Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1490446,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1490446/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 259,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Methu",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13581,
        "legal_name": "Methu John Muhia",
        "slug": "methu-john-muhia"
    },
    "content": "the body that will be dealing with the bulk water, and then it shall be transferred to the water service provider. The reason we, in the Committee on Land, Environment and Natural Resources, had initially thought that it is important that we transfer this to the county governments was so that we try and be compliant with the Constitution. According to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya, water and sanitation are preserved by the county government. We were wondering, if projects that the national Government completes are not handed over to the county government, how then will we be compliant such that the national Government shall not deal with matters related to water and sanitation? However, to cure the fears of the Senate and the Senators when we first passed this Bill, the Water Works Development Authority's scope will only be limited to bulk water. It will not be in terms of the last mile. Once they are done with the project, they will hand it over to water service providers. In this case, it will be counties. It would have been difficult to transfer a national water works project if it cuts between two or three counties. The case in point is that the Karimenu Water Project that runs in three counties: Kiambu, Nairobi, and Machakos. It would have been difficult to transfer it. It would have been even more difficult to determine which county it would go to. Whereas the Bill provides that water works bulk purchase agreements should be subject to the Public-Private Partnerships Act, which includes a general framework for the feasibility and approval of PPP projects across the various sectors under Section 32, this does not preclude adding more specific requirements for the water sector given the unique nature of the water services. The role of the Water Services Regulatory Board as a regulator is crucial in ensuring these projects meet high standards. I want to go quickly Clause 2. The Committee considered Clause 2 and noted that the National Assembly had rejected the Senate amendment to include the definition of a joint committee. Once the project is not being transferred to the counties, joint committees will not be necessary. The Senate's proposal to have different joint committees was linked to the transferability of national waterworks. The Mediation Committee had agreed to drop the proposal for transferability in Clause 4. The Committee observed that the definition of joint committees was no longer necessary. So, it was easy to agree on this one. Allow me then to also go to Clause 3, an amendment to Section 32 on the powers and functions of the Water Storage Authority. The Committee considered Clause 3 and agreed that the proposal by the Senate on the requirement to subject bulk water purchase agreements to economic efficiency criteria set by the Regulatory Board be dropped and instead include the Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB), be among the bodies to be consulted whenever water storage authorities enter into a bulk water purchase agreement. This is a bit straightforward. Whereas the Bill provides that the bulk water purchase agreements will be subject to the Public-Private Partnership Act, which provides a general framework for the feasibility and approval of the PPP projects across the sectors under Section 32. This does not preclude adding more specific requirements for the water sector given the unique The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}