The government appears determined to convince Guyanese that access to purified water can be improved one five-gallon container at a time. On Sunday, the latest Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) water filling/refilling station was opened at Vergenoegen on the East Bank Essequibo. There, residents can fill a five-gallon container for $100. According to the government, this is a low-cost option for people in Vergenoegen and surrounding communities who do not have direct access to purified water or who currently pay considerably more to obtain it. Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar described the $100 five-gallon refill as an important alternative for families needing water for cooking, preparing meals and other household needs. 

It is difficult to quarrel with the objective of making safe drinking water accessible and affordable. What is hard to understand is why, after decades of investment in the national water system and with billions of dollars now being spent on infrastructure, the solution being offered to communities is for residents to collect their drinking water in containers and carry it home. 

It must be noted here that other such stations have already been opened in Region Two, Port Mourant in Region Six and Pouderoyen in Region Three. GWI Chief Executive Officer Shaik Baksh said the Vergenoegen facility is part of a wider programme, with the utility targeting at least two or three such stations in each region. He specifically singled out Bartica and Linden as locations for water shops. 

The question that the government should answer is a very simple one: why are residents who live in communities served by GWI having to buy their purified water at these so-called refilling stations in the first place? 

A water-refilling station might make sense as a temporary emergency measure, or as a stopgap in a remote community awaiting the extension of a proper distribution system. But when a national utility begins planning several such facilities in every region, it raises a more fundamental question about what problem is actually being solved.

The government says it is simultaneously working to extend the treated-water network to communities without direct access. A transmission line is being constructed from the Vega treatment plant to supply residents in the backlands of Tuschen, while wells are being developed in several other communities. Those investments are far more consistent with what one would expect from a public water utility. Because the real measure of success cannot be how cheaply a resident can purchase a five-gallon container. It must be whether that resident can turn on a tap at home and receive a reliable supply of safe water.

The $100 price tag sounds inexpensive when presented in isolation. But the price of the water at the station is only one part of the cost to the household. There is also the question of how much water a family actually needs, how frequently it must make the trip, and how far it must travel to get it home.

Consider a family of four using the water for drinking, preparing meals and other daily household needs, as the minister himself described. Five gallons is not an especially large quantity when spread across four people and multiple uses. How many five-gallon containers would such a household need each week? And how would those containers get from the station to the home?

This is where the language surrounding the initiative becomes problematic. Calling it a low-cost option turns what is actually a logistical burden into a public-relations talking point. Residents do not consume water at a refilling station. They do so in their homes.

A family living a mile or more away cannot reasonably be expected to carry several five-gallon containers back and forth. If they own a vehicle, there is the additional cost of fuel, which is rising. If not, add the cost of transportation. Even a horse cart, if that is the available means of getting the water home, is not going to make the water cost $100. The $100 therefore represents only the price charged by GWI at the point of collection. It does not represent the actual cost to the household of obtaining and using the water.

There is also the question of dignity. A functioning public water system should spare households the necessity of planning their daily lives around the collection, transportation and storage of water. It should not require people to calculate how many containers they can afford, how they will get them home and whether the supply will last until the next trip. 

One also has to wonder if the architects of this initiative factored in elderly residents, people with disabilities, single-parent households and families without private transportation. Minister Indar and Mr Baksh both seemed quite proud of these water sources that are only technically affordable. The cost of building and running them was not shared, but should be as they are tax-payer funded. 

According to Minister Indar, the government is working to extend treated-water networks to residents who currently lack direct access. That deserves greater attention. The focus should be on how quickly those residents can be connected, what is preventing connections now and what resources are required to complete the work.

There is another issue that cannot be ignored. The minister stated that some water infrastructure in new housing areas had been vandalised and the GWI and the Central Housing and Planning Authority were working to repair the damage. That is important, because reliable water delivery requires not only infrastructure but its protection and maintenance. If public infrastructure is being installed and then damaged, the response cannot simply be to provide an alternative collection point. The underlying infrastructure problem has to be fixed and the reason/s for its vulnerability addressed.

The GWI’s responsibility obviously extends beyond hawking water at ‘five for $100’ to undersell private distributors. It must place more focus on developing and maintaining a water system that delivers safe, reliable and affordable water to people’s homes. When it finally manages that, the private plants will ultimately disappear.

Until then, there is something decidedly unsatisfactory about celebrating the ability of a family to buy five gallons of water for $100 when what it really needs is a functioning pipe leading to its front door. As an aside, a particularly galling sight at the Vergenoegen opening was the environmentally hazardous and totally unnecessary blue and white balloons tied festively around the taps. Whose bright idea was that? But that’s a question for another day.