Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

CHAPTER 7

Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

Introduction The ‘Working Group on Housing’ for the preparation
Shelter is a basic need for human existence – for of the ‘Tenth Plan Approach Paper’ has observed
protection from the elements as well as to raise that 90 per cent of the housing shortage relates
families. And, just as provision of shelter facilitates to the poor and that there is need to increase the
human existence, access to drinking water, supply of affordable housing to low income groups
sanitation and hygiene rank foremost among the through a proper process of allocation of land,
basic services that affect human development. extension of funding assistance and provision of
Access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation support services. All the issues identified by the
impacts not only poverty and health indicators, Working Group relate to the sphere of activity
but also has critical gender implications in terms and responsibility of state governments and local
of women’s work and women’s health. This bodies, and therefore, the success of the National
chapter deals with these three facets of human Housing Policy depends largely on the efforts of
development in Karnataka. state governments.
While all human beings
I. HOUSING Providing better living conditions for people is now need shelter, for the
While all human beings need shelter, for the poor, a global concern. The Millennium Development poor, even the most basic
even the most basic shelter may be beyond reach Goals envisage achieving significant improvements
shelter may be beyond
because they do not own land or because the in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers
cost of building materials and construction is too by the year 2020. In this context, urban planning reach because they do not
high. Shelter is a basic human need. The National and governance structures have to be made more own land or because the
Housing and Habitat Policy, 1998 provides the effective, and incorporate an explicitly pro-poor cost of building materials
framework for the implementation of shelter focus on land rights and affordable low-cost and construction is too
programmes in the country. The national agenda housing to meet the burgeoning demand for
on housing envisages the creation of 2 million
high.
shelter in urban areas.
houses every year. The Habitat policy and the
national agenda recognise housing activity as an The housing scenario
engine for substantial employment generation in In Karnataka, 54.9 per cent of households live in
the country. permanent houses, as compared with Kerala, which

FIGURE 7.1
Number of houses by type: Karnataka and India 2001
Karnataka 2001 India 2001
9.5
18.1
51.8
54.9

30
35.6

Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary

155
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

has the highest percentage of households (68.1 per cent) among the southern states. However, the
per cent) living in permanent houses among the proportion of households owning houses in rural
southern states.This is above the national average areas is quite high at 91.2 per cent (Table 7.1).
of 51.8 per cent. A high 35.6 per cent of households
in Karnataka have semi-permanent houses, a Across districts, only 24 per cent households in
high proportion among southern states, and Raichur district live in permanent houses and
above the national average of 30 per cent. Urban 44.3 per cent are in semi-permanent houses, as
households perform better, with 77.9 per cent compared with Bangalore Urban district, where
households living in permanent houses, as 89.7 per cent households live in permanent
compared with only 42.6 per cent in rural areas. houses. The proportion of temporary houses is the
The scenario is reversed with regard to temporary highest in Koppal district (33.8 per cent) followed
houses. (Table 7.1) by Raichur (31.7 per cent), Gadag (28.1 per cent)
and Bellary (24.5 per cent), all of which are in
Karnataka (78.5 per cent) stands fourth among north Karnataka (Appendix Tables: Series 9).
the southern states with regard to the number of
households living in houses that they own. This is Bangalore Urban district tops the state in respect
less than the national average of 86.66 per cent. of households living in permanent houses in urban
Karnataka, with 18.7 per cent households living areas (92.1 per cent) while Bidar (a low HDI district)
in rented houses, ranks just after Tamil Nadu (19.9 tops the state in respect rural households living in
permanent houses (74.5 per cent). Raichur has
BOX 7.1
the lowest percentage of rural households living in
Karnataka’s Habitat Policy permanent houses (13.7 per cent) and Gadag has
the lowest percentage of urban households (41.3
The state’s millennium policy envisages: per cent) living in permanent houses. Data indicates
1. Construction of 2,00,000 houses each year and 10,00,000 houses during the period
that Bangalore Urban has the least percentage of
2000-05 through state government sponsored Ashraya and Ambedkar (the latter scheme
semi-permanent houses (6.4) in respect of urban
is for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) housing programmes as well as Centrally
areas (Appendix Tables: Series 9).
sponsored housing programmes for the poor;
2. Preparation of a reliable database for implementing housing programmes for the poor in
rural and urban areas; Data on the tenure of households indicates that
3. Ownership of the dwelling units shall be in the name of women except in the case of the lowest percentage of families (45.69) that
widowers, ex-servicemen, and the physically disabled; own houses are to be found in Bangalore Urban,
4. Quotas for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in allocation - in 2002-03, the quotas which is below the state average of 78.46 per cent.
increased to 40 per cent for SCs from 30 per cent and for STs to 10 per cent from three The highest percentage of households in
per cent; Bangalore Urban lived in rented houses (50.73).
5. Quotas for the physically disabled were enhanced from three per cent to five per cent in The highest percentage (90.94) of households
2003 and for senior citizens without any income, it is two per cent; that own houses is in Chamarajnagar (a low HDI
6. Establishing a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation district) followed by Udupi (90.42) and Bidar
as the nodal agency to implement the housing programmes;
(90.19). In Udupi, a high HDI district, we find only
7. Providing a subsidy at Rs.10,000 per unit to all (poor) beneficiaries and an additional
7.37 per cent of households in rented houses. A
subsidy of Rs.10,000 for SCs/STs for houses constructed in rural areas;
low 68.3 per cent of rural households in Kodagu
8. Procuring, preferably by direct purchase from landowners, lands required for housing in
rural and urban areas;
district own their houses, followed by Bangalore
9. Providing house sites free of cost to eligible beneficiaries in both rural and urban areas; Urban (69.0 per cent) while 95.7 per cent of rural
10. Encouraging beneficiary participation in construction; households who own houses are situated in a
11. Providing guarantee for funds borrowed from HUDCO and other financial institutions; relatively underdeveloped district like Bidar. The
12. Facilitating housing for certain socio-economic groups such as beedi workers, porters in urban scenario shows that in Bangalore Urban,
agricultural market yards, weavers, artisans, leather artisans, safai karmacharis, fisher only 43 per cent households own houses while 54
people; and per cent live in rented houses (Appendix Tables:
13. Beneficiary selection through gram sabhas. Series 9).

156
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

TABLE 7.1
Distribution of households by tenure and type: Karnataka and selected states: 2001
(’000s)
State Area Tenure Status Type
Total Own Rented Any other Permanent Semi-permanent Temporary
Total 191964 166353 20230 5380 99432 57664 34816
% 100.0 86.66 10.53 2.80 51.8 30.0 18.1
Rural 138272 130491 4913 2867 56829 49402 32010
India
% 72.03 94.37 3.55 2.04 41.1 35.7 23.1
Urban 53692 35862 15317 2513 42602 8262 2806
% 27.97 66.79 28.53 4.68 79.3 15.4 5.2
Total 10232 8028 1909 295 5613 3645 971
% 100.0 78.5 18.7 2.8 54.9 35.6 9.5
Rural 6675 6085 416 174 2843 3009 821
Karnataka
% 65.24 91.2 6.2 2.6 42.6 45.1 12.3
Urban 3557 1943 1493 121 2770 636 150
% 34.76 54.6 42.0 3.4 77.9 17.9 4.2
Total 6595 6110 332 154 4494 1424 673
% 100.0 92.6 5.0 2.3 68.1 21.6 10.2
Rural 4943 4663 163 116 3191 1185 564
Kerala
% 74.95 94.3 3.3 2.4 64.6 24.0 11.4
Urban 1653 1447 169 37 1303 239 109
% 25.05 87.5 10.2 2.3 78.8 14.5 6.6
Total 14174 11007 2822 345 8295 2572 3304
% 100.0 77.7 19.9 2.4 58.5 18.1 23.3
Rural 8275 7554 556 165 3914 1672 2688
Tamil Nadu
% 58.38 91.3 6.7 2.0 47.3 20.2 32.5
Urban 5899 3452 2266 180 4381 900 616
% 41.62 58.5 38.4 3.0 74.3 15.3 10.4
Total 16850 13795 2715 340 9221 3589 4034
% 100.0 81.9 16.1 2.0 54.7 21.3 23.9
Andhra Rural 12676 11457 1001 218 5962 3077 3633
Pradesh % 75.23 90.4 7.9 1.7 47.0 24.3 28.7
Urban 4174 2337 1713 123 3259 512 401
% 24.77 56.0 41.1 2.9 78.1 12.3 9.6
Total 19063 15311 3020 732 11021 6553 1475
% 100.0 80.3 15.8 3.8 57.8 34.4 7.7
Rural 10994 9891 724 378 4434 5274 1281
Maharashtra
% 57.67 90.0 6.6 3.4 40.3 48.0 11.7
Urban 8070 5419 2296 354 6587 1279 194
% 42.33 67.2 28.5 4.4 81.6 15.9 2.4
Total 9644 8207 1181 256 6300 2849 492
% 100.0 85.1 12.2 2.7 65.3 29.5 5.1
Rural 5886 5458 324 104 3000 2453 431
Gujarat
% 61.03 92.7 5.5 1.8 51.0 41.7 7.3
Urban 3758 2749 857 152 3300 395 62
% 38.97 73.2 22.8 4.1 87.8 10.5 1.6
Source: Registrar General of India, Census of India 2001, Housing Profile, Tables H-4, H-5 and H-6.

157
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

There appears to be little correlation between the Housing schemes

economic development of a district and house The Ashraya programme provides assistance of
ownership patterns. House ownership is high in the Rs.20,000 of which Rs.10,000 is a subsidy and
predominantly agrarian north Karnataka districts the remaining Rs.10,000 is a loan. For SC/ST
where land values are less likely to be affected beneficiaries in both Ashraya and Ambedkar
by speculation consequent on urbanisation as in programmes, the entire provision of Rs.20,000
Bangalore Urban. Migration to cities is a factor is a subsidy. In the urban Ashraya programme,
that pushes up the percentage of persons living the assistance is Rs.25,000 with a beneficiary
in rented houses. contribution of at least Rs.5,000.

House ownership is high Policy interventions The state launched the ambitious ‘One Million
in the predominantly Given the relatively low percentage of house Housing Programme’ in October 2000, which
ownership in the state, Karnataka has long envisaged the construction of one million dwelling
agrarian north Karnataka
recognised the significance of housing as an units in rural and urban areas during the period
districts where land important component of the Minimum Needs 2000-05, i.e. 2,00,000 houses each year. Rural
values are less likely Programme. Indeed, Karnataka had launched a housing has been given primacy with an annual
to be affected by state-funded housing programme for the poor target of about 1,70,000-2,20,000 houses.
speculation consequent through the Ashraya and Ambedkar housing The annual target for the urban programme is
programmes in 1993-94, long before the National 30,000. The cost of urban projects is usually very
on urbanisation as in
Habitat Policy was formulated. The state has one high.
Bangalore Urban. of the best housing programmes in the country.

BOX 7.2

Some innovative strategies

Beneficiary participation as a matter of policy to prevent speculation in land, since land markets are
Local bodies and SPVs have traditionally constructed housing projects with poorly organised and there is heavy demand for house sites, even by the
little input from beneficiaries. Over the last five years, however, beneficiary non-poor and there is every likelihood that sites may be sold to speculators,
construction has become the preferred mode of implementation, particularly thus defeating the purpose of the programme.
in the districts of south Karnataka. This mode of construction is facilitated
by the presence of reasonably skilled construction labour such as masons
Women’s empowerment
and underemployed farm labour, which doubles as semi-skilled or unskilled The decision of the state to select only women beneficiaries for assistance
construction labour. At present, about 80 per cent of the construction of under the housing programmes (barring some exceptions) and give hakku
houses for the economically weaker sections (EWS) in rural areas is patras (title deeds) for house sites and houses only in the names of the
constructed by beneficiaries.This has the advantage of ensuring that dwelling women of the household, has had a critical impact on ownership patterns in
units address the social, cultural and occupational needs of the beneficiaries a society where land, houses and assets traditionally belong to men. It is a
far more effectively than agency-constructed core housing could hope to significant step towards promoting gender equity.
achieve. Beneficiary participation takes the form of direct participation
in construction, supervision of work, attending to simple, yet significant,
Community participation
tasks such as curing cement blocks or masonry to provide additional funds The selection of beneficiaries was initially entrusted to the Ashraya
for construction of the dwelling unit. The generation of local employment Committee. Now gram panchayats identify and select beneficiaries,
and use of locally available building materials is a crucial economic and the very poor will hopefully now be in a position to articulate their
outcome of this approach. There is better accountability for the funds since demands.This is a significant step towards governance through community
these are made available to the beneficiaries only when they attain the participation.
prescribed benchmarks. ‘Self-help’ housing does not, however, mean that
beneficiaries are deprived of technical inputs. Taluk panchayat engineering
Social equity
staff, Nirmithi Kendras and the Karnataka Land Army Corporation (KLAC) There is specific targeting of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people
provide construction support to beneficiaries who are unable to construct through the Ambedkar (100.0 per cent) and Ashraya programmes
their own houses. In urban areas, ‘core’ housing is provided by agencies (50.0 per cent).

158
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

TABLE 7.2
Houses constructed under State and Central schemes: 1999–2004
(Nos.)
Sector Area Scheme Years Total
1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Ashraya 53630 71794 136886 115267 108747 486324
Rural Matsya Ashraya 1598 1851 1066 264 4779
Ambedkar 22712 17619 26489 18415 16274 101509
Ambedkar 2999 3058 1727 1121 8905
State
Ashraya 7746 28702 34274 20020 17966 108708
Urban
KSCB (Hudco) 2000 1985 2291 2080 8356
KSCB (SC/ST) 1000 1080 1000 3080
Total 86088 125697 205929 159575 144372 721661
Urban KSCB (Vambay) 10312 7968 18280
Indira Awas Yojana 36626 27785 29096 28910 24222 146639
Central Rural (I.A.Y.)
PMGY 2217 3360 4112 9689
Total 36626 27785 31313 42582 36302 174608
Grand Total 122714 153482 237242 202157 180674 893189
Source: Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, progress reports of various years.

A village-wise demand survey was conducted by Commercial banks are unwilling to lend to
gram panchayats during May-June 2003 and it the poor, and even if they are willing to do
has been estimated that there are 12.26 lakh so, lending norms, guidelines and collateral
houseless people and 10.43 lakh people without security requirements mean that the most
house sites who have asked for assistance under needy get excluded. Hence, in Karnataka,
the programme. Since 2001-02, a large number institutional lending is channelled through
of new village settlements known as Navagramas the state government.The concerns of banks
has been created adjoining, and preferably can be met by organising an institutional
abutting existing village settlements to decongest partnership with local bodies and
villages. So far 2,399 Navagramas have been microfinance structures that would ensure
created to provide better amenities. loan recoveries cost-effectively and also
facilitate savings for home loans to meet
Table 7.2 gives details of houses constructed credibility requirements. There is definitely
under the state and Central government sponsored a need for banks to have a fresh look at the
housing programmes during 1999-2004. State lending norms for the poor to enable them
sponsored schemes constitute 80 per cent of the to access funds for housing.
rural housing programmes and 87.5 per cent of  Currently, provision of infrastructure facilities
the urban housing programmes implemented in like water, electricity, sanitation, internal
Karnataka.The state had invested over Rs.18,912 roads and drains is not being financed under
million till March 2004 to create 8,96,269 any housing programme. This has resulted in
dwelling units. poor occupancy and a poor quality of life for
occupants in the settlements. Infrastructure
Recommendations provision is extremely resource intensive and
 It would be no exaggeration to state that the should not be left to cash-starved local bodies
poor find it difficult to borrow for housing. to provide; it should be funded by the state

159
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

since the ability of the poor to contribute is II. DRINKING WATER AND
meagre. SANITATION
 In Karnataka the state survey reveals that Among the basic services that affect human
14.31 lakh families are houseless and development are access to drinking water (defined
15.08 lakh families do not own house sites. in terms of availability, proximity and quality),
The number of houseless families is the sanitation and hygiene. Access to drinking water
highest in Belgaum (1.07 lakh) followed has implications not only for health status and
by Gulbarga (1.02 lakh), Kolar (0.99 lakh), human development parameters but also for
Mysore (0.96 lakh) and Tumkur (0.94).1 opportunities depending upon the opportunity cost
Public policy must focus on targeting of time. This has special implications for women
resources to districts where the problem of and children. The responsibility for fetching water,
houselessness is most acute. sometimes over long distances, for household
Infrastructure provision  An evaluation-cum-audit of the gender needs is invariably assigned to women or girls,
is extremely resource sensitive initiative that mandates that house who drop out of school to attend to these chores.
title deeds shall be in women’s names must Hence, the ready availability of safe drinking water
intensive and should not
be taken up to assess the impact of this step lays the foundation for improvement in literacy
be left to cash-starved in changing gender relations and empowering and health indicators in communities.
local bodies to provide; it women.
should be funded by the  The National Urban Renewal Mission (NURM) According to the 2001 Census estimates, 31.7
state since the ability of is expected to be the major vehicle for urban per cent of all households in Karnataka had access
renewal in the country, providing substantial to drinking water within their premises, 46.4
the poor to contribute is
financial assistance for urban infrastructure per cent outside the premises, and a substantially
meagre. and provision of basic services for the urban lower number (21.8 per cent) had access away
poor. Accordingly, the city development from the premises.2 Disaggregated data shows
plans and strategies must focus on enabling that urban Karnataka is doing better in terms of
the poor to better access civic services. facilities; in rural Karnataka, only 18.5 per cent of
Those working in the urban informal sector, households had access to drinking water within
especially women, must be included in the the premises compared with a high 56.5 per cent
agenda for urban regeneration. for urban Karnataka. However, the statistics
are reversed with regard to access to drinking
water outside the premises, with 55.4 per cent
TABLE 7.3 rural households having access to drinking water
Distribution of households by location of drinking water: outside the premises as against 29.6 per cent for
Karnataka 2001 urban areas. This unequal pattern continues with
(’000s) reference to the percentage of households with
Location Total Per cent Rural Per cent Urban Per cent access to drinking water away from the premises:
it is 26.1 per cent for rural Karnataka and 13.8
Access within the premises 3248 31.7 1236 18.5 2011 56.5
per cent for urban Karnataka (Table 7.3).
Access outside the
premises 4749 46.4 3696 55.4 1054 29.6
However, this pattern holds good for other states
Access away from the as well: countrywide, access to drinking water
premises 2235 21.8 1743 26.1 492 13.8 is markedly better in urban areas than in rural
Total no. of households 10232 100.0 6675 65.2 3557 34.8 areas. The principal sources of drinking water are
Source: Registrar General of India, Census 2001, Housing Profile, Karnataka. taps, hand pumps, tube wells, wells, tanks, ponds,

2
Away from the premises is defined in the Census as a water
1
Samanya Mahiti: District-wise statistics on Housing prepared by source that is beyond 500 metres from the dwellings in rural
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj department based on the areas and beyond 100 metres in urban areas.
Census 2001 data.

160
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

lakes, rivers, canals and springs, etc. Forty-eight TABLE 7.4

per cent rural households and 78.4 per cent urban Distribution of households by source of drinking water:
households access their drinking water from Karnataka 2001
taps. In rural areas, however, 22.9 per cent of (’000s)
households rely on hand pumps and 15.6 per cent Source of water Total Per cent Rural Per cent Urban Per cent
on wells while in urban areas; taps constitute the Tap 6025 58.9 3236 48.5 2790 78.4
dominant source (Table 7.4). Hand pump 1750 17.1 1530 22.9 220 6.2
Tube well 876 8.6 609 9.1 267 7.5
Some important indicators available for sanitation
Well 1269 12.4 1038 15.6 230 6.5
relate to access to bathroom and latrine facilities.
Tank, pond and lake 111 1.1 101 1.5 10 0.3
Here, too, the rural–urban difference is marked.
River and canal 112 1.1 105 1.6 7 0.2
While 79.1 per cent urban households had a
Spring 31 0.3 28 0.4 2 0.1
bathroom in the premises, the proportion for rural
areas was 48.1 per cent. While a high 82.5 per cent Any other 58 0.6 28 0.4 31 0.9
of rural households had no latrines in the premises, Source: Registrar General of India, Census 2001, Housing Profile, Karnataka.

only 24.7 per cent urban households did not

have latrines. As many as 44.9 per cent urban TABLE 7.5
households had water closets. Both urban and rural Number of households with bathroom, latrine and drainage facility:
households were relatively on a par when it came Karnataka 2001
to drain connectivity for waste water (rural: 31.1 (’000s)
per cent; urban: 39.3 per cent), the real difference Sl. No. Type of amenities Total % Rural % Urban %
lies in the fact that 64.6 per cent rural households, Total number of
by and large, did not have any kind of drainage 1
households 10232 6675 3556
connectivity whereas only 19 per cent urban
No. of households having
dwellers lacked this facility (Table 7.5). 2 bathroom within the
premises 6023 58.9 3208 48.1 2815 79.1
Rural drinking water
Type of latrine within
Karnataka has been giving high priority to rural 3
the premises
drinking water over the last two decades. While
A Pit latrine 1368 13.4 632 9.5 736 20.7
the national norm stipulates provision of 40 litres
per capita per day (lpcd) of safe drinking water B Water closet 1907 18.6 311 4.7 1595 44.9
within 500 metres of the place of residence, C Other latrine 561 5.5 217 3.3 343 9.7
Karnataka has set a target of 55 lpcd. With latrine 3836 37.5 1160 17.5 2674 75.3
No latrine 6395 62.5 5513 82.5 881 24.7
Since the beginning of the 1980s, bore-wells
Type of drainage
have been the main basis of water supply 4 connectivity for waste
schemes in the state.The policy of the government water outlet
is to provide bore-wells with hand pumps to
A Closed drainage 1766 17.3 285 4.3 1,481 41.6
habitations with a population of less than 500,
B Open drainage 3475 34.0 2076 31.1 1398 39.3
mini water supply schemes to habitations with a
population between 500 and 1,000, and piped With drainage 5241 51.3 2361 35.4 2879 80.9
water supply schemes to habitations with a No drainage 4989 48.7 4312 64.6 677 19.0
population of more than 1,000. In the last few Source: Registrar General of India, Census 2001; Housing Profile: Karnataka – Table H-10.
years, the groundwater level is being depleted
very quickly in most districts, resulting in a large are also being explored as an alternative to
number of bore-wells drying up. Strategically, bore-wells.There has been considerable progress
drilling new bore-wells is now seen to be less in the provision of rural drinking water in the
efficient than deepening existing bore-wells to last one and a half decades. Currently, there are
improve water yields. Surface water sources 1,90,716 bore-wells, 22,101 mini water supply

161
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

TABLE 7.6 schemes and 17,170 piped water schemes

Distribution of households by location of drinking water: Karnataka (Annual Report 2004-05: Rural Development
and selected states and Panchayat Raj Department). Accordingly,
(’000s) the percentage of households with access to
State Area Total no. of Within Outside Away safe drinking water has increased from 67.3
households premises premises per cent in 1991 to 96.08 per cent in 2001
Total 191964 74803 85112 32048 and to 99.0 per cent in 2004. The water supply
% 39.0 44.3 16.7 service level in terms of litres per capita per day
Rural 138272 39699 71561 27012 (lpcd) has also improved since 1991. There were
India
% 28.7 51.8 19.5 20,398 habitations with 40 lpcd and above
Urban 53692 35105 13552 5036 in 1991, 38,701 habitations in 1999 and in
% 65.4 25.2 9.4 2004 as many as 41,115 habitations had water
Total 10232 3248 4749 2235 availability of 40 lpcd and above.
% 31.7 46.4 21.8
Rural 6675 1236 3696 1743 Access
Karnataka
% 18.5 55.4 26.1 Accessibility of drinking water improved to over 80
Urban 3557 2011 1054 492 per cent in all districts in 2001. In rural Karnataka,
% 56.5 29.6 13.8 18.5 per cent households had access to drinking
Total 6595 4720 1085 790 water within the premises, as compared with 12.0
% 71.6 16.5 12.0 per cent in Tamil Nadu, 22.7 per cent in Andhra
Rural 4943 3416 860 667 Pradesh, 38.9 per cent in Maharashtra and 69.1
Kerala
% 69.1 17.4 13.5 per cent in Kerala. Except Kerala, most states,
Urban 1653 1304 225 123 including Karnataka, have been able to provide
% 78.9 13.6 7.4 drinking water outside the premises (Table 7.6).
Total 14174 3835 8620 1718 However, a high 26.1 per cent of rural households
% 27.1 60.8 12.1 in the state access drinking water away from their
Rural 8275 989 6183 1103 premises. Karnataka is close to Andhra Pradesh’s
Tamil Nadu
% 12.0 74.7 13.3 21.9 per cent in this respect. There are still some
Urban 5899 2846 2437 615
habitations where drought conditions lead to
% 48.2 41.3 10.4
water being transported in tankers or by train.
Total 16850 5272 8238 3340
Continuous drought conditions from 2001-02 to
% 31.3 48.9 19.8
2003-04 led to water being transported to about
Rural 12676 2883 7016 2777
Andhra Pradesh 500 villages in the state. Almost 48.5 per cent of
% 22.7 55.3 21.9
rural households access their drinking water from
Urban 4174 2388 1222 563
taps compared with 60.5 per cent in Tamil Nadu.
% 57.2 29.3 13.5
Rural areas primarily rely on hand pumps and
Total 19063 10182 6530 2351
wells while taps constitute the dominant source in
% 53.4 34.3 12.3
urban areas (Table 7.7).
Rural 10994 4272 4828 1894
Maharashtra
% 38.9 43.9 17.2
Urban 8070 5911 1702 457 Among districts, Udupi (56.0 per cent), Dakshina
% 73.2 21.1 5.7 Kannada (54.0 per cent) and Uttara Kannada
Total 9644 4488 3689 1466 (42.0 per cent) have the highest percentage of
% 46.5 38.3 15.2 rural households with access to drinking water
Rural 5886 1724 2939 1223 within the premises. Raichur (9.0 per cent),
Gujarat Gulbarga and Bijapur (10.0 per cent) all in
% 29.3 49.9 20.8
Urban 3758 2764 750 244 north Karnataka have the lowest percentage of
% 73.5 20.0 6.5 rural households with access to drinking water
Source: Registrar General of India, Census 2001, Housing Profile – Table H-10. within the premises. Districts with the highest
percentage of rural households with access to

162
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

drinking water away from the premises are TABLE 7.7

Raichur (43.0), Gulbarga (41.0) and Bijapur Distribution of households by source of drinking water: Karnataka and
(36.0). Districts with the lowest percentage of selected states - 2001
rural households with access to drinking water (’000s)
away from the premises are Mandya (14.0), and State Area Total Tap Hand Tube Well Other
Dakshina Kannada (15.0).The arid, water-starved pump well
districts of north Karnataka have problems of Total 191964 70449 68456 10677 34873 7510
access and sustainability while the coastal and % 36.7 35.7 5.6 18.2 3.9
malnad districts perform better in terms of access India
Rural 138272 33584 59737 7930 30733 6287
(Appendix Tables: Series 9). % 24.3 43.2 5.7 22.2 4.5
Urban 53692 36865 8720 2746 4140 1221
The data on the distribution of households by % 68.7 16.2 5.1 7.7 2.3
location of drinking water reveals that some Total 10232 6025 1750 876 1269 312
districts are heavily dependant on wells, viz. % 58.9 17.1 8.6 12.4 3.0
Udupi (80.0), Dakshina Kannada (70.0) and Rural 6675 3236 1530 609 1038 263
Karnataka
Uttara Kannada (65.0) while Chamarajnagar % 48.5 22.9 9.1 15.6 3.9
(46.0), Bijapur (42.0), and, to a lesser extent, Urban 3557 2790 220 267 231 50.0
Tumkur (36.0) are primarily dependant on hand % 78.4 6.2 7.5 6.5 1.4
pumps. The remaining districts derive drinking Total 6595 1346 72.0 124 4739 313
water principally from taps (Appendix Tables: % 20.4 1.1 1.9 71.9 4.7
Series 9). Rural 4943 687 57.0 91.0 3814 293
Kerala
% 13.9 1.1 1.8 77.2 5.9
Urban 1653 659 16.0 33.0 925 20.0
Quality
% 39.9 1.0 2.0 56.0 1.2
There are over 21,008 habitations with major
Total 14174 8863 2528 735 1505 543
quality issues: excess fluoride: 5838; brackishness:
% 62.5 17.8 5.2 10.6 3.8
4460; nitrate: 4077 and iron: 6633. The water
Rural 8275 5005 1679 374 938 279
in these villages is contaminated with fluoride Tamil Nadu
% 60.5 20.3 4.5 11.3 3.4
(>1.5 mg/litre), total dissolved salts (>1500
Urban 5899 3858 849 361 567 264
mg/litre), nitrate (>100 mg/litre) and/or iron
% 65.4 14.4 6.1 9.6 4.5
(1mg/litre). Under the Rajiv Gandhi National
Total 16850 8106 4399 1000 2779 566
Drinking Water Mission, there is a sub-mission to
% 48.1 26.1 5.9 16.5 3.4
deal with the problem of contaminated water. So
Andhra Rural 12676 5105 3911 727 2478 456
far 47 projects have been implemented, covering Pradesh % 40.3 30.9 5.7 19.6 3.6
628 fluoride affected habitations. Defluoridisation Urban 4174 3001 488 273 300 111
plants have been set up in 200 villages. Individual % 71.9 11.7 6.5 7.2 2.7
household filters are also being supplied at a Total 19063 12203 2459 554 3390 457
subsidised cost in fluoride affected villages. % 64.0 12.9 2.9 17.8 2.4
Ingestion of fluoride contaminated water causes Rural 10994 5007 2097 418 3129 343
fluorosis which causes staining and pitting of Maharashtra
% 45.5 19.1 3.8 28.5 3.1
the teeth and, in more severe cases, skeletal Urban 8070 7197 362 136 261 113
abnormalities, leading to physical disability and % 89.2 4.5 1.7 3.2 1.4
weakness, a consequent fall in labour productivity Total 9644 6001 1606 494 1128 406
and a decline in income levels. % 62.3 16.7 5.1 11.7 4.2
Rural 5886 2889 1340 296 1075 286
Gujarat
Sustainability % 49.1 22.8 5.0 18.3 4.9
The sustainability of water supply schemes is Urban 3758 3120 266 199 53.0 120
a major concern of the government. Over 95 % 83.0 7.1 5.3 1.4 3.2
per cent of rural water supply schemes depend Source: Registrar General of India, Census 2001, Housing Profile.
on ground water sources. Over-exploitation of

163
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

groundwater for irrigation has led to a progressive Gujarat (86.3 per cent), Kerala (84.0 per cent)
decline in the water table and drying up of and Tamil Nadu (72.6 per cent) (Table 7.8). Lack
aquifers. This has rendered many water supply of drainage facilities and toilets results in a highly
schemes non-functional. While efforts are being unsanitary environment, which is a precursor to
made to rejuvenate these schemes by taking high morbidity rates.
recourse to deepening and hydro fracturing
bore-wells, a more sustainable strategy is the District-wise data reveals that Udupi has the best
recharging of groundwater through watershed coverage of latrines (49.9 per cent) followed by
development. This strategy has been adopted in Kodagu (48.5 per cent), Dakshina Kannada (47.2
the implementation of the Drought Prone Area per cent) and Bangalore Urban (41.0 per cent). A
Development Programme, Desert Development high 96.7 per cent of rural households in Bijapur
Over-exploitation of Programme, Integrated Wasteland Development do not have latrines, followed by Gulbarga (94.9
groundwater for irrigation Programme, Western Ghat Development per cent) and Bagalkot (94.6 per cent) (Appendix
Programme, etc. This has helped to recharge Tables: Series 9).
has led to a progressive
groundwater in these areas.
decline in the water table Urban water supply and
and drying up of aquifers. Rural sanitation sanitation
Compared to the progress in rural water supply
in Karnataka, the progress in rural sanitation has Urbanisation
not been very satisfactory. While there has been a The urban population in Karnataka has grown
sustained attempt to improve the provisioning of from 16,40,000 in 1901 to 1,79,10,000 in
safe drinking water since the 1980s, no such parallel 2001. The proportion of urban population to total
effort or investment was evident in rural sanitation. population of Karnataka is 33.98 per cent, higher
It was only in the 1990s that this area became than the average for the country, which is 27.78
the focus of policy interventions with the launch per cent. The state accounts for 6.28 per cent
of special schemes to provide toilets and sanitary of the country’s urban population, lower than
facilities in villages, viz. Nirmala Grama and Swasthi Maharashtra’s 14.37 per cent and Uttar Pradesh’s
Grama. Another programme, Swachcha Grama, 12.09 per cent. Among the 27 districts of the
was launched in 2001 with an integrated focus state, Bangalore Urban district has the highest
aimed at providing five facilities: (i) paving internal concentration of urban population, with almost
roads and streets in the village; (ii) construction 88.08 per cent of the district population residing
of efficient sullage and storm water drainage; (iii) in urban areas. The district accounts for over 32
providing community compost yards and removal of per cent of the urban population of the state. The
manure pits from the dwelling areas of the village; next highest concentration of urban population is
(iv) providing smokeless chulahs for all households; in Dharwad district (4.92 per cent) while Kodagu
and (v) construction of household, community and district has only 0.42 per cent of urban population,
school latrines in all villages. That these schemes the lowest among all districts in the state. Haveri
still have to make an impact is clear from the data district has seen the highest decadal growth rate
from the 2001 Census. A high 82.5 per cent of of urban population of 46.69 per cent between
rural households had no latrine in the house but 1991 and 2001.
this is more or less on par with other neighbouring
states except Kerala (18.7 per cent only). The About half of the urban households in Karnataka
percentage of rural households with bathrooms is have access to drinking water within the
48.1 per cent, which is higher than Maharashtra premises, which is below the national average
(46.1 per cent), Tamil Nadu (21.0 per cent) of 65.4 per cent. A third of households in
and Andhra Pradesh (27.1 per cent) except Kerala Karnataka have access to drinking water outside
(56.5 per cent). Admittedly, 64.6 per cent of rural the premises which is lower than 41.3 per cent
households had no drainage connectivity for the in Tamil Nadu but higher than Kerala (13.6
wastewater outlet, but this was still better than per cent), Gujarat (20.0 per cent) and Maharashtra

164
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

(21.1 per cent). In Karnataka 13.8 per cent of TABLE 7.8

households have access to drinking water away Distribution of households by bathroom, latrine and drainage:
from the premises, which is the highest among Karnataka and selected states
the southern states (Table 7.6). The source-wise (’000s)
data reveals that taps constitute the major source State Area Bathroom within Latrine within Overall drainage
of drinking water in urban Karnataka (78.4 house house connectivity
per cent), which is higher than the national Total 69371 69884 89067
average of 68.7 per cent. Maharashtra leads % 36.1 36.4 46.4
with 89.2 per cent followed by Gujarat (83.0 Rural 31569 30304 47259
India
per cent) (Table 7.7). % 22.8 21.9 34.2
Urban 37802 39580 41807
Across districts, in Koppal only 27.0 per cent of % 70.4 73.7 77.9
households have access to drinking water within Total 6023 3836 5241
the premises followed by Raichur (33.0 per cent), % 58.9 37.5 51.3
Gadag (34.0 per cent), Bagalkot and Bellary Karnataka Rural 3208 1160 2361
(36.0 per cent). Certain districts such as Mysore % 48.1 17.4 35.4
(91.0), Gadag (89.0), Hassan and Bellary (88.0), Urban 2815 2674 2879
Bangalore Urban, Chamarajnagar and Chitradurga % 79.1 75.3 80.9
(87.0), Tumkur and Kolar (86.0), perform better Total 6709 5559 8686
% 39.8 32.9 51.6
in terms of access to tap water than Bangalore
Andhra Pradesh Rural 3434 2300 5252
Rural (80.0). Bidar performs poorly, with only
% 27.1 18.1 41.4
59.0 per cent except for Udupi, Uttara Kannada
Urban 3275 3258 3434
and Dakshina Kannada where well water is the
% 78.5 78.1 82.3
dominant source of drinking water. In both Bidar
Total 5653 4910 6394
and Dharwad, 4.0 per cent of urban households % 39.9 35.1 45.1
depend on other sources like tanks, ponds, lakes, Tamil Nadu Rural 1735 1187 2263
rivers, canals and springs (Appendix Tables: % 21.0 14.4 27.4
Series 9). Urban 3917 3794 4130
% 66.4 64.3 70.1
Urban local bodies in Karnataka comprise Total 4096 5540 1300
six municipal corporations, 40 City Municipal % 62.1 84.1 19.7
Councils (CMCs), 91 Town Municipal Councils Kerala Rural 2792 4020 790
(TMCs) and 82 Town Panchayats. These bodies % 56.5 81.3 16.0
are entrusted with the duty of managing Urban 1304 1520 510
water supply and sanitation in urban areas. A % 78.9 92.1 30.9
persistent charge levelled against urban areas Total 4875 4301 3745
is that they appropriate the lion’s share of the % 50.6 44.6 38.8
state’s resources in water supply and sanitation. Gujarat Rural 1845 1274 803
% 31.4 21.7 13.7
Certainly, urban households across the country,
Urban 3029 3026 2942
have better access to drinking water and
% 80.6 80.6 78.3
sanitation facilities than their rural counterparts
Total 11651 6688 11592
(Tables 7.6, 7.7 and Appendix Tables: Series 9).
% 61.1 35.1 60.8
However, urban water supply and sanitation Rural 5066 2001 4522
Maharashtra
has its own constraints and inequities. % 46.1 18.2 41.1
Urban 6584 4686 7067
Urban water supply % 81.6 58.1 87.6
Water is essential to life and a vital natural Source: Registrar of India, Census 2001: Housing Profile.
resource in economic activities, but lack of access
to adequate, safe drinking water at an affordable

165
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

price has been a problem for most urban local from property tax realisations. This amount was
bodies (ULBs), especially its poorer residents. about Rs.1,000 lakh for 2002-03, resulting
Urban water supply is inefficiently managed in a net operating deficit of Rs.15,000 lakh.
with massive investments being wasted. Most of This deficit is met through other revenue
water squandering takes place because of the (non-water related) of ULBs like property tax,
under-pricing of water. In addition, excessive SFC devolutions and other grants/loans.
use of water also causes severe water pollution,
groundwater depletion and soil degradation. Most ULBs did not/could not supply water in
Urban water supply is Moreover, water is distributed very unevenly (with accordance with design norms as of year-end
inefficiently managed the southern parts of Karnataka at an advantage 2001. Lpcd in individual ULBs vary over a wide
over the relatively drier northern counterparts)3 in range. Thus, even though the calculated lpcd of
with massive investments
the state and many villages and towns currently ULBs is high, the actual water availability is low.
being wasted. Most of face critical water shortages that undermine Most ULBs have water supply on alternate days
water squandering takes human health and economic development. and one or two hours per day.
place because of the
under-pricing of water. Most ULBs receive water only for a few hours on Piped water is also supplied through public
alternate days. The reasons include limitations in fountains (PFs) for local communities, typically
In addition, excessive
source availability, inefficient distribution networks, comprising the urban poor or where individual
use of water also causes erratic power supply and poor management household connections cannot be provided,
severe water pollution, practices. Losses through retail distribution, illegal either for economic reasons or due to physical
groundwater depletion connections and public fountains contribute to constraints. There are an estimated 73,000 public
and soil degradation. a high level of ‘unaccounted for water’ (UFW). fountains in Karnataka (excluding Bangalore).
Though accurate data is not available on UFW, the Water supply through public fountains is erratic
estimates vary between 30 and 70 per cent for and is also contingent on availability of power.
most ULBs. Typically, water is supplied two or three times
a week for only a few hours. Water losses from
Consumption is not metered, except in Bangalore PFs are high due to improper water management
Urban district, hence volumetric tariffs are not practices and faulty (leaking) taps and pipes. PFs
levied in the state. Since the rationalisation of have also become a source for unauthorised access
tariffs, most ULBs charge a flat tariff of Rs.45 to water for vendors, who exploit the potential for
per household per month. The tariff structure commercial gains from sale of such water.
also prescribes a separate debt-servicing levy,
which is not implemented in practice. Compared Urban sanitation
to the O&M expenses of Rs.206 crore incurred Nearly 80 per cent of urban households in
in 2002-03, the revenue realisation from Karnataka have bathrooms within the premises,
water tariffs (including connection charges) which is above the national average of 70.4
was Rs.4,600 lakh (about 22 per cent of O&M per cent. Over 75 per cent of urban households
expenses). Additional revenue support is also have latrines within the premises in Karnataka
available through apportionment of water cess compared with 92.1 per cent in Kerala and 78.1
per cent in Andhra Pradesh. In Karnataka overall
drainage connectivity (80.9 per cent) is better than
3
Compared to 84 per cent of towns in south Karnataka, 92 the national average of 77.9 per cent. A high 91.1
per cent of towns in north Karnataka suffer from inadequate
water supply (Report of High Power Committee for Redressal per cent of households in Bangalore Urban district
of Regional Imbalances, 2002). The inadequacy of source have latrines while 66.5 per cent of households in
of water is also more acute in north Karnataka, given weak
monsoon activity in the region, especially in summer. Places
Gadag lack this facility (Appendix Tables: Series 9).
like Dharwad, Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur actually are forced Among the four mahanagara palikas in Karnataka,
to rely on containerised supply of water from other places to Bangalore city has the maximum households with
meet their needs in summer. Coastal Karnataka and the Cauvery
region have adequate sources availability and relatively better latrines (91.1 per cent) followed by Mysore with
than other parts of the state. 89.7 per cent and Gulbarga has the least with

166
 Karnataka Human Development Report 2005

57.2 per cent. By and large, the towns of north TABLE 7.9
Karnataka have inadequate latrine facilities. Distribution of main source of drinking water in urban slums
(Per cent)
Water supply and sanitation in urban Notified slums Non-notified slums
slums Tap Tube well Well Others Tap Tube well Well Others
Urban slums have high concentrations of poor Karnataka 89 11 0 0 77 16 0 8
people living in very basic conditions in the middle
All-India 84 10 2 0 71 22 2 5
of affluence. Table 7.9 gives the distribution of
Source: NSS 58th round on ‘Conditions of Urban Slums – 2002’ Government of India, December 2003.
the main source of drinking water supply in
notified and non-notified slums in Karnataka, in
comparison with the all-India average.

As this table indicates, Karnataka’s performance funds released by government out of SFC grants. The low allocation to the
is better than the national average in terms of The low allocation to the urban sector and lack of urban sector and lack
access to water from a relatively efficient source timely availability of funds have partly contributed
of timely availability
namely taps. Further, only 28 per cent slums in to the sub-optimal service delivery of water and
Karnataka are water-logged during monsoon sanitation services. The rural sector is slightly better of funds have partly
(in both notified and non-notified slums) as served in terms of fund flows. The Karnataka Urban contributed to the sub-
compared to the national average of 36 per Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWSDB) optimal service delivery
cent for notified slums and 54 per cent for non- estimates that Rs.4,79,699 lakh (approximately of water and sanitation
notified slums. This, again, shows that Karnataka US$ 1 billion) is required to enable ULBs to conform
services. The rural sector
performs better than the national average in to minimum design standards. In sum, Karnataka
terms of drainage facilities. However, 66 per cent has done well in the rural sector as far as drinking is slightly better served in
of notified slums in Karnataka have no latrines as water supply is concerned, but there are challenges terms of fund flows.
against the national average of 17 per cent. The in the path to reaching accepted norms across all
gap for non-notified slums between Karnataka districts. The biggest challenges are in the urban
and the national average appears to be less with sector, where complex issues of tariffs have to be
Karnataka recording 53 per cent against the faced.
Indian average of 51 per cent. Similarly, only
23 per cent of notified slums in Karnataka have
TABLE 7.10
under ground drainage (UGD) facilities as against
the national average of 30 per cent. However, 24
Plan and non-plan allocation of funds for water sector
(Rs. lakh)
per cent of non-notified slums in Karnataka have
UGD coverage as against the national average of Year Plan Non-plan Net State Domestic Percentage of total
allocation* allocation* Product (SDP) # allocation to SDP
15 per cent.
1996-97 23800 1600 4473655 0.56
Financing water and sanitation 1997-98 30200 1400 4751682 0.66
The plan and non-plan allocation by the government 1998-99 26600 1600 5396093 0.52
for water and sanitation4 as a ratio of the state’s
1999-2000 34600 1500 5654327 0.63
GDP is presented in Table 7.10.
2000-01 28200 600 6258100 0.46
Financing patterns prescribed for category of urban 2001-02 28300 (RE) 793 (RE) 6298200 0.46
local bodies (ULBs) comprise contributions from 2002-03 24100 (BE) 658 (BE) 6741800 0.37
Government of Karnataka, ULBs and loans from Sources:
funding agencies. Since the government guarantees 1. *: Finance Department, Karnataka.
2. # Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Karnataka.
the loans, loan service obligations are met out of
Notes:
RE: Revised Estimate.
BE: Budget Estimate.
4 QE: Quick Estimate.
Includes allocation towards rural sector.

167
Housing, Water Supply and Sanitation

Tariff setting: efficiency in governance consequences are that the rich benefit while the
The State Urban Drinking Water and Sanitation poor still have relatively high water expenses.
Sector Policy states ‘The longer term objective is to At the same time, the health of the poor suffers
establish an appropriate cost recovery mechanism because of inefficient water services. Current
through adequate tariff to ensure that revenues subsidies do not always reach the target groups
cover operations and maintenance costs, debt and require to be restructured.
service plus a reasonable return on capital…
Tariff will be structured in a manner such as to It could be inferred that low water prices generally
disincentives excessive consumption and wastage do not benefit the poor. However, this does not
of water, whilst ensuring at least a minimum “life necessarily imply that water subsidies are bad
line” supply to the poor.’ and should always be avoided. Instead, they must
target the (financing) needs of the poor more
Subsidies to drinking There are typically two principal forms of water cost-effectively. Governments may, for instance,
water end up favouring subsidisation — grants and low-interest loans choose to provide subsidies for micro-credit in
— both found in Karnataka. With the estimated order to ensure income access, or issue subsidised
the rich disproportionably,
investments for the sector very likely to grow, water stamps for the poor or apply ‘life line’
since they have more since the unit costs of new water supplies will water pricing (a low rate for a basic service level
ready access to public double, and in some cases, even triple, compared and an increasing rate above). When carefully
water supplies. with the present systems, even before including implemented and targeted, such a reform of
environmental costs, there is an urgent need to water subsidies may very well improve the lot of
efficiently manage the finances.This is particularly the poor.
critical as the real cost of water may soon be out
of reach for the economically weaker sections. Proper water policies and action plans are
The initiatives in this regard include savings needed to adequately address current and future
from regularising illegal connections, savings problems of water misuse, increasing scarcity and
from improved efficiencies, contributions from pollution. It points to the need for demand-driven
the users and higher charges, wherever feasible. water policies to complement the traditional
Many believe that water subsidies are necessary supply-oriented approach, to reallocate existing
for social purposes, in particular to support the water supplies, to encourage a more efficient use
poor. In fact, subsidies to drinking water end up and to ensure an equitable access. A key priority
favouring the rich disproportionably, since they is reallocation between various users. Reforms
have more ready access to public water supplies. of current pricing and incentive measures,
The evidence reveals a vicious circle: when institutional changes, technical improvements
services are heavily subsidised, their quality is and education and information are all needed
low and service expansion relatively slow because to promote most sustainable forms of water
of lack of resources and their inefficient use. The development and use.

168