Phase II Benchmarking Urban Water Utilities in India · utilities, the Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia (WSP-SA) in partnership with the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)

Benchmarking Urban WaterUtilities in India

Phase II

47057

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Phase II

Benchmarking Urban WaterUtilities in India

Executive Summary v

Introduction 1

Utility Data Systems Analysis 5

Inter-utility Performance Analysis 1 9

Performance Analysis of Utilities 2 5

Annex 1 – Utility Profiles 5 9

Annex 2 – Data Summary Sheet (2005-06) 7 2

Annex 3 – Indicator Summary Sheet (2005-06) 7 5

Contents

iv

Phase II – Benchmarking Urban Water Utilities in India

AbbreviationsARV annual rateable valueBAN BangaloreBHU BhubaneswarBWSSB Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage BoardCAGR Compound Annual Growth RateCHE ChennaiCHG ChandigarhCPHEEO Central Public Health and

Environmental EngineeringOrganization

CMWSSB Chennai Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Board

DEH DehradunHMWSSB Hyderabad Metropolitan Water

Supply and Sewerage BoardHYD HyderabadIB-NET International Benchmarking

Network for Water andSanitation Utilities

ICAI Institute of CharteredAccountants of India

IMC Indore Municipal CorporationIND IndoreJAM JamshedpurJBIC Japan Bank for International

CooperationJNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National

Urban Renewal Mission

JUSCO Jamshedpur Utilities andServices Company Limited

MCC Municipal Corporation ofChandigarh

MoA Memorandum of AgreementMoUD Ministry of Urban DevelopmentNGOs nongovernmental organizationsNRW nonrevenue waterO&M operation and maintenanceOWSSB Orissa Water Supply and

Sewerage BoardPHED Public Health Engineering

DepartmentPHEO-BHU Public Health Engineering

Organization-BhubaneswarPMC Pune Municipal CorporationPROOF Public Record of Operations

and FinancePUN PuneRAJ RajkotRMC Rajkot Municipal CorporationSTP sewerage treatment plantUFW unaccounted-for waterUJS Uttarakhand Jal SansthanUSAID United States Agency for

International DevelopmentWSP-SA Water and Sanitation Program-

South AsiaWSS water supply and sanitation

Units of Measurecu m cubic meterkl kiloliterkm kilometerlpcd liters per capita per dayMLD million liters per day

Currency ConversionUS$1 = Rs. 42 (as on May 2007)

v

Introduction

The water supply and sanitation (WSS) sectorin India suffers from chronic inefficiencies,including limited coverage and poor servicequality. To address these shortcomings, thefocus of interventions in the sector haspredominantly been directed at the supply-sidefactors, such as capital investments thecreation of infrastructure. This, however, hasnot resulted in improved service delivery. Theweak service orientation is exacerbated by thelack of reliable information on the performanceof utilities. This limits a utility’s ability tounderstand and gauge its performance, andalso constrains any inter-utility comparison.

Benchmarking of WSS utilities is emerging asan important tool of performance improvementthrough regular monitoring and analyses. It canplay a significant role in the sector as a vehiclefor institutional strengthening. Sustainedbenchmarking can help utilities in identifyingperformance gaps and effecting improvementsthrough the sharing of information and bestpractices, ultimately resulting in better waterand sanitation services to people.

Recognizing the potential of benchmarking asa tool to improve the performance of the Indianutilities, the Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia (WSP-SA) in partnership with theMinistry of Urban Development (MoUD) piloteda benchmarking exercise, covering 13 utilitiesin India in 2003-04. This exercise, hereaftercalled Phase I, involved creating awarenessabout benchmarking, developing themethodology and collecting and analyzing dataon an initial sample of WSS utilities in India.

This was followed up with Phase II of thebenchmarking exercise in 2005-06. Theobjectives of Phase II were to build upon thekey learnings from Phase I, work with aselected set of WSS utilities to collect freshdata and scale up the exercise to promote theconcept amongst a larger number of WSSutilities across India through targeteddissemination and advocacy. The secondphase of benchmarking also focused on datacollection systems prevailing in the utilities, anda multiyear analysis of performance. Thisreport presents the findings of the DataCollection and Analysis exercise as part of thePhase II activity.

Approach and Methodology

Phase II of the benchmarking exercise covered10 utilities (Table 1). The choice was based onthe following criteria:• All four geographical zones of the country

are represented;• The different institutional structures prevalent

within the country are represented;• Varying-sized operations are also

represented; and• Ability and willingness on the part of utilities

to share the necessary data.

The performance indicators and theirdefinitions as detailed by the InternationalBenchmarking Network for Water andSanitation Utilities (IB-NET) were adopted forthe Phase II benchmarking exercise. Inaddition to collecting data from the utilities,efforts were directed at understanding thesystems deployed to collect data on variousperformance indicators. The knowledge of the

Executive Summary

vi


systems prevailing at the utility level helped inassessing the reliability of the data collected.Each indicator/data was graded on a four-pointscale A-D, with A having the highest and D thelowest reliability. The reliability scale is alsointended to assist utilities to address

system-related problems in data collection andplan measures to enhance data reliability.It was ensured that at least two data collectioncycles took place – one for initial data-gathering,learning and error-checking, and the other for thefinal data collection and clarifications.

Table 1: List of utilities covered by the study

Zone Sr. no. City Name of utility

North 1 Chandigarh (CHG) Municipal Corporation Chandigarh

2 Dehradun (DEH) Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan

3 Indore (IND) Indore Municipal Corporation

South 4 Hyderabad (HYD) Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

5 Chennai (CHE) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

6 Bangalore (BAN) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

East 7 Jamshedpur (JAM) Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company Limited

8 Bhubaneswar (BHU) Public Health Engineering Organization

West 9 Rajkot (RAJ) Rajkot Municipal Corporation

10 Pune (PUN) Pune Municipal Corporation

Table 2: Comparison of participating utilities on selected key indicators

Coverage Production Metering Working Complaints Dailyratio supply

in % lpcd % of total Opex as % of water Hoursconnections % of connections per

oper rev day

City Boards Bangalore 91% 143 90% 1.0 NA 2.50

City Boards Chennai 98% 107 4% 1.4 44% 3

City Boards Hyderabad 95% 192 93% 1.1 39% 1

City Company Jamshedpur 79% 608 1% 0.9 43% 6

City Corp. Chandigarh 100% 290 71% 1.3 2% 12

City Corp. Indore 54% 102 0% 5.4 0% 0.75

City Corp. Pune 88% 274 16% 0.8 NA 7

City Corp. Rajkot 98% 126 0.4% 6.6 30% 0.33

State Agency Bhubaneswar 45% 269 1% 3.3 8% 3

State Agency Dehradun 80% 149 8% 1.4 4% 4

Reliability scale A* B C D*

Findings of the Phase II Benchmarking Exercise

The summary of utility performance on select key indicators is provided in Table 2.

* A refers to a high degree of reliability and D refers to low or negligible reliability. Darker the shade higher the reliability.

vii

Executive Summary

The summary of the status of data collectionsystems across various participating utilitiesis provided in Table 3.

Quality of servicePhase II of the benchmarking exercise hasrevealed considerable scope for improvementof the performance of utilities. The participatingutilities have a shortfall in most key indicators.

All the utilities provide water on anintermittent basis. Only MunicipalCorporation of Chandigarh (MCC) hasclaimed that it supplies water on an averageof 12 hours in a day. The remaining utilitiessupply water for shorter durations. RajkotMunicipal Corporation (RMC) supplies waterfor 20 minutes on an average daily, whilecustomers of Bangalore Water Supply andSewerage Board (BWSSB) and HyderabadMetropolitan Water Supply and SewerageBoard (HMWSSB) receive water on alternatedays. This is despite production levels beingreported to be close to or above CentralPublic Health and Environmental EngineeringOrganization (CPHEEO) norms for per capitawater availability (except for Chennai andIndore which are well below the norm).

Utilities have been able to provide data on thenumber of tests conducted for residual chlorinecontent. The reliability of the tests and theprocess adopted for conducting these testshave not been recorded and evaluated.

Sewerage treatment facilities in many utilitiesare inadequate compared to the amount ofwater supplied. For instance, Public HealthEngineering Organization-Bhubaneswar(PHEO-BHU), which supplies 206 Million Litersper Day (MLD) of water, has a seweragetreatment plant (STP) of just 1 MLD capacity.The utilities must not only expand coverage to100 percent of the service population, but alsocreate the necessary infrastructure todispose off the sewage in an environmentally-friendly manner.

Sustainability of operationsApart from quality of service, the operationsof many utilities are not financiallysustainable. Only three of the 10 utilities areable to generate revenues in excess of theirexpenditure. Jamshedpur and Pune have themost favorable working ratios with valuesbelow 1.0, while Rajkot and Indore have highratios of 6.6 and 5.8, respectively.

Table 3: Summary of status of data collection systems

CHG DEH JAM BHU IND PUN RAJ HYD CHE BANCoverage – Water Supply B B B B B D B D D DWater production A A A D D A D A A AWater consumption C D C D D D D A D ANRW B B C D D C D B D BProportion of connectionsthat are metered B C C D D C C B D BProportion of functional meters B B B B B B B B B BProportion of water soldthat is metered B B B D D B D B B BPipe breaks B D A A D D D A B ASewerage blockages B D A A D D D A B AUnit operational costs B A A B B B B A A APower/op. costs A A A A A A A A A AComplaints A C A A A D C A A A

viii


Poor financial performance can mostly beattributed to high levels of nonrevenue water(NRW) or low level of tariffs or to both. Animprovement in financial performancenecessitates reduction in NRW toacceptable levels and rationalization of thetariff structure.

Most of the utilities, barring Bangalore andHyderabad, to a large extent, bill theconsumers on a flat rate basis. Thus, there isno link between consumption and thecharges payable by the consumer. A shift toa volumetric system of charges will requirethe utilities to develop a proper metering aswell as billing and collection system.

Data reliability issuesThe reliability of data for key indicators islow. None of the participating utilities has “A”category systems for measuring coverage,metering and the number of hours of supply.Three of the participating utilities do not have“A” category data systems even formeasuring water produced.

The data collection systems vary acrossutilities and are generally weak. As a result,the data collected are not always reliable.For instance, many cities do not have apolicy to install meters for all connections.The proportion of metered connectionsvaried from almost negligible metering inIndore to 95 percent metering in Hyderabad.In the absence of metering, no reliableestimate of consumption data is possible. Inthe case of utilities which had a highproportion of metered water consumption,the reliability of the data was not high, asmeters were not tested regularly forproper functioning.

Even for indicators which are as fundamentalas coverage, no utility could provide datawhich could be labeled highly reliable, anddifferent methods have been adopted formeasurement. It is defined in terms ofpercentage of the city covered by someutilities, whereas other utilities definecoverage as percentage of the road networkcovered with water supply pipelines. Whilethe two methods have differing levels ofreliability, neither is perceived to be highlyreliable. Moreover, the absence of standarddefinitions undermines the scope formeaningful comparisons.

In the case of some indicators, the issue ofreliability can be addressed by introducingminor infrastructure improvements. Forinstance, the production data from the threeutilities – PHEO-BHU, Indore MunicipalCorporation (IMC) and RMC – are not reliableas they use methods such as rated capacity ofpumps and their hours of operation to estimatethe level of production. The mere introductionof flow meters will allow the utilities to measuretheir production levels accurately.

In the case of other indicators, greater effortwill be required on the part of the utilities. Forinstance, the estimate of the NRW is as highas 50 percent of the total water produced.But this estimate of NRW itself has lowreliability in the absence of large-scalemetering. Only two utilities, BWSSB andHMWSSB, pursue a policy of providingmeters to all direct service connections.Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company(JUSCO), which has only 0.5 percent ofconnections metered, uses intermediate levelmeters to estimate the total consumption byunmetered connections. In most other cases,

ix

either only bulk consumption is metered or anegligible number of connections aremetered. Extensive consumer level meteringwould be required to obtain a precise NRWestimate and initiate necessary measures forloss reduction.

Metering is necessary but not sufficientThe provision of meters in itself would notresult in better practices. The meters need tobe periodically checked by the utilities forproper functioning. In India, utilities providewater on an intermittent basis. This makesthe meters prone to frequent breakdowns onaccount of air entrapment. Of the utilitiesstudied, only JUSCO has an elaboratemeter-checking program. However, only1 percent of JUSCO’s connections or 220 inabsolute number are metered. Thus, thechecking effort required on the part ofJUSCO is relatively low. BWSSB hasreported that about 10 percent of its meterswere not functioning in each of the threeyears. HMWSSB has a high percentage(94 percent) of its connections metered, butit does not have a regular meter-checkingprogram. In 2007, HMWSSB had outsourcedthe meter-checking program to a third partyand it was observed that several of themeters were not functioning.

Introducing meters and ensuring that theyfunction properly will allow the utilities tobetter manage the system. As a first step forreducing unaccounted-for water (UFW) andNRW, utilities would require to providemeters to all direct service connections, andinstitute a comprehensive meter-checkingprogram. A utility which has all theconnections metered will have greater abilityto manage its water supply operations.

Network performance data noteasily availableMost utilities have not been able to providereliable data on their network performance.In several utilities, it was observed thatdata on the length of the distributionsystem or the sewerage network are notknown. In several other cases, this dataare not maintained at a centralized leveland utilities have found it difficult toaggregate the data from various wardoffices. There is no systematic process forrecording information on the number ofpipe breaks or sewer blockages in severalutilities. Only utilities which have anelaborate complaint recording system areable to provide data on the number ofblockages or pipe breaks occurring in ayear. BWSSB, CMWSSB, MCC andJUSCO have reported elaborate complaintrecording mechanisms. However, no utilityhas been able to provide data on thenumber of pending complaints or theirredressal status.

Conclusions and Way Forward

Phase II of the benchmarking exercise hasdeepened the process by including datasystems analysis and a multiyearperformance analysis. The relevance of thebenchmarking concept and benchmarkingindicators has been reinforced amongstparticipating utilities and the respectivegovernments. Largely consequent to thisexercise, a clear consensus has emerged onthe need to adopt benchmarking and scaleup the exercise to cover all cities in India.

Simultaneously, it has also demonstratedthat for utilities to benefit from benchmarking,

Executive Summary

x


the process of performance improvementhas to be accompanied by data systemsimprovement. Any comparison ofperformance, whether inter-utility ortime-series within a utility, will remainseriously compromised in the absence ofreliable data systems.

The absence of sound data systems alsoweakens the ability to make objectivedecisions regarding measures required toimprove performance. For example,coverage, metering and production statisticsare not fully reliable. With the result, there

are no data to support a decision to choosebetween NRW reduction and capacityaddition as a means to improve the quantityof water supplied to the consumers. In otherwords, while there is an immediate need toimprove performance on key indicators, thelack of reliable data systems hampers anyobjective decision-making on the rightapproach to improve performance. Aperformance improvement program,therefore, needs to take cognizance of theweak data systems and incorporate a plan toupgrade these along with improvement inservice delivery.

1

Background

The water supply and sanitation sector(WSS) in India suffers from chronicinefficiencies, including limited coverage andpoor service quality. It is generally acceptedthat neither differences in institutionalstructure for service delivery (such as a stategovernment department or a city-specificutility) nor geographical constraints (such assource of water supply or pumping effort)have any direct bearing on the quality ofservices. There is a consensus that theunderlying problems relate to theperformance of utilities,1 such as poor andinadequate investments, poor operation andmaintenance (O&M) practices, highnonrevenue water (NRW), uneconomic tariffstructure/levels and poor financialmanagement. However, this consensus hasnot triggered any significant initiatives toimprove the performance of the utilities.

The focus of the interventions in the sectorhas predominantly been to address thesupply side factors, that is, capitalinvestments to ensure greater availability ofwater and sanitation services. The primaryreason for the absence of efforts to improveperformance improvement has been the lackof reliable information on the performance ofutilities. This limits a utility’s ability tounderstand and gauge its performance, and

Introduction

also constrains any inter-utility comparison.The absence of any systematic comparativemechanism restricts the ability of utilities toidentify better performing utilities and adoptthe best practices in the industry.

Benchmarking as a Tool forPerformance Improvement

Benchmarking of WSS utilities is emergingas an important tool of performanceimprovement through regular monitoring andanalyses. Benchmarking may be defined asa systematic search for industry bestpractices leading to superior performance. Itcan play a significant role in the sector as avehicle for institutional strengthening.Benchmarking is increasingly being used asa continuous tool to enhance the quality ofservice delivery, attract investments, bringabout efficiency improvements in systemsand processes and optimize costs, amongother things. Sustained benchmarking canhelp utilities in identifying performance gapsand effecting improvements through thesharing of information and best practices,ultimately resulting in better water andsanitation services to people.

Unlike a rating, grading or a ranking exercise,the objective of benchmarking is not merely todifferentiate or categorize utilities. The purposeof benchmarking is to monitor, evaluate and

1 The word utility in this report refers to a generic term implying urban local bodies, state departments, boards or any other institution responsiblefor providing water supply and sanitation services.

2


disseminate parameters that are commonacross the participating entities. Moreover,benchmarking does not stop at disseminatinginformation, but also provides an opportunity tosuch entities to network and share theirexperiences with each other and with othermembers associated with the sector.

There are various types of benchmarking.Quantitative or Metric benchmarking involvesthe measurement of performance on certainkey parameters, and comparisons with theirpeer organizations or oneself over time.Process benchmarking goes beyond thenumbers to identify specific work proceduresthat need to be improved and then locatesexternal examples of excellence for thesetting of targets and possible emulation.

Water and SanitationProgram–South Asia Piloted aBenchmarking Exercise in India

Recognizing the potential of benchmarkingas a tool to improve the performance of theIndian utilities, the Water and SanitationProgram-South Asia (WSP-SA), inpartnership with the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD), piloted abenchmarking exercise covering 13 WSSutilities in India in 2003-04. This exercise,hereafter called Phase I, involved creatingawareness about benchmarking, developingthe methodology and collecting andanalyzing data on an initial sample of utilitiesin India.

A national workshop was organized in NewDelhi by WSP-SA in partnership with theMoUD to disseminate the findings andconclude Phase I of the project. Thedeliberations in the workshop clearlyunderscored the need to:

• Carry out benchmarking on a sustainablebasis to improve sector performance,carry out reforms, and enhance all-roundaccountability;

• Further the benchmarking exerciseinitiated by the MoUD and WSP-SA insubsequent phases with greaterawareness and demand, inclusion ofmore utilities, and collaborative efforts ofall stakeholders to institutionalize asustainable benchmarking program at thenational level;

• Have a clearly defined and commonlyagreed set of performance indicators andmeasurement methods to analyze andcompare performance; and

• Adequately train utility officials to enablethem to undertake benchmarking andencourage utilities to take ownership ofthe process (institutional and financial) tomake it sustainable in the long run.

Phase II of the benchmarking exercise wasproposed to build upon the key learning fromPhase I, and work with a selected set ofwater supply and sanitation utilities to collectfresh data and scale up the exercise topromote the concept amongst a largernumber of utilities across India throughtargeted dissemination and advocacy.The second phase of benchmarking alsofocuses on data collection systemsprevailing in the utilities, and a multiyearanalysis of performance.

Approach and Methodology

A short list of the 16 utilities was preparedin joint consultation with WSP-SA,ensuring that:• All four geographical zones of the country

are equally represented;• The different institutional structures

3

prevalent within the country arerepresented; and

• Varying-sized operations are alsorepresented.

The shortlisted utilities were also perceivedto be willing to participate in thebenchmarking exercise.

The MoUD, through written communication,introduced benchmarking to the shortlistedutilities and emphasized the usefulness ofbenchmarking as a tool for improving theperformance of the water and sanitation sectorin India. The utilities, in turn, committedthemselves to the benchmarking initiativethrough their written replies to the MoUD.

The performance indicators and theirdefinitions as detailed by the InternationalBenchmarking Network for Water andSanitation Utilities (IB-NET) were adopted forthe Phase II benchmarking exercise.2 Inaddition to collecting data from the utilities,efforts were directed toward understanding thesystems deployed to collect data on variousperformance indicators. The knowledge of thesystems prevailing at the utility level helped inassessing the reliability of the data collected.Each indicator/datum was graded on afour-point scale A-D with A having the highestand D the lowest reliability. The reliability scaleis also intended to assist utilities to addresssystem-related problems in data collection andplan measures to enhance data reliability.

Introduction

Table 1.1: List of utilities shortlisted for the study

Zone Sr. No. City Name of utility

North 1 Chandigarh (CHG) Municipal Corporation Chandigarh

2 Dehradun (DEH) Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan

3 Agra* Uttar Pradesh Jal Sansthan and Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam

4 Indore (IND) Indore Municipal Corporation

South 5 Hyderabad (HYD) Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

6 Chennai (CHE) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

7 Bangalore (BAN) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

8 Thiruvananthapuram* Kerala Water Authority

East 9 Guwahati* Guwahati Municipal Corporation

10 Kolkata* Kolkata Municipal Corporation

11 Jamshedpur (JAM) Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company Limited

12 Bhubaneswar (BHU) Public Health Engineering Organization

West 13 Rajkot (RAJ) Rajkot Municipal Corporation

14 Mumbai* Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation

15 Jaipur* Public Health Engineering Department (water supply)Jaipur Nagar Nigam (sewerage services)

16 Pune (PUN) Pune Municipal Corporation

*Not included in the final study.

2 Refer to Annexes 2 and 3 for data collected and indicators used.

4


Data collection and analysisIt was ensured that at least two datacollection cycles took place – one for initialdata-gathering, learning and error checking,and the other for the final data collection andclarifications. From the original list of 16utilities, only 10 utilities were able to provideadequate data for the purpose ofperformance measurement and analysis.The six cities which did not make it to theanalysis phase were Agra, Guwahati, Jaipur,Kolkata, Mumbai and Thiruvananthapuram.

Dissemination of findingsAs a part of the awareness-building initiativeunder the benchmarking framework, anational workshop on ‘Benchmarking UrbanWater Utilities – Implementing JawaharlalNehru National Urban Renewal Mission(JNNURM): Developing a Framework forPerformance Measurement’ was organizedby WSP-SA in partnership with the MoUD,Government of India, Public Record ofOperations and Finance (PROOF) and theInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India(ICAI) on December 19, 2007, at New Delhi,India. The workshop brought together over50 representatives from the 10 participatingutilities, the Government of India, UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID), the World Bank, Japan Bank forInternational Cooperation (JBIC),Water and Sanitation Program (WSP),nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),and domestic and international water sectorexperts on a common platform. Theworkshop concluded with thefollowing consensus:• The gaps in data systems revealed

through the benchmarking exercise reflectthe ground reality. It is important to study

the benchmarking data along with thereliability scale for data. The comparisonof utility performance using benchmarkingindicators also highlights the areas ofimprovement and is useful for both utilitymanagers and the respective stategovernments;

• It is important that the JNNURM processincorporates the output of thebenchmarking exercise. As a minimumstarting step, the Memorandum ofAgreement (MoA) signed with the citiesshould include standard benchmarkingindicators. During the scrutiny of thedetailed project reports, the impact of theproposed project should be measuredagainst standard benchmarkingindicators; and

• The representatives of the JNNURM andthe MoUD concurred that during the nextrevision of City Development Plans, citiescan be asked to assess their water andsanitation systems using thebenchmarking indicators. They alsoconcurred that starting with a set of pilotcities, the exercise can be scaled up tocover all JNNURM cities. They furtheremphasized that the preparation ofbaseline data would be critical for thisand that the sector data book must beprepared and updated by therespective utilities.

Contents of this Report

This report discusses the approach towardsPhase II of the benchmarking exercise,the results of data systems analysis, aninter-utility comparison and a profile ofparticipating utilities using thebenchmarking framework.

5

Performance measurement and benchmarkingwould not be meaningful if the data collectedhave gaps or are unreliable. Datainadequacies result from the lack ofappropriate infrastructure; systems to measureand record data; and incentives and/ornecessary regulatory systems that requiresuch data to be generated. The quality of thedata provided by the utilities varies both acrossutilities for the same indicator and withinindicators for the same utility. To make thecomparison of performance across utilities fairand meaningful, it is essential to highlight boththe adequacy and the inadequacy of the dataprovided by the utilities.

This section of the Data Analysis reportbrings to the fore all issues related to thereliability of the benchmarking data providedby the utilities. The performance of theutilities – discussed later in this report – hasto be evaluated in the light of data reliabilityissues raised in this section.

Utility Data Systems Analysis

The data provided by the utilities have beengraded on a four-point scale A-D with gradeA indicating the highest reliability and GradeD the least reliability. This scale devised byIB-NET is shown in Table 2.1.

For the purpose of the Phase IIbenchmarking exercise, the scale has beenmodified to reflect the peculiarities involvedfor each indicator in measuring the data inthe most reliable manner. Themodifications in the grading scale helpachieve several outcomes. They willreduce the element of subjectivity inclassifying the data provided by theutilities. For instance, water productiondata provided by the utilities areconsidered Grade A, if output of the watertreatment plants is measured using flowmeters. All other methods of measurementare low on reliability and hence consideredas grade D. Secondly, this modified gradescale provides the utilities an objective

Table 2.1: IB-NET scale for data reliability

Scale Description

A Based on reliable records, procedures, investigations or analyses that are properlydocumented and recognized as the best available

B Generally as in band A, but with minor shortcomings, for example, somedocumentation is missing, the assessment is old, or some reliance on unconfirmedreports or extrapolation is made

C Extrapolation from a limited sample for which band A or B information is available

D Based on the best estimates of the utility staff, without measurement ordocumented evidence

6


assessment of the quality of their datasystems and informs them about theacceptable methodology for recording datain a reliable manner.

The discussion begins by stating foreach indicator the reliability attached tothe different methods adopted/deployedby the utilities for measuring theperformance indicators.

Coverage

In most of the utilities covered in this study,data on coverage were not easily available.The problem of data availability exists at twolevels. First, most of the utilities do not havean estimate of the population of their servicearea. The population of the service area isknown only for the year in which the Censuswas conducted, that is, the year 2001.Utilities estimate the growth rate; thisestimate varies across departments in thesame utility. Secondly, utilities find it difficultto estimate the population covered bytheir services. To estimate the populationcovered, three data points wouldbe required:• Population covered by direct connections;• Population covered by public water

points; and• Population covered by tankers.

In the long run, it is expected that the utilitywould attempt to shift all consumers todirect service connections. Therefore, it iscritical that the utility adopts amethodology to measure coverage bydirect service connection as reliably aspossible. The data on population, coveredby public water points and tankers, can beestablished by some normativeassumptions. The following discussion will

highlight the best possible method ofestimating the population covered by directservice connections.

Number of direct service connectionsThe population covered by directconnections can be estimated by multiplyingthe total number of connections by thenormative assumptions of the number ofpersons living per household. However, inmany Indian cities, the number ofconnections is not identical with the numberof households. This is on account of oneconnection supplying water to multiplehouseholds, as in the case of multi-storiedapartments or multiple families living in asingle household.

Bhubaneswar, Chandigarh, Dehradun,Indore and Rajkot have used this method. Itgives a reasonable estimate of thepopulation served by direct connections. It isnot accurate, as some connections would beserving multiple households. Thus, dataabout the estimates of population covered bydirect connections in these cities can beassigned Grade B status.

In other cases, especially in largemetropolitan cities such as Bangalore,Chennai, Hyderabad and Pune, applicationof this method would not be possible. Thesecities are characterized by large-scalevertical developments. For example, Indorewith a population about two-thirds of thepopulation of Pune has 50 percent moreconnections than Pune.

Geographical coverageSome cities provide estimates of populationserved by the geographical coverage of theirwater and sewerage networks. The termcoverage is synonymous with geographical

7

coverage, that is, the proportion of servicearea that is served by the network divided bythe total service area. This is the simplestform of an estimate and suffers from severalapproximations. The most common one isthat the population densities are not uniformacross a service area of the utility. The corearea that is densely populated will most likelyhave a water supply network. Newlydeveloping peripheral areas will have a lowerdensity and may not have a completenetwork. Therefore, this method canintroduce errors. Since this is the simplestform of an estimate, it is being categorizedas Grade D type data.

As a refinement of this method, some utilitiesestimate the population that resides in thegeographical area covered by the network.This is then divided by the total population ofthe service area. Although a refinement, thismethod still suffers from the sameapproximations of geographical coverage.This methodology has been given GradeD ranking.

Bangalore, Hyderabad and Punehave adopted this method to estimateservice coverage.

Road length coverageAnother method deployed by the utilities isto express the water supply pipelinenetwork as a percentage of the road lengthnetwork. This is based on the explicitassumption that the road network covers100 percent of the service area and thatwater distribution pipelines are embeddedalong the road network. This measurementis not precise and provides a very roughestimate of the population covered.Another limitation of this methodology isthat if there exists a pipeline network on

both sides of a road, then it wouldoverestimate the population coverage. Thismethodology has been qualified as GradeD. Chennai had adopted this method toestimate the coverage ratio.

Property coverageA correct way to estimate populationcoverage would be to estimate the numberof properties in the service area and thenumber of properties provided with a directservice connection. Thus, the ratio of thenumber of properties provided with directservice connection to the total number ofproperties in the service area would be areliable estimate of the population coveredby direct service connections.

To follow this method, the utility would needto have a database of the total number ofproperties in the service area. It also needsto have a mechanism to update thedatabase for increase in the number ofproperties. This method of estimatingcoverage will have the highest reliability andcan be termed as Grade A category data.

In case utilities do not have reliable and upto date data on the number of properties inthe service area, then someapproximations could be made. The utilitycan extrapolate the last census data toarrive at the current population. It couldthen assume a normative number ofpersons per property. This can provide anestimate of the number of properties in theservice area. This data are not as reliableas that provided by the previousmethodology, since there is anapproximation in the estimation on thenumber of properties in the service area.Hence, this method is classified asGrade B.


8


Table 2.2: Reliability scale for the indicator “coverage”

Category Description of infrastructure Description of Cities thatand systems for cities that infrastructure and adopt theselargely have only one systems for cities that measureshousehold per property have more than one

household per property

A Accurate data on direct service connections and total number –of properties are available. A system exists to track increasein water connections and in properties in the service area

B Accurate data on number of In cities one connection Bhubaneswar,properties are not available. serves multiple household Chandigarh,The Census population is like in a high-rise Dehradun,extrapolated. An assumption apartment complexes, Indore,of number of people per such a method of Jamshedpur,property is made to estimate estimating coverage is Rajkotnumber of properties not applicable

C Not applicable –

D The estimates of coverage are not linked to any data on Bangalore,the number of direct service connections. For instance Chennai,1. Geographical coverage – either by estimating Hyderabad,

proportion of area covered by network, or the Puneproportion of population covered by network

2. Road length coverage – total length of the distributionsystem divided by the total road length of the service area

Production, Metering and Consumption

Table 2.3: City-wise methods of measuring the volume of water produced

Category Description of infrastructure and systems Cities that adopt these measuresA Flow meters are used to measure the volume Bangalore, Chandigarh,

of water produced at all bulk production points. Chennai, Dehradun,Approximations may be made to estimate Hyderabad,supply from small tube wells Jamshedpur, Pune

B Intermediate reliability is not applicable Not applicableC Intermediate reliability is not applicable Not applicableD Volume of water produced is estimated, based Bhubaneswar,* Indore, Rajkot

on the number of hours of pump operation orcapacity utilization of water treatment plants

* Flow meters are used to measure only part of total water produced.

ProductionDifferent utilities use different methods formeasuring the volume of water produced.

The reliability of the different methods ofmeasurement has been graded inTable 2.3.

9


In Bangalore, Chandigarh, Chennai, Dehradun,Hyderabad, Jamshedpur and Pune, thevolume of water produced is accuratelymeasured with the help of flow meters. Hence,the data from these cities have been placed inGrade A. In Indore and Rajkot, themethodology adopted has its own limitationsas the efficiency of the pump or the treatmentplant is difficult to estimate. The data providedby these utilities are accordingly placed inGrade D. In Bhubaneswar, about half of thewater produced is measured using flowmeters. However, the low reliability attached tothe measurement of the other half of waterproduced, prompts Bhubaneswar’s placing inthe Grade D category. Indore and Rajkotestimate the volume of water produced usingthe number of hours of pump operation and thepump’s rated capacity. The production dataprovided by Indore and Rajkot are thusunreliable and hence placed in theGrade D category.

Metering intensityThe number of connections that are meteredas a percentage of the total number ofconnections differs widely across utilities. Atone end, some utilities meter all direct serviceconnections, while in some utilities only anegligible number of connections are metered.

The utility, which has all its connectionsmetered, is placed in category Grade A. Butnone of the 10 utilities has adopted thispractice. At the second level, the utility maynot have all connections provided withmeters, but can install meters at the nextlevel of aggregation. For instance, the utilitymay provide a meter at an appropriateintermediate level in the distribution network.This system would not be able to provideconsumption data at the consumer end, butat least at a bulk level. The data collectedunder this system would be classified asGrade B. Bangalore, Chandigarh,and Hyderabad have been placed inthis category.

Jamshedpur makes up for the small numberof metered connections by installing metersat select intermediate distribution points toestimate the consumption level. Jamshedpuris placed in Grade C category. Cities whichalso meter bulk consumers but make noeffort to estimate consumption by otherclasses of consumers are placed in Grade Dcategory. Such practices are followed byDehradun, Pune and Rajkot. The cities,which have negligible or no metering, arealso placed in Grade D; these areBhubaneswar, Chennai and Indore.

Table 2.4: Grading of prevailing metering practices

Metering Description CitiesSystem

A Metering for all consumption points NoneB Metering for all billed consumption points Bangalore, Chandigarh,

HyderabadC Metering only for bulk consumers/select category Jamshedpur

consumers and intermediate level meteringD Negligible or no metering Bhubaneswar, Chennai,

Dehradun, Indore, Pune,Rajkot

10


Functionality of metersIt is not sufficient for the utility to just installmeters, but also necessary for it to check thefunctionality of the meters and keep them in agood operating condition. Of the 10 utilities,only Jamshedpur was found to have a regularmeter-checking program. But in Jamshedpur,only 0.5 percent (or 220 in absolute terms) ofthe connections are metered and it is notdifficult to regularly check the functionality ofmeters. Thus, Jamshedpur is placed in GradeB category despite having a meter checkingprogram. The other utilities either do not checkthe functionality of meters regularly or do notmaintain data on the number of properly

functioning meters, and are placed in Grade B.Hyderabad recently started outsourcing theactivity of checking the functionality of meters.Prior to this, no systematic efforts had beenundertaken to identify and rectify thenonfunctional meters.

Water consumptionThe reliability of the water consumption data isdependent on the metering intensity and thefunctionality of meters. The lowest reliability gradeassigned within these two independent indicatorsis taken as the reliability grade for the overall dataon water consumption. Table 2.6 illustrates thedata grade assigned to this indicator.

Table 2.5: Reliability scale of metering system across cities

Reliability Description Citiesscale

A All meters are tested regularly NoneB Meters are tested infrequently (or) no record of Bhubaneswar,

functional meters is available Bangalore, Chennai,Chandigarh, Dehradun,Hyderabad, Indore,Jamshedpur, Pune, Rajkot

C Not applicable Not applicableD Negligible or no checking None

Table 2.6: Reliability of the water consumption data

Data ReliabilityMetering Functionality of Water consumption (lower than the

intensity (1) meters (2) reliability grade assigned to (1) and (2) )

Chandigarh B B BDehradun C B CJamshedpur C B CBhubaneswar D B DRajkot C B CIndore D B DPune C B CBangalore B B BHyderabad B B B

Chennai D B D

11

Metered water consumption as proportionof water producedThe reliability of the data on metered waterconsumption as proportion of total waterproduced will in turn depend on the dataquality of two indicators: functionality ofmeters and water production. On the datareliability scale, this indicator will havereliability similar to the lower of the gradesassigned to the functionality of meters andthe water production data. From Table 2.7,we observe that the highest reliability isassigned to data from Jamshedpur.

Nonrevenue waterNRW is a derived indicator. The indicator forreliability of NRW, as a percentage of totalwater produced, is dependent on thereliability of data of three other indicators,that is, metering intensity, water productionand meter functionality. The lowest of thereliability grade assigned to any of thesethree indicators is taken as the reliabilitygrade assigned to the data on NRW as apercentage of total water produced. Table2.8 illustrates the data grade assigned tothis indicator.

Table 2.7: Reliability of the data on metered water consumption

Data ReliabilityVolume of water Functionality of Metered water consumption as

produced (1) meters (2) proportion of water produced (reliabilityis lower than that accorded to (1) and (2))

Bangalore A B BBhubaneswar D B DChandigarh A B BChennai A B BDehradun A B BHyderabad A B BIndore D B DJamshedpur A B BPune A B BRajkot D B D


Table 2.8: Reliability of nonrevenue water

Data ReliabilityMetering Volume of Functionality NRW as % of water producedintensity water of meters (lowest of the reliability grade

(1) produced (2) (3) assigned to (1), (2) and (3))

Chandigarh B A B BDehradun C A B CJamshedpur C A A CBhubaneswar D D B DRajkot C D B DIndore D D B DPune C A B CBangalore B A B BHyderabad B A B BChennai D A B D

12


Network Performance

Pipe breaksData provided by Jamshedpur, Bangaloreand Hyderabad would qualify as Grade A. Inthese three cities, the data collected arebased on consumer complaints andinspection by utility staff during supply hourswhile, in Chennai and Chandigarh, the dataprovided are based on consumer complaintsonly. In the case of Rajkot, water is suppliedfor only 20 minutes daily and pipe breaks areattended to immediately on the same day;only major pipe breaks that are not attendedto on the same day get recorded. Hence,data recorded on pipe breaks are notcomprehensive and categorized as Grade D.In the case of Dehradun, Indore andPune, no data are maintained on pipebreaks and hence these cities are placed inGrade D category.

Table 2.9: Reliability scale for data on pipe breaks

Category Description of infrastructure and systems Cities that adopt these measures

A Clear definition of what constitutes a pipe break. Bhubaneswar, Bangalore,In the absence of a definition, all pipe breaks Hyderabad, Jamshedpurare recordedRecording of all pipe break complaints fromconsumers and those reported by utility staff.Compiling this data from ward level to city level

B Recording of pipe break complaints is not Chennai, Chandigarhcomprehensive. Either some geographies orsome categories (like consumer complaints)are not recordedCompiling data from ward level to city level

C Data maintained at individual ward levelData are not aggregated at city level –

D No data maintained on pipe breaks Dehradun, Pune,Indore, Rajkot

Sewerage blockagesMany of the utilities do not have a system ofrecording data on sewerage blockages. Onlythose utilities which have an elaboratesystem of recording and categorizingcomplaints data, are able to provide data onsewerage blockages. Likewise, in the case ofpipe breaks, Chandigarh, Jamshedpur,Bhubaneswar, Hyderabad and Chennai haveprovided data for each of the three years.The data collected from the 10 cities havebeen graded as shown in Table 2.10.

Data provided by Jamshedpur, Bangaloreand Hyderabad would qualify as Grade Adata. In these three cities, the data collectedare based on consumer complaints andinspection by utility staff, while in Chandigarhand Chennai the data provided are based onconsumer complaints alone. These data areclassified as Grade B data as they report

13

only consumer complaints data and notthose detected by utility staff. In the case ofRajkot, the municipal corporation hascontracted out the work of attending tosewerage blockages to private sectoragencies. The data collected on sewerblockages have been sourced from theseagencies. Again here, the data collected arebased on consumer complaints and hence

categorized as Grade B data. In the case ofPune, these data are maintained at the wardlevel and not aggregated at the city level.However, not all wards have been able toprovide data on sewer blockages. Pune,thus, is also placed in Grade B. In the caseof Dehradun and Indore, sewer blockagedata are not being maintained. Thus, theyare placed in Grade D.

Table 2.10: Reliability scale for data on sewerage blockages


A All blockages are recorded, including Bangalore, Bhubaneswar,complaints from consumers and those Hyderabad, Jamshedpurreported by utility staff. Compiling this datafrom the ward level to city level

B Recording of blockages is not comprehensive. Chandigarh, Chennai,Either some geographies or some categories Pune, Rajkot(like consumer complaints) are not recorded.Compiling data from ward level to city level

C Data maintained at individual ward levels NoneData are not aggregated at the city level

D No data maintained on number of pipes Dehradun, Indore, Pune


Cost and Staffing

Unit operational cost

Table 2.11: Reliability scale of financial data


A In the case of multifunction agencies like Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad,municipal corporations, the budget heads Dehradun, Jamshedpurrelated to water and sanitation are clearlyseparated. Cost allocation standards forcommon costs are in place. Accrual-baseddouble entry accounting system. Accountingstandards comparable to commercial accountingstandards with clear guidelines for recognitionof income and expenditure. Accounting andbudgeting manuals are in place and are followed.Financial statements have full disclosure andare audited regularly and in a timely manner

14


Table 2.12: Data reliability – annual operating expenses and water production

Data ReliabilityTotal annual Water Operational cost per

operating expenses production unit of water produced

Chandigarh B A BDehradun A A AJamshedpur A A ABhubaneswar B D DRajkot B D DIndore A D DPune B A BBangalore A A AHyderabad A A AChennai A A A


B Budget heads related to water and sanitation Pune, Rajkot, Bhubaneswar,are segregated. Key costs related to water Chandigarh, Indoreand sanitation are identifiable, althoughcomplete segregation is not practiced.Key income and expenditure are recognized,based on accrual principlesDisclosures are complete and timely

C Not applicable Not applicable

D Budget heads related to water and sanitation Noneare not segregated from the rest of thefunctions of the agencyCash-based accounting system. No clearsystems for reporting unpaid expenditure.Disclosures and reporting are not timely.Audits have a time lag and are not regular

Staff/’000 water connectionsData on the total number of employees in theutilities are readily available. However, someutilities cannot segregate all the employeesexclusively involved in either water supply orsewerage services, as there are somecommon functions such as administration,which pertain to both services. In suchcases, the unsegregated employees have

All the utilities can be categorized into eitherGrade A or B. The reliability of the indicator ontotal operational cost per unit of waterproduced is dependent in turn on the reliabilityof the annual operating expenses and thewater production data provided by the utilities.From Table 2.12, it is evident that five of the10 utilities have the highest reliability whilethree have the lowest reliability.

15

been allocated to water supply andsewerage services in the same ratio in whichsegregated employees in these two servicesare distributed.

Power/electricity costs as a proportion ofoperating costsThe details on power costs incurred byutilities are available with all the utilities. Thedata have been sourced from their annualreports or Budget statements. Issues, if any,will possibly arise in cases where the utilityfollows a cash-based single entry accountingsystem. Only expenses for which there is acash outflow would feature in the income-expenditure statement.

Contracted-out service costs as aproportion of operating costsSome of the utilities outsource activities suchas O&M of water treatment plant andsewerage treatment plants (STPs). Pune hasprovided these data for all three years.Indore, which contracted out the O&M of theSTP for 2006, is able to provide data on thecosts incurred. In other cities, where

numerous such activities are outsourced, theutilities have not been able to provide dataon the costs incurred as no records havebeen maintained. Hyderabad maintains dataon the cost of contracted-out servicesfrom 2007.

Quality of Service

Continuity of serviceThe data on continuity of service provided byall the utilities is based on field-levelexperience and not supported by anydocumentation. A better way to provide thedata would be to give the average hours ofdaily supply for each ward/zone of theservice. The reliability of these data has notbeen mapped onto the A-D scale. It would beprobably fair to say that this number acrossthe utilities is not reliable.

Complaints about water andsanitation servicesThe quality of data provided on complaintsabout water and sewerage services variesacross utilities. The data collected from the

Table 2.13: Contracted-out service costs

Service contracted out Data provided

Chandigarh � X

Dehradun � X

Jamshedpur � X

Bhubaneswar X X

Rajkot � X

Indore � �

Pune � �

Bangalore � X

Hyderabad � X

Chennai � X


16


utilities have been graded on the parametersshown in Table 2.14.

The data on the number of complaints onwater and sanitation services have beenmade available by most of the utilities. Someutilities have not been able to provide databecause the complaints have beenregistered at the ward offices and the utilitieshave found it difficult to aggregate the dataat the main office. Many utilities haveresponded that not all the complaintsreported get registered.

Bangalore, Chandigarh, Chennai,Hyderabad and Jamshedpur have elaboratecomplaints departments and are placed inGrade A. These five cities segregate thecomplaints into various categories based ontheir nature. For instance, Hyderabad’scomplaints data have been segregated into24 different categories.

Table 2.14: Reliability scale of complaints data provided by utilities


A Multiple mechanisms by which consumers can Bangalore, Chandigarh,register their complaints such as by telephone, Chennai, Hyderabad,in person or by writing or by email. Complaints Jamshedpursegregated into different categories. Data onredressal status maintained. Complaints datamaintained at ward level and city level

B No intermediate reliability level applicable Not applicable

C Multiple mechanisms by which Bhubaneswar, Dehradun,consumers can register their complaints, Indore, Rajkotsuch as by telephone, in person or by writingletters or emails. Complaints data notaggregated at the city level. Data available forsome months have been extrapolated to getdata for the year

D Complaints data not maintained either at the Puneward level or city level

For this indicator, Grade B reliability is notapplicable. Bhubaneswar maintains data atthe ward level, but the data are notsegregated based on their nature. Hence,Bhubaneswar is placed in Grade C. InIndore, data are available for some monthsin each of the three years and these havebeen extrapolated to estimate the number ofcomplaints recorded in each of the years.Indore also has been placed in Grade C.

In Rajkot, the complaints on water servicesare maintained at the ward level, while thesewerage complaints have been contractedout to a third party. But the complaints dataare not segregated on the basis of theirnature. Hence, Rajkot is also placed inGrade C. Pune does not maintain data onthe number of complaints. Hence, Pune hasbeen placed in Grade D. It is only in 2007that Pune developed a system to record dataon the number of complaints received.

17

In all cases where the quality of data on thenumber and type of complaints is good, acentral cell is responsible for recording thecomplaints and aggregating the data oncomplaints received in each of thezonal/ward/area offices. The prevailingsystem in all the utilities does not providedata on their complaint redressal status.Some utilities do provide data on the numberof complaints pending at the end of eachmonth but, in all cases, the number ofpending complaints at the end of each monthis reported to be zero. The reliability of thesedata can be termed as very low. But a goodcomplaint recording system also has beenfound to be a reliable and ready source ofdata for measuring network performance.

Wastewater treatmentThe data on the volume of wastewatertreated have been made available in all theutilities where a STP is in operation. Thevolume of wastewater collected is estimatedby the volume of wastewater treated at theSTP with the help of flow meters. The

reliability of these data have not beenmapped onto the A-D scale.

Billing and Collection

Average tariffThe computation of the average tariff requiresthe availability of data on total operatingrevenues and the volume of water sold. Thelowest of the reliability grade assigned withinthese two independent indicators has beentaken as the reliability grade assigned to thedata on average tariff. Table 2.15 illustrates thedata grade assigned to this indicator.

From Table 2.15, it is evident that onlyHyderabad and Bangalore have Grade Adata for the measurement of this indicator.Jamshedpur and Chandigarh have Grade Adata on the total annual operation revenuesand Grade C data on water sold.

The other cities have at least one of thedata points in Grade D category which ishence unreliable.


Table 2.15: Reliability grade assigned to the data on average tariff

Data ReliabilityTotal annual Water Average tariff

operating expenses production

Bangalore A B BBhubaneswar B D DChandigarh B B BChennai A D DDehradun A C CHyderabad A B BIndore A D DJamshedpur A B BPune B C CRajkot B C C

18


Summary of Reliability Scale Across Utilities and Indicators

Table 2.16: Summary of reliability scale across utilities and indicators

CHG DEH JAM BHU IND PUN RAJ HYD CHE BANCoverage – water supply B B B B B D B D D DWater production A A A D D A D A A AWater consumption C D C D D D D A D ANRW B B C D D C D B D BProportion of connections thatare metered B C C D D C C B D BProportion of functional meters B B B B B B B B B BProportion of water sold that ismetered B B B D D B D B B BPipe breaks B D A A D D D A B ASewerage blockages B D A A D D D A B AUnit operational costs B A A B B B B A A APower/op costs A A A A A A A A A AComplaints A C A A A D C A A A

19

This section compares the performance ofthe utilities, relative to each other for the year2006.3 The discussion will bring outvariations in their performance, with regard tosome key indicators such as coverage,production, consumption, unaccounted-forwater (UFW)/NRW and finances.

Service Coverage

Water supplyAs mentioned in the earlier section, the citieshave adopted different methods to computetheir service coverage ratios. The reliability ofthe data on service coverage varies for thedifferent methods deployed by the utilities. Inthe case of Bangalore, Chennai andHyderabad, the water supply coverage isreported to be in excess of 90 percent. In the

case of Pune, it is lower at 88 percent. Thesefour cities rank high on the water supplycoverage indicator, but the reliability of thedata provided is low. The data provided bythese cities have been categorized a GradeD. These four cities use the geographicalcoverage method for the computation ofservice coverage and hence are accorded alow grade on the reliability scale. In Indore,the service coverage at 54 percent is low, butthe reliability of the data provided is onegrade below the best than that can be madeavailable. Only Chandigarh and Rajkot reporta good mix of high coverage and reliabledata (Grade B). Chandigarh has reported thehighest coverage at 100 percent followed byRajkot at 98 percent. Bhubaneswar scoreslow on coverage (45 percent) and high inreliability of the data provided (Grade B).

3 Data for year 2006 have been utilized for comparing performance unless stated otherwise.

Inter-utility Performance Analysis

Figure 3.1: Inter-utility comparison – water services coverage

Chandigarh

Rajkot

Chennai

Hyderabad

Bangalore

Pune

Dehradun

Jamshedpur

Indore

Bhubaneswar

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Water coverage (as percentage of total population)

Grade D

Grade B

20


SewerageChandigarh at 100 percent has reported thehighest coverage for sewerage amongst the10 cities studied. The other city which hasreported a high coverage is Chennai with98 percent. Bhubaneswar has reported thelowest coverage at 25 percent amongst the10 cities. The reliability of the data onsewerage coverage is very low across thecities. The estimates are either based ongeographical coverage or are the estimates ofthe utility staff, lacking the support of any kindof measurement or documentary evidence.

Production, Metering andConsumption

ProductionThe water production in liters per capita perday (lpcd) is a high 607 in Jamshedpur. Thisis mainly on account of high levels ofindustrial and bulk consumption. In Indore,Chennai, Rajkot, Bangalore and Dehradun,the production is in the range of100-150 lpcd, whereas the cities ofHyderabad, Bhubaneswar, Pune andChandigarh have production levels in excessof 190 lpcd, but less than 300 lpcd.

Figure 3.2: Inter-utility comparison – water production levels

Jamshedpur

Chandigarh

Pune

Bhubaneswar

Hyderabad

Dehradun

Bangalore

Rajkot

Chennai

Indore

0 10 200 300 400 500 600 700

Water coverage (liters per capita per day)

However, not all data provided by the utilitiesare reliable. The seven cities of Bangalore,Chennai, Chandigarh, Dehradun,Hyderabad, Jamshedpur and Pune haveinstalled flow meters to measure productionlevels. Hence, the data provided by thesecities are categorized as Grade A. InBhubaneswar, of the 206 million liters perday (MLD) water produced, about 100 MLDis measured with the help of flow meters. InBhubaneswar (for part of the waterproduced), Indore and Rajkot, the waterproduction level is estimated on the basis ofthe treatment plant capacity or pumpcapacity and its operating hours. Theproduction data from these three cities havebeen categorized as Grade D.

Metering practicesThe extent of metering prevalent amongst the10 cities varies widely. No city, however,meters all connections provided (includingpublic water points). Bangalore reports that allthe direct supply connections are metered,while in the case of Hyderabad, 94 percent ofthe connections are metered. In Dehradun,Pune and Rajkot, bulk consumers are metered.In Bhubaneswar, Chennai and Indore, the

Grade D

Grade A

21

numbered of metered consumers is negligible.In Jamshedpur, the number of meteredconnections as a percentage of the totalnumber of connections is also very small, butthe utility provides meters at some intermediatedistribution points and attempts to estimate thelevel of consumption.

Functionality of metersOnly Jamshedpur tests the meters for properfunctioning regularly. In the other cities,either the meters are tested infrequently orno data are maintained to ascertain thenumber of properly functioning meters.Hyderabad has reported that an activity tocheck the functionality of meters has recentlybeen outsourced to a private agency.

Metered water consumptionThe proportion of metered water consumption,as a percentage of water produced, varieswidely across cities. Among the 10 cities,Jamshedpur has reported a metered waterconsumption of 63 percent of total waterproduced. This is the highest amongst the10 utilities. However, in Jamshedpur, only5 percent of the total connections are metered.In Bangalore, all direct connections are

metered. But the metered water consumptionamounts to 48 percent of the total waterproduced. Unmetered water consumption(through public water points) in 2006amounted to about 12 percent of waterproduced, while the balance wasunaccounted for. In Hyderabad, meteredwater consumption constitutes about45 percent of the water produced; 5 percentis by way of unmetered consumption and50 percent is unaccounted-for.

Nonrevenue waterThe reliability of the NRW data is influenced bythe data reliability of metering intensity, waterproduction data and the functionality of meters.The NRW data provided by Bhubaneswar,Indore, Rajkot and Chennai have the lowestreliability. The Pune and Dehradun data havebeen categorized as Grade C; the four utilitiesof Bangalore, Chandigarh, Hyderabad andJamshedpur have the highest reliability withGrade B category data. With the availablequality of data, Bhubaneswar has the highestNRW at 60 percent, while Jamshedpur had thelowest NRW at 9 percent in 2006. Rajkot haslow NRW (12 percent), but the data are ofGrade D category.

Figure 3.3: Inter-utility comparison – metered water consumption levels

Jamshedpur

Chandigarh

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Pune

Chennai

Rajkot

Dehradun

Bhubaneswar

Indore

Metered consumption as percentage of water produced


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Grade D

Grade C

22


Cost and Staffing

Unit operational costThe unit operational cost, per liter of waterproduced was the highest for Chennai4 atRs. 34.65 per liter of water produced while thelowest was Rs. 3.44 per liter for Jamshedpur.The water cost in Chennai appears to be veryhigh, as drought-like conditions in 2005 hadforced the utility to supply water throughtankers on a large scale. Bangalore,Hyderabad, Indore, and Rajkot face a commonproblem of sourcing water from long distances.

This explains the high cost of water productionin these four cities, compared to cities likePune and Bhubaneswar, which have sourcesof water in close proximity to the city.

StaffingRajkot has reported the lowest number ofstaff per 1,000 water connections at1.1, while Pune has reported the highest at11.5 per 1,000 water connections. Bangalorehas a staffing ratio of 3.3 while Chennai andHyderabad are almost comparable at around7.8 per 1,000 connections.

Figure 3.5: Inter-utility comparison – unit operational costs

Pune

Jamshedpur

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Rajkot

Bangalore

Indore

Chennai

0 10 20 30 40 50

Operating costs for per unit of water produced (Rs. per cu m)

4 The Chennai data is for 2005.

Figure 3.4: Inter-utility comparison – nonrevenue water levels

Jamshedpur

Rajkot

Chennai

Chandigarh

Dehradun

Pune

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Indore

Bhubaneswar

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

NRW levels (as percentage of water produced)

23

Figure 3.6: Inter-utility comparison – staffing pattern

Bhubaneswar

Pune

Chennai

Chandigarh

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Dehradun

Bangalore

Rajkot

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Staff per 1000 water connections

Quality of Service

The utilities which have good systems torecord complaints have been found to havea higher ratio for total number of complaintsas a percentage of the total number of watersupply connections. The utilities which havepoor systems are unable to record all thecomplaints received from the customers.Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore whichhave good systems have reported this ratioin the range of 39 percent to 44 percent,while cities like Indore and Chennai reportthis same ratio to be in the range of0.3 percent to 2.26 percent.

Financial Performance

The working ratio (operating expenses/operating revenues) for the three utilities –Pune, Jamshedpur and Bangalore – is lowerthan one. Pune has the lowest ratio at 0.82.Bhubaneswar, Indore and Rajkot haveoperating expenses in substantial excess ofoperating revenues. Bhubaneswar has a

very low cost of production (Rs. 3.67 perliter) but low coverage (45 percent) andlower average revenues per liter of watersold (Rs. 2.78). Bhubaneswar’s waterproduction at 206 lpcd is in excess of therequirements of the population of its servicearea. Indore, like Bhubaneswar, has lowcoverage and lower realizations, but highcost of production (Rs. 10.77). Indore’sproduction level is only 101 lpcd. Indoresources water from a distance of70 kilometers (km) of the city, whichincreases its production costs. Bangalorelike Indore also has high production costs onaccount of sourcing water from greatdistances. But Bangalore’s per unit averagerealizations are almost five times that ofIndore. Indore’s working ratio is more than5.5 times the level of Bangalore. Rajkot hashigh water supply coverage (98 percent), butthe lowest average revenue realized fromwater sold amongst the 10 cities (Rs. 1.75)along with a high cost of production(Rs. 10.21 per liter). This has contributed toit having the highest ratio at 6.63.


Grade A

24


Figure 3.7: Inter-utility comparison – working ratio

Pune

Jamshedpur

Bangalore

Hyderabad

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Bhubaneswar

Indore

Rajkot

Operating expenditure/operating revenues

Conclusions

For benchmarking to result in utilityperformance improvement, it presupposesthat data used for performance measurementare available and reliable. However, it isobserved from the data collection exercise,performed with 10 utilities, that either thedata are not readily available or may not bealways reliable. Benchmarking utilityperformance with unreliable data willbe misleading.

First of all, it is essential that the data collectionsystems prevailing in the utilities be improved.Data for some indicators can be improved if therelated infrastructure is improved. For instance,the volume of water produced can beaccurately measured with the installation offlow meters at the output of the water treatment

plants. For some indicators, mere infrastructureimprovements will not solve the problems as inthe case of metering. A complete overhaul ofthe system may be required. For instance, oneof the critical data gaps observed through thedata collection exercise relates to the volumeof water consumed. The installation of metersfor all connections can provide data on thevolume of water consumed. The metersinstalled need to be checked for their properfunctioning. In India, water is supplied on anintermittent basis and, therefore, because ofair entrapment, meters are prone to frequentfailures. Hence, it is essential that everyutility conducts checks for the properfunctioning of meters on a regular basis. Forall the systemic changes to happen, utilitiesneed to get themselves oriented towardsdata collection and take decisions based onaccurate data.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

0.82

0.85

0.98

1.13

6.63

1.31

1.35

1.44

3.29

5.45

Grade D

Grade C

Grade B

25

Bangalore

About Bangalore Water Supply andSewerage BoardThe Bangalore Water Supply and SewerageBoard (BWSSB) was constituted under an Actof the Karnataka State Legislature in 1964. TheBoard was made responsible for the provisionof water supply, sewerage collection anddisposal in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area,and other associated services; it presentlycovers a population of 6.4 million.

CoverageBWSSB has adopted the geographicalcoverage method to estimate the populationserved. BWSSB estimates that its water supplynetwork covers about 90 percent of the servicearea either through direct service connections

Performance Analysis of Utilities

or public water points.5 The coverage, asreported by BWSSB, has remained constantduring the period 2004-06 (as the number ofconnections has increased at a similar rate aspopulation, as Figure 4.1 shows).

The provision of sewerage services iscurrently concentrated in Bangalore city andits surrounding areas. The populationincrease in the eight urban local bodiessurrounding Bangalore city and forming apart of the Greater Bangalore area has notbeen accompanied by a commensuratewidening of the sewerage network. This hasresulted in the reduction of coverage to79 percent in 2006 from 85 percent in 2004.The estimation of the sewerage coverageratio is also based on geographical coverageand hence has low reliability.

5 The estimate of coverage is based on an assessment of geographical areas covered by the water supply network and hence is low on thereliability scale.

Figure 4.1: Growth in population and water connections in Bangalore

7300

6300

5300

4300

3300

2300

1300

3002004 2005 2006

750

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

Pop

ulat

ion

(in ’0

00s)

Num

ber

of c

onne

ctio

ns (

in ’0

00s)

Population

Water connections

26


Metering, production and consumptionBWSSB draws water from two watersources, primarily Cauvery (850 MLD) andArkavathy (100 MLD). The water productionvolumes increased by 21 percent, while thepopulation in the service area increased by14 percent during 2004-06.6 Despite theproduction increasing at a higher pace thanpopulation increase, per capita consumptionhas declined from 112 lpcd in 2004 to85 lpcd in 2006, on account of the increasein UFW from 129 MLD in 2004 to 373 MLD in2006. In percentage terms, UFW hasincreased from 17 percent to 41 percent ofwater produced.

BWSSB provides meters to all direct serviceconnections. According to BWSSBestimates, 10 percent of the meters werenonfunctional in each of the three years.BWSSB does not have a regularmeter-checking program and hence datareliability on the functionality of meters is nothigh. Metered water consumption, as apercentage of water produced, hasincreased from 44 percent in 2004 to46 percent in 2006.

Network performanceUntil recently, the data on networkperformance have been maintained manuallyby the BWSSB staff at the ward level. From2006 onwards, BWSSB has startedmaintaining a computerized database whichcompiles information on networkperformance from various ward offices. As aresult, data on BWSSB’s networkperformance is available for 2006 alone.

The city recorded 5.23 pipe breaks per km ofpipeline in the year. The corresponding figurefor sewer blockages was 8.22.

Staffing and financial performanceBWSSB had 2,600 employees in 2006 ofwhom 50 percent were involved in watersupply, while 30 percent were involved inproviding sewerage services. The remainingemployees were involved in activities whichinvolved both services.

With the increase in the number of waterconnections, BWSSB’s staffing ratio (utilitystaff per 1,000 water connections) hasimproved from 7.22 to 5.42 in the three yearperiod (2004-06).

Figure 4.2: Water production and consumption levels in Bangalore

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)

Per capita daily production

Per capita daily consumption

6 The production volume data are measured with the help of flow meters and hence are high on the reliability scale.

27

BWSSB charges residential users Rs. 6 forevery cubic meter (cu m) of consumption ona monthly basis, up to a maximum of 8 cu m.This rate is progressively increased to Rs. 36per cu m for consumption greater than 100cu m. Nonresidential consumers have to payRs. 36 per cu m for consumption up to amaximum of 10 cu m. The nonresidentialmonthly charges are progressively raised toRs. 60 per cu m for consumption in excessof 100 cu m. Sewerage charges form 35percent of the water charges payable by theconsumer, with a minimum charge of Rs. 15per month. For industrial consumers, themonthly charges are Rs. 60 for every cu mof consumption.

BWSSB’s revenues have increased by 17percent in 2004-06. However, the productionvolume has grown by 21 percent in the sameperiod. The tariff increase in February 2005has raised the average revenues realizedper unit of water sold from around Rs. 18 in2004 and 2005 to Rs. 21 in 2006. But therise in expenses by 31 percent over 2004-06has resulted in the working ratio increasingfrom 0.88 in 2004 to 0.98 in 2006.

Power-related expenses form a largeproportion of BWSSB’s total operatingexpenditure, since water is pumped from theCauvery source, which is located 100 km awayfrom Bangalore city. Electricity costs havehowever declined from 71 percent of BWSSB’stotal operating cost in 2004 to 59 percent in2006. This is because energy costs have risenat a slower pace (about 10 percent) thanproduction volumes (about 21 percent).

BWSSB’s average collection period (theaverage period of outstanding receivables)has been reported as 363 days (12 months).

Quality of serviceBWSSB consumers receive water on anintermittent basis. BWSSB supplies wateron an average for four to six hours onalternate days.

According to BWSSB, 90-95 percent of thesamples pass the test for residual chlorine.

Though BWSSB has an elaborate system forrecording complaints, it has not been able toprovide any data on the total number of

Figure 4.3: Operating cost and revenue levels in Bangalore

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)

Operating cost(per cu m water consumed)

Operating revenues(per cu m water consumed)


28


complaints received in each of the threeyears. Data regarding the number ofcomplaints received by BWSSB arenot available.

Of the 288 MLD sewage collected, 105 MLD(37 percent) undergoes secondary treatment.

SummaryBWSSB’s water supply services cover90 percent of its service area, while itssewerage services cover 65 percent of itsservice area. Its per capita water productionlevel was 143 lpcd, while the correspondingconsumption was only 85 lpcd. About 49percent of water produced constituted NRW.BWSSB has to source a large proportion ofits water requirement from a distance of

100 km. This increases the pumping costsand consequently increases water productioncosts. The pumping costs constitute about59 percent of the total operating costs and itcosts BWSSB Rs. 11.1 to produce cu m ofwater. Its tariffs are correspondingly higher atRs. 21.96 per cu m of water consumed. Thehigh proportion of UFW has resulted in theworking ratio being marginally greater thanunity in 2006, despite the unit realizations(from water consumed) being significantlyhigher than the unit production costs.

BWSSB supplies water to its consumers forfour to six hours on alternate days. The qualityof water supplied has been of acceptablestandards as 90-95 percent of the samplestested passed the test for residual chlorine.

29

Bhubaneswar

About Public Health EngineeringOrganization, BhubaneswarThe Public Health Engineering Organization(PHEO) is responsible for operating andmaintaining urban water supply andsewerage services in Orissa, while theOrissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board(OWSSB) is responsible for executing majorwater supply and sewerage projects. Bothagencies are under the administrative controlof the Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of the government of Orissa.

The Bhubaneswar division of PHEO,henceforth referred to as PHEO-BHU isresponsible for providing water supply andsewerage services in the city ofBhubaneswar. The area of the city is about135 sq km and its population was estimatedto be 0.76 million in 2006.

CoverageThe water supply services of PHEO-BHUcover 45 percent of the population ofBhubaneswar. This coverage estimate isderived from the population covered by directservice connections and public water points.The Census 2001 estimation of six peopleper household indicates that the populationcovered by direct service connections isestimated to be 0.314 million. According toPHEO-BHU, the population covered bypublic water points is estimated to be0.03 million. The coverage in 2004 was45.8 percent.

The sewerage system in the city wasdesigned about 50 years ago; no large-scaleimprovements have been effected sincethen. The sewerage network coverage hasdeclined to about 25 percent in 2006 from28 percent in 2004.7 The situation hasdeteriorated in the last few years; theexpansion in the network has not been ableto keep pace with population growth.

Metering, production and consumptionPHEO-BHU sources about 166 MLD of waterfrom the three surface water sources of theKuakhai, Daya and Mahanadi rivers and40 MLD of water from 137 tubewells locatedacross the city. The total annual waterproduction measures about 206 MLD. About100 MLD of water sourced from surfacewater sources is measured with the help offlow meters, while the balance 66 MLD ismeasured based on the capacity utilization ofthe treatment plant. The production levelshave remained the same for all three years.The population increases in these years haveled to a decline in per capita productionvolumes by about 10 percent from 298 lpcdin 2004 to 268 lpcd in 2006.

In Bhubaneswar, less than 1 percent of theconnections are metered. The metered waterconsumption levels are less than 1 percent ofthe total water produced. PHEO reports thatof 206 MLD of water produced, about82 MLD (40 percent) is being consumed andbilled.8 The low level of metered waterconsumption (less than 1 percent) impliesthat the reliability of the consumption data

7 The estimate of coverage is based on the assessment of geographical areas covered by the sewerage network and hence is low on the reliability scale.8 Only about half of the production volumes are measured with the help of flow meters and hence the total production data have low reliability. In theabsence of large-scale metering, the consumption data have very low reliability.


30


provided is very low. Using the consumptiondata provided by the utility, the per capitadaily consumption levels have beenassessed as 108 lpcd in 2006.

As per the data provided by PHEO-BHU, boththe NRW and UFW levels are estimated to beabout 60 percent of the total water produced ineach of the three years. However, the reliabilityof this estimate is low. The utility can increasecoverage significantly without furtheraugmenting its production capacity by reducingUFW to acceptable levels.

Network performanceAbout 2,000-2,200 pipe breaks have beenrecorded annually; this corresponds to about2.49 pipe breaks per km per year (2006).OWSSB reports that about 80 percent of theexisting sewers are inadequate or damagedand need repair/replacement. About 2,500sewerage blockages have been recordedannually; this corresponds to about7.51 blockages per km per year (2006). Therecords for sewer blockages are prepared ona regular basis at the section level (headedby a junior engineer). These are then collatedfor the entire city periodically.

Figure 4.4: Water production and consumption levels in Bhubaneswar

Staffing and financial performanceIn 2006, PHEO-BHU had 610 employees ofwhom 426 employees were involved in watersupply, while 184 were involved in providingsewerage services. With an increasing numberof connections, the staffing ratio (utility staff per1,000 water connections) has improvedsignificantly over the three-year period2004-06, from 31.13 in 2004 to 11.68 in 2006.

Bhubaneswar has very limited metering; forsuch connections, the tariff is consumption-based. The rate per cu m ranges fromRs. 2.42 for domestic users to Rs. 5.64 forinstitutional and Rs. 8.00 for commercial andindustrial users. For unmetered connections,a minimum tariff of Rs. 30 per month perhousehold is levied. For sewerage services,tariff varies with the size of connection; itranges from Rs. 200 to Rs. 800 per month.

In terms of water connection charges,industrial users are charged twice as muchas domestic users; a one-time connectioncharge of Rs. 3,000 is levied for a domesticconnection, Rs. 5,000 for institutionalconnections and Rs. 6,000 for commercial/industrial connections.

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



31

PHEO-BHU’s total expenses for every cu mof water produced, Rs. 3.27, are among thelowest incurred by the 10 utilities; but itsworking ratio at 3.29 ranks as one of thehighest amongst the 10 utilities. This isprobably on account of the high proportion ofNRW (about 60 percent) involved and thelow level of tariffs charged.

The utility spends almost 50 percent of itsoperating costs on power-related expenses.The salary expenses, as a percentage ofoperating costs, contribute about 15 percent.PHEO-BHU contracts out limited serviceslike minor repair and maintenance work,chemical procurement for water treatmentplants, and vehicle repairs. But theexpenditure is recorded under correspondingheads like repair and maintenance andvehicle expenses. Thus, no separate recordsof expenses are maintained under thecategory of contracted services.

The collection period (outstanding debtors/revenues) was reported as 590 days(19.67 months) in 2006. The level of debtordays is high because of the organization’spolicy of not writing off debtors.

Quality of serviceOn an average, the city receives three to fourhours of water supply per day. However,seasonal fluctuations remain high. The utilityreceives, on an average, 1,050 complaintsper month via letters, emails and personalvisits to relevant officials. Complaints arereceived for about 25 percent of the waterconnections annually. The data are based oncomplaint records prepared at the divisionlevel. The number of complaints, as apercentage of water and sewerageconnections, has decreased from 10 percentin 2004 to 8 percent in 2006.

The city has one functional STP with acapacity of 1 MLD only, which treats lessthan 2 percent of the wastewater collected.The untreated wastewater flows into10 drains, which meet river Kuakhai andGangua Nalla, leading to high levels ofcontamination in these two water bodies.

SummaryPHEO-BHU produces about 206 MLD ofwater. In per capita terms, this translates into269 lpcd. The production data are notentirely reliable as only about 100 MLD of

Figure 4.5: Operating cost and revenue levels in Bhubaneswar

30

25

20

15

10

5

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)




32


water produced is measured using flowmeters. There is a considerable loss of waterduring transmission and distribution.PHEO-BHU estimates the consumption levelat 108 lpcd and the balance water isunaccounted for. But only 1 percent of thewater produced is metered. Thus, thereliability of the consumption data is alsolow. PHEO-BHU’s water supply servicescovered about 45 percent of the populationin 2006. Thus, the existing production, ifefficiently distributed, can be used toincrease coverage significantly without anysupply augmentation.

The utility benefits significantly on account ofan abundant source in close proximity. Theper cu m production cost at Rs. 3.67 is oneof the lowest amongst the 10 utilities. Thehigh level of NRW (60 percent) has resultedin a working ratio of 3.29. In the absence of

large-scale metering the reliability of theNRW estimate is also low.

The sewerage services provided byPHEO-BHU cover only 26 percent of the citypopulation. The sewage treatment facilities arehighly inadequate. The utility has sewagetreatment of just 1 MLD capacity. Theuntreated wastewater flows into 10 drainswhich meet river Kuakhai and Gangua Nalla,thus contaminating the two water bodies.

PHEO-BHU receives about 1,000-1,100complaints per month via channels likeletters, mails and personal visits to relevantofficials. This amounts to about 15 percent ofthe total water connections. The entire cityreceives intermittent supply of three to fourhours per day only. Water quality from bothsurface and ground sources has been foundto meet the required standards.

33

Chandigarh

About Municipal Corporation of ChandigarhThe Union Territory of Chandigarh measuresabout 114 sq km in area and has apopulation of 0.9 million, as per the 2001Census. It is one of the fastest growing citiesof India with a population decadal growthrate of 40.30 percent. Prior to 1976, allfunctions such as water supply, sewerage,storm water drainage, city roads, solid wastemanagement and fire wings were lookedafter by the respective departments of theChandigarh administration. The MunicipalCorporation of Chandigarh (MMC) wasformed under the Punjab Municipal Act,1976. Thereafter, the functions of works andmaintenance for specific roads, watersupply, sewerage, storm water drainage,solid waste management and fire tenderingwere transferred to MCC.

CoverageThe water supply coverage has beenmaintained at 100 percent for each of the

three years. Coverage includes supplythrough direct service connections or publicwater points. Of the estimated 1.15 millionpopulation, about one million are served bydirect service connections.9

Though MCC has fairly accurate data availablefor the number of connections in the city, itdoes not have any records of the populationbeing served by these connections, resulting inlow reliability of the coverage data.

MCC claims 100 percent sewerage coveragein its service area. It provides sewerageservices to its customers through directsewerage connections and mobile toilets forslum areas; approximately one millioncustomers are serviced through directservice connections and the remaining0.15 million customers are serviced throughmobile/community toilets. The data oncoverage are based on estimates of the MCCstaff and not substantiated by documentationor basis for measurement. The reliability ofthe data sewerage coverage is thus low.

9 This figure is calculated by multiplying the number of direct service connections (137,409 in 2006) with the assumption that each connectionserves 7.28 people. The Census data estimate 4.5 persons living per household and not 7.28 as assumed by MCC. Thus, MCC coverage datamaybe overstated and be low on reliability. Further, about 0.15 million customers have been covered by public water points. This number iscalculated by multiplying the number of public water points (1,200) by an estimated number of people being served per public water point (125).

Figure 4.6: Growth in population and water connections in Chandigarh

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

02004 2005 2006

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Pop

ulat

ion

(in ’0

00s)

Num

ber

of c

onne

ctio

ns (

in ’0

00s)

Population

Water connections


34


Metering, production and consumptionMCC sources surface water at Kajauli, about27 km from the city. Water is also sourced from200 tube wells to service its customers locatedin the peripheral areas of the city. The percapita daily production levels have been in therange of 290-295 lpcd. This is measured withthe help of flow meters. The per capita dailyconsumption levels have been in the range of239-256 lpcd. UFW, which measured about13 percent in 2004 and 2005, has increased to17 percent in 2006. The reliability of the dataon UFW is low as not all connections providedby MCC are metered.

For 2006, approximately 10 percent of themeters were observed to be faulty. Thecorresponding figures were 6.6 percent and7.4 percent in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Network performanceMCC’s network performance shows a constantrecord of one pipe break per km of pipeline, ineach of the three years studied. These dataare maintained by MCC at the ward levels.However, they are not supported by anydocumentation. The number of sewageblockages per km of pipeline increased from1.49 in 2004 to 1.77 in 2006. The reliability ofthe data on network performance is low, as

systems to record pipe breaks and sewerblocks are not adequate.

Staffing and financial performanceMCC had 1,808 employees on its rolls in2006 to run its water and sewerage services.Of them, 1,610 have been deployed forwater services while 198 are involved inproviding sewerage services. As a result, thetotal staff employed has decreased from1,806 in 2004 to 1,466 in 2006. The staffingratio (utility staff per 1,000 waterconnections) has improved significantly overthe three-year period 2004-06; it declinedfrom 13.88 in 2004 to 10.76 in 2006.

For a sewerage connection, a minimumone-time connection fee of Rs. 500 is levied.The charges vary as per the size of the plotwith a maximum charge of Rs. 3,000 perconnection. For a new water connection,Rs. 500 is collected as security and Rs. 30as an installation charge.

The billing for water and sewerage charges iscomputerized and done centrally. In addition,spot bills are raised manually. This leads todata gaps, which are related to category-wiseconsumption as well as demand, collectionand arrears of individual customers.

Figure 4.7: Water production and consumption levels in Chandigarh

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



35

In 2006, MCC incurred an operating expenseof Rs. 5.59 per cu m of water consumed,against which it realized Rs. 4.68 per cu m asoperating revenues. In the three years,2004-06, while per unit operating expenseshave increased by 8 percent; per unit operatingrevenues have increased by 2 percent only,showing a decline in the financial performanceof MMC. The working ratio has thus increasedfrom 1.23 in 2004 to 1.31 in 2006. GivenMCC’s low operating expenditure and reportedNRW, the poor working ratio may be attributedto an inappropriate tariff rate or structure.

MCC spends almost two-thirds of its operatingcosts on power-related expenses. In the threeyears, 2004-06, while the power costscomponent rose from 60 percent in 2004 to63 percent, the salary component remainedalmost constant at 30 percent. The expenseson contracted services are not beingmaintained separately, though services forrepairs and maintenance of assets are beingcontracted out. MCC plans to outsourceincreasingly to private contractors and keep itsestablishment costs under check.

Quality of serviceOn an average, MCC supplies water for12 hours daily. With regard to the quality of

water supplied, it has reported that100 percent of the samples passed the testfor residual chlorine.

In Chandigarh, consumers can register theircomplaints in their respective ward offices inperson and/or in writing. The complaints canalso be made via email and telephone.MCC’s website provides detailed informationto consumers regarding the procedure forregistering complaints and the expectedredress time, based on the nature of thecomplaints. The number of complaintsrelated to water services has shown agradual increase; it has risen from 1,330 in2004 to 1,495 in 2005 and 1,600 in 2006.The complaints related to sewerage serviceshave also shown a steady rise, from 1,350 in2004 to 1,500 in 2006. The total number ofcomplaints as a percentage of the number ofwater and sewerage connections hasincreased from 1.07 percent in 2004 to1.18 percent in 2006.

Approximately, 75 percent of the sewagegenerated in the service area undergoessome form of treatment before disposal.About 67 percent of the sewage generated issubjected to primary treatment, of which33 percent undergoes secondary treatment

Figure 4.8: Operating cost and revenue levels in Chandigarh

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)




36


also. About 5 percent of the sewage istreated up to tertiary levels.

SummaryMCC sources about 325 MLD of water forsupplying to its service area corresponding to282 lpcd. Its reliance on ground waterresources is approximately 90 MLD, mainlysupplying water to people staying on theoutskirts of the city. According to MCC, itcovers 100 percent of the population residingin its service area with water supply andsewerage services. The reliability of thesedata is however very low. The per capita

water consumption was about 239 lpcd in2006. The consumption data have lowreliability as not all the connections aremetered. As a result MCC’s NRW estimate of17 percent suffers from low reliability.

MCC’s working ratio has increased from1.23 in 2004 to 1.31 in 2006.

On an average, MCC supplies water for12 hours daily. With regard to the quality ofwater supplied, it has reported that100 percent of the samples passed the testfor residual chlorine.

37

Chennai

About Chennai Metropolitan Water Supplyand Sewerage BoardThe Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply andSewerage Board (CMWSSB) wasconstituted under the CMWSS Act, 1978, toattend to the needs of the citizens ofChennai city regarding planned developmentand appropriate regulation of water supplyand sewerage services. The Board ispresently serving 175 sq km of Chennai cityand 8 sq km of its peripheral areas, coveringa population of 5.32 million. In the peripheralareas, CMWSSB provides the bulk of watersupply; water distribution is managed by theconcerned local bodies.

CoverageCMWSSB’s water supply network coveragehas been estimated at 98 percent in 2006and has remained constant during the period2004-06. This has been calculated based onthe proportion of road network covered bythe piped water network. The reliability of thewater network coverage estimates providedby CMWSSB is low.

CMWSSB provides sewerage services to theentire Chennai city and to parts of adjoining

areas. Its sewerage network coverage hasbeen estimated at 98 percent in 2006 andhas remained constant during the period2004-06. This has been calculated on thebasis of the proportion of road networkcovered by the sewerage network.

The reliability of using geographical coverageto estimate population coverage is low.

Metering, production and consumptionThe per capita daily production levels in thecity have increased significantly from 37 lpcdin 2004 to 108 lpcd in 2006, registering anincrease of almost 200 percent. Theabsence of a perennial water source resultsin sharp variation in the volume of waterproduced annually.

Chennai has three water sources – groundwater, surface water, and water sourced fromdistant sources via tankers. The ground watersupplied has been in the range of30-36 million cu m in the three years2004-06. The proportion of water supply fromsurface water sources has been varying acrossthe years. In 2004, the surface watercontribution was very low, even lower than theground water supply. With the commissioningof the New Veeranam project in 2004,

Figure 4.9: Growth in population and water connections in Chennai

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

02004 2005 2006

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Pop

ulat

ion

(in ’0

00s)

Num

ber

of c

onne

ctio

ns (

in ’0

00s)

Population

Water connections


38


CMWSSB has augmented its surface watersupply by 66 million cu m. This is a perennialsource, which is expected to reduce thevariations in annual supply to some extent.

Tanker water supply from distant sources isresorted to in times of acute drought. Forinstance, in 2005, about 17 percent(16 million cu m) of the annual productionwas supplied through tankers.

The metered connections are primarily thosehaving bulk consumption. In 2006,3.5 percent of the connections were meteredand corresponded to 21 percent of thewater consumption.

The production data provided by CMWSSB arereliable. The Board has installed flow meters atvarious points in the production system toassess production levels. However, due to lackof metering at the consumption end, thereliability of the corresponding consumptiondata is very low. As per the production andconsumption data provided by CMWSBB, theUFW and NRW levels in Chennai have beenassessed as 12 percent and 16 percent in2006. This data has low reliability as only3.5 percent of the connections are metered.

Network performanceCMWSSB’s network performance in terms ofpipe breaks per km of pipeline declinedduring the three-year period 2004-06. Thefigure has increased from 0.12 in 2004 to0.19 in 2006. The number of sewageblockages per km of pipeline increased from16.84 in 2004 to 19.82 in 2006.

Staffing and financial performanceCMWSSB had 4,594 employees in 2006 ofwhom 1,967 employees were involved inwater supply while 1,176 were involved inproviding sewerage services. Theremaining 1,451 employees were involvedin activities, which cannot be categorizedinto either of these services. With theincrease in the number of waterconnections, CMWSSB’s staffing ratio(utility staff per 1,000 water connections)has improved from 15.42 to 12.56 duringthe three years (2004-06).

Domestic consumers are charged at a fixedrate of Rs. 50 per month. In addition,consumers are liable to pay 1.5 percent and5.5 percent of the annual assessed value oftheir property as water and seweragetax, respectively.

Figure 4.10: Water production and consumption levels in Chennai

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



39

CMWSSB incurred expenditure in therange of Rs. 32-Rs. 35 per cu m of waterproduced in the period 2004-05. This isconsiderably high, compared to othercities. The production cost ran high asconsiderable expenditure was incurred inproviding drought relief in 2004 and 2005.The extraordinary expenses pertain tolarge-scale tanker water supplies duringthese years. The revenue per cu m ofwater consumed was Rs. 40.11 in 2004and Rs. 30.28 in 2005. The fixed rate tariffstructure does not correlate revenues withthe volume of water consumed. Thus, theincrease in consumption in 2005 hasresulted in lower per unit realization. Theincrease in production reduces the stategovernment contribution in the form ofgrants for drought relief. The fixed tariffstructure creates a scenario where, beyonda certain production level, everyincremental production results in higherrevenue deficit. The working ratio has thusincreased from 0.96 in 2004 to 1.35 in2005 with increasing production levels.

The average collection period (debtors/annual revenues) has been reported as718 days (29.33 months), which is one ofthe highest among the cities covered bythe study.

For CMWSSB, staff-related expense as aproportion of the total operating expense hasbeen in the range of 20-30 percent; thepower expense component has variedbetween 8-11 percent during 2004-05.During these years, the Board had to incurconsiderable expenditure in providing tankerwater services. This has distorted thecontribution of other operating costs to thetotal operating expenditure.

CMWSSB has outsourced some of theactivities such as O&M of water treatmentplants. It does not separately maintain arecord of the cost incurred in outsourcingthese activities.

Quality of serviceCMWSSB supplied water for two hours eachday in 2004 and 2005. This figure rose tothree hours per day in 2006 on account ofthe increased availability of water. Withregard to the quality of water, 98.85 percentof the samples passed the test for residualchlorine in 2006.

CMWSSB has an elaborate reportingmechanism for complaints. Consumers caneither report their grievances in person, or bytelephone or email, or by writing to CMWSSB.The complaints are recorded on a zonal basis.Data on the number of complaints receivedduring a month and pending at the end of amonth are maintained within each zonal office.The complaints received are classified into sixdifferent categories – water pollution, no water/defective water supply, sewer main block,house sewer block and others. Thesecomplaint data are displayed on the website.The number of complaints registered as apercentage of water and sewerageconnections has been in the range of 40-45percent of the number of water connections.

In 2006, about 75 percent of the wastewatercollected was subjected to secondarytreatment. This is lower than the 100 percenttreatment level in 2004 and 2005.

SummaryCMWSSB provides water supply andsewerage services for Chennai city andsome of the adjoining urban areas. For the


40


adjoining areas, barring some pockets,CMWSSB provides only bulk supply whilethe distribution is undertaken by the localbodies concerned. Most of the servicesprovided by the Board are concentrated inChennai city. The service coverage for watersupply and sewerage is estimated to be98 percent.

The average hours of daily supply in the bestcase is not more than four to six hours. Allconsumers receive intermittent supply. Thequality of water supplied by the Board is ofacceptable standards as almost 99 percentof the samples pass the test forresidual chlorine.

The Board received about 160,000 complaintsin 2006 which implies about 435 complaints

per 1,000 connections. CMWSSB’s biggestchallenge is to provide adequate piped water inabsence of an adequate perennial source. Thewater supply during 2004-06 ranged from184 MLD to 576 MLD.

Almost 97 percent of the water supplyconnections are unmetered. Domesticconsumers pay a fixed charge of Rs. 50 permonth. In addition, consumers are liable topay 1.5 percent and 5.5 percent of annualassessed value of their property as waterand sewerage tax, respectively. The fixedtariff structure creates a scenario where,beyond a certain production level, everyincremental production results in higherrevenue deficit. The working ratio has thusincreased from 0.96 in 2004 to 1.35 in 2005with increasing production levels.

41

Dehradun

About Uttarakhand Jal SansthanUttarakhand’s water supply and seweragesystem is governed by two statutes enacted in1975 – the Kumaon and Garhwal Water(Collection, Retention and Distribution) Act of1975 and the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply andSewerage Act of 1975. After the formation ofUttaranchal, the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan wasformed in 2001, merging the Kumaon andGarhwal Jal Sansthans. It was renamedUttarakhand Jal Sansthan (UJS)10 in October2006, after the state was renamedUttarakhand. UJS incorporated both theconstruction and the O&M wings and wasstaffed by engineering professionals.

CoverageWater supply and sewerage services inDehradun are provided by UJS and cover apopulation of 0.785 million (estimatedmunicipal population in 2006).

The water supply network coverage in thecity has increased from 75 percent to

80 percent during 2004-06.11 In Dehradun,water is provided mainly through direct waterconnections or shared taps. About9-10 percent of the water is provided bypublic water points. This estimate is basedon the hours of supply and volume of watersupplied in an hour.

Though UJS has fairly accurate dataavailable for the number of connections inthe city, it does not have any records of thepopulation being served by theseconnections and/or the exact number ofproperties in the city; this leads to poorreliability of the coverage data.

About one-third of the city’s area iscovered by the sewerage network. Thegeographical basis for estimating coverageis low on reliability.

Metering, production and consumption12

An amount of 117 MLD of water is beingproduced in the city. The situation hasremained almost unchanged in the 2004-06period. Of this, about 23 percent is sourced

Figure 4.11: Water production and consumption levels in Dehradun

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



10 During the study period, the utility was called Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan.11 As per UJS standards, a household is considered ‘covered’ under the water supply system if there is piped water connection within a radius of 200 m.12 The production levels have been calculated based on flow meter readings made at all bulk production points and estimates of water supply from smalltube wells, hence the data reliability level is high. But due to limited metering, the reliability of consumption data is very poor. Accordingly, the UFWestimates may be highly inaccurate.


42


from 15 different surface water sources; theremaining is sourced through 72 tube wellsinstalled across the city.

Dehradun used to have limited meteredconnections till 2002. When Uttaranchal JalSansthan was formed (on August 26, 2002),a resolution was passed to regard alldomestic connections as nonmetered andthe rest as metered.

In 2006, about 8 percent of the connectionswere metered, corresponding to 11 percentof consumption, which is mainly attributableto commercial and institutional(nondomestic) users.

UJS reports that these meters have beeninstalled from 2003 to 2006, and are thusmostly in a functional state. Accurate dataregarding the functional status of metershave not been maintained systematically.

Per capita daily production levels have goneup from 145 lpcd in 2004 to 149 lpcd in2006, suggesting an increase of 3 percent inthree years, while per capita dailyconsumption levels have risen from 104 lpcdin 2004 to 113 lpcd in 2006, suggesting anincrease of 9 percent in three years.

UFW levels in the city are quite high andhave been estimated as 24 percent for 2006.The levels have decreased by 14.4 percentover the three-year period (2004-06).

Network performanceThere are no records maintained by the utility onthe number of pipe breaks or sewer blockages.

Staffing and financial performanceUJS had 396 employees in 2006 of whom345 employees were involved in water supply,while 51 were involved in providing sewerage

services. With an increasing number ofconnections, the staffing ratio (utility staff per1,000 water connections) has improved slightlyover the three-year period 2004-06, decliningfrom 6.66 in 2004 to 6.35 in 2006.

Given the very limited levels of metering, asystem of property value-based billing isfollowed in the case of domestic users.Consumption-based tariffs are levied onnondomestic users. The monthly charges varyfrom Rs. 67 to Rs. 150 for domestic users,depending on the property value. In case theproperty value has not been assessed, thecharges depend on the number of water tapsin the property and the type of connection(whether gravity-based or pumping-based).The monthly charges vary from Rs. 41 toRs. 100. In the case of nondomestic users, therate varies according to their user category(commercial, industrial or institutional) and typeof connection (whether gravity-based orpumping-based). The rate per cu m varies fromRs. 8 to Rs. 10.50 per month.

Besides these, both user categories arecharged fees under the heads of service feesand meter rent. The water connection charges(one-time) are Rs. 3,715 for domestic usersand Rs. 4,515 for nondomestic users.

For sewerage connections, a sewerage fee ischarged at the rate of Rs. 15 per toilet seatper month. The development charges(annual) for this vary, depending upon theplot size with a minimum fee of Rs. 750.

In 2006, UJS incurred an operating expense ofRs. 6.75 per cu m of water consumed, againstwhich it realized Rs. 4.86 per cu m asoperating revenues. In 2004-06, while per unitoperating expenses have increased by 55.64percent on account of rising power costs, perunit operating revenues have increased by

43

33 percent only, showing a decline in thefinancial performance of the Sansthan. In thesame period, UJS has been able to maintainan average working ratio (operating expense/operating revenues) of 1.49.

UJS spends almost three-fourths of itsoperating costs on power-related expenses. Inthe three years, 2004-06, the power costscomponent rose from 65 percent in 2004 to75 percent in 2006. Establishment expensesas a percentage of operating costs havedeclined from 26 percent in 2004 to 19 percentin 2006. The expenses on contracted servicesare not being maintained separately, thoughseveral services are being contracted out.

The collection period (the average period ofoutstanding receivables) for UJS was very highat 1,171 (39 months) days in 2005, as theutility does not pursue a policy of writing offdebtors periodically.

Quality of serviceThe city receives two to four hours of watersupply per day; the seasonal fluctuationsremain high. UJS receives about 2,000-2,500complaints per month via various channelslike letters, mails and personal visits/calls tothe relevant officials.13 The number ofcomplaints as a percentage of water andsewerage connections has increased from2.91 percent in 2004 to 4.01 percent in 2006,suggesting an increase of almost 40 percentover the three-year period 2004-06.Recently, a call center facility has also beenestablished to streamline the process.

There are no wastewater treatment facilitiesin the city.

SummaryUJS-Dehradun produces 117 MLD of water(186 lpcd). The city has a per capitaconsumption of 130 lpcd with about80 percent coverage. About 10-12 percent ofthe consumption is through meteredconnections. The entire city receivesintermittent supply of two to three hours perday only. Due to very limited metering, thetotal consumption data are not reliable. UJSestimates that the NRW levels are about30 percent of water produced currently.

UJS has a staff strength ratio of 6.27 personsper 1,000 water and sewerage connections.The organization is incurring a high operatingcost of Rs. 5.12 per kiloliter (kl) of waterproduced. About 20 percent of the operatingcosts are incurred due to establishmentexpenditure and about 70-75 percent gotoward power/electricity costs. This may beattributed to the topography of the city andhence higher pumping costs.

With an operating ratio of 0.69 and a collectionperiod of 23.77 months, financial management(especially the collection aspect) of theorganization needs significant improvement.

The sewerage services provided by UJScover only 25-30 percent of the citypopulation. There are no sewage treatmentfacilities in the city.

UJS receives about 2,000-2,500 complaintsper month via various channels like letters,emails and personal visits to relevantofficials. Recently a call center facility hasalso been established the streamlinethe process.

13 The reliability level of complaints data is very low and is based on approximations made by the utility personnel. This is mainly because a largenumber of complaints received directly by the utility personnel on mobile phones do not get recorded in the system.


44


Hyderabad

About Hyderabad Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage BoardThe Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supplyand Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) is astatutory authority in charge of providing andmaintaining water supply and seweragefacilities in Hyderabad. The Board is atpresent serving Hyderabad city and thesurrounding municipalities of Kukatpally,Qutubullapur, LB Nagar and Gaddiannaram,covering a population of 5.05 million. It alsoprovides bulk supply to six othermunicipalities. The sewerage servicesprovided by the Board are limited toHyderabad city and some peripheral areas.

CoverageHMWSSB’s water supply network coveragehas been estimated at 95 percent in 2006and has remained constant during the period2004-06.14 This has been calculated, basedon the geographical area covered by thepipeline network. In the three years(2004-06), the population of the area hasgrown at a Compound Annual Growth Rate(CAGR) of 2.25 percent, while the number of

direct serviced connections has grown at aCAGR of 9.63 percent. Despite this, thecoverage has remained constant at95 percent in each of the three years.

HMWSSB provides sewerage services,mainly to the city of Hyderabad and someperipheral areas. Based on the area coveredby the network, the sewerage systemcoverage has been estimated as51.4 percent for 2006 and has remainedconstant during the period 2004-06.

Metering, production and consumptionThe city draws 88 percent of water fromsurface water sources and the balance fromground water sources. Besides direct serviceconnections, bore wells, public standpostsand tankers are being utilized to supplywater. The per capita daily production hasincreased by 38.4 percent in three years,from 139 lpcd in 2004 to 192 lpcd in 2006.The same period saw a 21.3 percentincrease in per capita daily consumptionlevels, which rose from 80 lpcd in 2004 to97 lpcd in 2006. The increase in productionhas been higher than the correspondingincrease in consumption. As a result, UFW

Figure 4.12: Growth in population and water connections in Hyderabad

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

02004 2005 2006

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Pop

ulat

ion

(in ’0

00s)

Num

ber

of c

onne

ctio

ns (

in ’0

00s)

Population

Water connections

14 The reliability of the coverage data computed using the geographical coverage methodology is low.

45

has increased from 42 percent of waterproduced in 2004 to 50 percent in 2006.The NRW levels in 2006 were also observedto be 50 percent of total water produced.The reliability of the UFW/NRW estimates isnot very high as there is no regularmeter checking program testing forproper functioning.

In 2006, 93.4 percent of the connectionswere metered, corresponding to 90 percentof the water consumption. Data regarding thefunctional status of meters have notbeen maintained.

The services for meter reading and repair areexpected to be outsourced in the future.

Network performanceHMWSSB’s network performance hasimproved; both pipe breaks and sewerblockages have shown a decrease over thethree-year period 2004-06. The number of pipebreaks per km of pipeline was 3.97 in 2006,against 4.23 and 4.68 in 2004 and 2005,respectively. The number of sewage blockagesper km of pipeline decreased from 17.7 in 2004to 16.35 in 2005 and 15.27 in 2006.

Staffing and financial performanceHMWSSB had 5,241 employees in 2006 ofwhom 2,883 employees were involved inwater supply, while 745 were involved inproviding sewerage services. The remaining1,613 employees were involved in activitieswhich cannot be categorized into either ofthe services.

The staffing ratio (utility staff per 1,000 waterconnections) has improved slightly over thethree-year period 2004-06; it declined from6.67 in 2004 to 5.42 in 2006.

HMWSSB follows a volumetric system forlevying charges for water consumption for bothdomestic and nondomestic consumers. At thebase level, for monthly consumption of lessthan 15 cu m, consumers are charged Rs. 6per cu m of water consumed. For monthlyconsumption in excess of 200 cu m, the rate isRs. 35 per cu m. For sewerage services, thecharges are calculated as 35 percent of theamount payable for water services. The waterconnection charges are linked to the size of theplot. For the first slab, which includes plotareas up to 80 sq m, the charges are Rs 1,250each for a water and sewerage connection.

Figure 4.13: Water production and consumption levels in Hyderabad

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)




46


In 2006, HMWSSB incurred an operatingexpense of Rs. 18.16 per cu m of waterconsumed, against which it realized Rs.16.11 per cu m as operating revenues. In thethree years 2004-06, while per unit operatingexpenses have increased by 19 percent, perunit operating revenues have increased by5.24 percent only, showing a decline in thefinancial performance of the Board. In 2006,the working ratio was calculated to be1.13. Only in 2005, this ratio was below unityat 0.91. The collection period for HMWSSBhas declined from 296 days in 2004 to228 days in 2006.

An analysis of various components of theoperating expenses reveals that HMWSSBspends almost equally on both salaries andpower-related expenses. While the salarycomponent of operating costs has declinedfrom 32.51 percent in 2004 to 26.19 percent in2006, the power costs component rose from23.95 percent in 2004 to 33.93 percent in2006. The expenses on contracted servicesare not being maintained separately. From

2007 onwards, the utility is recording costs forcontracted-out services separately.

Quality of serviceHMWSSB supplies water for 30-45 minutes onalternate days, despite a production level of192 lpcd. In 2006, the quality of waterdeteriorated as only 87 percent of the samplespassed the test for residual chlorine, against97 percent in 2004 and 2005. Of the48.55 million cu m of wastewater collected inthe city, about 70 percent is subjected toprimary treatment and only 15 percentundergoes secondary treatment.

HMWSSB has an elaborate system fordocumenting complaints received from itscustomers. Consumers can report theirgrievances in person, by telephone, by email orby writing to HMWSSB. The complaints arerecorded on a zonal basis and categorizedunder 24 different heads. The number ofcomplaints, as a percentage of water andsewerage connections, has increased from26 percent in 2004 to 40 percent in 2006.

Figure 4.14: Operating cost and revenue levels in Hyderabad

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)

Operating cost (per cu mwater consumed)

Operating revenues (per cu mwater consumed)

47

SummaryThe service coverage for water supply isestimated to be 95 percent and that forsewerage is estimated to be 65 percent ofthe service area. The average hours of dailysupply in the best case is about 30-45minutes on alternate days. In 2006, therewas a deterioration in the quality of water asonly 87 percent of the samples passed thetest for residual chlorine. In other years,almost 97 percent of the samples passedthis test. HMWSSB has probably the mostelaborate system for documentingcomplaints received from its customers. Thecomplaints are categorized into 24 differentheads. The number of complaints as a

percentage of water and sewerageconnections has increased from 14 percentin 2004 to 22 percent in 2006.

HMWSSB also ranks high in terms ofmetering with 95 percent of the connectionsmetered but there is no proper record toascertain the functionality of meters installed.The proportion of NRW to the total waterproduced is very high at 50 percent. During theperiod 2004-06, water production increased by45 percent while consumption increased byonly 27 percent. This can also be observedfrom the fact that UFW as a percentage ofwater produced has increased from 42 percentto 50 percent in the same period.


48


Indore

About Indore Municipal CorporationIndore Municipal Corporation (IMC) isresponsible for providing civic services in thecity of Indore; this includes water supply andsewerage services. The employees of thePublic Health Engineering Department(PHED) are responsible for bulk of O&M andcapital development works related to watersupply services. The salaries of the PHEDdepartment are paid by the state governmentbut the employees are under theadministrative control of IMC. IMC also has awater and sewerage works departmentand is involved only in some of theO&M activities.

In 2006, Indore was estimated to have apopulation of 1.8 million.

CoverageThe water supply coverage is estimated bytaking into account the population served bydirect service connections and that servedby public water points. The population in the2004-06 period has increased by 9 percent,while the number of connections hasincreased by 6 percent. As a result, thecoverage has declined from 57 percent in2004 to 54 percent in 2006. In 2006, of the0.97 million population served by watersupply, 0.79 million were covered by directsupply connections while 0.18 million wereserved by public water points. There is nochange in the estimate of population servedby water points in each of the three years.This also could have contributed to thedecline in coverage to some extent.

IMC does not maintain a database of thenumber of its sewerage connections. Thesewerage system is about 600 km in length,while the road network length measuresabout 1,700 km. Thus, IMC has assessedthe coverage as 35 percent, based on itsroad network length coverage. On the otherhand, as per a household survey conductedby IMC, the population covered by sewerageservices is 55 percent.


IMC draws water from two perennial surfacewater sources – the Gambhir river (26 MLD)and the Narmada river (140 MLD). It alsosources water from the rain-dependentBilawali Tank (4 MLD) and ground watersources (13 MLD). The Narmada river, whichsupplies the bulk of the water, is situated70 km away from the city. The waterproduction levels have remained constant foreach of the three years studied; but with therising population, water production in dailyper capita terms has declined from 112 lpcdin 2004 to 102 lpcd in 2006.

There are no metered water connections inthe city. About 60 bulk supply connectionsoutside the city limits are metered. In theabsence of metering, the consumption dataare just an estimate without any documentarybacking. Based on data provided by IMC, it isobserved that per capita daily consumptionhas declined from 89 lpcd in 2004 to 81 lpcdin 2006.

IMC estimates that one-third of the waterproduced is provided free of cost and50 percent of the water produced does not

15The production levels have not been calculated based on accurate scientific methods, hence the data reliability level is low. Due to limited metering,the reliability of consumption data is poor. Accordingly, the UFW estimates may be highly inaccurate.

49

generate any revenues. Based on dataprovided by IMC, UFW in the city has beenestimated to be 20 percent and hasremained the same for each of thethree years.

Network performanceIMC does not maintain any data on thenumber of pipe breaks and sewer blocksoccurring in a year.

Staffing and financial performanceIn 2006, 1,285 employees of IMC wereinvolved in providing water services and120 employees in the SewerageDepartment. With the increasing number ofconnections, the staffing ratio (utility staff per1,000 water connections) has improvedslightly over the three-year period, 2004-06;it declined from 9.69 in 2004 to 8.84 in 2006.

In Indore, water tariffs are fixed dependingon the size of the connection and the usercategory. The tariffs vary from Rs. 150 permonth for a half-inch connection to Rs. 7,680per month for a 6-inch connection, in thecase of domestic connections. In the case ofindustrial consumers, the correspondingrange is Rs. 300-Rs. 38,000. The connection

charges for a half-inch water supplyconnection are Rs. 2,500 and that for asewerage connection are Rs. 200 per toiletseat. No recurring charges need to be paidby the consumer for sewerage services.

The per unit production cost for IMC hasbeen rising. It has increased from Rs. 12.10per cu m in 2004 to Rs. 15.96 per cu m in2006, because of rising power costs. IMChas to source the bulk of its water from adistance of 70 km and hence incurs highpumping costs.

The rise in production costs has not beenaccompanied by an increase in realizations.The average realizations per unit of watersold have remained almost constant at aboutRs. 4.68 per cu m.

IMC’s working ratio has increased from4.15 in 2004 to 5.45 in 2006.

The average collection period (the averageperiod of outstanding receivables) for IMCwas very high at 600 days (20 months)during 2004-06, mainly because IMCdoes not follow a policy of writing offdebtors periodically.

Figure 4.15: Operating cost and revenue levels in Indore

30

25

20

15

10

5

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)




50


Quality of serviceThe city receives 45 minutes of water supplyper day. In Indore, only a limited proportionof the complaints received are recorded byIMC. The status of the recorded complaints,rectified or pending, is available on amonthly basis. The number of complaints, asa percentage of water and sewerageconnections, has been reported as0.35 percent during 2004-06. However, thecomplaints data are not reliable as IMC has aninadequate complaint recording system. Theprimary treatment plant’s capacity in Indore is90 MLD, of which 60 MLD is being utilized.

SummaryIMC sources about 183 MLD of water forsupply to its service area. This correspondsto per capita production of 101 lpcd. IMC wasproviding water supply services to 48 percentof the population in 2006 by piped water orthrough public standposts. The water is

supplied daily for an interval of 45 minutes.All the consumers get water on anintermittent basis. The sewerage networkcovers only a part of the city population. Only55 percent of the city’s population isconnected to a sewerage network. It has atertiary treatment plant which treats52 MLD of sewage out of 60 MLD ofsewage collected.

IMC has to source water from a distance of70 km from the city. This increases its cost ofproduction. It costs Rs. 12.77 per kl of waterproduced. IMC realizes only Rs. 4.68 per klof water sold and has a reported NRW of50 percent of water produced. All this hasput considerable strain on the finances of theutility. The working ratio in 2006 was 5.45. InIndore almost all the connections areunmetered. In this scenario, the reliability ofthe consumption data and NRW estimates isvery low.

51

Jamshedpur

About Jamshedpur Utilities and ServicesCompany LimitedJamshedpur Utilities and Services CompanyLimited (JUSCO) was incorporated in August2003 as a 100 percent subsidiary companyof Tata Steel. It commenced provision ofcivic and municipal services from April 1,2004. Prior to this date, it was just adepartment in Tata Steel. It is the onlycorporate private sector provider of civic andmunicipal services in India. JUSCO’s area ofoperations is spread over 64 sq km in thecity of Jamshedpur and encompasses water,wastewater, power, public health andhorticulture services along with otherservices like planning, engineering andconstruction to keep up with the growingcivic needs of the people within its servicearea. JUSCO’s civic and municipal servicesare managed by a team of qualifiedprofessionals and monitored by JUSCO’sBoard of Directors.

CoverageJUSCO supplies water to its customersmainly through direct service connectionsand public water points. In the event ofemergencies and bulk demand, it alsosupplies water through tankers. Its watersupply network coverage16 increased from75 percent in 2004 to 79 percent in 2006.This includes bulk industrial consumers andretail consumers being served by directservice connections and public water points.

Under sewerage services, JUSCO providesdirect service connections to its customers.In the three years (2004-06), the coveragehas remained almost constant at around62 percent.

Metering, production and consumptionJUSCO sources approximately 375 MLD ofwater, which is supplied throughapproximately 42,000 direct serviceconnections. The Subernarekha river is theprimary source of water for the city. In timesof lean flow or high pollution load in the river,a portion of the requirement is drawn fromthe Dimna reservoir.

There has been an increase in per capitadaily production levels17 from 547 lpcd in2004 to 608 lpcd18 in 2006. On the otherhand, per capita daily consumption levelshave increased from 226 lpcd in 2004 to554 lpcd in 2006. The rise in consumption ison account of increased bulk industrialconsumption. Thus, UFW decreased from58 percent in 2004 to 8 percent in 2006.

Most of the water connections provided byJUSCO are unmetered; a metering policy iscurrently under formulation. In 2006, about0.5 percent of the connections weremetered, corresponding to 70 percent of thewater consumption. This is because themetered connections were primarilyindustrial connections with bulkconsumption. In 2006, approximately2.25 percent of the meters were recorded as

16 As per JUSCO’s definition of coverage, a person is considered ‘covered’ by the water supply system if she/he is within easy access to waterservices (either with direct service connection or within 200 m of a standpost or served by other sources of potable water provided by the utility, forexample, overhead storage or tanks).17 Both production and consumption data provided by JUSCO are fairly reliable. JUSCO has installed electromagnetic flow meters at all the watertreatment facilities to assess production levels. Meters installed at select public water points are used to measure the volume of water consumedand these data are extrapolated to measure consumption levels at all public water points. JUSCO also measures losses in the conveyance systemthrough the electromagnetic flow meters installed at the abstraction, inlet and outlet of the treatment facilities. (With 1 percent consumptionmetering, it is difficult to defend consumption data as reliable whatever aggregate/bulk metering one may do.)18 The production data presented here also include nonpotable industrial water supply.


52


faulty. This is substantially better than thefigure for 2004, when 30 percent of the totalconnections were recorded as faulty.

Network performanceThe network performance in JUSCO in termsof pipe breaks per km of pipeline shows animprovement during the three-year period2004-06. The figure has declined from10.93 in 2004 to 6.24 in 2006. The number ofsewage blockages per km of pipelineincreased from 0.38 in 2004 to 0.42 in 2006.

Staffing and financial performanceJUSCO had 289 employees in 2006 forproviding water and sewerage services. Ofthese, 209 were deployed for water servicesand the balance was engaged in sewerageservices. JUSCO has maintained the staffingratio (utility staff per 1,000 water andsewerage connections) at 3.50 for thethree-year period (2004-06).

In 2006, JUSCO incurred an operatingexpense of Rs. 3.78 per cu m of water

Figure 4.16: Water production and consumption levels in Jamshedpur

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



Figure 4.17: Operating cost and revenue levels in Jamshedpur

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)



53

consumed, against which it realized Rs. 4.44per cu m as operating revenues. In 2005-06,while per unit operating expenses haveremained almost constant, per unit operatingrevenues have increased by 7.4 percent,showing an improvement in the financialperformance of the utility. In each of the threeyears, JUSCO has been able to maintain theworking ratio below unity, the average being0.9. Its average collection period has beenreported as six days, the lowest among thecities covered by the study.

Quality of serviceJUSCO supplies water daily on an averagefor six hours. In 2006, 97.40 percent of thesamples of water supplied by JUSCOpassed the test for residual chlorine. JUSCOhas a 24x7 customer-compliant managementcell called the JUSCO Sahayog Kendra. TheSahayog Kendra, managed by JUSCO,facilitates the process of understanding theneeds and problems of consumers andstipulates a time-bound redress commitment.The cell receives complaints fromconsumers telephonically or via Internet/intranet. Complaints are segregated andclassified into 24 categories. A well-definedescalation structure for unattendedcomplaints ensures that all customercomplaints are prioritized and attended to.The Kendra also conducts customer surveysthrough its contact centers to obtain valuablecustomer feedback on its operations andservices. In the three years (2004-06), thenumber of complaints as a percentage ofwater connections decreased, from44 percent in 2004 to 43 percent in 2006.

About 66 percent of the wastewater collected(48 MLD) undergoes secondary treatment.

SummaryJUSCO sources approximately 375 MLD ofwater for supply to its service area;corresponding to 608 lpcd. The high percapita production is attributable substantiallyto the industrial demand from the steelindustry as well as other industrial activity inJUSCO’s service area. Although just 0.5percent of the total water connections aremetered, they account for over 70 percent ofthe total water consumed. This is attributableto the high levels of metered industrial waterconsumption within JUSCO’s service area.

In 2006, JUSCO incurred an operatingexpense of Rs. 3.78 per cu m of waterconsumed, against which it realized Rs. 4.44per cu m as operating revenues. In 2005-06,while per unit operating expenses remainedalmost constant, per unit operating revenuesincreased by 7.4 percent, showing animprovement in the financial performance ofthe utility. In each of the three years, JUSCOhas been able to maintain the working ratiobelow unity, the average being 0.9. Itsaverage collection period has been reportedas six days, the lowest among the citiescovered by the study.

JUSCO supplies water for six hours dailyequivalent to 608 lpcd. In the year 2006,97.40 percent of the total samples have passedthe minimum residual chlorine requirements.

The Sahayog Kendra managed by JUSCOfacilitates in understanding the needs andproblems of consumers and stipulates a timebound redressal commitment. A well-definedescalation structure for unattendedcomplaints ensures that customer complaintsare prioritized and attended to.


54


Pune

About Pune Municipal CorporationThe Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) isresponsible for providing civic services,including water supply and sewerageservices in the city of Pune.

CoveragePMC estimates the population covered by itswater supply services on the basis of thegeographical area covered by its waterpipeline network. The coverage has beenestimated at 88 percent in 2006 and hasremained more or less on the same level inthe previous years. Similarly, estimates of thepopulation covered by PMC’s sewerageservices are based on the geographical areacovered by its sewerage network. PMCestimates its sewerage coverage to be57 percent in 2006. This has remainedalmost constant in the previous two years.

Metering, production and consumptionPMC sources its water from the Khadakvasladam, which is located 12 km from the city. Thissource feeds five water treatment plants,

whose aggregate water treatment capacity isabout 900 MLD. The per capita dailyproduction has increased from 242 lpcd in2004 to 274 lpcd in 2006, that is, increased by13 percent. PMC has deployed flow meters tomeasure the volume of water produced andhence the production data are fairly reliable.

In 2006, about 16 percent of the connectionswere provided with meters. A largeproportion of the connections are industrial orbulk supply connections. Metered waterconsumption constituted about 55 percent ofthe total consumption in 2006. In theabsence of large-scale metering, the totalconsumption volume is just an estimate, andnot accurate. The metered waterconsumption volumes constitute about39 percent of the total water produced; nosignificant change has been observed in thisratio for the previous two years. PMCestimates that the consumption volumeshave increased from 148 lpcd in 2004 to168 lpcd in 2006. As per these productionand consumption data, the UFW level inPune is 40 percent, one of the highestamong cities covered by the study.

Figure 4.18: Water production and consumption levels in Pune

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

02004 2005 2006

Per

cap

ita d

aily

pro

duct

ion

and

cons

umpt

ion

(lpcd

)



55

Network performancePMC does not maintain data on pipe breaks,while the data on sewer blockages isavailable for a couple of wards. Based on thelimited sewer blockage data that wereprovided, the number of sewer blocksoccurring per km of sewer network wascalculated as 5.85 in 2006. PMC does notmaintain a centralized database on thelength of the water distribution network andsewerage system. There is also no record ofthe expansion in length of the networkcarried out in the three years of the study.

Staffing and financial performancePMC’s staffing ratio (utility staff per 1,000water connections) has improved from 19.93in 2004 to 16.65 in 2006. The ratio is higherthan that observed in most of the otherutilities covered by the study; this may beattributed to the relatively fewer number ofwater connections despite high consumptionlevels, as a large proportion of theconnections relate to bulk consumers.

In Pune, the water and sewerage tariffs arecharged as a percentage of property tax,which is linked to the annual rateable value(ARV) of the property. The domestic tariff asa percentage of ARV is as follows: water tax(25 percent), conservancy tax (13 percent),water benefit tax (2 percent) and seweragebenefit tax (4 percent). The nondomesticrates are about 1.5 times the domestic rates.

In 2005, PMC incurred an operating expenseof Rs. 3.21 per cu m of water produced. Interms of per cu m of water sold, it incurred acost of Rs. 5.24 per cu m against which itrealized revenues of Rs. 6.53 per cu m.PMC’s working ratio in 2004 was 0.92; itimproved to 0.82 in 2005.

PMC’s average collection period measured848 days in 2005. The collection period islong, as PMC does not follow a policy ofwriting off old debts.

Quality of servicePMC supplies water for about eight hoursper day. The data on complaints are notmaintained centrally and were not availablefor the study. Recently, a central monitoringcell has been created to keep a record andrespond to complaints regarding water andsewerage services. Almost 100 percent ofthe samples passed the test forresidual chlorine.

In 2006, about 67 percent of the wastewatercollected was subjected to secondary treatment.

SummaryPMC enjoys a low water production costbecause of close proximity to the source. Theper capita consumption of water is more thanadequate at 168 lpcd. Consumers, on anaverage, pay Rs. 6.53/kl of water consumed.The high realization is on account of asignificant number of bulk connections.

Consumers, along with abundant supply, getseven hours of water supply daily on anaverage. About 68 percent of the wastewatercollected is subjected to secondary treatment.

Not all connections are metered and thus thedata reliability with regard to NRW andconsumption data is low. The presence of alarge number of bulk consumers allows PMCto have realizations twice the productioncost. However, a high incidence of NRW(about 40 percent according to PMC) has notallowed the working ratio to further improvefrom the reported 0.82.


56


Rajkot

About Rajkot Municipal CorporationMunicipal services were provided by theerstwhile Municipal Borough under theGujarat Municipal Act, 1963. Thereafter itwas converted into the Rajkot MunicipalCorporation (RMC) on November 19, 1973.The city administration was placed under thenew statute of the Bombay ProvincialMunicipal Corporation Act 1949. RMC isresponsible for the provision andmanagement of basic urban infrastructureincluding water supply, wastewater collectionand disposal, garbage disposal, city roadsand street lighting. Presently, it covers a1.2 million population, spread over 105 sq km.

CoverageIn Rajkot, water supply coverage has beencomputed by multiplying the number ofhouseholds served through direct serviceconnections and the estimated averagehousehold size. The average household size isbased on Census 2001 data. The populationcovered by public water points is also includedin the coverage ratio. The number of

connections has increased from .11 million in2004 to .19 million in 2006; the populationcovered by public water points hasconsequently increased from 0.075 million in2004 to 0.10 million in 2006. The 75 percentincrease in the number of connections andincreased coverage through public waterpoints has allowed RMC to increase thepopulation covered by water supply servicesfrom 63 percent in 2004 to 98 percent in 2006.

RMC has calculated the sewerage coveragebased on its estimate of the number ofhouseholds provided with sewerageconnections and the estimated averagehousehold size in the city (based on datafrom Census 2001). The sewerage systemcoverage has been estimated as 55 percentfor 2006. In 2004, the corresponding figurewas 40 percent.


RMC sources approximately 150 MLD ofwater. Besides this, tankers are utilized byRMC to supply additional water to householdsin times of breakdown and temporary bulkdemands. The per capita daily production

Figure 4.19: Growth in population and water connections in Rajkot

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

02004 2005 2006

500

450

400

350

300

250

150

100

50

0

Pop

ulat

ion

(in ’0

00s)

Num

ber

of c

onne

ctio

ns (

in ’0

00s)

Population

Water connections

19 It may be noted that the reservoir levels are measured only at the end of the distribution cycle and not before the commencement of pumping.This results in an error in assessing the supply/production levels, especially if the reservoir is not filled completely before the commencement of thepumping process. Thus, the data reliability level for water production is very low. Due to very limited metering, the reliability of consumption data isalso very poor. Accordingly, the UFW/NRW estimates may be highly inaccurate.

57

levels20 have increased from 114 lpcd in 2004to 126 lpcd in 2006, implying an increase ofabout 10 percent in three years. As per theMunicipal bye-laws, metering is compulsory forbulk water connections greater thanthree-fourth of an inch in size. In 2006, only0.4 percent of the connections were metered,corresponding to 17 percent of the total waterproduced. The share of metered waterconsumption is disproportionate as meters areprovided only for bulk consumers. No data onthe functionality of meters are maintained.

RMC estimates that the consumption levelshave risen from 105 lpcd in 2004 to 112 lpcd in2006 implying an increase of 6.5 percent inthree years. Based on the production andconsumption data, the UFW was estimated tobe 11 percent in 2006. The UFW was datahave low reliability in the absence of large-scale metering and inaccurate production data.

Network performanceRMC’s network performance shows aconstant figure of 0.01 pipe breaks per km ofpipeline in each of the three years. The datarecorded for pipe breaks are notcomprehensive. According to RMC, mostcases of pipe breaks are attended to on thesame-day basis and only unresolved casesare recorded at the end of each day.

RMC has contracted out services for the repairof sewerage blockages to private agencies.These agencies are paid on a per complaintbasis. The data on the number of sewerageblockages are recorded and maintained by theprivate sector agencies and reported to RMC.The number of sewage blockages per km ofpipeline increased from 137 in 2004 to 156 in2006. These figures are the highest amongstthe cities covered by the study.

Staffing and financial performanceRMC had 311 employees in 2006 for waterand sewerage services. Of these, 211 weredeployed for water services, while 100 wereinvolved in providing sewerage services. Thestaffing ratio (utility staff per 1,000 waterconnections) has declined significantly from3.09 in 2004 to 1.62 in 2006, registering adecrease of almost 50 percent. This isbecause the number of connections hasincreased by 75 percent, while the totalnumber of employees has declined by10 percent during the 2004-06 period.

Although metering is mandated for bulkconnections, the water charges are fixed,depending on the size of the connection; itvaries from Rs. 360 to Rs. 2,400 per month.The residential tariffs are linked to the size ofthe connection; they vary from Rs. 32 toRs. 96 per month. The water connection fee(one-time) varies from Rs. 1,650 to Rs. 1,850per connection, depending on the size of theconnection. For sewerage connection, aone-time fee of Rs. 500 is charged.

The per unit production cost was Rs. 10.21per cu m in 2006; against this, the realizationwas Rs. 2.16 per cu m. The working ratiohas deteriorated from 4.21 in 2004 to6.63 in 2006.

Both labor and power costs have declined asa percentage of total costs, during the periodunder review. Power costs, as a percentageof total operating costs, have declined from42 percent in 2004 to 27 percent in 2006while establishment expenses havedecreased from 12.2 percent to 9.7 percentof the total operating costs. The rise in otherexpenses has contributed to the rise in perunit production cost.

20 Production data are not reliable as they are based on the rated capacity of the pumps and the pump operating hours.


58


Quality of serviceRMC has an average daily supply of waterfor 20 minutes, one of the lowest among thecities covered by the study.

It is reported that almost 100 percent of thesamples passed the test for residual chlorine.

In Rajkot, customers can register theircomplaints in the respective ward offices inperson or in writing. The details are maintainedat the ward office. The complaint cell forsewerage services has been contracted toprivate sector agencies. The number ofcomplaints related to water services hasshown a gradual decline, reducing from5,235 in 2004 to 4,568 in 2006. Sewerageservices-related complaints have shown asteady rise from 41,168 in 2004 to 58,441 in2006. As a percentage of water connections,the number of complaints has declined from37 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2006. Theentire sewage collected is subjected tosecondary treatment, while 60 percent of it issubjected to tertiary treatment.

SummaryRMC sources approximately 150 MLD of waterfor supply to its service area. This corresponds

to per capita production of 125 lpcd. RMCprovides water at 111 lpcd to its consumers atan average of 20 minutes per day. In spite ofits limited source availability, RMC serveswater to 98.33 percent of the population in itsservice area. The number of connectionsincreased by almost 75 percent over the2004-06 period. Only 16 percent of the waterproduced is through metered connections.Thus, the data reliability of the NRW and UFWlevels is very low.

RMC covers about 55 percent of the servicearea population through direct serviceconnections. It has a tertiary treatment plantwhich treats 52 MLD of sewage of60 MLD of sewage collected.

RMC’s staffing ratio of 1.62 per 1,000 watersupply connections in 2006, reads well incomparison to its peers. Its low cost recoveryhinders in undertaking fresh investmentsneeded to improve service levels in areassuch as sewerage coverage; seweragenetwork presently covers only 55.23 percentof the total population.

RMC recovers only 15 percent of its operatingcosts from water and sewerage revenues.

Figure 4.20: Operating cost and revenue levels in Rajkot

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

02004 2005 2006

Ope

ratin

g co

st a

nd r

even

ue p

er u

nit

cons

umed

(R

s. p

er c

u m

)



59

Bangalore

Water Utility Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB)

BWSSB was constituted under an Act passed by the Karnataka StateLegislature in 1964, by which it was made responsible for making provisionsfor water supply, sewerage and disposal of sewage in the Bangaloremetropolitan area. Currently, the main focus of service ofBWSSB is Bangalore. BWSSB is expected to progressively provide waterand sewerage services to other parts of the Bangalore metropolitan area.BWSSB sources water mainly from two sources: the Cauvery (850 MLD)and Arkavathy (100 MLD), respectively. The Cauvery source is locatedabout 100 km away from the city.

General Data Population (2006) 6.462 millionAbout Water ConnectionsUtility • Water 479,720

• Sewerage 485,920Staff (2006) 2,600Annual revenues Rs. 3,801 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 3,741 millionAnnual collections Rs. 2,167 million

Production and Annual production volume 337 million m3

Distribution Annual consumption volume 201 million m3

Annual production volume (lpcd) 143Annual consumption volume (lpcd) 85

Service CoverageIndicators • Water supply 91 percent

• Sewerage 79 percentHours of service 5Average tariff 21.96/cu m

Efficiency Nonrevenue water 49 percentIndicators Unit production cost Rs. 11.10/cu m

Working ratio 0.98Staff/’000 connections 5.42

Revenue collection efficiency 57 percent

Annex 1

Utility Profiles

60


Tariff Category and Consumption in cu m Monthly ChargesWater Supply Domestic Rs./cu m Minimum

charges0-8,000 6 488,001-25,000 9 20125,001-50,000 15 67650,001-75,000 30 1,32675,001-100,000 36 2,226100,000 & above 36 5,826

Nondomestic0-10,000 36 36010,001-20,000 39 39020,001-40,000 44 88040,001-60,000 51 1,00260,001-100,000 57 2,280100,000 & above 60

Industries 60

Sewerage Domestic0-25,000 Rs. 15.00 at flat rate25,001-50,000 15 percent of water

supply charges per monthAbove 50,000 20 percent of water

supply charges per monthConnection charges Rs.Water supply 1,400

Sewerage 250

Bangalore

61

Bhubaneswar

Water Utility Public Health Engineering Organization, Bhubaneswar

The PHEO is responsible for operating and maintaining urban water supplyand sewerage services in Orissa, while OWSSB is responsible for executingmajor water supply and sewerage projects. Both agencies are under theadministrative control of the Housing and Urban Development Department ofthe government of Orissa.

The Bhubaneswar division of PHEO is responsible for providing water supplyand sewerage services in the city of Bhubaneswar. The area of the city isabout 135 sq km and its population was estimated to be 0.766 million in 2006.

General Data Population 0.76 millionAbout Water ConnectionsUtility • Water 52,210

• Sewerage 32,720Staff (2006) 610Annual revenues Rs. 84.01 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 276.2 millionAnnual collections Rs. 69.17 million





• Sewerage 26 percentHours of service 4Average tariff Rs. 2.78/cu m

Efficiency Nonrevenue water 60 percentIndicators Unit production cost Rs. 3.67

Working ratio 3.29Staff/’000 connections 8.16Revenue collection efficiency 82 percent

Tariff

Water Supply Consumer category Rate per cu m in RsWater SupplyInstitutional 5.64Commercial and industrial 8.00

Sewerage Consumer Category Monthly chargePrivate apartment building/commercial/industrial Rs. 200: 4 inch minimum

size sewerRs. 500: 6 inch minimumsize sewerRs. 800: 8 inch minimumsize sewer

Connection charges Rs.Water supply 3,060Sewerage 1,560

Annex 1: Utility Profiles

62


Chandigarh

Water Utility Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh

The Union Territory of Chandigarh measures about 114 sq km in area andhas a population of 0.9 million as per the 2001 Census. It is one of the fastestgrowing cities of India with a population decadal growth rate of 40.30 percent.Prior to 1976, the Corporation's functions such as water supply, sewerage,storm water drainage, city roads, solid waste management and fire wing werelooked after by the respective departments of the Chandigarh administration.MMC was formed under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1976. Thereafter, thefunctions of works and maintenance for specific roads, water supply,sewerage, storm water drainage, solid waste management and fire tenderingwere transferred to MCC.


• Sewerage 126,000Staff (2006) 1,466Annual revenues Rs. 429 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 562 millionAnnual collections NA







Working ratio 1.31Staff /'000 connections 9.72Revenue collection efficiency NA

Tariff Consumer category Rate in Rs./cu mWater Supply Domestic – metered

0-15 cu m 1.7515-30 cu m 3.5030-60 cu m 5.00Above 60 cu m 6.00Domestic – unmetered Rs. 100 per monthCommercial 11.00Institutional 9.00Residential connection charges Rs.Water supply 500Sewerage 500

63

Chennai

Water Utility Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board

CMWSSB was constituted under the CMWSS Act, 1978 for exclusivelyattending to the needs of the citizens of Chennai city regarding planneddevelopment and appropriate regulation of water supply and sewerage servicesin the Chennai Metropolitan Area. The Board is at present serving175 sq km of Chennai city and 8 sq km of peripheral areas, covering apopulation of 5.32 million. In the peripheral areas, the Board mainly providesbulk water supply; water distribution is managed by the concerned local bodies.


• Sewerage 374,790Staff (2006) 4,594Annual revenues Rs. 2,485 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 3,362 millionAnnual collections Rs. 929 million






Efficiency Nonrevenue water 15.81 percentIndicators Unit production cost Rs. 34.65/cu m

Working ratio 1.35Staff /'000 connections 7.86Revenue collection efficiency 37 percent

Tariff Consumption category Rs./cu mWater Supply Domestic – metered

0-10 cu m 2.5011-15 cu m 10.0016-25 cu m 15.00Above 25 cu m 25.00

Commercial – private hospitals0-500 cu m 50.00Above 500 cu m 80.00 for entire quantity

Commercial – others0-500 cu m 35.00Above 500 cu m 60.00 for entire quantity

Residential connection charges Rs.Water supply 1,930Sewerage 3,330


64


Dehradun

Water Utility Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Dehradun

Uttarakhand's water supply and sewerage system is governed by two statutesenacted in 1975 – the Kumaon and Garhwal Water (Collection, Retention andDistribution) Act of 1975 and the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and SewerageAct of 1975. After the formation of Uttaranchal, the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthanwas formed in 2001, merging the Kumaon and Garhwal Jal Sansthans andincorporating both the construction and the O&M wings. Its name waschanged to Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan (UJS) in October 2006.


• Sewerage 2,470Staff (2006) 396Annual revenues Rs. 152 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 219 millionAnnual collections Rs. 98 million





• Sewerage 30 percentHours of service 4Average tariff Rs. 1.44 /cu m


Working ratio 1.44Staff/'000 connections 5.53Revenue collection efficiency 65 percent

Tariff Annual property assessment Water tariff rates (averagein Rs. per month)

Up to Rs. 360 70Rs. 361-Rs. 2,000 75Rs. 2,001-Rs. 3,500 80Rs. 3,501-Rs. 6,000 110Rs. 6,001-Rs. 8,000 125More than Rs. 8,001 150

For residential connection where property assessment data is not available

Number of taps Monthly charges, Rs.1 452 503 754 90Metered supply Rs./cu mResidential 4.00Commercial 10.50Industrial 12.00Connection charges Rs.Water supply 3,715Sewerage 1,500

65

Hyderabad

Water Utility Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB)

HMWSSB is a statutory authority in charge of providing and maintainingwater supply and sewerage facilities in Hyderabad and its surroundingmunicipalities. HMWSSB was constituted on November 1, 1989, under theprovisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act,1989. The Board is responsible for the supply of potable water includingplanning, design, construction, implementation, maintenance and O&M ofwater supply and the sewerage system. The Board is stipulated to run oncommercial lines by generating surplus through tariffs in a manner that willmeet operational costs, capital expenditure and debt servicing.


• Sewerage 439,600Staff (2006) 5,241Annual revenues Rs. 2878 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 3.25 millionAnnual collections Rs. 2.80 million



Annual production volume (lpcd) 192.12Annual consumption volume (lpcd) 96.93


• Sewerage 51.40 percentHours of service 2Average tariff Rs. 16.11 /cu m



Tariff Monthly consumption in cu m Rs./cu mWater Supply 0-15 6-00

16-30 8-0031-50 15-0051-100 20-00101-200 25-00Above 200 cu m 35.00 for entire

consumption

Sewerage 35 percent of water charges are payable by consumers as sewerage charges


66


Indore

Water Utility Indore Municipal Corporation

IMC is responsible for providing civic services in the city of Indore. Watersupply and sewerage is one the many services it provides to its citizens. ThePHED, a state government department, had been responsible for providingwater services to the city earlier. Currently, the employees of PHED, stationedin Indore, are under the administrative control of IMC, but their salaries are stillpaid by the state government. Besides, IMC has employees on its rolls whoare responsible for providing O&M services other than operating the watertreatment plant. PHED is also responsible for providing O&M services.

IMC provides water supply to Indore city from two perennial sources – YashwantSagar Dam on the Gambhir river (26 MLD) and Narmada river (180 MLD).Besides, the rain-dependent Bilawali Tank (4 MLD) and ground water (13 MLD)are the other two sources of water. Narmada river is at a distance of 70 km fromthe city. But of the 180 MLD sourced, 140 MLD is supplied to Indore city while thebalance 40 MLD is sold en route to towns and villages.


• Sewerage 0Staff (2006) 1,405Annual revenues Rs. 157 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 852 millionAnnual collections Rs. 154 million





• Sewerage 33 percentHours of service 0.75Average tariff Rs. 4.68/cu m

Tariff structure Type of connection Size in inches for 2005 for 2006

Domestic ½ 60 150¾ 120 2501 250 500

1 ½ 480 1,0002 960 2,0003 1,920 4,0004 3,840 8,0006 7,680 14,000

Commercial ½ 150 300¾ 300 6001 700 1,400

1 ½ 1,200 2,4002 2,400 5,0003 4,800 10,0004 9,600 20,0006 19,200 38,000

67

Indore

Industrial ½ 300 600¾ 600 1,2001 1,200 2,400

1 ½ 2,400 5,0002 4,800 10,0003 9,600 20,0004 17,200 35,0006 38,400 76,000

Connection charges Rs.Water supply 2,500Sewerage 200


68


Jamshedpur

Water Utility Jamshedpur Utility Services Company Limited

JUSCO was incorporated in August 2003 as a 100 percent subsidiarycompany of Tata Steel. It commenced provision of civic and municipal servicesfrom April 1, 2004. It is the only corporate private sector provider of civic andmunicipal services in India. JUSCO’s area of operations is spread over64 sq km in the city of Jamshedpur and encompasses water, wastewater,power, public health and horticulture services along with other services likeplanning, engineering and construction to keep up with the growing civic needsof the people within its service area.


• Sewerage 40,000Staff (2006) 289Annual revenues Rs. 550 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 470 millionAnnual collections Rs. 537 million



Annual production volume (lpcd) 608*Annual consumption volume (lpcd) 554*


• Sewerage 62 percentHours of service 6.00Average tariff Rs. 4.44 /cu m



Tariff Industrial water Rate in Rs./cu mRaw water 5.39Clarified water 5.51

Potable water (metered)Domestic and commercial consumers 7.9Institutional consumers 4.4Industrial consumers 9.9Potable water Flat rate

Bagan areas/bustee areasPlot area up to 1,600 ft2

Single storey 120Additional storey or part thereof 110

Lease and other holdingsPlot area up to 2,500 ft2


* Includes nonpotable industrial production also.

69

Plot area 2,500-5,000 ft2


Plot area 5,000 ft2 and aboveSingle storey 540Additional storey or part thereof 360

Nondomestic/commercial holdingsPlot area up to 1,600 ft2


Plot area 1,600-2,500 ft2


Plot area 2,500 ft2 and aboveSingle storey 600Additional storey or part thereof 400

Jamshedpur


70


Pune

Water Utility Pune Municipal Corporation

PMC is responsible for providing civic services including water supply andsewerage services in the city of Pune. PMC sources its water requirementsfrom the Khadakvasla dam, located 12 km away from the city. This sourcefeeds five water treatment plants whose aggregate water treatment capacity isabout 900 MLD.


• Sewerage NAStaff (2006) 1,773Annual revenues Rs. 1,140 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 933 millionAnnual collections Rs. 780 million








Tariff Metered supply Rate/cu mWater Supply Domestic – metered

Residential 3Commercial and industrial 16

Unmetered supply Flat rate per annumResidential Rs. 900 to 1,100 per annumNonresidential Rs. 500 to 1,000 per annum

Connection chargesWater supply 1,200Sewerage 2,000

71

Rajkot

Water Utility Rajkot Municipal Corporation

Municipal services in Rajkot were provided by the erstwhile Municipal Boroughunder the Gujarat Municipal Act, 1963. The Rajkot Municipality was thereafterconverted into RMC on November 19, 1973. The city administration wasplaced under the new statute of the Bombay Provincial Municipal CorporationAct 1949. RMC is responsible for providing and managing basic urban servicessuch as water and sewerage disposal services, garbage disposal, citywideroads and street lighting. The service area has a population of about1.2 million, spread over 105 sq km.


• Sewerage 120,000Staff (2006) 311Annual revenues Rs. 84 millionAnnual O&M costs Rs. 558 millionAnnual collections NA





• Sewerage 55 percentHours of service 0.33Average tariff Rs. 1.75 /cu m

Efficiency Nonrevenue waterIndicators Unit production cost Rs. 10.21/cu m

Working ratio 0.63Staff /'000 connections 1.10Revenue collection efficiency NA

Tariff For all consumers Rs. 600 per monthConnection charges Rs.Water supply 1,650Sewerage 500


72


Ann

ex 2

Dat

a S

umm

ary

She

et (

2005

-06)

Pop

ulat

ion

(to

be s

ervi

ced)

in m

illio

n6.

460.

771.

155.

320.

795.

051.

800.

623.

191.

20

Met

erin

g

Wat

er c

onne

ctio

nsin

nos

.47

9720

5221

013

7409

3656

8062

370

5268

7015

8920

4200

010

6500

1920

00

Num

ber

of m

eter

edco

nnec

tions

in n

os.

4797

2074

010

8862

–N

A49

2000

022

216

530

715

Num

ber

of f

unct

iona

lm

eter

ed c

onne

ctio

nsin

nos

.43

1740

356

9797

612

800

5000

4920

000

217

1653

071

5

Wat

er p

rod

uct

ion

Tot

al w

ater

in m

n m

3

prod

uctio

npe

r ye

ar33

6.93

75.1

912

1.91

210.

4242

.71

354.

1266

.79

136.

5131

9.01

54.7

5

Dai

ly s

uppl

yin

hrs

/day

5.00

412

.00

3.00

4.00

20.

756.

007.

000.

33

Wat

er C

on

sum

pti

on

Met

ered

con

sum

ptio

nin

mn

m3

(bill

ed m

eter

ed)

per

year

157.

340.

6775

.19

38.5

13.

6516

0.83

087

.60

106.

829.

13

Bill

ed u

nmet

ered

in m

n m

3

cons

umpt

ion

per

year

15.7

529

.57

16.4

313

8.65

27.6

317

.84

33.4

36.1

484

.59

39.0

6

Tot

al b

illed

in m

n m

3

cons

umpt

ion

per

year

173.

0930

.24

91.6

1517

7.16

31.2

817

8.67

33.4

123.

735

191.

4148

.18

Unb

illed

in m

n m

3

cons

umpt

ion

per

year

27.5

30

8.76

8.37

1.10

020

.04

0.73

4.30

0.55

Tot

al c

onsu

mpt

ion

in m

n m

3

per

yea

r20

0.62

30.2

410

0.38

185.

5332

.38

178.

6753

.44

124.

4719

5.71

48.7

3

Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

73

Annex 2: Data Summary Sheet (2005-06)

Wat

er c

ove

rag

e

Pop

ulat

ion

cove

red

in n

os.

5875

000

3458

0011

5000

052

1360

062

8000

4797

500

9745

8048

8000

2808

760

1175

000

Sew

erag

e co

vera

ge

No

of p

eopl

e co

vere

dby

dire

ct s

ervi

ced

conn

ectio

nsin

nos

5104

410

1970

0011

5000

052

1360

023

5500

2595

450

6000

0038

0500

1809

420

6600

00

Sew

age

colle

cted

in m

n m

3

per

year

288.

021

.979

.514

0.0

20.0

48.6

32.9

20.8

164.

521

.9

Wat

er q

ual

ity

and

cu

sto

mer

ser

vice

Tes

ts c

ondu

cted

for

chlo

rine

In n

os.

2000

045

0036

5028

080

1600

7846

7846

1100

023

659

1610

0

Tes

ts p

asse

dIn

nos

.18

000

4500

3650

2775

615

3668

3168

3110

714

2351

216

085

Was

tew

ater

in m

n m

3

unde

rgoi

ng p

rimar

ype

r ye

artr

eatm

ent

only

0.00

24.8

50.

000.

0033

.95

32.8

50.

000.

000.

00

Was

tew

ater

unde

rgoi

ngin

mn

m3

seco

ndar

y tr

eatm

ent

per

year

105.

1213

.84

28.1

710

5.85

0.00

7.30

0.00

13.8

411

1.30

21.9

0

Com

plai

nts

In n

os.

NA

4085

3100

1612

1625

0020

8039

576

1800

0N

A58

441

Sta

ffin

g

Sta

ff de

ploy

edfo

r w

ater

In n

os.

1625

426

1336

2875

345

4165

1285

209

1223

211

Tot

al S

taff

In n

os.

2600

.00

610.

0014

66.0

045

94.0

039

6.00

5241

.00

1405

.00

289.

0017

73.0

031

1.00

Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

74


Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

Net

wo

rk p

erfo

rman

ce

Pip

e br

eaks

In n

os.

2550

018

2515

0050

0N

A57

80N

A32

00N

A15

Sew

er b

lock

ages

In n

os.

3048

021

9816

0052

512

NA

4320

3N

A21

046

3458

441

Fin

anci

al p

erfo

rman

ce

Ope

ratin

g co

stR

s. m

n. 3

,740

.50

276.

17 5

61.5

33,

361.

4621

8.45

3,24

5.00

852.

6547

0.00

932.

7055

8.85

Wat

erR

s. m

n.–

––

–21

5.67

2,10

9.25

772.

65–

772.

0054

5.65

Sew

erag

eR

s. m

n. –

––

–2.

781,

135.

7580

.00

–16

0.70

13.2

0

Labo

r co

stR

s. m

n. –

42.3

617

2.00

723.

4640

.94

850.

0014

1.87

72.5

016

6.93

54.1

0

Ele

ctric

ity c

ost

Rs.

mn.

–13

9.92

353.

5026

5.77

162.

871,

101.

0063

0.77

190.

0031

7.91

150.

00

Con

trac

ting

cost

Rs.

mn.

––

––

––

––

––

Op

erat

ing

rev

enu

es

Ope

ratin

g re

venu

es(t

otal

bill

ings

)R

s. m

n.3,

800.

4184

.01

428.

942,

484.

6915

2.15

2,87

8.00

156.

4855

0.00

1,13

9.55

84.2

5

Ope

ratin

g re

venu

es(w

ater

)R

s. m

n. –

55.5

5–

1,87

7.14

148.

152,

447.

0015

6.48

550.

0080

2.73

79.2

5

Ope

ratin

g re

venu

es(s

ewer

age)

Rs.

mn.

––

–60

7.55

4.00

432.

00 N

A–

336.

825.

00

Col

lect

ions

Rs.

mn.

2,16

6.70

69.1

742

8.94

928.

6998

.16

2,78

4.00

154.

0053

6.60

780.

00–

Yea

r en

d re

ceiv

able

sR

s. m

n. 2

,154

.35

111

.73

–1,

556.

00 N

A1,

736.

0025

7.70

13.4

01,

812.

1019

2.59

75

Ann

ex 3

Indi

cato

r S

umm

ary

She

et (

2005

-06)

Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

Co

vera

ge

Wat

er c

over

age

in %

90.9

245

.14

100.

0098

.00

80.0

095

.00

54.1

479

.29

88.1

198

.33

Sew

erag

e co

vera

gein

%78

.99

25.7

210

0.00

98.0

030

.00

51.4

033

.33

61.8

256

.76

55.2

3

Wat

er p

rod

uct

ion

, co

nsu

mp

tio

n a

nd

met

erin

g

Per

cap

ita d

aily

prod

uctio

nlp

cd14

2.85

268.

9329

0.43

108.

3614

9.06

192.

1210

1.66

607.

6427

4.17

125.

52

Sup

ply

cont

inui

ty%

of 2

420

.83

16.6

750

.00

12.5

016

.67

8.33

3.13

25.0

029

.17

1.39

hour

s a

day

Per

cap

itaco

nsum

ptio

nlp

cd85

.06

108.

1623

9.13

95.1

711

3.01

96.9

381

.34

554.

0216

8.20

111.

72

Fun

ctio

nal m

eter

s%

of t

otal

90.0

00.

6871

.30

3.50

8.02

93.3

80.

000.

5215

.52

0.37

conn

ectio

ns

Met

ered

% o

f tot

al78

.43

2.22

74.9

120

.84

11.2

790

.02

0.00

70.3

854

.58

18.7

3co

nsum

ptio

nco

nsum

ptio

n

Una

ccou

nted

% o

f wat

er40

.46

59.7

817

.66

15.9

824

.19

49.5

519

.99

8.82

38.6

511

.00

for

wat

erpr

oduc

ed

Non

reve

nue

% o

f wat

er48

.63

59.7

824

.85

15.8

126

.76

49.5

549

.99

9.36

40.0

012

.00

wat

erpr

oduc

ed

Sta

ffin

g

Sta

ff –

Wat

er%

age

of62

.50

69.8

491

.13

62.5

887

.12

79.4

791

.46

72.3

268

.98

67.8

5to

tal s

taff

Sta

ff –

Sew

erag

e%

age

of37

.50

30.1

68.

8737

.42

12.8

820

.53

8.54

27.6

831

.02

32.1

5to

tal s

taff

Sta

ff pe

r 1,

000

wat

er c

onne

ctio

nsra

tio5.

4252

.90

10.6

712

.56

6.35

9.95

8.84

6.88

16.6

51.

62

76


Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

Un

it o

per

atin

g c

ost

an

d r

even

ues

Uni

t op

erat

iona

lR

s. p

erco

stcu

m w

ater

11.1

03.

674.

6134

.65

5.11

9.16

12.7

73.

443.

2110

.21

prod

uced

Ave

rage

rev

enue

Rs.

per

(dem

and)

cu m

21.9

62.

784.

6830

.28

4.86

16.1

14.

684.

446.

531.

75w

ater

sol

d

Wor

king

rat

ioO

pera

ting

reve

nue/

oper

atin

gex

pens

es0.

983.

291.

311.

351.

441.

135.

450.

850.

826.

63

Co

st s

plit

Labo

r co

sts

vs%

age

of–

15.3

430

.63

21.5

218

.74

26.1

916

.64

15.4

317

.90

9.68

oper

atin

g co

sts

tota

lop

erat

ing

cost

Ele

ctric

al e

nerg

y%

age

of–

50.6

662

.95

7.91

74.5

633

.93

73.9

840

.43

34.0

826

.84

cost

s vs

ope

ratin

gto

tal

cost

sop

erat

ing

cost

Con

trac

t-ou

t%

age

ofse

rvic

es c

osts

vs

tota

l–

––

––

––

––

–op

erat

ing

cost

sop

erat

ing

cost

Co

llect

ion

eff

icie

ncy

Col

lect

ion

perio

dD

ays

362.

9258

9.56

0.00

611.

55–

227.

6061

0.78

9.11

847.

97 –

Col

lect

ion

ratio

%57

.01

82.3

410

0.00

37.3

864

.52

96.7

3N

AN

A68

.45

0.00

%

77

Annex 3: Indicator Summary Sheet (2005-06)

Net

wo

rk p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd

cu

sto

mer

ser

vice

Pip

e br

eaks

No.

per

km

of n

etw

ork

5.23

2.00

1.00

0.19

–3.

97–

6.24

–0.

01

Sew

er b

lock

ages

No.

per

km

of n

etw

ork

8.22

7.51

1.77

19.8

2 –

15.2

7 –

0.42

5.85

155.

84

Sam

ples

pas

sing

on r

esid

ual

chlo

rine

cond

ucte

d%

of t

ests

90.0

0%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%98

.85%

96.0

0%87

.06%

87.0

6%97

.40%

99.3

8%99

.91%

Com

plai

nts

of%

of w

ater

W&

S s

ervi

ces

conn

ectio

ns–

7.82

%2.

26%

44.0

9%4.

01%

39.4

9%0.

36%

42.8

6% –

30.4

4%

Was

tew

ater

% o

fun

derg

oing

prim

ary

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

tco

llect

ed0.

00%

0.00

%31

.24%

0.00

%0.

00%

69.9

2%10

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Was

tew

ater

unde

rgoi

ng%

of

seco

ndar

yw

aste

wat

ertr

eatm

ent

col

lect

ed36

.50%

63.2

0%35

.42%

75.6

1%0.

00%

15.0

4%0.

00%

66.4

4%67

.65%

100.

00%

Bangalore

Bhubaneswar

Chandigarh

Chennai

Dehradun

Hyderabad

Indore

Jamshedpur

Pune

Rajkot

78


The Water and Sanitation Program–SouthAsia in partnership with the Ministry ofUrban Development, Government of India,undertook a project on BenchmarkingUrban Water Utilities.

WSP-SA completed Phase I of the projectin 2005. Building on Phase I, the focus inPhase II was to improve the quality ofdata, to highlight the information gaps,and explore institutional mechanisms toundertake performance benchmarking ona sustainable basis. As part of Phase II,data on water and sanitation services wascollected from ten Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission(JNNURM) cities and a detailed analysiscarried out to arrive at the performancetrends and data gaps.

To take forward the key messages fromPhase I and Phase II, the Water andSanitation Program-South Asia, incollaboration with the Ministry ofUrban Development, the Institute ofChartered Accountants of India (ICAI),and PROOF organized a roundtablediscussion on performance measurementand benchmarking on December 19th,

2006, in New Delhi. The roundtablebrought together city officials, experts andpractitioners, to disseminate and discussthe results from the aforementionedinitiatives and brainstorm on thedevelopment of a common performancemeasurement framework for citiesunder the urban renewal mission.

In a significant outcome, Ministry of UrbanDevelopment committed to institutionalizebenchmarking by linking it to the urbanrenewal mission and other centrally-sponsored programs. The key issue beingexplored is the use of such abenchmarking program to monitor andevaluate progress under the urbanrenewal mission in achieving urban waterand sanitation services. As a preliminarystep, the Ministry constituted a Core Groupon Benchmarking with a mandate todevelop a framework of Service LevelBenchmarks for water supply, wastewatermanagement, and solid wastemanagement. WSP-SA, alongwith CRISIL,PROOF and ICAI, is working with theMinistry to finalizing this framework and issupporting adoption of the same at variouslevels of decision making.

78

Institutionalizing Benchmarking

Water and Sanitation Program-South AsiaThe World Bank55 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003India

Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to The WorldBank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the companies they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other informationshown in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement oracceptance of such boundaries.

Pictures by: Sajid DarokhanDesigned and Printed by: Roots Advertising Services Pvt Ltd

September 2008

WSP MISSIONTo help the poor gain sustained access to water and sanitation services.

WSP FUNDING PARTNERSThe Governments of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America;the United Nations Development Programme, The World Bank, andthe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

AusAID provides WSP-SA programmatic support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTask Manager: Anupam SharmaStudy Consultants: CRISIL Infrastructure Advisory,Shah Technical Consultants and Cesar Y YniguezPeer Review: Catherine Revels, Vandana Bhatnagar

Documents

Phase II Benchmarking Urban Water Utilities in India · utilities, the Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia (WSP-SA) in partnership with the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)