Epw General

6
Ensuring Access to Water in Urban Households Author(s): Peeyush Bajpai and Laveesh Bhandari Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 39 (Sep. 29 - Oct. 5, 2001), pp. 3774-3778 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable 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. http://www.jstor.org

Transcript of Epw General

Page 1: 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.

Page 2: Epw General

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

Page 3: Epw General

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

Page 4: Epw General

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

Page 5: Epw General

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

Page 6: Epw General

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