Prioritising Habitations under a Rural Water Programme
A block-level committee must allocate a fixed budget of ₹80 lakh under a national rural drinking-water programme across 12 habitations. Three habitations have groundwater contaminated with fluoride above permissible limits; two have only seasonal springs that dry for 60 days each summer; four have functional hand pumps but no household tap connections; three already have a piped scheme but the source yields only half the design demand. The committee has a rule that habitations with quality-affected sources must be addressed first, followed by those with no safe source within 500 metres. The engineer estimates pipeline costs of ₹6 lakh per km, and a 4 km extension is needed for the fluoride-affected cluster. A solar-powered treatment unit costs ₹25 lakh and serves all three fluoride habitations. The committee also has a ₹10 lakh contingency and must keep 10% of the budget unspent for maintenance.
1. Rank the four groups of habitations for priority, giving reasons for the order.
Read the worked answer
First priority should go to the three fluoride-affected habitations because the rule says quality-affected sources come first, and fluoride above permissible limits is a health hazard. Second come the two seasonal-spring habitations, because they have no safe source within 500 metres for 60 days each summer. Third are the three partial piped-scheme habitations: they have a source but inadequate yield, so they need augmentation rather than a new source. Fourth are the four hand-pump habitations, which have a functional source but no household taps; they are service-level gaps, not immediate safety gaps.
2. Calculate whether the treatment unit and pipeline fit within the budget after keeping the required reserve and contingency.
Read the worked answer
Total budget = ₹80 lakh. Required unspent reserve = 10% = ₹8 lakh. Contingency = ₹10 lakh. If both are carved out of the ₹80 lakh, available for works = 80 − 8 − 10 = ₹62 lakh. Treatment unit = ₹25 lakh; pipeline = 4 km × ₹6 lakh = ₹24 lakh; total = ₹49 lakh. This leaves ₹13 lakh for other works. Even if the contingency is treated as separate, the works still fit: 25 + 24 = 49, and 80 − 49 = 31, of which ₹8 lakh must be retained. The fluoride package is therefore affordable.
3. If the remaining funds are insufficient to cover all seasonal-spring habitations, what should the committee recommend?
Read the worked answer
The committee should not dilute the fluoride package. It should fund the treatment unit and pipeline first, then use the remaining ₹13 lakh plus any convergence funds for the most cost-effective seasonal solution, such as deepening or protecting one spring that serves the largest population. The contingency should be released only with approval and not treated as a routine works fund. For the unfunded habitation, the recommendation should include a temporary tanker or chlorination arrangement and a phased next-year proposal, so that the decision is transparent and does not promise works that the budget cannot sustain.