Assessing Service Delivery Gaps in Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Services in Mumbai Using CAG Audit Reports

In the life of a modern city, water is the most basic promise. It is the tap that runs when turned, the pipe that carries waste away, and the system that treats that waste so it does not poison the ground or the air. For a city to function, these systems must work together, not just in theory but in practice. Yet, having a pipe laid down does not mean water flows through it, nor does having a treatment plant mean the water leaving it is clean. The gap between what a city plans to provide and what it actually delivers is where public health and environmental safety hang in the balance. To understand this gap, researchers often look at the official records of how money is spent and how services are measured. In India, a powerful independent office known as the Comptroller and Auditor General acts as a financial and performance watchdog, checking whether government bodies are doing their jobs correctly. When these auditors find that a city is spending money but failing to meet its own targets, they produce reports that reveal the true state of affairs, often showing a stark difference between the official numbers and the reality on the ground.

A recent study by researchers at Sanjivani University in Maharashtra takes this concept of the "service gap" and applies it to Mumbai, one of the most densely populated and complex cities in the world. The researchers, Vedant Jagtap and Jagdish Malkar, did not go out to measure water pressure or count pipes themselves. Instead, they acted as detectives of existing data, gathering information from official audit reports, municipal documents, and government publications. Their goal was to build a clear picture of how well Mumbai's water supply and sanitation systems are actually working. They focused on specific measures of performance, such as how much water is available per person, how much of the city is covered by sewer pipes, and how much of the sewage that enters treatment plants actually gets cleaned before being released. By comparing the actual numbers found in these reports against the targets the city set for itself, they could calculate exactly where the system was falling short.

The picture that emerged from their analysis is one of mixed success. On the surface, the water supply looks excellent. The study found that the city has successfully connected nearly every household to the water network, achieving a coverage rate of one hundred percent. Furthermore, the amount of water available to each person is substantial, sitting at one hundred thirty-five point five liters per day. This suggests that the city is very good at the first step of the process: getting water to the doors of its residents. However, the story changes dramatically once the water is used and needs to be managed as waste. The researchers found that while the city has built sewer networks covering about eighty point nine percent of its area, a significant portion of the sewage generated is never treated. The data shows that the city has a theoretical sewage generation estimate of roughly two thousand and three million liters per day, yet its treatment plants can only handle a fraction of this volume. As a result, approximately five hundred fifty-two million liters of untreated sewage are discharged into the environment daily.

The most striking finding of the study concerns the efficiency of the system in collecting the money needed to keep it running. The researchers discovered a massive disconnect between the cost of providing the service and the money actually collected from users. While the city reports a cost recovery rate of seventy-four point one percent, the actual efficiency of collecting that money from customers is shockingly low, sitting at just twelve point one percent. This contrast indicates a major revenue-collection and financial-management weakness within the service-delivery system. This means that for every hundred rupees the city expects to collect to maintain its water and sanitation systems, it is only receiving about twelve. This financial shortfall creates a vicious cycle where the lack of funds makes it harder to fix leaks, upgrade aging pipes, or build new treatment capacity. The study also highlighted that the extent of metering in the city is only forty-five point nine percent, which makes it difficult to know exactly how much water is being used or billed. Without accurate meters, the city cannot charge fairly, and without fair charges, it cannot fund the repairs needed to stop leaks and improve service.

To make these complex numbers easier to understand, the researchers created a digital dashboard, a visual tool that organizes the data into clear charts and graphs. This tool allows anyone to see at a glance where the city is succeeding and where it is failing. The visual evidence confirms that the biggest gaps are not in the initial supply of water, but in the management of waste and the collection of revenue. The study concludes that simply building more infrastructure is not the answer. The city already has a high level of water connection, yet the system is struggling because of governance issues, financial mismanagement, and a lack of maintenance. The researchers argue that to fix these problems, the city must focus on better planning, stricter monitoring, and improving the way it collects money from its residents. They suggest that using the findings from official audits, like the ones they analyzed, can help city leaders make decisions based on facts rather than assumptions. Ultimately, the study serves as a reminder that a city's health depends not just on the pipes it lays, but on the systems it builds to manage them, ensuring that the promise of clean water and sanitation is kept for every resident.