Principales atletas de la Esgrima Nicaragüense

Review of Ef

fectiveness of

Rural

W

ater Supply Schemes in India

151

152

The indices of effectiveness presented in Chapter 4 indicated that the performance of multi village piped water supply schemes (including regional schemes) is relatively inferior to that of the single village and mini water supply schemes. A more detailed analysis of the performance of multi village schemes is undertaken in this annex, with a particular focus on how the performance of

schemes is that such schemes are invariably in the supply-driven mode with high institutional costs. (It has been noted in Chapter 4 that institutional costs in the supply-driven programs are much higher compared to demand-driven programs.) Further, the high cost of multi village schemes is accompanied by relatively lower cost recovery from beneficiary households with the consequence that the flow of funds from the central and state governments to construct and manage such schemes is relatively higher. The proportion of private connection users who regularly pay towards the O&M of the multi village schemes is 53 percent whereas it is higher, at about 75 percent, for single village schemes. Very few among the standpost users pay, and this reduces the level of cost recovery. In Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, the single and multi village piped water supply schemes mainly serve the standpost users with cost is about Rs 3,000 per household per annum. Out of the 150 multi village and regional

schemes covered in the study (excluding the schemes in Uttarakhand), the capital cost per household exceeds Rs 10,000 in 16 percent of the cases, and exceeds Rs 20,000 in 4 percent cases. An additional factor that tends to raise the cost of service provision through multi village

Technology Capital cost O&M cost (Rs per household per annum) (Rs per household)

Single village schemes 5,300 280

Multi village (including 6,600 310

regional) schemes

Performance of Multi Village Schemes

multi village schemes compares with that of single village schemes. The analysis is confined to 9 out of the 10 states surveyed, leaving out Uttarakhand, since the scheme cost and operating conditions in Uttarakhand are quite different from other states.

At the outset it may be noted that the multi village schemes are relatively more costly (Table 1). Taking a weighted average across states, the capital cost per household of multi village schemes is about 25 percent higher than that of the single village schemes, while the O&M cost of multi village schemes is about 11 percent higher.

The averages conceal the high variations that exist in the cost of schemes. In a number of cases, the capital cost per household is very high in multi village schemes. In one case, the capital cost per household is Rs 65,000 and the O&M

Annex 5.1

Review of Ef

fectiveness of

Rural

W

ater Supply Schemes in India

153

Figure A5.1.1 Investment and Actual lpcd, Single and Multi Village Schemes, Estimated Regression Equation

very few paying customers, which causes the level of cost recovery to be low. Overall, the level of recovery of the O&M cost through user charges is about 50 percent in single village schemes and about 35 percent in multi village schemes. The higher cost of multi village schemes would be

Technology Design hours of supply Actual hours of supply

Single village schemes 4.6 2.6

Multi village (including 7.7 2.9

regional) schemes

justified if these provided a more reliable service. However, this is not so. Many of the multi village and regional schemes are based on surface water. Being based on surface water, these are expected to be less affected by seasonal variations in groundwater availability and thus be able to provide a more regular supply of water. Indeed, the multi village schemes are designed to provide a regular supply of water at the level of 40 lpcd or higher. In reality, however, the multi village schemes are in many cases not providing water regularly and the supply level falls short of the government norm of 40 lpcd.

An analysis of the relationship between investment per household and the actual lpcd level (as reported by the scheme management) shows that

while in single village schemes, higher investment is associated with higher lpcd, this is not the case with multi village schemes. The estimated regression lines are shown in Figure A5.1.1. In many respects, the performance of multi village schemes is worse than the single village schemes.

The design hours of the supply of multi village schemes are on an average higher than that of single village schemes, but the actual hours of supply are about the same as that of single village schemes (Table 2). The actual lpcd level in multi village schemes in summer is less than design and even less than the government norm of 40 lpcd in a substantial proportion of cases. This is indicated in Table 3. This also applies to the single village scheme, but to a lesser degree. In several other respects, the performance of multi village schemes is relatively worse than that of single village schemes. About 33 percent households using multi village schemes are able to meet less than half of their water requirement from the scheme; this proportion is lower at

154

21 percent for single village schemes. About 8 percent households using single village schemes get water only one day a week or two to three days a week. This proportion is higher at about 13 percent for multi village schemes. The majority of rural households using single or multi village schemes get water only once a day (on the days water is supplied). The proportion of households getting water only once a day is about 47 percent in single village schemes; it is relatively higher at 53 percent in multi village schemes.

There are various reasons for the poor

performance of multi village schemes. It is well known that since the distribution is over a larger number of habitations, there is a considerable proportion of households who are at the tail-end of the scheme and face problems due to

inadequate water supply and pressure. The survey results confirm this fact. It is important to emphasize that the expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance in multi village schemes falls far short of the norm. In single village schemes, the expenditure on minor repair and

State Type of scheme Design lpcd Actual lpcd (average of computed from

surveyed household data schemes) on water

consumption

Summer In other seasons

Andhra Pradesh Single village scheme 44 35 35

Multi village scheme 42 35 35

Karnataka Single village scheme 53 25 41

Multi village scheme 61 27 39

Kerala Single village scheme 70 48 50

Multi village/regional scheme 45 43 46

Maharashtra Single village scheme 45 40 40

Multi village/regional scheme 47 31 37

Orissa Single village scheme 45 23 24

Multi village scheme 48 23 23

Punjab Single village scheme 57 31 31

Multi village scheme 53 28 28

Tamil Nadu Single village scheme 40 39 48

Multi village scheme 40 35 45

Uttar Pradesh Single village scheme 59 33 35

Multi village scheme 55 22 29

West Bengal Single village scheme 41 32 33

Multi village/regional scheme 43 33 39

Review of Ef

fectiveness of

Rural

W

ater Supply Schemes in India

155

Table 4 Performance of Single and Multi Village Schemes, Comparison of Select Parameters

Single village schemes Multi village schemes

% HH not able to meet more than half 21% 33%

of their water requirement from scheme

% HH getting water only once a 8% 13%

week or 2/3 days a week

% HH getting water only once a day 47% 53%

maintenance is about 1.3 percent of the total capital cost of the schemes. The corresponding figure for multi village schemes is about

0.4 percent. Similarly, the expenditure on repair and maintenance per household served is Rs 40 per year in single village schemes, while it is about Rs 20 per year in multi village schemes. Evidently, the relatively lower expenditure on the maintenance of multi village schemes adversely affects their performance. The problem of inadequate maintenance is further compounded by the problem of inadequate yield from the water source, especially during summer months. As a result, the supply and pressure is low. The analysis presented in the study, particularly the analysis in this annex, clearly indicates that multi village schemes use more resources than

single village schemes without commensurate service benefits. It should, however, be

recognized that this is the overall picture of the cost and performance of multi village schemes and there may be exceptions. Indeed, in some cases, the capital cost per household is found to be lower, the quantity of water supplied per capita is found to be higher and the time spent by households for water collection is found to be lower in multi village schemes as compared to single village schemes in the state.

Notwithstanding such exceptions, the general conclusion that may be drawn is that the multi village scheme is commonly not an efficient technological option for rural water supply in India, and these should be adopted only where single village schemes are not sustainable, that is, in water quality-affected regions and in over-exploited aquifers.

156