CITY SANITATION PLAN GULBARGA - Home | … · CITY SANITATION PLAN GULBARGA ... Table 50 Salient Features Of Gulbarga Demonstration Zone 24X7 Water Supply ... Guidelines Of Total

CITY SANITATION PLAN GULBARGA

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA, HYDERABAD 2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................................................ 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 16

CSTF MEMBERS .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

FOREWORD (by CSTF Chairperson) ...................................................................................................................... 18

ASCI TEAM MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 20

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF CITY-WIDE SANITATION PLAN .......................................................................... 20

1.3 CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

1.4 CITY SANITATION PLANNING IN GULBARGA ............................................................................... 23

1.5 PROCESS, DETAILED STEPS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................... 26

ACTIVITY UPDATE ON GULBARGA CSP ..................................................................................................... 32

1.6 VERIFICATION OF MOUD CHECKLIST .............................................................................................. 35

1.7 CHAPTER PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 42

State Urban Sanitation Policies & Programmes – A review ......................................................................... 42

2.1 NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP) ........................................................................ 42

2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RULES, 2000 ......................................................................................... 45

2.3 KARNATAKA URBAN DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION POLICY, 2002 .................... 46

2.4 KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE

CORPORATION (KUIDFC) ...................................................................................................................................... 46

2.5 INTEGRATED LOW COST SANITATION (ILCS) .............................................................................. 49

2.6 ASHA KIRAN MAHITI (AKM) ................................................................................................................. 49

2.7 JNNURM .......................................................................................................................................................... 49

2.8 URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR SMALL & MEDIUM TOWNS

(UIDSSMT) ................................................................................................................................................................... 50

2.9 RAJIV AWAS YOJANA ................................................................................................................................ 50

2.10 URBAN STATISTICS FOR HR AND ASSESSMENTS (USHA)” ..................................................... 52

2.11 INTEREST SUBSIDY SCHEME FOR HOUSING THE URBAN POOR (ISHUP) ........................ 52

2.12 13TH CENTRAL FINANCE COMMISSION (CFC) ............................................................................. 53

2.13 NATIONAL MISSION ON SUSTAINABLE HABITAT ...................................................................... 53



Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Profile of Gulbarga City ............................................................................................................................................... 55

3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 55

3.2 LOCATION AND REGIONAL LINKAGES ............................................................................................. 55

3.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................ 56

3.4 Topography .................................................................................................................................................. 56

3.5 BRIEF HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................... 56

3.6 REGIONAL IMPORTANCE ....................................................................................................................... 57

3.7 economy ......................................................................................................................................................... 57

3.8 Demography ................................................................................................................................................. 57

3.8.1 Population Projections ................................................................................................................... 59

3.8.2 Population Density ........................................................................................................................... 60

3.8.3 Sex Ratio ............................................................................................................................................... 60

3.8.4 Literacy ................................................................................................................................................. 60

3.8.5 WARDWISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH POTENTIAL .................. 61

3.9 Housing Scenario ........................................................................................................................................ 64

Ownership Status ................................................................................................................................................. 64

3.10 Slums and squatter settlements ...................................................................................................... 65

3.11 Existing Landuse ......................................................................................................................................... 72

3.12 MUNICIPAL Governance .......................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Environmental Sanitation – An Assessment ...................................................................................................... 77

4.1 Sanitation Situation Analysis ................................................................................................................. 77

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 77

4.1.1 Household Sanitation ...................................................................................................................... 77

4.1.2 Slum sanitation .................................................................................................................................. 79

4.1.3 Open defecation areas .................................................................................................................... 85

4.1.4 community toilets ............................................................................................................................. 86

4.1.5 Public toilets ....................................................................................................................................... 88

4.1.6 school sanitation ............................................................................................................................... 91

4.1.7 wastewater treatment in Gulbarga ........................................................................................... 93

4.1.8 Septage Management ...................................................................................................................... 95

4.1.9 service level benchmarking indicators .................................................................................... 96

4.1.10 Waste water projections ................................................................................................................ 96

4.2 STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 98



Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 98

4.2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE NETWORK .............................................................................................. 98

4.2.2 coverage ............................................................................................................................................... 99

4.2.3 Outfalls .................................................................................................................................................. 99

4.2.4 Existing Drainage Conditions ...................................................................................................... 99

4.2.5 Local Flooding Areas/ Low Lying Areas ............................................................................... 100

4.2.6 STANDARDIZED SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS ................................................................ 101

4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................... 102

4.3.1 Primary collection and coverage .............................................................................................. 102

4.3.2 Street sweeping ............................................................................................................................... 104

4.3.3 Waste generation, Segregation, quantity and characteristics ...................................... 105

4.3.4 Secondary Collection ..................................................................................................................... 106

4.3.5 Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 107

4.3.6 Treatment & Disposal ................................................................................................................... 108

4.3.7 Institutional setup & Health of sanitary workers .............................................................. 108

4.3.8 Operation & Maintenance (O&M) ............................................................................................ 108

4.3.9 Service level benchmarking indicators ................................................................................. 109

4.3.10 Future demand and gap ............................................................................................................... 109

4.4 WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................................ 111

4.4.1 Source of water ................................................................................................................................ 111

4.4.2 Existing transmission, distribution and storage capacities .......................................... 112

4.4.3 Service coverage ............................................................................................................................. 116

4.4.4 Standardized Service Level indicators ................................................................................... 119

4.4.5 Future demand and gap ............................................................................................................... 119

Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 121

Institutional capacity and finance ........................................................................................................................ 121

Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 127

Sanitation Situation w.r.t. National Ranking Parameters ........................................................................... 127

6.1 SANITATION SITUATION W.R.T. NATIONAL SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS 127

Chapter 7 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 131

City-Wide Sanitation .................................................................................................................................................. 131

7.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 131

7.2. VISION AND CITY- WIDE SANITATION PLANNING ................................................................... 131

7.2.1 VISION STATEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 131

7.2.2 PRINCIPLES OF CSP ....................................................................................................................... 132



7.2.3 ASSUMPTIONS, NORMS AND UNITS COSTS ........................................................................ 134

7.2.4 VARIOUS OCCURRENCE OF ISSUES VERSUS CONSEQUENCES IN GULBARGA .... 136

7.3. SUBSECTOR STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................................... 138

7.3.1 OPEN DEFECATION FREE STATUS BY ENSURING ACCESS TO ALL (INCLUDING

POOR AND SLUM DWELLERS AS WELL AS VISITING POPULATION). ........................................ 138

7.3.2 Excreta Disposal and Waste Water Management ............................................................. 155

7.3.3 Improvement of Integrated Solid Waste Management ................................................... 166

7.3.4 Improvement of STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IN GULBARGA .............................. 170

7.4. ENABLING AND SUSTAINING STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 171

7.4.1 Awareness raising, hygiene promotion and community participation. ................... 171

7.4.2 Financing Requirements & Mechanisms ............................................................................... 178

7.4.3 Institutional Arrangement and Responsibility ................................................................... 181

7.5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 185

7.5.1 Monitoring and Review ................................................................................................................ 185

7.5.2 Launching Reward scheme: ....................................................................................................... 186

7.5.3 Incentives and Disincentives by MC/NPS ............................................................................. 187

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 188

Annexure .................................................................................................................................................................... 191

ANNEXURE1: TECHNOLOGY OPTION IN URBAN SANITATION ......................................................... 191

ANNEXURE 2: GOOD PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................... 197

ANNEXURE 3: REVIEWED POLICIES, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK AND

PROGRAMMES ......................................................................................................................................................... 200

Annexure 4: Building Application Receipt ................................................................................................... 204

Annexure 5: CSTF constitution in gulbarga ................................................................................................. 205

Annexure 6: First CSTF Workshop Proceedings,Gulbarga .................................................................... 207

Annexure 8: Secondary Data Formats – Profiling of the ULBs ............................................................. 211

ANNEXURE 9: Primary data survey formats ............................................................................................... 225

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:Broad framework of CSP ............................................................................................................................ 28

Table 2: Research techniques with the tasks identified ................................................................................ 29

Table 3: Surveys and sample numbers ................................................................................................................. 30

Table 4: Chronological details of activities concerning Gulbarga CSP ..................................................... 32

Table 5: CSP Content self-assessment ................................................................................................................... 35



Table 6: Guide for self-assessment of CSP CONTENT ..................................................................................... 38

Table 7: CSP Process Self-Assessment .................................................................................................................. 39

Table 8: Guide for self-assessment of CSP PROCESS....................................................................................... 40

Table 9: City Colour Codes: Categories ................................................................................................................. 44

Table 10: Cities and City Colour Codes ................................................................................................................. 44

Table 11: Schedule details of MSW rules, 2000 ................................................................................................ 45

Table 12 Population Data of Gulbarga City ......................................................................................................... 58

Table 13: Future population projections using various methods ............................................................. 59

Table 14: Future population projections ............................................................................................................. 59

Table 15 Population Density of Gulbarga ............................................................................................................ 60

Table 16: Wardwise population distribution and growth potential ........................................................ 61

Table 17 Details of Population, Households, Houses & Family size in Gulbarga ............................... 64

Table 18: Details of slum areas, CCG ...................................................................................................................... 65

Table 19: Existing land use analysis of Gulbarga – 2001 .............................................................................. 72

Table 20 Sanitation arrangement Gulbarga ....................................................................................................... 78

Table 21: Details of sanitation in slum areas, CCG .......................................................................................... 79

Table 22 Details of OD areas , CCG .......................................................................................................................... 85

Table 23 Details of community toilet facility in Gulbarga ............................................................................ 86

Table 24 Details of Public Convenience Facility in CCG ................................................................................. 88

Table 25 Details of Schools in Gulbarga City Corporation ............................................................................ 91

Table 26 Various components of the STP ............................................................................................................ 93

Table 27 Proposed sewage Treatment plant in Gulbarga plant ................................................................. 94

Table 28 Service level Benchmarking Indicators ............................................................................................. 96

Table 29 Projections of Waste Water .................................................................................................................... 96

Table 30 Drains and Natural Channels ................................................................................................................. 98

Table 31 Low-lying/Flooding areas, GCC .......................................................................................................... 100

Table 32 Storm Water Drainage – Service Level Benchmarks, ................................................................ 101

Table 33 Solid Waste Collection Details of GCC .............................................................................................. 102

Table 34 Wardwise SWM details of GCC ............................................................................................................ 103

Table 35 Physical composition of waste in GCC ............................................................................................. 106

Table 36 Type and Frequency of Collection of Dustbins ............................................................................. 107

Table 37 Details of vehicles used for secondary waste transportation ................................................ 107

Table 38 Service level Indicators for SWM ....................................................................................................... 109

Table 39 Projections for Solid waste Management ....................................................................................... 109

Table 40 Overview of existing water supply system in Gulbarga City .................................................. 111

Table 41 Details of Service Reservoirs (Existing and Under Construction) ........................................ 114



Table 42 Details of service reservoirs in GCC .................................................................................................. 114

Table 43 Zone-wise Distribution system ........................................................................................................... 115

Table 44 Water quality maintenance .................................................................................................................. 116

Table 45 Sharanabasaveshwar Tank Water, Gulbarga City water sample analysis ........................ 117

Table 46 water testing results for bore wells and open well water sources, samples collected on

27-08-2010 .................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Table 47 Details of Water Tariff for Gulbarga City ........................................................................................ 118

Table 48 Service Level Indicators for Water Supply ..................................................................................... 119

Table 49 Projection of water supply requirement ........................................................................................ 119

Table 50 Salient Features Of Gulbarga Demonstration Zone 24X7 Water Supply ........................... 120

Table 51 BUDGET SUMMARY STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-2008 ............................................. 121




Table 55: Sanitation Ranking for Gulbarga City Corporation.................................................................... 128

Table 56: Goals for City-wide Sanitation Planning, Gulbarga ................................................................... 131

Table 57: Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies ......................................................................... 133

Table 58: Norms for Household Sanitation ...................................................................................................... 134

Table 59: Indicative figures in Household Sanitation Arrangements over CSP Implementation

Period ............................................................................................................................................................................... 139

Table 60: Estimation of Proposed Pay and Use complex (Each unit) .................................................... 141

Table 61 Indicative investment requirements, O&M Costs And User Charges For Public/

Community Sanitary Conveniences ..................................................................................................................... 143

Table 62 Priority wise details of wards for the determination of location of community toilets

............................................................................................................................................................................................. 146

Table 63: Addressing access to various categories of uses ....................................................................... 151

Table 64: Management Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 152

Table 65: Intended benefits for the six technology systems. ................................................................... 156

Table 66: Waste water treatment options for Non UGD areas ................................................................. 156

Table 67: Starters for UGD ....................................................................................................................................... 157

Table 68: Degree of Treatment Needed for Land Application .................................................................. 161

Table 69: Cost of Construction of the Wastewater Treatment system ................................................. 163

Table 70:Cost of Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................. 164

Table 71: Land Requirement .................................................................................................................................. 164

Table 72: Projection of solid waste generation for future .......................................................................... 166

Table 73: ISWM Action Plan ................................................................................................................................... 167



Table 74: IEC and Advocacy Plan for Environmental Sanitation ............................................................. 172

Table 75: Methods and implementation of awareness activities ............................................................ 174

Table 76: Phase wise distribution of works .................................................................................................... 176

Table 77 Financial Requirements and Mechanisms...................................................................................... 178

Table 77: Comparison of Standards (issued by CPCB) with effluent values ....................................... 186

Table 78:Recommended sizes of septic tanks ................................................................................................. 191

Table 79: Reviewed Policies, Legal and Administrative Framework and Programmes ................ 200

Table 80: Functions of ULB...................................................................................................................................... 201

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 CSP Implementation Roadmap .............................................................................................................. 25

Figure 2 Process for CSP Data Assimilation ....................................................................................................... 30

Figure 3 Population growth trends, Gulbarga City .......................................................................................... 58

Figure 4 Type of House Ownership in Gulbarga ............................................................................................... 64

Figure 5 Organizational Structure .......................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 6 Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets ..................................................................... 77

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets ................................................................... 79

Figure 8 Condition of public toilets, CCG ............................................................................................................. 89

Figure 9 Sanitation details in Schools of Gulbarga City Corporation ...................................................... 91

Figure 10 Water supply facilities in schools of GCC ........................................................................................ 92

Figure 11 Category wise waste generation & collection ............................................................................. 105

Figure 12 Category of waste generated in GCC ............................................................................................... 105

Figure 13 Budget Estimate of Revenue receipts & Payments ................................................................... 126

Figure 14 Budget Estimate of Capital receipts & Payments ...................................................................... 126

Figure 15: Components of CSP strategies .......................................................................................................... 137

Figure 16: Connecting to UGD – typical layout ................................................................................................ 158

Figure 17: Proposed institutional set-up for sanitation .............................................................................. 184

LIST OF MAPS Map 1 Location of Gulbarga city .............................................................................................................................. 55

Map 2 Regional linkages of Gulbarga .................................................................................................................... 55

Map 3 Showing the density range(persons/hectare),CCG ward wise ..................................................... 63

Map 4 Location map of slum & Non-slum areas ............................................................................................... 71

Map 5 Location map of identified open defecation ward ............................................................................. 85



Map 6 Location of community & Public toilets ................................................................................................. 90

Map 7 Location map of water logging areas, CCG .......................................................................................... 100

Map 8: Proposed locations for new public toilets .......................................................................................... 145

Map 9 Probable spatial locations of community toilets .............................................................................. 148



LIST OF INFORMATION BOXES Information Box 1: National Urban Sanitation Policy (Nusp) ..................................................................... 21

Information Box 2: Definitions Of Household Sanitation Arrangements According To Census

2001 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

Information Box 3: Guidelines Of Total Sanitation Campaign(Tsc) For School Sanitation............ 92

Information Box 4: Septic Tank Maintenance Norms .................................................................................... 95

Information Box 5: Sewerage And Sanitation – The Key Observations .................................................. 97

Information Box 6: Storm Water Drainage – The Key Observations ..................................................... 101

Information Box 7: Initiatives By The Governement For Swm ................................................................ 110

Information Box 8: Solid Waste Management– The Key Observations ................................................ 110

Information Box 9: Assumptions For City Sanitation Plan ......................................................................... 134

Information Box 10: Finance Options Models For Community Latrines .............................................. 148

Information Box 11: Proposed Scheme For Mechanical Aid For Cleaning Of Sewers And Septic

Tanks (Smacss) ............................................................................................................................................................. 179

Information Box 12: Tools To Measure 100% Sanitation Milestone Achievements ....................... 185

Information Box 13: The Condominial Sewerage System In Brazil ........................................................ 198



ABBREVIATIONS

ASCI Administrative Staff College of India

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BOT Buy-Own-Operate

BPL Below Poverty Line

BSUP Basic Services to the Urban Poor

CAA Constitution Amendment Act

CD&MA Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization

CSP City Sanitation Plan

CT Community Toilets

CTF City sanitation Task Force

DMA Directorate of Municipal Administration

DMHO District Medical Health Officer

DPR Detailed Project Report

ELSR Elevated Service Reservoir

FGD Focus Group Discussions

FY Financial Year

GIS Geographic Information System

GoK Government of Karnataka

GoI Government of India

HHs Households

HSC House Service Connections

IEC Information, Education, Communication

ILCS Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

JnNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MAUD Municipal Administration and Urban Development

MSL Mean Sea Level

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

GCC Gulbarga City Corporation

NRW Non Revenue Water

NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy

ODF Open Defecation

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PHED Public Health and Engineering Department

PSP Public Stand Posts

RVM Rajiv Vidya Mission

RWA Residents Welfare Association

SI Sanitary Inspector

SLB Service Level Benchmarking

SJSRY Swarna Jayanti Shehri Rojgar Yojana

SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

SSHE School Sanitation and Hygiene Education

STP Sewage Treatment Plant



SWM Solid Waste Management

ULB Urban Local Body

UGD Under Ground Drainage

WC Water Closet

Units of Measure

lpcd litres per capita per day

m metre

MLD Million Litres per Day

MT Metric Tons

sq.m square metre

TPD Tonnes per Day





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents City Sanitation Plan (CSP) of Gulbarga City Corporation. Gulbarga is one

of the 8 cities whose CSPs have been prepared by ASCI in partnership with Directorate of

Municipal Administration (DMA), Government of Karnataka and City Managers’ Association,

Karnataka (CMAK)

The CSP process in Gulbarga endeavors to identify the various areas that are affected by various

issues with different sectors of sanitation, (viz. sewerage, solid waste management, storm water

drainage and water supply) and also to provide guidance towards the solutions of the said

issues.

This has been made possible through an extensive participatory approach including field visits,

repeated discussions with various stakeholders, sample surveys, etc. Acquiring and assimilation

of varied secondary information also formed an important part of the process.

The plan preparation process was carried out using methodology requiring wide range of data

in various areas and population groups, to develop robust analysis and produce outputs. The

data collection included both primary and secondary sources and detail analysis of them.

The analysis in turn has paved the way for the preparation of the proposal for various strategies

to alleviate the sanitary conditions of the place, so that Gulbarga may well overcome the various

plaguing issues and thereby a healthy sanitized environment prevails for the citizens.

The report has two major sections –

A. The Situational Analysis

B. The Sanitation Strategies.

The former section deals with depicting the city and its present status with regards to

sanitation. The aim is to highlight the existing conditions regarding access and coverage of

sanitary facilities, identify the gaps and striking issues, and understand the behavioral aspects of

various sections of the society. This section is covered from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5.

The latter section thereafter provides strategies and solutions to bridge the identified gaps,

mitigate the existing issues, and provide ways and means to aid the sustenance of the existing

and proposed strategies and projects. There have been presented in Chapter 6.

A. The Situational Analysis

Chapter 1 gives an introduction to the CSP process, its background, and the objectives behind it.

This is followed by the step-by-step methodology of the CSP process, as well as the status of the

CSP for the particular city. The process of collection of baseline information – both primary and

secondary, has been explained at length. The chapter also presents a review of the policies &

programmes that are prevalent and followed in the state to improve the sanitation conditions in

the urban areas. It gives detailed insight into the NUSP and the sanitation ranking of cities, the

MSW 2000 rules, the ILCS projects, and other such projects which have been taken up for the

improvement of access and coverage of sanitary facilities.



Chapter 2 deals with the City Profile where the various aspects of the city are discussed in

order to get a fair idea about the city itself. Aspects such as location, regional linkages,

demography, economic, landuse and housing profiles, the urban governance, the slums and

squatter settlements are discussed in brief.

Chapter 3 forms the central focus of Section A – i.e. The Situational Analysis. The aim of the

chapter is to present a clear picture of the existing systems of sanitation in the city. It contains

four sectors – Sewerage and sanitation, Storm water system, Solid waste Management and the

Water supply system of the city. Within each sector, the gaps and issues in access and coverage

are identified, the problem areas are clearly demarcated, the performance of each of the sectors

is evaluated through Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) indicators, and projections are also

made for the future years.

Chapter 4 aims to evaluate the institutional capacity and the financial structure, to find out if

the ULB along with the associated organizations is able to cater to the sanitation needs of the

society, with regards to both adequate qualified personnel and adequate financial sources.

Chapter 5 presents the evaluation of the sanitation condition of Gulbarga City Corporation on

the basis of the indicators and the scoring methodology used by MoUD for the sanitation

ranking of cities.

B. The Sanitation Strategies

The strategies are presented in Chapter 6. It provides the vision for the CSP and its goals, and

the basic guiding principles on which the strategies are based. Thereafter, strategies have been

provided to improve coverage and access to sanitation facilities, to implement effectively the

various proposals, and options and mechanisms for effectively financing the strategies and

proposals along with proper phasing.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Water is Life and Sanitation is Dignity.”

The above quote well impresses upon one the fact that sanitation is the most important aspect

for a healthy and dignified living.

Often sanitation is considered to be synonymous to solid waste management, especially in the

ULBs. To set right this flawed concept, sanitation ideally can be defined as safe management of

human excreta, including its safe confinement treatment, disposal and associated hygiene-

related practices. With increasing urbanization sanitation is becoming a severe problem in all

cities in our country.

Hence there arises a need for integrated solutions to take account of the various elements of

environmental sanitation, fecal management and disposal, solid waste management; generation

of industrial and other specialized / hazardous wastes; drainage; as also the management of

drinking water supply. This is the main aim and purpose behind the preparation of City

Sanitation Plans.

We take an opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who have helped and

supported us throughout the process which made the completion of the report possible.

Extensive and rigorous discussions with the APMDP and the ULB officials gave a well formed

shape to the effort. Hence, their help and co-operation is very much solicited for the success of

the CSP.

The City Sanitation Plan for the city of Gulbarga looks forward to develop effective strategies for

safe disposal of solid and liquid waste generating throughout the city by suggesting

environment friendly low cost technical options for the same.

Prof. Srinivasa Chary Vedala

Dean & Director

Centre for Energy, Environment,Urban Governance & Infrastructure Development

(CEEUG&ID),

Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI)



CSTF MEMBERS

The City Sanitation Task Force (CSTF) plays a very important part in the formulation and

implementation of the CSP in a city. The importance of CSTF and their functions were clearly

portrayed to the authorities at DMA, CMAK and the officials from various ULBs at the State Level

Launch Workshop on 25th November, 2010. Based on the discussions from the workshop, the

ULBs formed the CSTF for their respective cities. The list of CSTF members went through quite a

number of revisions. The final list of CSTF members for Gulbarga is as follows.



FOREWORD (by CSTF Chairperson)



ASCI TEAM MEMBERS

The team which has put forth dedicated efforts towards the completion of this CSP report,

consists of the following people.

Prof. Srinivasa Chary Vedala, Dean and Director, Centre for Energy, Environment, Urban

Governance & Infrastructure Development

Mrs. Vasavi Narla, Assistant Professor

Mr. Anil Kumar Palakodeti, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Lakshmy Poorna, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Krithika Sridharan, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Sneha Mala Kesiraju, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Uzra Sultana, Senior Research Associate



Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND The National Urban sanitation Policy launched during 2008 envisages “All Indian cities and

towns become totally sanitized, healthy and liveable and ensure and sustain good public health

and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special focus on hygienic and

affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.”

The overall goal of National policy is to transform Urban India into community-driven, totally

sanitized, healthy and liveable cities and towns. Specific goals include:

A. Awareness Generation and Behaviour Change,

B. Open Defecation Free Cities,

C. Integrated City-Wide Sanitation,

D. Sanitary and Safe Disposal, and

E. Proper Operation & Maintenance of all Sanitary Installations.

Against this background, and in recognition of its importance to national and state development,

the Integrated City-Wide Sanitation Plan for Gulbarga City is prepared to provide city-wide

systematic approach and framework to achieve the goals contemplated under NUSP.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF CITY-WIDE SANITATION PLAN

The City Sanitation Plan (CSP) is aimed at developing and maintaining a clean, safe and pleasant

physical environment in Gulbarga city to promote social, economic and physical well-being of all

sections of the population. It encompasses plan of action for achieving 100% sanitation in the

city of Gulbarga through demand generation and awareness campaign, sustainable technology

selection, construction and maintenance of sanitary infrastructure, provision of services, O&M

issues, institutional roles and responsibilities, public education, community and individual

action, regulation and legislation.

The principal components of city-wide approach include:

(a) Collection and sanitary disposal of wastes, including solid wastes, liquid wastes, excreta,

industrial wastes, clinical and other hazardous wastes;

(b) Storm water drainage;

(c) Cleansing of thoroughfares, markets and other public spaces;

(d) Environmental sanitation education;

(e) Inspection and enforcement of sanitary regulations;

(f) Monitoring the observance of environmental standards.



INFORMATION BOX 1: NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP)

The Vision of the NUSP is:

All Indian cities and towns become totally sanitized, healthy and livable; and ensure and sustain

good public health and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special focus on

hygienic and affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.

To transform Urban India into community-driven, totally sanitized, healthy and livable cities

and towns, the policy sets out the following goals:

A AWARENESS GENERATION AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

B OPEN DEFECATION FREE CITIES

C INTEGRATED CITY-WIDE SANITATION

1. Re-orienting Institutions and Mainstreaming Sanitation

2. Sanitary and safe disposal: 100% of human excreta and liquid wastes must be disposed of

safely

3. Proper Operations and maintenance (O&M) of all sanitary installations

The policy envisages the preparation of State Sanitation Strategies within the overall National

Policy framework. In turn, cities are expected to prepare their city-wide sanitation plans that

need to be prepared in a consultative and participatory manner, and using an incremental

approach to addressing the issue of sanitation in a comprehensive city-wide manner.

Source: NUSP, 2008.

1.3 CONTEXT Karnataka has been declared as third most urbanized state in India due to rapid economic

growth and urban population increase witnessed in the last two decades. As per 2001 census,

34% of the state population lives in urban areas. Urban Local Bodies are responsible to maintain

water and sanitation services, once the infrastructure is created and handed over by Karnataka

Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWS&DB). In the state, 36 ULBs are provided with

partial underground drainage facilities, covering 24% of the urban population. Others rely on

soak pits, septic tanks and community latrines. In few ULBs, low cost sanitation technology like

DEWATS, eco-sanitation etc. is being explored as pilot project.

As per 2001 census, only 25% of urban households do not have access to toilets while the

remaining 75% of households have accessibility to various types of latrines. About 42 and 39

percent of households have access to closed and open drainage system respectively.

The state needs to renew its focus towards this problem and hence there is dire need for proper

planning, management and execution of sanitation related activities at ULB levels with the

active involvement of stakeholders. In view of the different institutional structure and different

sets of issues involved in the delivery of the services in urban areas, the need for a separate

policy statement for sanitation sector is felt.



In spite of various programmes implemented by the State Government and the Urban Local

Bodies (ULBs) the problem of urban sanitation has not been resolved yet. Therefore, the State

Government, as a decisive step to resolve the problems pertaining to Urban Sanitation, has

initiated the Karnataka State Urban Sanitation Policy (KSUSP) and City Sanitation Plans in

consonance with the NUSP. CSPs are envisaged to be prepared in a consultative manner for

enhancing ownership among stakeholders in the city. The cities selected for the aforesaid

purpose are as follows:

Bellary

Belgaum

GULBARGA

Hubli-Dharwad

Mangalore

Mysore

Shimoga

Tumkur

Most of these towns also embarked on implementing Under Ground Drainage (UGD) system

with huge capital investments while accessing projects under different schemes. At this juncture

GoK felt the need to review sanitation situation, problems and opportunities to improve

sanitation in these cities/ towns particularly and in the state. This will mandate and guide State

and all ULBs to plan for delivering sanitary outcomes.



1.4 CITY SANITATION PLANNING IN GULBARGA

CSP tries to detail out how the city plan is to deliver the sanitary outcomes defined in NUSP and

state strategy, in coordination with other line departments to ensure a well collaborated

approach engaging all stakeholders including governmental and nongovernmental service

providers. The scope of CSPs broadly encompass following major tasks:

A. COLLECTION OF SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data collection and review of available data from various sources as per demands of

City Sanitation Plan (the officials of City Municipal Corporations, Water Boards, or any other

parastatal agencies).

B. PREPARATORY WORK (PROFILING OF ULB AND PREPARING CITY REPORT)

As a preparatory work, a preliminary profiling of ULBs (Refer Annexure 5) will be undertaken

using SLB indicators and City Ratings to highlight the open defecation free (ODF) status,

sanitation situation, health indicators and current projects. This will also guide further

investigation through field visits and primary data collection.

C. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND CITY SANITATION TASK FORCE (CSTF)

CONSTITUTION

As per the requirement of CSP, major role is to be played by the members of institutions,

organizations, individuals, NGOs, academics, journals, local councilors, industry owners,

consultants, representatives of private sector, etc. Constitution of CSTF was facilitated by

drawing members from these groups in consensus with ULBs who will be constantly

supporting the CSP preparation by analyzing the strengths and competencies required to

overcome the current situation and for better sanitation facilities. Refer Annexure 4 and 4.a for

more information on CSTF and the workshop.

D. PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

Data collection to a limited extent through rapid field surveys, case studies, consultations,

transacts walks, FGDs, etc. to validate and supplement the secondary data(obtained in step 4.1)

The data will be collected as per formats/templates and questionnaires after brief orientation

to the stakeholders. Random stratified sampling in typical cases (slums, schools, wards

commercial places, public latrines, surface drains, solid waste arrangements, industries, health

and educational Institutions etc.) evenly distributed all over the town to cover all

representative types of situations.

E. REVIEW/STUDY OF THE CURRENT PRACTICES

This includes a review of sector strategies in water , sanitation and solid waste management at

state and city level. DPRs prepared on these sectors will be studied in detail and analysed. Also

regional and state urban strategies to know the dynamics of urbanisation pattern will be

looked in to.

F. CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Choices of toilet in the city and their effectiveness along with pictures on super structure,

below ground, design models and materials used for different uses like residential, industries,

public spaces and new areas. Field tests facilitation (soil percolation, waste water effluents,



water bodies’ contamination) in critical points in drains, ground water after a reconnaissance

survey which would also assist in gauging the situation where the information is not adequate.

G. WARD PROFILING AS PER CITY SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS

City as a number of spatial units will look at indicators pertaining to the practice of open

defecation, access to sanitation (individual, community and public), collection, treatment and

disposal of solid and liquid wastes, proper upkeep and maintenance of the sanitation

infrastructure, clear institutional roles and responsibilities and improvements in health and

environment as per the “City Sanitation Rating”.

H. COMMUNICATION GAP AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

IEC needs assessment will be carried out and broad communication strategy will be developed

in consultation with the ULB officials and other stakeholders.

I. DEVELOPING A SITUATION ANALYSIS REPORT

The situation analysis, prepared by taking into consideration the ground realities, local

conditions, and assessment of the present sanitation situation. It will include inputs from all

the above activities with the details of existing household sanitation arrangements, public

sanitary conveniences, wastewater disposal, solid waste management and water supply. The

report will also include an analysis of the ULB legal framework and byelaws, financial analysis

of the ULB, data on key public and environmental health, user charges, willingness to pay, etc.

J. FORMULATION OF VISION

This involves understanding the major aspirations with respect to urban development in the

State through consultations and building an overarching vision that may be appropriate to the

articulations. This involves following;

Secondary information, data analysis and report review

Brainstorming with key stakeholders and focus groups

Understanding visions of concerned sectors and other constituents e.g., cities and

development agencies and concerned authorities.

K. DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGY

This involves understanding the major issues of the sector, major priorities laid down and an

assessment of how the current arrangements are working with respect to urban development

in the city. Also, the key strengths, major weaknesses, potential opportunities as well as likely

threats would also be analysed to move towards the identification of the action

areas/intervention areas that form the strategy development. This involves:

Completion of information analysis, even with quick estimates, and review of

current policies and priorities

Consultations with key stakeholders/ focus groups concerning

Detailed discussion with departments/ agencies/ cities/ authorities

L. PREPARATION OF DRAFT CSP

Finalization of CSP along with recommendations based on the situation and solutions for

making city open defecation free and totally sanitized, public toilet and community toilets

models and operational models; proto - type design recommendation for all typical situations,

waste disposal mechanisms, starters for sewerage layouts and estimation of requirement in

terms of capacities, quantity and finances.



M. PREPARATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP

This involves identifying and documenting interventions for the improvement of sanitation.

The cost estimates of such interventions (only ball park figures); the institutional responsibility

as well as broad timelines for implementation will be indicated in the CSP.

Figure 1 CSP Implementation Roadmap



1.5 PROCESS, DETAILED STEPS AND LIMITATIONS

The process detailed below for planning urban sanitation and wastewater management

improvements offers a step-by-step guide for

As a preparatory work, a preliminary profiling of ULBs using SLB indicators and City Ratings to

highlight the ODF status, sanitation situation, health indicators and current projects was

undertaken.

Residents, establishments and ULB officials. Resident includes all those living within city can be

classified as HIG, MIG, LIG and slum dwellers. In smaller towns a division into higher income

group, middle class and Slum dweller could be sufficient. Shop keepers and commercial

establishments constitute a separate group especially for generation of market waste.

Step1: Preparatory works

Step 2: Stakeholder Analysis

•Profiling Of City •Stakeholders Analysis

Step 1 Preparatory Works

•Ulb’s, Water Boards, DUDA, Ngo’s etc Step2 Stakeholder Analysis

•Oranizing •Sensitization/Orientation •Workshop

Step 3 Sensitization/Orientation

•City sanitation task Force •Core Team - Technical

Step 4 Constituting Teams

•Social marketing approaches

•IEC training activities(ULB's, NGO's, volunteers, health institution etc)

Step 5 Initiating IEC activites

•Mapping current status •Identify Gaps

Step 6 Situation Analysis and Mapping current status

•Identifying stress zones •Assessment Of Options

Step 7 Problem Analysis

•Planning For Solutions •Selecting Options, New Facilities , Behavior Change

Step 8 Developing And Consolidating CSP

•Short, Medium & Long Term Goals/Measures To Achieve City Sanitation

Step 9 Formulation Of Action Plans

•Final Stakeholder Workshop Step 10 Finalization Of CSP



Opinion leaders to be targeted as a high influence group both for FGDs and implementation of

Communications strategies.

Key officials-Commissioners, sanitation inspectors, medical/health officers,

Councilors, Community elders,

City media: newspapers reporters,

RWA office bearers,

NGOs,

Safaikaramcharies union office bearers,

Heads of Commercial establishments and shopkeepers, including public places such as bus

stands

Slum residents

Residents from neighborhoods

School teachers, employees

School children

2. Parameters: three key parameters

Environmental Sanitation SWM: market waste, domestic waste, waste segregation at

source and at collection point, waste disposal measures

ODF: public toilets, individual latrines, toilet maintenance, disposal of human waste,

UGS: awareness, user charges,

Issues on these parameters as explored in primary data will create a basis for topics to

be raised in FDGs

With this background knowledge, a City level orientation workshop at city level involving

identified stakeholders was organised. Ms. Uzra Sultana represented the team from ASCI. It was

attended by the Commissioner, other ULB officials from other departments, and the various

concerned stakeholders. The purpose of the workshop was to highlight the need to engage with

issues relating to access and arrangement especially in slums; awareness generation for

changed behaviour and practices; community participation and mobilization to accord

sanitation priority at all levels from policy to action on ground; and a number of technical,

institutional and financial issues to be addressed in CSP and its various steps of preparation.

a. City sanitation Task Force (CTF)

The first step in making the cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about

sanitation in the mind of municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly,

amongst the people of the city. For this purpose, CSTF has to be constituted in the ULB and it has

Step 3: Sensitization / Orientation Workshop

Step 4: Constituting: City Sanitation Task Force

Core Team – Technical



to organize a multi-stakeholder, multi-party meeting in the preparatory stage, and take a formal

resolution to make the city 100% sanitized. CSTF has been constituted in Gulbarga City

Corporation.

The roles and responsibilities of CSTF include:

• Launching the City 100% Sanitation Campaign

• Generating awareness

• Approving materials and progress reports

• Approving the City Sanitation Plan

• Providing overall guidance

• Fixing of responsibilities on a permanent basis.

The objective of well driven IEC has to be demand-driven with social marketing approaches to

increase demand for toilets and ensure hygiene behaviours, promote no subsidies for household

toilets in future and encourage diversity in technology and design. For this purpose ULBs may

utilise suitable player for inter-personal IEC and training from the existing system like; ward

development committees, health institutions, schools, National Service Scheme (NSC)

Volunteers, the private sector (retailers, contractors, suppliers, plumbers, masons),

neighbourhood committees and NGOs, Angan Wadi workers.

The Situation Analysis, prepared by taking into consideration the ground realities, local

conditions, and assessment of the present sanitation situation has been undertaken and broad

framework is indicated below:

Table 1:Broad framework of CSP

Sectors Spatial units Finances Institutional

Service levels and

benchmarks for:

Solid Waste Management

Water Supply Storm Water Drainage

Health Situation –

Statistics and Anecdotal

Comment

Environmental Situation

– Local and Downstream

and Groundwater.

Household Sanitation Slums Public Sanitary

Conveniences School Sanitation Institutional

Sanitation Map spatially

Any town specific areas.

Cost Recovery–Policy–Tariffs–Collections–

Budget Transfers.

PPPs. Study of current

programmes (SJSRY, ILCS, etc

Institutional Arrangement – Policies, Plans, implementation, management.

Staffing, Organization &

Competence

Step 5: Initiating IEC activities

Step 6: Situation Analysis and Mapping Current Status



Tools Used: Data Templates, Survey Formats, Transect Walks along with schedules of

interviews (Slums, industrial areas, water bodies), FGDs (3-4 nos), Technical Analysis,

Impact, Indicators, Stakeholder Consultations at city level ( 2-3) etc.

Table 2: Research techniques with the tasks identified

Number Tasks Research Tools

1

To assess the current social and

environmental issues in Urban

Gulbarga

Literature review Baseline survey Case studies Consultations/FGDs

2

To assess the policies, acts,

operational procedures to address,

mitigate and manage the social and

environmental issues in sanitation.

Literature review Survey FGDs Case studies Discussions Stakeholder consultations

3

To assess the people’s perception on

sanitation, its maintenance and

investment (Analysis of data)

Literature review Secondary information review Case studies Analysis of Rapid survey data FGDs Stakeholder Consultations

4

To assess and recommend on the

existing institutional arrangements

in the urban sector in managing and

mitigating social and environmental

issues.

Literature review Stakeholder Consultations FGDs Survey data analysis

5

To evolve a social and

environmental framework to

mitigate adverse/negative impacts.

Literature review Stakeholder consultations



Process followed for data assimilation:

Figure 2 Process for CSP Data Assimilation

Sample survey results for the basic services

Purpose: The objective of conducting the sample field survey was to assess the services at the

customer level / field level and validate the information given by the officials.

Methodology: A total of 2389 samples were taken across the different parts of the city to

validate the information. The distribution of the samples is given in the table as follows.

Areas covered: The survey took spatially from all parts of the city, but the main focus was

given to the following areas.

Table 3: Surveys and sample numbers

Sl.

No.

Type of surveys Sample nos.

1 HH surveys 2389(Non-slums: 690,

Slums:1674,

2 Community toilets 20

3 Public toilets 10

4 Commercial places 10

5 Schools 50

6 Institutions 3



Visits in slum areas & public conveniences

Followed by situational analysis problem and challenges have been identified in coverage ,

access, treatment and disposal ,institutional , financial ,social and cultural aspects and capacity

concerns. Also reviewed comprehensive range of sanitation and wastewater management

options, including industrial and municipal sewerage, sewage treatment , conventional and low

cost, centralized and decentralized sewerage, separate and combined and effluent disposal

options, on-site sanitation options, separate programs for schools, public toilets, sanitation in

slums, community-based NGO-supported programs etc.

Purpose of options analysis is to identify plausible technical, financial and institutional

solutions and will consider (i) unit cost per beneficiary, (ii) maximizing both human and

environmental benefits, (iii) sustainability, (iv) a long term plan, (v) government policy

including land use zoning, (vi) piloting new approaches, (vii) beneficiary participation, (viii)

wastewater as a resource, (ix) lessons learned from the past and (x) political commitment.

Having completed above steps, CSP has been formulated to articulate Sanitation Goals, specific

quantifications both in terms of technical, capacities and financials based on stakeholder

consultations and the analysis of choices made depending on costs of capital investments,

operation and maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation.

Project priorities for sanitation need to consider:

i. Serving the Unserved Urban Poor

ii. Serving the Unserved Schools

iii. Serving the Unserved Public Areas

iv. Institutional capacity building for sustainability and environmental monitoring

v. Grant elements for demonstration pilot projects for eco-sanitation (private

vi. developers)

vii. Rehabilitation of existing facilities.

Step 7: Problem Analysis and Assessment of Options

Step 8: Developing and finalization of CSP



viii. Improvement of existing sanitation (septic tank sludge and effluent treatment).

ix. Extension of existing sewerage and sewage treatment (as a last priority).

ACTIVITY UPDATE ON GULBARGA CSP

Table 4: Chronological details of activities concerning Gulbarga CSP

Progress made Activity

1. State launch

workshop

held at Bangalore on

25th November 2010

The launch was aimed to

sensitize elected representatives

and administrative functionaries

on National Urban Sanitation

Policy and City Sanitation Plan.

Honorable Minister for Urban

Development, Government of

Karnataka had participated in

the workshop and delivered key

note address.

Launch workshop,

Bangalore

2. State level technical

workshop

held at office of

Directorate of

Municipal

Administration,

Government of

Karnataka on 7th

January 2011

The objective of the state level

technical workshop was focused

on sharing the understanding on

the CSP and its importance to the

ULBs. It was primarily focused

on the present status of solid

waste management practices,

sewerage system, water supply,

toilet facilities in the city. It was

also focused on the methodology

for the preparation on CSP.

Participants at technical

orientation workshop at

DMA, GoK

3. CSTF orientation

workshop

held at Conference

Hall of City

Corporation, Gulbarga

The workshop was intended to

introduce the CSTF members the

need for the constitution of CSTF

and their role in the preparation

of City Sanitation Plan. This was

followed by the group activity

among the CSTF members to

seek their views on the problems

and solutions in regard to the

sanitation in the city.



4. Preparation of

Inception Report

Submitted to DMA, GoK

in March 2011

An Inception Report was

prepared with the progress

made until the submission of the

same. In included the mention of

the activities since the State

launch workshop till the first

workshop with the CSTF

members of the cities under

preparation of CSP. Also,

illustrated the way forward

approach for the CSP.

Coverpage of the Inception

Report

5. 2nd round of CSTF

meeting held at the

Conference Hall of City

Corporation, Gulbarga

on April 12 2011

The 2nd round meeting was

intended to share the progress

made along with the clarification

and understating of the data to

be validated. It covered the

methodology adopted for the

primary survey, focused group

discussions, situation analysis,

etc., and the workable

suggestions from CSTF members

were taken into consideration

while following the methodology

and drafting CSP.

Participants at the 2nd

round CSTF meeting

6. Collection and review of

secondary data/reports

/documents

A review of reports or

supporting documents available

with City Corporation was done

for understanding of the existing

status and proposed

infrastructure of the city.

7. Preparation of GIS

layers with the

available base maps

The GIS base maps were

collected from the Karnataka

Municipal Reforms Cell,

Directorate of Municipal

Administration, Government of

Karnataka. The maps were used

to locate the problematic areas

like open defecation, flood prone

areas, community toilets, etc.

8. Primary survey The primary survey was done to

understand the current situation

of sanitation and verify the

secondary information collected.

The primary survey has given an

understanding of areas of open



defecation, flood prone areas,

water deficient areas, UGD

missing lines, etc. in preparing

the CSP.

9. Focused group

discussions

Conducting FGDs have provided

to identify problems at the

source. 6 FGDs have been

conducted in slum areas, market,

residential areas and slaughter

house. The FGDs have given an

understanding to prepare the

situation assessment of the city’s

infrastructure for CSP.

10. Draft City Sanitation

Plan

Comprises basic city profile,

demographic details, SWM,

water supply, waste water

treatment, sewerage network in

the city, situation assessment,

demand supply gap assessment,

municipal responsibilities,

financial assessment, etc. The

integration of the available

information along with the

outcome of primary survey and

FGDs has been used to prepare

the draft CSP.



1.6 VERIFICATION OF MOUD CHECKLIST The MoUD has prepared a common checklist for the preparation of CSPs by various

organizations for cities in various parts of India. This Checklist will help cities assess the quality

of the draft version of the CSP. The indicators in the Checklist are drawn to measure whether

the key dimensions of sanitation are addressed in the contents; and ensure that the process

followed in the preparation of the CSP was consultative and has full ownership of the city

stakeholders. This is a self-assessment and needs to be done in-house by the ULB. The results

should indicate the gaps in contents and process that need to be remedied – and thereby ensure

that CSP is ready for submission, and presentation as one of the model CSPs prepared for

implementation under the NUSP.

An attempt has been made by the ASCI team to prepare the CSP under the guidelines of the

MoUD checklist. The Checklist is in two parts: CONTENT and PROCESS. In the city self-

assessment, please fill in YES or NO in the relevant column, and provide remarks in the column.

A. Content Self-Assessment

Table 5: CSP Content self-assessment

No. Item Yes/No Remarks/Status

I

Baseline Data Collection & Situational Analysis in

terms of identification of short term or mid – term

or long term measures

1)

Has the city carried out a baseline data collection

(secondary and primary) and Situation Analysis of

different aspects of sanitation viz:

(Score

overall “Yes”

if at least

nine

indicators

below score

“Yes”, else

“No”)

i. Access to household level sanitation arrangements

in general residential and slum areas Yes

ii. Community and Public Toilets – location and

status Yes

iii.Safe collection and conveyance of human excreta

(on-site and sewerage) – infrastructure and

management (including status of de-sludging

services)

Yes

iv. Treatment and safe disposal of human excreta Yes

v. Solid waste collection, transport and safe disposal Yes

vi. Drainage and flooding Yes

vii. Drinking water quantity, quality and coverage Yes

viii. Institutional arrangements and finances for No Information on



capital creation and O&M

management of environmental services

(water, sanitation, solid waste, drainage)

institutional

arrangements not

available for

sanitation, water and

drainage.

Information on

finances and O&M not

available for any

sector.

ix. Current population and socio-economic

categories; and projections by different categories Partial

Projections of

different categories

not done

x. Arrangements and practices of commercial, public

and other institutions in respect of sanitation and

solid wastes

Yes

xi. Maps and physical features of settlements

(wards, slums, etc.) and key city infrastructure

(water, sewerage, drainage, roads, treatment plants,

water and sewage pumping stations, etc.)

Yes

xii. Data on health-related indicators of sanitation

and water supply No

xiii. Other important and locally relevant details

(specify) Yes

2) Has the draft CSP identified specific data gaps and

developed a plan for detailed data collection? Yes

II Institutional Roles and Issues

3)

Has the city identified an institutional home/s for

sanitation planning, implementation, monitoring

and regulation?

Yes

4) Has the draft CSP proposed specific actions to

resolve institutional gaps and overlaps for:

(Score

overall “Yes”

if at least

five

indicators

below score

“Yes”, else

“No”)

a. Planning and financing Yes

b. Creation of physical infrastructure Yes

c. O&M Management Yes



d. Training and Capacity Building Yes

e. Monitoring of Outcomes Yes

f. Communications Yes

g. Regulation Yes

III City-wide Sanitation Campaign

5) Does the draft CSP contain a plan for the launch of a

100% Sanitation Campaign in the city? Yes

IV Technology Options and City-wide design

6)

Has draft CSP detailed and evaluated different

technology options (on or off-site as well for

collection, transport and safe disposal – i.e. full-

cycle) for sanitation?

Yes

7)

Do the proposed sanitation interventions

(rehabilitation, retrofitting or new investments)

consider the whole city? (not just a part thereof)

Yes

V Urban Poor and Unreached

8)

Has the draft CSP identified the locations or

settlements of the urban poor and other unreached

population segments with have no or limited access

to sanitation?

Yes

9)

Does the draft CSP identify actions for assisting

unreached/poor households with individual,

community or public sanitation facilities (in that

order); and efficient disposal from these facilities?

Yes

10)

Has the draft CSP identified or

proposed sources of financing the CSP

(schemes, grants, loans, etc.) for extending access to

sanitation and related behavior change

communication activities?

No

VI Financing and O&M management

11)

Does the draft CSP consider an appropriate time-

frame and spatial and demographic dimensions to

remain relevant (at least for the 12th Five Year Plan

period, even if investment numbers are indicative

or work-in-process)?

Yes

12)

Were the different sanitation options

(hardware plus software) evaluated on the basis of

financial viability? (i.e.

Cost Benefit Analysis done)

Partial Cost benefit analysis

not done



13)

Whether O&M implications of each of the

investment options evaluated i.e. implications on

tariff increases and willingness to pay for services;

personnel number and capacities etc.?

Yes

14)

Has the draft CSP considered options

for partnering with private sector,

NGOs etc. for implementation or O&M management

of sanitation facilities?

Yes

VII Expedient and Other Actions

15)

Has the draft CSP identified the steps for

implementing improved enforcement of existing

laws and provisions? (e.g. prohibiting hazardous

discharge of untreated sewage, scrutiny

about sanitation arrangements before

issue of building permits)

Yes

16)

Have gaps and overlaps in existing regulations

identified for resolution?

(e.g. provisions in development regulations or

building bye-laws to promote sanitation including

safe disposal)

Yes

17) Does the draft CSP have a plan for improving

septage management? Yes

18) Whether the draft CSP includes an

Implementation Plan and Timeline? Yes

19) Whether the draft CSP has a disaster preparedness

component? Yes

20)

Whether the draft CSP identifies Short

term/Medium Term/Long Term Measures to

achieve identified outcomes?

Yes

21

Does this draft CSP leads to improvement of service

levels with respect of SLB related to MSW/Storm

Water Drainage/Solid Waste Management?

Yes

22) Outline of expected improvements on rating as per

NUSP? Yes

Table 6: Guide for self-assessment of CSP CONTENT

Minimum required score Acquired score

Please ensure that the draft CSP scores:

At least one “yes” in each of the 7 sections in the table And

An overall minimum score of 12 “yes” in the total of 18 indicators.

A total of 21 “yes” out of 22

indicators scored



B. Process Self-Assessment

Table 7: CSP Process Self-Assessment

No Item Yes/No Remarks

I Stakeholder Participation

1) A multi-stakeholder City Sanitation Task Force has been formed and has met at least sufficient consultations have been held?

Yes

2) All agencies working in the City (ULB, State Government, NGOs, private sector involved in planning, implementation, management or regulation of environmental services (water, sanitation, solid waste, drainage), representatives of different community groups, and key waste-generating segments have been consulted in the process of preparation of the draft CSP?

Yes

3) Number of Area Sabhas/Mohallas/RWA’s etc. consulted? Yes

4) Whether sufficient consultations have been held with urban poor groups in the city? Indicate the number.

Yes

II Ownership of the Draft CSP

5)

Has the draft CSP gone through an appropriate process of "appraisal" or "agreement" at the ULB and the City Sanitation Task Force?

Yes

6)

Is the draft CSP aligned to other plans of the city (CDP, Master-plan, Development Plan, etc.) and differences if any, highlighted for resolution in the CSP?

Yes

7) Are there are any current or pending/ proposed projects (under various schemes) that are in conflict with the recommendations and decisions in the CSP? Have these been highlighted for resolution?

Yes

III Communications

8)

Has the CSP process formally recognized the importance of communicating with stakeholders, right from the beginning of the process, and drawn up as a Communications Plan?

Yes

9) Have the basic steps of the communication plan started being implemented?

No

10 Level of awareness in the city about CSP (Indicate Yes/No)?



IV Links with Related Exercises

11) If the city is participating in the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) exercise, have the relevant indicators been measured and uniformity ensured between that and the CSP?

Yes

Table 8: Guide for self-assessment of CSP PROCESS

Minimum Required Score Acquired score

Please ensure that the draft CSP scores:

At least two “yes” in sections i and ii, and At least one “yes” in sections iii and iv in the table.

A total of 7 “yes” in sections i and ii

A total of 2 “yes” in sections iii and

iv

1.7 CHAPTER PLAN This section intends to present a brief overview of the CSP report, giving an idea of the content

and the purpose of the various chapters. The report has two major sections –

C. The Situational Analysis

D. The Sanitation Strategies.

The former section deals with depicting the city and its present status with regards to

sanitation. The aim is to highlight the existing conditions regarding access and coverage of

sanitary facilities, identify the gaps and striking issues, and understand the behavioral aspects of

various sections of the society. This section is covered from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5.

The latter section thereafter provides strategies and solutions to bridge the identified gaps,

mitigate the existing issues, and provide ways and means to aid the sustenance of the existing

and proposed strategies and projects. There have been presented in Chapter 6.

C. The Situational Analysis

Chapter 1 gives an introduction to the CSP process, its background, and the objectives behind it.

This is followed by the step-by-step methodology of the CSP process, as well as the status of the

CSP for the particular city. The process of collection of baseline information – both primary and

secondary, has been explained at length. The CSP process at Gulbarga has then been evaluated

on the basis of the CSP checklist as prepared by MoUD, GoI.

Chapter 2 presents a review of the policies & programmes that are prevalent and followed in

the state to improve the sanitation conditions in the urban areas. It gives detailed insight into

the NUSP and the sanitation ranking of cities, the MSW 2000 rules, the ILCS projects, and other

such projects which have been taken up for the improvement of access and coverage of sanitary

facilities.



Chapter 3 deals with the City Profile where the various aspects of the city are discussed in

order to get a fair idea about the city itself. Aspects such as location, regional linkages,

demography, economic, landuse and housing profiles, the urban governance, the slums and

squatter settlements are discussed in brief.

Chapter 4 forms the central focus of Section A – i.e. The Situational Analysis. The aim of the

chapter is to present a clear picture of the existing systems of sanitation in the city. It contains

four sectors – Sewerage and sanitation, Storm water system, Solid waste Management and the

Water supply system of the city. Within each sector, the gaps and issues in access and coverage

are identified, the problem areas are clearly demarcated, the performance of each of the sectors

is evaluated through Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) indicators, and projections are also

made for the future years.

Chapter 5 aims to evaluate the institutional capacity and the financial structure, to find out if

the ULB along with the associated organizations is able to cater to the sanitation needs of the

society, with regards to both adequate qualified personnel and adequate financial sources.

D. The Situational Analysis

The strategies are presented in Chapter 6. It provides the vision for the CSP and its goals, and

the basic guiding principles on which the strategies are based. Thereafter, strategies have been

provided to improve coverage and access to sanitation facilities, to implement effectively the

various proposals, and options and mechanisms for effectively financing the strategies and

proposals along with proper phasing



Chapter 2

State Urban Sanitation Policies & Programmes – A review

2.1 NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP)

“All Indian cities and towns become totally sanitized, healthy and liveable and ensure and

sustain good public health and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special

focus on hygienic and affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.”

Keeping this vision in view, the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) has been formulated by

the Government of India in 2008 with a vision to provide appropriate sanitation facilities in all

cities and towns, through policy, institutional, technical and financial interventions. Some of the

areas to address under NUSP include open defecation free towns, providing access to toilets for

poor people, waste water and solid waste treatment and disposal and achieving public health

outcomes and environmental standards.

2.1.1. COMPONENTS OF NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY

Govt. of India shall support the following components:

Awareness Generation

Institutional Roles

Reaching the Un-Served and Poor Households

Knowledge Development

Capacity Building

Financing

National Monitoring & Evaluation

Coordination at the National Level

2.1.2. NATIONAL AWARD SCHEME FOR SANITATION FOR INDIAN CITIES

Goal

In order to rapidly promote sanitation in urban areas of the country (as provided for in the

National Urban Sanitation Policy and Goals 2008), and to recognize excellent performance in

this area, the Government of India intends to institute an annual award scheme for cities. The

award is based on the premise that improved public health and environmental standards are

the two outcomes that cities must seek to ensure for urban citizens. In doing so, governments in

states and urban areas will need to plan and implement holistic city-wide sanitation plans,

thereby put in place processes that help reach outputs pertaining to safe collection, disposal and

disposal (including conveyance, treatment, and/ or re-use without adverse impacts on the

environment in and around the cities). It may be noted that the awards will not recognize mere

inputs, hardware or expenditure incurred in urban sanitation but assess how these lead to

achievements of intermediate milestones toward the final result of 100 % safe disposal of

wastes from the city on a sustainable basis. Cities will need to raise the awareness of city



stakeholders (households, establishments, industries, municipal functionaries, media, etc.) since

improved sanitation can ensure improved public health and environmental outcomes only if

considerable changes in behaviour and practice take place across the spectrum of society.

Concept of Totally Sanitized Cities

A totally Sanitized City will be one that has achieved the outputs or milestones specified in the

National Urban Sanitation policy, the salient features of which are as follows:

Cities must be open defecation free

Must eliminate the practice of manual scavenging and provide adequate personnel

protection equipment that addresses the safety of sanitation workers.

Municipal wastewater and storm water drainage must be safely managed

Recycle and reuse of treated wastewater for non potable applications should be

implemented wherever possible.

Solid Waste collected and disposed off fully and safely

Services to the Poor and Systems for Sustaining Results

Improved Public Health Outcomes and Environmental Standards

Rating and Categorization of Cities

The rating of cities in regard to their performance in sanitation improvements will be based on

set of objective indicators of outputs, processes and outcomes.

Three Categories of Indicators

The rating exercise will involve three categories of indicators:

1. Output Indicators: pertain to the city having achieved certain results or outputs in

different dimensions of sanitation ranging from behvioural aspects and provision, to safe

collection, treatment and disposal without harm to the city’s environment. There are nine

mainoutput-indicators accounting for 50 points of the total of 100 points.

2. Process Related: indicators pertain to systems and procedures that exist and are practiced

by the city agencies to ensure sustained sanitation. There are seven main process-indicators

accounting for 30 points of the total of 100 points.

3. Outcome Related: indicators include the quality of drinking water and that of water in

water-bodies of city, as also the extent of reduction in sanitation-related and water-borne

diseases in the city over a time period. There are three main outcome-indicators accounting for

20 points of a total of 100 points1.

Ideally, data for the above outputs, processes and outcomes are regularly collected by city

authorities but at present, very few cities will have, at best, partial data available. This rating

exercise will help in highlighting the need for regular data-collection and monitoring of

indicators.

On the basis of the said rating scheme, cities will be placed in different categories as presented

in Table 6. National rating survey data will utilize these categories for publication of results.



Table 9: City Colour Codes: Categories

No. Category Description

1 Red

Less than 33 Marks

Cities on the brink of public health and

environmental “emergency”; needing immediate

remedial action

2 Black

34 – 66 Marks

Needing considerable

Improvements

3 Blue

67 to 90 Marks Recovering but still diseased

4 Green

91 to 100 Marks Healthy and Clean city

On the basis of plans prepared and implemented, cities will be able to measure the results of

their actions, and be able to clearly chart out their improvements over time compared to their

baseline situation.

On achievement of remarkable results, i.e. coming into the Green category (Healthy and Clean

City), cities will typically become eligible for the national award. Other cities showing

remarkable incremental performance or selective achievements may also be given special or

honorary awards. Cities in different size-classes may also be considered for category-wise

awards.

Based on results of the Rating survey and selection of awardees, cities will be invited to

participate in a National Urban Sanitation Award ceremony.

A rating has been done by MoUD, GoI, for 436 Class I cities in India. None of the cities fall in the

green category. The distribution of the 436 cities in the said categories has been presented in

the table as follows.

Table 10: Cities and City Colour Codes

No. Category No. of cities

1 Red

Less than 33 Marks 204 cities

2 Black

34 – 66 Marks 228 cities

3 Blue

67 to 90 Marks 4 cities

4 Green

91 to 100 Marks 0 cities



2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RULES, 2000 The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1999 were published under the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In exercise

of the powers conferred by section 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of

1986), the Central Government hereby made the rules to regulate the management and

handling of the municipal solid wastes, 2000.

Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules) are applicable to

every municipal authority responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation,

processing and disposal of municipal solids. The Rules contains four Schedules namely;

Table 11: Schedule details of MSW rules, 2000

Schedule-I Relates to implementation Schedule

Schedule-II Specifications relating to collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW).

Schedule-III Specifications for land filling indicating; site selection, facilities at the site, specifications for and filling, Pollution prevention, water quality monitoring, ambient air quality monitoring, Plantation at landfill site, closure of landfill site and post care.

Schedule-IV Indicate waste processing options including; standards for composting, treated l lactates and incinerations.

The MSW Rules (2000) very categorically state the roles and responsibilities of ULBs, the State

Govt., the Union Territory Administrations and the Pollution Control Boards. The roles of the

ULBs as stated are as follows:

1. Every municipal authority shall, within the territorial area of the municipality, be

responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these rules, and for any

infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation,

processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes.

2. The municipal authority or an operator of a facility shall make an application in Form-I,

for grant of authorization for setting up waste processing and disposal facility including

landfills from the State Board or the Committee in order to comply with the

implementation programme laid down in Schedule I.

3. The municipal authority shall comply with these rules as per the implementation

schedule laid down in Schedule I.

4. The municipal authority shall furnish its annual report

a. to the Secretary-in-charge of the Department of Urban Development of the

concerned State or as the case may be of the Union territory, in case of a

metropolitan city; or

b. to the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner concerned in case of all other

towns and cities, with a copy to the State Board or the Committee on or before the

30th day of June every year.



2.3 KARNATAKA URBAN DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION POLICY, 2002

Good quality reliable drinking water supply and sanitation are essential basic needs of every

citizen. Increasing urbanization has resulted in greater pressure on the existing urban water

supply and sanitation systems leading to increasing demand on the one hand to augment the

source and improve distribution and on the other to increase the coverage of underground

drainage (UGD). At the same time, as stated in the State Water Policy brought out by the

Department of the Water Resources, there is an urgent need to conserve the limited water

resources of the State to ensure sufficient availability of water for various needs as well as for

the future. The Government of Karnataka in partnership with urban local bodies in the State, the

Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board (KUWS&DB) and the Bangalore Water Supply

and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) will continue and strengthen its efforts to provide all residents of

urban areas of the State, piped water supply and sanitation services at or near their dwellings.

The efforts of the Government of Karnataka and its partner agencies will be to:

1. Ensure universal coverage of water and sanitation services that people want and are

willing to pay for and

2. To do so in a manner that preserves the sustainability of the precious water resources of

the State, project and enhances the commercial and economical sustainability of the

operations at the same time

3. Ensure a minimum level of service to all citizens.

The Government of Karnataka will continue to be responsible for:

Ensuring provision of the bulk of the resources required for capacity creation

Regulation, monitoring and evaluation of the efficiency of operations, including

prescribing reporting requirements, procurement procedures, etc.,

Setting minimal service standard

Encouraging the use of public private partnerships as well as private sector

participation to achieve the sector goals

Promotion of the economic and commercial viability of water supply systems and the

exploitation of economies of scale and scope by appropriate aggregation options

Institution of necessary incentives for urban local bodies and other service providers to

implement sector reforms

Ensuring co-ordination and collaboration among the various agencies both at the policy

and operational level through the establishment of appropriate committees and

agencies.

2.4 KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION (KUIDFC)

State Government has appointed Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance

Corporation (KUIDFC) as the State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) under JnNURM to assist Urban

Local Bodies (ULBs), place proposals to SLSC for approval, manages grants, release funds to

ULBs, maintain revolving fund and monitor the physical & financial progress and reforms

implementation as committed in the Memorandum of Agreement.



Funds under the scheme would be released by the Central Government to the Nodal Agency

which in turn would release to the Implementing Agency in the form of loan, soft loan-cum-

grant or grant.

As per the guidelines, at least 25% (for UIG) & 10% ( for BSUP) of the funds released are to be

recovered and ploughed into a Revolving Fund by the nodal agency for financing of further

infrastructure projects and the fund may be upgraded to a state level infrastructure fund.

66 Projects with an investment of Rs. 4602.40 crore have been approved so far. Of this, Central

Government share is Rs. 2002.83 crore and State Government share is Rs. 709.53 crore, against

which the GoI has already released Rs. 1035.50 crore and GoK has contributed its share of Rs.

475.25 crore. Against the total releases of Rs. 1508.75 crore, an amount of Rs. 2503.59 crore has

already been spent (including ULB/IA share). 21 projects have been completed. 50.50% of

approved investment is for Water, Sewerage & Drainage Sector, 0.70% for Solid Waste

Management, 29.70% for Roads and Road related Infrastructure, 0.80% for Heritage & Tourism

and 18.30 % for provision of Basic Services to Urban Poor. For the urban poor, 28,118 dwelling

units will be built in 110 slums which would benefit about 1, 40, 590 people. Till date,

construction of 9548 dwelling units has been completed. 19 DPRs for an estimated investment

of Rs. 1670.07 crore are pending approval of the GoI requiring an ACA of Rs. 962.05 crore.

Further 22 DPRs are under various stages of preparation with an estimated cost of Rs. 4265.57

crore.

PROJECTS

Externally aided projects

Completed

ADB assisted Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Project (KUIDP)

Ongoing

ADB assisted Karnataka Urban Development and Coastal Environmental Management

Project (KUDCEMP)

World Bank assisted Karnataka Urban Water Supply Improvement Project (KUWASIP)

ADB assisted North Karnataka Urban Sector Investment Programme (NKUSIP)

World Bank assisted Karnataka Municipal Reforms Project (KMRP)

Other Projects

Centrally sponsored Mega City Scheme

Greater Bangalore Water and Sanitation Project (GBWASP)

2.1.3. KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PROJECT (KUDCEMP)

The Project will support the Government's priority investment in the urban sector, based on an

urban sector development strategy that focuses on improving the welfare of the urban poor and

the devolution of municipal management responsibility from states to urban local bodies. This

integrated urban development project will help meet basic human needs by developing urban

services for water supply and sanitation, solid waste and wastewater management, and slum

and environmental improvements. The Project will also support street improvements and

traffic management, and strengthen other municipal services required to improve the quality of



life in urban areas. The Project will provide assistance in capacity building and community

participation at the state and local levels and in Project implementation.

COMPONENTS OF KUDCEMP

Part A: Capacity Building, Community Participation and Poverty Alleviation

Training and technical assistance to urban local body staff

Community awareness and participation programme

Slum improvement and sites and services for low income groups

Part B: Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion

Rehabilitation of existing water supply systems

Providing new water supply schemes to increase the capacity and supply levels

Leak detection and rectification

Promotion of cost recovery

Part C: Urban Environmental Improvement

Waste water management

Underground drainage

Sanitation

Storm water drainage

Solid waste management

Land fill

Vehicles

Awareness

Community involvement

Traffic Management

Roads

Junction improvement

Rehabilitation of existing markets and other municipal facilities

Part D: Street and Bridge Improvement of existing roads

Construction of new roads

Associated road side drainage works

Part E: Coastal Environmental Management

Preparation of coastal resource management and conservation plans

Industrial pollution control and environmental monitoring programme

Urban water front rehabilitation plan for Gulbarga

Coastal erosion prevention through mangrove afforestation

Part F: Implementation Assistance

Support for systematic implementation of the project by appointing consultants for

design, construction, supervision and project management and procuring necessary

equipment and vehicles

KUDCEMP TOWNS



Ankola

Bhatkal

Dandeli

Karwar

Kundapura

Mangalore

Puttur

Sirsi

Udupi

Ullal

2.5 INTEGRATED LOW COST SANITATION (ILCS)

The programme envisages construction of new sanitary latrines in households not having

latrines by adopting the low-cost leach pit system, with an objective to eliminate dry latrines

and manual scavenging. The scheme is being implemented with 63% Hudco loan, 32%

Government of India subsidy and 5% of contribution of beneficiary. Initially during the year

1992 the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme was taken up in 34 municipalities,

subsequently extended the programme covering all the Urban Local Bodies in a phased

programme. The scheme was implemented in all 113 Urban Local Bodies with HUDCO financial

assistance.

2.6 ASHA KIRAN MAHITI (AKM) Asha Kiran Mahiti is a web-based application of the Karnataka Municipal Reforms Cell,

Directorate of Municipal Administration, Government of Karnataka. It has taken a major step in

the direction of mapping 3,400 notified and non-notified slums all over Karnataka and has the

socio-economic database of six lakh slum households across Karnataka. Based on this, it needs

to generate the social indicators, evolve plans and set targets for improvement in each of them

and measure the audit outcomes periodically.

2.7 JNNURM The aim of JnNURM is to encourage reforms and fast track planned development of identified

cities. Focuses on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms,

community participation, and accountability of ULBs/ Parastatal agencies towards citizens.

Objectives of JnNURM:

a. Focused attention to integrated development of infrastructure services in cities covered

under the Mission;

b. Establishment of linkages between asset-creation and asset-management through a slew

of reforms for long-term project sustainability;

c. Ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies in urban infrastructural services;

d. Planned development of identified cities including peri-urban areas, outgrowths and

urban corridors leading to dispersed urbanization;

e. Scale-up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal

access to the urban poor;



f. Special focus on urban renewal programme for the old city areas to reduce congestion;

and

g. Provision of basic services to the urban poor including security of tenure at affordable

prices, improved housing, water supply and sanitation, and ensuring delivery of other

existing universal services of the government for education, health and social security.

2.8 URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR SMALL & MEDIUM TOWNS (UIDSSMT)

UIDSSMT aims at improvement in urban infrastructure in towns and cities in a planned manner.

It shall subsume the existing schemes of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns

(IDSMT) and Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme (AUWSP).

Objectives of UIDSSMT scheme are:

1. Improve infrastructural facilities and help create durable public assets and quality

oriented services in cities & towns

2. Enhance public-private-partnership in infrastructural development and

3. Promote planned integrated development of towns and cities.

2.9 RAJIV AWAS YOJANA Scheme Objectives

The Government has initiated a new scheme called Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for the slum

dwellers and the urban poor. This scheme aims at providing Central support to States that are

willing to assign property rights to slum dwellers. The Government’s effort would be to create a

Slum-free India through the implementation of RAY.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) has prepared Guidelines for

Slum Free City Planning to assist the preparatory activities under RAY and this has been

circulated to all States/UTs. RAY calls for a multi-pronged approach focusing on the following

aspects:

• Bringing existing slums within the formal system and enabling them to avail the same

level of basic amenities as the rest of the town/city.

• Redressing the failures of the formal system that lead to the creation of slums; and

• Tackling the shortages of urban land and housing that keep shelter out of reach of the

urban poor and force them to resort to extra-legal solutions in a bid to retain their

sources of livelihood and employment.

Under the Slum Free City Planning guidelines, there is a requirement for the Urban Local Bodies

(ULBs) to build an inventory of existing spatial data available with various agencies. Often ULBs,

other than metropolitan cities, do not have centralized spatial data. Under RAY, it is planned to

have ‘Technical Cell’, which will have responsibilities to coordinate and collect data from state

governments, NRSC/ISRO, Survey of India, National Informatics Centre (NIC) etc. If the city base

map is not available, a base map of the city would be generated using standard guidelines set

forth under the project.



As given in the Slum Free City Planning (SFCP) guidelines, the preparation of Slum-free City Plan

will broadly involve survey of all slums – notified and non-notified; mapping of slums using the

state-of-art technology; integration of geo-spatial and socio-economic data; and identification of

development model proposed for each slum. To achieve these things, a systematic approach is

essential which will be useful for various other developmental planning initiatives for the urban

poor. The present technical manual details the steps to be followed for slum mapping using

satellite data, GPS, Total Station Survey in preparing GIS database, MIS development of non-

spatial data collected and integration of GIS with MIS to enable generating Plan of Action (PoA)

for slum free cities.

Rajiv Awas Yojana envisages that each State would prepare a State Slum-free Plan of Action

(POA). The preparation of legislation for assignment of property rights to slum dwellers would

be the first step for State POA. The POA would need to be in two parts,

Part-1 regarding the upgradation of existing slums and Part-2 regarding the action to prevent

new slums. In Part-1 the State would need to survey and map all exiting slums in selected cities

proposed by the State for coverage under RAY. In Part-2 the Plan would need to assess the rate

of growth of the city with a 20 year perspective, and based on the numbers specify the actions

proposed to be taken to obtain commensurate lands or virtual lands and promote the

construction of affordable EWS houses so as to stay abreast of the demand. This part would

need also to make necessary legislative and administrative changes to enable urban land

expansion, and in town planning regulations to legislate reservations for EWS/LIG housing in all

new developments.

Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for the slum dwellers and the urban poor envisages a ‘Slum-free India’

through encouraging States/Union Territories to tackle the problem of slums in a definitive

manner. It calls for a multi-pronged approach focusing on:

• Bringing existing slums within the formal system and enabling them to avail of the

same level of basic amenities as the rest of the town;

• Redressing the failures of the formal system that lie behind the creation of slums; and

• Tackling the shortages of urban land and housing that keep shelter out of reach of the

urban poor and force them to resort to extra-legal solutions in a bid to retain their

sources of livelihood and employment.

Slum-free City Cell in Urban Local Body headed by the Municipal Commissioner/Executive

Officer will be primarily responsible for the preparation of Slum-free City Plans based on

guidelines provided by the concerned State Government and support extended by the Nodal

Agency for Rajiv Awas Yojana at the State level.



2.10 URBAN STATISTICS FOR HR AND ASSESSMENTS (USHA)” Scheme Objectives

The Central Sector Scheme of “Urban Statistics for HR and Assessments (USHA)” aims at the

development and maintenance of national a database, MIS and knowledge repository relating to

urban poverty, slums, housing, construction and other urbanization-related statistics. Its key

objective is to support the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation and other Ministries

with an information base and knowledge inputs for the purpose of planning, policy-making,

project design, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, particularly in the

context of programmes relating to urban poverty, slums and housing. It seeks to specially

support the effective implementation of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission –

Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing & Slum Development

Programme (IHSDP). The four pillars of “USHA” are: database including MIS & sample surveys;

action research; impact assessment; and capacity building/training.

USHA will coordinate applied research and capacity building activities pertaining to urban

poverty, slums, housing, construction and other urbanization-related statistics in collaboration

with reputed research and training institutions at national, regional and state levels and experts.

Scheme Components

The following components are envisaged under the “Urban Statistics for HR and Assessments

(USHA)” Scheme for which funding support will be provided:

Data Centre and MIS on Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing, Building Construction and

related Urbanisation Statistics.

Knowledge Centre/National Resource Centre for Urban Poverty and Slums

Sample Surveys in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing & Building Construction

Socio-Economic Research Studies in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing &

Building Construction

Capacity Building & Training in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing & Building

Construction Statistics

Publicity & Awareness

2.11 INTEREST SUBSIDY SCHEME FOR HOUSING THE URBAN POOR (ISHUP)

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MH&UPA), Government of India has

designed an Interest Subsidy Scheme as an additional instrument for addressing the housing

needs of the EWS/LIG segments in urban areas. The Scheme envisages the provision of interest

subsidy to EWS and LIG segments to enable them to buy or construct houses.

BROAD FEATURES OF THE SCHEME

2.1 Purpose - The Scheme will provide home loan with Central Government subsidy to

EWS/LIG persons for acquisition of house as also for construction of house to such beneficiary,

who does not own a house in his/her name or in the name of his/her spouse or any dependent



child. Such beneficiaries who own land in any urban area but do not have any pucca house in

their name or in the name of their spouse or any dependent child will also be covered under the

Scheme.

2.2 Eligibility - The economic parameter of EWS is defined as households having an average

monthly income upto Rs.3,300 and the economic parameter of LIG is defined as households

having an average monthly income between Rs.3,301 upto Rs.7,300. This will be subject to

revision by the Steering Committee of the Scheme from time to time.

2.3 Loan amount admissible - The scheme will provide a subsidized loan for 15 – 20 years for

a maximum amount of Rs.1,00,000 for an EWS individual A maximum loan amount of

Rs.1,60,000 for a LIG individual for a house at least of 40 sq.mts will be admissible. However,

subsidy will be given for loan amount upto Rs. 1 lakh only. Additional loans, if needed would be

at unsubsidized rates.

In identifying beneficiaries, the ULB or the local agency identified by the State should as far as

possible identify clusters in which land has been allotted and housing can be supported through

this scheme within such clusters. The Preference under the Scheme (subject to beneficiaries

being from EWS/LIG segments) should be given to the following in accordance with their

proportion in the total population of City / urban agglomerate during the 2001 Census.

i. Scheduled Caste;

ii. Scheduled Tribe;

iii. Minorities;

iv. Persons with disabilities; and

v. Women beneficiaries.

2.12 13TH CENTRAL FINANCE COMMISSION (CFC)

Importantly, the report of 13th CFC released in February 2010 recommended general

performance grants and special area performance grants to be linked to performance of ULBs.

Moreover, allocations to ULBs would now be linked to divisible pool replacing the previous ad-

hoc allocation. It has recommended grants of Rs. 23,111 crores to ULBs during 2010-15, a four-

fold growth over the 12th CFC allocation. The 13th CFC recommends state governments and ULBs

to focus on improved property tax revenues, urban service standards, strengthened local body

framework, improved municipal accounting, introduce system of independent ombudsmen, and

put in place a system of electronic transfer of grants to ULBs among other things.

2.13 NATIONAL MISSION ON SUSTAINABLE HABITAT

One of the eight Missions as part of the Prime Minister action plan for climate change, is on the

National Mission on Sustainable Habitat was assigned to this Ministry. MOUD formulated the

Mission document through several round of consultations and discussions. The document was

finally approved by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change in June 2010. The objective

of the Mission is to promote sustainability of habitats through improvements in energy

efficiency in buildings, urban planning, improved management of solid and liquid waste



including recycling and power generation, modal shift towards public transport and

conservation. It also seeks to improve ability of habitats to adapt to climate change by

improving resilience of infrastructure, community based disaster management and measures

for improving advance warning systems for extreme weather events.

Under this cities are eligible for implementing demonstration projects in SWM, storm water

management, and Waste water treatment. MoUD is also identifying capacity needs and

earmarked lot of funds for this purpose.



Chapter 3

Profile of Gulbarga City

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Gulbarga is a city in the Indian state of Karnataka. It is the administrative headquarters of

Gulbarga District and of Gulbarga Division. It was formerly part of Nizam's Hyderabad state.

Gulbarga is 200 km from Hyderabad and 623 km north of Bangalore. Gulbarga is situated

between 76°.04' and 77°.42 east longitude, and 16°.12' and 17°.46' north latitude, covering an

area of 16,224 square kilometers. The population of the city is 4.3lakhs.The climate of the

district is generally dry and healthy with temperature ranging from 5ºc in the winter to 45ºc in

the summer, and an annual rainfall of about 750 mm.

3.2 LOCATION AND REGIONAL LINKAGES

Gulbarga is well connected via road and rail from Bangalore & other major cities in South India.

The Bidar-Srirangapatna State high way made road transportation easy to travel between

Bangalore and other neighboring states [like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa]. Gulbarga is

connected by road to most places in south and west India. Some of these are Hyderabad

(220 km), Bangalore (623 km), Bijapur (130 km), Bidar (120 km), Basavakalyan (80 kms)

Railways: Gulbarga is served by a major rail line and is well connected by trains to all major

parts of India. Like Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmadabad, Rajkot,

Coimbatore, Kanyakumari, Trivandrum, Nagarcoil, Bhubaneswar, Jodhpur, etc.

Air: The nearest airport is in Hyderabad (220 km). Now Govt of Karnataka has sanctioned new

Airport to the Gulbarga City. The construction at the site had started in July 2008 and shall be

completed in two years time.

Map 1 Location of Gulbarga city

Map 2 Regional linkages of Gulbarga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarga_District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarga_Division

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad,_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore



3.3 CLIMATE

The weather in Gulbarga constitutes of 3 main seasons. The summer which spans from late

February to mid-June. It is followed by the south west monsoon which spans from the late June

to late September. It is then followed by dry winter weather until mid-January.

Temperatures during the different seasons are:

1. Summer : 40 to 44 °C

2. Monsoon: 27 to 34 °C

3. Winter : 10 to 26 °C

The climate of the region is predominantly extreme in summer season. Although it is divided

into three distinct seasons: summer, from February to July; monsoon, from August to

September; and winter, from October to January; the city experience generally hot and humid

climate with prolonged summer. The Temperature ranges from 40oC to 16oC. The humidity

ranges between 60 percent and 40 percent. The average annual rainfall is around 730 mm. This

region has suffered from failure of monsoons since last three years.

3.4 TOPOGRAPHY

The entire city is situated in Deccan Plateau and the general elevation ranges from 300 to 750

meters above mean sea level. Black and red soil is predominant soil type in the district. Located

on vast expanse of gently undulating plain, the terrain drains towards south and southeast

towards BhimaRiver (25 kms away). The city is surrounded by small hillocks towards the north

and northwest side. The city is spread around the natural lake (The SharanaBasveshwara Tank),

which is the lowest point of the city and catchment for all run-off and storm

3.5 BRIEF HISTORY

In the 6th century, the Rashtrakutas gained control over the area around present-day Gulbarga,

but the Chalukyas regained their domain and reigned for over two hundred years. Around the

close of the 12th century, the Yadavas of Devagiri and the Hoysalas of Halebidu took control of

the district. The present Gulbarga District and Raichur District formed part of their domain.

The city of Gulbarga was founded by the Bahmani Sultans in the 14th century as their capital.

The northern Deccan, including the district of Gulbarga, passed under control of the Muslim

Sultanate of Delhi. The revolt of the Muslim officers appointed from Delhi resulted in founding

of the Bahmani Sultanate in 1347 by Hassan Gangu, who chose Gulbarga (Ahsenabad during this

period) to be his capital.

From 1724 to 1948 Gulbarga was part of Hyderabad state ruled by the famous Nizams. It was

integrated into India in September 1948 after the Indian army defeated the Nizam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtrakuta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalukya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadavas_of_Devagiri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoysala_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halebid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarga_District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raichur_District

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahmani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Delhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahmani_Sultanate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_state



3.6 REGIONAL IMPORTANCE

Gulbarga's old moated fort is in a much deteriorated state, but it has a number of interesting

buildings inside including the Jama Masjid, reputed to have been built by a Moorish architect

during the late 14th or early 15th century who imitated the great mosque in Cordoba, Spain.

The mosque is unique in India, with a huge dome covering the whole area, four smaller ones at

the corners, and 75 smaller still all the way around. The fort itself has 15 towers. Gulbarga also

has a number of imposing tombs of Bahmani kings, a shrine to an important Muslim saint,

SharanaBasaveshwara Temple, Sri Sai baba temple, Sri Ram Mandir and Sri Bhavani Shankar

temple(SriSadashivmaharaj).

Sri KshetraGhangapur is a famous pilgrimage center of God Sri SadguruDattarya, situated very

close to Gulbarga. Thousands of pilgrims visit Gulbarga during the annual festival held at the

holy shrine of KhwajaBande Nawaz Darga to commemorate his death anniversary.

3.7 ECONOMY Agriculture is the main source of income here. Though the land here is dry, much of the farming

is dependent on rains(non-irrigated).Gulbarga is one of the largest red grams producing areas in

the State and has the largest dal mills. The main soil found in the district is black soil, which

facilitates the cultivation of crops like jowar, groundnut, rice, sugarcane, sunflower, wheat,

cotton, linseed and pulses. Gulbarga is also known for rose cultivation. The Upper Krishna

Project in the district is a major irrigational venture. Some of the major industries in the region

are textile, leather and chemical industries. Other major industry is cement, Birla group's

Vasavadatta cement plant is located in Sedam, Rajashree cement is located in Malkhed, ACC

cement in Wadi which are considered as some of the major cluster of cement industries in India.

The next major source of income now is IT as most of the Professionals after completing their

academics move to IT hubs such as Bangalore, Hyderabad etc. There are only two classes of

people here, the very poor and the very rich. The government has yet to take major decisions to

make Gulbarga an IT hub. Education Gulbarga basically developed as an educational hub right

from the Nizams time and continues till date. Gulbarga has a university Gulbarga University

established in 1980. Its jurisdiction extends to the five districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur,

Bellary and Koppal. Earlier it was a post-graduate centre of Karnatak University, Dharwad since

1970. The main campus is situated on a 860 acres (3.5 km2) of land, 6 kilo meters east of

Gulbarga city. It has 37 post-graduate departments and 4 post-graduate centres located at

Krishnadevarayanagar, Bellary, Raichur and Bidar. Another post-graduate centre at

Basavakalyan is on the anvil. There are 230 colleges affiliated to this University which enroll

graduate/diploma courses in arts, fine arts, music, social sciences, science & technology,

commerce, education and law. A new Plan for the Central University had been proposed to be

built in the city in a few Years. Gulbarga is famous as the 'City of Education' for the Great

Institutions Managed by private as well as the government sectors.

3.8 DEMOGRAPHY

Gulbarga city accounts for 14% of the district’s total population and about 50% of its urban

population. As per census 2001 the city addressed as Gulbarga Urban Agglomeration(GUA)

comprises of city corporation Gulbarga and three outgrowths namely Kusnoor(part), Rajapur

and Kotnoor Darwesh. The city experienced an average population growth rate of 40% in the



last two decades, against a high growth rate of 50% in the 60’s and 70’s. As compared to other

class I cities in the state, which registered a decline in the population growth rate in the last two

decades, except Bangalore, Gulbarga has sustained an average growth rate of 40% over the

same period, in spite of being an industrially backward area.

The sustained growth rate can be attributed to the importance given to this city as a divisional

headquarters and administrative hub, and the development of the city as a regional Market and

service centre.

Figure 3 Population growth trends, Gulbarga City

The populations increase after 1961 is attributed to the importance given to these areas by

Karnataka after the reorganization of states in 1956. The compounded annual growth rate

(CAGR) of population from 1961 to 1981 is 4.2 percent and has since sustained at 3.5 percent in

the last two decades (1981-2001).

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

1961* 1971 1981 1991* 2001*

Po

pu

lati

on

Year

Table 12 Population Data of Gulbarga City

Year Population Decadal Growth (%)

1961* 97,069 25.75

1971 1,45,588 49.98

1981 2,21,325 52.02

1991 3,10,920** 40.48

2001 4,30,265*** 38.38

Source: census of India 2001

Note: * changes in jurisdiction due to state reorganization in 1956

** Gulbarga city includes GMC and outgrowths(Brahmpur, Biddapur, Rajapur and Badepur)

in 1991 census.

*** Gulbarga city includes GMC and outgrowths (Kusnoor(part), Rajapur and Kotnoor

Darwesh) in 2001 census.



3.8.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Population projections have been made by using different methods based on the growth rate of

past three decades. The corresponding results are indicated in Table 12.

Table 13: Future population projections using various methods

Population in By Geometric Increase method

By Incremental Increase method

By Arithmetical Increase method

Average of Three Methods

2010 658,541 525,420 505,234 563,065

2011 690433.2511 537,172.67 513,564.00 580,389.97

2015 834,211 586,546 546,884 655,880

2020 1,056,742 653,575 588,533 766,283

2025 1,338,633 726,506 630,183 898,441

2030 1,695,721 805,339 671,832 1,057,631

2035 2,148,065 890,074 713,482 1,250,540

2040 2,721,073 980,712 755,131 1,485,639

2045 3,446,934 1,077,252 796,781 1,773,655

[Source: ASCI]

We see that the population projections done using average of three methods is quite in line with

the past growth trends. Hence for all purposes, the population projection by average of the three

methods will be considered. This is presented in the table as follows. Gulbarga city population

is likely to be 1,773,655 by the year 2045.

Table 14: Future population projections

Population in Average of Three Methods

2010 563,065

2011 580,389

2015 655,880

2020 766,283

2025 898,441

2030 1,057,631

2035 1,250,540

2040 1,485,639

2045 1,773,655



3.8.2 POPULATION DENSITY

Following the trends of population growth, the population density has shown high growth

during the past three decades in Gulbarga, to cater to which, the CC jurisdictions were increased

in the last decade. While the city’s overall density is quite high, the core area and bazaar areas,

in the heart of the city, are more densely populated than the fringe areas. Further, the area of

CCG after 2001 census has undergone further increase from55 sq.km to 65sq.km due to

inclusion of the three outgrowths within the CCG boundary so as to provide the municipal

services to the fringe areas also.

Table 15 Population Density of Gulbarga

Year Population Area Population Density

Nos. Sq. km Persons per Sq km.

1971 145,588 25sq.km - 5823.52

1981 221,325 55 sq.km 30 4024.091

1991 310,920 55 sq.km 33 5653.091

2001 430,265 65 sq.km 55 6619.462

Source - DPR

3.8.3 SEX RATIO

The current sex ratio (female population per 1,000 male populations) in Gulbarga is 920, which

is lower than the State urban average of 940 and higher National urban average of 901.

Although, the sex ratio in last decade has shown drastic improved (901 sex ratio as per census

1991), but the region remains among the most vulnerable to pre-natal sex determination and

selection.

3.8.4 LITERACY

Across districts, Gulbarga has one of the lowest literacy rates in the district (50.65 percent, as

per census 2001). The current literacy rate (percentage of literate population to the total

population above six years of age) in the CC is 66.7 percent (the male literacy rate is 73 percent

and the female literacy rate is 59.7 percent) – lower the State urban average of 71.4 percent and

National urban average of 70.1 percent. This is in spite, the significance attributed to the city as

a regional educational center and the home to Gulbarga University. Although the literacy rate

has improved by almost 10 percent in the last decade, it is still considerably lower.



3.8.5 WARDWISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH POTENTIAL

City corporation Gulbarga as per 2001 census has 55 wards and details of these wards in terms

of ward number, name, population and the density of the wards has been assessed in the table

below

Table 16: Wardwise population distribution and growth potential

Ward No after

delimitation of 2007

Population

Growth potential Ward area in

Sq km 2001-after

delimitation Density PPh

1 2.99 9234 31 Very low

2 2.87 9398 33 Very low

3 0.77 9990 130 Low

4 1.96 9279 47 Very low

5 0.44 5826 132 Low

6 4.16 8031 19 Very low

7 0.52 11915 229 Medium

8 1.09 8510 78 Very low

9 0.39 6189 159 Low

10 0.3 6399 213 Medium

11 0.27 6858 254 Medium

12 0.47 12669 270 Medium

13 0.45 10360 230 Medium

14 0.69 5682 82 Very low

15 0.08 6825 853 Very high

16 0.34 7202 212 Medium

17 0.61 8822 145 Low

18 0.89 8000 90 Very low

19 2.04 7250 36 Very low

20 3.45 6935 20 Very low

21 0.58 6930 119 Low

22 0.41 6408 156 Low

23 0.4 9500 238 Medium

24 0.15 5595 373 Medium

25 0.08 7156 895 Very high

26 0.4 7079 177 Low

27 0.27 8725 323 Medium

28 1 7186 72 Very low

29 1.97 7025 36 Very low

30 1.66 9215 56 Very low

31 0.15 6688 446 High

32 0.45 6002 133 Low

33 1.04 8120 78 Very low

34 0.19 7464 393 Medium



35 0.11 6479 589 High

36 0.24 7021 293 Medium

37 0.13 6923 533 High

38 2.7 8758 32 Very low

39 0.36 6143 171 Low

40 0.16 6917 432 High

41 0.41 5959 145 Low

42 0.38 5728 151 Low

43 0.89 5569 63 Very low

44 0.28 11200 400 Medium

45 0.33 7247 220 Medium

46 3.2 6602 21 Very low

47 2.5 7080 28 Very low

48 2.52 6995 28 Very low

49 1 6899 69 Very low

50 5.82 9190 16 Very low

51 1.21 7893 65 Very low

52 0.36 6081 169 Low

53 3.25 11974 37 Very low

54 1.48 9285 63 Very low

55 3.84 11855 31 Very low

Total 64.7 430265

Density and growth potential

Density Range (persons/Hectare) Number of wards

List of wards

800 and above(very high) 2 15 and 25

400 to 600(High) 4 31,40,35 and 37

300 to 400(Medium) 4 24,27,34 and 44

200 to 300(Medium) 9 7,10,11,12,13,16, 23,36 and 45

100 to 200(Low) 12 3,5,9,17,21,22,26,32, 39,41,42 and 52

Upto 100(Very low) 24 1,2,4,6,8,14,18,19,20,28, 29,30,33,38,43,46,47,48 49, 50,51,53,54 and 55

Source - DPR



Map 3 Showing the density range(persons/hectare),CCG ward wise



3.9 HOUSING SCENARIO

The average household size according to the census 2001 is 5.8, which is higher compared to

the national average of 5. The household size has increased from substantially from 1991 to

2001, which signifies an increase in the dependency ratio over the last decade.

Table 17 Details of Population, Households, Houses & Family size in Gulbarga

Year Population Households Area of the city (sq.km) Family Size

2001 430,265 73845 65 5.8

Source – DPR (KUIDFC)

OWNERSHIP STATUS

Ownership status acts as one of the key indicators to determine the housing demand

assessment for the city. The housing requirement has to take into consideration the need to

make available the required quality housing, under various income groups. In Gulbarga 70 per

cent of the houses are owned and 30 per cent are rented.

Figure 4 Type of House Ownership in Gulbarga

ow ned

rented



3.10 SLUMS AND SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

Slums – Existing Scenario

In Gulbarga there are 61 slums. Asha Kiran Mahiti (a web-based project on slums of Karnataka prepared by Municipal Reforms

Cell, Karnataka) has identified 61 slum areas – 43 notified and 18 non-notified. The total population living in the slums is 60196

(year 2010) and accounting to 11 per cent of the city population. The total number of slum households is 12085 accounting to

nearly 16 per cent of the total households in the city.

Table 18: Details of slum areas, CCG

Sl. No.

Ward No.

Slum Name Slum Type

Land ownership

Slum Area

Slum Popn

Slum Density (persons/sq.km)

Slum HHs

BPL Popn

BPL HHs

1 54 Ambika Nagar Tarfile Notified Local Body 0.031 783 25258.06 140 640 116

2 8 Arya Nagar. A.M.P.C Back Notified

State Government 0.008 312 39000.00 58 307 57

3 43 Bapu Nagar Jagat Notified State Government 0.026 2380 91538.46 439 2251 415

4 40 Basava Nagar- Brahmpur Notified Local Body 0.075 813 10840.00 187 798 181

5 6 Basavanna Nagar Non-Notified Other 0.066 339 5136.36 63 315 58

6 3

Bhavani Nagar Ward No. 03. Poojari Math

Non-Notified Private 0.03 1517 50566.67 337 997 211

7 40 Borabai nagar-

Notified Local Body 0.03 207 6900.00 48 62 15



Brahmpur

8 40 Brahmpur Waddar wada Notified


9 53 Budha Nagar (South)Tarfile Notified Local Body 0.005 727 145400.00 155 625 134

10 53 Budha Nagar Tarfile Notified


11 45 CMC Labour Colony. M.B. Nagar Notified


12 22 Gandhi Leprosi Colony Aland Road Notified Local Body 0.012 597 49750.00 134 477 106

13 35 Ganga nagar-Brahmpur Notified Local Body 0.053 1042 19660.38 219 271 56

14 31 Gazipur Notified State Government 0.016 1619 101187.50 307 1278 249

15 31 Gazipura Sy. No. 44 Non-Notified Other 0.003 271 90333.33 50 263 49

16 52 Hamalwadi Non-Notified Private 0.004 464 116000.00 96 464 96

17 48 Hanuman Tanda Naganhalli Notified Local Body 0.029 611 21068.97 129 606 128

18 12 Haralayya Samaj Roza Notified Private 0.003 713 237666.67 147 687 142



19 52 Hauman Nagar Part-1 Notified Private 0.009 696 77333.33 153 589 131

20 52 Hauman nagar Part-2 Notified Private 0.013 1422 109384.62 283 1276 253

21 50 Heerapur Cross (Afzalpur Road)

Non-Notified Other 0.004 47 11750.00 8 11 3

22 38 Heerapur Harijan Wada (Part II)

Non-Notified


23 38 Hirapur Notified Local Body 0.067 1622 24208.96 300 1367 251

24 49 Indira Nagar Court Notified Private 0.025 2324 92960.00 527 1691 393

25 45

Jagajeevan Ram Nagar (R.T.O Office Back Area )

Non-Notified


26 43 Jai Bheem nagar Jagat Notified Local Body 0.011 564 51272.73 89 524 83

27 37 Jjlanabad.M.S.K.Mill Area Notified Local Body 0.113 1494 13221.24 293 1359 271

28 17 Joshi wada (Bambu Bazar) Notified


29 21 Kanakpur Non-Notified Private 0.037 1880 50810.81 408 1478 321

30 32 Kapnur Harizan wada (East Part) Notified Local Body 0.025 1668 66720.00 342 1390 278



31 14 Khanapur Roza Notified Local Body 0.021 552 26285.71 103 530 100

32 41 Kunchi Korwar Galli Ram Nagar Notified


33 32 Kutuba Kalyan Nagara Notified Other 0.024 471 19625.00 121 344 86

34 23 Kyateshwar Nagar Non-Notified


35 23 Lambani Tanda Shaha Bazar Notified


36 18 Mahadev Nagar Non-Notified Private 0.013 980 75384.62 208 818 177

37 45 Mangarwadi M.R.M.C Opposite Notified


38 23 Nehru Nagar (D R Polic Qrts)


39 23 Nehru Nagar (Filter bed Area)


40 23 Nehru Nagar Langoti Peer Darga


41 32 Pandit Deendayal Upadyanagar Notified Other 0.06 1343 22383.33 285 1337 284

42 46 Rajapur Shahabad Road Sy. No 46




43 46 Rajapur Village Notified Local Body 0.041 1490 36341.46 300 1067 210

44 18 Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Shaikh Roza Notified


45 12 Ramji Nagar Roza Notified State Government 0.013 1068 82153.85 194 1025 187

46 22 Ramthreeth Nagar (Aland Road)


47 44

Sangtras Wadi Near Margamma Temple Notified Private 0.009 752 83555.56 121 654 107

48 6 Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Shaik Roza Notified


49 8 Sanjivanagar Gunj Cotton Market Notified


50 23 Shaha Bazar Hrizanwada Notified


51 23 Shaha Bazar Tanda Notified State Government 0.048 726 15125.00 128 678 121

52 42 Shamsunder Nagar. S. B. College Back Notified Local Body 0.006 1251 208500.00 267 751 163

53 23 Shiv Shakti Nagar Non-Notified Private 0.045 439 9755.56 83 403 77

54 50 Siddhartha Nagar Non-

Private 0.018 870 48333.33 184 826 176



Notified

55 23 Sunil nagar Shaha Bazar Notified


56 5 Syed Galli Roza Notified Local Body 0.023 522 22695.65 108 262 49

57 53 Tarfail (East) K.E.B. Non-Notified Private 0.069 694 10057.97 155 661 148

58 53 Tarfile Notified Private 0.031 2966 95677.42 617 2714 571

59 53 Tarfile Ward No. 48


60 36 Vijay nagar Brahmpur Notified Local Body 0.023 1952 84869.57 458 1541 360

61 41 kirtinagar (Krishna nagar)-Brahmpur Notified


Total 60196 4313233.883 12085 50020 10034

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010



The location of the 61 notified and non-notified slum areas is shown in the map of CCG as

follows.

Map 4 Location map of slum & Non-slum areas



3.11 EXISTING LANDUSE Gulbarga indicates that the total area under CC’s jurisdiction is 5,500hectares for 2001, out of

which only around 46% is developed. The review of land utilization reveals that, 47% of the

developed area is under residential use and 24% is under public semi-public, 12% of the land is

under industrial use and 4% of the land developed is under parks, playgrounds and open

spaces. A significant area of land in Gulbarga is under the university.

There has been significant increase in area under residential use, to cater to the growing

population and to balance the growth and enhance economic development in the area, CC had

equally increased the share of area under transportation use, public and semi-public, and for

parks and open spaces. The following table shows the different land use pattern in Gulbarga

City.

Table 19: Existing land use analysis of Gulbarga – 2001

Sl.

No.

Land use Existing land use -1997 Proposed land use -2011

Area in

Hectares

% to

Developed

area

Area

(hectares)

% to

developed

area

1. Residential 1,203 47 4,082 60

2. Commercial 121 5 340 5

3. Industrial 297 12 610 9

4. Public & Semi Public 606 24 709 10

5. Public Utilities 96 4 446 7

6. Transportation &

Communication 174 7

617 8

7. Water Sheet 37 1 38 1

Developed area 2,534 100 6,842 100

Source- Gulbarga Development Authority

3.12 MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE Gulbarga city was declared a city municipality for the first time in 1945. Prior to that, the district

board was managing the civic affairs. In 1952, an elected board was constituted which got

upgraded into corporation on October 1981. In 1961 the board are was 25 sq.km and had 31

wards. In 1995-96 the corporation area became 55.15sq.km. The territorial jurisdiction of the

city corporation Gulbarga (CCG) has increases by about cent per cent in last two decades (1981-

2001). Political and administrative transformations related to development of the fringe areas

of the city govern the changes in the jurisdiction of the city corporation area.

Legal Framework and functional domain

Elections to the Corporation are held every five years and subsequently a Mayor and a Deputy

Mayor are elected for a term of one year. It comes under portion of 2 Loksabha Constituencies, 4

Legislative assembly constituencies and 1 legislative council constituency.

For its governance, the GCC is divided into fifty five wards; each represented by a Corporator.

The Corporators elect the Mayor, who is the administrator of the city and serves office for a



term of one year. The administration of the corporation is vested in the commissioner, who is

designated by the state government.

The functional domain of local bodies in the state is derived from respective legislations. The

Municipal Acts list the functions under two categories, namely, “obligatory functions” and

“discretionary functions”. The functional domain was expanded in 1994 as per the 12th Schedule

of the 74th Constitution Amendment Act. In Karnataka, the Corporations and Municipalities Acts

provide for a majority of the functions listed in the 12th Schedule (ref Annexure 1) of the

constitution. In 2003, the Government, after a review of functions of urban local bodies,

transferred five more functions to the urban local bodies through government orders. They are:

Planning for economic and social development

Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects

Urban Poverty Alleviation

Safeguarding the interest of weaker sections including the handicapped and mentally

retarded

Promotion of Cultural and Aesthetic aspects

There is a multiplicity of laws governing the urban areas in the state. These laws may be

classified as follows:

Urban Development Policy and Karnataka is governed by

Planning Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961

2. Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976

3. Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985

4. Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987

Municipal Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

2. The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ,1976

Development Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act , 1966

2. The Karnataka Housing Board Act ,1962

3. The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act , 1973

4. The Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement) and Clearance Act , 1970

5. Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Regulatory Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act ,1964

2. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

3. Karnataka Registration Act

Apart from the Acts, there are rules and by-laws regulating various activities in urban areas

Institutional Framework

The GCC is democratically elected by the civic community as per the 74th CAA. At the head is

the Mayor with the Council and the Standing Committee. Next to the Mayor is the Commissioner,

who with the help of the Joint Commissioner heads the various departments The Organogram of

CCG (Figure 3) gives the details.



Figure 5 Organizational Structure

Apart from the local bodies, a number of government institutions are associated with the

governance. They include:

Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA)

Directorate Town and Country Planning (DTCP)

Karnataka Pollution Control Board (APPCB)

Urban Development Authorities (UDA)

Department of Revenue Headed by the District Collector (DC)

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWSDB)

Karnataka Public Works Department (PWD) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

Functions of Gulbarga City Corporation

Basic functions of the Municipalities are to provide civic amenities such as health, education of

local inhabitants and issues incidental to Municipal Administration. Important functions of the

Municipalities are as follows:

1. Maintenance of Public roads, streets, lanes, bridges , culverts and causeways,

2. Construction and maintenance of storm water and sewerage water drains,

3. Supply of protected drinking water,

4. Maintenance of Play Grounds, Recreation Centers and Parks,

5. Maintenance of Libraries,

6. Cleaning of Streets, Drains and Scavenging,

7. Maintenance of Hospitals and Dispensaries,



8. Control of Epidemics and Endemics,

9. Registration of Births and Deaths,

10. Maintenance of Elementary Schools,

11. Housing,

12. Maintenance and Improvement in Slum Areas,

13. Maintenance of Street Lighting,

14. Maintenance of slaughter houses and markets.

Some of the major departments and their functions are presented as follows.

Revenue Section, Accounts Section and Audit Section

The main functions of the revenue section are

Assessment and levy of various taxes such as property tax, Vacant land tax,

Collection and monitoring of the taxes

The main functions of the Accounts Section are

Preparation of the budgets,

Processing of the bills and payment vouchers,

Monitoring of the revenue generation,

Maintenance of the books of account,

Maintenance of the payroll,

general provident fund,

Management of treasury

The main functions of the Audit Section is

Conducting a pre-audit of all the receipts and payments. Based on the verification and approval

of the audit section, payments will be released

Town Planning Section

Formulation of building rules, master plan rules and zonal regulation

Implementation of master plans

Road widening programmes

Public spaces, Roads and Junctions improvement

Issuance of permission for buildings and layouts

Regularization and demolition of unauthorized constructions

Removal of encroachments

Health Section

The main functions of the public health / sanitation are

Cleaning of the streets and supervision of sanitation



Lifting of garbage and dumping of the same in dumping yard

Spraying disinfecting materials under anti malaria schemes

Maintenance of vehicles, diesel bunks, vehicle sheds, and work shops

Registration of births and deaths

Regulation of dangerous and offensive trades

Maintenance and management of slaughter houses and certification of animals for

slaughter

Prevention of epidemics

Prevention of food adulteration

Management of dispensaries of Indian Medicine System and allopathic system.

Sanitation is one of the key functions of the ULB and the Health Section of ULB is responsible for

all sanitation work in the limits of the ULB. Maintenance and upkeep of urban infrastructure

such as roads, sewerage drains, preventive measures for control of diseases and epidemics,

solid waste management, etc., are some of the key processes which help in maintaining the

sanitary conditions of the ULBs. The key processes of Sanitation-Solid Waste Management

function involve allocation of employees for sweeping and garbage removal, cleaning of drains,

allocation of the vehicles for garbage transportation and disposal of garbage at the dumping

ground, maintenance of the vehicles, maintenance of the public toilets, and carrying out anti-

malarial operations, etc.

Executive Engineering Section

The main functions of the executive engineering section are:

Preparation of plans and estimates for civil works

Construction and maintenance of roads

Construction of buildings

Execution of civil works

Construction and maintenance of drains



Chapter 4

Environmental Sanitation – An Assessment

4.1 SANITATION SITUATION ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable urban sanitation presents one of the most significant service delivery challenges

related to poverty alleviation and sustainable development of the towns. Environmental

sanitation holds a primordial position in assessing and documenting nature of a town/town in

its status regarding sanitation. This chapter essentially deals with issues pertaining to the core

objective of the town sanitation plan and also covers sanitary installations at different levels of

households, at public places, in institutions and schools. Concentration on open defecation

levels in slums along with complementary sectors like solid waste management, storm water

drains and water supply, an essential component of sanitation is dealt at vast. This also

demarcates service level benchmarking and factors leading to health hazards.

4.1.1 HOUSEHOLD SANITATION

Majority of Non-slum household areas have access to individual household type of toilets. It is

observed in the Primary survey that the slum & Non-slum household’s without toilets are

majorly using Public toilets(44.3% and 40.1%) resulting in the less usage of community

toilets(7.6% in slum & 2.6% Non-slum HHs) due to their non-functioning and unavailability.

About 11.6% of slum & 9.9% of Non-slum HHs practice open defecation and the remaining

percentage of slum household (5.9%in slums) use shared type of toilets.

Figure 6 Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets

At present, Gulbarga city is partly covered by underground sewerage system only 5171 HHs are

connected with UGD which covers about 5.19% of the total Household according to 2011. The

system is still under construction. The night soil is collected from toilets by suction tanks and

disposed into the STPs. In the present situation, it is the individual household responsibility to

construct toilet along with septic tank as per the specifications given in building bylaws.

30.6%

44.3%

7.6% 5.9% 11.6%

47.5%

40.1%

2.6% 0.0%

9.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Household Publictoilet

Communitytoilet

SharedToilet

Opendefecation

Slum HHs % Non-Slum HHs %



Building bye-laws are seriously lacking clarity on guidelines to construct toilets and

maintenance of sanitary installations.

INFORMATION BOX 2: DEFINITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD SANITATION ARRANGEMENTS

ACCORDING TO CENSUS 2001

Water closet latrine (WC): The sanitary water flush latrines are those latrines that have water closets fitted with flushing cistern. Such latrines that may be connected to a septic tank or an underground sewerage system will also be recorded as water closet latrines. The fecal matter from these types of latrines is removed without the need for scavenging or manual handling of excreta.

Pit latrine: The latrines attached to the pit that is dug into the ground for the reception of night soil are reckoned as pit latrines.

Other latrine: This category includes service latrines (i.e. those that are cleaned manually); latrines serviced by animals such as pigs, etc. and all latrines other than the pit and the water closet types of latrine

Table 20 Sanitation arrangement Gulbarga

Sanitation Profile 2011 Remarks

Total Slums

Population 580,389 60196 Assumption made on total population since the data was unavilable

In % 10.37%

HH size 5.83 4.98

total number of HH 99610 12085

Pit latrines 6973 1861 Observation made from AKM data and field surveys

In % 7.00% 15.40%

Water closets 73156 3179

In % 73.4% 26.3%

No latrines 16934 5692

In% 17.0% 47.10%

HHs using community/public toilets

2548 1354 It is observed that only 50% of community toilets are functioning

In% 2.6% 11.2%

Total HHs with latrines 82677 6394

Coverage (%) 83.0% 52.9%

Open Defecation 16934 5692 Observation made from AKM data and field surveys

In% 17.0% 47.1%

Source – AKM, field surveys, DPR & CCG



4.1.2 SLUM SANITATION

In Gulbarga City Corporation there are 61 slum areas with a total population of

60196 and 12085 HHs. Underground drainage (UGD) system in the town does not

cover town’s slums. Only 32.3% percent of the slum households indicated access to

safe disposal facilities including public convenience facility while the remaining

21.39% of the household have unsanitary toilet condition and the rest 46.31% in

absence of any sanitation facility practice open defecation. Women especially, are

most inconvenienced by the lack of sanitation facilities. Wastewater is generally

disposed into roadside drains by slum households while the other remaining

households dispose it on the roads.

Majority of the slum HHs practice Open defecation (46.31% HHs). 7.45% HHs have

individual pits (leach pits). Shared as well as public pits and septic tanks also exist,

though in small percentages.

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010The following table shows the details of slum sanitation facilities.

Table 21: Details of sanitation in slum areas, CCG

Sl. No.

Ward No.

Slum Name Slum

Popn

Slum

Density

(persons/sq.

km)

Slum

HHs

% HHs

having

Own Pit

% HHs

having

Own

Sanitary

toilets

% HHs

having

Shared

Pits

% HHs

having

Shared

Septic

tanks

% HHs

having

Public

pit

% HHs

having

public

septic

tank

% HHs

having

Open

defecati

on

**%

HHs

having

UGD

connect

ion

1 54

Ambika Nagar

Tarfile 783 25258.06 140 10.0% 37.9% 0.0% 0.0% 51.4% 0.0% 0.7% 95.0%

2 8

Arya Nagar.

A.M.P.C Back 312 39000.00 58 15.5% 1.7% 65.5% 1.7% 0.0% 13.8% 1.7% 10.3%

3 43

Bapu Nagar

Jagat 2380 91538.46 439 2.1% 34.9% 0.2% 22.6% 0.2% 1.1% 39.0% 41.7%

4 40 Basava 813 10840.00 187 2.7% 34.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 4.3% 57.2% 29.4%

7%

25%

2%

4%

12%

4%

46%

Slum Sanitation Own Pit

Own Septic tank

Shared Pits

Shared SeptictanksPublic pit

public septic tank



Nagar-

Brahmpur

5 6

Basavanna

Nagar 339 5136.36 63 4.8% 3.2% 17.5% 0.0% 68.3% 6.3% 0.0% 22.2%

6

3

Bhavani

Nagar Ward

No. 03.

Poojari Math 1517 50566.67 337 0.9% 13.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 84.3% 11.3%

7

40

Borabai

nagar-

Brahmpur 207 6900.00 48 18.8% 16.7% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 35.4%

8 40

Brahmpur

Waddar wada 1131 113100.00 234 7.3% 23.1% 1.7% 41.9% 3.8% 0.0% 22.2% 41.0%

9 53

Budha Nagar

(South)Tarfile 727 145400.00 155 0.6% 68.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.0% 96.8%

10 53

Budha Nagar

Tarfile 1397 199571.43 254 16.5% 44.1% 0.4% 0.0% 11.4% 0.0% 27.6% 24.0%

11

45

CMC Labour

Colony. M.B.

Nagar 620 36470.59 118 0.8% 87.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.9% 37.3%

12

22

Gandhi

Leprosi

Colony Aland

Road 597 49750.00 134 25.4% 20.1% 0.0% 0.0% 26.1% 6.7% 21.6% 5.2%

13 35

Ganga nagar-

Brahmpur 1042 19660.38 219 0.9% 87.2% 0.5% 0.9% 2.7% 1.8% 5.9% 0.0%

14 31 Gazipur 1619 101187.50 307 4.9% 77.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 15.0% 76.5%

15 31

Gazipura Sy.

No. 44 271 90333.33 50 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0%

16 52 Hamalwadi 464 116000.00 96 1.0% 17.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 74.0% 2.1% 52.1%

17 48 Hanuman 611 21068.97 129 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.4% 0.0%



Tanda

Naganhalli

18 12

Haralayya

Samaj Roza 713 237666.67 147 10.9% 49.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.0% 6.8% 1.4% 34.7%

19 52

Hauman

Nagar Part-1 696 77333.33 153 0.0% 14.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 7.8% 76.5% 55.6%

20 52

Hauman

nagar Part-2 1422 109384.62 283 4.6% 35.3% 1.8% 1.4% 0.7% 0.4% 55.8% 54.8%

21

50

Heerapur

Cross

(Afzalpur

Road) 47 11750.00 8 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 87.5% 25.0%

22

38

Heerapur

Harijan Wada

(Part II) 2059 10952.13 371 6.5% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 84.4% 5.1%

23 38 Hirapur 1622 24208.96 300 3.3% 8.7% 0.7% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% 85.3% 7.7%

24

49

Indira Nagar

Court 2324 92960.00 527 0.4% 30.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 68.3% 31.5%

25

45

Jagajeevan

Ram Nagar

(R.T.O Office

Back Area ) 264 52800.00 50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

26

43

Jai Bheem

nagar Jagat 564 51272.73 89 28.1% 37.1% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 32.6% 0.0%

27

37

Jjlanabad.M.S.

K.Mill Area 1494 13221.24 293 19.5% 48.5% 11.3% 0.0% 0.3% 9.6% 10.9% 70.6%

28

17

Joshi wada

(Bambu

Bazar) 508 254000.00 91 0.0% 27.5% 1.1% 1.1% 27.5% 14.3% 28.6% 19.8%

29 21 Kanakpur 1880 50810.81 408 17.9% 57.1% 2.2% 0.2% 0.0% 2.9% 19.6% 15.4%



30

32

Kapnur

Harizan wada

(East Part) 1668 66720.00 342 2.3% 6.7% 0.6% 1.5% 2.6% 0.9% 85.4% 0.0%

31

14

Khanapur

Roza 552 26285.71 103 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 1.0% 83.5% 3.9% 8.7% 1.0%

32

41

Kunchi

Korwar Galli

Ram Nagar 1518 303600.00 277 66.4% 9.0% 2.9% 0.4% 13.4% 1.1% 6.9% 52.7%

33

32

Kutuba

Kalyan

Nagara 471 19625.00 121 0.0% 15.7% 0.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.8% 81.0% 0.0%

34

23

Kyateshwar

Nagar 382 95500.00 70 0.0% 48.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 51.4% 1.4%

35

23

Lambani

Tanda Shaha

Bazar 391 43444.44 70 2.9% 24.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72.9% 2.9%

36

18

Mahadev

Nagar 980 75384.62 208 8.2% 30.8% 0.0% 1.4% 52.4% 6.7% 0.5% 0.0%

37

45

Mangarwadi

M.R.M.C

Opposite 1026 85500.00 192 1.0% 63.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.9% 45.3%

38

23

Nehru Nagar

(D R Polic

Qrts) 529 75571.43 97 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.9% 0.0%

39

23

Nehru Nagar

(Filter bed

Area) 6 500.00 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

40

23

Nehru Nagar

Langoti Peer

Darga 858 53625.00 188 3.2% 22.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.5% 4.3%

41 32 Pandit 1343 22383.33 285 1.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 0.0%



Deendayal

Upadyanagar

42

46

Rajapur

Shahabad

Road Sy. No

46 249 62250.00 50 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 0.0%

43

46

Rajapur

Village 1490 36341.46 300 4.3% 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 92.7% 0.0%

44

18

Rajiv Gandhi

Nagar Shaikh

Roza 1630 29636.36 314 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 87.6% 7.6% 2.5% 1.3%

45

12

Ramji Nagar

Roza 1068 82153.85 194 13.9% 8.2% 0.0% 1.0% 59.8% 10.3% 6.7% 0.0%

46

22

Ramthreeth

Nagar (Aland

Road) 281 56200.00 52 11.5% 7.7% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 73.1% 0.0%

47

44

Sangtras

Wadi Near

Margamma

Temple 752 83555.56 121 0.8% 78.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.7% 99.2%

48

6

Sanjay Gandhi

Nagar Shaik

Roza 1711 42775.00 333 0.6% 4.2% 0.6% 0.0% 93.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0%

49

8

Sanjivanagar

Gunj Cotton

Market 897 42714.29 167 0.0% 0.6% 7.8% 0.0% 3.6% 85.0% 3.0% 0.6%

50

23

Shaha Bazar

Hrizanwada 561 112200.00 106 9.4% 0.9% 0.0% 5.7% 82.1% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9%

51

23

Shaha Bazar

Tanda 726 15125.00 128 7.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 70.3% 0.0% 21.1% 0.0%

52 42 Shamsunder 1251 208500.00 267 46.8% 18.4% 1.1% 27.3% 0.4% 0.4% 5.6% 59.9%



Nagar. S. B.

College Back

53

23

Shiv Shakti

Nagar 439 9755.56 83 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 47.0% 0.0% 49.4% 0.0%

54

50

Siddhartha

Nagar 870 48333.33 184 1.6% 0.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.3% 0.0%

55

23

Sunil nagar

Shaha Bazar 223 111500.00 44 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 81.8% 0.0% 15.9% 0.0%

56

5

Syed Galli

Roza 522 22695.65 108 9.3% 87.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0%

57

53

Tarfail (East)

K.E.B. 694 10057.97 155 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.2% 11.0%

58 53 Tarfile 2966 95677.42 617 1.1% 16.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 81.4% 28.5%

59

53

Tarfile Ward

No. 48 2514 93111.11 524 1.3% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 94.3% 2.9%

60

36

Vijay nagar

Brahmpur 1952 84869.57 458 11.6% 38.0% 3.1% 27.9% 0.2% 0.9% 18.3% 29.7%

61

41

kirtinagar

(Krishna

nagar)-

Brahmpur 1253 89500.00 238 4.6% 23.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 69.7% 38.7%

Total 60196 4313233.8 12085 7.45% 25.05% 1.57% 3.80% 12.37% 3.45% 46.31% 24%

Source - Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010

Note: OD colour code legend 0-5% 5-10% 10-15% >15%

** % HHs having UGD connection shows the total percentage of slum households connected to UGD



4.1.3 OPEN DEFECATION AREAS

Incidences of open defecation are quite high with a percentage of 46.31% of slum HHs. The

slums are characterized by lack of access to basic sanitation facilities. Ill-maintained public

convenience blocks and inadequate individual unit’s results in unsafe practices like open

defecation.

The details of OD areas are presented in the table as follows.

Table 22 Details of OD areas , CCG

Sl.no Ranging Ward No. No. Of

wards

No. Of

Slums

1 No OD 6 1 1

2 0-5% 54,8,40,52,12,18(2)*,6,8,23,5 10 11

3 5-10% 35,14,41,12,42 5 5

4 10-15% 45,31,37 3 3

5 >15% 43(2)*,40(2)*,3,53(2)*,22(2)*,31,48,52(2)*,50,

38(2)*,49,45(2)*,17,21,32(3)*,23(8)*,46(2)*,

44 ,50,53(3)*,36,41

22 41

*(_)the ward is repeated because of the number of slums in that ward that practice OD

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010 & ASCI primary survey, 2011]

Map 5 Location map of identified open defecation ward



Instances Of Open Defecation, Gulbarga

4.1.4 COMMUNITY TOILETS

There are 48 community toilets in Gulbarga City Corporation spread across in the wards which

are maintained and operated either by the Corporation or the slum Board.

Table 23 Details of community toilet facility in Gulbarga

sl.n

o

War

d No.

Place Toilet seats Working

condition

Yes/No

Managed

by Ladies Gents Childre

n

1 7 Rajiv Gandhi nagar 6 yes CCG

2 8 sanjeev nagar 6 no Slum

board

3 12 Ramji nagar 10 yes Slum

board

4 17 aiyervadi 10 no CCG

5 17 maya mandir 4 no Slum

board

6 18 vadder galli 6 no CCG

7 19 aland bus stand 7 yes CCG

8 20 kadeer chowk 10 no CCG

9 22 marikeshwari

colony

10 yes CCG

10 23 harijanwada 10 yes CCG

11 24 near chetan school 10 yes CCG

12 27 boyagalli 8 no CCG

13 31 chandankari

hanuman temple

5 no CCG

14 32 harijanwada/kapn

oor

6 no Slum

board



15 33 khatagarpura road 3 yes Slum

board

16 34 shivaji park 4 yes CCG

17 35 ganganagar 5 yes CCG

18 35 urdu primary

school

4 yes CCG

19 36 shah hussain zilla 10 no CCG

20 36 ashok nagar 10 no CCG

21 36 trimurthi nagar 6 no CCG

22 37 near urdu school 4 no CCG

23 38 mallikarjun matt 4 yes CCG

24 38 near SCST

graveyard

8 no CCG

25 38 padmajiv

gangadhar

8 no CCG

26 39 mallikarjun kharga 4 yes CCG

27 40 wadargalli 4 yes CCG

28 40 basav nagar 4 no CCG

29 40 subhash chowk 4 yes CCG

30 41 ram nagar 8 yes Slum

board

31 41 kirti nagar 12 yes Slum

board

32 42 bhramapur 6 yes CCG

33 42 sanganeshwara

colony

6 yes CCG

34 43 hanuman marg 6 no CCG

35 45 gollar colony 0 no CCG

36 45 sundarnagar 0 no CCG

37 45 babu jagajivan rao

nagar

0 no CCG

38 46 ex mayor ravindra

honalli

0 no CCG

39 46 harijan wada

nirmal nagar toilet

0 no CCG

40 48 gulabwadi 6 yes CCG

41 53 tarfile 8 yes CCG

42 48 near durgamma

temple

2 yes CCG

43 50 siddharth nagar 4 no CCG

44 51 panchsheel nagar 10 yes CCG

45 52 old javargi road 10 yes CCG



46 52 hanuman nagar 8 yes CCG

47 53 tarfile 12 no CCG

48 53 tarfile 12 no CCG

Source – CCG & discussions with officials

It is observed that 50% of the community toilets are not functioning due to repairs or no proper

maintenance facilities which is majorly affecting the usage of these toilets leading to open

defecation and high dependency on public toilets. About 44% of the community toilets are

connected to UGD lines and the rest are connected to septic tanks.

Average to poor conditions of community toilets, CCG

[Source: ASCI Primary Surveys 2011]

4.1.5 PUBLIC TOILETS

The Public Convenience In all, 10 public latrines with 125 seats exist in the city. They are

provided with municipal tap water facility. The effluent goes to septic tank or to the sewer line,

if it exists nearby. The septic tank effluent flows to the nearby gutter or spreads on the ground

in the low-lying areas. The following table indicates the public sanitation facilities in Gulbarga.

Table 24 Details of Public Convenience Facility in CCG

sl.no

Ward No.

Place Toilet seats Working condition Yes/No

Managed by

ladies Gents Children

1 9 Humanabad Road 6 no CCG

2 17 K.E.B office market

8 yes Private

3 17 city bus stand 10 yes CCG

4 17 vegetable market 8 yes CCG

5 17 super market 10 yes CCG

6 20 korimatt 4 no CCG

7 49 indira nagar 24 yes CCG

8 49 DC office 10 yes CCG

9 49 DC office 5 yes CCG

10 50 main bus stand 40 yes Private

Source - CCG



The "pay and use" latrines, which are well equipped and maintained, provide a model for the

future plans of the public latrine program. Only two public toilets are maintained by private

operators the rest is operated and maintained by CCG. Almost 90% of the public toilets are

covered under UGD.

Condition of the public toilets

All the public toilets (100%) were

covered during primary surveys and it

was observed that the condition of 70%

of the toilets is average and only 2 out of

10 public toilets is not being used due to

repairs and maintenance.

During surveys it was observed that the

dependency of public toilets is higher

than community toilets as they are

maintained well.

Condition of public toilets, CCG


Gulbarga receives a floating population of 10,000ppl/day and it is observed wards 50,52,17 &

16are also frequented by considerable number of visitors where public toilets are either

inadequate (spatially) or not present. Hence, some such complexes have to be constructed in

these areas to meet the needs of the visitors in such wards.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

good average bad

Figure 8 Condition of public toilets, CCG

(Source – ASCI Primary surveys 2011)



The following shows the location of community & public toilets

Map 6 Location of community & Public toilets



4.1.6 SCHOOL SANITATION

Schools are the most important places of learning for children and they have a central place in

the community. Water and sanitation have an impact on the enrolment and attendance of

children in the schools and their health conditions, more important in adolescent girl child. It is

in this regard, the City Sanitation Plan has taken School Sanitation as one of the major

component.

There are a total of 379 schools in Gulbarga City Corporation. The following table gives details

of Government schools.

Table 25 Details of Schools in Gulbarga City Corporation

S.No School No. of Schools

1 Primary with Upper Primary 200

2 Primary 42

3 Up. Primary with Sec./.H.Sec 5

4 Upper Primary only 1

5 Pr. with Up.Pr. & sec./H.Sec. 32

6 Secondary Only (8-10) 94

7 Secondary with H.Secondary (8-12) 5

Total 379

Source - CCG

As part of the primary survey the sanitation situation of government schools in Gulbarga City

Corporation limits were studied. It is assumed that private schools will maintain reasonably

good sanitation facilities. Analysis of data brings out a cumulative understanding on the existing

situation.

The number of toilets available & functioning is scarce shown in figure below. The number of

toilets available for the girl students is barely sufficient. This also reflects on the standards of

the school sanitation along with the importance given for sanitation related activities.

Figure 9 Sanitation details in Schools of Gulbarga City Corporation

Source - GCC

It is observed that 25% of schools do not have toilet facility for girls and 45% of schools do not

have toilet facility for boys. Sanitation de-linked with water supply loses its very purpose.

Children’s ability to learn may be affected by inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No.of toiletsfor Girls

No.of toiletsfor Boys

Sanitation facilities in schools

Toilets Available& working

Toilets notavailable & notworking



conditions in several ways. They include helminthes infections, long-term exposure to chemical

contaminants in water (e.g. lead and arsenic), diarrheal diseases and malaria infections, all of

which force many school children to be absent from school. In all the sectors of primary, middle

and high school combined together, about 94% of the available provision for water facilities is

available and 6% of the facilities are not functioning which is very minimal and the situations

can be improved immediately.

Figure 10 Water supply facilities in schools of GCC

Poor condition of school sanitation


INFORMATION BOX 3: GUIDELINES OF TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN(TSC) FOR SCHOOL

SANITATION

Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) guidelines at present stipulate that toilets in all types of Govt. schools i.e.

Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary and Anganwadis should be constructed. The

Dept. of Drinking Water Supply is supporting the construction of toilets and urinals in schools under TSC.

The guidelines say that separate toilets for girls and boys should be provided in co-educational schools

which are to be treated as two separate units and each unit is entitled to Central assistance. The unit cost

of each school toilet units is Rs. 20,000 of which 70% i.e. Rs. 14,000 is given as Central share, the rest

being the State share. Each unit consists of one toilet and three or four urinals. It is evident that the

number of toilet units to be built should be linked to the number of students to be catered to by each unit.

Hence, the following clarification is issued:“One Urinal space may be provided for every 20 to 40 boys or

girls separately and one toilet seat may be provided for every 80 to 120 boys or girls separately. One

school toilet unit should consist of one lavatory and three to four urinals. Construction should be in

multiples of units depending on the strength of the school, on whether students are allowed to go to

urinals during classes, on whether schools have staggered breaks, space available in the school premises,

expected growth in the enrolment and other regional conditions. States are given the flexibility to define

their norms within this range depending on existing State norms and the other factors mentioned above.

School-wise requirement of toilet units should be worked out based on these factors.”

94%

6%

Water Supply for Sanitation Facilities

present

Not present



4.1.7 WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN GULBARGA

Gulbarga city is covered by a sewerage system covering almost 75% of the city except the

recently developed and peripheral areas of the city. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage

Board (KUWSDB) has implemented sewerage scheme in Gulbarga city in two stages. Stage I was

completed in year 1975 and stage II works were completed in year 2002. At present, stage III

works are under implementation. The entire Gulbarga city has been divided in five sewerage

zones viz. AA1, B,C,D,E & F. Except sewerage zones F, all sewerage zones are drainable by

gravity to the existing sewage treatment plant(waste stabilization pond) near kotnoor village

located to the south of the city and is designed as waste stabilization ponds. Existing system

consists of around 280kms of sewer network for the city.

Condition of STP(oxidation ponds), CCG

The existing sewage treatment plant in Gulbarga has been designed to serve a population of

3,00,000. The capacity of the plant is 27.27MLD and only about 10% of sewage is flowing into

the sewage treatment plant. Most of the sewage of the city is flowing in open drains and has not

entered the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is not functioning properly.

Maintenance of the sewage treatment plant is inadequate.

Table 26 Various components of the STP

Components System Parameters Description

Screen

chamber

Detention Period - 5 minutes

Design Population - 4,00,000

~ Comprise 2 bar screens (@ 3.90x2.15x1.70

m size each)

Grit Chamber Detention Period - 1 minutes

Design Population - 4,00,000

~ Comprise 2 chambers (@ 19.82x2.15x2.00

m size each with flat bottom) ~ Narrow

rectangular outlet is provided to control the

velocity in grid channel.

Waste

Stabilization

Pond

Design capacity – 27.24 MLD

Detention Period – 5 days

Design Population – 3,00,000

~ Can bring down BOD from 300 mg/l to 18

mg/l ~ Comprise 2 anaerobic ponds (86.25 x

66.75 x 4 m) providing one day's detention

and with 900 mm CI inlet & outlet ~ Five

facultative ponds (168.85 x 79.85 x 1.80 m),

providing four days' detention and 450 mm

dia CI pipe inlets and outlets ~ Constructed

partly below ground with earthen bunds and

stone revetment from the inside

Source - KUWSDB



The works of the plant are completed in year 2002. The quantity of sewage reaching the sewage

treatment plant is meager. Farmers lift raw sewage from the manholes on the outfall sewer. The

samples of influent and effluent are not tested, due to which the effectiveness of the treatment

in terms of removal of BOD and suspended solid are not known.

SEWER CONNECTIONS Out of 73,845 households only 5171 properties have been connected to the sewers. Even

allowing for some unauthorized connections, the utilization of the sewer network appears to be

extremely poor. The UGD domestic connection deposit for onetime payment is about Rs.500.

The number of properties connected to the sewer network is abysmally small. An urgent and

concerted drive to increase the number of sewer connections is called for.

PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

A sewer district shall be that area contributing to one STP. Existing sewerage districts are

considered as sub districts. Depending on the utilization of existing sewerage network, STP and

availability of land for STP Gulbarga sewerage system is divided into three STP districts as

below.

District 1 : Kotnoor STP district (1D1 &1D2 sub districts)

District 2 : Nandikur STP district (2D1,2D2,2D3 &2D4 sub districts)

District 3 : kapnoor STP district (3D1 sub district)

Table 27 Proposed sewage Treatment plant in Gulbarga plant

Sewerage

district

Population Sewage generation in MLD

District 1

(Kotnoor)

2011 2026 2041 2011 2026 2041

1D1 26793 44373 63806 3.04 5.03 7.24

1D2 73345 115938 179610 8.32 13.15 20.37

Sub Total 100139 160311 243416 11.36 18.18 27.60

District 2

(Nandikur)

2D1 146625 187824 220132 16.63 21.30 24.96

2D2 154495 221406 284048 17.52 25.11 32.21

2D3 27202 45048 79187 3.08 5.11 8.98

2D4 42501 61195 107354 4.82 6.94 12.17

Sub Total 370823 515473 690721 42.05 58.45 78.33

District 3

(Kapanoor)

3D1 101313 153535 205393 11.49 17.41 23.29

101313 153535 205393 11.49 17.41 23.29

Total 572275 829319 1139530 64.90 94.04 129.22

Source - DPR



A new sewage treatment plant is proposed near Nandikur village at a downstream location of

the existing sewage treatment plant at kotnoor village. The sewage treatment will receive

sewage from sewerage sub district 2D1, 2D2, 2D3 and 2D4. The total capacity of STP

considering all four sub districts 2D1(A), 2D2(B), 2D3(C) and 2D4(G) is 58.45 MLD for

intermediated design period of 2026 with ASP technology. However the expected flow to the

proposed STP based on the existing percentage of coverage of the proposed and existing sub

districts.

Considering sewage inflow it is anticipated to receive only 39MLD of sewage at Nandikur STP.

Hence the secondary units are modeled for four individual units of capacity 19.5 MLD. At

present only two secondary units totaling to the capacity of 39 MLD shall be constructed. The

remaining modules are proposed to add on when the remaining works in the district 2 are

completed. This will ensure the working of STP irrespective of phased implementation. STP is

constructed with the ASP technology further the STP will be augmented in future for the

ultimate design capacity of 78.33MLD.

4.1.8 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT

The works of the plant are completed recently in year 2002 and are operating satisfactorily. The

quantity of sewage reaching the sewage treatment plant is meager. Farmers lift raw sewage

from the manholes on the outfall sewer. The samples of influent and effluent are not tested, due

to which the effectiveness of the treatment in terms of removal of BOD and suspended solids is

not known. GCC has three suction machines and cleaning equipment’s one of it being

maintained by GCC and the other two being operated and maintained by private agency

which is used to clean the septic tank sludge from the households. An amount of Rs.

2000 to 3000 is charged from the HHs at the time of clearance.

INFORMATION BOX 4: SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE NORMS

Service agents and councils are not fully

aware of the maintenance recommendations.

Annual servicing should include assessment

of the sludge and scum levels, and checking of

the outlet and inlet square junctions for

blockages. Septic tanks ideally should be de-

sludged at a minimum of every three years

and other criteria given below are not

followed in septic tank maintenance.

The scum layer is within 100 mm of the bottom of the inlet square junction, or the sludge

layer is within 200 mm of the bottom of the outlet square junction.

the sludge occupies the basic allowance (1550 L) of the septic tank, or

The total depth of sludge and scum is equal to one-third of the depth of the tank.

De-sludging procedure should ensure that 400 - 500 mm of liquid is retained in the tank,

and that the tank is immediately refilled with water to the outlet level to prevent the tank

from being lifted by soil hydrostatic pressure.

Periodical IEC programme can only address these issues. Considering the volume of the sludge

disposed in an unhygienic manner pose great health hazards to people of Gulbarga and UGD



which is under implementation should be able to provide solution to much of the problem.

4.1.9 SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING INDICATORS

The following service indicators shows the performance of sewage management in Gulbarga

Table 28 Service level Benchmarking Indicators

Sl.No. Indicator Benchmarks Value

1 Coverage of Toilets 100% 80

2 Coverage of wastewater network services 100% 50

3 Collection efficiency of wastewater

networks 100%

60

4 Adequacy of wastewater treatment 100% 50

5 Quality of wastewater treatment 100% 50

6 Extent of reuse and recycling of treated

waste water 20%

0

7 Extent of cost recovery in wastewater

management 80%

0

8 Efficiency in redressal of customer

complaints 100%

60

9 Efficiency in collection of sewerage charges 90% 5

Source - ASCI

4.1.10 WASTE WATER PROJECTIONS

Assessment for the amount of sewerage that may be produced by the future population growth

has been made on the basis of the projected population, and the present per capita water

supply. By 2045, 191 MLD of waste water will be produced by the city’s population

Table 29 Projections of Waste Water

Year Avg per capita Projected Population (Incremental Increase Method)

Waste Water in MLD

2010 135 563,065 60.81

2015 135 655,880 70.84

2020 135 766,283 82.76

2025 135 898,441 97.03

2030 135 1,057,631 114.22

2035 135 1,250,540 135.06

2040 135 1,485,639 160.45

2045 135 1,773,655 191.55

Source - ASCI



INFORMATION BOX 5: SEWERAGE AND SANITATION – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

Only about 10% of sewage is flowing into the STP and most of the sewage is flowing in

open drains and only 7% of the households are connected to the UGD system.

At present the STP is not functioning and the waste water is flowing through open drains.

There is no proper Operation & maintenance of the sewage treatment plant.

Illicit dumping of the solid waste in the open drains chokes the area leading to unhygienic

conditions.

Community toilets are adequate but due to their poor maintenance only 50% of the

community toilets are functioning at present.

Incidences of open defecation are as high as 46.3% in slum areas which need considerable

improvement.

CITY SANITATION PLAN Gulbarga


4.2 STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

The drainage system in Gulbarga city consists of three primary drains, namely Kotnoor nallah,

Kapanur nallah and another nallah in the eastern part of the city. Sant Basveshwar Lake is a big

lake, which provides another major water body. Secondary and tertiary drains are built around

these water bodies.

Table 30 Drains and Natural Channels

Drain Type Length Distribution

Kms %

Open drains (Pucca) 77.00 77.00

Closed drains (Pucca) 23.00 23.00

Open drains (Kutcha) NA -

Subtotal (Drains) 100.00 100.00

Primary drain channels 10.00

Source - CCG

4.2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE NETWORK

The topography of town - A ridge passes from northwest to southeast direction along the

northern part of Gulbarga and to south west of Kotnoor nallah. Maximum level is at Chorgumbaz

of 504 m, while the minimum level of 440 is near Engineering College.

I. Primary Drains

The three primary drain channels run upto a length of 10 km within CC limits. They are identified as below 1. Kapnoor Nallah: Area north of Nehru gunj area (which is on the ridge), drains to a valley

near Kapnoor village. 2. Kotnoor Nallah: This is a major natural drain, which flows from north to south, in the

eastern part of the city. It starts near Masjid, flows through Santraswadi, Badepura, Rajapuraa, Kotnoor village and eventually joins Bhima River. This is a big natural stream, 5 to 20 m in width, full of trees and vegetation and carries major quantity of wastewater in the city.

3. Nallah in East: Manipura, Roza, Gazipur areas drain into a nallah to the east, which flows

through Santraswadi, Badepura, Rajapuraa, Railway bridge and joins Kotnoor nallah.

4. Sant Basaveshwar Lake: Drain water of areas in the north west, like Chorgumaz, Sheikh Roza and Shaha Bazaar drains into a trench constructed around the fort. It overflows into the Sant Basaveshwar Lake (S. B. Lake). A by pass drain has been constructed by the local body to prevent the waste water of city into this lake. However, this drain has not proved effective and the waste water continues to flow into S. B. Lake. Incidents of fish in the lake dying due to the inflow of waste water was reported last year. The overflow of S. B. Lake is carried by a built up drain upto the stadium, railway bridge and eventually joins Kotnoor nallah.



II Secondary and Tertiary Drains The drains are provided in both sides of the roads. All the drains are rectangular in shape. Secondary drains are constructed in stone masonry and concrete.

4.2.2 COVERAGE

Drains serve the dual purpose of carrying storm water in rainy season and wastewater in other seasons. It is, therefore, necessary to provide drains on both sides of the roads. The total length of the roads in the city is 603.57 km. The drains are required for a total length of about 1207 km. Actual length of built up drains is 100 km. They, thus, cover only 8.29 percent of the roads. As stated above, only 8.29 percent of the roads have pucca built up drains. The coverage by kutcha drains is not known. However, kutcha drains are not well defined and are easily damaged by the traffic. The meaningful coverage is thus limited to only 8.29% of the roads.

4.2.3 OUTFALLS

Disposal Almost 60 percent of the area in the city drains into Kotnoor nallah, 20 percent area drains into S. B. Lake while the remaining 20 percent area drains into other two nallahs (Kapnur nallah and nallah on the east).

4.2.4 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

While there are some sewer lines in the city, most of the areas are still dependent on the road side drains for carriage of waste water. In the absence of well-constructed drains in many areas, waste water flows along the streets and accumulates in low lying areas. Use of the open channels for dumping the garbage and plastic bags affects the draining capacity of these channels. The open cess pools formed in the low lying areas pose a serious threat to the health of the citizen, besides polluting the ground water and presenting very ugly sights. Many low lying areas in the city cannot be effectively drained as there are no proper outlets or secondary drains connecting them to the primary channels.

Condition of the storm water drains in Gulbarga

Source –ASCI



4.2.5 LOCAL FLOODING AREAS/ LOW LYING AREAS

In absence of well defined, efficient drain network, following areas are affected in heavy storms.

Table 31 Low-lying/Flooding areas, GCC

Sl. No. Area Ward No.

1. Janatha grah Nirman colony (SB temple

road) 33

2. Ganga Nagar 35

3. Kanka Nagar 21

4. Bhramapura 37

5. Moulalikatha 37

Source - CCG

Map 7 Location map of water logging areas, CCG



4.2.6 STANDARDIZED SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS

Table 32 Storm Water Drainage – Service Level Benchmarks,

Sl. No Indicators Benchmarks Status

1 Coverage of storm water drainage

network

100% 70

2 Incidence of water logging 0 3

[Source –SLB notifications of Karnataka ULB’s 2011]

INFORMATION BOX 6: STORM WATER DRAINAGE – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

Encroachment along natural drains.

No comprehensive plan for improvement of storm water drains.

Water logging and flood prone areas are observed in many parts of Gulbarga.

Inadequate capacity of drains due to silting and weeding of drains.

Partial/ haphazard lining of drains.

Flow of sewage and disposal of solid wastes into drains.

Lack of adequate maintenance of drain channel and associated structures.



4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Effective Municipal Solid Waste management (MSWM) services by City Corporation, Gulbarga,

aims at protection of Public Health, the Environment and natural resources as a result of

management from reduction of waste generation, segregation of MSW and recyclable material

and recovery of compost and energy. Gulbarga city has a growing population at about 40%

every decade. The Solid Waste generated in the City is 158.7 tons per day. A program for

improvement of Solid Waste management will be implemented in Gulbarga City in line with the

State policy as part of Nirmala Nagara Yojana. City Corporation’s health department, headed by

Health Officer (HO), is responsible for the solid waste management in the town. For the efficient

administration and for day-to-day operational purposes, the town has been divided into 30

sanitary zones covering the all the 55 wards of GCC.

As per the definition provided by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,

2000 of Government of India, municipal solid waste (MSW) includes commercial and residential

wastes generated in municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding

industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical wastes. The present section

elucidates the status of municipal solid waste management in the city of Gulbarga.

4.3.1 PRIMARY COLLECTION AND COVERAGE

Door-to-Door (D2D) collection is practiced in about 14 wards covering 14400HHs. Manually

driven tricycles are used for door-to-door collection. All the household wastes, bulk generator

wastes and street sweeping wastes is disposed off in community bins. Municipal solid waste is

not mixed with hospital and industrial waste. The rest of the households dispose their waste

into the street dustbins provided by CC by their own means. The CC has provided 898 collection

points at various locations covering the entire City for effective collection of waste, of which 390

are open concrete dustbins and 508 are open storage depots. Dustbins have been provided on

all major and minor roads and the spacing of the dustbins is about 1,500m (open storage depots

not considered).

Though the local body provides dustbins, many of the households, shops and commercial

establishments dispose waste on the streets, drains and open spaces within the locality, creating

unhealthy conditions. Further, the waste thrown into the open drains is leading to choking and

overflowing of drains, forming wastewater pools at some places.

Table 33 Solid Waste Collection Details of GCC

Particulars Quantity

1. Population 4,30,108

1. Total Projected Population (2011) 5,33,201

2. Amount of Domestic Waste Generated (tons) 98

3. Amount of Commercial Waste Generated (ton) 37

4. Total Waste Generated Per Day (in tons) 158.7

5. Total Waste Collected Per Day (in tons) 142

6. Collection Performance (in %) 89%

7. Construction Waste (in tons) 6.7



8. Street Sweeping Waste (tons) 15

9. Per capita Waste generated (in kgs) 0.29kgs

Source - GCC

The following table shows the collection & Segregation practiced ward wise in GCC

Table 34 Wardwise SWM details of GCC

Ward No

SWM generated quantity

SWM Collection quantity

Door-to-Door collection HHs

Segregation practiced

No. of local open dumpsites

(MT) (MT) (nos.) (Y/N) (nos.)

1 3422 3080 500 N 5

2 3561 3205 N 4

3 2456 2210 N 4

4 2478 2230 N 12

5 2112 1901 N 10

6 3075 2768 N 12

7 3030 2727 N 5

8 2818 2536 N 8

9 3921 3529 N 3

10 4715 4244 N 4

11 2306 2075 N 8

12 3052 2747 N 5

13 2637 2373 N 3

14 2091 1882 N 12

15 2998 2698 N 3

16 4679 4211 1200 N 9

17 7380 6642 N 16

18 3450 3105 345 N 13

19 2855 2570 317 N 12

20 3554 3199 110 N 6

21 2337 2103 200 N 8

22 2624 2362 676 N 5

23 2442 2198 622 N 9

24 2004 1804 987 N 9

25 2458 2212 N 7

26 2458 2212 N 6

27 2733 2460 N 9

28 2069 1862 N 4

29 2217 1995 N 3

30 2676 2408 N 6

31 2088 1879 N 10



32 6767 6090 N 16

33 2551 2296 N 8

34 2458 2212 N 8

35 3278 2950 N 5

36 2043 1839 N 8

37 2976 2678 N 5

38 3253 2928 N 12

39 2616 2354 N 9

40 2414 2173 N 3

41 2567 2310 168 N 8

42 2393 2154 855 N 10

43 3905 3515 N 6

44 3098 2788 N 12

45 2512 2261 N 9

46 4027 3624 N 4

47 5560 5004 N 8

48 2557 2301 N 6

49 2649 2384 220 N 7

50 3134 2821 N 2

51 2214 1993 1000 N 3

52 2842 2558 N 2

53 4987 4488 N 2

54 2652 2387 N 3

55 2990 2691 N 4

169139 152225 14400 780

Source - GCC

The following table shows that DTD collection is being done only in 14 wards and there is no

segregation of the waste that is practiced in GCC.

4.3.2 STREET SWEEPING

The staff employed is also detailed. All main roads and market streets are swept on a daily basis.

Others are swept alternate days, thrice a week, occasionally or not at all. The road length to be

swept by the sanitary workers is not standardized. Although planning for sweeping is done

many adhoc activities are undertaken and the various processes are not documented.

Depending on the concentration of the people / activity of the roads and lanes there was no

definite yardstick prescribed for the each sanitary worker.

Major activities in solid waste management are street sweeping activity and drain desilting,

which are both, time consuming and labour intensive. GCC manages street sweeping and drain

desilting in all the 30 sanitary zones with 500 sanitary workers, 67 percent of the total sanitary

staff. The total length of municipal roads and streets in Gulbarga is 604 km and total road length

per sweeper including the private staff works out to be more than 1,000m.



Due to insufficient manpower with the local body, frequency of street sweeping and desilting

activities is not uniform all over the city. Depending on the locality and necessity, street

sweeping is being taken up on the priority basis. In all, 30 percent of the streets are cleaned

daily, 45 percent twice a day and 25 percent of the streets are cleaned once a week or

occasionally. The total waste collected in street sweeping is 15TPD which is about 9% of the

total CCG waste generated

4.3.3 WASTE GENERATION, SEGREGATION, QUANTITY AND CHARACTERISTICS

About 158.7 tons of waste is generated per day in Gulbarga City. Gulbarga city corportation

collects about 142 tons (89 %), of the total waste, through its solid waste collection system. The

per capita waste generation in the town is about 297.6 gm per day that is higher than the

normative estimate of 210 gm per capita per day by CPHEEO for the similar size of city.

Segregation of waste is not being practiced in GCC. The following graph gives the details of

category wise waste generated and collected.

Figure 11 Category wise waste generation & collection

In Gulbarga, major source of waste generation, as in any typical Indian cities, has been the

households. The quantum of waste generated from households is about 98 tons, which is 61.8%

percent of the total solid waste generated in the city. The figure shows the quantity of waste

generated from various sources

Figure 12 Category of waste generated in GCC

2940

1110

450 201

60

2646

999

405 150 60

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Residential Commercial Street sweeping Constructionwaste

SlaughterHouses

Qu

an

tity

of

wa

ste

(M

T/

Mo

nth

)

Category of waste

Quantity of waste generated (MT/Month)Quantity of waste collected (MT/Month)

62% 23%

10% 4% 1%

Quantity of waste generated in %

Residential

Commercial

Street sweeping

Construction waste

Slaughter Houses



The commercial establishments generate about 37 tpd (23.3%) percent of the total waste

generation. Commercial establishments included here are like shops, hotels and trade &

commerce establishments. A number of daily and wholesale vegetable and fruit markets

generate organic waste to a quantum of waste such as Super Market, Asif Gunj, Station Area

Market, MSK Mills Market, Santi Market, Roza Market and Bramhapur Vegetable Market are the

largest markets in Gulbarga and contributes major chunk in total market waste. In addition,

there are two daily markets for meat and fish. The fish and meat markets including

slaughterhouse generate 2 tpd, which is about 1.3% of the total waste generation.

Composition of Waste: A study conducted by Health Department of GCC estimated that the

waste contain 58.68 percent of compostable waste, 22.14 percent of recyclable waste such as

paper, plastic etc, 4.66 per cent of hazardous waste and remaining 14.51 percent inert materials.

As depicted in below Table in comparison with the CPHEEO norms, the waste has very high

percentage of organic waste, which is roughly one and half times the norm of 39 percent.

Table 35 Physical composition of waste in GCC

Parameter CPHEEO Norms Gulbarga

% of waste % of waste

Total compostable material 38.95 58.68

Paper 4.71 22.14

Rubber, leather & synthetics 0.71

Glass 0.46

Metals 0.49

Inert Materials 44.73 14.51

Hazardous 4.66

Source: CPHEEO, CC Gulbarga

4.3.4 SECONDARY COLLECTION

The secondary collection refers to collection of waste from community dustbins and

intermediate collection points or transit points. However, in Gulbarga, there are no intermediate

collection points or transit points, and the waste is directly transported to the disposal site from

dustbins. Of the 55 wards, 37 wards have been contracted to private operator, for collection and

transportation operation, and CC Gulbarga is managing 18 wards.

Waste collected from dustbins and open dumping sites is manually loaded onto the

transportation vehicles. In addition to community dust bins provided by the CC, there are

number of undesignated waste-dumping points, which are attended to by the CC. Further, due

to lack of maintenance, many bins are in deteriorating condition. Discussions reveal that, the

residents and owners of shops and commercial establishments do not allow the municipal

authorities to provide dustbin at several places, primarily because of the perception among the

people that it may lead to filthy environment in the locality due to accumulation and irregular

collection of waste from the bins.



Frequency of Collection:

The frequency of waste collection from the dust bins and other dumping points in the town

varies from one day to twice-a-week, depending on the quantity of waste accumulation and the

locality. The waste from prime residential locations, commercial areas, public places like

markets, bus stand etc is collected daily. The frequency of waste collection from other

residential areas in the city is once for two days, i.e. alternative days. Waste from isolated and

remote residential areas of the town is collected twice a week or even more depending on the

quantity of waste generated.

Depending on the importance of the collection point (open storage point or dustbin) the

collection points are divided into three categories i.e. Type – A, B and C bins. Details of these

collection bins are presented in the following

Table 36 Type and Frequency of Collection of Dustbins

Type of Bins Number Frequency of

Collection

A 275 Daily

B 421 Alternate Day

C 202 Twice a Week

Source - GCC

4.3.5 TRANSPORTATION

In Gulbarga, as in most of the ULB’s in the state, waste transportation is being carried out using

open vehicles. The CC has presently engaged 62 vehicles for solid waste transportation. To

dispose the 142 tones collected each vehicle makes 2 trips on an average. The following table

shows the details of solid waste transportation vehicles

The following details of the SWM vehicles and the No of trips per day are given.

Table 37 Details of vehicles used for secondary waste transportation

Vehicle Type No .of vehicles

Capacity of each vehicle (tons)

No. of trips/Day

Total waste collected (tons)

Tractor Trailers 55 0.9 2 99

Dumper Placer 7 5 2 70

Primary Waste Transportation

Tricycles 200 0.05

Source - GCC



4.3.6 TREATMENT & DISPOSAL

Currently, the CC is not practicing any scientific safe solid waste disposal methods. The waste

collected from various localities in the city is transported and is being directly disposed off by

crude dumping at surrounding areas of SB Temple, Aland Road and Aiwan – e – Shahi,

Dariyapur. The dumpsites are open grounds with no compound wall, fencing or any other basic

facilities. An important issue here is that, the bio-medial waste is also disposed off along with

the municipal solid waste at these sites. Presently 28acres of land near Udnoor village has

already been procured and the remaining required land is under process of acquisition.

Composting would be one of the treatment and processing option. City Corporation is reviewing

on the received proposals and Agency profiles working on treatment of Municipal Solid Waste

by Composting and Vermi-Composting. Scientific Sanitary Landfill to be will be undertaken in

future.

Vermicomposting shed ,GCC Solid waste dump site, CCG Illicit dumping of solid waste

Slaughter Houses

The slaughter house in Gulbarga is located near Morrinpur.

About 18-20 animals are slaughtered per day generating a

waste of about 1 to 2 MT per day. The slaughter house is

cleaned by the municipality on a daily basis. The liquid waste

is connected to UGD lines which are not functioning at

present so the waste gets chocked or it gets diverted to open

drains. The slaughter house is in a dilapidated state with no

proper infrastructure.

4.3.7 INSTITUTIONAL SETUP & HEALTH OF SANITARY WORKERS

GCC’s health department, headed by Health Officer (HO), is responsible for the solid waste

management in the City. Health Inspectors and 1 Environmental Engineer support HO, and are

responsible for operations like street sweeping, drain desilting, collection, transportation and

disposal of waste in all 30 sanitary zones. There are about 222(permanent) and 180(agency

tender) poura karimikas working under the 6 health assistants.

4.3.8 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M)

The various factors like amount of waste generated, collection mode, availability of collection

bins and trucks, common treatment and disposal facilities, decentralized waste processing

plants and landfills should determine the adequate number of workers required for a city



corporation. The following table shows the annual recurring cost towards solid waste

management.

4.3.9 SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING INDICATORS

The following service indicators show the performance of SWM in Gulbarga.

Table 38 Service level Indicators for SWM

SN Indicators Unit Bench

Mark

Result

1 Household level coverage of solid

waste management services

% 100 15

2 Efficiency of collection of municipal

solid waste

% 100 80

3 Extent of segregation of municipal

solid waste

[Based on 2 bins distributed]

% 100 10

% 80

4 Extent of municipal solid waste

recovered

% 100 70

5 Extent of scientific disposal of

municipal solid waste

% 100 20

6 Extent of cost recovery in solid waste

management services

% 80 1

7 Efficiency in collection of solid waste

management charges

% 90 70

8 Efficiency in redressal of customer

complaints

% 100 60

4.3.10 FUTURE DEMAND AND GAP

The following table shows the projections for SWM considering the average per capita as 0.29kg.

Table 39 Projections for Solid waste Management

YEAR Avg per capita (kg)

Population (Average of Three Methods)

Projection of solid waste generated (TPD)

2010 0.29 563,065 163.29

2015 0.29 655,880 190.21

2020 0.29 766,283 222.22

2025 0.29 898,441 260.55

2030 0.29 1,057,631 306.71

2035 0.29 1,250,540 362.66



2040 0.29 1,485,639 430.84

2045 0.29 1,773,655 514.36

[Source: ASCI]

INFORMATION BOX 7: INITIATIVES BY THE GOVERNEMENT FOR SWM

The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, have emphasized the need to collect and dispose ‘rubbish and filth’ in a defined manner, so as to keep public places clean. However, there is no reference to scientific collection and disposal of the same. Hence, rules have been laid down fixing the responsibility of management of solid waste disposal and various standards for disposal solid waste.

The rules that regulate the management and handling of solid waste in Gulbarga are:

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000;

Karnataka State Policy on Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM);

Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998;

Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, 2000, 2003;

Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001; and

Recycled Plastics (Manufacture and Usage) Rules, 1999.

Guidelines for managing E-waste, 2002

INFORMATION BOX 8: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT– THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

DTD collection is being done only in 14 wards leading to only 15% of Household level

coverage.

Crude dumping of solid waste on the roadsides, open drains and vacant lands was

observed which creates unhygienic surroundings.

Segregation of waste is not practiced in Gulbarga city.

At present there is no scientific location for dumping the solid waste. The waste is being

indiscriminately being dumped.

The sanitary workers are not provided with any protective equipment posing health

hazards



4.4 WATER SUPPLY

4.4.1 SOURCE OF WATER

The first organized water supply to Gulbarga city was from Bosga reservoir for about 9MLD.

Later the system is augmented with 50MLD water scheme from Bhima river and 18 MLD water

supply scheme from Bennetora reservoir. At present 77 MLD water is being supplied to the city.

Further another augmentation scheme for 50 MLD from Bhima river is in proposal for future

demand.

At present water is being supplied every alternate day at the rate of 135LPCD. After

implementation of 50 MLD Bhima river scheme water is expected to supply every day at the

rate of 135 LPCD for the ultimate period of 2041

An overview of the present water supply system in Gulbarga city is shown

Table 40 Overview of existing water supply system in Gulbarga City

Description Units Indicators

Total area of Gulbarga sq.km 65

Households covered by House

service connections

Nos 30940

Total Households covered by

House service connections

% 42

Number of metered

household connections

Nos 3303

Present gross water supply (surface & Ground)

Bhosga reservoir MLD 9

Bhima river augmentation MLD 50

Bennetora scheme MLD 18

Total water supplied from

treatment plant

MLD 77

Frequency of supply Hrs Daily(11/2 hrs)

Net supply (including system

losses)

LPCD 135

Source-DPR

Existing Water Supply Systems

Bhosga Reservoir System

This system was designed to supply water to 100,000 population and was commissioned in year

1970.The storage reservoir was initially constructed to store water for 30,000 population of

Gulbarga city. The reservoir is located at a distance of 9.6 km to the north west of the city and

has been constructed across the nallah with 90.23 sq. km catchment area. In 1970, a regular

water supply scheme, named as Comprehensive Water Supply Scheme to Gulbarga Stage I, was

planned to serve 100,000 population of Gulbarga City. The bund of the reservoir was raised to

increase the storage capacity from 8.18 mcum (289 mcft) to 11.86 mcum 418.65 mcft) by

raising the level of the bund of reservoir. The reservoir consists of an earthen dam with RCC

spillway. The dam is 1044 m long and has a top width of 3.6 m.



The system was designed to supply 18 MLD, but the reservoir storage has been substantially

reduced due to heavy silting of the tank. The source is presently capable of supplying about 9.09

MLD in normal rainfall years. Due to the failure of monsoon in last two years, the reservoir is

completely dry and cannot be depended on for regular water supply to the city.

Transmission.

Water drawn from the reservoir is conveyed by gravity upto the water treatment plant through

one 750 mm diameter RCC main laid for a length of 9.60 kms. There may be some leakages in

the pipeline. However, it is a low-pressure gravity main and can continue to be used, whenever

there is some water in the storage reservoir.

Bennithora River Water Supply System

Second stage water supply development took place in year 1978, with Bennithora river as the

source of water. This system has been designed to supply 9 MLD. The source works are located

at a distance of about 20 kms from the Sultanpur water treatment plant.

River Works Surface water in Bennithora River is drawn through

(i) An intake well of 2.50 m diameter and 3.5 m height;

(ii) 600 mm diameter CI connecting main laid for a length of 51 m;

(iii) 8 m diameter and 16.43 m deep jack well; and

(iv) 12.70 m diameter and 6.60 m high pump house.

The civil structures of the intake works are in good operating condition. The river is not

perennial. However, one irrigation weir on the downstream and occasional releases from

Gandori irrigation storage reservoir, about 15 km on the upstream, provides sufficient water in

the riverbed. The physical, chemical and bacteriological quality of river water needs to be tested

regularly. The pumps are reported to operate for about 22 hours per day. With the design

discharge of each pump of 7900 lpm, the pumping capacity of one pump is about 10 MLD.

However, only about 4.55 MLD water is reported to be reaching the water treatment plant. The

exact discharge of the pumps needs to be ascertained. Installed capacity is about 18 MLD in 20

hours.

Bhima River Water Supply System

Third stage development of Gulbarga city water supply took place in year 1993, as the earlier

two stages from Bhosga Reservoir and Bennithora river were not dependable for steady supply

to the city throughout the year. This system was designed to supply water to 330,000

population expected in year 2011, at 30 gpcd (135 lpcd). The capacity of the system is 25 MLD.

Storage Barrage. A barrage has been constructed across Bhima River, near village Saradgi,

about 27.50 km from the city, to store water in the riverbed. The dependability of the Bhima

river source has thus been ensured by, construction of the barrage and occasional releases of

water from Almatti dam canal irrigating the Bhima basin.

The works are recently constructed and in good condition. This is now the major source of

water supply to Gulbarga city and is used for 22 hours a day.

4.4.2 EXISTING TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE CAPACITIES

Water Treatment Plant



Old Sultanpur Water Treatment Plant

This plant was designed to treat 2.5 MGD (11.25 MLD) water and has following components.

(i) Three rectangular sedimentation tanks constructed in stone masonry.

(ii) Five rapid sand filter beds, each of 0.5 MGD (2.27 MLD).

(iii) 0.14 ML RCC wash water tank.

The civil structures of the water treatment plant are in reasonably good condition. There

is no proper coagulation and filtration system. Even when there is no water in the Bhosga

reservoir, it will be possible to keep this WTP in operation by diverting Bennithora river water

to this plant.

Sultanpur Water Treatment Plant.

This plant is a conventional water treatment plant, designed to treat 2 MGD (9.09 MLD). This

plant is operating well below its design capacity of 9 MLD. The plant is in reasonably good

condition but suffers from inherent deficiencies like flow cannot be measured, chemical dosing

system is not in use, filter controls are missing, and chemical dosing and filter washing are done

arbitrarily.

Chorgumbaz Water Treatment Plant.

This plant is designed to treat 25 MLD water and has following units.

Aeration fountain, in the form of four cascades, with designed capacity of 50 MLD;

Raw water channel with a weir;

50 MLD capacity flash mixer with electrically operated 3 HP flash mixer;

One clariflocculator, designed to handle 25 MLD, with four 1 HP flocculators and 2 HP

motor operated clarifier scraper bridge;

Six beds of rapid sand filters, each bed designed to treat 5.50 MLD water;

Back wash arrangement, comprising two 10 HP back wash water pumps and 0.337 ML

capacity RCC overhead tank for storing back wash water;

Chemical dosing system installed in a chemical house, with arrangement to prepare

alum solution tanks in three tanks fitted with 0.5 HP alum mixers; and

Gravity feed chlorinator.

The water treatment plant has been performing well, except for a few deficiencies like no facility

to measure the flow, no laboratory support for plant operation, filter controls nonfunctional,

and dosing of chemicals and back washing of filters being done arbitrarily.

New Water Treatment Plant at Intermediate Pumping Station Site

One 2.5 MGD (11.25 MLD) water treatment plant is being constructed at the IPS site. It will have

two flocculators, two tube setting tanks and filters as the main treatment process. This plant,

when completed, is expected to serve areas south of the railway line.

Clear Water Transmission Mains.

Treated water from Chorgumbaz WTP flows to the city through transmission mains, indicated in

Clear Water Transmission Mains.

Water Distribution

Balancing and Service Storage Reservoirs Water supply to the city will be done through 34

balancing or service reservoirs. 21 of these are existing reservoirs and 13 more are being



constructed

Table 41 Details of Service Reservoirs (Existing and Under Construction)

Zone

Nos.

Service Reservoirs Type Capacity Status

lakh liters

1 Koranti Hanuman Temple ELSR 10.00 Proposed

2 KHB Colony ELSR 2.27 Existing

3 P & T Colony ELSR 9.10 Existing

4 Daryapur ELSR 4.55 Existing

5 Near Harinagar & Ganeshnagar

(Opposite Archana Mahila School)

ELSR 75.00 Proposed

6 NGO Colony (Inside Shiv Mandir &

Park)

ELSR 15.00 Proposed

7 S.B. College GLSR 27.28 Existing

8 Mahaveernagar ELSR 9.10 Existing

9 Inside Div. Commissioner's Office

Compound

ELSR 5.00 Proposed

10 Near Govt. Arts & Science College ELSR 10.00 Proposed

11 Jayanagar (Inside Govt. Primary

School)

ELSR 10.00 Proposed

12 Jagruthi Colony (Off Ring Road) ELSR 15.00 Proposed

13 Inside Police Ground (Near Northern

Corner)

ELSR 15.00 Proposed

14 S B College ELSR 9.10 Existing

15 Basava Nagar ELSR 9.10 Existing

16 Dhanagarawada ELSR 4.55 Existing

17 GLSR at Chor Gumbaz (Common for

Zones 17 & 29)

GLSR 44.00 Proposed


Zones 17 & 29)

GLSR 13.50 Existing

18 D C Office ELSR 9.10 Existing

19 S P Office ELSR 9.10 Existing

20 Mominpura ELSR 9.10 Existing

Source - KUWSDB

The following table shows the details of service reservoirs and their capacities.

Table 42 Details of service reservoirs in GCC

Zone

Nos.

Service Reservoirs Type Capacity Status

lakh liters



21 Roza GLSR 27.28 Existing

22 Badepur (GDA) ELSR 9.10 Existing

23 MECCA Colony (Inside Children

Park)

ELSR 15.00 Proposed

24 Roza ELSR 4.55 Existing

25 Billalabad (Opp. Humnabad Road) ELSR 15.00 Proposed

26 HSR Compound GLSR 27.28 Existing

27 New Storage Reservoir (NSR) GLSR 25.60 Existing

27 Old Storage Reservoir (OSR) GLSR 6.20 Existing

28 Sheik Roza (GDA) ELSR 9.10 Existing


Zones 29 & 17)

GLSR 57.50 Proposed

30 Filter bed ELSR 9.10 Existing

31 HSR Compound ELSR 13.64 Existing

32 Opposite Central Excise Building

(Behind Doordarshan)

ELSR 10.00 Proposed

Total 484.20

Source: CC Gulbarga and KUWSDB

Distribution Network. There is no documented data on the distribution network. Approximate length of distribution system network, in 17 zones of water supply system, is presented in the following table

Table 43 Zone-wise Distribution system

Zone Service Reservoir Type of Quantity of Distribution

Reservoir Water Filled

per day

Length Connections

ML m nos.

I S. B. College GLSR 2.73 20,000 2,050

II S. B. College ELSR 0.91 15,000 700

III Basavanagar ELSR 0.91 15,000 600

IV Dhangar Galli ELSR 0.46 10,000 500

V P & T Tank ELSR 0.91 13,000 700

VI Kothari Bhavan ELSR 0.91 12,000 500

VII Old Filter Bed GLSR 2.73 46,000 2,523

VIII Shahabazar ELSR 0.91 15,500 1,789

1IX HSR Compound

(Shivaji Nagar)

ELSR 1.36 15,500 2,106

X HSR GLSR 2.73 + 1.36 25,000 1,800

XI Mominpura ELSR 0.91 14,000 742

XII Roza GLSR 2.73+2.73+0.46 12,000 1,400

XIII Roza ELSR 0.46 10,000 826



XIV N S R GLSR 2.73 - 469

XV Super Market GLSR 0.91 14,000 1,437

XVI D. C. Office ELSR 0.91 20,000 1,201

XVII Roza GLSR 2.73 18,000 1,800

Total 30.49 275,000 21,143

Source: KUWSDB

4.4.3 SERVICE COVERAGE

Water Supply Connections

There are in all 23,000 property connections, all of them being unmetered. In addition, there

are reported to be about 1,170 public stand posts, supplying water to economically backward

households and slum areas.

Local Ground Water Sources

Borewells

In addition to the three surface water sources, about 1,326 bore wells supply water to small-

localized pockets, mainly through public stand posts. Service reservoirs in CITB colony and

Badepura also receive water from the bore wells and distribute this water through their

distribution network. While 170 bore wells are fitted with submersible pumps, remaining 1,156

bore wells are fitted with hand pumps. Ground water is available at a depth of 90 to 120 m.

Total Supply from the bore wells is estimated to be about 5.50 MLD. Due to scanty rainfall in last

few years and excessive drawl to meet the water shortage, the ground water table is going

down, resulting in the failure of many bore wells with hand pumps. The ground water is also

reported to contain slightly high fluoride contents

Water Quality Monitoring

Raw Water Quality. Physical, chemical and bacteriological tests are done in the laboratory of

the Medical College at Gulbarga. Schedule followed for water quality monitoring of Bhima river

system is indicated in the table

Table 44 Water quality maintenance

Item Description

Raw water Physical, chemical and bacteriological tests every

month.

Measurement of turbidity of

water at WTP

Daily, by using turbidity rod. There is no turbidity

meter.

Residual chlorine Daily, both at the WTP site and in consumer taps.

Bacteriological analysis of water

supplied to consumers

Not done.

Source: Report by Wilbursmith associates and KUWSDB

Water sample analysis reports collected from KSPCB, Gulbarga city



Table 45 Sharanabasaveshwar Tank Water, Gulbarga City water sample analysis

Parameter Limits Results (Sample collected on 03-01-2011)

Intel tank

Opp. Science Center

Tank outlet

Center of the tank

Near Darga

pH 8.43 8.56 7.48 8.56 8.52

Conductivity micro S/cm 1030 1020 1010 1010 1010

Biochemical oxygen demand (3 days at 270C) mg/l

17 12 12 13 18

Free Ammonia mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.02 0.24 0.13

Boron mg/l 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sodium absorption ratio 3.8 3.8 4.3 3.7 3.7

Dissolved oxygen mg/l 7 7.7 6 6.6 6.8

Total coliform (Viable cells/ml of original sample

Plate count 630 270 100 100 160

Source- KSPCB

Water testing results for Bore well and open well water samples, Gulbarga City

Table 46 water testing results for bore wells and open well water sources, samples

collected on 27-08-2010

Parameters Limits IS

10500

for

drinking

water

Results for bore well water samples

Near Mission

India, West

side of

Shoragummag

Near Sri

Shivalingappa

House, south

side of

Shoragummag

Near

Siddaradu

matta, east

side of

Shoragummag

Near

Dharamanna

House, 100

meters from

Shoragummag

pH 6.5 to 8.5 7.3 7.5 6.9 7.0

Chloride

(mg/l)

250 110 96 200 70

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/l)

500 414 418 1245 380

Sulphate

(mg/l)

200 70 96 426 61

Total

hardness

(mg/l)

300 130 116 804 280

Calcium

(mg/l)

75 29.6 32.8 224 76

Magnesium

(mg/l)

30 13.6 8.23 59.3 21.8



Total

alkalinity

(mg/l)

200 214 110 270 188

Nitrate

(mg/l)

45 - - - -

Fluoride

(mg/l)

0.6 to 1.2 0.82 2.3 1.7 0.64

Turbidity

(NTU)

5 Nil Nil 2 Nil

Total iron

(mg/l)

0.3 - - - -

Hexavelant

Chromium

(mg/l)

0.05 Not detected Not detected Not detected Not detected

Total

residual

chlorine

(mg/l)

0.2 Nil Nil Nil Nil

Color Hazan

unit (mg/l)

10 Colorless Colorless Light yellow Colorless

Sodium

(mg/l)

- 60 116 170 37

Potassium

(mg/l)

- 2 1 2 1

Source - KSPCB

It is observed that all the parameters are within the permissible limits.

Water tariff

The following table shows tariff structure of water supply system for Gulbarga City.

Table 47 Details of Water Tariff for Gulbarga City

Type of connection Rs/Month No.of units

Domestic Connection 60 31793

Non domestic 90 20

Non domestic 200 455

Bulk 3/4th inch 300 -

1 inch 600 -

Source - CCG



4.4.4 STANDARDIZED SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS

Table 48 Service Level Indicators for Water Supply

S.No Indicator Unit Bench

Mark

Value

1 Coverage of water supply

connections

% 100 80

2 Per capita available of water at

consumer end

LPCD 135 100

3 Extent of metering of water

connections

% 100 10

4 Extent of Non Revenue Water % 15 35

5 Continuity of water supply Hours/Day 24X7 0

6 Efficiency in redressal of

customer complaints

% 80 50

7 Quality of water supplied % 100 95

8 Cost recovery in water supply

services

% 100 30

9 Efficiency in collection of water

supply related charges

% 90 50

4.4.5 FUTURE DEMAND AND GAP

The following table shows the projections for water demand considering the average per capita as being 135 LPCD

Table 49 Projection of water supply requirement

YEAR Avg per capita (lpcd)


Water Supply requirements (MLD)

2010 135 563,065 76.01

2015 135 655,880 88.54

2020 135 766,283 103.45

2025 135 898,441 121.29

2030 135 1,057,631 142.78

2035 135 1,250,540 168.82

2040 135 1,485,639 200.56

2045 135 1,773,655 239.44

Source - ASCI



Pilot project of 24x 7 water supply

Presently in Gulbarga City Corporation the demonstration for 24x7 water supply has been

introduced in 11 wards. At present the 24X7 water supply has been discontinued as it was not

progressing efficiently.

The details of the following are.

Table 50 Salient Features Of Gulbarga Demonstration Zone 24X7 Water Supply

Total number of covered under demo : 11 Wards (7 part and 4 full)

zone

List of part wards covered under demo : 6, 19, 24, 33, 42, 43 and 49

zone

List of full wards covered under demo : 17, 23, 32 and 44

zone

Areas covered under demo zone : Shah Bazar, Wadargalli, Kadgharpur,

Lalgiri, Sharan Nagar, Vittal Nagar,

Garden area, Gazipur, Super Market,

Kirana Bazar, Lohar galli and

Bamboo bazar.

Source of water supply demo zone : Bennethora River

Bulk water provision for demo zone. : GLSR at Old Filter bed area.

Population of demo zone (2006) : : 64,242

Water demand (2006) 6.87 MLD (1.5 MGD)

Population of demo zone (2008) : 66,831

Water demand (2008) : 7.15 MLD (1.6 MGD)





Total number of properties in demo : 3,810

zone



Chapter 5

Institutional capacity and finance

Gulbarga City Corporation was established in the year 1981. The CCG has the responsibility of

making provision for basic civic amenities and maintenance of core services in the city viz.,

maintenance of streetlights; provision (maintenance) of drainage and sewer facilities, solid

waste management, maintenance of parks, gardens and play grounds; sanitation and

maintenance of city roads. In addition, it also provides for primary education and medical needs,

markets, cremation and burial grounds, slaughter houses, and regulating advertisements. The

CCG receives however the bulk of its revenue in the form of intergovernmental transfers

through grants.

The financial analysis of CCG has been done on the basis of income and expenditure data

provided by the CCG. The financial analysis of CCG has been done on the basis of income and

expenditure data provided by the CCG, through budget documents from 2007 to 2012 data. On

the income side, under the revenue account, the resources are generated through levying of

various taxes/duties and rental income from municipal properties. The capital and suspense

accounts deal with the transfers (grants and contribution) from government. The expenditure of

CCG is also divided into three major similar headings viz., revenue expenditure, capital

expenditure and suspense account.

Table 51 BUDGET SUMMARY STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-2008

NAME :CITY CORPORATION, GULBARGA

Rs.In Lakhs

SL No

PARTICULARS Actuals for the previous year 2005-06 (Rs.)

Budget Estimate for the current year 2006-07 (Rs.)

Actuals upto December of the current year 2006-07 (Rs.)

Revised Budget Estimate for the current year 2006-07 (Rs.)

Budget Estimate for 2007-08

1 2 4 5 6 7 8

A OPENING CASH & BANK BALANCE

Cash & Bank balances (Major code 47)

192.41 763.45 763.45 763.45 1046.61

B Revenue account

B1 Revenue Receipts 1440.16 3599.88 2086.98 2861.80 4437.26

B2 Revenue Payments 1246.07 2396.97 1807.82 2771.54 3491.63

Cash Surplus/ (deficit) on Revenue Account

194.09 1202.91 279.16 90.26 945.63

C Capital account



C1 Capital Reveipts 1244.38 1516.36 519.32 761.33 1481.00

C2 Capital Payments 645.37 1684.84 469.49 560.94 2558.14

Cash Surplus/ (deficit) on Capital Account

599.01 -168.48 49.83 200.39 -1077.14

D Extraordinary Account

D1 Extraordinary Receipts

424.18 735.31 375.37 451.95 712.34

D2 Extraordinary Payments

646.24 709.85 389.86 459.44 976.67

Cash Surplus /(deficit) on Extraordinary Account

-222.06 25.46 -14.49 -7.49 -264.33

E TOTAL CASH SURPLUS/( DEFICIT) (B+C+D)

571.04 1059.89 314.50 283.16 -395.84

F CLOSING BALANCE (A+E)

763.45 1823.34 1077.95 1046.61 650.77


763.45 1823.34 1077.95 1046.61 650.77

Source - CCG



Rs.In Lakhs

SL No






1 2 3 4 5 6 7


763.45 1330.69 1330.69 1330.69 1602.89


B Revenue account

B1 Revenue Receipts

2153.59 4437.27 4212.85 4797.26 6075.07



B2 Revenue Payments

1676.52 3491.64 2586.59 3951.64 1234.240714


477.07 945.63 1626.26 845.62 4840.829286

C Capital account

C1 Capital Reveipts 596.4 1481 346.2 425.6 1388

C2 Capital Payments

496.05 2558.14 612.14 866.55 2945.09


100.35 -1077.14 -265.94 -440.95 -1557.09



444.27 712.34 385.68 523.44 757.49


454.45 976.67 392.97 655.91 826.14


-10.18 -264.33 -7.29 -132.47 -68.65


567.24 -395.84 1353.03 272.2 3215.089286


1330.69 934.85 2683.72 1602.89 4817.979286


Source - CCG





Rs.In Lakhs

SL No






1 2 3 4 5 6 7


1098.45 1602.89 2088.87 3637.88


B Revenue account

B1 Revenue Receipts 4672.39 6075.07 4980.75 11036.80

B2 Revenue Payments 3253.38 5682.74 2445.42 6546.35

Cash Surplus/ (deficit) on Revenue Account 1419.01 392.33 2535.33 4490.45

C Capital account

C1 Capital Reveipts 295.5 1265 395.64 560.00

C2 Capital Payments 1067.44 2945.09 1531.37 7799.79

Cash Surplus/ (deficit) on Capital Account -771.94 -1680.09 -1135.73 -7239.79

D Extraordinary Account 0

D1 Extraordinary Receipts 1207.869 880.49 2952.85 3642.68

D2 Extraordinary Payments 864.51 826.14 2803.44 4096.79

Cash Surplus /(deficit) on Extraordinary Account 343.359 54.35 149.41 -454.11

E TOTAL CASH SURPLUS/( DEFICIT) (B+C+D) 990.429 -1233.41 1549.01 -3203.45

F CLOSING BALANCE (A+E) 2088.879 369.48 3637.88 434.44


Source - CCG





Rs.In Lakhs

SL No






1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A OPENING CASH & BANK BALANCE 2088.87 3637.88 3637.88 3637.88 4315.77


B Revenue account

B1 Revenue Receipts 4980.75 11036.8 3778.98 4999.21 9848.56

B2 Revenue Payments 2445.42 6546.3 3254.61 4303.88 7013.41


2535.33 4490.5 524.37 695.33 2835.15

C Capital account

C1 Capital Reveipts 395.64 560.00 416.24 554.99 1210.00

C2 Capital Payments 1531.37 7799.79 1230.29 1640.39 7821.00


-1135.73 -7239.79 -814.05 -1085.40 -6611.00



2952.85 3642.68 1708.93 2630.24 3182.63


2803.44 4096.79 1171.36 1561.81 3437.04


149.41 -454.11 537.57 1068.43 -254.41


1549.01 -3203.45 247.89 678.36 -4030.26




3637.88 434.44 3885.77 4316.24 285.51


Source - CCG

The following graph shows the revenue receipts and Revenue Payments of CCG. It is observed

that the revenue receipts have shown a decline in the year 2010-11 whereas the revenue

payments remain constant for the years 2009-11.

The following graph shows the Capital receipts and Capital Payments of CCG. It is observed that

the capital payments are really high for the past four years.

Figure 14 Budget Estimate of Capital receipts & Payments

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Budget estimate for Capital receipts & Capital payments

Capital Receipts

Capital Payments

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

Budget Estimate of Revenue receipts & Revenue payments

Revenue Receipts

Revenue Payments

Figure 13 Budget Estimate of Revenue receipts & Payments



Chapter 6

Sanitation Situation w.r.t. National Ranking Parameters

6.1 SANITATION SITUATION W.R.T. NATIONAL SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS

The Ministry of Urban Development has identified a set of output, process and outcome

indicators to assess the existing sanitation conditions in the town. The list of indicators pertain

to the practice of open defecation, access to sanitation (individual, community and public),

collection, treatment and disposal of solid and liquid wastes, proper upkeep and maintenance of

the sanitation infrastructure, clear institutional roles and responsibilities and improvements in

health and environment (cf. Annex 1). A total of 19 indicators have been detailed, of which nine

are output-related ( six are direct indicators identified under service level bench marking by

GoUD, GOI) , seven are process-related and three are outcome-related. Sanitation parameters

such as access to community toilets, safe management of human excreta and solid waste

collection and treatment.

Output Indicators: 50/100 ( 9 main output indicators and out of which 6 are SLB indicators)

Behavioural aspects and provision to safe collection, treatment and disposal without harming

city’s environment.

Process Related: 30/100 ( 7 main process-indicators )

Indicators pertain to systems and procedures - exist and practiced by city agencies to ensure

sustained sanitation.

Outcome Related: 20/100 (3 main outcome-indicators)

Indicators include: quality of drinking water & water in water-bodies, reduction in sanitation-

related and water-borne diseases over a time period.

Diseases by faeco-orally transmitted enteric pathogens - 10% of total burden of disease in India.

Intestinal group of diseases claim about 5 million lives and about 50 million people suffer every

year.

Findings of a survey commissioned by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) that rate

Indian cities on safe sanitation practices of 423 Class-I cities (with a population of more than

100,000 ). Four color codes have been assigned to the cities based on the points they obtained

in the rating; red means the cities need 'immediate remedial action', black means 'need

considerable improvement', blue means ‘recovering,’ green means ‘healthy and clean.’

community-driven Nirmal Shahars, or totally sanitized, healthy, and livable cities and towns.

As per national Rankings, Gulbarga has been ranked at 8 out of 423 Class I cities, scoring 27.15

marks out of 100 and in Black category. This means performance of Gulbarga in regard to safe

sanitation has a good scope for improvement on various indicators. A complete profiling of

Gulbarga against 19 parameters has been done indicating present status and identifying few

targets which can be achieved immediately, in a short term and in long term. The goal of



Gulbarga is to strive for 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in next two years and 100

percent safe disposal of all town generated waste in long term.

Table 55: Sanitation Ranking for Gulbarga City Corporation

Sl. No. Indicators Total Marks

Marks awarded

Remarks

1. OUTPUT RELATED INDICATORS

1.a. No Open Defecation

1.a.i.

Access and use of toilets by urban poor and other u-served households by individual and community sanitation facilities

4 0

Field assessment also validated on OD status and agrees with Ranking markings. Short Term Goal - two year (Ref management options on Access.) 1 st year – eliminate OD

1.a.ii. Access and use of toilets by floating and institutional population

4 2 Inadequate only 10 Public toilet as the dependency is high Ref: management options

1.a.iii. No open defecation visible

4 1.17 Short to long term MIS, punitive measures and incentives through IEC.

1.a.iv. Manual Scavenging eliminated in the city

4 4

Overestimated - No protection to sanitary workers. Sustaining efforts throughout CSP process and even after that

1.b.

Proportion of total human excreta generation that is safely collected

6 4.5 Short to Medium – UGD is under construction. Proposal for DEWATS systems in parts of the city.

1.c.

Proportion of total black waste water generation that is treated safely and disposed off

6 0

Damages in UGD system – black water mixes with storm water and drains off into the river. STP not functioning.

1.d.

Proportion of total grey wastewater generation that treated and safely disposed of

3 0

Medium – to long term Nil now 30-40% - 2012 40-100% 2010 onwards Next year – 1 mark

1.e. Proportion of treated wastewater that is re-cycled and re-used

3 0

Medium – to long term Nil now. 1- 10% 2012 10- 20% 2012 -2014 20% and more 2014 onwards.

1.f.

Proportion of total storm-water and drainage that is efficiently and safely managed

3 0

Short – to long 40 – 60% : 2012 60- 80 2012 : 2014 100% 2014 onwards

1.g. Proportion of total solid waste generation that is regularly collected

4 1.25 Short to medium 25%-60% D2D collection improvement by 2012



60 – 100% 2012 onwards Sustenance of system – 2012 onwards

1.h.

Proportion of total solid waste generation that is treated and safely disposed of

4 0 Long Term

1.i.

City wastes cause no adverse impacts on surrounding areas outside city limits

5 0

Long Term Storm water drains clogged with dumped solid waste – in monsoons all the waste gets washed into the river and seas.

OUTPUT RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

50 12.92

2. PROCESS RELATED INDICATORS

2.a.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Systems in place to track incidences of Open Defecation (OD)

4 1 Short Term Adhering all

2.b. All sewerage systems working properly and no ex-filtration

5 3.5 Medium to long term

2.c.

All septage / sludge cleaned and safely transported and disposed after treatment, from on-site systems

5 5

2.d. Storm-water drainage systems functioning and maintained

4 2 Frame work plan for maintenance

2.e.

Solid waste management (collection and treatment) efficient (MSW Rules, 2000)

5 1.41 Medium to long term

2.f.

Documented Operational system and clear institutional responsibility assigned for each of the above

4 4 Overestimated.

2.g.

Sanctions for deviance on part of polluters and institutions clearly laid out and followed

3 1 Short Term Frame rules

PROCESS RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

30 17.91



3. OUTCOME RELATED INDICATORS

3.a. Quality of drinking water in city

7 5.95 Long Term Proposals/strategies for sustenance

3.b. Water quality in water bodies in and around city–

7 0

Overestimated. Several water bodies affected with illicit solid waste dumping. Short – medium term strategies to be adopted

3.c.

Reduction in (sanitation-attributable and) water-borne disease incidence amongst city population

6 0

OUTCOME RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

20 5.95

GRAND TOTAL 100 36.78



Chapter 7

City-Wide Sanitation

7.1. INTRODUCTION

From the situational analysis it is evident that urban sanitation is not only lacking investment it

is also lack of systematic plan for environmental sanitation1. NUSP (2008) mandates ULBs for

universal access, safe management of human excreta, including its safe confinement, treatment

and disposal and associated hygienic related practices. Hence City - wide strategies are

important as they prioritize investment needs and can directly fund to where they are most

needed. In keeping with the above, sanitation vision and following cross cutting strategies are

addressed in CSP of Gulbarga. In this section brief outline of Vision statement and specific

strategies are dealt.

7.2. VISION AND CITY- WIDE SANITATION PLANNING

7.2.1 VISION STATEMENT

“Gulbarga to be environmentally safe and totally sanitized city so as to ensure good public

health standards, human dignity, and privacy for all citizens”

This covers – collection, transportation, treatment and disposal to prevent disease,

pollution and safeguard dignity.

Keeping these visions in mind, goals have been proposed to be achieved in the Immediate of

Short Term Period (2012-2013), Medium Term Period (2014-2016), and Long Term Period

(2016 onwards). The goals as proposed have been presented as follows.

Table 56: Goals for City-wide Sanitation Planning, Gulbarga

Period Goals

Immediate

(2012 -13)

–Elimination of open defecation

–Improvement of sanitation situation in slums

–Universal access to safe sanitation

–School Sanitation

–Up gradation of unsanitary to sanitary toilets

–Credible Information (MIS)

–Ensuring success of UGD for Sanitary and safe disposal of human excreta and liquid

–City-wide education and awareness campaign

–Decentralized technology options for pockets not covered under UGD.

–100% Door to door collection of MSW

1Environmental Sanitation (WHO,1987) includes aspects of excreta and waste water disposal, together with wider environmental factors that impact on health, such as community water supplies, refuse collection and disposal, disease vectors ,housing, food supplies and handling, atmospheric conditions and working conditions.



–Source segregation of waste

–Framing of laws for deviance on the part of polluters and institutions

–System for maintenance of water bodies

–Reduction in no. of cases of water borne diseases, especially malaria

Medium

term

(2014-2016)

– Sanitary and safe disposal of human excreta and liquid waste (continuing process)

– Regulation of septic tanks and septage management

– Litter free areas

– Sustenance of SWM system

–Systems in place for good O & M (individual, community level toilets and disposal

systems) through behavior change and good management practices.

– Institutional arrangements and Capacity building

–Safe transportation and disposal of MSW

Long term

(2016

onwards )

– Water recycle and reuse

–Controlling adverse effects of city wastes on surrounding areas

– Monitoring and evaluation

– Environmental and financial sustainability.

7.2.2 PRINCIPLES OF CSP

CSP not only emphasis on the physical infrastructure but also focus on behavior change

outcomes, proper usage, institutional reorientation, regular upkeep and maintenance, increased accountability and service delivery by ULBs and their partners. Accordingly the

strategies have been developed on the basis of following principles:

1. Right to sanitation and mobilization of community for demand creation: Access to

sanitation facilities shall be universalized (100%) without any barrier of cost/ fee, land

tenure etc., but also bearing the associated responsibility as well. Household sanitation is

first and foremost the responsibility of a household. Hence, sanitation will be promoted

based on demand i.e. communities and households will be encouraged to priorities by

contributing to a significant portion of the costs involved in providing and running a

sanitation system. Improve sanitation by institutionalizing rewards for good performance

and sanctions against harmful actions and IEC programs to improve sanitation. ULB / Utility

may provide free consultations, designs and drawings and quality control for onsite

sanitation.

2. Focus on sound finances and maintenance: Sanitation system should be sustainable. The

users should pay against use to maintain sustainability. Similarly, polluters should pay for

the cost of cleaning up the impact of their pollution on the environment. Choice and

maintenance of facilities have to be well thought of in advance to make service affordable

and sustainable. Need to ensure last mile connectivity to water supply system and sewerage

system in network coverage area. Door to collection should be 100%.

3. Integrated institutional engagement: Sanitation cannot be maintained without proper

water supply, solid waste management and development is not possible in isolation.

Coordination is necessary between different departments, all tiers of Government and other

stakeholders with clear roles and responsibilities. Need to ensure last mile connectivity to

water supply system and sewerage system in network coverage area. Door to collection

should be 100%.



4. Environmental integrity and health benefits: Sanitation services, which have

unacceptable impacts on the environment, should not be considered to be adequate.

Environmentally acceptable solutions to local problems that do not cause deterioration of

the wider environment must be considered in all development activities. Appropriate

protection of the environment should be applied, including if necessary prosecution under

the law is required. Sanitation, environment and health are all interlinked and process of

improvements which should be accompanied by promotional activities as well as health and

hygiene education.

Strategic planning likely to be constrained by the lack of a supportive context – the policies,

rules, attitudes and procedures with in which planning takes place. Hence, the following

components of sanitation strategies are examined in CSP as per parameters of sanitation rating

systems.

Table 57: Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies

Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies

Proposals ( Capital, O &M,

IEC and Rehabilitation

projects)

A. Sub- Sector

strategy

(Output -related )

1. Open defecation free status by

ensuring access to all (including

poor and slum dwellers as well

as visiting population).

2. Excreta Disposal and Waste

Water Management by early

commission of ongoing UGD and

sustaining its O&M on

continuous basis.

3. Integrated Solid Waste

Management.

To provide safe access to HH sanitation and cover entire population by toilets.

For safe disposal of waste water storm water and solid waste.

To meet the national

standards for safe

disposal of liquid and

solid waste.

B. Enabling and

Sustaining

Strategies

(Process –

related)

Issues to be addressed in preparing

the implementation plan;

4. Awareness raising and hygiene

promotion and community

participation.

5. Institutional Strengthening and

Capacity building for Sanitation

Management in achieving better

service standards,

6. Financial Management of the

Sanitation Sector and resource

mobilization.

7. Private sector and NGO

Participation in Sanitation

development.

C. Monitoring Strategy for Monitoring and



and

Evaluation

evaluation

Implementation plan to propose

monitoring systems.

7.2.3 ASSUMPTIONS, NORMS AND UNITS COSTS

Formulation of CSP is based on few assumptions and certain available norms as detailed below;

INFORMATION BOX 9: ASSUMPTIONS FOR CITY SANITATION PLAN

• Generally all Households will be connected to UGD by the year 2041.

• Zero OD status to be achieved by 2013

• No. of HHs using community toilets would reduce over time as they would be provided

with individual household type toilets

• Floating population: 10,000 per day in 2011.

In order to maintain desired sanitation levels and achieve improved health and environmental

indicators certain standard of service have to be maintained. The basis for the maintenance of

service levels is Standardized Service Level Benchmarks. They are assessed in Gulbarga as per

MoUD framework and certain other norms and standards followed as indicated in the table

below for estimation of deficiency in sanitation. This would enable to estimate infrastructure

gaps and investment requirements for future.

Table 58: Norms for Household Sanitation

Unit

A Household sanitation infrastructure

1 Latrine connected to septic tank 1 per household

2 Grit and grease trap 1 per household

B Public and Community Sanitary Conveniences

Public Toilet

1 Users per Latrine Seat 60 users/ seat

Community Toilet

2 Users per Latrine Seat One seat toilet can cater for 20

HHs

C Septage Clearance, Treatment and Disposal

1 No of septic tanks cleared per vehicle per day 3 tanks per day per vehicle

2 Frequency of septage clearance from septic tank Once in 2 years

3 Septage volume removed per tank 2 cum

4 No of operational days per annum 300 days

Sludge Drying Beds

5 Area per drying bed(average) 225 m

6 Dimensions of drying bed 15m x 15 m



8 Thickness of liquid sludge layer in drying bed 0.20 m

9 Septage Sludge Drying Cycle 10 days

10 Sludge volume per bed 45 cum

D Wastewater Conveyance

1 Street Collector Sewers 1.50 m / household

2 Branch Sewers 0.75 m / household

3 Trunk Sewers 0.40m /household

E Waste Water Treatment and Disposal

1 Reuse for irrigation/ garden/ parks Tertiary

2 Disposal into river secondary

F Solid Waster Management

Road Length per Sweeper 400 –600 m

Sweepers per 1000 population 3

Garbage Collection Points 1 for 15 HHs. (75 Persons.

Norms for Road sweeping A Type – Daily sweeping - 20%

B Type – Sweeping twice in a

week - 30% to 40%

C Type – Sweeping once in a

week - 40% to 50%

One Tractor trailer For every 25 Kms of sweeping

road length, 3 loaders / vehicle.

One Tipper Truck For every 40 Kms of sweeping

road length, 4 loaders / vehicle.

Water Supply Posts 1 for 15 HHs.(75 Persons)

@ 45 Ipcd to 1 for 10 HHs. (50

Persons) 1 Tap for 75 Persons.

Markets/Slaughter house

1 worker / 400 m2 area, for two

time cleaning everyday.

[Source: Hoshangabad CSP]



7.2.4 VARIOUS OCCURRENCE OF ISSUES VERSUS CONSEQUENCES IN GULBARGA

Some of the prominent issues faced by Gulbarga to maintain sanitation are put in a matrix to

show their low to high occurrence versus low to high consequences so as to prioritize solutions

in CSP.

CO

NS

EQ

UE

NC

ES

VE

RY

HIG

H

50% of Community

toilets are not

functioning due to

poor maintenance.

As the STP is not

functioning

sewage flows into

storm water

drainage network

High occurrences

of open

defecation in

slums (46.31%)

HIG

H

Scientific

disposal of

MSW

Adequacy of

School

sanitation

Only 15% of

Household

coverage in solid

waste

management

Adequacy of

Public toilets

ME

DIU

M

Monitoring of

regulations

Collection

efficiency &

Segregation

practices of MSW

LO

W Inefficient MIS

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

OCCURRENCES



The following sections present the strategies for the various related sub-sectors related to sanitation for CCG area. The Sub-Sector Strategies are followed by guidelines for the Enabling and Sustaining the aforesaid strategies through IEC, proper suitable financing mechanisms, and guidelines for improvement of Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities. This is followed by suggestions for proper and adequate Monitoring and Evaluation of the existing and the proposed systems.

Figure 15: Components of CSP strategies



7.3. SUBSECTOR STRATEGIES

This CSP aims guiding through next steps in achieving the goal of city wide sanitation for

Gulbarga. Broad strategies identified will try to lay down road map for achieving total sanitation

and hence detailed out. Also in this section along with strategies, infrastructure gaps estimated

as per practiced norms mentioned in previous section. Also both management and technical

options and financial requirement to bridge the gap have been assessed.

7.3.1 OPEN DEFECATION FREE STATUS BY ENSURING ACCESS TO ALL (INCLUDING POOR AND SLUM DWELLERS AS WELL AS VISITING POPULATION).

Open defecation, incidences are really high (46.31%) in slum areas. This mainly pertains to the

behaviour of the people, unavailability of proper public conveniences and the migrant labour

class population in the city. This has to be addressed in immediate term with concerted efforts

to make OD free especially in the context that UGD is going to be operational.

To achieve OD free status socially inclusiveness approaches that can be promoted are:

Promoting access to households with safe sanitation facilities (including proper

disposal arrangements);

Demand driven approach for access and promoting community-planned and managed

toilets wherever necessary, for groups of households who have issues of space, tenure

or economic constraints in gaining access to individual facilities;

• Triggering social action by intensive IEC to prevent OD

• Promotion of no cost/ low costs technologies of right kind

• Adequate availability and 100% upkeep and management of Public Sanitation facilities

in all busy areas and floating population affected areas

• Promoting partnerships to construct community and public toilets - Public Conveyance

blocks

• Increased access of the poor to water for hygiene

• Build capacities, political support and technical trainings

• Norms for sanitation provisions in buildings (including non-residential) and spaces

where public congregate, through bye-laws

• Municipal fund creation for neighbourhood project



A. HOUSEHOLD SANITATION ARRANGEMENTS

UGD system is under construction. At present, only 5171 HHs (5.19%) are connected to the UGD. It can be assumed that 35 % of HHs can be

connected by the year 2016.

Important milestones for Gulbarga:

1. No more open defecation by Year: 2012 - 13 (achieve OD free status by intensive IEC). 2. Halve the pollution of surface waters by human excreta by 2013; 3. Increase the utilisation rates of municipal sewerage services by 2016 4. Unsanitary toilets will be upgraded by the year 2014

Table 59: Indicative figures in Household Sanitation Arrangements over CSP Implementation Period

Sanitation Arrangement

Pre-CSP Year CSP Implementation Period

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Remarks

WC Connected to Conventional Sewer (no of HHs)

5171 10263 15871 21819 28125 40609

The UGD proposed will be

completed by 2041 so it is

assumed about 35% of HHs

will be connected till 2016

In % 5.19% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 35.00%

Sanitary Toilets no of HHs)

67984 73090 80204 79640 76501 67295

In % 68.25% 71.22% 75.80% 73.00% 68.00% 58.00%

Community Toilet User Households

2548 6158 7406 7637 7875 8122 No. of HHs would reduce

over time being provided

with individual household

toilets in % 2.56% 6.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%

Households practicing open defecation

16934 8467 0 0 0 0 Zero OD status to be

achieved by 2012



in % 17.00% 8.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

households using unsanitary toilets

6973 4649 2324 0 0 0

Households using unsanitary toilets will be upgraded by 2014

in % 7.00% 4.53% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DEWATs and other types no of HHs) 0 0 0 0 300 600

DEWATS should be

proposed in areas which is

not served by UGD about 2

DEWATS units with a

capacity of 300 HHs in each

unit should be proposed. In % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.27% 0.52%

Total Households

99610 102626 105805 109096 112501 116026



B. SLUM SANITATION IMPROVEMENT

Creating demand responsive participatory approach to provision of community blocks

wherever individual toilets are not possible will be important aspect in creating access. This can

be done by giving incentives for private contractors, NGOs, community organizers to work

together to jointly deliver community toilet blocks. Partnerships can be led either by contractor

or NGO with each other. There need be high technical standards, high quality service levels and

provisions for children.

Considering Gulbarga situation, series of options need to be worked in slums as follows:

Sewerage for individual household latrines (IHHL)

Delinking tenure ship for slum residents to build toilets.

Management arrangements to be worked. Eg. CBO members operate and manage toilet

block on their own, or CBO employs the staff like caretaker to operate and manage the

toilet block or CBO contracts a caretaker (individual or family) to manage and operate

the toilet block on its behalf.

In this regard estimation done for number of toilets and urinals needed under various

categories to make the city fully sanitized. Models for providing shared toilets, public toilets2

and urinals as needed and operations and maintenance of the infrastructure, including charging

user fees is indicated below. The planning for public toilets has taken consideration the

following user groups: floating population, population during weekly markets, population that

comes into cities for special occasions like fairs, religious activities etc, population at public

place like bus stands, railway stations etc. Such facilities can be managed through community

groups, NGOs, CBOs and private operators on a self-sustaining basis.

At present about 50% of the community toilets are not functioning and as the dependency is

high an immediate necessity for upgrading is required. The proper O&M is very much necessary

for the sustenance of such toilets. Hence, the City Corporation will act as facilitator and sign an

MOA with local residents who are going to use it for O &M which is going to be the responsibility

of Community.

C. PUBLIC SANITATION FACILITIES

Estimation of public toilet facilities

Table 60: Estimation of Proposed Pay and Use complex (Each unit)

S. No Component Estimated Cost in Rs

1 No. of Seats 12 Nos

2 No. of users for maximum extent -Morning &

Evening. 3 hours + 3 hours

3 One seat can accommodate 60 persons per day

4 Total capacity 12 nos X 60 persons /day

7 Revenue per month (720 persons * 1 per person =

720 x 30 days ) Rs. 21,600/-

2 The current standard for public toilets is one seat for 60 users on a 24 hours rotation basis.



8 Revenue by Ad per month ( one wall) 500

9 Total revenue 22100

10 Cleaning articles Rs 50 x 12 toilets 600

11 Sweepers 2 nos 4000

12 Civic maintenance and other contingencies 1000

13 Caretaker 4000

14 UGD user charges 360

15 Total Expenditure 9960

16 Estimated Private Operator Income

12140



Indicative infrastructure requirements in making city sanitised while following climbing sanitation ladder approach:

Table 61 Indicative investment requirements, O&M Costs And User Charges For Public/ Community Sanitary Conveniences

Unit 2011 (Pre CSP)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A. Public Sanitary Conveniences 125 seats existing

Additional 8 seats

Additional 8 seats

Additional 9 seats

Additional 8 seats

Additional 8 seats

Additional 42 seats

i. Floating population served (including persons served by existing PSCs)

Persons 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500

Required seats 167 175 183 192 200 208

ii. Capital cost towards construction of public sanitary conveniences

Rs 20000 per seat

8.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6

iii Indicative minimum user charge Rs. per use

iv Annual O&M of public sanitary conveniences

Rs (400/month per seat)

66667 70000 73333 76667 80000 83333

v UGD charges capital costs (one time)

Rs 91200 247000 228000 228000 228000 228000

vi UGD user charges Rs 30 month per seat)

5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250

B. Community Sanitary Conveniences

i. Households Served No of HH 2548 6158 7406 7637 7875 8122

ii. Seats to be constructed Number 238 seats existing

Additional 70 seats

Additional 62 seats

Additional 12 seats

Additional 12 seats

Additional 12 seats



Required seats 127 308 370 382 394 406

iii Construction of community sanitary conveniences

Rs 20000 per seat

0 14 12.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

iv Annual O&M of community sanitary conveniences

Rs (400/month per seat)

95200 123151 148128 152734 157501 162437

Assumptions: Existing floating population is 30000. It will increase to 60000 by Land will be provided by government, respective departments who have huge visitors or ULB. To eliminate OD all community toilets will be added in first two years. Later it is assumed that few people will switch over to individual

toilets and those additional seats will cater to increase in slum population. UGD one time connection cost Rs 3800 per HH. Indicative user charges for community toilet per HH is Rs 30 per month. Or Rs 1 day. Indicative user charges for public toilet Rs 1 per day.use. Capital cost for construction of toilet is Rs 20000 per seat. (inclusive of water and electricity connection) Source: CSP Analysis of ASCI, 2010



Determination of ideal locations for proposed public toilets

As mentioned earlier, the existing no. of seats in public and community toilets in Gulbarga is

inadequate to serve the needs of the households & floating population at present. But spatially,

there are several wards where there is an influx of floating population, but there are either

inadequate or no public conveniences in those areas. Gulbarga has a floating population of about

10,000 pp. /day and it is observed that the concentration of floating population is in wards 50,

52, 17 and 16, as these areas are commercially active and are insufficient in public conveniences

At presents there are 10 public toilets with a total of 125 seats, which is inadequate Hence, there

is a need of additional facilities. An addition of 4 more blocks of public toilets with a minimum

of 10 seats each is required. The possible locations are proposed keeping in view the

concentration of population and the convenience facilities requirement.

Map 8: Proposed locations for new public toilets



Determination of ideal locations for proposed community toilets

The condition of sanitation in the slum areas of Gulbarga is quite poor. As mentioned earlier,

about 46.3% HHs in the slum areas do not have toilets. Hence, it has been estimated in the

previous sections (Section 6.3.1.A) that to meet the sanitation needs of the slum areas in

Gulbarga , atleast 20 community toilet complexes are required with 10 seats each. This is in

addition to the proposal for the proper upgradation of the existing community toilet. The

remaining HHs will be provided toilets through ILCS and other schemes (ref. Section 6.3.1).

The determination of the ideal locations for the proposed community toilet complexes is

important, so that they cater to the maximum number of HHs and are put to optimal use for

proper sustenance. The process/methodology followed for determination of location of the

toilet complexes has been explained as follows.

In Gulbarga, since the number of slums is quite large, the analysis was made wardwise. Firstly, a

detailed analysis of the wards and the availability of toilets were done. The wards having large

percentages of HHs not having toilets were identified and were identified as the primary targets.

Thereafter, depending upon the number of HHs the aforesaid wards were given priority scores.

Table 62 shows the details of the wards of Gulbarga, the HHs not having toilets and the

associated priority scores.

For the determination of the most ideal locations for the community toilets, certain other

aspects were also taken into account, which are as the following:

Availability of land

Proximity of other wards with similarly poor sanitary conditions

The locations determined thereby and also the location of the existing community toilets (with

proposals for upgradation) is shown.

Table 62 Priority wise details of wards for the determination of location of community toilets

Ward No. Slum Popn Slum HHs slum HHs without toilets

% HHs having Open defecation

Proposed community complex

43 2380 439 171 39.00%

40 813 187 107 57.20%

3 1517 337 284 84.30% 2

40 1131 234 52 22.20%

53 727 155 48 31.00%

53 1397 254 70 27.60%

22 597 134 29 21.60%

31 271 50 47 94.00%

48 611 129 127 98.40%

52 696 153 117 76.50%



52 1422 283 158 55.80%

50 47 8 7 87.50%

38 2059 371 313 84.40% 2

38 1622 300 256 85.30% 1

49 2324 527 360 68.30%

45 264 50 50 100.00%

43 564 89 29 32.60%

17 508 91 26 28.60%

21 1880 408 80 19.60%

32 1668 342 292 85.40% 2

32 471 121 98 81.00% 1

23 382 70 36 51.40%

23 391 70 51 72.90%

45 1026 192 69 35.90%

23 529 97 95 97.90% 1

23 6 1 1 100.00%

23 858 188 140 74.50%

32 1343 285 280 98.20% 2

46 249 50 49 98.00%

46 1490 300 278 92.70% 2

22 281 52 38 73.10%

44 752 121 25 20.70%

23 726 128 27 21.10%

23 439 83 41 49.40%

50 870 184 157 85.30% 1

23 223 44 7 15.90%

53 694 155 146 94.20%

53 2966 617 502 81.40% 3

53 2514 524 494 94.30% 3

36 1952 458 84 18.30%

41 1253 238 166 69.70%

Total 60196 12085 5597 46.31% 20

Source - ASCI



The following map shows the probable spatial locations of the community toilets with

reference to the table 62. From the map and the table, it is clear that community toilets have

been proposed in wards 32,3,23,46,50,38 & 53.

Map 9 Probable spatial locations of community toilets

INFORMATION BOX 10: FINANCE OPTIONS MODELS FOR COMMUNITY LATRINES

1. Municipal fund for neighbourhood projects (Indonesia) Blitar, a small town in East

Java, is special for its community development fund. It has twenty neighbourhoods, of which

three are poor. The budget of the town was Rp. 6.14 billion (US$ 646,000) in 2004, double

the amount of 2002. Under its community block grant programme the city disburses 2% of

its income directly to the neighbourhoods for small projects, including an obligatory 13% for

low cost housing. The neighbourhoods themselves contribute 13-22% of the project funds in

kind or cash. The purpose of the fund is to increase public participation and self-

management and allow local officials and communities to exercise their autonomy. Village

Community Empowerment Institutions (LPMSKs) take care of mobilization. Women

participate in the mandated community assemblies in which these projects are planned.



Since 2003 project selection criteria include the number of poor beneficiaries. Most local

grants go to improvement of infrastructure. From 2005 on, use of funds for hardware is

restricted to 60%. Learning from mistakes is an accepted part of the approach.

2. Slum Sanitation pogramme of Mumbai: A key feature was the involvement of slum

communities in project implementation right from the planning stage. The mobilization

process facilitated collaborations between NGOs, contractors and CBOs. In each slum a CBO

was formed and registered as a trust or a society (under the Bombay Public trust Act. To

express its “demand” each family in the target slum area was asked to pay contribution

Rs.100 per adult (maximum of Rs 500 per family) as a membership fee. The amount was

deposited in a joint bank account. After construction of the toilet block the CBO typically

certifies it’s satisfactory completion and signs a MOU with the municipal Corporation. The

responsibility of maintaining the toilet block is then handed over to the CBO. MOU specifies

that CBO will operate and maintain the toilet block. 3. After the reforms in TSC programme, priority was given for setting up sanitary complexes

in a place acceptable for both men and women. The prescribed unit cost is up to Rs 2 lakh,

shared by GOI, State Government and the community in the ratio of 60:20:20. However, the

community contribution can be made by the local governance from its budget (GOI, CSRS

2002). This approach directly provides subsidy to communities rather than individuals.

Though many households are inclined positively to have IHL, the scarcity of space, the

traditional taboos have become a constraint for construction of IHL. To overcome such

constraints, the integrated Community Latrines Complex (ICLC) becomes a substitute. The

maintenance cost of the community sanitary complexes has to be met by the

Panchayats/voluntary organisations/charitable trusts/Self Help Groups and not the

committee set up by local government.

D. SCHOOL SANITATION PROVISION

In Gulbarga like any other city, school latrines and water points become dirty and run down as

detailed in the situational analysis report. As a result, they are not used and create a health

hazard. School water supply, sanitation and hygiene education are very important for the

following main reasons:

Promotes health and hygiene behaviour at an early stage of childhood.

Improves the health of children and results in a lower dropout rate, especially among

girl children.

Huge network of schools offers a ready-made infrastructure to influence the students,

teachers, parents and hence the community.

Children are the change agents; hence, it ensures generational change in the adoption of

the health and hygiene behaviour.

A good cleaning and maintenance system requires funds, spare parts, people and equipment,

and a clear division of roles and responsibilities among the actors involved. A number of

organizational options for maintenance suggested: through a cleaning committee, by classes

on a rotation basis, with or without a rewarding mechanism, or by individual students.

The children should be encouraged to help to maintain their own school environment and

facilities. The following models are recommended for school sanitation.



a. Health Clubs School health and hygiene clubs are usually involved in helping children for maintenance tasks.

School health clubs (or similar groups with other names) can be very useful for:

stimulating safe hygiene behaviour among children;

monitoring SSHE programme;

reaching out into the community;

Prepare an annual action plan for the School health club;

Organise school activities in planning, teaching, monitoring, and maintenance;

Conduct community activities with the help of headmaster and teachers;

Different actors should be engaged and all work together to promote and implement gender-

responsive sanitation, health and hygiene solutions. This includes:

1. Schools – (parents, PTAs, school councils, teachers,

2. students)

3. NGOs and CBOs

4. Women’s groups

5. Youth organizations

6. Governments – including Ministries of Education, Health, Water

7. Health providers

8. Researchers

b. School committee Often school committees are found very effective and can be established in schools to plan and

implement school sanitation programmes. These Committees may usually consist of students,

teachers, and parents with following roles :

Take a lead in co-ordinating and preparing action plan of SSHE programme.

Involve other actors in mobilizing local resources and support special activities like fund

raising, construction, maintenance and repair;

Organise various activities periodically to collect funds for various programmes;

Budget, allocate and supervise funds.

E. PROVISION OF SANITATION IN OTHER AREAS FOR ACHIEVING CITYWIDE

SANITATION

National Building Code (NBC 2005) of India is basis for all Building Regulations and adopted by

respective states in the country, which clearly specifies that any building meant for human

occupancy or use should have adequate sanitation and disposal facilities irrespective of

availability of sewerage.

Detailed norms are available in the code depending on occupancy saying in no case less than

one water closet should be provided. Wherever disposal facilities are not available they shall be

provided as part of the building design for ensuring highest standards of sanitation condition.

Part 9 on Plumbing services Section 1 of Water Supply Drainage and Sanitation clearly details

the requirements under safe sanitation provision. But authorities are failed in implementation

of NBC and Building regulation to check building plan approvals. CSTF should intervene in this

and two members should be identified from CSTF to ratify building plans for adequate

sanitation provision. Clear rules need to be amended on responsibility of toilet provision in the

premises of any human occupation or use. Various uses generally found in any given city and

options for sanitation provision to achieve citywide sanitation are indicated below:



Table 63: Addressing access to various categories of uses

Residential Institutional Recreational Commercial Transport Schools Others

Slums : Notified and non

notified.

Non Slums: Old areas, New

upcoming areas, DTCP

approved colonies, Govt

quarters.

Central Govt offices,

State Govt offices and

private offices.

Public Places,

Shopping areas,

malls, markets,

Agricultural

markets, Fair areas

etc

Railway station,

Bus stations

All

government

and non

government

schools.

Industries

Individual/ Community

toilets Independent toilets.

Public toilets on BOT basis (ref management options). These

properties have to provide land within their premises.

Individual

toilets Independent toilets.

It is the responsibility of

private individual to

construct and maintain toilet

as per NBC and Municipal act

norms. A mechanism to build

social pressure to maintain

design standards needs to be

worked.

Strict implementation of building bye laws like no building permitted for construction and occupation without toilet and all Govt

buildings need to take approval of ULB for building construction. Monitoring is the responsibility of ULB.

Note: Wherever UGD is available toilets will be connected to UGD. Otherwise a decentralized concept for black water treatment by Biogas facility and duck weed

based technology for grey water treatment should be implemented and it is individual responsibility.

The strategies mentioned below provide management options for various problem areas

The study of the sanitation situation and projection of demand to address environmental sanitation have highlighted deficiency in respect of

sanitation. NUSP, National rating award scheme, Standardized Service level Bench Marking framework of Government of India all provide a

good structure for defining steps to be taken for CSP and its implementation. Though KMC will have overall responsibility in implementing

CSP, it will also require concerted efforts of many stakeholders to achieve various goals. For this partnership arrangements with relevant

government agencies, private sector, civil society, Non-government organizations (NGO) need to established and institutionalized for

successful implementation of CSPs. It is observed that different models will work in different situations and some of the options to be tested



and implemented by KMC are as follows:

Table 64: Management Strategies

Option A Option B Option C Option D

1. Improving Access

HHs Individual toilets with

subsidy.

Up gradation with technical

support for alternatives.

Up gradation with financial

support for alternatives.

Guidance notes to APL on

different types of toilets with

technical support.

Schools Designing, field testing and

propagating child – friendly,

gender friendly and disabled

friendly toilets by ULB as

part of IEC.

Mobilizing business houses,

companies etc. to donate or

adopt toilets with ad rights.

Promoting PPPs for O&M Education dept. bears capital

and O &M by outsourcing.

Public/Institutional

toilets

Create public-private

partnerships between

service providers and

government agencies.

Mobilizing business houses,

companies etc. to donate or

adopt toilets with ad rights.

Generators of huge visitors

(railways, KSRTC, Court,

shopping complex, market

areas, theaters and Govt

offices) to give land for pay

and use toilets on BOT mode.

Consolidate IEC money of all

govt. programs for O&M and

use Toilet walls.

2. Black soil and Waste water Treatment

Septage Management Update and amend

regulations on tariffs for

septage management.

Considering subsidizing of

emptying fees to poor.

Frequency of septic tank

emptying regulated by

authorities to every three

years.

Public awareness campaign for

enhanced frequency of septic

tank emptying and develop

annual septage symposium.



Sludge Treatment and

disposal

Improving on public utility’s

collection and

transportation Capacity.

Regulations for and licensing

of private entrepreneur

involvement in sludge

collection and

transportation.

ULB manage contractors for

scheduled desludging.

Clear policies and guidelines

for developers.

Promotion of no cost/ low

costs technologies like soak

pits to septic tanks (Areas

where UGD is not covered)

UGD Scheme Ref Starters

ISWM Promotion of RWAs, local

committees in 100% door to

door collection.

Making segregated wastes

available at disposal /

treatment facilities.

- 20% (2011 -2012)

- 60% (2012 -14)

- 100% (2014 onwards)

Recycling waste

- 50% (2010 -2012)

- 60% (2012 -14)

- 80% (2014 onwards)

Scientific treatment and

disposal by developing pilot

initiatives and testing by 2014

and scaling up afterwards.

3. M& E and awareness

Regulation A strong regulatory

framework to be put in place

by amending the Municipal

Act, Building regulations

with rules on following:

Guidelines on

penalties/fines to be

imposed on

littering,

obstruction of

natural and artificial

drainage, faecal and

septic effluent

discharge in to

drains.

Public awareness

campaign

Triggering social

mechanisms to prevent OD,

behaviour change, disuse of

toilets. Raise public

awareness through

multimedia campaigns,

Expose NGOs and media to

importance of sanitation to

gain their support.

Build political support with

exposure visits, technical

trainings, reports, and

workshops.

Manuals on guidelines,

regulations, O& M of toilets

and extensive dissemination.



targeting children in

particular.

Monitoring and

evaluation

1. Gather information and

develop databases and

regular updation.

- SWM, Drainage, sanitation,

track O&D

2. Adoption of “Protocol” on

monthly collection of data

from each ward/slum and

publish in public forum.

Framing rules and

specifications and effective

monitoring especially to

make sewerage systems

work without any ex

filtration in the future.

Continuing O&M

practices(cleaning toilets,

emptying pits/septic tanks,

maintaining waste water

disposal systems)

Technical evaluation and

finalization: Appraising models

for toilets, solid/liquid waste

management, school

sanitation, vulnerable and

special needs populations,

menstrual hygiene.

Sustaining usage O&M

and governance

Impact monitoring: periodic

and regular monitoring of

socio economic, health,

ground water and soil

impact indicators.

Institutional processes:

Community monitoring of

construction, usage etc,

social pressure on usage and

O&M etc.

Establishing linkages for funds

defining allocations/sharing

costs, determining community

Contributions.

Documented operational

systems and institutional

responsibility assigned for

each sector by preparing

written manual.



7.3.2 EXCRETA DISPOSAL AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

Sewerage system need not be the only sanitation system for liquid waste. Onsite sanitation

systems to treat grey and black water or a combination depending on the user choice shall be

adopted for less dense settlements and other uncovered areas. Need to ensure 100% treatment

of both black and grey water. For onsite sanitation, periodic cleaning shall be ensured. ULB may

provide the equipment at a fee and also final disposal, depending on the type of onsite

treatment involved. The proposals for Gulbarga consider safe containment, treatment and

disposal of human excreta and community liquid waste. This will be achieved by:

Ensuring that all human wastes are collected, treated and disposed off safely;

Promoting proper disposal and treatment of sludge from on-site installations

(septic tanks, pit latrines, etc.);

Promoting proper functioning of network-based sewerage systems and ensuring

connections of households to them;

Encourage recycle and reuse of treated waste water for non-potable applications,

wherever possible.

I.TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR FECAL TREATMENT AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT

100% of human excreta and liquid wastes from all sanitation facilities must be disposed-off

safely. Rudimentary latrines (discharging into drains and nalas) widely spread in Gulbarga, are

the first step to manage excreta. The next step in the sanitation ladder is any form of improved

latrines that ensure more hygienic separation of excreta and the final step is a flush latrine

connected to a septic tank or a sewer network. Each successive step of the ladder represents a

higher unit cost but is assumed to give a correspondingly lower level of health risk (Morella

2008). Different types of sanitation systems (indicated in the table) below and decentralized

wastewater treatment plants can be suggested i.e. septic tanks, biogas toilets and Decentralized

Wastewater Treatment System (DEWATS).

The six technologies represent different levels of sanitation services. Whereas the septic tank

aims only at providing better hygienic conditions, the ecosan and biogas systems provide

additional benefits (reuse of nutrients, biogas). The decentralized systems aim at reusing the

treated wastewater for irrigation.



Table 65: Intended benefits for the six technology systems.

Basic Sanitation Waste Water Treatment

Intended

benefit

Septic

tank

Biogas Ecosan SIBF** MSF*** DEWAT

S****

Type Individu

al

Individual /

Communal

Individual /

Communal

Commun

al

Commun

al

Commun

al

Better Hygienic

Conditions

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Reuse of

Nutrients and

Biogas

NA Yes Yes NA* NA* NA*

Reuse of

treated waste

water for

irrigation

NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes

**Solid Immobilised Biofilter (SIBF)

***Multiple Stage Filtration (MSF)

****Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System (DEWATS)

As it has been mentioned earlier, biggest advantage in regard to Gulbarga is its advance stage of

implementation of UGD. This will solve most of its treatment needs of sludge and grey water.

But in some pockets with in CCG limits ( narrow lanes etc.) and areas adjacent to it, use of septic

tanks or pit latrines continue to stay and will exist in Gulbarga even after cent percent UGD

implementation. Accordingly an estimate of capital costs and O &M models have been done in

the subsequent pages.

Following options are suggested for Non UGD areas;

Table 66: Waste water treatment options for Non UGD areas

Sl. No. Area Preference 1

(Offsite)

Preference 2

(onsite)

Option 3

(onsite)

1 New upcoming areas

(high income)

UGD DEWATS Septic tanks

2 New upcoming areas (

Low income)

UGD DEWATS Two pits

3 Slums of narrow lanes UGD Communal septic

tanks

Biogas tanks

All systems provide water for irrigation with which users get in contact so regular monitoring is

required to keep the hygienic risks low. Hence education on appropriate hygiene practices as

well as the use of the systems as a way to improve aspects, such as smell and breeding insects,

should be provided on ongoing basis.

The biogas and Ecosan system pose medium risk to the person who is emptying the systems,

whereas the SIBF and the DEWATS feature only low risk as users do not get in direct contact



with the system. The risk here is dependent on the reuse of water for irrigation practices, type

of crops and how well the prior treatment has worked. One factor of success of the

decentralized systems is the well-organized operation and maintenance, which is either

conducted by a private company or a community committee. Those decentralized systems also

require less energy (and have therefore lower costs) than conventional treatment systems.

Considering the small pockets in new upcoming areas Gulbarga ideally should have following

options for preference in sludge treatment:

II. ENSURING EARLY OPERATIONALISATION OF ONGOING UGD SCHEME IN GULBARGA FOR

WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT AND EXCRETA DISPOSAL

Prime responsibility of Gulbarga is to see high cost intensive UGD to function well with effective

STPs. Otherwise there is a fear that network will be just another conduit to transport all the

waste and dump outside city limits without any treatment. To make UGD functional on

sustained basis selection of STP is utmost important and an intervention of expert committee is

suggested involving district officials, Engineer in chief, PHED, implementing agencies like

Larson & Toubro, consultant of UGD DPR and ULB officials. This should be done on priority

basis and following suggestions are given for effective functioning of UGD;

III. STARTERS FOR SEWERAGE

Major challenge lies in ensuring cent percent connectivity to ongoing UGD. There is no IEC

programme taken up so far to motivate people in raising connection costs, benefits of UGD and

its operation and maintenance. It is highly important that scheme has to be explained in detail

about benefits of having sewerage access, need of maintaining STP as per CPCB norms and huge

O&M costs involved. Hence an intensive communication programme through local cable TV

network, newspapers etc. should be ideally a starting point. Concerns of the stakeholders

provide strength and motivation to the Gulbarga City Corporation to overcome the problem that

may occur and can do midterm corrections. For effective functioning of UGD following

immediate actions are suggested;

Table 67: Starters for UGD

Recommendation Possible Constraints Actions

Ensuring 95% UGD

Coverage

- Mobilizing connections (last

mile connectivity)

- Collection of connection cost

in time

- Bringing more properties in

to PT net ( no of PT

assessments proportionately

increase UGD connections)

- Building positive image of

MC in general public.

- Develop robust MIS in three months (

intensive field verifications, cross checking)

- Widening PT net

- Pro poor policy on UGD connection cost and

IEC. - Modifying building bye-laws to have UGD

connection compulsory

- Establishing coordination between

engineering and revenue sections.

Adopt policy on IEC and Public Awareness

Campaign in mission mode( Sewerage

connection cost Vs Septic tank etc. Need

for safe sanitation)

Operational Strategy How to connect to main sewer - Display of technical drawing with



The following figure shows a typical layout for the UGD network connected to the

Household

Figure 16: Connecting to UGD – typical layout

trunk.(technical

specifications)

Availability of technicians.

Making corpus available for

O&M of STPs. (ref table 37 on

O&M costs )

specifications in all wards and information

dissemination through pamphlets.

- Training local masons on UGD connection

process.

- Managing material flow for hard ware

arrangements.

- Transparent measures - simplification of

procedures for sanction of water supply and

sewerage connections, customer charter, fully

automated bill payment.

Private sector

involvement for O & M

Codified procedures for sewerage, septage,

drainage and SWM. (preparation of protocol manual and monitoring by local communities

on location of samples to be tested, periodicity and parameters to be tested.)

Finance and

administration

Consumers get interest free loans to connect and pay back as part of the tariff;

Introduction of weighed tariffs reflecting the principle ‘the polluter pays’.

Use of local indicators, e.g. type of housing, to determine the category of

payment.

Different loan terms for different groups, e.g. installments.

Timely payments are rewarded, e.g. by a % reduction for the next year.

Just before Septic tank construct

inspection chamber with in

premises and bypass the existing

septic tank



IV. COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD

1. Cost of laying pipes = Rs.80 X 6 = Rs.480

(Considering 80’ max. pipe length and @ Rs.6/ft of pipe)

2. Cost of materials = Rs.1000 (inspection chambers & bricks and cement)

3. Cost of labor = Rs.1000

4. Therefore the total cost of laying pipes = Rs.2500

5. Connection cost/HH = Rs.3800 or Rs2000

6. Total max. cost per HH = Rs.6300 or Rs4300

V. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

As of now UGD is not operational and as such there are no O &M activities at present. A

sewerage system as it is known collects wastewater from residences, industries, hospitals and

commercial institutions for conveyance to STPs for treatment and safe disposal. Any obstruction

or overloading of the collection system can have dramatic consequences on public health and

the environment.

It is the responsibility of the City Corporation, to ensure that the performance of the proposed

sewerage system is not compromised in any manner by adopting proper practices of operation

and maintenance of the system. Effective O&M of an underground sewerage scheme is critical

and the direct responsibility rests with the CCG. For ease of operation and maintenance, the

proposed sewerage system has to be of locally available materials, skilled manpower and easily

available mechanical/electrical equipment.

The primary aim of sewage treatment plant‘s (STP) operation and maintenance (O&M), is the

running and maintenance the plant, efficiently and economically, so that the effluent from the

plant meets the prescribed standards in terms of BOD,SS and fecal coliforms laid down by the

local body or the pollution control board while discharging the effluent on land or into water

body.

The basic requirements of successful O&M of STP are:

1. A thorough knowledge of plant and machinery and equipment provided in the STP

and their functions,

2. A thorough knowledge of the processes,

3. Proper and adequate tools,

4. Adequate stock of spare parts and chemical,

5. Assignment of specific responsibilities to operating staff,

6. Schedule of daily preventive maintenance,

7.Systematic and period inspection,

8.Training of all operating staff in operating procedures and maintenance practices,

9.Maintaining records of key activities and operating logs of equipment, and



10. Good housekeeping.

VI. REQUIREMENTS OF MAINTENANCE OF SEWER

As huge investment are generally made for the implementation of the sewerage system, it is

appropriate to operate and maintain the system effectively in order to derive maximum benefit

of the investment. Maintenance of sewer system depends not only on proper design and

construction but also on the availability of competent staff for their operation.

The requirements of the maintenance of the sewerage system are:

1. Protect the sewerage system against damaging materials, which may be discharged

by the public, commercial and industrial institution.

2. Prevent the sewerage system from clogging due to deposition of solids as a result of

inadequate flow

3. Prevent the accumulation of foul gases in the sewerage system due to the anaerobic

decomposition of the deposited solids

4. Save the workers involved in the sewer cleaning from death due to obnoxious gases.

The preventive maintenance methods to achieve the above requirement are:

Ensure self-cleaning velocity in all section of the sewerage system at least once in a day for

prevention of clogging in the sewerage system. The sewer section where it is not possible to

obtain the self-cleansing velocities due to flatness of the gradient especially in the head reaches

of the sewer network, flushing is necessary.

The O&M of the created infrastructure includes manning and maintenance of the STPs, power

charges for the pumping stations, manning for the maintenance of the network, maintenance

and repairs of the sewer cleaning machinery and equipment, administrative expenditure

involved in billing and collection of sewerage cess etc. Also the sewer lines between two

successive manholes should be periodically inspected using intrusive equipments &

arrangement for silting and blockages. The revenue from the sewerage sector is mainly from the

charges being collected while giving new sewerage connection and drainage cess collected along

with house tax.

VII. REUSE OF RECYCLED WATER

Decentralized wastewater systems collect, treat, and reuse or dispose of wastewater at or near

its point of generation. It includes systems that treat wastewater from individual homes or

buildings as well as cluster systems that treat wastewater from groups of two or more houses.

Unlike centralized urban wastewater treatment systems, decentralized systems treat

wastewater close to the source, typically using small pipes for collecting small volumes of

domestic wastewater.. Following guidelines need to be followed for application of sewage

water.



Table 68: Degree of Treatment Needed for Land Application

Treatment Device Type Land Application System

Primary

Septic tank

Grey water Tank

Waterless composting toilet

Combustion toilet

Soil absorption systems

Burial (for compost)

Secondary

AWTS

Grey water treatment

Septic tank and re circulating sand

filter

Subsurface Irrigation

Tertiary (disinfection)

AWTS


Septic tank and re circulating sand

filter

Subsurface irrigation

Surface Irrigation (non –

aerosal)

Grey water tertiary

(Excluding Kitchen

wastes)


Subsurface irrigation

Surface Irrigation (non –

aerosol)

Toilet flushing

VIII. DEWATS : SEWAGE TREATMENT (300 PERSON EQUIVALENT OR 60-65 HHS

EQUIVALENT)

The sewage treatment unit consists of anaerobic up flow reactor as a primary treatment and

Root Zone Treatment (RTZ) System as secondary treatment system. A maturation pond is also

in place for tertiary treatment. The treated wastewater is finally supplied to the houses for

inferior domestic uses like toilet flushing and garden irrigation.

Description of Wastewater treatment units

The wastewater treatment system consists of Up-flow Anaerobic Reactor as primary treatment

unit. This system was designed & implemented for 300 person equivalent. The cross section of

this reactor is trapezoidal section in the bottom and rectangular in the top. The waste water

from final receiving chamber is allowed to enter in this reactor at the bottom through a pipe and

water rises up at a very low velocity. The treated waste water is collected through gutter along

longitudinal walls and enters the secondary treatment system.

Primary Treatment Unit

Type of Primary treatment: Up flow anaerobic reactor.

Design capacity: 300 Persons.

Type of Structure: Reinforced Cement Concrete

Size of unit: 10m x 3m x 4m

Design Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load : 1600 lts/m2/day

Organic load: 0.512 Kg/m2/day



Actual Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load: 160 lts/m2/day (As per Standards)

Hydraulic load: 177 lts/m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)

Hydraulic load: 81 lts/m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)

Organic Load (Maximum): 0.037 Kg/m2/day (As per Actual measurement before

commissioning of recycling system)

Organic Load (Maximum): 0.011 Kg/m2/day (As per Actual measurement after

commissioning of recycling system)

1. Volume: 114 m3

2. Cross sectional area: 12m2

3. Longitudinal Sectional area at the centre: 40m2

Secondary Treatment Unit

The wastewater treatment systems consists of Horizontal root zone system as secondary

treatment which receives partly treated wastewater from primary treatment unit.

Horizontal Root Zone Treatment Unit

The secondary treatment units are implemented in Phase level hence the first level is designed

for 50 persons. In the root zone treatment, wastewater passes through filter bed by uniform

horizontal flow. Root zone treatment are sealed filter beds consisting of sand, gravel and soil

system, occasionally with a cohesive element, planted with vegetation which can grow in

wetlands. The wastewater passes through the filter bed where biodegradation of the

wastewater takes place.

Root Zone Treatment system

Type of treatment system: Horizontal Root Zone treatment.

Type of Structure: Reinforced Concrete floor with Brick walls.

Size of Unit: 10m X 5m X 1.2m

Design Load Characteristics

1. Hydraulic load: 160 lts/m2/day

2. Organic load: 0.024 Kg/m2/day

Actual Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load: 106 lts /m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)

Hydraulic load: 49 lts /m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)



Organic load: 0.0030 kg /m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)

Organic load: 0.0021 kg /m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)

Type of plant species: Arundo donax

Plan area of filter bed: 50sq.m

Tertiary Treatment Unit

Maturation Pond : In this treatment unit, Maturation pond act as tertiary treatment, effluent

from Root zone treatment unit enters in the Maturation pond. The important function of

maturation pond is the removal of excreted pathogens to achieve an effluent quality which is

suitable for its downstream reuse.

Design of Maturation Pond

Type of Structure: Reinforced Concrete floor with Brick walls

Size of Unit: 5.75m X 5mX 1m

Cross sectional area: 5m2

Longitude Sectional area: 5.75m2

Plan area: 28.75 m2

Capacity of unit: 28.75 m3

Hydraulic Retention time: 4.5 days (as per actual daily sewage inflow)

Table 69: Cost of Construction of the Wastewater Treatment system

Sl

No

Description Total Cost in

Rs

For

Person

Equivalent

Cost/

Person

1. Primary treatment unit

(Upflow Anaerobic Reactor)

2,75,000.00 300 916.00

2. Secondary treatment unit

(Root Zone Treatment)

1,00,000.00 50 2000.00

3. Tertiary treatment unit

(Maturation Pond)

25,000.00 50 500.00

TOTAL COST Rs

4,00,000.00

3416.00



Hence total cost required for the construction of wastewater treatment system is Rs 4000.00

per person.

Table 70:Cost of Operation and Maintenance

Sl No Description of work Amount (Rs)

1 Monitoring

Wastewater Analysis cost

26,500.00

2. Maintenance

Operation and maintenance (Since commissioning till date)

30,000.00

3. Onsite Laboratory

4 Cost of Equipment and chemicals 12,000.00

5 Total (two years) 68, 500.00

6 O&M cost year Rs 35000

Table 71: Land Requirement

Sl No Description Total Area

(Sq. m)

Person

Equivalent

Area / Person

(Sq.m)

1. Primary treatment unit ((Up-flow

Anaerobic Reactor)

34 300

0.11

2. Secondary treatment unit (Root

Zone treatment)

62 50 1.24

3. Tertiary treatment unit

(Maturation Pond)

33 50 0.7

TOTAL 129 300 2.4

Area requirement per person for the treatment of wastewater is nearly 2.4m2/person



IX. COST & IMPACT MATRIX

The following matrix represents the cost & impacts scenario for OD free status and achieving

environmental sanitation.

IMP

AC

T

VE

RY

HIG

H Last mile

connectivity to UGD

with clear technical

guidelines.

Intensive IEC

programme to

prevent OD,

behavior change,

disuse of toilets.

Ensuring right

technology for

STP with low

OM costs, skill

need.

Community

toilets O & M

HIG

H

Public Toilets in

PPP.

Capacity

building by

exposure visits,

technical

training and

workshops

School Sanitation

ME

DIU

M

Framing Rules

,specifications and

effective

monitoring

Delinking tenure

ship

Building

authentic MIS

and updation

Improving

efficiency in DTD

collection and

segregation for

SWM practices.

LO

W

Institutional

responsibility

clearly assigned.

Incentives and

punitive measures

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

COST



7.3.3 IMPROVEMENT OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

A summary of the current position of the solid waste management has been dealt in previous

chapters. Field surveys and discussions with stakeholders also identified key issues and

problems in Gulbarga. To assess the magnitude of the problem to be tackled in future

estimations of waste generation has been done based on population projections done for

Gulbarga taking existing average per capita waste generation (290 gms). Since growth is

expected to be moderate, the future generation trends will be governed by population changes

and will be mainly from domestic sources.

Table 72: Projection of solid waste generation for future

Year Avg per capita (kg)


Projection of solid waste generated (TPD)

2010 0.29 563,065 163.29

2015 0.29 655,880 190.21

2020 0.29 766,283 222.22

2025 0.29 898,441 260.55

2030 0.29 1,057,631 306.71

2035 0.29 1,250,540 362.66

2040 0.29 1,485,639 430.84

2045 0.29 1,773,655 514.36

[Source: ASCI]

There need to be considerable focus required to address solid waste management complying to

MSW 2000 rules.

The Health Department of Gulbarga is headed by a Health Officer and is responsible for all

activities of collection, street sweeping, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. The

Engineering Department is responsible for procurement and maintenance of equipment and

vehicles. For operational purposes, the entire area is divided into zones. Each zone comprises of

electoral wards and is headed by a Health Inspector.



A systematic action plan for maintaining solid waste management while achieving each recommendation as outlined below:

Table 73: ISWM Action Plan

Recommendation Strategy to be adopted Actions Possible Constraints

1 Achieving benchmark

cleanliness (following SLB

indicators and parameter

in Sanitation rankings in

phases )

Establish work norms (per worker)

for roads (both congested and

wide), open spaces.

Regularize sanitary worker

attendance by biometric system.

Encourage successes of visible clean

areas.

Involve Corporators and a few other

who will support such efforts in

their Wards.

Promote clean wards/slums/Colony etc. by

well-planned door to door collection.

Increased involvement of NGOs/Private

operators etc.

Good working conditions and recognition

mechanisms for workforce.

Increasing efficiency and

productivity of existing

staff.

Possible protest from

employees.

2 Source segregation of

waste into specified types

Maximum recycling and maximum

local composting of bio-degradable

waste.

Provide separate collection

mechanism for Bulk Waste

Producers, Construction waste /

Debris, Garden/ Green Waste.

Overall training and capacity

building of MSW personnel in order

to achieve segregation of solid waste

at source.

Good communication and

awareness programme.

Promote source segregation by keeping “wet” &

“dry” wastes separately, doorstep collection of

“wet” waste for bulk waste producers with extra

rates, to compost all bio – degradable and recycle

dry wastes.

Associate with trade & industry associations for

better marketing to segregate recyclable

material

Give priority to the source segregation of

recyclable waste by shops and establishments

and later concentrate on segregation at the

3household level.

Targeting behaviour

change of households.

Increased public health

and hygiene levels



3 Minimizing ,primary

collection, transport and

handling costs per ton

Encourage PPP and out sourcing. Reduce expenditure on collection per household

by imposing user charges @ Rs.one per day),

encourage source segregation and reduce waste

reduction to at least 15%.Planning and

optimizing vehicle routing with robust MIS and

waste generation data base.

Introduction of GPS and monitoring of MSW

vehicles in a centralized locality.

4 Management Information

Systems

Regular reporting and data

updating.

Appropriate division of roles and

responsibilities.

Developing information base on :

Daily/weekly/monthly reports at

town/ward/zone level.

Spatial and seasonal waste generation quantities

and nature (Ward-wise waste), collection points

linking to GIS, asset inventory, category wise

waste generation, number of workers in each

ward for collection, transportation and disposal.

Recording weigh-bridge on-site

Number of staff and expected clearance

frequencies.

Funds and leadership

5 Levy user charges Polluter pays principle and a policy

on SWM user charges.

Simple procedures and strict

enforcement of regulations.

Share MSW information with the

Public.

Display boards with details of MSW in specific

area including Contractor’s phone number on

the dustbins to be cleared by them and specify

how residents can handover waste to municipal

body.

Charges for business or trade, eating-houses or

hostels, health-care facilities, shops, offices,

street-food, fairs and exhibitions and

ceremonies.

Avoid NIMBY by sanitizing all wastes near point

of collection until composting commence.

Lack of political will.



6 Advanced locality

Management (ALM)

Strong citizen’s group to work closely

with ULB to develop strategy and

improve ISWM as well as other civic

amenities in their local area.

Organize citizen meeting in neighbourhood and

explain concept of ALM through public meetings.

Select ALM committee from all representative

building, lanes etc.

7 Promoting Public Private

Participation (PPP)

Performance improvement criteria

based contracting system.

Enhancing the strength of ULBs and ability of

engaged contractors to perform.

Take up pilot in newly developed areas, under-

served areas and particularly in the areas where

local bodies have not been providing service

through their own labour force.

PPP can be considered in:

D2D collection of household waste, commercial

waste, hospital waste, hotel waste, construction

waste and market waste.

Setting-up, operation and maintenance of waste

disposal facility, operation and maintenance of

waste treatment or processing plants.

Supplying refuse collection vehicles on lease,

repairs and maintenance of vehicles at a private

garage, transportation of waste on contractual

basis, etc.

Lack of credible

information

Inadequate internal

capacities to monitor

private operator

8 Selection of treatment

technologies.

Developing environmentally

sustainable models especially in

disposal e.g. scientific landfills (SLFs).

Setup expert committee. Coordination and Internal

capacities issues.



7.3.4 IMPROVEMENT OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IN GULBARGA

The existing situation of the storm water drainage network has already been discussed at length

in. There are a couple of areas wherein there are instances of water logging during the rainy

seasons. These areas get quite seriously affected during such times. Following are some

strategies that may be adopted to improve these areas by a large extent.

Suggested strategies for storm water management

Identifying the water logged areas and their frequency of water logging. As a short term

plan rehabilitation of drains in those areas can be taken on priority.

Considering the existing problems of water logging in rainy seasons, the use of the

debris generating from civil works like road constructions and construction sites can be

utilized as infilling in the low lying areas where water accumulates during rainy seasons,

however, proper treatment of compaction and execution is essential on such sites. These

works can be taken up as short term measures.

There should be immediate provision made in order to stop mixing of solid waste into

open drains so as to prevent choking of drains

Augmenting the existing drainage network by converting existing Kachha drains into

pucca drains by providing proper cross sections along the running length of the roads.

Construction of new drainage channels (covered) along the roads where there is no

provision of drainage system should be taken up based on detail surveys

Disposing the collected water safely into identified areas. The existing lakes can be

considered for discharging the surface water and storm water. Development of

collection and conveyance system for storm water is suggested as a midterm which will

discharge the water into existing lakes or water bodies and will help recharging and

rejuvenating the existing lakes which at present are drying due to climatic changes.

Considering options for Rain water harvesting suitable to city context. It can be

recommended in the building regulations and bye-laws for newly developing areas,

residential colonies and institutional campuses to develop rain water harvesting system.



7.4. ENABLING AND SUSTAINING STRATEGIES

7.4.1 AWARENESS RAISING, HYGIENE PROMOTION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.

The first step in making cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about sanitation

in the mind of municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly, amongst the

people of the city. The policy also aims to transform cities into totally sanitized, healthy and

livable cities and towns. This can be achieved only by:

Generating awareness amongst households and institutions about sanitation and its

linkages with public and environmental health;

Promoting mechanisms to bring about and sustain behavioral changes aimed at

adoption of healthy sanitation practices;

There needs to be considerable engagement with households and communities on changing

mindsets, and understanding incentives to change behavior and practices. A communication

strategy has been drafted to create support for and facilitate effective implementation of city-

wide, demand-based sanitation programs; and for generating awareness amongst urban

households on sanitation and its linkages with health, economic productivity and the

environment along with facilitating behavior change towards adoption of safe sanitation

practices among households.

One reason for the low support to sanitation is that opinion leaders, policy makers and

managers do not see the links between sanitation, public health and economics. The first step in

making cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about sanitation in the mind of

municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly, amongst the people of the city.

ULBs are in the frontline of implementation and have a key role in ensuring sanitation and

should focus on demand responsive approach. To meet this challenge a systematic

“Communication Need Assessment (CNA)” for different Target Groups has been taken up as part

of CSP and objective of well driven IEC is for sanitation to be demand-driven with social

marketing approaches to increase demand for toilets and ensure hygiene behaviors, promote no

subsidies for household toilets in future and encourage diversity in technology and design.

ULBs are in the frontline of implementation and have a key role in ensuring sanitation and

should focus on demand responsive approach. State government should ensure support to ULBs

in providing enabling environment in all respects and provide communication and awareness

strategy. The following table details out IEC and advocacy plan in achieving desired goals of

environmental sanitation:



Table 74: IEC and Advocacy Plan for Environmental Sanitation

Target Audience Messages/Themes Channels of Communication

Councillors, Commissioner, Engineers

What are current habits and how the toilets should be designed for

social acceptance.

Promoting two pit latrines in slums

How to ensure compliance from people

Rewards/Punishments

Better implementation of sanitation projects

Safe handling of garbage by Sanitation workers

Safe deposition of garbage by Contractors

Council meeting, CSP workshops,

News paper Advertisements calling for

meeting

Press Conference-sharing the goals and

plan of action for CSP with press persons

Councillors, office bearers of

Sanghabandams and Slum Level

Federations representing slums

Consultations on preventing open defecation

Toilet size

Toilet options two pit, septic tank

Safe disposal of Human Excreta

Contamination due to Fecal Matter

Health and hygiene

Diarrhea, GE, Malaria, Scabies

Consultation on problems with current toilets

Consultation of water supply situation

Consultation on Environmental sanitation

Consultation on expectations form Municipal Corporation

SLF Meeting

Door to door campaign

News paper Advertisements calling for

meeting

Press Conference

Councillors, office bearers of

Sanghabandams and Slum Level

Federations representing slums in Town

Outskirts

Health Risks due to open defecation

Toilet size

Toilet options two pit, septic tank

Contamination due to Fecal Matter

Safe disposal of Human Excreta

Health and hygiene

Diarrhea, GE, Malaria, Scabies

SLF Meeting

Door to door campaign

Newspaper Advertisement calling for

meeting

Press Conference




Consultation of water scarcity



Office bearers of Residents Welfare

Association middleclass localities


Consultation on septic tank cleaning


Consultation of water supply situation

Consultation of willingness to pay for tricycles etc


Meetings, Door to door campaigning

Newspaper Advertisement calling for

meeting

Press Conference

Water and sanitation officials

Display numbers of responsible officials like Sanitation Inspectors

prominently in their Zones

Restart Call Center Facility, establish grievance redressal

mechanism.

Appreciation of what people desire

Print pamphlets given with newspapers,

news paper advertisements, painting on

Elevated/underground reservoirs

Print the phone numbers of responsible

officials on the tractors

Water and Sanitation Workers Importance of safe handling of waste

Contractors Do not dump Garbage on roads leading to dump yard

Do not burn garbage

Segregate waste at the dump yard.

Print the phone numbers of responsible

officials on the tractors

Shopkeepers Do not dump garbage in by lanes

If you need to dispose hazardous waste call the Municipal

Corporation and ask for a tractor.

Town Wide

Keep house and neighbourhood Clean

Boil/Filter the Water before drinking

Wash your hands before and after eating/drinking

Don’t allow mosquitoes to breed in your neighbourhood

Immunize Children

Don’t share clothes of persons infected with skin diseases

Road Side Billboards

News Paper Ads

Town Cable



Sanitation, despite being a basic human need and a critical need for improved quality of life, has not got the necessary attention in the past. Also, the

different aspects of sanitation starting from collection of human feces to the safe disposal (the whole process cycle) have seen different stakeholders.

Table 75: Methods and implementation of awareness activities

Stakeholder Group Message Intent Example of Messages that could be used

Households (urban poor / slum

dwellers) that lack toilets / access to

sanitation

Motivate citizens to take action

and adopt safe, hygienic

sanitation practices

Clean households leads to healthy, strong and successful families

Choose dignity for your wives and daughters! Having toilets at home adds to

the comfort, security and privacy of the women.

Improved sanitation facilities, (e.g. use individual or community toilets) will

reduce health expenditure of your family.

Service providers – includes

• Officials of ULBs

• Officials from different arms of

the city administration,

primarily from ULBs, PHED,

OWSSB, etc.

Reinforce that:

Sanitation also includes

management of human excreta

and liquid wastes in addition to

solid waste management.

Leverage investments in sanitation and public health and give the residents

and their future generations a chance to a healthy and happy future.

Service providers – includes

• Officials from different arms of

the city administration,

primarily from ULBs, PHED,

OWSSB, etc.

Proper waste management is not

solely the responsibility of the

state. Citizens have an equal and

important role to play in helping

the state achieve the state’s

urban sanitation goals.

Proper management of household waste + proper confinement, disposal and

treatment of human excreta = Clean Cities. Winning the Nirmal Shaher

Puraskar isn’t so difficult. Little effort will result in big gains (for ULB

officials)



Politicians

Helping provide basic needs like

sanitation will strengthen your

popularity with your

constituents and could further

improve political mandate

Improve the quality of life of your constituents by influencing them to adopt

good sanitation practices

There are three important components to the communication strategy

1. Inter-personal communications: Using opinion leaders

2. Engaging media and NGOs as partners in promoting sanitation consciousness

3. Adapting and developing multimedia IEC materials for sanitation campaigns

Interpersonal means are known to be very effective in behavior change communications. These are tedious processes to carry out but offer better

returns. It is important to understand the needs of the local community and select opinion leaders who could influence the community to further

sanitation consciousness. These opinion leaders could be local NGOs, cooperators, school teachers or any other respected elder. A newspaper ad or a

public service message on TV without ground level work through opinion leaders will fail to be sustainable in the long run.

For better targeting a need based IEC actions to be implemented categorized into following phases.



Table 76: Phase wise distribution of works

Phase 1 (1-2 months)

Awareness Raising Phase

Phase 2 (3 months)

Educational Phase:

Phase 3 ( Continuous) Continuing Education -

Action Promotion Phase

Aimed at generating high awareness and a sense of

alarm or concern about the OD, problem situation and

UGD promotion. Consists of easy to grasp messages

(e.g. disease incidences from contaminated water are

rising).

Technical guidance to proper UGD laying.

Short advertisements in various media or

communication channels.

To deepen the knowledge and appreciation of

the target audience. Information and

educational approaches to stress properly

designed septic tanks and periodic septic tank

inspections and desludging every 2- 3 years.

Promotional phase with short campaigns at least

once a year.

Action to dominate.

To trigger the actual adoption of the practices being

marketed.

Organise interactive programmes for effective

implementation of UGD. Organise walks by

children, meeting/workshop with stakeholders eg.

shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs, communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion between various

departments for increased co-ordination to further

goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to help effective

implementation.

Media options:

Local Cable TV ads (30 secs)

Local newspaper ads

Billboards

Tarpaulin posters mounted on mobile vans

Leaflets for those attending meetings

News releases in print, radio

and TV

Discussions on radio

Organize interactive programmes for

effective implementation of UGD. Organize

walks by children, meeting/workshop with

stakeholders e.g. shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs,

communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion between

various departments for increased co-

ordination to further goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to help

effective implementation.

Media options:

Local Cable TV ads (30 secs)

Local newspaper ads

Billboards

Tarpaulin posters mounted on mobile

vans

Leaflets for those attending meetings

News releases in print, radio

and TV

Organize interactive programmes for effective

implementation of UGD. Organize walks by

children, meeting/workshop with stakeholders

eg. shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs, communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion between

various departments for increased co-

ordination to further goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to help

effective implementation.

Media options:

Continuing radio, TV, print ads

Continuing house to house

visits

Continuing short film showing

in theaters

Continuing billboards

Continuing but less frequent

assemblies, SLF meetings

Continuing news releases on all platforms



Discussions on radio Continuing feature articles

Media: TV, Radio, Door to door, billboards,

leaflets. Mass announcements Budget: 3 – 3.5 lakhs / year



7.4.2 FINANCING REQUIREMENTS & MECHANISMS

The financial requirements have been estimated in terms of the need of sanitation situation in

Gulbarga.

Table 77 Financial Requirements and Mechanisms

S. No.

Existing situation

Proposed action / budget head

Number of units (seats) for CSP implementation period (2012-2016)

cost per unit

Total cost

1 No of places of open defecation

Construction of Sulabh toilets for public conveniences

208 100000 2,08,00,000

*2 Construction of Individual toilets

1709 20000 3,41,80,000

3 Construction for community toilets

406 100000 4,06,00,000

Amount in Crores

4 No proper disposal of effluent from toilets

*(a) connection to sewer line or drain 35438 15000

53.15 crores

5 disposal of effluent from septic tanks

*(b)connection to sewer line

6973 20000 13.94crores

6 Recycling and reuse of wastewater

At least 30% wastewater is recycled and reused(70.84)

21.25 1.25 crore 1.25 crores

Solid waste Management in (Quantity) Total quantity Quantity that needs to be

considered

1 DTD collection 100% 20% 100%

2 Composting At least 20% waste should be composted

158.7TPD 31.7TPD

3 Generation of fuel or electricity by waste recycling

at least 5% waste is processed and is used as a fuel

158.7TPD 7.9TPD

4 Recycling and reuse of dry waste

Recycling and reuse of all related waste through rag pickers or through

agencies or NGO

Environment & Awareness

1 Water resources that are polluted Study of water pollution levels and suggestive measure to arrest pollution

25 lakh per

Zone(approx.)



2 NGOs working with peoples participatory approach

Encouragement to such NGOs and assistance if required.

12 lack per

Zone(approx.)

3 NGOs or agencies working towards citizen education

Additional financial assistance if required to few

3 lakh per

Zone

(approx.)

Note : Subject to changes with regard to the approval of CSTF & ULB members

*2. In Reference to Table no.59 gaps have been identified for requirement of individual toilets.

*(a) In Reference to Table no. 59the indicative figures for household sanitation arrangement is

estimated.

*(b) In reference to table No.20 sanitation profile

For the effective implementation of the city sanitation plan, it is anticipated that funds will be

sourced from following channels:

The Central Grants (via ministry of Urban Development and Ministry of HUPA, GOI.

Individual and institutional contributions.

State’s own budget.

Connection cost of UGD to be collected and deposited for O&M of STPs and should be

managed by CSTF.

Promote public-private partnership for key activities identified in the city sanitation

plan. PPP in public and community toilets, CSR funds and mobilize private people in

maintaining school toilets.

Funding projects wherever possible from existing schemes such as JNNURM and

UIDSSMT.

Funding from Bilateral and multilateral agencies can also be explored.

Providing assistance for the preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per city

sanitation plan as soon as requests for funding are received;

INFORMATION BOX 11: PROPOSED SCHEME FOR MECHANICAL AID FOR CLEANING OF

SEWERS AND SEPTIC TANKS (SMACSS)

a. The National Advisory Council (NAC) has observed that the shameful practice of manual

scavenging persists in India, despite being outlawed. The NAC has identified the need for a

special focus to liberate our society from the norms on social exclusion and discrimination

along with an action plan with full ownership of participation of the persons involved in manual

scavenging. The Government of India has enacted the Employment of Manual Scavengers and

Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. It serves as a primary instrument in the

liberation of a broken people enslaved to a life of indignity enforced through ideologies of

descent based work and caste. The Act defines a manual scavenger as “a person engaged in or

employed in manual carriage of human excreta”.

b. However, the existing definition of manual scavenging as per the Act, 1993 does not cover

manual cleaning of septic tanks and sewers cleaning. It is essential that such cleaning

operations be included in the definition of manual scavenging since there they involve similar



issues of dignity as well as health related risks. Therefore, the definition of manual scavenging

may be modified as “a person engaged or employed, whether by an individual or an urban local

body or any other public or private agency, for manual cleaning, carrying or disposing

untreated human excreta, including a latrine, a tank, in a drain or a sewer line”.

There are established technologies that convert human excreta in to manure in a scientific manner.

Such decomposed material and its carriage may not be covered in the definition of scavenging.

c. Accordingly, the MoUD intends to formulate a scheme for facilitating the state government and

ULBs in ensuring cleaning of sewers and septic tanks/any latrines mechanically. The scheme

will facilitate funding for the procurement of suction machines for cleaning of septic tanks and

suction-cum-jetting machines for cleaning of sewers in all cities/towns in the Country. The

scheme is envisaged on ‘All Town’ basis. All 5161 cities and towns as per 2001 census will

qualify for assistance under the proposed scheme.

d. FINANCING PATTERN

i. Funds would be provided to the SLNA through State Governments / UTs in the form of

100% grant for capital investment for the procurement of the equipment and machinery. No

funds would be provided for operation and maintenance of sewerage and onsite sanitation

systems including maintenance of these machines which shall be borne by the ULBs/State

Govts.

ii. The operation and maintenance of sewerage and onsite sanitation system (septic tanks,

dry latrines etc) including running and maintenance of machinery shall be the responsibility

of the ULB/Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Agencies/Boards. If necessary, these

activities may be outsourced by the ULBs/ WSS Agencies/Boards to private service

providers/ entrepreneurs over a specified period as per the agreement to be executed

between ULBs & private entrepreneurs. The O&M cost including desilting, cleaning of sewers

& manholes, de-sludging of septic tanks and maintenance of vehicles would be borne by the

ULBs.

iii. The requirement of funds for the purchase of suction machines and suction-cumjetting

machines for cleaning of sewers and septic tanks for all 5161 towns have been assessed as

Rs. 4949 Crores.

iv. Funding will be available for the procurement of new machines only.

CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF TOWNS

Priority would be given to towns with the following characteristics.

1. State capitals irrespective of the population

2. Pilgrim centre/heritage towns

3. Culturally important towns

4. ULBs in which the practice of manual scavenging is pre-dominant

5. ULBs where there are no machines for sewer and septic tank cleaning operations.

MONITORING MECHANISM

Independent Evaluation and Monitoring Agencies should be appointed by the State Govt. at State

level/city level in line with the monitoring mechanism envisaged under JNNURM. The Independent

Evaluation and Monitoring Agencies will monitor the status Of the procurement of the machines,



cleaning operations of the sewer and septic tanks and the status of the action taken on the

eradication of manual scavenging by the ULBs and report to the to the Municipal

Administration/State Govts which will forward the same to SLNAs. The SLNA will forward the status

of the implementation of the scheme to the Ministry of Urban Development.

The concerned ULB/Head of Water Supply and Sanitation Agencies, who are responsible for O&M of

sewerage and onsite sanitation facilities shall furnish an action plan each year to the Ministry of

Urban Development through Directorate of Municipal Administration and SLNA regarding action

taken/action to be taken for elimination of manual scavenging and the number of employees

engaged in manual cleaning and mechanical cleaning of sewers and septic tanks in the next 2 years

from the date of purchase of machines.

7.4.3 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY

The ULBs are responsible for managing the cycle of sanitation and public health within their

cities, in coordination with various departments. Already there are number of provisions to

practice and implement in achieving sanitation goals and some additional recommendations are

as follows:

Using existing provisions in municipal and other acts to promote compliance;

Amending municipal acts, framing of bye-laws and regulations (E.g. Building and construction bye-laws) to promote sanitation by public and private agencies, prohibit discharge of untreated sewage into open areas (Pollution control acts);

Re-orienting policies to ensure that urban poor households obtain access to improved sanitation facilities;

Ear-marking land for community and public sanitation facilities;

Promoting partnerships with public, private and non-governmental agencies for improved service delivery, maintenance and management of sanitation facilities;

The existing multilevel institutional arrangement should be reoriented with clear assignment of

specific roles and responsibilities to the institutions. The setup of institutions needs to be

addressed at the state, district, and the ULB level. The details of the institutional setup at ULB

level has been described as follows:

ROLE OF DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS

URBAN LOCAL BODY LEVEL INSTITUTIONAL SET UP:

1. A multi-stakeholder “City Sanitation Task Force (CSTF)” comprising representatives from

multidisciplinary fields for overall guidance and oversee sanitation related activities has to

be constituted in Gulbarga. It is thereafter important for the CSTF to conduct meetings once

in a month to implement and monitor planned activities.

2. In view of high level of Open defecation, Ward Level Sanitation Action Committees (WASCs)

should be formed involving SHGs and Community organizer. They will also ensure

continuous vigilance and surveillance and effective monitoring, it is suggested to form a

ward level Committee in each ward and Municipal level committee (CSTF) to review and

monitor the action taken to prevent and control the incidence of the disease. The ward level

committee will be headed by the ward member, and the members of the committee are the



habitation officers (convener), concerned Asst. Engineer / Work Inspector, Sanitary

Inspector / Health Assistant, NHC president. This committee shall meet once in a week and

as frequently as possible during the epidemic period.

3. Within the ULB, there is a need to identify “Sanitation Implementation Unit” in-house

from the existing staff for all practical implementation purposes. The unit shall be

responsible for preparation and implementation of the city sanitation plan. Commissioner/

CMOH shall be the head of the unit and may appoint suitable officer as the in-charge officer.

Commissioner/CMOH may also nominate other suitable officers as members of the unit.

This unit should be supported by additional staff like Sanitary Inspector depending on the

population of ULBs. This unit can monitor the progress every month, develop and update

database on sanitation in ULB. The unit will pinpoint problem areas to address, prioritize

projects for implementation, and monitor quality checks. They will identify actions and

related spatial and non-spatial interventions. For day to day implementations existing

institutional mechanism at ULB level like Ward Committees, Ward Development

Committees, Task Force needs to be strengthened with orientation trainings and capacity

building training.

4. The Municipal level committee shall be headed by the Chairperson with the members being

the Municipal Commissioner (Convener), CMHO, ME, CDS President, Local NGO, DM&HO or

his deputee. This committee shall meet once in every fifteen days and as frequently and as

possible during the epidemic period

The functions of the unit will be:

To conduct a baseline survey on city sanitation and update regularly (once in two

years)

To prioritize projects for implementation, monitor quality checks identified under

CSP and identify actions and related spatial and non-spatial interventions.

To develop city wide communication strategy and conduct city wide total sanitation

campaign.

To ensure intra departmental coordination of ULB for sanitation promotion

To develop network with several government departments and other agencies for

promoting healthy & environmentally sound sanitation.

To manage all the process like procurement, contracting etc. for sanitation projects

and be responsible for implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the

programme. Develop local sanitation and hygiene regulations in consultation with

stakeholders; establish standards and norms; inform citizens of their rights and

duties under existing sanitation legislation/regulations; and set up mechanisms for

monitoring and enforcing their implementation.

Clarify Roles and improve agency coordination

Streamlining policies so as to develop and adopt local septage ordinance, Institute

regular desludging mechanism, PPP promotion and regulation, ULB introduce User

charges, Update and amend regulation in building bye laws.

Mobilize Govt support Capital but local groups to manage O &M.

Build political support through exposure visits workshops.

Engaging civil societies to end OD.



For day to day implementations existing institutional mechanism at ULB level like Ward

Committees, Ward Development Committees, Task Force needs to be strengthened with

orientation trainings and capacity building training.

Poverty wing of ULB should be responsible to design, implement, and monitor the sanitation

promotion programmes, converging the source of funds and preparing the budget. ULB should

also plan and budget for the operation and maintenance of sanitation systems. It is also

responsible for assisting households to provide their own sanitation and to build their own

toilet facilities. Specific responsibilities include –

To design integrated planning and communication strategy for City sanitation

promotion.

To provide access to sanitation to all urban population

To make communities aware of the importance of sanitation in terms of health.

To launch together with the communities, health and hygiene promotion

programmes.

To monitor the health of communities.

Establish and improve septage management requirements and guidelines

Providing technical support, guidance and training .

To assist households to operate and maintain sanitation facilities

To assist Ward Education Committee for the improvement of school

infrastructure, including sanitation and for implementing School health promotion

programmes to create safe and healthy school.

To coordinate all the internal departments like PWD, Sanitation, Health and

Education, and also involving the Community Based Organizations, Welfare

Associations, youth clubs, market committees etc. for Total Sanitation Approach

and Campaign in the ULB, and make the city open defecation free.

To develop and design ward wise, & slum wise incentive schemes for reaching the

ultimate goal of Nirmal Sahar

STATE URBAN SANITATION CELL (SUSC)

DMA needs to be strengthened for the purpose of functioning as a Sanitation Nodal Agency with

a dedicated Sanitation Cell. The Cell will have a complete office set up with the following

constitution, terms of reference. (To elaborate on Roles and responsibilities, on investment

flows, Policy and standards setting, Asset Creation, Financing of Capital Investments, Planning

and implementation, Operation and maintenance, Environmental Regulation, Monitoring and

Evaluation, Land Use / Building regulations, Ongoing programs, Implementation, Execution,

Legal Regulatory Responsibility, Capacity Building and IEC).

Constitution of State Urban Sanitation Cell (SUSC):

Creation of a strategic urban sanitation cell at DMA, GoK, to be headed by a “Director”

equivalent officer with a fixed tenure of five of mission period for better coordination

and integrated development.



SUSC is expected to provide overall direction and strategic support to ULBs and

coordinate with state level organizations in achieving the strategy objectives in a time-

bound manner.

SUSC will support cities in preparing CSPs by giving overall direction, frame work etc

with in the first year of mission period.

It will have three strategic wings (Ref: fig no 23) with specific and designated expertise

to offer and support in achieving the mission objectives. Each wing will have two expert

staff in required field with the support from “Sanitation Fund”.

SUSC will be central coordinating body and need to coordinate with State, Districts and

ULBs. IEC wing should work closely with State Health Department, Education

Department and design awareness programmes for convergence. Engineering wing and

MIS wings should coordinate regularly with Town and Country Planning Department to

ensure all convergence and effective planning.

Proposed Institutional Set up for Sanitation:

Figure 17: Proposed institutional set-up for sanitation

The responsibilities of the State Urban Sanitation Cell (SUSC) are:

Monitor integrated planning for sanitation promotion.

Guide the ULBs in conceptualizing, planning and implementing the sanitation

programmes while preparing CSPs.

Will initiate sector reforms so as to invite more investment from lateral and bilateral

funding agencies in the sector.

Channelize the financial and technical support to the ULBs and coordinate with other

state departments and agencies engaged in sanitation promotion.

Design & arrange capacity building programmes for ULB staffs and concerned other line

Departments. Develop initiatives to promote and facilitate the process of community

development.



Work out standard designs and specifications including construction practices and O&M

aspects and bring out a “Sanitation Guidance Manual” to facilitate the target groups in

identifying and recommending appropriate technology options for on-site sanitation

considering (1) affordability and acceptability by the end users, (2) soil, groundwater

and climatic conditions of a location, (3) associated environmental, ecological and health

aspects, and (4) availability of water and long term sustainability of the system.

Monitor the sanitation arrangement and public health & hygiene

To take up sector studies and strategy papers, to facilitate partnerships

7.5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

7.5.1 MONITORING AND REVIEW

Monitoring is imperative to verify whether objectives of sanitation plan have been achieved.

Elements of this plan will be monitored and reported and will rely on the provision of a range of

quantitative and qualitative information. Monitoring and evaluation of sanitation progamme is

of higher relevance and importance as Urban development Ministry, Government of India ranks

cities on sanitation and gives Nirmal Shahar Puraskar based on the cities performance. The City

Sanitation Task Force should be made be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the

implementation of the CSP.

At ULB level, City Sanitation Task Force will monitor the programme in support of Standing

Committees (Health, Sanitation, Public Works, and Water supply) based on Implementation

Agency data, citizens’ groups feedback, and primary Field Visits. Periodic verification of following

Impact and Monitoring indicators at ULB level are suggested.

INFORMATION BOX 12: TOOLS TO MEASURE 100% SANITATION MILESTONE

ACHIEVEMENTS

To measure 100% Sanitation Milestone achievements, a number of tools apart from 19

indicators of City Sanitation Ranking can be considered:

a. Impact Indicators

Reduction in incidence of diseases, e.g. - percentage children less than 36 months of

age with diarrhea in last two weeks

Quantity of water used per capita per day

% of child caregivers, food prepares with appropriate hand-washing behavior.

Use of safe methods for disposal of infant excreta

Knowledge of danger of unsafe excreta disposal and hand washing practice

Demand for new toilets within towns and from neighboring communities

% of toilets upgraded with own funds by households after monsoon/filling up of pit

b. Monitoring indicators

% of households with access to sanitary latrines: public and personal separately

% constructed water supply facilities maintained by the communities served

% households using safe drinking water regularly (public and personal separately)

Use of toilets by household members (esp. men, aged, disabled, children under 5)

Range of available affordable options for toilets.



In case of sewage effluent, following standards need to be met and a mechanism to monitor

internally by CSTF by way of protocol adoption.

Table 78: Comparison of Standards (issued by CPCB) with effluent values

Standard for

discharge

into inland

surface

water.

Standard for

reuse of

effluent for

irrigation

SIBF

(effluent)

MSF

effluent

DEWATS

Effluent

BOD (mg/l) 30 100 6 197 17

COD (mg/l) 250 NA 20 688 50

The review period of the proposed action plan for CSP is five years from the formal adoption

date. Progress monitoring and reporting will be conducted by the council monthly, by the

taskforce quarterly and by the state Government bi-annually. As a result of the review, some

revisions to the targets may be required in order to:

a) Update or remove those targets that have proven to be unclear, unable to be adequately

measured, unworkable, or out of date in their allocation of responsibility for action.

b) Reflect changes in the wider wastewater management/sanitation service provision

landscape.

c) Better reflect progress against the targets and, where necessary, set new targets.

d) Better reflect the current state of knowledge of wastewater management/sanitation

facilities.

7.5.2 LAUNCHING REWARD SCHEME:

Periodic rating of wards in respect of Sanitation, and recognition of best performers by

instituting Awards.

Open Defecation Free

a. Totally free from open defecation;

b. Sanitary collection of 100 percent human excreta and wastes

c. Proper removal and treatment of all wastewater

Wastewater and Drainage safely managed

a. All grey water collected and disposed off safely;

b. All storm water is properly managed

Solid Waste collected and disposed off fully and safely

a. 100 percent of solid waste is collected regularly;



b. Solid wastes are disposed off safely (including treatment and re-use)

7.5.3 INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES BY MC/NPS

The incentives within the City Sanitation Plans could provide infrastructure funding to those

communities that successfully meet reward scheme or by way of incentives that may include:

The provision of collective ‘in kind’ rewards to motivators that successfully support

wards and neighbourhoods meeting reward scheme.

Publicly recognizing those wards and neighbourhoods that achieve ‘excreta free’, ‘litter

free’ or ‘foul water free’ status.

Placing a signboard to this effect at the entrance to the neighbourhood / ward.

The disincentives the ULBs may consider within the CSP include:

Exercising all provisions within the Municipal Act/ Water Act to levy fines, bills for costs

incurred and instigate court proceedings for encroachments, releases of industrial waste

or effluent, illegal slaughter houses, markets, burial grounds, and the provision of

essential water/sewerage/drainage connections.

The provision of ‘fine’ for all individuals that dispose excreta, litter or foul water in an

unhygienic manner in public spaces (Polluter pay principle).

Sanctions against harmful actions and/or failure to act - for instance, a ban, supported

by fines on the use of untreated sewage to irrigate crops/water bodies.



GLOSSARY 1. Activated sludge: An aerobic treatment process in which oxygen and micro-organism

concentrations in wastewater are artificially elevated to facilitate rapid digestion of

biodegradable organic matter.

2. Aerated pond or lagoon: A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in which

mechanical or diffused air aeration is used to supplement the natural reoxygenation

processes.

3. Aerobic treatment: Treatment of wastewater with the help of micro-organisms that

rely on oxygen.

4. Anaerobic digestion: Decomposition of organic material by anaerobic bacteria in the

absence of air.

5. Anaerobic lagoon: A system for treatment of high-strength wastewater and sludge that

involves retention under anaerobic conditions.

6. Biochemical oxygen demand: A measure of the organic pollutant strength of

wastewater.

7. Biosolids: See Sewage sludge.

8. Blackwater: Wastewater discharge from toilets.

9. Bucket latrine: A traditional but unhygienic form of sanitation in which feces is

deposited into a bucket which is collected regularly (usually at night) and taken away

(usually by ‘sweepers’).

10. Composting latrine: A latrine designed to receive both feces and waste vegetable

matter with the aim of reducing moisture content and achieving a carbon-to-nitrogen

ratio that promotes rapid that promotes rapid decomposition.

11. Dry latrines: All forms of latrines that do not require water for flushing.

12. Desludging: Removal of sludge or settled solid matter from treatment tanks such as

septic/Imhoff tank, interceptor tank or sedimentation tanks.

13. Disposal: Discharge, deposition or dumping of any liquid or solid waste onto land or

water so that it may enter the environment.

14. Domestic sewage: All forms of wastewater derived from residential properties, as well

as blackwater and greywater from commercial and institutions buildings.

15. Dry sanitation: Disposal of human excreta without the use of water for flushing or anal

cleansing.

16. Ecological sanitation (ecosan): A form of dry sanitation that involves separation of

feces and urine in order to facilitate recycling of nutrients in local agricultural systems.

17. Effluent: Any form of wastewater or liquid waste that flows from an operation or

activity.

18. Excreta: Feces and urine.

19. Fecal sludge: The undigested sludge that is collected from pit latrines and leach pits.

20. Greywater (also known as sullage): Wastewater produced by washing and bathing

activities.

21. Lagoon: See technology data sheet on ‘Wastewater and Fecal Sludge Treatment: Waste

Stabilization Ponds’ (page 104).

22. Leachfield: A trench filled with sand, soil, gravel and brickbats for disposal of septic

tank overflow into the surrounding soil.

23. Leach pit (sometimes known as a cesspit): An underground tank that is used where

there is no sewer and household wastewaters are drained into them to permit leaching

of the liquid into the surrounding soil.



24. Night soil: Human excreta, with or without anal cleansing material, which are deposited

into a bucket or other receptacle for manual removal.

25. On-plot sanitation: A sanitation system that is wholly contained within the plot

occupied by a private dwelling and its immediate surroundings. Commonly, on-plot

sanitation is equivalent to ‘household latrine’, but may also include facilities shared by

several households living together on the same plot.

26. On-plot facilities: The components of a sanitation system located within a

householder’s plot.

27. Off-site sanitation: A system of sanitation that involves collection and transportation of

waste (wastewater either by sewerage or septage/fecal sludge by vacuum truck) to a

location away from the immediate locality.

28. Pathogens: Micro-organisms such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa that cause disease.

29. Percolation rate: The rate at which liquids move through soil.

30. Pit latrine: A form of on-plot sanitation with a pit for accumulation and decomposition

of excreta from which liquid infiltrates into the surrounding soil.

31. Pour flush toilet: A type of latrine where a water seal trap is used to prevent smells and

to reduce insects.

32. Sanitation: Interventions (usually construction of facilities such as latrines) that

improve the management of excreta and promote sanitary (healthy) conditions.

33. Septage: Mixture of wastewater and sludge removed from a septic tank during cleaning

operations.

34. Septic tank: A form of on-plot sanitation for the anaerobic treatment of

sewage/blackwater.

35. Sewage: A mixture of wastewater from all urban activates from residential, commercial

properties. It may also contain a component of industrial wastewater.

36. Sewer: A conduit, usually a pipe, which is used to collect and convey wastewater away

from its point of production to its point of disposal.

37. Sewage sludge (sometimes referred to as biosoilds): A semisolid residue generated

during the treatment of domestic sewage including both solids removed by

sedimentation and biological sludge produced by biological treatment.

38. Sewerage: A network of interconnected sewers in an area, district or town.

39. Soak pit/Soakaway: A pit, typically after a septic tank from where wastewater slowly

seeps into the ground through perforated sides and bottom.

40. Sullage (also known as greywater): Wastewater from bathing, laundry, preparation of

food, cooking, and other personal and domestic activates.

41. Superstructure: Screen or building enclosing a latrine to provide privacy and

protection for users.

42. Suction truck: A vehicle used for mechanized sludge removal from septic tanks and

lined latrine pits.

43. Ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP): A dry latrine system, with a dark interior and a

screened vent pipe to reduce odor and fly problems.

44. Vent pipe: A pipe that facilitates the escape of gases and odors from a latrine or septic

tank.

45. Wastewater: Liquid waste from households or commercial or industrial operations,

along with any surface water/storm water.



46. Wastewater treatment: A combination of physical, chemical and biological processes

to remove suspended solids, dissolved pollutants, and pathogens and render the water

harmless to the environment.

47. Water closet: A pan, incorporating a water seal, in which excreta are deposited before

being flushed away using water.

48. Water seal: Water held in a U-shaped pipe or hemispherical bowl connecting a pan to a

pipe, channel or pit to prevent the escape of gases and insects from the sewer or pit.



ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE1: TECHNOLOGY OPTION IN URBAN SANITATION All sanitation technologies are either ‘’Wet’’ or ’’ Dry’’.

Wet technologies require water as the name indicates flush out the feces and they drain in to a

leach pit, septic tank or sewer- common practice.

Dry technology: Does not require water as the name indicates. This is our age old pit latrine,

ventilated improved pits etc. This is our usually adopted in hilly area where the water table is

pretty deep.

To feel clean water is a must, so wet latrines are preferred by common man.

‘ON SITE’ AND ‘OFF SITE’ SYSTEMS

On site: Retaining waste in a pit or tank.

Off site: Removing waste to a distant place for treatment and disposal or disposal alone. Even in

‘On site’ system periodical removal of sludge/septage is necessary

The conventional offsite disposal system involves collection of the sewage through pipes and

conveying to a sewage treatment plant, treatment and disposal. This is an expensive option,

requires extensive land etc. So the communities were forced to think of alternative low cost

onsite disposal methods of which the most widely used options are ‘Septic tank’ and Twin pit

pour flush latrines.

SEPTIC TANK

A septic tank is a combined sedimentation and digestion tank where sewage is held for one or

two days. During the period, the suspended solids settle down to the bottom. This is

accompanied by anaerobic digestion of settled solids (sludge) and liquid resulting in reduction

in the volume of sludge, reduction in bio degradable organic matter and release of gases like

Carbon dioxide, methane etc. The effluent although clarified to a large extent still contains

appreciable amount of dissolved and suspended organic solids and pathogens. So the effluent is

to be disposed in a very careful way. Because of this unsatisfactory condition of the effluent and

also difficulty in providing proper effluent disposal system, septic tanks are limited to individual

houses, institutions whose contributory population does not exceed so as to reduce the volume

of effluent and thereby reduce the difficulty in treatment. The septic tanks are normally

rectangular in shape and can either be a single tank or double tank. In case of double tank, the

solid concentration is considerably lower and the first compartment is usually twice the size of

the second. The liquid depth is 1-2 m and the length to breadth 2 to 1. Recommend sizes of

septic tanks up to 2 users and for 300 users are given below.

Table 79:Recommended sizes of septic tanks

No: users Length in m Breadth in m Liquid depth in m cleaning



interval of 2-3years

5 1.5 0.75 1.00-1.05

10 2 0.90 1.00-1.40

15 2 0.90 1.30-2.00

20 2.3 1.10 1.30-1.80

50 5.00 2.00 1.00-1.24

100 7.50 2.65 1.00-1.24

150 10.00 3.00 1.00-1.24

200 12.00 3.30 1.00-1.24

300 15.00 4.00 1.00-1.24

Notes: a) The capacities are recommended on the assumption that discharges from water

closet alone are connected to septic tank.

b) A provision of 300 mm should be provided as freeboard.1.00 m + 0.30 m, 1.05 m +

0.30 m etc

c) For population over 100 mm the tank may be divided into independent parallel

chambers for easy maintenance and cleaning.

The Functions

1. Septic tank receives black water and excreta from the toilets.

2. Heavier solids settle to the bottom of the septic tank where they are decomposed by

anaerobic bacteria

3. The digested sludge is store at bottom

4. The lighter solids such as hair, soap and grease float to the surface forming scum.

5. The gases like carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide are produced during

anaerobic decomposition and released to the atmosphere through vent.

6. To start with septic tank is filled with water for a depth of about 100 mm and seated

with

Cow dung or sludge from other septic tank

7. Septic tanks are to be cleaned once in 2 to 3 years to remove the accumulated digested

sludge.

Disposal of effluent from the septic tank: Land disposal methods such as soak pits and

dispersion trenches: The land disposal methods largely upon porosity and percolation

characteristics of the soil as the land disposal methods are designed percolation or seepage into

the soil. This also depends on the depth of water table. Soak pits or dispersion trenches shall be

constructed in soils where the percolation rate is between 12 to 25 minutes per cm [Time taken

for percolation of 1 cm depth of water between 12 to 25 minutes] and the depth of water table

is 2.00 m or more from ground level. [The depth we get water when the ground is dug] . If the

water table is high, the dispersion trenches shall be partially or fully above ground level or in a

mound. Dispersion trenches should be 20.00m away from any source of drinking water and also



it should be at least 7.00m away from any house. For soils which have percolation rate more

than 25cm other methods shall be adopted for disposal of effluents.

SOAK PITS

The soak pits may be of any regular shape and filled with rubble or brick bats. Soak pits need be

prepared only when the water table is sufficiently below or when a porous layer underlies an in

previous layer at top. Minimum dimension of the soak pit shall be 1.00m and the depth below

the invert level or inlet pipe surrounding land to avoid flooding.

SOAK PIT OR SEEPAGE PIT

All seepage pits shall have a diameter of 1.00m.

All seepage pits shall be designed as any of the following two types

1. Hollow and lined with acceptable material.

2. Filled with coarse stone or similar material that range from fines, sand, clay or

organic material.

Pits filled with coarse stone are prepared over hollow lined pits

Lining of brick, stone, block or similar materials shall have a minimum thickness of 100

mm and shall be laid with overlapping, tight-butted joints

Below the inlet level, mortar shall be used in the horizontal joints only. Above the inlet,

all joints shall be filled fully with mortar.

For hollow- lined pits, the inlet pipe should extend horizontally at least 300 mm into

the pit with a tee to divert flow downward and prevent washing and eroding the side

wall

A minimum annular space of 150 mm between the lining and excavation wall shall be

filled with crushed rock or gravel varying in diameter from 20 mm to 65 mm and free

from fines, sand, clay, or organic material. The maximum fines in the gravel shall be 2

percent by weight passing through a Standard 10mesh (2.0 millimeter) sieve. Clean

coarse gravel or rock at least 150 mm deep shall be placed in the bottom of each pit.

A structurally sound and otherwise suitable top shall be provided that will prevent

entrance of surface water, dirt or other foreign material, and be capable of supporting

the overburden of earth and any reasonable load to which it is subjected

Access to each hollow –lined pit shall be provided by means of a manhole, not less than

450 mm in minimum horizontal dimension, or by means of an easily removable cover.

The top of the pit shall be covered with a minimum of 150 mm of backfill.

In pits filled with coarse stone, the perforated distribution pipe shall run across each pit.

A layer of crushed rock or gravel shall be used for leveling the distribution pipe.

DISPERSION TRENCHES

Narrow and shallow trenches about 0.5m to 1.00m deep and 0.3m to 1.00m wide excavated to a

slight slope. Open jointed stone ware or concrete pipes 80 to 100 mm diameter are laid in the

trenches over a bed of 15 to 25 cm of washed gravel or crushed stone. The top of pipes shall be

covered by coarse gravel and crushed stone to a minimum depth of 15 cm. The balance portion



may be filled with earth and finished in the form of a mound above the ground to avoid flooding

of trenches during rain.

Width of trench:300 to 600 mm wide

Depth :500to 600 mm

Dispersion pipe: 100 mm diameter open jointed S.W. pipes/ 75mm to 90mm OD

perforated PVC pipes

Maximum length of each trench: 30 m

Spacing of the trench : 1.8 m

Slope of the pipe :1 in 400

Media: 20 to 65 mm size broken stones for a thickness of 150 mm below the pipe.

Separation distance of trees and rooted plants;

Trees and other large rooted plants shall not be allowed to grow near to dispersion

trenches

It is desirable to cover the area over onsite soil absorption systems with lawn grass or

other shallow –rooted plants

Soil absorption systems should not be located under vegetable gardens.

The separation distance of trenches must be at least equal to 3 times the deepest

effective depth of trench with a minimum separation of 370 mm between trenches

POUR FLUSH WATER SEAL LATRINES

Pour flush latrines as the nature indicates, the excreta is hand flushed by pouring about 1.6 to 2

lit of water. The pour flush latrines are with a single leach pit and squatting pan over it. When

the pit in use gets filled up another pit is dug and the squatting platform and the slab is placed

on it.

The first pit is covered with earth and allowed to decay. After one or two years, the digested

excreta is used as a manure. The disadvantage of this system is that desludging has to be done

almost immediately after the pit has been filled up which involved handling of fresh and

undigested excreta. So this is appropriate only if it is desludged mechanically. To tide over this

situation a twin pit design was introduced. When one pit is full, the excreta is diverted into the

second pit. The filled up pit can be conveniently implied after 1⅟₂ to 2 years when most of the

pathogens die off. The sludge can be used as manure.

LEACH PIT

Leach pits serve a dual function of

a) Storage and digestion of excreted solids and



b) Infilteration of waste liquids.

Leach pits are designed based on the following parameters.

1) Solid accumulation rate.

2) Long term infilteration rate.

3) Hydraulic loading.

4) Minimum period required for effective pathogen destruction

5) Optimal pit emptying frequency.

The pits are lined with honey come brick work, open jointed or with perforated burnt clay or

concrete rings. The pits are circular and used alternatively and designed for 3 years filling

period. When one pit is filled it is stopped, the excreta being diverted to second pit. The contents

become lich organic humus, innocuous and free from pathogens as well as smell. When

convenient, it is emptied and contents used as organic manure.

The size of leach pits depends on a number of factors mentioned above. The effective volume

under dry conditions should be at least 0.135 m³ percapita of the house hold for a period of 3

years. In the case of wet pit where water table is high the volume shall be 0.210 m³ per capita of

the house hold for a period of 3 years. Leach pit configuration can be varied to suit site

conditions while the least cost design in a twin circular pits.

Design of pits under different conditions

a) In water logged area: The pit top should be raised by 300 mm above likely level of water

above ground level at the time of water logging. Earth should then be filled will

compacted all round the pits up to 1.00 m distance from the pit up to its top. The raising

of the pit will necessitate raising of the latrine floor also.

b) In high sub soil water level: Where the sub soil water level rises to less than 300 mm

above the likely sub soil water level and earth should be filled all round the pits and

latrine floor raised.

c) In rock strata: In rocky strata with soil layer in between, the leach pits should be

designed as for ordinary leach pit construction with low subsoil water level.

d) Where space is a constraint: Where circular pits of standard sizes cannot be constructed

due to space constraints, deeper pit with smell diameter (not less than 750 mm) or

combined oval square or rectangular pits divided into two equal compartments by a

partition wall may be provided. In case combined pits the partition wall should not have

holes. The partition wall should go 250 mm deeper than the pit lining and plastered on

both sides with cement mortar.

AQUA PRIVY

This is a simplified form of septic tank. This consists of a masonry tank filled with water, a

squatting pan or a platform placed above the tank and ventilation pipe. A long chute or pipe

from the squatting is submerged in the tank water. The excreta falls through this chute or pipe

into the tank and undergoes anaerobic digestion as in a septic tank. The accumulated sludge

(digested) from the tank is to be removed periodically. To compensate for evaporation and



leakage losses and to maintain the water seal. I.e. submergence of chute in the water, water is

added every time after its use.



ANNEXURE 2: GOOD PRACTICES

1. Tiruchirapally (Trichy to most people), the famous temple town of the South, is the fourth-

largest city in Tamil Nadu, and is located on the banks of the Cauvery with a population of just

over a million — of which 25 per cent live in slums. Trichy has 211 “approved” slums and as

many as 75 “unapproved” slums which are located on railway land, Government of India land,

and land belonging to the Waqf Board and other private owners. Until the end of the 1990s the

slums of Trichy, with their sanitation and toilet facilities in an appalling state, were no different

from the rest of the country. But things began to change about 10 years ago, and Trichy has not

looked back since. The city was ranked 6th in India in the sanitation ranking of Indian cities by

the ministry of urban development in 2009-10.

It all started with a major initiative launched by the NGO Gramalaya in 2000, mobilising women

in the slums in self-help groups (SHGs) and launching an awareness campaign on sanitation

through training. They were able to get the support of Water-Aid, a UK-based NGO, to fund the

building/renovation of 25 community toilets and child-friendly toilets in the slums, which

would be managed by the women of the community on a pay-and-use basis. Sanitation health

education teams were set up by the SHGs to propagate the message of sanitation, monitor the

behaviour of residents, and supervise the maintenance of the toilets.

A community toilet complex typically has 10-12 seats for women and 10-12 for men. Child-

friendly toilets are separately provided in an adjacent area, for children up to the age of eight.

Each toilet has a tap which supplies 24×7 water. Some have graduated to “sanitary complexes”

with room for bathing and washing. Each facility receives its water supply from the Trichy City

Corporation (TCC), and a bore well is also provided by the corporation. Each has a provision of

underground storage of water and an overhead tank to which water is pumped. TCC has

ensured that water is made available also in summer months through tankers. The corporation

waives the electricity charge for the pumping of water for the first few years of operating the

toilets. Afterwards, the tariff for community toilets is levied at the lower domestic rate and not

commercial rate.

The cost of a typical community toilet was around Rs 3 lakh in the initial years that Water-Aid

built such complexes. Today, the cost is around Rs 12 lakh. The success of the women in

managing and maintaining the community toilets encouraged the TCC to build more of them, so

that all the 211 approved slums now have community toilets. Out of a total of 347 such toilets

(some slums have more than one), 284 are connected to the sewerage system and 63 function

through a septic tank. About 100 toilets are being managed on a pay and use basis by SHGs with

Gramalaya, and another 40 by other NGOs. For the rest, the TCC and/or ward councillors take

the responsibility for managing the toilets.

The Kamala Nehru Nagar slum where the toilet was inside the slum area. In West Devathanam,

another complex where the toilet is located between the slum and a public road and caters to

the needs of the slum as well as the floating population surrounding the slum. At the community

toilets run by SHGs, sanitary health education team members take turns to sit at a table placed

outside the toilet complex with tokens to sell as people come to use the toilet. They engage

cleaners who clean the complex two to three times a day. I found that the toilets were cleaner

than what we may typically find in cinema halls in Delhi.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=10.805,78.6856&spn=1.0,1.0&q=10.805,78.6856+(Tiruchirappalli)&t=h



It is clear from the systems they have put in place to manage and maintain these toilets that

these women understand the economics of it all. The collection from user charges is used to pay

their electricity bills, the cleaner, the guard who keeps the watch, and expenses of minor repairs.

The typical user charge varies from 50 paise to Re 1 per use, while children, the elderly and the

physically challenged have free access. The accounts are meticulously-kept and are audited by

the TCC.

All teams make a small subscription to come together under Women’s Action for Village

Empowerment (WAVE) which is a registered society. Monthly meetings of WAVE allow them to

discuss their problems and learn from each other in finding solutions. A member of the TCC is

also invited to these meetings. They are now extending their sphere to cover solid waste

management and better delivery of other public services.

After initial resistance to their cause, men wanted to have a part of the action when the women

seemed to be succeeding in making their slums clean. The women obliged by creating AWASH

(Association for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) so that men could also contribute to improving

the water and sanitation scenario of their joint habitat. Men also find a role through WATSAN

(water and sanitation) committees in monitoring the progress of the overall sanitation status of

the slums in the city. The municipal commissioner, T. T. Balsamy, was very appreciative of the

role played by the NGOs and the communities in bringing about the much overdue

transformation. As Geetha Jegan, executive director of Gramalaya put it: “Together, the city

corporation, the NGOs and the communities from the slums of Trichy have transformed the

sanitation scenario in Trichy.”

Trichy has shown the way. Other cities in India must follow to completely get rid of open

defecation and work for better sanitary conditions.

INFORMATION BOX 13: THE CONDOMINIAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM IN BRAZIL

The "condominial" system is the brainchild of Jose Carlos de Melo, a socially committed

engineer from Recife. The name condominial was given for two reasons. First, a block of houses

was treated like a horizontal apartment building (or condominial in Portuguese) (see figure).

Second, "Condominial" was a popular Brazilian soap opera and associated with the best in

urban life. As is evident in the figure, the result is a radically different layout, with a shorter grid

of smaller and shallower "feeder" sewers running through the backyards and with the effects of

shallower connections to the mains rippling through the system. These innovations cut

construction costs to between 20 and 30 per cent of those of a conventional system. The more

fundamental and radical innovation, however, is the active involvement of the population in

choosing their level of service, and in operating and maintaining the "feeder" infrastructure. The

key elements are that families can choose to continue with their current sanitation system, to

connect to a conventional waterborne system or to connect to a condominial system. If a family

chooses to connect to a condominial system, it has to pay a connection charge, which can be

financed by the water company, and a monthly tariff. If on the other hand, the family wants a

conventional connection, it has to pay an initial cost and a monthly tariff (both of which are

about three times higher) reflecting the different capital and operating costs. Families are free

to continue with their current system, which usually means a holding tank discharging into an

open street drain.



In most cases, however, those families who, initially, chose not to connect eventually end up

connecting. Either they succumb to heavy pressure from their neighbours or they find the build-

up of wastewater in and around their houses intolerable once the (connected) neighbours fill in

the rest of the open drain. Individual households are responsible for maintaining the feeder

sewers, with the formal agency maintaining only the trunk mains. This increases the

communities' sense of responsibility for the system. Also, the misuse of any portion of the

feeder system, for example by putting solid waste down the toilet, soon shows up in a blockage

in the neighbour's portion of the sewer. The rapid, direct and informed feedback to the misuser

virtually eliminates the need to educate the users of the system in the "acceptable and

unacceptable" and results in fewer blockages than in conventional systems. Finally, because of

the greatly reduced responsibility of the wastewater utility, its operating costs are sharply

reduced. The condominial system is now providing service to hundreds of thousands of urban

people in northeast Brazil and is being replicated on a large scale throughout the country. The

danger, however, is that the clever engineering is seen as "the system". Where the community

and organisational aspects have been missing, the technology has worked poorly (as in Joinville,

Santa Catarina) or not at all (as in the Baixada Fluminense in Rio de Janeiro). Source: Briscoe,

1993; de Melo, 1985.



ANNEXURE 3: REVIEWED POLICIES, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAMMES

Table 80: Reviewed Policies, Legal and Administrative Framework and Programmes

Policies Legal and Administrative

Framework Programmes

Social Section

Vision 2020 of

Government of

Karnataka

Vision 2021 of

Government of India

Draft National Slum

Policy

Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976

Karnataka Town Planning

Act, 1961

The 74th Constitutional

Amendment Act

The Twelfth Schedule of the

Constitution (Article 243W)

Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities

Act, 1987

Environmental

Improvement of Urban

Slums (EIUS)

Nehru Rozgar Yojana (NRY)

Prime Minister’s Integrated

Urban Poverty Eradication

Programme (PMIUPEP)

Swarna Jayanti Shahari

Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY)

Integrated Development for

Small and Medium Towns

(IDSMT)

Integrated Low Cost

Sanitation (ILCS)

Basis Services for the Urban

Poor (BSUP)

Environmental Section

Policy statement for

abatement of

pollution –MoEF

1992

National

Conservation

Strategy And Policy

Statement On

Environment and

Development, 1992

The Environment Protection

Act, 1986

Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Cess

Act, 1977, including Rules

Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act,

1974 as amended in 1978

and 1988

Water, Land and Tree Act

2002

The Municipal Solid Wastes

(Management and Handling)

Rules, 2000

The Bio Medical Waste

management

The Hazardous Wastes

(Management and Handling)

Rules, 1989 and 2003

amendment (inclusion of list

of municipal solid wastes to

State Environmental Action

Programme



hazardous wastes).

Karnataka Urban Water

Supply and Drainage Board

Act, 1974

Table 81: Functions of ULB

S. no. Function Wholly Partly Never

1

A) Urban Planning

B) Town Planning

2

a) Regulation of Land-use

b) Regulation of building activity.

3

a) Planning economic development

b) Planning social development.

4

a) Roads

b) Bridges.

5

Water supply-

a) Industrial,

b) Commercial

c) Domestic

6

a) Public health,

b) Sanitation,

c) Conservancy

d) Solid waste management

7 Fire services

8

a) Urban forestry,

b) Protection of environment

c) Promotion of ecological aspects



9

Safeguarding the interests of

a) Weaker sections,

b) Physically handicapped

c) Mentally retarded.

10 Slum improvement and up-gradation.

11 Urban poverty alleviation.

12

Provision of urban amenities

a) Parks,

b) Gardens,

c) Playgrounds and others

13.

Promotion of

a) Education,

b) Aesthetics and others

14

a) Burial grounds,

b) Cremations grounds

c) Electric crematoria

15

a) Cattle ponds

b) Prevention of cruelty to animals

16

a) Vital statistics,

b) Registration of births and deaths.

17

a) Public amenities

b) Street lighting,

c) Parking lots,

d) Bus shelters,



e) Public conveniences and others

18

Regulation of

a) Slaughterhouses

b) Tanneries



ANNEXURE 4: BUILDING APPLICATION RECEIPT

Figure 18: Receipt for building application for ULBs



ANNEXURE 5: CSTF CONSTITUTION IN GULBARGA



Figure 19 CSTF constitution notification letter



ANNEXURE 6: FIRST CSTF WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, GULBARGA

The workshop started with a welcome speech by Sri. Ashwaq Ahmed, Mayor, Gulbarga and Sri.

Manoj Jain, Commissioner, Gulbarga City Corporation, Gulbarga. The agenda listed the need for

the constitution of CSTF members and their role in the preparation of City Sanitation Plan

followed by the group activity among the CSTF members to seek their views on the problems

and solutions in regard to the sanitation in their respective city, as given below. The number of

participants was approximately 75 which included Mayor, Commissioner, Environmental

Engineers, Health Officer, Corporators, Sanitary Inspectors, Social development Officers,

Environment Officer, KSPCB, Community Development Officer, NGOs, Town Planners, ASCI’s

team, CMAK and Bhageerath. The discussions on the various issues raised by the CSTF members

were noted and relevant inference was drawn. The session concluded with the closing remarks

by the Commissioner of City Corporation, Gulbarga and ASCI team thanked the CSTF members

for their support and interaction. Following are the views expressed and outcome issues of the

group activity drawn to identify the problems and appropriate solutions to rectify the problems

in sanitation.

Views expressed by the CSTF members

1. Burning of solid waste is causing major problem in the city. There should be regular

collection from time to time in order to avoid burning of waste. The Commissioner, Gulbarga

City Corporation replied saying that there will be utmost care taken in managing solid waste

right from collection till the dumping at the landfill site. A complete management of solid

waste is expected to be established before the rainy season begins.

One of the Corporator raised a very important issue of burning of waste by the sanitary

workers, which is relevant all over the country and in all the urban local bodies. The

suggestion was a no cost measure where the Municipal Health Officer can call the sanitary

workers and instruct them not to burn the waste through explaining the health hazards

caused by such acts rather than stereotypical way of issuing notice. Issuing notice culture

would not fetch any result as the importance of such issue would never be understood.

2. Utilization of polythene bags in Gulbarga is another issue of concern. The plastic bags can be

replaced by the paper bags which are biodegradable in nature. The city has once

experienced a death of a cow due to consumption of plastic bags disposed at the road side of

the city. The Commissioner, Gulbarga City Corporation immediately instructed the

Environmental Engineer, Gulbarga City Corporation to issue an order to the plastic

manufacturing industries to stop their production and take necessary action in case of

violating the orders.

3. The city has limited community toilets in the slum locations. The number of toilets needs to

be improved and needs appropriate guidance to have basic facilities within the city. Dr.

Nandakishor advised some of the relevant ways of achieving such facilities in the city. The

suggestions were to seek guidance and support from the Government to construct and aid

with financial support. To involve in the Public Private Partnership (PPP) models and Self

Help Groups (SHGs) in the construction, operation and maintenance of the community



toilets. To have pay and use approach for the proper and hygienic maintenance of

community toilets.

4. The solid waste management in the city is insufficient especially door to door collection. Due

to this, the waste is dumped by the road side areas or at the neighboring areas causing

unhygienic atmosphere to the people nearby. There should be regular awareness

programmes to the general public regarding disposal of solid waste and its importance in

maintaining good health.

GROUP ACTIVITY

GROUP I: Open defecation free city

Issues

1. Defecation in open fields in some parts of the city.

2. It is difficult for many families to have basic toilet facility because they are living in

crowded place.

3. Lack of education and ignorance.

4. Creation of unhealthy/unhygienic conditions.

5. 80% of diseases occur due to unhygienic conditions.

6. Shortage of water and improper water management.

Solutions

1. Construction of community toilets.

2. Efficient sewage connections for all the households.

3. Conduct workshops on scientific information and in-turn trying to change their mindset.

4. Taking help of media (display pictures) in public places to create awareness.

5. Public involvement.

6. Create awareness to build a healthy society.

7. Creating awareness towards living in hygiene conditions.

8. Improve water supply and water management methodologies.

GROUP II: Waste water treatment

Issues

1. Storm water drains leakage

2. Dumping of plastic waste into the drains

3. The damaged pipelines causes severe problem to the water system

4. Mixing of storm water into the potable water lines

5. The waste water from the UGD pipelines mixes in the drinking water lines causing serious

health impacts

6. 24/7water supply is not attended to all the 55 wards

Solutions

1. Regular maintenance of water connections and its lines

2. Cleaning of drains on regular basis

3. Ban on plastic bags use

4. Awareness of impacts on plastic usage

5. Replacing of new pipe lines in case of any severe damage



6. 24/7 water supply to be followed in all the wards.

7. Advanced technology should be used for waste water treatment

GROUP III: Sanitation facilities to poor

Issues

1. Difficulty in paying monthly usage charges of toilets

2. No IEC programs in slum areas

3. No proper open drains for the outlet of waste water

4. No UGD in slum areas

5. No public toilet

6. Difficulty to get UGD connection due to high cost

7. Difficulty in construction of individual toilets due to high cost.

8. No supply of chlorinated water to poor

Solutions

1. Recommended to provide sanitation facilities free of cost

2. Organizing regular IEC programmes

3. Open drains needs to be clear and regularly maintained

4. UGD coverage for all the wards

5. Arrange public toilets to avoid open defecation

6. To provide chlorinated water for drinking purpose.

GROUP IV: Door to door collection of solid waste, treatment and disposal

Issues

1. Lack of awareness in general public

2. Improper storage of garbage facilities in the house

3. Lack of cooperation in giving monthly charges

4. Lack of cooperation from leaders

5. Lack of solid waste segregation at source

6. Maximum utilization of plastic

7. No proper dumping of waste into the dustbins

8. Lack of atleast secondary segregation points in city

9. Burning of waste within the containers

Solutions

1. Awareness in public through IEC. Programmes in schools, door to door campaign by NGO,

local leaders and government officials

2. Separate dust bins to be used in the house

3. SHGs should be involved in proper collection and segregation of solid waste

4. Payment to SHGs should through Corporation

5. Ban on plastic bags which is more than 20 microns

6. Separate containers are maintained for wet waste and dry waste.

7. Complete supervision of door to door waste collection

GROUP V: Regarding IEC for solid waste management

Views



1. Awareness is adequate and the entire city is lacking with information.

2. Less people participation in IEC programs (public give excuses saying they have to attend

jobs and other tasks).

3. IEC programs should be implemented more in rural areas compared to cities.

4. Media’s involvement should be made while creating IEC programmes in the cities for more

publicity.

5. We should have a bigger morcha (andolan), street plays, jathas, etc., to create awareness.

6. Officials, public servants, politicians, etc., have to extensively participate in IEC programs.

7. Other agencies should not neglect IEC by saying the task (IEC) has been assigned to some

other agency.

8. Training to school and college children needs to happen.

9. Regular workshp should be conducted on environmental awareness to the SHGs, CBOs,

NGOs, RWCs, etc.

10. Reformation for ward level committees along with regular ward level meetings.



ANNEXURE 8: SECONDARY DATA FORMATS – PROFILING OF THE ULBS TABLE 1: DETAILS OF ULB

Name of the ULB

Address

Area

Population

No. of Wards

Please attach organizational structure of the ULB

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF GROWTH TRENDS

Sl.

No

Year Total

Population

Total

households

Area of the

city

Total BPL

population

Total

population

in slums

Total

Households

in Slums

Area of slums

(nos.) (nos.) (sq.km) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (sq.km)

1 1961

2 1971

3 1981

4 1991

5 2001

6 2011

Note: The figures for 2011 will be estimated figures, while the 1961- 2001 figures should be taken from the Census

Note: Remarks column could indicate any explanation for figures not keeping in line with trends (e.g. jurisdictional changes),migration ,floating

population rates.

Source



TABLE 3: WARDWISE DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS

Ward No. Area

(sq.km)

Population

(nos.)

Households

(nos.)

1

2

3

4

5

TABLE 4: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TYPES OF PROPERTIES

Sl. No. Ward No.

Residential properties

Commercial properties

Institutional properties

Govt. Schools

Govt. Hospitals

Other Govt. health institutions

Slaughter houses

Industries

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

5



TABLE 5: WARDWISE SLUM DETAILS

Ward No Name of the slum Slum area Type of slum Slum population Slum households

(sq.km) (notified, non-notified, identified)

(nos.) (nos.)

BASE MAPS

1. Map showing ward boundaries, Population density 2. Map showing zone wise boundaries 3. Map with location of notified and non-notified slums 4. Master plan (old and new) 5. Transportation network map 6. Map showing location of different types of areas by activities/Landuse (industries, commercial activity, recreational activity) 7. Map showing location of public and community toilets 8. Map showing open defecation areas / Septage disposal sites. 9. Map of DTD routing and Location of solid waste dumping grounds and compost yards 10. Location of Sewerage network, STPs and outfall points 11. Maps showing water supply network, 12. Map of Storm water drainage network / drain out falls 13. Map showing location of water bodies 14. Location of slaughter houses 15. Maps showing low lying and water logging areas

TABLE 6: LIST OF Secondary Data /REPOrts

CDP

Master Plan

DPR’s Water Supply



Solid Waste Management

Storm Water Drains

Sewerage

Poverty Alleviation Programmes Ex: SJSRY, , IHSDP, BSUP, State level

programmes (Kanshi Ram Awas

Yojana, Indiramma)

Various ongoing schemes and its current status Ex: JnNURM, UIDSSMT, ILCS, RAY, etc

OTHER REPORTS

• Municipal finance details • Pollution Control board, • Environment Status report • Data of water bodies and extent of pollution • Census, NSSO, • Human Development Report • District handbook • Manual and codified procedures for sewerage, septage, drainage and SWM • Status of State/ULB Act provisions for punishments/fines for littering and letting out waste and excreta in the open • Implementation of above rules in practice • Instances of fines in the last one year • Reports on water borne diseases, annual occurrences, mortality and morbidity, and other diseases • Reports of IEC work done by the ULB or any other agency



TABLE 7: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TOILETS FOR NON-SLUM AREAS

Ward

No

Non slum

Population

Non

slum

HHS

Own septic

tank/Flush

Latrine

Own Dry

Latrine

Shared

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Shared

Dry

Latrine

Community

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Community

Dry Latrine

Open

Defecation

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 8: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TOILETS FOR SLUM AREAS

Ward

No

Slum

Name

Slum

type

Population HH Own septic

tank/Flush

Latrine

Own

Dry

Latrine

Shared

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Shared

Dry

Latrine

Community

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Community

Dry Latrine

Open

Defecation

(Notified

/Non

Notified)

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2



3

4

TABLE 9: WARDWISE DETAILS OF type of TOILETS outlets

Ward No. Toilets

connected to

septic tanks

with soak pits

Toilets

connected to

septic tanks

without soak

pits

Toilets

connected to

open Nalas

Toilets

connected to

UGD

Length of UGD Area covered

by UGD

Properties

covered by

UGD

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (km) (%) (%)

TABLE 11: FINANCIAL DETAILS OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM

Sl. no Particulars Value Remarks

1 No of customers being charged for sewerage services (no)

2 Connection Fee (one-time) to Connect to System (Rs.)

3 Average Monthly Tariff (Rs. Per Connection)

4 Annual Demand for Sewerage Tariff (Rs.) - last year data

5 Annual Collection for Sewerage Tariff (Rs.) - last year data

6 Personnel expenditure charged to Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.)



7 Other Expenditure charged to Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.) - last year Data

8 Percentage of total water and sanitation budget spent on Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.)

TABLE 12: WARDWISE NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF FLOATING POPULATION

Ward No Ward Population No. of People

visiting town

every day by

ward

Percentage To

Ward

Population

Areas and

localities of

visiting

Reasons for

Visiting

Remarks

(nos.) (nos.) (%)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 13: ACCESS TO PUBLIC TOILETS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS AND PUBLIC PLACES

Ward

No

Name of Area Location of

Public Toilet

Toilet Seats Number of

Persons Using

Type of

Management

Remarks

Ladies

(nos.)

Gents

(nos.)

(nos.)



TABLE 14: DETAILS OF COMMUNITY TOILETS IN RESIDENTIAL / SLUM AREAS

War

d No

Name of

Slum/Are

a

Location of

Communit

y Toilet

Toilet Seats Number of

Household

s Using

Whethe

r pay

and use

Price

per

use

urinal

s

Price per

use

defecatio

n

Pric

e per

use

bath

Type of

Managemen

t

Workin

g /Not

working

Ladie

s

(nos.)

Gent

s

(nos.)

Childre

n

(nos.)

(nos.) (Y/N) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)

TABLE 15: WARDWISE DETAILS OF SEPTIC TANKS, PITS AND THEIR CLEANING PROCEDURES

War

d No.

No. of

septi

c

tanks

Clearing Procedure Interval

of

cleanin

g

Quantit

y of

sludge

Monitorin

g present

No. of

Pits

(specif

y -

Single

or

double

)

Clearing Procedure Interval

of

cleanin

g

Quantit

y of

sludge

Monitorin

g present

(nos.) a) Manual b) Motorized

(litres) (Yes/No) (nos.) a) Manual b) Motorized

(litres) (Yes/No)



TABLE 16: SLUDGE/SEPTAGE EQUIPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

No. Indicator Municipality Owned Private

Agencies

Remarks

A Equipment Available

1 No of Sludge Suction trucks/equipment

2 Annual No of tanks cleaned - last year's estimate

B Cleaned using mechanical equipment

3 Estimated Volume (ML) cleaned last year

4 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Untreated

5 Amount Disposed Untreated (ML) - last year's estimate

6 Location of disposal - untreated

7 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Treated

8 Amount Disposed Treated (ML) - last year's estimate

9 Location of disposal - treated

10 Cost per tank cleaning

C Manual Cleaning of Tanks and Pits

11 Estimate Annual No of Tanks cleaned - last year's average

12 Cost per tank cleaning



13 Method of disposal of sludge cleaned

14 Who are the persons cleaning tanks?

ML = Million Litres

TABLE 17: WARDWISE DETAILS OF GOVT. SCHOOLS AND THEIR SANITATION FACILITIES

Ward No. Name of

the

school

Category No. of toilets No. of toilets

working

Is water

supply

present

in

toilets?

Toilet outlets

Girls Boys Girls Boys Sewerage

system

Septic

tanks

Open

nallas

(PS. UPS,HS) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (Y/N)

Please find attached questionnaire of school sanitation surveys

TABLE 18: WARDWISE DETAILS OF ANGANWADIS AND THEIR SANITATION FACILITIES

Ward No. Name of

the

Anganwadi

centre

No. of toilets No. of toilets working Is water

supply

present in

toilets?

Toilet outlets

Girls Boys Girls Boys Sewerage

system

Septic

tanks

Open nallas

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (Y/N)



INFORMATION REQUIRED ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE ULB

• Waste segregation, process, quantities, • Bio-hazardous/ industrial waste quantity, treatment procedure • Treatment facilities, capacities, identification of dumpsites, area, no. of years of operation, present status • Technology of waste processing and recycling, proportion of waste that is processed and recycled • Category wise numbers of public health workers (cadre, contractual, permanent), provision of safety equipment for them • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • SWM tariff structure • Future SWM projects and proposals

TABLE 19: WARDWISE SWM DETAILS

Ward No SWM generated

Quantity

SWM Collection

Quantity

Door-to-

Door collection HHs

Segregation

practiced

No. of local open

dumpsites

(MT) (MT) (nos.) (Yes/No) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 20: DETAILS OF VEHICLES USED FOR DOOR TO DOOR WASTE COLLECTION



Vehicle Type No .of vehicles Capacity of each vehicle

(Tons)

No. of trips Total waste collected

(Tons)

TABLE 21: DETAILS OF VEHICLES USED FOR SECONDARY WASTE TRANSPORTATION

Vehicle Type No. of vehicles Capacity of each vehicle

(Tons)

No. of trips Total waste collected

(Tons)

TABLE 21: DETAILS OF WASTE ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

Category of waste Quantity of waste

generated

(MT/Month)

Quantity of

waste collected

(MT/Month)

Category of waste Quantity of waste

generated

(MT/Month)

Quantity of waste

collected

(MT/Month)

Residential Slaughter Houses

Commercial Industries

Street sweeping Construction waste

Market waste Any other (please

specify)



INFORMATION REQUIRED ON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IN THE ULB

• Source, treatment facilities, • Capacity, present production • Length of distribution network, coverage • Water quality • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • Water tariff structure • Future water supply projects and proposals

TABLE 22: WARDWISE DETAILS OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Ward

No.

HHS connected

to Piped Water

(nos.)

No. of

hours per

day

HHS

connected to

stand posts

(nos.)

No. of

hours per

day

HHS connected

to Tube

wells/own

sources and

others

(nos.)

Bulk

connections

(nos.)

Other

properties

connected to

piped water

system

(nos.)

1

2

3

4

5

INFORMATION REQUIRED ON STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE ULB

• Outfall points,



• Water recycling, re-use and their technology • Areas of flooding and water logging and no. of instances annually. • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • Future drainage projects and proposals

TABLE 23: WARDWISE DETAILS OF DRAINAGE NETWORK

Ward

No.

Length of Drainage

System

(Pucca/semi

pucca/kachha)

(km)

Length Roads

(Pucca/semi

Pucca/kachha)

(km)

%

Area

covered

Volume of

grey

water

generated

(MLD)

%

Treated

Identification

of problem

areas

Functional

Status

Remarks

1

2

3

4

5



ANNEXURE 9: PRIMARY DATA SURVEY FORMATS SURVEY FORMAT 1 – HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

16. If water closet connected to Septic Tank

Month and Year of last cleaning: Is it constructed as per approved plan:

Cleaned by:

a. Municipality

c. Cost of cleaning toilet

b. Private Sweepers:

Is the building plan approved by Municipality

Frequency of cleaning a. Less than 6 months b. Once in 6 months c. Once in a year d. Once in two year

Where do you dispose the septic tank waste

Is septic tank constructed as per building plan approval

Whether the soakpit is working in all seasons a. Yes b. No

If not, what are the problems they face

Whether soak pit is connected to the open drain

a. Yes b. No

17. In case of Dry Pit Latrine/unimproved pit latrine

Year of construction: Month and Year of last cleaning:

Do you experience overflowing

a. Yes b. No

Other problems faced by dry pit latrine a. Odour, b. Fly nuisance c. hygienic issues d. cleanliness

Reason for not upgrading:

18. Water supply to toilet

a. Stand post: b. Own Arrangement:

c. Municipal Supply d. Hand pump

19. If Municipal Supply

a. Adequate: b. Not Adequate:

20. If, a. All members b. Only Adult Men c. Only Adult Women d. All Adults



Community/Public, Who in family uses it?

21. No. of people using the community toilet

a. 10-20 b. 20-30

c. 30-40

d. 40-50

e. 50 and above

22. No. of seats

a. Less than 10 b. 10-15 c. 15-20 d. 20-30 e. 30 & above

23. Condition of the toilets

a. Good b. Average c. unusable d. Not in use

24. Payment Arrangements for community toilets

a. Pay and use (Every use) b. Monthly family pass

c. Free of cost

25. Charges a. 50 paise b. Rs 1-2 c. Rs. 2-3 d. Rs 3 and above e. monthly pass 1. less than 20 2. 20-30 3. 30-40

26.Are you satisfied with present arrangement

a. Yes b. No

27. If No state reasons* (tick all possible options)

a. poor maintenance b. corruption c. lack of facilities d. Other, Specify

28.Why you have not constructed toilet (Applicable if Q 14-15 are answered)

a. Affordability to construct toilet b .Affordability of connecting to sewer network

c. Uncertainty over land and tenure d. Space Constraints

e. Low priority given to sanitation (awareness) f. Lack of water

g. Lack of know how h. Any other

29.What facility would you prefer over open

a. Household latrine (types): b. Pour flush twin

c. pit/Septic tank with soak pit/ others d. Public



defecation (Applicable if Q 14-15 are answered)

e. Community Toilet

30.In case of Public/Community Toilet; willing to pay for use

a. Yes

b. No

31. If Yes, How much? (Rs) a. 50 paise b. Rs 1-2 c. Rs. 2-3

d. Rs. 3 and above e) Monthly Pass 1. less than 20 2. 20-30 3. 30-40

32.Disposal of household waste water ( from kitchen, bath and wash other than latrine)

a. Discharged to river/pond/nalas b. Reuse in the garden after passing through soak pit

c. Directly to public drain d. Both a & b

33. Were you affected by any diseases in last six months

a. Yes (specify when) b. No

34. What type of disease a. Amoebic dysentery

b. Cholera

c. Diarrhea

e. Malaria f. Skin disease g.

35. Expenditure towards health (Monthly)

36. Do you know that good sanitation is linked to health

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

37. Where is household solid waste disposed? a. Disposed in Roadside Bin b. Disposed at designated open dumping spot

c. Disposed in drain d. Door-to-door collection



38. Distance to Disposal Spot (Feet)

a. Less than 50 b. 50 to 100

c. 100 to 200 d. 200 to 500

e. More than 500

39. Does municipality carry the waste dumped in your locality?

a. Yes

b. No

40. Do you have door to door collection?

a. Yes

b. No

41. Frequency of collection? a. Daily twice

b. Daily once

c. Once in 2 days

d. Once in three days

e. Three days & Above

42. Is the waste segregated at the source?

a. Yes

b. No

43. Do you pay for the waste collected from the municipality?

a. Yes

b. No

44.How much do you pay

(Rs per month)

a. 0-10 b. 10-20 c. 20-25 d. 25-30 e. 30-35 e. 35 and above

45.Are you satisfied with the service a. Very good b. Good c. Average d. Bad

46. Frequency of road sweeping a. Daily once b. Once in two days

c. Twice weekly

d. Once in a week e. Irregular

47.Frequency of cleaning drains a. Daily once b. Once in two days

c. once in 3 days

d. once in a week e. Irregular

Housing

48. Structure a) Pucca b) semi-Pucca c) Kutcha

Flooding



49. Whether the area is prone to flooding during rains? a) Yes b) No

50. Frequency of flooding/Water Logging a) During rainy season b) Once in a while

Sewerage

51. Do you have sewer connection? a) Yes b) No

52. If yes, How much do you pay? a) 20-50 b) 50-80 c) 80-100 d) 100-130 e) 130-150 f) 150-180

g) 180 & above

Grievance redressal mechanism

53. whom do you approach to give your complaint Regarding sanitation and water supply?

a) Sanitary Supervisor

b) Corporator c) MLA

d) NGO e) RWA f) others (Specify)

54. How do you make complaints? a) Direct (By word)

b) Letter

c) Phone d) Internet

55.Time taken to solve the problem

1) Water leakage a) 0-5 Hours b) 5-10 Hours c)10-15 Hours d)Within 24 Hours

2) Solid Waste Management

a) 0-5 Hours b) 5-10 Hours c) 10-24 Hours e) More than a day

3) Sanitation a) 0-24 Hours

b) Two Day c) Three days d) More than 3 days

56. Are you satisfied with present system a) Highly Satisfied b) Satisfied c) Partially d) Bad e)worse

57. Are you informed about City Sanitation if yes how?

YES/ No How: News paper Advertisement Wall poster

Suggestions:

1. Open Defecation 2. Disposal of Sludge 3. Disposal of Liquid waste (Black and grey)



SURVEY FORMAT - 02

COMMUNICATION NEED ASSESSMENT: FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD)

The key idea is to carry out a needs assessment within the existing infrastructure as well as the strategy to go with expansion of infrastructure. Following steps identified before visiting the field.

1. Identifying stakeholder groups and available channels of communication categorize them

2. Focus Group Discussions, Interviews, Transect Walks. 3. Topic Guides were prepared for each stakeholder group. 4. Data Collection. Field assessment of communications needs was carried out.

Stakeholders: FGDs will target the stakeholder groups eg. Residents, establishments and ULB officials. Opinion leaders also needs to be targeted as a high influence group both for interviews and implementation of communications strategies. Following are the key personnel to be interviewed:

• Key officials-Commissioners, sanitation inspectors, medical/health officers, • Councilors, Community elders, • City media: newspapers reporters, • RWA office bearers, • NGOs, • Safaikaramcharies union office bearers, • Heads of Commercial establishments and shopkeepers, including public places such as bus - stands • Random Samples of Residents from Rich neighborhoods. • Slum residents • School teachers, employees • School children Hospital employees and doctors

IEC Probes for field trip

As per the City Sanitation Rankings the OUPUT, PROCESS and OUTCOME indicators cover a whole range of issues such as, Quality of water supply (also in non-slum areas), Practices of SWM, dumping, segregation at source, collection (also in non-slum areas), ODF, types of latrines, problems and gaps. We conduct FGDs with reference to how city fared on each of these indicators.

1. Residents in Slum

• Awareness regarding Health and Hygiene: The current level of awareness regarding ill-effects of lack of sanitation, ODF, Hand washing, SWM etc

• Awareness regarding Govt. policies for improving water and sanitation: NUSP, Sources and channels of such knowledge and communication

• Awareness regarding technical options such as Toilet options

• Willingness to upgrade financial and behavioral constraints

• Participation in any public awareness campaign regarding sanitation, Agencies that carried the campaign and learning’s from the campaign

• Activities of local SHG's and other community organization, areas of engagement

• In non-slum areas - check for RWAs



• Media consumption patterns reading newspapers, Cable TV etc (also in non-slum areas)

• Information regarding demography of the slum (To be gathered from surveys)

• Complaint resolution system: complaints and mechanisms of resolution, how do they deal with water and sanitation crisis, Approaching local corporator, Complain to Municipality, Agitate

2. Municipal officials (including Safaikaramcharies)

• Role envisaged for communication for implementing NUSP.

• Channels of communication are at ULB’s disposal, Extent to which these channels are being exploited.

• Technological options, geographic and infrastructural issues involved in implementing Water and Sanitation schemes.

• M&E, feedback, support, rewards: Maintenance of citizen grievance records, discernible patterns in complaints, efficiency of complaint redressal.

• Details of any specific communication campaign being take up, Content, Channels used, budget allocated, awareness regarding multiplying message through media.

• Kinds of training and tools are given to Safaikaramcharies for safe disposal of waste etc and their satisfaction at what has been provided.

3. Commercial establishment and Public places

• Observation regarding sanitation is these places

• Practices involved in disposal of commercial waste such as segregation, shopkeeper participation

• O&M, regular upkeep of public places

4. School Sanitation

Status of school sanitation Health Problems issues-drop out rates/ enrollment rates, girl children, status of SSA , O&M problems, Health problems.

5. Hospitals

Examine Disposal of hazardous waste, specifically if effluents are being left into open drains

Disease burden of the town, data from District Medical/Health Officer, information on campaigns to mitigate, budget allocated

Disease burden, Diarrhea, GET, Cholera, Malaria, Skin problems Communication efforts with reference to diarrhea, malaria etc.

6. Media Persons

Main Sanitation issues in the city Sanitation news stories Municipality PR. Who answers media enquiries? Municipal Advertisements in dailies.



Checklists

1. Messages: Behavior change communication for residents, sustaining behavior and attitude change, attitudes of officials. Creating awareness about health and hygiene, environmental sanitation, helping officials be good listeners, improving management within existing constraints through better communication. Developing content for manuals for best communication practices, posters etc.

2. Channels of communication: these include grievance redressal mechanism of the MC, MC’s interaction with people- feedback seeking mechanisms, postures, hoardings, exhibitions, school activities, cable TV, FM Radio, Handbills, Newspapers, Street Plays, Meetings/seminars, workshops, presentations and interpersonal means.

Interpersonal means include interactive group education and door to door motivational programmes. Here the role of NGO’s is important.

3. Parameters: OUTPUT, PROCESS, OUTCOME as per NUSP

• Environmental Sanitation

SWM: market waste, domestic waste, waste segregation at source and at collection point, waste disposal measures

Treatment of solid waste and dump Deviance on part of polluters and institutions such as hospitals Proportion of solid waste, grey water, black water generated that is treated and

disposed safely ODF: public toilets, individual latrines, toilet maintenance, disposal of human waste, M&E to Track OD Check if Sewage systems are working properly Disposal of septage UGS: awareness, usercharges, problems Water, Quality of water in the city, in the water bodies in and around city, Reduction in water borne diseases amongst city-population



SURVEY FORMAT 03: INSTITUTIONS

V1. Institution name:

V2. Complete address:

V3. Number of Staff: 1. 1 to 5

2. 6 to 10

3. 11 to 15

4. 15 to 25

5. 25 and above

V4. CONDITONS OF TOILETS (Observation)

1. Good 2. Average 3. Bad 4. Worst

V5. Toilet facility is provided to staff 1. Yes

2. No

V6. Toilets are provided separately for Male &

Female?

1. Yes

2. No

V7. No. of toilets provided to Male staff of the

Institute

1. 1 to 3

2. 4 to 6

3. 7 to 9

4. Above 9

V8. No. of toilets provided to Female staff of

the Institute

1. 1 to 3

2. 4 to 6

3. 7 to 9

4. Above 9

V9. No. of seats available in the toilet for both

the gender.

1. 1 to 5

2. 6 to 10

3. 11 to 15

4. Above 16

V10. Does the toilets have minimum

infrastructure.

1 Yes

2 No

V11. If yes, What type of facilities are available

1. Water Supply

2. Doors with Bolts

3. Buckets

4. Lights

5. Tiled Bathrooms

6. Sinks are available

7. Soaps

8. Hand wash

9. Anything else



V12. If Water supply is there then what is the

source

1. Overhead Tank water

2. Piped water

3. Ground water

4. Surface Water

V13. Are they

maintained well

1. Yes

2. No

(Note: Take a photograph of the toilets)

V14. Do you need to improve the

toilet condition:

1. Yes

2. No

V15. type of improvement Required

1. Cleaning

2. Continuous water Supply

3. Maintenance

4. Change design

5. Upgrade infrastructure

6. Others

INTERVIEW WITH HEADS

V16. Monthly / Annual Budget for O&M of toilets

V17. Who is responsible for operation and maintenance?

V18. Who maintains the toilets?

V19. Are there any user charges collected 1. Yes 2. No

V20. Other suggestions



SURVEY FORMAT 04 COMMUNITY TOILETS

1. Town/city

2. Location

3. Maintained by/ service provider

4. Number of toilets a. Urinals b. Bath c. Washbasins

5. Male : 6. Female: 7. Children:

8. Pay per Use (In Rs) a. Defecation: b. Urinal: c. Bathing:

9. Number of people visiting per day

10. Condition a. Very good b. good c. average d. bad e. worse

11. Cleaning (Times per day):

12. Type of latrine

13. Feacal Sludge Management

a) Sewer

b) Manually Lifted

c) Onsite treatment

d) Other

14. Effluent Discharge(where does it go)

15. O & M Arrangement



SURVEY FORMAT 05 PUBLIC TOILETS

1. Town/city

2. Location

3. Maintained by/ service provider

4. Number of toilets Urinals Bath Washbasins

5. Male : 6. Female: 7. Children:

8. Pay per Use (In Rs) d. Defecation: e. Urinal: f. Bathing:

9. Number of people visiting per day

10. Condition f. Very good g. g

o

o

d

h. Average i. Bad j. Worse

11. Cleaning (Times per day):

12. Type of latrine Pit / WC

13. Fecal Sludge Management

e) Sewer

f) Onsite treatment

g) Other

14. Onsite treatment Waste water

a. Sewer drain

b. Septic tank

c. Septic tank

d. Other

15. O & M

Arrangement

PPP NGO



SURVEY FORMAT 06 HOSPITALS

1. Name of the Hospital

2. Location

3. Capacity (Beds)

4. Services Provided

5. Quantity of Solid waste produced by hospital (Kg)

6. Quantity of liquid waste produced by hospital (Liters)

7. Is colour coding done for the waste produced

Yes No

8. What is the arrangement for disposal of Bio Medical Waste

Municipality Private Own Arrangement

9. If it is private, how much do you pay?

10. Is there a system of segregating biodegradable and non biodegradable wastes

Yes No

11. Is the system of disposing Bio-medical waste Is in accordance with

Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) rules, 1998 and amendments

Yes

No

12. Frequency of collection and disposal BMW (Hours)

13. How is the liquid BMW is disposed, Such as Blood, Mucus, Secretion and urine

14. Is there a mechanism for management of sludge from hospital cesspools?

Yes No

15. If yes, Please explain

16. Is there any decentralized waste water treatment

Yes No

If yes, give details

a. Capacity of plant

b. What type of treatment

c. Discharge after treatment (COD

level after treatment)



SURVEY FORMAT 07 SCHOOLS

2

Strength No. of Students

(a) No. of Students Girls Boys

(b) No. of Teachers Female Male

(c) No. of other Staff

Female Male

3(a Students

No. of Urinals No. of WCs

Total requirement

Presently existed Balance to be constructed

Total requirement

Presently existing

Balance to be constructed o.k Under repairs

F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

3(b) Teachers


Total required


Total requirement

Presently existing



3(b) Other staff


Total required


Total requirement

Presently existing



4 Does the school have a waste water disposal (Other than WC water) Yes

No

5 Toilets Connected to: Septic Tank □ Sewerage □ Open drains □ Not connected □

6 Is the toilet properly ventilated? Yes No 7 Is the toilet tiled? Yes No

8 Does the toilet has electricity connection? Yes No

8(a) If yes, is it working? Yes No

9 Does the school have water connection? Yes No

10 Are there other sources of Water Supply? Borewell □ Tankers □ Others (specify) :

a. Basic Information

Name of the Respondent: Male/Female

Student □ Teacher □ Principal □ Others □

Name of the School

I.

II.

III.

Ownership of School Building:

Own □ Rent □

Address and location

Landmark



10 (a) Is there a facility for water storage? Yes/No Overhead Tank □ Sump □ Filled into Barrels/Drums □

11 Is there flowing water in the toilets? Yes No

12 Is the toilet in working condition? (No Blockades, Usable) Yes No

12(a) If no, Reasons: No Water □ Damaged Door □ Bolt broken inside the toilet □ Others(Specify) :

13 Is Toilet cleaned regularly? Yes No

13(a) If so, what is the interval? a) Twice in a day b) Once in a day c) Once in 2 days d) Others(specify):

15 Who is in-charge of O&M of Toilets? Contractor □ Out sourced □ School Employees □ Others(specify):

16 Budget allocated for O&M of Toilets Rs………………….

16(a) Source of Budget Funding SSA □ Parents □ State Government □ No specific allocation □ Others(Specify) :

17 Generally, how much is spent on O &M of Toilets, Rs………………. /year

18 Is there sanitary and hygiene education in this school? Yes No

18(a) If yes, Special Classes□ Topics in Curriculum□ Others(specify):

19 Drop-out ratio of students

Drop-out rate

Diseases reported

Enrollment rate

Drop-out rate

Diseases reported

Enrollment rate

Boys Girls

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Note: No. of Drop outs on a record basis (or) Strength of the students in the respective years.

20 Any improvements made to the toilets during the last three years. Details:

21 When is the potable water stored tank cleaned? Monthly□ 2-6 Months□ Biannually□ Annually□ Others(Specify):

21(b) Is the school constructed after taking building plan approval? Yes / No

22 Where is solid waste in the school disposed? At Roadside bin□ Open site□ In drains□ D-D collection □ Others(Specify) :



b. Perception Survey:

Principal:

1 Do you use toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water □ d) open defecate □ d) others (specify):

2 Are students allowed to leave in the mid of the classes to use the urinals?

Yes No

3 Are students of different classes having breaks at the same time/intervals?

Yes No

4 Do you feel any students having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No

5 Other Concerns/issues in maintenance of toilets?

Teachers:

1 Do You use the toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water □ d) open defecate □ d) others (specify):

2 Do you feel any students having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No

3 Have you seen any teacher transferred to another school due to poor sanitation?

Yes No


Students:

1 Do You use the toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water d) open defecate e) others (specify):

2 Do they wash their hands after they go to toilets? Yes No

3 Are you allowed to leave in the mid of the classes to use the urinals? Yes No

4 Are different classes having breaks at the same time/intervals? Yes No

5 Have you seen any of your friends having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No


Girl Students:

1 Is there arrangement for dustbin in the toilets? Yes No

2 Do you attend school during menstrual period? Yes No

3 Any special menstrual hygiene classes? Yes No



SURVEY FORMAT 08

SLAUGHTER HOUSE

1. Name of the city/town:

2. Location of the slaughter house:

3. Year of construction

4. Condition of the slaughter house (to be written by observation)

5. Is the slaughter house managed by municipality/corporation:

6. Is there a veterinary doctor to look after the slaughter house?

7. How many animals are slaughtered per day

8. Does the veterinary doctor examine the animals regularly?

9. Is there a Karmachari/worker to regularly clean the blood and other waste in the

slaughter house?

10. How frequent is the cleaning done?

11. Waste disposal arrangement-Liquid waste

A) Open drain B) Sewerage C) Open Place D) other (Specify)

12. Waste disposal arrangement-Solid waste

A) Open drain B) Sewerage C) Open Place D) other (Specify)

13. Institutional Arrangement for maintenance of Slaughter House

14. Did approval of the plan taken from municipality



SURVEY FORMAT 09

COMMERCIAL PLACES

1. Name of the Commercial place

2. Name of Respondent

3. Gender a. Male b. Female

4. Duration of work

5. Number of workers in the shop

Male : Female:

a. 1-2 b. 1- 5 c. 5-10

d. 10-20 e. 20-30 f. 30 & above

6. Toilets Availability in the Shop/complex a. Yes b. No

7. Number of seats a. 1 to 5 b. 6 to 10 c. Above10

d. Only Urinals

8. Are the workers allowed to use a. Yes b. No

9. Awareness about a Public toilet in the premises a. Yes b. No

10. In case of necessity, usage pattern a. Complex toilets b. Public toilets

c. open defecation d. wait for an opportunity

11. Willingness to have pay and use toilets

(in case of no provision)

a. Yes b. No

12. Specific amount they can afford (Rs.) a. Up to 1 b.1 to 2 c. 2-3 d. Monthly pass

1. less than

20

2. 20-30 3. 30-40

13. Where do you throw your waste a. On the road b. Nearby bin

c. Nalas d. Other

14. How much do you pay for Garbage collection?

Per Month

a. 100-300 b. 301-700 c. 701-1500

d. 1501-3000 e. 3000 Above

15. Is the garbage collected regularly? a. Yes b. No

16. How regularly the garbage is being collected a. Daily twice b. once daily c. once in two days

d. once in 3 days e. 3 days and above



17. Levels of satisfaction in waste management a. very good b. good c. Average d. Bad

18. Suggestion on existing sanitation arrangements

19. Is the building constructed as per plan approval Yes/No

SCHEDULE FOR COMMERCIAL PLACES (Individuals)

1. Name of the Commercial place

2. Name of the Respondent

3. Gender a. Male b. Female

4. Frequency of visit to the commercial place

5. Average time spent in market

6. Aware about toilet provision in the premises a. Yes b. No

7. In case of necessity, usage pattern a. Toilet available in shops b. Public toilet

c. Open Defecation d. Wait for opportunity

8. Difficulties faced in open defecation

9. Willingness to have pay and use toilets a. Yes b. No

10. Specific amount they can afford to pay (in Rs.) a. Less than 1 b. 1-2 c. 2-3 d. 3 and above

Waste Management

11. Problems of garbage in Market

12. Satisfaction about present garbage management a. Very good b. Good c. Average d. Bad

13. Suggestions to improve sanitation situation



SURVEY FORMAT 10

INDUSTRIES

1. Name of the Town/City

2. Name of the industry

3. Type of industry

4. Location of the city

a) Residential Area

b) Institution area

c) Market area

d) Industrial area

e) Other (Specify)

5. Size of the industry

a) Small scale,

b) medium scale

c) large scale

6. Amount of Solid Waste generated per day?

7. How is the Solid Waste managed?

a) By industry itself

b) By municipality

c) Private agency

d) Other (Specify)

8. If it is municipality, how much do you pay per month?

Specify the amount

9. If it is private agency, how much do you pay per month?(Specify the amount)

10. Is source segregation done at industry?

11. Amount of Liquid waste generated per day?

12. How is the liquid waste managed?

1. Treated in PTP (primary treatment plant) in the industry and left to Nalla

2. Directly left to sewerage

3. Directly left to Nalla

4. Led to open place

5. Led to a water body

13. Is there a primary treatment plant in the industry?

14. What is the O&M cost for maintaining PTP in the industry?

Specify the amount

15. Is the industry in conformity with the state and Central Pollution Control Board set

parameters?



SURVEY FORMAT 11

WATER BODIES

1. Type of water body : Canal / River / Pond/ Stream

2. Map Location in city/ town:

3. Size of the water body (Area):

4. Outfall of the water body (show in the map):

5. Uses of the water body: Recreational/ functional/ bathing/ drain receiving point/

drinking water/ any other use.

6. OD practice near water body: Yes or No If Yes, How many people (approx).

7. Toilet discharge : yes or no (estimate no of toilets discharged)

8. Water flow: Clogged / smooth flow

9. Cleaning mechanism and periodicity:

10. Water quality and pollution levels:

- Thermo-tolerant coli forms (TTC) - Residual chlorine - Turbidity - BOD - COD - DO

11. Who maintains and monitors:

12. No. of people using the water body per day:

13. Flooding in nearby areas: Yes / No if yes, what is frequency

14. Any back siphoning reported in toilets nearby



SURVEY FORMAT 12

A. CHECK LIST

I Base Maps 1. Map showing ward boundaries with population

2. Map showing zone wise boundaries with population

3. Map with location of notified and non-notified slums

4. Map showing location of different types of areas by activities (industries, commercial activity, recreational activity

5. Map showing location of public and community toilets

6. Map showing open defecation areas / Septage disposal sites.

7. Maps showing water supply network, sewerage network, storm water drainage network and SWM facilities

8. Map showing location of water bodies / drain out falls

II Secondary Information

1. District census handbook

2. Data on access to services from census and NSSO studies

3. CDP for the city

4. Master plan for the city

5. DPRs for water supply, sewerage including STPs, sanitation, storm water drainage, SWM, environment including water bodies and slum development

6. Environment status report

7. Data on number of water bodies and extent of pollution

8. Quality of water in water bodies

9. Data on extent of grey water generation, collection and treatment and a comparative assessment with sewage waste

10. Data on number of STPs, volume of waste generated and treated, extent of reuse and recycle of waste water

11. Arrangements for septage treatment

12. Data on access to toilets by type (connected to sewerage, septic tanks, pits) and by wards – in terms of households and properties

13. Data on number of notified and non-notified slums by wards along with population and access to services

14. Data on community toilets by wards and by slums



15. Data on public toilets by wards and by type of areas (residential, industrial, commercial etc.)

16. Data on manual scavenging practices and areas

17. Data on length of sewerage network and percentage of area and population covered by sewerage network by wards

18. Data on length of drainage network , types of drains, location of drainage outfalls and impact areas

19. Type of existing technological choices and feasibility of the same

20. Number of government and private primary, secondary and higher secondary schools and the sanitation status for both boys and girls in terms of number and type of toilet facilities

21. Details of hazardous, industrial, health and other types of wastes

22. Mapping of key institutions along with roles and responsibilities with a specific focus on sanitation

23. Organogram for each key institution

24. Data on programmes and schemes implemented by various institutions with special focus on ULB schemes and sanitation schemes

25. Existing regulatory arrangements for sanitation

26. Number of workers engaged in sanitation

27. Extent of cost recovery and user charges in sewerage and SWM

28. Type of O&M system

29. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements for sanitation and to track open defecation

30. Monthly collection of data on open defecation

31. Reportage on open defecation in a public forum

32. Incentives and awards for preventing open defecation

33. Complaint registration and grievance redressal mechanisms

34. Special focus on historical monuments and major recreation areas

35. Data on health indicators with a special focus on water and sanitation related diseases and incidence of diarrheal diseases reported in the city over the last three financial years

36. Data on drinking water quality

37. Roles of NGOs

38. Collection of existing IEC materials including news paper clippings

39. Number and percentage of floating population



40. Number of flooding and waterlogging incidences

41. Percentage of households/properties openly depositing human excreta into nalas and drains

42. Proportion of storm water that is efficiently and safely managed – 100% pacca drains and flooding and water logging incidences

43. Protective gear and safety equipment to sewerage and STP workers

44. Mechanical, CCTV, systems are being used for monitoring and cleaning sewers

45. Whether workers are provided insurance/provident fund/gratuity

46. Whether there is functioning grievance redressal mechanism for complaints related to sewerage and septage

47. Whether septage/sullage (cleaners) workers use protective gear and safety equipment

48. Whether mechanical (non-manual) systems are being used for cleaning tanks and pits

49. Whether the cleaning and disposal of sludge from tanks and pits is monitored

50. Centralized data base, maps exist for drainage system

51. Pre-monsoon and one other season cleaning, repairs and maintenance of drains undertaken

52. Coverage of households and establishments by daily door-to-door collection

53. Proportion of city streets effectively covered by regular street sweeping, at least once a day

54. Proportion of waste that is processes and recycled

55. Cost recovery for SWM services

56. Availability of written manual and codified procedures for sewerage, septage, drainage and SWM

57. Status of State/ULB Acti provisions for punishments/fines for littering and letting out untreated excreta in the open

58. Implementation of above rules in practice

59. Instances of fines in the last one year for littering and letting out in open

60. Conditions at dumping site and treatment plant

Documents

CITY SANITATION PLAN GULBARGA - Home | … · CITY SANITATION PLAN GULBARGA ... Table 50 Salient Features Of Gulbarga Demonstration Zone 24X7 Water Supply ... Guidelines Of Total