Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 11, No. 6; 2018 ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 120 Water Access Today and Tomorrow: Domestic Water Sustainability under Informal Water Supply Markets in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Francis Dakyaga 1 , Alphonce G. Kyessi 1 & Joel M. Msami 1 1 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Ardhi University, Tanzania Correspondence: Francis Dakyaga, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Ardhi University, Tanzania. E-mail: fdakyaga.fd@gmail.com Received: July 4, 2018 Accepted: August 9, 2018 Online Published: November 29, 2018 doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n6p120 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v11n6p120 Abstract The article examined domestic water access sustainability under informally driven water supply market, drawing on suppliers-consumers’ perspectives. Analysis was done on the capacities of the informal water suppliers for sustainable water provision, how the informal water markets operate, and clients’ perspectives of water access today and tomorrow. Four different data set were comparatively analyzed from interviews with the Municipal Water Engineer (MWE), Ward Health Officer (WHO), 3 Mtaa leaders from 3 informal settlements, interviews with 43 informal water sellers from three informal settlements, including a survey of (n = 292) clients in three informal settlements. It was realized that though informal water suppliers are sociocultural capable of providing flexible and gender-sensitive water supply services, households have unsustainable access to improved water due to the financial, hydro-technical, institutional and organizational in capacities of the informal water sellers coupled with the low financial abilities of low-income earning households to continuously purchase water for domestic activities. It was observed that informal settlements’ dwellers are less likely to meet their water supply needs in the near future if their income status together with the financial, hydro-technical, organizational and institutional capacities of the informal water sellers are not improved. Keywords: informal water markets, water sellers, water access, sustainability, informal settlements 1. Introduction Sustainable access to water is well epitomized in both the past and recent global development agendas (UN, 2016). Access to improved water has reflected in both the Millennium Development Goal (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs). The recognition of access to water in development agendas demonstrates its universality to the human development agenda (Mehta, 2014). Yet, though the developed world is on a steady progress to achieving the targets of the SDG 6 (UN, 2016), a roadmap to realizing the SDG target 6.1 — universal and equitable access to safe and affordable water for everyone by 2030 in Sub-Saharan Africa—will require a collective effort from both the public and the informal water supply actors (UN, 2016). This is obvious because informal water markets drive the water economy in the global south due to states incapacity. Water sellers dominate in the urban water supply network serving more than half a proportion of the urban population (UNDP, 2011; WHO/UNICEF, 2015; Ahmad, 2017). Comparatively, informal settlements’ dwellers are the most served by the informal water markets due to limited or no public water extension, the rising urban population, haphazard spatial development in the informal settlements, and fear of recovery public water supply cost due to the lack of legal rights of occupancy of the dwellers (Kyessi, 2011; Cain, 2018; Wutich et. al., 2016; Braimah et. al., 2017). Informal settlement dwellers are most at risk of water poverty (Wutich et. al., 2016; Ahmad, 2017; Braimah et. al. 2017). A review of experiences further shown that access to improved water in the informal settlements is more challenging, in cities that experience erratic public water supply yet with predominantly geogenic water contaminants (i.e. high salinity and arsenic of water groundwater) (Rondi et. al. 2015). In such circumstance, the technologies used by water sellers are often less capable of improving and sustaining the quality of water produced (McGranahan et. al. 2016). The burden and cost of treating groundwater, are often transferred to the water consumers who are also in capable to bear the cost of water quality treatment (Nganyanyuka et. al. 2014; Dakyaga et. al., 2018). Most residents either cope by operating a dual or multi-purpose water access and storage systems (Dakyaga, 2017; Dakyaga et. al., 2018). Others devise local water treatment mechanisms for geogenic