Kenya's metering ratio has been 97% for three years. Non-revenue water went from 43% to 48%.
WASREB published Impact Report 18 on 19 June 2026, covering 94 water services providers in FY2024/25. Most of the coverage it received focused on the good news, and there is real good news in it. But two numbers sit next to each other in the regulator's own tables and, read together, they describe the sector's central problem more precisely than any commentary has: Kenya's utilities have meters. What they don't have is measurement.
By Frank Guo · Technology & Product Leadership, addanode
Three years of stable metering, three years of worsening losses.
These are WASREB's figures, from Table 2.6 of the report, unaltered:
| Key performance indicator | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water coverage, % | 65 | 70 | 72 |
| Drinking water quality, % | 90 | 89 | 96 |
| Hours of supply, hrs/day | 17 | 18 | 18 |
| Non-revenue water, % | 43 | 44 | 48 |
| Metering ratio, % | 97 | 97 | 97 |
| Staff productivity, per 1,000 connections | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Personnel expenditure as % of O+M | 48 | 47 | 44 |
| Revenue collection efficiency, % | 93 | 95 | 94 |
| O+M cost coverage, % | 95 | 98 | 103 |
Six indicators improved. Three were flat. Two went backwards — non-revenue water and revenue collection efficiency. Note which two are flat and which one moved: the metering ratio has not shifted a single point in three years, and losses rose five points over the same period.
Why that pairing matters. A metering ratio counts customer connections that have a meter. At 97%, Kenya has essentially solved that problem — it is one of the better figures on the continent. Non-revenue water measures what happens to water between the treatment works and those meters. A sector can have both because they describe different parts of the network: the customer end is instrumented, and the distribution system between production and the customer largely is not. You cannot meter your way out of a loss that happens upstream of the meters.
Production rose 9.4%. Billed volume rose 2.3%.
Total water produced went from 461,282,593 m³ to 504,426,445 m³ — an increase of 43.1 million cubic metres, or 9.4%. Over the same year, the volume actually billed rose by 2.3%.
In WASREB's own words, that indicates "a substantial portion of the additional water produced was either lost or unaccounted for". The sector spent real money — chemicals, electricity for pumping, treatment capacity, staff time — to produce an extra 43 million cubic metres, and captured a small fraction of it as revenue. Per capita consumption stayed at 26.7 litres per person per day, so the additional production didn't reach consumers either.
This is the most legible loss figure a Kenyan utility board is likely to see, because it needs no interpretation. It is not a percentage that can be argued about. It is the difference between what you paid to make and what you were able to sell.
An average of 44 out of 100, and it hasn't moved.
WASREB scores utilities out of a maximum of 200 points. Nakuru Urban led at 171, followed by Nyeri at 170 and Nanyuki at 168. At the other end, the lowest scored 16 and the second lowest 26. Two things about the middle of that distribution deserve more attention than the top of it:
Average: 44%, unchanged
The sector-wide average performance score was the same as the previous year. Coverage improved, water quality improved and cost coverage improved — but the composite did not move, because the losses and collection indicators pulled the other way.
36 of 94 above 50%
The number of utilities scoring above half marks stayed at 36. That is the more useful headline than the leader board: roughly six in ten regulated utilities are still below the halfway mark, and the count is not improving.
The report also records that average O+M cost coverage crossed 100% for the first time, reaching 103% — while noting that the median remained below full cost recovery. Both statements are true and the gap between them is the point: a handful of strong utilities lift the average, while more than half of the sector still cannot fund its own operations from its own revenue. Averages flatter this sector. The median describes it.
"Cut NRW first."
The report does not leave the priority to inference. Its own recommendation reads:
"Cut NRW first. Prioritize leak reduction, district metered areas, meter replacement, and enforcement against illegal connections because NRW remains the single biggest drag on service, revenue, and system efficiency."
Three of those four are measurement before they are anything else.
- District metered areas are, definitionally, a measurement intervention. You divide the network into hydraulically discrete zones, meter the inlets, and read them continuously — particularly at night, when legitimate demand is at its lowest and the residual flow is mostly leakage. A DMA without continuous inlet data is a map, not a DMA.
- Leak reduction depends on knowing which zone to send the crew to. Kenya's utilities are not short of leaks; they are short of a defensible way to rank them. Night-flow data from zone inlets is what converts "the network leaks" into "this zone is losing this many cubic metres a night".
- Enforcement against illegal connections is likewise a reconciliation problem before it is an enforcement one. The evidence that a zone has unauthorised consumption is a persistent gap between what entered the zone and the sum of what its meters recorded.
- Meter replacement is the one genuine hardware item on the list — and with the ratio already at 97%, it is about accuracy of the existing stock rather than extending coverage.
Which brings the argument back to where the table started. The customer-metering job is substantially done. The zone-metering job has barely begun, and it is the one the regulator has now named first.
No single-indicator winners.
WASREB's own observation about the top of the table is worth quoting in substance: high-performing utilities do not succeed through excellence in one area. They consistently hold water quality, keep losses down, meter comprehensively, collect what they bill, and maintain operational discipline. Underperformers show the mirror image — high NRW, low coverage, weak cost recovery, poor compliance, unreliable supply — and those failures reinforce one another.
That interdependence has a practical implication for a utility deciding where to start. Losses are upstream of most of the others: water that never reaches a customer cannot be billed, so it depresses collection and cost coverage; and a network with severe losses runs at lower pressure with shorter supply hours, which depresses coverage and service quality. Starting with the loss figure is not just the regulator's recommendation, it is the intervention with the most downstream indicators attached to it.
The report also notes that private utilities including Tatu City, Kiamumbi and Runda continued to outperform most public providers — attributed to lower system losses and stronger commercial practice rather than to any structural advantage in the water they receive.
For the specifics of how zone measurement is deployed on a Kenyan network, see non-revenue water monitoring in Kenya. For the wider continental picture, see non-revenue water in Africa.
Frequently asked questions
What is the WASREB Impact Report?
It is the annual performance report on Kenya's water services sector, published by the Water Services Regulatory Board. Issue 18, launched on 19 June 2026, covers financial year 2024/25 and assesses 94 water services providers against nine ranked indicators — water coverage, drinking water quality, hours of supply, non-revenue water, metering ratio, staff productivity, personnel expenditure as a share of O+M costs, revenue collection efficiency, and O+M cost coverage — plus sanitation measures that are reported but not used for ranking.
What is Kenya's non-revenue water level?
48% in FY2024/25, up from 44% the year before and 43% the year before that. It is one of only two ranked indicators that moved backwards in the latest report; the other is revenue collection efficiency, which slipped from 95% to 94%.
If 97% of connections are metered, why are losses rising?
Because the two measure different halves of the network. The metering ratio describes customer connections; non-revenue water describes what happens to water between the treatment works and those connections — real losses through leaks and bursts, and apparent losses through under-registering meters, unauthorised consumption and data handling. A fully metered customer base tells you what was consumed at the end points. It tells you nothing about how much entered the zone those end points sit in, which is the comparison that locates a loss.
Which Kenyan utility performs best?
In the FY2024/25 ranking, Nakuru Urban scored 171 out of a maximum 200, ahead of Nyeri at 170 and Nanyuki at 168. Among private providers, Tatu City, Kiamumbi and Runda were noted as continuing to outperform most public utilities. The sector-wide average was 44%, unchanged from the previous year, with 36 of 94 utilities scoring above 50%.
What is a district metered area?
A hydraulically discrete zone of the distribution network — typically a few hundred to a few thousand connections — with all inlets and outlets metered so the volume entering can be compared with the volume billed inside it. Continuous inlet measurement, especially minimum night flow, is what makes the zone diagnostic rather than descriptive: at 2 a.m. legitimate consumption is near its floor, so what still flows in is largely loss. WASREB names DMAs among its four first-priority interventions for cutting non-revenue water.
How much water did Kenyan utilities produce and lose?
Production rose 9.4% to 504,426,445 m³ in FY2024/25, from 461,282,593 m³. Billed volume rose 2.3% over the same period. WASREB records that this indicates a substantial portion of the additional production was lost or unaccounted for, and that per capita consumption remained at 26.7 litres per person per day.
Where should a Kenyan utility with a limited budget start?
With one zone rather than the whole network. Pick a district where losses are suspected to be worst, meter its inlets, measure night flow continuously for a few weeks, and reconcile against what the customer meters in that zone recorded. The result is either a number that justifies the next zone, or evidence that the losses are elsewhere — and either outcome is worth more than a network-wide estimate. Utilities that start by instrumenting everything tend to produce dashboards; utilities that start with one zone and a reconciliation tend to produce recovered revenue.
Your Impact score names the indicator. Zone data names the district.
Tell an engineer which zones you suspect and what you measure at their inlets today. You'll get a straight view of what it would take to put a number on them.