From David Foster, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad
Posted 2 March 2009
The quality of service in urban water supply in most Indian cities remains low, notwithstanding high subsidies and major investments in the sector. Leakage rates are high, most of the poor are not even connected to the water lines, and the rate of water borne disease is among the highest in the world. Further, despite high subsidies, when coping costs are included (household pumps, storage, and treatment, as well as lost time), the real cost to the consumer for this water is often higher than in other Asian countries that offer significantly better service.
To overcome these problems many organizations have sought to increase the water supply available through water tankers and public stand posts. Others have focused on Point of Use (POU) in-home treatment systems or sought to develop self-sustaining water kiosk systems where residents can purchase 10 liter containers of water at a nominal price. You can read more on the debate at http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/cr/res-16020901.doc.
The discussion process
The pros and cons of a 24/7 water supply were discussed at the Water Community’s Annual Forum held on 23-25 July 2008 (for more details please visit http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/resource/annual_forum_2008.pdf) and it was felt that the discussion should be taken up by the community. As a follow-up this discussion will focus on the role of continuously pressurized (24/7) water supply. No longer a “pipe dream”, 24/7 water has been provided in the last few years in Navi Mumbai, Mysore, Badlapur, Hubli-Darwad and Jamshedpur.
Some of the preconceptions I would like to challenge and discuss in response to proposals for 24/7 water supply are:
- “24/7 water supply is wasteful as it requires too much water and would not be sustainable for most Indian cities”
- “24/7 water is too expensive for India. The poor can’t afford it and the rich don’t need it”
- “24/7 water supply, even if it could be achieved, would be inequitable to the poor, far better to ration water by hours of supply so that rich and poor alike have equal access”
- “24/7 water supply is a needless luxury good, no one needs water 24 hours per day”
I will like to discuss each of the issues around 24/7 water supply, given above, to determine if they are genuine obstacles, major but surmountable challenges, or only simple misunderstandings.
Issue # 2 “24/7 Water Supply is too Expensive.”
Background: To the extent that continuous (24/7) water supply is even recognized as being technically possible, it is normally associated with wealthy countries like the U.S., Japan or the U.K. and/or wealthy individuals. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, 24/7 water is only possible for the rich.
This kind of thinking certainly has logical appeal. If 6 hours of water per day is barely affordable, for example, then obviously 24 hours per day would cost 4 times as much and would be well out of the reach of most people in a poor country like India. Perhaps one day when India also becomes a wealthy country then 24/7 water would also be possible.
I seek the community’s inputs on the following:
- What do families with and without a metered connection pay for water (including water bills plus in home storage, pumping and treatment)?
- What does it cost (per kilolitre of water) to produce, treat, and distribute this water and how much is recovered through user fees?
- What are the other implications of intermittent water supply, e.g., impact on health, incomes, standard of living, etc?
The results of this discussion will feed into the on-going policy debate at the Administrative Staff College of India and help us to develop a framework on continuously pressurized water supply for cities.
Please see attachment below for the responses.
