Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1275663,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1275663/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 187,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13588,
        "legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
        "slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
    },
    "content": "Limited had not established a substantive Board of Directors since the inception of devolution. (2) Financial Challenges - Most water companies reported negative working capital during the periods under review hence they were not able to meet their short-term and long-term financial obligations as they fell due. They relied on financial support from the county governments or development agencies, raising concerns on their sustainability and commercial viability. For instance, Mombasa Water Supply and Sanitation Company Limited had a negative working capital of Kshs1,464,597,678 as at 30th June, 2021. The negative liquidity meant that the water company was in an undesirable precarious financial position. (3) Non-Revenue Water (NRW) - All water companies that we interrogated within that period had non-revenue water that exceeded the sector benchmark of 25 per cent as prescribed by WASREB and international best practices. This was attributed to losses resulting from dilapidated infrastructure - physical losses - and inaccurate meter reading and billing -commercial losses. For instance, Wajir Water and Sewerage Company Limited had non-revenue water of 82 per cent for the Financial Year 2020/2021, the highest over the period under review. (4) Non-transfer of Assets and Liabilities - Most water companies had not fully transferred all assets and liabilities from the defunct councils and Regional Water Works Development Agencies as is required by the Water Act, 2016. In this regard, such water companies did not reflect their correct financial position within their books of account. (5) Ownership Challenges -The Committee noted that numerous county governments were yet to take full ownership of water companies within their counties in line with the Water Act, 2016. For example, Murang’a County had five licensed water service providers, but only one was fully owned by the County Government. Lodwar Water and Sanitation Company Limited in Turkana County had not been transferred from the defunct local authorities to the County Government of Turkana. Further, 40 per cent of the water company was owned by a private entity. Mr. Speaker Sir, to mitigate the aforementioned issues, the Committee made the following interim recommendations specific to each county for immediate implementation. This touched on- (i) Restructuring of the Boards of Directors and constitution of new ones. I commend the Committee for ensuring that companies that did not have boards of directors now have boards of directors. Most counties are in the process of having a proper board of directors as per the law. (ii) Governors to take keen interest in the management and operations of the water companies within their counties in line with Article 179 of the Constitution; (iii) Water companies to put in place comprehensive measures to tackle non- revenue water, that is, both the physical and commercial losses. (iv) Governors, in collaboration with the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGRTC), to ensure all assets are transferred in favour of the water companies. (v) County governments to take full ownership of the water companies within their counties in line with the Water Act, 2016."
}