DrinkingWater,sanitationandhygieneinIndia

NSS54thRound(JanuaryJune1998)
Inruralareas,about18%ofhouseholdsreportedtohavefilteredtheir
drinkingwaterbutveryfewhouseholdsreportedtohavechemicallytreated,
orboiled,waterbeforedrinking.Thesituationwasslightlybetterinurban
areas,wherethepercentagesofhouseholdsreportingboilingandfilteringof
drinkingwaterbeforeconsumptionwere11%and35%,respectively.
2.3.11Qualityofdrinkingwaterobtainedfromprincipalsource:
Informationonqualityofdrinkingwaterobtainedfromprincipalsourcewas
collectedfromallhouseholds.Thequalityofdrinkingwaterwascategorised
as(i)knowntobepolluted;(ii)cleanbutcontainsexcessofironorother
mineral;(iii)badtasteduetounknowncauses;(iv)cloudyduetounknown
causes;(v)otherdefects;and(vi)satisfactory.Ifthequalitycouldfallunder
morethanonecategory,thenitwasrecordedasthatwhichappearedearliest
inthelist.Whenqualitycouldnotbecategorisedunderanyoneofthefirst
fivetypes,itwasrecordedassatisfactory.
Treatmentofdrinkingwater:Datawerecollectedonthreemethodsof
treatments,twoofwhichwerephysicalmethodsviz.filtrationandboiling,
andtheotherwaschemical.Theprocedurefollowedforrecordingthese
methodsisstatedinthefollowingthreeparagraphs.
2.3.14Filteringofwaterbyhousehold:Informationonfilteringofwater
wascollectedfromthehouseholdsthoughadirectyes/noresponse.If
waterwasfilteredbythehouseholdthenfurtherquerywasmadewhether
filteringwasdonewithplainclothesorbyotherprocess.Otherprocess
includeduseofwaterfilterwitha"filtercandle",useofwaterpurifier
havingafilteraswellasaprocessofchemicaltreatmentincludingtreatment
byultravioletradiation.
2.3.15Boilingofwaterbyhousehold:Ifamajorityofhouseholdmembers
drankboiledwater,thenitwasrecordedthatwaterwasboiledbythat
household.
2.3.16Chemicaltreatmentofwaterbyhousehold:Thisincludedtreatment
withanyofthefollowing:chlorine,otherhalogens,alum,permanganate,
radiation,oranyotherantibacterialtreatment.Informationonwhether

waterwaschemicallytreatedornotwascollectedfromthesample
householdthroughadirectyes/noresponse.
2.4.2Inruralareas:Table12showsthat,inruralareas,85%ofhouseholds
reporteddrinkingwaterservedbytheirprincipalsourcetobeofsatisfactory
quality.However,thisproportionvariedovertheprincipalsources.Only
55%ofthehouseholdsbeingservedbyothertank/pondastheirprincipal
source,and67%and69%ofthoseservedbyriver/canal/lakeandtank/pond,
etc.,respectivelyastheirprincipalsource,reportedqualityofsuchdrinking
watertobesatisfactory.Amonghouseholdsusingothertank/pondastheir
principalsource,dissatisfactionoverqualitywasmostfrequentforthe
categoriescloudyduetounknowncauses(15%),havingotherdefects(10%)
andknowntobepolluted(8%).Thesamecategorieswerealsomore
frequentlyreportedamonghouseholdsusingriver/canal/lakeastheir
principalsource.
Excessofironorothermineralwasreportedtobethemajorcauseof
dissatisfactionamonghouseholdsservedbytubewell/handpumporby
tankerastheirprincipalsource.Itmaybenotedthatthetablereflectsusers
perceptiononthequalityofdrinkingwaterforaparticularprincipalsource.
2.4.3Inurbanareas:Table12alsoshowsthatalthough91%ofallurban
householdsreportedsatisfactionregardingthequalityofdrinkingwater
availabletothemfromtheirprincipalsource,theproportionofhouseholds
reportingsuchsatisfactionwasmuchlowerforhouseholdsservedbysuch
principalsourcesasriver/canal/lake(53%),othertank/pond(65%)and
tank/pondetc.(77%).Dissatisfactionwasreportedmostfrequentlyforwater
beingcloudyduetounknowncauses,theproportionbeing30%for
householdsservedbyothertank/pondastheprincipalsourceand27%for
householdsservedbyriver/canal/lakeastheprincipalsource.
Dissatisfactionduetowaterknowntobepollutedwasquitehighamong
householdsusingtank/pondetc.(21%)andriver/canal/lake(13%)astheir
principalsources.
Table13revealsthatonlyafewhouseholdsreportedastreatingtheir
drinkingwaterchemicallybeforeuseinruralorurbanareas.However,a
significantlyhigherpercentageofhouseholdsinurbanareasfilteredor
boiledtheirdrinkingwaterthaninruralareas.Thesurveyresultsindicate

thatanestimated36%ofurbanhouseholdspractisedfiltration(23%with
plaincloth,13%bysomeotherprocess)asagainstanestimated18%inrural
areas.Further,11%ofurbanhouseholdsresortedtoboilingwhileonly4%
reportedthispracticeinruralareas.
4.1.2Waterforcooking:Inruralareas,forthepurposeofcooking
tubewell/handpumpwasthemostimportantprincipalsource,followedby
wellandtap,theproportionsofhouseholdsbeingservedbythembeing
52%,24%and18%,respectively(seeTable24).Evenassupplementary
sources,tubewell/handpumpandwellwerethemostfrequentlyreported
sources37%and36%,respectively.Inurbanareas,thesituationwasa
littledifferent.Tapwasmostfrequentlyreported(70%),followedby
tubewell/handpump(21%)amongprincipalsources,whiletubewell/
handpumpwasmostfrequentlyreported(53%),followedbywell(23%),
amongsecondarysources.
4.1.3Waterforbathing:ItisseenfromTable24thatinruralareas,forthe
purposeofbathingalso,tubewell/handpumpwasmostfrequentlyreported
(44%),followedbywell(22%),tap(16%)andothertank/pond(10%),
amongtheprincipalsources.Amongsecondarysources,thepicturewas
onlyslightlydifferent,withtubewell/handpump,well,river/canal/lakeand
othertank/pondbeingreportedby37%,32%,9%and9%ofrural
households,respectively.Inurbanareas,thedistributioncloselyresembled
thatforwaterforcookingasdiscussedinthepreviousparagraph.Among
principalsources,tapandtubewell/handpumpwerereportedby64%and
24%oftheurbanhouseholds,whileamongsecondarysources,themore
frequentlyreportedsourcesweretubewell/handpump(53%)andwell(20%).
4.1.4Waterforwashingofutensils:ItisseenfromTable24thatinrural
areas,amongprincipalsources,tubewell/handpump,wellandtapwerethe
threemostimportantsources,astheproportionsofhouseholdsreported
beingservedbythem(forwashingutensils)were48%,24%and17%,
respectively.About6%ofsuchhouseholdsreportedothertank/pondastheir
principalsource.Thusthedistributionofhouseholdsbyprincipalsourceof
waterforwashingofutensilscloselyresembledthatofhouseholdsby
principalsourceofwaterforbathing(seepreviousparagraph).Thisfeature
wasalsotrueforthecorrespondingdistributionsbysupplementarysource.
Asinthecaseofwaterforbathing,tubewell/handpump,well,other
tank/pondandriver/canal/lakewerethesourceswhichwerereportedquite

frequentlybyruralhouseholds,theproportionsofhouseholdsreportingthem
being37%,33%,9%and8%,respectively.Inurbanareastoo,asimilar
situationisnoticeable.Theretoo,thedistributionsofurbanhouseholdsby
waterservedbydifferentsources(betheyprincipalorsupplementary
source)forwashingofutensilscloselyresembledthecorresponding
distributionsobservedforbathing(seepreviousparagraph).Thus,among
principalsources,tapandtubewell/handpumpwerereportedbymany(64%
and25%,respectively)oftheurbanhouseholds,whileamongsecondary
sources,themorefrequentlyreportedonesweretubewell/handpump(54%)
andwell(20%).

NationalSurveyofRuralCommunityWaterSupplies,2000
http://indiasanitationportal.org/sites/default/files/Stem.PDF
Fortheaveragehousehold,theissueofwaterqualityisnotapparentunless
thewaterisdirty.Inmoststates,over80percentofthehouseholdsdidnot
perceiveanyproblemwiththequalityoftheirdrinkingwater.
Asaresult,about79percentofthehouseholdsdidnotcarryoutany
treatmentoftheirdrinkingwater.However,insomestatesmaybedueto
thevisiblequalityofdrinkingwaterorfrombetterknowledgesome
treatmentmethodswereused.Forinstance,commonfiltrationofdrinking
waterwaspractisedinRajasthanandboilinginTamilNadu.UttarPradesh
andBiharweretwostateswheremorethan90percentofthehouseholdsdid
notcarryoutanytreatment(Figure4).

Watertreatmentmethodsathome:
Figure4:Watertreatmentmethodsatho

WaterAid
DrinkingwaterqualityinruralIndia:Issuesandapproaches
http://www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/drinkingwaterqualityrural
india.pdf
Once contamination is detected in a water source, there is
need for treatment. In case of rural areas, modern water
purification technologies might not be viable. In villages, it is
important that simple technologies that are easy to use and
can be operated without much technical know-how be
promoted. The price factor is also important as technologies
with high operational and recurring costs might not be
useful. In India, one cannot neglect the use of traditional
methods of water purification. The use of traditional
methods, however, should not be publicised unless its
effectiveness have been proved through appropriate
research.
Water purification can be carried out at the household level
and at the community level. When one is talking about
community based water purification systems, issues of
ownership and equitable distribution becomes important.
Social factors can play a role in determining access to water.
In case of community based water purification systems,
there should be a mechanism of contribution by the
community and they can be made responsible for
maintenance to ensure sustainability.
Treatment of Bacterial Impurities: Boiling, Chlorination, Ultra
Violet Radiation
Treatment of Ammonia: Chlorination, Boiling

_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________
The Kyoto protocol allows organizations to gain carbon
credits if they can show that the activity they are carrying
out reduces carbon usage. Since using chlorine means that
people no longer have to boil their water in attempts to
purify it, DSW earns carbon credits which it can then sell in
carbon markets such as the European Union Emissions
Trading System. Because of this, they are able to cover a
large amount of the fixed costs of running the organization,
allowing more of the donated money to be spent on chlorine
and dispensers.

- See more at: http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/201401-28/dispensers-for-safe-water#sthash.B2K5K43J.dpuf

_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________Key Indicators of
Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition
in India
NSS 69th Round
http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/kye_indi_of_water_Sani
tation69rou_24dec13.pdf
in 2012, 32.3 percent and 54.4 percent of households in
rural India and urban India respectively had treated water
by any method before drinking.
the selected households perception on the quality of
drinking water they received from the principal source. It
was ascertained whether the water was bad in taste, bad
in smell, bad in taste and smell, bad due to other reasons
or had no defect. The proportion of households reporting
no defect of drinking water from respective principal source
can be interpreted as the proportion of households that were
satisfied with the quality of the drinking water they got. The
result (in Table T6) shows that 87.7 percent and 88.1 percent

households in rural India and urban India respectively were

getting good quality of drinking water.
improved source of drinking water. In this analysis, the
improved source of drinking water include: bottled water,
piped water into dwelling, piped water to yard/plot, public
tap/standpipe, tube well/borehole, protected well,
protected spring, and rainwater collection. Table T1 shows
the number per 1000 households having improved source of
drinking water. It is observed that during 2012 in rural India,
88.5 percent households had improved source of drinking
water while the figure was 95.3 percent in urban India.
URBAN WATER SUPPLY IN INDIA: STATUS, REFORM OPTIONS
AND POSSIBLE LESSONS
Households themselves could improve the quality of the
water they receive. Possible mechanisms range from
simple technologies such as straining with a cloth, using
chlorine and safe storage vessels, to more sophisticated
technologies like electronic filters. However, using the 1999
NFHS, Jalan, Somanathan and Chaudhuri (2003) report that
47% of households do not use any point-of-use (or in-home)
purification method, with 32% of the top wealth quartile also
not purifying their water.
Monitoring of water quality in Indian cities is haphazard.
While municipal boards claim to conduct regular tests of
water supply, the results of these tests are generally not
made public.
The Sukthankar Committee (2001) report to the Government
of Maharashtra reported results from 136,000 daily tests
carried out on water samples from various municipal
corporations in Maharashtra in 1999. 10% of samples were
contaminated, with 14% of samples from Mumbai being

contaminated. Ground water in 28 cities was found to exceed

permissible levels of fluoride, ammonia and hardness (January to
March 2003, Clean India). A 2003 survey of 1000 locations in Kolkata
found that 87% of water reservoirs serving residential buildings and
63% of taps had high levels of faecal contamination.
Municipal water supply has also been found to contain a high level of
contaminants. Even bottled water is not completely safe. A 2003
study (subsequently repeated in 2006) by the Centre for Science and
Environment in Delhi found that most popular brands of bottled water
had high levels of pesticides (CSE 2003).
WatervendorsarecommoninurbanIndia,particularlyinareaswhere
supplyisshortandthereislackofaccess:Rajkot,Ahmedabad,Chennai.
Thevendorseitherresellingwaterfromamunicipallysuppliedstandpipeor
obtainingwaterfromagroundwatersourceandtransportingitbytankerto
slumareaswhereresidentspurchaseit.Suchprivatelyvendedwater
whichseldomhasanyqualitycontrolssellsforfrom5to50timesthe
priceofpipedcitysuppliedwater.FewurbanresidentsinIndia(1%
accordingtotheNationalSampleSurvey,54thRound)dependexclusively
onwatervendors,butduringperiodsofscarcitytheyarethemechanismof
waterserviceprovisiontothepoor(andinsomecasestherichaswell).
http://erg.berkeley.edu/publications/Isha%20Ray/McKenzieRay-Indiaurbanwater-forWP.pdf