to the reply given to Unstarred Question No. 4596 on August 22, 2000 and state:
(a) the physical achievements during each of the last three years under the Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission State-wise;
(b) the changes, if any, effected in the ratio of financial expenditure to physical achievements under the programme in each of these years; and
(c) the reasons therefor?
MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SHRI M. VENKAIAH NAIDU)
(a) to (c): A statement is laid on the table of the House.
Statement referred to in reply to part (a) to (c) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No.24 for reply on 21.11.2000
(a) Rural drinking water supply is a State subject. The schemes for supply of safe drinking water to the rural habitations of the country are implemented by the State Governments under the State Sector Minimum Needs Programme(MNP). The Central Government supplements the efforts of the States by providing funds under the Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP). The powers to plan, sanction and implement individual rural water supply schemes have been delegated to the State Governments. The State-wise physical achievements in terms of coverage of Not Covered and Partially Covered rural habitations of the country, as per the prescribed norms, during last three years, under the Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) and the Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) taken together are at Annexure.
(b) As per the latest reports received from the States, the ratio of financial expenditure to physical achievement under the rural water supply programme increased by 29% and 74% during 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively.
(c) While no detailed study has been conducted till yet, the reasons for the rise in expenditure during recent years could be the difficult nature of habitations taken up for coverage. The left over habitations are mostly no source / insufficient source habitations or are in difficult terrain, desert regions, hard rock areas, etc. or the sources are quality affected rendering the schemes capital-intensive. Preference for costlier piped water supply schemes as compared to handpumps also enhances the capital cost. Further, the indiscriminate and uncontrolled drawl of ground water for purposes other than drinking water is one of the major factors contributing towards rapid depletion of ground water level during the recent years. This on the one hand necessitates additional investments for drinking water and on the other hand, increases the probability of more and more water sources becoming quality affected. Apart from the above, inflation and natural calamities could also have contributed towards
the increase in expenditure.
Annexure
Statement referred to in reply to part (a) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No.24 for reply on 21.11.2000
Statement showing coverage of habitations during 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 under Rural Water Supply Programme
S.No. States/UTs 1997-98 1998-99 99-2000 +
1 ANDHRA PRADESH 2897 3400 3100 2 ARUNACHAL PRADESH 317 101 300 3 ASSAM 1752 2707 3460 4 BIHAR 11371 8485 864 5 GOA 18 20 26 6 GUJARAT 1393 1806 1656 7 HARYANA 650 733 683 8 HIMACHAL PRADESH 1407 1295 1643 9 JAMMU & KASHMIR 500 685 423 10 KARNATAKA 9507 8451 5626 11 KERALA 530 522 392 12 MADHYA PRADESH 19427 16351 10579 13 MAHARASHTRA 6491 10348 4690 14 MANIPUR 338 225 44 15 MEGHALAYA 482 481 390 16 MIZORAM 185 190 210 17 NAGALAND 27 62 44 18 ORISSA 7350 7318 4968 19 PUNJAB 268 155 216 20 RAJASTHAN 5436 5540 6158 21 SIKKIM 121 130 108 22 TAMIL NADU 4531 7974 6300 23 TRIPURA 442 764 746 24 UTTAR PRADESH 37288 28117 15572 25 WEST BENGAL 4194 6916 6191 26 A & N ISLANDS 11 15 15 27 D & N HAVELI 45 63 70 28 DAMAN & DIU 3 0 0 29 DELHI 0 62 0 30 LAKASHADWEEP 3 3 3 31 PONDICHERRY 10 14 7 TOTAL 116994 112933 74484 + = provisional