Distbl Equity of Rural Drinking Water-Final

Distributional Equity of Rural Drinking Water:
A study on inclusive service delivery
Dr. R. Ramesh
Prof. P. SivaRam
Centre for Rural Infrastructure (CRI)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ
(Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad –500030
nirdpr.org.in
Distributional Equity of Rural Drinking Water: A study on inclusive service delivery
Authors: Dr. R. Ramesh & Prof. P. SivaRam
National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
ISBN: 978-81-952482-4-7
First Edition: March 2021
Published by:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ

(Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030, India
nirdpr.org.in
CONTENTS
Contents Page Number
Abbreviations
Executive Summary 1
Chapter-1: Introduction 3
Chapter-2: Research Design 12
Chapter-3: Profile of the Study Area 22
Chapter-4: Analysis & Discussion 28
Chapter-5: Findings, Conclusions & Further Research 41

List of Abbreviations
APL - Above Poverty Line

BPL - Below Poverty Line
EPW - Economic & Political Weekly
GoI - Government of India
GP - Gram Panchayat
IAY - Indira Awaas Yojana
LPCD - Litre per capita per day
RWS - Rural Water Supply
MDWS - Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation
NRDWP - National Rural Drinking Water Programme
SC/ST - Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
SECC - Socio-Economic and Caste Census
T&D - Transmission & Distribution
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
PHED - Public Health Engineering Department
OBC - Other Backward Communities
O&M - Operation & Maintenance
OHTs - Over Head Tanks
UTs - Union Territories
WSP - Water and Sanitation Programme
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (MDWS, GoI) has been making
special efforts since the beginning of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007-12) for covering
the SC/ST-concentrated villages with a view to reducing the inequity in drinking water
service delivery. The MDWS is carrying out this exercise to contribute to the ‘inclusive
growth’ agenda of the Government of India. It’s almost a decade now, since the beginning
of inclusive policy in India.
The question this study attempts to answer is: To what extent the efforts of the
MDWS have helped in narrowing down the service delivery gap, contributing to the
inclusive service delivery policy of the government? This study has covered six Indian
States, viz. Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand
covering 60 Gram Panchayats in 12 districts, involving 1200 respondents belong to SC/ST
and non-SC/ST communities.
Major Findings of the Study
Availability: Frequency of water supply is an indicator of the availability of water to the

communities. Majority of the households interviewed reported of getting water daily,
although at unpredictable timings; and others get water at certain appointed hours daily.
This holds good both for SC/ST communities as well as the non-SC/ST households. The
rest get some days in a week (3-5 days or 1-2 days). Thus, it was found that the availability
of drinking water to the SC/ST households is almost the same as that of the non-SC/ST
households. We can infer to have achieved a satisfactory level of equity in terms of
availability of water to SC/ST communities.
Distance: The condition with regard to distance travelled for fetching water for domestic
use revealed that 5/6th of the non-SC households get water within 100-metre distance from
their residence; whereas the majority of the SC households (3/6th of them) had to walk
1
anywhere between 500-1000 metres. Only about 1.3/6th of SC households get water within
a distance of 100 metres. Most ST households in Assam get water within a distance of less
than 500 metres. There are very few families that walk a distance of more than 1000 metres
to fetch water for domestic use. Thus, the problem faced by a vast majority of households
in SC-dominated habitations is not the availability of water but the distance they travel to
fetch water. We can infer that inequity prevails in terms of distance travelled to fetch water.
Time Spent on Collecting Water: In Assam, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, there is no

question of taking water in less than 15 minutes. In all the States under this study, majority
of the Non-SC households reported spending approximately 15-30 minutes, or a maximum
of 45 minutes, whereas the majority of their SC/ST counterparts normally spend 45-60
minutes to collect water. We find that the SC communities walk a longer distance, and
spend more time to fetch water compared to what their non-SC counterparts do. Although
households from both the communities spend more time than they ought to, the number
of households that walk longer distance is more in the case of SC communities. This spells
inequity.
Quantity of Water: In the study states about 3/4th of the SC/ST habitations reported to
have either basic access or less than basic access; whereas 3/4 th of the non-SC/ST
habitations have got optimal access. This is a clear case of inequity. However, neither in
SC/ST habitations nor in non-SC/ST habitations, have people got more than 55 LPCD. In
Assam – the only State where we could find the ST community representing the major
portion of the population - it was found that they get less than 40 LPCD. Thus, the
quantity of water people get was either just adequate or less than adequate and definitely
not more, irrespective of caste categories. However, the fact that non-SC/ST communities
get optimal access, whereas SC/ST communities get only basic access spells a clear case of
inequity.
Quality of Water: Water quality test conducted in the study villages revealed that water in
most of the villages is ‘good and potable’, except in two habitations in Tamil Nadu (one
2
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION
Inclusive Service Delivery
The Rural Water Supply (RWS) sector in India entered the fourth phase 1 in 2009
with major emphasis on ensuring the sustainability of water availability in terms of
potability, adequacy, convenience, affordability and equity while also adopting a
decentralised approach involving PRIs and community organisations. The overall physical
coverage in rural areas – including piped water supply is over 90 per cent. The Annual
Report 2016-17 of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India
reports that 77 per cent of the rural habitations have been fully covered ensuring 40 LPCD;
and 55 per cent of the rural population has access to tap water. However, slippage is up to
15 per cent rendering the facilities unusable. In sanitation front, remarkable progress has
been achieved bringing down the level of open defecation from 64 per cent (2014) to
almost 2 per cent (March, 2019). Providing adequate quantity of safe water to all the
citizens in a country of 1.23 billion population (2013), and changing the behaviour of nearly
7-10 per cent of the rural population, who despite having a toilet ‘still prefer doing it in the
open’ are real challenges to rural development.
The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India works with the
vision of providing ‘piped water supply’ to 90 per cent of the rural households before
2022. Annexure VIII of the Memorandum of Understanding between the State
governments and the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India, reads (p.82):
‘Government investments in rural water supply and sanitation aim to ….advance
the nation towards universal access to protected and sustainable drinking water
supply, the universal use of sanitary toilets and sound personal, home and
community hygiene behavior’. …[this shall include] coverage of all Government
rural schools and Anganwadis where safe drinking water sources could not be
provided under outlays allocated by the Department of School Education and
3
Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development or Central Finance

Commission Funds.
To accelerate the assured availability of potable drinking water on a sustainable basis

in SC and ST concentrated habitations, the States/UTs are required to earmark at least the
percentage of the NRDWP funds for drinking water supply to the SC-concentrated
habitations and ST-concentrated habitations as is communicated by the Ministry of
Drinking Water and Sanitation based on the directions issued by the Government of India
from time to time. One of the objectives of National Rural Drinking Water Programme
(NRDWP) commenced in April 2009 is to ensure equity - a high priority in coverage/
investment habitations with high SCs/STs and minority population (MDWS, 2013).
While discussing ‘sustainable development,’ we tend to argue on ‘intergenerational

equity’ in sharing of resources – that intergenerational inequity is ‘injustice caused by the
current generation to the future generation’. We observe that there is intra-village inequity
in sharing public provisioning of services that sections of the ‘current generation’ of the
population are subjected to. This is in present time, experienced by the current generation,
and it is not about the generation that we are about to have in the future. Secondly, funds
have been allocated by the MDWS under the Eleventh Five-Year Plan to improve service
levels exclusively in SC/ST habitations. It is quite obligatory that we need to assess the
effect of the funds on the ground in terms of change in the standard of living of the target
population.
Review of Literature
Inequitable distribution of water service delivery or disparity in service provision to

rural and urban areas has been an issue of debate since long. However, the Eleventh Five-
Year Plan (2007-2012) came out explicitly that ‘the issue of inequity’ should be addressed
by putting to use strategies for ‘social inclusion’.
‘The Inclusive Growth: Vision and Strategy’ paper of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan
(Planning Commission of India) reads:
4
…..these positive factors notwithstanding, a major weakness in the economy is that

the growth is not perceived as being sufficiently inclusive for many groups,
especially scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and minorities. Gender
inequality also remains a pervasive problem and some of the structural changes
taking place have an adverse effect on women. The lack of inclusiveness is borne
out by data on several dimensions of performance. Therefore …while in the short
run, access to basic facilities such as health, education, clean drinking water, etc.,
impacts directly on welfare, in the longer run, it determines economic opportunities
for the future. Without access to these services, one cannot be considered to have
equality of opportunity. Since access to these services for the majority of the
population depends not only upon their income levels but upon the delivery of
these services through publicly-funded systems, the Eleventh Plan’s vision of
poverty reduction includes major expansion in the supply of these services.
The Eleventh Five-Year Plan target for rural water supply was to ‘provide clean
drinking water for all by 2009 and ensure that there are no slip-backs by the end of the
Eleventh Plan’(Vol.2: p.165). This is one of the monitorable targets of the Eleventh Five-
Year Plan (Planning Commission of India, 2007). We are done with the Eleventh Five-Year
Plan, and we are halfway through the Twelfth Five-Year Plan. It is high time we take up
this issue and go for empirical verification of this question of ‘inequity’.
Philip Keefer and Stuti Khemani, (Khemani, 2004) have analysed: ‘why do the poor
receive poor services?’ They have studied the provision of basic human services to the
poor, including educational service, and reach of subsidies. Their reasoning revolves around
electoral commitments, political credibility and public policy. They have analysed this
question from the standpoints of political competition; information available to the voters;
and institutional reform, especially the decentralisation of service delivery. They argue that
the explanation for the puzzle [‘why do the poor receive poor services?’] lies in the lack of
credibility of political promises to provide broad public goods, as opposed to private
transfers and subsidies. As far as political competitors are concerned, issues of credibility
5
should hold top priority. Lack of credibility of political competitors is the most imposing
obstacle to the reform of social service delivery or any State policy failure.
J Cyril Kanmony (Kanmony, 2003) studied the distribution pattern of drinking water
supply schemes, and to what extent the disadvantaged group is provided with safe water in
Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. He has also made a good review of existing literature,
although many of them as of now are more than two decades old. He cites Matzgar and
Moench, who studied equity in water supply schemes at Gandhinagar, Gujarat in 1994,
which found that many government officials used an average of 340 LPCD while in
Miltanagar, a slum in Ahmedabad, the water available was only 7.5 LPCD. Further, villagers
belonging to high castes received adequate quantities of water while people of lower castes
received very little due to the social system prevailing in some villages. Even in the selection
of a site for the installation of public stand posts, highly influential and rich persons
dominated the project, which works to the benefit of rich people only. Abraham (1993)
explained that water points are found in abundance in localities occupied by rich people,
whereas such facilities were meagre in places where poor people lived.
Kanmony (2003), in his study conducted in the Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu,
has found that rural people were discriminated against and deprived of their rights to enjoy
basic services. He has thrown light on the discrimination using the break-up details of the
sources of drinking water for the rich in comparison to the disadvantaged groups. The
percentage of households which have safe water sources within their premises was only
4.32 in rural areas. Of these, 3.02 per cent of the households have tap connections and 1.30
per cent of the households have hand pumps. He established that only the rich people in
rural areas have the privilege of protected water supply provided by civic bodies. At the end
of his study, he has suggested (along with his other recommendations) that water schemes
are not being equitably distributed to all areas; therefore, all proposed water schemes must
be reviewed and implemented.
Bikash Chandra Dash (Dash, 2006) has studied the issue of equitable distribution of
electricity as an essential service in rural areas. He has viewed it from the standpoints of
6
equity, and the existence of a positive correlation between energy use and development. He
has used secondary data of rural electrification status and electricity subsidy availed by
people in six states of India. He contends that those who have connected to electricity grid
avail the subsidy component, while there are poorer people who have never been
connected to any grid at all. The periodical tariff hike makes the poor remain away from
being connected to any of the electricity grids. Such people remain in darkness. Therefore,
the middle class households are the gainers from electricity subsidy, and not those
undergoing abject poverty.
He points out that the frequent tariff increase is a result of poor metering, poor
collection, poor billing, huge transmission and distribution (T&D) loss, theft and
corruption. He views it as a matter of ‘lack of good governance’ which adversely affects the
poor causing equity concerns in the sector. He suggests addressing the equity aspects of
electricity distribution by proper targeting of subsidy as well as the improvements in the
governance of the sector so as to ensure the reduction of T&D loss, cent per cent metering,
higher collection and billing, controlling theft, and rapid service expansion of connectivity
opportunity as the need of the hour.
Biksham Gujja and Hajara Shaik, (Biksham Gujja, 2005) in their commentary to
EPW, raise an issue: ‘when will India cover the ‘uncovered’? Their question in detail is
‘despite massive economic growth, one in every six persons in the world lacks drinking
water.’ A substantial percentage of this number is in India. Can the nation meet the
challenge of providing drinking water to all by 2015? They have drawn their data from
various sources, including various Five-Year Plan documents, Budgets, and Planning
Commission of India reports. During the course of the discussion, the authors have
brought in the question of competitive use of water for irrigation purposes; and the issues
of how money and technology fail to solve water problem when policies do not look into
some of broader issues of water management and mismanagement. \
The premise for their conclusion stems from: Going by just the figures in the five-
year plans, all villages must by now have been covered twice over. Since it is unlikely that so
7
many villages have been newly set up in the country, it becomes clear that many once
‘covered’ habitations are slipping into the ‘uncovered’ category. They question: where are
these ‘uncovered’ villages coming from’. There are 55,100 of them at present; how many
more will there be next year? Is the number decreasing or increasing; what are our main
constraints for providing drinking water to all when we lack neither money nor technology?
They argue that the groundwater depletion caused by uncontrolled irrigation pumps makes
the covered villages uncovered. They point out the mismanagement of water resources as
the main problem. They conclude that the country is ‘uncovering’ villages faster than it
plans to cover them, by not having a proper policy to allocate water for drinking purposes
and water for irrigation purposes.
Indranil De (De, 2009) has captured in his study of six villages in Birbhum district of
West Bengal the water supply services of the State machinery and the local governments,
putting them side by side. He has collected evidences where the service is provided by
(i) the State line department for water supply in West Bengal, i.e. Public Health Engineering
Directorate (PHED), which is responsible for the installation of sources and also operation
and maintenance (O&M); and (ii) places where the local governments are responsible for
O&M of water supply services. He has compared the quality of service delivery: direct State
delivery of service against the service provided by the local government. He has established
that the quality of water service to be better in villages where the local government
participates in O&M. He advocates that division of responsibilities according to the
comparative advantage of local government and PHED yields better results. He concludes
that decentralisation has a positive impact on the quality of water service delivery. The basic
premise behind his argument is: the delivery of [public] services is expected to be better
through decentralised institutions, which are close to the people.
Contrary to De’s argument, Jean Dreze et al. (Sen, 2005) argues that decentralisation
is not necessarily conducive to local democracy. In fact, in situations of sharp local
inequalities, decentralisation sometimes heightens the concentration of power and
discourages rather than fostering participation among the underprivileged. To illustrate, in
8
some tribal areas where upper-caste landlords and traders dominate village affairs, the
devolution of power associated with the panchayat raj amendments has consolidated their
hold and reinforced existing biases in the local power structure.
They also elaborate that local democracy is sometimes treated as synonymous with
decentralisation’, but the two are quite distinct. Micro-level case studies and survey
evidence from India show that within-village inequality in education access and
achievement is significant; with the privileged castes in the village enjoying near-literacy for
several decades while literacy rates are still close to zero among disadvantaged castes in the
village.
A case study described by the WSP (WSP, 2011) in their report titled: Towards
Drinking Water Security in India: Lessons from the field has captured Dakshina Kannada, a
coastal district in Karnataka bordering Kerala. It is situated on the western coast of India,
which spreads from the Western Ghats to the Arabian Sea. The major part of its length lies
along the seaboard. The population is about 1.3 million people (2001 census). The district is
characterised by scattered habitations, isolated households, hilly terrain and saline water in
the coastal belt in the summer months. In 2010, 128 of 203 GPs adopted meters for
household connections coupled with volumetric-based tariff, and computerised billing and
collection in Dakshina Kannada district. This is unique in rural India. In 2010, there were
about 43,000 metered connections against less than 4,500 prior to the adoption of this
practice.
Meters have successfully addressed the issue of unequal distribution of drinking

water, misuse of water by advantage groups, constant complaints about inadequate supply
of drinking water, non-payment of water tariff due to poor services and unbalanced budget
leading to huge pending electricity bills and diversion of development funds towards the
maintenance of schemes by the GPs. Meters have saved water and energy cost. Eventually,
every household gets water supply and pays according to what it uses.
9
The reviewed studies bring a whole range of institutions and variables into play. They
provide indicators that require exploration, and concepts that demand an explanation in the
context of the study being proposed. It also draws our attention to the qualitative aspects
of the concept of equity such as participation, deprivation, transparency and accountability
of individuals and institutions. We found that some studies have attempted to find answers
through technological solutions; others have attempted to pin down faith in community-
based solutions; and so on. In the ultimate analysis, the literature reviewed gives us the
directions to zoom in on, from the viewpoint of equitable distribution of water service
delivery. It has helped us not only to sharpen the statement of the problem but also to
prepare a matrix of concepts, indicators, variables and working definitions that go into
making the conceptual framework for this study.
1The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) can be called as the first major
initiative in drinking water and sanitation during the period 1972-1986. It aimed at ensuring
provision of adequate drinking water supply to the rural community through the Public Health
Engineering System. The second generation programme started with the launching of Technology
Mission in 1986-87, renamed in 1991-92 as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission. Stress
on water quality, appropriate technology intervention, human resource development support and
other related activities were introduced in the rural water supply sector. The third generation
programme started in 1999-2000 when sector reform projects were evolved to involve community
in planning, implementation and management of drinking water related schemes, later scaled up as
Swajaldhara in 2002. The RWS norms and guidelines needed to be flexible and broad-based for
facilitating the community/VWSC for planning RWS projects based on the principle of demand
responsive planning. Therefore, the ARWSP was modified in April, 2009 as the National Rural
Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP). The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (then the
Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation) views NRDWP as a movement towards ensuring
people’s drinking water security in rural India.
10
References
Biksham Gujja, H. S. (2005). A Decade for Action: Water for Life. Economic and Political
Weekly , 1086.
Dash, B. C. (2006). Does Good Governance Matter for the Equitable Distribution of
Electricity? Indian Case. Economic and Political Weekly , 511.
De, I. (2009). Can Decentralisation Improve Rural Water Supply Services? Economic and
Political Weekly , 68.
Kanmony, J. C. (2003). Drinking Water in Kanyakumari. Economic and Political Weekly , 3633.
Khemani, P. K. (2004). Why Do the Poor Receive Poor Services? Economic and Political
Weekly , 935.
MDWS. (2013). NRDWP Framework for Implementation. New Delhi: Ministry of Drinking
Water and Sanitation.
Planning Commission of India. (2007). Inclusive Growth: Vision and Strategy. New Delhi:
Planning Commission of India.
Sahu, D. R. (2004). The Growing Rural-Urban Disparity: Some Issues . Bangalore : ISEC,
Working Paper 156.
Sen, J. D. (2005). India: Development and Participation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
UNICEF/WHO. (2011). Drinking Water Equity, Safety and Sustainability: Thematic Report on
Drinking Water. Geneva: UNICEF/WHO.
WSP. (2011). Towards Drinking Water Security in India: Lessons from the Field. New Delhi: Water
and Sanitation Programme & Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation .
WSP. (2011). Towards Drinking Water Security in India: Lessons from the Field. New Delhi:
Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation.
11
CHAPTER – 2
RESEARCH DESIGN
Statement of the Problem
India has undoubtedly made some impressive gains from where it was at the time of
its Independence. We have been able to fulfill our MDG commitments on drinking water;
compare our performance to that of many countries, and the picture is convincing.
However, the fact remains that more people in India lack adequate quantity of safe drinking
water now than about 60 years ago (Biksham Gujja, 2005). It is stated often that people
from the socially backward classes living in a cluster are not able to access water from the
common water supply schemes located in the main village. In order to address this issue,
the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation requires the States and UTs to accord
priority to the coverage of SC, ST, OBC and minority population dominated habitations.
Accordingly, steps are taken year after year for coverage of all rural habitations with
availability of adequate safe water to meet drinking, cooking and other domestic needs.
The Central outlay in the Eleventh Plan for the rural water supply sector was
Rs. 39,211 crore. Besides this, all the State governments put together spent Rs.49,000 crore.
Yet, at the beginning of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, it is reported that there is a need for
providing drinking water in 55,067 uncovered and about 3.31 lakh slipped back habitations.
As per the prevailing situation, there are variations in the service levels even within
habitations. As of 2012, the overall physical coverage in rural areas, including piped water
supply, is reported to be over 90 per cent. Averages (at the country level, State level, district
level or even at the village level) mask the reality pertaining to deprivations sections of the
population undergo. There are problems of intra-village inequity in drinking water service
delivery (Sahu, 2004).
The deprivation could stem from disadvantages associated with geographic location;
levels of poverty and well-being; technology choice being advocated/chosen; deficiency of
12
information reach and so on. The intra-village variations generally affect the poor at the
fringes or margins of villages, who usually turn out to be Scheduled Castes (SCs) or those
who live in remote villages such as the Scheduled Tribes (STs). Another cause of this
problem is that the rate of seepage loss increases with the increase in the length of pipeline
from the place of the OHT to the tail end-residents. Thus, the residents in the tail-end
reaches get much less water than those at the head-end. Ensuring equitable distribution of
water, particularly in areas far away from pumping stations where pressure is low; and
arresting water spillage during pipe bursts always remain a challenge. In practical sense, the
issue of inequity in water service provision in rural areas has become very much common
and normal; that it is unexciting, and goes unnoticed as an issue of injustice.
The gap between the richest and poorest in the use of drinking water sources differs
significantly by region and country. However, in all developing regions, access to improved
drinking water sources increases with wealth, and access to piped water on premises is
much higher among the richest quintiles. In India, progress in access to improved drinking
water sources has been equity neutral. Coverage levels have increased significantly across all
quintiles. The majority of the richest quintile, however, continues to use piped water on
premises, whereas an increasing number of the poorest rely on boreholes with hand pumps
(UNICEF/WHO, 2011).
The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Committee (2012-13) has estimated and

come out with possible disparity or inequity in the delivery of water supply and sanitation
services. However, no exclusive study seems to exist to pin down empirically the extent of
inequity or deprivation the poor undergo in water supply and sanitation services at the
grassroots level. It does not always seem to be a matter of funds or technology choice.
Rather, it could be very much associated with the nature of governance in place; or the
local management system, including the socio-political factors at play. The big question is:
Are the poor (those living below the official poverty line) and the SC/ST populations living
in the study villages receive the water service delivery on equitable rates compared to those
living in the main village? Secondly, what factors are at play in determining equitable
distribution of water and sanitation services to the poor?
13
special efforts since the beginning of the Eleventh Five year plan (2007-12) for covering the
SC/ST-concentrated villages with a view to reducing the inequity such people undergo in
drinking water service delivery. The MDWS is carrying out this exercise to be able to
contribute to the ‘inclusive growth’ agenda of the government of India. It was made still
more explicit after April 2009 through the National Rural Drinking Water Programme
(NRDWP). It has been more than a full Five-Year Plan period we have crossed since then,
again with similar emphasis in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2013-2017). Do all these efforts
contribute to reduction in inequity and relative deprivation in drinking water service
delivery the poor people undergo in Indian villages? Do these efforts and funds help
narrow down the service delivery gap between the SC/ST habitations, vis-a-vis the
habitations where the non-SC/STs reside? These question and associated issues require
empirical investigation and practical explanation. Hence, this study is proposed.
Objectives
1. To assess the nature and extent of variation that exists in water service delivery
among the SC-concentrated/ST-concentrated habitations in comparison to the non-
SC/ST habitations in selected States
2. To identify the constraints and the factors that come into play in determining
equitable distribution of water service to the poor
3. To explain and provide an understanding of what works; and what does not work
(and why), in our efforts to reducing the inequity gap in water and sanitation services
Definitions
Equity: Equity by technical standards means getting regular access to a minimum of 55

lpcd safe water at a distance not more than 100 metres from one’ residence, and not having
to wait for more than 30 minutes at the water collection point, if the source of water is a
common water collection point. Equity in social terms explains relational satisfaction in
terms of service delivery within the basic State services that the poor are entitled to. It is
14
about fair/unfair distribution of water service to the poor, SCs/STs living away from the
main village, in relation to those better-off people living in the main village or near the
pumping source/reservoir.
SC/ST-Concentrated Villages: Habitations in which more than 40 per cent of the

population belongs to SCs are considered as SC-concentrated and with more than 40 per
cent STs are considered as ST-concentrated. (MDWS, GOI, 2013)
BPL/APL: The local categories (Panchayat level data) are used where it was available.
Where it is difficult to obtain, SECC-2011 data are used.
Service Delivery Levels: The prescriptions of MDWS (GoI) standards are to be used
(such as 40 lpcd; protected water supply through piped on yard service for at least 35 per
cent of the population, and for others to use shared facility; access within 100 metres from
residence, etc. Refer to Rural Water Supply standards and norms (GoI).
S. Parameters Theoretical Definition Operational Definition

No
1 Availability of Frequency of getting water NRDWP guideline says 12 days
water for domestic use in a two-week period). Either
24x7 or at appointed hours dai-
ly.
2 Distance travelled Distance one has to walk to 100 metres in plain areas
for collecting wa- fetch water for domestic use 500 metres in hilly areas
ter
3 Time spent for How much time one has to 30 minutes or less as per the
collecting water. wait in queue for taking the guidelines of NRDWP
In other words quantity of water one is enti-
‘Queuing time’. tled to
4 Quantity of water ‘Adequate’ quantity – Basic access 40 lpcd
‘Adequacy’ of water supply Optimal access 55 lpcd
Aspiration to get 70 lpcd
5 Quality of water Safe water that is free from Based on the nine parameters
contamination - physical, that the WHO, (1996) has rec-
chemical and bacteriological. ommended. This study has tak-
en into account TDS levels and
household level treatment for
ensuring freedom from bacteri-
ological contamination.
15
Hypotheses
The study mainly aimed at unearthing facts with reference to availability of water
(frequency of supply), distance travelled to collect water (100 metres or more), time spent
in collecting water (average), quantity of water (keeping 55 lpcd as standard), and the quality
of water going by water safety standards. In order to get clear-cut revelations with regard to
these parameters, the study has framed the following hypotheses. The hypotheses can be
stated explicitly as follow.
Availability
Ho - Availability of drinking water to the SC households is the same as that of the non-SC
households
H1 - Availability of drinking water to the SC/ST households is not the same as that of the
non-SC households
Distance
Ho–The distance travelled by the SC/ST households to collect water is the same as that of
the non-SC households
H1 - The distance travelled by the SC/ST households to collect water is not the same as
that of the non-SC households
Time Spent
Ho–The amount of time spent by SC/ST households to collect is the same as that of the
non-SC households
H1–The amount of time spent by SC/ST households to collect water is not the same as
Quantity
Ho–The quantity of drinking water supply that the SC/ST households get is the same as
H1–The quantity of drinking water supply that the SC/ST households get is not the same as
16
Research Methods
The study adopted mixed methods research with a cross-sectional research design.
The conceptual framework of this study is presented in the form of a matrix (Annex-1).
Keeping ‘service delivery’ and ‘equity’ as outcome (dependent) variables, there were a host
of determinants (independent variables) tested. They included source of water, type of
facility, distance, quantity of water supply, quality, hours of supply and so on (See the
Conceptual Framework presented as a matrix in Annex-1). We aimed at generating new
knowledge that can explain the functional relationship between all the antecedents that
cause the effect which we call equity/inequity in water service delivery.
Indicators of Interest
 Availability of water supply facilities
 Type of facility (piped water supply/common point water collection points/hand
pump
 Access to facilities (distance): within 100-metre radius
 Source of water
 Adequacy of supply - Quantity: Not less than 55 lpcd
 Safety of water (Quality: As per BIS standards)
 At least 30 per cent piped on premises or other improved sources
 At least 12 out of 14 consecutive days to have sufficient quantity
 Improved sanitation/shared facility (Availability of water)
Study Area
The data for this study have been collected from six Indian states, namely Bihar,
Jharkhand, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand. When we ranked all
the Indian States in descending order on the basis of ‘water service level coverage’, we have
States with good service level at the top of the list and the ones with poor service level at
the bottom. This ranking pertains to ‘coverage’ claims as reported by various State
17
governments to the MDWS. This is reported by the States, generally, from the type of
facilities created in a given habitation, and it does not reflect the actual service delivery
status. Actual service delivery was something we investigated through this study. Secondly,
considering the time at our disposal, we selected three States from that come under high
coverage States; and three States that lie at the bottom most. We picked up Bihar,
Jharkhand and Assam from the bottom of the list, and Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Uttarakhand from the top of the list. Secondly, from each of these States, we selected two
districts and, in turn, two blocks. From these two blocks, finally we selected 10 villages (five
villages in each block) for the purpose of this study. Selection of study population and
sampling traits/sampling units, etc., were discussed under Sources of Data. In total, 60 GPs
from six States were covered.
Sources of Data: The study used both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary
data were collected from sampled BPL and APL families in selected Gram Panchayats in
each State under study. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation has a robust
website, where access to data on SC/ST concentrated habitation details can be drilled down
to the level of block. From the block level data, we got at the Gram Panchayats, where SC/
ST concentration is more. Our main sampling trait was poor SC/ST population from
selected GPs in one stratum and non-SC/ST population in the same GP as another
stratum. The sampling frame was the entire SC/ST population in the selected GPs. Going
by the ‘sample size calculator tool,’ we determined the sampling fraction bearing in view
maximum possible accuracy in our estimates of the population. Proportionate size of
elements (sampling units) was selected from among the non-poor non-SC/ST population
also using simple random technique for the purpose of comparison. The target population
discussed was primarily SC/ST population. Secondary data were collected from the records
available with the Village Panchayat Office, Block Development Office, the power pump
operators, hand pump mechanics, etc., besides making use of chance encounters in the
villages, and relevant websites.
18
Population Groups: Treatment Group: For the purpose of this study, habitations in which
more than 40 per cent of the population belongs to SCs are considered as SC concentrated;
and with more than 40 per cent STs are considered as ST concentrated. We considered this
as our Treatment Group. For this study, we used a Comparison Group (or counterfeit
comparison group) of non-SC households from the same or neighbourhood village, who
subsist with similar standards of living in terms of common facilities; and economic status
in terms of personal asset ownership.
Methods of Data Collection: The study put to use structured interview schedule covering
all variables under study. In order to bring in multiple perspectives and to provide variety in
data presentation, stories of success/failure were collected in the form of cases, and they
are used for corroboration where required. Similarly, verbatim statements of people under
study were also recorded, which in turn, have enriched the quality of report writing. In
order to bring in these elements into reporting, the study necessarily used mixed methods
research. Trained enumerators were involved in data collection.
Analytical Framework
The Analytical Framework is presented as a Matrix - 1. Data were analysed using

SPSS version 20 and MS-Excel statistics. The study drew tools from both descriptive and
inferential statistics. Tools such as Standard Deviation (SD), correlation coefficient,
Regression Analysis, t-test, and Mann-Whitney U Test were used. The statistical tests were
determined by taking cues from ‘on-line research tools facility’ provided by
www.methods.sagepub.com.
In order to arrive at the difference in service delivery, different matching estimators

(e.g. nearest neighbour matching, kernel matching, radius matching, etc.) could be applied.
This study has used nearest neighbour matching. Finally, the difference in average values of
a given outcome variable between the matched pairs of treatment and control communities
were estimated to arrive at the differences that existed or the difference made by inclusive
19
Scope of the Study
 Keeping ‘service delivery’ and ‘equity’ as outcome (dependent) variables, a host of

determinants (independent variables) were tested. They included source of water,
type of facility, distance, quantity of water supply, quality, and hours of supply and so
on. We aim at generating new knowledge that could explain the functional
relationship between all the antecedents that caused the effect which we could
address as equity/inequity in water service delivery. The results of this study may pin
down the effect of inclusive service delivery in the selected States, it may or may not
hold good for States not covered under this study. Elements of community
participation in planning and decision-making with regard to drinking water service
delivery at local level are not covered in this study, which is important area for
further research. Similarly, drinking water in schools and anganwadi has not been
covered. This study is about public provision by the Gram Panchayats and it does
not take into account the individual households having drinking water facilities
arranged privately. Again, this study is about drinking water, and not about water for
other domestic purposes.
Validity
 Internal Validity of Results: The results can be spoken about with 95 per cent con-
fidence level, and with 3 per cent error of margin.
 External Validity of Results: The results can be generalised to population of similar
characteristics anywhere with the study States.
Chapter Scheme
Chapter - 1: Introduction
Chapter – 2: Research Design
Chapter - 3: Profile of the Study Area
Chapter - 4: Analysis & Discussion
Chapter - 5: Conclusions & Recommendations
20
References
Biksham Gujja, H. s. (2005). A Decade for Action: Water for Life. Economic and Political
Weekly, 1086.
Sahu, D. R. (2004). The Growing Rural-Urban Disparity: Some Issues . Bangalore : ISEC,
Working Paper 156.
UNICEF/WHO. (2011). Drinking Water Equity, Safety and Sustainability: Thematic Report on
Drinking Water. Geneva: UNICEF/WHO.
21
CHAPTER – 3
PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA
This study has covered six Indian states, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, Himachal Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand. When we ranked all the Indian States in descending order on
the basis of ‘water service level coverage’, we have States with good service level at the top
of the list and the ones with poor service level at the bottom. This ranking pertains to
‘coverage’ claims as reported by various State governments to the MDWS, and it’s
regardless of the actual service delivery status. Actual service delivery was something we
investigated through this study.
Secondly, considering the time at our disposal, we selected three States that come
under high coverage States; and three that lie at the bottom of the list. We picked up Bihar,
Jharkhand and Assam at the bottom most; and Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Uttarakhand at the top of the list. Secondly, from each of these States, we selected two
districts and, in turn two, blocks. From these two blocks, we selected 10 villages (five
villages in each block) for the purpose of this study. Selection of study population and
sampling traits/sampling units, etc., were discussed under Sources of Data. In total, 60 GPs
from six States were covered. Table 1 below gives a matrix of States, districts and blocks
visited for this study.
Table 1: States, Districts and Blocks Covered in this Study

District Block State
Hima-
Tamil Uttarak- Jhar-
chal Bihar Assam Total
Nadu hand khand
Pradesh
Nagapattinam 5 5
Nagapat-
Mayiladuthurai 5 5
tinam
Total 10 10
Tiruvarur 5 5
Tiruvarur Koradacherry 5 5
Total 10 10
22
District Block State

Hima-
Tamil Uttarak- Jhar-
chal Bihar Assam Total
Nadu hand khand
Pradesh
Dharampur 5 5
Solan Solan 5 5
Total 10 10
Pachhad 5 5
Sirmaur Snagrah 5 5
Total 10 10
Sahaspur 5 5
Dehradun Vikasnagar 5 5
Total 10 10
Bhagwanpur 5 5
Haridwar Narsan 5 5
Total 10 10
Banke Bazar 5 5
Gaya Dumaria 5 5
Total 10 10
Sirdala 5 5
Nawada Akbarpur 5 5
Total 10 10
Ramna 5 5
Garhwa Bhawnathpur 5 5
Total 10 10
Hussainabad 5 5
Palamu Pipra 5 5
Total 10 10
Dhamdhama 5 5
Baksha Tamulpur 5 5
Total 10 10
Kalagoan 5 5
Udalguri Bhergaon 5 5
Total 10 10
Total 20 20 20 20 20 20 120
23
This study primarily aims at identifying the service delivery gap between SC/ST
communities on one side, and non-SC/ST communities in the same village or
neighbourhood. Therefore, caste-wise classification, and interviewing respondents from
different caste groups were found pertinent. Table 2 gives the number of respondents
interviewed in both the groups.
Table 2: Caste Categories Covered

S. No. Caste Category Number of Households Percentage
1 SC 501 41.8
2 ST 100 8.3
3 OBC 86 7.2
4 Minorities 2 .2
5 OC 511 42.6
Total 1200 100.0
Table 2 shows that almost equal number of respondents was interviewed in both the
groups. Sample size was deliberately determined to be almost 50:50 so that voices from
both the groups of respondents are equally heard, and reported.
Table 3: Occupation Details of the Respondents

Number of
S.No. Primary occupation Percentage
Households
1 Agriculture 407 33.9
2 Agricultural Wage earners 556 46.3
3 Livestock and small stocks 46 3.8
4 Employed in Government 8 .7
5 Employed in Private Sector 90 7.5
6 Construction Workers 35 2.9
7 Petty Business owners 25 2.1
8 Others 33 2.7
Total 1200 100.0
24
Table 3 gives occupation details of the respondents. As in any typical Indian village,
majority of the respondents in the study villages across States were either cultivators
involved in agriculture (34 per cent), or agricultural wage earners (46 per cent). A good
number of respondents in both SC/ST and non-SC/ST categories reported rearing
livestock and small stock (4 per cent) as their primary source of income. There are others
such as those employed in private sector (7.5 per cent), and other categories such as those
employed in government, and other employed in construction works, or involved in
running petty business were very negligible in number.
Table 4: Education Level

Educa-
Senior Graduation
tion Illiterate Primary Secondary Total
Secondary and Above
Level
Ot
Oth Oth Oth Oth Oth
Caste SC ST he SC ST SC ST SC ST SC ST SC ST
ers ers ers ers er s
rs
TN 16 0 8 22 0 29 51 0 38 5 0 16 6 0 9 100 0 100
HP 22 0 5 55 0 49 19 0 39 3 0 5 1 0 2 100 0 100
U’k
han 14 0 2 63 0 52 16 0 23 5 0 17 2 0 6 100 0 100
St d
at
es Bi-
32 0 17 69 0 75 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 99
har
Jha
rkh 11 0 2 86 0 80 3 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
and
As-
0 10 5 0 87 80 0 3 13 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 100 100
sam
Total 95 10 39 295 87 365 86 3 138 13 0 40 8 0 17 501 100 599
Source: Primary Data.
25
Most of the respondents have had either primary or secondary level of education,
irrespective of the caste category they were in. However, a major chunk has had only
primary level of education, and very few have gone up to senior secondary or college levels.
Although there were illiterates in all the categories, they were very few in number.
Respondents from Bihar and Assam have had either primary level education or they are
illiterates. They have not even attempted the secondary level education.
Table 5: Types of Houses

Total
Type of House Pucca Kutcha Thatched / huts
respondents
S S Oth S Oth- Oth- Oth-

Caste SC SC ST sc ST
C T ers T ers ers ers
Tamil Nadu 40 0 23 50 0 63 10 0 14 100 0 100
Himachal
0 0 0 74 0 98 26 0 2 100 0 100
Pradesh
Uttarakhand 0 0 0 19 0 56 81 0 44 100 0 100
States Bihar 0 0 0 1 0 9 100 0 90 101 0 99
Jharkhand 0 0 0 0 0 3 100 0 97 100 0 100
Assam 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 99 95 0 100 100
Total 40 0 23 144 1 234 317 99 342 501 100 599
In terms of house ownership, most of the respondents of this study live in either
kutcha or thatched huts. In Tamil Nadu, at least 40 scheduled caste respondents’ families
and 23 non-SC respondents of this study were found living in pucca houses. This is because
of the Tamil Nadu State Government’s Amma House Scheme, and Samathuvapuram
scheme coupled with IAY scheme of the Ministry of Rural Development. Kutcha houses
were more in Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, whereas huts were more in
Bihar, Jharkhand and Assam. This communicates the relative poverty that prevails in these
States.
26
Table 6: Availability of Toilet in the House

Availability
of toilet in Yes (percentage) No ( percentage) Total Respondents
house
Oth-
Caste SC ST Others Total SC ST Total SC ST Others Total
ers
Tamil 34 0 73 107 66 0 27 93 100 0 100
200
Nadu (17) (0) (36.5) (53.5) (33) (0) (13.5) (46.5) (50) (0) (50)
Himachal 98 0 100 198 2 0 0 2 100 0 100

200
Pradesh (49) (0) (50) (99) (1) (0) (0) (1) (50) (0) (50)
S
t Uttarak- 32 0 55 87 68 0 45 113 100 0 100
200
a hand (16) (0) (27.5) (43.5) (34) (0) (22.5) (56.5) (50) (0) (50)
t 0 0 3 101 0 96 197 101 0 99
e Bihar 3 (1.5) 200
(0) (0) (1.5) (50.5) (0) (48) (98.5) (50.5) (0) (45.5)
Jhar- 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 200 100 0 100

200
khand (0) (0) (0) (0) (50) (0) (50) (100) (50) (0) (50)
0 0 0 0 0 100 100 200 100 100
Assam 0 (0) 200
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (50) (50) (100) (50) (50)
Total 164 0 231 395 337 100 368 805 501 100 599 1200
As far as availability of toilets was concerned, it was found that none of the houses
visited by the research team in the States of Bihar, Jharkhand and Assam owned toilets,
which possibly means almost all of them go for open defecation only. Himachal Pradesh is
one State where almost 99 per cent of the respondents owned toilets. In Tamil Nadu, 53
per cent of the respondents owned toilets. In Uttarakhand, 56 per cent did not own toilet,
and the remaining owned toilets, and reported to be using them.
27
CHAPTER – 4
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
Inclusive Growth Agenda
growth’ agenda of the Government of India.
At the Central level, 22 per cent of NRDWP funds are earmarked for Scheduled
Caste Sub-Plan and 10 per cent for Tribal Sub-Plan to be utilised for provision of drinking
water supply to SC/ ST-concentrated habitations. States and District Panchayats are
provided with sufficient powers and flexibility to allocate funds exclusively for non-covered
habitations of SCs and STs. States that need more resources for coverage of SCs and STs
should earmark more of their resources for coverage.
GOAL: Ensure equitable and adequate quantity of safe drinking water to all rural
households, schools and anganwadis by paying special attention to SC/ST concentrated
areas that suffer from inequitable drinking water supply.
1. Reduce the inequity and relative deprivation in drinking water service delivery
experienced by the poor and the SC/ST population.
2. Ensure that the rural schools and child care centres (anganwadis) in SC/ST-
concentrated areas own water and sanitation services that are really functional
3. The MDWS has made it a crucial element in the NRDW Programme in order to
contribute to the ‘inclusive growth’ agenda of the Government of India.
4. Attempt measuring the extent to which the efforts of the MDWS have helped
narrow down the service delivery gap
28
5. Whether it has enabled the SC households get access to drinking water

services on par with national drinking water supply norms?
The Big Question

1. What is the causal effect of inclusive service delivery policy on SC-concentrated
habitations with specific reference to rural drinking water service delivery?
Objectives
1. To examine if inclusive service delivery efforts in water & sanitation sector
contribute to reduction in inequity and relative deprivation in drinking water
service delivery the SC/ST population undergo.
2. Identify to what extent the efforts of the MDWS have helped in narrowing
down the service delivery gap.
Policy Relevance
 The MDWS has made it a crucial element in the NRDW Programme in order
to contribute to the ‘inclusive growth’ agenda of the Government of India.
 This study attempts measuring the extent to which the efforts of the MDWS
have helped in narrowing down the service delivery gap;
 Whether it has enabled the SC households get access to drinking water
services on par with national drinking water supply norms?
Hypotheses
Availability (Frequency of supply)

Distance (100 metres)
Time Spent (mean)
Quantity (55 lpcd)
Quality (Safety)
29
Availability
Ho - Availability of drinking water to the SC households is the same as that of the non-SC
households
H1 - Availability of drinking water to the SC households is not the same as that of the non-
SC households
Distance
Ho–The distance travelled by the SC households to collect water is the same as that of the
non-SC households
H1 - The distance travelled by the SC households to collect water is not the same as that of
Time Spent
Ho–The amount of time spent by SC households to collect is the same as that of the non-
SC households
H1–The amount of time spent by SC households to collect water is not the same as that of
Quantity
Ho–The quantity of drinking water supply that the SC households get is the same as that of
H1–The quantity of drinking water supply that the SC households get is not the same as
Quantity of Water Supply

The NRDWP Guidelines 2013 states that from the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, the focus
has shifted to provision of piped water supply. The vision for rural domestic water supply
in the strategic plan of the Ministry is to cover all rural households with safe piped drinking
water supply @ 70 lpcd. Considering the fact that the norm of 40 lpcd has been continuing
for the last four decades and there is a large population that has to be provided with higher
service levels, as an interim measure, the norm is 55 litres per capita per day (lpcd) for
humans to meet the following requirements:
30
Purpose Quantity (lpcd)

Drinking 3 lpcd
Cooking 5
Bathing 15
Washing Utensils 10
Ablution/Toilets 10
Washing clothes and other uses 12
Total 55 lpcd
Table 1: Quantity of water collection vs Caste categories
Quantity
20 to 40 litres 40 to 55 litres 55 to 70 litres Total Respondent
of water
(percentage) (percentage) (percentage) (percentage)
collection
Oth- Oth- Oth Oth- To-

Caste SC ST SC ST SC ST SC ST
ers ers ers ers tal
Tamil 7 96 88 0 0 5 100 0 100 200

4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Nadu (3.5) (48) (44) (0) (0) (2.5) (50) (0) (50) (100)
Hima-
94 48 52 0 0 100 0 100 200
chal (47)
0 (0)
(29)
6 (3) 0 (0)
(26) (0) (0)
0 (0)
(50) (0) (50) (100)
Pradesh
S Utta- 64 55 36 45 0 0 100 0 100 200

t rakhand 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
(32) (27.5) (18) (22.5) (0) (0) (50) (0) (50) (100)
a
t
99 3 96 0 0 101 0 99 200
e Bihar 0 (0) 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0)
(49.5) (1.5) (48) (0) (0) (50.1) (0) (49.5) (100)
s
Jhar- 97 3 100 0 0 100 100 200
0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0
khand (48.5) (1.5) (50) (0) (0) (50.0) (50) (100)
99 43 1 57 0 0 100 200
Assam 0 (0)
(49.5) (21.5)
0 (0)
(0.5) (28.5) (0) (0)
0 (0) 0 (0) 100
(50) (100)
Total 358 99 156 143 1 438 0 0 5 501 100 599 1200
31
For rural areas, drinking water supply norms of 40 lpcd is considered as the Basic
Access; and 55 lpcd is considered as the Optimal Access. The NRDWP recommends to the
States to aspire for giving 70 lpcd by 2022. In the study States, about 3/4 th of the SC/ST
habitations reported to have either basic access or less than basic access; whereas 3/4 th of
the non-SC/ST habitations have got optimal access. Neither in SC/ST habitations nor in
non-SC/ST habitations, have people got more than 55 lpcd. In Assam – the only State
where we could find ST community representing the major portion of the population – it
was found that they get less than 40 lpcd. Thus, the quantity of water people get was either
just adequate or less than adequate, and definitely not more, irrespective of caste categories.
Caste Category
Time spend for collecting water Total
SC ST Others
Tamil Nadu 19 0 23 42
Himachal
Less than State 5 0 5 10
Pradesh
15 minutes
Bihar 0 0 1 1
Total 24 0 29 53
Himachal
26 0 54 80
Pradesh
Uttarakhand 0 0 28 28
15 to 30 State
minutes Bihar 3 0 82 85
Jharkhand 3 0 90 93
Assam 0 1 97 98
Total 43 1 362 406
Himachal
31 0 35 66
Pradesh
30 to 45 State
Jharkhand 0 0 9 9
Assam 0 0 1 1
Total 86 0 161 247
32
Caste Category
Time spend for collecting water Total
SC ST Others
Himachal
38 0 6 44
Pradesh
45 to 60 State
Jharkhand 96 0 1 97
Assam 0 99 2 101
Total 319 99 30 448
Uttarakhand 1 0 0 1
More than State
Bihar 15 0 0 15
60 minutes
Jharkhand 1 0 0 1
Total 29 0 17 46
Tamil Nadu 100 0 100 200

Himachal
100 0 100 200
Pradesh
Total Uttarakhand 100 0 100 200
State
Respondents
Bihar 101 0 99 200
Jharkhand 100 100 100 200
Assam 0 100 599 1200

Comparability coverage means provision within a distance of 100 metres from the
household or 30 minutes of time taken for fetching water in a day. In Assam, Jharkhand,
and Uttarakhand, there is no question of taking water in less than 15 minutes. In all the
States under this study, majority of the non-SC households reported spending 15-30
minutes, or at the maximum 45 minutes. Whereas majority of their SC/ST counterparts
spend 45-60 minutes to collect water. If we take a look at it in comparison with the
previous table, we find that the SC communities spend more time to fetch less water
compared to what their non-SC counterparts spend. A few respondents in the SC/ST and
33
non-SC categories reported spending more than one hour daily for water collection other
than Himachal Pradesh and Assam.
Distance Norms
As per the NRDWP norms, water must be made available within 100 metres in plain
terrains, and within 500 metres in hilly terrains. The current study examined the distance
people from different communities travel to fetch water for domestic use.
Table 3: Distance between Hamlet and Water Source Point
Distance of
Greater than
Hamlet Less than 100 100 to 500 metres More than 1000 metres
500 metres and less
from water metres (per cent) (per cent)
than 1000 metres
source point
(per cent)
S Oth- Oth- Oth S Oth To-

Caste SC SC ST SC ST SC
T ers ers ers T ers tal
Tamil 65 0 71 13 0 11 12 6 0
16 (8) 0 (0) 6 (3) 200
Nadu (32.5) (0) (35.5) (6.5) (0) (5.5) (6) (3) (0)
Hima-
32 0 95 50 0 1 0 0
chal 4 (2) 18 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 200
(16) (0) (47.5) (25) (0) (0.5) (0) (0)
Pradesh
St Uttarak- 27 0 64 5 0 29 68 7 0 0
0 (0) 0 (0) 200
at hand (13.5) (0) (32) (2.5) (0) (14.5) (34) (3.7) (0) (0)
es
0 76 0 22 85 1 14 0
Bihar 2 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 200
(0) (38) (0) (11) (42.5) (0.5) (7) (0)
Jhar- 3 0 95 0 97 0 0
0 (0) 5 (2.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 200
khand (1.5) (0) (47.5) (0) (48.5) (0) (0)
0 98 37 63 1 0 0
Assam 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 200
(0) (49) (0) (0) (0.5) (0) (0)
Total 129 0 499 68 37 72 284 63 22 20 0 6 1200
34
The condition with regard to distance travelled for drinking water revealed that 5/6 th
of the non-SC households get water within a distance of 100 metres from their residence;
whereas majority of the SC households (3/6th of them) had to walk anywhere between 500-
1000 metres. Only about 1.3/6th of SC households get water within a distance of 100
metres. Most of the ST households in Assam get water within a distance of less than 500
metres. Very few families walk a distance of more than 1000 metres to fetch drinking water.
Frequency of water supply
NRDWP norms state that water must be made available to the communities at least
12 days in a two-week period. This is the frequency that States and Gram Panchayats must
strive for.
Table 4: Frequency of Water Supply
Daily but at
Frequency
unpredictable
of water Three to five days One to two days in a
times Daily at certain
collection in a week week
(24 hours) hours
S Oth- Oth- Oth- Oth-

Caste SC SC ST SC ST SC ST
T ers ers ers ers
Tamil Na-
40 0 39 60 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 3
du
Himachal
1 0 3 81 0 80 5 0 4 13 0 13
Pradesh
St Uttarak-
at 1 0 1 94 0 94 5 0 5 0 0 0
hand
es
Bihar 101 0 96 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jharkhand 100 0 92 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Assam 0 99 91 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 243 99 322 235 1 252 10 0 9 13 0 16
35
Frequency of water supply is an indicator of availability of water to the communities.

Majority (about 45 per cent) of the households interviewed reported getting water daily, but
at unpredictable timings, and others (45 per cent) get water at certain appointed hours daily.
The rest (about 10 per cent) get some days in a week (3-5 days in a week or 1-2 days a
week). For a vast majority, availability of water is not a problem whereas the distance they
travel to fetch water and the time they spend for fetching are concerns. These issues are
more prevalent in SC-dominated habitations.
Parameters of Potability - Safe Drinking Water
Water is defined as safe if it is free from biological contamination (guinea worm,

cholera, typhoid, etc.) and within permissible limits of chemical contamination (excess
fluoride, brackishness, iron, arsenic, nitrates, etc.) as per IS-10500 standard of BIS.
TDS is Total Dissolved Solids. The dissolved minerals in water are commonly referred to as Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS). There are particular standards for the acceptable amounts of these
elements (minerals) in water. Leaving aside the specific harmful chemicals fluoride and arsenic,
drinking water for human beings should contain some level of minerals (TDS), but these levels
should not be excessive. Household level/community level Reverse Osmosis (RO) is a commonly
used filtration system that removes the dissolved impurities in water. RO is required if the Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) exceed a certain value.
Table 5: Quality of Water (based on TDS Level)

TDS Levels in Drinking Water
Good: Average: Bad: 900- Unacceptable:
State
50-600 mg/l 600-900 mg/l 1200 mg/l above 1200 mg/l
(percentage) (percentage) (percentage) (percentage)
Total
Non- Non- Non-
SC/ SC/ SC/ SC/ Non-
SC/ SC/ SC/
ST ST ST ST SC/ST
ST ST ST
Tamil Nadu 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Himachal Pradesh 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Uttarakhand 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Bihar 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Jharkhand 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Assam 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 GPs
Total 30 24 5 1 0 0 0 0 60 GPs
Source: Primary Data; Standards as per WHO, Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 1996.
36
Quality of water is an important parameter taken up. This communicates about the
potability of drinking water, primarily in relation to the TDS level in water. Above
indicators of four categories, i.e. Good, Average, Bad and Unacceptable, are based on
WHO water quality standards: The scale used is as follows: Excellent: 50 to 300 mg/l,
Good: 300-600 mg/l, Fair: 600-900 mg/l, Poor: 900-1200 mg/l, Unacceptable: above 1200
mg/l. Water, with extremely low concentration of TDS, may also be unacceptable because
of its flat, insipid taste.
Water quality test conducted in the study villages (using a TDS Digital Water Quality
Tester Pen) revealed that the quality of water in most of the villages is good and potable,
except in two habitations in Tamil Nadu (one SC/ST habitation and the other in non-SC/
ST habitation) where the source of water was found ‘Average’ (TDS level between 600-900
mg/l), and similarly, four sources in Assam were found to be at ‘average’ (600-900 mg/l).
The water quality reports produced by the Gram Panchayats revealed that the PH level was
also found in the range of 5 to 8 only on a PH Scale of 0-14, which means the water is
either neutral or slightly acidic or slightly alkaline. These are but within the acceptable levels
as per the quality norms of WHO, 1996.
MANN - WHITNEY U TEST
Mann-Whitney U Test is a non-parametric statistical test (distribution-free test) in

which we can test whether two independent groups are significantly different from each
other or not. The two groups in our study are SC/ST (Group 1) and non-SC/ST (Group
2).We tested the variables of interest using suitable hypothesis. The complete Mann-
Whitney test procedures and the results we got for the hypotheses tested are given below.
Hypothesis 1 on ‘Availability of Water’

H0: Availability of drinking water to the SC/ST households is the same as that of the
non- SC/ST households.
H1: Availability of drinking water to the SC/ST households is different from that of
the non-SC/ST households.
37
RANKS
Caste category N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Availability of SC/ST 601 609.61 366373.00

Drinking Water Non SC/ST 599 591.36 354227.00
Total 1200
Availability of drinking water shows small difference in mean ranks between SC/ST
and non- SC/ST categories. Numerically, people belonging to SC/ST categories seem to be
able to access water daily at certain hours (of course, they need to walk a distance) slightly
more than that of non-SC/ST categories.
TEST STATISTICS
Availability of drinking water
Mann- Whitney U 174527.00
Wilcoxon W 354227.00
Z -1.044
Assymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.296
Since p-value is greater than 0.05 (0.296), we accept the null hypothesis.
Result: Availability of drinking water to the SC/ST households is almost the same as that
of the non-SC/ST households.
Hypothesis 2 on ‘Distance travelled for collecting water’
H0: Distance travelled by the SC/ST households is the same as that of the non-SC/
ST households.
H1: Distance travelled by the SC/ST households is different from that of the non-
SC/ST households.
RANKS
SC/ST 601 785.71 472214.50
Distance Travelled
Non-SC/ST 599 414.67 248385.50
Total 1200
The distance travelled by SC/ST people for collecting water is more compared to non-SC/
STs.
38
TEST STATISTICS
Distance Travelled
Mann-Whitney U 68685.500
Z -21.437
Since p-value is less than 0.05 (0.000), we reject the null hypothesis.
Result: Distance travelled by the SC/ST households is different (more) from that of the non
-SC/ST households.
Hypothesis 3 on ‘Time Spent for Collecting Water’
H0: The duration of time spent by the SC/ST households is the same as that of the
H1: The duration of time spent by the SC/ST households is different from that of the
RANKS
Time spent for SC/ST 601 808.96 486184.50

collecting water Non-SC/ST 599 391.34 234415.50
Total 1200
The time spent by the SC/ST people for collecting water is more compared to Non-
SC/STs.
TEST STATISTICS
Time spent for collecting water

Z -22.001
39
Result: The time spent by the SC/ST households for collecting water is different (more)
from that of the non-SC/ST households.
Hypothesis 4 on ‘Quantity of drinking water collected’
H0: The quantity of drinking water received by SC/ST households is the same as
that of the non-SC/ST households.
H1: The Quantity of drinking water received by the SC/ST households is different
RANKS
Quantity of drinking SC/ST 601 450.52 270763.00
water received Non-SC/ST 599 750.98 449837.00
Total 1200
On comparison, the SC/ST people are receiving less quantity of drinking water than non-
SC/ST people.
TEST STATISTICS
Quantity of drinking water received
Z -17.330
Result: The quantity of drinking water received by the SC/ST households is different (less)
40
CHAPTER – 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Background
growth’ agenda of the Government of India. It was made still more explicit after April,
2009 through the National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP). Again, a similar
emphasis was made in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2013-2017) reiterating the need for
addressing the issue of inequity in drinking water service delivery between SC/ST-
concentrated villages, and those where non-SC/ST communities reside. Special fund
allocations are made for this purpose, and the MDWS has created a separate MIS system in
order to monitor the progress being made in this regard.
It has been almost a decade now since the beginning of inclusive policy in India. Has
it delivered in rural domestic water sector? Do all the efforts of the MDWS contribute to a
reduction in inequity and relative deprivation in drinking water service delivery the poor
people undergo in Indian villages? In other words, to what extent the efforts of the MDWS
have helped narrow down the service delivery gap, contributing to the inclusive service
delivery policy of the government? These questions required empirical investigation and
factual explanation. This study set out in order to find out if the after-effects of the
inclusive policy agenda and special fund allocations for SC/ST habitations reflect in
drinking water service delivery, in other words, whether it has worked to bridge the inequity
gap by effecting noticeable improvements on major parameters of domestic water service
delivery in rural areas. Hence, this study was undertaken.
This study was conducted in six States of India covering 60 Gram Panchayats in 12
41
districts, involving 1200 respondents belong to SC/ST and non-SC/ST communities in

almost equal numbers. This can be considered as a quasi-experiment, in the sense, it is an
empirical study carried out in order to estimate the causal impact of inclusive service
delivery policy on SC/ST communities. The outcome observed whether the inequity in
domestic water service delivery has been addressed or not. That is causal effect of
intervention on its target population (without random assignment). Hence, it can be
considered as a quasi-experimental design. The parameters considered, along with
theoretical and operational definitions, are given below:
Parameters Theoretical Definition Operational Definition
NRDWP guideline says 12 days in a

Frequency of getting water for
1 Availability of water two-week period. Either 24x7 or at
domestic use
appointed hours daily.
Distance travelled for Distance one has to walk to fetch 100 metres in plain areas
2
collecting water water for domestic use 500 metres in hilly areas
Time spent for
How much time one has to wait in
3 collecting water. In 30 minutes or less as per the
queue for taking the quantity of
other words ‘Queuing guidelines of NRDWP.
water one is entitled to
time’.
Basic Access 40 lpcd
‘Adequate’ quantity – ‘Adequacy’
4 Quantity of water Optimal Access 55 lpcd
of water supply
Aspiration to get 70 lpcd
Based on 9 parameters that the WHO
(1996) has recommended. This study
Safe water that is free from
has taken into account TDS levels
5 Quality of water contamination - physical, chemical
and household level treatment for
and bacteriological
ensuring freedom from
bacteriological contamination.
Major Findings of the Study
Availability: Availability is about frequency. Frequency of water supply is an indicator of

availability of water to the communities. Majority (about 45 per cent) of the households
interviewed reported of getting water daily, although at unpredictable timings; and others
(45 per cent) get water at certain appointed hours daily. This holds good both for SC/ST
communities as well as the non-SC/ST households. The rest (about 10 per cent) get some
days in a week (3-5 days or 1-2 days a week). Thus, it was found that availability of drinking
42
water to the SC/ST households is almost the same as that of the non-SC/ST households.
We can infer to have achieved a satisfactory level of equity in terms of availability of water
to SC/ST communities.
Distance: The condition with regard to distance travelled for fetching water for domestic
use revealed that 5/6th of the non-SC households get water within a distance of 100 metres
from their residence, whereas majority of the SC households (3/6th of them) had to walk
anywhere between 500-1000 metres. Only about 1.3/6th of SC households get water within
a distance of 100 metres. Most of the ST households in Assam get water within a distance
of less than 500 metres. There are very few families that walk a distance of more than 1000
metres to fetch water for domestic use. Thus, for a vast majority of households in SC-
dominated habitations, availability of water is not a problem, whereas distance they travel to
fetch water is an issue. We can infer that inequity prevails in terms of distance travelled to
fetch water.
Time Spent for Collecting Water: In Assam, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand, there is no
question of taking water in less than 15 minutes. In all the States under this study, majority
of the non-SC households reported spending more or less 15-30 minutes, or a maximum of
45 minutes, whereas majority of their SC/ST counterparts normally spend 45-60 minutes to
collect water. We find that the SC communities walk longer distance and spend more time
to fetch water compared to their non-SC counterparts. A few respondents in the SC/ST
and non-SC categories reported spending more than one hour daily for water collection,
with some exceptions at Himachal Pradesh and Assam. Although households from both
the communities spend more time than they ought to, the number of households that walk
longer distance is more in the case of SC communities. This spells inequity.
Quantity of Water: The study states that about 3/4th of the SC/ST habitations reported to
have either basic access or less than basic access; whereas 3/4 th of the Non-SC/ST
habitations have got optimal access. This is a clear case of inequity. However, neither in
SC/ST habitations nor in non-SC/ST habitations, have people got more than 55 lpcd. In
43
Assam – the only State where we could find majority ST community – it was found that
they get less than 40 lpcd. Thus, the quantity of water people get was either just adequate or
less than adequate, and definitely not more, irrespective of caste categories. However, the
fact that non-SC/ST communities get optimal access, whereas SC/ST communities get
only basic access spells a clear case of inequity.
Quality of Water: Water quality test conducted in the study villages revealed that water in
most of the villages is ‘good and potable’, except in two habitations in Tamil Nadu (one
SC/ST habitation and the other a non-SC/ST habitation). The PH level was also found in
the range of 5 to 8 on a PH Scale of 0 to 14, which means the water is either neutral or
slightly acidic or slightly alkaline. In two of the Tamil Nadu villages, water quality tests
revealed that the water being used (in two habitations) was contained ‘Average levels of
TDS’ (between 600-900 mg/l). Similarly, four sources in Assam were found to be at
‘average’ (600-900 mg/l). However, water with TDS levels more than 1200 mg/l or PH at
extremes in a scale of 0-14 are only considered unacceptable for human consumption. The
TDS and PH levels reported in all the study villages were found to be ‘within the acceptable
levels,’ irrespective of community groups, as per the quality norms of WHO, 1996.
Conclusion
This study concludes that equity has been achieved in terms of (i) availability and (ii)
quality of water service delivered to the SC/ST communities. However, going by other
essential parameters such as (iii) distance travelled, (iv) time spent, and (v) quantity of water
delivered, inequity persists. The SC/ST communities still remain underserved.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study has established with clear evidences that the issue of inequity (between
SC/ST habitations and non-SC/ST habitations in the realm of rural domestic water service
delivery) has not been addressed to the extent desired. There are evidences that clearly put
44
across that inequity still prevailing extensively in all the six study States. This study did not
go into analysing why it did not happen as expected or why inequity could not be addressed. What are
the local socio-political, participation and governance related factors that could possibly
play roles for the slow progress we notice in addressing inequity? This could be one
important area for further research.
45

Distbl Equity of Rural Drinking Water-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distbl Equity of Rural Drinking Water-Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distbl Equity of Rural Drinking Water-Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distributional Equity of Rural Drinking Water:

A study on inclusive service delivery

Centre for Rural Infrastructure (CRI)

Authors: Dr. R. Ramesh & Prof. P. SivaRam

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj

First Edition: March 2021

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ

Contents Page Number

Chapter-2: Research Design 12

Chapter-3: Profile of the Study Area 22

Chapter-4: Analysis & Discussion 28

Chapter-5: Findings, Conclusions & Further Research 41

APL - Above Poverty Line

Major Findings of the Study

Availability: Frequency of water supply is an indicator of the availability of water to the

Time Spent on Collecting Water: In Assam, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, there is no

Inclusive Service Delivery

Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development or Central Finance

To accelerate the assured availability of potable drinking water on a sustainable basis

While discussing ‘sustainable development,’ we tend to argue on ‘intergenerational

Inequitable distribution of water service delivery or disparity in service provision to

…..these positive factors notwithstanding, a major weakness in the economy is that

Meters have successfully addressed the issue of unequal distribution of drinking

Statement of the Problem

The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Committee (2012-13) has estimated and

Equity: Equity by technical standards means getting regular access to a minimum of 55

SC/ST-Concentrated Villages: Habitations in which more than 40 per cent of the

S. Parameters Theoretical Definition Operational Definition

The Analytical Framework is presented as a Matrix - 1. Data were analysed using

In order to arrive at the difference in service delivery, different matching estimators

Scope of the Study

 Keeping ‘service delivery’ and ‘equity’ as outcome (dependent) variables, a host of

Table 1: States, Districts and Blocks Covered in this Study

District Block State

Table 2: Caste Categories Covered

Table 3: Occupation Details of the Respondents

Table 4: Education Level

Total 95 10 39 295 87 365 86 3 138 13 0 40 8 0 17 501 100 599

Source: Primary Data.

Table 5: Types of Houses

S S Oth S Oth- Oth- Oth-

Tamil Nadu 40 0 23 50 0 63 10 0 14 100 0 100

Assam 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 99 95 0 100 100

Total 40 0 23 144 1 234 317 99 342 501 100 599

Source: Primary Data.

Table 6: Availability of Toilet in the House

Himachal 98 0 100 198 2 0 0 2 100 0 100

Jhar- 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 200 100 0 100

Source: Primary Data.

Inclusive Growth Agenda

5. Whether it has enabled the SC households get access to drinking water

The Big Question

Availability (Frequency of supply)

Quantity of Water Supply

Purpose Quantity (lpcd)

Table 1: Quantity of water collection vs Caste categories

Oth- Oth- Oth Oth- To-

Tamil 7 96 88 0 0 5 100 0 100 200

S Utta- 64 55 36 45 0 0 100 0 100 200