The deeper aquifer recharge is through leakage from the phreatic
aquifer into the semi-permeable confining layers.
375. Natural discharge on the other hand takes place mainly through the numerous springs
that seep along the flanks of the creeks and streams in the area. Artificial discharge takes
place through wells which tap the shallow aquifer.
6.1.3 Water Quality
376. Surface Water Quality. The results of the physical and chemical analyses of water
samples taken from collector canals of Kapunguhan, Ferrera and Sayong springs in
Barangay Buyuan, Legazpi City on July 27, 2004 and Busay Falls in Barangay Puting Daga,
Legazpi City on May 11, 2005 are shown in Table 6-7A in Appendix 6.1.
377. The results of the physical and chemical analysis of water samples taken from
different points along the Yawa River from October 14 - 15, 1985 are shown in Appendix 6.1,
as well as the results of heavy metals analysis of water samples collected from the Yawa
River in Barangay Bogtong, Legazpi City about 0.8 km downstream of the Phil Hydro, Inc.
treatment plant. The samples taken at different points of the Yawa River in Barangay
Bogtong exceeded NSDW’s permissible limits for color, turbidity and content of total
magnesium, iron and manganese.
378. Groundwater Quality. Results of the physical and chemical analyses of spring
sources are shown in Table 6-7B in Appendix 6.2, while those of the deepwell sources are
shown in Table 6-7C1 to Table 6-7C2 in Appendix 6.2. The result represents the physical
state and chemical composition of the groundwater in the area at the time and point of
sampling.
379. The water quality of springs is good as shown from results of the analysis. On the
other hand, the water quality of deepwells is not as good due to higher color and turbidity,
and high iron in some of the wells. Six (6) of the eleven (11) deepwells in the Bogna Wellfield
exceeded turbidity, while four (4) of the eleven (11) wells showed iron concentration ranging
from 1.5 - 3.4 mg/l. Two (2) of the six (6) samples from the Mabinit Wellfield showed iron
concentration ranging from 1.2 – 10.0 mg/l. Similarly, Bigaa Well No. 1 sample, showed
turbidity of 15 NTU and iron content of 2.4 mg/l that exceeded the NSDW’s permissible limit
for turbidity and iron content of 5.0 NTU and 1.0 mg/l, respectively.
380. TDS concentrations in the samples range from 146 to 840 mg/l with TDS of Mabinit
Well No. 5 at 840 mg/l exceeding the PNSDW permissible limit of 500 mg/l. Total dissolved
solids (TDS) can have an important effect on the taste of drinking water. The palatability of
water with a TDS level of less than 600 mg/l is considered to be good; drinking water
becomes increasingly unpalatable at TDS levels greater than 1,200 mg/l. The presence of
high levels of TDS may also be objectionable to consumers owing to excessive scaling in
water pipes, heaters, boilers and household appliances. Water with concentrations of TDS
below 1,000 mg/L is usually acceptable to consumers.
63
6.2 RECOMMENDED POTENTIAL SOURCES
6.2.1 Surface Water
381. The Yawa River could support the year 2025 total water demands. The flow of 848 lps
(73,267cumd), which corresponds to 80 per cent of minimum flow as the limit for extraction is
more than thrice the present abstraction from the river.
382. The bulk water supplier could also immediately meet additional demands of 116 lps
(10,000 cumd), considering that the design capacity of the plant is 347 lps (30,000 cumd).
6.2.2 Groundwater
383. The existing wells in the Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields that produce good water quality
can also be used to support the additional LCWD demands. A total of 103.98 lps (8,984
cumd) is available from the two (2) wellfields—79.83 lps from the Bogna Wellfield and 24.14
lps from the Mabinit Wellfield.
384. Additional wells could also be drilled in the Bogna and Mabinit Wellfields or other
areas northeast of Legazpi City. The wells are recommended to be drilled deeper to fully tap
the potential aquifer identified in the geo-resistivity survey. Well parameters are as follows:
Well Depth : 120 meters

Casing Diameter : 300 mm
Expected Yield : 25 - 40 lps (2,160 – 3,456 cumd)
Expected Drawdown : 20 - 25 meters
385. The proposed well sites in Barangays Bogna and Mabinit are shown in Figure 6-6 in
Appendix 6.4, while the preliminary well design is shown in Figure 6-7A in Appendix 6.4.
6.3 RECOMMENDED FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF POTENTIAL SOURCES
6.3.1 Test Well Drilling
386. The absence of wells within the expansion areas of the LCWD covering Barangay
Taysan and Banquerohan makes it necessary to construct test wells or exploratory wells
during the initial stage of the design phase of the subproject. Test well drilling will confirm the
quantity and quality of available groundwater prior to finalization of the subproject detailed
design. However, based on the analysis of the results of the geo-resistivity survey carried
out by WATCON, Inc. in May 2009, the yield of new wells to be drilled in Barangay Taysan is
expected to be at least 5 lps. Test well parameters are as follows:
Well Depth : 180 – 200 meters
Expected Yield : 5 – 10 lps (432 – 864 cumd)
387. An accurate geologic log can best be obtained through sampling during drilling of pilot
hole. If the area as indicated from the geological composition and borehole logging results
would show potential for groundwater availability, the pilot hole should be enlarged to a
diameter suitable for a water yielding well. Geophysical logging of the test hole is also
recommended to determine the exact locations of the well intake. Electric resistivity logging
is especially common because it is easy and simple to conduct. Pumping test aimed at a
quantitative evaluation of aquifer and well performance should also be conducted.
64
388. The proposed well sites in Barangay Taysan are shown in Figure 6-6 in Appendix 6.4
while the preliminary well designs for are shown in Figures 6-7B and 6-7C in Appendix 6.4.
65
7 ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
7.1 WATER SUPPLY
7.1.1 Water Sources
389. Additional Water Demand. The current bulk water supply volume delivered to the
distribution network of LCWD is 20,000 cubic meters per day. This volume is assumed to be
constant for 25 years starting March 2008. The assumption was made since no copy of the
bulk water contract was provided to the Consultant.
390. Presented in Table 7.1 is the additional water requirement of LCWD from year 2010
up to the design year 2025.
Table 7.1: Additional Water Requirement (2010 to 2025) - LCWD

Year Existing Supply Maximum Day Demand Future Additional Demand
(cumd) (cumd) (cumd)
2010 20,000 25,160 5,160

2015 20,000 28,307 8,307
2020 20,000 31,794 11,794
2025 20,000 35,159 15,159
391. Existing and Alternative Water Sources. Based on the results and
recommendations of the Water Resources Study conducted for Legazpi City (Chapter 6 of
this report), potential additional water sources that can be tapped for the improvement and
expansion of LCWD include the following:
Main System:
1. Groundwater from existing wells in the Bogna and Mabinit well fields that produce
good water quality.
Of the 11 deep wells at Bogna, six (6) wells with good water quality have a total
capacity of 79.83lps while three (3) Mabinit wells with good water quality have a
yield of 24.14 lps. The combined capacity of 9 wells is 103.98 lps or about 8,984
cumd.
2. Additional Bulk Water: Withdrawal of additional bulk water from the Yawa River—
the bulk water supplier can provide an additional 10,000 cumd to LCWD since the
current supply contract is 20,000 cumd, and the design capacity of the plant is
around 30,000 cumd.
3. Groundwater from additional wells in the Bogna or Mabinit well field or other areas
northeast of the city center: To fully tap the potential aquifer, additional wells
should be drilled to a depth of 120 meters with specifications as follows:
Well Depth : 120 meters
Well Diameter : 300 mm
Expected Yield : 25 - 40 lps ( 1,296 – 2160 cumd )
Expansion Area:
The expansion area identified by LCWD and the City Government covering
Barangays Taysan, Lamba and Maslog are located approximately 4 to 5 kilometers
away from the existing system of LCWD, while Barangay Banquerohan is located 20
km away from the city center.
66
Based on the geo-resistivity survey conducted in Barangay Taysan, new wells can be
drilled to a depth ranging from 180 to 200 meters, with well specifications as follows:
Well Depth : 180 – 200 meters
Well Diameter : 200 mm
Expected Yield : 10 – 20 lps ( 864 – 1,728 cumd )
Expected Drawdown : 25 – 30 meters
392. Assessment of Source Alternatives. An assessment of the source alternatives is

shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Assessment of Water Source Alternatives – LCWD

Area Alternative Assessment
Main 1.Existing wells at Since the existing well sources are maintained regularly, re-
System Bogna and Mabinit well commissioning of Bogna wells Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8, and
fields Mabinit wells Nos. 2, 3 and 6 will provide an additional 8,984
cumd to the system.
Lump sum cost of repairs on plumbing and miscellaneous
items for 9 wells is about 1.0 million pesos. This capacity is
enough to address the additional water requirement
(Maximum Day Demand) of about 9,000 cumd in the year
2019.
2. Additional Bulk Water At a contract rate of PhP13.50 per cubic meter, additional
Supply Bulk Water of about 5,160 cumd in 2010 to 15,159 cumd in
2025 will cost the Water District PhP25 million/year in 2010
and increasing to PhP75 million/year by 2025.
3. Additional Wells Additional wells from Mabinit Well Field have an expected
average yield of about 1,728 cumd. In-place cost of 1 well
with a depth of 120 meters is approximately PhP2.4 million.
To address the remaining water requirement of 6,000 cumd
from 2020 to 2025, construction of additional 3 wells is
necessary. Investment cost for 3 wells is approximately
PhP7.2 million.
Expansion 4. Additional Well/s in Since the target expansion areas are located far from the
Area Taysan, Lamba, Maslog existing distribution network of LCWD (4 to 20 km), a water
and Banquerohan source through deep wells is the most economical option.
The present water supply system in Taysan is operated by
the city government, with service connections numbering
about 300. LCWD informed the Consultant that the Water
District will likely take over the operation of the system as per
discussions with the City Government.
The population in the service area is projected to increase to
18,158 by the year 2025. LCWD and LGU has envisioned
that 25% of the service area is projected to consist of the
served population estimated at about 5,000. At an average of
5.2 persons/household, a total of 962 service connection is
projected by the year 2025. With a projected consumption
rate of 155 lpcd and un-accounted for water at 20%, the
water requirement for Barangay Taysan from 2010 to 2025 is
estimated as shown in Table 7.3.
Existing well at Barangay Taysan has a measured discharge
rate of about 508 cumd. By 2025, the projected maximum
day demand is about 1,209 cumd. Drilling of 1 well with an
expected yield of about 1296 cumd will address the demand
up to the design period.
67
Table 7.3: Water Requirement for Taysan (2010 to 2025) - LCWD

Year Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand
(cumd) (cumd) (cumd)
2010 538 699 1,076
2015 640 832 1,280
2020 742 964 1,484
2025 930 1,209 1,860
7.1.2 Treatment
393. The existing treatment facility previously used by LCWD is an aeration process within
the hydraulic control structures of Bogna and Mabinit well fields. Water from both wells
passes and flows through their respective hydraulic control structures which serve as
aerators before chlorination and distribution to the network.
7.1.3 Storage
394. Existing Storage Facility. LCWD has an existing storage capacity of 6,900 cubic
meters situated at various locations within the service area.
395. Two ground level reservoirs, each with a capacity of 2,000 cubic meters, are located
at Bogna well field (elevation 80m) and Mabinit well field (elevation 94m).
396. These 2 reservoirs were constructed in 2006, primarily to serve as storage facilities for
the wells at Bogna and Mabinit and cannot be utilized for the bulk water source due to
elevation differences. Both reservoirs are located more than 40m higher than the bulk water
source.
397. One (1) ground level reservoir with a capacity of 2,000 cum is located at Imperial
Subdivision at elevation 40m.
398. 9 reservoirs (elevated and ground level) with a combined volume of 900 cum are
situated at various locations within the service area. The elevations ranges between 7.5 to 10
meters above mean sea level.
399. Storage Requirement. The total storage requirement of LCWD in the year 2025 is
about 5,000 cum.
400. Existing storage facilities of 6,900 cum capacity is more than enough if additional
water supply will come from Bogna and Mabinit well fields, since the 4,000 cum existing
storage facility at Bogna and Mabinit can be utilized.
401. In contrast, if an additional supply of 15,000 cum will come from the bulk water supply,
an additional storage volume of 2,100 cum will be required, since the only effective storage
volume for the bulk water source is 2,900 cum.
402. For the expansion areas, the total storage requirement for Barangays Taysan, Lamba,
Maslog and Banquerohan is about 500 cum capacity.
68
7.2 SANITATION
403. In the selection of the appropriate system for treating septage, there were two steps
used: (i) review of available technologies, and (ii) evaluation of short-listed alternatives. The
first step reviewed all possible technologies (Table 7.4) and used the following criteria to
determine alternatives:
• land availability and site conditions;
• buffer zone requirements;
• hauling distance;
• fuel costs;
• labour costs;
• costs of disposal;
• legal and regulatory requirements.
404. Based on the criteria, the PPTA shortlisted the following treatment systems:
Alternative 1: Stabilization ponds
Option 1: With settling tanks
Option 2: Without settling tanks
Alternative 2: Constructed wetlands
405. As a second step, another round of criteria was applied to select the best option, such
as:
• Area required for the treatment process
• Capital costs of the treatment facilities
• Operation & maintenance costs
• System robustness and flexibility (fluctuations in the quantity and quality of
septage)
• Long term design criteria and data available
• Treatment efficiency
• Ease of construction (experience of local contractors)
• Ease in O&M (skill of staff, time input of staff)
• Energy requirements of treatment process
• Usability of by-products
• Environmental and health implications.
406. Weighing all the advantages over the disadvantages, Alternative 1 Option 2
(stabilization ponds without settling tanks) was selected by the PPTA as the best alternative
to be used in the subproject area.
69
Table 7.4: Review of Available Septage Treatment Technologies

Treatment Type Advantages Disadvantages Remarks
Aquatic Systems
Low capital cost
Requires large area of
land
Moderate O&M costs
Stabilization Ponds Suitable for the Project
May produce
Low technical undesirable odors
manpower requirement
Requires less land Requires mechanical
than Stabilization devices and permanent
Ponds electricity
Aerated Lagoons Not recommendable
Produces few Needs trained O&M
undesirable odors staff
Efficient treatment of Remains largely Suitable for the Project
TSS & bacteria experimental
Constructed
Wetlands
Minimal capital and Requires regular
O&M cost harvesting
Terrestrial Systems
Septic Tanks Can be used Low treatment Needs a further
individually or efficiency rehabilitation program
communal
Needs maintenance
Easy to operate and disposal of sludge
Sludge Drying Beds Low investment cost Needs regular During dry season
and little land operation suitable;
requirement
Not very efficient during the rainy season
High operation costs during rainy season less efficient
Landfill Low capital cost Needs suitable Not recommendable
dumping area
Risky for the

environment
Mechanical Systems
Filtration Systems Needs little land; easy Mechanical devices Not recommendable
to operate; needed for the Project
Maintenance required
Biological Reactors Highly efficient; High cost; complex Unsuitable for the
requires little land; technology, requires Project
suitable for medium highly skilled
communities and urban operators; needs
centres energy; needs much
maintenance
Activated Sludge Highly efficient; High cost; complex Unsuitable for the
requires little land; technology, requires Project
suitable for medium highly skilled
communities and urban operators; needs
centers energy; needs much
maintenance
70
8 RECOMMENDED PLAN - WATER SUPPLY
8.1 RATIONALE FOR SUBPROJECT
407. The proposed improvement and expansion shall address the future water requirement
in the year 2015, 2020 and up to the design period 2025.
8.2 WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDED PLAN
408. The proposed system is shown on Figure 8.1. The water supply infrastructure data is
presented in Appendix 8.
8.2.1 Water Source
409. Taking into account the cost of water, the following water sources are hereby
recommended:
Re-commissioning of nine (9) existing wells at Bogna and Mabinit Well Fields:
Since the nine (9) existing wells with a discharge capacity of 8,984 cumd are in place,
re-commissioning of these sources is recommended; these are Bogna well Nos. 1, 2,
4, 5, 6 and 8, and Mabinit well Nos. 2, 3 and 6. By 2010, it is projected that LCWD will
require an additional 3,828 cumd to sustain its operation. The additional demand will
increase to 8,307cumd by 2015, 11,794 cumd by 2020 and 15,159 cumd by 2025.
Recommissioning these 9 existing wells by year 2010 will save LCWD approximately
PhP185 million from 2010 to 2015. The remaining water requirement of LCWD for the
year 2020 to 2025 would be reduced to 6,000 cumd.
Well Sources for Barangays Taysan, Maslog, Lamba and Banquerohan:
For the expansion areas covering Barangay Taysan, Lamba and Maslog, an
additional well supplying an independent system is recommended, since the service
area is about four (4) kilometers away from the existing network. The additional well
with a capacity of 1,720 cumd will augment the existing well source (400 cumd) to
address the 2025 water requirement of Barangay Taysan estimated at around 2,000
cumd. Provision of 1 new well is likewise recommended for Barangay Banquerohan.
8.2.2 Storage Facility
410. For the main system, no additional storage facility is recommended if the additional
water source is tapped from existing and new well sources at Bogna and Mabinit well field.
411. For the expansion area, recommended storage type and capacity is shown in Table
8.1.
Table 8.1: Storage Requirement for Expansion Area - LCWD

Reservoir Location Type Capacity
Barangay Taysan Elevated Steel Reservoir 300 cubic meters
Barangay Banquerohan Elevated Steel Reservoir 200 cubic meters
8.2.3 Transmission/Distribution Pipelines
412. For the main system, reinforcement pipes are recommended at various sections of the
distribution network to accommodate the 2025 flow and minimum pressure requirement
within LCWD main service area.
71
Figure 8.1: Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements – LCWD
72
413. Hydraulic calculations shall be performed during the detailed engineering design
stage to confirmed the types and diameters of reinforcement pipes at various sections of the
transmission pipeline and distribution network.
414. Hydraulic design calculations shall likewise be performed for the expansion areas
consisting of two (2) independent systems for Taysan and Banquerohan respectively.
8.2.4 Service Connections
415. The service connection is expected to increase from the existing 16,934 to 24,929 by
the design year 2025. The additional 7,995 service connections will come from the unserved
portions within the main service area and the four (4) barangays in the proposed expansion
areas.
8.3 NON REVENUE WATER (NRW)
8.3.1 NRW Reduction
416. There is scope for investment in NRW reduction by LCWD in a limited number of
areas. The types of investment that should be considered are itemized below with a brief
summary of the rationale for the investment.
417. Flow Measurement – Macro Level. The principal water sources are measured on a
continuous basis. There is no immediate need for additional source metering.
418. District Metering. In order to target operational resources and investment, the
division of water networks by means of district metering is commonly undertaken. This is
particularly useful when NRW levels are relatively low, either to make further reductions or to
sustain the achieved levels of NRW into the future.
419. The size of district meter area depends on a number of factors including network
layout and connectivity, investment and operating cost of installed infrastructure, resources
available to manage and monitor, etc. As a first step for costing purposes, it is proposed that
areas between 3,000 and 5,000 connections are set up.
420. At the moment, there is no metering within the LCWD distribution network to
determine the amount of water going in any direction. As currently operated, the system
could be split into 6 distribution areas as follows: Buraguis pumped supply area, Legazpi
southeast, Legazpi south west, Bonga, spring area and coast central area.
421. The Buraguis area is already operating as a discrete supply area and only requires a
150mm meter to be added on the outlet of the booster station with 2 units isolating valves.
422. Definition of boundaries for the other zones will require detailed network modeling but
for costing purposes, we have assumed an equipment requirement of 2 units 200mm meters
per zone plus chambers and valves, as well as 2 units 150mm isolating valves per zone.
10 no. 200 mm meters;
10 no. meter chambers;
30 no. 200mm valves;
20 no. 150mm isolating valves;
423. DMA (district meter area) design for complex networks should be carried out using a
calibrated hydraulic network model.
73
424. Pressure Control. There is a very limited scope for pressure reduction.
425. Mains Replacement. LCWD network was totally replaced in the mid-1980s using
PVC pipe. There is little scope for pipe replacement in the medium term so this hasn’t been
included as an investment item for LCWD.
426. Customer Meter Replacement. LCWD are already implementing a rigorous

customer meter management program which is built into their current investment forecast
427. Service connections. Service connections are mainly PE with GI stand pipes. There
appears to be no need for a blanket service connection change program.
428. Valve Rehabilitation Program. Valves are an essential component of a pipe network
allowing isolation of small parts of the network so that operational situations like burst mains
or interconnections can be managed without affecting large numbers of customers.
429. The networks in LCWD appear to have a good proportion of valves. One problem with
valve maintenance is the asphalting or concreting over of control valves. It is suggested that
a program of valve rehabilitation be included in the investment plan for LCWD.
430. There were no data in relation to valves and valve condition within the network. For
costing purposes, a provision has been made for the 5-year investment period based on the
installation of 1 valve per every 1,000 connections or about 16 valves per year. An average
cost equivalent to the cost of a 150mm valve has been used; however, the provision can be
used for valves of any size.
431. Operational Systems & Equipment. There are a number of tools and types of
equipment that are necessary to enable the efficient operation of a water utility. These
include GIS Mapping Systems, Billing systems, Hydraulic model of the transmission and
distribution systems, Meter reading recording devices and/or on the spot billing technology,
Leakage detection equipment, Portable flow and pressure logging technology.
432. GIS & Mapping. Geographical information systems technology is now well tried and
tested for utility operation, and provides a very useful platform for recording details of
physical assets such as location, type, age, condition; as well as for recording customer
consumption, billing and payment information.
433. LCWD has map records based on as-built construction drawings from pipeline
projects over the years. These are now incorporated into the LCWD AutoCad design system
which is a good basis from which to create a GIS system linking the operational and
commercial aspects of the business. It is recommended that this is carried out in year 1 of
the loan period.
434. Billing System. This should be reviewed at the feasibility stage to see whether it is
sufficiently robust for the task and/or whether it can be further customized to the benefit of
LCWD. If the system is not sufficiently robust, an alternative should be considered at the
feasibility stage.
435. Hydraulic Modeling. Construction of hydraulic models to water supply systems

provide many benefits to the water utility—this may be in terms of improved knowledge of
network asset types and condition; better understanding of water usage across the network;
use of the model to simulate changes and improvements to the network; design of district
meter and pressure reduction areas; support to strategic resource planning; etc.
74
436. The hydraulic model should be built with the support of consultants, but ownership
and use should rest with LCWD.
437. Leakage Detection. Provision of appropriate and adequate leakage detection and
training in its use is essential if physical losses are to be managed to minimal levels.
438. Proposed equipment listing for LCWD would be:

Leak Noise Correlators – 2 no.
Electronic listening equipment – 4 units
Pipe locating equipment – metallic and non-metallic – 2 sets.
Noise loggers – 3 sets.
439. Flow and Pressure Monitoring Equipment. Sufficient flow and pressure data
logging equipment should be provided to allow field testing of the largest district area over an
extended time period.
Dual flow & pressure loggers – 20 no.
Single channel pressure loggers – 30 no.
Heavy duty laptop computers – 3 no.
440. Provision should also be made for maintenance and replacement of this equipment
and associated batteries, cables etc.
441. Summary of Capital Investment Requirements. Table 8.2 is a summary of the

assets included in the capital investment requirements.
Table 8.2: NRW Capital Investment Requirements - LCWD

Quantities
Expenditure Type
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NRW MANAGEMENT/CONTROL COSTS

Production Metering
District Metering
Mechanical Meters
200 10
150 1
200 30
150 2
Chamber construction - 2m x 1.5m x 2m 10

Network Isolation valves
150 20
Leak Detection/Pipe Location Equipment
Leak Noise Correlator 2
Electronic Listening Sticks 4
Noise Loggers - set 3
Pipe Location Equipment - All materials 2
Data Logging Equipment
Dual Flow & Pressure Loggers 20
Pressure loggers 30
Hardware purchase - computer 1
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX

Valve Rehabilitation
150 8 16 16 16 16 8
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COST

GIS
Software Purchase 1
Hardware Purchase - Computers 1
75
8.3.2 NRW Recommended Operational Activity Improvements
442. Leak Detection and Repair. LCWD is not proactively carrying out leak detection and
repair activity. These are key activities in the reduction and control of NRW.
443. Further, the analysis of ILI indicates a relatively good network condition. This being
the case, leak detection and repair (as opposed to mains and service replacement, etc.)
becomes the prime means of loss reduction and control.
444. It is suggested that LCWD set up a team to more proactively manage leak detection
and repair—this could be either in-house or could be contracted out either on a rate basis or
a performance basis or combination of both—with supervision responsibility remaining with
LCWD. The current level of leaks within the system is unknown; however, an attempt at
estimating the number of leaks has been made, the results of which are shown in Table 8.3.
No attempt has been made to attribute savings to the leaks repaired.
445. LCWD should ensure that adequate budget for leak repair is provided in their expense
forecast.
Table 8.3: Estimated Distribution Main Line Leaks and Costs - LCWD
Diameter Leaks/yr/ Network No. of Leak Repair

(mm) km Length (m) Repairs/yr Cost (PhP)
300 0.25 9,760 2 13,237

250 0.5 2,342 1 5,884
200 0.5 47,270 24 100,806
150 1 14,306 14 44,656
100 2 34,830 70 185,399
75 3 38,650 116 235,612
50 4 61,910 248 466,557
TOTAL LEAKS PER YEAR 475 1,052,151
446. Illegal Loss Reduction. It is considered that illegal connections are not a significant
problem within the Legaspi City network.
447. However, the conversion of illegal connections to legal connections is a double win for
any utility with a reduction in the NRW as well as a revenue gain for no additional production
or distribution effort.
448. It is suggested that LCWD strengthen their activity vis a vis illegal connections and
consumption to ensure the best control possible of their supply. This is not an easy task and
is something that requires good network knowledge, incentives and penalties, effective
communication and hard work in the field visiting all areas of the network. This is an area of
activity that could be outsourced on a performance basis.
449. Water Audit. It is recommended that LCWD adopt the IWA water audit methodology
as a performance measurement tool. A key part of this would be to begin to record unbilled
authorized consumption within the water district and using this information to inform
operational decisions. Quantifying the amount of water used for operational activities would
allow comparison to be made with the cost of mitigating the need for the operational use, e.g.
if water used for flushing was quantified and a value assigned to it, it would be possible to
calculate when remedial action such as swabbing or scouring would have a greater cost
benefit.
76
450. Outsourcing of Operational Services. LCWD currently carry out all operational
activity in-house. As they expand the number of connections served, there should be scope
for LCWD to enter into out-sourcing contracts to support the efficient operation of the
business. Similarly for specific and enhanced programs of activity (e.g. a crash leak detection
and repair program) it may be beneficial to undertake some of the work through outsourcing
to have a quick impact.
451. Outsourcing can be used for many of the routine activities, either individually or in
combination, e.g.
Meter reading;
Billing;
Collection;
Meter replacement;
Reduction of illegal connections;
Leak Detection;
Leak Repair;
M&E Maintenance activity;
NRW reduction.
452. All these contracts should be set up with performance in mind—rewarding out
performance and penalizing under performance. For performance contracts to be successful,
however, the risk-reward criteria and payment mechanisms need to be clearly thought out in
order to reinforce the desired performance. Such contracts should also be regarded as a
partnership rather than a one sided opportunity by either party to gain benefit at the expense
of the other.
453. The use of outsourcing contracts brings with it the requirement for effective
supervision—this should be viewed as an opportunity to develop staff within the water district
and appropriate capacity building activity undertaken.
8.3.3 NRW Capital Investment Requirement
454. NRW reduction activities fall into both capital investment (pipelines, meters, pressure
reducing valves, specialist equipment, etc.) and operational expense categories (leak repair,
equipment licensing and battery replacement). Both of these categories are further described
below.
455. Capital Investment. Capital Investment costs can be broken down into investment for
control and management of NRW reduction activity (production metering, district metering,
specialist equipment purchase, etc.) and investment that directly leads to reduction of NRW
(pipe replacement, pressure reduction, meter replacement, etc.).
456. A further type of cost presented here is for Management System Capex. This is
related more to effective utility management but impacts on NRW reduction performance in
terms of supporting the activities carried out in NRW management.
457. Operational Activity Costs. Operational activity costs have also been considered in
relation to NRW Control, NRW Reduction and Management Systems.
458. NRW Control operational expense covers licensing and batteries for the Control
Capex assets (leak detection equipment, data loggers etc.).
459. NRW Reduction operational expense covers leak repair.
77
460. NRW Management System operational expense covers licensing and batteries for the
management system assets.
461. Costs have been prepared for the period 2011 to 2016 consistent with the financial
requirements of the PPTA for inclusion in the relevant section of the financial model for
LCWD. In practice many of these types of costs will continue into the future (although at
different levels) as part of a regular asset management planning process. Table 8.4 shows a
summary of all proposed investment expenditure items for LCWD. Costs are in Philippine
Peso.
462. The main capital costs proposed in relation to NRW for Legaspi City are for the
implementation of district metering infrastructure to facilitate better management of the
existing network and the rehabilitation of valves for improved leakage and network control.
This is particularly important due to the already relatively low level of losses within the
system and the need for better informed management decisions to further reduce and then
maintain NRW at the lowest level possible. Table 8.5 shows the detailed breakdown of these
costs by expense category. Costs are in Philippine Peso.
Table 8.4: Summary of Proposed NRW Investment Expenditure - LCWD

EXPENSE CATEGORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL % of TOTAL
NRW CONTROL CAPEX 5,768,000 3,867,595 0 0 0 0 9,635,595 50.3%
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX 213,639 427,278 427,278 427,278 427,278 213,639 2,136,389 11.2%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CAPEX 795,000 0 0 0 0 0 795,000 4.2%
Total Capex 6,776,639 4,294,873 427,278 427,278 427,278 213,639 12,566,984 65.6%
NRW CONTROL OPEX 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000 0.4%

NRW REDUCTION OPEX 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 6,312,906 33.0%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPEX 0 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 195,000 1.0%
Total Opex 1,052,151 1,091,151 1,091,151 1,166,151 1,091,151 1,091,151 6,582,906 34.4%
TOTAL ANNUAL 7,828,790 5,386,024 1,518,429 1,593,429 1,518,429 1,304,790 19,149,891

TOTAL CUMULATIVE 7,828,790 13,214,814 14,733,243 16,326,672 17,845,101 19,149,891
78
Table 8.5: Detailed NRW Cost Breakdown - LCWD
EXPENSE CATEGORY 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL % of TOTAL
NRW CONTROL CAPEX 5,768,000 3,867,595 0 0 0 0 9,635,595

Production Metering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
District Metering 0 3,867,595 0 0 0 0 3,867,595 40.1%
Leak Detection/Pipe Location Equipment 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,350,000 24.4%
Data Logging Equipment 3,418,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,418,000 35.5%
NRW REDUCTION CAPEX 213,639 427,278 427,278 427,278 427,278 213,639 2,136,389
Customer Meter Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Pressure Reduction (PRVs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Mains replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Service Pipe replacement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Valve Rehabilitation 213,639 427,278 427,278 427,278 427,278 213,639 2,136,389 100.0%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CAPEX 1,295,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,295,000

GIS 795,000 0 0 0 0 0 795,000 61.4%
Billing System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Hydraulic Modelling 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 38.6%
Meter Reading Automation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
MIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
TOTAL CAPEX 7,276,639 4,294,873 427,278 427,278 427,278 213,639 13,066,984
NRW CONTROL OPEX 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000

Licensing & Batteries 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000 100.0%
NRW REDUCTION OPEX 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 6,312,906
Leak Repair 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 1,052,151 6,312,906 100.0%
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OPEX 0 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 195,000

Licensing & Batteries 0 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000 195,000 100.0%
TOTAL OPEX 1,052,151 1,091,151 1,091,151 1,166,151 1,091,151 1,091,151 6,582,906
8.4 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
463. At the start of subproject physical implementation in 2012, construction activities shall
cover recommissioning of 9 existing wells at Bogna and Mabinit well fields, and the
construction of deep well, pumping facilities, storage facilities and transmission/distribution
pipelines and service connections at Barangays Taysan, Lamba, Maslog and Banquerohan.
464. Table 8.6 presents the implementation schedule for LCWD expansion and
improvement program.
8.5 COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION OF SYSTEM
465. The cost estimate for capital works (including NRW measures) is presented in Table
8.7, and for O&M in Table 8.8.
79
Table 8.6: Implementation Schedule – LCWD

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL
WATER SUPPLY
Source Facilities 0%
Wells 100%
Spring
Pumping Station 100% 100%
Water Treatment Plant 0%
Transmission Facilities 50% 50% 100%
Storage Facilities 50% 50% 100%
Distribution Facilities 0%
Service Connections 100% 100%
Fire Protection Facilities 0%
Pressure Reducing Valves 0%
NRW Reduction 54% 34% 12% 100%
Zone Meters 0%
Internal Networks 0%
Stored Materials 0%
Resettlement Cost
Land Acquisition 100% 100%
Detailed Engineering Design 100% 100%
80
Table 8.7: Total Capital Cost Estimate – LCWD

COST ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL
A. INVESTMENT FOR FACILITIES
I. ENGINEERING BASIC COST ITEMS
1.0 SOURCE FACILITIES

Re-commissioning of 9 existing wells at Bogna and Mabinit LS 1 1000000 1,000,000.00
New Banquerohan Deepwell ( 1 unit, 200mm x 200m) m 200 16000 3,200,000.00
New Taysan Deepwell ( 1 unit, 200mm x 200m) m 200 16000 3,200,000.00
TOTAL 7,400,000.00
2.0 PUMPING STATION

50 Hp Submesible Pump no 2 400000 800,000.00
Electrical Works ls 2 200000 400,000.00
Vallves, fittings,and meter ls 2 100000 200,000.00
Transformer and accessories set 2 1200000 2,400,000.00
TOTAL 3,800,000.00
3.0 STORAGE FACILITIES

Concrete Ground Reservoir (Taysan) cum 300 20000 6,000,000.00
Concrete Ground Reservoir (Banquerohan) cum 200 20000 4,000,000.00
TOTAL 10,000,000.00
4.0 TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Reinforcement Pipes (Main Service Area) ls 1 15000000 15,000,000.00
New Pipes (Main Servie Area) ls 1 5000000 5,000,000.00
New Pipes (Taysan, Maslog, Lamba Expansion Area) ls 1 12000000 12,000,000.00
New Pipes (Banquerohan Expansion Area) ls 1 5000000 5,000,000.00
TOTAL 37,000,000.00
5.0 SERVICE CONNECTIONS no 7,995 1500 11,992,500.00

SUB-TOTAL 1 70,192,500.00
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES (10% OF SUB-TOTAL 1) 7,019,250.00
ENGINEERING STUDIES (6% OF SUB-TOTAL 1+PC) 11,230,800.00
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION (4% OFSUB-TOTAL 1+PC) 7,498,950.00
TOTAL COST 1 95,941,500.00
II. NON-ENGINEERING BASIC COST ITEMS
A. LAND ACQUISITION 2000000 2,000,000.00

CONTINGENCIES (5% OF A) 100,000.00
TOTAL COST 2 2,100,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST 98,041,500.00
B. INVESTMENT EXPENDITURES FOR NRW
I. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
1.0 NRW Control Capex 9,635,595.00

2.0 NRW Reduction Capex 2,136,389.00
3.0 Management System Capex 795,000.00
TOTAL 12,566,984.00
II. OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES
1.0 NRW Control Opex 75,000.00

2.0 NRW Reduction Opex 6,312,906.00
3.0 Management System Opex 195,000.00
TOTAL 6,582,906.00
TOTAL NRW INVESTMENT COST 19,149,890.00
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST 117,191,390.00
81
Table 8.8: Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate - LCWD

YEAR NO. OF CONN. MAX. DEMAND/D SALARIES POWER CHEMICALS MAINTENANCE OTHER O&M TOTAL
2010 17298 25159 25988000 89000 8431000 80102000 114610000

2011 17874 25720 26853073 90983 8711646 82768386 118424088
2012 18450 26281 27718428 92967 8992384 85435645 122239424
2013 19027 26841 28585287 94950 9273609 88107535 126061381
2014 19603 26375 29450642 474742 113938 9554347 90774794 130368464
2015 20179 28307 30315998 509530 122287 9835085 93442053 134224954
2016 20655 28408 31031119 511348 122724 10067083 95646247 137378521
2017 21130 28948 31744737 521062 125055 10298595 97845809 140535258
2018 21606 29488 32459857 530776 127386 10530593 100050003 143698615
2019 22081 30027 33173475 540489 129717 10762104 102249565 146855352
2020 22557 31794 33888596 572293 137350 10994103 104453759 150046101
2021 23031 31259 34600711 562661 135039 11225127 106648691 153172229
2022 23506 31799 35314329 572375 137370 11456638 108848254 156328966
2023 23980 32338 36026445 582088 139701 11687662 111043186 159479082
2024 24455 32878 36740063 591802 142032 11919173 113242748 162635819
2025 24929 35159 37452179 632867 151888 12150197 115437680 165824812
Assumptions:
1. Compensation package per employee = P 19,068.34 per month. No. of connections/employee - 165.
2. Power Cost estimated at P 0.30 per cu.m from 2010-2013 and P 1.50 per cu. m of water produced from 2014 onwards with the inclusion of well operations.
3. Chemical Cost estimated at P 0.36 per cu. m of water produced starting 2014.
4. Maintenance Cost for the Facilties estimated at P 487.39 per connection.
5. Miscellaneous Cost estimated at P 4,630.66 per connection.
82
9 RECOMMENDED PLAN – SANITATION
466. For the preparation of the DFR it was assumed that sanitation works would be
financed under a grant from AusAID, subject to confirmation. However, during the tripartite
meeting for the DFR held on 16 February 2010, ADB informed that AusAID had changed
their investment priorities, and grant funds were no longer available for sanitation.
467. On 10-11 March 2010, LCWD were consulted in this new light, to determine whether
they were interested if sanitation was financed from the loan or from their own funds. The
GM consulted with the Board, and later relayed the Board’s decision: they decided to just
drop the sanitation component from the Project package. For the Final Report, it was agreed
that the sanitation component for LCWD will be deleted from the proposal; the Final Report
will only cover the water supply component.
468. The sanitation component as originally designed (in the DFR) is included in
Supplementary Appendix F for reference.
83
10 ASSESSMENT OF WATER DISTRICT CAPABILITY
469. This chapter provides an assessment of the WD capability, not only in implementing
the subproject, but also in managing the system.
10.1 WATER DISTRICT HISTORY
470. The Legazpi City Water District (LCWD) supplies water to the City of Legazpi,
Province of Albay. The original system supplying Legazpi City and, later, the Municipality of
Daraga, was constructed in 1921 by the Provincial Government. Then when the Provincial
Waterworks was abolished, the operations of the water systems were devolved to the
Daraga LGU and the the Legazpi City LGU. The Legazpi City water system started out as a
quasi-public corporation and became a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in
July 16, 1981 when it was formed as a water district. It was given its Conditional Certificate
of Conformance (CCC) No. 175 on December 16, 1981.
471. The Water District started out with around 300 water service connections but without
its own water source. LCWD took its water supply from the excess production of the Busay
spring source of the Daraga Water District. Legazpi City customers received their water
supply from the unused portion of the spring source after the Daraga Water District received
its requirements. Thus there was need for the LCWD’s own water source.
472. During the 1980’s, LWUA offered the WD a loan to develop its own source through
DANIDA financing. The project included the drilling of 4 wells at Bonga and Mabinit and the
construction of hydraulic control structures, treatment facility, transmission and distribution
pipelines, reservoirs, and service connections. In addition, the project included training and
equipment in leak detection.
473. But the existing system was not without problems. The power supply was not reliable
due to numerous brownouts and the water sources had iron and manganese minerals. The
Water District turned to a bulk water supplier who now supplies water to the Water District
continuously at a required pressure and is capable of meeting the future demands of the
City. Meanwhile, the wells and their appurtenances are being maintained for emergency and
also for future requirements.
474. As of June 30, 2009, LCWD now has 17,060 registered connections and serves 53 of
the 60 barangays. Service coverage is estimated to be about 55% of the total population.
10.2 TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY
475. The Water District is performing very well despite the usual operational problems it
faces with the LGU and some customers. The price arrangements with the bulk water
supplier have driven operating costs significantly, but the WD can now focus on managing
the system—thus improving efficiency in operations.
10.2.1 Debt Servicing
476. The WD claims that it was always current in its debt servicing to LWUA except for a 2-
month moratorium requested by the WD during the aftermath of Typhoon “Reming” which
heavily damaged the City. The chapter on the Financial Performance of Water Districts
(Chapter 11) provides a more detailed discussion.
84
10.2.2 Performance Parameters
477. Table 10.1 summarizes the performance of the WD along certain performance
parameters.
Table 10.1: Performance Parameters - LCWD

Parameters 2004 2007
Actual Industry Actual Industry
Average Average
(Large) (Large)
NRW 23.1% 38.0% 16.0% 27.0%
Ave Collection Period 20 days 78days 29 days 40 days
Net Income/Operating
Revenues 28.69% 12.0% 13.96% 10.0%
Operating Ratio 62.0% 82.0% 99.0% 76.0%
6
Connections/Staff 155 141 162 183
No. of connections 17,732 42,202 19,506 24,585
Source: WD Monthly Data Sheet (MDS) and Financial Statements.
478. Compared to the Industry average, the LCWD was seen to be performing well in
2007. Its Production Efficiency improved with a significant reduction in NRW. Its Collection
Effort deteriorated slightly but was still well within industry standards. Its level of Profitability
decreased significantly due to higher operating costs but was still higher than the average.
Cost Control also deteriorated significantly as a result and suffered in comparison to the
industry standard. Management of personnel was better than the average Large WDs but
the increase in the number of customers over this 3-year period was still lacklustre
considering that LCWD was able to increase its customer base by only 1,774 or by only
10.0%.
10.2.3 “New Technology” Adopted
479. The Water District is presently undertaking a Hydraulic Network Modelling Project.
The scope of the project includes the development of a Network Model, demand allocation,
and the calibration, validation, and hydraulic simulation/optimization of the model. It is
estimated that work will be completed on September 2009. The impacts of this Project on
the WD are improvements in operating efficiency and NRW reduction as this allows the WD
engineers to create hydraulic zones and District Metering Areas. There will be better
understanding of water usage across the network, improved knowledge of the network asset
types and condition, and information acquired will better support strategic resource planning.
480. The WD has 11 meter readers who presently use handheld devices with thermal
printers. Electronic billing and accounting systems have been installed by freelance
programmers and are now capable of graphical user interface.
10.2.4 Non Revenue Water Reduction Program
481. The WD realized that there is a need to reduce its NRW to acceptable levels given the
cost of bulk water supply. It has been trying to eliminate illegal connections and has made
serious attempts to repair leaks as shown in Table 10.2.
482. There is no NRW-Reduction program in place pending the completion of the Hydraulic
Model. As soon as the Model is in place, district metering will be a priority investment and
leakage management will follow as a natural consequence.
6
Includes “Job Order” employees.
85
Table 10.1: Non Revenue Water Reduction Program - LCWD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Illegal 5 4 5 12 16
connections
Detected
Pipeline 1,444 1,041 1,093 749 1,054
Leaks
repaired
Connection 4,544 4,195 4,581 3,732 5,078
Leaks
repaired
Source: Legazpi City Water District.
483. In 2008, it is estimated that NRW increased from 16%, as reported in the WD’s
Monthly Data Sheet, to 21.2% despite aggressive leak repair works. There is no dedicated
team to detect leaks so only surface leaks are attended to. Leaks are recorded in logbooks
but are not computerized to allow these to be linked to the Hydraulic Model or any mapping
system.
484. There is also no dedicated team to unearth illegal connections or devices. The WD
relies on reports from concerned citizens or from meter readers. Penalties are assessed on
users of illegal connections/devices and a reward system is in place. However, the WD does
not consider illegal connections/devices as a serious problem.
485. Upon advice that the improper installation of a water meter contributes to losses, the
General Manager ordered that an experiment be conducted by metering personnel to
determine if there is any difference in meter registration between the WD’s present practice
of installing meters and the advice given. The result is that proper installation of meters
resulted to an increase of 6.25 liters/day in registration. The old design of meter installations
will be modified accordingly.
486. To ensure that all meters are working and registering properly, the WD has a meter
replacement program.
10.2.5 Service Coverage
487. As of June 30, 2009, the Water District has a total of 17,060 registered connections
and has service coverage of about 55% of the population. Out of 60 barangays with the
City’s boundaries, 53 have already been reached. From 300 connections 27 years ago, the
Water District can be said to be performing satisfactorily.
10.3 INSTITUTIONAL FEASIBILITY
10.3.1 Relationship with LGU
488. Although the WD has many stakeholders, it is the LGU relationship which is most
critical to its sustainability. The Water District is fully aware of this and has tried to dovetail
their activities with that of the development activities of the City Government. But, there are
differences in positions where water supply is concerned. To date, the LGU and the Pacific
Mall Corporation, one of the largest commercial customers of the WD, has filed for the
annulment of the water rate increase in 2008. Allegedly, the WD failed to follow procedure in
the public hearing. Another issue is the quality of the water supply. This has always been
the issue since the inception of the WD. But the growth in the number of customers, however
small, indicates an improvement in the water supply and quality. There also seems to be
lack of coordination with the City Engineers in the development and repair of roads and
86
drainage mains which affect mainlines of the WD as well as the issuance of excavation
permits to the WD. The WD is also in discussions with the City Government regarding
excavation permits for house service connections and, at the time of this writing, an
agreement is likely to be implemented.
10.3.2 Relationship with LWUA
489. The LCWD has maintained its cordial relationship with LWUA. The present General
Manager of the Water District has stated in clear terms that the LWUA is the major
contributor to the success of the WD without whose financial support and guidance the
growth of the WD would have been very slow.
10.3.3 Structure and Staff
490. The organizational structure for the LCWD had been approved by the DBM and
follows the recommended structure for “Large” water districts. The officers and employees
are all qualified and have been with the WD for several years. The General Manager states
that there are no organizational problems and that personnel are encouraged to discuss
issues amongst themselves.
10.3.4 Systems
491. The Water District of Legaspi City is well-managed. There is a daily cash position
report and there is monthly reconciliation of accounts between the Accounting Department
and the Cashier. LCWD has 10 meter readers who, for the last 5 years, are equipped with
Psion organizers and handheld printers. They issue water bills to customer on the spot.
Meter readers also report meter and any other problems daily which the maintenance section
handles at a later date.
492. There are no collectors because people pay their bills at the WD office. Those who
do not pay their bills within 60 days are temporarily disconnected and if no settlements are
made within another 3 weeks, then permanent disconnections are implemented.
493. Applications for new connections are submitted by the applicant to the commercial
section of the water district. Household connections longer than 30 meters are discouraged.
There is a minimum connection charge of PhP3,500 which includes a registration fee of
PhP1,500. Individual connections within informal settlements are allowed but water meters
are clustered outside the settlement areas for ease of access and to minimize potential
losses.
494. All other operational activities are done in-house such as leak repairs, individual meter
replacements, complaints resolution, etc. Meters are being replaced to the tune of 3,000
units per month so that billing quality is not a serious concern. Meters that are removed are
tested for accuracy. If found to be working properly, these are cleaned and stored for re-
installation. Should a meter be found to be improperly working, attempts are made to restore
it to proper working order or are scrapped. Newly-installed meters are colour-coded to
distinguish them from old meters.
495. But, the WD has its share of problems. There is no NRW-reduction program in place
and water loss-reduction activities are reactive as part of maintenance activities. There is
need for an upgraded laboratory and additional equipment such as a boom truck. Also,
meter reading histories for many of the past years are no longer available.
87
10.4 SUBPROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
10.4.1 LWUA Proposed Project
496. No new loans are yet envisioned for Legazpi City Water District but the LWUA
adjudged this WD as a capable water district so any future projects will be implemented by
Administration. LWUA will manage future projects together with the Construction Division of
the WD and the LWUA resident engineer will have a supervision role while the Construction
Division will handle day-to-day activities including hiring of construction inspectors and
workers, securing of permits, and activity scheduling.
10.4.2 Proposed Set-up for ADB Subproject Implementation
497. The proposed overall project organization management structure is shown on Figure
10.1.
498. A Water District Implementing Unit (WDIU) within LCWD will act as the central
coordinating body for subproject implementation, and be headed by the Construction Division
Manager or a senior professional within WD ranks.
499. The ADB subproject will be tendered to get contractors responsible for both civil
works7 and materials. Another implementation scheme would be the design-build scheme.
500. With contractors, the LWUA will either assign a resident engineer or an account officer
with the WD Construction Division doing most of the construction supervisory activities.
7
Well drilling works will be tendered separately.
88
Figure 10.1: Project Management Organization Structure
Ministry of Health
Asian Development
Bank (ADB)
Local Water Utilities
Administration
(Executing Agency)
National Level Project

Steering Management Unit Institutional Development Project Management and
Committee (PMU) and Capacity Building Advisory Consultants:
Consultants - Project management
- Detailed engineering
design and supervision
- Preparation of contract
documents
- Assistance with bidding
procedures
- Construction supervision
- Preparation of
resettlement plans
Water District
Implementation Units
(WDIUs)
Contractors for Water

Supply Component
Direction, reporting, supervision

Coordination
Capacity building
Source: PPTA Consultant
89
11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
501. The financial analysis is done in three levels: (i) an examination of the historical and
existing financial performance of the Legaspi City Water District (LCWD); (ii) an evaluation of
the feasibility of the proposed subproject under WDSSP; and (iii) an evaluation of the
financial sustainability taking into account the impact of the proposed subproject to the future
operation of LCWD. The analysis presents the results of such evaluation and recommends
options for cost recovery and financial sustainability.
11.1 HISTORICAL AND EXISTING FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (2004-2008)
502. The approach and methodology used in the assessment includes (i) an analysis of
historical trends in absolute values as well as in percentages, and (ii) ratio analysis. The
study period covers 2004 to 2008 utilizing audited financial reports for 2004 to 2006 and the
WD’s internal annual reports for years 2007 and 2008 when official audit reports are not yet
available. It examines LCWD financial state through a review of its income statements,
balance sheets and cash flow statements, and existing loan repayments. Available
secondary data such as the monthly data sheets and current year budget were also used as
references for some discussions.
11.1.1 Revenues and Expenses
503. Operating Revenues. The LCWD derives 92% of its revenues from water sales and
the remaining 8% from other water revenues such as service income, fines and penalties,
interest income and miscellaneous income.
504. Average growth rate of revenues for the period 2005-2008 is 12% per annum, with
2008 having the biggest growth rate at 42% per annum (Table 11.1). However, despite the
significant increase in revenues in 2008 due to increase in water rates and start of bulk water
operation, operating expense also significantly increased as well.
505. Water Sales are based on water tariff which had a two-time increase in 2007 and
2008. The water district implemented an 11% tariff adjustment in 2007 and another 47%
increase in 2008 bringing the current minimum charge of Php 198 and Php 396 for the
residential/institutional and commercial connections, respectively. The 2008 water rate
increase was based on WD Board Resolution No.08, series of 2008. Details of the water
tariff are shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.1: LCWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 (Php)

Year Operating Revenues Increase (Decrease)
2004 87,347,961
2005 87,771,051 0.5%
2006 85,996,314 -2%
2007 92,060,575 7%
2008 130,538,613 42%
Average 12%
Table 11.2: LCWD Water Tariff (Php)
Commodity Charge (Php/cu.m)
Minimum 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Classification Charge cu.m. cu.m cu.m cu.m.
Domestic/Government 198.00 21.75 24.35 27.35 30.80
Commercial/Industrial 396.00 43.50 48.70 54.70 61.60
90
506. Other water charges include the following: installation fee (Php1,500); cost of
materials (Php2,500); excavation permit fee (Php200); processing fee (Php200); restoration
deposit (Php1,400). Penalty charges for late payment are 10% surcharge on current billing
and 2% surcharge on arrears.
507. Operating Expenses (Table 11.3). The operating expenses (OPEX) increased from
Php 54 million in 2004 to Php 72 million in 2007, or an average annual increase of 10.4%.
For 2008, as mentioned earlier, the increase to 77.6% was due to the purchase of bulk
water.
508. OPEX comprises (i) Personnel Services (PS) (ii) Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) and (iii) Interest and Other Debt Service Charges. Personnel Services
include salaries and wages, bonuses, allowances, additional compensation and benefits,
clothing allowances and contributions to various government agencies. Personnel Services
share an average of 27% of the total OPEX and decreased at an average rate of 7.1% per
year from 2006 to 2008.
509. The MOOE which includes other services, utilities, supplies, materials, bad debts and
depreciation, constituted almost half of the portion of the total operating expenses. On the
average, from 2004 to 2008, MOOE shared almost 53% of the total expenses. It reached its
peak in the year 2008, figuring at Php 88.6 million. This is due to a significant increase in
other operating and maintenance costs.
510. LCWD currently has a bulk water contract with Phil Hydro, Inc. which became
effective in March 2008. The contract period is for 25 years with option for the LCWD to
take-over operation of plant after the 25-year contract. LCWD buys water from Phil Hydro at
Php13.50/cu.m. This water rate is applicable for the first 4 years with tariff adjustment
onwards based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) and power and energy adjustment.
Contracted volume is a take or pay for 20,000 cum per day, increasing to 50,000 cum per
day by year 2032.
Table 11.3: LCWD Operating Expenses (Php’000)

Expenses 2004 % 2005 % 2006 % 2007 % 2008 %
Personal 13,990 27% 15,599 27% 23,897 41% 19,769 29% 25,988 21%
MOOE 26,347 51% 30,469 54% 31,985 55% 38,622 56% 88,622 71%
Financing Charges 8,978 17% 8,679 15% 0 0% 7,978 12% 7,603 6%
Total OPEX 51,319 100% 56,752 100% 57,888 100% 68,376 100% 124,222 100%
511. Net Operating Revenues. The resulting net income ratio continuously declined from
0.03% in 2004 to -0.004% in 2008 (Table 11.4). Operating ratio, which is the ratio of OPEX
to revenues, averaged 93% leaving an average net profit margin of about 7%.
Table 11.4: LCWD Net Income (Php), 2004-2008

Operating Operating Net Operating
Year % %
Revenues Expenses Revenues
2004 88,153,697 79,150,944 90% 25,057 0.03%

2005 88,733,307 80,033,607 90% 20,360 0.02%
2006 89,738,272 89,726,356 100% 11,916 0.01%
2007 93,379,880 85,389,218 91% 12,851 0.01%
2008 131,359,841 123,762,168 94% (5.142) (0.004%)
91
512. Table 11.5 presents the detailed results of the LCWD operations for the years 2004 to
2008.
Table 11.5: Income Statement 2004-2008 (Php’000) - LCWD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Operating Revenues
Water Sales 80,921.38 81,037.12 81,659.61 84,920.52 120,458.07
Other Revenues 7,232.32 7,696.19 8,078.67 8,459.36 10,901.77
Total Revenues 88,153.70 88,733.31 89,738.27 93,379.88 131,359.84
Operating Expenses
Payroll 13,989.96 13,989.96 13,989.96 13,989.96 13,989.96
Power Cost 824.39 824.39 824.39 824.39 824.39
Maintenance 9,296.78 9,257.17 31,984.90 10,899.39 8,431.47
Other O & M 41,270.42 42,331.16 29,334.76 45,505.89 86,282.86
Depreciation 13,769.39 13,630.92 13,592.35 14,169.59 14,233.48
Total Operating Exp. 79,150.94 80,033.61 89,726.36 85,389.22 123,762.17
Net Operating Income 9,002.75 8,699.70 11.92 7,990.66 7,597.67

Less: Interest Expense 8,977.70 8,679.34 - 7,977.81 7,602.82
Net Income 25.06 20.36 11.92 12.85 (5.14)
11.1.2 Cash Flow
513. The LCWD cash flow comes from (i) operating activities, (ii) investing activities, and
(iii) financing activities. Cash flow from operating activities includes receipts from water sales
and other operating income and disbursements include payment of operating expenses
including remittances to government agencies. Cash flow from investing activities includes
interest revenue and non-operating income while cash flow includes construction in progress.
Cash flow from financing activities involves loan proceeds and payment of loan payables.
514. The LCWD operations for the last 5 years resulted in positive cash positions
increasing annually by a significant 11% annually. This is mainly due to a decrease in capital
expenditures from 2004 to 2008. Table 11.6 presents the LCWD cash flow statement from
2004 to 2008.
Table 11.6: Cash Flow Statements, 2004-2008 (Php’000) - LCWD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Sources of Cash
Collection of Revenues 83,660.28 83,575.16 83,197.75 88,819.93 121,815.45
Collection of Receivables 6,502.42 4,841.00 4,319.71 4,938.23 5,923.91
Other Receipts 859.53 138.25 497.21 7,440.41 943.12
Transfer of Funds/Special Deposits - 203.63 11,312.42 6,078.34 8,275.25
Total Sources of Cash 91,022.23 88,758.04 99,327.10 107,276.91 136,957.72
Uses of Cash
Capital Expenditures 14,151.72 12,507.22 20,134.21 8,827.03 7,000.12
Equity
Other Capex/Payables 10,574.68 11,386.72 12,641.24 9,726.42 6,780.02
Debt Service- 11,404.53 11,382.37 10,433.84 12,073.98 10,996.79
O & M Expenses and Working Capital 46,389.24 41,005.28 47,163.99 60,753.59 99,494.47
Reserves 5,542.55 10,938.33 6,861.60 5,233.70 11,795.27
Franchise Tax 1,000.00 - 5,127.16 4,294.15 5,207.25
Total Uses of Cash 89,062.71 87,219.93 102,362.05 100,908.87 141,273.93
Increase(Decrease) in Cash 1,959.52 1,538.11 (3,034.95) 6,368.04 (4,316.21)

Add: Cash Balance, Beg. 3,055.99 5,015.51 6,553.62 3,518.67 9,886.71
Cash Balance, End. 5,015.51 6,553.62 3,518.67 9,886.71 5,570.51
92
11.1.3 Outstanding Obligations
515. LCWD has an outstanding Php62.6 million loan from LWUA. These loans are
composed of two regular loans and one soft loan with interest rates ranging from 10% to
12.5% and payable in 26 years. These loans were availed in 1987 and 1993 with the latest
loan having a remaining amortization period of 12 years. Loan 3-206 was used for the WD’s
interim improvement program while Loan 3-466 was an assistance program for the WD’s
operations and maintenance activities. Table 11.7 presents details of LCWD existing loans
to LWUA.
Table 11.7: Details of Existing Loans (as of December 2008) - LCWD
Status of Loan
Source / Loan Amount of Loan Repayment Date
Interest Rate Balance as of Remaining
Number (Php) Period Implemented
Dec. 31, 2008 Amortization
(Php) Period
LWUA Loan 3-206 RL 49,630,000.00 10% - 12.5% 26 years 1987 34,832,464.40 9 years
LWUA Loan 3-206 SL 21,640,000.00 10.00% 26 years 1987 14,368,834.87 9 years
LWUA Loan 3-466 RL 18,424,000.00 12.50% 26 years 1993 13,367,178.52 12 years
62,568,477.79
11.1.4 Assets
516. Assets are the resources controlled by the Water District as a result of past events
and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the LCWD. Assets have
three essential characteristics: 1) the probable future benefit involves a capacity, singly or in
combination with other assets; 2) LCWD can control access to the benefit; 3) the transaction
or event giving rise to the LCWD’s right to, or control of, the benefit has already occurred.
517. The LCWD fixed assets comprise almost 70% of total assets leaving 30% to current
assets. Cash and accounts receivables are about 48% of current assets or 9% of total
assets and the remaining 52% of the accounts are for inventories, investments and
prepayments. The water district’s total assets increased significantly by 18% from 2004 to
2008.
Table 11.8: Assets and Other Debits, 2004-2008 (Php) - LCWD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
ASSETS
Fixed Assets
Fixed Assets in Operation 231,985,566 245,852,395 256,485,695 272,460,032 275,828,182
Less: Accum. Depreciation 80,546,588 90,626,956 99,268,115 111,256,512 125,752,931
Net Fixed Assets in Operation 151,438,978 155,225,439 157,217,580 161,203,520 150,075,251
Add: Work-in-Progress 2,031,571 475,083 11,921,304 6,121,814 4,785,110
Total Fixed Assets 153,470,549 155,700,522 169,138,884 167,325,334 154,860,361
Current Assets
Cash 5,949,016 8,465,035 4,993,154 11,372,235 5,246,405
Accounts Receivable 4,747,041 5,682,583 7,994,390 9,171,723 14,147,190
Inventory 11,503,712 11,372,643 17,238,932 17,119,347 19,452,685
Other Current Assets 83,062 85,707 91,406 140,791 1,219,752
Total Current Assets 22,282,831 25,605,968 30,317,882 37,804,096 40,066,032
Reserves 3,230,749 8,944,700 7,185,297 5,988,494 11,808,233
Other Assets 7,110,776 12,142,430 11,738,229 11,292,693 12,106,572
Long-term Investments 1,053,134 1,170,899 1,972,934 1,150,000 1,121,236
TOTAL ASSETS 187,148,039 203,564,519 220,353,226 223,560,617 219,962,434
93
11.1.5 Accounts Receivable
518. Total accounts receivable (AR) grew by as much as 198% in a span of 5 years or an
average of roughly 32%% per year primarily due to the increasing amount of accounts with
collection problems. The highest increase was recorded in 2008 at 54%. As of December
31, 2008, total AR accounts amounted to Php 14 million net of allowance for bad debts. This
excludes receivables from officers and employees and miscellaneous receivables.
519. Based on the Aging of Accounts Receivable prepared by the LCWD, 63% of the
accounts are six months past due and the rest, 37% are over one year past due (Table
11.9). More than one half of the accounts or 57% belong to active accounts while 43%
belong to inactive accounts. The LCWD has to take measures to boost it collection efforts
so as beef up its cash position as well as to prevent piling up of long over due accounts.
Table 11.9: Aging of Accounts Receivable (Php’ million) - LCWD

Days Active Inactive Total %
180 5,861,640 626,887 6,488,527 63%
360 30,117 589,021 619,138 6%
720 545,005 545,005 5%
1080 8,570 677,933 686,503 7%
1440 347,767 347,767 3%
Over 1440 2,853 1,604,140 1,606,993 16%
Total 5,903,180 4,390,753 10,293,933 100%
Percentage 57% 43%
11.1.6 Liabilities
520. Liabilities are the financial obligations, debt, claims or potential losses of the Water
District. Usually debt on terms of less than five years is called short-term liabilities or current
liabilities, and debt for longer than five years in long-term liabilities.
521. As of December 31, 2008, total current liabilities comprise about 12% of the total
liabilities and equity, while long-term loans payable registered at 27%. Total equity
represents 61% of the total.
Table 11.10: Liabilities and Equity, 2004-2008 (Php) - LCWD

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable - - - - 10,835,908
Customers' Deposits 702,212 700,962 700,962 700,962 580,557
Current Maturities 12,944,934 10,748,899 14,229,937 20,514,251 12,009,533
Other Current liabilities 2,447,255 869,112 11,494,982 2,194,271 3,811,900
Total Current Liabilities 16,094,401 12,318,973 26,425,881 23,409,484 27,237,898
Long-Term Debts (LTD)
Loans Payable 72,147,740 69,110,090 65,962,453 62,568,480 58,756,580
Other Long-term liabilities 1,178,821 1,178,821 1,178,821 - -
Total 73,326,561 70,288,911 67,141,274 62,568,480 58,756,580
Equity
Government Equity 533,952 533,952 533,952 533,952 533,952
Donated Capital
Other Paid-in Capital 150,000 20,510,145 150,000 12,850,774 5,791,404
Retained Earnings 97,043,125 99,912,538 126,102,119 124,197,927 127,642,600
Total Equity 97,727,077 120,956,635 126,786,071 137,582,653 133,967,956
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 187,148,039 203,564,519 220,353,226 223,560,617 219,962,434
94
11.1.7 Financial Ratios
522. The four key financial indicators that are being considered by LWUA are the current
ratio, operating ratio, debt-equity ratio and debt service coverage ratio. As presented in
Table 11.6, LCWD appears fairly liquid and can cover its maturing liabilities as indicated by
its favorable current ratios which showed a continuous growth to 2008 except in 2006 which
decreased from 2.08 to 1.15 but finally resulting in a current ratio of 1.47 in 2008. Likewise,
operating ratios from 2004 through 2008 show that operating revenues are sufficient to
sustain its operations. The long-term debt to equity ratio also has been decreasing as the
WD is gradually paying off its loan and shifted financing through equity rather than debt. The
debt service coverage ratios were above the LWUA required 1.3 except in 2008 when DSC
was at 0.15. Annual indicators are presented in Table 11.11.
Table 11.11: LCWD Financial Ratios, 2004-2008
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Current Ratios 1.38 2.08 1.15 1.61 1.47
Debt to Equity 0.75 0.58 0.53 0.45 0.44
Net Profit Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.06
Debt Service Coverage 0.79 0.76 0.00 0.66 0.69
11.2 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
11.2.1 Introduction
523. This section presents an evaluation of the financial viability of implementing the
proposed improvements for the water supply system of Legaspi City Water District (LCWD)
under the Water District Development Sector Project.
524. Following ADB and LWUA guidelines8, four basic indicators for the financial viability of
a water supply and sanitation project have been identified. These are the following:
• Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). It is the discount rate at which the net
revenues generated by the project are equal to zero. A project is considered
financially viable if the computed FIRR is at least equal to the weighted average cost
of capital (WACC) that is used in financing the development of the proposed water
supply subproject.
• Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). It measures the solvency of the water district
and shows how many times debt service for a given period is covered by operations.
DSCR should at least be 1.3 starting project full operational stage.
• Annual cash balance. Projected annual cash balances should show positive ending
position all throughout project operation. Projected annual financial statements are
prepared to demonstrate financial implication of the proposed subproject to the yearly
financial position of the water district.
• Tariff affordability. Minimum residential water charge should not be more than 5% of
the average monthly income of the low income group.
8
ADB, Financial Management and Analysis of Projects (2005) and LWUA, Project Operations Manual (2008).
95
11.2.2 Cost Analysis
525. The water supply component aims to provide improved and effective water supply
service to the consumers of LCWD up to the year 2025 and beyond. This plan involves re-
commissioning of old source facilities, provision for pumping station with disinfecting facilities,
installation of new transmission and distribution lines for existing and extension areas,
construction of new storage reservoir, service connections and NRW reduction.
526. The basic development (investment) cost of the proposed subproject and the
operating and maintenance costs are prepared on an annual basis for the purpose of the
financial analysis. These costs are estimated in 2009 prices. Increases in costs due to
inflation are covered through a provision for price contingencies for the capital costs and
relevant inflation factor for each of the O & M cost items.
527. Development Costs. The total development cost for the water supply subproject is
approximately Php113 million. This is based on the costs presented in Chapters 8 and 9 with
additional price contingencies to allow for the timing of implementation.
528. The project is scheduled to start implementation by the second half of year 2011 and
is targeted to be completed by the end of 2013, such that operation of the project will be by
2014. Acquisition of land required for the project and conduct of detailed engineering design,
however, has to be done in 2011 prior to construction works. Table 11.12 presents a
summary of the development cost for both water supply and sanitation.
Table 11.12: Total Development Cost (in Php’000) – LCWD
Sub-Total
Civil Works Equipment Land
a. Well Drilling/Development m 1 7,400,000 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0
b. Surface Water / River Intake lot 0 0 - - - - - -
c. Spring Intake & Sump Improvement lot 0 0 - - - - - -
Sub-Total 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 200,000 172.0 28.0 - 48.0 152.0 200.0
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 3,600,000 900.0 2,700.0 - 2,448.0 1,152.0 3,600.0
c. Gen-set set 0 0 - - - - - -
Sub-Total 1,072.0 2,728.0 - 2,496.0 1,304.0 3,800.0
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 37,000,000 33,300.0 3,700.0 - 14,800.0 22,200.0 37,000.0
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 10,000,000 9,500.0 500.0 - 1,900.0 8,100.0 10,000.0
5 Service Connections no 7,995 1,500 7,195.6 4,797.0 - 3,837.7 8,154.9 11,992.6
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,566,984 7,540.1 5,026.7 - 4,021.3 8,545.5 12,566.8
7 Land Acquisition lot 1 2,000,000 - 2,000.0 - 2,000.0 2,000.0
SUB-TOTAL 66,007.7 16,751.7 2,000.0 29,275.0 55,484.4 84,759.4
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 5,462.1 - - 1,638.6 3,823.5 5,462.1
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 3,641.4 - - 364.1 3,277.3 3,641.4
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 1,591.4 6,784.5 8,375.9
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 7,881.7 1,757.8 209.9 795.6 9,932.7 10,728.3
GRAND TOTAL 82,992.9 18,509.5 2,209.9 33,664.8 79,302.4 112,967.2
529. Financing Scheme. The subproject will be financed by ADB through relending by
LWUA to the Water District. ADB loan will finance Php97.65 million of the water supply while
the WD will finance the cost of land acquisition, resettlement and government taxes
amounting to about Php15.32 million. The financing plan is shown in Table 11.13.
96
Table 11.13: Financing Plan (in Php’000) – LCWD

2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
FUND APPLICATION
Basic Construction Cost 6,786 38,973 37,001 82,759
Land Acquisition/Resettlement 2,000 - - 2,000
Detailed Engineering Design 5,462 - - 5,462
Physical Contingency 779 3,897 3,700 8,376
Price Contingency 1,003 4,141 5,585 10,728
Supervision 299 1,715 1,628 3,641
TOTAL 16,328 48,726 47,913 112,967
FUND SOURCE
WD Equity 2,214 6,606 6,496 15,316
Sub-Loan 14,115 42,119 41,417 97,651
ADB Sub-Loan 14,115 42,119 41,417 97,651
LWUA Sub-Loan - - -
TOTAL 16,328 48,726 47,913 112,967
530. Operation and Maintenance Costs. For the computation of subproject viability,
incremental costs as a result of the subproject are used in the evaluation. Projections for
both the “without project” and “with project” situation are done.
531. Without the Project O&M. Projected operating and maintenance costs without the
project are based on actual O&M costs of the Water District as presented in their revenue
and expense statements for the years 2004 to 2008. It is assumed that there will be very
minimal increases in connections hence there will be no increases in the number of
personnel, power and chemicals. The maintenance cost of facilities and other O & M costs
will, however, increase by 5% per year due to natural wear and tear of the facilities.
532. With the Project O&M. Operating and maintenance costs include: 1) salaries and
wages of the WD personnel who will be assigned to manage the daily operation of the
project; 2) power and fuel; 3) chemicals for the treatment of water; 4) maintenance cost for
the facilities; and 5) other operating and maintenance items. The costs are presented in
Chapter 8 and are expressed in constant 2009 prices. These costs are then adjusted to
current prices by using the following escalation factors: 5% for personnel services; 10% for
power/fuel costs; 10% for chemical costs; 7% for maintenance and 7% for other O & M costs.
533. Other Costs. Depreciation Cost. Depreciation cost is considered a non-cash

expense; however, for purposes of estimating the net income of the Water District, it is
considered as an expense in the Income Statement. Annual depreciation costs for the new
facilities are calculated using the straight-line method based on the service life of each
specific facility. The calculated total annual depreciation cost for the new facilities is
estimated at Php2.78 million annually. For the existing facilities, the depreciation expense of
Php14.233 million, as reflected in the Water District’s 2008 Income Statement, is assumed
as the annual depreciation expense.
534. Debt Service. Annual debt service for the Project is also included in the financial
income statements and is estimated based on preliminary discussions with LWUA Project
Office. The lending terms for the purpose of this study are as follow:
• Maturity period of 30 years (including grace period)
• Grace period on principal payment of 3.5 years (construction period plus 1 year after
project completion);
97
• Fixed interest rate of 9.8% per annum.

• Semestral payment computed at equal amortization.
• Foreign exchange risk to be borne by the WD.
535. Based on the above loan terms and conditions, annual amortizations will be in the
amount of Php10.393 million and will be paid during the period 2015 to 2041. Interest will be
paid during the grace period for actual loan releases. The Water District also has existing
loans and these are included in the analysis. The debt service schedule for both existing and
project loan are shown in Appendix 11.2.
11.2.3 Revenue Forecasts
536. Water Revenue is estimated for each of the three types of connections-- residential,
commercial and institutional. Estimates of annual water revenues are based on the total
billed water for the year and the corresponding tariffs for the same year.
537. Water Tariff. Without the Project. Legaspi City Water District last increased the
water tariff in 2008. It is assumed that even if there is no project, the water tariff will have to
be increased in the future to cover increases in its operational expenses. For purposes of
the projection, it is assumed that water tariffs will have to be increased by 10% every two
years in the future.
538. With the Project. A two-time tariff increase is proposed, the first increase in 2011 and
the second increase in 2014. A 20% increase in 2011, even before completion of the project,
is necessary for the water district to gain sufficient funds to meet its existing operations.
Another 20% increase is proposed in 2014. The proposed tariff schedule for the three types
of connections for 2014 is presented in Table 11.14. From 2016 onwards, it is proposed that
water tariff will have to be increased by 10% every two years. The proposed increases in the
tariff are less than 60% of the previous tariff and not more than 5% of the family income of
the low income group, which are both in accordance with LWUA’s requirements.
Table 11.14: Proposed Tariff Schedule, 2014 - LCWD
Residential Commercial Institutional
Minimum Charge 286.00 570.00 286.00

11 – 20 cu.m. 31.40 62.60 31.40
21 – 30 cu.m. 35.20 70.10 35.20
31 – 40 cu.m. 39.50 78.70 39.50
above 40 cu.m. 44.40 88.70 44.40
539. Revenue Water. Without the Project. As mentioned earlier, since the existing facilities
are already nearing its maximum operating capacities, it is assumed that there will be no
further additional connections after 2013 so that the volume of revenue water will remain
constant from year 2013 onwards. Any increase in projected revenue is then due to
assumed increase in water tariff as discussed earlier.
540. With the Project. Revenue water used in the evaluation is based on the results of the
projection of water demand as presented in Chapter 5. According to the recommendations
of the technical study, the proposed improvements in the water supply system of Legaspi
City Water District can provide the water requirements of the projected beneficiaries up to
year 2025. Revenue water is therefore assumed to increase up to year 2025 and revenue
water from 2025 onwards is assumed to remain constant at the 2025 level.
98
541. Other Parameters and Assumptions. Other assumptions and parameters used in
the projection of revenues are given in Table 11.15.
Table 11.15: Other Parameters and Assumptions - LCWD
Reserve Funds 3% of total revenues, increasing to 8% in year 2015 onwards

Accounts Receivable 5% of preceeding year's total revenues
Inventories 2 months of chemical supplies and maintenance
Bad Debt Expense is 1% of total revenues
Other Revenues 10% of gross water sales based on actual
Franchise Tax 2% of total operating revenues
Collection Efficiency 94% based on historical performance
11.2.4 Project Viability
542. Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR). One of the more accepted financial
viability indicators for government projects is the financial internal rate of return. A subproject
is considered financially viable if the resulting FIRR of the proposed subproject is higher than
the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) that was used in financing the subproject. An
FIRR higher than the WACC implies that the incremental net revenues generated by the
project will be enough to recover the implementation and operating costs.
543. On the basis of the financing mix and the loan interest of 9.8% and the assumed cost
of equity of 12.0% (the estimated economic opportunity cost of capital), the WACC is 7.04%.
Table 11.16 shows the computation of the WACC.
544. Sensitivity analyses are likewise conducted to determine the effects of adverse
changes on a project such as delay in operation, revenues not realized as expected or
increase in capital and O & M costs. The scenarios evaluated and the summary results of the
analyses are presented in Table 11.17 with details shown in Appendix 11.2. The results
show that the subproject is viable under the five scenarios evaluated.
Table 11.16: Weighted Cost of Capital – LCWD

Financing Component
ADB Loan WD Equity
A. Amount (Php'000) 97,651 15,316 112,967
B. Weighing 86.44% 13.56% 100.00%
C. Nominal cost 9.80% 12.00%
D. Tax Rate 0.00% 0.00%
E. Tax-adjusted nominal cost 9.80% 12.00%
F. Inflation rate 1.90% 9.30%
G. Real cost 7.75% 2.47%
H. Weighted component of WACC 6.70% 0.33% 7.04%
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (Real) 7.04%
99
Table 11.17: Summary Result of FIRR - LCWD
Scenario FIRR NPV (Php’000)

Base Case 18.36% 79,189
1-Year Delay in Operation 16.14% 63,590
Capital cost plus 10% 16.94% 70,587
O & M costs plus 10% 17.25% 65,360
Revenues less 10% 15.60% 48,993
All costs +10%, Revenues -10% 13.18% 28,112
545. Affordability of Water Rates. Projected annual financial statements are prepared to
demonstrate financial implication of the proposed subproject to the yearly financial position of
the Water District.
546. A major consideration in the development of the tariff schedule is the ability of target
beneficiaries to pay for their monthly water bill. It is a standing policy of LWUA that the
minimum charge for residential connections should not exceed 5% of the family income of
the low income group among families connected to the system.
547. For this study, classification of households according to socio-economic status was
done using the 2007 per capita thresholds such that those that fall below the poverty
threshold are categorized as poor and conversely, those above the threshold level are
considered non-poor. Different threshold levels are used corresponding to the geographic
location of the study area. The 2007 income level is then adjusted to 2014 levels by
assuming an annual increase of 5% per annum.
548. For Legaspi City, the estimated monthly income for 2014 is Php12,217. Using the
affordability criteria, the minimum monthly bill (minimum charge) of Php286.00 when the
project starts to operate in 2014 is only 2.34% of the estimated monthly income of poor
families. In all subsequent years the minimum monthly bill is less than 5% of the estimated
monthly income. Hence the proposed level of water tariff is deemed affordable to the low
income or poor families.
11.3 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SUBPROJECTS ON THE WD’S FUTURE

FINANCIAL OPERATION
549. Projected Income Statement for the period 2009 to 2041 are developed and shown in
details in Appendix 11.5. The projections show that the Water District will generate net
income for all years of the projection period.
550. Cash Flow Statements are also developed for the same period. For all years during
the evaluation period, the statements show that annual cash inflows will be sufficient to cover
all annual cash outflows of the Water District. The projected cash flow statements are also
shown in Appendix 11.6.
551. Projected Balance Sheet for the study period showing the Water District’s projected
assets as against liabilities and equity is presented in Appendix 11.7. Further, selected
financial ratios are computed to provide an indication of the Water District’s future financial
performance: Annual ratios from 2011 to 2040 are shown in Appendix 11.8.
• Current Ratio is above 2.0 from 2011 onwards which means that the liquidity of the
Water District is satisfactory;
100
• Debt Equity Ratio shows that the capital structure consists mostly of loan financing;
• Net Profit Ratio of above 0.08 shows that the current operation is profitable and
shows significant improvement in the later years; and the
• Water District is solvent with Debt Service Coverage Ratio higher than the standard
1.3 for all years.
Table 11.17: Summary of Financial Ratios – LCWD
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Current Ratio 4.91 6.52 6.66 7.10 8.06 8.86 9.49 25.27 33.61 37.69 38.57 42.71
Debt to Equity Ratio 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.47 0.56 0.45 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01
Net Profit Ratio 81% 89% 85% 88% 81% 79% 81% 76% 84% 81% 86% 83%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 4.07 3.00 4.89 3.04 3.31 3.24 2.99 8.67 8.81 13.12 11.95 18.00
101
12 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12.1 OVERALL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
552. This section of the Report presents the results of the economic evaluation of the
proposed investments for water supply that were described in detail in the preceding
chapters. The economic feasibility results were derived following the procedures described in
Appendix 12, using data and assumptions that are summarized in the appendix as well.
553. The economic analysis was undertaken in accordance with the principles and
procedures set out in the ADB Handbook for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply
Projects (1999) and related ADB guidelines9 as well as LWUA’s Project Operations Manual
(2008). The period of analysis extends over 25 years from the start of Project implementation
in 2011 up until 2035. Costs and benefits were quantified at September 2009 prices and
were converted to their economic cost equivalents using shadow prices. Both costs and
benefits were treated as increments to a situation “without project”.
554. The economic viability of the subproject was determined by computing the economic
internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the economic opportunity cost of
capital (EOCC) of 15%10. An EIRR exceeding the assumed EOCC indicates that the
subproject is economically viable. The viability of the investments was then tested for
changes in key variables such as capital costs, O&M costs, resource cost savings and
incremental consumption through sensitivity analysis. A benefit distribution and poverty
impact analysis was also undertaken to determine how much of the net economic benefits
resulting from the investments will directly benefit the poor.
12.2 ECONOMIC RATIONALE
555. The proposed investments for Legazpi City are a component of a larger Water District
Development Sector Project (WDDSP) which aims to improve population access to piped
water supply in five areas that also include those that are being served by Metro La Union
WD, Metro Quezon WD, Leyte Metro WD, and City of Koronadal WD.11 The project would
form part of the Government’s overall development plan for the water sector which also aims
to achieve the targets set under the Millennium Development Goals (MDG).12
556. LCWD, which now operates and maintains the existing water supply system, will also
operate and manage the new investments. Direct involvement of the Government in the
provision of improved water supply stems from the lack of participation of the private sector in
its development. The lack of investments for improving existing services will continue to
deprive an increasing number of people of this essential service which could have long-term
impact on their health and well-being. Government’s involvement in this Project will address
this market failure through the exercise of its basic functions of (i) allocating resources for the
provision of basic needs, and (ii) distributing resources to effect equity where market and
private decisions (or lack of it) have not resulted in efficient allocation and service provision
especially to the poor.
9
Include the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (1997) and the Framework for the Economic and
Financial Appraisal of Urban Development Projects (1994).
10
The hurdle rate for water supply investments is prescribed under NEDA-ICC guidelines for project evaluation
which also provides shadow prices for foreign exchange (SER), wage rate for unskilled (SWR) and other non-
tradable components of investment costs.
11
In a separate batch of participating cities/towns, WDDSP will also cover Cabuyao (Laguna) WD, Laguna WD,
Camarines Norte WD, Sorsogon WD and possibly a second phase for Metro Leyte WD focused on new water
source/s development, in addition to the five pilot WDs.
12
MDG goals refer to reducing extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), reducing child mortality (Goal 4), combating
major diseases (Goal 6), and improving access to improved water supply and basic sanitation services (Goal 7).
102
12.3 BEFORE- AND AFTER-PROJECT SITUATIONS
557. At present, about 75% of the estimated 117,739 service area population
(approximately 22,642 households) have access to LCWD’s piped water supply. The
remaining population depends on shallow wells (44%), deep wells (2%), water vendors
(11%), springs (5%), and other sources of water. Existing supply is 20,000m3/day which is
entirely provided by a bulk water supplier.
558. About 49% of the existing non-connected households, however, have expressed
interest to connect to LCWD’s piped water supply system and are willing to pay
Php231/month, or Php9.9/m3, for water.
559. Based on the proposed investments, the number of new connections, volume of
production, and service coverage are projected as shown in Table 12.1.
560. After completion of the investments in 2013 and up until 2025, the total volume of
supply will increase to 32,384m3/day from the current level of 20,000m3/day. The additional
supply capacity will enable some 4,902 households to directly connect to the system,
benefiting an estimated 25,490 city residents. In addition, some 1,636 non-domestic users,
consisting of institutional and commercial/industrial establishments, will also gain access to
the expanded piped network. Service coverage is estimated at 58% of the total service area
population that is projected to reach about 121,000 by 2025 from the current level of 88,404
people.
Table 12.1: Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply: 2009, 2015,
2020 & 2025
2009 2015 2020 2025
Service area population 117,739 147,972 178,204 208,437
3
Projected water demand (m /day) 14,902 17,420 19,566 21,636
3
Supply capacity (m /day) 20,000 32,384 32,384 32,384
No. of house connections 14,757 16,958 18,659 20,351
No. of non-domestic connections 2,542 3,221 3,898 4,578
Total population served 88,404 101,384 111,180 120,976
Service coverage (%) 75.1 68.5 62.4 58.0
12.4 ECONOMIC BENEFITS
561. The economic viability of the proposed investments in water supply was determined
considering the following benefits: (i) resource cost savings in terms of avoided costs of
producing, collecting, treating and storing non-piped water because of a shift in demand to
piped water supply, (ii) the economic value of incremental water due to increased supply, (iii)
the economic value of water that would have been lost due to non-technical reasons, (iv) the
value of time saved (or avoided income loss) for not having to collect water from existing
non-piped sources, (v) savings in medical costs because of reduced morbidity rate for
waterborne diseases, and (vi) avoided loss of income (productivity savings) due to reduced
incidence of diseases. For health benefits, impact of the investments focused solely on
diarrhea, among waterborne diseases13 that have occurred in the area, because of data
limitations.
13
Other diseases include typhoid, dengue, and helminthiasis.
103
562. The parameters and values used in quantifying the economic benefits of water supply
improvement are shown in Table 12.2.
563. There are other benefits that could result from improved water supply but such
benefits as income generated from the use of water for livelihood purposes and the multiplier
effect of increased income have been excluded from the analysis for lack of data.
Table 12.2: Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply

2015 2020 2025
Number of residential connections 16,958 18,659 20,351
Number of non-domestic connections 3,221 3,898 4,578
Total number of service connections 20,179 22,557 24,929
3
Average economic cost of water storage (Php/m ) 4.5 - -
Average economic cost of treatment (Php/day) 7.2 - -
Average economic cost of producing water (Php/m3) 3.1 - -
Ave. time spent in collecting water (min/day) 55 - -
% of time water collection is done by adults 74 - -
Econ. value of time spent in collecting water (Php/d) 7.7 - -
Residential water consumption (lpcd) 155 155 155
3
Production capacity provided by the Project (m /d) 12,384 12,384 12,384
Non-revenue water (%) 20 20 20
Non-technical losses (%) 2 2 2
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for under-5 (per 1,000) 11 - -
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for over-5 (per 1,000) 27 - -
Morbidity reduction for under-5 (%) 18 35 35
Morbidity reduction for over-5 (%) 7 26 26
Average number of days-sick 3.3 - -
Average medical cost per diarrhea case (Php/day) 575 - -
Ave. economic wage rate for unskilled labor (Php/day) 143 - -
12.5 WILLINGNESS TO PAY
564. As gathered through the socioeconomic survey conducted in April 2009, data on
willingness to connect (WTC) and willingness to pay (WTP) for water supply services are
given in the following table.
565. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the existing non-connected households have indicated
interest to connect to LCWD’s water supply system and are willing to pay an average of
Php231/month, or Php9.9/m3, for water.
Table 12.3: Willingness to Connect (WTC) and to Pay (WTP), Water Supply
Mean Value
Willingness to connect to an improved water supply service (%) 49

Willingness to pay for water (Php/month) 231.0
3
Willingness to pay for water (Php/m ) 9.9
12.6 ECONOMIC COSTS
566. Economic costs were derived from the financial estimates of capital and O&M costs
presented in Chapter 11, after eliminating all duties and taxes and multiplying the net results
by the appropriate price conversion factors (CF). Traded and non-traded components of
104
costs were estimated for which the following CFs were applied: shadow exchange rate for
traded goods of 1.2, shadow wage rate factor of 0.6 for unskilled labour, and a CF of 1.0 for
non-traded components. These parameters are prescribed under NEDA-ICC guidelines for
evaluating Philippine projects.
567. By applying the above conversion factors, the weighted overall CF for capital costs
was computed at 1.04. For O&M costs, the computed CF was 0.96. Using these conversion
factors, the economic cost equivalents of the proposed capital investments (including the
costs of replacing some physical assets that shall have outlived their useful economic life
during the 25-year projection period) and O&M costs are approximately Php105 million and
Php574 million, respectively.
568. The economic life of major physical assets were assumed at 50 years for transmission
mains, 50 years for distribution pipes, 50 years for treatment plant (15 years for equipment),
50 years for storage facilities, and 15 years for pumps.
12.7 EIRR AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
569. With the stream of economic benefits and costs over the assumed 25-year period, the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR) of the water supply investments is 14% which is
slightly lower than the assumed cut-off rate of 15% (see computations in Annex 12-1 of
Appendix 12).
570. Sensitivity test results based on (i) a 10% reduction in capital costs, and (ii) a 10%
reduction in O&M costs water show increases in the EIRR by 1.4 percentage points to 15.4%
which are above the EOCC benchmark. Reducing capital costs and O&M by a mere 10%
makes the investments economically viable. On the other hand, an increase in resource cost
savings and incremental water had the opposite effect of lowering the EIRR to just about
13.9% and 13.2% respectively. In the latter two cases, the EIRR remains below the EOCC
benchmark. Of the four key variables that were considered, the water supply subproject was
found to be most sensitive to changes in O&M costs (SI=0.97) followed by decrease in
capital costs (SI=0.94) and increase in incremental water (SI=0.6). Change in resource cost
savings has an insignificant impact on viability. The switching value, or the % change
required for EIRR to equalize the cut-off rate of 15%, for O&M costs is 103% and for capital
costs, 106%. For incremental water, the SV is 167%. Table 12.4 summarizes the results of
the base case analysis and the sensitivity tests.
Table 12.4: EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply

1
NPV EIRR %
2 3
Scenario (SLR mill.) (%) SI Change SV
Base case -5.2 14.0
10% reduction in capital costs 1.8 15.4 0.94 -10 106%
10% reduction in O&M costs 2.3 15.4 0.97 -10 103%
10% incr. in resource cost savings -5.9 13.9 0.09 10 1075%
10% incr. in incremental water -9.5 13.2 0.60 10 167%
1
NPV = Net Present Value discounted at EOCC of 15%
2
SI = Sensitivity Indicator (ratio of % change in EIRR to % change in variable)
3
SV = Switching Value (% change in variable required for NPV to become zero)
105
12.8 SUBPROJECT BENEFICIARIES
571. At the end of 2035, a total of 9,188 new water service connections shall have been
added to the existing ones. This will consist of 7,552 residential connections (82%) and 1,636
non-domestic connections (18%). An estimated overall total of 42,394 residents of Legazpi
City will directly benefit from the investments by having direct connection to the piped water
supply network.
Table 12.5: Subproject Beneficiaries until 2025, Water Supply

Domestic Non-Dom. Total Population
Conn. Conn. Conn. Served
Water supply 7,552 1,636 9,188 42,394
12.9 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
572. At full economic cost (i.e, capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC) or the marginal cost of producing each unit volume of water,
was computed at Php14.2/m3. Considering only capita costs, the AIEC is Php6.9/m3.
incremental water consumption, is Php23.8/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC, no
economic subsidy will be required.
Table 12.6: Project Sustainability, Water Supply

Value
3
AIEC (Php/m )
Economic capital + O&M (full cost) 14.24
Economic capital cost only 6.91
Economic O&M only 11.15
3
Average tariff at EOCC of 15% (Php/m ) 23.83
Economic cost recovery (%)
Capital + O&M cost 167%
Capital cost only 345%
O&M cost only 214%
106
APPENDIX 3.1: SOCIO-ECONOMIC SURVEY RESULTS –

LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
1 INTRODUCTION
1. The following household survey was conducted in May 2009 as part of the formulation
of a sector investment plan for urban water and sanitation under the Water District
Development Sector Project PPTA (Project Preparation Technical Assistance). The PPTA’s
objective was to (i) formulate a sector investment project (WDDSP) in the urban water supply
and sanitation sector with funding from ADB and other investment sources, and, (ii) prepare
implementation support and institutional development programs addressing sector reform,
governance and public awareness.
2. A key task of the PPTA was the preparation of a Subproject Appraisal Report (SPAR)
for 5 pilot water districts that participated in the PPTA. These were:
1. Metro La Union Water District, La Union Province, Luzon.

2. Quezon Metro Water District, Quezon Province, Luzon.
3. Legazpi City Water District, Albay Province, Luzon.
4. Leyte Metro Water District, Leyte Province, Visayas.
5. Koronadal City Water District, South Cotabato Province, Mindanao.
3. The SPARs’ subproject scope, cost estimates, financing plan and feasibility were
prepared based on an analysis of the existing situation, local development plans and
priorities and findings from field surveys. The household survey generated empirical data on
the target participants.
4. At least 384 respondents were interviewed to reach a 95% level of confidence at 0.1
standard deviation. Stratified random sampling was used to determine the survey sample,
with three levels of stratification—municipality/city, serviced/expansion areas, and
barangays—in both service/expansion sites.
5. The survey result is here summarized. The tables also serve as baseline data against
which future project impacts can be assessed and as input in the design of information and
education materials and of interventions for identified areas for improvement.
6. Some variables that were covered were:

• Demographic characteristics
• Gender roles and preferences
• Profile on health and hygiene practices
• Poverty groups, indicators and responses
• Identification of community organizations
• Sources of vulnerability and responses
• Water and sanitation situation, attitudes, perceptions and preferences
o access to facility and sanitation maintenance practices
o attitude towards water and sanitation services
o demand by service type (water and sanitation)
o sources and levels of water supply accessed
o perceptions on sanitation and water and service quality
o affordability and willingness to pay
7. Certain data sets were disaggregated by water district connection (connected or non-
connected households) or cross-tabulated by gender and poverty characteristics,
107
corresponding to the different sections of this report. Section 1 is a profile of respondents.

Section 2 contains comparisons for connected and non-connected households. Sections 3
and 4 are profiles on water and sanitation by WD-connected or non-connected households.
Section 5 covers characteristics and preferences of poor and non-poor respondents.
8. An additional section covers gender disaggregated data by female or male-headed

households on such variables as roles and access to resources, or by male or female
respondents on attitudes and preferences. The sections are follows:
1. Socio-economic profile of households
2. Socio-economic profile of households classified by type of household
3. Water consumption and preferences of wd-connected households
4. Water consumption and preferences of wd-connected households
5. Water supply and sanitation preferences by socio-economic status of
households.
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Socio-Economic Profile of Households: Legazpi City 108
Water District
II. Socio-Economic Profile of Households Classified by Type 131

of Household: Legazpi City Water District
III. Water Consumption and Preferences of WD-Connected 141

Households: Legazpi City Water District
IV. Water Consumption and Preferences of Non-Connected 153

Households: Legazpi City Water District
V. Water Supply and Sanitation Preferences by Socio- 165

Economic Status of Households: Legazpi City Water
District
Annexes:
1 Gender Tables 168
2 Distribution of Sample Households for the WDDPS Household Survey 200
108
I. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS: LEGAZPI CITY WATER

DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Number of Household

Members
Total number of HH
Percent
members
1-2 7.5%
3-4 27.0%
5-6 32.2%
7-8 21.8%
9-10 7.8%
More than 10 3.6%
Average Household Size 5.68
N Cases 385
Less than ten percent (7.5%) of households in Legazpi City WD have only one or two
members. While six out of ten (59%) of the households have three to six members, one-third
(33%) are composed of more than six members. The average size of households in Legazpi
City WD is 5.68.

Members who are 14 Years Old and Below
Total number of HH
members 14 years old and Percent
below
None 27.3%
1-2 42.9%
3-4 21.3%
5-6 7.8%
7-8 0.8%
9-10 0.0%
Average number of HH
members 14 years old and 1.79
below
N Cases 385
The average number of young members per household in Legazpi City WD is 1.79. A little
over one-fourth (27%) of the households in Legazpi City WD do not have young household
members who are 14 years or below. Meanwhile, a great majority of the Legazpi City WD
109
households (64%) have one to four young household members, while a very few (9%) have
more than four young household members.

Members who are 65 Years Old or Older
Total number of HH
Percent
members 65 years +
None 78.2%
1-2 21.3%
3-4 0.5%
5 or more 0.0%
N Cases 385
A little over three-fourths (78%) of the households in Legazpi City WD do not have household
members who are 65 years old or over. Meanwhile, a fifth of these households (21%) have
one or two older person/s household members and very few (<1%) have more than two older
persons as household members.
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households Living in

the Dwelling Unit
Number of HHs in the

Percent
dwelling unit
1 86.9%
2 8.4%
3 2.6%
4 or more 2.1%
N Cases 383
Sole occupancy of dwelling unit is accounted for by 87% of the households in Legazpi City
WD. There are few households (13%) who share their dwelling units with one or more
households.
110
Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Households by Length of Stay in the Barangay
Number of years in the

Percent
barangay
Less than 10 years 14.4%
10-19 years 27.0%
20-29 years 18.1%
30-39 years 16.8%
40-49 years 10.5%
50 years or over 13.4%
Average length of stay in

27 years
the barangay (in years)
N Cases 382
On the average, households in Legazpi City WD have stayed 27 years in their barangay of
current residence. Few of the households (14.4%) in Legazpi City WD were in the barangay
for less than 10 years. On the other hand, six out of ten (62%) of the Legazpi City WD
households have stayed in the barangay between 10 and 39 years. About one-fourth (24%)
of these households have stayed in the barangay for 40 years or more.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household Income
Total Monthly
Percent
Household Income
No income 0.3%
Less than P5,000 25.0%
P5,000 - 9,999 35.8%
P10,000 - 14,999 17.9%
P15,000 - 19,999 6.1%
P20,000 - 29,999 8.9%
P30,000 - 39,999 2.6%
P40,000 - 49,999 1.6%
P50,000 or more 1.8%
Average Total Monthly P 11,094

Household Income
N Cases 380
Only two percent of the households in Legazpi City WD belong to the highest income bracket
(P50,000 or more) while six out of ten of the households (61%) have incomes within the P5,
000 – 9,999 brackets. About one-fifth of the Legazpi City WD households (18%) have an
income of at least P10,000 but below P15,000. On the average, monthly household income
in Legazpi City WD is P11,094.
111
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household

Expenditure
Total Monthly
Percent
Household Expenditure
P3,000 - 4,999 17.5%
P5,000 - 9,999 36.8%
P10,000 - 14,999 22.2%
P15,000 - 19,999 5.6%
P20,000 - 29,999 7.4%
P30,000 - 49,999 1.6%
P50,000 or over 1.3%
Average Total Monthly

Household Expenditure P 10,570
N Cases 378
Very few of the households in Legazpi City WD (8%) have a total monthly household
expenditure of less than P3,000. Meanwhile, more than half of the households (54%) spend
on average P3,000 to P9,999 per month, and one-fifth of the households (22%) have a total
monthly household expenditure of P10,000 to P14,999. Some of the households (16%)
spend P15,000 or more per month. On the average, monthly household expenditure in
Legazpi City WD is P10,570.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Households by Average Total Monthly

Household Savings

Percent
Household Savings
None 65.6%
P1,000 - 1,999 5.6%
P2,000 - 2,999 3.2%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.5%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.3%
P5,000 or over 4.3%
N Cases 375
High incidence of lack of savings is observed among the households in the Legazpi City WD
district (66%). Two out of ten households (21%) have average monthly savings of less than
P1,000; and about one out of ten Legazpi City WD households (9%) have average monthly
savings of at least P1,000 but not more than P4,999. Very few of these households (less
than 5%) have over P5,000 average monthly savings.
112
Table 9. Ownership of Valuable Items by Households
Percent of
Valuable items
households
Transport (car, motorcycle,
tricycle) 26.8%
Truck 1.0%
Television 85.2%
Refrigerator 49.1%
Telephone/Cellular phone 73.2%
Washing machine 26.2%
Air Conditioner 7.0%
Personal computer 11.7%
Electric water pump/
overhead tank 3.9%
Others items: e.g., DVD
player, fan, videoke, etc. 13.8%
N Cases 385
Large majority of the households in Legazpi City WD own television (85%) and
telephone/cellular phone (73%). About half of the households (49%) own a refrigerator while
only one-fourth (26%) own a washing machine. Interestingly, one in every four households
in the area (27%) own some means of transport, e.g. car, motorcycle or tricycle. Only a few
households could afford the luxury of owning a personal computer (12%) or an air
conditioner (7%).
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Households by Gender of the Household Head
Gender of the
Percent
Household Head
Male 74.3%
Female 25.7%
N Cases 385
Headship by a male household member is common in Legazpi City WD as reflected by 74%

of the male-headed households, in contrast with female-headed households at 26%.
113
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ethnic Affiliation of the

Household Head
Ethnic Affiliation of
Percent
Household Head
Bicolano 92.7%
Tagalog 0.5%
Bisaya 0.3%
Pampangeño 0.3%
Marinduque 0.3%
Pangasinan 0.3%
Mindanao (no specific
0.3%
ethnicity)
No Info 5.5%
N Cases 385
As expected, the ethnic affiliation of almost all household heads in Legazpi City WD is
Bicolano (93%). Only very few of the households (7%) are headed by a non-Bicolano.
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Highest Grade Completed by

the Household Head
Highest Grade Completed by

Percent
the Household Head
No schooling 0.8%
Elementary 31.2%
High School 32.8%
Vocational training 5.3%
College and over 29.9%
N Cases 375
Three out of ten households in Legazpi City WD (30%) are headed by college-educated
persons. On the other hand, about one-third of these households have heads with high
school education (33%) or elementary education (31%). Almost nil are households (<1%)
headed by a person with no schooling.
114
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Current Occupation of the

Household Head
Current Occupation of the

Percent
Household Head
Farming or fishing 11.2%
Own business 18.8%
Government employee 9.1%
Private employee 10.9%
Temporary labourer 14.1%
Street vendor 2.3%
Retired/Pensioner 7.0%
Unemployed 13.3%
Others 13.3%
N Cases 384
Eighty-seven percent of the households in Legazpi City WD have heads that are engaged in
a certain type of occupation while the remaining households (13%) have unemployed heads.
Those with household heads that are self-employed in business are accounted by one out of
five households in the area (19%). Meanwhile, one of ten of the households is headed by
person who is either a government employee (9%) or a private employee (11%). Still, a few
of the households in Legazpi City WD (11%) are headed by farmers or fishermen.
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the House

Occupied
Ownership Status of
Percent
the House
House owner 91.7%
Caretaker 2.1%
Rent-free occupant 2.3%
Renter 3.6%
Others: relatives, etc 0.3%
N Cases 385
Almost all of the households in Legazpi City WD (92%) own their houses. Renters only
account for four percent of the households in Legazpi City WD.
115
Table 15. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot on

which House is Built
Ownership Status of
Percent
the Lot
Owned 40.9%
Caretaker 3.9%
Rented/Leased 9.1%
Common property with other
family members or relatives 13.9%
Government land 32.3%
Others 7.6%
N Cases 384
Four out of ten households in Legazpi City WD (41%) have their houses built on owned lots.
Interestingly, a little over three out of ten of these households in the area (32%) put up
houses on government-owned lands. Meanwhile, communal ownership of the lot with
relatives is reported by 14% of the households and about one-tenth rent/lease the lots where
their houses are built on (9%).
Table 16. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Building/House
Type of building/house Percent
Single 94.3%
Duplex 3.1%
Apartment/condominium/town
house 1.0%
Commercial/industrial/
agricultural bldg 0.0%
Others 1.6%
N Cases 385
At 94%, single-detached house is the predominant type of dwelling unit among the
households in Legazpi City WD. Duplex units are reported only by three percent of the
households in the water district.
116
Table 17. Percentage Distribution of Households by Materials that Predominantly

Make Up the Dwelling Unit
Observed materials that make

Percent
up the dwelling unit
Strong materials 36.9%
Light materials 15.3%
Mixed but predominantly strong
materials 26.8%
Mixed but predominantly light
materials 19.2%
Salvaged/makeshift materials 1.3%
Mixed but predominantly
salvaged materials 0.5%
N Cases 385
Majority of the households in the district of Legazpi City WD (64%) have dwelling units made
up of strong materials or mixed but predominantly strong materials. Conversely, a little over
one-third of the households in this area (35%) have dwelling units which are of light materials
or mixed but predominantly light materials.
Table 18. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility
Type of Toilet Facility Percent

Water-sealed (flush or
pourflush) connected to
sewerage system 0.0%
pourflush) connected to septic
tank 74.8%
pourflush) connected to pit 2.6%
pourflush) connected to
drainage 8.3%
Non-water sealed (ventilated
improved pit, sanitary pit privy,
closed pit) 1.6%
Non-water sealed (open pit
privy, overhang) 1.3%
Shared toilet 7.8%
Public toilet 0.5%
No toilet (wrap and throw,
arinola, bush, sea/marshland ,
river 3.1%
N Cases 385
Three-fourths of the households in Legazpi City WD (75%) have water-sealed toilets

connected to a septic tank. One out of ten of these households (11%) have water-sealed
117
toilets of different sewerage types (drainage or pit). A very few of the households in this
district (<5%) have no toilets at all.
Table 19. Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction of Households and Reasons Cited for

Dissatisfaction (Multiple Responses) with Current Toilet System
Indicators Percent
Percent of households satisfied

with current toilet system 83.6%
Percent of households
dissatisfied with current toilet
system 16.4%
N Cases 384
Reasons for dissatisfaction

Backflow 36.8%
Foul odor 17.5%
Combination of backflow
resulting to foul odor and
inconvenience 42.1%
Rodent infestation 0.0%
Flies/Insects 3.5%
N Cases 57
Satisfaction over their current toilet system is generally high in the Legazpi City WD district
as reported by 84% of the total households. However, among the households dissatisfied
with their current toilet system, the most predominant reasons they gave are backflow of
water most often resulting to foul odor and inconvenience (42%) and backflow (37%).
118
Table 20. Percentage Distribution of Households by Estimated Distance of Septic

Tank from Source of Water
Distance of septic tank to

Percent
nearest water source
0-4 meters 12.3%
5-9 meters 15.2%
10-14 meters 18.8%
15-19 meters 11.0%
20-29 meters 17.5%
30-39 meters 7.8%
40-49 meters 0.3%
50 meters or over 17.2%
Average Distance (in meters) 42.0 meters
N Cases 309
More than half of the households in Legazpi City WD (57%) do not meet the 25-meter
minimum distance of septic tank to nearest source of water as set in the National Sanitation
Code as their septic tanks are located less than 20 meters from the nearest water source. On
the other hand, one-fourth of the households in this district (25%) have septic tanks that are
30 meters or more from the nearest water source.
Table 21. Percentage Distribution of Households Willing to Improve Septage

System and Type of Improvement Preferred
Indicators Percent
Percent of HHs that would like

27.5%
to improve septage system
N Cases 385
Type of improvement preferred

Installation of septic tank 22.6%
Improvement/ rehabilitation
39.6%
of existing septic tank
De-sludging of septic tank 45.3%
N Cases 106
About three of ten households in Legazpi City WD (28%) intend to improve their septage
system. Nature of intended improvements is mostly in the de-sludging of septic tank (45%)
and rehabilitation of existing tank (40%).
119
Table 22A. Percentage Distribution of Households who are Willing to Pay for
Improvement of Septage System and Amount Willing to Pay (In Pesos)
Indicators Percent
Percent of households willing to

15.1%
pay for installation of septic tank
N Cases 106
Amount willing to pay

Less than P10,000 56.3%
P10,000 - 14,999 25.0%
P15,000 - 19,999 0.0%
P20,000 – 25,000 12.5%
More than P25,000 6.3%
N Cases 16

pay for improvement/
30.2%
rehabilitation of existing septic
tank
N Cases 106

P5,000 - 9,999 6.5%
P10,000 - 14,999 51.6%
P15,000 or over 22.6%
N Cases 31
Among the households in Legazpi City WD district who are willing to improve their septage
system, only 15% are willing to pay for the installation of septic tank. A little more than half of
which (56%) are willing to pay less than P10,000 for the septic tank installation and one-
fourth of these households (25%) are willing to spend P10,000 to P14,999 for this kind of
improvement. On the other hand, 30% of the Legazpi City WD district households who are
willing to improve their septage system are also willing to pay for the rehabilitation of their
existing septic tank. Among these households, about one out of five (19%) are willing to pay
less than P5,000 while about three in four (74%) are willing to pay P10,000 or more for the
rehabilitation of their septic tanks.
120
Table 22B. Percentage Distribution of Households who are Willing to Pay for De-
sludging of Septic Tank and Amount Willing to Pay (In Pesos)
Indicators Percent

pay for de-sludging of septic 45.3%
tank
N Cases 106

P1,000 - 1,999 11.8%
P2,000 - 2,999 11.8%
P3,000 - 3,999 41.2%
P4,000 - 4,999 0.0%
P5,000 - 5,999 11.8%
P7,000 - 7,999 0.0%
P9,000 - 9,999 0.0%
P10,000 or more 5.9%
N Cases 34
Forty-five percent of the households in Legazpi City WD district who are willing to improve
their septage system are willing to pay for septic tank de-sludging. Among these
households, 18% are willing to spend less than P1,000 for the de-sludging of their septic
tanks. Meanwhile, 65% of these households are willing to pay at least P1,000 but not over
P5,000 for this improvement in their septage sytem and the rest are willing to pay P5,000 or
more.
121
Table 23. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Source(s) of Water

(Multiple Responses)
Primary Source(s) of Water Percent
Piped connection 69.9%

Shallow well 44.4%
Water vendors 11.2%
Deep well 1.8%
Public/Street faucet 0.8%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 4.9%
Rain 1.6%
N Cases 385
Piped connection is the top primary source of water in Legazpi City WD as reported by seven
out of ten households (70%). Many households in this district (44%) reported that they also
get water from shallow wells. Few of the households in the area (11%) buy water from
vendors. And very few households in Legazpi City WD get their water from other sources like
spring/river/pond/ stream (5%), deep well (<5%), rain (<5%) and public/street faucet (<5%).
Table 24. Percentage Distribution of Households which are WD-Connected and

Non-connected
WD-Connection Percent
WD-connected Households 55.6%

Non-connected Households 44.4%
N Cases 385
More than half of the Legazpi City WD households (56%) have water district connection.
122
Table 25A. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Percent of households whose members wash

hands:
Before cooking 98.4%
N Cases 385
Washing with:
With soap and water 91.8%
With water only 8.2%
Others 0.0%
N Cases 379
Before eating 100.0%

N Cases 385
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 385
After using the toilet 99.7%

N Cases 385
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 384
Before breastfeeding 92.8%

N Cases 69
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 64
Hand washing, as personal hygiene and health practice, is observed by almost all of
households in Legazpi City WD before cooking (98%), before eating (100%), after using the
toilet (100%), and before breastfeeding (93%). Consistently, almost all households reported
washing with soap and water.
123
Table 25B. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Percent of households whose members wash

hands:
Before feeding children 98.2%
N Cases 163
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 160
After changing diapers 91.7%

N Cases 84
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 76
After washing the children 98.8%

after toilet
N Cases 164
Washing with:
Others 0.0%
N Cases 162
It can also be gleaned from Table 25B that hand washing is practiced by almost all of
households in Legazpi City WD before feeding children (98%), after changing diapers (92%)
and after washing the children after toilet (99%). Almost all of these households also reported
washing with soap and water.
124
Table 25C. Percentage Distribution of Households by Hygiene and Health Practices
Hygiene and Health

Percent
Practices
Place where children/infants

go for toilet purposes
Toilet 91.8%
Gutter/water canals 2.0%
River 0.6%
Garden/backyard 2.3%
Urinals/urinola 1.4%
Disposable diapers 2.0%
N Cases 353
Places where children/infants go for toilet are unusual in latrines like gutter/water canals,
river, garden/backyard and urinals as 92% of households use conventional toilets for this
purpose.
Table 26. Percentage Distribution of Households by Various Health and Food Security
Indicators
Indicators Percent
Number of times household eats in a day

1-2 times a day 0.0%
3 times a day 29.6%
4 times or more 69.9%
No information 0.5%
% of households who have children who died

7.0%
before reaching the age of 6 years
% of households who have at least one

member who died during pregnancy or 1.6%
childbirth
N cases 385
In terms of food security, almost all of the households in Legazpi City WD generally eat at
least three times a day. Looking at the health condition in Legazpi City WD, death of a child
who is five years old or below was experienced by seven percent of the households in the
water district. On maternal deaths, two percent of the Legazpi City WD households had
experienced death of a female member due to pregnancy or childbirth.
125
Table 27A. Access to Loans and Borrowings of Households
Indicators Percent
% of households with member(s)

76.9%
who ever borrowed money
N Cases 385
Number of times household

member(s) borrowed money
during the past year
0 6.9%
1 23.8%
2 28.2%
3 14.1%
4 5.8%
5 6.1%
6 3.2%
7 1.1%
8 0.4%
9 0.4%
10 1.8%
More than 10 times 8.3%
N Cases 277
Among the 77% percent of the households in Legazpi City WD that have member/s who
have ever borrowed money, more than half (52%) have members who have borrowed money
once or twice during the past year. Forty one percent of the households have members who
have borrowed money more than twice in the past year while only seven percent of these
households do not have members who borrowed money during the same period.
126
Table 27B. Access to Loans and Borrowings of Households
Indicators Percent
Sources of credit
Relative/Friend 44.9%
Five-Six 12.2%
Micro-finance institution 36.1%
Cooperative 4.4%
Bank 7.1%
Employer 3.7%
GSIS/SSS 5.4%
Store 2.0%
Credit card 1.7%
Palay/Copra buyer 0.0%
Pawnshop 0.3%
N Cases 296
Purpose for borrowing

Household expenses 45.3%
Business/Farm inputs 36.5%
Food 28.7%
Education 27.7%
Medical expenses 9.8%
Pay off debt 3.0%
Build/Renovate house 4.7%
Purchase/Repair of 1.0%
furniture/appliances
Fiesta/Entertainment 0.7%
N Cases 296
Relatives/friends which are an informal credit sources is the top credit source in Legazpi City
WD as reported by 45% households. Other main sources of credit by households in Legazpi
City WD are micro-finance institutions (36%), five-six (12%) and banks (7%).
At 45%, household expenses lead as the purpose for borrowing by the households in
Legazpi City WD. Other main purposes for borrowing as reported by households are
business/farm inputs (37%), food (29%) and education (28%).
127
Table 28. Calamity Experiences of Households
Indicators Percent
Percent of households that have ever

experienced any kind of calamity in the 99.7%
community
Percent of households that have ever

experienced any of the following in the
community
Earthquake 40.3%
Flood 76.6%
Typhoon 99.2%
Fire 1.0%
Landslide 1.8%
Percent of households whose water source

49.6%
has ever been affected by flooding
Percent of households whose septic

tank/latrine/pit has ever been affected by 27.3%
flooding
N Cases 385
Practically all the households in the Legazpi City WD have ever experienced at least one
kind of calamity, particularly typhoon. Huge proportion of the households (77%) and some
40% have also experienced flooding and earthquake, respectively. Only very few have
witnessed events of fire or landslide in their communities.
As far as direct impacts of calamities to their abode, lifelines and utilities are concerned,
about half of the households in the Legazpi City WD have their water sources affected one
way or another by flood. Meanwhile, a lesser proportion of households (27%) have their
septic tanks, latrines or pits affected.
128
Table 29. Disability and Experiences of Discrimination Among Households
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at least one

6.2%
member who is disabled
N Cases 385
Form of disability of household member(s)

Physical 79.2%
Mental 4.2%
Both physical and mental 16.7%
N Cases 24

member who has been discriminated in the 16.4%
community

member who has been discriminated 1.6%
because of disability

member who has been discriminated in the 10.9%
community because of social status
N Cases
Six percent of the households in the Legazpi City WD have at least one physically and/or
mentally disabled member. About four out of five of the disabled household members are
afflicted with physical ailment, 4% are mentally incapacitated and 17% are both physically
and mentally debilitated.
Discrimination due to various reasons has been felt by 16% of the households in the Legazpi
City WD. Specifically, 11 percent of the households have sensed discrimination in their
community because of their social status. Disability has been perceived only by a few (2%) to
be a reason for being discriminated.
129
Table 30. Household Access to Health Insurance Benefits and Other Forms of
Assistance
Indicators Percent

member who is a member of PhilHealth or 79.0%
has any health insurance coverage

member who has received any form of 33.2%
assistance for health expenses
N Cases 385
About four out of five households in the Legazpi City WD have at least one member who is a
member of PhilHealth or has any health insurance coverage. Moreover, one-third of the
households have accessed monetary assistance from people or other institutions to cover
medical expenses at the time of sickness of their member(s).
130
Table 31. Membership in Community Organizations and Voting Exercise
Indicators Percent

member who is a member of any 46.5%
community organization

member who is a member of the following
organizations:
Homeowners’ association 2.3%
Cooperative 1.6%
Women’s association 18.2%
Savings association 2.6%
Religious organization 7.8%
Other organizations 19.5%
N Cases 385
Percent of households whose eligible

members have voted during the last 98.4%
election
N Cases 385
Reasons of household member(s) for having

not voted during the last election
Not registered 16.7%
Not interested 0.0%
Busy 0.0%
Sick or away during the election 50.0%
No information 33.3%
N Cases 6
Almost half of the households in the Legazpi City WD have at least one member who is a
member of any community organization. The most popular organizations participated in by
the household members are the women’s association and religious organizations. Other
community organizations cited include senior citizens’ clubs, employees associations, micro-
lending associations and other socio-civic groups.
Practically almost all of the households have at least one eligible member who voted during
the last election, be it national or local. Of those few households with members who did not
go to the election polls to cast their votes, the most cited reason was illness or physical
absence during the election.
131
II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS CLASSIFIED BY TYPE

OF HOUSEHOLD: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households Living in

the Dwelling Unit
Type of Household
Number of HHs in the WD- Non- Total
dwelling unit connected connected
HHs HHs
1 85.0% 89.4% 86.9%
2 10.8% 5.3% 8.4%
3 1.9% 3.5% 2.6%
4 or more 2.3% 1.8% 2.1%
N Cases 213 170 383
Eighty-five percent of WD-connected households and 89.4% of the non-connected

households are sole occupants of their dwelling units. On the whole, there are more WD-
connected households that live together with other households (10.6%) in one dwelling unit
compared to the WD-connected households (15%).

Members
Type of Household
Total number of HH WD- Non- Total
members connected connected
HHs HHs
All members
1-2 5.6% 9.9% 7.5%
3-4 27.2% 26.7% 27.0%
5-6 32.9% 31.4% 32.2%
7-8 21.1% 22.7% 21.8%
9-10 8.0% 7.6% 7.8%
10 or more 5.2% 1.7% 3.6%
Average Household Size 5.8 5.5 5.68
N Cases 213 172 385
132

Members (CONTINUATION)
Type of Household
Total number of HH WD- Non- Total
members connected connected
HHs HHs
Members 14 years old and below

None 30.5% 23.3% 27.3%
1-2 45.5% 39.5% 42.9%
3-4 19.7% 23.3% 21.3%
5-6 3.3% 13.4% 7.8%
7-8 0.9% 0.6% 0.8%
Average Number of HH members

14 years old & below 1.5 2.1 1.8
N Cases 213 172 385
Members 65 years old or over

None 77.5% 79.1% 78.2%
1-2 21.6% 20.9% 21.3%
3-4 0.9% 0.0% 0.5%
5 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 213 172 385
Average household size is slightly higher among the WD-connected households compared to
non-connected households, 5.8 versus 5.5. Meanwhile, the proportion of households with
more than 6 members is higher among the WD-connected households (34.3%) than among
the non-connected households (32.0%).
The proportion of households with members aged 14 years and below members is higher
among the non-connected households (76.7%) than among the WD-connected households
(69.5%). Consequently, the average number of young household members is higher among
the non-connected households (2.1) compared to the WD-connected households (1.5).
With regard to the elderly household members, 22.5% of WD-connected households and
20.9% of non-connected households have members aged 65 and over.
133
Type of Household
Number of years in WD- Non- Total
the barangay connected connected
HHs HHs
Less than 10 years 14.2% 14.6% 14.4%
10-19 years 23.2% 31.6% 27.0%
20-29 years 20.9% 14.6% 18.1%
30-39 years 18.0% 15.2% 16.8%
40-49 years 11.8% 8.8% 10.5%
50 years or over 11.8% 15.2% 13.4%
Average length of stay in the

barangay 27 years 27 years 27 years
N Cases 211 171 382
The average length of stay of households in the barangay of current residence is 27 years,
and the figure does not vary between the WD-connected households and the non-connected
households. The percentage of households that have stayed for 10-19 years in their
barangay of current residence is significantly higher among the non-connected (31.6%) than
among the WD-connected households (23.2%). On the contrary, the percentage of
households that have stayed for 20-29 years in their current barangay of residence is
significantly higher among the WD-connected (20.9%) than among the non-connected
households (14.6%).
134

Household Income (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Total monthly income WD- Non- Total
of the HH connected connected
HHs HHs
No income 0.5% 0.0% 0.3%
Less than P 5,000 14.4% 38.0% 25.0%
P 5,000 - 9,999 34.9% 36.8% 35.8%
P 10,000 - 14,999 22.0% 12.9% 17.9%
P 15,000 - 19,999 7.2% 4.7% 6.1%
P 20,000 - 29,999 12.0% 5.3% 8.9%
P 30,000 - 39,999 3.8% 1.2% 2.6%
P 40,000 - 49,999 1.9% 1.2% 1.6%
P 50,000 and over 3.3% 0.0% 1.8%

Household Income P 13,488 P 8,169 P 11,094
N Cases 209 171 380
Data generally shows that WD-connected households earn higher income than non-
connected households. On the average, a WD-connected household earns P13,488 per
month while a non-connected household earns P8,169 per month. Non-connected
households mostly earn less than P5,000 (38%) and P5,000 – 9,999 (36.8%).
135

Household Expenditure (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Total Monthly Household WD- Non- Total
Expenditure connected connected
HHs HHs
Less than P3,000 2.9% 13.4% 7.7%
P3,000 - 4,999 13.1% 22.7% 17.5%
P5,000 - 9,999 34.0% 40.1% 36.8%
P10,000 - 14,999 26.7% 16.9% 22.2%
P15,000 - 19,999 8.3% 2.3% 5.6%
P20,000 - 29,999 10.7% 3.5% 7.4%
P30,000 - 49,999 2.4% 0.6% 1.6%
P50,000 or over 1.9% 0.6% 1.3%
Average total monthly household

expenditure (in Pesos) P 12,845 P 7,845 P 10,570
N Cases 206 172 378
Consistent with the income pattern of households, the average expenditure of WD-connected
households (P12,845) is higher than that of the non-connected households (P7,845). Most
of the non-connected households (76.2%) spend less than P10,000 per month.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Households by Average Total Monthly Household

Savings (in Pesos)
Type of Household
Average Total Monthly WD- Non- Total
Household Savings connected connected
HHs HHs
None 62.7% 69.0% 65.6%
Less than P1,000 16.7% 25.1% 20.5%
P1,000 - 1,999 6.9% 4.1% 5.6%
P2,000 - 2,999 5.4% 0.6% 3.2%
P3,000 - 3,999 1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.5% 0.0% 0.3%
P5,000 or over 6.9% 1.2% 4.3%
N Cases 204 171 375
Most of the WD-connected (62.7%) and non-connected (69%) households are not able to
save. One-fourth of non-connected households and 16.7% of WD-connected are able to
save an average of P1,000 per month. Higher amount of monthly savings is achieved by the
WD-connected households as shown by the 13.5% of WD-connected versus the 1.8% of
non-connected households that are able to save at least P2,000 a month.
136
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of the Household Head
Type of Household
Sex of the Household WD- Non- Total
Head connected connected
HHs HHs
Male 73.2% 75.6% 74.3%
Female 26.8% 24.4% 25.7%
N Cases 213 172 385
Largely, 74.3% of households are male-headed with 73.2% for WD-connected households
and 75.6% for non-connected households. Female-headed households are at 26.8% among
the WD-connected households and 24.4% of the non-connected households.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Households by Highest Grade Completed by the

Household Head
Type of Household
Highest Grade Completed by the WD- Non- Total
Household Head connected connected
HHs HHs
No schooling 1.0% 0.6% 0.8%
Elementary 26.0% 37.7% 31.2%
High School 26.9% 40.1% 32.8%
Vocational training 5.3% 5.4% 5.3%
College and over 40.9% 16.2% 29.9%
N Cases 208 167 375
Forty one percent of the heads of WD-connected households have reached at least college
level education, indicating the higher educational attainment among the heads of WD-
connected households. Majority (77.8%) of the heads of non-connected households have
reached either elementary or high school levels.
137
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Households by Current Occupation of the

Household Head
Type of Household
Current Occupation of the WD- Non- Total
Household Head connected connected
HHs HHs
Farming or fishing 4.7% 19.3% 11.2%
Own business 20.2% 17.0% 18.8%
Government employee 12.7% 4.7% 9.1%
Private employee 13.1% 8.2% 10.9%
Temporary laborer 13.1% 15.2% 14.1%
Street vendor 0.9% 4.1% 2.3%
Retired/Pensioner 10.8% 2.3% 7.0%
Unemployed 10.8% 16.4% 13.3%
Others 13.6% 12.9% 13.3%
N Cases 213 171 384
The percentage of household heads engaged in business, employed in private firms and in
government is significantly higher among the WD-connected households (46.0%) compared
to those among the non-connected households (29.9%). Consequently, the proportion of
those engaged in economic activities in the informal sector (laborer, street vendor, others
which drivers and domestic helpers) is higher among the non-connected households.
Reliance on pension is more common among the WD-connected households. Moreover,
unemployment among the household heads is more prevalent among the non-connected
households.
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the House

Occupied
Type of Household
Ownership Status of the WD- Non- Total
House connected connected
HHs HHs
House owner 92.0% 91.3% 91.7%
Caretaker 1.9% 2.3% 2.1%
Rent-free occupant 0.9% 4.1% 2.3%
Renter 4.7% 2.3% 3.6%
Others: relatives, etc 0.5% 0.0% 0.3%
N Cases 213 172 385
Ownership of the occupied housing unit is high as more than 90 percent of the houses are
owned by the households dwelling in them. Ninety-two percent of WD-connected households
and 91.3% of non-connected households own their houses.
138
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot on

which House is Built
Type of Household
Ownership Status of WD- Non- Total
the Lot connected connected
HHs HHs
Owned 44.8% 36.0% 40.9%
Caretaker 2.4% 5.8% 3.9%
Rented/Leased 9.9% 8.1% 9.1%
Common property with other
family members or relatives 3.3% 9.9% 6.3%
Government land 31.6% 33.1% 32.3%
Others 8.0% 7.0% 7.6%
N Cases 212 172 384
Lots on which their houses are built are owned by 44.8% of the WD-connected households
and 36% of non-connected households. Almost thirty two percent of the WD-connected
households and 33.1% percent of non-connected households occupy houses built on
government land. Renting or leasing of land is slightly more prevalent among the WD-
connected households (9.9%) than among the non-connected households (8.1%). There are
more non-connected households co-owning their home lots with other family members or
relatives (9.9%) than the WD-connected households (3.3%).
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Building/House
Type of Household
Type of building/house WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Single 92.0% 97.1% 94.3%
Duplex 4.2% 1.7% 3.1%
Apartment/condominium/
townhouse 1.9% 0.0% 1.0%
Commercial/industrial/
agricultural bldg 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Others 1.9% 1.2% 1.6%
N Cases 213 172 385
Most of the households, 92% of WD-connected households and 97.1% of non-connected

households, are living in single detached type of dwelling unit. There are more connected
households living in duplex and multiple type of houses (6.1%) than non-connected
households (1.7%).
139
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Materials that Predominantly

Make Up the Dwelling Unit
Type of Household
Observed materials that make up WD- Non- Total
the dwelling unit connected connected
HHs HHs
Strong materials 52.6% 17.4% 36.9%
Light materials 13.1% 18.0% 15.3%
Mixed but predominantly strong
materials 20.7% 34.3% 26.8%
materials 12.7% 27.3% 19.2%
Salvaged/makeshift materials 0.5% 2.3% 1.3%
Mixed but predominantly salvaged
materials 0.5% 0.6% 0.5%
N Cases 213 172 385
More than half (52.6%) of the WD-connected households’ houses are made up of strong
materials as compared with 17.4% for non-connected households. However, houses made
up of mixed but predominantly strong materials (34.3%) were highest for non-connected
household as opposed to 20.7% of WD-connected households. On the whole, data shows
that WD-connected households appear to be living in dwelling units made up of stronger
materials compared to the non-connected households.
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Sources of Water

Type of Household
Primary Source of Water WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Piped connection 100.0% 32.6% 69.9%
Public/Street faucet 0.0% 1.7% 0.8%
Deep well 0.0% 4.1% 1.8%
Shallow well 19.2% 75.6% 44.4%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 2.3% 8.1% 4.9%
Rain 0.5% 2.9% 1.6%
Water vendors 14.6% 7.0% 11.2%
N Cases 213 172 385
About 19 percent of the households with water connection also get water from shallow wells
(19.2%), water vendors (14.6%), spring/river/pond/stream (2.3%) and rain (0.5%). Non-
connected households obtain their water from combination of various water sources such as
140
shallow wells (75.6%), piped connection (32.6%), spring/river/pond/stream (8.1%), water

vendors (7%) and/or deep wells and rain (7%).
Type of Household
Type of Toilet Facility WD- Non- Total
connected connected
HHs HHs
Water-sealed (flush or pourflush)
connected to septic tank 91.5% 54.1% 74.8%
connected to pit 1.4% 4.1% 2.6%
connected to drainage 2.3% 15.7% 8.3%
improved pit, sanitary pit privy,
closed pit) 0.5% 2.9% 1.6%
Non-water sealed (open pit privy,
overhang) 0.5% 2.3% 1.3%
Shared toilet 3.3% 13.4% 7.8%
Public toilet 0.0% 1.2% 0.5%
No toilet (wrap and throw, arinola,
bush, sea/marshland , river 0.5% 6.4% 3.1%
N Cases 213 172 385
Most of the WD-connected households (91.5%) use water-sealed toilets connected to septic
tanks. The rest of the WD-connected respondents (8%) use toilets that are shared, public,
non-water sealed, water-sealed connected to drainage and water-sealed connected to pit.
More than half (54.1%) of the non-connected households use water-sealed toilets connected
to septic tanks. Water-sealed toilet connected to drainage is used by 15.7% of the non-
connected households. Non-connected households sharing toilet facilities is at 13.4%.
Percentage without toilet facilities is at 6.4% among the non-connected households, and a
negligible 0.5% among the WD-connected households.
141
III. WATER CONSUMPTION AND PREFERENCES OF WD-CONNECTED

HOUSEHOLDS: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Reason for Water Connection

Reason(s) for Water

Percent
Connection
Convenience 93.0%
Health safeguard against water-
22.9%
borne diseases
Reliability of water supply 27.1%
Status symbol (lifestyle) 0.5%
Inadequacy of other sources 6.5%
Cheaper 0.9%
N Cases 214
Convenience is the leading reason for water connection as reported by 93% of the
households in Legazpi City WD. The other main reasons for water connection are reliability
of water supply (27%) and as safeguard against water-borne diseases (23%). Very few of the
households (7%) reported that they are connected because of the inadequacy of other
sources.
Table 2. Volume and Cost of Water Consumption of WD-Connected Households
Indicator Amount N Cases

Average WD-water consumed by
connected household per month 19.7 cu.m. 208
(In Cu. Meter)
Average monthly water bill that
WD-connected household pays P 426.76 209
(In Pesos)
On the average, the monthly volume of water consumption by households in Legazpi City
WD is 19.7 cubic meters and their average monthly water bill is P426.76.
142
Table 3. Average Volume of Additional Water from Other Sources Used by WD-
Connected Households (In gallons per day)
Average Volume Used

Source N Cases
(gal/day)
Public faucet - -
Private deep well 26.4 1
Private shallow well 122.6 20
Spring/River/ Stream/
100.0 1
Pond
Rain - -
Water vendors 0.6 2
Purified water refilling
7.1 67
station
Private shallow well leads in terms of average daily volume as source of additional water
among Legazpi City WD households at 123 gallons. It is also noted that along with private
shallow well, spring/river/stream/pond, private deep well and purified water refilling stations
are the other additional water sources among Legazpi City WD households using on
average, 100, 26 and seven gallons per day, respectively.
Table 4. Average Cost per Day (in Pesos) of Additional Water Collected from Other
Sources of WD-connected Households
Average Cost
Source N Cases
(in Pesos)
Public faucet - -
Spring/River/ Stream/
- -
Pond
Rain - -
Water vendors 14.00 2
16.75 68
station
The costliest source of additional water is the purified water refilling station with Legazpi City
WD households spending P16.75 on average per day for additional water from this source.
The average daily cost of additional water from private shallow well for households in
Legazpi City WD is P11.16.
143
Table 5. Average Time Consumed (in minutes per day) to Collect Additional Water from
Other Sources by WD-connected Households
Average Time
Source N Cases
(in min/day)
Public faucet - -
Spring/River/ Stream/ 25.0 1
Pond
Rain - -
Purified water refilling 19.3 39
station
It takes about a quarter of an hour on average for WD-connected households in Legazpi City
to collect additional water from spring/river/stream/ponds, which is the source of water that
gives the longest time consumed to collect additional water. Meanwhile, it takes about
twenty minutes on average for the WD-connected households to get additional water from
private shallow well, 19 minutes from purified water refilling stations.
Table 6. Average Distance (in meters) of Other Water Sources from the Dwelling
Unit of WD-connected Household
Average Distance
Source
(in meters) N Cases
Public faucet - -
Spring/River/ Stream/ 5.0 1
Pond
276.5 61
station
Water vendors (500 meters) and purified water refilling stations (276 m), on average of more
than 200 meters away, are the farthest additional water sources from the dwelling units of
WD-connected households in Legazpi City. On the other hand, the average distance of
private shallow wells from the dwelling units of WD-connected households is 18.4 meters.
144
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Other

Households/Families Using Water from Their Piped Water Connection
Indicators Percent
% of households providing piped

11.7%
water to neighbors/ relatives
N Cases 214
Number of other households/families

using water from piped water
1 household/family 62.5%
2 households/families 31.3%
5 or more households/ families 0.0%
N Cases 16
More than one of ten WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD (12%) share their piped
water to neighbors or relatives. Of these households sharing water from water district-
connected piped water, 63% share water with one household/family, 13% with two
households/families and very few households (6%) share their piped water with four or
households/families.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Households by Availability of Piped Water

during Ordinary Days (Number of Hours in a Day)
Availability of Piped Water Percent
Less than 5 hours a day 0.9%

5-9 hours a day 1.4%
24 hours a day 96.3%
N Cases 214
Almost all the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD (96%) enjoy a 24-hour piped
water supply during ordinary days. Conversely, very few of the WD-connected households in
the area (<5%) do not enjoy this round-the-clock availability of piped water.
145

during Ordinary Days (Number of Days in a Week)
Availability of piped water

Percent
during ordinary days
3 days in a week 0.0%

7 days a week 100.0%
N Cases 214
In Legazpi City WD, all of the WD-connected households experience the availability of water
everyday of the week.

during Summer (Number of Days in a Week)

Percent
during summer

N Cases 214
Even during the dry months of the year, availability of piped water is not at all affected in the
Legazpi City WD district. All of the WD-connected households enjoy the availability of water
seven days of the week during the summer.
146

during Rainy Season (Number of Days in a Week)

Percent
during rainy season
N Cases 213
The availability of piped water is not at all affected in the Legazpi City WD district all year.
During the rainy season, all of the WD-connected households enjoy the availability of water,
seven days of the week.
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Level of Satisfaction on the

Quality of Piped Water
Level of Satisfaction Percent
Taste
Extremely unsatisfied 21.1%
Moderately unsatisfied 27.7%
Moderately satisfied 38.0%
Extremely satisfied 4.7%
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied 8.5%
Smell
Color
147
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Level of Satisfaction on the

Quality of Piped Water (CONTINUATION)
Overall quality of water

N Cases 213
Almost half the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD (48%) are satisfied, either
moderately or extremely, with the overall quality of their piped water. There are deviations,
however, in their level of satisfaction when asked about the four aspects of water quality, i.e.,
taste, smell, color and odor. Almost half (43%) and half (50%) of these households are
moderately or extremely satisfied with the taste and smell of their piped water, respectively.
It must be noted that only three out of ten WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD
(32%) reported satisfaction with the color of their piped water.
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households Using Pump to Increase Pressure,

Description of Current Pressure of Piped Water, Sufficiency of Water from
Piped Connection, and Percentage with Storage Tank
Indicators Percent
Percent of households using pump

to increase the pressure of piped 1.4%
water
N Cases 214
Description of current pressure of

the household’s piped water
Very adequate 9.9%
Adequate 82.6%
Poor 7.0%
Very poor 0.5%
N Cases 214
Only one percent of WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD use pump to increase
the pressure of their piped water which is supported by the fact that almost all of these
households (93%) described their piped water pressure to be either very adequate or
adequate.
148
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households Using Pump to Increase

Pressure, Description of Current Pressure of Piped Water, Sufficiency of
Water from Piped Connection, and Percentage with Storage Tank
(CONTINUATION)
Indicators Percent
Percent of households who said that

water received from piped
59.3%
connection is sufficient for basic
domestic needs
N Cases 214
Percent of households willing to get

additional water needs from the 82.6%
WD piped connection
N Cases 86
Percent of households with storage

tank 2.3%
N Cases 214
Average capacity of storage tank 240.0 cu.m.

N Cases 4
About six in ten of the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD (59%) perceive
sufficiency of piped water for their basic domestic needs. Interestingly, a little over eight in
ten WD-connected households in this district (83%) see the need for additional piped water
from WD connection.
WD-households with storage tank are very few in Legazpi City WD (2%). The average
storage capacity of the tanks of these households is 240 cubic meter.
149
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households with at Least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases during the Past Year and
Percentage of Households Treating Water from the Faucet
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at least

one member who suffered from
12.6%
water-related diseases during the
past year (April 2008-March 2009)
N Cases 214
Percent of households that treat

water from the faucet before 18.3%
drinking
N Cases 213
Among the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD, 13% have at least one
household member who suffered water-related diseases from April, 2008 to March, 2009.
Data also shows that 18% of the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD district treat
their water from the faucet before drinking.
Table 15a. Service Performance Rating of the Legazpi City Water District by
Connected Households
Performance Rating Percent
Continuity of water supply

Very Poor 0.0%
Poor 2.3%
Neutral 0.5%
Good 68.7%
Very Good 28.5%
Reliability of water meter
Very Poor 0.9%
Poor 7.5%
Neutral 11.2%
Good 51.9%
Very Good 28.5%
N Cases 212
Performance of the Legazpi City WD along the aspect of continuity of water supply is rated
from good to very good by almost all of the WD-connected households (97%). On reliability
of water meter, four out five households in this district (80%) rate it as very good or good. It is
interesting to note that 11% of the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD remained
neutral when rating the reliability of their water meter.
150
Table 15b. Service Performance Rating of the Legazpi City Water District by
Connected Households (CONTINUATION)
Performance Rating Percent
Regularity of billing and collection

Very Poor 0.9%
Poor 1.9%
Neutral 2.3%
Good 61.2%
Very Good 33.6%
Response to customer complaints

Very Poor 9.3%
Poor 7.5%
Neutral 22.0%
Good 45.3%
Very Good 15.9%
Repair time/services
Very Poor 8.5%
Poor 7.0%
Neutral 22.5%
Good 46.0%
Very Good 16.0%
Overall water supply service

Very Poor 0.9%
Poor 12.7%
Neutral 4.2%
Good 63.7%
Very Good 18.4%
N Cases 212
The water district of Legazpi City is rated as good to very good in terms of regularity of billing
and collection by almost all of the connected households in the area (95%). On the other
hand, about three in every five households in the district rate the response to customer
complaints (61%) and repair services (62%) to be either good or very good. For the overall
water supply service of Legazpi City WD, a little over eight out of ten connected households
(82%) rate it good to very good while 14% rated it negatively (poor to very poor).
151
Table 16. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that WD-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services
Amount willing to pay Percent
P1,000/month 4.2%
P 900/month 0.5%
P 800/month 1.9%
P 700/month 1.9%
P 600/month 1.4%
P 500/month 6.5%
P 450/month 0.0%
P 400/month 4.7%
P 350/month 1.4%
P 300/month 15.4%
P 250/month 9.3%
P 200/month 24.8%
P150/month 28.0%
Average Amount of Monthly

P 301.65
Water Bill Willing to Pay
N Cases 214
More than half of the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD (53%) are willing to pay
P200 or less to access improved water supply services. On the other hand, one-fourth of the
households in this water district (25%) are willing to spend P250 to P300 for improved water
supply services while over one-fifth of the households (22%) are willing to pay more than
P300. Very few of the WD-connected households in the area (4%) are willing to pay P1,000
to access an improved water supply services. The computed average amount of water bill
that connected households are willing to pay for improved water supply services is P301.65
per month.
152
Table 17. Reason(s) of Households for Staying Connected with Piped Water System
Reason(s) for staying

Percent
connected
Convenience 14.5%
Really want/need the improved
water service 65.4%
Worried about the health risks of
drinking water from other
sources 16.4%
Increased water bill is not too high 16.4%
N Cases 214
Perceived need for improved existing water supply service as reported by 65% of WD-
connected households in Legazpi City WD leads as the motivation of households for staying
connected with piped water system. The other reasons for staying connected with the piped
water system conveyed by the WD-connected households are the perceived health risks
posed by consuming water from other sources (16%), the perception that increased water bill
is not too high (16%) and convenience (15%).
Table 18. Aspects of Water District Services that Households Want to be Improved
Aspect of WD Services Percent
Quality of water/clean water 35.0%

Reduced water rates 30.8%
Repairs 10.3%
Complaints handling 9.3%
Water pressure 6.5%
Maintenance of pipes 6.1%
Billing 0.9%
N Cases 214
Most of the WD-connected households in Legazpi City WD cited clean water (35%) and
reduced water rates (31%) as the leading aspects of WD water services they want to be
improved. The other aspects of WD services that WD-connected households in the area
perceive to be needing improvement are repairs as conveyed by ten percent of households,
and complaints handling as reported by nine percent of the households.
153
IV. WATER CONSUMPTION AND PREFERENCES OF NON-CONNECTED

HOUSEHOLDS: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Table 1A. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Main Source of

Water for Various Uses
Water Source Percent

Drinking
Piped water (not own
28.7%
connection)
Public faucet 0.6%
Private deep well 2.3%
Private shallow well 49.7%
Spring/River/ Stream/ Pond 2.3%
Water vendors & peddlers 9.9%
Open dug well 2.3%
BRAWASA piped
4.1%
connection
Cooking
26.9%
connection)
Public faucet 1.2%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 1.8%
BRAWASA piped
4.1%
connection
N Cases 171
Among non-connected households in Legazpi City WD, half (50%) source their drinking
water from private shallow wells and 29% get it from a piped water system that they do not
own. Only one-tenth of these non-connected households in the area (10%) identified water
vendors and peddlers as their source of drinking water.
As for the sources of water used for cooking, private shallow well and piped water but not
their own are reported by most Legazpi City WD non-connected households, 61% and 27%
respectively, as their main source of water.
154
Table 1B. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses (CONTINUATION)

Bathing
10.5%
connection)
Public faucet 1.2%
Rain 0.0%
Open dug well 9.4%
BRAWASA piped connection 4.1%
Gardening
9.6%
connection)
Public faucet 0.9%
Rain 1.7%
Open dug well 7.8%
N Cases 171
With the available sources of water, private shallow well is identified to be the lead source of
water among Legazpi City WD non-connected households. Sixty six percent of the non-
connected households in the area source their bathing water from private shallow wells. The
same was reported as the source of water used for gardening as reported by most non-
connected households (65%).
Only about ten percent of the non-connected households in the water district get their
bathing water (11%) and gardening water (10%) from not their own piped water.
Interestingly, a few of the non-connected households source their bathing water (9%) and
gardening water (8%) from open dug wells.
155
Table 1C. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of

Water for Various Uses (CONTINUATION)

Cleaning
10.1%
connection)
Public faucet 0.6%
Rain 1.2%
Open dug well 9.5%
N Cases 169
Consistently, most non-connected households in Legazpi City WD source their water used
for cleaning from private shallow wells (66%) and piped water, not their own connection
(10%). Open dug well seems to be another source of water used for cleaning as reported by
ten percent of the non-connected households in the area.
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households Paying for Supply

of Piped Water from Other Household’s Connection
Indicators Percent
Percent of households paying for

supply of piped water from 90.2%
other’s connection
N Cases 51
To whom paying:
Neighbor/Relative who has
100.0%
own WD piped connection
N Cases 46
Nine out of ten non-connected households (90%) that have access to other’s piped
connection are paying for the water supply. All of them (100%) are paying either to a
neighbor or a relative who has WD piped connection.
156
Table 3. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Not Being Connected to the

Piped Water System (Multiple Responses)
Reason(s) for not being

Percent
connected
Connection is not available 6.4%
Connection fee too high 49.1%
Present water source is
32.7%
adequate & satisfactory
Monthly charges too high 25.1%
House is being rented 5.8%
Disconnected 6.4%
WD piped water not safe/clean 4.7%
Waiting list for connection 1.8%
N Cases 171
Non-availability of water connection leads as a reason for not being connected to piped water
as reported by almost half of the non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (49%). The
other leading reasons for not being connected to piped water are the current adequate water
sources and high monthly charges as cited by 33% and 25% of the non-connected
households, respectively.
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by

Perceived/Observed Availability of Water Service in their Household
Indicator Percent
Perceived/Observed availability
of water service in the
household
Sufficient all year round 90.1%
Insufficient during dry season 1.2%
Insufficient sometimes 7.6%
Insufficient mostly 0.0%
No information 1.2%
N Cases 171
Percent of non-connected
4.7%
households with storage tank
N Cases 170
Almost all of the non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (90%) perceive that
availability of water service in the household is sufficient all year round. Only a few of these
non-connected households in the area (9%) reported insufficiency of water at certain times.
Expectedly, very few of these non-connected households (5%) have water storage tanks.
157
Table 5. Average Volume of Water Consumption of Non-connected Households by

Type of Use (In gallons per day)
Volume of water consumption

Type of Use (gal/day) N Cases
Minimum Maximum Average
Drinking 0.25 100.00 3.97 169
Cooking 0.26 79.26 7.17 167
Bathing 5.00 170.00 51.61 163
Gardening 0.25 100.0 11.83 113
Cleaning 0.50 300.0 38.06 166
Generally, among non-connected households in Legazpi City WD, more water is used in
bathing with a daily average household consumption of 52 gallons. Another major use of
water among non-connected households in this district is cleaning, with a daily average
consumption of 38 gallons per household. The average daily water consumption of non-
connected households for gardening, cooking and drinking is twelve, seven and four gallons,
respectively.
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Persons Usually

Fetching Water from the Source
Person(s) usually fetching

Percent
water from source
Adult male household
member(s) 57.2%
Adult female household
member(s) 17.1%
Children 5.3%
Anyone available 20.4%
N Cases 152
Adult male household members in Legazpi City WD account for more than half (57.2%) of
the usual water fetchers from the water source. One-fifth of the non-connected households in
the district (20%) claim that the person usually fetching water from its source can be anyone
available to do the household task.
158
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Means of

Transporting Water
Means of Transporting
Percent
Water
Carry using pail/open
71.4%
containers
Carry using closed
16.2%
containers
Pipe or water hose
7.1%
connected to neighbor
Carry using both closed &
5.2%
open containers
N Cases 154
Seven out of ten non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (71%) carry water using pail
or any other open container from the source to their dwelling unit, while some non-connected
households (16.2%) transport water by carrying it using closed containers. A few of non-
connected households in the district (7%) use pipe or water hose connected to a neighbor.
Table 8. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Total Spent

Collecting Water per Day (In number of hours) and Schedule of Collecting
Indicators Percent
Total time spent

0.5 – 1 hour 84.0%
1.1 – 2 hours 14.1%
2- 4 hours 1.3%
5 hours or more 0.6%
N Cases 156
Schedule of collecting
Morning 16.6%
Evening 0.0%
Afternoon 0.0%
Anytime 83.4%
N Cases 151
Half of an hour to an hour per day is spent collecting water by 84% of non-connected
households in Legazpi City WD as compared to the 16% of non-connected households in the
area that spends more than one hour daily in collecting water.
159
There is no particular time of the day that water collecting is done in Legazpi City WD as
83% of non-connected households do it anytime of the day. A considerable percentage of
17% of the non-connected households in the district prefer to do it in the morning.
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Level of

Satisfaction on the Quality of Water from their Current Sources
Taste
Smell
Color
N Cases 171
Almost all of the non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (94%) are moderately to
extremely satisfied, with the overall quality of their water. When rating the different aspects of
water quality, the level of satisfaction of most non-connected households in the district
remain consistent for aspect of water quality such as taste, smell and color with 90%, 92%
and 85% of these households claiming they are moderately to extremely satisfied.
160
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households with at Least One

Member who Suffered from Water-related Diseases during the Past Year
and Percentage of Households Treating Water from the Faucet
Indicators Percent
Percent of households with at least
one member who suffered from
water-related diseases during the 6.4%
past year (April 2008-March
2009)
N Cases 171
Percent of HHs with at least one

adult member who got sick with:
Diarrhea 1.8%
Amoebiasis 0.0%
Gastroenteritis 0.6%
Dysentery 0.0%
Skin diseases 0.0%
N Cases 171
Percent of HHs with at least one

child member who got sick with:
Diarrhea 5.3%
Amoebiasis 0.0%
Typhoid fever 0.0%
N Cases 171
Average number of days sick with:

Diarrhea 3.3 (10 cases)
Amoebiasis -
Gastroenteritis 7.0 (1 case)
Dysentery -
Skin diseases -
161
Table 10. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households with at Least One

Member who Suffered from Water-related Diseases during the Past Year
and Percentage of Households Treating Water from the Faucet
(CONTINUATION)
Indicators Percent
Average cost of medication for:
Diarrhea P 575
Amoebiasis -
Gastroenteritis P 1,000
Dysentery -
Typhoid fever -
Skin diseases -
Percent of households that treat

water from the faucet before 14.1%
drinking
N Cases 170
Six percent of the non-connected households in Legazpi City WD have a member who
suffered from water-related diseases mainly diarrhea during the past year, from April 2008 to
March 2009. However, a significant proportion of non-connected households in the Legazpi
City WD district (14%) treat water from the faucet before drinking.
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households Willing to

Connect to the WD Water Supply System
Indicators Percent
Percent of non-connected households willing to

46.8%
connect with the existing water supply system
N Cases 171
Percent of non-connected households willing to

connect if existing water supply system will be
4.4%
improved (out of the households who do not want
to connect to the existing water supply system)
N Cases 91
Absolute proportion of non-connected households

49.1%
willing to connect to the water supply system
N Cases 171
Of the non-connected households in Legazpi City WD, almost half (47%) are willing to
connect with the existing water district water supply system. Among the non-connected
households who do not want to connect to the existing water supply system, very few (4%)
are willing to connect if improvements were to be made on the existing system. On the
162
whole, improved or not improved, almost half of non-connected households in the district
(49%) are willing to have their own connection with the piped water system.
Table 12. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Their Willingness/

Unwillingness to Connect to the WD Piped Water System (Multiple
Responses)
Reason for Willingness/ Unwillingness to

Percent
Connect to the WD Piped Water System
Reason for willingness to connect
Convenience 59.5%
Really want/need the improved water service 38.1%
Worried about the health risks of the water from
11.9%
current source
Water bill is not too high 9.5%
N Cases 84
Reason for unwillingness to connect

Happy with existing water source 57.5%
Monthly water bill is too high 41.4%
Connection charge is too high 24.1%
Do not own land/house occupied 3.4%
Do not really want/need the improved service 8.0%
Not worried about the health risks from my existing
3.4%
water source
N Cases 87
Six out of ten non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (60%) stated that their leading
reason for their willingness to avail of piped water connection is convenience, while some of
the non-connected households in the area (38%) claimed they will avail of the piped water
connection because they need the improved water service. The reasons of other non-
connected households for their willingness to connect to a piped water system are health
worries with their current water source (12%) and the inexpensive water bill (10%).
The leading cause of reluctance to connect to the existing water supply system is
contentment with their existing water source as gleaned from the response of about six out of
ten non-connected households in Legazpi City WD (58%). Interestingly, a little over two-fifths
of the non-connected households in the district (41%) perceive the monthly water bill to be
too high, hence their unwillingness to connect to the existing water supply system. Also,
about one-fourth of the households in the water district (24%) cited high connection charges
as a reason that keeps them from connecting to the existing water supply system.
163
Table 13. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that Non-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services
Amount willing to pay Percent
P1,000/month 1.2%
P 900/month 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0%
P 700/month 0.0%
P 600/month 1.2%
P 500/month 8.5%
P 450/month 1.2%
P 400/month 2.4%
P 350/month 0.0%
P 300/month 3.7%
P 250/month 4.9%
P 200/month 31.7%
P150/month 45.1%
Average Amount of Monthly

P 231.10
Water Bill Willing to Pay
N Cases 82
The amount of monthly water bill that non-connected households in Legazpi City WD are
willing to pay if they were to connect to the water district converges at P150/month to
P250/month (82% of the households). Only 18% of the non-connected households in the
district are willing to pay P300/month or more. On the whole, the average amount of monthly
water bill that non-connected households are willing to pay is estimated to be at P231.10.
Table 14. Willingness to Connect by Total Household Monthly Income among Non-
connected Households
Percent of
Total Household Monthly
HHs willing to N cases
Income
connect
Less than P5,000 44.6% 65
P5,000 - 9,999 49.2% 63
P10,000 - 14,999 54.5% 22
P15,000 - 19,999 50.0% 8
P20,000 - 29,999 25.0% 8
P30,000 - 39,999 50.0% 2
P40,000 - 49,999 50.0% 2
Total 46.8% 171
164
There seems to be no distinct difference in the willingness of non-connected households in

Legazpi City WD to connect with the current water supply system across the total household
monthly income. Almost half of all non-connected households regardless of monthly income
are willing to connect to the existing water supply system with only the exception of those
who have P20,000-P29,999 monthly income where only one fourth of them (25%) are willing
to connect to the existing water supply system.
165
V. WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PREFERENCES BY SOCIO-

ECONOMIC STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Table 1. Socio-Economic Status of Households
Socio-Economic Status Percent

Poor 54.3%
Non-poor 45.7%
N Cases 385
For this study, classification of households according to socio-economic status was done
using the 2007 per capita poverty thresholds – such that those that fall below the poverty
threshold are categorized as poor, and conversely, those above the threshold level are
considered non-poor. Different threshold levels are used corresponding to the geographic
location. The urban poverty threshold used for Legazpi City WD is P18,343. Therefore, there
are more poor households (54%) in Legazpi City WD compared to the non-poor households
(46%).
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Headship by Socio-

Economic Status
SE Status
Total
Poor Non-poor
Male-headed 76.1% 72.2% 74.3%

Female-headed 23.9% 27.8% 25.7%
N Cases 209 176 385
Regardless of the socio-economic status, households are mostly headed by males.

However, it can be gleaned from the above table that male-headship is more prevalent
among the poor households (76%) compared to the non-poor households (72%).
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Households by Water Pipe Connection Status by

Socio-Economic Status
SE Status
Total
Poor Non-poor
WD-Connected 45.5% 67.0% 55.3%

Non-connected 54.5% 33.0% 44.7%
N Cases 209 176 385
166
As expected, there is marked difference in water pipe connection between poor and non-
poor households. There are more non-poor households in Legazpi City WD (67%) that are
WD-connected compared to the poor households (46%).
Table 4. Preference for Septage System Improvement by Socio-economic Status of

Households
SE Status
Indicator Total
Poor Non-poor
Percent of HHs that would like to
30.2% 30.8% 30.5%
improve septage system
N Cases 179 169 348
Type of improvement preferred

Installation of septic tank 24.1% 21.2% 22.6%
Improvement/ rehabilitation of
42.6% 36.5% 39.6%
existing septic tank
De-sludging of septic tank 33.3% 57.7% 45.3%
N Cases 54 52 106
Percent of households willing to pay

for:
Installation of septic tank 21.1% 24.2% 22.5%
N cases 38 33 71
Improvement/ rehabilitation of
34.9% 54.8% 43.2%
existing septic tank
N cases 43 31 74
De-sludging of septic tank 23.9% 56.8% 40.0%
N Cases 46 44 90
In Legazpi City WD, poverty does not seem to impact on the households for wanting to
improve their current septage system, as about three out of ten households regardless of
poverty status would like to improve their septage system.
Although, there are already marked differences in the type of improvement preferred, more
poor households in the water district have preferences for installation of septic tank (24%)
and improvement/rehabilitation of existing ones (43%), while de-sludging of septic tank is
more common among the non-poor households (58%).
As expected, more non-poor households in Legazpi City WD are willing to pay for the
improvements they want compared to their poor counterpart.
167
Table 5. Willingness to Connect to the Existing/Improved Water Supply System by

Socio-Economic Status of Households
SE Status
Indicator Total
Poor Non-poor
households willing to connect to 48.2% 43.9% 46.8%
the existing water supply system
N Cases 114 57 171
households willing to connect if
existing water supply system will
be improved (out of the 3.4% 6.3% 4.4%
households who do not want to
connect to the existing water
supply system)
N Cases 59 32 91
Absolute proportion of non-

connected households willing to
50.0% 47.4% 49.1%
connect to the water supply
system
N Cases 114 57 171
In Legazpi City WD, willingness to connect to the existing piped water system is higher
among the poor non-connected households (48%) than non-poor non-connected households
(44%).
Those who refused to be connected to the existing system were further asked about their
willingness to connect if existing water supply system would be improved. In Legazpi City
WD, more non-poor non-connected households (6%) than poor non-connected households
(3%) gave positive responses.
Generally, improved or not improved existing water supply system, half of the poor non-
connected households in Legazpi City WD (50%) is willing to have their own connection with
the piped water system while less than half of the non-poor non-connected households in the
district (47%) are willing to be connected to the piped water system.
168
ANNEX 1
Gender Tables
169
Table 1. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Households

Occupying the Dwelling Unit by Household Headship
HH Headship
Male- Female-
Number of Households headed headed Total
HHs HHs
1 87.8% 84.5% 86.9%
2 8.7% 7.2% 8.4%
3 1.7% 5.2% 2.6%
4 or more 1.7% 3.1% 2.1%
N Cases 286 97 383
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Size by Household

Headship
HH Headship
Number of Household Male- Female-
Members headed headed Total
HHs HHs
1-2 7.0% 9.1% 7.5%
3-4 27.3% 26.3% 27.0%
5-6 33.6% 28.3% 32.2%
7-8 22.0% 21.2% 21.8%
9 - 10 7.3% 9.1% 7.8%
More than 10 2.8% 6.1% 3.6%
N Cases 286 99 385

Members 14 Years Old and Below by Household Headship
Number of Household HH Headship
Members 14 Years Old and Male- Female-
Below headed headed Total
HHs HHs
None 24.8% 34.3% 27.3%
1-2 44.1% 39.4% 42.9%
3-4 22.7% 17.2% 21.3%
5-6 8.0% 7.1% 7.8%
7-8 0.3% 2.0% 0.8%
N Cases 286 99 385
170

Members 65 Years Old or Over by Household Headship
HH Headship
Number of Household Members Male- Female-
65 Years Old or Over headed headed Total
HHs HHs
None 81.8% 67.7% 78.2%
1-2 17.5% 32.3% 21.3%
3-4 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
N Cases 286 99 385

by Household Headship
HH Headship
Male- Female-
Length of Stay in the Barangay headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Less than 10 16.3% 9.1% 14.4%
10 – 19 years 31.4% 14.1% 27.0%
20 – 29 years 18.4% 17.2% 18.1%
30 – 39 years 15.9% 19.2% 16.8%
40 – 49 years 7.4% 19.2% 10.5%
More than 50 years 10.6% 21.2% 13.4%
N Cases 283 99 382
Table 6. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household Income

HH Headship
Total Monthly Male- Female-
Household Income headed headed Total
HHs HHs
No income 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
Less than P5,000 26.2% 21.4% 25.0%
P5,000 - 9,999 36.9% 32.7% 35.8%
P10,000 - 14,999 14.9% 26.5% 17.9%
P15,000 - 19,999 6.4% 5.1% 6.1%
P20,000 - 29,999 9.2% 8.2% 8.9%
P30,000 - 39,999 2.8% 2.0% 2.6%
P40,000 - 49,999 1.1% 3.1% 1.6%
P50,000 or more 2.1% 1.0% 1.8%
N Cases 282 98 380
171
Table 7. Percentage Distribution of Households by Total Monthly Household

Expenditure by Household Headship
HH Headship
Total Monthly Male- Female-
Household Income headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Less than P3,000 6.4% 11.5% 7.7%
P3,000 - 4,999 19.5% 11.5% 17.5%
P5,000 - 9,999 37.9% 33.3% 36.8%
P10,000 - 14,999 20.2% 28.1% 22.2%
P15,000 - 19,999 5.3% 6.3% 5.6%
P20,000 - 29,999 7.4% 7.3% 7.4%
P30,000 - 49,999 1.4% 2.1% 1.6%
P50,000 or over 1.8% 0.0% 1.3%
N Cases 282 96 378

Household Savings by Household Headship
HH Headship
Average Total Monthly Male- Female-
Household Savings headed headed Total
HHs HHs
None 67.1% 61.1% 65.6%
Less than P1,000 18.9% 25.3% 20.5%
P1,000 - 1,999 6.1% 4.2% 5.6%
P2,000 - 2,999 3.6% 2.1% 3.2%
P3,000 - 3,999 0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
P4,000 – 4,999 0.4% 0.0% 0.3%
P5,000 or over 3.2% 7.4% 4.3%
N Cases 280 95 375
172
Table 9. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Household Members

Currently Working or Employed by Household Headship
Number of Household HH Headship

Members Currently Working or Male- Female-
Employed headed headed Total
HHs HHs
None 10.2% 7.1% 9.4%
1-2 members 77.0% 78.8% 77.5%
3-4 members 12.4% 13.1% 12.6%
5 or more members 0.4% 1.0% 0.5%
N Cases 283 99 382
Table 10. Proportion of Households With at Least One Member Who Had Borrowed
Money during the Past year by Household Headship
HH Headship
Indicator Male- Female-
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Proportion of households with

at least one member who had
78.7% 71.7% 76.9%
borrowed money during the
past year
N Cases 286 99 385
Table 11. Percentage Distribution of Households by Highest Grade Completed by

Household Head by Household Headship
HH Headship
Highest Grade Completed by Male- Female-
Household Head headed headed Total
HHs HHs
No schooling 1.1% 0.0% 0.8%
Elementary 30.8% 32.3% 31.2%
High School 32.6% 33.3% 32.8%
Vocational training 6.5% 2.0% 5.3%
College and over 29.0% 32.3% 29.9%
N Cases 276 99 375
173
Table 12. Percentage Distribution of Households by Occupation of Household Head

HH Headship
Occupation of Household Head Male- Female- Total
headed headed
HHs HHs
Own business 14.7% 30.6% 18.8%
Government employee 9.4% 8.2% 9.1%
Private employee 12.9% 5.1% 10.9%
Temporary laborer 18.5% 1.0% 14.1%
Street vendor 1.4% 5.1% 2.3%
Retired/Pensioner 5.2% 12.2% 7.0%
Unemployed 9.8% 23.5% 13.3%
Others 14.7% 9.2% 13.3%
N Cases 286 98 384
Table 13. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of House

Occupied by Household Headship
HH Headship
Ownership Status of House Male- Female-
Occupied headed headed Total
HHs HHs
House owner 93.0% 87.9% 91.7%
Caretaker 2.1% 2.0% 2.1%
Rent-free occupant 2.1% 3.0% 2.3%
Renter 2.8% 6.1% 3.6%
Living with relatives 0.0% 1.0% 0.3%
N Cases 286 99 385
Table 14. Percentage Distribution of Households by Ownership Status of the Lot

Occupied on Which House is Built by Household Headship
Ownership Status of the Lot HH Headship

Occupied on Which House is Male- Female-
Built headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Owned 40.4% 42.4% 40.9%
Caretaker 3.9% 4.0% 3.9%
Rented/Leased 9.8% 7.1% 9.1%
Common property w/ other
7.4% 3.0% 6.3%
family members/relatives
Government land 31.9% 33.3% 32.3%
Others 6.7% 10.1% 7.6%
N Cases 285 99 384
174
Table 15. Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of House/Building Occupied

HH Headship
Type of House or Building Male- Female-
Occupied headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Single 94.8% 92.9% 94.3%
Duplex 2.8% 4.0% 3.1%
Apartment/condo/townhouse 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Others 1.4% 2.0% 1.6%
N Cases 286 99 385
Table 16. Percentage Distribution of Households by Observed Materials that Make Up

the Dwelling Unit by Household Headship
HH Headship
Observed materials that make Male- Female-
up the dwelling unit headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Strong materials 35.7% 40.4% 36.9%
Light materials 14.3% 18.2% 15.3%
26.2% 28.3% 26.8%
strong materials
21.3% 13.1% 19.2%
materials
Salvaged/makeshift materials 1.7% 0.0% 1.3%
0.7% 0.0% 0.5%
salvaged materials
N Cases 286 99 385
Table 17. Percentage Distribution of Households by Primary Water Sources (Multiple

Responses) by Household Headship
HH Headship
Primary Water Source Male- Female-
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Piped connection 69.9% 69.7% 69.9%
Shallow well 46.5% 38.4% 44.4%
Water vendors 9.8% 15.2% 11.2%
Deep well 1.4% 3.0% 1.8%
Public/Street faucet 0.7% 1.0% 0.8%
Spring/River/Pond/Stream 4.5% 6.1% 4.9%
Rain 1.7% 1.0% 1.6%
N Cases 286 99 385
175
Table 18. Proportion of Households that Have WD Pipe Connection by Household

Headship
HH Headship
Indicator Male- Female-
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Proportion of households that
54.5% 57.6% 55.3%
have WD pipe connection
N Cases 286 99 385

Owned/Used by Household Headship
HH Headship
Type of Toilet Facility Male- Female-
Owned/Used headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Water-sealed (flush/pourflush)
72.7% 80.8% 74.8%
connected to septic tank
10.5% 2.0% 8.3%
connected to drainage
Shared toilet 7.0% 10.1% 7.8%
3.5% 0.0% 2.6%
connected to pit
No toilet (wrap and throw,
arinola, bush, sea/marshland , 2.7% 4.0% 3.1%
river )
improved pit, sanitary pit 2.1% 0.0% 1.6%
privy)
Non-water sealed (open pit
privy, overhang) 1.4% 1.0% 1.3%
Public toilet 0.0% 2.0% 0.5%
N Cases 286 99 385
176
Table 20. Proportion of Survey Respondents Satisfied with Current Toilet System
Owned/Used and Willing to Improve Current Septage System by Household
Headship
HH Headship
Indicators Male- Female-
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Proportion of survey
respondents satisfied with
83.5% 83.8% 83.6%
current toilet system
owned/used
N Cases 285 99 384
Proportion of survey
respondents willing to improve 30.0% 31.8% 30.5%
current septage system
N Cases 263 85 348
177
Table 21. Hygiene and Sanitation Practices by Household Headship

HH Headship
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Percent of households whose
members wash hands before 97.9% 100.0% 98.4%
cooking
N Cases 286 99 385

eating
N Cases 286 99 385

members wash hands after 99.7% 100.0% 99.7%
using toilet
N Cases 286 99 385

breastfeeding
N Cases 54 15 69

feeding children
N Cases 125 38 163

changing diaper
N Cases 65 19 84

washing the children after toilet
N Cases 125 39 164
178
Table 22. Percentage Distribution of Households by Place where Children &Infants go

for Toilet Purposes by Household Headship
HH Headship
Place where Children &Infants Male- Female-
go for Toilet Purposes headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Toilet 92.7% 89.2% 91.8%

Gutter/water canals 1.9% 2.2% 2.0%
River 0.4% 1.1% 0.6%
Garden/backyard 1.5% 4.3% 2.3%
Urinals/urinola 1.5% 1.1% 1.4%
Disposable diapers 1.9% 2.2% 2.0%
N Cases 260 93 353
Table 23. Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Times Household Eat

in a Day by Household Headship
HH Headship
Number of Times Household Male- Female-
Eat in a Day headed headed Total
HHs HHs
3 times a day 30.4% 27.3% 29.6%
4 times or more 69.2% 71.7% 69.9%
No information 0.3% 1.0% 0.5%
N Cases 286 99 385
Table 24. Child and Maternal Mortality Experience by Household Headship

HH Headship
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Percent of households with
children who died before reaching 6.6% 8.1% 7.0%
the age of 6
N Cases 286 99 385
Percent of households with

member who died during 2.1% 0.0% 1.6%
pregnancy or while giving birth
N Cases 286 99 385
179
Table 25. Percentage Distribution of Households by Health Facility Sought for Medical
Services by Household Headship
HH Headship
Health Facility Sought for Medical Male- Female-
Services headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Health center 35.2% 37.4% 35.8%
Private clinic 18.9% 17.2% 18.4%
Government hospital 24.2% 21.2% 23.4%
Private hospital 10.3% 14.1% 11.3%
Herbolario 5.3% 8.1% 6.1%
Self medication 3.6% 1.0% 2.9%
Others 2.5% 1.0% 2.1%
Percent of survey respondents

satisfied with available health 85.7% 83.8% 85.2%
services in their locality
N Cases 281 99 380
Table 26. Access to Insurance and Assistance for Health Expenses, and
Participation in Community Organization by Household Headship
HH Headship
Indicators Male-
headed Female- Total
HHs headed HHs
Percent of households with at

least one member who has
79.6% 78.6% 79.4%
Philhealth or any health
insurance coverage
N Cases 286 99 385

least one member who gets any
32.7% 36.4% 33.7%
form of assistance for health
expenses
N Cases 286 99 385

least one member who is a
member of any 48.6% 40.4% 46.5%
organization/association in the
community
N Cases 286 99 385
180
Table 27. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Decision-making

Patterns by Household Headship
HH Headship
Member of Household who Male- Female-
decides headed headed Total
HHs HHs
When to buy household equipment
Husband 17.5% 8.1% 15.1%
Wife 16.8% 43.4% 23.6%
Both husband/wife 58.7% 16.2% 47.8%
Other member(s) 7.0% 32.3% 13.5%
N Cases 286 99 385
When to renovate the house

Husband 23.8% 11.1% 20.5%
Wife 11.9% 42.4% 19.7%
Other member(s) 5.9% 28.3% 11.7%
N Cases 286 99 385
When to build a toilet/septic tank

Husband 24.6% 12.1% 21.4%
Wife 12.6% 43.4% 20.6%
Other member(s) 6.0% 27.3% 11.5%
N Cases 285 99 384
On the family’s economic activity

Husband 20.3% 10.1% 17.7%
Wife 16.8% 46.5% 24.4%
Other member(s) 5.9% 31.3% 12.5%
N Cases 286 99 385
To bring the children to the doctor when sick

Husband 8.7% 5.2% 7.8%
Wife 32.7% 53.1% 38.0%
Other member(s) 5.8% 28.1% 11.6%
N Cases 275 96 371
181
Table 27. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Decision-making

Patterns by Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
Member of Household who Male- Female-
decides headed headed Total
HHs HHs
On water connection
Husband 19.6% 11.2% 17.5%
Wife 14.7% 51.0% 24.0%
Other member(s) 5.3% 26.5% 10.7%
N Cases 285 98 383
Table 28. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Responsibility

Patterns by Household Headship
HH Headship
Member of household who is Male- Female-
responsible headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Supervising/reminding the children to wash hands
Husband 6.0% 5.3% 5.8%

Wife 55.8% 57.4% 56.2%
Other member(s) 8.2% 28.7% 13.6%
N Cases 267 94 361
Cleaning the toilet and water containers
Husband 6.6% 8.1% 7.0%

Wife 50.0% 49.5% 49.9%
Other member(s) 16.1% 36.4% 21.3%
N Cases 286 99 385
182
Table 28. Percentage Distribution of Households by Household Responsibility

Patterns by Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
Member of household who is Male- Female-
responsible headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Removing garbage
Husband 18.2% 5.1% 14.8%

Wife 27.6% 37.4% 30.1%
Other member(s) 25.9% 49.5% 31.9%
N Cases 286 99 385
Cleaning drainage/sewage systems
Husband 25.0% 8.3% 20.7%

Wife 21.4% 32.3% 24.2%
Other member(s) 24.6% 50.0% 31.1%
N Cases 280 96 376
183
A. WD-CONNECTED HOUSEHOLDS
Table 29. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Reason for

Water Connection by Household Headship
HH Headship
Reason for Water Connection Male- Female-
headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Convenience 93.6% 91.2% 93.0%
Health safeguard against water-borne
21.7% 26.3% 22.9%
diseases
Reliability of water supply 26.8% 28.1% 27.1%
Status symbol (lifestyle) 0.6% 0.0% 0.5%
Inadequacy of other sources 5.1% 10.5% 6.5%
Cheaper 0.6% 1.8% 0.9%
N Cases 157 57 214
Table 30. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households Providing Water to

Neighbor/ Relatives by Household Headship
HH Headship
Indicators Male- Female- Total
headed headed
HHs HHs
Percentage of WD-connected
Households providing water to 11.5% 12.3% 11.7%
neighbor/ relatives
N Cases 157 57 214
Number of other households/

families using water from the
household’s piped water
1 household/family 60.0% 66.7% 62.5%
2 households/families 30.0% 33.3% 31.3%
N Cases 10 6 16
Household is being charged by

WD at:
Residential rate 98.1% 96.5% 97.7%
Commercial rate 1.9% 3.5% 2.3%
N Cases 156 57 213
184
Table 31. Proportion of WD-connected Households with at least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases Last Year Due to Consumption of
Water Supplied by Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Percent of WD-connected
Households with at least one
member who suffered from water-
11.5% 15.8% 12.6%
related diseases last year due to
consumption of water supplied by
the water district
N Cases 157 57 214
Percent of WD-connected
Households that treat water from 17.9% 19.3% 18.3%
faucet before drinking
N Cases 156 57 213
Table 32. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Observed

Pressure and Sufficiency of Piped Water and Use of Water Pump/Tank by
Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Observed Pressure of Piped
Water
Very adequate 10.3% 8.8% 9.9%
Adequate 82.1% 84.2% 82.6%
Poor 7.7% 5.3% 7.0%
Very poor 0.0% 1.8% 0.5%
N Cases 156 57 213
Percent of Households using

water pump to increase the 1.9% 0.0% 1.4%
pressure
N Cases 157 57 214
185
Table 32. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Observed

Pressure and Sufficiency of Piped Water and Use of Water Pump/Tank by
Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Percent of Households with
3.2% 0.0% 2.3%
water storage tank
N Cases 157 57 214
Percent of Households
receiving water from piped
water connection that is 61.8% 52.6% 59.3%
sufficient for their basic
domestic needs
N Cases 157 57 214
Percent of Households willing to

get additional water needs 86.4% 74.1% 82.6%
from the WD piped connection
N Cases 59 27 86
Table 33. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that WD-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services by Household Headship
Amount Willing to Pay to HH Headship

Access Improved Water Supply Male- Female- Total
Services headed headed
HHs HHs
P1,000/month 4.5% 3.5% 4.2%
P 900/month 0.6% 0.0% 0.5%
P 800/month 2.5% 0.0% 1.9%
P 700/month 1.9% 1.8% 1.9%
P 600/month 1.3% 1.8% 1.4%
P 500/month 6.4% 7.0% 6.5%
P 450/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 400/month 4.5% 5.3% 4.7%
P 350/month 1.3% 1.8% 1.4%
P 300/month 12.1% 24.6% 15.4%
P 250/month 8.9% 10.5% 9.3%
P 200/month 24.8% 24.6% 24.8%
P150/month 31.8% 17.5% 28.0%
N Cases 157 57 214
186
Table 34. Percentage Distribution of WD-connected Households by Preferred Aspect

of Water District Services Prioritized for Improvement by Household
Headship
HH Headship
Male- Female- Total
Number of Households headed headed
HHs HHs
Water pressure 6.4% 7.0% 6.5%

Billing 1.3% 0.0% 0.9%
Complaints handling 9.6% 8.8% 9.3%
Reduced water rates 33.1% 24.6% 30.8%
Repairs 7.0% 5.3% 6.5%
Others 42.7% 54.4% 45.8%
N Cases 157 57 214
187
B. NON-CONNECTED HOUSEHOLDS
Table 35. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for Various Uses by Household Headship
HH Headship
Source of Water for various Male- Female- Total
Uses headed headed
HHs HHs
For Drinking
29.5% 26.2% 28.7%
connection)
Public faucet/ hydrant 0.0% 2.4% 0.6%
Deep well 0.8% 7.1% 2.3%
Shallow well 49.6% 50.0% 49.7%
Spring/River/Stream/Pond 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Water vendors & peddlers 10.1% 9.5% 9.9%
Open dug well 3.1% 0.0% 2.3%
BRAWASA Connection 4.7% 2.4% 4.1%
For Cooking
27.1% 26.2% 26.9%
connection)
Deep well 0.8% 4.8% 1.8%
Shallow well 62.8% 57.1% 61.4%
Open dug well 2.3% 0.0% 1.8%
For bathing

10.9% 9.5% 10.5%
connection)
Deep well 1.6% 4.8% 2.3%
Shallow well 67.4% 61.9% 66.1%
Open dug well 9.3% 9.5% 9.4%
N Cases 129 42 171
188
Table 35. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Source of Water

for various Uses Household Headship (CONTINUATION)
HH Headship
Source of Water for various Male- Female- Total
Uses headed headed
HHs HHs
For gardening
11.2% 3.8% 9.6%
connection)
Deep well 2.2% 7.7% 3.5%
Shallow well 64.0% 69.2% 65.2%
Open dug well 7.9% 7.7% 7.8%
N Cases 89 26 115
For cleaning
9.4% 11.9% 10.1%
connection)
Deep well 1.6% 4.8% 2.4%
Shallow well 67.7% 61.9% 66.3%
Open dug well 9.4% 9.5% 9.5%
N Cases 127 42 169
189
Table 36. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Reason for Not

Being Connected to Water District by Household Headship
HH Headship
Reason for Not Being Male- Female-
Connected to Water District headed headed Total
HHs HHs
Connection is not available 7.0% 4.8% 6.4%
Connection fee too high 51.2% 42.9% 49.1%
Present water source is
32.6% 33.3% 32.7%
adequate & satisfactory
Monthly charges too high 25.6% 23.8% 25.1%
House is being rented 5.4% 7.1% 5.8%
Disconnected 6.2% 7.1% 6.4%
WD piped water not safe/clean 5.4% 2.4% 4.7%
Waiting list for connection 1.6% 2.4% 1.8%
N Cases 129 42 171
Table 37. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Observed

Availability of Water Service in the Household and Ownership of Water
Storage Tank by Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Observed availability of water

service in the household
Sufficient all year round 89.9% 90.5% 90.1%
Insufficient during dry season 0.8% 2.4% 1.2%
Insufficient sometimes 7.8% 7.1% 7.6%
Insufficient mostly 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 129 42 171
Percent of Non-connected
Households with water storage 3.9% 7.1% 4.7%
tank
N Cases 128 42 170
190
Table 38. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Person

Fetching Water from Source by Household Headship
HH Headship
Person Fetching Water from Male- Female- Total
Source headed headed
HHs HHs
Adult male household

61.1% 46.2% 57.2%
member(s)
Adult female household
11.5% 33.3% 17.1%
member(s)
Children 4.4% 7.7% 5.3%
Anyone available 23.0% 12.8% 20.4%
N Cases 113 39 152
Table 39. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Means of

Transporting Water from the Water Source by Household Headship
HH Headship
Means of Transporting Water Male- Female- Total
from the Water Source headed headed
HHs HHs
Water truck 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tricycle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Carry using pail/open
71.3% 71.8% 71.4%
containers
Carry using closed containers 13.9% 23.1% 16.2%
Pipe or water hose connected
8.7% 2.6% 7.1%
to neighbor
Carry using both closed &
6.1% 2.6% 5.2%
open containers
Bicycle/Motorcycle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Own car/jeepney 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Push cart 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Cases 115 39 154
191
Table 40. Percentage Distribution of Non-connected Households by Total Time Spent

for Collecting Water per Day (In number of hours) and Schedule of
Collecting by Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Total time spent
0.5 – 1 hour 82.6% 75.6% 80.9%
1.1 – 2 hours 13.2% 14.6% 13.6%
2- 4 hours 0.8% 2.4% 1.2%
5 hours or more 0.0% 2.4% 0.6%
N Cases 121 41 162
Schedule of collecting
Morning 14.0% 16.7% 14.6%
Evening 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Afternoon 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Anytime 72.9% 76.2% 73.7%
No Information 13.2% 7.1% 11.7%
N Cases 129 42 171
Table 41. Proportion of Non-connected Households with at least One Member who
Suffered from Water-related Diseases Last Year Due to Consumption of
Water Supplied by Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
Households with at least one
member who suffered from
water-related diseases last 5.4% 9.5% 6.4%
year due to consumption of
water supplied by the water
district
N Cases 129 42 171
Households that treat water 13.2% 16.7% 14.0%
from faucet before drinking
N Cases 129 42 171
192
Table 42. Willingness to Connect to WD Water Supply System of Currently Non-

connected Households by Household Headship
HH Headship
headed headed
HHs HHs
households willing to connect with 46.5% 47.6% 46.8%
the existing water supply system
N Cases 129 42 171
households willing to connect if
existing water supply system will
be improved (out of the 4.3% 4.5% 4.4%
households who do not want to
connect to the existing water
supply system)
N Cases 69 22 91
193
Table 43. Reasons of Non-connected Households for Their Willingness/ Unwillingness

to Connect to the WD Piped Water System by Household Headship (Multiple
Responses)
HH Headship
Water District Male- Female- Total
headed headed
HHs HHs
Reason for willingness to

connect
Convenience 61.9% 52.4% 59.5%
Really want/need the
42.9% 23.8% 38.1%
improved water service
Worried about the health risks
of the water from current 12.7% 9.5% 11.9%
source
Water bill is not too high 7.9% 14.3% 9.5%
N Cases 63 21 84
Reason for unwillingness to

connect
Happy with our existing water
62.1% 42.9% 57.5%
source
Monthly water bill is too high 40.9% 42.9% 41.4%
Connection charge is too high 24.2% 23.8% 24.1%
Do not own land/house
0.0% 14.3% 3.4%
occupied
Do not really want/need the
9.1% 4.8% 8.0%
improved service
Not worried about the health
risks from my existing water 4.5% 0.0% 3.4%
source
N Cases 66 21 87
194
Table 44. Amount of Monthly Water Bill that Non-connected Households are Willing
to Pay to Access Improved Water Supply Services by Household Headship
Amount Willing to Pay to HH Headship

Access Improved Water Supply Female- Total
Services Male- headed
headed HHs HHs
P1,000/month 0.0% 4.8% 1.2%
P 900/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 800/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 700/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 600/month 1.6% 0.0% 1.2%
P 500/month 6.3% 14.3% 8.3%
P 450/month 1.6% 0.0% 1.2%
P 400/month 1.6% 4.8% 2.4%
P 350/month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
P 300/month 3.2% 4.8% 3.6%
P 250/month 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
P 200/month 30.2% 33.3% 31.0%
P150/month 47.6% 33.3% 44.0%
N Cases 63 21 84
Table 45. Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Current Toilet System by Gender of

Survey Respondents
Gender of Respondent
Indicators Total
Male Female
Percent of households satisfied
85.4% 83.1% 83.6%
with current toilet system
Percent of households
dissatisfied with current toilet 14.6% 16.9% 16.4%
system
N Cases 82 302 384
Reason(s) for dissatisfaction

Backflow 54.5% 32.6% 36.8%
Foul odor 18.2% 17.4% 17.5%
Combination of backflow
resulting to foul odor and 27.3% 45.7% 42.1%
inconvenience
Rodent infestation 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Flies/Insects 0.0% 4.3% 3.5%
N Cases 11 46 57
195
Table 46. Satisfaction Level on the Quality of Water District Piped Water by Gender
of Survey Respondents
Satisfaction Level Total
Male Female
Taste
Extremely unsatisfied 22.2% 20.8% 21.1%
Moderately unsatisfied 29.6% 27.0% 27.7%
Moderately satisfied 33.3% 39.6% 38.0%
Extremely satisfied 1.9% 5.7% 4.7%
Neither satisfied nor
13.0% 6.9% 8.5%
unsatisfied
Smell
5.6% 5.7% 5.6%
unsatisfied
Color
3.7% 5.7% 5.2%
unsatisfied

5.8% 4.4% 4.7%
unsatisfied
N Cases 54 159 213
196
Table 47. Water District Service Performance Rating by Gender of Survey

Respondents
Gender of Respondent Total
Performance Rating
Male Female
Continuity of water supply
Very Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Poor 5.6% 1.3% 2.3%
Neutral 0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
Good 70.4% 68.1% 68.7%
Very Good 24.1% 30.0% 28.5%
Reliability of water meter
Very Poor 3.7% .0% .9%
Poor 3.7% 8.8% 7.5%
Neutral 7.4% 12.5% 11.2%
Good 53.7% 51.3% 51.9%
Very Good 31.5% 27.5% 28.5%
Regularity of billing and collection
Very Poor 1.9% 0.6% 0.9%
Poor 5.6% 0.6% 1.9%
Neutral 3.7% 1.9% 2.3%
Good 55.6% 63.1% 61.2%
Very Good 33.3% 33.8% 33.6%
Response to customer complaints
Very Poor 7.4% 10.0% 9.3%
Poor 7.4% 7.5% 7.5%
Neutral 16.7% 23.8% 22.0%
Good 53.7% 42.5% 45.3%
Very Good 14.8% 16.3% 15.9%
Repairtime/services
Very Poor 5.7% 9.4% 8.5%
Poor 5.7% 7.5% 7.0%
Neutral 18.9% 23.8% 22.5%
Good 54.7% 43.1% 46.0%
Very Good 15.1% 16.3% 16.0%
Overall water supply service
Very Poor 1.9% 0.6% 0.9%
Poor 9.4% 13.8% 12.7%
Neutral 3.8% 4.4% 4.2%
Good 67.9% 62.3% 63.7%
Very Good 17.0% 18.9% 18.4%
N Cases 54 160 214
197
Table 48. Aspects of WD Services that Survey Respondents want to be improved by

Gender of Survey Respondents (Multiple Responses)
Performance Rating Total
Male Female
Water pressure 3.7% 7.5% 6.5%
Complaints handling 9.3% 9.4% 9.3%
Reduced water rates 24.1% 33.1% 30.8%
Repairs 7.4% 6.3% 6.5%
Billing 0.0% 1.3% .9%
Quality of water/
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
clean water
Others 55.6% 42.5% 45.8%
N Cases 54 160 214
198
Table 49. Satisfaction Level on the Quality of Water from Various Sources of Non-
connected Households by Gender of Survey Respondents
Aspects of Water Quality Total
Male Female
Taste
0.0% 0.7% 0.6%
unsatisfied
Smell
0.0% 0.7% 0.6%
unsatisfied
Color
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
unsatisfied
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
unsatisfied
N Cases 29 142 171
199
Table 50. Proportion of Survey Respondents who are Satisfied with Available Health
Services in Their Locality by Gender of Respondent
Health Facility Sought for Gender of Respondent
Total
Medical Services
Male Female
Percent of survey respondents

satisfied with available health 86.7% 84.8% 85.2%
services in their locality
N Cases 83 302 385
200
ANNEX 2
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE
WDDSP HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
201
DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS
# of HHs
Bgy Code Barangay Sample HHs
(2007)
Total 8,219 384
Serviced Barangays 7,012 363
Bgy 1 Bgy. 1 - Em's Barrio (Pob.) 837 43
Bgy 2 Bgy. 11 - Maoyod Pob. (Bgy. 10 & 11) 212 11
Bgy 3 Bgy. 21 - Binanuahan West (Pob.) 171 9
Bgy 4 Bgy. 25 - Lapu-lapu (Pob.) 218 11

Bgy. 33 - PNR-Peñaranda St.-
Bgy 5 Iraya(Pob.) 549 28
Bgy. 34 - Oro Site-Magallanes St.
Bgy 6 (Pob.) 521 27
Bgy 7 Bgy. 49 - Bigaa (Bgy. 44) 1,040 54
Bgy 8 Bgy. 57 - Dap-dap (Bgy. 69) 391 20
Bgy 9 Bgy. 44 - Pawa (Bgy. 61) 610 32
Bgy 10 Bgy. 42 - Rawis (Bgy. 65) 1,664 86
Bgy 11 Bgy. 58 - Buragwis 799 41
Proposed Expansion Areas 1,207 21
Bgy 12 Bgy. 66 - Banquerohan (Bgy. 43) 1,207 21
202
APPENDIX 3.2: SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

MAY – AUGUST 2009, LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT
Stakeholder Office/ Objective Date Gender of Result

People Met (2009)/ Participants
Venue
LGU Legazpi Task Force FGD to confirm May 13 F–5 Interest to participate
Sanitation interest of LGU for City M - 10 expressed; Task Force
joint mayor’s on Sanitation created.
implementation of Office
sanitation Broad implementation
component with arrangements of
WD; gather cooperation on
recommendations sanitation discussed –
on sanitation, water provision of land for
and social STP, willingness to pay
concerns counterpart, etc.
Priority area is Taysan

for water and for
sanitation as listed in
tables on slums.
WD Board of Consensus building May 15 M–5 Support of Board of

Directors – 5 on sanitation/ Board F–3 Directors for sanitation
members; GM update on LGU Room, WD confirmed; potential
consultation and on gender and development
survey and GAD activities identified to
address public relations
concerns of WD.
WD AGM, heads of Gender July 2 F-4 Support for GAD

departments appreciation and Board obtained.
advocacy Room, WD Members of Gender
Organization of Focal Point designated
Focal point; KI on Initial GAP activities
gender programs of identified.
WD
WD Gender Focal Gender orientation July 16 M – 10 Gender Focal Point
Point and analysis; FGD Board F - 16 organized; Analysis of
on gender and Room data and initial
Heads and sanitation issues recommendations for
representatives and concerns Gender Action Plan
of departments WD Recommendations on
Function sanitation component
Rm obtained.
NGO NGO COPE – 2 FGD to validate July 2 F–3 High cost of bulk water;
members survey results and COPE poor sanitation and
get Office water contamination in
Community- Slum Dwellers recommendations M–4 slums; perceived poor
Based Federation - on water and F–5 quality of bulk water;
Organization – President sanitation in urban lack of consultation.
Urban Poor poor areas Interested to participate
in planning and
implementation.
203
Stakeholder Office/ Objective Date Gender of Result

People Met (2009)/ Participants
Venue
Desludging Proprietor/RzM Project disclosure June 3 – M–1 Very interested to

Company Excavators Data gathering/ RzM Office participate.
Consultation
City health Health and FGD on water and May 12 M–1 Incidence of diarrhea
Office sanitation sanitation City health F–1 outbreaks
officers conditions and Office Possibility for sharing of
services information with
information caravan to
barangays.
Potential focus on toilets
for poor by health office.
Public Mayor and Disclosure and August 16, M- 10 Water and sanitation
Consultation agency consultation on 2009 F- 8 plans and priority target
to disclose the representative proposed plans for areas approved.
WDSSP of 5 LGUs, SPAR
project to NGO
project representatives
affected for vulnerable
houshelold, groups, women
LGUs, NGOs and
environment
WD workshop WD board Validation of August 26 M -3 Water and sanitation

on project member, GM proposed plans for – 27 F-1 plans validated.
components, and technical SPAR INNOTEC Discussed issues and
costings, staff H, Quezon concerns on the
capacity City subproject components.
development
and social
safeguards
(environment
and
resettlement)
204
Consultation Meeting on Water Supply and Sanitation

Office of the Mayor, Legazpi City
13 May 2009
Date/Venue of meeting: 13 May 2009, Office of the Mayor of Legazpi
Agency – Task Force Sanitation
Participants – 16 participants; Total attendance from Legazpi– 12; 5 women in attendance;

gender representative could not make it to postponed meeting
1. City Planning and Development Officer (M) and focal person (F) Task Force
Sanitation
2. City Health Office – Sanitary Inspector (M)
3. Councilor- Committee on Environment (M)
4. City Engineer (M)
5. Albay Provincial Health Office – Sanitary Engineer (M)
6. City Environment Office – CENRO (F)
7. City Slum Dwellers’ Association – Representatives (2 F)
8. Legazpi Water District – Acting General Manager (F)
9. Urban Poor Office – LGU (M)
10. The Mayor (M)
10. WDDSP team (Jett, Carol, Dino, Boni, Abet, Caloy)
Highlights
1. The City Planning Officer welcomed and introduced the WDDSP Team to the LGU
group and the purpose of the meeting. He mentioned that there was a first visit of the
Team in the previous month and had met the Mayor. He also said that the Mayor had
decided to organize a sanitation task force to assist in facilitating the conduct of the
study. This second visit of the Team is a follow-up of the previous discussion.
2. The Acting Manager of Legazpi Water District gave a brief on the reasons for tapping
ADB as a source of financing for improving the services of WD. She also discussed
the steps needed for the process, such as data gathering and consultation. She
mentioned that sanitation is an important aspect for water quality that should be given
equal attention.
3. General objectives of consultation and expected outputs (c/o Carol)
Objectives
• Confirm expression of interest by WD and LGU on joint implementation of
sanitation component
• Explore broad implementation arrangements of cooperation on sanitation
• Gather recommendations on some identified sanitation, water and social
concerns
Expected outputs
• Letter indicating interest of WD and LGU to collaborate on sanitation
• Framework for sanitation component validated
• e.g. Recommendations on improving access by poor on water and sanitation
4. Specific objectives of presenting the sanitation component (c/o Boni)

• To define sanitation, its importance and the expected key players
• To validate local situation and the framework of WDDSP sanitation component
205
• To consult key stakeholders on the workable arrangements for implementing

WDDSP sanitation component, identify key issues, and explore possible solutions
5. Members of the WDDSP Team took turns in discussing specific items of the WDDSP
(See presented powerpoint slides), such as:
Briefing on WDDSP PPTA - Carol

Water, Sanitation and Health - Dino
WDDSP-Sanitation Component – Boni
Jett facilitated the discussion while Caloy and Abet responded to queries on water
supply.
6. Comments from LGUs14
• Cases of diarrhea were noted to be high. However, the City Planning Officer
mentioned that since Legazpi is the center of Region 5, many diarrhea
patients coming from nearby municipalities were accommodated in the city
hospitals
• There was no recorded outbreak of water-borne diseases yet.
• The quality of water from WD pipes is observed to be poor. Color and some
sediments are present. These reasons could justify why water refilling
stations sprouted. There are about 94 water refilling stations in the city where
water quality is monitored monthly.
• Only the regional water analysis laboratory managed by the Regional Health
Office is capable of bacteriological and chemical analysis. The Provincial
Health Office has a portable water laboratory donated by Oxfam but not yet
licensed by the DOH.
• WD contracted a firm (Philhydro) to improve the water system. The improved
system resulted to an increase in water tariff (3x).
• It is difficult to implement sanitation in the poor areas. They may have water
connection but they do not have building permits.
• The city has already issued an ordinance on anti-littering along the city’s
rivers. It is possible to issue another ordinance for sanitation and septage
management.
• A sanitary landfill project site (15 hectares) has already been committed by the
city government for their solid waste management program using the
unutilized economic zone area (33 hectares). This project is supported by
AECID who gave a grant of P 88 million (Euro I.5 illion). Detailed Engineering
Design by Woodfields consultants is ongoing. It is possible to use this site
for the septage treatment facility. It is located in Barangay Banquerohan,
approximately 22 kilometers away from the center of the city
• Legazpi city is downstream of all rivers. All efforts will be useless if other
municipalities upstream will not cooperate or would not have the same
sanitation program. Considering the complexity of the sanitation issue, it
should be discussed also at the provincial level.
• The Provincial Health Office mentioned that existing hospitals have plans for
hospital solid waste management and wastewater treatment.
• Sanitation problem is very critical in coastal areas considering that water level
during high tide could overflow any sanitation facility if not properly designed.
14
Details of similar issues gathered from pre- and post consultation meeting with concerned LGU offices were
included.
206
• The city has no current sanitation project. The present activity is more on
advocacy campaign. The city has seven sanitary inspectors.
• The city has existing private desludgers. However, the disposal site of the
septage is not publicly disclosed by operators.
• The city is a health conscious city. Anti-smoking law is implemented citywide.
• The city government has rehabilitated the drainage system. Sanitation is a
potential project.
• The city has a plan for a market sanitation project.
• Barangays affected by the sanitation project should be included and involved.
• The role of private sector in sanitation could be explored.
• What is the timing of project implementation?
• The Mayor is willing to accommodate even a 50% grant and 50% loan
arrangement for sanitation.
• The Mayor is interested to pursue the project and will send the Letter of intent
to LWUA in the following week.
7. Response of WDDSP team
• Water quality issue will be part of the analysis of the PPTA.

• Financing schemes appropriate for the city will be studied by the team.
• Appropriate technology on sanitation will be recommended applicable to local
conditions.
• The PPTA will prepare a project proposal for water supply and sanitation
component to be presented in a workshop. The proposal will contain financing,
institutional, technical, social, environment and economic analysis.
• Another workshop will be arranged by September 2009 focusing on sanitation.
The project proposal prepared for Legazpi City will be presented.
• After the works of PPTA concluded by October 2009, the project proposal will be
submitted to LWUA and ADB. This will be subjected to NEDA-ICC by 2010 and
loan/grant negotiation with ADB by 2011. It is projected to start project
implementation by 2012.
207
Meeting at the City Health Office

12 May 2009
Attendance:
Dr. Fulbert Gillego – City Health Officer

Ms. Agnet Yanga – Sanitary Inspector
Dr. Bernardino Aldaba – WDDSP
Mr. Bonifacio Magtibay – WDDSP
1. Mr. Magtibay described the purpose of the visit and the sanitation component
of WDDSP.
2. Dr. Gillego mentioned their activities on sanitation, such as:
- Water quality monitoring using PHC media
- Sanitation campaign thru mother’s class, food handler’s class.
- Handwashing campaign thru the nutrition program
- Sanitation and hygiene during Barangay health Workers orientation
- Sanitation and hygiene thru deworming program
3. The city has 7 sanitary inspectors and a city epidemiologist.

4. There is a committee created for water quality monitoring composed of the city
health office, provincial health office and Legazpi Water District.
5. The city has no current budget for toilet construction even for the poor
population. This discussion gave the city health office an idea on what to focus
on sanitation in the next planning period.
208
Meeting at the Provincial Health Office

12 May 2009
Attendance
1. The Provincial Health Officer

2. Engr. Alein Mape – Provincial Sanitary Engineer
3. Mr. Romulo Buban – Chief Sanitary Inspector
4. Mr. Bonifacio Magtibay – WDDSP
5. Dr. Bernardino Aldaba - WDDSP
1. Mr. Magtibay gave a briefing on the project and the purpose of the visit.
2. Mr. Buban mentioned that the province has a toilet construction project last year with
assistance from UNICEF. Toilet bowls and bags of cement were provided as subsidy.
3. Oxfam has donated a portable laboratory that can test bacteriological and chemical
parameters. However, they could not use it officially because its use is not yet
licensed by DOH.
4. They have a Spanish –assisted sanitation project for schools. They have a toilet
design for frequently flooded areas.
5. The city has a private desludger ( named as Malabanan) but has no permit to
operate. They are now operating illegally.
6. The province has a project on hospital solid waste and liquid waste to be funded by
DOH.
7. Engr. Mape discussed the water quality problem of the WD and the other defects of
the water system in terms of pipe sizes, quality of deep wells and the location of the
new water source.
209
Meeting with Water District Board of Directors

Legazpi City
Date/Venue of meeting: 9:30 – 11:40 am, May 15, 2009, Board Room, Legazpi Water
District
Agency – Legazpi Water District
Participants – 5 Board members and Acting GM; Total attendance – 8; 5 women in

attendance
Agenda: Orientation, update on WDDSP and sanitation component; generate consensus on

sanitation component within WD by providing feedback on result of consultations with LGU
Task Force on Sanitation; discuss identified social, water and sanitation issues
Jett Villegas summarized issues on sanitation, presented proposed framework and options
for WDDSP sanitation component; Carol Gamiao relayed commitments of LGU in its
participation on sanitation as well as feedback of Task Force on sanitation and water-related
concerns
1. Background and update on WDDSP

2. Local Situation – Legazpi with 200,000 day time population has to manage 100,000 kilos
of fecal matter every day which finds its way into waterways; increase in diarrhea
incidence (based on Boni/Dino’s presentation); poor sanitation in slums
3. Commitment of LGU on sanitation– submission of letter of interest to participate in PPTA
as WD partner on sanitation component; location for treatment plant in Bankerohan,
once proposed as an economic zone, now proposed site of 13-hectare solid waste
facility; assistance in data gathering and plan preparation; if needed, LGU can raise as
much as 50% equity towards project cost; promulgation of required policies and
ordinances – e.g. requiring all houses and business establishment to maintain septic
tanks; implementation of related components such as IEC on sanitation;
4. Feedback on water quality and pro-poor plans for sanitation – inappropriate design of
transmission line-service pipe connection results in burst pipes and water contamination;
double burden of poor on water quality indicated by 94 refilling stations in Legazpi and/or
cost of boiling water, perceptions of poor management amidst high cost and entry of bulk
water provider; slums and shoreline residents as primary targets for sanitation
Issues Raised and Agreements
Issues Raised Proposed Solutions/Agreements
1. City’s sanitation problems; Sanitation component is needed to address water

tourism as new development contamination – WD/LGU to participate regardless
strategy of political issues
2. Implementing agency for Joint management scheme - sanitation to be
sanitation undertaken in partnership with LGU and private
sector
3. Which agency to collect Can be tacked into water bill with social marketing
sanitation fees of water and sanitation
4. Poor perception of WD Prepare social marketing plan; Update Corporate

services/water quality; Social Responsibility and communication plans of
confidence issues on WD to be more responsive to issues raised;
management; expand services to reach northern and southern
Water district getting attacked barangays and those with no access to safe water;
210
Issues Raised Proposed Solutions/Agreements
from all sectors establishment of satellite stations for water delivery

outside of served areas; have focal person to
implement CSR/IEC; engage critics and various
publics; establish partnerships – e.g Rotary
International, etc.
5. Assistance needed in Shift from customer relations to community
preparation of CSR relations and corporate social responsibility
agenda; CSR to reflect principle of water delivery
as both business and public service; institutionalize
use of GAD funds (5% of budget) also to do
affirmative action-type projects on climate change,
poverty and water and sanitation – e.g. IEC,
extension and livelihood programs – spa in
Buyuan’s flowing waters, etc.; establishment of
foundation to address COA regulations on
implementation of community projects
6. Water source and WD is willing to implement watershed management
environmental issues – of designated area (as against paying water user
siltation, illegal cutting of trees fees); environmental education and role of
community; use technology options that promote
commercial value of wastes
7. Sector with affordability Easy payment terms – 1 year to pay installation
problem re water rates fee with no interest; design incentives, discount
schemes, promos
8. Legazpi basin as recipient of Partnership strategy; use of sanitation facility by
wastes from other other municipalities with payment of users fee
municipalities
211
Consultation with a People’s Organization and COPE - NGO

Legazpi City
WDDSP
Date/Venue of meeting: 4:00 – 6:00 pm, July 2, 2009, COPE Office, Legazpi City
Agency – Slum Dwellers Federation, Legazpi City, Community Organization of the

Philippines Enterprise Foundation Inc (COPE), Bicol Chapter
Participants – Lorna Chavez - President, Legazpi City Slum Dwellers Federation; Jennifer
Belarmino and Evelyn Sierra – Officers - Bicol COPE; WDDSP - Carol Gamiao Wallace (3 F)
Agenda:
1. Inform PO and NGO on WDDSP and ADB’s NGP Policy

2. Learn about NGO/PO operations in the city
3. Solicit inputs, explore interest in being a partner in WDDSP design and
implementation
4. Informed KI of further consultations in the future
Discussion Points
Topic Points Raised

1. Organizational • Legazpi City Slum Dwellers Federation – a federation of 21
Background/ chapters based in 21 barangays; services – land tenure
Services improvement, lobby for social services, para-legal training,
advocacy on rights on poor, etc.; funding – member contributions;
member of Urban Poor Affairs of Legazpi LGU
• COPE Bicol Chapter – national foundation that provides support to
LCSFI; Services include Training of Community Organizers and on
Sustainability of People’s Organizations; lobby on land and
housing; gender and development and anti-domestic violence;
disaster preparedness and local governance; internship program;
funding Christian Aid, etc.
2. Status of Water • Perception that bulk water from Yawa River is not safe – iron,
Service in Urban manganese and sand, with smell; Bunga and Buyuan are okay
Poor Area • Double burden since consumers buy water to drink from refilling
stations
• Need to check contamination of pbc pipes in swampy areas (e.g.
Barangay 23) which cross drainage canals
• WD promo has had positive impact on connection of poor
(Installation fee - P500 and balance within 1 year as part of bill)
• Limited information dissemination on public hearing to raise water
bill
• Needed – regular (quarterly) consultation by WD management on
status of water services, on planned improvement, organized in
proper venue
• Stakeholders’ role in monitoring
3. Status of • Shared or released into drainage system
sanitation facilities
4. Sharing on • Naga solid waste management project – transparency mechanism
Community in a WB project (exposed a difference of P71 M vs. P11 M in
Organizing proposed budget); only 10% was recovered from urban poor; with
Experience LGU and people’s counterpart
212
Topic Points Raised

• Social marketing was needed – two years to see behavior change
on waste segregation
• Gawad Kalinga homes in Naga – cost recovery – P50/month for
drainage, road – for sense of ownership
• Income generation from waste
• Development of Embarkadero – urban poor in technical work’ group
5. Willingness to • PO and NGO are willing to participate in project; also to dialogue
participate in with WD on existing issues
WDDSP
6. Willingness to pay • Sanitation – cost recovery may not be for total cost for the poor;
length of payment period based on capacity to pay
• Individual connection preferred with accessible installment plan
7. Perceived role of • Partnership strategy and accountability mechanisms Issue-based
NGO/PO in urban organizing – social preparation and community mobilization for
poor communities project design and implementation
• Capability building of user groups for O and M and sustainability;
• Training on community organizing for WD
• Integrated with raising awareness on solid waste of Spanish NGO
• Management, maintenance, water conservation, health, etc.
• Tree planting and training on disaster relief
• PO – O and M
8. Design for • Sanitation – re cost recovery - provision of alternative designs
Sanitation based on capacity to pay
• Promotion of appropriate technology on the use of by-product
9. Other • Multi-stakeholder dialogue/cooperation for project planning and
recommendations implementation for win-win arrangements – e.g. youth, senior
citizens, market vendors, small enterprise, Albay Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, media, LGU, etc.
• Transparency mechanisms with stakeholder participation in
monitoring
• Conduct consultations with urban poor
• Public hearing on project impacts should be well disseminated
• Do pilot to identify areas of improvement before rolling out
recommended systems
• Provision of basic services in relocation sites – Barangay 23 – all
services are absent
10. On Impact of • Poor will be heavily affected if development costs are passed on to
WDDSP Water consumers through bill increase; design at least 3 levels of service
Supply, sanitation that people can access based on capacity to pay
Improvement
213
Ocular Inspection and Interview with Representative Households

(Swamp Area) Barangay 23, Slum Dwellers Federation
Legazpi City
Date/Venue of meeting: 6:00 – 7:00 pm, July 2, 2009, Swamp Area, Barangay 23
Agency – Slum Dwellers Federation, Legazpi City, Community Organization of the

Philippines Enterprise Foundation Inc (COPE), Bicol Chapter
Participants – 4 households, 1 Sangguniang Bayan, 1 teacher – Barangay head of Slum

Dwellers Association, Lorna Chavez - President, Legazpi City Slum Dwellers Federation;
Jennifer Belarmino and Evelyn Sierra – Officers - Bicol COPE; WDDSP - Carol Gamiao
Wallace; WD representative (8 Female, 4 Male)
Agenda:
1. Inform community and barangay representative of WDDSP/ADB’s consultation Policy

2. Learn about water and sanitation conditions in the locality
3. Identify/follow up on identified issues and concerns on water and sanitation
4. Solicit inputs, explore interest in participating in WDDSP design and implementation
Discussion Points
Topic Points Raised

1. Organizational • Households were members of the Legazpi City Slum Dwellers
Background/Service Federation
s • Area was spared from relocation for road construction
2. Status of Water • Perception that bulk water from Yawa River is not safe – displayed
Service in Urban discolored water in Coke bottle
Poor Area • Double burden since consumers buy water to drink from refilling
stations and for washing up due to increased incidence of Urinary
Tract Infection; wives of SB and teacher also had UTI
• May and June monthly bills – P600 and P580 for family of 7;
P780/P800 for family 8; P1200 for family of 6 but runs a porridge
business; this is higher than average consumption of 15 cubic
meters/household
• Huge bills attributed to letting water flow for at least 30 minutes
when there is discoloration
• Need to check contamination of pbc pipes in swampy areas (e.g.
Barangay 23) which cross drainage canals
3. Status of sanitation • Released into drainage system
facilities • Perceived need for upgrading
4. On Perceived • Poor will be heavily affected if development costs are passed on to
Impact of WDDSP consumers through bill increase
Water Supply,
Sanitation
Improvement
214
Key Informant Interview and Consultation

with Owner of RzM Excavator
Legazpi City
Date/Venue of meeting: 8:20 – 9: 30 am, July 3, 2009, Barangay 2, Legazpi City
Agency – RzM Excavator, Desludging Company
Participants –Rudolfo Maralit, Jr, Agnes Palacio, Carol Gamiao Wallace
Agenda:
1. Inform KI on WDDSP and sanitation component

2. Learn about company operations
3. Get situation on sanitation issues from perspective of company
4. Explore interest in participating in septage management
5. Informed KI of further consultations in the future
Discussion Points
Topic Points Raised

1. Company/Context of • Only desludging company based in Legazpi City
Operations • Started in 1990’s; area of coverage - Albay
• Others operators in Legazpi – at least 3 - from other towns
(these are allowed to cross jurisdiction); from Naga City – 4
• Waste Discharge Permit – dump site is in Ligao City; uses by
product as fertilizer in farm
• KI is not aware of dump site by other operators
• There are manual desludgers – these dump in open space
• Capacity – 2 trucks
• Due to slow desludging operations, expanded into
making/sale of portable toilets.
2. Amount/Basis • P3,500 – 4 cubic meters (truck can carry more but does 3.5 –
4 load limit for safety)
3. Average number of • In the first years, from 6 – 5; at present – 0 – 1/month
jobs per month
4. Perceived Problems • Sanitation laws are not enforced; many houses, even
business establishments dispose directly to drainage system
5. Willingness to • Willing to be contracted out; willing to be part of private sector
participate in to do desludging; not willing to bring in large competitor for
septage monopoly; sees role of LGU as providing dump site and
management of city septage treatment
or contracted out by
WD
6. Willingness to pay • Depending on operating cost of STP; willing to pay as much
tipping fee as P500 – will be passed on to consumer
7. Other • LGU and DENR to closely monitor and enforce laws pn
recommendations discharge of waste to waterways
• It is best that monopoly is not encouraged but to ensure role
of private sector
• Mentality on sanitation needs to change - public awareness
campaign
• Promotion of technology for conversion of waste to other
productive uses; also training on this for desludging operators
215
Topic Points Raised

• Government to operate STP/regulate dumping of private
sector
• DENR fines instead of enforces law on waste disposal; move
towards strict compliance
• STP in Legazpi can serve neighboring districts through
desludging companies which now cross borders
8. On Water Supply • Develop/maintain gravity sources to lessen cost; take
advantage of existing sources; Pili pays P50 due to gravity
system
9. Note • Followed up recommendation for coexistence by sending text
message that company be allowed to do business instead of
being taken over by big operator (e.g. as in Metro Manila)
• Also on behalf of contacts in Manila, sought more information
about use of desludging facility by private operators in Metro
Manila
216
APPENDIX 3.3: LIST OF NGOS SERVING URBAN POOR AND VULNERABLE

GROUPS, LEGAZPI CITY
Name of Organization Nature/Coverage of Services

1. Bicol Center for Community Development Community Service – Regional
2. Bicol Small Business Institute Foundation, Inc. Community Service – Regional
3. Community Organization of the Phils. Enterprise Community Service – Regional
Foundation (COPE Inc. Tel 480-8974
4. Legazpi Association of Persons with Disability People’s Organization – City
5. Legazpi Puericulture Center Community Service – Regional
6. Federation of Senior Citizen People’s Organization – City
7. Social Action Center Community Service – City
8. Legazpi City Slumdwellers Federation Inc. People’s Organization – City
List of Women Organizations

Legazpi City
Name of Organization Nature/Coverage of Services

1 Albay Women Volunteers Association, Inc. People’s Organization - Provincial
2 Buraguis Women’s Association, Inc. People’s Organization – City
3 ENTREPINAY People’s Organization – City
4 United Women’s Organization of People’s Organization – City
Peñaranda
217
APPENDIX 3.4: OUTPUT OF GENDER ACTION PLANNING WORKSHOP

AUGUST 6 – 7, 2009
1. The following is the result of a national workshop on Gender and Development

workshop held in August 6-7, 2009. All pilot water districts under the WDDSP sent 3
representatives each as designated Gender focal point persons. The objective of the
workshop was to identify gender issues and concerns during the planning phase of the
WWDSP. Gender issues identified in each water district will be the bases for Gender Action
Plans. One or two issues were treated in the following action plan.
2. It was agreed that these action plans will be presented to the management and board
of directors so that the GAP can be funded out of the 5% Gender and Development Fund
mandated by the government. It was also agreed that LWUA will continue to work with the
pilot districts follow up sessions on Gender and Development appreciation sessions and in
the GAP implementation.
Legazpi City Water District (LCWD)

GAD Budget Allocation for 2009-2010
Prepared by GAD Focal Point
Programs/
GAD Strategies/Activi Budget
Projects Gender- Performance
Objective/ ties to address Schedule Allocation
related Issue Indicator
Targets gender issues (P000)
Organization and Client Focus = 2009
Awareness Lack of Raise level of -Conduct an Number of To be

Building awareness on awareness on awareness seminars/ arranged
GAD/gender GAD seminar on GAD training
sensitivity (with the conducted,
issues participation of etc.
the BOD and
MANACOM)
*Purchase of an
LCD projector for
seminars
-Conduct
capability
enhancement/
400
training
workshops such
as Financial
Planning for
working mothers
-Sponsor game
contest in line
with Sportsfest
wherein
competition
between men and
women shall be
encouraged in
games such as
table tennis, dart,
218
Programs/
GAD Strategies/Activi Budget
Projects Gender- Performance
Objective/ ties to address Schedule Allocation
related Issue Indicator
Targets gender issues (P000)
etc. (also
participated by
the BOD &
Manacom)
-Construction of a
Breastfeeding
section in the
women’s comfort
room.
2010 47.6% of
Female- Increase Provide promos, Number of To be
Increase Headed water service promotional service arranged
number of Households connection materials , connection
Service in Legazpi among advertisement application;
Connections City have no women- addressing
water headed women’s needs Number of
connection households and role promotional
but are willing materials, etc
300
to be
connected
(lack of
sensitivity/
awareness on
privileges to
have water
connection)
Barangay Water Low Increase Mobilize women’s To be 200
Association for representatio women’s participation by Number of arranged
Barangays with n of women in participation conducting GAD seminar/
few/no service BWA’s in BWA Awareness raining
connections seminars, conducted
To address discussions, etc. 1,200
Annual Health the lack of
Care program health care of
WD
employees
219
220
APPENDIX 3.5: SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
1. Based on analysis of results, the incorporation of the following recommendations for a

participatory, socially inclusive, gender-responsive plan shall be supported through technical
assistance and pro-poor provisions for water and sanitation.
2. Promotion of Social and Environmental Equity. The Water District shall

incorporate social and environmental equity into its program development and
implementation so that no segment of the population bears a disproportionate share of the
risks and consequences of environmental pollution and that there is equitable sharing of
water as an environmental benefit and that there is sharing of costs in the upkeep of water
resources.
3. Pro-Poor Targeting of Participants. The Project shall target all households living
within the vicinity of the network of the piped water system. The project shall also set targets
to reach disadvantaged groups (e.g. women headed HHs and the poor HHs in the slum
areas) and other unserved/underserved areas for appropriate water service such as
communal water points. This may also be through easy installation plans that expand the
reach of project benefits while maximizing cost recovery.
4. Households for the sanitation component shall be identified in coordination with NGO
partners and the local government units that will undertake a survey of sanitation facilities. In
coordination with local government resources, targets will also be made to cover all
sanitation hot spots for improvement of septage systems by the end of project loan
implementation.
5. Capability building shall support community management of water and sanitation

facilities for the poor. Moreover, the WD’s Gender and Development Fund can be a source of
seed capital for water-related livelihood opportunities for the women and the poor. A
microfinance facility shall be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is
a revolving fund that may be managed in cooperation with a non-government agency.
6. Micro-finance and Livelihood Options. A micro-finance facility shall be set up to

ensure participation in septic tank installation/improvement of targeted participants in
sanitation hot spots. A cost recovery scheme shall be established to enable others to benefit
from the revolving fund. The WD’s Gender and Development Fund and other sources may
be accessed to support water and sanitation-related livelihood options of women and urban
poor groups.
7. Partnership Strategy. A partnership strategy shall involve the WD with local

government units, NGOs, community based organizations, the private sector and the WD
clientele in achieving the aims of the project. The strategy uses community mobilization
techniques and takes advantage of the mandate of local government units in implementing
national projects including water and sanitation improvement and water resource
management.
• Role of NGO/CBOs. NGOs will be engaged to support the PMU and local
governments in mobilizing communities and delivering essential training for water and
sanitation user groups and Community Based Organizations in planning, monitoring,
and evaluating sanitation and hygiene improvement. NGOs will also receive training
support for this role.
• Role of LGUs. Local authorities acknowledge that the passage and enforcement of
legislation on environmental sanitation is a role of local government. LGUs shall also
221
be invited to play an active role in service delivery planning and administration

functions and community leaders will be invited to actively participate in the Project's
awareness campaign. A Social Marketing Plan for sanitation shall be prepared as
part of technical assistance at implementation phase at the sectoral level.
8. Public Relations and Social Marketing of Hygiene and Sanitation. Lack of

awareness on the linkage of safe water and sanitation shows that septage management
depends for its success on effective advocacy and public awareness through information,
education and communication.
9. Social marketing of sanitation and implementation of pro-poor targets and the need to
more actively engage the WD’s various publics on identified water issues and concerns
requires a redefinition of current customer service orientation into the broader realms of
public relations and corporate social responsibility, consistent with the WD’s mandate to
deliver basic public goods such as water and sanitation.
10. Thus, the preparation of a social marketing plan shall be an area of assistance under
the WDDSP’s sectoral capability building component. A plan shall also prepared in
coordination with LGUs, agency and NGO/CBO partners.
11. Community Organization and Formation of Water User and Sanitation

Associations especially for Common Facilities. The main objective of these associations
will be to ensure the sustainability of the WSS facilities by delegating some O&M duties and
responsibilities to community members including the collection of water and sanitation tariffs.
Full disclosure and agreement with beneficiaries will be facilitated through joint assessment
and planning. User groups will each be composed of at least 10 HHs who reside proximate
to each other and decide to cluster to avail of the common services (water standpipes and
community latrines) and agree on the mechanism for participation in project implementation.
12. Moreover, the WD’s Gender and Development Fund can be a source of seed capital
for water-related livelihood opportunities for women and the poor. A microfinance facility shall
be allocated for priority areas for the sanitation component. This is a revolving fund that may
be managed in cooperation with a non-government agency.
13. Capacity Building, Training and Institutional Linkages. Capacity building will be
directed at both individuals and organizations for effective and sustainable operation of water
and sanitation facilities.
14. LGUs have a mandate for delivery of safe water and sanitation to their constituents.
Decentralisation has shifted roles and responsibilities to local governments and stakeholders.
Many of these actors struggle with their newly assigned roles for which they are not fully
'equipped' in terms of financial resources, knowledge, methodologies, tools and experiences.
Strengthening these intermediate actors is crucial to achieving good governance.
15. Capability building shall support community management of water and sanitation
facilities for the poor. Participation of disadvantaged groups will be made possible through
skills development, training and provision of linkages to institutions, which will ensure access
of technical services and financial support. Representatives of households which were
organized as user groups will be given thorough orientation on the project, roles and
expectations as well as skills training to enable them to undertake their expected tasks.
Technical assistance shall be provided in the preparation of a Social Marketing Plan on
sanitation and of public relations and communications program that is attuned to the
principles of public service in the delivery of water and sanitation.
222
16. Gender and Development. GAD is a key strategy for inclusive and sustainable
development. It is central in water and sanitation. Ensuring both women and men’s
participation improves project performance. Gender issues can be addressed in the project
components in the following ways:
• The Project will strengthen the role of women in planning and operation and
management of facilities (i) capacity building and training on the role and
responsibility of women, and planning of development activities that involve them; (ii)
training workshops on gender sensitization for men and women; (iii) representation of
women in user group/community planning committee
• Community-level project activities. (i) NGOs and CBOs to form/strengthen
women/user groups in neighborhoods for social mobilization activities. (ii) Women will
be represented in the planning of infrastructure and facilities for water, sanitation
services. (iii) Poor people and women headed households will be targeted for
appropriate service delivery; (iv) Employment opportunities in civil works will be made
available to interested women from poor households. Thirty percent of employment
opportunities will be reserved for women from the low income communities; (v)
Women’s groups will be represented in the management of new facilities; (vi) Training
and social mobilization campaigns for project beneficiaries will ensure active
participation of women. Women will be the primary target for public health and
hygiene campaigns. (vii) Women community volunteers will be trained for health and
hygiene campaigns; (viii) Women-headed households will be target beneficiaries of
micro-finance facilities; (ix) linkaging for livelihood options for interested and qualified
user groups.
• Gender and Environment. The WD shall coordinate with the Provincial Gender and
Development Office for active participation of the sector in the office’s Gender and
Environment initiatives.
• Staffing. The Gender Focal Point and Gender Action Planning shall be
institutionalized; with technical assistance from a national consultant on social
dimensions and gender and development.
17. Special Projects and Community Based Watershed Management. The critical
role of watershed communities in natural resource management shall be acknowledged in an
implementation plan for the project. For instance, the community mobilization and education
plan or the gender action plan can address their concerns on water and sanitation and
enhance the role of watershed communities in the maintenance of fresh water sources.
18. Sustainable resource management can be promoted by empowering watershed

communities to be active participants in social fencing and watershed management.
Community-based resource management and support for alternative livelihood options may
be promoted and supported by linkaging for alternative livelihood options and Capability
Building activities.
19. Consultations recommended that the project also target poor areas/households for the
delivery of water services and that participatory processes ensure that the needs of the poor
are addressed in the most appropriate and affordable way. Easy installation arrangements
could reduce a barrier to water connection.
20. Sanitation hotspots were identified such as informal settlements along shorelines.
While affordability issues were acknowledged for sanitation and the urban poor, there were
recommendations from local government (e.g. San Fernando) that a sanitation program for
the urban poor should not be free but should entail a cost recovery scheme. Learning from
the experience of similar projects in the area, prioritizing project participants will be demand-
driven. Willingness to participate will be secured as against donations of common toilets and
223
septic tanks that had to be padlocked due to absence of commitment by users for operation
and maintenance. Thus, sanitation improvement will entail interest of users, social
preparation with possible NGO facilitation.
21. Partnership with NGOs, local government and other agencies could facilitate
awareness raising and planning in target communities for appropriate schemes for
installation and maintenance of sustainable on-site sanitation facilities. While there was a
preference for individual sanitation system, there was openness to the idea of shared septic
tanks among local governments and households as a way to address affordability concerns.
224
APPENDIX 4: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT ORGANIZATION CHART
225
APPENDIX 5.1: POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2010-2025 – LCWD
Population Projections 2010-2025

Historical Growth Projected Growth
Historical Population Projected Population
Municipality/Barangay in the Service Area Rates Rates
1995 2000 2007 1995-00 2000-07 2010.00 2010-25 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
LEGAZPI CITY 141927 157010 175843 2.04 1.63 1.51 1.33 183914 186605 189295 191986 194676 197366 200057 202747 205438 208128 210819 213509 216199 218890 221580 224271
1 EM's Barrio 3544 3680 4183 0.76 1.85 1.69 1.47 4399 4470 4542 4614 4686 4758 4830 4902 4973 5045 5117 5189 5261 5333 5405 5476
2 EM's Barrio South 1473 1418 1848 -0.76 3.86 3.22 2.52 2032 2094 2155 2217 2278 2339 2401 2462 2524 2585 2647 2708 2769 2831 2892 2954
3 EM's Barrio East 1159 1006 833 -2.79 -2.66 -3.06 -4.37 759 734 709 685 660 635 611 586 561 536 512 487 462 438 413 388
4 Sagpon 920 1003 1117 1.74 1.55 1.44 1.28 1166 1182 1198 1215 1231 1247 1264 1280 1296 1312 1329 1345 1361 1378 1394 1410
5 Sagmin 677 672 633 -0.15 -0.85 -0.89 -0.97 616 611 605 600 594 588 583 577 572 566 561 555 549 544 538 533
6 Banadero 1040 1127 1195 1.62 0.84 0.81 0.75 1224 1234 1244 1253 1263 1273 1282 1292 1302 1312 1321 1331 1341 1350 1360 1370
7 Bano 876 825 886 -1.19 1.02 0.97 0.90 912 921 930 938 947 956 964 973 982 991 999 1008 1017 1025 1034 1043
8 Bagumbayan 3495 3456 3436 -0.22 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 3427 3425 3422 3419 3416 3413 3410 3407 3405 3402 3399 3396 3393 3390 3387 3385
9 Pinaric 944 1110 1150 3.29 0.51 0.49 0.47 1167 1173 1179 1184 1190 1196 1201 1207 1213 1219 1224 1230 1236 1241 1247 1253
10 Cabugao 486 542 590 2.21 1.22 1.15 1.04 611 617 624 631 638 645 652 659 665 672 679 686 693 700 707 713
11 Maoyod 901 1038 1060 2.87 0.30 0.30 0.29 1069 1073 1076 1079 1082 1085 1088 1091 1095 1098 1101 1104 1107 1110 1113 1117
12 Tula-Tula 2403 2348 2175 -0.46 -1.09 -1.15 -1.29 2101 2076 2051 2027 2002 1977 1953 1928 1903 1878 1854 1829 1804 1780 1755 1730
13 Ilawod West 720 712 759 -0.22 0.92 0.88 0.81 779 786 793 799 806 813 819 826 833 840 846 853 860 866 873 880
14 Ilawod 772 852 868 1.99 0.27 0.26 0.26 875 877 879 882 884 886 889 891 893 895 898 900 902 905 907 909
15 Ilawod East 1674 2108 2292 4.72 1.20 1.13 1.03 2371 2397 2423 2450 2476 2502 2529 2555 2581 2607 2634 2660 2686 2713 2739 2765
16 Kawit-East Washington 4719 4847 5322 0.54 1.34 1.26 1.13 5526 5593 5661 5729 5797 5865 5933 6001 6068 6136 6204 6272 6340 6408 6476 6543
17 Rizal St. - Ilawod 1271 1349 1730 1.20 3.62 3.05 2.42 1893 1948 2002 2057 2111 2165 2220 2274 2329 2383 2438 2492 2546 2601 2655 2710
18 Cabangan West 3198 2396 3094 -5.61 3.72 3.12 2.46 3393 3493 3593 3692 3792 3892 3991 4091 4191 4291 4390 4490 4590 4689 4789 4889
19 Cabangan 1257 1332 1294 1.17 -0.41 -0.42 -0.44 1278 1272 1267 1261 1256 1251 1245 1240 1234 1229 1223 1218 1213 1207 1202 1196
20 Cabangan East 685 666 727 -0.56 1.26 1.18 1.07 753 762 771 779 788 797 805 814 823 832 840 849 858 866 875 884
21 Binanuahan West 858 862 855 0.09 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 852 851 850 849 848 847 846 845 844 843 842 841 840 839 838 837
22 Binanuahan East 1141 1222 1328 1.38 1.20 1.13 1.03 1373 1389 1404 1419 1434 1449 1464 1479 1495 1510 1525 1540 1555 1570 1585 1601
23 Imperial Court Subdivision 604 633 750 0.94 2.45 2.18 1.83 800 817 834 850 867 884 900 917 934 951 967 984 1001 1017 1034 1051
24 Rizal St. 1820 1893 2190 0.79 2.10 1.90 1.63 2317 2360 2402 2445 2487 2529 2572 2614 2657 2699 2742 2784 2826 2869 2911 2954
25 Labu-Lapu 978 1091 1088 2.21 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 1087 1086 1086 1085 1085 1085 1084 1084 1083 1083 1082 1082 1082 1081 1081 1080
26 Dinagaan 827 711 637 -2.98 -1.56 -1.69 -2.00 605 595 584 574 563 552 542 531 521 510 500 489 478 468 457 447
27 Victory Village South 1016 1042 1106 0.51 0.86 0.82 0.76 1133 1143 1152 1161 1170 1179 1188 1197 1207 1216 1225 1234 1243 1252 1261 1271
28 Victory Village North 1962 2197 2518 2.29 1.97 1.79 1.55 2656 2701 2747 2793 2839 2885 2931 2977 3022 3068 3114 3160 3206 3252 3298 3343
29 Sabang 1332 1412 1411 1.17 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 1411 1410 1410 1410 1410 1410 1410 1410 1409 1409 1409 1409 1409 1409 1409 1408
30 Pigcale 2039 1965 2152 -0.74 1.31 1.23 1.11 2232 2259 2286 2312 2339 2366 2392 2419 2446 2473 2499 2526 2553 2579 2606 2633
226
31 Centro Bay-Bay 1071 1216 1279 2.57 0.72 0.70 0.66 1306 1315 1324 1333 1342 1351 1360 1369 1378 1387 1396 1405 1414 1423 1432 1441
32 San Roque 4981 5219 5338 0.94 0.32 0.32 0.31 5389 5406 5423 5440 5457 5474 5491 5508 5525 5542 5559 5576 5593 5610 5627 5644
33 PNR-Penaranda 2354 2532 2746 1.47 1.17 1.10 1.00 2838 2868 2899 2929 2960 2991 3021 3052 3082 3113 3143 3174 3205 3235 3266 3296
34 Oro Site-Magallanes 2202 1827 2607 -3.66 5.21 4.10 3.05 2941 3053 3164 3276 3387 3498 3610 3721 3833 3944 4056 4167 4278 4390 4501 4613
35 Tinago 756 737 611 -0.51 -2.64 -3.04 -4.32 557 539 521 503 485 467 449 431 413 395 377 359 341 323 305 287
36 Kapantawan 518 583 4144 2.39 32.34 11.02 5.85 5670 6179 6688 7196 7705 8214 8722 9231 9740 10249 10757 11266 11775 12283 12792 13301
37 Bitano 4967 6341 2797 5.01 -11.03 -22.98 -211.24 1278 772 266 -241 -747 -1253 -1760 -2266 -2772 -3278 -3785 -4291 -4797 -5304 -5810 -6316
38 Gogon 4431 4699 5498 1.18 2.27 2.03 1.73 5840 5955 6069 6183 6297 6411 6525 6639 6754 6868 6982 7096 7210 7324 7438 7553
39 Bonot 3164 3815 3614 3.81 -0.77 -0.80 -0.86 3528 3499 3470 3442 3413 3384 3356 3327 3298 3269 3241 3212 3183 3155 3126 3097
40 Cruzada 3548 3837 5349 1.58 4.86 3.89 2.92 5997 6213 6429 6645 6861 7077 7293 7509 7725 7941 8157 8373 8589 8805 9021 9237
41 Bogtong 2482 3239 3706 5.47 1.94 1.77 1.53 3906 3973 4040 4106 4173 4240 4306 4373 4440 4507 4573 4640 4707 4773 4840 4907
42 Rawis 6091 7477 8322 4.19 1.54 1.43 1.27 8684 8805 8926 9046 9167 9288 9408 9529 9650 9771 9891 10012 10133 10253 10374 10495
43 Tamaoyan 850 1112 1440 5.52 3.76 3.15 2.48 1581 1627 1674 1721 1768 1815 1862 1909 1955 2002 2049 2096 2143 2190 2237 2283
44 Pawa 2587 2896 3049 2.28 0.74 0.71 0.67 3115 3136 3158 3180 3202 3224 3246 3268 3289 3311 3333 3355 3377 3399 3421 3442
45 Dita 1072 1349 1586 4.70 2.34 2.09 1.77 1688 1721 1755 1789 1823 1857 1891 1925 1958 1992 2026 2060 2094 2128 2162 2195
46 San Joaquin 1568 1620 1906 0.65 2.35 2.10 1.78 2029 2069 2110 2151 2192 2233 2274 2315 2355 2396 2437 2478 2519 2560 2601 2641
47 Arimbay 2584 2923 3421 2.50 2.27 2.04 1.73 3634 3706 3777 3848 3919 3990 4061 4132 4204 4275 4346 4417 4488 4559 4630 4702
48 Bagong Abre 922 1141 1354 4.35 2.48 2.20 1.85 1445 1476 1506 1537 1567 1597 1628 1658 1689 1719 1750 1780 1810 1841 1871 1902
49 Bigaa 4415 4954 5199 2.33 0.69 0.67 0.63 5304 5339 5374 5409 5444 5479 5514 5549 5584 5619 5654 5689 5724 5759 5794 5829
50 Padang 1887 2050 1539 1.67 -4.01 -4.99 -11.13 1320 1247 1174 1101 1028 955 882 809 736 663 590 517 444 371 298 225
51 Buyuan 2746 2737 3162 -0.07 2.08 1.88 1.62 3344 3405 3466 3526 3587 3648 3708 3769 3830 3891 3951 4012 4073 4133 4194 4255
52 Matang 1520 1364 1618 -2.14 2.47 2.19 1.84 1727 1763 1799 1836 1872 1908 1945 1981 2017 2053 2090 2126 2162 2199 2235 2271
53 Bogna 2690 2928 3257 1.71 1.53 1.42 1.26 3398 3445 3492 3539 3586 3633 3680 3727 3774 3821 3868 3915 3962 4009 4056 4103
54 Mabinit 916 1083 1325 3.41 2.92 2.54 2.09 1429 1463 1498 1532 1567 1602 1636 1671 1705 1740 1774 1809 1844 1878 1913 1947
55 Estanza 2809 3318 4212 3.39 3.47 2.94 2.35 4595 4723 4851 4978 5106 5234 5361 5489 5617 5745 5872 6000 6128 6255 6383 6511
56 Taysan/Putting-Daga 5375 7165 10243 5.92 5.24 4.12 3.05 11562 12002 12442 12881 13321 13761 14200 14640 15080 15520 15959 16399 16839 17278 17718 18158
57 Dap-Dap 1451 1728 1956 3.56 1.79 1.64 1.43 2054 2086 2119 2151 2184 2217 2249 2282 2314 2347 2379 2412 2445 2477 2510 2542
58 Buraguis 2976 3341 3996 2.34 2.59 2.29 1.91 4277 4370 4464 4557 4651 4745 4838 4932 5025 5119 5212 5306 5400 5493 5587 5680
59 Puro 2701 3670 4084 6.32 1.54 1.43 1.27 4261 4321 4380 4439 4498 4557 4616 4675 4735 4794 4853 4912 4971 5030 5089 5149
60 Lamba 771 991 1046 5.15 0.77 0.75 0.70 1070 1077 1085 1093 1101 1109 1117 1125 1132 1140 1148 1156 1164 1172 1180 1187
61 Maslog 3335 3412 3757 0.46 1.39 1.29 1.16 3905 3954 4003 4053 4102 4151 4201 4250 4299 4348 4398 4447 4496 4546 4595 4644
62 Homapon 3216 3560 3822 2.05 1.02 0.97 0.89 3934 3972 4009 4047 4084 4121 4159 4196 4234 4271 4309 4346 4383 4421 4458 4496
63 Mariawa 1313 1361 1414 0.72 0.55 0.53 0.51 1437 1444 1452 1459 1467 1475 1482 1490 1497 1505 1512 1520 1528 1535 1543 1550
64 Bagacay 1138 1393 1591 4.13 1.92 1.75 1.52 1676 1704 1732 1761 1789 1817 1846 1874 1902 1930 1959 1987 2015 2044 2072 2100
65 Imalnod 1273 1497 1964 3.29 3.96 3.29 2.57 2164 2231 2298 2364 2431 2498 2564 2631 2698 2765 2831 2898 2965 3031 3098 3165
66 Banquerohan 4507 5351 6034 3.49 1.73 1.59 1.40 6327 6424 6522 6619 6717 6815 6912 7010 7107 7205 7302 7400 7498 7595 7693 7790
67 Bariis 1561 1728 1770 2.05 0.34 0.34 0.33 1788 1794 1800 1806 1812 1818 1824 1830 1836 1842 1848 1854 1860 1866 1872 1878
68 San Francisco 1847 2019 2233 1.80 1.45 1.35 1.21 2325 2355 2386 2416 2447 2478 2508 2539 2569 2600 2630 2661 2692 2722 2753 2783
69 Buenavista 793 936 1048 3.37 1.63 1.50 1.33 1096 1112 1128 1144 1160 1176 1192 1208 1224 1240 1256 1272 1288 1304 1320 1336
70 Cabacong 1748 2346 2579 6.06 1.36 1.27 1.15 2679 2712 2745 2779 2812 2845 2879 2912 2945 2978 3012 3045 3078 3112 3145 3178
227
APPENDIX 5.2: POPULATION SERVED AND NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS PROJECTIONS - LCWD
Population Served and Number of Connections Projections

Service Domestic/Government Commercial/Industrial Institutional Total
Unaccoun Average
Area Water Water Water Water
Year No. of Populatio No. of Populatio No. of No. of Populatio ted for Day
Populatio Demand Demand Demand Demand
Conn n Served Conn n Served Conn Conn n Served Water Demand
n (cu. m/d) (cu. m/d) (cu. m/d) (cu. m/d)
2010 117739 14757 76827 11908 2316 11578 2316 226 678 17298 88404 14902 23 19353
2011 123786 14987 78029 12094 2443 12214 2443 232 697 17662 90242 15234 23 19785
2012 129832 15218 79230 12281 2570 12850 2570 239 716 18027 92081 15566 23 20216
2013 135879 15449 80432 12467 2697 13487 2697 245 734 18391 93919 15898 23 20647
2014 141925 15680 81634 12653 2825 14123 2825 251 753 18755 95757 16230 20 20288
2015 147972 16958 88289 13685 2964 14819 2964 257 771 20179 103108 17420 20 21775
2016 154018 17307 90104 13966 3093 15466 3093 263 790 20663 105570 17849 20 22311
2017 160065 17655 91919 14247 3222 16112 3222 269 808 21147 108031 18278 20 22848
2018 166111 18004 93734 14529 3352 16758 3352 276 827 21631 110492 18707 20 23384
2019 172158 18353 95549 14810 3481 17404 3481 282 845 22115 112954 19136 20 23921
2020 178204 18659 97364 15091 3610 18051 3610 288 864 22557 115415 19566 20 24457
2021 184251 19031 99079 15357 3740 18700 3740 294 882 23065 117779 19980 20 24975
2022 190297 19360 100794 15623 3870 19349 3870 300 901 23530 120143 20394 20 25492
2023 196344 19689 102508 15889 4000 19999 4000 307 920 23996 122507 20808 20 26010
2024 202390 20019 104223 16155 4130 20648 4130 313 938 24461 124871 21222 20 26528
2025 208437 20351 105938 16420 4259 21297 4259 319 957 24929 127235 21636 20 27046
228
APPENDIX 5.3:
SERVED POPULATIONS AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS - LCWD
A: 2010
B: 2015
C: 2020
D: 2025
229
2010 Served Population and Water Demand Projections

Domestic Commercial/Industrial Institutional Total
Unaccounte Average Day
Brgy. Water Water Water Water
Barangay No. of Served No. of Served No. of No. of Served d for Water Demand (cu.
Population Demand (cu. Demand (cu. Demand (cu. Demand (cu. (cu. m/d)
Connections Population Connections Population Connections Connections Population m/d)
m/d) m/d) m/d) m/d)
Present Service Area

1 EM's Barrio 4399 813 4234 656.2 28 142 28.4 11 34.1 853 4376 718.8 165.3 884.1
2 EM's Barrio South 2032 134 698 108.1 13 66 13.1 8 23.6 155 763 144.9 33.3 178.2
3 EM's Barrio East 759 90 467 72.4 10 52 10.4 0 0.0 100 519 82.8 19.0 101.8
4 Sagpon 1166 78 406 62.9 9 43 8.5 1 3.2 87 448 74.6 17.2 91.7
5 Sagmin 616 92 477 73.9 14 68 13.6 0 0.0 105 545 87.5 20.1 107.6
6 Banadero 1224 138 716 111.0 1 4 0.8 0 0.0 138 720 111.8 25.7 137.5
7 Bano 912 42 219 34.0 2 10 2.1 0 0.0 44 229 36.0 8.3 44.3
8 Bagumbayan 3427 304 1583 245.3 33 164 32.7 8 24.5 345 1746 302.6 69.6 372.2
9 Pinaric 1167 124 648 100.4 13 67 13.5 0 0.0 138 715 113.9 26.2 140.1
10 Cabugao 611 53 274 42.5 11 54 10.8 2 5.9 65 328 59.1 13.6 72.7
11 Maoyod 1069 130 676 104.7 3 17 3.5 0 0.0 133 693 108.2 24.9 133.1
12 Tula-Tula 2101 209 1089 168.7 2 12 2.5 0 0.0 212 1101 171.2 39.4 210.6
13 Ilawod West 779 82 427 66.2 13 65 13.0 13 39.1 108 492 118.4 27.2 145.6
14 Ilawod 875 144 748 115.9 14 72 14.4 0 0.0 158 820 130.3 30.0 160.3
15 Ilawod East 2371 246 1281 198.5 20 98 19.5 2 4.9 267 1378 222.9 51.3 274.2
16 Kawit-East Washington 5526 1061 5526 856.5 54 272 54.3 2 6.3 1118 5797 917.0 210.9 1128.0
17 Rizal St. - Ilawod 1893 311 1620 251.1 31 156 31.3 3 7.8 345 1776 290.1 66.7 356.9
18 Cabangan West 3393 869 4522 700.9 52 260 51.9 3 7.8 923 4782 760.6 174.9 935.5
19 Cabangan 1278 159 827 128.3 31 155 31.1 3 8.2 193 983 167.5 38.5 206.1
20 Cabangan East 753 145 753 116.7 19 93 18.7 3 9.3 166 847 144.7 33.3 178.0
21 Binanuahan West 852 107 559 86.6 12 59 11.7 3 8.8 122 618 107.1 24.6 131.8
22 Binanuahan East 1373 30 158 24.4 6 31 6.1 0 0.0 36 188 30.6 7.0 37.6
23 Imperial Court Subdivision 800 134 699 108.4 8 41 8.1 0 0.0 142 740 116.5 26.8 143.3
24 Rizal St. 2317 385 2004 310.6 55 273 54.6 4 10.7 443 2277 375.9 86.5 462.3
25 Labu-Lapu 1087 165 861 133.4 31 156 31.3 3 10.4 200 1017 175.1 40.3 215.4
26 Dinagaan 605 67 349 54.2 30 152 30.4 3 9.4 101 502 93.9 21.6 115.6
27 Victory Village South 1133 218 1133 175.7 5 27 5.4 4 12.9 227 1160 194.0 44.6 238.6
28 Victory Village North 2656 181 940 145.7 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 181 940 145.7 33.5 179.2
29 Sabang 1411 113 586 90.9 5 23 4.7 0 0.0 117 610 95.5 22.0 117.5
30 Pigcale 2232 164 855 132.6 19 94 18.7 4 12.5 187 949 163.8 37.7 201.5
31 Centro Bay-Bay 1306 57 295 45.7 47 237 47.4 2 5.7 106 531 98.7 22.7 121.4
32 San Roque 5389 590 3072 476.1 3 15 3.0 5 14.8 598 3087 493.8 113.6 607.4
33 PNR-Penaranda 2838 371 1929 299.0 37 185 37.1 6 19.1 414 2115 355.1 81.7 436.8
34 Oro Site-Magallanes 2941 65 341 52.8 81 406 81.1 3 8.9 150 746 142.8 32.8 175.6
35 Tinago 557 81 421 65.3 37 183 36.7 3 8.3 120 605 110.3 25.4 135.7
36 Kapantawan 5670 1089 5670 878.9 1308 6539 1307.9 48 143.5 2445 12210 2330.3 536.0 2866.3
230
37 Bitano 1278 145 757 117.4 5 26 5.2 1 4.0 152 784 126.7 29.1 155.8
38 Gogon 5840 542 2821 437.3 24 119 23.8 6 17.9 572 2940 479.0 110.2 589.2
39 Bonot 3528 678 3528 546.8 47 233 46.7 4 11.1 728 3761 604.6 139.1 743.6
40 Cruzada 5997 1152 5997 929.5 69 347 69.4 12 34.7 1233 6344 1033.7 237.8 1271.5
41 Bogtong 3906 275 1430 221.6 6 30 6.0 6 18.1 287 1460 245.7 56.5 302.2
42 Rawis 8684 938 4882 756.7 85 424 84.8 32 95.8 1054 5306 937.3 215.6 1152.9
43 Tamaoyan 1581 212 1102 170.8 0 0 0.0 2 6.1 214 1102 176.9 40.7 217.6
44 Pawa 3115 77 403 62.5 1 5 0.9 1 2.8 79 408 66.2 15.2 81.4
45 Dita 1688 79 414 64.1 0 0 0.0 1 2.8 80 414 66.9 15.4 82.3
46 San Joaquin 2029 147 767 118.8 1 6 1.2 2 7.4 151 773 127.4 29.3 156.7
47 Arimbay 3634 255 1330 206.2 8 38 7.5 3 9.7 266 1368 223.4 51.4 274.7
48 Bagong Abre 1445 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
49 Bigaa 5304 235 1222 189.4 6 32 6.3 0 0.0 241 1254 195.8 45.0 240.8
50 Padang 1320 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
51 Buyuan 3344 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
52 Matang 1727 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
53 Bogna 3398 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 2 6.3 2 0 6.3 1.4 7.8
54 Mabinit 1429 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55 Estanza 4595 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
56 Taysan/Putting-Daga 11562 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
57 Dap-Dap 2054 155 808 125.2 0 0 0.0 1 2.9 156 808 128.1 29.5 157.6
58 Buraguis 4277 686 3571 553.4 5 23 4.5 6 17.0 696 3593 574.9 132.2 707.2
59 Puro 4261 141 734 113.7 1 4 0.8 1 2.3 142 738 116.8 26.9 143.7
60 Lamba 1070 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
61 Maslog 3905 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
62 Homapon 3934 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
63 Mariawa 1437 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
64 Bagacay 1676 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
65 Imalnod 2164 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
66 Banquerohan 6327 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
67 Bariis 1788 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
68 San Francisco 2325 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
69 Buenavista 1096 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
70 Cabacong 2679 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL 183914 14757 76827 11908 2316 11578 2316 226 678 17298 88404 14902 3427 18330
231

Population Demand (cu. Demand (cu. Demand (cu. Demand (cu.
Connections Population Connections Population Connections Connections Population (%) m/d)
m/d) m/d) m/d) m/d)

1 EM's Barrio 4758 880 4579 709.8 31 154 30.8 12 36.9 923 4733 777.5 20.0 971.9
2 EM's Barrio South 2339 154 803 124.5 15 76 15.1 9 27.2 178 879 166.8 20.0 208.5
3 EM's Barrio East 635 75 391 60.6 9 43 8.7 0 0.0 84 435 69.3 20.0 86.6
4 Sagpon 1247 83 434 67.3 9 46 9.1 1 3.4 94 480 79.8 20.0 99.7
5 Sagmin 588 87 455 70.6 13 65 13.0 0 0.0 100 520 83.5 20.0 104.4
6 Banadero 1273 143 745 115.4 1 4 0.8 0 0.0 144 749 116.3 20.0 145.3
7 Bano 956 44 230 35.6 2 11 2.2 0 0.0 46 240 37.7 20.0 47.2
8 Bagumbayan 3413 303 1576 244.3 33 163 32.6 8 24.4 343 1739 301.3 20.0 376.7
9 Pinaric 1196 127 664 102.8 14 69 13.8 0 0.0 141 733 116.7 20.0 145.8
10 Cabugao 645 56 289 44.8 11 57 11.4 2 6.2 69 346 62.5 20.0 78.1
11 Maoyod 1085 132 686 106.3 4 18 3.5 0 0.0 135 703 109.8 20.0 137.3
12 Tula-Tula 1977 197 1025 158.8 2 12 2.3 0 0.0 199 1036 161.1 20.0 201.4
13 Ilawod West 813 86 446 69.1 14 68 13.6 14 40.8 113 514 123.5 20.0 154.3
14 Ilawod 886 145 757 117.4 15 73 14.6 0 0.0 160 830 132.0 20.0 165.0
15 Ilawod East 2502 260 1352 209.5 21 103 20.6 2 5.2 282 1455 235.3 20.0 294.1
17 Rizal St. - Ilawod 2165 356 1853 287.2 36 179 35.7 3 8.9 395 2031 331.8 20.0 414.8
18 Cabangan West 3892 996 5186 803.9 60 298 59.5 3 8.9 1059 5484 872.4 20.0 1090.5
19 Cabangan 1251 156 810 125.5 30 152 30.4 3 8.0 189 962 164.0 20.0 205.0
20 Cabangan East 797 153 797 123.5 20 99 19.8 3 9.9 176 895 153.1 20.0 191.4
21 Binanuahan West 847 107 556 86.1 12 58 11.7 3 8.7 121 614 106.5 20.0 133.1
22 Binanuahan East 1449 32 166 25.8 6 32 6.5 0 0.0 38 199 32.3 20.0 40.3
24 Rizal St. 2529 420 2187 339.0 60 298 59.6 4 11.7 484 2485 410.3 20.0 512.9
25 Labu-Lapu 1085 165 859 133.1 31 156 31.2 3 10.4 200 1015 174.8 20.0 218.5
26 Dinagaan 552 61 319 49.4 28 139 27.8 3 8.5 92 458 85.7 20.0 107.2
29 Sabang 1410 113 586 90.8 5 23 4.7 0 0.0 117 609 95.5 20.0 119.4
30 Pigcale 2366 174 907 140.5 20 99 19.9 4 13.2 198 1006 173.6 20.0 217.0
31 Centro Bay-Bay 1351 59 305 47.2 49 245 49.0 2 5.9 109 550 102.1 20.0 127.6
32 San Roque 5474 599 3120 483.6 3 15 3.0 5 15.0 607 3135 501.6 20.0 627.0
33 PNR-Penaranda 2991 391 2033 315.1 39 195 39.1 7 20.1 436 2228 374.3 20.0 467.8
35 Tinago 467 68 353 54.8 31 154 30.7 2 7.0 101 507 92.5 20.0 115.6
36 Kapantawan 8214 1578 8214 1273.1 1895 9473 1894.6 69 207.9 3542 17687 3375.7 20.0 4219.6
232
37 Bitano -1253 -143 -743 -115.1 -5 -26 -5.1 -1 -4.0 -149 -768 -124.2 20.0 -155.3
38 Gogon 6411 595 3097 480.0 26 131 26.1 7 19.6 628 3228 525.8 20.0 657.3
39 Bonot 3384 650 3384 524.6 45 224 44.8 4 10.7 698 3608 580.0 20.0 725.0
40 Cruzada 7077 1359 7077 1096.9 82 410 82.0 14 41.0 1455 7487 1219.9 20.0 1524.8
41 Bogtong 4240 298 1552 240.5 7 33 6.5 7 19.6 311 1584 266.6 20.0 333.3
42 Rawis 9288 1003 5221 809.3 91 454 90.7 34 102.4 1128 5675 1002.5 20.0 1253.1
43 Tamaoyan 1815 243 1266 196.2 0 0 0.0 2 7.0 245 1266 203.2 20.0 253.9
44 Pawa 3224 80 417 64.7 1 5 1.0 1 2.9 82 422 68.5 20.0 85.7
45 Dita 1857 87 455 70.6 0 0 0.0 1 3.1 88 455 73.6 20.0 92.0
46 San Joaquin 2233 162 844 130.8 1 7 1.3 3 8.1 166 850 140.2 20.0 175.3
47 Arimbay 3990 280 1460 226.3 8 41 8.3 4 10.6 292 1502 245.2 20.0 306.5
48 Bagong Abre 1597 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
49 Bigaa 5479 242 1262 195.7 7 33 6.6 0 0.0 249 1295 202.2 20.0 252.8
50 Padang 955 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
51 Buyuan 3648 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
52 Matang 1908 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
53 Bogna 3633 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 2 6.7 2 0 6.7 20.0 8.4
54 Mabinit 1602 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
55 Estanza 5234 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
57 Dap-Dap 2217 168 872 135.2 0 0 0.0 1 3.1 169 872 138.3 20.0 172.9
58 Buraguis 4745 761 3961 614.0 5 25 5.0 6 18.8 772 3986 637.8 20.0 797.3
59 Puro 4557 151 785 121.6 1 4 0.8 1 2.5 152 789 124.9 20.0 156.2
60 Lamba 1109 50 260 40.3 2 10 2.0 0 0.0 52 270 42.3 20.0 52.9
61 Maslog 4151 70 364 56.4 2 10 2.0 0 0.0 72 374 58.4 20.0 73.0
62 Homapon 4121 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
63 Mariawa 1475 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
64 Bagacay 1817 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
65 Imalnod 2498 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
66 Banquerohan 6815 200 1040 161.2 3 15 3.0 0 0.0 203 1055 164.2 20.0 205.3
67 Bariis 1818 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
68 San Francisco 2478 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
69 Buenavista 1176 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
70 Cabacong 2845 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
TOTAL 197366 16958 88289 13685 2964 14819 2964 257 771 20179 103108 17420 21775
233

m/d) m/d) m/d) m/d)

1 EM's Barrio 5117 946 4925 763.4 33 165 33.1 13 39.7 992 5091 836.2 20.0 1045.2
2 EM's Barrio South 2647 174 908 140.8 17 86 17.1 10 30.8 202 994 188.7 20.0 235.9
3 EM's Barrio East 512 61 315 48.8 7 35 7.0 0 0.0 68 350 55.8 20.0 69.8
4 Sagpon 1329 89 462 71.7 10 49 9.7 1 3.6 100 511 85.0 20.0 106.3
5 Sagmin 561 83 434 67.2 12 62 12.3 0 0.0 96 496 79.6 20.0 99.5
6 Banadero 1321 149 773 119.8 1 4 0.9 0 0.0 149 777 120.7 20.0 150.9
7 Bano 999 46 240 37.2 2 11 2.3 0 0.0 48 251 39.4 20.0 49.3
8 Bagumbayan 3399 301 1570 243.3 32 162 32.4 8 24.3 342 1732 300.1 20.0 375.1
9 Pinaric 1224 130 679 105.3 14 71 14.2 0 0.0 145 750 119.5 20.0 149.3
10 Cabugao 679 59 305 47.2 12 60 12.0 2 6.6 73 365 65.8 20.0 82.2
11 Maoyod 1101 134 696 107.8 4 18 3.6 0 0.0 137 714 111.4 20.0 139.3
12 Tula-Tula 1854 184 960 148.9 2 11 2.2 0 0.0 187 971 151.0 20.0 188.8
13 Ilawod West 846 89 464 71.9 14 71 14.2 14 42.5 117 535 128.6 20.0 160.7
14 Ilawod 898 147 767 118.9 15 74 14.8 0 0.0 162 841 133.7 20.0 167.2
15 Ilawod East 2634 273 1423 220.5 22 108 21.7 2 5.4 297 1531 247.6 20.0 309.5
17 Rizal St. - Ilawod 2438 401 2086 323.3 40 201 40.2 3 10.1 444 2287 373.5 20.0 466.9
18 Cabangan West 4390 1124 5851 906.9 67 336 67.2 3 10.1 1194 6187 984.1 20.0 1230.2
19 Cabangan 1223 152 792 122.8 30 149 29.7 3 7.9 185 941 160.4 20.0 200.5
20 Cabangan East 840 161 840 130.2 21 104 20.8 3 10.4 186 944 161.5 20.0 201.9
21 Binanuahan West 842 106 552 85.6 12 58 11.6 3 8.7 121 610 105.9 20.0 132.4
22 Binanuahan East 1525 34 175 27.1 7 34 6.8 0 0.0 40 209 34.0 20.0 42.5
24 Rizal St. 2742 455 2371 367.5 65 323 64.6 4 12.6 524 2694 444.7 20.0 555.9
25 Labu-Lapu 1082 165 857 132.9 31 156 31.2 3 10.4 199 1013 174.4 20.0 218.1
26 Dinagaan 500 55 288 44.7 25 126 25.1 3 7.7 83 414 77.5 20.0 96.9
29 Sabang 1409 112 586 90.8 5 23 4.7 0 0.0 117 609 95.4 20.0 119.3
30 Pigcale 2499 184 958 148.5 21 105 21.0 5 14.0 210 1063 183.4 20.0 229.3
31 Centro Bay-Bay 1396 60 315 48.8 51 253 50.6 2 6.1 113 568 105.5 20.0 131.9
32 San Roque 5559 609 3169 491.2 3 15 3.0 5 15.2 617 3184 509.4 20.0 636.8
33 PNR-Penaranda 3143 410 2137 331.2 41 205 41.1 7 21.1 459 2342 393.4 20.0 491.8
35 Tinago 377 55 285 44.2 25 124 24.8 2 5.6 81 409 74.6 20.0 93.3
36 Kapantawan 10757 2066 10757 1667.4 2481 12406 2481.3 91 272.3 4638 23164 4421.0 20.0 5526.3
234
37 Bitano -3785 -431 -2243 -347.6 -16 -78 -15.5 -4 -12.0 -450 -2320 -375.1 20.0 -468.8
38 Gogon 6982 648 3373 522.8 28 142 28.5 7 21.4 683 3515 572.6 20.0 715.8
39 Bonot 3241 622 3241 502.3 43 214 42.9 3 10.2 669 3455 555.4 20.0 694.2
40 Cruzada 8157 1567 8157 1264.3 94 472 94.5 16 47.2 1677 8629 1406.0 20.0 1757.5
41 Bogtong 4573 321 1674 259.4 7 35 7.0 7 21.1 336 1709 287.6 20.0 359.5
42 Rawis 9891 1068 5561 861.9 97 483 96.6 36 109.1 1201 6044 1067.6 20.0 1334.5
43 Tamaoyan 2049 274 1429 221.5 0 0 0.0 3 7.9 277 1429 229.4 20.0 286.7
44 Pawa 3333 83 431 66.8 1 5 1.0 1 3.0 85 436 70.9 20.0 88.6
45 Dita 2026 95 497 77.0 0 0 0.0 1 3.3 97 497 80.3 20.0 100.4
46 San Joaquin 2437 177 921 142.7 1 7 1.5 3 8.8 181 928 153.1 20.0 191.3
47 Arimbay 4346 305 1590 246.5 9 45 9.0 4 11.6 318 1635 267.1 20.0 333.9
48 Bagong Abre 1750 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
49 Bigaa 5654 250 1303 201.9 7 34 6.8 0 0.0 257 1336 208.7 20.0 260.8
50 Padang 590 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
51 Buyuan 3951 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
52 Matang 2090 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
53 Bogna 3868 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 2 7.2 2 0 7.2 20.0 9.0
54 Mabinit 1774 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
55 Estanza 5872 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
57 Dap-Dap 2379 180 936 145.1 0 0 0.0 1 3.4 181 936 148.5 20.0 185.6
58 Buraguis 5212 836 4352 674.5 6 28 5.5 7 20.7 848 4379 700.7 20.0 875.9
59 Puro 4853 161 836 129.5 1 4 0.9 1 2.6 162 840 133.1 20.0 166.3
60 Lamba 1148 100 550 85.3 3 15 3.0 0 0.0 103 565 88.3 20.0 110.3
61 Maslog 4398 150 825 127.9 3 15 3.0 0 0.0 153 840 130.9 20.0 163.6
62 Homapon 4309 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
63 Mariawa 1512 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
64 Bagacay 1959 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
65 Imalnod 2831 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
66 Banquerohan 7302 500 2750 426.3 6 30 6.0 0 0.0 506 2780 432.3 20.0 540.3
67 Bariis 1848 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
68 San Francisco 2630 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
69 Buenavista 1256 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
70 Cabacong 3012 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
TOTAL 210819 18659 97364 15091 3610 18051 3610 288 864 22557 115415 19566 24457
235

m/d) m/d) m/d) m/d)

1 EM's Barrio 5476 1012 5271 817.0 35 177 35.4 14 42.5 1062 5448 894.9 20.0 1118.6
2 EM's Barrio South 2954 195 1014 157.1 19 95 19.1 11 34.4 225 1109 210.6 20.0 263.3
3 EM's Barrio East 388 46 239 37.0 5 27 5.3 0 0.0 51 265 42.3 20.0 52.9
4 Sagpon 1410 94 491 76.1 10 52 10.3 1 3.9 106 542 90.2 20.0 112.8
5 Sagmin 533 79 412 63.9 12 59 11.7 0 0.0 91 471 75.6 20.0 94.5
6 Banadero 1370 154 802 124.2 1 4 0.9 0 0.0 155 806 125.1 20.0 156.4
7 Bano 1043 48 250 38.8 2 12 2.4 0 0.0 50 262 41.2 20.0 51.5
8 Bagumbayan 3385 300 1563 242.3 32 162 32.3 8 24.2 341 1725 298.8 20.0 373.5
9 Pinaric 1253 134 695 107.8 14 72 14.5 0 0.0 148 768 122.2 20.0 152.8
10 Cabugao 713 61 320 49.6 13 63 12.6 2 6.9 76 383 69.1 20.0 86.4
11 Maoyod 1117 136 706 109.4 4 18 3.6 0 0.0 139 724 113.0 20.0 141.3
12 Tula-Tula 1730 172 896 139.0 2 10 2.0 0 0.0 174 907 141.0 20.0 176.2
13 Ilawod West 880 93 482 74.8 15 74 14.7 15 44.2 122 556 133.7 20.0 167.1
14 Ilawod 909 149 777 120.4 15 75 15.0 0 0.0 164 852 135.4 20.0 169.3
15 Ilawod East 2765 287 1494 231.5 23 114 22.8 2 5.7 312 1607 260.0 20.0 325.0
17 Rizal St. - Ilawod 2710 445 2318 359.3 45 224 44.7 4 11.2 494 2542 415.3 20.0 519.1
18 Cabangan West 4889 1251 6515 1009.9 75 374 74.8 4 11.2 1330 6889 1095.9 20.0 1369.8
19 Cabangan 1196 149 775 120.1 29 145 29.1 3 7.7 180 920 156.9 20.0 196.1
20 Cabangan East 884 170 884 137.0 22 110 21.9 4 11.0 195 993 169.9 20.0 212.3
21 Binanuahan West 837 105 549 85.1 12 58 11.5 3 8.6 120 607 105.3 20.0 131.6
22 Binanuahan East 1601 35 184 28.5 7 36 7.2 0 0.0 42 220 35.7 20.0 44.6
24 Rizal St. 2954 491 2554 395.9 70 348 69.6 5 13.6 565 2902 479.1 20.0 598.9
25 Labu-Lapu 1080 164 856 132.6 31 156 31.1 3 10.4 199 1011 174.1 20.0 217.6
26 Dinagaan 447 50 258 40.0 22 112 22.5 2 6.9 74 370 69.3 20.0 86.7
29 Sabang 1408 112 585 90.7 5 23 4.7 0 0.0 117 609 95.4 20.0 119.2
30 Pigcale 2633 194 1009 156.4 22 110 22.1 5 14.7 221 1119 193.2 20.0 241.5
31 Centro Bay-Bay 1441 62 325 50.4 52 261 52.2 2 6.3 117 586 108.9 20.0 136.1
32 San Roque 5644 618 3217 498.7 3 15 3.1 5 15.5 626 3233 517.2 20.0 646.5
33 PNR-Penaranda 3296 430 2241 347.4 43 215 43.0 7 22.1 481 2456 412.5 20.0 515.7
35 Tinago 287 42 217 33.7 19 94 18.9 1 4.3 62 312 56.8 20.0 71.0
36 Kapantawan 13301 2555 13301 2061.6 3068 15340 3068.0 112 336.7 5735 28641 5466.4 20.0 6832.9
236
37 Bitano -6316 -719 -3743 -580.1 -26 -129 -25.9 -7 -20.0 -751 -3872 -625.9 20.0 -782.4
38 Gogon 7553 701 3648 565.5 31 154 30.8 8 23.1 739 3802 619.4 20.0 774.3
39 Bonot 3097 595 3097 480.1 41 205 41.0 3 9.8 639 3302 530.8 20.0 663.5
40 Cruzada 9237 1774 9237 1431.7 107 535 107.0 18 53.5 1899 9772 1592.2 20.0 1990.2
41 Bogtong 4907 345 1796 278.3 8 38 7.6 8 22.7 360 1834 308.6 20.0 385.7
42 Rawis 10495 1133 5900 914.5 103 513 102.5 39 115.8 1274 6413 1132.8 20.0 1416.0
43 Tamaoyan 2283 306 1592 246.8 0 0 0.0 3 8.8 309 1592 255.6 20.0 319.5
44 Pawa 3442 86 445 69.0 1 5 1.0 1 3.1 88 451 73.2 20.0 91.5
45 Dita 2195 103 538 83.4 0 0 0.0 1 3.6 105 538 87.1 20.0 108.8
46 San Joaquin 2641 192 998 154.7 2 8 1.6 3 9.6 197 1006 165.9 20.0 207.4
47 Arimbay 4702 330 1721 266.7 10 49 9.7 4 12.5 344 1769 289.0 20.0 361.2
48 Bagong Abre 1902 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
49 Bigaa 5829 258 1343 208.2 7 35 7.0 0 0.0 265 1378 215.1 20.0 268.9
50 Padang 225 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
51 Buyuan 4255 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
52 Matang 2271 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
53 Bogna 4103 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 3 7.6 3 0 7.6 20.0 9.5
54 Mabinit 1947 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
55 Estanza 6511 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
57 Dap-Dap 2542 192 1000 155.0 0 0 0.0 1 3.6 193 1000 158.6 20.0 198.3
58 Buraguis 5680 911 4742 735.1 6 30 6.0 8 22.5 924 4772 763.6 20.0 954.5
59 Puro 5149 170 887 137.4 1 5 0.9 1 2.8 172 891 141.2 20.0 176.4
60 Lamba 1187 150 780 120.9 5 25 5.0 0 0.0 155 805 125.9 20.0 157.4
61 Maslog 4644 220 1144 177.3 5 25 5.0 0 0.0 225 1169 182.3 20.0 227.9
62 Homapon 4496 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
63 Mariawa 1550 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
64 Bagacay 2100 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
65 Imalnod 3165 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
66 Banquerohan 7790 800 4160 644.8 10 50 10.0 0 0.0 810 4210 654.8 20.0 818.5
67 Bariis 1878 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
68 San Francisco 2783 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
69 Buenavista 1336 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
70 Cabacong 3178 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 20.0 0.0
237
APPENDIX 5.4: WATER DEMAND VARIATION - LCWD
Water Demand Variation - Legazpi City Water District

Average Day Maximum Day Peak Hour
YEAR Demand Demand Demand
cu. m/d L/s cu. m/d L/s cu. m/d L/s
2010 19353.4 224.0 25159.5 291.2 38706.9 448.0
2011 19784.7 229.0 25720.1 297.7 39569.4 458.0
2012 20216.0 234.0 26280.8 304.2 40432.0 468.0
2013 20647.3 239.0 26841.5 310.7 41294.6 477.9
2014 20288.1 234.8 26374.6 305.3 40576.2 469.6
2015 21774.8 252.0 28307.2 327.6 43549.6 504.0
2016 21852.5 252.9 28408.2 328.8 43705.0 505.8
2017 22267.6 257.7 28947.9 335.0 44535.2 515.5
2018 22682.7 262.5 29487.5 341.3 45365.4 525.1
2019 23097.8 267.3 30027.2 347.5 46195.7 534.7
2020 24457.0 283.1 31794.0 368.0 48913.9 566.1
2021 24045.3 278.3 31259.0 361.8 48090.7 556.6
2022 24460.5 283.1 31798.6 368.0 48920.9 566.2
2023 24875.6 287.9 32338.2 374.3 49751.1 575.8
2024 25290.7 292.7 32877.9 380.5 50581.4 585.4
2025 27045.6 313.0 35159.3 406.9 54091.2 626.1
238
APPENDIX 6.1: SURFACE WATER DATA - LCWD
Table 6 - 1 Yawa River Flow Calculations

Table 6 – 8A Surface Water Quality Test Results
Table 6 – 8B Springs Water Quality Test Results
Figure 6 - 1 Yawa River Measuring Station Location Map and River Cross Section
Appendix 6 - 1 Flow Records of Yawa River: 1980 - 1988

Appendix 6 – 2A Nasisi River Mean Monthly Flow
Appendix 6 – 2B Nasisi River Flow Frequency
Appendix 6 – 5A Yawa River Water Quality Test Results: Physical and Chemical
Appendix 6 – 5B Yawa River Water Quality Test Results: Heavy Metals
239
TABLE 6 - 1
YAWA RIVER STREAMFLOW CALCULATION
PROJECT : Philippine Hydro Inc. Treatment Plant Project for the Legaspi City Water District
Location : Brgy. Tagas, Legaspi City Coordinates
o
Sream Name : Yawa River Latitude : 13 09' 53"
o
Date : 30-Aug-07 Longitude : 123 43' 30"
Time : 8:50 AM Elevation : 15 mamsl
Weather : Fine Measured by : vsd
Remarks :
All measurements in cm, Counts over 30 sec period { except where indicated by *}
Observ Distance Depth, d Depth of Cumul. Actual Counts per Velocity Ave Vel at Ave Vel at Area Discharge, Q
Pt. Meas. Reading Reading second (cm/s) Obs. Pt. section 2 (cu. cm/s)
(cm )
(cm/s) (cm/s)
A 0 0 64300 (Initial reading) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
B 100 10 .6d 64616 316 10.53 31.24 31.24 15.62 500 7809.97
C 100 10 .6d 65250 634 21.13 59.66 59.66 45.45 1000 45449.17
D 100 15 .6d 66154 904 30.13 83.79 83.79 71.72 1250 89653.71
E 100 9 .6d 66904 750 25.00 70.03 70.03 76.91 1200 92287.48
F 100 7 .6d 67399 495 16.50 47.24 47.24 58.63 800 46904.60
G 100 5 .6d 47.24 47.24 47.24 600 28341.90
J 300 5 .6d 63.05 63.05 55.15 1500 82718.18
K 100 13 .6d 68248 849 28.30 78.87 78.87 70.96 900 63867.02
L 100 10 .6d 69364 1116 37.20 102.73 102.73 90.80 1150 104423.16
M 100 11 .6d 70531 1167 38.90 107.29 107.29 105.01 1050 110262.65
N 100 22 0.2d 71684 1153 38.43 106.04 85.43 96.36 1650 158991.32
0.8d 72190 506 16.87 48.22
.6d 73298 1108 36.93 102.02
O 100 17 .6d 74306 1008 33.60 93.08 93.08 89.25 1950 174044.77
P 100 16 .6d 75670 1364 45.47 124.90 124.90 108.99 1650 179831.63
Q 100 20 .6d 76867 1197 39.90 109.97 109.97 117.43 1800 211381.23
R 100 10 .6d 78254 1387 46.23 126.95 126.95 118.46 1500 177692.60
S 100 18 .6d 79512 1258 41.93 115.42 115.42 121.19 1400 169662.38
T 100 15 .6d 81395 1883 62.77 171.28 171.28 143.35 1650 236528.08
U 100 22 .6d 83016 1621 54.03 147.86 134.91 153.09 1850 283218.94
0.2d 84543 1527 50.90 139.46
0.8d 85823 1280 42.67 117.39
V 100 27 0.2d 87574 1751 58.37 159.48 78.55 106.73 2450 261477.35
0.8d 87736 162 5.40 20.64
.6d 88402 666 19.59* 55.52
W 100 18 .6d 89474 1072 30.60* 85.12 85.12 81.83 2250 184118.51
X 100 13 .6d 90137 663 18.90* 53.79 53.79 69.45 1550 107648.28
Y 100 7 .6d
Z 60 0 .6d 90137 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.89 390 10488.23
Total 2,826,801.1
L= 2,460 cm cu cm/s
Total 2.827 cu m/s
-0.025 cu m/s
Less: Discharge from LCWD Well
Yawa River Flow 2.802 cu m/s
240
TABLE 6 - 8A
SURFACE WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
NSDW* Kapungulan Collector Canal Fererra Collector Canal Sayong Collector Canal Busay Falls/ Downstream Busay Falls/ Upstream Busay Falls
Parameters Permissible Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Puting Daga Brgy. Puting Daga Brgy. Taysan
Limits Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City
Temperature °C 23.20 23.00 23.00 28.70 29.00 21.90
Color TCU 15 nil nil nil 25.00 22.00 62.00
Odor unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
Turbidity NTU 5 0.70 1.10 1.10 3.00 2.00 4.00
pH 6.5 -8.5 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.41 8.56 7.26
Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 207.00 181.00 179.00 161.00 175.00 88.00
Specific Conductance µ mhos/cm 324.00 283.00 279.00 252.00 274.00 138.00
Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 130.00 130.00 120.00 100.00 100.00 60.00
Hardness mg/l CaCO3 300 175.00 120.00 140.00 120.00 240.00 50.00
++
Calcium Ca mg/L 75 48.00 46.00 48.00 20.00 20.00 12.00
++
Magnesium Mg mg/L 50 13.00 1.00 5.00 17.00 46.00 5.00
Carbonates CO3 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 36.00 0.00

-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 159.00 159.00 146.00 73.00 122.00 73.00
-
Chloride Cl mg/L 200 12.00 12.00 7.00 20.00 54.00 9.40
++
Iron Fe mg/L 1.0 nil ( MDL = 0.02 ) nil ( MDL = 0.02 ) nil ( MDL = 0.02 ) 0.15 0.10 0.51
++
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.1 n.a. n.a. nil
Date of Sampling 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 11/21/2005
Date of Examination 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 5/16/2005 5/16/2005 12/5/2005
NOTE: MDL - minimum detection limit, nil - not detected

PNSDW - Philippine National Standards for Drinking Water
241
TABLE 6 - 8B
SPRINGS WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
NSDW* Kapulungan 1 Spring Kapulungan 2 Spring 7- Spring Ayala Spring Aperin Spring Perez Spring Sayong Spring Spring
Parameters Permissible Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Brgy. Buyoan Poblacion, Rapu Rapu
Limits Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City
Temperature °C 22.8 22.9 23.10 23.00 23.10 23.00 23.10 23.00
Color TCU 5 5 nil nil nil nil nil nil 2.00
Odor unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
Turbidity NTU 5 4 0.7 0.50 2.00 0.90 2.00 3.00 nil
pH 6.5 -8.5 8.19 8.21 8.00 8.10 8.30 7.60 8.10 7.95
Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 178 177 182.00 154.00 179.00 143.00 170.00 93.00
Specific Conductance µ mhos/cm 278 277 285.00 241.00 279.00 223.00 265.00 146.00
Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 120 110 120.00 120.00 120.00 110.00 120.00 60.00
Hardness mg/l CaCO3 300 140 125 150.00 110.00 130.00 115.00 120.00 80.00
++
Calcium Ca mg/L 75 46 44 48.00 36.00 40.00 24.00 40.00 12.00
++
Magnesium Mg mg/L 50 6 4 7.00 5.00 7.00 13.00 5.00 12.00
Carbonates CO3 0 0 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 18.00 0.00
-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 146 134 146.00 146.00 122.00 134.00 110.00 73.00
-
Chloride Cl mg/L 250 10 10 15.00 7.00 12.00 12.00 7.00 15.00
++
Iron Fe mg/L 1.0 nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) 0.01 (MDL = 0.02)
++
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.4 nil (MDL = 0.02)
Date of Sampling 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004 8/22/2004
Date of Examination 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 9/17/2004

242
APPENDIX 6 - 1
FLOW RECORDS OF YAWA RIVER 1980-1988 (cu.m/sec.)
Month 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Mean Monthly
January 9.895 6.397 6.209 7.370 9.303 2.599 6.962
February 10.305 6.351 7.691 9.353 2.540 7.248
March 10.054 6.332 7.836 9.136 2.481 7.168
April 10.339 6.304 6.778 7.988 7.852
May 10.218 6.274 6.675 8.137 1.538 2.441 5.881
June 10.226 6.272 6.591 7.552 2.475 2.442 5.926
July 6.644 8.643 2.543 2.448 2.405 4.537
August 6.228 6.602 8.738 2.643 2.440 2.359 4.835
September 3.104 6.223 6.539 8.904 2.664 2.451 4.981
October 3.438 3.126 6.232 6.579 2.779 2.427 2.390 3.853
November 5.128 6.405 6.760 12.405 2.714 2.520 5.989
December 3.247 5.904 6.442 6.230 7.139 11.493 2.643 2.365 5.683
Annual Mean 5.910
Source : Streamflow Data (1980-2001)

January 2003 (Unpublished Vol. 1)
Department of Public Works and Highways-Bureau of Research and Standards (DPWH-BRS)
243
APPENDIX 6 - 2A
NASISI RIVER MEAN MONTHLY FLOW (cu.m/sec.)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1951 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 3.48 3.16
1952 2.16 2.58 2.06 1.49 1.18 0.93 0.86 0.87 2.37 2.53 1.20 2.35
1953 1.99 1.76 2.02 1.53 1.22 1.18 1.37 1.64 1.88 1.29 1.80 2.76
1954 2.06 1.35 1.74 1.31 1.01 0.76 0.91 1.11 1.10 1.34 3.29 2.99
1955 5.24 4.00 2.31 2.29 1.52 1.35 1.29 1.27 1.40 1.75 2.43 2.24
1956 1.99 2.06 2.26 2.02 1.26 0.99 1.30 1.49 2.53 2.00 2.72 5.01
1957 5.05 2.75 2.57 2.45 2.24 1.55 1.07 1.21 1.52 2.11 3.06 2.48
1958 2.26 1.80 1.64 1.38 1.45 1.62 1.83 1.95 1.65 2.88 1.43 1.32
1959 1.48 1.70 2.52 2.57 3.20 2.87 1.89 1.57 1.53 2.06 2.47 1.98
1960 1.01 0.87 0.90 1.65 1.98 5.06 1.92 1.74 2.45 2.89 3.25 2.98
1961 3.15 1.97 2.27 1.77 2.00 1.64 1.99 1.69 1.53 1.66 2.02 2.48
1962 2.33 2.12 2.18 1.80 2.51 1.76 1.85 1.90 1.81 1.66 3.78 2.03
1963 1.49 2.10 1.57 1.41 1.40 2.62 1.37 2.93 1.82 1.76 2.08 1.76
1964 2.42 1.65 1.44 1.43 1.39 2.04 1.69 1.75 2.63 1.29 1.75 3.85
1965 4.00 2.62 1.66 1.33 1.39 1.27 1.32 1.28 1.36 1.31 1.28 1.53
1966 1.46 1.31 1.29 1.25 1.28 1.29 1.32 1.46 1.27 1.18 1.48 2.74
1967 2.70 3.04 2.51 3.01 2.21 2.14 2.18 1.78 1.02 1.49 1.51 0.86
1968 1.76 1.76 1.44 1.41 1.19 1.39 1.39 1.51 2.44 1.41 6.61 1.64
1969 0.92 0.86 1.06 0.78 0.84 0.82 1.07 0.93 1.08 1.11 1.22 3.29
1970 0.93 0.90 0.81 0.68 0.66 0.61 0.60 ***** 0.60 2.02 0.71 0.73
Mean = 2.34 1.96 1.80 1.66 1.58 1.68 1.43 1.56 1.68 1.78 2.38 2.41
ST. DEV = 1.25 0.80 0.55 0.59 0.63 1.02 0.43 0.46 0.58 0.54 1.33 1.02
SKEWSS = 1.262 0.795 -0.288 0.648 1.048 2.221 -0.044 1.281 0.174 0.886 1.750 0.605
KURTSS = 4.451 4.390 2.419 3.743 4.376 9.423 2.705 6.873 2.649 3.393 7.632 4.350
NO. YRS = 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20
Note : ***** INDICATES MISSING DATA, NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION OF STATISTICAL PARAMETERS.
244
APPENDIX 6 - 2B
NASISI RIVER FLOW FREQUENCY

NASISI, LIGAO, ALBAY1
Year Frequency Intervals, cum/s Total

Less than 1.01 to 1.51 to 2.01 to 2.51 to 3.01 to More than
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 4.00 4.00.0
1952 3 3 0 4 2 0 0 12
1953 0 4 6 1 1 0 0 12
1954 2 6 1 1 1 1 0 12
1955 0 4 2 4 0 1 1 12
1956 1 3 2 3 2 1 0 12
1957 0 2 2 4 2 1 1 12
1958 0 4 6 1 1 0 0 12
1959 0 1 5 2 3 1 0 12
1960 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 12
1961 0 0 8 3 0 1 0 12
1962 0 0 6 4 1 1 0 12
1963 0 4 4 2 2 0 0 12
1964 0 4 4 2 1 1 0 12
1965 0 8 2 0 1 1 0 12
1966 0 11 0 0 1 12
1967 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 12
1968 0 6 4 1 0 0 1 12
1969 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 12
1970 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 12
S 25 68 59 37 22 13 4 228
Xn=S/n 1.32 3.58 3.11 1.95 1.16 0.68 0.21 12
Sj 12.00 10.68 7.11 4.00 2.05 0.89 0.21
Sj/Nx100 100.00 89.04 59.21 33.33 17.11 7.46 1.75

Note:
1
Albay Gaging sttation is on center pier of bailey bridge along Polangui-Guinobatan Road
at lat. 13-15- 30 and long. 123-35 -30. Drainage area = 39 sq km
N = months of the year
n = number of observation years = 19
f = observed frequency: number of months of the year during which discharge was within a
given frequency interval
S = total number of months during which the flow was within a given discharge for the period
Sj = cumulative number of months
Xn = average frequency
Sj/Nx100 = cumulative frequency in percent reported graphically against discharge
245
APPENDIX 6 - 5A
YAWA RIVER WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
A. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
NSDW* Binitayan Bogtong IPP # IPP## Bogtong Bogtong Bogtong

Parameters Units Permissible Daraga Legazpi City Tagas Tagas Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City
Limits 1/ Daraga Daraga 2/ 3/ 1/
pH °C 7.0-8.5 7.2 6.8 8.3 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.6
Turbidity JTU 5 17.0 4.4 20.9 33.5 10.3 3.27 29.0
Color Units 5 35 20 50 451 10 30 35
Odor Units 3 unobj unobj unobj obj unobj unobj unobj
Conductivity µ mhos/cm - 330 625 930 2000 970 870 850
Total Solids mg/l 500 - - - - - - -
Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 211 400 595 1280 621 557 544
Carbonate CO3 mg/l - nil nil 41 nil nil nil nil
-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/l - 146 250 399 660 243 257 221
Sulfate SO4 mg/l 200 16.0 60.0 3.0 - 200.0 166.0 140.0
-
Chloride Cl mg/l 200 18 29 45 135 38 38 74
Nitrate NO3 mg/l - - - - - - - -
Nitrite NO2 mg/l - - - - - - - -
++
Calcium Ca mg/l 75 31 40 46 141 50 48 42
++
Magnesium Mg mg/l 50 10.7 40.1 65.6 19.9 57.6 48.0 45.0
++
Iron (x) Fe mg/l 0.3 0.58 1.10 0.44 - 0.23 0.20 0.34
++
Manganese (x) Mn mg/l 0.1 nil 0.93 0.18 - nil nil 0.20
Ammonia NH4 mg/l - - - - - - - -
Sodium Na mg/l - 22 23 35 280 52 50 50
Potassium K mg/l - 3.5 7.2 6.6 25.0 6.3 6.3 6.1
Carbon Dioxide CO2 mg/l - - - - - - - -
Total Hardness CaCO3 mg/l 100-500 121 264 385 434 363 319 291
Calcium Hardness CaCO3 mg/l - 77 99 - -
Magnesium Hardness CaCO3 mg/l - 44 165 - -
Phosphate PO4 mg/l - - - - - - - -
Flouride F mg/l - - - - - - - -
Alkalinity CaCO3 mg/l - 120 205 395 541 199 211 181
Copper Cu mg/l - - - - - - - -
Potassium Alkalinity mg/l - - - - - - - -
Carbonate Alkalinity mg/l - nil - - - - - -
Bicarbonate Alkalinity mg/l - 120 - - - - - -
Date of Sampling 141085 141085 141185 141185 141185 141185 141185
*Source -Kampsax-Kruger , "Legaspi City Water District Water Supply Feasibility Study Report, 1987"
(x) Stated as reported by laboratory, however
field tests indicate some values may be doubtful
1/ southern edge of river
2/ northern edge of river * upstream of Isarog Paper and Pulp (IPP) Factory waste water outlet
3/ midstream of river ** Isarog Paper and Pulp (IPP) Factory waste water outlet
APPENDIX 6 - 5B
YAWA RIVER WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
B. HEAVY METALS
Discharge Outlet of IPP Middle of the Yawa River, Minimum Detectable

Source Units WHO Gudide Value
waste, Tagas, Daraga Bogtong, Legaspi City Amount
Date of Sampling 14-Nov-85 14-Nov-85
Arsenic ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.02 0.05
Cadmium ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.02 0.005
Chromium ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.06 0.05
Copper ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.05 -
Flouride ug/ml N.D. N.D. 2 -
Lead ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.2 0.05
Mercury ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.0005 0.001
Nickel ug/ml N.D. N.D. 0.05 -
Sodium % (weight) 0.11 0.04 - -
Zinc ug/ml 0.10 0.17 - -
*Source -Kampsax-Kruger , "Legaspi City Water District Water Supply Feasibility Study Report, 1987"
N.D. None
- detected
246
APPENDIX 6.2: GROUNDWATER DATA - LCWD
Table 5 Well data Summary – Legazpi City Water District

Table 6 - 3 Springs Data Summary
Table 6 – 4 Well Data Summary
Table 6 – 5 Test Pumping Results Summary
Table 6 – 6 Sustainable Yields Summary
Table 6 – 7C Wells Water Quality Test Results
Figure 6 – 2A Stratigraphy of Southern Bicol Peninsula

Figure 6 – 2B Geologic Map
Figure 6 - 3 Springs and Wellfields Location Map
Figure 6 – 4A Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 1
Figure 6 – 4B Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 2
Figure 6 – 4C Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 4
Figure 6 – 4D Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 8
Figure 6 – 4E Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 9
Figure 6 – 4F Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 10
Figure 6 – 4G Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Bogna Well No. 11
Figure 6 – 4H Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Mabinit Well No. 3
Figure 6 – 4I Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Mabinit Well No. 5
Figure 6 – 4J Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Mabinit Well No. 6
Figure 6 – 4K Borehole Logs and Well Construction: Banadero Well No. 2
Figure 6 – 5.1A Plots and Analysis of Constant Discharge Test: LCWD Bogna Well No. 1
Figure 6 – 5.1B Plots and Analysis of Step-drawdown Test: LCWD Bogna Well No. 1
Figure 6 – 5.6A Plots and Analysis of Constant Discharge Test: LCWD Bogna Well No.
10
Figure 6 – 5.7A Plots and Analysis of Constant Discharge Test: LCWD Bogna Well No.
11
Figure 6 – 5.8A Plots and Analysis of Constant Discharge Test: LCWD Mabinit Well No.
3
Figure 6 – 5.8B Plots and Analysis of Step-drawdown Test: LCWD Mabinit Well No. 3
5
247
6
Figure 6 – 5.11A Plots and Analysis of Constant Discharge Test:
LCWD Banadero Well No. 2
Figure 6 – 5.11B Plots and Analysis of Step-drawdown Test: LCWD Banadero Well No. 2
Appendix 6 – 3.1A CDT Data: Bogna Well No. 1

Appendix 6 – 3.1B SDT Data: Bogna Well No. 1
Appendix 6 – 3.8A CDT Data: Mabinit Well No. 3
Appendix 6 – 3.8B SDT Data: Mabinit Well No. 3
Appendix 6 – 3.11A CDT Data: Banadero Well No. 2
Appendix 6 – 3.11B SDT Data: Banadero Well No. 2
Appendix 6 – 4.1 Calculation of Long term Drawdowns: Bogna Well No. 1
Appendix 6 – 4.8 Calculation of Long term Drawdowns: Mabinit Well No. 3
Appendix 6 – 4.11 Calculation of Long term Drawdowns: Banadero Well No. 2
Appendix 6 - 6 Groundwater Potential Calculation
248
TABLE 6 - 5
WELL DATA SUMMARY
Well No: Location Year Depth Casing Size SWL PWL Test Q Sp. Cap. Iron TDS Capacity
Completed (m) (mm) (m) (m) (lps) (lps/m) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lps)
Bogna Well No. 1 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 30 200 1.92 9.98 17 2.11 Nil (MDL=.02) 203 10.71
Bogna Well No. 2 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 30 200 1.85 11.90 17.10 1.70 Nil (MDL=.02) 202 7.62
Bogna Well No. 3 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 1987 25 250 1.50 273
Bogna Well No. 4 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 34 200 1.06 10.65 19.65 2.05 1.00 373 11.75
Bogna Well No. 5 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 1987 25 250 Nil (MDL=.02) 317 14.57
Bogna Well No. 7 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 1987 25 250 2.00 280 13.23
Bogna Well No. 8 Bgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 26 200 1.97 5.66 25.65 6.96 Nil (MDL=.02) 241 15.58
Mabinit Well No. 1 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 1.20 424 12.43
Mabinit Well No. 2 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 Nil (MDL=.02) 334 6.64
Mabinit Well No. 3 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 2002 26 200 0.67 8.29 21.00 2.76 1.00 367 6.57
Mabinit Well No. 4 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 0.50 494
Mabinit Well No. 5 Bgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 2003 30 200 2.22 5.72 19.50 5.56 10.00 840 12.54
Banadero Well No. 2 City Proper (Albay District) 2003 85 200 32.54 55.25 0.73 0.03
Bigaa Well No. 1 Brgy. Bigaa, Legazpi City 1995 25 250 12.22 2.40 168 12.22
The bulk
water
184.29
249
TABLE 6 - 3
SPRINGS DATA SUMMARY
Spring Name Location Distance from Elevation Discharge Status

the City (mamsl) (liters/sec)
Proper
(km)
1 Aperin Spring Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 76 7.58 still being used
by LCWD
2 Ayala Springs
No. 1 Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 74 1.87 still being used
by LCWD
No. 2 Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 77 0 abandoned
Ferrera
3 Spring Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 88 10.23 still being used
by LCWD
Kapungulan
4 Springs
No. 1 Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 100 26.26 still being used
No. 2 Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 96 18.54 by LCWD
5 Kapungulan
Collector
Canal Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 96 11.31 still being used
by LCWD
6 Perez Spring Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 82 5.87 abandoned
7 Seven Spring Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 91 2.62 still being used
by LCWD
8 Santander
Collector
Canal Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 96 24.85 still being used
by LCWD
Sayong
9 Spring Brgy. Buyuan 7.1 (north) 92 27.69 abandoned
Padang
10 Springs
local resident's
No. 1 Brgy. Padang 8.0 (north) 77 2.12 use
local resident's
No. 2 Brgy. Padang 8.0 (north) 47 1.95 use
No. 3 Brgy. Padang 8.0 (north) 92 10.00 untapped
Total discharge, liters/sec 150.89
250
TABLE 6 - 4
WELL DATA SUMMARY
Well No: Location Year Depth Casing Size SWL PWL Test Q Sp. Cap. Iron TDS Capacity
Completed (m) (mm) (m) (m) (lps) (lps/m) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lps)
Bogna Well No. 1 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 30 200 1.92 9.98 17 2.11 Nil (MDL=.02) 203 10.71
Bogna Well No. 2 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 30 200 1.85 11.90 17.10 1.70 Nil (MDL=.02) 202 7.62
Bogna Well No. 3 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 1987 25 250 1.50 273
Bogna Well No. 7 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 1987 25 250 2.00 280 13.23
Bogna Well No. 8 Bgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 2002 26 200 1.97 5.66 25.65 6.96 Nil (MDL=.02) 241 15.58
Mabinit Well No. 1 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 1.20 424 12.43
Mabinit Well No. 2 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 Nil (MDL=.02) 334 6.64
Mabinit Well No. 4 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 1988 25 250 0.50 494
Mabinit Well No. 5 Bgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 2003 30 200 2.22 5.72 19.50 5.56 10.00 840 12.54
Banadero Well No. 2 City Proper (Albay District) 2003 85 200 32.54 55.25 0.73 0.03
Bigaa Well No. 1 Brgy. Bigaa, Legazpi City 1995 25 250 12.22 2.40 168 12.22
251
TABLE 6 - 5
TEST PUMPING RESULTS SUMMARY
-3 Production
Depth SWL Drawdown Sp. Cap. T x 10 B C Iron TDS
Well No: Test Q (lps) 2 2 2 5 Capacity Remarks
(m) (m) (m) (lps/m) (m /sec) (sec/ m ) (sec / m ) (mg/l) (mg/l)
(lps)
Bogna Well No. 1 30 1.92 17.00 8.06 2.11 88.10 420 3,667 Nil (MDL=.02) 203 10.71 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 2 30 1.85 17.10 10.05 1.70 74.00 560 2,333 Nil (MDL=.02) 202 7.62 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 3 25 1.50 273 Abandoned
Bogna Well No. 4 34 1.06 19.65 9.59 2.05 46.40 460 3,000 1.00 373 11.75 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 5 25 Nil (MDL=.02) 317 14.57 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 6 25 Nil (MDL=.02) 406 19.60 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 7 25 2.00 280 13.23 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 8 26 1.97 25.65 3.69 6.96 57.90 - - Nil (MDL=.02) 241 15.58 Stand by
Bogna Well No. 11 34 2.25 8.30 5.50 1.51 5.31 - - 2.60 382 14.54 Stand by
Mabinit Well No. 1 25 1.20 424 12.43 Stand by
Mabinit Well No. 2 25 Nil (MDL=.02) 334 6.64 Stand by
Mabinit Well No. 3 26 0.67 21.00 7.62 2.76 57.60 280 4,667 1.00 367 6.57 Stand by
Mabinit Well No. 4 25 0.50 494 Abandoned
Mabinit Well No. 5 30 2.22 19.50 3.51 5.56 24.20 160 667 10.00 840 12.54 Stand by
Mabinit Well No. 6 30 4.05 19.85 5.37 3.70 35.20 240 1,667 0.30 397 10.94 Stand by
Banadero Well No. 2 85 32.54 0.73 22.71 0.03 1.02 - - 0.10 289 6 Hours Operation
Bigaa Well No. 1 25 12.22 2.40 168 12.22 Stand by
SWL – static water level Sp. Cap. – specific capacity

B – formation loss factor T – transmissivity
C – well loss factor CDT – constant discharge test
Q – discharge RT – recovery test
252
TABLE 6 - 6
SUSTAINABLE WELL YIELD SUMMARY
Well Location Depth SWL Total PWL First Saturated Available Sustainable Limiting
No. ( m bgl) Drawdown 20%H / 25%H Screen Thickness, H Drawdown Yield Factor
20%H / 25%H (m bgl) (m bgl) (m) 20%H / 25%H (lps)
(m) (m)
Bogna No.1 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 30 1.92 5.60 / 6.99 7.52 / 8.91 14 28.08 5.62 / 7.02 6.8 - 9.1 20%H - 25%H
Bogna No.3 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 25
Bogna No.4 Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 34 1.06 6.43 / 7.93 7.49 / 8.99 18 32.94 6.59 / 8.24 7.7 / 10.0 20%H - 25%H
Bogna No.8 Bgy. Bogna, Legazpi City 26 1.97 4.72 / 5.84 6.69 / 7.81 10 24.03 4.81 / 6.01 15.0 / 21.0 20%H - 25%H
Mabinit No.1 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 25
Mabinit No.3 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 26 0.67 4.87 / 5.99 5.54 / 6.66 10 25.33 5.07 - 6.33 7.5 - 10.0 20%H - 25%H
Mabinit No.5 Bgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 30 2.22 5.49 / 6.80 7.71 / 9.02 14 27.78 5.56 / 6.95 15.0 - 20.0 20%H - 25%H
Mabinit No.6 Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City 30 4.05 5.26 / 6.37 9.31 / 10.42 14 25.95 5.19 / 6.49 10.0 - 13.0 20%H - 25%H
Banadero No. 2 City Proper (Albay District) 85 32.54 10.21 13.04 42.75 / 45.58 27 52.46 10.49 / 13.12 0.22 / .29 20%H - 25%H
Bigaa No.1 Brgy. Bigaa, Legazpi City 25
253
TABLE 6 - 7C1
WELLS WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
PNSDW* BOGNA No. 1 BOGNA No. 2 BOGNA No. 3 BOGNA No. 4 BOGNA No. 5 BOGNA No. 6 BOGNA No. 7 BOGNA No. 8 BOGNA No. 9 BOGNA No. 10
Parameters Permissible Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Bogna
Limits Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City
Temperature °C 23.80 24.00 24.40 24.40 24.50 24.50 24.5 0 24.60 24.60 24.70
Color TCU 5 nil nil Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe nil nil Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe nil Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe
Odor unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
Turbidity NTU 5 nil nil 10.00 25.00 1.10 3.00 30.00 1.00 27.00 28.00
pH 6.5 -8.5 7.09 7.79 8.45 8.60 8.60 8.60 8.40 8.33 8.40 8.20
Dissolved Solids mg/L 500 203.00 202.00 273.00 373.00 317.00 406.00 280.00 241.00 218.00 252.00
Specific Conductance µ mhos/cm 406.00 405.00 426.00 558.00 496.00 634.00 438.00 377.00 341.00 393.00
Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 160.00 160.00 170.00 230.00 210.00 240.00 160.00 160.00 140.00 150.00
Hardness mg/l CaCO3 300 195.00 170.00 175.00 245.00 200.00 265.00 170.00 150.00 145.00 180.00
++
Calcium Ca mg/L 75 44.00 40.00 164.00 64.00 68.00 92.00 52.00 46.00 40.00 40.00
++
Magnesium Mg mg/L 50 21.00 17.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 9.00 11.00 19.00
Carbonates CO3 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 36.00 24.00 12.00 24.00 12.00 12.00
-
Bicarbonate HCO3 mg/L 195.00 195.00 207.00 207.00 183.00 244.00 171.00 146.00 146.00 159.00
-
Chloride Cl mg/L 250 7.00 17.00 12.00 15.00 17.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 15.00
++
Iron Fe mg/L 1.0 nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) 1.50 1.00 nil (MDL = 0.02) nil (MDL = 0.02) 2.00 nil (MDL = 0.02) 1.60 3.40
++
Manganese Mn mg/L 0.4 nil (MDL = 0.2) nil (MDL = 0.2)
Date of Sampling 6/28/2004 6/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004 7/28/2004
Date of Examination 6/29/2004 6/29/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004

254
TABLE 6 - 8C2
WELLS WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS
BOGNA No. 11 MABINIT No. 1 MABINIT No. 2 MABINIT No. 3 MABINIT No. 4 MABINIT No. 5 MABINIT No. 6 BANADERO No. 2 BIGAA No. 1
Brgy. Bogna Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Mabinit Brgy. Banadero Brgy. Bigaa
Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City Legazpi City
24.20 24.20 24.3 24.2 22.6 22.6 22.7 23.1 22.7
Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe nil Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe 8 Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe 12.00 nil Yellowish/ Oxid. Fe
unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable
35.00 20.00 0.5 8 10 41 8 0.5 15
8.50 8.42 8.38 8.45 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.6 8.5
382.00 424.00 334 367 494 840 397 289 168
597.00 663.00 522 574 772 1,313.00 621.00 451 263
270.00 155.00 125 145 170 220 135 270 150
300.00 270.00 210 200 320 580 260 125 135
108.00 100.00 56 76 120 228 100 42 44
7.00 5.00 17 2 5 2 2 5 6
24.00 18.00 0 18 24 24 18 24 30
281.00 152.00 152 140 159 220 128 281 122
17.00 34.00 24 37 34 78 29 20 10
2.60 1.20 nil (MDL = 0.02) 1.00 0.5 10 0.3 0.1 2.4
7/28/2004 7/29/2004 7/29/2004 7/29/2004 7/29/2004 7/29/2004 7/29/2004 7/27/2004 7/27/2004
8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004 8/6/2004
nil - not detected

ards for Drinking Water
255
APPENDIX 6 - 3.1A
CONSTANT DISCHARGE TEST DATA RECOVERY TEST DATA

Name : LCWD Bogna Well No. 1 Testing Period : na
Location : Brgy. Bogna, Legazpi City Duration : na mins
Date Tested : Dec. 12 - 15, 2002
Duration : 4320 mins
Ave. Discharge : 17 lps
Measuring Point : 1 m agl
TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL TIME PWL
(mins) (m bgl) (mins) (m bgl) (mins) (m bgl) (mins) (m bgl) (mins) (m bgl) (mins) (m bgl)
0 1.92 300 9.99 0 210

1 360 9.96 1 240
2 7.70 420 9.95 2 270
3 480 9.92 3 300
4 9.75 540 9.96 4 360
5 9.84 600 9.93 5 420
6 9.85 660 9.93 6 480
7 9.86 720 9.95 7 540
8 9.87 840 9.89 8 600
9 9.88 960 9.92 9 660
10 9.89 1080 9.95 10 720
12 9.90 1200 9.97 12
14 9.91 1320 9.96 14
16 9.93 1440 9.01 16
18 9.91 1680 9.98 18
20 9.93 1920 9.90 20
25 9.94 2160 9.95 25
30 9.94 2400 9.98 30
40 9.94 2640 9.98 35
50 9.95 2880 10.00 40
60 9.95 3240 9.95 45
75 9.96 3600 9.98 50
90 9.96 3960 9.97 55
120 9.96 4320 9.99 60
150 9.97 75
180 9.98 90
210 9.96 120
240 9.99 150
270 9.98 180
256
APPENDIX 6 - 3.1B
STEP DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
Name : LCWD Bogna Well No. 1 Measuring Point (m agl) : 1

Location : Bgy. Bogna, Legazpi City Static Water Level (m bmp) : 1.89
Date Conducted : Dec. 12, 2002 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :
No. of Steps : 5 Steps and 60 mins/step Casing Diameter (mm) : 200x200
Ground Elevation (m amsl) : Volumetric (l) : 220
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5

TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q TIME PWL Q
(mins) (m bgl) (l/s) (mins) (m bgl) (l/s) (mins) (m bgl) (l/s) (mins) (m bgl) (l/s) (mins) (m bgl) (l/s)
0 1.89 0 5.21 0 6.58 0 8.39 0 9.98
1 1 1 1 1
2 5.01 2 6.34 10.07 2 8.15 13.88 2 9.70 17.12 2 10.35 20.47
3 5.06 3 6.38 3 8.19 3 9.77 3 10.96
4 5.10 4 6.42 4 8.23 4 9.82 4 11.45
5 5.14 5 6.46 10.00 5 8.26 13.80 5 9.87 17.05 5 11.50 20.43
6 5.16 7.06 6 6.49 6 8.29 6 9.89 6 11.54
7 5.17 7 6.50 7 8.30 7 9.91 7 11.57
8 5.17 7.15 8 6.52 10.02 8 8.31 13.84 8 9.93 16.99 8 11.59 20.39
9 5.18 9 6.53 9 8.32 9 9.94 9 11.60
10 5.18 7.05 10 6.54 9.98 10 8.32 13.72 10 9.95 17.13 10 11.60 20.33
12 5.18 7.15 12 6.55 9.92 12 8.32 13.88 12 9.96 16.79 12 11.61 20.41
14 5.19 7.08 14 6.56 9.87 14 8.33 13.77 14 9.96 17.21 14 11.62 20.48
16 5.19 7.01 16 6.56 10.05 16 8.35 13.94 16 9.97 16.85 16 11.63 20.18
18 5.19 7.11 18 6.56 9.95 18 8.36 13.83 18 9.97 17.19 18 11.63 20.30
20 5.20 7.10 20 6.57 9.99 20 8.36 13.71 20 9.97 16.99 20 11.63 20.47
25 5.19 7.05 25 6.57 9.97 25 8.37 13.87 25 9.97 25 11.64 20.22
30 5.20 7.06 30 6.58 10.02 30 8.75 13.66 30 9.97 30 11.65 20.66
40 5.20 7.10 40 6.57 10.00 40 8.38 13.99 40 9.98 40 11.64 20.37
50 5.21 7.08 50 6.59 9.80 50 8.39 13.51 50 9.98 50 11.65 20.45
60 5.21 7.10 60 6.58 10.01 60 8.39 13.77 60 9.98 60 11.65 20.30
257
APPENDIX 6 - 3.2A

Date Tested : Nov. 17 - 20, 2002
0 1.85 300 11.89 0 210

1 360 11.89 1 240
2 9.50 420 11.89 2 270
3 10.74 480 11.90 3 300
4 10.75 540 11.90 4 360
5 10.76 600 11.91 5 420
6 10.77 660 11.91 6 480
7 10.77 720 11.90 7 540
8 10.78 840 11.90 8 600
9 10.79 960 11.87 9 660
10 11.80 1080 11.90 10 720
12 11.81 1200 11.92 12
14 11.82 1320 11.89 14
16 11.82 1440 11.90 16
18 11.82 1680 11.86 18
20 11.83 1920 11.90 20
25 11.83 2160 11.88 25
30 11.84 2400 11.92 30
40 11.84 2640 11.89 35
50 11.85 2880 11.91 40
60 11.85 3240 11.86 45
75 11.86 3600 11.85 50
90 11.86 3960 11.90 55
120 11.87 4320 11.88 60
150 11.87 75
180 11.87 90
210 11.88 120
240 11.87 150
270 11.88 180
258
APPENDIX 6 - 3.2B

Date Conducted : Nov. 17, 2002 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :

0 1.72 0 5.84 0 7.71 0 9.62 0 11.87
1 1 1 1 1
2 5.65 2 7.54 2 9.45 13.40 2 11.75 16.99 2 13.91 20.56
3 5.70 3 7.58 3 9.48 3 11.76 3 14.00
4 5.74 4 7.60 4 9.50 4 11.78 4 14.02
5 5.76 5 7.60 10.28 5 9.53 13.35 5 11.80 16.96 5 14.04 20.66
6 5.78 7.10 6 7.62 6 9.54 6 11.81 6 14.04
7 5.79 7 7.63 7 9.55 7 11.82 7 14.05
8 5.79 7.05 8 7.64 10.29 8 9.56 13.41 8 11.83 17.05 8 14.06 20.37
9 5.80 9 7.65 9 9.57 9 11.84 9 14.06
10 5.80 6.94 10 7.65 10.26 10 9.58 13.30 10 11.84 17.20 10 14.06 20.48
12 5.80 6.89 12 7.66 10.18 12 9.58 13.41 12 11.85 17.12 12 14.06 20.79
14 5.80 7.10 14 7.68 10.25 14 9.59 13.76 14 11.86 16.90 14 14.07 20.37
16 5.81 7.01 16 7.68 10.19 16 9.59 13.02 16 11.86 16.98 16 14.08 20.48
18 5.82 6.89 18 7.70 10.26 18 9.59 13.29 18 11.86 16.69 18 14.07 20.45
20 5.83 7.06 20 7.71 10.19 20 9.60 13.10 20 11.86 16.60 20 14.08 20.07
25 5.83 6.90 25 7.71 10.25 25 9.61 13.54 25 11.87 16.99 25 14.09 20.37
30 5.83 7.13 30 7.70 10.23 30 9.62 13.13 30 11.87 17.05 30 14.09 20.75
40 5.84 7.06 40 7.71 10.24 40 9.62 13.21 40 11.87 16.60 40 14.10 20.26
50 5.84 6.90 50 7.71 10.19 50 9.62 13.45 50 11.87 17.05 50 14.09 20.64
60 5.84 7.01 60 7.71 10.22 60 9.62 13.32 60 11.87 16.92 60 14.10 20.56
259
APPENDIX 6 - 3.3A

Testing Period : Oct. 27 - 30, 2002
Ave. Discharge : 19.65 lps
0 1.06 300 10.55 0 210
1 360 10.55 1 240
2 9.20 420 10.57 2 270
3 11.30 480 10.59 3 300
4 12.50 540 10.58 4 360
5 14.20 600 10.59 5 420
6 14.66 660 10.59 6 480
7 14.67 720 10.58 7 540
8 14.68 840 10.59 8 600
9 14.68 960 10.59 9 660
10 14.69 1080 10.60 10 720
12 14.69 1200 10.63 12
14 14.69 1320 10.62 14
16 14.69 1440 10.55 16
18 14.69 1680 10.63 18
20 14.70 1920 10.63 20
25 14.69 2160 10.64 25
30 14.70 2400 10.64 30
40 14.70 2640 10.64 35
50 14.71 2880 10.65 40
60 14.70 3240 10.65 45
75 11.10 3600 10.65 50
90 10.50 3960 10.64 55
120 10.60 4320 10.65 60
150 10.55 75
180 10.53 90
210 10.53 120
240 10.54 150
270 10.54 180
260
APPENDIX 6 - 3.3B

Date Conducted : Oct. 27, 2002 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :
No. of Steps : 5 Steps and 60 mins/Step Casing Diameter (mm) : 200x200

0 0.93 0 5.30 0 6.65 0 8.58 0 10.50
1 1 1 1 10.37 1 14.65
2 2 6.60 11.31 2 8.48 14.91 2 10.41 18.30 2 14.67
3 4.23 3 6.62 3 8.50 3 10.41 3 14.69
4 5.22 4 6.63 4 8.52 4 10.42 4 14.71
5 5.20 5 6.62 11.25 5 8.53 14.85 5 10.44 18.18 5 14.71 26.63
6 5.25 8.71 6 6.63 6 8.54 6 10.44 6 14.71
7 5.27 7 6.64 7 8.55 7 10.45 7 14.68
8 5.28 8.55 8 6.63 11.22 8 8.55 14.87 8 10.45 18.06 8 14.69 26.35
9 5.28 9 6.63 9 8.55 9 10.45 9 14.70
10 5.30 8.65 10 6.63 11.20 10 8.56 14.80 10 10.45 18.12 10 14.71 26.51
12 5.29 8.58 12 6.63 11.14 12 8.57 14.66 12 10.47 17.19 12 14.72 26.83
14 5.29 8.66 14 6.64 11.17 14 8.57 14.71 14 10.49 17.97 14 14.71 26.22
16 5.29 8.53 16 6.63 10.99 16 8.57 14.80 16 10.49 18.18 16 14.72 26.99
18 5.28 8.63 18 6.64 11.02 18 8.57 14.61 18 10.48 18.36 18 14.72 26.19
20 5.29 8.56 20 6.63 11.11 20 8.57 14.91 20 10.47 18.00 20 14.73 25.58
25 5.30 8.57 25 6.64 11.03 25 8.58 14.70 25 10.48 18.11 25 14.74 25.70
30 5.30 8.45 30 6.65 11.08 30 8.57 14.85 30 10.49 18.26 30 14.74 26.51
40 5.30 8.59 40 6.65 11.26 40 8.58 14.77 40 10.50 18.41 40 14.75 26.83
50 5.30 8.73 50 6.65 11.22 50 8.58 14.80 50 10.50 18.33 50 14.75 27.16
60 5.30 8.58 60 6.65 11.25 60 8.58 14.71 60 10.50 18.09 60 14.75 26.70
261
APPENDIX 6 - 3.4A

Date Tested : Sept. 14 - 17, 2002
0 1.97 300 5.60 0 210

1 360 5.61 1 240
2 5.70 420 5.60 2 270
3 5.74 480 5.61 3 300
4 5.77 540 5.61 4 360
5 5.79 600 5.62 5 420
6 5.79 660 5.62 6 480
7 5.80 720 5.62 7 540
8 5.81 840 5.63 8 600
9 5.81 960 5.63 9 660
10 5.82 1080 5.64 10 720
12 5.83 1200 5.64 12
14 5.82 1320 5.65 14
16 5.82 1440 5.62 16
18 5.82 1680 5.60 18
20 5.83 1920 5.62 20
25 5.83 2160 5.63 25
30 5.83 2400 5.60 30
40 5.86 2640 5.61 35
50 5.89 2880 5.62 40
60 5.90 3240 5.64 45
75 5.93 3600 5.66 50
90 5.94 3960 5.66 55
120 5.94 4320 5.65 60
150 5.55 75
180 5.57 90
210 5.58 120
240 5.59 150
270 5.60 180
262
APPENDIX 6 - 3.4B

Date Conducted : Sept. 14, 2002 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :

0 2.01 0 3.25 0 3.76 0 4.35 0 5.06
1 2.90 1 1 1 1
2 3.10 2 3.55 12.30 2 17.50 2 2 5.84 29.68
3 3.15 3 3.62 3 4.19 3 3 5.84
4 3.17 4 3.67 4 4.26 4 4 5.85
5 3.19 5 3.68 12.35 5 4.28 17.30 5 5 5.85 29.50
6 3.20 9.40 6 3.68 6 4.28 6 6 5.86
7 3.20 7 3.69 7 4.28 7 7 5.86
8 3.21 9.32 8 3.71 12.40 8 4.29 17.60 8 8 5.86 29.42
9 3.22 9 3.72 9 4.30 9 9 5.87
10 3.23 9.35 10 3.73 12.30 10 4.30 17.40 10 10 5.88 29.30
12 3.24 9.17 12 3.74 12.89 12 4.31 17.50 12 12 5.88 29.60
14 3.24 9.48 14 3.75 12.90 14 4.31 17.29 14 14 5.89 29.00
16 3.24 9.09 16 3.74 13.01 16 4.32 17.00 16 16 5.89 28.95
18 3.24 9.21 18 3.75 12.96 18 4.32 17.10 18 18 5.88 29.45
20 3.23 9.13 20 3.75 12.31 20 4.32 17.50 20 20 5.88 29.22
25 3.24 9.36 25 3.75 12.90 25 4.33 16.95 25 25 5.89 29.10
30 3.24 9.17 30 3.76 12.85 30 4.35 17.00 30 30 5.90 29.49
40 3.25 9.32 40 3.76 13.00 40 4.35 17.25 40 40 5.91 29.40
50 3.26 9.25 50 3.76 12.80 50 4.35 17.50 50 50 5.89 28.90
60 3.25 9.32 60 3.76 12.95 60 4.35 17.27 60 5.06 60 5.89 29.30
263
APPENDIX 6 - 3.5A

Testing Period : July 22 - 25, 2003
0 4.04 300 12.42 0 210

1 360 12.42 1 240
2 11.37 420 12.44 2 270
3 11.55 480 12.43 3 300
4 11.69 540 12.52 4 360
5 11.79 600 12.53 5 420
6 11.87 660 12.50 6 480
7 11.91 720 12.51 7 540
8 11.96 840 12.55 8 600
9 11.99 960 12.61 9 660
10 12.02 1080 12.50 10 720
12 12.05 1200 12.53 12
14 11.08 1320 12.51 14
16 12.10 1440 12.05 16
18 12.11 1680 12.06 18
20 12.14 1920 12.69 20
25 12.18 2160 12.70 25
30 12.21 2400 12.60 30
40 12.22 2640 12.34 35
50 12.25 2880 12.35 40
60 12.27 3240 12.55 45
75 12.30 3600 12.58 50
90 12.31 55
120 12.34 60
150 12.35 75
180 12.35 90
210 12.38 120
240 12.39 150
270 12.42 180
264
APPENDIX 6 - 3.5B

Date Conducted : July 22, 2003 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :

0 4.04 0 6.49 0 8.88 0 10.46 0 12.25
1 1 1 1 1 13.46
2 5.90 2 8.57 11.70 2 10.06 15.49 2 11.27 19.15 2 13.60 22.80
3 6.09 3 8.68 3 10.17 3 11.90 3 13.68
4 6.16 4 8.72 4 10.24 4 11.97 4 13.70
5 6.19 5 8.75 11.73 5 10.31 15.55 5 12.01 18.98 5 13.71 22.68
6 6.23 6.47 6 8.78 6 10.35 6 12.05 6 13.74
7 6.26 7 8.80 7 10.38 7 12.08 19.03 7 13.76 22.70
8 6.29 6.45 8 8.82 11.58 8 10.39 15.44 8 12.92 8 13.76
9 6.30 9 8.83 9 10.40 9 12.10 9 13.78
10 6.31 6.41 10 8.83 11.64 10 10.41 15.49 10 12.13 18.97 10 13.78 22.31
12 6.39 6.43 12 8.84 11.83 12 10.41 15.38 12 12.15 19.13 12 13.80 22.80
14 6.43 6.38 14 8.84 11.83 14 10.41 15.71 14 12.16 18.80 14 13.82 22.54
16 6.46 6.44 16 8.84 11.46 16 10.42 15.00 16 12.18 19.30 16 13.82 22.75
18 6.46 6.46 18 8.84 11.86 18 10.42 14.92 18 12.18 18.97 18 13.83 22.63
20 6.47 6.47 20 8.85 12.09 20 10.43 15.17 20 12.21 19.33 20 13.84 22.47
25 6.47 6.36 25 8.85 11.89 25 10.43 15.02 25 12.22 19.00 25 13.84 22.77
30 6.47 6.33 30 8.86 11.28 30 10.43 15.60 30 12.23 19.13 30 13.84 22.40
40 6.48 6.50 40 8.87 11.63 40 10.44 15.30 40 12.24 18.90 40 13.86 22.87
50 6.49 6.44 50 8.87 11.76 50 10.45 15.28 50 12.25 19.47 50 13.88 22.47
60 6.49 6.43 60 8.88 11.64 60 10.46 15.44 60 12.25 19.33 60 13.89 22.92
265
APPENDIX 6 - 3.6A

Testing Period : Sept. 10 - 13, 2003
0 3.74 300 12.17 0 210

1 360 12.18 1 240
2 11.78 420 12.20 2 270
3 11.82 480 12.30 3 300
4 11.85 540 12.58 4 360
5 11.88 600 12.69 5 420
6 11.90 660 12.73 6 480
7 11.92 720 12.47 7 540
8 11.94 840 12.43 8 600
9 11.95 960 12.45 9 660
10 11.96 1080 12.42 10 720
12 11.98 1200 12.69 12
14 12.00 1320 12.73 14
16 12.01 1440 12.88 16
18 12.02 1680 12.73 18
20 12.04 1920 12.60 20
25 12.06 2160 12.47 25
30 12.07 2400 12.45 30
40 12.08 2640 12.77 35
50 12.09 2880 12.74 40
60 12.09 3240 12.78 45
75 12.11 3600 12.48 50
90 12.13 3960 12.76 55
120 12.15 4320 12.80 60
150 12.15 75
180 12.16 90
210 12.21 120
240 12.17 150
270 12.16 180
266
APPENDIX 6 - 3.6B

No. of Steps : 5 Steps and 60 mins/ step Casing Diameter (mm) : 200x200

0 3.92 0 7.20 0 8.63 0 9.39 0 10.77
1 1 1 9.23 1 1
2 2 2 9.25 2 10.60 2 12.29 18.30
3 6.86 3 8.28 9.58 3 9.28 3 10.63 3 12.38
4 6.87 4 8.29 4 9.31 4 10.66 13.92 4 12.46
5 6.88 5 8.29 5 9.31 11.02 5 10.68 5 12.51
6 6.89 6 8.34 6 9.32 6 10.69 6 12.51 18.24
7 6.91 7 8.39 9.46 7 9.33 11.03 7 10.70 7 12.51
8 6.92 6.51 8 8.40 8 9.34 8 10.70 13.96 8 12.51 18.33
9 6.98 9 8.43 9 9.35 9 10.71 9 12.52
10 7.02 6.52 10 8.47 9.42 10 9.35 11.01 10 10.72 13.84 10 12.53 18.29
12 7.06 6.50 12 8.48 9.40 12 9.36 11.03 12 10.74 13.94 12 12.55 18.24
14 7.08 6.49 14 8.52 9.41 14 9.37 11.08 14 10.75 13.88 14 12.56 18.23
16 7.12 6.50 16 8.56 9.39 16 9.37 11.07 16 10.75 13.92 16 12.60 18.26
18 7.14 6.47 18 8.57 9.36 18 9.39 11.06 18 10.76 13.93 18 12.59 18.21
20 7.16 6.55 20 8.56 9.37 20 9.39 11.07 20 10.76 13.96 20 12.58 18.24
25 7.17 6.51 25 8.58 9.40 25 9.39 10.91 25 10.77 13.90 25 12.58 18.23
30 7.18 6.53 30 8.59 9.41 30 9.38 11.01 30 10.76 13.98 30 12.57 18.18
40 7.18 6.48 40 8.60 9.37 40 9.39 11.05 40 10.76 13.93 40 12.55 18.21
50 7.19 6.45 50 8.62 9.38 50 9.39 11.08 50 10.77 13.91 50 12.55 18.17
60 7.20 6.41 60 8.63 9.34 60 9.39 11.04 60 10.77 13.95 60 12.90 18.20
267
APPENDIX 6 - 3.7A

Testing Period : July 15 - 18, 2003
0 2.25 300 7.70 0 210

1 360 7.70 1 240
2 7.01 420 7.69 2 270
3 480 7.65 3 300
4 7.15 540 7.66 4 360
5 7.17 600 7.68 5 420
6 7.20 660 7.69 6 480
7 7.22 720 7.70 7 540
8 7.24 840 7.70 8 600
9 7.25 960 7.69 9 660
10 7.25 1080 7.70 10 720
12 7.28 1200 7.71 12
14 7.30 1320 7.71 14
16 7.32 1440 7.69 16
18 7.38 1680 7.72 18
20 7.40 1920 7.70 20
25 7.42 2160 7.73 25
30 7.43 2400 7.76 30
40 7.44 2640 7.72 35
50 7.44 2880 7.74 40
60 7.45 3240 7.75 45
75 7.50 3600 7.75 50
90 7.55 3960 7.75 55
120 7.60 4320 7.76 60
150 7.62 75
180 7.65 90
210 7.68 120
240 7.68 150
270 7.65 180
268
APPENDIX 6 - 3.7B

Date Conducted : July 15, 2003 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :
No. of Steps : 5 Steps and 60 mins/ step Casing Diameter (mm) : 200x200

0 1.80 0 6.19 0 7.32 0 9.89 0 11.27
1 1 1 1 1
2 5.92 2 7.09 8.22 2 9.53 12.63 2 11.04 15.80 2 12.55 18.55
3 6.01 3 7.13 3 9.60 3 11.09 3 12.56
4 6.08 4 7.17 4 9.69 4 11.13 4 12.57
5 6.12 5 7.20 8.20 5 9.70 12.60 5 11.16 15.66 5 12.57 18.61
6 6.12 6.45 6 7.21 6 9.73 6 11.18 6 12.57
7 6.13 7 7.22 8.24 7 9.75 7 11.20 7 12.58
8 6.13 6.44 8 7.23 8 9.77 12.56 8 11.21 15.58 8 12.57 18.72
9 6.13 9 7.24 9 9.77 9 11.22 9 12.58
10 6.14 6.42 10 7.25 8.26 10 9.78 12.44 10 11.23 15.68 10 12.58 18.53
12 6.14 6.39 12 7.26 8.15 12 9.80 12.42 12 11.24 15.61 12 12.58 18.41
14 6.15 6.30 14 7.27 8.11 14 9.81 12.52 14 11.25 15.60 14 12.59 18.58
16 6.16 6.36 16 7.28 8.16 16 9.83 12.49 16 11.25 15.49 16 12.60 18.72
18 6.16 6.37 18 7.29 8.23 18 9.83 12.40 18 11.25 15.55 18 12.60 18.61
20 6.17 6.40 20 7.30 8.06 20 9.84 12.60 20 11.25 15.46 20 12.63 18.55
25 6.17 6.38 25 7.30 8.15 25 9.88 12.40 25 11.26 15.75 25 12.61 18.68
30 6.18 6.35 30 7.30 8.02 30 9.88 12.38 30 11.26 15.60 30 12.62 18.46
40 6.18 6.42 40 7.31 8.25 40 9.88 12.40 40 11.27 15.56 40 12.62 18.41
50 6.19 6.30 50 7.32 8.20 50 9.89 12.50 50 11.27 15.70 50 12.62 18.57
60 6.19 6.37 60 7.32 8.13 60 9.89 12.45 60 11.27 15.61 60 12.62 18.71
269
APPENDIX 6 - 3.8A
Name : LCWD Mabinit Well No. 3 Testing Period : na

Location : Brgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City Duration : na mins
Testing Period : Oct. 5 - 8, 2002
Ave. Discharge : 21 lps
0 0.67 300 8.27 0 210

1 360 8.28 1 240
2 6.60 420 8.29 2 270
3 7.90 480 8.29 3 300
4 7.96 540 8.30 4 360
5 8.06 600 8.28 5 420
6 8.12 660 8.29 6 480
7 8.14 720 8.30 7 540
8 8.15 840 8.30 8 600
9 8.16 960 8.31 9 660
10 8.17 1080 8.30 10 720
12 8.17 1200 8.30 12
14 8.18 1320 8.31 14
16 8.18 1440 8.29 16
18 8.18 1680 8.30 18
20 8.19 1920 8.30 20
25 8.19 2160 8.29 25
30 8.19 2400 8.30 30
40 8.19 2640 8.29 35
50 8.20 2880 8.29 40
60 8.20 3240 8.30 45
75 8.20 3600 8.30 50
90 8.21 3960 8.30 55
120 8.21 4320 8.29 60
150 8.22 75
180 8.23 90
210 8.25 120
240 8.28 150
270 8.27 180
270
APPENDIX 6 - 3.8B
Name : LCWD Mabinit Well No. 3 Measuring Point (m agl) : 1

Location : Bgy. Mabinit, Legazpi City Static Water Level (m bmp) : 0.65
Date Conducted : Oct. 5, 2002 60 Hp Pump Setting (m bgl) :

0 0.65 0 4.20 0 5.50 0 6.21 0 7.41
1 1 1 1 1
2 4.08 2 5.36 13.87 2 6.06 15.60 2 7.27 18.92 2 8.05 21.15
3 3 5.42 3 6.10 3 7.32 3 8.10
4 4.14 4 5.42 4 6.13 4 7.35 4 8.14
5 4.16 5 5.44 13.96 5 6.15 15.74 5 7.37 18.80 5 8.16 21.25
6 4.17 10.70 6 5.45 6 6.16 6 7.37 6 8.17
7 4.17 7 5.46 7 6.16 7 7.38 7 8.17
8 4.18 10.67 8 5.47 14.00 8 6.17 15.80 8 7.38 18.95 8 8.18 20.95
9 4.18 9 5.48 9 6.18 9 7.38 9 8.18
10 4.19 10.55 10 5.47 13.95 10 6.18 15.64 10 7.39 18.72 10 8.19 21.20
12 4.19 10.37 12 5.48 13.75 12 6.19 15.75 12 7.38 18.85 12 8.19 21.16
14 4.18 10.69 14 5.49 13.94 14 6.19 15.56 14 7.39 18.76 14 8.20 21.03
16 4.19 10.45 16 5.49 13.70 16 6.20 15.78 16 7.40 18.89 16 8.19 21.22
18 4.19 10.36 18 5.49 13.82 18 6.20 15.82 18 7.39 19.00 18 8.20 20.80
20 4.19 10.58 20 5.49 13.93 20 6.20 15.42 20 7.40 18.86 20 8.21 20.76
25 4.19 10.49 25 5.50 13.68 25 6.20 15.67 25 7.40 19.01 25 8.20 21.25
30 4.20 10.25 30 5.49 13.90 30 6.20 15.56 30 7.41 18.71 30 8.20 20.92
40 4.20 10.58 40 5.50 13.74 40 6.21 15.77 40 7.40 18.75 40 8.21 20.85
50 4.19 10.40 50 5.50 13.80 50 6.20 15.58 50 7.40 19.00 50 8.21 21.15
60 4.20 10.47 60 5.50 13.84 60 6.21 15.70 60 7.41 18.60 60 8.21 20.95
271
APPENDIX 6 - 3.9A

0 2.22 300 5.46 0 210

1 4.93 360 5.45 1 240
2 5.04 420 5.48 2 270
3 5.14 480 5.48 3 300
4 5.22 540 5.49 4 360
5 5.20 600 5.49 5 420
6 5.23 660 5.53 6 480
7 5.22 720 5.51 7 540
8 5.26 840 5.51 8 600
9 5.28 960 5.54 9 660
10 5.26 1080 5.49 10 720
12 5.26 1200 5.58 12
14 5.27 1320 5.55 14
16 5.28 1440 5.56 16
18 5.27 1680 5.58 18
20 5.30 1920 5.72 20
25 5.32 2160 5.62 25
30 5.34 2400 5.63 30
40 5.38 2640 5.64 35
50 5.36 2880 5.67 40
60 5.37 3240 5.67 45
75 5.40 3600 5.73 50
90 5.38 3960 5.67 55
120 5.41 4320 5.72 60
150 5.45 75
180 5.45 90
210 5.48 120
240 5.46 150
270 5.45 180
272
APPENDIX 6 - 3.9B
Other Well number/ Name : LCWD Mabinit Well No. 5 Measuring Point (m agl) : 1

0 2.35 0 3.38 0 3.87 0 4.29 0 4.82
1 1 1 1 1
2 3.29 2 3.78 2 4.19 11.63 2 4.74 2 5.53 20.15
3 3.29 3 3.79 9.19 3 4.21 3 4.76 3 5.53
4 3.30 4 3.80 4 4.22 4 4.75 14.57 4 5.52
5 3.30 5 3.80 5 4.22 11.60 5 4.79 5 5.55
6 3.31 6 3.81 6 4.23 6 4.80 6 5.57 20.05
7 3.32 7 3.81 9.21 7 4.24 11.63 7 4.79 7 5.56
8 3.34 6.14 8 3.82 8 4.24 8 4.82 14.52 8 5.57 20.09
9 3.34 9 3.83 9 4.25 9 4.83 9 5.54
10 3.35 6.15 10 3.83 9.17 10 4.25 11.64 10 4.83 14.48 10 5.55 19.91
12 3.36 6.14 12 3.84 9.10 12 4.26 11.60 12 4.82 14.52 12 5.55 19.96
14 3.37 6.13 14 3.85 9.07 14 4.26 11.46 14 4.79 14.58 14 5.57 19.84
16 3.37 6.11 16 3.85 9.11 16 4.26 11.58 16 4.83 14.39 16 5.54 19.82
18 3.36 6.14 18 3.86 9.07 18 4.27 11.52 18 4.80 14.47 18 5.55 20.04
20 3.37 6.15 20 3.87 9.04 20 4.27 11.55 20 4.81 14.63 20 5.57 20.07
25 3.37 6.12 25 3.86 9.09 25 4.28 11.61 25 4.81 14.10 25 5.57 19.71
30 3.38 6.13 30 3.87 9.21 30 4.28 11.41 30 4.80 14.55 30 5.58 20.00
40 3.38 6.15 40 3.88 9.17 40 4.28 11.46 40 4.82 14.43 40 5.58 19.89
50 3.39 6.16 50 3.87 9.09 50 4.28 11.31 50 4.82 14.47 50 5.59 19.73
60 3.38 6.18 60 3.87 9.13 60 4.29 11.48 60 4.82 14.52 60 5.58 20.02
273
APPENDIX 6 - 3.10A

0 4.05 300 9.35 0 210

1 8.81 360 9.45 1 240
2 9.00 420 9.45 2 270
3 9.07 480 9.43 3 300
4 9.12 540 9.44 4 360
5 9.13 600 9.41 5 420
6 9.14 660 9.43 6 480
7 9.15 720 9.41 7 540
8 9.16 840 9.36 8 600
9 9.17 960 9.38 9 660
10 9.16 1080 9.36 10 720
12 9.17 1200 9.37 12
14 9.17 1320 9.34 14
16 9.18 1440 9.34 16
18 9.18 1680 9.35 18
20 9.19 1920 9.36 20
25 9.21 2160 9.35 25
30 9.23 2400 9.39 30
40 9.25 2640 9.41 35
50 9.25 2880 9.31 40
60 9.26 3240 9.39 45
75 9.28 3600 9.37 50
90 9.29 3960 9.39 55
120 9.41 4320 9.41 60
150 9.34 75
180 9.33 90
210 9.34 120
240 9.35 150
270 9.35 180
274
APPENDIX 6 - 3.10B
Other Well number/ Name : LCWD Mabinit Well No. 6 Measuring Point (m agl) : 1

0 4.02 0 5.64 0 6.46 0 7.24 0 8.26
1 1 1 7.14 1 1
2 5.35 2 6.25 2 7.12 12.15 2 8.18 2 9.19 20.04
3 5.45 3 6.31 9.40 3 7.15 3 8.18 3 9.21
4 5.49 4 6.33 4 7.15 4 8.21 16.07 4 9.24
5 5.51 5 6.34 5 7.19 12.12 5 8.23 5 9.25
6 5.53 6 6.35 6 7.19 6 8.21 6 9.26 19.91
7 5.55 7 6.35 9.35 7 7.19 12.10 7 8.21 7 9.25
8 5.57 6.38 8 6.36 8 7.19 8 8.23 16.03 8 9.26 20.00
9 5.59 9 6.36 9 7.20 9 8.22 9 9.26
10 5.60 6.21 10 6.37 9.29 10 7.19 12.07 10 8.24 16.08 10 9.27 19.96
12 5.60 6.23 12 6.38 9.25 12 7.20 12.05 12 8.24 15.94 12 9.27 19.89
14 5.61 6.20 14 6.38 9.22 14 7.20 12.08 14 8.24 16.06 14 9.27 19.82
16 5.61 6.18 16 6.38 9.29 16 7.21 12.04 16 8.23 15.92 16 9.28 19.86
18 5.62 6.21 18 6.39 9.26 18 7.23 12.04 18 8.23 15.99 18 9.29 20.04
20 5.63 6.20 20 6.40 9.24 20 7.22 12.09 20 8.24 16.03 20 9.31 19.78
25 5.63 6.21 25 6.40 9.28 25 7.21 12.03 25 8.25 15.88 25 9.31 19.89
30 5.64 6.22 30 6.42 9.29 30 7.23 12.02 30 8.26 16.15 30 9.33 19.84
40 5.65 6.18 40 6.46 9.22 40 7.23 12.09 40 8.26 15.97 40 9.35 19.73
50 5.64 6.20 50 6.45 9.26 50 7.24 12.04 50 8.27 16.11 50 9.39 20.09
60 5.64 6.20 60 6.46 9.23 60 7.24 12.01 60 8.26 16.00 60 9.38 19.93
275
APPENDIX 6 - 3.11A
Name : LCWD Banadero Well No. 2 Testing Period : na

Location : Brgy. Banadero, Legazpi City Duration : na mins
0 32.54 300 54.66 0 210

1 360 54.72 1 240
2 420 54.70 2 270
3 41.69 480 54.74 3 300
4 44.59 540 54.79 4 360
5 46.72 600 54.75 5 420
6 47.67 660 54.86 6 480
7 48.57 720 54.87 7 540
8 50.67 840 54.93 8 600
9 51.00 960 54.90 9 660
10 51.43 1080 54.96 10 720
12 51.56 1200 54.94 12
14 51.77 1320 54.99 14
16 51.93 1440 54.95 16
18 52.05 1680 55.01 18
20 52.35 1920 55.10 20
25 52.50 2160 55.08 25
30 52.78 2400 55.10 30
40 53.35 2640 55.09 35
50 53.55 2880 55.12 40
60 53.82 3120 55.18 45
75 53.98 3360 55.21 50
90 54.20 3600 55.25 55
120 54.35 3840 55.22 60
150 54.80 3960 55.28 75
180 54.90 4320 55.26 90
210 54.85 120
240 54.80 150
270 54.75 180
276
APPENDIX 6 - 3.11B
Other Well number/ Name : LCWD Banadero Well No. 2 Measuring Point (m agl) :
Location : Bgy. Banadero, Legazpi City Static Water Level (m bmp) : 32.22

0 32.22 0 36.78 0 44.42 0 49.75 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 40.71 2 45.90 2 51.91 2
3 33.63 3 41.12 0.42 3 46.32 3 52.29 3
4 33.90 4 41.43 4 46.62 4 52.61 0.73 4
5 34.09 5 41.74 5 46.85 0.57 5 52.95 5
6 34.31 6 41.80 6 47.20 6 53.25 6
7 34.39 7 42.05 0.42 7 47.25 0.56 7 53.38 7
8 34.58 0.35 8 42.15 8 47.42 8 53.55 0.73 8
9 34.72 9 42.30 9 47.56 9 53.78 9
10 34.84 0.34 10 42.40 0.42 10 47.90 0.57 10 53.92 0.73 10
12 35.14 0.35 12 42.65 0.42 12 48.01 0.56 12 54.07 0.73 12
14 35.33 0.35 14 42.90 0.42 14 48.15 0.56 14 54.20 0.73 14
16 35.54 0.35 16 43.20 0.42 16 48.25 0.57 16 54.35 0.73 16
18 35.78 0.35 18 43.30 0.42 18 48.48 0.56 18 54.50 0.73 18
20 35.77 0.35 20 43.42 0.42 20 48.62 0.56 20 54.65 0.72 20
25 35.90 0.35 25 43.68 0.42 25 48.89 0.57 25 54.96 0.73 25
30 36.23 0.35 30 43.80 0.42 30 49.20 0.55 30 55.18 0.73 30
40 36.46 0.35 40 44.03 0.42 40 49.50 0.55 40 55.40 0.73 40
50 36.67 0.35 50 44.20 0.42 50 49.65 0.56 50 55.60 0.73 50
60 36.78 0.35 60 44.42 0.42 60 49.75 0.56 60 55.75 0.73 60
277
APPENDIX 6 - 4.1
CALCULATION OF LONG TERM PUMPING WATER LEVEL

LCWD BOGNA WELL NO. 1
Parameters Projected Discharge Units

2
Formation Loss Factor, B 420 420 420 420 s/m
2 5
Coefficient of Well Loss, C 3,667 3,667 3,667 3,667 s /m
3
Discharge Rate, Q 0.0038 0.0068 0.0091 0.012 m /s
3.8 6.8 9.1 12 lps
60 108 144 190 gpm

2
Transmissivity, T 0.0881 0.0881 0.0881 0.0881 m /s
First Hour Pumping Time, t1 3600 3600 3600 3600 seconds
Long Term Pumping Time, t2 20736000 20736000 20736000 20736000 seconds
Depth of Well 30 30 30 30 m bgl
Saturated Thickness, H 28.08 28.08 28.08 28.08 meters
2H 56.16 56.16 56.16 56.16
swtotal (as confined aquifer) 3.63 4.91 5.89 7.13 meters
sw in water table aquifer: 3.90 5.44 6.69 8.39
Drawdown Components:
BQ 1.60 2.86 3.82 5.04 meters
slt 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.27 0.53 0.80 1.25 meters

2
CQ 0.05 0.17 0.30 0.53 meters
Total 3.95 5.60 6.99 8.91 meters
SWL 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 m bgl
PWL 5.87 7.52 8.91 10.83 m bgl
Top of screens 14 14 14 14 m bgl
Available sw, 20% m 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 meters
NOTE:
Based on test pumping results and long term drawdown analysis of the aquifer, the well can sustain
a yield of 6.8 to 9.1 lps (108 - 144 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
of saturated thickness.
278
APPENDIX 6 - 4.2


2
2 5
3
3 5.3 7.1 9.1 lps
48 84 113 144 gpm

2
2H 56.30 56.30 56.30 56.30
BQ 1.68 2.97 3.98 5.10 meters
slt 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.28 0.55 0.84 1.27 meters

2
CQ 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.19 meters
Total 4.01 5.63 7.00 8.64 meters
SWL 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 m bgl
PWL 5.86 7.48 8.85 10.49 m bgl
NOTE:
279
APPENDIX 6 - 4.3


2
2 5
3
4 7.7 10 17 lps
63 122 158 269 gpm

2
2H 65.88 65.88 65.88 65.88
BQ 1.84 3.54 4.60 7.82 meters
slt 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.25 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.26 0.59 0.88 2.34 meters

2
CQ 0.05 0.18 0.30 0.87 meters
Total 4.21 6.43 7.93 13.28 meters
SWL 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 m bgl
PWL 5.27 7.49 8.99 14.34 m bgl
NOTE:
a yield of 7.7 - 10 lps (122 - 158 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
280
APPENDIX 6 - 4.4

Specific Capacity 6.96 6.96 6.96 6.96 lps/m
3
Discharge Rate, Q 10 15 21 25 lps
Discharge Rate, Q 158 238 333 396 gpm

2
2H 48.06 48.06 48.06 48.06 meters
sw in water table aquifer: 3.53 4.28 5.23 5.89 meters
Drawdown Components
BQ 1.15 1.72 2.41 2.87 meters
slt 0.12 0.18 0.25 0.30 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.26 0.38 0.57 0.72 meters

2
CQ 0.29 0.43 0.60 0.72 meters
Total sw 3.81 4.72 5.84 6.61 meters
SWL 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 m bgl
PWL 5.78 6.69 7.81 8.58 m bgl
Allowable sw, 20% m 4.81 4.81 4.81 4.81 meters
NOTE:
a yield of 15 to 21 lps (238 - 333 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
281
APPENDIX 6 - 4.5


2
2 5
3
2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 lps
40 71 103 135 gpm

2
2H 51.92 51.92 51.92 51.92
BQ 0.88 1.58 2.28 2.98 meters
slt 0.48 0.86 1.24 1.62 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.25 0.46 0.76 1.16 meters

2
CQ 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.31 meters
Total 3.63 4.98 6.45 8.07 meters
SWL 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 m bgl
PWL 7.67 9.02 10.49 12.11 m bgl
NOTE:
a yield of 4.5 to 6.5 lps (71 -103 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
282
APPENDIX 6 - 4.6


2
2 5
3
3.7 5.7 7.7 9.7 lps
59 90 122 154 gpm

2
2H 52.52 52.52 52.52 52.52
BQ 1.52 2.34 3.16 3.98 meters
slt 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.35 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.30 0.48 0.72 1.03 meters

2
CQ 0.09 0.21 0.38 0.60 meters
Total 4.03 5.23 6.53 7.95 meters
SWL 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 m bgl
PWL 7.77 8.97 10.27 11.69 m bgl
NOTE:
283
APPENDIX 6 - 4.7

3
Discharge Rate, Q 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 lps

2
2H 63.50 63.50 63.50 63.50 meters
Drawdown Components
BQ 1.32 2.38 3.44 4.50 meters
slt 0.32 0.58 0.84 1.10 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.24 0.46 0.79 1.23 meters
CQ2 0.33 0.60 0.86 1.13 meters
Total 4.22 6.03 7.94 9.96 meters
SWL 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 m bgl
PWL 6.47 8.28 10.19 12.21 m bgl
NOTE:
a yield of 4.5 to 6.5 lps (71 -103 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
284
APPENDIX 6 - 4.8

LCWD MABINIT WELL NO. 3
Parameters Projected Values Units

2
2 5
3
5 7.5 10 12.5 lps
79 119 158 198 gpm

2
2H 50.66 50.66 50.66 50.66
BQ 1.40 2.10 2.80 3.50 meters
slt 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.28 0.42 0.60 0.83 meters

2
CQ 0.12 0.26 0.47 0.73 meters
Total 3.85 4.87 5.99 7.21 meters
SWL 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 m bgl
PWL 4.52 5.54 6.66 7.88 m bgl
NOTE:
a yield of 7.5 - 10 lps (119 - 158 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
285
APPENDIX 6 - 4.9


2
2 5
Coefficient of Well Loss, C 667 667 667 667 s /m
3
10 15 20 30 lps
158 238 317 475 gpm

2
2H 55.56 55.56 55.56 55.56
BQ 1.60 2.40 3.20 4.80 meters
slt 0.28 0.43 0.57 0.85 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.32 0.51 0.77 1.51 meters

2
CQ 0.07 0.15 0.27 0.60 meters
Total 4.27 5.49 6.80 9.77 meters
SWL 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 m bgl
PWL 6.49 7.71 9.02 11.99 m bgl
NOTE:
286
APPENDIX 6 - 4.10

Parameters Projected Values Units

2
2 5
3
7 10 13 15 lps
111 158 206 238 gpm

2
2H 51.90 51.90 51.90 51.90
BQ 1.68 2.40 3.12 3.60 meters
slt 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.29 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.33 0.50 0.71 0.89 meters

2
CQ 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.38 meters
Total 4.23 5.26 6.37 7.15 meters
SWL 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 m bgl
PWL 8.28 9.31 10.42 11.20 m bgl
NOTE:
287
APPENDIX 6 - 4.11

LCWD BANADERO WELL NO. 2
3
Discharge Rate, Q 0.2 0.22 0.29 0.34 lps

2
2H 104.92 104.92 104.92 104.92 meters
Drawdown Components
BQ 5.33 5.87 7.73 9.07 meters
slt 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.23 meters
si meters
sd 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 meters
sc 0.62 0.73 1.18 1.58 meters
CQ2 1.33 1.47 1.93 2.27 meters
Total 9.43 10.21 13.04 15.14 meters
SWL 32.54 32.54 32.54 32.54 m bgl
PWL 41.97 42.75 45.58 47.68 m bgl
NOTE:
a yield of .22 to .29 lps (3 - 5 gpm) using allowable drawdown equivalent to 20 to 25 percent
288
APPENDIX 6 - 6
GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL CALCULATIONS

AT BOGNA AND MABINIT WELLFIELDS
1. Darcy's Equation on Goundwater Flow:
Q/km = T x G x 1000 m/km
Q/km groundwater flow per kilometer band

T transmissivity
G groundwater flow gradiend
Wellfield T x 10
-3
G Q/km Width of Aquifer Potential Q Potential Q
2 lps/km km lps cumd
m /sec
Bogna 10.0 0.03 300 2 600 51,840
Mabinit 10.0 0.030 300 2 600 51,840
Total Ground Water Potential, lps 1,200 103,680

Less Present Withdrawal, lps 0
Additional Withdrawal Potential, lps 1,200 103,680
2. Logan' s Approximation Formula
Q = T x Dd/1.22
Q = well yield
T = transmissivity
Dd = drawdown
-3
T x 10 Dd Q Q
2 m lps cumd
m /sec
10.0 5 40.98 3,541
10.0 10 81.97 7,082
10.0 15 122.95 10,623
10.0 20 163.93 14,164
289
APPENDIX 6.3: EXTRACT FROM WATCON, INC. GEO-RESISTIVITY REPORT

JUNE 2009 - LCWD
290
APPENDIX 6.4: PROPOSED WELL LOCATIONS AND DESIGNS - LCWD
Figure 6 - 6 Recommended Well Sites Location Map

Figure 6 – 7A Preliminary Well Design: Barangay Bogna and Mabinit
Figure 6 – 7B Preliminary Well Design: Barangay Taysan (Near VES 5)
Figure 6 – 7C Preliminary Well Design: Barangay Taysan (Near VES 9)
291
APPENDIX 8: WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE AND DATA - LCWD
A. WATER SOURCE FACILITIES
Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Sources
Depth Iron TDS Capacity

Water Sources Remarks
(m) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lps)
Bulk Water 231.48 Existing supply
Existing Wells
Bogna Well No.1 30 Nil 203 10.71 For Recommissioning
Bogna Well No. 2 30 Nil 202 7.62 For Recommissioning
Bogna Well No.4 34 1.0 373 11.75 For Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 2 25 Nil 334 6.64 For Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 3 26 1.0 367 6.57 for Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 6 30 .30 397 10.94 For Recommissioning
New Wells
Taysan Well No. 1 190 15.0 New Well
Banquerohan Well
190 15 New Well
No.1
B. PUMPING FACILITIES
WELL NO. DEPTH DIAMETER PUMP INSTALLED REMARKS

Bogna Well Field
Well No. 1 25(30) 250(200) 10HP-Submersible pump Operational
Well No.4 25(34) 250(200) 10HP-Submersible pump Operational
Well No. 5 25 250 7.5Hp-Submersible Pump Operational
Well No. 6 25 250 10Hp-Submersible Pump Operational
Well No. 8 25(26) 250(200) 10Hp-Submersible Pump Operational
Mabinit Well Field
Well No. 2 25 250 7.5Hp-Subersible Pump Operational
New Wells
Taysan Well No. 1 190 200 50Hp-Submersible Pump New
Banquerohan Well No. 1 190 200 50Hp-Submersible Pump New
292
C. TREATMENT FACILITIES
Re-commissioning of two (2) existing units Hydraulic Control Structures (HCS) at Bogna
and Mabinit wellfields.
Treatment Structure Source/Location Method of Treatment

Hydraulic Control Structure No.1 Bogna Well Field Aeration and Chlorination
(HCS No.1)
Hydraulic Control Structure No.2 Mabinit Well Field Aeration and Chlorination
(HCS No.2)
D. STORAGE FACILITIES
Commissioning of two(2) existing ground level reservoirs at Bogna and Mabinit well fields.
Name of Elev Vol Year

Location Type Operation
Reservoir (m) (cum) Constructed
Concrete
Bogna
Bogna 84.0 Ground 2,000 2006 Fill and Draw
Reservoir
Reservoir
Concrete
Mabinit
Mabinit 90.0 Ground 2,000 2006 Fill and Draw
Reservoir
Reservoir
E. TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION LINES
Pipe Category Location Diameter Range (mm) Total Length(m)

Existing pipe Network Main System 50 – 350 210,638
Reinforcement Pipe Main System 50 - 200 50
New Pipeline Expansion Area 50 - 200 10
F. SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Existing Number of Projected 2025

Type of Connection New Connections
Connections Connections
Domestic/Residential 15,539 19,181 4,642
Institutional 252 319 67
Commercial 1,143 4,224 3,081
Total 16,934 23,724 7,790
293
G. WATER SOURCE FACILITIES
Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Sources
Depth Iron TDS Capacity

Water Sources Remarks
(m) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lps)
Bulk Water 231.48 Existing supply
Existing Wells
Bogna Well No.1 30 Nil 203 10.71 For Recommissioning
Bogna Well No.4 34 1.0 373 11.75 For Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 2 25 Nil 334 6.64 For Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 3 26 1.0 367 6.57 for Recommissioning
Mabinit Well No. 6 30 .30 397 10.94 For Recommissioning
New Wells
Taysan Well No. 1 190 15.0 New Well
Banquerohan Well
190 15 New Well
No.1
H. PUMPING FACILITIES
WELL NO. DEPTH DIAMETER PUMP INSTALLED REMARKS

Bogna Well Field
Well No.4 25(34) 250(200) 10HP-Submersible pump Operational
Well No. 5 25 250 7.5Hp-Submersible Pump Operational
Well No. 6 25 250 10Hp-Submersible Pump Operational
Mabinit Well Field
Well No. 2 25 250 7.5Hp-Subersible Pump Operational
New Wells
Taysan Well No. 1 190 200 50Hp-Submersible Pump New
Banquerohan Well No. 1 190 200 50Hp-Submersible Pump New
294
I. TREATMENT FACILITIES
Re-commissioning of two (2) existing units Hydraulic Control Structures (HCS) at Bogna
and Mabinit wellfields.
Treatment Structure Source/Location Method of Treatment

Hydraulic Control Structure No.1 Bogna Well Field Aeration and Chlorination
(HCS No.1)
Hydraulic Control Structure No.2 Mabinit Well Field Aeration and Chlorination
(HCS No.2)
J. STORAGE FACILITIES
Commissioning of two(2) existing ground level reservoirs at Bogna and Mabinit well fields.
Name of Elev Vol Year

Location Type Operation
Reservoir (m) (cum) Constructed
Concrete
Bogna
Bogna 84.0 Ground 2,000 2006 Fill and Draw
Reservoir
Reservoir
Concrete
Mabinit
Mabinit 90.0 Ground 2,000 2006 Fill and Draw
Reservoir
Reservoir
K. TRANSMISSION/DISTRIBUTION LINES
Pipe Category Location Diameter Range (mm) Total Length(m)

Existing pipe Network Main System 50 – 350 210,638
Reinforcement Pipe Main System 50 - 200 50
New Pipeline Expansion Area 50 - 200 10
L. SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Existing Number of Projected 2025

Type of Connection New Connections
Connections Connections
Domestic/Residential 15,539 19,181 4,642
Institutional 252 319 67
Commercial 1,143 4,224 3,081
Total 16,934 23,724 7,790
295
APPENDIX 11.1: DETAILED PROJECT COST – LCWD (Php’000)
Sub-Total Taxes & Totals (excl

Civil Works Equipment Land Duties tax)
a. Well Drilling/Development m 1 7,400,000 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0 792.9 6,607.1
b. Surface Water / River Intake lot 0 0 - - - - - - - -
c. Spring Intake & Sump Improvement lot 0 0 - - - - - - - -
Sub-Total 7,400.0 - - 2,220.0 5,180.0 7,400.0 792.9 6,607.1
2 Pumping Station
a. Pump House including pipings, ls 1 200,000 172.0 28.0 - 48.0 152.0 200.0 21.4 178.6
b. Electro-mechanical Equipment ls 1 3,600,000 900.0 2,700.0 - 2,448.0 1,152.0 3,600.0 385.7 3,214.3
c. Gen-set set 0 0 - - - - - - - -
Sub-Total 1,072.0 2,728.0 - 2,496.0 1,304.0 3,800.0 407.1 3,392.9
3 Transmission Facilities ls 1 37,000,000 33,300.0 3,700.0 - 14,800.0 22,200.0 37,000.0 3,964.3 33,035.7
4 Storage Facilities ls 1 10,000,000 9,500.0 500.0 - 1,900.0 8,100.0 10,000.0 1,071.4 8,928.6
5 Service Connections no 7,995 1,500 7,195.6 4,797.0 - 3,837.7 8,154.9 11,992.6 1,284.9 10,707.7
6 NRW Reduction ls 1 12,566,984 7,540.1 5,026.7 - 4,021.3 8,545.5 12,566.8 1,346.4 11,220.4
7 Land Acquisition lot 1 2,000,000 - 2,000.0 - 2,000.0 2,000.0 214.3 1,785.7
SUB-TOTAL 66,007.7 16,751.7 2,000.0 29,275.0 55,484.4 84,759.4 9,081.4 75,678.0
DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN 5,462.1 - - 1,638.6 3,823.5 5,462.1 585.2 4,876.9
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION 3,641.4 - - 364.1 3,277.3 3,641.4 390.2 3,251.3
PHYSICAL CONTINGENCIES - - - 1,591.4 6,784.5 8,375.9 897.4 7,478.5
PRICE CONTINGENCIES 7,881.7 1,757.8 209.9 795.6 9,932.7 10,728.3 1,149.5 9,578.9
G RAND T O T AL 82,992.9 18,509.5 2,209.9 33,664.8 79,302.4 112,967.2 12,103.6 100,863.5
296
APPENDIX 11.2: DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE – LCWD (Php’000)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Proposed WDSSP Loan
Disbursement 14,115 42,119 41,417 - - -
Capitalized Interest - - - - - -
Operational Interest - 2,415 6,526 9,570 9,550 9,465 9,372 9,269 9,156 9,032 8,197 6,850 4,676 1,169
Principal - 844 928 1,022 1,124 1,237 1,361 2,196 3,543 5,717 9,224
Debt Service - 2,415 6,526 9,570 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393
Loan Outstanding 14,115 56,234 97,651 97,651 96,808 98,561 98,508 98,342 98,054 97,630 92,952 82,153 61,475 24,859
Less: Current Portion - 844 928 1,022 1,124 1,237 1,361 1,498 2,417 3,899 6,291 4,954
Foreign Exchange Loss - - - - 2,682 968 959 949 937 925 842 708 491 142
Long-Term Portion 14,115 56,234 97,651 96,808 98,561 98,508 98,342 98,054 97,630 97,057 91,378 78,961 55,674 20,047
Existing Loans
Operational Interest 7,185 6,715 6,187 5,488 4,923 4,171 3,325 2,372 1,301 583 375 139 0 0 - -
Principal 3,812 4,282 2,423 5,406 6,073 6,825 7,671 8,624 9,696 1,573 1,781 2,016 0 0 - -
Debt Service 10,997 10,997 8,610 10,894 10,996 10,996 10,996 10,996 10,997 2,156 2,156 2,155 - - - -
Loan Outstanding 58,756 54,474 52,051 46,645 40,572 33,747 26,076 17,452 7,756 6,183 4,402 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386
Less: Current Portion 4,282 2,423 5,406 6,073 6,825 7,671 8,624 9,696 1,573 1,781 2,016 - - - - -
Long-Term Portion 54,474 52,051 46,645 40,572 33,747 26,076 17,452 7,756 6,183 4,402 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386 2,386
Summary
Operational Interest 7,185 6,715 6,187 7,903 11,449 13,741 12,875 11,837 10,673 9,852 9,531 9,171 8,197 6,850 4,676 1,169
Principal 3,812 4,282 2,423 5,406 6,073 6,825 8,515 9,552 10,718 2,697 3,018 3,377 2,196 3,543 5,717 9,224
Debt Service 10,997 10,997 8,610 13,309 17,522 20,566 21,389 21,389 21,390 12,549 12,549 12,548 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393
Loan Outstanding 58,756 54,474 52,051 46,645 138,223 131,398 122,884 116,013 106,264 104,525 102,456 100,016 95,338 84,539 63,861 27,245
Less: Current Portion 4,282 2,423 5,406 6,073 6,825 8,515 9,552 10,718 2,697 3,018 3,377 1,498 2,417 3,899 6,291 4,954
Long-Term Portion 54,474 52,051 60,760 96,806 131,398 122,884 116,013 106,264 104,525 102,456 100,016 99,443 93,764 81,347 58,060 22,433
297
APPENDIX 11.3: PROJECTED WATER TARIFF – LCWD (Php)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Domestic/Residential -
Minimum Charge 198.00 198.00 238.00 238.00 238.00 286.00 286.00 315.00 315.00 347.00 347.00 382.00 462.00 615.00 745.00 992.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 21.75 21.80 26.20 26.20 26.20 31.40 31.40 34.50 34.50 38.00 38.00 41.80 50.60 67.40 81.50 108.60
21 - 30 cu.m. 24.35 24.40 29.30 29.30 29.30 35.20 35.20 38.70 38.70 42.60 42.60 46.90 56.80 75.70 91.60 122.00
31 - 40 cu.m. 27.35 27.40 32.90 32.90 32.90 39.50 39.50 43.50 43.50 47.90 47.90 52.70 63.80 84.90 102.70 136.70
41 - up 30.80 30.80 37.00 37.00 37.00 44.40 44.40 48.80 48.80 53.70 53.70 59.10 71.50 95.30 115.30 153.50
Institutional - -
Minimum Charge 198.00 198.00 238.00 238.00 238.00 286.00 286.00 315.00 315.00 347.00 347.00 382.00 462.00 615.00 745.00 992.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 21.75 21.80 26.20 26.20 26.20 31.40 31.40 34.50 34.50 38.00 38.00 41.80 50.60 67.40 81.50 108.60
21 - 30 cu.m. 24.35 24.40 29.30 29.30 29.30 35.20 35.20 38.70 38.70 42.60 42.60 46.90 56.80 75.70 91.60 122.00
31 - 40 cu.m. 27.35 27.40 32.90 32.90 32.90 39.50 39.50 43.50 43.50 47.90 47.90 52.70 63.80 84.90 102.70 136.70
41 - up 30.80 30.80 37.00 37.00 37.00 44.40 44.40 48.80 48.80 53.70 53.70 59.10 71.50 95.30 115.30 153.50
Commercial/Industrial - -
Minimum Charge 396.00 396.00 475.00 475.00 475.00 570.00 570.00 627.00 627.00 690.00 690.00 759.00 919.00 1,223.00 1,480.00 1,970.00
11 - 20 cu.m. 43.50 43.50 52.20 52.20 52.20 62.60 62.60 68.90 68.90 75.80 75.80 83.40 100.90 134.30 162.50 216.40
21 - 30 cu.m. 48.70 48.70 58.40 58.40 58.40 70.10 70.10 77.10 77.10 84.80 84.80 93.30 112.90 150.30 181.80 242.00
31 - 40 cu.m. 54.70 54.70 65.60 65.60 65.60 78.70 78.70 86.60 86.60 95.30 95.30 104.80 126.80 168.90 204.40 272.00
41 - up 61.60 61.60 73.90 73.90 73.90 88.70 88.70 97.60 97.60 107.40 107.40 118.10 142.90 190.20 230.10 306.20
Affordability of Proposed Water Rates

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Average Income per month 9,572 10,051 10,553 11,081 11,635 12,217 12,827 13,469 14,142 14,849 15,592 16,371 20,894 26,667 34,035 43,438
Minimum Charge (MC) 198.00 198.00 238.00 238.00 238.00 286.00 286.00 315.00 315.00 347.00 347.00 382.00 462.00 615.00 745.00 992.00
Add: Sanitation Fee (P/cum) - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Minimum Charge 198.00 198.00 238.00 238.00 238.00 286.00 286.00 315.00 315.00 347.00 347.00 382.00 462.00 615.00 745.00 992.00
% of MC to Average Income 2.07% 1.97% 2.26% 2.15% 2.05% 2.34% 2.23% 2.34% 2.23% 2.34% 2.23% 2.33% 2.21% 2.31% 2.19% 2.28%
Increase in Water Rates 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Increase in Income (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
298
APPENDIX 11.4: FINANCIAL INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN – LCWD (Php’000)
Base Hypothesis Sensitivity Analyses

1 Year Delay in
Year Incremental Incremental Project Incremental Incremental Incremental Project
Project Operation Project Project Project
Net Net Cost Net Net Net Cost Net
Cost Cost O&M Cost Revenues Cost Revenues O&M
Revenues O&M Revenues O&M Revenues O&M (+10%) Revenues O&M (+10%)
(+10%) (-10%) (-10%) (+10%)
2011 15,326 (15,326) 15,326 (15,326) 16,858 (16,858) 15326 (15,326) 15,326 (15,326) 15,326 (15,326)
2012 - - 44,585 (44,585) - - 44,585 (44,585) - - 49,043 (49,043) - - 44585 (44,585) - - 44,585 (44,585) - - 49,043 (49,043)
2013 - - 42,329 (42,329) - - 42,329 (42,329) - - 46,561 (46,561) - - 42329 (42,329) - - 42,329 (42,329) - - 46,561 (46,561)
2014 17,769 3,243 14,526 - - - - 17,769 3,243 0 14,526 17,769 3,568 0 14,202 15,992 3,243 0 12,749 15,992 3,568 0 12,425
2015 9,118 6,487 2,631 17,769 3,243 - 14,526 9,118 6,487 0 2,631 9,118 7,135 0 1,982 8,206 6,487 0 1,719 8,206 7,135 0 1,070
2016 36,961 9,075 27,886 9,118 6,487 - 2,631 36,961 9,075 0 27,886 36,961 9,983 0 26,979 33,265 9,075 0 24,190 33,265 9,983 0 23,282
2017 24,312 11,639 12,673 36,961 9,075 - 27,886 24,312 11,639 0 12,673 24,312 12,803 0 11,509 21,881 11,639 0 10,242 21,881 12,803 0 9,078
2018 49,359 14,179 35,180 24,312 11,639 - 12,673 49,359 14,179 0 35,180 49,359 15,597 0 33,762 44,423 14,179 0 30,244 44,423 15,597 0 28,826
2019 35,949 16,682 19,267 49,359 14,179 - 35,180 35,949 16,682 0 19,267 35,949 18,350 0 17,599 32,354 16,682 0 15,672 32,354 18,350 0 14,004
2020 61,785 19,186 42,599 35,949 16,682 - 19,267 61,785 19,186 0 42,599 61,785 21,105 0 40,680 55,607 19,186 0 36,420 55,607 21,105 0 34,502
2021 47,712 21,591 26,120 61,785 19,186 - 42,599 47,712 21,591 26,120 47,712 23,751 23,961 42,940 21,591 21,349 42,940 23,751 0 19,190
2022 71,227 23,991 47,236 47,712 21,591 - 26,120 71,227 23,991 47,236 71,227 26,390 44,837 64,105 23,991 40,113 64,105 26,390 0 37,714
2023 50,844 26,346 24,498 71,227 23,991 - 47,236 50,844 26,346 24,498 50,844 28,981 21,863 45,760 26,346 19,413 45,760 28,981 0 16,779
2024 71,688 28,668 43,019 50,844 26,346 - 24,498 71,688 28,668 43,019 71,688 31,535 40,152 64,519 28,668 35,850 64,519 31,535 0 32,984
2025 51,023 30,981 20,042 71,688 28,668 - 43,019 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2026 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2027 51,023 30,981 7,525 12,517 51,023 30,981 7,525 12,517 51,023 30,981 9,030 11,012 51,023 34,079 7525 9,419 45,921 30,981 7,525 7,415 45,921 34,079 8,278 3,564
2028 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2029 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2030 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2031 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2032 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2033 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2034 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2035 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2036 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2037 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2038 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2039 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2040 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
2041 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 30,981 - 20,042 51,023 30,981 20,042 51,023 34,079 16,944 45,921 30,981 14,940 45,921 34,079 0 11,842
FIRR 18.35% FIRR 16.14% FIRR 16.94% FIRR 17.25% FIRR 15.60% FIRR 13.18%
NPV 79,189 NPV 63,590 NPV 70,587 NPV 65,360 NPV 48,993 NPV 28,112
299
APPENDIX 11.5: PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT – LCWD (Php’000)
Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Operating Revenues
Water Sales 148,010 148,176 168,896 174,654 198,539 218,659 229,034 355,034 445,522 592,990 717,518 955,017
Domestic 68,697 68,774 76,902 78,087 87,236 136,963 143,603 216,997 269,704 358,976 434,361 578,134
Institutional 7,564 7,573 8,565 8,793 9,927 8,939 9,162 13,679 17,091 22,748 27,525 36,636
Commercial 71,749 71,829 83,428 87,774 101,376 72,757 76,268 124,358 158,728 211,267 255,633 340,247
Other Operating Revenues 14,801 14,818 16,890 17,465 19,854 21,866 22,903 24,852 31,187 41,509 50,226 66,851
Total Revenues 162,811 162,994 185,785 192,120 218,393 240,525 251,937 379,886 476,709 634,500 767,745 1,021,868
Operating Expenses
Payroll 25,988 28,652 31,589 33,168 34,826 37,587 40,626 57,961 81,753 104,340 133,168 169,959
Power Cost 89 108 130 143 158 765 903 1,633 2,908 4,683 7,543 12,147
Chemicals 0 0 0 0 0 183 217 392 698 1,124 1,810 2,915
Maintenance 8,431 9,472 10,642 11,956 13,433 14,238 15,656 24,398 37,632 52,781 74,027 103,827
Other O & M 80,102 88,312 97,364 102,233 107,344 115,995 125,268 178,711 252,062 321,703 410,583 524,020
Franchise Tax 3,256 3,260 3,716 3,842 4,368 4,811 5,039 7,598 9,534 12,690 15,355 20,437
Bad Debts 141 229 241 256 271 288 307 428 601 817 1,092 1,434
Depreciation 14,233 14,233 14,233 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013 17,013
Total Operating Exp. 132,241 144,266 157,916 168,611 177,413 190,879 205,028 288,133 402,201 515,150 660,590 851,753
Net Operating Income 30,570 18,728 27,870 23,508 40,980 49,646 46,909 91,754 74,508 119,349 107,154 170,115
Less: Interest Expense 7,185 6,715 6,187 7,903 11,449 13,741 15,556 10,096 9,039 7,557 5,167 1,311
Foreign Exchange Loss 2,682 925 842 708 491 142
Net Income 23,385 12,013 21,683 15,605 29,531 35,906 28,671 80,733 64,627 111,084 101,496 168,662
300
APPENDIX 11.6: PROJECTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT – LCWD (Php’000)
Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Sources of Cash
Collection of Revenues - CY 139,129 139,286 158,762 164,175 186,627 205,540 215,292 333,732 418,791 557,411 674,467 897,716
Collection of Receivables - PY - 7,409 8,445 8,733 9,927 10,933 11,452 17,752 22,276 29,650 35,876 47,751
Other Receipts 14,801 14,818 16,890 17,465 19,854 21,866 22,903 24,852 31,187 41,509 50,226 66,851
Proceeds of Loan - - 14,115 42,119 41,417 - -
LWUA and NLIF
WDDSP 14,115 42,119 41,417 - -
Total Sources of Cash 153,930 161,512 198,211 232,493 257,825 238,339 249,647 376,336 472,254 628,570 760,569 1,012,318
Uses of Cash
Equity - 2,214 6,606 6,496 - -
Project Investment - 14,115 42,119 41,417 - -
Debt Service-
Existing Loans 10,997 10,997 8,610 10,894 10,996 10,996 10,996 2,155 - - - -
Proposed Loan - - 2,415 6,526 9,570 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393
Total Debt Service 10,997 10,997 8,610 13,309 17,522 20,566 21,389 12,548 10,393 10,393 10,393 10,393
Foreign Exchange Loss - - - - - - 2,682 925 842 708 491 142
O & M Expenses and Working Capital 110,332 116,242 139,039 147,167 155,412 168,401 182,284 262,602 374,424 483,826 625,875 811,263
Reserves 4,440 4,445 5,067 5,240 5,956 10,933 11,452 28,403 35,642 47,439 57,401 76,401
Franchise Tax 3,256 3,260 3,716 3,842 4,368 4,811 5,039 7,598 9,534 12,690 15,355 20,437
Corporate Income Tax - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Uses of Cash 129,026 134,944 172,760 218,284 231,171 204,710 222,845 312,075 430,835 555,056 709,516 918,637
Increase(Decrease) in Cash 24,904 26,568 25,450 14,208 26,654 33,629 26,802 64,261 41,419 73,514 51,053 93,681
Add: Cash Balance, Beg. 5,246 30,150 56,719 82,169 96,377 123,031 156,660 358,049 670,689 935,447 1,267,331 1,598,616
Cash Balance, End. 30,150 56,719 82,169 96,377 123,031 156,660 183,462 422,309 712,108 1,008,960 1,318,384 1,692,297
301
APPENDIX 11.7: PROJECTED BALANCE SHEET – LCWD (Php’000)

Projected
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
ASSETS
Fixed Assets
Fixed Assets in Operation 275,828 275,828 283,992 316,519 364,839 388,795 388,795 388,795 388,795 388,795 388,795 388,795
Less: Accum. Depreciation 139,986 154,219 168,452 185,465 202,477 219,490 236,503 321,566 406,630 491,694 576,757 661,821
Net Fixed Assets in Operation 135,842 121,609 115,540 131,054 162,361 169,305 152,292 67,229 (17,835) (102,898) (187,962) (273,025)
Add: Work-in-Progress 4,785 4,785 12,949 29,148 28,742 4,785 4,785 4,785 4,785 4,785 4,785 4,785
Total Fixed Assets 140,627 126,394 128,489 160,202 191,103 174,090 157,077 72,014 (13,050) (98,113) (183,177) (268,240)
Current Assets
Cash 30,150 56,719 82,169 96,377 123,031 156,660 183,462 422,309 712,108 1,008,960 1,318,384 1,692,297
Accounts Receivable (net) 22,886 24,139 25,587 27,077 28,792 30,691 32,674 45,911 63,921 86,801 115,244 151,491
Investments 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565 13,565
Inventory 11,022 1,405 1,475 1,549 1,627 1,708 1,793 2,289 2,921 3,728 4,110 4,110
Prepayments 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219
Total Current Assets 78,842 97,047 124,015 139,788 168,234 203,843 232,713 485,293 793,734 1,114,274 1,452,523 1,862,682
Deferred Debits 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121
Reserves 14,790 19,236 24,302 29,542 35,498 46,431 57,883 178,803 343,998 556,102 822,710 1,164,307
TOTAL ASSETS 235,381 243,797 277,928 330,653 395,956 425,485 448,794 737,231 1,125,803 1,573,384 2,093,178 2,759,869
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable 6,683 7,368 8,125 8,531 8,959 9,407 9,878 12,613 16,106 20,569 26,274 33,569
Current Maturities 4,282 2,423 5,406 6,073 6,825 8,515 9,552 1,498 2,417 3,899 6,291 4,954
Accounts Payable -Others 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371 4,371
Customers' Deposits 723 723 723 723 723 723 723 723 723 723 723 723
Total Current Liabilities 16,059 14,885 18,625 19,698 20,878 23,016 24,525 19,204 23,617 29,563 37,660 43,617
Long-Term Debts (LTD)
Loans Payable 54,474 52,051 60,760 96,806 131,398 122,884 116,013 99,443 93,764 81,347 58,060 22,433
Deferred Credits 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496 7,496
Equity
Government Equity 533 533 533 533 533 533 533 533 533 533 533 533
Other Paid-in Capital 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791 5,791
Retained Earnings 151,028 163,041 184,724 200,329 229,860 265,766 294,437 604,763 994,603 1,448,654 1,983,638 2,679,999
Total Equity 157,352 169,365 191,048 206,653 236,184 272,090 300,761 611,087 1,000,927 1,454,978 1,989,962 2,686,323
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 235,381 243,797 277,928 330,653 395,956 425,485 448,794 737,231 1,125,803 1,573,384 2,093,178 2,759,869
302
APPENDIX 11.8: PROJECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS - LCWD
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Current Ratio 4.91 6.52 6.66 7.10 8.06 8.86 9.49 25.27 33.61 37.69 38.57 42.71
Debt to Equity Ratio 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.47 0.56 0.45 0.39 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01
Net Profit Ratio 81% 89% 85% 88% 81% 79% 81% 76% 84% 81% 86% 83%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio 4.07 3.00 4.89 3.04 3.31 3.24 2.99 8.67 8.81 13.12 11.95 18.00
303
APPENDIX 12: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS – LCWD
1. INTRODUCTION
1. This note presents the economic feasibility evaluation of the proposed investments in
water supply for Legazpi City.15 It describes the overall approach to economic analysis, the
data and assumptions used, the procedures for estimating economic costs and benefits, the
results of the analysis in terms of economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and poverty impact
ratio (PIR), and an assessment of the long-term economic sustainability of the proposed
investments. It also discusses the overall impact of the investments in terms of the estimated
number of new service connections and population that will gain direct access to the
improved water supply system.
2. This section starts with a general overview of the macroeconomic environment and
the current situation in the water supply sector in the Philippines as well as in Legazpi City as
background for a clearer understanding of the context of the Project and for assessing its
economic impact.
2. MACROECONOMIC / SECTORAL CONTEXT
3. Before the global economic slowdown hit the country in 2008, the Philippine economy
has been growing at annual rates averaging 5.7%. From 5% in 2005, GDP growth increased
to 5.4% in 2006 and further accelerated to its highest rate of 7.2% in 2007. However, in
2008, largely as a result of the global economic downturn, the economy grew at a much
slower pace of only 4.6%. The pace of growth further decelerated up until about the middle of
2009 but which seemed to have picked up some steam during the second half of the year.
By the end of 2009, economic growth is projected to reach 1.6% and in 2010, it is expected
to gradually accelerate to 3.3%.16 Inflation is currently at its lowest level and is expected to
average 4% in 2009 and 4.5% in 2010.
4. Despite the consistent, positive growth of the domestic economy during the past
years, however, poverty incidence in the country still remains high. In 2006, the number of
families falling below the poverty line was estimated at 26.9%17. Although no recent poverty
estimates have yet been released for both national and regional levels which reflect the
possible impact of the current economic downturn, it is generally believed that the number of
poor has risen. As an indicator, the latest Social Weather Survey undertaken by the Social
Weather Station (SWS) indicates that self-rated poverty during the fourth quarter of 2008
was up to 52%, from the average of 50% in 2007.18 Based on the socioeconomic survey
conducted by the Project, Legazpi City has a poverty incidence estimated at 54%.
5. In the water supply sector, the situation across the country and in the Project area
needs further improvement. Available statistics show that 80% of the country’s current
population have access to safe water supply but only 67% percent are connected to the
piped network.19 Still a large proportion of the population depends on non-piped sources like
shallow wells and deep wells, most of which are unprotected, and on more unsafe sources
like rivers, streams and ponds.
15
Covers 53 of the 70 existing barangays comprising Legazpi City.
16
Latest revisions of the growth forecasts, ADB Economic Outlook, Philippines, 2009.
17
Latest official poverty estimate from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB).
18
The Social Weather Survey was conducted on November 22-December 1, 2008.
19
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap, 2008.
304
6. The Philippine Government has set a target of achieving population service coverage
for safe drinking water of 92%-96% by 2010.20 Under the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG), the coverage target is 86.8%.
7. In Legazpi City, service coverage for piped water supply in 2009 is estimated at 75%.
3. ECONOMIC RATIONALE OF THE PROJECT
8. The proposed investments in water supply are designed to increase population

access to piped, treated water supply in the area. Providing safe water supply is not only one
of the Government’s important economic and social objectives but also aims to address the
MDG goals of: (i) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), reducing child mortality
(Goal 4), (iii) combating major diseases (Goal 6), and (v) improving population access to
improved water supply and sanitation services (Goal 7).
9. The proposed investments for improved water supply in Legazpi City are a
component of a larger Water District Development Sector Project (WDDSP) which also
includes Metro La Union WD, Metro Quezon WD, Leyte Metro WD, and City of Koronadal
WD.21
10. The Legazpi City Metro Water District (LCWD) will partly finance but fully implement,
operate and manage the Project investments as it does for the existing system. Direct
intervention by Government in the provision of this basic urban service stems from the lack of
participation of other sectors, particularly the private investors, in its development. With a
growing population, the lack of investments in capacity expansion and proper maintenance of
facilities in the city will continue to deprive an increasing number of the local population of
this essential service which could have long-term effects on their health and well-being.
11. The direct involvement of the Government in this Project is therefore aimed at
addressing this market failure in the provision of improved water supply. In doing so, the
Government will be exercising two of its basic functions, namely: (i) allocating resources for
the provision of basic needs, and (ii) distributing resources to effect equity where market and
private decisions (or lack of it) have not resulted in efficient allocation and service provision
especially to the poor.
4. OVERALL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
12. The economic analysis of the proposed water supply investments was undertaken in
accordance with the principles and procedures set out in the ADB Handbook for the
Economic Analysis of Water Supply Projects (1999) and related guidelines22 as well as
LWUA’s Project Operations Manual (2008). The analysis was undertaken over a 25-year
period although most investments have useful economic life that extends beyond this time
horizon. Costs and benefits were quantified at constant September 2009 prices and as
increments to a situation “without project”.
13. The economic feasibility of the subproject was determined by computing the
economic internal rate of return (EIRR) and comparing the result with the assumed economic
20
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan, 2004-2010.
21
The Water District Development Sector Project (WDDSP) also includes the Cabuyao (Laguna) WD, Laguna
WD, Camarines Norte WD, Sorsogon WD and possibly a second phase for Metro Leyte WD focused on new
source/s development, in addition to the five pilot WDs.
22
Includes the Guidelines for the Economic Analysis of Projects (1997) and the Framework for the Economic and
Financial Appraisal of Urban Development Sector Projects (1994).
305
opportunity cost of capital (EOCC) of 15%23. An EIRR exceeding EOCC indicates that the
subproject is economically viable. The robustness of the subproject’s EIRR was then tested
for changes in key variables such as capital costs, O&M costs, water consumption, number
of connections, and other economic benefits through sensitivity analysis. A distributional and
poverty impact analysis was also undertaken to determine how much of the net economic
benefits resulting from the investments will directly benefit the poor.
5. DEMAND FORECASTS
14. Water demand projections were prepared by the Project as basis for facility design
and subsequent analysis (see Chapter 5 – Population and Water Demand Projections - for
more detailed discussions of the methodology and results of the projections). Water demand
in the Project area was forecast using a per capita domestic water consumption of 150 lpcd
for domestic/residential connections and 41m3/connection/month for non-domestics, both
derived from actual 2009 figures.
15. Table 12-1 shows the projected population and water demand in 2015, 2020 and
2025. In 2015, total service area population was projected at 147,972 while water demand is
forecast to reach 17,420m3/day. In 2020, the projections are 178,204 for population and
19,566m3/day for water demand. By 2025, population and water demand are expected to
reach 208,437 and 21,636m3/day, respectively.
16. LCWD’s existing supply comes from bulk water contract of about 20,000m3/day. The
demand for piped water remains high, as indicated by the willingness to connect (WTC) data
obtained through the socioeconomic survey conducted in the area in April 2009.
Table 12-1: Population and Water Demand Forecasts: 2015, 2020 &
2025
2015 2020 2025

Total population 197,366 210,819 224,271
Service area population 147,972 178,204 208,437
3
Water demand (m /day) 17,420 19,566 21,636
6. BEFORE- AND AFTER-PROJECT SITUATIONS
17. At present, around 75% of the service area households have access to LCWD’s
piped water supply. The remaining households depend on shallow/deep wells (44%), deep
wells (2%), water vendors (11%), springs (5%), and other water sources.
18. Domestic piped water consumption is currently estimated at 150 lpcd. At an average
household size of 5.2 members, each household consumes an average of about
23.4m3/month. Non-piped water users, on the other hand, consume around 18.7m3/month.
19. The results of the socioeconomic survey also show that 49% of the existing non-
connected households are willing to connect to the piped water supply system.
20. Based on the proposed investments, the number of service connections, volume of
production and service coverage were projected as shown below.
23
Per NEDA-ICC Project Evaluation Procedures and Guidelines. ADB sets an EOCC of 10%-12% for similar
projects.
306
Table 12.2: Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply: 2009, 2015,
2020 & 2025
2009 2015 2020 2025
Service area population 117,739 147,972 178,204 208,437
3
Projected water demand (m /day) 14,902 17,420 19,566 21,636
3
Supply capacity (m /day) 20,000 32,384 32,384 32,384
No. of house connections 14,757 16,958 18,659 20,351
No. of non-domestic connections 2,542 3,221 3,898 4,578
Total population served 88,404 101,384 111,180 120,976
Service coverage (%) 75.1 68.5 62.4 58.0
21. After completion of the investments in 2013 and up until 2025, total supply will
increase to 32,384m3/day from the current level of 20,000m3/day. The additional capacity will
enable approximately 4,902 households to directly connect to the expanded water supply
network, benefiting about 25,490 residents. In addition, about 1,636 non-domestic users
consisting mostly of institutional and commercial establishments will be given direct access
to the system. Service coverage is estimated to reach 58% of the total service area
population.
7 ECONOMIC BENEFITS
22. The economic and social impact of an improved water supply could include the
following: (i) time saved from not having to collect water from distant wells or other water
sources which could be used for productive activities, (ii) health benefits in terms of lower
medical expenditures and reduction of long-term debilitating effects of waterborne diseases,
(iii) improved income opportunities through home-based livelihood activities that use the new
water supply, (iv) multiplier effects from increased incomes and new enterprises based on
improved water supply, (v) wider social mobilization that could lead to the empowerment of
women and greater social cohesion, (vi) development of wider access to credit and improved
financial management skills, and (vii) wider social and political system that could influence
government policies and bring about more balanced representation.
23. The economic analysis of the proposed water supply investments for Legazpi City
focuses on six types of benefits that could be easily quantified and for which data are
available. The benefits consist of: (i) resource cost savings on non-incremental water in
terms of avoided costs for producing, collecting, treating and storing water from non-piped
sources, (ii) economic value of incremental water due to increased supply, (iii) economic
value of non-technical losses, (iv) time saved from not having to collect water which could
translate to avoided income loss or productivity gains for those gainfully employed or
engaged in income-generating activities, (v) savings in medical costs because of reduced
morbidity rates for waterborne diseases, and (vi) avoided loss of income (or productivity
savings) due to reduced incidence of diseases.
24. Resource cost savings represents the foregone costs of producing, collecting,
treating and storing non-piped water due to the shift in demand to piped water supply as a
result of the Project. Total resource cost savings were computed based on estimated
demand and the economic cost of non-piped water. Based on the socioeconomic survey
results, the average economic cost of storage using storage tanks, drums, buckets and other
storage facilities is about Php4.5/m3. This amount was computed based on the cost of
storage tank (Php15,000), drums (Php300) and buckets (Php150) as well as the frequency
distribution of their usage among households of 10%, 50% and 40%, respectively. The
economic cost of producing water, based on the annualized cost of constructing and
307
operating deep/shallow wells, was estimated at Php3.1/m3. Filtering and/or boiling, which are
the common methods used by households for treating their water, costs an average of about
Php7.2/day in economic price.
25. The value of incremental water was derived by multiplying the quantity of additional
water consumed by the average of the supply price and demand price, or willingness to pay
(WTP). At present, the average domestic tariff (which was computed by dividing actual water
sales revenue by billed consumption volume) in the area is Rs23.3/m3 and for non-domestic
water, Php48/m3. The average WTP for water, based on the socioeconomic survey, is
Php231/month or Php9.9/m3.
26. Non-technical water losses were estimated at 2% out of the current NRW of 23%. Its
economic value was computed by multiplying the amount of water lost due to non-technical
reasons by the average of supply price and WTP.
27. Based on survey results, collecting water from wells and other non-piped sources
requires an average of about 55 minutes. Seventy-four percent (74%) of the times, it is the
adult male or female member of the household who collects water from the source. Existing
daily wage rate in the area is Php239 and applying a SWRF of 0.6 translates the financial
wage to economic wage for unskilled worker of Php143/day. The time spent in collecting
water is therefore valued, in economic price, at around Php7.7/day.
28. The health impact of improved water supply, as considered in this analysis, does not
encompass all types of waterborne diseases24 known to exist in the area because of data
limitations. The evaluation was confined only to diarrhea for which DOH and local health
units have more reliable estimates. Such cases as typhoid fever, dengue, and helminthiasis
are not adequately supported with data.
29. Health statistics obtained from the Department of Health (DOH) indicate that in 2008
about 19.7% of the under-5 year old population within the service area had diarrhea and
were given oral rehydration solution (ORS). This statistics translates to a morbidity rate for
this most vulnerable age-group of about 5 per 1,000 population. For other age-groups
including adult population, the socioeconomic survey revealed that 6.4% of the households
had at least one member who got sick of diarrhea last year. The incidence figure are deemed
to reflect only those cases that are believed to have been reported to government
hospitals/clinics in the process of securing medical treatment and is estimated to account for
just about 30% of the total number of actual cases that occurred which should include those
that may have been treated in private clinics, resorted to self-medication, sought alternative
cures or simply ignored their sickness for poverty reasons. It was estimated that morbidity
rates for under-5 and over-5 years old are 11 and 27 per 1,000 population respectively.
30. Reduction in morbidity incidence was assumed at 35% for under-5 year olds and 26%
for those above-5 years during the life of the subproject. This assumption was based on
World Health Organization’s (WHO) data that placed morbidity reduction rate from 22.7% to
37.5%. Another study estimated diarrhea reduction at 36%.25
31. On the average, also based on survey results, it takes 3.3 days for diarrhea patients
to fully recover from sickness. The average cost of medication is Php575 per day (for more
acute cases, the number of days-sick and health care cost could be higher).
24
Other diseases that are known to have occurred in the area are typhoid, dengue, and helminthiasis.
25
Esrey, S.A., Potash, J.B. Roberts, L and Shiff, C. Health Benefits from Improvements in Water Supply and
Sanitation – Survey and Analysis of the literature on Selected Diseases. WASH Technical Report No. 66.
308
32. Because of the number of days that an adult (especially one who is gainfully
employed) is kept out of work because of sickness, income lost is also an important
consideration in the analysis of the impact of improved water supply. The avoided loss-of-
income benefit was computed based on the number of days that a patient is sick by the wage
rate. Based on local labour statistics, the average labour wage in the area is Php239/day, or
for unskilled worker, about Php143/day in economic price.
33. The parameters used in quantifying and valuing the above economic benefits are
given in Table 12-3 below.
34. Resource cost savings, the value of incremental water, the value of water saved from
being lost due to non-technical reasons, the value of time saved for not collecting water, and
the health impact benefits discussed above constitute the set of economic benefits that was
considered in determining the economic viability of the proposed investments. Such benefits
as improved income arising from the use of water for livelihood purposes and the multiplier
effect of increased income and new enterprises because of improved supply, though
important in terms of economic impact, were not included in the analysis in the absence of
data and the difficulty of quantifying them.
Table 12-3: Values for Quantifying Economic Benefits, Water Supply

2015 2020 2025
Number of residential connections 16,958 18,659 20,351
Number of non-domestic connections 3,221 3,898 4,578
Total number of service connections 20,179 22,557 24,929
3
Average economic cost of water storage (Php/m ) 4.5 - -
Average economic cost of treatment (Php/day) 7.2 - -
Average economic cost of producing water (Php/m3) 3.1 - -
Ave. time spent in collecting water (min/day) 55 - -
% of time water collection is done by adults 74 - -
Econ. value of time spent in collecting water (Php/d) 7.7 - -
Residential water consumption (lpcd) 155 155 155
3
Production capacity provided by the Project (m /d) 12,384 12,384 12,384
Non-revenue water (%) 20 20 20
Non-technical losses (%) 2 2 2
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for under-5 (per 1,000) 11 - -
Morbidity rate for diarrhea for over-5 (per 1,000) 27 - -
Morbidity reduction for under-5 (%) 18 35 35
Morbidity reduction for over-5 (%) 7 26 26
Average number of days-sick 3.3 - -
Average medical cost per diarrhea case (Php/day) 575 - -
Ave. economic wage rate for unskilled labor (Php/day) 143 - -
8. WILLINGNESS TO PAY
35. The willingness of the existing households to connect (WTC) to, and to pay (WTP)
for, piped water supply services were also obtained through the socioeconomic survey and
the data are presented in Table 12-4.
36. About 49% of the non-connected households indicated that they are willing to
connect to LCWD’s improved water supply system and are also willing to pay Php231 per
month for water. The amount is just about half the actual average monthly bill of current
users of Php433/month. On a per unit basis, based on the monthly average consumption of
23.4m3/household, this WTP translates to Php9.9/m3.
309
Table 12-4: Willingness to Connect (WTC) and to Pay (WTP), Water Supply
Mean Value
Willingness to connect to an improved water supply service (%) 49

Willingness to pay for water (Php/month) 231.0
3
Willingness to pay for water (Php/m ) 9.9
9. ECONOMIC COSTS
37. The financial capital investments presented in Chapter 11 (Financial Aspects) above
were converted to their economic cost equivalent by removing all taxes and duties and then
applying appropriate conversion factors to traded, unskilled labour, and non-traded
components. Traded and non-traded components were estimated from the detailed financial
cost estimates. The unskilled labour cost component was calculated at 18% of the total costs
of civil works.
38. A shadow exchange rate factor (SERF) of 1.2 and a shadow wage rate factor
(SWRF) of 0.6 were applied to the traded and unskilled labour components of costs following
the NEDA-ICC guidelines for evaluating local investment projects. For non-traded
components, the conversion factor is 1.0.
39. By applying the above conversion factors, the weighted overall CF for capital costs
was computed as shown in Table 12-5. Using a conversion factor of 1.04, the economic cost
equivalent of the financial investments (including asset replacement costs), amounts to
approximately Php105 million.
40. For O&M costs, the CF is 0.96 (Table 12-6) and the total amounts to Php574 million.
41. The economic life of physical assets were assumed at 50 years for transmission
mains, 50 years for distribution pipes, 50 years for treatment plant, 50 years for
storage/reservoir facilities, and 15 years for pumps (see additional assumptions in Table 12-
7).
Table 12-5: Conversion Factor for Capital Costs, Water Supply

Proportion Weighted
Cost Component % C.F. CF (%)
Traded 29 1.20 34
Non-traded
Unskilled labour 5 0.60 3
Others 66 1.00 66
Total 100 104
Conversion Factor 1.04
Table 12-6: Conversion Factor for O&M Costs, Water Supply

Proportion Weighted
Cost Component % C.F. CF (%)
Traded 10 1.20 12
Non-traded
Unskilled labour 15 0.60 9
Others 75 1.00 75
Total 100 96
Conversion Factor 0.96
310
Table 12-7: Economic Life of Physical Assets, Water Supply

Economic Life (Yrs)
Physical Assets C. Works Equipment
Source (wells) 30 15
Source (spring) 50 50
Water treatment plant 50 15
Pumping station 50 15
Transmission pipes 50
Storage/reservoir 50 50
Distribution pipes 50
Service connections 50 15
Flow meters/pressure reducing valves 50 15
Buildings 50 15
10. EIRR AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
42. Given the stream of net economic benefits that were calculated based on the above
data and assumptions over the 25-year projection period, the EIRR for the proposed water
supply investments for Legazpi City is 14%. The EIRR is slightly lower than the assumed cut-
off rate of 15% (see computations in Annex 12-1).
43. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the robustness of the EIRR for changes
in key variables. The scenarios include: (i) a 10% decrease in capital costs, (ii) a 10%
decrease in O&M costs, (iii) a 10% increase in resource cost savings, and (iv) a 10%
increase in the value of incremental water.
44. The results of the sensitivity tests, as presented in Table 12.8, show that a mere 10%
reduction in either capital investments or O&M costs raised the EIRR to 15.4% which is
above the EOCC benchmark therefore making the investments economically viable. The
same-rate increases in resource cost savings and value of incremental water, on the other
hand, had the opposite effect of reducing the EIRR to 13.9% and 13.2% respectively. Of the
four key variables considered, the viability of the investments was found to be most sensitive
to change in O&M costs (SI=0.97) followed closely by change in capital costs (SI=0.94) and
change in incremental water (SI=0.60). The impact of a 10% change in resource cost savings
is relatively small (SI=0.09). The switching values for O&M costs and capital costs are 103%
and 106%, respectively.
Table 12-8: EIRR and Sensitivity Test Results, Water Supply

1
NPV EIRR %
2 3
Scenario (SLR mill.) (%) SI Change SV
Base case -5.2 14.0
10% reduction in capital costs 1.8 15.4 0.94 -10 106%
10% reduction in O&M costs 2.3 15.4 0.97 -10 103%
10% incr. in resource cost savings -5.9 13.9 0.09 10 1075%
10% incr. in incremental water -9.5 13.2 0.60 10 167%
1
NPV = Net Present Value discounted at EOCC of 15%
2
SI = Sensitivity Indicator (ratio of % change in EIRR to % change in variable)
3
SV = Switching Value (% change in variable required for NPV to become zero)
311
11. SUBPROJECT BENEFICIARIES
45. Table 12-9 provides estimates of the total number of direct beneficiaries of the
proposed investments in water supply up until the end of the 25-year period. These include
households and non-domestic establishments that would have direct connection to the
improved water system.
46. A total of 9,188 service connections are expected to be generated by the water
supply investments, consisting of 7,552 house connections (82%) and 1,636 non-domestic
connections (18%). In terms of population, about 42,394 city residents will directly benefit
from the investments by having direct connection to the improved system.
Table 12-9: Subproject Beneficiaries to 2035, Water Supply

Domestic Non-Dom. Total Population
Conn. Conn. Conn. Served
Water supply 7,552 1,636 9,188 42,394
12. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
47. At full economic costs (i.e., capital investments plus O&M), the average incremental
economic cost of water (AIEC) or the average marginal cost of producing water was
computed at Php14.2/m3. Considering only capital costs, the AIEC is about Php6.9/m3.
the incremental water consumption, is Php23.8/m3. With an average tariff higher than AIEC,
no economic subsidy is required.
49. The tariff revenue to be generated by the subproject during the period will be able to
fully recover all costs, including the full economic costs of the investments consisting of
capital and O&M costs.
Table 12-10: Project Sustainability, Water Supply

Value
3
AIEC (Php/m )
Economic capital + O&M (full cost) 14.2
Economic capital cost only 6.9
Economic O&M only 11.2
3
Average tariff at EOCC of 15% (Php/m ) 23.8
Economic cost recovery (%)
Capital + O&M cost 167%
Capital cost only 345%
O&M cost only 214%
312
13. DISTRIBUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND POVERTY IMPACT
50. The water supply subproject is expected to generate a total net economic benefits
(NEB)26 of about Php45 million. Approximately Php42 million will accrue to water consumers,
many of whom are current users of water from wells and other water sources and who are
expected to connect to the expanded piped water system provided under this Project. The
labour sector, for which a significant amount of person-days will be needed for the
construction of the new facilities and their eventual operation, will gain about Php17 million.
The economy, because of distortions in the current exchange rate, will lose around Php14
million. On balance, the whole economy will gain the entire amount of NEB of Php45 million.
51. The poverty impact ratio (PIR) of the water supply investments is 25%, which means
that about one-quarter of NEB will accrue to the poor who are expected to come mostly from
the area where poverty incidence was estimated, based on the socioeconomic survey, at
54% of the total number of households. Annex 12-2 presents details of the distributional and
poverty impact analysis of the investments.
26
NEB is the difference between the present value of subproject net economic and financial flows.
313
Annex 12-1
EIRR & Sensitivity Tests, Legaspi Water District
(Values in Php million)
Res Cost Increm. Non-Tech Time Med Cost Prod. Tot. Eco. Capital O&M Total Net. Eco. Sensitivity Tests
Year Savings Water Losses Savings Savings Savings Benefits Costs Costs Costs Benefits -10% Invst. -10% O&M +10% RCS +10% IM
2011 14.0 14.0 -14.0 -12.6 -14.0 -14.0 -14.0

2012 40.7 40.7 -40.7 -36.6 -40.7 -40.7 -40.7
2013 38.6 38.6 -38.6 -34.8 -38.6 -38.6 -38.6
2014 4.0 6.9 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.0 13.2 4.2 4.2 9.0 9.0 9.4 9.1 9.4
2015 9.6 6.9 0.3 4.4 0.6 0.1 21.9 7.4 7.4 14.5 14.5 15.2 14.8 14.5
2016 11.1 6.9 0.4 5.1 0.9 0.1 24.5 10.1 10.1 14.4 14.4 15.4 14.6 14.1
2017 12.6 6.9 0.5 5.8 1.2 0.1 27.2 12.8 12.8 14.4 14.4 15.7 14.3 13.8
2018 14.1 6.9 0.6 6.5 1.5 0.2 29.8 4.6 15.4 20.0 9.8 10.3 11.4 9.5 8.8
2019 15.6 6.9 0.7 7.2 1.9 0.2 32.5 18.1 18.1 14.4 14.4 16.2 13.9 13.0
2020 16.9 6.9 0.8 7.8 2.2 0.3 35.0 20.8 20.8 14.2 14.2 16.3 13.4 12.4
2021 18.6 6.9 0.8 8.6 2.3 0.3 37.5 23.4 23.4 14.0 14.0 16.4 13.3 12.1
2022 20.0 6.9 0.9 9.2 2.4 0.3 39.7 26.1 26.1 13.6 13.6 16.2 12.9 11.6
2023 21.4 6.9 1.0 9.9 2.4 0.3 42.0 28.8 28.8 13.2 13.2 16.1 12.6 11.1
2024 22.9 6.9 1.0 10.6 2.5 0.3 44.2 31.4 31.4 12.8 12.8 15.9 12.2 10.6
2025 24.3 6.9 1.1 11.2 2.6 0.3 46.5 34.1 34.1 12.4 12.4 15.8 11.9 10.1
2026 26.3 7.6 1.2 12.1 2.6 0.3 50.2 6.9 34.1 41.0 9.2 9.9 12.6 8.9 7.0
2027 28.2 8.4 1.3 13.0 2.7 0.3 54.0 34.1 34.1 19.8 19.8 23.2 19.6 17.7
2028 30.2 9.1 1.5 13.9 2.7 0.3 57.7 34.1 34.1 23.6 23.6 27.0 23.5 21.4
2029 32.1 9.8 1.6 14.9 2.7 0.4 61.4 34.1 34.1 27.3 27.3 30.7 27.4 25.2
2030 34.1 10.5 1.7 15.8 2.8 0.4 65.2 34.1 34.1 31.1 31.1 34.5 31.4 29.0
2031 35.8 11.3 1.8 16.6 2.8 0.4 68.6 34.1 34.1 34.5 34.5 37.9 34.9 32.5
2032 35.8 12.0 1.9 16.6 2.8 0.4 69.5 34.1 34.1 35.3 35.3 38.8 35.7 33.3
2033 35.8 12.8 1.9 16.6 2.9 0.4 70.3 34.1 34.1 36.2 36.2 39.6 36.5 34.2
2034 35.8 13.5 1.9 16.6 2.9 0.4 71.1 34.1 34.1 37.0 37.0 40.4 37.3 35.1
2035 35.8 14.3 2.0 16.6 3.0 0.4 115.4 34.1 34.1 81.2 81.2 84.7 81.5 79.3
NPV -5.2 1.8 2.3 -5.9 -9.5

EIRR 14.0% 15.4% 15.4% 13.9% 13.2%
Annex 12-2
314
Distribution of Net Economic Benefits, Legazpi WD

Economic Distribution of Net Economic Benefits
Financial Economic Minus Gov't/
PV CF PV Financial Utility Economy Labor Consumers Total
Benefits:
Total benefits 255.5 213.2 -42.2 -42.2 -42.2
Costs:
Investments -civil works, equipment, non-labor, etc. -61.0 1.2 -73.2 -12.2 -12.2 -12.2
Installation (labor) -13.3 0.6 -8.0 5.3 5.3 5.3
Operation (labor) -28.8 0.6 -17.3 11.5 11.5 11.5
Electricity -15.3 1.1 -17.0 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7
Other operating costs -118.4 1.0 -118.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total costs -236.9 -233.9 3.0 3.0
Net benefits 492.4 447.2 -45.2 492.4 -45.2

Gains and losses 492.4 -13.9 16.9 -42.2 453.2
Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR)

Gov't/
Economy Consumers Labor Total
Gains and losses (NEB-NFB) -13.9 -42.2 16.9 -39.2
Financial return utility 492.4 492.4
Benefits 478.5 -42.2 16.9 453.2
Proportion of poor 0.27 0.54 0.54

Benefits to poor 128.7 -22.8 9.1 115.0
Poverty Impact Ratio (PIR) 25%

012 Phi Tacr 05 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

012 Phi Tacr 05 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FINAL REPORT

VOLUME 5: SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT

Asian Development Bank

LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION

WATER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTOR PROJECT

Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) TA No: 7122 - PHI

PÖYRY IDP CONSULT, INC., PHILIPPINES

TEST Consultants Inc., Philippines

Volume 1 Main Report

Volume 2 Institutional and Financial Assessment of LWUA

Volume 3 Subproject Appraisal Report: Metro La Union Water District

Volume 4 Subproject Appraisal Report: Quezon Metro Water District

Volume 5 Subproject Appraisal Report: Legazpi City Water District

Volume 6 Subproject Appraisal Report: Leyte Metro Water District

Volume 7 Subproject Appraisal Report: City of Koronadal Water District

Volume 8 Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP)

Volume 9 Supplementary Appendices A to G (Technical Aspects)

Volume 10 Supplementary Appendices H to J (Social Aspects)

Volume 11 Supplementary Appendices K to S (Financial, Implementation

Volume 12 Supplementary Appendices T to V (Safeguard Aspects)

SUBPROJECT APPRAISAL REPORT: LEGAZPI CITY WATER DISTRICT

Glossary and Acronyms viii

Location Map xii

1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 1

2 Description of Study Area ......................................................................... 12

2.6.4 Water Supply .................................................................................. 24

3 Socio-economic Survey and Stakeholder Consultations ....................... 25

4 The Water District and its Existing Facilities ........................................... 39

5 Population and Water Demand Projections ............................................. 51

5.4.1 Domestic Water Demand ................................................................ 54

6 Water Resources ........................................................................................ 57

7 Analysis of Options and Alternatives....................................................... 65

8 Recopmmnded Plan – Water Supply ........................................................ 70

9 Recommended Plan – Sanitation ............................................................. 82

10 Assessment of Water District Capability ................................................. 83

10.3 Iinstitutional Feasibility........................................................................... 85

11 Financial Analysis ...................................................................................... 89

12 Economic Analysis .................................................................................. 101

1.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements - LCWD 6

2.1 Location Map of Legazpi City 13

4.1 Existing Water Supply System – LCWD 41

5.1 Present and Future Service Areas – LCWD 52

8.1 Schematic of Proposed Water Supply Improvements – LCWD 71

10.1 Project Management Organization Structure 88

1.1 Total Development Cost (in PhP’000) - LCWD 8

3.1 Location of Slums in Legazpi City, 2008 32

4.1 Summary of Existing Well Sources - LCWD 40

5.1 Legazpi City Growth Rates 53

6.1 Nasisi River and Yawa River Flow Frequencies - LCWD 58

7.1 Additional Water Requirement (2010 to 2025) - LCWD 65

7.4 Review of Available Septage Treatment Technologies 69

8.1 Storage Requirement for Expansion Area – LCWD 70

10.1 Summary of Performance Parameters – LCWD 84

11.1 LCWD Operating Revenues, 2004-2008 89

12.1 Before- and After-Project Situations, Water Supply – LCWD 102

3.1 Socio-economic Survey Results – Legazpi City Water District 106

4 Legazpi City Water District Organization Chart 224

5.1 Population Projections 2010-2025 – LCWD 225

6.1 Surface Water Data – LCWD 238

8 Water Supply Infrastructure and Data - LCWD 291

11 Finanacial Analaysis Tables - LCWD 295

12 Economic Analysis – LCWD 303

GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS