MAIN REPORT VOL 4-Drainage Development

NAKIVUBO CHANNEL REHABILITATION PROJECT (NCRP)
KAMPALA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN

GENERAL INDEX TO REPORT
VOLUME 1
EXECUTIVE REPORT
VOLUME 2
MAIN REPORT PART I

INSTITUTIONAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN ASPECTS
VOLUME 3
MAIN REPORT PART II

ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
VOLUME 4
MAIN REPORT PART III

DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT
VOLUME 5
INVENTORIES
VOLUME 6
FIGURES AND MAPS

(All A3-size Figures and Maps)
KDMP GENERAL INDEX TO MAIN REPORT

Q:\H0782-kampala\Final Report July 2002\COVER PAGES final.doc
VOLUME 4
MAIN REPORT PART III
DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT
Page
CHAPTER 11 :
11.1
11.2
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
11.2.5
11.2.6
11.3
11.3.1
11.3.2
11.3.3
11.3.4
11.4
11.4.1
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
11.5
11.5.1
11.5.2
11.5.3
11.5.4
11.5.5
11.5.6
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.9
11.5.10
11.5.11
11.6
11.7
DESIGN STANDARDS AND NORMS

INTRODUCTION
DESIGN RETURN PERIODS
CONCEPT OF RISK
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
STORAGE AND FLOOD ATTENUATION DAMS
ROADS AND STREETS
BUILDINGS
FLOODLINES
GENERAL
TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION AND SURVEYS
HYDRAULIC ROUGHNESS
CROSS-SECTIONS
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
GENERAL
PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES
ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS
HYDRAULIC SIZING
INLETS AND OUTLETS FOR MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
FREEBOARD
STORMWATER DRAINAGE COMPONENTS
GENERAL
CHANNELS
LARGE CONDUITS
STORMWATER PIPES
KERB INLETS
CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
STORAGE / FLOOD ATTENUATION FACILITIES
EMBANKMENTS AND LEVEES
PARKING AREAS
BUILDINGS
REMOVAL OF URBAN LITTER
PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE AND EXPOSURE TO DAMAGE
BIBLIOGRAPHY

11.1
11.2
11.2
11.3
11.3
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.9
11.9
11.10
11.10
11.10
11.13
11.17
11.18
11.20
11.23
11.23
11.23
11.24
11.25
11.26
11.27
11.30
11.31
11.31
11.32
11.32
11.33
11.35
CHAPTER 12 :
12.1
12.2
12.2.1
12.2.2
12.2.3
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
12.2.8
12.2.9
12.3
12.4
12.4.1
12.4.2
CHAPTER 13 :
13.1
13.2
13.2.1
13.2.2
13.2.3
13.3
13.4
13.5
CHAPTER 14 :
14.1
14.2
14.2.1
14.2.2
14.2.3
14.3
14.3.1
14.3.2
14.3.3
14.3.4
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LONG-TERM PROGRAMME

INTRODUCTION
MAJOR SYSTEMS
GENERAL
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 NAKIVUBO
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 2 LUBIGI
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 NALUKOLONGO
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 4 KANSANGA AND 4A GABA
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 5 MAYANJA/KALIDDUBI
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6 KINAWATKA
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 7 NALUBAGA AND 7A NAKALERE
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 8 WALUFUME AND 8A
MAYANJA NORTH
MINOR SYSTEMS
DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL COSTS
MAJOR SYSTEMS
MINOR SYSTEMS
12.1
12.2
12.2
12.4
12.7
12.11
12.13
12.14
12.15
12.17
12.18
12.18
12.20
12.20
12.20
IDENTIFICATION OF ARRANGEMENTS
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS
LEGISLATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
ENGINEERING AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.2
13.2
13.3
13.3
SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION
NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF KDMP
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF DATA COLLECTION
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
PRIORITIZED INTERVENTIONS AND PROGRAMMING
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
DESIGN BRIEFS
COST ESTIMATES

14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.5
14.6
14.9
CHAPTER 11
DESIGN STANDARDS AND NORMS

11.1
INTRODUCTION
As described in Chapter 2 (Volume 2), management of stormwater drainage
distinguishes between structural measures and non-structural measures. Structural
measures consist of physical engineering works such as channelization of
watercourses, channel crossing (ie bridges and culverts), temporary storage
facilities, embankments, levees, etc. Non-structural measures include regulation of
floodplain use, regulation of land-use in the catchment and flood forecasting and
warnings, etc. The recommended design standards and norms described in this
chapter are applicable to structural measures or physical works only.
Planning and, in particular, the design of structural flood control measures must
generally comply with a number of criteria, such as:
minimizing the risk of damage to property and infrastructure
minimizing public inconvenience caused by frequent storms
protecting the public from severe floods and/or malfunctioning drainage systems
preventing erosion and siltation
preserving the environment
minimizing costs
The design standards and norms described in this chapter aim to assist in
quantifying the above criteria and to provide a uniform basis for future design of
improvements to the drainage systems in the Kampala District. For instance, the
design standards are essential to quantify stormwater discharges or flood
magnitudes, to size conveyance systems and culvert openings, to determine
acceptable levels of risk against damage and to establish acceptable levels of public
inconvenience, etc.
This chapter, therefore, deals with the general design standards associated with
flood and floodlines, standards applicable to hydraulic design or sizing, specific
standards and norms pertaining to components of stormwater drainage and norms
to evaluate the degree of inconvenience to the public and damage to buildings.
KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11
Q:\H0782-kampala\Final Report July 2002\CHAPTER 11 VOL 4 final.doc
Page 11.1
The methodologies or techniques for the design of stormwater drainage systems are
not addressed, but can be obtained from various text books and other technical
publications. Similarly, standards and norms for the structural stability of stormwater
drainage measures are not considered to be the purpose of this chapter.
It must be noted that the recommended design standards and norms are influenced
by many physical factors and site-specific conditions. The design standards and
norms therefore serve as a guide with respect to minimum requirements, but they
cannot substitute for experience and sound engineering judgement.
11.2
DESIGN RETURN PERIODS
11.2.1
CONCEPT OF RISK
There will always be a risk that the design flood can be exceeded. The risk,
however, decreases with increases in design return period.
The probability or risk (p) that an event having a return period of T years will be
equalled or exceeded at least once during a design life of N years is given by:
p = 1 (1 1/T)N
This interrelationship of probability, return period and design life is illustrated in

Table 11.1 and Figure 11.1. The flood peak ratios in Figure 11.1 are expressed in
terms of the 100-year flood peak and are based on the average ratios of all
estimated flood peaks (or peak stormwater discharges) for different return periods,
as contained in Section 4 of Volume 5.
Table 11.1 : Interrelationship of probability, return period and design life

Return period of event
(T years)
5
10
20
50
100
Probability (p) that an event will be equalled or exceeded during a

design life of N years
N=1
N=10
N=20
N=50
N=100
0,20
0,89
0,99
1,00
1,00
0,10
0,65
0,88
0,99
1,00
0,05
0,40
0,64
0,92
0,99
0,02
0,18
0,33
0,64
0,87
0,01
0,10
0,18
0,39
0,63

Page 11.2
Figure 11.1 : Flood peak ratios and risks of being exceeded
For example, it can be noted that although the risk of the 10-year event being
equalled or exceeded in any one year is only 10% (or 0,1), there is almost a 100%
probability that it will be equalled or exceeded at least once in the next 50 years.
11.2.2
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The selection of design return periods should be based on economic considerations
(ie cost-benefit analyses of the capital and maintenance costs of improvements
compared to the benefits achieved with improved drainage) as described in
Chapter 9 (Volume 3).
The following sections contain recommended minimum design return periods. The
risk associated with these minimum return periods must be considered as the
baseline for comparison purposes. Cost-benefit analyses should be carried out for
longer return periods to establish whether it would be economically beneficial to
design for a longer return period than the recommended minimum.
11.2.3
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
(a)
General
The design of any stormwater drainage system is based on a specific
discharge capacity, or flood peak, associated with a pre-selected return
period. The selection of a design return period is affected by the particular
stormwater drainage system under consideration, namely major or minor
systems as described in the following sub-sections.

Page 11.3
(b)
Major Systems
A major system consists of all natural watercourses, which collect and
convey surface stormwater in a definite direction and includes all natural
channels, streams and rivers, whether or not its conformation has been
changed by artificial means such as channelization. All the primary and
secondary channels shown in Figures 3 to 10 in Volume 6, are thus, by
definition, major systems.
The major system should be designed to accommodate less frequent

storms, to also take account of the downstream impacts of unusually high
flood events.
Although economic considerations, as described in Chapter 9 (Volume 3),

usually result in optimum return periods of between 10 and 20 years, many
countries have legal requirements stipulating longer return periods. By due
consideration of the inadequate existing discharge capacities of the major
systems in Kampala and the cost and affordability of upgradings, a design
return period of 10 years as a minimum is recommended for the major
systems.
An economic analysis should still be a prerequisite for the detail design of

any major system to establish whether it would be economically beneficial
to design for return periods longer than 10 years.
In addition, it is essential that the behaviour of an upgraded major system

also be verified for stormwater discharges with return periods of up to 100
years to ensure that all affected or possibly affected persons have access
to information regarding potential flooding.
(c)
Minor Systems
The purpose of minor systems is to convey stormwater to the major
systems in such a way that inconvenience to pedestrian and vehicular
traffic is minimized and properties are protected from flood damage from
frequent storms of lower intensity. The minor systems conveniently consist
of pipes or small open drains to avoid frequent nuisance, which results from
overland flow. By definition, the minor system therefore corresponds to pipe

Page 11.4
and open drain systems, which have traditionally been provided in Kampala
to convey stormwater to the major systems (or primary and secondary
channels).
The roadside drainage referred to in the previous chapters consisting of

kerbs, kerb inlets or catchpits, underground pipes and small open drains
are all components of the minor systems.
Minor systems are designed for stormwater discharges with shorter return
periods to minimize inconvenience in the areas outside the primary and
secondary channels and floodplains.
It is recommended that design return periods for minor systems be based

on the return periods listed in Table 11.2. These are commonly used in
South Africa and other countries and have been abstracted from the
Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design of the RSA
Department of Housing (2000). These must be considered as the
minimum design return periods and the onus is still on the designer to
consider longer return periods in cases where the risk of inconvenience and
monetary losses due to regular damage are unacceptably high.
Table 11.2 : Design return periods for minor systems

Land-use
Recommended Design Return Period
Residential
2 to 5 years
Institutional (eg schools)
2 to 5 years
General commercial and industrial

High value central business districts
11.2.4
5 years
5 to 10 years
STORAGE AND FLOOD ATTENUATION DAMS

Storage on major systems (ie on primary and secondary channels) is provided by
dams for recreational and water supply purposes or for temporary storage to
attenuate or retard the peak stormwater discharges.
Breaching or failure of a dam will result in catastrophic damages and will affect
public safety downstream of the dam. The designer should, therefore, not rely on
generalized design standards, but cater for site-specific conditions also taking the
storage volume of the dam and the population density downstream of the dam into
account. The norms for selecting a return period for the design of the spillway or
Page 11.5
outlet, as given below, are based on international current practice and merely serve
to assist the designer in determining an appropriate flood magnitude (ICOLD 1987
and SANCOLD 1991).
Two scenarios are usually considered to determine acceptable levels of spillway

performance, namely:
Design flood conditions : The spillway operates without damage to any of its
components or to the associated dam structure. For this scenario it is
recommended that the 50-year flood hydrograph, routed through the dam
reservoir with appropriate freeboard, be used for sizing of the spillway.
Extreme flood conditions : Spillway operation may result in substantial

damage to its components and/or parts of the dam structure, but will not result
in catastrophic failure of the dam. For this scenario it is recommended that the
100-year or 200-year flood hydrograph, routed through the dam reservoir
without overtopping of the dam wall, be used to verify the safety against
catastrophic failure of the dam.
Kabakas Lake is the only existing dam in Kampala District of any significance, but
still has a relatively small storage capacity. It will not be feasible to construct storage
dams for flood peak attenuation on the floodplains of the lower lying primary
channels. Such dams will only be feasible in the upper reaches of the primary
channels and on the secondary channels. Space limitations and the steep channel
slopes mean that the storage volumes will be limited and catastrophic failure or
breaching may, therefore, have an insignificant effect on the downstream floodlines
or areas that would have been inundated without the dam. It is, therefore, also
recommended that the designer perform dam break analyses for floods with
different return periods and compare its effect to the without dam condition, to
assist in selecting a return period for the above extreme flood conditions.
11.2.5
ROADS AND STREETS

The selection of a return period for roads and streets forming part of minor systems
should be based on the recommendations given in Table 11.2. Where roads pass
through areas of different land-use, consideration should be given to designing the
entire route for the longest return period (see Table 11.2) associated with the
various land-uses occurring along the route.

Page 11.6
The return periods associated with the design of road crossings (ie bridges and
culverts) of major systems must at least be similar to the return period applicable to
upgradings of the primary and secondary channels, namely 10 years. It is, however,
essential that longer return periods also be considered in the following cases:
11.2.6
high potential damage to the road and high associated cost of repairs
long time needed for repairs to make the route usable for traffic again
detours not available
long period of flooding
high traffic density
deep flow depth and high flow velocity of floodwaters
high strategic importance (military, police, fire brigade, medical services, etc.)
high economic importance.
BUILDINGS
Selection of a return period for design of stormwater from and around large buildings
or a complex of buildings, is governed by site-specific conditions and economic
considerations. Site-specific conditions determine whether drainage forms part of
the major or the minor systems.
For buildings where only (unconcentrated) overland stormwater runoff needs to be

accommodated, the drainage forms part of the minor system and return periods
recommended in Table 11.2 would be applicable.
Where stormwater drainage at buildings is classified as forming part of the major

system, a return period of at least 10 years must be considered for design. In
addition, an economic or risk analysis is essential to determine whether a longer
return period should be used for design. Typical examples are:
buildings adjacent to primary and secondary channels where floodlines should

also be taken into account
large buildings or a complex of buildings situated across land depressions
diversions of a natural watercourse to suit the building layout.

Page 11.7
11.3
FLOODLINES
11.3.1
GENERAL
Floodlines are required on township layout plans to indicate the strip or area along
the watercourse that will be prone to inundation by stormwater discharges or floods.
Floodlines are hydraulically analyzed or determined for a specific return period and
the areas outside the floodlines on both sides of the watercourse are still subject to
inundation during floods with longer return periods than those on which the
floodlines are based. It is therefore good practice, and recommended, that floodlines
associated with longer return periods (at least up to 100 years) also be shown on
the layout plans and made available to all interested and affected parties to ensure
that they are aware of the risk of inundation along the watercourse.
Floodlines are applicable to the major systems only (ie the primary and secondary
channels) as analysed in Chapter 7 (Volume 3).
11.3.2
TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION AND SURVEYS

The morphology of a watercourse (ie cross-sectional shape and area as well as bed
slope) plays a major role in the location of floodlines. The floodlines determined in
Chapter 7 (Volume 3) are based on the available digitised spot heights, which were
also used by the Department of Surveys and Mapping to prepare the maps with 2m
contours contained in Volume 6. Although this topographical information is
considered adequate for master planning (as used in Chapter 7 : Volume 3), better
topographical information that is more accurate will be essential for detail design
purposes.
The following norms should be adhered to when collating topographical and other
associated information or surveys.
Topographical surveys should be based on the geodetic datum level with all
details of manmade structures (eg buildings, roads and bridges, dams,
channels, etc.) shown on the plans to facilitate transformation to GIS
(Geographic Information System). Transposition of floodlines from the
topographical map used to determine the floodlines to other topographical
maps must be done with care, taking discrepancies in contours, datum levels
and differences in coordinate systems into account.

Page 11.8
The required contour intervals (or spacing of spot heights) depend on the
topography, density and complexity of manmade structures, and is left to the
engineering judgement of the designer.
Details of existing bridges and culverts (ie number and sizes of openings,
transition dimensions, invert levels, road surface levels, etc.) should be shown
on the plans.
Depending on the topographical complexity and density of manmade structures, the

survey and use of cross-sections only (see Section 11.3.4) could also suffice.
11.3.3
HYDRAULIC ROUGHNESS
The greatest difficulty in determining floodlines is in assessing applicable roughness
coefficients and their variation along a watercourse. There are no exact norms for
selecting the roughness coefficient and this is usually based on engineering
judgement and experience.
Guidelines for selecting the roughness coefficient (n) in the Manning formula are
available from various text books, and reference can be made in this regard to Ven
te Chows Open-Channel Hydraulics (1959). (Also see Section 11.4.3).
It is good to investigate the sensitivity of variations in the roughness coefficient as

part of the floodline analysis. This process is facilitated if the model can be
calibrated on the basis of recorded flood peaks and flood marks.
11.3.4
CROSS-SECTIONS
The distance between cross-sections at which the water surface levels are modelled
to determine the floodlines depends on the uniformity of the watercourse and on the
desired level of accuracy. As a norm, cross-sections should be selected with
spacings of less than 25 times the flow depth and at changes in cross-sectional area
and shape, so that average velocities will not vary by more than 10 - 20% between
successive cross-sections. Localized irregularities can be ignored. It should be
noted that in cases where a channel meanders along a floodplain, the distance
between cross-sections, and thus also the slope, will differ for the channel flow and
overbank flow. It is usually also necessary to subdivide the cross-sections into
segments according to variations in the roughness coefficient and the occurrence of
stationary or dead water, as the case may be for overbank flow or flow on

Page 11.9
floodplains (refer to the Handbook of Applied Hydraulics (1969) by Davis and

Sorensen).
11.4
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
11.4.1
GENERAL
The behaviour of flow is influenced by many physical factors and site conditions.
The standards and norms applicable to hydraulic design of stormwater drainage
systems and flood protection measures as described in this section can, therefore,
only serve as a guide and cannot substitute for experience and sound engineering
judgement.
11.4.2
PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES

(a)
Maximum Flow Velocities

The maximum permissible flow velocity is the highest velocity that will not
cause significant erosion or scour and will not cause structural damage. The
norms, serving as a guide to establish these limiting velocities, are different for
various types of surfaces as described below.
(i)
Unprotected soil surfaces

Unlined channels and drains, as well as natural channels in unprotected
soil, are considered erodible, with erodibility dependant on the type of
soil. In accordance with a soils map for Kampala, made available by the
Department of Surveys and Mapping, the soil type in the Kampala
District is defined as clay loams or loams, except along the wetlands of
Drainage Systems 2 (Lubigi) and 3 (Nalukolongo), where humous clays
are
found
and
along
the
wetland
of
Drainage
System 5
(Mayanja/Kaliddubi) where humous sands are found. Based on

information abstracted from the RSA Roads Drainage Manual (1997)1,
the recommended maximum permissible average velocities or nonerodible velocities at different flow depths for these soil types are shown
in Figure 11.2. Hydraulic calculations are necessary to determine the
flow depth and velocity for a given discharge, channel gradient and
roughness coefficient. These recommended velocities apply to straight
reaches and need to be reduced for sinuous sections to reduce scour
A copy of the RSA Roads Drainage Manual has been handed to KCC for reference purposes.

Page 11.10
around bends. The maximum permissible average velocity is variable

and can be estimated only by experience and engineering judgement.
Figure 11.2 : Permissible average flow velocities
(ii)
Lined surfaces
The surfaces of channels, drains and dam spillways are lined inter alia to
accommodate higher flow velocities. Lining materials usually consist of
cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete blocks or slabs, stone pitching
and gabions.
The maximum permissible velocity is not critical, but is still governed by

water carrying sand, gravel and stones and the tendency for fast-flowing
water to lift the lining material and displace it. This applies, in particular,
to concrete blocks, gabions and stone pitching.
(iii)
Grassed surfaces
Grass provides effective protection against erosion if the surface to be
protected is subject to occasional or intermittent flow of water only, as is
the case with stormwater conveyance. It can be used successfully in
Kampala on the upper side slopes of channels, auxiliary spillways on
dams and along embankments. However, although grass provides a

Page 11.11
low-cost, environmentally acceptable solution, it requires regular and

continuous maintenance to remain effective in the long-term.
The use of reinforcement in a grassed waterway enhances the

engineering functions of plain grass, while retaining its environmental
attributes. Reinforced grass is used where flow velocity is high enough
to cause erosion that grass on its own might not withstand. Guidelines
for the design of grassed waterways can be found in CIRIAs Design of
Reinforced Grassed Waterways (1987) and in US Department of
Agricultures Stability Design of Grass-lined Open Channels (1990).
These guidelines show that the limiting flow velocity on plain grass
should also be considered in terms of duration of flow, as shown in
Figure 11.3. Effectiveness in preventing erosion in a grassed waterway
depends on:
full and intimate cover of the subsoil surface
no seepage flow in the direction of the slope
good integration of the soil/root mat with the underlying subsoil
avoidance of surface irregularities.

The above requires a high standard of construction and maintenance,
which is not always achievable. A high standard of maintenance
demands that the grass be cut regularly to increase its density.
The recommended flow velocities given in Figure 11.3 can be

increased if reinforcement of the grass surface is provided.
Figure 11.3 : Recommended limiting values for erosion resistance

of plain grass

Page 11.12
The flow velocities along the steeper slopes in the upper catchments will
usually be higher than the above maximum permissible flow velocities for
unprotected soil and grassed surfaces. Erosion can be avoided by lining as
described above or by reducing the flow velocity, which requires flatter
gradients or slopes. This can be achieved by small concrete or masonry weirs
or drop structures. A stilling basin or pool will be required at the drop
structures to dissipate energy and avoid erosion immediately downstream of
the structure.
(b)
Minimum Flow Velocities

The minimum permissible flow velocity, or non-silting velocity, is the lowest
velocity that will not cause sedimentation or siltation. This velocity is uncertain
and its exact value cannot be easily determined. The minimum recommended
average velocity to avoid siltation or deposition of fine material is shown in
Figure 11.2.
The minimum permissible flow velocities given in Figure 11.2 may be too low
for lined surfaces. Generally, a mean velocity of 0,6 to 0,9m/s on straight
sections may be used when the percentage of silt is low (Ven te Chow
1959). In the case of channels, siltation usually occurs on the inside of bends.
This can be minimized by tilting the bottom, or superelevating the canal
bottom, to ensure that reasonable velocity is maintained on the inside of the
bend.
The minimum permissible velocity to prevent deposition of material will

depend largely on the particle sizes of the materials being transported during
flood flows. Deposition of material usually occurs during flows lower than the
design flow. This makes it essential to verify the accepted minimum
permissible velocity for flood flows with lower return periods than the design
return period.
11.4.3
ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS
(a)
Flow Formulae
The formulae used most often to determine the velocity and depth of steady
uniform flow in an open channel for a given discharge are:
V = (1/n) R 2/3 S
(Manning formula)

Page 11.13
V = C (RS)
in which
(Chezy formula)
V is the velocity (m/s)

R is the hydraulic radius (m)
S is the bed slope or hydraulic gradient (m/m)
n is the Manning roughness coefficient
C is the Chezy roughness coefficient.
Selection of values for the Manning roughness coefficient (n) or Chezy

roughness coefficient (C) applicable to open-channel or free-flow conditions is
more complex and usually requires some judgement based on experience.
The Manning flow formula is used extensively for open-channel flow, and the
remainder of this section provides general norms for selecting the Manning
roughness coefficient, also known as the retardance coefficient.
In closed conduits with a circular cross-section (eg pipes), the following

formulae are most often used to determine head losses for full flow conditions:
hf = f(L/D) V2/2g
(Darcy - Weisbach formula)
V = 0,849 C R 0,63 (h f / L) 0,54
(Hazen-Williams formula)
in which
h f is the head loss (m)

L is the length of conduit (m)
D is the internal diameter of conduit (m)
V is the velocity (m/s)
g is the acceleration of gravity (9,81m/s 2)
R is the hydraulic radius (m)
f is the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor
C is the Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient.
The values for the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor (f) and for the HazenWilliams roughness coefficient (C) are affected by age, type and size of pipe
or conduit and, to a lesser extent, by the properties of the water. Guidelines or
norms for a reasonably accurate assessment of these friction factors and
Page 11.14
roughness coefficients are provided by suppliers of the various types of pipes

or conduits, and can also be verified in various text books, such as the
handbook of Applied Hydraulics by Davis and Sorensen (1969) and Pipeline
Design for Water Engineers by Stephenson (1979).
(b)
Factors Affecting Mannings Roughness Coefficient

The value of Mannings roughness coefficient (n) is highly variable and
depends on a number of factors. The factors listed below exert the greatest
influence on the value of n and reference should be made to Ven te Chows
Open-Channel Hydraulics (1959) for a detailed description of the influence of:
surface roughness
vegetation
irregularities
alignment
siltation and scouring
obstructions
discharge or flow depth
seasonal changes
suspended material and bed load.
The above factors should all be evaluated with respect to conditions regarding
the type of channel, state of flow, degree of maintenance, and other related
considerations. As a general norm, conditions tending to induce turbulence
and retardance will increase the n-value while those tending to reduce
turbulence and retardance will decrease the n-value.
Various technical publications and text books (see Bibliography) can be

consulted when assessing Mannings roughness coefficient, but engineering
judgement and experience will ultimately be required. It is always good
practice to investigate the sensitivity of flow depth or discharge due to
variations in the roughness coefficient.

Page 11.15
(c)
Grassed Surfaces
Protection against scouring or erosion by means of grassed surfaces is often
used because of its low establishment cost and pleasing environmental
appearance. Assessment of Mannings roughness coefficient for plain grassed
surfaces varies considerably between designers. It is considered appropriate,
therefore, to provide norms or guidance for the selection of a roughness
coefficient.
The hydraulic roughness of a grassed surface depends on its physical

characteristics, such as the height, stiffness and density of the grass and its
interaction with the flow. This interaction is divided into the following three
basic regimes according to hydraulic loading (CIRCA 1987):
The flow depth is significantly less than the height of the vegetation,
which is not deflected, and velocity at the soil surface is low due to
interference by the vegetation.
The combined effect of increasing flow velocity and depth causes the
vegetation to deflect and oscillate in the flow.
The velocity is high enough to push the vegetation down and a relatively
smooth, stationary surface is presented to the flow, with the effective
height of the vegetation being considerably lower than its natural height.
The roughness coefficients associated with these regimes, as prepared by

CIRCA (1987), are shown in Figure 11.4(a). The so-called VR method is
recommended for channels with slopes flatter than 1:10. For slopes steeper
than 1:10, the grass tends to be pushed down by the flow throughout the
normal range of discharges, and the hydraulic roughness appears to be
independent of the flow parameter (VR) and grass length, but to vary with the
waterway slope, as shown in Figure 11.4(b). These values are not applicable
to hydraulic loadings (or flow parameters) of less than about 0,01m2/s.
Presently there appears to be insufficient justification to warrant adopting

different values of hydraulic roughness for reinforced grass systems versus
those used for plain grass.

Page 11.16
It is advisable to adopt a lower roughness coefficient to determine the flow

velocity when selecting the required (grass) reinforcement, and an upper
roughness coefficient to determinate flow depth for allocation of freeboard or
for determination of overall shear stress imposed by flow on the waterway.
These lower and upper limits should be based on site-specific conditions and
engineering judgement. A nominal variation of at least 10% should be used.
Figure 11.4 : Roughness coefficient for grassed surfaces
11.4.4
HYDRAULIC SIZING
(a)
Free Surface Flow

Free surface flow conditions normally apply to open channels and drains and
to unpressurized conduits or pipes.
Hydraulically, a channel section having the least wetted perimeter for a given
area has the maximum conveyance (Ven te Chow, 1959). In the case of a
rectangular cross-section, the best hydraulic section is achieved with a bottom
width of twice the water depth. In the case of a trapezoidal cross-section, the

Page 11.17
best hydraulic section is achieved with half a hexagon. This implies side
slopes of 3 vertically and 1 horizontally (or 60 measured from the horizontal)
with the bottom width equal to 2/3 times the water depth. In the case of a Vshaped cross-section, the best hydraulic section is achieved with side slopes
of 1 in 1 or 45. These optimum trapezoidal and V-shaped sections are usually
impractical due to difficulties in construction and type of lining material, which
affects the stability of the side slopes; but are often used for concrete-lined
side drains along roads.
These optimum hydraulic sections may not be the most economical option if
the cost of excavation, allowance for freeboard, and type of lining material are
taken into account. Preference is usually given to a trapezoidal section with a
side slope of 1 vertically to 3 horizontally (minimum) for lining materials other
than concrete or gabions. However, confined spaces may necessitate a
rectangular, concrete-lined section.
Sizing of conduits and pipes should be based on free-flow conditions for the
design flood peak. In any case, for circular conduits and pipes, the maximum
free-flow conveyance is achieved with a flow depth equal to about 93% of the
internal diameter.
(b)
Full-flow Conditions
When the conduit or pipe becomes pressurized (ie full-flow conditions under a
surcharge head at the inlet), higher flows can be discharged. Head losses at
inlets, outlets, junction boxes, bends and changes in diameter or size have a
significant effect on the sizing of the pipe. Full-flow conditions, which result
from outlet control (ie submergence at the outlet), should also be taken into
account to determine the reduction in flow capacity under such conditions,
which are also associated with floods larger than the design flood.
Pipe diameters smaller than 450mm should not be used. Pipe sizes should
generally not be reduced on steep gradients or blockage may occur.
11.4.5
INLETS AND OUTLETS FOR MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Inlets for major drainage systems, including inlet transitions to bridges and culverts,
and intakes of outlet works for dams require careful attention during planning and
design. The main problem with inlets, inlet transitions and intakes is blockage by

Page 11.18
tree stumps and urban litter (see Section 11.5.11). Standards for the planning and
design of inlets and intakes cannot be laid down, but the following principles should
be taken into account:
Abrupt inlet transition sections are unacceptable and should be avoided. Inlet
transitions should allow for a gradual change in cross-sectional flow area to
minimize the formation of standing and cross waves. For super-critical flow,
the inward deflection of the side walls should in plan be less than 1 in 3 times
the Froude number.
Damming up at inlet transitions, which can be caused by inadequate

discharge and blockage, will only be acceptable if the upstream water levels
can be accommodated and slower flow velocities do not result in deposition of
sediment. (See also Section 11.5.11).
Protection against scouring immediately downstream of a rigid (concrete)

invert may be required for super-critical flow conditions.
The need for additional freeboard over and above that proposed in
Section 4.6.
Public safety measures (eg headwalls, handrails, etc).
Outlets for channels, large conduits and dams also require special attention,
particularly as far as energy dissipation is concerned. The design of energy
dissipators is dependent on many variables, which are site-specific and should,
therefore, be designed by an experienced engineer. The norms for planning and
design of energy dissipators and protection against erosion are covered extensively
in text books (Ven te Chow, 1959) and other technical publications (US Bureau of
Reclamation, 1963 : Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins), and fall beyond the scope
of this chapter. The basic norm should be that resulting flow velocities comply with
the norms for permissible flow velocities downstream (see Figure 11.2). Therefore,
an outlet transition (concrete or stone pitching) could also be used in cases with
appreciable flow depth downstream of the outlet. The aim should be to enlarge the
flow area by means of the transition to ensure a reduced flow velocity at the
downstream end of the transition.

Page 11.19
The outlets of channelized primary and secondary channels into a wetland also
require special attention, particularly as far as deposition of sediment is concerned
when the flow velocities are reduced. The gradients along the wetlands are always
much flatter than the gradients of the upstream channelized reaches. Deposition of
sediment over time therefore cannot be avoided and will have to be manually
removed on a regular basis. Sediment originates from the upper steeper slopes of
the catchments and special measures should also be employed to minimize erosion
in the upper reaches as described in Section 11.4.2(a).
11.4.6
FREEBOARD
(a)
Channels, Embankments and Levees

Freeboard is the vertical distance from the design water surface level to the
top of the above structures. This distance should be great enough to prevent
waves or disturbances in the water surface from overtopping the channel
sides, embankments and levees.
The following norms are proposed to determine the required freeboard:
(i)
Straight sections
Minimum values for freeboard on straight channel reaches, as extracted
from the RSA Road Drainage Manual are given in Table11.3.
Table 11.3 : Recommended freeboard on straight channel reaches

Freeboard for :
Sub-critical flow
Super-critical flow
Canal Section
Rectangular
0,15E
0,25y
Trapezoidal
0,20E
0,30y
E = specific energy = y + V 2 / 2g
y = depth of flow at deepest point
V = average velocity
The minimum values for freeboard given in Table 11.3 should also apply
to flow along embankments and levees. For stationary or dead water
along
embankments
and
levees,
the
freeboard
component
recommended for wave action and surges on dams can be used (see (c)
below)

Page 11.20
(ii)
Super-elevation at bend sections

In addition to the freeboard given in Table 11.3, additional freeboard as
shown in Table 11.4 is required at bends or curved sections to allow for
super-elevation of the water surface and wave action.
Table 11.4 : Additional freeboard for super-elevation

Canal Section
Rectangular
Additional Freeboard
v2 b
_____
gr
Trapezoidal
v2 (b + 2Ky)
__________
(gr - 2Kv2)
v
b
g
r
=
=
=
=
average velocity in straight portion of channel

bottom width
acceleration of gravity (9,81m/s 2)
centre-line radius of channel (should not be smaller than three times
the width at the water surface)
K = cotangent of side slope angle measured from the horizontal
(equal to zero for rectangular channel)
y = flow depth in straight portion of channel
Note :
The above additional freeboard can be reduced for sub-critical flow and
increased for super-critical flow depending on site specific conditions.
For sub-critical flow, the additional freeboard given in Table 11.4 is required
only on the outside of the bend, but for super-critical flow it is required on both
the outside and the inside and for some distance downstream of the bend due
to the propagation of shock or cross waves down the canal.
(b)
Large Conduits
Large stormwater conduits are not designed for full-flow conditions, and the
freeboard (ie the vertical distance from the water surface to the soffit of the
conduit) to be allowed can be based on Table 11.3, although this is not critical.
(c)
Dams
The total freeboard for a dam is the vertical distance from the full supply level
(FSL) to the non-overspill crest of the dam and consists of two components,
namely the flood surcharge rise above FSL as the primary component, and a
secondary component, allowing for wind wave and surge effects.

Page 11.21
To assess the total freeboard required for dams, reference must be made to
SANCOLDs Guidelines on Freeboard for Dams (1991). This provides a
comprehensive overview of all factors affecting freeboard for various types of
dams.
(d)
Culverts
Two freeboard scenarios are applicable to culverts : free flow conditions and
submerged or inlet control conditions.
Free flow conditions are applicable to culvert crossings of channels which are
channelized. The flow conditions in the upstream channelized reach should
not be disturbed by the culvert, requiring freeboard from the water surface to
the soffit of the culvert as given in Table 11.3. A box culvert will be the best
option to ensure that the flow conditions are not disturbed.
Submerged or inlet control conditions occur when the culvert causes

damming-up of the flow. Pipe culverts usually cause disturbance and
damming-up of the flow, unless very large pipes are used. In the case of
crossings over wetlands and other natural channels, damming-up upstream
may be acceptable. In these cases the freeboard is measured from the
upstream (dammed-up) water surface to the top of the road, which must also
conform to the freeboard requirements given in Table 11.3, to prevent
splashing onto the road which can be caused by wave action and other
disturbances.
(e)
Bridges
Freeboard for bridge structures is the vertical distance from the upstream
design water level (taking the rise in water level due to damming-up into
account) to the soffit or underside of the bridge. This distance should be
selected to prevent water or disturbances in water level from overtopping the
bridge and approach embankments, and to avoid splashing onto the road.
The recommended minimum freeboard for bridge openings, as extracted from

the RSA Road Drainage Manual (1997), is given in Table 11.5.

Page 11.22
Table 11.5 : Minimum freeboard for bridge openings

Design Discharge
(m3/s)
Minimum Freeboard (m)

(Interpolate for values in between)
0 - 100
200
400
1 000
>1 000
0,3
0,5
0,7
1,0
0,6 + d/15 (minimum 1,0)
d = flow depth (m)
Again, the above minimum values for freeboard should be considered in light
of site-specific conditions. Shock waves, which can be caused by abutments
and bridge piers, should also be taken into account, particularly at skew
crossings and for super-critical flow conditions.
11.5
STORMWATER DRAINAGE COMPONENTS
11.5.1
GENERAL
This section contains specific design norms applicable to various stormwater
drainage components not covered in the preceding sections.
11.5.2
CHANNELS
The meandering of a channel is usually reduced by channelization, resulting in an
increase in longitudinal bottom slope and flow velocities. When flow velocities
increase above the permissible maximum (see Section 11.4.2) special protection
measures must be provided against scouring and erosion on the bottom and
particularly the banks or sides.
The side slopes on the banks depend mainly on the type of material. For softer
material, the slopes should preferably be grassed and not made steeper than
1 (vertical) to 3 (horizontal). In harder material, such as rock or other less erodible
materials (eg stiff clay), nearly vertical or steeper slopes can be considered provided
measures are taken to ensure public safety. Levees such as those constructed from
concrete and gabions can also be used with founding levels well below the potential
scouring depths.
The norm for selecting the lining material for channelization depends mainly on the
maximum flow velocities, the availability and cost of the lining material, method of
construction (eg labour-intensive methods) and duration of the design flood.

Page 11.23
The longitudinal bottom slope of a stormwater channel is generally governed by the

topography, which affects the flow velocity and consequently affects the selection of
lining material.
Trapezoidal and rectangular sections are mostly used for stormwater channels.
Rectangular sections are more expensive than trapezoidal sections and are only
used to overcome certain problems, such as confined spaces, and to facilitate road
crossings. The side slopes can vary from vertical, for concrete-lined canals, to any
slope depending on the stability of the lining under design flow conditions. Handrails
or barriers are essential along the top edges of the channel for public safety. It is
also essential that access into and out of channels be provided at least every 200m
to facilitate maintenance operations and to serve as escapes for people who may
have fallen into the channel.
Any improved or upgraded channel will be subject to maintenance on a regular

basis. Access to the channels is therefore essential and it is recommended that a
minimum 3m wide right-of-way be provided on both sides of the channel. This is
particularly important in built-up areas where houses and other buildings are
situated on the banks close to the channel.
11.5.3
LARGE CONDUITS
Large conduits are usually constructed of reinforced concrete, including precast
concrete sections. For conveyance of stormwater, large conduits should generally
not flow full at the design condition. Factors to be considered in the design are,
therefore, similar to those for a lined canal except that freeboard can be reduced.
When precast concrete sections are used the roughness coefficients need to be
increased to allow for irregularities at the joints, which will depend on the length and
type of precast section used.
The minimum permissible velocity, or non-silting velocity recommended for lined

canals (Section 11.4.2) would also apply to conduits. The maximum permissible
velocity in conduits is not critical, provided the structural stability of the precast
sections is not affected and adequate energy dissipation is provided at the outlet.
Access into large conduits is required at least every 200 - 350m to facilitate
maintenance operations and to rescue people and animals that may have been
drawn into the conduit.
Page 11.24
11.5.4
STORMWATER PIPES
Stormwater pipes are installed underground, usually in areas unsuitable for open
side drains (on the sides of streets) and when the flow in the side drains approaches
critical flow conditions.
The layout planning of stormwater pipes is controlled by site-specific conditions and

specific norms cannot be laid down. They are usually provided along roads and
streets, but also across stands or plots (by means of a servitude) to shorten the
distance to a suitable discharge point into the major system depending on the
topography.
Access, via manholes or junction boxes, to the stormwater pipes is required at every
junction and every point where there is a change in pipe size, grade and direction of
flow. In addition, manholes must be provided at least every 200 - 350m for
diameters exceeding 1 200mm, and at least every 100 - 200m for diameters of less
than 1 200mm to facilitate maintenance operations.
The flow velocities are controlled by the gradient or slope of the stormwater pipe and
the depth of flow in the pipe. The minimum permissible gradient should be based on
achieving non-silting velocities on a regular basis. The non-silting velocity is
uncertain and its exact value cannot be easily determined. Generally, velocities
higher than 0,6m/s are generally accepted as non-silting velocity. Non-silting velocity
must be achieved regularly to remove accumulated silt from the pipeline. It is thus
proposed that the minimum grade be determined on the basis of a non-silting
velocity of 0,6m/s for regular floods. In cases where this cannot be achieved, it is
essential to provide access manholes at closer spacings than given above to
facilitate regular cleaning of deposits.
The minimum gradients for various size pipes to achieve a non-silting velocity of
0,6 m/s are shown in Figure 11.5. These curves are based on Mannings flow
formula with a roughness coefficient of 0,015. It is essential that the discharge
associated with the non-silting velocity be verified to ensure that it is achieved on a
regular basis.

Page 11.25
The maximum permissible velocity is not critical, but is still governed by water
carrying sand, gravel and stones, which could cause damage to the pipes.
Figure 11.5 : Minimum gradients for pipes to ensure a non-silting

flow velocity of 0,6 m/s
Outlets require special attention because of the usual relatively high flow velocities
under design conditions. The outlet velocities should comply with the norms for
permissible flow velocities downstream (see Figure 11.2).
11.5.5
KERB INLETS
Surface water is collected along the kerbs and discharged into stormwater pipes by
means of kerb inlets (or catchpits) positioned at specific points in a controlled
manner for maximum traffic safety.
Flow should be transferred along a kerb into a piped system when the surface flow
is still sub-critical at Froude numbers of less than 0,8. However, in most cases this is
not possible and special attention is required in the design of kerb inlets for critical or
super-critical surface flow conditions. The norms for positioning of kerb inlets based
on the guidelines of the RSA Road Drainage Manual (1997) are:
Page 11.26
adequate freeboard is allowed along the kerb
intermediate kerb inlets should intercept at least 80% of the flow occurring at
their positions with the lowest kerb inlet accommodating all the remaining flow
unnecessary concentration of water is prevented; as a rule a maximum spacing

of 200m may be used.
Kerb inlets should be designed so that ponding does not occur upstream of the inlet
for design conditions unless specific provision is made for it not to cause
unnecessary inconvenience to the public. Ponding in roads and streets is not
permissible for the design discharge.
Details of the kerb inlets being used along the roads in Kampala are shown in
Figure 11.6. These are not considered very effective in withdrawing stormwater from
the roadway, mainly because of the small openings of the kerb inlets, but also
because of the lack of crossfall or camber on the roads. The twin inlet system shown
in Figure 11.6 can intercept only about 0,8m3/s when the water surface level along
the kerb reaches the top edge of the kerb. The number and spacing of these kerb
inlets can be determined on the basis of this inlet capacity and the related
stormwater discharge to be accommodated. The small inlet openings assist in
preventing litter being drawn into the catchpit. However, it is recommended that
attention being given to improve the capacity of these kerb inlets during detail
design. Perspective views of different types of kerb inlets are shown in Figure 8.11
at the end of Chapter 8 in Volume 3.
The stormwater tends to flow over the full width of the road and is thus affecting the
efficiency of the kerb inlets. Proper improvement of road drainage is thus only
possible if a crossfall or camber of at least 2% is provided on the roads, which may
also necessitate upgrading of the road surface. Any future planning of road
upgradings should therefore take this issue into acount.
11.5.6
CULVERTS AND BRIDGES

(a)
Culverts
Reference should be made to text books for guidance on the hydraulic design
of culverts. Only the more pertinent planning and design norms to be
considered are given in this sub-section.

Page 11.27
Figure 11.6 : Kampala Kerb Inlets

Page 11.28
Every natural watercourse reflects the prevailing pattern of equilibrium

between flow and erosion processes. This balance should be disturbed as
little as possible, which means that flow should be concentrated as little as
possible, the direction of flow disturbed as little as possible and flow velocities
altered as little as possible.
Flow velocities should comply with the norms for permissible flow velocities
given in Section 11.4.2, except that the minimum velocity should not be lower
than 0,6m/s to ensure that deposition of sediments inside the culvert is
prevented. This usually requires a minimum slope of between 0,2% and 1%
depending on the size of the culvert and the discharge considered.
The norms given in Section 11.4.5 for inlets and outlets also apply to culverts,
particularly energy dissipation at the outlets for highly erosive velocities.
Special measures may be required when approaching super-critical flow.
For inlet control, a ratio between upstream total head and height of culvert of
1,2 yields approximately the optimum hydraulic section. This can also be used
as a practical guide for preventing inlet erosion and determining the height of
the embankment over the culvert, also taking the norms for minimum
freeboard as given in Section 11.4.6 into account. However, the effect on the
upstream floodlines may be the overriding factor in the sizing of a culvert with
inlet control.
For maintenance purposes, the minimum acceptable size for a culvert up to

30m long is 600mm diameter, or 750mm wide x 450mm high, and for culverts
longer than 30m, a diameter of 900mm, or 900mm wide x 450mm high.
(b)
Bridges
Reference can be made to the US Department of Transportations Hydraulics
of Bridge Waterways (1970) for guidance on the hydraulic design of bridges.
Only the more pertinent planning and design norms are given in this subsection.
The most important considerations in the hydraulic design of a bridge crossing

are the backwater effect caused by constriction of flow due to the bridge
structure and approach embankments, increased velocities through openings
Page 11.29
and turbulence causing scouring at the abutments, the piers and immediately
downstream of the bridge.
Urban development often limits permissible backwater or damming-up and

therefore controls the sizing of the bridge openings. Norms cannot be
prescribed for maximum permissible flow velocities through bridge openings
because this may not prevent severe local scour (eg along piers and
abutments). Potential scour should be investigated by experts and should be
based on site-specific conditions.
For super-critical flow conditions, the flow should preferably not be constricted
and adequate freeboard should be provided to ensure that the superstructure
will not come into contact with the fast-flowing water. Norms for freeboard are
covered in Section 11.4.6.
11.5.7
STORAGE / FLOOD ATTENUATION FACILITIES

Storage facilities, as far as stormwater management is concerned, are used to
attenuate or retard the flood peak. Where the downstream existing stormwater
system is clearly inadequate and its upgrading becomes uneconomical, storage
facilities can be used to attenuate and retard the flood flow to suit the discharge
capacity of the downstream stormwater system.
Significant attenuation/retardation on a major drainage system is achievable only by

the provision of a dam designed only for temporary storage. The storage capacity
determines the degree of attenuation/retardation. In the planning and design of
stormwater systems, the secondary effect of parking areas, sports fields, flat roofs
attenuating/retarding runoff as part of the minor drainage systems should also be
taken into account.
The storage capacity of a flood attenuation dam in urban areas is usually controlled
by the available space and/or area that can be expropriated. The behaviour of a
flood attenuation dam can best be illustrated with the aid of triangular hydrographs
as shown in Figure 11.7. The temporary storage available determines the outflow
peak discharge. The outlet of the storage dam is then sized to discharge a
maximum equal to this outlet peak with the water in the dam at the full supply level
or at the crest level of the emergency spillway.

Page 11.30
Figure 11.7 : Illustration of flood peak attenuation
11.5.8
EMBANKMENTS AND LEVEES

Embankments or levees, usually provided along the banks of river and channels,
protect lower-lying areas on floodplains against regular flooding. In many cases, it is
also used to make land subject to flooding available for development by means of
infill on the floodplains behind the embankment or levee.
The positioning of embankments or levees should not have an unacceptable effect

on the floodlines or flood levels either upstream or downstream of the area under
consideration and should also not result in significant variations in flow velocities
which could cause erosion or siltation. Careful attention should be given to the
drainage of stormwater behind an embankment or levee.
Embankments and levees can be protected against erosion by grass, gabions or

other suitable commercially-available materials. The design guidelines applicable to
the side slopes of channels and grassed waterways are, therefore, also applicable
to embankments and levees. The side slopes of grass embankments should be
flatter than 1 (vertical) to 3 (horizontally) for maintenance purposes.
11.5.9
PARKING AREAS
Parking areas or large paved areas have a significant effect on increasing the
volume of runoff, but do not necessarily result in an increase in the flood peak due to
retardation achieved through ponding. Parking area drainage should be sized in
such a way as to minimize inconvenience to the public under design storm
conditions, but also to create ponding and flood peak retardation for rainfall storms
with longer return periods than the design return period associated with the minor
system.

Page 11.31
11.5.10 BUILDINGS
Stormwater drainage for buildings can form part of the minor or the major systems
described in Section 11.2.6. It is therefore proposed that the norms listed below be
considered in the planning and design of stormwater drainage for buildings in
addition to the norms covered in Section 11.2.6.
Overland flow corridors (flooding easements) should be provided among

residential buildings to accommodate floodwaters that cannot be accommodated
by the street and minor system in the street reserve. Such drainage corridors
generally follow along topographic land depressions and in fact, become major
systems, which should be designed for at least the 10 year return period and
thus require the determination of floodlines.
The floor levels of buildings along and adjacent to overland flow corridors and
other major systems should have a freeboard of at least 0,3m measured from
the design flood level or floodline.
The floor levels of large building complexes along and adjacent to major
systems should have a freeboard of at least 0,5m measured from the design
flood level or floodline.
Attenuation/retardation, caused by large roof areas and parking areas, should be

taken into account.
11.5.11 REMOVAL OF URBAN LITTER

The strategy for the removal of litter from the stormwa ter systems should be twofold; firstly, to reduce the quantity of litter that finds its way into the drainage systems
(which falls beyond the scope of this study) and secondly, to remove the balance as
efficiently as possible. Armitage et al (1998) carried out a study on the most
appropriate and cost effective methods of removing litter from drainage systems. A
copy of their comprehensive report was handed to KCC and could be used for
reference purposes in future. It is important for designers to be able to estimate the
amount of litter that is washed off catchments, because this determines the volume
of material that the trap must hold and the required frequency of cleaning. The traps
that can be considered are described in the study referred to above. Fences,
screens, trash racks, and baffles or bollards may also be successfully used to
intercept litter provided the flow velocities are not too high. To facilitate
Page 11.32
maintenance, these traps should be designed to allow for easy cleaning. The
efficiency of any trap is dependent on regular and continuous maintenance (cleaning
and removal of litter to solid waste disposal areas). The designer should therefore
also outline appropriate operation and maintenance requirements associated with
the particular trap being used. The through-flow area of screens and trash racks
should allow for partial blockage of at least 50%, which implies that the channel
cross-sectional area will need to be doubled where screens are installed.
Alternatively, collapsible screens and trash racks should be used. The provision of
bollards some distance upstream of an inlet can also be considered to ensure that
litter passing through the spacing between the bollards will be small enough to wash
through the culvert openings.
Norms for the location or siting of traps can not be prescribed. As a general norm
easy access to the traps will be essential for cleaning purposes. Litter traps can be
located upstream of pipe inlets, downstream of pipe outlets and across channels.
The flow velocity usually varies along the length of a channel and it would thus be
advisable to place the trap in the area with the lowest flow velocity. Flow velocities
increase as the stormwater passes through bridges and culverts and making use of
bridge/culvert structures for placing a trap must always be avoided. The best option
will be to increase the cross-sectional area of the channel for location of a litter trap.
11.6
PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE AND EXPOSURE TO DAMAGE

The aspect of inconvenience to the public is primarily associated with minor
systems, which provide for efficient drainage of floodwater resulting from more
frequent minor floods.
Figure 11.8, reproduced from the New South Wales Governments Floodplain
Development Manual (1986), can serve as a guideline to evaluate the degree of
public exposure to danger and damage to light structures. The major systems must
be designed to prevent these flood hazards.
The following measures should always be considered as far as public inconvenience

and exposure to damage are concerned:

Page 11.33
flood warnings
flood information and education
preventing the public from approaching hazardous situations or areas
making the onset of flood hazards as gradual as possible.
Figure 11.8 : Public safety : Permissible flow velocities and depths

Page 11.34
11.7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armitage N, Rooseboom A, Nel C and Townshend P (1998). The removal of
urban litter from stormwater conduits and streams. Prepared for South African Water
Research Commission (WRC). Report No TT 95/98. PO Box 824, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Davis CV and Sorensen KE (1969). Handbook of Applied Hydraulics. Third Edition,

McGraw-Hill Book Company.
ICOLD (1987). Dam Safety Guidelines. Bulletin 59, International Commission on

Large Dams, 151 BD Haussmann, 75008 Paris.
SANCOLD (1991). Safety Evaluation of Dams Report No. 4 : Guidelines on Safety

in Relation to Floods. South African National Committee on Large Dams.
PO Box 3404, Pretoria, South Africa.
South African National Road Agency (1997). Road Drainage Manual. Fourth
Print. Chief Directorate : Roads, South African Roads Board, Pretoria, South Africa.
RSA Department of Housing (2000). Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning

and Design. Published by CSIR Building and Construction Technology, PO Box 395,
Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Stephenson D (1981). Stormwater Hydrology and Drainage. Developments in

Water Science, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
US Bureau of Reclamation (1963). Hydraulic Design of Stilling Basins and Energy

dissipators. A Water Resources Technical Publication, Engineering Monograph No.
25, prepared by A J Peterka.
US Department of Transportation (1970). Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways.

Hydraulic Design Series No. 1, Hydraulic Branch, Bridge Division, Federal Highway
Administration, Bureau of Public Roads.
Ven te Chow (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics. Published by McGraw-Hill Book

Company.

Page 11.35
CHAPTER 12
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LONG-TERM PROGRAMME
12.1
INTRODUCTION
The whole purpose of drainage master planning is to facilitate the accomplishment
of sustainable future development through pre-emptive management of flooding
events. As described in Chapter 2 (Volume 2), options for pre-emptive management
of flooding events are conveniently classed as structural measures and nonstructural measures to provide protection or to reduce the risk of flooding. Structural
flood control measures consist of physical works or upgradings, such as
channelization of watercourses for improving the hydraulic characteristics of the
drainage systems and bridge and culvert crossings over channels, flood attenuation
dams, and levees and embankments for keeping floodwaters out of flood-prone
areas. Non-structural measures include regulation of floodplain use, building
ordinances, regulation of land-use in the catchment area, flood forecastings and
flood warnings, etc.
As described in Chapter 1 (Volume 2), each main drainage system is divided into a
major system and numerous minor systems. The major system includes all the
primary and secondary channels shown in Figures 3 through 11 (Volume 6) and
should be capable of accommodating stormwater discharges of higher intensity. The
minor systems correspond to stormwater flow from properties and along roads to
discharge points into the primary and secondary channels, and usually
accommodate stormwater discharges of lower intensity, mainly to avoid frequent
inconvenience.
This chapter focuses on the structural measures (upgradings) required to

accomplish
sustainable
implementation
drainage
programme.
development,
Master
planning
as
of
well
as
structural
long-term
measures
is
predominantly concerned with the major systems, but attention is also given to
typical examples of structural measures for the minor systems. Non-structural
measures, however, involve both the major and minor systems as described in
Chapter 14.

Page 12.1
12.2
MAJOR SYSTEMS
12.2.1
GENERAL
The recommended development plan of structural measures required to accomplish
sustainable drainage development and the long-term implementation programme as
described hereafter have been based on evaluating and integrating the following
aspects, which were dealt with in the previous chapters.
(i)
Existing drainage
The inventory of the existing drainage channels and road crossings
(Section 3 Volume 5) provides basic information on the extent and
locations of required upgradings. The existing discharge capacities and
related return periods, also included in the inventory, highlight the relative
urgency of improving the flow conditions at the various culverts and different
channel reaches.
The inventory of identified black spots associated with the major systems
(Section 5.2 Volume 5) provides information on the immediate needs for
upgrading.
The floodlines described in Chapter 7 (Volume 3) provide details on the

extent of flooding along the various channels.
(ii)
Upgradings planned and under construction

The only upgradings planned and currently under construction are those
along the primary and selected secondary channels of the Nakivubo
Drainage System.
It is also known that the drainage problems in the Bwaise II area (Kawempe)
are being addressed in a separate study by others, but the details or findings
of that study were not available for incorporation into the compilation of a
Kampala Drainage Master Plan.
(iii)
Expected urban development

Projections of urban development are described in Chapter 4 (Volume 2).
The expected future spread of population densities and development trends
play a major role in establishing the relative importance of upgradings along

Page 12.2
the primary and secondary channels for the compilation of a long-term

implementation programme.
(iv)
Environmental considerations
The issues identified in the environmental assessment described in
Chapter 3 (Volume 2) provide details of the preservation status of the various
channels (particularly the wetlands) that must be taken into account while
planning channel upgradings.
(v)
Economic considerations
The economic analyses described in Chapter 9 (Volume 3) provide
information regarding prioritization of the various systems (see also
Chapter 10 in Volume 3).
(vi)
Required structural measures (upgradings)

The extent of upgradings required for the different channels serves as a
basis to determine construction periods for the various upgradings. These
details are described in Chapter 8 (Volume 3).
(vii)
Traffic impacts
The volume of traffic flow, particularly on the main roads, as well as the
availability of alternative routes should also be taken into account when
compiling a development plan and programme.
The main objectives of the study, as described in Chapter 1 (Volume 2), specifically
require that the long-term programme for development covers the period up to 2040.
This is a long period and means that any implementation programming of structural
measures would be subject to regular revision and updating. In compiling a longterm implementation programme it is beneficial to distinguish between three distinct
13-year periods based on the level of priority as follows:
2002 2014
high priority period
2015 2027
medium priority period
2028 2040
low priority period

Page 12.3
Programming for the first 13-year period can be done with much more certainty than
for the second and third 13-year periods due to circumstances and conditions that
will definitely change with time. The first 13-year period includes the short-term
action plan for the first five years as described in Chapter 14. In this regard it may be
in the interest of KCC to revise and update the long-term programme every five
years on the basis of this study to define a short-term action plan at the beginning of
every five-year period.
12.2.2
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 1 NAKIVUBO

The catchment area of Drainage System 1 (Nakivubo) with its primary and
secondary channels is shown in Figure 3 (Volume 6). The recommended
development and long-term implementation programme are shown in Table 12.1 at
the end of this chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 1 (Nakivubo)

Rehabilitation of the Nakivubo Channel is nearing completion and no further
upgradings are foreseen.
(b)
Secondary Channel 1 (Kintinale)

The lower portion of Kintinale Channel forms part of the Nakivubo wetland
(refer to Figure 3 in Volume 6). General upgradings will thus only be feasible
in the upper reaches. Kintinale Channel downstream of Port Bell Road with its
tributary (Silver Spring) has been identified as a black spot (No. 1A in Section
5.2.1 of Volume 5) requiring widening and lining with high priority. Similarly,
the Port Bell Road culvert and the culvert on Silver Spring have been given a
high priority to ensure that traffic flow is not disrupted along these routes.
(c)
Secondary Channel 2 (Kibira)

Kibira Channel drains the area from the Coffee Marketing Board (CMB) to the
Nakivubo swamp. This channel has been identified as a black spot (No. 1B in
Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5). The channel and Kibira Road culvert have thus
been assigned a high priority.
(d)
Secondary Channel 3 (Lugogo)

Regular flooding is being experienced along Lugogo Channel and the lower
reach downstream of Naguru Road has been identified as a black spot

Page 12.4
(No. 1C in Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5). The flooding problems can only be
minimized by means of channelization and enlargement of all the road and rail
culverts. This channel reach, together with three railway crossings and Old
Bell Road crossing, has been assigned a high priority.
The channel reach upstream of Naguru Road crossing will also have to be
channelized (including the Nagura Road crossing) and has also been
assigned a (late) high priority.
(e)
Secondary Channel 4 (Kitante)

The Kitante Channel downstream of the golf course has been identified as a
black spot (No. 1D in Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5). The options to minimize
flooding are channelization or a flood attenuation dam on the golf course, or a
combination of the two options. Any detail design should take these options
into account to determine the least cost solution.
Upgrading of the channel, together with the two railway crossings, has been
given a high priority. The Jinja Road culvert seems capable of discharging a 7year flood and has thus been given a medium priority.
Flooding of the upper channel reach along the golf course is not critical and
there is presently no need to upgrade this channel reach. A low priority has
thus been assigned to this channel reach.
(f)
Secondary Channel 5
A black spot has been identified in the lower reach from Kibuli Road to the
Nakivubo Channel (No. 1E in Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5). Upgrading of this
short channel reach by means of channelization and enlargement of the two
culverts in the lower reach at Press House and Kibuli Roads (with inadequate
discharge capacities) has been given a high priority.
Problems are also being experienced at Nsambya Central (near Jack and Jill
Nursery School), which also requires upgrading with a high priority.
The remainder of the channel has been given a low priority.

Page 12.5
(g)
Secondary Channel 6
This channel can only be improved by widening and enlargement of the rail
and road culverts. A high priority has been assigned to the channel reach from
Nakivubo to the railway culvert, including the railway culvert and Nsambya
Road crossing, which has been identified as a black spot (No. 1F in
Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5).
The channel reach upstream of the railway line is also critical and has been
assigned a (late) high priority.
(h)
Secondary Channel 7 (Katwe)

The lower reach of this channel, from the confluence with Nakivubo up to and
including Katwe Road, has partly been upgraded. The Katwe Road crossing
and downstream channel together with a small tributary also crossing Katwe
Road have been identified as a black spot (No. 1G in Section 5.2.1 of
Volume 5) and assigned a high priority.
The channel reach immediately upstream of Katwe Road is capable of

discharging the 10-year flood peak, but a short reach upstream and
downstream of Mutebi Road can only accommodate a 2-year flood peak,
which has also been identified as a black spot (No. 1H in Section 5.2.1 of
Volume 5). This short reach has also been assigned a high priority, excluding
the Mutebi Road culvert.
(i)
Secondary Channel 8
This channel passes through a high-density area and has been identified as a
black spot (No. 1J in Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5). Channelization is the only
feasible solution. Upgradings of the channel and road crossings have been
assigned a high priority.
(j)
Secondary Channel 9 (Jugula)

The culvert at Kisenyi Lane is currently being upgraded. The entire channel,
together with four road crossings needs urgent attention and is considered a
high priority. This area has also been identified as a black spot (1K in
Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5).

Page 12.6
(k)
Secondary Channel 10 (Kakajjo)

The Makere Road crossing is currently being upgraded. The entire channel
has been identified as a black spot (No. 1L in Section 5.2.1 of Volume 5) and
is assigned a high priority.
12.2.3
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 2 - LUBIGI

The catchment area of Drainage System 2 (Lubigi) with its primary and secondary
channels is shown in Figure 4 (Volume 6). The recommended development and
long-term implementation programme are shown in Table 12.2 at the end of this
chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 2 (Lubigi)

The route of the planned Northern Bypass (see Figure 4 in Volume 6)
traverses from Mityana Road near the confluence of Lubigi and Nalukolongo
Channels along the left bank of Lubigi floodplain until it crosses the Lubigi
Channel and floodplain near the confluence with Secondary Channel 8 to the
right bank of Nsooba Wetland. It then crosses Secondary Channel 10 twice in
the upper catchment of Lubigi. The culverts for the road crossings of the
affected secondary channels need to be designed for at least the 10-year
flood peaks, such that no damming-up of floodwaters is created upstream in
these secondary channels.
Lubigi Wetland has a low to medium preservation status and it is

recommended in Chapter 3 (Volume 2) that the lower reach downstream of
Hoima Road crossing near the confluence of Lubigi with Secondary Channel 5
(see Figure 4 in Volume 6) be left in its natural state. The culverts at Mityana,
Sentema and Hoima Road crossings along this lower reach of Lubigi can only
discharge flood peaks with return periods of less than 2 years, and have been
assigned a medium priority for upgrading.
The entire length of Lubigi Channel upstream of Hoima Road crossing near
the confluence with Secondary Channel 5 has been identified as a black spot
(Nos. 2A and 2Bin Section 5.2.2 of Volume 5). The options available for
minimizing flooding along this reach of the Lubigi are channelization or a
combination of reduced channelization and a flood peak attenuation dam at
Nsooba Wetland (see Figure 4 in Volume 6). The planned Northern Bypass
along the right bank of Nsooba Wetland, however, will affect the storage
Page 12.7
capacity of a flood attenuation dam to such an extent that it may not be

economically viable. Depending on whether reasonable storage can be
created, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be prerequisite for
detail design. The final design of upgradings of the secondary channels will
also have an effect on the final design of the Lubigi Channel. This upper reach
of the Lubigi, including all the road culverts, has been assigned a high priority.
(b)
Secondary Channel 1
Upgrading of this channel with one gravel road crossing has been assigned a
low priority.
(c)
Secondary Channel 2
A low priority was assigned to the upgrading of this channel.
(d)
Secondary Channel 3 (Nabisisasiro)

Mugema Road crosses the Nabisisasiro and its tributary at two places. These
crossings together with one crossing of Sentema Road have been identified
as black spots (Nos. 2C, 2D and 2E in Section 5.2.2 of Volume 5). These road
crossings have all been assigned a high priority and the other road crossings
have been assigned a medium priority. The channel reach between the two
crossings of Mugema Road has been given a high priority and the remainder
of the channel has been given a medium priority.
(e)
Secondary Channel 4
There seems to be no present need to upgrade this channel and a low priority
has been assigned to it.
(f)
Secondary Channel 5
The population density along the banks of the upper reach of this channel is
relatively high. Upgrading can only be achieved by means of channelization.
This upper reach has been assigned a high priority and the lower reach has
been assigned a medium priority.
(g)
Secondary Channel 6
The entire length of this channel has been identified as a black spot (Nos. 2F
and 2G in Section 5.2.2 of Volume 5). A high priority was thus assigned to the

Page 12.8
upgrading by means of channelization and enlargement of the culverts at road

crossings.
(h)
Secondary Channel 7
The lower reach of this channel downstream of and including Kazo Road
crossing has been identified as a black spot (No. 2H in Section 5.2.2 of
Volume 5). This existing channel needs to be widened with an enlargement of
the culvert at Kazo Road. This reach has been assigned a high priority.
The channel reach upstream of Kazo Road has been upgraded, but still
cannot accommodate the 10-year flood. Further widening will be required in
future and a low priority has been assigned to this. Two minor road crossings
over the upper reach also need enlargement, and a medium priority has been
assigned to this.
Secondary Channel 7a (see Map 12SW4 in Volume 6) can accommodate the

7-year flood and any future upgradings have been assigned a low priority. The
Kazo Road crossing of Secondary Channel 7a may need desilting and
enlargement, but this is a medium priority.
(i)
Secondary Channel 8
The channel reach from and including the Makerere Round-about to the
confluence with Lubigi has been identified as a black spot (2I in Section 5.2.2
of Volume 5). Upgrading can only be achieved by means of channelization
and enlargement of the culverts at Makerere Round-about. A high priority has
been assigned to these upgradings.
Upgrading of the channel reach upstream of Makerere Round-about can also

only be achieved by channelization with a proper crossing of the gravel
Mutebi 1 Road. A (late) high priority has also been assigned to this channel
reach.
Secondary Channel 8a follows a route parallel to the lower reach of

Secondary Channel 9 (see Map 12SW4 in Volume 6). Upgrading of this
channel, which can be achieved by means of improved channelization and
enlargement of the Kazo and Kibi Road culverts (which are both silted-up),
must be considered in conjunction with the upgrading of the lower reach of
Page 12.9
Secondary Channel 9. A high priority has, therefore, been assigned to

Secondary Channel 8a, as is also the case for Secondary Channel 9.
(j)
Secondary Channel 9
The lower reach of this channel has been identified as a black spot (No. 2J in
Section 5.2.2 of Volume 5). Improvement can only be made by upgrading the
existing overgrown earth channel with enlargements of the road culverts. A
high priority has been assigned to this channel reach.
Upgrading of the entire Secondary Channel 9 with all its tributaries (see
Figure 4, Volume 6) can be achieved through a combination of improved
channelization and the construction of flood peak attenuation dams in the
upper reaches. It should, however, be noted that an attenuation dam situated
high up in the catchment may not have a significant effect on downstream
flood peaks. Economic and environmental aspects will play a major role in the
final design of upgradings of Secondary Channel 9. It must also be noted that
upgradings finally selected for the upper reaches of Secondary Channel 9 will
have an effect on the upgradings required along the primary Lubigi Channel.
The design of these upper reaches of Secondary Channel 9 will thus have to
be carried out in conjunction with the design of upgradings along the Lubigi
Channel.
Although the design of the upper reaches of Secondary Channel 9 has a high
priority, implementation has been assigned a medium priority, except for the
Gayaza Road crossing which is a high priority.
(k)
Secondary Channel 10
The channel reach from Bukoto Valley Road to the confluence with Lubigi has
been identified as a black spot (No. 2K in Section 5.2.2 of Volume 6). This
channel reach has been assigned a high priority, while the remainder of
Secondary Channel 10 has been assigned a medium priority.
The flooding problems can be solved by means of channelization with or

without a flood peak attenuation dam in the Kyabatola Wetland. The feasibility
of a flood attenuation dam on the Kyabatola Wetland is influenced by the
proximity of the planned Northern Bypass. The detail design should be carried
out in conjunction with the detail design of the primary Lubigi Channel.
Page 12.10
12.2.4
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 3 - NALUKOLONGO

The catchment area of Drainage System 3 (Nalukolongo) with its primary and
secondary channels is shown in Figure 5 (Volume 6). The recommended
development plan and long-term implementation programme are shown in
Table 12.3 at the end of this chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 3 (Nalukolongo)

It was found that Nalukolongo Wetland downstream of Old Masaka Road
crossing near the confluence of Nalukolongo and Secondary Channel 2
should be preserved (see Chapter 3 of Volume 2). The entire Nalukolongo
Channel has been identified as a black spot (No. 3A in Section 5.2.3 of
Volume 5). There is no suitable site for a flood peak attenuation dam within
the catchment, unless Kabakas Lake is enlarged to provide additional storage
for flood peak attenuation. However, the effect on flow conditions in the
primary channel will be insignificant. Therefore, upgrading of the Nalukolongo
Channel can only be achieved by means of channelization. This upgrading,
together with enlarged culverts at the crossings of Masaka Road over the
Nakukolongo
Wetland
and
Old
Masaka
Road,
Nalukolongo
Road,
Wankulukuku Road, a gravel road, Weraga Road and the railway crossing
over the primary channel has been assigned a high priority.
(b)
Secondary 1 (Mayanja)
Secondary Channel 1 falls outside of the Kampala District or Project Area. The
railway crossing and Old Masaka Road crossings of this channel will need
attention, but have not been included in the long-term implementation
programme.
(c)
Secondary Channel 2
The Masaka Road crossing of this channel has been identified as a black spot
(No. 3B in Section 5.2.3 of Volume 5). Enlargement of this road crossing may
help to minimize the flooding problems along the channel, which will have to
be widened in future. A high priority has thus been assigned to Masaka Road
crossing and a (late) high priority to the upgrading of the channel.

Page 12.11
(d)
Secondary Channel 3
The entire channel has been identified as a black spot (No. 3C in
Section 5.2.2 of Volume 5). The existing channel will have to be widened and
the culverts at the three crossings of Masaka, Natete and Junju Roads will
also have to be enlarged. A high priority has been assigned to the entire
channel and road crossings.
(e)
Secondary Channel 4
Upgrading of Secondary Channel 4 can only be achieved by widening the
existing channels and enlarging the culverts at the road crossings. The
channel reach downstream of Wamala Road is being encroached upon by
houses and has been assigned a (late) high priority, including the road
crossings. The upstream reach does not seem not to be critical and has been
assigned a medium priority, except for Mutundwe Road crossing in the upper
reaches which is a high priority.
(f)
Secondary Channel 5
Kabakas Lake is located on this channel. The channel reach downstream of
the lake has been identified as a black spot (No. 3D in Section 5.2.3 of
Volume 4). The flooding problems along this lower reach can be solved by
enlarging the existing channel or by increasing the storage capacity of
Kabakas Lake and using the additional storage for flood peak attenuation.
The lower reach of this channel downstream of Kabakas Lake has been
assigned a high priority.
The flow in the channel reach upstream of Kabakas Lake can be improved by
means of channelization. There seems to be no urgent need to upgrade this
upper reach and it has thus been assigned a low priority.
(g)
Secondary Channel 6
The flooding problems along this channel can only be minimized by widening
the existing channel and enlarging of the culverts at Suna, Kintu and Wamala
Road crossings. Upgrading has been assigned a (late) high priority.

Page 12.12
12.2.5
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 4 KANSANGA AND 4A - GABA

The catchment areas of Drainage Systems 4 (Kansanga) and 4A (Gaba), with its
primary and secondary channels, are shown in Figure 6 (Volume 6). The
recommended development plan and long-term implementation programme are
shown in Table 12.4 at the end of this chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 4 (Kansanga)

It was found that the Kansanga Wetland downstream of Gaba Road crossing
should be preserved (see Chapter 3 of Volume 2). Any improvement of the
flow conditions is thus restricted to the reach of the primary channel upstream
of Gaba Road. It may be possible to create a flood peak attenuation dam
downstream of the confluence with Secondary Channel 3. An Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) will be a prerequisite for such a dam. This, together
with improved channelization, is the only option available to minimize flooding
along this channel. Enlarging the culverts at the road crossings will help to
provide temporary relief. The Gaba Road crossing has been given a high
priority to minimize traffic disruptions, while all the other road crossings are
either a medium or a low priority as shown in Table 12.4. Upgrading of the
channel has been assigned a medium priority.
(b)
Secondary Channel 1
The flooding in this channel can be minimized by means of channelization and
enlargement of two road crossings. The channel and road crossings have
been assigned a low priority.
(c)
Secondary Channel 2
Widening of the existing channel is the only means of minimizing flooding
along this channel. Gaba Road crossing in the upper reach, has been
assigned a high priority to minimize traffic disruptions. The channel itself plus
another gravel road crossing has been assigned a medium priority.
(d)
Secondary Channel 3
Channelization is the only means of minimizing flooding along this channel.
The channel itself has been assigned a low priority, except for Lukuli Road
crossing, which is a medium priority.

Page 12.13
(e)
Primary Channel 4A (Gaba)

Widening of the channel and/or flood peak attenuation are options that will
minimize flooding along this channel. The flooding problems are not critical
and a low priority has been assigned to the channel and road crossings,
except for Munyonyo Road crossing at the downstream end which has been
given a medium priority.
12.2.6
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 5 MAYANJA/KALIDDUBI

The catchment area of Drainage System 5 (Mayanja/Kaliddubi) with its primary and
secondary channels is shown in Figure 7 (Volume 6). Only a relatively small portion
of the catchment falls within the Project Area. The recommended development plan
and long-term implementation programme are shown in Table 12.5 at the end of this
chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 5 (Kaliddubi)

The primary channel downstream of its confluence with Secondary Channel 1
(Mayanja) forms part of the boundary of Kampala District where it flows along
the Kawagga swamp (see Figure 7 Volume 6). It is recommended that this
channel reach be left to drain naturally (see Chapter 3, Volume 2) and no
upgradings to improve the flow conditions in this lower reach of the channel
are foreseen.
The upper reach of the primary channel stretches back into Kampala District
where it is crossed by Muzito Road on the districts boundary. This upper
reach can be channelized and the Muzito Road culvert can be enlarged to
minimize flooding in the area. A medium priority has been assigned to this
channel reach.
(b)
Secondary Channel 1 (Mayanja)

Secondary Channel 1 (Mayanja) forms, for almost its entire length, part of the
boundary of Kampala District. The wetland along this channel is under
pressure from settlements and the upstream reach has been completely
converted to settlements. The wetland is in relatively poor condition and
channelization is the only means of protecting the settlements from regular
flooding. Upgrading of the channel and road crossings has been assigned a
medium priority. It is, however, recommended that the road crossings be
considered as high priority.

Page 12.14
12.2.7
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 6 KINAWATAKA

The catchment area of Drainage System 6 (Kinawataka) with its primary and
secondary channels, is shown in Figure 8 (Volume 6). The recommended
development plan and long-term implementation programme are shown in
Table 12.6 at the end of this chapter and are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 6 (Kinawataka)

The downstream reach of the channel (ie from downstream of its confluence
with Secondary Channel 1) forms part of the Kampala District boundary (see
Figure 8 Volume 6). There are no roads crossing this lower reach and it is
recommended that this channel reach be left in its natural state.
The channel reach downstream of Kireka Road (and the railway crossing) to
Mutongo Valley is subject to regular flooding and has also been identified as a
black spot (No. 6A in Section 5.2.4 of Volume 5). The flow conditions along
this reach can only be improved by means of channelization and together with
Kireka Road and the railway crossing, has been assigned a high priority.
Upstream of Kireka Road, the primary channel passes through two relatively
smaller
wetlands;
the
one
at
the
confluences
with
Secondary
Channels 2 and 3 and the other at the confluence with Secondary Channel 4
(see Figure 8 Volume 6). Industries have been developed within the upper
wetland and flooding can only be minimized by means of channelization. As
discussed below, upgrading of Secondary Channels 2 and 4 is a high priority,
which requires that upgrading of this reach of the primary channel also be
considered a high priority. The same applies for the crossings of Kireka Road,
the railway line and the access road off Jinja Road to the industrial complex.
(b)
Secondary Channel 1 (Kula)

There seems to be no need to upgrade this channel at this stage, and it has
thus been assigned a low priority.

Page 12.15
(c)
Secondary Channel 2
The channel reach downstream of Jinja Road has been identified as a black
spot (No. 6B in Section 5.2.4 of Volume 5), and some improvements have
already been carried out. The flow conditions can only be improved by
channelization and this channel reach, together with the Jinja Road crossing,
has been assigned a (late) high priority.
The channel reach upstream of Jinja Road may need upgrading in future and
has been assigned low priority.
(d)
Secondary Channel 3
This channel passes between industrial buildings and channelization is the
only option available to minimize flooding along the channel. Upgrading of the
channel is considered a medium priority, except the Jinja Road crossing which
is a high priority.
(e)
Secondary Channel 4
Secondary Channel 4 has two branches (see Figure 8 Volume 6). The
eastern branch is indicated on maps as an extension of Kinawataka, but is
also referred locally to as Kyambogo Channel. This channel from Megha
Industries across Jinja Road has been identified as a black spot (No. 6C in
Section 5.2.4 of Volume 5). The entire channel can only be upgraded through
channelization. The lower reach has been assigned a high priority and the
upper reach has been assigned a medium priority.
The western branch passes through high-density industrial and residential

areas and the only option for upgrading is channelization. This entire reach
has been assigned a high/medium priority.
Jinja and Kyambogo Road crossings of the eastern branch need to be

enlarged and have been assigned a high priority. Kigobe Road Extension and
Nyinda Road crossings of the western branch also need enlargements and
have been programmed for implementation towards the end of the 13-year
high priority period.

Page 12.16
12.2.8
DRAINAGE SYSTEM 7 NALUBAGA AND 7A NAKALERE

The catchment areas of Drainage Systems 7 (Nalubaga) and 7A (Nakalere) are
shown in Figure 9 (Volume 6). The recommended development and long-term
implementation programme are shown in Table 12.7 at the end of this chapter and
are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 7 (Nalubaga) and Secondary Channels

With reference to Chapter 4 (Volume 2), which deals with urban development,
it is projected that the parishes in these catchment areas will still have surplus
capacity by 2020. It is thus recommended that the 10-year floodlines be
demarcated along the channels and that land-use control be applied as a proactive measure to ensure that future infrastructure development (housing)
does not become prone to regular flooding. This is in fact a non-structural
measure. Structural measures by means of channelization can still be
considered in the distant future to make more land available for housing and
industrial development. Demarcation of the floodlines has a high priority.
The road crossings of the primary channel situated on the boundary of

Kampala District and a gravel road crossing of Secondary Channel 1 should
be improved by enlarging the culverts, which have been assigned a medium
priority to ensure access across the channels for floods up to the 10-year
return period.
It should be noted that further infrastructure development in the catchments

will also entail new road crossings of the channels, which must be designed to
discharge the 10-year flood, particularly the Northern Bypass crossing the
channels as shown in Figure 9 (Volume 6).
(b)
Primary Channel 7A (Nakalere) and Secondary Channels

Similar considerations to those described for Primary Channel 7 (Nalubaga)
above also apply to Primary Channel 7A (Nakalere) and the secondary
channels.
The tar road crossings in the upper reaches of Primary Channel 7A and
Secondary Channel 2 need attention and enlargement of the culverts has
been assigned a medium priority.

Page 12.17
12.2.9
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 8 WALUFUMBE AND 8A MAYANJA NORTH

The catchment areas of Drainage Systems 8 (Walufumbe) and 8A (Mayanja North)
are shown in Figure 10 (Volume 6). The recommended development and long-term
implementation programme are shown in Table 12.8 at the end of this chapter and
are described below.
(a)
Primary Channel 8 (Walufumbe) and Secondary Channels

It is projected that the parishes in these catchment areas will still have surplus
capacity by 2020 (refer to Chapter 4, Volume 2). As for Drainage System 7 it
is recommended that the 10-year floodlines be demarcated and land-use
control be applied as a proactive measure to ensure that future infrastructure
development (housing) does not become prone to regular flooding. The
flooding problems, which are not critical at this stage, can also be solved in
future by a combination of channelization and flood attenuation dams.
Gayaza Road crossings of Primary Channel 8 and Secondary Channel 5 will

need attention to minimize traffic disruption on this main road to the north.
Enlargement of these culverts has been assigned a medium priority.
(b)
Primary Channel 8A (Mayanja North) and Secondary Channels

Similar considerations to those described for Primary Channel 8 and its
secondary channels are also applicable to this primary channel and its
secondary channels.
The two gravel road crossings in the upper reaches of Secondary Channel 2
will require attention in the distant future and these have been assigned a low
priority.
12.3
MINOR SYSTEMS
The minor systems convey stormwater runoff to the major systems (ie primary and
secondary channels) in such a way that inconvenience to pedestrian and vehicular
traffic is minimized. The minor systems, therefore, correspond mainly to roadside
drainage, but also include drainage away from the roads between buildings on
individual plots.
The provision of proper drainage between buildings on individual plots is considered

to be the responsibility of the respective prospective land owners, except drainage
Page 12.18
along corridors (easements) across plots, which with roadside drainage should
become the responsibility of the five Divisions. This stormwater, which is usually
conveyed by means of small open drains or even underground pipes, is discharged
either directly into a major system or into the longitudinal drains along the roads.
Roadside drainage forms the main component of the minor systems.
The reconnaissance survey of roadside drainage within the Kampala District,

together with the detail survey and conceptual designs of six pilot areas has shown
that roadside drainage is either undersized (in many places) or non-existent (refer to
Chapters 5 and 8 in Volume 3). General upgradings and provision of new roadside
drainage form part of and must be considered in conjunction with the long-term
planning of rehabilitation and upgradings of the roads and streets. The capital costs
required to upgrade roadside drainage also form part of the cost of road
rehabilitation and provision of new roads. It will thus serve no purpose to compile a
long-term implementation programme for upgrading of roadside drainage without
considering the future planning of upgradings of the existing road systems in
Kampala District.
In the short-term it is, however, essential to give attention to specific problem areas
where the inadequate roadside drainage results in regular flooding and
inconvenience to vehicular traffic. Numerous problem areas, or black spots, on the
minor systems (particularly roadside drainage) have been identified as listed in
Section 5.3 of Volume 5. Improvement of the flow conditions at these black spots
has become a matter of urgency. It is thus recommended that detail designs for
upgradings (taking planned upgradings of the roads into account) be carried out as
soon as possible and that implementation be scheduled as part of the Short-term
Action Plan described in Chapter 14.
In general, the roadside drainage in the Central Division has also been identified as
a problem area or black spot. The existing inadequate minor drainage system in the
Central Division would probably require most of the underground pipes to be
increased in size, together with upgradings of the kerbs and kerb inlets. This will be
a costly exercise and needs to be programmed over a longer period. A detail study
of roadside drainage in general in the Central Division will, however, be a
prerequisite for programming of implementation.

Page 12.19
From the above it is recommended that 5-year action plans be compiled for
upgrading of roadside drainage at the beginning of every 5-year period, as
described in Chapter 14 for the first 5-year period or Short-term Action Plan.
12.4
DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL COSTS
12.4.1
MAJOR SYSTEMS
The distribution of capital costs in accordance with the recommended long-term
programme (Tables 12.1 to 12.8) is shown in Table 12.9. These costs exclude the
capital costs of channels not recommended for upgrading and secondary channels
outside the Kampala District boundary, which were taken into account in the
economic evaluations described in Chapter 9 of Volume 3. The capital costs listed in
Table 12.9 include engineering and management cost of 10% (see Section 9.2.2 of
Chapter 9 in Volume 3).
Land acquisition costs, which are not included in the capital costs listed in
Table 12.9, but taken into account in the economic evaluations are given in
Table 12.10. It is recommended that expropriation of land for drainage development
be considered a high priority to control further unwanted residential and industrial
development in close vicinity of the channels recommended for upgrading.
12.4.2
MINOR SYSTEMS
Based on the cost estimates to upgrade the minor systems within the six selected
pilot areas shown in Figure 11 of Volume 6, the unit costs described below provide
an indication of the capital cost involved in upgrading the minor systems.
Expropriation of land for upgradings to the minor systems will not be necessary,
except for some corridors (flooding easements) across properties in isolated cases.
The commercial area in the CBD of the Central Division is typically represented by
Pilot Area A covering an area of 60ha. The capital investment required to upgrade
drainage in this area is estimated at Ush 402,5 million, resulting in a unit cost of
Ush 6,7 million/ha. It is recommended that a unit cost of Ush 7 million/ha be
considered in the planning of drainage improvements in the CBD.
Industrial areas are represented by Pilot Areas B and C covering areas of 30ha and
80ha respectively. However, these pilot areas also include high and low residential
buildings respectively. The unit costs for upgrading of the minor systems in these

Page 12.20
areas are estimated at Ush 8,2 million/ha for Pilot Area B and Ush 3,5 million/ha for
Pilot Area C. These unit costs are affected to a large extent by the road network in
the area and it is recommended that a unit cost of Ush 6 million/ha be considered in
the planning of drainage upgradings in industrial areas.
Residential areas are represented by the following pilot areas and corresponding
unit costs:
Pilot Area B (high density)
: Ush 8,2 million/ha
Pilot Area C (low density)
Pilot Area D (medium density)
Pilot Area E (medium density)
Based on the above it is recommended that the following unit cost be considered as
a general guide in the planning of upgradings in residential areas:
high density
Ush 8 million/ha
medium density :
Ush 5 million/ha
low density
Ush 4 million/ha
Pilot Area F is typically representative of an institutional area (eg education). For

such areas it is recommended that a unit cost of Ush 5 million/ha be considered in
the planning of stormwater upgradings.
The above unit costs are affected by the extent and condition of the existing minor
system drainage (particularly roadside drainage) in the area under consideration.
For instance, the CBD and existing industrial areas require upgrading only, whereas
the residential areas will almost require complete new minor systems.
As mentioned these costs form part of the rehabilitation costs of the roads and
streets, and can therefore not be dissociated for the costs involved in general
upgradings of the roads and streets.

Page 12.21
Channelization
Port Bell Road
18SE1
1.1.2
Minor Road
18SE1
1.1.2a
Nakivubo wetland to
Port Bell Road
to
18SE1 & 3 1.1.1a to 1.1.2
From CMB to Nakivubo 18SW2 & 4

Upstream of
1.2.1
Kibira Road
18SW2
Nakivubo to Nagura
Road
18SW1 &
18NW3
1.3.1 to 1.3.5
Upstream of Nagura
Road
18NW3
17NE2
1.3.5 to 1.3.7
Railway crossing
18SW1
1.3.2
Railway crossing
18SW1
1.3.2a
Old Port Bell Road
18SW1
1.3.3
Railway crossing
18NW3
1.3.3a
Naguru Road
18NW3
1.3.5
Nakivubo to 400m
upstream of Jinja Road
17SE2
1.0.5 to 1.4.1
& upstream
Further upstream
Railway crossings
17SE2 Downstream of
17NE3 & 4 1.4.2 to 1.4.3
17SE2
Close to 1.0.5
Jinja Road
17SE2
1.4.1
Acacia Avenue
17NE3
1.4.2
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
and flood
attenuation
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Silver Spring
Culverts
No further upgradings
required
Nakivubo to Kibuli Road 17SE2 & 4 1.0.6. to 1.5.2

Upstream of Kibuli Road
17SE4
1.5.2 to 1.5.4
Upper portion at
Nsambya Central
17SE4
Upstream of
1.5.4
Press House Road
17SE2
1.5.1
Kibuli Road
17SE4
1.5.2
KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III CHAPTER 12

F:\Kampala\CHAPTER 12 TABLES final.doc
12.22
2040
Low
Priority
2028
2027
to
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
1.1.2a
2006
18SE1
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2002
Structural
Measures
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
Culverts
Secondary 5
Secondary 4
((Kitante)
Secondary 3
(Lugogo)
Secondary 2
(Kibira)
Secondary 1
(Kintintale)
Primary 1
(Nakivubo)
Channel
Table 12.1 : Long-term implementation programme

Drainage System 1 Nakivubo
Nakivubo to upstream of
1.8.3
17SE3
17SW4
1.8.1 to 1.8.3
Road crossing
17SW4
1.8.2
Kisenyi Road
17SE4
1.8.3
Nakivubo to Butikiro
Road
17SW2
17SW4
1.9.1 to 1.9.6
Road crossing
17SW4
1.9.2
Nwanga II Road
17SW4
1.9.4
Musajja-Alumba Road
17SW4
1.9.5
Butikiro Road
17SW4
1.9.6
Entire channel
17SW2
17NW4
1.10.1 to
upstream of
1.10.4
No further actions
required
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts

to
1.7.4
12.23
2040
17SE3 &
17SW4
Low
Priority
2028
Downstream of
1.7.3
2027
17SE3
to
Channelization
Nakivubo to Katwe Road

(already upgraded)
2015
1.6.2
2014
17SE3
2013
Railway line
2012
1.6.1
2011
17SE3
2010
Culverts
Nsambya Road
2009
1.6.2 to 1.6.3
2008
17SE3
2007
Upstream of railway line
2006
1.07 to 1.6.2
2005
17SE3
2004
Channelization
Nakivubo to railway line
2003
Reference
Point
2002
Map
Channelization
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Upstream and
downstream of Mutebi
Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
Channelization
Structural
Measures
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
Culverts
Secondary 10
Secondary 9
Secondary 8
Secondary 7
Secondary 6
Channel
Table 12.1 (Continued)
2.04
Bombo Road
12SW3
2.05
Kibe Road
12SW4
2.06
Gayaza Road
12SW4
2.07
Kyebando Road
12SE3
2.08
Gravel Road
12SE3
2.09
Old Kira Road
17NE2
2.0.11
Channel
16SW2
2.1.1 to
2.1.2
Road crossing
16SW2
2.1.2
Channel
16SW2
2.2.1 to
2.2.2
Mugema Road
16SE1
2.3.1
Mugema Road
16SE2
2.3.2 and
2.3.9
Sentema Road
16SE2
2.3.11
Other road crossings
16NE4
16SE2
17SW1
2.3.3 & 2.3.4

2.3.7 & 2.3.8
2.3.10
2.3.12
2.3.14
Between the two

crossings of Mugema
Road
16SE1
2.3.1 to 2.3.2
Remainder
16NE4
16SE2
17SW1
Upstream of
2.3.2
Entire Channel
16NE3
16NE4
2.4.1A to 2.4.2
Upper reach
16NE2
17NW3
Upstream of
2.5.3
Lower reach
16NE2
Downstream of
2.5.3

to
12SW3
12.24
2040
Kawaala Road
Low
Priority
2028
2.0.3 to
2.0.11
2027
12SW3
16NE2
17NE2
to
Entire length upstream

of Hoima Road crossing
2014
2.03
2013
16NE2
2012
Hoima Road
2011
2.02
2010
16NE3
2009
Sentema Road
2008
2.01
2007
16SW1
2006
Mityana Road
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Culverts
Channelization and flood
attenuation
Culverts
Culverts
Channelization
and Culverts
Channelization
Channelization
Secondary 4
Secondary 5
Secondary 3 - Nabisisaziro
Secondary 2
Secondary 1
Primary 2 Upper Lubigi
Primary 2 Lower Lubigi
Channel

Drainage System 2 Lubigi
Entire length
12SW3
Downstream of
2.7a.2
Kazo Road
12SW3
2.7a.2
Downstream of
Makerere Round-about
12SW4
17NW2
2.8.1A to 2.8.3
Upstream of Makerere
Round-about
17NW2
17NW4
2.8.3 to
upstream of
2.8.4
Makerere Round-about
17NW2
2.8.3
Muteki 1 Road
17NW2
2.8.4
Downstream of Kazo
Road
12SW4
Downstream of
2.8a.2
Upstream of Kazo Road
12SW4
Upstream of
2.8a.2
Kazo Road
12SW4
2.8a.2
Kibe Road
12SW4
2.8a.1
Lower reach
12SW2
12SW4
2.9.1 to 2.9.4
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channeli
-zation
Culverts
Channeli
-zation
Upper reach
3 Road crossings
Channelization and flood

attenuation
Gayaza Road
12SW2
12NW4
12SE1
12SE2 & 3
12NE4
12SW2
12SW4
2.9.2
2.9.3
2.9.4
2.9.2
2.9.3 & 2.9.4
12SW2
2.9.9
7 Road crossings
12SW2
12NW4
12SE1
2.9.5 & 2.9.6

2.9.11 & 2.9.12
2.9.16 & 2.9.17
2.9.20
Downstream of Bukoto
Valley Road
12SE4
2.10.1 to
2.10.7
Remainder of Channels
12SE4
13SW3
3 Road crossings along

lower reach
12SE4
Minor Road
13SW1
2.10.7 to
2.10.9 and
2.10.3A to
2.10.5
2.10.1
2.10.2
2.10.7
2.10.11

to
2.7.3 and 2.7.4
12.25
2040
12SW3
Low
Priority
2028
Two other roads
2027
2.7.2
to
12SW3
2015
Kazo Road
2014
2.7.2 to 2.7.5
2013
12SW3
2012
Upstream of Kazo Road
2011
2.7.1 to 2.7.2
2010
12SW3
2009
Lower reach
downstream of Kazo
Road
2008
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.4
2.6.6
2007
12SW3
17NW3
2006
Other roads
2005
2.6.7
2004
17NW4
2003
Makere Hill Road
2002
Downstream of
2.5.3
Culverts
Structural
Measures
12SW3
17NW1
17NW3
Channel
i-zation
Entire length
Channeliza-tion
and flood
attenuation
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
Reference
Point
Culverts
Secondary 10
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
Map
Culverts
Secondary 9
Secondary 8a
Secndary 8
Secondary 7a
Secondary 7
Secondary 6
Channel
Culverts
Primary 3 - Nalukolongo
16SE3
21NE1
22NE2
22NW1 & 2
Masaka Road
16SW3
3.0.1
Old Masaka Road
16SE3
3.0.3
Nalakongo Road
21NE2
3.0.5
Railway
21NE2
3.0.6
Wankulukuku Road
21NE2
3.0.7
Gravel Road
22NW1
3.0.8
Wierega Road
22NW2
3.0.9
Fals outside Kampala

District
21NW2
3.1.1
Entire length
16SE3
3.2.A to
upstream of
3.2.2
Masaka Road
16SE3
3.2.1
Entire length
16SE4
21NE1
3.3.1 to
upstream of
3.3.4
Masaka road
16SE4
3.3.2
Natete Road
16SE4
3.3.3
Junja Road
16SE4
3.3.4
Lower reach
21NE2
21NE4
3.4.1 to 3.4.4
Upper reach
21NE4
3.4.4 to 3.4.5
Kiyimba road
21NE2
3.4.2
Gravel Road
21NE4
3.4.3
Wamala road
21NE4
3.4.4
Mutundwe Road
21NE4
3.4.5
Culverts
Channeli
-zation
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts

to
2040
Low
Priority
2028
2027
to
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
Reference
Point
Entire Length
Channeli
-zation
Secondary 1
- Mayanja
Secondary 2
Secondary 3
Secondary 4
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2002
Structural
Measures
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
Channeli
-zation
Channel

Drainage System 3 Nalukolongo
12.26
Channelization
Suna Road
22NW1
3.6.1
Kintu Road
22NW1
3.6.2
Warmala Road
22NW3
3.6.3
to
3.6.A to
upstream of
3.6.3
12.27
2040
22NW1
22NW3
Low
Priority
2028
Entire length
2027
3.5.2
to
22NW1
2015
Masaka Road
2014
3.5.1
2013
22NW1
2012
Railway
2011
Upstream of
3.5.3
2010
17SW3
22NW1
2009
Channel upstream of
Kabakas Lake
2008
3.5.1 to 3.5.2
2007
22NW1
2006
Channel downstream of
Kabakas Lake
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2002
Structural
Measures
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
Channeli
-zation
Culverts
Secondary 6
Culverts
Secondary 5
Channelization
and Kabakas
Lake
Channel
Channel upstream of
Gaba Road
23NW3
4.0.1
2 Gravel Roads
23NW3
22NE2
4.0.3
4.0.5
Hanlon Road
22NE1
4.0.7
Edwards Road
22NE1
4.0.8
Jjuko Road
22NE1
4.0.9
23NW4
4.1.1
Buziga Road
23SW2
4.1.2
Entire length
22NE2
23NW1
18SW3
Downstream of
4.2.1 to 4.2.2
Gaba Road
18SW3
4.2.2
Gravel Road
23NW1
4.2.1
Entire length
22NE2
22NE4
4.3.1 to 4.3.2
Lukili Road
22NE4
4.3.2
22SE3
23SW2 & 4
4A.0.1 to
4A.0.4
23SE3
4A.0.1
23SW2 & 4
4A.0.2
4A.0.3
4A.0.4
Munyonyo Road
Bishop, Prince Badro
and Kisenyi Roads

to
12.28
2040
2028
2027
to
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
23NW3 & 4 4.1.1 to 4.1.2
Konge Road
Entire length
Low
Priority
23NW1,
4.0.1 to 4.0.9
3&4
22NE1 & 2
Gaba Road
Entire length
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Channelization
and flood
attenuation
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
and flood
attenuation
Culverts
Primary 4 4A (Gaba)
Secondary 3
Secondary 2
Secondary 1
Primary 4 (Kansanga)
Channel

Drainage Systems 4 Kansanga and 4A - Gaba
Channelization
Upstream of
5.0.1
Culverts
Muzito Road
22NW3
5.0.1
Channelization
Entire length
to
22NW2 & 4
22NE3
Upstream of
22SE1&2 5.1.9 to 5.1.1
23SW3
Lwasa Road
23SW3
5.1.1
Namasole Road
22NW2
5.1.8
Salama Road
22SE2
5.1.10
12.29
2040
2028
2027
to
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Low
Priority
3NW1 & 2
Downstream of
3NW3 & 4
5.1.1
23SW3
22NW3
2005
2004
Reference
Point
Upper Reach
Culverts
Secondary 1 (Mayanja)
Primary 5 (Kaliddubi)
Kawagga Swamp to
be left in natural state
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Channel

Drainage System 5 Mayanja/Kaliddubi
Downstream of
confluence with
Secondary 1
19NW3 & 4
19SW 1, 2, 6.0.1A to 6.0.A
3&4
Downstream of Kireka
Road
18NE1, 3 &
6.0.2 to 6.0.3
4
Upstream of Kireka
Road
18NE1
6.0.3 to 6.0.5
Kireka Road
18NE1
6.0.3
Railway
18NE1
6.0.3
Access Road to
industries
18NW2
6.0.4
Engire length
19SW1
From
confluence to
6.1.2
Downstream of Jinja
Road
18NE1 & 2 6.2.A to 6.2.2
Upstream of Jinja Road
18NE2
13SE3 & 4
6.2.2 to
upstream of
6.2.3
Jinja Road
18NE1 & 2
6.2.2
Entire length
18NE1
6.3.1 to
upstream of
6.3.2
Jinja Road
18NE1
6.3.1
to
Eastern branch
From 6.4.1 to
18NW2
downstream of Megha
upstream of
18NE1
Industries
6.4.2
Eastern branch upper
18NW2
6.4.2 to 6.4.4
reach
13SW3 & 4
Western branch
18NW2
13SW4
Downstream of
6.4.6 to 6.4.8
Jinja and Kyambogo

Roads
18NE1
6.4.1
Kigobe Road
13SW4
6.4.4
Ntinda Road
18NW2
6.4.6

12.30
2040
Low
Priority
2028
2027
to
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Natural
State
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Channelization
Culverts
Secondary 4
Secondary 3
Secondary 2
Secondary 1
Primary 6 (Kiwawataka)
Channel

Drainage System 6 Kinawataka
Primary and
3 Secondaries
13NW2
7.0.4
Gravel road across

Secondary 1
13SW1
7.1.5
Primary and
2 Secondaries
13NE3
13SE1
Entire length
Tarr road across primary
13SE1
7A.0.3
Tar road across

Secondary 2
13SE1
7A.2.1
to
12.31
2040
2028
2027
to
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Low
Priority
13NW 1, 2,
3&4
Entire length
12NW2 & 4
13SW1 & 2
Gravel road across

primary
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Demarcation
of floodlines
Culverts
Demarcation
of floodlines
Culverts
Primary 7A and Secondary

Channels
Primary 7 & Secondary

Channels
Channel

Drainage Systems 7 Nalubaga and 7A - Nakalere
to
7SE3 & 4
Primary and Secondary
8SW3
Channels 1, 1a, 2, 3, 4 & 12NE1, 2 & Entire length
5
3
13NW1 & 3
Gayaza Road
(3 crossings)
17SE3
12NE1
8.0.4
8.5.1
8.5.7
7SW3 & 4
12NW1, 2,
3&4
Entire length
12NW3
12NW4
8A.2.2
8A.2.3
Other crossings
Channels within
Kampala District
Two gravel roads across

Secondary 2

12.32
2040
Low
Priority
2028
2027
to
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Reference
Point
2004
Map
2003
Channel Reach /
Name of Road
Medium
Priority
High Priority
2015
Location
(Refer to Volume 6)
2002
Structural
Measures
Demarcation
of floodlines
Demarcation
of floodline|s
Culverts
Culverts
Primary 8 and Secondary

Channels
Primary 8A and Secondary
Channels
Channel

Drainage Systems 8 Walufumbe and 8A Mayanja North
Table 12.9 : Distribution of capital costs Major Systems

Capital costs (Ush million)
Drainage System
No. 1 - Nakivubo
Channels
Culverts
Channel
Culverts
Primary Channels
Secondary Channels
7 150
637
250
45
2 100
40
Ush million
USD million
7 150
4,1
637
0,36
250
0,14
45
0,03
2 100
1,20
40
0,02
Primary Channels
9 202
230
90
Secondary Channels
9 095
369
14 891
271
3 247
Ush million
USD million
18 297
10,45
599
0,34
14 891
8,51
361
0,21
3 247
1,86
Primary Channels
10 668
300
Secondary Channels
2 286
143
1 100
40
491
12 954
7,40
443
0,25
1 100
0,63
40
0,02
491
0,28
Primary Channels
20
6 830
60
20
Secondary Channels
10
500
23
1 967
24
Ush million
USD million
30
0,02
7 330
4,19
83
0,05
1 967
1,12
44
0,03
Primary Channels
45
8 850
45
Secondary Channels
45
0,03
8 850
5,06
45
0,03
Primary Channels
13 279
150
Secondary Channels
1 626
246
1 500
721
14 905
8,52
396
0,23
1 500
0,86
721
0,41
Primary Channels
25
Secondary Channels
20
Ush million
USD million
45
0,03
Primary Channels
Secondary Channels
30
60
Ush million
USD million
30
0,02
Ush million
USD million
53 306
30,46
2 150
1,23
33 921
19,38
649
0,37
SubTotals
No. 4 & 4A
Kansanga & Gaba
No. 5 Mayanja
SubTotals
SubTotals
No. 6 Kinawataka
SubTotals
No. 7 & 7A
Nalubaga & Nakalere
No. 8 & 8A
Walufumbe & Mayanja
North
TOTALS
Note :
1.
2.
Low Priority
2028 to 2040
Culverts
SubTotals
No. 3 Nalukolongo
Medium Priority
2015 to 2027
Channels
SubTotals
No. 2 - Lubigi
High Priority
2002 to 2014
Channel
SubTotals
SubTotals
Ush million
USD million
Ush million
USD million
Ush million
USD million
60
0,03
8 526
4,87
Base date of cost estimates : September 2001

Exchange rate : USD 1 = Ush 1 750

12.33
144
0,08
Table 12.10 : Land Acquisition Costs

Drainage System
Land acquisition costs

Ush million
USD million
495,0
0,28
738,1
0,42
680,6
0,39
138,2
0,08
55,0
0,03
259,8
0,15
66,7
0,04
98,6
0,06
2 532,0
1,45
TOTALS

12.34
CHAPTER 13
IDENTIFICATION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
13.1
INTRODUCTION
The drainage master plan comprises a short-term action plan and a long-term
development programme, each of which comprises specific projects. Arrangements
must be put in place to ensure that each project can be successfully implemented,
i.e. managed through the entire project cycle from detailed planning and design,
through construction and commissioning to operation and maintenance. The
arrangements necessary include setting up the appropriate organization with staffing
structure, budgeting and funding procedures, management and control
The objectives of the Drainage Master Plan as listed in Chapter 1 (Volume 2)

specifically require that attention be given to identification of legislative, regulatory,
institutional, financial, engineering, implementation and operational arrangements
necessary for the successful implementation of the Drainage Master Plan.
These issues have been covered throughout the study and this chapter merely
serves as a brief summary of the actions required to ensure successful
implementation of the Drainage Master Plan.
13.2
LEGISLATIVE, REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
13.2.1
LEGISLATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
It has been found desirable to harmonize the provisions of the Local Government
Act, the National Environmental Statute and the Town and Country Planning Act to
remove ambiguity and empower the City Council to prepare and implement land-use
and zoning plans. Perhaps the most controversial and sensitive issue during
implementation will be the relocation of people as part of the implementation
programme and the fair compensation payable in terms of Ugandan law. Success
will depend on the ability of the City Council to exercise its authority to significantly
impact on the rights of individuals and even of communities in the interest of the
broader public.

Page 13.1
13.2.2
REGULATORY ARRANGEMENTS
It is recommended that regulatory provision be made for the Divisions to take full
responsibility for the minor drainage systems while the City Council itself remains
responsible for the major drainage systems. Attention should be given to removing
possible legal ambiguity between the definition in the Second Schedule to the Local
Government Act, 1997, of the categories of drainage systems and the definitions
used in this master plan.
Arrangements for preparing and implementing land-use plans as regulatory

instruments of stormwater management will provide cost-effective, non-structural
options.
13.2.3
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The variety of projects in the drainage master plan have to be implemented over a
long period of time and operated and maintained indefinitely. Present arrangements
for implementing the Nakivubo Channel Rehabilitation Project (NCRP) through a
Project Coordination Unit working in close liaison with the City Engineer and
Surveyors Department (CE and S) and the Town Clerk offers a basis for future
arrangements. These units within the KCC and the Divisions all have significant
roles which must be carefully coordinated. The requirements of the Strategic
Framework for Reform in the City provide further guidance on organization design
and allocation of functions for implementing the drainage master plan.
In view of present limitations on the human and financial resources available to the
City Council and the Divisions, even the existing stormwater drainage system
cannot be operated and maintained for maximum benefit to the citizens. Careful
attention must be given to these institutional aspects as a high priority when
implementing this drainage master plan.
13.3
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Specific attention must be given to financial arrangements to support long-term
commitments such as the drainage master plan. Grant and loan funding from multilateral agencies such as the World Bank as well as own sources from the revenue
must be considered and it is essential to institute arrangements for capital budgeting
and provision of funds for recurring costs. These arrangements must be fully
compatible with budgeting processes in the City.

Page 13.2
Cognisance is taken of the present, limited access to funds for financing recurring
annual costs of operation and management and the cost of acquiring land, and the
fact that this is not likely to change dramatically in the near future. This aspect may
call for special financing arrangements for implementation, particularly in the shortterm.
13.4
OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The operation and stormwater drainage can not be dissociated from maintenance.
Organization design and staffing levels must take account of the Strategic
Framework for Reform. It is expected that the arrangements found to be appropriate
for operating and maintaining the existing drainage systems will also be adequate
for the improved systems envisaged in this drainage master plan. Arrangements
must be made to ensure that the projects emanating from the short-term action plan
and the long-term programme are well defined, initiated timeously and managed
with great discipline. This will require strong project management expertise at City
Council and Division levels.
13.5
ENGINEERING AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The engineering arrangements relate basically to the detail design with contract
documents of the proposed structural interventions. Similarly the implementation
arrangements relate to the invitation of tenders, tender adjudication and finally
construction and commissioning.
It is recommended that these tasks be out-sourced under the guidance and

management of either KCC for the major systems or the Divisions for the minor
systems.

Page 13.3
CHAPTER 14
SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN
14.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focusses on a short-term action plan for the first five years as listed
in Chapter 1 (Volume 2) as one of the main objectives of the study. The Terms of
Reference for the study requires that design briefs, conceptual designs and cost
estimates for the recommended prioritized interventions be included in the shortterm action plan. Although these requirements only correspond to structural
measures, it is essential that attention also be given to non-structural measures
during the initial stages of the short-term plan or programme. This would mainly
entail setting-up the arrangements necessary for implementation of the KDMP
(see Chapter 13) and operation and maintenance, as well as improving the
rainfall and runoff data collection, and consideration of a flood warning system.
The short-term action plan has thus been divided conveniently between nonstructural and structural measures as described below.
14.2
NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES
14.2.1
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Organizational structures required for the successful implementation of the
KDMP are dealt with in Chapter 2 (Volume 2) and these should be put in place
as far as possible during the short-term action plan.
14.2.2
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The organizational structure for operation and maintenance is also dealt with in
Chapter 2 (Volume 2). Lack of funds is presently the main issue affecting the
poor quality of maintenance being experienced in Kampala.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of new works is usually

assessed at 0,5% of the capital investment cost. With reference to the costs of
upgradings recommended to be covered by the short-term action plan, as
described later in this chapter, the additional O&M cost associated with the
recommended upgradings will amount to about Ush 22 million p.a. for the minor
systems and Ush 250 million p.a. for the major systems at the end of the 5-year
period.

Page 14.1
The annual O&M costs required for the existing drainage systems are difficult to
assess and further liaison with KCC and the five Divisions will be essential to
quantify these costs.
14.2.3
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF DATA COLLECTION

(a)
General
The estimation of peak stormwater discharges or flood peaks as described
in Chapter 6 (Volume 3) inevitably had to be based on various assumptions
and transposition of short duration rainfall relationships from other similar
meteorological regions, due to the lack of suitable rainfall and runoff data
for Kampala District. Verification and refinement of the estimated peak
stormwater discharges can only be achieved with recorded rainfall and
runoff data over a reasonable period of time. In the analyses (Chapter 3,
Volume 3) it was assumed that the rainfall depth-duration-frequency
relationships do not vary across the Kampala District. This assumption can
only be verified by rainfall records from various stations spread over the
Kampala District.
It is recommended that more rainfall and flow measuring stations be

installed as described below. Design stormwater discharges or flood peaks
should then be continuously refined and updated as data becomes
available over time.
(b)
Rainfall Gauges
Daily rainfall has been recorded in Kampala since 1943. The locations of
the rainfall stations and lengths of record are shown in Figure 6.1 and
Table 6.3 of Chapter 6 (Volume 3).
With reference to Figure 6.1 in Chapter 6 (Volume 3), it is recommended

that at least two more rainfall stations be installed close to the western and
northern boundaries of Kampala District that are capable of measuring
rainfall over short durations. In addition, it is also recommended that the
daily rainfall recorders at Stations 20910 (Kampala Sewerage Works),
20200 (at Lubiri Hill) and 20220 (at Gaba) be replaced with recorders that
are capable of measuring rainfall over short durations.

Page 14.2
The installation, operation and maintenance of the recommended five new

rainfall stations must be under the supervision of the Department of
Meteorology of the Ministry of Lands and Environment.
The tipping-bucket type rain gauge with a data logger will be suitable to
eliminate the need to manually read the rain gauges as the data logger can
store up to three months data. The process can be automated by installing
suitable transmitters and a centralized receiver at the departments offices.
It is recommended that the Department of Meteorology decides on the type
and make of rain gauges and data loggers to be installed. The tippingbucket type rain gauges with data loggers are internationally available from
about Ush 600 000 (USD 343), excluding import duties (and installation).
For budgetary purposes, it is recommended that an amount of
Ush 4 million (or USD 2285) be allowed for to cover the purchase and
installation of five new rain gauges.
(c)
Flow Measuring Gauges

Flow along the Nakivubo Channel at 5th Street (Station No. 81267) has
been recorded since September 1997 by the Department of Water
Resources. These recordings have recently been discontinued during the
upgrading of the Nakivubo Channel at 5 th Street. Valuable data, as referred
to in Chapter 6 (Volume 3), has already been captured. It is essential that
data collection at this station be continued in the future. In addition to this
station it is recommended that two more flow measuring stations be
installed; one in the Lubigi Channel and the other in the Kinawataka
Channel. Provision can be made in the detail design of the upgradings of
these channels for accommodation of flow measuring gauges. Level
measuring instruments with data loggers will be suitable for this purpose.
The installation, operation and maintenance of these flow measuring
stations must resort under the supervision of the Department of Water
Resources.
It is recommended that the Department of Water Resources decides on the

type and make of flow measuring gauges and data loggers to be installed
and that the flow measuring gauges are similar to the instruments currently
being used at 5 th Street.

Page 14.3
A robust type flow measuring gauge with a data logger is internationally

available from about Ush 1 500 000 (USD 857), excluding import duties
(and installation). For budgetary purposes, it is recommended that an
amount of Ush 4,5 million (USD 2570) be allowed for to cover the purchase
and installation of two additional flow measuring gauges. The cost of the
required civil works at the measuring points will be insignificant if included
in the cost of upgrading or channelization of the channels.
14.3
STRUCTURAL MEASURES
14.3.1
PRIORITIZED INTERVENTIONS AND PROGRAMMING

(a)
Major Systems
As far as the major systems are concerned (ie primary and secondary
channels), the first five years from 2003 to 2007 of the long-term
implementation
programme
represent
recommended
prioritized
interventions applicable to the short-term action plan, as also shown in

Table 14.1 at the end of this chapter. These short-term prioritized
interventions mainly cover all the known and identified problem areas or
black spots as listed in Section 5.2 of Volume 5. It might not be possible to
accomplish upgrading of all the channels and road crossing listed in
Table 14.1 within five years, and it may become necessary to revise the
programme in two years time, for example.
(b)
Minor Systems
As described in Chapter 12, roadside drainage is either undersized or nonexistent in many places. Upgrading of the roadside drainage is an
enormous task and it is recommended, in Chapter 12, that the short-term
action plan focusses on known and identified problem areas or black spots
as listed in Section 5.3 of Volume 5. These black spots represent the
locations of areas of regular flooding that require immediate attention,
mainly along and across the roads.
Although it is possible to upgrade the drainage at all these black spots

related to the minor system within a short period of one to two years, the
programming for upgrading has been spread over five years from 2003 to
2007 as shown in Table 14.2 at the end of this chapter. The only exception
is the general upgrading of roadside drainage in the Central Division, which

Page 14.4
has also been identified as a black spot, and which will take more than five
years to upgrade.
14.3.2
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
Conceptual designs have been carried out to a level of detail which ensured that
reasonable accurate cost estimates could be made and also to quantify the
extent of upgradings as required for implementation programming. The existing
topographical survey information (ie the digital maps contained in Volume 6) with
2m contours posed a major problem during the conceptual designs, particularly
for the roadside drainage where sizing of pipes and drains along the roads
depends on the available gradient or slope, which can only be defined on the
basis of more accurate surveys. The existing topographical surveys also do not
extend into the low-lying areas or wetlands, which is extremely important for
designing the outlet transition from a channelized reach to a wetland. More
accurate surveys are a prerequisite for detail design.
The details of the conceptual designs for the major systems are given in
Chapter 8 (Volume 3) for all the primary and secondary channels in the Kampala
District and not only for the prioritized interventions covered by the short-term
action plan. It should be noted that these conceptual designs only entail
channelization. The detail designs should also consider the provision of flood
attenuation dams in certain channels, as described in Chapter 12. The final
selection of upgradings should be based on the least cost solution of
channelization and flood attenuation dams or a combination of both measures.
More detail topographical surveys will however, be essential for designing of
flood attenuation dams.
The proposed upgradings of the prioritized interventions on the minor systems

are listed in Section 5.3 of Volume 5. The cost estimates for these upgradings
have been based on nominal sizing of underground pipes and open drains with
lengths to discharge into a primary or secondary channel, lengths of new kerbs
required, nominal spacing of kerb inlets and repair of road surfaces.

Page 14.5
14.3.3
DESIGN BRIEFS
All aspects considered in this master plan study need to be further investigated
and studied for detail design of improvements to the drainage systems. A holistic
approach will be required to ensure that all of the various aspects are
investigated and that the design work is not delayed by certain aspects which
require a longer period of time for investigation as described below. The aspects
to be considered for detail design are described below.
(a)
Surveys
The available topographical survey of Kampala District (ie the digital maps
in Volume 6) is not suitable for detail design. Topographical surveys of all
the problem areas or black spots, to a scale of 1:500 or 1:1000 with 0,5m
contours, are essential for proper detail design. As described later, the
detail design of certain channel reaches is also affected by the long-term
planning and design of the upper reaches, specifically the possibility of
providing flood attenuation in the upper reaches. This implies that the
topographical surveys should also cover specific areas in the upper
reaches of the channel in question.
Aerial photography and mapping would be the most suitable means of

producing topographical information within a relatively short time. In this
regard it may be advisable to cover the whole Kampala District with aerial
photographs and to map only the prioritized areas for upgrading as part of
the short-term action plan. The aerial photographs will be very useful in
defining all further infrastructure development (houses and industries) not
shown on the digital maps contained in Volume 6. The cost of aerial
photography and mapping (associated with the Short-term Action Plan) is
estimated at Ush 150 million (USD 86 000).
The above topographical surveys may require a period of two to three

months and it is therefore essential that these surveys be conducted during
the initial stages of detail design. In addition to the topographical surveys,
specific surveys of the roadside drainage at the identified black spots will
be required for the design of upgradings and new works such as condition,
sizes, lengths and invert levels of existing open drains and underground
pipes, road surface levels and damaged areas, kerbs and kerb inlets.

Page 14.6
(b)
Environmental Impact Assessments

All the envisaged upgradings of the major systems (primary and secondary
channels) require that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), in
compliance with the laws and regulations in Uganda, be carried out and
covering both the channelization and flood attenuation dams options. This
may be a time consuming process and progress on the detail design will be
affected by the time in which the EIAs can be completed as well as the
time required for approval by the relevant authorities.
(c)
Planned Infrastructure Development

The detail design will also be affected by other planned or envisaged
upgradings of other infrastructure and services such as the road system,
the sewer system and industrial buildings and residential houses.
The planned Northern Bypass along the Lubigi Channel will be particularly
important. The drainage along and across this road as designed, will have
to be verified to ensure that it complies with all the requirements of this
master plan, particularly the design standards and norms described in
Chapter 11.
(d)
Engineering Design
Stormwater discharges or flood peaks in Chapter 6 (Volume 3) have been
estimated for various selected points or catchments and sub-catchments.
These selected points do not necessarily represent the problem points to
be considered in the detail design. Further estimates of stormwater
discharges for the return periods from 2 to 100 years are therefore
essential in the detail design. The hydrological information can be used but
further attention is required to refine the storm losses in detail for each
catchment taking envisaged development up to 2040 into account. In
cases where flood attenuation are considered, complete flood hydrographs
for different return periods and longer storm durations will be required to
quantify and optimise the temporary storage to be provided.
Stormwater discharges for the minor systems (roadside drainage) are not
covered by Chapter 6 (Volume 3). These need to be estimated using the
hydrological information from Chapter 6 for applicable catchment areas to

Page 14.7
be defined on the basis of the available digital maps and topographical

surveys referred to above.
The effect of upgradings along major systems on the floodlines determined

in Chapter 7 (Volume 3) needs to be refined, particularly by taking the
more accurate topographical survey into account.
The main options to be considered in the detail design entail:
expropriation of land, so that the channel can be left in its natural state
channelization of certain reaches or of the entire lengths of primary and

secondary channels
provision of flood attenuation dams to reduce the flood peaks in the

downstream channel reaches
combination of channelization and flood attenuation dams.
All of these options must be investigated and the final selection should be
based on the least cost solution provided that it is environmentally
acceptable and approved by the relevant authorities.
The designs must comply with the minimum design standards and norms
as described in Chapter 11, particularly with regard to design return
periods and hydraulic sizing of all channels, culverts, drains, pipes and
inlets and outlets.
Geotechnical investigations must be carried out to assist with the structural

stability design of channel sides, culverts, wingwalls and underground
pipes. Future settlement of the various structures is particularly important.
(e)
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates should distinguish between:
Engineering design and supervision costs
Land acquisition costs
Construction costs
KCCs management costs

Page 14.8
Detail construction cost estimates must be made and based on unit rates
derived from recent similar construction contracts awarded in Kampala with
due allowance for contract price adjustment or escalation.
(f)
Reporting
Complete and detail design reports with construction drawings are required
for approval by KCC. The reports, and particularly the drawings, must also
be made available in electronic format.
14.3.4
COST ESTIMATES
(a)
Major Systems
To upgrade all the identified black spots associated with the major systems
during the first five years would require an investment capital of
Ush 49770 million (USD 28,44 million) as shown in Table 14.1, excluding
land acquisition costs. About 73% of this cost is required for improvements
of three primary channels only, namely Lubigi, Nalukolongo and
Kinawataka. These channels are considered very critical for further
development of Kampala and if upgrading can not be accomplished as part
of the short-term action plan due to the availability of funds, it will be
advisable to programme these upgradings over a longer period.
The planned Northern Bypass along the Lubigi Channel necessitates that
this channel be upgraded during the construction of the bypass. The
culverts at road crossings will in any case have to be upgraded to suit the
Northern Bypass.
The total capital cost for the Short-term Action Plan (first 5 years) amounts
to 50% of the estimated capital cost for upgrading all the major systems as
programmed up to 2040 (see Table 12.9 in Chapter 12). This can only be
attributed to the backlog in providing adequate stormwater drainage in
Kampala, as is also evident from the survey of the existing drainage
systems (see Chapter 5 of Volume 3).
(b)
Minor Systems
The capital cost estimates to upgrade the present known black spots
associated with the minor systems are shown in Table 14.2, totaling

Page 14.9
Ush 4424 million (USD 2,53 million). The industrial area along the
Nakivubo Channel in Makindye Division (ie Black Spot M1 along 5th , 6th, 7th
and 8th Streets) makes up more than 25% of the above total estimated
cost. The length of all these streets total about 5km and upgrading to
comply with the design standards described in Chapter 11 requires that
almost all roadside drainage be replaced with larger size pipes and drains,
including further drains to discharge the stormwater into the Nakivubo
Channel.
(c)
Land Acquisition Costs

Provisional land acquisition costs are listed in Table 12.10 of Chapter 12
for complete upgrading of all major systems up to 2040. Proportional land
acquisition costs applicable to the Short-term Action Plan have been
estimated as shown below.
(d)
Nakivubo Secondary Channels :
Ush 495 million (USD 0,28 million)
Lubigi
Nalukolongo
Kinawataka
Engineering and Management Costs

The engineering and management costs are included in the capital cost
listed in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. For planning purposes an allowance of 10%
has been made for these costs, which cover the following:
(e)
Engineering design
Topographical surveys
Construction supervision
KCCs management
Costs Excluded
It should be noted that the above costs do not allow for the following:
Royalties or levies on extraction of construction materials
Local Taxes
Inflation cost from September 2001
Financing charges

Page 14.10
Black Spot
No.
(Refer Section
5, Vol. 5)
Drainage
System
Table 14.1 : Major Systems Black Spots

Short-term upgrading programme and provisional capital cost estimates
Year
2002
1B
Secondary 2 (Kibira) from CMB to Nakivubo
1C
Secondary 3 (Lugogo) from Naguru Road to

Nakivubo Channel
1F
1G
No. 1 Nakivubo
1D
1E
2003
2004
2005
Secondary 1 (Silver Spring) from St. Kizito

and Kintintale Channel downstream of Port
Bell Road
1A
2006
2007
Provisional
Cost Estimate
(Ush million)
600
600
1200
Location/Description
Secondary 4 (Kitante) from golf course to

Nakivubo Channel
Secondary 5 downstream of Kibuli Road to
Nakivubo
Secondary 6 from Railway line to Nakivubo
Channel
Secondary 7 (Katwe) from Katwe Road to
Nakivubo Channel
100
100
1130
800
1930
750
750
1500
100
100
100
100
60
60
1J
Secondary 8 from Kafumbe Road to

Nakivubo Channel
1K
Secondary 9 (Jugula) from Butikiro Road to

Nakivubo Channel
1L
Secondary 10 (Kakajjo) from Sir Appollo

Kaggwa Road via Aga Khan School
2A
Lubigi Channel
- from Hoima Road to Gayaza Road
- from Gayaza Road to Kira Road
2B
Bombo road across Nsooba Channel
2C
Secondary 3 at lower Magema Road
36
36
2D
Secondary 3 at upper Magema Road
30
30
Secondary 3 at Sentema Road
16
16
2E
2F
No. 2 Lubigi
1H
Secondary 7 upstream and downstream of

Mutebi Road
100
100
125
125
814
814
445
3500
445
3500
1500
932
9432
75
Secondary 6
- Upper reach
- Lower reach
75
949
949
1898
2G
Secondary 6 at Makere Hill Road
35
35
2H
Secondary 7 Lower reach
516
516
2I
Secondary 8 Downstream of round-about
2J
Secondary 9 Lower reach
3A
3B
3C
No. 3 Nalukolongo
2K
6A
6B
6C
No. 6 Kinwataka
3D
Secondary 10 Downstream of Bukoto

Valley Road
Nalukolongo Channel
- Upper reach
- Lower reach
400
325
655
3500
Secondary 2 Masaka Road crossing
3500
3600
590
590
600
1255
3068
13668
19
19
Secondary 3 Entire length
501
Secondary 5 downstream of Kabakas

Lake
Kinawataka Channel
- Upstream of Kireka Road
- Downstream of Kireka Road
725
500
246
3000
3000
246
4000
3279
13279
Secondary 2 from Jinja Road
Done
Secondary 4 from Megha Industries to

Kinawataka
Total capital costs
475
475
Ush million
13505
13759
10674
9460
2372
49770
USD million
7,72
7,86
6,10
5,40
1,36
28,44

1001
14.11
Black Spot
No.
(Refer
Section 5,
Vol. 5)
Division
Table 14.2 : Minor Systems Black Spots

Short-term upgrading programme and provisional capital cost estimates
Year
Location
2002
2003
2004
Wampemo Round-about
65
C2
Kafumbe Road
15
C3
Yusufu Lule-North Round-about
C4
Kira Road
C5
William Street
64
CBD Roads in general
200
C7
2006
2007
65
15
37
37
14
14
64
300
150
50
700
Lugogo Bypass
32
32
Queens Lane
21
21
Buganda Road
122
122
C12
Kisenyi Road
142
C13
Siad Barre Avenue
35
35
C14
Ben Kiwanuka Road
77
77
C15
McKay Road
24
24
C16
Junction of Yusufu and Shimon Roads
22
22
R1
Lubaga Road
C9
C10
R2
R3
R4
R5
Lubaga Division
C8
Central Division
C1
2005
Provisional
Cost Estimate
(Ush million)
N1
N2
Nakawa
Division
K1
242
109
Junction of Hoima and Masiro Roads
109
140
Hoima Road
Lubiri Ring Road
140
280
79
79
170
Junction of Kabusu and Masaka Roads
170
53
Ndeeba Police Play Ground area

Kawempe
Division
R6
100
53
41
41
Nakerere Round-about
44
Luthuli Avenue
44
89
89
Luzira Drain
218
th
th
th
th
218
Industrial Area : 5 , 6 , 7 & 8 Streets
641
M2
Nsambya Road
102
M3
Inceptor drain from Namuwongo Road
121
121
Mukwaano Round-about
178
178
M4
M5
M6
M7
Makindye Division
M1
600
1241
102
Nabisalu Kisenyi wing area
33
33
Katwe II (Primary school)
33
33
Katwe II (Tawo Zone)
66
66
M8
Kisugu (Kasanvu Zone)
32
32
M9
Kabalangala (Karazi Zone)
22
22
M10
Kansanga (Gaba Road)

Total capital costs
43
1312
1372
777
565
398
4424
USD million
0,75
0,79
0,44
0,32
0,23
2,53

43
Ush million
14.12

MAIN REPORT VOL 4-Drainage Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAIN REPORT VOL 4-Drainage Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NAKIVUBO CHANNEL REHABILITATION PROJECT (NCRP)

KAMPALA DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN

MAIN REPORT PART I

MAIN REPORT PART II

MAIN REPORT PART III

FIGURES AND MAPS

KDMP GENERAL INDEX TO MAIN REPORT

DESIGN STANDARDS AND NORMS

KDMP GENERAL INDEX TO MAIN REPORT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LONG-TERM PROGRAMME

SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN

KDMP GENERAL INDEX TO MAIN REPORT

DESIGN STANDARDS AND NORMS

minimizing the risk of damage to property and infrastructure

minimizing public inconvenience caused by frequent storms

preventing erosion and siltation

preserving the environment

DESIGN RETURN PERIODS

This interrelationship of probability, return period and design life is illustrated in

Table 11.1 : Interrelationship of probability, return period and design life

Probability (p) that an event will be equalled or exceeded during a

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

Figure 11.1 : Flood peak ratios and risks of being exceeded

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

The major system should be designed to accommodate less frequent

Although economic considerations, as described in Chapter 9 (Volume 3),

An economic analysis should still be a prerequisite for the detail design of

In addition, it is essential that the behaviour of an upgraded major system

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

The roadside drainage referred to in the previous chapters consisting of

It is recommended that design return periods for minor systems be based

Table 11.2 : Design return periods for minor systems

Recommended Design Return Period

Institutional (eg schools)

General commercial and industrial

STORAGE AND FLOOD ATTENUATION DAMS

Two scenarios are usually considered to determine acceptable levels of spillway

Extreme flood conditions : Spillway operation may result in substantial

ROADS AND STREETS

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

detours not available

long period of flooding

high traffic density

deep flow depth and high flow velocity of floodwaters

high economic importance.

For buildings where only (unconcentrated) overland stormwater runoff needs to be

Where stormwater drainage at buildings is classified as forming part of the major

buildings adjacent to primary and secondary channels where floodlines should

large buildings or a complex of buildings situated across land depressions

diversions of a natural watercourse to suit the building layout.

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION AND SURVEYS

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

Depending on the topographical complexity and density of manmade structures, the

It is good to investigate the sensitivity of variations in the roughness coefficient as

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

floodplains (refer to the Handbook of Applied Hydraulics (1969) by Davis and

PERMISSIBLE FLOW VELOCITIES

Maximum Flow Velocities

Unprotected soil surfaces

(Mayanja/Kaliddubi) where humous sands are found. Based on

KDMP VOLUME 4 MAIN REPORT PART III - CHAPTER 11

around bends. The maximum permissible average velocity is variable

Figure 11.2 : Permissible average flow velocities