Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I.1 Introduction
There is a universal reverence to water in almost all of the major religions of the
world. Most religious beliefs involve some ceremonial use of "holy" water. The purity of such
water, the belief in its known historical and unknown mythological origins, and the
inaccessibility of remote sources, elevate its importance even further. In India, the water of
the river Ganga is treated with such reverence.
The river Ganga occupies a unique position in the cultural ethos of India. Legend
says that the river has descended from Heaven on earth as a result of the long and arduous
prayers of King Bhagirathi for the salvation of his deceased ancestors. From times
immemorial, the Ganga has been India's river of faith, devotion and worship. Millions of
Hindus accept its water as sacred. Even today, people carry treasured Ganga water all over
India and abroad because it is "holy" water and known for its "curative" properties
However, the river is not just a legend, it is also a life-support system for the people of
India. It is important because:
• The densely populated Ganga basin is inhabited by 37 per cent of India's population.
• The entire Ganga basin system effectively drains eight states of India.
• About 47 per cent of the total irrigated area in India is located in the Ganga basin alone.
• It has been a major source of navigation and communication since ancient times.
• The Indo-Gangetic plain has witnessed the blossoming of India's great creative talent.
I.2 The Ganga river
The Ganga rises on the southern slopes of the Himalayan ranges (Figure I.2.1) from
the Gangotri glacier at 4,000 m above mean sea level. It flows swiftly for 250 km in the
mountains, descending steeply to an elevation of 288 m above mean sea level. In the
Himalayan region the Bhagirathi is joined by the tributaries Alaknanda and Mandakini to
form the Ganga. After entering the plains at Hardiwar, it winds its way to the Bay of Bengal,
covering 2,500 km through the provinces of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal (Figure
I.2). In the plains it is joined by Ramganga, Yamuna, Sai, Gomti, Ghaghara, Sone, Gandak,
Kosi and Damodar along with many other smaller rivers.The purity of the water depends on
the velocity and the dilution capacity of the river. A large part of the flow of the Ganga is
abstracted for irrigation just as it enters the plains at Hardiwar. From there it flows as a trickle
for a few hundred kilometres until Allahabad, from where it is recharged by its tributaries.
The Ganga receives over 60 per cent of its discharge from its tributaries. The contribution of
most of the tributaries to the pollution load is small, except from the Gomti, Damador and
Yamuna rivers, for which separate action programmes have already started under Phase II
of "The National Rivers Conservation Plan". The Ganga river carries the highest silt load of
any river in the world and the deposition of this material in the delta region results in the
largest river delta in the world (400 km from north to south and 320 km from east to west).
The rich mangrove forests of the Gangetic delta contain very rare and valuable species of
plants and animals and are unparalleled among many forest ecosystems.
Figure I.1 Location map of India showing the Ganga river
Figure I.2 Map of India showing the route of the Ganga river
I.2.1 Exploitation Of Ganga River
In the recent past, due to rapid progress in communications and commerce, there has
been a swift increase in the urban areas along the river Ganga, As a result the river is no
longer only a source of water but is also a channel, receiving and transporting urban
wastes away from the towns. Today, one third of the country's urban population lives in
the towns of the Ganga basin. Out of the 2,300 towns in the country, 692 are located in
this basin, and of these, 100 are located along the river bank itself.
The belief the Ganga river is "holy" has not, however, prevented over-use, abuse and
pollution of the river.
All the towns along its length contribute to the pollution load. It has
been assessed that more than 80 per cent of the total pollution load (in terms of organic
pollution expressed as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) arises from domestic
sources, i.e. from the settlements along the river course. Due to over-abstraction of
water for irrigation in the upper regions of the river, the dry weather flow has been
reduced to a trickle. Rampant deforestation in the last few decades, resulting in topsoil
erosion in the catchment area, has increased silt deposits which, in turn, raise the river
bed and lead to devastating floods in the rainy season and stagnant flow in the dry
season. Along the main river course there are 25 towns with a population of more than
100,000 and about another 23 towns with populations above 50,000. In addition there
are 50 smaller towns with populations above 20,000. There are also about 100 identified
major industries located directly on the river, of which 68 are considered as grossly polluting.
The principal sources of pollution of the Ganga river can be characterised as follows:
• Domestic and industrial wastes. It has been estimated that about 1.4 × 106 m3 d-1 of
domestic wastewater and 0.26 ×106 m3d-1 of industrial sewage are going into the river.
• Solid garbage thrown directly into the river.
• Non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off containing residues of harmful
pesticides and fertilisers.
• Animal carcasses and half-burned and unburned human corpses thrown into the river.
• Defecation on the banks by the low-income people.
• Mass bathing and ritualistic practices.
The execution of the works and the subsequent operation and management (O&M) were
the responsibility of the state governments, under the supervision of the GPD. The GPD
was to remain in place until the GAP was completed. The plan was formally launched on
14 June 1986. The main thrust was to intercept and divert the wastes from urban
settlements away from the river. Treatment and economical use of waste, as a means of
assisting resource recovery, were made an integral part of the plan.
It was realised that comprehensive co-ordinated research would have to be conducted
on the following aspects of Ganga:
• The sources and nature of the pollution.
• A more rational plan for the use of the resources of the Ganga for agriculture, animal
husbandry, fisheries, forests, etc.
• The demographic, cultural and human settlements on the banks of the river.
• The possible revival of the inland water transport facilities of the Ganga, together with
the tributaries and distributaries.
The GAP was only the first step in river water quality management. Its mandate was
limited to quick and effective, but sustainable, interventions to contain the damage. The
studies carried out by the CPCB in 1981-82 revealed that pollution of the Ganga was
increasing but had not assumed serious proportions, except at certain main towns on the
river such as industrial Kanpur and Calcutta on the Hoogly, together with a few other
towns. This strategy was adopted forurgent implementation during the first phase of the plan
under which only 25 townsidentified on the main river were to be included. The studies had
revealed that:
• 75 per cent of the pollution load was from untreated municipal sewage.
• 88 per cent of the municipal sewage was from the 25 Class I towns on the main river.
• Only a few of these cities had sewage treatment facilities (these were very inadequate
and were often not functional).
• All the industries accounted for only 25 per cent of the total pollution (in some areas,
such as Calcutta and Kanpur, the industrial waste was very toxic and hard to treat).
Objective of GAP
The objectives of the GAP were broad: to abate pollution and improve water quality, to
conserve biodiversity and develop an integrated river basin management approach, to
conduct comprehensive research to further these objectives, and to gain experience for
implementing similar river clean up programs in other polluted rivers in India. A plan of
action was developed in order to achieve these objectives, those actions that addressed
the major, direct causes of pollution in the Ganga were identified as “core sector”
schemes, and those that address indirect sources or sources deemed to be direct but of
a lower impact were called “non-core sector”. Core sector schemes included the
interception and diversion of domestic wastewater including the construction and
rehabilitation of sewers and pump houses, while non-core sector schemes consisted of
the installation of crematoria, river front development and aesthetic improvement,
implementation of low cost sanitation systems, and miscellaneous activities such as
water quality monitoring, research programmes, and identification and management of
waste from grossly polluting industries.
At the time of launching, the main objective of GAP was to improve the water quality of
Ganga to acceptable standards by preventing the pollution load reaching the river.
However, as decided in a meeting of the Monitoring Committee in June 1987 under the
Chairmanship of Prof MG K Menon, then Member, Planning Commission, the objective
of GAP was recast as restoring the river water quality to the 'Bathing Class' standard
which is as follows:
The multi-pronged objectives were to improve the water quality, as an immediate shortterm
measure, by controlling municipal and industrial wastes. The long-term objectives
were to improve the environmental conditions along the river by suitably reducing all the
polluting influences at source. These included not only the creation of waste treatment
facilities but also invoking remedial legislation to control such non-point sources as
agricultural run-off containing residues of fertilisers and pesticides, which are harmful for
the aquatic flora and fauna. Prior to the creation of the GAP, the responsibilities for
pollution of the river were not clearly demarcated between the various government
agencies. The pollutants reaching the Ganga from most point sources did not mix well in
the river, due to the sluggish water currents, and as a result such pollution often lingered
along the embankments where people bathed and took water for domestic use.
Expansion of domestic
4 sewerage system 274. 955 Jal Sansthan
Electric crematoria at
2 Shuklaganj & Bhagwatdaghat 78.09 Nagar Nigam
Technology
One of the achievements of GAP is in terms of the development of appropriate
technologies of sewage treatment as Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB),
improved oxidation ponds, sewage treatment through plantation, aquaculture using duck
weeds and pisciculture etc. These technologies are cost effective in terms of operation &
maintenance (O&M) and as such will reduce the burden on the State Governments on
this account. These developments will facilitate to make GAP and future programs
sustainable. The per mld costs for capital and O&M and land requirement for different
technologies used under GAP are given below:
Statement showing per mld land requirement, capital costs and o & m expenditure
under different treatment technologies
Source: Status paper on the river action plans Feb 1999, MOE&F
In view of the experience gained under GAP I, the choice of technologies for sewage
treatment, a need was felt to undertake research for optimizing low cost technologies of
sewage treatment that are less energy intensive, do not require skilled manpower and
provide rich resource recovery. Field scale experiments were carried out for
standardizing the aquaculture, technology using duckweeds and fish culture. With the
success of the basic study, trials of the technology are being conducted for different
agro-climatic situations.
While the conventional sewage treatment technologies adopted for GAP such as
Activated Sludge process reduce the level of BOD and suspended solids to desired
levels, there’s only an incidental reduction in the bacterial load in the treated sewage.
This sewage when discharged into the river, adds to the bacterial counts in the river
water. In order to find a most economically viable technology for control of bacterial
pollution, research on different technologies such as Ultra violet radiation, Gamma
radiation, chlorination and biological alternatives using zooplankton were initiated.
Now only waste stabilization pond technology, which is eco – friendly and simple to
operate, will be mainly supported to treat wastewater. This decision marks a decisive
shift from the past. The earlier technologies adopted were power intensive and capital
intensive, technologically more complicated and difficult to operate and maintain. The
waste stabilization ponds in contrast can be constructed and maintained by the local
community and are not power dependent. The waste stabilization pond technology is
recognized to be the only cost effective technology, capable of killing pathogens to make
the levels of microbial pollution in treated waste water safe for agriculture, acqua –
culture and bathing. Land is the primary requirement for waste stabilization pond
technology. The procurement of land should be arranged speedily by the State
Governments so that additional projects can be executed without any delay. A
committee of experts which examined the technology options in case sufficient land was
not available for adoption of waste stabilization pond technology also recommended that
a thorough search followed by a public hearing must be ensured to locate sufficient land.
In extreme cases where land is not available then conventional technologies followed by
maturation ponds could be considered. But achievement of standards is in no way to be
compromised. Since, river water is extensively used in our country for bathing, this shift
in technology with a focus on reducing microbial pollution makes the approach people
friendly and relevant for health.
Domestic waste
The major problem of pollution from domestic municipal sewage (1.34 × 106 m3 d-1)
arising from the 25 selected towns was handled directly by financing the creation of
facilities for interception, diversion and treatment of the wastewater, and also by
preventing the other city wastes from entering the river. Out of the 1.34 × 106 m3 d-1 of
sewage assessed to be generated, 0.873 × 106 m3 d-1 was intercepted by laying 370 km
of trunk sewers with 129 pumping stations as part of 88 sub-projects. The laying of
sewers and the renovation of old sewerage was restricted only to that required to trap
the existing surface drains flowing into the river. Facilities for solid waste collection using
mechanised equipment and sanitary landfill, low-cost toilet complexes (2,760
complexes), partly-subsidised individual pour flush toilets (48,000), 28 electric
crematoriums for human corpses, and 35 schemes of river front development for safer
ritualistic bathing, were also included. A total of 261 such projects were carried out in the
25 towns. The programme also included 35 modern sewage treatment plants. The
activities of the various sub-projects can be summarised as follows:
Industrial waste
For monitoring and control of pollution from industry, 68 grossly polluting industries
located on the banks of Ganga and responsible for about 80% of the total industrial
pollution were identified in 1985. These industries have been monitored rigorously. At
the time of launching GAP, only 14 units were equipped with proper effluent treatment
plants (ETPs). In June 1995, 55 units of these had set up the ETPs and 12 units had
been closed down permanently with the remaining one unit having changed the
technology and thereby not needing an ETP. Currently, ETPs in 45 units are operating
satisfactorily and 23 units have been closed down. According to fresh surveys for grossly
polluting industries, in addition to the 68 units already identified, another 119 units have
been listed for monitoring purposes. Of these, 37 units are complying with the discharge
standards, 9 units have been closed down and action has been initiated against the
remaining 73 units under the Environmental Laws. The enforcement of the water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Environment Protection Act against the
defaulting industrial units is being done by the CPCB and the SPCBs. The NRCD plays
a supervisory role over the SPCB with regard to the control of industrial pollution in the
river included under the NRCP.
GANGA ACTION PLAN PHASE-1
The Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India had
identified 34 industries in UP under Ganga Action Plan Phase1 in 1985-86. The status of
Pollution Control System installed in the industries is as following:-
The Central Pollution Control Board has identified another list of 83 industries located in
UP which are discharging their effluent directly into River Ganga in addition to the 34
industries identified under Ganga Action Plan I.
The latest status of effluent treatment plant in these 83 industries is as following :-
Applied research
The Action Plan stressed the importance of applied research projects and many
universities and reputable organisations were supported with grants for projects carrying
out studies and observations which would have a direct bearing on the Action Plan.
Some of the prominent subjects were PC-based software modelling, sewage-fed
pisciculture, conservation of fish in upper river reaches, bioconservation in Bihar,
monitoring of pesticides, using treated sewage for irrigation, and rehabilitation of turtles.
Some of the ongoing research projects include land application of untreated sewage for
tree plantations, aquaculture for sewage treatment, disinfection of treated sewage by
ultra violet radiation, and disinfection of treated sewage by Gamma radiation. Expert
advice is constantly sought by involving regional universities in project formulation and
as consultants to the implementing agencies to keep them in touch with the latest
technologies. Eight research projects have been completed and 17 are ongoing. All the
presently available research results are being consolidated for easy access by creation
of a data base by the Indian National Scientific Documentation Centre (INSDOC).
Public participation
The pollution of the river, although classified as environmental, was the direct outcome
of a deeper social problem emerging from long-term public indifference, diffidence and
apathy, and a lack of public awareness, education and social values, and above all from
poverty.
In recognition of the necessity of the involvement of the people for the sustainability and
success of the Action Plan, due importance was given to generating awareness through
intensive publicity campaigns using the press and electronic media, audio visual
approaches, leaflets and hoardings, as well as organising public programmes for
spreading the message effectively. In spite of full financial support from the project, and
in spite of a heavy involvement of about 39 well known NGOs to organise these activities,
the programme had only limited public impact and even received some criticism. Other
similar awareness-generating programmes involving school children from many schools
in the project towns were received with greater enthusiasm. These efforts to induce a
change in social behaviour are meandering sluggishly like the Ganga itself.
Ecology
To restore the ecological health and biological wealth of the river, projects on biomonitoring
and bio-conservation by having indicator species approach were initiated in
the Himalayan segment, mahaseer followed by otters and crocodiles from Hardwar to
Kanpur, major carps from Kanpur to Varanasi and dolphins in the stretch of Bihar have
been identified as indicator species for these studies. Scientists of Hemvati Nandan
Bahuguna University, Garhwal, Jivaji University, Gwalior, Central Inland Capture
Fisheries research Institute, Barrackpur and Patna University are involved in carrying out
the bio-monitoring and bio-conservation studies.
Faliures of GAP
Dapka drain discharging raw sewage into Ganga. This is a failure of GAP I. Instead
of reaching the treatment plant, the raw sewage is finding its way to river Ganga.
Perhaps the trunk sewer is broken and clogged.
Another drain at Dapka ghat discharging raw sewage and tannery effluent into
river Ganga. This is a failure of GAP I.
Role of Municipalities
The pollution of rivers and the existence of unsanitary conditions in large towns is on
several accounts. River Action Plans can be considered as one of the several inputs that
are needed to keep the towns and rivers clean. Other inputs like management and
handling of garbage and slums, regular operation & maintenance of sewerage systems
and provision of adequate number of toilets for the masses to minimise the practice of
open defecation, minimisation of use of rivers for cattle wallowing etc. are the primary
responsibilities of the respective local self-governments. Unless, concurrent measures
are taken to address all these issues, full benefits of the river Action Plans cannot be
realised.
Delay in completion
Initially it was expected that the program would be completed in 6-7 years. However, it
has been delayed considerably due to following reasons:
Being the first program of its kind and magnitude, there was lack of experience
both at the central and the state levels.
There were inordinate delays in land acquisition for major schemes of sewage
treatment and pumping stations. The ministry has been taking up these matters
at appropriate levels in the State Government on a regular basis. All these
problems have since been resolved.
Litigations and court cases resulted in considerable delays.
Two sites of major projects were under encroachment for a long period.
The schemes of some of the sewage treatment plants had to be tendered several
times. There were contractual problems also.
Externally aided components were delayed considerably due to initial formalities
between the governments.
Diversion of funds by State Governments resulted in delayed release of central
funds.
Limitations
Notwithstanding the delay in completion of the program, the implementation of pollution
abatement schemes has been by and large satisfactory. However, certain major
limitations have surfaced which are as given below:
States particularly Bihar and UP are unable to provide timely and adequate funds
for O&M of assets created under GAP.
In Bihar, O&M has been grossly inadequate. The State Government has neither
been able to provide funds nor the required power on a continuous basis for
O&M of assets like STPs, pumping stations, crematoria etc. Thus, the operation
of nearly all the assets has practically come to a halt.
O&M of conveying sewers and intermediate pumping stations has been grossly
neglected in UP. As a result, despite the facilities being available, raw sewage is
still finding its way into the river at several places.
Erratic and poor availability of power for operating the pumping stations, STPs
and crematoria is a major bottleneck in UP. Although, for such installations
dedicated power supply had been provided for, this has not been adhered to by
UPSEB. As a result, in the event of power failures, raw sewage finds its way into
the river and the treatment plants are adversely affected.
O&M of facilities like toilets and bathing ghats has been neglected in general by
the local bodies. Local bodies have also failed in discharging other civic functions
in GAP towns.
The stretch of the river from Farrukhabad to Varanasi in general and Kanpur in
particular is very critical in terms of the availability of the minimum flow in the
river. At Kanpur, the pollution load from both the municipal as well as industrial
sources is significantly large and the dilution capacity of the river is severely
limited. As a result, the desired improvement in the river water quality has not
been achieved at Kanpur.
It has been possible to minimize the organic pollution (which is indicated by
BOD) reaching the river through the GAP. However, there has been only
incidental reduction in the microbial pollution (which is indicated by the coliform
counts). The present methods available to treat the microbial pollution are either
hazardous to human health or cost intensive. Research projects have been
commissioned to develop indigenous and appropriate cost effective technology.
However, disposal of treated/untreated sewage only partly contributes towards
the microbial pollution of the river. A large amount of this pollution is contributed
by such activities as open defecation, cattle wallowing, mass bathing, garbage
and carcass dumping. Such sources of pollution are difficult to tackle.
The acceptance of electric crematoria has been slow in UP and Bihar. Due to
non-availability of power and funds, these facilities are virtually defunct in UP and
Bihar.
GAP victims, adverse health impacts of GAP due to direct exposure to toxic
irrigation water and consumption of contaminated groundwater.
Status of GAP
As of today GAP has totally come to a stand still and almost all the assets are in
shambles. Four tannery wastewater pumping stations do function, but are often
overloaded, and when power is out in Kanpur (on an average up to 8 hours a day,
sometimes 14 hours a day), the DG sets, provided to meet the power failure, run on a
continuous basis but this is a very costly affair. This does not seem to be practical and
feasible in the long run. The sewage treatment plants at Jajmau are facing a power
shortage of an hour on an average daily basis. In addition, the 36 MLD UASB plant is
functional with an efficiency of removing only 50% of BOD, COD and suspended matter,
largely due to the fact that the order that tanneries remove the chromium from their
waste stream before discharging into the conveyance system was not enforced, and the
presence of the toxic heavy metals in the effluent rendered the use of biological
treatment methods ineffective.
Sisamau drain discharging roughly 150 MLD of raw sewage into Ganga. This drain
was not tapped under GAP I, is proposed to be tapped under GAP II.
On the other hand, under GAP II approximately Rs. 65 crore have been invested in
Kanpur. The IPS are still incomplete and standing like white elephants while the
procurement of land for 200 MLD treatment plant has been completed.
Sisamau drain discharging roughly 150 MLD of raw sewage into Ganga. This drain
was not tapped under GAP I, is proposed to be tapped under GAP II.
As of today, the total domestic wastewater generation in Kanpur is roughly 387 MLD.
Arrangements were made to intercept and divert 162 MLD of sewage to treatment plants
created under GAP I.
Roughly 95 MLD out of 387 MLD raw sewage is reaching the treatment plants, rest is
being by-passed into the river. All the existing sewage drains are carrying raw sewage
directly to the river Ganga and 4 drains carry the remaining sewage to River Pandu
which ultimately meets River Ganga (25 km downstream).
As of today, roughly 15 MLD tannery effluent is generated from 400 odd tanneries in
Jajmau area of Kanpur. Half of the tannery wastewater goes to the river through 4 drains
without any treatment.
Under GAP I, a separate conveyance system and 4 Intermediate Pumping Stations were
set up to collect and pump 9 MLD of tannery wastewater to 36 MLD CETP meant for
treating the tannery effluent. The number of tanneries has gone up from roughly 175 in
1985 to roughly 400, and also the quantity of wastewater from 9 MLD to 15 MLD.
Ganga Today
The Ganga today is more polluted than when the Ganga Action Plan was first initiated
by the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. The fast shrinking glaciers, dams,
barrages, canals and alarmingly high volume of pollution pose an ever increasing threat
to the health and life of the river. The state of Uttar Pradesh alone is responsible for over
50% of the pollutants entering the river along its entire journey to the sea.
There is very little flow during the dry weather. Ganga Barrage was commissioned
in 2005. Ganga is allowed to enter Kanpur through just one gate during the lean
period.
Since the launching of GAP, things have gone downhill in a big way in Kanpur.
The amount of filth along and in the river still continues unabated. Polybags are tossed
in publicly and casually; piles of refuse tumble down slopes to the river edge. The river is
still the private garbage dump of industries and individuals alike. During the lean period,
the river is so shallow that one can walk through the black muddy waters of the river.
The river is littered with human corpses and animal carcasses throughout its course and
the sight is truly offensive, repulsive, irritating, and disgusting and the oily blue-black
stench of tannery waste is unbearable. These are utmost insults to the holiness of the
river and any idea of purity.
A drain carrying raw tannery effluent to the river at Buriha ghat.
Today there are more than 50 drains carrying raw sewage to the river Ganga and
Yamuna at Allahabad while there were only 13 drains before GAP was launched in
1986. Every Magh mela, Ardha-kumbha, and Kumbha, sadhus and saints protest in
large numbers against the river pollution and boycott the ritual bathings.
Nowhere in Varanasi the Ganga is worth taking a holy dip. The coliform and faecal
coliform count is exceedingly high in the river water. The 84 bathing ghats are
sandwiched between two tributaries, Assi and Varuna, which are now huge sewage
drains.
The important question is: “Do we plan to clean river Ganga which is bereft of
water?” No decision has been taken till date on this crucial issue by NRCA. Who
else, if not the NRCA, can take a decision on such an important issue?
There should be a proper compilation, documentation and assessment of the
Agenda Notes for the NRCA (earlier CGA) meetings. It would be worthwhile to
study the minutes/proceedings of the NRCA meetings.
Recommendations
A white Paper on the status of Ganga and GAP.
A compliance status report of Ganga related court cases.
The agenda notes of the NRCA should be documented and assessed.
R&D projects should be assessed for their relevance and usefulness.
Water quality monitoring system needs to be revamped.