Groundwater is an extensive, concealed and inaccessible resource, and (in contrast to surface water) changes in quantity and quality are often very slow processes occurring below large land areas. These changes cannot be determined by simple one-off snapshot surveys alone, and require more elaborate monitoring networks and data interpretation. The primary goal of aquifer management is to control the impacts of groundwater abstraction and contaminant loads, and monitoring aquifer response and quality trends provide key inputs for this goal. The evaluation of groundwater issues and the implementation of management solutions require hydrogeological data that are in part baseline and in part time-variant in character-the collection of the time-variant component is what is usually considered groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring thus comprises the collection, analysis and storage of a range of data on a regular basis according to specific circumstances and objectives.

El saneamiento es una necesidad básica insatisfecha (NBI), cuya ausencia trae significativos impactos en la salud humana, el ambiente y la economía de una sociedad. La distinción entre lo urbano y lo rural es el principal criterio de este estudio para reconocer las limitaciones de la tecnología sanitaria convencional a la hora de acortar la brecha de cobertura entre ambas realidades. Esta investigación evalúa la implementación del saneamiento ecológico (sanitario sin agua) en la comunidad rural Caña, donde la cobertura del servicio de saneamiento es de apenas el 33% y algunas de sus instalaciones sanitarias son consideradas disfuncionales. La implementación de esta tecnología requirió de un trabajo social con los beneficiarios que dio como resultado la construcción de un prototipo diseñado por ellos mismo, con un costo de USD $2,234. Un análisis costo-beneficio (ACB) fue implementado para determinar con detalle los costos que tiene el déficit de saneamiento en el Ecuador y la manera en que se expresan los beneficios de un saneamiento adecuado. La herramienta Economic Sanitation Initiative (ESI) fue la metodología utilizada para determinar estos valores la cual permite estipular que la actual realidad sanitaria le cuesta al Ecuador un 2.86% del PIB y que la implementación de la unidad básica de agua, saneamiento e higiene propuesta en este estudio tiene una tasa interna de retorno (TIR) de 81%, un período de retorno (PR) de 2.2 años con una vida útil de 30 años. Otro resultado destacable es que la implementación de este tipo de tecnologías requiere de alianzas estratégicas entre la institucionalidad pública competente (municipio) y las comunidades. Prácticas anteriores indican que el concepto de alianza público-comunitaria (APC) es altamente útil en este tipo de experiencias. Los resultados de los análisis de la funcionalidad del modelo para tratar las excretas indican que al primer mes de uso la mezcla de heces fecales con sustrato seco permite alcanzar la inocuidad. Esto indica que la técnica de la cámara de secado cumple con la norma ecuatoriana para considerar un desecho biológico como no peligroso. | Sanitation is an unsatisfied basic need (UBN), which absence has significant impacts on human health, environment and the economy of a society. The distinction between urban and rural is the main criterion of this study to recognize the limitations of conventional sanitary technology when it comes to narrowing the gap´s coverage between both realities. This research evaluates the implementation of ecological sanitation (sanitary without water) in the rural community of Caña, where the coverage of the service is only 33% and some of its sanitary facilities are considered dysfunctional. The implementation of this technology required social work with the users which resulted in the construction of a prototype designed by them, at a cost of USD $ 2,234. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was implemented to asses in detail the costs of the sanitation deficit in Ecuador and the way in which benefits of adequate sanitation are expressed. The ESI tool was the methodology used to determine these values; one of the outcomes is that the current sanitary reality costs Ecuador 2.86% of GDP and that the implementation of the water, sanitation and hygiene unit proposed in this study has an internal rate of return (IRR) of 81%, a payback period (PBP) of 2.2 years with a lifecycle of 30 years. Main findings show that the implementation of this type of technology requires strategic partnerships between public institutions (municipality) and the communities. Previous experiences indicate that the concept of public-community partnership (PCP) is highly useful in this type of experience. Other findings shows the success of this model to treat excreta. In the first month of use the mixture of faeces with dry substrate allows to achieve innocuousness. This indicates that the drying chamber technique complies with the Ecuadorian regulations for not considering a biological waste as dangerous.

The note highlights the importance of stakeholder participation in groundwater management, because groundwater stakeholders are those who have an important interest in the resources of a specified aquifer. This may be because they use groundwater, or because they practice activities that could cause groundwater pollution, or because they are concerned with groundwater resource and environmental management. Since surface water should be managed conjunctively with groundwater, and municipal or industrial wastewater may pose a threat to groundwater quality, stakeholders should also (where appropriate) include municipal, and industrial representatives. Stakeholder participation in groundwater management is essential for the following reasons: management decisions taken unilaterally by the regulatory agency without social consensus, are often impossible to implement; it enables essential management activities to be carried out more effectively and economically through cooperative efforts, and shared burdens; and, it facilitates the integration and coordination of decisions relating to groundwater resources, land use, and waste management. Groundwater management decisions taken with the participation of stakeholders should help to bring: social benefits, because they tend to promote equity among users; economic benefits, because they tend to optimize pumping and reduce energy costs; technical benefits, because they usually lead to better estimates of water abstraction. On the other hand, participatory management of highly-stressed aquifers should help take some, otherwise, unpopular decisions where-at least in the short run-benefits to a number of stakeholder groups are decreased, because they agree to reduce pumping in the longer-term communal interest.