A Step towards Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case of Rural Water Supply in Karnataka

 

Dr. Narayana Billava

Research Associate, Abdul Nazir Sab Panchayat Raj Chair, Centre for Multi-disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Nagar, Near Y. S. Colony, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 004

*Corresponding Author Email: n.billava@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

Access to water is one of the human right, vital for development and well being. Drinking water supply is basic provision that reflect civilized standard of living. Unequal access to water supply is one of the key development challenges for the state. One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG Goal 6) is to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030 and also to support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water management. India as part of its commitment to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has promised to provide 100 % of its population with access to improved water sources by 2030 (According to WHO/UN definition, improved water sources include a mix of piped water, public tap,/stand pipe, tube well/borehole, protected dug well, protected spring and rain water collection (see WHO/UNICEF. http://www.wssinfo.org/definiations-methods/watsan - ladder/, accessed on 30 June, 2013.). water sources by 2030. The Karnataka State Water Policy, 2002 envisage is providing drinking water at the rate of 55 liters per person per day in rural areas. The goal of this paper is to understand the situation of water supply in rural Karnataka and to understand challenges to achieve SDG based on primary and secondary information which is collected from Census documents, the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj and Government of Karnataka and households survey. To elicit household level information on water, we have interviewed 10 % of the household from each selected village. Accordingly the total sample size amounted to 235 households in 8 villages of 4 Gram Panchayats in Dharwad district. The paper reveals that the provision of safe drinking water still remains an unachieved goal and in rural areas with severe adverse effects on the health of the rural households. Study found that rural people are not much concerned about poor quality of water supply in compare to people in urban areas and further considering the fact that the ground water is not fit for drinking purposes in 4500 villages on account of high fluoride or iron content and brackishness. However, even after a decade of declaration of the State Water Policy, 2002 about 65% of the habitations (Annual Report (2014-15), RDPR, Government of Karnataka) in rural Karnataka do not get a minimum of 55 lpcd as envisaged in the policy. SDGs present us with goals but not the strategies required for acheiveing them. Hence, there is a need for continued intervention of Government in implementation of various programmes and fix strategies and plan for achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030. More number of RO plants can be better options in fluoride affected villages, which do not have access to surface water or safe drinking water. Thus, NGOs and GPs can play a significant role in providing knowledge to rural people and change their attitude towards the same.

 

KEYWORDS:  Sustainable Development Goals, Rural Water Supply, Water Quality, Gram Panchayats, Safe Drinking Water Supply

 


 

1. INTRODUCTION:

Access to water is one of the human rights, vital for development and well being. Drinking water is basic provision that reflect civilized standard of living. Unequal access to drinking water is one of the key development challenges for the state. India as part of its commitment to the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has promised to provide 100% of its population with access to improved (According to WHO/UN definition, improved water sources include a mix of piped water, public  tap,/stand pipe, tube well/borehole, protected dug well, protected spring and rain water collection (see WHO/UNICEF. http://www.wssinfo.org/definiations-methods/watsan -ladder/, accessed on 30 June, 2013.) water sources by 2030. The Karnataka State Water Policy, 2002 envisages providing drinking water at the rate of 55 liters per person per day in rural areas, 70 liters per person per day in towns and 100 liters per person per day in city municipal council areas and 135 liters per person per day in city corporation areas. Further considering the fact that, the ground water is not fit for drinking purposes in 4500 villages on account of high fluoride or iron content and brackishness. Even after a decade of declaration of the State Water Policy 2002, about 60% of the habitations (4Annual Report (2007-08), RDPR, Government of Karnataka) in rural Karnataka do not get a minimum of 55 lpcd as envisaged in the policy.

 

Provision of safe drinking water could make tremendous impact on the quality of life in our village, because availability of safe drinking water facility has direct impact on the working conditions and health of the people and their productive capacity. So, one of the prior responsibilities of Government is to ensure adequate supply of protected drinking water and hygienic disposal of waste material in the country especially in rural areas. Six thousand children die every day in the world from diarrhoeal diseases alone, and large proportion of diarrhoeal disease in the developing world is due to poor water, sanitation and hygiene (UNICEF, 2003). In India the health effect of poor quality of rural water has been underemphasized. Investment in water can be an engine of accelerating economic growth, sustainable development, and improved health and finally reduction of poverty (Veershekharappa, et.al; 2006:1). One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG Goal 6) is to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030 and also to support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water management.

 

2. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS:

The main aim of this paper is to understand the current status of water supply in rural areas in Karnataka and how these efforts are useful to achieve SDGs with regard to equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water at the grassroot level. This paper is based on secondary data and primary data. The secondary information has been collected from Census documents, the Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj and Government of Karnataka. To elicit household level information on water and sanitaion, we have interviewed 10 % of the household from each selected village. Accordingly the total sample size amounted to 235 households in 8 villages of 4 Gram Panchayats

 

3. STUDY RESULTS:

3.1 Status of Drinking Water Supply in Rural Karnataka:

Karnataka is one of the leading States in India with a population of 61.10 million as per 2001 census. It is the 8th largest State in area (1,91,791 sq. km) and 9th largest State in population in the country. As per 2011 census, 37.47 million people (61.32%) live in rural areas and 23.63 million people (38.67%) live in urban areas in Karnataka. There are 30 districts, 176 blocks and 29406 villages.

 

The Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department at the State level, Zilla Panchayat at district levels, and Gram Panchayat at habitation levels co-ordinate for drinking water supply to the rural population. Despite huge funding and investments made by various agencies, many of the habitations and households are still denied accessibility to adequate supply of drinking water. Figure 1 shows that, about 6.2 % of rural habitations in Karnataka have to be covered fully by different rural water supply schemes. The habitations fully covered have swiftly increased from 61 % in the year 2000 to 93.8 % in the year 2006.

 

Figure 1: Coverage of Habitation in Karnataka 1993-2006

 

Source: Various year RDPRD reports and Economic Survey of India

 

3.2: Norms of Supplying Water:

Inadequacy of safe drinking water supply is an indication of several problems (Das 2000, Puttaswamaiah, 2005). A certain quantity of water is essential for life and maintenance of personal hygiene, the absence of which results in health problems like dehydration, skin diseases, etc. During the introduction of Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme, the Central Government approved norms for supplying water for domestic purposes aimed at providing at least 40 liters per capita per day (lpcd) to rural habitations to meet the minimum requirements. The Government of Karnataka aims at providing 55 liters per capita per day (lpcd) drinking water to rural areas, from different water supply schemes. Table 1 presents the level of drinking water supply to rural inhabitants. About 68.4 % of rural habitations are getting insufficient water (i.e. less than 55 lpcd) in the year 2010-11. Coverage of the rural habitations with adequate drinking water increased from 47.2 % in 1993 to 93.8 % in 2006 (Figure 1). However, about 31.6 % of the rural habitations are covered with adequate drinking water supply in Karnataka and around 27 % of rural habitations are still getting less than 40 lpcd in rural Karnataka.

 


 

Table 1: Level of Drinking Water Supply in Rural Areas

Year

Up to 55 LPCD

More than 55 LPCD

Total Habitations

Up to 55 LPCD

More than 55 LPCD

Total

 Number

Percentage

2000-01

22120

34562

56682

39.02

60.98

100.0

2001-02

20495

36187

56682

36.2

63.8

100.0

2003-04

35976

20706

56682

63.5

36.5

100.0

2004-05

39571

17111

56682

69.8

30.2

100.0

2005-06

36682

20000

56682

64.7

35.3

100.0

2006-07

36225

20457

56682

63.9

36.1

100.0

2007-08

35933

23697

59630

60.3

39.7

100.0

2010-11

40790

18840

59630

68.3

31.6

100.0

2014-15

40761

18623

59384

68.6

30.6

100.0

Source: Various Annual Reports of RDPR

 


3.3: Source of Drinking Water in Rural Area:

The main source of drinking water is groundwater, which is generally free from bacterial and mineral contamination when tapped from aquifers. Karnataka depends mainly (95 per cent) on ground water resources for water supply in the rural habitations and villages and is facilitated through piped-water supply scheme, mini water supply scheme, and bore well/ hand pumps. Table 2 depicts division and district wise main sources of drinking water in rural Karnataka. Bore wells (39.45 %) and Open wells (32.80 %) are major water sources followed by PWS and MWS in Karnataka. The dependence on water sources differs from one district to another or one division to another division. For instance, in Bangalore division people depend more on bore wells (63 %), where as dependence in Belgaum division is more on PWS. On the other hand, based on geographical area the districts of costal area like Dakshina Kannada (80.25 %), Udupi (67.86 %) and Uttar Kannada (80.22 %) depend more on open wells. The malnad area except Shimoga district depends more on open wells 59.20 %. Districts like Kodagu (66.93 %), Hassan (55.81%) and Chikkamagalur (54.95 %) depend on Bore wells. The Northen Plains districts like Gulbarga (64.07 %), Raichur (65.59 %), Koppal (70.6 %), Bellary (63.86 %), Bijapur (63.77 %), Bagalkot (67.96 %), Dharwad (46.56 %), Gadag (69.72 %), and Haveri (63.97 %) depend on bore wells. The southern part of the state, Davangere (64.33%), Chitradurga (71.47%), Tumakur (68.51%), Bangalore (56.94), Bangalore Rural (67.48%), Kolar (50.28 %), Mandya (46.07), Mysore (62.43%), also depend more on bore wells, Chamaraj Nagar depends largely (67.7) on PWS.

 

 

Table 2: Division/ Districts Wise Open Wells/ PWS /MWS/Hand Pumps

Districts

In Percentage

Open Wells

Bore Wells

Mini Water Supply Schemes

Piped Water

Supply Schemes

Total

Bangalore

15.97

56.94

19.06

8.03

100

Bangalore Rural

12.98

67.48

13.75

5.8

100

Chitradurga

4.4

71.47

18.03

6.11

100

Davangare

10.47

64.33

16.23

8.97

100

Kolar

21.67

50.28

20.87

7.18

100

Shimoga

59.2

36.9

2.78

1.12

100

Tumakur

9.98

68.51

15.62

5.88

100

Bangalore Division

14.06

63

16.41

6.54

100

Belgaum

37.03

35.82

13.69

13.46

100

Bijapur

19.15

63.77

9.34

7.74

100

Bagalkot

10.65

67.96

11.78

9.61

100

Dharwad

10.6

46.56

27.73

15.1

100

Gadag

12.24

69.72

9.2

8.84

100

Haveri

8.39

63.97

15.8

11.84

100

Uttarkannada

80.22

16.35

2.13

1.3

100

Belgaum Division

48.32

35.18

8.95

7.56

100

Bellary

12.83

63.86

14.73

8.58

100

Bidar

3.14

5.7

37.76

53.41

100

Gulabarga

20.28

64.07

9.38

6.27

100

Raichur

16.91

65.59

11.71

5.79

100

Koppal

7.39

70.6

13.3

8.72

100

Gulabarga Division

7.73

27.37

28.3

36.6

100

Chikmagalur

29.61

54.95

9.51

5.93

100

Dakshina Kannada

80.25

15.86

2.25

1.64

100

Udupi

67.86

28.11

2.14

1.89

100

Hasan

30.43

55.81

8.36

5.4

100

Kodagu

24.58

66.93

5.2

3.29

100

Mandya

33.2

46.07

12.98

7.74

100

Mysore

20.77

62.43

7.46

9.35

100

Chamaraj Nagar

0.76

4.73

26.8

67.7

100

Mysore Division

24.27

20.56

17.09

38.07

100

Karnataka

32.8

39.45

14.18

13.57

100

Sources: RDPRD (GoK) Samanyamahiti 2010-11

 

3.4: Water Quality in Karnataka:

Karnataka is one of the States facing the problem of water quality among all major states. Many rural habitations in Karnataka are facing health problems also due to inadequate use of water (Puttaswamaiah, 2005, Raju, 2006). Table 3 shows that, about 37 % habitations are water quality affected in Karnataka and a large number are affected by excess iron; followed by excess fluoride, excess TDS and Nitrate in descending order. Table also shows division and district wise status of water quality affected rural habitations. Bangalore and Gulabarga divisions are more water quality affected compared to state averages. The coastal districts like Dakshina Kannada (9.56 %), Udupi (4.11 %) and Uttar Kannada (6.56%) are less water quality affected districts compared with districts of other divisions.

 

Table 3: Status of Water Quality by Habitations in Karnataka

Districts

Total No. of habitations affected

Total No. of habitations

% of Affected Habitations

Bangalore

804

1285

62.57

Bangalore Rural

1154

3394

34.00

Chitradurga

1077

1369

78.67

Davangare

803

1084

74.08

Kolar

1942

3742

51.90

Shimoga

540

4424

12.21

Tumakur

3709

5484

67.63

Bangalore Division

10029

20782

48.26

Belgaum

713

1506

47.34

Bijapur

573

928

61.75

Bagalkot

414

624

66.35

Dharwad

239

494

48.38

Gadag

169

350

48.29

Haveri

158

630

25.08

Uttarkannada

256

3901

6.56

Belgaum Division

2522

8433

29.91

Bellary

644

1168

55.14

Bidar

217

812

26.72

Gulabarga

653

2296

28.44

Raichur

697

1219

57.18

Koppal

531

709

74.89

Gulabarga Division

2742

6204

44.20

Chikmagalur

788

3366

23.41

Mangalore

300

3137

9.56

Udupi

232

5640

4.11

Hasan

702

3900

18.00

Kodagu

315

573

54.97

Mandya

1411

1873

75.33

Mysore

948

1934

49.02

Chamaraj Nagar

659

830

79.40

Mysore Division

5355

21253

25.20

Karnataka

21008

56682

37.06

Source: Rural Development and Engineering Department-2010-11

3.5. Incidence of Water-borne or Water Related Diseases:

As discussed in earlier section, 37 % of the rural habitations in Karnataka state are affected by water quality problems in rural areas. The common diseases occurring due to unsafe water are gastroenteritis, malaria, cholera, typhoid, and viral hepatitis. Table 4 presents the incidence of these diseases in the state. Gastroenteritis is an acute disease with nearly 24 thousand reported cases and 200 deaths in 2005. Although the numbers of reported cases are very high for malaria followed by typhoid, the death cases are higher in gastroenteritis. So it can be said that the ultimate burden appears to be higher in the case of gastroenteritis than other water borne diseases. In all the cases households have to face the burden of treatment cost, loss of income, heavy expenditure on prolonged treatment, absence to schools/colleges and reduced productive capacity on account of these diseases. It should be noted that the figures presented in Table 4 are gross underestimates as the data on incidence of water-borne disease is from the Department of Health and Family Welfare, which does not include the cases reported in private health centers.

 

Table 4: Distribution of Water-borne and Sanitation Related Diseases in Karnataka (2005)

Water and Sanitation related disease

Cases

(Nos)

Death

(Nos)

Cases (%)

Death (%)

Cases/Death Ratio

Gastroenteritis

23893

198

37.91

84.97

0.83

Cholera

342

1

0.54

0.43

0.29

Malaria

197625

21

75.82

8.27

0.01

Viral Hepatitis

5438

28

8.63

12.02

0.51

Typhoid

33346

6

52.91

2.58

0.02

Total

63019

233

100.00

100.00

0.37

Source: Department of Health and Family Welfare, GOK

 

4. Status of Rural Water Supply in Selected District:

4.1 Status of drinking water:

Dharwad district depends mainly (about 90 per cent) on ground water resources for water supply in rural areas, with water supplied in the villages through piped water supply schemes (PWS), mini water schemes (MWS), and bore well with hand pumps (Table 5). About 76 % of households depended on hand pump/borewell, while 11.66 % and 12.43 % households depended on mini water supply and piped water supply respectively in the year 2011.

 

Table 5: Percentage of Households by Principal Source of Drinking Water (2011)

Water Sources

Dharwad

Kalghatagi

Total

Piped Water Supply

11.61

9.61

12.43

Mini Water Supply

12.69

11.33

11.66

Hand pump/Bore Well

75.70

 79.06

75.91

Total

100

100

100

Source: ZP Annual Reports

The availability of drinking water in Dharwad district and selected taluks is given in table 6. As seen only 52 % of rural habitations are getting sufficient water in Dharwad district.

 

Table 6: Percentage of Villages by LPCD Norms (2010-11)

LPCD

Dharwad

Kalghatagi

District Total

Total no of Villages

119

93

371

0-30

0

0

0

31-40

7.6

10.7

14.3

41-55

27.73

32.3

33.7

55& Above

64.71

57.0

52.0

Source: ZP Annual Reports

 

4.2. Accessibility and Adequacy of Rural Water Supply in selected GPs:

The survey undertaken at the micro level confirms the picture emerging at the taluk level and district level. A majority of the households depend on modern sources (public sources like MWS, PWS and Handpump/ Borewell) for water supply (See table 7). Table 8 also shows that, about 56.6 % of the households are collecting water from outside their dwelling but within their premises.

 

 


 

Table 7: Details about Rural Water Sources

 

 

GP Name

Drinking Water

Cooking

Washing/Bathing

Total

Modern

Traditional

Modern

Traditional

Modern

Traditional

Developed GPs

Madakihonnihalli

100.0

-

100.0

-

87.5

12.5

100.0

Yarikoppa

97.8

2.2

100.0

-

91.3

8.7

100.0

Backward GPs

Galagi

100.0

-

100.0

-

77.2

22.8

100.0

Kanakur

100.0

-

100.0

-

100.0

-

100.0

Total

99.6

0.4

100.0

-

86.0

14.0

100.0

Source: Primary data

Table 8: Distance of Dwelling from Drinking Water Supply Source

 

GP Name

Within premises /dwelling

Outside dwelling but within premises

Outside premises at distance <0.25 km

Distance 0.25 km to 0.50 km

Distance 0.50 km to 1 km

Total

Developed GPs

Madkihonnihalli

31.3

58.3

10.4

 

 

100

Yarikoppa

32.5

47.5

17.5

2.5

 

100

Backward GPs

Galagi

27.7

61.4

7.9

2.0

1.0

100

Kanakur

32.6

52.2

13.0

2.2

 

100

Total

30.2

56.6

11.1

1.7

0.4

100

 Source: Primary data

 


4.3. Household’s Perception on Availability and Quality of Water Supply:

Adequacy, in this context, refers to household’s opinion on whether availability of water is sufficient or insufficient to meet the needs of all the households in rural areas. The opinion of the people on satisfaction varied between taluks and even between households within a GP. Figure 2 shows households’ perception on adequacy of water supply. More than 73 % of the households are satisfied with their access to drinking water supply. The rate of satisfaction is higher in developed Gram Panchayats like Yarikoppa (95%) and Madakihonnihalli (100%). People in these two GPs are more satisfied than the backwards Gram Panachayats of Kanakur (69.6%), and Galagi (54.4%).

 

Figure 2: Households Satisfaction with Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply

Source: Primary data

The quality of the available water is another major problem faced by the drinking water sector in the state. Percentage of households having satisfactory quality of drinking water in rural areas provided by public water supply sources is given in Figure 3. Only about 51.5 % of households reported receiving water with satisfactory quality. The households in the developed GPs appear to be more satisfied about the quality of water than the households in backward GPs.

 

 

Figure 3: Households Opinion about Quality of Drinking Water

Source: Primary data


Table 9: Distribution of Households According Reasons of Dissatisfaction with Water Quality

 

GP Name

Known to be polluted

Clean but contains excess of iron or other mineral

Bad taste due to unknown causes

Developed GPs

Madkihonnihalli

70.6

29.4

-

Yarikoppa

-

75.0

25.0

Backward GPs

Galagi

94.7

1.8

3.5

Kanakur

52.8

33.3

13.9

Total

74.6

18.4

7.0

Source: Primary data

 


Among the 4 GPs, 49.5 % of households are not very satisfied with the quality of drinking water made available for various reasons, the breakup of which is given in Table 9. About 93 percent households feel that they are getting polluted or water containing excess of iron and other minerals. Although households know that water is polluted they do not treat the water in rural areas. This speaks about their low awareness and little concern for health.

 

Table 10: Usage of Water Treatment

 

GP Name

Filtering by plain clothes

Boiling of water

No treatment

Developed GPs

Madkihonnihalli

12.5

2.1

85.4

Yarikoppa

-

-

100.0

Backward GPs

Galagi

27.7

7.9

64.4

Kanakur

2.2

2.2

95.7

Total

14.9

4.3

80.9

Source: Primary data

 

 

Table 10 presents the fact that more than 80 % of the households are not using treated water in rural areas. They think that fluoride water is tastier without filtering and lack awareness about its effects or seriousness of poor water quality.

 

4.4. Effect of Poor Water Supply in Rural Area:

In this section, we have tried to explain the household burden of water related diseases in rural Dharwad, which is due to unsafe water supply. Also an attempt is made to register the extent of water borne illness as reported by villagers during the reference period of 2010-11 and account for the burden of these diseases in terms of treatment cost incurred by the households. These should be taken as rough estimates as they are based on self perceived morbidity. Table 11 depicts the incidence of water borne and water related diseases in Dharwad district. Gastroenteritis, cold and fever were major water related diseases in Dharwad district during the year 2011. It should be noted that Malaria imposed a heavy burden as out of 479 registered cases, 10 deaths were reported.

 

Table 11: Water-borne and Sanitation Related Diseases in Dharwad

Water and Sanitation related disease

Cases

(Nos.)

Death

(Nos.)

Cases (in %)

Death (in %)

Cases/Death Ratio

Gastroenteritis

1746

-

4.2

-

-

Cholera

5

-

0.0

0.0

-

Viral Hepatitis

120

1

0.3

7.1

0.83

Typhoid

-

-

-

-

-

Cold and Fever

1881

03

4.5

21.4

0.16

Malaria

479

10

1.1

71.4

2.09

Total

2360

13

5.6

92.8

2.25

Source: Report of Communication Diseases, District Health Office (DHO), Dharwad

 

Table 12 shows details of incidences of water and sanitation related diseases in selected GPs. Incidence of water related diseases is 94 cases per 1000 person in the year 2010-2011. The rate of incidence is highest in Kanakur GP (179 cases per 1000), and lowest in Galagi GP (62 cases per 1000). Table also shows disease wise cases for Cholera, Cold-Fever, Dysentery, Joint Pain, Skin Problems, etc. The incidence of these diseases is higher in Kanakur GP, which is one of the backward GPs. Households in Kavalgere village in the Kanakur Gram Panchyat have been affected by filthy water supplied through pipes. The villagers are unhappy on account of this poor quality of water. Further, Kanakur GP does not have primary health center (PHC), and people have to go to hospitals in Dharwad or Hebballi,hHHHhebbalihebb which are far (more than 10 km) from the village. The Zilla Panchayat has arranged for a medical camp once in a month for a duration of one week in this village. Two doctors and 4 nurses are made available for the service in that week. As the quality of water is poor most of the people treat the water by filtering with plain clothes or boil the water before drinking. People suffer from multiple diseases in backward GPs. Only Galagi GP has a Primary Health Center (PHC) among the selected GPs. More than 79 % of the people from this panchayat who suffered from water related diseases have visited this government hospital (PHC).

 


 

 

 

 

 

Table 12: Details of Incidence of Water-borne and Sanitation Related Diseases and their Impact in Selected GPs

Particulars

Backward GPs

Developed GPs

Total

Galagi

Kanakur

Madikihonnalli

Yerikoppa

HH members reporting illness due to poor quality of water (per 1000)

62

179

71

107

94

Male

62.5

63.4

41.2

36.4

54.5

Female

37.5

36.6

58.8

63.6

45.5

Reporting of Water borne and water related Diseases (% of HHs)

24.8

56.5

35.4

42.5

36.2

Type of diseases (reported) (per 1000)

 

 

 

 

 

Cholera

8

48

--

--

13

Cold & Fever

12

13

4

--

9

Dysentery

21

9

--

19

14

Joint Pain*

--

4

--

--

1

Skin Problem

2

9

--

--

3

Others

--

4

--

5

2

Frequency of Hospital Visits (Average)(Nos.)

2.0

3.5

1.8

1.9

2.4

Type of Hospitals visited

 

 

 

 

 

Government

79.0

36.6

55.5

4.3

31.3

Private

21.0

63.4

44.5

95.7

68.7

Average distance to hospital (% of HHs)

 

 

 

 

 

Less than 0.50 km

40.6

14.6

--

24.3

21.1

0.51 km to 1 km

6.3

2.4

--

21.6

6.1

1.01 km to 5km

15.6

17.1

--

21.6

15.8

5km to 10km

0.0

4.9

100.0

 

17.5

More than 10km

37.5

61.0

--

32.4

39.5

Expenditure (direct and indirect) on water related diseases as share of per capita income (%)

14.9

20.9

14.1

20.4

18.5

*Joint Pain due to excess of fluoride content in the water (respondent’s opinion in Kanakur GP)

Source: Primary data

 


Table 13 shows disease wise direct and indirect burden from water and sanitation related diseases. Water related diseases like cholera, and dysentery diseases appear to be dangerous than the other diseases in selected GPs. People affected by these diseases have taken on an average 6 to 9 days for recovery. If each GP provides safe drinking water facility under their jurisdiction people can save their income and as well maintain good health which can enhance a person’s ability to work and earn.

 

Table 13: Disease wise Direct and Indirect Burden from Water and Sanitation Related Diseases

Sl. No.

Disease/ Illness

No of Cases

Average No of days of illness

Direct Burden per case (Rs)

Indirect Burden per case (Rs)

1.

Cholera

15

6

345

673

2.

Cold and Fever

9

3

278

473

3.

Dysentery

17

6

523

396

4.

Skin Problem

3

2

305

358

5.

Vomiting

1

2

200

400

6.

Joint Pain

1

4

1500

400

Source: primary data

 

5. MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

India has made a radical policy shift from a target driven approach to rural water supply. Hence, there is an increase in the number of people covered by drinking water in rural areas. It is found that about 93.8 % of the habitations in Karnataka have been fully covered by rural water supply. Study found that more than 37 % of rural habitations in Karnataka are affected by water quality problems due to excess iron; followed by excess fluoride, excess TDS and Nitrate. Bangalore and Gulabarga divisions have more water quality affected regions. Dharwad district depends mainly (about 90 per cent) on ground water resources for water supply in rural areas. The percentage of households satisfied with access to drinking water supply is higher in developed Gram Panchayats than the households in less developed panchayats. Our field study shows that about 51 % of households reported satisfaction over quality of drinking water. Government in the interest of public has to continue the implementation of various programmes and introduce new schemes to facilitate the provision of safe water in the rural areas. Fluoride content in water can result in long term harmful effects, which the people have not yet realized. Gastroenteritis, cold and fever were the major water related diseases reported in Dharwad district for the year 2010. Around 36% people reported illness due to water related diseases in selected GPs during 2010-11. The burden of water borne and water related diseases like cholera, and dysentery diseases appears to be higher than other diseases as the direct and the indirect costs are higher for these diseases as on an average of 6-9 days taken for recovery. People have spent more than 18.5% of their annual per capita income for the treatment of water and sanitation related diseases. The indirect burden is higher than the direct burden. SDGs present us with goals but not the strategies required for acheiveing them. Based on our study expereice, the Government of Karnataka needs to take special care to achieve SDG with regarding to universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030. Therefore, there is a need for trained local personnel to maintain and manage the treatment plant at village level. Quality problem as a whole should be handled with a planned approach beginning from identification to completion. About 7000 Reverse Osmosis (RO) plants have been established to provide purified water to households in villages by government of Karnataka. More number of RO plants can be better options in fluoride affected villages, which do not have access to surface water or safe drining water. Households should be encouraged to use purified water at least for drinking and cooking for the benefit of their family members, particularly children. Awareness has to be created in this regard. GPs can play a significant role in providing knowledge to rural people and change their attitude towards the same. GPs, NGOs and other local organizations (SHG, Youth Assocaition) should create awereness in the community and also obtain help and support from local communities in improving water management. Gram Panchayats can play a major role in reducing the disease burden by providing improved water supply. Such improvements reduce child mortality and, and water related diseases in rural areas.

 

6. REFERENCE:

1.       Keshab Das (2000): “Rural Drinking Water Supply in India; Issues and Strategies” Working Paper No 120, published by Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad.

2.       Government of India: “Housing & Household Amenities”, Census 2001 and 2011

3.       GOI (2002): “National Water Policy-2002”, Ministry of Water Resource, New Delhi, April 2002, http://www.wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/nwp20025617515534.pdf.

4.       Narayana Billava, The role of gram panchayats in rural water supply and sanitation a case study of Dharwad, Karnataka, Unpublished report, Centre for Multi-disciplinary Development Research, 2011.

5.       Puttaswamaiah S. (2006): “Drinking Water Supply and Environmental Problems, Causes, Impact and Remedies” edited by K.V.Raju “Elixir of Life” Published by Books for Change, Bangalore, pp 117-141.

6.       Raju K.V., Manasi S., and Veershekarappa (2006): “Perception and Politics: Grey Zones in Rural Water Supply” edited by K.V.Raju “Elixir of Life” Published by Books for Change, Bangalore pp 173 -191.

7.       UNICEF (2003): “Strategies in Water and Environmental Sanitation”. New York, UNICEF.

8.       UNDP (2016): “Sustainable Development Goals”, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, USA.

9.       Veerashekarappa, Raju K.V. and Manasi S. (2006): “Financing Rural Drinking Water Supply: A Case Study of Karnataka”, Working Paper No. 168, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Karnataka.

 

 

 

 

 

Received on 23.06.2018       Modified on 05.07.2018

Accepted on 19.08.2018      ©A&V Publications All right reserved

Res.  J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(4): 721-728.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00121.3