Proceedings of GRBMP Consultation Workshop

Proceedings of

Consultation Workshop for Preparing Ganga River Basin Management Plan by IITs Saturday, August 28, 2010 at Out Reach Complex, IIT Kanpur

Inaugural Session (Chair: Shri Jairam Ramesh, MEF, GoI, New Delhi)

The IIT Team (Vinod Tare, IIT Kanpur; A K Gosain, IIT Delhi, and T V Prabhakar, IIT Kanpur) made a presentation giving briefly overview of the proposal, creation of data centre and data requirement, and launch of communication portal Gangapedia. Copy of the presentation is at Annexure I. NGRBA expert members, officials of the state and central government were invited to give comments and suggestions. Rajendra Singh, Expert Member, NGRBA

Policy of the Ganga River Basin Management Plan should have been stated in the presentation.

Just do not keep on harping on the success, that brings in arrogance; accept failure of GAP that will

bring in more transparency.

All stake holders of Ganga system have not been made responsible; assign the role and

responsibility to all stake holders: Farmers, Panda’s, Poojari’s, Sadhu/Sanyasi, Boatmen, Fishermen,

etc.

Study and use the rich Indian Ganga System Knowledge.

Link civil society along both sides of Ganga; the Ganga riparian society.

Setting of NGRBA is a good opportunity for all of us; give responsibility to all stake holders. GRBMP

must state roles and responsibility of the society.

Rama Rauta, Expert Member, NGRBA

Scientists and engineers at BHU seminar promised that they can clean Ganga in 3 years if they are

given the responsibility; the responsibility has been given to you now. Clean in at least 5 years if not

in 3 years.

R H Siddiqui, Expert Member, NGRBA

Over use of Ganga water; think on how to improve habits of farmers.

It is assumed that there is excess flow in the basin over and above the e‐flow requirement of the

river.

Methods of irrigation need to be changed, very difficult work.

Very difficult to have success of GRBMP.

If society can be linked as Rajendra Singh Jee says, that will be good.

Ravi Chopra, Expert Member, NGRBA

Preparing GRBMP is very challenging as the plan has to be acceptable to the people of India; It is an

ultimate test of IITs. However, I feel confident after listening to the presentation made by IITs.

MoU Document needs to be modified. It does not recognize physical impairment of the Ganga river.

Main stream of Ganga must be maintained close to its pristine and natural state as it is a National

River. Plan must tell us how the river would moves towards natural state in next 5, 10, 15 or 50

years.

NGRBA is missing in Organizational Chart

K J Nath, Expert Member, NGRBA

State governments are preparing projects without getting any communications from IITs.

State governments are not aware of the IITs thinking of not using the assimilative capacity concept;

it is very ambitious, should be very careful.

State government should be taken into confidence

How to collate and integrate scattered available data and information; again it is very challenging.

Principles and premise of road map for GRBMP should be clear.

Capacity of ULBs is almost nil as of now. What will you suggest to GoI to improve ULBs capacity?

Some initial guidelines from IITs to state governments should be sent to prepare proposals

A K Srivastav, UP Jal Nigam

Technical aspects, mainly STPs were considered; now we know many aspects have to be considered.

Debashish Sen, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, West Bengal

The third tier of governance needs to be integrated into the system i.e the panchayats. Along with

this, the state governments and civil society should also be taken into account under GRBMP.

How can the river be used as a source of revenue generation for the very poor people who live on

the banks of the river? This question must be addressed. Now if we cannot provide an economic

improvement activity perhaps it would not lead to desired outcomes.

Importance of Solid Waste Management: We are concentrating on sewage interception methods

and on the other hand everyday what you and I throw in the kitchen accumulates on the riversides.

SWM at household level must be considered and planned for.

There should be a program on teaching the importance of environmental cleanliness and

conservation right from the school level onwards. Programs on how to keep Ganga clean and

integrate it in the curriculum. This should be a small part of the study.

Once everything is over Operation & Maintenance comes into picture. When the project is

completed, it would be unrealistic to expect municipality to spend its sparse resources (money) in

keeping the river clean. There should be a thought of revenue flow from the beginning.

At Farakka when Ganga diverges into Bangladesh, there is a huge problem of hydrological flow due

to the treaty between India & Bangladesh. This happens during summers and is quite a big issue.

This could be addressed later.

Mr Gupta, Uttarakhand

Funds are constraints. Sharing of 70:30 between Centre and States should be changed to 90:10 as

O&M and land costs are born by the states, which effectively makes it to 50:50.

Uttarakhand incurs lots of expenditure on Kumbh Mela, Char Dham Yatra, etc., and we have very

less revenue generation.

Manoj Kumar Singh, Bihar Pollution Control

Agriculture and other practices along the river side bring in lots of pollution over and above the

sewage and industrial effluents.

Public awareness has to increase.

Rajiv Gauba, Joint Secretary, MEF

Good beginning, but just the beginning. With this workshop, IITs have involved all stakeholders.

Submit reports regularly which should reflect the views of all stake holders.

Nirmal + Aviral objective is OK, we expect the road map for achieving this from IITs.

S P Gautam, Chairman, CPCB, New Delhi

CPCB will take strict action against violating industries in Kannauj‐Varanasi stretch. CPCB is also

working on implementation of new technologies, for e.g. Salt‐less hides, distilleries to go on zero

discharge (use condensate in cement industries). We expect to solve tannery effluent problems

within six months.

CPCB standard of 30 mg/L permissible effluent BOD is of 1984, and is minimum standard. Location

specific stringent standards can be enforced. Now we will have to have more stringent standards.

Some places we are already implementing 6 mg/L effluent BOD standard.

D K Gupta, Irrigation Department, UP

Central Soil and Water Conservation Unit, Dehradoon has worked on sediment yield and water yield

in Himalayan region under Support Bank Project. They have worked on vegetation and bio‐measures

for control of sediment and water flow.

Magh mela at Allahabad: We used to release 300 cusec water from Narora in Jan‐Feb and could

provide clean water even in Kumbh mela. Situation was generally acceptable. This arrangement was

in place for a decade. Now we are releasing 2500‐2600 cusec water from Narora, yet the situation is

not acceptable. Pollution is the main problem. I am for Zero Discharge concept. If we ask people to

mix 1 liter sewage and 9 liter fresh water and take bath, no one will accept. But by adopting dilution

we are essentially forcing people to take bath in such sewage mixed water. Also by discharging

sewage into river we waste nutrients like phosphorous and potassium. Almost 75 % of phosphorous

and 100 % of potassium we are importing, and it is not a good idea to waste by disposing in the

river.

There is a canal and drainage act which does not allow discharge of wastewater. In IPC there is a

provision which says that if any one adversely affects the water quality, it is punishable offense. Ever

since water act has come, which allows disposal of waste in water/on land, has created more

problem.

We are releasing 2500‐2600 cusec water but that is not reaching Kanpur, not to talk of Allahabad.

There are losses in the river; river is consuming the water because of depletion of ground water

table. On the other hand we are incurring 35 crores of losses in terms of agriculture production due

to this release of water.

Jairam Ramesh

The intent of this workshop was to involve NGRBA expert members and others stake holders in

preparation of GRBMP by IITs.

To wait for 18 months for the plan to be ready, is not acceptable. We would like to have working

paper every 3‐4 months.

To start with we must have database of all present and future projects. Decision on future projects

should be based on analysis that comes out of this study and should not be the way we had to take

decision to scrap some projects after so much expenditure has already been made.

Objectives of GRBMP should be very clear. As of now we don’t seem to have complete clarity.

Difference between GAP I, GAP II and NGRBA approach is the consideration of Aviral Dhara and

strategy for Nirmal Dhara. How to manage basin considering Aviral Dhara?

IITs should tell us on Nirmal Dhara; we should have technologies which are less land/energy

intensive. STPs will be necessary, I don’t agree with those saying STPs are not required.

Public participation (Ganga Maha Panchayat) and involvement of youth/school/colleges is

necessary, but this will not come in this Basin Management Plan. It is our responsibility to make the

GRBMP a public document

IITs have made a very detailed proposal. It also has some socio‐economic‐cultural component but it

is also our responsibility to tell you what we want. MEF and IITs should work together on this.

Training of next generation (M Techs and Ph Ds) is very important. It is very crucial to have some 100

young experts for river basin management. It is an opportunity for human resources development.

We will give more money if required, we will make civil engineering/water resources management

more attractive profession for attracting young talent.

I am happy to see all 7 IITs working together. We will meet every 3 months with NGRBA experts at

different IITs.

We have a new office of NGRBA, delinked with MEF. 12 people are already working.

On pollution: About 75 % is domestic waste and only 25 % industrial waste, but the later is more

intense. CPCB should issue notices under Section 5A to violating industries in Kannauj to Varanasi

stretch. Nobody takes NGRBA seriously. People want to see results on ground. Action under Section

5 on industries can yield immediate results. Intent to be different is there but we must be different

on ground also.

Make the Hindi version of the proposal. Also have the website bi‐lingual. Local people should be

associated from the beginning.

Associate all NGRBA expert members in different aspects of the preparation of the plan. It is

important to give sense of involvement and ownership to NGRBA expert members, and also state

governments.

Forestry, catchment area protection and treatment, deforestation are very important issues.

Forestry people should be integral part of the preparation of the GRBMP. IITs should also involve

NBRI, CLRI, ITRC, etc. as suggested by Rama Rauta ji.

Such consultation workshops should be organized every three months.

Interactive Sessions

The three interactive sessions were merged into one session after the lunch. The agenda and the

preliminary points for discussion on SWOT Analysis of GAP were presented by Dr Vinod Tare, Project

Coordinator (Refer Annexure I). Following are the comments/suggestions made.

S P Gautam, CPCB, New Delhi

As somebody mentioned solid waste is dumped in the drains. This also leads to wastewater

discharge in river. We should go for total recycling of solid waste (i.e. waste having calorific

value) such plants are self sustaining if long term assurance is given to a private entrepreneur.

No public/ULB money is required.

Rajiv Gauba, NRCD, MoEF:

Solid Waste Management falls in the domain of other ministries. We should not lose sight of

what is practical.

We will have to put some similar/corresponding institutional structure at operational level for

other ministries.

Whatever we recommend, we should have a plan for translating on ground. ULBs ability to do

O&M depends on their capacity. This is not going to improve overnight. This is linked to the

overall capacity building, which again is linked to the reforms of much larger canvas than the

scope of River Conservation. How do we do that? There should be some mechanism for utilizing

the assets created even when the capacity building of ULBs is going on which will take quiet

sometime. IIT Team should think on these aspects.

To make the job of state government and local bodies easier to select technology for STP some

guideline should be available. We need to be more focused on this.

K J Nath, NGRBA

Is solid waste management also part of your plan? If yes, then there should be a separate bullet

for this. Addressing SWM is necessary.

State government may prepare reports and that may not be in line of thinking of IITs. Basic

premise of the plan should be given.

What are you going to suggest for various types of towns – Big/ Small etc?

On one side you are saying no assimilating capacity but state governments, pollution control

boards rely on assimilative capacity

If you are thinking of phasing treatment then timeline is very important.

It is 2010, if the State Government submit proposal for preliminary now, when they will submit

for secondary, tertiary etc? Target for clean Ganga is 2020.

Involve all stake holders. You have educated us, but time bound action plan should be

suggested.

Ujjal K Mukhopadhyay, WBPCB:

If you are phasing out treatment then in the initial period what will happen to the treated

wastewater? All options for reusing of water need to be looked at rather than disposing into the

river.

Is your plan considering clusterization, appropriate localization of industries, underground

recharges, underground polluted water, etc.

Are you doing anything about the groundwater, alternate cropping pattern?

My point is about industrial pollution coming in a diffused way, may be through underground

recharges and so are you considering clusterization, relocation of industries, etc., which lead to

innumerable underground sources of pollution into the river.

Strategy for constructing ponds, recharge structures may be different for different places.

Finding the land for ponds is difficult at least in west Bengal, where the population density is as

high as 909 persons per sq km against the national average of 300 persons per sq km. We have

to have proper policy for this in terms of revenue sharing making use of some of the paleo

channels.

We don’t need any more legislation. We have smart laws, implement them before intervention

of High Court, Supreme Court, etc.

Debashish Sen, Urban Development, West Bengal

The study can also involve the stakeholders of Ganga at present. Such as boatman, fish habitat

etc. They also have to be integrated in the plan. The survey of their socio‐economic condition

should be done to make a meaningful plan.

Rajendra Singh, Tarun Bharat Sangh, Jaipur

When we are looking at technical solutions we must be very clear in terms of what status we

want to give to the river. Class A, Class B or Class C. Accordingly we talk about ecology, e‐flows,

etc.

Whosoever calls himself a custodian of the river, he should work like a custodian.

Today sometime we must decide what status we want to give to river Ganga. MEF has already

decided to give A Class status. Then we must work on that. River and sewer must be separated.

We should not do dirty politics for waste. Clean politics is don’t pollute.

River is of the Nation not only of Irrigation department. Owner of river is panchayat, nagar

nigam, etc.

It is necessary to make society responsible. The first step is to make Ganga panchayat of riparian

users. They will stop all nallas. How much of this is possible I do not know but at least CPCB

should stop discharge of all industrial effluents. CPCB should start the fire, people will argue how

development will take place. For that some solution will come out. So your this plan must start

the fire.

D K Gupta, Irrigation Department, UP

Proper instruments must be developed to ensure the issue of connection to the sewer line and

issues related to design of sewer lines and chocking must be properly addressed.

Is it only a management plan or development is also included? If it is both then you should

mention it.

Development should be included so that we make a total plan.

Nallas are storm water drains and should not be intercepted. No STP should be planned on

these nallas or rivers. When STPs don’t work it will be discharged into the river.

Drought is due to kharif crop and not rabi crop. River may dry like Sai River if groundwater

exploitation is more.

Kharif channel concept for recharging is good.

Narrow channels all around ponds can also be used for recharging.

You can have minimum flow during the dry period only when you store the excess water during

the monsoon which otherwise caus floods.

B B Burman, NRCD, MoEF:

If we are talking about critical stretch and ZERO discharge only for critical stretch then we are

not doing justice. Industries in the upstream are responsible for making it critical stretch.

Ravindra Kumar, SWaRA, Lucknow:

There was talk about forestry role. Planning commission has done some studies they also have

some rolling funds. Environment grants are available if some states adopt good water resources

augmentation practices and this should be included in the plan.

Greening to retain water, increase organic content to enhance moisture retaining capacity, etc.

or practices which can augment water resources, must be looked at while making GRBMP.

Why CWC has taken back seat.

State bodies such as SWaRA should also be associated. Officially we are not involved.

What will be the reference condition? Before the Upper Ganga Canal, i.e. 1840 or so. The flow at

that time in Haridwar was 8000 cusec. And against that Canal of 6000 cusec was proposed.

Today we are receiving more than 15000 cusec in Haridwar and diverting about 14000 cusec. So

this way the flow can be increased and we should think on these lines.

Basin management does not mean only the flow in the river. We also have to think about

managing groundwater and that is related to the pricing policy for electricity, etc. Land use and

land cover has to be managed. All these aspects have to be included in the basin management.

Sejal Worah, WWF‐India:

How do we interact with IIT Team? We have done several studies and we would like to share

our findings and will be happy if some of our studies are incorporated in the GRBMP.

Ravi Chopra, PSI, Dehradoon:

The bigger issue is how much water should keep flowing in the river. At the end we should

target for natural state in terms of quality and quantity.

Some rivers in the world have been restored to their original state once it was realized. These

are small rivers and Ganga is a much bigger river. Once it was realized that it should be done,

they took it as a mission and achieved it. For Ganga we have to do this, if we call it a National

river. If we can return as close as possible to its natural, pristine state, that is better. Aviral

Dhara, if we can call it e‐flow, then for A class river there should be no obstacle.

For natural flow take 100 years data and take average, and that is what we will mimic in future.

Do not look at restricted flow. Look at rain fall, hydrology and compute flows.

The higher water demand comes from our present cropping pattern. May be the time will come

when we change the cropping pattern and probably also the food habits.

We have to change food habits. That is growing more nutritious crops and crops which consume

less water. Today our farmers are not growing these crops because of the pricing policy.

All this things are possible provided we apply our mind. Are we applying our mind? Something

will happen in 10 years, something will be possible in another 20 years, somthing will happen in

50 years. We must fix a goal that Ganga flows as close as possible to its natural state in 50 years

or whatever. That is what we should do.

T V Prabhakar, IIT Kanpur:

Do we need more laws or each one of us is behaving in irresponsible way.

Lack of cleanness is due to lack of governance. No report, no scientific study or technology can

help unless it is implemented seriously.

Sandeep Behera, WWF‐India:

The Ecology‐Biodiversity and socio‐cultural aspects are not reflected in your initial action plan.

How are you going to address this?

Can we add some immediate action plan based on the information available with us?

Closing Remarks on behalf of the IIT Team

We have received very constructive and useful comments. Some of the comments/suggestions

are already addressed/incorporated in our detailed proposal (available on www.gangapedia.in

and also at www.iitk.ac.in/eem/grbmp/Proposal.pdf which we could not dealt with in our

presentation due to paucity of time, and the fact that we wanted to give time to experts and

other stakeholders to give comments/suggestions. All suggestions have been noted (as above),

and will be considered by various thematic groups.

We will approach to all individuals/organizations who have done substantial work on various

aspects of Ganga Basin and take their studies/plans forward.

We will constitute a special task group for e‐flows, and some other such special tasks.

Hindi version of the Gangapedia will be launched soon, and attempt will be made to make

documents/reports in Hindi.

We agree that we need to involve society, and fix responsibility and define the role of the

society.

9/11/2010

1

Preparation of G Ri B i M t Pl

Annexure IConsultation Workshop

Saturday, August 28, 2010IIT Kanpur

Ganga River Basin Management Plan

Coordinator: Dr Vinod Tare, Professor

Environmental Engineering and Management ProgrammeIndian Institute of Technology Kanpur

KANPUR ‐ INDIA

Challenge

Continuously flow ( ) Un-polluted Flow ( )

Protecting the river system

Longitudinal, lateral and vertical connectivity

Growing population, urbanization, industrialization and agriculture

Adequate space for various river functions

Ecological entity

Adequate provision for soil, water and energy

Can not afford to Experiment with River Like Ganga!

Precautionary Principles must apply wherever knowledge gaps and uncertainties exist

Our Philosophy

knowledge gaps and uncertainties exist

Apply modern science and new technologies but with traditional wisdom

Gyan Dhara + Jana Gyan

Supportive Capacity and Assimilative Capacity

Maintain

Adequate flow and Appropriate Quality in the River

Scope

• Water Resources Planning at the Basin Level

• Influence of Agriculture, Industrialization, Urbanization, etc.

River with unique Water Resource Management

Geomorphological Changes: Erosion, Sediment Transport/Deposition

And Floods

Our Approach

Gangotri

Ganga Sagar

River with unique Ecosystem and

Biodiversity

Socio-Cultural HeritageEnvironmental Quality

and Pollution

Our Approach

Gangotri

Ganga Sagar

9/11/2010

2

Fluvial Geomorphology

Turning point

Intact

Restored

Trajectoriesof change

IntactRestoredcondition

Degraded Created

Degraded

Createdcondition

Turning points

The Mantra:

Thirteen actions are prohibited on approaching the scared waters of the Ganga, namely:

Defecation Ablutions Discharge of wastewater Throwing of used floral offerings Rubbing of filth Body shampooing Frolicking Acceptance of donations Obscenity Offering of inappropriate praises or even hymns in a

incorrect way

Discarding of garments

Beating and

Swimming across, in particular

p pp g g , y

GRBMP – Some Issues• Annual Water Availability (Present and future including climate change

scenarios) V/S Water Demand (Present and Future)

• Adequate Storage – On the River, Off the River Ponds/Reservoirs/Ground Water Recharge

• Supportive Capacity

• E Flow Only in the River, at least up to Varanasi

• Dilution is not the solution to pollutionDilution is not the solution to pollution

– Point Sources to be completely eliminated and Catchment Protection Strategy to Control Diffused Pollution/Non Point Pollution

• Demand Management –

– Agriculture/Industrial/Domestic

• GAP – Issues Technology but PLG!

– Local Bodies – Low priority for Waste Management!

– River Pollution Control Authority

• Engagement with Stakeholders - Transparency

char

ge

Flood Year

Normal Year

E-Flow, Normal Year

E-Flow Concept : WWF, India

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May Ju

n

Jul

Au

g

Se

p

Oct

No

v

Dec

Dis

c

Drought Year E-Flow, Drought

Data Requirements

• Basin Characteristics

• Hydro-meteorological Data

• Projects Data

• Data on Pollution

• Demographic Data

9/11/2010

3

Basin Characteristics

• Basin delineation

• Drainage system – SRTM

• Landuse/Landcover

S il ti f th t h t Gl b l d• Soil properties of the catchments – Global and National data sources

• River cross-section data

Hydro-meteorological Data

• Meteorological data - IMD

• Flow data at gauging sites - CWC and State Water Resources Departments

• Sediment data; volume and characterization –CWC/State Govt. agencies

• Ground water fluctuation data – CGWB/State GW Boards

• Flow cross sections and rating curves at various stream gauging sites - CWC and State Water Resources Departments

Percentage share of major water balance in Ganga Basin components w.r.t. precipitation

A t l ET

Shallow Groundwater recharge24%

Deep Aq Recharge2%

Actual ET43%

Surface Runoff28%

Lateral Flow3%

Scenario 1: Baseline ‐ Virgin Condition

Projects Data

• Data on water utilizations for– Agricultural

– Domestic

– Industrial and other uses

• Data on water resources projects including• Data on water resources projects including reservoirs and diversion facilities– Existing

– Under implementation

– Proposed

Storage Projects in Ganga Basin Data on Pollution

• Point sources– Domestic sewage

– Industrial

• Non-point sourcesD f f ili– Data on use of fertilizers

– Pesticides

• Data on water quality observations– Surface

– Ground water

– CPCB, CWC, CGWB, State Pollution Control Boards, MOEF

9/11/2010

4

Demographic & Socio-economic Data

• Livelihoods

• Land holdings

• Population

E l i l h t t• Ecological hotspots

• Water pricing

Geospatial Database Management

• For integration of information across domains– Processing raw data

– Managing generated information

– StorageStorage

– Retrieval

• Analysis to generate– Scenarios for different developmental pathways

– Sharable information with all the stakeholders

What is gangapedia?

• Landing page for GRBMP

• Expected to– Host project deliverables

– Act as a platform for project management– Act as a platform for project management

– Act as a social co-created repository for Ganga lore

– Act as a platform for public debate on issues related to the Ganga River Basin

– Jana Gyan + Gyan Dhara

Technologically speaking

• Content management system– Semantically tagged

• Wiki

• Blog W b 3 0• Blog

• Chat

• Forums

• Project Management– Email, SMS, Voice

Web 3.0

Gangapedia Home Page: www.gangapedia.in

9/11/2010

5

Interactive Session I

Issues Related to

• Continuously flow ( )• Ecology and Biodiversity• Socio Cultural Livelihood• Socio-Cultural-Livelihood

• Water Resources Management– Storage of water is essential

– On the river/off the river/restoring ponds/constructing artificial ponds

E pand Canal Net ork Kharif Canals Gro nd

Interactive Session II

– Expand Canal Network – Kharif Canals Ground water recharge and conjunctive use

– Demand Management Irrigation efficiency/Organic farming/Managing agricultural waste and Distillery Effluents Large scale organic manure production

– Demand Management Recycle/Reuse Industrial and Non-drinking demands to be met by only recycled water

• Well laid broad objectives, accordingly:• To abate pollution and improve water quality

• To conserve biodiversity

• To develop an integrated river basin management

Interactive Session III – SWOT of GAP

To develop an integrated river basin management approach

• To conduct comprehensive research to further these objectives

• To gain experience for implementing similar river clean up programs in other polluted rivers in India.

Implementation

• The objective, at the time of launching the GangaAction Plan in 1985, was to improve the water quality of Ganga to acceptable standards by

ti th ll ti l d f hi th

Interactive Session III – SWOT of GAP

preventing the pollution load from reaching the river.

• Later, in 1987, on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee of GAP, the objective of the Plan was modified to restoring the river water quality to the Designated Best Use class of Ganga, which is “Bathing Class” (Class B).

Review of Ganga Action Plan

Strengths:• A start has been made. Some wastewater collection and

treatment infrastructure has been created.

• Civil society, politicians and other decision makers are now aware of the issues concerning water quality of rivers in the Ganga basin.

• There is a consensus for strong action to improve river water quality in Ganga river basin.

• There is clarity regarding wastewater treatment technologies to be adopted.

• Availability of Data and Information

Weaknesses• Failure of GAP to improve the river water quality sufficiently

due to various reasons, i.e., non-functioning of wastewater collection and pumping infrastructure, non-functional wastewater treatment plants, insufficient wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, etc.


collection and treatment infrastructure, etc.

• Lack of clarity regarding wastewater treatment technologies to be adopted, e.g., anaerobic versus aerobic technologies.

• The plan for operation and maintenance of assets created was flawed, e.g., lack of trained personnel, funds, and electricity for operating wastewater treatment plants, capacity and priority of local bodies

• Quality of Data and accessibility of data/information and analysis

9/11/2010

6

Opportunities• There is sufficient expertise in the country for

formulating and implementing large river basin management plans.

• There is clarity regarding reasons behind f il / b i l f f j i f


failure/sub-optimal performance of a majority of projects sanctioned under GAP

• 73rd & 74th Amendment – Strengthening Local Government

• There is clarity regarding policy gaps/failures during implementation of GAP

• River monitoring & performance evaluation of STPs

Threats• Failure to learn the lessons from technological and

policy failures encountered during GAP

• Sanctioning of projects in an unplanned manner without clearly specified objectives.


y p j

• Not having clearly specified mid-term goals/benchmarks to judge the progress of the plan.

• Chlorination of treated sewage is proposed or carried out to comply with effluent discharge standards of MPN. DBPs thus introduced are not removed in conventional water treatment plant.

Action in the interim period, i.e., before a GRBMP is in place

• Creation of wastewater diversion infrastructure, i.e., construction of intercepting sewers, nalainterception, pumping, etc. These projects shall ensure that a) there is NO wastewater disposal ) p(treated or untreated) to rivers in certain critical stretches, and (b) all wastewater generated in urban centers can be collected for treatment.

• Preparation of comprehensive wastewater management plans for urban centers with a time horizon of 50 years. Such plans must clearly specify how all wastewater generated in urban


p y gcenters over the next 50 years will be collected treated and disposed/reused/recycled.

• Strengthen Panchayatiraj Institutions

• Complete collection, interception and diversion (Close coordination with MoUD)

• Acquisition of Land considering 50 Years planning


• Acquisition of Land considering 50 Years planning period

• Excellent Preliminary and Primary Treatment including sludge management

• Secondary Treatment

• Tertiary Treatment

• Achieve Zero Discharge Concept at Key places Haridwar/Rishikesha; Garhmukteshwar; Kanpur; Allahabad and Varanasi

• Best Available Practices for Industries discharging


Best Available Practices for Industries discharging in Ramganga, Kali, and directly in Ganga (Kanpur)

Documents

Proceedings of GRBMP Consultation Workshop