How to protect water supplies !

By Joachim Ezeji

 

One of the greatest challenges currently facing the water sector is how to effectively access and manage the safety of water sources in order to meet targets outlined in the Millennium Development Goals. On top of this concern is the fact that water quality is an essential component of public health. Traditionally, drinking water supplies from groundwater have often been associated with natural quality problems which are often related to local geology. This is so because the interaction between water and rock forming minerals during groundwater circulation may lead to the build-up of harmful concentration of some trace elements. Other health effects in drinking water supplies from groundwater may be caused by element deficiencies where rocks have low concentration of essential elements. Water may also be unacceptable due to aesthetic problems such as bad odour or taste (caused, for example by iron and hydrogen sulphide) or staining problems (iron and manganese). However, and by far, the greatest water-quality problem in developing countries including Nigeria is the prevalence of water-borne diseases, especially gastro-enteritis which is related to faecal pollution and inadequate hygiene. There is no doubt that health can be compromised when harmful pathogens contaminate drinking water either at the source, through seepage of contaminated run-off water, or within the piped distribution system. Moreover unhygienic handling of water during transport or within the home can contaminate previously safe water. The choice of an appropriate sanitation system for growing and dense urban populations is increasingly becoming a public health concern particularly in the developing world. The F-Diagram had underscored sanitation as an imperative intervention necessary for breaking the link between human waste (excreta) and the individual (person), but is that actually the case with many sanitation systems covertly discharging poorly treated effluents to water bodies?. In the face of this realization, are latrines/ toilets still to be recorded as sustainable stop gaps for the spread of faecal pathogens?; Does the discharge of poorly treated and raw faecal matter and effluents into streams, rivers and ground water not compromise public health?, Is the problem a technology and management issue or a construction and development issue? A 2006 World Health Organisation (WHO) report had revealed that as much as 24% of global disease is caused by environmental exposures which can be averted. Well-targeted interventions can prevent much of this environmental risk, the WHO report said. The report further estimates that more than 33% of disease in children under the age of 5 is caused by environmental exposures. Preventing environmental risk could save as many as four million lives a year in children alone, mostly in developing countries.  The report, Preventing disease through healthy environments - towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease, is the most comprehensive and systematic study yet undertaken on how preventable environmental hazards contribute to a wide range of diseases and injuries.  By focusing on the environmental causes of disease, and how various diseases are influenced by environmental factors, the analysis breaks new ground in understanding the interactions between environment and health. The estimate reflects how much death, illness and disability could be realistically avoided every year as a result of better environmental management. The report estimates that more than 13 million deaths annually are due to preventable environmental causes. Nearly one third of death and disease in the least developed regions is due to environmental causes. Over 40% of deaths from malaria and an estimated 94% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases, two of the world’s biggest childhood killers, could be prevented through better environmental management. The four main diseases influenced by poor environments are diarrhoea, lower respiratory infections, various forms of unintentional injuries, and malaria. Measures which could be taken now to reduce this environmental disease burden include the promotion of safe household water storage and better hygienic measures; the use of cleaner and safer fuels; increased safety of the built environment, more judicious use and management of toxic substances in the home and workplace; better water resource management.                                                                                                       

 

 “For the first time, this new report shows how specific diseases and injuries are influenced by environmental risks and by how much,” said Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO’s Department for Public Health and Environment. “It also shows very clearly the gains that would accrue both to public health and to the general environment by a series of straightforward, coordinated investments. We call on ministries of health, environment and other partners to work together to ensure that these environmental and public health gains become a reality.”           

The report and executive summary - Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease can be found on: http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/preventingdisease/en/index.html.

In view of the foregoing, it is germane to underscore that as stated above; an estimated 94% of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases is a big issue and generally an issue linked directly with sanitation as well as hygiene. Preventing these through better environmental management is the kernel of my study.  Measures already listed that could be taken now to reduce this environmental disease burden include amongst others the promotion of safe household water storage and better hygienic measures; and the  increased safety of the built environment, as well as better water resource management.                                                                                                       

To achieve these measures I agree with the fact that sanitation systems involves all arrangements necessary to store, collect, process and deliver human wastes back to nature in a safe manner. Sanitation systems with respect to human waste management may be considered to have the following functions; excretion and storage; collection and transportation; process/treatment; and disposal /recycle. Sanitation represents an immense problem that appears differently in various parts of the world. In the developing countries like Nigeria, its lack or inadequacy is the major issue. It should not be forgotten that sanitation options basically depend on the type of water supply, management of wastes, receiving water quality and environment. For instance, public water supply and the flush toilet principle automatically entail expensive sewerage and wastewater treatment that need to constantly be upgraded due to the recognition of emerging problems. Thus, it is evident that sanitation is not only a health and technology issue but much more; environmental, sustainability, social, institutional, and legislative implications are also crucial, and a broad approach is looked for that takes into account all these aspects when selecting from the various existing alternatives.The classification of sanitation as on-site or off-site systems depends on whether the waste is stored, treated and disposed of at the point of generation or transported to somewhere else for treatment and/or disposal. When the wastes are collected, treated and disposed of at the point of generation, it is called an on-site system e.g. pit latrines and septic tank systems etc.

Next week I will discuss this a little further.

 

To be continued next week.

Toilets or latrines: Issues beyond health

Often, people prefer not to think about what happens to their excreta once they have excreted it, either in the toilets or on the open field; but the earlier this nuisance is tackled the better because it is a serious issue that should no longer be glossed over. The earlier we fully understand the benefits of, and the risks associated with poorly managed or none use of toilets, the better. Some of these are well beyond the traditional health concerns. People themselves usually improve their sanitation not because of the health arguments but because of social factors such as privacy, dignity, safety, convenience and status. The hundreds of people who must defecate behind bushes, in plastic bags, in roadside ditches face daily assaults to their human dignity. Poor women and girls are hit hardest by the absence of toilets. They care for children and the sick, and they are in greatest physical contact with human waste. Living in a house without a toilet means going the whole day without relieving oneself and then risking exposure – or even assault – at night. Sexual harassment and rape are also a risk in certain areas, where women often seek privacy in the darkness. These problems take women’s time, imperil their physical well-being, and limit their free and equal participation in the economic and social life of the environment.  Poverty is more than a lack of income or a shortage of material goods. Human poverty, the lack of basic capabilities for participating in the activities of the community, is greatly exacerbated by lack of sanitation or toilets. For people living in households surrounded by human waste and garbage, it is stigmatizing and marginalizing. It creates embarrassment and deprives them of participation, choices and opportunities. Also, children, often will not use pit latrines because they are frightened of falling into the pits, and of what are usually dark, dirty and smelly places etc. Again, the lack of segregated toilets fuels the discrepancy in primary school completion rates, as fewer girls complete primary school, compared to boys. On community cohesion, when families and influential local figures focus on ending open defecation, the condition of communities can be transformed. Pride in keeping paths and streets unsoiled can help build and maintain community cohesion. The need for sanitation and self respect from a clean environment can provide incentives for a transformation of local governance; sanitary reform has historically been a starting point for civic improvement. Toilet or sanitation project can also be expected to change people’s relationship with the city authorities and the politicians, shifting from conventional patronage-based relationship with political parties and local governments to relationships that are more transparent and accountable. On poverty eradication, poor sanitation is often correlated directly with poverty; in parts of many Nigerian cities, hardly anyone from the poorest income quintile has a toilet, but 70 percent of those in the richest quintile do. It also causes poverty by making people ill, reducing their productivity and incomes, and by forcing them to use their time unproductively. The chief asset a poor person has is often his or her physical health and ability to work; illness robs poor people of this asset while also diverting precious resources from critical areas like education. This has been analyzed in due realization of the social constraints that goes with poorly managed environmental sanitation. Both illnesses and diseases expand poverty and shrinks prosperity. While sick, many young children lose precious school hours, their mothers loses income by staying at home to nurse them, while their fathers expend the little resources in seeking medical remedy. A children-centered view would also be germane in this context, why? In Owerri, under-five mortality rates are around half the national average (at 18.8% per 1000 live births). The deaths of this number of infants and children each year is commonly related to inadequate provision of basic water and sanitary infrastructure. Yet, for those who survive, debilitations of illness, pain and discomfort are common. Their nutritional status is often compromised by water and sanitation related diseases (especially diarrhoea and intestinal worms), and this has impacts not only on their physical development but also on social and mental development. Some primary economic benefits of having toilets are ; saving time; reducing direct and indirect health costs; increasing the return on investments in education; and safeguarding water resources etc. The biggest element is saving time. Households without toilets at home spend a great deal of time each day queuing for public toilets or looking for secluded places to defecate. The World Health Organization estimates this time has an economic value of well over US$ 100 billion each year. Many workdays are lost to diarrheal disease –when the worker is ill as well as when she or he is caring for a sick child. Meeting the sanitation MDG target would add more than 3 billion working days a year worldwide, universal coverage more than four times as many. Thus, improved sanitation can enhance productivity. As to health costs, hygiene and sanitation are among the most cost-effective public health interventions. According to the highly-respected Disease Control Priorities Project, hygiene promotion to prevent diarrhoea is typically the single most cost-effective health intervention in the world, costing just $5 per disability-adjusted life year saved. Basic sanitation costs around $10–100 per disability-adjusted life year saved, which is rather better than the cost effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions. Regarding education costs, Nigerian local municipality governments need to increase education spending to meet the MDG targets for school enrolment. That spending has a greater impact with services such as providing toilets for students and teachers, with separate facilities for girls. The reduction in diarrhoea by meeting the sanitation MDG target would add hundreds of days of school attendance per year globally for children in the community. Further, healthy children learn better than children suffering from worm infections, which sap nutrients and calories and lead to trouble concentrating. Up to two-thirds of all school children here are infected with parasitic worms. And finally, girls are reluctant to attend schools if there are no safe, private toilets for them to use. This is particularly true once menstruation has begun. Cleaner and safer toilets in schools translate to more girls in school meaning higher rates of female literacy. Good sanitation can safeguard water resources and maximize the impact of drinking water quality improvements. For example, the risks of water contamination during household storage and handling sharply increase in places that lack toilets. Contamination of local water resources used to supply drinking water can lead to unnecessary investment in more distant and expensive sources. Water resources are an important productive asset. Other economic benefits include the potential for biogas generation, which, as an affordable, cheap and environmentally friendly alternative energy will reduce energy cost for households. Also, organic fertilizers are derivable as it has the potential to enrich farmlands and boost agricultural harvests. So,

development.

Ndi Igbo of Nigeria: a race under threat (?)

I arrived Providence, the capital of the American state of Rhode Island on the 1^st day of September 2009 after an eventful and comfortable 6 hours bus ride on the greyhound public bus from New York City. I had arrived JFK Airport the previous day from London, and opted to unwind in the city for the night. My trip to Providence by road was a self choice since I had wanted to take a good view of the American hinterlands. Hinterland indeed, as I decided to appreciate how a megacity like New York gradually peters out through a transition of small towns such as Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven, New London and then Providence. Upon arrival in Providence, activities started in earnest as the Watson International Institute Scholars of the Environment 2009 programme begins. Series of activities were lined up to welcome the scholars and fit them into Brown, the university that has the status of Ivy league, and Providence, a city that represents the longest of America’s coastlines but with a population of 200,000 people. One of such activities was an outdoor reception dinner held on Monday, 7^th September 2009 and hosted by the program manager Laura Sadovnikoff at her residence in Pawtuxet. A good number of personalities attended the dinner including Professor Nancy Jacobs (who is the Director of the Watson Institute) and her husband and many others. As the dinner progressed a tall American woman approached me from a corner and spoke Igbo language to me. She had uttered ‘’Nwannem, ke du’’. I did not really believe my ears. She embraced me and said ‘’I bu onye Igbo!’’. It then dawned on me that it was not a drama, but that I have met a woman who identified me as a true Igbo and was out to engage me. That was how the rest of the evening ended for me as we ended up talking and discussing the Igbos in Nigeria; my ethnic group. The woman’s name is Henrietta, and her husband who accompanied her to the party is Donald. Both of them are professors at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Both Donald and Henrietta are no longer getting younger but rather aging gracefully and were indeed a happy and accomplished pair to meet. Both couples had met in Nigeria where they both fell in love and eventually got married. Henrietta, then Miss Briggs had arrived Nigeria a few years after the Nigerian Independence in 1960 to work as an American Peace Corp Volunteer. She was posted to Azumini village, now in Ndoki in Ukwa East local government area of Abia State. In unison, both Donald and Henrietta reminiscenced on the good old days that was Igbo land. According to Henrietta she was commonly called ‘’Mboghokwonta’’ by the natives. She so much integrated with the natives that she wore and appeared on the same wrappers and dancing uniforms with them. She swam the Azumini River with the natives. She ate ‘’Akpu’’, ‘’ Ugba’’, ‘’Abacha/Jiakpu agworo agwo’’ and other local foods with them.She told me how natives fetched domestic waters for her, and ran supporting errands for her and how safe and free the Igbo society then was. Then, she freely goes unaccompanied to Aba every week to make purchases as well as other trips to Port Harcourt and Opobo. Donald on his part, recalled how he had travelled one day and got caught up by night on the way. All he did was to simply walk into the nearest compound and announce to them that he was caught up by the night and needed shelter. The owner of the compound not only provided him with shelter, but also fed him heavily with a dinner of ‘’akpu’’ and ‘’ofe ugha’’ which was washed down with palm wine. At a point, he had asked about the great market city, Onitsha; the sea port town of Port Harcourt, and the city with the intimidating Cathedral, Owerri. He also recalled how he was greatly feasted by Igbos in Opobo town during one of his visits to the town those days and how he made friends all over Port Harcourt, Owerri, Aba, Onitsha and even Enugu.He inquired if people from all over West Africa still come to Onitsha and Aba markets as they used to those days. Donald and Henrietta in remembering all the uncommon great features of the Igbo society of days past, did not waste time to remind anybody that bothered to come close to our discussion at the night’s dinner that the Igbos are the greatest Africans; that they have no rivals in Nigeria and that they are indeed a great race with an indomitable spirit of enterprise and hospitality. However, they bemoaned the effects of the destructive civil war, having left the country at its very outset. Though both couples had visited Nigeria a little after the war, they were desirous to know how the Igbos are faring in Nigeria and how the destructions wrought by the civil war was remedied. They both still have a wish, the wish of visiting Igbo land soon again and visiting Azumini and its most hospitable people. Three things touched me most from the encounter with these Americans. First was the question by Donald if Ojukwu is still alive, and if there are other great role models in Igbo land that enjoys his kind of followership. That question made it dawn on me straight away that the Igbos no longer have a role model. I told him that most Igbo elites are today after their stomach, and not for common interest. When, he heard what I just muttered, he queried, ‘’You mean that even Igbo leaders steal money needed to develop Igbo land?; I was stuck of words, Donald at this point, became speechless, shaking his head and looking into my eyes at the same time, both eyes getting wet with tears, he removed his gaze and turned it over the burning fire near us. It was obvious that he was disappointed. Second, Donald and Henrietta revealed to me that their first daughter who was born soon after they returned to the USA from Nigeria was given an Igbo name –Ngozi. Our host Laura corroborated this to me a little later. Ngozi is now happily married and living with her husband. She still retains the name and everybody knows that the name has origin from south-eastern Nigeria. Third, Henrietta wrote me an e-mail immediately after the dinner. It read thus: ‘’Nwannem, I should really call you Nwa-m, since you could be my son– it was such a pleasure to meet you last night. Let’s stay in touch!  I made a little movie of the digitized slides from Azumini and I’ll send it with the next transmission. Let me know if it comes through. If your computer can’t receive the movie, I’ll just send the photo gallery instead. But you would enjoy the movie because it’s set to the tune, Joromi–which was very popular in the mid-1960s. Henrietta (aka Mboghokwonta–my name in Azumini)’’ When I opened the attachment, I watched the movie and looked at the over 100 fotos she attached. I could not hold my emotions. I cried for the Igbo nation. We have really lost a lot. I am afraid Igbos may be going into extinction. Yes, extinction worse than those experienced by dinosaurs or even those planned by the Nigerian state while executing the civil war. The evidence are just there with all these massive looting of public funds in all Igbo states, kidnapping and general insecurity amidst others. It is just telling.

Dangers of cooking with firewood

By Joachim Ezeji

In the traditional African society there is struggle for almost everything. There is struggle for basic things such as water, food and even clean air. These things are simply a luxury in most homes. I therefore wonder when our people will be supported to overcome these difficulties and live in harmony with their environment and nature. Accounts of deforestation in Nigeria by scientists show that about 92 percent of the land surface of Nigeria is considered prone to land degradation from moderate to severe stages. Over 350 million tons of topsoil is estimated to be lost each year due to soil erosion. Natural forests, believed to have covered about 40 percent of the country’s land surface some 50 years ago have dwindled to mere 9 percent currently. The estimated 26 million herds of cattle and goats which are mostly grazing beyond carrying capacity have not helped the land reclamation strategies.  More than 37 percent of the country’s forest reserve were lost between 1990 and 2005 as a result of illegal and uncontrolled logging, incessant bush burning, fuel wood gathering and clearing of forests for other land uses hence making the country vulnerable to declining soil productivity, desertification, loss of aquatic life, coastal/soil erosion, biodiversity lose, water and air pollution, drying up of water bodies, erratic flooding causing loss of life and property and diseases.  But those are just a single side of the story. Cooking indoors, on an open fire has been used since the beginning of human civilization. In Nigeria, just as in many other parts of Africa, this simple technology is still the prevailing method for cooking and heating and consists of the use of biomass fuel –including firewood, agricultural residue and animal dung – in traditional open-fire stoves.  In Nigeria, children miss up to 3 days of school per week to gather firewood with 76% of the population depending on firewood for fuel and cooking. The use of wood as fuel for everything from cooking to heating is one of the biggest problems in Nigeria. When wood is burnt it becomes hot and releases gases which account for a large amount of the energy and heat produced. As cooking takes place every day of the year, most people using solid fuels are exposed to levels of small particles many times higher than accepted annual limits for outdoor air pollution. Combustion of solid fuels in open fires or traditional stoves results in very high levels of indoor air pollutants (IAP), principally particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). It also releases a number of other dangerous chemicals including nitrogen oxides, benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons. These gases and particles lead to respiratory diseases such as lung cancer, asthma, pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affecting primarily the women and children. The smoke and indoor pollution arising from these cooking processes were held responsible for over 1.6 million deaths and 2.7% of the global burden of disease. In 2002 across Sub Saharan Africa the death toll due to indoor pollution had risen to 396 000 and with a prediction of over 200 million more people using solid fuel combustion in the developing world by 2030 to provide their energy needs this figure will inevitably rise.  In India alone, about 500,000 premature deaths of women and children are encountered each year due to indoor air pollution. Millions more suffer every day with difficulty in breathing, stinging eyes, and chronic respiratory disease. The WHO estimates that inhaling indoor smoke doubles the risk of pneumonia and other acute infections of the lower respiratory tract among children under five years of age. It has also concluded that women exposed to indoor smoke are three times more likely to suffer from COPD, such as chronic bronchitis or emphysema, than women who cook with electricity, gas or other cleaner fuels.  The World Bank also estimates that about 400 million children and 700 million women are at risk because of exposure to contamination arising from the use of biomass for cooking and heating (GTZ-PAHO/WHO, 2006). Indoor Air Pollution and inefficient household energy practices are additionally posing significant obstacles to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) since the use of solid fuels has many other negative household impacts.  In Nigeria, despite the enormous number of firewood burning for cooking, there are not many studies conducted related to its impact as a driver of Indoor Air Pollution — particularly emphasizing health impacts. The dissemination of information or environmental education of vulnerable groups is not yet adequately undertaken. It is yet to be understood whether this is due to the lack of trained human resources or as a lack of state of the art equipment needed to carry and conduct research.  Furthermore, smoke alleviating technologies or alternate solar powered stoves and ovens are not yet accorded priority in development in any part or region of Nigeria. These interventions need to consider the geographical, climatic, and socio-economic conditions of local populations as well as micro-credit finance to aid their adoption. Nigerian NGOs have a role to play in this regard. There is an urgent need to conduct actual field studies and research to identify which interventions work best in specific local contexts. As such, there is a huge need for environmental health education in this critical area in this era of climatic revulsion.  I therefore challenge government departments especially the environment and public health departments in government, universities and the private sector to rise up to the occasion and save Nigeria’s poor whose health and well being are being shrunk and ruined by excessive exposure to pollution from firewood smokes.

 

 

Thinking aloud on the Nworie River dredging

Hitherto, Imo people have been inundated by arguments on the urgency of dredging the Nworie River and why the project could not be delayed. Arguments proffered have ranged from abatement of pollution by medical waste, to security and inland freshwater transportation etc. But are these worth the whopping sum of N8billion allegedly spent on the project in the face of other pressing priorities? Also, now that the controversy generated seems to have gone down can business as usual in government continue? Telling lies such as those of recovering dead bodies from the sites is not necessary as insecurity to life is never solved by dredging of Rivers.

Gladly, the Imo State police command denied such claim as no report was ever brought to it about that. On the other hand, no journalist is yet to come up with a photograph on such gory scene. It is also germane to point out that the Nworie River is incapable of serving as an inland transport medium as being suggested by those forcing the dredging contract down our throats as the extent of the coverage is so small. How far can such transportation go without an enormous investment in rebuilding the road blockings on Assumpta Avenue and Egbeada Road?

Discussing the controversial dredging of the Nworie River at a time of economic recession and peril of both the government and citizens is germane. First, the Nworie River provides a strategic ecological service to the city of Owerri vis-à-vis its role as a major hydrological catchment for both flood and storm waters emanating from rainfalls across the adjoining uplands or hills that serve as its catchment areas. Its valley location makes its ability to perform this task seem effortless as all generated runoffs from paved roads and concreted buildings find their way into it. A similar task is perfomed by the Iyi echu stream in Okigwe town, and many other Rivers and Streams everywhere.

This hydrological function has a lot of benefits, one of which, as already mentioned is flood control. But then, there is also the benefit of sediment transport and hydrological stabilization which though very gradual and minimal, enables the Otammiri River and its surrounding landscapes to recover from the anthropologic effects of sand mining that is currently ravaging it. This natural process provides a natural balance to the entire ecosystem both terrestrial and the freshwater. In this regards, one may need to ask why erosion and landslide have remained a major problem around the point the Nworie River joins the Otammiri River that is around Nekede? The simple answer is that the surrounding landscapes, having been deprived of the stabilization effects of incoming sediments, exerts a balancing pressure on surrounding landscapes , the result being the massive erosion and landslides we have in that area today. This situation would have been worse without the Nworie River.

Sediments from Nworie River support Otammiri River to build some level of resilience. Secondly, beyond this role, the stream has an intrinsic value which also serves as a primary role and this is the life and habitation it provides to biodiversity. Biodiversity in simple terms means the plants (flora) and animals (fauna) varying from the very microscopic to the very large inhabiting the waters of this small River. As a source of life, water bodies naturally provide this ecological service in support of mother earth.

Hydrology is a key determinant of specie distribution, wetland productivity and nutrient cycling and availability. Globally, when environmentalists oppose river dredging, it is often premised on reasons such as those cited above.

This makes River dredging a very controversial issue anywhere it is planned and raises the necessity for an Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA). Such an EIA enables all stakeholders to appraise all their options including mitigation. For a coastal delta environment such as the Niger Delta this could become a life and death issue as is currently the case with the recently commissioned dredging in the Niger Delta.

I am keen to see and read the EIA for the Nworie River dredging or was there none? I will be most surprised if there was none. If there actually was one, then I am keen to know the level of participation of stakeholders and what their inputs were. Stakeholders in this instance include the Nekede community, the fisher men, the sand dredgers, the NGOs, land owners and farmers within the banks of the Rivers etc. I need to point out that dredging at whatever scale causes serious environmental damage as it significantly degrades water quality and can harms fisheries.

During dredging, sediment, soil, and vegetation along the way are removed and deposited as dredge spoils. Toxic substances attached to sediment particles can enter aquatic food chains, cause fish toxicity and mortality and make the water unfit for drinking. Research has proven that waste material from dredging when dumped on the river banks disrupts the environment. Often, these wastes are acidic and if it leaches into the water, pose as a further source of contamination. While oil companies are responsible for significant dredging activities in the Niger Delta, dredging of rivers is also done by other local businesses and government, such as the Nworie River by the Imo State Government.

There have been reports of human induced saline contamination at Isaka near Port Harcourt where the dredging of the Port Harcourt harbour admitted saline water into the aquifer in the area. Canalization particularly short-cut canals have often resulted in intrusion of saline waters into fresh water swamps and groundwater. Similarly, dredging activities of Chevron Nigeria Limited allegedly resulted in salt water intrusion into an otherwise freshwater swamp forest, leading to the complete destruction of vast areas of land (over 20 km²) in the Opuekeba area of Tsekelewu, Rivers State.

Therefore, I doubt the wisdom of the Imo State Government in dredging the Nworie River. I am of the opinion that what was actually needed was tougher environmental regulation around the River in order to protect its catchment. This would have included regulated sand mining in the Otammiri River; absolute stopping of medical and sanitary waste discharge into the River and the setting up of a watershed management for both the Otammiri and Nworie Rivers. Watershed management in this case as is practiced in Sweden and other developed countries would have seen to the planting of trees along and within at least 100 meter periphery of the Rivers as well as restricting residential buildings within this periphery especially residential buildings with on-site sanitation systems including septic pits or tanks. Without these strategies in place the dredging would end up a futility.

I am also of the opinion that the weeds on the Nworie River and the accompanying silts would have been removed manually. By so doing the state government would not have spent as much as it has done and Imo people, particularly those to be engaged in the work would have tremendously benefited; instead of paying such a colossal amount to an alien or offshore contractor who has little or no stake in the state.

— Next Page »