The draft National Water Framework Bill in India is set to address issues such as water scarcity, inequities in water distribution and the lack of a unified perspective in planning, management and use of water resources.

Revised for the second time, thanks to protests on the first draft of treating water as an economic good favouring privatisation, the present draft seeks to provide a ‘right to water’ based on a daily allowance of 25 litres per person, about five litres more than the World Health Organisation’s recommendation.

Impressive as this may seem, such proposed standards have been known to eventually compromise on the quality and quantity of service, let alone consistency. Instead, there must be a strong emphasis on considering access to safe water as a human right, where the right to continuous water supply must be the goal — this addresses both quantity and quality concerns as it mitigates the health concerns arising from supplying stagnant water. In India, it is a common sight for women to queue up at public water fountains, forgoing potential employment opportunities, leaving the newborns unattended back home, all for one reason — water!

The problem lies buried Rapidly growing cities in India have increased the demand for natural resources and basic public services, including water supply. But the existing infrastructure is outdated and in desperate need of repair, where according to the World Bank, about half the water supplied for domestic consumption is lost through internal leakages or theft.

Other issues such as intermittent water supply with lack of water metering and, more importantly, loss of water arising from unmetered supply, often camouflaged as free supply, are increasing.

There is thus a growing need to provide safe water on a continuous basis for all as a human right. Whilst over 90 per cent of urban households in India have access to water supply services, this access is often not equal, not sustainable and not to safe water. There remain challenges of high loss levels due to pipelines breaking down as a result of pressure fluctuation, and low cost recovery. Piped water is distributed only for a few hours every day, and water is stored in large overhead tanks on roof-tops. Coverage levels of water supply services may have, arguably, increased over time. But this has not necessarily translated into improved services that are safe, reliable and continuous.

But is lack of water availability the reason for government’s inability to supply continuous water? The problem, in fact, lies not in the lack of water availability, but in the dilapidated and leaky networks that lie beneath the ground. A proven example is the World Bank-funded project in Karnataka where Veolia Water, a water services company, has successfully demonstrated the feasibility of providing safe and continuous water to nearly 3.5 lakh consumers. Thus, by optimally maintaining the existing water infrastructure and increasing operations efficiency, water can be distributed sustainably for all.

Private or public delivery? Next is the question of ‘preferred’ service delivery model — the public versus the private debate. Why should a local authority engage a private operator? One rationale may be the perceived inability of the state to deliver safe water continuously, and this encourages the state to change its role from a service provider to a regulator.

There are two key prominent arguments against using private enterprise to deliver water services. First, the perceived rise in the cost of drinking water for private profits. Secondly the poor will be unable to pay for the water services. In reality, the rise in water tariffs may be justified for two reasons: one, water may be free, but not the service rendered of supplying water by way of treatment and supply, meeting the quality standards for consumption.

Also, a number of unseen costs — the overhead tanks, pipelines from the water main to each individual household, and its regular maintenance, household filters — are all a part of the overall cost.

Further, if there is no perceivable price attached, water loses its value and is thus wasted. As for the poor, many studies conducted around the world prove that the poor do pay, far more than their fair share. In Dakhin Durgapur in West Bengal the villagers were willing to pay Rs 2,000 each for reliable service to about 5,000 slum dwellers as a deposit to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to extend distribution networks to unserved areas, without additional finance. Also, interestingly, the subsidies for water benefit mainly those who are not poor. This was established in the case of Baroda Municipal Corporation where the main beneficiaries of the subsidies were the middle and upper-income households, who paid less than 20 per cent of the actual cost of water they consume.

Is private participation the same as privatisation? The important element here is that a water-PPP (as opposed to privatisation) presents a framework that acknowledges the role of the government in ensuring that social obligations are met and successful sector reforms and public investments are achieved. Whether there is empirical evidence to this is another question. The assets are then handed over back to the government at the end of the contract. Privatisation, on the other hand, is the case of the UK where the utility companies buy the water assets such as the water treatment plants, distribution networks, etc., from the government and operate as a form of monopoly for a specific region.

This is not, however, to say that water-PPPs are the only way forward. The Government could effectively bridge the gaps in operational efficiency. In essence, a lay person cannot be required to bear the brunt of lack of safe water and of intermittent supply as a result of the ‘underproductive public versus for-profit private’ debate. Should the criticisms suggest good reasons to reject private participation, efficient water service delivery models must be adopted/demonstrated by the local authority. On the other hand, should the government wish to use private sector management until public sector capability has been developed, there must be effective institutional framework.

The way forward The government must build its capacity to recognise that the solution to the problem of water is both a matter of social and institutional governance and a regulation project, and not merely an engineering one. If the project is economically viable and sustainable in water PPPs, political opposition must become issue-based rather than an anti-privatisation drive. Alternate and exclusive project structures must emerge to suit varied conditions. A draft Model Concession Agreement must be put in place where a comprehensive framework, along with risk sharing arrangements, is standardised. Finally, constitution of a state-wise independent regulator for the sector is required in order to carry out projects in a transparent manner.

Thus, in the wake of water policy revisions being undertaken by policy makers, there must be an emphasis on providing access to safe water as a human right, irrespective of whether the service is being rendered by a public or a private body.

(The author is an M.Sc student in Water Science, Policy and Management, University of Oxford)

Related Topics