Arwsp Report

Acknowledgements
Water,anintrinsicrequirementofhumanlifeisalsointimatelyrelatedtotheissuesoflivelihood needs,foodsecurity,employmentandpovertyamongtheruralmasses.Theeverincreasingdemandfor water is putting severe pressure on the global environment, with many rivers, lakes and other water bodiesgettingpollutedcontaminatedanddepletionofwatertables.Cleanandadequatesupplyofwater isnotonlycrucialto thestabilityandmaintenanceofecosystemsbutveryimportantlyto thehealthof ourpeople.TheAcceleratedRuralWaterSupplyProgramme(ARWSP)sponsoredbytheMinistryofRural Development, Government of India supplements the efforts of the State Governments in order to acceleratethepaceofcoverageofproblemhabitationsinruralareas.ThemonitoringdivisionofMoRD decidedtoconductanAllIndiaEvaluationofARWSPinordertoassesstheimplementationandsuccessof theschemeinachievingitsobjectives.CMISocialResearchCentrewasselectedtoconducttheStudyas theNodalAgency. OurforemostthanksareduetoSmt.ManjulaKrishnan,ChiefEconomicAdviser,MinistryofRural Developmentforreposingfaithinusbyassigningthisopportunityandprovidinghervaluableguidance andblessings. WeareextremelyindebtedforthesplendidsupportandcooperationwereceivedfromShri.T.M. Vijay Bhaskar, Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, GovernmentofIndia. This report could not have been accomplished without the encouragement and continuous guidancewereceivedfromDr.N.K.Sahu,Director(Monitoring)throughouttheStudyperiod.Wearealso very grateful to all the other officials of the E&M Wing and Department of Drinking Water Supply, for wideningourhorizonandunderstandingofthesubjectandtheirkindcooperation. Wegratefully appreciate theeffortsof the State andDistrict level officials tofacilitate this task andtheirwholeheartedcooperation.Wewouldalsoliketorecordourappreciationandthanksto the Field Agencies and the Consultants, Technical Editors, Managers of CMISRC for their commitment and dedicationthroughouttheproject. WeatCMISRCalwaysstrivetoprovideourclientswithaprofessionalpieceofwork,toensure that,theirenergiesandfinancescontributeaseffectively,aspossibletothegoalofdevelopmentandthis time again hope, that the Report of this Evaluation Study will go a long way in streamlining the whole processofimplementationofprogrammesoftheMinistrytomakethemmoreeffective,productiveand resultorientedforthebenefitoftheruralareas. ManishAhluwalia (Director) CMISocialResearchCentre
Evaluation of Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme CONTENTS

Executive Summary Chapter 1 Introduction
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)
i-ix 1-13
Chapter 2 Evaluation Study of ARWSP

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
14-18
Chapter 3 Profile of Habitations and Households covered

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
19-30
Chapter 4 Performance of ARWSP in the States

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
31-37
Chapter 5 Planning Processes under ARWSP in the States

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
38-46
Chapter 6 ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations

6.1 Schemes taken up under ARWSP in surveyed habitations 6.2 Status of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations
47-59
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

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
60-65
Chapter 8 Impact of ARWSP

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
66-75
8.8 Awareness on Safe Water Practices in the households
Chapter 9 Gender Sensitiveness of ARWSP

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
76-78
Annexure
Executive Summary
Providing safe drinking water to 70% of Indias 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.
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
ii 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.
iii 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%).
iv 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
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
vi
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.
vii 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.
viii
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.
ix
Executive Summary
Introduction
APSVANTARMRITMAPSUBHESHAJAM|
(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 worlds 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 humanitys needs like agricultural, residential,
manufacturing, community and other personal needs. Almost 20 percent of the worlds 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.
Introduction
Rural Water Supply in India

Providing safe drinking water to 70% of Indias 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, of poor
implementation
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. Indias 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
2 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
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
Immediate symptoms include digestive disorders, skin diseases, dental fluorosis Fluoride in larger quantities (20-80 mg/day) taken over a period of 1020 years results in crippling and skeletal fluorosis which is severe bone damage 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)
Fluoride
1.5 mg/l
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal
Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Tripura, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh
Arsenic
0.05 mg/l
Introduction
Parameter
Maximum Permissible limit
Health impact
Affected states
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
Iron
1 mg/l
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
Salinity 2000 mg/l
Causes Methamoglobinemia (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. Objectionable taste to water. May affect osmotic flow and movement of fluids
Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Pondicherry Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Kerala
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
Persistent Organic Pollutants
None
High blood Pressure hormonal dysfunction and growth retardation.
Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, West Bengal
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 NC PC FC Habitation Survey 2003 270405 (16.70%) 412505 (25.80%) 915809 (57.30%) Re-Assessment of Habitation survey 2003 185547 (11.60%) 190400 (11.90%) 1222772 (76.50%) Random Sample Survey 2006 145518 (9.10%) 194067 (12.10%) 1259134 (78.80%)
Introduction
TheConstitutionofIndia & ProvisionforRighttoSafeDrinkingWater

UnderfundamentalrightsprovidedbytheConstitutionofIndia,Article21 entitles protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedureestablishedbylaw. (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 severalother vitalaspectsof human lifelikepollutionfree waterand air, health,environment,andhousing.) Article 15(2) of the Constitution states that no citizen shall on grounds onlyofreligion,race,caste,sex,placeofbirthoranyofthembesubject toanydisability,liability,restrictionorconditionwithregardtotheuse ofwells,tanks,bathingghats.
Thedirectiveprinciplesofstatepolicy,whichtheConstitutioninArticle37 recognizes the principle of equal access to the material resources of the community.
Article39(b)mandatesthattheStateshall,inparticular,directitspolicy towardssecuringthattheownershipandcontrolofthematerialresources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good.
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
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
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/
10
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
11 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,
12 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.
13
Introduction
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.
14 Evaluation Study of ARWSP
4. To assess the impact of the programme in terms of :i. Increased availability of water supply 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. to the rural
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.
15
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
16 Evaluation Study of ARWSP
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 State Level Schedule Respondent Office/ Respondent State Level Implementing Agency District Level Implementing Agency of ARWSP (PHED/others) PHED staff, village PRI officials, members of VWSCs, other opinion leaders & villagers Respondent households from selected habitations PHED staff, village PRI officials, members of VWSCs, other opinion leaders & villagers Respondent households from control habitations
District/Project Level Schedule
Sample Habitation Schedule
Sample Household Schedule
Control Habitation Schedule
Control Household Schedule
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
17
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 Districts Sample Habitations Sample Households Control Habitations Control Households 27 97 2176 43477 872 8614
State-wise coverage under ARWSP evaluation study is provided at Table 2.1 at Annexure I.
18
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
19 Profile of habitations and households covered under the study
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.
Population size of the habitations covered under the Study (% of habitations)
Figure 3A
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 statewise variations in the size of habitations is considered any indication of
20
Profile of habitations and households covered under the study
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.
Distribution of Sample Habitations as per % SC/ST households
Figure 3B
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.
Distribution of Sample Habitations as per % BPL households
Figure 3C
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.
Distribution of Sample Habitations as per current status
Figure 3D
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.
23
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.
Change in status of habitations since year Figure 3 E of coverage and current status at the time of study
FC FC PC NC QA FC PC PC NC QA FC NC PC NC QA FC QA PC NC QA
24
69 14 2 1 682 299 37 0 595 241 98 3 83 30 6 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.
25
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.
Distribution of Sample Households as per caste status
Figure 3 G
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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
Figure 3 J
Change in status of control habitations since HS 2003 and current status at the time of study
FC PC FC NC QA FC PC PC NC QA FC NC PC NC QA FC QA PC NC QA
32 10 6 3 62 160 31 8 49 68 174 3 25 2 2 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.
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
31
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
32 Performance of ARWSP in the States
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.
Funds utilized on SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply during the last 3 years
Figure 4 C
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 200405 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
33 Performance of ARWSP in the States
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 Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim
>35%
Funds utilized under ARWSP compared to SC/ST rural population of the states
< SC/ST rural population > SC/ST rural population
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tripura 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.
34
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 > SC/ST rural population
Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, , Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal 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
35
coverage of institutions during the last three years in provided at Table 4.4 at Annexure 1.
No. of Institutions covered under RWS during the last 3 years
Figure 4 D
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 Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J & K, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh Himachal Pradesh
>25 - 50
50 - 75 75 - 100
36
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.
37
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.
38 Planning processes under ARWSP in the States
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.
State Action Plans on rural water supply prepared based on: Figure 5 A
Plans prepared by the Districts Planning done at State Level No Action Plan prepared
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, U.P. & Uttaranchal. Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, J&K, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu, 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. Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, U.P. & Uttaranchal. Haryana, Jharkhand & Kerala Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J&K, Jharkhand, M.P., Punjab & U.P. Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, M.P., Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, M.P., Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu.
Awareness Generation Awarding Contracts for installations Operation & Maintenance Training of Users
Sustainability Efforts
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 : Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal
State Level
Below State level
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.
41
Decision on selection of the type of schemes to be taken up is taken at : Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, J&K, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal
State Level
Below State level
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.
42
Involvement in the planning process on O & M of the schemes Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, J&K, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttaranchal, West B l
State Level
Below State level
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 Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, West Bengal
State level Involved
State level plays no role
80% of the districts covered under the study reported having a role in planning for sustainability of the drinking water supply schemes.
43
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 Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. 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
Training of Users
Awareness Generation
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.
44
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.
46
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
47
ARWSP schemes in the habitations
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
48 ARWSP schemes in the habitations
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 Temporarily not functional Found permanently defunct Functional at the time of the survey 4514 (16.28%) 541 (1.95%) 316 (1.14%) 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.
49
Figure 6 B: All India distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes as per Type of Schemes
Total No. of Service Access Points Affected by seasonal variations Nos. % Currently functional service access points Nos. % Temporarily not functional service access points Nos. % Permanently defunct service access points Nos. % Affected by water quality problems Nos. %
S. No.
Type of Schemes
No. of schemes covered
1 2
5 6 7
Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (SW) Piped Water Supply (UG) Comm. Tank Stand Post Pro. Spring Sources Pro. Dug Well Other Sources
1609 289
3428 8135
380 2890
11.09 35.53
2728 7880
79.58 96.87
411 79
11.99 0.97
241 38
7.03 0.47
386 126
11.26 1.55
258
15788
1205
7.63
15619
98.93
17
0.11
20
0.13
250
1.58
76
170
4.71
149
87.65
1.76
1.76
0.00
65 23 6 2326
112 68 20 27721
23 7 1 4514
20.54 10.29 5 16.28
79 55 13 26523
70.54 80.88 65.00 95.68
21 6 4 541
18.75 8.82 20 1.95
9 2 3 316
8.04 2.94 15.00 1.14
37 2 3 804
33.04 2.94 15.00 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.
50
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 Protected of the 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.
51
S. No.
Year of Coverage
Total No. of Service Access Points 16429 4008 7284
Affected by seasonal variations Nos. 3233 114 1167 % 19.68 2.84 16.02
Currently functional service access points Nos. 15916 3658 6949 % 96.88 91.27 95.40
Temporarily not functional service access points Nos. 136 175 230 % 0.83 4.37 3.16
Permanently defunct service access points Nos. 84 110 122 % 0.51 2.74 1.67
Affected by water quality problems Nos. 397 165 242 % 2.42 4.12 3.32
1 2 3
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
721 788 817
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.
52
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.
Type of Problems reported in the temporarily not functional service access points
Figure 6 C
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
54
content. The figure below provides the type of water quality problem in the surveyed habitations.
Water quality problems in the surveyed habitations (% of quality affected habitations) 6.11 5.80 53.29 24.77 4.86 5.10
Figure 6 D
Arsenic Fluoride Salinity Iron Nitrate Other problems
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.
56
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.
Provision of O&M Costs of ARWSP Schemes borne by various institutions in the States
Figure 6 F
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.
59
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,
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.
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 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.
60
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.
61 Community involvement and role of PRIs
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 peoples views.
62
Role in decision on choice of technology

In case of 67.90% habitations the PHED suggested and decided on the 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

In case of 48.22% habitations the PHED suggested and decided on the 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
63 Community involvement and role of PRIs
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.
64
Comparison on Community Participation in decision Figure 6 F 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.
65
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 programmes 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
66 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
67 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)
68
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. Statewise 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 postARWSP 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.
69
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
70 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
71
Impact of ARWSP
reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source. Majority of them reported reduction in distance upto 1 km.
Statewise 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
72
Impact of ARWSP
on households reported reduction in travel time to the water source are provided at Table 8.4 at Annexure I.
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.
73
Impact of ARWSP
Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases (% of households) Diarrhea (Adult) Diarrhea (Minor <16 yrs) Cholera (Adult) Cholera (Minor <16 yrs) Typhoid (Adult) Typhoid (Minor <16 yrs) Hepatitis (Adult) Hepatitis (Minor <16 yrs) Other Diseases (Adult) Other Diseases (Minor <16 yrs) 8.79 11.53 2.17 1.54 4.90 3.89 1.77 1.51 3.73 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
74 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 provided at Table 8.7 at Annexure I.
75
Impact of 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 economic Women represented making and and life are in social and
chances. weakly decision 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.
76
Gender sensitiveness in ARWSP
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.
77
Gender sensitiveness in ARWSP
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.

78 Gender sensitiveness in ARWSP
ANNEXURE I
Table 2.1 : Sample covered under ARWSP Evaluation Study
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State
Districts
No. of Sample habitations covered
No. of households covered
No. of Control habitations covered
No. of Control households covered
Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total
4 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 3 3 97
74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926
43477
40 30 50 51 30 50 9 10 11 53 40 20 41 50 20 20 20 28 50 18 50 20 50 20 50 30 11
872
397 305 551 477 295 500 95 72 117 503 372 174 430 500 212 210 200 305 500 59 500 206 511 205 500 296 122
8614
79
Table 3.1 : Demographic profile of the Habitations covered under the Study
(No. of habitations)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State No. of habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 Population as per Census 2001 (persons) 250 19 15 21 8 167 22 0 0 0 22 9 0 170 7 20 11 3 2 213 0 54 14 23 10 43 18 6 877 251-500 8 12 11 26 110 16 0 0 3 14 11 0 87 1 4 5 14 6 50 3 14 8 28 5 14 11 2 463 501-1000 More than 1000 < 35 % % SC/ST households 35-50 % >50 % 25 % % BPL households 26-50 % >50 %
7 8 10 25 57 17 5 1 3 8 18 0 59 5 4 6 10 12 22 5 12 0 9 2 21 0 9
335
40 0 10 112 12 40 6 13 4 11 31 34 57 5 0 0 0 12 10 9 26 0 8 0 33 1 27
501
40 0 9 128 77 45 3 4 0 17 33 32 115 12 0 0 0 0 125 14 67 0 51 0 71 21 32

896
14 0 5 25 22 7 1 5 4 2 18 2 35 3 0 0 0 0 14 1 14 1 5 5 9 3 5
200
20 35 38 18 247 43 7 5 6 36 18 0 223 3 28 22 27 32 156 2 25 21 12 12 31 6 7

1080
30 29 11 50 30 41 8 12 4 28 16 26 86 10 6 8 6 9 39 17 66 5 23 7 66 3 32
668
31 6 12 52 65 27 3 2 6 13 32 8 116 6 4 10 11 18 60 0 21 15 20 5 24 10 6
583
13 0 29 69 251 27 0 0 0 14 21 0 171 2 18 4 10 5 196 0 19 2 25 5 21 17 6

925
80
Table 3.1 (a) Total SC/ST Households in the Habitations Covered

No. of habitation covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total
No. of households 80441 3555 6680 58923 22536 35355 1958 5546 1648 5796 23928 17551 39169 4061 2157 2235 3654 6156 16768 3422 17588 1752 7856 1915 21863 1348 10271 404132
No. of SC households 20268 20 458 14631 3823 3711 351 2029 428 1765 6241 2070 7483 753 46 13 0 0 3945 800 3086 101 1868 356 4936 407 2708 82293
No. of ST households 12256 2631 858 123 10358 5971 307 805 415 2081 1642 947 11480 436 715 1912 3454 5570 4384 50 1811 396 661 700 360 30 474 70823
No. of SC/ST households 32524 2651 1315 14754 14181 9682 658 2834 843 3846 7883 3017 18963 1189 761 1925 3454 5570 8329 850 4897 497 2529 1055 5296 437 3182 153123
% of SC households 25.20 0.56 6.85 24.83 16.96 10.50 17.93 36.58 25.97 30.45 26.08 11.79 19.10 18.54 2.13 0.57 0.00 0.00 23.53 23.38 17.55 5.78 23.78 18.57 22.58 30.19 26.37 20.36
% of ST households 15.24 74.00 12.84 0.21 45.96 16.89 15.68 14.51 25.18 35.90 6.86 5.40 29.31 10.74 33.15 85.57 94.54 90.48 26.15 1.46 10.30 22.58 8.41 36.54 1.65 2.23 4.61 17.52
% of SC/ST households 40.43 74.56 19.69 25.04 62.93 27.39 33.61 51.10 51.15 66.36 32.94 17.19 48.41 29.28 35.28 86.14 94.54 90.48 49.67 24.84 27.84 28.36 32.19 55.11 24.22 32.42 30.98 37.89
81
Table 3.2 : Distribution of habitations covered under the study (Year of Coverage under ARWSP and Current Status)
(No of habitations) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. of habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 2004-05 Total 52 8 8 0 68 34 11 13 7 13 58 22 102 3 6 4 2 13 101 15 30 7 51 7 0 9 2 646 FC 18 5 4 0 61 25 8 13 7 0 21 9 63 2 5 3 2 10 90 12 12 7 26 6 0 5 0 414 PC 32 2 2 0 7 7 2 0 0 12 33 13 35 1 1 1 0 1 5 2 15 0 22 1 0 2 1 197 NC 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 3 0 0 2 1 28 QA 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 22 15 4 74 144 39 0 0 0 20 11 12 121 5 2 8 6 11 103 2 47 7 17 3 65 9 4 751 FC 9 11 3 10 121 39 0 0 0 4 2 0 76 3 2 7 6 10 100 0 41 7 11 3 53 6 0 524 2005-06 PC 13 2 0 43 21 0 0 0 0 15 9 12 39 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 6 0 5 0 8 1 4 186 NC 0 2 0 21 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 39 QA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 12 40 97 134 22 0 1 3 22 0 0 150 10 20 10 19 8 91 0 29 8 0 7 46 12 38 779 FC 0 11 30 18 123 21 0 1 1 3 0 0 90 3 18 9 17 8 53 0 28 8 0 7 29 3 10 491 2006-07 PC 0 1 4 45 8 1 0 0 1 14 0 0 57 2 2 0 2 0 28 0 1 0 0 0 15 5 15 201 NC 0 0 0 34 3 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 12 76 QA 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11
State
82
Table 3.2 (a) : Status of habitations Covered under the study

(No (%) of habitations)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State No. of habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 Status as per CAP'99 FC 2 0 0 4 0 0 3 11 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 PC 36 7 48 58 6 64 0 0 0 14 44 32 0 9 21 0 0 0 5 0 29 0 35 0 10 1 4 423 NC QA FC Status as per Habitation Survey 2003 PC NC QA FC Status at the time of ARWSP intervention PC NC QA
36 28 4 109 12 11 8 3 6 4 24 0 5 8 6 0 0 0 64 13 77 0 26 0 1 2 9
456
0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 19
48
5 0 0 4 0 0 3 11 6 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
49
63 6 45 110 179 67 0 0 0 29 62 27 176 11 0 0 0 0 70 0 31 0 39 0 100 16 6

1037
6 29 7 57 167 4 8 3 4 26 5 0 197 6 0 0 0 0 222 14 75 0 22 0 8 14 13

887
0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 22
55
16 0 0 7 2 1 8 14 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 0 6
86
57 6 25 79 171 66 2 0 1 30 48 9 136 10 18 15 17 8 73 4 54 18 41 12 97 14 7
1018
1 29 7 85 173 4 1 0 1 25 0 16 232 7 4 4 5 8 221 3 52 4 24 2 5 16 8

937
0 0 20 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 21 9 0 1 6 3 5 16 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 23
135
83
Table 3.2 (b): Habitations covered under the study slipped back to PC/NC/QA status at the time of the study
(No. & % of habitations)
State No. of Habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 PC Nos. 45 5 6 88 36 8 2 0 1 41 42 25 131 5 3 2 2 1 36 4 22 0 27 1 23 8 20 584 % Nos. NC % 2 3 0 55 5 0 1 0 1 7 4 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 0 4 0 6 8 13 143 Nos. QA %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
60.81 14.29 11.54 51.46 10.40 8.42 18.18 0.00 10.00 74.55 60.87 73.53 35.12 27.78 10.71 9.09 7.41 3.13 12.20 23.53 20.75 0.00 39.71 5.88 20.72 26.67 45.45 26.84
2.70 8.57 0.00 32.16 1.45 0.00 9.09 0.00 10.00 12.73 5.80 0.00 3.49 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 5.88 2.83 0.00 5.88 0.00 5.41 26.67 29.55 6.57
0 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20
0.00 0.00 17.31 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 9.38 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.27 0.92
84
Table 3.3: Distribution of habitations covered under the study (Year of Coverage under ARWSP and Current Status)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total No. of Habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 Status at the time of ARWSP intervention FC PC NC QA FC Current Status of Covered Habitations PC NC 45 5 6 88 36 8 2 0 1 41 42 25 131 5 3 2 2 1 36 4 22 0 27 1 23 8 20 584 2 3 0 55 5 0 1 0 1 7 4 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 0 4 0 6 8 13 143 QA
16 0 0 7 2 1 8 14 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 0 6
86
57 6 25 79 171 66 2 0 1 30 48 9 136 10 18 15 17 8 73 4 54 18 41 12 97 14 7
1018
1 29 7 85 173 4 1 0 1 25 0 16 232 7 4 4 5 8 221 3 52 4 24 2 5 16 8

937
0 0 20 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 21 9 0 1 6 3 5 16 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 23
135
27 27 37 28 305 85 8 14 8 7 23 9 229 8 25 19 25 28 243 12 81 22 37 16 82 14 10

1429
0 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20
85
Table 3.3 (a): Distribution of habitations covered under the study (change from year of coverage to current status)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
FC to FC 10 0 0 4 2 1 8 14 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 69
FC to PC 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 14
FC to NC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
FC to QA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
PC to FC 16 4 25 23 155 61 0 0 1 4 13 0 95 6 15 13 15 7 44 0 51 18 22 12 73 6 3 682
PC to PC 40 2 0 36 15 5 2 0 0 26 31 9 39 4 3 2 2 1 29 4 3 0 17 0 20 5 4 299
PC to NC 1 0 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 0 37
PC to QA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC to FC 1 23 7 1 148 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 129 2 4 4 5 8 199 2 30 4 12 1 2 8 0 595
NC to PC 0 3 0 49 21 2 0 0 1 15 0 16 92 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 19 0 10 1 1 3 1 241
NC to NC 0 3 0 35 4 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 0 2 0 2 5 7 98
NC to QA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
QA to FC 0 0 5 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 6 2 5 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 6 83
QA to PC 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 30
QA to NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6
QA to QA 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
86
Table 3.4 : Profile of households covered under the study

No. of Households
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. of households covered 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477 BPL Status APL 688 298 439 1559 1651 1041 88 128 28 662 285 141 3639 224 207 158 213 234 1937 136 1444 226 256 127 1432 224 583 18048 BPL 798 408 604 1758 5157 845 152 77 292 410 1095 539 4347 127 357 282 328 409 3963 41 563 216 1104 213 699 302 343 25429 SC Caste ST Others Size of households (no. of members) 5 6 to 10 >10
State
329 15 116 919 911 126 58 57 249 188 272 114 1539 49 7 0 0 0 1488 23 208 70 239 87 673 184 349
8270
446 685 394 86 3896 636 147 90 69 469 291 126 3588 67 539 440 532 643 1926 64 386 268 211 168 99 17 41
16324
711 6 533 2312 2001 1124 35 58 2 415 817 440 2859 235 18 0 9 0 2486 90 1413 104 910 85 1359 325 536
18883
1029 424 676 1249 4022 1168 199 144 294 645 952 469 5414 273 412 214 179 268 4036 69 885 140 935 120 1236 227 494
26173
449 250 302 1795 2584 657 40 58 23 418 413 206 2368 78 112 220 234 294 1656 105 1048 268 402 207 764 252 378
15581
8 32 65 273 202 61 1 3 3 9 15 5 204 0 40 6 128 81 208 3 74 34 23 13 131 47 54

1723
Gender Ratio (female per 1000 male) 1016 978 852 869 938 883 798 876 965 961 989 972 854 1057 923 961 961 923 918 914 727 887 1019 878 854 939 876 899
87
Table 3.5 :Demographic profile of the Control Habitations covered under the study
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. of control habitations covered Population as per Census 2001 (persons) 250 12 15 20 11 13 10 0 0 0 23 5 0 19 16 15 14 3 2 39 0 19 12 20 11 8 20 1 308 251-500 1 10 10 13 14 8 2 0 0 16 9 0 3 7 3 4 8 3 8 4 13 8 15 5 7 7 4 182 501-1000 More than 1000 35 % % SC/ST households 36-50 % >50 % 25 % % BPL households 26-50 % >50 %
State
40 30 50 51 30 50 9 10 11 53 40 20 41 50 20 20 20 28 50 18 50 20 50 20 50 30 11
872
8 5 11 13 1 10 6 5 5 4 9 0 9 9 2 2 8 11 2 8 9 0 2 4 11 3 1
158
19 0 9 14 2 22 1 5 6 10 17 20 10 18 0 0 1 12 1 6 9 0 13 0 24 0 5
224
18 0 8 26 7 31 6 1 0 17 26 20 14 37 0 0 0 0 13 13 31 0 30 0 32 19 1
350
3 0 11 3 1 2 0 1 1 3 7 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 2 5 8 13 2 0
79
19 30 31 20 22 17 3 8 10 33 7 0 24 11 20 20 20 28 34 2 13 18 15 12 5 9 0
431
13 23 10 14 2 30 9 7 9 19 4 0 11 19 3 2 1 8 3 17 35 5 13 10 26 11 1
305
3 7 15 13 3 11 0 2 2 16 11 9 11 19 5 10 9 19 8 1 3 12 9 5 17 6 0
226
24 0 25 22 25 9 0 1 0 18 25 11 19 12 12 8 10 1 39 0 12 3 28 5 7 13 0
329
88
Table 3.6 : Status of control habitations covered under the study

S. No. No. of control habitations covered Status as per CAP'99 FC 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 PC 15 4 12 2 0 33 1 7 2 8 25 18 0 31 3 2 1 1 0 0 4 3 36 2 0 0 0 210 NC QA FC Status as per Habitation Survey 2003 PC NC QA FC Current Status of Habitation PC NC QA
State
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
40 30 50 51 30 50 9 10 11 53 40 20 41 50 20 20 20 28 50 18 50 20 50 20 50 30 11
872
23 24 30 49 0 7 5 2 0 11 15 2 0 16 15 16 19 25 10 7 46 17 2 16 0 0 11
368
0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
30
0
4 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 3
23
2 7 2 0 33 1 7 2 8 25 18 0 31 2 0 1 3 37 0 4 0 36 2
17 0 0
41
24 14 0
282
13 24 33 49 0 7 5 2 0 11 15 2 0 16 18 18 17 23 10 7 46 20 2 15 0 16 11
380
4 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 0
43
14 0 0 0 4 35 8 10 11 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 40 0 11 0 0
163
21 3 5 6 17 7 1 0 0 23 16 8 22 34 2 3 0 4 9 0 23 2 10 1 3 11 0
231
5 25 32 43 9 0 0 0 0 30 16 8 5 8 17 17 20 22 33 3 17 16 0 19 1 19 11
376
0 2 13 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 5 1 0 0 2 5 0 10 2 0 0 35 0 0
98
89
Table 3.6 (a) Distribution of control habitations (change in status from habitation survey 2003 to current status)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
FC to FC 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 32
FC to PC 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10
FC to NC 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6
FC to QA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
PC to FC 10 0 0 0 1 16 1 7 2 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 11 0 0 62
PC to PC 11 2 5 0 15 12 1 0 0 21 14 8 21 29 2 0 0 3 6 0 10 0 0 1 11 8 0 160
PC to NC 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 31 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 31
PC to QA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
NC to FC 2 0 0 0 3 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 49
NC to PC 8 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 18 2 10 0 0 3 0 68
NC to NC 3 24 32 44 9 0 0 0 0 27 2 0 4 8 17 17 17 22 2 3 18 16 0 15 0 13 11 174
NC to QA 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
QA to FC 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 9 0 0 25
QA to PC 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
QA to NC 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
QA to QA 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
90
Table 3.7 : Profile of Control Households Covered under the Study

(No. of Households)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 No. of control households covered BPL Status APL 123 123 216 126 72 324 30 45 14 241 143 98 181 255 81 89 71 124 101 54 297 93 136 65 3638 BPL 274 182 335 351 223 176 65 27 103 262 229 76 249 245 131 121 129 181 399 5 203 113 375 140 4976 SC Caste ST Others Size of households (no. of members) 5 6 to 10 >10
State
Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Total
397 305 551 477 295 500 95 72 117 503 372 174 430 500 212 210 200 305 500 59 500 206 511 205
8614
94 26 110 175 12 46 31 2 62 84 74 35 74 30 8 0 0 0 125 8 21 32 119 35

1485
119 269 168 38 205 108 41 29 49 275 54 0 200 126 195 210 189 305 242 3 142 148 198 147
3501
184 10 273 264 78 346 23 41 6 144 244 139 156 344 9 0 11 0 133 48 337 26 194 23
3628
264 106 182 212 154 292 87 72 117 253 221 93 375 372 135 124 94 176 366 40 295 84 347 81
4942
124 182 343 229 127 188 8 0 0 242 146 80 55 124 72 74 103 104 119 19 192 110 153 109
3305
9 17 26 36 14 20 0 0 0 8 5 1 0 4 5 12 3 25 15 0 13 12 11 15
367
91
Table 4.1 (a) : Financial Progress - Funding under Rural Water Supply Programmes in the States
(Rs. In Lakh)
2004-2005 S. No. State Allocations Releases % Releases Utilized 2005-2006 2006-2007
% Allocations Utilization
Releases
% Releases
Utilized
% Utilization
Allocations
Releases
% Releases
Utilized
% Utilization
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
16118.40 6125.00 10331.00 5467.00 4140.00 4890.00 2707.00 5427.00 12500.00 2178.00 10104.00 2914.00 7745.00 15971.00 2103.00 2422.00 1737.00 1782.00 9523.40 2815.00 23023.00 731.00 7075.13 2149.00 12991.00 2957.97 8527.00 184453.90
16118.40 6825.00 9565.62 7400.03 2269.80 6638.39 2707.00 6061.37 12500.00 1859.83 15000.00 3946.00 7945.00 19851.00 2103.00 2613.87 1810.00 1702.00 9523.40 2808.00 29239.76 731.00 5937.80 1575.13 12991.00 2957.97 8270.21 200950.58
100.00 111.43 92.59 135.36 54.83 135.75 100.00 111.69 100.00 85.39 148.46 135.42 102.58 124.29 100.00 107.92 104.20 95.51 100.00 99.75 127.00 100.00 83.92 73.30 100.00 100.00 96.99 108.94
15484.40 7645.94 11596.82 4388.42 1646.86 10359.53 2860.60 5916.67 13123.13 835.84 15557.00 4157.00 6522.13 19175.00 2483.50 2953.89 1810.00 1583.08 5933.20 2516.20 22089.11 745.12 6139.00 2077.06 11897.53 3527.02 8553.91
191577.96
96.07 112.03 121.23 59.30 72.56 156.05 105.67 97.61 104.99 44.94 103.71 105.35 82.09 96.59 118.09 113.01 100.00 93.01 62.30 89.61 75.54 101.93 103.39 131.87 91.58 119.24 103.43
95.34
24077.35
9993.61
21406.61
10674.54
88.91
106.81 87.83
16851.29 15324.00 5904.97 11186.00 4193.50 8585.00 10486.00 6334.62 19809.00 5386.00 15101.00 31610.88 3430.93 3949.77 2831.58 2907.91 14889.66 4024.31 48614.72 1195.53 11093.00 3503.10 24764.00 6559.12 13308.00
325914.85
14800.63 15234.00 5228.98 11597.16 1795.00 12224.04 10486.00 6171.28 27179.00 6170.65 15039.88 32286.88 2713.67 3190.10 2599.27 2647.76 14557.80 4024.31 48485.34 1283.68 11093.00 3199.86 29492.10 6559.12 15078.33
335218.99
99.41 88.55 103.68 42.80

142.39
100.00 97.42 137.21 114.57 99.60 102.14 79.09 80.77 91.80 91.05 97.77 100.00 99.73 107.37 100.00 91.34 119.09 100.00 113.30
102.85
15395.26 10518.16 10863.40 6954.92 3298.70 11492.27 2612.54 12100.20 18075.90 4198.99 24705.00 6667.55 15439.55 32286.00 845.27 3243.84 2488.87 1647.05 10167.66 3754.91 34849.63 1121.56 11019.00 3255.38 21574.91 5413.73 14238.08
288228.33
71.92 98.54 73.40 45.65 63.08 99.10 145.55 98.99 172.38 68.04 90.90 108.05 102.66 100.00 31.15 101.68 95.75 62.21 69.84 93.31 71.88 87.37 99.33 101.74 73.15 82.54 94.43
85.98
27558.08 10299.00 17369.00 18571.00 8178.87 12503.00 7951.43 0.00 10400.00 6474.00 20267.00 6216.00 18797.00 36152.00 3379.00 4073.00 2920.00 2998.00 16624.24 4098.00 62152.68 1229.00 12057.00 3613.00 0.00 7076.56 15806.00
336762.86
30584.88 13663.78 11372.37 13006.65 8015.88 12503.00 6372.63 15875.20 10400.00 3631.00 12943.00 6216.00 19733.40 36152.00 1689.50 5104.59 4271.39 2998.00 11904.16 3238.77 47935.10 1630.77 11841.00 4577.89 30170.15 7076.56 17118.00
350025.67
110.98 132.67 65.48 70.04 98.01 100.00 80.14 0.00 100.00 56.09 63.86 100.00 104.98 100.00 50.00 125.33 146.28 100.00 71.61 79.03 77.12 132.69 98.21 126.71 0.00 100.00 108.30
103.94
26942.08 10333.20 18014.90 13681.84 6754.55 11790.78 6341.02 16205.39 27092.31 4115.15 37878.00 6312.81 16798.25 33246.00 3234.95 4569.51 3456.10 2857.52 11850.74 2790.10 68217.35 1596.40 13296.00 3681.54 35705.43 6984.71 14454.73
408201.36
88.09 75.62 158.41 105.19 84.26 94.30 99.50 102.08 260.50 113.33 292.65 101.56 85.13 91.96 191.47 89.52 80.91 95.31 99.55 86.15 142.31 97.89 112.29 80.42 118.35 98.70 84.44
116.62
92
Table 4.1 (b) : Physical Progress - Coverage under ARWSP in the States
No. of Habitations Covered
2004-2005 S. No. State NC PC 2005-2006 2006-2007
Slipped Back 0 162 3631 0 0 0 3701 930 1971 0 0 0 0 0 10672 1055 0 0 0 0 7487 260 10559 0 0 0 92 96 0 40454
Quality Affected
Total
NC
PC
Slipped Back
Quality Affected
Total
NC
PC
Slipped Back
Quality Affected
Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
0 92 67 10 0 1 0 0 925 1950 0 0 0 95 17 211 12 7 0 172 674 0 0 0 0 0 2693 6926
4488 5 0 58 0 1770 2829 985 5618 1083 0 1095 53 180 162 39 0 160 0 120 0 247 0 0 2906 21960
498 0 0 0 0 1000 361 0 0 0 146 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 790 0 358 0 0

3402
4129 254 4555 15 3701 1989 2332 1770 3754 2935 5764 1083 10887 2245 70 391 174 46 7487 626 11233 120 790 247 450 96 5599 72742
0 124 94 1217 0 0 0 0 74 1220 0 0 0 87 39 159 18 25 0 706 423 0 0 0 0 0 200

4386
0 201 2334 406 0 0 0 1950 321 1142 5618 1702 0 1813 41 286 86 81 0 535 0 120 0 204 0 0 2100
18940
2770 0 0 0 7013 1061 550 0 68 0 1908 324 15778 906 0 0 0 0 11313 415 12128 0 1641 0 13990 178 0
70043
524 0 0 0 0 705 13 0 0 0 950 26 432 0 0 27 26 19 0 45 795 0 197 0 412 0 645

4816
3294 325 2428 1623 7013 1766 563 1950 463 2362 8476 2052 16210 2806 80 472 130 125 11313 1701 13346 120 1838 204 14402 178 2945 98185
0 68 198 7761 0 0 0 0 105 1230 0 0 0 154 0 18 0 17 0 122 365 0 0 0 0 0 0

10038
0 106 2293 7669 0 0 0 2673 304 672 3494 853 0 3856 0 70 0 38 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22203
4703 71 0 0 4913 1599 671 1021 140 0 1564 557 13353 1973 178 995 134 64 8111 498 6625 138 2782 366 9550 438 2660
63104
495 0 0 2 5021 761 97 0 0 0 232 95 321 169 0 35 0 4 0 80 1000 0 403 204 922 0 379
10220
5198 245 2491 15432 9934 2360 768 3694 549 1902 5290 1505 13674 6152 178 1118 134 123 8111 875 7990 138 3185 570 10472 438 3039 105565
93
Table 4.2 : Share of funds utilized on SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply in the States Amt Rs. In Lakh (%)
S. No. State SCs 1 Andhra Pradesh 2 Arunachal Pradesh 3 Assam 4 Bihar 5 Chhattisgarh 6 Gujarat 7 Haryana 8 Himachal Pradesh 9 J&k 10 Jharkhand 11 Karnataka 12 Kerala 13 Madhya Pradesh 14 Maharashtra 15 Manipur 16 Meghalaya 17 Mizoram 18 Nagaland 19 Orissa 20 Punjab 21 Rajasthan 22 Sikkim 23 Tamil Nadu 24 Tripura 25 Uttar Pradesh 26 Uttarakhand 27 West Bengal Total 2126 (13.73%) 0 (0.00%) 673.77 (5.81%) 129.632 (2.96%) 0 (0.00%) 725.17 (7.00%) 572.11 (19.99%) 836.57 (14.15%) 0.00% 108.65 (13.00%) 1151 (7.40%) 722.84 (17.39%) 2126 (32.60%) 1662.81 (8.67%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 691.39 (11.65%) 628.18 (24.96%) 5522.28 (25.00%) 682.27 (28.36%) 1788.5 (29.13%) 45.6 (15.39%) 2974.38 (25.00%) 628.51 (17.83%) 2138.48 (25.00%) 25934.142 (13.54%) 2004-2005 Funds utilized on STs 897 (5.79%) 7645.94 (100.00%) 5595.46(48.25) 0 (0.00%) 556.29 (33.76%) 1450.66 (14.01%) 0 (0.00%) 6.37 (0.10%) 0.00% 300.90 (36.00%) 64 (0.41%) 325.71 (7.84%) 897 (13.75%) 705.5 (3.68%) 447.77 (18.03%) 2953.89 (100.00%) 1810 (100.00%) 1583.08 (100.00%) 1055.05 (17.78%) 0 (0.00%) 2208.91 (10.00%) 272.91 (11.34%) 75.12 (1.22%) 112.9 (38.11%) 23.8 (0.20%) 314.26 (8.90%) 855.39(9.99%) 30157.76 (15.74%) Total 15484.4 7645.94 11596.82 4388.423 1646.86 10359.53 2860.6 5916.67 13123.13 835.84 15557 4157 6522.13 19175 2483.50 2953.89 1810.00 1583.08 5933.2 2516.2 22089.11 745.12 6139 2077.06 11897.53 3527.02 8553.91 191577.963 SCs 3491.32 (22.68%) 0 (0.00%) 706.10 (6.50%) 42.028 (0.60%) 0 (0.00%) 804.46 (7.00%) 522.51 (20.02%) 1774.43 (14.66%) 0.00% 713.66 (17.00%) 2032 (8.23%) 1373.19 (20.59%) 3385.31 (21.92%) 10548.42 (32.67%) 4.89 (0.58%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1310.82 (12.89%) 945.38 (25.17%) 8712.41 (25.00%) 205.72 (18.34%) 2640 (23.96%) 445.91 (13.70%) 5393.72 (25.00%) 911 (16.83%) 3559.50 (25.00%) 49522.778 (17.18%) 2005-2006 Funds utilized on STs 1376.53 (8.94%) 10518.61(100.00%) 5540.33 (51.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1665.71 (50.50%) 1450.66 (12.63%) 0 (0.00%) 309.91 (2.56%) 0.00% 1465.10 (34.90%) 113 (0.46%) 604.45 (9.06%) 2947.4 (19.09%) 5752.64 (17.82%) 188.19 (22.26%) 3243.84 (100.00%) 2488.87 (100.00%) 1647.05 (100.00%) 1816.55 (17.87%) 0 (0.00%) 3484.96 (10.00%) 309.66 (27.61%) 1000.75 (9.08%) 1166.19 (35.82%) 43.15 (0.20%) 455.5 (8.42%) 1423.81 (10.00%) 49012.85 (17.00%) Total 15395.26 10518.61 10863.4 6954.921 3298.7 11492.27 2612.54 12100.2 18075.9 4198.988 24705 6667.55 15439.55 32286 845.27 3243.84 2488.87 1647.05 10167.66 3754.91 34849.63 1121.56 11019 3255.38 21574.91 5413.73 14238.08 288228.78 SCs 5647.02 (20.96%) 0 (0.00%) 191.97 (5.70%) 706.616 (5.17%) 0 (0.00%) 720.32 (6.11%) 1268.2 (20.00%) 2988.5 (18.44%) 0.00% 0 (0.00%) 2123.15 (5.60%) 1034.41 (16.38%) 2577.91 (15.35%) 4057.03 (12.20%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 1270.46 (10.72%) 647.65 (23.23%) 6966.95 (10.21%) 92.41 (15.94%) 3462.47 (26.04%) 140.05 (9.00%) 8926.36 (25.00%) 1184.73 (16.96%) 3469.13 (24.00%) 47475.336 (12.71%) 2006-2007 Funds utilized on STs 2258.81 (8.38%) 639.40 (100.00%) 1789.9 (53.12%) 0 (0.00%) 2566.72 (36.00%) 1435.28 (12.17%) 0 (0.00%) 568.56 (3.51%) 0.00% 0 (0.00%) 95.4 (0.25%) 470.33 (7.44%) 1530.12 (9.11%) 3424.04 (10.30%) 1156.04 (48.32%) 2335.72 (100.00%) 1733.51 (100.00%) 337.85 (100.00%) 2766.54 (23.35%) 0 (0.00%) 2786.78 (4.09%) 85.07 (14.67%) 1000 (7.52%) 451.59 (29.00%) 71.4 (0.20%) 592.37 (8.48%) 1390.47(9.62%) 29485.83 (7.90%) Total 26942.08 639.4 3369.46 13681.84 6754.55 11790.78 6341.02 16205.39 27092.31 4115.15 37878.00 6312.81 16798.25 33246.00 2392.35 2335.72 1733.51 337.85 11850.74 2790.10 68217.35 579.87 13296.00 1556.85 35705.43 6984.71 14454.73 373402.25
94
Table 4.3 : Share of coverage of SCs & STs under Rural Water Supply in the States Nos. (%) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State SCs Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total 77000 (24.92%) 0 (0.00%) 186700 (9.00%) 600 (26.09%) 113900 (15.00%) 69000 (7.23%) 226000 (22.33%) 60521 (95.89%) 0 (0.00%) 50812 (13.66%) 66100 (4.47%%) 51347 (11.39%) 320100 (15.00%) 204592 (13.39%) 500 (1.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 71700 (15.76%) 80279 (30.00%) 59000 (31.55%) 200 (1.32%) 7 (26.92%) 7600 (17.67%) 0 (0.00%) 8302 (11.77%) 510000 (29.65%) 2164260 (15.22%) 2004-2005 Population Covered STs 33000 (10.68%) 25300 (100.00%) 304000 (14.00%) 0 (0.00%) 265800 (35.00%) 126000 (13.21%) 0 (0.00%) 2593 (4.11%) 0 (0.00%) 92588 (24.89%) 0 (0.00%) 4051 (0.90%) 426800 (20.00%) 134475 (8.80%) 18300 (21.00%) 47300 (100.00%) 56700 (100.00%) 62700 (100.00%) 108600 (23.87%) 0 (0.00%) 22000 (11.76%) 3000 (19.74%) 1 (3.85%) 14300 (33.26%) 0 (0.00%) 5017 (7.11%) 70000(4.07%) 1759525 (12.38%) Total 309000 25300 2109700 2300 759400 954000 1012000 63114 0 372002 1479800 450872 2134400 1527454 86700 47300 56700 62700 455000 267599 187000 15200 26 43000 0 70549 1720000 14211116 SCs 68000 (25.56%) 0 (0.00%) 100500 (8.42%) 47000 (15.98%) 309900 (15.00%) 46000 (5.64%) 369000 (20.31%) 51723 (94.54%) 0 (0.00%) 35845 (13.57%) 66400 (16.53%) 427843 (10.82%) 311700 (15.00%) 734969 (9.70%) 2800 (4.42%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 161200 (21.27%) 162738 (31.79%) 47500 (7.16%) 100 (1.04%) 352229 (33.20%) 6100 (13.56%) 0 (0.00%) 14020 (15.56%) 109000 (25.89%) 3627167 (14.72%) 2005-2006 Population Covered STs 29000 (10.90%) 62400 (100.00%) 200700 (16.82%) 0 (0.00%) 723000 (35.00%) 266000 (32.64%) 0 (0.00%) 2987 (5.46%) 0 (0.00%) 73959 (28.01%) 0 (0.00%) 71342 (1.80%) 415600 (20.00%) 702803 (9.27%) 25800 (40.69%) 65300 (100.00%) 59300 (100.00%) 40000 (100.00%) 185100 (24.42%) 0 (0.00%) 30400 (4.58%) 1200 (12.50%) 23531 (2.22%) 16700 (37.11%) 0 (0.00%) 3483 (3.87%) 32000 (7.60%) 3030605 (12.30%) Total 266000 62400 1193300 294000 2065800 815000 1817000 54710 0 264052 401700 3955817 2078000 7578890 63400 65300 59300 40000 758000 511940 663835 9600 1060997 45000 0 90110 421000 24635151 SCs 101000 (25.63%) 0 (0.00%) 79600 (7.64%) 249600 (15.33%) 246900 (15.00%) 107000 (7.35%) 342000 (19.98%) 79762 (97.28%) 0 (0.00%) 20068 (11.47%) 0 (0.00%) 293395 (10.74%) 237700 (15.00%) 1062919 (10.08%) 600 (0.55%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 44926 (18.17%) 60491 (30.00%) 36500 (9.14%) 200 (2.63%) 360836 (27.19%) 9600 (25.46%) 0 (0.00%) 74384 (20.53%) 66800 (13.00%) 3474281 (13.31%) 2006-2007 Population Covered STs 43000 (10.91%) 9900 (100.00%) 88800 (8.53%) 0 (0.00%) 576100 (35.00%) 314000 (21.58%) 0 (0.00%) 2227 (2.72%) 0 (0.00%) 45329 (25.90%) 0 (0.00%) 27687 (1.01%) 316900 (20.00%) 851308 (8.07%) 66300 (60.66%) 77200 (100.00%) 25200 (100.00%) 10300 (100.00%) 72382 (29.28%) 0 (0.00%) 25300 (6.33%) 1700 (22.37%) 37350 (2.81%) 4500 (11.94%) 0 (0.00%) 14816 (4.09%) 26000 (7.39%) 2636299 (10.10%) Total 394000 9900 1041600 1560500 1646000 1455000 1712000 81989 0 174995 0 2731468 1584600 10549178 109300 77200 25200 10300 247217 201636 399500 7600 1326886 37700 0 362370 351500 26097639
95
Table 4.4 : Institutional Coverage - Nos. of Institutions covered under ARWSP in the States
(Nos.)
2004-2005 S. No. State Govt. / Local Bodies schools 433 306 0 0 3511 0 0 350 0 1285 663 506 6155 1889 0 66 56 44 5677 0 0 67 0 216 883 0 1500 23607 Govt. Aided Schools 0 Private Schools 0 Anganwad is 0 Govt. / Local Bodies schools Govt. Aided Schools 2005-2006 Private Schools Anganwad is Govt. / Local Bodies schools Govt. Aided Schools 2006-2007 Private Schools Anganwad is
Total
Total
Total
1 Andhra Pradesh 2 Arunachal Pradesh 3 Assam 4 Bihar 5 Chhattisgarh 6 Gujarat 7 Haryana 8 Himachal Pradesh 9 J&k 10 Jharkhand 11 Karnataka 12 Kerala 13 Madhya Pradesh 14 Maharashtra 15 Manipur 16 Meghalaya 17 Mizoram 18 Nagaland 19 Orissa 20 Punjab 21 Rajasthan 22 Sikkim 23 Tamil Nadu 24 Tripura 25 Uttar Pradesh 26 Uttarakhand 27 West Bengal Total
0 0
0 0 625 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 740 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
269
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
1649
0
0
0
0
433 306 0 0 3511 625 0 350 15 1285 663 506 6155 1889 0 66 56 44 5677 740 0 67 269 216 883 0 1500
25256
247 347 1838 350 3996 2099 917 2459 3501 541 7015 114 12421 5154 0 650 685 36 7673 0 8736 51 0 276 4738 2361 2970
69175
0 0 0 0 0 1474 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1787
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5
252 347 1838 350 3996 3573 917 2459 3521 541 7015 114 12421 5154 0 650 685 36 7673 293 8736 51 0 276 4738 2361 2970
70967
507 412 1058 202 2265 0 1250 0 0 1471 9541 392 9260 9767 0 726 2139 64 2902 0 13191 8 0 282 5824 1068 1488
63817
119 0 0 0 0 1114 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2062
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85
711 412 1058 202 2265 1114 1250 0 20 1471 9541 392 9260 9767 0 726 2139 64 3625 86 13191 8 0 282 5824 1068 1488
65964
96
Table 5.1 : Formation of State Level Missions and Role in decision making on ARWSP
( = Yes, X = No)
Mission / Committee for overseeing RWS S. No. State Formed X X X 24 Frequency of meetings in a year (Nos.) 0 4 4 12 4 2 2 4 2 24 3 0 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 4 4 2 0 Role in decision making on Type of Schemes to be taken up
No. of meetings held in last 3 Allcation & Releases to Selection of Habitations years Districts to be covered 0 12 12 30 10 6 6 10 2 40 12 0 12 5 6 8 6 6 7 2 6 12 3 10 12 6 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
X X X

X X X

X X X
X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X 17
X X X 14
X X X 12
97
Table 5.1 (a) : Role of State in Planning of ARWSP

Role in Planning for S. No. State Awarding Contracts for installation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 Operation & Maintenance X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9 Awareness Generation X X X X X X X X 19 Training of Users Sustainability Efforts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X 11
X X 17
98
Table 5.1(b) :Formation of Missions and Decision making on ARWSP at district level
Mission / Committee for overseeing RWS S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State No. of District 4 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 3 3 97 Formed 3 3 5 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 5 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 62 Frequency of meetings in a year (Nos.) 2 4 4 0 0 12 7 1 6 12 4 2 3 12 4 2 4 2 3 11 15 4 4 4 3 2 0 No. of meetings held in last 3 years 9 12 12 0 0 35 11 2 14 32 13 3 9 3 12 6 12 6 11 34 46 10 11 11 8 6 0 Selection of Habitations to be covered 2 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 1 4 5 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 2 5 0 5 3 1 59 Decision making on Type of Schemes to be taken up 4 3 5 1 2 5 0 3 1 5 4 3 5 2 2 2 2 3 4 0 4 2 5 2 5 3 1 78 contracts for installation of water supply schemes under ARWSP awarded 4 3 5 2 1 4 2 2 3 0 3 3 5 0 2 2 2 3 4 0 3 2 5 2 5 2 0 69
99
Table 5.1 (c) : Role of District in Planning of ARWSP

Role in Planning for S. No. State No. of District Operation & Maintenance 4 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 3 3 97 4 3 5 2 3 1 3 2 0 4 2 3 4 1 2 2 2 3 5 0 3 2 0 2 5 3 1 67 Awareness Generation 4 3 5 4 3 4 1 2 2 4 4 2 5 3 2 2 2 3 5 1 5 2 5 2 5 2 1 83 Training of Users 4 3 5 1 2 3 1 0 0 2 4 3 5 2 2 2 2 3 1 0 2 2 5 2 5 3 1 65 Sustainability Efforts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
3
3 5
1 2 5 3 2 2 2 5 2 5 2
2 2 2 3
5 1 4
2
5
2
4 1 1
76
100
Table 6.1 Type of Schemes taken up under ARWSP in the surveyed habitations
(% of Schemes) S. No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 No. of habitations covered
State

119 35 54 172 347 105 18 14 12 65 80 34 376 19 28 22 27 32 308 32 106 22 71 18 111 30 69 2326
Hand Pump
Piped Water Supply (surface water)

14.29 34.29 3.70 10.47 0.29 19.05 72.22 78.57 41.67 3.08 25.00 64.71 1.33 5.26 35.71 40.90 92.59 93.75 1.30 9.38 1.89 45.45 16.90 5.55 0.00 100.00 7.25 9.15
Piped Water Supply (undergound water)

36.97 5.71 1.85 0.00 0.00 42.86 27.78 21.43 50.00 0.00 36.25 20.59 0.00 57.89 0.00 4.54 0.00 0.00 4.22 90.63 9.43 0.00 67.61 11.12 0.00 0.00 1.45 12.02
Community Protected tank stand post Spring Sources

4.20 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 0.00 0.00 43.40 0.00 7.04 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 3.40 0.84 37.14 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.29 31.81 7.41 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 54.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19
Protected Dug Well

0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.62 3.75 14.71 0.00 26.32 0.00 18.21 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91
Other
74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
43.70 5.71 72.22 89.53 99.71 34.29 0.00 0.00 8.33 90.77 20.00 0.00 98.40 5.26 0.00 4.54 0.00 0.00 93.18 0.00 45.28 0.00 8.45 83.33 99.10 0.00 91.30 74.19
0.00 13.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
101
Table 6.1 (b) Location of Scheme (Distance from Habitation)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total
State
% of schemes more than 1.6 kilometer or 100 meter 0.00 11.24 7.40 1.74 0.29 1.90 11.11 64.29 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 5.26 14.28 13.63 3.70 0.00 0.32 9.38 1.89 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 1.59
102
Table 6.1 (c) Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
No. of schemes covered 119 35 54 172 347 105 18 14 12 65 80 34 376 19 28 22 27 32 308 32 106 22 71 18 111 30 69 2326
Total No. of Affected by seasonal Service variation Access Nos. % Points 1147 88 66 810 363 19206 67 18 63 102 489 224 400 529 61 52 62 107 540 32 2621 89 215 22 151 128 69 27721 84 5 9 166 4 3804 4 13 7 32 22 2 19 0 3 9 3 10 24 4 235 5 0 2 3 8 37 4514 7.32 5.68 13.64 20.49 1.10 19.81 5.97 72.22 11.11 31.37 4.50 0.89 4.75 0.00 4.92 17.31 4.84 9.35 4.44 12.50 8.97 5.62 0.00 9.09 1.99 6.25 53.62 16.28
Currently functional Nos. 1045 72 52 463 358 19168 66 12 55 61 442 220 358 528 49 44 53 82 480 31 2620 80 215 22 143 107 38 26864 % 91.11 81.82 78.79 57.16 98.62 99.80 98.51 66.67 87.30 59.80 90.39 98.21 89.50 99.81 80.33 84.62 85.48 76.64 88.89 96.88 99.96 89.89 100.00 100.00 94.70 83.59 55.07 96.91
Temporarily not functional Nos. 74 12 8 228 3 23 1 2 5 21 23 4 23 0 9 5 6 17 45 1 1 5 0 0 3 7 15 541 % 6.45 13.64 12.12 28.15 0.83 0.12 1.49 11.11 7.94 20.59 4.70 1.79 5.75 0.00 14.75 9.62 9.68 15.89 8.33 3.13 0.04 5.62 0.00 0.00 1.99 5.47 21.74 1.95
Permanently defunct Nos. 28 4 6 119 2 15 0 4 3 20 24 0 19 1 3 3 3 8 15 0 0 4 0 0 5 14 16 316 % 2.44 4.55 9.09 14.69 0.55 0.08 0.00 22.22 4.76 19.61 4.91 0.00 4.75 0.19 4.92 5.77 4.84 7.48 2.78 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 0.00 3.31 10.94 23.19 1.14
Affected by water quality problems Nos. 102 19 18 103 12 226 0 1 3 25 37 0 12 0 34 32 32 7 76 0 0 4 0 20 9 0 32 804 % 8.89 21.59 27.27 12.72 3.31 1.18 0.00 5.56 4.76 24.51 7.57 0.00 3.00 0.00 55.74 61.54 51.61 6.54 14.07 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 90.91 5.96 0.00 46.38 2.90
103
Table 6.1 (d) Distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes (As per Type of Schemes)
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
No. of No. of permanently No. of currently Total No. Nos. affected by temporarily not functional service defunct service of Service seasonal variation functional service access points access points Access access points Point Nos. % 10.93 2.27 2.98 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.75 5.26 5.13 0.00 Nos. 579 85 318 24 39 1 32 11 5 11 12 30 8 % 87.86 96.59 94.64 100.00 97.50 50.00 91.43 100.00 100.00 68.75 63.16 76.92 100.00 Nos. 59 3 11 0 1 1 3 0 0 4 4 5 0 % 8.95 3.41 3.27 0.00 2.50 50.00 8.57 0.00 0.00 25.00 21.05 12.82 0.00 Nos. 21 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 % 3.19 0.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 15.79 10.26 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh
Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post Protected Spring Sources Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post Protected Spring Sources Other Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water)
52 17 44 5 1 2 12 2 1 13 5 39 2
659 88 336 24 40 2 35 11 5 16 19 39 8
72 2 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0
10 Arunachal Pradesh 11 Arunachal Pradesh 12 Assam 13 Assam
104
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
14 Assam 15 Assam 16 Assam 17 Bihar 18 Bihar 19 Chhattisgarh 20 Chhattisgarh 21 Gujarat 22 Gujarat 23 Gujarat 24 Gujarat 25 Gujarat 26 Haryana
Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post Protected Spring Sources Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post Protected Dug Well Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water)
1 3 9 154 18 346 1 36 20 45 3 1 13
7 3 9 792 18 357 6 191 7150 11849 15 1 62
0 0 7 166 0 4 0 3 2845 950 6 0 3
105
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
27 Haryana 28 Himachal Pradesh 29 Himachal Pradesh 30 J&k 31 J&k 32 J&k 33 Jharkhand 34 Jharkhand 35 Jharkhand 36 Karnataka 37 Karnataka 38 Karnataka 39 Karnataka
Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Protected Dug Well Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post
5 11 3 1 5 6 60 2 3 16 20 29 10
5 16 2 50 6 7 97 3 2 99 101 242 34
1 11 2 2 3 2 32 0 0 16 3 2 0
106
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
40 Karnataka 41 Karnataka 42 Kerala 43 Kerala 44 Kerala 45 Madhya Pradesh 46 Madhya Pradesh 47 Maharashtra 48 Maharashtra 49 Maharashtra 50 Manipur 51 Manipur 52 Meghalaya
Protected Spring Sources Protected Dug Well Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Protected Dug Well Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Protected Dug Well Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Protected Spring Sources Hand Pump
2 3 22 7 5 371 5 1 13 5 10 18 1
3 10 123 57 44 395 5 9 514 6 41 20 1
0 1 0 0 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
107
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
53 Meghalaya 54 Meghalaya 55 Meghalaya 56 Meghalaya 57 Mizoram 58 Mizoram 59 Nagaland 60 Nagaland 61 Orissa 62 Orissa 63 Orissa 64 Orissa 65 Orissa
Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Protected Spring Sources Protected Dug Well Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Protected Spring Sources Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Community Tank Stand Post Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Protected Spring Sources Protected Dug Well
9 1 7 4 25 2 30 2 287 4 13 1 2
35 5 7 4 58 4 100 7 443 16 78 1 1
0 0 5 4 3 0 8 2 22 1 1 0 0
108
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
66 Orissa 67 Punjab 68 Punjab 69 Rajasthan 70 Rajasthan 71 Rajasthan 72 Rajasthan 73 Sikkim 74 Sikkim 75 Tamil Nadu 76 Tamil Nadu 77 Tamil Nadu 78 Tamil Nadu
Other Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Protected Spring Sources Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Community Tank Stand Post
1 3 29 48 2 10 46 10 12 6 12 48 5
1 3 29 48 3 2510 60 77 12 16 45 133 21
0 2 2 0 0 235 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
109
S. No.
State Name
Type of Schemes
No. of No. of permanently No. of currently Total No. Nos. affected by temporarily not functional service defunct service of Service seasonal variation functional service access points access points Access access points Point Nos. % 13.33 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 6.25 55.38 25.00 16.28 Nos. 15 4 3 142 1 107 36 2 26864 % 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.67 100.00 83.59 55.38 50.00 96.91 Nos. 0 0 0 3 0 7 14 1 541 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 5.47 21.54 25.00 1.95 Nos. 0 0 0 5 0 14 15 1 316 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 10.94 23.08 25.00 1.14
79 Tripura 80 Tripura 81 Tripura 82 Uttar Pradesh 83 Uttar Pradesh 84 Uttarakhand 85 West Bengal 86 West Bengal
Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Piped Water Supply (source: Underground Water) Hand Pump Community Tank Stand Post Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Hand Pump Piped Water Supply (source: Surface Water) Total
15 1 2 110 1 30 64 5 2326
15 4 3 150 1 128 65 4 27721
2 0 0 3 0 8 36 1 4514
110
Table 6.1 (e) Distribution of Functional Status of ARWSP Schemes (As per Year of Coverage under ARWSP)
S. No.
State Name
Year of Coverage
Total No. of Service Access Points 838 309 20 38 30 11 5 50 277 533 69 150 144 11601 1934 5671 67 16 2 57 6 28 42 32 431 58 163
No. of currently functional service access points Nos. 779 266 16 31 25 9 4 39 153 310 69 147 142 11581 1919 5668 66 12 0 53 2 17 25 19 384 58 159 % 92.96 86.08 80.00 81.58 83.33 81.82 80.00 78.00 55.23 58.16 100.00 98.00 98.61 99.83 99.22 99.95 98.51 75.00 0.00 92.98 33.33 60.71 59.52 59.38 89.10 100.00 97.55
No. of temporarily not functional service access points Nos. 42 32 3 5 4 1 1 6 73 155 0 1 2 12 11 0 1 1 1 3 2 5 5 11 23 0 4 % 5.01 10.36 15.00 13.16 13.33 9.09 20.00 12.00 26.35 29.08 0.00 0.67 1.39 0.10 0.57 0.00 1.49 6.25 50.00 5.26 33.33 17.86 11.90 34.38 5.34 0.00 2.45
No. of permanently defunct service access points Nos. 17 11 1 2 1 1 0 5 51 68 0 2 0 8 4 3 0 3 1 1 2 6 12 2 24 0 0 % 2.03 3.56 5.00 5.26 3.33 9.09 0.00 10.00 18.41 12.76 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.05 0.00 18.75 50.00 1.75 33.33 21.43 28.57 6.25 5.57 0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Assam Assam Bihar Bihar Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh J&k J&k Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Karnataka Karnataka Kerala
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2004-05 2006-07 2004-05 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05
79 40 8 15 12 9 4 41 74 98 68 145 134 38 44 23 18 13 1 7 5 15 23 27 69 11 22
111
S. No.
State Name
Year of Coverage
Total No. of Service Access Points 61 107 139 154 209 152 168 13 4 44 9 19 24 4 14 44 43 37 27 201 230 109 28 4 2288 301 32
No. of currently functional service access points Nos. 61 99 122 137 208 152 168 10 3 36 8 16 20 4 12 37 33 28 21 168 210 102 27 4 2288 300 32 % 100.00 92.52 87.77 88.96 99.52 100.00 100.00 76.92 75.00 81.82 88.89 84.21 83.33 100.00 85.71 84.09 76.74 75.68 77.78 83.58 91.30 93.58 96.43 100.00 100.00 99.67 100.00
No. of temporarily not functional service access points Nos. 0 2 10 11 0 0 0 2 1 6 1 2 2 0 1 5 7 6 4 26 16 3 1 0 0 1 0 % 0.00 1.87 7.19 7.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.38 25.00 13.64 11.11 10.53 8.33 0.00 7.14 11.36 16.28 16.22 14.81 12.94 6.96 2.75 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
No. of permanently defunct service access points Nos. 0 6 7 6 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 3 2 7 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00 5.61 5.04 3.90 0.48 0.00 0.00 7.69 0.00 4.55 0.00 5.26 8.33 0.00 7.14 4.55 6.98 8.11 7.41 3.48 1.74 3.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
Kerala Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra Manipur Manipur Manipur Meghalaya Meghalaya Meghalaya Mizoram Mizoram Mizoram Nagaland Nagaland Nagaland Orissa Orissa Orissa Punjab Punjab Rajasthan Rajasthan Rajasthan
2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
12 103 122 151 4 5 10 6 2 20 4 8 10 2 6 19 13 11 8 106 107 95 28 4 30 47 29
112
S. No.
State Name
Year of Coverage
Total No. of Service Access Points 28 29 32 160 55 9 4 9 100 51 26 40 62 3 6 60 27721
No. of currently functional service access points Nos. 26 26 28 160 55 9 4 9 94 49 21 27 59 3 6 29 26864 % 92.86 89.66 87.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.00 96.08 80.77 67.50 95.16 100.00 100.00 48.33 96.91
No. of temporarily not functional service access points Nos. 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 6 0 0 0 15 541 % 3.57 6.90 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.96 3.85 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 1.95
No. of permanently defunct service access points Nos. 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 7 3 0 0 16 316 % 3.57 3.45 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 1.96 15.38 17.50 4.84 0.00 0.00 26.67 1.14
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Sikkim Sikkim Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Tripura Tripura Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Uttarakhand West Bengal West Bengal West Bengal Total
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
7 7 8 54 17 7 4 7 65 46 8 9 13 3 6 60 2326
113
Table 6.1 (f) Functionality Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations which had slipped back to PC status
Affected by seasonal variation Nos. 24 1 1 58 0 10 2 0 0 25 7 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 235 0 0 0 0 0 6 387 % 5.02 7.14 14.29 19.40 0.00 1.31 100.00 0.00 0.00 28.74 2.55 0.00 7.97 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 7.27 25.00 91.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 14.03 Temporarily not functional Nos. 28 2 1 92 0 2 0 0 0 20 7 0 16 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 3 0 3 0 0 6 2 191 % 5.86 14.29 14.29 30.77 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.99 2.55 0.00 11.59 0.00 14.29 20.00 0.00 25.00 7.27 25.00 1.16 0.00 4.35 0.00 0.00 20.69 22.22 6.93 Affected by water quality problems Nos. 0 3 2 63 2 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 6 0 4 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 115 % 0.00 21.43 28.57 21.07 5.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.29 0.00 0.00 4.35 0.00 57.14 60.00 40.00 25.00 5.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 4.17
S. No.
State
Total No. of No. of Service habitations Access slipped back Points to PC status 45 5 6 88 36 8 2 0 1 41 42 25 131 5 3 2 2 1 36 4 22 0 27 1 23 8 20 584 478 14 7 299 34 763 2 0 2 87 274 120 138 68 7 5 5 4 55 8 258 0 69 1 22 29 9 2758
Currently functional
Permanently defunct
Nos. 442 11 5 162 34 760 2 0 2 48 259 120 113 68 6 4 4 3 50 5 254 0 64 1 21 23 6 2467
% 92.47 78.57 71.43 54.18 100.00 99.61 100.00 0.00 100.00 55.17 94.53 100.00 81.88 100.00 85.71 80.00 80.00 75.00 90.91 62.50 98.45 0.00 92.75 100.00 95.45 79.31 66.67 89.45
Nos. 8 1 1 45 0 1 0 0 0 19 8 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 100
% 1.67 7.14 14.29 15.05 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.84 2.92 0.00 6.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 1.82 12.50 0.39 0.00 2.90 0.00 4.55 0.00 11.11 3.63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttaranchal West Bengal Total
114
Table 6.1 (g) Functionality Status of ARWSP Schemes in the Surveyed Habitations which had slipped back to NC status
Affected by seasonal variation Nos. 0 1 0 93 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 109 % 0.00 12.50 0.00 26.88 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.12 83.33 22.43 Temporarily not functional Nos. 0 1 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 1 136 % 0.00 12.50 0.00 35.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 21.21 16.67 27.98 Affected by water quality problems Nos. 0 2 0 31 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 43 % 0.00 25.00 0.00 8.96 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.33 8.85
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State
Total No. of No. of Service habitations Access Points covered 2 3 0 55 5 0 1 0 1 7 4 0 13 5 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 0 4 0 6 8 13 143 1 8 0 346 5 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 12 6 0 0 0 0 17 2 5 0 27 0 9 33 6 486
Currently functional Nos. 1 6 0 173 4 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 14 2 5 0 27 0 8 17 5 281 % 100.00 75.00 0.00 50.00 80.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.35 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 88.89 51.52 83.33 57.82
Permanently defunct Nos. 0 1 0 51 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 69 % 0.00 12.50 0.00 14.74 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.27 0.00 14.20
115
Table 6.2 Problems/reasons for not functional schemes in the surveyed habitations
(% of habitations) % of Temporarily not functional service access points from total service access points
6.45 13.64 12.12 28.15 0.83 0.12 1.49 11.11 7.94 20.59 4.70 1.79 5.75 0.00 14.75 9.62 9.68 15.89 8.33 3.13 0.04 5.62 0.00 0.00 1.99 5.47 21.74 1.95
Reasons for temporarily not functional
S. No.
State
Mechanical fault at delivery point

43.24 35.22 39.78 47.37 66.67 52.17 0.00 0.00 60.00 33.33 39.13 0.00 65.22 0.00 42.65 32.78 49.65 38.69 31.11 0.00 0.00 43.69 0.00 37.36 100.00 14.29 15.63 41.70
Mechanical fault in water supply line

16.22 0.00 5.66 1.32 33.33 0.00 100.00 100.00 40.00 47.62 4.35 100.00 4.35 0.00 6.47 10.26 12.36 18.65 2.22 100.00 0.00 16.95 0.00 5.65 0.00 128.57 46.88 14.43
Ground water depletion

9.46 0.00 18.45 10.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.05 13.04 0.00 26.09 0.00 21.56 5.69 6.47 13.36 24.44 0.00 0.00 10.36 0.00 14.56 0.00 85.71 0.00 12.06
Surface water source dried

10.81 0.00 0.00 29.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.65 24.26 22.69 42.22 0.00 0.00 12.36 0.00 10.26 0.00 0.00 21.88 20.75
Other
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
9.46 64.78 36.11 11.40 0.00 47.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.32 47.62 7.26 6.61 0.00 0.00 100.00 16.64 0.00 32.17 0.00 0.00 15.63 11.06
116
Table 6.2 (a) Problems/reasons for temporarily not functional schemes in the sample habitations which had slipped back to PC status
(% of service access points) % of Temporarily not functional service access points from total service access points
5.86 14.29 14.29 30.77 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.99 2.55 0.00 11.59 0.00 14.29 20.00 0.00 25.00 7.27 25.00 1.16 0.00 4.35 0.00 0.00 20.69 22.22 6.93
Reasons for temporarily not functional
S. No.
State
Mechanical fault Mechanical fault in at delivery point water supply line

13.79 50.00 100.00 40.22 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 71.43 0.00 62.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.20 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 14.29 0.00 6.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 8.94
Ground water depletion

20.69 0.00 0.00 15.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 14.29 0.00 31.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 21.23
Surface water source dried

27.59 0.00 0.00 21.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 17.32
Other
1 Andhra Pradesh 2 Arunachal Pradesh 3 Assam 4 Bihar 5 Chhattisgarh 6 Gujarat 7 Haryana 8 Himachal Pradesh 9 J&k 10 Jharkhand 11 Karnataka 12 Kerala 13 Madhya Pradesh 14 Maharashtra 15 Manipur 16 Meghalaya 17 Mizoram 18 Nagaland 19 Orissa 20 Punjab 21 Rajasthan 22 Sikkim 23 Tamil Nadu 24 Tripura 25 Uttar Pradesh 26 Uttaranchal 27 West Bengal Total
17.24 50.00 0.00 22.83 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.08
117
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) Reasons for temporarily not functional % of Temporarily not functional service access points from total service Mechanical fault at Mechanical fault Ground water Surface water in water supply access points depletion source dried delivery point line
0.00 12.50 0.00 35.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 21.21 16.67 27.98 0.00 100.00 0.00 56.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 55.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 20.00 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 31.72
S. No.
State
Other
1 Andhra Pradesh 2 Arunachal Pradesh 3 Assam 4 Bihar 5 Chhattisgarh 6 Gujarat 7 Haryana 8 Himachal Pradesh 9 J&k 10 Jharkhand 11 Karnataka 12 Kerala 13 Madhya Pradesh 14 Maharashtra 15 Manipur 16 Meghalaya 17 Mizoram 18 Nagaland 19 Orissa 20 Punjab 21 Rajasthan 22 Sikkim 23 Tamil Nadu 24 Tripura 25 Uttar Pradesh 26 Uttaranchal 27 West Bengal Total
0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 5.19
118
Table 6.3 Type of water quality problem in the surveyed habitations

Type of water quality problem
S. No.
State
% of service access points affected by water quality problems from total service access points
8.89 21.59 27.27 12.72 3.31 1.18 0.00 5.56 4.76 24.51 7.57 0.00 3.00 0.00 55.74 61.54 51.61 6.54 14.07 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 90.91 5.96 0.00 46.38 2.90
Arsenic
8.82 0.00 0.00 9.71 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 58.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 18.75 6.11
Fluoride
8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 2.65 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 8.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 5.80
Salinity
14.71 0.00 0.00 42.72 8.33 97.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.62 0.00 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 53.29
Iron
8.82 18.56 20.19 40.78 58.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 12.36 19.65 15.65 10.36 13.16 0.00 0.00 17.69 0.00 16.36 0.00 0.00 18.75 24.77
Nitrate
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.75 4.86
Other
0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 32.43 0.00 8.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.56 0.00 9.38 5.17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
119
Table 6.4 Usage of ARWSP schemes in the habitations

(% of households) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 % of households drawing % of households drawing water water from ARWSP Schemes from ARWSP Schemes only 96.77 84.42 82.14 73.38 97.46 98.94 99.58 77.56 100.00 68.28 92.83 90.59 94.19 54.42 89.54 87.28 90.56 92.84 87.55 100.00 94.22 84.65 91.03 88.24 70.82 74.90 31.75 87.98 0.00 22.24 20.18 25.99 0.00 69.09 97.50 74.63 91.56 24.81 0.00 0.00 3.42 19.09 26.46 16.54 18.94 24.26 67.05 68.36 71.29 28.58 0.00 20.14 0.00 26.62 19.65 23.91 % of households not drawing water from ARWSP Schemes 3.23 15.58 17.86 26.62 2.54 1.06 0.42 22.44 0.00 31.72 7.17 9.41 5.81 45.58 10.46 12.72 9.44 7.16 12.45 0.00 5.78 15.35 8.97 11.76 29.18 25.10 68.25 12.02
No. of Household covered 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477
120
Table 6.4 (a) Reasons for not drawing water from the ARWSP scheme
(% of households)
Reasons for not drawing water from the ARWSP scheme S. No. State % of households not drawing water from ARWSP Schemes
Facility farther
Quantity not adequate 12.50 10.54 18.98 7.59 13.29 0.00 100.00 26.09 0.00 6.18 41.41 78.13 6.25 0.00 15.98 15.98 14.60 15.69 8.20 0.00 0.00 22.12 37.70 10.36 3.03 12.12 33.39 12.92
Quality not satisfactory 29.17 14.54 15.62 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 34.34 46.88 21.98 0.00 15.69 13.65 19.65 17.69 43.85 0.00 0.00 17.65 36.07 16.32 1.43 0.00 16.30 15.94
Frequent breakdowns 33.33 2.65 12.35 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.35 4.04 50.00 1.94 0.00 6.98 12.36 7.69 4.59 12.84 0.00 0.00 8.54 16.39 5.63 1.27 0.00 16.14 6.70
Scheme defunct
Do not need Other reasons
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
3.23 15.58 17.86 26.62 2.54 1.06 0.42 22.44 0.00 31.72 7.17 9.41 5.81 45.58 10.46 12.72 9.44 7.16 12.45 0.00 5.78 15.35 8.97 11.76 29.18 25.10 68.25 12.02
25.00 30.54 36.95 60.25 52.60 0.00 0.00 71.74 0.00 6.47 25.25 65.63 28.23 0.00 40.36 38.65 36.65 30.56 19.81 0.00 0.00 40.26 42.62 31.54 58.44 0.00 29.91 35.21
20.83 18.54 15.69 0.00 4.62 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.24 12.12 9.38 55.82 0.00 15.69 14.65 29.65 15.60 22.54 0.00 0.00 23.69 15.57 20.36 12.42 57.58 21.84 19.76
25.00 17.65 22.36 13.70 50.87 0.00 0.00 2.17 0.00 4.41 2.02 31.25 11.42 0.00 14.69 18.69 24.65 19.65 16.80 0.00 0.00 14.69 0.00 16.36 50.32 31.06 25.16 20.41
2.08 22.54 25.65 38.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.53 1.01 7.81 4.53 100.00 28.69 14.69 24.69 23.65 18.99 0.00 100.00 26.65 1.64 24.59 2.39 38.64 23.89 24.59
121
Table 6.5 Dependency on ARWSP Facility

Dependency on ARWSP Facility Whole Year 91.34 95.64 85.64 93.18 97.91 98.93 99.58 91.19 88.75 95.90 97.58 97.23 88.91 100.00 87.58 90.86 95.68 86.49 95.96 92.66 99.74 91.26 88.21 93.24 99.74 92.13 88.10 94.56 Only in summers 4.79 2.68 6.85 2.63 0.15 0.00 0.42 7.55 5.31 0.14 2.03 1.95 0.81 0.00 8.94 4.56 2.36 1.59 0.87 6.78 0.05 2.36 5.82 3.68 0.07 0.00 1.02 1.19 Only in winters 3.52 0.00 0.24 0.66 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.63 5.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.54 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.07 0.76 0.34 0.37 Only few months in a year 0.35 1.68 7.27 3.45 1.93 1.07 0.00 0.63 0.00 3.96 0.39 0.81 9.99 0.00 2.94 2.18 1.96 11.92 3.07 0.00 0.00 6.38 5.09 3.08 0.13 7.11 10.54 3.84
S. No.
State
% of households drawing water from ARWSP Schemes 96.77 84.42 82.14 73.38 97.46 98.94 99.58 77.56 100.00 68.28 92.83 90.59 94.19 54.42 89.54 87.28 90.56 92.84 87.55 100.00 94.22 84.65 91.03 88.24 70.82 74.90 31.75 87.98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
122
Table 6.6: Provision of O & M Cost

(% of habitations)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
No. of habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
Who is providing for O & M expenditure Water Supply Department 64.86 100.00 75.36 8.77 90.63 55.79 90.91 100.00 90.00 83.64 20.29 55.88 95.98 22.22 100.00 93.12 100.00 100.00 25.76 82.35 95.28 95.62 2.94 100.00 26.13 80.00 36.36 60.14 Gram Panchayat 71.62 0.00 0.00 16.96 10.23 73.68 9.09 0.00 10.00 0.00 79.71 50.00 10.99 38.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.83 17.65 2.83 0.00 94.12 0.00 83.78 23.33 13.64 38.57 User Group 13.51 0.00 24.64 67.84 0.00 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.64 8.70 29.41 4.02 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.10 0.00 0.94 4.38 5.88 0.00 0.00 16.67 31.82 11.61 Community 12.16 0.00 0.00 13.45 0.00 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 2.90 0.00 0.00 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 6.82 2.77 NGO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.21 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.54 11.11 0.00 6.88 0.00 0.00 2.37 0.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 20.45 2.21
123
Table 6.7: Schedule of Payment of Water Charges by the Respondent Households

% of surveyed households paying water charges 57.2 5.10 3.50 0 0.29 60.58 11.25 0.98 64.26 0.09 46.01 37.35 1.05 43.02 6.50 4.60 4.30 7.60 5.38 4.52 10.27 0 31.91 0 2.7 32.51 0.76 11.81 Schedule of payment (% of households) Monthly 42.59 8.14 5.50 100.00 5.00 5.34 33.33 50.00 0.00 100.00 24.09 34.65 38.10 13.25 0.00 0.00 4.30 2.36 29.97 37.50 100.00 0.00 17.28 0.00 50.00 73.68 57.14 27.82 Once in two month 12.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.26 0.00 99.51 0.00 12.60 12.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 8.29 0.00 3.45 2.34 0.00 10.48 Once in three month 4.82 23.65 20.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 2.76 2.38 0.00 65.10 26.30 53.20 26.30 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 8.99 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.42 half yearly 12.12 68.21 74.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.02 6.69 0.00 0.00 26.10 63.20 16.30 69.60 6.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.59 0.00 0.00 23.39 0.00 7.51 Annually 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.48 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 43.94 39.37 2.38 86.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.47 0.00 46.55 0.00 0.00 45.11 Other 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 4.33 57.14 0.00 8.80 10.50 26.20 1.74 62.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 6.66
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State
Average amount paid by them Rs. per month 20 15 13 0 10 12 69 68 20 1 15 14 8 23 16 19 13 12 12 40 47 0 16 0 23 23 1 18
124
Table 7.1 Role of PRIs

Gram Sabha was Gram Sabha was Gram Sabha was Decision on the Decision on the convened to convened to convened to type of the O & M matters of obtain their obtain their obtain their scheme the scheme views views views Nos. 20 12 13 36 30 44 5 14 8 4 25 24 30 11 10 9 5 12 102 5 2 12 3 6 14 17 2 475 % 57.14 40.00 40.63 42.35 9.52 77.19 45.45 100.00 88.89 18.18 49.02 88.89 10.17 68.75 43.48 45.00 33.33 80.00 44.54 29.41 66.67 80.00 6.52 42.86 13.33 60.71 40.00 30.96 Nos. 38 16 20 70 130 48 4 14 6 8 38 24 57 17 13 7 12 16 175 2 2 10 28 4 101 26 5 891 % 51.35 45.71 38.46 40.94 37.57 50.53 36.36 100.00 60.00 14.55 55.07 70.59 15.28 94.44 46.43 31.82 44.44 50.00 59.32 11.76 1.89 45.45 41.18 23.53 90.99 86.67 11.36 40.95 Nos. 18 10 12 39 16 37 4 11 6 2 22 21 9 7 8 5 6 5 72 2 1 4 1 3 15 16 2 354 % 47.37 62.50 60.00 55.71 12.31 77.08 100.00 78.57 100.00 25.00 57.89 87.50 15.79 41.18 61.54 71.43 50.00 31.25 41.14 100.00 50.00 40.00 3.57 75.00 14.85 61.54 40.00 39.73 Nos. 37 12 17 72 55 50 1 0 3 5 51 20 49 5 6 4 9 12 138 0 2 9 25 6 52 23 2 665 % 50.00 34.29 32.69 42.11 15.90 52.63 9.09 0.00 30.00 9.09 73.91 58.82 13.14 27.78 21.43 18.18 33.33 37.50 46.78 0.00 1.89 40.91 36.76 35.29 46.85 76.67 4.55 30.56 Nos. 21 10 12 34 11 40 0 0 2 2 34 17 10 2 5 8 4 4 63 0 2 4 14 3 6 13 2 323 % 56.76 83.33 70.59 47.22 20.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 40.00 66.67 85.00 20.41 40.00 83.33 200.00 44.44 33.33 45.65 0.00 100.00 44.44 56.00 50.00 11.54 56.52 100.00 48.57 Where people trained to take up simple and minor repairs Nos. 12 8 7 128 67 36 0 0 2 3 14 8 52 13 6 3 7 7 13 0 1 5 26 3 9 5 2 437 % 16.22 22.86 13.46 74.85 19.36 37.89 0.00 0.00 20.00 5.45 20.29 23.53 13.94 72.22 21.43 13.64 25.93 21.88 4.41 0.00 0.94 22.73 38.24 17.65 8.11 16.67 4.55 20.08
S. No.
State
No. of habitations covered
Decision on the location of scheme Nos. % 47.30 85.71 61.54 49.71 91.04 60.00 100.00 100.00 90.00 40.00 73.91 79.41 79.09 88.89 82.14 90.91 55.56 46.88 77.63 100.00 2.83 68.18 67.65 82.35 94.59 93.33 11.36 70.50
Where VWSC formed Nos. 42 15 20 4 209 42 0 0 3 2 47 27 211 18 9 7 6 15 53 1 15 16 27 5 32 2 0 828 % 56.76 42.86 38.46 2.34 60.40 44.21 0.00 0.00 30.00 3.64 68.12 79.41 56.57 100.00 32.14 31.82 22.22 46.88 17.97 5.88 14.15 72.73 39.71 29.41 28.83 6.67 0.00 38.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
35 30 32 85 315 57 11 14 9 22 51 27 295 16 23 20 15 15 229 17 3 15 46 14 105 28 5 1534
125
Table 7.1 (a) Decision Making Process on type of scheme

(% of habitations) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total No. of habitation covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 PHED Suggested PHED Decided 8.11 55.86 69.23 53.22 99.13 61.05 63.64 0.00 40.00 100.00 23.19 38.24 97.86 5.56 71.20 62.00 59.70 63.00 33.56 94.12 25.47 58.23 44.12 68.70 100.00 0.00 38.64 64.86 PHED Suggested GP Decided 1.35 12.52 10.21 44.44 0.00 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.30 9.13 11.30 10.20 32.54 0.00 1.89 10.27 4.41 9.26 0.00 0.00 15.91 9.89 GP Suggested PHED Decided 33.78 14.23 8.26 1.17 0.29 32.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.28 50.00 0.27 11.11 10.60 15.68 14.80 13.24 23.05 0.00 16.98 16.95 29.41 10.46 0.00 0.00 34.09 12.06 GP Suggested GP Decided 56.76 17.39 12.30 1.17 0.29 1.05 36.36 100.00 60.00 0.00 24.64 11.76 0.54 83.33 9.90 13.19 14.20 13.56 10.85 5.88 55.66 14.55 22.06 11.58 0.00 0.00 11.36 11.33
126
Table 7.1 (b) Decision Making Process on selection of location

(% of habitations) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total No. of habitation covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 PHED Suggested PHED Decided 10.81 17.64 14.87 8.19 1.45 41.05 63.64 0.00 40.00 54.55 33.33 29.41 7.51 11.11 13.24 15.48 16.08 10.53 12.54 94.12 25.47 23.40 64.71 13.76 1.80 0.00 29.55 15.92 PHED Suggested GP Decided 0.00 12.26 15.29 64.91 2.02 6.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 16.42 11.26 14.16 14.52 44.07 0.00 1.89 11.98 0.00 19.25 0.00 0.00 20.45 13.76 GP Suggested PHED Decided 22.97 16.25 11.38 4.09 1.73 51.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.27 14.49 17.65 0.54 5.56 17.26 16.25 13.27 17.25 23.73 0.00 16.98 12.20 13.24 16.73 0.00 0.00 31.82 11.54 GP Suggested GP Decided 66.22 53.85 58.46 22.81 94.51 1.05 36.36 100.00 60.00 18.18 52.17 52.94 90.08 83.33 53.08 57.01 56.49 57.70 19.66 5.88 55.66 52.42 22.06 50.26 98.20 0.00 18.18 56.93
127
Table 7.1 (c) Decision Making Process on choice of technology

(% of habitations)
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
PHED Suggested PHED Decided 21.62 62.35 65.23 52.63 98.84 76.84 63.64 0.00 40.00 98.18 33.33 0.00 97.86 16.67 67.24 68.89 62.83 64.28 42.37 94.12 27.36 67.35 61.76 59.25 100.00 0.00 40.91 67.90
PHED Suggested GP Decided 0.00 13.25 12.35 43.86 0.00 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.26 11.25 10.57 13.58 32.54 0.00 0.94 8.15 0.00 14.25 0.00 0.00 11.36 9.22
GP Suggested PHED Decided 31.08 12.25 10.50 0.58 0.29 21.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 49.28 58.82 0.27 0.00 11.27 8.89 12.35 11.16 17.29 0.00 17.92 13.25 29.41 14.89 0.00 0.00 27.27 10.46
GP Suggested GP Decided 47.30 12.15 11.92 2.92 0.58 0.00 36.36 100.00 60.00 0.00 17.39 41.18 0.54 83.33 13.23 10.97 14.25 10.98 7.80 5.88 53.77 11.25 8.82 11.61 0.00 0.00 20.45 10.56
128
Table 7.1 (d) Decision Making Process on O & M Matter

(% of habitation) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total No. of habitation covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 PHED Suggested PHED Decided 5.41 52.39 50.25 24.56 94.80 41.05 63.64 0.00 40.00 96.36 11.59 0.00 93.83 0.00 46.25 38.78 42.54 49.84 10.17 94.12 26.42 47.44 13.24 49.10 2.70 0.00 34.09 48.22 PHED Suggested GP Decided 0.00 12.35 11.25 26.32 0.00 18.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.25 13.71 8.35 13.25 45.42 0.00 0.94 8.29 0.00 11.25 0.00 0.00 18.18 10.61 GP Suggested PHED Decided 13.51 8.29 5.25 0.00 0.58 28.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 38.24 0.80 5.56 7.63 8.26 14.26 9.65 13.56 0.00 17.92 11.25 0.00 7.99 0.00 0.00 29.55 6.75 GP Suggested GP Decided 81.08 26.97 33.25 49.12 4.34 11.58 36.36 100.00 60.00 3.64 84.06 61.76 4.02 94.44 37.87 39.25 34.85 27.26 30.85 5.88 54.72 33.02 86.76 31.66 97.30 0.00 18.18 32.56
129
Table 7.2 Formation of VWSCs

(% of habitation) S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 State Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total No. of habitation covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176 VWSCs Formed 56.76 39.23 36.16 2.34 59.38 44.21 0.00 0.00 30.00 3.64 68.12 79.41 56.57 100.00 40.86 42.62 34.18 33.21 17.97 5.88 14.15 30.37 39.71 42.67 28.83 6.67 0.00 37.75
130
Table 8.0 Distribution of habitations where all households getting 40 LPCD of water
(% of habitation) All households getting All households getting 40 40 LPCD water from only LPCD water from ARWSP ARWSP and other facility 85.14 69.93 75.86 75.09 100.00 11.58 6.25 0.00 16.67 40.35 57.97 50.00 99.01 16.67 70.18 69.35 74.09 73.12 57.28 41.18 19.63 77.61 75.00 68.73 98.18 80.00 28.38 71.34
S. No.
State
All households not getting 40 LPCD water
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
79.73 56.76 63.61 64.47 92.20 11.58 6.25 0.00 5.56 24.56 46.38 44.12 86.85 16.67 57.46 58.68 61.56 61.90 33.11 41.18 19.63 63.83 69.12 57.24 52.73 53.33 5.41 58.07
14.86 30.07 24.14 24.91 0.00 88.42 93.75 100.00 83.33 59.65 42.03 50.00 0.99 83.33 29.82 30.65 25.91 26.88 42.72 58.82 80.37 22.39 25.00 31.27 1.82 20.00 71.62 28.66
131
Table 8.1 Households having access to safe water supply source now
Households having access to safe water supply source now Nos. 226 132 228 3 2471 199 0 0 0 172 92 37 4212 60 78 34 121 98 2853 0 1463 182 76 113 956 165 8 13979 % 15.72 22.15 26.61 0.12 37.24 10.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 7.18 6.01 56.03 31.41 15.45 8.85 24.70 16.42 55.41 0.00 77.41 48.64 6.14 37.66 62.73 41.88 2.72 36.60 Households having PWS(IHC) Nos. 52 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 26 11 1 19 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 156 % 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 1.77 0.01 9.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
No. of Households covered 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477
No. of Households using ARWSP 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198
132
Table 8.2 Change in Quality of water after ARWSP

Problems reported in the water previously used by the households Bad taste Nos. 32.89 24.33 14.59 3.99 1.10 42.02 0.00 1.26 63.44 4.37 23.26 23.21 10.53 52.36 20.40 15.36 17.35 16.42 10.12 3.95 72.17 18.44 12.60 25.33 3.15 0.25 18.71 15.47 94 25 10 20 11 538 0 1 1 2 192 76 517 78 57 7 42 30 236 4 1364 15 79 24 25 1 16 3465 % 19.87 17.24 8.00 20.62 15.07 68.62 0.00 50.00 0.49 6.25 64.43 53.15 65.28 78.00 55.34 11.86 49.41 30.61 45.30 57.14 100.00 21.74 50.64 31.58 52.08 100.00 29.09 58.64 Nos. 285 14 19 6 10 94 0 0 202 17 43 15 65 12 15 16 18 20 138 3 0 19 41 23 7 0 12 1094 Smell % 60.25 9.66 15.20 6.19 13.70 11.99 0.00 0.00 99.51 53.13 14.43 10.49 8.21 12.00 14.56 27.12 21.18 20.41 26.49 42.86 0.00 27.54 26.28 30.26 14.58 0.00 21.82 18.51 Colour Nos. 74 99 78 61 19 59 0 1 0 11 41 30 131 8 9 15 12 22 123 0 0 15 27 15 14 0 21 885 % 15.64 68.28 62.40 62.89 26.03 7.53 0.00 50.00 0.00 34.38 13.76 20.98 16.54 8.00 8.74 25.42 14.12 22.45 23.61 0.00 0.00 21.74 17.31 19.74 29.17 0.00 38.18 14.98 Causes illness Nos. 19 2 1 10 1 33 0 0 0 2 3 3 30 2 5 6 3 2 6 0 0 5 1 4 2 0 0 140 % 4.02 1.38 0.80 10.31 1.37 4.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 1.01 2.10 3.79 2.00 4.85 10.17 3.53 2.04 1.15 0.00 0.00 7.25 0.64 5.26 4.17 0.00 0.00 2.37 Nos. 1 5 17 0 32 60 0 0 0 0 19 19 49 0 17 15 10 24 18 0 0 15 8 10 0 0 6 325 Other % 0.21 3.45 13.60 0.00 43.84 7.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.38 13.29 6.19 0.00 16.50 25.42 11.76 24.49 3.45 0.00 0.00 21.74 5.13 13.16 0.00 0.00 10.91 5.50
S. No.
State
No. of No. of households households covered using ARWSP 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198
Households using good quality of water after ARWSP Nos. %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
473 145 125 97 73 784 0 2 203 32 298 143 792 100 103 59 85 98 521 7 1364 69 156 76 48 1 55 5909
133
Table 8.3 Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source
Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source now Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198 568 256 452 699 6092 1829 40 8 212 265 473 225 6109 171 304 240 280 360 4069 28 1882 220 767 190 1175 215 17 27146 % 39.50 42.95 52.76 28.72 91.82 98.02 16.74 5.03 66.25 36.20 36.92 36.53 81.26 89.53 60.20 62.49 57.15 60.31 79.03 15.82 99.58 58.80 61.95 63.33 77.10 54.57 5.78 71.07 Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source upto 1 km Nos. 568 189 393 699 6084 1453 40 8 200 261 473 225 5465 151 215 185 174 290 4024 27 746 185 767 140 1175 200 0 24337 % 100.00 73.83 86.95 100.00 99.87 79.44 100.00 100.00 94.34 98.49 100.00 100.00 89.46 88.30 70.72 77.08 62.14 80.56 98.89 96.43 39.64 84.09 100.00 73.68 100.00 93.02 0.00 89.65
S. No.
State
No. of households using ARWSP
Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source more than 1 km Nos. 0 67 59 0 8 376 0 0 12 4 0 0 644 20 89 55 106 70 45 1 1136 35 0 50 0 15 17 2809 % 0.00 26.17 13.05 0.00 0.13 20.56 0.00 0.00 5.66 1.51 0.00 0.00 10.54 11.70 29.28 22.92 37.86 19.44 1.11 3.57 60.36 15.91 0.00 26.32 0.00 6.98 100.00 10.35
134
Table 8.4 Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source
S. No.
State
No. of households using ARWSP
Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source now Nos. % 543 365 562 629 6034 1791 40 10 214 542 582 254 6007 191 280 250 275 340 3857 28 1877 220 445 180 1111 218 25 26870 37.76 61.24 65.60 25.84 90.94 95.98 16.74 6.29 66.88 74.04 45.43 41.23 79.90 100.00 55.44 65.10 56.13 56.96 74.91 15.82 99.31 58.80 35.95 60.00 72.90 55.33 8.50 70.34
Households reported reduction Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply in travel time to water supply source more than 1 hr. source upto 1 hr. Nos. 541 312 506 627 6033 1784 40 8 202 540 574 251 5994 191 245 210 240 290 3845 28 1228 195 442 160 1108 198 1 25793 % 99.63 85.48 90.04 99.68 99.98 99.61 100.00 80.00 94.39 99.63 98.63 98.82 99.78 100.00 87.50 84.00 87.27 85.29 99.69 100.00 65.42 88.64 99.33 88.89 99.73 90.83 4.00 95.99 Nos. 2 53 56 2 1 7 0 2 12 2 8 3 13 0 35 40 35 50 12 0 649 25 3 20 3 20 24 1077 % 0.37 14.52 9.96 0.32 0.02 0.39 0.00 20.00 5.61 0.37 1.37 1.18 0.22 0.00 12.50 16.00 12.73 14.71 0.31 0.00 34.58 11.36 0.67 11.11 0.27 9.17 96.00 4.01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477
1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198
135
Table 8.5 Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source
Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source upto 1 hr. Nos. 36.02 49.50 49.61 10.85 67.35 63.24 17.15 4.40 67.19 46.99 27.17 25.32 63.13 57.59 50.49 53.38 51.03 51.09 33.77 16.95 88.36 53.45 29.08 55.00 78.08 48.98 5.10 51.56 510 265 395 263 4465 1177 40 5 203 342 346 155 4717 110 205 185 206 275 1727 16 1269 172 357 140 1190 168 6 18909 % 98.46 89.83 92.94 99.62 99.91 99.75 97.56 71.43 94.42 99.42 99.43 99.36 99.39 100.00 80.39 90.24 82.40 90.16 99.31 53.33 75.99 86.00 99.17 84.85 100.00 87.05 40.00 96.01
S. No.
State
No. of households covered 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477
No. of households using ARWSP 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198
Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source now Nos. %
Households reported reduction in waiting time at water supply source more than 1 hr. Nos. 8 30 30 1 4 3 1 2 12 2 2 1 29 0 50 20 44 30 12 14 401 28 3 30 0 25 9 791 % 1.54 10.17 7.06 0.38 0.09 0.25 2.44 28.57 5.58 0.58 0.57 0.64 0.61 0.00 19.61 9.76 17.60 9.84 0.69 46.67 24.01 14.00 0.83 18.18 0.00 12.95 60.00 4.02
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
518 295 425 264 4469 1180 41 7 215 344 348 156 4746 110 255 205 250 305 1739 30 1670 200 360 165 1190 193 15 19695
136
Table 8.6 Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases after the ARWSP Facility
Diarrhea (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 19 66 90 308 913 23 0 0 0 102 23 5 1334 29 63 39 36 72 674 0 0 49 1 39 472 4 45 4406 % 1.32 11.07 10.51 12.65 13.76 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.93 1.80 0.81 17.74 15.18 12.48 10.16 7.35 12.06 13.09 0.00 0.00 13.10 0.08 13.00 30.97 1.02 15.31 11.53 Cholera (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 85 13 22 10 70 2 0 0 0 12 34 14 164 0 19 9 12 14 69 0 0 6 2 11 21 0 1 590 % 5.91 2.18 2.57 0.41 1.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 2.65 2.27 2.18 0.00 3.76 2.34 2.45 2.35 1.34 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.16 3.67 1.38 0.00 0.34 1.54 Typhoid (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 10 20 35 2 221 7 0 0 0 51 27 13 371 21 25 24 16 11 342 0 0 12 2 7 251 9 7 1484 % 0.70 3.36 4.09 0.08 3.33 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.97 2.11 2.11 4.93 10.99 4.95 6.25 3.27 1.84 6.64 0.00 0.00 3.21 0.16 2.33 16.47 2.28 2.38 3.89
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State
No. of Diarrhea (Adult) households using ARWSP Nos. % 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198 64 42 102 166 412 29 0 1 0 74 68 27 728 23 80 25 43 46 1016 0 0 40 51 36 224 12 50 3359 4.45 7.05 11.91 6.82 6.21 1.55 0.00 0.63 0.00 10.11 5.31 4.38 9.68 12.04 15.84 6.51 8.78 7.71 19.73 0.00 0.00 10.69 4.12 12.00 14.70 3.05 17.01 8.79
Cholera (Adult) Nos. 106 16 20 1 159 8 0 0 0 9 55 35 157 2 12 20 6 16 107 0 0 9 24 6 55 3 1 827 % 7.37 2.68 2.33 0.04 2.40 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 4.29 5.68 2.09 1.05 2.38 5.21 1.22 2.68 2.08 0.00 0.00 2.41 1.94 2.00 3.61 0.76 0.34 2.17
Typhoid (Adult) Nos. 15 20 50 2 430 42 0 0 0 22 20 8 563 30 15 30 15 20 269 0 0 25 10 25 247 13 2 1873 % 1.04 3.36 5.84 0.08 6.48 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01 1.56 1.30 7.49 15.71 2.97 7.81 3.06 3.35 5.22 0.00 0.00 6.68 0.81 8.33 16.21 3.30 0.68 4.90
137
Table 8.6 Households reported reduction in occurrence of diseases after the ARWSP Facility
Hepatitis (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 4 11 10 11 93 18 0 0 0 27 14 14 128 18 12 16 7 4 135 0 0 8 0 10 38 0 0 578 % 0.28 1.85 1.17 0.45 1.40 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 1.09 2.27 1.70 9.42 2.38 4.17 1.43 0.67 2.62 0.00 0.00 2.14 0.00 3.33 2.49 0.00 0.00 1.51 Other Diseases (Adult) Nos. 13 7 12 83 144 114 0 0 0 169 10 14 65 31 16 11 6 8 16 0 354 7 9 8 316 1 12 1426 % 0.90 1.17 1.40 3.41 2.17 6.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.09 0.78 2.27 0.86 16.23 3.17 2.86 1.22 1.34 0.31 0.00 18.73 1.87 0.73 2.67 20.73 0.25 4.08 3.73 Other Diseases (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 6 9 11 103 64 31 0 0 0 210 13 5 49 16 6 8 12 14 11 0 358 4 0 16 11 0 9 966 % 0.42 1.51 1.28 4.23 0.96 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.69 1.01 0.81 0.65 8.38 1.19 2.08 2.45 2.35 0.21 0.00 18.94 1.07 0.00 5.33 0.72 0.00 3.06 2.53 Over All Diseases (Adult) Nos. 166 125 155 241 1203 240 0 1 0 236 117 57 1508 77 89 45 120 160 1283 0 354 20 62 58 856 28 59 7260 % 11.54 20.97 18.09 9.90 18.13 12.86 0.00 0.63 0.00 32.24 9.13 9.25 20.06 40.31 17.62 11.72 24.49 26.80 24.92 0.00 18.73 5.35 5.01 19.33 56.17 7.11 20.07 19.01 Over All Diseases (Minor<16 yrs) Nos. 121 119 135 383 1285 72 0 0 0 305 80 35 1922 52 145 60 85 126 1057 0 358 26 5 60 732 13 57 7233 % 8.41 19.97 15.76 15.74 19.37 3.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.67 6.25 5.68 25.57 27.23 28.71 15.62 17.35 21.11 20.53 0.00 18.94 6.95 0.40 20.00 48.03 3.30 19.39 18.94
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
State
No. of Hepatitis (Adult) households using ARWSP Nos. % 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198 12 12 30 8 88 65 0 0 0 10 12 6 84 49 16 10 5 6 120 0 0 4 10 8 120 0 1 676 0.83 2.01 3.50 0.33 1.33 3.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.94 0.97 1.12 25.65 3.17 2.60 1.02 1.01 2.33 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.81 2.67 7.87 0.00 0.34 1.77
138
Table 8.7 Safe water practices

(% of households) No. of households covered 1486 706 1043 3317 6808 1886 240 205 320 1072 1380 680 7986 351 564 440 541 643 5900 177 2007 442 1360 340 2131 526 926 43477 Satisfied with the quality No. of of water households using ARWSP Nos. % 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 5149 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 38198 1119 468 756 2096 6391 1826 234 157 296 552 1054 522 7242 191 421 369 423 521 4504 138 1883 360 1083 239 1470 142 184 34641 77.82 78.52 88.24 86.11 96.32 97.86 97.91 98.74 92.50 75.41 82.28 84.74 96.33 100.00 83.37 96.09 86.34 87.28 87.47 77.97 99.63 96.22 87.48 79.66 96.46 36.04 62.59 90.69 Water storage vessel cleaned Nos. 1091 462 772 1813 6423 1041 218 137 262 466 908 414 6909 152 429 384 432 539 4004 79 1885 354 1042 230 1444 136 248 32274 % 75.87 77.52 90.11 74.49 96.80 55.79 91.21 86.16 81.88 63.66 70.88 67.21 91.90 79.58 84.95 100.00 88.18 90.29 77.76 44.63 99.74 94.61 84.17 76.66 94.75 34.52 84.35 84.49 Water storage vessel covered Nos. 1322 460 760 1835 6446 1840 223 122 260 558 1097 553 6896 191 420 382 430 535 3751 117 1886 345 1036 229 1337 128 248 33407 % 91.93 77.18 88.71 75.39 97.15 98.61 93.31 76.73 81.25 76.23 85.64 89.77 91.73 100.00 83.17 99.47 87.77 89.62 72.85 66.10 99.79 92.21 83.68 76.33 87.73 32.49 84.35 87.46 Brief on safe drinking water practices Nos. 821 465 760 1094 1392 1408 26 56 72 263 542 262 1531 131 400 360 425 512 823 88 184 330 550 215 166 25 145 13046 % 57.09 78.02 88.71 44.95 20.98 75.46 10.88 35.22 22.50 35.93 42.31 42.53 20.36 68.59 79.21 93.74 86.75 85.77 15.98 49.72 9.74 88.20 44.43 71.66 10.89 6.35 49.32 34.15
S. No.
State
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
139
Table 9.1 Women members in VWSCs

women were involved in the decision making on location of the ARWSP sources Nos. 23 5 7 63 95 9 0 0 1 5 26 19 98 10 4 3 4 5 17 1 4 3 21 2 52 11 1 489 % 31.08 14.29 13.46 36.84 27.46 9.47 0.00 0.00 10.00 9.09 37.68 55.88 26.27 55.56 14.29 13.64 14.81 15.63 5.76 5.88 3.77 13.64 30.88 11.76 46.85 36.67 2.27 22.47
S. No.
State
No. of habitations covered 74 35 52 171 346 95 11 14 10 55 69 34 373 18 28 22 27 32 295 17 106 22 68 17 111 30 44 2176
where VWSC have women members Nos. % 11 10 16 0 205 39 0 0 1 1 26 25 197 15 5 8 7 10 11 0 4 5 20 4 29 2 0 651 14.86 28.57 30.77 0.00 59.25 41.05 0.00 0.00 10.00 1.82 37.68 73.53 52.82 83.33 17.86 36.36 25.93 31.25 3.73 0.00 3.77 22.73 29.41 23.53 26.13 6.67 0.00 29.92
satisfactory completion of the schemes from women groups Nos. 15 2 1 29 2 10 0 0 1 0 17 12 9 0 2 1 1 1 12 0 2 1 8 1 4 0 1 132 % 20.27 5.71 1.92 16.96 0.58 10.53 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 24.64 35.29 2.41 0.00 7.14 4.55 3.70 3.13 4.07 0.00 1.89 4.55 11.76 5.88 3.60 0.00 2.27 6.07
attempt been undertaken to Women caretaker of the improve the knowledge on scheme the preventive maintenance Nos. 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 8 7 6 0 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 1 15 1 1 1 1 59 % 4.05 2.86 1.92 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 10.00 1.82 11.59 20.59 1.61 0.00 3.57 4.55 3.70 3.13 2.03 0.00 0.00 4.55 22.06 5.88 0.90 3.33 2.27 2.71 Nos. 9 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 20 16 9 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 77 % 12.16 0.00 1.92 0.58 0.29 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.99 47.06 2.41 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 3.13 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.76 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 3.54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
140
Table 9.2 : Households responding ARWSP scheme resulting in saving the time and effort of the women
households responding ARWSP scheme resulting in saving the time and effort of the women Nos. 1226 426 685 2308 6446 1846 27 37 254 603 1074 529 6531 191 452 236 365 423 3515 176 1882 236 1139 236 1362 250 58 29454 % 85.26 71.48 79.96 94.82 97.15 98.93 11.30 23.27 79.38 82.38 83.84 85.88 86.87 100.00 89.50 61.45 74.50 70.86 588.82 99.44 99.58 63.08 92.00 78.66 89.37 63.45 19.73 87.54
S. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
No. of households using ARWSP 1438 596 857 2434 6635 1866 239 159 320 732 1281 616 7518 191 505 384 490 597 597 177 1890 374 1238 300 1524 394 294 33646
141
Table 9.3 (a) Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)
S. No.
State
No. of households
Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source now
Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source upto 1 km
Households reported reduction in distance travelled to water supply source more than 1 km Male 0.00 29.64 17.31 0.00 0.14 21.41 0.00 0.00 13.56 1.69 0.00 0.00 10.75 15.00 31.46 24.39 36.68 21.77 0.78 4.00 60.17 17.40 0.00 27.35 0.00 8.38 100.00 9.88 Female 0.00 26.35 13.46 0.00 0.00 16.62 0.00 0.00 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.18 4.00 27.31 22.79 37.16 19.31 2.59 0.00 100.00 14.36 0.00 24.64 0.00 0.00 100.00 3.89
Male 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total 1136 555 854 2951 6381 1549 192 195 118 979 992 486 7525 216 415 301 322 511 4843 153 1998 333 871 284 1994 476 705 37335
Female 350 151 189 366 427 337 48 10 202 93 388 194 461 135 149 139 219 132 1057 24 9 109 489 56 137 50 221 6142
Male 37.34 45.36 55.30 26.63 91.83 99.14 16.75 5.33 50.00 35.85 35.40 33.33 81.10 88.24 62.56 62.54 60.30 59.36 78.89 16.34 99.57 55.62 58.07 62.36 76.59 51.14 6.78 73.25
Female 45.10 42.21 52.92 54.05 91.59 98.78 16.67 0.00 75.74 39.44 40.83 43.01 83.80 92.59 60.12 61.25 58.25 60.21 81.28 12.50 100.00 57.36 68.74 63.21 80.23 81.82 1.72 70.00
Male 100.00 70.36 82.69 100.00 99.86 78.59 100.00 100.00 86.44 98.31 100.00 100.00 89.25 85.00 68.54 75.61 63.32 78.23 99.22 96.00 39.83 82.60 100.00 72.65 100.00 91.62 0.00 90.12
Female 100.00 73.65 86.54 100.00 100.00 83.38 100.00 0.00 97.39 100.00 100.00 100.00 92.82 96.00 72.69 77.21 62.84 80.69 97.41 100.00 0.00 85.64 100.00 75.36 100.00 100.00 0.00 96.11
142
Table 9.3 (b) Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)
Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source less than 30 min. Male 87.15 82.42 89.59 99.25 98.97 96.54 100.00 60.00 86.44 90.67 94.79 96.86 96.09 99.26 86.55 83.54 86.62 85.69 96.47 100.00 45.56 88.56 87.59 87.69 99.12 78.45 4.17 92.10 Female 87.95 84.57 92.52 98.99 99.73 91.54 87.50 0.00 96.77 95.92 94.97 95.79 98.02 100.00 85.34 82.62 87.56 86.87 96.92 100.00 22.22 87.41 93.25 88.52 100.00 78.38 0.00 95.56 Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source 30 - 60 min. Male 12.59 7.33 1.90 0.38 1.01 3.33 0.00 20.00 0.00 8.92 4.22 1.89 3.70 0.74 3.03 3.99 0.80 1.73 3.25 0.00 20.02 5.95 12.41 2.66 0.59 11.60 0.00 4.51 Female 11.45 3.07 0.97 1.01 0.27 6.90 12.50 0.00 0.65 4.08 2.79 3.16 1.69 0.00 4.99 2.70 2.20 2.77 2.64 0.00 11.11 2.34 4.91 5.81 0.00 16.22 0.00 3.34 Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source more than 1 hr. Male 0.25 10.25 8.51 0.38 0.02 0.14 0.00 20.00 13.56 0.41 0.99 1.26 0.21 0.00 10.42 12.47 12.58 12.58 0.28 0.00 34.42 5.49 0.00 9.65 0.29 9.94 95.83 3.39 Female 0.60 12.36 6.51 0.00 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.00 2.23 1.05 0.28 0.00 9.67 14.68 10.24 10.36 0.44 0.00 66.67 10.25 1.84 5.67 0.00 5.41 100.00 1.10
No. of households S. No. State Male 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total 1136 555 854 2951 6381 1549 192 195 118 979 992 486 7525 216 415 301 322 511 4843 153 1998 333 871 284 1994 476 705 37335 Female 350 151 189 366 427 337 48 10 202 93 388 194 461 135 149 139 219 132 1057 24 9 109 489 56 137 50 221 6142
Households reported reduction in travel time to water supply source now
Male 34.79 62.25 62.36 23.57 90.96 97.03 16.75 6.67 50.00 74.58 43.76 36.55 79.78 100.00 53.69 63.84 55.62 60.37 75.11 15.69 99.31 61.38 35.83 60.26 72.28 51.71 10.17 72.23
Female 46.50 60.93 65.29 53.51 90.63 96.96 16.67 0.00 76.73 69.01 49.72 51.08 81.94 100.00 56.47 65.21 56.44 58.41 75.53 16.67 100.00 59.42 36.14 58.58 76.74 84.09 1.72 66.69
143
Table 9.3 (c) Households reported reduction in waiting time to water supply source (Segregated in Male/Female Respondents)
Households reported Households reported Households reported Households reported reduction in waiting time to reduction in waiting time to reduction in waiting time to reduction in waiting time to water supply source less water supply source more water supply source water supply source now than 30 min. than 1 hr. 30 - 60 min. Male 35.85 47.52 49.68 8.94 67.18 61.50 17.28 4.67 50.00 49.02 27.36 25.29 63.51 51.47 52.63 50.61 48.62 51.98 34.81 16.99 88.36 52.69 29.73 52.39 77.64 48.29 5.93 52.73 Female 36.13 49.26 50.69 34.05 69.95 75.08 16.67 0.00 77.23 28.17 26.67 24.73 56.94 72.22 49.87 52.34 50.29 53.69 29.68 16.67 88.89 55.98 27.94 56.36 80.23 54.55 1.72 43.58 Male 86.06 80.69 89.68 99.00 98.04 99.14 87.88 71.43 86.44 99.07 92.86 96.36 94.76 100.00 75.69 87.25 80.48 88.47 97.62 23.08 60.77 84.56 89.74 77.69 99.82 62.72 7.14 92.17 Female 81.40 75.62 91.65 96.83 99.31 93.52 100.00 0.00 96.79 100.00 91.67 97.83 90.24 100.00 78.26 90.11 81.57 89.54 96.64 75.00 25.00 85.69 88.89 80.24 100.00 33.33 100.00 93.05 Male 12.22 9.73 4.63 1.00 1.87 0.75 9.09 0.00 0.00 0.31 6.35 2.73 4.62 0.00 8.62 7.06 3.83 3.84 1.77 23.08 15.34 2.88 8.97 9.73 0.18 26.04 28.57 4.61 Female 17.83 14.13 1.76 1.59 0.69 5.67 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 8.33 2.17 9.35 0.00 3.18 2.04 0.98 1.81 2.24 25.00 25.00 0.11 11.11 9.17 0.00 41.67 0.00 5.76 Male 1.71 9.58 5.69 0.00 0.10 0.11 3.03 28.57 13.56 0.62 0.79 0.91 0.62 0.00 15.69 5.69 15.69 7.69 0.61 53.85 23.89 12.56 1.28 12.58 0.00 11.24 64.29 3.22 Female 0.78 10.25 6.59 1.59 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 18.56 7.85 17.45 8.65 1.12 0.00 50.00 14.20 0.00 10.59 0.00 25.00 0.00 1.20
No. of households S. No. State Male Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&k Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Total 1136 555 854 2951 6381 1549 192 195 118 979 992 486 7525 216 415 301 322 511 4843 153 1998 333 871 284 1994 476 705 37335 Female Respondents 350 151 189 366 427 337 48 10 202 93 388 194 461 135 149 139 219 132 1057 24 9 109 489 56 137 50 221 6142
144
ANNEXURE II
Agency Code EVALUATION OF ACCELERATED RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMME MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
STATE SCHEDULE
State
I
1. 2.
BASIC INFORMATION
Implementing Agency
(Organization/Department)
Respondent Details :
(Name, Designation & Official Address)
3. i 1
State Profile Particulars Population Total population as per census 2001

a. Total Urban population b. Total Rural population
Nos.
Total Rural households

a. Scheduled Caste households (Rural) b. Scheduled Tribe households (Rural)
ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rural Habitations in the State Total Rural habitations Total SC habitations (rural) Total ST habitations (rural) NC habitations (as on date) PC habitations (as on date) Quality Affected habitations (as on date) FC habitations (as on date)
(Year.)
145
Evaluation of ARWSP State Level Schedule
II.
PROGRESS UNDER RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN THE STATE
1. Funding under Rural Water Supply in the State

(Rs. In Lakh)
Year Allocations 2004-05 Releases Utilized Allocations 2005-06 Releases Utilized Allocations 2006-07 Releases Utilized
ARWSP*
State Sector MNP
Other schemes
Total
*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 SCs
ARWSP
State Sector MNP
Other schemes
2004-05
STs O&M Sustainability SCs STs O&M Sustainability SCs STs O&M Sustainability
2005-06
2006-07
146
3.
Coverage under ARWSP in the State

(Nos.) Habitations Covered Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Nos.) Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Population Covered SCs STs Other Castes Total Uncovered of CAP99 NC PC Slipped Back Quality affected Total
4.
S.No
Institutional Coverage under Rural Water Supply

Type of school 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
(In Nos.) 2005-06 2006-07
2004-05
Govt./Local bodies School
Number of schools 2 covered under ARWSP (During the year)
Govt. Aided Schools Private Schools Anganwadis/Balwadis
Number of schools covered under other 3 schemes (During the year)
147
5.
Sustainability Efforts under ARWSP in the State

2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Sustainability Issues/ Problems Measures taken up

1.
Water Quality Depletion of GW Population expansion Ageing of systems Creation of new habitations Others 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

Is there a Planning mechanism for implementation of Rural Water Supply Schemes in the State? i.
(Code: 1- Yes, 2 No)
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. ii. 3.
If Yes, Frequency of the Meetings of such mission/committee in a year?(Nos.) No. of Such meetings held in last 3 years. (Nos.)
Is the decision for Allocation and Release of funds under Rural Water Supply scheme to the districts taken at the State level?
i.
148
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____________________________________)) Evaluation of ARWSP State Level Schedule
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
149
8.
Is there a system for monitoring & supervision of progress of schemes taken up in the habitations from the State level?
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?
9.
Is the planning for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the new schemes done at the State level?
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?
10.
Is the planning for awareness generation activities amongst the rural households for Hygiene practices done at the State level?
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?

11.
Is the planning for conducting training of users/community done at the State level?
i.
If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the State for training of users/community
ii.
150
If No, at what level is the planning for training of users/community is done?

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

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
151
Agency Code
EVALUATION OF ACCELERATED RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAMME MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DISTRICT SCHEDULE
State District : :
I
1. 2.
BASIC INFORMATION
Implementing Agency :
(Organization/Department)
Respondent Details :
(Name, Designation & Official Address)
3.
District Profile Particulars i 1 Population Total population as per census 2001

a. Total Urban population b. Total Rural population
Nos.
Total Rural households

a. Scheduled Caste households (Rural) b. Scheduled Tribe households (Rural)
ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
152
Rural Habitations in the District Total Rural habitations Total SC habitations (rural) Total ST habitations (rural) NC habitations (as on date) PC habitations (as on date) Quality Affected habitations (as on date) FC habitations (as on date)
(Year.)
Evaluation of ARWSP District Level Schedule
II
PROGRESS UNDER RURAL WATER SUPPLY IN THE DISTRICT
1. Details of funds received for Rural Water Supply in the district

(Rs. In Lakh)
Year Allocations 2004-05 Releases Utilized Allocations 2005-06 Releases Utilized Allocations 2006-07 Releases Utilized
ARWSP*
State Sector MNP
Other schemes
Total
*including all funds received from Department of Drinking Water Supply, GOI
2. Details of funds utilized under Rural Water Supply in the District

(Rs. In Lakh)
Year
Funds utilized on SCs
ARWSP
State Sector MNP
Other schemes
2004-05
STs O&M Sustainability SCs STs O&M Sustainability SCs STs O&M Sustainability
2005-06
2006-07
153
3.
Coverage under ARWSP in the District

(Nos.) Habitations Covered Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Nos.) Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 SCs Population Covered STs Other Castes Total Uncovered of CAP99 NC PC Slipped Back Quality affected Total
4.
Institutional Coverage under Rural Water Supply

S.No Total No. of Schools without functional drinking water supply (at the beginning of the year) Type of school
(In Nos.) 2005-06 2006-07
2004-05
Govt./Local bodies School
Number of schools covered under ARWSP (During the year)
Govt. Aided Schools Private Schools Anganwadis/Balwadis
Number of schools covered under other schemes (During the year)
154
5.
Sustainability Efforts under ARWSP in the District

(No of Habitations)
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Sustainability Issues/ Problems Measures taken up III.

1. i. 2.
Water Quality Depletion of GW Population expansion Ageing of systems Creation of new habitations Others 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
PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION OF ARWSP IN THE DISTRICT
Is there a Planning mechanism for implementation of Rural Water Supply Schemes in the District? (Code: 1- Yes, 2 No) If Yes, Briefly describe the process. (Add a separate sheet if necessary)
Whether a District level Mission/ Committee for overseeing Rural Water Supply Schemes formed in the District? (Code: 1- Yes, 2 No) If Yes, Frequency of the Meetings of such mission/committee in a year?(Nos.) No. of Such meetings held in last 3 years. (Nos.)
i.
ii. 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) 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?
i.
155
ii.
4.
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__________))
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) 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?
i.
ii. 5. i.
If No, at what level is the decision for Type of schemes to be taken up is taken?
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) If Yes, please describe the process of awarding the contracts for taking up ARWSP schemes.
ii.
6.
If No, at what level are the contracts awarded for taking up ARWSP schemes?
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) If Yes, please describe the process of monitoring & supervision of the progress of works from the District level.
i.
ii.
8.
If No, at what level is the monitoring & supervision of the progress of works done?
Is the planning for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the new schemes done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2 No) 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?
i.
156
ii.
9.
If No, at what level is the planning for O&M of new schemes is done?
Is the planning for awareness generation activities amongst the rural households for Hygiene practices done at the District level? (Code: 1- Yes, 2 No) If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the District for creating awareness in rural areas
i.
ii.
10.
If No, at what level is the planning for awareness generation is done?

Is the planning for conducting training of users/community done at the District level?
i.
If Yes, please describe the process & efforts made in the District for training of users/community
ii.
11.
If No, at what level is the planning for training of users/community is done?

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) If Yes, please describe the planning process & efforts made for sustainability of schemes/sources
i.
ii.
If No, at what level is the planning for sustainability of schemes/sources is done

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)
157
HABITATION SCHEDULE
I
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
IDENTIFICATION Name
State District Block/Taluk / Mandal Gram Panchayat Village 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
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
HABITATION PROFILE
Total Population of the Habitation as per Census 2001 Total Number of Households in the Habitation SC Households in the Habitation ST Households in the habitation BPL Households in the Habitation
158
Evaluation of ARWSP Habitation Level Schedule
IV
1. 2. (a) (b) (c) (d) 3. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)
COVERAGE UNDER ARWSP (during last 3 years)

Year of coverage under ARWSP Status as per Rural Water Supply Norms [ Status of habitation as per CAP99 Status of habitation as per habitation survey 2003 Status of habitation at the time of ARWSP intervention Current Status of habitation Details of Schemes taken up under ARWSP
Particulars Scheme 1 Scheme 2
Tick the appropriate]
NC
PC
FC
QA
Type of Scheme (use Code) In case of piped water supply, no. of household connections In case of piped water supply, no. of public stand posts Type of energy used (use code) In case of a pump (power in HP) Distance from habitation (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. in hill areas) Total cost (In Rs.) Number of households benefited Quantity of water targeted (lpcd)
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_________________________________)
DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON ARWSP SCHEME

Functions
PHED Suggested PHED Decided
[ Tick the appropriate]

Village Panchayat Suggested Village Panchayat Decided
1 2 3 4 5
Selection of habitation Type of scheme Selection of location Choice of Technology O & M Matters
VI
1. (a) (b) (c) (d)
STATUS OF ARWSP SCHEME

Details of sources/service access points under ARWSP scheme Type of Scheme (use Code) Total no. of service access points Nos. not available round the year/affected by seasonal variation No. of currently functional service access points
Scheme 1 Scheme 2
159
(e) (f) (g)
No. of temporarily not functional service access points No. of permanently defunct service access points No. of service access points affected by water quality problems
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

Scheme 1 Scheme 2
Nos. Reasons (use code)
(a)
Temporarily not functional service access points
Nos.
Reasons (use code)
Nos.
(b)
Affected by water quality problems
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?
Water Charges Per Month Per Household (in Rs.) Type of facility House Connection Stand Post Hand Pump
SC / ST OBC Other BPL APL
Sl. (a) (b) (c)
One time Water Charges (Lump sum)
160
3. (a) (b) (c) (d)
Details of O & M expenditure on ARWSP scheme(s)* Type of Scheme (use Code) Electricity charges Salary of operators Maintenance recurring expenditure Other expenditure (specify_________________________________)
Scheme 1 Scheme 2
* Per annum charges (in Rs.) Expenditure incurred during the last 1 year
VIII COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION & ROLE OF WOMEN

1. (a) 2. 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)
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.)
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)
(a) 3. (a) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
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.)
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)
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.) Are the people trained to take up simple and minor repairs? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)
Is there a Village Water and Sanitation Committee (VWSC) formed?

(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)
If yes are women from the habitation members of VWSC?

Whether women were involved in the decision making on location of the sources/ facility installed under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) Are certificate about satisfactory completion of the schemes ever being obtained from women groups in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) 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) Are there any women caretakers for the scheme(s) in the habitation?
(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) 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)
161
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) Protected Spring Sources 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)
163
X. STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION IN THE INSTITUTIONS

Schools Primary Upper Primary High & Higher Secondary Anganwadi/Balwadi 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. Whether any training session was held for the sustainability of the scheme under ARWSP? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) Are the villagers satisfied with the technology of the scheme? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) Is there any structure built for rainwater harvesting or ground water recharge?
Are any other initiatives for sustainability of safe water sources taken up in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) 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) Contribution by the people for O & M i. Replacement / Up gradation of the Scheme in future ii. Sustainability of the Water Source iii. Role of PHED in helping in O & M iv. Lack of Awareness among the people v. vi.
Others (Specify)
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Are the water storage tanks cleaned regularly? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No, 3 N/A) Is there a regular quality testing done of the water supplied to the villagers?
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) 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) 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)
164
Name of the Field Researcher: Signature : Date :
165
CONTROL - HABITATION SCHEDULE

I
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
IDENTIFICATION
Name
II
(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.
Designation
Age
Gender (M-1, F-2)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
III
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
HABITATION PROFILE
Total Population of the Habitation as per Census 2001 Total Number of Households in the Habitation SC Households in the Habitation ST Households in the habitation BPL Households in the Habitation
166
Evaluation of ARWSP Control Habitation Schedule
IV
1. (a) (b) (c)
STATUS OF HABITATION
Status as per Rural Water Supply Norms [ Status of habitation as per CAP99 Status of habitation as per habitation survey 2003 Current Status of habitation
Tick the appropriate]
NC PC FC QA
V
1.
O & M OF WATER SUPPLY SCHEME IN THE HABITATION

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?
Water Charges Per Month Per Household (in Rs.) Type of facility House Connection Stand Post Hand Pump
SC / ST OBC Other BPL APL
Sl. (a) (b) (c)
One time Water Charges (Lump sum)
3. (a) (b) (c) (d)
Details of O & M expenditure on Water Supply scheme(s)* Type of Scheme (use Code) Electricity charges Salary of operators Maintenance recurring expenditure Other expenditure (specify_________________________________)
Scheme 1 Scheme 2
* 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. (a) 2. 3.
167
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)
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.) Are the people trained to take up simple and minor repairs? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No)
Is there a Village Water and Sanitation Committee (VWSC) formed?

4. 5. 6. 7.
If yes are women from the habitation members of VWSC?

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) Are there any women caretakers for the scheme in the habitations
(Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) 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 Primary Upper Primary High & Higher Secondary Anganwadi/Balwadi 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. 2. 3. 3. 4. 5. 6. Whether any training session was held for the sustainability of the water supply scheme(s) in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) Is there any structure built for rainwater harvesting or ground water recharge?
Are any other initiatives for sustainability of safe water sources taken up in the habitation? (Use Code: 1- Yes, 2-No) Is there a regular quality testing done of the water supplied to the villagers?
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) 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) 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)
168
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) Protected Spring Sources 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)
169
Agency Code
HOUSEHOLD LEVEL SCHEDULE

Sample household no.
I
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
IDENTIFICATION
Name
Code
II
(a)
(b) Father/Husband Name

(c) (d) Sex (Code: 1 - Male, 2 - Female) Education
(Code: 1 Illiterate, 2 Literate, 3 - Primary, 4 Middle school, 5 Matriculate, 6 Plus 2, 7 Technically qualified, 8 Graduate and above)
4. Age (In Years)
(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) (g) (h)
Number of members in the household (Nos.) Caste Category (Code: 1 - SC, 2 ST, 3 - Others) BPL Status (Code: 1 -Yes, 2 No)
Male
Female
170
Evaluation of ARWSP Household Schedule
III
(a)
WATER SUPPLY FACILITY TO THE HOUSEHOLD

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) (i) (ii)
Reasons for not drawing/ using water from the scheme(s) under ARWSP Multiple Response possible
The new facility is farther than my present facility The facility offered does not provide adequate quantity for my needs. The water quality of the new facility is not satisfactory Frequent break down in service of the scheme Scheme permanently defunct now I just did not need the new facility Other Reasons (specify ______________________________________________________)
(iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (c)
Provide details of usage of the facility provided under ARWSP Type of Scheme (use code) Date since when the facility being used (MM:YY) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. in hill areas) Dependency on source
(1-whole year, 2 in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year)
Scheme 1
Scheme 2
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (d) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy) Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent) Daily Consumption of household from the ARWSP facility For Drinking Water For Bathing purposes For Cooking purposes For Washing utensils For Washing clothes For Cattle needs
(Estimate in terms of a 10 litres bucket/vessel, nos. of such vessel consumed)
(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_______________________)
171
(In case the household is not drawing water from any other source than the ARWSP facility now skip Q. III(e) & III(f)
(e) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (f) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
Provide details of usage of other facilities Type of Scheme (use code) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. In hill areas) Dependency on source
(1-whole year, 2 in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year) Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy)
Scheme 1
Scheme 2
Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent)
Daily Consumption of household from other facilities
For Drinking Water For Bathing purposes For Cooking purposes For Washing utensils For Washing clothes For Cattle needs
IV
(a) (b)
O & M OF THE ARWSP SCHEME ( respond only if answer to Q. III (a) is Yes
Are you paying any water charges for the new facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 No) 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)
172
V
(a)
AWARENESS: SAFE WATER PRACTICES

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?

(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) (f)
Is the water storage vessel covered? (Code: 1 Always, 2 Sometimes, 3 No) 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
(a)
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SCHEME

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)
(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? (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
(a)
IMPACT OF ARWSP (to be canvassed only if answer to Q III (a) is Yes )

Provide comparison of drinking water supply source used by the household preARWSP and post-ARWSP scheme.
Particulars Type of Source used Pre ARWSP Post - ARWSP
(i)
(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_______________________)
173
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
(Code: 1 - Good, 2 Bad, 3- Dont Know/Cant say ) (Code: 1 Bad taste, 2- Smell, 3 Colour, 4- Causes illness, 5Other (Specify)__________ )
Quality of Water
If bad, what is/was the problem?
Travel time to the water source
(Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) (Kms & meters, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) (Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection ) (Rs. Per month, in case it was free write 0)
____:____ ____:____ ____:____
____:____ ____:____ ____:____
Distance traveled to fetch water
Waiting time at the water source Charges for water needs
(b) What has been the impact on the relations with in the community due to this scheme? (Code: 1- Improved relations, 2Deteriorated 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 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Diarrhea Cholera Typhoid Hepatitis Others Adult Pre ARWSP Minor (< 16 yrs) Adult Post - ARWSP Minor (< 16 yrs)
Name of the Investigator Date Signature
174
Agency Code
NON-BENEFICIARY HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULE

NB household no.
I
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
IDENTIFICATION
Name
Code
II
(a)
(b) Father/Husband Name

(c) (d) Sex (Code: 1 - Male, 2 - Female) Education
(Code: 1 Illiterate, 2 Literate, 3 - Primary, 4 Middle school, 5 Matriculate, 6 Plus 2, 7 Technically qualified, 8 Graduate and above)
4. Age (In Years)
(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) (g) (h)
Number of members in the household (Nos.) Caste Category (Code: 1 - SC, 2 ST, 3 - Others) BPL Status (Code: 1 -Yes, 2 No)
175 Evaluation of ARWSP Non-Beneficiary Household Schedule
III
(a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
WATER SUPPLY FACILITY TO THE HOUSEHOLD

Provide details of usage of water supply facilities Type of Scheme (use code) Location (1- within dwelling yard/plot, 2- within habitation,3-outside habitation) Distance of source (kms. in plain areas/mtrs. In hill areas) Dependency on source
(1-whole year, 2 in summer, 3- in winter, 4-few months in a year) Water quality - Colour (1- Colourless, 2- Reddish, 3- Muddy)
Scheme 1 Scheme 2
Water quality - Taste (1- Good, 2-Slightly Brackish, 3-Brackish) Water quality - Smell (1-Odourless, 2-Slightly Pungent, 3-Pungent) Daily Consumption of household from the facilities For Drinking Water For Bathing purposes For Cooking purposes For Washing utensils For Washing clothes For Cattle needs
(c)
Provide details of time spent and effort made on collecting water from the drinking water supply source used by the household.
Particulars Travel time to the water source(s) daily Time (Hours & Minutes)
(i) (ii) (iii)
(Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection) (Kms & meters, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection )
____:____ ____:____ ____:____
____:____ ____:____ ____:____
Distance traveled to fetch water daily
Waiting time at the water source(s) daily
(Hours & Minutes, fill N/A in case of a in-house connection)
IV
(a) (b)
O & M OF THE WATER SUPPLY SCHEME

Are you paying any water charges for the facility? (Code: 1 - Yes, 2 No) 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 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
(a)
AWARENESS: SAFE WATER PRACTICES

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?

(c)
What kind of vessel is used for storing drinking water?

(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) (f)
Is the water storage vessel covered? (Code: 1 Always, 2 Sometimes, 3 No) 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, 2No)
(h) If Yes, does it have a functional water supply facility for the toilet?
(Code: 1- Yes, 2No)
(i) (j)
If the Household does not have a sanitary latrine, ask the following: 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.)
Provide details of Occurrence of the following diseases in this year in the household. (Nos.) Diseases Adults Children
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Diarrhea Cholera Typhoid Hepatitis Others

Arwsp Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Arwsp Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Acknowledgements

Evaluation of Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme CONTENTS

Chapter 2 Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Chapter 3 Profile of Habitations and Households covered

Chapter 4 Performance of ARWSP in the States

Chapter 5 Planning Processes under ARWSP in the States

Chapter 6 ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations

6.5 O&M of ARWSP Schemes in the surveyed habitations

Chapter 7 Community involvement and role of PRIs

Chapter 8 Impact of ARWSP

8.8 Awareness on Safe Water Practices in the households

Chapter 9 Gender Sensitiveness of ARWSP

Performance of ARWSP in the States

Planning Processes under ARWSP in the States

ARWSP Schemes in the Habitations

Community involvement and role of PRIs

Gender Sensitiveness of ARWSP

is the greatest of the many essential elements for human

Rural Water Supply in India

Maximum Permissible limit

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

Maximum Permissible limit

Salinity 2000 mg/l

Cadmium 0.01 mg/l Zinc 15 mg/l mercury 0.001 mg/l

Damage to nervous system, kidney, and other metabolic disruptions

Persistent Organic Pollutants

High blood Pressure hormonal dysfunction and growth retardation.

Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, West Bengal

Number of Habitations affected by water quality problems

TheConstitutionofIndia & ProvisionforRighttoSafeDrinkingWater

Rural Drinking Water Supply Programmes in India

The Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme

Objectives of the ARWSP

Norms for providing potable drinking water

Figure 1: 40 lpcd for Human requirements

ARWSP in DDP areas

Operation and Maintenance

Earmarking of Allocation for SCs/STs

Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Objectives of the Study

Methodology, Sampling and Scope of the Study

Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Survey Parameters and Approach

District/Project Level Schedule

Sample Habitation Schedule

Sample Household Schedule

Control Habitation Schedule

Control Household Schedule

Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Coverage under the study

Evaluation Study of ARWSP

Profile of Habitations and Households covered under the Study.

Profile of Sample Habitations

Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

69 14 2 1 682 299 37 0 595 241 98 3 83 30 6 16

Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

Profile of Sample Households

Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

Distribution of Sample Households as per their poverty status

Profile of habitations and households covered under the study

Distribution of Sample Households as per size of household (No. of members)

Profile of Control Habitations and Households