Drainange and Sanitation Development Plan - DSDP-DRAFT - TECH-REPORT - 2018

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
PRESIDENT’S OFFICE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
0. Baseline Assessment
Report
1. Main Technical Report
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
3. Environmental and Social

Impact Assessment
4. Resettlement Action Plan
5. Phasing and
Implementation Plan
6. Pre-Feasibility Study
DRAINAGE AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (DSDP) FOR DAR ES SALAAM CITY
7. Technical Drawings
UNDER DMDP. PLANNED PERIOD
‘‘2018-2035’’
Contract No. ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 Draft copy – December 2018

1st March 2018
CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAINAGE & SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DSDP) FOR DAR ES
SALAAM FOR PERIOD 2018-2035 UNDER DMDP
CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAINAGE &

Title: SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DSDP) FOR DAR ES SALAAM
FOR PERIOD 2018-2035 UNDER DMDP
Subject: BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT: NOVEMBER 2018
File Code: 01_DSDP_DRAFT_TECH-REPORT_2018
President’s Office - Regional
Administration and Local Government
ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 - March 2017
Main Technical Report
Draft Copy
Index Modification Originated Checked Authorized Date
First issue for

0 DA – GV – MA DA GS October 2018
comments
First issue
DA – GV – MA– December
1 after DA GS
GF 2018
comments
2
MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 1 OF 423

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Client President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government

Consultant SERING Ingegneria
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CAPEX Capital expenditures
CBD Central Business Department
CBOs Community Based Organization
DART Dar es Salaam Rapid Transit
DAWASA Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority
DAWASCO Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Company
DCC Dar es Salaam City Council
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DLAs Dar es Salaam Local Authorities
DMDP Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Development Project
DRH Direct Runoff Hydrograph
DSDP Drainage and Sanitation Development Plan
DSM Dar es Salaam
DTM Digital Terrain Model
EMP Environmental Management Plans
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
EWURA Energy and Water Utilities Regulatory Authority
FS Feasibility Study
FSM Faecal Sludge Management
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GoT Government of Tanzania
GPS Global Positioning System
KoM Kick-off Meeting
IDA International Development Association
IDF Intensity Duration Frequency
IMC Ilala Municipal Council
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LGAs Local Government Authorities
KMC Kinondoni Municipal Council
MLHHSD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development

NEMC National Environmental Management Council

NBS National Bureau of Statistics
OPEX Operating Expenses
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PMO Prime Minister’s Office
PO-RALG President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government
PPP Public-Private Partnership
RAP Resettlement Action Plans
SIP Sanitation Improvement Plan
SME Small medium-sized Enterprises
SPS Sewerage Pump Station
SWM Solid Waste Management
TANROADS Tanzania National Roads Agency
TMC Temeke Municipal Council
ToR Terms of Reference
TSCP Tanzania Strategic Cities Project
TURP Tanzania Urban Resilience Project
UH Unit Hydrograph
UN United Nations
WB World Bank
WSDP Water Sector Development Programme
WSP Waste Stabilization Pond

Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 16
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 22
2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Framework of the DSDP ............................................................................................. 26
2.2 Justification for the assignment ................................................................................... 28
2.3 Methodology outline of the DSDP ............................................................................... 29
3 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SITUATION ...................................................................... 34
3.1 Territory and climate description ................................................................................. 34
3.1.1 Urban description ............................................................................................. 34
3.1.2 Climate ............................................................................................................ 37
3.1.3 Dar es Salaam Coastal Rivers Condition ......................................................... 39
3.2 Existing Drainage System ........................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Existing Storm Water Network ......................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Flood-Prone Areas ........................................................................................... 43
3.2.2 Drainage network plans, studies and projects .................................................. 53
3.2.2.1 DMDP - Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage ...................................... 53
3.3 Existing Sanitation Facilities ........................................................................................ 55
3.3.1 Existing Sewage Pumping Stations .................................................................. 55
3.4 Faecal Sludge Management ....................................................................................... 58
3.5 Solid Waste Management ........................................................................................... 60
3.5.1 Waste Generation Projections.......................................................................... 62
3.5.2 Solid Waste Collection and the transportation .................................................. 62
3.5.3 Solid Waste Disposal and disposal site ............................................................ 64
3.5.4 Problems facing collection and transportation of waste in urban areas ............ 64
3.5.5 Solid wastes effects on drainage networks....................................................... 64
3.5.6 Identified problems of drainage systems in Dar es salaam ............................... 65
3.6 Urban Planning ........................................................................................................... 70
4 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL MEASURES FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE ................. 73
4.1 Strategy of Stormwater Drainage Design .................................................................... 74
4.2 Considerations from Urban Master Plan - Managing Storm Water by 2036................. 76
4.3 Update of Hydrology Analysis ..................................................................................... 77
4.3.1 Available rainfall data ....................................................................................... 77
4.3.2 Hourly Disaggregation of Daily Rainfall Data.................................................... 79

4.3.3 New IDF Curves for Dar es Salaam ................................................................. 80

4.3.4 Comparison with previous studies.................................................................... 81
4.4 Effects of climate change in Dar es Salaam ................................................................ 84
4.4.1 Changes in mean rainfall ................................................................................. 85
4.4.2 Changes in climate extremes ........................................................................... 85
4.5 Stormwater Catchments Topography and Cover......................................................... 88
4.5.1 Digital Terrain Model ........................................................................................ 91
4.5.2 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 93
4.6 The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) ............................................................ 93
4.6.1 Transform method - The unit hydrograph procedure ........................................ 94
4.6.2 Loss Method .................................................................................................... 97
4.7 Peak Flow Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 100
4.7.1 Hydraulic Models Applied............................................................................... 102
4.7.2 Models Settings ............................................................................................. 104
4.7.3 Results from flood inundation models ............................................................ 107
4.7.3.1 Mbezi River ............................................................................................... 109
4.7.3.2 Mlalakwa River .......................................................................................... 113
4.7.3.3 Gerezani Creek ......................................................................................... 115
4.7.3.4 Micocheni River ........................................................................................ 116
4.7.3.5 Yombo River ............................................................................................. 119
4.7.3.6 Sinza River ............................................................................................... 121
4.7.3.7 Ubungo River ............................................................................................ 123
4.7.3.8 Tegeta River ............................................................................................. 128
4.7.3.9 Kizinga River ............................................................................................. 130
4.7.3.10 Mzinga River ............................................................................................. 132
4.7.3.11 Nyakasangwe River .................................................................................. 133
4.7.3.12 Kijitonyama River ...................................................................................... 136
4.7.3.13 Msimbazi River ......................................................................................... 140
4.7.4 Hydraulic Modelling Summary........................................................................ 143
4.8 Proposed Structural Drainage Measures .................................................................. 144
4.9 Drainage Projects Proposed Resettlements .............................................................. 148
5 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL MEASURES FOR SANITATION ....................................... 150
5.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 150
5.2 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 150
5.3 Sewering Informal Settlements ................................................................................. 153
5.3.1 Considerations from Urban Master Plan - Waste Water Management ........... 154
5.4 Alternative analysis ................................................................................................... 157

5.5 Kinondoni District Structural Measures ..................................................................... 159

5.5.1 Existing Sewerage Network ........................................................................... 159
5.5.2 The project area ............................................................................................. 160
5.5.3 DAWASA Planned Sewerage Network .......................................................... 160
5.5.4 Proposed Structural Measures for Wastewater Management ........................ 164
5.5.1 Priority ........................................................................................................... 183
5.5.2 Calculation ..................................................................................................... 183
5.6 Ubungo District Structural Measures ......................................................................... 185
5.6.2 The Project Area ............................................................................................ 186
5.6.3 DAWASA Planned sewerage network............................................................ 187
5.7 Kigamboni District Structural Measures .................................................................... 211
5.7.2 The Project Area ............................................................................................ 211
5.8 Ilala District Structural Measures ............................................................................... 213
5.8.2 The project area ............................................................................................. 215
5.8.3 Priority ........................................................................................................... 242
5.8.4 Calculation ..................................................................................................... 242
5.9 Temeke District Structural Measures ........................................................................ 264
5.9.2 The project area ............................................................................................. 265
5.9.3 Priority ........................................................................................................... 292
5.9.4 Calculation ..................................................................................................... 293
6 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................. 303
6.1 Waste Management in Dar es Salaam ...................................................................... 303
7 PROPOSED NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES ............................................................. 305
7.1 Review of Non-Structural Measures in Stormwater Drainage .................................... 305
7.1.1 Early Warning Systems .................................................................................. 306
7.1.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems............................................................ 307
7.1.3 SUDSs Examples for Msimbazi River ............................................................ 310
7.1.1 Proposed Non-Structural Drainage Measures for DSM .................................. 319
7.1.1.1 Drainage systems in informal settlements ................................................. 323
7.2 Non-Conventional Measures in Wastewater Systems ............................................... 325
8 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN INTEGRATED WATER SERVICES ...... 328

8.1 Review of Institutional arrangements in Water and Wastewater Services ................. 329
8.1.1 Proposed Improvements in the service .......................................................... 331
8.2 Institutional arrangements in Faecal Sludge Management ........................................ 333
8.2.1 Strategy of FSM in Dar es Salaam ................................................................. 335
9 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ......... 337
9.1 Major Problems in Drainage System Management ................................................... 337
9.2 Review of Institutional Measures for Drainage System Management ........................ 339
9.2.1 Formal service providers ................................................................................ 339
9.2.2 Operation and maintenance ........................................................................... 339
9.2.3 Solid waste management operations ............................................................. 341
9.2.4 Community-based initiatives .......................................................................... 342
9.2.5 The Declaration of Hazardous Land ............................................................... 344
9.2.6 The Disaster Management ............................................................................. 346
9.2.7 The Hydraulic Invariance Concept ................................................................. 348
9.2.8 Flood Resilient Architectural Principles .......................................................... 349
9.3 Proposed Institutional Measures for Drainage System Management ........................ 350
10 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ........... 353
10.1 Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................... 353
10.2 Proposed Institutional Measures in SWM .............................................................. 357
11 COST ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES .................................................... 360
11.1 Cost Estimate Outcomes ...................................................................................... 360
11.2 Cost estimate basis ............................................................................................... 361
11.3 Cost Estimate Items and unit rates........................................................................ 361
11.3.1 STP Construction Cost Details ....................................................................... 367
11.3.2 Pumping Stations Construction Cost Details .................................................. 369
11.3.3 Box Culvert Crossings Constructiion Cost Details .......................................... 372
11.4 Cost Estimate for Conventional Services Provision ............................................... 374
11.5 Cost Estimate for Informal Settlements Interventions ............................................ 385
11.5.1 Drainage Interventions in I.S. ......................................................................... 385
11.5.2 Sanitation Interventions in I.S......................................................................... 392
11.6 Issues exclusions limitations ................................................................................. 399
12 PROJECT PRIORITIES .................................................................................................. 400
12.1 Multi Criteria Analysis for Drainage Interventions .................................................. 400
12.1.1 Drainage Investments Priority ........................................................................ 402
12.2 Multi Criteria Analysis for Sanitation Projects ........................................................ 415
12.2.1 Sanitation Investments Priority ....................................................................... 417
LIST OF ATTACHED DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................... 421

1 ATTACHED 1 – Analysis of Alternatives for Wastewater and Faecal Sludge

Management.......................................................................................................................... 421

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Average Monthly Temperatures in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org). .................... 37
Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Rainfall in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org). .............................. 38
Figure 3-3. Wami/Ruvu river basins (JICA, 2013. The study on Water Resources Management
and Development in Wami/Ruvu Basin in the United Republic of Tanzania.). ........................... 40
Figure 3-4 Existing drainage network from the OpenStreetMap geo-database ......................... 43
Figure 3-5. Width of a Flood-Prone Area (Rosgen, 1996). ........................................................ 44
Figure 3-6. Maps of potential inundation areas of Dar es Salaam – Ramani Huria. .................. 45
Figure 3-7. Existing wastewater treatment ponds and sewerage collection areas in Dar es Salaam.
................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 3-8. Solid wastes production and composition in Dar es Salaam. .................................. 61
Figure 3-9. Stagnation in drainage channel at Tandale. ............................................................ 66
Figure 3-10. Solid waste in the river bottom and banks along the Sinza River. ......................... 67
Figure 3-11. Disposed solid wastes in the river channel and the culvert in Ubungo river .......... 68
Figure 3-12. Disposed wastes in the river channel and the crossing between Kawawa road and
Sinza River ............................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 3-13. Accumulation of solid wastes in the Sinza river bed .............................................. 69
Figure 3-14. Obstruction of the crossing culvert by the sediments and the other solid wastes .. 70
Figure 3-15. Future Land use map. Alternative 4 new Urban Master Plan (2016-2036) ............ 71
Figure 4-1 IDF curves for Dar es Salaam, based on the historical rainfall data (1958-2017). .... 81
Figure 4-2. DEM, stormwater catchments and main rivers network in Dar es Salaam. ............. 88
Figure 4-3 Digital Terrain Model deliverd by COWI (2017). ....................................................... 91
Figure 4-4 Ietogram and hydrograph from Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS). .............. 94

Figure 4-5 Dimensionless unit hydrograph and mass curve. ..................................................... 96
Figure 4-6 HEC-HMS SCS unit hydrograph transform method editor. ...................................... 96
Figure 4-7 HEC-HMS Loss method editor................................................................................. 97
Figure 4-8 . Gerezani hydrographic scheme. ............................................................................ 98
Figure 4-9 Land use for the catchment of Gerezani creek ........................................................ 99
Figure 4-10. Ubungo river sub-catchments ............................................................................. 102
Figure 4-11. Rivers in Dar es Salaam. .................................................................................... 106
Figure 4-12. Actual Scenario - Mbezi River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ................................ 109
Figure 4-13. Actual Scenario – Mbezi Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ......................................... 110
Figure 4-14. Planned Scenario - Mbezi River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ............................. 111
Figure 4-15. Planned Scenario – Mbezi Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ...................................... 111
Figure 4-16. Typical proposed cross section (RP 25-yr) ......................................................... 112
Figure 4-17. Actual Scenario - Mlalakwa River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ........................... 113
Figure 4-18. Actual Scenario - Mlalakwa River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ........................... 113
Figure 4-19. Planned Scenario - Mlalakwa River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ........................ 114
Figure 4-20. Planned Scenario – Mlalakwa Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ................................. 114
Figure 4-21. Actual Scenario - Gerezani Creek Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ............... 115
Figure 4-22. Actual Scenario - Gerezani Creek- Serengeti River- Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)115
Figure 4-23. Actual Scenario - Mikocheni River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) .......................... 116
Figure 4-24. Actual Scenario - Mikocheni River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) .......................... 116
Figure 4-25. Planned Scenario - Mikocheni River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)....................... 117
Figure 4-26. Planned Scenario – Mikocheni Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)................................ 118

Figure 4-27. Planned Scenario – Mikocheni Example of the proposed cross section (RP 25-yr)
............................................................................................................................................... 118
Figure 4-28. Actual Scenario - Yombo River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) .............................. 119
Figure 4-29. Actual Scenario – Yombo Main and Tributary rivers hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) 120
Figure 4-30. Actual Scenario - Sinza Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ............................... 121
Figure 4-31. Actual Scenario - Main and Tributary Sinza River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr). .. 122
Figure 4-32. Actual Scenario - Ubungo Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ........................... 123
Figure 4-33. Actual Scenario - Ubungo River Main Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ..................... 124
Figure 4-34. Actual Scenario - Ubungo River River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)..................... 124
Figure 4-35. Planned Scenario - Ubungo River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) .......................... 126
Figure 4-36. Planned Scenario – Ubungo River Main Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ................. 126
Figure 4-37. Planned Scenario – Ubungo River’s Tributary Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ........ 127
Figure 4-38. Planned Scenario: Proposed cross section in Ubungo River (RP 25-yr) ............. 127
Figure 4-39. Actual Scenario - Tegeta Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ............................. 128
Figure 4-40. Actual Scenario - Tegeta River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ............................... 128
Figure 4-41. Planned Scenario - Tegeta River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ........................... 129
Figure 4-42. Planned Scenario – Tegeta Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) .................................... 129
Figure 4-43. Actual Scenario - Kizinga Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ............................ 130
Figure 4-44. Actual Scenario - Kizinga River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)............................... 131
Figure 4-45. Actual Scenario - Mzinga River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) .............................. 132
Figure 4-46. Actual Scenario - Mzinga River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ............................... 133
Figure 4-47. Actual Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ................... 134
Figure 4-48. Actual Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) .................... 134

Figure 4-49. Planned Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) ................ 135
Figure 4-50. Planned Scenario - Nyakasangwe Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) .......................... 135
Figure 4-51. Actual Scenario - Kijitonyama Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)...................... 136
Figure 4-52. Actual Scenario - Kijitonyama River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) ........................ 137
Figure 4-53. Planned Scenario - Kijitonyama River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr) .................... 138
Figure 4-54. Planned Scenario - Kijitonyama Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr) .............................. 139
Figure 4-55. Planned Scenario: Proposed Kijitonyama River cross section (RP 25-yr) ........... 139
Figure 4-56. Msimbazi river flood extent and flood depths for the T25 year event. (Deltares, 2018)
............................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 4-57. Msimbazi longitudinal profile with simulated maximum water levels for the T25 event.
............................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 4-58. Hydrograph showing discharge of Msimbazi river at Selander bridge for T25 event.
............................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 4-59. New proposed drainage structural measures. ..................................................... 145
Figure 4-60. Cross section of a double trapezoidal channel. ................................................... 147
Figure 4-61. Catchpit connecting a trapezoidal channel to a circular underground pipe. ......... 147
Figure 4-62. Map of the affected houses after the DSDP stormwater drainage projects. ........ 148
Figure 5-1. - Existing sewerage systems in Kinondoni District. ............................................... 157
Figure 5-2. - Proposed sewerage network for Ubungo and Kinondoni (Source: Consultancy
services for design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant - Beomhan
Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 157
Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 157

Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 5-5. – Kinondoni Service Catchments .......................................................................... 157
Figure 5-6. – Existing sewerage systems in Ubungo District. .................................................. 157
Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 5-8. - Ubungo Project area and Service Catchments ................................................... 157
Figure 5-9. - Proposed sewerage network for Kigamboni (Source: Consultancy services for design
review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant - Beomhan Engineering) .......... 212
Figure 5-10. – Kigamboni Service Catchments ....................................................................... 212
Figure 5-11. Existing Ponds in Ilala District ............................................................................. 214
Figure 5-12. - Proposed sewerage network into Ilala District (Consultancy services for design
review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed by Beomhan
Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 216
Figure 5-13. - Ilala Project area .............................................................................................. 217
Figure 5-14. - Ilala Catchment N3 ........................................................................................... 218
Figure 5-15. - Ilala Catchment M2........................................................................................... 223
Figure 5-16. - Ilala Catchment M3........................................................................................... 228
Figure 5-17. - Ilala Catchment I2 ............................................................................................ 230
Figure 5-18. - Ilala M3’ STP area ............................................................................................ 231
Figure 5-19. - Ilala Catchment I3 ............................................................................................ 235
Figure 5-20. - Ilala Catchment to STP MR1 ............................................................................ 240
Figure 5-21. - Ilala Catchment to STP M1 ............................................................................... 241

Figure 5-22. Existing Ponds in Temeke District....................................................................... 265
Figure 5-23. - Proposed sewerage network into Temeke District (Consultancy services for design
review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed by Beomhan
Engineering) ........................................................................................................................... 267
Figure 5-24. - Temeke Project area ........................................................................................ 268
Figure 5-25. - Temeke Catchment MR2 .................................................................................. 269
Figure 5-26. - Catchment MR2 – Treatment plant area ........................................................... 270
Figure 5-27. - Temeke Catchment M1 .................................................................................... 274
Figure 5-28. - Temeke Catchment N1 ..................................................................................... 279
Figure 5-29. - Temeke Catchment MR1 .................................................................................. 287
Figure 5-30. - Temeke MR1 Treatment Plant Area ................................................................. 288
Figure 7-1. Flood Resilient Actions in Zone A of Misimbazi Valley (Politecnico di Milano, 2016).
............................................................................................................................................... 317
Figure 7-2. Flood Resilient Actions in Zone B of Misimbazi Valley (Politecnico di Milano, 2016).
............................................................................................................................................... 318
Figure 7-3. Detention Pond DP1 (Tegeta river). ...................................................................... 321
Figure 7-4. Detention Ponds DP2 (Mbezi), DP3/4 (Sinza river). .............................................. 321
Figure 7-5. Detention Ponds DP5 (Gerezani Creek), DP6 (Yombo river). ............................... 322
Figure 7-6. Drainage in gravel roads for informal settlements. ................................................ 323
Figure 7-7. Detail of Trench Drainage in gravel roads ............................................................. 324
Figure 7-8. Map of the informal settlements (new Urban Master Plan and satellite photos) .... 325
Figure 7-9. On-site and Decentralized Sanitation Solutions (BORDA). ................................... 326
Figure 9-1. Change of runoff rates after the imperviousness rise. ........................................... 349

Figure 10-1. Locational Analysis of the Proposed Transfer Stations, (source: initial DMDP draft
report) ..................................................................................................................................... 355
Figure 12-1. – Stormwater Drainage Projects Priorities and Phases. ...................................... 408
Figure 12-2. – Sanitation Projects Priorities and Phases. ....................................................... 419
Figure 12-3. – Sanitation Projects Priorities and Phases. ....................................................... 420

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Key Project Deliverables and Timing ....................................................................... 23
Table 1-2: Contract Price for the Services ................................................................................ 24
Table 3-1: Average Weather in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org). ........................................... 39
Table 3-2: Environmental Condition of Coastal Rivers (The World Bank report, 2016). ............ 41
Table 3-3: . Waste Generation Estimates 2013 – 2022 ............................................................. 62
Table 3-4: . Solid Waste Generated and Collected [Source: DSM City Development Projects 2011,
Waste Management Projects Proposals] .................................................................................. 63
Table 4-1:Rainfall data available. .............................................................................................. 79
Table 4-2. Coefficients "a" and exponents "n" for Dar es Salaam-JNIA IDF's. .......................... 81
Table 4-3. IDFs' values from the studies: SERING; TSCP; De Paola et al. ; CLUVA and Fiddes et
al. ............................................................................................................................................. 83
Table 4-4. Comparison between the studies SERING; TSCP; De Paola et al.; CLUVA and Fiddes
et al. through a color scale. ....................................................................................................... 84
Table 4-5. Estimated % increase of rainfall of given duration and frequency compared to the base
historic scenario, according to De Paola et al., 2014................................................................. 87
Table 4-6: Geometric features of stormwater catchments in Dar es Salaam. ............................ 90
Table 4-7. Dar Es Salaam Catchments. .................................................................................... 93
Table 4-8. Land-use maps legend. ........................................................................................... 98
Table 4-9. Main geo-hydraulic features in Dar es Salaam catchments. ................................... 101
Table 4-10. Ubungo river peak flows for RP 25 year. .............................................................. 101
Table 4-11. Summary of the developed hydraulic models ....................................................... 107
Table 4-12. Summary Table of Rivers Model Results – Present Condition ............................. 143
Table 4-13. Summary Table of Rivers Model Results – Proposed Interventions ..................... 143

Table 4-14. Proposed drainage system after the hydraulic modelling. .................................... 146
Table 4-15. Affected buildings by the stormwater drainage projects. ...................................... 149
Table 5-1: - Kinondoni population and water demands data at ward level............................... 157
Table 5-2: – Kinondoni service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater
flows projection, main sewers diameters................................................................................. 157
Table 5-3: – Kinondoni service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater
Table 5-4 – Kinondoni service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater
Table 5-8: Kinondoni STP C01 – Process Line ....................................................................... 157
Table 5-8 - Ubungo population and water demands data at ward level ................................... 157
Table 5-9: – Ubungo service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection, main sewers diameters.......................................................................................... 157
Table 5-10 – Ubungo service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows

Table 5-18: Ubungo service area AC02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
Table 5-19: Kigamboni population and water demands data at ward level .............................. 212
Table 5-20: Ilala demographic and geographical project data ................................................. 215
Table 5-21: Ilala STP N3 Process Line ................................................................................... 221
Table 5-22: Ilala STP N3 - Catchment Population and treated flow......................................... 222
Table 5-23: STP M2 Process Line .......................................................................................... 226
Table 5-24: Ilala STP M2 - Catchment population and treated flow......................................... 227
Table 5-25: STP M3 Process Line .......................................................................................... 229
Table 5-26: Ilala STP I2 Process Line..................................................................................... 233
Table 5-27: Ilala STP I2 - Catchment Population and treated flow .......................................... 234
Table 5-28: Ilala STP I3 Process Line..................................................................................... 238
Table 5-29: Ilala STP I3 - Catchment Population and treated flow .......................................... 239
Table 5-30: Ilala District Sewerage treatment plant ................................................................. 242
Table 5-31: Ilala Pumping stations .......................................................................................... 243
Table 5-32: Ilala Gravity mains ............................................................................................... 244

Table 5-33: Ilala Rising mains................................................................................................. 244
Table 5-34: Ilala Main Sewerage ............................................................................................ 255
Table 5-35: Ilala Main Sewerage Prioritary ............................................................................. 257
Table 5-36: Pumping station PS_I02-2_6 Hydraulic calculation .............................................. 260
Table 5-37: Pumping station PS_I02-2_6 economic calculation .............................................. 261
Table 5-38: Pumping station PS_I02-2_3 Hydraulic calculation .............................................. 263
Table 5-39: Pumping station PS_I02-2_3 economic calculation .............................................. 263
Table 5-40: Temeke demographic and geographical Project data .......................................... 266
Table 5-41: STP MR2 – Process line ...................................................................................... 273
Table 5-42: Catchment MR2 main collector sewerage report.................................................. 273
Table 5-43: Temeke STP M1 – Process Line ......................................................................... 277
Table 5-44: Temeke STP M1 - Catchment inhabitant and treated flow ................................... 278
Table 5-45: Temeke STP N1– Process Line ........................................................................... 282
Table 5-46: Temeke STP N1 - Catchment inhabitant and treated flow.................................... 282
Table 5-47: Temeke Catchment N2 ........................................................................................ 283
Table 5-48: Temeke STP N2 – Process Line .......................................................................... 285
Table 5-49: Temeke STP N2 - Population and treated flow .................................................... 286
Table 5-50: Temeke STP MR1 – Process Line ....................................................................... 290
Table 5-51: Temeke STP MR1 – Population and Treated Flow .............................................. 291
Table 5-52: Temeke Sewerage treatment plant ...................................................................... 293
Table 5-53: Temeke pumping stations features ...................................................................... 293
Table 5-54: Temeke Main Priority Sewerage - Hydraulic Calculation ...................................... 296

Table 5-55: Temeke Main Sewerage - Hydraulic Calculation .................................................. 300
Table 5-56: Temeke Sewerage Gravity Mains - Hydraulic Calculation .................................... 301
Table 5-57: Temeke Sewerage Rising Mains - Hydraulic Calculation ..................................... 302
Table 7-1: Sustainable Urban Drainage System types. ........................................................... 309
Table 7-2: Suitability of SUDSs for achieving flood hazard reduction. ..................................... 310
Table 7-3: General Flood Resilient Actions (Politecnico di Milano, 2016)................................ 316
Table 7-4: DMDP and DSDP’ Proposed Stormwater Detention Ponds ................................... 320
Table 7-5: Parametric Costs of On-Site/Decentralized Sanitation Systems............................. 327
Table 7-6: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Proposed Solutions .................. 327
Table 11-1. Conversion Rates for Currencies ......................................................................... 361
Table 11-2: List of Works Items and Unit Rates ...................................................................... 366
Table 11-3: Sewerage Network STPs Construction Costs detail............................................. 368
Table 11-4: Sewerage Pumping Stations Construction Costs Details ..................................... 371
Table 11-5: Box Culvert Crossings Construction Costs Details ............................................... 373
Table 11-6: Overall Conventional Drainage and Sanitation Cost Estimate .............................. 383
Table 11-7: Conventional “Drainage and Sanitation” Cost Estimate per Municipal District ...... 384
Table 11-8: Overall Conventional “Drainage and Sanitation” Cost Estimate ........................... 384
Table 11-9: Stormwater Drainage Interventions in Informal Settlements ................................. 386
Table 11-10: Stormwater Drainage Interventions in Informal Settlements - Cost Estimate...... 391
Table 11-11: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Proposed Solutions .............. 393
Table 11-12: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Technical Features and Cost
Estimate ................................................................................................................................. 398
Table 11-13: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Overall Costs per Diistrict ..... 398

Table 12-1: Stormawter Drainage Projects’ Ranking Criteria .................................................. 402
Table 12-2: DMDP Stormwater Drainage Projects’ New Codes .............................................. 403
Table 12-3: DSDP Stormwater Drainage Projects’ Codes ...................................................... 404
Table 12-4: Stormawter Drainage Projects’ Technical Features ............................................. 414
Table 12-5: Sanitation Projects’ Ranking Criteria .................................................................... 416

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The activities of the present Consultancy Services involve the Preparation of Dar es Salaam
“Drainage and Sanitation Development Plan” (DSDP), for period 2018 – 2035, under Dar es
Salaam Metropolitan Development Project (DMDP).
To develop the DSDP, on the 1st March 2018, the Contract No. ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 has
been signed between President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government
(Client) and Sering Ingegneria srl in association with DOCH Ltd (sub-consultant).
The primary Objective of the assignment is to develop an integrated Drainage and Sanitation
Development Plan. A second objective is to propose an initial project, to a conceptual engineering
level, of about 5 years duration which would implement the first priorities identified in the Plan.
This priority project should be prepared such that it could be presented to donors for possible
support.
The Drainage and Sanitation Development Plan (DSDP) will cover storm-water drainage,
wastewater collection and treatment and fecal sludge management. The DSDP Plan will cover
the period from 2018 to 2035 and it should define institutional, structural and non-structural
measures needed to develop, operate and maintain drainage and sanitation systems within the
DSM Metropolitan area. Improvements in wastewater collection through better drainage systems
will also strengthen flood management and that should be elaborated in the DSDP.
Therefore, the DSDP covers storm-water and sanitation management within the metropolitan area
of Dar es Salaam that includes the five Municipalities of Kinondoni, Temeke, Ubungo, Kigamboni
and Ilala. Together with the Dar es Salaam City Council the six local governments are commonly
referred to as Dar es Salaam Local Authorities (DLAs).
Starting from the baseline assessment report, the present technical report proposes the solutions,
addressed by the ToR of the above contract, particularly for:
• stormwater drainage system;

• wastewater collection network;
• sewage treatment plants (STP);

• faecal sludges management (FSM);

• solid wastes management (SWM).
The FSM is intended only for those unconnected users to the new planned wastewater collection
network. The solid waste management (SWM) has also been assessed and considered in the
DSDP as a major issue on the drainage network functionality.
The DSDP also define institutional, structural and non-structural measures needed to develop,
operate and maintain drainage and sanitation systems within the DSM metropolitan area.
The submission schedule of each deliverable for the consultancy services to be rendered under
this project is provided in the following Table.
Deliverable Timing Description Status, Activities
Concluded:
After 1 month of Outline of the work-plan, • Submitted on 8th May
kick-off meeting: strategy, methodology 2018
Inception Report
and timetable for the • Presented to the Client
8th May 2018 DSDP deliverables on 11th May and to SHs
on 21st May
Concluded:
Draft Report including • Data Collection
After 6 months of Baseline assessment,
• Baseline assessment
commencement of Master Plan and Pre-
• Demography analysis
Draft DSDP assignment: Feasibility Study with
Conceptual Engineering • Topography analysis
15th October 2018 Design for an initial • Hydrological analysis
priority project (5 years) • Drainage and Sewerage
networks, STP outline
Not Started:
Final Report including
Within 12 months of • To be delivered after
Master Plan and Pre-
commencement of submission of the Draft
Feasibility Study and
Final DSDP assignment: DSDP and a
Conceptual Engineering
consultative period of a
Design for an initial
5th April 2019 3-month maximum
Priority project
period
Table 1-1: Key Project Deliverables and Timing
The present advancement of the DSDP’ deadlines is shown below.
Contract Date 1st March 2018

Commencement Date (KoM) 6th April 2018
Inception Report 8th May 2018
Draft DSDP Report 15th October 2018
Contract Period 12 Months
Elapsed Time 6 Months
Proposed Completion Date 5th April 2019

The “Contract Price for the Services” payable has been set forth in the Appendix C – Break Down
of Contract Price in the Signed Contract and its Addendum and it has been set as follows:
Currency
ITEM Foreign Equivalent in Local Currency (Tanzanian Shilling -TZS).
Currency (US$) Applied selling exchange rate according to BoT on 21
July 2017: 1 US$ = 2,243.79 TZS
Cost of the Financial Proposal
(1) Remuneration 707,750.00 1,588,042,372.50
(2) Reimbursables 154,800.00 347,338,692.00
Total Cost of the 862,550.00 1,935,381,064.50

Financial Proposal:
Indirect Local Tax Estimates
(i) VAT (18%) 155,259.00 348,368,591.61
Indirect Local Tax: 155,259.00 348,368,591.61

Overall Price for the Services
Total Amount 1,017,809.00 2,283,749,656.11
Table 1-2: Contract Price for the Services
The data collected for the development of the DSDP have been provided by the following
institutions, agencies and authorities which also represents the major institutional Stakeholders:
DART Dar es Salaam Rapid Transit Agency

DAWASA Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority
DAWASCO Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Company
DCC Dar es Salaam City Council
IMC Ilala Municipal Council
KiMC Kigamboni Municipal Council
KMC Kinondoni Municipal Council
MLHHSD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development
MoWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
PO-RALG President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government
TANROADS Tanzania National Roads Agency
TARURA Tanzania Rural and Urban Roads Agency
TMA Tanzania Meteorological Agency
TMC Temeke Municipal Council
UMC Ubungo Municipal Council

WB The World Bank
Particularly, the following subjects have been developed so far (Draft documents):
1) Draft Drainage Network

2) Draft Wastewater Network
3) Draft Sewage Treatment Plants
4) Draft Faecal Sludge Management
5) Draft Solid Waste Management
6) Draft Economic and Financial Analysis
7) Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
8) Draft Resettlement Action Plan
9) Draft Phasing and Implementation Plan
10) Draft Pre-Feasibility Study (5-year priority projects)
The items from nr.6 to nr. 10 have been produced as full attachments to this main technical report.
The Appendices contain the site survey photographic documentation with the description of the
main crossing condition.

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Framework of the DSDP
On the 1st March 2018, the Contract No. ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 has been signed between
President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government (Client) and Sering Ingegneria
Srl (Lead) in association with DOCH Ltd (sub-consultant).
The Client (PO-RALG) has received credit from the International Development Association (The
World Bank), toward the cost of the required Services (1,935,381,064.50 TSh).
The official start of the project took place with the Kick-off Meeting that was held on April 6th, 2018
and was attended by several participants representing the main stakeholders of the project. The
workshop was held in the conference room at the DMDP offices in Dar es Salaam.
The required Consultancy Services for the Preparation of Dar es Salaam “Drainage and
Sanitation Development Plan” (DSDP), for period 2018 – 2035, stems from the Dar es Salaam
Metropolitan Development Project (DMDP).
According to the Term of Reference:
The DMDP (or the Project) was prepared using consultants funded through the Tanzania
Strategic Cities Project (TSCP). The DMDP was appraised in February 2015 and became
effective in mid-2015. The proposed IDA Credit for DMDP is USD 300 million and is to be
completed by December 31, 2020.
The objective of DMDP is to improve urban services and institutional capacity in the Dar es
Salaam Local Metropolitan area to facilitate potential emergency responses. The project
covers the three Municipal Councils (Ilala, Kinondoni and Temeke) and the Dar es Salaam
City Council (DCC) and has four interrelated components:
• Component 1: Priority Infrastructure

• Component 2: Upgrading in Low Income Communities
• Component 3: Institutional Strengthening, capacity Building and Urban Analytics

• Component 4: Implementation Support and Monitoring and Evaluation
Within component 1 there are 3 sub-components. These are:
• Component 1a: Priority Roads supporting public transit, mobility and connectivity to low
income communities
• Component 1b: Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage
• Component 1c: Contingency for Disaster Risk Response
The implementation of the Project will primarily be the responsibility of the 3 DLAs, DSM City
Council with assistance for overall management and consolidated reporting from the
President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG), and for
liaison with the national government from the Regional Commissioner’s Office. In addition, the
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development (MLHHSD) will have an
important role in the reduction of informality of land tenure. PO-RALG and the DLAs will also
liaise with TANROADS and DART with regard to the local roads which feed Line 1 of the BRT.
DMDP preparation studies included an assignment, carried out by international consultants,

for preparation of investments for a comprehensive Drainage System for Dar es Salaam for
implementation under DMDP. This was as a preparation activity for the DMDP and funded
through the TSCP. The TOR for this former assignment were entitled “Drainage Systems”.
More specifically the objectives were:
a) Prepare a drainage plan for Dar es Salaam with a prioritized list of drainage investments
(DLA sub-projects) as a pre-feasibility study;
b) Prepare feasibility studies, preliminary designs and cost estimates for the DLA sub-
projects in the sector; including definition of specific investments, economic and
financial analysis, and implementation arrangements;
c) Prepare detailed designs, drawings and cost estimates for the DLA sub-projects,
package them into suitable contracts, prepare final bidding (tender) documents and an
overall time-bound implementation schedule (including plans for bidding processes and
works supervision);
d) Conduct Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the individual DLA
sub-projects proposed for investment and prepare an overall ESIA report for the
investments;
e) Prepare Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and where necessary,
Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) for the individual sub-projects and prepare overall
EMP and RAP for the DLA investments in the sector; and

f) (i) Specify the institutional strengthening needs in the drainage sector in Dar es Salaam,
and (ii) prepare the corresponding terms of reference (TORs) for consultancies and
other activities to be carried out under the DMDP.
Through the contribution of World Bank support, this “Drainage Systems” study was
completed satisfactorily and its deliverables have formed the basis of the Component 1b:
Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage to be funded under the DMDP. However the study
was aimed at quickly arriving at priority interventions. Thus from an overall drainage plan, a
prioritized list of drainage investments was identified, Pre-feasibility Studies and a subsequent
Feasibility Study prepared followed by preliminary engineering, detailed engineering and
bidding documents in appropriate packages.
2.2 Justification for the assignment
Whereas the DMDP’ Component 1b consultancy carried out much useful work in investigating
urgent drainage requirements in the areas of the three DLAs, it was not a requirement for the
consultancy to prepare an overall Drainage Development (Master) Plan for the metropolitan area.
Also given that much storm water collected by the existing natural and constructed drainage
networks is “combined” and that there are on-going initiatives to address wastewater collection
and treatment PO-RALG now wishes that the Drainage Development Plan should also be
expanded to a Drainage and Sanitation Development Plan.
In addition, DAWASA with donor support from the World Bank is also embarking on the design of
a wastewater collection and treatment project as well as off-grid sanitation, and this and other
related initiatives including Korean support for sanitation infrastructure (e.g. wastewater treatment
plants), need to be considered when developing an overall Drainage and Sanitation Development
Plan.
Thus, GoT through PO-RALG now wishes to have such an overall Plan prepared which will look
forward for the next 15-20 years (to 2035). This Drainage Development (Master) Plan will be
funded through Component 4 of the DMDP and building on the high priority, low risk physical
investments to be carried out to the primary and secondary networks in the DMDP, the Drainage
and Sanitation Development Plan will prioritize further primary, secondary and tertiary
drainage and sewerage and sewage treatment investments, develop operations and
maintenance schemes and budgets and carry out related work for metropolitan urban
resilience and capital works planning.

Thus, the institutional aspects of storm-water drainage and wastewater management and the
need for an institution that has the capacity and resources to be responsible for any capital
development but predominantly for operation and maintenance and to be the general custodian
of systems are critical. It should be noted that the two water and sanitation utilities (DAWASA and
DAWASCO) are currently undergoing institutional reform that includes revisiting their
responsibilities for sanitation services. The Drainage and Sanitation Development Plan should
consider and/or make proposals for the most appropriate and achievable institutional
arrangements going forward.
2.3 Methodology outline of the DSDP
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s commercial capital, is on its way to becoming a mega city, its
population expected to double by 2030. Its rapid population growth means increased demand for
essential services and better infrastructure.
According to the National Human Settlements Development Policy (MLHSD, January 2000), the
unplanned areas continue to grow following the rapid urbanization, which is not accompanied with
the provision of adequate shelter or serviced building plots1. As a consequence, the Citywide
Strategy for Upgrading Unplanned and Unserviced Settlements in Dar es Salaam (UN Habitat,
Nairobi 2010) began in May 2007 with the ambition of upgrading 50% of all existing unplanned
and unserviced areas by 2020 and prevent the formation of new settlements in Dar es Salaam.
Nowadays over 70% of Dar es Salaam 5.5 million residents live in informal, unplanned
settlements that lack adequate infrastructure and services. The widespread informal
settlements’ layout put a very strict constraint in the development of any Master Plan for DSM.
The present Plan encompasses the stormwater and the wastewater management systems, and
is accounting for the following actions:
1. improving the public services for wastewater and stormwater systems through compliance
with national and regional water quality, water management and flood plain management
laws;
1 The policy states that "instead of demolishing unplanned settlements, it is government policy to upgrade them through
stakeholder participation". According to its mandate “unplanned and unserviced settlements shall be upgraded by their
inhabitants through CBOs and NGOs with the government playing a facilitating role.”

2. addressing the faecal sludges and the solid wastes management of the city as a main
source of land and water pollution and limiting factors to the discharge capacity of the
waterways (natural and artificial);
3. preventing problems from happening either by mitigating impacts before they create
problems or by avoiding the creation of new problems;
4. enhancing public involvement and comment to being as comprehensive as possible in
listing all known problems;
5. guiding a strategic short and mid-term planning, namely 5 years and 17 years;
6. prioritizing a list of projects that are more likely to succeed rather than solving problems
as they arise;
7. preserving natural features and functions of a watershed, and providing a list of evaluated
alternatives such as using traditional pipe infrastructure versus more efficient and
economic low impact (green) infrastructure.
The development of such an important Plan has cast a close look over other relevant Plans
existing in the area. Particularly, the following Plans and projects have been considered as a
general guidance for the DSDP:
• the component 1b of the DMDP project “Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage” (issued
on 2015)
• the new draft urban Master Plan for the period 2016-2036 (issued on July 2018)
• the Sanitation Improvement Plan by DAWSA
• the Water Supply Network Phasing by DAWASA
• the BRT Phases by DART
• the TANROADS projects
The above Plans have determined the direction to follow according to the Phases already set for
the development of water distribution networks, improvement of sanitation, realization of
stormwater systems from transportation sector, urban development and redeveloped areas.
The presence of the unplanned settlements has posed a difficult obstacle in the implementation
of the DSDP’ conventional (long term) solutions for the drainage and the sanitation sectors. The
new urban master plan (UMP) by the Ministry of Lands, still in its draft stage (waiting for approval),
proposes several interventions in those unplanned area where it is expected the redevelopment
of the plots.
According to the UMP, the urban redevelopment areas are those “parts of the City, mainly
residential, characterized by the low quality of settlements, low building density and the lack of

any urban structure. In these parts of the City the replacement of existing buildings with more
appropriate ones, that do not exceed the height of three storeys, is to be carried out.2
The drainage and sanitation interventions in these unplanned areas is very demanding from a
technical and financial point of view, but they have been deemed necessary to improve the
environmental, economic and social aspects of the quality of life of the residents.
Achieving the long-term goal of urban flood safety and sanitation is a slow and expensive process.
In the meantime, developing intermediary solutions is necessary to meet the most urgent health
needs of the poorest. As a temporary solution (10 years), the informal settlements will be equipped
with local drainage and sewerage ecological services (i.e., Pour Flush Latrines, septic tanks,
DEWATs, basic surface drainage systems, minor flood-proofing solutions on buildings, etc.),
before the implementation of the redevelopment projects proposed in the urban master plan. The
superstructure for temporary services could be prefabricated or less-permanent type. This is due
to the fact that the temporal realization of the new UMP projects is still uncertain and undefined.
Once the UMP will be approved and developed to its final design stage, the DSDP will be
implemented also in the informal settlements by means of long-term permanent services such as
conventional drainage systems, waterborne sewage networks and sewage treatment plants.
The DSDP proposes an incremental approach, experimenting with different technologies and
designing flexible and pragmatic solutions.
DSDP Proposed Drainage System
The choices in the stormwater drainage design and management have been guided by the main
purposes of safeguarding the population by floods, reducing the costs of the inundations,
minimizing the resettlements of people and confining the overall expenditures within a reasonable
threshold. For achieving all this, it has been proposed the adoption of a majority of drainage open
channels (but covered on top) over buried pipes, the change (excavation) in some river’s cross-
section, the complementary benefits of green infrastructures (SUDS), the removal of solid wastes
and silt from the existing drainage network and the institutional arrangements for the effective
management of all the waterways of the city (operation and maintenance of natural and artificial
channels).
2
“All developments should meet the planning and building standards as defined in the Town Planning and Space Standards. In
these parts all measures are planned to provide them with adequate roads, the necessary infrastructure networks (water,
sewerage system, and electricity), adequate space for urban facilities and green areas”.

The main existing rivers/streams network have been assessed by means of hydraulic modelling
and using the updated hydrological data (rainwater from the international airport gauge station).
The priorities of the interventions have been assessed after a multi criteria analysis, considering
social, financial and environmental constraints. Very important source of knowledge has been the
update of the statistical rainfall data analysis with the latest precipitation records (released by the
Tanzania Meteorological Agency), the drainage network maps and the potential inundation areas
mapped by the Ramani-Huria team (OpenStreetmap) and the prioritized projects of the DMDP
(component 1b).
The drainage projects proposed in the DSDP were mainly identified in the flooded areas of
Ramani Huria, in the flood areas of the hydraulic models and in the main hydrographic network.
Maximum priority of intervention was given to the morphologically depressed areas and to those
with a low slope, with tendency towards flooding or waterlogging. In particular for the informal
settlements, the drainage interventions concern the areas around those natural waterways (rivers
or tributaries) or artificial canals (channels, drains) around which the settlements have developed
and which, therefore, are at greater risk of inundation.
As temporary interventions of highest priority in the informal settlement, the main drainage
arrangements will be provided by equalized gravel roads having a cross slope (single or double)
collecting the storm water inside lateral ditches equipped with draining trenches.
DSDP Proposed Sanitation System
The assessment of the proposed solutions for the sanitation sector have been executed by
considering the urgent need of improving people’s health by reducing the hazard from the
environmental pollution of the soils and of the surface and underground water, both caused by
the actual wastewaters discharge systems (directly into the ground or into the drainage network).
The Sanitation Improvement Plan and the DAWASA’s planned water supply network have
determined the schedule for the implementation of the proposed sewerage network and STPs
around the city. Moreover, the new draft urban Master Plan has been considered looking at the
new redeveloping areas in the city that will also need a sewerage system and the treatment of the
collected wastewater. The main solution adopted is a separated system from the stormwater
drainage network and centralized STPs over those localized.
Study of Alternatives

The alternatives’ technical analysis and the economic-financial assessment of the proposed
interventions have set the budgetary boundaries for the Plan’s implementation. A Multi-Criteria
Analysis (MCA), considering key criteria in the economic, environmental and social domains, has
finally discovered the priorities to be followed to successfully meet the targets of the
implementation Plan.

3 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING SITUATION
3.1 Territory and climate description
3.1.1 Urban description
Dar es Salaam region, which also makes the City council as a coordinator, is located along the
Indian ocean coast and covers a total area of 139.3 km2. In the early 2016, two new districts in
Dar es Salaam have been established (through Government Notices) namely Kigamboni and
Ubungo. Administratively, the City is now divided into five Municipalities: Kinondoni, Temeke
Ubungo, Kigamboni and Ilala.
Dar es Salaam is characterized by flat topography along the coast of the Indian Ocean in the
south–east and getting slightly undulating and hilly in the hinterland mainly in the north- west.
Statistics confirm that the Dar es Salaam’s built environment hosts today 70-80% of the
inhabitants of Dar es Salaam live in informal settlements and urban slums situated in marginal
areas at the risk of flash flooding. Around 140,000 people currently live in flood risk areas, with
31,000 people considered at high risk.
Here follows a short description of city infrastructures with excerpts from the Urban Master Plan
(2018).
Settlements sprawl
Tanzania’s policy towards informal settlements in Dar es Salaam has varied over past decades
(discussed in World Bank, 2002). In the 1960s, slum clearance was the main approach; slum sites
were cleared and buildings with high construction standards were erected on cleared sites
(implemented through the National Housing Corporation). This proved unsustainable, however,
and was abandoned by the end of the 1960s due to high economic and social costs, and having
contributed little to the net housing stock. In the 1970s and 1980s, the government’s approach
changed, and squatter area upgrading projects and service provision (supported by the World
Bank) formed the national strategy for managing the growth of informal settlements.

After World Bank funding for these projects ceased, however, the Government of Tanzania was
unable to continue financing them, and subsequent years saw the growth and emergence of new
unplanned settlements as well as deterioration of previously installed infrastructure, due to lack
of maintenance (World Bank, 2002).
Generally, in the squatter areas, for example Kawe, Manzese, Vingunguti and Buguruni to
mention just a few, housing units are built without the permission of the local planning authorities.
Consequently, squatter settlements generally lack the basic facilities and services: roads, water
supply, electricity, refuse collection and health care. Houses are crowded and living conditions
are often insanitary (UNDP, 1993).
Each household devises its own way of disposing of liquid and solid wastes; it is very
common therefore to find heaps of solid wastes thrown either on the roadsides or on
unclaimed pieces of land, and wastewater from bathrooms and toilets running into the
streets or into the drainage channels. Unplanned settlements and business activities have
developed even on hazard lands such as the Msimbazi River valley, as evidenced throughout the
river valley, e.g. the Tabata and Kigogo areas as well as close to Mkwajuni in Kinondoni, etc.
Most of the residential units built in the squatter areas are poorly planned with poor foundations,
and lacking sewerage and sanitary systems. This has been attributed to the population increase,
the growth of the informal economy in many urban centers, and the failure of the official system
to deliver sufficient plots of land for different purposes. Such developments are the result of poor
policies, poor planning and lack of funds.
Roads infrastructures
Dar es Salaam Region is connected to other regions in Tanzania by good tarmac roads. Four
main radial roads of the city remind from colonial period (Bagamoyo, Morogoro, Nyerere/Pugu,
and Kilwa). The Morogoro road constitutes the most important passage on the Msimbazi River.
This main street connected center to the north-west part of the city. The Kingogo road is also an
important way to cross wetland and river. During flooding events, these ways are often under
water. It can be explained easy by the position directly on the floodplain. These roads are just two
main crossings of the Msimbazi River, however whole wetland does not have a lot of road
connections and serve as physical barrier for communication, separating city into two sides.
Public transportation
There is general inadequate service of public transportation. Population is mostly moving by

minibuses, which are the cheapest transport means and that is why are often overcrowded.

However, following the rapid increase of the population and city growth, the government of the
city planned a new public transport system based on rapid bus lines. The Usafiri Dar es Salaam
Rapid Transit (UDA-RT) is in a process of implementation and has the goal to serve up to 90% of
the population. The first phase of the project (6 phases in total are planned) – is operational since
year 2016 and works along 21 kilometers of trunk roads and 58 of feeder roads with its 29 bus
stations and 5 terminals. New garage for these buses was recently built right inside floodplain of
Msimbazi river, on south after Morogoro road.
Solid Wastes Production
“Dar es Salaam waste is estimated to be about 4,252 tonnes per day at a generation rate of 0.815
kg per capita per day. Only about 59% of waste generated in the City is managed and the
remaining is left near house premises, in open pits, streets, markets or storm water drainage, a
channel which obstructs the City’s beauty”.
Food waste, garden waste, grass, wood, papers, metal, textiles and others compose solid waste
generated by population which is just half collected thus generates obstacles for natural and man-
made drainages. Main reasons for inadequate solid waste collection, transportation and disposal
are absence of environmentally reliable disposal sites, poor existing infrastructure of waste
collection as well as lack of organized intermediate treatment and recycling activities. Moreover,
informal sector involvement and low willingness of community to pay for the service the situation.
Nowadays, Dar es Salaam City disposes solid waste in open dumps with adverse impact on public
health and the environment. Such attitude to waste management creates different diseases, bad
smell from the dumpsite and decreases quality of drinking water affecting water sources.
However, there are already some attempts to upgrade city’s waste collection, storage, and
transportation system by providing infrastructures to construction of a transfer station at SUKITA
area in Buguruni Ward Ilala Municipality and developing the Pugu Kinyamwezi final disposal site
including a sanitary landfill.
Sanitation infrastructures
Just about 13% of the city’s population is provided by sewerage service, remaining 87% of the
population use on-site sanitation systems such as pit latrines (70-80%) and septic tanks (20%)
(Dar es Salaam Region Socio-Economic Profile, 2012). Low capacity and deterioration of existing
old infrastructure led to pollution of beaches and precious water supply underground aquifers and
spontaneous flooding of old and even new developments. Many studies, including researches
from local universities, have revealed threat to people’s health through contamination of water by

wastewater from pit latrines and soak pits, which usually overflow during rainy seasons, provoking
diarrhea and water-borne diseases.
Water Supply Infrastructures
The major water sources for Dar es Salaam Region residents are Ruvu Juu, Ruvu Chini and Mtoni
Distribution Plants. Other water sources are underground sources such as boreholes, shallow
wells deep wells and rain water harvesting. Just 51.7% of population is served with clean water.
Moreover, demand is growing due to rapid urbanization. Thus, in 2013, the demand for water by
Dar es Salaam residents was estimated to be 545 million liters and the supply was about 52.5
percent of the demand (Dar es Salaam Region Socio-Economic Profile, 2012).
Drainage Infrastructures
The existing infrastructure for water drainage system is not proportional to the population size.
This is a situation in which infrastructure is insufficient to cope with present climatic conditions.
For example, the storm-water drains serving Dar es Salaam were constructed in the 1950s to
serve a much smaller population than present – before these can be ‘adapted’ to deal with future
climate threats, they must first be upgraded to deal with current conditions.
3.1.2 Climate
The climate of the area (Tropical wet savanna, type “Aw” according to the Köppen-Geiger climate
classification) is characterized by high temperatures almost throughout the year, ranging from 19
ºC to 33º C. The warmest time of the year is during January and February, and the coolest time
of the year occurs during July and August; however, the season cycle is very small. The annual
average temperature is 25.4 º C.
Figure 3-1. Average Monthly Temperatures in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org).

Rainfall in Dar es Salaam occurs during all months of the year, however the bulk of the rain takes
place during two rainy seasons: the short rainy season from October to December and the main
/ long rainy season from March to May. Less rainfall occurs during January and February, and
there is a long and relatively dry season from June to September.
Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Rainfall in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org).
According to a recent study by the Urban Africa Risk Knowledge (UARK) programme (3) this
bimodal rainfall pattern is due to the migration of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)
over the region.
During January and February the ITCZ is located to the south of the region and the rainfall during
this period averages around 110 mm. The ITCZ moves north passing over the region during
March – May, resulting in the long rains during where roughly 610 mm of rain falls. During the
austral winter (June – September) the ITCZ is situated north of the region and little rainfall falls
(less than 100 mm during this period). The ITCZ shifts back south passing over the region during
October to November resulting in the short rains, where roughly 350 mm of rainfall falls on
average.
The average annual (July-June) total rainfall is around 1,200 mm, however the year-to-year or
interannual variability is large. Some years record as little as 950 mm while others record more
than 180 mm.
3
Dar es Salaam Climate Profile: Full Technical Version, University of Cape Town, November 2017

On multi-year to decadal time scales Dar es Salaam also experiences clear rainfall variability.
Much of this is related to large scale remote forcings such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD). Over the northern coastal areas of Tanzania the
positive phase (El Nino) of ENSO is generally associated with above-average rainfall during the
short rains (OND). The opposite is true during the cool phase (La Nina) which is generally
associated with below-average rainfall.
The increased rainfall associated with El Nino conditions is generally due to a longer-than-normal
rainfall season and more specifically an earlier onset. La Nina conditions tend to be associated
with later-than-normal onset of the rainy season. The positive phase of the IOD generally leads
to increased rainfall during the short rains, and the cooler phase to drier-than-normal conditions.
The long rains act independently to the short rains, and do not exhibit any consistent relationship
to either ENSO or IOD.
Table 3-1: Average Weather in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org).
3.1.3 Dar es Salaam Coastal Rivers Condition
The Wami/Ruvu Basin, as defined administratively, consists of the two main rivers of Wami
and Ruvu—actually individual river basins from a geographic perspective—and the minor
Coastal rivers (Mpiji, Sinza, Mlalakuwa, Msimbazi, Mzinga, Kizinga and Mbezi) that all drain
into the Indian Ocean, encompassing with a total area of 66,295 km 2 (Wami-43,742 km2,
Ruvu-17,789 km2 and the Coastal-4,764 km2). The water resources in the basin are both
surface and underground.

Figure 3-3. Wami/Ruvu river basins (JICA, 2013. The study on Water Resources Management and
Development in Wami/Ruvu Basin in the United Republic of Tanzania .).
The Wami/Ruvu Basin Water Office jurisdiction covers parts of administrative regions of
Dodoma, Manyara, Morogoro, Coast, Tanga and the whole of Dar es Salaam.
The main rivers within the Coastal area include: Msimbazi, the largest river in the city; Mpiji;
Kizinga, with the largest catchment area; and Mzinga). Three of Dar es Salaam’s four major rivers
are heavily degraded.
The rivers have been degraded due to the impacts of encroachment, erosion and sedimentation,
effluents from waste water and runoff, and solid waste. The Table below shows the summary
state of conditions of each river basin.
Encroachment of settlements into riverine corridors and catchment areas, the discharge of
sewage and solid waste, sediment, sand mining, river bank erosion, deforestation and the
impervious footprint of development have reduced the quantity and quality of water and the
ecosystem as a whole. Msimbazi River at several locations is reported to be highly contaminated,

making the river water unsuitable for potable water and the soil unsuitable for urban agricultural
cultivation.
River Character/Source of Pollution Quality
Pugu catchment area. Only one used for surface water

supply as has stable mean annual flow rate throughout the Some parameters exceed
Kizinga year. Exceeds Tanzania national standards for chemical Tanzania National Standards for
oxygen demand and biological oxygen demand drinking water quality.
concentrations posing threat to drinking water quality.
Pugu catchment area. Unstable flow rate; higher in rainy
Meets the standard for domestic
Mzinga season/lower in dry season. Sand mining is common. The
use.
Mbezi, a tributary, has been degraded by sand mining.
Runs through less developed areas, less vulnerable to Data on water quality is not
Mpiji
pollution. Sand mining is common. available
Unsuitable for potable water.
Pugu Catchment and shallow groundwater are important Coliform 1000 times safe swim
water source for residents for drinking, bathing, agriculture. levels at mouth of river.
Industrial discharge of treated and untreated waste water, Concentrations of lead in the
especially in Ilala. water exceed Tanzania Bureau
Ubungo, Vingunguti and Buguruni Waste Water Stabilization of Standards and World Health
Ponds discharge their effluents directly to tributaries. Organization standards.
Leachates discharge from closed solid waste dumps of pH as high as 12 compared to
Vingunguti and Tabata. the legal standard of 8.5, a level
Outfalls for storm water drainage systems that collect from which causes severe burns to
Msimbazi
industrial, residential, commercial, institutional areas, and skin.
informal sector activity premises. Chromium (VI) at 75 times the
Effluents from on-site sanitation systems, mainly in legal limit for waste water
residential areas, flow overland, through groundwater by discharges, which can cause
seepage, and by outcropping on hillsides. cancer and birth defects
Heavy metals in soil and water were determined at four Indicators of disease causing
points along river valley, indicating potential for pollution faecal contamination which
transfer to food chain as is popular for vegetable cultivation. exceed the World Health
Solid waste dumping from settlement areas. Organization limits for safe use
of waste-water in agriculture.
Lead contamination of waters
A small river with a basin area of 24.9km. Heavily polluted due to high soil lead levels
Yombo
by industrial wastewater. attributed to local vehicles
emissions.
Table 3-2: Environmental Condition of Coastal Rivers (The World Bank report, 2016).
The city’s rivers and streams receive waste water from sanitary facilities and from septic tanks of
adjacent industrial and residential use. It is common to see tributaries of rivers including Sinza,
Kigogo, Msimbazi and others flowing with sewage during the dry season. During rainy periods,
sewerage from pit latrines or septic tanks is released into storm water and into the streams and
rivers. The rivers are also used as illegal dumping sites for solid waste, a situation common in
areas of high population density that lack solid waste management systems.

3.2 Existing Drainage System
3.2.1 Existing Storm Water Network
Because of its geographical and climate conditions the city is hard-hit by flooding problem.
However, vulnerability of Dar es Salaam to floods is largely contributed by other social aspects.
First of all the society itself is not highly resilient due to the fact that 70-80% of settlements are
not planned. It refers to the poor planning and high rates of poverty. Encroachment of hazardous
lands is caused by lack of sources to access land in planned areas. Other reasons are absence
of services and job opportunities and difficulties of accessibility. These major part of the city is
prone to any hazard due to its low level of education and awareness, lack of sources to recover
after floods because of poor socio-economic status. Moreover, these settlements are very dense
and not well organized. Thus, in this situation, losses are bigger and time of recovering is longer.
The existing drainage network covers central Dar es Salaam and has outfalls onto the estuary of
Msimbazi River. This network is being extended inland with new connections, but the central Dar
es Salaam existing drains are not being sufficiently upgraded to deal with the increasing overland
flow due to rapid urbanization.
The Dar es Salaam City Council indicate that out of the 825 km of installed drains, only 422 km
are reputed to be in good condition (around 51%). In fact, there is frequent clogging of drains due
to poor maintenance and insufficient protection from silt, solid waste and/or construction debris.
Stormwater drainage in Tanzania is connected to the road network, which is the responsibility of
two authorities: municipalities are in charge of local roads through the TARURA agency, while the
Ministry of Infrastructure, through the Tanzanian National Road Agency (TANROADS,
established in 2000), is responsible for regional and main trunk roads.
The stormwater drainage system that serves part of the city is also used for domestic sewage or
informal garbage disposal.
Regarding the existing drainage network, the most detailed layout is the one downloadable from
the OpenStreetMap (OSM) URLs, whose geo-database has been populated and presently
updated by the Ramani Huria team. Dar es Salaam’s innovative Ramani Huria project (Swahili
for “Open Map”) is a city-wide, community-driven mapping initiative aimed at surveying the
existing drainage systems to better advise the city on flood mitigation.

Figure 3-4 Existing drainage network from the OpenStreetMap geo-database
The Ramani Huria team is working on filling those gaps adding info about culverts, ditches and
drains, but its extent is still limited to a smaller portion of the city as shown on the following Figure.
3.2.1 Flood-Prone Areas
As a general definition “flood plains" or a "flood-prone areas” represent those areas adjoining a
river, stream, water course, ocean, bay or lake which are likely to be covered by floodwaters.
According to a particular definition from the fluvial geomporhology science, a flood-prone area is
an “area bordering a stream that will be covered by stream waters at a flood stage of twice the
maximum bankfull depth flood-prone width (WFP)” and corresponds on average to that area
which becomes flooded by the 50-yr flood (4). Conversely a flood-prone area is defined as
“the stream width at which the discharge level is defined as twice the maximum bankfull depth”.
4 Applied River Morphology, Dave Rosgen, 1996

Figure 3-5. Width of a Flood-Prone Area (Rosgen, 1996).
According to the Section 7 of Tanzania LA (Land Act 1999), among the types of land which can
be considered to be “hazardous land” are included those sixty (60) meters zones within a river
bank, a shoreline on an inland lake, a beach or a coast.
The historically known flood-prone areas in Dar es Salaam have often been recognized to be the
followings:
• Msasani Bonde la Mpunga: Covers an area of 60 ha (mixed residential, commercial &

institutional settlements) that has a great role in drainage system (two main storm water
channels exist). The master plan of 1979 declared this area as hazard land. Factors which
accelerates development of the area are: proximity to the new American embassy, a
referral private hospital, big shopping malls, residences of former senior government
officials. One of the fastest growing settlements in Kinondoni Municipal despite being flood
prone area.
• Msimbazi valley: The area floods frequently but it continues to be populated exposing
residents to life threatening floods and flood related health problems. The influx of people
has been accelerated by number of factors such as easy access to unregulated farming
and building plots, proximity to the city centre, low level of education and low cost housing.
• Jangwani : This is a slum area found on the left hand side of Morogoro road on the way to
city centre from Magomeni. Low lying area which is characterized by floods during rain
season almost every year. The Msimbazi river passes through this valley increasing the
risk of dwellers who are at the mouth of the river. The areas was declared not a residential
by the former Minister for Lands and Human Settlement Development due to its
susceptibility to environment threats.

• City Centre: This is the most flooded area in the city. The problem is exacerbated by poor
infiltration and outdated not-functioning storm water drainage system.
• Mikocheni: The problem has been exacerbated by diversion of natural storm water
drainage channel.
According to the on-site survey from Ramani-Huria team, the following wards have been assessed
in order to map and rank their flood prone areas.
Figure 3-6. Maps of potential inundation areas of Dar es Salaam – Ramani Huria.

KEKO
The stream that drains and cuts across Keko from Nyerere Road in the north to Miburani ward in
the south causes most of the buildings along it to be detrimentally affected by flooding, largely
due to obstructions within the stream. Buildings constructed along the stream and dumped waste
materials have caused further changes in the stream’s, forcing it to overflow during the rainy
seasons.
The same applies to the stream and flood prone area in the eastern part of the ward adjacent to
Kurasini ward. According to community members, floods in Keko have a small impact in terms of
loss of life, but they do often fear the destruction of property. They believe that if waste materials
were removed from the stream and its depth increased, damages could be effectively minimized.
TEMEKE
Compared to the rest of the wards mapped, Temeke is minimally affected by flooding. With three
quarters of the ward area having been planned, drains throughout the ward are well structured
and connected, making the area exceptionally resilient and deeming it's a strong example for
infrastructural improvements across the city.
MABIBO
In Mabibo, parts of the Mabibo Relini and Mabibo Farasi subwards (which are adjacent to Tabata)
are affected by the Kibangu river. The Kibangu river runs through the western, southwestern and
southern parts of the ward, between Ubungo and Mburahati wards, affecting all residential
buildings along the river. The river valley does not contain waste materials that block water, but
many settlements have been built are very close to the river, causing them to flood when the river
overflows during heavy rains.
In Jitegemee subward, two drains that intersect downstream (in Azimio subward) affect the area
during the rainy season as they contain a lot of waste materials and are very shallow. People
living around the area came up with a mechanism for dealing with the situation by dumping waste
material onto the edges of the drains to elevate its walls, thereby increasing depth. This approach
seems to work, but it is an approach that causes health and hygiene concerns and should be
replaced by a better alternative.
MAKURUMLA
With the China river cutting across the ward, most of the buildings along the river are detrimentally
affected by flooding. This is especially true in Kwa Jongo, Mianzini, Sisi kwa Sisi and Kimamba
subwards. The main issue to be addressed to prevent flooding within Makurumla is the improper

dumping of waste materials, causing river water blockage and the redirection of water to flow into
residential areas.
MANZESE
Manzese is intersected by a number of rivers and streams, along with being intersected by
Morogoro road.
As the northern boundary of Manzese is formed by the Ng’ombe river, Chai Bora subward is
heavily affected by the river, including the buildings forming Manzese Secondary School. Mvuleni
and Uzuri subwards are also affected by the Ng’ombe, as well as being affected by the Mbokomu
stream that later joins the Kiboko river, leaving the buildings along its banks at major risk of
flooding.
In the central part of the ward, the Mbokomu river also cuts across and impacts Muungano
subward. In the southern part, Midizini and Mwembeni subwards house a stream that later
connects to the China river in Makurumla.
MBURAHATI
In the southwestern part of the ward, the river stream that forms the wards’ boundary and cuts
across the ward to join Kibangu river affects most of the buildings along the its path. Additionally,
the Kibangu river in the south, coming from Mabibo ward and moving towards Kawawa road, and
the China river in the northeastern part of the ward significantly affect the people living around
these areas. Many settlements have been developed along these rivers, making the properties
and their inhabitants exceptionally vulnerable to the consequences of flooding.
UBUNGO
Most of subwards in Ubungo (except for Chuo Kikuu) suffer from the same issue: a lack of
infrastructure. This is largely evidenced by the limited and often ineffective drainage systems. The
few drains that are there are incapable of redirecting large quantities of water, demonstrated
recently, in May 2016. after two consecutive continuous days of rainfall.
Ubungo’s growing population has led to an increase in demand for housing and for business
areas. Subsequently, citizens have constructed buildings on top of waterways, leading to the
blockage of storm water drains and the overflowing of stormwater during heavy rains. Another
cause of flooding in Ubungo is poor solid waste management, resulting in more blockage within
the drainage system.
BUGURUNI

Buguruni’s northern boundary is formed by Msimbazi river valley, separating Buguruni from
Tabata and Kigogo. This part is where Maruzuku, Kisiwani and Mivinjeni subwards are located,
whereby Maruzuku and Kisiwani are the industrial areas and Mivinjeni is more of residential.
These areas are most affected by flooding whereby the industrial buildings along the river valley
are invaded with floods.
In Mivinjeni, the part affected by flooding from the Msimbazi is mainly used for agriculture as local
farmers grow vegetables and other crops there. In addition to the Msimbazi river valley, a man
made drain that cuts across Mivinjeni also causes floods during rainy season, affecting the
surrounding residential buildings, as the drain gets clogged with waste materials (mostly plastic
bags) when it rains.
For Mnyamani subward, the central part is heavily affected as the area is slightly lower than its
surroundings. Consequently, water flows from surrounding areas and accumulates in the area.
The area is equipped with shallow road drains and ditches, but these are incapable of sufficiently
coping with heavy rains.
Within Madenge and Malapa subwards, the drain on the border with Buguruni arriving from Ilala
ward appears to be a major problem. Though the drain is large and well built, it is still not big
enough to hold and drain water that comes from Madenge and Malapa (in Buguruni) and Mafuriko
subward (in Ilala), hence dispersing water into the neighbouring parts of both Buguruni and Ilala.
ILALA
Much of of Ilala ward is flat terrain, and, although it is largely planned and surveyed, it lacks basic
infrastructure such as drainage systems, causing it to flood easily. The existing drainage channels
do not seem to function well; instead of directing water away from the settlement, they are acting
like holding ponds that receive and keep water in the area. Additionally, there is no connection
between a main water body, like the Msimbazi river, and the few drains that do exist – save for
one connection between the large drain in Mafuriko subward on the boundary between Ilala and
Buguruni. This results in significant flooding of all minor channels.
It is recommended to regularly clean the existing drainage systems and to further expand all
drainage infrastructure to make sure there is a complete water network from the settlement to the
Msimbazi river.
MCHIKICHINI
Mchikichini is an administrative ward in Ilala district in southwestern Dar Es Salaam. Mchikichini

has both planned and unplanned settlement, commercial businesses: like Karume market that

has over 100 traders. Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO) and The Tanzania
Breweries Limited that both employ a big number of people that live in these flood prone areas.
The same people are affected by floods yearly both directly and indirectly including loss and
damage of property.
Mchikichini is badly affected by flooding, with half the area being subject to floods due largely to
the presence of the Msimbazi river valley. Of the three subwards (Misheni Kota, Ilala Kota and
Msimbazi Bondeni), most detrimental effects are felt within Msimbazi Bondeni subward. This is
because most buildings are constructed on lower grounds (valley of the river), hence making them
vulnerable to flooding.
Compared to Msimbazi Bondeni, Misheni Kota and Ilala Kota are less affected because they are
located on higher grounds, better safeguarding them from the consequences of heavy rainfall.
TABATA
With the Msimbazi river valley located to the south of Tabata, parts of the ward, especially
Msimbazi Magharibi, Msimbazi Mama, Mtambani, Matumbi and Mandela subwards, are affected
by floods. Most residential buildings along and within the valley are exceptionally vulnerable to
the point that some have been abandoned by their owners. A decrease in the river depth has
caused the river to expand in width, putting most buildings along its valley at risk. This has been
direct result of local residents engaging in economic activities within the river valley, such as urban
agriculture and sand mining for construction purposes.
Kisiwani subward in northern Tabata is also impacted. Two river streams that run along the
boundaries of the subward cause flooding of residential buildings and further extend damaging
effects to Tabata and Tenge subwards. The shallow depth of the streams appears to be
responsible for said flooding, making them incapable of holding large amounts of water.
VINGUNGUTI
The northern boundary of Vingunguti is formed by the Msimbazi river valley. Most residential
buildings along the river valley are affected by flooding, while Majengo, Kombo and Mji Mpya
subwards are especially vulnerable. The reasons are much the same as for Tabata; a decrease
in river depth due to human economic activities has led to an increase of river width, causing the
river valley to lose holding capacity of water. To prevent damage, local residents of Vingunguti
have engaged in initiatives to clean the river valley.
In addition to the areas affected by the Msimbazi river, buildings around the railway line that
passes through Mtakuja, Mtambani and Faru subwards are often exposed to flooding. This is

mainly due to the fact that the drainage channel constructed along the line does not connect to a
main outlet, causing it to overflow into residential properties and businesses.
HANANASIF
With its southwestern boundary formed by the river Ng’ombe and its southern and southeastern
parts bordering on the Msimbazi river, Hananasif is badly affected by floodwaters. Large parts of
Kawawa and Hananasif subwards are affected by the river Ng’ombe, before it connects to the
Msimbazi river. Additionally, most buildings and other forms of infrastructure are constantly at risk
of flooding due to water draining from Tandale, Makumbusho, Ndugumbi, Magomeni and
Mwananyamala wards.
Both the Mkunguni A and Mkunguni B subwards are adjacent to the Msimbazi river valley, one of
the biggest rivers in Dar es Salaam that carries water from Kisarawe to the Indian Ocean, passing
through Vingunguti, Tabata, Kigogo, Buguruni, Mchikichini, and many other wards on its way.
Therefore, the lower grounds of Mkunguni A and Mkunguni B are heavily affected by strong water
flowing into the Indian Ocean. Because the ward is near the ocean mouth with a mangrove forest,
waste materials carried downstream from other places tend to get caught in the mangrove trees,
effectively blocking water flow. The blocked water then flows back into Mkunguni A and B, causing
further damage.
KIGOGO
Kigogo is surrounded by river valleys on both sides. Historically, Kigogo was not terribly affected
by floods, but flood prone areas are currently expanding at an alarming rate. When Ramani Huria
conducted the opening community forum, one of member of the Kigogo community attested to
this, stating that he had been living in the area since the 1960s without being affected by flooding
like the ward is nowadays. Residents are developing settlements alongside the river valleys where
they are throwing solid waste into waterways, leading to blockages and depth reduction. A lack
of drainage channels to transport water away from the settlement also contributes to Kigogo’s
flood risk during the rainy seasons, exhibiting a growing need for attention to preventative
infrastructure.
MAGOMENI
Large parts of Magomeni are at risk of flooding, especially the areas near the river Ng’ombe and
the Msimbazi river. A large portion of Suna subward is particularly at risk due to it being intersected
by these two rivers in its northern and eastern areas. Insufficient drain capacity, unprotected river
banks, and unplanned construction along the river valley are the main factors that lead to flooding
in these areas. Large water volumes carrying solid waste from upstream parts of Dar es Salaam

are deposited here, and due to this accumulation of waste along the river, there are serious health
concerns for those living in the affected areas in Magomeni.
MAKUMBUSHO
With two rivers forming its western and southern boundaries, Makumbusho is heavily affected by
flooding. A stream in the western part of the ward that flows from Kijitonyama to the Ng’ombe river
in the south exposes Mbuyuni subward to major flood risk.
The Ng’ombe river additionally passes along the boundaries of Sindano, Kisiwani and Mchangani
subwards, guaranteeing impact upon residential buildings along the river banks during the rainy
season.
A central part of the ward around Kisiwani Primary School is also affected by flooding. A lack of
roadside drainage within this area leads to an accumulation of rainwater (and water originating
from broken water pipes) without any means of flowing out. This puts many buildings at risk of
major damage.
MSASANI
A large portion of Msasani is composed of upmarket housing, which is on slightly higher ground
and largely unaffected by flooding. However, much of the western Bonde la Mpunga subward is
affected by flooding.
The name “Bonde la Mpunga” implicates this as well, as it translates to “valley for rice cultivation”.
The combination of construction along natural drains, spread of inorganic solid waste in water
streams (due to inadequate solid waste collection), and a lack of proper drainage channels
capable of draining a large volume of water from the settlement together form a critical problem
here. Expansion of the drainage system within this area, as well as proper solid waste
management and regular drain cleaning, will reduce the impact of floods on this particular
settlement.
MWANANYAMALA
In the northern part of Mwananyamala by the Bwawani subward lies a flood prone area that holds
water. The common floods here detrimentally affect the many buildings of Bwawani, most of which
are residential.
The same occurs in the central part of the ward.With an absence of drainage channels that can
remove water from the area, the water here remains stagnant, affecting the majority of the
residential buildings around it and forming a vector for disease.

In the southern part of the ward, where Mwinjuma subward is located, the river Ng’ombe often
overflows into homes and other buildings in the area when it rains due to its shallow depth.
MZIMUNI
As both the China and Kibangu rivers cut across Mzimuni in the south, where Mtambani and
Mwinyimkuu subwards are located, most of the buildings along these rivers are frequently affected
by flooding during the rainy seasons. The eastern part of the ward, home to Mwinyimkuu and
Idrisa subward, is adjacent to the Msimbazi river, leaving most buildings there at high risk of
flooding.
NDUGUMBI
Ndugumbi’s southern border is formed by Morogoro road, alongside which large drains have been
constructed. More roadside drains are present in the western parts of the ward, but these lack
capacity to transport enough water during the rainy season.
In the north of Ndugumbi, the Ng’ombe river separates the ward from Tandale. This river affects
both wards. In Ndugumbi, Vigaeni, Mikoroshini and Makanya subwards are exceptionally affected
by flooding, putting both residential and commercial properties at risk of damage . The portions
of the ward that require more attention in regard to flood prevention are on lower grounds, while
areas on higher grounds (like those along Morogoro Road) are minimally affected.
TANDALE
This map was updated and improved in spring 2015 using aerial drone imagery collected by our
team. Drains blocked by trash have worsened the situation in these areas, and houses have been
abandoned due to flooding.
In the north, Tandale is bordered by the Ng’ombe river, which forms the boundaries with
Kijitonyama and Magomeni wards. This part of the ward (comprising largely of Mharitan,
Mkunduge and Mtogole subwards) is heavily affected by flooding. The most detrimentally affected
parts are the lower grounds along the river Ng’ombe, while the higher grounds are at very limited
risk.
Pakacha subward of western Tandale is mainly affected by a stream called Kiboko, which drains
the area to join the river Ngo’mbe. The residential buildings along this stream are exceptionally
vulnerable to flooding.
In the southern part of the ward, there is a stream that flows from Pakacha to Sokoni and Tumbo
subwards to join the river Ng’ombe. The stream is man made and has been reinforced with a lot

of packed waste materials along its walls to increase its depth. The height of these materials,
however, rarely suffices, and the stream leaves surrounding buildings inaccessible when it rains.
There have been many initiatives by local residents to clean the stream, and these efforts have
made significant improvements, though often only short-term.
3.2.2 Drainage network plans, studies and projects
3.2.2.1 DMDP - Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage
The most important recent studies and projects on Dar es Salaam’ stormwater catchments and
drainage collection systems is represented by the “Improvement of surface water drainage
systems in Dar es Salaam metropolitan area in support of preparation of the proposed DMDP -
Tender Nº ME/022/2011/20123/C/12” under the Tanzanian Strategic City Project (TSCP).
The Dar es Salaam Metropolitan Development Project (DMDP) is made by seven complementary
Projects or Components, among which is included the improvement of Surface Water Drainage
System (component 1b) in the city and its contiguous Municipalities. Others components include:
improving Public-Private Partnership (PPP); Solid Waste Management (SWM); Local Roads;
Infrastructure Upgrading in Unplanned Settlements; Pre-feasibility Studies of Rail and Marine
Transport; Institutional Review and Strengthening plan.
The component 1b of the DMDP project (Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage) has been
developed into three phases:
• Stage Ia: Pre-feasibility design

• Stage Ib: Feasibility study and Preliminary engineering design
• Stage II: Detailed engineering design
On the pre-feasibility stage (Stage Ia) a drainage plan for Dar es Salaam city was prepared with
a prioritised list of drainage investments (the DLA sub-projects). These studies included the
preparation of hydraulic models and the development of a Drainage Plan for the overall
Metropolitan area of Dar es Salaam. The Drainage Plan identified and prioritized a set of 13 basin
interventions, with the purpose of mitigating and/or preventing serious consequences arising from
regular flooding.
The 1b-component supports the improvement of the existing primary and secondary drainage
system (bank stabilization, retention ponds, connection to the secondary network, etc.) around

the main five river basins of Dar es Salaam: the Sinza (Kinondoni), Msimbazi (Ilala), Gerenzani
Creek (Temeke), Yombo (Ilala and Temeke) and Kizinga (Temeke).
All of the flood control and storm water drainage projects of DMDP component 1b have been
assessed and considered as a consolidated part of the DSDP; therefore, all the DMDP projects
have been included in the multicriteria priority ranking and interventions phasing along with their
financial costs.
Stage Ia: Pre-feasibility design
As an output of the Drainage Plan, a set of interventions were identified and prioritized with the
purpose of mitigating and/or preventing the serious consequences arising from regular flooding.
Rain series have been established based on historical rain data for the period 1955 to 2004
collected at Dar Es Salaam Airport. IDF curves (Intensity – Duration – Frequency curves) have
been calculated from this historical rain data. Six Critical Design Storm (CDS) rains with 2 years,
5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 50 years and 100 years return periods have been established on the
basis of the historical rain data. A climate change factor of 15% was applied to the rainfall
intensities used in the modelling.
The total length of the interventions proposed is approximately 27 km, comprising streams,
channels or underground pipes, and have an estimated construction cost of USD 67,400,000.
The proposed interventions involve both the primary drainage network (main rivers/streams) and
the secondary artificial networks and have been classified as priority 1 or 2 schemes.
Within the hydraulic analysis carried out, the capacity of about 26 main crossings/ bridges and
culverts have been examined and almost 50% of those were assessed as being undersized for
return periods of 25 and 50 years.
Six detention ponds were proposed for reducing the flow for the downstream infrastructure and/or
to avoid the increase of natural flows expected due to the future growth of the city. Ponds have
been foreseen on Basins:
• 03 (Tegeta)
• 04 (Mbezi)
• 07 (Sinza)
• 10 (Gerezani Creek)
• 11 (Yombo)

The proposed detention ponds have been located in those areas (prone to detaining water as
natural depressions) without any edification (on latest satellite images of Google Earth.
Some of the proposed projects on Stage Ia were developed up to the detailed design phase
(Stage II).
3.3 Existing Sanitation Facilities
The field information gathered from Dar es salaam Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWASA)
shows there are four areas of Sanitation that being handled by the entity;
1. Wastewater management
2. Faecal sludge treatment
3. Existing Sewerage systems
4. Future wastewater projects
DAWASCO operates on the daily wastewater sampling, collection, treatment, revenue collection
and disposal and makes routine maintenance where possible.
For the case of wastewater management: only off-site wastewater management which includes
existing 8 ponds and sewerage networks. The mode of treatment is only biological means no
chemical treatment is involved. The faecal sludge is also collected by tankers which collects from
households and transported to the waste stabilization ponds for the same treatment.
Both of these ponds receive wastewater from the households, industries and hospitals.
About 10% of the population is served by sewers.
The sewerage system of DSM is a collection of small independent drainage areas rather than a
fully integrated network, the system is based on a separate system with a combination of gravity
and pumped flows, comprising approximately of 205km of 100 to 1000 mm diameter pipes
covering a total area of almost 1700 ha with adequate access manholes. These sewers discharge
their effluent into oxidation ponds, streams and directly into the sea.
3.3.1 Existing Sewage Pumping Stations
The existing sewerage systems served by 13 pump stations, 9 systems discharging into waste
stabilization ponds and the remaining which serving the City Center, Kariakoo, Upanga and
Muhimbili, discharges directly into the Indian Ocean through.

The public sewer systems in Dar es Salaam were constructed in between 1948 and 1950. The
Mikocheni sewer system is the only one that was constructed after the independence (1961); this
was constructed in 1976. The Mikocheni public sewer is also dilapidated the same due to poor
construction. Generally, the public sewer in Dar es Salaam is more than 48 years old. These
sewers provide services to only 7% of the Dar es Salaam residents. The rest of the residents
(93%) use on site disposal services such as septic tank system and pit latrines.
The existing separate sewerage system of DSM is a collection of small scattered and independent
drainage areas, combined by gravity pipes and pumped flows. About 10% of the population is
served by sewers.
The overall sewer system is made of about 167 kilometers of sewers with pipe diameter ranging
between 100 millimeters for arterials and up to 1,000 millimeters for trunk sewers, and 2,967
manholes connected to the central business department (CBD) sewerage system.
The CDB system discharges the wastewater to the ocean through a sea outfall at Magogoni front,
or to one of 9 decentralized wastewater stabilization ponds. The sewerage serviced zone does
not exceed 1,700 ha (1.13% of total DSM Region) and includes the areas reported in following
table (Source: DAWASA website: http://dawasa.go.tz/facilities/sewerage-system/).
The existing sewerage systems is equipped with 15 pump stations (SPS): 9 SPS discharge into
waste stabilization ponds while the others 6 SPSs, which are serving the City Center, Kariakoo,
Upanga and Muhimbili, discharge wastewaters directly into the Indian Ocean.
The field information gathered during the interview from Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage
Authority (DAWASA) shows there are four areas of Sanitation that being handled by the authority;
Wastewater management
Faecal sludge treatment
Existing Sewerage systems
Future wastewater projects
DAWASCO operates on the daily wastewater sampling, collection, treatment, revenue collection
and disposal and makes routine maintenance where possible.
The wastewater management is only off-site and includes 9 existing ponds and sewerage
networks. The mode of treatment is only biological means no chemical treatment is involved. The
faecal sludge is also collected by tankers which collects from households and transported to the
waste stabilization ponds for the same treatment.

These WSP receive wastewater from the households, industries and hospitals.
1. Kurasini WSP
• maximum capacity of 44.5 l/s
• served area: Police Force.
2. Mikocheni/Msasani WSP:
• maximum capacity of 105 l/s
• served areas: Regent Estate, Mikocheni and Kijitonyama.
3. Lugalo WSP:
• served areas: Lugalo barracks.
4. Vingunguti WSP
• served areas: serving the industries along Nyerere Road and Tazara housing
estate and station.
5. Buguruni WSP
• served areas: parts of the residential areas along dual carriage way portion of
Uhuru street in Buguruni.
6. Airwing WSP
• served area: airport.
7. Ukonga WSP
• served area: prison.
8. University WSP
• served area: University College.
9. Ubungo - Mabibo WSP
• served area: industries, institutions and residential areas between Morogoro
Road and Mandela Road in Ubungo Road.
The following map shows the location of wastewater stabilization ponds (WSP) and distribution
of sewerage facilities in Dar es Salaam city.

The Existing Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP) are shown below along with the distribution of
sewerage facilities in Dar es Salaam city.
Figure 3-7. Existing wastewater treatment ponds and sewerage collection areas in Dar es Salaam.
In Kigamboni the sewerage system must also be built from scratch, as no existing pipe or pond is
located in the district. Data for the provisional dimensions of the sewage system include the
population projection (500,000 people), the estimation of industrial wastewater and the
percentage of water accounted for in the sewage system (8%). Two treatment plants are planned
to treat a daily sewage output of 140,000 m3/day (including industrial wastewater).
3.4 Faecal Sludge Management
The faecal sludge is collected by tankers which collects from households and transported to the
waste stabilization ponds for the treatment.
Results indicated that over 80% the city population of the dwellers are using pit-latrines; some 3%
use septic tanks with soakage pits, about 6% are connected to the sewerage system, and 1%
have no excreta disposal facility. Difficulties faced include poor budget allocations, fragmentation

of sanitation activities among subsectors, lack of or poor sanitation record keeping, unsatisfactory
machinery for septic tank and pit-latrine emptying, lack of a clear policy on pit-latrine handling
and, in competition for resources, low priority is accorded to an excreta disposal system among
the people. City residents will continue to use the pit-latrines for a long time to come. Reusing the
fecal sludge is not known by most city dwellers and is influenced by sociocultural habits. To
prevent groundwater pollution and to recover useful products in human excreta and urine,
ecological sanitation toilets and anaerobic digesters offer a good option.
Good example in Kigamboni
In Dar es Salaam, recycling of bio waste is done only by Ilala Municipality with the help of a
German organization called Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association
(BORDA).
Currently Kigamboni has no communal sewage treatment plant for treatment and disposal of
wastewater generated in the area. The majority of households in Kigamboni are using on-site
sanitation facilities such as pit latrines, which need regular emptying, treatment and final disposal
of the treated water. Timely and effective delivery of these services is especially important during
the rainy season, when pit latrines can overflow and create health risks for residents and the
environment. In 2012, BORDA began construction of a faecal sludge treatment plant (FSTP) in
Kigamboni, Dar es Salaam. A local entrepreneur delivers faecal sludge to the plant via his Sludge-
Go collection service connecting pits, tanks and treatment. In the city’s tightly packed
neighborhoods, workers arrive “on demand” at homes to pump empty the pit latrines and tanks.
The treated sludge is sold as fertiliser; the treated water is used to irrigate a banana plantation.
The FSTP comprises a biogas digester (BGD), an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR), a sludge
drying bed (SDB), a French drain and a fish pond.
Wastewater from pit latrines and other sources is poured into the BGD, whose main functions are
to retain big particles and trap the produced biogas. The biogas is used by the family living at the
premises for cooking or heating purposes. The settler is connected to the ABR which provides
further treatment of the wastewater and also acts as an expansion chamber for the BGD. The
ABR is connected to the French drain which is surrounded by banana plants. The biogas digester
is also connected to the SDB whereby stabilized sludge from the bottom of the digester is drained,
dried and subsequently used as fertilizer for the banana plantation. The system is designed to
work via gravity flow and does not require any electrical energy or chemicals.

3.5 Solid Waste Management
With the reference to the State of the Environment Report - 2008, Tanzania, it was stated that
Solid waste Management (SWM) has been a big problem in municipal centers in Dar es Salaam.
Different study had been done for provision of the awareness of the solid waste problem in the
surroundings. It was informed by Jones and Mkoma, 2013, that, the challenge of SWM began to
worsen in the mid-1980s’ when generally social service delivery started to deteriorate. Several
reasons have been given for the continued deterioration of the waste management situation in
the Dar-es-Salaam City among them being the extremely rapid growth of the city population which
is resulting from up country immigration, the ever-growing high population density and unplanned
human settlements. It has been a challenge to most part of the city on management of solid waste
in the city because of the increase rate of population.
The information provided by Palfreman, 2011, showed that, the seriousness of the solid waste
management situation in Dar es Salaam has continued to be worsening in spite of the
Government efforts to try to solve it through administrative reforms. In 1994 the Government made
reforms by liberalizing the function of waste collection to private campaigns. The reforms initially
resulted into positive effect in solid waste collection. Due to these reforms it is estimated that solid
waste collection increased from less than 5% in 1992 to nearly 40% in 2000 and together with
this about 50% of the entire solid waste of about 2500 tones generated per day was being
managed (Palfreman, 2011)
By that time the liberalization of the solid waste management went hand in hand with the
subdivision of Dar es Salaam administrative responsibilities for solid waste management into
three municipalities – Kinondoni, Temeke and Ilala Municipal Councils and the Dar es Salaam
City Council as the lead partner. The private sector in the form of private companies Community
Based Organization (CBOs), Non-Government Organization (NGO) and Community groups were
contracted/engaged in the solid waste management business (Palfreman, 2011). This situation
was so helpful to make sure the problem of solid waste in the city is solved.
The existing regulations have given specifications for the types of refuse storage containers/dust
bins, but these have been difficult to adhere to due to the unavailability, their costs and security,
as many of them are stolen and sold as scrap metals. As a result, many households have been
using out of standard containers for the storage of their refuse, ranging from salvaged drums/tins,
paper bags, plastic paper bags, jute bags, sacks, or even just being thrown on the bear ground,
thus making it difficult for its collection, and hence its accumulation in their vicinity.

The current waste generation rate is ca. 1.0 kg/person/day (2012). The city currently generates
4,252 tons of waste per day from the following sectors (source: Director’s Ofﬁce Dar es Salaam
City Council – Environment Management Department, 2014):
Household 3,104 t/d

Commercial 223 t/d
Institution 20 t/d
Market 281 t/d
Street 5 t/d
Others 621 t/d
Kitchen waste 39%

Textile 5%
Glass and wood 10%
Metal 5%
Ceramic and stone 6%
Paper 8%
Plastic 16%
Leather and rubber 6%
Glass 2%
Others 3%
Figure 3-8. Solid wastes production and composition in Dar es Salaam.
Administratively the responsibility for SWM system in Dar es Salaam has been vested to three
municipals: Ilala, Kinondoni, and Temeke municipal councils and Dar es Salaam city council as
the lead partner. The collection of solid wastes in Dar es Salaam is conveyed by MCPs, private
companies, Non-Government Organization (NGO), Community Based Organization (CBOs), and
the informal sector.
Currently, the solid wastes collection coverage is approximately 50% and unsorted, but in the city
market (Kariakoo) biodegradable waste is collected separately. The little recycling and
composting of biodegradable waste are carried out, which has a rapidly decreasing residual
capacity of waste amount by 50%.
The collection is carried out in daily or weekly basis and the final disposal of waste from all over
the city takes place at Pugu Kinyamwezi dump site located 30 km from the city centre. Solid
wastes are disposed in an open dump without any engineered safety feature: no base liner,
leachate and gas collection, soil cover, embankments and fence. The current disposal practices

are unhygienic and posing serious threat to risk occupational safety, environment and public
health.
It has been a habit in which now days the rivers and the drainage systems are used as illegal
dumping sites for solid waste, a situation common in areas of high population density that lack
solid waste management systems. The 4 major rivers; Mpiji River, Msimbazi River, Kizinga River
and Mzinga River discharge their waters into the Indian Ocean carrying loads of domestic solid
waste that are usually dumped by city residents in the poor settlement areas. The waste pollutes
beaches and likely harm marine life (Lukambuzi, 2006 – unpublished).
3.5.1 Waste Generation Projections
Realistic projections of waste generation are required to adequate plan/size the individual
components of the waste management system. From initial draft report of solid waste
management for preparation of DMDP the following table is explaining the increase of solid waste
from 2013-2022. The following were the assumption made to project this solid waste generation;
a 2013 waste generation rate of 4,200t/d; a slight fall in projected population growth rate as
indicated in Table 2 below; estimated variations of per person waste generation rates based on
GDP/wealth Increase and estimated increases in material recovery rates over the forecast period.
Aspect Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Waste
Generation
Annual % 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Rate of
increase
Total t/da 4,200 4,326 4,499 4,679 4,819 4,964 5,113 5,266 5,424 5,587
Waste y
Generated
Temeke t/da 27% 1,124 1,158 1,204 1,252 1,290 1,329 1,368 1,409 1,452 1,495
y
Kinondoni t/da 48% 2,001 2,061 2,144 2,229 2,296 2,365 2,436 2,509 2,585 2,662
y
Ilala t/da 26% 1,075 1,107 1,151 1,197 1,233 1,270 1,308 1,348 1,388 1,430
y
Population 4.54 4.72 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.14 6.38
in million
Total/perso t/da 0.925 0.917 0.918 0.917 0.909 0.903 0.897 0.893 0.883 0.876
n/day y
Table 3-3: . Waste Generation Estimates 2013 – 2022
3.5.2 Solid Waste Collection and the transportation
A reliable municipal solid waste collection and transportation system is a cornerstone for good
quality waste management services. With vehicle capital costs around US$100,000 and collection

operating costs approaching 50% of overall municipal budgets, an efficient and cost-effective
collection and transportation system have to be a principle focus of solid waste management
planning (Breeze, 2012).
During the mission, it became clear that neighborhoods waste collection systems are established
and operated based on neighborhoods preference and past experience. “One size fits all” does
not apply to the Dar es Salaam waste collection system. Currently, the collection of solid wastes
is carried out in daily or weekly basis and the final disposal of waste from all over the city takes
place at Pugu Kinyamwezi dump site.
On the other hand, there is a small part of these solid wastes like plastic and glass wastes which
are collected and recycled for the other uses. It has been estimated that less than 40% of the
solid waste generated in the city is collected for recovery or disposal. The remainder of
unmanaged solid wastes is illegally dumped in drains, rivers or by the road side. This results in
increased flooding during the rainy season, risk of malaria carrying mosquitoes and greenhouse
gas emissions as well as pollution of water bodies.
Improper management of these wastes results in various draw back in the community. Blockage
of drainage channels due to haphazard dumping of solid waste is a major problem reported to
contribute to the problem of flooding in Dar es Salaam. This situation led the local government to
convince the local community to cooperate in solid waste management initiatives. Local
Government efforts helped the establishment of the community association and other non-
Governmental organizations.
According to the information provided by the Breeze, 2012, Table 2 shows the estimated tons of
waste generated by each of the three Dar es Salaam Local Authorities and the actual amounts
collected. Much of the waste quantities that are not collected are from unplanned areas of the
city. Introducing collection to these unplanned areas is a challenge given the lack of local
awareness, institutional capacity, funds and the condition of area roads for collection vehicles.
Municipality Amount Generated Amount Collected Collection Rate

(Tons) (Tons) (%)
Ilala 1,100 430 39
Temeke 1,035 280 27
Kinondoni 2,026 823 41
total 4,161 1,533 37
Table 3-4: . Solid Waste Generated and Collected [Source: DSM City Development Projects 2011, Waste
Management Projects Proposals]

3.5.3 Solid Waste Disposal and disposal site
Solid waste disposing of require a great care for Solid waste is currently legally disposed of to
only one disposal site; Pugu Dump Site located about 30 km south west from the City center.
There are also numerous illegal disposal sites throughout the region where waste is dumped in
small or large quantities without the required permission. In many cases such waste washes into
the drains and waterways (rivers) if it is not removed by the respective Local Governmental
Authority prior to being washed from the dumping area. Collected waste from all LGAs is
transported to the Pugu Kinyamwezi site either by compactor truck, tip truck, trailer
container/tractor, skips, or large and small ridged trucks where is it dumped at the respective
dump area, spread out and compacted by a compactor, bulldozer.
In some point some amount of Solid wastes is disposed of in an open dump without any
engineered safety features like lack of; base liner, leachate and gas collection, soil cover,
embankments and fence. The current disposal practices are unhygienic and posing serious threat
to risk occupational safety, environment and public health.
3.5.4 Problems facing collection and transportation of waste in urban areas
1) The commonest problems facing collection and transportation of waste in urban areas are the
high operational costs. High operational costs can be attributed to poor choice of vehicles, the
distance from the collection point to the disposal site. Other factors leading to poor Solid Waste
collection and transportation are inaccessibility to some of the localities, poor condition of Solid Waste
Collection Vehicles, improper planning of collection routes and frequencies, lack of supervision,
unfaithful and poorly motivated workers and unawareness of the people in problem of solid waste.
2) Furthermore, The City's urban settlements have rapidly increased especially in unplanned areas
such as Mbagala, Vingunguti, Kimara, Mbezi, Bunju and Gongo la Mboto. In these areas houses are
built without regulated water or Surface Water Drainage Systems. Also, the City lacks drainage
infrastructure in place, and for the present drains are informally being used for dumping waste
resulting to severely impairing its performance. The existing drainage networks are now old,
undersized or partially blocked. This has exposed the settlements and other parts of the city to severe
flooding during rain seasons
3.5.5 Solid wastes effects on drainage networks
The Dar es Salaam City Council indicate that out of the 825 km of installed drains, only 422 km
are reputed to be in good condition (around 51%). In fact, there is frequent clogging of drains due
to poor maintenance and insufficient protection from silt, solid waste and/or construction debris.

The storm water drainage system that serves part of the city is also used for domestic sewage or
informal garbage disposal. The existing storm water drainage is in very poor condition due to lack
of engineered storm water drainage in many places.
The impacts of solid wastes disposed of to the drainage networks are so many. The incidence of
illegal dumping is greatest in the unplanned areas of the city where collection service is poor or
doesn’t exist. The following are the highlighted problems posed by solid wastes in drainage
systems;
Flooding effects appear due to uncollected wastes often end up in drains, causing blockages
which result in flooding and unsanitary conditions. This has been a problem which is contributed
by poor solid waste management in the drainage network. Presence of solid wastes in the network
reduce the size of the drainage and block the culverts and this leads to the storm water flow
prevention which result into flood to the settlement areas
Water bodies’ pollution happens after transportation of solid wastes to the water body like sea/
ocean rise the pollution level of water as there are different waster ends there. On the other hand,
the washing out of the wastes leads to land and water pollution and results into destruction of
ecosystem
Outbreak of diseases; Stagnation of storm water and waste water in drainage network due to
solid wastes accumulation resulting to the outbreak of diseases like Malaria, cholera and other
animal borne diseases and respiratory illness. this is because stagnated water acts like breeding
site and habitat for the vectors. Mosquitoes breed in blocked drains and in rainwater that is
retained in discarded cans, tires and other objects. Mosquitoes spread disease, including malaria
and dengue.
Furthermore, there are many rivers and channels which are highly affected by solid wastes are
known as flood prone areas, for example; Msasani Bonde la Mpunga, Msimbazi valley, Jangwani.
City Centre and Mikocheni
3.5.6 Identified problems of drainage systems in Dar es salaam
According to the information from Ramani Huria and informations collected after site visiting, many
areas are suffering from the flooding threats. For example, lack of drainage network in Tandale
causes the floods and also the poorly planned structures/ buildings which are closely built next to
another trapping the constant flow of water to bigger water channels. Stagnant contaminated
water has found its homes in Tandale. in addition to that, the road surfaces are ground and muddy
trapping water instead of leading it to major water streams.

Figure 3-9. Stagnation in drainage channel at Tandale.
Constant blockages of drains in Tandale have also become contributors of floods in case the rains
are heavy. The Lack of proper disposal points of plastic material and paper bags in conjunction
with loose eroded soils from unpaved roads. This and more, yet to be discovered have made
Tandale a water-logged area which may become a breeding area for numerous water borne
diseases like Typhoid, Cholera and Diarrhea caused by poor sanitation structures and behaviors
Water stagnation due to solid waste accumulation
According to the study on the Solid Waste Management preparation under the DMDP, it is clear
that improper waste disposal, together with the insufficient storm water drainage infrastructure
and the unplanned urban development, should be considered one of the major contributors to
flooding events, since the considerable amounts of waste scattered along the existing drains and
water courses block the storm water natural flow routes.

Figure 3-10. Solid waste in the river bottom and banks along the Sinza River.
The dumping of solid waste into the storm water drainage infrastructure is a widespread practice
throughout the study area, especially through the informal settlements where the absence of wide
roads compounds the issue by making access for collection difficult. In some regularly flooded
areas such as Sinza River, the population uses the compacted solid waste as a protection barrier
to deviate the flow from their houses/properties
Culvert obstruction by solid wastes
According to the on-site survey, the following were the situations observed. In Kinondoni
Municipal, crossing between Kawawa road and Ubungo river basin, the Box with two cells
Roadway crossing different type of wastes were observed that completely block the river flow at
the crossing, both upstream and downstream.

Figure 3-11. Disposed solid wastes in the river channel and the culvert in Ubungo river
This situation was also observed in crossing between Kawawa road and Sinza River. The wastes
were observed that completely block the river flow at the crossing, and the same condition were
observed on both upstream and downstream of the culvert
Figure 3-12. Disposed wastes in the river channel and the crossing between Kawawa road and Sinza
River
Accumulation of the river bed by solid wastes

In the other river, for example Sinza River, the general condition of the site shown that, this is one
of the flooding risk area. Presence of debris, garbage and other solid wastes on the embankment
and the urban informal settlements were in worse situation. These solid wastes were observed
along the river bends that obstruct and deviated the river flow.
Figure 3-13. Accumulation of solid wastes in the Sinza river bed
Sedimentation of the river bed
During the survey in Temeke Municipal, the Roadway culvert crossing with two cells between
Road and Kizinga River in Yombo Basin was observed. There were severe obstructions were
observed caused by sediments and wastes of all types at crossing from both upstream and
downstream of the culvert and the section of the section was almost obstructed.

Figure 3-14. Obstruction of the crossing culvert by the sediments and the other solid wastes
3.6 Urban Planning
The most important data collected derive from the new Dar es Salaam City Master Plan (2016-
2036) presented by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development Minister
on 27th July 2018 but still on the approval stage for implementation.
The last Master Plan of the city of Dar es Salaam was prepared in 1979 for a period of twenty
years up to 1999. Due to rapid growth of the city, new challenges emerged and the understanding
of the old premises also changed. The preparation of the new Dar es Salaam Master Plan, thus,
aims at enhancing the plan‟s responsiveness to changes in the social, economic and physical
environment.
The Master plan proposes phasing of the future urban development to facilitate a better
management of the process. The proposal identifies three phases:
According to the new Urban MP the preferred alternative scenario of development is called
‘‘Alternative Four: A Hybrid Model – Compact Combined with Decentralization of Development to
existing Satellite Towns beyond the City’’.

Figure 3-15. Future Land use map. Alternative 4 new Urban Master Plan (2016-2036)
The compact growth strategy is not mutually exclusive of any of the two other alternative growth
plans. It can be equally implemented alongside the concentric growth strategy and equally so
alongside the satellite towns strategy. Therefore, a hybrid model combining the compact with
decentralisation of development to existing Satellite Towns beyond the City has been selected.
The hybrid model is anchored on the following three key strategies:
1) Create a compact city through densification and urban infill;

2) Introduce a concentric Green belt around the city to limit sprawl into peripheral land. It is
noted that there are still vast vacant or sparsely developed pockets within the current city
fabric, which could yield more with densification and infill. This has succeeded in many
developed and Third World mega cities. Here strict planning conditions must be enforced
to ensure conservation of agricultural land for the production of food that will feed the city
and provide nutrition. The Green Belt should be used for agriculture; city parks,
recreational open spaces and camping grounds that are in little supply in the current city;
3) Decentralise growth of Dar es Salaam city to the satellite towns of Bagamoyo, Kibaha,
Kisarawe and Mkuramga, which will have to be re-planned and expanded to absorb some
of the expected increase in population and economic activities of Dar es Salaam city,

consistent with the emerging metropolitan characteristics of the Dar es Salaam City and
its impact region. Future plans for the physical and socio-economic development of the
city and its administration will thus take a metropolitan perspective.
Sanitation
The Ministry of Water and Irrigation in their “Special programme for improvement of water supply
and sewerage services in Dar es Salaam 2011-2013” specified „expansion of the sewerage
system‟ as one of the action plans of the programme. Planned extension of network was expected
to cover most parts of the City Centre. The programme also lined for an increase in sewerage
connections from 24,000 to 50,000 by 2015 increasing capacity from 38 to 68 million litres per
day. Three additional sewage treatment plants were proposed.

4 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL MEASURES FOR

STORMWATER DRAINAGE

4.1 Strategy of Stormwater Drainage Design
According to the current layout of the city, Dar es Salaam’ built environment is made of 70-80%
of informal settlements and urban slums situated in marginal areas at the risk of flash flooding.
Therefore, this particular configuration requires a special attention on the choice of the structural
solutions in the flood-prone areas.
For the development of a drainage plan, a considerable amount of physical data is required, but
these data may be scarce, especially in informal unplanned settlements. In such cases, the
community can help by describing where major flood problems occur and providing information
about previous floods. This is the case of the Ramani-Huria’s community-based mapping project
that began in Dar es Salaam in 2014, training university students and local community members
to create highly accurate maps of the most flood-prone areas of the city.
Community members will also be important sources of information in confirming where the
drainage problems are worst, and in helping develop a drainage plan that is accepted by the
community and one in which community members will play their role in maintaining the system
and keeping it clear from blockages.
Run-off during storm events from informal settlements is perceived to often be lower than would
be expected under similar conditions for well planned/engineered city areas. This is due to a lack
of surfacing (which results in higher depression storage and greater infiltration) and to the
unfinished stormwater drainage system which ponds considerable amount of storm runoff in local
areas.
Moreover, as paving and drainage system are improved as part of urban upgrading, runoff
inevitably increases, which may exacerbate downstream drainage problems and lead to
increased flooding.
The main key criteria for the choice and design of a drainage system are discussed below (5).
• Flood Return Period. The return period of flooding is the most important parameter used
for design of urban drainage systems for flood protection. It determines both the hydraulic
gradeline for operation and the size of drains, and subsequently the costs of infrastructure.
5Parkinson, Jonathan & Tayler, Kevin & Mark, Ole. (2007). Planning and design of urban drainage systems in informal
settlements in developing countries. Urban Water Journal - URBAN WATER J. 4. 137-149.
10.1080/15730620701464224

The choice of return period depends upon the land use and the potential consequences
of flooding. In theory, designs should take into consideration that the frequency of flooding
is based upon perceptions of local communities to flood risks, but in practice although
some projects consult community remembers to help understand problems and find out
where the serious problems are, there is generally little attempt to change the
recommended return period. As many communities are accustomed to flooding as a part
of daily life during the season, they may have lower expectations of return period and may
accept flooding on the streets, as long time as it does not create serious damage. The key
point is that removing flooding completely may be impossible without high
expenditure and demolition of properties, neither of which may be possible.
Therefore, drainage planning in informal settlements is often the ‘art of the possible’.
Another important consideration for the capacity of drainage conduits is the build-up of
sediment and solid waste. The concept of self-cleansing velocity, which is commonly used
in engineering designs for channels and pipes, is used to reduce sedimentation in the
drainage system. However, in reality very few drains are self-cleansing due to the
excessive solids loading and long dry periods – especially in developing countries.
Because of this, many cities clean up the drainage systems just before the onset of the
wet season.
• Combined versus separate systems. Often the wastewater is discharged to the stormwater
system, as separate sewers rarely exist in informal settlements. Therefore, it is common
practice for residents to dispose of wastewater and make connections from household
sanitation into the storm drains. It is therefore inevitable that the stormwater drainage
system will be used for the disposal of wastewater, which will enter the natural
watercourses without any form of treatment. The most important consideration is to
reduce the inflow of excreta – particularly faeces, which contains the bulk of organic
load as well as the majority of pathogens, and therefore reduce the flow of the
resultant pollutant load and pathogens into the stormwater system. This emphasises
the importance of the sanitation component of urban upgrading projects.
• Drainage System Typology. Stormwater drains may be ‘open’ or ‘closed’ and closed
systems may consist of pipes or drains with cover slabs. The majority of existing drains in
informal areas are open, but some drains may be covered or replaced by piped sewers.
Upgrading projects may provide drains, sewers or, in some cases, both. Thus, in reality,
systems are often a combination of both and - even in one street, some sections of drain
will be covered, while other sections will remain open. Surface drains are generally easier
and cheaper to construct compared to buried pipe systems. This is particularly the case
when dealing with large stormwater discharges and in cases where land subsidence is a

problem. Open drains are less prone to blockages than pipes because the flow can
flow over the top of the obstruction and are easier to inspect and access for removal
of debris. Furthermore, when drainage problems occur, it is easier to identify and
rectify the location of the problem in an open drainage system. However, if the
surface drains are open, they often act as recipients of solid waste dumped by local
residents, which may reduce the flow capacity. In addition:
➢ They are not as hygienic as closed drains and may smell.
➢ Children may fall into them or play next to or in them.
➢ They may provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes
• Roads and paving. Traditionally, the tendency has been to pave/rebuild roads by building
on top of the previous road surface. This tends to create a situation in which road surfaces
are above house plinth levels, so that any flooding affects houses rather than public rights
of way. Raised streets may also obstruct runoff and impound floodwater on private
property. To overcome this, it is important to design road levels as low as possible. It is
important that roads are not constructed in a way that fills in and builds upon existing
drainage channels or constructed on elevated embankments, which cause floodwaters to
be impounded and the road surfacing should be seen as an integral part of the drainage
system – especially where the road itself is designed as a drainage conduit.
4.2 Considerations from Urban Master Plan - Managing Storm Water by 2036
The Community Infrastructure Upgrading Programme (CIUP) is upgrading and extending

drainage infrastructure in upgraded settlements. If growth were to continue exponentially without
any regulations of typology of development or drainage infrastructure upgrading programmes;
overland flows would be expected to similarly increase alongside risks of flooding. Network
extension programmes are also conducted regularly by TANROADS as part of road upgrading
programmes however; these stand-alone projects do not appear to be part of a comprehensive
citywide drainage strategy. The responsibility for flooding is shared between TANROADS, local
communities, the City Council and the Wami-Ruvu Basin authority with critical meteorological
data being provided by the Tanzania Meteorological Agency and private owners of rain gauges.
Significant reduction in the exposure to flood risk and improvements to the management of storm
water could be achieved by consolidating the roles and responsibilities and allocating the
responsibility for flood risk management and protection to one authority. Land development
regulations must also be detailed and enforced more effectively and should specify required
percentages of natural draining areas. The requirement for new or upgraded drainage

infrastructure associated to any new development should be considered as part of the planning
approval process, and development should not be allowed to progress without an accompanying
plan for surface water management and safe discharge.
4.3 Update of Hydrology Analysis
As relevant source of flooding the following causes can be considered.
• Fluvial: Flooding of land by waters originating from part of a natural drainage system,
including natural or modified drainage channels. This source could include flooding from
rivers, streams, drainage channels, mountain torrents and ephemeral watercourses, lakes
and floods arising from snow melt.
• Pluvial: Flooding of land directly from rainfall water falling on, or flowing over, the land.
This source could include urban storm water, rural overland flow or excess water, or
overland floods arising from snowmelt.
• Groundwater: Flooding of land by waters from underground rising to above the land
surface. This source could include rising groundwater and underground flow from elevated
surface waters.
• Sea Water: Flooding of land by water from the sea, estuaries or coastal lakes. This source
could include flooding from the sea (e.g., extreme tidal level and / or storm surges) or
arising from wave action or coastal tsunamis.
• Artificial Water-Bearing Infrastructure: Flooding of land by water arising from artificial,
water-bearing infrastructure or failure of such infrastructure. This source could include
flooding arising from sewerage systems (including storm water, combined and foul
sewers), water supply and wastewater treatment systems, artificial navigation canals and
impoundments (e.g., dams and reservoirs).
• Other: Flooding of land by water due to other sources, can include other tsunamis.
In Dar es Salaam a mix of the above issues can be present at times. But since most of the
available data collected are related to the rain water, the update of the studies regarding the
hydrology (rainfall data analysis) has been considered as the unique resource.
4.3.1 Available rainfall data
The following rainfall stations of the Tanzania Meteorological Acency (TMA) network are located
in the area of interest:

Dar es Salaam - Julius Nyerere International Airport (JNIA);

Dar es Salaam Laboratory,
Ubungo Maji,
Dar es Salaam Port.
For these stations, monthly rainfall data (from the TMA) are available, respectively for the periods:
1980-2013; 1978-2008; 1980-2009; 1984-2013.
Daily rainfall records are available for the period 1958-2018 only for the Dar es Salaam - JNIA
station. In particular, these records stem from three different data sources:
1958 – 1979: US NOAA (National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration)6;

1980 – 2018: ISLSCP II (International Satellite Land-Surface Climatology project,
Initiative II)7;
2013 – 2017: TMA (Tanzania Meteorological Acency).
Data provided by the US NOAA appear complete: missing daily values are extremely limited; on
the other hand, daily rainfall data from 1980 to 2018 appear much more fragmentary. In addition,
an analysis of data from the ISLSCP II database has shown considerable inconsistencies in the
daily peak values that have suggested discarding them from further consideration.
For this reason, IDF’s calibration is based on the dataset that contains US NOAA’S registrations,
for the period 1958-1979, and TMA’s registrations, for the period 2013-2017.
Table 4-1 summarizes lists the available data, their sources, their time scale and record length.
Stations Years and data sources Years of observation Time scale
Dar es Salaam - Julius

Nyerere International • 1958 – 1979 (US
NOAA). 27 Daily
Airport (JNIA)
• 2013 – 2017 (TMA).
Dar es Salaam - Julius
Nyerere International • 1980-2013 (TMA). 34 Monthly
Airport (JNIA)
https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcnprcpall.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=TZ000063894&STATION=DAR_ES_SALA
AM_AIRPO&extraargs=
7
https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcnprcpall.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=TZ000063894&STATION=DAR_ES_SALA
AM_AIRPO&extraargs=

Dar es Salaam Laboratory,

• 1978-2008 (TMA). 31 Monthly
Ubungo Maji,
• 1980-2009 (TMA). 29 Monthly
Dar es Salaam Port.

• 1984-2013 (TMA). 30 Monthly
Table 4-1:Rainfall data available.
For the above reasons, the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (IDF) were calibrated solely for
the Dar es Salaam-JNIA station. As well known, IDFs provide rainfall intensity for a given
frequency (return period) for sub-daily duration periods such as 1h, 3h, 6h, 12h, and 24 h.
Calibration requires long records of maxima for the given duration. As no hourly rainfall data are
available, hourly data were obtained from daily records by means of a disaggregation procedure.
4.3.2 Hourly Disaggregation of Daily Rainfall Data
The disaggregation procedure employed is HyetosMinuteR8, a freeware package for stochastic

disaggregation of fine-scale rainfall, i.e. from daily down to 1-hour (Kossieris et al, 2016)9 based
on the Bartlett-Lewis rectangular pulse model (Koutsoyiannis et al.,2016). The package
comprises various variants of the Bartlett-Lewis model. The disaggregation model implemented
is the random version of the Bartlett-Lewis rectangular pulse model with exponential intensities.
Model calibration requires the use of hourly rainfall data for the Dar es Salaam rain gauge station
area, but it was not possible to obtain such data from TMA. We, therefore, opted for the use of
semi-hour-scale rain data from NASA's Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) network
(https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GPM/main/index.html), available only for the years 2015 -
2017.
8Itia - National Technical University of Athen. https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/softinfo/3/

9P. Kossieris, C. Makropoulos, C. Onof, and D. Koutsoyiannis, A rainfall disaggregation scheme for sub-hourly time
scales: Coupling a Bartlett-Lewis based model with adjusting procedures, Journal of Hydrology, 556, 980–992,
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.015, 2018.

Download service of NASA GPM data, after registration, allows downloading rain data in .txt
format; in particular, a file is provided for each selected spatial cluster and for every half hour of
recording, for a total of 24 h x 2 x 365 days = 17,520 text files for each year.
Preliminary processing has required assembling these files, extracting the rain data
corresponding to the location of the Dar es Saalam station and reconstructing the rains needed
to calibrate the Bartlett-Lewis model mentioned above, for each month of the year.
It should be noted that the hourly rains for years 2015 - 2017 from the GPM - NASA network were
not used for the determination of the IDF’s, but only for the calibration of the temporal
disaggregation model.
4.3.3 New IDF Curves for Dar es Salaam
Once daily 1958-80 and 2013-2017 rainfall data were disaggregated into hourly rains, rains of 3,
6, 12 and 24 hours were obtained by aggregation, and provided the 27-year maximum intensity
rainfall sample of 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hours. The Gumbel distribution was fitted to the data, and its
goodness of fit was tested through the PPCCT test (Probability Plot Correlation Coefficient Test)
(Filliben, 1975) which proved positive for all the durations, with a significance level of 0.1.
The Gumbel distribution is:
with the two parameters:
where 𝜎(𝑥)𝑒 𝜇(𝑥) are the statisticians of the historical series.
The IDF’s curves were determined for the following return periods (RP): 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100
years. IDF's are monomial curves, determined by interpolation of the rain intensities obtained, for
each duration and RP considered, from the above Gumbel distributions.

Intensity-Duration-Frequency
(Dar es Salaam - Julius Nyerere Int.l Airport)
60 y = 28.544x-0.629 RP 2 yr
y = 33.807x-0.588 RP 5 yr
50
Rainfall Intensity (mm/h)
y = 37.32x-0.569 RP 10
40 yr
y = 41.778x-0.55 RP 25
30 yr
y = 45.093x-0.54 RP 50
yr
20 y = 48.388x-0.53 RP 100
yr
10
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
Duration (h)
Figure 4-1 IDF curves for Dar es Salaam, based on the historical rainfall data (1958-2017).
For each RP, the IDF's will have the generic equation i = a ∙ dn, where: i = intensity (mm / h); d =
duration (h); with a and d estimated by Ordinary Least Squares Method. In our case, the
coefficients a and the exponents n are shown in Table 4-2.
RP = 2 5 10 25 50 100
a 28.544 33.807 37.32 41.778 45.093 48.388

IDF
Curves
n -0.629 -0.588 -0.569 -0.550 -0.540 -0.531
Table 4-2. Coefficients "a" and exponents "n" for Dar es Salaam-JNIA IDF's.
4.3.4 Comparison with previous studies
The results described here are not the only ones available for the study area; hence a comparison
was carried out between the outputs of our study and the IDF's obtained in the following works:

TSCP10;
De Paola et al.11;
CLUVA12;
Fiddes et al.13 .
Table 4-3 reports a comparison among the different studies. Table 4-4 is aimed at highlighting
proximities and differences between the different studies through a color scale. To this end the
IDF’s values of the Fiddes et al. study was taken as a reference and the values of the other studies
were normalized accordingly. These tables show that our results are close to Fiddes et al.
RP 10 yr
RP 2 yr
RP 5 yr
i (mm/h) i (mm/h) i (mm/h)

De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
CLUVA
CLUVA
CLUVA
Sering
Sering
Sering
TSCP
TSCP
TSCP
et al.
et al.
et al.
al
al
al
d (h) d (h) d (h)
1 28.5 41.0 NA NA 29.6 1 33.8 56.6 44.8 NA 35.2 1 37.3 65.4 51.7 57.0 41.2
2 18.5 23.4 NA NA 19.6 2 22.5 31.2 26.7 NA 23.3 2 25.2 37.0 30.8 33.4 27.3
3 14.3 15.8 NA NA 14.9 3 17.7 21.2 19.7 NA 17.8 3 20.0 25.4 22.7 24.5 20.8
6 9.2 8.5 NA NA 9.3 6 11.8 12.4 11.7 NA 11.1 6 13.5 15.0 13.5 14.3 13.0
12 6.0 5.2 NA NA 5.7 12 7.8 7.5 7.0 NA 6.7 12 9.1 9.1 8.0 8.4 7.9
24 3.9 NA NA NA 3.3 24 5.2 NA 4.1 NA 4.0 24 6.1 NA 4.8 4.9 4.6

RP 25 yr
RP 50 yr
RP 100
yr
10 Tanzania Strategic Cities Project (TSCP) improvement of surface water drainage systems in Dar es Salaam
metropolitan area in support of preparation of the proposed DMDP - tender N.º ME/022/2011/20123/C/12
11 Di Paola, F & Giugni, Maurizio & Topa, Maria. (2013). Probability density function (Pdf) of daily rainfall heights by
superstatistics of hydro-climatic fluctuations for African test cities. Wulfenia Journal. 20.
12 Seventh Framework Programme. Theme ENV.2010.2.1.5-1. Assessing vulnerability of urban systems, populations
and goods in relation to natural and man-made disasters in Africa. Project acronym: CLUVA. Project title: "CLimate
change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa". D 5.2 Report on climate related hazards in the selected cities
13 D. Fiddes, J. A. Forsgate and A. O. Grigg. (1974). The prediction of storm rainfall in East Africa. Environment Division
– Transport Systems Department – Transport and Road Research Laboratory.

RP 10 yr
RP 2 yr
RP 5 yr
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
CLUVA
CLUVA
CLUVA
Sering
Sering
Sering
TSCP
TSCP
TSCP
et al.
et al.
et al.
al
al
al
d (h) d (h) d (h)
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
CLUVA
CLUVA
CLUVA
Sering
Sering
Sering
TSCP
TSCP
TSCP
et al.
et al.
et al.
al
al
al
d (h) d (h) d (h)
1 41.8 78.1 NA NA 49.0 1 45.1 85.9 66.7 72.9 55.2 1 48.4 97.6 73.2 NA 60.6
2 28.5 44.3 NA NA 32.4 2 31.0 47.3 39.7 42.7 36.5 2 33.5 53.9 43.6 NA 40.1
3 22.8 29.2 NA NA 24.7 3 24.9 33.1 29.3 31.3 27.8 3 27.0 36.7 32.1 NA 30.6
6 15.6 16.8 NA NA 15.4 6 17.2 18.9 17.4 18.3 17.4 6 18.7 21.0 19.1 NA 19.1
12 10.6 10.1 NA NA 9.4 12 11.8 10.9 10.3 10.8 10.6 12 12.9 12.7 11.4 NA 11.6
24 7.3 NA NA NA 5.5 24 8.1 NA 6.1 6.3 6.2 24 9.0 NA 6.8 NA 6.8
Table 4-3. IDFs' values from the studies: SERING; TSCP; De Paola et al. ; CLUVA and Fiddes et al.
RP 2 yr RP 5 yr RP 10 yr
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
CLUVA
CLUVA
CLUVA
Sering
Sering
Sering
TSCP
TSCP
TSCP
et al.
et al.
et al.
d (h)
d (h)
d (h)
al
al
al
1 NA NA NA
2 NA NA NA
3 NA NA NA
6 NA NA NA
12 NA NA NA
24 NA NA NA NA NA NA
RP 25 yr RP 50 yr RP 100 yr

De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
De Paola
Fiddes et
CLUVA
CLUVA
CLUVA
Sering
Sering
Sering
TSCP
TSCP
TSCP
et al.
et al.
et al.
d (h)
d (h)
d (h)
al
al
al
1 NA NA 1 1 NA
2 NA NA 2 2 NA
3 NA NA 3 3 NA
6 NA NA 6 6 NA
12 NA NA 12 12 NA
24 NA NA NA 24 NA 24 NA NA
Table 4-4. Comparison between the studies SERING; TSCP; De Paola et al.; CLUVA and Fiddes et al.
through a color scale.
4.4 Effects of climate change in Dar es Salaam
Dar es Salaam is a coastal city. It receives over 1,000 mm of rainfall per year and has a bimodal
rainfall distribution, the two main rain seasons being the long rains and the short rains, associated
with southward and northwards movements respectively of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone
(ITCZ). The long rains season (Masika) occurs from mid March to end May, and the short rains
(Vuli) from mid October to late December. Although June to September is typically a dry season
for most parts of the country, coastal areas tend to receive a small amount of rainfall over this
period. Rainfall in Tanzania is influenced by the southeast monsoon winds (May–September), the
northeast monsoons (October–March), El-Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), tropical cyclones,
easterly waves and the Congo air mass. Land and sea breezes along the Indian Ocean coast
play a large role in modifying the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall over coastal regions
such as Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, Pemba and Tanga.
Changes in the hydrologic cycle due to increase in greenhouse gases cause variations in
intensity, duration, and frequency of precipitation events. Effects of climate change have been
studied and some information is reported here.

Mark Tadross and Peter Johnston (2012)14 in their work “Sub-Saharan African Cities: A five-City
Network to Pioneer Climate Adaptation through Participatory Research & Local Action Climate
Change Projections for Dar es Salaam: Adding value through downscaling” report the information
that Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar have a mean annual maximum temperature of 30.8°C, and a
mean annual minimum temperature of 21.3°C. The mean diurnal temperature range is 9.2°C,
which is smaller than in inland areas. The climate change projections state that, by 2100, mean
annual temperature for Tanzania is expected to increase by 1.7°C over the northern coast,
including areas around Dar es Salaam (Matari et al., 2008)15.
4.4.1 Changes in mean rainfall
According to Matari et al. (2008)9, mean rainfall is projected to increase during the long rains
season over coastal areas, including Dar es Salaam, by up to 6 percent by 2100. These results
are also supported by two regional climate models16, which indicate a slight increase in rainfall
over the entire northern coast of Tanzania, including the Dar es Salaam region. According to
Watkiss et al. (2011)17, however, it is unclear whether rainfall in Tanzania will increase or decrease
with climate change, with some models projecting that precipitation may increase in the late
summer, with some signs of drying in early summer.
In Tadross and Johnston (2012) the discussed GCM models give results, among which, those
considered consistent suggest an increase in rainfall, based on A2 and B1 scenarios, during the
December-May period, that could be from 7 to 14 mm/month.
4.4.2 Changes in climate extremes
Tadross and Johnston (2012) express that extreme events are harder to simulate than changes
in the mean climate, largely because GCMs are low resolution parameterised versions of the real
climate and may fail to capture important mechanisms e.g. intense and localised convective
14
Mark Tadross and Peter Johnston (2012). Sub-Saharan African Cities: A five-City Network to Pioneer Climate
Adaptation through Participatory Research & Local Action. ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability – Africa
Climate Change Projections for Dar es Salaam: Adding value through downscaling. ISBN: 978-0-9921794-9-6.
15 Matari E. R., Chang’a L. B., Chikojo G. E., Hyera T. (2008). Climate Change scenario development for Second
National Communication –Tanzania. TMA Research Journal, Vol.1, pp. 40 – 54.

16The two regional climate models used include (i) PRECIS (Providing Regional Climates for Impact Studies),
developed by UK Met Office, and (ii) CCLM (COSMO-CLM; COnsortium for Small scale MOdeling – ClimateLimited-
areaModelling), maintained and developed by the COSMO Consortium.
17 Watkiss, P., Downing, T., Dyszynski, J., Pye, S. et al (2011). The economics of climate change in the United Republic
of Tanzania. Report to Development Partners Group and the UK Department for International Development. Published
January 2011. Available at: http://economics-of-cc-intanzania.org/

rainfall. Until there are fundamental improvements in the GCMs, better estimates of extreme
climate events will be difficult.
Besides the limits of the models in evaluating extreme events, the results for different scenarios
show discordant projections. According to Watkiss et al. (2011), projections vary widely for
Tanzania on extreme events; El Nino has been seen to have a large impact on inter-annual
variability (with heavier rainfall associated with strong El Nino events), but it is not clear how
climate change will affect the frequency and magnitude of El Niño events and thus their impact
on Tanzania. However, Shongwe et al. (2009 in: Watkiss et al., 2011), upon examination of long-
term trends, state that the intensity and frequency of extreme heavy rainfall may increase in the
wet seasons, which would imply greater flood risk. Impact on drought is uncertain (Watkiss et al.,
2011) with some models predicting intensification with climate change and others a reduction in
severity.
De Paola et al. (2014)18 present a methodology for the evaluation of the IDF curves from daily
rainfall data using Dar es Salaam as one of the case studies (1958-2010 data); in order to estimate
the contingent influence of climate change on the IDF curves, the illustrated procedure was
applied to the rainfall projections over the time period 2010–2050 provided by CMCC (Centro
Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici), for two different emission scenarios and different
spatial resolutions (8 km and 1 km). So, IDF curves were evaluated for:
Historical series 1958-2010 (base scenario)

Historical series 1958-2010 + synthetic series from projection RCP4.5 – 8 km 2010-
2050
2050
2050
Table 4-55 reports, for given duration d and return period RP, the percent increase of rain volume
of the worst scenario (among climate projections and historical data) compared to the base
historical scenario.
18
De Paola, F., Giugni, M., Topa, M. E., and E. Bucchignani (2014). Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) rainfall curves,
for data series and climate projection in African cities. SpringerPlus 2014, 3:133.
http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/133

d (h)
RP
0.5 1 3 6 12 24
5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
30 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
50 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5%
100 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 8%
300 0% 0% 2% 5% 8% 11%
Table 4-5. Estimated % increase of rainfall of given duration and frequency compared to the base historic
scenario, according to De Paola et al., 2014.
When a 0% is shown Error! Reference source not found., that means that IDF curves obtained from
historical data give as a output the highest rainfall volume. Climate change seems to gain some
importance when considering high return periods and a duration in the order of magnitude of the
day.

4.5 Stormwater Catchments Topography and Cover
The catchments inside the planning area have been delineated through a geo-processing tool
(“Watershed delineation”) within the QGIS utilities and by means of a 5 meters grid digital
elevation model (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-2. DEM, stormwater catchments and main rivers network in Dar es Salaam.
Each watershed has been identified with a progressive code for a total of 49 catchments. A few
coastal area basins (i.e. Kunduchi, Mbweni, Msasani Peninsula, Kurasini, Mtoni, etc.) have not
been identified as a ordinary catchment (with main river, streams, etc.) but have been studied
with the same methodology of the conventional watershed. The overall catchments’ surface

discharging within the planning area is 2,063 km2. The main geographical features of the
watersheds are showed in the following table.
Basin Basin/ River Area River Hmax Hmin H (m) River Catchm.
code name (km2) length (m) (m) slope (%) slope (%)
(km)
A Nyakasangwe 95,3 26,5 198,9 1,2 197,7 0,7% 8,4
B Tegeta 51,9 25,5 189,8 1,1 188,7 0,7% 10,9
C Mbezi 60,4 29,2 208,0 0,0 208,0 0,7% 14,3
D Mlalakwa 12,2 10,7 126,6 2,1 124,5 1,2% 9,4
E Micocheni 3,2 3,1 36,5 1,6 35,0 1,1% 1,4
F Kijitonyama 12,9 7,9 107,3 0,6 106,7 1,3% 2,5
G Sinza 23,7 21,2 162,5 2,6 159,8 0,8% 9,0
H Ubungo 31,4 24,5 178,9 3,8 175,2 0,7% 11,9
I Msimbazi 212,6 52,9 303,9 0,0 303,9 0,6% 13,0
J City Center 4,9 3,9 16,9 0,0 16,9 0,4% 1,5
K Gerezani Creek 15,8 11,7 55,9 0,0 55,9 0,5% 2,5
L Yombo 24,4 9,9 58,8 2,5 56,3 0,6% 4,2
M Kizinga 220,6 45,6 306,6 2,4 304,2 0,7% 7,1
N Mzinga 734,0 81,0 325,9 0,4 325,5 0,4% 7,7
O Kigamboni 2,5 2,0 13,9 0,0 13,9 0,7% 1,8
P - 0,8 2,0 15,6 0,8 14,8 0,8% 1,7
Q - 22,2 16,6 60,5 0,2 60,2 0,4% 2,3
R - 1,4 2,1 19,9 0,0 19,9 1,0% 3,8
S - 0,9 2,3 20,2 0,0 20,2 0,9% 1,8
T - 1,0 1,8 24,9 0,0 24,9 1,4% 1,7
U - 0,4 1,2 9,0 0,1 8,8 0,8% 1,8
V - 3,6 5,8 23,6 0,0 23,6 0,4% 4,4
W - 24,5 19,2 118,2 0,0 118,2 0,6% 4,1
X - 7,3 8,8 96,9 1,2 95,7 1,1% 7,7
Y Mwera 21,3 11,5 84,8 1,1 83,7 0,7% 2,5
ZA Nguva 127,6 22,7 129,7 0,6 129,1 0,6% 3,5
ZB - 19,5 11,2 77,9 31,7 46,2 0,4% 2,1
ZC Bandarini 27,8 16,7 49,5 1,0 48,5 0,3% 2,7
ZD Mironge 22,3 10,2 60,9 1,1 59,8 0,6% 7,1
ZE - 80,8 24,6 77,9 3,7 74,2 0,3% 2,4
ZF - 1,2 1,7 22,7 0,0 22,7 1,3% 1,8
ZG - 12,7 10,3 60,9 0,0 60,9 0,6% 4,8
ZH - 2,9 4,4 37,3 0,0 37,3 0,8% 1,4
ZI - 1,3 2,8 32,4 0,1 32,3 1,2% 1,5
ZJ - 7,2 7,8 36,9 0,0 36,8 0,5% 1,4
ZK - 27,2 15,4 55,8 -0,1 55,9 0,4% 3,6
ZL - 50,1 24,1 49,9 -0,2 50,2 0,2% 1,6
ZM - 1,1 1,7 24,9 0,0 24,9 1,5% 2,6
ZN - 24,3 15,9 33,0 -0,5 33,5 0,2% 1,6
ZO - 10,3 9,7 25,7 -0,6 26,3 0,3% 2,1

Basin Basin/ River Area River Hmax Hmin H (m) River Catchm.
code name (km2) length (m) (m) slope (%) slope (%)
(km)
ZP - 1,2 2,2 17,0 0,0 16,9 0,8% 2,2
ZQ - 9,3 8,0 30,9 0,6 30,3 0,4% 3,6
ZR - 0,4 1,1 24,9 1,5 23,4 2,2% 7,6
ZS - 3,9 4,6 29,9 2,5 27,5 0,6% 3,4
ZT - 0,6 1,2 27,0 1,9 25,1 2,1% 8,8
ZU - 14,2 9,8 19,7 0,0 19,7 0,2% 2,4
ZV - 4,9 5,2 20,9 0,0 20,9 0,4% 2,5
ZW - 20,7 9,2 11,2 -0,1 11,4 0,1% 1,6
ZX - 2,8 3,0 7,9 0,0 7,9 0,3% 1,3
Table 4-6: Geometric features of stormwater catchments in Dar es Salaam.
For each of these basins, and for each of their sub-basins, the flow hydrographs were obtained
for the chosen RPs, in order to assess the hydraulic sufficiency of the cross sections identified. It
was decided to determine hydrographs through the use of the HEC-HMS, an open source
hydrological model.
To this end, it was necessary to:
identify, with the aid of the 5 m resolution Digital Terrain Model (DTM), the catchment
basins and sub-basins;
identify the cross sections for hydraulic modelling;
evaluate, for the chosen RPs, the 1-h precipitation depths, to be used as input for the
rainfall-runoff model. We have chosen the Unit Hydrograph Procedure;
select a loss method (rainfall – runoff) and apply it. For the case in question, the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) curve number (CN) method was selected for computing the
runoff volume from a rainstorm.
input in the HEM-HMS hydrological model:
o precipitation and CN data;
o the shape of the ietogram;
o the shape of the hydrograph;
o the lag time.
In addition to the IDFs, the data used to determine the hydrographs are:
the 5 m – resolution DTM;

the Land-Use Maps.

4.5.1 Digital Terrain Model
A 5 m – resolution DTM was used for:
watersheds delimitation;
definition of cross sections;
definition of HEC-RAS terrain model;
definition of hydrographic networks.
The DTM has been produced through photogrammetry using an airplane, and analysed by COWI
(COWI, 2017)". All of the above elaborations have been carried out in QGIS environment, a free-
use software, very supported by a large international community of users.
Figure 4-3 Digital Terrain Model deliverd by COWI (2017).
Basin Basin Area L main Slope ΔH Tc

Catchment
name code (km2) river (km) (%) (m) (h)
1 City Center J 4,93 3,89 0,44 16,92 2,83

2 Nyakasangwe A 95,26 26,47 0,75 197,72 10,01
3 Tegeta B 51,91 25,47 0,74 188,68 7,05
4 Mbezi C 60,36 29,22 0,71 207,96 6,48


Catchment
5 Mlalakwa D 12,24 10,74 1,16 124,53 3,60
6 Kijitonyama F 12,91 7,92 1,35 106,74 4,18
7 Sinza G 23,70 21,23 0,75 159,84 5,06
8 Ubungo H 31.38 24.51 0.71 175.15 5.08
9 Msimbazi I 212.58 52.94 0.57 303.86 15.61
Gerezani
10 K 15.78 11.72 0.48 55.90 5.45
Creek
11 Yombo L 24.45 9.88 0.57 56.26 3.98
12 Kizinga M 220.56 45.55 0.67 304.23 16.28
13 Mzinga N 733.97 80.95 0.40 325.52 27.77
14 Kigamboni O 2.52 2.04 0.68 13.85 1.77
15 Mwera Y 21.30 11.45 0.73 83.68 8.39
16 Nguva ZA 127.57 22.72 0.57 129.13 15.42
17 Bandarini ZC 27.82 16.66 0.29 48.46 10.42
18 Mironge ZD 22.32 10.17 0.59 59.81 4.40
19 Micocheni E 3.22 3.06 1.14 34.97 2.40
20 KG20 P 0.80 1.97 0.75 14.76 2.21
21 KG21 Q 22.25 16.61 0.36 60.23 10.02
22 KG22 U 0.43 1.16 0.76 8.85 1.27
23 KG23 V 3.64 5.76 0.41 23.56 2.89
24 KG24 R 1.38 2.09 0.95 19.87 1.51
25 KG25 S 0.86 2.30 0.88 20.25 1.91
26 KG26 W 24.46 19.20 0.62 118.20 9.46
27 KG27 X 7.34 8.79 1.09 95.68 3.73
28 KG28 ZB 19.53 11.18 0.41 46.18 8.83
29 KG29 ZE 80.79 24.55 0.30 74.20 15.21
30 KG30 ZF 1.20 1.70 1.34 22.72 2.17
31 KG31 ZG 12.74 10.32 0.59 60.95 5.54
32 KG32 ZH 2.89 4.44 0.84 37.28 5.12
33 KG33 ZI 1.35 2.76 1.17 32.34 3.55
34 KG34 ZJ 7.24 7.76 0.47 36.84 8.21
35 KG35 ZK 27.23 15.42 0.36 55.93 8.90
36 KG36 ZL 50.10 24.14 0.21 50.16 18.54
37 KG37 ZM 1.14 1.68 1.48 24.86 1.83
38 KG38 ZN 24.32 15.94 0.21 33.47 13.17
39 KG39 ZO 10.26 9.72 0.27 26.30 8.11
40 KG40 ZP 1.15 2.21 0.77 16.93 2.48
41 KG41 ZQ 9.26 7.97 0.38 30.34 5.05
42 KG42 ZR 0.40 1.05 2.23 23.44 0.68
43 KG43 ZS 3.86 4.60 0.60 27.46 3.34
44 KG44 ZT 0.58 1.21 2.08 25.09 0.72
45 KG45 ZU 14.19 9.79 0.20 19.71 7.24
46 KG46 ZV 4.88 5.17 0.41 20.94 4.23


Catchment
47 KG47 ZW 20.66 9.21 0.12 11.37 8.38
48 KG48 ZX 2.77 2.95 0.27 7.93 3.92
49 KG49 T 0.99 1.75 1.43 24.95 1.61
Table 4-7. Dar Es Salaam Catchments.
4.5.2 Land Use
The current land use was considered with reference to the ESA land use map (year 2016)19. The
ESA CCI Land Cover (LC) team has developed a prototype high resolution LC map at 20m over
Africa based on 1 year of Sentinel-2A observations from December 2015 to December 2016.
The Coordinate Reference System used for the global land cover database is a geographic
coordinate system (GCS) based on the World Geodetic System 84 (WGS84) reference ellipsoid.
The legend of the S2 prototype LC 20m map of Africa 2016 was built after reviewing various
existing typologies (e.g. LCCS, LCML…), global (e.g. GLC-share, GlobeLand30) and national
experiences (Africover, SERVIR-RMCD). The legend includes 10 generic classes that
appropriately describe the land surface at 20m: "trees cover areas", "shrubs cover areas",
"grassland", "cropland", "vegetation aquatic or regularly flooded", "lichen and mosses / sparse
vegetation", "bare areas", "built up areas", "snow and/or ice" and "open water".
Two classification algorithms, the Random Forest (RF) and Machine Learning (ML), were used to
transform the cloud-free reflectance composites generated by the pre-processing module into a
land cover map. The two maps resulting from both approaches are then combined either to select
the best representation of a land cover class which will be part of the final S2 prototype LC 20m
map of Africa 2016 or, in case of unreliable LC class delineation, the reference layer is used to
consolidate the land cover classification.
4.6 The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS)
The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS)20 was used to obtain synthetic hydrographs. HEC-
HMS is designed to simulate the complete hydrologic processes of dendritic watershed systems.
The software includes many traditional hydrologic analysis procedures such as event infiltration,
unit hydrographs, and hydrologic routing. HEC-HMS also includes procedures necessary for
19 http://2016africalandcover20m.esrin.esa.int/
20 http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/

continuous simulation including evapo-transpiration, snowmelt, and soil moisture accounting.

Advanced capabilities are also provided for gridded runoff simulation using the linear quasi-
distributed runoff transform (ModClark). Supplemental analysis tools are provided for model
optimization, forecasting streamflow, depth-area reduction, assessing model uncertainty, erosion
and sediment transport, and water quality. The software features a completely integrated work
environment including a database, data entry utilities, computation engine, and results reporting
tools. A graphical user interface allows the user seamless movement between the different parts
of the software. Simulation results are stored in HEC-DSS (Data Storage System) and can be
used in conjunction with other software for studies of water availability, urban drainage, flow
forecasting, future urbanization impact, reservoir spillway design, flood damage reduction,
floodplain regulation, and systems operation.
Figure 4-4 Ietogram and hydrograph from Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS).
4.6.1 Transform method - The unit hydrograph procedure
Synthetic hydrographs are obtained by using watershed parameters and storm characteristics to
simulate a natural hydrograph. The unit hydrograph procedure (Sherman 1932, 1940)21 22
was
adopted. This procedure assumes that discharge at any time is proportional to the volume of
runoff and that time factors affecting hydrograph shape are constant.
21 Sherman, L.K. 1932. Streamflow from rainfall by the unit-graph method. Engineering News Record, vol. 108, pp.
501–505.
22 Sherman, L.K. 1940. The hydraulics of surface runoff. Civil Eng. 10:165–166.

The fundamental principles of invariance and superposition make the unit graph an extremely
flexible tool for developing synthetic hydrographs. These principles are:
Principle of Invariance—the hydrograph of surface runoff from a watershed resulting

from a given pattern of rainfall is constant.
Principle of Superposition—the hydrograph resulting from a given pattern of rainfall
excess can be built up by superimposing the unit hydrographs because of the separate
amounts of rainfall excess occurring in each unit period; includes the principle of
proportionality by which the ordinates of the hydrograph are proportional to the volume
of rainfall excess.
The unit time or unit hydrograph duration is the duration for occurrence of precipitation excess.
The optimum unit time is less than 20 percent of the time interval between the beginning of runoff
from a short duration, high-intensity storm and the peak discharge of the corresponding runoff.
The storm duration is the actual duration of the precipitation excess. The duration varies with
actual storms. The dimensionless unit hydrograph used by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) was developed by Victor Mockus (Mockus 1957)23. It was derived from many
natural unit hydrographs from watersheds varying widely in size and geographical locations. This
dimensionless curvilinear hydrograph, also shown in Figure 4-5, has its ordinate values expressed
in a dimensionless ratio q/qp or Qa/Q and its abscissa values as t/TP. This unit hydrograph has a
point of inflection approximately 1.7 times the time to peak (Tp). The unit hydrograph in Figure 4-5
has a peak rate factor (PRF) of 484.
23
Mockus, V., Use of Storm and Watershed Characteristics in Synthetic Hydrograph Analysis and Application,
Amer. Geophys., Union, Southwest Region Meeting, Sacramento, Calif., 1957.

Figure 4-5 Dimensionless unit hydrograph and mass curve.
Figure 4-6 HEC-HMS SCS unit hydrograph transform method editor.
The standard lag is defined as the length of time between the centroid of precipitation mass and
the peak flow of the resulting hydrograph:
𝐿0.8 1000
𝑡𝐿 = 0.342 𝑠0.5 ( 𝐶𝑁
− 9)0.7 ;
Where:

𝑡𝐿 lag (h);
𝐿 Longest flow path (km);
𝑠 average watershed land slope (%);
𝐶𝑁 Curve Number.
4.6.2 Loss Method
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number (CN) method was selected for computing the
runoff volume from a rainstorm. The curve number (CN) is a hydrologic parameter used to
describe the storm water runoff potential for drainage area, and it is a function of land use,
soil type, and soil moisture.
Figure 4-7 HEC-HMS Loss method editor.
The first step in this analysis is to delineate the basin and sub-basin using QGIS, as described
in the paragraph 4.5.1. Data needed in this step is DTM data.

Figure 4-8 . Gerezani hydrographic scheme.
The next step is to define the basin land use maps by intersecting the basin maps with the land
use map and then is to estimate the CN for each land use class.
Value Label
0 No data
1 Trees cover areas
2 Shrubs cover areas
3 Grassland
4 Cropland
5 Vegetation aquatic or regularly flooded
6 Lichen Mosses / Sparse vegetation
7 Bare areas
8 Built up areas
9 Snow and/or Ice
10 Open water
Table 4-8. Land-use maps legend.

Figure 4-9 Land use for the catchment of Gerezani creek
The final step is to calculate the CN for each drainage basin by area-weighting the land use-soil
group polygons within the drainage basin boundaries.
The basic equation for CN calculation is:
Where:
CNaw is the area-weighted CN for the drainage basin;

CNi and Ai are CN and area respectively for each land use-soil group polygon, and
n is the number of polygons in each drainage basin.

4.7 Peak Flow Analysis Results
The outcome of the described hydrology analysis is summarized in the following table.
Basin Basin/ River Conc. Curve Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow
code name Time Number for 5-yr for 10-yr for 25-yr for 50-yr for 100-yr
[h] (CN) RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s]
A Nyakasangwe 10,0 71,3 129.39 171.28 226.16 267.80 310.37
B Tegeta 7,0 71,7 98.28 130.11 171.83 203.51 235.90
C Mbezi 6,5 73,8 133.45 174.31 227.54 268.34 309.62
D Mlalakwa 3,6 73,8 44.04 57.73 75.61 89.22 102.94
E Micocheni 2,4 85,0 22.84 28.20 35.05 40.16 45.26
F Kijitonyama 4,2 82,4 55.18 68.98 86.65 99.88 113.09
G Sinza 5,1 81,2 83.50 104.97 132.53 153.18 173.82
H Ubungo 5,1 80,4 107.13 135.28 171.48 198.62 225.76
I Msimbazi 15,6 73,8 208.47 270.12 350.03 412.25 475.67
J City Center 2,8 84,8 30.84 38.10 47.38 54.30 61.21
K Gerezani Creek 5,4 84,1 56.76 70.37 87.77 100.78 113.75
L Yombo 4,0 81,5 105.89 132.94 167.64 193.64 219.61
M Kizinga 16,3 73,9 208.07 269.34 348.72 410.69 473.76
N Mzinga 27,8 70,2 352.01 463.09 607.87 717.32 827.20
O Kigamboni 1,8 81,2 19.96 25.09 31.69 36.63 41.57
P - 2,2 73,2 4.08 5.38 7.08 8.37 9.67
Q - 10,0 75,1 34.89 45.04 58.29 68.53 78.81
R - 1,5 74,1 9.49 12.44 16.29 19.22 22.15
S - 1,9 81,7 6.53 8.20 10.33 11.92 13.52
T - 1,6 80,6 8.22 10.37 13.14 15.21 17.28
U - 1,3 76,5 3.65 4.71 6.09 7.13 8.17
V - 2,9 77,2 17.67 22.68 29.19 34.09 39.01
W - 9,5 70,5 33.93 45.18 59.97 71.22 82.59
X - 3,7 70,2 22.07 29.69 39.76 47.46 55.23
Y Mwera 8,4 68,7 30.41 41.11 55.28 66.11 77.05
ZA Nguva 15,4 70,9 113.69 150.11 197.72 233.80 270.63
ZB - 8,8 69,4 27.49 36.94 49.42 58.94 68.54
ZC Bandarini 10,4 70,4 35.18 46.83 62.13 73.77 85.52
ZD Mironge 4,4 70,0 58.23 78.37 105.01 125.36 145.91
ZE - 15,2 70,6 72.15 95.47 125.99 149.13 172.61
ZF - 2,2 68,9 5.09 6.93 9.39 11.28 13.19
ZG - 5,5 69,1 26.48 35.81 48.20 57.67 67.24
ZH - 5,1 69,2 6.43 8.70 11.71 14.02 16.35
ZI - 3,5 68,3 3.87 5.28 7.17 8.61 10.08
ZJ - 8,2 68,4 10.37 14.06 18.95 22.70 26.48
ZK - 8,9 68,5 36.47 49.36 66.45 79.52 92.73
ZL - 18,5 70,2 36.26 47.98 63.33 74.96 86.66
ZM - 1,8 67,8 5.20 7.16 9.77 11.79 13.84
ZN - 13,2 70,1 24.41 32.48 43.07 51.12 59.22

Basin Basin/ River Conc. Curve Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow Peak flow
code name Time Number for 5-yr for 10-yr for 25-yr for 50-yr for 100-yr
[h] (CN) RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s] RP [m3/s]
ZO - 8,1 68,9 15.21 20.54 27.60 33.00 38.45
ZP - 2,5 68,0 4.25 5.84 7.96 9.59 11.24
ZQ - 5,1 70,1 21.65 29.10 38.93 46.44 54.02
ZR - 0,7 70,7 3.90 5.24 7.01 8.36 9.73
ZS - 3,3 70,2 12.65 17.02 22.80 27.22 31.67
ZT - 0,7 69,5 5.18 7.03 9.48 11.35 13.25
ZU - 7,2 70,6 25.03 33.40 44.42 52.81 61.30
ZV - 4,2 70,4 13.39 17.97 24.01 28.63 33.29
ZW - 8,4 71,0 32.63 43.35 57.43 68.12 79.00
ZX - 3,9 69,0 7.58 10.29 13.89 16.64 19.43
Table 4-9. Main geo-hydraulic features in Dar es Salaam catchments.
According to the priorities of the interventions, the Ubungo river has been further analysed (pre-
feasibility study). More precisely, the basin has been divided in different sub-basins and an
accurate hydrological analysis was effectuated. The watershed segmentation of the basin and
results of the hydrological analysis is illustrated in the following Figure and Table.
Next Table reports the results for the peak flows for RP = 25 years at different sections of the
main river and its tributaries.
Qpeak L main
Area Slope L ΔH Tc
Catchments (RP=25) river CN
(km2) (%) (m) (h)
(m3/s) (km)
Ubungo Main 135.4 18.85 13.84 0.88 121.78 3.03 77.47
Main_distributed-
Ubungo 52.1 5.520 9.49 7.59 106.14 2.59 84.51
upstream
Ubungo Tributary 8.40 0.53 1.00 1.44 14.39 1.10 82.53
Ubungo Tributary-distributed 31 2.83 4.79 3.55 36.52 2.14 85.32
Ubungo Junction 8.2 0.32 0.64 2.36 15.13 0.39 83.24
Ubungo Final reach 10.2 0.43 0.96 1.95 18.60 0.46 81.66
Ubungo Sub1 18.3 1.27 3.228 4.64 30.09 1.40 84.56
Ubungo Sub2 12.6 0.68 2.47 5.099 23.76 1.00 86.71
Ubungo Sub3 11 0.57 1.764 4.60 23.02 0.84 85.49
Ubungo Sub 4 8.6 0.37 1.417 4.50 21.53 0.68 86.58
Table 4-10. Ubungo river peak flows for RP 25 year.

Figure 4-10. Ubungo river sub-catchments
4.7.1 Hydraulic Models Applied
A preliminary evaluation of the flooding areas in the urban catchments of Dar es Salaam has been
carried out with the one-dimensional simulation of the HEC-RAS software.
Hydraulic modelling allows to simulate the behavior of channel routing and hydraulic structures
such as dams and reservoirs. Hydraulic methods are based on differential equations solutions
and they define the flow propagation and the hydrograph along the river. The stream network can
be represented with junctions, diversions and hydraulic structures with an influence in the water
balance equation.
Generally a 1D model has been used to analyze the hydraulic behavior of the principal river and
a coupling model has been chosen to study the Ubungo River. In fact the Ubungo river is one of
the main tributary of the Msibazi and is characterized by a huge urbanization. For this raison a
better an deeper analysis of the hydraulic behavior is necessary.
A Coupling model 1D -2D is an alternative approach to reproduce the water exchange between
the main channel and the flood plain. This allows for a better description of phenomena and to
reduce the computational time compared to a classical 2D model.

HEC-RAS is designed to perform one and two-dimensional hydraulic calculations for a full network
of natural and constructed channels. The following is a description of the major capabilities of
HEC-RAS.
The HEC-RAS system contains several river analysis components for: (1) steady flow water
surface profile computations; (2) one- and two-dimensional unsteady flow simulation; (3) movable
boundary sediment transport computations; and (4) water quality analysis. A key element is, that
all four components use a common geometric data representation and common geometric and
hydraulic computation routines. In addition to these river analysis components, the system
contains several hydraulic design features that can be invoked once the basic water surface
profiles are computed.
Steady Flow Water Surface Profiles
This component of the modeling system is intended for calculating water surface profiles for
steady gradually varied flow. The system can handle a full network of channels, a dendritic
system, or a single river reach. The steady flow component is capable of modeling subcritical,
supercritical, and mixed flow regimes water surface profiles.
The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the one-dimensional energy
equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction (Manning's equation) and contraction/expansion
(coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity head). The momentum equation may be used in
situations where the water surface profile is rapidly varied. These situations include mixed flow
regime calculations (i.e., hydraulic jumps), hydraulics of bridges, and evaluating profiles at river
confluences (stream junctions).
Major features include the ability to model a full network of streams, channel dredging, various
levee and encroachment alternatives, and the use of several different equations for the
computation of sediment transport.
The model is designed to simulate long-term trends of scour and deposition in a stream channel
that might result from modifying the frequency and duration of the water discharge and stage, or
modifying the channel geometry. This system can be used to evaluate deposition in reservoirs,
design channel contractions required to maintain navigation depths, predict the influence of
dredging on the rate of deposition, estimate maximum possible scour during large flood events,
and evaluate sedimentation in fixed channels.
HEC-RAS has the capability to perform inundation mapping of water surface profile results directly
from HEC-RAS. Using the HEC-RAS geometry and computed water surface profiles, inundation

depth and floodplain boundary datasets are created through the RAS Mapper. Additional
geospatial data can be generated for analysis of velocity, shear stress, stream power, ice
thickness, and floodway encroachment data.
4.7.2 Models Settings
The main purposes of the two-dimensional flood study are:
• To evaluate the watershed floods around Dar es Salaam and their effect on the urban
area.
• To determine the optimal drainage and flood protection solution for a given return period.
• To determine the flood hazard extension especially in the urban area.
The current study included field investigations, data acquisition and model development. Some
field visits and topographic surveys were required to obtain sufficient site information, flood and
flood-damage history, structure characteristics, rivers cross sections and land-cover
characteristics.
The study was performed in several stages:
• Data necessary for the model were obtained including ground-surface altitude, orthophoto
imagery, streets cross sections, buildings geometry, floodplain boundaries, and land use.
• Different model scenarios were run, and results were obtained for each return period
chosen.
• Model results were mapped into the imagery with floodplain boundaries and other
pertinent information.
The hydraulic model has addressed the design of the main drainage trunk lines and a number of
new detention ponds in order to determine their optimal mix for flood protection. The water flowing
through the system is represented by the runoffs evaluated in the hydrologic study of the area.
The data sources and settings for the one-dimensional model of Dar es Salaam major rivers are
the following:
• IDF curves and related runoffs in the catchments as reported in the previous section of
this report.

• Digital Elevation Model with high resolution (5m).
• Main drainage system assessed accordingly to the peak flow return periods (IDF curves).
• No secondary drainage system has been included in the model.
• Inflow boundary conditions set along the main rivers of Dar es Salaam. The runoffs coming
out from the detention ponds have been evaluated, by applying the IDF curves, according
to the related catchment’s concentration time.
• The boundary condition at the outflow is assumed to be a constant value across the entire
southern edge of the mesh, and the high tide level24 has been considered when consistent.
• Inflow runoffs set with unit hydrographs according to the time of concentration of each
catchment.
• Outflow boundary conditions set along the outlets.
2424
Most hydraulic models were built considering the maximum high tide level, simultaneously with the estimated
peak flow. According to the tide levels for the year 2018, published by the Tanzania Ports Authority, the maximum
level foreseen in the referred year is 4.11 meters while the minimum is 0.11 meters. It was considered that the
difference between the zero topographic and the zero hydrographic datum is 1.5 metres and this has been used in
the modeling calculations. The topographic level used for the maximum high tide in Dar Es Salaam is 2.61 meters.

Figure 4-11. Rivers in Dar es Salaam.
The return periods of the runoffs on which to base the hydraulic simulations is 25 years for the
design of the main natural watercourses.
The one-dimensional simulations have been run for each return period within three different
scenarios, one for the existing condition (no drainage system) and two for the future flood
protection system (drainage system without and with new detention ponds), in order to evaluate
the optimal mix of intervention.

4.7.3 Results from flood inundation models
Several inflow hydrographs have been assigned to different floodplain nodes. According the site
visits and a preliminary hydraulic study, 11 basins have been analysed. For each modelled basin
two simulations have been developed: one to analyse the actual scenario and the other to present
the proposed planned scenario. A return period of 25 years has been chosen. In the Table
4-11the summary of the models developed is illustrated:
1D Hydraulic Coupling Hydraulic Coupling Hydraulic

1D Hydraulic Model -
River Name Model - Existing Model (1D-2D) - Model (1D-2D) -
Planned Scenario
Condition Existing Condition Planned Scenario
Gerezani X
Kijitonyama X X
Kizinga X
Mbezi X X
Micocheni X X
Mlalakwa X X
Msimbazi* X
Mzinga
Nyakasangwe X X
Sinza X
Tegeta X X
Ubungo X x
Yombo X
Table 4-11. Summary of the developed hydraulic models
The principle goal of hydraulic models is to understand and to show the hydraulic behaviour of
each basin. In this way it is possible to define the priority actions and guidelines to protect the
population from flooding.
The General data input and settings of hydraulic model for the actual scenario are:
1. Elevate number of cross sections in order to increase the accuracy of the model. In
average the distance between each cross section is of 30 m.
2. A small time-step for the simulation in order to guarantee the stability of the model and the
accuracy of results
3. Two different downstream boundaries conditions:

- Tide level when the outlet basin is near to the see (Micocheni, Nyakasangwe,
Kijitonyama, Mbezi, Mizinga, Mlalakwa, Tegeta basin)
- Normal depth for the following basins: Kisinga, Ubungo, Sinza, Yombo, Gerezani
Creek.
4. Manning Coefficient: The Manning's roughness coefficient is used in the Manning's
formula to calculate flow in open channels. An appropriate value of Manning n is necessary
to the accuracy of the computed water elevation. The manning’s value is highly variable
and depends on a number of factors including: surface roughness; vegetation and channel
irregularities. In this project a range between 0.05 and 0.1 has been chosen for the actual
scenario and a range between 0.015 and 0.035 has been used in the planned scenario.
The runoff value for each sub-catchment have been drawn from the hydrologic study of this report.
The flood map and maximum flow depth profile for each river and for the actual and planned
scenario are illustrated in the following paragraphs.
For reading about the present condition of the recalled bridges, crossings and culverts, the Site
visit report attached to this document must be used as reference.

4.7.3.1 Mbezi River
Mbezi River is located between the district of Kinondoni and Ubungo. Our team has decided to
model the last 6 km of the river characterised by a dense urbanization. The Manning coefficient
(n) used in the existing condition model is 0.07 s/m1/3 for the main channel and 0.10 s/m1/3 for the
floodplain.
These values describe a weedy reach or floodway with heavy stand of timber and underbrush. In
effect the river is full of garbage and shrubs. The present condition and the hydraulic structures
are described in the site survey report. The Hec-Ras results are illustrated in the Figures below.
Figure 4-12. Actual Scenario - Mbezi River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-13. Actual Scenario – Mbezi Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
The proposed interventions are:
1. The Cleaning of the existing Channel for a length of 6150 m.

2. Enlargement of the existing cross section including stabilization and natural lining:
- 950 m of natural trapezoidal channel, depth 2.0 m, top width 29 m
- 670 m of natural trapezoidal channel, depth 2.30 m, top width 34.6 m
3. Realisation of a detention pond with a volume of 280’000 m3 with the aim to retain some
volume of water at all times and to protect against flooding
4. Enlargement Culvert C7 with the addition of a cell 3 m (Depth) x5 m (Width)
The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.025 s/m1/3. This Value describe a clean,
straight channel.
The simulation results with the proposed interventions are illustrated in the following Figures.

Figure 4-14. Planned Scenario - Mbezi River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-15. Planned Scenario – Mbezi Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-16. Typical proposed cross section (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.2 Mlalakwa River
Mlalakwa River is located in the Kinondoni district. The Manning coefficient (n) used in actual
scenario model is 0.07 s/m1/3 for the main channel and 0.10 s/m1/3 for the floodplain.
effect the river is full of garbage and shrubs. The actual condition and hydraulic structures are
described in the site survey report.
Figure 4-17. Actual Scenario - Mlalakwa River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-18. Actual Scenario - Mlalakwa River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

The proposed intervention is:
• The Cleaning of the existing channel for a length of 3500 m.
The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.04 s/m1/3. This Value describe a clean channel
with some stone and weeds. The simulation results with the proposed interventions are illustrated
in the following Figures.
Figure 4-19. Planned Scenario - Mlalakwa River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-20. Planned Scenario – Mlalakwa Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.3 Gerezani Creek
The Gerezani Creek Basin is located in Kinondoni district. The area is densely urbanised. The
hydraulic model of the actual scenario is illustrated in the follow figures. Some interventions in
Gerezani Creek had been already presented in the DMDP and are in advanced tender stage
for construction (November 2018).
Figure 4-21. Actual Scenario - Gerezani Creek Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-22. Actual Scenario - Gerezani Creek- Serengeti River- Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.4 Micocheni River
Micocheni Basin is located in the Kinondoni district. The Manning coefficient (n) used in actual
scenario model is 0.07 s/m1/3 for the main channel and 0.10 s/m1/3 for the floodplain. The basin is
densely urbanised. The actual condition and hydraulic structures are described in the site survey
report.
Figure 4-23. Actual Scenario - Mikocheni River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-24. Actual Scenario - Mikocheni River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

The proposed interventions in Mikocheni river are:
1. Enlargement of the existing cross section including stabilization and lining in concrete:
- 3064 m of trapezoidal channel with a depth of 1.5 m and a top width of 7 m;
2. Replacement of Culverts: C46, C47, C48 with a box 1.50 m (depth) x 5.00 (width) m.
3. Removing of the Culvert C45 in the mouth of the river.
The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.015 s/m1/3. This value describe a concrete
trapezoidal main channel. The simulation results with the proposed interventions are illustrated in
the following Figures.
Figure 4-25. Planned Scenario - Mikocheni River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-26. Planned Scenario – Mikocheni Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-27. Planned Scenario – Mikocheni Example of the proposed cross section (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.5 Yombo River
The Yombo Basin is located in Temeke district. The area is densely urbanised. The hydraulic
model of the actual scenario is illustrated in the follow figures.
Some interventions in Yombo river had been already presented in the DMDP and are in
advanced tender stage for construction (November 2018).
Figure 4-28. Actual Scenario - Yombo River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-29. Actual Scenario – Yombo Main and Tributary rivers hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.6 Sinza River
The Sinza Basin is located in Ubungo and Kinondoni district. The area is densely urbanised. The
hydraulic model of the actual scenario is illustrated in the follow figures.
Some interventions in Sinza river had been already presented in the DMDP and are in
Figure 4-30. Actual Scenario - Sinza Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-31. Actual Scenario - Main and Tributary Sinza River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr).

4.7.3.7 Ubungo River
Ubungo River is located in the Ubungo district. It is one of the most important tributary of the
Msimbazi river and it is densely urbanized. According to the historical flooded area, the Ubungo
basin is deeply affected by flooding every year.
The manning coefficient used during the simulation is 0.07 s/m1/3.
The actual condition and hydraulic structures are described in the site survey report and the
results of the existing condition modelling are illustrated below.
Figure 4-32. Actual Scenario - Ubungo Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-33. Actual Scenario - Ubungo River Main Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-34. Actual Scenario - Ubungo River River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

The proposed interventions in Ubungo river are:
Main River:
Tributary River:
- 1910 m of trapezoidal channel with a depth of 2 m and a top width of 9 m;
2. Replacement of Culverts:
Main River:
- C31 with 3 circular pipes with 5 m of diameter.
- C30 with 4 cells: 3 m (Depth) x 5 (Width) m.
- C29 with 4 cells: 3 m (Depth) x 5 (Width) m
- C18 with 4 cells: 3 m (Depth) x 5 (Width) m
Tributary River:
- C56 with a cell of 1.5 m (Depth) x 2.5 m (Width).
- C57 with 3 cells of 2 m (Depth) x 2.5 m (Width)
- C58 with 3 cells of 2 (Depth) x 2.5 m (Width).
- C59 with 3 cells of 2 (Depth) x 2.5 m (Width).
The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.015 s/m1/3. This value describe a concrete
trapezoidal main channel.

Figure 4-35. Planned Scenario - Ubungo River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-36. Planned Scenario – Ubungo River Main Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-37. Planned Scenario – Ubungo River’s Tributary Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-38. Planned Scenario: Proposed cross section in Ubungo River (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.8 Tegeta River
Tegeta basin is located between the district of Kinondoni and Ubungo. Our team has decided to
model the last 5 km of the river in the Kinondoni District. The Manning coefficient (n) used in the
existing condition model is 0.07 s/m1/3.
described in the site survey report. The Hec-Ras results are illustrated in the Figures below:
Figure 4-39. Actual Scenario - Tegeta Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-40. Actual Scenario - Tegeta River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

The proposed intervention in Tegeta river is: the cleaning of the existing channel for a length of
4,878 m. The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.04 s/m1/3. This value describes a
clean channel with some stone and weeds. The simulation results with the proposed interventions
are illustrated in the following Figures.
Figure 4-41. Planned Scenario - Tegeta River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-42. Planned Scenario – Tegeta Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.9 Kizinga River
Kizinga River is located between Temeke and Ubungo district. The basin is characterized by a
low population density and the conditions of the river are quite good. The Manning coefficient (n)
used in the existing condition model is 0.04 s/m1/3.
These values describe a clean channel with some weeds and stones. The actual condition and
hydraulic structures are described in the site survey report. In general, the flooded area doesn’t
affect urban area and the water follow the natural watercourse. For this reason, any intervention
has been proposed
The Hec-Ras modelling results are illustrated in the Figures below:
Figure 4-43. Actual Scenario - Kizinga Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-44. Actual Scenario - Kizinga River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.10 Mzinga River
Mzinga River is located between in Temeke district. The basin is characterized by a low population
density and the conditions of the river are quite good. The Manning coefficient (n) used in the
existing condition model is 0.04 s/m1/3.
These values describe a clean channel with some weeds and stones. In general, the flooded area
doesn’t affect urban area and the water follow the natural watercourse. For this reason any
intervention has been proposed
The Hec-Ras modelling results are illustrated in the Figures below:.
Figure 4-45. Actual Scenario - Mzinga River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-46. Actual Scenario - Mzinga River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
4.7.3.11 Nyakasangwe River
Nyakasangwe basin is located between the district of Kinondoni and Ubungo. Our team has
decided to model the last 5.25 km of the river in the Kinondoni District.
The Manning coefficient (n) used in the existing condition model is 0.07 s/m1/3.
described in the site survey report. Ù
The Hec-Ras modelling results are illustrated in the Figures below.

Figure 4-47. Actual Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-48. Actual Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
The proposed interventions is: the cleaning of the existing channel for a length of 5,250 m.
The value of Manning coefficient used is equal to 0.03 s/m1/3. This value describes a clean channel
with some stone and weeds.

Figure 4-49. Planned Scenario - Nyakasangwe River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-50. Planned Scenario - Nyakasangwe Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.12 Kijitonyama River
Kijitonyama basin is located between the Kinondoni and Ubungo district. Our team has decided
to model the last 2.5 km of the river in the Kinondoni District. The Manning coefficient (n) used in
the existing condition model is 0.07 s/m1/3 for the main channel and 0.1 s/m1/3 for the floodplain.
effect the river is full of garbage and shrubs.
The actual condition and hydraulic structures are described in the site survey report.
The Hec-Ras results are illustrated in the Figures below.
Figure 4-51. Actual Scenario - Kijitonyama Rivers Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-52. Actual Scenario - Kijitonyama River Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
The proposed interventions are:
1. The Cleaning of the existing Channel for a length of 1500 m.

- 980 m of a rectangular channel, depth 2.5 m, top width 6.5 m
- 580 m of a rectangular channel, depth 2.5 m, top width 8.0 m
3. Enlargement of the existing cross section including stabilization and natural lining:
- 500 m of a trapezoidal natural channel, depth 2 m, top width 18 m
4. Enlargement Culvert C14 with a cell 2 m (Depth) x 10 m (Width)
The value of Manning coefficient used is between 0.015 s/m1/3 (for the concrete channel) and
0.025 s/m1/3 (for the natural channel) .

Figure 4-53. Planned Scenario - Kijitonyama River Flood Simulation (RP 25-yr)

Figure 4-54. Planned Scenario - Kijitonyama Hydraulic Profile (RP 25-yr)
Figure 4-55. Planned Scenario: Proposed Kijitonyama River cross section (RP 25-yr)

4.7.3.13 Msimbazi River
In mid 2018 Deltares has presented the results of the study: “Development of a hydrological and
hydrodynamic model of the Msimbazi Basin” for the Tanzania Urban Resilience Project - TURP.
Within this study, a cascade of a wflow-sbm hydrological and SOBEK 1D2D hydraulic flood model
has been established and calibrated. The calibration of the hydrological model is very limited at
this stage, as the amount of data available for calibration, in particular water level observations
along with accurate stage discharge relationships, are too few. The setup of SOBEK 1D2D model
shows a realistic representation of the hydrodynamic processes of the Msimbazi river during
flooding. The model cascade as a whole has been tested to reproduce the October 2017 event
and showed consistent water depth, compared against field observations. The model cascade
has been used to assess likely causes of flooding under a T25 event and the effectiveness of a
total of three interventions on flooding.
The simulated flood extent for the T25 flood event shows that almost the entire area of the natural
floodplain downstream of the Msimbazi river is flooded, but also larger parts of the natural
floodplain upstream of the Msimbazi river and tributaries are flooded.

Figure 4-56. Msimbazi river flood extent and flood depths for the T25 year event. (Deltares, 2018)
Figure 4-57. Msimbazi longitudinal profile with simulated maximum water levels for the T25 event.
The return period of 25 year flood event results in a maximum peak flow of almost 600 m3/s at
the Selander bridge.
Figure 4-58. Hydrograph showing discharge of Msimbazi river at Selander bridge for T25 event.
A total of three scenarios have been considered to assess the viability of measures to reduce
flooding. All scenarios have so far been assessed under the assumption that a T25 event is
normative for design of measures. We may conclude the following per scenario.
• Scenario 1: opening of clogged bridge culverts under Jangwani Bridge improves the drainage
capacity during extreme flooding. Flood depths are only slightly reduced, and only just
upstream of Jangwani Bridge.

• Scenario 2: Lifting of bridge deck is effective to prevent main connecting roads from flooding.
However there is a serious risk of a negative effect upstream of the bridge, as a higher bridge
deck prevents that the flood wave can flow over the bridge deck and the adjacent road.
Instead, the bridge abutments now completely block the flow, forcing all flow through the
bridge’s culverts. However, it may well be that with less severe events than the T25 event,
this solution will prove rather effective. A combination of this intervention and lowering of the
river bed this effect may also prove more effective. This remains to be studied.
• Scenario 3: Improving conveyance capacity of the downstream river stretch has a significant
effect on reducing flood depths. A dredged river profile of 40 m wide and 3 m deep is still too
small to convey a maximum peak flow of 400 m3/s (October 2017 event) or more.
Some interventions on Msimbazi river had been already presented in the DMDP and are in

4.7.4 Hydraulic Modelling Summary
According to the HEC RAS modelling, the following results have been summarised for the present
condition of the rivers and their tributaries.
ACTUAL SCENARIO
W.S. W.S.
Q25 (max) V av n
Elev max Elev min Sav Froude av
m3/s (m/s) (s/[m^1/3])
(m) (m)
Kijitoniama 70.2 18.8 1.5 0.4 0.35% 0.100 0.13
Kizinga 348.7 15.9 4.3 1.3 0.23% 0.040 0.37
Mzinga 717.3 17.2 2.2 1.1 0.15% 0.040 0.32
Mbezi 184.1 33.4 2.2 0.9 0.48% 0.100 0.23
Micocheni 28.4 27.8 2.2 0.4 0.75% 0.07 0.26
Mlalakwa 61.2 103.1 2.2 1.4 0.90% 0.070 0.42
Nyakasangwe 183.2 23.1 1.5 1.2 0.42% 0.070 0.28
Tegeta 139.2 29.5 2.2 1.1 0.51% 0.070 0.31
Sinza Main 170.0 53.60 5.17 1.02 0.41% 0.07 0.26
Sinza Trib 26.6 22.28 17.15 0.48 0.21% 0.07 0.17
Yombo Main 126.5 40.1 5.3 0.9 0.44% 0.070 0.27
Yombo Tributary 89.42 30.83 8.12 0.75 0.28% 0.07 0.20
Ubungo Main 236.8 46.1 7.3 1.0 0.45% 0.070 0.29
Ubungo Trib 59.0 42.1 10.4 0.7 0.55% 0.070 0.27
Gerezani-
Serengeti 90.5 24.5 3.0 0.5 0.72% 0.070 0.21
Gerezani-Temeke 6.6 27.6 22.7 0.3 0.79% 0.070 0.19
Gerezani-Keko 35.8 8.4 5.9 0.6 0.29% 0.070 0.20
Table 4-12. Summary Table of Rivers Model Results – Present Condition
Therefore, the following results have been summarised for the proposed interventions on 7 rivers
and their tributaries.
PLANNED SCENARIO
W.S. W.S.
Q25 (max) V av
Elev max Elev min Sav n (s/[m^1/3]) Froude av
m3/s (m/s)
(m) (m)
Kijitoniama 70.2 17.3 1.5 1.8 0.42% 0.025 0.88
Mbezi 141.8 31.4 2.2 2.9 0.45% 0.025 0.82
Micocheni 28.4 28.7 1.5 4.7 0.75% 0.015 1.57
Mlalakwa 61.2 102.7 2.2 2.2 0.86% 0.040 0.71
Nyakasangwe 183.2 21.9 1.5 2.4 0.37% 0.030 0.59
Tegeta 139.2 29.3 2.2 1.5 0.52% 0.030 0.43
Ubungo Main 236.8 41.9 4.4 4.8 0.32% 0.015 1.14
Ubungo Tributary 59.0 40.7 8.2 3.1 0.53% 0.0 1.20
Table 4-13. Summary Table of Rivers Model Results – Proposed Interventions

For the Ubungo river a pre-feasibility study has been developed.
4.8 Proposed Structural Drainage Measures
As a general approach, all the DMDP proposed drainage projects have been deemed necessary
in agreement with the Client and the IDA; therefore, they have all been included in the DSDP
along with the new proposed interventions.
Particularly, the DMDP’ detailed interventions in the five rivers Msimbazi, Sinza, Yombo, Gerezani
Creek and Kizinga, whose invitation for bids for construction works have been already published
on 13th November 2018, have been included in the group of the high-priority projects. Regarding
the Msimbazi river’s valley, the Deltares study will be included as its hydraulic results and
proposed interventions will be provided by the Client.
The new proposed drainage systems are mostly concentrated in urban area, because most of the
crowded settlements lay all around the city center and show inadequate services (high hazard
and high exposure). The peri-urban parts of the Municipals have less dense urban tissue and
don’t show high risk exposure to floods.
The drainage system of the urban area of Dar es Salaam will be carried out by means of covered
ditches and subsurface pipes collecting smaller (secondary and tertiary) drainage pipes
distributed along the streets, with a main outlet along the rivers, streams or along the coast. Seven
detention ponds (almost all assessed in the DMDP) will be set aside the main rivers or streams
in order to reduce their peak flows. Some change (excavation, dredging) to the rivers’ cross
sections and enlargement interventions on some crossings (culverts, bridges, etc.) will also be
needed.
The DSDP proposed interventions are more focused on the new expansion/addition to the critical
infrastructure systems (based on the actual knowledge of the waterlogged areas) and on some
upgrading of existing facilities. As reported by the documentation collected, only 51% of the
installed drains within the Dar City Council are in good condition and the rest are frequently
clogged. Their full functionality would surely help to better relief both the known and the
unassessed flooded areas. Therefore, since it has not been possible to assess all of the existing
drainage systems (out of the scope of work) in order to clearly identify their present condition
through a visual/topographic survey, this activity have been quoted within the cost estimate of the
DSDP.

Moreover a general rehabilitation/cleaning program has been assessed and included in the cost-
benefit analysis (operation and maintenance). Since it is financially unrealistic to execute a yearly
maintenance of all the waterways (natural and artificial) in Dar es Salaam, the 5 Municipalities
should improve their knowledge on all the drainage systems by means of the above mentioned
survey campaigns (with the help of the GIS system already setup within the DSDP and
outlined/updated by the Ramani Huria team) and rank the rehabilitation priorities according to the
flooded zones identified.
Ditches and Pipes

A mixed solution made of ditches and concrete pipes will be adopted to assure the best hydraulic
flow conditions (velocity and less than 90% ratio to full depth) and the most economic choice.
The locations of the new proposed stormwater drainage interventions are shown in the following
map.
Figure 4-59. New proposed drainage structural measures.

For the evaluation of the works to be carried out in the urban area the 5-year return period design
have been considered. In fact, as it is suggested by the practice, the economic benefits of
designing for more than 20-year event are rarely justified except for flood control works (dams
and large bridges).
Drainage River DSDP Drain length Drain length

Intervention code Catchment Catchment Code (m) (km)
D_SD_KI_01 Mlalakwa D 940.00 0.94

D_SD_KI_02 Mlalakwa D 2,261.00 2.26
E_SD_KI_02 Micocheni E 962.00 0.96
E_SD_KI_03 Micocheni E 3,186.00 3.19
E_SD_KI_04 Micocheni E 266.00 0.27
F_SD_KI_02 Kijitonyama F 8,387.00 8.39
F_SD_KI_03 Kijitonyama F 669.00 0.67
H_SD_UB_01 Ubungo H 805.00 0.81
H_SD_UB_02 Ubungo H 2,407.00 2.41
H_SD_UB_03 Ubungo H 2,103.00 2.10
H_SD_KI_04 Ubungo H 1,688.00 1.69
H_SD_UB_05 Ubungo H 480.00 0.48
H_SD_UB_06 Ubungo H 466.00 0.47
H_SD_UB_07 Ubungo H 529.00 0.53
H_SD_UB_08 Ubungo H 656.00 0.66
H_SD_UB_09 Ubungo H 500.00 0.50
H_SD_UB_10 Ubungo H 798.00 0.80
H_SD_UB_11 Ubungo H 557.00 0.56
H_SD_UB_12 Ubungo H 2,057.00 2.06
H_SD_UB_13 Ubungo H 787.00 0.79
O_SD_KG_02 Kigamboni O 2,493.00 2.49
O_SD_KG_03 Kigamboni O 1,902.00 1.90
Total 47,551.00 47.55
Table 4-14. Proposed drainage system after the hydraulic modelling.
In order to ensure the longer duration of the reinforced concrete of the structures will be adopted
an Amine Carboxilate corrosion inhibitor, tested according to ASTM C494 and ASTM G109. The
corrosion inhibitor will be incorporate only in the reinforced concrete at the batching plant.

Figure 4-60. Cross section of a double trapezoidal channel.
Figure 4-61. Catchpit connecting a trapezoidal channel to a circular underground pipe.

Rivers excavation and dredging

As a main solution for the bettering of the rivers flow conveyance, the dredging and excavation of
bed and floodplain has been deemed necessary. Also, the removal of solid wastes is considered
mandatory for the best conveyance of new and existing drain and waterways (natural and
artificial).
4.9 Drainage Projects Proposed Resettlements
According to the above proposed interventions, a number of houses or buildings would need to
be removed.
The general map of the affected houses for all the studied catchments is shown below.
Figure 4-62. Map of the affected houses after the DSDP stormwater drainage projects.

Number of buildings affected by the drainage projects

Type of building/area Total
Ward name
Ap Ch Co Co_Re Ho In Pk Pu Re Sc Un Ut
Bunju 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Mbezi Juu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Kijichi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Kitunda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Charambe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Azimio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5
Msasani 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5
Mbweni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9
Kiburugwa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11
Ubungo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 1 13
Wazo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 12 0 17
Makongo 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 24
Kijitonyama 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 0 26
Mianzini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 27
Buza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 34
Toangoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 38
Mbagala 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 9 0 41
Kawe 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 44 0 17 0 64
Mzimuni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 31 0 88
Mikocheni 2 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 27 0 53 2 102
Kunduchi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 104
Manzese 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 102 0 15 0 126
Mabibo 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 152 0 26 0 183
Mbagala Kuu 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 131 0 50 1 189
Mburahati 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2 168 0 39 0 219
Makurumla 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 167 0 50 1 221
Kigogo 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 2 303 2 144 0 465
Total 3 2 21 28 2 18 1 8 1,199 2 735 5 2,024
Ap Ch Co Co_Re Ho In
apartments church commercial commercial;residential house industrial
Pk Pu Re Sc Un Ut
parking public residential school unspecified utility
Table 4-15. Affected buildings by the stormwater drainage projects.
The study of the affected houses must be further developed and discussed for determining the
actual costs of the proposed resettlements or for assessing any different possible alternative.

5 PROPOSED STRUCTURAL MEASURES FOR

SANITATION
5.1 General
The proposed sewer networks will be planned as the separate sewer system in this study
according to “Sanitation Improvement Plans” and meeting with DAWASA.
The separate sewer systems are planned by hourly max sewer Sewerage flow.
Sewer will be planned to ensure sewer discharge capacity, and Existing ponds shall be closed,
Sewage shall be going into new Wastewater Treatment plant.
Unplanned residential areas in sewerage system will be planned to apply simplified sewer network
system.
The projects looks to a future vision of the Region and takes in account the urban development
provided by the draft of new Urban Master Plan. Waiting the implementation of the proposed
dynamic normalized sewerage collection system (that will solve the problem of a separated faecal
sludge management) the faecal sludge from the pit latrins and septic tanks will be managed in
consideration of the BICO proposal. The mobile transfers station will be replaced as the
implementation progresses of the new DSDP.
5.2 Design Criteria
Gravity Sewers
The different human activities would result in variable amounts of domestic wastewater to be
discharged to the proposed collection system and then conveyed to the wastewater treatment
plant.
Wastewater discharged from served areas shall be collected by gravity sewers (Conventional
sewers, Shallow sewers, Condominial system and Small bore sewers). Sewers shall take
advantage of the natural gradient at the site where possible in order to minimize excavation and
also to minimize and/or eliminate the use of pumping requirements. The conventional gravity
sewers system shall be designed based on the following criteria:

Conventional Gravity Sewers
- Sewers shall run at 50% to 80% of their full capacity to allow aeration of waste and avoid the
development of septic conditions.
- Sewers shall run with a sufficient slope to maintain a minimum velocity (preferably 0.60 m/s
when half-full) to maintain self-cleaning of any sediments.
- Maximum velocity should not exceed 3.0 m/s to avoid scouring of sewer.
- Minimum pipe diameter of main sewers shall be 200 mm.
Manning formula shall be used for hydraulic design of sewers, it can be expressed as follows:
with:
V : Velocity of flow (m/sec)

n : Roughness coefficient
R : Hydraulic radius (m)
S : Sewer slope (m/m)
The recommended values of manning roughness coefficient “n” is as follows :
n = 0.012 (for uPVC and GRP pipes)
The following formula will be adopted to calculate the peaking factor of the sewage flow. This
formula, as shown hereafter, inversely relates the population to the peaking factor. Hence, the
more contributing population, the lower the peaking factor:
with:
P.F.: Peaking factor

P = Population in thousand
For minimum velocities: Sufficient Velocity should be developed regularly to flush out any solids
that may have been deposited during low flow period. The usual practice is to design the slopes
for sanitary sewers to ensure a minimum velocity of 0.6 m/s with flow at one half depth or full

depth (Vfull). The velocity at less than one-half depth will be less than 0.6 m/s, the velocity
between one half full and full depth will be slightly greater than 0.6 m/s.
Although the velocity near the bottom of the sewer significantly affects how quickly the wastewater
flows, a mean of velocity of 0.3 m/s is usually sufficient to prevent the deposition of the organic
solids in wastewater (source: Metcalf & Eddy: Wastewater Engineering Collection and Pumping
of Wastewater- McGraw Hill Co.)
Its expected at early stages of project operation that some depositions in the collection lines may
occur and should be flushed regularly through maintenance efforts of the responsible authority.
This approach helps in minimizing pipes slopes, diameters, need for additional pumping stations
and provide a realistic approach to use the constructed sewers efficiently along the life time of the
sewer pipes (average 50 years).
For small pore sewers, the houses discharge sewage to septic tank, that allow suspended solids
to be settled, then the settled wastewater flow in a small diameter shallow sewer to a collection
point.
The following criteria may be applied for small bore sewers:
- Minimum flow velocity is 0.3 m/s
- Maximum flow velocity is 3m/s
- Minimum sewer diameter shall be 110 m/s
- Minimum sewer cover is 0.7m/s
- Manning formula and the continuity equation shall be used for sizing of sewers
- Peaking factor - may be reduced than that of the conventional sewerage system due to
dumping of the flow variations in the septic tank – the minimum will be 2.0
Simplified Sewerage
Conceptually it is the same as conventional sewerage, but with conscious efforts made to
eliminate unnecessarily conservative design features and to match design standards to the local
situation.

5.3 Sewering Informal Settlements
[25] Installing conventional (gravity) sewerage in informal settlements is not easy given various
social and technological constraints. Informal settlement residents often demand that local
authorities upgrade services in the areas where they currently live because the settlements are
close to existing formalised neighbourhoods, transport links, etc. Yet dwellings tend to be laid out
in a manner that is not conducive for retrofitting drainage according to conventional engineering
standards. Coupled with unfavourable ground conditions (ranging from settlements in flood-prone
areas to discontinued landfills), retrofit ting and/or installing conventional sewerage in such
conditions is inherently problematic, particularly in situations where residents refuse to relocate
(even temporarily) for fear of further marginalisation.
Alternative approaches to providing sewerage to informal settlements need to be investigated in

order to determine whether there are other means of providing these areas with low-cost
wastewater collection systems (Otis & Mara, 1985 ; Mara, 2006). Such alternative systems have
been developed and applied worldwide either through changing the design criteria and the
implementation approach for conventional gravity sewerage (e.g. simplified and settled
sewerage), or taking a somewhat different approach altogether (e.g. vacuum sewerage) (Bakalian
et al. , 1994). The research team distinguishes between simplified sewerage and settled
systems in that simplified sewers are designed to convey sewage without settling solids
in interceptor tanks like settled sewers (Mara, 1998: 249, 252). Simplified sewerage is also
commonly referred to as ‘condominial’ sewerage (Watson, 1995). Vacuum systems, in contrast,
use differential air pressure to propel sewage through their own dedicated pipes to the main sewer
network in an area. Unlike conventional, simplified or settled sewerage, vacuum systems only
partly rely on gravity flows for wastewater conveyance and are thus less limited by topographical
constraints.
Skilled professionals are required to plan, construct and manage alternative sewerage systems
for the purpose of minimising the risk of poor design, construction or operation and maintenance
(O&M). No matter what alternative system is installed, a teething period should be expected with
unfamiliar systems where there will be initial design, construction and management problems.
Problems, when encountered, should be immediately addressed and prevented as far as is
possible by training responsible maintenance personnel. Furthermore, two potential issues that
25
Sanitation Services in Informal Settlements Sewering Lessons From Western Cape, Water Information Network,
South Africa. Lesson Series, September 2013

should be negotiated in advance are the prevention of unauthorised private connections to

communal drainage services and building over shallowly-laid sewers as both risks can affect the
integrity of the sewers.
Any sewerage technology – regardless of whether it is installed in a formal or informal area – will
fail if no one manages the components of the system (i.e. toilets, pipes, pumps, etc.), and ensures
that the technology is used according to design.
The implementation of any kind of sanitation facility in an informal settlement requires that it be
accompanied by a fully and carefully developed project management and operation and
maintenance (O&M) servicing plan that accounts in full for the social context in which the
facility has been introduced.
Operation and maintenance requirements
Simplified sewerage relies on gravity for sewage transport, hence sufficiently steep gradients and
a reliable supply of water are required. In instances where shallow gradients are necessary due
to the topography of the area being serviced, simplified sewerage requires a particularly high level
of connection into the sewer system in order to provide the flows required for sewer flushing. Mara
et al. (2001) recommend that simplified sewerage only be considered where a reliable on-
site water supply capable of providing at least 60 litres per person per day is available.
The maintenance requirements for simplified sewerage systems are similar to those of
conventional gravity systems. Preventative maintenance tasks include periodic sewer flushing,
repairs, and supervision of connections and disconnections. In order for the maintenance program
to be effective it is imperative that the types of problems frequently occurring are recorded and
resolved and trouble areas routinely inspected. Blockages should be removed without delay whilst
the system should be occasionally flushed to clear of any build-up of solids that may have
occurred (Bakalian et al, 1994). Responsibilities for sewer maintenance in simplified sewerage
are generally related to the sewer network layout. In backyard sewer systems, residents may be
responsible for that portion of the sewer network that runs from their dwelling to the next. In other
layouts, the users could be responsible for maintaining the sewer lines that pass though their land,
including inspection boxes. In these arrangements the service agency (or some other appointed
entity such as a neighbourhood maintenance team) would be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of all lines in the road reserve, including sidewalk sewers (Mara, 2006).
5.3.1 Considerations from Urban Master Plan - Waste Water Management
Conveyance of the Increased Waste Water Flows in 2036

With a population expected to rise to 11.9 million by 2036, demands for wastewater disposal
capacity will increase proportionally. According to the Strategic Sanitation Plan for Dar es Salaam
current sewage production is between 360,000-400,000m3 /day. With a potable water demand
expected to rise to 1,245,350 m3/day, the volume of wastewater which will need to be treated and
discharged will rise up to 1,058,550 - 1,072,380 m3/day. The existing sewage network capacity is
estimated to be around 38,000 m3/day; less than 10% of the current demand and less than 3.6%
of the expected demand for 2036. An investment in network extension and reinforcement is critical
to preventing an escalation of health issues associated to poor sanitation and to avoiding
aggravation of ground water pollution.
DAWASCO are planning to extend the network over the next 20 years focusing mainly on the City
Centre. The existing network should be upgraded and extended in coordination with on-going
highways improvement plans and utility provision programmes so as to maximise efficiencies from
co-location of service and trenching and minimize public works and disturbance. Areas where
densification of population is planned provide cost efficient opportunities for network expansion
and should be in focus, in the short term. Examples are the Sinza, Mwananyamala, Makumbusho
and Kijitonyama areas, in which the population is expected to grow by 195% - 273% over the next
20 years.
The DAWASCO plan also allows for 3 additional waste-water treatment plants. Proposed plant
locations have been selected based on a set of criteria, which include topography and proximity
to possible effluent discharge points. These appear to align relatively well with the new satellite
areas proposals. WWTP1 outside the CBD requires a large area as it will be vital to the treatment
of the CBD‟s wastewater. It is planned within the protected area surrounding the CBD, which is
also a flood plain. Plants must be designed and specified to take into consideration potential
impacts of odour, level of contamination of incoming wastewater and effluent quality
specifications, associated pumping requirement and local availability of power, and vulnerability
to flood risks. Odour control, for example could be addressed by designating adequate buffer
zones, covering the tanks or injecting oxygen into them. The DAWASA /DAWASCO plan also
includes outlets to enable reuse of treated effluent for irrigation purposes which is endorsed and
in line with international best practice.
The CIUP has also proposed decentralized sanitation solutions in unplanned and unserved areas
where remoteness and lower density development may make it less feasible to extend and
connect to existing and proposed networks. There is potential for reinforcing the decentralised
systems in these areas through more effective method of latrine emptying and clear regulation of

this service; designation of areas for wastewater disposal and improved facilities such as
composting latrines.
In order to cater for future needs of the City, the installation of decentralized localized sewage
treatment plants should also take consideration of planned improvements in the supply of potable
water. Decentralized sewage treatment plants could be modular and phased to match
development occupation. Furthermore, a decentralized approach to wastewater management
would have the added benefit of eliminating the need for lengthy large-scale trunk infrastructure.
However, decentralized wastewater treatment will also require some degree of local operation
and plant management. The most suitable approach will depend upon the local government
preferences in terms of plant management, maintenance and operation approaches.

5.4
5.4 Alternative analysis
The main alternatives considered in the design regarded:
• upgrading the existing system, providing a new system

• providing several local or smaller sewerage systems, providing one large regional
system
• alternative plant site locations (centralized or decentralized system), package STP or
cast in place STP use and plant layouts and technological alternatives; alternative
reticulation routes, gravity sewerage or vacuum system, locations for pumping
stations.
• alternative sewage, effluent and bio-solids treatment technology; alternative target
effluent and bio-solid quality
• alternative options for storage and utilization of the treated effluent and bio-solids (for
example, land application, industrial or residential uses) before considering disposal
options; include:
➢ if effluent or bio-solids are used for land application, alternative site
locations, alternative application rates, cropping regimes, management of
irrigation practices; temporary storage options
➢ if effluent is discharged at outfalls; alternative locations and configuration of
any outfalls
➢ alternative bio-solids disposal locations and management regimes
• the 'do-nothing' option; the consequences of not proceeding with the proposal will be
considered.
Some of the issues considered in the analysis and selection of the preferred option are the:
a) ability to satisfy the objectives of the proposal
b) acceptability of environmental impacts including biophysical, economic and social

(including health) impacts
c) reliability of options to treat sewage, and use and disposal of effluent and bio-solids
so that acceptable environmental standards are met and public health risks are
minimized
e) flexibility of options to meet future demand
f) opportunity within the options for effluent and biosolids reuse
g) efficiency of energy and other resource issues
h) acceptability of the hazard risk associated with the use of chemicals at the facilities

i) the reliability of the environmental impact mitigation measures in ameliorating the

undesirable impacts
j) the relative environmental, economic and social costs and benefits of each
alternative; significant non-monetary or non-quantifiable costs and benefits will be
described and qualitatively assessed.
Figure 5-1. - Existing - Existing Alternative Analysis Process
The detailed analysis of technical alternatives for the selection of the best solution, is reported as
Attached 1 of this report.

5.5 Kinondoni District Structural Measures
5.5.1 Existing Sewerage Network
The existing sewerage system in Kinondoni consists of the Msasani Service area (Mikocheni,
Kijitonyama networks) and the Lugalo Service area (Lugalo, Makongo e Kawe networks).
1 - Msasani Service Area
Msasani sewerage system is composed of 3 different networks serving Regent Estate (3.7 km of
sewage pipeline), Mikocheni (7.4 km of sewage pipeline) and Kijitonyama (10.2 km of sewage
pipeline). The entire system conveys the wastewater to the existing Msasani pond. The pond has
a maximum capacity of 105 l/s (9,000 m3/d). The treatment is only biological and the pond also
receives faecal sludge collected by tankers from households for the same treatment. As reported
in EWURA Performance Utilities Reports for the year 2016/2017, the effluent is over the standard
limits for BOD and COD.
2 - Lugalo Service Area
Lugalo Sewerage System collects the wastewater from Lugalo barracks (between Makongo and
Kawe) by a network having a total length of 17.2 km. the network is connected to the Lugalo pond
that has a capacity of 3800 m3/d (44 l/s). As reported in EWURA Performance Utilities Reports
for the year 2016/2017, the effluent is over the standard limits for BOD and COD.
Figure 5-2. - Existing sewerage systems in Kinondoni District.

5.5.2 The project area
Kinondoni District has a total area of about 28,205 Ha and includes 20 wards. The population
counted by the last 2012 Census is 929,681 inhabitants that is expected to increase up to
2,727,311 in 2036, according with the demographic projection of the new Urban Master Plan.
The present average urban density is about 33 persons per hectare, with a maximum value of
467 in Tandale and a minimum density of about 4 persons per hectare in Mabwepande.
5.5.3 DAWASA Planned Sewerage Network
Thirty of the 20 wards of Kinondoni District are already included in the recent design review of
sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed for DAWASA by Beomhan
Engineering & Architects (2016). The planned areas in Kinondoni District are described in the
following paragraphs.
_____ Ubungo Wards Limits

_____ Kinondoni Wards Limits
Figure 5-3. - Proposed sewerage network for Ubungo and Kinondoni (Source: Consultancy services for
design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant - Beomhan Engineering)
Kinondoni Service Area:
Kinondoni Service Area includes part of: Kinondoni, Hana Nasif, Mwanayamala, Tandale, Sinza,
Kijitonyama, Makumbusho, Kigogo, Mzimuni, Magomeni, Ndugumbi wards. For this area the
Sanitation Improvement Plan provided a gravity network system with about 100 km of sewer

(D200~1,300mm) and 1 Pumping station. The recent “Feasibility Study of Wastewater Treatment
System Development in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania” – (Exim Project) has proposed an upgrade of
the sewerage facilities increasing the total length of the network (D200~1,400mm) up to 142 km
with 381 km of lateral sewer and 10 new pumping stations. The daily collected wastewater has
been estimated of 142,380 m3/d up to 2032.
Msasani Service Area:
Msasani is planned to be served by a separated service area composed by 60 km of gravity sewer

line (D200~400mm) and 2 pumping station. The recent “Feasibility Study of Wastewater
Treatment System Development in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania” has proposed an upgrade of the
sewerage facilities increasing the total length of the network (D200~600mm) up to 49.8 km with
27 km of lateral sewer and 5 new pumping stations. The daily collected wastewater has been
estimated of 7,920 m3/d up to 2032.
Both Msasani and Kinondoni Service Areas are part of Msimbazi Sewerage System conveying to
the Msimbazi Treatment Plant. Starting from an initial capacity of 100,000 m3/d, the plant is
planned to be upgraded to a final capacity of 200,000 m3/d, as per “Feasibility Study of
Wastewater Treatment System Development in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania”. A final capacity of
100,000 m3/d had been provided in Beomhan Engineering & Architects Project.
Mbezi Service Area:
The “Mbezi Service Area” covers in Kinondoni parts of 3 different wards: Mbezi juu, Kawe,
Kunduchi. The planned network is composed of 97 km of sewer pipeline (D200~500mm), 1
pumping station and 1 Treatment Plant with capacity of 16,000 m3/d (Beomhan Engineering &
Architects Project).
The “Feasibility Study of Wastewater Treatment System Development in Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania” (Exim Project) has proposed an upgrade of the sewerage facilities increasing the total
length of the network (D200~500mm) up to 20 km with 61 km of lateral sewer and 6 new pumping
stations. Also the capacity of the treatment plant is planned to reach 22,000 m3/d.

Engineering)

The following table reports for each wards of Kinondoni District the value of population at 2012,
the demographic projection up to 2036, as per new urban Master Plan and the value of water
demand at 2032 as per DAWASA water supply distribution network projects, being the main inputs
for the planning of the new sewerage and sanitation system (Source: Engidro Project for water
Supply, 2016).
AREA CENSUS DRAFT URBAN MASTER PLAN

Urban GR/100*n
(Ha) 2012 Exponential growth: Pn = P (e )
WARD density
DISTRICT WARD
CODE (2012) Urban density
2036 Maximum 2032-Water demand with
2012 People/Ha (2036)
GR = 3.9 Population 2036 losses per capita (l/c/d)
People/Ha
KN1 Kigogo 192.7688 57,613.00 298.87 175,591 71,048 369 98
KN2 Mzimuni 123.2822 21,486.00 174.28 65,486 26,497 215 98
KN3 Magomeni 110.0024 24,400.00 221.81 74,366 30,090 274 101
KN4 Ndugumbi 132.9132 36,841.00 277.18 112,282 45,432 342 98
KN5 Hananasif 189.7349 37,115.00 195.62 113,118 45,770 241 98
KN6 Kinondoni 191.995 21,239.00 110.62 64,732 26,192 136 159
KN7 M’Nyamala 250.6776 50,560.00 201.69 154,097 62,351 249 98
KN8 Makumbusho 175.7545 68,093.00 387.43 207,532 83,972 478 98
KN9 Tandale 117.2505 54,781.00 467.21 166,960 67,556 576 29
KN10 Msasani 1137.742 48,920.00 43.00 149,097 95,570 84 229
KINONDONI KN11 Mikocheni 763.6455 32,947.00 43.14 100,415 64,146 84 229
KN12 Kijitonyama 396.1945 58,132.00 146.73 177,172 83,972 212 98
KN13 Makongo 1833.083 43,796.00 23.89 133,480 153,979 84 98
KN14 Kawe 1534.705 67,115.00 43.73 204,551 128,915 84 101
KN15 Mbezi juu 894.9739 41,340.00 46.19 125,994 75,178 84 98
KN16 Kunduchi 2721.172 75,016.00 27.57 228,633 228,578 84 101
KN17 Wazo 5417.798 90,825.00 16.76 276,813 522,886 97 72
KN18 Mbweni 2364.281 13,766.00 5.82 41,955 198,600 84 72
KN19 Bunju 3486.682 60,236.00 17.28 183,586 292,881 84 81
KN20 Mabwepande 6170.796 25,460.00 4.13 77,596 423,698 69 53
SUB-TOTAL 28,205 929,681 - 2,833,454 2,727,311 - -
Table 5-1: - Kinondoni population and water demands data at ward level

5.5.4 Proposed Structural Measures for Wastewater Management
With reference to the following figure, Kinondoni project area to be planned has been divided into
5 main service catchments, each of which collecting to a new (or upgraded) treatment plant. Some
of these catchments cross the border of Kinondoni district and collect also wastewater from parts
of Ubungo District.
Figure 5-6. – Kinondoni Service Catchments
Catchment AC01
The area is located at the Northern limit of Kinondoni District and includes the entire Mabwepande,
Bunju and Mbweni wards. The present land use is rural with a very low population density (8
inhabitants/Ha). According with the new Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city,
the area is set to become a residential area with an average population density of about 80

inhabitants per Ha. The service area is 2257 Ha and the maximum expected population up to
2036 is about 189,547 inhabitants.
The two main sewers S_AC01-1 (9.45 km, D200~450 mm) and S_AC01-2 (13.7 km, D280~800
mm) run from South to North along the region border, collecting the entire wastewater flow to the
new STP_AC01. There are 5 pumping stations along the main S_AC01-2. Other 3 additional
pumping stations pump to the new STP_AC01 the wastewater produced from Mbweni coastal
area.
The STP_AC01 is located in Mbweni, close to the coast. Its capacity is provided to be of about
23,328 m3/d, constructed in phases each of 12,000 m3/d. Considering the average water influent
and the number of served people, according to the most recent studies of World Bank and
DAWASA, the waste water and sludge process plan for this WWTP will be the standard activated
sludge method.
The standard activated sludge method is simple in its processes with the most application records
across the world and its maintenance is easy. Especially, it consists of the 1st sedimentation
basin, aeration tank and final sedimentation basin, so that it has the large responding ability for
properties and load variations in the influent sewage.
The water quality of influent may continue to increase due to the direct input of human excreta if
the classification project is gradually carried out for sewer. Accordingly, this plan has to secure
the stable facility capacity in consideration of influent water quality in 2032.
The following tables show the main features of the plant and the main design parameters:
STP CODE SITE Served Area (Ha) Total Population @ 2036 Capacity (m3/d)
STP_AC01 Mbweni 5,894 459,181 23,328
Table 5-2: – Kinondoni STP AC01 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Short term Long term
Served inhabitants 229,590.50 459,181.00
Water demand l/(capita*day) 51.28 51.28
Average flow m3/h 486.00 972.00
Average flow m3/day 11,664.00 23,328.00
INFLUENT FLOW Peak flow m3/h 680.40 1,360.80
STRENGHT BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50.00 50.00
SS load per capita g/(capita*day) 50.00 50.00
BOD5 load kg / day 11,479.53 22,959.05
SS load kg / day 11,479.53 22,959.05
BOD5 concentration mg/l 984.18 984.18

SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 984.18 984.18

BOD5 CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30.00 30.00
EFFLUENT FLOW SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30.00 30.00
STRENGTH BOD5 removal % 97.0% 97.0%
SS removal % 97.0% 97.0%
Number of tank - 1.00 2.00
Depth m 2.00 2.00
Lenght of each tank m 22.68 22.68
Width of each tank m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Grit chamber area (each) m2 45.36 45.36
Total Capacity m3 90.72 181.44
HRT at peak flowrate min 8.00 8.00
Idraulic load at peak flowrate m/h 15.00 15.00
Number of basin - 2.00 4.00
Diameter m 20.31 20.31
Surface of each basin m2 323.99 323.99
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION Total Capacity m3 1,944.00 3,888.00
Surface loading rate on peak flow
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
HRT at average flowrate h 4.00 4.00
Weir loading rate m3/m*day 91.40 91.40
Total Capacity m3 17,079.44 34,158.88
Depth of each tank m 3.00 3.00
AERATION BASIN Surface of each tank m2 711.64 711.64
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 35.14 35.14
BOD volumetric loading rate kgBOD/m3∙day 0.45 0.45
Solids retention time day 10.00 10.00
Total Capacity m3 2,430.00 4,860.00
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Surface loading rate on average flow m3/m2∙day 14.40 14.40
Solid loading rate on average flow kg/m2*day 120.00 120.00
Weir loading rate m3/m∙day 57.81 57.81
DISINFECTION (Chlorine) Surface of each tank m2 324.00 324.00
HRT on peak flow min. 42.86 42.86
AEROBIC DIGESTION Total Capacity m3 23,800.00 23,800.00


Surface of each tank m2 1,360.00 1,360.00
SRT in aerobic digester tanks day 60.97 36.60
SRT total day 64.13 39.75
Total Capacity per capita l/ab. 103.66 51.83
GRAVITY THICKENER Depth m 3.50 3.50
Surface of each tank m2 132.73 132.73
HRT h 72.77 36.38
Solids loading rate kg/m2*day 17.64 35.28
Number of line 1+1 2+1
SLUDGE
Sludge quantity m3/day 193.48 386.95
DEHYDRATATION
Water content ratio % 75.0% 75.0%
Raw sludge quantity ton/day 7.46 14.92
Raw sludge solid quantity m3/day 198.48 396.95
Surplus sludge quantity ton/day 8.80 17.59
EXPECTED SLUDGE Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 567.61 1,135.22
GENERATION PER Sludge quantity after gravity
TREATMENT FACILITY m3/day 193.48 386.95
thickening
Sludge retention time in dry bed day 60.00 60.00
Total dry bed capacity m3 11,608.65 23,217.30
Superficial ratio (depth 1 m) m2/(1000 Ab.) 50.56 50.56
TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF THE PLANT sqm 90,018.46
Table 5-3: – Kinondoni STP AC01 Process Design
The following table shows the population, served areas and wastewater flows projection and main
sewers diameters.
Main Trunk ward Chacatchment Qav (tot) Qmax

2032-Water
Maximum
Census project domand with project Average
ID ID Code Area Population Area Peak flow
2012 polulation losses per polulation flow
2036
capita
Ha Population l/c/d m2 Ha l/s
S_AC01-2 22-23' KN20 6,171 13,766 423,698 423,698 53 4,047,236 405 27,789 12.78 32.90
S_AC01-2 13-21 KN20 6,171 13,766 423,698 423,698 53 7,176,006 718 49,272 35.45 91.14
S_AC01-2 9-12 KN20 6,171 13,766 423,698 423,698 53 1,406,953 141 9,660 39.90 103.21
S_AC01-2 5-8 KN20 6,171 13,766 423,698 423,698 53 4,701,544 470 32,282 54.75 143.37
S_AC01-2 2'-4 KN20 6,171 13,766 423,698 423,698 53 6,094,477 609 41,846 74.00 194.62
S_AC01-2 0-1' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 3,915,285 392 32,888 150.49 388.12
S_AC01-1 2-2' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 4,612,766 461 38,747 27.24 85.01
S_AC01-1 1'-2 KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 4,422,561 442 37,149 53.36 153.50
36,376,827 3,638 269,634 388.12
2-PS_AC01_3 2-0 KN18 2,364 25,460 198,600 198,600 72 9,667,874 967 81,210 50.76 129.77
2-PS_AC01_2 2-0 KN18 2,364 25,460 198,600 198,600 72 9,760,740 976 81,990 102.00 260.32
2-PS_AC01_1 0-2 KN18 2,364 25,460 198,600 198,600 72 3,136,520 314 26,347 118.47 303.74
Table 5-4: – Kinondoni service area AC01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection
8 pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic

Main
ward Qmax L rising De Di
Catchment
Pumping
Peak Truck external Internal
ID station Code
flow lenght diameter diameter
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_AC01-8 U13 32.9 306 140 114.6 4.36
PS_AC01-7 U13 91.1 297 250 204,6 12.01
PS_AC01-6 U13 103.2 103 225 184 13.68
PS_AC01-5 U13 143.4 703 280 229.2 19.1
AC01
PS_AC01-4 KN16 194.6 1535 400 327.4 25.8
PS_AC01-3 KN16 129.8 2300 355 294.6 17.1
PS_AC01-2 KN18 260.3 2212 500 409.2 34.51
PS_AC01-1 KN18 303.7 719 560 458,4 40.26
Table 5-5 – Kinondoni service area AC01: Pumping stations main features
Catchment A02
The area includes parts of Mabwepande, Wazo and Tandale wards. According with the new
Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city, the area is set to become a residential
area with an average population density of about 85 inhabitants per Ha. The service area is 79
Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about 6622 inhabitants.
The three main sewers S_A02-1 (6.7 km, D355~710 mm), S_A02-2 (11.9 km, D400~560 mm)
and S_A02-3 (9.5 km, D560~710 mm) run from South to North - East, collecting the entire
wastewater flow to the new STP_A02.
The STP_A02 is located in Bunju ward. Its capacity is provided to be of about 31,968m 3/d,
constructed in phases each of 16,000 m3/d. Considering the average water influent and the
number of served people, according to the most recent studies of World Bank and DAWASA, the
waste water and sludge process plan for this WWTP will be the standard activated sludge method.

STP CODE NAME Served Area (Ha) Total Population @ 2036 Capacity (m3/d)
STP_A02 Bunju 6,826 574,329 31,968
Table 5-6: – Kinondoni STP A02 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 666.00 1,332.00
Peak flow m3/h 932.40 1,864.80
INFLUENT FLOW
BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50.00 50.00
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 14,358.23 28,716.45
SS load kg / day 14,358.23 28,716.45
SS removal % 96.7% 96.7%
Depth m 2.50 2.50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 21,269.42 42,538.83
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 31.94 31.94


SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 666.00 1,332.00
Total Capacity m3 28,560.00 28,560.00
AEROBIC DIGESTION Depth of each tank m 3.50 3.50
HRT h 70.06 35.03
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
thickening
Table 5-7: – Kinondoni STP A02 Process Design
sewers diameters.


2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_A02-1 3''-6' KN20 6,171 25,460 423,698 423,698 53 5,620,912 562 38,594 17.76 47.53
S_A02-1 2-3'' KN17 5,418 90,825 522,886 522,886 72 7,047,332 705 68,016 60.27 154.56
S_A02-1 2-0' KN17 5,418 90,825 522,886 522,886 72 9,359,938 936 90,335 116.73 297.54
S_A02-1 0-0' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 12,148,637 1,215 102,048 370.17 776.15
S_A02-2 3'-6' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 7,994,496 799 67,154 47.22 128.93
S_A02-2 0''-3' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 9,162,839 916 76,968 101.34 266.96
S_A02-2 0''-0' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 1,910,118 191 16,045 112.62 297.72
S_A02-3 7'-8' K20 6,171 25,460 423,698 423,698 53 3,065,990 307 21,052 122.30 323.38
S_A02-3 3-7' K20 6,171 25,460 423,698 423,698 53 4,064,434 406 27,907 135.14 357.50
S_A02-3 2'-3 KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 995,283 100 8,360 141.02 373.20
S_A02-3 2-2' KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 3,733,438 373 31,361 163.07 429.61
S_A02-3 1-2 KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 2,365,121 237 19,867 177.04 465.90
S_A02-3 0'-1 KN19 3,487 60,236 292,881 292,881 81 788,374 79 6,622 181.70 478.62
Table 5-8: – Kinondoni service area A02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection, main sewers diameters
Catchment A01
The area includes Kunduchi ward. According with the new Urban Master Plan the area is set to
become a residential area with an average population density of about 85 inhabitants per Ha. The
service area is 1384 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about 116,293.82
inhabitants.
The two main sewers S_A01-1 (4.2 km, D200~400 mm) and S_A01-2 (2.7 km, D200~500 mm)
run from West to East, collecting the entire wastewater flow to the new STP_A01. The plant
receives also the water pumped from the service area AB.
The STP_A01 is located in Bunju ward. Its capacity is provided to be of about 8,813 m3/d,
constructed in one phase. Considering the average water influent and the number of served
people, according to the most recent studies of World Bank and DAWASA, the waste water and
sludge process plan for this WWTP will be the standard activated sludge method.

STP_A01 Bunju 1,384 116,294 8,813
Table 5-9: – Kinondoni STP A01 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 257.05 514.09
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 2,907.35 5,814.70
SS load kg / day 2,907.35 5,814.70
SS removal % 95.5% 95.5%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION Total Capacity m3 734.42 1,468.83
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day

MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 23.03 23.03


SECONDARY Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION HRT h 4.00 4.00
HRT h 69.25 34.62
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
EXPECTED SLUDGE Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 140.54 281.08
thickening
Table 5-10: – Kinondoni STP A02 Process Design
sewers diameters.


2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_A01-1 0-1' KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 3,766,583 376.66 31,639 27.74 72.98
S_A01-2 0-3' KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 6,426,063 642.61 53,979 47.33 120.60
PS_AB01- PS_AB02 - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 422,063 42.21 3,545 3.11 8.18
PS_AB02- PS_AB03 - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 269,162 26.92 2,261 1.98 6.27
PS_AB03- 1' - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 2,960,661 296.07 24,869 21.80 55.63
Table 5-11: – Kinondoni service area A01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection
Three pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_A01-1 KN16 8.2 470 110 90 1.8
A 01 PS_A01-2 KN16 6.3 403 90 73.6 1
PS_A01-3 KN16 55.6 722 160 130.8 2.95
Table 5-12 – Kinondoni service area A01: Pumping stations main features
Catchment B01
The area includes Kunduchi and Wazo wards. According with the new Urban Master Plan the
area is set to become a residential area with an average population density of about 90 inhabitants
per Ha. The service area is 2940 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about
258,090.63 inhabitants.
The main sewer S_AB1-1 (5 km, D200~450 mm) collects the entire wastewater flow to the new
STP_B01. The plant receives also the water pumped by 4 pumping stations located in the service
area AB.
The STP_B01 is located in Bunju ward. Its capacity is provided to be of about 17,712 m3/d to be
implemented in 1 phase. Considering the average water influent and the number of served

STP_B01 Bunju 2,939 258,091 17,712
Table 5-13: – Kinondoni STP B01 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 516.60 1,033.20
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 6,452.28 12,904.55
SS load kg / day 6,452.28 12,904.55
SS removal % 95.9% 95.9%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
Depth m 3.00 3.00


25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 9,446.47 18,892.94

MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15

kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 25.60 25.60
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 14,280.00 14,280.00
HRT h 67.05 33.52
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION


thickening
Table 5-14: – Kinondoni STP B01 Process Design
sewers diameters.
Main Trunk ward Chatchment Qav (tot) Qmax

2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_B01-1 3-9' KN17 5,418 90,825 522,886 522,886 72 8,940,811 894.08 86,290 53.93 139.12
S_B01-1 0-3 KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 2,253,424 225.34 18,929 70.53 183.68
S_AB01-1 - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 3,701,955 370.20 31,096 27.26 68.16
S_AB01-2 - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 10,634,294 1,063.43 89,328 106.76 271.93
S_AB01-3 - KN16 2,721 75,016 228,578 228,578 101 3,862,808 386.28 32,448 28.45 71.12
Table 5-15 – Kinondoni service area B01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection
Four pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_B01-1 KN16 39.2 1129 160 130.8 5.2
PS_AB01-3 KN16 44.0 1114 160 130.8 6.1
B01
PS_AB01-2 KN16 192.1 758 400 327.4 25.46
PS_AB01-1 KN16 205.8 298 450 368,2 27.28
Table 5-16 – Kinondoni service area B01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection, main sewers diameters
Catchment C01
The area includes Mbezi juu, Kawe, Makongo, Mikocheni, Ubungo e Sinza wards. According with
the new Urban Master Plan the area is set to become a residential area with an average

population density of about 155 inhabitants per Ha. The service area is 3601 Ha and the maximum
expected population up to 2036 is about 323,888inhabitants.
Two sewers main S_C01-1 and C01-2 collects the entire wastewater flow to the new STP_C01.
The plant receives also the water pumped by 2 pumping stations located in the Mbezi beach area.
The proposed solution allows to reduce the fows collected to the STP I01 (Misimbazi STP)
conveying the wastewater of the existing ponds (Msasani, Lugalo, University ponds).
The STP_C01 is located in Mikocheni ward. Its capacity is provided to be of about 31,595 m3/d to
be implemented in 2 phases of 16,000 m3/d .
Considering the average water influent and the number of served people, according to the most
recent studies of World Bank and DAWASA, the waste water and sludge process plan for this
WWTP will be the standard activated sludge method.
STP_C01 Mikocheni 3,601 323,888 31,595
Table 5-17: – Kinondoni STP C01 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 658.23 1,316.46
INFLUENT FLOW
Peak flow m3/h 921.52 1,843.04
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 8,097.20 16,194.40
SS load kg / day 8,097.20 16,194.40


SS removal % 94.1% 94.1%
Depth m 2.50 2.50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 11,542.48 23,084.96
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 17.54 17.54
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
AEROBIC DIGESTION
Total Capacity m3 19,040.00 19,040.00


HRT h 73.01 73.01
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
thickening
Table 5-18: – Kinondoni STP C01 Process Design
Figure 5-6. – Kinondoni Proposed site for STP C01

sewers diameters.

2032-Water
Maximum
Census project domand with Project Average
2036
capita
Ha Population l/c/d Ha l/s
S_C01-1 Mbezi juu KN15 895 41,340 75,178 75,178 98 308 25,869 22.01 57.20
S_C01-1 Kawe KN14 1,535 67,115 128,915 128,915 101 709 59,542 74.21 187.46
S_C01-1 Makongo KN13 1,833 43,796 153,979 153,979 98 1,231 103,387 162.16 406.50
S_C01-2 Mikocheni KN11 764 32,947 64,146 64,146 229 614 51,550 264.63
S_C01-2 Ubungo U7 1,039 56,015 87,277 87,277 125 406 34,109 301.64 755.94
S_C01-2 Sinza U6 338 40,546 50,001 50,001 98 334 49,431 343.69 860.75
Table 5-19 – Kinondoni service area C01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projections

Main Catchment Main ward L De Di

Truck external Internal
ID ID Code
lenght diameter diameter
S_AC01-2 KN20 1,080 280 229.20
S_AC01-2 KN20 1,809 450 368.20
S_AC01-2 KN20 1,107 450 368.20
S_AC01-2 KN20 3,493 560 458.40
S_AC01-2 KN20 3,590 560 458.40
S_AC01-2 KN19 2,618 800 753.00
AC 01
S_AC01-1 KN19 5,777 400 327.40
S_AC01-1 KN19 3,668 450 368.20
23,141
2-PS_AC01_3 KN18 3,315 450 368.20
2-PS_AC01_2 KN18 2,808 630 515.60
2-PS_AC01_1 KN18 2,596 710 669.00
8,719
S_A02-1 KN20 3,615 355 290.60
S_A02-1 KN17 872 450 368.20
S_A02-1 KN17 2,104 560 458.40
S_A02-1 KN19 100 700 669.00
S_A02-2 KN19 5,849 400 327.40
S_A02-2 KN19 3,146 560 458.40
A 02 S_A02-2 KN19 2,947 560 458.40
S_A02-3 K20 1,664 630 515.60
S_A02-3 K20 2,332 630 515.60
S_A02-3 KN19 1,160 710 669.00
S_A02-3 KN19 1,471 710 669.00
S_A02-3 KN19 1,577 710 669.00
S_A02-3 KN19 1,243 710 669.00
S_A01-1 KN16 4,186 400 327.40

S_A01-2 KN16 2,635 500 409.20
A 01 PS_AB01- PS_AB02 KN16 470 - -
PS_AB02- PS_AB03 KN16 1,516 - -
PS_AB03- 1' KN16 1,290 - -
S_B01-1 KN17 4,945 450 368.20

S_B01-1 KN16 3,540 630 515.60
B 01 S_AB01-1 KN16 -
S_AB01-2 KN16 5,780 160 130.80
S_AB01-3 KN16 -
S_C02-2 KN13 1,835.36 710 669

C02 S_C02-1 KN13 2,352.54 710 669
S_C02-1 KN13 363.53 710 669
S_C01-1 KN15 2,517.00 560 458.40

C01 S_C01-1 KN14 2,236.00 630 515.60
S_C01-1 KN13 1,264.00 800 753.40
S_C01-2 KN11 2,435.00 560 458.40
S_H02-2 U10 474.33 200 163.90

S_H02-2 U9 905.41 250 204.60
S_H02-2 U9 866.52 280 229.20
S_H02-2 U9 1,920.39 400 327.40
S_H02-2 U8 - - -
S_H02-2 U8 1,704.62 500 409.20
H 02 S_H02-1 U10 2,453.20 280 229.20
S_H02-1 U10 - 400 327.40
S_H02-1 U10 848.68 - -
S_H02-1 U9 2,066.44 560 458.40
S_H02-1 U9 2,025.02 - -
S_H02-1 U9 832.40 560 458.40
S_H02-1 U8 - - -
125 102.20
S_H01-3 U9 5,112.00 500 470.80
S_H01-3 U8 2,676.84 500 470.80
S_H01-3 U7 3,737.57 630 593.20
S_H01-2 U9 891.16 200 163.90
S_H01-2 U8 - 280 229.20
S_H01-2 U8 1,358.27 315 257.80
S_H01-2 U8 1,998.91 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U5 - - -
S_H01-2 U8 645.02 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U5 1,111.09 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U7 1,283.15 450 396.60
S_H01-2 U5 - - -
S_H01-2 U7 1,283.15 500 409.20
H 01 S_H01-2 U3 - - -
S_H01-2 U5 383.94 500 409.20
S_H01-2 U3 - - -
S_H01-1 U9 1,543.37 200 163.90
S_H01-1 U8 1,231.08 315 257.80
S_H01-1 U8 1,994.70 400 327.00
S_H01-1 U8 715.85 400 327.00
S_H01-1 U7 - - -
S_H01-1 U7 1,406.38 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U7 1,394.73 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U7 1,394.73 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U3 299.98 500 409.20
S_H01-1 U3 282.40 560 458.40
S_H01-1 U3 520.00 - -
Table 5-20 – Kinondoni service area C01: Sewer Main diameters

Five pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_AC01-1 KN14 430.0 1015 630 551.6 55.3
C01
PS_AC01-2 KN14 389.0 1126 560 458.4 51.7
PSF01-1 KN11 110.0 786 355 294.6 14.58
F01
PSF01-2 KN11 255.9 808 500 409.2 33.94
D01 PSD01-1 KN14 452.4 2400 630 551.6 59.92
Table 5-21 – Kinondoni service area C01: Pumping stations main features
5.5.1 Priority
For the Kinondoni sewerage system the priorities for the next 5 years are described below.
5.5.2 Calculation
Below there are the summary data of the sizing of main trunks, and the data relating to the
pumping stations and Sewerage treatment plant, C01.
Sewerage treatment plant

STP
Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (l/s)
Name code
Mbezi juu KN15 308 25,869 22.01
Kawe KN14 709 59,542 74.21
Makongo KN13 1,231 103,387 162.16
Mikocheni KN11 614 51,550 264.63
Ubungo U7 406 34,109 301.64
Sinza U6 334 49,431 343.69
31,595 cubic
3,601 559,496
meter/d
Table 5-22: Kinondoni District – Priority Sewerage treatment plant
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
BC01 PS_BC01-1 KN14 255.4 1374 500 409.2 25.05

PS_BC01-2 KN14 91.4 1454 250 204,6 12.11

PSF01-1 KN11 110.0 786 355 294.6 14.58
F01
PSF01-2 KN11 255.9 808 500 409.2 33.94
D01 PSD01-1 KN14 452.4 2400 630 551.6 59.92
Table 5-23: Kinondoni District – Priority Pumping Station

Main ward Catchment Qinf Qav (in) Qav (tot) P Qmax L De Di
2032-Water
Maximum Peak
2036 project domand with project Discharg Infiltrati Average Average Truck external Internal
ID Code Area Population Area Area flow Peak flow
GR = 3.9 polulation losses per polulation e factor on flow flow lenght diameter diameter
2036 factor
capita
Ha Population l/c/d m2 Ha l/s l/s m mm mm
KN16 2,721 228,633 228,578 228,578 101 1,479,875 148 12,431 0.75 0.58 10.90 10.90 2.5 27.83 670 315 257.8
S_BC01-3 KN16 2,721 228,633 228,578 228,578 101 2,045,678 205 17,184 0.75 0.81 15.07 25.96 2.5 66.30 930 450 368.2
KN16 2,721 228,633 228,578 228,578 101 56,280 5.63 473 0.75 0.15 0.41 26.38 2.5 67.49 175 450 368.2
30,087 26.38 1,775
KN15 895 125,994 75,178 75,178 98 2,273,034 227 19,094 0.75 1.25 16.24 16.24 2.5 41.85 1,435 400 327.4
S_BC01-2 KN14 1,535 204,551 128,915 128,915 101 1,639,732 164 13,774 0.75 1.25 12.08 28.32 2.5 73.29 1,435 500 409.2
KN14 1,535 204,551 128,915 128,915 101 937,409 94 7,874 0.75 0.83 6.90 35.22 2.5 91.38 958 560 458.4
40,741 35.22 3,828
U12 4,774 130,045 518,347 518,347 81 4,744,717 474 51,518 0.75 0.00 36.22 36.22 2.5 90.56
KN17 5,418 276,813 522,886 522,886 72 2,353,804 235 22,717 0.75 0.00 14.20 50.42 2.5 126.05
S_BC01-1 KN15 895 125,994 75,178 75,178 98 4,120,732 412 34,614 0.75 0.00 29.45 79.87 2.5 199.67
U12,KN1
554 630 593.2
7,KN15 11,219,254 1,122 108,849 0.75 0.48 79.87 199.67
KN14 1,535 204,551 128,915 128,915 101 2,880,801 288 24,199 0.75 2.21 21.22 101.08 2.5 255.40 2,546 710 668.6
101.08 3,100
KN13 1,833 133,480 153,979 153,979 98 8,505,716 851 71,448 0.75 0.00 60.78 60.78 2.5 151.95
KN14 1,535 204,551 128,915 128,915 101 1,696,355 170 14,249 0.75 0.00 12.49 73.27 2.5 183.18
S_D01-1 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 1,575,872 158 13,237 0.75 0.00 14.36 87.64 2.5 219.09
11,777,943 1,178 98,935 0.75 0.33 87.64 87.64 2.5 219.42 375 630 593.2
KN14 1,535 204,551 128,915 128,915 101 1,907,434 191 16,022 0.75 1.35 14.05 101.68 2.5 255.89 1,559 710 668.6
101.68 1,935
S_F01-5 SU Mzimbazi KN11 764 100,415 64,146 64,146 229 2,349,587 235 19,736 0.75 2.99 39.23 39.23 2.5 101.07 3,440 500 470.8
39.23
U6 338 123,574 50,001 50,001 98 612,664 61 9,074 0.75 0.00 7.72 7.72 2.5 19.30
S_F01-4 KN12 396 177,172 83,972 83,972 98 1,242,001 124 26,324 0.75 0.00 22.39 30.11 2.5 75.28
KN11 764 100,415 64,146 64,146 229 782,956 78 6,577 0.75 0.00 13.07 43.19 2.5 107.97
2,637,621 264 41,974 0.75 1.94 43.19 43.19 2.5 109.90 2,232 500 470.8
43.19 2,232
S_F01-3 KN11 764 100,415 64,146 64,146 229 2,573,450 257 21,617 0.75 0.68 42.97 42.97 2.5 110.05 786 500 470.8
42.97 786
S_F01-2 KN11 764 100,415 64,146 64,146 229 1,516,743 151.674 12740.598 0.75 0.69 25.33 25.33 2.5 66.63 797 630 593.2
6,727,814 672.781 76,332 0.75 0.69 111.48 111.48 2.5 279.40 797 710 668.6
S_F01-1 KN11 764 100,415 64,146 64,146 229 1,516,743 151.674 12740.598 0.75 0.32 25.33 136.81 2.5 342.35 374
8,244,557 824.456 89,072 0.75 1.02 136.81 136.81 2.5 374 710 668.6
Table 5-24: Kinondoni sewers priority

5.6 Ubungo District Structural Measures
The existing sewerage network in the Ubungo covers an area of 497.2 Ha, not exceeding 0.2%
of the project area (26,977 Ha).It includes the following 2 small networks connected to 2 different
stabilization ponds.
1 - University Sewerage System
The first one, covering the Dar es Salaam University area, is composed of about 12 km of sewage
pipeline and one stabilization pond (University ponds) having a capacity of 4,600 cubic meters
per day. The treatment is only biological and the pond also receives faecal sludge collected by
tankers from households for the same treatment.
The pond has a maximum flow of capacity of 53 l/s, serving the University college with a flow
of about 36.8 l/s and has an effluent of average BOD= 13 mg/l and FC= 173 Nos/100ml.
2 - Ubungo Sewerage System
Ubungo Sewerage System collects the wastewater from the industries, institutions and
residential areas between Morogoro Road and Mandela Road. The network is composed of
about 9.2 km of sewerage pipeline and stabilization ponds (Ubungo ponds) having a capacity
of 8,000 cubic meters per day. The treatment is only biological and the pond also receives
faecal sludge collected by tankers from households for the same treatment.
The pond receives a flow of 92.9 l/s and has an effluent of average BOD= 20 mg/l and FC=
266 Nos/100ml.

Figure 5-8. – Existing sewerage systems in Ubungo District.
5.6.2 The Project Area
Ubungo District has a total area of about 26,977 Ha and includes 14 wards. The population
The present average urban density is about 31.3 persons per hectare, with a maximum value
of 405 in Makurula and a minimum density of about 8 persons per hectare in Goba and
Kwembe.
The following table reports for each wards of Ubungo District the value of population at 2012,
demand at 2032 as per DAWASA water supply distribution network projects, being the main
inputs for the planning of the new sewerage and sanitation system.

AREA CENSUS DRAFT URBAN MASTER PLAN

Urban
WARD
(Ha) 2012
density Exponential growth: Pn = P (e GR/100*n)
DISTRICT WARD
CODE (2012) Urban density
2036 Maximum 2032-Water demand with
2012 People/Ha (2036)
GR = 3.9 Population 2036 losses per capita (l/c/d)
People/Ha
U1 Makurumla 156.35 63,352.00 405.20 184,587 78,126 500 98
U2 Mburahati 112.62 34,123.00 302.98 103,998 74,283 660 81
U3 Mabibo 379.24 85,735.00 226.07 261,300 105,728 279 98
U4 Manzese 185.32 70,507.00 380.47 214,889 86,949 469 98
U5 Makuburi 770.78 57,408.00 74.48 174,968 70,796 92 98
U6 Sinza 337.61 40,546.00 120.10 123,574 50,001 148 98
U7 Ubungo 1,039.01 56,015.00 53.91 170,722 87,277 84 125
UBUNGO
U8 Kimara 1,495.72 76,577.00 51.20 233,390 125,640 84 121
U9 Saranga 2,504.10 104,127.00 41.58 317,355 210,345 84 101
U10 Msigani 1,479.14 55,111.00 37.26 167,966 124,248 84 81
U11 Kwembe 6,665.39 56,899.00 8.54 173,416 401,007 60 53
U12 Goba 4,773.89 42,669.00 8.94 130,045 518,347 109 81
U13 Mbezi 5,165.44 73,414.00 14.21 223,749 649,023 126 53
U14 Kibamba 1,912.74 28,885.00 15.10 88,035 160,670 84 81
SUB-TOTAL 26,977 845,368 2,567,995 2,742,440 -
Table 5-25 - Ubungo population and water demands data at ward level
5.6.3 DAWASA Planned sewerage network
Five of the 14 wards of Ubungo District are already included in the recent design review of
sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed for DAWASA by
Beomhan Engineering & Architects (2016).
Sinza, Manzese, Makurula are part of the “Msasani Service Area” that covers in Ubungo a
total area of 679.3 Ha. According with the plan, the area is connected to a planned treatment
plant (Jangwani – WWTP1) located in Uponga, Magharibi ward, near Mogoro Road. The plant
has been planned to treat a total final capacity of 200,000 m 3/d in the target year 2032 and
the capacity in phase 1 of 50,000 m3/d.
Ubungo and Mabibo are included in “Mabibo Service Area”, expansion of the existing Ubungo
sewerage system. The network is connected to Ubungo Ponds and covers an area of 497,15
Ha.

With reference to the following figure, Ubungo project area has been divided into 7 main service
catchments, each of which collecting to a new (or upgraded) treatment plant.
Mbezi STP
Msimbazi STP
Figure 5-10. - Ubungo Project area and Service Catchments

Catchment AC02
The area is located at the western limit of Ubungo and includes the entire Kibamba ward and a
part of the neighbouring Mbezi and Kwembe wards. The present land use is rural with a very low
population density (8-10 inhabitants/Ha).
According with the new Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city, the area is set
to become a residential area with an average population density of about 80 inhabitants per Ha.
The service area is 6,429 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about 47,510
inhabitants.
The main sewers S_AC02-1 (26.2 km, D200~800 mm) runs from South-West to North -East along
the region border, collecting the entire wastewater flow to the new STP_AC02. The collection of
the wastewater is by gravity. Only along the upstream part of the main sewer has been necessary
to include 4 pumping stations, located in Kibamba ward.
The STP_AC02 is located at the north-western limit of Mbezi wards. Its capacity is provided to be
of about 26,960 m3/d, constructed in 3 phases each of 9,000ciascuna m3/d.
across the world and its maintenance is easy.
It consists of the 1st sedimentation basin, aeration tank and final sedimentation basin, so that it
has the large responding ability for properties and load variations in the influent sewage.
STP_AC02 Mbezi 6,429 601,684 26,955
Table 5-26: – Ubungo STP AC02 Process Capacity

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 561.56 1,123.13
Peak flow m3/h 786.19 1,572.38
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 15,042.10 30,084.20
SS load kg / day 15,042.10 30,084.20
BOD5 concentration mg/l 1,116.09 1,116.09
SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 1,116.09 1,116.09
SS removal % 97.3% 97.3%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 22,500.32 45,000.64
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 40.07 40.07
SECONDARY
SEDIMENTATION
Depth m 3.00 3.00
HRT h 4.00 4.00


Total Capacity m3 28,560.00 28,560.00
HRT h 66.36 33.18
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
thickening
Table 5-27: – Ubungo STP AC02 Process Design
sewers diameters


2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_AC02-1 15-15' U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 594,524 59 60 0.04 1.02
S_AC02-1 13-14 U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 1,826,493 183 15,343 10.83 29.77
S_AC02-1 10-11 U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 3,347,579 335 28,120 30.60 79.72
S_AC02-1 8-9 U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 350,694 35 2,946 32.67 85.33
S_AC02-1 5'-7 U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 7,658,148 766 64,329 77.90 200.69
S_AC02-1 3-5' U14 1,913 28,885 160,670 160,670 81 3,445,396 345 28,941 98.25 252.62
S_AC02-1_27-29 27-29 U11 6,665 56,899 401,007 401,007 53 4,466,558 447 26,872 110.62 287.09
S_AC02-1_26-27 26-27 U11 6,665 56,899 401,007 401,007 53 7,209,478 721 43,374 130.57 337.79
S_AC02-1_24-26 24-26 U11 6,665 56,899 401,007 401,007 53 8,839,883 884 53,183 155.04 401.18
S_AC02-1_3-23 3-24 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 6,859,562 686 86,188 194.69 504.06
S_AC02-1 2-3 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 16,758,386 1,676 210,564 291.57 749.28
S_AC02-1 0-2 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 2,931,222 293 36,830 308.51 794.07
projectios
Four pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_AC02-4 U14 2.0 294 90 73.6 0.5
PS_AC02-3 U14 29.7 322 125 102.2 3.94
AC02
PS_AC02-2 U14 79.7 368 200 163.6 10.57
PS_AC02-1 U14 85.3 585 225 184 4.6
Table 5-29 – Ubungo service area AC02: pumping Stations Main Features
Catchment A03
The site is located at the northern limit of Ubungo and includes parts Goba and Mbezi wards. The
present land use is rural with a very low population density (8-14 inhabitants/Ha). According with
the new Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city, the area is set to become a
residential area with an average population density of about 100 inhabitants per Ha. The service
area is 2871 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about 33,206 inhabitants.
Four main sewers S_A03-1 (6.1 km, D400~630 mm), S_A03-2 (6.3 km, D200~400 mm), S_A03-
3 (14.25 km, D200~400 mm), S_A03-4 (8.6 km, D200~280 mm), collect the wastewater from
South-West to North -East to the new STP_A03. The plant is located in the Goba ward.
Its capacity is provided to be of about 18,144 m3/d, constructed in 2 phases each of 9,100 m3/d.

STP_A03 Goba 2,871 320,325 18,144
Table 5-30: – Ubungo STP A03 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 529.20 1,058.40
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 8,008.13 16,016.25
SS load kg / day 8,008.13 16,016.25
SS removal % 96.6% 96.6%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
PRIMARY Number of basin - 2.00 4.00
SEDIMENTATION Diameter m 17.91 17.91


Depth m 3.00 3.00
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 11,852.28 23,704.57

MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 31.36 31.36
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 19,040.00 19,040.00
HRT h 71.40 35.70
SLUDGE Number of line 1+1 2+1
DEHYDRATATION Sludge quantity m3/day 134.55 269.10


thickening
Table 5-31: – Ubungo STP A03 Process Design
sewers diameters.

2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_A03-4 2-10' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 73,414 7 922 0.42 5.66
S_A03-4 0'-2 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 1,297,482 130 16,302 7.92 27.08
S_A03-4 0'-0 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 0 - - 0.00 0.00
S_A03-3 5-14' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 2,849,023 285 35,797 16.47 45.35
S_A03-3 0'-5 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 825,181 83 10,368 21.24 59.99
S_A03-2 0'-5 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 3,833,998 383 41,629 29.27 78.65
S_A03-1 0'-5 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 7,997,617 800 86,838 61.06 157.78
S_A03-1 0-0' U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 11,831,615 1,183 128,467 90.33 231.13
Table 5-32 – Ubungo service area A03: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection
Catchment B02
The site is located at the northern area of Ubungo and includes parts Goba and Mbezi wards. The
present land use is rural with a very low population density (8-14 inhabitants/Ha). According with
the new Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city, the area is set to become a
residential area with an average population density of about 100 inhabitants per Ha. The service
area has a total area of 3384 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is about
37,224 inhabitants.
Three main sewers S_B02-3 (4.56 km, D200~400 mm), S_B02-2 (10.4 km, D400~710 mm),
S_B02-1 (4.85 km, D600~630 mm), collect the wastewater from South-West to North -East to the
new STP_B02. located in the north-eastern corner of Mbezi ward. Its capacity is provided to be
of about 20,477 m3/d, constructed in 2 phases each of 10,500 m3/d. Considering the average
water influent and the number of served people, according to the most recent studies of World

Bank and DAWASA, the waste water and sludge process plan for this WWTP will be the standard
activated sludge method.
STP_B02 Goba 2 3,384 387,428 20,477
Table 5-33: – Ubungo STP B02 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 597.25 1,194.49
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 9,685.70 19,371.40
SS load kg / day 9,685.70 19,371.40
SS removal % 96.8% 96.8%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT


Depth m 3.00 3.00
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 14,384.08 28,768.16

MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15
kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 33.72 33.72
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 19,040.00 19,040.00
HRT h 69.10 34.55


thickening
Table 5-34: – Ubungo STP B02Process Design
sewers diameters.

2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_B02-4 0-25 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 6,258,614 625.86 67,956 47.78 123.41
S_B02-2 26-35' U13 5,165 5,165 649,023 649,023 53 11,734,382 1,173.44 147,439 67.83 173.01
S_B02-2 18-26 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 3,622,452 362.25 39,332 95.49 244.20
S_B02-2 5-18 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 2,712,999 271.30 29,458 116.20 298.61
S_B02-2 0-5 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 751,864 75.19 8,164 121.94 313.90
S_B02-1 9-30' U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 8,255,432 825.54 89,637 63.03 160.64
S_B02-1 0-9 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 501,243 50.12 5,442 66.85 171.33
Table 5-35 – Ubungo service area B02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projection
Catchment C03
The site is located at the northern area of Ubungo and includes parts of Mbezi, Kwembe, Msigani,
Saranga. The present land use is rural with a very low population density (8-40 inhabitants/Ha).
to become a residential area with an average population density of about 80 inhabitants per Ha.
The service area has a total area of 2806 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036
is more than 375,000 inhabitants.
Four main sewers S_C03-4 (1.9 km, D200), S_C03-3 (6.3 km, D200~500 mm), S_C03-2 (6.28
km, D225~710 mm), S_C03-1 (2.83 km, D560~630 mm), collect the wastewater from South-West
to North -East to the new STP_C03.

The STP_C03 in the south-eastern corner of Mbezi ward. Its capacity is provided to be about
16,502 m3/d, . Considering the average water influent and the number of served people, according
to the most recent studies of World Bank and DAWASA, the waste water and sludge process plan
for this WWTP will be the standard activated sludge method.
STP_C03 Mbezi 3 2,807 375,601 16,502
Table 5-36: – Ubungo STP C03 Process Capacity
Facility Item Unit Project value

Peak flow m3/h 481.31 962.62
INFLUENT FLOW BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50.00 50.00
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 9,390.03 18,780.05
SS load kg / day 9,390.03 18,780.05
BOD5 concentration mg/l 1,138.05 1,138.05
SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 1,138.05 1,138.05
EFFLUENT FLOW BOD5 CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30.00 30.00
STRENGTH SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30.00 30.00
BOD5 removal % 97.4% 97.4%
SS removal % 97.4% 97.4%
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT Number of tank - 1.00 2.00
Depth m 2.00 2.00


Depth m 3.00 3.00
Surface loading rate on peak flow rate m3/m2*day 25.20 25.20
AERATION BASIN Number of tank - 5.00 10.00
Total Capacity m3 14,056.64 28,113.28
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day 0.15 0.15
HRT hr 40.89 40.89
SECONDARY Number of basin - 5.00 10.00
Depth m 3.00 3.00
HRT h 4.00 4.00
DISINFECTION (Chlorine) Number of tank - 1.00 2.00
AEROBIC DIGESTION Number of tank - 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 19,040.00 19,040.00
GRAVITY THICKENER Number of basin - 4.00 4.00
Depth m 3.50 3.50
HRT h 70.82 35.41


EXPECTED SLUDGE Raw sludge quantity ton/day 6.10 12.21
GENERATION PER Raw sludge solid quantity m3/day 162.58 325.15
TREATMENT FACILITY
Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 467.15 934.31
Sludge quantity after gravity thickening m3/day 158.84 317.69
Table 5-37: – Ubungo STP C03 Process Design
The following table shows the population, served areas and wastewater flows projection .

2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_C03-4 2''-2''' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 426,702 42.67 5,361.39 2.47 7.81
S_C03-3 2'-2'' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 7,726,455 772.65 97,080.71 47.13 123.06
S_C03-2 8-12' U11 6,665 56,899 401,007 401,007 53 2,937,745 293.77 17,674.23 8.13 22.31
S_C03-2 7-8 U11 6,665 56,899 401,007 401,007 53 3,133,909 313.39 18,854.40 16.81 44.68
S_C03-2 4-7 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 3,208,530 320.85 26,951.62 35.76 93.79
S_C03-2 4-7 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 2,070,062 207.01 26,009.74 47.72 123.70
S_C03-2 2'''-4 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 1,492,579 149.26 12,537.65 56.54 147.34
S_C03-2 2'-2''' U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 1,630,454 163.05 13,695.84 68.55 302.31
S_C03-2 2'-0' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 1,731,555 173.16 21,756.49 190.77 310.12
S_C03-2 0'-0 U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 - - - - 477.73
S_C03-1 7- 23' U10 1,479 55,111 649,023 649,023 53 2,946,486 294.65 129,286.70 59.48 151.13
S_C03-1 3-7 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 342,536 34.25 2,877.31 62.00 159.30
S_C03-1 0'-3 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 418,451 41.85 3,514.99 65.09 167.60
Table 5-38 – Ubungo service area C03: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projections
Catchment C02
The site is located at the northern area of Ubungo. It includes parts of Mbezi, Goba, Saranga and
part of Makongo ward in Kinondoni. The present land use is rural with a very low population
density (8-40 inhabitants/Ha). According with the new Urban Master Plan following the rapid
growth of the city, the area is set to become a residential area with an average population density
of about 80 inhabitants per Ha. The service area has a total area of 2241 Ha and the maximum
expected population up to 2036 is more than 216,445 inhabitants.
Three main sewers S_C02-3 (7.2 km, D250~560 mm), S_C03-2 (3.9 km, D400~710 mm), S_C03-
1 (2.3 km, D560~710 mm), collect the wastewater from South-West to North -East to the new
STP_C02.

The STP_C02 in the south-eastern corner of Goba ward. Its capacity is provided to be about
14,342 m3/d. Considering the average water influent and the number of served people, according
to the most recent studies of World Bank and DAWASA, the waste water and sludge process plan
for this WWTP will be the standard activated sludge method.The standard activated sludge
method is simple in its processes with the most application records across the world and its
maintenance is easy. It consists of the 1st sedimentation basin, aeration tank and final
sedimentation basin, so that it has the large responding ability for properties and load variations
in the influent sewage. The water quality of influent may continue to increase due to the direct
input of human excreta if the classification project is gradually carried out for sewer. Accordingly,
this plan has to secure the stable facility capacity in consideration of influent water quality in 2032.
STP_C02 Goba3 2,241 216,445 14,342
Table 5-39: – Ubungo STP C02 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 418.31 836.62
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 5,411.13 10,822.25
SS load kg / day 5,411.13 10,822.25
SS removal % 96.0% 96.0%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
PRIMARY Diameter m 15.93 15.93
SEDIMENTATION Surface of each basin m2 199.19 199.19
Depth m 3.00 3.00


25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 7,939.24 15,878.48
MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15

kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 26.57 26.57
SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
Total Capacity m3 14,280.00 14,280.00
HRT h 67.06 33.53
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION


Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 263.85 527.70
EXPECTED SLUDGE
Sludge quantity after gravity
GENERATION PER m3/day 90.44 180.89
thickening
TREATMENT FACILITY
Table 5-40: – Ubungo STP C02 Process Design
The following table shows the population, served areas and wastewater flows projection

2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_C02-3 13-21' U13 5,165 73,414 649,023 649,023 53 595,872 59.59 7,486.97 3.44 30.59
S_C02-3 13-21' U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 946,000 94.60 10,271.63 10.67 48.65
S_C02-3 12-13 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 - 0.00 0.00 10.67 48.65
S_C02-3 9-12 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 653,031 65.30 7,090.59 15.65 61.67
S_C02-3 8-9 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 - 0.00 0.00 15.65 61.67
S_C02-3 6'-8 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 344,517 34.45 3,740.76 18.28 68.80
S_C02-3 6-6' U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 - 0.00 0.00 18.28 68.80
S_C02-3 5'-6 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 98,853 9.89 1,073.34 19.04 71.19
S_C02-3 4-5' U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 3,479,872 347.99 37,784.32 45.60 138.44
S_C02-3 3-4 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 - 0.00 0.00 45.60 138.44
S_C02-3 10-3 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 1,161,356 116.14 12,609.96 54.47 162.60
S_C02-3 9-10 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 - 0.00 0.00 54.47 162.60
S_C02-3 0'-9 U12 4,774 42,669 518,347 518,347 81 3,787,888 378.79 41,128.74 28.92 101.04
S_C02-2 21-23' U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 3,075,554 307.56 25,834.70 51.57 158.81
S_C02-2 19-21 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 320,308 32.03 2,690.59 53.93 165.27
S_C02-2 15-19 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 229,476 22.95 1,927.60 55.62 169.91
S_C02-2 14-15 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 105,302 10.53 884.54 56.39 172.18
S_C02-2 13-14 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 - 0.00 0.00 56.39 172.18
S_C02-2 12-14 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 1,256,704 125.67 10,556.33 65.65 196.28
S_C02-2 10-12 KN13 1,833 43,796 153,979 153,979 98 3,982,890 398.29 33,456.29 94.11 269.02
S_C02-1 0'-3' KN13 1,833 43,796 153,979 153,979 98 2,370,117 237.01 19,908.99 111.05 313.40
S_C02-1 0-0' KN13 1,833 43,796 153,979 153,979 98 - 0.00 0.00 111.05 313.72
Table 5-41 – Ubungo service area C02: Served Population& Areas and wastewater flows projection,

Six pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_C02-6 U12 48.6 160 160 130.8 6.5
PS_C02-5 U12 61.7 171 180 147.2 8.22
PS_C02-4 U12 68.8 304 200 163.6 9.15
C02
PS_C02-3 U12 138.4 202 280 229.2 18.29
PS_C02-2 U12 162.6 260 315 257.8 21.61
PS_C02-1 U9 172.2 285 355 290.6 22.8
Table 5-42 – Ubungo service area C02: Pumping stations Main features
Catchment H02
The site is located at the southern area of Ubungo. It includes parts of Msigani, Saranga and
Kimara. The present land use is rural/residential with a population density of 45-60 inhabitants/Ha.
to reach an average population density of about 80 inhabitants per Ha. The service area has a
total area of 1449 Ha and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is more than 121,684
inhabitants.Two main sewers S_H02-2 (5.88 km, D250~560 mm), S_H02-1 (8.3 km, D400~710
mm) run the wastewater from South-West to East to the new STP_H02.
The STP_H02 in the -eastern corner of Saranga ward. Its capacity is provided to be about 8,980
m3/d, constructed in 1 phase Considering the average water influent and the number of served
across the world and its maintenance is easy. It consists of the 1st sedimentation basin, aeration
tank and final sedimentation basin, so that it has the large responding ability for properties and
load variations in the influent sewage. The water quality of influent may continue to increase due
to the direct input of human excreta if the classification project is gradually carried out for sewer.
Accordingly, this plan has to secure the stable facility capacity in consideration of influent water
quality in 2032. The following tables show the main features of the plant and the main design
parameters:

STP_H02 Kimara 1,449 121,684 8,976
Table 5-43: – Ubungo STP H02 Process Capacity
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Peak flow m3/h 261.80 523.60
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 3,042.10 6,084.20
SS load kg / day 3,042.10 6,084.20
SS removal % 95.6% 95.6%
Depth m 2.00 2.00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Depth m 3.00 3.00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION Total Capacity m3 748.00 1,496.00
25.20 25.20
rate m3/m2*day

MLSS mg/L 3.00 3.00
F/M 0.15 0.15

kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day
HRT hr 23.71 23.71


SECONDARY
Depth m 3.00 3.00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4.00 4.00
HRT h 66.08 33.04
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
thickening
Table 5-44: – Ubungo STP H02 Process Design
The following table shows the population, served areas and wastewater flows projection .


2032-Water
Maximum
2036
capita
S_H02-2 7-8 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 517,516 51.75 4,347.13 3.06 8.05
S_H02-2 6''-7 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 369,191 36.92 3,101.21 5.78 15.64
S_H02-2 6'-6'' U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 267,495 26.75 2,246.96 7.75 21.31
S_H02-2 4-6' U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 1,261,546 126.15 10,597.00 17.04 46.21
S_H02-2 3'-4 U8 1,496 76,577 125,640 125,640 121 703,558 70.36 5,909.87 23.24 61.73
S_H02-2 0'-3' U8 1,496 76,577 125,640 125,640 121 1,504,274 150.43 12,635.87 36.52 96.39
S_H02-1 9-15 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 1,696,501 169.65 14,250.59 10.02 27.18
S_H02-1 7-9 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 1,422,039 142.20 11,945.11 18.42 48.18
S_H02-1 5-7 U10 1,479 55,111 124,248 124,248 81 1,041,251 104.13 8,746.50 24.57 64.29
S_H02-1 3-5 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 2,506,602 250.66 21,055.49 43.03 112.23
S_H02-1 2-3 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 1,848,221 184.82 15,525.08 56.64 148.02
S_H02-1 0'-2 U9 2,504 104,127 210,345 210,345 101 1,020,960 102.10 8,576.08 64.16 167.54
S_H02-1 0 -0' U8 1,496 76,577 125,640 125,640 121 327,096 32.71 2,747.60 67.05 174.75
Table 5-45 – Ubungo service area H02: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projections
Four pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristics:
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_H02-4 U10 61.7 326 180 147.2 8.22
PS_H02-3 U9 48.0 410 160 130.8 6.36
H 02
PS_H02-2 U9 148.0 217 355 290.6 19.62
PS_H02-1 U8 175.0 412 355 290.6 22.8
Table 5-46 – Ubungo service area H02: Pumping stations main Features
Catchment H01
The site is located at the southern area of Ubungo. It includes parts of Saranga, Kimara, Ubungo,
Makuburi, Mabibo. The present land use is rural/residential with a population density variable
between 51 inhabitants/Ha of Saranga to 279 inhabitants/H of Mabibo. According with the new
Urban Master Plan following the rapid growth of the city, the area is set to reach an average
population density of about 102 inhabitants per Ha. The service area has a total area of 768.2 Ha
and the maximum expected population up to 2036 is more than 78262 inhabitants.
3 main sewers S_H01-2 (8.95 km, D200~500 mm), S_H01-1 (10.8 km, D200~500 mm), S_H01-
3 cross. The collected wastewater reaches the new pumping station PS_ H01 and from there the
wastewater are pumped to the network conveying the the STP I02 in Ilala discrict.
The following table shows the population, served areas and wastewater flows projection.

Main Catchment Main ward Chacatchment Qav (tot) Qmax

2032-Water
Maximum
2036 project domand with Average
ID ID Code Area Population Area project polulation Peak flow
GR = 3.9 polulation losses per flow
2036
capita
Ha Population l/c/d Ha l/s
S_H01-3 U9 2,504 317,355 210,345 210,345 101 524.95 44,096.22 38.66 101.09
S_H01-3 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 159.33 13383.77264 52.72 138.56
S_H01-3 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 594.69 49953.93215 106.92 277.31
S_H01-2 U9 2,504 317,355 210,345 210,345 101 55.30 4,644.83 4.07 10.95
S_H01-2 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 40.84 3,430.58 7.68 19.96
S_H01-2 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 38.73 3,253.52 11.09 29.68
S_H01-2 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 49.65 4,170.56 15.47 42.37
S_H01-2 U5 771 174,968 70,796 70,796 98 51.13 4,696.45 126.39 319.66
S_H01-2 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 16.79 1,410.60 127.87 323.93
S_H01-2 U5 771 174,968 70,796 70,796 98 35.01 3,215.32 130.61 331.73
S_H01-2 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 32.63 2,740.55 133.58 340.28
S_H01-2 U5 771 174,968 70,796 70,796 98 32.91 3,022.84 136.15 346.71
H 01 S_H01-2 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 13.79 1,158.53 137.41 350.96
S_H01-2 U3 379 261,300 105,728 105,728 98 8.16 2,274.11 139.34 355.80
S_H01-2 U5 771 174,968 70,796 70,796 98 17.53 1,609.86 140.71 359.56
S_H01-2 U3 379 261,300 105,728 105,728 98 6.27 1,747.05 142.20 363.27
S_H01-1 U9 2,504 317,355 210,345 210,345 101 60.51 5,083.16 4.46 12.48
S_H01-1 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 59.17 4,970.64 9.68 26.60
S_H01-1 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 54.77 4,600.49 14.51 40.41
S_H01-1 U8 1,496 233,390 125,640 125,640 121 16.99 1,426.78 16.01 44.78
S_H01-1 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 46.65 3,918.49 20.26 55.41
S_H01-1 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 49.24 4,135.91 24.75 67.85
S_H01-1 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 20.76 1,743.51 26.64 73.79
S_H01-1 U7 1,039 170,722 87,277 87,277 125 10.82 909.03 27.63 77.47
S_H01-1 U3 379 261,300 105,728 105,728 98 7.69 2,143.92 29.45 82.29
S_H01-1 U3 379 261,300 105,728 105,728 98 42.88 11,955.10 39.62 107.96
S_H01-1 U3 379 261,300 105,728 105,728 98 - 0.00 39.62 108.41
Table 5-47: – Ubungo service area H01: Served Population, Served Areas and wastewater flows
projections
Six pumping stations have been provided having the following main characteristic
Main
Catchment
Pumping
ID station Code
code Power
l/s m mm mm kw
PS_H01-6 U5 52.4 245 160 130.8 6.89
PS_H01-5 U5 79.4 122 200 163.6 9.28
PS_H01-4 U3 88.5 304 225 184 11.67
H 01
PS_H01-3 U3 96.0 202 250 204,6 12.73
PS_H01-2 U7 55.4 170 160 130.8 7.29
PS_H01-1 U3 245.0 520 500 409.2 31.2
Table 5-48: Ubungo service area H01 – Pumping stations main features

Main Catchment Main ward L De Di

Truck external Internal
ID ID Code
lenght diameter diameter
m mm mm
S_AC02-1 U14 1,049 200 163.60
S_AC02-1 U14 2,052 280 229.20
S_AC02-1 U14 600 450 368.20
S_AC02-1 U14 506 450 368.20
S_AC02-1 U14 2,626 560 458.40
S_AC02-1 U14 1,221 630 515.60
AC 02
S_AC02-1_27-29 U11 4,102 630 515.60
S_AC02-1_26-27 U11 929 630 515.60
S_AC02-1_24-26 U11 2,566 630 515.60
S_AC02-1_3-23 U13 4,319 710 669.00
S_AC02-1 U13 3,484 710 669.00
S_AC02-1 U13 2,806 800 753.00
S_A03-4 U13 5,299 180 147.20
S_A03-4 U13 3,073 280 229.20
S_A03-4 U13 250 - -
S_A03-3 U13 4,810 315 257.80
A 03
S_A03-3 U13 3,133 355 290.60
S_A03-2 U12 6,303 400 327.20
S_A03-1 U12 5,914 500 409.20
S_A03-1 U12 200 630 515.60
S_B02-4 U12 4,562 400 327.40
S_B02-2 U13 3,948 560 458.40
S_B02-2 U12 2,362 560 458.40
B 02 S_B02-2 U12 3,036 710 669.00
S_B02-2 U12 1,075 710 669.00
S_B02-1 U12 3,542 450 368.20
S_B02-1 U12 1,293 630 515.60
S_C03-4 U13 1,894 200 163.60
S_C03-3 U13 6,029 500 409.20
S_C03-2 U11 2,285 225 184.00
S_C03-2 U11 786 315 257.80
S_C03-2 U10 1,993 450 368.20
S_C03-2 U13 - 560 458.40
C 03 S_C03-2 U10 1,839 560 458.40
S_C03-2 U9 2,187 710 669.00
S_C03-2 U13 544.12 710 669
S_C03-2 U13 46.00 710 669
S_C03-1 U10 2,800.14 500 409.2
S_C03-1 U9 2,139.78 630 515.6
S_C03-1 U9 690.46 630 515.6
S_C02-3 U13 2,087.37 250 204.6
S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 642.27 355 290.6
S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 637.01 400 327.4
S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 582.14 450 368.2
S_C02-3 U12 959.57 560 458.4
C02 S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 2,300.36 560 458.4
S_C02-3 U12 -
S_C02-3 U12 2,671.67 560 458.4
S_C02-2 U9 1,320.45 560 458.4
S_C02-2 U9 643.35 560 458.4
S_C02-2 U9 474.38 560 458.4
S_C02-2 U9 388.12 560 458.4
S_C02-2 U9 -
S_C02-2 U9 1,102.28 560 458.4
S_C01-2 U7 2,106.00 630 515.60
C01
S_C01-2 U6 1,744.00 800 753.40
S_H02-2 U10 474.33 200 163.90
S_H02-2 U9 905.41 250 204.60
S_H02-2 U9 866.52 280 229.20
S_H02-2 U9 1,920.39 400 327.40
S_H02-2 U8 - - -
S_H02-2 U8 1,704.62 500 409.20
H 02 S_H02-1 U10 2,453.20 280 229.20
S_H02-1 U10 - 400 327.40
S_H02-1 U10 848.68 - -
S_H02-1 U9 2,066.44 560 458.40
S_H02-1 U9 2,025.02 - -
S_H02-1 U9 832.40 560 458.40
S_H02-1 U8 - - -
125 102.20
S_H01-3 U9 5,112.00 500 470.80
S_H01-3 U8 2,676.84 500 470.80
S_H01-3 U7 3,737.57 630 593.20
S_H01-2 U9 891.16 200 163.90
S_H01-2 U8 - 280 229.20
S_H01-2 U8 1,358.27 315 257.80
S_H01-2 U8 1,998.91 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U5 - - -
S_H01-2 U8 645.02 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U5 1,111.09 400 327.00
S_H01-2 U7 1,283.15 450 396.60
S_H01-2 U5 - - -
S_H01-2 U7 1,283.15 500 409.20
H 01 S_H01-2 U3 - - -
S_H01-2 U5 383.94 500 409.20
S_H01-2 U3 - - -
S_H01-1 U9 1,543.37 200 163.90
S_H01-1 U8 1,231.08 315 257.80
S_H01-1 U8 1,994.70 400 327.00
S_H01-1 U8 715.85 400 327.00
S_H01-1 U7 - - -
S_H01-1 U7 1,406.38 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U7 1,394.73 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U7 1,394.73 450 396.60
S_H01-1 U3 299.98 500 409.20
S_H01-1 U3 282.40 560 458.40
S_H01-1 U3 520.00 - -
Table 5-49: Ubungo service area H01 – Main sewers diameters

5.7 Kigamboni District Structural Measures
The area is not yet equipped with dynamic system being mostly not urbanized, excluding
Kigamboni, Tungi, Vijibweni, Mjimwema.
These 4 wards are already included in the Kigamboni Masterplan providing for these 4 wards 2
Figure 5-11. - Proposed sewerage network for Kigamboni (Source: Kigamboni Master Plan)
5.7.2 The Project Area
Kigamboni District has a total area of about 55909 Ha and includes 9 wards. The population
The present average urban density is very low, about 3 persons per hectare, with a maximum
value of 67 in Kigamboni and a minimum density of about 1 person per hectare in Pembamnazi.
The following table reports for each wards of Kigamboni District the value of population at 2012,
demand at 2032 as per DAWASA water supply distribution network projects, being the main inputs
for the planning of the new sewerage and sanitation system.

CENSUS DAWASA DRAFT URBAN MASTER PLAN

WARD No. of AREA 2012 Projections Exponential growth: Pn = P (eGR/100*n)
DISTRICT WARD
CODE MTAA (Ha)
Maximum Population 2032-Water domand with
2012 2032
2036 losses per capita (l/c/d)
KG1 Kigamboni 3 454.2272 30,496.00 53,693 38,155 229
KG2 Tungi 3 604.5143 23,380.00 44,810 50,779 229
KG3 Vijibweni 6 1224.719 29,010.00 189,839 102,876 159
KG4 Mjimwema 4 2193.698 27,789.00 216,949 184,271 89
KG5 Kibada 6 1113.713 8,585.00 78,424 93,552 101
KIGAMBONI
KG6 Kisarawe II 11 14459.13 8,306.00 32,782 1,214,567 98
KG7 Somangila 13 9739.52 19,283.00 62,514 818,120 81
KG8 Kimbiji 6 5778.965 6,411.00 19,996 485,433 98
KG9 Pembamnazi 15 20340.4 9,672.00 46,240 1,708,594 81
SUB-TOTAL 67 55,909 162,932 745,247 4,696,347
Table 5-50: Kigamboni population and water demands data at ward level
With reference to the following figure, Kigamboni project area, except for the Kigamboni planned
area, has proposed to be equipped with simplified sewerage networks connected to decentralized
systems (DEWATS system) or to septic tanks.
Figure 5-2. – Kigamboni Service Catchments

5.8 Ilala District Structural Measures
The existing sewerage network in the District of Ilala covers an area of 1,100 Ha that not
exceeding 3% of the project area (36,500 Ha).
The existing sewerage network are located in:
Kivukoni (City center)

Kisutu (City center)
Upanga Magharibi (City center)
Upanga Mashariki (City center)
Jangwani (City center)
Kariakoo (City center)
Mchafukoge (City center)
Gerezani (City center)
Buguruni
Vingunguti
Kipawa (Airwing & Airport)
Ukonga
Ilala sewerage flow is collected to several ponds but most of most of these waste treatment
facilities does not meet the effluent standards for the different parameters as set by Tanzania
Bureau of Standards (TZS 789:2008)26.
1- Buguruni Pond
The pond has a maximum flow of capacity of 650 m3/day, serving parts of the residential areas
along dual carriage way portion of Uhuru street in Buguruni.
2- Vingunguti Pond
The pond has a maximum flow of capacity of 1,800 m3/day, serving the industries along Nyerere
Road and Tazara housing estate and station.
26
National Audit Office (NAOT). Performance audit report on provision of sewage services in urban areas as performed
by the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government a report
of the controller and auditor general of the United Republic of Tanzania (March 2018).

3- Airwing Pond
Airwing pond is not in operation over 10 years. When it was still in operation, serving the airport
area, it had a maximum flow of capacity of 650 m3/day.
4- Ukonga Pond
Ukonga pond has a maximum flow of capacity of 300 m3/day, serving the prisons. This pond can
accommodate additional flow and no further improvement needed
These ponds can accommodate additional flow and no further improvement needed. The reason
is that now there is a low collection percentage of waste water.
Figure 5-3. Existing Ponds in Ilala District

Ilala District has an extension of 36,500 ha, it is divided into 26 wards, has a population of
1,200,000 inhabitants (Census 2012) and an expected maximum population in 2036 of 3,442,335.
The average urban density is about 33 people per hectare with a maximum density of 332 in
Karikoo Ward and a minimum density of 4 in Msongola Ward.
The table shows the population data for 2012 census and the maximum population at 2036 which
represents the data for project calculations. The table also shows water demand with losses per
capita in each ward at 2032.
POPULATION
2032-Water
WARD AREA Urban Urban demand with
WARD Maximum
CODE (Ha) CENSIUS Density 2036 Density losses per
Population
2012 (N. of GR = 3.9 (N. of capita (l/c/d)
2036
people/Ha) people/&hA)
I1 Kivukoni 239.85 6 742 28 20 548 21 324

88.90 229
I2 Kisutu 42.99 8 308 193 25 320 10 245 238.32 159
Upanga
I3 195.96 13 476 69 41 073 16 619
Magharibi 84.81 229
Upanga
I4 143.93 11 167 78 34 034 13 771
Mashariki 95.68 229
I5 Mchikichini 168.52 25 510 151 77 749 31 459 186.67 81
I6 Jangwani 63.87 17 647 276 53 783 21 762
340.73 159
I7 Kariakoo 41.50 13 780 332 41 997 16 993 409.52 159
I8 Mchafukoge 84.41 10 688 127 32 574 13 180 156.14 81
I9 Gerezani 82.78 7 276 88 22 176 8 973 108.39 98
I10 Ilala 212.47 31 083 146 94 735 38 332 180.41 81
I11 Buguruni 345.32 70 585 204 215 126 87 045 252.07 98
I12 Tabata 446.76 74 742 167 227 797 92 172 206.31 98
I13 Vingunguti 448.53 106 946 238 325 948 131 886 294.04 121
I14 Kiwalani 436.25 82 292 189 250 806 101 482 232.63 81
I15 Kitunda 1 964.11 57 132 29 174 125 148 119 75.41 81
I16 Kipawa 1 562.91 74 180 47 226 085 132 863 85.01 98
I17 Segerea 967.43 83 315 86 253 925 102 744 106.20 121
I18 Kimanga 927.37 78 557 85 239 423 96 876 104.46 81
I19 Kinyerezi 2 129.94 38 366 18 116 931 174 515 81.93 81
I20 Ukonga 989.02 80 034 81 243 926 98 698 99.79 159
I21 Kivule 2 497.96 72 032 29 219 538 164 436 65.83 81
I22 Msongola 6 518.76 24 461 4 74 551 574 428 88.12 81
I23 Chanika 5 879.35 43 912 7 133 833 559 893 95.23 81
I24 Majohe 5 791.71 81 646 14 248 839 433 897 74.92 53
Gongo la
I25 1 234.16 57 312 46 174 674 104 770
Mboto 84.89 53
I26 Pugu 3 095.61 49 422 16 150 627 245 853 79.42 81
SUB-TOTAL 36 511 1 220 611 33 3 720 144 3 442 335 - -
Table 5-51: Ilala demographic and geographical project data

Consultancy services for design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant
recently developed by Beomhan Engineering & Architects for Dar es Salaam Water and
Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) carry out the project of ilala ward sewerage network and
Jangwani Treatment plant located in Uponga Magharibi ward near Mogoro Road.
The planned STP will have capacity to treat 200,000 cubic metres per day.
Figure 5-4. - Proposed sewerage network into Ilala District (Consultancy services for design review of
sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed by Beomhan Engineering)
With reference to the following figure, the project area has been divided into 9 main areas, each
area will discharge into a sewerage treatment plant.

To these areas are added the areas previously described where sewerage networks and
treatment plants are already present or planned.
STP_I1
(Jangwani)
STP_I2
Buguruni
to STP_MR1
STP_I3 (Temeke)
Kipawa
STP_M3
Airwing
STP_M2
Kivule
to STP_M1
(Temeke)
to STP_M01
(Temeke)
to STP_N1
(Temeke)
STP_N3
Chanika
on site treatment
(Msongola)
Figure 5-5. - Ilala Project area

Catchment N3
STP N3
Chanika
Catchement N3
N2
Figure 5-6. - Ilala Catchment N3
The Catchment N3 includes the whole Chanika Ward except the mountain area located to the
south west and the south area of Majohe ward.
The Catchment area is 6,061 Ha and the maximum expected population at 2036 is about 555,000
inhabitants. The area now is characterized by a low population density, the population in 2012
was only 44,000 inhabitants.
There are two different main sewer one that collects waste water along the north border of the
ward and one along le est-southest border of the ward.

There are two pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas
The STP N3 will be located on the left bank of the river near the border with Msongola Ward.
Average flow of about 32.027 m3/d will be constructed in 2 phases each of 16.013 m3/d.
The removal ratio of 85%~90% or more should be secured for BOD on the influent water quality,
and 87%~92% for SS.
The following tables show the features of the plant.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Served inhabitants 277.611,93 555.223,87
Water demand l/(capita*day) 57,68 57,68
Average flow m3/h 667,23 1.334,46
Average flow m3/day 16.013,49 32.026,98
Peak flow m3/h 934,12 1.868,24
INFLUENT FLOW
BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
STRENGHT
SS load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
BOD5 load kg / day 13.880,60 27.761,19
SS load kg / day 13.880,60 27.761,19
BOD5 concentration mg/l 866,81 866,81
SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 866,81 866,81
BOD5 CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30,00 30,00
BOD5 removal % 96,5% 96,5%
EFFLUENT FLOW 96,5%
STRENGTH
SS removal % 96,5%

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Number of tank - 2,00 4,00
Depth m 2,50 2,50
Lenght of each tank m 8,30 8,30
Width of each tank m 3,00 3,00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Grit chamber area (each) m2 24,91 24,91
Total Capacity m3 124,55 249,10
HRT at peak flowrate min 8,00 8,00
Idraulic load at peak flowrate m/h 18,75 18,75
Number of basin - 2,00 4,00
Diameter m 23,80 23,80
Surface of each basin m2 444,81 444,81
PRIMARY Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION Total Capacity m3 2.668,92 5.337,83
Surface loading rate on peak flow rate m3/m2*day 25,20 25,20
HRT at average flowrate h 4,00 4,00
Weir loading rate m3/m*day 107,09 107,09
Total Capacity m3 20.524,47 41.048,95
Depth of each tank m 3,00 3,00
AERATION BASIN Surface of each tank m2 855,19 855,19
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
F/M kgBOD/kgMLSS∙day 0,15 0,15
HRT hr 30,76 30,76
BOD volumetric loading rate kgBOD/m3∙day 0,45 0,45
Solids retention time day 10,00 10,00
Total Capacity m3 3.336,14 6.672,29
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
Surface loading rate on average flow m3/m2∙day 14,40 14,40
Solid loading rate on average flow kg/m2*day 120,00 120,00
Weir loading rate m3/m∙day 67,73 67,73
DISINFECTION
Surface of each tank m2 444,82 444,82
(Chlorine)
Total Capacity m3 667,23 1.334,46
HRT on peak flow min. 42,86 42,86
Total Capacity m3 28.560,00 28.560,00
AEROBIC DIGESTION Width of each tank m 17,00 17,00
Surface of each tank m2 1.360,00 1.360,00
SRT in aerobic digester tanks day 60,98 36,61

Project value
Facility Item Unit
SRT total day 64,13 39,75
Total Capacity per capita l/ab. 102,88 51,44
GRAVITY
Depth m 3,50 3,50
THICKENER
HRT h 32,21 32,21
Solids loading rate kg/m2*day 39,93 39,93
SLUDGE
Sludge quantity m3/day 233,08 466,17
DEHYDRATATION
Water content ratio % 75,0% 75,0%
Raw sludge quantity ton/day 9,02 18,04
Raw sludge solid quantity m3/day 239,65 479,30
EXPECTED SLUDGE Surplus sludge quantity ton/day 10,58 21,16
GENERATION PER Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 682,10 1.364,21
TREATMENT Sludge quantity after gravity thickening m3/day 233,08 466,17
FACILITY Sludge retention time in dry bed day 60,00 60,00
Total dry bed capacity m3 13.985,00 27.970,00
Superficial ratio (depth 1 m) m2/(1000 Ab.) 50,38 50,38
Table 5-52: Ilala STP N3 Process Line
Next table shows catchment N3 main collector sewerage report.
Truck ward Catchment Qav (in) Qmax

Population 2032 Population
Project project Average Peak
ID Nv Mm Code Area @ Water Area @
Population Population flow flow
2012 demand 2012
Ha l/c/d Ha l/s l/s
S_N03-1 7 8 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 334 5 800 24 994 11.50 30.44
S_N03-1 6 7 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 213 3 703 15 958 18.84 49.41
S_N03-1 5 6 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 110 1 015 10 499 26.22 68.80
S_N03-1 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 290 5 046 21 746
S_N03-1 4 5 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 105 966 9 991 43.25 113.07
S_N03-1 3 4 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 130 1 196 12 366 51.95 135.18
S_N03-1 2 3 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 73 670 6 931 56.82 148.04
S_N03-1 1 2 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 245 4 268 18 392
S_N03-1 1 2 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 98 898 9 287 71.81 188.15
S_N03-1 0 1 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 0 0 0 71.81 188.35
1 598 23 563 130 163 71.81 188.35
S_N03-2 9 10 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 240 2 209 22 839 16.06 41.66
S_N03-2 8 9 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 45 413 4 275 19.06 49.91
S_N03-2 7 8 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 24 223 2 308 20.69 54.17
S_N03-2 6 7 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 225 2 077 21 474 35.79 92.53
S_N03-2 5 6 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 405 3 729 38 559 62.90 160.64
S_N03-2 4 5 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 238 2 196 22 707 78.86 201.92
S_N03-2 3 4 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 863 7 945 82 148 136.62 347.01
S_N03-2 2 3 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 1 465 13 490 139 474 234.69 594.51


2012 demand 2012
Ha l/c/d Ha l/s l/s
S_N03-2 1 2 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 846 7 792 80 566 291.34 739.73
S_N03-2 0 1 I23 5 879 559 893 54 152 81 112 1 036 10 712 298.87 760.65
4 463 41 111 425 061 298.87 760.65
STP N03 TOTAL 6 061 64 674 555 224 370.68 949.01
Table 5-53: Ilala STP N3 - Catchment Population and treated flow

Catchment M2
STP M2
Catchement M2
N2
Figure 5-7. - Ilala Catchment M2
This Catchment includes the southern area of Gongolaboto and Pugu ward, Majohe ward, the
north area of Msongola ward and the west area of Kivule ward.
The Catchment area is 10,000 Ha and the maximum expected population at 2036 is about
770,000 inhabitants. The area now is characterized by a low population density, the population in
2012 was only 172,000 inhabitants.
There are six main sewer that run from west to east up to the Sewerage treatment plant

The STP will be located in Kivule Ward.
Average flow of about 39,600 m3/d will be constructed in 2 phases of 19,800 m3/d each.
and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 825,18 1.650,36
Peak flow m3/h 1.155,25 2.310,51
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 19.310,50 38.621,00
SS load kg / day 19.310,50 38.621,00
EFFLUENT FLOW SS CONCENTRATION TARGET mg/l 30,00 30,00
STRENGTH BOD5 removal % 96,9% 96,9%
SS removal % 96,9% 96,9%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Total Capacity m3 28.718,27 57.436,53
AERATION BASIN Surface of each tank m2 1.025,65 1.025,65
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 34,80 34,80
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
Total Capacity m3 38.080,00 38.080,00
AEROBIC DIGESTION Depth of each tank m 3,50 3,50
GRAVITY Total Capacity m3 1.781,28 3.562,57
THICKENER Diameter m 18,00 18,00
Depth m 3,50 3,50

Project value
Facility Item Unit
HRT h 33,19 33,19
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
Table 5-54: STP M2 Process Line
Next table shows catchment M2 main pipe sewerage report.

2012 demand 2012
Ha Population l/c/d Ha l/s l/s
S_M02-1 6 7 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 330 1 528 29 101 20.46 53.89
S_M02-1 5 6 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 163 756 14 388 30.58 81.56
S_M02-1 4 5 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 86 398 7 580
S_M02-1 4 5 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 136 4 843 8 965 42.21 112.54
P_M02-1 3 4 42.21 112.54
S_M02-1 2 3 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 57 2 016 3 732 44.84 119.53
S_M02-1 1 2 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 85 3 019 5 589 48.76 130.58
S_M02-1 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 272 9 664 17 890 12.58
S_M02-1 0 1 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 857 3 966 75 530 114.45 295.07
1 986 26 190 162 774 114.45 295.07
S_M02-2 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 101 1 755 7 562
S_M02-2 5 6 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 34 670 2 702 5.38 14.45
S_M02-2 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 334 5 798 24 987
S_M02-2 4 5 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 23 457 1 843 18.17 46.65
S_M02-2 3 4 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 53 1 044 4 211 21.13 54.24
S_M02-2 2 3 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 654 11 369 48 993 43.67 114.34
S_M02-2 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 80 370 7 047
S_M02-2 1 2 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 1 501 26 095 112 456 100.36 256.36
S_M02-2 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 109 1 887 8 132
S_M02-2 I22 6 519 574 428 30 165 81 188 871 16 590
S_M02-2 0 1 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 144 5 116 9 470 122.43 316.73
3 220 55 432 243 991 122.43 316.73
1
I26
S_M02-3 1 12 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 319 6 278 25 324 17.81 47.75
S_M02-3 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 53 1 036 4 179
1
I24
S_M02-3 0 11 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 12 215 926 21.17 56.47
S_M02-3 9 10 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 178 3 101 13 362 27.32 73.60


2012 demand 2012
Ha Population l/c/d Ha l/s l/s
S_M02-3 8 9 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 180 3 137 13 519 33.54 91.11
S_M02-3 7 8 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 23 821 1 520 34.61 94.61
S_M02-3 6 7 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 44 1 579 2 922 36.66 100.84
S_M02-3 5 6 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 96 3 428 6 346 41.12 112.16
S_M02-3 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 162 2 817 12 142
S_M02-3 4 5 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 67 2 398 4 440 49.83 134.25
S_M02-3 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 36 624 2 691
S_M02-3 3 4 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 47 1 665 3 082 53.24 143.04
S_M02-3 2 3 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 0 0 0 53.24 143.15
1 219 27 100 90 452 53.24 143.15
S_M02-5 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 86 4 922 7 296
S_M02-5 9 10 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 44 4 395 4 395 9.42 24.08
S_M02-5 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 29 1 648 2 444
S_M02-5 8 9 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 46 4 566 4 566 16.85 43.50
S_M02-5 7 8 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 5 524 524 17.57 45.37
S_M02-5 6 7 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 6 635 635 18.45 47.67
S_M02-5 5 6 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 13 1 260 1 260 20.19 52.11
S_M02-5 4 5 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 76 2 687 4 974 23.69 61.96
S_M02-5 3 4 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 7 246 455 24.01 62.83
S_M02-5 2 3 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 280 9 973 18 461 36.99 97.15
S_M02-5 1 2 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 0 0 0 36.99 97.56
592 30 856 45 010 36.99 97.56
S_M02-4 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 88 1 740 7 019
S_M02-4 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 81 4 624 6 855
S_M02-4 9 10 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 111 1 935 8 339 11.93 32.00
S_M02-4 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 85 4 882 7 238
S_M02-4 8 9 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 63 1 088 4 690 17.41 45.92
S_M02-4 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 66 1 308 5 276
S_M02-4 7 8 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 121 2 106 9 074 25.30 65.98
S_M02-4 6 7 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 13 224 967 25.74 67.33
S_M02-4 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 83 4 725 7 004
S_M02-4 5 6 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 158 2 746 11 834 34.41 89.69
S_M02-4 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 92 5 285 7 835
S_M02-4 4 5 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 285 4 956 21 356 47.84 124.62
S_M02-4 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 952 18 751 75 640
S_M02-4 I24 5 792 433 897 100 686 53 539 9 369 40 376
S_M02-4 3 4 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 36 1 277 2 364 121.26 309.17
S_M02-4 2 3 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 22 773 1 430 122.27 312.70
S_M02-4 1 2 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 111 3 960 7 331 180.66 459.06
S_M02-4 0 1 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 0 0 0 217.64 551.75
2 907 69 751 224 628 217.64 551.75
S_M02-6 1 2 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 65 2 324 4 303 3.03 8.97
S_M02-6 0 1 I21 2 498 164 436 88 830 81 19 682 1 262 3.91 11.57
85 3 006 5 564 3.91 11.57
1
STP M02 10 009 212 335 772 420 458.43
175.12
Table 5-55: Ilala STP M2 - Catchment population and treated flow

Catchment M3
Pond M3 (existing)
Catchement
M3
Figure 5-8. - Ilala Catchment M3
This Catchment includes the southern area of Kipawa ward below Pugi Road. In this Catchment
there is the airport area
The Catchment area is 959 Ha. The maximum expected population at 2036 is about 81,000
inhabitants. The population in 2012 was only 45,000 inhabitants.
In this Catchment there is one of the exiting ponds that is not in operation for the last 10 years.
The new STP, to be built instead of the existent ponds, will have a capacity of 3,600 m3/d.
WWTP will be the long aeration method.
The long aeration method with many examples of application to small and medium plants provides
easy operation and management without the need of the 1st sedimentation basin and its action
for load variation is easy due to the long stay in the reactor. It is also advantageous for
improvement to the high-level treatment method.

Plant Component:
1 - Inlet works – pre-treatment:

Screen House n° 1 unit
Grit removal Chamber n° 1 unit - total capacity 17,48 m3
Aerated floatation tank n° 1 unit
Treatment Mechanical Fine rotary drum screen n° 1 unit
2 - Secondary Treatment:
Aerobic treatment tank (long aeration) n° 1 unit - total capacity 3.561 m3
Final settling tank n° 1 unit - total capacity 742 m3
External filtration unit (MBR side stream) n° 1 unit - total capacity 40 m3
3 - Sludge Treatment:
Gravity Thickeners n° 1 unit - total capacity 144 m3
Mechanical de-watering n° 1 unit
Drying Beds n° 1 unit - total capacity 3.369 m2
4 - Additional Treatment:
Chlorine Contact Tank n° 1 unit - total capacity 131 m3
Table 5-56: STP M3 Process Line

Catchment I2
Catchement I2
STP I2
Buguruni Ponds
(to be disinvested)
STP I3 Vingunguti Ponds

(to be disinvested)
Figure 5-9. - Ilala Catchment I2
This catchment includes Buguruni, Vingulti, Segerea, Tabata, Kimanga and the north west of
Kipawa ward of Ilala District and the south area of Makuburi and Kimara ward which are part of
Ubungo district.
The catchment area is 4,600 Ha and the maximum expected population at 2036 is about 832,000
inhabitants. The area is already characterized by a high population density, the population in 2012
was 492,000 inhabitants.
There are two main sewer that run from west to east up to the Sewerage treatment plant.
There are twelve pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas.
The STP will be located near existent Buguruni ponds (650 m3/d) that will be dismissed.
In this catchment there is also Vingunguti pond (1,800 m3/d) that will be dismissed

The capacity of the sewerage treatment plant will be about 70,000 m3/d; this plant is the larger
new plant expected in Ilala district.
The following image shows the plant area and the placement of the treatment tanks.
Figure 5-10. - Ilala M3’ STP area
Average flow of about 69,600 m3/d will be constructed in 2 phases of 34,800 m3/d each.
across the world and its maintenance is easy. Especially, it consists of the first sedimentation

and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit

Average flow m3/h 1.450,08 2.900,16
Peak flow m3/h 2.030,11 4.060,22
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 20.818,14 41.636,27
SS load kg / day 20.818,14 41.636,27
SS removal % 95,0% 95,0%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Total Capacity m3 30.063,64 60.127,28
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 20,73 20,73

Project value
Facility Item Unit

Total Capacity m3 7.250,40 14.500,80
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
Total Capacity m3 38.080,00 38.080,00
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
GRAVITY
Depth m 3,50 3,50
THICKENER
HRT h 65,75 65,75
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
Table 5-57: Ilala STP I2 Process Line
Next table shows catchment I2 main collector sewerage report.

Truck ward Catchment Qav (tot) Qmax
2032-
Project Population Population project Average Peak
ID Nv Mm Code Area Water Area
population @ 2016 @ 2016 Population flow flow
demand
Ha l/c/d Ha l/s
S_I02-2 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 15 1 583 1 583
S_I02-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 24 528 1 946
S_I02-2 12 13 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 20 2 067 2 067 3.93 9.96
S_I02-2 11 12 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 43 4 469 4 469 7.08 18.63
S_I02-2 10 11 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 77 8 027 8 027 12.72 32.84
S_I02-2 9 10 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 64 6 730 6 730 17.45 44.92
S_I02-2 8 9 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 102 10 627 10 627 24.92 64.54
S_I02-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 153 3 393 12 516
S_I02-2 U8 1 496 125 640 94 435 121 545 34 436 45 815
S_I02-2 7 8 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 158 16 512 16 512 93.46 236.63
S_I02-2 6 7 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 7 769 769 94.00 238.29
P_I02-2 5 6 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 10 1 091 1 091 94.76 240.84
S_I02-2 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 50 5 196 5 196
S_I02-2 4 5 I12 447 92 172 92 172 98 30 6 107 6 107 103.61 265.38
S_I02-2 6 189 599 786 468 446 2 039 154 338 185 696
S_I02-2 U5 771 70 796 70 796 98 498 45 778 45 778
S_I02-2 I12 447 92 172 92 172 98 215 44 312 44 312
S_I02-2 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 363 37 884 37 884
S_I02-2 3 4 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 416 44 162 44 162 444.45 1 118.30
P_I02-2 2 3 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 0 0 0 444.45 1 119.14
4 829 428 008 481 286 1 119.14
S_I02-1 16 17 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 20 2 175 2 175 2.28 6.32
S_I02-1 I16 1 563 132 863 91 479 98 20 1 167 1 696
S_I02-1 15 16 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 207 21 962 21 962 26.79 68.06
S_I02-1 14 15 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 94 9 948 9 948 37.24 95.14
S_I02-1 13 14 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 15 1 643 1 643 38.97 99.70
S_I02-1 12 13 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 9 999 999 40.02 102.77
S_I02-1 11 12 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 3 346 346 40.38 103.84
S_I02-1 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 77 8 177 8 177
S_I02-1 10 11 I16 1 563 132 863 91 479 98 319 18 686 27 139 72.06 183.38
S_I02-1 9 10 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 38 11 117 11 117 83.73 212.61
S_I02-1 8 9 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 1 331 331 84.08 213.56
S_I02-1 7 8 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 11 3 302 3 302 87.55 222.41
S_I02-1 6 7 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 10 2 913 2 913 90.61 230.21
S_I02-1 5 6 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 9 2 681 2 681 93.43 237.46
S_I02-1 4 5 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 18 5 181 5 181 98.87 251.44
S_I02-1 I12 447 92 172 92 172 98 140 28 801 28 801
S_I02-1 I13 449 131 886 131 886 121 359 105 501 105 501
S_I02-1 T12 262 64 940 64 940 29 81 19 996 19 996
S_I02-1 3 4 T11 295 73 225 32 121 121 94 10 220 23 297 263.69 664.32
S_I02-1 2 3 I11 345 87 045 87 045 98 78 19 676 19 676 280.42 706.54
S_I02-1 I11 345 87 045 87 045 98 45 11 343 11 343
S_I02-1 1 2 I12 447 92 172 92 172 98 64 13 165 13 165 780.04 1 990.56
S_I02-1 0 1 I11 345 87 045 87 045 98 119 30 051 30 051 805.60 2 054.76
1 831 329 380 351 439 2 054.76
STP I02 6 660 757 388 832 725 805.60 2 054.76
Table 5-58: Ilala STP I2 - Catchment Population and treated flow

Catchment I3
Catchment I3
STP I3
Kipawa
Ukonga Ponds
(to be disinvested)
Figure 5-11. - Ilala Catchment I3
This Catchment includes Kinyerezi, the north area of Gongolaboto, Pugu and Ukonga, the west
area of Kipawa ward of Ilala District and the south area of Kwembe, Msigani and Saranga ward
which are part of Ubungo district.
inhabitants. The area is characterized by a medium population density, the population in 2012
There is a main sewer that run from west to est up to the Sewerage treatment plant
There are six pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas.
The STP will be located on right bank of the river.

In This Catchment there is also Ukonga Ponds (300 m3/d) that will be disinvested
The capacity of Sewerage treatment plant will be about 39,200 m3/d.
The will be constructed in 2 phases each of 19,600 m3/d.
Considering the average water influent and the number of served inhabitants, according to the
most recent studies of World Bank and Dawasa, the waste water and sludge process plan for this
and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 818,42 1.636,84
Peak flow m3/h 1.145,78 2.291,57
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 13.274,78 26.549,56
SS load kg / day 13.274,78 26.549,56
SS removal % 95,6% 95,6%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Depth m 3,00 3,00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
Total Capacity m3 19.340,19 38.680,39
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 23,63 23,63
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
Total Capacity m3 28.560,00 28.560,00
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
GRAVITY Diameter m 15,00 15,00
THICKENER Depth m 3,50 3,50
HRT h 34,08 34,08

Project value
Facility Item Unit
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
Table 5-59: Ilala STP I3 Process Line
Next table shows catchment I3 main collector sewerage report.
2032-
demand
Ha l/c/d Ha l/s
S_I03-2 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 6 369 546
S_I03-2 11 12 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 114 2 532 9 338 6.82 18.86
S_I03-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 2 51 188
S_I03-2 10 11 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 7 417 618 7.23 20.13
S_I03-2 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 7 423 627
S_I03-2 9 10 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 224 4 970 18 331 20.41 53.34
S_I03-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 17 386 1 423
S_I03-2 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 27 2 689 2 689
S_I03-2 8 9 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 17 956 1 417 25.77 67.38
S_I03-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 15 334 1 233
S_I03-2 7 8 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 5 549 549 27.40 71.94
S_I03-2 U11 6 041 401 007 70 168 53 633 7 351 42 010
S_I03-2 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 46 4 600 4 600
S_I03-2 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 190 10 897 16 154
S_I03-2 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 72 1 600 5 902
S_I03-2 6 7 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 448 9 950 36 702 154.12 452.85
S_I03-2 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 20 1 989 1 989
S_I03-2 5 6 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 18 397 1 464 157.90 462.73
S_I03-2 4 5 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 239 5 300 19 549 171.64 497.73
S_I03-2 3 4 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 12 1 186 1 186 173.28 502.01
S_I03-2 2 3 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 31 678 2 502 175.04 506.69
2 151 57 622 169 015 506.69
S_I03-1 15 16 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 261 5 145 20 755 14.59 37.71
S_I03-1 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 25 488 1 968
S_I03-1 14 15 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 34 1 972 2 924 17.32 45.39
S_I03-1 13 14 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 42 2 410 3 573 18.97 49.91

2032-
demand
Ha l/c/d Ha l/s
S_I03-1 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 95 5 416 8 028
S_I03-1 12 13 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 15 301 1 214 23.51 62.31
S_I03-1 11 12 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 29 1 651 2 447 24.64 65.53
S_I03-1 I25 1 234 104 770 70 677 53 326 18 675 27 683
S_I03-1 10 11 I26 3 096 245 853 60 947 81 1 070 21 069 84 988 97.13 247.34
S_I03-1 9 10 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 15 1 504 1 504 99.21 252.69
S_I03-1 8 9 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 11 1 053 1 053 100.66 256.63
S_I03-1 7 8 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 13 1 326 1 326 102.49 261.50
S_I03-1 6 7 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 139 13 852 13 852 121.61 309.69
S_I03-1 5 6 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 36 3 588 3 588 126.56 322.58
S_I03-1 4 5 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 94 9 388 9 388 139.52 355.74
S_I03-1 3 4 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 51 5 120 5 120 146.59 373.72
S_I03-1 2 3 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 0 0 0 146.59 374.14
S_I03-1 I20 989 98 698 98 698 159 99 9 889 9 889
S_I03-1 1 2 I16 1 563 132 863 91 479 98 94 5 511 8 004 342.08 863.05
S_I03-1 0 1 I16 1 563 132 863 91 479 98 77 4 487 6 517 347.63 877.24
2 527 112 846 213 824 877.24
S_I03-3 19 20 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 11 234 864 0.61 1.60
S_I03-3 18 19 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 4 79 293 0.81 2.39
S_I03-3 U11 6 041 401 007 70 168 53 476 5 534 31 626
S_I03-3 17 18 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 2 44 162 15.48 39.19
S_I03-3 16 17 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 4 84 309 15.69 39.84
S_I03-3 15 16 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 3 68 251 15.87 40.43
S_I03-3 14 15 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 12 269 994 16.57 42.40
S_I03-3 13 14 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 14 318 1 174 17.40 44.73
S_I03-3 12 13 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 19 416 1 533 18.47 47.52
S_I03-3 11 12 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 45 989 3 649 21.04 54.34
S_I03-3 10 11 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 0 0 0 21.04 55.97
S_I03-3 U9 2 504 210 345 128 409 101 271 13 872 22 724
S_I03-3 9 10 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 149 3 316 12 232 49.56 127.61
S_I03-3 U9 2 504 210 345 128 409 101 193 9 885 16 192
S_I03-3 8 9 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 85 1 891 6 975 68.66 175.72
S_I03-3 7 8 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 36 798 2 944 70.73 181.35
S_I03-3 6 7 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 86 1 920 7 083 75.71 194.89
S_I03-3 5 6 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 197 4 378 16 148 87.07 224.96
S_I03-3 I18 927 96 876 96 876 81 19 2 037 2 037
S_I03-3 4 5 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 61 1 350 4 980 92.00 238.65
S_I03-3 3 4 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 5 114 419 92.30 239.75
S_I03-3 2 3 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 11 244 900 92.93 241.88
S_I03-3 I19 2 130 174 515 47 313 81 13 297 1 096
S_I03-3 1 2 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 85 9 059 9 059 103.21 268.05
S_I03-3 0 1 I17 967 102 744 102 744 121 0 0 0 103.21 268.59
1 801 57 197 143 644 268.59
PS_I03-2-73 I16 1 563 132 863 91 479 98 53 3 104 4 509 3.84 28.31
STP I03 6 532 230 769 530 991 454.68 1 174.14
Table 5-60: Ilala STP I3 - Catchment Population and treated flow

Catchment to STP MR1
Pumping station
Kiwalani sewerage
network
Figure 5-12. - Ilala Catchment to STP MR1
East of Kiwalani ward the Consultancy services for design review of sewerage network and
wastewater treatment plant recently developed by Beomhan Engineering expected a new
sewerage network that discharge waste water to MR1 plant. Kiwalani waste water can be
collected and send to the nearest pumping station designed in Sandali ward.

Catchment to STP M1
This Catchment includes Kitunga, the south of Ukonga and the est of Kivule ward of Ilala District.
This area is connected to Temeke sewerage network ad discharge waste water into M1 STP.
Figure 5-13. - Ilala Catchment to STP M1
Catchment to STP N1
This Catchment includes the north area of Msongola ward of Ilala District.
This area is connected to Temeke sewerage network ad discharge waste water into N1 STP.

5.8.3 Priority
For the Ilala sewerage system the priorities for the next 5 years are the construction of the
Jangwani sewage treatment plant and the sewerage networks planned in the Consultancy
services for design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently
developed by Beomhan Engineering because they relate an intensely urbanized area with a
consolidated structure and affects about 1,000,000 people.
Another priority is the construction of the I2 Buguruni treatment plant and related networks
because Catchment I2 is an area already today characterized by a high population density where
the problems of health and hygiene are easily found.
In this way it would be possible to rehabilitate the city center of Ilala and the areas bordering it
from the hygienic point of view.
5.8.4 Calculation
pumping stations and Sewerage treatment plant.
Sewerage treatment plant

STP
Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d)
Name code
Chanika N03 6 061 555 224 32 027
Kivule M02 10 009 772 420 39 609
Kipawa I03 6 478 530 991 39 195
Buguruni I02 4 621 832 725 69 604
Airwing M03 345 48 460 3 52
27 514 2 590 581 184 085
Table 5-61: Ilala District Sewerage treatment plant
Catchment Rising main

PUMPING
Flow capacity Power
STATION Head Head Total
area (mq) ab L D v
loss height head
m2 lps m3/d m mm m/s m m m kW

PS_I02-1_47 2 067 953 16 750 15.70 1 357 644 110 1.65 28.91 10.00 38.91 10.00
PS_I02-1_43 1 117 087 9 048 8.48 733 134 80 1.69 9.07 4.00 13.07 2.00
PS_I02-1_38 3 192 415 25 859 24.24 2 095 231 125 1.98 12.43 4.00 16.43 6.00
PS_I02-1_62 10 555 85 0.08 7 540 80 0.02 0.01 6.00 6.01 2.00
PS_I02-2_6 240.84 20 809 300 450 1.51 2.22 13.18 15.40 50.00
PS_I02-2_3 1 119.14 96 693 1145 900 1.76 4.97 11.76 16.73 222.00

Catchment Rising main

PUMPING
Flow capacity Power
STATION Head Head Total
area (mq) ab L D v
loss height head
m2 lps m3/d m mm m/s m m m kW

PS_I02-2_71 75 058 608 0.57 49 338 80 0.11 0.15 18.00 18.15 2.00
PS_I02-2_43 1 622 673 13 144 12.32 1 065 173 100 1.57 7.88 8.00 15.88 4.00
PS_I02-2_34 3 430 000 27 783 26.05 2 250 375 150 1.47 9.49 6.00 15.49 6.00
PS_I02-2_28 5 000 000 40 500 37.97 3 281 239 180 1.49 5.00 6.00 11.00 6.00
PS_I02-2_24 6 867 740 55 629 52.15 4 506 540 200 1.66 12.17 8.00 20.17 16.00
PS_I02-2_19 7 784 837 63 057 59.12 5 108 128 225 1.49 2.05 8.00 10.05 10.00
PS_I03-1_18 513 050 4 156 3.90 337 234 80 0.78 3.75 4.00 7.75 2.00
PS_I03-1_46 984 343 7 973 7.47 646 323 80 1.49 17.29 12.00 29.29 4.00
PS_I03-1_51 5 452 932 44 169 41.41 3 578 245 180 1.63 6.02 22.00 28.02 18.00
PS_I03-1_55 1 859 740 15 064 14.12 1 220 44 100 1.80 2.58 8.00 10.58 4.00
PS_I03-2_22 4 479 379 36 283 34.02 2 939 157 180 1.34 2.68 18.00 20.68 10.00
PS_I03-2_73 794 747 6 437 6.04 521 759 80 1.20 27.34 8.00 35.34 4.00
PS_M01-4_25 3 445 784 27 911 26.17 2 261 951 150 1.48 24.26 16.00 40.26 16.00
PS_M01-4_23 1 284 197 10 402 9.75 843 557 90 1.53 27.50 12.00 39.50 6.00
PS_M02-1_4 1 361 922 11 032 10.34 894 216 90 1.63 11.89 12.00 23.89 4.00
PS_M02-1_7 11 288 987 91 441 85.73 7 407 982 275 1.44 11.78 8.00 19.78 24.00
PS_M02-4_17 4 590 081 37 180 34.86 3 012 954 180 1.37 17.04 4.00 21.04 12.00
PS_N01-2_21 1 369 729 11 095 10.40 899 1676 90 1.63 93.23 34.00 127.23 20.00
PS_N01-2_17 1 128 298 9 139 8.57 740 1470 80 1.70 101.34 10.00 111.34 14.00
PS_N01-2_12 12 865 115 104 207 97.69 8 441 845 275 1.64 12.92 8.00 20.92 30.00
PS_N03-2_34 8 626 243 69 873 65.51 5 660 1970 225 1.65 38.17 4.00 42.17 40.00
PS_N03-2_27 1 185 079 9 599 9.00 778 458 80 1.79 34.58 6.00 40.58 6.00
PS_M01-3_22 323 084 2 617 2.45 212 163 80 0.49 1.11 16.00 17.11 2.00
Table 5-62: Ilala Pumping stations
ILALA MAIN SEWERAGE NETWORK
GRAVITY MAIN
DN
Catchment STP MAIN Length (m)
200 250 315 400 500 630 710 800 930 1000 1200 1500
I 2 1 707 93 2 200 328 403 1 198 1 071 320 1 099 7 419
I 2 2 1 077 323 1 167 4 551 1 118 8 236
I 3 1 0 1 413 1 459 1 656 670 184 683 2 773 573 9 410
I 3 2 2 096 257 314 1 298 1 764 543 6 273
I 3 3 406 288 1 313 1 877 1 323 6 333 618 12 159
M 1 3 1 473 2 397 2 140 372 6 382
M 1 4 4 124 1 293 5 416
M 2 1 3 151 7 149 10 300
M 2 2 1 157 474 4 656 6 001 12 287

ILALA MAIN SEWERAGE NETWORK
GRAVITY MAIN
DN
200 250 315 400 500 630 710 800 930 1000 1200 1500
M 2 3 4 082 2 031 5 034 443 11 590
M 2 4 2 521 633 275 2 358 2 313 702 8 801
M 2 5 597 1 184 3 619 466 5 866
M 2 6 2 057 2 057
N 3 1 1 955 699 4 242 3 267 10 163
N 3 2 2 828 708 1 953 786 2 692 6 557 15 525
5 444 9 411 18 171 18 487 26 849 26 017 5 835 4 553 6 380 1 071 8 568 1 099 131 885
Table 5-63: Ilala Gravity mains
RISING MAIN
DN
90 450 900
I 2 2 300 1 150 1 450
M 2 1 216 216
216 300 1 150 1 666
Table 5-64: Ilala Rising mains

CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAINAGE & SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DSDP) FOR DAR ES SALAAM FOR PERIOD 2018-2035 UNDER DMDP
Qaverage Qmax
war
Truck hv hm L Qav (in) Qav (tot) P Qmax s Diamete Vav Fav hav Vmax F max hmax
d
Peak r
Truck Discharg Average Averag flow Peak Slope water water
ID Nv Mm Code Velocity Filling Velocity Filling
lenght e factor flow e flow facto flow of pipe height height
r
m m m l/s l/s % mm m/s % m m/s % m
35.3 0.23
60.00 1 772.00 I22
S_N01-2 0 1 62.00 0.75 79.71 79.71 2.5 202.51 0.11 710 0.720 % 6 0.915 60.3% 0.403
79.71 202.51
28.8 0.06
98.00 1 954.76 I24
S_N03-1 7 8 124.00 0.75 11.50 11.50 2.5 30.44 1.33 250 1.106 % 8 1.442 48.8% 0.115
26.1 0.09
95.00 699.42 I24
S_N03-1 6 7 98.00 0.75 7.34 18.84 2.5 49.41 0.43 400 0.813 % 8 1.063 43.5% 0.164
30.5 0.14
93.50 1 081.90 I23
S_N03-1 5 6 95.00 0.75 7.38 26.22 2.5 68.80 0.14 500 0.584 % 3 0.757 51.7% 0.243
S_N03-1 I24 0.75 10.00
29.8 0.14
85.50 1 952.60 I23
S_N03-1 4 5 93.50 0.75 7.03 43.25 2.5 113.07 0.41 500 0.993 % 0 1.287 50.4% 0.237
34.3 0.16
84.00 435.37 I23
S_N03-1 3 4 85.50 0.75 8.69 51.95 2.5 135.18 0.34 500 0.982 % 2 1.257 59.3% 0.279
34.9 0.16
81.00 772.26 I23
S_N03-1 2 3 84.00 0.75 4.87 56.82 2.5 148.04 0.39 500 1.052 % 4 1.344 60.5% 0.285
S_N03-1 1 2 I24 0.75 8.46
28.4 0.16
69.00 3 032.12 I23
S_N03-1 1 2 81.00 0.75 6.53 71.81 2.5 188.15 0.40 630 1.109 % 9 1.443 47.8% 0.283
21.2 0.12
66.00 235.02 I23
S_N03-1 0 1 69.00 0.75 0.00 71.81 2.5 188.35 1.28 630 1.682 % 6 2.216 34.6% 0.205
10 163.44 71.81 188.35
31.9 0.09
107.00 1 748.24 I23
S_N03-2 9 10 116.00 0.75 16.06 16.06 2.5 41.66 0.51 315 0.848 % 4 1.092 54.1% 0.160
33.5 0.09
102.00 838.76 I23
S_N03-2 8 9 107.00 0.75 3.01 19.06 2.5 49.91 0.60 315 0.938 % 9 1.205 57.8% 0.172
32.1 0.09
100.00 240.99 I23
S_N03-2 7 8 102.00 0.75 1.62 20.69 2.5 54.17 0.83 315 1.081 % 5 1.394 54.9% 0.163

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
36.6 0.13
97.00 708.10 I23
S_N03-2 6 7 100.00 0.75 15.10 35.79 2.5 92.53 0.42 400 0.970 % 8 1.231 63.9% 0.241
29.4 0.17
96.00 374.73 I23
S_N03-2 5 6 97.00 0.75 27.11 62.90 2.5 160.64 0.27 630 0.928 % 4 1.197 48.9% 0.290
33.5 0.19
92.00 1 578.22 I23
S_N03-2 4 5 96.00 0.75 15.97 78.86 2.5 201.92 0.25 630 0.971 % 9 1.241 57.0% 0.338
32.0 0.24
90.00 786.45 I23
S_N03-2 3 4 92.00 0.75 57.76 136.62 2.5 347.01 0.25 800 1.112 % 1 1.424 53.7% 0.404
34.5 0.27
79.00 2 692.48 I23
S_N03-2 2 3 90.00 0.75 98.07 234.69 2.5 594.51 0.41 930 1.527 % 6 1.942 58.6% 0.469
26.8 0.32
71.00 4 148.09 I23
S_N03-2 1 2 79.00 0.75 56.65 291.34 2.5 739.73 0.19 1200 1.197 % 1 1.550 43.9% 0.526
26.6 0.31
66.00 2 409.28 I23
S_N03-2 0 1 71.00 0.75 7.53 298.87 2.5 760.65 0.21 1200 1.238 % 9 1.604 43.6% 0.524
15 525.34 298.87 760.65
STP N03 370.68 949.01
26.8 0.07
44.00 1 408.81 I15
S_M01-3 12 13 50.00 0.75 10.43 10.43 2.5 27.77 0.43 315 0.701 % 9 0.919 45.1% 0.134
S_M01-3 I15 0.75 8.56
S_M01-3 I20 0.75 41.18
S_M01-3 I16 0.75 6.31
S_M01-3 I25 0.75 0.96
32.0 0.09
36.00 64.59 I21
S_M01-3 11 12 44.00 0.75 12.07 79.51 2.5 200.47 12.39 315 4.170 % 5 5.332 53.5% 0.159
26.9 0.16
30.00 956.75 I15
S_M01-3 10 11 36.00 0.75 1.68 81.19 2.5 204.66 0.63 630 1.354 % 0 1.749 44.0% 0.261
28.3 0.16
24.00 1 091.62 I15
S_M01-3 9 10 30.00 0.75 2.50 83.69 2.5 210.91 0.55 630 1.303 % 8 1.679 46.4% 0.275

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
28.1 0.16
22.00 348.25 I15
S_M01-3 8 9 24.00 0.75 0.99 84.67 2.5 213.38 0.57 630 1.328 % 7 1.712 46.2% 0.274
29.5 0.19
20.00 747.76 I15
S_M01-3 7 8 22.00 0.75 2.29 86.97 2.5 219.12 0.27 710 1.007 % 7 1.294 48.6% 0.325
30.0 0.20
18.00 761.35 I15
S_M01-3 6 7 20.00 0.75 2.39 89.36 2.5 225.09 0.26 710 1.008 % 1 1.295 49.6% 0.332
22.3 0.14
15.00 345.24 I15
S_M01-3 5 6 18.00 0.75 0.76 90.12 2.5 227.00 0.87 710 1.547 % 9 2.013 35.8% 0.239
29.6 0.19
14.00 286.04 I15
S_M01-3 4 5 15.00 0.75 10.45 100.57 2.5 253.13 0.35 710 1.155 % 8 1.484 48.9% 0.327
S_M01-3 I21 0.75 14.94
36.7 0.29
13.50 371.77 I15
S_M01-3 3 4 14.00 0.75 35.88 151.39 2.5 380.18 0.13 930 0.905 % 4 1.141 63.0% 0.504
6 382.18 151.39 380.18
34.0 0.12
45.00 2 059.70 I15
S_M01-4 19 20 48.00 0.75 18.27 18.27 2.5 47.37 0.15 400 0.547 % 8 0.701 58.4% 0.220
34.0 0.12
41.00 1 457.34 I15
S_M01-4 18 19 45.00 0.75 6.81 25.08 2.5 64.40 0.27 400 0.751 % 8 0.960 58.1% 0.219
19.8 0.07
26.00 606.83 I15
S_M01-4 17 18 41.00 0.75 0.91 25.99 2.5 66.67 2.47 400 1.662 % 5 2.180 31.9% 0.120
26.8 0.12
22.00 1 292.52 I21
S_M01-4 16 17 26.00 0.75 4.47 30.47 2.5 77.86 0.31 500 0.813 % 6 1.054 44.0% 0.207
5 416.38 30.47 77.86
35.2 0.10
62.00 3 151.22 I22
S_M02-1 6 7 80.00 0.75 20.46 20.46 2.5 53.89 0.57 315 0.942 % 4 1.205 61.7% 0.183

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
29.3 0.13
56.00 2 740.06 I22
S_M02-1 5 6 62.00 0.75 10.12 30.58 2.5 81.56 0.22 500 0.719 % 8 0.938 50.0% 0.235
S_M02-1 4 5 I22 0.75 5.33
27.3 0.12
44.00 2 188.08 I21
S_M02-1 4 5 56.00 0.75 6.30 42.21 2.5 112.54 0.55 500 1.094 % 9 1.434 46.1% 0.217
P_M02-1 3 4 50.00 44.00 216.28 42.21 112.54
30.5 0.14
48.00 494.56 I21
S_M02-1 2 3 50.00 0.75 2.62 44.84 2.5 119.53 0.40 500 0.998 % 4 1.299 52.3% 0.246
37.7 0.17
45.00 1 406.74 I21
S_M02-1 1 2 48.00 0.75 3.93 48.76 2.5 130.58 0.21 500 0.811 % 8 1.031 68.3% 0.321
S_M02-1 I21 0.75 12.58 12.58
28.5 0.13
34.00 319.73 I22
S_M02-1 0 1 45.00 0.75 53.11 114.45 2.5 295.07 3.44 500 2.804 % 4 3.633 47.4% 0.223
10 516.66 114.45 295.07
S_M02-2 I24 0.75 3.48
21.7 0.04
88.00 1 156.59 I26
S_M02-2 5 6 122.00 0.75 1.90 5.38 2.5 14.45 2.94 200 1.206 % 1 1.598 36.1% 0.068
S_M02-2 I24 0.75 11.50
30.4 0.09
86.00 252.49 I26
S_M02-2 4 5 88.00 0.75 1.30 18.17 2.5 46.65 0.79 315 1.025 % 0 1.321 50.9% 0.151
31.7 0.09
84.00 221.30 I26
S_M02-2 3 4 86.00 0.75 2.96 21.13 2.5 54.24 0.90 315 1.121 % 4 1.441 53.5% 0.159
29.8 0.14
66.00 4 314.22 I24
S_M02-2 2 3 84.00 0.75 22.54 43.67 2.5 114.34 0.42 500 1.002 % 0 1.300 50.4% 0.237
S_M02-2 I22 0.75 4.95
31.6 0.14
60.00 342.04 I24
S_M02-2 1 2 66.00 0.75 51.74 100.36 2.5 256.36 1.75 500 2.122 % 9 2.725 53.2% 0.250
S_M02-2 I24 0.75 3.74
S_M02-2 I22 0.75 11.66
36.7 0.21
34.00 6 000.76 I21
S_M02-2 0 1 60.00 0.75 6.66 122.43 2.5 316.73 0.43 630 1.331 % 8 1.687 64.3% 0.381
12 287.41 122.43 316.73

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
29.0 0.08
74.00 3 731.48 I26
S_M02-3 11 12 108.00 0.75 17.81 17.81 2.5 47.75 0.91 315 1.071 % 6 1.401 49.5% 0.147
S_M02-3 I26 0.75 2.94
35.9 0.10
72.00 350.69 I24
S_M02-3 10 11 74.00 0.75 0.43 21.17 2.5 56.47 0.57 315 0.950 % 6 1.216 63.7% 0.189
32.3 0.12
64.00 2 030.69 I24
S_M02-3 9 10 72.00 0.75 6.15 27.32 2.5 73.60 0.39 400 0.877 % 2 1.138 56.4% 0.212
26.4 0.12
55.00 2 259.83 I24
S_M02-3 8 9 64.00 0.75 6.22 33.54 2.5 91.11 0.40 500 0.914 % 4 1.206 44.8% 0.211
27.4 0.12
51.50 957.01 I21
S_M02-3 7 8 55.00 0.75 1.07 34.61 2.5 94.61 0.37 500 0.895 % 9 1.180 46.9% 0.221
28.4 0.13
47.00 1 260.07 I21
S_M02-3 6 7 51.50 0.75 2.05 36.66 2.5 100.84 0.36 500 0.902 % 4 1.188 49.0% 0.231
16.8 0.07
40.00 187.97 I21
S_M02-3 5 6 47.00 0.75 4.46 41.12 2.5 112.16 3.72 500 2.140 % 9 2.868 27.6% 0.130
S_M02-3 I24 0.75 5.59
32.2 0.15
38.50 369.24 I21
S_M02-3 4 5 40.00 0.75 3.12 49.83 2.5 134.25 0.41 500 1.030 % 1 1.338 56.0% 0.264
S_M02-3 I24 0.75 1.24
25.8 0.15
37.50 312.04 I21
S_M02-3 3 4 38.50 0.75 2.17 53.24 2.5 143.04 0.32 630 0.944 % 3 1.243 43.4% 0.258
24.6 0.14
37.00 130.72 I21
S_M02-3 2 3 37.50 0.75 0.00 53.24 2.5 143.15 0.38 630 1.005 % 6 1.327 41.4% 0.245
11 589.73 53.24 143.15
S_M02-5 I25 0.75 3.36
24.6 0.05
70.00 597.18 I20
S_M02-5 9 10 80.00 0.75 6.07 9.42 2.5 24.08 1.67 250 1.134 % 8 1.476 40.1% 0.094
S_M02-5 I25 0.75 1.12
34.8 0.10
66.00 985.11 I20
S_M02-5 8 9 70.00 0.75 6.30 16.85 2.5 43.50 0.41 315 0.789 % 3 1.007 59.9% 0.178
26.3 0.07
65.00 77.37 I20
S_M02-5 7 8 66.00 0.75 0.72 17.57 2.5 45.37 1.29 315 1.209 % 8 1.574 43.5% 0.129

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
36.3 0.10
64.50 121.40 I20
S_M02-5 6 7 65.00 0.75 0.88 18.45 2.5 47.67 0.41 315 0.813 % 8 1.032 63.4% 0.188
26.5 0.10
64.00 108.15 I20
S_M02-5 5 6 64.50 0.75 1.74 20.19 2.5 52.11 0.46 400 0.852 % 0 1.108 43.9% 0.165
30.0 0.11
59.00 1 270.04 I21
S_M02-5 4 5 64.00 0.75 3.50 23.69 2.5 61.96 0.39 400 0.842 % 3 1.091 50.8% 0.191
23.0 0.08
58.00 86.29 I21
S_M02-5 3 4 59.00 0.75 0.32 24.01 2.5 62.83 1.16 400 1.242 % 7 1.631 37.8% 0.142
30.3 0.11
38.00 2 154.71 I21
S_M02-5 2 3 58.00 0.75 12.98 36.99 2.5 97.15 0.93 400 1.299 % 4 1.684 51.4% 0.194
27.2 0.12
36.00 465.59 I21
S_M02-5 1 2 38.00 0.75 0.00 36.99 2.5 97.56 0.43 500 0.966 % 8 1.262 45.6% 0.215
5 865.84 36.99 97.56
S_M02-4 I26 0.75 4.94
S_M02-4 I25 0.75 3.15
25.4 0.06
63.00 2 520.71 I24
S_M02-4 9 10 122.00 0.75 3.84 11.93 2.5 32.00 2.34 250 1.368 % 0 1.801 42.8% 0.101
S_M02-4 I25 0.75 3.33
29.1 0.08
61.00 232.95 I24
S_M02-4 8 9 63.00 0.75 2.16 17.41 2.5 45.92 0.86 315 1.042 % 6 1.356 49.2% 0.146
S_M02-4 I26 0.75 3.71
34.0 0.10
57.00 400.43 I24
S_M02-4 7 8 61.00 0.75 4.17 25.30 2.5 65.98 1.00 315 1.222 % 1 1.567 58.6% 0.174
26.8 0.10
55.00 274.63 I24
S_M02-4 6 7 57.00 0.75 0.44 25.74 2.5 67.33 0.73 400 1.074 % 1 1.402 44.6% 0.168
S_M02-4 I25 0.75 3.22
27.1 0.12
52.00 795.87 I24
S_M02-4 5 6 55.00 0.75 5.44 34.41 2.5 89.69 0.38 500 0.903 % 8 1.176 45.1% 0.212
S_M02-4 I25 0.75 3.60
31.9 0.15
46.00 1 561.78 I24
S_M02-4 4 5 52.00 0.75 9.83 47.84 2.5 124.62 0.38 500 0.998 % 0 1.287 54.4% 0.256
S_M02-4 I26 0.75 53.18

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
S_M02-4 I24 0.75 18.58
32.6 0.21
42.00 1 143.00 I21
S_M02-4 3 4 46.00 0.75 1.66 121.26 2.5 309.17 0.35 710 1.218 % 8 1.559 55.1% 0.368
33.0 0.22
38.00 1 169.59 I21
S_M02-4 2 3 42.00 0.75 1.01 122.27 2.5 312.70 0.34 710 1.211 % 1 1.549 55.9% 0.374
31.9 0.24
36.00 444.84 I21
S_M02-4 1 2 38.00 0.75 5.15 180.66 2.5 459.06 0.45 800 1.476 % 0 1.891 53.5% 0.403
30.5 0.23
34.00 257.24 I21
S_M02-4 0 1 36.00 0.75 0.00 217.64 2.5 551.75 0.78 800 1.894 % 0 2.433 50.7% 0.382
8 801.03 217.64 551.75
26.7 0.06
48.00 1 615.07 I21
S_M02-6 1 2 50.00 0.75 3.03 3.03 2.5 8.97 0.12 250 0.324 % 3 0.436 47.8% 0.113
13.6 0.03
34.00 441.80 I21
S_M02-6 0 1 48.00 0.75 0.89 3.91 2.5 11.57 3.17 250 1.096 % 2 1.510 23.2% 0.055
2 056.87 3.91 11.57
1
STP M02 458.43
175.12
S_I03-2 I25 0.75 0.25

25.5 0.04
76.00 2 096.07 I19
S_I03-2 11 12 128.00 0.75 6.57 6.82 2.5 18.86 2.48 200 1.216 % 8 1.614 43.7% 0.082
S_I03-2 I19 0.75 0.13
31.2 0.07
75.00 257.49 I25
S_I03-2 10 11 76.00 0.75 0.28 7.23 2.5 20.13 0.39 250 0.624 % 3 0.819 55.1% 0.130
S_I03-2 I25 0.75 0.29
30.7 0.09
72.00 314.07 I19
S_I03-2 9 10 75.00 0.75 12.89 20.41 2.5 53.34 0.96 315 1.133 % 1 1.465 52.1% 0.155
S_I03-2 I19 0.75 1.00
S_I03-2 I20 0.75 3.71

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
28.8 0.10
68.00 726.81 I25
S_I03-2 8 9 72.00 0.75 0.65 25.77 2.5 67.38 0.55 400 0.972 % 8 1.263 48.3% 0.182
S_I03-2 I19 0.75 0.87
25.2 0.09
62.00 571.33 I20
S_I03-2 7 8 68.00 0.75 0.76 27.40 2.5 71.94 1.05 400 1.246 % 5 1.632 41.8% 0.157
S_I03-2 U11 0.75 19.33
S_I03-2 I20 0.75 6.35
S_I03-2 I25 0.75 71.09
S_I03-2 I19 0.75 4.15
30.6 0.23
60.00 524.14 I19
S_I03-2 6 7 62.00 0.75 25.81 154.12 2.5 452.85 0.38 800 1.331 % 1 1.771 55.8% 0.420
S_I03-2 I20 0.75 2.75
23.2 0.17
54.00 505.75 I19
S_I03-2 5 6 60.00 0.75 1.03 157.90 2.5 462.73 1.19 800 2.008 % 5 2.718 40.7% 0.306
29.5 0.22
50.00 733.90 I19
S_I03-2 4 5 54.00 0.75 13.75 171.64 2.5 497.73 0.55 800 1.559 % 3 2.075 53.0% 0.399
28.7 0.23
49.00 221.43 I20
S_I03-2 3 4 50.00 0.75 1.64 173.28 2.5 502.01 0.45 930 1.453 % 0 1.938 51.2% 0.410
31.8 0.25
48.00 321.87 I19
S_I03-2 2 3 49.00 0.75 1.76 175.04 2.5 506.69 0.31 930 1.275 % 4 1.685 57.8% 0.462
6 272.86 175.04 506.69
26.2 0.06
88.00 1 412.78 I26
S_I03-1 15 16 132.00 0.75 14.59 14.59 2.5 37.71 3.11 250 1.605 % 2 2.090 43.3% 0.102
S_I03-1 I26 0.75 1.38
29.4 0.08
80.00 984.04 I25
S_I03-1 14 15 88.00 0.75 1.35 17.32 2.5 45.39 0.81 315 1.021 % 7 1.325 49.7% 0.147
30.6 0.09
76.00 474.65 I25
S_I03-1 13 14 80.00 0.75 1.64 18.97 2.5 49.91 0.84 315 1.061 % 1 1.375 52.0% 0.154
S_I03-1 I25 0.75 3.69
26.1 0.09
68.00 1 190.30 I26
S_I03-1 12 13 76.00 0.75 0.85 23.51 2.5 62.31 0.67 400 1.017 % 8 1.333 43.7% 0.164

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
30.0 0.11
66.00 465.41 I25
S_I03-1 11 12 68.00 0.75 1.13 24.64 2.5 65.53 0.43 400 0.879 % 3 1.144 51.1% 0.193
S_I03-1 I25 0.75 12.74
26.9 0.16
60.00 670.24 I26
S_I03-1 10 11 66.00 0.75 59.76 97.13 2.5 247.34 0.90 630 1.618 % 0 2.096 44.2% 0.263
31.4 0.21
59.50 183.76 I20
S_I03-1 9 10 60.00 0.75 2.08 99.21 2.5 252.69 0.27 710 1.052 % 0 1.350 52.6% 0.352
31.6 0.23
59.00 346.80 I20
S_I03-1 8 9 59.50 0.75 1.45 100.66 2.5 256.63 0.14 800 0.832 % 8 1.068 53.1% 0.400
31.7 0.23
58.50 336.57 I20
S_I03-1 7 8 59.00 0.75 1.83 102.49 2.5 261.50 0.15 800 0.845 % 9 1.085 53.2% 0.401
34.6 0.27
58.00 459.85 I20
S_I03-1 6 7 58.50 0.75 19.12 121.61 2.5 309.69 0.11 930 0.789 % 7 1.004 59.0% 0.472
26.2 0.21
56.00 585.20 I20
S_I03-1 5 6 58.00 0.75 4.95 126.56 2.5 322.58 0.34 930 1.203 % 0 1.560 43.0% 0.344
24.9 0.19
51.50 884.25 I20
S_I03-1 4 5 56.00 0.75 12.96 139.52 2.5 355.74 0.51 930 1.425 % 9 1.853 40.7% 0.325
26.9 0.21
50.00 358.89 I20
S_I03-1 3 4 51.50 0.75 7.07 146.59 2.5 373.72 0.42 930 1.348 % 5 1.746 44.2% 0.353
27.0 0.21
48.00 484.46 I20
S_I03-1 2 3 50.00 0.75 0.00 146.59 2.5 374.14 0.41 930 1.342 % 6 1.739 44.3% 0.355
S_I03-1 I20 0.75 13.65
27.3 0.32
47.50 204.18 I16
S_I03-1 1 2 48.00 0.75 6.81 342.08 2.5 863.05 0.24 1200 1.365 % 8 1.762 44.7% 0.537
24.2 0.29
46.00 368.58 I16
S_I03-1 0 1 47.50 0.75 5.54 347.63 2.5 877.24 0.41 1200 1.643 % 1 2.133 39.2% 0.471
9 409.97 347.63 877.24
0.01
139.00 90.47 I19
S_I03-3 19 20 140.00 0.75 0.61 0.61 2.5 1.60 1.11 200 0.447 9.6% 8 0.597 15.2% 0.029
0.01
124.00 315.95 I19
S_I03-3 18 19 139.00 0.75 0.21 0.81 2.5 2.39 4.75 200 0.812 7.8% 5 1.122 13.0% 0.024
S_I03-3 U11 0.75 14.55

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
28.9 0.06
120.00 167.71 I19
S_I03-3 17 18 124.00 0.75 0.11 15.48 2.5 39.19 2.39 250 1.484 % 8 1.912 47.7% 0.112
38.5 0.09
119.00 120.63 I19
S_I03-3 16 17 120.00 0.75 0.22 15.69 2.5 39.84 0.83 250 1.018 % 1 1.277 67.4% 0.159
30.6 0.09
118.00 171.31 I19
S_I03-3 15 16 119.00 0.75 0.18 15.87 2.5 40.43 0.58 315 0.884 % 1 1.137 51.2% 0.152
35.0 0.10
117.00 260.50 I19
S_I03-3 14 15 118.00 0.75 0.70 16.57 2.5 42.40 0.38 315 0.769 % 4 0.979 60.0% 0.178
31.1 0.09
115.00 303.00 I19
S_I03-3 13 14 117.00 0.75 0.83 17.40 2.5 44.73 0.66 315 0.948 % 2 1.221 52.4% 0.155
29.4 0.08
114.00 107.18 I19
S_I03-3 12 13 115.00 0.75 1.08 18.47 2.5 47.52 0.93 315 1.092 % 7 1.411 49.0% 0.145
32.2 0.09
110.00 470.72 I19
S_I03-3 11 12 114.00 0.75 2.57 21.04 2.5 54.34 0.85 315 1.095 % 5 1.408 54.6% 0.162
25.0 0.09
98.00 1 877.35 I19
S_I03-3 10 11 110.00 0.75 0.00 21.04 2.5 55.97 0.64 400 0.967 % 4 1.272 41.7% 0.157
S_I03-3 U9 0.75 19.92
30.1 0.14
96.00 385.57 I19
S_I03-3 9 10 98.00 0.75 8.60 49.56 2.5 127.61 0.52 500 1.123 % 2 1.450 50.4% 0.237
S_I03-3 U9 0.75 14.20
30.2 0.14
92.00 404.70 I19
S_I03-3 8 9 96.00 0.75 4.90 68.66 2.5 175.72 0.99 500 1.552 % 2 2.000 50.4% 0.237
32.9 0.15
88.00 533.21 I19
S_I03-3 7 8 92.00 0.75 2.07 70.73 2.5 181.35 0.75 500 1.417 % 5 1.815 55.8% 0.263
27.8 0.16
82.00 1 248.41 I19
S_I03-3 6 7 88.00 0.75 4.98 75.71 2.5 194.89 0.48 630 1.207 % 5 1.565 46.1% 0.274
26.5 0.15
67.00 1 940.97 I19
S_I03-3 5 6 82.00 0.75 11.35 87.07 2.5 224.96 0.77 630 1.488 % 7 1.937 43.7% 0.259
S_I03-3 I18 0.75 1.43
27.9 0.16
56.00 1 567.22 I19
S_I03-3 4 5 67.00 0.75 3.50 92.00 2.5 238.65 0.70 630 1.461 % 5 1.898 46.5% 0.276
30.7 0.18
54.00 411.71 I19
S_I03-3 3 4 56.00 0.75 0.29 92.30 2.5 239.75 0.49 630 1.282 % 2 1.656 51.9% 0.308

Qaverage Qmax
war
d
Peak r
r
28.8 0.17
50.00 630.18 I19
S_I03-3 2 3 54.00 0.75 0.63 92.93 2.5 241.88 0.63 630 1.413 % 1 1.835 48.2% 0.286
S_I03-3 I19 0.75 0.77
31.3 0.18
47.00 534.60 I17
S_I03-3 1 2 50.00 0.75 9.51 103.21 2.5 268.05 0.56 630 1.393 % 6 1.797 53.1% 0.315
31.1 0.23
46.00 617.67 I17
S_I03-3 0 1 47.00 0.75 0.00 103.21 2.5 268.59 0.16 800 0.874 % 4 1.128 52.7% 0.397
12 159.07 103.21 268.59
PS_I03-2-73 I16 0.75 3.84 3.84 2.5 28.31
1
STP I03 454.68 174.14
Table 5-65: Ilala Main Sewerage
Qaverage Qmax
Truck L Qav (tot) P Qmax s Vav Fav hav Vmax F max hmax
Peak Diameter
Truck Average Peak Slope of water water
ID Nm Nv flow Velocity Filling Velocity Filling
lenght flow flow pipe height height
factor
m l/s % mm m/s % m m/s % m
S_I02-2 13 13.1 100.00 3.93 2.5 9.96 6.93 200 1.487 15.1% 0.028 1.954 23.9% 0.045
S_I02-2 13.1 12 38.51 3.93 2.5 9.96 4.13 200 1.240 17.1% 0.032 1.626 27.2% 0.051
S_I02-2 12 12.1 261.49 7.08 2.5 18.63 1.52 200 1.032 29.5% 0.056 1.341 50.0% 0.094
S_I02-2 12.1 12.2 400.00 7.08 2.5 18.63 1.29 200 0.972 30.8% 0.058 1.260 52.5% 0.099
S_I02-2 12.2 11 277.35 7.08 2.5 18.63 0.72 200 0.787 35.9% 0.068 1.005 63.2% 0.119
S_I02-2 11 10 122.65 12.72 2.5 32.84 2.07 250 1.333 27.1% 0.064 1.732 44.9% 0.106
S_I02-2 10 10.1 200.00 17.45 2.5 44.92 1.19 250 1.195 36.9% 0.087 1.513 64.5% 0.152
S_I02-2 10.1 9 83.75 17.45 2.5 44.92 0.75 315 0.994 30.2% 0.089 1.282 50.6% 0.150

Qaverage Qmax
Peak Diameter
factor
S_I02-2 9 9.1 16.59 24.92 2.5 64.54 0.75 315 1.098 36.4% 0.108 1.394 63.5% 0.188
S_I02-2 9.1 9.2 299.66 24.92 2.5 64.54 1.44 315 1.390 30.6% 0.091 1.794 51.6% 0.153
S_I02-2 9.2 9.3 700.00 24.92 2.5 64.54 0.86 315 1.151 35.1% 0.104 1.468 60.8% 0.180
S_I02-2 9.3 8 67.29 24.92 2.5 64.54 2.17 315 1.608 27.6% 0.082 2.089 45.8% 0.136
S_I02-2 8 8.1 332.71 93.46 2.5 236.63 0.75 630 1.502 27.6% 0.164 1.941 45.4% 0.269
S_I02-2 8.1 8.2 100.00 93.46 2.5 236.63 1.20 630 1.776 24.5% 0.146 2.306 39.8% 0.236
S_I02-2 8.2 8.3 200.00 93.46 2.5 236.63 0.50 630 1.300 30.7% 0.182 1.669 51.0% 0.303
S_I02-2 8.3 8.4 100.00 93.46 2.5 236.63 1.07 630 1.705 25.3% 0.150 2.212 41.1% 0.244
S_I02-2 8.4 7 143.31 93.46 2.5 236.63 1.38 630 1.865 23.7% 0.141 2.425 38.4% 0.228
S_I02-2 7 7.1 56.69 94.00 2.5 238.29 1.38 630 1.868 23.8% 0.141 2.429 38.5% 0.228
S_I02-2 7.1 7.2 200.00 94.00 2.5 238.29 0.76 630 1.513 27.6% 0.164 1.955 45.4% 0.269
S_I02-2 7.2 6 100.00 94.00 2.5 238.29 1.93 630 2.104 21.9% 0.130 2.744 35.2% 0.209
P_I02-2 6 5 300.00 94.76 2.5 240.84 450
S_I02-2 5 5.1 800.00 103.61 2.5 265.38 0.75 630 1.547 29.1% 0.173 1.999 48.5% 0.287
S_I02-2 5.1 5.2 700.00 103.61 2.5 265.38 0.40 630 1.235 34.3% 0.204 1.575 58.7% 0.348
S_I02-2 5.2 5.3 1 300.00 103.61 2.5 265.38 0.50 630 1.338 32.4% 0.192 1.716 54.7% 0.324
S_I02-2 5.3 5.4 400.00 103.61 2.5 265.38 0.75 630 1.544 29.2% 0.173 1.995 48.5% 0.288
S_I02-2 5.4 4 117.94 103.61 2.5 265.38 0.50 630 1.338 32.4% 0.192 1.716 54.7% 0.324
S_I02-2 4 3 532.07 444.45 2.5 1 118.30 0.50 1200 1.898 26.0% 0.313 2.454 42.3% 0.508
P_I02-2 3 3.1 1 149.99 444.45 2.5 1 119.14 900
S_I02-2 3.1 3.2 400.00 444.45 2.5 1 119.14 0.80 1200 2.243 23.1% 0.278 2.914 37.3% 0.447
S_I02-2 3.2 2 185.54 444.45 2.5 1 119.14 0.30 1200 1.581 29.7% 0.356 2.032 49.0% 0.588
9 685.54 1 119.14
S_I02-1 17 17.1 600.00 2.28 2.5 6.32 0.75 200 0.579 20.0% 0.038 0.776 33.4% 0.063
S_I02-1 17.1 16 107.27 2.28 2.5 6.32 3.84 200 1.028 13.4% 0.025 1.390 22.1% 0.041
S_I02-1 16 16.1 92.73 26.79 2.5 68.06 2.28 315 1.671 28.3% 0.084 2.157 46.6% 0.138
S_I02-1 16.1 16.2 300.00 26.79 2.5 68.06 0.50 400 0.950 30.1% 0.113 1.222 50.0% 0.188
S_I02-1 16.2 15 146.95 26.79 2.5 68.06 0.98 400 1.209 25.3% 0.095 1.569 41.3% 0.155
S_I02-1 15 15.1 453.05 37.24 2.5 95.14 0.50 400 1.041 35.7% 0.135 1.322 61.6% 0.232

Qaverage Qmax
Peak Diameter
factor
S_I02-1 15.1 15.2 500.00 37.24 2.5 95.14 0.87 400 1.271 30.9% 0.116 1.635 51.8% 0.195
S_I02-1 15.2 14 142.06 37.24 2.5 95.14 2.10 400 1.741 24.7% 0.093 2.266 40.3% 0.152
S_I02-1 14 13 284.05 38.97 2.5 99.70 0.79 400 1.245 32.4% 0.122 1.595 54.8% 0.206
S_I02-1 13 13.1 127.41 40.02 2.5 102.77 1.00 400 1.364 30.9% 0.117 1.756 52.0% 0.196
S_I02-1 13.1 13.2 246.48 40.02 2.5 102.77 0.75 400 1.230 33.4% 0.126 1.574 56.8% 0.214
S_I02-1 13.2 12 135.27 40.02 2.5 102.77 0.51 500 1.048 27.1% 0.128 1.359 44.8% 0.211
S_I02-1 12 11 193.06 40.38 2.5 103.84 0.51 500 1.050 27.3% 0.128 1.363 45.1% 0.212
S_I02-1 11 10 403.23 72.06 2.5 183.38 0.50 630 1.207 26.8% 0.159 1.563 44.1% 0.261
S_I02-1 10 9 45.46 83.73 2.5 212.61 0.20 710 0.898 31.1% 0.208 1.152 52.0% 0.348
S_I02-1 9 8 84.29 84.08 2.5 213.56 0.20 710 0.899 31.2% 0.209 1.153 52.2% 0.349
S_I02-1 8 7 209.28 87.55 2.5 222.41 0.20 710 0.909 31.9% 0.213 1.165 53.5% 0.357
S_I02-1 7 6 174.57 90.61 2.5 230.21 0.20 710 0.918 32.4% 0.217 1.174 54.6% 0.365
S_I02-1 6 5 236.44 93.43 2.5 237.46 0.20 710 0.926 33.0% 0.220 1.183 55.6% 0.372
S_I02-1 5 4 447.88 98.87 2.5 251.44 0.30 710 1.088 30.6% 0.204 1.399 50.9% 0.341
S_I02-1 4 4.1 770.53 263.69 2.5 664.32 0.30 1000 1.404 36.3% 0.310 1.773 62.1% 0.531
S_I02-1 4.1 3 181.94 263.69 2.5 664.32 0.50 1000 1.688 31.7% 0.271 2.159 52.8% 0.452
S_I02-1 3 3.1 118.06 280.42 2.5 706.54 0.50 1000 1.717 32.7% 0.280 2.191 54.8% 0.469
S_I02-1 3.1 2 319.82 280.42 2.5 706.54 0.30 1200 1.385 23.5% 0.282 1.799 37.9% 0.455
1
771.58
S_I02-1 2 1 780.04 2.5 990.56 0.30 1500 1.818 29.2% 0.438 2.346 48.4% 0.727
2
327.84
S_I02-1 1 0 805.60 2.5 054.76 0.30 1500 1.835 29.7% 0.445 2.365 49.3% 0.740
7 419.25 2 054.76
STP I02 2 054.76
Table 5-66: Ilala Main Sewerage Prioritary

Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solution 5 Solution 6

Qmax 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 l/s Peak flow
DN 400 450 500 600 700 800 mm
Di 400 450 500 600 700 800 mm Rising main internal diameter
n1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of rising main
RISING MAIN (peak flow)
L1 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 m Length of rising main

1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 mm roughness
 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 kg/m 3
 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 m2/s

Re1 766625.2879 681444.7003 613300.2303 511083.5253 438071.5931 383312.6439
1 0.012192911 0.012448099 0.012683984 0.013105995 0.013476735 0.013814122
V1 1.92 1.51 1.23 0.85 0.63 0.48 Peak flow velocity
J1 0.005706827 0.003233164 0.001945328 0.000807795 0.00038431 0.000202051
J1 5.71 3.23 1.95 0.81 0.38 0.20 m/km Unit Headloss
Y1 1.71 0.97 0.58 0.24 0.12 0.06 m Headloss
Total headloss
Hgm 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 m Elevation of pump station
(peak flow)
Hg1 51.09 51.09 51.09 51.09 51.09 51.09 m Maximum elevation of rising main
Pmin1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m Minimum Pressure required
Ht1 15.90 15.15 14.77 14.43 14.30 14.24 m Total head
Qmin 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 l/s Minimum flow
RISING MAIN (minimun flow)
D1 400 450 500 600 700 800 mm Rising main diameter

n1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of rising main
L1 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 m Length of rising main
1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 mm roughness
 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 kg/m 3
 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 m2/s

Re1 383312.6439 340722.3502 306650.1152 255541.7626 219035.7965 191656.322
1 0.013813567 0.014119827 0.014403491 0.014911884 0.015359364 0.015768047


Qmax 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 l/s Peak flow
V1 0.96 0.76 0.61 0.43 0.31 0.24 minimum flow velocity
J1 0.001616342 0.000916841 0.000552262 0.000229775 0.000109499 5.76574E-05
J1 1.62 0.92 0.55 0.23 0.11 0.06 m/km Unit Headloss
Y1 0.48 0.28 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.02 m Headloss
Total headloss
Hgm 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 37.91 m Elevation of pump station
(min. flow)
Hg1 51.09 51.09 51.093 51.093 51.093 51.093 m Maximum elevation of rising main (N2)
Pmin1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 m Minimum Pressure required at N2
Ht1 16.17 15.96 15.85 15.75 15.72 15.70 m Total head
np 2 2 2 2 2 2 number of pumps
PUMP STATION AT PEAK
Q1 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 l/s Flow per pump
Qtot 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 l/s
Ht1
FLOW
15.90 15.15 14.77 14.43 14.30 14.24 m Total head

Pidr-teo 18.78 17.90 17.44 17.04 16.89 16.83 kW Power per pump
 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% efficiency
Pel 25.37 24.19 23.57 23.03 22.83 22.74 kW Electric Power per pump
Ptot 50.75 48.38 47.15 46.06 45.65 45.48 kW Total electric power
np 1 1 1 1 1 1 number of pumps
PUMP STATION AT
MINIMUM FLOW
Q1 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 120.42 l/s Flow per pump
Ht1 16.17 15.96 15.85 15.75 15.72 15.70 m Total head
Pidr-teo 19.10 18.85 18.72 18.61 18.57 18.55 kW Power per pump
 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% efficiency
Pel 25.81 25.48 25.30 25.15 25.09 25.06 kW Electric Power per pump
Ptot 25.81 25.48 25.30 25.15 25.09 25.06 kW Total electric power
COST ANALISYS
CRM $214.00 $228.00 $269.00 $336.00 $429.00 $528.00 USD/m Cost per meter Rising main
Ctotr $64 200.00 $68 400.00 $80 700.00 $100 800.00 $128 700.00 $158 400.00 USD Rising main total cost
Ctotp $243 111.04 $239 482.67 $237 459.00 $235 594.83 $234 882.45 $234 572.78 USD Total pump's cost
3
C 8 187.65 8 187.65 8 187.65 8 187.65 8 187.65 8 187.65 m /d Capacity


Qmax 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 240.84 l/s Peak flow
3
W 15 15 15 15 15 15 m Volume of tank
Cpc $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 Pump station cost (civil)
Ctot $320 811.04 $321 382.67 $331 659.00 $349 894.83 $377 082.45 $406 472.78 Total costruction's cost
USD/kWh $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 Midium energy cost
Cwd 479 457 445 435 431 429 kW/day Energy day consumpion
Cwy 174 924 166 757 162 505 158 750 157 352 156 750 kW/year Energy year consumpion
Ce € 21 149.37 € 20 161.96 € 19 647.89 € 19 193.83 € 19 024.78 € 18 952.03 Total energy cost per year
Table 5-67: Pumping station PS_I02-2_6 Hydraulic calculation

Initial costs
Rising main total cost $64 200.00 $68 400.00 $80 700.00 $100 800.00 $128 700.00 $158 400.00
Total pump's cost $243 111.04 $239 482.67 $237 459.00 $235 594.83 $234 882.45 $234 572.78
Pump station cost (civil) $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00 $13 500.00
Total Initial costs $320 811.04 $321 382.67 $331 659.00 $349 894.83 $377 082.45 $406 472.78
Single expenditures
Replacement of Pumps $134 990.93 $132 976.22 $131 852.56 $130 817.44 $130 421.89 $130 249.94
Salvage value of pipes (58%) -$18 951.17 -$20 190.97 -$23 821.80 -$29 755.11 -$37 990.90 -$46 758.04
Salvage value of civil works (58%) -$3 985.06 -$3 985.06 -$3 985.06 -$3 985.06 -$3 985.06 -$3 985.06
Salvage value of pumps (87%) -$108 165.81 -$106 551.46 -$105 651.09 -$104 821.67 -$104 504.72 -$104 366.94
Annual Owning e Operating costs
Total energy cost per year @ med $257 296.21 $245 283.72 $239 029.78 $233 505.74 $231 449.23 $230 564.15
Maintrance (10%) $390 288.09 $390 983.51 $403 485.36 $425 670.46 $458 746.02 $494 501.33
Total present Worth costs $972 284.23 $959 898.63 $972 568.76 $1 001 326.63 $1 051 218.90 $1 106 678.17
Life Cycle (PW) Savings $12 385.61 $0.00 $12 670.13 $41 428.00 $91 320.28 $146 779.55

Table 5-68: Pumping station PS_I02-2_6 economic calculation
Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solution 5

Qmax 1 119.14 1 119.14 1 119.14 1 119.14 1 119.14 l/s Peak flow
DN 700 800 900 1000 1100 mm
Di 700 800 900 1000 1100 mm Rising main internal diameter
n1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of rising main
RISING MAIN (peak flow)
L1 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 m Length of rising main

1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 mm roughness
 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 kg/m 3
 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 m2/s

Re1 2035614.388 1781162.59 1583255.635 1424930.072 1295390.974
1 0.010343201 0.010571002 0.010778065 0.010968357 0.011143937 9.47
V1 2.91 2.23 1.76 1.42 1.18 Peak flow velocity
J1 0.006368731 0.003338523 0.001888932 0.001135088 0.000716083
J1 6.37 3.34 1.89 1.14 0.72 m/km Unit Headloss
Y1 7.29 3.82 2.16 1.30 0.82 m Headloss
Total headloss
Hgm 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83 m Elevation of pump station

(peak flow)
Hg1 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 m Maximum elevation of rising main
Pmin1 1 1 1 1 1 m Minimum Pressure required
Ht1 20.05 16.58 14.92 14.06 13.58 m Total head
Qmin 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 l/s Minimum flow
RISING MAIN (minimun
D1 700 800 900 1000 1100 mm Rising main diameter

n1 1 1 1 1 1 Number of rising main
flow)
L1 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 1144.99 m Length of rising main

1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 mm roughness
 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 kg/m 3
 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 m2/s

Re1 678538.1294 593720.8632 527751.8784 474976.6906 431796.9914

1 0.012456639 0.012755726 0.013028294 0.012351501 0.013514485 8.60
V1 0.97 0.74 0.59 0.47 0.39 minimum flow velocity
J1 0.000852229 0.000447611 0.0002537 0.000142025 9.64899E-05
J1 0.85 0.45 0.25 0.14 0.10 m/km Unit Headloss
Y1 0.98 0.51 0.29 0.16 0.11 m Headloss
Total headloss
Hgm 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83 13.83 m Elevation of pump station

(min. flow)
Hg1 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 m Maximum elevation of rising main (N2)
Pmin1 1 1 1 1 1 m Minimum Pressure required at N2
Ht1 13.74 13.27 13.05 12.92 12.87 m Total head
np 3 3 3 3 3 number of pumps
PUMP STATION AT PEAK
Q1 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 l/s Flow per pump

Qtot 1119.14 1119.14 1119.14 1119.14 1119.14 l/s
Ht1
FLOW
20.05 16.58 14.92 14.06 13.58 m Total head

Pidr-teo 73.38 60.69 54.61 51.45 49.70 kW Power per pump
 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% efficiency
Pel 99.17 82.01 73.80 69.53 67.16 kW Electric Power per pump
Ptot 297.50 246.02 221.40 208.59 201.47 kW Total electric power
np 1 1 1 1 1 number of pumps
PUMP STATION AT
MINIMUM FLOW
Q1 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 373.05 l/s Flow per pump

Ht1 13.74 13.27 13.05 12.92 12.87 m Total head
Pidr-teo 50.27 48.57 47.76 47.29 47.10 kW Power per pump
 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% efficiency
Pel 67.93 65.64 64.54 63.91 63.65 kW Electric Power per pump
Ptot 67.93 65.64 64.54 63.91 63.65 kW Total electric power
CRM $429.00 $528.00 $629.00 $738.89 $878.78 Euro/m Cost per meter Rising main
ANALISYS
COST
Ctotr $491 200.71 $604 554.72 $720 198.71 $846 020.39 $1 006 191.77 Rising main total cost
Ctotp $537 127.46 $481 516.11 $443 777.01 $423 671.89 $412 355.14 Total pump's cost
C 38 400.19 38 400.19 38 400.19 38 400.19 38 400.19 Capacity

W 51 51 51 51 51 Volume of tank
Cpc $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00 Pump station cost (civil)
Ctot $1 109 928.17 $1 167 670.83 $1 245 575.72 $1 351 292.28 $1 500 146.91 Total costruction's cost
USD/kWh $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 $0.1209 Midium energy cost
Cwd 2 835 2 345 2 110 1 988 1 920 kW/day Energy day consumpion
Cwy 1 034 955 855 880 770 214 725 665 700 903 kW/year Energy year consumpion
Ce € 125 132.60 € 103 481.30 € 93 123.75 € 87 737.42 € 84 743.56 Total energy cost per year
Table 5-69: Pumping station PS_I02-2_3 Hydraulic calculation
Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solution 5

Initial costs
Rising main total cost $491 200.71 $604 554.72 $720 198.71 $846 020.39 $1 006 191.77
Total pump's cost $537 127.46 $481 516.11 $443 777.01 $423 671.89 $412 355.14
Pump station cost (civil) $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00 $81 600.00
Total Initial costs $1 109 928.17 $1 167 670.83 $1 245 575.72 $1 351 292.28 $1 500 146.91
Single expenditures
Replacement of Pumps $298 247.81 $267 368.80 $246 413.62 $235 249.96 $228 966.17
Salvage value of pipes (58%) -$144 997.35 -$178 458.28 -$212 595.18 -$249 736.43 -$297 017.36
Salvage value of civil works (58%) -$24 087.47 -$24 087.47 -$24 087.47 -$24 087.47 -$24 087.47
Salvage value of pumps (87%) -$238 980.62 -$214 237.82 -$197 446.81 -$188 501.57 -$183 466.48
Annual Owning e Operating costs
Total energy cost per year @ med $1 522 321.79 $1 258 919.21 $1 132 912.72 $1 067 384.42 $1 030 962.13
Maintrance (10%) $1 350 301.86 $1 420 549.66 $1 515 326.18 $1 643 937.44 $1 825 029.05
Total present Worth costs $3 872 734.19 $3 697 724.93 $3 706 098.77 $3 835 538.62 $4 080 532.94
Life Cycle (PW) Savings $175 009.26 $0.00 $8 373.84 $137 813.69 $382 808.01
Table 5-70: Pumping station PS_I02-2_3 economic calculation

5.9 Temeke District Structural Measures
The sewerage system of Temeke District is a collection of small independent drainage areas
rather than a fully integrated network, the system is based on a separate systems with a
combination of gravity and pumped flows.
The existing sewerage network in the District of Ilala covers an area of 265 Ha that not exceeding
1% of the project area (2.929 Ha).
The existing sewerage network are located in:
• Kourasini
• Temeke.
Temeke sewerage flow is collected to Ukonga Pond in Ilala’s District, Kourasini sewerage flow is
collected to Kurasini Pond.
Kourasini (Mgulani) sewage network’s total length is 9.2 km with 239 manholes.
1 - Kurasini Pond
The pond has a maximum flow of capacity of 44.5 l/s, serving the police force. For this pond had
been reported an effluent of BOD= 8 mg/l and FC= 282 Nos/100 ml.
This pond will be decommissioned (see figure 1 for the location)..

Figure 5-14. Existing Ponds in Temeke District
Temeke District has an extension of 16,166 Ha, it is divided into 21 ward, has a population of
1,200,000 inhabitants (Censius 2012) and a expected maximum population in 2036 of 3,442,335.
The average urban density is about 75 people per hectaree with a maximum density of 316 in
Azimio Ward and a minimum density of 4 in Toangoma Ward.
The table shows the population data for 2012 censius and the maximum population at 2036 which
represents the data for project calculations. The table also shows water demand with losses per
capita in each ward at 2032
WARD
WARD AREA POPULATION
CODE

Urban Urban
2036 Maximum 2032-Water
CENSIUS Density Density
Population demand per
2012 (N. of (N. of
(Ha) GR = 3.9 2036 capita (l/c/d)
people/Ha) people/&hA)
T1 Kurasini 543,93 26.193 48 79.830 45.690 84,00 81
T2 Keko 140,55 35.163 250 204.551 128.915 917,21 101
T3 Chang'ombe 322,99 19.302 60 58.828 27.131 84,00 98

T4 Miburani 392,64 44.290 113 134.985 54.618 139,10 81
T5 Mtoni 393,32 59.378 151 180.971 73.225 186,17 98
T6 Kijichi 1.085,91 69.195 64 210.890 91.217 84,00 81
Mbagala kuu
+
T7 Kibondemaji 661,69 74.774 113 227.894 92.211 139,36 81
T8 Mbagala 337,28 52.582 156 160.258 64.844 192,25 81
T9 Azimio 244,23 76.832 315 234.166 94.749 387,95 29
T10 Tandika 172,29 49.491 287 150.837 64.940 376,92 29
T11 Temeke 295,40 26.047 88 79.385 73.225 247,88 121
T12 Sandali 261,62 52.660 201 160.495 64.940 248,23 29
T13 Kilakala 154,44 44.949 291 136.994 55.431 358,92 29
T14 Makangarawe 240,09 53.291 222 162.418 65.718 273,73 29
T15 Yombo vituka 684,76 76.999 112 234.675 125.704 183,57 98
T16 Buza 580,31 55.082 95 167.877 67.927 117,05 81
T17 Kiburugwa 395,78 78.911 199 240.503 97.313 245,88 81
Charambe +
T18 Kilungule 743,69 101.933 137 310.670 125.704 169,03 98
T19 Mianzini 976,06 100.649 103 306.755 125.704 128,79 81
T20 Toangoma 4.063,76 44.578 11 135.865 341.356 84,00 98
T21 Chamazi 3.475,20 63.650 18 193.991 291.917 84,00 81
SUB-TOTAL 16.165,95 1.205.949 75 3.772.837 2.172.479 134,39
Table 5-71: Temeke demographic and geographical Project data
Consultancy services for design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant
recently developed by Beomhan Engineering & Architects for Dar es Salaam Water and
Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) carry out the project of sewerage network in Tandica, Temeke,
Keko, Miburani and Mtoni Ward and Kourasini Treatment plant located in the area of Kourasini
pond.
The planned STP will have capacity to treat 11,000 m3 per day

Figure 5-15. - Proposed sewerage network into Temeke District (Consultancy services for design review
of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently developed by Beomhan Engineering)
With reference to the following figure, the project area has been divided into 5 main areas, each
area will discharge into a sewerage treatment plant.
To these areas are added the areas previously described where sewerage networks and
treatment plants are already present or planned.

Catchement
MR2
Catchement
MR1
Catchement
M1
Catchement
Catchement
N2
N1
Figure 5-16. - Temeke Project area

Catchment MR2
Catchment
M2
STP -M2
Figure 5-17. - Temeke Catchment MR2
This Catchment includes the whole territory of Kourasini, Keko, Chang’ombe, Temeke, Miburani
and Mtoni Ward, about half part of the territory of Sandali and Azimio Ward ad small part of
Tandika.
The main sewerage collector of this Catchment estend between 53 m above sea level an the see
level and is placed on the Nord boundary Temeke’s district.
There are two different main sewer one that collects waste water along the north border of the
ward and one along le West-Southwest border of the ward.

inhabitants. The area now is characterized by a high population density (110 people/hectare), the
population in 2012 was about 280,068 inhabitants.
The STP will receive the waste water from Kiwalani Ward, about 101,500 inhabitants and 436,2
ha.
The STP MR2 will be located near the sea in Kourasini Ward, about where is now located
Kourasini Pond; the Average flow of STP will be about 41,159 m3/d will be constructed in 2 phases
each of 20,580 m3/d.
The next image show treatment plant area.
Figure 5-18. - Catchment MR2 – Treatment plant area

Considering the average water influent and the number of served inhabitatans, according to the
and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 857,48 1.714,97
Peak flow m3/h 1.200,48 2.400,95
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 16.132,45 32.264,91
SS load kg / day 16.132,45 32.264,91
SS removal % 96,2% 96,2%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Depth m 3,00 3,00
Total Capacity m3 23.722,95 47.445,91
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 27,67 27,67
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
Total Capacity m3 33.320,00 33.320,00
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
GRAVITY
Depth m 3,50 3,50
THICKENER
HRT h 65,44 65,44
DEHYDRATATION Sludge quantity m3/day 270,01 540,02

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Table 5-72: STP MR2 – Process line
Truck hv hm L Ward Catchment Qav (in) Qmax
2032-
Populatio Populatio
Project Water Project
N M Truck Cod Are n Are n Averag Peak
ID polulatio deman polulatio
v m lenght e a @ a @ e flow flow
n d per n
2012 2012
capita
m m m Ha l/c/d Ha l/s l/s
S_MR02-
29,7 42,1 690,59 T9 244 76.832 94.749 29 75 23.588 29.089 7,32 103,56
1 5 6
S_MR02-
20,3 29,7 806,40 T5 393 59.378 73.225 98 108 16.235 20.021 17,03 146,84
1 4 5
S_MR02-
19,2 20,3 102,34 T5 393 59.378 73.225 98 15 2.336 2.880 2,45 153,05
1 3 4
S_MR02-
26,4 19,2 2.266,71 T5 393 59.378 73.225 98 263 39.694 48.951 41,64 259,12
1 2 3
S_MR02-
13,6 26,4 1.931,83 T5 393 59.378 73.225 98 231 34.821 42.941 36,53 352,13
1 1 2
S_MR02-
13,0 13,6 159,89 T5 393 59.378 73.225 98 60 9.039 11.147 9,48 375,97
1 0 1
S_MR02- 1
25,8 37,5 960,51 T11 295 26.047 73.225 121 110 9.690 27.242 28,61 162,19
2 0 11
S_MR02-
25,0 25,8 1.270,16 T11 295 26.047 73.225 121 237 20.879 58.696 61,65 317,42
2 9 10
S_MR02-
23,9 25,0 503,66 T11 295 26.047 73.225 121 430 37.925 106.616 111,98 597,82
2 8 9
S_MR02-
20,3 23,9 1.520,57 T3 323 19.302 27.131 98 199 11.879 16.697 14,20 634,65
2 7 8
S_MR02-
17,8 20,3 159,70 T3 323 19.302 27.131 98 87 5.177 7.277 6,19 650,26
2 6 7
S_MR02-
9,4 17,8 1.167,92 T2 141 35.163 128.915 101 135 33.887 124.235 108,92 923,58
2 5 6
S_MR02-
8,2 9,4 364,44 T2 141 35.163 128.915 101 22 5.577 20.445 17,92 968,71
2 4 5
S_MR02-
6,1 8,2 958,29 T1 544 26.193 45.690 81 266 12.803 22.333 15,70 1.008,8
2 3 4
S_MR02-
18,1 6,1 2.123,65 T1 544 26.193 45.690 81 124 5.991 10.450 7,35 1.029,0
2 2 3
S_MR02-
16,2 18,1 1.047,76 T1 544 26.193 45.690 81 91 4.396 7.669 5,39 1.043,4
2 1 2
S_MR02-
13,0 16,2 361,38 T1 544 26.193 45.690 81 99 4.753 8.291 5,83 1.058,2
2 0 1
Table 5-73: Catchment MR2 main collector sewerage report.

Catchment M1
Catchment
M1
STP -M1
Figure 5-19. - Temeke Catchment M1

The North region of Chamazi Ward, the whole territory of Kiburugwa, Buza, Yombo Vituka,
Kilakala, Magangarawe, the southwestern territory of Sandali and Azimiom and a small part of
Tandika.
The Catchment area is 4.420 Ha and the maximum expected population at 2036 is about 768,511
inhabitants. The area now is characterized by a high population density, the population in 2012
There are eight main sewer that run from west to est up to the Sewerage treatment plant
There are five pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas
The STP will be located in Kiburugwa Ward. The capacity is about 55,505 m3/d.
Average flow of about 55,505 m3/d will be constructed in 2 phases each of 27,750 m3/d.
and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 1.156,36 2.312,72
Peak flow m3/h 1.618,91 3.237,81
INFLUENT FLOW BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
STRENGHT SS load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
BOD5 load kg / day 19.212,78 38.425,55
SS load kg / day 19.212,78 38.425,55

Project value
Facility Item Unit
SS removal % 95,7% 95,7%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
Total Capacity m3 28.036,36 56.072,72
AERATION BASIN Surface of each tank m2 1.001,30 1.001,30
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 24,25 24,25
Total Capacity m3 5.781,81 11.563,62
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
AEROBIC DIGESTION Total Capacity m3 38.080,00 38.080,00

Project value
Facility Item Unit
GRAVITY
Depth m 3,50 3,50
THICKENER
HRT h 70,65 35,33
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
Table 5-74: Temeke STP M1 – Process Line
Next Table is catchment M1 main collector sewerage report.
2032-
Population Population
Truck Project Water Project Average Peak
ID Nv Mm Code Area @ Area @
lenght polulation demand polulation flow flow
2012 2012
percapita
S_MO1-1 8 9 50,50 68 2.200 T21 63.650 291.917 81 194 3.558 16.319 11,47 68,05
S_MO1-1 7 8 49,10 50 1.110 T21 63.650 291.917 81 176 3.226 14.794 10,40 95,02
S_MO1-1 6 7 43,20 49 1.317 T21 63.650 291.917 81 245 4.491 20.597 14,48 132,37
S_MO1-1 5 6 35,40 43 764 T21 63.650 291.917 81 223 4.082 18.723 13,16 165,95
S_MO1-1 4 5 31,80 35 918 T21 63.650 291.917 81 55 1.005 4.608 3,24 174,84
S_MO1-1 3 4 24,10 31 1.931 T21 63.650 291.917 81 360 6.591 30.227 77,87 371,20
S_MO1-1 2 3 22,00 24 1.007 T18 744 101.933 125.704 98 211 28.880 35.615 30,30 447,82
S_MO1-1 1 2 16,50 22 592 T18 744 101.933 125.704 98 102 13.983 17.244 132,04 778,43
S_MO1-1 0 1 9,00 16 1.221 T18 744 101.933 125.704 98 254 34.766 42.874 36,47 870,68
S_MO1-2 5 6 32,60 50 1.577 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 59 5.578 6.879 4,84 60,52

2032-
Population Population
Truck Project Water Project Average Peak
ID Nv Mm Code Area @ Area @
lenght polulation demand polulation flow flow
2012 2012
percapita
S_MO1-2 4 5 24,60 32 367 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 49 4.613 5.689 4,00 70,84
S_MO1-2 3 4 21,00 24 1.034 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 117 11.064 13.644 9,59 95,72
S_MO1-2 2 3 20,00 21 163 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 0 0 0 0,00 95,86
S_MO1-5 0 1 0,00 77 4.259 T18 744 101.933 125.704 98 148 20.274 25.002 21,27 106,66
S_MO1-6 0 1 0 57 3.730 T17 396 78.911 97.313 81 210 41.867 51.631 36,30 147,48
S_MO1-7 4 5 33,40 52 2.466 T15 685 76.999 125.704 98 261 29.296 47.827 40,69 160,58
S_MO1-7 3 4 23,60 33 1.482 T14 240 53.291 65.718 29 69 15.418 19.014 4,79 173,84
S_MO1-7 2 3 16,10 23 1.392 T14 240 53.291 65.718 29 158 35.094 43.277 10,89 202,28
S_MO1-7 1 2 9,50 16 1.135 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 4 379 468 0,33 446,39
S_MO1-7 0 1 9,00 9 1.729 T16 580 55.082 67.927 81 57 5.415 6.678 4,70 459,63
S_MO1-8 6 7 28,60 50 3.401 T15 685 76.999 125.704 98 342 38.482 62.824 53,44 200,41
S_MO1-8 5 6 24,90 28 1.007 T14 240 53.291 65.718 29 316 70.142 86.499 21,77 255,72
S_MO1-8 4 5 23,40 24 492 T14 240 53.291 65.718 29 83 18.489 22.800 5,74 270,50
S_MO1-8 3 4 13,50 23 1.086 T14 240 53.291 65.718 29 203 44.955 55.438 13,96 306,33
S_MO1-8 2 3 10,40 13 465 T9 244 76.832 94.749 29 16 5.176 6.383 1,61 310,75
S_MO1-8 1 2 9,50 10 58 T9 244 76.832 94.749 29 4 1.280 1.578 0,40 311,80
S_MO1-9 0 1 9,50 82 6.348 T17 396 78.911 97.313 81 275 54.764 67.536 47,49 193,73
S_MO1-10 0 1 9,00 12 209 T8 337 52.582 64.844 81 231 35.959 44.345 31,18 153,14
Table 5-75: Temeke STP M1 - Catchment inhabitant and treated flow

Catchment N1
Catchment Catchment
N1 N1
Figure 5-20. - Temeke Catchment N1
This Catchment includes the southern area of Chamazi ward.
The Catchment area is 1,328 Ha. The maximum expected population at 2036 is about 111,594
inhabitants. The population in 2012 was only 24,332 inhabitants.
There are TWO main sewer that run from south-west to est up to the Sewerage treatment plant
There is one pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas

STP N1 will be located at the East boundary of the ward Average flow of about 14,500 m3/d
will be constructed in 2 phases.
and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 303,77 607,55
Peak flow m3/h 425,28 850,57
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT
BOD5 load kg / day 2.789,85 5.579,69
SS load kg / day 2.789,85 5.579,69
SS removal % 92,2% 92,2%
Depth m 2,00 2,00
GRIT REMOVAL UNIT
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
Depth m 3,00 3,00

Project value
Facility Item Unit
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 12,69 12,69
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
AEROBIC DIGESTION Depth of each tank m 3,50 3,50
GRAVITY THICKENER Depth m 3,50 3,50
HRT h 75,17 37,59
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION

Project value
Facility Item Unit
Surplus sludge quantity ton/day 2,00 4,01
EXPECTED SLUDGE Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 128,07 256,15
GENERATION PER
Sludge quantity after gravity thickening m3/day 45,01 90,03
TREATMENT
Table 5-76: Temeke STP N1– Process Line
2032-
Populatio
Truck Project Water Population Project
N M Cod Are n Average Peak
ID lengh polulatio deman Area @ polulati
v m e a @ flow flow
t n d per 2012 on
2012
capita
S_NO1-1 7 8 61 63 864 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 355 6.511 29.860 96,98 243,19
S_NO1-1 6 7 60 61 270 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 237 4.336 19.886 13,98 278,38
S_NO1-1 5 6 36 60 1.504 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 63 1.155 5.299 18,04 324,80
S_NO1-1 2 5 34 36 1.441 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 64 1.170 5.367 3,77 335,48
S_NO1-1 1 2 62 34 65 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 6 115 528 0,37 336,98
S_NO1-1 0 1 34 62 2.238 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 361 6.604 30.289 21,30 392,17
S_NO1-2 5 9 36 61 6.600 T21 3.475 63.650 291.917 81 242 4.440 20.364 14,32 47,58
Table 5-77: Temeke STP N1 - Catchment inhabitant and treated flow

Catchment N2
Catchment
N2
STP
N2
Table 5-78: Temeke Catchment N2
This Catchment includes Mianzini, Toangoma Wards and the north region of Mbagala Kuu Ward.
The Catchment area is 3,899 Ha and the maximum expected population at 2036 is about 368.681
inhabitants. There are nine main sewer that run up to the Sewerage treatment plant
There are eleven pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas.
The STP N2 will be located in Mbagala Kuu Ward, Average flow of about 25,611 m 3/d will be
constructed in 2 phases of 12,800 m 3/day each.

and 87%~92% for SS.
Projectvalue
Facility Item Unit
Shortterm Long term
Average flow m3/h 533,56 1.067,13
Peak flow m3/h 746,99 1.493,98
INFLUENT FLOW BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
STRENGHT SS load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
BOD5 load kg / day 9.217,02 18.434,04
SS load kg / day 9.217,02 18.434,04
SS removal % 95,8% 95,8%
GRIT REMOVAL
UNIT
Depth m 2,50 2,50
Depth m 3,00 3,00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
Total Capacity m3 26.967,77 53.935,54
AERATION BASIN
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 50,54 50,54
SECONDARY Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION Total Capacity m3 900,00 1.800,00
(Chlorine) HRT on peak flow min. 26,60 26,60
Total Capacity m3 14.280,00 14.280,00

Projectvalue
Facility Item Unit
Shortterm Long term
SRT in aerobic digester tanks - 56,72 32,35
SRT total - 64,13 39,75
GRAVITY Diameter m 26,00 26,00
THICKENER Depth m 3,50 3,50
HRT h 349,51 174,75
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
EXPECTED Surplus sludge quantity ton/day 4,94 9,87
SLUDGE
Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 224,06 448,12
GENERATION PER
TREATMENT
Table 5-79: Temeke STP N2 – Process Line

2032-
Populati Popul
Project Water Project Avera
N M Truck Cod on ation Peak
ID Area polulati dema Area polulati ge
v m lenght e @ @ flow
on nd per on flow
2012 2012
capita
S_NO2-1 7 8 27,00 59,00 1.783 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 239 24.596 30.718 21,60 67,33
S_NO2-1 6 7 26,00 27,00 393 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 80 8.223 10.270 7,22 85,73
S_NO2-1 5 6 25,00 26,00 890 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 54 5.519 6.893 4,85 98,62
S_NO2-1 4 5 23,00 25,00 1.375 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 115 11.891 14.851 10,44 125,92
S_NO2-1 3 4 18,00 23,00 735 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 123 12.696 15.856 11,15 154,43
S_NO2-1 2 3 17,50 18,00 675 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 30 3.103 3.875 2,72 161,83
S_NO2-1 1 2 17,00 17,50 526 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 42 4.302 5.373 3,78 171,73
S_NO2-1 0 1 13,00 17,00 885 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 31 3.247 4.055 2,85 179,62
S_NO2-2 2 3 15,00 51,00 3.016 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 185 2.034 15.576 13,25 53,84
S_NO2-2 1 2 14,00 15,00 393 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 21 236 1.806 1,54 58,02
S_NO2-2 0 1 13,00 14,00 420 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 5 59 454 0,39 59,35
S_NO2-3 9 10 110,0 115,0 972 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 1.172 12.854 98.431 83,73 231,60
S_NO2-3 8 9 84,00 110,0 1.570 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 131 1.442 11.043 9,39 256,45
S_NO2-3 7 8 83,00 84,00 1.764 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 70 765 5.856 4,98 270,44


2032-
Populati Popul
Project Water Project Avera
N M Truck Cod on ation Peak
ID Area polulati dema Area polulati ge
v m lenght e @ @ flow
on nd per on flow
2012 2012
capita
S_NO2-3 6 7 62,00 83,00 195 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 101 1.108 8.483 7,22 288,65
S_NO2-3 5 6 72,00 62,00 267 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 8 91 700 0,60 290,37
S_NO2-3 4 5 66,00 72,00 152 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 7 78 597 0,51 291,77
S_NO2-3 3 4 32,00 66,00 2.521 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 157 1.718 13.157 11,19 321,94
S_NO2-3 2 3 28,00 32,00 1.120 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 75 825 6.320 5,38 336,35
S_NO2-3 1 2 23,00 28,00 388 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 10 106 812 0,69 338,42
S_NO2-3 0 1 13,00 23,00 420 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 10 104 798 0,68 340,48
S_NO2-4 1 2 10,00 24,00 1.490 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 715 7.839 60.026 51,06 158,51
S_NO2-4 0 1 13,00 10,00 1.378 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 145 1.586 12.146 10,33 185,54
S_NO2-5 0 1 13,00 72,00 1.249 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 33 3.440 4.296 3,02 40,69
S_NO2-6 0 1 13,00 62,00 1.712 T19 976 100.649 125.704 81 60 6.230 7.781 5,47 48,30
S_NO2-7 0 1 13,00 49,00 707 T7 662 74.774 92.211 81 41 4.642 5.724 4,02 45,30
S_NO2-8 0 1 13,00 30,00 1.055 T7 662 74.774 92.211 81 50 5.620 6.931 4,87 48,33
S_NO2-9 0 1 13,00 55,00 1.503 T20 4.064 44.578 341.356 98 189 2.070 15.852 13,49 71,17
Table 5-80: Temeke STP N2 - Population and treated flow

Catchment MR1
STP
MR1
Catchment
MR1
Figure 5-21. - Temeke Catchment MR1
This Catchment includes Mbagala, Mbagala Kuu and Kijchi Ward.
inhabitants. The area is characterized by a medium population density, the population in 2012
There are three main sewer that run up to the Sewerage treatment plant

There are eight pumping station to lift waste water from most depressed areas.
The STP will be located on Kijichi Ward.
The capacity of Sewarege treatment plant will be about 11,441 m3/d.
The next figure shows the treatment plant area
Figure 5-22. - Temeke MR1 Treatment Plant Area

and 87%~92% for SS.
Project value
Facility Item Unit
Average flow m3/h 238,36 476,72
Peak flow m3/h 333,71 667,41
INFLUENT FLOW
STRENGHT BOD5 load per capita g/(capita*day) 50,00 50,00
BOD5 load kg / day 4.188,25 8.376,50
SS load kg / day 4.188,25 8.376,50
SS removal % 95,9% 95,9%
Depth m 2,50 2,50
GRIT REMOVAL Width of each tank m 3,00 3,00
UNIT Grit chamber area (each) m2 17,80 17,80
Depth m 3,00 3,00
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
Surface loading rate on peak flow rate 25,20 25,20
m3/m2*day
Total Capacity m3 6.133,68 12.267,35
AERATION BASIN Depth of each tank m 3,17 3,17
MLSS mg/L 3,00 3,00
HRT hr 25,73 25,73

Project value
Facility Item Unit
SECONDARY
Depth m 3,00 3,00
SEDIMENTATION
HRT h 4,00 4,00
DISINFECTION
(Chlorine)
AEROBIC
DIGESTION
GRAVITY
Depth m 3,50 3,50
THICKENER
HRT h 68,84 68,84
SLUDGE
DEHYDRATATION
EXPECTED Surplus sludge quantity ton/day 3,17 6,33
SLUDGE Surplus sludge solid quantity m3/day 203,84 407,69
GENERATION PER
TREATMENT
Table 5-81: Temeke STP MR1 – Process Line

WARD 2032-
Served Served Population Project Water
Capacity colera
area area (STP) @ 2016 polulation demand PRIORITY
cod name per capita
m2 ha l/c/d m3/d
0_00_-
T6 Kijichi 10,859,111 1,085.9 85,331 91,217 81,0 5,541 Yes _6_74 1
Mbagala kuu + 0_00_-
T7 Kibondemaji 5,708,823 547.6 76,313 76,313 81,0 4,636 yes _6_74 1
Infiltration
& industry 1,264
total 1,633.5 161,644 167,530 11,441
Table 5-82: Temeke STP MR1 – Population and Treated Flow

5.9.3 Priority
For the Temeke sewerage system the priorities for the next 5 years are the Construction of a
sewerage system at the areas of Temeke, Sandali and parts of Tandika, Miburani,
Kurasini and Changombe. • Approx. 90 km of gravity sewers with diameters varying from
200 mm to 900 mm including manholes and house connections planned in the Consultancy
services for design review of sewerage network and wastewater treatment plant recently
developed by Beomhan Engineering because they relate an intensely urbanized area with a
consolidated structure and affects about 1,000,000 people.
Another priority is the construction of Wastewater treatment plant (STP – MR02) with average
capacity about 43,046 m3/d; After the construction of STP – MR02, the sewage flow going to
Kurasini ponds will be diverted to the new mechanical plant.

5.9.4 Calculation
pumping stations and sewerage treatment plant.
TEMEKE Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d)

STP_N01 1,328 111,594 14,581
STP_N02 3,899 368,681 25,611
STP_M01 4,420 768,511 55,505
STP_MR02 2,923 645,298 41,159
STP_MR01 1,633 167,530 11,441
Table 5-83: Temeke Sewerage treatment plant
ID Hm Hv L Sup. Qav Qpeak D V DH Dhtot P

(m) (m) (m) (l/s) (l/s) (m) (m/s) (m) (m) (kW)
PS_MR01-3_2 5.39 27.44 1891.06 139.12 39.68 99.21 0.250 2.02 22.05 69.36 96.50
PS_MR02-1_7 20.53 30.39 742.08 261.90 41.17 102.92 0.300 1.46 9.86 18.04 26.50
PS_MR02-3_24 26.83 33.97 500.00 436.25 71.79 179.47 0.400 1.43 7.14 10.94 28.00
PS_MR02-3_22 29.43 34.09 173.37 23.57 72.98 182.45 0.400 1.45 4.66 6.01 15.50
PS_MR02-3_21 34.09 35.60 335.70 5.91 73.49 183.72 0.400 1.46 1.52 4.18 11.00
PS_MR02-1_1 13.86 15.70 528.00 153.27 229.90 574.76 0.600 2.03 1.84 6.65 54.00
PS_MR02-2_2 2.33 14.25 400.00 46.77 181.33 453.32 0.600 1.60 11.92 14.27 91.00
PS_MR02-2_2.2 14.65 17.30 2.840.81 172.14 195.79 489.47 0.600 1.73 2.65 21.87 150.00
PS_N01-2_2 34.00 62.00 659.93 242.43 14.32 47.58 0.200 1.51 28.00 40.55 27.50
PS_N02-3_71 59.00 64.00 484.76 40.65 2.90 7.26 0.080 1.44 5.00 29.60 3.50
PS_N02-3_81 47.00 85.00 1,703.05 86.25 6.16 15.41 0.125 1.26 38.00 77.60 17.00
PS_N02-3_82 38.00 70.00 805.49 40.62 2.90 7.26 0.080 1.44 32.00 72.82 7.50
PS_N02-4_22 30.00 46.00 315.97 18.76 1.34 3.35 0.080 0.67 16.00 19.83 1.00
PS_NO1-1_61 53.00 56.50 416.13 86.00 5.08 12.70 0.100 1.62 3.50 23.55 4.50
PS_NO2-3_101 63.00 115.00 3199.62 226.70 16.20 40.50 0.200 1.29 52.00 97.16 55.50
PS_NO2-3_91 82.00 110.00 451.04 45.83 3.28 8.19 0.100 1.04 28.00 37.64 4.50
PS_NO2-3_51 44.00 60.00 2,194.54 174.89 12.50 31.24 0.200 0.99 16.00 35.16 15.50
PS_NO2-3_93 76.00 107.00 2,070.65 215.68 15.41 38.53 0.200 1.23 31.00 57.65 31.50
PS_NO2-3_97 80.00 83.00 576.90 53.97 3.86 9.64 0.100 1.23 3.00 19.69 3.00
PS_NO2-4_1 10.00 13.00 1.378.79 144.60 10.33 25.83 0.150 1.46 3.00 37.35 14.00
PS_M01_1_33 67.50 69.00 398.58 72.30 4.27 10.67 0.100 1.36 1.50 15.43 2.50
PS_M01-1_32 63.00 69.00 822.49 125.36 7.40 18.51 0.125 1.51 6.00 32.86 9.00
PS_M01-1_34 65.00 78.00 1,349.18 108.24 15.56 38.91 0.200 1.24 13.00 30.68 17.00
PS_M01-10_12 12.00 14.00 1,510.39 167.69 16.43 41.08 0.200 1.31 2.00 23.88 14.00
PS_M01-2_3 19.75 21.45 163.62 223.93 18.43 316.73 0.300 1.36 1.70 3.28 15.00
PS_MR01-1_5 12.00 25.00 341.35 66.37 3.92 9.80 0.125 0.80 13.00 16.43 2.50
PS_MR01-1_3 13.00 44.00 668.07 557.04 36.82 92.05 0.300 1.30 31.00 36.99 48.00
Table 5-84: Temeke pumping stations features

Truck L Qav (tot) Qmax De Qmax Vmax F max

external
ID Nm Nv Truck lenght Average flow Peak flow Peak flow Velocity Filling
diameter
m l/s mm l/s m/s %
PS_MR02-3_24 24 23 500.00 71.35 178.39 400 178.39 1.42
S_MR02-3 23 23.1 100.00 71.35 178.39 400 178.39 2.61 59.0%
S_MR02-3 23.1 22 60.00 71.35 178.39 400 178.39 2.61 59.0%
PS_MR02-3_22 22 21 173.37 71.35 178.39 400 178.39 1.42
PS_MR02-3_21 21 20 335.70 72.83 182.07 400 182.07 1.45
S_MR02-3 20 20.1 325.00 73.20 182.99 630 182.99 0.84 73.8%
S_MR02-3 20.1 19 342.00 73.20 182.99 630 182.99 0.84 73.8%
S_MR02-3 19 19.1 343.00 73.83 184.58 630 184.58 0.84 74.4%
S_MR02-3 19.1 18 80.00 73.83 184.58 630 184.58 1.21 54.1%
S_MR02-3 18 18.1 99.00 77.51 193.78 630 193.78 1.22 55.7%
S_MR02-3 18.1 18.2 165.00 77.51 193.78 630 193.78 2.12 36.6%
S_MR02-3 18.2 18.3 45.00 77.51 193.78 630 193.78 1.33 52.2%
S_MR02-3 18.3 17 80.00 77.51 193.78 630 193.78 2.07 37.2%
S_MR02-3 17 16 53.00 82.81 207.02 630 207.02 4.05 24.0%
S_MR02-3 16 15 34.00 83.37 208.43 630 208.43 3.70 25.8%
S_MR02-3 15 14 28.00 83.61 209.02 630 209.02 1.24 58.8%
S_MR02-3 14 13 48.00 84.46 211.16 630 211.16 1.24 59.2%
S_MR02-3 13 12 85.00 85.23 213.07 630 213.07 2.20 38.2%
S_MR02-3 12 11 66.00 86.32 215.80 710 215.80 1.22 50.2%
S_MR02-3 11 10 55.00 87.04 217.60 710 217.60 1.23 50.4%
S_MR02-3 10 9 94.00 88.03 220.09 710 220.09 1.23 50.8%
S_MR02-3 9 8 293.00 91.75 229.38 930 229.38 0.95 48.6%
S_MR02-3 8 7 43.00 97.85 244.62 930 244.62 0.98 49.8%
S_MR02-3 7 6 83.00 99.58 248.95 930 248.95 0.98 50.3%
S_MR02-3 6 5 197.00 100.33 250.83 930 250.83 0.98 50.6%
S_MR02-3 5 4 648.00 116.65 291.63 930 291.63 1.00 56.3%
S_MR02-3 4 3 364.50 121.47 303.68 1000 303.68 1.05 50.3%
S_MR02-3 3 2 868.35 124.63 311.58 1000 311.58 0.98 54.2%
S_MR02-2 11 11.1 100.00 1.39 3.47 200 3.47 0.98 18.5%
S_MR02-2 11.1 10 422.00 1.39 3.47 200 3.47 0.47 31.1%
S_MR02-2 10 9 898.32 46.42 116.06 500 116.06 1.15 56.2%
S_MR02-2 9 9.1 300.00 52.33 130.83 500 130.83 1.18 60.7%
S_MR02-2 9.1 9.2 200.00 52.33 130.83 500 130.83 1.59 47.8%


external
diameter
m l/s mm l/s m/s %
S_MR02-2 9.2 9.3 100.00 52.33 130.83 500 130.83 1.59 47.8%
S_MR02-2 9.3 8 24.44 52.33 130.83 630 130.83 1.02 47.2%
S_MR02-2 8 7 109.75 59.55 148.86 630 148.86 1.05 50.9%
S_MR02-2 7 6 951.14 63.58 158.96 630 158.96 1.07 52.9%
S_MR02-2 6 6.1 53.51 74.76 186.90 630 186.90 2.60 30.7%
S_MR02-2 6.1 6.2 24.56 74.76 186.90 630 186.90 2.60 30.7%
S_MR02-2 6.2 5 50.58 74.76 186.90 630 186.90 2.25 34.1%
S_MR02-2 5 5.1 86.21 76.37 190.94 630 190.94 2.26 34.4%
S_MR02-2 5.1 5.2 100.00 76.37 190.94 630 190.94 1.82 40.5%
S_MR02-2 5.2 4 262.50 76.37 190.94 630 190.94 1.12 59.3%
S_MR02-2 4 3 359.84 124.36 310.89 930 310.89 1.27 49.1%
S_MR02-2 3 2 877.65 144.60 361.49 930 361.49 1.31 53.7%
PS_MR02-2_2 2 2.1 400.00 180.98 452.46 600 452.46 1.60
S_MR02-2 2.1 2.2 319.42 183.15 457.89 1200 457.89 1.08 51.3%
PS_MR02-2_2.2 2.2 1.1 2.840.52 193.32 483.30 600 483.30 1.71
1 0 203.78 509.45 1200 509.45 3.74 22.2%
S_MR02-1 9 9.1 100.00 10.37 25.93 200 25.93 1.45 61.3%
S_MR02-1 9.1 9.2 100.00 10.37 25.93 250 25.93 0.96 59.7%
S_MR02-1 9.2 9.3 100.00 10.37 25.93 250 25.93 1.30 46.7%
S_MR02-1 9.3 9.4 52.28 10.37 25.93 250 25.93 2.06 33.2%
S_MR02-1 9.4 9.5 47.72 10.37 25.93 250 25.93 1.42 43.6%
S_MR02-1 9.5 9.6 255.87 10.37 25.93 250 25.93 0.96 59.7%
S_MR02-1 9.6 8 88.27 10.37 25.93 315 25.93 0.68 54.0%
S_MR02-1 8 8.1 655.87 40.52 101.31 500 101.31 0.95 58.7%
S_MR02-1 8.1 7 100.00 40.52 101.31 500 101.31 1.57 39.9%
PS_MR02-1_7 7 6 742.08 44.88 112.20 300 112.20 1.59
S_MR02-1 6 6.1 47.00 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 2.02 48.3%
S_MR02-1 6.1 6.2 71.00 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 2.02 48.3%
S_MR02-1 6.2 6.3 36.00 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 2.89 36.8%
S_MR02-1 6.3 6.4 43.50 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 2.96 36.1%
S_MR02-1 6.4 6.5 50.00 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 2.19 45.4%
S_MR02-1 6.5 5 128.00 67.13 167.82 500 167.82 1.99 48.9%
S_MR02-1 5 4 427.50 70.83 177.07 710 177.07 0.91 54.5%


external
diameter
m l/s mm l/s m/s %
S_MR02-1 4 3 308.50 74.79 186.98 710 186.98 0.92 56.3%
S_MR02-1 3 3.1 244.00 74.79 186.98 710 186.98 0.92 56.3%
S_MR02-1 3.1 3.2 170.00 74.79 186.98 710 186.98 0.86 59.4%
S_MR02-1 3.2 2 83.00 74.79 186.98 710 186.98 2.09 30.2%
S_MR02-1 2 2.1 81.50 205.24 513.09 1000 513.09 1.12 74.2%
S_MR02-1 2.1 2.2 69.50 205.24 513.09 1000 513.09 2.46 39.2%
S_MR02-1 2.2 2.3 52.50 205.24 513.09 1000 513.09 2.85 35.1%
S_MR02-1 2.3 1 826.00 205.24 513.09 1000 513.09 1.26 66.6%
S_MR02-1 1 1.1 157.50 220.39 550.98 1200 550.98 1.21 54.1%
S_MR02-1 1.1 1.2 95.50 220.39 550.98 1200 550.98 1.90 38.3%
S_MR02-1 1.2 PS 26.00 220.39 550.98 1200 550.98 1.32 50.4%
PS_MR02-1_1 PS PS1 528.00 229.45 573.62 600 573.62 2.03
S_MR02-1 PS1 PS2 120.00 229.45 573.62 1200 573.62 2.34 33.8%
S_MR02-1 PS2 0 62.80 433.23 1083.06 1200 1.083.06 2.84 47.1%
S_MR01-3 3 2 400.00 8.37 20.93 315 20.93 0.78 41.0%
PS_MR01-3_2 2 1 1891.06 38.04 95.10 250 95.10 1.94
S_MR01-3 1 1.1 100.00 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 1.66 45.4%
S_MR01-3 1.1 1.2 100.00 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 1.65 45.4%
S_MR01-3 1.2 1.3 100.00 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 2.01 39.2%
S_MR01-3 1.3 1.4 84.03 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 1.84 41.8%
S_MR01-3 1.4 1.5 847.02 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 1.37 52.6%
S_MR01-3 1.5 0 1452.34 50.84 127.10 500 127.10 1.00 68.6%
S_MR01-2 4 3 336.51 23.90 59.75 400 59.75 0.91 57.1%
S_MR01-2 3 3.1 163.49 27.43 68.58 500 68.58 0.94 43.6%
S_MR01-2 3.1 2 768.96 27.43 68.58 500 68.58 0.94 43.6%
S_MR01-2 2 1 94.23 27.92 69.80 500 69.80 0.95 44.0%
S_MR01-2 1 0 193.79 27.92 69.80 500 69.80 0.95 44.0%
Table 5-85: Temeke Main Priority Sewerage - Hydraulic Calculation

Truck hv hm L ward Catchment Qav (in) Qmax De Di Vmax F max hmax

2032-
Maximum
Truck 2036 project Water project Average Peak external Internal water
ID Nv Mm Code Area Population Velocity Filling
lenght GR = 3.9 polulation domand Area polulation flow flow diameter diameter height
2036
percapita
m m m Ha Population l/c/d m2 Ha l/s l/s mm mm m/s % m
S_NO1-1 7 8 61,00 63,00 864,76 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 3.554.772 355 29.860 96,98 243,19 800 753,40 1,257 44,8% 0,338
S_NO1-1 6 7 60,00 61,00 270,35 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 2.367.417 237 19.886 13,98 278,38 800 753,40 1,548 42,4% 0,319
S_NO1-1 5 6 36,00 60,00 1.504,67 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 630.883 63 5.299 18,04 324,80 930 800,00 2,730 28,7% 0,229
S_NO1-1 2 5 34,00 36,00 1.441,99 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 638.933 64 5.367 3,77 371,28 1000 855,00 1,153 54,8% 0,468
S_NO1-1 1 2 62,00 34,00 659,93 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 62.801 6 528 0,37 372,78 710 668,60
S_NO1-1 0 1 34,00 62,00 2.238,02 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 3.605.857 361 30.289 21,30 427,97 800 753,40 2,714 38,4% 0,289
S_NO1-2 5 9 36,00 61,00 6.600,42 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 2.424.311 242 20.364 14,32 47,58 315 296,60 0,998 65,2% 0,193
S_NO2-1 7 8 27,00 59,00 1.783,46 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 2.385.203 239 30.718 21,60 67,33 315 296,60 1,967 49,6% 0,147
S_NO2-1 6 7 26,00 27,00 393,81 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 797.454 80 10.270 7,22 85,73 500 470,80 1,004 49,2% 0,232
S_NO2-1 5 6 25,00 26,00 890,14 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 535.232 54 6.893 4,85 98,62 500 470,80 0,754 70,4% 0,331
S_NO2-1 4 5 23,00 25,00 1.375,56 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 1.153.166 115 14.851 10,44 125,92 500 470,80 0,870 77,5% 0,365
S_NO2-1 3 4 18,00 23,00 735,85 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 1.231.216 123 15.856 11,15 154,43 630 593,20 1,670 36,9% 0,219
S_NO2-1 2 3 17,50 18,00 675,19 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 300.886 30 3.875 2,72 161,83 630 593,20 0,722 75,6% 0,448
S_NO2-1 1 2 17,00 17,50 526,73 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 417.166 42 5.373 3,78 171,73 630 593,20 0,811 71,6% 0,425
S_NO2-1 0 1 13,00 17,00 885,41 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 314.893 31 4.055 2,85 179,62 630 593,20 1,498 44,8% 0,266
S_NO2-2 2 3 15,00 51,00 3.016,57 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.854.248 185 15.576 13,25 53,84 400 376,60 1,579 34,5% 0,130
S_NO2-2 1 2 14,00 15,00 393,64 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 214.993 21 1.806 1,54 58,02 400 376,60 0,910 55,7% 0,210
S_NO2-2 0 1 13,00 14,00 420,81 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 54.096 5 454 0,39 332,34 1000 855,00 1,372 43,8% 0,375
S_NO2-3 9 10 110,00 115,00 972,91 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 11.717.917 1.172 98.431 83,73 231,60 710 668,60 1,672 41,7% 0,279
S_NO2-3 8 9 84,00 110,00 1.570,60 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.314.700 131 11.043 9,39 256,45 800 753,40 2,599 27,3% 0,206
S_NO2-3 7 8 83,00 84,00 1.764,53 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 697.118 70 5.856 4,98 270,44 1000 855,00 0,760 59,5% 0,508
S_NO2-3 6 7 62,00 83,00 195,44 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.009.867 101 8.483 7,22 288,65 710 668,60 5,293 21,2% 0,142
S_NO2-3 5 6 72,00 62,00 267,40 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 83.297 8 700 0,60 290,37 1000 855,00
S_NO2-3 4 5 66,00 72,00 152,05 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 71.108 7 597 0,51 291,77 930 800,00 3,651 21,6% 0,173
S_NO2-3 3 4 32,00 66,00 2.521,40 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.566.294 157 13.157 11,19 321,94 800 753,40 2,577 32,4% 0,244
S_NO2-3 2 3 28,00 32,00 1.120,13 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 752.329 75 6.320 5,38 336,35 800 753,40 1,606 47,7% 0,359
S_NO2-3 1 2 23,00 28,00 388,87 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 96.661 10 812 0,69 338,42 800 753,40 2,568 33,6% 0,253


2032-
Maximum
2036
percapita
S_NO2-3 0 1 13,00 23,00 420,81 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 95.021 10 798 0,68 340,48 930 800,00 3,190 26,5% 0,212
S_NO2-4 1 2 10,00 24,00 1.490,92 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 7.145.940 715 60.026 51,06 158,51 630 593,20 1,891 34,3% 0,203
S_NO2-4 0 1 13,00 10,00 1.378,79 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.445.968 145 12.146 10,33 185,54 400 376,60
S_NO2-5 0 1 13,00 72,00 1.249,23 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 333.566 33 4.296 3,02 40,69 315 296,60 2,441 29,0% 0,086
S_NO2-6 0 1 13,00 62,00 1.712,14 T19 976 306.755 125.704 125.704 81 604.194 60 7.781 5,47 48,30 315 296,60 2,140 36,2% 0,107
S_NO2-7 0 1 13,00 49,00 707,00 T7 662 227.894 92.211 92.211 81 410.756 41 5.724 4,02 45,30 315 296,60 2,586 30,1% 0,089
S_NO2-8 0 1 13,00 30,00 1.055,56 T7 662 227.894 92.211 92.211 81 497.345 50 6.931 4,87 48,33 400 376,60 1,707 30,2% 0,114
S_NO2-9 0 1 13,00 55,00 1.503,42 T20 4.064 135.865 341.356 341.356 98 1.887.201 189 15.852 13,49 71,17 315 296,60 2,353 45,1% 0,134
S_MO1-1 8 9 50,50 68,10 2.200,91 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 1.942.768 194 16.319 11,47 68,05 500 470,80 1,435 31,7% 0,149
S_MO1-1 7 8 49,10 50,50 1.110,35 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 1.761.149 176 14.794 10,40 95,02 630 593,20 0,791 44,8% 0,266
S_MO1-1 6 7 43,20 49,10 1.317,92 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 2.452.023 245 20.597 14,48 132,37 630 593,20 1,375 37,9% 0,225
S_MO1-1 5 6 35,40 43,20 764,94 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 2.228.967 223 18.723 13,16 165,95 710 668,60 1,953 29,1% 0,195
S_MO1-1 4 5 31,80 35,40 918,23 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 548.549 55 4.608 3,24 174,84 630 593,20 1,411 45,9% 0,272
S_MO1-1 3 4 24,10 31,80 1.931,51 T21 3.475 193.991 291.917 291.917 81 3.598.447 360 30.227 77,87 371,20 800 753,40 1,715 48,8% 0,368
S_MO1-1 2 3 22,00 24,10 1.007,55 T18 744 310.670 125.704 125.704 98 2.107.072 211 35.615 30,30 447,82 1000 855,00 1,409 54,2% 0,464
S_MO1-1 1 2 16,50 22,00 592,01 T18 744 310.670 125.704 125.704 98 1.020.178 102 17.244 132,04 778,43 1000 855,00 2,835 48,3% 0,413
S_MO1-1 0 1 9,00 16,50 1.221,45 T18 744 310.670 125.704 125.704 98 2.536.520 254 42.874 36,47 870,68 1200 1.200,00 2,471 35,0% 0,420
S_MO1-2 5 6 32,60 50,50 1.577,59 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 587.670 59 6.879 4,84 60,52 400 376,60 1,602 37,3% 0,140
S_MO1-2 4 5 24,60 32,60 367,63 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 485.987 49 5.689 4,00 70,84 400 376,60 2,117 34,0% 0,128
T17 396 240.503 97.313 97.313 81


2032-
Maximum
2036
percapita
S_MO1-2 3 4 21,00 24,60 1.034,24 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 1.165.596 117 13.644 9,59 95,72 500 470,80 1,161 47,9% 0,226
T17 396 240.503 97.313 97.313 81
S_MO1-2 2 3 20,00 21,00 163,62 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 0 0 0 0,00 95,86 630 593,20 1,406 29,5% 0,175
T17 396 240.503 97.313 97.313 81
S_MO1-5 0 1 0,00 77,00 4.259,82 T18 744 310.670 125.704 125.704 98 1.479.172 148 25.002 21,27 106,66 500 470,80 2,182 32,4% 0,153
S_MO1-6 0 1 0,00 57,00 3.730,50 T17 396 240.503 97.313 97.313 81 2.099.873 210 51.631 36,30 147,48 630 593,20 2,207 29,1% 0,172
S_MO1-7 4 5 33,40 52,70 2.466,59 T15 685 234.675 125.704 125.704 98 2.605.338 261 47.827 40,69 160,58 630 593,20 1,776 36,2% 0,215
S_MO1-7 3 4 23,60 33,40 1.482,84 T14 240 162.418 65.718 65.718 29 694.630 69 19.014 4,79 173,84 630 593,20 1,707 39,6% 0,235
S_MO1-7 2 3 16,10 23,60 1.392,81 T14 240 162.418 65.718 65.718 29 1.581.027 158 43.277 10,89 202,28 630 593,20 1,648 45,6% 0,270
S_MO1-7 1 2 9,50 16,10 1.135,60 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 39.955 4 468 0,33 446,39 800 753,40 2,069 48,7% 0,367
S_MO1-7 0 1 9,00 9,50 1.729,23 T16 580 167.877 67.927 67.927 81 570.468 57 6.678 4,70 459,63 1500 1.500,00 0,674 41,0% 0,615
S_MO1-8 6 7 28,60 50,30 3.401,07 T15 685 234.675 125.704 125.704 98 3.422.274 342 62.824 53,44 200,41 630 593,20 1,751 43,3% 0,256
S_MO1-8 5 6 24,90 28,60 1.007,40 T14 240 162.418 65.718 65.718 29 3.160.035 316 86.499 21,77 255,72 710 668,60 1,515 48,5% 0,324
S_MO1-8 4 5 23,40 24,90 492,08 T14 240 162.418 65.718 65.718 29 832.951 83 22.800 5,74 270,50 800 753,40 1,431 44,0% 0,332
S_MO1-8 3 4 13,50 23,40 1.086,88 T14 240 162.418 65.718 65.718 29 2.025.298 203 55.438 13,96 306,33 630 593,20 2,229 49,8% 0,295
S_MO1-8 2 3 10,40 13,50 465,34 T9 244 234.166 94.749 94.749 29 164.537 16 6.383 1,61 310,75 710 668,60 1,988 45,7% 0,306
S_MO1-8 1 2 9,50 10,40 58,85 T9 244 234.166 94.749 94.749 29 40.675 4 1.578 0,40 311,80 630 593,20 2,714 43,4% 0,257
S_MO1-9 0 1 9,50 82,00 6.348,49 T17 396 240.503 97.313 97.313 81 2.746.740 275 67.536 47,49 193,73 500 470,80 2,163 51,1% 0,241


2032-
Maximum
2036
percapita
S_MO1-10 0 1 9,00 12,00 209,37 T8 337 160.258 64.844 64.844 81 2.306.600 231 44.345 31,18 153,14 500 470,80 2,215 41,9% 0,197
S_MR01-1 5 4 25,00 12,00 341,35 T6 1.086 210.890 91.217 91.217 81 663.674 66 5.575 3,92 85,29 315 296,60
S_MR01-1 3 4 13,00 25,00 282,41 T6 1.086 210.890 91.217 91.217 81 5.251.975 525 44.117 31,02 163,08 400 376,60 3,387 44,6% 0,168
S_MR01-1 2 3 44,00 13,00 668,07 T6 1.086 210.890 91.217 91.217 81 318.393 32 2.675 1,88 168,37 400
S_MR01-1 1 2 27,00 44,00 1.481,11 T6 1.086 210.890 91.217 91.217 81 227.717 23 1.913 1,34 173,01 400 376,60 2,074 70,1% 0,264
Table 5-86: Temeke Main Sewerage - Hydraulic Calculation

Table 5-87: Temeke Sewerage Gravity Mains - Hydraulic Calculation

Table 5-88: Temeke Sewerage Rising Mains - Hydraulic Calculation

6 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS FOR SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT
6.1 Waste Management in Dar es Salaam
The new urban master plan proposes a number of sanitary landfills in each of the five
municipalities in the city except for Temeke, which is anticipated to share a landfill with Kigamboni.
1. Kigamboni and Temeke Municipalities: The plan proposes a sanitary landfill in Kisarawe
II ward in Lingato subward to be developed as previously proposed by Temeke `municipal
Council and currently (2012) it is at the stage of Feasibility Study for its completion. This
project covers 500 acre of land.
2. Ilala Municipality: The plan proposes effective upgrading of the existing Pugu dumpsite to
a sustainable sanitary landfill. Location of the site is in Pugu Ward, Pugu Kinyamwezi
locality.
3. Ubungo Municipality: The plan proposes a new sanitary landfill at Kisopwa near the
Mlonganzila University
4. Kinondoni Municipality: The plan proposes a new sanitary landfill in Mabwepande ward
near Mpiji River. This had been proposed at the time of plan preparation (2012). The
implementation will integrate the Sanitary Landfill with a Compost Processing Plant.
Specific proposals to improve solid waste management in Dar es Salaam are:
Re-designing the solid waste management system in the city
This is to decentralize service delivery and day-to-day solid waste management responsibilities
to the ward level of administration. The following actions should be taken to enhance efficiency in
managing solid waste at that level:
i. Establish permanent waste collection points and transfer stations

ii. Encourage solid waste sorting at source where waste should be placed in labeled or colour
coded waste-bins, by for example separating between biodegradable materials, metal,
glass, paper, plastic wastes;
iii. Timely removal of waste from the collection sites and transfer stations to dumpsites; and
iv. Impose heavy fines and other penalties should be imposed on those who do not comply
with proper waste management guidelines.
Streamlining responsibilities of the municipal councils
This is to focus on providing technical support to the wards by taking the following actions:
i. Establish, develop appropriate sanitation systems that operate properly, are well
maintained and regularly monitored to ensure that the waste management services are
available throughout the city at satisfactory levels;
ii. Ensure that waste recycling activities are established, formalized and rationalized;
iii. Undertake environmental education and public awareness at all levels of the society about
the proper waste handling and general cleanness of the city;
iv. Engage NGOs, CBOs and the private sector in the delivery of waste management services
and enforcement of relevant laws and bye-laws;
v. Undertake investment in the development of waste management infrastructure, establish
sanitary landfill, acquire adequate and appropriate equipment and refuse collection trucks;
and
vi. Design and implement sustainable beach management programmes including beach
cleaning.

7 PROPOSED NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES
7.1 Review of Non-Structural Measures in Stormwater Drainage
Despite the overall structural improvement measures proposed, some low-lying areas in DSM will
be subjected to flooding even after completion of the major river and drainage works. This is due
to the fact that some low-lying areas have ground levels lower than the water level within the
future main drainage channels. Moreover in some informal settlement it won’t be possible to
intervene with such works because of the lack of space and regularized surface for stormwater
drainage (even or paved roads). As such, stormwater cannot drain into the main drainage
channels by gravity during high floods. This problem is referred to as “residual flooding”, but the
flooding situation will be to a much reduced extent in comparison with the present situation. Most
areas affected by residual flooding are floodplains of existing rivers and the low-lying areas
adjacent to the main drainage channels.
Structural measures can never completely eliminate the risk of flooding. Nevertheless, because
of their physical presence, they have the potential to create a false sense of security, leading to
inappropriate land use in the protected areas. Non-structural measures play an important role in
reducing not only the catastrophic consequences of residual risks, but also adverse impacts on
the environment.
In the context of flood risk management, structural should be taken to mean the ‘conventional’
flood defence strategy (such as increasing the flow capacity of the storm water network or building
river embankments) and thus the non-structural measures represent an alternative and lower
scale approach compared with conventional structural approaches.
This low-impact non-structural flood probability reduction measures (FPRM) encompass those
measures which:
• restore the retention potential of the natural hydrological system

• enhance the detention of rainwater through small retention basins distributed in small
urban catchments
Other non-structural flood management measures such as land use regulations; sustainable land
use planning; flood forecasting and warning; resettlement plans; flood shelters, flood proofing;
and disaster prevention, preparedness and response mechanisms, have limited environmental
consequences and should be actively considered as viable options, both as independent or
complementary measures. They have been discussed in the Paragraph regarding the
institutional measures.
7.1.1 Early Warning Systems
The Disaster Management Act (2015) sets out a comprehensive legal framework for disaster risk
management. It provides for the establishment of Tanzania Disaster Management Agency
(TDMA), which is the national focal point for coordination of disaster risk reduction and
management in the country. The Agency shall act as the central planning, coordinating and
monitoring institution for the prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and post disaster
recovery, taking into account all potential disaster risks.
The TDMA will put in place an efficient early warning systems at regional and district levels so
that local authorities can prepare for and respond to disasters timely and effectively.
The aim of any early warning systems (EWS) is to provide warning to people of an impending
natural hazard so that those vulnerable are aware of the potential impact of the natural processes
in order to respond appropriately and minimise damage.
An efficient EWS should be made of:
• Automatic Weather Stations (AWS)

• Hydrological stations
• Automatic rainfall gauges,
• River staff gauges
• Informatics equipment to data transmission and management
• Capacity building within the government on modern technologies to strengthen the climate
data collection and processing
• Private sector engagement and developing sustainable cost recovery strategies for
sustaining the meteorological and hydrological services
Moreover, there is need for those issuing warning information to acquire more information
themselves about how communities perceive risk, and the reasons that underlie their behaviour

when floods threaten them. There is also a need to strengthen local communities' capacity to play
a key role in information dissemination before the onset of flood disasters.
A recent project in Tanzania supported by UNDP (27) was launched to strengthen the climate
monitoring capabilities, early warning systems and available information for responding to climate
shocks and planning adaptation to climate change in Tanzania.
The project aimed to enhance the capacity of Tanzania Meteorological Agency and of two Water
Basin Boards, to monitor and forecast droughts and floods, as well as efficient and effective use
of hydro-meteorological and environmental information, for developing early warnings and long
term growth plans at local level.
According to the outputs of the pilot project, by December 2017, 36 new AWS, 15 new Mini
Automatic Weather Station, 30 new hydrometric stations and 20 new Automatic Rain gauge and
Standard Rain gauge, should be operational and transmitting data accurately toward the data
share server, where Tanzania Agencies and Institutions can access data.
7.1.2 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
A key component of FPRM are the so-called ‘sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)’. SUDS
are an approach to surface water management that combines a sequence of management
practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion
than some conventional techniques.
The conventional approach to stormwater control is to directly drain stormwater flows as quickly
as possible to the nearest receiving watercourse or drainage system to avoid the risk of flooding
and to protect human health.
SUDS aim to:
• handle stormwater as close as possible to its source,
27Strengthening Climate information and Early Warning Systems in Tanzania for Climate Resilient Development and
Adaptation to Climate Change Project. UNDP and GoT, August 19, 2016

• reducing runoff volumes, pollutant loads and flow rates by collecting, temporarily
storing and subsequently discharging at a controlled rate to the soil or the downstream
receiving watercourse or drainage.
As well as ensuring individual safety and flood protection, SUDS also aim to improve the urban
environment through their potential for multifunctional use. For example, as well as providing
stormwater control, retention basins can also act as recreational areas and provide habitat for
wildlife.
SuDS mimic nature and typically manage rainfall close to where it falls. SuDS can be designed
to transport (convey) surface water, slow runoff down (attenuate) before it enters watercourses,
they provide areas to store water in natural contours and can be used to allow water to soak
(infiltrate) into the ground or evaporated from surface water and lost or transpired from vegetation
(known as evapotranspiration).
SUDS are low impact drainage systems that are considered to be environmentally beneficial,
causing minimal or no long-term detrimental damage. They are often regarded as a sequence of
management practices, control structures and strategies designed to efficiently and sustainably
drain surface water, while minimising pollution and managing the impact on water quality of local
water bodies.
Some of the most popular SUDs are described below (source: https://www.susdrain.org).
SUDS Type Description of the Sustainable Urbane Drainage System

Detention basins
Detention basins are surface storage basins or facilities that provide
flow control through attenuation of stormwater runoff. They also
facilitate some settling of particulate pollutants. Detention basins are
normally dry and in certain situations the land may also function as
a recreational facility. However, basins can also be mixed, including
both a permanently wet area for wildlife or treatment of the runoff
and an area that is usually dry to cater for flood attenuation.
Ponds
Retention ponds can provide both stormwater attenuation and
treatment. They are designed to support emergent and submerged
aquatic vegetation along their shoreline. Runoff from each rain
event is detained and treated in the pool. The retention time
promotes pollutant removal through sedimentation and the
opportunity for biological uptake mechanisms to reduce nutrient
concentrations.

SUDS Type Description of the Sustainable Urbane Drainage System

Wetlands
Wetlands provide both stormwater attenuation and treatment. They
comprise shallow ponds and marshy areas, covered almost entirely
in aquatic vegetation. Wetlands detain flows for an extended period
to allow sediments to settle, and to remove contaminates by
facilitating adhesion to vegetation and aerobic decomposition. They
also provide significant ecological benefits.
Swales
Swales are shallow, broad and vegetated channels designed to
store and/or convey runoff and remove pollutants. They may be
used as conveyance structures to pass the runoff to the next stage
of the treatment train and can be designed to promote infiltration
where soil and groundwater conditions allow. Check dams and
berms also can be installed across the flow path of a swale in order
to promote settling and infiltration.
Green Roofs
Green roofs comprise a multi-layered system that covers the roof of
a building or podium structure with vegetation cover/landscaping.
The roof is likely to consist of an impermeable layer, a susbstrate or
growing medium and a drainage layer (although not all green roofs
require a drainage layer). Green roofs are designed to intercept and
retain precipitation, reducing the volume of runoff and attenuating
peak flows.
Rainwater Harvesting
Rainwater from roofs and hard surfaces can be stored and used. If
designed appropriately, the systems can also be used to reduce the
rates and volumes of runoff. Water butts are the most common
means of harvesting rainwater, although they are primarily designed
for small scale use such as in gardens. Therefore the relative cost,
maintenance and performance of water butts when compared to
other larger rainwater harvesting systems are significantly less.
Table 7-1: Sustainable Urban Drainage System types.
In the recently issued accompanying document to Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25)

for England, the suitability of SUDS for achieving:
• infiltration;
• the holding up of water in storage;
• a slowing of the movement of draining water
is as indicated in the following Table.

Table 7-2: Suitability of SUDSs for achieving flood hazard reduction.
The above table sets out a general comparison of the different approaches to stormwater control
based on their underlying principles. Note that this lacks detail because the evidence is still limited
as to how effective these various measures are in flood risk management.
Another class of SUDSs can be also considered the permeable pavements. Permeable
pavements are defined as those having open spaces in its structure where water and air can pass
through and can be used for roads, parking lots, courtyards, among others. The surface receives
directly traffic load and must also allow water to infiltrate promptly. There are various surfaces
available, such as: pre-cast concrete blocks, in placed porous concrete, porous asphalt, concrete
grids, porous aggregates, grass, plastic grids, granular materials and loose decks.
Early studies on permeable pavements date from the 70s and were mostly conducted on
laboratory, normally using simulation rainfall. The first full-scale tests were held starting in the 80s.
Those studies mostly evaluated the efficiency of pavements on reducing runoff volume and
pollutants removal testifying its effectiveness as SUDs, as well as confirming locally its availability.
7.1.3 SUDSs Examples for Msimbazi River
The choice on SUDSs is linked both to economic and technical constraints, which may put their
sustainability in question, especially in developing countries where there may already be an
infrastructure deficit. SUDS are also plagued by practical barriers such as the difficulty of precisely
quantifying their hydraulic and water-quality improvement performances in the management of
run-off, especially at a city-wide level. Also, the need for costly, high-skilled maintenance and
regulation of SUDS elements presents a significant barrier, especially when considering that such
skills and resources may be unavailable in developing countries. The implementation of flood-risk
management measures, such as SUDS, requires wider participation in decision-making and a
change in traditional management methods to be successful. These obstacles constitute yet

another layer of relational complexities and they ‘include institutional fragmentation, limited
political incentives, technological path dependencies, poor community capacity to meaningfully
participate’ and competition for resources from other issues on the urban agenda (28).
A good example of low-impact actions for city resilience to riverine floods is the case of Msimbazi
River recently studied within a research by the Italian University of Politecnico di Milano ( 29). The
methodology applied in this work is to analyse environmental, social and infrastructural city’s
vulnerabilities and their drivers in order to find out most prone zones, to study theoretical concepts
related to the flood risk management and to review best successful world practices in order to
take lessons from them for developing a concept plan for tomorrow.
The intention of the above study is to redirect this urban transformation of the wetlands into more
sustainable way. Educational programs complemented with other soft and local-scale flood risk
measures proposed are collected in the catalogue of local actions and city-wide policies. The
main purpose of these interventions is to reach balanced co-existing of people and their
environment, as soon as referring to urban ecology principles, wetlands and human settlements
are considered as parts of the same ecosystem.
In order to reach these general objectives and so realize proposed concept of tomorrow, five
strategies were identified.
1. First Strategy: Optimization of storm water harvesting systems

2. Second Strategy: Creation of clear border of the risk zone
3. Third Strategy: Promotion of resilient living
4. Fourth Strategy: Adaptation to river dynamics
5. Fifth Strategy: Increasing awareness and knowledge about flood risks
Each strategy answers particular challenges known from developed analysis and introduces a set
of policies and actions, which have specific area of implementation.
The related interventions or actions are depicted below.
28
Green infrastructure for flood-risk management in Dar es Salaam and Copenhagen: Exploring the potential for
transitions. Water Policy · February 2015. Patience Mguni, Lise Herslund, Marina Bergen Jensen
29 “Strategies for city resilience to riverine floods. Case of Msimbazi River, Dar es Salaam”. Viktoriia Pavlova, Eugenio
Morello, Maria Chiara Pastore. Politecnico di Milano - School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction Engineering
(2015-2016).

WETLAND
RECLAMATION 1.1
This action aims to
reinforce existing
environmental elements of
the place – mainly
wetlands, that play a role
of natural “sponge”
harvesting rainwater.
RAINWATER
HARVESTING 1.2
The purpose of this action
is dual: to harvest water
from covered surfaces
(roofs) and to store it for
later use. So this solutions
turns storm water
problems into water
supply.
DRAINAGE
DEVELOPMENT 1.3
This action has a general
goal of improving
efficiency in drainage
facilities through
catchment area
enlargement, equipment
replacement, operational
efficiencies control and so
on.
FLOOD STORAGE
PONDS 1.4
The aim of flood storage
ponds is that they are
deliberately inundated by
flood water during a flood
to reduce the risk of
flooding farther down the
river system.

BANK TERRACES 2.1

This action has dual goal
– to make clearer
separation between safe
urban land and green
zone at risk of flood and to
reinforce river banks to
prevent erosion and to
keep water inside this
border.
VEGETATED BUFFER
ZONE 2.2
The action has similar to
previous design of
terraced banks aims. The
only difference is terraced
with proper drainage is
more advanced tool, while
vegetated buffer zone is
simpler and easier to
implement.
BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN

PATH 2.3
The goal of this action is
again dual – not only
physical separation of risk
and safe lands but also
connections local
centralities by soft mobility
measures.
RISK SIGNS 2.4

to make visible signs of
awareness of risk zones
for local population,
especially for those who
already live in hazardous
land or plan to migrate
there.

FLOOD RESILIENT
ARCHITECTURAL
PRINCIPLES 3.1
This action tackles the
issue of vulnerable
residential areas – homes
of poor and vulnerable
inhabitants of river valley.
The aim is to contribute to
the resilience of flooding
zone settlements through
the construction of
resilient to floods houses.
SAFE HAVENS 3.2

A safe haven is simply an
area or building that is
constructed in safe
distance from floodable
areas so that it will not be
at potential risk, where
people can congregate in
times of flood.
EMERGENCY
EVACUATION CAMPS
3.3
In case of severe flood
event, the goal is to offer a
possibility to evacuate in
emergency shelter on safe
land supplied with vital
goods, medicaments,
water and food reserves
for the affected
populations.
SEASONAL CITY PARKS

4.1
To use big open area
during dry season and so
correct the lack in green
public spaces and to
prevent further wild house
constructions in flood risk
zones.

SEASONAL
AGRICULTURE 4.2
to use the high fertility of
wetland soils in order to
support a seasonal
sustainable agriculture.
ELEVATED COMMUNITY
CENTERS 4.3
Creation of multi-purpose
community, which may
have different applications
during dry season and
could serve as temporal
places to wait out short
term floods.
FLOATING
STRUCTURES FOR
LOCAL USE 4.4
The aim of this action is to
increase the number of
local activities centers for
small uses (one family)
inside communities in
order to bridge the lack in
such spaces, especially
for women and children.
ELEVATED
FOOTBRIDGES AND
PATHS 4.5
The aim is to ensure
emergency connections
during floods as well as to
make communication of
riversides possible.

WARNING SYSTEMS 5.1

to ensure a better
management of flood
event by rapid and
effective information of the
concerned populations.
AWARENESS MARKS
AND INFO CENTERS 5.2
Develop the awareness
about flood hazards by
local communities through
visible and easy
understandable signs
such as flood levels
marks, through
information about weather
forecasts and through
community centers – local
social and educational
hubs.
Table 7-3: General Flood Resilient Actions (Politecnico di Milano, 2016).
The above list of interventions have then been attributed to the study of “Zone A” and “Zone B” in
the Msimbazi river valley as showed in the following maps.

Figure 7-1. Flood Resilient Actions in Zone A of Misimbazi Valley (Politecnico di Milano, 2016).

Figure 7-2. Flood Resilient Actions in Zone B of Misimbazi Valley (Politecnico di Milano, 2016).

CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAINAGE & SANITATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DSDP) FOR
DAR ES SALAAM FOR PERIOD 2018-2035 UNDER DMDP
7.1.1 Proposed Non-Structural Drainage Measures for DSM
For the case of Dar es Salaam city the choice on the type of SUDSs to be applied is limited
by the space availability within the dense urban tissue of the informal settlements. There are
undoubtedly many other SUDSs measures but not all are suitable for every location.
• Structuring an efficient and modern Early Warning Systems must be perceived as a

major task for all the relevant authorities involved in the flood risk management. The
cooperation and coordination of TDMA with the TMA and the Water Basin Authorities
should be of the utmost importance. The delineation of the DSDP’ inundation areas
should also help to set the optimal network of the rain/river automated gauge stations
to be used for monitoring the stormwater events. Emergency Response and
Intervention Plan for the evacuation of people to safe areas upon receiving warning
should be the consequent step.
• Detention basins (natural or artificial), which require a free surface of land to be

temporarily flooded, can be used in some strategic position close by the rivers and
streams, so to reduce the peak flows in the waterways.
• Increasing the infiltration rate into the soil must also be considered as a priority as by
the use of permeable pavements. Permeable pavements can reduce runoff volumes
and improve water quality of stormwater runoff by allowing water to infiltrate on its
structure, easily integrating with other water control strategies in sustainable urban
drainage systems. This solution is already well known, commercially available and
referred to on many municipal legislations.
• Other SUDSs such as green roofs, rainwater harvesting, permeable pavements,

swales, etc. should also be realized in small areas as pilot projects. The DSDP must
encourage these measures especially in the riverine zones to become more known
among the community and supported by the Institutions and NGOs.
Early warning system
For the early warning system a good reference is represented by the recent project
“Strengthening Climate information and Early Warning Systems in Tanzania for Climate
Resilient Development and Adaptation to Climate Change Project” (UNDP and GoT, August
19, 2016). The DSDP critical flood areas should be considered in the provision of Automatic

Weather Stations and Automatic Rain gauge stations, giving TMA and other relevant
Authorities operational capability for the forecast of new floods to timely warning the
population.
Stormwater detention ponds
The DMDP project, in order to avoid the flow increase inside the rivers, as well as to reduce
the flow to downstream in critical areas with no space to extend some of the existing
infrastructures, located six detention ponds located near the upstream ends of current urban
areas, whenever it´s expected that the flow increase will be relevant.
These structures temporarily store storm water runoff, thereby reducing the peak rate of runoff
to a stream or storm sewer. They receive and hold runoff for release to a predetermined rate,
which depends of the height and width of their superficial weir.
The DSDP has located an additional pond on the Mbezi river (DP7).
Max water
Detention Area
Depth (m) elevation River Basin District
Pond (m2)
(m a.s.l.)
DP1 3.0 38.0 3,900 Tegeta Kinondoni
DP2 5.0 61.0 4,600 Mbezi Kinondoni
DP3 6.0 60.0 60,000 Sinza Kinondoni
DP4 4.5 54.5 25,000 Sinza Kinondoni
DP5 1.5 21.7 20,000 Gerezani Creek Temeke
DP6 4.0 30.0 28,000 Yombo Ilala
DP7 4.0 34.0 70,000 Mbezi Kinondoni
Table 7-4: DMDP and DSDP’ Proposed Stormwater Detention Ponds
The recommended areas for building the detention ponds are those prone to detaining water
as natural depressions, without any edification. The space occupied by the detention ponds
can be used as parking or recreational areas since the storm water accumulation only happens
when an intense rain event occurs, being common of having a succession of two or more
years without ponding water on it. Thus they can constitute a significant environmental
advantage. Also the maintenance of existing activities as urban farming is possible, with the
associated risks of interrupting the usual harvest.
In the next Figures the location of the detention ponds, on rivers Tegeta, Mbezi, Sinza,
Gerezani Creek and Yombo are shown. Before their realization, it will be necessary to check

if they are free of any constraints, as regards their availability and their complete adjustment
to this function.
Figure 7-3. Detention Pond DP1 (Tegeta river).
Figure 7-4. Detention Ponds DP2 (Mbezi), DP3/4 (Sinza river).

Figure 7-5. Detention Ponds DP5 (Gerezani Creek), DP6 (Yombo river).
These infrastructures should be designed according to some general criteria:
- The inlet(s) must be located as far upstream as possible from the outlet;
- The embankments must have slopes of 2,5:1 or flatter;
- The site access must be prepared for bringing heavy maintenance equipment and to
remove the sediments;
- Because the presence of storm water in the detention ponds is hazardous, the
following precautions should be taken:
• Avoid steep slopes: cut and fill slopes should be 2,5:1 or flatter;
• The area must be fenced with clearly marked entrance and exits;
• Must include clearly visible posts with warnings about the possibility of water
ponding.
- - There must be a trash guard, constituted by a gross grid to avoid the outlet to be
blocked with debris.

7.1.1.1 Drainage systems in informal settlements
As a temporary solution, the informal settlements will be equipped with local drainage and
sewerage ecological services, before the implementation of the redevelopment projects
proposed in the urban master plan. All the superstructures for temporary services could be
prefabricated or less-permanent type. This is due to the fact that the temporal realization of
the new Urban Master Plan (UMP) projects is still uncertain and undefined.
Once the UMP will be approved and developed to its final design stage, the DSDP will be
implemented also in the informal settlements by means of long-term permanent services such
as conventional drainage systems, waterborne sewage networks and sewage treatment
plants.
A typical intervention proposed in the informal settlements’ streets, consist of a terrain

equalization by using gravel roads with double (symmetric) cross slope. For streets larger than
6 meters, the stormwater will be drained to two lateral ditches equipped with a trench-drain
made of a perforated pipe laid on the bottom and covered with two layers of gravels separated
by a filter cloth used to retain the dissolved solids.
Figure 7-6. Drainage in gravel roads for informal settlements.
For streets width between 3 and 6 meter only one ditch will be provided. The gravel covered
trench-drains will help to avoiding the discharge of solid wastes inside the ditches.

Figure 7-7. Detail of Trench Drainage in gravel roads
Another typical intervention in small sized streets (less than 3 meters) and alleys is the one
with a double convergent slope made of stones and gravels (compacted) to be used both as
a lane and a drain (maximum slope 5%).
For all the main natural streams and artificial waterways (ditches, culverts, etc.) crossing the
informal settlements, the cleaning from the solid wastes, the silt and the vegetation will be
provided.

7.2 Non-Conventional Measures in Wastewater Systems
As mentioned before, in the guise of a temporary solution, the informal settlements will be
equipped with local drainage and sewerage ecological services, before the implementation of
the redevelopment projects proposed in the new urban master plan (UMP).
Having mapped the informal settlements according to the new UMP and the updated satellite
imageries, a set of decentralized solution have been identified.
Figure 7-8. Map of the informal settlements (new Urban Master Plan and satellite photos)
The assessment of the sanitation interventions in the Informal Settlements has been carried
out according to the following report:

• Urban environmental sanitation Integrating decentralised solutions Case Study: Dar

es Salaam, Tanzania, produced by BORDA and with support from the European
Commission, BMZ, DAWASCO, DAWASA and Hamburg Wasser for the City
Sanitation Planning package.
The document provides the rationale for providing alternative environmental sanitation
solutions in rapidly growing urban contexts. The City Sanitation Planning package includes
the following interrelated and complementary documents, which focus on the city of Dar es
Salaam as a case study.
• PART 1: Urban environmental sanitation: Integrating decentralised solutions

• PART 2: 5 step planning guide: Which solutions go where?
• PART 3: Catalogue of environmental sanitation options for urban areas Centralised
and decentralised
• PART 4: Sanitation Mapping Guide: Using GIS mapping software
Particularly the Part 3 provides the following solutions for the on-site septic solution (i.e. septic
tank) and for the Decentralised wastewater treatment solutions (DEWATS):
On-site septic solution (i.e. septic tank) + soak

away or french drain:
provide partial or full primary treatment of
wastewater. A septic tank is a watertight chamber
that collects, stores and partially treats wastewater
(25-40%) before discharging into the ground via a
soak away or French drain.
Cost estimate (for 6-10 people):
TSh 2,000,000 – 3,500,000
Decentralised wastewater treatment solutions

(DEWATS):
may utilise anaerobic digestion processes, bio-
digesters and/or planted gravel filters to further
remove pollutants or pathogens (See below).
TSh 3,000,000 – 6,000,000
Figure 7-9. On-site and Decentralized Sanitation Solutions (BORDA).

Starting from the above cost ranges, two curves explaining the cost variation for larger
population have been derived using the power regression model, which is based on the
following equations:
Cost of local/decentralized treatment systems

Septic Tanks DEWATS
400
350
y = 210.74x 0.0523
300 y = 119.82x0.0997
US$
250
200
150
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Served Population
Table 7-5: Parametric Costs of On-Site/Decentralized Sanitation Systems
According to the above parameters, the following number of different systems have been
assessed for each Municipal:
Districit Population Pit Latrines DEWATS Septic Tanks

@2016 (Nr) (Nr) (Nr)
Ilala 178,980 35,796 4,094 13,804
Ilala-Temeke 12,682 2,536 - 1,268
Kigamboni 32,928 6,586 2,680 612
Kinondoni 53,946 10,789 142 5,253
Temeke 142,406 28,481 322 13,919
Ubungo 115,611 23,122 1,177 10,384
Grand Total 536,553 107,311 8,415 45,241
Table 7-6: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Proposed Solutions

8 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN

INTEGRATED WATER SERVICES
Large centralized systems cannot cope with the scale of change in the short term. They are
made up of pipes that are expensive and quickly obsolete, with a life span of perhaps 50 years,
representing capital sunk into the ground. This kind of infrastructure does not evolve or adapt
as quickly as cities do. It does not hold the same resilience (either technical or financial) as
the city. The contemporary African city relies mostly on household-level systems – on-
site sanitation solutions, and water purchased or collected outside the centralized
network – that are more resilient and apt to change with the city. Urban growth, mostly
uncontrolled, along with the terrific pace of population growth in postcolonial cities and their
different economic and governance conditions, create a new terrain for the implementation of
water and sanitation services.
The city appears to be an archipelago of different, mostly unconnected areas, mainly allied
with informal or local networks that strengthen the bonds within communities but not the
connection to the city.
A major issue holding back the laying of pipes and sewers in the contemporary African city is
the extent of field-specific conditions. Although it is necessary to hold a vision and strategy for
the city, there is an urgent need to plan water and sanitation schemes at the Municipal level.
A possible solution is to consider the different types of settlements and implement different
water and sanitation systems that can best match a number of variables, i.e. distance from
main pipes, position in relation to the city, possible development of the area, orography, and
distance from streams and rivers.

8.1 Review of Institutional arrangements in Water and Wastewater Services
30
From 1997 to 2003, the Government of Tanzania was involved in protracted negotiations
with international water companies and donor agencies that culminated in an agreement to
lease Dar es Salaam’s water supply infrastructure from the state-owned Dar es Salaam Water
and Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) to City Water Services Ltd. (CWS), a joint venture
between British, German and Tanzanian companies. The lease contract was part of the
$164.6 million Dar es Salaam Water and Sanitation Services Project (DWSSP), financed
mainly with loans from the World Bank (WB), the African Development Bank and the European
Investment Bank. Though CWS was awarded a ten-year contract beginning in August 2003,
its lease was abruptly terminated by the government less than two years later. It was replaced
with the newly formed Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Corporation (DAWASCO), a
publicly owned company holding an almost identical lease with DAWASA.
Since that time DAWASCO has managed to extend coverage and improve critical aspects of
water service delivery in Dar es Salaam, proving that public water services can be managed
well by the state, and can outperform the private sector in many ways. Nevertheless, overall
results are mixed, as DAWASCO has also begun to operate increasingly like a private
company, focusing on full cost recovery and failing to meet its obligations in the lowest income
areas of the city. To be fair, the daunting challenges faced by DAWASCO since re-
municipalisation are part of the problem: derelict infrastructure, unreliable customer data,
degraded water resources, and strict but not necessarily relevant conditionalities imposed by
international donors to access investment funds.
DAWASCO explained its difficulty in raising revenue by the fact that some public institutions
are not paying their water bills (notably the army) and that, in general, many unsatisfied
customers feel they should not pay for a poor quality service, they do not trust the metering,
or simply cannot afford the service. Revenue collection has grown since DAWASCO started
operations, but it has not kept pace with peak operational expenses, particularly those related
to rising energy costs that make up as much as 25% of the utility’s operational costs. Poor
30
Excerpt from: “Remunicipalisation: putting water back into public hands” – Remunicipalising water systems in
Dar es Salaam pp 40-57

maintenance of the network and long-distance transfers force DAWASCO to use considerable
quantities of energy to pump the water into the city. Import of chemicals (e.g. algaefloc) also
represents a substantial cost.
The deteriorating infrastructure has to be upgraded and expanded; free-riding kept in

check; legal cases processed; the workforce re-skilled; utility customer relations
restored; and bills paid.
The infrastructure will take time to rebuild and expand. There will need to be transitional
subsidies. The splitting of the asset-holding authority and the operator is a positive step in
separating the interests of the two entities. The operator’s business model will need to be
subsidised in the medium-term while the asset holder rehabilitates and expands the
infrastructure, and the asset holder will need more money to expand both source and
network. The existing loans are only enough to rehabilitate the core of the city’s
network.
The reforms required are complex and multi-sectoral. Reform needs to be in iterative steps,
needs to be coordinated and sequenced with complementary governance reforms, reviewed
continuously and steered by public feedback.
The merging of DAWASA and DAWASCO
Urban Water Authorities were established in Tanzania in the 1990s, and DAWASA,
established in 1997, incorporated the sewerage department for the first time, thus becoming
responsible not only for the water provision system, but also for water discharge. In 2003, a
failed attempt at privatization resulted in the splitting of the function between infrastructure and
service provision. DAWASCO, a state-controlled company, was established in 2005 in order
to carry on the operations and service provision. The separation of the competencies between
provider and operator has come, de facto, from a failure of privatization. Moreover, planning
activities remain a shared and often overlapping responsibility between the central
government and local planning authorities, while water authorities are still struggling to plan
for long-term conditions in terms of responsibilities, capacity building and identity. 31
31Reworking the relation between sanitation and the city in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Environment and Urbanization. Maria
Chiara Pastore, 2015

As a result, the two institutions (DAWASA and DAWASCO) have recently mereged (2018) in
a single water body in the name of DAWASA. The merging has aimed at improving efficiency
and reducing operational costs so as to increase supply of safe and clean water and control
outbreaks of waterborne diseases.
8.1.1 Proposed Improvements in the service
Consolidate, align and rationalize institutional structure and mandates
Further consolidation and/or realignment of mandates, roles and functions of the agencies is
needed – first within each level of government, and also vertically across the levels. (For
example, the roles and responsibilities need to be clarified between: (i) Vice President Office
(VPO) Division of Environment and NEMC; (ii) EWURA and MoW; (iii) DCC, the Regional
Secretariat and PMO-RALG in terms of coordinating the Dar es Salaam local districts; and (iv)
local governments and service providers such as DAWASCO.) Further, the regulatory roles of
various entities need to be rationalized in accordance with hierarchical functions.
For example, the local authority, DLAs, should carry out the day-to-day functions and be the
first line of initiation and response, while central-level ministries should largely serve regulatory
and policy-setting roles and provide back-stopping support, rather than detailed approval
functions at the local level (such as planning approvals of individual parcels for land use
changes). It is imperative to clarify institutional roles, functions and mandates to empower the
various agencies with the necessary authority and power to plan, implement and enforce their
regulatory functions. Enabling this may require amendment of existing laws or a commitment
to enforce them and establishing new ones.32
Planning water and sanitation schemes at Municipal level may need to change policy (laws).
As per the DAWASA Act No. 20 of 2001 and Water Supply and Sanitation Act No. 12 of 2009,
water supply and sewerage is under the jurisdiction of the Utilities. The interim arrangement
could be to have a Technical Working Group (TWG) which shall have representatives water
32 . Promoting Green Urban Development in African Cities DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA Urban Environmental
Profile

experts from RS, DDC, MC and DAWASA. The purpose of the TWG is to meet regularly and
discuss plans, implementation of projects and exchange of information on water/sewerage
issues as they arise. A Memorandum of Understanding shall be prepared for accountability.
Change in government management
One of the most pressing issues in improving water and sanitation is the need for accountable,
effective local government. This is critical to guaranteeing a long-term strategy for the
provision and discharge of water. CBOs or NGOs can promote primary access, stormwater
drainage and small sewerage at the neighbourhood level within the short term, but there is a
need for the responsible regional authorities to work on the strategic water development of the
city, in combination with planners, while local governments can work at the municipal level
and implement solutions in accordance with specific field conditions.
Financial management at Municipal level
In the same way, the financial aspects and laying of pipes require specific studies and easier
paths for implementation, and typically the central government acts as a bottleneck both in
funding and realizing new systems and in maintaining and renovating old ones. The different
projects, needs, priorities and activities can be monitored with mapping systems and should
be monitored at the Municipal level and then transferred to the metropolitan level for strategic
coordination. The Municipal level should include settlement information, including information
about the different utilities and the areas being prioritized by different programmes. This
system could enhance coordination among the different institutions and allow synergies
among the various programmes.
Baseline infrastructures assessment
In the last decade the DAWASA/DAWASCO institutions have had to work on the consolidation
of skills and on building knowledge, data collections and databases through which to
implement new policies, priorities and technical works – not just on building physical
infrastructure. When evaluating and analysing the water and sanitation sector, in order to
choose the proper service, it is therefore necessary to consider how much has to happen in

these regards over relatively brief periods, and to take account of the different starting
conditions that determine the current situation.
It is possible to engage communities to deliver more specific data that, through proper
management, can provide useful information on water and sanitation issues (higher prices at
water kiosks, malfunction of services, low water delivery by pipes). The various NGOs and
CBOs, typically knowledge carriers in specific areas, can support these initiatives and function
as intermediaries between the municipal level and citizens.
8.2 Institutional arrangements in Faecal Sludge Management
A review of lessons learned from the city-specific case studies and analysis, has highlighted
the following key areas which need to be addressed if the non-networked sanitation services
are to be effectively managed. 33
1. Faecal sludge management (FSM) must be included in national policy and legislation
On-site sanitation is often the only sanitation option for poor households, and may
account for the majority of all sanitation, in many middle income and poor countries.
However, the construction and servicing of on-site facilities is typically left to the
unregulated informal sector. There can even be legal barriers to developing on-site
sanitation, although integrated urban water management may identify the provision of
clean piped water, with systematic FSM, as a cheaper, more effective solution than
city-wide sewerage access. The formal recognition and regulation of on-site sanitation
and FSM is therefore critical.
National policy and legislation recognizing FSM as an essential part of urban sanitation
is necessary to include FSM in planning and budgeting processes. When this is
coupled with funding windows and reporting mechanisms, it can play an important part
in achieving effective services at scale.
33 Five Lessons to Manage Fecal Sludge Better, July 2016. The Water Blog, by Peter Hawkins (World Bank’s
blog team). http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/5-lessons-manage-fecal-sludge-better

2. City-level planning is fundamental
Cities vary widely, even within a country or province, so a systematic assessment of

city sanitation is essential. The sanitation planning process within each city must be
comprehensive, inclusive of the poorest communities and gender sensitive, and
demonstrate where and how the sanitation service chain is failing. Failure to do this
will leave the city wide open to public health risks.
Based on a systematic assessment, service targets, city-wide investment plans and

viable service funding arrangements for FSM should be included alongside sewerage
in city development plans. To maximize public health benefits, public resources should
be distributed equitably between networked and non-networked sanitation, which may
mean for FSM, subsidizing different parts of the sanitation service chain than for
sewerage, where the focus is usually on infrastructure for conveyance (sewers) and
treatment.
3. Define local institutional, regulatory, legal and financial arrangements
There is no ‘one model fits all’, but the utility, together with the private sector, may be
best placed to manage FSM services where there is widespread piped water supply.
Where local government has responsibility for FSM, the municipality may be a service
provider, also providing capacity to deal with public emergencies and sending price
signals to the market through a limited service for paying customers.
Clear local byelaws or ordinances which oblige both households and service providers
to play their part in delivering effective sanitation are a necessary underpinning of the
institutional responsibilities for FSM. Regulations need not be complex to start with,
especially when transitioning from informal services.
To ensure that services are being provided effectively, FSM must be monitored end-
to-end, with the key outcome being that people do not and cannot interact with fecal
sludge. Because this is hard to measure, a useful proxy indicator is the proportion of
fecal sludge discharged to a safe treatment or disposal facility.
4. Successful faecal sludge management depends on partnerships

The household end of non-networked sanitation services is dominated by private

stakeholders. As settlements age and densify, on-site facilities change from simple
latrines (abandoned when full) to more permanent units. In parallel, improved water
supplies lead to the adoption of manual or cistern flush toilets which are cheaper to
empty than to rebuild, as seen, for example, in Maputo. This has a profound effect on
the demand for FSM services, and creates an opportunity for the promotion and supply
of easily emptiable toilets, possibly linked with micro-credit.
Emptying services are provided mainly by small private and informal enterprises. To
ensure hygienic and affordable services, technical and entrepreneurial training, access
to capital, and development of an effective regulatory regime is necessary.
5. Plan for incremental change
Cities are growing fast, with new informal opening up and older areas densifying or
being redeveloped. There will thus always be a mix of settlement types, each with
appropriate sanitation options, and changing over time. The responsible authorities
need continuously identify and plan the type and location of interventions to optimize
public health and environmental outcomes. This will mean an on-going program of
investment in non-networked, decentralized and fully networked sanitation on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
8.2.1 Strategy of FSM in Dar es Salaam
Currently in Kigamboni there is no communal (centralized) sewage treatment plant for

treatment and disposal of wastewater generated in the area. The majority of households in
Kigamboni are using on-site sanitation facilities such as pit latrines, which need regular
emptying, treatment and final disposal of the treated water.
In 2012, the German organization called Bremen Overseas Research and Development
Association (BORDA) began construction of a faecal sludge treatment plant (FSTP) in
Kigamboni.
More recently:
• BORDA prepared a draft Guidelines for DEWATS (2018).

• The Bureau for Industrial Cooperation (BICO, University of Dar es Salaam; Tanzania)
prepared a Feasibility Study for Septic Tank Sewerage Treatment Facilities in Areas
with no Sewer and with Poor Sanitation in Dar es Salaam (2017).
The DSDP has reviewed the above reports and has based the technical solutions and strategy
accordingly.
The DSDP short-term strategy foresees the realization of DEWATS, Pit latrines and Septic
Tanks in all the informal settlements. On the medium and long-term the solution is centered
on the waterborne sewage system by the time that the DAWASA’ sanitation plan phases will
be implemented and the new Urban Master Plan will be finally approved and executed.
The provided facilities of the short-term plan (DEWATS, septic tanks) will be disconnected and
all the households easily connected to the future sewerage network.

9 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
9.1 Major Problems in Drainage System Management
Urban conditions exacerbate drainage problems; runoff is increased by impermeable urban

surfaces and, due to inadequate development control mechanisms and their incompetent
enforcement, settlements are constructed with little consideration for stormwater drainage.
The poor are disproportionately affected; they often reside in informal settlements located on
marginal land – low-lying land, riverbanks, floodplains and steep hillsides – that the formal
housing market does not want or need. Although these sites are vulnerable to the impacts of
flooding, the benefits of living nearer sources of employment and urban services generally
outweigh the disadvantages associated with flooding, which is generally perceived as a natural
and seasonal event (34).
The following listed factors are directly linked to stormwater management (35)
• Lack of knowledge. Although clearly identified as a major issue in times of flooding,

the agencies responsible often lack the knowledge and tools required to deal with
stormwater management. In many African countries, rainfall data is frequently lacking,
obsolete or inaccessible. Furthermore, the quality of any data that is available is
compromised by a lack of reliable measuring equipment or data collection tools.
34
Drainage and stormwater management strategies for low-income urban communities. Jonathan Parkinson.
Environment & Urbanization Vol 15 No 2 October 2003.
35
Urban stormwater management in developing countries. Christophe Le Jallé; Denis Désille; Gilles Burkhardt.
NOVATECH 2013.

Developing countries often make use of the approaches implemented in developed

countries during the 20th century: their aim is to evacuate the water from the city as
quickly as possible, rather than endeavor to store and reuse it. Alternative and
additional measures (storage /infiltration/delayed surface runoff) remain relatively
unknown and rarely used in developing countries.
• Lack of coordination between sector stakeholders. The large number of actors involved
in stormwater management (ministries of urban planning, the environment,
municipalities, operators in charge of sanitation, etc.) renders management and
coordination of the sector difficult. There is currently no specific stormwater
management sector within the public authorities: stormwater management is rarely
dealt with by a dedicated department, but responsibility for its design, planning and
financing is instead usually dispersed among the different development, road or
sanitation departments. As there is no clear legal and institutional segmentation,
stormwater management does not strictly constitute a sector.
• Missed stormwater management decentralisation. As part of a decentralisation
process, the management responsibility for different services is progressively
transferred to local authorities. However, responsibilities for stormwater management
lack clarity and the allocation of financial responsibilities between the state and local
authorities is not properly defined.
• Poor alignment of planning to local capacities. Stormwater management master plans
have been developed for a number of cities. However, the majority of these have been
poorly (or never) implemented. The main reason for this being that the investment
capacities of local and national governments rendered the cost of technical
recommendations prohibitive.
• Failure to take the populations’ expectations into account. Although stormwater
management is considered a priority by the populations of the majority of African towns
and cities, this issue is not always prioritised by the public authorities.
• Limited local capacities for financing investment. Most technical solutions developed
to address stormwater management issues require costly civil engineering
infrastructure. The investment costs involved commonly exceed local authorities’
investment capacities. The low investment capacity of these local authorities is unlikely
to change significantly over the next few years.
• Limited capacities for financing operation. Operating even the simplest form of
stormwater drainage system (cleaning out the drainage channels before the rainy

season) is extremely labour-intensive. As such, it is also a costly activity and one that
local authorities struggle to finance.
• Failure to comply with best construction practice. Failure to comply with equipment
design and construction standards increases both the risk of flooding downstream
(poor evacuation) and flood damage.
9.2 Review of Institutional Measures for Drainage System Management
Here follows a collection of best practices and policies adopted for drainage systems’
management. The City and Municipal Councils should establish bylaws and/or circulars to
promote as many institutional measures as possible.
9.2.1 Formal service providers
Service provision in informal settlements is often constrained by the fact that informal
settlements do not meet formal planning regulations and in many cases are illegal. But
irrespective of legal constraints, which need to be overcome before official providers engage
with service provision in these settlements, the agencies responsible for the provision of urban
drainage infrastructure often lack resources to respond effectively to the scale of drainage and
flooding problems in towns in general and informal areas in particular.
In Kariakoo, for example, the stormwater drainage system has been installed by a combination
of actors. Some of the ditches are actually dug and connected by the Municipality; others are
dug by private investors for the benefit of individual buildings; and some areas have no
drainage facility. The situation mirrors the condition of the road system, which has tarmac in
some areas, while big portions remain unpaved.
9.2.2 Operation and maintenance
All drainage systems, irrespective of their design and construction, require attention to O&M ,
but some require more attention than others. This will depend on the quantity and types of

solid waste in the drainage system, combined with climatic factors that affect the duration of
the wet season and the accumulation of sediment (36).
O&M strategies for urban drainage systems in developing countries are very different from
those in developed countries due to cheaper labour costs. The strategy adopted will also
depend on the type of drainage system itself. The majority of urban drainage systems are
designed as gravity flow systems and therefore require little in the way of regular operational
activities compared with other urban infrastructure and services. However, those that rely on
pumping or operation of sluice gates will require more attention to the operation of the
equipment in order to ensure that the drainage system functions. Also, in general, separate
surface drains are easier to maintain and clean than combined systems, but it is
generally cheaper and easier to implement a maintenance programme for single
combined systems. Making a distinction between O&M activities can prove to be difficult, but
in general operation deals with the running of a service on a daily basis, whereas maintenance
deals with the less frequent activities that are necessary to keep the system in proper working
condition.
By the nature of the drainage system, the need for O&M tends to occur during the wet season
– which is not the best time to carry out these activities, except where the system needs
emergency repairs. Although municipal agencies often make an attempt to clean and improve
the operation of the system prior to the onset of the wet season, this tends to be only a partial
response to the scale of the problem. Due to the fact that maintenance strategies are not
required for everyday operations, they are often not planned or implemented effectively. The
practice most commonly adopted by municipal agencies responsible for management of
drainage infrastructure is to clean the drains before the rainy season. It may therefore be
beneficial to adopt maintenance strategies that remove the waste from the drains more
frequently throughout the year rather than a major operation once per year, which requires
significant resources in both human and financial terms.
The successful construction of a drainage system in a neighbourhood does not guarantee a

successful drainage project. Users need to be aware of operation and maintenance
36
Approaches towards urban drainage planning and design for informal settlements in developing countries.
Jonathan Parkinson, Kevin Tayler, Ole Mark. Urban Water 2006

requirements at the neighbourhood level.(37) Often, one of the best solutions for maintenance
is for community members to be responsible for the management of the drainage system, as
the regular inspection and cleaning of drains is an important task that can be performed
without specialized skills.(38) An enhanced management role for user communities is a
way of increasing cost-effectiveness, improving reliability and ensuring sustainability,
by placing a larger share of the responsibility in the hands of the users themselves.(39)
However, the organization of community members who are ultimately responsible for actually
carrying out the cleaning of the drains can be problematic.
This can be achieved most effectively by establishing a special drainage committee in

the neighbourhood, or by adding drainage to the list of responsibilities of an already
active community committee established for the management of other forms for
environmental services (such as water supply and solid waste collection and disposal).
In many situations, it may be more appropriate to contract the services of a member of
the local community to be responsible for drain cleaning. This person may be
contracted by a management committee, which collects a small fee from community
members to pay for the cleaning services. This may overcome problems of reliance on the
active participation of all households in drain-cleaning activities, when some may perceive
these activities to be degrading or unnecessary – especially where they do not suffer from any
of the problems related to poor draining.
9.2.3 Solid waste management operations
Lack of coordination and integration between urban stormwater management activities and
other urban services can affect the sustainable and cost-efficient operation of urban drainage
systems. For example, solid waste frequently ends up in the stormwater drains, but refuse
collection services are generally not co-ordinated with drain cleaning activities. Integrated
management and coordination between the relevant agencies also provides greater
37
UNCHS (1986), “Community participation and low-cost drainage – a training module”, United Nations Centre for
Human Settlements, Nairobi, Kenya
38
Howard, G, C Bogh, G Goldstein, J Morgan, R Shaw and J Teuton (2002), Healthy Villages: a Guide for
Communities and Community Health Workers, WHO, Geneva.
39
Lammerink, M P and E Bolt (2002), “Supporting community management – a manual for training in community
management in the water and sanitation sector”, Occasional Paper Series OP 34 E IRC, International Water and
Sanitation Centre, Delft/Haarlem, the Netherlands.

opportunities for the control of pollution from illegal sewer connections. One of the most
important opportunities relates to scope to reduce solid waste in the drainage system, which
is particularly important as stormwater drainage systems are frequently blocked by refuse.
Many stormwater drains become fairly silted up although they probably would still function at
low-intensity rainfall. Drainage maintenance departments often lack the equipment to transport
solid waste material once it has been removed from the drain. Not only will the solid waste
department have the most appropriate equipment for collection and transportation, they will
also be able to co-ordinate and plan the collection of drain cleanings so that it does not remain
on the roadside after it has been removed from the drain. This is not only a more efficient use
of resources, but it also means that the waste is less likely to be washed back into the drain
at the onset of the next storm event. This is also particularly important from an environmental
health perspective as drain cleanings frequently contain pathogens and are a location for flies
to breed. Note : in south Asia, drain cleaning is normally undertaken by the same organisation
that is responsible for garbage disposal.
9.2.4 Community-based initiatives
Due to the lack of intervention from local government, attempts to improve drainage are often
made by local residents and elected representatives. Such local initiatives can only work if
discharge to a local drain or drainage channel is possible. Depending on the leadership and
social cohesion, some community-based organizations are more successful in
encouraging collective action but assistance from a NGO is often needed to help these
initiatives. However, these are often piecemeal approaches and drainage constructions are
often disadvantaged by the lack of a secondary network with the capacity to accept increased
flows.
Together, the CBO and NGO established a solid waste collection community micro-
enterprise in order to ensure that the drainage system does not get blocked. While not
fully self-sustaining, the program is an excellent example of harnessing the energy of
communities to help themselves. But ironically, the more affluent communities in the other
parts of Santo Domingo do not have to pay any fees for municipal solid waste management,
which highlights the need to address socioeconomic and political inequalities as well as those
related to infrastructure and services. (Source: Chavez 2002).
There are numerous examples of slum upgrading projects which incorporate stormwater
drainage as a component. Informal settlement upgrading cannot be achieved without the

participation of the beneficiary communities, especially where peoples’ lives will be

disrupted by removal, relocation and partial demolition of their homes. These are
complex operations requiring technical skill, ingenuity and patience, but this sort of consensus
and collaboration is essential for successful implementation and can only be achieved through
participation.(40) Among the many potential roles for community members in the
implementation of urban drainage projects is direct employment in construction
activities, in order to reduce the total cost. This may also stimulate local enterprise
initiatives, training and the development of skills. Alternatively, where private contractors
are employed to undertake the physical works, community members may be involved with the
monitoring of the quality of the construction.
A review of the literature indicates that there are a considerable number of alternative
approaches to stormwater management that are appropriate for low-income communities in
informal settlements. Although engineered components of drainage infrastructure
remain an integral part of strategies to improve drainage, a broader view of stormwater
management is required which incorporates non-structural, as well as structural,
elements. However, these non-structural approaches are not panaceas and there are a
number of constraints, briefly outlined below, that will affect successful implementation.
• Public utilities or water companies may have the responsibility for sewerage, whereas
road drainage is often the responsibility of the highways authority, and receiving waters
may be the responsibility of the local authority or environmental agency. Responsibility
for solid waste management is virtually always the responsibility of another department
in the municipality. Also, hydrological systems are not constrained by administrative
boundaries, and effective drainage area planning requires careful coordination
between the relevant institutions responsible for urban drainage in different areas.
Therefore, the overall planning framework needs to be considered in relation to land
use in urban and peri-urban areas and, in particular, those communities who inhabit
this land.
• The design and implementation of disaster mitigation at the local level, such as that
associated with flooding, is a complex task for urban authorities, particularly as they
40
Imparato, I and J Ruster (2003), “Slum upgrading and participation”, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

have to cope with a wide diversity of stakeholders, which may be especially

heterogeneous in the urban communities.(41) These stakeholders have different
perceptions and relationships to natural hazards, a reflection of different
socioeconomic and sociopsychological backgrounds. The involvement of a diverse
stakeholders’ groups can cause many problems and disputes. Participatory
approaches can take considerable time and, therefore, may not satisfy the demands
for immediate investments in infrastructure, which is envisaged as necessary to bring
about improvements. Non-structural approaches to stormwater management can
work well, provided the municipal authorities are receptive to the involvement of
community groups in project implementation. Collaboration between
government agencies and non-governmental organizations, in conjunction with
communities, is essential but often challenging.
Many of these constraints may be overcome if there is a political and institutional commitment
to overcoming problems and, specifically, a consideration of and concern with the needs of
the urban poor.
9.2.5 The Declaration of Hazardous Land
Hazard is conceived as a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity,

which may cause the loss of life or injury, property-damage, social and economic disruption
or environmental degradation to the extent of leading to a disaster. Flooding, fire outbreak,
cholera strike, tuberculosis (TB) outbreak, landslide, hurricane, thunderstorm, earthquakes to
mention but a few, are good examples of potential physical phenomena/events or human
activity, which may cause such events. The potentiality of these physical phenomena/events
or man-made activities to cause negative impacts is what makes them qualify as being
regarded as hazards.
A hazard, therefore, refers to any natural or human-made phenomenon/event that when

exposed to vulnerable elements may cause loss of life or damage to property and environment
(AUNEPAD et al., 2004).
41
Affeltranger, B (2001), “Public participation in the design of local strategies for flood mitigation and control”,
Technical Documents in Hydrology No 48, International Hydrological Programme, UNESCO, Paris.

A disaster refers to a remarkable occurrence (phenomenon) in which a significant number of

people, properties and environments suffer severe damage, disrupting the livelihood system;
thus making the affected society/population unable to cope by using its own resources (AU-
NEPAD et al., 2004). Hazardous land, whose conceptualisation may include environmentally
fragile land, is land where a natural hazard exists. It includes flood plains and steep slopes; or
land subject to high levels of pollution. Flooding afflicts many urban households in the world,
but particularly so, in African cities. Douglas et al. (2008) identify four types of flooding that is:
1. localized flooding due to inadequate drainage;

2. flooding from small streams whose catchment area lie almost entirely within built up
areas;
3. flooding from major rivers on whose banks the major towns and cities are built;
4. coastal flooding from the sea, or from a combination of high tides and high river flows
from inland
The first two types are common in the city of Dar es Salaam even in central and high income
areas.
Among the many issues that the National Land Policy 1995 (NLP) addressed was hazardous
(as well as what was called: “sensitive”) land which was supposed to be protected (URT,
1995). Section 7.9 of the NLP talks of “Protection of Hazard Lands”, noting: There is increasing
encroachment on hazard lands for housing and other developments in towns. Such areas
including river valleys, areas of steep slopes, man grove swamps, marshlands are being
intensively developed. Apart from the dangers they pose to life and property, such
development contribute to land degradation, pollution and other forms of environmental
destruction. (p. 38)
The LA (Land Act 1999) makes it the duty of the Minister for Lands to declare any areas that
he deems to be hazardous. Section 7 of the LA lists types of land which can be considered to
be hazardous to include: mangrove swamps and coral reefs, wetlands and offshore
islands; land within sixty meters of a river bank, shoreline on an inland lake, beach or
coast; land on steep slopes and land “specified by the appropriate authority as land
which should not be developed on account of its fragile nature or of its environmental
significance”. The onus of declaring an area to be hazardous land therefore lies on the
Minister for Lands, on the advice of the Commissioner for Lands.

Besides prioritization of the declaration of hazardous land, the Ministry needs to require all
authorized offices on the various local authorities to identify, and demarcate such land to
enable the Minister to make the necessary declaration.
Tanzania Authorities have passed policy and legislation regulating and in some cases
prohibiting occupation of land that is considered to be hazardous which in many cases is
occupied by low income households, although, where such land is on high-value sites, it can
be occupied by high income households or put to commercial or industrial uses, as investors
spend huge sums on one form or other of reclamation.
The fact that deaths occur regularly, and the fact that we are aware of the potential damage
of climate change, mean that hazard land must be defined urgently in both rural and urban
areas, and steps taken to prevent its occupation (42).
9.2.6 The Disaster Management
There is an absence of skilled personnel in disaster management structure, lack of

accountability of government officials, poor coordination among the stakeholders at different
levels, and weak technical capacity to address Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). The lack of
accountability national wide and preparedness by the government officials, especially disaster
management department, poor coordination between inter-ministry levels and Tanzanian
Meteorological Agency are among the factors that contribute to floods turning into disaster in
Dar es Salaam. The department of disaster management and government in the lower rank
should be trained to mitigate disaster soon before they turn into disasters. Those livings in a
more risky areas have to be given early warning and be evacuated. Nevertheless, the central
government has to improve inter-ministerial coordination in mitigating floods and disasters
before they occur.
Urban planning practice in Tanzania has proceeded with little attention on incorporation of
disaster issues. Guidelines for the preparation of General Planning Schemes and Detailed
Schemes for New areas, Urban Renewal and Regularization hardly address issues pertinent
42
“Governance Deficits in Dealing with the Plight of Dwellers of Hazardous Land: The Case of the Msimbazi River
Valley in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania”. Joseph Mukasa Lusugga Kironde, Current Urban Studies, 2016, 4, 303-328.

to Disaster Risk Reduction. This shortcoming has to the larger extent contributed to the
accumulation of risks and occurrence of disasters in urban areas.
Examples for incorporating DRR concepts in the existing guidelines for preparing urban
planning scheme are presented in the following list:
Disaster Risk Reduction Action to be carried on within new Urban Planning

Influences
Administration Membership to the committees should include experts (focal point officers) in
disaster management.
Data Collection Collect necessary data on risk accumulation and disasters.
Data Analysis Hazard and risk assessment should be integrated in the analysis of physical and
non-physical data.
Plan Conceptualization Conceptualization of the plan should also focus on the extent to which the
concept mitigates disaster issues. Formulation of alternative concepts should
take into consideration disaster mitigation approaches.
Draft Plan Preparation One of the criteria for the selection of the alternative concept for detailed plan
preparation should take on board disaster mitigation measures. Identify projects
that address DRR.
Plan Approval Prior to approval and gazetting of the plan, the Minister should be satisfied that
the plan has adequately addressed DRR concepts.
Output of the Process In addition to conventional land use maps and plans the following maps should
be included:
• Hazard susceptibility maps
• Mitigation plans (graphics)
Form and content of the Introduce a chapter “hazard and risk assessment” as one of the contents of the
output Implementation plan. During implementation phase projects addressing DRR should be given
due attention.
Monitoring and Evaluation In monitoring the following DRR issues should be looked upon:
• Whether DRR mitigation plans are implemented
• Whether DRR strategies are still relevant
• Whether DRR strategies are creating the intended impacts
In response to the need of disaster management plans at different levels of coordination, UK

Aid, through a World Bank Trust Fund has initiated the Tanzania Urban Resilience Program
(TURP) with the objective of building and strengthening urban resilience to current climate
variability and future climate change in Tanzanias cities and towns. TURP is a multi-year
project with a projected end date of 2021.
A 2018 request of expression for interest has been issued by the WB, to develop Municipal
Disaster Response Plans, Community Disaster Response Plans, and Community Risk
Reduction Plans in flood affected areas of Dar es Salaam. These fit into existing frameworks
such as the Disaster Management Act of 2015, the Emergency Response Plan of the Dar es

Salaam Multi-Agency Emergency Response Team (DarMAERT), the Tanzania Emergency

Preparedness and Response Plan, and other local level initiatives.
Dar es Salaam’s city authorities launched the Emergency Response Plan in October 2017.
The Dar es Salaam Multi-Agency Emergency Response Team (DarMAERT) has recently
brought together emergency response stakeholders together to serve as the tactical branch
of a Regional Disaster Management Committee. The partnership is supported by the UK and
World Bank-funded Tanzania Urban Resilience Program (TURP), which recognizes the
importance of a strong emergency response network.
Prior to the DarMAERT partnership, only half the city was covered by an emergency
communication network. By adding three repeater stations, four radio base stations, six mobile
stations, 31 radio handsets, and six table phones—all procured on behalf of Dar es Salaam—
communications coverage has reached 100% of the metropolitan area.
9.2.7 The Hydraulic Invariance Concept
Under conditions of urbanization processes responsible for altering natural flow patterns in
terms of both runoff volumes and peaks, conventional storm water systems are pushed
beyond their drainage capacity and may lead to more frequent and intense floods. Spatial
planning associated to Urban Development Master Plans (UDMPs) and related actions
influences catchment hydrologic response in depth. Then, understanding potential effects of
urban development on storm water drainage asset modification is a crucial issue since early
design stages of UDMPs.
Hence cities should be redesigned to increase the amount of water which is detained,
evaporated and infiltrated near to where it falls. Specifically, several papers have stressed
the importance of hydrologic/hydraulic analysis as basic tool to supp ort city planners into
setup of sustainable urban development (43).
43
Hellmers, S., Manojlovic, G., Palmaricciotti, G., and Fröhle, P. (2013). Modelling Decentralised Systems for
Urban Drainage and Flood Mitigation, ICHE 2014, Hamburg - Lehfeldt & Kopmann (eds)

Figure 9-1. Change of runoff rates after the imperviousness rise.
Control of flow releases from sub-catchments has become a serious factor of concern and the
focus of several urban policies approaches in numerous countries. As storm water
management strategy, it involves a number of retention, infiltration, and runoff reduction
measures. In particular, regional water Agencies in Europe are increasingly promoting
directives addressed to the concept of “hydraulic invariance” (HI), namely the condition
for peak flow release from transformed areas to remain unvaried before and after land
transformation. The adoption of this concept requires to set appropriate
mitigation/compensatory measures at the catchment scale and to define criteria for allocation
of burdens due to excess storm-water runoff and water quality decay in urban areas (44). In
this regard, one way to proceed is to charge the developer with the responsibility for the
impacts due to the development (Extended Producer Responsibility - EPR principle).
9.2.8 Flood Resilient Architectural Principles
Design and policy of implementation concerns especially constructions in hazardous lands

with not high level of floodwater, because if levels are several meters the buildings with raised
living floors and toiles becomes more problematic. Existing buildings can be made more flood
resilient by strengthening the structure of the house, using materials that are resistant to
44 Parikh P., Taylor M.A., Hoagland T., Thurston H., and Shuster W. (2012). At the intersection of Hydrology,
Economics and Low: Application of Market Mechanisms and Incentives to Reduce Stormwater Runoff, in Economic
Incentives for Storm water Control, CRC Press

floodwater or protecting the house by external means. There are different measures that can
be applied, depending on the type and quality of house construction.
Some examples of flood resilient retrofitting are described below 45’:
a. Raising living floors. It can be elevated structure on strong pylons or stilts so lower
level of a house is open to floodwater, letting the flow inside first floor without relevant
damages because it is used as garage or storage. Other method is to raise house on
a platform, which has to be made not from mud, but concrete or brick to reduce the
chances of floodwater entering the house. However, it must be remembered that such
buildings can still flood if the level of water exceeds the elevation level.
b. Houses in flood risk areas may have to resist not only high water flow velocities but
also strong winds. In this term, strengthening of the corner posts and roofs is a
solution. It can be made by using wires and other materials to tie joints.
c. Provision of erosion protection around buildings by planting vegetation, using
sandbags or rocks, constructing earth embankments.
Lack of appropriate sanitation facilities in flood-prone areas is also one of the important aspect
to be controlled as soon as it is contributing factor for health and environmental degradation.
Overflow of pit latrines during floods poses a high health risk. “The major problems of
sanitation in flood-prone areas are surface water contamination and loss of
accessibility to the latrine during floods. One method that can be used is to raise the
latrine” (24).
Awareness and knowledge about resilient architectural principles have to be developed by

local communities through educational programs. An external help including advice, material
and general assistance is needed during the implementation.
9.3 Proposed Institutional Measures for Drainage System Management
The City and Municipal Councils should establish bylaws and/or circulars to promote
institutional measures regulated by bylaws and included as a condition in building permits.
45 Source Book for Sustainable Flood Mitigation Strategies. D. Lumbroso 2005.

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/Output/175558

According to the previous collection of best practices and policies adopted for drainage
systems’ management, the proposed institutional measures for the DSDP can be listed as
follows:
• Building codes . The purpose of this policy is to define precise building norms to favor
a general improvement of the quality of future development and existing constructions.
These building codes have particularly to response to the challenge of establishing
better norms in term of safety, water management and land organization. The concept
of “hydraulic invariance”, namely the condition for peak flow release from transformed
areas to remain unvaried before and after land transformation, should be introduced
into every urban development plan. The City/Municipal councils should also consider
establishing bylaws/circulars to promote the use of permeable pavements against the
solid paving blocks which creates massive runoff.
• Community-based workshops for housing upgrading (governmental assistance).
Considering that the participation to programs of housing upgrading (retrofitting) is
most operative when initiatives are taken at the neighborhood level, it is crucial to
develop community-based workshops to promote safer housing in unplanned areas.
These participatory workshops will have to search solutions in term of housing design
regarding aspirations of the low income populations. The government has to furnish
the necessary assistance including practical means, knowledge resources and
technical expertise about sustainable constructions.
• Building of affordable housing on safe land (urbanization of safe land). The increase
of unplanned settlements in floodplain in Dar es Salaam is mostly the result of the non-
affordable rents of planned area in safe land. The goal of this policy is to promote
construction of high density and affordable settlements on safe lands in order to allow
better condition of living for low income populations and to reduce the development of
unplanned settlements in hazardous land.
• Flood Early Warning Systems. Nowadays, flood forecasting and early warning systems
are the most effective non-structural procedures for flood management. Flood warning
systems help protect people’s lives and prevent property damages by providing
sufficient lead time for evacuations. For the prediction of flood inundation, surveyed
river survey cross sections are typically needed for the development of hydraulic
models. Therefore a well spread network of rain and rivers gauge stations it is needed
for the proper functioning of EWSs. Early warning systems (EWS) are an essential

component to CBDRM (Community-Based Disaster Risk Management). Early

warning systems provide communities with relevant, topical information on
environmental conditions so that communities can assess levels of risk and make
informed decisions to protect their safety. Furthermore most, if not all, of these EWS
are self-monitored by the villagers themselves, which empowers communities and
insures that the community itself is a key stakeholder in the EWS initiative.
• Address issues pertinent to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into Guidelines for the
preparation of General Planning Schemes and Detailed Schemes for New areas,
Urban Renewal and Regularization.
• Declaration of hazard land on flood-prone zone in both rural and urban areas, and
bylaw enforcement to prevent its occupation. The flood-prone zone should be defined
beyond the current threshold within 60 meters of the rivers banks (Land Act 1999) and
an inundation area of at least 50-year flood Return Period should be accounted for the
purpose.
• Temporal shelters inside existing public facilities. Legislation to establish status of safe
centers for temporal sheltering to public institutions such as schools and hospitals;
Access for emergency help, flood insurance, emergency kit, plan evacuation routes.
• Direct involvement of community members in the implementation of urban drainage
maintenance and construction activities, in order to reduce the total cost. This may
also stimulate local enterprise initiatives, training and the development of skills. The
solid waste management company should also be included in the operations of the
removal of solid wastes from the drainage channels.

10 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES IN SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT
10.1 Solid Waste Management
3) The amount of solid waste generated in Dar es Salaam city is 4,242 tons per day. This
amount is much higher than the amount of solid waste collected and disposed of in the Pugu
dumpsite. Generally, the solid waste management in Dar es Salaam is still a challenge. It has
been noted as the source of flooding which associate with the informal settlement.
4) The people leaving along the drainage channels have been using the channel as their
disposal points because of lack of proper way of management of the wastes. On the area along
Sinza River and Msimbazi river it was noticed that there was poor solid waste management due
to poor collection and storage of solid wastes which has been a source of flooding, water pollution
as well as eruption of communicable diseases such as malaria, typhoid and diarrhoea.
5) To increase the size and capacity of the presence drainage system in Dar es Salaam seems
more important thing toward the planning stage of the new drainage network. This should go hand
to hand with improving the solid waste management actions to prevent the impacts of
environmental pollutions and flooding events in Da es Salaam.
During rainfall the wastes from the unmanageable dump site area are carried to drainage
system by the storm water (run off). There is considerable potential for diverting materials from
final disposal either prior to entering the waste stream or from the waste management
systems.
The Government of Tanzania has been taking a number of initiatives in terms of formulation
of a number of policies and legislation at the central and local levels that are intended to
manage the environment in general and solid waste in particular (National Environmental
Action Plan (NEAP) 2013-2018 (2013).

Main challenges:
Rapid urbanization / population growth / informal settlements

Low public awareness and education level – lack of pilot projects
Extension of the waste collection coverage and the improvement of the current waste
collection service
Poor law enforcement to stop bad waste management practices such as open burning
or illegal dumping
Coordination of different government stakeholders and encouraging partnership with
private sector
Improving revenue from resource collection charges (RCCs)
Insufficient of financing
Improvement of current landfilling practices and availability of suitable land for final
disposal (e.g. high groundwater table)
Increase SWM budget through improved cost recovery and full-cost accounting
Creation of a SWM information system (data base)
Raising public awareness and participation through Information, Education and
Communication campaigns in order to increase waste segregation and material
recovery
Improve inter-LGA cooperation and stakeholder management (e.g. through the
establishment of a SWM working groups, consultative meetings)
Improving collection efficiency and reducing transport costs through the establishment
of transfer stations and improved monitoring and contract management
Improve law enforcement
Establishment of a pilot composting plant in Kinondoni Municipality (capacity: 20-50t/d)
Exploring feasibility of waste to energy options like anaerobic digestion of bio wastes,
refuse-derived fuel production, co-processing of plastic waste in cement kilns)
Upgrading Pugu Kinyamwezi Dump (fence, allweather-road, drainage system,
composting area)
Site selection and construction of a sanitary landfill
Improve hazardous waste management
With the reference from initial report of the proposes DMDP report, solid waste transfer station
is typically a location where certain types of waste can be temporarily stored, between being
dropped off by domestic waste collection vehicles and being transported by larger vehicles for

subsequent treatment or ultimate disposal. This helps in solid waste management and
prevents solid waste disposing of into open drainage networks and open areas as well in
unplanned areas
Figure 10-1. Locational Analysis of the Proposed Transfer Stations, (source: initial DMDP draft report)
For better way of preventing waste disposal in the open channels and other water ways, the
following are the proposals to be done in transfer station location.
• The collection service shall be extended to the fast growing unplanned settlements
• The proposed systems need to be flexible to suit different local situations;
• A very cost effort and sensitive activity in solid waste management systems is the
loading and transportation of waste to the final destination, for example, landfill’
• The first phase of the proposed upgrade, the transfer of waste should be based on a
roll-on/roll-off system;
• The waste Collection Points should gradually be equipped with such containers

• The waste delivered to these Collection Points is directly placed into the containers
• The storage capacity of the containers [40 m3] will allow sufficient holding capacity
allow the transfer to occur during non-peak hours;
• The filled container(s) will be replaced by empty containers at the same visit of the
transfer truck; and
• Any transfer truck will serve for any number of Collection Points
If all the above proposals will be taken into considerations in many parts of city the problems
of improper solid waste management will be reduced in great percentage, no drain will be
accumulated with many other solid wastes. There are some areas which are suggested as the
transfer stations for solid wastes before transported to the main dump site. These are
Kunduchi, Sukita, Tazara and Kigamboni.
To increase the effectiveness of solid waste management and secure the drainage systems
from SW problems the following potential sites were identified and investigated in various
areas in the municipalities. These areas are Kigogo Old Dampo at Kinondoni Municipality,
Kurasini Mivinjeni at Temeke Municipality, Kunduchi Quarry at Kinondoni Municipality,
Jangwani at Ilala Municipality, Kidongo Chekundu at Ilala Municipality, Tazara Mchicha at Ilala
Municipality, Ilala Municipality Council office at Ilala Municipality, and Kinondoni Municipal
Council Transport office at Kinondoni Municipality.
In dealing with the problems of solid waste in Dar es Salaam, the new urban master plan
proposes a number of sanitary landfills in each of the five municipalities in the city except for
Temeke, which is anticipated to share a landfill with Kigamboni.
1. Kigamboni and Temeke Municipalities: The plan proposes a sanitary landfill in

Kisarawe II ward in Lingato subward to be developed as previously proposed by
Temeke `municipal Council and currently (2012) it is at the stage of Feasibility Study
for its completion. This project covers 500 acres of land.
2. Ilala Municipality: The plan proposes effective upgrading of the existing Pugu dumpsite
to a sustainable sanitary landfill. Location of the site is in Pugu Ward, Pugu Kinyamwezi
locality.

3. Ubungo Municipality: The plan proposes a new sanitary landfill at Kisopwa near the
Mlonganzila University
4. Kinondoni Municipality: The plan proposes a new sanitary landfill in Mabwepande ward
near Mpiji River. This had been proposed at the time of plan preparation (2012). The
implementation will integrate the Sanitary Landfill with a Compost Processing Plant.
10.2 Proposed Institutional Measures in SWM
Main reasons for inadequate solid waste collection, transportation and disposal are; absence
of environmentally reliable disposal sites, poor existing infrastructure of waste collection as
well as lack of organized intermediate treatment and recycling activities. Informal settlement
has also been one of the most challenges for the solid waste management in the city.
Moreover, informal sector involvement and low willingness of community to pay for the service
the situation has contributed much in poor solid waste management.
To make every channel free from obstruction and reduce the solid waste accumulation, strong
political will is needed to enforce the environmental regulations and bylaws. Many areas in
solid waste management can be changed to better, without a huge investment. Solid waste
collection service in all wards should be given the first priority. There is a high need of
motivation and the will for changes. Proper bylaws enforcement, community health education
and raising awareness on environmental cleaning will make the greater changes in citywide
cleaning situation.
To provide an adequate Storm Water Drainage there are some types of possible solutions,
such as the enlargement and/ or lining of the existing open channels, the construction of new
open channels, the construction of concrete underground frames or pipes or a mixed of two
or more of the mentioned solutions.
To avoid the disposing of the solid wastes in the drainage channels several initiatives should
be taken into account. This is to decentralize service delivery and day-to-day solid waste
management responsibilities to the ward level of administration.
The following actions should be taken to enhance efficiency in managing solid waste at that
level:

i. Re-designing the solid waste management system in the city for most of them are
undersized
ii. Establish permanent waste collection points and transfer stations in all
municipalities in Dar es Salaam
iii. Encourage solid waste sorting at a source where waste should be placed in
labelled or color-coded waste-bins, by for example separating between
biodegradable materials, metal, glass, paper, plastic wastes.
iv. Timely removal of waste from the collection sites and transfer stations to dumpsites
to avoid spreading of wastes
v. Impose heavy fines and other penalties should be imposed on those who do not
comply with proper waste management guidelines that is; “Implementation of the
polluter pays principle”.
vi. Provide alternative means of solid waste collection and storage in unplanned areas
and for the street road sweepers, that is;” Using the standard half-ton pickup or
mini dumper truck-load”
vii. Establish, develop appropriate sanitation systems that operate properly, are well
maintained and regularly monitored to ensure that the waste management services
are available throughout the city at satisfactory levels;
viii. Ensure that waste recovery, recycling and reusing activities are established,
formalized and rationalized and the idea is well informed to the community
“Promoting entrepreneurship and creating markets for recyclables and compost”
ix. Energy recovery from solid waste like pyrolysis which can be used to fire a boiler
and generate electricity and steam. The by-product from pyrolysis like carbon rich
char which is produced can be used a soil developer.
x. Undertake environmental education and public awareness at all levels of the
society about the proper waste handling and general cleanness of the city
“Organize and conduct public awareness campaigns”
xi. Engage NGOs, CBOs and the private sector in the delivery of waste management
services and enforcement of relevant laws and bye-laws;
xii. Undertake investment in the development of waste management infrastructure,
establish sanitary landfill, acquire adequate and appropriate equipment and refuse
collection trucks; “Ensuring financial sustainability”
xiii. Design and implement sustainable beach management programs including
beach cleaning

xiv. Covering the drainage channels along the roads with the concrete lids to prevent
solid wastes entering the channel

11 COST ESTIMATE OF THE PROPOSED

MEASURES
11.1 Cost Estimate Outcomes
The cost estimate report has been prepared for the drainage & sanitation development plan
(dsdp) for Dar es salaam for period 2018-2035 under the DMDP project.
This report sets out the basis of the capital, operations and maintenance costs.
The costs presented in this report refer to the year 2015 (DMDP). Therefore, a 15% of cost
actualization up to the year 2018 has been applied in order to consider the annual average
inflation rate of Tanzania according to the Central Bank of Tanzania.
Overall price contingency of around 10% is associated with the works (pre-feasibility projects).
This cost estimate has been divided in two separate components:
• Costs for long-term conventional provision of stormwater drainage, sewerage and

centralized sanitation systems
• Costs for short-term provision in informal settlements of stormwater drainage systems
(trench drains and ditches reshaping), septic tanks and de-centralized sanitation
systems (septic tanks, pit latrines and DEWATS).
The need to separate the cost estimate in the above two parts stems from the different pace
that is necessary to give to the most flood/health affected areas (the informal settlements).
Therefore, the Client will be able to implement separately the phases for the conventional and
non conventional (light structural or non structural) solutions in DSM.
All of the DMDP Component 1b’ proposed interventions (included those currently on
tender stage for construction – November 2018) have been included in the drainage

construction costs. Their construction costs have been updated with an inflation rate
of 15%, counting for an overall amount of 67,390,000 US$.
11.2 Cost estimate basis
The cost estimate for the project is based on an estimation of quantities and definition of Unit
rates for aggregated items.
For the determination of the costs for all the work items, unit cost charts were used for each
work category for the civil works, sewerage treatment plants and pumping stations.
The cost function used were given by:
- “UNRP/ International Water Management Institute/Economic Evaluation of Waste

Water. The Cost of Action and the Cost of no Action” for STP
- “COWI-PROCESL DMDP/ Rural cost functions database/Feasible Rural Cost
Functions
- DMDP Component 1b (Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage)
Prices conversion has been made on the basis of the exchange selling rate of Bank of
Tanzania of 9 October 2018 for USD and Euros.
USD to TZS Euro to TZS
2,289.03 2,624.37
Table 11-1. Conversion Rates for Currencies
The rates in this chart include all costs of materials supply, transportation and storage,
installation testing and commissioning.
11.3 Cost Estimate Items and unit rates
List of Items and Unit Rates

Estimated costs for

ID Item Item Descriptions Type of work/Activities Unit
specified items (TZS)
DEMOLITION AND
1
SITE CLEARANCE
1.a General site clearance over the wayleave 3,127,585.54 ha
1.b Removal of trees, girth 0.5-1m 39,094.82 nr
1.c Removal of trees, girth 1-2m 65,158.03 nr
PIPE
2 CONCTRUTION
(per linear metre)
Break pavement; Excavation, Bedding; shoring;
Transport and laying; Sand bed, Backfill and
PVC DOUBLE
compaction; Pavement restoration, Final tests,
WALL
Surplus material to disposal; Material costs (PVC
CORRUGATE PIPE
double wall corrugate pipe, Socket and rubble
ring) & Pipe Laying (Laying & connection)
2.a Φ200mm
2.a.1 cover depth to 2.0m 113,343.34 m
2.a.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 119,875.28 m
2.a.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 121,443.14 m
2.b Φ250mm
2.b.1 cover depth to 2.0m 140,320.90 m
2.b.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 148,407.54 m
2.b.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 150,348.58 m
2.c Φ315mm
2.c.1 cover depth to 2.0m 173,194.99 m
2.c.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 183,176.16 m
2.c.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 185,571.94 m
2.d Φ400mm
2.d.1 cover depth to 2.0m 241,794.93 m
2.d.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 255,729.50 m
2.d.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 259,074.21 m
2.e Φ500mm
2.e.1 cover depth to 2.0m 357,685.66 m
2.e.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 378,298.97 m
2.e.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 383,246.78 m
2.f Φ630mm
2.f.1 cover depth to 2.0m 452,741.06 m
2.f.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 478,832.38 m
2.f.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 485,095.08 m
2.g Φ710mm
2.g.1 cover depth to 2.0m 551,494.97 m
2.g.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 583,277.44 m
2.g.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 590,906.19 m
2.h Φ800mm
2.h.1 cover depth to 2.0m 704,353.15 m
2.h.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 744,944.79 m
2.h.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 754,688.00 m

Estimated costs for

2.i Φ930mm
2.i.1 cover depth to 2.0m 891,537.62 m
2.i.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 942,916.65 m
2.i.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 955,249.14 m
2.l Φ1000mm
2.l.1 cover depth to 2.0m 1,091,103.08 m
2.l.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 1,153,982.99 m
2.l.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 1,169,076.05 m
Concrete pipe acquisition, Transport and laying;
CONCRETE PIPE
Sand bed, Backfill and compaction; Pavement
FOR SEWERAGE
restoration, Final tests, Surplus material to
disposal; Manhole every 50m
2.m Φ1200mm
2.m.1 cover depth to 2.0m 2,334,925.05 m
2.m.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 2,469,486.02 m
2.m.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 2,501,784.67 m
2.n Φ1600mm
2.n.1 cover depth to 2.0m 3,035,139.33 m
2.n.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 3,210,053.41 m
2.n.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 3,252,038.02 m
MANHOLES -
3
SEWERAGE
Manholes every
50m, 1050mm
3.a
diameter, for PVC
linings
3.a.1 cover depth to 2.0m 2,215,373.09 nr
3.a.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 2,736,637.35 nr
3.a.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 3,518,533.74 nr
DUCTIL IRON PIPE
Material costs (Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings) &
4 - RISING MAINS
Pipe Laying (Laying & Connection)
FOR SEWERAGE
4.a.1 Φ100mm 358,083.26 m
4.a.2 Φ300mm 1,234,061.85 m
4.a.3 Φ500mm 2,348,876.69 m
4.a.4 Φ700mm 3,754,859.57 m
4.a.5 Φ900mm 5,941,397.11 m
WASTEWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE
Pumping stations for wasterwater collection is
only anticipated fon conventional wastewater
PUMPING See cost analysis on
5 collection. Power installed is calculated according n.a.
STATION separate paragraph
to default values/user defined values for lift and
efficiency of pump

Estimated costs for

SEWERAGE See cost analysis on
6 TREATMENT Construction costs for Sewerage Treatment Plant separate paragraph n.a.
PLANT C = 0.116 X0.954
Break pavement; Excavation; Bed preparation,
OPEN CHANNEL
Compaction and lining; side slopes and lining;
7 CONCTRUTION
Eventual backfill and compaction; Pavement
(per linear metre)
restoration; Surplus materials to disposal
7.a 0 to 1,5m bottom width and 1 to 2m depth
7.a.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 268,503.22 m
7.a.2 concrete lining 1,210,896.87 m
7.b 1,5 to 3m bottom width and 1 to 3m depth
7.b.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 679,155.20 m
7.b.2 concrete lining 1,921,640.69 m
7.c 3 to 4,5m bottom width and 1 to 4m depth
7.c.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 1,016,100.42 m
7.c.2 concrete lining 2,305,968.82 m
7.d 4,5 to 6m bottom width and 1 to 4m depth
7.d.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 1,524,150.63 m
7.d.2 concrete lining 2,766,636.11 m
7.e
6 to 8m bottom width and 1 to 5m depth
7.e.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 2,287,542.13 m
7.e.2 concrete lining 3,319,436.85 m
7.f 8 to 10m bottom width and 1 to 6m depth
7.f.1 Earth/hydro seeding lining 3,432,629.39 m
7.f.2 concrete lining 4,977,839.09 m
Concrete pipe acquisition, Transport and laying;
CONCRETE PIPE
Sand bed, Backfill and compaction; Pavement
FOR
restoration, Final tests, Surplus material to
STORMWATER
disposal; Manhole every 30m; including a device
DRAINAGE
to collect the storm water from trapezoidal open
SYSTEM
drain (a gully and a 300 mm dia. connection
concrete pipe)
8.a Φ500mm
8.a.1 cover depth to 2.0m 1,303,297.20 m
8.a.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 1,402,011.62 m
8.a.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 1,473,086.00 m
8.b Φ600mm 0.00
8.b.1 cover depth to 2.0m 1,445,445.96 m
8.b.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 1,550,741.34 m
8.b.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 1,577,065.19 m
8.c Φ1000mm
8.c.1 cover depth to 2.0m 1,832,406.48 m
8.c.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 1,957,444.75 m

Estimated costs for

8.c.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 1,987,717.17 m
8.d Φ1200mm
8.d.1 cover depth to 2.0m 2,358,883.38 m
8.d.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 2,498,399.76 m
8.d.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 2,532,620.76 m
8.e Φ1600mm
8.e.1 cover depth to 2.0m 3,059,097.66 m
8.e.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 3,227,570.27 m
8.e.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 3,267,056.04 m
8.f Φ1800mm
8.f.1 cover depth to 2.0m 3,972,535.08 m
8.f.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 4,156,802.00 m
8.f.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 4,201,552.53 m
8.g Φ2000mm
8.g.1 cover depth to 2.0m 4,759,618.05 m
8.g.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 4,957,046.89 m
8.g.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 5,007,062.19 m
8.h Φ2200mm
8.h.1 cover depth to 2.0m 5,350,588.37 m
8.h.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 5,573,024.86 m
8.h.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 5,629,621.13 m
8.i Φ2500mm
8.i.1 cover depth to 2.0m 5,941,558.69 m
8.i.2 cover depth from 2.0m to 3.5m 6,189,002.83 m
8.i.3 cover depth from 3.5m to 5m 6,252,180.06 m
Cleaning; preparation of the bank/bed;
9 CHANNEL LINING Compaction; Geotextile; lining; surplus material
to disposal (per m2 of area for channels/streams)
9.a.1 vegetation 408,019.60 m²
9.a.2 concrete 708,111.43 m²
MAIN CHANNEL
10
CLEANING
Clear site of vegetation, bushes, shrubs, and
10.a.1 trees, not exceeding 500mm girth, including ha
removal of roots, stumps. 6,325,000.00
Excavation of garbage, debris and sediment and
10.a.2 Km
some double handling to trasport to final disposal 73,298,746.40
REMOVAL OF
11
STRUCTURES
11.a Removal of existing Culverts
11.a.1 Removal of Main existing Culverts 94,875,000.00 L.S
11.a.2 Removal of Secondary existing Culverts 27,025,000.00 L.S
12 NEW STRUCTURES
Construction of new box culvert, including
excavation, cast in situ concrete, steel
12.a
reinforcement, backfill and reinstatement of
asphaltic pavement.

Estimated costs for

12.a.1 New culvert (see details attached) 898,399.21 m³
STORMWATER
13
DETENTION POND
Construction of a complete detention pond, size
70000m²x4.00m on a natural depression
including excavation, embankment construction
13.a with impervious materials, inlet and outlet 4,190,119,086.95 nr
protected from erosion, gravel access road and
surrounding fence, as well as all the associated
ancillary works.
Table 11-2: List of Works Items and Unit Rates

11.3.1 STP Construction Cost Details
The construction costs of the STPs (conventional treatment with activated sludge process)
have been assessed as a parametric function based on the following formula 46:
C = 0.116 X0.954
C = cost in 106 dollars per 1000 population equivalent

X = plant size in 1000 population equivalent
TEMEKE Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d) CONSTRUCTION COST
STP_N01 1,328 111,594 14,581 TZS16,406,244,638
STP_MR01 1,634 167,530 11,441 TZS13,017,917,458
STP_MR02 2,922 645,298 41,159 TZS44,152,373,947
STP_N02 3,899 368,681 25,611 TZS28,079,728,583
STP_M01 4,420 768,511 55,505 TZS58,728,416,045
TZS 160,384,680,670
ILALA Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d) CONSTRUCTION COST
STP_M03 345 48,460 3,562 TZS4,276,096,928
STP_N03 6,061 555,224 32,027 TZS34,754,804,595
STP_I03 6,478 530,991 39,284 TZS42,231,335,417
STP_I02 6,660 832,725 69,604 TZS72,882,736,627
STP_M02 10,009 772,420 39,609 TZS42,564,225,974
TZS 196,709,199,542
Ubungo Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d) CONSTRUCTION COST
STP_H02 1,449 121,684 8,976 TZS10,327,462,422
STP_C02 2,241 216,445 14,342 TZS16,149,469,532
STP_C03 2,807 375,601 16,502 TZS18,462,159,145
STP_A03 2,871 320,325 18,144 TZS20,210,818,772
STP_B02 3,384 387,428 20,477 TZS22,683,009,226
STP_AC02 6,429 601,684 26,955 TZS29,483,809,262
TZS 117,316,728,360
46
Adapted from: Tsagarakis, K. P., Mara, D. D. & Angelakis, A. N., 2003. Application of Cost Criteria for Selection
of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 142(1-4), pp. 187-210

KINONDONI Served Area (Ha) Total Population Capacity (m3/d) CONSTRUCTION COST
STP_C01 3,601 323,888 31,595 TZS34,307,455,247
STP_A01 1,384 116,294 8,813 TZS10,148,472,215
STP_B01 2,939 258,091 17,712 TZS19,751,490,950
STP_AC01 5,894 459,181 23,328 TZS25,686,665,585
STP_A02 6,826 574,329 31,968 TZS34,693,742,070
TZS 124,587,826,066
Table 11-3: Sewerage Network STPs Construction Costs detail

11.3.2 Pumping Stations Construction Cost Details
The construction costs of the Pumping Stations have been assessed as a parametric function
based on the following formula 47:
C = 2 * (16,570 * kWi0.559)
C = cost in € per pumping station

kW i = installed kW
Design Power Installed Construction Cost

District Code
(kW) Power (kW) (TZS)
Ilala PS_I02-1_47
10.00 12.00 402,280,576.99
Ilala PS_I02-1_43
2.00 2.40 163,608,111.60
Ilala PS_I02-1_38
6.00 7.20 302,353,926.78
Ilala PS_I02-1_62
2.00 2.40 163,608,111.60
Ilala PS_I02-2_6
50.00 60.00 989,129,823.96
Ilala PS_I02-2_3
222.00 266.40 2,275,832,929.76
Ilala PS_I02-2_71
2.00 2.40 163,608,111.60
Ilala PS_I02-2_43
4.00 4.80 241,035,271.79
Ilala PS_I02-2_34
6.00 7.20 302,353,926.78
Ilala PS_I02-2_28
6.00 7.20 302,353,926.78
Ilala PS_I02-2_24
16.00 19.20 523,157,113.21
Ilala PS_I02-2_19
10.00 12.00 402,280,576.99
Ilala PS_I03-1_18
2.00 2.40 163,608,111.60
Ilala PS_I03-1_46
4.00 4.80 241,035,271.79
Ilala PS_I03-1_51
18.00 21.60 558,761,397.29
Ilala PS_I03-1_55
4.00 4.80 241,035,271.79
Ilala PS_I03-2_22
10.00 12.00 402,280,576.99
Ilala PS_I03-2_73
4.00 4.80 241,035,271.79
Ilala PS_M01-4_25
16.00 19.20 523,157,113.21
Ilala PS_M01-4_23
6.00 7.20 302,353,926.78
Ilala PS_M02-1_4
4.00 4.80 241,035,271.79
Ilala PS_M02-1_7
24.00 28.80 656,246,724.10
Ilala PS_M02-4_17
12.00 14.40 445,442,222.93
Ilala PS_N01-2_21
20.00 24.00 592,658,929.09
Ilala PS_N01-2_17
14.00 16.80 485,528,397.92
Ilala PS_N01-2_12
30.00 36.00 743,429,594.87
47
OECD EAP Task Force Secretariat. Rural cost functions for water supply and sanitation
(EXD/PCM/EN/NMC/04/125). Technology Overview and Cost Functions November 2005


District Code
Ilala PS_N02-2_34
40.00 48.00 873,133,395.77
Ilala PS_N02-2_27
6.00 7.20 302,353,926.78
Kinondoni PSF01-1
14.58 17.50 496,462,001.37
Kinondoni PSF01-2
59.92 71.90 1,094,043,062.62
Kinondoni PSD01-1
33.94 40.73 796,280,194.01
Kinondoni PS_C01-1
57 68.40 1,064,040,741.81
Kinondoni PS_C01-2
51.7 62.04 1,007,608,080.77
Kinondoni PS_AB 01-1
1.8 2.16 154,231,815.99
1 1.20 111,045,983.25
2.95 3.54 203,310,388.99
Kinondoni PS_B01-1
6.68 8.02 321,054,755.33
Kinondoni PS_BC01-1
23.7 28.44 651,648,484.80
Kinondoni PS_BC01-2
9.76 11.71 396,854,685.71
Kinondoni PS_BC01-3
7.11 8.53 332,448,341.85
Kinondoni PS_AC01-4
25.8 30.96 683,320,547.20
Kinondoni PS_AC01-3
17.1 20.52 542,967,568.69
Kinondoni PS_AC01-2
34.51 41.41 803,970,838.93
Kinondoni PS_AC01-1
40.26 48.31 876,301,393.07
Ubungo PS_C02-6
6.5 7.80 316,189,636.08
Ubungo PS_C02-5
8.22 9.86 360,530,831.65
Ubungo PS_C02-4
9.15 10.98 382,792,531.58
Ubungo PS_C02-3
18.29 21.95 563,775,924.39
Ubungo PS_C02-2
21.61 25.93 618,872,349.07
Ubungo PS_C02-1
22.8 27.36 637,697,396.38
Ubungo PS_H01-6
6.89 8.27 326,658,233.68
Ubungo PS_H01-5
9.28 11.14 385,823,239.39
Ubungo PS_H01-4
11.67 14.00 438,552,582.61
Ubungo PS_H01-3
12.73 15.28 460,392,395.94
Ubungo PS_H01-2
7.29 8.75 337,127,168.28
Ubungo PS_H01-1
32.48 38.98 777,181,438.69
Ubungo PS_H02-4
8.22 9.86 360,530,831.65
Ubungo PS_H02-3
6.36 7.63 312,364,443.36
Ubungo PS_H02-2
19.62 23.54 586,337,683.75
Ubungo PS_H02-1
23.2 27.84 643,927,314.89
Ubungo PS_AC02-4
0.5 0.60 75,379,507.70
Ubungo PS_AC02-3
3.94 4.73 239,007,457.70
Ubungo PS_AC02-2
10.57 12.68 414,941,604.81
Ubungo PS_AC02-1
4.6 5.52 260,621,771.39
Ubungo PS_AC01-8
4.36 5.23 252,930,971.34
Ubungo PS_AC01-7
12.01 14.41 445,649,686.66


District Code
Ubungo PS_AC01-6
13.68 16.42 479,293,117.61
Ubungo PS_AC01-5
19.1 22.92 577,599,377.69
TEMEKE PS_MR02-1_7
17.50 21.00 550,031,210.69
TEMEKE PS_MR02-3_24
28.00 33.60 715,346,757.23
TEMEKE PS_MR02-3_22
15.50 18.60 514,016,310.29
TEMEKE PS_MR02-3_21 11.00 13.20 424,371,487.79
TEMEKE PS_MR02-1_1 54.50 65.40 1,038,196,439.72
TEMEKE PS_MR02-2_2 91.00 109.20 1,382,815,475.85
TEMEKE PS_MR02-2_2.2 150.00 180.00 1,828,610,915.30
TEMEKE PS_N01-2_2 27.50 33.00 708,434,119.20
TEMEKE PS_N02-3_71 3.50 4.20 223,806,516.73
TEMEKE PS_N02-3_81 17.00 20.40 541,484,256.98
TEMEKE PS_N02-3_82 7.50 9.00 342,728,585.37
TEMEKE PS_N02-4_22 1.00 1.20 111,126,407.64
TEMEKE PS_NO1-1_61 4.50 5.40 257,625,745.75
TEMEKE PS_NO2-3_101 55.50 66.60 1,049,371,909.01
TEMEKE PS_NO2-3_91 4.50 5.40 257,656,818.69
TEMEKE PS_NO2-3_51 15.50 18.60 514,419,533.32
TEMEKE PS_NO2-3_93 31.50 37.80 764,722,408.75
TEMEKE PS_NO2-3_97 3.00 3.60 205,440,083.07
TEMEKE PS_NO2-4_1 14.00 16.80 486,055,827.69
TEMEKE PS_M01_1_33 2.50 3.00 185,556,096.56
TEMEKE PS_M01-1_32 9.00 10.80 379,729,646.29
TEMEKE PS_M01-1_34 17.00 20.40 541,876,187.19
TEMEKE PS_M01-10_12 14.00 16.80 486,173,034.30
TEMEKE PS_M01-2_3 15.00 18.00 505,319,994.73
Table 11-4: Sewerage Pumping Stations Construction Costs Details

11.3.3 Box Culvert Crossings Constructiion Cost Details
KINONDONI UBUNGO KIGAMBONI

Item Description Unit Rate TZS
Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS)
culvert code C7 m3 898,399.21 42 37,894,478.47

culvert code C14 m3 898,399.21 48 43,123,161.84
culvert code C46 m3 898,399.21 14 12,577,588.87
culvert code C47 m3 898,399.21 42 37,894,478.47
culvert code C48 m3 898,399.21 16 14,374,387.28
O_CR_KG_02 m3 898,399.21 211 189,479,130.33
F_CR_KI_06 m3 898,399.21 62 55,580,544.90
F_CR_KI_02-1 m3 898,399.21 380 341,062,434.59
F_CR_KI_02-2 m3 898,399.21 354 318,324,938.95
F_CR_KI_02-3 m3 898,399.21 371 333,483,269.38
F_CR_KI_02-4 m3 898,399.21 73 65,686,098.51
F_CR_KI_04-1 m3 898,399.21 186 166,741,634.69
F_CR_KI_04-2 m3 898,399.21 67 60,633,321.71
F_CR_KI_05-1 m3 898,399.21 394 353,694,376.61
F_CR_KI_05-2 m3 898,399.21 731 656,860,985.14
E_CR_KI_02 m3 898,399.21 87 78,318,040.54
E_CR_KI_03 m3 898,399.21 169 151,583,304.26
F_CR_KI_05-3 m3 898,399.21 2322 2,086,082,954.01
culvert code C30 m3 898,399.21 76 68,058,388.65
culvert code C29 m3 898,399.21 91 81,834,138.37
culvert code C18 m3 898,399.21 596 535,420,199.39
culvert code C56 m3 898,399.21 62 55,906,192.69
culvert code C57 m3 898,399.21 142 127,521,415.46

KINONDONI UBUNGO KIGAMBONI

Item Description Unit Rate TZS
Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS)
culvert code C58 m3 898,399.21 70 62,536,390.22

culvert code C59 m3 898,399.21 80 71,470,160.26
H_CR_UB_02 m3 898,399.21 56 50,734,173.42
H_CR_KI_04-1 m3 898,399.21 59 53,320,183.06
H_CR_KI_04-2 m3 898,399.21 31 27,460,086.71
H_CR_UB_01 m3 898,399.21 31 27,460,086.71
H_CR_UB_03 m3 898,399.21 56 50,734,173.42
H_CR_UB_06 m3 898,399.21 25 22,288,067.44
H_CR_UB_08 m3 898,399.21 56 50,734,173.42
H_CR_UB_10 m3 898,399.21 45 40,390,134.88
H_CR_UB_11 m3 898,399.21 22 19,702,057.81
Grand Total 6,044 5,430,116,467.37 812 729,369,552.76 211
Table 11-5: Box Culvert Crossings Construction Costs Details

11.4 Cost Estimate for Conventional Services Provision
Item Item KINONDONI UBUNGO ILALA TEMEKE KIGAMBONI

Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS) Quantity Amount (TZS)
SEWEREGE AND SANITATION
DEMOLITION AND SITE

1
CLEARANCE
General site
1.a clearance over ha 3,127,586
the wayleave 1,460 4,566,157,657 2,695 8,429,978,671 3,448 10,783,186,928 1,416 4,427,227,636 328 1,025,507,465
Removal of
1.b trees, girth 0.5- nr 39,095
1m 5,840 228,313,745 10,782 421,520,342 13,792 539,195,748 5,663 221,393,962 1,312 51,292,403
Removal of
1.c trees, girth 1- nr 65,158
2m 1,947 126,862,689 3,594 234,177,968 4,577 298,228,313 1,888 123,018,365 438 28,539,218
PIPE CONSTRUCTION PER LINEAR

2
METER (average soil condition)
PVC PIPE DN
2.a 1,781,600 3,433,761 4,539,511 1,851,163 445,435
200mm
cover depth to 113,343 445,400 50,483,119,939 858,440 97,298,501,425 1,134,878 128,630,844,056 462,791 52,454,251,259 111,359 12,621,767,414
2.a.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.a.2 from 2.0m to m 119,875 979,880 117,463,380,337 1,888,569 226,392,720,834 2,496,731 299,296,354,441 1,018,140 122,049,779,677 244,989 29,368,142,621
3.5m
cover depth
2.a.3 from 3.5m to m 121,443 356,320 43,272,616,517 686,752 83,401,357,620 907,902 110,258,502,125 370,233 44,962,211,174 89,087 10,819,000,524
5m
PVC PIPE DN 1,080 13,722 9,207 5,172

2.b
250mm


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
cover depth to 140,321 270 37,881,072 3,430 481,357,495 2,302 322,997,521 1,293 181,427,378
2.b.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.b.2 from 2.0m to m 148,408 594 88,141,120 7,547 1,120,015,533 5,064 751,545,878 2,844 422,142,553
3.5m
cover depth
2.b.3 from 3.5m to m 150,349 216 32,470,519 2,744 412,605,209 1,841 276,863,789 1,034 155,514,108
5m
PVC PIPE DN 852,937 1,585,397 2,046,950 825,622 181,689

2.c
315mm
cover depth to 173,195 213,234 36,931,095,212 396,349 68,645,711,094 511,738 88,630,389,343 206,406 35,748,406,090 45,422 7,866,906,256
2.c.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.c.2 from 2.0m to m 183,176 469,115 85,930,728,695 871,968 159,723,830,076 1,125,823 206,223,885,241 454,092 83,178,865,057 99,929 18,304,601,671
3.5m
cover depth
2.c.3 from 3.5m to m 185,572 170,587 31,656,227,321 317,079 58,841,044,993 409,390 75,971,311,884 165,124 30,642,461,672 36,338 6,743,276,129
5m
PVC PIPE DN 31,527 32,590 18,525 14,553

2.d
400mm
cover depth to 241,795 7,882 1,905,768,753 8,147 1,970,016,429 4,631 1,119,830,832 3,638 879,731,039
2.d.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.d.2 from 2.0m to m 255,729 17,340 4,434,314,680 17,924 4,583,805,227 10,189 2,605,605,896 8,004 2,046,945,232
3.5m
cover depth
2.d.3 from 3.5m to m 259,074 6,305 1,633,567,824 6,518 1,688,639,006 3,705 959,885,408 2,911 754,079,065
5m


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
PVC PIPE DN 120,880 166,602 127,108 49,772 14,329

2.e
500mm
cover depth to 357,686 30,220 10,809,247,225 41,651 14,897,828,625 31,777 11,366,219,928 12,443 4,450,654,826 3,582 1,281,337,341
2.e.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.e.2 from 2.0m to m 378,299 66,484 25,150,797,325 91,631 34,664,048,340 69,910 26,446,753,212 27,374 10,355,718,133 7,881 2,981,396,863
3.5m
cover depth
2.e.3 from 3.5m to m 383,247 24,176 9,265,362,572 33,320 12,769,971,939 25,422 9,742,782,870 9,954 3,814,967,850 2,866 1,098,323,944
5m
PVC PIPE DN 61,826 75,328 74,925 42,959 7,165

2.f
630mm
cover depth to 452,741 15,456 6,997,790,557 18,832 8,525,965,740 18,731 8,480,394,500 10,740 4,862,281,424 1,791 810,927,158
2.f.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.f.2 from 2.0m to m 478,832 34,004 16,282,356,056 41,430 19,838,091,578 41,209 19,732,057,086 23,627 11,313,484,842 3,941 1,886,853,374
3.5m
cover depth
2.f.3 from 3.5m to m 485,095 12,365 5,998,296,214 15,066 7,308,202,155 14,985 7,269,139,854 8,592 4,167,801,826 1,433 695,102,442
5m
PVC PIPE DN 12,699 14,692 9,010 10,695

2.g
710mm
cover depth to 551,495 3,175 1,750,881,499 3,673 2,025,616,990 2,253 1,242,264,423 2,674 1,474,495,590
2.g.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.g.2 from 2.0m to m 583,277 6,985 4,073,925,298 8,081 4,713,175,795 4,956 2,890,482,572 5,882 3,430,834,634
3.5m


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
cover depth
2.g.3 from 3.5m to m 590,906 2,540 1,500,803,115 2,938 1,736,298,140 1,802 1,064,831,810 2,139 1,263,893,402
5m
PVC PIPE DN 57,377 68,634 57,076 18,720 7,165

2.h
800mm
cover depth to 704,353 14,344 10,103,340,841 17,159 12,085,696,382 14,269 10,050,380,088 4,680 3,296,369,430 1,791 1,261,602,144
2.h.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.h.2 from 2.0m to m 744,945 31,557 23,508,304,744 37,749 28,120,820,435 31,392 23,385,076,442 10,296 7,669,943,867 3,941 2,935,477,298
3.5m
cover depth
2.h.3 from 3.5m to m 754,688 11,475 8,660,280,789 13,727 10,359,496,511 11,415 8,614,884,419 3,744 2,825,549,024 1,433 1,081,407,525
5m
PVC PIPE DN 10,783

2.i
930mm
cover depth to 891,538 2,696 2,403,319,356

2.i.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.i.2 from 2.0m to m 942,917 5,931 5,592,008,099
3.5m
cover depth
2.i.3 from 3.5m to m 955,249 2,157 2,060,053,281
5m
PVC PIPE DN 8,332

2.l
1000mm
cover depth to 1,091,103 2,083 2,272,647,641

2.l.1 m
2.0m


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
cover depth
2.l.2 from 2.0m to m 1,153,983 4,582 5,287,963,076
3.5m
cover depth
2.l.3 from 3.5m to m 1,169,076 1,666 1,948,045,405
5m
CONCRETE
2.m PIPE DN 1,101 4,097
1200mm
cover depth to 2,334,925 275 642,641,364 1,024 2,391,344,838

2.m.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.m.2 from 2.0m to m 2,469,486 606 1,495,288,465 2,253 5,564,145,967
3.5m
cover depth
2.m.3 from 3.5m to m 2,501,785 220 550,852,905 819 2,049,789,083
5m
CONCRETE
2.n PIPE DN 328
1600mm
cover depth to 3,035,139 82 248,866,249

2.n.1 m
2.0m
cover depth
2.n.2 from 2.0m to m 3,210,053 18+0 579,058,325
3.5m
cover depth
2.n.3 from 3.5m to m 3,252,038 66 213,320,686
5m
3 MANHOLES


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
Manholes,
3.a 1050mm
Diameter 58,400 107,815 137,864 56,540 13,117
3.a.1 depth to 2.0m nr 2,215,373 14,600 32,344,447,173 26,954 59,713,166,377 34,466 76,355,049,060 14,135 31,314,298,685 3,279 7,264,208,375
depth from
3.a.2 nr 2,736,637
2.0m to 3.5m 32,120 87,900,791,730 59,298 162,277,121,668 75,825 207,505,527,176 31,097 85,101,211,719 7,214 19,742,101,854
depth from
3.a.3 nr 3,518,534
3.5m to 5m 11,680 41,096,474,055 21,563 75,870,142,984 27,573 97,016,530,748 11,308 39,787,579,505 2,624 9,232,632,528
DUCTILE
4
IRON PIPES
DI PIPE DN
4.a.1 m 358,083
100mm 1,595 571,142,805 2,201 788,141,263 7,353 2,633,059,429 9,123 3,266,793,613
DI PIPE DN
4.a.2 m 1,234,062
300mm 7,438 9,178,364,900 5,381 6,640,486,834 13,040 16,092,053,037 6,060 7,478,933,139
DI PIPE DN
4.a.3 m 2,348,877
500mm 9,654 22,676,209,880 1,758 4,128,788,502 300 704,663,007
DI PIPE DN
4.a.4 m 3,754,860
700mm 3,775 14,174,231,424
DI PIPE DN
4.A.5 m 5,941,397
900mm 1,145 6,802,840,279
PUMPING STATIONS
5
(See attached Details) - 9,535,588,884 - 10,254,177,496 - 13,244,697,812 - 14,014,915,768 - -
TREATMENT PLANTS
6
(See attached Details) - 143,275,999,976 - 134,914,237,614 - 226,215,579,473 - 184,442,382,770 -
STORMWATER DRAINAGE
OPEN CHANNELS
7 (per linear meter)
0 to 1,5m bottom width and 1 to 2m
7.a depth
7.a.1 concrete lining m 908,173 31,376 28,494,825,145 14,512 13,179,401,533 4,395 3,991,418,808
CONCRETE PIPES
8
(per linear meter)
C.P. DN
8.a
500mm 642
cover depth to
8.a.1 m 1,303,297
2.0m 161 209,179,201
cover depth
8.a.2 from 2.0m to m 1,402,012
3.5m 353 495,050,303


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
cover depth
8.a.3 from 3.5m to m 1,473,086
5m 128 189,144,242
C.P. DN
8.a
600mm 818
cover depth to
8.a.1 m 1,445,446
2.0m 205 295,593,700
cover depth
8.a.2 from 2.0m to m 1,550,741
3.5m 450 697,678,530
cover depth
8.a.3 from 3.5m to m 1,577,065
5m 164 258,007,865
C.P. DN
8.a
1000mm 813 1,243
cover depth to
8.a.1 m 1,832,406
2.0m 203 372,436,618 311 569,420,315
cover depth
8.a.2 from 2.0m to m 1,957,445
3.5m 447 875,271,419 684 1,338,207,102
cover depth
8.a.3 from 3.5m to m 1,987,717
5m 163 323,202,812 249 494,146,489
C.P. DN
8.b
1200mm 404
cover depth to
8.b.1 m 2,358,883
2.0m 101 238,247,222
cover depth
8.b.2 from 2.0m to m 2,498,400
3.5m 222 555,144,427
cover depth
8.b.3 from 3.5m to m 2,532,621
5m 81 204,635,758
C.P. DN
8.c
1500mm 3,355 1,902
cover depth to
8.c.1 m 3,059,098
2.0m 839 2,565,818,164 476 1,454,600,938
cover depth
8.c.2 from 2.0m to m 3,227,570
3.5m 1,845 5,955,674,040 1,046 3,376,361,259
cover depth
8.c.3 from 3.5m to m 3,267,056
5m 671 2,192,194,601 380 1,242,788,117
C.P. DN
8.d
1800mm 691


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
cover depth to
8.d.1 m 3,972,535
2.0m 173 686,255,436
cover depth
8.d.2 from 2.0m to m 4,156,802
3.5m 380 1,579,792,599
cover depth
8.d.3 from 3.5m to m 4,201,553
5m 138 580,654,560
C.P. DN
8.e
2000mm 1,478
cover depth to
8.e.1 m 4,759,618
2.0m 370 1,758,678,869
cover depth
8.e.2 from 2.0m to m 4,957,047
3.5m 813 4,029,583,414
cover depth
8.e.3 from 3.5m to m 5,007,062
5m 296 1,480,087,584
C.P. DN
8.f
2200mm 2,831 1,640
cover depth to
8.f.1 m 5,350,588
2.0m 708 3,786,878,918 410 2,193,741,231
cover depth
8.f.2 from 2.0m to m 5,573,025
3.5m 1,557 8,677,478,357 902 5,026,868,423
cover depth
8.f.3 from 3.5m to m 5,629,621
5m 566 3,187,491,482 328 1,846,515,729
C.P. DN
8.f
2500mm 406
cover depth to
8.f.1 m 5,941,559
2.0m 102 603,068,207
cover depth
8.f.2 from 2.0m to m 6,189,003
3.5m 223 1,382,004,332
cover depth
8.f.3 from 3.5m to m 6,252,180
5m 81 507,677,021
CHANNELS LINING
Cleaning; preparation of the
bank/bed; Compaction; Geotextile;
9 lining; surplus material to disposal
(per m2 of area for
channels/streams)


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
9.a.1 vegetation m2 408,020 50,330 20,535,626,342
9.a.2 concrete m2 708,111 40,258 28,507,149,969 49,357 34,950,255,875
10 MAIN CHANNELS CLEANING
Clear site of
vegetation,
bushes, shrubs,
and trees, not
10.a.1 exceeding ha 6,325,000 9 55,027,500 17 107,525,000
500mm girth,
including
removal of
roots, stumps.
Excavation of
garbage, debris
and sediment
10.a.2 and some km 73,298,746 21 1,539,273,674 13 952,883,703
double handling
to trasport to
final disposal
11 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES
Removal of
11.a existing
Culverts
removal of
11.a.1 main existing L.S 94,875,000
culvert 6 569,250,000 6 569,250,000
removal of
11.a.2 secondary L.S 27,025,000
existing culvert 14 378,350,000 7 189,175,000 1 27,025,000
12 NEW STRUCTURES
Construction of box culvert,
including excavation, cast in situ
12.a concrete, steel reinforcement,
backfill and reinstatement of
asphaltic pavement.
New culvert
12.a.1 (see details m3 898,399 5,430,116,467 729,369,553 189,479,130
attached) 6,044 812 211
13 DETENTION POND


Unit Rate TZS
ID Description
Construction
of a complete
13.a detention nr 4,190,119,087 1 4,190,119,087
pond, size
70000m²x4.00m
SITE SURVEY OF EXISTING
14
DRAINAGE NETWORK
Topographic
survey and
assessment of
14.a km 2,632,385 330 868,165,673 347 912,568,735 483 1,271,475,934 183 481,929,057 639 1,681,888,370
existing
condition of all
the waterways
DMDP PLANNED INTERVENTIONS
15 (original costs updated with
inflation rate of 15%) 43,637,037,857 21,606,611,976 80,182,431,870 27,871,687,086 4,098,622,667
1,022,371,566,677 1,398,891,437,908 1,809,558,727,799 857,954,619,753.43 165,076,416,813.31

GRAND TOTAL (TZS)
Table 11-6: Overall Conventional Drainage and Sanitation Cost Estimate

KINONDON UBUNGO ILALA TEMEKE KIGAMBONI

Description
[TZS]I [TZS] [TZS] [TZS] [TZS]
Sewerage 849,471,051,717 1,321,147,968,787 1,728,104,819,995 829,601,003,610 137,100,404,546
Drainage 172,900,514,960 77,743,469,121 81,453,907,804 28,353,616,143 27,976,012,267
Grand Total 1,022,371,566,677 1,398,891,437,908 1,809,558,727,800 857,954,619,753 165,076,416,813
KINONDONI UBUNGO ILALA TEMEKE KIGAMBONI

Description
[USD] [USD] [USD] [USD] [USD]
Sewerage 371,105,251 577,164,986 754,950,708 362,424,697 59,894,542
Drainage 75,534,403 33,963,499 35,584,465 12,386,739 12,221,776
Grand Total 446,639,654 611,128,486 790,535,173 374,811,435 72,116,319
Table 11-7: Conventional “Drainage and Sanitation” Cost Estimate per Municipal District
Therefore, the overall cost of the interventions is assessed as follows:
Overall Cost Overall Cost

Description
[TZS] [USD]
Sewerage 4,865,425,248,655 2,125,540,185
Drainage 388,427,520,296 169,690,882
Grand Total 5,253,852,768,952 2,295,231,067
Table 11-8: Overall Conventional “Drainage and Sanitation” Cost Estimate

11.5 Cost Estimate for Informal Settlements Interventions
11.5.1 Drainage Interventions in I.S.
The stormwater drainage solution proposed for the informal settlements, consist of a soil
equalization by using gravel roads with a sinle or double cross slope.
The following interventions constitute the typical solution to be adopted:
• For streets larger than 6 meters, the stormwater will be drained to two lateral ditches
equipped with a trench-drain made of a perforated pipe laid on the bottom and covered
with two layers of gravels separated by a filter cloth used to retain the dissolved solids.
• For streets width between 3 an 6 meter only one ditch will be provided. The gravel covered
trench-drains will help to avoiding the discharge of solid wastes inside the ditches.
• In small sized streets (less than 3 meters) and alleys is the one with a double convergent
slope made of stones and gravels (compacted) to be used both as a lane and a drain.
• For all the main natural streams and artificial waterways (ditches, culverts, etc.) crossing
the informal settlements, the cleaning from the solid wastes, the silt and the vegetation
will be provided
The selection on the streets and waterways where to prioritize the interventions have been based
onon critical flood prone areas with a 500 m buffer from the historical flooded area and a 250 m
buffer from natural watercourses.
In the following Table the Districts, the areas and the lenghts of the proposed interventions for the
informal settlements are presented.
Roads subject to
Districit Informal code Area (Ha) Riverbeds to clean (m)
intervention (m)
KINONDONI I_A01 1,032.5 17,546 16,830
KINONDONI I_A02 143.0 2,178 -
KINONDONI I_A03 789.7 9,955 4,219
UBUNGO I_C01 3,025.1 56,780 21,704
UBUNGO I_G01 903.0 43,937 14,387
ILALA I_I03 863.8 11,768 4,404
ILALA I_I05 368.9 12,005 4,522
ILALA I_M01 528.7 3,508 1,915

Roads subject to
Districit Informal code Area (Ha) Riverbeds to clean (m)
intervention (m)
ILALA I_M02 968.9 40,889 13,292
ILALA I_M03 157.0 8,240 3,274
ILALA I_M08 1,098.3 11,757 5,237
TEMEKE I_N06 1,179.3 21,544 5,955
KIGAMBONI I_O01 155.6 12,676 -
KINONDONI I_ZZ03 228.8 692 -
UBUNGO-
I_C02 850.9 21,841 8,003
KINONDONI
KINONDONI I_D01 51.2 1,843 1,176
KINONDONI I_F02 42.1 4,650 -
KINONDONI I_F03 78.7 8,279 -
UBUNGO I_G02 66.8 7,564 -
UBUNGO-
I_G03 479.7 39,632 7,218
KINONDONI
KINONDONI I_G04 3.0 297 -
UBUNGO-
I_H01 2,922.5 148,508 30,263
KINONDONI
UBUNGO I_I01 1,401.1 41,586 14,618
ILALA-UBUNGO I_I02 632.8 32,255 10,619
ILALA-KINONDONI I_I04 1,885.1 82,819 9,475
KINONDONI I_I06 41.9 5,223 -
KINONDONI I_I07 5.6 116 -
KINONDONI I_I08 25.4 1,450 -
TEMEKE I_K01 121.6 8,576 408
TEMEKE I_K02 78.2 11,273 -
ILALA-TEMEKE I_L01 1,215.3 58,178 14,011
ILALA-TEMEKE I_M06 2,169.9 49,783 15,026
Total 23,514.0 777,348.0 206,556.0
Table 11-9: Stormwater Drainage Interventions in Informal Settlements
In the following Tables the BOQ of the proposed interventions for the informal settlements have
been assessed.

DAR ES SALAAM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

Bill OF QUANTITIES
Rate Amount
Item Description Unit Quantity
(TZS) (TZS)
A KINONDONI DISTRICT 31,831,246,030
A.1 Rivers/Streams
30 Clearing and shaping existing drains m 43,372 4,254 184,504,488
A.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels
Excavating soft material situated within the
14
following depth ranges below the surface level:
14.1 (i) 0.0 m up to 1.5 m m³ 57,007 3,680 209,785,760
16 Backfilling:
Using imported selected material (G45 quality),

natural gravel with nominal CBR value of
16.2 m³ 37,157 45,000 1,672,065,000
minimum 45 - value from BRT bidding
documents phase III data collection
Sub base course on site material, gravel size
16.3 m³ 19,850 80,917 1,606,206,628
D=25mm - value from DAWASA data collection
Filter fabric (320g/m²) - value from BRT bidding
28 m² 97,782 60,000 5,866,920,000
Perforated PVC double corrugate pipe
29 m 97,782 89,955 8,795,986,063
ø300mm, including sockets and rubble rings
Removal of earth pavement, constituted by a
granular road base layer of 200 mm thicknes
19.1 well compacted, including removal of all m² 423,723 1,495 633,465,885
residues to the approved dumping and eventual
maintenace of materials to reuse.
Reinstatement of earth pavement, constituted
by a compact sub base layer of 100 mm and
19.4 m² 228,159 35,331 8,061,085,629
well compacted, including removal of all
A.3 Reshaping
19.4 m² 130,376 35,331 4,606,314,456
B UBUNGO DISTRICT 86,102,768,606
A.1 Rivers/Streams
14

Rate Amount
(TZS) (TZS)
14.1 (i) 0.0 m up to 1.5 m m³ 154,581 3,680 568,858,080

16 Backfilling:
16.2 m³ 100,756 45,000 4,534,020,000
16.3 m³ 53,825 80,917 4,355,368,855
28 m² 265,146 60,000 15,908,778,000
29 m 265,146 89,955 23,851,252,373
19.1 well compacted, including removal of all m² 1,148,967 1,495 1,717,705,665
19.4 m² 618,675 35,331 21,858,406,425
A.3 Reshaping
19.4 m² 353,528 35,331 12,490,497,768
C ILALA DISTRICT 65,080,886,979
A.1 Rivers/Streams
14
14.1 (i) 0.0 m up to 1.5 m m³ 116,735 3,680 429,584,800
16 Backfilling:
16.2 m³ 76,088 45,000 3,423,960,000
16.3 m³ 40,647 80,917 3,289,041,855
28 m² 200,231 60,000 12,013,860,000
29 m 200,231 89,955 18,011,792,410
19.1 m² 867,668 1,495 1,297,163,660

Rate Amount
(TZS) (TZS)

19.4 m² 467,206 35,331 16,506,855,186
A.3 Reshaping
19.4 m² 266,975 35,331 9,432,493,725
D TEMEKE DISTRICT 40,598,062,785
A.1 Rivers/Streams
14
14.1 (i) 0.0 m up to 1.5 m m³ 72,901 3,680 268,275,680
16 Backfilling:
16.2 m³ 47,517 45,000 2,138,265,000
16.3 m³ 25,384 80,917 2,054,002,471
28 m² 125,045 60,000 7,502,700,000
29 m 125,045 89,955 11,248,430,972
19.4 m² 291,772 35,331 10,308,596,532
A.3 Reshaping

Rate Amount
(TZS) (TZS)

19.4 m² 166,727 35,331 5,890,631,637
E KIGAMBONI DISTRICT 3,692,220,635

14
14.1 (i) 0.0 m up to 1.5 m m³ 6,651 3,680 24,475,680
16 Backfilling:
16.2 m³ 4,335 45,000 195,075,000
16.3 m³ 2,316 80,917 187,404,260
28 m² 11,408 60,000 684,480,000
29 m 11,408 89,955 1,026,207,370
19.4 m² 26,620 35,331 940,511,220
A.3 Reshaping
19.4 m² 15,211 35,331 537,419,841

DAR ES SALAAM DRAINAGE DRAINAGE

Bill OF QUANTITIES
SYSTEMS IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
SUMMARY
Rate
(TZS)
A KINONDONI DISTRICT
A.1 Rivers/Streams 184.504.488
A.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels 26.845.514.966
A.3 Reshaping 4.801.226.576
B UBUNGO DISTRICT
B.1 Rivers/Streams 289.357.080
B.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels 72.794.389.398
B.3 Reshaping 13.019.022.128
C ILALA DISTRICT
C.1 Rivers/Streams 277.007.718
C.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels 54.972.257.911
C.3 Reshaping 9.831.621.350
D TEMEKE DISTRICT
D.1 Rivers/Streams 127.819.938
D.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels 34.330.354.345
D.3 Reshaping 6.139.888.502
E KIGAMBONI DISTRICT
E.2 Roads with trapezoidal channels 3.132.060.349
E.3 Reshaping 560.160.286
SUBTOTAL FOR SUMMARY 227.305.185.034
DAR ES SALAAM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

Summary of Bill of Quantities
Total Amount Total Amount
Item Description
(TZS) (US$)
A Kinondoni District 31,831,246,030 14,002,565
B Ubungo District 86,102,768,606 37,876,608
C Ilala District 65,080,886,979 28,629,082
D Temeke District 40,598,062,785 17,859,088
E Kigamboni District 3,692,220,635 1,624,208
10% of Subtotal for

22,730,518,503 9,999,155
Contingencies
Grand Total (carry
250,035,703,538 250,035,703,538 109,990,706
to Form of Bid)
Table 11-10: Stormwater Drainage Interventions in Informal Settlements - Cost Estimate

11.5.2 Sanitation Interventions in I.S.
The assessment of the interventions on the Informal Settlements has been carried out according
to the following report:
• Urban environmental sanitation Integrating decentralised solutions Case Study: Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania, produced by BORDA and with support from the European
Commission, BMZ, DAWASCO, DAWASA and Hamburg Wasser for the City Sanitation
Planning package.
The document provides the rationale for providing alternative environmental sanitation solutions
in rapidly growing urban contexts. The City Sanitation Planning package includes the following
interrelated and complementary documents, which focus on the city of Dar es Salaam as a case
study.
• PART 1: Urban environmental sanitation: Integrating decentralised solutions

• PART 2: 5 step planning guide: Which solutions go where?
• PART 3: Catalogue of environmental sanitation options for urban areas Centralised and
decentralised
• PART 4: Sanitation Mapping Guide: Using GIS mapping software
Particularly the Part 3 provides the following construction costs assessment for the on-site septic
solution (i.e. septic tank) and for the Decentralised wastewater treatment solutions (DEWATS):
On-site septic solution (i.e. septic tank) + soak

away or french drain:
provide partial or full primary treatment of wastewater.
A septic tank is a watertight chamber that collects, stores
and partially treats wastewater (25-40%) before
discharging into the ground via a soak away or French
drain.
TSh 2,000,000 – 3,500,000
Decentralised wastewater treatment solutions

(DEWATS):
may utilise anaerobic digestion processes, bio-digesters
and/or planted gravel filters to further remove pollutants
or pathogens (See below).
TSh 3,000,000 – 6,000,000

Starting from the above cost ranges, two curves explaining the cost variation for larger population
have been derived using the power regression model, which is based on the following equations:
Cost of local/decentralized treatment systems

Septic Tanks DEWATS
400
350
y = 210.74x 0.0523
300 y = 119.82x0.0997
US$
250
200
150
100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Served Population
For the pit latrines a cost of 50 US$ pro-capita has been considered, each one serving a maximum
number of 5 people.
According to the above parameters, the following number of different systems have been
assessed for each Municipal:
Districit Population Pit Latrines DEWATS Septic Tanks

@2016 (Nr) (Nr) (Nr)
Ilala 178,980 35,796 4,094 13,804
Ilala-Temeke 12,682 2,536 - 1,268
Kigamboni 32,928 6,586 2,680 612
Kinondoni 53,946 10,789 142 5,253
Temeke 142,406 28,481 322 13,919
Ubungo 115,611 23,122 1,177 10,384
Grand Total 536,553 107,311 8,415 45,241
Table 11-11: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Proposed Solutions
The following Table shows the detailed cost related to each informal settlement, describing the
different type of local or decentralized solution to be adopted.

Informal
Population Flow DEWATS Septic Pit Latrines
District Settl. Area (Ha) Note Cost (TZS) Cost (USD)
@2016 (m3/day) (Nr) Tanks (Nr) (Nr)
code
KINONDONI I_A01 21,996 1,336 1,032.5 STP_A02 - 2,200 4,399 TZS15,901,614,456 USD6,996,710
KINONDONI I_A02 727 44 143.0 low density - 73 145 TZS457,995,958 USD 201,518
KINONDONI I_A03 16,325 992 789.7 medium density - 1,632 3,265 TZS11,318,340,356 USD4,980,070
KINONDONI I_B01 160 10 7.7 - 16 32 TZS 96,703,498 USD42,550
UBUNGO I_C01 53,021 3,221 3,025.1 STP_C03 - 5,302 10,604 TZS38,337,651,473 USD 16,868,567
UBUNGO I_G01 50,824 3,088 903.0 - 5,082 10,165 TZS36,691,802,964 USD 16,144,393
high density, near

ILALA I_I03 60,902 3,700 863.8 - 6,090 12,180 TZS44,263,687,251 USD 19,476,022
STP_I03
ILALA I_I05 7,263 441 368.9 remote area 726 - 1,453 TZS 5,140,555,187 USD2,261,844
ILALA I_M01 10,408 632 528.7 remote area 1,041 - 2,082 TZS 7,417,171,304 USD3,263,555
high density part

ILALA I_M02 63,556 3,861 968.9 - 6,356 12,711 TZS46,266,923,574 USD 20,357,446
in M03 basin
ILALA I_M03 5,632 342 157.0 high density - 563 1,126 TZS 3,769,128,696 USD1,658,417
ILALA I_M04 329 20 9.2 high density - 33 66 TZS202,521,328 USD89,109
ILALA I_M05 248 15 6.9 high density - 25 50 TZS151,685,652 USD66,742
ILALA I_M07 11,456 696 610.7 remote area 1,146 - 2,291 TZS 8,178,939,362 USD3,598,733
ILALA I_M08 6,943 422 1,098.3 - 694 1,389 TZS 4,678,114,430 USD2,058,370

Informal
code
ILALA I_M09 428 26 12.0 low density - 43 86 TZS265,475,542 USD 116,809
ILALA-TEMEKE I_M10 12,682 770 382.7 low density - 1,268 2,536 TZS 8,717,028,450 USD3,835,493
ILALA I_N01 3,062 186 176.2 remote area 306 - 612 TZS 2,133,299,048 USD 938,652
ILALA I_N02 316 19 34.3 remote area 32 - 63 TZS211,359,551 USD92,998
ILALA I_N03 1,408 86 152.9 remote area 141 - 282 TZS967,487,975 USD 425,695
remote area/low
ILALA I_N04 344 21 74.4 34 - 69 TZS230,781,047 USD 101,544
density
remote area/low
ILALA I_N05 6,685 406 1,444.8 669 - 1,337 TZS 4,724,757,468 USD2,078,893
density
TEMEKE I_N06 137,126 8,330 1,179.3 STP_N02 - 13,713 27,425 TZS102,810,485,582 USD 45,236,614
TEMEKE I_N07 1,805 110 133.4 remote area - 180 361 TZS 1,166,315,024 USD 513,179
TEMEKE I_N08 259 16 19.1 remote area - 26 52 TZS158,438,236 USD69,713
TEMEKE I_N09 3,217 195 237.8 remote area 322 - 643 TZS 2,242,826,508 USD 986,844
KIGAMBONI I_O01 12,881 782 155.6 high density 1,288 - 2,576 TZS 9,216,289,059 USD4,055,167
KIGAMBONI I_Q01 6,244 379 130.9 high density 624 - 1,249 TZS 4,170,351,365 USD1,834,955
KIGAMBONI I_Q02 855 52 29.3 - 86 171 TZS540,814,424 USD 237,958
KIGAMBONI I_Q03 534 32 18.3 - 53 107 TZS333,113,298 USD 146,570
KIGAMBONI I_R01 276 17 9.4 - 28 55 TZS169,109,213 USD74,408

Informal
code
KIGAMBONI I_T01 6,560 398 224.6 high density 656 - 1,312 TZS 4,634,115,190 USD2,039,011
KIGAMBONI I_V01 203 12 10.7 - 20 41 TZS123,458,716 USD54,322
KIGAMBONI I_V02 629 38 40.3 - 63 126 TZS394,384,624 USD 173,529
KIGAMBONI I_V03 147 9 9.4 - 15 29 TZS 88,646,291 USD39,004
KIGAMBONI I_W01 347 21 22.2 - 35 69 TZS214,285,241 USD94,286
KIGAMBONI I_W02 195 12 12.5 high density - 20 39 TZS118,829,876 USD52,285
W4; W5, Y2 one

KIGAMBONI I_W04 144 9 203.4 14 - 29 TZS 95,210,190 USD41,892
off grid plant
W4; W5, Y2 one

KIGAMBONI I_W05 89 5 126.3 9 - 18 TZS 58,662,778 USD25,812
off grid plant
KIGAMBONI I_Y01 2,668 162 170.8 - 267 534 TZS 1,744,473,057 USD 767,568
W4; W5, Y2 one

KIGAMBONI I_Y02 69 4 96.9 7 - 14 TZS 44,819,577 USD19,721
off grid plant
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZB01 43 3 60.7 - 4 9 TZS 25,206,257 USD11,091
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZC01 148 9 60.5 15 - 30 TZS 97,689,307 USD42,983
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZC02 341 21 139.7 34 - 68 TZS228,635,555 USD 100,600
density

Informal
code
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZF01 116 7 85.0 12 - 23 TZS 76,611,366 USD33,709
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZG01 213 13 155.6 21 - 43 TZS141,547,212 USD62,281
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZH01 89 5 65.1 - 9 18 TZS 53,089,506 USD23,359
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZJ01 45 3 76.9 - 5 9 TZS 26,485,810 USD11,654
density
remote area/low
KIGAMBONI I_ZK01 24 1 41.2 - 2 5 TZS 13,996,248 USD6,158
density
KIGAMBONI I_ZK02 50 3 85.1 remote area - 5 10 TZS 29,365,889 USD12,921
KIGAMBONI I_ZM01 20 1 33.5 remote area - 2 4 TZS 11,317,255 USD4,980
remote area near

KINONDONI I_ZZ01 957 58 133.3 96 - 191 TZS653,030,148 USD 287,333
STP_AC01
KINONDONI I_ZZ02 5,235 318 398.8 remote area - 523 1,047 TZS 3,495,454,583 USD1,538,000
KINONDONI I_ZZ03 4,874 296 228.8 low density - 487 975 TZS 3,247,246,100 USD1,428,788
KINONDONI I_ZZ04 460 28 90.5 remote area 46 - 92 TZS310,261,760 USD 136,515
UBUNGO I_ZZ06 4,159 253 223.3 remote area 416 - 832 TZS 2,913,200,459 USD1,281,808
UBUNGO I_ZZ07 7,608 462 523.5 remote area 761 - 1,522 TZS 5,389,820,484 USD2,371,521

Informal
code
STP_C01 / high
KINONDONI I_ZZ08 3,211 195 59.5 - 321 642 TZS 2,111,333,882 USD 928,987
density
Gran Total 58 I.S. 536,553 161,089 31,929.1 8,415 45,241 107,311 TZS387,271,944,640 USD170,399,656
Table 11-12: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Technical Features and Cost Estimate
DAR ES SALAAM SANITATION SYSTEMS IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

Total Amount Total Amount
Item Description
(TZS) (US$)
A Kinondoni District 37,591,980,741 16,540,471
B Ubungo District 83,332,475,380 36,666,289
C Ilala District 132,960,401,640 58,502,576
D Temeke District 110,736,579,575 48,724,097
E Kigamboni District 22,650,507,304 9,966,224
10% of Subtotal for

26,634,748,852 11,719,290
Contingencies
Grand Total (carry
250,035,703,538 413,906,693,492 182,118,946
to Form of Bid)
Table 11-13: Sanitation Interventions in Informal Settlements – Overall Costs per Diistrict

11.6 Issues exclusions limitations
The above cost estimation exercise does not take into consideration all the costs related to utilities
relocation and interferences.
It has been developed on a parametric basis using cost functions adapted to the local conditions.
Further consideration will be developed and applied during the next project phases in order to
consider all project related costs, such as relocation of affected people and environmental costs.

12 PROJECT PRIORITIES
12.1 Multi Criteria Analysis for Drainage Interventions
After the selection of the interventions described in the previous chapters, given only technical
constraints, a ranking to prioritise those alternatives from the screening process must be set.
Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) is a weighted cost effectiveness techniques usually applied as the
basis for the decision regarding if or when to invest in selected projects (i.e. short, medium or long
term). Such a ranking process ensures that projects that will be subjected to a more detailed
analysis (including cost-benefit analysis) are those that best fit with the objectives of the
investment with time (i.e. flood safety, health conditions, etc.).
For ranking the projects’ priorities the same MCA methodology adopted in the DMDP component
1.b (Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage) was used.
The identified interventions for the storm water drainage systems have different scales, impacts,
results and effects. Thus, when considering an implementation plan for the sub-projects, it is
essential to establish a priority action list based on the scale, the importance, the speed, and the
wider influence of the intervention in solving the existing problems.
The following subjects constitute the framework of factors to be considered when prioritizing and
selecting the interventions to be further developed in the next phases of the “project” and/or to be
fully implemented on site:
• The affordability and financial assistance available for carrying them out;
• The impact in improving the lives and welfare of those people in the areas most affected
by the floods;
• The impact in reducing the direct loss of public and private property;
• The impact on reducing the cost of rehabilitation/restoration works on other affected
infrastructure;

• The impact on the reduction in environmental damages;

• The technical connection between the different types of sectoral interventions to be
provided.
The first point outlined on affordability depends on the available budget, which is not yet defined
by the Client. Moreover, the 4 DSDP high prioritized projects (rivers: Sinza, Yombo, Gerezani and
Msimbazi) already on a tender stage, make the financial aspect of the stormwater drainage
investments even more difficult to define.
However, as for the DMDP strategy, the assumption is still that a priority weighting should be
given to smal scale, more affordable projects.
The remaining aspects can be classified based on their relative importance in resolving situations
that are:
• Threatening the population;

• Threatening property or infrastructure;
• Threatening the environment.
The other specific aspect to be considered in the ranking process is the possibility of achieving
multiple benefits through interventions that overlap and help in the delivery of other DMDP
sectoral projects, or contributes to ongoing improvement works beneficial to the poorer population
suffering from lack of infrastructure.
To determine intervention priorities, Technical (TECH), Economical (ECONOM) and

Environmental (ENVI) aspects have been considered with the following sub factors and weights:
CRITERIA
SCORE #1 SCORE #2 SCORE #3 SCORE #4 SCORE #5
(TECH/ECONOM/ENVI)
primary
TECH.01: Type of (rivers/main local drainage
secondary drain:
drainage streams, detention system: - -
2
infrastructure involved ponds): 1
3
TECH.02: Dimension between 20 and
> 100 m3/s: <20 m3/s:
of catchment/drainage 100 m3/s: - -
3 1
area or class of flow 2
TECH.03:
Dependence significant
high dependence: not significant:
with/from other dependence: - -
3 1
previewed drainage 2
interventions
TECH.04: Reduction
of future maintenance high: significant: not identified:
-
(type of robustness of 3 2 1
solution)

CRITERIA
SCORE #1 SCORE #2 SCORE #3 SCORE #4 SCORE #5
(TECH/ECONOM/ENVI)
less than 5% of
total estimated
between 5% and
ECON.01: Total cost cost for all the >10%:
10%: - -
per intervention drainage 1
2
interventions:
3
ECON.02: Unitary
between 750 US$
cost per length of <750 US$: >1,500 US$:
and 1,500 US$: - -
intervention (/lm) for 3 1
2
linear ones
it is possible to yes in a
no, there is
develop a considerable
ECON.03: The enough space to only a few houses
consistent solution number, to
proposed solution improve the especially badly
without interfere create a
requires the relocation drainage system located in the
with the residents, drainage free -
of residents and the without river/stream bed
but a better corridor for the
concerning interference with are affected:
solution could be drainage
resettlement? them: 2
developed: infrastructures:
4
3 1
intervention
ECON.04: With located or
eventual impact on benefiting the City
if not:
economic activity Center, the Airport - - -
1
operations from or/and Industrial
interrupting them areas:
3
protecting areas
with sensible
protecting preventing
eventually human reducing flooding buildings/institution
ENVI.01: Type of other traffic
lives: areas: s as schools, fire
estimated benefits infrastructures: interruptions:
5 4 departments and
2 1
hospitals:
3
intervention in intervention in
unplanned areas unplanned areas intervention on the
ENVI.02: with clear with improvement vicinity with some intervention in
Beneficiation of low improvement on on current general expectable planned areas: -
income residents preventing drainage improvement: 1
flooding: conditions: 2
4 3
crossing of natural
areas including
exclusively with no significant involving
water lines or
involving urban crossing of natural protected
coastal areas with -
areas: areas: areas or other:
natural water lines
ENVI.03: Interference 4 3 1
or coastal areas:
with natural areas
2
more than 80% of between 50% and between 30% and less than 30%
catchment in 80% of catchment 50% of catchment of catchment
urban areas: in urban areas: in urban areas: in urban areas:
4 3 2 1
Table 12-1: Stormawter Drainage Projects’ Ranking Criteria
12.1.1 Drainage Investments Priority
After assigning the scores to each project for every sector (technical, economical and
environmental), the projects final classification (FN) is obtained using the weighted formula below:

FNi = w1 x TEC% + w2 x ECO% + w3 x ENV%

with:
• w1 = 0.4
• w2 = 0.3
• w3 = 0.3
• Projecti TEC % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
• Projecti ECO % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
• Projecti ENV % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
The prioritization of the proposed interventions has then been established accordingly to their final
score by using the following FN intervals:
▪ Priority 1: FNi≥ 0.8

▪ Priority 2: FNi≥ 0.7 and < 0.8
▪ Priority 4: FNi< 0.6
All of the DMDP Component 1b’ proposed interventions (included those currently on tender stage
for construction) have been included in the priorities ranking. The following new codes48 have
been used to recode the DMDP projects.
DMDP code DSDP code DMDP code DSDP code

IL1 I_SD_IL_01 KI3 E_SD_KI_01
IL2 J_SD_KI_01 TE1 K_SD_TE_02
IL3 L_SD_IL_01 TE2 K_MD_TE_01
IL4 SD_IL_03 TE3 K_SD_TE_01
IL5 I_SD_IL_02 TE4 M_MD_TE_01
IL6 I_SD_IL_06 TE5 K_SD_TE_03
IL7 L_MD_IL_01 TE6 SD_IL_01
IL8 I_SD_IL_03 TE7 O_SD_KG_01
IL9 K_SD_IL_04 TE8 L_MD_TE_02
IL10 I_SD_IL_04 TE9 K_MD_TE_02
IL11 I_SD_IL_05 CC1 M_SD_IL_01
KI1 G_MD_UB_01 CC2 SD_IL_02
KI2 F_SD_KI_01
Table 12-2: DMDP Stormwater Drainage Projects’ New Codes
48
The code’s letters represent: 1) Cathcment code; 2) Main Drainage (MD) or Secondary Drainage (SD); 3) District
code name (Ilala, Temeke, Ubungo, Kigamboni, Kinondoni).

As it regards the new interventions proposed, the following codification of the Projects has been
used:
Main Project Interventions composing the main Project
D_MS_KI D_MD_KI_01, D_SD_KI_01, D_SD_KI_02
E_SD_KI E_SD_KI_02, E_SD_KI_03, E_SD_KI_04
F_SD_KI_02-03 F_SD_KI_02, F_SD_KI_03
F_SD_KI_05-06 F_SD_KI_05, F_SD_KI_06
H_SD_UB_01-02 H_SD_UB_01, H_SD_UB_02
H_SD_UB_05-10 H_SD_UB_05, H_SD_UB_06, H_SD_UB_07, H_SD_UB_08, H_SD_UB_09, H_SD_UB_10
H_SD_UB_11-13 H_SD_UB_11, H_SD_UB_12, H_SD_UB_13
Table 12-3: DSDP Stormwater Drainage Projects’ Codes
Therefore, the following presents the priority assessment for all the DMDP and DSDP proposed
stormwater drainage interventions. The first 25 coded projects are the same of the DMDP, while
the following new 21 are from the DSDP assessment.

DSDP PROJECT TECH. ECON. ENV. FINAL

TECH 1 TECH.2 TECH.3 TECH.4 ECON.1 ECON.2 ECON.3 ECON.4 ENVI.1 ENVI.2 ENVI.3
CODE PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY Overall
Priority
DMDP DRAINAGE 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.0
G_MD_UB_01 3 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 4 4 3 83% 38% 85% 70% 2

F_SD_KI_01 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 58% 77% 46% 60% 3
E_SD_KI_01 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 1 1 2 67% 77% 31% 59% 4
I_SD_IL_01 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 3 1 1 4 58% 77% 46% 60% 3
J_SD_KI_01 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 3 1 1 2 58% 92% 31% 60% 3
L_SD_IL_01 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 4 4 3 75% 62% 85% 74% 2
SD_IL_03 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 42% 92% 46% 58% 4
I_SD_IL_02 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 4 4 3 58% 69% 85% 69% 3
I_SD_IL_06 1 1 1 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 4 50% 69% 46% 55% 4
L_MD_IL_01 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 3 67% 69% 85% 73% 2
I_SD_IL_03 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 75% 77% 92% 81% 1
K_SD_IL_04 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 3 50% 85% 54% 62% 3
I_SD_IL_04 3 1 3 2 3 3 4 1 4 4 3 75% 85% 85% 81% 1
I_SD_IL_05 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 4 2 4 58% 85% 77% 72% 2
K_SD_TE_02 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 50% 69% 46% 55% 4
K_MD_TE_01 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 83% 54% 69% 70% 2
K_SD_TE_01 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 2 3 75% 85% 62% 74% 2
M_MD_TE_01 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 3 67% 77% 85% 75% 2
K_SD_TE_03 2 1 3 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 67% 85% 38% 64% 3
SD_IL_01 1 2 1 2 3 2 4 1 1 1 4 50% 77% 46% 57% 4
O_SD_KG_01 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 50% 69% 54% 57% 4
L_MD_TE_02 3 2 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 4 3 75% 85% 85% 81% 1
K_MD_TE_02 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 75% 62% 85% 74% 2
M_SD_IL_01 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 3 42% 54% 46% 47% 4
SD_IL_02 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 3 42% 77% 54% 56% 4


TECH 1 TECH.2 TECH.3 TECH.4 ECON.1 ECON.2 ECON.3 ECON.4 ENVI.1 ENVI.2 ENVI.3
Priority
DSDP DRAINAGE 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.0
A_MD_KI_01 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 67% 69% 38% 59% 4
B_MD_KI_01 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 67% 69% 31% 57% 4
C_MD_KI_01 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 75% 54% 54% 62% 3
D_MS_KI 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 75% 85% 38% 67% 3
E_MD_KI_01 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 4 83% 69% 62% 73% 2
E_SD_KI 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 1 4 67% 92% 62% 73% 2
F_MD_KI_01 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 4 2 4 83% 54% 77% 73% 2
F_SD_KI_02-03 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 3 3 3 4 67% 77% 77% 73% 2
F_SD_KI_04 2 1 2 2 3 2 4 1 4 2 4 58% 77% 77% 69% 3
F_SD_KI_05-06 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 3 1 4 75% 69% 62% 69% 3
F_SD_KI_07 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 4 42% 77% 54% 56% 4
H_MD_UB_01 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 5 4 3 100% 62% 92% 86% 1
H_SD_KI_04 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 83% 69% 92% 82% 1
H_SD_UB_01-02 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 83% 69% 92% 82% 1
H_SD_UB_03 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 75% 69% 92% 78% 2
H_SD_UB_05-10 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 83% 85% 92% 86% 1
H_SD_UB_11-13 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 83% 69% 92% 82% 1
M_MD_TE_01 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 67% 69% 31% 57% 4
N_MD_TE_01 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 4 67% 69% 54% 64% 3
O_SD_KG_02 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 50% 69% 46% 55% 4
O_SD_KG_03 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 50% 69% 23% 48% 4
Table 12-2: Stormwater Drainage Projects’ Priorities (Multi-Criteria Analysis)

The interventions with highest priority are the ones proposed to be detailed in the next phases of
DSDP, together with some others to be selected after consideration of their connectivity with other
DMDP projects.
As a general rule, all the DMDP drainage projects with 1st and 2nd priorities have been put on
the upper ranking of the interventions phasing. Moreover, the four main projects put on highest
priority and phase are those already in tender stage for construction, that is: Yombo river,
Gerezani Creek, Sinza river and Msimbazi river.
The total estimated construction cost for the proposed stormwater drainage interventions is
around 169,690,882USD. The DMDP projects’ construction costs have been updated with
an inflation rate of 15%, counting for an overall amount of 67,390,000 US$.
Construction
DSDP Code Catchment name or Project location Cost (1,000 Priority Phase
US$)
703.8 1 I
L_MD_TE_02* MPOGO
595.7 1 I
I_SD_IL_04* BONDE LA SUNGURA and TEMBO MGWAZA
489.9 1 I
I_SD_IL_03* MSIMBAZI, TENGE and LIWITI
18,878.4 2 I
G_MD_UB_01* SINZA RIVER / Mto NG' OMBE
5,536.1 2 I
L_SD_IL_01* KIGILAGILA and FOOD SECURITY AREA(KIWALANI)
389.9 2 I
L_MD_IL_01* MINAZI MIREFU and KIWALANI
1,040.8 2 I
I_SD_IL_05* MAFURICO
4,881.8 2 I
K_MD_TE_01* SERENGETI
431.3 2 I
K_SD_TE_01* TEMEKE
1,228.2 2 I
M_MD_TE_01* KWA SHENGO
1,148.9 2 I
K_MD_TE_02* KEKO
4,370.0 3 I
I_SD_IL_01* MSIMBAZI STREET (BRT drain)
2,531.2 3 I
I_SD_IL_02* BURUGUNI KISIWANI
H_MD_UB_01 Ubungo 15,964.6 1 II
H_SD_UB_11-13 Ubungo 1,695.3 1 II
H_SD_UB_05-10 Ubungo 1,396.4 1 II
H_SD_UB_01-02 Ubungo 1,287.0 1 II
H_SD_KI_04 Ubungo 703.9 1 II
H_SD_UB_03 Ubungo 1,315.2 2 II
E_SD_KI Micocheni 3,721.5 2 II
E_MD_KI_01 Micocheni 6,597.5 2 II
F_SD_KI_02-03 Kijitonyama 14,174.2 2 III
F_MD_KI_01 Kijitonyama 6,933.3 2 III
F_SD_KI_05-06 Kijitonyama 10,792.7 3 III
2,679.5 3 III
F_SD_KI_01* MALANGA / MWINYIJUMA ROAD
F_SD_KI_04 Kijitonyama 4,603.1 3 III

Construction
DSDP Code Catchment name or Project location Cost (1,000 Priority Phase
US$)
C_MD_KI_01 Mbezi 8,754.6 3 III
4,097.5 3 IV
K_SD_IL_04* VINGUGUTI
D_MS_KI Mlalakwa 3,140.8 3 IV
City Center 2,397.8 3 IV
J_SD_KI_01*
Gerezani Creek 657.8 3 IV
K_SD_TE_03*
8,275.4 4 IV
M_SD_IL_01* PUGU
O_SD_KG_02 Kigamboni 6,075.2 4 IV
6,944.9 4 IV
E_SD_KI_01* ITV OLD BAGAMOYO ROAD
4,370.0 4 IV
I_SD_IL_06* LINDI STREET and KAWAWA ROAD
O_SD_KG_03 Kigamboni 3,292.5 4 IV
F_SD_KI_07 Kijitonyama 1,547.1 4 IV
1,790.6 4 IV
O_SD_KG_01* KIGAMBONI
1,326.0 4 IV
SD_IL_02* MTONI
1,153.5 4 IV
K_SD_TE_02* MWAKALINGA
935.0 4 IV
SD_IL_03* RONGAI and BANANA (KIPAWA)
645.2 4 IV
SD_IL_01* MTONI
A_MD_KI_01 Nyakasangwe 168.0 4 IV
B_MD_KI_01 Tegeta 156.1 4 IV
Grand total 169,690,8
(*) Project from DMDP
Figure 12-1. – Stormwater Drainage Projects Priorities and Phases.
For all the interventions in Ubungo river’s catchment, the DSDP has further developed a Pre-
Feasibility study attached to the present techincal report.

Construction of a complete
detention pond on a natural
Pipe
depression including
Cleaning construction Open channel Open channel cross Open channel cross Enlargement of existing
excavation, embankment
existing including construction section section culverts, including all
Interventions construction with
channels and manholes as including all rising/enlargement rising/enlargement the associated ancillary
Code of Project Composing the impervious materials, inlet
associated well as all the the associated including including works and eventual
Project and outlet protected from
culverts (linear associated ancillary works stabilization and stabilization and correction of street/
erosion, gravel access road
meters) ancillary works (linear meters) lining in concrete natural lining path profile
and surrounding fence, as
(linear meters)
well as all the associated
ancillary works
940 m of trapezoidal
D_SD_KI_01 - - channel, depth 0.825 - -
m, top width 3.8 m
1658 m , diameter 2261 m of trapezoidal

D_MS_KI D_SD_KI_02 - from 1000 mm to - channel, depth 1 m, - -
1600 mm top width 1.5 m
Cleaning
existing Channel
D_MD_KI_01
for lenght of
3500 m
1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
E_SD_KI_02 - - - channel, depth 0.9 m, -
31 m
top width 1.4 m
2322 m of
trapezoidal
channel, depth
1417 m, diameter channel, depth from 4 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,
E_SD_KI E_SD_KI_03 - from 0.8 m to 1 -
1600 mm 0.7 m to 1 m, top width length 15 m
m, top width
from 1.2 m to 1.5 m
from 1.3 m to 1.5
m
E_SD_KI_04 - - - channel, depth 0.9 m, - -
top width 1.4 m
9 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,

8387 m of trapezoidal length 15 m, 7 cells 1.5 x
4961 m , diameter
channel, depth from 2.5 m2, length 18 m, 6
F_SD_KI_02-03 F_SD_KI_02 - from 1200 mm to - -
0.5 m to 1 m, top width cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
2200 mm
from 1.2 m to 1.5 m 22 m, 2 cells 1.5 x 2.5
m2, length 13 m

Pipe
(linear meters)
ancillary works
F_SD_KI_03 - - - channel, depth 0.8 m, - -
top width 1.3 m
3 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,
2211 m, diameter channel, depth from
F_SD_KI_04 - - - length 22 m, 1 cell 1.5 x
1600 mm 0.9 m to 1 m, top width
2.5 m2, length 24 m
from 1.4 m to 1.5 m
10 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,

3064 m , diameter length 14 m, 10 cells 1.5
channel, depth from
F_SD_KI_05 - from 1800 mm to - - x 2.5 m2, length 26 m, 12
0.9 m to 1 m, top width
2500 mm cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
from 1.4 m to 1.5 m
68.8 m
F_SD_KI_05-06
F_SD_KI_06 - - - channel, depth 0.9 m, -
22 m
top width 1.4 m
599 m, diameter channel, depth from
F_SD_KI_07 - - - -
1600 mm 0.7 m to 1 m, top width
from 1.2 m to 1.5 m
805 m of rectangular
H_SD_UB_01- 1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
H_SD_UB_01 - - - channel, depth 0.8 m, -
02 19 m
width 0.7 m

Pipe
(linear meters)
ancillary works
227 m of 2180 m of trapezoidal
trapezoidal channel, depth from
H_SD_UB_02 - - channel, depth 0.7 m to 1.25 m, top -
7m
0.7 m, top width width from 1.2 m to 3
3.3 m m
2103 m of
trapezoidal
channel, depth
811 m, diameter 1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
H_SD_UB_03 - from 0.7 m to 1 - -
500 mm 18 m
m, top width
from 1.2 m to 1.5
m
channel, depth from
0.675 m to 1 m, top
width from 1.5 m to 3.2
H_SD_KI_04 - - - - 18 m, 1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2,
m , 768 m of
length 9 m
rectangular channel,
depth 0.8 m, width 0.7
m
H_SD_UB_05 - - - channel, depth 0.9 m, - -
top width 1.4 m
H_SD_UB_05- 1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
10 14 m
top width 1.5 m
top width 1.5 m

Pipe
(linear meters)
ancillary works
656 m of
rectangular 1 cell 1.5 x 2.5 m2, length
H_SD_UB_08 - - - -
channel, depth 1 6m
m, width 0.7 m
top width 1.5 m
9m
top width 1.3 m
557 m of rectangular
2 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,
length 18 m
width 0.7 m
584 m of channel, depth from
trapezoidal 0.6 m to 1 m, top width
432 m, diameter
H_SD_UB_11- H_SD_UB_12 - channel, depth from 1.1 m to 1.5 m , - -
1000 mm
13 0.7 m, top width 431 m of rectangular
1.2 m channel, depth 0.8 m,
width 0.7 m
451 m of
trapezoidal 336 m of trapezoidal
H_SD_UB_13 - - channel, depth channel, depth 0.8 m, - -
0.8 m, top width top width 1.3 m
1.3 m
894 m of
2331 m , diameter trapezoidal
channel, depth from 1 5 cells 1.5 x 2.5 m2,
O_SD_KG_02 - from 1800 mm to channel, depth -
m to 1.6 m, top width length 15 m
2200 mm 1 m, top width
from 1.5 m to 3.7 m
1.5 m

Pipe
(linear meters)
ancillary works
1902 m, diameter
O_SD_KG_03 - - channel, depth 1 m, - -
1600 mm
top width 1.5 m
Cleaning
existing channel
A_MD_KI_01
for lenght of
5250 m
Cleaning
existing Channel
B_MD_KI_01
for lenght of
4878 m
1)' 950 m of natural
trapezoidal channel,
Cleaning
depth 2.0 m, top width Realisation of a Detention Enlargement Culvert C7
existing Channel
C_MD_KI_01 29 m 2) 950 m of Pond with a volume of 280000 with the addition of a cell
for lenght of
natural trapezoidal m3 3x5 m ( DxW)
6150 m
channel, depth 2.30
m, top width 34.6 m
Replacement of Culverts
: C46, C47,C48 witha box
E_MD_KI_01 channel, depth 1.5 m,
1.50x 5.00 m ( DxW).
top width 7 m
Removing Culvert C45
1) 980 m of rectangular
Cleaning channel, depth 2.5 m, 500 m of natural
Enlargement Culvert C14
existing Channel top width 6.5 m 2) trapezoidal channel,
F_MD_KI_01 with A cell 2 (depth) x10
for lenght of 580of rectangular depth 2.0 m, top width
(widh) m
1500 m channel, depth 2.5 m, 18 m
top width 8 m

Pipe
(linear meters)
ancillary works
Enlargement of current
section with a
trapezoidal concrete
channel.
Main river - Replacement of Culverts
dimensions Lenght : Dimention : Depth (D) x
(L)x Depth(D)x Top Width (W) : C31 with 3
Width (TP): 1) 2560 m circular pipes with 5 m of
L, 2.5 m D, 13 m TW , diameter. C30 with 4 cells
2) 2372 m L x 2.5 m D 5 x 3 m . C29 with 4 cells
H_MD_UB_01
x 15m TW, 3) 2012 m 5x3 m. C18 with 4 cells
L x 2.5 m D x 19 m 5x3 m. C56 with a cell 1.5
TW,4) 700 m L x 2.5 m x 2.5 m . C57 with 3 cells
D x21 m TW. 2 x2.5 m. C58 with 3 cells
Tributary river - 2x 2.5 m. C59 with 3 cells
dimensions : 1) 505 m 2x 2.5 m.
L x 1 m D x 3 m TW,
2) 2670 L x 1.50 D x 6
m TW, 3) 1910 L x 2
m D x 9 m TW.
MD: Main Drainage; SD: Secondary Drainage; UB: Ubungo; KI: Kinondoni; KG: Kigamboni; IL: Ilala: TE: Temeke
Table 12-4: Stormawter Drainage Projects’ Technical Features

12.2 Multi Criteria Analysis for Sanitation Projects
For ranking the sanitation projects’ priorities the same MCA methodology adopted in the DMDP
component 1.b (Flood Control and Storm Water Drainage) was used.
The identified interventions for the sanitation systems have different scales, impacts, results and
effects. The following subjects constitute the framework of factors to be considered when
prioritizing and selecting the interventions to be further developed in the next phases of the
“project” and/or to be fully implemented on site:
• The affordability and financial assistance available for carrying them out;
• The impact in improving the lives and welfare of those people in the areas most affected
by sewage related health problems;
• The impact in rising the value of public and private properties;
• The impact on reducing the cost of rehabilitation/substitution works on old infrastructures;
• The impact on the reduction in environmental pollution caused by the discharge of
untreated wastewater or faecal sludges into the ground, in the waterways and in the sea;
• The technical connection between the different types of sectoral interventions to be
provided.
The first point outlined on affordability depends on the available budget, which is not yet defined
by the Client. Moreover, the DAWASA’ phased projects, make the financial aspect of the
sanitation investments even more difficult to define.
However, as for the Client strategy, the assumption is still that a priority weighting should be given
to small scale phased packages, more affordable projects.
The remaining aspects can be classified based on their relative importance in resolving situations
that are:
• Relief to the health issues of population;

• Upgrading of properties or infrastructures;
• Relief to the environment.
The other specific aspect to be considered in the ranking process is the possibility of achieving
multiple benefits through interventions that overlap and help in the delivery of other DMDP
sectoral projects, or contributes to ongoing improvement works beneficial to the poorer population
suffering from lack of infrastructure.

To determine intervention priorities, Technical (TECH), Economical (ECONOM) and

Environmental (ENVI) aspects have been considered with the following sub factors and weights:
CRITERIA
SCORE #1 SCORE #2 SCORE #3 SCORE #4
(TECH/ECONOM/ENVI)
primary (STPs and local solution
TECH.01:
main sewer included secondary network: (ponds, latrines,
Type of sanitation
pumping stations): 2 septic systems, ..):
infrastructure involved
3 1
TECH.02:
Extension of sewered area; between 15,000 and <15,000 m3/d:
>30,000 m3/d: 3
class of flow carried or 30,000 m3/d: 2 1
treated
with direct influence with relation with or
TECH.03: with no relation
and contributing for located on the area of
Incorporation of impact of with DAWASA
the improvement of influence of
DAWASA sanitation projects:
DAWASA projects: DAWASA projects:
projects 0
4 2
TECH.04:
between 150,000 and
Extension of sewered area; >300,000 eq. : <150,000 eq.:
300,000 eq.:
population connected to 3 1
2
STPs
less than 5% of total
estimated cost for all between 5% and
ECON.01: >10%:
the sanitation 10%:
Total cost per intervention 1
interventions: 2
3
ECON.02:
between 80 US$/m
Unitary cost per length of <80 US$/m: >120 US$/m:
and 120 US$/m:
intervention or for treated 3 1
2
cubic meter
ECON.03: between 20,000 US$

<20,000 US$: >25,000 US$:
Unitary cost per area of and 25,000 US$:
3 1
intervention (USD/ha) 2
between 20% and

more than 50% of less than 20% of
ECON.04: 50% of sewage
sewage catchment in sewage catchment
Impact on land value catchment in urban
urban areas: in urban areas:
(percentage of urban area) areas:
3 1
2
eventually human lives protecting
reducing oxidation- disconnecting
ENVI.01: (reduction of underground water
ponds areas: drainage system:
Type of estimated benefits diseases): and soil:
3 1
4 2
intervention in intervention on the
intervention in
unplanned areas with vicinity with some
ENVI.02: unplanned areas with intervention in
improvement on general expectable
Beneficiation of low income clear improvement on planned areas:
current sanitation improvement on
residents sanitation: 1
conditions : sanitation:
4
3 2
between 50% and between 30% and less than 30% of
ENVI.03: Interference with more than 80% of
80% of sewage 50% of sewage sewage
natural or green areas sewage catchment in
catchment in urban catchment in urban catchment in
(Crop, Grass, Shrubs, urban areas:
areas: areas: urban areas:
Trees) 4
3 2 1
Table 12-5: Sanitation Projects’ Ranking Criteria

12.2.1 Sanitation Investments Priority
After assigning the scores to each project for every sector (technical, economical and
environmental), the sanitation projects final classification (FN) is obtained using the weighted
formula below:
FNi = w1 x TEC% + w2 x ECO% + w 3 x ENV%

with:
• w1 = 0.4
• w2 = 0.3
• w3 = 0.3
• Project TEC % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
• Projecti ECO % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
• Projecti ENV % = Sum of project i score/Maximum score
The prioritization of the proposed interventions has then been established accordingly to their final
score by using the following FN intervals:
▪ Priority 1: FNi≥ 0.75

▪ Priority 4: FNi< 0.55
Therefore, the following Table 7.12 presents the priority calculation for all the DMDP and DSDP
proposed stormwater drainage interventions.


Location TECH 1 TECH.2 TECH.3 TECH.4 ECON.1 ECON.2 ECON.3 ECON.4 ENVI.1 ENVI.2 ENVI.3
(Ward) Priority
SANITATION 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 0.4 0.35 0.25 1.0
A01 Mbweni-1 3 1 0 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 38% 67% 50% 51% 4

A02 Bunju 3 3 0 3 2 2 3 1 4 3 1 69% 67% 67% 68% 2
A03 Mbezi-2 3 2 0 3 3 2 2 1 4 4 1 62% 67% 75% 67% 2
AC01 Mbweni-2 3 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 62% 58% 42% 55% 3
AC02 Mbezi-1 3 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 4 2 1 62% 58% 58% 60% 3
B01 Kunduchi-2 3 2 0 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 54% 75% 42% 58% 3
B02 Goba-1 3 2 0 3 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 62% 58% 58% 60% 3
BC01 Kunduchi-1 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 3 2 1 3 85% 83% 50% 76% 1
C01 Kawe 3 3 4 3 3 2 1 2 4 4 2 100% 67% 83% 84% 1
C02 Goba-2 3 1 0 2 3 2 1 1 4 4 1 46% 58% 75% 58% 3
C03 Mbezi-3 3 2 0 3 3 2 1 2 4 4 2 62% 67% 83% 69% 2
H02 Saranga 3 1 0 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 2 38% 75% 83% 62% 3
Upanga
I01 2 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 1 4 92% 83% 75% 85% 1
Magharibi
I02 Buguruni 3 3 4 3 2 1 1 3 4 4 3 100% 58% 92% 83% 1
I03 Kipawa 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 85% 67% 58% 72% 2
M01 Kiburugwa 3 3 0 3 2 1 1 3 4 4 3 69% 58% 92% 71% 2
M02 Kivule 3 3 0 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 69% 58% 58% 63% 3
M03 Airwing 3 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 69% 83% 50% 69% 2
MR01 Kijichi 3 1 4 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 3 77% 83% 92% 83% 1
MR02 Kurasini 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 3 4 1 4 100% 67% 75% 82% 1
N01 Chamazi 3 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 38% 50% 42% 43% 4
N02 Mbagala Kuu 3 2 0 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 1 62% 50% 75% 61% 3
N03 Chanika 3 3 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 69% 42% 50% 55% 4
Table 12-2: Sanitation Projects’ Priorities (Multi-Criteria Analysis)

According to the prioritization MCA 6 projects have reached the maximum score (1).
All of the above listed projects are composed by STP, main sewers, pumping stations, secondary
and tertiary sewers.
As regards the future tender stage of the projects the package values around USD100 million can
be used as a threshold for dividing the cost of the prioritized interventions.
A number of 4 phases are suggested as follows.
DSDP PROJECT PS STP Sewer

CODE Location Instal. capacity Pipe Cost Overall
Phase
(Ward) Power (m3/d) length [US$] Priority
SANITATION
(kW (km)
I02* Buguruni 575 69,604 1,510 196,036,488 1 I
MR02* Kurasini 507 41,159 605 95,375,525 1 I
C01* Kawe 197 31,595 804 93,855,698 1 I
MR01* Kijichi 203 11,441 353 36,600,622 1 I
BC01 Kunduchi-1 56 22,000 39 8,123,207 1 I
I01 Upanga Magharibi 103 200,000 5 2,984,387 1 I
M01 Kiburugwa 112 55,505 1,026 179,161,145 2 II
I03 Kipawa 58 39,284 1,434 149,373,088 2 II
A02 Bunju 31,968 1,454 136,005,942 2 II
C03 Mbezi-3 16,502 649 72,489,449 2 II
A03 Mbezi-2 18,144 624 64,565,531 2 II
M03 Airwing 3,562 72 6,798,045 2 II
M02 Kivule 55 39,609 2,179 204,161,029 3 III
AC02 Mbezi-1 27 26,955 1,395 137,247,829 3 III
AC01 Mbweni-2 230 23,328 1,277 134,051,636 3 III
N02 Mbagala Kuu 211 25,611 832 105,104,507 3 III
B02 Goba-1 20,477 868 94,278,657 3 IV
B01 Kunduchi-2 17 17,712 695 69,125,875 3 IV
C02 Goba-2 119 14,342 529 63,510,830 3 IV
H02 Saranga 79 8,976 330 35,470,389 3 IV
N03 Chanika 63 32,027 1,282 159,715,138 4 IV
N01 Chamazi 132 14,581 300 46,661,181 4 IV
A01 Mbweni-1 8,813 344 34,843,986 4 IV
Grand Total 2,746 773,196 18,606 $2,125,540,185
* Pre-Feasibility stage
Figure 12-2. – Sanitation Projects Priorities and Phases.
For the 4 projects I02, MR02, MR01, C01 a Pre-Feasibility study has been developed further in
this report. These interventions are the ones proposed to be detailed in the next Phases of DSDP,

together with some others to be selected after consideration of their connectivity with DAWASA
projects.
Figure 12-3. – Sanitation Projects Priorities and Phases.

LIST OF ATTACHED DOCUMENTS
1 ATTACHED 1 – Analysis of Alternatives for Wastewater and Faecal Sludge

Management

The DSDP is constituted by the following Reports attached to this Main Technical Report:
0. Baseline Assessment Report
1. Main Technical Report (this document)
1.1 Site Survey Report
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
3. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
4. Resettlement Action Plan
5. Phasing and Implementation Plan
6. Pre-Feasibility Study
7. Technical Drawings

www.sering.it
mailsering@sering.it
Tanzania
104 G, Coast Street

House #2, Plot 765
Msasani, Dar es Salaam
Italy
Via Emerico Amari, 148

90139 Palermo
+39 091.307452
Via Francesco Redi, 5

00161 Roma
DRAINAGE AND SANITATION DEVELOPMENT +39 06.44230858
PLAN (DSDP) FOR DAR ES SALAAM CITY

UNDER DMDP. PLANNED PERIOD
‘‘2018-2035’’

Drainange and Sanitation Development Plan - DSDP-DRAFT - TECH-REPORT - 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drainange and Sanitation Development Plan - DSDP-DRAFT - TECH-REPORT - 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

PRESIDENT’S OFFICE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1. Main Technical Report

3. Environmental and Social

4. Resettlement Action Plan

Contract No. ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 Draft copy – December 2018

CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF DRAINAGE &

Subject: BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT: NOVEMBER 2018

File Code: 01_DSDP_DRAFT_TECH-REPORT_2018

President’s Office - Regional

Administration and Local Government

ME/022/2017/2018/CR/11 - March 2017

Main Technical Report

Index Modification Originated Checked Authorized Date

First issue for

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 1 OF 423

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Client President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 2 OF 423

NEMC National Environmental Management Council

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 3 OF 423

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 4 OF 423

4.3.3 New IDF Curves for Dar es Salaam ................................................................. 80

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 5 OF 423

5.5 Kinondoni District Structural Measures ..................................................................... 159

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 6 OF 423

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 7 OF 423

1 ATTACHED 1 – Analysis of Alternatives for Wastewater and Faecal Sludge

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 8 OF 423

Figure 3-1. Average Monthly Temperatures in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org). .................... 37

Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Rainfall in DSM (https://en.climate-data.org). .............................. 38

Figure 3-5. Width of a Flood-Prone Area (Rosgen, 1996). ........................................................ 44

Figure 3-9. Stagnation in drainage channel at Tandale. ............................................................ 66

Figure 4-3 Digital Terrain Model deliverd by COWI (2017). ....................................................... 91

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 9 OF 423

Figure 4-5 Dimensionless unit hydrograph and mass curve. ..................................................... 96

Figure 4-7 HEC-HMS Loss method editor................................................................................. 97

Figure 4-8 . Gerezani hydrographic scheme. ............................................................................ 98

Figure 4-10. Ubungo river sub-catchments ............................................................................. 102

Figure 4-11. Rivers in Dar es Salaam. .................................................................................... 106

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 10 OF 423

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 11 OF 423

Figure 4-59. New proposed drainage structural measures. ..................................................... 145

Figure 4-60. Cross section of a double trapezoidal channel. ................................................... 147

Figure 5-1. - Existing sewerage systems in Kinondoni District. ............................................... 157

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 12 OF 423

Figure 5-5. – Kinondoni Service Catchments .......................................................................... 157

Figure 5-6. – Existing sewerage systems in Ubungo District. .................................................. 157

Figure 5-10. – Kigamboni Service Catchments ....................................................................... 212

Figure 5-11. Existing Ponds in Ilala District ............................................................................. 214

Figure 5-13. - Ilala Project area .............................................................................................. 217

Figure 5-14. - Ilala Catchment N3 ........................................................................................... 218

Figure 5-15. - Ilala Catchment M2........................................................................................... 223

Figure 5-16. - Ilala Catchment M3........................................................................................... 228

Figure 5-17. - Ilala Catchment I2 ............................................................................................ 230

Figure 5-18. - Ilala M3’ STP area ............................................................................................ 231

Figure 5-19. - Ilala Catchment I3 ............................................................................................ 235

Figure 5-20. - Ilala Catchment to STP MR1 ............................................................................ 240

Figure 5-21. - Ilala Catchment to STP M1 ............................................................................... 241

MAIN TECHNICAL REPORT PAGE 13 OF 423

Figure 5-22. Existing Ponds in Temeke District....................................................................... 265

Figure 5-24. - Temeke Project area ........................................................................................ 268

Figure 5-25. - Temeke Catchment MR2 .................................................................................. 269