Annual Performance Assessment Report of

Urban Water supply and Sanitation - Maharashtra

Databook, Part-1

[2009-10]

CEPT University July 2014

DATABOOK PART - 1 State Profile

Gondia Shirpur Morshi Katol Navapur Bhandara Akot Dhule Jamner SindiUmred Pachora Satana Brahmapuri Buldhana Hinganghat Patur Kannad Darhva Washim Mool Lonar ArniPandharkavda DahanuJawhar Sinnar Aurangabad Pusad Rajura Igatpuri Kalamnuri Kinwat Sangamner Ambad Jintur Paithan Rahuri Gevrai Pathardi Mudkhed Kalamb Beed Shirur Lonavala Ambajagai Deglur Daund Udgir MurudJanjira Barshi Kurduwadi Nilanga Shrivardhan Phaltan Murum Rahimatpur Solapur Chiplun Sangola Dudhani

Ratnagiri

Rajapur

Gangapur

Tiroda

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata Overall Performance All Sectors State Level Aggregation of Indicator Values for 2009-10

Gadhinglaj Umred

Rajura Kinwat

Kenj

Chiplun Sangola

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata Water supply indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of water supply connections 100.0 0.0 54.7 53.0 0.0 249.0 Coverage of water supply connections in slums 100.0 0.0 23.9 19.7 0.0 227.0 Per capita available of water at consumer end 284.9 0.0 77.0 68.7 0.0 248.0 Extent of metering of water connections 100.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 Extent of Non Revenue Water 77.5 0.0 28.0 25.4 25.0 249.0 Continuity of water supply 24.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 250.0 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (WS) 100.0 0.0 81.5 92.0 100.0 243.0 Quality of water supplied 100.0 0.0 91.3 99.2 100.0 250.0 Cost recovery in water supply services 240.1 0.0 74.6 67.6 0.0 238.0 Efficieny in collection of water supply related charges 100.0 0.0 64.2 68.5 100.0 229.0

Wastewater indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of Toilets 100.0 0.0 75.4 79.2 100.0 248.0 Coverage of individual toilets in slums 100.0 0.0 15.0 6.8 0.0 216.0 Coverage of wastewater network services 100.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 250.0 Coverage of wastewater network services in slums 46.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 239.0 Collection efficiency of wastewater networks 95.4 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 247.0 Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity 99.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 247.0 Quality of wastewater treatment 100.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 246.0 Extent of reuse and recycling of treated watsewater 100.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 248.0 Efficieny in redressal of customer complaints (WW) 100.0 0.0 87.4 99.1 100.0 248.0 Exetent of cost recovery in wastewater management 216.1 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 226.0 Efficiency in collection of sewerage charges 100.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 225.0

SWM indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Household level coverage of SWM services 100.0 0.0 67.0 75.0 100.0 248.0 HH level coverage of SWM services in slums 100.0 0.0 52.7 59.5 0.0 239.0 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 94.4 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 252.0 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered 100.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 252.0 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste 100.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 250.0 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (SWM) 100.0 0.0 90.2 100.0 100.0 249.0 Extent of cost recovery in solid waste management services 242.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 216.0 Efficiency in collection of solid waste management charges 100.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 239.0

Storm water drainage indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of Storm Water Drainage Network 168.2 0.0 21.4 3.6 0.0 252.0 Incidence of water logging/flooding 216.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 252.0 State Level Performance in Urban Water and Sanitation: 2009-10

Access and Coverage

Coverage related indicators are measured at the smallest unit of a household (HH). For water and sanitation, the indicator measures households served by individual connection/ toilets, and for SWM, it measures households served by door to door collection of MSW.

2010

100 Benchmark Value = 100 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Coverage of water supply Coverage of Toilets Coverage of WW network HH level coverage of SWM connections services services

Equity in Service Delivery

Equity in Service Delivery captures the variations in services provided within a city, across all sectors. Moreover, it measures the variations between poor and non-poor sections of the city.

2010

100

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Coverage of water supply Coverage of individual toilets Coverage of WW network HH level coverage of SWM connections in slums in slums services in slums services in slums State Level Performance in Urban Water and Sanitation: 2009-10

Financial Sustainability

Financial sustainability is measured based on the extent of O&M cost recovery in each sector; recovery through local charges and taxes. Another important aspect of financial sustainability is determined by the collection efficieny of service charges for all the sectors.

Extent of Cost Recovery 2010

100 Benchmark Value = 100 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Cost recovery in water supply services Exetent of cost recovery in WW Extent of cost recovery in SWM services management

Efficiency of Collection of Service Charges 2010

100

Benchmark Value = 90 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Efficieny in collection of water supply Efficiency in collection of sewerage Efficiency in collection of SWM charges related charges charges State Profile Water Supply Summary of Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Water Supply Coverage

Total number of households Households served by water 7037931 supply connections 6872724 4683122 3110835

Water Production

Ground sources 287 MLD 164 MLD

Own surface sources Bulk water 1359 MLD Total water produced Purchased 536 MLD 6225 MLD 4579 MLD 5345 MLD 4644 MLD

Service Levels

ULBs supplying Avg. days Avg. duration Lpcd >= 100 of Supply of Supply 56 ULBs 23.3 days 1.35 hours 59 ULBs 22.6 days 1.54 hours State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Coverage of water supply connections at HH level (%)

Total households connected to the water supply network with a private (not shared) service connection, as percentage of total households in the ULB.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Karad 100.0 Talegaon 96.0

) Uran 95.3 % (

s 80 Pune 94.4 n o i

t Gadhinglaj 93.7 c

e Satara 93.2 n n

o Thane 91.5 c

y 60 l Vasai Virar 91.5 p p

u Chopda 91.2 s

r MiraBhayan.. 91.1 e t a Ambernath 90.9 w

40 f o

Ulhasnagar 90.7 e

g Kulgaon 86.7 a r

e Daund 85.6 v o

C 20 Nagpur 84.9 Daryapur 84.2 Murgud 83.5 0 Vaijapur 83.2 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Panhala 82.7 Jejuri 82.3

Coverage of water supply connections in 'slum settlements' (%)

Total households in slum settlements connected to water supply network with a private (not shared) service connection, as percentage of total households in all slum settlements in the ULB.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Daryapur 100.0 )

% Malakapur 100.0 (

s Mool 92.2 m u l Bhokardhan s 80 89.7

n i

Warora 83.5 s n

o Nagpur 82.0 i t c Jejuri

e 81.0

n 60 n Nandgaon 79.0 o c

y Tuljapur 77.9 l p

p Pachgani 70.5 u s

r 40 Sindkhed 68.8 e t

a Morshi 67.8 w

f Shahada 67.3 o

e Mehkar 65.7 g a r 20 Desaiganj

e 64.6 v

o Kamtee 63.9 C Pulgaon 63.6 0 Gevrai 63.5 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Narkhed 63.5 Ambernath 63.1 Barshi State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Per capita supply of water (Lpcd)

This indicator captures the quantity of water supplied to consumers daily. This considers only authorized billed and unbilled residential consumers.

2010 Top Performing ULBs 160 (2010) Mahabaleshwar 284.9 Pune 228.0 140 Benchmark Value = 135 lpcd Navi Mumbai 222.2

) Alibagh 216.8 d c 120 Shrivardhan 187.1 p L ( Karad 184.3 r e t

a 100 Pandharpur 182.1 w

f Pimpri Chinchwad 176.8 o

y l Panvel 173.1

p 80 p

u KalyanDombivli 166.0 s

a MatheranGiristhan 159.2 t i

p 60

a Thane 158.8 c

r Ratnagiri 155.1 e P 40 Jejuri 150.9 Ulhasnagar 147.5 20 Ambernath 144.6 Khuldabad 140.4 0 Ichalkaranji 140.2 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Roha 139.8 Wai 139.3

Extent of metering of water connections (%)

Total number of functional metered water connections expressed as a percentage of total number of water supply connections (including public stand post connections).

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% ChikhaldaraGiristhan 100.0 Karanja 100.0 )

% Mahabaleshwar 100.0 (

s 80 Malakapur 100.0 n o i t Panhala 100.0 c e

n Sawantwadi 99.3 n o

c Achalpur 97.7

r 60 e

t Daryapur 97.1 a w

Kulgaon 96.2 f o Nashik 94.4 g n i r Bhandara 93.7 e 40 t

e MatheranGiristhan 93.1 m

f AnjangaonSurji

o 92.6

t

n Tiroda 90.6 e t x 20 Gondia 89.1 E Vengurle 88.7 Islampur 88.4 0 Yavatmal 87.8 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Patur 87.2 Kolhapur 83.4 Malwan State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Extent of Non Revenue Water (%)

Difference between total water produced (ex-treatment plant) and total water sold expressed as a percentage of total water produced. NRW includes real as well as apparent losses.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Jalna 56.8 Ambajagai 54.6 Khapa 54.3

) 80 Achalpur 53.1 % (

Manwat 52.5 r e t

a Sawner 49.0 W Gangapur 48.7 e

u 60

n Loha 47.6 e v

e Kenj 47.3 R Sailu 47.1 n o

N Gondia 46.1

f 40 o

t Pathardi 46.1 n e

t Aurangabad 45.9 x

E Kolhapur 45.0 20 Benchmark Value = 20% Dhule 44.9 Pandharpur 44.8 Kundalwadi 43.8 0 Wardha 43.5 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Umarga 42.9 Rajura 42.5

Continuity of water supply (Hours)

Continuity of supply is measured as average number of hours of pressurized water supply per day.

2010 Top Performing ULBs 4 (2010) Benchmark Value = 24 hours Malakapur 24.0 Navi Mumbai 14.0 Yawal 10.0

) Pimpri Chinchwad 6.0 s r 3 u Sawantwadi 6.0 o H

( Thane

5.4 y l

p Khopoli 5.0 p u

s Pune 5.0

r e

t Ambernath 4.0

a 2 w

ChandurRly 4.0 f o Gondia

y 4.0 t i

u Kulgaon 4.0 n i t

n Tiroda 4.0 o

C 1 Vengurle 4.0 Shrivardhan 3.3 Achalpur 3.0 KalyanDombivli 3.0 0 Kolhapur 3.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Morshi 3.0 MurudJanjira 3.0 State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Quality of water supplied (%)

Percentage of water samples that meet or exceed the specified potable water standards and sampling regime, at treatment plant outlet and consumer points as defined by CPHEEO.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value =100% Akkalkot 100.0 Alandi 100.0 Amalner 100.0 80 Ambad 100.0

) Ambajagai 100.0 % (

d Ashta 100.0 e i l

p Balapur 100.0

p 60 u Baramati 100.0 s

r

e Barshi 100.0 t a

w Basmath 100.0

f o Bhagur 100.0 y 40 t i l

a Bhokardhan 100.0 u

Q Chalisgaon 100.0 ChandurRly 100.0 20 Chiplun 100.0 Dapoli 100.0 Daund 100.0 0 DeulgaonRaja 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Devli 100.0 Dharmabad 100.0

Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints in water supply (%)

Total number of WS related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of water supply related complaints received in the year.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Akkalkot 100.0 ) Ambad 100.0 % (

s

t Ashta 100.0 n i

a Ausa 100.0 l 80

p Benchmark Value = 80%

m Baramati 100.0 o c

Barshi 100.0 r e

m Basmath 100.0 o

t 60

s Beed 100.0 u c

f Bhagur 100.0 o

l Bhokardhan 100.0 a s

s Biloli 100.0 e

r 40 d ChandurBazar 100.0 e r

n

i ChandurRly 100.0

y

c ChikhaldaraGiristhan 100.0 n e i 20 Chiplun 100.0 c i f f

E Dapoli 100.0 Darhva 100.0 0 Daund 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities DeulgaonRaja 100.0 DevlaliPravara 100.0 State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2009-10

Cost recovery in water supply services (%)

Total operating revenues from water supply related charges expressed as a percentage of total operating expenses on water supply.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Akot 240.1 Kalamb 239.4

) Kalamnuri 208.7 % (

s 80 JalgaonJamod 200.7 e c i Gevrai 196.4 v r e

s Sillod 182.9

y l Buldhana 182.1 p

p 60 u AnjangaonSurji 176.7 s

r

e Taloda 174.8 t a

w Biloli 172.5

n i Daryapur 166.5 y 40 r

e Parola 164.4 v o

c Yavatmal 159.9 e r

t Shahada 159.7 s o

C 20 Vasai Virar 156.4 Sawantwadi 144.6 Umarga 142.3 0 Pachora 135.6 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Telhara 134.2 Ghatanji 128.1

Efficieny in collection of water supply related charges (%)

Current year revenues collected from water supply related taxes and charges expressed as a percentage of total billed amounts (for water supply).

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010)

) 100 Arvi 100.0 % (

s Kamtee 100.0 e

g Benchmark Value = 90% r Pachgani 100.0 a h c

80 Tiroda 100.0 d e

t Vengurle 100.0 a l

e Osmanabad 99.6 r

y l Ghatanji 99.6 p

p 60 u Jawhar 99.4 s

r

e Erandol 98.7 t a

w Murgud 97.9

f o

Katol 97.1

n 40 o i

t DevlaliPravara 97.0 c e l

l Kundalwadi 96.3 o c Sonpeth 96.0 n i

y 20 Mohpa 95.8 n e i Kagal 95.5 c i f f Sangola 95.2 E 0 Kolhapur 95.2 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities MiraBhayandar 95.1 Rajapur 94.8 State Profile Wastewater Management Summary of Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Wastewater Overview

Properties with toilets 4785640 ----- Properties Properties with on-site Total number with sewer systems of properties HHs dependent on connections 2600387 6614793 community toilets 2252517 ----- 6487893 845487 2029536 984754

Sewerage System

WW treated at Total WW Secondary Reuse of generated treatment plant treated WW 3780 MLD 1108 MLD 75 MLD 2586 MLD ----- MLD ---- MLD Cities with partial Cities with secondary Number of cities sewage network WW treatment plant using untreated WW 29 ULBs 15 ULBs 35 ULBs 28 ULBs 15 ULBs ----- ULBs

On-site Sanitation System

On-site sanitation Septic tank Septage system cleaning facility treatment facility 246 ULBs 241 ULBs 8 ULBs ----- ULBs ----- ULBs ----- ULBs State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Coverage of Toilets (%)

Total number of properties with access to individual or community toilets as a percentage of total number of properties in the city.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Islampur 100.0 Nandurbar 100.0 Shahada 100.0 80 Sinnar 100.0 Tuljapur 100.0 )

% Ghatanji 100.0 (

s

t Jejuri 99.7 e l i 60

o Amravati 99.6 T

f Nagpur 99.6 o

e

g Junnar 99.5 a r

e Thane 99.5

v 40 o Devli 99.5 C Baramati 99.3 Talegaon 99.2 20 Mahabaleshw.. 99.0 Kurduwadi 99.0 Yavatmal 98.7 0 Dapoli 98.7 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Vasai Virar 98.6 Murgud 98.5

Coverage of sewerage network (%)

Total number of properties with individual connections to sewage network as a percentage of total number of properties in the city.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Karad 100.0 Pune 94.5 Nashik 85.1

) 80 Pimpri Chinch.. 79.6 % (

k Aurangabad 79.1 r o Nagpur 68.7 w t e

n Saswad 65.3

e 60

g Navi Mumbai 64.5 a r

e Nanded 57.8 w

e Shirdi 49.7 s

f o 40 Solapur 45.8 e

g Ambernath 43.2 a r e

v Thane 37.9 o

C Pandharpur 35.5 20 Sangli 33.1 Pachgani 29.9 Ahmednagar 29.8 0 Mahabaleshw.. 29.1 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Kolhapur 22.0 Ichalkaranji 21.3 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Coverage of individual toilets in slums (%)

Total number of slum households with individual toilets expressed as a percentage of total number of households in 'slum settlements'.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Kamtee 100 Shrirampur 100

) Amravati 75 % (

s 80 Nagpur 70 m

u Mool 67 l s

n Pachgani 64 i

s t Risod 63 e l i 60 o Chandrapur 57 t

l

a Ashta 54 u d i

v Jawhar 53 i d n

i Mowad 53

40 f o

ChandurBazar 52 e

g Barshi 52 a r e

v AnjangaonSurji 51 o

C 20 Achalpur 47 Jalna 47 Bhokardhan 46 0 Kalamnuri 45 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Gondia 45 Balapur 45 ChandurRly Coverage of wastewater network services in slums (%)

Total number of slum households connected to sewage network expressed as a percentage of total number of households in 'slum settlements'.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Ahmednagar 47

) Nagpur 32 % ( Karad 27 s

m 80 Shirdi 18 u l s Pachgani 16 n i

s Pune 11 e c i

v Ambernath 2 r

e 60

s KalyanDombivli 2

k r

o Achalpur 0 w t Ahmedpur 0 e n Akkalkot 0

W 40

W Akola 0

f o Akot 0 e g

a Alandi 0 r e

v 20 Alibagh 0 o

C Amalner 0 Ambad 0 0 Ambajagai 0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Amravati 0 AnjangaonSurji 0 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Collection efficiency of wastewater networks (%)

Quantum of waste water collected at the intake of the treatment plant to the quantity of wastewater generated (as per CPHEEO, 80% of water consumed is waste water generated).

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Karad 95.4

) Kolhapur 85.1 % ( Ambernath 78.5 s k r

o 80 Nanded 75.2 w t Pimpri Chinch.. 71.8 e n

r Sangli 55.4 e t

a Navi Mumbai 50.1 w

e 60 t Pune 48.4 s a

w Ichalkaranji 44.4

f o

Lonavala 42.5 y c

n Pachgani 36.3

e 40 i c

i Pandharpur 24.3 f f e Thane 22.4 n o i

t MiraBhayandar 22.3 c e l

l 20 Nagpur 21.0 o

C Ulhasnagar 18.5 KalyanDombivli 17.7 0 Aurangabad 9.4 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Achalpur 0.0 Ahmednagar 0.0 Ahmedpur Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity (%)

Quantum of wastewater that can be treated to secondary treatment standards (removal of BOD and COD) as a percentage of normative wastewater generated.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Navi Mumbai 99.2 Karad 97.9

) Pimpri Chinch.. 87.9 % ( 80 Nanded 75.2 y t i

c Ichalkaranji 59.1 a p

a Sangli 55.4 c

t Lonavala 52.2 n

e 60

m Pune 48.4 t a

e Ulhasnagar 43.2 r t Pachgani 36.3 W W

Nagpur 28.1 f 40 o

y Pandharpur 24.3 c

a Thane 22.4 u q

e MiraBhayandar 22.3 d

A 20 KalyanDombivli 17.7 Aurangabad 9.4 Achalpur 0.0 0 Ahmednagar 0.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Ahmedpur 0.0 Akkalkot 0.0 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Quality of wastewater treatment (%) Total number of waste water samples (BOD and COD) that have passed the specified secondary treatment standards to number of waste water samples conducted, at the outlet of the plant.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Aurangabad 100.0 ) %

( Karad 100.0

t

n 80

e Lonavala 100.0 m t MiraBhayandar 100.0 a e r

t Nagpur 100.0

r 60 e t Nashik 100.0 a

w Navi Mumbai 100.0 e t s

a 40 Pachgani 100.0 w

f Pandharpur 100.0 o

y t

i Pimpri Chinch.. 100.0 l

a 20 u Pune 100.0 Q Sangli 100.0 0 Thane 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Ichalkaranji 91.7 KalyanDombivli 83.3 Extent of reuse and recycling of treated watsewater (%) Quantity of waste water that is recycled or reused after secondary treatment as a percentage of quantity of waste water received at the treatment plant.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) Maharashtra 3.19 Pachgani 100.0 Municipal Corporations 3.22 Ichalkaranji 86.7 Other Municipalities 3.14 Pandharpur 80.0 Sangli Efficieny in redressal of customer complaints in wastewater (%) Total number of wastewater related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of wastewater related complaints received in the year.

2010 Top Performing ULBs s

t (2010)

n 100 i a l Achalpur 100.0 p

m Ahmednagar 100.0 o c

80 r Benchmark Value = 80 % Akkalkot 100.0 e

m Akot 100.0 o t

s Alandi 100.0 u

60 c

) f Ambad 100.0 o %

( l

a Ambajagai 100.0 s s

e 40 Amravati 100.0 r d

e Ashta 100.0 r

n i

Ausa 100.0

y 20 n Baramati 100.0 e i c i

f Barshi 100.0 f

E 0 Basmath 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bhadgaon 100.0 Bhagur 100.0 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2009-10

Exetent of cost recovery in wastewater management (%)

Total operating revenues from sewerage related charges expressed as a percentage of total operating expenses on wastewater.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 ) Benchmark Value = 100 % Thane 216.1 % (

t Navi Mumbai 179.9 n e Alandi m 164.9 e

g Greater Mum.. 155.5

a 80 n

a Dhule 138.4 m

r Junnar 121.6 e t

a Nandurbar 116.3 w

e 60 t Nagpur 106.8 s a

w MiraBhayandar 101.8

n i

Ahmednagar 87.6 y r

e ChandurBazar 81.2 v 40 o

c Sangli 78.7 e r

t Ulhasnagar 78.6 s o c

Bhusawal 74.1 f o

t 20 Nanded 67.6 n e

t Pune 66.6 e x

E Amalner 64.4 0 Pimpri Chinch.. 62.2 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Kamtee 55.5 Kolhapur 40.7

Efficiency in collection of sewerage charges (%)

Current year revenues collected from wastewater related taxes and charges expressed as a percentage of total billed amounts (for wastewater).

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Ashta 100.0

) Aurangabad 100.0 %

( Benchmark Value = 90 % Bhandara 100.0 s e

g 80 DeulgaonRaja 100.0 r a

h Hinganghat 100.0 c

e Kamtee 100.0 g a r Khamgaon 100.0 e

w 60

e Kulgaon 100.0 s

f

o Mohpa 100.0

n

o Murgud 100.0 i t c

e Nagpur 100.0 l

l 40 o

c Sangamner 100.0

n i Wani 100.0 y c

n Vadgaon 97.2 e i c i 20 Kagal 94.4 f f

E Tasgaon 94.4 Faijpur 93.1 0 Islampur 91.1 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Rajapur 90.3 Junnar 88.6 State Profile SWM and Storm Water Drainage Summary of Solid Waste Management: 2009-10

SWM Overview

HHs and Establishments HHs and Establishments 7899000 having door to door service 7555463 5457911 4933707

Collection and Transportation

Total secondary Sweepers per Installed recycling storage bins km road length capacity 19732 2.2 2879 TPD ---- 2.1 8245 TPD

Recycling and Disposal

Waste collected Waste generated 11577 TPD 10521 TPD 11370 TPD 10295 TPD

Waste at open dump site Waste processed in ULB Waste at landfill site 8573 TPD 2194 TPD 723 TPD 6930 TPD 8257 TPD 1458 TPD State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2009-10

HH level coverage of SWM services (%)

Total number of households and establishments with door to door collection facility of municipal solid waste (MSW) to the total number of households and establishments in the city.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Achalpur 100.0 ChandurBazar 100.0

) Gadchiroli 100.0 % (

80 Manglurpir 100.0 s e

c MatheranGiris.. 100.0 i v r Sangamner 100.0 e s Junnar 100.0 M 60 W Karjat 100.0 S

f

o Pachgani 99.9

e

g Ramtek 99.9 a r

e Satara 99.8 v 40 o

c Khuldabad 99.7

l e

v ChandurRly 99.6 e l Dharmabad 99.3 H

H 20 Mohpa 99.2 Narkhed 99.2 Mukhed 99.1 0 Kurundwad 99.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Risod 98.4 Panhala 98.4

HH level coverage of SWM services in 'slum settlements' (%)

Total households in slum settlements serviced by door-to-door collection of MSW as a percentage of total number of HHs in slums.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Alandi 100.0

) Ashta 100.0 % (

s Baramati 100.0 m

u Bhadrawati 100.0 l 80 s

n Bhagur 100.0 i

s

e Bhokardhan 100.0 c i v

r Bhor 100.0 e

s 60 Biloli 100.0 M ChandurRly 100.0 W S

f Dahanu 100.0 o

e DeulgaonRaja 100.0 g 40 a r Devli 100.0 e v

o Digras 100.0 c

l

e Dudhani 100.0 v e l

20 Erandol 100.0 H

H Faijpur 100.0 Gevrai 100.0 0 Ghatanji 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Hingoli 100.0 Jalgaon 100.0 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2009-10

Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste (%)

Quantum of waste that is collected at the treatment/ disposal sites to the total quantity of waste that is generated in the city.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Achalpur 100.0 )

% Ahmedpur 100.0 (

e

t Akola 100.0 s a 80 Ambad 100.0 w

d i

l Arvi 100.0 o s

Ashta l 100.0 a p

i Ausa 100.0 c i 60 n Baramati 100.0 u m

Bhadrawati 100.0 f o

n Bhokardhan 100.0 o i t

c Bhoom 100.0 40 e l l Chandrapur 100.0 o c

f ChandurBazar 100.0 o

y

c ChandurRly 100.0 n e i 20 ChikhaldaraGi.. 100.0 c i f f Chiplun 100.0 E Daund 100.0 0 Desaiganj 100.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities DeulgaonRaja 100.0 Devli 100.0 Dharmabad Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste (%)

Quantity of segregated waste received at treatment/ disposal sites to the total waste collected by the service providers.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Karjat 94.4 ) Panhala 87.5 % (

e Sawner

t 68.3 s

a 80 Mudkhed 68.2 w

d

i Khopoli 63.3 l o s

Desaiganj 56.4 l a p

i Chalisgaon 54.3 c i 60 n Khuldabad 50.0 u m

Pimpri Chinch.. 49.4 f o Vita 46.2 n o i t Dahanu 37.5 a 40 g

e Jawhar 35.7 r g

e Islampur 35.1 s

f

o Amravati 33.7

t

n 20 Daund e 32.4 t x

E Kolhapur 29.9 Nagpur 27.0 0 MatheranGiris.. 26.2 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Shrirampur 26.0 Pathari 24.3 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2009-10

Extent of municipal solid waste recovered (%) Quantum of waste that is recycled or processed to the total waste that is collected by the service providers.

2010 Top Performing ULBs

) (2010)

% 100 (

d Barshi 100.0 e r

e Kundalwadi 100.0 v

o 80 c Benchmark Value = 80% Pandharpur 96.8 e r Chalisgaon 95.5 e t s Nashik

a 89.6

w 60 Chopda 85.4 d i l

o Panhala 77.2 s

l

a Ambajagai 75.1

p 40 i c i Murgud 70.6 n u MatheranGiris.. 69.2 m

f

o 20

Katol 67.6 t n

e Khapa 58.3 t x

E 0 Panvel 58.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Nagpur 54.7 Karjat 50.8 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints in SWM (%) Number of SWM related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of SWM related complaints received in the year.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) Maharashtra 86.0 Achalpur 100.0 Municipal Corporations 85.0 Ahmednagar 100.0 Other Municipalities 89.1 Akkalkot 100.0 Akot Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste (%) Quantum of waste that is disposed in scientific/ compliant landfills to the total quantum of waste disposed in compliant and open disposal sites.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100

) Benchmark value = 100% Navi Mumbai 100.0 % ( Panvel 49.0 W

S 80 Pune 16.8 M

f

o Achalpur 0.0

l a

s Ahmednagar 0.0 o 60 p Ahmedpur

s 0.0 i d Akkalkot 0.0 c i f i t Akola 0.0 n 40 e i

c Akot 0.0 s

f Alandi

o 0.0

t

n 20 Alibagh 0.0 e t x Amalner 0.0 E 0 Ambad 0.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Ambajagai 0.0 Ambernath 0.0 Amravati 0.0 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2009-10

Extent of cost recovery in SWM services (%)

Percentage of total operating revenues from SWM related charges to total operating expenses on SWM services.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark value = 100% Solapur 242.0 Nashik 208.6 ) %

( Ichalkaranji 100.0

s

e 80 Akola 71.8 c i v

r Warud 70.8 e s Pune 70.3 M

W Nagpur 55.6 S

60

n Pimpri Chinch.. 48.3 i

y

r Navi Mumbai 37.3 e v

o Pachora 34.4 c e r

40 Shirdi 29.1 t s

o Hinganghat 27.4 c

f

o Devli 23.1

t

n Vasai Virar 21.3 e t

x 20 Kolhapur 21.1 E Sangli 18.5 Jalgaon 16.1 0 MatheranGiris.. 15.8 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Ulhasnagar 13.2 Bhagur 10.9

Efficiency in collection of SWM charges (%)

Percentage of current year revenues collected from SWM related taxes and charges as a percentage of total billed amounts (for SWM).

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Ashta 100.0 Aurangabad 100.0

) Benchmark Value = 90 % Greater Mum.. 100.0 % (

s 80 Hinganghat 98.6 e g r Sawantwadi 96.8 a h c

Katol 92.5

M Pune 89.9 W

S 60

f Vasai Virar 82.1 o

n Umred 80.4 o i t

c Nanded 78.7 e l l

o Achalpur 75.0

c 40

n Nashik

i 74.5

y

c Pathari 73.9 n e i Bhagur 71.4 c i f f 20 Solapur 70.3 E MatheranGiris.. 64.1 Kolhapur 62.6 0 ChandurBazar 52.7 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Washim 52.6 Ulhasnagar 33.5 State Level Performance in Storm Water Drainage: 2009-10

Coverage of storm water drainage network (%)

Percentage of road length covered by storm water drainage network.

2010 Top Performing ULBs (2010) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Bhagur 168.2

) Thane 160.4 % ( Talegaon 126.9 k r o 80 Mahad 96.6 w t

e Kalmeshwar 94.8 N

e Dudhani 92.9 g a n

i Digras 91.9 a r 60 Sillod 90.2 D

r e

t Achalpur 88.7 a

W Vengurle 86.8

m r 40 Daund 85.8 o t

S Risod 85.7

f o

Wani 83.6 e g

a Jalgaon 81.5 r e

v 20 Kundalwadi 80.0 o

C Rahimatpur 80.0 Islampur 79.7 0 Raver 79.1 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Kulgaon 78.8 Kannad 78.6

Incidence of water logging/ flooding (%)

Number of times water logging is reported in a year, at flood prone points within the city.

2010 Highest no. of waterlogging (2010) 30 Sangli 216.0 Aurangabad 156.0 ) s r

e 25 Thane 135.0 b

m Vasai Virar 104.0 u N

( Mehkar 80.0

g

n Bhiwandi 66.0 i 20 d

o Amravati 65.0 o l f / Pune 52.0 g n i

g Ulhasnagar 51.0

g 15 o l Bhokardhan

45.0 r e t AnjangaonSurji 40.0 a w

MiraBhayandar

f 38.0

o 10

e Vaijapur 36.0 c

n Panvel

e 30.0 d i

c Shegaon 25.0 n

I 5 Majalgaon 16.0 Pachora 16.0 0 Benchmak Value = 0 Nos. Pimpri Chinch.. 16.0 Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Washim 15.0 Malegaon 12.0

The Performance Assessment System (PAS) Project

The Performance Assessment System (PAS) Project supports development of appropriate tools and methods to measure, monitor and improve delivery of urban water and sanitation services in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The PAS Project includes three major components of performance measurement, performance monitoring and performance improvement. It covers all the 400+ urban local governments in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

CEPT University has received a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the PAS

Project. It is being implemented by CEPT University with support of Urban Management Centre (UMC) in Gujarat and All India Institute of Local Self-Government (AIILSG) in Maharashtra.

PAS Project

CEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, University Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009

Gujarat, India

Tel: +91-79-26302470 Fax: +91-79-26302075 www.pas.org.in