Agago District

by November 20, 2024

The access rates in Agago vary from 58 % in WOL T.C Sub-County to 95 % in Lokole Sub-County. Agago has 1,399 domestic water points which serve a total of 238,022 people – 202,493 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 515

ARM Arum 68

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 142

PTN Patongo 112

LAI-MUTTO T.C Unknown

OPC Omiya Pacwa 42

PML Paimol 21

WOL T.C Unknown

PTC Patongo TC 395

WOL Wol 13

ADL Adilang 47

LMY Lamiyo 72

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 77 %

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 58 %

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 77 %

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 58 %

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 50 %

PML Paimol 36 %

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	3,451	3,278	95%	-	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12	15	27	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	3	7	-	-	-	No
2 Adilang	Rural	17,587	13,503	77%	61%	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	3	26	16	42	-	1	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
3 Lokole	Rural	11,020	10,469	95%	54%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	22	12	34	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	-	-	-	No
4 Patongo	Rural	12,800	12,160	95%	57%	-	-	-	1	1	3	6	9	37	15	52	-	7	7	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
5 Agago TC	Urban	7,012	6,661	95%	-	76%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	28	7	35	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	-	-	-	No
6 Kotomor	Rural	14,693	13,958	95%	55%	-	-	-	3	3	-	9	9	39	15	54	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
7 Patongo TC	Urban	13,468	12,795	95%	-	63%	-	-	-	-	3	7	10	28	2	30	-	7	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	5	5	10	-	-	-	No
8 AJALI	Rural	9,016	8,565	95%	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	3	18	10	28	-	8	8	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
9 LAPEREBONG	Rural	4,786	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		93,833	81,390	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	9,906	9,411	95%	58%	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	22	14	36	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Lira Palwo	Rural	5,009	4,759	95%	72%	-	-	-	-	-	1	9	10	41	5	46	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
3 Omot	Rural	7,235	6,873	95%	47%	-	-	4	4	8	1	5	6	14	8	22	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
4 AGENGO	Rural	6,122	5,816	95%	85%	-	-	-	-	-	1	3	4	42	4	46	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
5 Lamiyo	Rural	9,906	9,411	95%	74%	-	-	-	-	-	12	-	12	28	9	37	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
6 Arum	Rural	13,691	13,006	95%	57%	-	-	6	-	6	9	5	14	33	21	54	1	8	9	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
7 LIRA PALWO T.C	Urban	9,684	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		61,553	49,276	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	6,679	6,345	95%	36%	-	-	-	1	1	-	10	10	26	23	49	-	12	12	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Parabong	Rural	13,246	12,584	95%	51%	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	8	44	15	59	-	6	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	13	-	-	-	No
3 KUYWEE	Rural	11,353	10,785	95%	55%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	34	21	55	-	3	3	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
4 Kalongo TC	Urban	13,468	12,795	95%	-	41%	-	-	-	-	5	15	20	20	16	36	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	7	8	-	-	-	No
5 LAI-MUTTO T.C	Rural	20,147	12,730	63%	33%	-	-	1	1	2	1	8	9	14	18	32	-	6	6	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
6 Omiya Pacwa	Rural	13,468	12,795	95%	50%	-	-	-	-	-	4	14	18	39	27	66	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
7 Lapono	Rural	16,251	15,438	95%	56%	-	-	-	-	-	1	6	7	48	11	59	-	10	10	-	1	1	-	-	-	1	12	13	-	-	-	No
8 WOL T.C	Rural	10,994	6,330	58%	44%	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	10	8	18	-	5	5	-	1	1	-	-	-	2	-	2	-	-	-	No
9 LIRA KATO	Rural	12,133	11,526	95%	63%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	31	4	35	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6	6	-	-	-	No
10 Wol	Rural	6,345	6,028	95%	49%	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	20	14	34	-	7	7	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		124,084	107,356	87	49	41	0	1	2	3	12	72	84	286	157	443	1	56	57	0	10	10	0	0	0	4	38	42	0	0	0	No
District		279,470	238,022	85	55	55	0	11	10	21	45	121	166	697	328	1,025	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