Answer

India’s domestic water allocation follows a uniform per capita water supply standard (lpcd), defined without scientific basis or empirical need analysis. Despite its influence on infrastructure and investment decisions, it overlooks regional diversity, leading to inequitable access and ineffective service delivery.

How Arbitrary Per Capita Water Supply Standard Fails to Account for Regional Differences

• Lacks Climatic and Geographical Basis: The same standard value is applied nationwide despite vast climatic variations, ignoring actual demand variations.
  Example: The Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization(CPHEEO) prescribes 150 lpcd for megacities and 135 lpcd for others, without rationalising for regions like humid Kolkata or arid Jodhpur.
• Neglects Socio-Economic and Cultural Variation: It fails to differentiate based on livelihoods, consumption patterns, or hygiene needs.
• Applies Multiple Contradictory Standards: Cities use conflicting lpcd values depending on project funding requirements, not actual demand.
  Example: In 2012, Mumbai used 150 lpcd for the Gargai Dam Detailed Project Report but 240 lpcd for other projects to meet funding agency norms.
• Ignores City Size and Sewerage Systems Appropriately: Uniform standards don’t factor in existing sewerage infrastructure or city-specific challenges.
  Example: CPHEEO recommends 135 lpcd for all cities with planned sewerage, though real usage and needs differ widely across cities.
• Not Based on Actual Consumption Data: The standards are not backed by field surveys, making them arbitrary for practical implementation.
  

Consequences on Equitable Water Distribution Between Urban and Rural Areas

• Distorts Resource Allocation: Fixed norms lead to excessive planning for cities, diverting water from rural regions.
  Example: Urban domestic water demand projections based on inflated lpcd values justify large dam projects, affecting rural water availability.
• Skews Infrastructure Investment: Cities attract disproportionate funding due to standard-driven estimates, marginalising rural schemes.
  Example: Projects under AMRUT and Smart Cities rely on CPHEEO norms, drawing central assistance away from rural counterparts.
• Undermines Rural Entitlement: JJM’s 55 lpcd norm remains static, even when functional toilets increase water demand in villages.
  Example: The Swachh Bharat Mission increased household water usage, yet the outdated 55 lpcd norm under JJM remained unchanged.
• Obscures Actual Delivery Gaps: Standards are used in planning, but not enforced or measured in service delivery.
• Enables Technical Arbitrage: Consultants choose standards that ease approval, not reflect ground realities, deepening rural-urban disparities.
  Example: Adopting lower lpcd in DPRs helps secure CPHEEO approval, regardless of community-specific requirements.

Remedial Measures for Effective Water Conservation

• Develop Evidence-Based Norms: Use ground surveys and household metering to update per capita norms across regions.
  Example: A MoHUA-backed monitoring system could revise norms to reflect actual usage and demand diversity.
• Ensure Metered and Monitored Supply: Install bulk and consumer meters to trace usage and identify wastage.
  Example: Without bulk meters, cities can’t track water flows; very few households have functional meters nationwide.
• Adopt Region-Specific Planning: Replace national averages with climate-sensitive, culturally relevant standards.
  Example: Future detailed project reports must integrate local rainfall and usage data for design approval.
• Equalise Rural-Urban Planning: Align JJM and urban schemes with similar data-driven logic to avoid disparities.
  Example: Raise rural lpcd based on water-intensive needs post-toilet and hygiene infrastructure expansion.
• Incentivise Conservation Through Pricing: Implement slab-based tariffs to reward efficiency and discourage waste.
  Example: Use MoHUA’s service benchmarks with real-time data to track efficiency before approving funding.

India’s arbitrary per capita water supply standards lack empirical grounding and perpetuate regional and rural-urban inequities. Reforming norms through data-driven methods, real-time monitoring, and region-specific planning is crucial for ensuring equitable, sustainable, and accountable water governance.