MCC should consider the suitability of decentralized solutions to drainage in urban centers, rather than retrofitting large backbone drainage infrastructure in dense urban centers, which can become clogged with solid waste. Setting up a solid waste utility was not part of the program at the inception of the compact. MCC was compelled to tackle a whole new sector because the operation and maintenance of the large river-like compact-funded drains was dependent on an alternative for the residents to throw their trash. The complexity of creating and operating the solid waste utility was beyond what the compact program originally set out to do, and despite some successes (such as passage of the law authorizing the creation of the solid waste utility), tackling this new sector was too ambitious. The key lesson to take away is to think creatively about solutions to problems (i.e. flooding) that do not themselves spur yet more problems that must be solved (i.e. tackling the solid waste sector). There are other decentralized solutions that may be worth exploring for drainage rather than the default engineering solution of big backbone central drains. This lesson can be extrapolated to water and sanitation as well through exploring the feasibility of point-of-use or consumer-centric solutions rather than large centralized treatment systems. The evaluation notes that holistic design, complementary investments and contractor due diligence are necessary to obtain the full benefits of water, sanitation, and drainage infrastructure.
Lesson Learned