'''Table 1 . Capital and recurrent expenditure benchmarks for water services'''
{|style="color: white; background-color:#4682B4;" class="wikitable"
|Cost component
'''Table 2 . Capital and recurrent expenditure benchmarks for sanitation services'''
{|style="color: white; background-color:#4682B4;" class="wikitable"
|Cost component
|}
Source: IRC, 2012.
The costs as shown in table 2 (above) are based on the provision of a basic level of sanitation service, as defined by [http://www.washcost.info/ WASHCost]. A basic service implies that all the following criteria have been realised by the majority of the population in the service area: At least some members of the household use a latrine with an impermeable slab at the house, in the compound or shared with neighbours. The latrine is clean even if it may require high user eff ort for pit emptying and other long term maintenance. The disposal of sludge is safe and the use of the latrine does not result in problematic environmental impact.
For both water and sanitation cost benchmarks (IRC, 2012): <br>
* If expenditure is lower than the minimum range, then there is higher risk of reduced service levels or long-term failure.
* If expenditure is higher than the maximum range, an affordability check (for both users and providers) might be required to ensure long-term sustainability.
* If a basic level of service is being delivered and expenditure is outside the cost benchmarks, then there may be context-specific explanations; such as the service is in a densely-populated area with economies of scale, or, conversely, the area is difficult or remote to reach.
* Real expenditure on recurrent costs is a tiny fraction of these amounts.
==Uganda==
The Fontes Foundation studied the different costs over a period of seven years of three of their rural water projects in Uganda (Koestler, Koestler and Koestler, 2010). The 3 projects are situated in Katunguru Sub-County, part of Queen Elizabeth National Park in Rubirizi District in Western Uganda and the three communities Katunguru, Kazinga and Kisenyi have 730, 860 and 1040 inhabitants respectively. All three projects are managed through the community management model and are all small piped water schemes, with between 1 km and 2 km of pipes and one or two public taps. Since the ground water in the Rift Valley is salty, it is necessary to treat surface water.
Figure 2 below shows the total cash flow and the type of expenditure for one of the three projects; Katunguru. It shows that after the initial investment in 2004 (e.g. [[Capital Expenditure (CapEx)|capital expenditure]]) a significant injection was necessary in 2009. Otherwise, the cash flow lies between 8000 and 14,500 USD per year (Koestler, Koestler and Koestler, 2010).
'''Figure 2. Costs by categories for Katunguru water project in Uganda 2004-2010 in 2010 USD'''
[[Image:Costs fg 2.jpg|thumb|center|500px|Figure 2. Source: Koestler et.al, 2010|]]