2.1 Water Quality Guidelines and Standards

With respect to water pollution control, standards may be applied in two areas, namely, the receiving water body or the effluent depending on
whether :

a) whether the stream quality is considered paramount, that is, in-stream, ambient or receiving waterstandards; or,
b) the effluent quality is considered paramount, that is, effluent discharge standards.

2.1.1 Ambient or In-Stream Standards

In-stream standards refer to rivers, lakes, estuaries or ground-water and reflect the assimilative capacity of the water body receiving the effluent. Their purpose is to preserve the aquatic environment at a certain specified
minimum quality.

Ambient or in-stream standards reflect tolerance limits for inland surface waters used as sources of water for public water supply, irrigation, fish culture, and bathing, among other uses.

Ambient stream standards are difficult to enforce due to:
a) the contribution of diffuse or non-point sources of pollution;
b) equity problems - similar industries or municipalities located at different reaches of the stream are frequently required to have different levels of
treatment; and,
c) complexity of the surveillance tasks by the responsible administrative agency. In case of violation in complex river systems, it becomes a difficult task to fix the blame on the responsible polluter.

2.1.2 Effluent Discharge Standards

Effluent standards encompass effluents from municipal, industrial, and agricultural sources. They apply to the material being discharged to the receiving water and do not consider the most economic use of the assimilative capacity of streams (Ciaccio, 1972). These standards prescribe the quality of the effluent to be discharged into a water body or public sewer by restricting the quantity of pollutants in the effluent or setting the desired degree of treatment.

2.1.3 Status of Water Pollution Control Guidelines and Standards in Kenya

In Kenya, there are presently no effluent discharge standards. There are, however, guidelines which are categorised depending on whether the effluent are discharged directly into a water body (in which case a full treatment is necessary), or a public sewer where pre- treatment is required.

2.1.4 Attempts at Developing Effluent Discharge Standards

As early as 1984, the Sewerage Department of the then Ministry of Water Development, proposed effluent discharge limits for industries discharging into public sewers and effluent treatment plants discharging into streams. The limits for direct discharge into streams were adopted from European standards while those for discharge into public sewers were adapted from Indian standards. The proposed limits were meant to be used to advise local authorities throughout the country on pollution control; however, the idea was abandoned because "National Effluent Discharge Standards were not considered practicable at the time and factory-specific discharge aliens were preferred".

Such industry-specific standards were based on a dilution capacity of 1:10 in the receiving stream. At lower dilutions the standards to be complied with would be more rigid. The "standards" were not gazetted and therefore, had no legal basis and as such were merely technical guidelines.

2.1.5 Limitation of the Existing Generalized Standards

a) The limits are based on the quality of United Kingdom rivers used as receiving waters for effluents in the United Kingdom.
b) Assumption that the receiving water has a BOD less than 2 mg/1 and that the effluent inflow will be diluted 8- to 10-fold by the receiving water. The basis of dilution does not take the technology into consideration. Moreover, hydrological changes due to anthropogenic factors have reduced the dilution capacity of some streams.
c) The standards are simplistic, giving only upper limits and may therefore, not be stringent enough as Kenya gears to industrialise by the year 2020.
d) The standards are not gazetted, and therefore, not enforceable by law

2.1.6 Implementation and Enforcement of Water "Standards"

The exploitation of water resources is controlled through a permitting system by the Water Apportionment Board in exercise of the provisions in the Water Act, Cap 372 which stipulate that, "a permit shall be required in all cases of
proposed diversion, abstraction, obstruction and use of water.

The Water Quality and Pollution Control Division of the MWR has a sampling programme for industrial effluents and a water quality monitoring programme to check compliance to the set guidelines. Random inspections of
industries are also carried out. Those who violate the standards are advised on appropriate remedial action. Persistent violation, however, leads to prosecution. Examples of industries prosecuted for violating various sections of the Water Act include the East African Sugar Industries, Muhoroni; Agro-chemical and Food Company, Muhoroni; Kenya Matches Limited, Kisumu; Pan African Paper Mills, Webuye; Gnanjivan Galvanizing Wire Mills, Ruiru; Kenya Canners, Thika; and, several coffee and sugar industries.

Implementation of standards has been constrained by lack of baseline data for the review of issued guidelines. Therefore, standards or guidelines once issued to an industry are not reviewed to take cognisance of the changing environmental conditions.

Enforcement, too, has been constrained by inadequate penalties which are non-deterrent, lack of incentives for cleaner production, standard testing methods, accreditation of water testing laboratories, and lack of continuous
monitoring due to logistical problems including finance and equipment. Moreover, due to the fact that the interim pollution limits are not gazetted, legal enforcement has been difficult. Therefore, the advisory and persuasive
(negotiation) approach has been predominant. Cases of non-compliance by industry can be attributed to low awareness, lack of incentives, outright dishonesty, political interference, and lack of motivation for enforcement.

Despite the difficulties encountered, some success has been achieved with industries such as Mountex and Rivatex (textile), Leather Industries of Thika (tannery) and Mumias sugar factory, among others, meeting issued guidelines. In some cases, more stringent standards are being complied
with especially where corporate policies give due attention to environmental protection.