Ganga For Moef Presentation By Sunita Narayan

4,616 views
4,389 views

Published on

Ganga-Yamuna Panchayat-Ganga For Moef Presentation By Sunita Narayan

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,616
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
108
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
143
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ganga For Moef Presentation By Sunita Narayan

  1. 1. Hydrocide Why our rivers are dying and the agenda for change g g
  2. 2. Background: Cleaning Ganga a national mission 1985: Ganga Action Plan launched GAP I: Rs 433 crore spent GAP II: Rs 615 crore sanctioned in 59 towns (Till 2007: Rs 254 crore spent) GAP II (tributaries): Rs 1120 crore sanctioned (Till 2007: Rs 740 crore spent) 3 main components: i t i t interception; di ti diversion i and treatment of domestic sewage Identification of industrial hotspots setting up hotspots, for effluent treatment plants
  3. 3. Cumulative result: Ganga is India’s most holy but most polluted river
  4. 4. Faecal contamination leads to bad heath -- high morbidity and mortality rates in people -- even ‘clean’ stretches have high levels of coliform
  5. 5. Re-formulated programme: Recognises different stretches have different problems
  6. 6. Upstream shocks: minimum water flows being affected by hydroelectric projects Less water means less assimilative capacity in the river to clean A ‘living’ river must have water to flow
  7. 7. Rivers need water No concept of environmental flow Hydro take store/divert/tunnel water Cities take water Factories and farms take water All take water, return waste to the river ,
  8. 8. Understand the political economy of defecation
  9. 9. Urban drinking water and sanitation challenge Cities are sourcing their water from further and further away – costs them money to pump; high losses in water transportation (roughly 20-50%) Cities are worried about water not about their waste Waste not treated goes into water of others – cities have to invest in cleaning water (Agra – chlorine) Can’t clean then they look for new chlorine). Can t source Costs of water supply means cities can subsidise some and not all. pp y Subsidise the rich
  10. 10. Current system: bring water (from distance); treat, pump, pipe to home, take sewage, pump, pipe, treat and sewage pump pipe dispose…river will be clean Should work. But: It is capital i t i it l intensive – creates divide i t di id between the rich and poor in a city. The state can subsidise some but not allall. Subsidises rich It is resource intensive – uses water water, creates waste. Adds to stress.
  11. 11. Cities in search for water Chennai: 235 km Chennai (Veeranam lake) and now planning to go farther 300 Km (Veeranam extension project). Veeranam lake Bangalore: 95 km (Cauvery) pumping 1000 m elevation. elevation Map of Tamil Nadu Delhi: 450 to 500 km (from Tehri d ) (f T h i dam)
  12. 12. Manjira dam 100 km Osman Sagar g Hyderabad Himayat 105 km Sagar Nagurjuna
  13. 13. Vaitarna cum Tansa 90 km Bhatsa 105 km Mumbai
  14. 14. INDORE YASHWANT SAGAR 30 km INDORE 70 km Narmada river
  15. 15. Jodhpur 204 km k Rajivgandhi lift canal JODHPUR
  16. 16. Need planning for city water-waste and plans for all waste treatment With increasing use of water in cities, there is increased waste -- 80% of water l t f t leaves our h homes as wastet But cities do not plan for waste disposal Almost all cities do not have underground drainage; only part of the cities drainage is collected or conveyed in underground drains In this way sewage is not intercepted and cannot be treated Cities do not charge for water or for waste that is generated. They cannot pay for O&M charges. System does not work d t k Cities treat partially; then this is mixed with untreated waste. Result is pollution p
  17. 17. Inefficiencies are high g Huge distribution losses in water supply – between 20-50 per cent. Losses add to costs, which recovery is difficult; Because cost is high cannot recover from consumer; Cannot invest in efficiencies and clean water for all.
  18. 18. Transportation costs are high. Distribution costs high. Cannot be recovered. Subsidy to some. Water inequity in Delhi. 3% population
  19. 19. Add: waste to these sums The more water we use = the more waste we generate. The more waste we generate = more money to collect, to g y , convey, to treat and to dispose The more waste we do not treat = polluted water and increased burden of health costs costs. Simple sums: but we can’t add up
  20. 20. If STP was the answer, pollution in Yamuna not a problem India has installed capacity to treat roughly 20% of excreta it generates Delhi has 40% of India’s installed capacity 17 STPs: can treat 2330 mld of waste Delhi generates 2,500 mld (DJB) or 3,700 mld (CPCB) Can treat: 93% or 62% But..
  21. 21. Underutilised: where there is waste; no STP; where there is STP; no waste
  22. 22. Drainage exists; but does not work. Drainage does not exist; does not work Cannot transport waste to the sewage plant. Sewage plant cannot treat. 5,600 km of drains in city; 130 km of trunk sewers; in poor , y; ; p state. Then: Large parts of the city does not have official underground official-underground drainage system Large parts of the city lives in unauthorised-illegal colonies
  23. 23. Unequal cities are p q polluted Half (or more) of the city is unconnected to the official underground drainage system; But “Illegal or unauthorised or unconnected” these will have excreta This Thi excreta flows into open (storm water) drains t fl i t ( t t )d i These same drains also carry treated effluents from sewage treatment plants to the river This ‘legal’ treated effluent is mixed with ‘illegal’ untreated effluent legal illegal Result: pollution
  24. 24. Take East Delhi Shahadra drain Discharges 16% flow or 20% of BOD load into Yamuna 2 STPs Yamuna Vihar: 45+45 mld treated. Kondli: 45+45+113 mld treated
  25. 25. But Treated effluents from Yamuna Vihar discharged into drain Drain carries effluents of un sewered colonies un-sewered Treated and untreated effluent then picked up at Kondli Treated again Discharged into drain which carries effluents of g unsewered colonies – in Delhi and Noida. Are we surprised: River stays polluted
  26. 26. But
  27. 27. Sewage treatment plants located far away from sources. Treated water mixed in same drain. Not reused.
  28. 28. Masani STP STP outfall CIS-YAMUNA TRANS-YAMUNA Kulu ka Nagla NAME OF DRAINS STP 1. MASANI NALA 2. SHAHGANJ NALA How sewage flows 3. CHAKRA TEERATH NALA 4. OCTROI POST NALA STP outfall in Mathura? 5. KRISHAN GANGA NALA 6. GAUGHAT NALA 7. CHINTAHARAN NALA 8. DAULA MAULA NALA 9. RANIGHAT NALA 10. SWAMIGHAT NALA 11. ASKUNDAGHAT NALA 12. VISHRAMGHAT NALA 13. BENGALIGHAT NALA 14. DHRUVGHAT NALA Intermediate Pumping Stations Main Pumping Station 15. AMBA KHAR NALA Sewage Treatment Plants 16. 16 SATRANGINALA Sewer Drains STP outfall 17. MAHADEOGHAT NALA 18. CANTT. NALA 19. DAIRY FARM NALA
  29. 29. Can we pay full cost? Can we design system for all? It costs Rs 5-6 per 1000 litres to supply treated water to us We pay Rs 2 20 per 1000 litres 2.20 Cost will increase if pollution increases. Upstream cities will do the same as Delhi Will cost Rs 30-40 per 1000 litres to take back our sewage; treat it; dispose it. (Hardly pay) Cost will increase as river gets more polluted. No assimilative capacity.
  30. 30. Cost of system is high. Cannot pay. Cannot subsidise all. O l rich C t b idi ll Only i h This is the political economy of defecation. The rich use water. Are connected to sewage system. Waste is collected. Even treated. But the B t they cannot pay for full costs.. pa f ll costs The poor use little water. Not connected to sewage system. Waste flows in open drains. Not treated. But if system not designed for all. Not affordable by all. Will not work.
  31. 31. Maths of national excreta 2009 CPCB estimated sewage from class I and II cities = Total sewage = 36,000 mld 36 000 Capacity to treat: 7,000 mld (20% of sewage) Sewage actually treated: 5000 mld (72% of capacity created) Gap: 31,000 mld of sewage p , g = 14% of sewage generated actually treated
  32. 32. Excreta maths of Ganga g Ganga Basin Total sewage generation: 12,000 mld Capacity t treat: 3,750 mld – 4700 mld C it to t t 3 750 ld ld Ganga Total sewage generation: 2900 mld Capacity to treat: 995-1017 mld
  33. 33. Challenge: cities are growing; water use is increasing; sewage load is higher and growing In 2003: CPCB estimates 2500 mld discharged in Ganga g g + 5700 mld in tributaries (of which Delhi is roughly 3800 mld) = 8200 mld of sewage in river
  34. 34. Treatment capacity created: GAP I+2: 995 mld on Ganga river + 1300 mld on tributaries = 2300 mld ld
  35. 35. + Yamuna (not under GAP/YAP funding) = 2310 mld =4700 mld Total STP capacity created on Ganga and trib taries capacit tributaries
  36. 36. Chasing sewage targets: cities find that sewage increases and capacity cannot keep up…pollution increases ll i i
  37. 37. More hardware being built.. g ..Not the simple answer to pollution 1.Cannot catch up with growing pollution 2.Do 2 Do not have the drainage in city to convey waste 3.Do not have plan f treated waste 3 for disposal 4.Cities cannot pay for waste disposal – more the water used; more waste; more under-recovery..
  38. 38. Indian rivers: same tales
  39. 39. Infrastructure will cost; cannot pay; cannot provide for all; will pollute
  40. 40. Water-waste connections: more water; more cost of treatment
  41. 41. Agenda 1: mandate minimum environmental flow in all stretches Rivers need water to assimilate the waste Even if we treat to existing standards -- 30 BOD, it is much higher than 3 BOD -- the standard for bathing quality water But increasingly we take water from rivers, return waste to it We trap the river between the barrages (Delhi, Kanpur) and then want it to flow Need a plan for what is minimum flow and how it will be ensured
  42. 42. Agenda: Cumulative impact assessment No overall planning for hydro-projects – Central projects/state projects No assessment of water availability and p power g generation p potential Need to stop all projects till cumulative impacts/water availability is studied
  43. 43. Action agenda 2: Monitoring g g 1. Quality of water in many places ‘tootoo clean’ to be true 2. Need to review our monitoring across the river; check how representative is station; check quality of sampling; q y p g analysis; 3. Need to review indicators -- BOD -- difficult to check with electricity 4. Set up community water monitors across p y the river
  44. 44. Take monitoring at Hardwar g • Monitoring stations at Haridwar under the Ganga Action Plan • Done by Pollution Control Research Institute (PCRI) of BHEL • Two locations • Haridwar Upstream (S t i hi Ashram) on the main river H id U t (Saptrishi A h ) th i i • Haridwar downstream (Mayapur regulator) on the Ganga canal • Sampling on a monthly basis for pH, DO, BOD, total S li thl b i f H DO BOD t t l coliform and faecal coliform, nitrite, nitrate, colour, odour, temperature
  45. 45. Ganga at Haridwar Ganga at Haridwar g Bifurcates into the Upper Ganga Canal After the Bhimgoda regulator, flow in the river is lean Upper Ganga canal Ganga river
  46. 46. No monitoring after the disposal of untreated waste Under GAP, the wastewater drains falling into the Upper Ganga Canal are intercepted, sewage conveyed to the 18 mld STP at Jagjeetpur. STP receives about 40-50 mld most of which bypassed into the Ganga
  47. 47. MoEF s MoEF’s monitoring station MoEF’s monitoring point station No monitoring after STP outfall into the main river About 30 mld sewage is bypassed by the STP
  48. 48. Existing national water quality monitoring network Water pollution monitoring stations increased from 480 in 1995 to 1245 in 2007. Groundwater Correspondingly, C di l 31% number of river Major rivers 45% monitoring stations also increased to 557 in 2007 from 400 during Creek, canals, drains 2001. 4% Lakes 9% Medium rivers 56 per cent of the monitoring 11% stations are on rivers t ti i
  49. 49. How adequate? Currently th main stem of th river G C tl the i t f the i Ganga (2,550 (2 550 km) is monitored at 34 locations This accounts for 6 per cent of the river monitoring stations. p g There are 141 stations in the Ganga and its tributaries constitute almost one fourth of the one-fourth river monitoring stations. In 2001, Ganga was monitored at 27 locations along the main river
  50. 50. Agenda 3: Design to treat all sewage 1. We need strategy for affordable sewage treatment; 2. 2 As building conveyance drainage always a problem should use open drains as treatment areas – plan for drains, not j p just wish them away 3. We need to plan for water treatment and also treated t t d water discharge t di h
  51. 51. Agenda 4: Plan for treated effluent 1. Once sewage is treated; reuse-recycle so that not added to the untreated sewage in drain 2. 2 Or put treated effluent into river for dilution – treat close to the river as possible -- need to check the assimilative capacity of p y river/waterway 3. Promote reuse so treat close to the source as possible. B ild where th ibl Build h there i waste. Wh is t Where you build plan for disposal or reuse. Will reduce costs of pumping; interception; treatment p p g; p ;
  52. 52. Next steps: Agenda for action p g 1. Review of monitoring stations; indicators; putting data in public domain 2. Review of city plans for different stretches of river (water-waste and affordable solutions). No clearance to sol tions) single hardware projects 3. 3 Mandate minim m flo in ri er minimum flow river No ‘soft solutions’ will work

×