Proceedings of the Consultation Workshop held on Saturday, August 28, 2010 at IIT Kanpur for
the preparation of Ganga River Basin Management Plan by IITs.
Communication strategy – Ganga River Basin Management Plan t
Proceedings of GRBMP Consultation Workshop
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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. 9/11/2010
Annexure I
Consultation Workshop
Saturday, August 28, 2010 Challenge
IIT Kanpur
Protecting the river system
Continuously flow ( )
Un-polluted Flow ( )
Preparation of
Longitudinal, lateral and vertical connectivity
Ganga Ri B i M
G River Basin Management Plan
t Pl
Adequate space for various river functions
Ecological entity
Adequate provision for soil, water and
energy
Coordinator:
Dr Vinod Tare, Professor Growing population, urbanization,
Environmental Engineering and Management Programme
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
KANPUR ‐ INDIA industrialization and agriculture
Our Philosophy Scope
Can not afford to Experiment with River Like Ganga!
Maintain
Adequate flow and Appropriate Quality in the River
Precautionary Principles must apply wherever
knowledge gaps and uncertainties exist
• Water Resources Planning at the Basin Level
• Influence of Agriculture, Industrialization,
Apply modern science and new technologies but with Urbanization, etc.
traditional wisdom
Gyan Dhara + Jana Gyan
Supportive Capacity and Assimilative Capacity
Our Approach Our Approach
Geomorphological Changes:
Erosion, Sediment Transport/Deposition
And Floods
River with unique Water Resource Management
Ecosystem and
Biodiversity Gangotri Gangotri
Ganga Sagar Ganga Sagar
Environmental Quality
Socio-Cultural Heritage and Pollution
1
10. 9/11/2010
Fluvial Geomorphology Trajectories
of change Intact
Turning point Restored
Intact
Restored
condition
Degraded Created
Created
condition
Turning points
Degraded
The Mantra: 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
Thirteen actions are prohibited on approaching the scared waters of the Ganga, namely:
p pp g g , y • Dilution is not the solution to pollution
Defecation – Point Sources to be completely eliminated and Catchment Protection
Ablutions
Discharge of wastewater Strategy to Control Diffused Pollution/Non Point Pollution
Throwing of used floral offerings
Rubbing of filth • Demand Management –
Body shampooing
Frolicking – Agriculture/Industrial/Domestic
Acceptance of donations
Obscenity • GAP – Issues Technology but PLG!
Offering of inappropriate praises or even hymns in a
incorrect way – Local Bodies – Low priority for Waste Management!
Discarding of garments
– River Pollution Control Authority
Beating and
Swimming across, in particular • Engagement with Stakeholders - Transparency
E-Flow Concept : WWF, India
Data Requirements
Flood
Year
• Basin Characteristics
Normal Year • Hydro-meteorological Data
• Projects Data
charge
E-Flow, Normal
Year • Data on Pollution
Disc
Drought
E-Flow, Drought • Demographic Data
Year
Jan
Jun
Feb
Jul
Sep
Aug
Dec
Oct
Nov
Apr
May
Mar
2
11. 9/11/2010
Basin Characteristics Hydro-meteorological Data
• Meteorological data - IMD
• Basin delineation • Flow data at gauging sites - CWC and State
Water Resources Departments
• Drainage system – SRTM
• Sediment data; volume and characterization –
• Landuse/Landcover
CWC/State Govt. agencies
• Soil
S il properties of th catchments – Gl b l and
ti f the t h t Global d
• Ground water fluctuation data – CGWB/State
National data sources
GW Boards
• River cross-section data
• 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 Projects Data
• Data on water utilizations for
Deep Aq Recharge
2%
– Agricultural
Shallow Groundwater
recharge – Domestic
24%
– Industrial and other uses
Actual ET
A t l ET
43%
• Data on water resources projects including
reservoirs and diversion facilities
Lateral Flow
3%
– Existing
– Under implementation
– Proposed
Surface Runoff
28%
Scenario 1: Baseline ‐ Virgin Condition
Storage Projects in Ganga Basin Data on Pollution
• Point sources
– Domestic sewage
– Industrial
• Non-point sources
–DData on use of fertilizers
f f ili
– Pesticides
• Data on water quality observations
– Surface
– Ground water
– CPCB, CWC, CGWB, State Pollution Control
Boards, MOEF
3
12. 9/11/2010
Demographic & Socio-economic Data
• Livelihoods
• Land holdings
• Population
• Ecological hotspots
E l i lh t t
• Water pricing
Geospatial Database
What is gangapedia?
Management
• For integration of information across domains • Landing page for GRBMP
– Processing raw data • Expected to
– Managing generated information – Host project deliverables
– Storage – Act as a platform for project management
– Retrieval – Act as a social co-created repository for Ganga lore
• Analysis to generate – Act as a platform for public debate on issues related to
– Scenarios for different developmental pathways the Ganga River Basin
– Sharable information with all the stakeholders – Jana Gyan + Gyan Dhara
Gangapedia Home Page: www.gangapedia.in
Technologically speaking
• Content management system
– Semantically tagged
• Wiki
• Blog
• Chat
Web 3 0
W b 3.0
• Forums
• Project Management
– Email, SMS, Voice
4
13. 9/11/2010
Interactive Session I Interactive Session II
• Water Resources Management
Issues Related to
– Storage of water is essential
• Continuously flow ( ) – On the river/off the river/restoring ponds/constructing
• Ecology and Biodiversity artificial ponds
• Socio Cultural Livelihood
Socio-Cultural-Livelihood – E pand Canal Net ork – Kharif Canals Gro nd
Expand Network 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
Interactive Session III – SWOT of Interactive Session III – SWOT of
GAP GAP
Implementation
• Well laid broad objectives, accordingly:
• The objective, at the time of launching the Ganga
• To abate pollution and improve water quality
Action Plan in 1985, was to improve the water
• To conserve biodiversity
quality of Ganga to acceptable standards by
• To develop an integrated river basin management
approach preventing the pollution l d f
ti th ll ti load from reaching th
hi the
• To conduct comprehensive research to further these river.
objectives • Later, in 1987, on the recommendations of the
• To gain experience for implementing similar river clean Monitoring Committee of GAP, the objective of the
up programs in other polluted rivers in India. 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 Review of Ganga Action Plan
Weaknesses
Strengths: • Failure of GAP to improve the river water quality sufficiently
due to various reasons, i.e., non-functioning of wastewater
• A start has been made. Some wastewater collection and
collection and pumping infrastructure, non-functional
treatment infrastructure has been created.
wastewater treatment plants, insufficient wastewater
• Civil society, politicians and other decision makers are now collection and treatment infrastructure, etc.
aware of the issues concerning water quality of rivers in the
• Lack of clarity regarding wastewater treatment technologies
Ganga basin.
to be adopted, e.g., anaerobic versus aerobic technologies.
• There is a consensus for strong action to improve river water
• The plan for operation and maintenance of assets created
quality in Ganga river basin.
was flawed, e.g., lack of trained personnel, funds, and
• There is clarity regarding wastewater treatment technologies electricity for operating wastewater treatment plants, capacity
to be adopted. and priority of local bodies
• Availability of Data and Information • Quality of Data and accessibility of data/information and
analysis
5
14. 9/11/2010
Review of Ganga Action Plan Review of Ganga Action Plan
Opportunities Threats
• There is sufficient expertise in the country for • Failure to learn the lessons from technological and
formulating and implementing large river basin policy failures encountered during GAP
management plans.
• Sanctioning of projects in an unplanned manner
• There is clarity regarding reasons behind without clearly specified objectives.
y p j
failure/sub-optimal performance of a majority of
f il / b i l f f j i f
• Not having clearly specified mid-term
projects sanctioned under GAP
goals/benchmarks to judge the progress of the
• 73rd & 74th Amendment – Strengthening Local
plan.
Government
• Chlorination of treated sewage is proposed or
• There is clarity regarding policy gaps/failures during
carried out to comply with effluent discharge
implementation of GAP
standards of MPN. DBPs thus introduced are not
• River monitoring & performance evaluation of STPs removed in conventional water treatment plant.
Action in the interim period, i.e., Action in the interim period, i.e.,
before a GRBMP is in place before a GRBMP is in place
• Creation of wastewater diversion infrastructure, • Preparation of comprehensive wastewater
i.e., construction of intercepting sewers, nala management plans for urban centers with a time
interception, pumping, etc. These projects shall horizon of 50 years. Such plans must clearly
ensure that a) there is NO wastewater disposal
) p specify how all wastewater g
p y generated in urban
(treated or untreated) to rivers in certain critical centers over the next 50 years will be collected
stretches, and (b) all wastewater generated in treated and disposed/reused/recycled.
urban centers can be collected for treatment.
Action in the interim period, i.e., Action in the interim period, i.e.,
before a GRBMP is in place before a GRBMP is in place
• Strengthen Panchayatiraj Institutions • Achieve Zero Discharge Concept at Key places
• Complete collection, interception and diversion Haridwar/Rishikesha; Garhmukteshwar; Kanpur;
(Close coordination with MoUD) Allahabad and Varanasi
• Acquisition of Land considering 50 Years planning • Best Available Practices for Industries discharging
period in Ramganga, Kali, and directly in Ganga (Kanpur)
• Excellent Preliminary and Primary Treatment
including sludge management
• Secondary Treatment
• Tertiary Treatment
6