Agago District

by May 15, 2025

The access rates in Agago vary from 57 % in WOL T.C Sub-County to 95 % in Lapono Sub-County. Agago has 1,402 domestic water points which serve a total of 239,248 people – 203,507 in rural areas. 627 water points have been non-functional for over 5 years and are considered abandoned. Agago has 2 piped schemes.

Access

85^%

Rural Functionality

55^%

Equity

69

Management

98^%

Gender

87^%

Population Density (people/km²) and Population

50		250		1,000		2,000

	100		500		1,500

LKL Lokole 44

KTM Kotomor 92

PRB Parabong 60

KTC Kalongo TC 518

ARM Arum 69

AGENGO Unknown

AJALI Unknown

GEREGERE Unknown

KUYWEE Unknown

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO Unknown

ADILANG T.C Unknown

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

LPL Lira Palwo 24

OMT Omot 59

ATC Agago TC 143

PTN Patongo 113

OPC Omiya Pacwa 42

PML Paimol 21

LAI-MUTTO T.C Unknown

WOL T.C Unknown

PTC Patongo TC 397

ADL Adilang 47

WOL Wol 13

LMY Lamiyo 73

LPN Lapono 34

Population figures are projections to the above mentioned date based on UBOS census 2014 and district growth rates. Population density is calculated on land area only. Boundaries reflect the preliminary status only.

Access to Safe Water

20 %		60 %

	40 %		80 %

Total Access 85 %

Rural Access 87 %

Urban Access 75 %

LAI-MUTTO T.C 63 %

AJALI 95 %

GEREGERE 95 %

KUYWEE 95 %

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO 95 %

ADILANG T.C 95 %

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

AGENGO 95 %

ADL Adilang 76 %

ARM Arum 95 %

ATC Agago TC 95 %

KTC Kalongo TC 95 %

KTM Kotomor 95 %

LKL Lokole 95 %

LMY Lamiyo 95 %

LPL Lira Palwo 95 %

LPN Lapono 95 %

OMT Omot 95 %

OPC Omiya Pacwa 95 %

PML Paimol 95 %

PRB Parabong 95 %

PTC Patongo TC 95 %

PTN Patongo 95 %

WOL Wol 95 %

WOL T.C 57 %

Access to safe water is the ratio of people served by a safe water point and piped water supply to the total population.
The calculation is based on an estimated number of people per water point type. Maximum access rate can be 95%.

Access to Safe Water

20 %		60 %

	40 %		80 %

Total Access 85 %

Rural Access 87 %

Urban Access 75 %

LAI-MUTTO T.C 63 %

AJALI 95 %

GEREGERE 95 %

KUYWEE 95 %

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO 95 %

ADILANG T.C 95 %

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

AGENGO 95 %

ADL Adilang 76 %

ARM Arum 95 %

ATC Agago TC 95 %

KTC Kalongo TC 95 %

KTM Kotomor 95 %

LKL Lokole 95 %

LMY Lamiyo 95 %

LPL Lira Palwo 95 %

LPN Lapono 95 %

OMT Omot 95 %

OPC Omiya Pacwa 95 %

PML Paimol 95 %

PRB Parabong 95 %

PTC Patongo TC 95 %

PTN Patongo 95 %

WOL Wol 95 %

WOL T.C 57 %

Functionality of Point Water Sources

60 %		80 %

	70 %		90 %

Rural Functionality 55 %

Urban Functionality 55 %

LAI-MUTTO T.C 33 %

AJALI 46 %

GEREGERE 58 %

KUYWEE 55 %

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO 63 %

ADILANG T.C 46 %

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

AGENGO 85 %

ADL Adilang 61 %

ARM Arum 57 %

ATC Agago TC 76 %

KTC Kalongo TC 41 %

KTM Kotomor 55 %

LKL Lokole 54 %

LMY Lamiyo 74 %

LPL Lira Palwo 72 %

LPN Lapono 56 %

OMT Omot 47 %

OPC Omiya Pacwa 51 %

PML Paimol 38 %

PRB Parabong 51 %

PTC Patongo TC 63 %

PTN Patongo 57 %

WOL Wol 49 %

WOL T.C 44 %

Functionality is the ratio of functional water sources to all water sources. Sources not operating for five or more years are assumed to be abandoned, and hence are not included in the calculation.

People served per technology

Reasons for non-functionality

Type of Management

Source of Funding

District Water Supply Summary

Sub-County	Urban/ Rural	Population	Population Served	Access	Functionality			Point Water Sources																					Piped Water Systems
					Functionality			Protected springs			Shallow wells			Deep boreholes			Rainwater harvesting tanks			Dams			Valley tanks			PSP/Kiosk, Tap stands			YT	HH	IC	NWSC
					R	U	WfP	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	F	NF	Tot	YT	HH	IC	NWSC
AGAGO
1 ADILANG T.C	Urban	3,471	3,297	95%	-	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12	15	27	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	3	7	-	-	-	No
2 Adilang	Rural	17,692	13,503	76%	61%	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	3	26	16	42	-	1	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
3 Lokole	Rural	11,085	10,530	95%	54%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	22	12	34	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	-	-	-	No
4 Patongo	Rural	12,877	12,233	95%	57%	-	-	-	1	1	3	6	9	37	15	52	-	7	7	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
5 Agago TC	Urban	7,054	6,701	95%	-	76%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	28	7	35	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	-	-	-	No
6 Kotomor	Rural	14,780	14,041	95%	55%	-	-	-	3	3	-	9	9	39	15	54	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
7 Patongo TC	Urban	13,549	12,872	95%	-	63%	-	-	-	-	3	7	10	28	2	30	-	7	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	5	5	10	-	-	-	No
8 AJALI	Rural	9,070	8,617	95%	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	3	18	10	28	-	8	8	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
9 LAPEREBONG	Rural	4,815	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		94,393	81,794	87	55	62	0	0	4	4	9	26	35	231	110	341	0	35	35	0	3	3	0	1	1	10	12	22	0	0	0	No
AGAGO WEST
1 GEREGERE	Rural	9,966	9,468	95%	58%	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	22	14	36	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Lira Palwo	Rural	5,039	4,787	95%	72%	-	-	-	-	-	1	9	10	41	5	46	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
3 Omot	Rural	7,278	6,914	95%	47%	-	-	4	4	8	1	5	6	14	8	22	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
4 AGENGO	Rural	6,159	5,851	95%	85%	-	-	-	-	-	1	3	4	42	4	46	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
5 Lamiyo	Rural	9,966	9,468	95%	74%	-	-	-	-	-	12	-	12	28	9	37	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
6 Arum	Rural	13,773	13,084	95%	57%	-	-	6	-	6	9	5	14	33	21	54	1	8	9	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
7 LIRA PALWO T.C	Urban	9,742	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		61,923	49,572	80	65	0	0	10	4	14	24	23	47	180	61	241	2	18	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	9	11	0	0	0	No
AGAGO NORTH
1 Paimol	Rural	6,718	6,382	95%	38%	-	-	-	1	1	-	10	10	28	23	51	-	12	12	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Parabong	Rural	13,325	12,659	95%	51%	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	8	44	15	59	-	6	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	13	-	-	-	No
3 KUYWEE	Rural	11,421	10,850	95%	55%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	34	21	55	-	3	3	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
4 Kalongo TC	Urban	13,549	12,872	95%	-	41%	-	-	-	-	5	15	20	20	16	36	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	7	8	-	-	-	No
5 LAI-MUTTO T.C	Rural	20,267	12,730	63%	33%	-	-	1	1	2	1	8	9	14	18	32	-	6	6	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
6 Omiya Pacwa	Rural	13,549	12,872	95%	51%	-	-	-	-	-	4	14	18	40	27	67	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
7 Lapono	Rural	16,348	15,531	95%	56%	-	-	-	-	-	1	6	7	48	11	59	-	10	10	-	1	1	-	-	-	1	12	13	-	-	-	No
8 WOL T.C	Rural	11,066	6,330	57%	44%	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	10	8	18	-	5	5	-	1	1	-	-	-	2	-	2	-	-	-	No
9 LIRA KATO	Rural	12,205	11,595	95%	63%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	31	4	35	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6	6	-	-	-	No
10 Wol	Rural	6,382	6,063	95%	49%	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	20	14	34	-	7	7	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		124,830	107,882	86	49	41	0	1	2	3	12	72	84	289	157	446	1	56	57	0	10	10	0	0	0	4	38	42	0	0	0	No
District		281,146	239,248	85	55	55	0	11	10	21	45	121	166	700	328	1,028	3	109	112	0	13	13	0	1	1	16	59	75	0	0	0	No

F = Functional; NF = Non-Functional; Tot = Total; YT = Yard Tap; HH = Household Connections; IC = Institutional Connections

Piped Water Supply Systems

Type of Scheme/GFS	Number of Schemes	Functionality of System			Type of Management					WB in place
Type of Scheme/GFS	Number of Schemes	Functional	Non-Functional	Partially Functional	Private Operator	WSC	Private/Individual	NWSC	Other	Yes	No
Groundwater based/Not GFS	2	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Total	2	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0

GFS = Gravity Flow Scheme; WB = Water Board; WSC = Water Source Committee

85%

55%

69

98%

87%

Population Density (people/km2) and Population

Access to Safe Water

Access to Safe Water

Functionality of Point Water Sources

People served per technology

Reasons for non-functionality

Type of Management

Source of Funding

District Water Supply Summary

Piped Water Supply Systems

85^%

55^%

98^%

87^%

Population Density (people/km²) and Population