EPW 733 Seminar in Composition Theory Quoting, Paraphrasing & Summarizing.
Epw General
-
Upload
sidvermani -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Epw General
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 1/6
Ensuring Access to Water in Urban HouseholdsAuthor(s): Peeyush Bajpai and Laveesh BhandariReviewed work(s):Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 39 (Sep. 29 - Oct. 5, 2001), pp. 3774-3778Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411173 .
Accessed: 08/03/2012 02:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 2/6
Ensuring Access t o W a t e r i n U r b a n
Households
Thispaper deals with how urban Indian households obtain waterfor their daily requirements.The link between economic status and access allows the analysis of issues such as water
sharing, sole access, ability to pay, needfor improvements,etc. The authors also putforth astrategy or levying user charges for differenteconomic status households. The data reveal that
poor access is accompanied with low levels of expectationsof the populace. Thepaper stressesthe needfor a substantial consumer awareness campaign before embarkingon any
improvementprogramme.
PEEYUSHBAJPAI, LAVEESHBHANDARI
Introduction
B- y most standardsndian itiesrate
amongthe lowest in the world-the environment, infrastructure,
landprices,andgeneral 'livability'- allleave muchto be desired[UWSS 1997].
Increasingly, owevervariousaspectsofurban ndiaarebeing paidmoreattention- bothby policy-makers nd academics.Onesuch ssue of importances related osanitation access o water n urban ndia.Thispaperattemptso relate he need forinvestmentn watersupply nfrastructurewith the requirementsndeconomicca-
pabilities f thehouseholds. n theprocessit
highlightshe
policyssues,and
mpedi-ments in ensuringaccess to all.Urban ocal governments cross India
aregenerally onsideredo beinextremelypoor inancialhealth Srivastava ndSen
1997,Khandwalla 999,IPFS 1998-99].Their evenues re ow andas a result heirinvestmentsand expenditures n urbanserviceshave suffered.As a resulturbanIndia aspoornfrastructurend venworseservices.Watersupplyis one such areawhere local governments ave not beenable to keep up with the increase n re-
quirements.
Further olicies have beentargeted o-wards heprovisionof subsidies or con-
sumptionndnot owardshecostof access.Themajor ufferers re hepoor, orwhomtheconnectionostsareunaffordableWSP2001].
Something hatwouldbe consideredobe the very basic of services- water on
tapfor 24 hours a dayhas been unheardof fordecades nmostIndian owns[ADB
1993]. A large part of the households
depend n theirownprivateubewells and
pumpsfor theirdaily water needs. As aresultswater ablesare allingat dramaticrates. thas herefore ecomeessential hat
each householdbe provided apwater orits sole use.The issue thenbecomeshowdo the local governmentspay for these
expansion n access to water.Note thatmereaccess to water s notthe
only issue - its also importanthat it beavailable24 hoursa dayand tsquality nterms of cleanlinessbe good. Given thefact that water s a scarce-resource,t isalso important hat it is not misused.Thereforeappropriate ser chargesalsoneed to be charged.
Levyingusercharges,however,wouldhaveto be
preceded ya
goodunderstand-
ing of Indianhouseholds'waterconnec-
tivity.That s, amongothers, henumberof sole use connectionsand sharedcon-nections need to be ascertained.Lack ofsuch informationmay have a negativeimpacton thesuccessof suchactions.Forinstance he increasingblock tariff IBT)model is inapplicablewhere the waterconnection s sharedamonghouseholds,a characteristichatwe show is common
among hepoor.Thetariff atesunder BTaredirectlyandpositivelyrelated o the
consumption eyondathresholdimit.The
jointusersendup payingahigheraverageprice orwater han hesoleusers. BolandandWhittington 001].
Ensuring oodwater upplywill there-fore require he following:(i) Investmentsn improving nfrastruc-ture of obtainingandtransporting ater
(ii) Investments n improving nfrastruc-turefor watersupplyto the consumer
(iii) Levying and collecting appropriateusercharges
Thebulk of theexpenditureswould befront ended. Even if financialresourceswereavailable romexternal ources, heywould ypically equireomecontribution
from he ocalgovernments contributionthat the large majorityof local govern-mentswill not be able to ensure. Since
water. upplybenefits end consumers t
maybe possible o ask them o contributefor improving nfrastructurend availofbetter services (on lines of the 'tatkal'scheme for telephones).However, it is
generally onsidered hatsince mostIndi-ans are poor, they would not be able to
pay for such improvements.Weinvestigatehisbystudyingheneed
of households or mprovingwateraccess,
alongwith their
lifestyles.We find that
manyhouseholdswould be able to con-tribute ome amount orimprovementsnaccess totapwater.No doubtmanywouldhaveto be subsidisedat least n theinitial
stages. We also investigatehouseholds'
perceptions f qualityandsufficiencyandfind reasons to indicate hatthey do not
expect much.Lackof expectations,we believe, s the
strongestmpedimentn improvingwater
supply n urban ndia.Any watersupplyimprovement rogrammewill only suc-ceed if societydesires t, is willingto pay
for it in thelongrun,andrewardspolicy-makers or delivering t. Consequentlypublicawareness rogrammehataims at
increasing xpectationswouldhelpfacili-tate access to water.
Anothermportantssuethat hispaperaddresses s the needfor anevaluation fwatersupplyrequirements riorto anyimprovementprogramme.Studies haveshown hat heabsence f suchassessmenthas contributed o the failure of such
3774EconomicandPolitical
Weekly September 9,2001
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 3/6
programmesn other countries[Hardoyand Schusterman000].
Thepaper s basedon a dataset fromasurvey onducted ytheNationalSampleSurvey Organisationn 1998 (the 54thround).More han1,10,300 ural ndurbanhouseholdswerequeried n thefollowingaspects:- Access to drinking water
- Access to bathing water- Access to bathroom/toilet
- Latrine and drainage- Garbage removal
Inaddition herewas also some house-hold level information on their other
lifestyle habits such as on commuting,access omedia, tc. This allows us to linkissues such as industry,occupation, eli-
gion,geography, tc,with theavailabilityof theseurban ervices.Each ssue n itselfwould hrow ightonthepresent ituationof sanitationn urban ndiaandthescopefor improvements.
Forthepurposes f thispaper,we lim-itedourselves o31,323urban ouseholds.We focusedon drinkingwaterbecause nouropinionit is most indicativeof theissues related o water n general.More-
over, the type of queries asked about
drinkingwaterhad a widerscope.Thispaperproceedssfollows.Section I
studieshevarious rimaryources fwater
supply o urbanhouseholds,how fartheyare ocatedrom hedwellingandwhetherthese sources are shared. Section III
categoriseshouseholdson the basis oftheireconomicstatus.While Section IV
putsforthsome policy issues in light ofthe evidence obtained.
IIDrinkingWaterAdequacy
inUrbanndia
This sectionreports he urbanhouse-holds'access to water. In the processit
attempts o determine hose householdswhoseaccess spoor.Theseare he house-holds who would requiresignificant n-vestmentsn watersupply nfrastructure.
TheNSSO (1999) has published he re-sults for the sanitationpartof the 54throundurvey.Thereport, houghdetailed,lacks nrevealingherelationship etweenthe presentstate of sanitationand theeconomicstatusof the households.
Principal ources of Water
The bulk of the householdsin urbanIndia epend n hemunicipalwater upply
for theirdaily needs- morethan 70 percentdependontapwaterandaninsignifi-cant number n tankers.Accessto under-
groundwater s the next most important- wells, tubewells, and handpumps, o-
getheraccount ormorethan27 percentof the households'mainwater upply.Aswould be expected, other sources thatincludetanks,ponds, springs,rivers,ca-
nals,etc, areinsignificantn urban reas.About 30 percent of the urbanhouse-holds do not obtain water from their
municipality/localovernment.However,even thosehouseholdswho do have someaccess o water rom hegovernment, aveto share t with theirneighbours almost59 percentof the households ither harewaterwith theirneighbours rthesupplyis for thecommunity.
In otherwords,only 41 percent haveexclusive access to theirmain source ofwater.Exclusivity n supply s important,becausethat is a necessaryprecondition
for imposing any user charges/taxesonwater.Manyof the 70 percent 'tapped'householdshaveto sharewater rom heirmain source. Of the 33.4 million house-holds whohave access to tapwaterabout54 per cent or 18 million requiresome
sharing.Sharing s not the only issue. The ma-
jority of the householdsdoes not havewaterwithinheir wellingsapproximately61 percent)andhaveto transportt fromthe mainsource.
Itwouldonlybe natural hat hose whoaccesswater romwells,tanks, ubewells,etc, would not obtain water within the
dwelling.But more mportantly, major-ity of those who haveaccessto tapwaterdonothave t within hedwellingbuthavetotransporttfrom hesourceoutside heir
place of stay (about54 percent).In sum, not only is the penetration f
municipalwater upply ow (about70 percent of totalhouseholds), t is also quitepoor n termsof access.Mosthouseholdsthatdependon tap water have to eithershareit with theirneighbours, r them-selves transportt to theirdwelling, or
both.We arguethatproperaccess requires
two conditionsto be fulfilled. One, thehouseholdshouldhave the rightto soleuse. Onlyin such conditionswould it be
possible olevyanyuser harges n house-holds.Two, hepoint f waterupply houldbe ideallywithin hedwelling.Ingeneralthe closer watercan be suppliedto the
dwelling, he better t wouldbe. Thetablebelowpresentshedistributionf themore
than 33.4 million urban households who
have access to tap water.
Barely 15.1 million (12.9 plus 2.2)households have sole access within the
Table 1: MainSources of Water
Number f Households Per Cent
(Millions)
Tap 33.3 70.1Tube wells 10.2 21.4
Wells 3.2 6.7Tank/pond eservedfordrinking 0.1 0.2
Other anks/ponds 0.0 0.1
River,canal, lake 0.1 0.2
Spring 0.0 0.1Tanker 0.5 1.0Others 0.1 0.2Not available 0.1 0.1Total 47.6 100.0
Table 2: Rightof Use of Water
Numberof Households Per Cent
(Millions)
Sole 19.6 41.3Shared 12.7 26.6
Community 13.6 28.6Others 1.6 3.5Not available 0.0 0.0Total 47.6 100.0
Table 3: Rightof Use of TapWater
Numberof Households Per Cent
(Millions)
Sole 15.2 45.6Shared 8.7 26.1
Community 8.4 25.2Others 1.0 3.1
Missing 0.0 0.0Total 33.3 100.0
Table 4: Distance from PrincipalSourceof DrinkingWater
(AllUrbanHouseholds)
Numberof Households Per Cent
(Millions)
Dwelling 18.4 38.6Premises* 12.9 27.1<0.2 Km 15.0 31.50.2-0.5 0.8 1.70.5-1.0 0.4 0.71.0-1.6 0.1 0.3>1.6 Km 0.0 0.1Not available 0.0 0.1Total 47.6 100.0
The term premises'means outside thedwelling
but within he dwelling'scompound.
Table 5: Distance from PrincipalSourceof DrinkingWater
(HouseholdswithTaps)
Numberof Households PerCent
(Millions)
Dwelling 15.3 45.8Premises 8.4 25.3Others 9.6 28.8Notavailable 0.0 0.0Total 33.3 100.0
Economic and PoliticalWeekly September 29,
20013775
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 4/6
dwellingorpremises.Theseare hehouse-holdswheret s easiest o evyuser harges.Arguably, ll theremainingtapped'18.2million odd householdsrequireat leastsome improvementsn access to water.But thatis not all. Another14.3 millionhouseholdsdo not have any access to
municipalwater.These also need to be
providedadequateaccess.
Thus of the total 47.6 million urbanhouseholds tleast32 millionhouseholds
require ome or major mprovementsnaccess to waterwithin theirdwellings.
Providingccess slikely orequiremajorinvestments n water supply infrastruc-ture.Consequentlyeterm he15.1millionhouseholds hat have sole access withintheirdwellingsorpremises,as thosewhohavea lowrequirementorsuch nfrastruc-ture mprovements.he rest32.5 millionhouseholdsare termed as high require-menthouseholds, n that theiradequateaccessrequiresnfrastructurenvestment.
Insum,the argemajority f the house-holds require ome investment n water
supplyinfrastructureo satisfy theirre-
quirements.hesehouseholds end ohavea lower economicstatusas latersectionswill reveal.
As apparentrom the tableabove, the
requirementf tapwater s a problem hat
spreads crossalltypesof townsandcities,
irrespectivef thesize. However romour
perspectivewhat s more mportants theeconomicstatusof the households, incethat would have a greater mpacton the
abilityand
willingnessto
pay.In the next sectionwe investigate heeconomicstatusof households o deter-mine theirabilityto contribute or suchinvestments.
Ill
Economic tatusandAbilityto Pay
Thedata-set oes notcontainanyinfor-mation on aspects such as per capitamonthly xpendituresf households thestandardmeasure of economic status.
Neitherdoes it provideanyinformationon the households'expenditureon anyproducts.However,some householdandindividual level information s presentthat allow us to extract hefollowingin-formation:
(1) TV ownership:The dataprovidede-tails as to the type of televisionowned;thereforewe have informationwhethereach householdhas no television,blackandwhite, or colour television.
(2) Newspaper ubscription:Numberof
newspapers ubscribedby a household.
(3)Modeofregularommuting;ndividuallevel information n daily commute orworkoreducationby:foot,cycle, animaldrawntransport,public transport, axi,autos,two- andfour-wheelers.
Basedonthis nformation ecategorisedhouseholds on their economic status.
This involveda two step methodology.First,each householdwas given a value
ratingof 1, 2 or 3, for each of the three
lifestylecategories. herefore,achhouse-hold now hada ratingoreachof the three
categories.In thesecond tageaconsolidatedating
was given to each urbanhouseholdbysumminghesevalueratings.For nstancea household hat does not have a televi-
sion, but wherecommutingoccursby a
two-wheeler,and subscribes o a singlenewspaperbtains consolidatedating f5. Theseconsolidated alueratingswere
then used to classify householdsas highmediumandlow economic status.
Thefinaleconomic tatuswastherefore
assignedon the basis listed in the tableabove. For nstance, ow economicstatushouseholds reconsideredo be thosewhodo not have a TV, do not subscribe o a
newspaper,and commuteon foot or bi-
cycle. Though, o account or certain d-
iosyncrasies,we also include n thisclassthe householdswho performbetter hanthe minimum n anyone of these charac-teristics. imilarconsiderationseremadefor other
categories.
Cross-checking the Results -Phone Ownership
As mentioned arlier, hereareno stan-dardmeasures or assessingthe income/
expenditureapability f thehouseholds.Themethodologyhusascertainshe eco-nomicstatus,which in a manner eflects
Table8: Step1 - RatingEachHouseholdfor EachCategory
LifestyleCategory Rating
TVNotelevision 1BlackandWhite 2ColourTV 3
ModeofcommutingFoot orbicycle 1Public ransport, ickshaw ndanimal ransport 2
Ownedcar,two-wheelers, axiand auto 3
Newspaperssubscribed0 11 2>=2 3
Table 9: Step 2 - Final Rating for EachHousehold
Consolidated Number f PerCent Economic
Rating Households ofTotal Status
(Millions
3 9.0 19.0 Low4 10.3 21.65 6.3 13.2 Medium6 4.3 9.0 High7 4.0 8.48 2.3 4.89 0.4 0.9Unavailable 11.0 23.1Total 47.6 100.0
Table 6: Distribution of Households Across Right to Use and Distance from Source
(HouseholdswithTaps (Millions))
Right Distance Dwell Premises Others Missing Total
Sole 12.9 2.2 0.1 0.0 15.2Shared 2.3 5.1 1.4 0.0 8.7
Community 0.1 1.1 7.2 0.0 8.4Others 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.0
Missing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tappedhouseholds 15.3 8.4 9.6 0.0 33.3Untappedhouseholds 3.1 4.4 6.7 0.0 14.3Totalurbanhouseholds 18.4 12.9 16.3 0.0 47.6
Table 7: Distribution of Households Across Towns and Requirement for WaterInfrastructure Improvement(Percent)
Class of Town LowRequirement HighRequirement Total Total Millions)(Population s per1991 Census)
Less than50,000 23.3 76.7 100.0 13.350,000-2 Lakhs 29.2 70.8 100.0 12.02 Lakhs-10Lakhs 37.5 62.5 100.0 10.4More han10 Lakhs 40.5 59.5 100.0 11.1More han10 Lakhs 28.6 71.4 100.0 0.7Total 31.7 68.1 100.0 47.6Total Millions) 15.1 32.4 47.6
3776 EconomicandPoliticalWeekly September 9,
2001
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 5/6
thecapabilityof thehouseholds [BhandariandDubey 2001]. The economic status as
obtained after the aggregated rating was
comparedwith the ownership of phones.As expected, a majority of those having
telephonesfell in the high economic status
category. While majority of those not
havingaphoneconnection belonged to the
low and medium economic status. This
result indicates that the variables used inclassificationdorelatewith otherindepen-dentvariables thathighlight the economic
status.
We have therefore been able to stratify37 of the 47 million urbanhouseholds on
thebasis of theireconomic status. The bulk
of the households, as expected, are in the
economic strata who would have a low
capability opayforany capitalinvestment
for improvement of water supply at
their end.
The next section attempts to develop a
policy strategy for ensuring good water
supply to all. In doing that it takes intoconsiderationvariousfactors- therequire-mentand the capability of the households
as well as many other factors.
IVPolicy mplications
On the basis of the capability of the
various households for investment as re-
flectedfrom their economic status and the
need for water, the crucial decision of the
type of improvement has to be made.
On one extreme we have a set of house-
holds who have a high need but their
economicstatusdoes not reflecttheirabilityto make investment for improvements.Such households account for almost one-
thirdof the totalurbanhouseholds. On the
other extreme there is a set of high eco-
nomic status households thatalreadyhave
adequateaccess - they are unlikely to pay
though they have the ability to pay. Spe-cific strategieshave to be drawn to cover
all these sets of households.
(1) Low need - Low economic status:
These are less than 10 per cent of all
the urban households. These householdshave their need nearlysatisfied at present.
They are also not in a position to payfor improvements. Status quo needs to
be maintained for these households. It
would require operation and mainten-
ance expenditure on the part of the
government.However, if any across the board rate
increasesare made, these households are
likelyto be the most vociferous protestors.
Neighbourhoods that contain large pro-
portionof such households would need to
be insulated from such increases.
(2) Low Need - MediumEconomic Status:
About 2.3 million (5 per cent of the total)urbanhouseholdsbelongto this set.Havingmedium capability with a low need for
improvement, they can pay nominal user
charges. They are also less likely to support
price increases to finance better supply.Though they may not be as stringentpro-testors.
(3)' Low Need - High Economic Status:
These comprise about 6.6 million (14 percent of thetotal).These have thecapabilityto pay for the provision of the presentservice and also for little improvements,such as availability of tap water within
dwelling frompremises.They are notlikelyto support improvements in access.
However, as is truefor highereconomic
status groups elsewhere, they have a highinclination to pay premiums for better
quality. In the case of water supply thiswould include cleanerwaterwith low levels
of dirt,minerals,andbiological matter,as
well as 24-hour water supply.These groups would not support im-
provements in simple access (though they
may not be vociferous protestorseither).
However, they are likely to be strong
supporters if better quality is assured.
(4) High Need - Low Economic Status:
The majorchunk of the total urban house-
holds, about 15.9 million, fall under this
category.Theirlow economic statusstands
in the way of improvements without
governmentsubsidy. For this set of house-
holds, budgetaryprovisionstowards infra-
structure investment are essential.
These households, a third of the total
urbanhouseholds, may have some abilityto pay user charges. However, our data
is limited andwe cannotmakean unambi-
guous judgment on that front. For that
purpose a study that analyses their ex-
penditure and income patterns would be
required.This segment of the population has the
most to gain by government supportand
would be the most vociferous supportersof water supply refdrm. However care
would have to be taken in designing the
fee structure.Some non-price constraints
may have to be considered if charges are
extremely low.
(5) High Need - Medium Economic Sta-
tus:Slightly more than four million house-
holds (8 per cent of the total) fall in this
category. Though they have a high need
they are limited by their capability to
generate funds. These households would
be less likely to have the ability to pay for
improvements but more likely to be able
topaythe userfees. Chargesfor infrastruc-
tureimprovements if imposed would need
to be spread over a period of time.
These households would be willing
supporters orimprovements,providedthat
the burden on them is not too high.
(6) High Need High Capability:There areabout 4.4 million such households inurban
India. These households can make one
time capital investment for the required
improvement and also pay any recurring
charges towards maintenance of the nec-
essary services.
These households would also be sup-
portersof government initiative on water
Table 10: Economic Status and PhoneOwnership
EconomicStatus No Telephon Total
Telephone
Low 46.6 2.8 40.6Medium 14.1 7.7 13.2
High 14.8 75.3 23.0
Missing 24.5 14.3 23.1Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 11: UrbanHouseholds and WaterSupply: Economic Capabilityand
Requirement(EconomicStatus)
Low High Unavailable Total
InfrastructureequirementLow 3.3 16.0 0.1 19.3Medium 2.3 4.0 0.0 6.3
High 6.6 4.4 0.0 11.0Unavailable 3.0 8.0 0.0 11.0Total 15.1 32.4 0.1 47.6
Table.12:Willingness to ContributeforImprovements in Sanitation
(Neighbourhood)
Contribution Numberof Households Per Cent
(Millions)
Money 10.2 21.34Labour 14.6 30.69Both 8.6 18.18Neither 14.0 29.5
Missing 0.1 0.3Total 47.6 100
Table 13: Perceptions of Sufficiency ofWaterSupply
Sufficiency Requirement (Number fHouseholds n
Millions)Low High Missing Total
Yes 13.4 27.0 0.1 40.5No .1.7 5.4 0.0 7.1Missing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 15.1 32.4 0.1 47.6
EconomicandPoliticalWeekly September
29, 2001 3777
8/2/2019 Epw General
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epw-general 6/6
Strategy Chartfor Various Categories
Requirement.
Low High
Z Low StatusQuo(3.3) Support16.0)
GoMedium NominalCharges ChargesSpread.o (2.3) over a period 4.0)EC High RevisedCharges Investment ndo (6.6) Charges 4.4)
The igures nbracket ndicate he number f house-
holdsineach category nmillions.
infrastructure nvestment, provided cred-
ible initiatives are taken.
Involving Households - Viewson Contribution
The data also contains responses to
queries on households' perceptions on
improving sanitationin general. This also
to some extent reflects theirviews on water
supply inparticular.Note that about40 percent of the households are willing to
contribute financially in some way. An-other 30 percent arewilling to put in their
own labour for the purpose. Thus in total
about 70 per cent of the households are
stating that they have some interest in
improving their conditions
However queries on the 'sufficiency' of
water reveal a differentpicture- more than
80 per cent of the households across dif-
ferent segments, consider that they have
sufficient supply. However, the bulk of
these households do not have even suffi-
cient access as the data reveal. We arguethat this is because the bulk of the
popu-lation benchmarkssufficiency at very low
levels. Therefore, it is conceivable that
improvementprogrammesdo notget much
public support.The approach paper to the Ninth Plan
estimates that 85 percent of India's Urban
population has access to water supplies.
However, adequate details on quality of
service delivered are not generally avail-
able. While many schemes are designedfor a 24-hour supply using 150/200 liters
per capita per day demand, consumers
experienceregularshortageswith only few
hours supply each day [UWSS 1997].Take for example, Delhi. Only 20 per
cent of the capital's population receive 24
hours water supply; 60 per cent obtain it
for between 4-12 hrs;andthe rest less than
four hours. A small survey indicated that
the majorityof consumers in Delhi would
be satisfied with a daily supply of 5-6 hrs/
day [ADB 1993].
Consequently any improvement
programme would first have to improve
the consumers' benchmarking. In other
words, for improving access consumer
support is essential. For that, urban con-
sumers have to believe that 24-hour
supply, universalaccess, and clean water,arenot inconceivable but a likelihood. This
we believe should be the firstfocus of water
infrastructure improvement initiatives.
Conclusion
In almost all cities and towns in India
many households do not have access to
water on tap. Of those that do, most have
to share it with others. Of those who do
nothave to share t,manyhave totransport t
from outsidetheirdwelling.Itis well known
that even those who have water on tap for
their sole consumption within theirdwell-
ing,thesupply s erraticand hequality poor.This paper first brings out the number
of households involved and theireconomic
characteristics. t hen links theabilityto pay
with the need for water access improve-mentat the consumer's end. In the processit provides a framework for developing
strategiesthat would ensure thefollowing:- Politicalsupportofthecarioussegments
andsub-segmentsof the end consumers
- Charging orthe infrastructuremprove-ments
- Levying user fees
The paperis a step in a direction where
clean, 24-hour, and universal access to
wateris presentfor all. Though much more
needs to be done before an all India com-
prehensive strategyis
putin
place.For
instance greater details on the consump-tion and expenditure habits are requiredbefore levels user charges can be decided
upon. Similarly a betterunderstandingof
how population growth is occurring also
has to be studied. Moreover, this paperaddressesonly one end of the watersupply
process. Infrastructureimprovements in
obtaining and transporting water also
require serious study.We argue that improvement program-
mes require serious strategy building
priorto investments. This strategy build-
ing would have to take into consideration
public support. And our results indicatethat building public support would re-
quire extensive public awareness
programmes.113
ReferencesADB (1993): 'ServiceLevels andtheUrbanPoor,
ManagingWaterResourcestoMeetMegacityNeeds',Themepaper,Proceedings f RegionalConsultations,Manila.
Bhandari, L and Amaresh Dubey (2001): 'TheAffluent in India 2000', NCAER.
Boland, John J and Dale Whittington(2001):'WaterTariffDesigninDevelopingCountries:
Disadvantages of IBTs and Advantages of
UPR Designs', Draft.GoI (1999): Indian Public Finance Statistics,
1998-99, Departmentof Economic Affairs,
Ministryof Finance, GoI, New Delhi.
Hardoy,Ana and Ricardo Schusterman 2000):'New Models for PrivatisationandSanitationfor the Urban Poor', Environment and
Urbanisation,Vol 12, No 2, October.
Khandwalla,Pradip N (1999): Revitalising the
State, Sage, New Delhi.
NSSO (1999): 'DrinkingWater, Sanitation and
Hygiene in India',Report449(54/31/1), Gol,New Delhi, July.
Srivastava,D K and Tapas K Sen et al (1997):Government Subsidies in India, NationalInstitute of Pfblic Finance and Policy, NewDelhi.
UWSS (1997): Workshop n UrbanWaterSupplyand Sanitation, ConsultantsReport, May.
WSP (2001): 'The Buenos Aries Concession -
The Private Sector Serving the Poor', Waterand Sanitation Programme, South Asia,
January.
Just Published in India
MARX'S ECOLOGYmaterialism and nature
By John Bellamy Foster
CONTENTS
* Preface * Introduction * The MaterialistConceptionf Nature The ReallyEarthlyQuestion* ParsonNaturalists TheMaterialist onceptionf
History TheMetabolismfNature ndSociety* TheBasis in NaturalHistory or OurView? Epilogue* Notes0 Index
Paymentsby MO/DDonly, payable o -
CORNERSTONE PUBLICATIONS
P.O.HIJLIO-OPERATIVE,HARAGPUR-721306,.B.
3778 Economic and Political Weekly September 29, 2001