Nearly, all the households in urban India have now become mini-utilities. When water comes for a few hours a day, it is stored in underground tanks. It is then pumped to an overhead tank from where it is withdrawn for a 24-hour uninterrupted household supply. Each household has its own treatment system, provided by private sector companies. Now, each household pays for electricity costs for pumping water regularly during the day, operation and maintenance costs to the private sector for the treatment system so that water can be drunk, and cleaning of both underground and overhead systems in every two to three months. The cost of making municipal water usable is quite high to each household, even though supply is basically free from the municipalities. Indian urban dwellers pay 2 to 2.5 times more for water which they could have received from civic sources if the municipalities had a good management system.
The third myth is that 75 per cent of the urban residents have “improved” or shared sanitation. When I proposed the idea of the IDWSSD, sanitation meant that wastewater would be collected from the cities, taken to a wastewater treatment plant, treated property and then discharged safely to the environment. This objective has also been corrupted with the catch-all term “improved”. Cities like Delhi discharges its untreated, or very partially treated, wastewaters directly to Yamuna River and Ahmedabad to the Sabarmati River and both claim that they are doing well with sanitation. Last time, I visited Ahmedabad, its primary treatment plant was not even working and raw sewage was being discharged straight to the river. One wonders what the state and Central Pollution Control Boards are doing.
Sadly, the present situation for a country like India is difficult to justify. If we consider a city like Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in 1993, the situation was even worse as compared to its condition in present-day Delhi, Kolkata or Mumbai. The unaccountable water loss in Phnom Penh then was around 75 per cent, few people had access to water and that to for only for 2–3 hours a day, and its quality was poor. The utility was bankrupt and corrupt. The Cambodian Government put a good, competent and dedicated manager, Ek Sonn Chan, in charge. Within five years, the situation changed dramatically. By 1997, Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority, an autonomous public sector corporation, started to make a profit, and since then its profit has increased each year. The consumers pay for a 24-hour supply of good quality water, which can be drunk straight from the tap without any health concern, corruption has been virtually eliminated, thanks to enlightened leadership, strict enforcement of rules, better salaries for all staff, and good training. By 1997, PPWSA had to pay a tax to the government on its profit as a public corporation. It was a tidy $550,000. Since then every year its profit, and end taxes have increased. In 2009, it paid total taxes of over $12.5 million. The consumers cover all its expenses for an excellent supply, and it has a tariff system which has actually reduced the water cost of the poor households by around 75 per cent.
Compared to the Indian urban centres, Phnom Penh appears to be a fairytale. How did Phnom Penh do it? It reduced its unaccountable loss from the system to about 7 per cent, which is significantly better than London, Paris or Los Angeles. Every household pays for water, irrespective of their socio-economic status.
This “miracle” was achieved in only five years, and the system has continuously improved since then. Yet, Cambodia does not have the same technical, management and administrative expertise as in India, or no private sector to whom some work could be outsourced. Chan and his team completely transformed the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority. Impressed by their performance, I nominated them for the prestigious Stockholm Industry Water Prize, which they received in 2010.
If Phnom Penh can do it, why can’t cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai take a leaf out its book? The Indian water utilities give many excuses, none of which can withstand any serious scrutiny. Indian public is used to receiving a third-grade service. There is no reason, technical, economic or social, as to why the Indian urban population cannot have a 24-hour uninterrupted good quality water at around half the total cost which the households are spending. The fact that they don’t is an indictment of the current water governance system in the country. India may be an emerging economic power, but its urban water management is somewhat similar to that of a banana republic.
