& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Safe Drinking Water: Counting Benefits, and Costs

ALONG MY WAY

S B Chaudhuri
WORLD Food Day was observed last week The Day's main theme this year was "Water lor Life’, ft Jervea us well to be reminded on such occasions that water Is a finite resource H is not a nonrenewable resource In the sense minerals are. We Use. or for that matter, waste yater However, it is not us but nature. which replenishes water II is also sobering to remember that more than 97 per cent of the global water mass if salty, covering the seas and oceans That leaves us with less than 3 per cent by way of fresh ^ater — most of It locked in ice caps and glaciers.
Experts say that population growth Is reducing per capita availability of fresh water for the humanity. Fresh water also seeps underground. You can. of course, tap the underground layers to supplement the avail ability from surface water But only nature can replenish underground water. You could set up costly desalination plants and recover fresh water from the sea. Yet. here again, it is for nature alone to renew the seas.
Water then is a scarce resource. and remains so despite all the advances in science and technology. So. as in the days in the past, the accent still is on proper use of water. Water sustains life. You can at most live only a few days without drinking water. So is thecase with other living beings, plants would wither away without water. On top of that, the humanity has multiple uses for water. Industries and commercial enterprises use water as an Input in varied activities, including manufacturing. And more so in agriculture, to raise food. Available statistics suggest that as much as 65 per cent of fresh water utilised globally, is
used in agriculture
All the same, drinking water remains the top priority of human communities. No hu man settlement can exist without a source of water. Access to water Is counted as a basic human right Communities have always tried to meet this basic need. There is no dispute on this point Rather, it is more a question of tfir quality of water available to a community lor • its use. Industrialisation, pollution and Increased health-consciousness have made people even more aware of the Importance of access to safe drinking water. People living tn urban areas usually have access to piped water systems. The water supplied to them thus is generally regarded a» reasonably safe although chances of contamination cannot be ruled out altogether. The situation usually Is different in rural ar-
Peopte living in rural areas, especially In the developing countries, usually do not have access to assured sources of safe drinking water. Rural populations constitute the unserved segments of communities in respect of supply of safe waler. Water management policies nowadays recognise provision for safe water in rural areas as one of the major objectives for the developing countries.
Safe water Is a basic human need. Meeting this requirement Is necessary for sustain-* Ing life. On the face of it. it would seem that questions of costs and benefits related to making provision for safe water for the community, would not assume much significance. Policy makers have generally assumed that the benefits arising from satisfying a basic human right would be implicitly infinite, anyway. Nor should
cost considerations deter communities from undertaking works like Improvements In waler supply
Nonetheless, economists and financial analysts are evolv Ing criteria for measuring benefits accruing from Improved water supply (water supply interventions, they prefer to call it) and Its costs. They concede that' most of the benefits and some of the costs can rarely be quantified. Environmental conditions, households' behaviour, even Individual s perspectives, Introduce complexities which cannot always be broken down to numbers. Still, these ex-
pens feet tlial even an approximation of costs and benefits would help rational allocation of resources for improvement of water supply in rural areas — in a way that most people in a given community would draw advantage from It.
Improved human health is obviously the most readily perceived benefit accruing from access to sale water. The improved quality of drinking water would reduce the Incidence of waterborne diseases. Ready access to clean water would improve personal hyglne by promoting Increased bathing and clothes washing — lowering vulnerability to diseases. Healthier people live longer economically productive life. They would etfrn more, or al least, miss fewer days of work due to Illness. They also spend less on medical expenses. Then again, improved health of the members of a given household would
imply that they would be less likely to spread infectious diseases fn the community. Experts say that there are ways (household surveys, for Instance) to estimate the economic benefits water supply Improvement may bring to individual households and the community as a whole, through increased earnings and cost
On the other hand, say these experts, piped water system or even Injudicious use of handpumps could also Im pose new costs on the community. For instance, increased household water use could create wastewater dis-
posal' problems. This would pose health hazard of a different sort in the rural community. calling for new investments in sewerage and draining facilities.
Rural households have traditionally to spend several hours in a day to collect water from rivers, community wells and ponds, often far away from home. The task gets even more burdensome during the dry season. Fetching water is usually the women's Job. In some households, the children also do the chore. Ready access to safe water would save them a lot of time. Women could use the time so saved in taking better care of the home and children or to have a bit more of leisure. The children could go to school. Of course, these benefits are mostly un-quantifiable. Direct economic benefit would flow from safe water supply if the women would spend the time saved. In
farming, or strtl better, in other income-generating ac tlvlties. The household s earn Ings would improve them. Here the experts also wonder about possible adverse effects on the family The husband, or the head of the household may not necessarily take kindly to the Increase in women-power they surmise. Improved water supplies could alter the power relations in the family — bringing in frictions in the household. That could be classified as a social exist of access to safe water
Provision of safe water in rural areas could also change property values Value of property accessible to improved water supplies could increase while the potential price of homesteads lying next to the public taps might decrease due to the rise In the level of sullage and sewage wastes adjacent to ft. the experts aver
Improved water supply systems In the rural areas could bring economic benefits to the manufacturing sector. Making handpumps and tubevells do not /Squire an advanced technology. Manufacturing units could grow up to cater to the increased need for such implements in the country, creating more Jobs. Economy as a whole would stand to benefit from these activities.
Making safe drinking water available to rural areas thus wield complex direct and indirect health, social, economic and environmental effects on individuals, households and communities. Benefits outweigh costs overwhelmingly Yet. the costs also should be taken Into account, say the experts. Particularly so. as building a safe water system in rural areas entails Investments by the state, communities and households, and tariffs, if the water is priced. Weighing the
cost* would only help ensure that the benefits are optimized.
THE World Food Progra mme savs that nearly one out of three people most of them living in rural areas in the developing countries — some 1 2 billion human beings — do not have access to clean, drinkable water. In our case nearly 94 per cent of the rural population are said to have gained access to safe drinking water by now. This Is indeed remarkable. How about water supply in urban areas The track record here is rather apotty. ExpertS say it Is the quantity, reliability, convenience and quality of the water supplied that would count. The piped water supply systems in our urban areas seem tobed-og remarkably poorly on all these scores. Users in urban areas have to pay for the water. People in the rural areas usually get It free. Vet. the water the rural people get. is perhaps safer to drink. Their safe drinking water is not stored centrally — doesn't flew through miles of distribution pipes — often getting contaminated in the process. Reports of supply of not-so-pure water in urban areas, surface from time to tl(ne In the news media. For now. I choose one such report published in the Dally Star from Its Moulvibazar Correspondent. In Moulvibazar town, says the, report. 1220 germs of coliform per 100 liters of drinking water have come to be detected The safe limit in our conditions, the re port adds, is just two germs of coliform per 100 liters. Well, boil your drinking water. Most health-conscious users of water in urban areas do just that as a dally chore.