Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department Government of Andhra Pradesh The World Bank Assisted Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Baseline, Rapid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWSS Coverage and Delivery of Services Final Report April 2009 CE MT Center for Excellence in Management and Technology Pvt. Ltd cemt@cemt.in

Table of Contents 1 Introduction...10 1.1 Background...10 1.2 Need for the Present Assessment...12 1.3 Objectives of the Assignment...12 1.4 Methodology...13 1.4.1 Disclosure Workshops...13 2 Status of Rural Water Supply...14 2.1 Introduction...14 2.1.1 Sector Reforms Project...16 2.1.2 Swajaladhara...17 2.2 Access to Drinking Water Supply...18 2.2.1 Coverage of Selected Villages...19 2.2.2 Source of Water Supply...19 2.2.3 Public Standpost and Users in Sample Villages...20 2.2.4 Quality of Water...21 2.2.5 Quantity of Water...22 2.2.6 Frequency of water Supply...23 2.2.7 Regularity of water supply...24 2.2.8 Distance to Water Source...25 2.2.9 Time taken for collection of water...26 2.2.10 Collection of water...26 2.3 Rural School Water Supply...27 3 Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh...29 3.1 Introduction...29 3.2 Total Sanitation Campaign...29 3.2.1 NGP...30 3.3 Individual Household Latrine...31 3.3.1 Type of Latrine...32 3.3.2 Usage...33 3.3.3 Reasons for not Using Latrines...34 3.4 Open Defecation...34 3.4.1 Site...35 3.5 Environmental Sanitation...35 3.5.1 Solid Waste Disposal...35 3.5.2 Waste Water Disposal...36 3.5.3 Sewage Disposal...37 3.5.4 Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal...38 CEMT 2

3.6 Rural School Sanitation...38 3.6.1 School Sanitation in Sample Villages...39 4 Health and Hygiene...41 4.1 Status of Water Borne Diseases...41 4.2 Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages...41 4.3 Incidence of Water Borne Diseases...42 4.4 Water Handling Practices...42 4.5 Personal Hygiene...43 4.6 Availability of Medical Facilities...44 5 Institutional Performance...46 5.1 Introduction...46 5.2 Gram Panchayat...46 5.3 Institutional Arrangement...47 5.3.1 Compliant Redress System...47 5.4 Financial Issues...49 5.4.1 Tariff Collection...50 5.4.2 Mechanisms for tariff collection...50 5.4.3 Vulnerability...51 6 Demand Assessment...52 6.1 Demand Scenario...52 6.1.1 Better Water Supply...52 6.1.2 Water Supply Schemes...54 6.1.3 Household Connection...55 6.1.4 Household Metering...56 6.1.5 Drains/ UGD/ STP...56 6.2 Willingness to Pay...57 6.3 Technological Options...58 6.3.1 Water Supply...58 6.3.2 Sanitation Open Drains...59 7 Performance Indicators & Assessment...61 7.1 Selection of Performance Indicators:...61 7.2 Assessment and Ranking...62 7.3 Monitoring...65 8 Conclusions...66 8.1 Suggestions...70 CEMT 3

Annexure1: Baseline Information...72 Dusi...72 Kothachinnaiahpalle...75 Kandriga...78 Nethivaripalli...81 Y. Kota...84 Settigunta...87 Valbhapur...90 Pudur...96 Kistaram...99 Ambatapur... 102 Gudibanda... 105 Malkapur... 108 Adavi Venkatapur... 111 Singarayakonda... 113 Disrasavancha... 116 Polavaram... 119 Basavapur... 122 Bibinagar... 125 Fakeerugudem... 128 Kattangur... 131 Annexure 2: Data Collection Tools... 134 Interview Schedule... 134 Habitation Profile... 139 FGD Checklist... 141 Annexure 3: Summary of Disclosure Workshops... 142 CEMT 4

List of Tables Table 1: Rural Water Supply Status of AP as on 1-4-2009...15 Table 2: District wise Water Supply Coverage...15 Table 3: Villages Covered under Swajaladhara...17 Table 4: Distribution of Sample Covered...18 Table 5: Distribution of Type of Water Supply Scheme by Source...19 Table 6: Source of HH Water Supply...20 Table 7: Public Standpost Status & Users in Sample Villages...20 Table 8: HH Perception on Water Quality...21 Table 9: HH Perception on Quality of Water...21 Table 10: Households by Quantity of Water Used (in liters per person per day)...22 Table 11: Average Quantity of Water Used for Different Purposes...23 Table 12: Households by Frequency of Water Supply...24 Table 13: Households by Duration of Water Supply...24 Table 14: Households by Timing of Water Supply...25 Table 15: Households by Distance from Water Source...25 Table 16: Households by Time Taken for Water Collection...26 Table 17: Households by Member involved in Fetching Water...26 Table 18: Number of Members of Family Involved in Water Collection...27 Table 19: School Water Supply Status in Sample Villages...27 Table 20: Working Condition of School Water Supply...28 Table 21: Status of Rural Sanitation Coverage in AP...29 Table 22: Number of Awards Winning GPs in Last 3 Years...31 Table 23: Region wise Households with Latrine...32 Table 24: Households by Type of Latrine...33 Table 25: Households by Latrine Usage...34 Table 26: Reasons for not using latrines...34 Table 27: Households who do not have Latrine Defecates...34 Table 28: Site of Open Defecation...35 Table 29: Households by Solid Waste Disposal...36 Table 30: Households by Waste Water Disposal...36 Table 31: Household by Sewage Disposal...37 Table 32: Households by Fodder Waste/Dung Disposal...38 Table 33: Rural School Sanitation Status in AP...39 Table 34: School Sanitation Status in Sampled Villages...39 Table 35: Girl Sanitation Facilities in Schools in Sampled Villages...39 Table 36: Working Condition of School Latrine...40 Table 37: Cases of Water Borne Diseases in AP in Last 5 Years...41 Table 38: Households by Knowledge about Water Borne Diseases...41 Table 39: Households by Incidence of Water Borne Diseases in Last 6 Months...42 Table 40: Households by Water Treatment Methods...42 Table 41: Households by Drinking Water Handling Practices...43 Table 42: Households by Hand Wash Practices...43 CEMT 5

Table 43: Households by cleaning agents for hand washing...44 Table 44: Availability of Medical Facilities in Sample Villages...44 Table 45: Households Lodging Complaints Regarding Water Supply...48 Table 46: Households by Complaint Lodged with...48 Table 47: Households by Nature of Complaint Lodged...49 Table 48: Time Taken to Resolve Complaints...49 Table 49: Tariff Collection in Sampled Villages...50 Table 50: Households by Willingness to Have Better Water Supply...52 Table 51: Households Expected Frequency of Supply...53 Table 52: Households Expected Hours of Supply...54 Table 53: Distribution of Sample Villages by Demand for Source Based Water Schemes...54 Table 54: Choice for House Service Connection...55 Table 55: Choice for Household Metering...56 Table 56: Distribution of Villages by Choice for Sanitation Options...56 Table 57: Households Willingness to Pay for Better Water Supply...58 Table 58: Distribution of Villages by Technology Option for Water Supply...58 Table 59: Distribution of Villages by Technology Options for Open Drains...59 Table 60: Sample Villages Demand for Water & Sanitation Options...60 Table 61: Selected Key Performance Indicators...61 Table 62: Assessment of Sample Villages...62 Table 63: Performance of Sampled Villages...64 CEMT 6

List of Figure Figure 1: AP Map...11 Figure 2: Rural Water Supply Status of AP...14 Figure 3: Source of HH Water Supply...19 Figure 4: Avg. Quality of Water used for Diff Purposes...22 Figure 5: Frequency of Water Supply...23 Figure 6: Rural School Water Supply in Sampled Villages...27 Figure 7: Progress achieved so far in sanitation sector as per TSC...29 Figure 8: HH having Latrines...31 Figure 9: Region wise Type of Latrine...32 Figure 10: Region wise Latrine Usage...33 Figure 11: HH by Solid Waste Disposal...35 Figure 12: HH Waste Water Disposal...37 Figure 13; Details of School Toilets Achieved in AP...38 Figure 14: HH Drinking Water Handling Practices...43 Figure 15: Availability of Medical Facilities in Sampled Villages...44 Figure 16: HH by Complaints Lodged with...48 Figure 17: HH by Willingness to Have Better Water Supply...52 Figure 18: HH Expected Frequency of Water Supply...53 Figure 19: Choice for House Service Connection...55 Figure 20: Choice for HH Metering...56 Figure 21: HH Willingness to Pay for Better Water Supply...57 CEMT 7

ACRONYMS AP APL APRWSSP ARWSP BC BCC BPL CBO DDWS DWSM FC FGD GoAP GoI GP HRD IEC IHHL ISL LPCD M&E MoU MVS NC NDWM NGO NGP NSS O&M OHT PC PHC PRED PRI PSU RWSS RWSSD SC SHG SRP ST STP Andhra Pradesh Above Poverty Line Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme Backward Caste Behaviour Change Communication Below Poverty Line Community Based Organisation Department of Drinking Water Supply District Water supply and Sanitation Mission Fully Covered Focus Group Discussion Government of Andhra Pradesh Government of India Gram Panchayat Human Resource Development Information, Education and Communication Individual Household Latrines Individual Sanitary Latrines Litre Per Capita Per Day Monitoring & Evaluation Memorandum of Understanding Multi Village Scheme Not Covered National Drinking Water Mission Non Governmental Organization Nirmal Gram Purashkar No Safe Source Operation and Maintenance Overhead Tank Partially Covered Primary Health Center Panchayat Raj Engineering Department Panchayat Raj Institution Project Support Unit Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department Schedule Caste Self Help Group Sector Reforms Project Schedule Tribe Sewerage Treatment Plan CEMT 8

SVS SWSM ToR TSC UGD VWSC WB ZP Single Village Scheme State Water and Sanitation Mission Terms of Reference Total Sanitation Campaign Under Ground Drainage Village Water and Sanitation Committee World Bank Zilla Parishad UNITS Abbreviation Expansion ft hr Km lpcd Rs. mts Feet Hour Kilometer Litres per capita per day Rupees Meters CEMT 9

1 Introduction 1.1 Background India has achieved reasonable success in providing basic minimum service level for drinking water supply (40 liters per capita per day) to most of its rural population. Public investment in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) is about Rs. 45 billion (US$ 1.0 bn) annually, of which about 40% comes from Government of India (GoI). However, for various reasons, RWSS services are yet to achieve operational and financial sustainability. Depleting ground water table and deteriorating ground water quality are threatening source sustainability. Till recently, the RWSS program has been almost totally government run without participation of other stakeholders. Thus, users consider water a free (service) commodity with the government having the entire responsibility for running the operation. Additionally, the level of environmental sanitation in rural areas is extremely low (less than 25% households have latrines). The rural population generally has a poor understanding of the linkages between good sanitation, safe personal and community hygiene practice and low incidence of water borne diseases. GoI s Tenth Plan Policy and Strategy: GoI s Tenth plan policy objectives for RWSS are to accelerate sanitation coverage, strengthen sustainability of both water supply systems and water sources, provide minimum (basic) service level of safe drinking water to all rural habitations (target 2007), and provide demand based higher water service standards (piped water, house connections) to all rural habitations (target 2015). The key elements of GoI strategy include: Decentralizing service delivery responsibility to rural local governments and user groups; Adopting integrated approach to water supply and sanitation and improving hygiene behaviour; Generating sanitation demand through awareness campaigns; and Eradicating water quality related problems. For GoI, the main challenge now is to expand the reform approach, both horizontally and vertically. The new centrally sponsored Swajaldhara program is a clear indication of this desire to expand and hasten the reform process. Profile of Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh is the fifth largest state in India and it forms the major link between the north and the south of India. It is the biggest and most populous state in the south of India. For the purpose of administration, the State is divided into 23 districts including Hyderabad district (Fig. 1.1). There are 1127 mandals, 26614 villages and 72231 habitations. CEMT 10

Total population (Census 2001) (in 76.21 million) Decadal growth rate (Census 2001) (%) 14.59 Crude Birth Rate (SRS 2006) 19.00 Crude Death Rate (SRS 2006) 7.00 Total Fertility Rate (SRS 2004) 2.00 Infant Mortality Rate (SRS 2006) 59.00 Maternal Mortality Ratio (SRS 2001-195.00 2003) Female Sex Ratio (Census 2001) (per 978.00 1000 males) Population below poverty line (%) 15.77 Schedule Caste population (in million) 12.34 Schedule Tribe population (in million) 5.02 Literacy rate (Census 2001) (%) 61.11 Female literacy Rate (Census 2001) (%) 50.40 Human Development Index (HDI)* 0.609 Gender Development Index (GDI)* 0.595 Figure 1: AP Map The Proposed World Bank Project The government of Andhra Pradesh is intending to scale up statewide demand responsive and decentralized service delivery approach for which it is seeking World Bank assistance in implementing its five-year medium term Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) program. The Program s main components are: a) Institution Building: sector management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, IEC campaigns, capacity building of program staff and support agencies, technical assistance for reorganization of RWS. b) Community Development and RWSS Infrastructure Building: i) Community and village Panchayat Capacity Building ii) Women s development programs, iii) Construction/ up-gradation of drinking water supply, drainage and sanitation schemes, including water quality programs and targeted SC development plan. It is proposed that ground water recharge and rainwater harvesting will be integral parts of drinking water source development; and c) Future Sector Planning: developing long term policies and strategic plans, strengthening sector information management systems and learning and piloting innovative approaches. CEMT 11

The proposed program will be implemented in the rural areas of all the 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh. Villages will be included in the project by adopting a self-selection process, a prerequisite of demand-responsive development. The project is expected to directly benefit many villages of Andhra Pradesh. In the above context, Government of Andhra Pradesh is currently preparing a Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Medium Term Sector Programme for implementation during 2009 2014. RWSS medium term programme components are: Policies, Institutional Reforms and Capacity Building Investment Monitoring and Evaluation As a part of the RWSS sector program preparation, the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (PRED), presently Rural Water Supply (RWS), proposes to carry out a detailed study on Baseline, Raid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWSS Coverage and Delivery of Services for the proposed program. 1.2 Need for the Present Assessment The present status of the water supply and sanitation sector broadly focus on two areas: i) the impact of government programs, in terms of access, use and sustainability as well as coverage and ii) the status of sector reforms (SRP, TSC and Swajaladhara). This is also to identify and analyze successful approaches and strategies, the information about the present status of the community and its water supply and environmental sanitation conditions and demand for RWSS services. To understand the water supply and sanitation demand and assess the present scenario, and to analyze gaps and bottlenecks, the project intends to conduct rapid assessment of RWSS coverage and service delivery. The prospects and possibilities of participatory planning and implementation strategies for improved health and environment sanitation of the community, also constitutes a part of this assessment. 1.3 Objectives of the Assignment The key objectives of the study are to assist Project Support Unit of the Rural Water Supply Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh to: Assess the Status of the water supply and sanitation sector. This will broadly focus on two areas: o the impact of government programs, assessed in terms of access, use and sustainability as well as coverage and o the status of sector reforms (SRP, TSC and Swajaladhara) and key lessons learnt. Identify areas that need to be reinforced in order to institutionalize sector reform throughout the State. The analysis will focus on gaps and bottlenecks associated with policies, institutions, financial systems, HRD and resources, and will relate to sanitation and hygiene promotion as well as water supply CEMT 12

Identify and analyze successful approaches/ strategies/ resources/ institutional arrangements that have been (or could be) utilized to address the critical areas Assess demand and supply for RWSS services and to provide a broad overview of the extent to which the demand for RWS services are being met in the state, leading to efficient water demand management system Assess the needs for a drinking water schemes, prospects and possibilities for a participatory planning, implementation strategies, relevance and appropriateness of health education and sanitation activities in a rapid and dependable manner 1.4 Methodology The study used participatory methodology extensively. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from multiple sources, using context-specific tools. Data source included a combination of house hold interviews, FGDs, Participatory Mapping. Open Discussions and Unobtrusive Observations, in addition to analysis of secondary data. A judicious mix of these techniques enabled us to dwell into the depth of various issues. A total of 21 villages representing three geographical regions (Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana) were selected for the study. Of the 21 villages selected, 18 belonged to Single Village Scheme (SVS) category and 3 were from Multi Village Schemes (MVS). With average household surveys of about 90 per village, a total of 1889 households were covered under the study. The data source, tools and instruments used are shown in the matrix below: Data Source Households Village Panchayat and Members Women Group Member User Groups at water source State and District Officials Toots Used Semi structure interview schedule Mapping Habitation Profile Focus Group Discussions Focus Group Discussions Observation at water points Focus Group Discussions Secondary data collection Focus Group Discussions 1.4.1 Disclosure Workshops Three regional level and one state level disclosure workshops were organized to disseminate the study findings to the stakeholders and invite suggestions/ inputs. The regional public consultation workshops were held in Vijayawada, Kadapa and Hyderabad on 2 nd, 4 th and 7 th of June 2008. The State level public consultation workshop was held in Hyderabad on 30 th June 2008. A report on the disclosure workshops is furnished in Annexure 3. CEMT 13

2 Status of Rural Water Supply 2.1 Introduction Drinking water supply being a State subject, funds are allocated in the budget of the State and then devolved to the subsequent tiers of local administration. To assist the states in implementing safe drinking water services across the country, the National Drinking Water Mission (NDWM) was introduced in 1986 by the Government of India, which was renamed as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission in 1991. The objectives of this Mission were multifold including provision for larger coverage of villages, promoting appropriate technology mix and creating awareness on safe drinking water. Despite substantial investments in the sector, the government is still facing the challenge of under-coverage and poor quality of water and sanitation related services, especially in the rural areas. The root cause of this problem lies in the following factors: i. Depletion ground water table across the country, leading to the inability of GPs to meet the minimum supply standards. ii. Over emphasis on new construction and poor attention to maintenance of on-going programs. iii. Lack of peoples participation in planning and selecting appropriate schemes and subsequently in operations and maintenance. Rural Water Supply Status in Andhra Pradesh Till recently, the implementation of rural water supply program was the responsibility of the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (PRED) and since the beginning of FY 2006-2007, this responsibility was handed over to the Department of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department under the Panchayati Raj. Consequently, the Panchayati Raj institutions are involved in the implementation of schemes, particularly in selecting the location of stand post, spot sources, operation and maintenance, fixing of water tariff etc. The state of Andhra Pradesh has adopted 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) as the norm for the supply of potable drinking water. Based on a predetermined criteria, villages are grouped into four specific categories viz. i) Fully covered (FC) ii) Partially Covered (PC) iii) Not Covered (NC) and iv) No Safe Source. Rural Water Supply Status of AP Partially Covered 53% Not Covered 1% No Safe Source 3% Fully Covered 43% Figure 2: Rural Water Supply Status of AP CEMT 14

The Department of Rural Water Supply has launched various schemes for providing drinking water supply to the rural population in the state. As tabulated below, out of 72,192 habitations 51 % of are fully covered (FC) with water supply schemes, while 47% were partially covered (PC). This brings the number of habitations either fully covered or partially covered to a total of about 70,837 (98% of total habitations). Approximately less than 1% of the habitations still remain uncovered and less than 2% habitations do not have any safe source. The aim of the department is to cover all rural habitations with water supply schemes, so that all rural citizens have access to safe drinking water. Table 1: Rural Water Supply Status of AP as on 1-4-2009 S No Category No of Habitation % Coverage 1 Fully Covered (FC) 37000 51.25 2 Partially Covered (PC) 33837 46.87 3 Not Covered (NC) 457 0.63 4 No Safe Source (NSS) 898 1.24 6 Total 72192 100 The district wise total coverage is given in table below. Among the districts of AP, Chittoor district has the most number of FC habitations followed by Visakhapatnam district. The most number of NC habitations are in Visakhapatnam district followed by Vizianagaram district. With regard to NSS habitations Prakasam district tops the list followed by Nalgonda district, as both districts are fluoride affected. Table 2: District wise Water Supply Coverage S No District Name FC PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 NC NSS TOTAL 1 Anantapur 2347 50 202 310 426 17 1 3353 2 Srikakulam 1683 353 623 571 627 8 55 3920 3 Karimnagar 283 202 359 666 657 0 95 2262 4 West Godavari 1302 147 173 211 327 0 4 2164 5 Kadapa 1156 377 1096 1033 775 0 7 4444 6 Chittoor 9010 158 542 635 588 7 2 10942 7 Nizamabad 987 148 161 147 192 0 0 1635 8 Nalgonda 1692 70 177 708 642 4 80 3373 9 Rangareddy 503 108 415 361 286 0 13 1686 10 Medak 942 60 273 486 621 1 0 2383 11 Guntur 713 100 234 270 261 2 116 1696 12 Visakhapatnam 2050 450 1004 897 711 326 10 5448 13 Kurnool 628 46 226 315 282 0 21 1518 14 Khammam 1733 206 340 398 471 8 14 3170 15 Adilabad 1992 456 312 401 444 0 9 3614 16 Warangal 1645 519 384 502 477 14 1 3542 17 East Godavari 1166 412 357 367 539 30 32 2903 18 Krishna 1721 144 116 171 306 1 32 2491 CEMT 15

19 Vizianagaram 1834 177 250 279 253 29 52 2874 20 Prakasam 643 297 385 374 339 6 298 2342 21 Nellore 1594 54 329 506 520 4 6 3013 22 Mahaboobnagar 1376 390 625 570 408 0 50 3419 TOTAL 37000 4924 8583 10178 10152 457 898 72192 Source: WaterSoft -the web based MIS at RWSS, GoAP 2.1.1 Sector Reforms Project The Sector Reforms Project in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation programme was introduced in April, 1999. The aim of Sector Reforms project was to replace the centralized, supply-driven Rural Water Supply Programme by a people- centered, decentralized, demand-driven and community-based rural water supply programme. The project elements include adoption of a demand-driven approach based on empowerment of villagers to ensure their participation in planning and implementation; decision-making in the choice of scheme design and management arrangement. It also focused on village level capacity building and ensuring an integrated service delivery mechanism by streamlining the functions of the agencies involved in project implementation and ten per cent capital cost sharing by users. The Sector Reforms Project has been implemented in 67 districts spread over 26 states of the country. Sector Reforms in Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh is predominantly rural with 73 percent of the population living in villages. Rural literacy is 55 percent as against all India average of 59 percent. Andhra Pradesh faces widespread water scarcity, partly because of recurring droughts. About 548 mandals in the state have been declared as water stress areas since groundwater levels have fallen deeper than 10 meters. As per estimates of the state groundwater department, the present utilization of groundwater in the state is 1.30 m ha m, leaving a balance of 1.76 m ha m for further utilization. It is apparent that in order to sustain further growth and development, limited water resources would have to be utilized more efficiently and water resource conservation measures including groundwater recharge would have to be undertaken. Despite large investments in providing drinking water supply, a number of habitations that were earlier fully covered have begun to re-emerge as partially covered or not covered habitations due to drying up of sources. Since 2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken some measures to decentralize delivery of RWSS in the state. These include Responsibility of O&M for SVS transferred to GP s; ZP to sanction projects costing up to 25 lakh; Signed an MoU with GOI committing to undertake activity mapping; creation of standing committees at GP level and Panchayat sector budgets; Proposal for PRED to deploy 50% of staff to PRIs for minor works Funds devolved to PRIs for O&M CEMT 16

Decentralization of service delivery has brought a number of operational and institutional shortcomings to the surface in Andhra Pradesh. The main operational shortcomings include non-availability of spares for handpumps at lower levels. Availability of spares was limited to district headquarters only and this is partly responsible for inefficient discharge of O &M responsibility. The possibility of involving Water and Sanitation Committee as a facilitator by keeping stock of spares and enrolling some pump mechanics with them are being considered as a solution to this problem. Poor availability of consumables for water treatment is another problem. The main institutional constraints pertain to poor electricity supply which made it difficult especially for MVS villages to provide assured water supply. Further, pump operators who are in charge of maintaining of piped water schemes are not given proper training and therefore, unable to carry out their jobs. Another serious institutional problem is non-release or delayed release of grants to GPs for installation of hand pumps. As a result GPs have been reluctant to take over O&M of piped schemes. It was also noticed that not enough attention is given preventive maintenance. Lessons from Sector Reform Initiatives The sector reform measures have failed to create any remarkable improvements in service delivery. While O&M of some schemes have been transferred to GPs, assets continue to be created by the state government. Thus the link between investment decisions and O&M requirements are weak. It is also experienced that most funding comes in the form of projects and therefore, most of the functionaries are positioned at the state government level. There are no tariffs for hand pumps and public stand posts in Andhra Pradesh. For house connections a one time deposit of Rs. 600 and a monthly tariff of Rs. 30. Billing for electricity is rare. GPs are vested with the responsibility of fixing and collecting water tariffs and bill collection is not done regularly. 2.1.2 Swajaladhara The GOI has launched the Swajaladhara programme (2002) under reforms initiatives with community contribution. The community contribution under the program is envisaged to be by a minimum of 30% of the village population. Emphasizing the need for community ownership, the onus of post-completion maintenance is shifted to the community by collecting water tariff from users. As indicated in the table below, a total of 3,483 schemes have been completed over the past five years, with the highest number of schemes having been implemented in the year 2002-03. Table 3: Villages Covered under Swajaladhara S No Year No of Schemes 1 2002 03 1592 2 2003 04 433 3 2004 05 676 4 2005 06 629 5 2006 07 153 Total 3483 CEMT 17

Key Lessons Learnt Lessons learnt from Swajaladhara program are: The empowerment of the PRI institutions is a viable and sustainable option for scaling up the decentralized service delivery model. There is a need for consistent policy throughout the state, irrespective of the sources of financing. The PRIs need to be well integrated into the institutional design of the project and organic links between user committees and GPs are essential for institutional sustainability. The partial financing of capital cost by the users as well as user management and financing of O&M is a viable development concept. The sustainability issue is best addressed by emphasis on beneficiary involvement and empowerment, and capacity building of state/local governments and communities, along with promotion of cost recovery. Swajaladhara reforms initiative with demand driven community approach has made impact limited to contributing to the scheme. Unlike operation, maintenance and management cost like salary of operators, periodic repair of the water supply schemes are born by Gram Panchayat but not by the concerned Community / User Group / Village Water and Sanitation Committee. The user charge collection hardly collected in few GPs and majority it GP responsibility. The role of Village Water and Sanitation Committee role was limited till scheme designing & commissioning under GP without statuary identity. The role of NGOs/CBOs is to mobilize and conduct Gram Sabha meetings. 2.2 Access to Drinking Water Supply This section deals with the accessibility of households to drinking water facilities in the villages based on the sample survey of 21 GPs villages in 10 districts. The data collected through the survey cover three different supply categories i.e. FC, PC and NSS. The break-up of the number of villages covered during the survey is presented in the table below: Table 4: Distribution of Sample Covered S No Category No of Villages 1 Partially Covered 1(PC1) 1 2 Partially Covered 2(PC2) 9 3 Partially Covered 3(PC3) 3 4 Partially Covered 4(PC4) 1 5 No Safe Source (NSS) 7 Total 21 The source of water, the problems faced by the villagers in the accessibility to water supply, quantity and quality of water used, adequacy of water, timings of water availability, time taken for collection of water, water handling practices etc are analyzed in the following sections.. CEMT 18

2.2.1 Coverage of Selected Villages Overall Situation: A total of 21 villages were covered under the survey, of which 18 were SVS and 3 were MVS villages. For 16 (76.19%) villages groundwater was the main source of supply, while the balance 5 villages (23.81%) depend on surface water sources. The surface water is either being drawn from river or canal based schemes. Table 5: Distribution of Type of Water Supply Scheme by Source Type of Water Supply Scheme by Source SVS MVS Total Source % (Nos.) % (Nos.) % (Nos.) Surface 16.67(3) 66.67(2) 23.81(5) Groundwater 83.33(15) 33.33(1) 76.19(16) Total 100(18) 100(3) 100(21) Detailed Analysis: Of the 16 villages covered by ground water based schemes, only one village is MVS and the balance 15 villages are covered under SVS. Five villages are covered by Surface Water schemes, with 3 of them being SVS and 2 being MVS. Of the three MVS villages (surface and groundwater source taken together), two depend on surface water where and one village is dependent on ground water. This clearly indicates the scale of operation of SVS and the high dependence on groundwater for drinking water schemes in Andhra Pradesh. 2.2.2 Source of Water Supply 53.47 Source of HH Water Supply 24.09 9.63 4.18 2.75 0.64 5.08 0.16 SVS MVS Own Own Public Public HandpumpDugwellHandpumpDugwell Pvt. Borewell Rivulet Figure 3: Source of HH Water Supply Overall Situation: An analysis of source of water supply vis-à-vis SVS and MVS has been made and the results are presented in the table below. Of the 1889 respondents, more than half (53. 47%) belong to SVS villages and 9.63% belong to MVS villages. The balance 36.9% depend on a variety of sources ranging from privately owned hand pumps and bore wells to sources belonging to the public domain such as public hand pumps and rivulets. CEMT 19

Table 6: Source of HH Water Supply Source of HH Water Supply SVS MVS Total % % % Freq SVS 62.35 0.00 53.47 1010 MVS 0.00 67.66 9.63 182 Own Handpump 0.31 27.51 4.18 79 Own Dugwell 2.96 1.49 2.75 52 Public Handpump 27.90 1.12 24.09 455 Public Dugwell 0.62 0.74 0.64 12 Pvt. Borewell 5.68 1.49 5.08 96 Rivulet 0.19 0.00 0.16 3 Total 100 (1620) 100 (269) 100 1889 Detailed Analysis: The detailed analysis of responses indicate that, of the 1620 responses under the SVS, about 8.95% (own hand pump, own dug well and private bore well) depend entirely on privately owned sources; where as a large majority (over 90%) depend entirely on public sources other than SVS (public hand pump, public dug well, rivulet) When the same analysis is applied to MVS villages, the pre-dominance of privately owned sources goes as high as 30.49%. 2.2.3 Public Standpost and Users in Sample Villages Overall Situation: On an average there were 17 stand posts in a village and about 82 households used them for their water needs. In other words, for every 4 households there is one stand post. Table 7: Public Standpost Status & Users in Sample Villages Public Stand post Status & Users Avg. No of Standpost Avg. No of HH Using HH Standpost Ratio SVS 18 76 4 MVS 9 170 19 Total 17 82 5 Detailed Analysis: The detailed analysis shows that there are 18 stand posts in SVS village and about 76 households depended on them. In MVS village the number of users per stand post is 19 Households and there are 9 standpost per village. CEMT 20

2.2.4 Quality of Water Table 8: HH Perception on Water Quality HH Perception on Water Quality SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Good 68.02 85.50 70.51 1332 Bad 31.98 14.50 29.49 557 Total 100 100 100 1889 Overall Situation: Based on the visual and sensory observation of drinking water, the quality of water is classified into two categories: Good (sweet, colour less, odourless) and Bad (salty/sour, coloured, odour, fluoride content). While, close to 71% of the respondents perceived the quality of water to be Good, about 29% reported it to be Bad. When this analysis is applied to SVS and MVS villages separately, the perception of Good increases significantly under MVS villages (85%). Detailed Analysis: Further analysis of the quality of water (MVS and SVS) and the reasons for the perception of Bad quality points out issues as detailed out in the table below: Table 9: HH Perception on Quality of Water Quality of Water SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Hard Water 21.43 28.21 21.90 122 Saline 12.16 10.26 12.03 67 Bad Smell 6.37 12.82 6.82 38 Muddy Water 3.67 30.77 5.57 31 Fluoride 54.63 0.00 50.81 283 Can't Say/ Don't Know 1.74 17.95 2.87 16 Total 100 100 100 557 While the problem of high fluoride content is the key issue under SVS villages (54.63%), this problem is completely absent under MVS villages. The next level of quality problems under SVS villages includes hardness (21.43%), salinity (12.16%) and bad smell (6.37%). The major quality problems under MVS villages are reported to be i) muddy water (30.77%) followed by ii) hard water (28.21%) and iii) Bad smell (12.82%). It may be pertinent to note that drinking water quality problems such as hardness and salinity are directly related to the source and difficult to overcome. However, the problems of muddiness and bad smell can be efficiently managed. CEMT 21

2.2.5 Quantity of Water Overall Situation: The overall analysis of quantity of water supplied per capita per day indicates the following: i. Only a small fraction of the surveyed households (0.42% and 3.18%) get supply either less than 20 litres per capita per day or more than 50 litres per capita per day, respectively. ii. A large majority of the households (96.4%) fall in the three middle bands viz. 20-30 litres, 30-40 litres and 40-50 litres per capita per day. iii. Considering the minimum supply standard of 40 litres of supply per capita per day, the percentage of households falling in the just about sufficient (30-40 litres), deficient (20-30 litres) and extremely inadequate (less than 20 litres) supply ranges works out to be 85.66%. Table 10: Households by Quantity of Water Used (in liters per person per day) Households by Quantity of water used (in litres per person per day) Quantity of water used (per day per person in litres) SVS MVS Total % % % Less than 20 3.64 0.37 3.18 20 30 35.68 23.79 33.99 30 40 46.91 57.99 48.49 40 50 13.33 17.47 13.92 More than 50 0.43 0.37 0.42 Total 100 (1620) 100 (269) 100 (1889) Detailed Analysis: Water is used for multiple domestic purposes. Data from the household survey was analyzed to understand the use of water by households for various purposes, under SVS and MVS. The results are presented in the following table. 15 10 5 0 Average Quantity of water used for different purposes (per person in litre) Drinking Cooking Washing Bathing Washing Toilets Utensils Cloths SVS MVS Total Figure 4: Avg. Quality of Water used for Diff Purposes It is evident from the results presented in the table below that there is no significant variation in the use of water, whether SVS and MVS. While the average total consumption is about 34.46 litres per capita per day, close to one third (11.36 litres) of it is used for washing clothes; followed by 7.60 litres for bathing and washing utensils (6.08 litres) stands third in consumption quantity. Cooking (4.11 litres), drinking (3.11 litres) and toilet use (2.20 litres) constitute the last three in descending order. CEMT 22

Table 11: Average Quantity of Water Used for Different Purposes Average Quantity of water used for different purposes (per person in litre) SVS MVS Total Drinking 3.12 3.05 3.11 Cooking 4.04 4.56 4.11 Washing Utensils 6.07 6.12 6.08 Bathing 7.64 7.33 7.60 Washing Cloths 11.09 13.02 11.36 Toilets 2.19 2.23 2.20 Total 34.15 36.30 34.46 2.2.6 Frequency of water Supply Overall Situation: Although, community members long for uninterrupted water supply through the day, the panchayat authorities find it difficult to meet their expectations, due to various constraints, including operational constraints. Frequency of Water Supply 63.26 28.10 8.64 Daily Alternate Day Once 3 Days & More Figure 5: Frequency of Water Supply The frequency of water supply varies from once daily, once every alternate day and once three days and more and the results of the survey are tabulated below. About 63% of the households receive daily water supply and about 28% on alternate days. About 9% of the households receive water once in three days or more than three days. In some instances, more than three days may mean as sporadic as once a week. CEMT 23

Table 12: Households by Frequency of Water Supply Freq of Water Supply SVS MVS Total Frequency % % % Freq Daily 65.84 48.90 63.26 754 Alternate Day 24.06 50.55 28.10 335 Once 3 Days & More 10.10 0.55 8.64 103 Total 100(1010) 100(182) 100 1192 Detailed Analysis: There is some significant correlation between the type of scheme and the frequency of water supply. SVS fares better as compared to MVS in terms of frequency of supply. While close to 66% of SVS villages receive daily water supply, the percentage of households receiving the same frequency of supply is far lower (less than 49%) amongst MVS villages. Less than a quarter (24.06%) of SVS households fall in the next range (once every alternate day), where as more than half (50.55%) of the surveyed households under MVS have reported to be falling in that range. Therefore, households covered by MVS schemes suffer the most in terms of infrequent supply. Further analysis of the duration of water supply (disengaged from the frequency of supply-whether daily, alternate day or once in three days) clearly indicates the following: i. About 22% receive water supply for less than half-an-hour ii. About 56% receive water supply between half-an-hour and an hour iii. About 10% receive water supply between one to two hours iv. Only about 12% receive water supply for more than two hours Table 13: Households by Duration of Water Supply Duration of Water Supply (SVS/MVS) SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Less than ½ Hour 24.16 7.14 21.56 257 1/2-1 Hour 52.08 76.37 55.79 665 1-2 Hour 9.21 16.48 10.32 123 More than 2 Hours 14.55 0.00 12.33 147 Total 100 100 100 1192 2.2.7 Regularity of water supply Regularity in water supply is one key feature that ensures reliability of service levels. If water is supplied at pre-fixed timings every day, people plan their daily schedule accordingly. Therefore, during the household survey data were collected on the timing of water supply and the results are presented below. The data do not bring out any significant difference between SVS and MVS in the timing of supply. Only about 13% of the households reported that there is a specific timing for water supply, indicating that the supply is based on a specific schedule. CEMT 24

However, over 87% reported that the supply is completely unscheduled and unplanned. This creates inconvenience to community members, including demands for sudden adjustments in household chores and other daily tasks. Table 14: Households by Timing of Water Supply Timing of Water Supply (SVS/MVS) SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Specific Timing 13.37 10.44 12.92 154 No Specific Timing 86.63 89.56 87.08 1038 Total 100 100 100 1192 2.2.8 Distance to Water Source Overall Situation: The proximity analysis of water source indicates that close to 70% of the households have their water sources within 50 meters, where as only about 1.34% have to travel more than 500 meters to collect water, the rest 29.28% falling in the three in between distance ranges i.e. 50-100 meters (14.26%), 100-200 meters (5.29%) and 200-500 meters (9.73%). Table 15: Households by Distance from Water Source Distance from Source SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Less than 50 mts. 64.75 95.05 69.38 827 50-100 mts. 15.94 4.95 14.26 170 100-200 mts. 6.24 0.00 5.29 63 200-500 mts. 11.49 0.00 9.73 116 More than 500 mts. 1.58 0.00 1.34 16 Total 100 100 100 1192 Detailed Analysis: The disaggregated proximity data between SVS and MVS shows a clear distinction between the two. The supply source of MVS is closer to habitations, with 95.05% reporting that the distance is less than 50 meters for them, the balance 5% the households have to cover a distance of about 50-100 meters to collect water. It is also evident that no MVS households are required to travel beyond that distance. Compared to this, SVS households have no clear distance advantage. Only about 64.75% of the households cover a distance of less than 50 meters, where as 1.58% has to cover more than 500 meters to collect water; the balance 33.67% of the households fall in the other three distance ranges. This indicates that the drudgery of water collection weighs heavier on SVS households as compared to MVS households. CEMT 25

2.2.9 Time taken for collection of water Overall Situation: The time taken to collect water includes the travel time, queuing up time and the time taken to fill up the containers. The pressure of water supply at the tap point and the quantity of water to-be collected also determine the total time taken to collect water. The time taken to collect water has been divided into four categories and accordingly data were collected and the analysis is presented below. Overall, only about 43% of the households have reported to be spending less than 30 minutes to collect water and about 36% spend between 30 minutes to one hour. Significant number (19.04%) of households have reported to be spending between one to two hours, where as 1.17% of the households spend more than two hours. Table 16: Households by Time Taken for Water Collection Time taken for water collection SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Less than ½ hr 41.49 53.30 43.29 516 1/2-1 hr 35.84 40.11 36.49 435 1-2 hr 21.29 6.59 19.04 227 More than 2 hrs 1.39 0.00 1.17 14 Total 100 100 100 1192 2.2.10 Collection of water Overall Situation: Who collects water is also determined by the distance to the source and quantity of water required. Collection of water is considered essentially a woman s domain, in nearly 63% of the households interviewed. In about 4% of the households, it is considered as man s responsibility, the balance 33% reporting it as joint responsibility of men and women. Table 17: Households by Member involved in Fetching Water Member Involved in Fetching Water SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Male 4.36 3.85 4.28 51 Female 66.73 42.86 63.09 752 Both 28.91 53.30 32.63 389 Total 100 100 100 1192 Detailed Analysis: Water collection as an activity is dependent on various factors such as distance to be traveled, timing of supply, pressure at the point and queuing time. Therefore, it is a common phenomenon that multiple members (men or women) are involved in the task. The data indicates that, single member (only one member, mainly CEMT 26

woman) collecting water is more prevalent in the surveyed households, with about 60.91% reporting so. In about 36.07% of the households two members are involved and three or more than three members are involved in the balance 3.02% of the households. Table 18: Number of Members of Family Involved in Water Collection No of Member of Family Involved in Water Collection No of People SVS MVS Total % % % Freq 1 64.95 38.46 60.91 726 2 32.08 58.24 36.07 430 3 2.18 0.55 1.93 23 More than 3 0.79 2.75 1.09 13 Total 100 100 100 1192 2.3 Rural School Water Supply Overall Situation: Close to 81% of the rural schools have the benefit of water supply in the school premises, where as the balance 19% do not have any such facilities. In the absence of water supply facility within the school, such schools use public taps or other sources available in the neighboring areas. Rural Schoo l Water Supply in Sampled Villages 80.95 19.05 Schools with Water Facilities Schools without water facilities Figure 6: Rural School Water Supply in Sampled Villages Table 19: School Water Supply Status in Sample Villages School Water Supply Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Yes 100 80 75 80.95 17 No 0 20 25 19.05 4 Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21 CEMT 27

Regional Analysis: There is some variation in the water supply availability between the three regions viz. Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana. While all schools in Andhra region enjoy the facility of having water supply within the school, only 80% and 75% of the schools in Rayalaseema and Telangana regions have such facilities. Table 20: Working Condition of School Water Supply Working Condition of School Water Supply Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Working 75 100 100 94.12 16 Not Working 25 0 0 5.88 1 Total 100 100 100 100 17 A visual inspection of the working conditions of the school water supply was done during the field survey. The working condition is judged by factors such as the smooth flow of water, ability to turn-off and turn-on the tap without difficulty, absence of leakage and conditions surrounding the tap point etc. It was observed that close to 95% of the water points were in good working condition. However, the regional break-up indicates that 25% of the school water supply in Andhra regions are in Poor condition, mainly due to lack of proper upkeep. When this inadequacy is factored in, the overall situation of water supply availability in Andhra region is brought down to 75%. CEMT 28

3 Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh 3.1 Introduction The Department of Rural Water and Sanitation (DRWS) has initiated various schemes for rural sanitation programme, including Government of India sponsored Total Sanitation Programme. The present status shows that about 53% of total HH are covered out of which 45% HH are above poverty line and only 58% are below poverty line. Progress achieved so far in sanitation sector as per TSC Total Households 53.02 Households Above Poverty Line 44.59 Households Below Poverty Line 57.71 Figure 7: Progress achieved so far in sanitation sector as per TSC Table 21: Status of Rural Sanitation Coverage in AP Progress achieved so far in sanitation sector as per TSC as on 18 May 2008 Total Households Households with IHHL % Coverage Households Below Poverty Line 6521091 3763039 57.71 Households Above Poverty Line 3629688 1618591 44.59 Total Households 10150779 5381630 53.02 3.2 Total Sanitation Campaign Total Sanitation Campaign is a comprehensive programme to ensure sanitation facilities in rural areas with broader goal to eradicate the practice of open defecation. TSC as a part of reform principles was initiated in 1999 when Central Rural Sanitation Programme was restructured making it demand driven and people centered. It follows a principle of low to no subsidy where a nominal subsidy in the form of incentive is given to rural poor households for construction of toilets. CEMT 29

Lesson Learnt Although the TSC was launched in 1999, the pace of progress has been gradual. Though most TSC was included in programmes, financial allocations for sanitation often are not adequate due to lack of priority attached to the programme which often takes a back seat to water which is a more politically important area The second reason has been less emphasis on Capacity building and IEC activities with inadequate capacity building at the cutting edge level for implementing a demand driven project -giving emphasis on social mobilization and IEC. The implementation machinery at the field level, which is quite familiar with working of the supply driven, target oriented schemes of the government need to be sensitized further to the challenges of this demand driven approach. For this change of attitude and ways of functioning of the persons responsible for the implementation of the scheme is needed. Management of this change in approach requires more attention. Some of the other challenges are existence of high subsidy schemes, provision of low cost and region specific technological options, Quality of construction, usage and operation and maintenance of the sanitation facilities. 3.2.1 NGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP-Clean Village Award) was instituted by the Government of India on 2nd October 2003 to recognize, encourage and facilitate PRIs and those individuals and organisations that work with them to achieve total sanitation. The award was designed based on the success achieved by PRIs in Nandigram II block in East Midnapur district of West Bengal to achieve full sanitation coverage and eliminate the practice of open defecation. Using innovative financial incentives to ignite positive sanitation and hygiene behavioural changes in rural communities was unheard a strategy prior to the launching of NGP in India, which has certainly revolutionised the means and methods of promoting the rural sanitation on mass scale. This incentive model is showing how an incentive strategy can motivate the PRIs in taking up sanitation promotion activities and shift their priorities from hardware and infrastructure projects. Eligible Village Panchayats, Blocks, and Districts are those that achieve (a) 100% sanitation coverage of individual households, (b) 100% school sanitation coverage, (c) free from open defecation and (d) maintain environmental cleanliness. Also eligible for the award are individuals and organisations, which have been the driving force for effecting full sanitation coverage in their respective geographical areas. CEMT 30

Table 22: Number of Awards Winning GPs in Last 3 Years No of Award Winning GPs in Last 3 Years S No Year No of GPs 1 2005-2 2006 10 3 2007 143 Source: DDWS, GoI The above table shows that from no award in 2005 to 10 GPs wining in 2006 and gradually 143 GPs won awards in 2007. NGP has succeeded in setting off a healthy competition among GPs. The award has brought about a silent revolution in the sector of sanitation. The pride and honour associated with receiving an award from the President of India is a reason in itself for elected heads of GPs to take a personal interest in covering all households and schools with sanitation facilities under TSC. To meet all the eligibility criteria, they pay attention to eradicating open defecation as well as solid and liquid waste management in villages. However, sustainability of open defecation free status attained by the GPs is a matter of concern. India has a history of having slipped back habitations with respect to water supply. The NGP has created a country wide enthusiasm and a competitive spirit amongst Gram Panchayats. The NGP contributed in accelerating the pace of the TSC which has been operational since 1999. 3.3 Individual Household Latrine The practice of open defecation is wide spread in almost all the villages. It is carried out either in the open fields or in earmarked corners of the village. In some extreme cases it is carried out in any open space, whether within the village or outside. HH Having Latrine Have IHL 34% Donot Have IHL 66% Figure 8: HH having Latrines CEMT 31

Overall Situation: The phenomenon of owning of individual household latrines (IHHL) is rare across the state. Overall, only less than 35% of the households own latrines. The situation is further worsened when we consider the fact that use of latrine is at least partly de-linked from owning one (refer usage). There is enough empirical evidence to indicate that owning a latrine does not necessarily mean putting it to use, because open defecation has a general social sanction. Table 23: Region wise Households with Latrine Region wise HH Having Latrine Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Yes 45.27 22.39 36.25 34.36 649 No 54.73 77.61 63.75 65.64 1240 Total 100(296) 100(451) 100(1142) 100 1889 Regional Analysis: The region-wise break-up of ownership of household toilets present a dismal picture. The percentage of households not owning household toilets range from a minimum of 55% in Andhra region to a maximum of about 78% in Rayalaseema region with Telangana region falling somewhere in between (64%). The sanitation situation and public hygiene in all the three regions therefore, is very poor and deserves a high priority attention. 3.3.1 Type of Latrine Region wise Type of Latrine 74.63 96.04 61.84 11.11 0.75 24.63 27.05 2.97 0.99 Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Dry Pit Twin Pit Pour Flush Figure 9: Region wise Type of Latrine Overall Situation: The quality of construction of toilets vary across the state depending on the material availability, space for construction, masonry skills etc. It was observed that most of the households (close to 70%) were using the pour flush type of toilets. Dry pit CEMT 32

latrine was the next most popular type with 23% of the households opting for it and the Twin pit type of home latrines was the lowest at about 7%. Table 24: Households by Type of Latrine Type of Latrine Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Dry Pit 24.63 2.97 27.05 22.80 148 Twin Pit 0.75 0.99 11.11 7.40 48 Pour Flush 74.63 96.04 61.84 69.80 453 Total 100 100 100 100 649 Regional Analysis: The regional analysis of type of latrine preferences clearly highlights that: i. Pour Flush toilets are highly popular in Rayalaseema with an overwhelming 96% opting for it. Twin pit toilets are least popular in this region, with only less than 3% opting for it. ii. Andhra region and Telangana region also a clear preference for Pour Flush toilets with about 75% and 62% opting for it respectively. 3.3.2 Usage Region wise Latrine U sage 32.37 20.79 25.89 9.70 Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total Figure 10: Region wise Latrine Usage Overall Situation: The usage of latrine is about 25.89% in the state, which is a pointer to the fact that close to 75% of households do not use toilets, despite owning. Typical example is: Valbapur village in Elakathurtthy mandal of Karimnagar district. This village won the NGP award in 2006, but about 20HH (of a total of 300 HH) continue with their open defecation practices. CEMT 33

Table 25: Households by Latrine Usage Latrine Usage Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Yes 9.70 20.79 32.37 25.89 168 No 90.30 79.21 67.63 74.11 481 Total 100 100 100 100 649 Regional Analysis: The use of latrine is as low as 9.7% in Andhra where as it is relatively high in Telangana region (32.37%). In Rayalaseema region the use of toilets stands at 20.79%. Despite unknown reasons for this wide regional variation in toilet use, significant investments are required to inform and educate community members on the merits of toilet use and the link between water borne diseases and open defecation. 3.3.3 Reasons for not Using Latrines Table 26: Reasons for not using latrines Reasons for not using latrines Fear of pit getting filled fast 33.45 No Water supply in Latrine 16.5 Inconvenient in defecating in latrine 8.12 Smell 12.67 Defecating while in fields during work 15.39 Defecating near water sources 8.57 Not in habit of defecating in confined space 5.3 Total 100 Detailed Analysis: When asked the reasons for not using individual latrine many of the HH (33.45%) have fear of getting pit filled fast. About 17% HH have expressed incontinences in defecating in latrine that point to poor design and construction of latrine. 17% defecate while in fields during work and about 5% said that they are not in habit of defecating in confined places. 3.4 Open Defecation Table 27: Households who do not have Latrine Defecates HH Members who do not Have Latrine Defecates Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Public Latrine 0.62 0.29 0.41 0.40 5 Fields 99.38 99.71 99.59 99.60 1235 Total 100 100 100 100 1240 CEMT 34

Overall Situation: Response was sought to the question, from those who do not own toilets, where do they defecate and the results are tabulated above. A very high percentage (99.6%) responded that they do so in the open fields and only about 0.40% choosing public latrine options. 3.4.1 Site As indicated in the table below, the open fields are generally fall in the catchment areas of tanks, rivers, ponds and/or on the road side. In many villages these are very close to the drinking water source, thus posing a high risk of drinking water contamination. Table 28: Site of Open Defecation Site of Open Defecation Andhra Rayalaseema Region Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Near Water Source 9.26 25.14 33.93 28.23 350 Slope Ground 61.11 27.43 45.19 42.26 524 Catchments 3.70 42.29 11.54 19.19 238 On Road Side 25.93 5.14 9.34 10.32 128 Total 100 100 100 100 1240 3.5 Environmental Sanitation 3.5.1 Solid Waste Disposal Solid Waste Disposal In Compost Pit 12% In Bins 12% In Front of House 32% Outside on Road 44% Figure 11: HH by Solid Waste Disposal Overall Situation: Indiscriminate disposal of garbage are observed in all the surveyed villages. Drainage maintenance is poor; they remain clogged at many places due to CEMT 35

careless dumping of solid wastes into the drains. Only about 12.28% of the households use compost pit options, with a large majority dumping the waste either on roads (44.10%) or filing it in bins (12.02%). Table 29: Households by Solid Waste Disposal Solid Waste Disposal Andhra Rayalaseema Region Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq In Bins 42.23 13.30 3.68 12.02 227 Outside on Road 48.99 56.98 37.74 44.10 833 In Front of House 8.45 13.97 44.57 31.60 597 In Compost Pit 0.34 15.74 14.01 12.28 232 Total 100 100 100 100 1889 Regional Analysis: Information regarding various methods of garbage disposal was sought from the surveyed households and based on the current practices they were categorized into four major types viz. i) bins ii) outside on the road iii) in front of the house and iv) in compost pits. Once again, large regional variation has been observed as summarized below: i. Dumping the waste in bins is observed by about 42% of the households in Andhra region, where as the same practice is relatively low in Rayalaseema (13.30%) and Telangana region (3.68%). ii. Disposing off waste outside the road is common in Rayalaseema (56.98%) and Andhra regions (48.99%), where as in Telangana this practice is lower with about 38% of the households practicing it. Dumping the waste infront of the house is practiced by about 45%, 14% and 9% in Telangana, Rayalaseema and Andhra regions respectively. The unhygienic practice of disposing off waste in the open (outside the road or in front of the house) is widely practiced in all the regions. iii. Compost pit option is used by a very few number of households in all the three regions (0.34% in Andhra 15.74% in Rayalaseema and 14.01% in Telangana). 3.5.2 Waste Water Disposal Table 30: Households by Waste Water Disposal HH Waste Water Disposal Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Drain 67.91 2.22 40.98 35.94 679 Soak Pit 25.34 93.13 31.61 45.31 856 Open 6.76 4.66 27.41 18.74 354 Total 100 100 100 100 1889 CEMT 36

Overall Situation: At an aggregate level, 45% of the households use soak pit for waste water disposal, followed by 36% opting for drains. About 19% leave the waste water in the open. HH Waste Water Disposal Telangana Region 40.98 31.61 27.41 Rayalaseema Region 2.22 93.13 4.66 Andhra Region 67.91 25.34 6.76 Drain Soak Pit Open Figure 12: HH Waste Water Disposal Regional Analysis: The region-wise analysis offers a different trend. While in Andhra region, disposing off the waste water in drains is the most frequently used option (68%), in the Rayalaseema, soak pits take a precedent with an overwhelming majority (93%) choosing that option. In the Telangana region, it is roughly an even three way spilt between Drains (41%), Soak pits (32%) and Open Disposal (27%). 3.5.3 Sewage Disposal Table 31: Household by Sewage Disposal HH Sewage Disposal Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Pit/ Own Septic Tank 96.27 87.13 92.27 92.30 599 Let in Open Ground 2.24 6.93 2.90 3.39 22 Others (Drains) 1.49 5.94 4.83 4.31 28 Total 100 100 100 100 649 It is interesting to note that 92% of HH which have ISL are connected to own septic tank. Only 3% HH let out the sewage in open ground and rest 5% chose other options, including letting it off in the drains. CEMT 37

3.5.4 Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal Table 32: Households by Fodder Waste/Dung Disposal Disposal of Fodder Waste/ Dung Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq House Back Yard 85.71 44.38 51.91 52.77 276 Outside Village 12.24 53.13 41.08 42.07 220 Compost Pit 2.04 2.50 7.01 5.16 27 Total 100 100 100 100 523 Overall Situation: Live stock related waste is another major challenge faced by most villages. State-wide analysis indicates that about 53% of HH dispose it off in the house backyard and about 42% leave it outside the village. Only about 5% use compost pit option. This high percentage of unhygienic practice of livestock waste disposal turns out to be a breeding ground for flies, mosquitoes and other insects. Regional Analysis: Region-wise figures as shown in the table above indicate a high incidence of unhygienic practices of fodder waste/dung disposal (back yard of the house and/or outside the village) across three regions. 3.6 Rural School Sanitation De tails of SCHOOL TOILETS Achie ve d in Andhr a Prade sh 113861 57421 2372 1999 24515 8729 1969 12624 13888 1325 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 2001-2002- 2003-2004- 2005-2006- 2007-2008- 09 Total Target Figure 13; Details of School Toilets Achieved in AP CEMT 38

Table 33: Rural School Sanitation Status in AP School Sanitation Status S No Category Total 1 Total No Schools 113861 2 Schools with Toilets 57421 3 % age Coverage 59.21 Out of 113861 schools (both Government & Private) in rural area about 59% school have sanitation facilities. And there is separate facility available for girl students in higher Secondary Schools. 3.6.1 School Sanitation in Sample Villages Overall Situation: The school sanitation facilities in the state appear to be reasonably good with about 76% of the schools having sanitation facilities. Table 34: School Sanitation Status in Sampled Villages School Sanitation Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Yes 25 100 83.33 76.19 16 No 75 0 16.67 23.81 5 Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21 Table 35: Girl Sanitation Facilities in Schools in Sampled Villages Girl Sanitation Facilities in Schools Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Yes 100 60 90 81.25 13 No 0 40 10 18.75 3 Total 100 100 100 100 16 Regional Analysis: The region-wise analysis of school sanitation was conducted from two distinct perspectives: i) existence of the facility in the schools and ii) provision for sanitation facilities exclusively for girls. From the perspective of having the facility, Rayalaseema region stands out with 100%, where as from the perspective of provision exclusively for girls, it is the Andhra region that stands out with an equal percentage. CEMT 39

Table 36: Working Condition of School Latrine Condition of School latrines Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Working 100 80 70 75 12 Not Working 0 20 30 25 4 Total 100 100 100 100 16 Field observations during the survey indicated that maintenance of sanitation facilities in the schools is very poor; many of them have been abandoned. Proper disposal of waste is absent and in almost all schools it is let out in open. The general condition of latrines in Andhra region is reasonably good and 100% of the latrines are in working condition; in Rayalaseema and Telangana regions only about 80% and 70% are in working condition. From the perspective of filed level analysis, one important caveat is in order. The high percentage of school latrines being in working condition does not necessarily mean, all of them are put to use children. Instances abound, where the area surrounding the toilets are used as open latrines, despite the toilets being in working condition and enough water supply is available. CEMT 40

4 Health and Hygiene 4.1 Status of Water Borne Diseases The Department of Health, has identified the Acute Diarrhoeal (including GE & Cholera), Viral Hepatitis and Enteric Fever three water born diseases. The following table shows number of cases of water borne diseases in last five years. Large number of cases of Acute Diarrhoeal (Including GE & Cholera) was reported in 2003. Similarly viral hepatitis in 2004 and enteric fever in 2005 were reported. Table 37: Cases of Water Borne Diseases in AP in Last 5 Years Cases of Water Borne Diseases in Last 5 Years S No Year Acute Diarrhoeal (Including GE & Cholera) Viral Hepatitis Enteric Fever 1 2003 1637915 23065 151882 2 2004 1361790 29590 148827 3 2005 1619537 29293 172549 4 2006 1331818 22990 129177 5 2007 1516818 10302 124414 4.2 Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages Overall Situation: Around 63% of HH in the state have reported that they have some knowledge about water borne diseases. However, deeper explorations revealed that their knowledge is limited to knowing about the occurrence diarrhea and other stomach related infections. Table 38: Households by Knowledge about Water Borne Diseases Knowledge About Water Borne Diseases Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Yes 72.30 73.61 57.09 63.42 1198 No 27.70 26.39 42.91 36.58 691 Total 100 100 100 100 1889 Regional Analysis: The Regional analysis of knowledge levels indicate that the awareness is relatively high (over 70%) in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions, where as Telangana region ranks low with only about 57%. CEMT 41

4.3 Incidence of Water Borne Diseases Using recall method, responses were sought from the community members as to how many people suffered from diseases in the last six months?. The responses are tabulated below. High incidence of Typhoid was reported with Rayalaseema region bearing the brunt of it (39.73% as compared to 4.39% in Andhra and 4.75% in Telangana region). Typhoid was followed by Malaria and the incidence of diarrhea was far lower across three regions. Table 39: Households by Incidence of Water Borne Diseases in Last 6 Months Incidence of Diseases in Last 6 Months Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Typhoid 4.39 39.73 4.75 13.02 245 Malaria 2.70 14.35 4.04 6.27 118 Diarrhea 0.68 0.89 0.09 0.37 7 GE 0.34 0.44 1.05 0.79 15 Cholera 1.01 1.33 0.18 0.58 11 JE 0.00 0.44 1.05 0.74 14 N=1889 4.4 Water Handling Practices Various practices are used in handling water at the household level. In more than 85% of the households water is consumed directly without any treatment, even in fluoride affected regions. About 11% HH filter the drinking water using cloth and those who boil and use candle filter are 2% of the households. Less than 2% of the households treat water using by mixing alum or herbs. Using safe practices like taking water with ladle from the container is very rare (6.56%), but protecting water container with cover or lid is widely practiced (69.35%). Customized tanks or tanks with taps are used in about 25% of the households. Table 40: Households by Water Treatment Methods Water Treatment Methods SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Use water without treating 83.89 82.16 83.64 1580 Boiling 2.47 1.49 2.33 44 Filtering by Cloth 11.85 15.99 12.44 235 Use Candle Filters 0.25 0.37 0.26 5 Mixing Alum/Herbs 1.54 0.00 1.32 25 Total 100 100 100 1889 CEMT 42

Table 41: Households by Drinking Water Handling Practices Drinking Water Handling SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Use Ladle 7.35 1.86 6.56 124 Cover or Lid 64.63 97.77 69.35 1310 Customized Pot/Tank with Tap 28.02 0.37 24.09 455 Total 100 100 100 1889 4.5 Personal Hygiene HH Drinking Water Handling Practice 6.56 69.35 24.09 Use Ladle Cover or Lid Customized Pot/Tank with Tap Figure 14: HH Drinking Water Handling Practices A series of questions were asked to understand the personal hygiene practices of respondents and the results are tabulated below. From the data it can be inferred that good personal hygiene practices exist in all the three regions with a high percentage of households washing hands before and after eating and also after defecation. Table 42: Households by Hand Wash Practices HH Member Practices Hand Wash Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Before & After Eating 14.53 3.10 3.85 5.35 101 After Defecation 11.82 3.33 1.93 3.81 72 Both 73.65 93.57 94.22 90.84 1716 Total 100 100 100 100 1889 CEMT 43

Table 43: Households by cleaning agents for hand washing Agent for Wash Hands Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Soap 83.11 87.80 92.82 90.10 1702 Mud 5.74 2.66 1.05 2.17 41 Ash 3.04 6.87 1.40 2.96 56 Only with Water 8.11 2.66 4.73 4.76 90 Total 100 100 100 100 1889 Soap is commonly used cleaning agent for washing hands followed by ash and mud. Only less than 5% of households wash hand with water alone. 4.6 Availability of Medical Facilities Table 44: Availability of Medical Facilities in Sample Villages Availability of Medical Facilities in Sampled Villages Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total Primary Health Center 50 60 25 38.10 Sub Center 0 40 50 38.10 Pvt. Medical Practitioner 50 60 66.67 61.90 Overall Situation: The availability of medical infrastructure in the sample villages were analyzed as shown in the table above and it is found that PHCs exist in about 38% of the villages and sub-centres also exist in an equal number of villages. Private Medical Practitioners are reported to be available in about 62% of the villages. Av ailability o f M edical Facilities 50 50 60 40 60 50 67 38 38 62 25 0 Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total Primary Health Center Sub Center Pvt. Medical Practitioner Figure 15: Availability of Medical Facilities in Sampled Villages CEMT 44

Regional Analysis: The status of health infrastructure varies significantly across three regions. Availability of PHC is the highest in Rayalaseema (60%) and lowest in Telangana (25%). While the villages surveyed in Andhra region have reported no sub-centres such facilities are available in about 40% and 50% of the villages in Rayalaseema and Telangana regions respectively. However, what is interesting to note that despite the availability of reasonable levels of sub-centre infrastructure, private medical practitioners thrive (66.67%) in Telangana region. CEMT 45

5 Institutional Performance 5.1 Introduction The Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department has a multi-tier organizational set up i.e. State, District, Mandal and GP. The department is headed by the Secretary, RWS&S and technically supported by Engineer-in-Chief. Institutionally, the Project Director of the State Water & Sanitation Mission is responsible for deciding policy guidelines and approval of schemes. At the District level, District Water Supply & Sanitation Mission has been operationalized with clear responsibilities for review and implementation of schemes. ZP Chairperson heads this Mission. Finalizing district plans and deciding on district IEC plans are also the responsibilities of this Mission. The District Mission is supported by District Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, headed by the District Collector. Mandal Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, headed by the Mandal Parishad President and Village Water Supply & Sanitation Committee headed by GP President are the two grass root level institutional mechanisms to ensure planning, review and co-ordination of implementation at their respective levels. The human resource strength at each of the levels along with their designations are presented in the following table. Designation Level Numbers Engineer-in-Chief State 1 Chief Engineers State 3 Superintending Engineers State 2 Joint Director (Geology) State 1 Senior Geologists State 6 Superintending Engineers District 20 Junior Geologists District 41 Executive Engineers Sub-divisional 52 Deputy Executive Engineers Mandal 315 Assistant Executive Engineers / Assistant Engineers Mandal 1,831 Supporting staff * At various tiers 6,400 Work charged employees * At various tiers 7,850 Total 16,522 5.2 Gram Panchayat Water supply and sanitation (WSS) schemes form an important part of the civic responsibilities of the Gram Panchayat (GP) as per 73 rd constitutional amendment. The entire gamut of activities associated with drinking WSS planning, implementation and operation and maintenance lies with the GP and its functional committees. The Act mentions following responsibilities for Gram Panchayat: Maintenance of water supply works on its own or by annual contract by generating adequate resources. CEMT 46

Construction, repairs and maintenance of drinking water wells tanks and ponds Prevention and control of water pollution Providing sanitary latrines to households to ensure full coverage as early as possible and adequate number of community latrines Providing sanitation and proper drainage Filling up unsanitary depressions and reclaiming unhealthy localities Earmarking places away from dwellings for dumping refuse and manure Maintenance of general sanitation Cleaning of public roads, drains, tanks, wells and other public spaces Construction and maintenance of public latrines Managing and control of washing and bathing places Maintenance and regulation of burning and burial grounds Disposal of unclaimed corpses and carcasses Across the districts, people identify that the key responsibility for managing water supply and sanitation with the Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat staff and elected representatives are fully aware of this. However in discharging responsibilities their level of involvement varies. Few of the Gram Panchayats are very dynamic and take keen interest in the WSS issues while others fail to live up to their minimum expected level. 5.3 Institutional Arrangement The GPs are vested with the management responsibilities of the local drinking water and sanitation systems. However, grass root level experience indicates that the GPs are unable to efficiently manage the requirements of all the households within its jurisdiction. This inability stems from two basic problems i.e. i) large geographical spread of many village clusters within a GP and ii) lack of drinking water project management experience and poor skill sets of staff. For ease of project management, in many instances, small, easily manageable people owned institutions such as Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs) have been created. Such community based organizations (CBOs) have been successfully functioning as extended operational arms of GPs. This was tried out in sector reforms / Swajaladhara programs. VWSCs have been formed in sector reform supported villages of Prakasam and Chittoor districts. O &M of schemes is found to be better in these villages. Timely repairs and quick and effective mobilization of tariff has been some of the achievements of VWSCs. Marella village in Prakasam district is a case in example, where with formation of Habitation Water Supply and Sanitation Committee the operation and maintenance was quick and tariff collection was timely. 5.3.1 Compliant Redress System There is no noticeable variation in the complaints regarding water supply between SVS and MVS. A total of 23.56% (445 numbers) of the households have reported to have registered their complaints, either with respective GP institutions or with individuals within the institutional framework. The break-up of 445 such complaints is tabulated in the table. Among SVS villages over 52% of the complaints have been registered with the GP, where as in MVS villages this percentage is placed at about 29%. The primary reason CEMT 47

for high percentage of complaints being registered with the GP institutions in SVS villages is the close identity of the scheme with the GPs. Table 45: Households Lodging Complaints Regarding Water Supply HH Lodging Complaints Regarding Water Supply SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Yes 24.44 18.22 23.56 445 No 75.56 81.78 76.44 1444 Total 100 100 100 1889 Households by Complaint Lodged with 49.66 36.18 9.44 0.67 3.15 0.9 Village Sarpanch Water men Village Secretary Figure 16: HH by Complaints Lodged with Table 46: Households by Complaint Lodged with Complaints are Lodged with SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Village Sarpanch 32.32 67.35 36.18 161 Ward Member 10.61 0.00 9.44 42 Water men 0.76 0.00 0.67 3 Junior Engineer 3.54 0.00 3.15 14 Village Secretary 0.51 4.08 0.90 4 Gram Panchayat 52.27 28.57 49.66 221 Total 100 100 100 445 The nature of complaints of 445 households and the time taken to solve was further analyzed and presented in the two tables below. The table reveals that inadequate water supply ranks as the most important complaint (37.53%), followed by erratic timing of supply (30.56%). All other complaints such as insufficient pressure, impurities in water, bursting of water lines etc does not seem to be most bothersome complaints from users perspective. CEMT 48

About 30% of the grievances reported to have not been solved at all, while only about 4.72% of the grievances were attended to within a day. GP institutions have taken varied durations to solve rest of the grievances. While it is fully understandable that time taken to solve problems entirely depends on the nature and complexity of problems, 30% of the problems being not resolved at all amplifies the major institutional weakness. Table 47: Households by Nature of Complaint Lodged Nature of Complaint Lodged SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Inadequate Water Supply 40.66 12.24 37.53 167 Timing of Water Supply 31.06 26.53 30.56 136 No Sufficient Pressure 4.29 10.20 4.94 22 Impurities in Water 7.32 16.33 8.31 37 Bursting of Water Lines 11.11 8.16 10.79 48 Others (Unequal Distribution, OHT Cleaning, Leakages, Source Contamination) 5.56 26.53 7.87 35 Total 100 100 100 445 Table 48: Time Taken to Resolve Complaints Time Taken to Solve SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Within a day 2.78 20.41 4.72 21 Within 3 Days 31.82 32.65 31.91 142 Within a Week 17.17 2.04 15.51 69 Within Two Weeks 7.07 12.24 7.64 34 Within 1 Month 9.34 2.04 8.54 38 More than 1 Month 1.77 2.04 1.80 8 Problem not Solved 30.05 28.57 29.89 133 Total 100 100 100 445 5.4 Financial Issues It is obligatory for the GP/VWSC to locally mobilize the resources required for the maintenance of the WSS facilities. The financial status of Panchayats varies considerably. However, it was uniformly found from the study that the Panchayats do not have adequate financial resources to meet their expenses. The income they generate is much below the anticipated expenditure. While Panchayats are responsible for O&M of schemes, they are unable to meet the requirements of O&M due to poor managerial skills and financial constraints. CEMT 49

5.4.1 Tariff Collection Tariff collection mechanism is completely unguided and not based on any structured or announced guidelines. So is the case with the charges for initial connection. The rates vary between GP to GP as well as year to year within a GP. As detailed out in the following table, there are ten villages where no tariff is collected, making water supply in these villages virtually free, three villages each collect a tariff of Rs 10 per month and Rs per month respectively, one collects Rs 20 per month, two villages collect Rs 25 per month and two villages collect Rs 30 per month. Table 49: Tariff Collection in Sampled Villages Tariff Collection Habitation Monthly Payment Rates for Initial HH Connection Dusi no tariff collected Kothachinnaiahpalle Rs25/ month Kandriga no tariff collected Nethivaripalli no tariff collected Y. Kota no tariff collected Settigunta no tariff collected Valbhapur Rs30/ month Mallial Rs30 /month Pudur Rs20/ month Kistaram no tariff collected Ambatapur no tariff collected Gudibanda Rs25/ month Malkapur Rs10/ month Adavi Venkatapur Rs10/ month S. Konda no tariff collected Rs3500/ connection Disrasavancha no tariff collected Polavaram no tariff collected Basavapur Rs15/ month Rs500/ connection Bibinagar Rs15/ month Fakeerugudem Rs10/ month Kattangur Rs15/ month 5.4.2 Mechanisms for tariff collection No standardized system has been adopted for determining and collecting tariff. In many cases waterman is taking the responsibility of collecting water tariff. While some districts fare better in tariff collection (e.g. Nalgonda) many lag behind and lack of concerted efforts are observed. The rate of tariff collection varies from 0% to a maximum of 25%. Not a single village has reported 100% mobilization of tariff. CEMT 50

5.4.3 Vulnerability Across all villages, it is reported that resource poor households (SCs, STs) and other economically weaker sections have expressed their inability to pay. In Mahaboobnagar it is reported by some daily wage earners expressed their apprehension that there would be a steep increase in water tariff as a consequence of reforms. However, they find themselves in a highly vulnerable position because of their inability to pay, even at the current tariff levels. CEMT 51

6 Demand Assessment 6.1 Demand Scenario Attempts were made to gain insights on the demand scenario for improved water supply services (better water supply, expected frequency of supply, expected duration of supply, desire to obtain household connection etc) by asking a series of direct questions to the respondents. The main purpose of these questions was to understand the expectations of existing users as well as potential users from the GPs. The results are tabulated under five separate demand clusters as presented below. 6.1.1 Better Water Supply Ho useho lds by Willingness to Have Better Water Supply Satisfied with Present Supply 25% Figure 17: HH by Willingness to Have Better Water Supply Willingness to have Better Water Supply 75% Close to three fourth (75.28%) of the respondents articulated the need to have improved water supply. This willingness for better supply situation is almost uniformly spread under both SVS and MVS villages. The improvements were sought in terms of i) higher frequency of supply and ii) increased duration of supply. Table 50: Households by Willingness to Have Better Water Supply HH Willingness to Have Better Water Supply SVS MVS Total % % % Freq Yes 73.27 87.36 75.28 1422 No 26.73 12.64 24.72 467 Total 100 100 100 1889 CEMT 52

Overall Situation: The data presented in the table below shows that community members expect a great deal of improvement in the services as compared to the present level of services currently provided (refer frequency of water supply in section 2.2.5). More than 95 % of the respondents across the state expect the frequency of supply to be increased to daily, indicating a clear cut demand for improved service delivery. Only about 5% of the respondents articulated that they would be content with water supply every alternate day. There is no great deal of region-wise variation in this demand. Households Expected Frequency of Supply Alternate Day 3.87 Daily 9 6.13 Figure 18: HH Expected Frequency of Water Supply Overall Situation: In terms of expected hour of supply, the data indicates that a large majority (87.86%) would be happy if the supply is set at one hour a day (44.44%) and between one to two hours a day (43.32%). Only a minority expressed their demand to be set at two to three hours a day (6.19%) and more than three hours a day (6.05%). Table 51: Households Expected Frequency of Supply Expected Frequency of Supply Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq Daily 95.24 95.37 96.47 96.13 1367 Alternate Day 4.76 4.63 3.53 3.87 55 Total 100 100 100 100 1422 Regional Analysis: When this demand is examined regionally, stark region-wise variations emerge, as indicated below. In Andhra region, a little more than one third (34.92%) of the respondents demand supply for more than three hours, where is in Rayalaseema (14.71%) and Telangana (1.01%) regions the demand for more than three hours supply is far lower. However, it is clear that the predominant demand across regions is for about two hours supply daily. CEMT 53

Table 52: Households Expected Hours of Supply Expected Hours of Supply Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Freq 1 Hr 22.22 5.72 60.18 44.44 632 1-2 Hr 41.27 62.13 36.49 43.32 616 2-3 Hr 1.59 17.44 2.32 6.19 88 More Than 3 Hr 34.92 14.71 1.01 6.05 86 Total 100 100 100 100 1422 6.1.2 Water Supply Schemes Overall Situation: By and large, the data clearly indicates that there is a demand for improvement in supply, irrespective of the source of supply (groundwater or surface water). There is almost equal two-way split between the demand for ground water source and surface water source. Table 53: Distribution of Sample Villages by Demand for Source Based Water Schemes Distribution of Sample Villages by Demand for Source Based Water Scheme Andhra Region Rayalaseema Region Telangana Region Total % % % % Nos. Ground Water 75 40 41.67 47.62 10 Surface Water 25 60 58.33 52.38 11 Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21 Regional Analysis: There is a great deal of demand (75%) for groundwater based schemes as compared to surface water based schemes (25%) amongst the people in Andhra region. The same preference is about 40% and 60% in Rayalaseema and Telangana regions. The higher preference for groundwater based schemes in Andhra stems from the fact that, Andhra region being located in the water surplus zone, groundwater availability is abundant. In addition, there is also a general perception in the region that ground water is relatively less polluted as compared to surface water. CEMT 54

6.1.3 Household Connection Choice for House Service Connection Public Standpost 41% House Service Connection 59% Figure 19: Choice for House Service Connection Table 54: Choice for House Service Connection House Service Connection Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana % Avg. House Service Connection 45.0 62.0 61.7 58.6 Public Standpost 55.0 38.0 38.3 41.4 Total 100 100 100 100 While the state-wide analysis indicates that an overwhelming majority of households (61.7%) prefer house service connections to public stand posts. Similar trend exists in two regions viz. Rayalaseema and Telangana. However in Andhra region, the demand for public stand posts is more (55%) as compared to house service connections (45%). CEMT 55