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 8^th largest State in area (1,91,791 sq. km) and 9^th 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.

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
Districts	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
	GP Name	Modern	Traditional	Modern	Traditional	Modern	Traditional	Total
Developed GPs	Madakihonnihalli	100.0	-	100.0	-	87.5	12.5	100.0
Developed GPs	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
Backward GPs	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
Developed GPs	Yarikoppa	32.5	47.5	17.5	2.5		100
Backward GPs	Galagi	27.7	61.4	7.9	2.0	1.0	100
Backward GPs	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

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
Developed GPs	Yarikoppa	-	-	100.0
Backward GPs	Galagi	27.7	7.9	64.4
Backward GPs	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,hHHH~~hebbali~~hebb 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
Particulars	Galagi	Kanakur	Madikihonnalli	Yerikoppa	Total
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

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

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00121.3

Year	Up to 55 LPCD	More than 55 LPCD	Total Habitations	Up to 55 LPCD	More than 55 LPCD	Total
Year	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

	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	-
Developed GPs	Yarikoppa	-	75.0	25.0
Backward GPs	Galagi	94.7	1.8	3.5
Backward GPs	Kanakur	52.8	33.3	13.9
Total		74.6	18.4	7.0