After much hullabaloo over water privatisation in the capital over most of the last week, sources in the state government confirmed to The Sunday Standard that there is to be no privatisation of water supply in the capital. “Water cannot be privatised, as it is a state subject. But what may be done is outsourcing of distribution, which is not a new thing, but has been done globally. Some pilot projects have even been done in Maharashtra and Karnataka,” a Delhi government official said.
A pilot project regarding the privatisation of water supply in the capital would soon be taken up in posh localities of Delhi like Vasant Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Mehrauli and Anand Niketan. The decision to start the pilot project was taken in 2011; the DJB would soon issue a tender notice in this regard inviting private players to submit their proposals.
Under the pilot project, the entire distribution network in a particular area would be handed over to the private parties. They would be in charge of maintaining the water pipeline network in those areas. Hence, they would repair all the leaking pipelines in the locality. This would in turn save distribution losses, which range anywhere between 40 to 50 per cent now.
This can be proved from the fact that the DJB supplies 850 million gallons daily (MGD) of water daily to the capital, which is enough to provide 200 litres of water daily to all 1.65 crore residents of the capital. But even then, many areas of the capital go dry.
In addition to maintenance of water distribution network, the companies would also undertake the maintenance of meters. There is likelihood that the maintenance of water treatment plants (WTP) too would be outsourced.
Speaking to the media last week, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit stated that outsourcing of water distribution is necessary for improving water supply in the capital. The Chief Minister has been reiterating that water sector reforms are essential and that people must learn to pay for the water they use.
The DJB’s move to outsource water distribution has run into with stiff opposition from the BJP. V K Malhotra, Leader of the Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, said that they would oppose the proposal tooth and nail, and termed the decision anti-people. Malhotra alleged that nobody but the water mafia would benefit from the move. He suspected that the water mafia may also grab land across the city.
Since 2004, the Delhi government has been planning to initiate water sector reforms on the lines of the proposals given by the World Bank. Delhi Jal Board (DJB) also appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as the consultant for the project to give its report on water reforms in the capital. PWC suggested that DJB enter into contracts with companies who would then manage the distribution network. But by 2006, the whole issue died down due to large-scale protests. In 2011, the Delhi government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of incumbent chief secretary P K Tripathi, to suggest a roadmap for water distribution reforms.
A 2011 Uesco report regarding urban policies and right to city living in India states that World Bank launched a pilot project in Belgaum, Gulbarga, and Hubli-Dharwad in 2003 regarding outsourcing water supply.
From a technical point of view, each pilot zone in the city had to be isolated and to be provided with continuous water supply. The whole distribution was old, leaking and unable to stand high pressure, and had to be upgraded and in-house connections replaced and metered. Critics of the project raised two issues, that the delineation of the pilot zone separates the city into two, areas with 24-hour water supply, and other areas. This leads to skewed water distribution and separates the city into two areas, ones with 24 hours water supply and one with just a few hours. Secondly, the high cost of refurbishing the whole distribution system is not feasible without external financial aid.
Regarding the willingness to pay, resistance is stronger then expected by the project team. It is greater among higher income groups well equipped with alternatives. Another group not satisfied with the new service provision were households who still have cattle and area unhappy with new tariff. For slums, continuous supply means no queues, better hygiene conditions increased and efficiency and improved for urban local body.