A case for Water Meters

Vijayawada has been witnessing a compelling and heated debate about whether to install water meters for individual household water connections. I am convinced that the case for water meters is a no brainer. Here is why.

Before, I venture any further, a few lines about how water reaches your homes. The raw water is taken from Prakasam Barrage and subjected to rapid gravity filtration and chemical treatment at the KL Rao Head Water Works. The treated water is pumped using high power motors, through huge iron pipes, to the over 50 reservoirs at different locations in the City. The water is then released into the distribution network according to a fixed time schedule, wherein each area gets supply at a specific time. The topography of the city necessitates using booster motors at a number of locations to pump water up the hill slopes. (About __ lakh people reside on hill slopes) The entire process from treatment of raw water to delivery at household is very expensive, with electricity cost alone coming to nearly Rs 6 Cr every year.

The basic minimum requirement of any quality urban water supply system is that it should supply adequate, un-polluted, leakage free, uniform pressure, and of course affordable water, to its consumers. From the service providers' perspective, it is necessary that the system have minimum unaccounted for water and the least Operation & Maintenance (O&M) cost. Let us visit each of these desirables and analyse them.

Adequacy is linked not only to quantity, but also time. The network may be supplying more than adequate water over a two hour period, but when the householder may be at work or away. This is typically the case in urban households. The opportunity cost incurred in waiting for collecting water is considerable. This also necessitates setting up storage sources, with all its attendant health risks. In fact, one of the major causes of mosquito breeding in the hill slopes of Vijayawada is residual water in the many storage vessels in each house. It of course too obvious to state that with every additional hour of supply, the adequacy problem gets solved automatically.

In a regime of intermittent supply, the distribution lines are empty or not fully filled at any time. Further, it is commonplace to see water supply lines going under culverts or laid alongside side drains. Therefore, any leakage at such locations makes the distribution line vulnerable to ingress of water from these drains or other external sources. The potential for such contamination is significant when the distribution pipeline is not fully filled. In contrast, if the supply is continuous, there is positive pressure inside, thereby preventing inflow of water into the pipes.

Intermittent supply means different areas are supplied water at different times, with the areas loosely separated by a number of manually operated valves. In a labyrinthine network as in any urban water supply network, it is impossible to do this in any scientific manner, and is often operated in response to temporary shortfalls and demands. We therefore have hugely varying pressure distribution across the network. In fact, if one street gets water with 7m head for 2 hours, don't be surprised to see supply in the neighbouring street with 3m head for just 30 minutes. In the absence of adequate delivery pressure, over three-quarters of households, especially the multi-storied ones, in Vijayawada use motors to increase the delivery pressure. It has been found that the approximate cost of running an 1 HP motor everyday for just an hour, comes to Rs 250, whereas the maximum water bill is only Rs 80!

Intermittent supply also imposes heavy demands on the maintenance of the network, especially at the numerous joints, bends and valves. When water is suddenly released into the network, it impacts on these parts with considerable force. Such repeated pressure invariably leads to their dislocation and unravelling, thereby causing leakages. However, if the supply is continuous, there is no pressure on these vulnerable parts of the network, thereby minimizing the chances of leakages. Further, being a significant source of O&M costs, any reduction in leakages will bring down these costs substantially. By minimizing our O&M costs, we can make the system more sustainable and even pass on the savings to the consumers. Besides all this, it is unarguable that intermittent supply inflicts more costs on the poor than the rich.

As you can see, things start becoming more clearer now. If we are to achieve all the aforementioned, desirables in urban water supply system, it is now universally acknowledged that we need to move from intermittent to continuous supply. But continuous supply means, magnification of the present wastages, over the 24 hour period. It therefore becomes imperative that we measure consumption at all levels and eliminate unaccounted for water losses. This will in turn again cut down our expenditure and help us pass on the savings to consumers. As you can see, it is a virtuous cycle all the way!

I have heard a number of arguments against meters, which can at best be attributed to ignorance. Some argue that nobody wants continuous 24 hour supply. But they miss the point that everybody want pollution-free, leakage proof, and high pressure supply, which can come only if supply is continuous! Others argue that meters get spoiled too frequently or show wrong readings. Another justification for having continuous supply, since the intermmitent nature of supply means water suddenly hitting the meterscausing damage, air circulating in the network causing wrong readings, and the need to use motors. Some others argue, with more justification, that meters can cause higher water tariffs. This can and should be addressed by an appropriate system of Increasing Block Tariffs (IBT), so as to assure a reasonable quantity of water at the minimum cost to citizens.

Far from being a cause for burden on the poor, meters can be a powerful instrument in ensuring equitable distribution of water supply. It is well documented from experiences across the globe that in an intermittent supply regime, the richer households consume much more water, at the expense of the poor. In Vijayawada too, while people living in slums struggle with 5 to 10 buckets of water daily, those in other localities have enough water to clean their cars and water their lawns. In the absence of meters, both pay the same amount. We therefore have an interesting irony, with the poor subsidising the rich!

Numerous studies show that an average middle class household can consume no more than 8 to 10 kilolitres a month, for all their basic needs. We could fix this as some sort of a benchmark requirement, to be supplied at the minimum tariff, with additional amounts supplied with escalating tariffs. The number is beside the point, the important thing is that a more serious and informed debate should start atleast now.

As you can see, opposing water meters is something akin to opposing the messenger, while accepting the message. We fail to realise that water meter is only a device used for measuring consumption, and not the demon that it is made out to be.