Baseline DFRversion AP

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 RWS Coverage and Delivery of
Services
Draft Final Report

(Revised)
April 2008
cemt@cemt.in
Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Baseline, Rapid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWS Coverage and Delivery of Services
Table of Contents
1
Introduction......................................................................................................4
1.1
Background........................................................................................................4
1.2
Need for the Present Assessment.......................................................................5
1.3
Objectives of the Assignment.............................................................................6
1.4
Methodology......................................................................................................6
Status of Rural Water Supply.........................................................................7
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
A.
Introduction........................................................................................................7
Sector Reforms Project..................................................................................8
Swajaldhara..................................................................................................10
Key Lessons Learnt..........................................................................................10
2.2
Access to Drinking Water Supply....................................................................11
2.2.1
Coverage of Selected Villages......................................................................11
2.2.2
Source of Water Supply................................................................................12
2.2.3
Quality of Water...........................................................................................12
2.2.4
Quantity of Water.........................................................................................13
2.2.5
Frequency of water Supply..........................................................................14
2.2.6
Regularity of water supply...........................................................................15
2.2.7
Distance to Water Source.............................................................................16
2.2.8
Time taken for collection of water...............................................................16
2.2.9 Collection of water.......................................................................................17
2.3
Rural School Water Supply..............................................................................18
Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh............................................19
3.1
Introduction......................................................................................................19
3.2
Total Sanitation Campaign...............................................................................20
Lesson Learnt...............................................................................................................20
3.2.1
NGP..............................................................................................................20
3.2.2
Shubram Awards...........................................................................................21
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
Individual Household Latrine...........................................................................22

Type of Latrine.............................................................................................22
Usage............................................................................................................23
3.4
3.4.1
Open Defecation...............................................................................................23
Site................................................................................................................24
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
Environmental Sanitation.................................................................................25
Solid Waste Disposal....................................................................................25
Waste Water Disposal...................................................................................25
Sewage Disposal..........................................................................................26
Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal......................................................................26
3.6
3.6.1
Rural School Sanitation....................................................................................27

School Sanitation in Sample Villages..........................................................28
Health and Hygiene........................................................................................29
4.1
Introduction..................................................................................................29
CEMT

4.2
Status of Water Borne Diseases...........................................................29
4.3
Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages.........29
4.4
Incidence of Water Borne Diseases..................................................................29
4.5
Water Handling Practices.................................................................................30
4.6
Personal Hygiene.......................................................................................30
4.7
Availability of Medical Facilities.....................................................................31
Institutional Performance.............................................................................32
5.1
Introduction......................................................................................................32
5.2
Gram Panchayat...............................................................................................33
5.3
5.3.1
Institutional Arrangement.................................................................................33
Compliant Redress System..........................................................................34
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
Financial Issues................................................................................................35
Tariff Collection...........................................................................................35
Mechanisms for tariff collection..................................................................35
Vulnerability.................................................................................................35
Demand and Impact Assessment..................................................................37
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
Demand Scenario.............................................................................................37
Better Water Supply.....................................................................................37
Water Supply Schemes.................................................................................38
Household Connection.................................................................................38
Household Metering.....................................................................................39
Drains/ UGD/ STP.......................................................................................39
6.2
Willingness to Pay............................................................................................39
6.3
6.3.1
Technological Options......................................................................................40
Water Supply................................................................................................40
Performance Indicators.................................................................................43
7.1
Selection Of Performance Indicators:..............................................................43
7.2
Monitoring........................................................................................................46
Conclusions.....................................................................................................47
Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply........................................................................47

Quality of Water.........................................................................................................48
Health & Hygiene........................................................................................................49
Water Handling Practices.............................................................................................49
Medical Facilities.........................................................................................................49
Annexure.....................................................................................................................52
HH Questionnaire.........................................................................................................52
FDG Checklist..............................................................................................................52
CEMT

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 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.
GoIs Tenth Plan Policy and Strategy:
GoIs 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.
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 Programs
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.
CEMT

b) Community Development and RWSS Infrastructure Building:

i) Community and village Panchayat Capacity Building
ii) Womens 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.
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.
CEMT

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
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 contextspecific 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, Rayalseema 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
Toots Used
Households
Semi structure interview schedule

Mapping
Village Panchayat and
Habitation Profile
Members
Focus Group Discussions
Women Group Member
User Groups at water source
Observation at water points

State and District Officials
CEMT
Secondary data collection

CEMT

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. Poor 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 Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and
since the beginning of FY 2006-2007, this responsibility was handed over
to the Department of Rural Water Supply 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
pre-determined 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.
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 72,231 habitations 43 % of are fully covered (FC)
with water supply schemes, while 53% were partially covered (PC). This
brings the number of habitations either fully covered or partially covered
to a total of about 69,342 (96% of total habitations). Approximately less
than 1% of the habitations still remain uncovered and less than 3%
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.
CEMT

S No
Category
1
2
Fully Covered (FC)

Partially Covered
(PC)
Not Covered (NC)
No Safe Source
(NSS)
Total
3
4
6
No of
%
Habitation
Coverage
31292
43.32
38564
53.39
424
1951
0.59
2.70
72231
100
The district wise total coverage is given in table below.

District Wise Water Supply Coverage
S
No
District
Total
FC
PC1 PC2 PC3
1
Srikakulam
3938 1839 360 615
553
2
Vizianagaram
2874 1600 269 245
258
Vishakapatna
3
m
5448 2459 453 780
792
4
Eastgodavari
2901 1082 751 425
375
5
Westgodavari
2158 1292 167 147
140
6
Krishna
2491 1248 278 211
340
7
Guntur
1696
633
89
427
218
8
Prakasam
2338
796
87
542
311
9
Nellore
3054 1296
42
560
613
1090
189
10 Chittoor
7
7023 666
2
834
128
11 Kadapa
4542 1207 596
4
985
12 Ananthapur
3329 1764
44
328
481
13 Kurnool
1521
620
11
288
276
Mahaboobnag
14 ar
3421 1443 453 631
524
15 Rangareddy
1685
368
148 461
384
16 Medak
2370
666
104 509
687
17 Nizamabad
1632
552
102 203
382
18 Adilabad
3610 1140 532 878
743
19 Karimnagar
2259
312
125 445
622
20 Warangal
3542 1231 297 929
641
21 Khammam
3205 1233 223 739
558
22 Nalgonda
3310 1488
34
335
707
7223 312 583 128 114
Total
1
92
1
74
24
Source: APRWSSP
PC
4
495
353
NS
S
76
133
565
267
336
338
148
193
468
NC
0
16
38
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
492
460
549
306
0
0
0
10
163
20
275
290
404
393
281
611
442
297
472
84
35
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
5
42
4
95
34
0
0
22
144
2
155
269
195
1
10
1
76
76
181
409
75
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
CEMT

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 metres. 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 GPs;
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
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 prioblem.
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
CEMT
10

GPs have been reluctant to take over O&M of piped schemes. It was also
noticed that not enough attention is given preventive maintenance.
CEMT
11

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 Swajaldhara
The GOI has launched the Swajaldhara 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.
S No
1
2
3
4
5
A.
Year
2002 03
2003 04
2004 05
2005 06
2006 07
Total
No of Schemes
1592
433
676
629
153
3483
Key Lessons Learnt
Swajaladhra 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 Panchyat 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.
CEMT
12

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:
S No
1
2
3
4
5
Category
Partially Covered 1(PC1)
No Safe Source (NSS)
Total
No of Villages
1
9
3
1
7
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 analysed in the following sections. .
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.
Type of Water Supply Scheme by
Source
SVS
Source
Surface
Groundwat
er
Total
% (nos)
16.67(3
)
83.33(1
5)
100(18
)
MVS
%
(nos)
66.67(
2)
33.33(
1)
100(3)
Total
% (nos)
23.81(5
)
76.19(1
6)
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.
CEMT
13

2.2.2 Source of Water Supply

Overall Situation: An analysis of source of water supply vis--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
riverlets.
Source of HH Water Supply
SVS
SVS
MVS
Own
Handpump
Own Dugwell
Public
Handpump
Public Dugwell
Pvt. Borewell
Rivulet
Total
MVS
62.35
0.00
0.00
67.66
0.31
2.96
27.51
1.49
27.90
0.62
5.68
0.19
100
(1620)
1.12
0.74
1.49
0.00
100
(269)
Total
Fre
%
q
53.4 101
7
0
9.63 182
4.18
2.75
24.0
9
0.64
5.08
0.16
100
79
52
455
12
96
3
188
9
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, riverlet)
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 Quality of Water

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
CEMT
14

this analysis is applied to SVS and MVS villages separately, the perception
of Good increases significantly under MVS villages (85%).
CEMT
15

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:
Quality of Water
SVS
MVS
Saline
%
21.4
3
12.1
6
Bad Smell
6.37
Muddy Water
Flouride
3.67
54.6
3
%
28.2
1
10.2
6
12.8
2
30.7
7
Can't Say/ Don't Know

Total
1.74
100
Hard Water
0.00
17.9
5
100
Total
Fre
%
q
21.9
0
122
12.0
3
67
6.82
38
5.57
50.8
1
31
283
2.87
100
16
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.
2.2.4 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%.
Households by Quantity of water used (in litres

per person per day)
Quantity of water used SVS
MVS
Total
(per day per person in
CEMT
16

litres)
Less than 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
More than 50
Total
%
3.64
35.68
46.91
13.33
0.43
100
(1620)
%
0.37
23.79
57.99
17.47
0.37
100
(269)
%
3.18
33.99
48.49
13.92
0.42
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. 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.
Average Quantity of water used for
different purposes (per person in
Drinking
Cooking
Washing
Bathing
Washing
Toilets
Total
litre)
SV
S
3.12
4.04
Utensils 6.07
7.64
11.0
Cloths
9
2.19
34.1
5
MVS
3.05
4.56
6.12
7.33
13.0
2
2.23
36.3
0
Tota
l
3.11
4.11
6.08
7.60
11.3
6
2.20
34.4
6
2.2.5 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. 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
17

Freq of Water Supply

SVS
Frequency
MVS
Daily
65.84
48.90
Alternate Day
Once 3 Days &
More
24.06
50.55
10.10
100(10
10)
0.55
100
(182)
Total
Total
Fre
%
q
63.2
6
754
28.1
0
335
8.64
100
103
119
2
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.
ii.
iii.
iv.
About 22%
About 56%
About 10%
Only about
receive water supply for less than half-an-hour

receive water supply between half-an-hour and an hour
receive water supply between one to two hours
12% receive water supply for more than two hours
Duration of Water Supply (SVS/MVS)
Less than 1/2 Hour

1/2 - 1 Hour
1 - 2 Hour
SVS
MVS
%
24.1
6
52.0
8
More than 2 Hours
9.21
14.5
5
Total
100
7.14
76.3
7
16.4
8
0.00
100
Total
Fre
%
q
21.5
6
257
55.7
9
665
10.3
2
123
12.3
3
147
119
100
2
2.2.6 Regularity of water supply
CEMT
18

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. 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.
Timing of Water Supply (SVS/MVS)
SVS
MVS
No Specific Timing
%
13.3
7
86.6
3
%
10.4
4
89.5
6
Total
100
100
Specific Timing
Total
Fre
%
q
12.9
2
154
87.0 103
8
8
119
100
2
2.2.7 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%).
Distance from Source
SVS
MVS
%
95.0
5
200-500 mts
More than 500 mts
%
64.7
5
15.9
4
6.24
11.4
9
1.58
Total
100
Less than 50 mts

50-100 mts
100-200 mts
4.95
0.00
Total
Fre
%
q
69.3
8
827
14.2
6
170
5.29
63
0.00
0.00
9.73
1.34
100
100
116
16
119
2
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
CEMT
19

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.
2.2.8 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.
Time taken for water collection
MVS
%
53.3
0
40.1
1
1 - 2 hr
More than 2 hrs
SVS
%
41.4
9
35.8
4
21.2
9
1.39
Total
100
100
Less than 1/2 hr

1/2 - 1 hr
6.59
0.00
Total
%
Freq
43.2
9
516
36.4
9
435
19.0
4
227
1.17
14
119
100
2
2.2.9 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 womans domain, in nearly 63% of the households
interviewed. In about 4% of the households, it is considered as mans
responsibility, the balance 33% reporting it as joint responsibility of men
and women.
Member of Involved in Fetching Water
Male
Female
Both
Total
SVS
%
4.36
66.73
28.91
100
MVS
%
3.85
42.86
53.30
100
Total
%
Freq
4.28
51
63.09
752
32.63
389
100
1192
Detailed Analysis: Water collection as an activity is dependent on

various factors such as distance to be traveled, timing of supply,
CEMT
20

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
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.
No of Member of Family Involved in Water
Collection
No of People
SVS
MVS
Total
%
%
%
Freq
64.9
38.4
60.9
1
5
6
1
726
32.0
58.2
36.0
2
8
4
7
430
3
2.18
0.55
1.93
23
More than 3
0.79
2.75
1.09
13
119
Total
100
100
100
2
CEMT
21

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.
School Water Supply
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
Yes
100
80
75
No
Tota
l
20
25
100(4)
100(5)
100(12)
Total
No
%
s
80.9
5
17
19.0
5
4
100
21
Regional Analysis: There is some variation in the water supply

availability between the three regions viz. Andhra, Rayalseema 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
Rayalseema and Telngana regions have such facilities.
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%.
Working Condition of School Water Supply
Working
Not
Working
Total
CEMT
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
75
100
100
Total
No
%
s
94.1
2
16
25
100
0
100
0
100
5.88
100
22
1
17

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 36% of total HH are covered out of which 49% HH are above
poverty line and only 25% are below poverty line.
S No
Category
Households
Above
Poverty Line
(APL)
2822930
2845237
5668167
49.80
1
2
3
4
HH with Toilets
HH without Toilets
Total
Percentage
Coverage
Source Habitation Survey 2003
Households
Below
Poverty Line
(BPL)
2002742
5881886
7884628
25.40
The district wise sanitation coverage is given in below table.

Sno.
District Name
With
Toilets
Total Households
Without
Toilets
Total
ADILABAD
47906
339097
387003
12.38
ANANTAPUR
328861
289358
618219
53.19
CHITTOOR
163290
533451
696741
23.44
CUDDAPAH
26290
503295
529585
4.96
EAST GODAVARI
476479
561655
1038134
45.9
GUNTUR
204008
666627
870635
23.43
KARIMNAGAR
264556
410512
675068
39.19
KHAMMAM
301395
181860
483255
62.37
KRISHNA
306640
466346
772986
39.67
10
KURNOOL
247732
294068
541800
45.72
11
MAHBUBNAGAR
136462
629714
766176
17.81
12
MEDAK
113513
353869
467382
24.29
13
NALGONDA
240316
371819
612135
39.26
14
NELLORE
269066
311154
580220
46.37
15
NIZAMABAD
177026
253482
430508
41.12
16
PRAKASAM
191938
335867
527805
36.37
17
RANGAREDDI
135852
189746
325598
41.72
18
SRIKAKULAM
102757
486616
589373
17.43
19
VISAKHAPATNAM
252223
378879
631102
39.97
20
VIZIANAGARAM
172891
313074
485965
35.58
21
WARANGAL
372107
333075
705182
52.77
22
WEST GODAVARI
294364
523559
817923
35.99
4825672
8727123
13552795
35.61
Total
Source Habitation Survey 2003
CEMT
%age
Coverage
23
Total
Households
4825672
8727123
13552795
35.61

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.
S No
1
2
3
4
5
Total Sanitation Campaign

Category
Total
37456
No of IHHLs BPL
76
15882
No of IHHLs APL
83
53339
Total IHHLSs
59
No of Sanitary
Complex
874
No of School Toilets
64552
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 recognise,
encourage and facilitate PRIs and those individuals and
CEMT
24

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.
No of Award Winning GPs in Last
3 Years
S
Year
No of GPs
No
1
2005
2
2006
10
3
2007
143
Source: DDWS, GoI
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.
CEMT
25

3.2.2 Shubram Awards

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.
Region wise HH Having Latrine
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
Yes
45.27
22.39
36.25
No
Tota
l
54.73
77.61
63.75
100(296)
100(451)
100(1142)
Total
Fre
%
q
34.3
6
649
65.6 124
4
0
188
100
9
Overall Situation: The phenomenon of owning of individual

household latrines (IHL) 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.
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 Rayalseema
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
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 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%.
CEMT
26

Andhra
Region
Dry Pit
Twin Pit
Pour
Flush
Total
Type of Latrine
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
24.63
0.75
2.97
0.99
27.05
11.11
74.63
100
96.04
100
61.84
100
Total
Fre
%
q
22.8
0
148
7.40
48
69.8
0
453
100 649
Regional Analysis: The regional analysis of type of latrine

preferences clearly highlights that:
i. Pour Flush toilets are highly popular in Rayalseema 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
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.
Andhra
Region
Yes
No
Total
Latrine Usage
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
9.70
20.79
32.37
90.30
100
79.21
100
67.63
100
Total
Fre
%
q
25.8
9
168
74.1
1
481
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
Rayalseema 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.
3.4 Open Defecation
HH Members who do not Have Latrine Defecates
Andhra
Region
CEMT
Rayalaseema
Region
27
Telangana
Region
Total

Fre
q
0.62
0.29
0.41
Fields
99.38
99.71
99.59
0.40
99.6
0
Total
100
100
100
100
Public
Latrine
5
123
5
124
0
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.
Detailed Analysis: 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.
3.4.1 Site
Site of Open Defecation
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Near Water
Source
Slope Ground
Catchments
On Road Side
Total
CEMT
9.26
25.14
33.93
61.11
27.43
45.19
3.70
42.29
11.54
25.93
5.14
9.34
100
100
100
28
Total
Fre
%
q
28.2
3
350
42.2
6
524
19.1
9
238
10.3
2
128
124
100
0

3.5 Environmental Sanitation
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 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%).
Solid Waste Disposal
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Region
Region
Telangana
Region
42.23
13.30
3.68
48.99
56.98
37.74
8.45
13.97
44.57
In Compost Pit
0.34
15.74
14.01
Total
100
100
100
In Bins
Outside on
Road
In Front of
House
Total
Fre
%
q
12.0
2
227
44.1
0
833
31.6
0
597
12.2
8
232
188
100
9
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 Rayalseema (13.30%) and
Telangana region (3.68%).
ii. Disposing off waste outside the road is common in Rayalseema (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, Rayalseema 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 Rayalseema and 14.01% in Telangana).
3.5.1 Waste Water Disposal
HH Waste Water Disposal

Andhra
CEMT
Rayalaseema
Telangana
29
Total

Region
Region
Region
Drain
Soak
Pit
67.91
2.22
40.98
25.34
93.13
31.61
Open
6.76
4.66
27.41
%
35.9
4
45.3
1
18.7
4
Total
100
100
100
100
Fre
q
679
856
354
188
9
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.
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 Rayalseema, soak pits take a
precedent with an overwhelming majority (93%) choosing that option. In
the Telagana region, it is roughly an even three way spilt between Drains
(41%), Soak pits (32%) and Open Disposal (27%).
3.5.2 Sewage Disposal

HH Sewage Disposal
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Region
Region
Pit/ Own Septic
Tank
Let in Open
Ground
Others (Drains)
Total
Telangana
Region
96.27
87.13
92.27
2.24
1.49
100
6.93
5.94
100
2.90
4.83
100
Total
Fre
%
q
92.3
0
599
3.39
4.31
100
22
28
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.
3.5.3 Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal

Disposal of Fodder Waste/ Dung
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
House Back
Yard
85.71
44.38
51.91
Outside Village
12.24
53.13
41.08
CEMT
30
Total
Fre
%
q
52.7
7
276
42.0
7
220

Compost Pit
Total
2.04
100
2.50
100
7.01
100
5.16
100
27
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
School Sanitation Status
S No
Category
Total No Schools
2
3
Schools with Toilets

Schools without
Toilets
% age Coverage
Tota
l
7965
4
3080
3
4883
4
38.6
8
Out of 79654 schools (both Government & Pvt.) in rural area about 39%
school have sanitation facilities. And there is separate facility available for
girl students in higher Secondary Schools.
The district wise sanitation situation is given below.
S No
District
No. of
Schools
With
Toilets
Withou
t
Toilets
%age
Covera
ge
1
2
Adilabad
Anantapur
4028
3936
3345
3553
666
383
83.4
90.27
3
4
Chittoor
Cuddapah
4086
7066
106
333
3980
6733
2.59
4.71
5
6
East Godavari
Guntur
3561
3828
1428
721
2133
3107
40.1
18.83
7
8
Karimnagar
Khammam
3013
3932
911
773
2102
3159
30.24
19.66
Krishna
3478
1890
1588
54.34
10
Kurnool
3020
1844
1176
61.06
11
Mahbubnagar
3860
999
2861
25.88
12
Medak
3120
1965
1155
62.98
13
Nalgonda
3897
2191
1706
56.22
14
Nellore
3612
391
3221
10.83
15
16
Nizamabad
Prakasam
1740
5783
1082
1648
658
4135
62.18
28.5
CEMT
31

17
18
Rangareddi
Srikakulam
3095
0
870
0
2225
0
28.11
0
19
20
Visakhapatnam
Vizianagaram
4981
2214
3689
264
1292
1950
74.06
11.92
21
22
Warangal
West Godavari
4114
3290
1044
1756
3070
1534
25.38
53.37
79654
30803
48834
38.68
Total
Source Baseline Survey Data 2003
3.6.1 School Sanitation in Sample Villages

Overall Situation: The school sanitation facilities in the state appears to be
reasonably good with about 76% of the schools having sanitation facilities.
School Sanitation
Yes
No
Total
Andhra
Region
%
25
75
100(4)
Rayalasee
ma Region
%
100
0
100(5)
Telanga
na
Region
%
83.33
16.67
100(12)
Total
%
76.19
23.81
100
Nos
16
5
21
Girl Sanitation Facilities in Schools

Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
Yes
100
60
90
No
Total
0
100
40
100
10
100
Total
No
%
s
81.2
5
13
18.7
5
3
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, Rayalseema 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.
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
Rayalseema and Telangana regions only about 80% and 70% are in
working condition.
CEMT
32

Condition of School latrines
Working
Not
Working
Total
CEMT
Andhra
Region
%
100
Rayalasee
ma Region
%
80
Telangana
Region
%
70
%
75
0
100
20
100
30
100
25
100
33
Total
Nos
12
4
16

Health and Hygiene
4.1
Introduction
4.2
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.
Cases of Water Borne Diseases in Last 5 Years
Acute Diarrhoeal
Viral
Yea
(Including GE &
Hepatiti Enteric
S No r
Cholera)
s
Fever
200
15188
1
3
1637915
23065
2
200
14882
2
4
1361790
29590
7
200
17254
3
5
1619537
29293
9
200
12917
4
6
1331818
22990
7
200
12441
5
7
1516818
10302
4
Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled

Villages
4.3
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.
Knowledge About Water Borne Diseases
Andhra Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Total
Fre
%
%
%
%
q
63.4 119
Yes
72.30
73.61
57.09
2
8
36.5
No
27.70
26.39
42.91
8
691
188
Total
100
100
100
100
9
Regional Analysis: The Regional analysis of knowledge levels indicate
that the awreness is relatively high (over 70%) in Andhra and Rayalseema
regions, where as Telangana region ranks low with only about 57%.
CEMT
34

4.4
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 Rayalseema 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.
Incidence of Diseases in Last 6 Months
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
%
Typhoid
Malaria
Diarrhea
GE
4.39
2.70
0.68
0.34
39.73
14.35
0.89
0.44
4.75
4.04
0.09
1.05
Cholera
JE
1.01
0.00
1.33
0.44
0.18
1.05
4.5
Total
Fre
%
q
13.0
2
245
6.27 118
0.37
7
0.79
15
0.58
11
0.74
14
N=1889
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 laddle
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.
Water Treatment Methods
SVS
MVS
Filtering by Cloth
Use Candle Filters
Mixing Alum/Herbs
%
83.8
9
2.47
11.8
5
0.25
1.54
%
82.1
6
1.49
15.9
9
0.37
0.00
Total
100
100
No Further Treatment
Boiling
Total
Fre
%
q
83.6 158
4
0
2.33
44
12.4
4
235
0.26
5
1.32
25
188
100
9
Drinking Water Handling
CEMT
35

SVS
MVS
Cover or Lid
Customized Pot/Tank with
Tap
%
7.35
64.6
3
28.0
2
%
1.86
97.7
7
Total
100
100
Use Laddle
4.6
Total
Fre
%
q
6.56 124
69.3 131
5
0
24.0
9
455
188
100
9
0.37
Personal Hygiene
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.
HH Member Practices Hand Wash
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Total
Fre
%
%
%
%
q
Before & After
Eating
14.53
3.10
3.85
5.35 101
After Defecation
11.82
3.33
1.93
3.81
72
90.8 171
Both
73.65
93.57
94.22
4
6
188
Total
100
100
100
100
9
Agent for Wash Hands
Soap
Mud
Ash
Only with
Water
Total
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
83.11
5.74
3.04
87.80
2.66
6.87
92.82
1.05
1.40
8.11
2.66
4.73
4.76
100
100
100
100
Total
Fre
%
q
90.1 170
0
2
2.17
41
2.96
56
90
188
9
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.
4.7
Availability of Medical Facilities

Availability of Medical Facilities in Sampled Villages
CEMT
36

Primary Health Center

Sub Center
Pvt. Medical
Practitioner
Andhra
Region
Rayalaseema
Region
Telangana
Region
50
60
25
40
50
50
60
66.67
Tota
l
38.1
0
38.1
0
61.9
0
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.
Regional Analysis: The status of health infrastructure varies significantly
across three regions. Availability of PHC is the highest in Rayalseema
(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 Rayalseema 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
37

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
Engineer-in-Chief
Chief Engineers
Superintending Engineers
Joint Director (Geology)
Senior Geologists
Superintending Engineers
Junior Geologists
Executive Engineers
Deputy Executive Engineers
Assistant Executive Engineers / Assistant
Engineers
Supporting staff *
Work charged employees *
Total
Technical assistance to
Gram Panchayats
Implementation and review
of works
CEMT
38
Assistant Executive Engineers
Assistant Engineers
(1,831 nos.)
Level
State
State
State
State
State
District
District
Sub-divisional
Mandal
Mandal
At various tiers
At various tiers
Numbers
1
3
2
1
6
20
41
52
315
1,831
6,400
7,850
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 Panchayath:
Maintenance of water supply works on its own or by annual contract
by generating adequate resources.
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 Panchayath 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 Panchayaths 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 Supply and Sanitation Committees
(VWSSCs) 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.
VWSSCs have been formed in sector reform supported villages of
Prakasham and Chittoor districts. O &M of schemes is found to be better in
these villages. Timely repairs and quick and effective mobilization of tariff
CEMT
39

has been some of the achievements of VWSSCs. 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 for high percentage of complaints being registered with
the GP institutions in SVS villages is the close identity of the scheme with
the GPs.
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
Complaints are Lodged with

SVS MVS
Total
Fre
%
%
%
q
32.3 67.3 36.1
Village Sarpanch
2
5
8
161
10.6
Ward Member
1
0.00 9.44
42
Water men
0.76 0.00 0.67
3
Junior Engineer
3.54 0.00 3.15
14
Village Secratary
0.51 4.08 0.90
4
52.2 28.5 49.6
Gram Panchayat
7
7
6
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.
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
CEMT
40

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.
Nature of Complaint Lodged
SVS
MVS
Timing of Water Supply
%
40.6
6
31.0
6
No Sufficient Pressure
4.29
Impurities in Water
Bursting of Water Lines
7.32
11.1
1
%
12.2
4
26.5
3
10.2
0
16.3
3
Others
Total
5.56
100
Inadequate Water
Supply
8.16
26.5
3
100
Time Taken to Solve

SVS MVS
%
Within a day
Within 3 Days
Within a Week
Within Two Weeks
Within 1 Month
More than 1 Month
Never
Total
2.78
31.8
2
17.1
7
7.07
9.34
1.77
30.0
5
100
%
20.4
1
32.6
5
2.04
12.2
4
2.04
2.04
28.5
7
100
Total
Fre
%
q
37.5
3
167
30.5
6
136
4.94
22
8.31
10.7
9
37
7.87
100
35
445
48
Total
Fre
%
q
4.72
31.9
1
15.5
1
7.64
8.54
1.80
29.8
9
100
21
142
69
34
38
8
133
445
5.4 Financial Issues

It is obligatory for the GP/VWSSC 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
41

5.4.1 Tariff Collection

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.
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
42

Demand and Impact 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
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.
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
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.
Expected Frequency of Supply
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Daily
Alternate
Day
Total
CEMT
Total
Fre
%
q
96.1 136
3
7
95.24
95.37
96.47
4.76
4.63
3.53
3.87
100
100
100
100
43
55
142
2

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%).
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 Rayalseema (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.
Expected Hours of Supply
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Total
Fre
%
q
44.4
4
632
43.3
2
616
6.19
88
1 Hr
22.22
5.72
60.18
1 - 2 Hr
2 - 3 Hr
More Than 3
Hr
41.27
1.59
62.13
17.44
36.49
2.32
34.92
14.71
1.01
6.05
100
100
100
100
Total
86
142
2
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.
Demand for Source Based Water Scheme
Andhra
Rayalaseema
Telangana
Region
Region
Region
Total
No
%
%
%
%
s
Ground
47.6
Water
75
40
41.67
2
10
Surface
52.3
Water
25
60
58.33
8
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 Rayalseema 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
CEMT
44

perception in the region that ground water is relatively less polluted as

compared to surface water.
6.1.3 Household Connection
House Service Connection
Andhr
Rayalasee Telangan
a
ma
a
House Service
Connection
Public Standpost
Total
45.0
55.0
100
62.0
38.0
100
61.7
38.3
100
%
Avg.
58.6
41.4
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. Rayalseema and Telangana.
However in Andhra region, the demand for public stand posts is more
(55%) as compared to house service connections (45%).
6.1.4 Household Metering
Choice for HH
Metering
Andhra
30
Rayalasee
ma
38
Telangana
41.67
% Avg.
38.57
Household metering is a contentious issue. Most households are aware of
the merits of metering. However, less than 40% of the households have
expressed their choice for metering at the household level. This choice is
highest in Telangana (41.67%) and lower in Rayalseema region (38%) and
lowest in Andhra region (30%).
6.1.5 Drains/ UGD/ STP
Sanitation Options
Andhr
a
Rayalasee Telangan
Region ma Region a Region
Open Drains
Under Ground
Drains
Total
75
80
83.33
25
100
20
100
16.67
100
Total
No
%
s
80.9
5
17
19.0
5
4
100
21
On sanitation options (Open Drains or UGDs), the preference of the

community is definitely for open drains, uniformly across regions. In all the
CEMT
45

three regions, a large number of households (75% and above) opted for
open drains against under ground drainage systems, primarily because of
the cost factor.
6.2 Willingness to Pay
Overall situation: On the question payment for better quality of services,
the willingness of households varied on a large band commencing from a
minimum of Rs 5 per month to Rs 100 per month. However, a large
majority (82.09%) of the households expressed their desire to pay ranging
from Rs 10 per month to Rs 30 per month. Since the overall economic
levels of the surveyed households are on the lower rung of the scale, this
willingness appears to be directly linked to their ability to pay.
Regional Analysis: The region-wise distribution of the willingness to pay
shows the following pattern.
i. In Andhra region, only about 25% of the households are willing to pay
up to Rs 30 per month and about 46% of them preferred not to express
their willingness to pay in quantitative terms (cant say)
ii. In Rayalseema region, about 65.94% are willing to pay between Rs 10
to 15 per month and about 11.44% are willing to pay Rs 30 per month.
Only a fraction (2.18%) remained uncommitted.
iii. Telangana region differs significantly from the other two regions. The
distribution of households is more even in all the slabs, starting from Rs
10 per month up to Rs 30 per month. However, what is more
revealing is that about 11.40% of the households expressed that they
were willing to pay up to Rs 50 per month. Unlike Andhra region, only a
negligible percentage of 2.02% households stay uncommitted.
Willingness to Pay for Better Water Supply
Andhra
Rayalaseema Telangana
In Rs
%
0.00
%
4.09
%
0.61
10
15
6.56
0.00
43.87
22.07
6.16
4.54
20
13.11
11.17
19.58
25
4.92
2.72
16.75
24.59
1.64
0.00
0.00
3.28
0.00
11.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.45
0.00
33.70
1.82
1.82
0.30
11.40
1.31
45.90
100
2.18
100
2.02
100
30
35
40
45
50
100
Can't
Say
Total
CEMT
46
Total
Fre
%
q
1.48
21
15.9
3
226
8.88 126
17.1
2
243
12.6
1
179
27.5
5
391
1.34
19
1.27
18
0.21
3
8.74 124
0.92
13
3.95
100
56
141

9
6.3 Technological Options
6.3.1 Water Supply
Overall Situation: Since community members are not fully aware of
various technology options available for water treatment, the question
was not easy for them to fathom. People generally consume water directly
in as is condition (refer water consumption data in section---). Visual
appeal (not muddy) and taste (not saline or hard) are the two primary
factors that they consider as quality parameters. Therefore, they do not
place much emphasis on water treatment, except in extreme cases. The
results of the survey as tabulated below, indicate that filtration with
chlorination is preferred by almost two third (71.43%) of the households,
followed by simple chlorination (23.81%). De-fluoridation is opted only by
less than 5% of the households.
Technology Options - Water Supply

Andhra
Rayalasee Telangana
Region
ma Region
Region
Simple Chlorination
Filtration with
Chlorination
De-fluoridation
Total
25
33.33
75
0
100
80
20
100
66.67
0.00
100
Total
No
%
s
23.8
1
5
71.4
3
15
4.76
1
100
21
Regional Analysis: No surveyed households in Andhra region and Telangana region

chose de-fluoridation as their need. The main reason for this being villages in these
two regions do not suffer significantly from high fluoride problems. Using simple
filtration and chlorination techniques would serve their purpose. Therefore, a majority
of the households (75% and 67% respectively) have opted for this choice. In
Rayalseema however, the problem of high fluoride content in water exists and in
some villages this problem is wide spread and associated health problems are highly
visible. Therefore, 20% of the households opting for de-fluoridation technology is
entirely out of place.
6.3.2 Sanitation Open Drains
Masonry
Concrete
CEMT
Technology Options - Open Drains

Andhra Rayalaseem Telangana
Region
a Region
Region
Total
%
%
%
%
Nos
25
40
41.67
38.10
8
75
60
58.33
61.90
13
47

Total
100
100
100
100
21
Concrete technology is preferred by a large majority of households

(about 62%) in the state. There is very little inter-regional deviation
in this regard.
CEMT
48

S No
Name of the
Habitation
Options for
Water
Supply
Demand
for HSC
A 0-20%
B 20-30%
C 4060%
D 6080%
E 80100%
Choice for
Meter
A 0-20%
B 20-30%
C 4060%
D 6080%
E 80100%
Dusi
2.
3.
Kothachinnaiahpall
e
Kandriga
SW
GW
4.
Nethivaripalli
SW
5.
Y. Kota
6.
Settigunta
7.
Valbhapur
8.
Mallial
9.
Pudur
10. Kistaram
11. Ambatapur
12. Gudibanda
13. Malkapur
14. Adavi Venkatapur
15. S. Konda
16. Disrasavancha
17. Polavaram
18. Basavapur
19. Bibinagar
20. Fakeerugudem
21. Kattangur
CEMT
Technological Options
Water Supply
Open
Drains
A- Chlorination
B- Filtration
with
Chlorination
C- Defluoridation
A
Masonry
BConcrete
CPrefabricat
ed
GW
GW
GW
GW
SW
SW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
SW
GW
SW
GW
SW
SW
SW
GW- Ground
Water
SW
Surface
Water
1.
Demand
for
Sanitati
on
49
A
Open
Drains
BUnder
Ground
Drains
Performance Indicators
7.1 Selection Of Performance Indicators:

Based on the study, a few important performance indicators are being suggested which may be used to track the impact of
the various initiatives of DWSS on the situation in the villages. These are given below:
S. No
1
Performance indicator
Quantity of water usage
Quality of water supply
Accessibility in terms distance

4
Reliability of water supply (Hours of

Supply)
Reliability of water supply (No of
Day)
House Service Connection

Status of Standpost (Taps)
Water Treatment
Unit
123121234561234121234121-
State
Less Than 40 lpcd
40 lpcd
More than 40 lpcd
Not Potable
Potable
Less than 50 mts
50-100 mts
100-200 mts
200-500 mts
More than 500mts
HH Connection
One Hour
1-2 Hour
2-3 Hour
More than 3 Hour
Alternate Day
Daily
0-25% HH
25-50% HH
50-75% HH
75-100 HH
Without Tap
With Tap
Slow Sand Filtration
SVS
MVS

9
3
10
2341212123412-
Cleaning of OHTs
School Water Supply
11
4
12
5
No of Households with ISLs

Usage of ISLs by Villagers
313
6
Prevalence of Open defecation
14
7
Presence of Drains
15
Water Point Surrounding
1234123412345-
16
Presence of Pavements
17
Proper Solid Waste Disposal
CEMT
12341-
51
Chlorination
Chlorination with Filtration
De-fluoridation
Not Cleaning Regularly
Regular Cleaning
Not Available
Available
0-25% HH
25-50% HH
50-75% HH
75-100 HH
Used by None
Partially Used
Used by All
Near Water Source
Near Residential Ares
Not Near Water Source
Not Near Residential Area
0-25%
25-50%
50-75%
75-100
Stagnant water
Bathing/washing clothes and stagnant
water
No bathing/washing/defecation
Kept neat and with platform
Kept neat ,with platform and with safe
mode of disposal of waste water
No Roads
Main Habitation Roads
Internal Roads
Both Main & Internal Roads
Outside & In Front of House

18
CEMT
234123-
School Toilets Usage
52
In Bins
In Bins with Proper Disposal
In Compost Pit
Used by None
Used by Staff
Used by Staff & Students
7.2 Monitoring
Periodicity of monitoring:
Monitoring of the key performance indicators may be done once in six
months and changes be tracked. For this purpose an abridged
questionnaire can be prepared, which can be administered by an
independent agency. A more detailed monitoring, wherein the household
questionnaire as developed by us for the baseline survey is repeated and
findings collated against the baseline results. This will allow a more
comprehensive understanding of the changes taking place on a yearly
basis.

Conclusions
This chapter summarises conclusions arrived at based on the study

results. The conclusions are grouped into 14 sub-sections and they are
summarized below.
Status of Rural Water Supply
Panchayati Raj institutions in Andhra Pradesh are involved in the planning
and implementation of rural water supply schemes. The state has adopted
40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) as the norm for the supply of potable
drinking water. The Department of Rural Water Supply has launched
various schemes for providing drinking water supply to the rural
population in the state. Out of 72,231 habitations 43 % of are fully covered
(FC) with water supply schemes, while 53% were partially covered (PC),
thus bringing the number of habitations either fully covered or partially
covered to a total of about 69,342. Approximately less than 1% of the
habitations still remain uncovered and about 3% habitations do not have
any safe source.
Sector Reforms
The supply situation of water is extremely stressed in the state. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken many measures to decentralize
delivery of RWSS through sector reforms initiatives, which have shown
some positive results. They include improved coverage, improvements in
supply, willingness of people to pay in exchange for better services, better
awareness about O&M requirements etc.
However, a number of
operational and institutional shortcomings such as poor attention to O&M,
lack of peoples participation, erratic electric supply (especially for MVS)
continue to pose as major challenges.
Despite substantial investments in augmenting drinking water supply, a
number of habitations that were earlier fully covered have begun to reemerge as partially covered or not covered habitations due to drying up of
sources. Therefore, for sustainable development, it is critical to optimize
efficient utilization of available resource and measures will have to be
initiated to conserve water including groundwater recharge, awareness
creation on efficient use of water, and how each household can contribute
to minimize wastage of water etc.
Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply
For a large majority of the villages groundwater is the main source of
supply. Villages which depend on surface water draw water either from
river or canal based schemes. In many cases privately owned hand
pumps and bore wells make up for the short supply. MVS villages depend
more on private sources to augment supply. High dependence on SVS for
drinking water supply in the entire state is clearly visible.
Adequacy of Water Supply
CEMT
54

Water supply situation both in terms of volume adequacy and frequency

(timing) is far below the set standards and barely meet the expectations of
community members. Considering the minimum supply standard of 40
lpcd, a large percentage of households fall in three categories i.e. just
about sufficient deficient
and extremely inadequate (less than 20
litres). This requires priority attention and urgent correction.
There is definitely a demand for uninterrupted water supply through out
the day, or at least at pre-fixed timings during the day but GPs are unable
to meet this demand.
SVS villages fare better as compared to MVS in terms of frequency of
supply. MVS households suffer the most in terms of infrequent supply.
House hold level survey data highlights four distinct supply situation: i)
those who receive supply for less than half-an-hour ii) those who receive
supply between half-an-hour and one hour; iii) those who receive supply
between one to two hours and iv) those who receive water supply for more
than two hours.
Quality of Water
On the perception of quality of drinking water by community members
Andhra Pradesh is reasonably well placed, in comparison to many other
states, except for a few isolated pockets. The general perception on water
quality positively favors MVS villages as compared to SVS villages.
The problem of poor quality of water includes high fluoride content,
hardness, salinity and bad smell under SVS villages, where as under MVS
villages they are reported to be i) muddy water, hard water and bad smell.
It is also important to note that most of the perceived quality problems
can be easily addressed by GPs.
Water Supply in Schools
A large majority of rural schools have the benefit of water supply in their
school premises. Therefore, the water supply situation in schools is
considered to be good. However, there is a regional variation, with Andhra
region faring far better than the other two regions, although the upkeep of
taps in this needs better attention. In the absence of water supply facility
within the school premises, schools use public taps or other available
sources in the neighboring areas.
Status of Rural Sanitation
Situation Analysis of rural sanitation in Andhra Pradesh indicates that close
to 50% of APL families and about 25% of BPL families have access to
individual household latrines. Overall, about 35% of the households have
toilet facilities either within the house or in the immediate premises owned
by them. Field level reality check indicates that despite having access to
toilets, its actual use is very poor. The usage of toilets in the state is
placed at 28%, meaning that 72% of the toilets are not put to use. As a
consequence of open defecation is a common phenomenon which puts
community hygiene at high risk. The overall sanitation situation and public
CEMT
55

hygiene in all the three regions is very poor and deserves a high priority
attention.
It was observed that most of the households use pour flush type of toilets.
Dry pit latrine is also popular with 23% of the households opting for it and
the use twin pit type of home latrines rank the lowest at about 7%.
Region-wise figures indicate that use of latrine is lower than 10% in
Andhra region where as it is relatively high in Telangana region (32.37%).
In Rayalseema region it stands at 20.79%.
Therefore, significant
investments are required to inform, educate and create awareness
amongst community members on the merits of toilet use and to promote
positive behavioral changes.
Indiscriminate disposal of garbage are observed in all the surveyed
villages. Drainage maintenance is poor; they remain clogged at many
places due to 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%).
Improper waste water disposal also poses a public health challenge. Less
than 50% of the households use soak pit for waste water disposal,
followed by one-third opting for drains. Leaving waste water in the open is
also observed in about 19% of the households.
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 disease carriers.
School Sanitation
Out of 79654 schools (both Government & Pvt.) in rural area about 39%
school have sanitation facilities. And there is separate facility available for
girl students in higher Secondary Schools. Field observations during the
survey indicated that maintenance of sanitation facilities in the schools is
very poor and many of them have been abandoned. Proper disposal of
waste is absent and in almost all schools it is let out in open.
Health & Hygiene
High incidence of Typhoid was reported in all the three regions with
Rayalseema region suffering the most from it. Typhoid was followed by
Malaria and the incidence of diarrhea was far lower across three regions.
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. Soap is commonly used cleaning agent for washing
hands followed by ash and mud.
Water Handling Practices
In majority of the households (85%) no treatment is done prior to
consumption of water.. Using safe practices like taking water with laddle
from the container is very rare , but protecting water container with cover
CEMT
56

or lid is widely practiced. Customized tanks or tanks with taps are also
used in some households.
Medical Facilities
The status of health infrastructure varies significantly across three regions.
Availability of PHC is the highest in Rayalseema and lowest in Telangana.
However, what is interesting to note that despite the availability of
reasonable levels of health infrastructure, private medical practitioners
thrive mainly in Telangana region.
Institutional Arrangements
Across the state, people recognize that role of GPs in managing water
supply and sanitation. The institutional level performance varies
substantially across regions. Few of the Gram Panchayaths are very
dynamic and take keen interest in the WSS issues while others fail to live
up to their minimum expected level.
Lack of transparency in
administration prevails in most of the Panchayats.
Filed level reality check indicates that the inability of GPs to efficiently
manage WSS 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. Village Water
Supply and Sanitation Committees (VWSSCs) are active in some places
and 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 VWSSCs.
System of grievances redress is weak. Survey data highlights the fact that almost 30%
of the complaints raised by the community members remain unresolved. PRIs take
varied durations to solve public 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 inherent institutional
weakness. No serious efforts have been made to address water equity issues and
vulnerability of marginalized households.
Demand Assessment
Close to three fourth of the households articulated the need for
improvements in water supply. This demand for better supply situation is
almost uniformly spread across SVS and MVS villages. The improvements
were sought in terms of i) higher frequency of supply and ii) increased
duration of supply. An overwhelming majority of more than 95 % of the
households across the state expect the frequency of supply to be
increased to daily, indicating a clear cut demand for improved service
delivery. No significant regional variation has been noticed in this demand.
There is a great deal of demand for groundwater based schemes as
compared to surface water based schemes, especially amongst the people
in Andhra region. The higher preference for groundwater based schemes
in Andhra region stems from the fact that groundwater availability is
abundant or at least perceived to be abundant. In addition, there is also a
CEMT
57

general perception in the region that ground water is relatively less

polluted as compared to surface water.
Most households in Rayalseema and Telangana regions prefer house
service connections to public stand posts. However in Andhra region, the
demand for public stand posts is more as compared to house service
connections. People are fully aware of the merits of metering. However,
less than 40% of the households have expressed their choice for metering
at the household level. This choice is highest in Telangana (42%) and lower
in Rayalseema region (38%) and lowest in Andhra region (30%).
On sanitation options (Open Drains or UGDs), the preference of the
community is definitely for open drains, uniformly across regions. In all the
three regions, a large number of households opted for open drains vis-avis UGDs, primarily because of the cost factor.
Willingness to Pay
On the question payment for better quality of services, the willingness of
households varies on a large band commencing from a minimum of Rs 5
per month to Rs 100 per month. However, a large majority of the
households expressed their desire to pay ranging from Rs 10 per month to
Rs 30 per month. Since the overall economic levels of the surveyed
households are on the lower rung of the scale, this willingness to pay
appears to be directly linked to their ability to pay.
CEMT
58

Annexure
HH Questionnaire
FDG Checklist
CEMT
59

Technical assistance to
Gram Panchayats
Implementation and review
of works
CEMT
60
Assistant Executive Engineers
Assistant Engineers
(1,831 nos.)

Baseline DFRversion AP

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Baseline DFRversion AP

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department

Government of Andhra Pradesh

The World Bank Assisted

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and

Baseline, Rapid Demand and Impact

Draft Final Report

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Need for the Present Assessment.......................................................................5

Objectives of the Assignment.............................................................................6

Status of Rural Water Supply.........................................................................7

Rural School Water Supply..............................................................................18

Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh............................................19

Individual Household Latrine...........................................................................22

Rural School Sanitation....................................................................................27

Health and Hygiene........................................................................................29

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Status of Water Borne Diseases...........................................................29

Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages.........29

Incidence of Water Borne Diseases..................................................................29

Water Handling Practices.................................................................................30

Availability of Medical Facilities.....................................................................31

Demand and Impact Assessment..................................................................37

Selection Of Performance Indicators:..............................................................43

Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply........................................................................47

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

b) Community Development and RWSS Infrastructure Building:

1.2 Need for the Present Assessment

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Objectives of the Assignment

Semi structure interview schedule

Village Panchayat and

Focus Group Discussions

Women Group Member

Focus Group Discussions

User Groups at water source

Observation at water points

State and District Officials

Secondary data collection

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Focus Group Discussions

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Status of Rural Water Supply

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Fully Covered (FC)

The district wise total coverage is given in table below.

2.1.1 Sector Reforms Project

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

villagers to ensure their participation in planning and implementation;

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Lessons from Sector Reform Initiatives

Key Lessons Learnt

Swajaladhra reforms initiative with demand driven community

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

2.2 Access to Drinking Water Supply

The source of water, the problems faced by the villagers in the

2.2.1 Coverage of Selected Villages

Detailed Analysis: Of the 16 villages covered by ground water based

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

2.2.2 Source of Water Supply

Detailed Analysis: The detailed analysis of responses indicate that, of

2.2.3 Quality of Water

Overall Situation: Based on the visual and sensory observation of