Tabular Data
State-wise details of drinking water quality testing laboratories under JJM
District-wise details of habitations reported to have quality-issues in drinking water sources in Jharkhand including Santhal Pargana
State-wise details of habitations reported to have quality-issues in drinking water sources
States Wise Number of Partly Affected Districts with different Contaminants in Ground Water of India
Source: JJM – IMIS, Updated on 25th August, 2022
Water Quality of River Yamuna during July, 2020
|
Location
Parameters
|
Wazirabad(u/s)
|
ITO
|
NizamuddinBridge
|
Okhla Barrage(d/s)
|
|
pH
|
7.7
|
7.2
|
7.2
|
7.4
|
|
DO (mg/l)
|
8.0
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
5.6
|
|
Conductivity(µmho/cm)
|
483
|
1070
|
1069
|
967
|
|
COD(mg/l)
|
27
|
45
|
52
|
37
|
|
BOD(mg/l)
|
4.9
|
12
|
15
|
11
|
|
Chloride(mg/l)
|
53
|
155
|
157
|
132
|
|
PO4-P(mg/l)
|
BDL
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
0.8
|
|
AnionicSurfactant-MBAS
(mg/l)
|
BDL
|
1.28
|
1.23
|
1.37
|
|
Ammonical
Nitrogen-N(mg/l)
|
2.6
|
4.6
|
9.7
|
9.8
|
|
Total Coliform(MPN/100ml)
|
13X102
|
54X105
|
24X105
|
14X105
|
|
Faecal Coliform(MPN/100ml)
|
45
|
33X10 4
|
41X104
|
26X104
|
Source: CPCB, Annual Report 2020-21 Updated on 21st July, 2022
State wise proportion of households using sanitation facility and clean fuel for cooking (%)
|
State / UTs
|
Population living in house- holds that use an improved sanitation facility (%)
|
Households using clean fuel for cooking (%
|
|
NFHS-4
(2015-16)
|
NFHS-5
(2019-21)
|
NFHS-4
(2015-16)
|
NFHS-5
(2019-21)
|
|
All India
|
48.5
|
70.2
|
43.8
|
58.6
|
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
77.3
|
54.4
|
83.6
|
62.0
|
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
82.9
|
61.6
|
53.2
|
45.0
|
|
Assam
|
68.6
|
49.0
|
42.1
|
25.1
|
|
Bihar
|
49.4
|
26.5
|
37.8
|
17.8
|
|
Delhi
|
75.1
|
81.1
|
97.9
|
98.9
|
|
Goa
|
87.9
|
78.7
|
96.5
|
84.1
|
|
Gujarat
|
74.0
|
63.6
|
66.9
|
52.6
|
|
Haryana
|
85.0
|
80.6
|
59.5
|
52.2
|
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
81.8
|
72.3
|
51.7
|
36.7
|
|
Jammu and Kashmir
|
75.7
|
53.8
|
69.2
|
57.5
|
|
Karnataka
|
74.8
|
57.8
|
79.7
|
54.7
|
|
Kerala
|
98.7
|
98.2
|
72.1
|
57.4
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
65.1
|
34.8
|
40.1
|
29.6
|
|
Maharashtra
|
72.0
|
52.3
|
79.7
|
59.9
|
|
Manipur
|
64.9
|
52.6
|
70.4
|
42.1
|
Meghala ya
|
82.9
|
61.4
|
33.7
|
21.8
|
|
Mizoram
|
95.3
|
84.4
|
83.8
|
66.1
|
|
Nagaland
|
87.7
|
76.7
|
43.0
|
32.8
|
|
Odisha
|
60.5
|
30.0
|
34.7
|
19.2
|
|
Punjab
|
86.6
|
82.7
|
76.7
|
65.9
|
|
Rajasthan
|
71.1
|
46.1
|
41.4
|
31.8
|
|
Sikkim
|
87.3
|
89.7
|
78.4
|
59.1
|
|
Tamil nadu
|
72.6
|
52.5
|
82.9
|
73.0
|
|
Tripura
|
73.6
|
63.7
|
45.3
|
31.9
|
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
68.8
|
36.4
|
49.5
|
32.7
|
|
West Bengal
|
68.0
|
52.8
|
40.2
|
27.8
|
|
Chhattisgarh
|
76.8
|
34.8
|
33.0
|
22.8
|
|
Jharkhand
|
56.7
|
25.0
|
31.9
|
18.9
|
|
Uttarakhand
|
78.8
|
66.2
|
59.2
|
51.0
|
|
Telengana
|
76.2
|
52.3
|
91.8
|
67.3
|
|
Andaman and Nicobar (UT)
|
75.4
|
88.0
|
63.5
|
79.8
|
|
Chandigarh (UT)
|
83.7
|
85.0
|
93.9
|
95.8
|
|
Dadra and Nagpur Haveli & Daman Diu (UT)
|
44.4
|
65.8
|
63.1
|
79.9
|
|
Lakshadweep (UT)
|
99.8
|
99.6
|
59.4
|
31.8
|
|
Puducherry (UT)
|
64.8
|
84.9
|
84.8
|
92.3
|
|
Ladakh
|
|
42.3
|
|
76.3
|
Source: Economic Survey 2021-22 Updated on 21st July, 2022
Progress on Social and Health Indicators
|
Particulars
|
NFHS-1
(1992-93)
|
NFHS-2(1998-99)
|
NFHS-3(2005-06)
|
NFHS-4(2015-16)
|
NFHS-5(2019-21)
|
|
TotalFertilityRate(Childrenperwomen)
|
3.4
|
2.9
|
2.7
|
2.2
|
2
|
|
Sex ratio at birth for childrenborninthelastfiveyears(fe-malesper 1,000 males)
|
-
|
-
|
914
|
919
|
929
|
|
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1000livebirths)
|
78.5
|
67.6
|
57
|
40.7
|
35.2
|
|
Under-fiveMortalityRate(per1000 livebirths)
|
109.3
|
94.9
|
74.3
|
49.7
|
41.9
|
|
InstitutionalBirth(%)
|
26.1
|
33.6
|
40.8
|
78.9
|
88.6
|
|
Pregnant women age 15-49 whoare anaemic (%)
|
-
|
51.8
|
57.9
|
50.4
|
52.2
|
|
Population living in householdsthat use an improved sanitationfacility (%)
|
-
|
17.6
|
29.1
|
48.5
|
70.2
|
|
Households using clean fuel forcooking(%)
|
-
|
-
|
25.6
|
43.8
|
58.6
|
Source: Economic Survey 2021-22 Updated on 19th July, 2022
Heavy Metal in Rivers
Source : pib.gov.in Updated on, 24th Jan, 2022
National Water Awards 2020
Source: pib.gov.in Updated on 24th Jan, 2022
Physical Progress-2020-21
|
S.N.
|
State/UT Name
|
Individual household latrines (IHHLs)
|
Community Sanitary Complexes (CSCs)
|
|
1
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
8,813
|
940
|
|
2
|
Assam
|
3,54,932
|
770
|
|
3
|
Manipur
|
436
|
247
|
|
4
|
Meghalaya
|
10,277
|
145
|
|
5
|
Mizoram
|
2,053
|
314
|
|
6
|
Nagaland
|
1,736
|
812
|
|
7
|
Sikkim
|
23
|
169
|
|
8
|
Tripura
|
30,035
|
50
|
|
|
Total :-
|
4,08,305
|
3,447
|
Source: Annual Report, Ministry of Driking Water and Saniatation, 2020-21 Updated on 19th June, 2021
Status of individual rural households with PWS connections
|
No. of Individual rural households with piped water supply connections (as on 31.03.2019, as reported by States/ UTs)
|
|
S.No
|
State/ UTs
|
Total Rural households
|
Total household connections
|
% of total household connections with PWS
|
% of households to be connected with PWS
|
|
1.
|
Sikkim
|
88,013
|
87,431
|
99.34
|
0.66
|
|
2.
|
Gujarat
|
64,77,917
|
50,82,540
|
78.46
|
21.54
|
|
3.
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
13,48,841
|
7,59,047
|
56.27
|
43.73
|
|
4.
|
Haryana
|
32,88,145
|
17,58,292
|
53.47
|
46.53
|
|
5.
|
Punjab
|
33,01,599
|
17,59,212
|
53.28
|
46.72
|
|
6.
|
Puducherry
|
82,258
|
41,418
|
50.35
|
49.65
|
|
7.
|
Karnataka
|
80,72,422
|
35,36,476
|
43.81
|
56.19
|
|
8.
|
Maharashtra
|
1,32,03,245
|
50,74,878
|
38.44
|
61.56
|
|
9.
|
Telangana
|
54,09,686
|
18,13,791
|
33.53
|
66.47
|
|
10.
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
91,29,939
|
30,60,696
|
33.52
|
66.48
|
|
11.
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
16,36,151
|
4,91,152
|
30.02
|
69.98
|
|
12.
|
Tamil Nadu
|
98,62,767
|
29,33,243
|
29.74
|
70.26
|
|
13.
|
Kerala
|
91,75,250
|
15,36,707
|
16.75
|
83.25
|
|
14.
|
Mizoram
|
1,03,949
|
16,359
|
15.74
|
84.26
|
|
15.
|
Uttarakhand
|
15,09,758
|
2,16,182
|
14.32
|
85.68
|
|
16.
|
Rajasthan
|
92,84,150
|
11,49,036
|
12.38
|
87.62
|
|
17.
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
1,08,90,226
|
13,28,100
|
12.2
|
87.8
|
|
18.
|
A & N islands
|
65,096
|
6,604
|
10.15
|
89.85
|
|
19.
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
2,20,826
|
20,069
|
9.09
|
90.91
|
|
20.
|
Chhattisgarh
|
43,17,108
|
3,85,417
|
8.93
|
91.07
|
|
21.
|
Jharkhand
|
50,28,402
|
2,88,992
|
5.75
|
94.25
|
|
22.
|
Manipur
|
4,38,943
|
24,512
|
5.58
|
94.42
|
|
23.
|
Nagaland
|
3,17,975
|
15,559
|
4.89
|
95.11
|
|
24.
|
Odisha
|
81,25,852
|
3,19,955
|
3.94
|
96.06
|
|
25.
|
Tripura
|
8,59,052
|
27,358
|
3.18
|
96.82
|
|
26.
|
Assam
|
57,92,987
|
1,27,962
|
2.21
|
97.79
|
|
27.
|
Bihar
|
1,78,46,077
|
3,36,178
|
1.88
|
98.12
|
|
28.
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
2,58,81,064
|
3,45,452
|
1.33
|
98.67
|
|
29.
|
West Bengal
|
1,63,35,210
|
2,14,683
|
1.31
|
98.69
|
|
30.
|
Meghalaya
|
4,60,527
|
4,359
|
0.95
|
99.05
|
|
31.
|
Goa
|
1,61,459
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
17,87,14,894
|
3,27,61,660
|
18.33
|
81.67
|
Source: Annual Report Ministry of drinking water and sanitation 2019-20 Updated on 17th June, 2021
(a) Physical Progress: 2018-19
|
S.N.
|
State/UTName
|
Nos.ofIHHLs
|
Nos.ofCSCs
|
|
1
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
16346
|
470
|
|
2
|
Assam
|
1497558
|
80
|
|
3
|
Manipur
|
144707
|
62
|
|
4
|
Meghalaya
|
498
|
247
|
|
5
|
Mizoram
|
2523
|
86
|
|
6
|
Nagaland
|
101760
|
176
|
|
7
|
Sikkim
|
1737
|
85
|
|
8
|
Tripura
|
271082
|
9
|
|
|
Total :-
|
2036211
|
1215
|
(b) Physical Progress: 2019-20 (upto December 2019)
|
S.N.
|
State/UTName
|
NosofIHHLs
|
Nos. ofCSCs
|
|
1
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
4928
|
215
|
|
2
|
Assam
|
245783
|
116
|
|
3
|
Manipur
|
13278
|
5
|
|
4
|
Meghalaya
|
4209
|
38
|
|
5
|
Mizoram
|
1370
|
177
|
|
6
|
Nagaland
|
1088
|
135
|
|
7
|
Sikkim
|
424
|
14
|
|
8
|
Tripura
|
80837
|
29
|
|
|
Total :-
|
351917
|
729
|
Source: Annual Report Ministyr of drinking water and sanitation 2019-20 Updated on 17th June, 2021
Jal Jeevan Mission: Har Ghar Jal Households provided tap water connections in 2020-21
(Figures in Lakh)
|
S.No.
|
State/UT
|
TotalHouseholds
|
Planned
|
Achievement
|
In%
|
|
1.
|
HimachalPradesh
|
17.04
|
2.44
|
3.8
|
155.53%
|
|
2.
|
A&NIslands
|
0.62
|
0.23
|
0.33
|
143.73%
|
|
3.
|
Uttarakhand
|
14.62
|
3.59
|
4.31
|
120.18%
|
|
4.
|
Haryana
|
31.03
|
7
|
7.9
|
112.80%
|
|
5.
|
Punjab
|
34.73
|
7.6
|
8.31
|
109.40%
|
|
6.
|
Mizoram
|
1.27
|
0.32
|
0.34
|
105.72%
|
|
7.
|
Goa
|
2.63
|
0.33
|
0.33
|
100.00%
|
|
8.
|
Telangana
|
54.06
|
18.51
|
18.2
|
98.29%
|
|
9.
|
Manipur
|
4.52
|
2
|
1.96
|
98.08%
|
|
10.
|
Gujarat
|
92.92
|
11.15
|
10.93
|
98.03%
|
|
11.
|
Maharashtra
|
1,42.36
|
39.29
|
37.15
|
94.55%
|
|
12.
|
Jammu&Kashmir
|
18.16
|
2.32
|
2.16
|
92.72%
|
|
13.
|
Odisha
|
85.67
|
17.1
|
15.46
|
90.44%
|
|
14.
|
ArunachalPradesh
|
2.18
|
0.77
|
0.65
|
84.57%
|
|
15.
|
MadhyaPradesh
|
1,23.05
|
26.27
|
19.89
|
75.73%
|
|
16.
|
Bihar
|
1,96.88
|
1,50.92
|
1,03.41
|
68.52%
|
|
17.
|
Sikkim
|
1.05
|
0.17
|
0.1
|
60.89%
|
|
18.
|
Puducherry
|
1.15
|
0.15
|
0.08
|
55.56%
|
|
19.
|
UttarPradesh
|
263.39
|
35
|
19.16
|
54.74%
|
|
20.
|
TamilNadu
|
1,26.89
|
33.94
|
16.13
|
47.53%
|
|
21.
|
Tripura
|
8.01
|
3.2
|
1.42
|
44.38%
|
|
22.
|
Meghalaya
|
5.9
|
2.04
|
0.87
|
42.80%
|
|
23.
|
AndhraPradesh
|
95.66
|
32.02
|
12.98
|
40.53%
|
|
24.
|
Assam
|
63.35
|
13.15
|
5.07
|
38.54%
|
|
25.
|
Rajasthan
|
1,01.32
|
20.7
|
6.77
|
32.72%
|
|
26.
|
Nagaland
|
3.86
|
1.47
|
0.48
|
32.37%
|
|
27.
|
Jharkhand
|
58.96
|
12.87
|
3
|
23.29%
|
|
28.
|
WestBengal
|
1,63.26
|
55.58
|
12.48
|
22.45%
|
|
29.
|
Kerala
|
67.15
|
21.42
|
4.04
|
18.88%
|
|
30.
|
Karnataka
|
91.19
|
23.57
|
3.43
|
14.56%
|
|
31.
|
Ladakh
|
0.44
|
0.17
|
0.02
|
10.13%
|
|
32.
|
Chhattisgarh
|
45.48
|
20.62
|
1.51
|
7.33%
|
Souorce: jalshakti.gov.in Updated on 4th June, 2021
States Wise Details of Affected Districts with Ground Water Contamination by different Chemical Constituents
Source: Ministry Of Water Resources Government Of India River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation Updated On 24th July, 2018
STATE-WISE DETAILS OF GEOGENIC CONTAMINANTS IN GROUND WATER
Source : Goverment of India, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Updated on December 5th, 2016
Proportion (per 1000) of households having “sufficient” and “improved source” of drinking water during 2012
State/UT
|
Improved source of drinking water
|
Sufficient drinking water throughout the year
|
| |
Rural |
Urban |
Rural |
Urban |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| Andhra Pradesh |
919 |
975 |
865 |
876 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
962 |
984 |
803 |
783 |
| Assam |
851 |
928 |
961 |
945 |
| Bihar |
976 |
997 |
924 |
952 |
| Chhattisgarh |
948 |
936 |
804 |
841 |
| Delhi |
836 |
977 |
703 |
844 |
| Goa |
839 |
996 |
917 |
950 |
| Gujarat |
892 |
956 |
863 |
961 |
| Haryana |
926 |
923 |
958 |
913 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
958 |
1000 |
768 |
959 |
| Jammu & Kashmir |
806 |
979 |
744 |
848 |
| Jharkhand |
644 |
883 |
703 |
793 |
| Karnataka |
951 |
960 |
750 |
795 |
| Kerala |
295 |
568 |
860 |
916 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
832 |
971 |
762 |
762 |
| Maharashtra |
855 |
987 |
735 |
931 |
| Manipur |
570 |
698 |
753 |
672 |
| Meghalaya |
704 |
945 |
731 |
640 |
| Mizoram |
868 |
991 |
845 |
890 |
| Nagaland |
919 |
906 |
161 |
275 |
| Odisha |
824 |
955 |
833 |
862 |
| Punjab |
995 |
997 |
931 |
908 |
| Rajasthan |
791 |
923 |
747 |
814 |
| Sikkim |
852 |
988 |
730 |
951 |
| Tamil Nadu |
940 |
950 |
932 |
925 |
| Tripura |
873 |
997 |
834 |
987 |
| Uttarakhand |
928 |
999 |
877 |
900 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
966 |
992 |
971 |
966 |
| West Bengal |
950 |
947 |
880 |
935 |
| A & Nicobar Is. |
824 |
1000 |
960 |
989 |
| Chandigarh |
999 |
1000 |
828 |
791 |
| D & Nagar Haveli |
946 |
935 |
878 |
980 |
| Daman & Diu |
874 |
909 |
824 |
995 |
| Lakshadweep |
215 |
849 |
1000 |
1000 |
| Pondicherry |
1000 |
915 |
1000 |
997 |
| All India |
885 |
953 |
585 |
896 |
Number per 1000 household having drinking water within premises and proportion of households travelling different distances to reach principal source of drinking water during 2012
State / UT
|
Households having drinking water facilities within premises
|
Distance household members have to travel to reach principal source of drinking water
|
| Less than 0.2 K.m |
0.2 k.m *0.5 k.m |
| |
Rural |
Urban |
Rural |
Urban |
Rural |
Urban |
| Andhra Pradesh |
406 |
778 |
423 |
176 |
97 |
36 |
| Arunachal Pradesh |
523 |
920 |
282 |
18 |
14 |
0 |
| Assam |
791 |
922 |
160 |
55 |
40 |
16 |
| Bihar |
717 |
856 |
258 |
133 |
21 |
3 |
| Chhattisgarh |
173 |
619 |
636 |
149 |
186 |
31 |
| Delhi |
785 |
858 |
194 |
138 |
1 |
2 |
| Goa |
811 |
996 |
140 |
0 |
48 |
3 |
| Gujarat |
576 |
841 |
263 |
114 |
92 |
36 |
| Haryana |
717 |
873 |
165 |
108 |
53 |
13 |
| Himachal Pradesh |
538 |
944 |
366 |
52 |
69 |
4 |
| Jammu & Kashmir |
493 |
882 |
298 |
67 |
84 |
23 |
| Jharkhand |
186 |
659 |
491 |
221 |
275 |
94 |
| Karnataka |
357 |
819 |
541 |
146 |
85 |
19 |
| Kerala |
735 |
819 |
227 |
162 |
34 |
12 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
194 |
708 |
563 |
252 |
194 |
32 |
| Maharashtra |
468 |
874 |
381 |
100 |
83 |
15 |
| Manipur |
99 |
476 |
616 |
456 |
203 |
42 |
| Meghalaya |
233 |
676 |
552 |
240 |
145 |
9 |
| Mizoram |
7 |
0 |
128 |
9 |
908 |
1000 |
| Nagaland |
290 |
841 |
494 |
112 |
27 |
7 |
| Odisha |
191 |
722 |
608 |
221 |
154 |
32 |
| Punjab |
847 |
901 |
101 |
61 |
11 |
19 |
| Rajasthan |
396 |
830 |
322 |
85 |
150 |
37 |
| Sikkim |
781 |
949 |
137 |
31 |
40 |
3 |
| Tamil Nadu |
314 |
647 |
590 |
290 |
72 |
41 |
| Tripura |
386 |
821 |
476 |
170 |
82 |
1 |
| Uttarakhand |
546 |
858 |
291 |
124 |
118 |
8 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
581 |
776 |
383 |
177 |
30 |
15 |
| West Bengal |
301 |
490 |
547 |
384 |
132 |
76 |
| A & Nicobar Is. |
554 |
917 |
271 |
14 |
125 |
12 |
| Chandigarh |
890 |
779 |
110 |
198 |
0 |
23 |
| D & Nagar Haveli |
544 |
520 |
285 |
470 |
52 |
1 |
| Daman & Diu |
554 |
635 |
430 |
234 |
0 |
115 |
| Lakshadweep |
848 |
564 |
152 |
402 |
0 |
34 |
| Pondicherry |
799 |
878 |
201 |
119 |
0 |
3 |
| All India |
461 |
768 |
409 |
182 |
93 |
29 |
| All India |
405 |
745 |
480 |
228 |
92 |
20 |
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI)
Source: http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/kye_indi_of_water_Sanitation69rou_24dec13.pdf
Water Quality Data For River Ganga (Summer Average i.e. March-June)
Source: Ministry of Environment & Forests, Annunal Report 2011-12