Community-based Water Monitoring
in Alabama and the Philippines

By Bill Deutsch (wdeutsch@acesag.auburn.edu), Program Manager for Alabama Water Watch and Principal Investigator of the USAID-funded water project in the Philippines, based at the International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments, Auburn University, Alabama 36849.

In our many projects over the last ten years, we have seen a strong and growing interest among community groups worldwide to understand and become directly involved with protecting water quality and quantity. Volunteer water monitoring programs not only raise awareness but, if carefully implemented, can provide excellent data needed for making natural resource management decisions.

Adapted from an article in the Winter 2003 issue of The Volunteer Monitor newsletter. For subscription information and to view it in electronic format, go to http://www.EPA.gov/OWOW/volunteer/vm_index.html.

Alabama Water Watch's (AWW) (www.alabamawaterwatch.org) recent celebration of our 10th anniversary inspired us to reflect on what has gone right, what could have been done better, and how such citizen volunteer monitoring programs can be duplicated in other settings. Because of our involvement with similar water projects in other countries, we also took this opportunity to compare and contrast both the technical and the human side of community-based monitoring cross-culturally.

Origins and approach

AWW began in 1992 with primary funding from EPA Region 4 and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to Auburn University. The goal is to conduct broad-based public education on water issues statewide and provide training and technical backstopping for volunteer water monitoring.

Most AWW participants are from existing groups such as lake associations, environmental clubs, and schools, and are middle-class people with the time and interest to collect data for protecting or restoring their water body. Monitors' concerns often focus on learning about water; saving stream ecosystems; swimming, fishing or other aspects of water recreation; and overall quality of life.

The Philippines Water Watch (PWW) began in 1994 as one project of many in a large Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management initiative funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and spanning three continents, with primary sites in the Philippines, Ecuador, and Mali. Auburn University was one of several university partners in the initiative. The particular topics of study in each country were selected based on a consensus of community members and scientists, following an extensive appraisal of the biophysical and social aspects of the region.

The water-related research in the Philippines that led to the formation of the PWW was done with representatives of Auburn University and local community members in the mountainous Manupali River watershed of central Mindanao. Water Watch later spread to Ecuador, Thailand, and Brazil.

Most participants in PWW are local farmers with less than a high school education and annual incomes of $500-1,000 per year. Their concerns often focus on drinking water quality and public health, particularly the problem of bacterial contamination, and on soil erosion and sedimentation, which directly affect farmers' livelihoods. Because the Filipino participants are dependent on untreated water from springs, wells, and rivers, and in addition many are aware that their environment has degraded substantially in their lifetime, they have a more immediate concern than their counterparts in Alabama. Environmental problems are more obvious and urgent, so the commitment level of the PWW members is high.

Interactions and synergies

The AWW and PWW have interacted and had mutual benefits on several levels. The PWW program was initially modeled on the established AWW approach and methods, with research partners in the Philippines helping to customize techniques for the local situation and translating instructions into local dialects.

But soon the sharing of techniques became a two-way street. For example, after PWW volunteers used the Easygel rapid method for E. coli testing, it was adopted by AWW. (Note: see The Volunteer Monitor Fall 1998 issue for more on this technique. (www.epa.gov/owow/volunteer/vm_index.html) Methods for total suspended solids (TSS) and stream discharge that were first used in the Philippines were also later used in Alabama. The TSS method involves using a portable apparatus and hand pump to pass a known volume of water through a pre-weighed glass fiber filter. An accurate balance is required to weigh the filters before and after river sampling, so a university or professional lab partner is usually needed. Stream discharge (cubic meters/sec) is measured by multiplying estimates of stream cross-sectional area (square meters) and current velocity (meters/sec). Area is estimated by measuring water depths at intervals along a rope stretched across the stream, and current velocity is estimated by timing an object (usually an orange) that is floated down a known length of stream. TSS (mg/L) and discharge measurements may, in turn, be used to estimate sediment yield (mg/s), which is the amount of suspended solids (e.g., soil) passing a point each second.

Both AWW and PWW volunteers are motivated by knowing that their monitoring techniques are being used in other countries and that they have the same basic goals of protecting and restoring water resources. Ties have been strengthened among Filipino and Alabamian water monitors by international visits for study tours and training, an Environmental Pen Pal program between schools in the Philippines and the U.S., and regular exchanges of images and success stories in various presentations.

Outcomes and impacts

There are presently about 80 active groups in AWW who monitor hundreds of sites on a regular basis. Over the last 10 years, about 1,500 sites on more than 500 water bodies have been tested by 180 groups. This information is some of the most extensive and significant for many streams and lakes, and has recently been incorporated into the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and other aspects of remediation. About 40 experienced AWW volunteers have become certified trainers and quality assurance officers who conduct about 90% of the 50-60 workshops offered each year. The program has stabilized and diversified its funding base, with buy-in from the Cooperative Extension System and partnerships with several other agencies and organizations.

The PWW program now has three active groups on the islands of Mindanao and Bohol. Together, they have collected thousands of samples on several streams. This multi-year information documents a clear gradient of declining water quality across four subwatersheds of the Manupali River, which is related to human population, deforestation, and agricultural development. Contaminated drinking water supplies have been identified and public health risks have been minimized by remediation. PWW volunteers have been active in educating their neighbors in water issues by giving presentations at village meetings and in schools.

Although the PWW has far fewer monitoring groups than AWW and only a few active trainers, their pioneering effort has attracted local and national attention, with great potential to impact water policy. The data and the process of community-based water monitoring have been incorporated into the Natural Resource Management Plan of the Municipality of Lantapan, Bukidnon. The local government of the Province of Sarangani initiated a similar water monitoring program in their region. By invitation, representatives of PWW have addressed the Philippine Congress in Manila. The PWW water data has recently been used by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies to advise Congress on the value of community-based water monitoring as it formulates the first Clean Water Act of the Philippines.

In spite of considerable differences in socioeconomic status and culture, both AWW and PWW monitors have similar interests in making life better for the next generation. Both value education and community service, enjoy group activities, and have a strong sense of democracy and grassroots efforts. Both have been truly empowered and have surprised their neighbors, water professionals, and government officials with their commitment and the quality of information that may by collected by non-specialists. Their joint work demonstrates that community-based water monitoring may be successfully adapted to diverse settings and has personalized the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally".