Low water tariff, high cost of operation, system losses in supply, poor demand management, and sluggish cost recovery are some of the many ills of urban water supply in India, rues R. N. Joshi in ‘Public Private Partnership in Infrastructure’ ( >www.visionbooksindia.com).

Reason for low tariff, the author finds, is the direct or indirect control of politicians in the different agencies – such as PWDs (Public Works Departments), PHEDs (Public Health Engineering Departments), ULBs (Urban Local Bodies) and other parastatals – that are responsible for water supply. “The obvious result is that water is highly subsidised in India despite the huge capital investment and heavy operation and maintenance cost. Such low and subsidised rates are also responsible for the inefficiencies and wastages which got embroiled in the system, making it one of the most inefficient utility sectors.”

System losses

High system losses in the sector are due to old infrastructure, dilapidated pipeline network, poor operation and maintenance, and sub-optimal quality of material used in the infrastructure, one learns. No wonder, leakage losses are estimated to be in the range of 30 to 50 per cent.

Further, as the author notes, substantial quantity of illegally tapped water in the form of UFW (Unaccounted for Water) also gets classified as system loss. This area requires special attention, he urges, since the utility’s efficiency can be substantially improved with comparatively low investment, as compared to the heavy investment required for capacity augmentation.

It may be of interest to know that in India water is used only once, with no recycling, whereas in the US, on an average, one cubic metre of water is used 3 to 4 times by treating, before it is eventually discharged. And that in some of the big cities of the world there are different supply systems for drinking water and for other purposes such as gardening, and car wash. Closer home, the city of Chandigarh has begun using recycled water for horticultural purpose, informs Joshi.

Penalising the poor

Though the public sector is ostensibly meant for the good of the common people, a grim fact stated in the book is that the poor pay on an average 12 times more per litre, mostly to independent vendors who sell tap water in small jugs or buckets. Citing this from the Report of the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century, the author rues that the urban poor, deprived of the municipal house connections, have to depend on other sources and in the bargain often receive polluted or contaminated drinking water.

Thankfully, India does not figure in the list of cities that Joshi highlights in a box, thus: “Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) 5 times; Tunis (Tunisia) 10 times; Lima (Peru) 17 times; Guayaquil (Ecuador) 20 times; Dhaka (Bangladesh) 25 times; Cairo (Egypt) 40 times; Jakarta (Indonesia) 60 times; Karachi (Pakistan) 83 times; and Port-au-Prince (Haiti) 100 times.”

Far from purely economical

Useful insight for those who think water should be treated like any other commodity and therefore subjected to market rules, there is the ‘Ode, On the General Subject of Water’ of Kenneth Boulding, captured in a chapter on ‘water and sanitation.’ Water is far from a simple commodity, water’s a sociological oddity, begins the poem.

“Water’s a pasture for science to forage in,/ Water’s a mark of our dubious origin,/ Water’s a link with a distant futurity,/ Water’s a symbol of ritual purity,” he continues. “Water is politics, water’s religion,/ Water is just about anyone’s pigeon./ Water is frightening, water’s endearing,/ Water’s a lot more than mere engineering.”

Hence, Boulding concludes: “Water is tragical, water is comical,/ Water is far from Pure Economical,/ So studies of water, though free from aridity/ Are apt to produce a good deal of turbidity.”

Private participation

Unlike telecom, power, and transportation, where private participation is conspicuous, water supply does not generally attract the attention of private players. Any breakthrough is possible through a gradual approach, such as management contracts insulating private operators from substantial commercial risks, it is recommended.

“Chile, for example, is successful in providing quality water to 97 per cent of its urban population under a PPP programme in which operation, management, maintenance, meter reading, etc. were contracted out. But the role of all private players was strictly regulated including tariff, which was allowed to increase only gradually.”

A contrasting example is of a 20-year management contract for water services awarded to United Water by the city of Atlanta in 1999, only to be terminated four years later. Independent audits carried out as part of termination proceedings upheld the contention of United Water that the performance targets fixed in the contract were unrealistic as these were based on inaccurate baseline data, narrates Joshi.

“Non-achievement of targets attracted penalty contractually and it also tarnished the private operator’s image publicly. Further, United Water was not accorded legal authority to cut off the supply of water to the customers who were defaulting in the payment of bills. As a result the company could not achieve the expected collection rate of 95 per cent. And finally, a change of guard at the political level during the currency of the contract reduced the support the company was getting from the erstwhile polity…”

Educative read.

>BookPeek.blogspot.com