Information obtained from community leaders, WSA, household respondents and GPS showed that both village 1 (A-I) and 2 use improved and unimproved water sources. The distance travelled to access tap water in both villages was less than 200 m whereas the distance travelled to spring water in village 2 was up to 5 km. In village 1 (A-I), 24% of households used their own drilled wells as a primary water supply and 72% used communal taps on the street, while the remaining 4% used other sources. Privately drilled wells and tank water were used as the main secondary sources. Village 2 used both communal sources (75%) and springs (21%) and 4% used other sources. The secondary source used is spring water. Furthermore, 63% of village 1 (A-I) households did not have water on-site and only 37% have water in their own yards; 4% do not have any form of sanitary system. Forty-six per cent of households in village 2 had taps in their own yard and 54% did not have taps. Around 7% did not have any sanitary system. At times, water was not available from sources for up to 60 days, and the secondary sources were used as an alternative water source. The most reliable source was water from the spring followed by private drilled wells. Most communities used mixed sources for drinking purposes and other domestic chores due to intermittent water supply from communal standpipes. Table 3 shows that most people travel more than 200 m to access water from the spring (49%) and to access tank water (38%). The Kruskal–Wallis test shows the significant difference of p < 0.01 between distances travelled to water sources.