Free drinking water supply may win votes, but a sustainable water supply system wins the future.
Access to water is a global human rights agenda; however, this global consensus is sometimes misinterpreted as a mandate for ‘free water for all’. The real challenge in the WASH sector is to ensure that no citizen is denied water due to poverty, while also maintaining financially viable systems. Political parties sometimes pick this as an agenda and try to implement it, and the result is that the system becomes more paralyzed. The blanket free water policies ultimately degrade the service quality and disproportionately benefit high volume users rather than the poor, per a study.
Drinking water supply has not been treated as a tradable commodity so far in human history. So that instinct still shapes the public perception today, making tariffs politically sensitive.
But providing water supply is not just to lay pipeline or construction of reservoirs, it’s rather a continuous public service which seeks continuous operation, maintenance, manpower, energy and institutions. Additionally, our WASH sector today does not suffer only from the lack of proper and sufficient infrastructures but from poor utilization of existing infrastructure. Systems constructed with huge public and donor investment remain underused or poorly operated due to inadequate management and lack of institutional support. So, the problem is not the pipe and tanks alone, it is governance.
My field experience evaluating the performance of urban water utilities shows how poorly-designed pricing policies can backfire. In Katahariya municipality, where the municipality itself used to bear the household drinking water cost, the Water and Sanitation User’s Committee admitted that households use drinking water even for the bathing of domestic animals. So the utilities are under constant pressure to meet demand and operate the system. In Darchula district headquarters, a flat tariff system—households pay fixed amounts regardless of the consumption—has led to excessive per capita water use. During my visit, treated water was visibly flowing along roads not due to abundance, but because there was no incentive to conserve.
If we look at the result of the Free Water Promise in Rajasthan or New Delhi, the poorer section of society who suffered from the non-availability of water cannot avail the benefits of such schemes. Usually, subsidies end up benefitting mainly those outside the target group.
Among the eight newly-constructed urban water supply systems, one is performing at an ‘improved’ level, according to a recent study of the Town Development Fund. Most remain in the ‘improving’ category, while some are already under the ‘poor’ category. Even the newly-constructed water supply systems are seeking urgent support for operations, management and institutional strengthening. The scenarios in rural areas are even worse.
At the same time, rapid urban growth, change in living standards, haphazard construction and climate-induced stress are reducing the quality and quantity of available water. So, innovation for the adaptation of climate-induced stress, integration of new and sophisticated technologies, system strengthening, alternative operation modalities, etc should be the state priorities.
Promising ‘free water’ is not a solution; it is a distraction. Political parties should focus on providing quality service rather than free.
