Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Integrated urban water management modelling under


climate change scenarios
Santosh M. Pingale a,∗,1 , Mahesh K. Jat b , Deepak Khare a
a
Department of Water Resource Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667 (UK), India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concept of integrated water management is uncommon in urban areas, unless there is a shortage
Received 30 June 2013 of supply and severe conflicts among the users competing for limited water resources. Further, prob-
Received in revised form lem of water management in urban areas will aggravate due to uncertain climatic events. Therefore, an
18 September 2013
Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering Climate Change (IUWMCC) has been presented
Accepted 14 October 2013
which is suitable for optimum allocation of water from multiple sources to satisfy the demands of dif-
ferent users under different climate change scenarios. Effect of climate change has been incorporated in
Keywords:
non-linear mathematical model of resource allocation in term of climate change factors. These factors
Climate change
Weather generator
have been developed using runoff responses corresponding to base and future scenario of climate. Future
Urban water management scenarios have been simulated using stochastic weather generator (LARS-WG) for different IPCC climate
Optimization change scenarios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1. Further, application of model has been demonstrated for a realistic
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe (India). Developed model is capable in developing adaptation
strategies for optimum water resources planning and utilization in urban areas under different climate
change scenarios.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sector policy makers and professionals to understand the dynamic


urban environment for solving water resources related problems
Various forms of single or multipurpose water management are in urban areas, which will further aggravate in scenarios of climate
in practice. However a comprehensive approach to water manage- change.
ment, referred as integrated water management, is still relatively The concept of integrated water management considering cli-
uncommon, particularly in urban areas of developing countries mate change has not been well discussed and reported in literature
like India (Jat, 2007). It can be defined as a process that promotes (Asano, 1994; Kulga and Cakmak, 1997; Yang et al., 1999; Bouwer,
the coordinated development and management of water, land and 2002; Haddad, 2002; Liu et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2010). Further,
related resources, in order to maximize the resulting economic and due attention has not been given to such practices in developing
social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the countries like India (Zuidema, 1982; Tjallingii, 1988; Witter and
sustainability of vital ecosystems (Wolf and Hötzl, 2006). The water Bogardi, 1993; Lund and Cabrera, 2002; White and Fane, 2005;
demand and climate change always have the risk of uncertainty Jat, 2007; Qin and Xu, 2011). Few attempts have been made to
involved in the future projections cautioning water managers to model the climate change for urbanized areas (Wigmosta and
prepare supply-demand strategies to face future crisis of water Burges, 1990; Solecki and Oliveri, 2004; Wurbs et al., 2005; Strack
(WaterSmart, 2006). The emphasis should be given to identify and et al., 2008) without considering climate change impacts on water
develop the water management strategies, which lead to sustain- management practices. A few attempts have also been made to
able water resources and foolproof measures to thwart adverse address the water resources management issues considering one
effects of climate change. Such management practices are further or another issue of climate change (Taleb and Maher, 2000; Ragab
necessary in a scenario of climate change due to uncertain precip- and Prudhomme, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2007; Qin et al., 2008; Shao
itation and water availability. Therefore, there is a need for water et al., 2011). However, integrated water management considering
integration of various possible water sources to satisfy the demands
of different users, environment protection, land and urban planning
have not been considered.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 7409627187.
The integrated approach to the water resources planning and
E-mail address: pingalesm@gmail.com (S.M. Pingale).
1
Currently at Department of Water Resources and Irrigation Engineering, Arba management requires a comprehensive consideration of water
Minch University, Ethiopia. requirements and characteristics (hydrological and hydraulic) of

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.006
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 177

different available sources (such as availability, cost and reliabil- developed a new optimization algorithm for urban water resources
ity). There are a number of management models which have been planning called as particle swarm optimization with mutation
reported in literature for rural areas and canal commands (e.g., similarity (PSOMS). The application of PSOMS was successfully
Belaineh et al., 1999; Barlow et al., 2003; Karamouz et al., 2004; demonstrated to an urban water problem for Tabriz city of Iran. The
Tripathi et al., 2004; Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2006; Khare et al., problem was formulated with an objective function to minimize
2006; Jha et al., 2008; Nikam, 2012), but a very few models are the cost, maximize water supply and minimize the environmen-
suitable for the urban areas (Dracup, 1966; Onta et al., 1993; Syaukt tal hazards. The pipelines capacity, ground water, the demand and
and Fox, 2004; Jat, 2007; Qin and Xu, 2011). The management mod- the impact of conservation tools were considered as constraints.
els and strategies developed for rural and canal commands cannot Wang and Huang (2013) applied an interval-parameter two stage
be applied directly to the urban areas. The water resources sys- stochastic fuzzy programming with type-2 membership functions
tem of urban areas is quite different and complex as compared to (ITSFP–T2MF) approach for the water resources allocation prob-
rural areas because of the dynamic nature of various hydrological lem under uncertainty. However, in these studies, climate change
processes, different type of conflicting water demands and their and resulting impact on water resources allocation have not been
dynamic nature, different environmental aspects, like water pol- considered. In these studies individual aspects of integrated water
lution and wastewater generation and its consequences, and more management, within an optimization framework have been consid-
human interference. The dynamic complexity in space and/or time ered. Therefore, an attempt has been made to develop an integrated
found in urban water systems presents great difficulties for urban urban water management model suitable in developing adaptation
water management (Senge, 1994). It becomes a complex system measures in optimum integration of various sources of water for
than on the management of a few isolated issues. We are generally urban water supply systems in climate change scenarios.
unable to relate causes with effects that are removed by time or
distance (Zarghami and Akbariyeh, 2012).
2. Study area and data used
The optimum allocation of water from surface sources and
groundwater has been attempted using different types of the
Ajmer urban fringe is located between 26◦ 20 to 26◦ 35 N lati-
optimization techniques, like dynamic programming (e.g., Buras,
tude and 74◦ 33 to 74◦ 45 E longitudes (Fig. 1). It spreads over an
1963; Aron and Scott, 1971), linear programming (e.g., Nieswand
area of about 85 km2 and has population of 542,580 (Census 2011).
and Grandstrom, 1971; Lakshminarayana and Rajagopalan, 1977;
In the North-East side, water flow towards Samber lake. Ajmer
Vedula, 1985), simulation based models (e.g., Young and
valley drains eastward and Pushkar valley drains westward by trib-
Bredehoeft, 1972; Bredehoeft, 1983; O’mara, 1984), multilevel
utaries of Luni river. There is a large lake i.e., Anasagar in the north
optimization technique (e.g., Maddock and Haimes, 1975; Yu and
of city.
Haimes, 1974; Morel-Seytoux and Daly, 1975; Sharma, 1987) and
For demonstration of model, data related to water supply system
Non-linear programming (e.g., Kashyap and Chandra, 1982; Lefkoff
of the Ajmer fringe like land use/cover, population, water demands
and Gorelick, 1990; Mishra et al., 2005). Nishikawa (1998) pre-
and existing water supply from various sources and other relevant
sented an optimization model for the optimal management of
data have been collected from various departments and used in the
City of Santa Barbra’s water resources during the drought. Prob-
present study (RUIDP, 1998; CPHEEO, 1999; Ajmera, 2000; Census
lem is formulated as a linear programming problem. Optimization
of India, 2001; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007). The gridded rainfall datasets
model is linked to MODFLOW programme to couple the ground-
were used in many hydrological and climatological studies world-
water system with the management model. The objective function
wide, including Australia for hydroclimatic forecasting, climate
is formulated to minimize the cost of water supply, subjected to
attribution studies and climate model performance assessments
water demand and hydraulic head constraint to control seawater
(Tozer et al., 2012). The 0.5◦ × 0.5◦ gridded data set of daily rainfall
intrusion and depletion of ground water. Jenkins et al. (2004) pre-
for Ajmer fringe from year 1971 to 2005 has been used which is
sented the results of an economic-engineering optimization model
procured from India Meteorological Department, Pune. The Cana-
(CALVIN) of California’s water supply system. This model explic-
dian Global Climate Model (CGCM3.1/T47) daily output data were
itly integrates the operation of various water facilities, sources
obtained from Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Anal-
and demands of different users. Model allocates water to maxi-
ysis (CCCma) for the grids covering Ajmer fringe of base period
mize the economic value of statewide agricultural and urban uses.
(1971–1990) and 20s (2011–2030) for A1B, A2 and B1 emission sce-
Shao et al. (2011) have developed a conditional value-at-risk (CVaR)
narios. It uses a 360 days per year and has a spatial grid resolution
based inexact two-stage stochastic programming (CITSP) model
2.8◦ × 2.8◦ latitude and longitude (McFarlane et al., 1992).
to a water resources allocation problem involving a reservoir and
three competing water users under uncertainty.
Wang and Huang (2011) formulated an interactive two stage 3. Methodology
stochastic fuzzy programming approach for the water resources
management. The developed approach was applied for the case The Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering
study to demonstrate the water resources allocation problem. Climate Change (IUWMCC) is a mathematical programming model,
A set of solutions under different feasibility degrees were esti- which is formulated for the optimum allocation of water from
mated to plan the water resources allocation based on economic the various water supply sources to satisfy the water require-
efficiency, degree of satisfaction and risk of constraint violation. ments of different users along with considering various system and
Wang and Huang (2012) also developed an interactive multi-stage geometric constraints. The integrated water management model
stochastic fuzzy programming approach for identifying optimal developed by Jat (2007), has been modified and improved in the
water resources allocation strategies. Zarghami and Akbariyeh present study to include climate change effects. The model appli-
(2012) developed a model for the Tabriz’s urban water sys- cation has been demonstrated further for the actual water supply
tem using a system dynamic approach. This model considered system of Ajmer urban fringe.
the water supply resources (groundwater, imported fresh water In the present study, climate change impacts on surface and
and treated wastewater), sources of demand for water resources groundwater sources have been incorporated in the model in term
(domestic, irrigation and industry uses) and management tools of variation in water availability from these sources as a result of
(wastewater reuse and recycling, inter-basin water transfer, water change in rainfall and temperature due to climate change (climate
price and conservation tools). Zarghami and Hajykazemian (2013) change factors). The stochastic weather generator (i.e. LARS-WG)
178 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Fig. 1. The location of Ajmer urban fringe in the Rajasthan State.

has been used to generate future climate change scenario and cal-
ibrated rainfall runoff model (SWMM) and groundwater model Water demand of
CCFi
(MODFLOW) has been used to generate future scenarios of surface different user with
monthly demand,
and groundwater. Sources of imported water Associated cost dn,t,
SSi with annual capacity Qi, CSi t n = 1………N
i = 1……..I
3.1. Model formulation
CCFj

The formulation of the IUWM model includes definition of Groundwater source GSj Associated cost Mathematical
objective function and constraints of different components. The with annual capacity Qr CGj t Programming
j=1 J
model was formulated to incorporate the climate change effects Formulation
on water availability from different sources in the form of climate CCFk
change factors. Formulated model is a non-linear mathematical
Local surface sources LSk
programming problem, which has been solved using successive with annual capacity Qk, k
Associated cost
CLSk t
linearization technique. Non-linearity of the groundwater pumping = 1……..K
cost has been linearized through successive linearization tech-
Re-use of wastewater from Decision Variables
nique. The framework of the model has been presented in Fig. 2. source WSl with annual Associated cost Quantity of water to be
capacity Ql, CWl t used from different
l=1 L sources
3.2. Objective function
i, j, k, l, are type of sources, t = 1…T, number of planning periods,
n = 1…N, are number of users CCF…climate change factor
The objective function has been formulated to determine the
quantity of water supplied from various sources during different Fig. 2. General conceptual framework of IUWMCC model.
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 179

planning periods such that overall cost of the system is minimized


in different climate change scenarios.
⎛ ⎞

I 
T

J

T

K 
T

⎜ qi,t CSi,t + qj,t CGj,t + qk,t CLSk,t ⎟


⎜ ⎟
Minimise, Z = ⎜

i=1 t=1 j=1 t=1 k=1 t=1 ⎟
⎟ (1)
⎝  L T

+ ql,t CWl,t
l=1 t=1

where qi,t is quantity of water transferred from imported source i


in time period t (m3 /day); qi,t is quantity of water pumped from
groundwater potential zone j in time period t (m3 /day); qk,t is Treated wastewater
quantity of water supplied from local surface source k in time
period t (m3 /day); and ql,t is quantity of treated wastewater sup- 
T

plied from wastewater source/treatment facility l in time period ql,t ≤ Ql ∀l (5)


t (m3 /day). The CSi,t ,CGj,t , CLSk,t and CWl,t represents the unit cost t=1
coefficients of imported water from source (i), groundwater with-
drawal from zone (j), water supply from local surface water sources where Ql = annual capacity of reusable treated wastewater available
(k) and reuse of treated wastewater from source/treatment facil- source/facility, l (Mm3 )
ity for time period (t) in ( /m3 ), respectively. The total number
of imported sources, groundwater potential zones, local surface
3.5. System capacity constraints
sources and reuse of treated wastewater sources in time period
(T) are represented by I, J, K and L, respectively. The solution of
System capacity constraint (Eqs. (6)–(9)) for each source is
the water management/optimum allocation problem requires that
the limiting capacity of any system component, like capacity of
the decision variables qi,t , qj,t , qk,t and ql,t be determined such that
transmission system, treatment facility or storage facility. This con-
the following constraints are satisfied and the objective function is
straint is used to ensure that quantity of water allocated from any
minimized.
source during any time period should not be more than the mini-
mum of capacity of any system component.
3.3. Constraints
Imported source

Constraints are physical, geometrical and operational limita- qi,t ≤ Qi,t ∀i, t (6)
tions imposed on the model to represent the actual operational
characteristics of a water resources system. where Qi,t = maximum quantity of water available from imported
source i, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
3.4. Water availability constraints Groundwater pumping

Eqs. (2)–(5) are the water availability constraints for each poten- qj,t ≤ Qj,t ∀j, t (7)
tial water source in each time period under different climate change
scenario. These constraints represent the upper bound on the quan- where Qj,t = monthly pumping capacity of zone j, in time period t
tity of water, which may be tapped from each source. (Mm3 /year).
Imported source Local surface source


T
qk,t ≤ Qk,t ∀k, t (8)
qi,t ≤ CCFi ∗ Qi ∀i (2)
t=1
where Qk,t = maximum quantity of water available from the local
where CCFi = climate change factor for imported water supply surface source k, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
source, i
Qi = annual capacity of imported source, i (Mm3 )
Groundwater 3.5.1. Treated wastewater
Minimum of monthly capacity of any component of sewer-

J

12
age system, like capacity of wastewater treatment plant can be
qj,t ≤ CCFj ∗ (1 − ) ∗ Qr (3) considered as the system capacity constraint for the re-usable
j=1 t=1 wastewater.
where CCFj = climate change factor for ground water supply source,
ql,t ≤ Ql,t ∀l, t (9)
j
Qr = annual quantity of groundwater available from all zones, r
where Ql,t = maximum quantity of treated wastewater available
(Mm3 )
from waste water source/facility l, in time period t (Mm3 /year).
 = mining allowance for groundwater pumping.
Local surface source
3.6. Water balance constraints

T
qk,t ≤ CCFk ∗ Qk ∀k (4)
Water balance should be maintained within the water supply
t=1
and sewerage system. Quantity of treated wastewater available
where CCFk = climate change factor for local surface sources, k during a particular time period t should be equal to sum of quantity
Qk = annual capacity of local surface source, k (Mm3 ). of water supplied from various sources minus consumptive use and
180 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

losses at different stages. This constraint represents the continuity


of flow within the system.
⎛ ⎞

I 
J

K

⎜ qi,t ci ti d + qj,t cj tj d + qk,t ck tk d ⎟


⎜ i=1 ⎟ L
⎜ j=1 k=1 ⎟ ∗ (1 − ˛)wc tw≥ ql,t ∀t (10)
⎜  L ⎟
⎝ ⎠ l=1
+ ql,t cl tl d
l=1

where ␩ci is efficiency of the water transmission system for 31.025 Mm3 /year of water from 1st phase of the Bisalpur project
imported source i, ␩cj is efficiency of the water transmission sys- (RUIDP, 1998; PHED, 2004).
tem for groundwater pumped from zone j (if applicable), ␩ck is Quantity of water available from local surface sources in future
efficiency of the water transmission system for local surface source without considering the climate change scenario has been esti-
k, ␩cl is efficiency of the water transmission system for treated mated for Ajmer urban fringe corresponding to normal seasonal
wastewater sources (if applicable). ␩ti , ␩tj , ␩tk , ␩tl are repre- rainfall (monsoon) of 451.9 mm. The normal climate needs to
sents the efficiency of water treatment plant for imported source be defined because climate correction involves in estimating the
i, groundwater pumped from zone j (if applicable), local surface amount of water use, if weather conditions are normal. Nor-
source k and additional treatment to the recyclable wastewater mal climate is usually defined as the 30 year average of climatic
from source/facility l, respectively. ␩d , ␩wc and ␩tw are efficiency of parameters (Maheepala and Roberts, 2006). However, the concept
the water distribution system, sewerage system for treated waste- of normal climate will be uncertain in climate change scenario
water and wastewater treatment plants, respectively. ˛ is a fraction because the average of climate over a period differs from decade to
represents the consumptive use of water by the users. decade (Perera et al., 2009). Therefore, the future quantity of water
available from these sources in climate change scenario has been
3.7. Water requirement constraints estimated based on climatic parameters simulated using CGCM
outputs. For each local surface source, average quantity of surface
Water requirement constraint ensures that the quantity of runoff available at the end of September and December months
water supplied from all the sources in any time period must be has been considered as the quantity of water available for use and
equal to the total quantity of water required by all the users for same considered as the source capacity constraint in the optimization
time period. In case of single water supply system, total demands model.
have been assumed as potable.
⎛ ⎞

I 
J

K

⎜ qi,t ct ti d + qj,t cj tj d + qk,t ck tk d ⎟


⎜ i=1 ⎟ N
⎜ j=1 k=1 ⎟ ≥ dn,t n,t ∀t (11)
⎜  L ⎟
⎝ ⎠ n=1
+ ql,t cl tl d
l=1

where n,t is rationing factor for potable water demand of user n in


time period t, and dn,t is demand of potable water by the user n in
time period t (Mm3 /year). Quantity of water available from groundwater has been esti-
Non-negativity constraints mated using calibrated groundwater model, where recharge is
estimated corresponding to the normal rainfall in monsoon
qi,t ≥0 ∀i&t; qj,t ≥0 ∀j&t; qk,t ≥0 ∀k&t; ql,t ≥0 ∀l&t (12) (June–November) and non-monsoon (November–May) season.
Annual capacity of groundwater has been adopted equal to the
annual recharge, which is estimated as 3.956 Mm3 for year 2005
3.8. Application of model
and 3.957 Mm3 for other years (corresponding to normal rain-
fall). Total groundwater recharge comprises of rainfall recharge and
Application of developed mathematical model has been demon-
recharge from the lakes. Groundwater recharges from lakes and
strated for the water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe. The
ponds have been considered equal to recharge in year 2005, having
basic characteristics of the water supply system of the study area
rainfall equal to the normal rainfall. Quantity of available treated
and models used for parametrisation of different process have been
wastewater has been estimated from the data obtained from RUIDP,
discussed below.
Ajmer (RUIDP, 1998; PHED, 2004). Quantity of treated wastewater
has been estimated assuming 20% consumptive use of water out
3.9. Sources of water
of total water supplied. Annual capacities of different sources have
been used as the water availability constraints in the optimization
Presently, water is supplied to Ajmer urban fringe through an
model.
integrated distribution system which is imported from Bisalpur
Reservoir (Tonk, Rajasthan). Local groundwater and surface sources
(i.e. Anasagar lake, Foysagar lake and Khanpura pond) have been 3.10. Development of climate change factors
identified as the other potential sources of water supply. Annual
quantity of water available from these sources is required to be Climate change factors (CCF) have been incorporated in the
estimated for future water resources planning. In the present source constraint of all potential sources except treated waste-
study, quantity of water available from local surface sources water. The results of resources allocation under climate change
and groundwater have been estimated using calibrated empir- scenario have been compared with the results of resources alloca-
ical rainfall-runoff and groundwater models of the Ajmer area, tion without considering climate change. The CCF for the imported
respectively (Jat, 2007). Ajmer urban fringe has water rights for and groundwater source have been adopted similar to local surface
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 181

Table 1
Runoff scenarios generated for Anasagar using CGCM output.

Year Population of Impervious Runoff generated (mm)


Ajmer (million) area (%)

Baseline A1B A2 B1

2006 0.531 11.723 97.65 63.31 56.24 56.92


2007 0.539 12.269 99.22 64.88 57.81 58.49
2008 0.548 12.826 100.82 66.47 59.41 60.09
2009 0.556 13.393 102.44 68.10 61.03 61.72
2010 0.564 13.97 104.10 69.76 62.69 63.37
2011 0.572 14.558 105.79 71.45 64.38 65.06
2012 0.583 15.300 107.92 73.58 66.51 67.19
2013 0.593 16.058 110.09 75.75 68.68 69.36
2014 0.603 16.831 112.31 77.97 70.90 71.58
2015 0.613 17.621 114.58 80.24 73.17 73.85
2016 0.623 18.426 116.89 82.55 75.48 76.16
2017 0.634 19.247 119.24 84.90 77.84 78.52
2018 0.644 20.085 121.65 87.31 80.24 80.92
2019 0.654 20.938 124.10 89.76 82.69 83.37
2020 0.664 21.808 126.59 92.25 85.19 85.87
2021 0.674 22.693 129.13 94.79 87.73 88.41

source i.e. Anasagar assuming that they will be affected by the lakes or ponds has been generated using the baseline and future
climate change similarly. The CCF has been estimated based on runoff scenarios upto year 2020–2021 (e.g. Table 2).
baseline and future runoff scenarios generated corresponding to
base line and future climate scenarios. The future climate scenar- 4. System capacities
ios have been developed using LARS-WG based on CGCM outputs
for the Ajmer urban fringe. In LARS-WG, the calibration and vali- For water supply system of Ajmer, system capacities include
dation for the observed climate has been performed in three geometric limitation of the different components. These capacities
steps: (1) calibration, (2) QTest (Validation) and (3) Generation. have been taken from previous studies (Jat, 2007) (Table 3).
The model is calibrated (1971–1990 for the base line) and val- Imported source: For imported supplies from Bisalpur, monthly
idated for the observed climate to obtain future projections for capacity of transmission system has been adopted as system capac-
Ajmer urban fringe. The model performance is validated based ity constraint (Eq. (6)) and considered as constant for all months
on statistical characteristics (mean and standard deviation) and of a year. Capacity of transmission system of Ajmer has been
tests (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, F-test and T-test). The empirical adopted equal to the average of water supplied (69,460 m3 /day) in
equations were used, which was verified by hydrological model last five years, which is found to be between 65,430 m3 /day and
(SWMM) and observed data to estimate the surface water avail- 74,780 m3 /day. This is less than the designed capacity of trans-
ability. Runoff from the urbanized and non-urbanized catchments mission system (85,000 m3 /day), which has been reduced due to
were estimated from the equations as given below (Jat, 2007): wear and tear. Thus, the average quantity of water supplied in year
RO = 0.367S + 2.87Ai + 10269I − 31.078 (13) 2005–2006 has been assumed as the system capacity constraint for
the imported source.
Groundwater: For groundwater, monthly pumping capacity of
RO = 0.197S + 3.065I − 28.53 (14) each groundwater potential zones (GPZ) has been adopted as the
system capacity constraint (Eq. (7)), which remains same for all
where Ai and S are the impervious area and topographic slope in
the months in a year. In the present study, four GPZ have been
%, respectively, I is the rainfall intensity factor and RO is the runoff
considered suitable for use i.e. Anasagar, Khanpura, Durai and
generated in mm. The rainfall intensity factor is derived using the
monsoon rainfall depth (R) in mm and number of rainy days (NR)
using the following equation (Jat, 2007): Table 2
R
The climate change factor for local surface sources, imported water supply and
I= (15) ground source in A1B scenario (Case 2 and 3).
NR˛
Year CCFi CCFj CCFk (A) CCFk (KH) CCFk (F)
where constant ˛ depends upon the geographical region for which 2006 0.62 0.62 0.65 0.70 0.52
relationship is sought. For Ajmer area, this factor has been found 2007 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.70 0.52
to be 0.5 (Jat, 2007). The percentage impervious area (Ai ) has been 2008 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.52
estimated for Anasagar and Khanpura sub-watershed using the fol- 2009 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.52
2010 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.52
lowing developed equations (Jat, 2007), respectively:
2011 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.52
2012 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.52
Ai = 63.94P 2.2 − 4.18 (16) 2013 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.72 0.52
2014 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.72 0.52
2015 0.65 0.65 0.70 0.73 0.52
Ai = 48.08P 1.1 − 6.26 (17)
2016 0.65 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.52
2017 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.73 0.52
where P is population in Million. 2018 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.52
The rainfall and number of rainy days during the monsoon have 2019 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.52
been simulated for A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios of 20th century from 2020 0.66 0.66 0.73 0.74 0.52
CGCM output. Using the above Eqs. (13)–(17), the runoff scenarios 2021 0.67 0.67 0.73 0.75 0.52
have been generated for the base and future scenarios at Anasagar, Note: A, F and KH represents Anasagar, Foysagar and Khanpura lakes/pond, respec-
Khanpura and Foysagar lakes/pond (e.g. Table 1). The CCF for these tively
182 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Capacity of treatment plant proposed corresponding to the water available, considering the effect of urbanization, from Khanpura pond. Water availability from import is the average capacity of transmission system. WW is
Parvatpura, as other two zones are found unsuitable because of

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
their low potential.

May
Anasagar: Monthly capacity of water treatment plant has been
adopted as the system capacity constraint for Anasagar (Eq. (8)),
and considered as constant for all the planning periods of a year.
2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0
April
The capacity of transmission line for the Anasagar have been cal-
culated based on 15 h of pumping and safe capacity of lake in year
2005. Two pipe lines of 7.48 MLD (million litres per day) capacities
(each) have been proposed with all necessary pumping capabilities.
2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
March

So, total capacity of transmission system is 5.46 Mm3 /year. Further,


its capacity can be enhanced by increasing the pumping hours. To
accommodate the effect of urbanization, capacity of water treat-
February

ment plant for Anasagar has been assumed equal to the 14.96 MLD,
1944.9
209.4
418.9
100.8
418.9
418.9
481.6
1400.0
1960.0
2240.0 as compared to 7.48 MLD considered suitable for the year 2005
(without considering the effect of urbanization). Unit cost of water
supply with this capacity would have been 2.81 /m3 (at prices
of year 2005) as compared to 3.13 /m3 for 7.48 MLD capacity of
January

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

treatment plant.
Foysagar: For Foysagar, monthly capacity of water treatment
plant (3.6 MLD) (already available) has been adopted as the sys-
December

tem capacity constraint, which remains same for all the planning
2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

periods (month) of a year.


Khanpura: Monthly capacity of water treatment plant has been
Capacity of treatment plant proposed, if effect of urbanization is considered while estimating the quantity of water available from Anasagar lake.

adopted as the system capacity constraint for Khanpura, which


remains constant for all the months of a year. Presently, water
November

supply infrastructure is not available at Khanpura pond. Suitable


2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0

water supply infrastructure has been proposed similar to Anasagar.


Water supply infrastructure has been proposed for two capacities;
(i) 5.46 Mm3 annually up to service level of year 2011, and (ii)
6.278 Mm3 up to service level of year 2021. It has been assumed
October

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

that water will be directly fed to the distribution system from the
treatment plant.
Treated wastewater: RUIDP, Ajmer has designed and executed
the sewerage system for Ajmer urban fringe. A wastewater
September

treatment plant (both primary and secondary) of 50,000 m3 /day


2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0

capacity was designed for the service level up to year 2011. RUIDP,
in principal, has decided to further augment the sewerage sys-
tem of Ajmer by 30 MLD in two phases for a service level up
to year 2021. Capacity of sewerage system increased by 20 MLD
August

2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0

by the year 2011, and further it would be increased by 10 MLD


by the year 2015. Hence, quantity of sewage available after year
Capacity of treatment plant, if water availability assumed at the level of year 2005.

2011 was 70 MLD and by the end of 2015, would be 80 MLD.


Monthly capacity constraints of different sources for different years (in 1000 m3 ).

Monthly capacity has been assumed to be constant. These capac-


2153.3
231.9
463.8
111.6
463.8
463.8
533.2
1550.0
2170.0
2480.0
July

ities have been adopted as the system capacity constraints in the


model.
2083.8
224.4
448.8

448.8
448.8
108.0

516.0
1500.0
2100.0
2400.0
June

4.1. Efficiency of different system components


Khanpura for 2005–21 (without urbanization effect)a

Water losses in water supply system were considered and


Khanpura from 2012–21 (with urbanization effect)c
Anasagar for 2005–21 (with urbanization effect)b

adopted as the hydraulic efficiency of different system compo-


Khanpura up to 2011 (with urbanization effect)c

nents in the model. The information of losses was obtained from


wastewater and TWW is treated wastewater.

literature (RUIDP, 1998; Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007).


Transmission losses for different sources were reported between
0.5% and 2% (Ajmera, 2000). For model demonstration, these losses
were considered as 0.5% (local surface sources), 1% (groundwater)
Anasagar for capacity in 2005a
Import for 2005–21 (Bisalpur)

and 2% (imported water). Losses of water in treatment plants were


Treated WW for 2012–2015
Treated WW for 2016–2021
Treated WW (up to 2011)

reported between 0.5% and 1% (PHED, 2004). These were adopted


Foysagar for 2005–21

as 1% in this study. Losses of wastewater in sewerage system were


adopted as 10% (RUIDP, 1998). Presently, losses of water in dis-
tribution system have been found about 30% to 40% of the water
supply (Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004). In this study, efficiency of the
distribution system was assumed as 70%. Total demand of water
Month
Table 3

from all sectors has been considered at the entrance of distribution


a

system.
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 183

4.2. Cost of water problem into several convex and linear sub-problems. It then uses
the branch-and-bound technique to exhaustively search over these
In the present study, unit cost of water supply from any source sub-problems for the global solution.
has been expressed in term of /1000 m3 . These costs represent
the unit cost of delivery of water from each source to starting point 5. Results and discussion
of distribution system. Unit cost of water supply for the imported
source, Anasagar, Foysagar, Khanpura and treated wastewater has The application of IUWMCC has been demonstrated for finding
been adopted as Rs. 1150, 3130, 2860, 2810 and 15,920 m–3 , respec- optimum allocation of water from multiple water supply sources to
tively for the base year (2005) as obtained from RUIDP. For other satisfy the water requirements of various users in uncertain future
years, cost has been estimated considering 8% rate of inflation. Unit climate scenarios. Impact of climate change has been incorporated
cost of water supply includes cost incurred on source, transmission in terms of change in water availability from various sources due to
and treatment from different sources has been adopted (Jat, 2007). change in precipitation and runoff under different climate change
These have been adopted as the cost coefficients in the objective scenarios. Results of different management strategies in differ-
function (Eq. (1)). ent scenarios have been discussed below. Optimal management
strategies in changing climate are suggested through comparative
4.3. Water demands analysis of all the strategies for Ajmer urban fringe.

For the present study, annual water demand of various users i.e.
municipal, industrial, fire, railways and floating water demands of 5.1. Management scenarios investigated
Ursh has been obtained from RUIDP and PHED, Ajmer (RUIDP 1998;
Ajmera, 2000; PHED, 2004; Jat, 2007). Average monthly water The following management strategies have been investigated:
demands have been considered, as the monthly water demand
constraints (Eq. (13)). (1) Present water supply condition (Case 1), Integration of
groundwater, local surface sources with present water supply
4.4. Re-use of treated wastewater condition (Case 2), and
(2) Integration of groundwater, local surface sources with urban-
Re-use of treated wastewater has been considered as a potential ization effect and treated wastewater for potable uses (Case
water demand management option. It has been divided in two cat- 3).
egories: (i) potable and (ii) non-potable. In the present study only
the first case have been explored that all the water demands have 5.2. Model solution
been considered as potable, and treated wastewater is used as a
potable water source after proper treatment. The required data and various model assumptions have been
used while solving the model for water resources allocations in
4.5. Model assumptions different management strategies under climate change scenarios.
For each scenario, model solution has been obtained using LINGO
For demonstrating the application of model the following computer package (version 10). Summary of the various scenarios
assumptions have been made: investigated and size of problem have been presented in Table 4.
The present water supply system and its sustainability with dif-
(a) The time horizon has been adopted as 15 years (2005–2006 to ferent management strategies have been evaluated for the existing
2020–2021). Each planning year has been assumed to start from and future climate change scenarios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1. Ground-
1st June, water is available in small quantity but its use is unaccounted
(b) The inflation rate has been adopted as 8% to estimate the future (Jat, 2007) and not considered in Case 1 i.e. present condition.
cost of water supply from different sources, Model constraints have been modified to represent the present
(c) Whole Ajmer urban fringe has been considered as the single water supply system of Ajmer. For different years, water availabil-
water supply zone and water available from different sources ity constraint (annual capacity) has been adopted as 31.025 Mm3 .
is integrated with the same distribution system, Monthly capacity constraint has been adopted as per the present
(d) Quality of groundwater has been assumed as potable, and about capacity of water transmission system (25.352 Mm3 annually) from
100% of groundwater recharge is available for the use, Bisalpur to Ajmer. For other sources i.e. groundwater, local surface
(e) Model has been formulated to account for the monthly and sources and treated wastewater capacity constraints have been
yearly variation of water available in different year. modified accordingly. Losses have been represented in the form
of efficiency of different system components, and adopted in the
4.6. Solution of the model model. Monthly water demands of various users in different years
have been considered as the demand constraint. For different years,
In the present study, LINGO (version 10), a comprehensive tool cost coefficients have been adopted.
designed for building and solving linear, nonlinear and integer opti- In Case 2 and Case 3, the dynamic interaction of groundwater
mization models, has been used for the solving the formulated system and management model has been considered as incorpo-
water management models under climate change scenario. This rated by Jat, 2007 through external coupling of groundwater model
software is developed by the LINDO Systems Inc. (Chicago, USA). (MODFLOW) and optimization model. For the first run of the model
Formulated model is a non-linear mathematical programming (year 2005–2006), water table elevations of pre-monsoon period
problem, which has been solved using successive linearization (i.e. at the end of May) of year 2005 have been considered as the
technique using Successive Linear Programming (SLP) algorithm. initial water table elevations. Groundwater mining coefficient has
Non-linearity of the groundwater pumping cost has been linearized been kept as zero, as no mining is allowed. The model has been run
through successive linearization technique. The LINGO (version for three strategies (Case 1–Case 3) of water supply for the entire
10) also has Global and Multi-start solvers, which are capable of analysis period in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, separately. Initially,
achieving global solution of non-convex and non-linear problem. rationing factor has been kept as zero in all three cases. However,
The Global solver converts the original non-convex and nonlinear model solution has not been found feasible at 0% rationing in Case
184 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

Table 4
Size of problem for different management strategies investigated.

S. no. Scenario Number of sources No. of decision No. of Type of problem


variables constraints

1. Present water supply condition One (Import) 12 775 Linear


2. Integration of groundwater and Six (Import, GW, Three 96 775 Linear, non-linearity of GW
local surface sources with present local sources and TWW)
condition
3. Integration of import source, Six (Import, GW, Three 108 895 Linear, non-linearity of GW
groundwater and local surface local sources and TWW)
sources with urbanization effect
and treated wastewater

1 and Case 2, as water demands are more than supplies, which vio- 5.3. Comparison of management strategies
lates the demand constraint. Further, different values of rationing
factor are tried to make the solution feasible. Value of rationing 5.3.1. Total quantity of water supplied
factor, at which solution becomes feasible, represents the percent- Total quantity of water supplied from different sources
age of overall shortage or demands unmet. In a similar way, model depends upon number of sources considered in that particu-
has been run for different years and results are obtained, which lar management strategy. Total quantity of water supplied in
include monthly allocation of water, minimized cost, percentage different years in different management strategies has been
losses and percentage of demand satisfied under different climate investigated with and without considering climate change
change scenarios. The results of the model for various years under effect.
changing climate scenarios have been determined. Results revealed Total quantity of water supplied in the Case 1 is limited up to
that throughout the analysis period, water demand of the urban maximum quantity of water available from the imported sources,
fringe has not been met fully in all the three scenarios of climate which is equal to 20.78 Mm3 , 18.61 Mm3 and 18.92 Mm3 , respec-
change in Case 1 and 2. tively for A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios in the year 2020–2021. This
In Case 2, water supply system of Ajmer fringe is assumed to be quantity is less than the water rights (31.025 Mm3 ) of Ajmer due to
augmented with local surface sources. Effect of urbanization has limited capacity of transmission system. In Case 2, total quantity of
not been considered in Case 2. The climate change effects on urban water supplied from various sources has increased to 30.63 Mm3 ,
water demand have not been considered, only effects have been 27.34 Mm3 and 27.83 Mm3 , respectively due to integration of
considered on water availability from different sources in changing groundwater and local surface sources into the present water sup-
climate. Monthly variation of demands has not been considered in ply system in the year 2020–2021. Total quantity of water supplied
the present study due to non availability of data. in Case 3 varies from 39.76 Mm3 , 36.76 Mm3 and 37.18 Mm3 for
In Case 3, integration of treated wastewater, groundwater and year 2005–2006 to 59.34 Mm3 , 54.03 Mm3 and 54.98 Mm3 for year
local surface sources has been considered into present water sup- 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respectively (e.g. Fig. 3
ply system. In this case, effect of urbanization (i.e. increase in water for A1B scenario). Groundwater and local surface sources have also
availability from local surface sources with increase in impervious been utilized fully in Case 2 and Case 3 in all three scenarios. These
surface) and treated wastewater as supply augmentation measures sources are utilized first as compared to imported supplies and
for potable uses with proper additional treatment has been con- treated wastewater, being the cheapest sources. In Case 3, quantity
sidered. It is assumed that the availability of quantity of treated of total water supplied in different years has increased as com-
wastewater will not be affected due to change in climate as treated pared to Case 2 on account of effect of urbanization and integration
wastewater is a function of water supplied from other sources. of treated wastewater for potable use. With an increase in popula-
Treated wastewater has been considered as a demand manage- tion, quantity of water available from local surface sources would
ment measures, however it has been considered as a separate increase due to increase in impervious areas (Jat, 2007) as result
variable in the model, being a major source of water with proper of increase in built-up activities. However, total quantity of water
additional treatment. Unit cost of water supply for Khanpura and available from different sources would significantly reduce due to
Anasagar has been found to be same for both the capacities up to change in climate as found from the simulated climate using CGCM
year 2011–2012. output.
In this Case 3, rationing factor has been found to be zero if cli-
mate change effects have not been considered. Model solution has
been found to be feasible in this strategy as full water demands
are satisfied. However, model solution for A1B scenario has not
been found to be feasible in the beginning of years 2005–2011, 57000
as full water demands are not satisfied, which is more than sup- 52000
Quantity (1000 m3)

plies in changing scenarios of climate change, violating the demand 47000


constraint. Value of rationing factor has been found to be zero 42000
in this case after the year 2011. Model solution has been found 37000
to be feasible in A1B scenario after year 2010–2011 as full water 32000
demands are satisfied because of proposed increased capacity of 27000
treated wastewater. Similarly, model has been run for the A2 and 22000
17000
B1 scenarios, separately. In both these scenario, solution has not
12000
been found feasible at 0% rationing, as it does not satisfies the full
Year
water demand in changing climate. For sample, the model results Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
for A1B scenario of climate change are presented in Table 5. Water Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC
allocations from different sources for different years in changing Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC
climate scenario have been shown for A1B scenario as a sample
Fig. 3. Total quantity of water supplied from different sources in various cases
(Fig. 3). considering without and with climate change in A1B scenario.
Table 5
Integration of imported, groundwater and local surface sources with urbanization effect and reuse of treated wastewater in A1B scenario (Case 3).

Year 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 2020–2021
3
Water demands of different users (1000 m )
Domestic 30,890 31,340 31,897.3 32,460 33,013.6 33,570 34,130 34,688 35,246 36,360
Industrial 406.9 419.7 433.1 446.5 459.9 468.6 480 486.18 494.9 534.7

S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189


Railways 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5 2299.5
Fire 881.8 890.6 900 910.06 919.8 923.4 930 930.7 934.4 978.91
Ursh 446 456.2 466 475.9 485.8 489.1 490 495.6 498.9 538.3

Total 34924.2 35406.0 35995.9 36592.0 37178.6 37750.6 38329.5 38900.0 39473.7 40711.4
Utilization of water from different sources (1000 m3 )
Import 19856 19856 19856 20166 20166 20166 20476 20477 20476 20787
GW 2532.5 2532.5 2532.5 2572.1 2572.1 2572.1 2611.6 2611.6 2611.6 2651.2
Anasagar 2308 2355 2450 2511 2611 2713 2780 2889 2959 3148
Foysagar 799 811 811 811 822 822 822 833 833 845
Khanpura 2765 2801 2845 2890 2934 2979 3023 3068 3113 3203
TWW 18,245 19,037 24,009 24,416 25,112 25,547 26,180 26,834 27,549 28,707

Total 46505.5 47392.5 52503.5 53366.1 54217.1 54799.1 55892.6 56712.6 57541.6 59341.2
Losses (%) 31.51 31.49 31.44 31.43 31.43 31.46 31.42 31.41 31.4 30.89
Percentage of demand satisfied
Demand 91.2 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Unit cost of water supply ( /1000 m3 )
Import 16897.3 18249.1 19,709 21285.7 22988.6 24827.6 26813.8 28,959 31275.7 36479.9
Anasagar 4128.8 4459.1 4815.8 5201.1 5617.2 6066.6 6551.9 7076.1 7642.1 8913.8
Foysagar 4202.3 4538.5 4901.5 5293.7 5717.2 6174.5 6668.5 7202 7778.1 9072.4
Khanpura 4128.8 4459.1 4815.8 5201.1 5617.2 6066.6 6551.9 7076.1 7642.1 8913.8
Weighted annual average depth of water table below ground surface in different zones (m)
Anasagar 38.98 38.91 38.85 38.77 38.69 38.60 38.53 38.44 38.37 38.14
Khanpura 27.29 27.57 27.72 27.92 28.10 28.26 28.41 28.55 28.68 28.90
Parvatpura 37.17 37.30 37.41 37.51 37.66 37.77 37.91 38.01 38.13 38.34
Durai 25.57 25.76 25.86 25.97 26.08 26.17 26.26 26.33 26.39 26.50
Groundwater recharge, GWR (1000 m3 )
GWR 699.53 760.62 924.43 1012.29 1113.58 1214.85 1339.06 1467.13 1608.77 1933.36
Minimum cost of water supply for Case 2 (M. )
Cost 699.53 760.62 924.43 1012.29 1113.58 1214.85 1339.06 1467.13 1608.77 1933.36

Results of some years have been presented in Table due to space restriction, however in figures results of all the years have been presented.

185
186 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

33000 105
30000 95
27000
Quantity (1000 m3)

85
24000

Demand met (%)


21000 75
18000 65
15000 55
12000 45
9000
35
6000
3000 25
0 2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18
2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18 Year
Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
Year Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC

Fig. 4. Utilization of treated wastewater in various scenarios for different years Fig. 6. Water demands satisfied in various scenarios for different years considering
considering without considering climate change. without and with climate change in A1B scenario.

5.3.2. Total quantity of imported water and treated wastewater water supply system satisfies the full demand in Case 3 and do
utilized not satisfies the full demand in Case 1 and 2. Results revealed that
Total quantity of imported water utilized in different manage- under A2 and B1 scenario of climate change, water supply system is
ment strategies (i.e. Case 1–3) has been compared for different deficient in all the three strategies. However, water supply system
climate change scenarios to highlight the dependence of Ajmer on is deficient in first two cases for A1B scenario of climate change.
an imported and uncertain source. Quantity of imported water uti- Initially in A1B scenario upto year 2010–2011, water supply sys-
lized for different year remains same for Case 1–Case 3 in all three tem is found deficient and do not satisfies full demand in Case 3,
scenarios (e.g. Fig. 5), as water demand are more than available because lower capacity of treated waste water available in these
supplies in Case 1 and Case 2. years (Fig. 6). In deficient water supply system, water demands cor-
Quantities of treated wastewater utilized in different manage- responding to recommended rate of supply will not been satisfied
ment strategies have also been compared. It is assumed that in in changing scenarios of climate change (see Fig. 7).
changing scenario of climate, the quantities of treated wastewa- In Case 1, percentage of demand satisfied has been found to
ter must be available as proposed. In first two cases, quantity of vary from 42.06%, 37.31% and 37.99% for year 2005–2006 to 34.68%,
treated wastewater utilized has been zero, as it has not been inte- 31.06% and 31.57% for year 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenar-
grated with the water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe (Fig. 4). ios, respectively. In Case 2, supply scenario has been improved
In third case, total quantity of treated wastewater utilized would slightly on account of integration of supplies from groundwater
have been 13.88 Mm3 for the year 2005–2006 to 26.68 Mm3 for the and local surface sources. However, water supply system is still
year 2020–2021. deficient in changing climate scenario. Percentage of demands sat-
isfied in Case 2 has been found to vary from 56.82%, 50.24% and
5.3.3. Sustainability of water resources system 51.15% for year 2005–2006 to 51.36%, 45.85% and 46.66% for year
In present study, sustainability of water resources system of 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, respectively. Average per-
the study area has been evaluated in terms of percentage of water centage unmet demand has increased to 24.34% due to climate
demand satisfied for different years in changing climate scenarios. change. The demand satisfaction has decreased in changing sce-
Simultaneously, it has been compared in terms of percentage of nario of climate as compared to previous (Case 1). The Case 2
water demand satisfied without considering the climate change for revealed that water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe is not sus-
different years. Percentage of water demands satisfied in different tainable even with the integration of local sources with imported
years under different management strategies in different climate source of water. Therefore, need of integration of other possible
change scenarios have been compared (e.g. Fig. 6). When the cli- sources or demand management is felt so that demand of water
mate change scenario is not considered then results revealed that can be met in changing climate. The model results revealed that

27500 20500
Quantity (1000 m3)

25000
Quantity (1000 m3)

15500
22500

20000
10500
17500

15000
5500
12500 2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21
2005-06 2009-10 2013-14 2017-18 Year
Case 1 without cc Case 1 with cc
Year Case 2 without cc Case 2 with cc
Case 1,2,3 without CC Case 1,2,3 with CC Case 3 without cc Case 3 with cc

Fig. 5. Utilization of imported water in various scenarios in different years consid- Fig. 7. Total losses of water in various scenarios for different years considering
ering without and with climate change in A1B scenario. without and with climate change in A1B scenario.
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 187

1800 is imposed due to unmet demands cost of water supply would be


1600 more in Case 1 and Case 2, as demands have not been met in these
1400 scenarios.
In Case 3, overall cost of water supply in different years have
Cost (M. )

1200
been found to vary from 459.4 M. , 432.23 M. and 436.06 M. for
1000
year 2005–2006 to 1933.36 M. , 1767.74 M. and 1798.45 M. for
800
year 2020–2021 in A1B, A2 and B1 scenario, respectively. Cost of
600
water supply has been increased in this case as compared to Case
400 2 i.e. from 840.4 M. to 1933.36 M. for year 2020–2021 in A1B
200 scenario, because of increase in supplies from treated wastewater.
2005-06 2008-09 2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 Similarly, cost of water supply has increased in case 3 as compared
Year to Case 2 for A2 and B1 scenario from 751.88 M. to 1767.74 M. and
Case 1 without CC Case 1 with CC
Case 2 without CC Case 2 with CC 764.62 M. to 1798.45 M. for year 2020–2021. The comparative
Case 3 without CC Case 3 with CC results of with and without considering climate change indicates
that average minimum cost of water supply increases to 75.15 M.
Fig. 8. Minimum cost of water supply system in various scenarios for different years , 10.44 M. and 25.17 M. in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respectively
considering without and with climate change in A1B scenario. due to adverse impact of climate change. The increase in cost is
attributed to the increased use of treated wastewater due to decline
average shortage of water supply increases to 10.14%, 14.32% and in water availability from surface sources due to change in climate
13.74% due to change in climate in different climate change sce- (e.g. Fig. 8). Overall cost of water supply has increased in this case
narios i.e. A1B, A2 and B1, respectively as compared to present as compared to previous cases on account of supplemental sup-
condition (without considering climate change). After considering ply from local surface sources after considering the urbanization
climate change scenario, the average percentage unmet demand effect and treated wastewater for potable use with proper addi-
has been found to be increased 12.73% as compared to percentage tional treatment. However, if penalty cost for unmet demands in
unmet demand in present condition if climate change effects were Case 1 and Case 2 is considered, overall cost of water supply for
not considered. Present system is supplying water at the rate of Ajmer fringe will be lowest. Also water supply system is found to
around 83 l per capita per day (lpcd), as compared to 150 lpcd rec- be sustainable in Case 3 event after year 2020–2021. Therefore, case
ommended by the CPHEEO (CPHEEO, 1999). In Case 2, The model 3 is the optimum water management strategy for the Ajmer fringe
results revealed that average shortage of water supply increases to in a climate change scenario.
20.51%, 26.72% and 25.80% in different climate change scenarios of
A1B, A2 and B1, respectively. Therefore, Case 1 and Case 2 result 5.3.5. Social acceptability
revealed that water demand have not been met (100%) fully for all Results revealed that present water supply system is sustain-
years due to possible changing climate. able only with the re-use of treated wastewater along with use of
In Case 3, treated wastewater has been integrated as a source of groundwater and local surface sources after year 2011–2012 in A1B
potable water into present water supply system in addition to local scenario of climate change. The average percentage unmet demand
water and groundwater sources. However, only in A1B scenario has been increased to 7.94% due to the climate change in these
100% water demands have been met after year 2010–2011 due to management strategies. Therefore, re-use of treated water have a
the proposed increased capacity of treated wastewater (Fig. 3). Full significant importance in managing the growing demands of water
water demand has not been satisfied in other two scenarios (i.e. A2 from different users in changing climate and can be a major source
and B1). Therefore, water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe is of augmentation of water supply for potable and non-potable uses
sustainable only with the integration of treated wastewater includ- with proper additional treatment. In present scenario, re-use of
ing local water and groundwater sources in a changing climate treated wastewater has been proposed for the potable uses with
scenario. Hence, integration of treated wastewater is inevitable proper additional treatment, which is technically and economically
for the water deficient system of Ajmer urban fringe in a chang- feasible. However, social acceptability of such a management pol-
ing climate. Similarly, demand management strategies have to be icy is difficult as people’s perception about the re-use of treated
adopted to manage the increased demand for changing scenarios wastewater for potable uses in India is still not favourable. For water
of climate change (like A2 and B1 scenario). deficient urban centres, where conventional sources are available in
limited quantity, re-use of treated wastewater is inevitable to sat-
5.3.4. Overall cost of water supply isfy the growing demand of water and for the sustainability of water
Generally, overall cost of any project is considered as one of the resources system. There is a need in current scenario of climate
most important decision criterions for selection of alternative with change for creating awareness to increase the social acceptability
optimal performance in view of changing climate. Overall cost of of re-use of treated wastewater, and similarly other possible alter-
water supply for different years in different management strategies native ways can be explored like re-use of treated wastewater for
with and without considering climate change has been presented non-potable domestic uses, agriculture, landscape gardening and
in Fig. 8. groundwater recharge etc.
Overall unit cost of water supply (cost of water supply per cubic
metres of water) in Case 1, is more than Case 2 and Case 3. Over- 5.3.6. Environmental benefits
all cost of water supply has been found to 221.16 Million Rupees Various management strategies in different scenarios of climate
(M. ) for year 2005–2006 to 758.19 M. for year 2020–21 in A1B change have been compared in terms of environmental bene-
scenario (Fig. 8) however demands are not satisfied fully. Similarly, fits, like demand satisfied, pollution of water sources and water
overall cost of water supply in A2 and B1 has been found as lowest. transfers from other regions. Water transfer from other regions
However, full demands have not been met. In Case 2, results found would bring imbalance in regional water systems which may lead
that average minimum cost of water supply reduced to 141.96 M. to unwanted environmental and other socio-economic conflicts.
, 194.90 M. and 187.22 M. in A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios, respec- Therefore, a water management strategy which uses less quantity
tively. In these cases, the overall cost is low due to unmet demand of water from imported source is better. Thus, it can be concluded
of water in all three scenarios of climate change. If penalty cost that Case 3 (A1B scenario), in which treated wastewater has been
188 S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189

proposed to be integrated is most suitable in changing climate. In Dracup JA. The optimal use of ground and surface water system: a parametric linear
this case, water supply system is sustainable and social acceptabil- programming approach. Univ. of California: Water Resources Center, Contribu-
tion No. 107; 1966.
ity is also better as compared to other two cases. Therefore, Case 3 Haddad BM. Monterey county water recycling project: institutional study. Journal
has been proposed as the best management solution for the water of Water Resource Planning and Management 2002;128(4):280–7.
supply of Ajmer urban fringe in a scenario of changing climate. It Jat MK. An integrated conjunctive use modelling of water in an urban area using
remote sensing and GIS. Roorkee 247 667, UK, India: IIT Roorkee; 2007 (Unpub-
can be concluded that with the suitable integration of supply aug- lished Ph.D. thesis).
mentation and demand management measures, present deficient Jenkins MW, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Draper AJ, Msangi SM, Tanaka SK, et al. Optimisa-
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe can be converted into a tion of California’s water supply system: results and insights,. Journal of Water
Resource Planning and Management, ASCE 2004;130(4):271–80.
sustainable system in a changing climate.
Jha R, Sharma KD, Singh VP. Critical appraisal of methods for the assessment of
environmental flows and their application in two river systems of India. KSCE
6. Conclusions Journal of Civil Engineering 2008;12(3):213–9.
Karamouz M, Kerachian R, Zahraie B. Monthly water resources and irrigation plan-
ning: case study of conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources.
An Integrated Urban Water Management Model considering Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2004;130(5):93–8.
Climate Change has been developed and its application has been Kashyap D, Chandra S. A distributed conjunctive use model for optimal cropping
pattern. IAHS Publication 1982;135:377–84.
demonstrated successfully for realistic water supply system of
Khare D, Jat MK, Ediwahyunan. . Assessment of conjunctive use planning options: a
Ajmer fringe. Model has been run for different management strate- case study of Sapon irrigation command area of Indonesia. Journal of Hydrology
gies under different climate change scenarios, and finally, optimum 2006;328:764–77.
Kulga D, Cakmak C. Towards sustainable water management in the southeast Ana-
strategy has been found for different years. Present water supply
tolia Project (GAP). Water Resource Development 1997;13(4):541–6.
system (imported source) has been examined and integration of Lakshminarayana V, Rajagopalan SM. Optimal cropping pattern for basin in India.
some of other potential sources has been investigated in scenar- Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 1977:53–70.
ios of climate change. Effect of urban dynamic land use/land cover Lefkoff LJ, Gorelick SM. Simulating physical processes and economic behavior in
saline, irrigated agriculture: model development. Water Resource Research
has been incorporated into water resources planning of the area in 1990;26(7):1359–69.
changing climate scenario. Urbanization effect has been integrated Lin QG, Huang GH, Brad B, Nie XH, Zhang XD, Qin XS. EMDSS: an optimization-based
in terms of increase in quantity of water available from local sur- decision support system for energy systems management under changing cli-
mate conditions—an application to the Toronto-Niagara Region, Canada. Expert
face sources. Rationing and re-use of treated wastewater have been Systems with Applications 2010;37(7):5040–51.
incorporated within the optimization model as demand manage- Liu Y, Qin XS, Guo HC, Zhou F. ICCLP—an inexact chance-constrained linear pro-
ment options. From the comparative study, Case 3 (A1B scenario), in gramming model for land-use management of lake areas in urban fringes.
Environmental Management 2007;40(6):966–80.
which treated wastewater has been integrated for the potable uses Lund JR, Cabrera E. Regional water system management: water conservation, water
with prior additional treatment, has been found to be the best and supply and system irrigation. In: Regional Water System Management, Water
recommended for the implementation in the Ajmer urban fringe. Conservation, Water Supply, System Integration, Cabrera E, Cobacho R, Lund JR,
editors. Swets and Zeitlinger; 2002. p. 3–22.
The application of model has successfully demonstrated for the
Maddock T III, Haimes YY. A tax system for groundwater management. Water
water supply system of Ajmer urban fringe under climate change Resource Research 1975;11(1):7–14.
scenarios. The model has been found capable in finding out the opti- Maheepala S, Roberts P. Towards development of an improved method for esti-
mation of climate-corrected urban water use. In: 30th Hydrology and Water
mum integration of various sources into the water supply system
Resources Symposium, Conference CD 4–7; December 2006.
in changing climate scenario. Presented model would be useful for McFarlane NA, Boer GJ, Blanchet JP, Lazare M. The Canadian Climate Centre second-
decision makers/authorities of urban areas in optimum planning generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate. Journal of
and utilization of water resources in changing climate. Climate 1992;5:1013–44.
Mitchell VG, Cleugh HA, Grimmond CSB, Xu J. Linking urban water balance and
energy models to analyze urban design options. Hydrological Processes 2007.,
Acknowledgements http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.
Mishra A, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS. Development and application of an integrated
optimization simulation model for major irrigation project. Journal of Irrigation
The authors are thankfully acknowledged to M.A. Semenov and and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(6):504–13.
E.M. Barrow for proving the LARS-WG 5.11 and India Meteorologi- Morel-Seytoux HJ, Daly CJ. A discrete kernel generator for stream aquifer studies.
cal department (IMD), Pune for providing meteorological data sets. Water Resource Research 1975;11(2):253–60.
Nieswand GH, Grandstrom ML. A chance constrained approach to the conjunctive
The financial assistance provided by Ministry of Human Resource
use of surface and groundwater. Water Resources Research 1971;7(6):1425–36.
Development, Government of India in the form of a scholarship is Nikam B. R. Distributed conjunctive use modelling using remote sensing and GIS.
duly acknowledged. Roorkee 247 667, UA, India: IIT Roorkee; 2012 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).
Nishikawa T. Water resources optimization model for Santa Barbara, California. Jour-
nal of Water Resource Planning and Management, ASCE 1998;124(5):252–63.
References O’mara, Gerald T, Duloy JH. Modeling efficient water allocation in a conjunctive
use regime: the Indus Basin Pakistan. Water Resource Research, The American
Ajmera AK. Institutional analysis in water and sanitation sector: a case study of Geophysical Union 1984;20(11):1489–98.
Ajmer water supply system. MREC, Jaipur (India): Department of Civil Engi- Onta PR, Shakya RM, Gupta AD. Integrated use of surface and groundwater for urban
neering; 2000 (Unpublished M.E. Dissertation). water supply in greater Kathmandu. In: Proc. of International Conference on
Aron G, Scott VH. Dynamic programming for conjunctive use. Journal of Hydraulic Environmentally Sound water resources Utilization, held at Bangkok, Thailand,
Division 1971;97(5):705–21. from 8 to 11 November; 1993. p. 10–5.
Asano T. Reusing urban waste water—an alternative and a reliable water resource. Perera BJC, Muttil N, Hasofer M. Climate corrected urban water use and estima-
Water International 1994;19(1):1–6. tion of water savings. In: 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns; 2009.
Barlow David PM, Ahlfeld P, Dickerman DC. Conjunctive-management model for p. 3633–9.
sustained yield of stream-aquifer systems. Journal of Water Resource Planning PHED. Ajmer water supply system: present status and future. A Technical Report.
and Management 2003;129(1):35–48. Ajmer: Govt. of Rajasthan; 2004.
Belaineh G, Peralta RC, Hughes TC. Simulation/optimisation modelling for water Pulido-Velazquez M, Andreu J, Sahuquillo A. Economic optimisation of conjunc-
resources management. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management tive use of surface water and groundwater at the basin scale. Journal of Water
1999;125(3):154–60. Resources Planning and Management 2006;132(6):454–67.
Bouwer H. Integrated water management for the 21st century: problems and solu- Qin XS, Huang GH, Chakma A, Nie XH, Lin QG. A MCDM-based expert sys-
tions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2002;128(4):193–202. tem for climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning—a case
Bredehoeft JD. Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water for agriculture study for the Georgia Basin, Canada. Expert Systems with Applications
risk aversion. Water Resource Research 1983;19(5):1111–21. 2008;34(3):2164–79.
Buras N. Conjunctive operation of dams and aquifers, Journal of the Hydraulic Divi- Qin XS, Xu Y. Analyzing urban water supply through an acceptability-index-based
sion. In: Proceedings of the ASCE, vol. 89, No. HY6; 1963. p. 111–31. interval approach. Advances in Water Resources 2011;34(7):873–86.
Census of India, 2001 and 2011. Ragab R, Prudhomme C. Climate change and water resources management in arid
CPHEEO. Manual on water supply and treatment. In: Central Public Health and and semi-arid regions: prospective and challenges for the 21st century. Biosys-
Environmental Engineering Organization, Govt. of India; 1999. tems Engineering 2002;81(1):3–34.
S.M. Pingale et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83 (2014) 176–189 189

RUIDP. Ajmer City investment plan. Final Report to Asian Development Bank (ADB). Wang S, Huang GH. Interactive two-stage stochastic fuzzy programming
Prepared by Louis Berger International Inc., for Govt. of Rajasthan; 1998. for water resources management. Journal of Environmental Management
Senge PM. The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. New 2011;92:1986–95.
York: Dell Publishing Group Inc; 1994. WaterSmart 2006. Draft Supply Demand Strategy for Melbourne 2006–2055. Pub-
Shao LG, Qin XS, Xu Y. A conditional value-at-risk based inexact water allocation lished by WaterSmart; April 2006.
model. Water Resources Management 2011;25(9):2125–45. White SB, Fane SA. Designing cost effective water demand management programs
Sharma SP. Multistage modelling and conjunctive management of water resources in Australia. Water Science and Technology 2005;76(6–7):225–32.
in a canal command. India: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Wigmosta BMS, Burges SJ. Proposed model for evaluating urban hydrologic
Technology Kanpur; 1987 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). change. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 1990;116(6):
Solecki DW, Oliveri C. Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use 742–63.
change model. Journal of Environmental Management 2004;72:105–15. Witter VJ, Bogardi JJ. Optimal integrated water management: a quantitative
Strack JE Sr, Steyaert RAP, Knox LTRG. Sensitivity of June near-surface temperatures approach. In: International conference on environmentally sound water
and precipitation in the eastern United States to historical land cover changes resources utilization, held at Bangkok, Thailand, from 8 to 11 November; 1993.
since European settlement. Water Resources Research 2008;44(W11401)., p. 1–9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006546. Wolf L, Hötzl H. Different levels and examples of integrated concepts in water
Syaukt S, Fox GC. Conjunctive surface and ground water management in the resources management. In: Paper presented at international conference on
Jakarta region of Indonesia. Journal of the American Water Resource Association hydrology and watershed management (ICHWAM-2006). Centre for Water
2004;40(1):241–50. Resources, Institute of Science & Technology; 2006.
Taleb A, Maher F. Impacts of global climate change scenarios on water supply and Wurbs RA, Muttiah RS, Felden F. Incorporation of climate change in water availability
demand in Jordan. Water International 2000;25(3):457–63. modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 2005:375–85.
Tjallingii SP. Strategies in urban water design. In: Preprints of the international sym- Yang Y, Lin X, Zhou L, Kalin RM. Sustainable ground water management under
posium on hydrological processes and water management in urban areas; April impacts of urban growth in a developing country—a case study in the
24–29, 1988. p. 791–802. city of Shijadran, China. Environmental Management and Health 1999;10(1):
Tozer CR, Kiem AS, Verdon-Kidd DC. On the uncertainties associated with using grid- 18–27.
ded rainfall data as a proxy for observed. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Young RA, Bredehoeft JD. Digital computer simulation for solving management prob-
2012;16:1481–99. lem of conjunctive groundwater and surface water systems. Water Resource
Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R. Hydrological modelling of a small Research, The American Geophysical Union 1972;8(3):533–56.
watershed using generated rainfall in the soil and water assessment tool model. Yu W, Haimes YY. Multilevel optimisation for conjunctive use of groundwater and
Hydrological Processes 2004;18:1811–21. surface water. Water Resources Research 1974;10(4):625–36.
Vedula S. Optimal irrigation planning in river basin development: the case study Zarghami M, Akbariyeh S. System dynamics modeling for complex urban water
of upper Cauvery Basin. In: Chaturvedi MC, Rogers P, editors. Water resources systems: application to the city of Tabriz, Iran. Resources, Conservation and
system planning: some case studies for India. Bangalore, India: Indian Academy Recycling 2012;60:99–106.
of Sciences; 1985. p. 223–52. Zarghami M, Hajykazemian H. Urban water resources planning by using a modified
Wang S, Huang GH. An interval-parameter two-stage stochastic fuzzy program with particle swarm optimization algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
type-2 membership functions: an application to water resources management. 2013;70:1–8.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2013;27:1493–506. Zuidema FC. Aspects of water resources planning and management in the urban-
Wang S, Huang GH. Identifying optimal water resources allocation strategies ization process. In: Laconte P, Haimes YY, editors. Water resources land-use
through an interactive multi-stage stochastic fuzzy programming approach. planning: a systems approach. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1982. p.
Water Resource Management 2012;26:2015–38. 297–340.