Not a drop to drink

 

“Don’t Work-From-Home, Go Home,” “India’s IT capital high and dry,” “Southern metropolis heading towards Day Zero” … are some of the headlines the media screamed about the current water crisis in Bengaluru. If reports are to be believed, people have been reduced to a bath once a week, using disposable cutlery, ordering out instead of cooking, using aerators on taps and cans for washing hands, lining up for water tankers and being fined for washing cars or sprinkling the gardens. IPL matches in the city scheduled shortly have come under uncertainty. How did a premium city come to this? 

The two primary sources of water for Bengaluru, the Cauvery river and ground water have been stretched beyond the limit. Against around 3,000 million litres required per day, the supply is around 1,500 million litres. The rapid urbanisation of the city and its surroundings meant that its lakes turned dry and toxic, gardens gave way to concrete jungles and water consumption grew by leaps and bounds. Lands reserved for green cover, wetlands, urban forests and river courses were rapidly de-notified. Its 262 lakes (around when I studied there in 1984) have come down to 81 now. 90 % of even these 81 are on the verge of extinction, as per Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. 

We shall be extremely myopic if we think this is a problem of Bengaluru alone and that too for a short while. India has been witnessing extremely rapid urbanisation. As per census data, 28.53 % of India’s population resided in urban areas in 2001. By 2017, this had grown to 34 % as per World Bank which estimates that, by 2030, 40.76 % of the country’s population will be in urban areas (400 persons/sq km). Slowly, all cities and later, all urban areas in India may attain Bengaluru’s “water-loo.” 

What’s the way out, then? Let’s take a look at Singapore. 

Compared to other colonised countries, Singapore got its independence from British rule very late, in 1965. One of the reasons was that the British didn’t think it could survive as an independent nation because it had serious inadequacy of water. It was only after a water agreement was signed with Malaysia in 1962 that an independent nation could be thought of. The Malaysian Constitution was also amended in 1965 to provide for an assured quantity of water supplied to Singapore. 

Singapore went on to become a thriving nation but at the back of the policy maker’s mind, its water conundrum has always occupied pride of place and apprehension. While grandstanding against Malaysia which was trying to negotiate a revised price and revised water treaty (“The day Malaysia stops water supply, my tanks will be on Malaysia border” ~ Lee Kuan Yew), Singapore did a few things. 

On the supply side, Singapore extended its available sources by desalination of sea water and reuse of waste water and stormwater. Wastewater discharge into streams is not permitted in 95 % of the area and in the remaining 5 %, it requires prior treatment. This is enforced strictly. The recycling of waste water has been so successful that it (called NEWater) is actually purer than tap water. However, so as not to affect sentiments, it is being used primarily for industrial purposes although part of it is blended into the domestic supply reservoirs also. Singapore identified “four taps” of its water supply, Water from local catchment areas, Imported water from Malaysia, NEWater and Desalinated water. Since one of the taps, Imports from Malaysia is uncertain, it has continuously tried to improve the other three taps, calling it the “Three-Tap-Strategy.” This was coupled with ABC – Active, Beautiful, Clean waters programme. [Acronyms have been around for a while!] 

“Whatever gets measured, gets done.” Singapore aggressively chased a metric called UfW to minimise. This is Unaccounted for Water, the difference between the quantity of water supplied to a city's network and the metered quantity of water used by the customers. It has two components -- physical losses due to leakage from pipes and administrative losses due to illegal connections and under-registration of water meters. This stands at 40 % for Delhi and 31 % for Bengaluru at present, against an internationally permissible level of 20 %. UfW in most Asian urban centres range between 40 % to 60 %. For London, it is 24 %. Singapore managed to plug almost all the leaks in the pipes and the systems and eliminated any illegal connections. It has achieved an astounding UfW below 5 %. 

However, it was on the demand side that Singapore wrought a miracle. 

Most countries charge higher for industrial and commercial use of water compared to domestic use. Singapore changed that and charged the same rate for both domestic and commercial use up to a reasonable amount of use per household (40 cubic metres per month). Beyond this, the rates go up steeply for the domestic consumption. Thus, industrial/ commercial users do not subsidise domestic users. [In India, domestic consumers use 90 % of the water but account for only 20 % of the revenues. Source: Asian Development Bank]. 

Instead of providing for lower “lifeline” tariff for poor households on humanitarian grounds, the tariff is kept the same for all but cash benefit transfer is given to the poor households. 

There are Water Conservation Tax, Water-borne fee (for treatment of effluents) and Sanitary appliance Fee. These make the water management financially self-sufficient. 

The water management staff remuneration is benchmarked on the Civil Service and corruption is met with exemplary punishment. 

The biggest enabler in Singapore has probably been taking the politicians out of the equation while setting tariffs. Politicians would necessarily have a vote-centric 5-year horizon which would keep tariffs artificially low or very sticky upwards. Let them play around with targeted subsidy through cashbacks (Direct Benefit Transfer) and let the tariff be on long-term considerations of water conservation and economising its use, and you have a winner. 

Singapore is not necessarily perfect. Although it has reduced its dependence on Malaysia for its water, even now 40 % of its water supply depends on the imports (down from 50 % earlier). However, let’s target a few things amongst what Singapore achieved more than a decade back: 100 % population having access to safe drinking water and sanitation; less than 5 % UfW; every drop of supplied water accounted for; an extraordinarily high water account/employee ratio (376); 99 % water bill collection efficiency; and a financially self-sufficient water management authority. 

The alternative is the doomsday Bengaluru forecast of “No water anywhere, let alone a drop to drink.” Replicated across the country.