Why ganga action plan failed

The salient points for the ways of removing causes of failure should have been discussed, he opined. Prof Choudhary claimed that those points were not raised because even the members concerned did not know the causes. I think even after this much investment, the Ganga will not be clean because the relationship between the quantity and quality, inflow and outflow, renewable energy and pollutant have not been understood and realised.

The dynamics is the function of morphology shape, size and slope and the morphology defines where from, how much and how water can be extracted, where from and how much electricity can be generated, pollutants can be discharged where and how and in what quantities etc.

Therefore, the knowledge of river morphology is a must. Similarly, without having the knowledge of river morphology, the inflow of surface and ground water in the river or the effluent reaching into the river through point and non-point sources and extraction of drinking water, its location and quantity is difficult to asses in the river system. Prof Choudhary said at the time of launching the GAP in , he had caution the Government of India that it would not be successful on the basis of technology of treatment plant that was being adopted.

This the height of human arrogance where a receiver man is deciding how much a giver river can do with. The State is not tackling the main causes and sources of wastes: urbanisation, industrialisation, chemical farming.

Share Via. By Manoj Misra. Get our Daily News Capsule Subscribe. Thank you for subscribing to our Daily News Capsule newsletter. Whatsapp Twitter Facebook Linkedin. Sign Up. Edit Profile. Subscribe Now. Your Subscription Plan Cancel Subscription. If you chain the Ganga with barrages and canal diversions and therefore alter its natural path, it will lose these properties.

The decrease in flow has led to an increase in groundwater extraction for various uses. It may raise the cost of the projects but should be done for long-term preservation of the Ganga. It is now for the government to decide whether it comes out with such a mandatory policy or not. How do I use it? He and his family is back to defecating in the open near the Ganga.

Other villagers also narrate similar issues and say the construction of toilets has compounded their problems because the overflowing toilets have also made their homes dirty. The damning indictment is supported by many people living in cities along the banks of the Ganga.

A staggering As per SBM data, more than 2. Not surprisingly, CAG in its December report casts aspersions on the claim. The whole objective of making villages lying in the Ganga basin to be ODF was to reduce the faecal coliform levels in the Ganga. Against the standard of 2, per ml, the faecal coliform ranged from 2, to 2,40, per ml in the Ganga basin cities in May , as per data provided by pollution control boards of five states along the Ganga basin.

And if proper faecal sludge management is not in place, it would invariably pollute the Ganga. What should cause further concern is that faecal sludge is a bigger pollutant than sewerage.

Experts say that while toilets were constructed, hardly a thought was given to management of sludge. According to a study conducted by CSE, most of the cities surveyed had twin-pit technology which is not recommended in low-lying areas. As urban households without toilets obtain facilities under SBM, it is likely that many will acquire on-site arrangements like pit latrines and septic tanks in cities at locations where sewerage systems are not available. Thus, while the containment of human waste will be largely achieved, its safe disposal still poses a huge challenge.

What was required along with construction of toilets was several interventions to manage sludge, which clearly did not happen. Septage is collected every years, even though collection every three years is the recommended practice for optimal septic tank performance. Consequently, septic tanks that could potentially remove 60 per cent of suspended solids and 40 per cent of the organic matter from domestic wastewater have almost no treatment capacity.

It says that the pollution from the cities flows through a network of small and progressively larger open drains, which eventually flow into the Ganga. None of the three cities has a scheme for management of solid waste, most of which is dumped in the streets, clogging open drains and adding to the pollution load. Only a fraction of this waste is collected by the Nagar Palika Parishads and dumped at the city limits without treatment or recycling.

They go to ghats to survey how the beautification is going on and leave. Challenge IV: Cost overruns Cleaning up the massive stretch of 2, km that the Ganga traverses is a programme where regulating the finances becomes as big an issue as any other.

The UP SAAP says that the Ganga basin towns would require Rs 5, crore just for the creation of sewerage networks in the state—more than one-fourth of the entire outlay of Namami Gange. Another catch is with the finances of STPs. Now the government says that the new STPs are being constructed under Hyper Annuity Model under which the developer has to take care of the maintenance of the project for 15 years.

As per this model, 40 per cent of the capital cost quoted would be paid on completion of construction while the remaining 60 per cent will be paid over the life of the project as annuities along with operation and maintenance expenses.

This payment is linked to the performance of the STPs—the quality of the water treated by it. So are there enough monitoring machines installed to check the quality of the treated water? The IIT report predicted the cost of treating sewerage to be about 1 paisa per litre at price levels.

However, the cost would escalate due to the fact that deadlines are not met. Many of the projects sanctioned as early as could not meet their deadlines even after they came under the ambit of Namami Gange.

A close look at the development of the project has quite a story to narrate. It was sanctioned on July 14, at a cost of Rs crore with a deadline for completion in , with some parts to be completed in Documents accessed by DTE reveal that there was absolutely no physical progress of the plant at the end of December , the year in which the Modi government took over, with JICA concurrence for technical bid awaited.

The situation was exactly the same by December STP construction was completed by 34 per cent in December Then the government issued a revised sanction of the project and pegged the cost at Rs That deadline could also not be met and it was revised to October That is not one odd sample in UP.

Bihar has similar cases. The project is aided by the World Bank. In December , the tender was cancelled. Revised sanction was issued in March with escalated cost of Rs crore and a deadline of January and it has now become a project of the Central government.