Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Presentation on HMWSSB by Ex-MD MG Gopal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentation on HMWSSB by Ex-MD MG Gopal

1,687
views

Published on

Presentation on HMWSSB by Ex-MD MG Gopal

Presentation on HMWSSB by Ex-MD MG Gopal

Published in: Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,687
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Water - Issues faced in Hyderabad Metropolitan on behalf of Sri M.G.Gopal, IAS., MD,HMWSSB22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 2. Back ground• Formation of the Board• Historical neglect• Finite sources• Expanding and demanding City22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 3. Access Modes of WS 100% 0 0 7 90% 25 19 8 80% 50 70% 19 32 60% 50% 100 100 40% 85 39 30% 56 49 20% 10% 21 0% N.America Europe L.America Africa Asia Hyderabad HouseHold Conns Other Access No Access Global Water supply and Sanitation Coverage Report 2000, WHO22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 4. Manjira Phase-III (1991) 163 mld Water Supply Sources Manjira Phase-I (1965) 68 mld 735 mld 123 mld 620 mld204 lpcd 572 409 272 lpcd – 114 – 96 Manjira Phase-II (1981) Manjira 136 mldPhase-IV (1993)163 mld Now Osman Sagar (1920) 123mld 40 mld Himayat Sagar (1927) Himayat Sagar 82 40 mld 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 5. Issues• Inter sectoral allocation• Meeting the Demand• Maintaining Quality Standards• Reducing UFW• Recycle and reuse• Promoting RWH & Conservation• Implementation of CDS• Is ‘Privatisation’, a solution or a disaster?22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 6. Demand and Supply HMWSSB 350 300 250 200 MGD 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 PresentCapacity 153 162 162 162 162 162 GroundWater 25 25 25 25 25 25 Demand 230 240 250 260 275 29022.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 7. Demand and Supply HMWSSB 450 400 350 300 MGD 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 PresentSupply 153 162 162 162 162 GroundWater 25 25 25 25 25 Demand 230 290 328 360 40022.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 8. Allocation of Singoor Water HMWSSB 30 Balance Water Evaporation 5.02 60 MGD 25 Balance 4.61 20 TwinCities WS 6.96 15 Nizamsagar 10 8.35 Ghanpur 5 4.06 Siltation Losses 0 1.00 TMC Now 2.00 TMC ?22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 9.                                              Refurbishment Phase III Phase IV                                                                                 
  • 10. Fire Fighting Surya Enclave Shilparamam MADHAPUR RESERVOIR 5 ML GLSR Stone crushers Lumbini AvenueJubilee Enclave REACH - I (Ministry Training College) The King Temple SITE PLAN P Janardhana Reddy nagar Regional Telecom Training centre Sri Gayathri Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Co-operative Bank REACH I: MADHAPUR RESERVOIR TO ANJAIAH NANAGR RI/ 1
  • 11. HMWSSBKrishna watersupply scheme
  • 12. Alternatives Examined Krishna GodavariParameter Units Sris Nagar Srira Yella Incha Kanth Joora aila juna m mpall mpall alapall la m Sagar Sagar y y yLift mtr 570 412 479 326 501 463 495 MPower 45 40 45 45 60 70 70 WDistanc KM 152 186 131 200 170 270 270ePumping KM 10 77 92 200 170 214 184MainGravity KM 142 109 39 56 86Main
  • 13. Cost of Project CostPhase Details (Rs. Period (Years) Crores) Strengthening of WSPhase-1 1,000 5 years & Sew Systems Water from Krishna (Intake Well 1275 MLD,Phase-2 pipelines 615 MLD, 1,600 5 years Treatment & pumps for 410 MLD) Total 2,600 7 years (with overlap)
  • 14. Supply 135 MGD Salient Features of the old 2700 mm dia MS Pipeline scheme Length 135 km Water Treatment Plant 135 MGD Intake Well 280 MGD 16.5 TMC Draw 8.25. TMC
  • 15. Salient Features of the old scheme 624 mtrsPower Required 50 MWPumping 23 hours/day Head 479 metres in 4 stages 145 mtrs
  • 16. Unbundling
  • 17. KWSP Phase I (Stage –1)• Draw water from Akkampally Balancing Reservoir• Treat 45 Mgd at Kodandapur.• Supply to HMWSSB network• Transmission pipeline for 90 Mgd• To be completed by March 2004 (1Yr 4 Mths)
  • 18.                                                                   Sunkisula           DATE OF CURRENT UPDATION DATE OF FIRST DRAWN 16 - 04 - 2001 10 - 11 - 2000 CENTRAL DESIGN CELL                                HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
  • 19.                                 624 mtrsPower requirementreduced to 15 MW Head reduced to 405.5 metres in 3 stages 218.50 mtrs                                                                         
  • 20. KWSP Phase – I (Stage-I)Cost of Project (Rs. in crores) Particulars Rs.Base Cost 725.27Interest during construction 22.92 TOTAL: 748.19
  • 21. Lake Water Utilisation
  • 22. THE PROJECT• The project has been conceived to serve industrial demand for water for process requirements using recycled water. – It is proposed to interconnect 38 lakes/ tanks in vicinity of Hyderabad, to evacuate, treat, and bulk supply water for non-potable use to industry – Primary water bodies include Hussein Sagar and Miralam Tank• The project would be designed to supply 120 MLD of water, with investments envisaged at Rs 200 crores (USD 40 million). – Presently, availability of water is 16 TMC. – To maintain hydrological balance and augment availability, drainage and sewerage outflows would be redirected, sewerage treated, and recycled
  • 23. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLYSCHEME IN HYDERABADHyderabad / Rangareddy District’s Lake’s Locations 37 Pedda Lake (Dindigal) 38 Chinna Lake (Dindigal) 2 Medchal Lake 4 Katwa Lake 6 Sultanpur Lake 5 Gadi Lake 7 Aminpur Lake 36 Shamirpet Lake 3 Baurampet Kunta 11 Gopi Lake 8 Baghameer Lake 9 Chandanagar Lake 26 Turka Lake 35 Gandi Lake 10 Peddcheruvu (Nlg) 14 Durgam Lake 7 Pedda Lake (Aminpur) 1 Foxsagar 34 Rampally Kunta 13 Maisamma Lake 12 Moosapet Kunta` Husain Sager 18 Nanakramguda Lake 16 Darga Lake 33 Laxminarayana Lake 19 Narsinghi Lake 17 Khajaguda Lake 20,21 Ibrahimbagh Lake 15 Kazi Lake 28 Mantrala Lake 22 Kokapet Lake 27 Gurram Lake 31 Sunnam Lake 32 Turkyemjal Lake 23 Umda Sagar 24 Pedda Lake (J.Palli) (J.Palli) 25 Venkatapur Lake 29 Devulamma Lake 30 Antaya Lake
  • 24. PROJECT INFLUENCE AREA Alwal Cheruvu Mullakatwa Mysamma Kukatpally Cheruvu Cheruvu Balanagar Kamuni Cheruvu Nacharam Tarnaka Uppal Musi River Lakes/ Ponds Lakes/ Ponds Industrial Area
  • 25. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR INDUSTRIAL WATERSUPPLY SCHEME IN HYDERABADHyderabad / Rangareddy District’s Industrial Area Sanathnagar Zone Moula Ali Zone Patancheru Zone Pashamylaram Medchal Patancheru Jeedimetla Jeedimetla Charlapalli R.C.Puram Zone Kukatpalli Moula Ali Sanathnagar Balanagar Mallapur Nacharam Uppal Vikarabad Mankhal
  • 26. NRW• For an operators approach• Study by WSP
  • 27. ISO Meter with MDPE fittings
  • 28. BFM
  • 29. Water Audit
  • 30. Quality• 0.2ppm to 0.5ppm of RC chlorine• Internally by the QAT staff – Average about 12,000 samples per month for RC – Where RC is absent Bacteriological analysis – Epidemiological surveys• Externally by IPM – Average about 300 samples per month• Due to negative pressure during non supply hours there was ingress of sewage into pipelines• The earlier practice of discarding first 10 minutes of supply no longer feasible.• Evaluation of outcomes by Dr Reddy labs – ADD cases 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 31. Water Quality – Raw Vs TreatedSl. Parameter Limits OsmansagarNo Des M.Per Raw Treated 1 Colour in H.U 5 25 Clear Clear 2 Turbidity in NTU 5 25 15-1000 <5 3 pH 7.8-8.5 6.5-8.2 8.1-8.3 8.1-8.3 4 T.D.S (mg/l) 500 2000 220-290 210-280 5 Alkalinity (mg/l) 200 600 140-170 130-180 6 Total Hardness 300 600 110-160 110-150 7 Chloride (mg/l) 250 1000 12-18 12-18 8 Fluoride (mg/l) 1 1.5 0.3-0.4 0-0.422.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 32. Water Quality – Raw Vs TreatedSl. Parameter Limits OsmansagarNo Des M.Per Raw Treated 9 Nitrate (as N) (mg/l) 45 100 0.3-0.5 0.3-0.510 Sulphates (mg/l) 200 400 4-12 3-1111 Iron (as Fe) (mg/l) 0.3 1 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.212 Arsenic (mg/l) 0.05 0.05 BDL BDL13 Chromium (mg/l) 0.05 0.05 BDL BDL14 Mercury (mg/l) 0.001 0.001 Nil Nil15 Lead (mg/l) 0.001 0.001 Nil Nil16 Bac.Quality:MPN/100ml 0-1 0-1 240-570 Nil 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 33. EPTRI results of Sources – Feb 2003• pH ranged from 7.8 to 8.9 in Raw and 7.8 to 8.6 after treatment• Colour ranged from <5 to 30 in Raw and <5 to 5 after treatment (Pt.Co scale)• No odour/flavour was observed in raw nor treated• Turbidity <1.0 to 11 in raw and <1.0 to <5.0 after treatment (NTU)22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 34. EPTRI results of Sources – Feb 2003• Total hardness ranged 97-178 in raw and 101 to 113 after treatment• The following were BDL in both raw and treated – Nitrates as NO3 00.5 mg/l – Phenolic compounds as C6H5OH – Mercury as Hg 20.5 ng/l – Cadmium as Cd 0.005 mg/l – Arsenic as As 1.0 µg/l – Cyanide ad CN 0.1 mg/l – Lead as Pb 0.1 mg/l – Chromium as Cr6+ 0.1 mg/l – Boron 2.0 µg/l22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 35. EPTRI results of Sources – Feb 2003• The following were ND in raw and therefore were NR in treated – Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons as PAH – Pesticides, Chlorinated 10 to 25 ng/l22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 36. Hotel Samples HMWS+IPM North of Musi (24/6/03 to 18/7/03) No Details HM BW+H BW SW WS M 1 Collected -98 18 24 21 35 2 Analysed -97 18 24 20 35 3 Satis -30 18 4 - 8 4 Un Satis - 67 - 20 19 27 5 % Un Satis - 82% 95% 77%22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 37. Hotel Samples HMWS+IPM South of Musi (26/5/03 to 12/6/03)No Details HM BW+H BW OPW R Mpl SW WS M W1 Collected -91 14 30 29 2 4 122 Analysed -91 14 30 29 2 4 123 Satis -21 14 5 24 Un Satis - 70 - 25 27 2 4 125 % Un Satis - 83% 93% 100% 100% 100% 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 38. ICE Factory HMWS+IPM 5/03 No Details HM OW+ BW OPW WS HM 1 Collected -9 9 4 7 8 2 Analysed -9 9 4 7 8 3 Satisfactory 9 2 2 6 4 Un Satis - 2 5 2 5 % Un Satis - 50% 71% 25%22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 39. Causes for Water Pollution HMWSSB  Intermittent Water Supply  PPCs crossing Strom water and Sewer Drains  Water supply pipeline leakages  Pit taps  Corrosion of GI pipes  Overflowing sewage  Insanitary conditions near dwelling place  Improper storage conditions  Unhygienic habits  Dumping of domestic wastes/sewage into sluice valve chambers 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 40. GI PIPE CI / RCC BOARD MAIN PIT TAP CI / RCC BOARD MAIN R O A D CI / RCC BOARD MAIN CI / RCC BOARD MAIN22.3.04 PLAN Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 41. Schematic diagram showing the pollution caused by PIT Tap////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 42. CI / RCC BOARD MAIN STORM WATER DRAIN CI / RCC BOARD MAIN R O SUMP A D CI / RCC BOARD MAIN CI / RCC BOARD MAIN22.3.04 PLAN Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 43. Pollution caused by corroded GI PPC crossing Stromwater Drains ................ .....22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 44. Pollution caused by corroded GI PPC crossing Stromwater Drains ................ .....22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 45. Pollution due to the holes in PPC22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 46. Sabzimandi – O&M III area22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 47. If the house is at higher elevation – Pollution in pipeline22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 48. Pollution in pipeline – due to leaking joints22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 49. Ideal Situation Sewer line Water lineStrom water line22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 50. Measures for Controlling pollution inDistribution System HMWSSB Maintaining adequate Residual Chlorine in Dist. System Water supply leakage attendance on day to day basis Ensuring that WS connections do not cross any drains Removing pit taps by increasing pressure Replacement of outlived and corroded GI pipes with MDPE Attending sewer line chokages on priority Regular watch on WS pollution complaints and according priority Distribution of chlorine tablets in slums and vulnerable areas Conducting awareness camps in schools,slums,disease prone areas 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 51. Tackling Pollution Cost effective way22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 52. Tackling Pollution effectively – Modified Structure DT CGM CGM GM GM GM DGM DGM Manager Manager22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 53. Surface Water line – to avoid pollution22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 54. Surface Water line – to avoid pollution22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 55. GE cases in Fever Hospital- Trend Reversed 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Jan Feb Mar Apl May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2000 1995 328 577 657 595 722 1079 1299 1030 596 636 416 418 396 546 882 878 1269 1407 1159 866 617 471 342 325 2001 1996 1997 312 361 607 571 692 669 758 684 511 448 363 355 2002 391 501 684 982 1366 872 933 1053 834 750 435 322 1998 2003 1999 327 381 495 630 1008 607 493 344 236 235 233 195 2000 236 285 439 432 512 678 867 294 151 123 93 75 2001 66 67 74 67 76 82 111 94 82 119 61 64 2002 49 17 12 4 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2003 3 6 4 0 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 122.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 56. WARD WISE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF INTENSITY OF G.E CASES FOR THE YEAR 1998 IN TWIN CITIES N 156/1099 48/1099 72/1099 198/1099 10/83 14/83 12/83 7 13/83 34/83 456/1099 169/1099 34/225 1/225 24 46/225 16/225 36/225 8 92/225 16/120 21/120 15/120 HUSSAIN SAGAR 52/120 16/120 6 98/1050 208/1050 232/1050 19/1050 1 98/1050 341/1050 22/140 86/591 31/140 11/140 116/591 18/140 73/591 10 18/111 152/1050 58/140 23/111 7/111 84/591 15/111 171/1161 48/111 3 232/1161 11 39/284 52/284 232/591 5 41/284 29/182 2 38/182 6/182 126/1161 36/284 9/126 78/182 116/284 20/145 26/126 31/182 26/145 172/1161 8/126 23/145 22/145 20/126 12 54/145 4 53/126 9 134/697 106/697 12/697 46/274 6/274 59/697 52/274 460/1161 15/274 43/274 20/151 102/697 17/151 29/151 112/274 15 23/151 108/511 62/151 82/511 13 14 33/511 79/511 284/697 16 32/179 11/79 28/179 14/79 19/179 24/179 9/79 12/79 209/511 LEGEND 76/179 33/79 21 72/441 92/441 22 24/441 25/166 36/166 23 15/166 22/166 69/441 68/166 14/133 2/133 17 20 9/133 28/133 184/441 21/133 60/385 59/133 24/385 81/385 23 54/385 Miralam Tank 19 166/385 116/288 42/788 25/788 164/788 18 122/788 319/78822.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 57. WARD WISE GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF INTENSITY OF G.E CASES FOR THE YEAR 2003 IN TWIN CITIES N 7 1/1 24 6 8 HUSSAIN SAGAR 1/1 1 10 5 11 3 2 12 4 9 13 14 15 1/1 1/1 16 22 LEGEND 21 23 1/2 1/2 23 17 20 1/2 1/2 1/4 Miralam Tank 2/4 19 18 1/4 2/222.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 58. Month wise distribution of Cholera cases in Fever Hospital 40 30 1995 1996 20 1997 1998 10 1999 2000 0 2001 Jan Feb Mar Apl May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2002 1995 1 4 4 14 6 4 25 39 4 19 14 4 1996 6 5 16 21 26 26 19 22 21 18 7 2 2003 1997 1 1 1 4 3 12 40 35 17 8 3 3 1998 13 8 11 5 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1999 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 5 2 1 1 0 2000 0 0 0 2 3 4 25 5 0 4 3 0 2001 1 1 2 8 4 14 35 27 15 20 12 2 2002 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 10 11 19 9 4 2003 3 1 13 16 1 3 32 9 0 0 0 022.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 59. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD GRAPH SHOWING THE G.E CASES REPORTED IN TWIN CITIES During the year 2001, 2002 & 2003 AS PER THE RECORD OF DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL & HEALTH, A.P.25 23 22 22 22 22 21 21 20 20 20 2020 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 15 1515 13 12 1210 9 8 7 6 6 6 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15/3 22/3 12/4 19/4 10/5 17/5 24/5 14/6 21/6 12/7 19/7 16/8 23/8 13/9 29/3 5/4 to 26/4 3/5 to 31/5 7/6 to 28/6 5/7 to 26/7 2/8 to 9/8 to 30/8 6/9 to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 4/4 11/4 to 2/5 9/5 to 6/6 13/6 to 4/7 11/7 to 1/8 8/8 15/8 to 5/9 12/9 21/3 28/3 18/4 25/4 16/5 23/5 30/5 20/6 27/6 18/7 25/7 22/8 29/8 19/92001 17 21 13 16 18 20 18 20 15 12 17 8 6 17 17 15 21 22 20 22 20 22 23 22 16 17 192002 2 2 0 1 1 6 12 2 9 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 0 0 022.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 60. Biological contamination H2S Strip TestO&M Bore well analyzedDivision Total Wholes Unwhole % Unwholesome ome someDiv - I 492 386 106 21.54Div – II 795 579 216 27.17Div - III 376 280 96 25.53Div - IV 976 815 161 16.49Div - V 582 431 151 25.94Div - VI 396 295 101 25.50Div - VII 470 354 116 24.68Total22.3.04 4087 Metropolitan Water947 and Sewerage Board Hyderabad 3140 Supply 23.17
  • 61. 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 62. 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 63. 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 64. Ground Water• Location specific structures suggested by APSRAC22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 65. HYDROGEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING OF HYDERABAD MEGA CITYCOLOUR MAP UNIT GEOLOGICAL GEOMORP DEPTH TO RECHARGE CODE SEQUENCE / ROCK HIC UNIT GROUND WATER PROSPECTS (Hydrogeo - TYPE (Represented in the map LAND WATER CONDITION Aquifer Type wells Depth Range Yield Range Homogenity Quality of Ground Recharge morphic unit) with numeric code) FORM TABLE (in S Based on material suitable of wells of wells in the aquifer water Water structures Represented (Represente meters) No. the LS-Loose DW-Dug (suggested) (Expected) success rate Potable (P) irrigated area suitable and in the map d in the map of wells availability of sediment Well BW- Min/Max (in (In LPM or of wells non potable (approximate priority with with observed water PR- Bore Well meters) CUM/Day) (Probability) (NP) range in%) PT- alphanumeri alphabetic (Rainfall & Permeable DVW-Dug Very high Percolation c code (color code) other rock FIR- cum bore High tank CD- indicates sources) Fissured well Moderate Check Dam ground rock FR- DTW-Dug Low SD-Sub- Remarks Water Fractured cum tube surface dyke prospects) rock WR- well IW-Invert Weathered RW-Ring well rock IR- Well TW- D-Desilting Imprevious Tube Well of tank rock R-Recharge Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AP-11 Quarternary Alluvium (11) Alluvial plain (15-20 mts) Good LS, WR TW/BW 50-60 150-200 Moderate P 10-20% RP, PT Alluvial plain is shallow at sediments recent sand 5 wells (High) peripheral zones. and Silt Exploration of ground water is high. VFS-81 Granite Pick & grey Valley fill 30 to 60 m 3 Good LS, WR BW 40-50 100-200 Moderate P 19-15% RP, PT Valley fill & the underlying granite 81 shallow wells (High) weathered zone together (VFS) (2 to 5 from the acquifer. mts) Exploration of ground water is more I-81 Granite Inselberg (1) - - - - - - - - - - Run off Zone RH-81 Granite Residual Hill 80-150 mts Limited FR BW 100-200 25-50 Low P - RP, CD Mainly run off zone. (81) Prospects limited to valley portions only. DH-81 Granite Denudational 150-200 Limited FR BW 100-200 10 to 25 Low P - RP,CD Mainly run off zone. Hill (81) mts. Prospects limited to valley portions only. PIC-87 Granite Pink & Grey Pediment 50-100 mts Limited FR BW 60-100 25-50 Low P - RP, CD/PT Inselberg acts as run off Gneiss granite-87 inselberg 5 wells zones. Prospects limited complex (87) to pediment only 5-8 mts P-87 Granite Pink & Grey Pediment 50 -100 mts Limited FR BW 60-100 25-50 Low P - RP, CD/PT Fracture zones may Gneiss granite-87 (87) 5-8 mts 5 wells suitable for ground water development prospects limited DR Dolarite - - - - - - - - - - - Act as barrier for ground dykes (DR) water development PPM-91 Peninsular Biotite & Pediplain 40-60 Moderate FR BW 60-100 75-100 Moderate P 1-5% RP, PT Weathering is not uniform gneissic Hom blend moderately 15 wells CD/PT ingeneral casing is required complex gneiss 91 weathered up to 10-15 mts. PPM 10-20 mts BPPS-91 Peninsular Biotite & Pediplain 40-60 Moderate FR BW 60-100 50-75 Low NP 1-2% - Low success rate of wells gneissic Hom blend shallow 5 wells due to shallow weathering. complex gneiss 91 weathered & Fractue zones are moer covered with suitable for ground water black soil development. But as it is (BPPS) 7-10 covered with black soils mts water quality will be brackish 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 66. Hydrogeomorphological mapping of Hyderabad Mega City• Map prepared showing – Geological sequence/rock type – Alluvium – Granite – Land form – Alluvial plains – Pediplains – Depth to Water table – 15 – 200 Metres – Recharge Conditions – Limited to Moderate – Acquifier Material – Loose Rock – Impervious rock – Type of wells suitable – BW/TW22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 67. Hydrogeomorphological mapping of Hyderabad Mega City• Suggested depth range of wells – 40-200 Meters• Suggested and expected Yield Range of Wells 10 – 200 LPM• Probability of Success rate of wells -Low- Moderate• Quality of Water - P/NP• Recharge structures PT/CD/SD/IW/Desilting/Recharge pit22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 68. 22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 69. General overview• Project title: HyWaMIS Hyderabad Water Management Information System• Project Partners: – City of Mödling (Coordinator) – City of Venice – City of Hyderabad• Start and duration: February 2003 - February 2005• Funded under the EU Asia - Urbs Programme
  • 70. Objectives and Project Purpose • General design of an integrated water management information system • Development of an initial „industrial module“ for Patancheru IDA as a case study – Comprehensible and transparent presentation of industrial emissions and water quality – Recommendations for pollution prevention and control
  • 71. What is HyWaMIS ? Hyderabad Water Management Information System• Comprehensive set of tools for retrieving and processing of environmental data.• Meta Data Base relating tabular information and a Geographical Information System (GIS) for management, analysis and visualisation of spatial data
  • 72. What are the benefits of HyWaMIS ?• Authorities and policy makers Transparent basis for decision making by • Integration of different information layers (different thematic sectors e.g. water supply and population density for regional planning measures) – decision support tool • Status reports • Thematic maps• Scientific institutions Access to various relevant information • User defined queries • Basis for scientific analysis• Public General information on the current water situation
  • 73. Concept for HyWaMIS
  • 74. HyWaMIS – Open System: open for further extensionIn accordance with stakeholder needs and requirementsrecommendations for system extension will be discussed: – Priority setting for the development of further modules (e.g. surface water, groundwater, contaminant transport, agriculture, land use etc.) – Processing and incorporation of monitoring network data – .....
  • 75. Sources Bore wells Dug Wells Tanks Canals Existing Future Total water requirement Potable Non PotableDomestic Cattle Agricultural Commercial Industrial Waste Water Waste Water
  • 76. 17.65 Bokalguda Patan Cheru & Bolaram Industrial Area ( Nakka Vagu Basin ) Aratla N Begampet 595 m 17.6 Lakdaram Dundigal R. F. Kazipalli 575 m Bachguda Shambhupuram Chitkul Borampet Pedda Cheru Sultanpur Mallampet Bolarum Krishnareddipet Pocharam 17.55 Muttangi Baspalli 555 m Patancheru Aminpur Biramguda Ramachandrapuram 535 m 17.5 515 m Mella Cheruvu 17.45 Osmannagar 495 m 78.15 78.2 78.25 78.3 78.35 78.4Topography and drainage map of Patancheru and Bolaram IDAs
  • 77. Study Area – Industrial Development District IDA IE Other Large & Small Total Total Estates Medium Scale Investment Employme Units Units (Rs Bn) ntHyderabad 1 3 1 20 7,200 1.6 62,500Madak 1 4 - 364 4,300 77.5 1,32,862Rangareddy - 30 - 470 19,153 95.9 2,38,000Total 2 37 1 854 30,653 175 4,33,362 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 90
  • 78. Existing Water Supply System - SupplySr. Area (Consumer type) Water Supply % Supply (MLD)1 MCH Area (Domestic & Commercial) 461 70%2 Industries and Bulk supplies 109 17%3 Enroute villages (Domestic) 11 1%4 10 Municipalities, Osmania University and 79 12% Cantonment (Domestic & Commercial) TOTAL 660 100% © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 91
  • 79. Proposed sewerage systemMusi River Conservation project  Nallah tapping schemes and intermediate pumping stations  Conveyance Main  Sewage Treatment Plants Details of proposed treatment plants Sr. Location of STP Capacity (in MLD) 1 Amberpet 339 2 Nagole 171 3 Jiaguda 21 4 Nullahcheruvu 30 5 Nandimuslaiguda 30 TOTAL 591 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 92
  • 80. STP Discharge Water Quality Requirements Parameters for treated water qualitySr Parameter Value, Mg/Ltr. After secondary After tertiary After Advance treatment treatment treatment1 BOD < 30 < 10 ppm < 1 ppm2 TSS < 40 < 5 ppm ND3 Fecal <10000 < 100 < 10 coliforms, MPN/100 ml © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 93
  • 81. Proposed usage of Recycled Water Recycled water Industrial use Agriculture GW Recharge22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 82. Reuse Options : Industrial ReuseS.No Description Value 1 Industrial Water Demand (MLD) 164 2 Industrial water demand for non-critical application 66 (MLD) 3 Reuse potential for industrial estates near proposed 25 STPs (Uppal, Nacharam, Moula Ali, Mallapur, Cherallapally) 4 Reuse potential for industrial estates near proposed 32 pipeline to Manjira reservoir (Balanagar, Jeedimetla, Patancheru, Sanathnagar) © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 95
  • 83. Proposed Swap Option I Water Balance (all figures in MLD) Generation UsageSNo Description Value SNo Description Value1 Sewage generated 591 1 Ground water recharge 4002 Treated waste water 530 2 Industrial reuse 27 3 Discharge into Musi 103 river Total generation 530 Usage pattern* 530*During subsequent years the industrial usage will increase & discharge into Musi river will decreaseaccordingly © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 96
  • 84. Proposed Swap Option IFinancial Indicators S.N Description Value o Sources of funds 1 Grant from NRCD (in Rs. million) 3461.5 2 Non-grant (in Rs. million) 1305.1 Total 4761.6 Indicators 1 IRR (including the grant portion) 7.4% 2 NPV (Weighted Average Cost of Capital - 8 %) Rs. 3054 million 3 Payback period (in years) 12-13 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 97
  • 85. Proposed Swap Option II Water Balance (all figures in MLD) Generation UsageS.N Description Value S.N Description Value o o1 Sewage generated 591 1 Pumped back to 496 Manjira2 Treated waste water 530 2 Industrial reuse 34 Total generation 530 Usage pattern* 530*During subsequent years the industrial usage will increase & discharge into Manjira river will decrease © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 98
  • 86. Proposed Swap Option IIFinancial Indicators S.N Description Value o Sources of funds 1 Grant from NRCD (in Rs. million) 3,461.5 2 Non-grant (in Rs. million) 11,416.2 Total 14,877.7 Indicators 1 IRR (including the grant portion) 5% 2 NPV (Weighted Average Cost of Capital – 8 %) (in Rs. Rs. (2,107) Million) 3 Payback period (in years) 8-9 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 99
  • 87. Proposed Swap Option III Water Balance (all figures in MLD) Generation UsageS.N Description Value S.N Description Value o o1 Sewage generated 591 1 Pumped back to 496 Manjira farmers2 Treated waste water 530 2 Industrial reuse 34 Total generation 530 Usage pattern* 530*During subsequent years the industrial usage will increase & discharge into Musi river will decreaseaccordingly © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 100
  • 88. Proposed Swap Option IIIFinancial Indicators S.N Description Value o Sources of funds 1 Grant from NRCD (in Rs. million) 3,461.5 2 Non-grant (in Rs. million) 10,734.5 Total 14,196.0 Indicators 1 IRR (including the grant portion) 6% 2 NPV (Weighted Average Cost of Capital - 8 %) Rs. (1,319) million 3 Payback period (in years) 7-8 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 101
  • 89. Proposed Swap Option IV Water Balance (all figures in MLD) Generation UsageS.N Description Value S.N Description Value o o1 Sewage generated 591 1 Ground water recharge 1662 Treated waste water 530 2 Industrial reuse 34 3 Discharge into Musi 330 river Total generation 530 Usage pattern* 530*During subsequent years the industrial usage will increase & discharge into Musi river will decreaseaccordingly © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 102
  • 90. Proposed Swap Option IVFinancial Indicators S.N Description Value o Sources of funds 1 Grant from NRCD (in Rs. million) 3,461.5 2 Non-grant (in Rs. million) 9,020.2 Total 12,481.7 Indicators 1 IRR (including the grant portion) 7.5% 2 NPV (Weighted Average Cost of Capital - 8 %) Rs. (170) million 3 Payback period (in years) 6-7 © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 103
  • 91. Evaluation of Options Parameter Option I Option II Option III Option IVFinancial sustainability (IRR) 7.4 % 5% 6% 7.5%Capital Investment (In million 4766.6 14877.7 14196 12481INR)Dependency on revenue throughsavings (notional revenue)Long term demand supplyscenarioSocial acceptabilityEase of ImplementationAccess and control of recycledwater channelsPublic health issuesEase of calamity handling anddamage control▲Highly favourable ▬Favourable ▼Not favourable © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 104
  • 92. National Water Swap Scenario 55% of the population would face water scarcity due to restricted water resource locally by 2050 Water Swap potential exists in the Urban localities with high population density Water swap potential in urban localities with population exceeding 1 million is close to 3944 MLD. The investment requirement would vary based on the reuse applications, quality of sewage water and terrain of the region. © PA Knowledge Limited 2001-xxx- 24/04/2001- 105
  • 93. Water - Non Availability is a Disaster22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 94. Why Disaster?• Non availability – In Adequate quantity – Of acceptable quality – At convenient times – At affordable prices• If not attended will be a political disaster22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
  • 95. Why Disaster?• Water has for too long been considered a free good. A free good that benefits not the poor, but the relatively rich of the developing world.22.3.04 Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board