Agago District

by April 28, 2024

The access rates in Agago vary from 58 % in WOL T.C Sub-County to 95 % in Lokole Sub-County. Agago has 1,398 domestic water points which serve a total of 236,116 people – 200,916 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

68

Management

98^%

Gender

87^%

Population Density (people/km²) and Population

50		250		1,000		2,000

	100		500		1,500

LKL Lokole 43

KTM Kotomor 91

PRB Parabong 60

KTC Kalongo TC 511

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 58

ATC Agago TC 141

PTN Patongo 111

LAI-MUTTO T.C Unknown

OPC Omiya Pacwa 42

PML Paimol 21

WOL T.C Unknown

PTC Patongo TC 391

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 64 %

AJALI 95 %

GEREGERE 95 %

KUYWEE 95 %

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO 95 %

ADILANG T.C 95 %

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

AGENGO 95 %

ADL Adilang 78 %

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 64 %

AJALI 95 %

GEREGERE 95 %

KUYWEE 95 %

LAPEREBONG Unknown

LIRA KATO 95 %

ADILANG T.C 95 %

LIRA PALWO T.C Unknown

AGENGO 95 %

ADL Adilang 78 %

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 35 %

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 Patongo	Rural	12,682	12,048	95%	57%	-	-	-	1	1	3	6	9	37	15	52	-	7	7	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
2 Agago TC	Urban	6,947	6,600	95%	-	76%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	28	7	35	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	-	-	-	No
3 ADILANG T.C	Urban	3,419	3,248	95%	-	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12	15	27	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	3	7	-	-	-	No
4 Adilang	Rural	17,424	13,503	77%	61%	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	3	26	16	42	-	1	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
5 Kotomor	Rural	14,556	13,828	95%	55%	-	-	-	3	3	-	9	9	39	15	54	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
6 Patongo TC	Urban	13,343	12,676	95%	-	63%	-	-	-	-	3	7	10	28	2	30	-	7	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	5	5	10	-	-	-	No
7 AJALI	Rural	8,932	8,485	95%	46%	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	3	18	10	28	-	8	8	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
8 Lokole	Rural	10,917	10,371	95%	54%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	22	12	34	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	-	-	-	No
9 LAPEREBONG	Rural	4,742	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		92,962	80,760	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	9,815	9,324	95%	58%	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	22	14	36	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Omot	Rural	7,168	6,810	95%	47%	-	-	4	4	8	1	5	6	14	8	22	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
3 AGENGO	Rural	6,065	5,762	95%	85%	-	-	-	-	-	1	3	4	42	4	46	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
4 Lamiyo	Rural	9,815	9,324	95%	74%	-	-	-	-	-	12	-	12	28	9	37	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	-	No
5 Lira Palwo	Rural	4,962	4,714	95%	72%	-	-	-	-	-	1	9	10	41	5	46	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
6 Arum	Rural	13,564	12,886	95%	57%	-	-	6	-	6	9	5	14	33	21	54	1	8	9	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	4	5	-	-	-	No
7 LIRA PALWO T.C	Urban	9,594	0	0%	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		60,983	48,820	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	6,617	6,286	95%	35%	-	-	-	1	1	-	10	10	25	23	48	-	12	12	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
2 Parabong	Rural	13,123	12,467	95%	51%	-	-	-	-	-	-	8	8	44	15	59	-	6	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13	13	-	-	-	No
3 Lapono	Rural	16,100	15,295	95%	56%	-	-	-	-	-	1	6	7	48	11	59	-	10	10	-	1	1	-	-	-	1	12	13	-	-	-	No
4 KUYWEE	Rural	11,248	10,686	95%	55%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	34	21	55	-	3	3	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
5 WOL T.C	Rural	10,883	6,330	58%	44%	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	2	10	8	18	-	5	5	-	1	1	-	-	-	2	-	2	-	-	-	No
6 Kalongo TC	Urban	13,343	12,676	95%	-	41%	-	-	-	-	5	15	20	20	16	36	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	7	8	-	-	-	No
7 LIRA KATO	Rural	12,020	11,419	95%	63%	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	4	31	4	35	-	4	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	6	6	-	-	-	No
8 LAI-MUTTO T.C	Rural	19,960	12,730	64%	33%	-	-	1	1	2	1	8	9	14	18	32	-	6	6	-	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
9 Wol	Rural	6,286	5,972	95%	49%	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	20	14	34	-	7	7	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
10 Omiya Pacwa	Rural	13,343	12,676	95%	50%	-	-	-	-	-	4	14	18	39	27	66	-	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	No
Total		122,923	106,536	87	49	41	0	1	2	3	12	72	84	285	157	442	1	56	57	0	10	10	0	0	0	4	38	42	0	0	0	No
District		276,868	236,116	85	55	55	0	11	10	21	45	121	166	696	328	1,024	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%

68

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