Research Paper Habitations, villages, and gram panchayats: local drinking water planning in rural India with a Pune district case study

Improving rural drinking water services at the village level is a high priority in India. The National Rural Drinking Water Program (NRDWP) calls for village drinking water plans on an annual basis. However, planning data analysis and mapping are complicated by the different levels of local settlement that are involved. The aims of this paper are: ﬁ rst, to review how the term ‘ village ’ has come to refer to three different types of settlement for planning purposes in India; second, to show how each settlement type has different water data and Geographic Information System (GIS) map coverage; and third, to identify practical strategies for using these different data and mapping resources to develop rural drinking water plans. We address the ﬁ rst objective through a brief historical review of local government administration and drinking water database development in India. Challenges of data analysis and mapping are demonstrated through a case study of Pune district in Maharashtra. This challenge led to the identi ﬁ cation of six practical strategies for coordinating the analysis of drinking water data and GIS mapping for planning purposes.


INTRODUCTION
aggregates those data to the larger GP, but not the revenue village, level. Zilla parishad (district) databases also collect drinking water information at the habitation and GP levels. In many ways, this makes sense as the habitation is the smallest unit of settlement, and the GP is the smallest official unit of local self-government. Zilla parishads use IMIS data and field data at the habitation level to prepare district Annual Action Plans, which take the form of Excel spreadsheets (Pune Zilla Parishad, ).
For historical reasons, the decennial Census of India collects demographic, water, and sanitation data at the revenue village level, which is the only local planning unit to have Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles for all of India. States and Zilla parishads use these data for general planning reports on water and sanitation patterns and trends, but not for district Annual Action Plans.
These three levels of 'village' water management are well known among practitioners, but they need to be systematically described, historically interpreted, and practically assessed to address the challenges that they pose for rural drinking water planning. For this second objective of the paper, we selected Pune district in Maharashtra as a case study, as we have a pilot study of district drinking water planning underway there (e.g., Hui & Wescoat ).
Using GIS mapping and database analysis, we show how Pune district's GPs, revenue villages, and habitations are related to one another and how they vary spatially in ways that pose challenges for rural drinking water planners.
Further complicating the spatial issues in local water planning are changes in settlement status that occur over time, incrementally on an annual basis and dramatically between decennial censuses. For example, growing habitations can become villages, and growing villages can become GPs.
Conversely, a GP that has two rapidly growing villages can subdivide into two GPs. Villages can add habitations in outlying areas. These changes in settlement status make time series analysis and GIS mapping difficult, as GIS shapefiles for Census villages are only updated on a decadal basis. Notwithstanding these difficulties, this paper identifies strategies for coordinating data analysis and GIS mapping at the local and district levels.
Another complexity arises from the fact that while water supply schemes are designed and implemented at the habitation level, operations and maintenance are responsibilities at the GP level. This can make it difficult to understand which schemes and services are successful and why.
A final layer of complexity comes from watershed planning units, which do not follow administrative boundaries.
Watershed conditions affect groundwater availability and thus affect planning, investment, and service delivery. Planning within a safe watershed differs from that in critical and overexploited watersheds.
Examining these local water planning challenges in a district case study can help us address the third and final objective of the paper, which is to identify practical strategies for data analysis and map display that link these three levels of local water management. Although less than optimal, these strategies can help local water analysts and planners understand, navigate, and use the abundant data resources and mapping tools available in India.

EMERGENCE OF THE GP TIER OF WATER GOVERNANCE IN INDIA
Over a century ago, India was idealized as a nation of timeless self-reliant villages (e.g., Metcalfe ). Historians and social scientists have challenged this myth through studies of dynamically changing village societies and networks (e.g., Thakur ). Even the terminology for local village government has varied over time. The term panchayat has ancient roots in Vedic times that continued in medieval and early modern usage. During the colonial period, the English term 'village panchayat' became widespread (e.g., in the State panchayat acts of the 1920s). The term gram panchayat was used somewhat interchangeably and in confusing ways with village panchayat and gaon panchayat in northern India during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. GP only became the preferred official term for local self-government in federal and state policies after Independence in 1947.
Numerous proposals for local self-government and administrative decentralization were put forward during the 19th and 20th centuries. Table 1 lists major reports variability and used to assess GP water services, but they cannot be mapped statewide with current GIS resources.
Village water data in the Census of India   6. Link local drinking water data with watershed and aquifer data. For any of the strategies above, a high priority will be to link drinking water data with watershed and aquifer maps to improve groundwater planning in hydrologically connected habitations. In the case study area, these types of efforts are underway by both the Groundwater Surveys and Development Agency and the Jal Yukt Shivar watershed conservation program.
These six strategies can also be employed jointly in rural drinking water planning in the years ahead. At some point, it is likely that geocoding will be completed at all three levels of the gram panchayat, village, and habitationif not by the Census of India then by state agencies like the MRSACwhich would contribute to water resources data integration.
Going forward, it will be important to have mapping capabilities at the GP level, with spatial disaggregation to the habitation level, as coordinated responsibility for operations, maintenance, and service delivery will rest mainly with these levels of local settlement. While improving mapping and data integration would require some financial resources, initially the long-term benefits include: (1) identifying the neediest habitations, villages, and GPs for investment; (2) strengthening district Annual Action Plans; (3) monitoring drinking water services at all levels; (4) evaluating operations and maintenance practices that affect sustainability; and (5) adapting datasets and maps as the boundaries of PRI units continue to evolve over time. However, we found that less attention has been devoted to village-level planning and governance than to districts. The case study of villages in Pune district identified gaps between drinking water responsibilities, data resources, and mapping capabilities at the gram panchayat, revenue village, and habitation levels. Even so, we identified six practical strategies for combining data analysis with GIS mapping to support local and district drinking water planning in India.