arwsp report

Acknowledgements

Water, an intrinsic requirement of human life is also intimately related to the issues of livelihood

needs, food security, employment and poverty among the rural masses. The ever increasing demand for

water is putting severe pressure on the global environment, with many rivers, lakes and other water

bodies getting polluted contaminated and depletion of water tables. Clean and adequate supply of water

is not only crucial to the stability and maintenance of ecosystems but very importantly to the health of

our people. The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) sponsored by the Ministry of Rural

Development, Government of India supplements the efforts of the State Governments in order to

accelerate the pace of coverage of problem habitations in rural areas. The monitoring division of MoRD

decided to conduct an All India Evaluation of ARWSP in order to assess the implementation and success of

the scheme in achieving its objectives. CMI Social Research Centre was selected to conduct the Study as

the Nodal Agency.

Our foremost thanks are due to Smt. Manjula Krishnan, Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of Rural

Development for reposing faith in us by assigning this opportunity and providing her valuable guidance

and blessings.

We are extremely indebted for the splendid support and cooperation we received from Shri. T.M.

Vijay Bhaskar, Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development,

Government of India.

This report could not have been accomplished without the encouragement and continuous

guidance we received from Dr. N.K. Sahu, Director (Monitoring) through out the Study period. We are also

very grateful to all the other officials of the E&M Wing and Department of Drinking Water Supply, for

widening our horizon and understanding of the subject and their kind co‐operation.

We gratefully appreciate the efforts of the State and District level officials to facilitate this task

and their whole hearted co‐operation. We would also like to record our appreciation and thanks to the

Field Agencies and the Consultants, Technical Editors, Managers of CMISRC for their commitment and

dedication through out the project.

We at CMISRC always strive to provide our clients with a professional piece of work, to ensure

that, their energies and finances contribute as effectively, as possible to the goal of development and this

time again hope, that the Report of this Evaluation Study will go a long way in streamlining the whole

process of implementation of programmes of the Ministry to make them more effective, productive and

result oriented for the benefit of the rural areas.

Manish Ahluwalia

(Director)

CMI Social Research Centre

Evaluation of Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme

CONTENTS Executive Summary i-ix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1-13

1.1 Rural Water Supply in India

1.2 Rural Drinking Water Supply Programmes in India

1.3 The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP)

Chapter 2 Evaluation Study of ARWSP 14-18

2.1 Objectives of the Study

2.2 Methodology and Scope of the Study

2.3 Survey Parameters and Approach

2.4 Coverage under the study

Chapter 3 Profile of Habitations and Households covered 19-30

3.1 Profile of Habitations covered under the study

3.2 Profile of Households covered under the study

3.3 Profile of Control habitations and households covered

Chapter 4 Performance of ARWSP in the States 31-37

4.1 Financial & Physical progress of ARWSP in the States

4.2 Earmarking of resources & Coverage of SCs/STs

4.3 Progress on Institutional Coverage under RWS

Chapter 5 Planning Processes under ARWSP in the States 38-46

5.1 Planning mechanism under ARWSP in the States

5.2 Planning on fund allocation under Rural Water Supply

5.3 Process of selection of habitations to be covered

5.4 Process of selection of type of schemes

5.5 Planning on Operation & Maintenance of schemes

5.6 Planning on sustainability of the water supply schemes

5.7 Planning on training of users and awareness generation

Chapter 6 ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations 47-59

6.1 Schemes taken up under ARWSP in surveyed habitations

6.2 Status of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations

6.3 Functional & Quality Problems in ARWSP Schemes

6.4 Usage of ARWSP facilities & Consumption of water by the households from them

6.5 O&M of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations

Chapter 7 Community involvement and role of PRIs 60-65

7.1 Formation of VWSCs in the Villages

7.2 Role in decision on location of the scheme

7.3 Role in decision on Type of Scheme 7.4 Role in decision on choice of technology

7.5 Role in decision on O & M matters

7.6 Training of users for minor repairs and maintenance

Chapter 8 Impact of ARWSP 66-75

8.1 Quantity of water available for consumption

8.2 Improved access to safe water supply source

8.3 Improvement in Quality of water supplied

8.4 Reduction in distance traveled for collecting water

8.5 Reduction in travel time to the water source

8.6 Reduction in waiting time at the water source

8.7 Impact on Health and reduction in occurrence of water borne diseases

8.8 Awareness on Safe Water Practices in the households

Chapter 9 Gender Sensitiveness of ARWSP 76-78

9.1 Women members in VWSCs in the Villages

9.2 Role in decision on location of the scheme

9.3 Role of women in implementation and O & M

9.4 Impact of ARWSP on the lives of rural women Annexure

i Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Providing safe drinking water to 70% of India’s population residing in about

1.42 million rural habitations spread over diverse ecological regions is difficult task.

The cost of this challenge is very high and the burden of not providing safe water is

also enormously high.

In India it is mostly women who are responsible for collecting water and

managing its household use. It is estimated that on an average women in rural India

spent between one and four hours everyday collecting water. They make multiple

trips to the water sources; all this is hard physical labour. The access to water supply

also has disparity between the rich and poor, various castes and communities.

Unreliable electricity sources in rural areas also affect the supply of water to the

villagers.

The other major problem after adequate and easy access to water supply is

provision of clean and safe drinking water. The health cost of poor water quality is

also very high. A huge population is affected by waterborne diseases annually,

many children die due to diarrhea and huge amount of working days are lost due to

waterborne diseases each year. The problem of chemical contamination is vastly

prevalent in India with many habitations affected by poor water quality. Fluoride,

arsenic and iron are the major contaminations in the water.

The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) was introduced in

1972-73 to assist States and Union Territories with 100 per cent grants-in-aid to

implement drinking water supply schemes in such villages. The entire programme

was given a Mission approach when the Technology Mission on Drinking Water

Management, called the National Drinking Water Mission (NDWM), was introduced

as one of the five Missions in social sector in 1986. NDWM was renamed Rajiv

Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission (RGNDWM) in 1991.

ii Executive Summary

It was decided to evaluate the functioning of ARWSP in terms of its stated objectives

and guidelines. The study was aimed at providing a quantitative and qualitative

review of the status of implementation of the programme.

The study covered 27 major States, where ARWSP is being implemented. Within a

State, sample of Districts, habitations-covered and not-covered were selected.

Information was collected at various levels through desk reviews, discussions and

canvassing of structured questionnaires.

Evaluation Findings

Profile of Habitations and Households covered

A total of 27 States, 97 districts and 2176 habitations were covered during the

study. 43477 households were interviewed from these habitations in order to

assess the impact of ARWSP. As per the design of the study, 10 habitations

from each of the selected district were to be covered as control unit. A total of

872 control habitations and 8614 households in these habitations were also

covered during the study for the purpose.

In all, 2176 habitations were covered under the evaluation study. The analysis

of the population size of these habitations shows that 40.30% of the

habitations were having small population size with ≤ 250 persons per

habitation. The population figures are based on information as per Census

2001.

Most of the habitations in the states of Manipur (71.43%), Sikkim (63.64%),

Uttrakhand (60.00%) and Tripura (58.82%) were small size habitations (≤ 250).

Most of the habitations in the states of Kerala (100.00%), Himachal Pradesh

(92.86%), Bihar (65.50%), West Bengal(61.36%), Haryana (54.55%), Andhra

Pradesh (54.05%) and Punjab (52.94%) were large size habitations (> 1000).

Out of the total 43477 households interviewed, 58.49% of them were BPL

families and 41.51% were reported to be APL. 19% of the households

iii Executive Summary

interviewed were from SC, 38% were from ST category and 43% of the

respondent households were from other castes. 26173 (60%) households had

family size upto 5 members, 15581 (36%) households had 6 -10 members and

1723 (4%) households had large families of more than 10 members.

The findings of the study have been correlated and compared on various

aspects of the evaluation in the report based on the profile of the habitations

and households covered under the study.

Performance of ARWSP in the States

The amount of funds released to all the States have been marginally more

than the allocations every year and the percentage utilization of funds to

amounts released was also satisfactory with 95.34% during 2004-05, 85.98%

during 2005-06 and 116.62% during 2006-07. This reflects that overall the

States have been able to get and utilize the allocated funds under the

programme to a large extent. The performance of Bihar & Jharkhand was

found to be low in terms of utilization of funds during 2004-05 & 2005-06,

however it has improved during the year 2006-07 in both the States.

During 2004-05 of the total population covered, 15.22% were from SCs and

12.38% were from STs. During 2005-06, 14.72% were from the SCs and 12.30%

were from the STs. During 2008-09 the coverage of SCs was 13.31% and of STs

was 10.10% out of the total population covered.

In 7 states the funds utilized for SC/ST were >35% of the total funds utilized

under ARWSP in the last three years. It was found that the utilization has

been on the population pattern of the States and the universal suggestive

proportion (25%+10%) does not seemed to have been suited most of them.

It was reported that during the year 2004-05 a total no. of 25256 institutions

(Govt./Local Bodies Schools, Govt. Aided Schools, Private Schools &

Anganwadis) were covered under ARWSP all over India. During 2005-06 this

increased to 70967 and in 2006-07 it was 65,964 institutions.

iv Executive Summary

Planning Processes under ARWSP in the States

The role in planning for various aspects such as awarding contracts for

installation, operation & maintenance of the schemes, awareness generation

on safe water practices, training of users and sustainability efforts was

studied. It was found that out of the 27 States covered, in only 3 states

(Haryana, Jharkhand & Kerala) the State level agencies reported to have been

playing a role in awarding contracts for installation of water supply schemes.

In 9 states, the state level agencies have reported to have a role in planning for

O&M of the schemes taken-up, in 19 states they reported to have a role in

planning for awareness generation in the villages, in 11 states they reported to

have a role in planning for training of users and in 17 states the state level

agencies reported to have a role in planning for sustainability efforts. In Bihar

& Orissa, the state level agencies have reported to be having no role in

planning on these aspects of ARWSP.

Most of the states reported decision making at the State level, have reported

to be following the GOI guidelines on priorities in selection of habitations to

be covered under ARWSP except Haryana where the selection is based on

reasons such as “Genuine site difficulty” and not on the basis of the

established norms of the programme.

Most of States have reported to be involved/playing role in planning on

awareness generation, O & M matters, Training and Sustainability efforts

under the Scheme.

ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations

The preference of the implementing agencies on type of schemes was largely

on small size schemes, it was found that out of 2326 ARWSP schemes covered

under the study, a vast majority of them were found to be Hand pumps

(74.19%), the next most popular was Piped water supply (underground

water) schemes (12.02%) and Piped water supply (surface water) schemes

(9.15%).

v Executive Summary

The guidelines on location of the scheme (distance) has been mostly followed

however in case of 1.59% of the schemes, all over the country, the distance

was found to be more than 1.6 Kms. in plain areas and 100 meters elevation in

hilly areas from the habitation. Majority of such schemes were found in the

habitations of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. More than 7% of the

schemes in the North Eastern states were also from this category.

Maintenance and functionality of the schemes was found to be satisfactory.

Out of the 2326 schemes covered under the study had in total 27721 service

access points, of which 4514 (16.28%) were reported to be affected by seasonal

variations, 541 (1.95%) were found to be temporarily not functional and 316

(1.14%) were found permanently defunct. 26523 (95.68%) of these were found

to be functional at the time of the survey.

Out of the 541 temporarily not functional service access points, 41.70% were

reportedly not functional due to mechanical fault at delivery point, 14.43% of

them were not functional due to mechanical fault in water supply line, 12.06%

due to ground water depletion, 20.75% due to drying of surface water source

and 11.06% due to other reasons.

Out of the 804 (2.90%) service access points reported to be affected by water

quality problems. Majority of the service access points in Tripura (90.91%),

Meghalaya (61.54%), Manipur (55.74%) and Mizoram (51.61%) were reported

to be affected by water quality problems. 29.64% of the service access points

in the minority concentrated districts were also found affected by water

quality problems. Out of the 804 service access points found affected by water

quality problems, 53.29% were affected by salinity and 24.77% were affected

with high iron content.

Out of the 43477 households covered under the study, 87.98% of the

households reported to have been drawing water from the ARWSP facility.

23.91% of the households were drawing water only from the ARWSP facility

vi Executive Summary

and therefore were totally dependent on the schemes. 12.02% households also

reported to not drawing water from the ARWSP facility at all.

Out of the households drawing water from the ARWSP schemes, 94.56%

reported to be dependent on the facility during the whole year, 1.19% was

using the facility only in summers, 0.37% only in winters and 3.84% only few

months in a year. 7.55% households in Himachal Pradesh and 6.85%

households in Assam reported to be using the facility only in summers.

In 17 out of 27 States, more than 75% habitations have reported that the cost of

O&M was being borne by the water supply department (Govt.). In all the

habitations of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram,

Nagaland and Tripura, the O&M is being paid by the local departments. In

more than 6 states the Gram Panchayats were also contributing towards the

O&M cost in more than 70% of the surveyed habitations.

The average per month amount paid by the households’ allover India comes

to Rs. 18. This ranges from Re 1. in Jharkhand and West Bengal to Rs 69 in

Haryana. The schedule of payment reported by majority of households

(45.11%) was annually. 27.82% households reported paying the water charges

on monthly basis and 10.48% said they were paying only once in two months.

Community involvement and role of PRIs

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, only in 38.05% villages

Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) have been formed. In case

of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal, no VWSCs have been

formed. Low percentage of villages, where VWSCs were formed, were found

in the States of Bihar (2.34%), Jharkhand (3.64%) Punjab (5.88%) & Uttaranchal

(6.62%).

In majority (70.49%) of the habitations, it was also reported that choices and

preferences of the people were taken into consideration while deciding on the

vii Executive Summary

location of the scheme. However, only in 30.96% habitations, the Gram Sabha

was convened to obtain the views of people.

The comparative analysis shows that highest percentage of currently

functional service access points (99.06%) was found in such habitations were

the choices and preferences of the people were taken into consideration and

even Gram Sabha was convened to obtain their views.

Impact of ARWSP

It was found that out of the 38198 households using ARWSP facility, 78.93%

were getting at least 40 lpcd of water from only ARWSP facility. 88.82% of the

households were getting at least 40 lpcd of water collected from the ARWSP

facility and other facilities also. It also implies that 11.18% households were

still not getting 40 lpcd of water despite of their habitations being covered

under ARWSP.

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, where ARWSP schemes

were provided, only in 58.07% habitations all the sample households reported

to be getting 40 lpcd of water only from the ARWSP facility. 71.34% of the

habitations had all the sample households getting 40 lpcd of water from the

ARWSP facility and other facilities.

Out of the 43477 households covered under the study, 38198 households

reported to be drawing water from the ARWSP facility. Out of them 14335

(37.53%) households reported drawing water from an unsafe water supply

source pre ARWSP and now draw water from the ARWSP facility.

Out of the 38198 households using ARWSP facility now, 5909 (15.47%)

households have reported improvement in quality of water after ARWSP.

27146 (71.07%) households have reported reduction in the distance traveled to

the new water source now and out of them 89.65% households have reported

reduction in the distance upto 1 km and 10.35% reported reduction in

distance travelled to the water source by more than 1 km.

viii Executive Summary

26870(70.34%) households have reported that the facility provided under

ARWSP has resulted in reduction in the travel time to the water source. Out

of them 25793 (95.99%) households have reported that the saving in time has

been upto 60 minutes, 1077 (4.01%) households have reported saving of more

than 60 minutes in the travel time post ARWSP.

19695 (51.56%) households have reported that the facility provided under

ARWSP has resulted in reduction in the waiting time at the water source. Out

of them 18909 (96.01%) households have reported that the saving in time has

been upto 60 minutes, 791 (4.02%) households have reported saving of more

than 60 minutes in the waiting time at water source post ARWSP.

19% of the households have reported reduction in occurrence of water borne

diseases amongst the adults, almost same percentage of household have also

reported reduction in occurrence of diseases amongst children.

It was found that 90.69% of the households using ARWSP facility were

satisfied with the quality of the water supplied. The data reflects that in

84.49% households the water storage vessel was kept cleaned and in 87.46%

households it was kept covered. However only 34.15% households have

reported they have ever been briefed by somebody on safe drinking water

practices.

Gender Sensitiveness of ARWSP

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, only in 651 (29.92%)

villages, women were members of the Village Water and Sanitation

Committees (VWSCs).

Only 22.47% habitations, women were involved while deciding on the

location of the scheme in the habitations.

ix Executive Summary

Out of the 38198 households using ARWSP facility, majority (77.11%) of the

households have reported saving in the time and effort of the women.

Attempt was also made to analyze the disaggregated responses of

male/female respondents in the households surveyed on various aspects of

impact. Whereas a slightly larger percentage of 73.25% male respondents felt

that the scheme has resulted in reduction in distance travelled for collecting

water only 70.00% of the female respondents felt the same. Similar response

was found in the case of responses on travel time to the water source where

only 66.69% female respondents reported reduction in travel time as

compared to 72.23% of their male counterparts.

1 Introduction

Introduction

APSVANTARMRITMAPSU BHESHAJAM |

(4/4 Atharvaveda)

(Water is the elixir of life, water has medicinal value. Water is the primary necessity of the human

body. Water is alike the elixir of life because of which the body is purified and we become energetic.

Water also possesses medicinal value. It frees the body from different doshas (ailments) and is known as

Bheshagya. It gives us good health, happiness and Contentment)

Water is the greatest of the many essential elements for human

existence. Life in any of its forms be it plants, animal or human, cannot exist

without water. Civilizations have evolved and developed around water

bodies as most human activities, including agriculture and industry, depend

on water. Majority of the Earth is

covered with water but nearly 97 percent

of the world’s water is salty or otherwise

undrinkable. About 2 percent is locked

up in ice caps and glaciers. That leaves

just one per cent for all the humanity’s

needs like agricultural, residential,

manufacturing, community and other

personal needs.

Almost 20 percent of the world’s population lacks access to safe drinking

water, and with present consumption patterns two out of every three persons

on the earth will live in water-stressed conditions by 2025. Water pollution

adds enormously to existing problems of water scarcity by removing large

volumes of water from the available supply. The pollution threat is

particularly serious when it affects ground water supplies, where

contamination is slow to dilute and purification measures are costly.

2 Introduction

Rural Water Supply in India

Providing safe drinking water to 70% of India’s population residing in

about 1.42 million rural habitations spread over diverse ecological regions is

difficult task. The cost of this challenge is very high and the burden of not

providing safe water is also enormously high.

Every time development

planning is being done – drinking water

is considered a top priority. Despite of

huge financial investments on drinking

water supply, the access to safe drinking

water for all still remains a challenge.

The issues of ground water and surface

water sustainability, poor

implementation of governmental

programmes and failure in achieving the desired behavioural change goals

have been affecting the rural populations and the crisis is becoming more

intense day by day.

Large areas of the country have scarcity of water, dry lands and

drought prone, the demand for water from intensive cultivation and

industrialization is ever increasing and pollution levels of ground and surface

water are also increasing. Most of the rainfall in India takes place under the

influence of South West monsoon between June and September. Rainfall also

shows great variations, unequal seasonal distribution, still more unequal

geographical distribution, and frequent departures from the normal. Despite

this, water continues to be used inefficiently on a daily basis in all sectors.

India’s finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting, while

sector demands (including drinking water, industry, agriculture, and others)

are growing rapidly in line with urbanization, population increases, rising

3 Introduction

incomes and industrial growth. This has resulted in declining per capita

availability and deteriorating quality. Inter-sector allocations, planning, and

management of increasingly fragile water resources have thus emerged as a

major challenge before the nation.

The water shortage problems persist in the rural areas even though

there is a backbone of at least 3 million boreholes with hand-pumps and over

150,000 piped water supply schemes. Hand-pumps and bore-wells are the

primary source of drinking water, used by 42 % of the population. The

traditional open well serves about 27 % and 5 % of people still collect drinking

water from exposed sources such as rivers, lakes and ponds. In many parts of

the country, however, an open well is still the main source of water.

In India it is mostly women who are responsible for collecting water

and managing its household use. It is estimated that on an average women in

rural India spent between one and four hours everyday collecting water. They

make multiple trips to the water sources; all this is hard physical labour. The

access to water supply also has disparity between the rich and poor, various

castes and communities. Unreliable electricity sources in rural areas also affect

the supply of water to the villagers.

The other major problem after adequate and easy access to water

supply is provision of clean and safe drinking water. The health cost of poor

water quality is also very high. A huge population is affected by waterborne

diseases annually, many children die due to diarrhea and huge amount of

working days are lost due to waterborne diseases each year. The problem of

chemical contamination is vastly prevalent in India with many habitations

affected by poor water quality. Fluoride, arsenic and iron are the major

contaminations in the water. The rapid pace of industrialization and greater

emphasis on agricultural growth combined with financial and technological

constraints have also led to large qualities of waste and pollution. The water

quality is affected by both point and non-point sources of pollution these

4 Introduction

include sewage discharge, discharge from industries, run-off from

agricultural fields and urban run-off.

66 million people across 17 states are estimated to be at risk due to

fluoride problems, 13.8 million people in 75 blocks are at risk due to excess

arsenic in ground water and many due to excess iron levels, presence of

nitrates, heavy metals, bacteriological contamination and salinity.

Parameter Maximum

Permissible limit

Health impact Affected states

Fluoride 1.5 mg/l

• Immediate symptoms include digestive disorders, skin diseases, dental fluorosis

• Fluoride in larger quantities (20-80 mg/day) taken over a period of 10-20 years results in crippling and skeletal fluorosis which is severe bone damage

Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal

Arsenic 0.05 mg/l

• Immediate symptoms of acute Poisoning typically include vomiting, oesophageal and abdominal pain, and bloody ‘rice water’ diarrhea.

• Long – term exposure to arsenic causes cancer of the skin, lungs, urinary bladder, and kidney. There can also be skin changes such as lesions, pigmentation changes and thickening (hyperkeratosis)

Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Tripura, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh

5 Introduction

Parameter Maximum

Permissible limit

Health impact Affected states

Iron 1 mg/l

• A dose of 1500 mg/L has a poisoning effect on child as it can damage blood tissues

• Digestive disorders, skin diseases and dental problems

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, A & N Islands, Pondicherry

Nitrate 100 mg/l

• Causes Methamoglobine-mia (Blue baby disease) where the skin of infants becomes blue due to decreased efficiency of haemoglobin to combine with oxygen. It may also increase risk cancer.

Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh

Salinity 2000 mg/l

• Objectionable taste to water.

• May affect osmotic flow and movement of fluids

Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Pondicherry

Heavy Metals

Cadmium – 0.01 mg/l Zinc

– 15 mg/l mercury – 0.001

mg/l

Damage to nervous system, kidney, and other metabolic disruptions

Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Kerala

Persistent Organic

Pollutants None

High blood Pressure hormonal dysfunction and growth retardation.

Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, West Bengal

6 Introduction

Figure 1 A Number of Habitations affected by water

quality problems

Other contaminant such as brackishness, especially in coastal areas has been

the result of ground water extraction through deep tube wells lead to salinity

ingress where sea water seeps in. The occurrence of inland salinity is due to

over extraction of ground water and less recharge of aquifers.The problems

that emerge from ground water use are not limited to depleting sources, but

also contaminants that are needed to be dealt with now.

The assessment of coverage of rural habitations in terms of availability of

drinking water was done under habitation survey 2003 and a random sample

survey of habitation was done in 2006 to re-assess the exact position of the

status of the rural habitations with regard to availability and quality of

drinking water. The status of habitations in terms of Fully Covered (FC),

Partially Covered (PC) and Not Covered (NC) as per the habitation survey

2003, the re-assessment of habitation survey 2003 and random sample survey

of habitations 2006 is provided below.

Status of Habitations

Habitation Survey 2003

Re-Assessment of Habitation survey 2003

Random Sample Survey 2006

NC 270405 (16.70%) 185547 (11.60%) 145518 (9.10%)

PC 412505 (25.80%) 190400 (11.90%) 194067 (12.10%)

FC 915809 (57.30%) 1222772 (76.50%) 1259134 (78.80%)

7 Introduction

The Constitution of India &

Provision for Right to Safe Drinking Water

Under fundamental rights provided by the Constitution of India, Article 21

entitles ʹprotection of life and personal libertyʹ. It states that ʹno person

shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to

procedure established by lawʹ.

(Article 21 has been interpreted by Supreme Court to include all facets of

life. The court order has resulted in expanding the right to life to include

several other vital aspects of human life like pollution‐free water and air,

health, environment, and housing.)

Article 15(2) of the Constitution states that no citizen shall ‘on grounds

only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them’ be subject

to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to ‘the use

of wells, tanks, bathing ghats.’

The directive principles of state policy, which the Constitution in Article 37

recognizes the principle of equal access to the material resources of the

community.

Article 39 (b) mandates that ‘the State shall, in particular, direct its policy

towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources

of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common

good.’

8 Introduction

Rural Drinking Water Supply Programmes in India

Rural drinking water supply is a state subject and has been included in

the 11th schedule of the constitution among the subjects that may be entrusted

to Panchayats by the states. However considering the importance of the issue

and magnitude of the problem, the central government supplements the

efforts of the State Governments through its centrally sponsored programmes.

Though as per the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Government of

India, more than 90% of the rural habitations have achieved full coverage, a

lot of sections of the society still believe that a lot more needs to be done and

requires huge financial investments to be able to mitigate the problems of the

rural population. It is also necessary to ensure that this investment is directed

towards directly benefiting the poor and the disadvantaged sections of the

rural areas.

The State Governments have been implementing the Rural Water

Supply Programme under the State Sector Minimum Needs Programme

(MNP). The Central Government, through the Rajiv Gandhi National

Drinking Water Mission (RGNDWM) supplements the efforts of the State

Governments by providing Central assistance under the Accelerated Rural

Water Supply Programme (ARWSP).

The Sector Reforms Projects were launched on pilot basis in 1999-2000,

as centrally sponsored projects, with the objective of institutionalizing

community participation and demand responsive approaches in order to

ensure sustainability of drinking water systems and sources in the rural water

supply programme.

The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme

A national water supply and sanitation programme was

introduced in the social sector in the country in 1954. The

Government of India provided assistance to the States to

9 Introduction

establish special investigation divisions in the Fourth Five Year Plan to carry

out identification of problem villages. Taking into account the magnitude of

the problem and to accelerate the pace of coverage of problem villages, the

Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) was introduced in

1972-73 to assist States and Union Territories with 100 per cent grants-in-aid

to implement drinking water supply schemes in such villages. The entire

programme was given a Mission approach when the Technology Mission on

Drinking Water Management, called the National Drinking Water Mission

(NDWM), was introduced as one of the five Missions in social sector in 1986.

NDWM was renamed Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission

(RGNDWM) in 1991.

Objectives of the ARWSP

The following are the objectives of the programme:

To cover the residual Not Covered (NC), Partially Covered (PC) and quality affected rural habitations.

Evolve appropriate technology mix.

Improve performance and cost effectiveness of ongoing programmes.

Create awareness on the use of safe drinking water.

Take conservation measures for sustained supply of drinking water.

To achieve these objectives, fund allocation under Accelerated Rural Water

Supply Programme has increased from Rs. 1715 Crore in 1999-2000 to Rs. 3351

Crore in 2007-08.

Implementing Agencies

The implementing agencies for ARWSP are decided by the State

Governments. The implementation is either through the PHED or Rural

Development Department/Panchayati Raj Department or any board,

corporation or authority. The programme also recommends that the

Panchayati Raj Institutions should also be involved in the implementation of

10 Introduction

the scheme, particularly in selecting the location of the facility, operation and

maintenance and fixing of water tariff etc.

Norms for providing potable drinking water

While implementing the Rural Water Supply Schemes, the following norms

are adopted for providing potable drinking water to the population:

40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) for humans to meet the following

requirements:

Figure 1: 40 lpcd for Human requirements

In addition, provision should be allowed at 30 lpcd for animals in hot

and cold desert/ecosystems in 227 blocks of 36 DDP districts already

identified in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, H.P.,

J&K, Karnataka and Rajasthan.

With normal output of 12 litres per minute, one hand pump or stand

post is estimated for every 250 persons.

In case of an independent habitation/hamlet/Wadi/Tola/Majra/

11 Introduction

Mohra etc, if their population is less than 250 persons and there is no

potable water source within its location, one source may be provided.

A rural habitation not having any safe water source with a

permanently settled population of 20 households or 100 persons,

whichever is more, may be taken as the unit for coverage with funds

under the ARWSP. However, the State Government could cover any

habitation regardless of its size/population/number of households

with funds under the MNP. DDP areas and SC/ST habitations with

less than 100 persons can, however, be covered under the ARWSP.

ARWSP in DDP areas

A fixed amount (of about 5%) of annual central plan allocation is earmarked

for Rural Water Supply in DDP areas in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana,

Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Karnataka and Rajasthan without the condition of

the States providing matching provisions under their MNP. The share of these

States will be determined in proportion to the number of NSS habitations

without safe source.

Operation and Maintenance

Upto 15% of the funds released every year under the ARWSP to the

States/UTs may be utilized for operation and maintenance of assets created,

subject to (i) ceiling of matching grant provided by the States out of the MNP

provision and (ii) the approved norms already circulated to all the

States/UTs. The funds earmarked for operation and maintenance of assets is

not to be permitted for creation of capital assets.

Earmarking of Allocation for SCs/STs

The State/UTs are required to earmark and utilize at least 25% of the ARWSP

funds for drinking water supply to the SCs and another minimum 10% for the

STs. Where the percentage of SC or ST population in a particular State is

considerably high warranting earmarking/utilization of more than stipulated

12 Introduction

provisions, additional funds can be utilized. As a measure of flexibility, States

may utilize at least 35% of the ARWSP funds for the benefit of SCs/STs,

particularly in those states where SC/ST coverage is less than the coverage of

the general population.

Diversion of funds earmarked for the SC/ST Sector to other sectors is not

permitted. In cases wherein the States have achieved substantial coverage of

SC/ST habitations and, do not have sufficient SC/ST population left out so as

to utilize 35% of the ARWSP and the MNP allocations, such States may be

allowed by the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission, to incur lower

level of expenditure on the coverage of SC/ST habitations, on a case to case

basis, in consultation with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

and the National Commission for SC/ST. In such cases, States are required to

submit separate proposals giving detailed justification for availing of such

relaxation. The State Governments may list out the SC/ST habitations

separately and their coverage may be monitored as a distinct component of

the programme.

Although a huge amount of funds have been invested in the sector

since the beginning of the programme, as per the latest information available,

the coverage of all rural habitations is still lagging behind, which is primarily

because of constant slippages of habitations which were fully covered earlier

due to reasons like over exploitation of ground water without adequate

recharge, non-exploitation of surface water sources and rainwater harvesting,

etc. The constant lowering of ground water table has brought about another

dangerous consequence in the sector viz., leaching of highly toxic chemical

contaminants such as arsenic and fluoride. Another important reason for

slippage of habitations was over-dependence on single source viz., ground

water in the rural areas as opposed to surface water sources in the urban

areas.

While drafting the Eleventh Plan document, it was decided that the major

issues which need tackling during this period are problem of sustainability,

13 Introduction

water availability and supply, poor water quality, centralized Vs.

decentralized approaches and financing of O&M cost on equitable basis with

full consideration to ensuring equity in regard to gender, socially and

economically weaker sections of the society, school children, socially

vulnerable groups such as pregnant and lactating mothers, specially-abled

and senior citizens, etc. A paradigm shift is being made in the revised rural

water supply programme guidelines for ensuring sustainable and

environmentally friendly drinking water supply projects.

The Evaluation & Monitoring Wing of the Ministry of Rural

Development undertakes Concurrent Evaluations, Impact Assessment Studies

and Quick Evaluations of the programmes. The main objectives of these

studies are to evaluate the performance of the Schemes at the field level, to

assess the impact of the programmes and to identify the problems in course of

implementation so as to make mid-course corrective measures, wherever

necessary. It was decided to evaluate the functioning of ARWSP in terms of

its stated objectives and guidelines. The study was aimed at providing a

quantitative and qualitative review of the status of implementation of the

programme.

14 Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Evaluation Study of ARWSP

The Ministry of Rural Development under took the Evaluation Study

of ARWSP in order to evaluate the performance, implementation processes

and impact of the programme and to assess the extent and nature of

community participation in the decision making processes of implementation

of ARWSP. Combinations of various research techniques were adopted in the

study with an aim to provide a quantitative and qualitative review of the

programme. The quantitative survey was conducted to obtain precise and

mostly pre-coded responses from the respondents and the qualitative

information was gathered to corroborate the quantitative findings.

The present chapter provides in detail the objectives and sampling strategy

adopted for this evaluation study.

Objectives of the Study

Following are the main objectives of Evaluation Study:

1. To assess the appropriateness and efficacy of the various processes

adopted in planning and implementation of the scheme for

providing drinking water supply coverage to the residual Not

Covered (NC), Partially Covered (PC) and quality affected rural

habitations at the National, State, District, Sub-District and

village/habitation levels.

2. To assess the efficiency of the programme in ensuring sustainability

of the drinking water systems/sources by evolving appropriate

technological solutions and water conservation efforts.

3. To evaluate the extent of community involvement/ role of PRIs in

the decision making process of selection and management of the

drinking water supply schemes.


4. To assess the impact of the programme in terms of :-

i. Increased availability of water supply to the rural

households for drinking and other purposes.

ii. Reduction in distance traveled and time consumed for

traveling and waiting for collecting water by the beneficiary

households.

iii. Improved availability of drinking water during all seasons in

the covered rural habitations.

iv. Improvement in access to improved water sources for the

marginalized groups especially the poor and SCs/STs.

v. Ascertaining the extent to which the investments made

under the programme have benefited the rural women.

5. To recommend appropriate solutions to make the programme more

effective so as to achieve its objectives of providing sustainable

coverage of drinking water supply to all the rural habitations and

promoting the use of safe drinking water.

6. Assess the gender sensitiveness of the programme in terms of

involvement of women in choosing location of source, taking care

of the facilities, and act as mistries/plumbers to take care of O&M of

hand pumps, certifying completion of scheme and membership in

Village Level Water Monitoring Committee.

Methodology, Sampling and Scope of the Study

The study covered 27 major States, where ARWSP is being

implemented. Within a State, sample of Districts, habitations-covered and

not-covered were selected. Information was collected at various levels

through desk reviews, discussions and canvassing of structured

questionnaires.


The number of sample districts in each state was covered according to the

total number of districts in the State. In the States having more than 20

districts, 5 Districts were selected; in the States having 10 to 19 less districts, 3

districts were selected and in the States less than 10 districts, 2 districts were

selected. The selection of the districts within the State was done on PPS basis

(% of NC+PC habitations being the weight).

For selection of habitations in a district, stratified sampling technique was

used. It was proposed to cover 5% of the total number of habitations covered

under ARWSP during the last three years in the selected districts. The

habitations in the districts were selected from the following three strata:

a) NC habitations covered under the district during the last 3 years.

b) PC habitations covered under the district during the last 3 years.

c) Quality affected habitations covered under the district during the last 3

years.

The total sample of 5% was drawn from the above strata in the ratio of

40:40:20 from a, b and c above. Shortfall in required number of habitations in

any strata/category was covered from the other strata/categories.

20 Beneficiary households from each selected habitation were covered for

beneficiary assessment. The control group of beneficiaries (10 households per

habitation each from 4 NC habitations, 4 PC habitations and 10 household per

habitation from 2 quality affected habitation) were covered from all those

habitations that were not covered under ARWSP/any other scheme, though

they were either NC/PC of Cap 99, slipped-back (of 2003 survey) or quality

affected habitations.

Survey Parameters and Approach

The Study in the States was entrusted to 6 independent research

institutions, each for a region/zone for covering 27 States all over the country.

CMI Social Research Centre was appointed as the nodal agency for the study.

The data was collected by the agencies on structured questionnaires and was


entered in an application provided by the nodal agency for data analysis and

preparation of the All India report. State-wise evaluation reports have also

been prepared by each of the agencies and submitted to the Ministry. Primary

data was collected using six categories of schedules. The different categories

of schedules and the respondents are indicated below: Six types of schedules

were administered for the Evaluation of ARWSP. Copy of the study tools

used is provided at Annexure II.

Schedule Respondent Office/ Respondent

State Level Schedule State Level Implementing Agency

District/Project Level Schedule District Level Implementing Agency of

ARWSP (PHED/others)

Sample Habitation Schedule PHED staff, village PRI officials, members of

VWSCs, other opinion leaders & villagers

Sample Household Schedule Respondent households from selected

habitations

Control Habitation Schedule PHED staff, village PRI officials, members of

VWSCs, other opinion leaders & villagers

Control Household Schedule Respondent households from control

habitations

The evaluation study report presents the findings at all India level and states

on various aspects of the scheme. Detailed analysis of the data collected has

been made in each of the chapter on various aspects, the all India findings

have been provided in the body of the report and state-wise details on various

findings are provided in the Tables annexed with the report. Important

findings have also been categorized for special areas/regions such as

BIMARU states, Bundelkhand region, Left Wing Extremism affected areas,

North Eastern states and Minority concentrated districts. Analysis of data


collected from districts selected as sample and falling from these regions has

been done.

Coverage under the study

A total of 27 States, 97 districts and 2176 habitations were covered during the

study. 43477 households were interviewed from these habitations in order to

assess the impact of ARWSP. As per the design of the study, 10 habitations

from each of the selected district were to be covered as control unit. A total of

872 control habitations and 8614 households in these habitations were also

covered during the study for the purpose.

Coverage under ARWSP Evaluation Study

State 27

Districts 97

Sample Habitations 2176

Sample Households 43477

Control Habitations 872

Control Households 8614

State-wise coverage under ARWSP evaluation study is provided at Table 2.1

at Annexure I.

19 Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

Profile of Habitations and Households covered

under the Study.

For evaluating the implementation and assessment of the impact of

ARWSP the selection of habitations in a district was done on stratified

sampling technique. 5% of the total number of habitations covered under

ARWSP during the last three years in the selected districts was covered and

these habitations were selected from the three strata in the ratio of 40:40:20

from a, b and c below:

a) NC habitations covered under the district during the last 3 years.

b) PC habitations covered under the district during the last 3 years.

c) Quality affected habitations covered under the district during the last 3

years.

Shortfall in required number of habitations in any strata/category was

covered from the other strata/categories.

20 Beneficiary households from each selected habitation were selected on

random sampling for the purpose of beneficiary assessment. The control

group of beneficiaries (10 households per habitation each from 4 NC

habitations, 4 PC habitations and 10 household per habitation from 2 quality

affected habitation) were covered from all those habitations that were not

covered under ARWSP/any other scheme, though they were either NC/PC of

Cap 99, slipped-back (of 2003 survey) or quality affected habitations. This

chapter provides the profile of the sample habitations and households

covered under the study.

Profile of Sample Habitations

Basic information on profile of the sample habitations was collected from the

respondents of FGD at habitation level and the officials of implementing

agencies in the respective districts. In all, 2176 habitations were covered under


the evaluation study. The analysis of the population size of these habitations

shows that 40.30% of the habitations were having small population size with

≤ 250 persons per habitation. The population figures are based on information

as per Census 2001. The distribution of habitations covered under the study,

as per population size is provided at Figure 3A below.

Figure 3A Population size of the habitations covered under

the Study (% of habitations)

Most of the habitations in the states of Manipur (71.43%), Sikkim (63.64%),

Uttrakhand (60.00%) and Tripura (58.82%) were small size habitations (≤ 250).

None of the habitations covered under the study in Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab were small size habitations (≤ 250).

Most of the habitations in the states of Kerala (100.00%), Himachal Pradesh

(92.86%), Bihar (65.50%), West Bengal(61.36%), Haryana (54.55%), Andhra

Pradesh (54.05%) and Punjab (52.94%) were large size habitations (> 1000).

The selection of habitations for the study was done randomly out of the

ARWSP intervention habitations from the last three years. If the above state-

wise variations in the size of habitations is considered any indication of


selecting habitations for ARWSP schemes, no universal pattern seems to arise

all over the country.

The figure 3B below reflects that almost 50% of the habitations covered

under the study were having more than 50% SC/ST households.

Figure 3B Distribution of Sample Habitations

as per % SC/ST households

20.36% of the households in these habitations belonged to SC category,

17.52% belonged to ST category and overall 37.89% households were from

SC/ST category. The states of Arunachal Pradesh (74.56%), Chhattisgarh

(62.93%), Himachal Pradesh (51.10%), J&K (51.15%), Jharkhand (66.36%),

Meghalaya (86.14%), Mizoram (94.54%), Nagaland (90.48%) and Tripura

(55.11%) had majority of the households in the covered habitations belonging

to SC/ST category.

The implementation of rural water supply programme needs to specifically

take care of the coverage of socio-economic backward classes. The guidelines

also provide for earmarking of resources upto 35% for SCs/STs. The data also

reflects that the coverage of SC/ST households under the ARWSP has been

achieved in most of the states.

To capture and analyze the economic status of the households of the

habitations, the information on number of BPL households in the sample


habitations was also collected. The analysis of the data shows that majority of

the sample habitations had more than 25% of their households living below

poverty line.

Distribution of habitations on the % BPL households to total households is

provided at figure 3C below. The State-wise socio demographic profile of the

habitations covered under the study is provided at Table 3.1 & 3.1 (a) at

Annexure I.

Figure 3C Distribution of Sample Habitations as

per % BPL households

The sample of habitations was drawn from the habitations covered under

ARWSP during 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. Out of the 2176 habitations

covered under the study, in 646 habitations, ARWSP intervention was taken

up in 2004-05, in 751 habitations during 2005-06 and in 779 habitations during

2006-07.

Information on status of sample habitations as per the records of the local

implementation authorities was also collected. As reported by them, out of

the 2176 sample habitations, 1429 habitations were reported to be Fully

Covered (FC) at the time of conducting the study, 584 habitations were

Partially Covered (PC) and 143 habitations were of Not Covered (NC) status

at the time of conducting the study. 20 habitations were also reported to be

Quality Affected (QA) at the time of conducting the study.


The distribution of sample habitations as per their current status is provided

at Figure 3D below.

Figure 3D Distribution of Sample Habitations as per

current status

All the sample habitations since being covered under ARWSP in the last 3

years should have been of Fully Covered (FC) status however the above

finding reflects that the 584 (PC) and 143 (NC) habitations had already

slipped back at the time of conducting the study. Distribution of sample

habitations as per the current status reported is provided at figure 3D above.

The State-wise details on year of coverage and current status of the sample

habitations covered under the Study are provided at Table 3.2 at Annexure I.

Majority (74.55%) of the habitations covered under the study in Jharkhand

state had already slipped back to Partially Covered (PC) status at the time of

the study. Such habitations were also found in large numbers in Kerala

(73.53%), Karnataka (60.87%), Andhra Pradesh (60.81%) and Bihar (51.46%).

Also a substantial percentage of habitations were reported to have to slipped

back to Not Covered (NC) status at the time of the study in the states of Bihar

(32.16%), West Bengal (29.55%), Maharashtra (27.78%) and Uttarakhand

(26.67%). 17.38% of the covered habitations in Assam and 9.38% of the

covered habitations in Nagaland were reported to be Quality Affected (QA) at

the time of the study.


State-wise percentage of habitations covered under the study slipped back to

PC/NC/QA status at the time of the study is provided at Table 3.2 (b).

Out of 2176 habitations covered under the study, 86 habitations were reported

to be already Fully Covered (FC) at the time when ARWSP intervention took

place in these habitations. 1018 habitations were of PC Status, 937 habitations

were of NC status and 135 habitations were Quality Affected status at the

time of ARWSP intervention. The State-wise status of habitations at the time

of ARWSP intervention and current status at the time of study is provided at

Table 3.3 at Annexure I.

The change in the status of habitations since the year of coverage under

ARWSP and at the time of this survey has also been analyzed. The change in

status is provided below at figure 3E.

Figure 3 E Change in status of habitations since year of coverage and current status at the time of study

FC 69

FC PC 14

NC 2

QA 1

FC 682

PC PC 299

NC 37

QA 0

FC 595

NC PC 241

NC 98

QA 3

FC 83

QA PC 30

NC 6

QA 16


As seen in the figure above, 17 habitations which were even Fully Covered

(FC) at the time when ARWSP intervention took place, have slipped back to

PC (14), NC (2) and QA (1) status. 299 PC habitations which were covered

under ARWSP have again slipped back to PC status and 37 habitations have

slipped back to NC status.

241 NC habitations which were covered under ARWSP were found to be PC

at the time of study. 3 NC habitations even after ARWSP intervention were

found quality affected at the time of the study.

30 QA habitations which were covered under ARWSP were found to be PC at

the time of study. 3 QA habitations even after ARWSP intervention were

found NC at the time of the study. 16 QA habitations remained QA even after

the ARWSP intervention. The State-wise change in the status of habitations

covered is provided at Table 3.3 (a) at Annexure I.

Profile of Sample Households

In all, 43477 households have been interviewed under the study in order to

assess the impact of the programme and to obtain their views on various

implementation processes. Basic information on profile of household was

collected at the time of household survey. Data on poverty status, caste, total

number of members in the households and number of women members has

been analyzed to assess the socio-economic background of the sample

households. The analysis will provide for the necessary context for

understanding and interpreting the findings and for explaining the trends

and correlations between certain findings and the profile of respondents. Out

of the total 43477 households interviewed, 58.49% of them were BPL families

and 41.51% were reported to be APL.


Figure 3 F Distribution of Sample Households

as per their poverty status

Figure 3 G below reflects that majority of the respondents belonged to the

SC/ST categories, 19% of the households interviewed were from SC, 38%

were from ST category and 43% of the respondent households were from

other castes.

Figure 3 G Distribution of Sample Households as

per caste status

Out of the 43477 households, 26173 (60%) households had family size upto 5

members, 15581 (36%) households had 6 -10 members and 1723 (4%)

households had large families of more than 10 members. The State-wise

profile of sample households is provided at Table 3.4 at Annexure I.


Figure 3 H Distribution of Sample Households as per size of household

(No. of members)

Profile of Control Habitations and Households

In order to do a comparison of status in the habitations and households

benefitted under the programme, a set of control habitations and households

were also covered under the study as per the methodology. These habitations

were randomly selected from the district(s), out of the habitations which have

not been benefitted under ARWSP or any other rural water supply

programme. Basic information on profile of the control habitations was

collected from the respondents of FGD at habitation level in the respective

districts.

In all, 872 control habitations were covered under the evaluation study. The

analysis of the population size of these habitations shows that 35.32% of the

habitations were having small population size with ≤ 250 persons per

habitation, 20.87% of these habitations were having population size between

251-500 persons, 18.12% of these habitations were having population size

between 501-1000 persons & 25.69% habitations were having population of

more than 1000 persons. The distribution of control habitations covered under

the study, as per population size is provided at Figure 3 I below.


Figure 3 I Population size of the control habitations covered

under the Study (% of habitations)

The population figures are based on information as per Census 2001. 40.13%

of these habitations had ≤ 35% households from SC/ST category, 9.06%

habitations had 36-50% households from SC/ST category and 49.43%

habitations had >50% households belonging to SC/ST category. 35% of the

control habitations had ≤ 25% BPL households, 25.91% of these habitations

had 26-50% BPL households and 37.72% of the habitations had more than 50%

households belonging to BPL category. The State-wise socio demographic

profile of the control habitations covered under the study is provided at Table

3.5 at Annexure I. The State-wise status of control habitations as per CAP 99,

Habitation Survey 2003 and current status at the time of study is provided at

Table 3.6 at Annexure I.

In order to study the change in the status of these habitations since Habitation

Survey 2003 and at the time of this survey, the data on status of the

habitations was collected and has been analyzed. The change in status is

provided below at figure 3 J.


Figure 3 J Change in status of control habitations since HS 2003 and current status at the time of study

FC 32

FC PC 10

NC 6

QA 3

FC 62

PC PC 160

NC 31

QA 8

FC 49

NC PC 68

NC 174

QA 3

FC 25

QA PC 2

NC 2

QA 1

As seen in the above figure 19 habitations which were Fully Covered (FC) at

the time of Habitation Survey 2003, have slipped back to PC (10), NC (6) and

QA (3) status. 62 PC habitations have improved to FC status since then, 160

PC habitations have remained PC as their previous status, 31 PC habitations

have slipped back to NC status.

49 NC habitations at the time of Habitation Survey 2003 have been found to

be FC at the time of study. 68 NC habitations as per Habitation Survey 2003

have been found to be PC at the time of study. 174 NC habitations have

remained NC as their previous status.

25 QA habitations were found to be FC at the time of study. 2 QA habitations

have been found to be PC. The state-wise change in the status of control

habitations is provided at Table 3.6 (a) at Annexure I.


In all, 8614 households from the control habitations have been interviewed

under the study in order to be able to compare and assess the impact of the

programme. Out of the total 8614 households interviewed, 3638 of them were

from APL families and 4976 were reported to be BPL. The State-wise profile of

control households is provided at Table 3.7 at Annexure I.

Summary and Conclusions

Based on the study of the profile of the habitations sampled for this

evaluation, it seems that no trend/pattern is being followed in terms of

size of habitation (population) for the purpose of selection for coverage

under ARWSP. States having largely small size habitations have

covered small size habitations and states having larger population size

habitations have covered larger habitations.

The implementation of rural water supply programme needs to

specifically take care of the coverage of socio-economic backward

classes. The guidelines also provide for earmarking of resources upto

35% for SCs/STs. As seen in the analysis of the profile of the

habitations it is evident that the coverage of SC/ST households under

the ARWSP has been achieved in the desired proportions in majority of

the states.

The slippage of habitations back to PC/NC status has been a universal

phenomenon across the country and as evident in the analysis in this

chapter it is also seen that the habitations covered under ARWSP even

in the last 3 years had already slipped back to 584 (PC) and 143 (NC)

habitations at the time of conducting the study.

It was also found that out of the 2176 habitations covered under the

study, 86 habitations were reported to be already Fully Covered (FC) at

the time when ARWSP intervention took place in these habitations.

This brings out that the selection of habitations in some cases has not

been prioritized on the basis of their coverage status.

31 Performance of ARWSP in the States

Performance of ARWSP in the States

In order to ascertain the performance of the programme in terms of

utilization of the funds and achievement of targets, information on financial

and physical progress of the programme in all the states was collected and

analyzed. The various aspects of performance assessment in terms of funds

available, utilization and the targets achieved are studied in this chapter.

Financial & Physical progress of ARWSP in the States

The allocation of funds under the programme has been increased from

Rs 1844 Crore during 2004-05 to Rs 3367 Crore during 2006-07. The

achievement in terms of coverage of no. of habitations has also increased from

72742 habitations during 2004-05 to 105565 habitations during 2006-07.

During the year 2004-05, Rs. 2009 Crore were released to all the States under

ARWSP, during 2005-06 it increased to Rs. 3352 Crore and during 2006-07 it

increased to Rs. 3500 Crore. Similarly the expenditure reported under the

programme has increased from Rs.1915 Crore during 2004-05 to Rs 2882 Crore

during 2005-06 and Rs. 4082 Crore during 2006-07. The State-wise financial

and physical progress of ARWSP during the last three years is provided at

Table 4.1(a) & Table 4.2(b) at Annexure 1.

Figure 4 A Funding under Rural Water Supply Programmes


The amount of funds released to all the States have been marginally more

than the allocations every year and the percentage utilization of funds to

amounts released was also satisfactory with 95.34% during 2004-05, 85.98%

during 2005-06 and 116.62% during 2006-07. This reflects that overall the

States have been able to get and utilize the allocated funds under the

programme to a large extent. The performance of Bihar & Jharkhand was

found to be low in terms of utilization of funds during 2004-05 & 2005-06,

however it has improved during the year 2006-07 in both the States.

Figure 4 B Percentage utilization during the last 3 years

Earmarking of resources & Coverage of SCs/STs

Economic deprivation of the weaker classes/castes and tribes in the

rural societies of India is well known apart from that the various social ills

such as untouchability have also been prevalent and access was being denied

to households belonging to such castes at the public water supply sources. All

this necessitated a special attention to the problem and the ARWSP guidelines

provided for earmarking of at least 25% of the funds for drinking water

supply to the SCs and another minimum 10% for the STs. Under the

guidelines, diversion of funds earmarked for the SC/ST Sector to other sectors


is not permitted. The States have to list out the SC/ST habitations separately

and their coverage is supposed to be monitored as a distinct component of the

programme. It was also attempted under this study to assess the extent to

which this was being followed in the States. It has been reported that the

targeted allocation of 25% for SCs is not being met in most of the States and

the national average of percentage utilization of funds under ARWSP for

Scheduled Castes (SCs) has been less than 20% in the last three years.

However the funds utilized for Scheduled Tribes (STs) has been more than

15% during 2004-05 and 2005-06. During 2006-07 only 7.9% has been spent for

STs.

Figure 4 C Funds utilized on SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply

during the last 3 years

Overall the utilization has been on the population pattern of the States and

the universal suggestive proportion (25%+10%) does not seemed to have been

suited most of them. The State Wise break-up of expenditure incurred for SCs

& STs during the last three years is provided at Table 4.2 at Annexure 1.

The coverage of SC/ST population out of the total population covered under

ARWSP during the last three years also reflects a similar picture. During 2004-

05 of the total population covered, 15.22% were from SCs and 12.38% were

from STs. During 2005-06, 14.72% were from the SCs and 12.30% were from


the STs. During 2008-09 the coverage of SCs was 13.31% and of STs was

10.10% out of the total population covered. The State wise share of coverage

of SCs and STs during the last three years is provided at Table 4.3 at

Annexure 1.

Out of the 26 states for which data on financial performance was collected, it

was found that in 19 states the utilization of funds for SC/ST was less than

35% during the last 3 years. In 7 states the funds utilized for SC/ST were

>35% of the total funds utilized under ARWSP in the last three years.

Utilization of funds under ARWSP for SCs/STs During the last three years

< 35%

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

>35% Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim

Funds utilized under ARWSP compared to SC/ST rural population of the states

< SC/ST rural population

Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura

> SC/ST rural population

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

Out of the 26 states for which data on financial performance was collected, in

case of 13 States, the share of SC/ST population covered to total population

comes to <35%, in 12 States the SC/ST population covered was >35% of the

total population covered during the last three years.


SCs/STs Population Covered under ARWSP During the last three years

< 35% Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

>35% Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Tripura,

Population covered under ARWSP compared to SC/ST rural population of the states

< SC/ST rural population

Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, , Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

> SC/ST rural population

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, , Tamil Nadu,

Progress on Institutional Coverage under RWS

The Government of India aims to provide 100% coverage of water

supply to rural schools. There are a huge number of uncovered rural schools

in the country, which need to be covered with safe drinking water supply.

The programme of ARWSP also includes rural schools water supply.

It was attempted to assess the extent of coverage achieved in the States

in the study. The data on total no. of schools without functional water supply

at the beginning of the year and the coverage of educational institutions

under ARWSP & Other Rural water supply schemes during the year was

collected for the last three years from the State level agencies and analyzed. It

was reported that during the year 2004-05 a total no. of 25256 institutions

(Govt./Local Bodies Schools, Govt. Aided Schools, Private Schools &

Anganwadis) were covered under ARWSP all over India. During 2005-06 this

increased to 70967 and in 2006-07 it was 65,964 institutions. The State wise


coverage of institutions during the last three years in provided at Table 4.4 at

Annexure 1.

Figure 4 D No. of Institutions covered under RWS during the last 3

years

The performance of institutional coverage under ARWSP in terms of

percentage achievements to targets during the last three years has been

analyzed for 26 states. Out of them 2 states have achieved less than 25% of the

targets, 18 have achieved 25-50% of the targets, 5 States have achieved 50-75%

and 1 state has achieved 75-100% of the targets.

Institutional coverage under ARWSP During the last three years (% achievement to targets)

< 25% Jharkhand, Punjab

>25 - 50

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J & K, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal

50 - 75 Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh

75 - 100 Himachal Pradesh



The utilization of funds in terms of coverage of SC/ST habitations has

been generally on the population pattern of the States and the

universal suggestive proportion (25%+10%) does not seemed to have

suited most of them.

Expenditure on SC/ST habitations during the last three years has been

more than 35% only in tribal dominated areas such as Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and

Sikkim. Some States have utilized less proportion of funds as compare

to their percentage SC/ST rural population.

The States of Jharkhand and Punjab have been lacking behind in

coverage of institutions under Rural Water Supply Schemes.

38 Planning processes under ARWSP in the States

Planning processes under ARWSP in the States

The programme requires a multi level planning process with adequate

checks and balances to ensure each level provides the desired input and does

not interfere with the duties and interest of the other level(s). The roles and

responsibilities of the State, District, and GP level agencies needs to be clearly

defined with regard to policy formulation, financing, regulation, ownership,

development of assets and operation of service. Shifting the role of the States

and of their engineering agencies to that of a facilitator in charge of providing

technical support for planning, construction, and operation of schemes would

help reduce the currently high institutional costs encouraged by the absence

of competition and contractual obligations. At the same time, the ‘trade-off’

between high institutional costs of supply-driven schemes versus the capacity

building and NGO/Support Organization cost for decentralized service

delivery needs to be carefully considered. In order to assess the

appropriateness and efficacy of the planning processes on various aspects of

the programme, responses were sought from the state, districts and habitation

level functionaries involved in the implementation of ARWSP.

Planning mechanism under ARWSP in the States

It was attempted to Study the planning mechanism for rural water

supply at the State Level. The States have reported on the processes and

mechanisms adopted by them in planning for rural water supply in their

villages.


It has been reported that in case of majority of the States, an Action

Plan is prepared and accordingly the implementation of the programme is

planned and schemes taken up. The States have multiple parameters to

design the Action Plan(s) and approach also varies where in some cases the

inputs are received from the Districts and lower levels and in some States, top

down approach is followed. The analysis here is based on the responses

received from the State level functionaries on the planning aspects of rural

water supply programme in their States.

Figure 5 A below reflects the State Planning mechanisms, preparation

of Action Plans and the approaches adopted by the States in preparation of

the plans.

Figu

re 5

A

State Action Plans on rural water supply prepared based on:

Plans prepared by the Districts

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, U.P. & Uttaranchal.

Planning done at State Level

Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, J&K, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu,

No Action Plan prepared Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka & Orissa

The role in planning for various aspects such as awarding contracts for

installation, operation & maintenance of the schemes, awareness generation

on safe water practices, training of users and sustainability efforts was

studied. It was found that out of the 27 States covered, in only 3 states

(Haryana, Jharkhand & Kerala) the State level agencies reported to have been

playing a role in awarding contracts for installation of water supply schemes.

In 9 states, the state level agencies have reported to have a role in planning for

O&M of the schemes taken-up, in 19 states they reported to have a role in

planning for awareness generation in the villages, in 11 states they reported to


have a role in planning for training of users and in 17 states the state level

agencies reported to have a role in planning for sustainability efforts. In Bihar

& Orissa, the state level agencies have reported to be having no role in

planning on these aspects of ARWSP.

States reported to have been playing a role in Planning of various RWS aspects.

Awareness Generation

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, U.P. & Uttaranchal.

Awarding Contracts for installations Haryana, Jharkhand & Kerala

Operation & Maintenance

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J&K, Jharkhand, M.P., Punjab & U.P.

Training of Users Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, M.P., Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu.

Sustainability Efforts Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, M.P., Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu.

Planning on fund allocation to districts under RWS

It has been reported that in case of most of the States, the decision for

allocation and release of funds under RWS to the districts is taken at State

level. Out of the 27 States, in case of 21 States, the allocation is based on no. of

NC/PC habitations in the district(s). In Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,

Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka the fund allocation to the districts

is done on other basis like need as per annual plans, SC/ST habitations etc.

Process of selection of habitations to be covered

The programme aims at covering the not covered habitations having

water scarcity and quality problems and within them the priority is to be

accorded based on other norms and guidelines of the programme. In order to

assess the actual process being followed in the States on selection of

habitations to be covered under ARWSP, a set of responses have been sought


from different levels and analyzed in this part of the report. Out of 27 States

covered under the Study, 14 have reported that the decision on selection of

the habitation to be covered each year is being taken at the State level only.

Decision on selection of the habitations to be covered each year is taken at :

State Level

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura

Below State level

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal

Most of the states reported decision making at the State level, have

reported to be following the GOI guidelines on priorities in selection of

habitations to be covered under ARWSP except Haryana where the selection

is based on reasons such as “Genuine site difficulty” and not on the basis of

the established norms of the programme. Out of 97 districts covered under

the study, 59 district level agencies have reported to having some say in the

decision on selection of the habitations.

Process of selection of type of schemes

A rural water supply programme should allow the beneficiary

community to take up a suitable type of scheme for drinking water supply

based on their needs, available financial resources and hydrological factors

prevailing in the particular area. In order to assess the planning process in

selection of type of schemes made available to the rural people, responses of

the State and District level functionaries were sought. It was found that out of

27 States covered under the Study, 12 have reported that the decision on

selection of type of schemes to be taken up under RWSP was being taken at

the State level.


Decision on selection of the type of schemes to be taken up is taken at :

State Level

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, J&K, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura

Below State level

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal

The State-wise details of role of state level agencies on various planning

aspects are provided at Table 5.1 at Annexure 1.

Out of 97 districts covered under the study, 78 district level agencies

have reported that they also make the decision on selection of the type of

scheme to be taken up in the habitations.

Planning on Operation & Maintenance of schemes

The planning for operation and maintenance of the new water supply

scheme installed under the programme is very crucial for long term

sustainability and smooth delivery of service. The planning not only takes

care of the technological requirements but also the financial aspects including

issues such as O & M cost recovery. It is expected that the State level agencies

provide the required guidance and leadership to develop an effective plan for

O & M of the new schemes. It was reported that only in 9 states out of the 27,

the state level agencies were involved in the planning process on O & M of

the schemes.


Involvement in the planning process on O & M of the schemes

State Level

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J&K, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh

Below State level

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttaranchal, West B l

Majority of the district level agencies reported to have been involved in

the planning for O & M of the new schemes installed under ARWSP. All the

districts of J & K, Punjab and Tamil Nadu covered under the study have

reported no role in planning for O & M of the schemes.

Planning on Sustainability of the water supply schemes

The sustainability of drinking water supply schemes depends on

effective planning and management. It was reported that only in 17 states out

of the 27, the state level agencies were involved in the planning process on

sustainability efforts for the schemes taken up under ARWSP. 10 States have

reported to be playing no role in the planning process for sustainability of the

schemes.

Role of States in the planning process on Sustainability of the schemes

State level Involved

Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya,

State level plays no role Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, West Bengal

80% of the districts covered under the study reported having a role in

planning for sustainability of the drinking water supply schemes.


Planning on training of users & awareness generation

Rural water supply programme also entails creating awareness

amongst the user community on water conservation, maintenance of facilities

and health and hygiene practices. In order to evaluate the process of planning

for training of users and awareness generation on hygiene practices etc., it

was attempted the find the involvement of State and district level

implementing agencies in the planning processes.

It was reported that only in 11 states out of the 27, the state level

agencies were involved in the planning on training of users. In 19 States, the

state level agencies have been playing a role in planning for awareness

generation amongst the rural households on hygiene practices. Bihar,

Manipur, Orissa and West Bengal have reported not having any role of the

State level agencies in both the planning activities.

State level involved in the planning process on training of users & awareness

Training of Users

Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.

Awareness Generation

Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttar P d h d Utt h l

The State-wise details of role of state level agencies on various planning

processes are provided at Table 5.1 (a) at Annexure 1.

Out of the 97 districts covered under the study, 83 districts reported having a

role in planning for awareness generation amongst the rural households and

65 districts reported to have a role in training of the users.


Figure 5 B Composite Index on Strength of Planning Inputs from State and District levels on various planning aspects of ARWSP

The Figure 5 B above shows a composite drawn on the basis of the responses

by the State and District level agencies on the role played by them on various

aspects of ARWSP planning. Equal weight-age has been given to all the

aspects and both the levels. The data reflects that in Kerala the overall

planning performance is the strongest where the index is highest at 1.65. West

Bengal and Bihar reflect a lack of planning on this index.

The State-wise details of role of district level agencies on various planning

aspects/processes are provided at Table 5.1 (b) & (c) at Annexure 1.


Many States have been following a top down approach in preparing

plans for the Rural Water Supply Programme and most of them do not

even prepare such plans on the basis of any inputs from district or


lower levels. Even awarding of contracts is being done from the State

level in Haryana, Jharkhand and Kerala.

Most of States have reported to be involved/playing role in planning

on awareness generation, O & M matters, Training and Sustainability

efforts under the Scheme.

Majority of the States have reported that decision on selection of

habitations to be covered each year is taken at State level. However, 59

out of 97 district level agencies reported that they were involved in

decision making process on selection of habitations under Scheme.

Even decision on type of schemes to be installed under the programme

is being taken at State level in many States.

47 ARWSP schemes in the habitations

ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations

This chapter presents the type and status of the water supply

sources/schemes taken up in the surveyed habitations under the study. It

provides the necessary context for understanding and interpreting the various

aspects of the evaluation findings and the impact, for explaining the trends

and reasons across these water supply schemes in the habitations. The

analysis has been done to present a comprehensive discussion to give an all

India scenario, state wise comparisons and across various types of schemes. In

all 2176 habitations have been covered under the study spread in 27 States, in

these habitations, 2326 water supply schemes installed under ARWSP have

been covered for the purpose of evaluation study.

Schemes taken up under ARWSP in surveyed

habitations

Out of 2326 ARWSP schemes covered under the study, a vast majority of

them were found to be Hand pumps (74.19%), the next most popular was

Piped water supply (underground water) schemes (12.02%) and Piped water

supply (surface water) schemes (9.15%).

Figure6 A Schemes covered under the study


More than 90.00% of the schemes covered under the study in the State of

Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and West

Bengal were Hand Pumps. In Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur,

Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim and Uttarakhand none of the schemes

covered were Hand Pump schemes. More than 90.00% of the schemes covered

in Mizoram and Nagaland were Piped water supply (surface water) schemes.

In Punjab more than 90.00% of the schemes covered were Piped water supply

(Underground water) schemes.

More than 90% of the schemes taken up under ARWSP in the surveyed

habitations of BIMARU states, Bundelkhand region and the districts falling

under LWE affected areas were Hand Pump schemes. 44.11% of the schemes

taken up under ARWSP in the survey habitations of North East States were

Piped water supply schemes.

The distribution of Type of Schemes taken up under the programme as per

the year of coverage is provided Table 6.1 at Annexure I.

Location of the ARWSP Schemes

As per the programme guidelines the water supply scheme installed under

ARWSP is supposed to be located within 1.6 Kms. in plain areas and 100

meters elevation in hilly areas from the habitation. In case of 1.59% of the

schemes the distance was found to be more than that. Huge numbers of such

schemes were found in the habitations of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu &

Kashmir. More than 7% of the schemes in the North Eastern states were also

from this category. The State wise details on location of ARWSP Schemes in

the surveyed habitations are provided at Table 6.1(b) at Annexure I.

Status of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations

In order to assess the status of ARWSP schemes installed in the surveyed

habitations in terms of their functionality and service delivery, the

information was collected on the details of 1 or 2 schemes in each of these


habitations. The 2326 schemes covered under the study had in total 27721

service access points, of which 4514 (16.28%) were reported to be affected by

seasonal variations, 541 (1.95%) were found to be temporarily not functional

and 316 (1.14%) were found permanently defunct. 26523 (95.68%) of these

were found to be functional at the time of the survey.

Status (Functionality) of the ARWSP Schemes

Affected by seasonal variations 4514 (16.28%)

Temporarily not functional 541 (1.95%)

Found permanently defunct 316 (1.14%)

Functional at the time of the survey 26523 (95.68%)

Huge proportion of service access points in Himachal Pradesh (72.22%) and

West Bengal (69.81%) were reported to be affected by seasonal variations. 804

(2.90%) services access points have been reported to be affected by water

quality problems.

Only 8.41% of the service access points in the surveyed habitations of North

Eastern states were reported to be affected by seasonal variations. Many

service access points in the surveyed habitations of LWE affected areas

(18.10%), minority concentrated districts 16.06% and North Eastern states

11.33% were reported to be temporarily not functional. 10.00% of the service

access points in the LWE affected areas and 7.92% of the service access points

in the minority concentrated district were reported to be permanently

defunct.

State-wise distribution of functional status of ARWSP schemes is provided at

Table 6.1 (c ) at Annexure I.


Figure 6 B: All India distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes as per Type of Schemes

S. No.

Type of Schemes

No. of schemes covered

Total No. of Service Access Points

Affected by seasonal

variations

Currently functional

service access points

Temporarily not

functional service access

points

Permanently defunct service

access points

Affected by water quality

problems

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %

1 Hand Pump 1609 3428 380 11.09 2728 79.58 411 11.99 241 7.03 386 11.26

2

Piped Water Supply (SW)

289 8135 2890 35.53 7880 96.87 79 0.97 38 0.47 126 1.55

3

Piped Water Supply (UG)

258 15788 1205 7.63 15619 98.93 17 0.11 20 0.13 250 1.58

4

Comm. Tank Stand Post

76 170 8 4.71 149 87.65 3 1.76 3 1.76 0 0.00

5 Pro. Spring Sources

65 112 23 20.54 79 70.54 21 18.75 9 8.04 37 33.04

6 Pro. Dug Well

23 68 7 10.29 55 80.88 6 8.82 2 2.94 2 2.94

7 Other Sources 6 20 1 5 13 65.00 4 20 3 15.00 3 15.00

2326 27721 4514 16.28 26523 95.68 541 1.95 316 1.14 804 2.90

The ARWSP schemes should have been selected and designed to deliver

uninterrupted water supply during all seasons. However as seen in the figure

6 B above, 35.53% service access points of the Piped Water Supply Schemes

(Surface Water) schemes in the surveyed habitations were found to be

affected by seasonal variations. These were mostly found in Gujarat, Punjab,

Himachal Pradesh and J&K.

20.54% service access points of the Protected Spring Sources, 11.09% of the

Hand Pumps and 10.29% of the Dug Wells were found to be affected by

seasonal variations.


18.75% service access

points of the Spring

Sources and 11.99%

of the Hand Pump

Schemes were found

to be temporarily not

functional at the

time of survey.

8.04% service access

points of the

Protected Spring

Sources and 7.03% of the Hand Pump Schemes were also found to be

permanently defunct. 15% service points of the ‘Other’ sources were also

found to be permanently defunct.

33.04% service access points of the Protected Spring Sources and 11.26% of the

Hand Pump Schemes were found to be Quality affected. 15% service points of

the ‘Other’ sources were also found to be quality affected. The State-wise

distribution of functional status of ARWSP Schemes as per type of schemes is

provided at Table 6.1(d) at Annexure I.

The functional status of ARWSP schemes in the surveyed habitations was also

analyzed as per the year of coverage under ARWSP. The Figure below reflects

the status as per year of coverage. The State wise distribution of functional

status of the schemes covered as per the year of coverage under ARWSP is

provided at Table 6.1(e) at Annexure I.


S. No.

Year of Coverage



Affected by seasonal

variations

Currently functional

service access points

Temporarily not

functional service access

points

Permanently defunct service

access points

Affected by water quality

problems


1 2004-05 721 16429 3233 19.68 15916 96.88 136 0.83 84 0.51 397 2.42

2 2005-06 788 4008 114 2.84 3658 91.27 175 4.37 110 2.74 165 4.12

3 2006-07 817 7284 1167 16.02 6949 95.40 230 3.16 122 1.67 242 3.32

2326 27721 4514 16.28 26523 95.68 541 1.95 316 1.14 804 2.90

As reported in the earlier chapter, it was found that out of the 2176 sample

habitations, 584 habitations had already slipped back to Partially Covered

(PC) status and 143 habitations had already slipped back to Not Covered

(NC) status at the time of conducting this study. It was found that in the 584

habitations which had slipped back to PC status, 14% of the service access

points were found to be affected by seasonal variations, and 6.93% were

found temporarily not functional and 3.63% service access points were found

permanently defunct. Functionality status of ARWSP schemes in the surveyed

habitations which had slipped back to PC status, state-wise is provided at

Table 6.1(f) at Annexure I.

In the 143 habitations which were found slipped back to NC status at the time

of conducting the study had 22.43% of the service access points affected by

seasonal variations, 27.98% service access points were found temporarily not

functional and 14.20% service access points were found permanently defunct.

Functionality status of ARWSP schemes in the surveyed habitations which

had slipped back to NC status, state-wise is provided at Table 6.1(g) at

Annexure I.


Functional & Quality Problems in ARWSP Schemes

Out of the 541 temporarily not functional service access points, 41.70% were

reportedly not functional due to mechanical fault at delivery point, 14.43% of

them were not functional due to mechanical fault in water supply line, 12.06%

due to ground water depletion, 20.75% due to drying of surface water source

and 11.06% due to other reasons.

Figure 6 C Type of Problems reported in the temporarily not

functional service access points

The most prevalent reason for non functionality amongst these sources was

mechanical fault at delivery point, which normally is a very simple problem;

most of them can be solved in a very low cost and can be minimized by

regular maintenance and service. Majority of the service access points being

not functional due to mechanical faults directs towards the poor O & M of the

schemes in the surveyed habitations.

State-wise distribution of type of problems in the temporarily not functional

service access points is provided at Table 6.2 at Annexure I.

It was also noticed that the 6.93% service access points found temporarily not

functional in the 584 surveyed habitations which had slipped back to PC

status, 35.20% service access points were reportedly not functional due to


mechanical fault at delivery point, 8.94% of them were not functional due to

mechanical fault in water supply line, 21.23% due to ground water depletion,

17.32% due to drying of surface water source and 15.08% due to other

reasons. Problems/Reasons for temporarily not functional schemes in the

sample habitations which had slipped back to PC status, state-wise is

provided at Table 6.2 (a) at Annexure I.

In the 27.98% service access points found temporarily not functional in the 143

surveyed habitations which had slipped back to NC status, 55.26% service

access points were reportedly not functional due to mechanical fault at

delivery point, 4.24% of them were not functional due to mechanical fault in

water supply line, 3.60% due to ground water depletion, 31.72% due to drying

of surface water source and 5.19% due to other reasons. Problems/Reasons

for temporarily not functional schemes in the sample habitations which had

slipped back to NC status, state-wise is provided at Table 6.2 (b) at Annexure

I.

During the Survey the research teams also assessed the quality of water

supplied in the habitations in terms of quality also. In some case where the

quality issues were brought out by the implementing agency officials, those

were reported as it is and otherwise simple symptomatic assessments based

on colour, smell and taste etc were carried out and confirmed with the

responses of the respondents of the FGD in the villages to conclude on the

quality affected aspect. Based on this it was found that out of the 804 (2.90%)

service access points reported to be affected by water quality problems.

Majority of the service access points in Tripura (90.91%), Meghalaya (61.54%),

Manipur (55.74%) and Mizoram (51.61%) were reported to be affected by

water quality problems. 29.64% of the service access points in the minority

concentrated districts were also found affected by water quality problems.

Out of the 804 service access points found affected by water quality problems,

53.29% were affected by salinity and 24.77% were affected with high iron


content. The figure below provides the type of water quality problem in the

surveyed habitations.

Figure 6 D

Water quality problems in the surveyed habitations (% of quality affected

habitations)

Arsenic 6.11

Fluoride 5.80

Salinity 53.29

Iron 24.77

Nitrate 4.86

Other problems 5.10

It was also attempted to find out whether the quality problem of water could

have been better managed by selecting right type of scheme in these

habitations. The data shows that these 804 service access points affected by

quality were found in only 231 habitations, out of them 35 habitations had

multiple type of schemes and 24 habitations out of them had water quality

problem in only one of the scheme, which implies that in most of the cases

more suitable selection of type of scheme could have saved the inhabitants

from the water quality problem.

State-wise distribution of type of water quality problem reported is provided

at Table 6.3 at Annexure I.

Usage of ARWSP facilities & Consumption of water by

the households from them

Out of the 43477 households covered under the study, 87.98% of the

households reported to have been drawing water from the ARWSP facility.

23.91% of the households were drawing water only from the ARWSP facility

and therefore were totally dependent on the schemes. 12.02% households also

reported to not drawing water from the ARWSP facility at all.


Percentage of households in the surveyed habitations not using the ARWSP

facilities at all was as high as 68.15% in West Bengal, 45.58% in Maharashtra,

31.72% in Jharkhand, 29.18% in U.P., 26.62% in Bihar and 25.10% in

Uttaranchal. 29.81% households in Minority concentrated districts were not

drawing water from the ARWSP schemes.

State-wise distribution of usage /dependency of households on the ARWSP

schemes are provided at Table 6.4 at Annexure I.

Figure 6 E Usage/dependency of households in the surveyed

habitations on the ARWSP Schemes

35.21% of the households reported not using the facility at all observed that,

the new facility was farther and therefore not being used by them. 12.92%

reported that the scheme does not provide adequate quantity of water and

therefore is not being used by them. 15.94% also reported that they were not

satisfactory with the quality of water supplied by the facility. 6.70% reported

frequent breakdowns as the reason for not using the ARWSP facility. 19.76%

of the households reported that the new scheme was already defunct. 20.41%

reported that they did not feel the need of using the facility.


Out of the households reported not using the ARWSP Facility, majority in the

States of Bihar (60.25%), Himachal Pradesh (71.74%) and Uttar Pradesh

(58.44%) reported due to the reason that the facility was farther from their

homes. Same was reported by the households in Bundelkhand region (50%).

Though a very less percentage of respondents reported not using the facility

in Haryana & Kerala, but majority of them reported that the reason was

inadequate quantity of water supplied by the schemes. All the households

who were not using the facility in Gujarat were not being able to do because

the schemes were defunct.

State-wise distribution of reasons reported by the households for not using

the ARWSP facility is provided at Table 6.4 (a) at Annexure I.

Out of the households drawing water from the ARWSP schemes, 94.56%

reported to be dependent on the facility during the whole year, 1.19% was

using the facility only in summers, 0.37% only in winters and 3.84% only few

months in a year. 7.55% households in Himachal Pradesh and 6.85%

households in Assam reported to be using the facility only in summers.

State-wise distribution of responses by the households on dependency on the

ARWSP facility is provided at Table 6.5 at Annexure I.

O & M Cost of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations

Out of 2176 habitations covered under the study, in 60.14% habitations the O

& M cost for the ARWSP facility was being provided by the water supply

department. In case of 38.57% of the habitations Gram Panchayats were

providing for the O & M cost. In only 11.61% of the habitations, the user

groups were paying the cost of O & M of the schemes.

In 17 out of 27 States, more than 75% habitations have reported that the cost of

O&M was being borne by the water supply department (Govt.). In all the

habitations of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram,


Nagaland and Tripura, the O&M is being paid by the local departments. In

more than 6 states the Gram Panchayats were also contributing towards the

O&M cost in more than 70% of the surveyed habitations. It was found that in

most of habitations of Bundelkhand region, Gram Panchayat was providing

for the O&M cost of the water supply schemes.

State-wise distribution of provision of O &M expenditure in the surveyed

habitations is provided at Table 6.6 at Annexure I.

Figure 6 F Provision of O&M Costs of ARWSP Schemes borne by various

institutions in the States

11.81% of the surveyed households were reported to be paying water charges.

None of the households of the States of Bihar, Sikkim and Tripura reported to

have being paying any water charges. Only 2.56% of the households in Left

Wing Extremism Affected districts reported to be paying any water charges,

3.15% households in BIMARU states and 3.13% in the Minority Concentrated

districts were paying water charges.

The average per month amount paid by the households’ allover India comes

to Rs. 18.00 This ranges from Rs 1.00 in Jharkhand and West Bengal to Rs


69.00 in Haryana. The schedule of payment reported by majority of

households (45.11%) was annually. 27.82% households reported paying the

water charges on monthly basis and 10.48% said they were paying only once

in two months. 2.48% (largely from NE States) reported paying the water

charges once in three months, whereas 7.51% of the households reported

payment of water charges on half yearly basis.

State-wise distribution of Schedule of payment of O &M expenditure

by the surveyed households is provided at Table 6.7 at Annexure I.

60 Community involvement and role of PRIs

Community Involvement and Role of PRIs

The success of a rural drinking

water supply programme largely

depends on the involvement of the

community in the decision making,

implementation and management

processes. In order to manage

water as an economic good,

programme should let consumer

demand guide the key investment

decisions. Specifically, projects

should adopt clear and transparent

rules that allow users to select the

level of service, technology, and

location of facilities that best fit

their needs, with a clear

understanding of the costs and

responsibilities that these options

bear.

The institutions involved at

various levels in the schemes

planning and management if

having representation of people

can ensure high quality decision

making and close monitoring of the

delivery systems at a very low cost.

The local governance system of Panchayati Raj Institutions in the rural

areas of the country can play an ideal implementers and managers of the

water supply schemes in their areas. However the approach so far in

implementation of ARWSP has not been very successful in involving the

community in reconciling the demand bottom up and effective management

of the completed schemes.


Formation of VWSCs in the Villages

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, only in 38.05%

villages Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) have been

formed. In case of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal, no VWSCs

have been formed. Low percentage of villages, where VWSCs were formed,

were found in the States of Bihar (2.34%), Jharkhand (3.64%) Punjab (5.88%) &

Uttaranchal (6.62%).

The Ownership, development of assets and operation of service should

be devolved to local levels in a rural water supply scheme. The role of the

States and of their engineering agencies should be limited to that of a

facilitator in charge of providing technical support for planning, construction,

and operation of schemes, which would also help reduce the currently high

institutional costs encouraged by the absence of competition and contractual

obligations. The assessment of the extent of involvement of the community in

this study is based on the responses of the village community members, PRI

officials and others who participated in the focused group discussions held in

the villages at the time of survey. The responses have been taken in two parts,

one, where who decided and who suggested PHED/Department or Gram

Panchayat and the other where whether choices and preferences of the people

in the village were taken into consideration or not. Information was collected

on both the factors on various aspects of selection and decision making

related to the ARWSP intervention taken up in the sample habitations.

Role in decision on location of the scheme

In case of 15.92% habitations the PHED suggested and decided on the

decision on location of the scheme taken up in the habitation. In case of

13.76% habitations the PHED suggested and the GP decided on this matter, in

case of 11.54% habitations the GP suggested and the PHED decided on the

location of the scheme in their village and in case of 56.90% villages the GP

suggested and finally decided on the location of the scheme in their village.


The data reflects that PRIs have taken the decision on selecting the location of

the scheme in majority of the habitations covered under the study. In the

States of Chhattisgarh (94.51%), Himachal Pradesh (100%), Madhya Pradesh

(90.08%) and Uttar Pradesh (98.20%) these habitations were found in large

numbers, clearly reflecting the influence of PRIs in deciding on the location of

the scheme.

In majority (70.49%) of the habitations, it was also reported that choices

and preferences of the people were taken into consideration while deciding

on the location of the scheme. However, only in 30.96% habitations, the Gram

Sabha was convened to obtain the views of people. The choices and

preferences of the people in regard to decision on location of the scheme were

found poorly represented in the habitations of Rajasthan (2.83%), Jharkhand

(40.00%) and West Bengal (11.36%).

Role in decision on type of the scheme

It was found that out of the 2176 habitations covered; in case of 64.86%

habitations the PHED suggested and decided on the decision on type of

scheme taken up in the habitation. In case of 9.89% habitations the PHED

suggested and the GP decided on this matter, in case of 12.06% habitations the

GP suggested and the PHED decided on the type of scheme they wanted for

their village and in case of 11.33% villages the GP suggested and finally

decided on the type of scheme for their village.

In case of 40.95% of the habitations, the respondents have also reported

that the choices and preferences of the people were taken into consideration

while deciding on type of the scheme taken up under ARWSP. However, out

of them in case of 39.73% of the habitations reported to have convened Gram

Sabha to obtain the people’s views.


Role in decision on choice of technology


decision on choice of technology of the scheme taken up in the habitation. In

case of 9.22% habitations the PHED suggested and the GP decided on this

matter, in case of 10.46% habitations the GP suggested and the PHED decided

on the choice of technology of the scheme in their village and in case of

10.56% villages the GP suggested and finally decided on the choice of

technology of the scheme in their village.

Role in decision on O&M matters


decision on the O & M matters of the scheme taken up in the habitation. In

case of 10.61% habitations the PHED suggested and the GP decided on this

matter, in case of 6.75% habitations the GP suggested and the PHED decided

on the O & M matters of the scheme in their village and in case of 32.56%

villages the GP suggested and finally decided on the O & M matters of the

scheme in their village.

In only 30.56% habitations, it was reported that views of the people

were taken into obtained while deciding on the O & M matters of the scheme.

However, out of them only in 48.57% habitations, the Gram Sabha was

convened to obtain the views of people on the same.

The State wise findings on the involvement of community in the

various decisions making processes on the scheme aspects are provided at

Table 7.1(a,b,c,d) at Annexure-I.

Training of users for minor repairs and maintenance

In case of only 20.08% habitations, people were trained to take up

simple and minor repairs in the water supply schemes installed in their

villages. In none of the habitations in Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and


Punjab, the training has been provided to the community members for this

purpose.

State-wise distribution of role of PRIs on various aspects of implementation

and formation of VWSCs in the surveyed habitations is provided at Table 7.1

at Annexure I.

Comparison of Community Involvement and Functional

Status of the scheme

On selection of location of schemes

In order to assess whether the decision making process has any relation

with the success/functionality of the scheme taken up in the habitations, a

comparison was drawn in the sample habitations based on the above

responses and functional status of the schemes in those habitations. It was

found that out of the 2328 schemes covered under the study, 1616 (69.41%)

schemes were in the habitations (Positive Community Participation) where

choice and preferences of the people were taken into consideration while

deciding on the location of the scheme. Out of these 1616 schemes, 556

(34.41%) schemes were in the habitations (Positive & Active Community

Participation) where even Gram Sabha was convened to obtain the views of

people for deciding on the location of the scheme.

Out of 2328 schemes, 712 (30.59%) schemes were in the habitations (No

Community Participation) where the choices and preferences of the people

were reported to have not been taken/considered while taking the decision

on selection of location of the schemes.


Figure 6 F

Comparison on Community Participation in decision

on selection of location of scheme & functionality Status

The comparative analysis in the above figure shows that highest

percentage of currently functional service access points (99.06%) was found in

such habitations were the choices and preferences of the people were taken

into consideration and even Gram Sabha was convened to obtain their views.

66 Impact of ARWSP

Impact of ARWSP

The merits of conducting impact evaluations are being increasingly

appreciated within the development community now. These evaluations are

very useful tools to learn about what works, what does not, how much and

the reasons why. The present study was a challenge for the Ministry to decide

whether it was possible to conduct a quality evaluation under the real world

constraints, and to select the strongest possible design within the particular

set of budget, time and data constraints. In the absence of any baseline data it

was attempted to construct a valid counterfactual scenario by comparing the

status and impact in the intervention habitations with the control group, the

non ARWSP habitations. In addition to this a set of indicators were identified,

that could meaningfully and reliably define and measure the programme’s

impact by comparing the pre and post scenarios.

Many impact assessments conducted in the past on the rural water supply

programmes in the country have been able to bring out the changes and

effects on the lives of people by these programmes. Evaluation of Sector

Reforms Projects conducted in the year 2005 brought out considerable impact

67 Impact of ARWSP

of the interventions made under the projects and a significant improvement

on the quality of life of the rural population under the project villages was

recorded. The average increase in consumption of drinking water reported

post project was found 2.3 litres per day per household and the average

increase in consumption of water for other purposes was found 15.59 litres

per day per household. A significant reduction in travel time required for

water collection and a substantial reduction in waiting time at the water

source was also reported. Almost 82% of the beneficiaries reported a

reduction upto 1 km in the distance traveled to fetch water. Over 87% of the

beneficiaries also rated the choice of supply option satisfactory and 83%

beneficiaries reported that they were satisfied with the day-to-day operations

of the new drinking water supply system in their villages.

The study also brought out that although the Sector Reforms Projects

had helped to reduce the deficit in rural water supply and increase in water

coverage, they did little to foster local organizational capacity. The result of

the study showed that the involvement of the users in the development,

implementation and O & M of water supply systems had not yet been

sufficient to achieve a desirable level of sustainability.

Evaluation study of ARWSP also aimed at assessing the impact of

ARWSP using two type of design element for the estimation of the impacts,

pre & post intervention comparisons and control group cross-section data.

Quantity of water available for consumption

ARWSP aims at providing at least 40 lpcd water to all the households

living in the habitations. It has been seen that in the absence of a safe water

supply source, the need of adequate water is fulfilled by the rural households

by drawing water from an unsafe water source and in some cases they have to

travel long distances to collect water for their needs. The scheme provides

that inhabitant households should get 40 lpcd of water within one km/100

mts elevation and water should be safe to drink. An attempt has been made

68 Impact of ARWSP

in the study to assess the extent of availability/access to 40 lpcd water for

each household in the surveyed habitations.

In order to assess the changes in quantity of water available to the sample

households, details of water consumed for various needs from the ARWSP

facility and other sources were estimated. It was found that out of the 38198

households using ARWSP facility, 78.93% were getting at least 40 lpcd of

water from only ARWSP facility. 88.82% of the households were getting at

least 40 lpcd of water collected from the ARWSP facility and other facilities

also. It also implies that 11.18% households were still not getting 40 lpcd of

water despite of their habitations being covered under ARWSP.

Only 38.75% households in J & K. 55.99% in Gujarat, 60.21% in West Bengal,

60.42% in Haryana and 60.98% in Himachal Pradesh in the surveyed

habitations were getting 40 lpcd of water for their daily needs collected from

the ARWSP facility and other sources.

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, where ARWSP schemes

were provided, only in 58.07% habitations all the sample households reported

to be getting 40 lpcd of water only from the ARWSP facility. 71.34% of the

habitations had all the sample households getting 40 lpcd of water from the

ARWSP facility and other facilities.

Distribution of sample habitations on quantity of water available to sample households

(% of habitations)

69 Impact of ARWSP

Majority of the habitations in Andhra Pradesh (79.73%), Chhattisgarh

(92.20%) and Madhya Pradesh (86.85%) were getting 40 LPCD water from

only ARWSP facility in all the households covered under the study. State-

wise distribution of habitations where all households covered were getting 40

lpcd of water is provided at Table 8.0 at Annexure I.

872 habitations where no ARWSP intervention has taken place were also

covered as control unit to do a comparative analysis of the scenario in the

absence of ARWSP schemes there. 61.78% of the control habitations also had

all the sample households getting 40 lpcd of water.

Improved access to safe water supply source

The assessment of improved access to safe drinking water for the

beneficiary households was attempted by studying the comparison of

drinking water supply source used by the households’ pre- ARWSP and post-

ARWSP scheme. Out of the 43477 households covered under the study, 38198

households reported to be drawing water from the ARWSP facility. Out of

them 14335 (37.53%) households reported drawing water from an unsafe

water supply source pre ARWSP and now draw water from the ARWSP

facility.

No change in improved access to safe water supply source was

observed in the states of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J & K and Punjab. A

significant percentage of beneficiaries reported access to a safer source of

water supply in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar

Pradesh. 97.78% respondents in Bundelkhand region and 51.24% respondents

in BIMARU state reported access to a safer source of water supply after the

ARWSP intervention. 38.54% respondents in the LWE affected districts

reported the same.

70 Impact of ARWSP

Only 0.46% of the households surveyed reported change in source from an

unsafe water supply source to a piped water supply in house connection

facility. Only 8 out of 27 states such cases were found and in the other 19

states no such change has happened. State –wise findings on households

having access to safe water supply source post-ARWSP is provided at Table

8.1 at Annexure I.

Improvement in quality of water supplied

It was attempted to assess the improvement in quality of water

supplied post-ARWSP intervention based on the perceptions of the

beneficiaries themselves. Out of the 38198 households using ARWSP facility

now, 5909 (15.47%) households have reported improvement in quality of

water after ARWSP. 58.64% of them reported that the water supplied

previously was bad in taste, 18.62% reported it used to smell bad, 12.17%

reported it had colour problem and 2.37% reported it used to cause illness.

Very few or no change in quality of water was reported by the surveyed

households in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand,

Punjab, Uttar Pradesh & Uttarakhand. 15.24% of the households in BIMARU

states and 18.52% in North Eastern state have reported improvement in

quality of water supplied after ARWSP.

A large number of households reported improvement in quality of

water after ARWSP also from the states of J &K, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.

State-wise findings on change in quality of water supplied are

provided at Table 8.2 at Annexure I.

Reduction in distance travelled for collecting water

The rural women and their children have to put in a lot of efforts to

travel a large distance to fetch water for their daily needs and some times

even more than once during the day and waste a lot of time and energy which

71 Impact of ARWSP

could have been put to a more productive use. An in-house water supply

connection or in the close vicinity can result in a lot of saving in this effort.

The households under the study were asked to report the change in distance

traveled to fetch water for their daily needs before and after the scheme. Out

of the 38198 households covered under the study, 27146 (71.07%) households

have reported reduction in the distance traveled to the new water source now

and out of them 89.65% households have reported reduction in the distance

upto 1 km and 10.35% reported reduction in distance travelled to the water

source by more than 1 km.

Substantially high percentage of respondents reported reduction in

distance travelled for collecting water in the states of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan & Uttar Pradesh.

75.25% households in BIMARU states, 81.11% households in

Bundelkhand region and 75.87% households in LWE affected districts have

72 Impact of ARWSP

reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source. Majority of

them reported reduction in distance upto 1 km.

State–wise findings on households reported reduction in distance travelled

for collecting water is provided at Table 8.3 at Annexure I.

Reduction in travel time to the water source

The rural people have to spend a substantial time to travel to the water

source for fetching water for their household needs. It was found that out of

the 38198 households, 26870(70.34%) households have reported that the

facility provided under ARWSP has resulted in reduction in the travel time to

the water source. Out of them 25793 (95.99%) households have reported that

the saving in time has been upto 60 minutes, 1077 (4.01%) households have

reported saving of more than 60 minutes in the travel time post ARWSP.

More than 90% of the respondents in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat,

Maharashtra and Rajasthan have reported reduction in travel time to the

water source. 92.96% of the households in Bundelkhand region have reported

reduction in travel time to the water supply source now. State-wise findings

73 Impact of ARWSP

on households reported reduction in travel time to the water source are


Reduction in waiting time at the water source

The villagers also have to spend a substantial time to wait at the water

source for collecting water for their household needs. It was found that out of

the 38198 households, 19695 (51.56%) households have reported that the

facility provided under ARWSP has resulted in reduction in the waiting time

at the water source. Out of them 18909 (96.01%) households have reported

that the saving in time has been upto 60 minutes, 791 (4.02%) households

have reported saving of more than 60 minutes in the waiting time at water

source post ARWSP.

Substantially high percentage of respondents reported reduction in waiting

time at the water source in the states of Chhattisgarh, J&K, Rajasthan and

Uttar Pradesh. 92.22% households in Bundelkhand region have reported

reduction in waiting time at water supply source.

State-wise findings on households reported reduction in waiting time at the

water source are provided at Table 8.5 at Annexure I.

Impact on Health and reduction in occurrence of water

borne diseases

Improved water supply and access to safe drinking water has a

magnanimous impact on the lives of people. In the surveyed habitations, 19%

of the households have reported reduction in occurrence of water borne

diseases amongst the adults, almost same percentage of household have also

reported reduction in occurrence of diseases amongst children.

74 Impact of ARWSP

Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases (% of households)

Diarrhea (Adult) 8.79 Diarrhea (Minor <16 yrs) 11.53

Cholera (Adult) 2.17 Cholera (Minor <16 yrs) 1.54 Typhoid (Adult) 4.90 Typhoid (Minor <16 yrs) 3.89 Hepatitis (Adult) 1.77 Hepatitis (Minor <16 yrs) 1.51 Other Diseases (Adult) 3.73 Other Diseases (Minor <16 yrs) 19.01

19.73% households in Orissa have reported reduction in occurrence of

diarrhea in the adult members of their families after they have started using

the ARWSP facility. 30.97% households in Uttar Pradesh have reported

reduction in occurrence of diarrhea in the children of their families after they

have started using the ARWSP facility. Respondents in Uttar Pradesh and

Maharashtra have reported reduction in occurrence of Typhoid in the

children as well as adult members of their families after they have started

using the ARWSP facility. Substantial number of households also reported

reduction in overall diseases and improved health in the Bundelkhand region

and BIMARU states.

State-wise findings on households reported reduction in occurrence of water

borne diseases are provided at Table 8.6 at Annexure I.

Awareness on safe water practices in the households

The success of providing a drinking water supply can become redundant in

the absence of awareness on safe and hygiene practices amongst the users.

The Programme also provides for awareness generation amongst the rural

masses on safe drinking water practices. It was found that 90.69% of the

households using ARWSP facility were satisfied with the quality of the water

supplied. The data reflects that in 84.49% households the water storage vessel

75 Impact of ARWSP

was kept cleaned and in 87.46% households it was kept covered. However

only 34.15% households have reported they have ever been briefed by

somebody on safe drinking water practices. Respondent households in

Uttarakhand were found to be comparatively least aware on safe water

practices. State-wise findings on safe water practices in the households are


76 Gender sensitiveness in ARWSP

Gender Sensitiveness in ARWSP

There is comprehensive evidence demonstrating gender differences in

access to opportunities, resources and participation across the range of civic

services and social and

economic life chances.

Women are weakly

represented in decision

making and are also

disproportionately burdened

with task loads. Women are

socially excluded from their

proportionate share of the

health and wealth of their

societies: including women in decisions about rural infrastructure services is a

precondition to ensure scarce public resources positively affect the livelihood

of rural poor people.

In the past, international agencies and government planners did not

involve women in the designing, planning and determining the location of

water facilities. At best, planners would identify local patterns of use of water

and 'benignly' plan for those patterns: women's needs could be factored in

this way but more typically they were not. There has been a major swing

within the international agencies and in many water planning agencies and

women have now begun to be represented on water user committees. The

ARWSP, however specifically does not provide for much of gender

sensitiveness so far. In order to assess the gender sensitiveness and impact on

women, specific queries were made in the evaluation and their analysis is

presented in this chapter.


Women members in VWSCs in the Villages

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study, only in 651

(29.92%) villages, women were members of the Village Water and Sanitation

Committees (VWSCs). In case of Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab

and West Bengal, no women members were there in the VWSCs formed.

Role in decision on location of the scheme

In contexts where pipe borne water is not present and indeed even

where pipe borne water is present but is not available through a domestic tap,

women play a crucial role in collecting water and organizing household water

use. The views and preferences of women folk are important in deciding on

location of the scheme.

Out of the 2176 habitations covered under the study in only 22.47%

habitations, women were involved while deciding on the location of the

scheme in the habitations. None of habitations in Haryana and Himachal

Pradesh reported involvement of women in the decision making process.

Role of women in implementation and O & M

In only 6.07% habitations, a certificate of satisfactory completion of the

schemes has been obtained from the women groups. In case of only 2.71%

habitations attempts have been made to improve the knowledge and transfer

technical skills on the preventive maintenance/minor repairs to the women.

Out of 2176 habitations, in only 77(3.54%) habitations, women care

takers have been appointed.

State-wise findings on women members in VWSCs and their role in the

decision making is provided at Table 9.1 at Annexure I.


Impact of ARWSP on the lives of rural women

Women in the rural areas are the carriers of water load and an easily

accessible drinking water supply facility can result in a lot of saving of time

and effort for them. Out of the 38198 households using ARWSP facility,

majority (77.11%) of the households have reported saving in the time and

effort of the women.

State-wise findings on households reported saving the time & efforts of

women is provided at Table 9.2 at Annexure I.

Signs of reduction in the occurrence of diseases have also been

observed during the study. This has a resultant impact on overall

improvement of the health of women and child in the community. Improved

child health scenario also results in reduction of burden for the women in the

households.

Attempt was also made to analyze the disaggregated responses of

male/female respondents in the households surveyed on various aspects of

impact. Whereas a slightly larger percentage of 73.25% male respondents felt

that the scheme has resulted in reduction in distance travelled for collecting

water only 70.00% of the female respondents felt the same. Similar response

was found in the case of responses on travel time to the water source where

only 66.69% female respondents reported reduction in travel time as

compared to 72.23% of their male counterparts.

Whereas 52.73% of the male respondents felt that there has been a

reduction in the waiting time at the water supply source only 43.58% of the

female respondents felt so.

State-wise findings on households responses segregated in

male/female on impact of ARWSP scheme is provided at Table 9.3 (a,b,c) at

Annexure I.

ANNEXURE I

S. No. State Districts No. of Sample habitations covered No. of households covered No. of Control habitations

coveredNo. of Control households

covered

1 Andhra Pradesh 4 74 1486 40 3972 Arunachal Pradesh 3 35 706 30 3053 Assam 5 52 1043 50 5514 Bihar 5 171 3317 51 4775 Chhattisgarh 3 346 6808 30 2956 Gujarat 5 95 1886 50 5007 Haryana 3 11 240 9 958 Himachal Pradesh 3 14 205 10 729 J&k 3 10 320 11 11710 Jharkhand 5 55 1072 53 50311 Karnataka 4 69 1380 40 37212 Kerala 2 34 680 20 17413 Madhya Pradesh 5 373 7986 41 43014 Maharashtra 5 18 351 50 50015 Manipur 2 28 564 20 21216 Meghalaya 2 22 440 20 21017 Mizoram 2 27 541 20 20018 Nagaland 3 32 643 28 30519 Orissa 5 295 5900 50 50020 Punjab 3 17 177 18 5921 Rajasthan 5 106 2007 50 50022 Sikkim 2 22 442 20 20623 Tamil Nadu 5 68 1360 50 51124 Tripura 2 17 340 20 20525 Uttar Pradesh 5 111 2131 50 50026 Uttarakhand 3 30 526 30 29627 West Bengal 3 44 926 11 122

97 2176 43477 872 8614

Table 2.1 : Sample covered under ARWSP Evaluation Study

Total

79

≤ 250 251-500 501-1000 More than 1000 < 35 % 35-50 % >50 % ≤ 25 % 26-50 % >50 %

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 19 8 7 40 40 14 20 30 31 132 Arunachal Pradesh 35 15 12 8 0 0 0 35 29 6 03 Assam 52 21 11 10 10 9 5 38 11 12 294 Bihar 171 8 26 25 112 128 25 18 50 52 695 Chhattisgarh 346 167 110 57 12 77 22 247 30 65 2516 Gujarat 95 22 16 17 40 45 7 43 41 27 277 Haryana 11 0 0 5 6 3 1 7 8 3 08 Himachal Pradesh 14 0 0 1 13 4 5 5 12 2 09 J&k 10 0 3 3 4 0 4 6 4 6 010 Jharkhand 55 22 14 8 11 17 2 36 28 13 1411 Karnataka 69 9 11 18 31 33 18 18 16 32 2112 Kerala 34 0 0 0 34 32 2 0 26 8 013 Madhya Pradesh 373 170 87 59 57 115 35 223 86 116 17114 Maharashtra 18 7 1 5 5 12 3 3 10 6 215 Manipur 28 20 4 4 0 0 0 28 6 4 1816 Meghalaya 22 11 5 6 0 0 0 22 8 10 417 Mizoram 27 3 14 10 0 0 0 27 6 11 1018 Nagaland 32 2 6 12 12 0 0 32 9 18 519 Orissa 295 213 50 22 10 125 14 156 39 60 19620 Punjab 17 0 3 5 9 14 1 2 17 0 021 Rajasthan 106 54 14 12 26 67 14 25 66 21 1922 Sikkim 22 14 8 0 0 0 1 21 5 15 223 Tamil Nadu 68 23 28 9 8 51 5 12 23 20 2524 Tripura 17 10 5 2 0 0 5 12 7 5 525 Uttar Pradesh 111 43 14 21 33 71 9 31 66 24 2126 Uttarakhand 30 18 11 0 1 21 3 6 3 10 1727 West Bengal 44 6 2 9 27 32 5 7 32 6 6

2176 877 463 335 501 896 200 1080 668 583 925Total

% BPL households

(No. of habitations)Table 3.1 : Demographic profile of the Habitations covered under the Study

No. of habitations

covered

S. No. State

Population as per Census 2001 (persons) % SC/ST households

80

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 80441 20268 12256 32524 25.20 15.24 40.432 Arunachal Pradesh 35 3555 20 2631 2651 0.56 74.00 74.563 Assam 52 6680 458 858 1315 6.85 12.84 19.694 Bihar 171 58923 14631 123 14754 24.83 0.21 25.045 Chhattisgarh 346 22536 3823 10358 14181 16.96 45.96 62.936 Gujarat 95 35355 3711 5971 9682 10.50 16.89 27.397 Haryana 11 1958 351 307 658 17.93 15.68 33.618 Himachal Pradesh 14 5546 2029 805 2834 36.58 14.51 51.109 J&k 10 1648 428 415 843 25.97 25.18 51.15

10 Jharkhand 55 5796 1765 2081 3846 30.45 35.90 66.3611 Karnataka 69 23928 6241 1642 7883 26.08 6.86 32.9412 Kerala 34 17551 2070 947 3017 11.79 5.40 17.1913 Madhya Pradesh 373 39169 7483 11480 18963 19.10 29.31 48.4114 Maharashtra 18 4061 753 436 1189 18.54 10.74 29.2815 Manipur 28 2157 46 715 761 2.13 33.15 35.2816 Meghalaya 22 2235 13 1912 1925 0.57 85.57 86.1417 Mizoram 27 3654 0 3454 3454 0.00 94.54 94.5418 Nagaland 32 6156 0 5570 5570 0.00 90.48 90.4819 Orissa 295 16768 3945 4384 8329 23.53 26.15 49.6720 Punjab 17 3422 800 50 850 23.38 1.46 24.8421 Rajasthan 106 17588 3086 1811 4897 17.55 10.30 27.8422 Sikkim 22 1752 101 396 497 5.78 22.58 28.3623 Tamil Nadu 68 7856 1868 661 2529 23.78 8.41 32.1924 Tripura 17 1915 356 700 1055 18.57 36.54 55.1125 Uttar Pradesh 111 21863 4936 360 5296 22.58 1.65 24.2226 Uttarakhand 30 1348 407 30 437 30.19 2.23 32.4227 West Bengal 44 10271 2708 474 3182 26.37 4.61 30.98

2176 404132 82293 70823 153123 20.36 17.52 37.89

No. of SC households

No. of ST households

No. of SC/ST households

% of SC households

% of ST households

% of SC/ST households

Total

Table 3.1 (a) Total SC/ST Households in the Habitations Covered

S. No. StateNo. of

habitation covered

No. of households

81

Total FC PC NC QA Total FC PC NC QA Total FC PC NC QA

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 52 18 32 2 0 22 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 Arunachal Pradesh 35 8 5 2 1 0 15 11 2 2 0 12 11 1 0 03 Assam 52 8 4 2 0 2 4 3 0 0 1 40 30 4 0 64 Bihar 171 0 0 0 0 0 74 10 43 21 0 97 18 45 34 05 Chhattisgarh 346 68 61 7 0 0 144 121 21 2 0 134 123 8 3 06 Gujarat 95 34 25 7 0 2 39 39 0 0 0 22 21 1 0 07 Haryana 11 11 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 Himachal Pradesh 14 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 09 J&k 10 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 010 Jharkhand 55 13 0 12 1 0 20 4 15 1 0 22 3 14 5 011 Karnataka 69 58 21 33 4 0 11 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 012 Kerala 34 22 9 13 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 013 Madhya Pradesh 373 102 63 35 4 0 121 76 39 6 0 150 90 57 3 014 Maharashtra 18 3 2 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 10 3 2 5 015 Manipur 28 6 5 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 20 18 2 0 016 Meghalaya 22 4 3 1 0 0 8 7 1 0 0 10 9 0 0 117 Mizoram 27 2 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 19 17 2 0 018 Nagaland 32 13 10 1 0 2 11 10 0 0 1 8 8 0 0 019 Orissa 295 101 90 5 5 1 103 100 3 0 0 91 53 28 7 320 Punjab 17 15 12 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 Rajasthan 106 30 12 15 3 0 47 41 6 0 0 29 28 1 0 022 Sikkim 22 7 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 023 Tamil Nadu 68 51 26 22 3 0 17 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 024 Tripura 17 7 6 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 025 Uttar Pradesh 111 0 0 0 0 0 65 53 8 4 0 46 29 15 2 026 Uttarakhand 30 9 5 2 2 0 9 6 1 2 0 12 3 5 4 027 West Bengal 44 2 0 1 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 38 10 15 12 1

2176 646 414 197 28 7 751 524 186 39 2 779 491 201 76 11Total

2006-07

(No of habitations)

S. No. State

Table 3.2 : Distribution of habitations covered under the study (Year of Coverage under ARWSP and Current Status)

No. of habitations

covered

2004-05 2005-06

82

FC PC NC QA FC PC NC QA FC PC NC QA

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 2 36 36 0 5 63 6 0 16 57 1 02 Arunachal Pradesh 35 0 7 28 0 0 6 29 0 0 6 29 03 Assam 52 0 48 4 0 0 45 7 0 0 25 7 204 Bihar 171 4 58 109 0 4 110 57 0 7 79 85 05 Chhattisgarh 346 0 6 12 0 0 179 167 0 2 171 173 06 Gujarat 95 0 64 11 20 0 67 4 24 1 66 4 247 Haryana 11 3 0 8 0 3 0 8 0 8 2 1 08 Himachal Pradesh 14 11 0 3 0 11 0 3 0 14 0 0 09 J&k 10 3 0 6 1 6 0 4 0 8 1 1 010 Jharkhand 55 0 14 4 0 0 29 26 0 0 30 25 011 Karnataka 69 1 44 24 0 2 62 5 0 0 48 0 2112 Kerala 34 2 32 0 0 7 27 0 0 0 9 16 913 Madhya Pradesh 373 0 0 5 0 0 176 197 0 5 136 232 014 Maharashtra 18 0 9 8 1 0 11 6 1 0 10 7 115 Manipur 28 1 21 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 616 Meghalaya 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 317 Mizoram 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5 518 Nagaland 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 1619 Orissa 295 1 5 64 0 3 70 222 0 0 73 221 120 Punjab 17 2 0 13 0 2 0 14 1 10 4 3 021 Rajasthan 106 0 29 77 0 0 31 75 0 0 54 52 022 Sikkim 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 023 Tamil Nadu 68 0 35 26 7 0 39 22 7 0 41 24 324 Tripura 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 325 Uttar Pradesh 111 0 10 1 0 3 100 8 0 9 97 5 026 Uttarakhand 30 0 1 2 0 0 16 14 0 0 14 16 027 West Bengal 44 1 4 9 19 3 6 13 22 6 7 8 23

2176 31 423 456 48 49 1037 887 55 86 1018 937 135Total

Status at the time of ARWSP intervention

(No (%) of habitations)Table 3.2 (a) : Status of habitations Covered under the study

S. No. State

Status as per CAP'99 Status as per Habitation Survey 2003No. of habitations

covered

83

(No. & % of habitations)

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 45 60.81 2 2.70 0 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 35 5 14.29 3 8.57 0 0.003 Assam 52 6 11.54 0 0.00 9 17.314 Bihar 171 88 51.46 55 32.16 0 0.005 Chhattisgarh 346 36 10.40 5 1.45 0 0.006 Gujarat 95 8 8.42 0 0.00 2 2.117 Haryana 11 2 18.18 1 9.09 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 10 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.0010 Jharkhand 55 41 74.55 7 12.73 0 0.0011 Karnataka 69 42 60.87 4 5.80 0 0.0012 Kerala 34 25 73.53 0 0.00 0 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 373 131 35.12 13 3.49 0 0.0014 Maharashtra 18 5 27.78 5 27.78 0 0.0015 Manipur 28 3 10.71 0 0.00 0 0.0016 Meghalaya 22 2 9.09 0 0.00 1 4.5517 Mizoram 27 2 7.41 0 0.00 0 0.0018 Nagaland 32 1 3.13 0 0.00 3 9.3819 Orissa 295 36 12.20 12 4.07 4 1.3620 Punjab 17 4 23.53 1 5.88 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 106 22 20.75 3 2.83 0 0.0022 Sikkim 22 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 68 27 39.71 4 5.88 0 0.0024 Tripura 17 1 5.88 0 0.00 0 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 111 23 20.72 6 5.41 0 0.0026 Uttarakhand 30 8 26.67 8 26.67 0 0.0027 West Bengal 44 20 45.45 13 29.55 1 2.27

2176 584 26.84 143 6.57 20 0.92Total

Table 3.2 (b): Habitations covered under the study slipped back to PC/NC/QA status at the time of the study

PC NC QANo. of Habitations

coveredState

84

FC PC NC QA FC PC NC QA

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 16 57 1 0 27 45 2 02 Arunachal Pradesh 35 0 6 29 0 27 5 3 03 Assam 52 0 25 7 20 37 6 0 94 Bihar 171 7 79 85 0 28 88 55 05 Chhattisgarh 346 2 171 173 0 305 36 5 06 Gujarat 95 1 66 4 24 85 8 0 27 Haryana 11 8 2 1 0 8 2 1 08 Himachal Pradesh 14 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 09 J&k 10 8 1 1 0 8 1 1 010 Jharkhand 55 0 30 25 0 7 41 7 011 Karnataka 69 0 48 0 21 23 42 4 012 Kerala 34 0 9 16 9 9 25 0 013 Madhya Pradesh 373 5 136 232 0 229 131 13 014 Maharashtra 18 0 10 7 1 8 5 5 015 Manipur 28 0 18 4 6 25 3 0 016 Meghalaya 22 0 15 4 3 19 2 0 117 Mizoram 27 0 17 5 5 25 2 0 018 Nagaland 32 0 8 8 16 28 1 0 319 Orissa 295 0 73 221 1 243 36 12 420 Punjab 17 10 4 3 0 12 4 1 021 Rajasthan 106 0 54 52 0 81 22 3 022 Sikkim 22 0 18 4 0 22 0 0 023 Tamil Nadu 68 0 41 24 3 37 27 4 024 Tripura 17 0 12 2 3 16 1 0 025 Uttar Pradesh 111 9 97 5 0 82 23 6 026 Uttarakhand 30 0 14 16 0 14 8 8 027 West Bengal 44 6 7 8 23 10 20 13 1

2176 86 1018 937 135 1429 584 143 20

Status at the time of ARWSP intervention

(No. of habitations)

Table 3.3: Distribution of habitations covered under the study (Year of Coverage under ARWSP and Current Status)

Current Status of Covered Habitations

Total

S. No. State

No. of Habitations

covered

85

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 10 5 1 0 16 40 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 Arunachal Pradesh 35 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 23 3 3 0 0 0 0 03 Assam 52 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 6 0 94 Bihar 171 4 3 0 0 23 36 20 0 1 49 35 0 0 0 0 05 Chhattisgarh 346 2 0 0 0 155 15 1 0 148 21 4 0 0 0 0 06 Gujarat 95 1 0 0 0 61 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 21 1 0 27 Haryana 11 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 08 Himachal Pradesh 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 J&k 10 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 010 Jharkhand 55 0 0 0 0 4 26 0 0 3 15 7 0 0 0 0 011 Karnataka 69 0 0 0 0 13 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 012 Kerala 34 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 16 0 0 9 0 0 013 Madhya Pradesh 373 5 0 0 0 95 39 2 0 129 92 11 0 0 0 0 014 Maharashtra 18 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 015 Manipur 28 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 016 Meghalaya 22 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 117 Mizoram 27 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 018 Nagaland 32 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 13 0 0 319 Orissa 295 0 0 0 0 44 29 0 0 199 7 12 3 0 0 0 120 Punjab 17 10 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 021 Rajasthan 106 0 0 0 0 51 3 0 0 30 19 3 0 0 0 0 022 Sikkim 22 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 Tamil Nadu 68 0 0 0 0 22 17 2 0 12 10 2 0 3 0 0 024 Tripura 17 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 025 Uttar Pradesh 111 7 2 0 0 73 20 4 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 026 Uttarakhand 30 0 0 0 0 6 5 3 0 8 3 5 0 0 0 0 027 West Bengal 44 1 4 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 7 0 6 11 6 0

2176 69 14 2 1 682 299 37 0 595 241 98 3 83 30 6 16

FC to PC

FC to NC

QA to NC

QA to QA

Table 3.3 (a): Distribution of habitations covered under the study (change from year of coverage to current status)

PC to PC

PC to NC

QA to FC

QA to PC

S. No.

FC to QA

PC to FC

Total

NC to QA

PC to QA

NC to FC

NC to PC

NC to NC

No. of habitation

covered

FC to FCState

86

APL BPL SC ST Others ≤ 5 6 to 10 >10

1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 688 798 329 446 711 1029 449 8 10162 Arunachal Pradesh 706 298 408 15 685 6 424 250 32 9783 Assam 1043 439 604 116 394 533 676 302 65 8524 Bihar 3317 1559 1758 919 86 2312 1249 1795 273 8695 Chhattisgarh 6808 1651 5157 911 3896 2001 4022 2584 202 9386 Gujarat 1886 1041 845 126 636 1124 1168 657 61 8837 Haryana 240 88 152 58 147 35 199 40 1 7988 Himachal Pradesh 205 128 77 57 90 58 144 58 3 8769 J&k 320 28 292 249 69 2 294 23 3 96510 Jharkhand 1072 662 410 188 469 415 645 418 9 96111 Karnataka 1380 285 1095 272 291 817 952 413 15 98912 Kerala 680 141 539 114 126 440 469 206 5 97213 Madhya Pradesh 7986 3639 4347 1539 3588 2859 5414 2368 204 85414 Maharashtra 351 224 127 49 67 235 273 78 0 105715 Manipur 564 207 357 7 539 18 412 112 40 92316 Meghalaya 440 158 282 0 440 0 214 220 6 96117 Mizoram 541 213 328 0 532 9 179 234 128 96118 Nagaland 643 234 409 0 643 0 268 294 81 92319 Orissa 5900 1937 3963 1488 1926 2486 4036 1656 208 91820 Punjab 177 136 41 23 64 90 69 105 3 91421 Rajasthan 2007 1444 563 208 386 1413 885 1048 74 72722 Sikkim 442 226 216 70 268 104 140 268 34 88723 Tamil Nadu 1360 256 1104 239 211 910 935 402 23 101924 Tripura 340 127 213 87 168 85 120 207 13 87825 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1432 699 673 99 1359 1236 764 131 85426 Uttarakhand 526 224 302 184 17 325 227 252 47 93927 West Bengal 926 583 343 349 41 536 494 378 54 876

43477 18048 25429 8270 16324 18883 26173 15581 1723 899

Size of households (no. of members)

Table 3.4 : Profile of households covered under the studyNo. of Households

Gender Ratio(female per 1000 male)

Total

CasteS.

No. StateNo. of

households covered

BPL Status

87

≤ 250 251-500 501-1000 More than 1000 ≤ 35 % 36-50 % >50 % ≤ 25 % 26-50 % >50 %

1 Andhra Pradesh 40 12 1 8 19 18 3 19 13 3 242 Arunachal Pradesh 30 15 10 5 0 0 0 30 23 7 03 Assam 50 20 10 11 9 8 11 31 10 15 254 Bihar 51 11 13 13 14 26 3 20 14 13 225 Chhattisgarh 30 13 14 1 2 7 1 22 2 3 256 Gujarat 50 10 8 10 22 31 2 17 30 11 97 Haryana 9 0 2 6 1 6 0 3 9 0 08 Himachal Pradesh 10 0 0 5 5 1 1 8 7 2 19 J&k 11 0 0 5 6 0 1 10 9 2 010 Jharkhand 53 23 16 4 10 17 3 33 19 16 1811 Karnataka 40 5 9 9 17 26 7 7 4 11 2512 Kerala 20 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 9 1113 Madhya Pradesh 41 19 3 9 10 14 3 24 11 11 1914 Maharashtra 50 16 7 9 18 37 2 11 19 19 1215 Manipur 20 15 3 2 0 0 0 20 3 5 1216 Meghalaya 20 14 4 2 0 0 0 20 2 10 817 Mizoram 20 3 8 8 1 0 0 20 1 9 1018 Nagaland 28 2 3 11 12 0 0 28 8 19 119 Orissa 50 39 8 2 1 13 3 34 3 8 3920 Punjab 18 0 4 8 6 13 3 2 17 1 021 Rajasthan 50 19 13 9 9 31 6 13 35 3 1222 Sikkim 20 12 8 0 0 0 2 18 5 12 323 Tamil Nadu 50 20 15 2 13 30 5 15 13 9 2824 Tripura 20 11 5 4 0 0 8 12 10 5 525 Uttar Pradesh 50 8 7 11 24 32 13 5 26 17 726 Uttarakhand 30 20 7 3 0 19 2 9 11 6 1327 West Bengal 11 1 4 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0

872 308 182 158 224 350 79 431 305 226 329Total

% BPL households

(No. of habitations)Table 3.5 :Demographic profile of the Control Habitations covered under the study

No. of control

habitations covered

S. No. State

Population as per Census 2001 (persons) % SC/ST households

88

FC PC NC QA FC PC NC QA FC PC NC QA

1 Andhra Pradesh 40 1 15 23 0 0 23 13 4 14 21 5 02 Arunachal Pradesh 30 2 4 24 0 4 2 24 0 0 3 25 23 Assam 50 0 12 30 8 0 7 33 10 0 5 32 134 Bihar 51 0 2 49 0 0 2 49 0 0 6 43 15 Chhattisgarh 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 9 06 Gujarat 50 4 33 7 6 4 33 7 6 35 7 0 87 Haryana 9 1 1 5 0 1 1 5 0 8 1 0 08 Himachal Pradesh 10 1 7 2 0 1 7 2 0 10 0 0 09 J&k 11 0 2 0 9 0 2 0 9 11 0 0 010 Jharkhand 53 0 8 11 0 0 8 11 0 0 23 30 011 Karnataka 40 0 25 15 0 0 25 15 0 0 16 16 812 Kerala 20 0 18 2 0 0 18 2 0 0 8 8 413 Madhya Pradesh 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 22 5 214 Maharashtra 50 2 31 16 1 2 31 16 1 3 34 8 515 Manipur 20 1 3 15 1 0 2 18 0 0 2 17 116 Meghalaya 20 2 2 16 0 2 0 18 0 0 3 17 017 Mizoram 20 0 1 19 0 2 1 17 0 0 0 20 018 Nagaland 28 0 1 25 2 0 3 23 2 0 4 22 219 Orissa 50 0 0 10 0 3 37 10 0 3 9 33 520 Punjab 18 2 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 15 0 3 021 Rajasthan 50 0 4 46 0 0 4 46 0 0 23 17 1022 Sikkim 20 0 3 17 0 0 0 20 0 0 2 16 223 Tamil Nadu 50 0 36 2 2 0 36 2 2 40 10 0 024 Tripura 20 1 2 16 1 3 2 15 0 0 1 19 025 Uttar Pradesh 50 0 0 0 0 17 24 0 9 11 3 1 3526 Uttarakhand 30 0 0 0 0 0 14 16 0 0 11 19 027 West Bengal 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 0

872 17 210 368 30 41 282 380 43 163 231 376 98Total

Current Status of Habitation

(No. of habitations)Table 3.6 : Status of control habitations covered under the study

S. No. State

Status as per CAP'99 Status as per Habitation Survey 2003No. of control

habitations covered

89

1 Andhra Pradesh 40 0 0 0 0 10 11 2 0 2 8 3 0 2 2 0 02 Arunachal Pradesh 30 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 0 0 03 Assam 50 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 2 1 104 Bihar 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 44 0 0 0 1 05 Chhattisgarh 30 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 06 Gujarat 50 13 0 0 0 16 12 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 0 0 07 Haryana 9 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 Himachal Pradesh 10 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 J&k 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 010 Jharkhand 53 0 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 2 27 0 0 0 0 011 Karnataka 40 0 1 6 3 0 14 8 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 012 Kerala 20 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 Madhya Pradesh 41 0 0 0 0 7 21 1 0 3 5 4 0 0 0 0 014 Maharashtra 50 2 6 0 0 1 29 0 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 1 015 Manipur 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 016 Meghalaya 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 017 Mizoram 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 018 Nagaland 28 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 219 Orissa 50 3 0 0 0 0 6 31 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 020 Punjab 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 021 Rajasthan 50 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 18 18 3 0 0 0 022 Sikkim 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 2 0 0 0 023 Tamil Nadu 50 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 8 0 0 024 Tripura 20 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 025 Uttar Pradesh 50 14 3 0 0 11 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 026 Uttarakhand 30 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 0 027 West Bengal 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0

872 32 10 6 3 62 160 31 8 49 68 174 3 25 2 2 1Total

Table 3.6 (a) Distribution of control habitations (change in status from habitation survey 2003 to current status)

QA to FC

QA to PC

QA to NC

QA to QA

FC to QA

PC to FC

NC to QA

NC to FC

NC to PC

NC to NC

PC to PC

PC to NC

PC to QA

FC to PC

FC to NC

S. No. State

No. of habitation

covered

FC to FC

90

APL BPL SC ST Others ≤ 5 6 to 10 >10

1 Andhra Pradesh 397 123 274 94 119 184 264 124 92 Arunachal Pradesh 305 123 182 26 269 10 106 182 173 Assam 551 216 335 110 168 273 182 343 264 Bihar 477 126 351 175 38 264 212 229 365 Chhattisgarh 295 72 223 12 205 78 154 127 146 Gujarat 500 324 176 46 108 346 292 188 207 Haryana 95 30 65 31 41 23 87 8 08 Himachal Pradesh 72 45 27 2 29 41 72 0 09 Jammu & Kashmir 117 14 103 62 49 6 117 0 010 Jharkhand 503 241 262 84 275 144 253 242 811 Karnataka 372 143 229 74 54 244 221 146 512 Kerala 174 98 76 35 0 139 93 80 113 Madhya Pradesh 430 181 249 74 200 156 375 55 014 Maharashtra 500 255 245 30 126 344 372 124 415 Manipur 212 81 131 8 195 9 135 72 516 Meghalaya 210 89 121 0 210 0 124 74 1217 Mizoram 200 71 129 0 189 11 94 103 318 Nagaland 305 124 181 0 305 0 176 104 2519 Orissa 500 101 399 125 242 133 366 119 1520 Punjab 59 54 5 8 3 48 40 19 021 Rajasthan 500 297 203 21 142 337 295 192 1322 Sikkim 206 93 113 32 148 26 84 110 1223 Tamil Nadu 511 136 375 119 198 194 347 153 1124 Tripura 205 65 140 35 147 23 81 109 15

8614 3638 4976 1485 3501 3628 4942 3305 367Total

Table 3.7 : Profile of Control Households Covered under the Study

CasteS.

No. State No. of control households covered

BPL Status Size of households (no. of members)

(No. of Households)

91

Allocations Releases % Releases Utilized % Utilization Allocations Releases % Releases Utilized %

Utilization Allocations Releases % Releases Utilized % Utilization

1 Andhra Pradesh 16118.40 16118.40 100.00 15484.40 96.07 24077.35 21406.61 88.91 15395.26 71.92 27558.08 30584.88 110.98 26942.08 88.092 Arunachal Pradesh 6125.00 6825.00 111.43 7645.94 112.03 9993.61 10674.54 106.81 10518.16 98.54 10299.00 13663.78 132.67 10333.20 75.623 Assam 10331.00 9565.62 92.59 11596.82 121.23 16851.29 14800.63 87.83 10863.40 73.40 17369.00 11372.37 65.48 18014.90 158.414 Bihar 5467.00 7400.03 135.36 4388.42 59.30 15324.00 15234.00 99.41 6954.92 45.65 18571.00 13006.65 70.04 13681.84 105.195 Chhattisgarh 4140.00 2269.80 54.83 1646.86 72.56 5904.97 5228.98 88.55 3298.70 63.08 8178.87 8015.88 98.01 6754.55 84.266 Gujarat 4890.00 6638.39 135.75 10359.53 156.05 11186.00 11597.16 103.68 11492.27 99.10 12503.00 12503.00 100.00 11790.78 94.307 Haryana 2707.00 2707.00 100.00 2860.60 105.67 4193.50 1795.00 42.80 2612.54 145.55 7951.43 6372.63 80.14 6341.02 99.508 Himachal Pradesh 5427.00 6061.37 111.69 5916.67 97.61 8585.00 12224.04 142.39 12100.20 98.99 0.00 15875.20 0.00 16205.39 102.089 J&k 12500.00 12500.00 100.00 13123.13 104.99 10486.00 10486.00 100.00 18075.90 172.38 10400.00 10400.00 100.00 27092.31 260.50

10 Jharkhand 2178.00 1859.83 85.39 835.84 44.94 6334.62 6171.28 97.42 4198.99 68.04 6474.00 3631.00 56.09 4115.15 113.3311 Karnataka 10104.00 15000.00 148.46 15557.00 103.71 19809.00 27179.00 137.21 24705.00 90.90 20267.00 12943.00 63.86 37878.00 292.6512 Kerala 2914.00 3946.00 135.42 4157.00 105.35 5386.00 6170.65 114.57 6667.55 108.05 6216.00 6216.00 100.00 6312.81 101.5613 Madhya Pradesh 7745.00 7945.00 102.58 6522.13 82.09 15101.00 15039.88 99.60 15439.55 102.66 18797.00 19733.40 104.98 16798.25 85.1314 Maharashtra 15971.00 19851.00 124.29 19175.00 96.59 31610.88 32286.88 102.14 32286.00 100.00 36152.00 36152.00 100.00 33246.00 91.9615 Manipur 2103.00 2103.00 100.00 2483.50 118.09 3430.93 2713.67 79.09 845.27 31.15 3379.00 1689.50 50.00 3234.95 191.4716 Meghalaya 2422.00 2613.87 107.92 2953.89 113.01 3949.77 3190.10 80.77 3243.84 101.68 4073.00 5104.59 125.33 4569.51 89.5217 Mizoram 1737.00 1810.00 104.20 1810.00 100.00 2831.58 2599.27 91.80 2488.87 95.75 2920.00 4271.39 146.28 3456.10 80.9118 Nagaland 1782.00 1702.00 95.51 1583.08 93.01 2907.91 2647.76 91.05 1647.05 62.21 2998.00 2998.00 100.00 2857.52 95.3119 Orissa 9523.40 9523.40 100.00 5933.20 62.30 14889.66 14557.80 97.77 10167.66 69.84 16624.24 11904.16 71.61 11850.74 99.5520 Punjab 2815.00 2808.00 99.75 2516.20 89.61 4024.31 4024.31 100.00 3754.91 93.31 4098.00 3238.77 79.03 2790.10 86.1521 Rajasthan 23023.00 29239.76 127.00 22089.11 75.54 48614.72 48485.34 99.73 34849.63 71.88 62152.68 47935.10 77.12 68217.35 142.3122 Sikkim 731.00 731.00 100.00 745.12 101.93 1195.53 1283.68 107.37 1121.56 87.37 1229.00 1630.77 132.69 1596.40 97.8923 Tamil Nadu 7075.13 5937.80 83.92 6139.00 103.39 11093.00 11093.00 100.00 11019.00 99.33 12057.00 11841.00 98.21 13296.00 112.2924 Tripura 2149.00 1575.13 73.30 2077.06 131.87 3503.10 3199.86 91.34 3255.38 101.74 3613.00 4577.89 126.71 3681.54 80.4225 Uttar Pradesh 12991.00 12991.00 100.00 11897.53 91.58 24764.00 29492.10 119.09 21574.91 73.15 0.00 30170.15 0.00 35705.43 118.3526 Uttarakhand 2957.97 2957.97 100.00 3527.02 119.24 6559.12 6559.12 100.00 5413.73 82.54 7076.56 7076.56 100.00 6984.71 98.7027 West Bengal 8527.00 8270.21 96.99 8553.91 103.43 13308.00 15078.33 113.30 14238.08 94.43 15806.00 17118.00 108.30 14454.73 84.44

184453.90 200950.58 108.94 191577.96 95.34 325914.85 335218.99 102.85 288228.33 85.98 336762.86 350025.67 103.94 408201.36 116.62Total

2006-2007

Table 4.1 (a) : Financial Progress - Funding under Rural Water Supply Programmes in the States(Rs. In Lakh)

S. No. State

2004-2005 2005-2006

92

NC PC Slipped Back

Quality Affected Total NC PC Slipped

BackQuality Affected Total NC PC Slipped

BackQuality Affected Total

1 Andhra Pradesh 0 0 3631 498 4129 0 0 2770 524 3294 0 0 4703 495 51982 Arunachal Pradesh 92 162 0 0 254 124 201 0 0 325 68 106 71 0 2453 Assam 67 4488 0 0 4555 94 2334 0 0 2428 198 2293 0 0 24914 Bihar 10 5 0 0 15 1217 406 0 0 1623 7761 7669 0 2 154325 Chhattisgarh 0 0 3701 0 3701 0 0 7013 0 7013 0 0 4913 5021 99346 Gujarat 1 58 930 1000 1989 0 0 1061 705 1766 0 0 1599 761 23607 Haryana 0 0 1971 361 2332 0 0 550 13 563 0 0 671 97 7688 Himachal Pradesh 0 1770 0 0 1770 0 1950 0 0 1950 0 2673 1021 0 36949 J&k 925 2829 0 0 3754 74 321 68 0 463 105 304 140 0 54910 Jharkhand 1950 985 0 0 2935 1220 1142 0 0 2362 1230 672 0 0 190211 Karnataka 0 5618 0 146 5764 0 5618 1908 950 8476 0 3494 1564 232 529012 Kerala 0 1083 0 0 1083 0 1702 324 26 2052 0 853 557 95 150513 Madhya Pradesh 0 0 10672 215 10887 0 0 15778 432 16210 0 0 13353 321 1367414 Maharashtra 95 1095 1055 0 2245 87 1813 906 0 2806 154 3856 1973 169 615215 Manipur 17 53 0 0 70 39 41 0 0 80 0 0 178 0 17816 Meghalaya 211 180 0 0 391 159 286 0 27 472 18 70 995 35 111817 Mizoram 12 162 0 0 174 18 86 0 26 130 0 0 134 0 13418 Nagaland 7 39 0 0 46 25 81 0 19 125 17 38 64 4 12319 Orissa 0 0 7487 0 7487 0 0 11313 0 11313 0 0 8111 0 811120 Punjab 172 160 260 34 626 706 535 415 45 1701 122 175 498 80 87521 Rajasthan 674 0 10559 0 11233 423 0 12128 795 13346 365 0 6625 1000 799022 Sikkim 0 120 0 0 120 0 120 0 0 120 0 0 138 0 13823 Tamil Nadu 0 0 0 790 790 0 0 1641 197 1838 0 0 2782 403 318524 Tripura 0 247 0 0 247 0 204 0 0 204 0 0 366 204 57025 Uttar Pradesh 0 0 92 358 450 0 0 13990 412 14402 0 0 9550 922 1047226 Uttarakhand 0 0 96 0 96 0 0 178 0 178 0 0 438 0 43827 West Bengal 2693 2906 0 0 5599 200 2100 0 645 2945 0 0 2660 379 3039

6926 21960 40454 3402 72742 4386 18940 70043 4816 98185 10038 22203 63104 10220 105565Total

2006-2007

Table 4.1 (b) : Physical Progress - Coverage under ARWSP in the StatesNo. of Habitations Covered

S. No. State

2004-2005 2005-2006

93

SCs STs Total SCs STs Total SCs STs Total

1 Andhra Pradesh 2126 (13.73%) 897 (5.79%) 15484.4 3491.32 (22.68%) 1376.53 (8.94%) 15395.26 5647.02 (20.96%) 2258.81 (8.38%) 26942.082 Arunachal Pradesh 0 (0.00%) 7645.94 (100.00%) 7645.94 0 (0.00%) 10518.61(100.00%) 10518.61 0 (0.00%) 639.40 (100.00%) 639.43 Assam 673.77 (5.81%) 5595.46(48.25) 11596.82 706.10 (6.50%) 5540.33 (51.00%) 10863.4 191.97 (5.70%) 1789.9 (53.12%) 3369.464 Bihar 129.632 (2.96%) 0 (0.00%) 4388.423 42.028 (0.60%) 0 (0.00%) 6954.921 706.616 (5.17%) 0 (0.00%) 13681.845 Chhattisgarh 0 (0.00%) 556.29 (33.76%) 1646.86 0 (0.00%) 1665.71 (50.50%) 3298.7 0 (0.00%) 2566.72 (36.00%) 6754.556 Gujarat 725.17 (7.00%) 1450.66 (14.01%) 10359.53 804.46 (7.00%) 1450.66 (12.63%) 11492.27 720.32 (6.11%) 1435.28 (12.17%) 11790.787 Haryana 572.11 (19.99%) 0 (0.00%) 2860.6 522.51 (20.02%) 0 (0.00%) 2612.54 1268.2 (20.00%) 0 (0.00%) 6341.028 Himachal Pradesh 836.57 (14.15%) 6.37 (0.10%) 5916.67 1774.43 (14.66%) 309.91 (2.56%) 12100.2 2988.5 (18.44%) 568.56 (3.51%) 16205.399 J&k 0.00% 0.00% 13123.13 0.00% 0.00% 18075.9 0.00% 0.00% 27092.31

10 Jharkhand 108.65 (13.00%) 300.90 (36.00%) 835.84 713.66 (17.00%) 1465.10 (34.90%) 4198.988 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 4115.1511 Karnataka 1151 (7.40%) 64 (0.41%) 15557 2032 (8.23%) 113 (0.46%) 24705 2123.15 (5.60%) 95.4 (0.25%) 37878.0012 Kerala 722.84 (17.39%) 325.71 (7.84%) 4157 1373.19 (20.59%) 604.45 (9.06%) 6667.55 1034.41 (16.38%) 470.33 (7.44%) 6312.8113 Madhya Pradesh 2126 (32.60%) 897 (13.75%) 6522.13 3385.31 (21.92%) 2947.4 (19.09%) 15439.55 2577.91 (15.35%) 1530.12 (9.11%) 16798.2514 Maharashtra 1662.81 (8.67%) 705.5 (3.68%) 19175 10548.42 (32.67%) 5752.64 (17.82%) 32286 4057.03 (12.20%) 3424.04 (10.30%) 33246.0015 Manipur 0 (0.00%) 447.77 (18.03%) 2483.50 4.89 (0.58%) 188.19 (22.26%) 845.27 0 (0.00%) 1156.04 (48.32%) 2392.3516 Meghalaya 0 (0.00%) 2953.89 (100.00%) 2953.89 0 (0.00%) 3243.84 (100.00%) 3243.84 0 (0.00%) 2335.72 (100.00%) 2335.7217 Mizoram 0 (0.00%) 1810 (100.00%) 1810.00 0 (0.00%) 2488.87 (100.00%) 2488.87 0 (0.00%) 1733.51 (100.00%) 1733.5118 Nagaland 0 (0.00%) 1583.08 (100.00%) 1583.08 0 (0.00%) 1647.05 (100.00%) 1647.05 0 (0.00%) 337.85 (100.00%) 337.8519 Orissa 691.39 (11.65%) 1055.05 (17.78%) 5933.2 1310.82 (12.89%) 1816.55 (17.87%) 10167.66 1270.46 (10.72%) 2766.54 (23.35%) 11850.7420 Punjab 628.18 (24.96%) 0 (0.00%) 2516.2 945.38 (25.17%) 0 (0.00%) 3754.91 647.65 (23.23%) 0 (0.00%) 2790.1021 Rajasthan 5522.28 (25.00%) 2208.91 (10.00%) 22089.11 8712.41 (25.00%) 3484.96 (10.00%) 34849.63 6966.95 (10.21%) 2786.78 (4.09%) 68217.3522 Sikkim 682.27 (28.36%) 272.91 (11.34%) 745.12 205.72 (18.34%) 309.66 (27.61%) 1121.56 92.41 (15.94%) 85.07 (14.67%) 579.8723 Tamil Nadu 1788.5 (29.13%) 75.12 (1.22%) 6139 2640 (23.96%) 1000.75 (9.08%) 11019 3462.47 (26.04%) 1000 (7.52%) 13296.0024 Tripura 45.6 (15.39%) 112.9 (38.11%) 2077.06 445.91 (13.70%) 1166.19 (35.82%) 3255.38 140.05 (9.00%) 451.59 (29.00%) 1556.8525 Uttar Pradesh 2974.38 (25.00%) 23.8 (0.20%) 11897.53 5393.72 (25.00%) 43.15 (0.20%) 21574.91 8926.36 (25.00%) 71.4 (0.20%) 35705.4326 Uttarakhand 628.51 (17.83%) 314.26 (8.90%) 3527.02 911 (16.83%) 455.5 (8.42%) 5413.73 1184.73 (16.96%) 592.37 (8.48%) 6984.7127 West Bengal 2138.48 (25.00%) 855.39(9.99%) 8553.91 3559.50 (25.00%) 1423.81 (10.00%) 14238.08 3469.13 (24.00%) 1390.47(9.62%) 14454.73

25934.142 (13.54%) 30157.76 (15.74%) 191577.963 49522.778 (17.18%) 49012.85 (17.00%) 288228.78 47475.336 (12.71%) 29485.83 (7.90%) 373402.25Total

2006-2007Funds utilized on

Table 4.2 : Share of funds utilized on SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply in the States

S. No. State



Amt Rs. In Lakh (%)

94

SCs STs Total SCs STs Total SCs STs Total

1 Andhra Pradesh 77000 (24.92%) 33000 (10.68%) 309000 68000 (25.56%) 29000 (10.90%) 266000 101000 (25.63%) 43000 (10.91%) 3940002 Arunachal Pradesh 0 (0.00%) 25300 (100.00%) 25300 0 (0.00%) 62400 (100.00%) 62400 0 (0.00%) 9900 (100.00%) 99003 Assam 186700 (9.00%) 304000 (14.00%) 2109700 100500 (8.42%) 200700 (16.82%) 1193300 79600 (7.64%) 88800 (8.53%) 10416004 Bihar 600 (26.09%) 0 (0.00%) 2300 47000 (15.98%) 0 (0.00%) 294000 249600 (15.33%) 0 (0.00%) 15605005 Chhattisgarh 113900 (15.00%) 265800 (35.00%) 759400 309900 (15.00%) 723000 (35.00%) 2065800 246900 (15.00%) 576100 (35.00%) 16460006 Gujarat 69000 (7.23%) 126000 (13.21%) 954000 46000 (5.64%) 266000 (32.64%) 815000 107000 (7.35%) 314000 (21.58%) 14550007 Haryana 226000 (22.33%) 0 (0.00%) 1012000 369000 (20.31%) 0 (0.00%) 1817000 342000 (19.98%) 0 (0.00%) 17120008 Himachal Pradesh 60521 (95.89%) 2593 (4.11%) 63114 51723 (94.54%) 2987 (5.46%) 54710 79762 (97.28%) 2227 (2.72%) 819899 J&k 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 010 Jharkhand 50812 (13.66%) 92588 (24.89%) 372002 35845 (13.57%) 73959 (28.01%) 264052 20068 (11.47%) 45329 (25.90%) 17499511 Karnataka 66100 (4.47%%) 0 (0.00%) 1479800 66400 (16.53%) 0 (0.00%) 401700 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 012 Kerala 51347 (11.39%) 4051 (0.90%) 450872 427843 (10.82%) 71342 (1.80%) 3955817 293395 (10.74%) 27687 (1.01%) 273146813 Madhya Pradesh 320100 (15.00%) 426800 (20.00%) 2134400 311700 (15.00%) 415600 (20.00%) 2078000 237700 (15.00%) 316900 (20.00%) 158460014 Maharashtra 204592 (13.39%) 134475 (8.80%) 1527454 734969 (9.70%) 702803 (9.27%) 7578890 1062919 (10.08%) 851308 (8.07%) 1054917815 Manipur 500 (1.00%) 18300 (21.00%) 86700 2800 (4.42%) 25800 (40.69%) 63400 600 (0.55%) 66300 (60.66%) 10930016 Meghalaya 0 (0.00%) 47300 (100.00%) 47300 0 (0.00%) 65300 (100.00%) 65300 0 (0.00%) 77200 (100.00%) 7720017 Mizoram 0 (0.00%) 56700 (100.00%) 56700 0 (0.00%) 59300 (100.00%) 59300 0 (0.00%) 25200 (100.00%) 2520018 Nagaland 0 (0.00%) 62700 (100.00%) 62700 0 (0.00%) 40000 (100.00%) 40000 0 (0.00%) 10300 (100.00%) 1030019 Orissa 71700 (15.76%) 108600 (23.87%) 455000 161200 (21.27%) 185100 (24.42%) 758000 44926 (18.17%) 72382 (29.28%) 24721720 Punjab 80279 (30.00%) 0 (0.00%) 267599 162738 (31.79%) 0 (0.00%) 511940 60491 (30.00%) 0 (0.00%) 20163621 Rajasthan 59000 (31.55%) 22000 (11.76%) 187000 47500 (7.16%) 30400 (4.58%) 663835 36500 (9.14%) 25300 (6.33%) 39950022 Sikkim 200 (1.32%) 3000 (19.74%) 15200 100 (1.04%) 1200 (12.50%) 9600 200 (2.63%) 1700 (22.37%) 760023 Tamil Nadu 7 (26.92%) 1 (3.85%) 26 352229 (33.20%) 23531 (2.22%) 1060997 360836 (27.19%) 37350 (2.81%) 132688624 Tripura 7600 (17.67%) 14300 (33.26%) 43000 6100 (13.56%) 16700 (37.11%) 45000 9600 (25.46%) 4500 (11.94%) 3770025 Uttar Pradesh 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 026 Uttarakhand 8302 (11.77%) 5017 (7.11%) 70549 14020 (15.56%) 3483 (3.87%) 90110 74384 (20.53%) 14816 (4.09%) 36237027 West Bengal 510000 (29.65%) 70000(4.07%) 1720000 109000 (25.89%) 32000 (7.60%) 421000 66800 (13.00%) 26000 (7.39%) 351500

2164260 (15.22%) 1759525 (12.38%) 14211116 3627167 (14.72%) 3030605 (12.30%) 24635151 3474281 (13.31%) 2636299 (10.10%) 26097639Total

2006-2007Population Covered

Table 4.3 : Share of coverage of SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply in the States

S. No. State



Nos. (%)

95

Govt. / Local

Bodies schools

Govt. Aided

Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis Total

Govt. / Local

Bodies schools

Govt. Aided

Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis Total

Govt. / Local

Bodies schools

Govt. Aided

Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis Total

1 Andhra Pradesh 433 0 0 0 433 247 0 0 5 252 507 119 0 85 7112 Arunachal Pradesh 306 0 0 0 306 347 0 0 0 347 412 0 0 0 4123 Assam 0 0 0 0 0 1838 0 0 0 1838 1058 0 0 0 10584 Bihar 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 350 202 0 0 0 2025 Chhattisgarh 3511 0 0 0 3511 3996 0 0 0 3996 2265 0 0 0 22656 Gujarat 0 625 0 0 625 2099 1474 0 0 3573 0 1114 0 0 11147 Haryana 0 0 0 0 0 917 0 0 0 917 1250 0 0 0 12508 Himachal Pradesh 350 0 0 0 350 2459 0 0 0 2459 0 0 0 0 09 J&k 0 15 0 0 15 3501 20 0 0 3521 0 20 0 0 20

10 Jharkhand 1285 0 0 0 1285 541 0 0 0 541 1471 0 0 0 147111 Karnataka 663 0 0 0 663 7015 0 0 0 7015 9541 0 0 0 954112 Kerala 506 0 0 0 506 114 0 0 0 114 392 0 0 0 39213 Madhya Pradesh 6155 0 0 0 6155 12421 0 0 0 12421 9260 0 0 0 926014 Maharashtra 1889 0 0 0 1889 5154 0 0 0 5154 9767 0 0 0 976715 Manipur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 016 Meghalaya 66 0 0 0 66 650 0 0 0 650 726 0 0 0 72617 Mizoram 56 0 0 0 56 685 0 0 0 685 2139 0 0 0 213918 Nagaland 44 0 0 0 44 36 0 0 0 36 64 0 0 0 6419 Orissa 5677 0 0 0 5677 7673 0 0 0 7673 2902 723 0 0 362520 Punjab 0 740 0 0 740 0 293 0 0 293 0 86 0 0 8621 Rajasthan 0 0 0 0 0 8736 0 0 0 8736 13191 0 0 0 1319122 Sikkim 67 0 0 0 67 51 0 0 0 51 8 0 0 0 823 Tamil Nadu 0 269 0 0 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 Tripura 216 0 0 0 216 276 0 0 0 276 282 0 0 0 28225 Uttar Pradesh 883 0 0 0 883 4738 0 0 0 4738 5824 0 0 0 582426 Uttarakhand 0 0 0 0 0 2361 0 0 0 2361 1068 0 0 0 106827 West Bengal 1500 0 0 0 1500 2970 0 0 0 2970 1488 0 0 0 1488

23607 1649 0 0 25256 69175 1787 0 5 70967 63817 2062 0 85 65964Total

Table 4.4 : Institutional Coverage - Nos. of Institutions covered under ARWSP in the States

S. No. State

2004-2005

(Nos.)2005-2006 2006-2007

96

(√ = Yes, X = No)

Formed Frequency of meetings in a year (Nos.)

No. of meetings held in last 3 years

Allcation & Releases to Districts

Selection of Habitations to be covered

Type of Schemes to be taken up

1 Andhra Pradesh X 0 0 X X X2 Arunachal Pradesh √ 4 12 X √ √3 Assam √ 4 12 X √ √4 Bihar √ 12 30 √ X X5 Chhattisgarh √ 4 10 √ X X6 Gujarat √ 2 6 √ X X7 Haryana √ 2 6 √ √ √8 Himachal Pradesh √ 4 10 √ √ X9 J&k √ 2 2 √ √ √10 Jharkhand √ 24 40 √ X X11 Karnataka √ 3 12 √ X X12 Kerala X 0 0 √ X X13 Madhya Pradesh √ 4 12 √ X X14 Maharashtra √ 2 5 √ X X15 Manipur √ 2 6 X √ √16 Meghalaya √ 4 8 X √ √17 Mizoram √ 2 6 X √ √18 Nagaland √ 2 6 X √ √19 Orissa √ 2 7 √ √ X20 Punjab √ 2 2 √ √ √21 Rajasthan √ 2 6 √ X X22 Sikkim √ 4 12 X √ √23 Tamil Nadu √ 1 3 √ √ √24 Tripura √ 4 10 X √ √25 Uttar Pradesh √ 4 12 √ X X26 Uttarakhand √ 2 6 √ X X27 West Bengal X 0 0 X X X

24 17 14 12Total

Table 5.1 : Formation of State Level Missions and Role in decision making on ARWSP

S. No. State

Mission / Committee for overseeing RWS Role in decision making on

97

Awarding Contracts for installation Operation & Maintenance Awareness Generation Training of Users Sustainability Efforts

1 Andhra Pradesh X X √ X X2 Arunachal Pradesh X √ √ X √3 Assam X √ √ X √4 Bihar X X X X X5 Chhattisgarh X √ √ X √6 Gujarat X X √ √ √7 Haryana √ √ X √ X8 Himachal Pradesh X X X √ √9 J&k X √ √ √ √10 Jharkhand √ √ √ √ √11 Karnataka X X √ √ √12 Kerala √ X √ X X13 Madhya Pradesh X √ X √ √14 Maharashtra X X √ √ √15 Manipur X X X X √16 Meghalaya X X √ X √17 Mizoram X X √ X X18 Nagaland X X √ X X19 Orissa X X X X X20 Punjab X √ √ √ √21 Rajasthan X X √ √ √22 Sikkim X X √ X X23 Tamil Nadu X X X √ √24 Tripura X X √ X √25 Uttar Pradesh X √ √ X √26 Uttarakhand X X √ X X27 West Bengal X X X X X

3 9 19 11 17Total

Table 5.1 (a) : Role of State in Planning of ARWSP

Role in Planning for

S. No. State

98

FormedFrequency of meetings in a

year (Nos.)

No. of meetings held in last 3 years

Selection of Habitations to be

covered

Type of Schemes to be taken up

contracts for installation of water supply schemes

under ARWSP awarded

1 Andhra Pradesh 4 3 2 9 2 4 42 Arunachal Pradesh 3 3 4 12 0 3 33 Assam 5 5 4 12 0 5 54 Bihar 5 0 0 0 3 1 25 Chhattisgarh 3 0 0 0 3 2 16 Gujarat 5 1 12 35 3 5 47 Haryana 3 3 7 11 0 0 28 Himachal Pradesh 3 1 1 2 2 3 29 J&k 3 2 6 14 1 1 310 Jharkhand 5 2 12 32 4 5 011 Karnataka 4 5 4 13 5 4 312 Kerala 2 2 2 3 3 3 313 Madhya Pradesh 5 3 3 9 5 5 514 Maharashtra 5 2 12 3 3 2 015 Manipur 2 2 4 12 0 2 216 Meghalaya 2 2 2 6 0 2 217 Mizoram 2 2 4 12 0 2 218 Nagaland 3 3 2 6 0 3 319 Orissa 5 3 3 11 4 4 420 Punjab 3 3 11 34 1 0 021 Rajasthan 5 3 15 46 4 4 322 Sikkim 2 2 4 10 2 2 223 Tamil Nadu 5 3 4 11 5 5 524 Tripura 2 2 4 11 0 2 225 Uttar Pradesh 5 2 3 8 5 5 526 Uttarakhand 3 2 2 6 3 3 227 West Bengal 3 1 0 0 1 1 0

97 62 59 78 69Total

Table 5.1(b) :Formation of Missions and Decision making on ARWSP at district level

S. No. State

Mission / Committee for overseeing RWS Decision making on

No. of District

99

Operation & Maintenance Awareness Generation Training of Users Sustainability Efforts

1 Andhra Pradesh 4 4 4 4 32 Arunachal Pradesh 3 3 3 3 33 Assam 5 5 5 5 54 Bihar 5 2 4 1 15 Chhattisgarh 3 3 3 2 26 Gujarat 5 1 4 3 57 Haryana 3 3 1 1 38 Himachal Pradesh 3 2 2 0 29 J&k 3 0 2 0 210 Jharkhand 5 4 4 2 211 Karnataka 4 2 4 4 512 Kerala 2 3 2 3 213 Madhya Pradesh 5 4 5 5 514 Maharashtra 5 1 3 2 215 Manipur 2 2 2 2 216 Meghalaya 2 2 2 2 217 Mizoram 2 2 2 2 218 Nagaland 3 3 3 3 319 Orissa 5 5 5 1 520 Punjab 3 0 1 0 121 Rajasthan 5 3 5 2 422 Sikkim 2 2 2 2 223 Tamil Nadu 5 0 5 5 524 Tripura 2 2 2 2 225 Uttar Pradesh 5 5 5 5 426 Uttarakhand 3 3 2 3 127 West Bengal 3 1 1 1 1

97 67 83 65 76Total

Table 5.1 (c) : Role of District in Planning of ARWSP

Role in Planning for

S. No. State No. of District

100

(% of Schemes)

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 119 43.70 14.29 36.97 4.20 0.84 0.00 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 35 35 5.71 34.29 5.71 3.29 37.14 0.00 13.863 Assam 52 54 72.22 3.70 1.85 0.00 5.56 16.67 0.004 Bihar 171 172 89.53 10.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Chhattisgarh 346 347 99.71 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 95 105 34.29 19.05 42.86 2.86 0.00 0.95 0.007 Haryana 11 18 0.00 72.22 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 14 0.00 78.57 21.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 10 12 8.33 41.67 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 Jharkhand 55 65 90.77 3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.62 1.5411 Karnataka 69 80 20.00 25.00 36.25 12.50 2.50 3.75 0.0012 Kerala 34 34 0.00 64.71 20.59 0.00 0.00 14.71 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 373 376 98.40 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2714 Maharashtra 18 19 5.26 5.26 57.89 5.26 0.00 26.32 0.0015 Manipur 28 28 0.00 35.71 0.00 0.00 64.29 0.00 0.0016 Meghalaya 22 22 4.54 40.90 4.54 0.00 31.81 18.21 0.0017 Mizoram 27 27 0.00 92.59 0.00 0.00 7.41 0.00 0.0018 Nagaland 32 32 0.00 93.75 0.00 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Orissa 295 308 93.18 1.30 4.22 0.00 0.32 0.65 0.3220 Punjab 17 32 0.00 9.38 90.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 106 106 45.28 1.89 9.43 43.40 0.00 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 22 22 0.00 45.45 0.00 0.00 54.54 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 68 71 8.45 16.90 67.61 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 17 18 83.33 5.55 11.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 111 111 99.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 30 30 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 44 69 91.30 7.25 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2176 2326 74.19 9.15 12.02 3.40 0.19 0.91 0.14

Hand Pump

Total

Piped Water Supply (surface

water)

Table 6.1 Type of Schemes taken up under ARWSP in the surveyed habitations

Protected Dug Well Other

Piped Water Supply

(undergound water)

Community tank stand post

Protected Spring Sources

S. No. State


No. of habitations covered

101

1 Andhra Pradesh 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 11.243 Assam 7.404 Bihar 1.745 Chhattisgarh 0.296 Gujarat 1.907 Haryana 11.118 Himachal Pradesh 64.299 J&k 33.3310 Jharkhand 0.0011 Karnataka 0.0012 Kerala 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 0.8014 Maharashtra 5.2615 Manipur 14.2816 Meghalaya 13.6317 Mizoram 3.7018 Nagaland 0.0019 Orissa 0.3220 Punjab 9.3821 Rajasthan 1.8922 Sikkim 4.5423 Tamil Nadu 0.0024 Tripura 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 0.0026 Uttarakhand 0.0027 West Bengal 2.90

1.59Total

State % of schemes more than1.6 kilometer or 100 meter

Table 6.1 (b) Location of Scheme (Distance from Habitation)

S. No.

102


1 Andhra Pradesh 119 1147 84 7.32 1045 91.11 74 6.45 28 2.44 102 8.892 Arunachal Pradesh 35 88 5 5.68 72 81.82 12 13.64 4 4.55 19 21.593 Assam 54 66 9 13.64 52 78.79 8 12.12 6 9.09 18 27.274 Bihar 172 810 166 20.49 463 57.16 228 28.15 119 14.69 103 12.725 Chhattisgarh 347 363 4 1.10 358 98.62 3 0.83 2 0.55 12 3.316 Gujarat 105 19206 3804 19.81 19168 99.80 23 0.12 15 0.08 226 1.187 Haryana 18 67 4 5.97 66 98.51 1 1.49 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 18 13 72.22 12 66.67 2 11.11 4 22.22 1 5.569 J&k 12 63 7 11.11 55 87.30 5 7.94 3 4.76 3 4.76

10 Jharkhand 65 102 32 31.37 61 59.80 21 20.59 20 19.61 25 24.5111 Karnataka 80 489 22 4.50 442 90.39 23 4.70 24 4.91 37 7.5712 Kerala 34 224 2 0.89 220 98.21 4 1.79 0 0.00 0 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 376 400 19 4.75 358 89.50 23 5.75 19 4.75 12 3.0014 Maharashtra 19 529 0 0.00 528 99.81 0 0.00 1 0.19 0 0.0015 Manipur 28 61 3 4.92 49 80.33 9 14.75 3 4.92 34 55.7416 Meghalaya 22 52 9 17.31 44 84.62 5 9.62 3 5.77 32 61.5417 Mizoram 27 62 3 4.84 53 85.48 6 9.68 3 4.84 32 51.6118 Nagaland 32 107 10 9.35 82 76.64 17 15.89 8 7.48 7 6.5419 Orissa 308 540 24 4.44 480 88.89 45 8.33 15 2.78 76 14.0720 Punjab 32 32 4 12.50 31 96.88 1 3.13 0 0.00 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 106 2621 235 8.97 2620 99.96 1 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.0022 Sikkim 22 89 5 5.62 80 89.89 5 5.62 4 4.49 4 4.4923 Tamil Nadu 71 215 0 0.00 215 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0024 Tripura 18 22 2 9.09 22 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 20 90.9125 Uttar Pradesh 111 151 3 1.99 143 94.70 3 1.99 5 3.31 9 5.9626 Uttarakhand 30 128 8 6.25 107 83.59 7 5.47 14 10.94 0 0.0027 West Bengal 69 69 37 53.62 38 55.07 15 21.74 16 23.19 32 46.38

2326 27721 4514 16.28 26864 96.91 541 1.95 316 1.14 804 2.90

Permanently defunct

Total

S. No.

Affected by seasonal variation

Affected by water quality problems

Table 6.1 (c) Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations

StateNo. of

schemes covered


Currently functional Temporarily not functional

103

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %

1 Andhra Pradesh Hand Pump 52 659 72 10.93 579 87.86 59 8.95 21 3.19

2 Andhra Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 17 88 2 2.27 85 96.59 3 3.41 0 0.00

3 Andhra Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 44 336 10 2.98 318 94.64 11 3.27 7 2.08

4 Andhra Pradesh Community Tank Stand Post 5 24 0 0.00 24 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 Andhra Pradesh Protected Spring Sources 1 40 0 0.00 39 97.50 1 2.50 0 0.00

6 Arunachal Pradesh Hand Pump 2 2 1 50.00 1 50.00 1 50.00 0 0.00

7 Arunachal Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 12 35 0 0.00 32 91.43 3 8.57 0 0.00

8 Arunachal Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 2 11 0 0.00 11 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

9 Arunachal Pradesh Community Tank Stand Post 1 5 0 0.00 5 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

10 Arunachal Pradesh Protected Spring Sources 13 16 3 18.75 11 68.75 4 25.00 1 6.25

11 Arunachal Pradesh Other 5 19 1 5.26 12 63.16 4 21.05 3 15.79

12 Assam Hand Pump 39 39 2 5.13 30 76.92 5 12.82 4 10.26

13 Assam Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 2 8 0 0.00 8 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Type of SchemesS. No.

Nos. affected by seasonal variation

Table 6.1 (d) Distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes (As per Type of Schemes)

State NameNo. of

schemes covered

Total No. of Service

Access Point

No. of currently functional service

access points

No. of temporarily not


No. of permanently defunct service access points

104





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




14 Assam Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 1 7 0 0.00 7 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

15 Assam Community Tank Stand Post 3 3 0 0.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

16 Assam Protected Spring Sources 9 9 7 77.78 4 44.44 3 33.33 2 22.22

17 Bihar Hand Pump 154 792 166 20.96 463 58.46 210 26.52 119 15.03

18 Bihar Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 18 18 0 0.00 0 0.00 18 100.00 0 0.00

19 Chhattisgarh Hand Pump 346 357 4 1.12 352 98.60 3 0.84 2 0.56

20 Chhattisgarh Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 1 6 0 0.00 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

21 Gujarat Hand Pump 36 191 3 1.57 162 84.82 20 10.47 9 4.71

22 Gujarat Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 20 7150 2845 39.79 7147 99.96 3 0.04 0 0.00

23 Gujarat Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 45 11849 950 8.02 11843 99.95 0 0.00 6 0.05

24 Gujarat Community Tank Stand Post 3 15 6 40.00 15 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

25 Gujarat Protected Dug Well 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

26 Haryana Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 13 62 3 4.84 61 98.39 1 1.61 0 0.00

105





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




27 Haryana Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 5 5 1 20.00 5 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

28 Himachal Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 11 16 11 68.75 11 68.75 1 6.25 4 25.00

29 Himachal Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 3 2 2 100.00 1 50.00 1 50.00 0 0.00

30 J&k Hand Pump 1 50 2 4.00 50 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

31 J&k Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 5 6 3 50.00 2 33.33 3 50.00 1 16.67

32 J&k Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 6 7 2 28.57 3 42.86 2 28.57 2 28.57

33 Jharkhand Hand Pump 60 97 32 32.99 59 60.82 21 21.65 17 17.53

34 Jharkhand Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 2 3 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 2 66.67

35 Jharkhand Protected Dug Well 3 2 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 1 50.00

36 Karnataka Hand Pump 16 99 16 16.16 73 73.74 11 11.11 15 15.15

37 Karnataka Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 20 101 3 2.97 90 89.11 10 9.90 1 0.99

38 Karnataka Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 29 242 2 0.83 236 97.52 1 0.41 5 2.07

39 Karnataka Community Tank Stand Post 10 34 0 0.00 30 88.24 1 2.94 3 8.82

106





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




40 Karnataka Protected Spring Sources 2 3 0 0.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

41 Karnataka Protected Dug Well 3 10 1 10.00 10 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

42 Kerala Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 22 123 0 0.00 123 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

43 Kerala Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 7 57 0 0.00 57 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

44 Kerala Protected Dug Well 5 44 2 4.55 40 90.91 4 9.09 0 0.00

45 Madhya Pradesh Hand Pump 371 395 19 4.81 354 89.62 22 5.57 19 4.81

46 Madhya Pradesh Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 5 5 0 0.00 4 80.00 1 20.00 0 0.00

47 Maharashtra Hand Pump 1 9 0 0.00 8 88.89 0 0.00 1 11.11

48 Maharashtra Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 13 514 0 0.00 514 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

49 Maharashtra Protected Dug Well 5 6 0 0.00 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

50 Manipur Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 10 41 0 0.00 39 95.12 2 4.88 0 0.00

51 Manipur Protected Spring Sources 18 20 3 15.00 10 50.00 7 35.00 3 15.00

52 Meghalaya Hand Pump 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

107





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




53 Meghalaya Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 9 35 0 0.00 32 91.43 2 5.71 1 2.86

54 Meghalaya Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 1 5 0 0.00 5 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

55 Meghalaya Protected Spring Sources 7 7 5 71.43 5 71.43 1 14.29 1 14.29

56 Meghalaya Protected Dug Well 4 4 4 100.00 1 25.00 2 50.00 1 25.00

57 Mizoram Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 25 58 3 5.17 49 84.48 6 10.34 3 5.17

58 Mizoram Protected Spring Sources 2 4 0 0.00 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

59 Nagaland Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 30 100 8 8.00 76 76.00 16 16.00 8 8.00

60 Nagaland Community Tank Stand Post 2 7 2 28.57 6 85.71 1 14.29 0 0.00

61 Orissa Hand Pump 287 443 22 4.97 387 87.36 42 9.48 14 3.16

62 Orissa Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 4 16 1 6.25 14 87.50 1 6.25 1 6.25

63 Orissa Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 13 78 1 1.28 76 97.44 2 2.56 0 0.00

64 Orissa Protected Spring Sources 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

65 Orissa Protected Dug Well 2 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

108





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




66 Orissa Other 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

67 Punjab Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 3 3 2 66.67 2 66.67 1 33.33 0 0.00

68 Punjab Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 29 29 2 6.90 29 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

69 Rajasthan Hand Pump 48 48 0 0.00 48 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

70 Rajasthan Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 2 3 0 0.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

71 Rajasthan Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 10 2510 235 9.36 2510 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

72 Rajasthan Community Tank Stand Post 46 60 0 0.00 59 98.33 1 1.67 0 0.00

73 Sikkim Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 10 77 0 0.00 75 97.40 0 0.00 2 2.60

74 Sikkim Protected Spring Sources 12 12 5 41.67 5 41.67 5 41.67 2 16.67

75 Tamil Nadu Hand Pump 6 16 0 0.00 16 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

76 Tamil Nadu Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 12 45 0 0.00 45 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

77 Tamil Nadu Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 48 133 0 0.00 133 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

78 Tamil Nadu Community Tank Stand Post 5 21 0 0.00 21 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

109





State NameNo. of

schemes covered


Access Point


access points




79 Tripura Hand Pump 15 15 2 13.33 15 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

80 Tripura Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 1 4 0 0.00 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

81 Tripura Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) 2 3 0 0.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

82 Uttar Pradesh Hand Pump 110 150 3 2.00 142 94.67 3 2.00 5 3.33

83 Uttar Pradesh Community Tank Stand Post 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

84 Uttarakhand Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 30 128 8 6.25 107 83.59 7 5.47 14 10.94

85 West Bengal Hand Pump 64 65 36 55.38 36 55.38 14 21.54 15 23.08

86 West Bengal Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) 5 4 1 25.00 2 50.00 1 25.00 1 25.00

2326 27721 4514 16.28 26864 96.91 541 1.95 316 1.14Total

110


1 Andhra Pradesh 2004-05 79 838 779 92.96 42 5.01 17 2.032 Andhra Pradesh 2005-06 40 309 266 86.08 32 10.36 11 3.563 Arunachal Pradesh 2004-05 8 20 16 80.00 3 15.00 1 5.004 Arunachal Pradesh 2005-06 15 38 31 81.58 5 13.16 2 5.265 Arunachal Pradesh 2006-07 12 30 25 83.33 4 13.33 1 3.336 Assam 2004-05 9 11 9 81.82 1 9.09 1 9.097 Assam 2005-06 4 5 4 80.00 1 20.00 0 0.008 Assam 2006-07 41 50 39 78.00 6 12.00 5 10.009 Bihar 2005-06 74 277 153 55.23 73 26.35 51 18.4110 Bihar 2006-07 98 533 310 58.16 155 29.08 68 12.7611 Chhattisgarh 2004-05 68 69 69 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0012 Chhattisgarh 2005-06 145 150 147 98.00 1 0.67 2 1.3313 Chhattisgarh 2006-07 134 144 142 98.61 2 1.39 0 0.0014 Gujarat 2004-05 38 11601 11581 99.83 12 0.10 8 0.0715 Gujarat 2005-06 44 1934 1919 99.22 11 0.57 4 0.2116 Gujarat 2006-07 23 5671 5668 99.95 0 0.00 3 0.0517 Haryana 2004-05 18 67 66 98.51 1 1.49 0 0.0018 Himachal Pradesh 2004-05 13 16 12 75.00 1 6.25 3 18.7519 Himachal Pradesh 2006-07 1 2 0 0.00 1 50.00 1 50.0020 J&k 2004-05 7 57 53 92.98 3 5.26 1 1.7521 J&k 2006-07 5 6 2 33.33 2 33.33 2 33.3322 Jharkhand 2004-05 15 28 17 60.71 5 17.86 6 21.4323 Jharkhand 2005-06 23 42 25 59.52 5 11.90 12 28.5724 Jharkhand 2006-07 27 32 19 59.38 11 34.38 2 6.2525 Karnataka 2004-05 69 431 384 89.10 23 5.34 24 5.5726 Karnataka 2005-06 11 58 58 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0027 Kerala 2004-05 22 163 159 97.55 4 2.45 0 0.00

Total No. of Service Access

PointsS. No. State Name Year of

CoverageNo. of schemes

covered

Table 6.1 (e) Distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes (As per Year of Coverage under ARWSP)

No. of currently functional service access points

No. of temporarily not functional service access points


111





covered





28 Kerala 2005-06 12 61 61 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0029 Madhya Pradesh 2004-05 103 107 99 92.52 2 1.87 6 5.6130 Madhya Pradesh 2005-06 122 139 122 87.77 10 7.19 7 5.0431 Madhya Pradesh 2006-07 151 154 137 88.96 11 7.14 6 3.9032 Maharashtra 2004-05 4 209 208 99.52 0 0.00 1 0.4833 Maharashtra 2005-06 5 152 152 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0034 Maharashtra 2006-07 10 168 168 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0035 Manipur 2004-05 6 13 10 76.92 2 15.38 1 7.6936 Manipur 2005-06 2 4 3 75.00 1 25.00 0 0.0037 Manipur 2006-07 20 44 36 81.82 6 13.64 2 4.5538 Meghalaya 2004-05 4 9 8 88.89 1 11.11 0 0.0039 Meghalaya 2005-06 8 19 16 84.21 2 10.53 1 5.2640 Meghalaya 2006-07 10 24 20 83.33 2 8.33 2 8.3341 Mizoram 2004-05 2 4 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0042 Mizoram 2005-06 6 14 12 85.71 1 7.14 1 7.1443 Mizoram 2006-07 19 44 37 84.09 5 11.36 2 4.5544 Nagaland 2004-05 13 43 33 76.74 7 16.28 3 6.9845 Nagaland 2005-06 11 37 28 75.68 6 16.22 3 8.1146 Nagaland 2006-07 8 27 21 77.78 4 14.81 2 7.4147 Orissa 2004-05 106 201 168 83.58 26 12.94 7 3.4848 Orissa 2005-06 107 230 210 91.30 16 6.96 4 1.7449 Orissa 2006-07 95 109 102 93.58 3 2.75 4 3.6750 Punjab 2004-05 28 28 27 96.43 1 3.57 0 0.0051 Punjab 2005-06 4 4 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0052 Rajasthan 2004-05 30 2288 2288 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0053 Rajasthan 2005-06 47 301 300 99.67 1 0.33 0 0.0054 Rajasthan 2006-07 29 32 32 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

112





covered





55 Sikkim 2004-05 7 28 26 92.86 1 3.57 1 3.5756 Sikkim 2005-06 7 29 26 89.66 2 6.90 1 3.4557 Sikkim 2006-07 8 32 28 87.50 2 6.25 2 6.2558 Tamil Nadu 2004-05 54 160 160 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0059 Tamil Nadu 2005-06 17 55 55 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0060 Tripura 2004-05 7 9 9 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0061 Tripura 2005-06 4 4 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0062 Tripura 2006-07 7 9 9 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0063 Uttar Pradesh 2005-06 65 100 94 94.00 2 2.00 4 4.0064 Uttar Pradesh 2006-07 46 51 49 96.08 1 1.96 1 1.9665 Uttarakhand 2004-05 8 26 21 80.77 1 3.85 4 15.3866 Uttarakhand 2005-06 9 40 27 67.50 6 15.00 7 17.5067 Uttarakhand 2006-07 13 62 59 95.16 0 0.00 3 4.8468 West Bengal 2004-05 3 3 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0069 West Bengal 2005-06 6 6 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.0070 West Bengal 2006-07 60 60 29 48.33 15 25.00 16 26.67

2326 27721 26864 96.91 541 1.95 316 1.14Total

113


1 Andhra Pradesh 45 478 24 5.02 442 92.47 28 5.86 8 1.67 0 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 5 14 1 7.14 11 78.57 2 14.29 1 7.14 3 21.433 Assam 6 7 1 14.29 5 71.43 1 14.29 1 14.29 2 28.574 Bihar 88 299 58 19.40 162 54.18 92 30.77 45 15.05 63 21.075 Chhattisgarh 36 34 0 0.00 34 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.886 Gujarat 8 763 10 1.31 760 99.61 2 0.26 1 0.13 0 0.007 Haryana 2 2 2 100.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 1 2 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0010 Jharkhand 41 87 25 28.74 48 55.17 20 22.99 19 21.84 22 25.2911 Karnataka 42 274 7 2.55 259 94.53 7 2.55 8 2.92 0 0.0012 Kerala 25 120 0 0.00 120 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 131 138 11 7.97 113 81.88 16 11.59 9 6.52 6 4.3514 Maharashtra 5 68 0 0.00 68 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0015 Manipur 3 7 0 0.00 6 85.71 1 14.29 0 0.00 4 57.1416 Meghalaya 2 5 1 20.00 4 80.00 1 20.00 0 0.00 3 60.0017 Mizoram 2 5 0 0.00 4 80.00 0 0.00 1 20.00 2 40.0018 Nagaland 1 4 0 0.00 3 75.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 1 25.0019 Orissa 36 55 4 7.27 50 90.91 4 7.27 1 1.82 3 5.4520 Punjab 4 8 2 25.00 5 62.50 2 25.00 1 12.50 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 22 258 235 91.09 254 98.45 3 1.16 1 0.39 0 0.0022 Sikkim 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 27 69 0 0.00 64 92.75 3 4.35 2 2.90 0 0.0024 Tripura 1 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.0025 Uttar Pradesh 23 22 0 0.00 21 95.45 0 0.00 1 4.55 0 0.0026 Uttaranchal 8 29 0 0.00 23 79.31 6 20.69 0 0.00 0 0.0027 West Bengal 20 9 6 66.67 6 66.67 2 22.22 1 11.11 3 33.33

584 2758 387 14.03 2467 89.45 191 6.93 100 3.63 115 4.17

Permanently defunct

Total

S. No.



Table 6.1 (f) Functionality Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations which had slipped back to PC status

State

No. of habitations

slipped back to PC status


Currently functional Temporarily not functional

114


1 Andhra Pradesh 2 1 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 3 8 1 12.50 6 75.00 1 12.50 1 12.50 2 25.003 Assam 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.004 Bihar 55 346 93 26.88 173 50.00 122 35.26 51 14.74 31 8.965 Chhattisgarh 5 5 1 20.00 4 80.00 0 0.00 1 20.00 1 20.006 Gujarat 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.007 Haryana 1 2 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 1 2 2 100.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.0010 Jharkhand 7 5 2 40.00 3 60.00 1 20.00 1 20.00 1 20.0011 Karnataka 4 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0012 Kerala 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 13 12 1 8.33 6 50.00 0 0.00 6 50.00 1 8.3314 Maharashtra 5 6 0 0.00 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0015 Manipur 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0016 Meghalaya 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0017 Mizoram 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0018 Nagaland 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0019 Orissa 12 17 0 0.00 14 82.35 3 17.65 0 0.00 0 0.0020 Punjab 1 2 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 3 5 0 0.00 5 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0022 Sikkim 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 4 27 0 0.00 27 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0024 Tripura 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 6 9 0 0.00 8 88.89 1 11.11 0 0.00 0 0.0026 Uttaranchal 8 33 4 12.12 17 51.52 7 21.21 9 27.27 0 0.0027 West Bengal 13 6 5 83.33 5 83.33 1 16.67 0 0.00 5 83.33

143 486 109 22.43 281 57.82 136 27.98 69 14.20 43 8.85Total

S. No.



Table 6.1 (g) Functionality Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations which had slipped back to NC status

StateNo. of

habitations covered


Access Points

Currently functional Temporarily not functional Permanently defunct

115

Mechanical fault at delivery point

Mechanical fault in water supply line

Ground water depletion

Surface water source dried Other

1 Andhra Pradesh 6.45 43.24 16.22 9.46 10.81 9.462 Arunachal Pradesh 13.64 35.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.783 Assam 12.12 39.78 5.66 18.45 0.00 36.114 Bihar 28.15 47.37 1.32 10.53 29.39 11.405 Chhattisgarh 0.83 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 0.12 52.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.837 Haryana 1.49 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 11.11 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 7.94 60.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 Jharkhand 20.59 33.33 47.62 19.05 0.00 0.0011 Karnataka 4.70 39.13 4.35 13.04 17.39 0.0012 Kerala 1.79 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 5.75 65.22 4.35 26.09 0.00 0.0014 Maharashtra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 14.75 42.65 6.47 21.56 0.00 29.3216 Meghalaya 9.62 32.78 10.26 5.69 3.65 47.6217 Mizoram 9.68 49.65 12.36 6.47 24.26 7.2618 Nagaland 15.89 38.69 18.65 13.36 22.69 6.6119 Orissa 8.33 31.11 2.22 24.44 42.22 0.0020 Punjab 3.13 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0022 Sikkim 5.62 43.69 16.95 10.36 12.36 16.6423 Tamil Nadu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 0.00 37.36 5.65 14.56 10.26 32.1725 Uttar Pradesh 1.99 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 5.47 14.29 128.57 85.71 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 21.74 15.63 46.88 0.00 21.88 15.63

1.95 41.70 14.43 12.06 20.75 11.06

Table 6.2 Problems/reasons for not functional schemes in the surveyed habitations

S. No.

Total

State

Reasons for temporarily not functional

(% of habitations)

% of Temporarily not functional service access points from total service

access points

116


Mechanical fault in water supply line



1 Andhra Pradesh 5.86 13.79 6.90 20.69 27.59 17.242 Arunachal Pradesh 14.29 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.003 Assam 14.29 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 Bihar 30.77 40.22 0.00 15.22 21.74 22.835 Chhattisgarh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 0.26 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.007 Haryana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 Jharkhand 22.99 30.00 50.00 20.00 0.00 0.0011 Karnataka 2.55 71.43 14.29 14.29 0.00 0.0012 Kerala 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 11.59 62.50 6.25 31.25 0.00 0.0014 Maharashtra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10016 Meghalaya 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10017 Mizoram 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0018 Nagaland 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Orissa 7.27 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.0020 Punjab 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 4.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttaranchal 20.69 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 22.22 0.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 0.00

6.93 35.20 8.94 21.23 17.32 15.08

Table 6.2 (a) Problems/reasons for temporarily not functional schemes in the sample habitations which had slipped back to PC status

S. No.

Total

State

Reasons for temporarily not functional

(% of service access points)

% of Temporarily not functional service

access points from total service access points

117


Mechanical fault in water supply

line



1 Andhra Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 12.50 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 Assam 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 Bihar 35.26 56.56 2.46 4.10 32.79 4.105 Chhattisgarh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.007 Haryana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 Jharkhand 20.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0011 Karnataka 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0012 Kerala 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 Maharashtra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0016 Meghalaya 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0017 Mizoram 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0018 Nagaland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Orissa 17.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.0020 Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 11.11 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttaranchal 21.21 100.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 16.67 20.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00

27.98 55.26 4.24 3.60 31.72 5.19

Table 6.2 (b) Problems/reasons for temporarily not functional schemes in the sample habitations which had slipped back to NC status

(% of service access points)

Total

State

Reasons for temporarily not functional% of Temporarily not

functional service access points from total service

access points

S. No.

118

Arsenic Fluoride Salinity Iron Nitrate Other

1 Andhra Pradesh 8.89 8.82 8.82 14.71 8.82 0.00 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 21.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.56 0.00 0.003 Assam 27.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.19 0.00 0.004 Bihar 12.72 9.71 0.00 42.72 40.78 0.00 6.805 Chhattisgarh 3.31 16.67 16.67 8.33 58.33 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 1.18 0.00 2.65 97.35 0.00 0.00 0.007 Haryana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 5.56 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 4.76 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 Jharkhand 24.51 4.00 0.00 0.00 84.00 0.00 12.0011 Karnataka 7.57 0.00 8.11 21.62 0.00 32.43 32.4312 Kerala 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 3.00 58.33 0.00 8.33 25.00 0.00 8.3314 Maharashtra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 55.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.36 0.00 0.0016 Meghalaya 61.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.65 0.00 0.0017 Mizoram 51.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.65 0.00 0.0018 Nagaland 6.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.36 0.00 0.0019 Orissa 14.07 0.00 3.95 63.16 13.16 17.11 2.6320 Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.69 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 90.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.36 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 5.96 11.11 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 55.5626 Uttarakhand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 46.38 18.75 40.63 0.00 18.75 18.75 9.38

2.90 6.11 5.80 53.29 24.77 4.86 5.17

Table 6.3 Type of water quality problem in the surveyed habitations

Total

S. No.

Type of water quality problem

State

% of service access points affected by water quality problems from

total service access points

119

1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 96.77 0.00 3.232 Arunachal Pradesh 706 84.42 22.24 15.583 Assam 1043 82.14 20.18 17.864 Bihar 3317 73.38 25.99 26.625 Chhattisgarh 6808 97.46 0.00 2.546 Gujarat 1886 98.94 69.09 1.067 Haryana 240 99.58 97.50 0.428 Himachal Pradesh 205 77.56 74.63 22.449 J&k 320 100.00 91.56 0.0010 Jharkhand 1072 68.28 24.81 31.7211 Karnataka 1380 92.83 0.00 7.1712 Kerala 680 90.59 0.00 9.4113 Madhya Pradesh 7986 94.19 3.42 5.8114 Maharashtra 351 54.42 19.09 45.5815 Manipur 564 89.54 26.46 10.4616 Meghalaya 440 87.28 16.54 12.7217 Mizoram 541 90.56 18.94 9.4418 Nagaland 643 92.84 24.26 7.1619 Orissa 5900 87.55 67.05 12.4520 Punjab 177 100.00 68.36 0.0021 Rajasthan 2007 94.22 71.29 5.7822 Sikkim 442 84.65 28.58 15.3523 Tamil Nadu 1360 91.03 0.00 8.9724 Tripura 340 88.24 20.14 11.7625 Uttar Pradesh 2131 70.82 0.00 29.1826 Uttarakhand 526 74.90 26.62 25.1027 West Bengal 926 31.75 19.65 68.25

43477 87.98 23.91 12.02Total

% of households not drawing water from ARWSP Schemes

(% of households)Table 6.4 Usage of ARWSP schemes in the habitations

% of households drawing water from ARWSP Schemes onlyState % of households drawing

water from ARWSP SchemesS.

No. No. of Household covered

120

Facility farther Quantity not adequate

Quality not satisfactory

Frequent breakdowns Scheme defunct Do not need Other reasons

1 Andhra Pradesh 3.23 25.00 12.50 29.17 33.33 20.83 25.00 2.082 Arunachal Pradesh 15.58 30.54 10.54 14.54 2.65 18.54 17.65 22.543 Assam 17.86 36.95 18.98 15.62 12.35 15.69 22.36 25.654 Bihar 26.62 60.25 7.59 2.04 0.00 0.00 13.70 38.055 Chhattisgarh 2.54 52.60 13.29 0.00 1.16 4.62 50.87 0.006 Gujarat 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.007 Haryana 0.42 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 22.44 71.74 26.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.009 J&k 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 Jharkhand 31.72 6.47 6.18 20.00 7.35 38.24 4.41 43.5311 Karnataka 7.17 25.25 41.41 34.34 4.04 12.12 2.02 1.0112 Kerala 9.41 65.63 78.13 46.88 50.00 9.38 31.25 7.8113 Madhya Pradesh 5.81 28.23 6.25 21.98 1.94 55.82 11.42 4.5314 Maharashtra 45.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0015 Manipur 10.46 40.36 15.98 15.69 6.98 15.69 14.69 28.6916 Meghalaya 12.72 38.65 15.98 13.65 12.36 14.65 18.69 14.6917 Mizoram 9.44 36.65 14.60 19.65 7.69 29.65 24.65 24.6918 Nagaland 7.16 30.56 15.69 17.69 4.59 15.60 19.65 23.6519 Orissa 12.45 19.81 8.20 43.85 12.84 22.54 16.80 18.9920 Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0022 Sikkim 15.35 40.26 22.12 17.65 8.54 23.69 14.69 26.6523 Tamil Nadu 8.97 42.62 37.70 36.07 16.39 15.57 0.00 1.6424 Tripura 11.76 31.54 10.36 16.32 5.63 20.36 16.36 24.5925 Uttar Pradesh 29.18 58.44 3.03 1.43 1.27 12.42 50.32 2.3926 Uttarakhand 25.10 0.00 12.12 0.00 0.00 57.58 31.06 38.6427 West Bengal 68.25 29.91 33.39 16.30 16.14 21.84 25.16 23.89

12.02 35.21 12.92 15.94 6.70 19.76 20.41 24.59

Table 6.4 (a) Reasons for not drawing water from the ARWSP scheme

Total

S. No. State

% of households not drawing water from

ARWSP Schemes

(% of households)

Reasons for not drawing water from the ARWSP scheme

121

Whole Year Only in summers Only in winters Only few months in a year

1 Andhra Pradesh 96.77 91.34 4.79 3.52 0.352 Arunachal Pradesh 84.42 95.64 2.68 0.00 1.683 Assam 82.14 85.64 6.85 0.24 7.274 Bihar 73.38 93.18 2.63 0.66 3.455 Chhattisgarh 97.46 97.91 0.15 0.02 1.936 Gujarat 98.94 98.93 0.00 0.00 1.077 Haryana 99.58 99.58 0.42 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 77.56 91.19 7.55 0.63 0.639 J&k 100.00 88.75 5.31 5.94 0.0010 Jharkhand 68.28 95.90 0.14 0.00 3.9611 Karnataka 92.83 97.58 2.03 0.00 0.3912 Kerala 90.59 97.23 1.95 0.00 0.8113 Madhya Pradesh 94.19 88.91 0.81 0.29 9.9914 Maharashtra 54.42 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 89.54 87.58 8.94 0.54 2.9416 Meghalaya 87.28 90.86 4.56 2.40 2.1817 Mizoram 90.56 95.68 2.36 0.00 1.9618 Nagaland 92.84 86.49 1.59 0.00 11.9219 Orissa 87.55 95.96 0.87 0.02 3.0720 Punjab 100.00 92.66 6.78 0.56 0.0021 Rajasthan 94.22 99.74 0.05 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 84.65 91.26 2.36 0.00 6.3823 Tamil Nadu 91.03 88.21 5.82 0.89 5.0924 Tripura 88.24 93.24 3.68 0.00 3.0825 Uttar Pradesh 70.82 99.74 0.07 0.07 0.1326 Uttarakhand 74.90 92.13 0.00 0.76 7.1127 West Bengal 31.75 88.10 1.02 0.34 10.54

87.98 94.56 1.19 0.37 3.84Total

Dependency on ARWSP Facility

Table 6.5 Dependency on ARWSP Facility

State% of households drawing

water from ARWSP Schemes

S. No.

122

Water Supply Department Gram Panchayat User Group Community NGO Other

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 64.86 71.62 13.51 12.16 0.00 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 35 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 Assam 52 75.36 0.00 24.64 0.00 0.00 0.004 Bihar 171 8.77 16.96 67.84 13.45 0.00 10.535 Chhattisgarh 346 90.63 10.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 Gujarat 95 55.79 73.68 9.47 3.16 0.00 0.007 Haryana 11 90.91 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 10 90.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0010 Jharkhand 55 83.64 0.00 23.64 9.09 1.82 1.8211 Karnataka 69 20.29 79.71 8.70 2.90 0.00 0.0012 Kerala 34 55.88 50.00 29.41 0.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 373 95.98 10.99 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.5414 Maharashtra 18 22.22 38.89 27.78 27.78 0.00 11.1115 Manipur 28 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0016 Meghalaya 22 93.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.8817 Mizoram 27 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0018 Nagaland 32 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0019 Orissa 295 25.76 89.83 6.10 1.02 0.68 2.3720 Punjab 17 82.35 17.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 106 95.28 2.83 0.94 0.00 0.00 2.8322 Sikkim 22 95.62 0.00 4.38 0.00 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 68 2.94 94.12 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 17 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 111 26.13 83.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 30 80.00 23.33 16.67 3.33 3.33 3.3327 West Bengal 44 36.36 13.64 31.82 6.82 0.00 20.45

2176 60.14 38.57 11.61 2.77 0.21 2.21

Table 6.6: Provision of O & M Cost

S. No.

Total

State

(% of habitations)

Who is providing for O & M expenditureNo. of habitations

covered

123

Monthly Once in two month Once in three month half yearly Annually Other

1 Andhra Pradesh 57.2 20 42.59 12.24 4.82 12.12 28.00 0.242 Arunachal Pradesh 5.10 15 8.14 0.00 23.65 68.21 0.00 0.003 Assam 3.50 13 5.50 0.00 20.14 74.36 0.00 0.004 Bihar 0 0 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.005 Chhattisgarh 0.29 10 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.006 Gujarat 60.58 12 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.48 0.187 Haryana 11.25 69 33.33 59.26 0.00 7.41 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 0.98 68 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 64.26 20 0.00 99.51 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.0010 Jharkhand 0.09 1 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0011 Karnataka 46.01 15 24.09 12.60 2.83 14.02 43.94 2.5212 Kerala 37.35 14 34.65 12.20 2.76 6.69 39.37 4.3313 Madhya Pradesh 1.05 8 38.10 0.00 2.38 0.00 2.38 57.1414 Maharashtra 43.02 23 13.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.75 0.0015 Manipur 6.50 16 0.00 0.00 65.10 26.10 0.00 8.8016 Meghalaya 4.60 19 0.00 0.00 26.30 63.20 0.00 10.5017 Mizoram 4.30 13 4.30 0.00 53.20 16.30 0.00 26.2018 Nagaland 7.60 12 2.36 0.00 26.30 69.60 0.00 1.7419 Orissa 5.38 12 29.97 0.00 0.00 6.62 0.95 62.4620 Punjab 4.52 40 37.50 37.50 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 10.27 47 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0022 Sikkim 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 31.91 16 17.28 8.29 8.99 16.59 47.47 1.3824 Tripura 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 2.7 23 50.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 46.55 0.0026 Uttarakhand 32.51 23 73.68 2.34 0.58 23.39 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 0.76 1 57.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86

11.81 18 27.82 10.48 2.42 7.51 45.11 6.66Total

S. No.

Schedule of payment (% of households)

Table 6.7: Schedule of Payment of Water Charges by the Respondent Households

State

% of surveyed households

paying water charges

Average amount paid by them Rs.

per month

124

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 35 47.30 20 57.14 38 51.35 18 47.37 37 50.00 21 56.76 12 16.22 42 56.762 Arunachal Pradesh 35 30 85.71 12 40.00 16 45.71 10 62.50 12 34.29 10 83.33 8 22.86 15 42.863 Assam 52 32 61.54 13 40.63 20 38.46 12 60.00 17 32.69 12 70.59 7 13.46 20 38.464 Bihar 171 85 49.71 36 42.35 70 40.94 39 55.71 72 42.11 34 47.22 128 74.85 4 2.345 Chhattisgarh 346 315 91.04 30 9.52 130 37.57 16 12.31 55 15.90 11 20.00 67 19.36 209 60.406 Gujarat 95 57 60.00 44 77.19 48 50.53 37 77.08 50 52.63 40 80.00 36 37.89 42 44.217 Haryana 11 11 100.00 5 45.45 4 36.36 4 100.00 1 9.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 14 100.00 14 100.00 14 100.00 11 78.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 10 9 90.00 8 88.89 6 60.00 6 100.00 3 30.00 2 66.67 2 20.00 3 30.00

10 Jharkhand 55 22 40.00 4 18.18 8 14.55 2 25.00 5 9.09 2 40.00 3 5.45 2 3.6411 Karnataka 69 51 73.91 25 49.02 38 55.07 22 57.89 51 73.91 34 66.67 14 20.29 47 68.1212 Kerala 34 27 79.41 24 88.89 24 70.59 21 87.50 20 58.82 17 85.00 8 23.53 27 79.4113 Madhya Pradesh 373 295 79.09 30 10.17 57 15.28 9 15.79 49 13.14 10 20.41 52 13.94 211 56.5714 Maharashtra 18 16 88.89 11 68.75 17 94.44 7 41.18 5 27.78 2 40.00 13 72.22 18 100.0015 Manipur 28 23 82.14 10 43.48 13 46.43 8 61.54 6 21.43 5 83.33 6 21.43 9 32.1416 Meghalaya 22 20 90.91 9 45.00 7 31.82 5 71.43 4 18.18 8 200.00 3 13.64 7 31.8217 Mizoram 27 15 55.56 5 33.33 12 44.44 6 50.00 9 33.33 4 44.44 7 25.93 6 22.2218 Nagaland 32 15 46.88 12 80.00 16 50.00 5 31.25 12 37.50 4 33.33 7 21.88 15 46.8819 Orissa 295 229 77.63 102 44.54 175 59.32 72 41.14 138 46.78 63 45.65 13 4.41 53 17.9720 Punjab 17 17 100.00 5 29.41 2 11.76 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.8821 Rajasthan 106 3 2.83 2 66.67 2 1.89 1 50.00 2 1.89 2 100.00 1 0.94 15 14.1522 Sikkim 22 15 68.18 12 80.00 10 45.45 4 40.00 9 40.91 4 44.44 5 22.73 16 72.7323 Tamil Nadu 68 46 67.65 3 6.52 28 41.18 1 3.57 25 36.76 14 56.00 26 38.24 27 39.7124 Tripura 17 14 82.35 6 42.86 4 23.53 3 75.00 6 35.29 3 50.00 3 17.65 5 29.4125 Uttar Pradesh 111 105 94.59 14 13.33 101 90.99 15 14.85 52 46.85 6 11.54 9 8.11 32 28.8326 Uttarakhand 30 28 93.33 17 60.71 26 86.67 16 61.54 23 76.67 13 56.52 5 16.67 2 6.6727 West Bengal 44 5 11.36 2 40.00 5 11.36 2 40.00 2 4.55 2 100.00 2 4.55 0 0.00

2176 1534 70.50 475 30.96 891 40.95 354 39.73 665 30.56 323 48.57 437 20.08 828 38.05Total

S. No. State

No. of habitations

covered

Decision on the O & M matters of

the scheme

Where people trained to take up simple and minor repairs

Gram Sabha was convened to obtain their

views

Table 7.1 Role of PRIs

Decision on the location of scheme

Decision on the type of the

scheme


views


views

Where VWSC formed

125

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 8.11 1.35 33.78 56.762 Arunachal Pradesh 35 55.86 12.52 14.23 17.393 Assam 52 69.23 10.21 8.26 12.304 Bihar 171 53.22 44.44 1.17 1.175 Chhattisgarh 346 99.13 0.00 0.29 0.296 Gujarat 95 61.05 5.26 32.63 1.057 Haryana 11 63.64 0.00 0.00 36.368 Himachal Pradesh 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.009 J&k 10 40.00 0.00 0.00 60.0010 Jharkhand 55 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.0011 Karnataka 69 23.19 2.90 49.28 24.6412 Kerala 34 38.24 0.00 50.00 11.7613 Madhya Pradesh 373 97.86 0.00 0.27 0.5414 Maharashtra 18 5.56 0.00 11.11 83.3315 Manipur 28 71.20 8.30 10.60 9.9016 Meghalaya 22 62.00 9.13 15.68 13.1917 Mizoram 27 59.70 11.30 14.80 14.2018 Nagaland 32 63.00 10.20 13.24 13.5619 Orissa 295 33.56 32.54 23.05 10.8520 Punjab 17 94.12 0.00 0.00 5.8821 Rajasthan 106 25.47 1.89 16.98 55.6622 Sikkim 22 58.23 10.27 16.95 14.5523 Tamil Nadu 68 44.12 4.41 29.41 22.0624 Tripura 17 68.70 9.26 10.46 11.5825 Uttar Pradesh 111 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0027 West Bengal 44 38.64 15.91 34.09 11.36

2176 64.86 9.89 12.06 11.33Total

S. No.

Table 7.1 (a) Decision Making Process on type of scheme

State No. of habitation covered

PHED Suggested PHED Decided

PHED Suggested GP Decided

GP Suggested PHED Decided GP Suggested GP Decided

(% of habitations)

126


2176 15.92 13.76 11.54 56.93Total

S. No.

Table 7.1 (b) Decision Making Process on selection of location


PHED Suggested PHED Decided

PHED Suggested GP Decided

GP Suggested PHED Decided GP Suggested GP Decided

(% of habitations)

127


2176 67.90 9.22 10.46 10.56Total

S. No.

Table 7.1 (c) Decision Making Process on choice of technology


PHED Suggested PHED Decided PHED Suggested GP Decided GP Suggested PHED Decided GP Suggested GP

Decided

(% of habitations)

128


2176 48.22 10.61 6.75 32.56Total

S. No.

Table 7.1 (d) Decision Making Process on O & M Matter


PHED Suggested PHED Decided PHED Suggested GP Decided GP Suggested PHED

Decided GP Suggested GP Decided

(% of habitation)

129

(% of habitation)

1 Andhra Pradesh 74 56.762 Arunachal Pradesh 35 39.233 Assam 52 36.164 Bihar 171 2.345 Chhattisgarh 346 59.386 Gujarat 95 44.217 Haryana 11 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 0.009 J&k 10 30.0010 Jharkhand 55 3.6411 Karnataka 69 68.1212 Kerala 34 79.4113 Madhya Pradesh 373 56.5714 Maharashtra 18 100.0015 Manipur 28 40.8616 Meghalaya 22 42.6217 Mizoram 27 34.1818 Nagaland 32 33.2119 Orissa 295 17.9720 Punjab 17 5.8821 Rajasthan 106 14.1522 Sikkim 22 30.3723 Tamil Nadu 68 39.7124 Tripura 17 42.6725 Uttar Pradesh 111 28.8326 Uttarakhand 30 6.6727 West Bengal 44 0.00

2176 37.75Total

S. No.

Table 7.2 Formation of VWSCs

State No. of habitation covered VWSCs Formed

130

1 Andhra Pradesh 79.73 85.14 14.862 Arunachal Pradesh 56.76 69.93 30.073 Assam 63.61 75.86 24.144 Bihar 64.47 75.09 24.915 Chhattisgarh 92.20 100.00 0.006 Gujarat 11.58 11.58 88.427 Haryana 6.25 6.25 93.758 Himachal Pradesh 0.00 0.00 100.009 J&k 5.56 16.67 83.3310 Jharkhand 24.56 40.35 59.6511 Karnataka 46.38 57.97 42.0312 Kerala 44.12 50.00 50.0013 Madhya Pradesh 86.85 99.01 0.9914 Maharashtra 16.67 16.67 83.3315 Manipur 57.46 70.18 29.8216 Meghalaya 58.68 69.35 30.6517 Mizoram 61.56 74.09 25.9118 Nagaland 61.90 73.12 26.8819 Orissa 33.11 57.28 42.7220 Punjab 41.18 41.18 58.8221 Rajasthan 19.63 19.63 80.3722 Sikkim 63.83 77.61 22.3923 Tamil Nadu 69.12 75.00 25.0024 Tripura 57.24 68.73 31.2725 Uttar Pradesh 52.73 98.18 1.8226 Uttaranchal 53.33 80.00 20.0027 West Bengal 5.41 28.38 71.62

58.07 71.34 28.66

Table 8.0 Distribution of habitations where all households getting 40 LPCD of water (% of habitation)

Total

All households not getting 40 LPCD waterState

All households getting 40 LPCD water from only

ARWSPS. No.

All households getting 40 LPCD water from ARWSP

and other facility

131

Nos. % Nos. %1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 1438 226 15.72 52 3.522 Arunachal Pradesh 706 596 132 22.15 0 0.003 Assam 1043 857 228 26.61 0 0.004 Bihar 3317 2434 3 0.12 0 0.005 Chhattisgarh 6808 6635 2471 37.24 0 0.006 Gujarat 1886 1866 199 10.66 2 0.117 Haryana 240 239 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 205 159 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 320 320 0 0.00 0 0.0010 Jharkhand 1072 732 172 23.50 0 0.0011 Karnataka 1380 1281 92 7.18 26 2.0312 Kerala 680 616 37 6.01 11 1.7713 Madhya Pradesh 7986 7518 4212 56.03 1 0.0114 Maharashtra 351 191 60 31.41 19 9.9515 Manipur 564 505 78 15.45 0 0.0016 Meghalaya 440 384 34 8.85 0 0.0017 Mizoram 541 490 121 24.70 0 0.0018 Nagaland 643 597 98 16.42 0 0.0019 Orissa 5900 5149 2853 55.41 37 0.7220 Punjab 177 177 0 0.00 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 2007 1890 1463 77.41 0 0.0022 Sikkim 442 374 182 48.64 0 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 1360 1238 76 6.14 8 0.6524 Tripura 340 300 113 37.66 0 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1524 956 62.73 0 0.0026 Uttarakhand 526 394 165 41.88 0 0.0027 West Bengal 926 294 8 2.72 0 0.00

43477 38198 13979 36.60 156 0.46Total

Households having PWS(IHC)

Table 8.1 Households having access to safe water supply source now

S. No. StateHouseholds having access to safe water

supply source nowNo. of Households covered

No. of Households using ARWSP

132

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 1438 473 32.89 94 19.87 285 60.25 74 15.64 19 4.02 1 0.212 Arunachal Pradesh 706 596 145 24.33 25 17.24 14 9.66 99 68.28 2 1.38 5 3.453 Assam 1043 857 125 14.59 10 8.00 19 15.20 78 62.40 1 0.80 17 13.604 Bihar 3317 2434 97 3.99 20 20.62 6 6.19 61 62.89 10 10.31 0 0.005 Chhattisgarh 6808 6635 73 1.10 11 15.07 10 13.70 19 26.03 1 1.37 32 43.846 Gujarat 1886 1866 784 42.02 538 68.62 94 11.99 59 7.53 33 4.21 60 7.657 Haryana 240 239 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 205 159 2 1.26 1 50.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 320 320 203 63.44 1 0.49 202 99.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0010 Jharkhand 1072 732 32 4.37 2 6.25 17 53.13 11 34.38 2 6.25 0 0.0011 Karnataka 1380 1281 298 23.26 192 64.43 43 14.43 41 13.76 3 1.01 19 6.3812 Kerala 680 616 143 23.21 76 53.15 15 10.49 30 20.98 3 2.10 19 13.2913 Madhya Pradesh 7986 7518 792 10.53 517 65.28 65 8.21 131 16.54 30 3.79 49 6.1914 Maharashtra 351 191 100 52.36 78 78.00 12 12.00 8 8.00 2 2.00 0 0.0015 Manipur 564 505 103 20.40 57 55.34 15 14.56 9 8.74 5 4.85 17 16.5016 Meghalaya 440 384 59 15.36 7 11.86 16 27.12 15 25.42 6 10.17 15 25.4217 Mizoram 541 490 85 17.35 42 49.41 18 21.18 12 14.12 3 3.53 10 11.7618 Nagaland 643 597 98 16.42 30 30.61 20 20.41 22 22.45 2 2.04 24 24.4919 Orissa 5900 5149 521 10.12 236 45.30 138 26.49 123 23.61 6 1.15 18 3.4520 Punjab 177 177 7 3.95 4 57.14 3 42.86 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 2007 1890 1364 72.17 1364 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0022 Sikkim 442 374 69 18.44 15 21.74 19 27.54 15 21.74 5 7.25 15 21.7423 Tamil Nadu 1360 1238 156 12.60 79 50.64 41 26.28 27 17.31 1 0.64 8 5.1324 Tripura 340 300 76 25.33 24 31.58 23 30.26 15 19.74 4 5.26 10 13.1625 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1524 48 3.15 25 52.08 7 14.58 14 29.17 2 4.17 0 0.0026 Uttarakhand 526 394 1 0.25 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0027 West Bengal 926 294 55 18.71 16 29.09 12 21.82 21 38.18 0 0.00 6 10.91

43477 38198 5909 15.47 3465 58.64 1094 18.51 885 14.98 140 2.37 325 5.50

Table 8.2 Change in Quality of water after ARWSP

Causes illness OtherBad taste Smell ColourS. No.

Problems reported in the water previously used by the householdsHouseholds using good

quality of water after ARWSP

No. of households

using ARWSP

No. of households

coveredState

Total

133

Nos. % Nos. % Nos. %1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 1438 568 39.50 568 100.00 0 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 706 596 256 42.95 189 73.83 67 26.173 Assam 1043 857 452 52.76 393 86.95 59 13.054 Bihar 3317 2434 699 28.72 699 100.00 0 0.005 Chhattisgarh 6808 6635 6092 91.82 6084 99.87 8 0.136 Gujarat 1886 1866 1829 98.02 1453 79.44 376 20.567 Haryana 240 239 40 16.74 40 100.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 205 159 8 5.03 8 100.00 0 0.009 J&k 320 320 212 66.25 200 94.34 12 5.6610 Jharkhand 1072 732 265 36.20 261 98.49 4 1.5111 Karnataka 1380 1281 473 36.92 473 100.00 0 0.0012 Kerala 680 616 225 36.53 225 100.00 0 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 7986 7518 6109 81.26 5465 89.46 644 10.5414 Maharashtra 351 191 171 89.53 151 88.30 20 11.7015 Manipur 564 505 304 60.20 215 70.72 89 29.2816 Meghalaya 440 384 240 62.49 185 77.08 55 22.9217 Mizoram 541 490 280 57.15 174 62.14 106 37.8618 Nagaland 643 597 360 60.31 290 80.56 70 19.4419 Orissa 5900 5149 4069 79.03 4024 98.89 45 1.1120 Punjab 177 177 28 15.82 27 96.43 1 3.5721 Rajasthan 2007 1890 1882 99.58 746 39.64 1136 60.3622 Sikkim 442 374 220 58.80 185 84.09 35 15.9123 Tamil Nadu 1360 1238 767 61.95 767 100.00 0 0.0024 Tripura 340 300 190 63.33 140 73.68 50 26.3225 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1524 1175 77.10 1175 100.00 0 0.0026 Uttarakhand 526 394 215 54.57 200 93.02 15 6.9827 West Bengal 926 294 17 5.78 0 0.00 17 100.00

43477 38198 27146 71.07 24337 89.65 2809 10.35Total

Table 8.3 Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source

S. No. State

Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply

source more than 1 kmNo. of

households covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

Households reported reduction in distance

travelled to water supply source now

Households reported reduction in distance

travelled to water supply source upto 1 km

134


43477 38198 26870 70.34 25793 95.99 1077 4.01Total

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply

source upto 1 hr.

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply

source more than 1 hr.

Table 8.4 Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source

S. No. State

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source now

No. of households

covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

135


43477 38198 19695 51.56 18909 96.01 791 4.02Total

Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source upto 1

hr.

Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply

source more than 1 hr.

Table 8.5 Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source

S. No. State

Households reported reduction in waiting time at

water supply source nowNo. of

households covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

136


43477 38198 3359 8.79 4406 11.53 827 2.17 590 1.54 1873 4.90 1484 3.89

Table 8.6 Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases after the ARWSP Facility

Diarrhea (Minor<16 yrs)

Cholera (Minor<16 yrs)

Typhoid (Minor<16 yrs)Cholera (Adult)

Total

Typhoid (Adult)S. No. State

Diarrhea (Adult)No. of households

covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

137


43477 38198 676 1.77 578 1.51 1426 3.73 966 2.53 7260 19.01 7233 18.94Total

Hepatitis (Adult) Hepatitis (Minor<16 yrs)

Other Diseases (Adult)S.

No. StateNo. of

households covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

Other Diseases (Minor<16 yrs)

Over All Diseases (Adult)

Over All Diseases (Minor<16 yrs)

Table 8.6 Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases after the ARWSP Facility

138


1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 1438 1119 77.82 1091 75.87 1322 91.93 821 57.092 Arunachal Pradesh 706 596 468 78.52 462 77.52 460 77.18 465 78.023 Assam 1043 857 756 88.24 772 90.11 760 88.71 760 88.714 Bihar 3317 2434 2096 86.11 1813 74.49 1835 75.39 1094 44.955 Chhattisgarh 6808 6635 6391 96.32 6423 96.80 6446 97.15 1392 20.986 Gujarat 1886 1866 1826 97.86 1041 55.79 1840 98.61 1408 75.467 Haryana 240 239 234 97.91 218 91.21 223 93.31 26 10.888 Himachal Pradesh 205 159 157 98.74 137 86.16 122 76.73 56 35.229 J&k 320 320 296 92.50 262 81.88 260 81.25 72 22.5010 Jharkhand 1072 732 552 75.41 466 63.66 558 76.23 263 35.9311 Karnataka 1380 1281 1054 82.28 908 70.88 1097 85.64 542 42.3112 Kerala 680 616 522 84.74 414 67.21 553 89.77 262 42.5313 Madhya Pradesh 7986 7518 7242 96.33 6909 91.90 6896 91.73 1531 20.3614 Maharashtra 351 191 191 100.00 152 79.58 191 100.00 131 68.5915 Manipur 564 505 421 83.37 429 84.95 420 83.17 400 79.2116 Meghalaya 440 384 369 96.09 384 100.00 382 99.47 360 93.7417 Mizoram 541 490 423 86.34 432 88.18 430 87.77 425 86.7518 Nagaland 643 597 521 87.28 539 90.29 535 89.62 512 85.7719 Orissa 5900 5149 4504 87.47 4004 77.76 3751 72.85 823 15.9820 Punjab 177 177 138 77.97 79 44.63 117 66.10 88 49.7221 Rajasthan 2007 1890 1883 99.63 1885 99.74 1886 99.79 184 9.7422 Sikkim 442 374 360 96.22 354 94.61 345 92.21 330 88.2023 Tamil Nadu 1360 1238 1083 87.48 1042 84.17 1036 83.68 550 44.4324 Tripura 340 300 239 79.66 230 76.66 229 76.33 215 71.6625 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1524 1470 96.46 1444 94.75 1337 87.73 166 10.8926 Uttarakhand 526 394 142 36.04 136 34.52 128 32.49 25 6.3527 West Bengal 926 294 184 62.59 248 84.35 248 84.35 145 49.32

43477 38198 34641 90.69 32274 84.49 33407 87.46 13046 34.15

Satisfied with the quality of water

Total

Water storage vessel cleaned

Water storage vessel covered

Brief on safe drinking water practices

Table 8.7 Safe water practices(% of households)

S. No. StateNo. of

households covered

No. of households

using ARWSP

139


1 Andhra Pradesh 74 11 14.86 23 31.08 15 20.27 3 4.05 9 12.162 Arunachal Pradesh 35 10 28.57 5 14.29 2 5.71 1 2.86 0 0.003 Assam 52 16 30.77 7 13.46 1 1.92 1 1.92 1 1.924 Bihar 171 0 0.00 63 36.84 29 16.96 0 0.00 1 0.585 Chhattisgarh 346 205 59.25 95 27.46 2 0.58 0 0.00 1 0.296 Gujarat 95 39 41.05 9 9.47 10 10.53 1 1.05 3 3.167 Haryana 11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.009 J&k 10 1 10.00 1 10.00 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00

10 Jharkhand 55 1 1.82 5 9.09 0 0.00 1 1.82 0 0.0011 Karnataka 69 26 37.68 26 37.68 17 24.64 8 11.59 20 28.9912 Kerala 34 25 73.53 19 55.88 12 35.29 7 20.59 16 47.0613 Madhya Pradesh 373 197 52.82 98 26.27 9 2.41 6 1.61 9 2.4114 Maharashtra 18 15 83.33 10 55.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0015 Manipur 28 5 17.86 4 14.29 2 7.14 1 3.57 0 0.0016 Meghalaya 22 8 36.36 3 13.64 1 4.55 1 4.55 1 4.5517 Mizoram 27 7 25.93 4 14.81 1 3.70 1 3.70 0 0.0018 Nagaland 32 10 31.25 5 15.63 1 3.13 1 3.13 1 3.1319 Orissa 295 11 3.73 17 5.76 12 4.07 6 2.03 5 1.6920 Punjab 17 0 0.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0021 Rajasthan 106 4 3.77 4 3.77 2 1.89 0 0.00 0 0.0022 Sikkim 22 5 22.73 3 13.64 1 4.55 1 4.55 0 0.0023 Tamil Nadu 68 20 29.41 21 30.88 8 11.76 15 22.06 8 11.7624 Tripura 17 4 23.53 2 11.76 1 5.88 1 5.88 0 0.0025 Uttar Pradesh 111 29 26.13 52 46.85 4 3.60 1 0.90 2 1.8026 Uttarakhand 30 2 6.67 11 36.67 0 0.00 1 3.33 0 0.0027 West Bengal 44 0 0.00 1 2.27 1 2.27 1 2.27 0 0.00

2176 651 29.92 489 22.47 132 6.07 59 2.71 77 3.54Total

women were involved in the decision making on location of the ARWSP

sources

Table 9.1 Women members in VWSCs

S. No. State

No. of habitations

covered

where VWSC have women members

satisfactory completion of the schemes from women

groups

attempt been undertaken to improve the knowledge on the preventive maintenance

Women caretaker of the scheme

140

Nos. %

1 Andhra Pradesh 1486 1438 1226 85.262 Arunachal Pradesh 706 596 426 71.483 Assam 1043 857 685 79.964 Bihar 3317 2434 2308 94.825 Chhattisgarh 6808 6635 6446 97.156 Gujarat 1886 1866 1846 98.937 Haryana 240 239 27 11.308 Himachal Pradesh 205 159 37 23.279 J&k 320 320 254 79.3810 Jharkhand 1072 732 603 82.3811 Karnataka 1380 1281 1074 83.8412 Kerala 680 616 529 85.8813 Madhya Pradesh 7986 7518 6531 86.8714 Maharashtra 351 191 191 100.0015 Manipur 564 505 452 89.5016 Meghalaya 440 384 236 61.4517 Mizoram 541 490 365 74.5018 Nagaland 643 597 423 70.8619 Orissa 5900 597 3515 588.8220 Punjab 177 177 176 99.4421 Rajasthan 2007 1890 1882 99.5822 Sikkim 442 374 236 63.0823 Tamil Nadu 1360 1238 1139 92.0024 Tripura 340 300 236 78.6625 Uttar Pradesh 2131 1524 1362 89.3726 Uttarakhand 526 394 250 63.4527 West Bengal 926 294 58 19.73

43477 33646 29454 87.54Total

S. No.

Table 9.2 : Households responding ARWSP scheme resulting in saving the time and effort of the women

State No. of households covered

households responding ARWSP scheme resulting in saving the time and effort of the womenNo. of households using

ARWSP

141

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1 Andhra Pradesh 1136 350 37.34 45.10 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.002 Arunachal Pradesh 555 151 45.36 42.21 70.36 73.65 29.64 26.353 Assam 854 189 55.30 52.92 82.69 86.54 17.31 13.464 Bihar 2951 366 26.63 54.05 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.005 Chhattisgarh 6381 427 91.83 91.59 99.86 100.00 0.14 0.006 Gujarat 1549 337 99.14 98.78 78.59 83.38 21.41 16.627 Haryana 192 48 16.75 16.67 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 195 10 5.33 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.009 J&k 118 202 50.00 75.74 86.44 97.39 13.56 2.6110 Jharkhand 979 93 35.85 39.44 98.31 100.00 1.69 0.0011 Karnataka 992 388 35.40 40.83 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.0012 Kerala 486 194 33.33 43.01 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 7525 461 81.10 83.80 89.25 92.82 10.75 7.1814 Maharashtra 216 135 88.24 92.59 85.00 96.00 15.00 4.0015 Manipur 415 149 62.56 60.12 68.54 72.69 31.46 27.3116 Meghalaya 301 139 62.54 61.25 75.61 77.21 24.39 22.7917 Mizoram 322 219 60.30 58.25 63.32 62.84 36.68 37.1618 Nagaland 511 132 59.36 60.21 78.23 80.69 21.77 19.3119 Orissa 4843 1057 78.89 81.28 99.22 97.41 0.78 2.5920 Punjab 153 24 16.34 12.50 96.00 100.00 4.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 1998 9 99.57 100.00 39.83 0.00 60.17 100.0022 Sikkim 333 109 55.62 57.36 82.60 85.64 17.40 14.3623 Tamil Nadu 871 489 58.07 68.74 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.0024 Tripura 284 56 62.36 63.21 72.65 75.36 27.35 24.6425 Uttar Pradesh 1994 137 76.59 80.23 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 476 50 51.14 81.82 91.62 100.00 8.38 0.0027 West Bengal 705 221 6.78 1.72 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00

37335 6142 73.25 70.00 90.12 96.11 9.88 3.89Total

Table 9.3 (a) Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)

S. No. State

Households reported reduction in distance travelled

to water supply source more than 1 km


source now


source upto 1 kmNo. of households

142

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1 Andhra Pradesh 1136 350 34.79 46.50 87.15 87.95 12.59 11.45 0.25 0.602 Arunachal Pradesh 555 151 62.25 60.93 82.42 84.57 7.33 3.07 10.25 12.363 Assam 854 189 62.36 65.29 89.59 92.52 1.90 0.97 8.51 6.514 Bihar 2951 366 23.57 53.51 99.25 98.99 0.38 1.01 0.38 0.005 Chhattisgarh 6381 427 90.96 90.63 98.97 99.73 1.01 0.27 0.02 0.006 Gujarat 1549 337 97.03 96.96 96.54 91.54 3.33 6.90 0.14 1.577 Haryana 192 48 16.75 16.67 100.00 87.50 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 195 10 6.67 0.00 60.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 0.009 J&k 118 202 50.00 76.73 86.44 96.77 0.00 0.65 13.56 2.5810 Jharkhand 979 93 74.58 69.01 90.67 95.92 8.92 4.08 0.41 0.0011 Karnataka 992 388 43.76 49.72 94.79 94.97 4.22 2.79 0.99 2.2312 Kerala 486 194 36.55 51.08 96.86 95.79 1.89 3.16 1.26 1.0513 Madhya Pradesh 7525 461 79.78 81.94 96.09 98.02 3.70 1.69 0.21 0.2814 Maharashtra 216 135 100.00 100.00 99.26 100.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 415 149 53.69 56.47 86.55 85.34 3.03 4.99 10.42 9.6716 Meghalaya 301 139 63.84 65.21 83.54 82.62 3.99 2.70 12.47 14.6817 Mizoram 322 219 55.62 56.44 86.62 87.56 0.80 2.20 12.58 10.2418 Nagaland 511 132 60.37 58.41 85.69 86.87 1.73 2.77 12.58 10.3619 Orissa 4843 1057 75.11 75.53 96.47 96.92 3.25 2.64 0.28 0.4420 Punjab 153 24 15.69 16.67 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0021 Rajasthan 1998 9 99.31 100.00 45.56 22.22 20.02 11.11 34.42 66.6722 Sikkim 333 109 61.38 59.42 88.56 87.41 5.95 2.34 5.49 10.2523 Tamil Nadu 871 489 35.83 36.14 87.59 93.25 12.41 4.91 0.00 1.8424 Tripura 284 56 60.26 58.58 87.69 88.52 2.66 5.81 9.65 5.6725 Uttar Pradesh 1994 137 72.28 76.74 99.12 100.00 0.59 0.00 0.29 0.0026 Uttarakhand 476 50 51.71 84.09 78.45 78.38 11.60 16.22 9.94 5.4127 West Bengal 705 221 10.17 1.72 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.83 100.00

37335 6142 72.23 66.69 92.10 95.56 4.51 3.34 3.39 1.10Total

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source 30 - 60

min.

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source more

than 1 hr.

Table 9.3 (b) Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)

S. No. State

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source now

No. of households

Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source less

than 30 min.

143

Male Respondents

Female Respondents Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1 Andhra Pradesh 1136 350 35.85 36.13 86.06 81.40 12.22 17.83 1.71 0.782 Arunachal Pradesh 555 151 47.52 49.26 80.69 75.62 9.73 14.13 9.58 10.253 Assam 854 189 49.68 50.69 89.68 91.65 4.63 1.76 5.69 6.594 Bihar 2951 366 8.94 34.05 99.00 96.83 1.00 1.59 0.00 1.595 Chhattisgarh 6381 427 67.18 69.95 98.04 99.31 1.87 0.69 0.10 0.006 Gujarat 1549 337 61.50 75.08 99.14 93.52 0.75 5.67 0.11 0.817 Haryana 192 48 17.28 16.67 87.88 100.00 9.09 0.00 3.03 0.008 Himachal Pradesh 195 10 4.67 0.00 71.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.009 J&k 118 202 50.00 77.23 86.44 96.79 0.00 0.64 13.56 2.5610 Jharkhand 979 93 49.02 28.17 99.07 100.00 0.31 0.00 0.62 0.0011 Karnataka 992 388 27.36 26.67 92.86 91.67 6.35 8.33 0.79 0.0012 Kerala 486 194 25.29 24.73 96.36 97.83 2.73 2.17 0.91 0.0013 Madhya Pradesh 7525 461 63.51 56.94 94.76 90.24 4.62 9.35 0.62 0.4114 Maharashtra 216 135 51.47 72.22 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0015 Manipur 415 149 52.63 49.87 75.69 78.26 8.62 3.18 15.69 18.5616 Meghalaya 301 139 50.61 52.34 87.25 90.11 7.06 2.04 5.69 7.8517 Mizoram 322 219 48.62 50.29 80.48 81.57 3.83 0.98 15.69 17.4518 Nagaland 511 132 51.98 53.69 88.47 89.54 3.84 1.81 7.69 8.6519 Orissa 4843 1057 34.81 29.68 97.62 96.64 1.77 2.24 0.61 1.1220 Punjab 153 24 16.99 16.67 23.08 75.00 23.08 25.00 53.85 0.0021 Rajasthan 1998 9 88.36 88.89 60.77 25.00 15.34 25.00 23.89 50.0022 Sikkim 333 109 52.69 55.98 84.56 85.69 2.88 0.11 12.56 14.2023 Tamil Nadu 871 489 29.73 27.94 89.74 88.89 8.97 11.11 1.28 0.0024 Tripura 284 56 52.39 56.36 77.69 80.24 9.73 9.17 12.58 10.5925 Uttar Pradesh 1994 137 77.64 80.23 99.82 100.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.0026 Uttarakhand 476 50 48.29 54.55 62.72 33.33 26.04 41.67 11.24 25.0027 West Bengal 705 221 5.93 1.72 7.14 100.00 28.57 0.00 64.29 0.00

37335 6142 52.73 43.58 92.17 93.05 4.61 5.76 3.22 1.20Total

Households reported reduction in waiting time to

water supply source 30 - 60 min.


water supply source more than 1 hr.

Table 9.3 (c) Households reported reduction in waiting time to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)

S. No. State


water supply source nowNo. of households


water supply source less than 30 min.

144

ANNEXURE II

Evaluation of ARWSP – State Level Schedule 145

Agency Code

EVALUATION OF ACCELERATED RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMME

MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

STATE SCHEDULE

State :

I BASIC INFORMATION

1. Implementing Agency (Organization/Department)

2. Respondent Details : (Name, Designation & Official

Address)

3. State Profile

Particulars Nos.

i Population

1 Total population as per census 2001

a. Total Urban population

b. Total Rural population

2 Total Rural households

a. Scheduled Caste households (Rural)

b. Scheduled Tribe households (Rural)

ii Rural Habitations in the State (Year…….……………)

1 Total Rural habitations

2 Total SC habitations (rural)

3 Total ST habitations (rural)

4 NC habitations (as on date)

5 PC habitations (as on date)

6 Quality Affected habitations (as on date)

7 FC habitations (as on date)


II. PROGRESS UNDER RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN THE STATE

1. Funding under Rural Water Supply in the State

(Rs. In Lakh)

Year ARWSP* State Sector MNP

Other schemes Total

2004-05

Allocations

Releases

Utilized

2005-06

Allocations

Releases

Utilized

2006-07

Allocations

Releases

Utilized *including all funds received from Department of Drinking Water Supply, GOI

2. Details of funds utilized under Rural Water Supply in the State

(Rs. In Lakh) Year Funds utilized on ARWSP State Sector MNP Other schemes

2004-05

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability

2005-06

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability

2006-07

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability


3. Coverage under ARWSP in the State

(Nos.)

Year Habitations Covered

Uncovered of CAP’99 Slipped Back

Quality affected

Total NC PC

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

(Nos.)

Year Population Covered

SCs STs Other Castes Total

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

4. Institutional Coverage under Rural Water Supply (In Nos.)

S.No Type of school 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

1

Total No. of Schools without functional drinking water supply (at the beginning of the year)

Govt./Local bodies School

Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis

2 Number of schools covered under ARWSP (During the year)


Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis

3

Number of schools covered under other schemes (During the year)


Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis


5. Sustainability Efforts under ARWSP in the State

(No. of habitations) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Sust

aina

bilit

y Is

sues

/ Pr

oble

ms

Water Quality Depletion of GW Population expansion Ageing of systems Creation of new habitations Others

Mea

sure

s ta

ken

up

Infiltration rings Recharge Pits Check Dams Percolation Tanks Sub-surface dykes Injection wells Recharge wells Rain Water Harvesting Remove defunct HP Soak Pit for HP Others

III. PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION OF ARWSP IN THE STATE

1. Is there a Planning mechanism for implementation of Rural Water Supply Schemes in the State? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No) i. If Yes, Briefly describe the various processes of Planning. (Add a separate sheet if necessary)

2. Whether a State level Mission/ Committee for overseeing Rural Water Supply Schemes formed in the State? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No) i. If Yes, Frequency of the Meetings of such mission/committee in a year?(Nos.) ii. No. of Such meetings held in last 3 years. (Nos.)

3. Is the decision for Allocation and Release of funds under Rural Water Supply scheme to the districts taken at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, What is the basis of allocation of funds to each district every year? (Code: 1- No. of NC/PC habitations, 2– Other basis(Specify____________________________________))


ii. If No, at what level is this decision taken and please describe the process of allocation and releases.

4. Is the decision for selection of habitations to be covered under Rural Water Supply Schemes every year taken at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, What is the basis of selection of habitations to be covered every year?

ii. If No, at what level is the selection of habitations to be covered every year is taken? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

5. Is the decision for Type of schemes to be taken up under Rural Water Supply Schemes in each habitation taken at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, What is the basis of selection of Type of schemes to be taken up in each habitation?

ii. If No, at what level is the decision for Type of schemes to be taken up is taken? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

6. Are the contracts for installation of water supply schemes under ARWSP awarded at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No, 3 - No contracts awarded works executed by department)

i. If Yes, please describe the process of awarding the contracts for taking up ARWSP schemes.

ii. If No, at what level are the contracts awarded for taking up ARWSP schemes? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

7. What types of contracts are awarded in the state for taking up ARWSP schemes?

(Code: 1- Turnkey basis including material, 2– only labour contracts & hardware/materials procured and supplied by

department, 3 – both type of contracts depending on nature/quantum of work, 4- No contracts awarded works executed

by department)

i. If only labour contracts are awarded and materials procured and supplied by department, please describe the process of selection & purchasing of hardware/materials for the schemes/works.


8. Is there a system for monitoring & supervision of progress of schemes taken up in the habitations from the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process of monitoring & supervision of the progress of works from the State level.

ii. If No, at what level is the monitoring & supervision of the progress of works done? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

9. Is the planning for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the new schemes done at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & provisions prescribed by the State for O&M of the new schemes. Also provide the role of PRIs envisaged in O&M of the schemes in the State.

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for O&M of new schemes is done? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

10. Is the planning for awareness generation activities amongst the rural households for Hygiene practices done at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the State for creating awareness in rural areas

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for awareness generation is done? (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

11. Is the planning for conducting training of users/community done at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the State for training of users/community

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for training of users/community is done?


(Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

12. Is the Planning of efforts for Sustainability of schemes/sources taken up under Rural Water Supply schemes done at the State level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the planning process & efforts made for sustainability of schemes/sources

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for sustainability of schemes/sources is done (Code: 1- District Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

13. What are the major constraints faced by the state in the implementation of Rural Water Supply scheme? (Add a separate sheet if necessary)

14. Please give your suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the Rural Water Supply schemes? (Add a separate sheet if necessary)

Name of the Investigator

Date

Evaluation of ARWSP – District Level Schedule 152

Agency Code

EVALUATION OF

ACCELERATED RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMME MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

DISTRICT SCHEDULE

State : District :

I BASIC INFORMATION

1. Implementing Agency : (Organization/Department)

2. Respondent Details :

(Name, Designation & Official

Address)

3. District Profile

Particulars Nos.

i Population

1 Total population as per census 2001

a. Total Urban population

b. Total Rural population

2 Total Rural households

a. Scheduled Caste households (Rural)

b. Scheduled Tribe households (Rural)

ii Rural Habitations in the District (Year…….……………)

1 Total Rural habitations

2 Total SC habitations (rural)

3 Total ST habitations (rural)

4 NC habitations (as on date)

5 PC habitations (as on date)

6 Quality Affected habitations (as on date)

7 FC habitations (as on date)


(Rs. In Lakh)

Year ARWSP* State Sector MNP

Other schemes Total

2004-05

Allocations

Releases

Utilized

2005-06

Allocations

Releases

Utilized

2006-07

Allocations

Releases

Utilized *including all funds received from Department of Drinking Water Supply, GOI

(Rs. In Lakh)

Year Funds utilized on ARWSP State Sector MNP Other schemes

2004-05

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability

2005-06

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability

2006-07

SCs

STs

O & M

Sustainability

II PROGRESS UNDER RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN THE DISTRICT

1. Details of funds received for Rural Water Supply in the district

2. Details of funds utilized under Rural Water Supply in the District


3. Coverage under ARWSP in the District

(Nos.)

Year Habitations Covered

Uncovered of CAP’99 Slipped Back

Quality affected Total

NC PC

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

(Nos.)

Year Population Covered SCs STs Other Castes Total

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

4. Institutional Coverage under Rural Water Supply (In Nos.)

S.No Type of school 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

1

Total No. of Schools without functional drinking water supply (at the beginning of the year)


Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis

2 Number of schools covered under ARWSP (During the year)


Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis

3

Number of schools covered under other schemes (During the year)


Govt. Aided Schools

Private Schools

Anganwadis/Balwadis


5. Sustainability Efforts under ARWSP in the District

(No of Habitations) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Sust

aina

bilit

y Is

sues

/ Pr

oble

ms

Water Quality Depletion of GW Population expansion Ageing of systems Creation of new habitations Others

Mea

sure

s ta

ken

up

Infiltration rings Recharge Pits Check Dams Percolation Tanks Sub-surface dykes Injection wells Recharge wells Rain Water Harvesting Remove defunct HP Soak Pit for HP Others

1. Is there a Planning mechanism for implementation of Rural Water Supply Schemes in the District? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No) i. If Yes, Briefly describe the process. (Add a separate sheet if necessary)

2. Whether a District level Mission/ Committee for overseeing Rural Water Supply Schemes formed in the District? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No) i. If Yes, Frequency of the Meetings of such mission/committee in a year?(Nos.) ii. No. of Such meetings held in last 3 years. (Nos.)

3. Is the decision for selection of habitations to be covered under Rural Water Supply Schemes every year taken at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, what is basis of selection of habitations to be covered every year and is the Panchayat body at district level involved in the selection process?

III. PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION OF ARWSP IN THE DISTRICT


ii. If No, at what level is the selection of habitations to be covered every year is taken? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

4. Is the decision for Type of schemes to be taken up under Rural Water Supply Schemes in each habitation taken at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, what is the basis of selection of Type of schemes to be taken up in each habitation and is the Panchayat body at district level involved in the selection process?

ii. If No, at what level is the decision for Type of schemes to be taken up is taken? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

5. Are the contracts for installation of water supply schemes under ARWSP awarded at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No, 3 - No contracts awarded works executed by department)

i. If Yes, please describe the process of awarding the contracts for taking up ARWSP schemes.

ii. If No, at what level are the contracts awarded for taking up ARWSP schemes? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

6. What types of contracts are awarded in the state for taking up ARWSP schemes?

(Code: 1- Turnkey basis including material, 2– only labour contracts & hardware/materials procured and supplied by department, 3 – both type of contracts depending on nature/quantum of work, 4- No contracts awarded works executed by department)

i. If only labour contracts are awarded and materials procured and supplied by department, please describe the process of selection & purchasing of hardware/materials for the schemes/works.

7. Is there a system for monitoring & supervision of progress of schemes taken up in the habitations from the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process of monitoring & supervision of the progress of works from the District level.

ii. If No, at what level is the monitoring & supervision of the progress of works done? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

8. Is the planning for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the new schemes done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & provisions prescribed by the District for O&M of the new schemes and what is the role of PRIs in the O&M of the new schemes?


ii. If No, at what level is the planning for O&M of new schemes is done? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

9. Is the planning for awareness generation activities amongst the rural households for Hygiene practices done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the District for creating awareness in rural areas

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for awareness generation is done? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

10. Is the planning for conducting training of users/community done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the District for training of users/community

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for training of users/community is done? (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

11. Is the Planning of efforts for Sustainability of schemes/sources taken up under Rural Water Supply schemes done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2– No)

i. If Yes, please describe the planning process & efforts made for sustainability of schemes/sources

ii. If No, at what level is the planning for sustainability of schemes/sources is done (Code: 1- State Level, 2– Below District Level (Specify_____________),3- Other(Specify__________))

12. What are the major constraints faced by the District in the implementation of Rural Water Supply scheme? (Add a separate sheet if necessary)

13. Please give your suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the Rural Water Supply schemes?(Add a separate sheet if necessary)

Name of the Investigator Date

158 Evaluation of ARWSP – Habitation Level Schedule

Agency Code



HABITATION SCHEDULE

I IDENTIFICATION

Name

1. State

2. District

3. Block/Taluk / Mandal

4. Gram Panchayat

5. Village

6. Habitation

II RESPONDENT PARTICULARS

(Please ensure that 2 – 3 persons from among Sarpanch (1), Member of PRI (2), School Teacher (3), Village Secretary (4), a PHED official (5), resident of habitation (6) are present at the time of canvassing of this schedule)

Sl. No. Name of the Respondent Designation Age Gender

(M-1, F-2)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

III HABITATION PROFILE

1. Total Population of the Habitation as per Census 2001

2. Total Number of Households in the Habitation

3. SC Households in the Habitation

4. ST Households in the habitation

5. BPL Households in the Habitation


Code: Type of Scheme 1- Hand Pump, 2 - Piped Water Supply (Source: Surface Water), 3 - Piped Water Supply(Source: Underground Water), 4 - Community tank stand post,5 - Protected Spring Sources, 6 - Protected Dug Well, 7 – Other Specify_______________________) Code: Type of energy used 1 – Electric, 2- Manual , 3 –Gravity fed, 4 – Other Specify_________________________________)

IV COVERAGE UNDER ARWSP (during last 3 years)

1. Year of coverage under ARWSP

2. Status as per Rural Water Supply Norms [ Tick the appropriate] NC PC FC QA

(a) Status of habitation as per CAP’99

(b) Status of habitation as per habitation survey 2003

(c) Status of habitation at the time of ARWSP intervention

(d) Current Status of habitation

3. Details of Schemes taken up under ARWSP

Particulars Scheme 1 Scheme 2

(a) Type of Scheme (use Code)

(b) In case of piped water supply, no. of household connections

(c) In case of piped water supply, no. of public stand posts

(d) Type of energy used (use code)

(e) In case of a pump (power in HP)

(f) Distance from habitation (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. in hill areas)

(g) Total cost (In Rs.)

(h) Number of households benefited

(i) Quantity of water targeted (lpcd)

V DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON ARWSP SCHEME [ Tick the appropriate]

Functions PHED Suggested

PHED Decided

Village Panchayat Suggested

Village Panchayat Decided

1 Selection of habitation

2 Type of scheme

3 Selection of location

4 Choice of Technology

5 O & M Matters

VI STATUS OF ARWSP SCHEME 1. Details of sources/service access points under ARWSP scheme Scheme 1 Scheme 2

(a) Type of Scheme (use Code)

(b) Total no. of service access points

(c) Nos. not available round the year/affected by seasonal variation

(d) No. of currently functional service access points


Code: Type of Scheme 1- Hand Pump, 2 - Piped Water Supply (Source: Surface Water), 3 - Piped Water Supply(Source: Underground Water), 4 - Community tank stand post,5 - Protected Spring Sources, 6 - Protected Dug Well, 7 – Other Specify_______________________)

2. Problems in ARWSP scheme

(a) Temporarily not functional service access points

Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Nos. Reasons (use code) Nos. Reasons (use code)

(b) Affected by water quality problems

Nos. Type of problem (use code) Nos. Type of problem

(use code)

Code: Reasons for temporarily not functional (1- Mechanical fault at delivery point, 2- Mechanical fault in water supply line, 3-Ground water depletion, 4-Surface water source dried, 5- Other specify____________________________________)

Code: Type of water quality problem (1- Arsenic, 2- Fluoride, 3- Salinity, 4- Iron, 5- Nitrate, 6- Other specify___________)

VII O & M OF SCHEME UNDER ARWSP

1. Who is providing for O & M expenditure for the scheme under ARWSP?

(Multiple Response Possible)

(1- Water Supply Department, 2- Gram Panchayat, 3- User Group, 4- Community, 5- NGO, 6- Other (Specify ____________________________________________________________)

(a) If Gram Panchayat / User Group / Community are providing for O & M expenditure how are the resources mobilized? (Multiple Response Possible)

(1- Utilizing Gram Panchayat Funds, 2- Collecting water charges from User Group / Community, 3- Other funds (Specify __________________________________________________________)

2. If Water Charges are collected from User Group / Community, please fill the following details?

Sl. Type of facility Water Charges Per Month Per Household (in Rs.) One time Water

Charges (Lump sum) SC / ST OBC Other BPL APL

(a) House Connection

(b) Stand Post

(c) Hand Pump

(e) No. of temporarily not functional service access points

(f) No. of permanently defunct service access points

(g) No. of service access points affected by water quality problems


* Per annum charges (in Rs.) Expenditure incurred during the last 1 year VIII COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION & ROLE OF WOMEN

1. Whether choices and preferences of the people were taken into consideration in deciding on location of the scheme under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

(a) If “Yes”, how were their views obtained on this aspect? (Use Code: 1- Gram Sabha was convened to obtain their views, 2- In formal discussions with villagers were held and decision taken.)

2. Whether choices and preferences of the people were taken into consideration in deciding on type of the scheme under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)


3. Whether views of the people were sought and taken into consideration in deciding on O & M matters of the scheme under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)


4. Are the people trained to take up simple and minor repairs? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

5. Is there a Village Water and Sanitation Committee (VWSC) formed? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

6. If ‘yes’ are women from the habitation members of VWSC? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

7. Whether women were involved in the decision making on location of the sources/ facility installed under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

8. Are certificate about satisfactory completion of the schemes ever being obtained from women groups in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

9. Has any attempt been undertaken to improve the knowledge and transfer technical skills on the preventive maintenance/minor repairs to women? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

10. Are there any women caretakers for the scheme(s) in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

11. Are women being involved when conservation measures for sustained supply of Water through rainwater harvesting and ground water recharge structures are taken up?

(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

3. Details of O & M expenditure on ARWSP scheme(s)* Scheme 1 Scheme 2

Type of Scheme (use Code)

(a) Electricity charges

(b) Salary of operators

(c) Maintenance recurring expenditure

(d) Other expenditure (specify_________________________________)


IX. DETAILS OF OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES IN THE HABITATION (Provide details of all the potable water supply sources within 1.6 kms in plain areas / 100 m elevation in hill areas in this habitation excluding ARWSP schemes mentioned in (VI) above )

Potable water source/service access point

Total water source /

service access points.

Nos. affected by

seasonal variation

No. Currently functional

No. Temporarily

not functioning

No. Permanently

defunct

No. affected by

water quality

problems

Type of water

quality problem

(Use Code)

Hand Pumps (Pvt./Govt.)

Individual Hand Pumps not accessible to public

Public Stand Post (Source: Surface Water)

Public Stand Post (Source: Underground Water)

Piped Water Supply- HH Connection (Source: Surface water)

Piped Water Supply- HH Connection (Source Underground water)


Unprotected Spring Sources

Protected Dug Well

Unprotected Dug Well

Other (Specify_______________________)

Code: Type of water quality problem (1- Arsenic, 2- Fluoride, 3- Salinity, 4- Iron, 5- Nitrate, 6- Other problems)


X. STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION IN THE INSTITUTIONS

Schools Anganwadi/Balwadi

Primary Upper Primary

High & Higher

Secondary Private Govt.

Total no. of institutions

With toilets

Without toilets

With water supply facility

With functional water supply facility

Without water supply facility XI SUSTAINABILITY & IMPACT OF THE SCHEME

1. Whether any training session was held for the sustainability of the scheme under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

2. Are the villagers satisfied with the technology of the scheme? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

3. Is there any structure built for rainwater harvesting or ground water recharge? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

4. Are any other initiatives for sustainability of safe water sources taken up in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

5. Do you visualize any problems in the long-term sustainability of the scheme? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

If yes tick the appropriate Response (Multiple response possible) [ ] i. Contribution by the people for O & M

ii. Replacement / Up gradation of the Scheme in future iii. Sustainability of the Water Source iv. Role of PHED in helping in O & M v. Lack of Awareness among the people

vi. Others (Specify)

6. Are the water storage tanks cleaned regularly? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No, 3 – N/A)

7. Is there a regular quality testing done of the water supplied to the villagers? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

8. Has the ARWSP scheme resulted in improved sanitation facilities in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only to some extent, 3-Not at all)

9. Has the ARWSP scheme resulted in saving of time and effort for the women in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only to some extent, 3-Not at all)

10. Has the ARWSP scheme resulted in reduction in incidence of water borne diseases/ health problems in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only to some

extent, 3-Not at all)


Name of the Field Researcher: Signature : Date :

Evaluation of ARWSP – Control Habitation Schedule 166

Agency Code



CONTROL - HABITATION SCHEDULE I IDENTIFICATION

Name

1. State

2. District

3. Block/Taluk / Mandal

4. Gram Panchayat

5. Village

6. Habitation


(Please ensure that 2 – 3 persons from among Sarpanch (1), Member of PRI (2), School Teacher (3), Village Secretary (4), a PHED official (5), resident of habitation (6) are present at the time of canvassing of this schedule)

Sl. No. Name of the Respondent Designation Age Gender

(M-1, F-2)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

III HABITATION PROFILE

1. Total Population of the Habitation as per Census 2001

2. Total Number of Households in the Habitation

3. SC Households in the Habitation

4. ST Households in the habitation

5. BPL Households in the Habitation


V O & M OF WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN THE HABITATION

1. Who is providing for O & M expenditure for the water supply scheme in the Habitation?

(Multiple Response Possible)

(1- Water Supply Department, 2- Gram Panchayat, 3- User Group, 4- Community, 5- NGO, 6- Other (Specify ____________________________________________________________)

(a) If Gram Panchayat / User Group / Community are providing for O & M expenditure how are the resources mobilized? (Multiple Response Possible)

(1- Utilizing Gram Panchayat Funds, 2- Collecting water charges from User Group / Community, 3- Other funds (Specify __________________________________________________________)

2. If Water Charges are collected from User Group / Community, please fill the following details?

Sl. Type of facility Water Charges Per Month Per Household (in Rs.) One time Water

Charges (Lump sum) SC / ST OBC Other BPL APL

(a) House Connection

(b) Stand Post

(c) Hand Pump

* Per annum charges (in Rs.) Expenditure incurred during the last 1 year for two schemes serving largest population. VI COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION & ROLE OF WOMEN

1. Whether views of the people were sought and taken into consideration in deciding on O & M matters of the water supply scheme? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)


2. Are the people trained to take up simple and minor repairs? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

3. Is there a Village Water and Sanitation Committee (VWSC) formed?

IV STATUS OF HABITATION

1. Status as per Rural Water Supply Norms [ Tick the appropriate] NC PC FC QA

(a) Status of habitation as per CAP’99

(b) Status of habitation as per habitation survey 2003

(c) Current Status of habitation

3. Details of O & M expenditure on Water Supply scheme(s)* Scheme 1 Scheme 2

Type of Scheme (use Code)

(a) Electricity charges

(b) Salary of operators

(c) Maintenance recurring expenditure

(d) Other expenditure (specify_________________________________)


(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

4. If ‘yes’ are women from the habitation members of VWSC? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

5. Has any attempt been undertaken to improve the knowledge and transfer technical skills on the preventive maintenance/minor repairs to women? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

6. Are there any women caretakers for the scheme in the habitations (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

7. Are women being involved when conservation measures for sustained supply of Water through rainwater harvesting and ground water recharge structures are taken up?

(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) VII. STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION IN THE INSTITUTIONS

Schools Anganwadi/Balwadi

Primary Upper Primary

High & Higher

Secondary Private Govt.

Total no. of institutions

With toilets

Without toilets

With water supply facility

With functional water supply facility

Without water supply facility VIII SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SCHEME(S)

1. Whether any training session was held for the sustainability of the water supply scheme(s) in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

2. Is there any structure built for rainwater harvesting or ground water recharge? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

3. Are any other initiatives for sustainability of safe water sources taken up in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

3. Is there a regular quality testing done of the water supplied to the villagers? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

4. Will a better water supply scheme help in improving sanitation facilities in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only to some extent, 3-Not at all)

5. Will a new water supply scheme result in saving of time and effort for the women in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only to some extent, 3-Not at all)

6. Will a new water supply scheme help in reducing the incidence of water borne diseases/ health problems in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes to a large extent, 2-Yes only

to some extent, 3-Not at all)


IX. DETAILS OF WATER SUPPLY SOURCES IN THE HABITATION (Provide details of all the potable water supply sources within 1.6 kms in plain areas / 100 m elevation in hill areas in this habitation )

Potable water source/service access point

Total water source /

service access points.

Nos. affected by

seasonal variation

No. Currently functional

No. Temporarily

not functioning

No. Permanently

defunct

No. affected by

water quality

problems

Type of water

quality problem

(Use Code)

Hand Pumps (Pvt./Govt.)

Individual Hand Pumps not accessible to public

Public Stand Post (Source: Surface Water)

Public Stand Post (Source: Underground Water)

Piped Water Supply- HH Connection (Source: Surface water)

Piped Water Supply- HH Connection (Source Underground water)


Unprotected Spring Sources

Protected Dug Well

Unprotected Dug Well

Other (Specify_______________________)

Code: Type of water quality problem (1- Arsenic, 2- Fluoride, 3- Salinity, 4- Iron, 5- Nitrate, 6- Other problems)

Evaluation of ARWSP – Household Schedule 170

Agency Code

EVALUATION OF


GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

HOUSEHOLD LEVEL SCHEDULE

Sample household no.

I IDENTIFICATION Name Code

(a) State

(b) District

(c) Block/Taluk / Mandal

(d) Gram Panchayat

(e) Village

(f) Habitation


(a) Name of the Respondent

(b) Father/Husband Name

(c) Sex (Code: 1 - Male, 2 - Female) 4. Age (In Years)

(d) Education (Code: 1 – Illiterate, 2 – Literate, 3 - Primary, 4 – Middle school, 5 – Matriculate, 6 – Plus 2, 7 – Technically qualified,

8 – Graduate and above)

(e) Current Principal Occupation: (Code: 1 – Agricultural Wage Earners, 2 – Non-agricultural Unskilled Wage Earners, 3 – Marginal Farmer, 4 – Live

stock, forestry etc., 5 – Mining and quarrying, 6 – Construction, 7 – Trade and commerce, 8 – Transport, communication, etc. 9 – Traditional artisans, 10 – Service,11 – Housewife, 12 – Others ( Specify)_________________)

(f) Number of members in the household (Nos.) Male Female

(g) Caste Category (Code: 1 - SC, 2 – ST, 3 - Others)

(h) BPL Status (Code: 1 -Yes, 2 – No)


III WATER SUPPLY FACILITY TO THE HOUSEHOLD

(a) Is the household drawing/using water from the scheme(s) installed under ARWSP in this habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)

If ‘Yes’, go to Q.No III(c) & if ‘No’, respond to Q.No III (b )

(b) Reasons for not drawing/ using water from the scheme(s) under ARWSP Multiple Response possible

(i) The new facility is farther than my present facility

(ii) The facility offered does not provide adequate quantity for my needs.

(iii) The water quality of the new facility is not satisfactory

(iv) Frequent break down in service of the scheme

(v) Scheme permanently defunct now

(vi) I just did not need the new facility

(vii) Other Reasons (specify ______________________________________________________)

(Code: 1 – Hand pump, 2 –Piped water supply-public stand post(surface water), 3-Piped water supply – in house connection(surface water), 4 –Piped water supply-public stand post(underground water), 5-Piped water supply – in house connection(underground water),6- Community tank stand post, 7 – Others (Specify_______________________)

(c) Provide details of usage of the facility provided under ARWSP Scheme 1 Scheme 2

(i) Type of Scheme (use code)

(ii) Date since when the facility being used (MM:YY)

(iii) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation)

(iv) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. in hill areas)

(v) Dependency on source (1-whole year, 2 – in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year)

(vi) Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy)

(vii) Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish)

(viii) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent)

(d) Daily Consumption of household from the ARWSP facility (Estimate in terms of a 10 litres bucket/vessel, nos. of such vessel consumed)

(i) For Drinking Water

(ii) For Bathing purposes

(iii) For Cooking purposes

(iv) For Washing utensils

(v) For Washing clothes

(vi) For Cattle needs


(In case the household is not drawing water from any other source than the ARWSP facility now – skip Q. III(e) & III(f)


IV O & M OF THE ARWSP SCHEME ( respond only if answer to Q. III (a) is Yes

(a) Are you paying any water charges for the new facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 – No)

(b) If yes, (i) How much do you pay per month? (In Rs.)

(ii) What is the schedule of payment of water charges? (Code: 1 - Monthly, 2 – Once in two months, 3 –Once in three months, 4 –Half yearly, 5 –Annually,

6 – Others (specify)___________________________)

(c) Who collects the water charges? (Code: 1 – VWSC member, 2 – Panchayat member, 3 –Operator, 4 –Staff of the NGO, 5 –No charges are collected,

6 – Others (specify)___________________________)

(d) Is the supply of water regular from the ARWSP facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 – No)

(e) How much time does it take to reinstate in case of a breakdown? (Code: 1 – In few hours, 2 – Within a day, 3 –Next day, 4 –More than 2 days, 5 –Up to a week, 6 – More than a week,

7-No breakdowns at all)

(e) Provide details of usage of other facilities Scheme 1 Scheme 2


(ii) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation)

(iii) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. In hill areas)

(iv) Dependency on source (1-whole year, 2 – in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year)

(v) Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy)

(vi) Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish)

(vii) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent)

(f) Daily Consumption of household from other facilities (Estimate in terms of a 10 litres bucket/vessel, nos. of such vessel consumed)








V AWARENESS: SAFE WATER PRACTICES

(a) Are you satisfied with the quality of water supplied by the new System? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 - No)

(b) What kind of vessel is used for fetching water? (Code: 1 –Plastic Bucket, 2 – Metal Bucket, 3 –Broad mouthed pot, 4 – Narrow mouthed pot, 5 – Open Tin container, 6

– Other (Specify)_____________________)

(c) What kind of vessel is used for storing drinking water? (Code: 1 –Plastic Bucket, 2 – Metal Bucket, 3 –Broad mouthed pot, 4 – Narrow mouthed pot, 5 – Open Tin container, 6

– Other (Specify)_____________________)

(d) How often is the water storage vessel cleaned? (Code: 1 – Daily, 2 –Alternate days, 3 –After 2-3 days, 4 – weekly, 5 – Other (Specify)__________________)

(e) Is the water storage vessel covered? (Code: 1 – Always, 2 – Sometimes, 3 – No)

(f) Did someone brief you on safe drinking water practices?

(Code: 1 – No, 2 – Yes – Panchayat Member, 3 – Yes – Staff of the NGO,4- Yes – Other (Specify)______________)

VI SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SCHEME

(a) Are you aware of the technology used in this scheme for supplying water to your household? (Code: 1-Yes, 2-only to some extent,3- Not at all)

(b) Are you satisfied with the choice of technology used in the scheme?

(Code: 1-Yes, 2-only to some extent, 3- Not at all)

(c) Do you think adequate efforts for sustainability of the water source have been taken up for this scheme? (Code: 1-Yes, 2-only to some extent,3- Not at all)

(d) Are you willing to contribute if such efforts are needed to be taken in the

future? (Code: 1-Yes, 2-only to some extent,3- Not at all)

(e) Are the users/ community members trained on various aspects of Sustainability in the village? (Code: 1-Yes, 2-only to some extent,3- Not at all)

VII IMPACT OF ARWSP (to be canvassed only if answer to Q III (a) is ‘Yes’ ) (a) Provide comparison of drinking water supply source used by the household pre-

ARWSP and post-ARWSP scheme.

Particulars Pre – ARWSP Post - ARWSP

(i)

Type of Source used - (Code 1 – Hand Pump, 2 –Piped water supply-public stand post, 3-Piped water supply – in house connection, 4 –Community tank stand post, 5 – Protected Spring Source, 6 – Unprotected Spring Source, 7 – Protected Dug well, 8 – Unprotected Dug well, 9 - Pond, 10 - Others(Specify_______________________)


(i) Quality of Water (Code: 1 - Good, 2 – Bad, 3- Don’t Know/Can’t say )

(ii) If bad, what is/was the problem? (Code: 1– Bad taste, 2- Smell, 3– Colour, 4- Causes illness, 5- Other (Specify)__________ )

(iii) Travel time to the water source (Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) ____:____ ____:____

(iv) Distance traveled to fetch water (Kms & meters, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) ____:____ ____:____

(v) Waiting time at the water source (Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) ____:____ ____:____

(vi) Charges for water needs (Rs. Per month, in case it was free write 0)

(b) What has been the impact on the relations with in the community due to this scheme? (Code: 1- Improved relations, 2–Deteriorated relations, 3 – No impact)

(c) Has the benefit of the scheme to the community reached to all sections of the society? (Code: 1 – Yes everyone has benefited, 2 – Majority has benefited, 3 – Only few have been benefited)

(d) Has the scheme resulted in saving the time and effort of the women in your family? (Code: 1-Yes, 2- No)

(e) Provide comparison of Occurrence of the following diseases in a year in the household pre- ARWSP and post- ARWSP scheme.

(Nos.)

Particulars Pre – ARWSP Post - ARWSP

Adult Minor (< 16 yrs)

Adult Minor (< 16 yrs)

(i) Diarrhea (ii) Cholera (iii) Typhoid (iv) Hepatitis (v) Others

Name of the Investigator

Date Signature

Evaluation of ARWSP – Non-Beneficiary Household Schedule

175

Agency Code

EVALUATION OF


GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

NON-BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE

NB household no.

I IDENTIFICATION Name Code

(a) State

(b) District

(c) Block/Taluk / Mandal

(d) Gram Panchayat

(e) Village

(f) Habitation


(a) Name of the Respondent

(b) Father/Husband Name

(c) Sex (Code: 1 - Male, 2 - Female) 4. Age (In Years)

(d) Education (Code: 1 – Illiterate, 2 – Literate, 3 - Primary, 4 – Middle school, 5 – Matriculate, 6 – Plus 2, 7 – Technically qualified,

8 – Graduate and above)

(e) Current Principal Occupation: (Code: 1 – Agricultural Wage Earners, 2 – Non-agricultural Unskilled Wage Earners, 3 – Marginal Farmer, 4 – Live

stock, forestry etc., 5 – Mining and quarrying, 6 – Construction, 7 – Trade and commerce, 8 – Transport, communication, etc. 9 – Traditional artisans, 10 – Service,11 – Housewife, 12 – Others ( Specify)_________________)

(f) Number of members in the household (Nos.)

(g) Caste Category (Code: 1 - SC, 2 – ST, 3 - Others)

(h) BPL Status (Code: 1 -Yes, 2 – No)


176

III WATER SUPPLY FACILITY TO THE HOUSEHOLD


(c) Provide details of time spent and effort made on collecting water from the drinking

water supply source used by the household.

Particulars Time (Hours & Minutes)

(i) Travel time to the water source(s) daily (Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection) ____:____ ____:____

(ii) Distance traveled to fetch water daily (Kms & meters, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) ____:____ ____:____

(iii) Waiting time at the water source(s) daily (Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection) ____:____ ____:____

IV O & M OF THE WATER SUPPLY SCHEME

(a) Are you paying any water charges for the facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 – No)

(b) If yes, (i) How much do you pay per month? (In Rs.)

(ii) What is the schedule of payment of water charges? (Code: 1 - Monthly, 2 – Once in two months, 3 –Once in three months, 4 –Half yearly, 5 –Annually,

6 – Others (specify)___________________________)

(a) Provide details of usage of water supply facilities Scheme 1 Scheme 2


(ii) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation)

(iii) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. In hill areas)

(iv) Dependency on source (1-whole year, 2 – in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year)

(v) Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy)

(vi) Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish)

(vii) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent)

(b) Daily Consumption of household from the facilities (Estimate in terms of a 10 litres bucket/vessel, nos. of such vessel consumed)








177

(c) Who collects the water charges? (Code: 1 – VWSC member, 2 – Panchayat member, 3 –Operator, 4 –Staff of the NGO, 5 –No charges are collected,

6 – Others (specify)___________________________)

(d) Is the supply of water regular from the facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 – No)

(e) How much time does it take to reinstate in case of a breakdown? (Code: 1 – In few hours, 2 – Within a day, 3 –Next day, 4 –More than 2 days, 5 –Up to a week, 6 – More than a week,

7-No breakdowns at all)

V AWARENESS: SAFE WATER PRACTICES

(a) Are you satisfied with the quality of water supplied by the source? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 - No)

(b) What kind of vessel is used for fetching water? (Code: 1 –Plastic Bucket, 2 – Metal Bucket, 3 –Broad mouthed pot, 4 – Narrow mouthed pot, 5 – Open Tin container, 6

– Other (Specify)_____________________)

(c) What kind of vessel is used for storing drinking water? (Code: 1 –Plastic Bucket, 2 – Metal Bucket, 3 –Broad mouthed pot, 4 – Narrow mouthed pot, 5 – Open Tin container, 6

– Other (Specify)_____________________)

(d) How often is the water storage vessel cleaned? (Code: 1 – Daily, 2 –Alternate days, 3 –After 2-3 days, 4 – weekly, 5 – Other (Specify)__________________)

(e) Is the water storage vessel covered? (Code: 1 – Always, 2 – Sometimes, 3 – No)

(f) Did someone brief you on safe drinking water practices?

(Code: 1 – No, 2 – Yes – Panchayat Member, 3 – Yes – Staff of the NGO,4- Yes – Other (Specify)______________)

(g) Does the household have a sanitary latrine? (Code: 1- Yes, 2–No)

(h) If Yes, does it have a functional water supply facility for the toilet? (Code: 1- Yes, 2–No)

If the Household does not have a sanitary latrine, ask the following:

(i) Reasons for not constructing a sanitary latrine (Code 1-Not aware of the need, 2- No finance, 3- no space, 4- No water supply, 5-other reasons.)

(j) Provide details of Occurrence of the following diseases in this year in the household. (Nos.)

Diseases Adults Children (i) Diarrhea (ii) Cholera (iii) Typhoid (iv) Hepatitis (v) Others

Name of the Investigator Date

arwsp report

Documents