Government data often reveals factoids that seem odd at first glance but point to a much greater story when looked at in depth. Take the National Family Health Survey conducted in 2005-06 that reveals that three states have achieved more than 95% coverage of improved source of drinking water. Given popular perception of Bihar, most readers would be surprised to know that it ranks amongst these top three, along with Punjab and Haryana. The reason behind this high rank however lies in the definition of ?improved source of drinking water?, which includes not just piped water or tap water, but also bore wells and tube wells, protected springs and rainwater. Though this definition is in line with established practice worldwide, India being a land with disparities, we find that while 71% of urban Indian households have access to piped water, in Bihar piped water accounts for just 2% of urban households. While another 8% of urban households in Bihar source water from public taps/standpipes, the majority, 76%, use tube wells/bore holes.

On the other hand, in Manipur, which reports, at 52.2%, the lowest percentage of access to improved sources, 27% of urban households have piped water, while another 24% use a public tap/standpipe. All these numbers go to show that the devil lies in the detail when looking at data on drinking water access.

Unfortunately, the issue of ?safety? or quality of water is not addressed by this statistic nor by the survey. Apart from fecal contamination, there are problems of nitrates, fluoride, arsenic and salinity concentrations that are harmful for health. For example, 15 out of Bihar?s 38 districts have been identified with high arsenic levels. While the WHO limits are 10 parts per billion of arsenic in ground water, Indian guidelines set the level higher at 50ppb. Last year, a Bihar state government survey of 398 villages found arsenic contamination levels above the 10 ppb limit in 310 villages and above the 50ppb limit in 235 villages. Needless to say, skin lesions and cancers triggered by arsenic are a matter of concern in these areas where dependence on groundwater is high.

Water contamination is a serious problem that has been flagged before by researchers. It is important to remember that ?improved source of drinking water? as defined is just a proxy indicator for safe water.

According to the UNICEF, ?improved? drinking water sources may still contain harmful substances, and clean water can be contaminated during transport and storage. Household surveys from which drinking water coverage data are collected do not provide information on water quality, which requires sanitary inspection of drinking water sources, as well as physical, chemical and microbial water quality testing. Thus, the proportion of the population using ?safe? drinking water is likely to be lower than that using improved drinking water sources.?

In the Economic Survey, every year, there is a table, titled ?Access to safe drinking water in households in India?, which mentions ?tap/handpump/tubewell? as sources of drinking water, without giving the breakup within. This table uses Census 2001 data, whereby 90% of Indian households have access to improved sources of drinking water. With near 100% coverage of this indicator and the problems within, surely it is time to switch data reporting to access to ?piped? water?

More importantly, Target 10 of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) talks of halving by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, with basic sanitation needs to be measured on the basis of access to piped water. To meet this target in urban India, access to piped water, which rose from 68.5% in 1990 to 74% in 2001, needs to be improved to 86.5% by the end of the 12th Five Year Plan, 2017. Again, it is not a question of just increasing the share of households connected by piped water supply. Existing networks suffer from so many problems. For example, distribution is restricted to a few hours a day and the problem of contamination persists as sewage treatment hardly functions at desired levels even in major cities. While many urban households treat their drinking water through water filters etc that increase their costs of accessing safe water, the poor remain without such options and therefore suffer the most from waterborne diseases. Water supply departments run on costly subsidies, a financially unsustainable model. Environmental sustainability is another problem, with rural and urban users competing for water rights and not covering the costs of reducing pollutants.

So what should be the objective of drinking water supply management in India? Not just increasing access to ?improved? sources of drinking water, but increasing access to a service that is reliable, affordable and sustainable both financially and environmentally. Such an objective will raise considerable debate over the right way forward. However, one golden principle stands out here?water is an increasingly scarce resource, so it has to be used most efficiently and equitably. Reporting appropriate data would go a long way in raising sensibility towards achieving the MDG of increasing sustainable access to safe drinking water.

For more details read, World Bank-Indicus Analytics report ?India Water Supply and Sanitation? available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWAT/Resources/4602114-1205507626699/India_WSS_Briding_the_Gap.pdf

The author is chief economist, Indicus Analytics