a framework for determining and establishing the factors
TRANSCRIPT
A Framework for Determining and Establishing the Factors
that affect Wastewater Treatment and Recycling
Mekala Gayathri Devi
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Resource Management and Geography
University of Melbourne
Parkville
July 2009
ii
iii
Abstract
In this study an assessment of the factors that influence the degree to which a city or
community would undertake wastewater treatment and use the output for various
purposes is investigated. In assessing these issues two contrasting case studies of
wastewater treatment and recycling are studied namely Hyderabad, India
(representing a developing country context) and Melbourne, Australia (representing a
developed country context). An improved understanding of both these wastewater
systems, across different economic and social contexts was found and placed within
a single decision making framework.
An underlying assumption in the study was the belief that treatment of wastewater is
undertaken in a manner that accords with the norms and standards of the society
within which it is undertaken. So, currently in Hyderabad this assumption means the
indirect treatment through wastewater reuse in agricultural sector. In Melbourne it
means just enough treatment to meet the environmental standards of the country for
safe disposal. In this study of interest are the improvements that would be made from
these two initial starting positions.
It is often asserted that the level of economic development of a region influences the
extent to which wastewater treatment is undertaken by a city. This is consistent with
the concepts and ideas embodied in the Environmental Kuznets Curve analysis. In
this research it was hypothesized that in addition to the economic development of a
region, four key factors have a significant impact on wastewater management of a
city/region/community. These factors are: the extent of water scarcity, the
institutional settings in the region and how they perform, the absolute and relative
costs of wastewater treatment and the use and the perceptions of the community in
question, has on its environmental priorities. It is these four factors that are
investigated in this study.
A portfolio of methods is used to establish these four additional factors in the two
contrasting case study sites. The water scarcity of a region is established by the gap
iv
between supply and demand for water in the city. Institutional decomposition and
analytical framework was used to understand and evaluate the institutional situation
in each case study. Primary and secondary data sources were used to determine the
absolute and relative costs of wastewater treatment and recycling. Finally, contingent
valuation techniques were used to determine the willingness to pay for the
wastewater services and determine the environmental concerns and priorities of the
respondents. The findings from these approaches were compared to previous studies
and empirical evidence that did not evaluate the case studies in a holistic and
comprehensive manner.
The key findings and conclusions of the study are that the presence of physical water
scarcity motivated policy makers to promote wastewater treatment and recycling
irrespective of at what stage of development the country is in. Further, it was found
that poor institutional performance of wastewater systems in developing country
situation constraints wastewater treatment, whereas in case of developed country
context, the institutions and regulatory framework for wastewater treatment are very
strong. In developed countries all wastewater is collected and treated, however the
problems related to recycled water pricing, salinity in agriculture and the issue of the
overall acceptability of new wastewater recycling schemes still exists and need to be
resolved. In addition, the absolute cost of wastewater treatment and its relative cost
compared to other sources of water were found to be a significant constraint in the
treatment of wastewater in a developing country context, but the protection of the
environment was found to be less important. On the other hand, in a developed
country, cost was a constraint to wastewater recycling, but that the environmental
factors overrode them.
A decision analysis tree was constructed for the two case studies. This analysis relied
on calculating the net value generated by wastewater when used in each sector and
the probabilities of each option occurring. Then the current situation and future
plans of the water boards of the respective cities were observed jointly. This tool was
developed to aid policy makers planning the future development of their respective
wastewater systems.
v
Declaration
This is to certify that
i. The thesis comprises of only my original work towards the PhD,
ii. Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used,
iii. The thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps,
bibliographies and appendices.
Signature
Mekala Gayathri Devi
vi
vii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Brian Davidson from the
Department of Resource Management. Brian has been a tremendous help at all stages
of this research. He has always been ready for a discussion, suggestions and positive
feedback on the work from time to time. Without his continuous encouragement and
professional support, this research would have been very difficult.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my co-supervisors, Dr. Anne-Maree Boland from R M
Consulting Group and Dr Madar Samad from International Water Management
Institute. Anne-Maree had promptly agreed to be my industry supervisor and
provided professional advice, contacts and latest information on the topic of my
research which was very helpful in timely completion of this research. Samad had
been a tremendous support to my Indian component of research through his timely
input, encouragement and feedback on my work.
This doctoral research would not have been possible without the funding from
Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures (CRC IF) and International Water
Management Institute (IWMI). I wholeheartedly thank Dr Hector Malano and Dr
Biju George from University of Melbourne, Dr Frank Rijsberman, Dr Pay Drechsel
and Dr Madar Samad from IWMI who had believed in my ability to do doctoral
research and strongly encouraged me to apply for these scholarships. I‘m also very
grateful to David Van Eyck from IWMI office and Kelvin Montagu of CRC IF.
David had been extremely supportive and promptly responded to all my scholarship
payment requirements on behalf of IWMI. Kelvin provided prompt and timely
support in all matters related to my research publications and kept me informed of
the latest training and other support from CRC IF.
I wish to thank Dr Madar Samad, Ms Navanita, Ms Judith and Ms Aparna from
IWMI for accommodating me in the IWMI office and for all the administrative and
moral support during my field work in Hyderabad. It has been a very rewarding
experience.
viii
I sincerely thank the Managing Director of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and
Sewerage Board, Mr Jawahar Reddy for his approval to gather data from his office
related to my research. I‘m very thankful to officials from Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Melbourne
Water, Yarra Valley Water, Southern Rural Water, TopAq and Biolytix for providing
data and information crucial for this research.
I‘m extremely grateful to all my respondent households who were interviewed for
my contingent valuation survey. I would like to thank Farhath Anwar, Suman Darsi
and Anil Kumar who have been a great help in completing the contingent valuation
survey successfully and in time in Hyderabad.
I would also like to give a special thanks to Dr Stephanie Buechler, Dr Christopher
Scott, Dr Herath Manthrithilake, Ranjitha Puskur, Jetske Bouma, and Roja Rani from
IWMI with whom I have worked for four years and who have been a constant source
of learning and inspiration to me.
Finally, I thank my family and especially my husband Kranthi who has been
extremely patient and supportive during the entire period of my research.
ix
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Declaration iv
Acknowledgements v
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xiii
A note on units xiv
Chapter 1 Introductory Remarks 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 A Conceptual Framework 4
1.2.1 Definitions 4
1.2.2 The physical process of wastewater 5
1.2.3 Wastewater and economic development 6
1.2.4 Issues of interest 7
1.3 Objectives 9
1.4 Outline of the Study 10
Chapter 2 Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Recycling 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Wastewater Generation 13
2.3 Wastewater Treatment 14
2.4 Wastewater Reuse 16
2.5 Economic Characteristics of Wastewater Recycling 18
2.5.1 Costs of reusing and recycling wastewater 18
2.5.2 Pricing recycled water 19
2.6 Research Gaps 20
2.6.1 Economic questions 21
2.6.2 Social questions 22
2.6.3 Other areas of concern 23
2.6.4 The way ahead 23
2.7 Summary 24
Chapter 3 Theory 27
3.1 Introduction 27
3.2 Water Markets and Potential of Wastewater 27
3.3 Explaining water quality 28
3.4 Assessing the Costs of Treatment 31
3.5 Externalities 34
3.6 Environmental Kuznets Curves 35
3.6.1 Limitations of EKC 38
3.6.2 Role of EKC in the current study 40
3.7 Summary 41
Chapter 4 Methods 43
4.1 Introduction 43
x
4.2 Water Scarcity 43
4.3 Institutional Factors 45
4.4 Cost Constraints and Environmental Considerations 49
4.4.1 Assessment of costs 50
4.4.2 Contingent valuation 50
4.5 Decision Analysis Approach 54
4.6 Data 56
4.7 Study Regions 57
4.7.1 Hyderabad case study 57
4.7.2 Melbourne case study 60
4.8 Summary 62
Chapter 5 Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Recycling in India
and Australia
65
5.1 Introduction 65
5.2 Wastewater Use in India 65
5.2.1 Wastewater volumes in India 65
5.2.2 Wastewater reuse 67
5.2.3 Implications of wastewater reuse 69
5.2.4 Urban water pricing of wastewater 70
5.3 Wastewater Recycling in Australia 75
5.3.1 Population and water use in Australia 75
5.3.2 The urban water balance sheet 77
5.3.3 Current wastewater recycling in Australia 79
5.3.4 The quality of wastewater in Australia 80
5.3.5 Policy on wastewater recycling 81
5.3.6 Wastewater pricing 82
5.3.7 Costs of recycling 82
5.4 Environmental Kuznets Curves and the wastewater sector 87
5.4.1 Indian wastewater sector 87
5.4.2 Domestic product and per capita income of Hyderabad 92
5.4.3 Australian wastewater sector 93
5.4.4 Domestic product and per capita income of Melbourne 94
5.5 Summary 95
Chapter 6 Water Scarcity 97
6.1 Introduction 97
6.2 Hyderabad Case Study 97
6.2.1 Sources of water for the city and supply scenario 97
6.2.2 Population growth and water demand 101
6.2.3 Demand-supply gap 103
6.2.4 Strategies to reduce the gap: role of wastewater 103
6.2.5 Conclusions 106
6.3 Melbourne Case Study 106
6.3.1 Sources of water for the city and supply scenario 106
6.3.2 Population growth and water demand 112
6.3.3 Demand-supply gap 113
6.3.4 Strategies to reduce demand-supply gap: role of 114
xi
wastewater and other sources
6.3.5 Conclusions 115
6.4 Summary 116
Chapter 7 Institutional Analysis 117
7.1 Introduction 117
7.2 Hyderabad 117
7.2.1 Rules and rules-in-use analysis 117
7.2.2 National wastewater initiatives for Hyderabad 125
7.2.3 Wastewater administration in Hyderabad 128
7.2.4 Performance of the wastewater authorities 130
7.2.5 Exogenous influence on institutional performance 140
7.2.6 The influence of other organizations 143
7.2.7 Discussion 145
7.3 Melbourne 146
7.3.1 Administrative framework 147
7.3.2 Regulatory and legislative framework 149
7.3.3 Wastewater pricing 153
7.3.4 Our Water Our Future – the Government‘s water plan 155
7.3.5 Matching vision with the administrative ability 159
7.4 Summary 160
Chapter 8 Economic and Environmental Considerations 161
8.1 Introduction 161
8.2 Hyderabad 162
8.2.1 Cost considerations 162
8.2.2 Contingent valuation 165
8.3 Melbourne 180
8.3.1 The costs of substituting, saving and complementing
potable water supplies
182
8.3.2 Reduce nutrient discharge into Port Philip Bay 184
8.3.3 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 186
8.3.4 Other possible objectives for recycling 190
8.3.5 Acceptability and willingness to use and pay for recycled
water and its products
193
8.4 Summary 205
Chapter 9 Decision Analysis: A Decision Support Tool for
Wastewater Treatment and Recycling
209
9.1 Introduction 209
9.2 Decision Analysis in a Developing Country -The case of
Hyderabad
210
9.3 Decision Analysis in a Developed Country -The case of
Melbourne
213
9.4 Constructing the Analysis and Populating the Model 216
9.5 Choosing the Best Alternative 223
9.5.1 The analysis 223
9.5.2 Results and conclusions of the analysis 228
xii
9.6 Summary 232
Chapter 10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Work 235
10.1 Main Findings and Conclusions 238
10.2 Limitations 239
10.3 Recommendations for Further Research 240
References 243
Appendices
Appendix I Questionnaire for the contingent valuation survey 277
Appendix II Wastewater recycling projects in different sectors 289
Appendix III Per capita GDP and population growth for India and
Australia
294
Appendix IV Quantity of water drawn from different sources for
Hyderabad (1980-2005)
299
Appendix V Quality of Water in River Musi 300
Appendix VI Administrative structure and financial health of
HMWSSB
302
Appendix VII Citizens Charter of HMWSSB 305
Appendix VIII Projects of HMWSSB 311
Appendix IX Discussion quoted from the paper by Davis and Tanka.
2005
313
Appendix X Role of other organisations in wastewater management
of Hyderabad
315
Appendix XI Wastewater Recycling Projects in Melbourne 318
xiii
List of Tables
3.1 Water pollution and income 37
3.2 Selected econometric studies on EKC studies in the water-
sector
38
5.1 Projected population and water consumption in Australia‘s
major cities
76
5.2 The urban water balance sheet for Australian capital cities 78
5.3 Effluent produced and portion recycled in Australia 2009 79
5.4 Classes of reclaimed water and range of uses 81
5.5 Comparison of the costs of some recycled water scheme 86
5.6 Environmental Kuznets Curves and indicators of water
pollution in India
88
5.7 Per capita income of households – Metropolitan Hyderabad 92
5.8 Gross State Product per capita, current prices for Victoria and
Australia
94
6.1 Sources and storage of water for Hyderabad as on 07 July 2009 98
6.2 Influence of water restrictions on system demand 109
6.3 Snapshot of supply-demand of water for Melbourne 109
7.1 Water quality criterion for designated use 123
7.2 Location and capacities of the proposed Sewerage Treatment
Plants
127
7.3 Additional infrastructure necessary for wastewater 131
7.4 Water Audit Matrix 133
7.5 Volume and level of wastewater treatment for Melbourne
(2007-08)
147
7.6 Price charged as per ESC approval 153
7.7 Key capital expenditure on Melbourne water ($A million) 154
7.8 Volume of wastewater recycled by different sectors. 2007-08 157
8.1 Cost of treatment and amount that each household needs to pay 163
8.2 Status of funds spent for the Abatement of Pollution of River
Musi project
163
8.3 Operation and maintenance cost of each STP 163
8.4 Resource recovery plans for STPs 164
8.5 No. of respondents with different education levels 168
8.6 Age groups of the respondents 168
8.7 Number of respondents and their perceived importance levels
for protection of environment
169
8.8 Sources of water pollution and respondents ranking 170
8.9 Reasons for river pollution and respondents ranking 172
8.10 Willingness to Pay for treatment of wastewater 172
8.11 Willingness to Pay for treatment of wastewater to various levels 174
8.12 Results of the Logistic Regression analysis 175
8.13 Consumer surplus and demand curves 177
8.14 Alternate water supply options for Melbourne 183
8.15 Summary of pollutant loads from Melbourne 2007-08 185
8.16 Energy consumption and emissions from different levels of 187
xiv
treatment
8.17 Multiple objectives and cost of achieving them for Melbourne 191
8.18 Would the cost of treated wastewater affect your decision to use
it?
194
8.19 Acceptability of different uses of treated wastewater 195
8.20 Mean agreement/disagreement with each statement 197
8.21 Reasons for intention to buy vegetables from Werribee 199
8.22 Reasons for being unsure about intention to buy vegetables
from Werribee
200
8.23 Reasons for no intention to buy vegetables from Werribee 200
8.24 Benefit of the scheme to Melbourne 201
8.25 Perceived benefits to Melbourne 201
9.1 Value generated by water in each sector 216
9.2 Cost of treatment and approximations on percentage value
reduced
218
9.3 Cost of desalinated water to several cities 220
9.4 Cost of wastewater delivery to customer by different water
companies
221
9.5 Net value generated for each sector in Hyderabad 225
9.6 Net value generated for each sector in Melbourne 226
9.7 Net value of wastewater use in different sectors for Hyderabad 230
9.8 Net value of wastewater use in different sectors for Melbourne 231
xv
List of Figures
1.1 Outline of the research framework applied 11
2.1 Growth in urban water supply coverage by regions of the world 14
2.2 Stages in wastewater treatment 15
2.3 Application of marginal social benefits to allocate water 22
3.1 Water markets: demand and supply curves 28
3.2 Deriving quality grades 30
3.3 The costs of treating water 33
3.4 Externalities 35
3.5 Environment Kuznets Curve 36
4.1 Steps in decision analysis 55
4.2 Musi River catchment area in the Hyderabad city 59
4.3 Hyderabad city with surrounding Municipalities and catchment area 60
4.4 Melbourne Water recycling schemes 62
4.5 Research Framework with methods used for research 63
5.1 Average price charged by water boards to urban domestic consumers 71
5.2 Average price charged by water boards to urban domestic consumers 72
5.3 Water use in Australia 76
5.4 Urban water consumption in Australia (per cent of total consumption) 77
5.5 Cost relative to alternatives as an impediment to use recycled water 84
5.6 Impediments to supply – suppliers only 84
5.7 Impediments to use recycled water – all respondents 85
5.8 Environment Kuznets Curve for water pollution due to wastewater
production
89
5.9 Compound annual growth rate of India 89
5.10 Growing incomes in the past two decades 91
5.11 Gross District Product per capita (2000-01) 93
5.12 Real median household income (2006 $A) of Melbourne and Australia 94
6.1 Water sources for Hyderabad 99
6.2 Contribution of different water sources to total urban water supply 100
6.3 Population growth rates and per capita water availability for
Hyderabad
102
6.4 Hyderabad Urban Water Supply-Demand Patterns 104
6.5 Different combinations of scenarios analysed 105
6.6 Sources of Melbourne‘s water supply system 107
6.7 Annual Inflows to Melbourne‘s Main Harvesting Reservoirs 110
6.8 Water System Storage Levels 1997 to 2008 111
6.9 Melbourne‘s water consumption from 1891-2008 112
6.10 Water supply and demand for Melbourne 114
7.1 HMWSSB revenue from customers 135
7.2 Water regulatory framework 150
8.1 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level C and
Consumer surplus
177
8.2 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level B and
Consumer surplus
178
8.3 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level A and 178
xvi
Consumer surplus
8.4 Framework for effective allocation of wastewater 181
8.5 GHG emissions water and sewerage services for Melbourne (2007-08) 189
9.1 Decision analysis tree 215
9.2 Decision analysis tree with values generated in each sector per KL of
water used
217
9.3 Areas with tankering facilities of recycled water and bore water in
Melbourne
222
9.4 Decision analysis tree for Hyderabad and Melbourne with Expected
Value for each option
227
10.1 Research framework for wastewater treatment and recycling 237
List of Boxes
5.1 Receipts for water bill payments from Melbourne and Hyderabad 74
7.1 National water policy 126
7.2 Water legislation in Victoria 151
A Note on Units
All the units used in this study are from the Metric System. The units used for
volume of water are Kilo Litres (1KL = 1000 litres), Mega Litres (1ML = 1,000KL =
1,000,000 litres) and Giga Litres (1GL = 1,000ML = 1000,000,000 litres) and if it is
not specifically mentioned that it is per day or per month or per year, it should be
taken as a stock value.
Three main currencies used in the study are: Indian Rupees (Rs.), Australian Dollars
($A) and United States Dollars ($US). The value of each currency is as per the
current prices and exchange rates of the time period or year mentioned. $US values
are mainly used for currency values used in the Environmental Kuznets Curves.
All other units are cited in the text.
1
Chapter 1
Introductory Remarks
1.1 Introduction
Using wastewater for irrigation is a common practice in many developing countries
in Asia and Africa and also in water scarce regions of the developed world, including
Australia. In India, due to high treatment costs, wastewater is used either raw or only
partially treated mainly for irrigation of crops. In Australia, on the other hand, treated
wastewater is recycled for use in agriculture, industry, amenity irrigation1 and for
non-potable residential purposes. In spite of the ill effects of untreated wastewater on
human health and the environment, the practice of using it continues in India, as it is
a highly reliable source of moisture and is nutrient rich. In India wastewater provides
year round income, employment and food security to the urban and peri-urban poor.
Alternatively, in Australia water recycling is promoted as a complement to existing
water resources and as a technique to reduce nutrient disposal into natural water
bodies. While the problems associated with wastewater reuse in India arise from its
lack of treatment, in Australia often recycling projects are not undertaken because it
is unpopular (the ―yuck factor‖), costs more than other supplies of water, has higher
salinity levels than normal river water and there is a lack of information and trust in
water authorities administering the recycling projects.
Wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse are complex issues involving great costs
that can have a profound impact on the regions in which they are employed, be they
wealthy or poor. Much is yet to be understood and researched in this field. A number
of research gaps have been identified (see Chapter 2) and include the need to:
identify the opportunities and constraints to recycling;
establish the conditions required for wastewater markets to function
efficiently;
1 Amenity irrigation includes irrigation of parks, golf courses, sports fields and race courses
.
2
test the commercial feasibility for wastewater treatment and recycling,
pricing and supply mechanisms in comparison to other options that
complement existing water resources for urban areas;
establish a uniform approach to assess the feasibility of treating and recycling
wastewater that is flexible enough to be employed in individual countries
with different requirements that can suit local circumstances of affordability
and risk; and
provide a decision support tool for the efficient allocation of wastewater
resources among different sectors considering stakeholder objectives and
priorities for wastewater recycling.
With these deficiencies in mind, the objective in this study is to examine the factors
that constrain wastewater treatment and recycling over a broad spectrum of economic
settings and stages of development. In doing this, the aim is to highlight to policy
makers the changing nature of economic, institutional and environmental factors that
will influence long term investments in wastewater infrastructure and to provide
them with a decision support tool that can assist in planning long term outcomes.
Given that countries develop and grow richer over time, there is a need to establish
whether the degree to which wastewater is treated is a function of the economic
development in the place in which it is undertaken. Further, in a ‗developing‘ country
context there is a need to understand the institutional constraints to wastewater
treatment and to assess the demand and supply for treated wastewater, as averse to
not treating it at all. In a ‗developed‘ country context the needs are different. The aim
is to determine the key objectives of recycling treated water and to find ways of
allocating this water among different sectors. With issues of damaging climate
change and urban population growth, there is a concomitant demand for water from
competing sectors. Wastewater treatment and recycling has the potential to become
an important strategy to complement the existing water resources in both developing
and developed countries. In undertaking this research there are lessons, experiences,
data and tools which can be shared for mutual benefit. An aim in this research is to
3
reveal these benefits and the constraints that prevent countries from fully utilizing
this resource.
In examining the potential for and constraints on wastewater utilisation two
contrasting case studies are examined. First, a case of untreated wastewater reuse in
Hyderabad, India is examined. Second, treated wastewater recycling in Melbourne,
Australia is examined. In Hyderabad wastewater is collected but only partially and
ineffectually treated through formal sewerage treatment plants. In Melbourne
wastewater is collected, treated and to a limited extent recycled. These two case
studies occur in cities of a similar size and facing problems with wastewater, but are
at different stages of economic development. It is suspected that one day the less
developed city (Hyderabad) will face the problems of the more developed one
(Melbourne) and in doing so will need to build upon its existing wastewater
infrastructure. In addition to that, as the more developed city grows, it also needs to
build on its existing wastewater infrastructure to enhance the well being and desires
of its residents. The point is that collecting, treating and recycling wastewater is an
ongoing process that needs to be well planned over many years and many different
stages of development. Understanding the benefits and constraints facing policy
makers over this long journey is essential if planning is to be effective.
To this end an objective in this research is to establish a decision support tool that
can be used to evaluate the degree to which wastewater recycling can be conducted
in both a developed and developing country context. The key outputs of the decision
support tool would provide policy makers with the ability to develop strategies that
allow for realistic cost sharing amongst participants in a developing country context
and for the cost effective allocation of wastewater among different sectors to achieve
the desired objectives in a developed country context. This decision support tool
could be used over time to assist in the retrieval and use of wastewater as a city or
region‘s economy develops.
4
1.2 A Conceptual Framework
Wastewater and its treatment reuse and recycling are concepts that have been used in
many unusual ways over time and in different regions. There is a degree of
complexity involved in the process of taking water from the initial point when it
becomes a waste product through to the point where it is either used or discarded,
that defies definition. Despite these difficulties, the purpose in this Section is to
define the processes surrounding wastewater collection, treatment, reuse and
recycling. In doing so, an outcome of this process is to provide a conceptual
framework by which both this research can be undertaken and the whole practice of
wastewater planning and development can be viewed.
1.2.1 Definitions
The Collins English Dictionary (Hanks et al. 1979, 1636) has 23 different definitions
of waste, including to ―… expend thoughtlessly, carelessly or to no avail … to fail to
take advantage of … to lose bodily strength … to ravage … a failure to take
advantage of … anything unused … rejected as useless, worthless or in excess of
what is required … garbage, rubbish or trash …‖. Physiologically a waste product is
―… the useless products of metabolism … indigestible food products …‖. The
Collins English Dictionary (Hanks, et.al. 1979, 1637) on the very next page has 27
different definitions of water, including ―a clear, colourless tasteless, odourless liquid
that is essential for plant and animal life‖ It would appear that waste and water are
the complete antithesis of one another. It is little wonder that there is no definition of
‗wastewater‘ in the Collins English Dictionary.
In this study ‗wastewater‘ is defined as all the sewage water that comes from the
residential bathrooms, kitchen sinks, washing machines and toilets and the industrial
effluents that are released into the common sewerage network of a city. Wastewater
‗treatment‘ is any process that changes the effluent from its spoiled state towards
something that is less spoiled. Treatment is usually delineated into its sequential
biophysical process‘ of primary, secondary and tertiary, where primary is at the
lowest level. Wastewater ‗reuse‘ can be defined as the use of wastewater with either
5
no treatment or that that is only subject to primary treatment. This is a common
practice in developing countries of Asia and Africa. Wastewater ‗recycling‘ is
defined at the use of wastewater after secondary or tertiary treatment. Recycled water
is becoming of interest and is increasingly used in the more developed countries of
Europe, North America and Australia.
1.2.2 The physical processes of wastewater
One way of approaching wastewater is to think about the physical pathway through
which it is generated, collected, treated and distributed. These are activities
associated with wastewater which are common components for all the countries and
regions, irrespective of their economic status. However, the emphasis policy makers
place on individual phases of this pathway, it could be argued, depends on the level
of development in any region. As regions become more developed they concentrate
on factors further down the sequential pathway, building on the infrastructure of
previous phases of development.
The research conducted in this study is based on this pathway and an assessment of
the factors that cause and constrain movements from one stage in the pathway to
another. The detailed elements involved in each stage in the pathway are:
1. Wastewater generation: With increasing urbanization and changing life
styles associated with economic growth, wastewater generated in urban areas
(already a large problem) continues to grow over time. As cities are the
centres of political and economic power, their water needs usually receive a
higher priority over other users, but are subject to physical and economic
scarcity constraints. Increases in urban water supply ensure increased
wastewater generation. The depleted fraction of domestic and residential
water use is typically only 15-25%, and the reminder returns to wastewater.
In other words, for every kilolitre of water consumed 750 to 850 litres of
wastewater is generated (Scott et al. 2004).
2. Wastewater collection: Most cities in the developing world are only
partially sewered, resulting in substantial volumes of wastewater (including
6
toilet wastes) finding their way into surface water networks within cities. On
an average only 28 per cent of the population in large cities in the developing
world is sewered, whereas more than 90 per cent of the population in
developed countries is sewered (WHO and UNICEF. 2000). So as economic
growth continues and cities become wealthier, more wastewater is collected
through centralised networks and to central points of discharge.
3. Wastewater treatment: The sewage network is used to bring wastewater to
the treatment plant. It can then be treated to primary, secondary or tertiary
levels before it is discharged for further use or returned to a natural water
body. Wastewater treatment is an expensive process, both in terms of the land
required and the energy consumed. In Asia 35 per cent of the total sewered
wastewater undergoes treatment to secondary level, almost no sewage is
treated in Africa and more than 65 per cent is treated in developed countries
(WHO and UNICEF, 2000). Consequently, it could be argued that as
economic growth reaches higher levels, the collected wastewater is treated to
a greater degree, involving more expensive techniques and processes.
4. Wastewater discharge/reuse/recycling: In most developing countries,
wastewater receives little or no treatment and is discharged into a river or
lake from which farmers divert it into the fields to grow different crops. In the
developed world this disposal of untreated wastewater rarely occurs, yet it
should be noted that all wastewater, be it treated or not, must be discharged
somewhere into the water cycle. In many wealthy developed countries,
wastewater is being recycled in a number of sectors other than agriculture for
various reasons, but only after suitable treatment and guidelines in place for
recycling.
1.2.3 Wastewater and economic development
The premise underlying the research presented in this study is that the wastewater
requirements of a region are dependent on the level of development of the societies
within which they operate. The underlying assumption is that the degree of economic
development of a region is a good indicator of the needs for different aspects of
7
wastewater treatment and recycling. While the correctness of this assumption can be
tested through a review of the literature (see Chapter 2 and 5), it should be noted that
these premises are a generalization. There are cases in the developing world where
wastewater is well handled and reused, while cases of the complete failure of the
sewerage system in developed countries also exist. This argument is consistent with
the argument embodied in the concepts of the Environmental Kuznets Curve [EKC].
The concept of the EKC is used to explain how the economic development of a
region influences its wastewater management. The per capita GDP of the developing
countries, like India where wastewater treatment is not undertaken, has not yet
reached the turning point on the EKC , whereas in countries like Australia whose per
capita GDP has crossed the turning point a long time ago treats 100% of its
wastewater to appropriate levels and in fact goes one step further and recycles it.
According to one particular research by TERI, the per capita GDP of India would
cross the turning point by 2011 and this is when it is expected that all urban
wastewater generated would be treated to the appropriate levels before disposal or
recycled. However, the current research points out and proves that the key factors in
addition to the increase in per capita GDP of the country, which have a significant
role in wastewater management and will drive wastewater treatment and recycling
are – extent of water scarcity of the region; institutional performance and ability to
absorb the externalities; cost of treatment and recycling; and environmental concerns.
While different countries at different stages of economic development have their
specific needs and strategies for wastewater management, the central problem at
hand remains the same: How to handle the generation, collection, treatment and
discharge of wastewater in a large urban setting.
1.2.4 Issues of interest
The issues addressed in this study are what motivates and constrains cities from
dealing with their wastewater problems. It is quite clear that from a physical stand
point the problem remains the same, but from an economic perspective the way it is
handled changes. The factors that link this physical problem to its changing
8
development phase are complex, interrelated and wide ranging. In this study four
possible factors affecting how wastewater is handled and perceived are investigated.
They are the:
Degree of water scarcity facing a city, where one would expect that
regardless of the state of economic development, the motivation for handling
wastewater is water scarcity. In a developing country context it would be an
absolute shortage of water and in a developed country a relative shortage.
Institutional arrangements regulating wastewater. In a developing country one
might expect that the institutional arrangements for wastewater are not well
established and in a developed country they are quite mature.
Cost constraints, could well be impeding both developed and developing
countries, but in the developed world it centres on discharge problems,
whereas in the developing world it is at the collection and treatment stages.
Environmental considerations become more important as countries develop.
One could well imagine that the environment is not high on the agenda of
countries struggling to alleviate poverty in cities, whereas it is to the
developed world.
These four factors were chosen because they provide an all encompassing
perspective of the wastewater problem facing policy makers. The physical problems
of fresh water supply and wastewater generation are encompassed in the water
scarcity dimensions. The processes involved in managing a public good with external
ramifications are captured in the institutional arrangements. The purely financial
aspects of running wastewater schemes are captured when cost constraints are
investigated. Finally, the ultimate problems of dealing with a waste product are
accounted for in the environmental considerations and these to a degree are related to
the cost constraints.
If policy makers in both the countries are to come to terms with what to do with
wastewater over a lengthy period of time, they will require tools that can help them
assess the nature and the scope of the problem. There is no reason to believe that the
tools that are required at one stage would be those required at another stage. These
9
tools could be (and are) based on the rational economic principles that trade off the
benefits against the costs, over a long period of time. Finally, there is a need to
illustrate and apply these tools in different settings for which the case studies of
Melbourne, Australia (for developed country setting) and Hyderabad, India (for
developing country setting) have been undertaken.
1.3 Objectives
The original contribution pursued in this study is to provide a comprehensive and
contained review of the wastewater management system, one that changes as
economic development changes and one that can be used by those who need to plan
for the future of the system. This research builds from the framework presented
above on how the system operates to gain an integrated holistic view of the system.
In developing this framework there is a need to combine the different strands of
information that are usually used in a singular manner to make decisions on
wastewater management and to fill in the gaps that exist in that framework. These
single strands within the system relate to the degree of water scarcity, the
institutional setting, the cost constrains and the concerns for the environment. Then,
in turn, this holistic framework becomes the tool that policy makers can use to plan
future developments of the system. In order to demonstrate this system, two different
case studies of wastewater treatment and reuse systems (in Melbourne Australia and
Hyderabad, India) are utilised.
Given that presumably cities are moving from a low stage of development to a higher
one (i.e. that they are developing) this study provides policy makers with additional
ways of thinking about wastewater treatment and reuse needs that will govern their
future needs.
:
The key objectives investigated in this study are
to what extent water scarcity in the region and solutions to that problem will
drive improvements in wastewater treatment and its use;
10
does the institutional setting of a region and/or the urban setting responsible for
wastewater management determine the extent of wastewater treatment, reuse and
recycling;
what are the different costs involved in wastewater management that constraint or
facilitate its collection and treatment in developing countries and its recycling in
developed countries; and
to what extent is the treatment and safe recycling of wastewater driven by
environmental considerations in developing and developed countries.
By understanding and prioritizing the objectives of water treatment, reuse and
recycling as suggested by the order presented above, the hope is that policy makers
may improve the way they think about wastewater, tackling the problems associated
with it in a more efficient and comprehensive manner. This study is about holistically
thinking about wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling over the long-term and
through various phases of economic development.
1.4 Outline of the Study
Figure 1.1 presents the brief research framework used for the current research.
Pursuing the objectives detailed in Section 1.3, following tasks are required. In the
first instance, to identify the research gaps and to establish the belief that the degree
to which economic development determines the degree of wastewater recycling. This
is conceptually explained by the Environmental Kuznets Curves and supported by
per capita GDP data and an extensive review of the literature (a task undertaken in
Chapters 2 and 5). In addition to Chapter 2, given the nature of this study, literature
is reviewed at various points throughout the thesis where it is relevant. Then the
theoretical foundations of this study are developed in Chapter 3. The methods and
approaches taken to assessing the degree of water scarcity, the institutions analysis,
cost constraints and the environmental concerns are presented in Chapter 4. In this
Chapter details of the case study sites (Hyderabad and Melbourne) are also
presented. Chapter 5 presents the differences that occur with respect to wastewater
treatment, reuse and recycling in developed and developing country contexts and the
11
extent of their economic development indicated by their per capita GDP. Then
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are dedicated towards presenting the results of the assessments of
water scarcity, the institutional analysis, the cost constraints facing policy makers
and the reactions to environmental concerns. In Chapter 9 the different strands
associated with resolving problems on how to approach wastewater treatment and
reuse over extended time periods are brought together in a decision making analysis.
Finally, in Chapter 10 the research is summarised, the main conclusions are specified
and recommendations for further work are presented.
Figure 1.1 Outline of the research framework applied
Environmental Kuznets
Curve conceptual theory
Institutional Setting
Cost Constraints
Water Scarcity
Decision Analysis Approach
A tool for resource allocation
Environmental
Considerations
12
13
Chapter 2
Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Recycling
2.1 Introduction
Prior to pursuing the objectives specified in the previous Chapter, it is necessary to
come to terms with the nature and problems associated with handling wastewater.
Wastewater should not be seen as a problem to be handled, but rather it could be an
opportunity worth exploiting. In this Chapter the literature produced on wastewater
reuse and recycling are reviewed with the ultimate aim of identifying the gaps that
may exist in this field of knowledge. In keeping with the nature of this study the
generalized elements researched on wastewater reuse and recycling are divided along
the lines outlined in the conceptual framework (presented in the previous Chapter).
To that end much of the literature presented above first on the developing country
situation and then on developed countries. In the previous Chapter the stages that
wastewater progresses through (generation, collection, treatment and reuse) were
outlined. In this Chapter detail of the research undertaken on wastewater generation
and use are presented. In addition, elements of wastewater quality and the economic
considerations are presented. It should be noted that much of the discussion
presented below concentrates on the agricultural use of wastewater, as that is where
most of it is destined.
2.2 Wastewater Generation
The use of treated, partially treated and untreated urban wastewater in agriculture has
been a common practice for centuries in developing countries and is now receiving
renewed attention due to rapid urbanization. By 2015, it is estimated that 88 per cent
of the one billion-person growth in the global population will reside in cities; with
the vast majority of this growth in population occurring in developing countries
(UNDP 1998). An increase in urban water supply required to service this population
(see Figure 2.1) ensures an increase in wastewater generation.
14
Figure 2.1 Growth in urban water supply coverage by regions of the world
Source: Scott et al. 2004: 3
The growth in wastewater generation can be calculated from what is known as the
‗depleted fraction of domestic and residential water use‘, which is only in the order
of 15 to 25 per cent (Scott et al. 2004: 2). The increases in urban water supply
coverage have been and will continue to be the highest in Asia followed by Africa,
where absolute population figures as well as population growth are the highest.
2.3 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater, if treated appropriately, has the potential to be recycled in a number of
sectors, but its use depends on its quality. As the treatment quality of wastewater
goes up, the costs and the risks of use decrease. It should be noted that certain uses of
water improve the quality of wastewater, notably its use in agriculture.
Wastewater is treated to three sequential levels, – primary, secondary and tertiary
levels (see Figure 2.2). According to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA.
2003), they are:
15
1. Primary treatment involves sedimentation (sometimes preceded by screening
and grit removal) to remove gross and some settled solids. The remaining settled
solids, referred to as sludge, are removed and treated separately.
2. Secondary treatment level removes 85% of Biological Oxygen Demand and
suspended solids via biological or chemical treatment processes. Secondary
treated reclaimed water usually has a Biological Oxygen Demand of less than 20
mg/L and suspended solids of less than 30 mg/L, but this may increase to more
than 100 mg/L due to algal solids in lagoon systems.
3. Tertiary treatment reclaims water beyond the secondary biological stage. This
implies removal of a high percentage of suspended solids and/or nutrients,
followed by disinfection. It may include processes such as coagulation,
flocculation and filtration.
Figure 2.2 Stages in wastewater treatment
Source: EPA. 2003
16
2.4 Wastewater Reuse
Whether wastewater reuse or recycling will be appropriate in a given situation
depends on the availability of additional water resources, a desire or necessity to
conserve rather than develop water resources, economic considerations, potential
uses for the recycled water, its quality, the strategy of waste discharge and public
policies that may override economic and public health considerations or perceptions
(Mantovani et al. 2001).
Wastewater reuse is a common practice in developing countries of Asia and Africa
and wastewater recycling is common in water scarce regions of the developed
countries such as the Australia, Middle East, south west of United States and in
regions with severe restrictions on disposal of treated wastewater effluents, such as
Florida, coastal or inland areas of France and Italy, and densely populated European
countries such as England and Germany (Marsalek et al. 2002). Even in high rainfall
countries like Japan, whose mean annual precipitation is 1,714 mm, urban
wastewater reuse is common due to high population density in some regions, which
suffer from water shortages (Ogoshi et al. 2001). The developed countries have
generated techniques and guidelines for safe reuse of wastewater, which can be
adopted by the developing countries. After reviewing many overseas recycling
projects, Radcliffe (2004) concluded that worldwide, water reuse is becoming an
increasingly common component of water resource planning, as the costs of
wastewater disposal rise and opportunities for conventional water supply
development dwindle.
Wastewater is a resource that could be of increased national and global importance,
particularly in urban and peri-urban agriculture. The growing wastewater volumes
could provide a cheap and reliable alternative to fresh water used in conventional
irrigation systems. Hussain et al. (2001: 31) suggests that currently at least 20 million
ha in 50 countries are irrigated with raw or partially treated wastewater.
17
To date, assessments of wastewater used to irrigate crops have been carried out in
Pakistan, India, Vietnam, China, Mexico and Jordan. In Pakistan, Ensink et al.
(2004: 1-10) estimated that there were 32,500 ha irrigated directly with wastewater.
Strauss and Blumenthal (1990) found that 73,000 ha were irrigated with wastewater
in India. In Vietnam, at least 9,000 ha of land in and around the cities were found to
be irrigated with wastewater mostly to grow rice or aquaculture (Raschid-Sally et al.
2004: 81). In Ghana, Agodzo et al. (2003) estimated that if only 10 per cent of the
280 GL of wastewater from urban Ghana could be (treated and) used for irrigation,
the total area that could be irrigated with wastewater alone could be up to 4,600 ha.
Mara and Cairncross (1989:129) estimated that 1.3 million ha were irrigated with
wastewater in China. Scott et al. (2000:12) has estimated that in Mexico,
approximately 500,000 ha of land is under wastewater irrigation. Hussain et al.
(2001:31) reported that at least 20 million ha in 50 countries are irrigated with raw or
partially treated wastewater.
There are many ill effects of using untreated or partially treated wastewater for
irrigation. The concerns include groundwater pollution, soil contamination, reduction
in the quality and quantity of the yield and the adverse effect on the health of both
farmers and consumers of wastewater products. In spite of these facts, wastewater is
widely used as it supports livelihoods and generates considerable value in urban and
peri-urban agriculture. In many countries of the developing world, farmers use
wastewater out of necessity. Thus, it is a reality that cannot be denied or effectively
banned (Buechler et al. 2002). Highly specialized farmers make use of wastewater,
utilising every free space with access to water cultivate cash crops and sometimes
mixing fresh groundwater with wastewater. Although their plots are often small,
irrigation (including with effluents, no matter what level of treatment, if any), allows
these farmers to escape from poverty (Drechsel et al. 2002).
The continuous nature of its production and availability combined with the low
access costs and lack of alternate sources of irrigation water are the rationale farmers
have for using wastewater to produce crops.
18
2.5 Economic Characteristics of Wastewater
Recycling
Economics is the study of choice. It is the study of limited resources and unlimited
wants. Implied in these definitions is that either the supply of a good is limited and/or
the demand is not satisfied. Either way (and it is usually both restricted supply and
unrestricted demand) means that consumers need to make choices, chose the quantity
of the good required and what they are willing to pay for it. It could be argued that
wastewater is an economic good in developing countries (like India), but may not be
one in Australia yet. In India people are choosing to use wastewater and may not
have to pay for it, but do accept the costs in the form of health risks and lower yields.
In Australia the supply of wastewater far outstrips demand. People are not willing
(except in selected areas) to use it and if so are not willing to be identified as users.
However, with emerging technologies, the scarcity of freshwater and changing
perceptions, wastewater may emerge as a valuable resource. According to Muir
(2006), wastewater will become scarce over time, either from increased use or from
reduced discharge into sewers. Therefore, Muir argues that authorities need to avoid
―locking in‖ low value uses for recycled water and need to take a long-run view and
develop mechanisms for allocating the good efficiently.
2.5.1 Costs of reusing and recycling wastewater
A number of cost factors influence wastewater use. These include the location of the
treatment systems, the barriers to entry and the externalities, centralized wastewater
treatment systems, the location of the treatment plants, the availability of space in
and around cities and the topography – all of these factors restrict the use of recycled
wastewater to certain areas and for specific purposes. The high transportation costs
of the wastewater from treatment plants to the point of use may encourage use of
existing infrastructure (like irrigation canals) so that wastewater is increasingly used
in agriculture or on market gardens in the peri-urban areas of the city, rather than in
households or by industry (see Section 9.4 in Chapter 9 for details on the
transportation costs of water).
19
There are substantial barriers to entry in the field of wastewater recycling.
Wastewater is often operated and owned by a single entity, like the Water Board or
sewage treatment plant, which is often the retailer. Also, wastewater recycling often
requires a dual reticulation system that is inefficient to duplicate (Muir 2006).
There are both positive and negative externalities associated with wastewater
recycling. The positive externality is the environmental benefits from reduced
discharge of saline wastewater into natural water bodies. The negative externalities
include potential groundwater pollution and an increase in soil salinity if used for
irrigation and potential unknown ill effects on human health if used for potable uses.
Recycled water could well be subsidized to internalize the value transfer for costs
avoided in building new sources of water.
Recycled water is often more expensive than existing water supplies. For example,
the 2004 prices for potable, surface and sub-surface water in Werribee Plains region
ranged from $A 134 to $A 1,300 per ML (Radcliffe. 2003). Commercial prices for
recycled water from the Western Treatment Plant for the proposed Moorabool
Valley-Sutherlands Creek Scheme in Melbourne are estimated to range from $A
870/ML (peak) to $A 1,150/ML (breakeven) if desalination is required (Radcliffe.
2003).
2.5.2 Pricing recycled water
According to Kularatne et al. (2005: 15), a number of issues need to be considered if
appropriate pricing approach is to be taken and these need to be thought about when
distribution mechanisms for wastewater are being developed. A very low price for
wastewater may encourage inefficient use as was observed at the Rouse Hill
Recycled Water Project in Western Sydney. In another survey of residents living in a
dual reticulation development, Marks et al. (2002) found that the majority of people
expected to pay less for using recycled water, because its quality places restrictions
on people‘s use of this resource. Focus group interviews of some of the residents of
20
Rouse Hill, by Kaercher et al. (2003), further indicated that a lower price was
necessary to encourage acceptance of wastewater and to provide the incentive to
investment as the up-front costs are high. On the other hand, if the price is set too
close to the price of potable water, uncertain users will tend to use potable water for
all purposes, ‗just to be on the safe side‘. It needs to be noted that agriculture alone is
unlikely to support the level of funding required to make large-scale recycled water
schemes viable. The cost of water has been shown to be 5-10% of the gross margin
for horticultural crops. In a grower‘s decision making, the security of water is
considered to be more of an issue than the cost. Gagliardo (2003) further asserted the
need to show potential economic advantages in recycled water to encourage
industrial use.
Radcliffe (2003) argues that the costs and pricing mechanisms for wastewater are not
transparent, as the true cost of irrigation, potable and recycled water is not reflected
in the current prices. Radcliffe (2003) demonstrated considerable disparity in the
pricing of water in a number of recycling schemes, ranging from $A700/ML to
$A830/ML. This is compared to estimates of the true cost of reclaimed water that
ranged from $A1,450/ML to $A3,000/ML. Radcliffe (2003) attributed these
significant differences to the cost and source of capital not generally accounted for,
environmental externalities frequently not being costed and the desire for higher
profitability. According to Muir (2006), price for recycled water should be set at the
long-run marginal costs of supply for appropriate decisions on existing stand-alone
schemes and the comparison of different proposals can be made.
2.6 Research Gaps
The focus of most wastewater related research has, to date, has been on the technical
aspects and related issues of improvements in water quality and in minimizing the
environmental and health impacts. Little information has been produced on
wastewater recycling from a social perspective and a number of issues persist with
respect to the economics of wastewater. In particular, the costs and beneficial
outcomes have been imprecisely quantified (DSE 2005). The key issues that are yet
21
to be looked at from an economic perspective in wastewater recycling relate to the
ways of allocating it efficiently.
2.6.1 Economic questions
Pricing wastewater is challenging and may vary from region to region depending on
the variability of both supply and demand. For a ‗fair‘ pricing policy, some further
questions need to be researched. How should the pricing systems be structured to
include the cost of treatment and distribution infrastructure of recycled water
schemes and promote uptake (Kularatne et al. 2005: 16)? Would private sector
involvement in recycle schemes improve the commercial viability of recycle
schemes? The basic issue to address is what incentives would improve commercial
viability of large-scale recycle projects and what should the government and water
authorities do to improve the demand signals for recycled water schemes?
There are no clear guidelines on what factors need to be considered when allocating
the recycled water to different sectors, so that overall economic efficiency is
maximized. According to Freebairn (2003: 1) economic efficiency is maximized by
allocating limited water among alternative uses so that marginal social benefits are
equated across the different uses. Formally:
MSBa = MSB b for all a and b
Where: MSB is the marginal social benefit and ‗a‘ and ‗b‘ are the different uses of
water, i.e., irrigated crops, industry, household non-potable use and public
recreational areas like parks (see Figure 2.3).
22
Figure 2.3 Application of marginal social benefits to allocate water.
2.6.2 Social questions
Po et al. (2004) point out the obvious lack of social research in understanding the
basis of public perceptions of water use and the psychological factors governing their
decision making processes. They identified the following areas that require further
research, including an:
understanding of strategies used by people to make judgements about their
decisions to accept or reject using recycled water;
identification of factors influencing people‘s risk perceptions in using recycled
water;
investigation of the role of trust in the authorities and the limits in scientific
knowledge in people‘s decision making processes, to either accept or reject using
recycled water;
examination of the different ways and situations where factors such as health,
environment, treatment, distribution and conservation issues impact on the people‘s
willingness to use recycled water;
assessment of people‘s sensitivity with regard to the disgust emotion (or ―yuck‖
factor) and the probability of avoiding recycled water because of it;
understanding of why different sources and uses of recycled water can influence
the decisions of people to use recycled water;
23
understanding how the perceived economic advantages in using recycled water can
facilitate the decisions of people to use it; and
improved assessments of consumer attitudes towards the environment and
acceptability of produce grown with reclaimed water.
2.6.3 Other areas of concern
Many other issues have been raised with respect to the utilisation of reuse and
recycled water. There is a need for improved understanding of the practice of
wastewater use in agriculture in developing countries and to identify opportunities
and constraints for the adoption of appropriate water quality guidelines (Faruqui et
al. 2004: 173). The conditions required for wastewater markets to function
efficiently, specifically the commercial feasibility for irrigation use of treated versus
un-treated wastewater, pricing and supply mechanisms have been identified by Silva-
Ochoa et al. (2004: 152). The need for a uniform international approach to assess
hazards and risks of wastewater use, while providing flexibility for individual
countries to vary requirements to suit local circumstances of affordability and risk
were identified by Anderson et al. (2001). Hamilton (2005: 204) suggests that
research should be directed towards the potential expansion of wastewater-irrigated
products and their acceptability by consumers. The need for an analysis of recycled
water schemes in relation to the broader regional infrastructure planning was
identified by Kularatne (2005: 26).
2.6.4 The way ahead
A number of issues related to wastewater reuse and recycling are not well understood
and need to be researched. There is a need to identify opportunities and constraints to
wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling and the conditions required for wastewater
markets to function efficiently. In addition, it was found that there is a need for a
uniform international approach to assess the feasibility of handling wastewater from
generation to recycling, while providing flexibility for individual countries to vary
requirements to suit local circumstances of affordability and risk. The existences of
decision support tools to assist policy makers cost and allocate water and wastewater
24
resources among different sectors is also lacking. Further, much of the research
conducted to date would appear to concentrate on individual aspects of the problem
and not on its holistic nature.
With issues of climate change, increases in urban population and increased demand
for water from competing sectors, wastewater reuse and recycling is becoming an
important strategy which policy makers can use to complement the existing water
resources in both developing and developed countries. There are lessons,
experiences, data and technology that can be shared by all for mutual benefit, if the
collection, treatment, reuse and recycling of wastewater is viewed as the complex
and dynamic system that it is.
2.7 Summary
Most work on wastewater has dealt with the need to assess the risks associated with
wastewater reuse and recycling. Yet wastewater use in agriculture has been a
common phenomenon in a number of water scarce developing countries for more
than a century. It has been and is still supporting the livelihoods of a number of urban
and peri-urban farmers. With the growing urban population the volumes of urban
wastewater have dramatically increased. The problem is further complicated with
increased contamination of wastewater with new chemicals (in shampoos, soaps,
pharmaceutical products etc.), with changing lifestyles of people and the addition of
industrial effluents. The environmental and health related problems of the use of
untreated wastewater have been justifiably prominent. Furthermore there is still an
urgent need to address these problems before this untreated wastewater pollutes all
the rivers/natural water bodies. While most of the developed countries have been
able to tackle these problems by appropriate treatment of wastewater and safe
disposal with minimum environmental and health impacts, there are a number of
research gaps which are yet to be researched. Time and again, developing countries
have tried to adopt similar water treatment technologies from the western world and
have failed. There are both social and economic reasons for this failure.
25
It is important to understand the social and economic context of a
society/community/city before a technology like wastewater treatment and use is
implemented. The different aspects to be considered are the level of economic
development of the country, the physical constraints related to water scarcity, the
presence of necessary institutional set-up, perceptions of people regarding water and
environment, education levels, awareness towards the environment and the
willingness and ability to pay to protect their environment. In addition to this, the
political will and favourable exogenous factors indirectly affecting the water sector
are essential to make wastewater a safe asset for people in developing countries. In a
number of water scarce developed countries like USA, UK, Germany and Australia,
wastewater recycling is gaining importance. But they are also facing social and
economic problems, albeit of a different kind to those in developing countries.
Developed countries could well benefit from the various soil, water, crop quality data
of wastewater irrigated areas and wastewater use experienced by farmers in
developing countries and can set their own quality standards.
With issues of climate change, increases in urban population and increased demand
for water from competing sectors, wastewater recycling is becoming an important
strategy to complement the existing water resources for both developing and
developed countries and there are lessons, experiences, data and technology which
can be shared for mutual benefit amongst policy makers in both developed and
developing countries. In the remainder of this study these lessons are highlighted.
They are separated into the water scarcity questions, institutional issues, cost
considerations and environmental concerns. Prior to looking at these, the theory and
methods used to approach these assessments is presented.
26
27
Chapter 3
Theory
3.1 Introduction
Davidson and Malano (2005) put together the microeconomic concepts that explain
the different aspects of water quality. These concepts can be expanded to account for
the tasks associated with wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling. In essence, of
interest are the ideas that the process between wastewater and reuse or recycled water
can be seen in the same terms as a marketing margin, where the cost of treatment is
equivalent to the marketing margin and the supply of wastewater and the demand for
reuse/recycled water are the primary schedules. In addition, tolerances exist in the
grades of reuse or recycled water that allow aggregation of types to be identified.
Furthermore, the question of externalities associated with wastewater need to be
understood as they explain what is occurring in the market. Finally, the process of
wastewater generation, treatment, reuse and recycling discussed in this thesis and its
relationship with economic growth needs to be presented. This final process is
expanded in terms of an Environmental Kuznets Curve. In this Chapter the
theoretical elements of this study are presented.
3.2 Water Markets and Potential of Wastewater
The price of water, just as other commodities, can be determined using the demand
and supply curves (see Figure 3.1). The supply curve (S) and demand curve (D) for
water and their point of intersection provide the quantity of water (Q) that should be
supplied at a market determined price (P) under normal market conditions with no
government intervention (see Figure 3.1). Whenever, there is a scarcity of water due
to higher demand or lower rainfall or when the government decides to conserve
water for future use, it needs to reduce the present supply (say from Q to Q‘).
Accordingly, P‘ is the higher price of water that exists because supply has contracted.
28
Figure 3.1 Water markets: demand and supply curves
To reduce the gap between supply and demand, water boards and communities are
exploring a number of alternate water options to complement the existing urban
water supplies. These include wastewater recycling, rainwater harvesting, storm
water recycling, exploring new groundwater sources, diverting agriculture water to
cities and the construction of new dams. If any or a combination of these sources are
tapped, the supply curve will move towards the right (S‖) and the urban people can
pay a lesser price, P‖. Wastewater if treated to appropriate levels has a huge potential
to complement the existing water sources and bring down the price from P‘ to P‖.
However, the costs of treatment need to be deducted from the benefits to realize the
net profit from recycling.
3.3 Explaining Water Quality
Water quality criteria are based on scientific and technical information that is used as
an objective means of assessing the quality required for a particular use. Each use of
29
water requires a certain set of quality attributes that must be measurable and
quantifiable. This implies that it is possible to specify particular sets of indicators of
quality for each use, and that for each indicators there are particular concentrations
below which adverse effects will not occur, e.g. a threshold level (ANZECC, 1992).
While water quality is a highly dynamic and complex problem, Davidson and
Malano (2005) suggest that that while a range of different qualities of water exists,
each will have a different value to different users, depending on the quality
characteristics of that water. Users can tolerate, up to some maximum, different
impurities in water. Yet, in doing so, they incur increased costs from using water that
was closer to the maximum tolerance than that if it was free of an impurity. The cost
of using increasingly impure water could be measured either by the cost of treating
the water to remove the impurity, or by ascertaining the costs of lost output from
using the impure product.
Freebairn (1967) argued that a set of discounts and premiums result from segregating
a product along quality lines. These premiums and discounts represent the amount a
consumer is willing to pay or forego (respectively) for different qualities of what was
once a homogeneous good. Changes in premiums and discounts over time and space
reflect the different demand and supply for the differentiated product over time and
space.
The issue is that the range of different quality characteristics can be immense.
Furthermore, water quality classifications are defined sometimes in an objective way
(i.e. as parts per million, etc) and at other times more subjectively (i.e. odours,
tastes). Different quality attributes can be typified not only according to type (i.e.
taste, salt, algae, a pollutant, etc), but also within each type, by a multitude of
measures. This leads to a situation in which many quality types must exist for the
product water arising from the potential combination of many different parameters.
Davidson and Malano (2005) suggest a method of simplifying the number of grades
and the price premiums and discounts between them, one which relies on specifying
the tolerances consumers place on what levels of impurities they will accept. Taking
the hypothetical example of salt, they observed the range of prices over a range of
30
different salinity, and suggested that a group of arcs would result (see Figure 3.2).
They suggested the downward sloping nature of the curve resulted from the fact that
the higher the impurity the lower the price paid for the water. Further, they implied
that the inflection points (A and B) were points where tolerances existed which
groups of consumers could not, or were not willing to break. Finally, they suggested
that the convex arcs between the points of tolerance existed because consumers
substitute between the different grades with, mixing and matching different grades of
the product. If the arcs show the degree of substitutability within a category and the
ends of the arcs represent the tolerances, then it should be the case that the prices for
water within an arc move together. Yet, the prices of the water quality categories
from different arcs should move independently of one another. As a consequence, the
premiums and discounts for different quality characteristics of water will vary over
time and space.
Figure 3.2 Deriving quality grades
Source: Davidson and Malano (2005)
0.75 1.875 2.0 3.0 3.0 ECw
P0.75
Pc
P1.875
P2.0
P3.0
Pd
P3.0
A
B
Price of
water
31
By determining whether different water qualities are substitutes or not, Davidson and
Malano argued that instead of assessing the impacts of all types of water quality, all
that was required is an assessment of broad substitutable groups. In other words, only
one quality type within each broadly substitutable category need to be assessed. In
addition, changing supplies within a tolerance group can be assessed, as changes in
the premiums and discounts for each group should reflect this.
3.4 Assessing the Costs of Treatment
Treating wastewater is about transforming one quality category so that it becomes
another, higher quality product. To assess the costs of treating water, changes in
those costs and who pays for it, economists assess the marketing margin between raw
and treated water.
For the ease of explanation, it can be assumed that only two levels exist in the
market. The first is treated water, which is the transformed product and the second is
wastewater, the material which needs to be treated. Such a market has a known
supply schedule for generated wastewater and a known demand scheduled for the
treated water (see Figure 3.3). In other words, the willingness-to-supply wastewater
and the willingness-to-pay for treated water are known and measurable. It should be
noted that the primary supply schedule for wastewater is most possibly perfectly
inelastic (i.e. that it is a line running parallel to the y axis and invariant to changes in
price). What is not measurable are the supply of treated water and the demand for
wastewater. These schedules are known as ―derived‖ curves, as they can be derived
from their primary equivalent supply and demand schedules. The intersection
between the primary demand and derived supply schedules for treated water will
determine the price consumers are willing to pay for the treated water (i.e. PT). The
price for wastewater is determined by the intersection of the primary supply and
derived demand schedules for wastewater (PR). The difference between the two
prices, for treated and untreated water, represents the costs of treating water and all
the activities involved in delivering the product to consumers. This is known as the
―marketing margin‖ for the product (Davidson and Malano 2005).
32
The problem with this approach is that the marketing margin includes more than just
the cost of treatment. It also includes all costs marketing the treated water,
distributing it and the profits of the organisation treating it. However, relaxing the
assumption limiting analysis to just two market levels allows for an assessment of
treatment costs individually from other marketing costs. This analysis can be
extended to include not only a market for the treated water, but also one for reused
untreated water. Alternatively, it could be argued that the total cost of treating water
involves the entire marketing margin, not just part of it. In other words, the costs of
just treating water and the other marketing costs (such as the costs of reticulation) are
one and the same thing.
The effects of a change in treatment costs depend not only on the size of that change,
but also on the own-price and income elasticities of demand for wastewater and its
treated output. This analysis can also be used to assess the effects of price averaging,
a practice that is common in wastewater use (see Chapter 5). Price averaging is the
practice of subsidising the sale of one type of the product from another, say untreated
water users from higher prices charged on treated water users (Parish 1967 and
Griffith, 1973). Even in a market where institutions set prices the magnitude and
distribution of potable and wastewater treatment costs can be measured.
33
Figure 3.3: The costs of treating water
Source: Davidson and Malano (2005)
Quantity of water
S derived
D primary
S primary
D derived
Price
Pt
Pr
Qw
34
3.5 Externalities
Pollution arising from the use or inappropriate disposal of untreated wastewater is
known as a negative externality. Externalities are uncompensated spill-overs. In
other words, they are the impacts of a process that affect other people and yet are not
accounted for in a market. So a negative externality occurs when one user puts a
pollutant into water which has an adverse impact on another user who receives no
compensation for it. However, if the effluent was nitrogen enriched fertilizer that the
downstream users received a benefit from but did not pay the polluter for, then it
would be a case of a positive production induced externality.
A negative production induced externality, the most common case in water, results in
a difference existing between the private cost of producing a product from water, and
the actual (or public) cost of that product (see Figure 3.4). The private supply curve
accounts for all the marketable marginal costs involved in producing the product in
question. The public supply curve includes all the costs involved in the private
supply curve and the costs associated with the water pollutant. The difference
between the two curves is the ―external cost‖ of the externality. This results in the
good produced from water being oversupplied and its market price being too low
(Davidson and Malano 2005). To overcome an externality, the relevant authorities
should either internalise the externality (i.e. impose a tax on either the inputs, outputs
or the pollutant itself) or attempt to establish a market for the pollutant.
35
Figure 3.4 Externalities
Source: Davidson and Malano (2005)
3.6 Environmental Kuznets Curves
With the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) it is hypothesized that a bell-shaped
‗inverted U‘ curve can be used to describe the relationship between society's
economic growth (indicated by the per capita Gross Domestic Product of the
country) and its environmental degradation (see Figure 3.5). According to this
hypothesis, in the initial stages of economic growth, environmental degradation
increases with an increase in per capita GDP. It reaches a peak income level, called
External
cost
S public
S private
D
Ppublic
Pmarket
Qpublic Qmarket
Price of a
good that
produces
pollution
Quantity of a good that produces pollution
36
the ‗turning point income‘ where, as citizens then get progressively richer, the
degradation decreases. This occurs because people demand a cleaner environment
(air and water) once their immediate welfare demands are met.
According to Richmond et al (2007), the reasons for the inverted U-curve are caused
by the:
changing composition of production and/or consumption;
preference for environmental quality increasing once general welfare reaches
some point;
need by institutions to internalize externalities; and/or
increasing returns to scale associated with pollution abatement.
However, this unique shape may not be the case for all types of pollutants.
Furthermore, a number of factors other than per capita income can change the shape
of the EKC. A number of studies on the shape of the curves have been conducted
across different countries and related to many concerns including air pollution,
carbon emissions, water and sanitation, deforestation etc of which those related to
water pollution are presented in Table 3.2.
Figure 3.5 Environmental Kuznets Curve
Per Capita GDP
Turning Point Environmental improvement: As income grows, demand for environmental protection increases, leading to a development path
Environmental decay: Higher incomes initially mean more production and consumption, leading to pollution
Envir
onm
enta
l D
egra
dat
ion
37
There is mixed evidence that supports the contention that the growth and abatement
of water pollution follows a typical EKC. A cross country analysis by Grossman and
Krueger (1995) focusing on river basins shows evidence of an inverted U-shaped
curve for Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, nitrates and some
heavy metals (arsenic and cadmium). Whereas Shafik and Bandopadhyay (1992)
analysed two indicators of river water quality (dissolved oxygen concentration and
faecal coliform) and found that neither followed a typical EKC path. Grossman and
Kruger (1995) found that different pollutants in water had different turning point
incomes (see Tables 3.1). It should be noted that analysts have found an array of
turning point incomes for different countries and for different pollutants (see Table
3.2). The 2003 turning point incomes in the Table 3.2 have been calculated by
Grossman and Kruger based on the current prices from the 1985 turning point
incomes.
Table 3.1 Water pollution and income
Pollutant EKC Turning Point
($US)
1985 2003
Arsenic 4900 8300
Biological Oxygen Demand 7600 12800
Cadmium 5000 8400
Chemical Oxygen Demand 7900 13300
Dissolved Oxygen 2700 4500
Fecal coliform 8000 13500
Nitrates 2000 3400
Lead 10,500 17700
Smoke 6200 10500
Sulfur dioxide 4100 6900
Total coliform 3000 5000
Australia (per capita GDP) 13,742.82 30,110.81
India (per capita GDP) 587.202 1,699.97
Source: Grossman and Krueger (1995)
38
Table 3.2 Selected econometric studies on Environmental Kuznets Curves studies in the water-sector
Name of study Type of analysis Dependent variables Key independent variables Major findings of the study
Shafik and
Bandhopadhya
1992.
Panel regression
for 65 countries
(OLS), from 1966
to 1985.
1. D. Oxygen in river
2. Lack of safe water
3. Fecal col. in river.
Per capita GDP, time, and
institutions, and macro-
economic variables.
1. Income is significant and negative, and EKC has a
monotonously decreasing shape.
2. Income significant, and cubic shaped EKC after TPI of
US$11,000
3. Income term is significant, with an inverted shape EKC
Grossman and
Krugger 1995.
Panel Regression
for 42 countries
from 1979 – 1990
with alternate
modeling. Also
used cubic form
EKC
1. D. O2 in river
2. BOD in river
3. COD in river
4. Nitrate in river
5. Fecal col. in river
6. H. Metals in river
Per capita GDP
city characteristics
population density
time trend
1. Lagged income significant in all cases of water- sector
environmental indicators
2. Cubic term income is modelled which is positive,
3. U shaped EK-curved is found in the case of D.Oxygen (1),
and inverted U-shaped curve in all other cases in column 3
4. TPI differs by the type of environment indicators, which is
$3,000 for D O in river, $7,500 for BOD in river, $8,000 for
COD in river, $8,000 for Faecal coli form in river, and
$5,000 for heavy metal in river.
Torras and
Boyce1998.
Cross-country
analysis of water-
quality indicators
for countries.
1. D. Oxygen in river
2. Fecal col. in river
3. Access to safe water
P C. income,cubic term,
schooling,
income inequality,
political rights,
institutional variables.
1. Inverted U-shaped EKC for D. Oxygen when income
inequality is added.
2. Both squared and cubic income terms are significant and
negative.
3. Inverted U-shaped for access to safe water with peak of
$11,250 and trough of $20,215 (again rising curve after this
income)
Vincent 1997 EKC analysis of
river water quality
for a single
country, Malaysia.
1. BOD in river
2. COD in river
3. Ammonia nitrogen in
river
Population density,
population,
GDP,
income per capita.
1. Lack of a significant relationship with income, so that EKC
was not observed for most of the cases, rather there is a
rising trend with income for most of the cases.
2. Unlike the cross-country analysis, water pollution and
income have a weak relationship in a single country case.
3. Income not much significant but population density is
significant in all cases and it is positive.
Source: Reproduced from Bhattarai (2004) and complete references for all the above papers provided.
Note: 1. Income means per capita GDP income with PPP adjusted 1985 constant US dollars, as explained earlier.
2. TPI = Turning point income associated with the EKC graph. 3. D. Oxygen = Dissolved Oxygen in river.
4. BOD = Biological Oxygen (O2) Demand. 5. COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand.
39
3.6.1 Limitations of EKC
A number of studies have questioned the robustness of the EKC relationship. It has
been found that two main factors determine whether, a certain environmental
degradation follows EKC path or not. They are type of pollutant and the impact of
globalization.
According to Leonard (2006) the shape of the EKC depends on the type of pollutant.
He found clear evidence that the growth and abatement of airborne particulate matter
and pollutants (like NO2, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide) fit neatly into EKC
models. However, the correlation is much less clear in case of deforestation or
carbon dioxide emissions. It has been assumed that if one can't see or smell a
pollutant in their local urban neighbourhood, then, no matter how rich one is, not
much would be done about it.
The initial studies on EKC relationships did not take into account the impact
globalization may have on the relationship. Tierney (2009) argues that the
industrialized world succeeded in cleaning up its own environment by exporting the
dirtiest industries abroad (outsourcing). What this means is that while a particular
country‘s EKC might decline as its income rises, in reality on a global scale the level
of pollution has not fallen. The extent to which this occurs depends on the type of
pollutant, if it‘s movable from one place to another. Clearly this does not hold for
wastewater related pollution. While there is a hope that new technologies will be
cleaner and hence reduce pollution to some extent in the poorer countries, even when
the poorer countries finally become affluent they will not be able to export their
pollution causing industries anywhere else and may have to clean their environment
at a very high price
The damage caused by pollution in India is estimated to cost 4.5 to 5 per cent of
GDP annually due to air pollution, groundwater mining, deteriorating aquifers, land
degradation and deforestation (Liebenthal 2002). The amplitude of the EKC path is
affected by changes in technology, policy or institutions. This is called a policy
40
tunnelling process in the environmental management literature (Panayotou 1997,
2000; Yandle et al. 2002; Dasgupta et al. 2002). Greater trade openness (i.e. a higher
ratio of trade to income) and good institutions that are democratic and open, tend to
result in a flatter EKC for pollutants (Frankel et al. 2002). According to Bhattarai
(2003) undertaking an analysis of the EKC is the first stage towards a policy
tunnelling process which could lead to a flattening of the EKC path. According to
him, if it is possible to identify the ecological threshold limit in a
region/ecosystem/hydro-ecological basin, irreversible damage to the environment
could potentially be avoided by limiting damage under the ecological threshold limit.
Bhattarai (2004) further argues that the policy and institutional changes can be made
that flatten the EKC. These involve prioritizing the basic needs of the society,
allowing for only a minimum level of development and managing environment
resources in a better fashion. However, Tierney (2009) argues that any global treaties
and policies of a country which slows down the rate of economic growth, will
lengthen the time it takes the poor country to reach the turning point on the curve.
This will also have a flattening impact on the curve.
3.6.2 Role of EKC in the current study
The sections above present the concept of EKC, the assumptions behind it and its
limitations. While EKC is a useful concept that provides an explanation of certain
trends with pollution and its link to the economic growth of a region, it does not hold
true for all types of pollutants and for certain pollutants may not have any link with
economic growth of a region. Economic growth is one indicator for higher demand
by people for a cleaner environment, but unless the requisite institutions and policies
are in place, not much pollution control will happen. In this study, EKC is used to as
a broadly explainthe trend of how the economic situation of the region/country
affects the management and level of wastewater treatment. It should be noted that the
degree of economic growth in a region is not a sufficient pre-condition that ensures
that the treatment and safe use of wastewater will occur. What is also needed is a
robust institutional set-up, effectively implemented policies and a desire to be
concerned about the environment.
41
3.7 Summary
In this Chapter the theoretical foundations of the study were presented. Initially
details on how different grades of wastewater and pollution can be viewed were
presented. In some ways this work, taken from Davidson and Malano (2005), can be
used to explain much of the material presented on wastewater in the previous
Chapter (2). However, it also provides the basis of thinking about what quality means
and how it can be changed by treatment. In addition, the important aspects of how
the costs of treatment and the negative externality effects of pollution from
wastewater can be viewed were presented. This led to the important issue of EKC,
which would appear to be an all encompassing way of viewing the issues addressed
in this study. The argument was made that the EKC presents a trend in wastewater
management of countries with the increase in their per capita GDPs, but does not
fully explain the complexities involved in the degree to which wastewater treatment,
reuse and recycling will occur. More to the point the actual shape of the curve will
depend on the institutional settings and environmental perceptions of the people
themselves. It could also be added that the ability of institutions to undertake the
necessary changes depends on the need to do it (i.e. the degree of water scarcity) and
the costs of doing it.
A detailed analysis of people‘s perceptions on environment, institutional setting
(quality, performance, flexibility, cost recovery policies and policies related to water
pollution control), scarcity of resources and cost of implementation in both
developed and developing countries is required if the issues surrounding wastewater
treatment, reuse and recycling is to be understood.
42
43
Chapter 4
Methods
4.1 Introduction
The objectives in this study are to discover the extent to which water scarcity, the
institutional settings, economic and environmental concerns constrain and motivate
the decisions policy makers in cities at different stages of economic development
have to make about wastewater treatment and recycling. In the previous Chapter it
was stated that wastewater management may well follow the trend described in the
theoretical constructs of an EKC. It was also argued that the factors that underlie the
shape of that Curve that determine how a country would move along it and where it
is now, were the degree of water scarcity, institutional settings and economic and
environmental considerations. Each of these factors is important and differs
according to where a region or country is on the EKC. If these factors are
understood, then decisions on the long term planning of wastewater solutions can be
improved. In this Chapter, the methods used to assess each of these factors and the
rationale for choosing them is described. These methods are applied later in the study
to the case study cities of Hyderabad and Melbourne. As a consequence it is
necessary to also present some details on these two cities.
4.2 Water Scarcity
With climate change and increasing population pressures, water scarcity has emerged
as a major problem in already dry countries. Water scarcity is expected to have a
significant influence on the way urban water authorities will manage their
wastewater resources. There has been significant work done on establishing the
water scarcity in both Hyderabad (see George et al. 2008, 2006; Saleth and
Dinar.1997; HMWSSB. 2007; Grace and Srinivas. 2002; Iyer et al. 2007; Massuel et
al. 2007; MCH. 2003; Ramachandraiah & Prasad. 2004; Van Rooijen et al. 2005)
44
and in Melbourne (see DSE. 2008a, 2007a, 2006, 2004; Melbourne Water. 2008; Tan
and Rhodes. 2008; Howe et al. 2005).
Water scarcity is an interesting term that is, strangely enough, not well understood.
In its simplest form water scarcity implies a shortage of an item which is essential to
life. Thus, it plays on the psychological instincts of survival and is used to evoke
both fear and the urgency to solve the problem with some form of engineered
solution. Economists, those who study the science of scarcity and the choices that are
made about it, tend to have a less alarmist view of scarcity. To them it is a case of the
demand for water exceeding its supply. The extent to which this occurs is revealed
by the price. So if the demand for water greatly exceeds its supply, its price will be
high. The high price rations the use of the good, so that when it exceeds peoples
capabilities of paying for it they do with out. With the necessity for water this would
mean acquiring it from a cheaper source somehow or somewhere else. Given its
essential nature, governments fix the price of water, usually at a low level, thus
stopping this rational adjustment process. When this occurs, demand grows more
greatly than supply and the physical difference between the two grows. This
difference between the two (the physical supply and demand) is the usual measure of
water scarcity.
However, a few issues need to be remembered before simply measuring the physical
quantities supplied and demanded in a city. Supply and demand are highly dynamic
concepts in water. The supply of water is dependent on changes in rainfall, ground
water and many other hydrological factors, all of which vary greatly. It could be said
that the supply of water to a city is seasonal. The demand for water by a city is
exactly the opposite. It is usually a constant invariant; people tend to consume the
same amount of water day in and day out. This is not to say that the factors that
influence demand are not static and invariant. In some cities like Melbourne where
most households have at least a small garden, demand is seasonal to the extent that
garden irrigation occurs mostly in summer. Moreover, populations grow, industries
develop and peoples‘ demand does change over time, usually quite quickly. For e.g.
Melbournian‘s per capita consumption average in 1990s was 422 l/day and by 2007
45
it came down to 277 l/day and by 2008 it was 180 l/day (Ker. 2008). More to the
point, agriculture is the largest user of water and its demand is subject to the same
natural processes that determine the supply of water. Finally, the role of price can not
be ignored in any discussion on water scarcity, even though it tends to be the subject
of institutional analysis. When ever there is an excess of demand over supply, i.e.
whenever there is water scarcity, there is an underlying price for this water scarcity.
In this study the long term supply and demand for water in Hyderabad and
Melbourne are assessed. The supply sources are assessed and the future sources are
described. In terms of demand, the uses of water are described and the underlying
trends of population and economic growth are discussed.
While both supply and demand are put together to determine the physical degree of
water scarcity, it should be remembered that this knowledge is important because it
is thought to be a factor that motivates decision makers to resolve issues surrounding
wastewater collection, treatment and reuse and recycling. This motivating force in
each case study also needs to be assessed. In the case of a developing country the
effort to solve the water scarcity problem results in the neglect of the wastewater
system. As a consequence in the case of Hyderabad it is expected that a correlation
between the worsening water scarcity problem and wastewater not being collected
and treated should exist. Alternatively, in a developed country context the opposite
should occur, with the wastewater seen as the solution to the scarcity problem. In
both situations the evidence to support these beliefs is delivered in the institutional
analysis (discussed below). However, before that can be done, it is necessary to
establish that water scarcity exists. That is achieved by assessing the dynamic factors
that determine both the supply and demand for water in a city. These tasks are
undertaken in Chapter 6.
4.3 Institutional Factors
Bhattacharya. (2008) has found that the treatment of wastewater follows an
Environmental Kuznets Curve. However, if the necessary institutions are not in place
to internalize all the externalities (Richmond et al. 2007), a country would not follow
46
this Curve. The changing wastewater levels would be positively correlated with
population levels. The role of environmental policies and institutions, their quality,
flexibility to adapt to changing resource situations and their robustness, is extremely
important (in addition to the economic growth of a society) to ensure that a
community or city reaches that crucial turning point on the EKC (Shafik and
Bandhopadhya 1992; Torras and Boyce1998; Panayotou 1997, 2000; Yandle et al.
2002; Dasgupta et al. 2002; Frankel et al. 2002). Therefore a detailed institutional
analysis has to be undertaken to assess the quality of the institutions and policies that
deal with and influence wastewater management.
North (1990) suggests that institutions are the humanly devised constraints that shape
human action‖ (North. 1990). They set the ground rules for resource use and
establish the incentives, information, and compulsions that guide economic
outcomes. Institutions evolve with changes in the society and its priorities. From an
economist‘s viewpoint, institutions affect the performance of an individual, group,
organization, a country or its economy, through the effect they have on the costs of
exchange and production. Together with technology, the institutions determine the
transaction and transformation (production) costs (North 1990).
Institutions can be both formal and informal. In addition to written laws, rules and
protocols, informal procedures, norms and practices accepted by society and
followed over several years, become part of the institutional framework. According
to Merrey (1993), certain patterns of norms and behaviours persist because they are
valued by people for practical and other reasons. In such cases informal rules have a
tendency to override formal rules. This is common in many developing societies,
making the enforcement of formal rules very difficult and thereby affecting
performance (Bandaragoda and Firdousi. 1992). Formal and informal institutions
coexist in many societies. Informal rules/practices which replace declared laws, rules
and regulations are referred to as rules-in-use by Bandaragoda (2000). As a number
of such rules-in-use may exist in the wastewater disposal and reuse situation in
developing countries, an analysis of it will be needed in the case of Hyderabad, but
not for Melbourne.
47
The institutional decomposition and analytical framework by Saleth and Dinar
(2004) and the framework for institutional analysis for water resources management
in a river basin context by Bandaragoda (2000) have been combined and adapted to
understand and evaluate the wastewater situation in Hyderabad. For the Melbourne
case study, where all wastewater is treated and is being successfully recycled, a much
simpler institutional analysis has been done, basically to identify issues through
which the efficiency of recycling could be further improved.
For the Hyderabad case study wastewater institution is decomposed at two levels.
First, the wastewater institution is assessed according to four broad components:
wastewater law; wastewater policy; wastewater administration; and wastewater
sector performance. Second, each of these components is further decomposed into
their constituent aspects. While there are a number of aspects under each component
that could be considered, for a focused and manageable evaluation, only a few are
considered. From the assessment by Bandaragoda (2000) and Saleth and Dinar
(2004) the aspects that need to studied under each of the four components are:
A. Law
Legal coverage of wastewater and related resources
Wastewater rights
Provisions for accountability
Scope for public/private sector participation
Regulatory mechanisms
Integration of overall legal framework with water law
B. Policy
Policy on river conservation
Wastewater related projects
Pricing and cost recovery
Treated wastewater allocation and transfers
Linkages with other economic policies
C. Administration
Formal organizations
48
Organizational procedures
Pricing, finance and accountability mechanisms
Information, research and extension systems
D. Sector Performance
Physical performance shown in the demand-supply gap and physical
health of wastewater infrastructure
Financial performance shown in the investment gap (actual versus
required) and the financial gap (expenditure versus cost recovery)
Economic performance shown in the pricing gap and the incentive
gap
Equity performance
Of the components presented above, the most relevant constituents for wastewater
institutional analysis are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Further, Saleth and
Dinar (2004) argue that in order to capture and assess the overall effectiveness of
these individual components, there is a need to capture their progressive nature.
In case of Hyderabad, the key issues discussed are – existing rules and rules-in-use
analysis; national wastewater initiatives; wastewater administration and its
performance; exogenous influence on institutional performance; and influence of
other wastewater related institutions. The performance of the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) has a huge impact on
the overall wastewater management of the city. Its performance is assessed in terms
of the physical, financial, economic and equity dimensions presented above. One has
to understand that there are strong inter-dimension linkages among them and these
influence each other. However, it should be noted that objective and internationally
comparable economic and equity criteria assessments are constrained both by data
and methodological problems. The overall performance of the wastewater sector and
its complexity cannot be evaluated and captured purely by using objective
performance criteria. Hence subjective aspects (e.g. judgments and opinions of the
stakeholders and water experts) are used to complement the available knowledge.
49
In case of Melbourne, the institutional analysis is mainly composed of the
administrative setup and legislative framework that governs the metropolitan water
sector and regulates its functions to ensure smooth, environment friendly functioning
of the water and wastewater system of the city. In addition, Victorian government‘s
vision for Melbourne‘s water future, its commitment to increase wastewater
recycling to secure the city‘s water supply and the matching administrative ability to
carry out this vision has also been investigated.
In summary, the context within which the institution-performance interaction occurs
is as important as the mechanics of the interaction because of its conditioning effect
on the wastewater institution and water sector performance in general. In reality, an
interplay of innumerable factors that are strictly exogenous to water sector influence
the way it functions. For analytical convenience and simplicity, Saleth and Dinar
(2004) have classified them into political system; legal framework; economic
development; demographic condition and resource endowment. Treatment of
wastewater and its use as recycled water is influenced by a number of exogenous
factors. Each of these factors is discussed in detail in Chapter 7
4.4 Cost Constraints and Environmental
Considerations
The cost of treating wastewater and the willingness of the people to pay for it, are
linked to the extent to which wastewater is treated and recycled. The more
wastewater is treated the greater the beneficial environmental impact, but the greater
the cost. To understand this issue it is necessary to come to terms first with the costs
of treating, reusing and recycling wastewater to different levels. Then the extent to
which people value the degree to which wastewater is treated needs to be assessed. In
undertaking this component of the study the Contingent Valuation technique can be
employed. These techniques are discussed in this Section and employed in Chapter 8
to explain wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling in Melbourne and Hyderabad.
50
4.4.1 Assessment of costs
The costs associated with wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling depend on many
factors, not the least being the amount that needs to be processed. In economic
assessments of costs analysts usually separate costs into their fixed and variable
components. Fixed costs do not vary with output, while variable ones do. Once
combined the total relationship between the quantity treated and its costs can be
derived, and then in turn the average and marginal costs of treating (reusing and
recycling) wastewater can also be derived. With respect to wastewater this
calculation is complicated by the fact that different levels of treatment can occur,
which is dependent on what the water is used for, and which affects the costs of the
process.
In these situations Cost Effectiveness Analysis would be an ideal tool to use.
However, a great deal of data is required, much of which is not available for either
Hyderabad or Melbourne. Assessments of the costs of wastewater treatment, reuse
and recycling have been undertaken by a number of analysts for Hyderabad (Davis
and Tanka. 2005; Evans et al. 2004; George et al. 2008; HMWSSB. 2008; 2003;
HUDA. 2005; 2003; Iyer et al. 2007; JNNURM. 2005; SEAWUN. 2004) and
Melbourne (ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005; Allen Consulting Group. 2004; Asano et
al. 2007; Moran. 2008; D‘Angelo Report. 1998; DSE.2008a; 2007a; 2005; ESC.
2009; 2008; Fam et al. 2008; Marsden Jacob Associates. 2006; Mitchell. 2005;
WSAA. 2009; 2005). Any organisation controlling the wastewater system and
contemplating improving it must have some information that they act on. These
assessments rely on confidential data that was not available to this study. As a
consequence, in this study these assessments will be used to determine the cost
constraints facing policy makers in Hyderabad and Melbourne.
4.4.2 Contingent valuation
Contingent valuation technique is called so, because it is contingent on simulating in
a questionnaire a market in which consumers‘ behaviour can be modelled. It has a
51
great appeal as it is possible to estimate the value of a benefit with the simple
question – what is the maximum a consumer would be willing to pay for it? The
response should be an estimate of the total benefit that the person expects from the
particular item and by subtracting the appropriate costs should provide an estimate of
consumer‘s surplus (Sinden and Thampapillai. 1995).
The method uses a series of questions to elicit people‘s preferences for goods, not
sold in a normal market situation, by finding out what they would be willing to pay
for specified improvements in them (Mitchell and Carson. 1989).
In this component of the study the objective is to estimate:
whether clean water in rivers is valued;
what people are willing to pay for different levels (Level C, B & A) of
water quality in the river; and
the impact of income levels; number of years lived in Hyderabad; and
importance given to controlling water pollution on the amount people
are willing to pay to treat their wastewater.
Contingent Valuation studies have been undertaken in Melbourne to assess these
objectives and these will be accessed in this study. However, in Hyderabad no such
estimates exist. In this study a Contingent Valuation analysis is conducted in
Hyderabad. In the rest of this Section, details of the assessment that will be
conducted in Hyderabad is presented.
According to Mitchell and Carson (1989) an acceptable sample size for coefficient of
variation V = 1 and α = 0.1, is 286. The study site should include all the areas located
in Hyderabad and the respondents should be the customers of the HMWSSB, with a
connection to the sewerage system.
The questionnaire designed to capture the information and data required to satisfy the
objectives of this study is presented in Appendix I. The questionnaire was developed
52
based on the principles outlined in Mitchell and Carson (1989). It consists of three
sections:
A Respondent Profile - This section identifies the name, address, age, sex,
education, caste affiliation and the number of years the person has lived in
Hyderabad.
B Pollution of water bodies and its importance to households – The section
captures data on peoples‘ awareness about environmental issues, especially
water pollution issues and if they consider controlling water pollution as an
important issue and their motivation for doing so.
C. Water quality valuation for Musi River - This section captures data on
whether people are willing to pay to treat wastewater and if so, then how
much in real Indian Rupees is it worth to them to reach three different water
quality levels in Musi River in Hyderabad city. The information related to the
three different water qualities is provided on ―Water quality card‖. This
section also identifies information on the income levels of the household.
Before the start of the third section (C), a card explaining the current environmental
status of the Musi River and what different water qualities actually mean is shown to
respondents (see Appendix I).
Payment card method was used to elicit respondents‘ willingness-to-pay values. The
payment card shows the current sewerage cess rate (35 per cent of the water supply
charges) paid by people to the HMWSSB and then the respondents are provided with
a series of options with a 5 per cent increase in sewerage cess per month.
Respondents are free to pick a figure according to the value they place on the
different quality levels. If respondents want information on how much it actually
costs to treat wastewater to each quality level, they were to be provided with it. The
aim is that respondents should be provided with as much information as they require
in order to make a rational decision.
The Contingent Valuation method is not a problem free analysis. Mitchell and
Carson (1989) suggest that three sorts of biases may occur:
53
Payment-vehicle bias, when willingness-to-pay is framed in some way which
might understate the true willingness to pay. Pre-surveys can be used to check
such bias.
Information bias, where the willingness-to-pay responses may vary with the
quantity and quality of information, which is provided. This bias can be
avoided by providing the maximum and identical information in the
questionnaire.
Starting point bias, where the Yes/No direct question requires monetary
values to be nominated as ‗starting points‘. Sometimes, when the subject is
bored with the survey, they may agree to the bid even though his true
willingness-to-pay differs substantially. Pre-surveys to discover likely
starting points may be useful to avoid such bias.
Questionnaire surveys are a well established technique, but they elicit responses to
hypothetical questions in hypothetical contexts. Hence precautions should be taken to
ensure validity of the data collected. Sinden and Thampapillai. (1995) suggest that
valid values may be obtained by using:
Contingent-validity test, where the design of the survey and questionnaires
should ensure that the kinds of person who play strategic games are identified
and excluded, incentives to play games are removed, and incentives for valid
responses should be provided.
Comparison test where hypothetical bids are checked against bids elicited by
some other method, against payments of a related nature or against preferences
and attitudes.
Internal-consistency test where differences in values should be consistent with
difference in characteristics of the respondents. For example, willingness-to-pay
should often increase with income. A statistical test, to show that values do vary
with the income in the expected manner, supports the validity of the values
themselves.
While cost recovery for wastewater services and recycled water is not a problem in
Melbourne, the acceptability of recycled water use in different sectors is an area of
54
concern and have implications for allocation of recycled water. Since extensive
social experiments have already been conducted to assess these behavioural
responses towards use of recycled water for horticultural products and indirect
potable reuse by Po et al (2005), no attempt has been made to repeat such
experiments. The relevant results its implications for this study are presented in
Chapter 8.
4.5 Decision Analysis Approach
The major argument that has been put in this study is that the collection, treatment,
reuse and recycling of wastewater involves more than just determining whether the
end product satisfies health and safety standards. While health and safety of the
product is a given, policy makers need to be concerned about the institutional
performance, costs and how people view the environment. These issues, it was
argued are a function of income levels and these are related to wastewater through
the lens of the EKC. If all these factors are to be considered by policy makers then a
method is required that incorporates them together. In this study Decision Analysis is
used to tie the dispirit elements assessed together.
Decision analysis is a discipline for the systematic evaluation of alternative actions in
a complex, uncertain, or conflict-ridden situation, and can be used to evaluate the
choices facing policy makers. Originally decision theory was used in economics to
separate utility functions into a payoff matrix. It is suggested that decisions should be
made by computing the utility and probability of an event and the ranges of options
available in order to establish the strategies for making good decisions.
The approach involves setting up models of the problems to be analysed, selecting
inputs to the models that quantify the judgments of those responsible for the
decisions, and deriving the model‘s outputs from these inputs (see Figure 4.1).
Decision analysis models are normally displayed in a decision tree. Objectives are
important in both identifying problems and in evaluating alternative solutions. Inputs
to these models include the numerical probabilities that quantify judgments about
55
uncertain future events. Numerical assessments that express the decision maker‘s
attitudes, or organizational/government policies, with respect to the assumption of
risks, need to be made (Brown et al. 1974). It is necessary to compute the value of a
certain outcome and its probabilities determining the consequence of a choice. The
model output is a display of the probabilities of each possible outcome for every
action alternative, or a specification of a single course of action that is preferred
under the assumptions of the model.
Figure 4.1 Steps in decision analysis
Source: Arsham, Hossein. 1994. Tools for Decision Analysis.
http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/opre640a/partIX.htm (accessed as on 20 April 2009)
Yes
No
Identify the decision situation and understand objectives
Identify alternatives
Decompose and model the problem
Choose the best alternative
Sensitivity analysis
Is further analysis needed?
Implement the chosen alternative
56
The Expected Value is a first approximation of what it is worth if a particular
option/event is to be chosen. It is a probability-weighted average. First, each possible
value of the value distribution is weighted or multiplied by its associated probability
and then these weighted values are summed. The Expected Value represents with a
single value what the entire value distribution is worth.
EV = Xi . Pi (4.1)
Where EV is the Expected Value;
P is the probability of the event happening
X is the product of total amount of wastewater available for reuse or
recycling and the net product utility generated by a unit of water for the respective
sector. The net product utility is derived by deducting the cost of treatment of
wastewater from the value generated by water from a particular use.
A possible drawback in the Decision Analysis approach is that the criteria always
result in selection of only one course of action. However, in many decision problems,
the decision-maker might wish to consider a combination of actions. For example, in
the case of Melbourne, the policy makers have multiple objectives of recycling:
saving potable water, reducing nitrogen discharge and reducing green House Gas
emissions. In such a case, in order to achieve these multiple objectives, the policy
makers need to distribute the recycled water among a mixture of sectors in such a
way that the portfolio of outcomes is optimized.
4.6 Data
The data and information used in this study are collected from a variety of sources.
These include primary and secondary sources and the following methods:
Field visits: Extensive field visits to sewage treatment plants at Tank Bund
and Amberpet; different sites along the Musi river in Hyderabad and upto 80
km downstream of the river from the city to understand the extent of
pollution in the area and patterns of use of the wastewater for irrigation of
various crops. Also visited the Werribee Irrigation District and Werribee
57
Mansion to see the crops grown in the area and had some informal interviews
with the farmers and the Werribee parks manager.
Extensive study and collection of data from various secondary sources of
information including annual reports, news letters, websites and other
publications of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (2008;
2003), Central Pollution Control Board (1998; 1995), Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority (2005; 2003), Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (2008), Melbourne Water Corporation (2009; 2007), Essential
Services Commission (2009; 2008), Yarra Valley Water (2009), City West
Water (2009), Southern Rural Water (2009), South East Water (2009)and the
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008; 2006; 2005; 1998).
Conference papers, Journal papers and Newspapers
Personal interviews with the experts and officials from Hyderabad Metro
Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Melbourne Water
Corporation and Earthtech
Primary survey of 322 households with a structured questionnaire to collect
data for the Contingent Valuation assessment
Extensive primary and secondary data collected on the costs of the treatment,
current allocation of wastewater for recycling to different sectors, Green
House Gas emissions from water sector, gross value of water generated per
KL of water used for different sectors, the extent of nitrogen discharge into
the bay from Essential Services Commission, Melbourne Water, Southern
Rural Water, Yarra Valley Water, the Australian Bureau of Statistics to name
a few of the important sources of information in Melbourne.
4.7 Study Regions
4.7.1 Hyderabad case study
Hyderabad is a typical representative city of developing countries of South Asia with
a growing economy and population. Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration (HUA) is the
58
sixth largest in India, with a population of 5.75 million in the year 2001 and is
located 541.32 mts above sea level. Hyderabad is one of the fastest growing
metropolitan cities with a decadal growth rate of 32 per cent (HUDA. 2005). The
urban agglomeration is spread over an area of 778.17 km2 and comprises Hyderabad,
and twelve other municipal entities surrounding it.
The Musi River, which is a tributary of Krishna River flows from west to east right
through the middle of Hyderabad. The data collected for the current research will be
limited to domestic and industrial wastewater discharged into Musi River. The
natural drainage area of the Musi within the limits of twin cities covers Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad, Osmania University, Secunderabad Cantonment area and
three surrounding Municipalities viz., Uppal, Malkajigiri and Gaddiannaram and
partially covers five surrounding municipalities viz., L.B.Nagar, Rajendranagar,
Kukatpally, Quthbullapur and Kapra. All the domestic and industrial sewage
currently flows into Musi polluting it completely. This polluted river water is used
for irrigation downstream of Hyderabad by urban and peri-urban farmers for growing
leafy vegetables, para grass and paddy. The survey for the contingent valuation study
will be conducted in the above-mentioned areas, which drain into the Musi River.
The data for the institutional analysis is collected from different institutions and
government departments concerned with the water law, policy and administration in
Hyderabad. In 2001, only 36 per cent of the houses were connected to piped supply
of water with water supply for 2 hours per day and only 41 per cent of the
households were connected to the sewerage network (HUDA. 2005). Everyday
approximately 850 ML/day of untreated wastewater is discharged into the Musi
River through 64 sewage outlets making the river, the city‘s main sewer line
(HUDA. 2005).
Analysis of the water quality in the Musi indicates the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
range between 600 to 1000 mg/l and the Chemical Oxygen Demand COD ranges
from 134 to 350 mg/l. Most of the dissolved solids are inorganic in nature and are
bio-accumulative and toxic which can have long-term impacts on health (HUDA.
59
2005). The acidity values in the sections monitored along River Musi have a pH level
that is higher than 7.5, indicating the alkaline nature of the water body. With the
increasing pollution in the river, which has an adverse impact on the river, the quality
of life, tourism and real estate prices, it was decided to clean up the river under the
National River Action Plan. The project to clean up the river is known as
―Abatement of Pollution of River Musi‖ (see section 7.2.2 in Chapter 7).
The data collected is restricted to the areas which drain into Musi in Hyderabad. The
City has an area of about 240 km2 on the north of Musi and 50 km
2 on the south (see
Figure 4.2). The natural drainage area of Musi River within the limits of city covers
the MCH area, three surrounding municipalities viz., Kukatpally, Kapra, L.B.Nagar,
Rajendranagar & Quthbullapur Further, the Osmania University and Secundrabad
Cantonment area also fall completely in the said drainage area (see Figure 4.3). This
has caused a number of problems in administrative synchronization and fund sharing
to take up a combined sewerage scheme for all the areas falling within the catchment
of Musi River. However, on 16 April 2007, Andhra Pradesh State Government
issued a notification to merge the 12 municipalities surrounding Hyderabad with the
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH). The new 625 km2 metropolis is called
the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), which will have a
population of 6.7 million (The Hindu. 5th
April, 2007b).
Figure 4.2 Musi River catchment area in the Hyderabad city
Source: HMWSSB. 2003
60
Figure 4.3 Hyderabad city with surrounding Municipalities and catchment area
Source: HMWSSB. 2003
The municipalities of L.B. Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Uppal Kalan, Malkajgiri, Kapra,
Alwal, Qutbullahpur, Kukatpally, Serilingampalli, Rajendranagar,
Ramachandrapuram and Patancheru have been abolished. The new entity will be
headed by a senior officer of the rank of Special Commissioner and the Government
has already appointed C. V. S. K. Sarma to the post. The GHMC has been created to
ensure improved service delivery in the surrounding areas and better inter-
departmental and inter-agency coordination.
4.7.2 Melbourne case study
Melbourne is the capital city of Victoria, a State of Australia and an important
economic hub with a rising population and water scarcity in Australia. Considering
the fact that it represents a typical water scarce city of a developed country with a
high priority to promote wastewater recycling, it is chosen as a case study area for
the current research to illustrate how wastewater allocation efficiency can be
maximized to achieve a particular objective in the most cost efficient way.
61
Melbourne had a population of 3.8 million people in 2006-07 (ABS. 2008). It enjoys
a temperate climate with warm-hot summers; balmy and mild spring and autumn and
cool winters. The mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures of Melbourne
are 10.2 and 19.8 respectively and the average annual rainfall is 648.5 mm
(Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 2009). The metropolitan water sector consists of
Melbourne Water and three metropolitan retailers namely - City West Water
(CWW), South East Water (SEW) and Yarra Valley Water (YVW) (see Figure 4.4).
The three metropolitan retailers supply water and sewerage services to specific
geographic areas covering over 1.6 million customers in total. This represents over
70 per cent of the state‘s population and accounts for around 10 per cent of total
water use in Victoria. In the year 2007-08 it is estimated that 395.5 GL water was
supplied to the city of Melbourne, 97 per cent of which was sourced from surface
water sources (National Performance Report, 2009). Melbourne Water and its
retailers together treated 275 GL to secondary level and 14.5 GL to tertiary level in
the year 2007-08. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regulates sewage
effluent quality through discharge licenses at sewage treatment plants. The level of
sewage treatment required depends upon the receiving water body.
Melbourne recycled approximately 82.65 GL (28.6 per cent of the total wastewater
treated) of wastewater in different sectors in the year 2007-08 (ESC. 2009) (see
Figure 4.4 for water recycling schemes) and hopes to increase it further by upgrading
a number of its treatment plants and installation of dual reticulation systems in many
of the green-field developments.
62
Figure 4.4 Melbourne Water recycling schemes
Source: Melbourne Water Corporation. 2008
4.8 Summary
The methods used to analyse and establish the four key factors which are expected to
have an impact and determine whether wastewater will be treated and if yes, to what
extent and the extent to which it will be reused /recycled are summarised in Figure
4.5. It is proposed that water scarcity in the two case study cities can be established
by looking a the supply and demand gaps for water, rate of population growth and
the treatment capacities of the two cities. The institutional setting is studied through a
detailed look at the current law, policy, administration and their overall performance
in relation to wastewater treatment. The cost constraints and the environmental
considerations are established by contingent valuation survey to test peoples‘
willingness to pay for wastewater services in Hyderabad and through the results of
the social experiments of Po et al (2005) on the social acceptability of products
63
irrigated with recycled wastewater and indirect potable use of wastewater in
Melbourne.
Figure 4.5 Research framework with methods used for research
EKC conceptual framework
Institutional Setting Law, Policy, Administration and
Performance
Cost Constraints and
Environmental
Considerations Costs of treatment and recycling,
Willingness To Pay
Cost of alternatives
Social acceptability
Turning Point Improvement in water
quality: As income
grows, the demand for
clean rivers ensures
treatment of wastewater
and improved
environment quality
Water Pollution:
Increasing income
initially increase
wastewater
production causing
water pollution
Developing countries Developed countries
[Hyderabad case] [Melbourne case]
Wastewater Generation Collection Treatment Recycling
En
vir
on
men
tal
Deg
rad
atio
n
Per Capita GDP
Water Scarcity Pop growth
Supply-Demand gap
Decision Analysis Approach
A tool for resource allocation
Factors
Methods
64
65
Chapter 5
Wastewater Treatment, Reuse and Recycling in India
and Australia
5.1 Introduction
The point has already been made that wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling is
practiced differently in each country. While it could be argued that the extent to
which it is practiced depends on the stage of economic development and that certain
commonalities may exist, in reality it is necessary to view two examples of
wastewater practices, one from a developing country and the other from a developed
region. The two examples chosen are India and Australia, as this accord‘s with the
case studies that are used later in this study. In this Chapter the wastewater reuse and
recycling situations in both India and Australia are reviewed in order to confirm that
the conceptual framework established in Chapters 1 and 3 is applicable to two
different economic states and to establish the extent of knowledge on wastewater
treatment, reuse and recycling in both countries. These activities are conducted in
this Chapter.
5.2 Wastewater Use in India
5.2.1 Wastewater volumes in India
Winrock International India (2007) has estimated that from the urban areas of India
approximately 5 GL/day of wastewater were generated in 1947 and by 1997 it had
increased to about 30 GL/day. According to the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB), 16 GL/day of wastewater is generated from Class-1 cities (with a
population of more than100,000 people), and 1.6 GL/day from Class-2 cities (with a
population of 50,000 to 100,000 people). India has 45,000 km of rivers and 6,000 km
of them have a biological oxygen demand above 3 mg/l, making the water unfit for
drinking (CPCB 1998).
66
Untreated wastewater from domestic, hospital and industrial areas pollute rivers and
other natural water bodies in India. More than 80 per cent of wastewater generated is
discharged into natural water bodies without any treatment due to lack of
infrastructure and resources for treatment. Only 4 GL/day out of 17.6 GL/day of
wastewater generated in India is treated (Winrock International India 2007).
Approximately 30 GL/day of pollutants enter India‘s rivers, of which 10,000 ML are
from industrial units alone (CPCB 1995).
While farmers have customary rights to any water that flows through the river, it
should be the responsibility of the irrigation and water authorities to maintain the
quality of this water and to ensure the sustainable use of it. In interviews held with
farmers along Musi River in Hyderabad by Buechler and Mekala (forthcoming) it
was found that the wastewater quality is very poor and has had an adverse impact on
the health of farmers, reduced soil productivity over time, raised water tables and
contaminated groundwater in these areas. However, regulations related to water
pollution in India are incomplete. The Water Act covers industrial effluent standards,
but ignores the domestic and municipal effluents even though they constitute 90 per
cent of India‘s wastewater volumes (Sawhney 2003: 26).
Pollution of both surface and groundwater sources and its associated problems,
constitute one of the biggest environmental problems of India. A report by Winrock
International India (2007) states that the market for the adoption of advanced
technologies for wastewater use arising from industries and municipal corporations
accounts for the largest percentage of the total environmental market in India. A
survey by the US Trade Department (quoted in Swiss Business Hub India and Heinz
Habegger, Baleco AG, Thun 2004) found that the total market potential for water and
wastewater treatment including the requirements of the Municipal and Industrial
sectors was in the order of $US900 million and is expected to grow at approximately
14 per cent each year. It was also found that industrial wastewater treatment accounts
for nearly half of the total market for wastewater treatment. The water and
wastewater treatment sector also accounts for the highest environmental spending
67
within both the public and private sectors. Considering the fact that conventional
treatment techniques are extremely expensive for countries like India, there is an
urgent need for the development of alternate and affordable methods of treating and
recycling of wastewater.
5.2.2 Wastewater reuse
An estimated 80 per cent of wastewater generated in developing countries, especially
China and India, is used for irrigation (Winrock International India 2007). In India,
where wastewater is mainly used in agriculture, a policy framework covering the
issues associated with this practice does not exist. Strauss and Blumenthal (1990)
estimated that 73,000 ha were irrigated with wastewater in India. However, this most
possibly under estimates the true extent of wastewater reuse in India. For instance,
Buechler and Mekala (2003: 939) estimated that even along the Musi River and the
canals and tanks off this river, approximately 40,000 ha of land were irrigated with
urban and industrial wastewater that was diluted with fresh river water, especially
during the monsoon season. Thus, care must be taken in defining the extent to which
wastewater irrigation occurs, as it is subject to how one defines it.
In India, since wastewater is mainly untreated, it is used in the agricultural sector
where the risks are considerably lower to using it in either households or industry.
Untreated and partially treated wastewater released from the major cities of India like
New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, etc., is mainly
used to irrigate the following crops:
Cereals: In Hyderabad, along the Musi River approximately 2,100 ha of land is
irrigated with wastewater used to cultivate rice (Mekala 2006). In Ahmedabad and
Kanpur, wheat is extensively irrigated with wastewater (Winrock International
India 2007).
Vegetables: In New Delhi, about 12,000 farmers use treated wastewater in areas
around the sewerage treatment works of Keshopur and Okhla to irrigate 1,700 ha of
land to grow vegetables like Cucurbits, eggplant, okra, and coriander in the
68
summer, and spinach, mustard, cauliflower and cabbage in the winter (Winrock
International India 2007). In Hyderabad, about thirteen different kinds of
vegetables are grown with wastewater, all year round including spinach, malabar
spinach, amaranths, gogu (Hibiscus cannabinus), mint, coriander, bladder dock,
okra, colocasia, soya (Glycine max), common purslane and chennangi
(Lagerstroemia parviflora).
Flowers: Farmers in Kanpur grow roses and marigold with wastewater. In
Hyderabad, the farmers cultivating Jasmine with wastewater, produce flowers for 8
to 9 months in a year. There are 118 farmers earning approximately Rs. 15,000/ha
to Rs 20,000/ha during the flowering season (Buechler et al. 2002).
Fodder crops: In Hyderabad, for example, along the Musi River approximately
10,000 ha of para grass, used as fodder in the dairy industry is irrigated with
wastewater (Mekala 2006).
Aquaculture: The East Calcutta sewage fisheries are the largest single wastewater
use system in aquaculture in the world (Pescod 1992). The wetland ecosystem of
Kolkata supports 100,000 direct stakeholders and 5,100 ha of cultivation.
Annually, the scheme provides direct employment for approximately 70,000
people, producing 12800 tonnes of rice, 6900 tonnes of fish and 0.73 tonnes of
vegetables (Chattopadhyay 2004).
Agroforestry: In the villages near Hubli-Dharwad in Karnataka, Bradford et al.
(2003) found that wastewater was used to irrigate agroforestry, mainly producing
fruit and agrosilviculture (which consists of spatially mixed trees with crop
combinations underneath). The two most important tree species are sapota and
guava, and other common species produced were coconut, mango, arecanut and
teak. Other less common species are banana, ramphal, curry leaf, pomegranate,
lemon, galimara and mulberry. In agrosilviculture, field crops grown below the
trees and irrigated with wastewater include groundnuts in the dry season and
sorghum in the wet season. Many adaptations of the agrosilviculture system were
observed.
69
In some Indian cities like Chennai where wastewater has been treated to appropriate
levels, has been recycled for various industrial uses, such as in cooling towers,
boilers, washing the work spaces, etc (YUVA, Mumbai. 2005).
5.2.3 Implications of wastewater reuse
There are both positive and negative implications associated with wastewater reuse.
The positive implications include employment generation, food security for urban
and peri-urban poor farmers, reliable supply of irrigation water and the recycling of
nutrients in wastewater and of the water itself. Since wastewater has a relatively
constant flow and is available all year round, the urban poor farmers and migrant
labourers are assured of employment throughout the year. In the peri-urban areas of
Hyderabad Buechler and Mekala (2005) found that wastewater-irrigated rice
contributed approximately 43 per cent of household food consumption. The high
nutrient content of the wastewater helps farmers save on the fertilizer costs and its
reliable supply helps increase the cropping intensity.
Untreated wastewater usually has high nutrient loads and salinity. Thus, the use of
wastewater can (and does in Hyderabad) result in lower yields than crops irrigated
with fresh water. Some farmers use river or groundwater to dilute the salinity levels
of wastewater before irrigation. Wastewater can also have either a positive or
negative impact on the property values. Many along polluted streams suffer, however
Hussain, et al. (2001) found that in Haroonabad, in Pakistan, the wastewater-irrigated
land has a higher value than the canal-irrigated land. What usually makes the
difference in land values depends on the proximity to the cities. Land closer to the
cities is used to grow vegetables which receive a higher value per unit of water
applied and per hectare.
On the other hand, the partial or non treatment of wastewater endangers the very
livelihoods it generates over the long term. Long-term use of wastewater for
irrigation increases soil salinity, results in the accumulation of heavy metals in the
soil and the breakdown of the soil structure. This in turn leads to restriction on crop
70
choice and a reduction in yields. As suggested above, along the Musi River
wastewater drawn from the river for irrigation has resulted in rice production that has
yields between 40 and 50 per cent below surrounding non wastewater irrigated land..
Ample evidences are available which show that the groundwater in all wastewater
irrigated areas has high salt levels and is unfit for drinking (Buechler and Mekala.
2003a). Further, high groundwater tables and water logging are also common
features of these areas (Buechler and Mekala. 2005). Wastewater contains a number
of pathogens which are human parasites (such as Protozoa and Helminth eggs are of
special significance), and can cause diseases in user communities and consumers
(WHO and UNICEF. 2000). Finally, wastewater containing a high level of nutrients
cause eutrophication and cause imbalances in the ecology of the water bodies it is
released into (CSIRO. 1999:44).
Overall, the use of wastewater has a number of social, environmental and economic
concerns associated with its use. These include the impaired quality of life, loss of
property value, food safety, health and welfare concerns and the long term
sustainability of land use associated with its use (Hussain et al. 2001).
5.2.4 Urban water pricing of wastewater
In most developed countries fresh water pricing is based on average cost pricing or
marginal cost pricing. The consumers are charged at the rate of per kiloliter of water
consumed. This rate varies depending on the pricing structure in each city. The cost
of maintenance of sewerage services in most cities around the world, are the
responsibility of the water authorities (the same people who provide fresh water) and
consumers are charged for this service. In Hyderabad, 35 per cent of the water supply
charge is for sewerage cess. In New Delhi, it is 50 per cent. In Indian cities the cost
of treatment of sewage water or wastewater discharged by households and industries
is not factored into consumers‘ bills. The cost is only for collection. The alternative
occurs in most of the developed countries, which have introduced the ―polluter pays
principle‖ for the amount of water pollution load discharged by companies and
wastewater treatment charges are fully recovered from the urban consumers as well.
71
In India water is a highly subsidized commodity leading to market inefficiencies and
inefficient use of the already scarce resource. The water subsidies in urban areas
have important consequences for the poor and the environment. An important
consequence of urban water subsidies is that the urban water consumers are not
charged for sewerage treatment and hence, in most developing countries, only 20 to
30 per cent of wastewater is treated to secondary level. These water boards
constantly incur losses and have no funds to invest in maintenance of existing water
supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment and expansion of their services.
The average price charged by water boards to urban domestic consumers in the major
cities of India – Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad is shown in
Figure 5.1. The average cost incurred by the water boards to supply water in most
metropolitan cities ranges from Rs.10/KL to Rs. 35/KL and the price charged to
urban domestic consumers ranges from Rs. 6 to Rs.36/KL depending on the volume
consumed. The price for non-domestic (industrial) consumers varies from Rs.20/KL
to Rs.100/KL depending on the volume consumed and the type of industry (see
Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.1 Average price charged to urban domestic consumers per household.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
AP Municipal
Corp
Hyderabad Bangalore Chennai Mumbai
INR
per
Mo
nth
Source: http://www.cnet.at/hywamis/Bilder2/Presentation%20HMWSSB.pdf
72
Figure 5.2 Average price charged by water boards to urban non-domestic
consumers.
Source: http://www.cnet.at/hywamis/Bilder2/Presentation%20HMWSSB.pdf
In India urban consumers pay less for the municipal water than the actual cost of
supply incurred by the water boards. This is not unique to India and consumer utility
subsidies are a common feature of water services around the world. The majority of
water utilities charge tariffs which are substantially below the levels required for full
cost recovery. Nearly 40 per cent of utilities worldwide do not even cover operating
and maintenance costs (Jellinek et al. 2006). Average water tariffs in low-income
countries stand at about a tenth of the level applied in high-income countries.
Subsidies on water utilities can be a significant drain on the public treasury. In India,
drinking water subsidies have been estimated at 0.5 per cent of the gross domestic
product (GDP) (Jellinek et al. 2006). Implicit subsidization due to generalized
underpricing of the service, asset mining and not charging the urban consumer for
the treatment of the sewage/wastewater is a major cause of the drain on government
finances. Utility subsidies are promoted to make the services affordable for the poor
and to expand coverage. However, according to a study released during the 4th
World
Water Forum (2006) held in Mexico City, this is not true. According to Jamal Saghir
(Director, Energy, Transport and Water Department, World Bank), poor households
capture only half as much of the value of the subsidy as they would if the subsidies
were distributed randomly across the entire population. He found that many poor
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70R
s p
er
kl
Rs per kl 60 40 35 25
Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Hyderabad
73
households are excluded from subsidy programs altogether because they are not
connected to the supply network.
However, contrary to the argument presented above, a field study conducted in
Hyderabad, India by Raghavendra (2006) it was found that while ‗stated‘ tariffs are
low, households actually pay far more than in other regions of the world. This was
due to the poor measurement of domestic water consumption and institutional
indifference towards improving the quality of service. They found that improvements
in both the quality of the services and in the household‘s perception of water
services, is essential before any increase in the water tariffs to ensure full cost
recovery.
In most western countries, the urban households are charged for the amount of water
consumed and the amount of sewage disposed. For example, the water bill of an
urban household in Melbourne, Australia is shown in Box 5.1 as an example. The bill
clearly shows that, the households are charged $A0.81/KL of water supplied and
$A1.05/KL of sewage water disposed. The water bill for Hyderabad (also shown in
Box 5.1) shows that Rs.6/KL is paid for water supply and 35 per cent of the water
supply charges is for sewerage cess. However, the receipt also reveals that no money
is charged for sewage disposal or treatment. This is a major factor that contributes to
lack of funds and non-treatment of wastewater. This ultimately leads to the pollution
of rivers, lakes, groundwater and soil. It also has a number of ill effects on human
health, especially for those farmers who use untreated wastewater for irrigation.
74
Box 5.1 Receipts for water bill payments from Melbourne, Australia and
Hyderabad, India
Melbourne
Hyderabad
75
5.3 Wastewater Recycling in Australia
Wastewater recycling in Australia has resulted from a combination of factors: urban
population increases, decreases in average rainfall, environmental concerns, the
desire for greener water strategies and improved technology. In this section, research
on each of these factors is reviewed and some crucial data on wastewater treatment,
reuse and recycling relevant to this study is presented.
5.3.1 Population and water use in Australia
More than 80 per cent of the Australian population (approximately 20 million
people) lives in cities that are within 100 km of the coast (WSAA 2005: 4). In spite
of this, the water policy debate has concentrated mainly on agricultural water
shortages. This occurs because 67 per cent of all water extracted is used in
agriculture and only nine per cent is used by households and seven per cent by the
manufacturing industry. Until the 1990s water authorities kept pace with the growth
in population and its water requirements. However, in recent years the gap between
supply and demand has grown and the marginal costs of providing additional
supplies are rising. The population of Australia‘s major cities are predicted to
increase by 35 per cent, or by 4.5 million people, by the year 2030 (ABS 2006). The
combined impact of an increase in demand for water from population (see Table
5.1), allocating more water for river health and possible decreases in water yields due
to anticipated droughts and climate change, has resulted in the need to manage both
the supply and demand for water.
Urban water use, including household, manufacturing and other uses, accounted for
only 16 per cent of the 24,909 GL consumed in Australia in 2000–2001 (see Figures
5.3 and 5.4). The agricultural sector, by comparison, accounted for 67 per cent of the
water used. The detailed breakdown of urban water use in Australia presented in
Figure 5.3, reveals the proportion of urban water used by different user segments,
and the scope to reduce consumption or reallocate resources to achieve improved
water resource outcomes.
76
Table 5.1 Projected population and water consumption in Australia’s major
cities
City Current
Population
(‘000s)
Projected
population in 2030
(‘000s)
Increase
(%)
Unrestricted adjusted
consumption
(ML/yr)
Adelaide 1,090 1,182 8 190,383
Brisbane 931 1,509 62 196,095
Canberra 357 386 36 51,208
Darwin 101 168 67 35,132
Gold Coast 372 800 69 69,899
Hobart 188 215 13 30,679
Melbourne 3,397 3,573 31 398,295
Lower
Hunter
396 585 18 72,231
Perth 1,353 2,177 50 262,359
Sydney 3,189 5,592 33 637,158
Total 12,773 17,287 35 2,063,339
Source: WSAA 2005.
Figure 5.3 Water use in Australia.
Agriculture, 67%
Households, 9%
Manufacturing, 3%
Mining, 2%
Electricity & Gas, 7%
Services, 3%
Others, 9%
Source: ABS 2006.
77
Figure 5.4 Urban water consumption in Australia (% of total consumption)
Domestic, 62%
Industrial &
Commercial, 23%
Parks & Fire
Fighting, 5%
System Losses,
8%Errors, 2%
Source: ABS 2006.
5.3.2 The urban water balance sheet
The urban water industry sees the current drought period as an opportunity to
develop water resources strategies for each major Australian city. These strategies
have a strong supply-side focus and include inter-basin transfers, accessing
groundwater, developing desalination plants, sourcing water from water markets and
increasing the use of recycled water. However, as these strategies will take some
time to implement, governments are currently relying on demand-side programs to
reduce per capita use. These mainly involve improving water use efficiency
(Lovering et al. 2002).
The urban water balance (details of which are presented in Table 5.2) is an attempt to
maintain equilibrium between increases in the demand for water due to population
growth and the potential reductions in yield from existing water sources, with
additional and new sources of supply. Without the supply-side measures, the urban
water balance is estimated to be 854 GL in deficit by 2030 (WSAA 2005: 24).
Accessing both new and alternative sources of water are seen as the keys to the
future growth of Australian cities. The new sources of water include the transfer of
78
water from adjoining catchments, accessing agricultural allocations through water
markets, reducing water losses from runoff, leakages and water loss management,
construction of desalination plants, expanding groundwater sources, better use of
existing dams that are currently not being used for potable purposes and extracting
additional water from rivers. Alternative supplies of water mostly involve recycled
water from wastewater and storm water that can be used as a substitute for potable
water.
Table 5.2 The urban water balance sheet for Australian capital cities and major
urban centres (the Gold Coast and Lower Hunter Region)
Population
(millions)
Available
Water
(GL)
Consumption
(GL)
Surplus
or deficit
(GL)
Current 12.8 2,175 2,063 111
Future – 2030
Given the current infrastructure 17.3 1,631 2,811 -1,180
With measures identified in urban water strategies
New sources of water 684 - 496
Alternative sources of water 195 - 301
Water efficiency measures -326
Total 2,510 2,485 25
Source: WSAA 2005: 25
79
5.3.3 Current wastewater recycling in Australia
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS. 2006), the volume of
wastewater recycled in Australia has increased by 300 per cent since 1996-97. In
1996-97 only 134 GL of water were recycled. This represented less than one per cent
of the total water used that year. By 2000-01, this volume had increased to 516 GL.
However, this still accounted for less than one per cent of total water use. Agriculture
was the largest user of recycled water in 2000-01, accounting for 423 GL, or 82 per
cent of all recycled water used. Currently, there are over 580 different recycled water
schemes operating in Australia. Approximately 230 schemes use recycled water in an
urban environment (e.g., golf courses and recreational parks). Another 80 are in the
service industry (e.g., washing and cooling) and 270 are used in agriculture to
produce horticulture, forestry, pasture, cotton, flowers, viticulture and sugar cane
(ARRIS, 2004). Details of the wastewater recycling projects in Australia in different
sectors are presented in Appendix II and the recycling projects in other countries are
presented in Appendix II. Recycled water use is expected to increase in the coming
years as governments in different states have set ambitious targets to increase
supplies as a substitute to potable water supplies (see Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 Effluent produced by sewage treatment plants and the portion of
water recycled in states and territories of Australia 2009
State Effluent produced
(ML)
Effluent recycled
(ML)
Portion recycled
(%)
Northern Territory 18448 1268 7
Queensland 187957 23352 12
Victoria 414675 95968 23
Australian Capital
Territory
37175 3845 10
New South Wales 788731 49247 6
South Australia 83332 25868 31
Western Australia 140285 11395 8
Tasmania not determined not determined not determined
Total 1670603 210943 13
Source: WSAA and NWC 2009
80
5.3.4 The quality of wastewater in Australia
Wastewater, if treated appropriately, has the potential to be recycled in a number of
sectors. Recycled water can be treated to a number of different standards using
different technologies depending on the quality required. In Victoria treated
wastewater is classified into classes A, B, C and D (see Table 5.4 for more
information on the quality aspects and uses). Class A is the highest rating for
recycled water used for non-potable supply and exceeds the guidelines recommended
by the World Health Organization (Radcliffe 2004). Class A recycled water is
considered safe for use in human food crops, including those eaten raw, whereas the
least treated wastewater is class D, which has limited uses and is really only suitable
for the irrigation of woodlots and flowers. The Biological attributes of wastewater
are not be relevant when class D water is used in primary industries. However, the
issues of salinity and mineral content of treated wastewater is of concern to most
primary producers, as it has the potential to significantly affect plant and soil health
and, over a period of time, reduce the productivity of the land. Each recycling
standard has a number of associated risks with it and its use should be based on a
sound economic analysis that takes into account all the environmental and social
externalities generated from using recycled wastewater.
81
Table 5.4 Classes of reclaimed water and range of uses
Water quality indicative
objectives
Treatment processes Range of uses – uses include
all lower class uses
Class A
<10 E.coli org/100 mL
Turbidity <2 NTU
<10/5 mg/L BOD/SS
pH 6–9
1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or
equivalent disinfection)
Tertiary and pathogen
reduction to achieve:
<10 E.coli per 100 mL;
<1 helminth per liter;
<1 protozoa per 50 litres;
and
<1 virus per 50 litres.
Urban (non-potable): with
uncontrolled public access
Agricultural: e.g., human food
crops consumed raw
Industrial: open systems with
worker exposure potential
Class B
<100 E.coli org/100 mL
·pH 6–9
·<20/30 mg/L BOD/SS
Secondary and pathogen
(including Helminth
reduction
for cattle grazing) reduction7
Agricultural: e.g., dairy cattle
grazing
Industrial: e.g., wash-down
water
Class C
·<1,000 E.coli org/100 mL
·pH 6–9
<20/30 mg/L BOD/SS8
Secondary and pathogen
reduction (including
Helminth reduction for
cattle
grazing use schemes)
Urban (non-potable) with
controlled public access
Agricultural: e.g., human food
crops cooked/processed,
grazing/fodder for livestock
Industrial: systems with no
potential worker exposure
Class D
<10,000 E.coli org/100 mL
pH 6–9
<20/30 mg/L BOD/SS
Secondary
Agricultural: non-food crops
including instant turf,
woodlots and flowers
Source: EPA 2003
5.3.5 Policy on wastewater recycling
Significant reforms to the policies that affect water recycling have occurred in
Australia over the past two decades. McGuckian (2002) and Radcliffe (2003) have
outlined reforms that have occurred in water pricing, institutions, irrigation systems,
water allocation and entitlements. Tisdell et al. (2002) has commented on the
national framework for the implementation of property rights in water and the need
for an integrated catchment-wide approach to water and land resource management.
With the increased frequency of droughts and the widening gap between the supply
and demand for water, a number of studies have been conducted on wastewater use.
82
These studies have led to governments developing strategies to secure water. These
include:
A State of Environment report for the Australian Department of Environment and
Heritage (1996) noted that sewage disposal was inadequate and that the state
regulatory bodies need to reduce nutrients flows to coastal environments
(Radcliffe 2003).
A series of guidelines published under the National Water Quality Management
Strategy, which include Guidelines for Sewerage Systems and Effluent
Management (ANZECC, ARMCANZ and NHMRC 2000a, b).
The establishment of a National Water Policy which includes State and local
targets, with time frames and recommendations for effluent use, storm water
retention, pollution removal, decentralized small-scale sewage treatment and
reduced effluent discharge to oceans (Allison et al. 2002).
In 2003, the Victorian government‘s White Paper which specified the aim of
securing the supply and use of the State‘s water assets over the next 50 years,
which included recycled water into the state‘s water allocation framework.
The role of various government institutions related to wastewater recycling is
presented in Chapter 7 under the institutional analysis for Melbourne.
5.3.6 Wastewater pricing
Australia has a wide array of approaches to the issue of wastewater and sewage
pricing. According to Young and McColl (2008) in Perth consumers producing less
than 200 KL/year of sewage, pay $A 432/year for sewerage and $A 2.161/KL if
more than this is produced. A discharge factor is applied to the water bill for the
amount of estimated sewage produced. In Brisbane a fixed charge of $A 398.24/year
applies for sewerage disposal, while in Sydney it is $A 240.17/year. In Adelaide the
greater of 0.1242 per cent of the value of the property or $A 291/year is charged.
One of Australia‘s more sophisticated sewerage charging systems can be found in
Melbourne‘s Yarra Valley. A fixed charge of $A 184.54/year and a variable rate of
83
$A 1.3181/KL of sewage produced are levied (Young and McColl. 2008). It is
assumed that a proportion of the water consumed returns to a sewer. The assumed
percentage is different for houses and flats and varies by season. In winter it is
assumed that 90 per cent of all the water passing through a household returns to the
sewer. In summer the assumed percentage is less as water is used on gardens.
Consumers who use grey water (recycled untreated water from laundries within the
household) can apply for the assumed sewerage percentages to be lowered.
5.3.7 Costs of recycling
The absolute and relative costs of supply of recycled water are important components
for the overall implementation and success of recycle water projects in Australia. In a
survey of stakeholders involved in recycled water ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. (2005)
found that 58 per cent of the respondents believe that the issue of cost is ―very
significant‖ and is an impediment to the use of recycled water, while only 13 per cent
believe it to be ―insignificant‖ (see Figure 5.5). The demand for recycled water use is
influenced by not only cost of supply of recycled water alone but also the relative
cost of alternative sources of water.
ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. (2005) revealed that 80 per cent of the 35 stakeholders
interviewed in a study on water use, who were involved in recycled water supply,
ranked the cost of the infrastructure among other impediments (see Figure 5.6) as a
very significant impediment to recycling.
84
Figure 5.5 Cost relative to alternatives as an impediment to use recycled water.
58% 59%64% 64%
57%
64%70%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Ove
rall
End
Use
r
Sup
plier
Regu
lato
r
Rese
archer
Mar
ketin
g
Policy
Stakeholder role
% o
f re
sp
on
se o
f 'v
ery
sig
nif
ican
t'
Source: ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005
Figure 5.6 Impediments to supply – suppliers only.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Uncert
ain
of
Health r
isks
Lack o
f
Uncert
ain
Com
ple
xitie
s in
Inadequate
Impact
on
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f re
sp
on
den
ts
Very Significant
Significant
Insignificant
Source: Reproduced from ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005
Notes: Based on a sample of 45 stakeholders involved in recycled water supply only.
85
The assessment undertaken by ACIL Tasman (2005) also considered demand side
factor, requesting stakeholders‘ views on the relative significance of impediments to
the take up of recycled water (see Figure 5.7). The most important impediment to use
was found to be the cost of recycled water, relative to the cost of alternative water
sources. Approximately 60 per cent of respondents identified this as a ―very
significant‖ impediment to use. Many of the wastewater supply companies provide
recycled water at subsidized prices (see Table 5.5) anyway. The price charged for
recycled water is significantly below both the price of the better perceived drinking
water and both are below the estimated costs of treating and recycling water itself.
This is done because of other impediments to use recycled water, such as health
concerns over the safety of using recycled water and a resistance amongst users to
adopt to change and use what is a relatively ‗new‘ product compared to more
traditional first-use or fresh water.
Figure 5.7 Impediments to use recycled water – all respondents.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Resis
tance
to a
dopt
change
Health
concern
s
Yuck facto
r
Lack o
f
truct in
qualit
y
assura
nce
cost re
lative
to
altern
atives
Lack o
f
relia
ble
supply
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f re
sp
on
den
ts
Very Signif icant
Signif icant
Insignif icant
Source: Reproduced from ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005
Note: Based on a sample of 101 key stakeholders in recycled water industry
86
Table 5.5 Comparison of the costs of some recycled water schemes
Location Use of recycled water Recycled
price
($A/KL)
Real cost of
recycled water
estimated
($A/KL)
Drinking water
($A/KL)
Springfield,
QLD
Residential—toilet
flushing, garden
0.43 1.45 Per quarter: 0.90
for 100–150 KL
Rouse Hill,
NSW
Residential—toilet
flushing, garden
0.28 3.00 to 4.00 0.98
Olympic Park,
NSW
Residential supply—toilet
flushing, garden, laundry
0.83 1.60 (operating
only)
0.98
Mawson
Lakes, SA
Residential—toilet
flushing, garden watering
0.77 Not available $1.03 for >125
KL
Sources: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, ‗Water recycling in
Australia‘, Melbourne, 2004; D. Hatton MacDonald ‗The economics of Water: Taking full account of
first use, reuse and return to the environment‘ CSIRO Land and Water Client Report, Adelaide, 2004;
A. Hurlimann, J. McKay, G. Geursen ‗Pricing of drinking water vs recycled water: fairness and
satisfaction‘ in Water, March 2005, pp.30–34.
One of the reasons why treating wastewater to a high level is expensive, using
secondary through to advanced is that it is very energy intensive. Wastewater
recovery from water with less total dissolved solids has a lower energy costs for
reverse osmosis. The standard energy consumption for potable water production is 4
to 5 kWh/KL for the reverse osmosis of seawater (Water Corporation. 2005). For the
conventional treatment of water only 0.4 to 0.6 kWh/KL are consumed. Yet for
wastewater reclamation Swinton (2005) estimates energy consumption to be between
0.8 and 1.0 kWh/KL. This is not much more than the treatment of conventional
supplies and certainly less than desalinated seawater, even though reclaimed water
needs to be desalinated. The lower salt content in reclaimed water over sea water
means that the energy requirements are lower. It should be noted that the type of
water targeted for reclamation is an important consideration, as the costs vary
widely.
87
5.4 Environmental Kuznets Curves and the
wastewater sector
The current section presents the application of Environmental Kuznets Curve
framework to the relationship between a countries level of income and wastewater
generation, treatment, reuse and recycling (see Figure 5.8). It was asserted (in
Chapter 3) that when incomes are low wastewater is possibly collected, but not
treated. This untreated water is reused by the agricultural sector. As the per capita
income of the people in a country increases, according to the theory the people would
demand clean water and sanitation. This would ensure that all wastewater generated
in a city was treated to appropriate quality before it is disposed off. As incomes rise
even further other more environmentally friendly techniques such as recycling would
be employed.
5.4.1 Indian wastewater sector
Bhattacharya (2008) assessed the shape of the environmental degradation-economic
growth relationship in India for selected environmental indicators. He concluded that
the EKC type relationship exists for untreated wastewater disposed from class-I2 and
class-II3 cities in India, but suggested that the evidence for Biological Oxygen
Demand and Chemical Oxygen Demand was not conclusive (see Table 5.6). In the
case of Biological Oxygen Demand, the shape of the curve was of an ―N‖ rising
2 According to Census 2001, class I cities are cities with population between 100,000 – 10,00,000
3 According to Census 2001, class I cities are cities with population between < 100,000
88
Figure 5.8 Environment Kuznets Curve for water pollution due to wastewater
production
Table 5.6 Environmental Kuznets Curves and indicators of water pollution in
India
Indicator analysed Time
period
Shape Turning
point level
of income
($US)
Policy
variable
Significance
of the policy
variable
Untreated wastewater
disposed in class-I
cities
1993-2004 EKC 3150 Treatment
capacity of
STPs as a
proportion
of
wastewater
generated
Yes
Untreated wastewater
disposed in class-II
cities
1993-2004 EKC 1694 Yes
BOD 1993-2004 N 548-2388 No
COD 1993-2004 U 1668 No
Source: Bhattacharya, S. 2008. Is India tunnelling through an EKC? A project led by The Energy and
Resources Institute (TERI) and sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Turning Point Improvement in water
quality: As income
grows, the demand for
clean rivers and
treatment of
wastewater tends to
increase
Water Pollution: Increasing
income initially mean
increased water
consumption and
production of wastewater
leading to pollution of
rivers/aquifers/soils
Developing countries Developed countries
(Hyderabad case) (Melbourne case)
Wastewater Generation Collection Treatment Recycling
Envir
onm
enta
l D
egra
dat
ion
Per Capita GDP
89
Bhattacharya (2008) argues that the policy variable - treatment capacity of Sewage
Treatment Plants - is significant and very low for class-II cities in India.
Consequently water pollution arising from untreated wastewater could be abated if
the capacity and efficiency of Sewage Treatment Plants was increased. But this
would require a considerable investment in infrastructure being made, something that
can only be done once incomes rise. He also emphasizes the important role of
enacting efficient environmental policy and of the related institutions that are needed
to impose them. Improving policy and institutional efficiency would effectively
flatten the curvature of the EKC and make economic growth more sustainable and
reduce the environmental cost of this growth.
The per capita GDP and population growth for India and Australia from 1980 to
what it is projected to rise to in 2014 is presented in Appendix III. Currently
according to Bhattacharya (2008), the turning point income levels for treatment of
wastewater for Indian class I cities is $US 3150 and for class II cities is $US 1694.
Using these estimates, it is expected that the class – I cities in India should be able to
treat all their wastewater by 2011 when their annual per capita GDP reaches $US
3187.
Following a series of reforms beginning in the early 1990s, the GDP of India has
shown a compound annual growth rate of 5.8 per cent from 1995-2000, which
increased to 6.8 per cent from 2000–2005 (see Figure 5.9). India‘s GDP grew by 9
per cent in 2005 improving India from the 16th
largest economy in the world in 1990
to the 13th
largest in 2005, surpassing countries such as Australia and the Netherlands
in size alone (Government of India. 2006).
90
Figure 5.9 Compound annual growth rate of India (forecast assuming 7.3%
compound annual GDP growth)
As India‘s economy has grown, so too has the spending power of its citizens. Real
average household income in India has roughly doubled over the past two decades.
Along with rising incomes have come greater consumption and the emergence of
India‘s much-discussed ―new middle class‖ (Shukla et al. 2004). Income growth is
expected fastest in urban areas where real average household incomes are forecast to
rise from Rs.166,922 in 2007 to Rs.513,042 by 2025, an annual increase of 5.8 per
cent (Ablett et al. 2007). Overall, Indian incomes have experienced a healthy growth
over the past two decades. India‘s real aggregate disposable income has grown from
Rs. 7,527 billion in 1985 to Rs.23,526 billion in 2005—a compound annual growth
rate of 5.9 per cent.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Real
GD
P (
bil
lio
n,
Ind
ian
Ru
pees,
2000)
Overall compound
annual growth
Per capita compound
annual growth
6.0%
3%
7.3%
5.9%
History
Forecast
91
India‘s fast-growing population growth rate of 1.578 per cent (CIA. 2008) has meant
that, on a per-household basis, real disposable income growth has been less rapid.
However, it is still moderately strong, rising from Rs.56,470 in 1985 to Rs.113,744
in 2005—a compound annual growth rate of 3.6 per cent (see Figure 5.10).
Figure 5.10 Growing incomes in the past two decades.
Source: Graph reproduced from National Accounts Statistics: MGI India Consumer Model, v1.0
7527
10425
13164
17657
23527
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005E
Compound annual
growth rate
Total aggregate household
disposable income (billion Indian
rupees, 2000)
56470
6924977785
93542
113744
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005E
Average household disposable income
(Indian rupees, 2000
Compound annual
growth rate
92
With the increase in disposable income of households, there are more Western
facilities being built to service the needs of the new urban middle class. Also, with
increasing income and education levels has come a new awareness towards the
environment and the need to protect it. It is common knowledge that most rivers in
India are polluted due to the disposal of untreated industrial effluents and domestic
sewage.
5.4.2 Domestic product and per capita income of Hyderabad
The growth in per capita and household income at 1993 prices is presented in Table
5.7. Though the overall GDP of the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration is significant,
it does not compare well with the GDPs of other major cities. The per capita GDP in
Hyderabad is only Rs. 23000 (2000-01), which is much lower than the per capita
GDPs of Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi and Bangalore (see Figure 5.11) (NCAER. 2002).
A study on the household income patterns conducted in 1994 indicated that the
monthly income per household was Rs. 4219 in 1994 with a per capita income of Rs.
630 per month (JNNURM. 2005). The per capita income of the highest 17 per cent of
the population increased by 82per cent, while the households in the next -highest
income group increased their income by 20 per cent. The population below poverty
line constitute 24 percent while those who are marginally above the poverty line
stood at 9 percent. This might have significant implications for the pricing policy of
water and wastewater services in Hyderabad.
Table 5.7 Per capita income of households – Metropolitan Hyderabad
Year Per household
income
(Rs./Month)
Per capita
income
(Rs./Month)
CAGR
(% increase)
Household income Per capita income
1967 309 49 12.6 12.8
1982 1842 297 12.6 12.8
1994 4219 630 7.20 6.50
1967-94 10.2 9.90
Source: ESMAP Report on household energy strategies for urban India – The case of Hyderabad
93
Figure 5.11 Gross District Product per capita (2000-01)
4300039000
33000 33000
23000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Mumbai Delhi Kolkata Bangalore Hyderabad
Rs
Source: NCAER India Market Demographic Report 2002, State Directorates of Economics and
Statistics
5.4.3 Australian wastewater sector
Australia had reached their turning point on the EKC a long time ago (see per capita
GDP for Australia in Appendix III). By the 1880s, Melbourne was a sizeable city and
dumped all its waste into open street channels, which ran into the Yarra River and
Hobsons Bay. Epidemics like typhoid were common and frequent. The findings of a
Royal Commission in 1888 prompted the proposal of a sewage farm and in 1892 the
building of the Werribee sewage farm commenced. In 1897, the first Melbourne
homes were connected to the sewerage system. This served the cities needs until
1975, when Melbourne‘s second major sewage treatment plant, the Eastern
Treatment Plant, was started which was considered a world leader in the secondary
treatment of sewage at that time. Melbourne has kept up with the technological
changes in wastewater treatment technologies and is in that advanced stage of
wastewater processes. With increasing income levels of Melbournians, demand for a
clean bay has gone up and Melbourne Water is now trying to reduce its treated
wastewater outflows to the bay. As a consequence of this demand combined with
other water scarcity problems, Melbourne has started treating part of its wastewater
to class A quality with advanced treatment technologies and is recycling it in
industry, agriculture and for non-potable residential use.
94
5.4.4 Domestic product and per capita income of Melbourne
Strong economic growth has seen household incomes rise across Victoria over the
past decade. Melbourne‘s household incomes, however, have grown faster than those
of regional Victorians.
Figure 5.12 Real median household income of Melbourne and Australia ($A
base 2006)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
HH
In
co
me $
A
Melbourne
Rest of State
Source: ABS. Census enumerated data 2006. Info sheet 5.
Table 5.8 Gross State Product per capita (current prices) for Victoria and
Australia
1998–
99
1999-
00
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
GSP* per
capita
($A)
33 753
35
534
37
303
39
157
40
994
43
547
45
001
46
549
48
037
Percentage
changes
from
previous
years*
4.8 5.3 5.0 5.0 4.7 6.2 3.3 3.4 3.2
GSP per
Capita of
Australia
32308
33887 35769
37677
39574
42092
44368
47136
50264
*GSP is Gross State Product per capita and percentage changes, as per the current prices for Victoria.
Source: ABS. 2008
95
5.5 Summary
Chapter five presents the wastewater use, quality, pricing and probable impact of the
growing per capita GDP on the extent of treatment and recycling. For the Indian
case, representing the developing country scenario, it is seen that wastewater
volumes have increased with increase in urban populations. The current reuse of
wastewater in agriculture sustains livelihoods of poor peri-urban farmers, but in the
long run it reduces the productivity of these lands, pollutes groundwater and affects
the farmers‘ health as it does not undergo any treatment prior to use. As per
Bhattacharya‘s analysis (2008) of the treatment of wastewater form class I and class
II cities, it follows the EKC and it is expected that by 2011, Indian class I cities
would cross the turning point on the EKC and all wastewater will be treated. With
Hyderabad building four new treatment plants which are expected to become
operational by 2010, it can be said that Bhattacharya‘s prediction might be right.
However, the contingent valuation survey results and the results of the institutional
analysis show that people in Hyderabad are not yet willing to pay for the wastewater
services and the institutions are not fully equipped to internalise all the externalities
of wastewater. Therefore, it might be concluded that it might take more time for
Hyderabad and for India in general to actually treat all its wastewater, even though
the per capita GDP of people might cross over the turning point on EKC.
It is seen that the percentage of wastewater recycling in Australia is gradually
increasing, and the quality is strictly monitored. While, the full cost of wastewater
treatment is recovered from the customers, it may not be possible for the water
authorities to recover the full cost of recycling as people expect the price of recycled
wastewater to be lower considering some risk involved for the health of people. A
research by ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd (2005) had shown that the cost of recycling was
perceived by about 60 per cent of the respondents as the main impediment to
recycling. Hence there is a need for technologies and efficient wastewater allocation
decision tools to reduce the costs of recycling. Australia has already crossed the
turning point on the EKC a long time ago and has now entered the next phase of
wastewater recycling.
96
97
Chapter 6
Water Scarcity
6.1 Introduction
An assessment of the prevailing physical water scarcity conditions in the two case
study cities (Hyderabad and Melbourne) are presented in this chapter. It was argued
that water scarcity would be a factor that was likely to promote the treatment, reuse
and recycling of wastewater in a city. What is measured in these two cities is the
extent to which they suffer from water scarcity and what they envisage to do about it.
To that end, the strategies that each of the cities plans to adopt to tackle the water
scarcity problem (be it real or perceived) and the role of wastewater can and
currently plays is investigated. It was established in Chapter 4 that water scarcity is
defined as a situation where the demand for water exceeds its supply. Demand is
defined as the quantity of water people want to buy and supply is defined as the
quantity of water available for sale.
6.2 Hyderabad Case Study
6.2.1 Sources of water and Hyderabad’s supply scenario
Hyderabad has been suffering from water scarcity for a long time now. In Hyderabad
bulk water is supplied to 688.2 km2 out of a total area of 1,547 km
2 by the Hyderabad
Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB. 2005). Historically, Hyderabad has
been supplied water from two main reservoirs the Osman Sagar (110 GL/year) and
Himayath Sagar (84 GL/year) until the 1950s. With gradual expansion of the city and
increase in population four new phases of water projects (Manjira Phase I, II, III and
IV) were commissioned by HMWSSB to draw water from the Majira River in the
Godavari basin (see Appendix IV for the different sources and quantities supplied
from each source). The current supply of water (see Table 6.1) is dominated by
sources located outside the local (Musi) catchment, including the Godavari and
98
Krishna Rivers. The Krishna water supply project was designed to source 450
GL/year of water from the Krishna River to the water supply system of Hyderabad in
three phases. Phase I of the project was commissioned in 2004 to draw 75 GL/year of
treated water to Hyderabad. Phase II currently brings an additional 75 GL/year to the
city. Figure 6.1 shows different water sources for Hyderabad.
Table 6.1 Sources and storage of water for Hyderabad as on 07 July 2009
Today's Level and capacity
(as on 07 July 2009)
Last Year Level and
capacity on same
date
Reservoir
Full
Reservoir
Level
(mt)
Level on
previous
day
(mt)
Level
(mt)
Capacity
(GL)
Inflows
(GL)
Level
(mt)
Capacity
(GL)
Osman
Sagar 544.16 537.53584 537.53584 17.2752 0 533.92432 1.1328
Himayath
Sagar 533.064 529.5376 529.5376 13.0272 0 525.78624 1.9824
Singur 522.2264 516.9976 516.9976 2.832 0 515.43808 192.0096
Manjira 502.132 500.08 500.08 13.3104 0 501.45408 30.0192
Akkampally 74.2368 72.9752 72.9752 15.576 0.8496 73.28832 22.9392
Total 0.8496 2.66304
Source: HMWSSB. 2009
99
Figure 6.1 Water sources for Hyderabad
Source: George et al. 2008.
The water inflows into the reservoirs gradually decreased mainly due to a number of
watershed initiatives in the upstream areas (Ramachandraiah and Prasad. 2004) (see
Figure 6.2). The water supply from Osman Sagar and Himayath Sagar have been
declining over the years and completely stopped during 2003, for the first time in 80
years. In addition, the gross storage capacity of the Osman Sagar and Himayath
Sagar reservoirs is estimated to have declined by 12 per cent and 20 per cent,
respectively, between 1970 and 2003, due to siltation (George et al. 2006). The cost
of supplying water has increased over the years as the distance of the water sources
has increased and some of them requiring pumping upstream. The current cost of
bringing water from the Krishna River is Rs 18/KL whereas it costs Rs. 3.50/KL in
the case of Osman Sagar and Himayath Sagar, and Rs. 8/KL when sourced from
Singur and Manjira (M.R.Reddy, Finance Manager, HMWSSB. 2008. Personal
communication).
100
Figure 6.2 Contribution of different water sources to total urban water supply
Source: Van Rooijen, D., H.Turral., and T.W.Biggs. 2005. Sponge city: water balance of mega-city water use and wastewater use in Hyderabad, India. Irrigation and
Drainage, 54, S81–S91. doi:10.1002/ird.188.
Contribution of Water Sources to Total Urban Water Supply
Osman Sagar
Himayat Sagar
Ground Water
Singur
Manjira
Krishna river Godavari
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
time (years)
101
6.2.2 Population growth and water demand
Currently with a population of approximately 6.2 million, the city has expanded by
32.3 per cent in the last decade, and more recently the population has increased at
about 3 per cent per year (Iyer et al. 2007a). The population density of Hyderabad
has increased from 5,978 people/km2 in 1991 to 7,391 in 2001 (Iyer et al. 2007a).
According to Van Rooijen et al (2005) the population growth rate of Hyderabad
currently exceeds 5 per cent which has implications for the per capita availability and
future demand of water. The per capita water use can be calculated from available
domestic water divided by population number. At yearly growth rates of 4, 6 and 8
per cent the population of Hyderabad will be 18, 30 and 48 million, respectively by
2030. Van Rooijen et al (2005) estimated that the per capita water availability of
water will be 81 (4 per cent population growth rate), 50 (6 per cent) and 31
l/head/day by 2030 (see Figure 6.3). The peaks in Figure 6.2 are a reflection of the
incremental availability of new water quantities that originate from water sourced
from Krishna and Godavari Rivers. The drop after each peak is caused by further
increases in population over time. The three drops between 1984 and 2004 in per
capita water availability are the result of low reservoir inflows due to drought and
other conditions.
Of the total water supply to Hyderabad, approximately 80 per cent is used for
domestic purpose and the rest for industrial purpose. The present water demand
stands at 140 l/head/day, which is gradually increasing with changing lifestyle now
taking place in India (George et al. 2008). In 2001, supply from the five established
sources was found to cater to only 52 per cent of the demand. Saleth and Dinar
(1997) estimated that the water losses in the transmission and distribution system
amounted to almost 50 per cent of the demand deficit in 1991, while the HMWSSB
estimates the losses currently to be 40 per cent (The Hindu. 19th March, 2007). The
gross annual water demand for the city has increased rapidly from 1950 to 2006.
Based on the projected population (of a 2.5 per cent growth rate) and an average
demand of 140 l/head/day, the gross yearly demand by 2011 is estimated to be 520
GL and is expected to surpass 800 GL in 2031 (George et al. 2008).
102
Figure 6.3 Population growth rates and per capita water availability scenarios for Hyderabad city for the period 1980-2030.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
(Mill
ions)
Popula
tion
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
Per
Capita W
ate
r A
vaili
bili
ty (
l/pers
on/d
ay)
4% Pop growth 6% Pop growth 8% Pop growth
Est. Per Cap Daily Available Est. Per Cap Daily Available Est. Per Cap Daily Available
Source: Van Rooijen, D., H.Turral., and T.W.Biggs. 2005. Sponge city: water balance of mega-city water use and wastewater use in Hyderabad, India. Irrigation
and Drainage, 54, S81–S91. doi:10.1002/ird.188.
103
6.2.3 Demand-supply gap
Currently the estimated current water supply is 430 GL per annum comes from the
five sources: Osman Sagar, Himayath Sagar, Singur, Manjira and Krishna. The
current supply–demand deficit is estimated to be 150 GL/year and is expected to
grow to 310 GL/year in 2031 despite an increase in transfer from the Krishna River
to 450 GL/year and assuming that current sources will supply similar quantities in
future (George et al. 2008). The water demand and supply gap is expected to remain
for a long time to come (see Figure 6.4).
6.2.4 Strategies to reduce the gap: role of wastewater
With a widening demand supply gap and increasing cost of supply to bring water
from distant sources, Hyderabad will have to come up with some innovative and
smart alternatives to deal with the situation. The current plan of HMWSSB is to
construct a new pipeline to bring in more water from Godavari basin which is
expensive and the costs could be prohibitive. They also have some plans to recycle
treated wastewater in different sectors once the four sewage treatment plants under
the Musi Conservation Project become operative. However, it is not very clear how
HMWSSB could recycle that wastewater since the treatment plants are only designed
to treat wastewater upto secondary level and for any recycled water for the industrial
or residential sectors the water would have to undergo advanced tertiary treatment.
George et al (2008) after analysing the current situation of Hyderabad developed an
integrated water balance model of the complete urban hydrological cycle of
Hyderabad and came up with 192 alternate water supply scenarios to reduce the
water demand supply gap of Hyderabad. The scenarios were developed with a
combination of two levels of rainfall security – 75 per cent and 90 per cent; two
population growth rates – 2.5 per cent and 3.5 per cent and three future water
availability levels, which assume either 10 per cent reduction and 20 per cent
reduction in water available from current water sources.
104
Figure 6.4 Hyderabad Urban Water Supply-Demand Patterns
Source: Van Rooijen, D., H.Turral., and T.W.Biggs. 2005. Sponge city: water balance of mega-city water use and wastewater use in Hyderabad, India. Irrigation
and Drainage, 54, S81–S91. doi:10.1002/ird.188.
Hyderabad Water Supplies and Demands
Osman Sagar Himayat Sagar
Ground Water
Singur
Manjira
Krishna river
Godavari
extra needed
(demand - total supply)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1001950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
time (years)
Millio
n C
ub
ic M
ete
rs p
er
Mo
nth
105
After different scenario analysis (see Figure 6.5), George et al (2008) conclude that
the best scenario would be under a 2.5 per cent population growth with unchanged
projected supply availability and a rainfall exceeding 75 per cent, the conservation
programs, which include a 5 per cent conveyance efficiency improvement, reusing
90 GL/year of urban runoff and adoption of water harvesting by 0.5 million
households together with recycling 120 GL/year of wastewater were found to be
sufficient to meet the water demand projected for 2031. The role of recycled water
has been strongly emphasized in complementing the existing water sources and to
reduce the demand supply gap for Hyderabad.
Figure 6.5 Different combinations of scenarios analysed
Note: Most favourable scenario is shown by heavy border lines and most unfavourable scenario is
shown by heavy broken lines
Source: George et al. 2008.
106
6.2.5 Conclusions
It is quite evident from the above analysis, that Hyderabad is currently suffering from
an enormous water scarcity problem and it needs to be addressed. As the current
inflows from the existing sources are decreasing and the cost of bringing water from
distant and upstream stream areas increases, wastewater treatment and recycling will
prove to be more and more beneficial for the city. Therefore, in case of Hyderabad,
the physical water scarcity and the cost of alternative water supplies will be the key
factors driving treatment and recycling of wastewater in the future and may not
necessarily be concern for the environment.
6.3 Melbourne Case Study
6.3.1 Sources of water for the city and supply scenario
Most of Melbourne‘s water is sourced from 157,000 hectares uninhabited and
protected mountain ash forests located high up in the Yarra Ranges to the east of
Melbourne. The water is collected and stored in nine reservoirs as shown in Figure
6.6. The Thomson (in Gippsland), Upper Yarra, O‘Shannassy and Maroondah
Reservoirs are Melbourne‘s four main harvesting storages supplemented by supply
from the Sugarloaf, Maroondah and Yan Yean Reservoirs. The Greenvale, Silvan
and Cardinia Reservoirs are seasonal transfer storages, which hold water transferred
from the main harvesting reservoirs to the east. The Melbourne water supply system
currently has a total storage capacity of 1773 GL. Melbourne Water operates and
manages the system on behalf of the metropolitan retail water authorities in
accordance with a series of high-level principles and strategic rules that have been
approved by the retail water authorities.
107
Figure 6.6 Sources of Melbourne’s water supply system
Source: Melbourne Water Corporation
The inflows into the Melbourne water supply system since 1997 have been well
below the long-term average observed over 94 years of historical records from 1913
(see Figure 6.7). In the ten year period from 1997-2006, there were three major
drought years (1997-98, 2002-03 and 2006-07) and not a single year in which annual
inflow was higher than the long-term average. The year 2006 recorded the lowest
inflows in almost 100 years of Melbourne‘s recorded history. Further, inflows in the
calendar years 2007 and 2008 were consistent with those observed in the last ten
years. There is considerable uncertainty regarding future inflows and little evidence
to suggest any increases in inflows in the future (DSE. 2008).
The extended dry period from 1997 to 2007 has resulted in a significant decrease in
Melbourne‘s stored water reserves (see Figure 6.8). Storage levels have fallen from
almost full capacity at the start of 1997 to about 30 per cent at the start of August
2008. This corresponds to a reduction in total storage volume of about 1,100 GL over
a period of 11 years. Storage levels have been around 30 per cent to 40 per cent of
capacity for the past 18 months. It is therefore expected that any significant failure of
winter/spring rainfalls in the near future, such as a repeat of the extremely low level
108
of inflows observed in 2006, would result in a further decline in storage levels, most
likely to be well below 30 per cent of capacity (DSE. 2008).
In response to the observed reductions in storage levels since 1997, voluntary
reductions in water use were encouraged under the previous Drought Response Plan
(in action from February 2000 until 31st October 2002.) Stage 1
4 restrictions were
introduced on 1st November 2002 and remained in place until the 31
st July 2003,
following which Stage 25 restrictions introduced on the 1
st August 2003 and
remained in place until the 28th
February 2005. Permanent Water Savings Rules6
were introduced in lieu of restrictions on the 1st March 2005. The current Drought
Response Plan, which has been in place from 2006, sets out four stages of water
restrictions, with consideration of higher restrictions being triggered when the
volume of water held in storages falls to certain levels. Since the establishment of the
current Drought Response Plan, progressively more severe water restrictions have
been introduced as storage levels have continued to decline. Stage 3a7 restrictions
were introduced on 1 April 2007, prior to reaching the trigger point for Stage 4
restrictions, in order to reduce the likelihood of needing to enter Stage 48 restrictions.
The Minister for Water has confirmed that Melbourne will remain on Stage 3a
restrictions at least until 30 November 2008. Table 6.2 outlines extent to which
4 Stage 1: To water gardens and lawns, manual watering systems can be used between 6am-8am and
8pm-10pm and automatic watering systems can be used between midnight-4am on alternate days. A
bucket, high pressure cleaning device or commercial car wash can be used to wash vehicles at any
time. A hand-held hose fitted with a trigger nozzle can be used for pre-rinsing and rinsing only.
5 Under Stage 2, watering of lawns is banned and hoses cannot be used to wash cars.
6 Permanent Water Saving Rules: Hand-held hoses must be fitted with a trigger nozzle for garden and
lawn watering; Hosing down driveways, paths, concrete and paved areas is not permitted.
7 Under Stage 3a water restrictions, plants can only be watered in the morning on your specified
watering days as required. There is no evening watering.
8 Under Stage 4 water restrictions, lawns and gardens may not be watered at any time; a bucket filled
from a tap can be used to clean windows, mirrors and lights; and spot remove corrosive substances. A
new pool or spa of any size capacity cannot be filled.
109
annual demand is expected to reduce under different levels of water restrictions is
outlined in Table 6.3 gives a snapshot of the supply and demand for water in
Melbourne.
Table 6.2 Influence of water restrictions on system demand
Level of restriction Restriction imposed when storage
levels fall to (% of capacity)
Expected reduction in
unrestricted demand
Stage 1 Restrictions 46% 2.5%
Stage 2 Restrictions 40% 8.0%
Stage 3a Restrictions 35% 12.5%
Stage 4 Restrictions 29% 17.5%
Source: Drought Response Plan. 2008.
Table 6.3 Snapshot of supply-demand of water for Melbourne (GL)
2006 2015 2030 2055
Supply
Low inflows 395 413 415 415
Long-term average inflows 555 548 503 424
Demand
Demand on Melbourne water
supplies
446 468 508 550
Potential demand bounce-back 38 42 48 53
Total 484 510 556 602
Potential transfers to regional
centres
6 9 9 13
Note: Supply includes increases from Tarago Reservoir reconnection in 2010 and planned dual pipe
recycling
Source: Lovering et al. 2006
110
Figure 6.7 Annual Inflows to Melbourne’s Main Harvesting Reservoirs (Thomson, Upper Yarra, O’Shannassy and Maroondah
Reservoirs)
Source: Melbourne Water Corporation
111
Figure 6.8 Water System Storage Levels 1997 to 2008
Source: Melbourne Water Corporation
112
6.3.2 Population growth and water demand
By 2055, it is anticipated there will be 4.7 million people living in the Melbourne
metropolitan area, a 31 per cent increase from 2005 population of 3.6 million
(Lovering et al. 2006). Melbourne‘s water consumption increased steadily during the
twentieth century, from 42 GL in 1891 and peaking in 1997 at 538 GL (see Figure
6.9). In 2007-08 consumption was 381 GL, a 19 per cent decrease compared to the
preceding ten year (1997-2007) average of 470 GL. The percentage breakdown of
Melbourne‘s water consumption has remained reasonably consistent since the 1980s:
60 per cent for residential consumption; 30 per cent non-residential consumption and
10 percent is unaccounted for (DSE. 2008). In an average suburban home, about 51
percent of all water is used in the bathroom, 22 per cent is used in the laundry, 19 per
cent is used in the garden and eight per cent in the kitchen (DSE. 2009). In the
nonresidential sector, approximately half of the water is used by 1,500 companies
such as manufacturing businesses and hospitals and the remaining 50 per cent is used
by 122,000 businesses. (McPhail. 2008). In 2007-08 the average amount of water
consumed in Melbourne per person per day was 269 litres.
Figure 6.9 Melbourne’s water consumption from 1891-2008
Source: B. Furmage, General Manager, Strategic Planning, Melbourne Water, personal
communication, 20 March 2009.
113
Melbournians currently use around 923 ML/day (about 337 GL/year) of water
(Melbourne Water. 2009). Lovering et al (2006) predict that with population growth
and continued adoption of existing water conservation measures, Melbourne‘s
demand for water (without new actions to reduce demand) would increase to 550 GL
in 2055 if no ‗bounce back‘ in demand occurs (see Table 6.3). This could be as high
as 602 GL in 2055 if one reverts back to pre-restriction water use behaviours.
6.3.3 Demand-supply gap
The supply and demand gap for water in Melbourne is increasing (see Figure 6.10)
and if necessary steps are not taken, this gap will keep on widening and this will not
only deteriorate the quality of life of people, will also be a substantial business
opportunity lost. According to Lovering et al (2006) the major factors that will have
an impact on the supply and demand of water for Melbourne are - increasing
population; changing housing stock and occupancy rates; climate change; the need to
protect river health; and changing community attitudes to water use.
According to a prediction by the Victorian Government (2002), it is anticipated that
there will be around another 725,000 new homes in Melbourne over the next 50
years. A comprehensive investigation by CSIRO and Melbourne Water (2005) of the
potential impacts of climate change on water supplies for Melbourne indicated that
less water may be available in the future from the existing supplies due to lower
rainfall. Melbourne is dependent on the health of the Yarra and Thomson Rivers and
in the future, the Tarago River. The Victorian Government required the Melbourne
water utilities to give up water to boost flows to the Thomson River by 10 GL per
year from water savings made by Melbournians which is further expected to increase
by eight GL per year by 2014. Over recent years, Melbournians have responded
positively to the need to save water and want the Government to opt for alternative
water supplies such as recycled water, desalinated water, rainwater and stormwater.
114
Figure 6.10 Supply and Demand for Melbourne (GL)
Source: Lovering et al. Water supply demand strategy paper for Melbourne. 2006-2055.
6.3.4 Strategies to reduce demand-supply gap: role of
wastewater and other sources
Lovering et al (2006) suggested that to reduce the demand-supply gap the existing
savings would need to be maintained, that existing water supplies would need to be
secured, more water would need to be saved at home and at work, that water leaks
and wastage would need to be reduced and water efficiency opportunities around
Melbourne would need to be explored, along with alternative supplies.
A major desalination plant is planned for the Wonthaggi region to supply up to 150
GL/year to Melbourne, Geelong, South Gippsland and Western Port towns. This is
around a third of Melbourne's annual water supply from a source that is independent
of rainfall. The project will include an 85 km underground pipeline to connect the
plant to a transfer main at Berwick and then to Cardinia Reservoir. Following
preparation of an Environment Effects Statement and community consultation in
2008, construction of the plant is scheduled to commence in 2009 and be in operation
by the end of 2011. The plant will be constructed and operated through a Public
Private Partnership. The desalination plant will use approximately 90 Mwh
megawatts of electricity, which will be offset through the purchase of renewable
energy credits.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 2015 2030 2055
Year
Wate
r (G
L)
(GL)
Total Demand for Melbourne
Supply with Low inflows
Supply with Long-term
average inflows
115
The Sugarloaf Pipeline will connect Melbourne‘s water supply system with the
Goulburn River system, where the water is principally used for agriculture. The
pipeline is expected to deliver up to 75 GL/year by 2010, which is one-third of the
225 GL/year of savings to be made from Stage One of the Northern Victoria
Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP). The other two-thirds (150 GL/year) is to be
shared equally between irrigators and the environment. The Sugarloaf Pipeline
Project will cost $A750 million, and is paid for by Melbourne water users. This
includes an $A125 million upgrade to Melbourne‘s water treatment and distribution
network, to make the water acceptable.
The Tarago reservoir reconnection project is the first of the Government‘s Water
Plan major infrastructure projects. The aim is to increase Melbourne‘s drinking water
supplies by 240 GL by 2011. To reconnect Tarago Reservoir to Melbourne‘s
drinking water supply system, Melbourne Water built a new treatment plant at
Drouin West. This scheme delivers an extra 15 GL/year of high-quality drinking
water.
A key initiative of the Victorian Government to secure Melbourne‘s water future is a
$A300 million upgrade of the Eastern Treatment Plant to treat wastewater to Class A
standard. The project is expected to be completed in 2012 making 135 GL/year of
treated water available for recycling into new housing estates, irrigation and industry.
This project will also reduce the flows into the ocean at Boags Rocks near
Gunnamatta Beach.
6.3.5 Conclusions
A number of alternative water augmentation choices for Melbourne are available and
each at a different cost (see Table 8.15). While the cost of the alternative is an
important factor in determining its adoption, it is not be the only criterion. The
acceptability of the particular alternative to different stakeholders and the extent of
security of the alternative, are also key factors in determining the choices facing
policy makers. With the current predicted climate change outcomes, rainfall
independent sources may become more desirable. The rainfall independent sources
116
include recycled water and desalination. However, it may be necessary to note that,
in situations of restrictions and increased grey water recycling in the home and more
judicious use of toilet flushing, the system supply might alter significantly.
6.4 Summary
Both the cities, Hyderabad and Melbourne suffer from water scarcity problems. It is
acute and severe in Hyderabad, but also serious in Melbourne. Both the cities are
looking for alternate water sources for the city. Hyderabad is exploring both fresh
water from distant sources and recycling options, while Melbourne is looking at a
number of alternatives including desalination, stormwater and wastewater recycling
and transferring water from other basins. The ability to deliver on any of these
options depends on institutional factors and the costs and environmental
considerations. These factors are investigated and discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.
117
Chapter 7
Institutional Analysis
7.1 Introduction
The point has been made through out this study that the attitudes of institutions that
collect and treat wastewater are crucial if it is to be reused or recycled. Institutions
have a major role to play in the wastewater industries. In this Chapter the wastewater
authorities in both Hyderabad and Melbourne are subjected to an institutional
analysis to ascertain whether they are capable of delivering reforms to the waste
water sector and what might be required to do this. Given the site specific nature of
the institutions assessed, each city is analysed separately.
7.2 Hyderabad
The findings of the institutional analysis of the authorities responsible for
Hyderabad‘s water are presented in this Section. In particular, the legal issues
surrounding wastewater, its management, administration and performance by the
relevant authorities and the influences of exogenous factors are investigated.
7.2.1 Rules and rules-in-use analysis
The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act No 15 (1989) provides
for the supply of water, sewerage and sewage treatment services in the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Area and for matters connected to it. The declared rules and the actual
rules-in-use, the magnitude of gap between the two and the reasons for such a gap
are presented in this Section. The extent of the gaps that are uncovered is indicative
of the fact that the current institutional set up is not adequate and that a change is
required if the system of wastewater disposal, treatment and use is to be made more
efficient and less harmful to the environment and the people. As such, this Section
118
can be used to introduce the problems facing the authorities whose responsibility it is
to collect, treat and dispose of wastewater
1. Certain matters are not to be passed into the Board sewers and sewage
treatment works. (Declared Rule - Chapter V: Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
Works Section 54):
This rule states that unless provided for in the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act (1974), which relates to discharge and disposal of industrial effluents
and other objectionable effluents. This rule stops people throwing, emptying or
return into any Board sewers any:
a) matter likely to damage or interfere with the free maintenance or execution of a
sewer; or
b) roof water; or
c) chemical, refuse or waste water or stream or any other industrial effluent from
any type of industry, trade and business which may cause danger or nuisance or
may be prejudicial to the health; or
d) dangerous petroleum or petroleum products.
In practice in Hyderabad, disposing of solid waste in the public open drains is a
common practice and no penalties are imposed on people who commit such an
offence. Many a times, sewage drains overflow, due to blockages, causing a public
nuisance and creating an environment congenial for germs to thrive in. The main
reason for this is that there is no provision for proper solid waste disposal in the city.
Only in some important areas of the city is the HMWSSB active in collecting and
disposing of waste. In most parts of the city, people have to make their own
provisions for solid waste disposal. Households who cannot, or do not want to, pay
for their solid waste disposal, dump their waste into sewerage drains or the river or
any of the vacant lots of land nearby.
Most houses and apartment buildings in Hyderabad do not have rain water harvesting
systems and hence most roof water ends up in drains, mixed with the sewage water
which finally enters the Musi River. Old buildings are not mandated by law to have
rain water harvesting structures and their owners have no intention of complying
119
now. New builders have got away with this rule for various reasons (Mr Mukesh,
Manager, HMWSSB. Personal communication. December 2007).
A number of small and large industries have been known to illegally dump their
effluents either into the sewage drains or directly into the river, resulting in severe
pollution. This has had an adverse impact on the fish and crops in the areas down
stream of Hyderabad (Mr Shekar, farmer in the wastewater irrigated village of
Edulabad near Hyderabad and Cpt Rama Rao, from Forum for Better Hyderabad.
Personal communication. September 2007). There are a number of probable reasons
for this kind of behaviour, including greed, a lack of treatment facilities, that
treatment facilities are too expensive, a lack of concern for the environment, that
monitoring and strict enforcement of rules is not possible. However, no detailed
studies are available to isolate the reasons for it.
2. New premises not to be erected without sewers (Declared Rule - Section 60):
In area in which HMWSSB sewers are provided, it is illegal to erect or to re-erect
any premises or to occupy any such premises unless:
a) a sewer be constructed of such size, materials and descriptions at such level and
with such fall as shall appear to the Board to be necessary for the effectual
sewerage of such premises;
b) there have been provided and set upon such premises such appliances and fittings
as may appear to the Board to be necessary for the purpose of gathering or
receiving the filth and any other polluted and obnoxious matter from and
conveying the same off, the said premises and of effectually flushing the drain of
the said premises and every fixture connected therewith;
The sewer of a building needs to empty into a Board sewer, provided that the
premises are situated within thirty-five meters from a sewer.
In practice builders often violate this rule. New houses and buildings are erected with
no sewerage in place, often emptying their sewage into the nearest vacant plot or into
fresh water lakes. The reason for this is that the initial investment on the part of the
builders, to layout a sewerage network, is high. They save money and effort by not
laying out the network and in turn sell the plots for a lower price to people who are
120
more than willing to buy it, even without a sewer network in place because of the
high demand for space. Often people construct their own sewer drains during the
construction of their house and do not follow the rules. If there is no house
constructed in the neighbouring plot, or if the owner of the neighbouring plot does
not intend to construct a house for a long time, then the continuity of the sewer line is
broken. Often the empty plots are filled with sewage water, creating mosquito
problems, a bad odour and an unsightly view of all those around. A sense of
community amongst urban dwellers is sometimes lacking and collective action is
often not possible due to varying interests of the people (Buechler and Mekala.
2006).
3. Sewage and rainwater drains to be distinct (Declared Rule - Section 64.)
It is deemed that steps should be taken for the effective drainage of any premises.
This means that there should be one drain for filth and polluted water and an entirely
distinct drain for rain water and unpolluted sub-soil water. Both rain water and
unpolluted sub-soil water should empty into separate Board sewers or Municipal
Corporation drains or into other suitable places.
In practice, however, with the sudden increase in the population, the existing
sewerage network of Hyderabad is not able to carry all the sewage of the city. Hence
emptying it into the storm water drains and finally releasing the untreated sewage
water into the Musi River. Also as most households do not have rainwater harvesting
structures all the rainwater from rooftops ultimately ends up in the sewage channels
and which drain into the river. Many of the new houses now install rainwater-
harvesting structures simply to complying with this rule. However, these rainwater
structures are not used after some period of time and, because of lack of maintenance
of the structures and a lack of interest and awareness of the people who own them,
fall into disuse (Mr Mukesh, Manager, HMWSSB. Personal communication.
December 2007).
121
4. Appointment of places for the emptying of sewers and disposal of sewage:
(Declared Rule - Section 65.)
The Board may cause any or all the Board sewers to empty into and to be disposed of
at places the State considers suitable, and that:
a) no place can be used for sewerage disposal without the approval of the Board;
b) no sewage shall be discharged into any water-course, until it has been treated in
such manner as may be prescribed.
Currently there are only two sewage treatment plants in Hyderabad, one with a
treatment capacity (up to secondary level) of 20 ML/day and another at Amberpet
with a treatment capacity (up to primary level only) of 113 ML/day. More than 90
per cent of wastewater undergoes no treatment and is directly discharged into the
Musi River. A reason for the inadequate facilities is that wastewater treatment is an
expensive process beyond the internal financial means of most Municipalities and
Water Boards.
5. Regulations regarding sewage (Declared Rule - Section 75)
The Board may, with the previous approval of the government, punish those who
breach the rules with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1000, and, in case of continuing
breaches, with additional fines which may extend to Rs. 100 /day during which the
breach continues.
During the interviews for the Contingent Valuation analysis conducted in this study,
it was found that often people do not pay fines even after repeated warnings from
HMWSSB officials. The HMWSSB authorities (Mr Praveen Kumar, General
Manager, HMWSSB. Personal communication. September 2008) confirmed that it
was more expensive for them to cut off the supply of water to households who do not
pay their water bills, than the actual amount of an outstanding bill. At the same time,
a field study conducted in Hyderabad, India by Raghavendra (2006) found that
households were actually unhappy with the poor performance (poor measurement of
domestic water consumption and institutional indifference towards improving the
quality of service) of the HMWSSB. Some households in Hyderabad receive
municipal water supplies once every second day and some others only once in a
122
week. Despite this both pay the same monthly flat rate (depending upon the diameter
of the supply pipes). This difference in the quantities of water supplied also reduces
both the motivation of people to do the right thing and their trust in the authorities.
Hence, the problem lies both with people‘s attitude and the water authority‘s
performance.
6. Water Quality Guidelines
The water quality guidelines for different uses have been established by the Central
Pollution Control Board and are presented in Table 7.1. Most of these standards are
quite comparable to Australian and International quality standards for various uses.
However, the key difference between India and Australia is that, while in Australia
the Environment Protection Agency strictly enforces these quality standards on all
types of water uses and wastewater treatment and disposal, in India they remain mere
guidelines and are not effectively enforced. This is quite evident from the situation of
Hyderabad where most of wastewater is disposed into the river with no treatment at
all.
The Musi river water downstream of Hyderabad is not fit for any uses as mentioned
by the Central Pollution Control Board (see Appendix V for water quality in Musi
River). This is despite the fact that the Musi River water has been extensively used
for the irrigation of more than 10,000 ha of para grass and rice in peri-urban
Hyderabad (Buechler et al. 2002). The main reason for farmers not complying with
the prescribed guidelines and thus not using the water on quality grounds is the lack
of alternate sources of irrigation and the benefits derived from the crop production
(Buechler and Mekala. 2003).
123
Table 7.1 Water quality criterion for designated use
Designated-Best-Use Criteria
Class A
Drinking Water Source without
conventional treatment but after
disinfection.
1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml - 50 or less
2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5
3. Dissolved Oxygen 6mg/l or more
4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C 2mg/l or less
Class B
Outdoor bathing (Organised).
1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 500 or less
2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5
3. Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more
4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C 3mg/l or less
Class C
Drinking water source after
conventional treatment and
disinfection.
1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 5000 or less
pH between 6 to 9 Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C 3mg/l or less
Class D
Propagation of Wild life and
Fisheries
1. pH between 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
2. Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less
Class E
Irrigation, Industrial Cooling,
Controlled Waste disposal
1. pH between 6.0 to 8.5
2. Electrical Conductivity at 25°C Max.2250 micro mhos/cm
3. Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26
4. Boron Max. 2mg/l
Source:http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Water/waterqualitycriteria.html
124
7. Wastewater rights
Currently, there are no clear rights over wastewater as it is not treated to the
appropriate levels for recycling. Hence, wastewater is considered to be a pollutant,
something which one wants to get rid of rather than the resource it could be. The
HMWSSB releases the untreated wastewater into the Musi River, presuming that it is
owned by no one. However, once this water enters the river, farmers downstream of
Hyderabad who own agricultural land along the river have riparian right to own and
use this water on their lands.
It can be concluded that there are established rules and regulations for the
construction, maintenance and protection of the sewerage system (the essential
infrastructure necessary to carry wastewater). In addition, quality guidelines for the
discharge and treatment of wastewater, the protection of rain water and other surface
water sources from pollution and penalties for non-compliance of these regulations
exist. However there is a huge gap between these established rules and the way the
rules are interpreted and applied.
The mismatch between declared rules and rules-in-use and the reasons for the gap
suggest that the legal framework in operation in Hyderabad is weak. This framework
does not actually support or facilitate the implementation of all the declared rules. It
could be argued that:
1. The declared rules are too idealistic and ambitious, once the available capacity
of the organizations who are supposed to ensure their implementation is
considered.
2. The rules, which were declared two decades ago (in 1987), have not kept pace
with the changing socio-economic conditions of the city, rapid population
growth and the people and hence a big gap exists between the declared rules
and rules-in-use.
3. The costs of water supply, power/electricity, staff and treatment of wastewater
have increased greatly creating a great stress on the water authorities. However,
the pricing of water and sewerage services have not kept pace with this price
rise.
125
4. The government and water boards in India have always concentrated on
ensuring the water supply to the cities, but wastewater treatment and disposal
have always had a lower priority and hence the budget outlay for wastewater
treatment has not been adequate.
5. Often, urban dwellers are not aware of the gravity of problems associated with
the wastewater disposal and treatment and hence are apathetic towards such
issues.
7.2.2 National wastewater initiatives for Hyderabad
The drought of 1987 led to the development of a National Water Policy by the Indian
Ministry of Water Resources in September, 1987 and which was further reviewed
and updated in September 2002. The National Water Policy (see Box 7.1) contains
certain guidelines which have implications for the treatment and recycling of
wastewater, including the recognition that there is a need to treat all urban
wastewater. The NWP emphasizes the practices required to ensure water quality and
the principle of ‗polluter pays‘. There is a direct recognition of the need to increase
the urban water tariffs and treatment of wastewater. An increase in the participation
of the private sector to manage water resources has also been emphasized with the
expectation that it will lead to an increase the efficiency of the management of the
resources.
126
1. River Pollution Action Plans: Save Musi Campaign
Save Musi Campaign, also known as ―Abatement of Pollution of River Musi‖ was
launched in an attempt to clean up the river. It is part of a national initiative and not
explicitly directed towards the problems in Hyderabad. As a part of the project, all
wastewater leaving Hyderabad will be intercepted, diverted and treated in four
sewage treatment plants to secondary level before it is released into the Musi River
(see Table 7.2). The Government of India will contribute 70 per cent and
Government of Andhra Pradesh will contribute 30 per cent towards the capital cost
of the project of Rs.3356 million. In addition to their share in the capital cost, the
National Rivers Conservation Directorate will also share operation and maintenance
costs of the plant for the first six months.
Box 7.1 National Water Policy
Water Allocation Priorities
5. In the planning and operation of systems, water allocation priorities should be broadly as
follows:
· Drinking water
· Irrigation
· Hydro-power
· Ecology
· Agro-industries and non-agricultural industries
· Navigation and other uses.
However, the priorities could be modified or added if warranted by the area / region specific
considerations.
Water Quality
14.1 Both surface water and ground water should be regularly monitored for quality. A phased
programme should be undertaken for improvements in water quality.
14.2 Effluents should be treated to acceptable levels and standards before discharging them into
natural streams.
14.3 Minimum flow should be ensured in the perennial streams for maintaining ecology and social
considerations.
14.4 Principle of ‗polluter pays‘ should be followed in management of polluted water.
14.5 Necessary legislation is to be made for preservation of existing water bodies by preventing
encroachment and deterioration of water quality.
Private Sector Participation
13. Private sector participation should be encouraged in planning, development and management of
water resources projects for diverse uses, wherever feasible. Private sector participation may help
in introducing innovative ideas, generating financial resources and introducing corporate
management and improving service efficiency and accountability to users. Depending upon the
specific situations, various combinations of private sector participation, in building, owning,
operating, leasing and transferring of water resources facilities, may be considered
Source: Ministry of Water Resources. 01 April 2002.
http://www.wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/nwp20025617515534.pdf
127
Table 7.2 Location and capacities of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plants
Plant Capacity in
2007
(ML/day)
Capacity in
2021
(ML/day)
Proportion
completed by
Jan 2008
(%)
Expected date
of completion
(dd-mo-year)
Amberpet 339 815 85 31-12-2007
Nagole 172 366 77 31-03-2008
Nalla-cheruvu 30 134 55 31-03-2008
Attapur 51 121 Tender stage 31-12-2008
Total 592 1436
Source: HMWSSB Master Plan. January 2008
The assets created under the project will be the property of the state government,
which is responsible for its proper operation and maintenance in the long run. The
capacities of the treatment plants are proposed to be upgraded by 2021, to keep pace
with the increasing volumes of the wastewater. When this project is successfully
completed, approximately 70 per cent of the wastewater of the city will be treated to
at least secondary level, or what is known as ‗boatable‘ quality. The quality of the
river is expected to increase. However, the sustainability of this project still depends
on the capacity of HMWSSB to bear the operation and maintenance costs of the
Sewerage Treatment Plants. While HMWSSB has certain plans for cost recovery,
some senior officials (Mr. Rao, General Manager, HMWSSB. Personal
communication. September, 2008) of the organization were sceptical about the
practical application of these strategies.
There are additional plans to recycle the water that has been put through the
Sewerage Treatment Plants. The Managing Director of the HMWSSB, K.S. Jawahar
Reddy, is reported as saying:
―Finding a second use out of sewerage water through new technologies
would help in serving city better. The endeavour would be to increase
recycling of wastewater from the present 2 per cent to 20 per cent by
2021‖, (The Hindu. 8th
April 2006).
According to the HMWSSB plan, approximately 53 per cent of the treated water is
expected to be recycled. Of this only 30 ML/day is expected to go to industries, 20
128
ML/day for non-potable domestic use, 270 ML/day for ground water recharge and
220 ML/day for indirect potable use. But, the plans do not mention any details of
how this allocation will be implemented. There is no mention of a dual pipeline
system that would be required. As such, these plans to recycle water are nothing
more than that: plans.
7.2.3 Wastewater administration in Hyderabad
The key organization responsible for the management and control of wastewater
treatment, disposal and recycling in Hyderabad is the HMWSSB. In addition to
HMWSSB, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and Andhra Pradesh State Pollution
Control Board (APPCB) also play important roles and influence the wastewater of
the city. In this study it is the HMWSSB that is of most interest as it is they that are
directly responsible for water and wastewater management of the city and have the
greatest control over the system.
The HMWSSB was constituted on the 1st of Nov 1989 under the provisions of
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act (1989). It was formed by
consolidating two existing government departments; the state-level Public Health
Engineering Department which was responsible for water services for the city and
the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad which was responsible for sewerage
services. The key functions and responsibilities of HMWSSB are the supply of
potable water including planning, design, construction, maintenance, operation and
management of water supply system. They are also responsible for sewerage,
sewerage disposal and sewerage treatment works including its planning, design,
construction, maintenance, operation and management of all sewerage and sewerage
treatment works.
The organisational structure, the composition of the Board members and functions,
and responsibilities of each director of the HMWSSB are presented in Appendix VI.
The organisation has established a Rain Water Harvesting Cell, a Staff Training
College, Quality Assessment Wing, a Police Station, a Plantation Cell and a
129
Dispensary. In addition, HMWSSB brought about a series of customer-focused
service delivery reforms towards the end of 1990s. These actions have increased their
efficiency to deliver services. They include the Single Window cell, the Metro
Customer Care and the Metro Water‘s Citizen‘s Charter (Kennedy. 2006).
The Single Window Cell was developed in order to eliminate the mediators that
existed between the customers and the HMWSSB. The aim was to assist prospective
consumers connect to both the water supply and sewerage systems with a single
application. The Metro Customer Care is also a public interface that is intended to
provide prompt solutions to customer grievances. The aim is to improve customer
services and to speedily address the grievances of water supply and sewerage
consumers. The customers can reach the Metro Customer Care by dialling a four
digit toll free number which is manned around the clock. The operators analyse the
nature of complaint and inturn transfer the caller to the concerned authorities which
must be handled within the stipulated time. Information from the Metro Customer
Centre database is used to generate an ―efficiency rating‖ for each area manager,
which is computed by dividing the number of complaints received in a given month
that were resolved within the target time frame, by the total number of complaints
received during the period. Efficiency ratings are reported monthly and are displayed
publicly on computer terminals in various HMWSSB offices. General Managers and
the Managing Director have been very active in monitoring these ratings and
managers are keenly aware that their performance is being monitored in this manner
(Kennedy. 2006). Recently, as a part of the service reforms, the HMWSSB has
introduced a Short Message Service complaint facility and Customer Relations
Management centres. Customers can lodge their complaints by sending a text
message. Once received and logged in the database, it is forwarded to the manager of
the concerned division and a unique token number is generated and forwarded to the
customer. After the complaint is rectified, customer is notified by a text message. To
provide a supply of water to the needy a ‗Dial a Tanker‘ scheme was introduced. Its
activities are supervised by the Metro Customer Care group (Kennedy. 2006).
A Citizen‘s Charter is a proactive communications strategy of the HMWSSB to build
public‘s trust in the agency. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh launched the
130
Citizen‘s Charter in January 2000. In it are outlined measurable service delivery
norms for a range of services. The Charter is distributed to all customers and the
rights and responsibilities of the HMWSSB and its customers are specified.
Additional information on future changes in water supply schedules and amounts and
timeframes within which the HMWSSB are required to redress customer complaints
(see Appendix VII). The publication of the charter was important, as it was a public
acknowledgment of the HMWSSB‘s commitment to improving the delivery of
services for citizens (Mr Praveen Kumar, General Manager, HMWSSB. September
2008).
7.2.4 Performance of the wastewater authorities
The performance of the HMWSSB needs to be evaluated in terms of its physical,
financial, economic and equity dimensions. The aspects that are used to measure
each of these dimensions and the findings are presented in this Section.
1. Physical performance
The physical performance of HMWSSB can be determined by the extent of demand-
supply gap for its services of water supply and wastewater management. Currently,
the HMWSSB is still grappling with its water supply problems. It is attempting to
close the gap between the demand and supply of water which has been widening
since the 1980s. In Chapter 6 the water scarcity problem of Hyderabad was presented
and details of how it might trigger treatment and recycling of wastewater were
presented.
The water supply and sewerage infrastructure inherited by the HMWSSB from the
Public Health Engineering Department in 1989 was designed seventy years ago to
serve a population of half a million people, less than 10 per cent of the number now
living in Hyderabad (Davis et al. 2001:15). The infrastructure is in a very poor
condition. Between August and November 2002, the Metro Customer Care unit of
HMWSSB recorded 12,616 complaints of sewage overflow on roads, 9,824
complaints of sewerage blockage at the customer premises, 941 complaints of
polluted water supply and 1667 complaints of water leakages (Kennedy. 2006). In
131
addition, in the past decade the city has expanded so fast that the sewerage system
has not kept pace. As a result less than 60 per cent of the city is sewered. While
water supply is a high priority area for the policy makers and HMWSSB, treatment
and the recycling of wastewater has taken a back seat. While plans are in place to
improve the system, so that by 2020, 100 per cent of the city is serviced, the funding
situation for these plans is not in place yet. Thus its concluded that the physical
performance of HMWSSB is quite bad and unless some drastic steps are not taken
soon, the situation will only worsen further.
2. Financial performance
The financial performance of HMWSSB can be determined by its investment gap
(actual versus required) and financial gap (income versus expenditure). The alarming
pace at which Hyderabad is growing, the gap between actual and required investment
both for water supply and sewerage systems is and will remain great for a long time
(Saleth and Dinar. 1997). The distance between bulk water sources and the city has
increased with each attempt to access more water. Thus, the cost per unit volume is
escalating, as are the transmission losses (see Table 7.4). Rehabilitating the sewerage
network will require a sizeable investment. No comprehensive and reliable cost
estimates for this task are available. A major task for HMWSSB and GHMC, is to
increase this sewerage network in order to successfully intercept all the wastewater
of the city, to divert it to the sewage treatment plants and then to treat it to required
quality. The additional infrastructure requirements needed to achieve this in
Hyderabad are presented in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Additional infrastructure necessary for wastewater
S.No Facilities Existing Required as per
Master Plan
1 Sewage Treatment Plant (ML/day) (only to primary
level)
113 1323
2 Trunk Sewers, Main Sewers, Branch Sewers above (km) 423 572
3 Laterals 300 mm diameter and below (km) 822 1087
Source: HMWSSB. 2003
132
In order to cover all the areas of the city, including the surrounding municipalities,
the HMWSSB and the GHMC have submitted a set of project proposals to the
Ministry of Urban Development for funds to expand the system. Also there are plans
to submit project proposals to other financial institutions to raise funds for the
infrastructure development. By March 2007, 59 proposals had been received from
Andhra Pradesh for release of funds to achieve this aim (Personal communication, S.
Jaipal Reddy, Minister of Urban Development, AP). Of the proposals received, 25
were approved and Rs. 9082 million has been raised. In the eight months to February
2007 Rs.37,661.4 million had been released to Andhra Pradesh for 12 additional
projects (INR News. 2007). In 2003 it was thought that about Rs.40, 000 million was
required to complete the task (see Appendix VIII for more details on new and current
projects by the HMWSSB).
The HMWSSB seems to have a constant budget deficit, which is revealed in the gap
between expenditure and cost recovery. The water audit matrix shows that cost
recovery is only 53 per cent of water supplied (See Table 7.4). In 2008, the
HMWSSB had an expenditure of Rs.378.80 million and had revenue of only Rs.240
million, resulting in Rs. 130 million deficit (Times of India. 8th Feb 2008). Poor cost
recovery, high levels of un-accounted for water and increasing power costs (thus
increasing marginal cost of water supply) have led to this situation. In Appendix VI
the balance sheet of HMWSSB for 2006 is presented.
It may be concluded that, HMWSSB is making positive attempts towards reducing
the gap between the actual and required expenditure to build the necessary
infrastructure for water supply and sewerage. However, there are still no attempts
being made to reduce the gap between the income and expenditure which is crucial
for the long term sustainability of the organisation.
133
Table 7.4 Water Audit Matrix
Sy
stem
In
pu
t =
22
7 M
GD
Authorized
Consumpti
on
68.48%
Billed
Authorized
Consumption
52.98%
1 Billed Metered Consumption – 34.49% Revenue
Water -
52.98%
2 Billed Un-Metered Consumption –
18.49%
Unbilled
Authorized
Consumption
15.50%
3 Unbilled Metered Consumption –
1.62% (Tankers Quantity)
Non-
Revenue
Water -
47.02%
4 Unbilled Un-Metered Consumption –
2.22% (Public Stand Posts+ charitable +
Quarters+ Offices+ Reservoirs)
5 Unbilled Consumption for the bills not
raised - 11.66% (consumption of back log
bills)
Water
Losses
31.52%
Apparent
Losses
15.46%
6 Unauthorized Consumption – 12.53%
7 Customer Metering Inaccuracies –
2.26%
8 Data Handling Errors - 0.67%
Real Losses
16.06%
9 Leakage on Transmission and
distribution Mains- 12.61%
10 Leakage and Overflows at Utility's
Storage Tanks - 0.92%
11 Leakage on Service Connections up to
point of Customer Metering – 2.53%
(140 Liters per connection)
Source: HMWSSB. 2003
3. Economic performance
The economic performance can be determined by the extent of cost recovery and
incentive gaps. In Hyderabad the price paid for water is Rs.6/KL is paid for water
supply of which 35 per cent is for sewerage cess. This is meant to pay for the
maintenance of the sewer lines. Some urban households are illegally connected to the
storm drains and do not pay any sewer cess. No money is charged for sewage
disposal or treatment alone. In 2005, domestic customers used more than 40 per cent
of the water provided by the HMWSSB, but generated only about 15 per cent of the
revenues, whereas industrial customers used 23 per cent water but generated 68 per
cent of the revenue (see Figure 7.1). The deficit created by other water users is cross-
134
subsidised by the industrial and commercial users of water. This also contributes to
lack of funds experienced by the HMWSSB and to the non-treatment of wastewater
(Mr Praveen Kuman, Manager. HMWSSB. Personal communication 2008).
The HMWSSB has re-structured its tariffs for water and sewerage services.
Differential pricing for industrial, commercial, and residential customers was
eliminated in 2004. Instead, an increasing block tariff system has been designed to
allow cross-subsidy of domestic customers by commercial and industrial enterprises
that use larger volumes of water. It is unclear how these tariff revisions will affect
the relative burden of cost-recovery among different user groups. The requests of the
Board of the HMWSSB (2003) for tariff increases have been rejected by the Chief
Minister, despite strong support from the World Bank, due to the high level of
unaccounted for water9 (33.2 per cent in Hyderabad‘s system). This level can not be
reduced until substantial investments are made in improving the infrastructure.
9 Unaccounted for water is the amount of water that a public water supplier diverted under its water
right or appropriation and/or purchased from other entities; minus the metered amounts that are sold to
other public water suppliers; sold to large industrial, bulk or livestock water users; sold to residential
and commercial customers; or distributed as free water. A public water supplier may have a high
percent of unaccounted for water, if it has: 1) inaccurately estimated the amount of water pumped or
purchased due to not metering all water at the intake source or by using raw water or finished water
meters that are inaccurate or improperly installed; 2) inaccurate customer meters; 3) bookkeeping
errors; 4) non-metered uses such as water used in the treatment process, city buildings, churches,
watering a golf course, etc. or 5) water leaks.
(http://www.kwo.org/Reports%20&%20Publications/UFW_assessment.pdf )
135
Figure 7.1 HMWSSB revenue from customers
0
17
68
15
7
30
23
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pub
lic sta
ndpo
sts
Bul
k
Com
mer
cial/I
ndust
rial
Dom
estic
% Revenue
% of water used
Source: HMWSSB. 2003
4. Equity performance
The HMWSSB supplies free water to poor settlements through a network of public
stand posts. About 7 per cent (or 31.78 ML/day) of the water supplied by the
HMWSSB is provided free of cost to the urban poor (HMWSSB. 2003). The
HMWSSB also has a concession of Rs.4600 to any household in a slum area and
whose residents live below the Poverty Line (they need to possess a ‗white‘ ration
card to get it) on their first house service (water supply) connection. The beneficiary
is also given the option of paying the amount in 12 equal monthly instalments
without interest. The House Service Connection is provided after the payment of the
first instalment and the rest is recovered along with the monthly/bimonthly billing for
water consumed.
Recently, the HMWSSB has undertaken a new project to supply water and sewerage
services to the slums in the Municipal Corporation areas. In this project, it is
proposed to lay local sewers in 352 out of 811 notified slums in Hyderabad, to
strengthen the sewerage network and to avoid sewer connections to storm water
136
drains. The cost of laying the 239.82 km of sewer lines required is estimated to be
Rs.308.06 million. It is also proposed to lay water supply lines in 408 out of these
notified slums in order to provide drinking water facilities and individual tap
connections. This, it is hoped, will improve the living standards of the very poor. The
cost of laying 193.34 km of water supply lines required is estimated to be Rs.54.638
million. (HMWSSB. 2008a).
Tariffs have been kept low in response to pressure from elected officials, who view
water as a social good that should be provided at low or no cost to residents,
particularly to the poor. However, low tariffs charged by the HMWSSB restrict its
ability to expand its infrastructure to low-income settlements, where poor residents
live. Wealthier households, with individual piped water connections, benefit from
this subsidized service, while poor households are often forced to rely on public
stand posts. The cost of spending many hours of their productive time for a pot of
water or to pay a high price if they want to purchase water from private water
vendors is never taken into account (Davis et al. 2001).
While HMWSSB is doing well in its equity performance, there is a high opportunity
cost of not connecting the poor to the network. At the same time it also means that
someone else is paying to subsidise the poor.
5. Political system: Politicisation of water
As water is a basic necessity of life and an important component of livelihoods of
people, it is bound to figure largely in political circles. According to Iyer (2007:31),
any matter is said to be politicized in a negative sense when political calculations
which are unconnected to the actual issue, tend to influence and distort policies and
decisions and render rationality difficult. In India, water is a highly politicized issue
in this sense. Politics and corruption in India have led to a number of water related
problems including the inability to:
o improve supplies to the ill-served areas and groups;
o create incentives for efficient use of water;
o provide incentives to reduce consumption by the affluent groups;
137
o adopt a rational, socially just, resource conserving, waste-minimising pricing
system;
o ensure proper billing and collection of charges for water supplies and the
treatment of urban and industrial wastewater; and enforce the existing rules
and regulations and penalize infractions.
It could also be argued that politics is responsible for the reluctance of most State
Governments to raise urban water charges appropriately (as recommended in many
Committees and Commissions). This creates the vicious circle of low revenues,
meagre resources, inadequate provisions for operation and maintenance, poor service
and resistance to sewerage tariff increases, leading to many ongoing and downstream
problems. Davis et al. (2001) argue that this is precisely the case that exists in
Hyderabad, (see Appendix IX).. The service delivery reforms of the HMWSSB it is
hoped will not only increase public trust, but may also help in public acceptance if
tariffs are increased in later years. According to Davis and Tanka (2005), such
measures will make the HMWSSB more attractive to potential bidders supplying
private investment. According to Kennedy, (2006, a World Bank staff member)
Hyderabad is a very attractive to bidders noting ―These are the kinds of reforms that
a private operator would undertake as soon as it took over a utility. It‘s even better
for the privatization if they are done in advance,‖ (Kennedy, 2006).
The political agenda in Hyderabad (and elsewhere in India) conflicts with the
priorities of the HMWSSB and other Water Boards around India. Often, the political
parties want to keep the price of water low, and subject the HMWSSB to constant
pressure to improve performance, without providing them the funds or the power to
make the required changes that would lead to an increase in efficiency. There is
ample evidence to show that HMWSSB is a victim of political manipulations. For
instance, in March 2004, the Congress candidate (the then opposition party to the
ruling Telugu Desam Party), Mr. Shashidhar Reddy, described the HMWSSB‘s
announcement to restore daily drinking water supply from April 15 (2004) as a sham.
138
Mr. Shashidhar Reddy said , (The Hindu. 14th
February, 2004):
This is nothing but a political ploy by the ruling Telugu Desam Party to garner
votes in the elections, the city goes to the polls on April 20, five days after the
proposed daily supply of drinking water is to commence. Isn't the timing
suspect? If at all something materializes, I guess they would supply daily
drinking water for five days till the poll date. To provide drinking water
everyday as against the present alternate day supply, HMWSSB would need
exactly the double of what it is supplying at present. Does it have that kind of
inflows? I can only sympathise with HMWSSB officials who are being
pressured to make such political statements.
The HMWSSB planed to issue legal notices to the top 500 defaulters asking them to
clear their dues by the 31st March 2008. If they failed to do so their mobile and
immobile properties would be confiscated under section 99 of the Revenue Recovery
Act, under which the HMWSSB is empowered to seize the properties of the
defaulters. However, the authorities were wary of taking the coercive steps required
immediately, in view of the ongoing Assembly session. Therefore, it was proposed to
take the drastic measure only in April (The Hindu. 14th
February, 2008). The
HMWSSB has to collect a staggering Rs.12,000 million in dues accumulated over
the last decade. This is a massive debt, given that the HMWSSB has an annual
revenue collection of Rs.3,000 million (The Hindu. 14th
February, 2008).
Despite clear mandates in the HMWSSB‘s charter, they enjoy neither budgetary nor
personnel management autonomy (Davis and Tanka 2005). When the organization
was formed in 1989, the Government of Andhra Pradesh retained ownership of the
HMWSSB‘s assets. The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh serves as the Chairman of
the HMWSSB Board of Directors. Virtually all members of the Board of Directors,
including the Managing Director of the Board itself, are political appointees. The
Chairman (also the Chief Minister) oversees all important and politically sensitive
policy decisions, such as tariff rate rises, and leaves the operations of the Board to
the Managing Director. The Managing Director is a member of the Indian
139
Administrative Service, the elite wing of Indian bureaucracy10
. In addition, only a
minority of staff actually became official employees of the HMWSSB; the rest are
still staff of the state Public Health Engineering Department. They are still subject to
its personnel management policies for matters of promotion, transfer and benefits.
6. Conclusions and discussion
The HMWSSB is solely responsible for the water supply, sewerage and wastewater
treatment of the city. However, it cannot achieve this without the support and
coordination of other municipal organisations and a certain level of political will.
Under such circumstances, it is difficult to judge the performance of HMWSSB
alone. It can not be held responsible for not enacting pricing reforms if it does not
have the support from elected officials. However, it is lagging behind on a number of
its commitments and on taking the various steps needed to fulfil them. The negative
aspects of HMWSSB indicated by its different performance measures are:
1. Currently there is a 75 ML/day water supply gap which is expected to widen to
more than 310 ML/day by 2031.
2. The physical health of the water supply and sewerage infrastructure is very poor
and it is an old system. The transmission losses of water supply are estimated to
be 16 per cent of total supply and less than 60 per cent of the city is actually
sewered
3. The financial health of the HMWSSB is not ideal and is in deficit. They only
recover part of the costs from customers and face political problems in increasing
water tariffs.
4. The level of coordination between the various bodies would appear to be low,
creating further problems for the HMWSSB
10
The Indian Administrative Service is an elite national-level arm of the Indian Bureaucracy.
Admission to the ranks of the IAS occurs through a competitive examination and interview process.
IAS officers are protected by the civil service rules of India, and can be dismissed only if convicted of
crime while in office. IAS officers are well paid by Indian bureaucratic standards, and enjoy
considerable power and fringe benefits associated with their positions. IAS officers also have the
potential of being deputized to international organizations such as the United Nations and the World
Bank.
140
The initiatives which suggest the HMWSSB is improving efficiency are:
1. The campaign to treat at least 70 per cent of wastewater
2. The state-of-the-art process to improve operational efficiencies, including online
applications and address the customers' concerns, besides increasing revenues of
the Board through redeployment of the funds (The Hindu. 22nd
February, 2007).
3. Securing Rs.9082 million to help them improve the sewerage infrastructure of the
city.
4. The customer-focused service delivery reforms implemented towards the end of
1990s, which includes the Single Window cell, Metro Customer Care and the
Citizen‘s Charter which has increased their efficiency to deliver services.
5. The efforts that are being made to bring in more water from the Godavari basin to
augment the water supply levels.
6. Private sector participation that is encouraged especially in billing, metering of
water supply and in future the maintenance of the Sewerage Treatment Plants.
7. Securing funding to replace the old water supply infrastructure and making
efforts to reduce the percentage of non-revenue water.
Overall, the performance of the organisation is poor and the prospects for
improvement would not appear to be great. Yet, it does recognise the problems it
faces and does have a set of plans to improve the situation.
7.2.5 Exogenous influences on institutional performance
The context, within which the institution-performance interaction occurs, is as
important as the mechanics of the interaction itself. This occurs because of the
conditioning effect other wastewater institutions and water sector performance in
general has on the authorities that treat and use wastewater. In reality, there is an
interplay of innumerable factors that are strictly exogenous to water sector influence,
that affect the way it functions. For analytical convenience and simplicity, Saleth and
Dinar (2004) have classified these exogenous factors into the political system; legal
framework; economic development; demographic conditions and resource
endowment. These issues are presented and discussed in this Section, with the
exception of the political system, which was more than adequately covered in the
previous Section. In Hyderabad, the political system is an endogenous factor.
141
India has no exclusive water law, but many water related and irrigation laws, most of
them originating in colonial times, but renewed in more recent times. The
government of India enacted a number of laws, such as the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, (1974) as amended in 1988; the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Cess Act, (1977) amended in 1991; and the Environment
Protection Act, (1986). The economic crisis of the 1980s forced many states to raise
internal resources by improving cost recovery practices, finding new external
resources and mobilizing private funds. The 1992 Committee on Pricing of Irrigation
Water suggested increasing water rates and a group-based volumetric water
distribution. The Model Groundwater Act (1992) though not adopted by any state so
far, promotes the adoption of well permits, water metering and withdrawal limits. A
national committee has advocated the promotion of private investments in the water
sector (GOI. 1995). Some states are trying to obtain private funds directly, by
inviting bids for project construction, and indirectly by issuing water bonds to access
public funds from government for irrigation development (Saleth.1999).
This approach to gathering funds from the public (by making them key stakeholders)
and involving private parties might have a positive impact overall on the water
sector, increasing competition and allowing the market forces to influence water
prices and ultimately improving the overall efficiency of the system. This may also
have a positive impact on water trading between agriculture and urban sector and
indirectly on wastewater treatment and recycling as well.
Economic development is the improvement of economic wealth of countries or
regions, for the well-being of their inhabitants. From a policy perspective, economic
development can be defined as efforts that seek to improve the economic well-being
and quality of life for a community. India is one of the most resilient and fastest
growing Asian economies with a 9 per cent growth rate in 2007, only bettered by
China. The growth in the wealth of India's stock market was the highest in the region
and was close to the highest globally in 2007. India produces almost 500,000
engineering graduates a year and has fluent English speakers (Connon. 2008). It is
developing an economy based on outsourcing services. It attracts foreign investment
142
in other industries as well, which in turn increases the wealth of the population
generally, particularly among the middle class, who are so vital to driving up
consumption. While there are still more than 110 million households that survive on
less than Rs.90,000 ($A2,300) a year, those with an income of between Rs. 500,000
and Rs.1 million a year ($A 13,000 and 26,000) will rise from 3.9 million in 1998 to
an estimated 22.2 million in 2009-10 (Connon. 2008).
The growing economy and increasing income of people have two implications for
wastewater management. First, the growing middle class spend a lot on consumer
goods and therefore place increasing pressure on the industrial and agricultural
demand for water. This could possibly create a market for recycled wastewater.
Second, according to the theory underlying the EKC analysis, growing incomes
means soon India will reach the turning point where demand for clean water and
better sanitation facilities will increase thus ensuring all wastewater is treated to
appropriate levels.
One of the country's biggest problems is its poor infrastructure. Bad roads, frequent
power cuts and inadequate water systems are a fact of life in India, which the
government is committed to remedying. The latest spending plan by the Government
of India envisages expending almost $US500 billion on infrastructure, including
$US150 billion on power and $US76 billion on roads (Connon. 2008). Previous
plans have not been implemented fully because of a lack of government funds.
Private sector investment to help fund major schemes is now sought. This clearly
indicates the increasing role of the private sector in the future infrastructure and
development projects and this could well flow over into the water supply and
wastewater treatment sector where already the private sector is making in roads and
could bring in the necessary efficiencies required.
The key objectives of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Policy 2005-10 are to promote
the state as an attractive destination for industrial investment and to market Andhra
Pradesh as a competitive destination for foreign investment. The Governments
contribution to this is to facilitate investment in industrial infrastructure in the private
sector. The Industrial Infrastructure Fund worth $US37.23 million has been created
143
to provide infrastructure to industry (IBEF. 2005). The policy also promises to
reimburse stamp and transfer duties and has reimbursed producers $US0.016 cents
per kilowatt-hour for electrical power consumed. This policy can have a significant
impact on the water resources of the state, especially for Hyderabad. While the new
industries will demand more water from the already water scarce sources, it can also
be seen as an opportunity and a new market for recycled water. Considering the
increasing demand for water, wastewater recycling for industrial estates may be an
economically viable option and an option that will ensure treatment of wastewater
instead of just disposing it untreated into rivers.
7.2.6 The influence of other organizations
The other formal organizations which potentially have an impact on the treatment of
wastewater in Hyderabad are the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board
(APPCB), the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). In addition to these formal
organizations, certain informal/non-government organizations also influence the
wastewater management of the city, notably the Forum for Better Hyderabad, the
International Water Management Institute and Greenpeace activists (see Appendix X
for the detailed functions of each of these organisations).
Considering the quality of the surface water in the rivers and lakes in Hyderabad, it
can be said that APPCB has failed in its duty to prevent pollution of both the surface
and ground water of the city. Especially, its inability to control the illegal dumping of
industrial toxic wastes into Musi River and other lakes has damaged the ecosystem of
these water bodies and had adverse impact on the health and economic well-being of
the people (farmers, residents and fishermen) dependent on them (Buechler and
Mekala. 2005). The reasons for the non-performance of this organization are beyond
the scope of the current study, but should be the subject of further research.
HUDA, which is key planning body for the Hyderabad Metropolitan area can play an
important role in wastewater treatment and recycling of the city. HUDA already
operates and maintains four very small Sewerage Treatment Plants for lakes in
144
suburban Hyderabad, as well as one in the city centre. It has the required
competencies and funds to maintain such infrastructure and may play a crucial role in
the maintenance of the future plants planned for the Musi River. Also, planning the
city with future recycling plans in view, HUDA can play a crucial role by creating
industrial zones in the down stream areas of the Musi River, to promote wastewater
recycling for industries at a minimum cost. The role of HUDA (after the construction
of the four new treatment plants in the city) is expected to increase and is expected to
have a very positive impact on the overall management of wastewater in the city (Mr
K.P.Reddy, Director, HUDA. Personal communication. September, 2008).
The GHMC is responsible for building permissions, engineering works for
construction of drains/sewers. It can play a crucial role by ensuring that no building
permission is granted without the sewerage infrastructure being put in place. Also,
part of the property tax collected by the GHMC could be used to contribute funds to
the HMWSSB for improved water supply and sewerage infrastructure (Mr
K.P.Reddy, Director, HUDA. Personal communication. September, 2008).
The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited [APIIC] has a
crucial role, in not only facilitating the creation and development of the industrial
zones, but also in encouraging innovation in wastewater management and recycling
for industries.
The ‗Forum for a better Hyderabad‘ and other such civic society organizations can
do more by not only pointing out the environmental issues to the government, but
also by raising the environmental consciousness of urban dwellers to realize how
important their water is and how to prevent its pollution (Capt. Rama Rao, Chair,
Forum for better Hyderabad. Personal communication. September, 2008). Research
institutions like International Water Management Institute [IWMI] have mainly
concentrated their efforts on the irrigation and health related aspects of the
wastewater use. However, research and innovative solutions in the area of urban
governance and wastewater management is lacking and requires attention. According
145
to Dr Madar Samad (IWMI, Personal communication, February. 2009), urban
governance is not within the scope of their research.
In suggesting that all the bodies and organisations could contribute more to the
wastewater system in Hyderabad is damning in itself, as it would appear that these
bodies currently fail in these areas. Once again, a detailed analysis of these issues is
beyond the scope of the present study, but should be undertaken in the future.
7.2.7 Discussion
The growing Indian economy, a growing middle class, increasing consumerism and
an industrial policy of the state which promotes Andhra Pradesh as an attractive
industrial destination, is reliant on a very high and increasing demand for water. The
Andhra Pradesh infrastructure policy is expected to have a positive influence on the
sewerage infrastructure of the key urban areas of the state, especially in Hyderabad.
Every year approximately 250,000 people migrate into Hyderabad putting increasing
demands on the infrastructure and water utilities of the city (Davis and Tanka 2005).
With depleting water sources and increasing costs of sourcing it, coupled with a
growing population, there is a very high possibility that the treatment of wastewater
to generate suitable quality wastewater for recycling is ensured. Economically
treating and using recycled wastewater becomes a viable alternative to other sources
of water. A similar situation in Bangalore (a neighbouring city of Hyderabad) has led
to increasing investments in sewage treatment plants and recycling of wastewater.
However, considering the current management and performance of HMWSSB, a
number of reforms have to be undertaken before it can successfully deliver the
results which include:
o Improve the quality of services by HMWSSB by a better billing system, by
put the necessary infrastructure in place such that all houses are connected to
sewer lines and ensuring that there are no sewage overflows in the city.
o Users must be legally obligated to pay the existing user fees through effective
legal and policy procedures.
146
o Need to undertake a massive awareness campaign to educate people on the
problems of sewage non-treatment, environmental implications and how they
can help improve the situation. This task can be undertaken by non-
government bodies like Forum for better Hyderabad.
o Ensure treatment of wastewater to at least boatable quality.
o Ensure that there is no bad smell from sewage water along the river.
o Reduce the problems of mosquitoes especially in localities along the river
where para grass is grown irrigated with wastewater.
It might take quite a while before HMWSSB can actually start recycling considering
the current challenges it is facing.
7.3 Melbourne
The City of Melbourne was once known as ―Smelbourne‖. Given this reputation the
city has a long history of collecting and treating wastewater. In this Section the
institutional aspects of Melbourne‘s attempts to collect, treat and reuse and recycle
wastewater are detailed. The approach taken in this section is vastly different to the
one taken in the previous Section on Hyderabad. In Hyderabad, the basic notions of
the wastewater system were crude and incomplete. The institutions there were found
to be struggling to maintain the most basic levels of service and really were in a
situation of institutional failure. In Melbourne the picture is not nearly so bleak.
There is a long history of providing wastewater collection and treatment services.
What is new is the extensions of that service to include wastewater reuse and
recycling. Thus, in this Section, there is no need to undertake either a ‗rules versus
rules-in-use‘ analysis or to attempt to come to terms with the failures of the current
network, as there aren‘t many. Rather, what is important is to investigate where the
current administrative and regulatory frameworks are capable of taking the
wastewater treatment and reuse sector to the next stage of recycling. To that end first
the administrative and regulatory structures are reviewed. Then, the expectations of
governments are reviewed and finally the ability of the former to deliver on the latter
are assessed.
147
7.3.1 Administrative framework
The metropolitan water sector consists of Melbourne Water and three metropolitan
retailers (City West Water, South East Water and Yarra Valley Water). Melbourne
has 8 sewage treatment plants with secondary treatment capacity and 11 small scale
sewage treatment plants with tertiary treatment capacity. In 2007-08, Melbourne
Water and its retailers together treated 275,538 ML to secondary level and 14,485
ML to tertiary level (ESC, 2009) (See Table 7.5).
Table 7.5 Volume and level of wastewater treatment for Melbourne (2007-08)
Sewage treatment plants
(no.)
Volume of wastewater treated
to different levels
(ML)
Secondary Tertiary Total Secondary Tertiary Total
Melbourne Water 2 0 2 266106 0 266106
City West Water - 1 1 - 4698 4698
Yarra Valley Water 1 7 8 404 7822 8225
South East Water 5 3 8 9028 1966 10994
Total 8 11 19 275538 14485 290023
Source: Essential Services Commission. Water Performance Report. March 2009.
148
While, Melbourne Water and its retailers provide the services of sewage collection,
treatment and recycling, a number of other government agencies regulate wastewater
recycling, to render it safe, affordable and equitable. They are the:
Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA), which is responsible for
developing and applying best practice management guidelines for reclaimed
water irrigation (EPA 2003). The draft guidelines are developed from a
systems view of the irrigation process, which incorporates a risk management
approach. Performance outcomes for thirteen critical components of a
recycled water irrigation system, covering the topics of reclaimed water,
environmental, social and economic factors, are provided in these guidelines.
For each factor, the guidelines list the desired results, probable associated
risks, appropriate practices and the monitoring required (Kularatne et al.
2005: 15).
The Department of Human Services is Victoria's largest state government
department with the responsibilities of the Ministers for Health, Mental
Health, Senior Victorians, Community Services and Housing. Nine divisions
within the department share the responsibilities for developing strategic
priorities, implementing policy, and funding and monitoring service delivery.
The sewerage treatment plant commissioning and water quality verification
components of Class A schemes must be referred to the Department of
Human Services for endorsement, prior to submission to the EPA, for sign-
off.
Council/local governments‘ control development zoning, minimum
subdivision size, infrastructure size, infrastructure provision and land use.
Depending upon the selected application of the recycled water, a large
recycled water development requires approval from the council for setting
up/construction of the required infrastructure for recycling. Developments
like farm forestry, aquaculture and structures for cut flowers require
development consent from the council.
149
The Essential Services Commission (ESC) is the economic regulator of the
Victorian water sector. It is comprised of 19 businesses supplying
water, sewerage and related services to residential, industrial, commercial,
and irrigation customers throughout Victoria. Its key role is the regulation of
prices, monitoring of service standards and market conduct. The legislative
framework provides the Commission with powers to make price
determinations, regulate standards and conditions of service, develop codes in
relation to its functions and powers and requires regulated businesses to
provide information. The Commission's general regulatory powers are set out
in: the Essential Services Commission Act (2001); Part 1A of the Water
Industry Act (1994); and Water Industry Regulatory Order (WIRO) made
under the Water Industry Act (1994).
The Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission supported by a
secretariat, provides the Victorian Government with independent advice on
business regulation reform and opportunities for improving the states
competitive position. The Commission has three core functions. These are the
reviewing of regulatory impact statements of water authorities, measurements
of the administrative burden of water regulation and business impact
assessments of significant new legislation. They undertake enquiries referred
to it by the Treasurer, and operating Victoria‘s Competitive Neutrality Unit.
7.3.2 Regulatory and legislative framework
The legislative and regulatory framework, supplemented by various regulatory
instruments including licenses, statements of obligations, a water industry regulatory
order, codes of practice, and corporate plans, is used to define the roles of water
businesses and impose obligations on them. These roles and rules are summarised in
Figure 7.2 and are discussed in more detail in this Section.
150
Figure 7.2 Water regulatory framework
1. Legislation and regulation
The legislative framework for the metropolitan water sector is comprised of a
number of Acts, (see Box 7.2). The most relevant Commonwealth Government Acts
include the Trade Practices Act (1974) and the Corporations Act (2001). At a state
level the important acts are:
The Water Industry Act (1994) which establishes the framework under which
the three Melbourne water retailers are licensed and regulated by the ESC,
together with the statutory functions, powers and obligations of the licensees.
The Water Act (1989) provides the framework for the allocation and
management of the State's water resources, including a bulk water entitlement
regime, and sets out the functions, rights, obligations and governance
arrangements of regional urban water authorities and rural water authorities.
The Melbourne Water Corporation Act (1992) establishes the Melbourne
Water Corporation and details its specific functions, powers and
responsibilities, while the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act
(1958) retains various provisions relating to those functions, powers and
responsibilities.
Essential
Services
Commission
Government
Water Industry
Regulatory Order
Regulatory Asset
Values
Licenses
Statements of Obligations
Best Practice Statements
Corporate Plans
Codes (e.g. bulk services, customer service)
Guidelines (e.g. financial ring fencing)
Waster Plan
Other Regulatory Bodies
(e.g Dept of Human Services, Environment Protection Agency Victoria)
MOUs Water Plan Codes
Licenses
Regulations
Water
Businesses
Source: Adopted from Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Establishing the
Essential Services Commission as the Economic Regulator of the Victorian Water Industry,
Information Sessions 23, 24 April 2002
151
Four ministers have responsibilities relating to the water sector. They are the
Ministers for:
1. Water, supported by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment,
who is primary responsible for developing water policy and administering
Victoria‘s water legislation.
2. Health, supported by the Department of Human Services, who administers
legislation relevant to the safety and quality of drinking water, including
regulatory arrangements for drinking water quality under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (2003).
3. Environment, supported by the EPA Victoria and the Department of
Sustainability and the Environment, and is responsible for the sector‘s
environmental performance.
Box 7.2 Water legislation in Victoria
• The Water Act 1989 relating to integrated water resource management, promoting
equitable and efficient and sustainable use of water. It details the objectives and governance
arrangements for the regional water corporations and Melbourne Water.
• The Water Industry Act 1994 enabled the disaggregation of Melbourne Water and
established a licensing system for retail water and sewerage businesses.
• The State Owned Enterprises Act 1992 established the retailers as state owned
companies under that Act. Governance arrangements for the retailers are set
out in that Act, and in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cwlth.).
• The Constitution (Water Authorities) Act 2003 secures the public control of water
services by entrenching public ownership of water authorities.
• The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 divides Victoria into ten regions and
establishes a catchment management authority for each region
• The Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 provides a regulatory framework that
encompasses a catchment-to-tap, risk-based approach to the supply of drinking
water across Victoria.
• The Food Act 1984 prohibits the supply or sale of water for human consumption
that is unsafe or unsuitable.
• The Environment Protection Act 1970 creates a legislative framework for the
protection of the environment in Victoria.
• The Essential Services Commission Act 2001 established the Essential Services
Commission and provides for an economic regulatory framework for regulated
industries, such as the water industry.
152
4. Treasurer, supported by the Department of Treasury and Finance, who shares
responsibility with the Minister for Water for corporate governance of
Melbourne Water and the three retailers.
Several other ministers have responsibilities for legislation and regulation relating to
particular aspects of the sector‘s operations, such as Workplace Safety and Consumer
Protection. However, these are of minor interest in this study and as such can be
excluded from the analysis.
2. Economic regulation
The ESC is the independent economic regulator of the water sector. It follows a
process set out in the Water Industry Regulatory Order. Water retailers are required
by their statement of obligations to put forward water plans to the ESC and to inform
the ESC‘s decisions on prices during a prescribed regulatory period. These plans
identify the outcomes the retailers expect to deliver over the plan period (driven by
regulations, customer preferences and business initiatives). They include the projects
or programs to achieve the outcomes (for example, a treatment plant upgrade might
be needed to maintain the demand-supply balance) and the expenditure required to
deliver the projects or programs. The revenue required to fund the expenditure and
the prices required to deliver the revenue are also of interest.
3. Environmental regulation
Particular environmental impacts associated with the water sector relate to the impact
of water extraction on the health of rivers and the effects of wastewater discharges.
The EPA administers the Environment Protection Act (1970), which states the water
quality objectives that are to be met. The key water quality policy instruments within
this act are the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria, 2003) and
the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwater of Victoria. 2002), which
provide for protection and sustainable use of Victoria‘s water environment. The EPA
monitors and oversees the environmental performance of the State‘s water sector,
which includes licensing for the discharge of treated wastewater into waterways and
the management of biosolids generated at treatment plants. The EPA has signed a
memorandum of understanding with the ESC which, amongst other things, helps
153
ensure that the economic regulation of the water sector is consistent with
environmental regulation (EPA Victoria 2005).
Furthermore, the provisions for accountability and regulatory mechanisms are clearly
explained in the ‗Water Regulatory Framework‘ section of the document titled Water
Ways: enquiry into reform of the metropolitan retail water sector produced by
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2007).
7.3.3 Wastewater pricing
The ESC is the economic regulator of the Victorian water sector including
water, sewerage and related services to residential, industrial, commercial, and
irrigation customers throughout Victoria. Its key role is regulation of prices as well
as monitoring of service standards and market conduct. The prices charged for
recycled water services for Melbourne are presented in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 Price charged as per ESC approval
Tariff and Price Component Price at 1 July 2008
($A)
Yarra Valley Water
Residential and non- residential recycled water tariff
(Supplied via third pipe)
Service charge (per annum)
Usage charge (per KL)
20.00
1.0192
South East Water
Residential Reticulated Recycled Water
Service charge (per annum)
Usage charge (per KL)
20.00
1.0052
Southern Rural Water
Werribee Irrigation District
Recycled Water Entitlement (per ML)
228.00
Source: ESC. Metro price review fact sheet summary of mepropolitan businesses water plans 2008.
154
The ESC structures the prices to recover the total revenue required over the
regulatory period. The water prices are expected to increase due to increases in the
infrastructure investment for Melbourne (see Table 7.7). Melbourne Water sets the
highest standards for its performance and quality of service and invests in advance in
its infrastructure to maintain this quality. A record level of $A2335 billion is to be
spent on capital expenditure across Victoria‘s urban water systems, including major
new supply pipelines, sewerage schemes and wastewater treatment, over the next
five years (ESC. 2009). Of this, $A1086 million (46.51 per cent) is being put towards
the development of a new water supply systems for Melbourne, $A768 million
(32.89 per cent) is being spent on sewerage infrastructure development and $A481
(20.60 per cent) million is to be spent towards infrastructure necessary for increasing
wastewater recycling for the city.
Table 7.7 Key capital expenditure on Melbourne water ($A million)
Organisation Proposed capital expenditure
project/program
2008-
09
Regulatory
period
Total
Melbourne Water Sugarloaf pipeline 479 522 1011a
Northern sewer project 87 192 279
Tarago reservoir recommissioningb 75 - 75
Eastern Treatment Plan tertiary
treatment
9 294 303
Melbourne main sewer augmentation 40 135 175
City West Water West Wrribee dual pipeline 1 73 74
Altona recycled water 1 58 59
South East Water Dual pipe recycled water 2 43 45
Pakenham-Narre Warren Sewer 15 28 43
Yarra Valley Water Northern Sewer project 47 113 160
Epping-Craigieburn Sewer project
stage-1
2 64 66
Epping branch sewer-Section 1 2 43 45
aIncludes $10 million of expenditure to occur in third regulatory period.
bProject is forecast to be
completed in 2008-09.
155
7.3.4 Our Water Our Future – the Government’s water plan
It is the Government‘s strategy to diversify water supplies, and to improve
environmental health. Since recycled water provides a secure supply of water that is
both independent of rainfall and is fit for a wide range of uses, the Government plans
to progressively expand recycled water use in various sectors. As part of this plan, it
is committed to upgrading the Eastern Treatment Plant to tertiary standard by 2012
and that will produce between 100/year and 130 GL/year of high-grade class A
recycled water. About 15 GL will be used for existing recycled water projects such
as the Eastern Irrigation Scheme and the remaining may be used for industry,
residential, agricultural and environmental purposes. These options are being
examined as part of a Business Case. This is a commitment made by the Government
in the Our Water Our Future – The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan
(DSE. 2008a). The major options being investigated are:
Substituting recycled water for environmental flows in the Yarra River, by
piping the water to the river below Yering Gorge, allowing approximately
45GL/year of fresh water to be retained in Sugarloaf Reservoir, boosting
Melbourne‘s water supplies. An investigation is required confirm the
maximum volume of additional drinkable water that could be taken from the
Yarra River and to examine the environmental impacts. There is also a need
to confirm environmental and health standards for the use of recycled water
for river flows and to provide detailed costing of this option.
Using recycled water for industrial purposes in the Latrobe Valley,
particularly for power generation, by piping the recycled water to free up the
river water currently being used for cooling power plants, for drinking and for
environmental purposes in Gippsland.
A feasibility study completed in 2006 (DSE. 2008a) identified potential pipe routes,
treatment processes and plant sites, and included a preliminary assessment of key
environmental, social and economic issues.
In September 2008, the Victorian Government announced a further investment of
$A10 million towards Stage 2 of the Vision for Werribee Plains where projects will
156
be funded that ensure an improvement in and the protection of biodiversity is
enhanced, along with the improvement and sustainability of both industry and
society. This includes, improving the efficient use of resources, reducing emissions,
finding innovative solutions to resource sharing and identifying opportunities to
generate new enterprises with recycled water. Stage one of the Vision involved the
distribution of recycled water from the Western Treatment Plant to irrigate crops
such as lettuce, broccoli and cauliflower. The main economic, environmental and
social benefits of stage one include providing Werribee market gardeners with a
secure supply of high quality water and easing the pressure on existing water
supplies from the Werribee River and the local aquifer. In addition, there has been a
reduction in the amount of treated water discharged into Port Phillip Bay.
A recent report from a parliamentary committee (in June, 2009) to the Victorian
Government has recommended that a much greater percentage of Melbourne's
treated water be put to productive use. This has put pressure on the State Government
to increase its water recycling targets. According to this report, the eight key
recommendations for the reuse of treated wastewater are for the Victorian
Government to:
1. set enforceable water recycling and reuse targets. The primary focus should be
to replace the demand for current potable water use;
2. establish new recycling and reuse targets - 50 per cent by 2012 and 70 per cent
by 2015. (An increased target would reduce demand for potable water,
minimise discharges to receiving bodies and promote the importance and value
of water conservation and efficiency);
3. move toward the prohibition of wastewater discharge into waterways and the
ocean;
4. commit to finding a use for all treated wastewater;
5. mandate dual pipe systems or other water saving measures in new residential
and industrial developments;
6. where practicable, should encourage the installation of dual pipe systems in
existing residential and non-residential areas which are located in close
proximity to wastewater treatment plants;
157
7. ensure that the metropolitan water retailers and Melbourne Water finalise
guidelines to facilitate sewer mining projects; and
8. continue to promote the development of sewer mining projects as a
decentralized wastewater treatment option suitable for a variety of uses and
locations.
Melbourne recycled about 82,650 ML (28.6 per cent) of wastewater in different
sectors (see Table 7.8) in 2007-08 and expects to increase it further by upgrading a
number of treatment plants and installation of dual reticulation systems in many of
the green-field developments. See Appendix XI for details on the wastewater
recycling projects undertaken in Melbourne in the western and eastern regions.
According to the Water Minister Tim Holding (The Age. 27 February 2008), over the
next 25 years more than 40,000 new homes in Melbourne's southeast will connect to
recycled water as part of a dual-pipe system. This could save about 4 GL of water
each year. This depends on the successful completion of the planned $A300 million
upgrade of the Eastern Treatment Plant (The Age. 27 February, 2008).
Table 7.8 Volume of wastewater recycled by different sectors (2007-08) (ML)
Co
mm
erci
al,
mu
nic
ipa
l &
Ind
ust
ria
l
Res
iden
tia
l
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Ben
efic
ial
All
oca
tio
n
Wit
hin
Pro
cess
Ret
urn
to
reta
iler
s fo
r
reu
se
To
tal
Reu
se
Per
cen
t*
Melbourne
Water*
553 0 27,481 15,930 13,255 20,695 77,914 29.6
City West 0 0 0 0 73 0 73 1.6
Yarra
Valley
322 0 240 0 1533 0 2094 23.1
South East 886 123 891 0 669 0 2569 22.1
Melbourne
Total
1761 123 28,612 15,930 15,530 20,695 82,651 28.6
*Percentage of total wastewater treated
Source: ESC Water Performance Report. March 2009
158
According to Melbourne Water (2009), the key motivations for recycling are:
Water recycling is a key part of maintaining a sustainable water supply for
Melbourne and Melbourne Water believes recycled water is an important
and valuable resource. Water recycling contributes to the conservation of
drinking quality water, improves the reliability of our water supplies, frees
up water for the environment, and reduces the amount of treated effluent
discharged into our bays and oceans. Environmental factors such as
salinity, nutrient loads, waterways and land management are important
considerations in water recycling programs.
However, the above statement does not give any prioritization of its recycling
objectives. The Western Treatment Plant has an ‗Allocation Hierarchy‘ according to
which it prioritises the supply of recycled water to higher value uses over lower
value uses (Roder. 2009). The objective of this Allocation Hierarchy is to prioritise
the allocation of reliable recycled water volumes on an annual basis and to ensure
that seasonal water demands are met. The Allocation Hierarchy of the Western
Treatment Plant is in order from highest to lowest:
1. Conservation (biodiversity and habitat flows)
2. On-site irrigation for salinity management
3. Off-site committed contracts (potable and river water substitution).
4. New potable substitution uses (offsite and on-site).
5. On-site / off-site projects that are not potable / river water substitution.
According to the recent parliamentary report (Parliament of Victoria. 2009), the key
priorities for recycling for Melbourne should be to reduce demand for potable water,
minimise the discharges to receiving bodies and to promote the importance and value
of water conservation and efficiency. However, there are no integrated plans in place
on which sectors would be prioritized for allocation and on what basis these priorities
would be determined. Neither are there any existing decision support tools or
frameworks that could be used for the efficient allocation of wastewater. Therefore, a
decision tool for allocation of wastewater to different sectors is needed (see Chapter
9).
159
7.3.5 Matching vision with the administrative ability
It is clear that the Government has the legislation in place and a vision for the future
use of wastewater. The Government sees wastewater as a resource, rather than a
problem to be solved. It has a long history of collecting and treating wastewater
which works effectively. However, can that institutional framework deliver on the
Governments vision? That question is addressed in this Section.
Australia in general and the State of Victoria in particular, has well established
systems in place to ensure that all wastewater is safely treated. A strong
administrative set-up consisting of the Department of Human Services, EPA and
ESC ensures that wastewater is treated to appropriate levels and safely recycled.
The Department of Human Services ensures that Class A recycle schemes do not
pose a risk to public health. Given the potential lack of exposure ‗barriers‘ in Class A
schemes, the Department of Human Services ensures that treatment plants at least
produce Class A reclaimed water. Unless Class A reclaimed water uses involve
variations from this guideline, the Department of Human Services is not required to
endorse the aspects of an Environment Improvement Plant dealing with end-use.
Every reuse scheme requires the approval of the Department of Human Services and
the EPA and must show that appropriate safeguards are in place, before the reuse
scheme is commissioned. The aim is to ensure that the water quality offered to the
users is ‗fit-for-purpose‘.
EPA ensures that the guidelines for recycling are effectively implemented. This is
achieved by undertaking audits of selected reuse schemes (on a random or priority
site basis) and maintaining a database of all schemes throughout Victoria. The EPA
is also conducts auditing and reviews the effectiveness of these guidelines. Reviews
occur from time to time and accommodate up-to-date developments on the use and
management of reclaimed water in Australia and overseas (EPA. 2009).
The ESC ensures that all pricing of water and wastewater is based on full cost
recovery. However, it has made concessions in case of pricing of wastewater
recycling in agriculture in order to facilitate its uptake by farmers and in a way to
160
compensate for the high salinity levels in the recycled wastewater. However, in
future, the ESC has asked Melbourne water to increase the prices to be more
reflective of its true cost. This might be essential for the long term sustainability of
these projects.
7.4 Summary
From the institutional analysis in the current section, it can be concluded that in case
of Hyderabad, the performance of the institutions are poor and wrought with
inefficiencies. Poor infrastructure for wastewater collection and treatment; low level
of cost recovery for water and wastewater services; inadequate funding from the
government for the infrastructure development; poor monitoring of water pollution in
the city; and high level of political interference are the key constraining factors for
Hyderabad for its wastewater management.
In case of Melbourne, the institutions and regulatory framework for wastewater
treatment are very strong and ensures that 100 per cent collection and treatment of
wastewater. Excellent infrastructure for wastewater collection and treatment, full cost
recovery for water supply and wastewater treatment, adequate and timely
government funding from the government for the infrastructure development, high
levels of environmental awareness, real time monitoring of water pollution levels in
the bay and a supportive political atmosphere are all key elements that facilitate
wastewater management in Melbourne. However, Melbourne is still tackling its
recycled water pricing issues, the problems of salinity in agriculture and the issue of
the overall acceptability of new wastewater recycling schemes.
161
Chapter 8
Economic and Environmental Considerations
8.1 Introduction
The purpose in this Chapter is to come to terms with the economic and
environmental considerations of wastewater collection, treatment and reuse and
recycling in Hyderabad and Melbourne. In Hyderabad, where the water authorities
are grappling with a failing wastewater collection system and inadequate treatment,
two issues emerge. First, what is the cost of implementing better collection networks
and building treatment plants? Much of the information needed to address this
question has been presented in the preceding two Chapters. In this Chapter this
information is brought together and summarised. Second, would people be willing to
pay for improvements in wastewater treatment and use recycled water? To answer
these questions requires a Contingent Valuation analysis: something that is
undertaken in this Chapter.
In the case of Melbourne the economic questions are quite different because the
wastewater collection and treatment networks are well established. Again, two
questions are addressed. First, would people be willing to pay for and use recycled
wastewater? A fair amount of work has been undertaken on this question and the
findings are reviewed in this Chapter. Second, what is the cost of delivering
wastewater? This question is related to what its intended use is and the cost of an
alternative. This question is also addressed in this Chapter.
162
8.2 Hyderabad
8.2.1 Cost Considerations
Consumers are currently paying Rs.378 per annum per household to connect to the
sewer system. This pays for the maintenance of the sewer lines. On an average a
household consumes approximately 120 KL/year of which 80 per cent is estimated to
be discharged as wastewater. The actual cost of treatment per month per household
to be paid to treat the wastewater to quality levels C, B and A (for quality
specifications of each level, see Appendix I) is shown in Table 8.1.
At a total budget of Rs. 3356.55 million, four new treatment plants will be
constructed to treat the city‘s sewage (for more details see Section 7.2.2 of Chapter
7). Of the total budget, 70% will be provided by the Central government and
remaining 30% by the State government. In addition to their share in the capital cost,
Central government will also share operation and maintenance costs of the plant for
first six months and then it will be the responsibility of the State government to
maintain them. The status of funds required, allocated and spent as on January 2008
by HMWSSB on this project is presented in Table 8.2.
According to HMWSSB, except Attapur STP and its ancillary items, all other
components of work are expected to be completed and commissioned by end of
March 2008. However, due to a number of problems related to land acquisitions for
the treatment plants, the treatment plants construction is expected to be delayed by
two more years. The costs of treatment for the operation and maintenance costs of
the proposed Sewerage Treatment Plants are presented in Table 8.3.
163
Table 8.1 Cost of treatment and amount that each household needs to pay
Water quality Rs/KL
Rs/8KL @
80% outflow Rs / month / hh Rs/year/hh
C 1.40 11.2 42.7* 512.40
B 6.40 51.2 82.7* 992.40
A 9.00 72 103.5* 1242.00
*A fixed cost of INR 31.50 for maintenance of sewer lines is added to the cost of treatment to arrive at
this figure.
Table 8.2 Status of funds spent for the Abatement of Pollution of River Musi
project
Rs. in Millions
Source of Funds Funds released from
Total Cost GoI GoAP GoI GoAP Total Expenditure
incurred as on date
(02 Jan 2008)
3356.55 2349.58 1006.96 1349.50 535.10 1884.60 1837.70
Source. HMWSSB. 2008.
Table 8.3 Operation and maintenance costs of each STP
STP
location
Capacity Net O&M
costs
O&M costs
(ML/day) (Rs
millions) (Rs/KL/year) (Rs/KL/month) Rs/KL/day
Amberpet 339 68 200.59 16.72 0.55
Nagole 172 74 430.23 35.85 1.18
Nalla-
cheruvu
30 22.7
756.67 63.06 2.07
Attapur 51 40 784.31 65.36 2.14
Total 592 204.7 345.78 28.81 0.94
Note: All treatment plants have the capacity to treat wastewater upto secondary level only
164
The different strategies that HMWSSB would like to adopt are (K.C.Waghrey, Chief
General Manager, HMWSSB. Personal Communication. September. 2008). Increase
the sewerage cess from 35 per cent to 50 per cent (This can be done after the
approval from Municipal Administration & Urban Development which falls under
the Ministry of Urban Development). The tariffs are expected to be revised once in
every three or five years.
a) By promoting recycling and charging the users of recycled water – part of the
costs can be recovered.
b) By selling the carbon credits (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)) in the international markets, INR 30 - 40 million is expected
to be earned.
c) Part of the costs are expected to be recovered by selling the by products of the
STPs – generation of energy from the methane enriched biogas and sludge
produced during treatment process which can be sold. (see Table 8.4)
Table 8.4 Resource recovery plan from STPs
S No Parameter STPs (Rs.)
Amberpet Nagole Nallacheruvu Attapur
1 From Biogas in terms of
electricity generated @ Rs
6per KW/hr
38544000 181333200 3643040 5836040
2 From sludge @ Rs 500/m3
truck)
6022500 2753560 178120
3 From treated wastewater @
Rs 0.25/m3
30933750 - -
Total 75500250 20886760 3643040 6011160
165
However as of now no concrete plans have been made as to how they will implement
the above plans (discussed in Chapter 6 and 7). Also HMWSSB‘s plan to increase
the current sewerage cess from 35 per cent to 50 per cent may be difficult. Its
previous attempts at increasing the price of water and sewerage services has been
strongly opposed by the people and its representatives (discussed in detail in Chapter
7 and see Appendix IX). The contingent valuation survey results presented in Section
8.2.2 clearly show that people are dissatisfied with the services of HMWSSB and
many not even be willing to pay for the current services.
The current costs of water supply from different sources of water for Hyderabad are
presented in Section 7.2.2 of Chapter 7. It is worth noting that the cost of sourcing
water from Krishna (Rs.18/KL) is higher than treating wastewater to level A
(Rs.9/KL), however due to lack of appropriate infrastructure for treatment and
transfer, Hyderabad is unable to take advantage of the wastewater.
8.2.2 Contingent valuation
From the institutional analysis it is clear that there is a desire to treat all wastewater
from the city which enters the river untreated. However, the HMWSSB has no
money to treat it. With the new wastewater treatment plants being set up, about 70
per cent (590 ML/day) of the wastewater could be treated to boatable quality before
it is released into the river. However, for the sustenance of the treatment plants, the
operation and maintenance costs of the treatment plants have to be met from other
sources. One source of funding could be the actual polluters themselves. These are
the urban households that consumer water. Therefore a contingent valuation survey
has been conducted to estimate the urban water consumers of Hyderabad‘s
Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) to treat wastewater. In essence, understanding this
relationship puts a value on wastewater collection and treatment. The results of the
Contingent Valuation (CV) analysis outline in Chapter 5 are presented in this
Section.
166
1. Response rate, selection bias and data imputation
The questionnaires were presented in-person to 500 respondents, of which 322 (64.4
per cent) agreed to be interviewed. After checking for normality and eleminating the
outliers, 286 questionnaires were selected for analysis. Most respondents worked in
offices. Therefore there is a bias towards the selection of respondents who are
earning members of the household and who are above the age of 18 years. This bias
could not be avoided as a pre-test of the questionnaire showed that the non-earning
members of the household were not comfortable and not willing to answer the
question regarding the WTP for wastewater treatment and in order to apply the
questionnaire to the earning members of a household, one had to approach them at
their work places/offices. The bias could not be avoided, but had to be admitted for a
transparent presentation of the survey results. The pre-test of the questionnaire also
showed that people were more willing to talk and answer the questions for the survey
in their work places, rather than their homes, so it was decided to interview people in
their work places. The word ‗office workers‘ actually means people employed in the
formal sector. People working in informal sectors were more reluctant to answer
questions related to income and in order to avoid wrong or false answers, it was
decided to interview people employed in formal sector. Due to this, the percentage of
males is higher, as in India, the ratio of females to males employed in formal sectors
is low. The sample was selected randomly and it was purely by chance that the
percentage of respondents between the age of 19-35 years is high. It was felt, this
would not have affected the results, but actually help to get more accurate results as
efforts have been made to select respondents who were honest and open about their
answers. A ‗self-selection bias was also seen, which is possible whenever the group
of people being studied have control over whether to participate in the study or not.
Participants' decision to participate may be correlated with strong opinions of, or
substantial knowledge about, wastewater and river pollution issues. These issues
present the possibility that the sample is not representative. The outliers which were
rejected on statistical grounds may otherwise provide crucial information that has
been rejected. This also creates a selection bias (Kruskal. 1960). However, personal
comments of respondents have been recorded and are presented in this Chapter. A
certain level of response bias (cognitive bias) is possible in this survey as some (100)
167
of the questionnaires were applied by a student who is a supporter of the concept that
people should pay a higher price for the treatment of wastewater.
Respondents had problems answering questions 6, 15, 18, 21 and 23 of the
questionnaire (see Appendix I for the questions). However, for all these questions,
respondents were provided with the options to answer ―Don‘t know‖ and ―Refuse‖.
Since the questionnaires were applied personally, the enumerator ensured that the
respondent understood the question and all questions were answered. Therefore,
there is no possibility of data imputation. For question 23, on income levels, six
respondents answered ―Don‘t know‖ and 31 respondents refused to answer. It is also
possible that some of the respondents might have given a false answer to this
question in order to hide their true income levels. For question 6, 38 respondents
answered ―Don‘t know‖ and two respondents refused to answer.
2. Data analysis and results
The questionnaire consisted of three sections A, B and C. Part A was used to
establish a profile of the respondents. Part B was used to investigate the respondents‘
beliefs about pollution and its relationship to water. The questions about
respondents‘ willingness to pay are asked in Section C. The results of these findings
are presented below.
The characteristics of the respondent profile that are analysed are education, age and
sex. It was found that only 4 per cent of the respondents were uneducated (see Table
8.5). The high level of literacy rate may be attributed to the fact that the survey was
conducted in an urban area where the literacy rates are high. Of the total numbers
questioned, 73 per cent of the respondents were in the age group of 19 to 35 years
and about 19 per cent in the age group of 36 to 50 years (see Table 8.6). This may be
attributed to the fact that the working member of a household was interviewed in this
study. Of the total number of respondents, 82 per cent (234) were male and the rest
(52) were female. The respondents were chosen randomly and no preference was
given to any particular gender. The high percentage of male respondents might be
attributed to the fact that the interviews were conducted in work places. In India, the
percentage of women employed in formal organizations is low.
168
Table 8.5 No. of respondents with different education levels
Education levels Respondents
(no.)
None 11 (4)
Primary level (1 – 5 years) 8 (3)
Secondary level (6th – 10th
standard)
61(21)
Senior Secondary (11 – 12th std) 54(19)
Degree (Bachelors) 96 (34)
Masters 52 (18)
Tertiary (PhD) 4 (1)
Total 286 (100)
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286.
Table 8.6 Age groups of the respondents
Age Groups Respondents
(no.)
Respondents
(%)
< 18 3 (1) 1
19 – 35 209 (73) 73
36 – 50 54 (18.7) 18.7
51 – 65 19 (7) 7
>65 1 (0.3) 0.3
Total 286 (100) 100
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286
When respondents were questioned on their opinions on pollution, it was found that
less than one per cent thought the Government should cut down the spending on
environment and 64 per cent (182) of the respondents were in favour of protecting
the environment while still holding the current costs of doing so constant (see Table
8.7). From these results, it can be interpreted that almost 99 percent of the
respondents were aware that the government is not spending enough money on
pollution control. However, the fact that 64 per cent thought that the current spending
should be held constant shows that either they don‘t want to be burdened with extra
taxes related to pollution control or they are not aware, how much the government
actually spends on environmental pollution control. The Indian budget for 2008-09
169
allocated Rs 15,000 million for the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Amarnath.
2008). Amarnath (2008) argues that the budget is not enough to reverse, or even stall
the degradation and waste in the country to levels matching international
environmental standards. However, if the trend of increasing budget outlays
continues at the current rate of 7.0 per cent, the environmental industry in India
would have just enough revenues to clean the existing waste and upgrade the
sanitation facilities, rather than venture into new technologies and implement higher
environmental standards (Amarnath. 2008). The results of the willingness to pay for
treatment of wastewater are not very encouraging (see Table 8.10).
Where people were asked (in question 10) how important was controlling pollution
in rivers and lakes is to them, 32 per cent (91) said that it was ―Very Important‖ and
64 per cent (183) said that it was ―Important‖. It can be concluded that more than 90
per cent of the respondents are aware of the importance of controlling pollution in
rivers.
When respondents were asked (in question 12) to rank the two sources of water
pollution which they feel caused most pollution, 47 per cent (127) of the respondents
ranked industrial pollutants as number one pollutant and 55 per cent (149) ranked
sewage from commercial complexes (hospitals, hotels, garages, laundry, beauty
saloons, butcher shops) as their second highest pollutant (see Table 8.8).
Table 8.7 Number of respondents and their perceived importance levels for
protection of environment
Statement Respondents (no.)
Protecting environment is very important regardless of cost. 50 (17)
Protecting environment is important while holding the current costs. 182 (64)
We have made enough progress on cleaning environment. We should cut
down the costs
2 (0.8)
Don‘t know 36 (12.6)
Refused 16 (5.6)
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286.
170
Table 8.8 Sources of water pollution and respondents ranking
Cause Rank 1 Rank 2
1. Domestic sewage from households / residential areas 69(25) 58 (21)
2. Sewage water from hospitals, hotels, garages, laundry,
beauty saloons, butcher shops and other commercial
complexes
71 (26) 149(55)
3. Industrial effluents 127 (47) 36 (13)
4. Run off from roads and highways 3 (1) 3 (1)
5. Seepage from garbage dumps 1 (0) 18 (6)
6. Runoff from agriculture 4 (1) 11 (4)
Total 286 286
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286.
The various reasons why some people might value water quality in their rivers was
addressed in question 13. The respondents were asked to rank two of the reasons for
reducing water pollution in Musi River in Hyderabad city, which were most
important to them personally. Of all respondents, 47 per cent (133) of the
respondents ranked option 2, to reduce odours, mosquitoes and groundwater
contaminants highest and 33 per cent (94) ranked option 1 (the feeling that they are
somehow responsible) as their second choice (see Table 8.9). It is interesting to note
that very few people valued the recreational value of the river. This might be due to
the fact that, Musi River has been polluted for more that 20 years and people do not
think of it as a place to go boating or to picnic or recreate along. However, once the
river is cleaned and the flow in the river increases, its recreational value may
increase. This was the experience that was learned from cleaning up Hussain Sagar, a
polluted lake in the centre of the city, which is cleaned up with the establishment of a
20 ML/day capacity secondary treatment plant on its banks.
Further, at this point it would be appropriate and useful to discuss the Schwartz‘s
Norm Activation Model. According to the Schwartz Norm Activation Model
(NAM), personal norms, which are ―feelings of moral obligation to perform or
refrain from specific actions‖, result in prosocial actions (Schwartz & Howard.
1981). Personal norms are activated when someone acknowledges that not acting
pro-socially will lead to negative consequences for others or the environment
(Awareness of Consequences; AC) and when someone feels responsible for these
171
negative consequences (Ascription of Responsibility or AR). If the actor fails to
activate personal norms, no actions will be recognized as appropriate and no
prosocial action will follow.
The NAM appeared to be successful in explaining various kinds of Environmental
Significant Behaviour, including energy conservation (Osterhus. 1997; Tyler, Orwin
& Schurer. 1982), willingness to pay for environmental protection (Guagnano. 2001;
Guagnano, Dietz & Stern. 1994), pro-environmental political behaviour (Joireman,
Lasane, Bennet, Richards & Solaimani. 2001; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano & Kalof.
1999), recycling (Bratt. 1999; Hopper & Nielsen. 1991; Vining & Ebreo. 1992) and
general pro-environmental behaviour (Nordlund & Garvill. 2002; Schultz, Gouveia,
Cameron, Tankha, Schmuck, & Frank. 2005).
The results presented in Table 8.9 show that 64% of the respondents actually feel
responsible for pollution of the river (AR) and therefore might be willing to pay for
the treatment of their sewage as well. This is further confirmed by the results
presented in Table 8.11, which shows that 59% of the respondents are actually
willing to pay to treat the wastewater to at least boatable quality water. The results of
the logistic regression (see Table 8.12) show that the variable ―personal importance
attributed by a respondent to controlling water pollution‖ has a significant influence
on the WTP. It is concluded from this result that by increasing the awareness of the
consequences (AC) of water pollution, one can increase the WTP of people
indirectly. However, this could be an area for further research.
From the analysis, the average willingness-to-pay for treatment of wastewater was
estimated to be Rs.744.32 per household per annum. Of the total sample, 85 per cent
of the respondents were willing to pay some amount of money towards covering the
costs of wastewater treatment and 11 per cent refused to pay any money towards
treatment of wastewater for various reasons (see reasons below) (see Table 8.10).
172
Table 8.9 Reasons for river pollution and respondents ranking
Reasons for river pollution Rank 1 Rank 2
1. I (my household) pollute the Musi River by discharging our
domestic wastewater into the river and hence feel responsible to clean
it as well.
89 (31) 94 (33)
2. I (my household) would like to have clean water in the river to
avoid the problems of bad odour, mosquito problems & pollution of
our ground water.
133 (47) 33 (12)
3. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi river so
that we could go swimming, boating & fishing
2 (1) 7 (2)
4. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi river so
that we could go picnicking, bird watching / stay in a vacation cottage
near the river.
0 (0) 8 (3)
5. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi River so
that we could use it for irrigation and get better yields.
31 (11) 52 (18)
6. I (my household) get satisfaction from knowing that the water in the
river is clean.
27 (9) 85 (30)
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286.
Table 8.10 Willingness to pay for treatment of wastewater
No. of
respondents
No.of respondents who were willing to pay to treat wastewater 243 (85)
No.of respondents who were not willing to pay to treat
wastewater (Protest zero)
32 (11)
Don‘t know 5 (2)
Refusal 6 (2)
Total 286
Note: Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286
The respondents who refused to pay anything towards the treatment of wastewater
gave the following reasons for this protest behaviour:
the poor level of water supply which has an important and negative influence
on people‘s WTP for wastewater treatment;
that the HMWSSB is mainly associated with water supply and considering
that currently they receive only 2 hrs of water supply every second day, many
173
believed that they should not pay for wastewater treatment when they don‘t
get enough of the fresh water;
a lack of trust, as most respondents said that they do not trust the government
to spend their money efficiently on wastewater treatment;
that it was Government‘s responsibility to keep rivers clean and therefore
they should invest in wastewater treatment;
that Government is already collecting enough taxes and not providing any
services like roads, bad water supply and sewerage) so there was no point in
paying additional water cess, as it would not improve the condition of the
river anyway;
that the officials in the government system were corrupt and there was no
point in paying more money for a service as it is going to be misused; and
dissatisfaction with the performance of HMWSSB.
Some respondents were willing to pay on the condition that, first the government
invest in wastewater treatment plants, start treating wastewater and only after they
see visible improvement in the quality of water in the river they would be willing to
pay for the treatment of wastewater.
The scenario of 85 per cent of respondents willing to pay for wastewater treatment
seems to be quite an encouraging scenario. However, the next step was to see how
much were the respondents actually willing to pay? The results are presented in
Table 8.11. About 149 respondents (59 per cent) of the total 243 respondents who
were willing to pay, were happy to pay for treatment up to boatable quality (level C),
46 (19 per cent) of them were willing to go one step further and pay for treatment
upto fishable quality (level B), and 37 (15 per cent) of them were willing to take the
next step and pay for the treatment of wastewater upto swimmable quality (level A).
Respondents who refused to pay for treatment levels above boatable quality, were
either satisfied with level C quality, or that they could not afford to pay more due to
financial constraints, or wanted to see HMWSSB treat all the wastewater to Level C
before paying for the next level. Other respondents were happy to pay for treatment
only up to fishable quality (level B). They refused to pay for higher levels for the
same set of reasons.
174
Table 8.11 Willingness to pay for treatment of wastewater to various levels
Wastewater treatment quality No. of
respondents
No. of respondents who were
willing to pay to treat wastewater
but less than the actual costs
incurred by the STPs to treat to
different levels
17 (7)
No. of respondents who were
willing to pay amounts equal to
or more than what it costs to treat
wastewater to
Boatable quality (level C) 143 (59)
Fishable quality (level B) 46 (19)
Swimmable quality (level A) 37 (15)
Total 226 (93)
Total 243
Note: Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 243
Further, in order to understand why some people were willing to more and some less,
it is important to know the variables that actually influence their decision to pay
more or less. After a literature review, it was decided that three key variables might
have an influence on the willingness to pay of the people. These variables and their
results are discussed in the next section
3. Further analysis - Logistic Regression
A logistic regression analysis was undertaken to find the significance of three
variables on the respondents‘ WTP. The three variables that are thought to influence
the WTP are the income levels, the number of years lived in Hyderabad and the
perceived importance of people of controlling water pollution. The respondents have
been classified into four income groups: less than Rs.110, 000, between Rs.110, 001
and 200,000, between Rs.200, 001 and 400,000 and greater than Rs.400, 000. It was
expected that the greater the income the more they would be willing to pay. By
assessing the number of years lived in Hyderabad it is believed that people who have
lived for a long time in Hyderabad may value clean water in Musi River more. The
extent of importance given by people to controlling water pollution was thought to
improve the WTP. The data from the questionnaire was analysed using the Logistical
Regression package in SAS (version 9).
175
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 8.12. It was found that the
probability chi square of the variables – Perceived importance of controlling water
pollution and household income levels is less than 0.05. This can be interpreted to
indicate that both variables have a statistically significant influence on the WTP. The
variable – the number of years lived in Hyderabad had probability chi square that
was much greater than 0.05. Thus, it can be concluded that they do not have a
statistically significant influence on the dependent variable WTP of the respondents.
The results of the logistic regression analysis were further confirmed through the
Analysis of Variance or ANOVA. See Appendix I for ANOVA results.
Table 8.12 Results of the Logistic Regression analysis
Effect DF Wald Chi-
Square
Pr Chi Square
No.of years lived in Hyderabad 40 36.7860 0.6157
Importance given to controlling water
pollution
3 12.1067 0.0070
Household income levels 12 53.3792 <0.0001
Proximity to the river 1 0.9917 0.3193
Note: The data has been analysed using SAS Version 9.
176
4. Consumer Surplus and demand curves
The WTP response can be used to estimate the total benefits that the respondents
expect from the particular good and by subtracting the appropriate costs, should
provide an estimate of the consumer surplus. The actual cost of treatment and
amount that each household needs to pay are shown in Table 8.1.
The consumer surplus for different levels of treatment is presented in Table 8.13. As
the cost of treatment increases, the number of respondents willing to pay decreases
and hence the consumer surplus decreases. Of the 143 respondents who were WTP to
treat wastewater to level C, 81 of them were WTP above the actual cost of treatment
(Rs. 512.40/year/hh) and these values have been summed up to arrive at the
consumer surplus for each quality level (see column 4 of Table 8.13). Of the 46
respondents who were WTP to treat wastewater to level B, 28 of them were WTP
above the actual cost of treatment (Rs. 992.42/year/hh). Of the 37 respondents who
were WTP to treat wastewater to level A, 11 of them were WTP above the actual
cost of treatment (Rs. 1242/year/hh). The consumer surplus is highest for wastewater
quality level B (Rs. 1225/year/person) followed by level A (Rs. 1221/year/person)
and then level C (Rs. 738/year/person).
From Table 8.13 it can be seen that even though the consumer surplus per person is
highest for wastewater quality level B, it is more viable to treat to the level C which
has the highest consumer surplus as maximum number of people are willing to pay
for level C (boatable quality). The Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 show the number of
respondents willing to pay different amounts of money per KL of wastewater treated
to different levels and the green shaded areas show the surplus value that the
consumers derive above the actual costs of treatment.
177
Table 8.13 Consumer Surplus (At 80% of water supplied discharged as
wastewater)
Quality
level
Cost of treatment
from Level D
(Rs./annum/hh)
No. of respondents WTP
above the actual cost of
treatment
Consumer
Surplus (Rs)
Consumer
surplus per
person (Rs)
C 512.40 81 (28) 59778 738
B 992.40 28 (10) 34295 1225
A 1242.00 11 (4) 14652 1221
Total Consumer Surplus 108725
*Figures in brackets represent the percentage of total sample size of 286.
Figure 8.1 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level C
and Consumer surplus
178
Figure 8.2 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level B
and Consumer surplus
Figure 8.3 Number of respondents WTP for wastewater treatment to level A
and Consumer surplus
179
5. Discussion
Approximately half of the respondents were willing to pay for wastewater to be
treated to boatable quality. From the survey results it can be concluded that of the
full recovery of costs of sewerage services and wastewater treatment from the
consumers is presently not possible in Hyderabad. However, a phased increase in the
water tariffs, accompanied with simultaneous improvements in service delivery
mechanisms may be successful in the future. The current cost recovery efforts are
restricted to water supply and the HMWSSB has not yet been successful in achieving
this.
Forty seven per cent of the respondents perceived industrial pollutants as the major
source of water pollution followed by commercial complexes (26 per cent) and
residential areas (25 per cent). This perception may have implications for the WTP
for treatment. . It could be the case that it is not industrial pollutants causing the
problem. It could be the case that people are mistaken. There is no concrete data
available on the proportion of domestic wastewater, commercial wastewater and
industrial wastewater entering the central sewerage network and finally into the Musi
River and the extent of contamination caused by each of these sources. This is an
area that requires further research.
The logistic regression and ANOVA results show that the variable ―perceived
importance of preventing water pollution‖ has a significant influence on the WTP of
the respondents. Therefore an increased awareness among the city dwellers of the
importance of preventing pollution of the surface water and ground water sources
would help in increasing the cost recovery for water utility and treatment services.
However, some further research is needed in this area, to determine the extent of
such awareness programmes required and its marginal costs in bringing change.
Finally, the logistic regression and ANOVA results also show that the variable
―household income‖ also has a significant influence on the WTP of the respondents.
This further confirms the EKC analysis that as people get richer, they are more
concerned about the environment and hence place a higher value on controlling
pollution.
180
8.3 Melbourne
With increasing water scarcity and emerging reliable and economic technologies,
wastewater recycling is beginning to emerge as a viable alternative to conventional
water sources. While wastewater recycling can save and complement existing
potable water uses, it can achieve a number of other objectives, such as:
reducing the nitrogen outfall to the river and bay;
lessening Green House Gas emissions and discharge from wastewater;
promoting agriculture and employment generation;
maintaining a green sport orientated city; and
substituting environmental flow requirements providing water for the
environment.
Given the ability of wastewater to satisfy a number of different objectives (some of
which are complementary and some which contradict each other), the fact is that it
generates different values when used in different sectors (Mekala et al, 2007).
According to the objective the government wants to achieve, treated wastewater
should be allocated to sectors where value can be maximized. In Figure 8.4 the
objectives with respect to wastewater pursued in Melbourne are outlined. Each will
have a different cost in achieving it and provide a different benefit. In this Section
the costs and benefits of achieving the three main objectives listed in Figure 8.4 are
presented.
181
Figure 8.4 Framework for effective allocation of wastewater
182
8.3.1 The costs of substituting, saving and complementing
potable water supplies
Potable water is of a very high quality and its origin and nature are suitable for a
wide range of uses. It is highly valued in an urban context and so would be the ability
of recycled wastewater to substitute it. In Chapter 6 it was concluded that if the
current low inflows into the reserves are considered, Melbourne is already suffering
from a severe water shortage. With the increasing demand and the decreasing supply,
the deficit gap between the supply and demand is widening in Melbourne and this
requires urgent action. Recycled wastewater is an alternate water supply option for
this city.
In order to understand how much of the potable water was saved by using recycled
water, requires an understanding of the sectors in which it could be used. These
include the commercial, residential, municipal and industrial sectors. Only 1884 ML
of wastewater is recycled for industrial and residential use in Melbourne which is
about 0.65 per cent of the total wastewater treated in 2007-08 (Melbourne Water.
2009). Thus, it could be argued that there is the potential to increase wastewater use
in a number of non-potable uses, like flushing and gardening in residential green
field sites, industrial (where high quality water is not required) and also for the
irrigation of green reserves, parks and sports fields.
According to the Australian Conservation Foundation (2007), Australia can save
enormous amounts of potable water by introducing a national target to recycle 40 per
cent of its water by 2020. This would involve setting up recycling projects in housing
developments and industries. However, to maximize the objective of saving potable
water, a comparison of the cost of using treated wastewater with the cost of other
alternative sources of water needs to be made. The costs of more conventional
sources of water tend to be much less than recycled water in Melbourne (see Table
8.14). Further, Allen Consulting Group (2004) found that the benefits provided by
rain water tanks are not sufficient to justify the added investment costs for
Melbourne. The report by Mitchell et al (2005) provides a detailed analysis of
stormwater reuse as a potable substitution for Melbourne as well.
183
Table 8.14 Alternate water supply options for Melbourne
Size
(GL/annum)
Capital cost
(Ac/KL)
Operating cost
(Ac/KL)
Total cost
(Ac/KL)
Current cost of Supply 550 - - 1471
Storm water recycling - - - 10-1502
Macalister Mount Useful (a) 150 42 20 62
Macalister Mount Useful (b) 85 52 20 72
Latrobe 150 60 24 84
Mitchell 150 81 37 118
Sugarloaf 75 146 20 166
Paterson River Storm water 26 102 100 202
Wonthaggi Desalination Plant 150 213 88 301
Recycled water
Eastern Treatment Plant
released water
90 80 29 1093
Eastern Treatment Plant
recycling
115 179 63 2424
Western Treatment Plant 100-80 - - 230-3005
Indirect Potable Recharge of
recycled water
- - - 168-2616
Note: Capital cost is annualized over the expected life and with a 6 per cent return on capital
Source: Alan Moran. Institute of Public Affairs. 2008
1Estimated levelised full cost of water supply. WSAA facts 2005 and Marsden Jacob analysis
2Ibid
3Option where recycled water is added to the environmental flows in the Yarra River below Yering
Gorge allowing additional water to be diverted from Yarra river into Sugarloaf reservoir for potable
supply for Melbourne
4Option where recycled water is sent to Latrobe Valley for industry use in exchange for a portion of
the current regional water supplies for Melbourne
5It is 230 Ac/KL of class A recycled water and 300 cents per kl with further desalination
6According to work undertaken by Marsden Jacob Associates based on water supply plans for Sydney,
Adelaide, Perth and Newcastle and work undertaken on IPR for Toowoomba.
184
Moran (2008) from the Institute of Public Affairs argued that there is abundant water
available for Melbourne in the north east of the city that could be channelled in a
most cost effective way by building a new dam on the Thomson/Macalister, Latrobe
and Mitchell Rivers. It costs almost half of what it would cost the city if water is
sourced from the new dams than if the water is sourced from desalination plant in
Wonthaggi or from the Western Treatment Plant (see Table 8.14). However, the
government has a ‗no new dams‘ policy and therefore this may not be an option for
Melbourne under the current circumstances. Of the other three options – desalination,
storm water recycling and wastewater recycling, the cheapest options would be storm
water recycling, wastewater recycling and desalination respectively, in that order.
However, the option of stormwater recycling depends directly on the amount of
rainfall the city receives and the quantities that can be recycled are limited and can
only partially fulfil the water demand-supply gap of the city. Of the two options -
desalination and wastewater recycling, desalination remains the more expensive
option for now. However, the policy makers have favoured this option because of the
other advantages associated with this option which are – it is a rainfall independent
option; there are no acceptability problems associated with it (no yuck factor); there
is no need to build the expensive dual reticulation systems for its supply to the point
of use; and the quantities of sea water available is almost unlimited, which means
more and more water can be sourced as per the need. However, recycling wastewater
can not only substitute/complement/save fresh water, but has this unique ability to
fulfil a number of other objectives like reduce nutrient discharge to the bay; reduce
GHG emissions if used in sectors which require lower treatment levels, create
healthy green spaces in the city even in drought times etc. These objectives are
further discussed in the next sections.
8.3.2 Reduce nutrient discharge into Port Philip Bay
The disposal of wastewater into natural water bodies has an impact on the
ecosystems despite the degree of the treatment undertaken. The nutrients in the
wastewater still remain following treatment and can lead to a number of adverse
effects on the bodies receiving the treated wastewater. These include a reduction in
the penetration of natural light into the water which is necessary for the growth of sea
185
grasses and coral, the range of fish species in existence, excessive algal growth/algal
blooms (eutrophication), plagues of starfish and sea urchins, reduced biodiversity,
damaging oyster beds and many more depending upon the type and extent of
pollution from the wastewater.
Port Phillip Bay in Melbourne is of enormous economic, recreational and
environmental value to the people who live near it. Owing to the public concerns
over the effects of continuous nutrient discharges on the long term health of Port
Philip Bay, the CSIRO recommended a 1000 tonnes reduction in the target nitrogen
loads entering the bay (Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2002). It
was also recommended that the entire site of the Western Treatment Plant be
declared as wetland of international importance, under the Ramsar Convention. The
current nitrogen and phosphorous loads discharged (which are taken as the indicators
of extent of nutrient disposal) to the different water bodies through wastewater from
Melbourne are shown in Table 8.15. The current outflow of wastewater into the
natural water systems is 202 GL/year. Melbourne Water estimates that with a further
upgrade of the Western Treatment Plant and Eastern Treatment Plant up to 50 per
cent of the plants‘ effluent flow could be sold as recycled water and considerable
amounts of nutrient discharges can be reduced.
Table 8.15 Summary of pollutant loads from Melbourne 2007-08
STP Discharge
site
Flow
(GL/year)
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Nitrogen
load
(tones/year)
Phosphorous
(mg/L)
Phosphorous
Load
(tones/year)
Western
Treatment
Plant
Port
Phillip Bay
80.86 15.3 1239 11 891
Eastern
Treatment
Plant
Ocean
Bass Strait
112.99 25 2825 9.8 1107.4
Others* Rivers and
Creeks
8 7 56 0.6 4.8
Total 202 47.3 4120.3 21.4 2003.2
*This value has been approximated from the 2004-05 discharges
186
In order to maximize the objective of reducing the nutrient discharge to the bay,
wastewater should be recycled in sectors from which there are no return flows of
nutrients into the sewage system. Almost 80 to 90 per cent of recycled wastewater
used in industries, and 16 to 20 per cent of recycled wastewater for residential use (if
used only for toilet flushing and outdoor activities), will ultimately return to the
sewage system. This will result in the nutrients becoming more concentrated in the
system. Therefore, it is necessary to use the treated wastewater in systems where the
nutrients can be beneficially used and at the same time do not return to the normal
sewage system. These uses include wastewater recycling for amenity irrigation
(including parks, gardens, sports lawns, golf course, race course etc), irrigation of
nature reserves and irrigation of crops and wood lots.
Agriculture is a major consumer of water, accounting for more than 67 per cent of all
water used in Australia (ABS. 2006). It is also the one sector with the capacity to use
recycled water and its nutrients with minimal return flows to the sewage system.
There are different classes of treated wastewater suitable for different types of crops,
but this depends on the soil and crop type. Currently in Melbourne only 9.8 per cent
(or 28,612 ML) of the total wastewater treated, is being recycled in agriculture (ESC,
2009). The potential to increase this amount exists, provided the salinity issue
associated with wastewater can be handled in a cost efficient manner.
8.3.3 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Wastewater undergoes different levels of treatment - primary, secondary and tertiary.
Table 8.16 presents the different levels of energy use and emissions from recycled
wastewater, normal water and water from desalination. The energy consumption and
GHG emissions increase as wastewater is treated to each subsequent level. In
addition, both energy consumption and emissions vary widely depending upon the
quality of the raw sewage, the amount treated, the type of technology used and the
efficiency to which it is used. The extent to which wastewater is treated in turn
depends on the Government‘s objective of in which sector it wants to use the treated
wastewater or in which kind of water body (river or sea or bay) it wants to discharge
wastewater.
187
A recent report by Water Services Association of Australia (WSAA. 2009)
highlighted the environmental ‗catch-22‘ situation that recycled water finds itself in.
It was found that the recent improvements to treatment standards from secondary
level to tertiary may cause a fourfold increase in energy consumption (ReWater
Newsletter. 2009). Its worth noting from the data in Table 8.15 that advanced
treatment of wastewater in fact consumes very high levels of energy and may end up
producing much higher levels of GHGs than those produced from desalination of
water.
Table 8.16 Energy consumption and emissions from different levels of treatment
Energy
consumption
Range
(kWh/KL)
GHG emissions*
(kg CO2 -e / KL)
Primary 0.1 – 0.37 0.144 - 0.5328
Secondary (including
primary)
0.26 – 0.82 0.3744 - 1.1808
Tertiary (including
secondary)
0.39 – 11.01 0.5616 - 15.8544
Potable water supplied for
Melbourne**
0.40 – 0.60 0.5776 - 0.8664
Water from Desalination 4.00 -5.00 5.776 - 7.22
*Considering energy source is from electricity produced by conventional non-renewable sources.
1kWh of energy produces 1.444 kg CO2 –e GHG emissions. Source: State government of Victoria.
2002.
**Melbourne Water. Sustainability Report. 2007-08
Source: Kenway et al. 2008.
188
The collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater constitute 59 per cent of the
total GHG emissions from the water and sewerage sector of Melbourne. Melbourne
pumps its sewage significant distances before the final disposal resulting in the
highest sewerage energy consumption rate of 0.94 KWh/m3 of all the major capitals
in Australia. This figure is more than double that of Sydney at 0.47 KWh/m3
(Kenway et al. 2007). However, with 37.5 per cent of its energy requirements met
from natural gas, about two thirds of which is internally generated from wastewater
treatment, the consumption rate of Melbourne sewage comes down to 0.6 KWh/m3
(Kenway et al. 2007). Melbourne Water exceeded its target of a 40 per cent
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for 2007-08 (Melbourne Water. 2009).
However, its energy consumption is expected rise in the coming years due to
recovery from the drought, tertiary treatment at the Eastern Treatment Plant, the
energy required in pumping to the Sugarloaf Pipeline project and the Tarago water
treatment plant (Melbourne Water. 2009).
As per Melbourne Water‘s sustainability report (2009), the GHG emissions can be
reduced by:
using energy from renewable energy sources. In a bid to achieve zero net
GHG emissions by 2018, Melbourne Water has commissioned six mini
hydro-electricity plants;
offsetting the emissions through other green strategies; and
using less energy through energy efficient technologies and processes.
189
Figure 8.5 GHG emissions from water & sewerage services for Melbourne
(2007-08)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Water Sewerage Transport Other Offsets
Sources of GHG emissions
To
nn
es o
f C
O2 e
qu
ilen
t
em
issio
ns
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% o
f to
tal
Source: Essential Services Commission. Water Performance Report, March 2009.
In order to have minimum energy use for treatment, the best options would be to
reduce the pollution of sewage at its source and then treat wastewater to the
minimum level required for safe disposal according to the EPA specifications.
However, if the city wants to recycle wastewater, then depending upon the level of
GHG emissions reduction required, it is possible to reduce emissions by allocating
the treated wastewater to sectors that need minimum treatment levels. According to
the EPA Victoria specifications, the wastewater requiring minimum treatment level
that can be recycled is class D (treated to secondary level only) which can be used
for irrigating non-food crops including turf, woodlots and flowers. The next level is
class C (secondary treated with pathogen reduction including helminth reduction for
cattle grazing) which can be used for irrigating human food crops cooked/processed,
grazing/fodder for livestock, urban green areas with controlled public access and for
industrial systems with no worker exposure. In Mornington Peninsula, 42 South East
Water customers used 1304 ML of Class C water from South Eastern Outfall
pipeline from the Eastern Treatment Plant in 2007-08. The agricultural and
horticultural activities, for which the water was used, included watering golf courses
and sports fields, root crop irrigation, flower growing and drip irrigation of
190
vineyards. The next higher class of recycled water is class B (secondary treated with
pathogen reduction including helminth reduction for cattle grazing) which can be
used as industrial wash down water and for irrigating fodder for dairy cattle. The
highest treated is class A water (tertiary treated with pathogen reduction), which can
be used for a broad range of purposes including agricultural, industrial and urban
uses. The Werribee Irrigation District uses class A recycled water over 3269 ha of
land for irrigating lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower, fennel, artichoke, onions and celery
generating an annual gross turnover of $A 45 million and providing employment for
565 people (Crop and Farm data. 2008). Class A recycled water is also used by
farmers in the Eastern Irrigation Scheme.
Wherever possible, gravity fed irrigation methods and existing irrigation channels
and infrastructure can be used to further minimize GHG emissions (see Section 9.4
in Chapter 9 for details on the transportation costs of water). For potable recycling,
further treatment is required and it is necessary to remember that at each level, the
energy use increases and so does the GHG emissions. According to WSAA it is
―imperative‖ that the cities move from centralized to decentralized treatment systems
and recycled water should be supplied without the need for long pipelines and large-
scale pumping (ReWater Newsletter. 2009).
8.3.4 Other possible objectives for recycling
The different objectives that can be maximized by using different quality/treatment
levels and allocating the wastewater to different sectors are presented in Table 8.17.
The costs of achieving the different objectives have a wide range which also
indicates that there are a number of opportunities to operate within these ranges by
using wastewater of different quality classes and allocating it to the suitable sectors.
Since the first three objectives have already been discussed in detail, the last three are
briefly discussed here.
191
Table 8.17 Multiple objectives for wastewater and cost of achieving them for
Melbourne
Sr. No Objective $A /
effectiveness
Range
of Costs
Class of
recycled
water
Possible sector
for maximum
allocation
Objective 1 Save potable
water/indirect
potable recharge
$A / KL of
potable water
saved
1.5-3 Class A Residential and
Industrial
Objective 2 Reduce Nitrogen
outfall to ocean and
Bay
$A / ton of
nitrogen
averted
0.50-
200
Class C /
Class B /
Class A
Agriculture and
irrigation of
parks/reserves/g
olf course/race
course/sports
grounds
Objective 3 Reduce GHG
emissions/discharg
e wastewater at
least cost
$A / ton of
CO2
equivalent
emission
reduced
2000-
8000
Class C /
Class B /
Class A
Agriculture
(preferably use
class D and C)
Objective 4 Promote
agricultural and
other employment
generation
$A / person
employed
NA Class C /
Class B /
Class A
Varies from case
to case basis
Objective 5 Maintain a
green/sporty/health
y city/recreational
irrigation
$ A/ ha of
green space in
the city
NA Class C /
Class B /
Class A
Irrigation of
nature reserves,
parks, golf
course and
sports lawns
Objective 6 Substitute
environmental
flows/enhance
wetlands
$A / KL of
water for
environment
NA Depends on
the quality of
the receiving
water body
Rivers and
wetlands
Note: Please note that, the costs presented in column 4 does not include the transportation cost of the
recycled water from the point of treatment to the point of use.
192
Melbourne has a long history of water restrictions starting in 1860s with intermittent
periods of no restrictions (Egan. 2008). It has been on stage 3a water restrictions
since the 1st April 2007 due to below average inflows in its streams (less than 30 per
cent). Allen Consulting Group (2007) argue that permanent water restrictions may
not be a good long term strategy of dealing with the problems of water scarcity or
drought as there are additional costs associated with restrictions. The willingness of
households to pay for additional water to avoid household restrictions provides an
indication of the value of water. Fam et al. (2008) estimate this to between $A238
million to $A923 million per annum for Melbourne households which accounts for
only half the costs of restrictions Recreational tourism and the urban environment
accounted for an estimated 27 per cent while the commercial sector amounted to 17
per cent of the costs of water restrictions. When applied across the water restricted
cities of Australia, the costs of water restrictions were in the order of $A1600 million
to $A 6200 million each year (Fam et al. 2008). There is a huge market for water
supply created by the drought. The water utilities which treat their wastewater make
it available to the public through water tanks.
The horticulture (fruit and vegetable production) industry employs approximates 25
people per every 100 ha of cultivated area. It has been profoundly affected by the
recent droughts (Livingstone. 2009). Treated wastewater has a huge potential in this
industry and could be considered a means to generate a number of new jobs.
Australia spends large amounts of money on sports facilities. In 2007, Victorian
Department of Planning and Community Development allocated $A4.7 million to
assist country sports facilities to cope with the impact of drought. Under the Drought
Relief for Community Sport and Recreation Program 2008, $A9.3 million is
available to help local communities to develop sustainable approaches to water
management. The Australian golf economy is valued at $A2.71 billion and has
23,000 people working in it. An estimated 1.25 million people play golf each year
(Ernst & Young, 2006). The employment rate for golf is approximately 200
employees per GL of irrigation water used.
In the last decade, greater importance has been given to allocation of water for
environment and protecting the wetlands. According to Maher et al. (1999) the
193
objectives to meeting environmental flow requirements should be prioritised before
all other uses. Melbourne Water allocated 15,930 ML of treated wastewater from its
Western Treatment Plant for the conservation of the Ramsar wetlands. In future,
appropriately treated wastewater could play a crucial role as either a substitute or a
complement to the water sources essential for environmental flows.
8.3.5 The acceptability and willingness to use and pay for
recycled water and its products
In Australia, people pay to treat wastewater. They pay a sewerage levy of $A
1.0584/KL (see Section 5.3.6 and Box 5.1 in Chapter 5) and they can buy it by the
tanker load (for tankering costs see Table 9.4). Recycling schemes, which have
recently been introduced in Australia, are being promoted and subsidised by the
government. The aim is to expand these schemes to different sectors. However, in
doing so it was essential to come to terms with the community‘s behaviour and the
extent to which it is willing to accept recycle water. As part of the ‗Water for a
Healthy Country flagship – Water Futures project‘, Po et al (2005) conducted three
case study surveys to predict the community behaviour in relation to wastewater
reuse and what drives the decision to accept or reject a recycle scheme and its
products. In this section the results of these three studies are presented.
1. Feelings and factors that influence public acceptance of recycled water for
different purposes
Frewer et al. (1998) stated that people use their moral and social values known as
outrage factors to evaluate situations. Based on these outrage factors, Po et al. in a
study on wastewater recycling in 2004, suggests that people may perceive
wastewater too risky to use because (1) the use of this water source is not natural; (2)
it may be harmful to people; (3) there might be unknown future consequences; (4)
their decision to recycle water may be irreversible; and (5) that the quality and safety
of the water is not within their control.
194
A new study was conducted in 2005, by Po et al (2005) in the suburbs of Perth aimed
to test and measure the influences of the feelings people associated with using
recycled water for different purposes. Participants were also asked about the
potential influence of cost in their decisions to accept or reject reusing the water.
With respect to decisions on the way costs might affect the decision to use
wastewater, Po et al found that 71 per cent of the respondents thought cost was
important and 41 per cent of respondents felt that it should always be less than
potable supplies (see Table 8.18)
Table 8.18 Would the cost of treated wastewater affect your decision to use it?
Frequency N=93
(%)
Reasons
Yes 38 (40.9) Cost should not be too high
It should be cheaper
Cost is always a factor
Other sources may be cheaper
Not sure 28 (30.1) Cost should not be too high
No 27 (29) Cost should not be the main
consideration, if the water situation is
critical and water is precious
Source: Po et al (2005)
195
Po et al asked the 93 respondents to rate on a five point scale how acceptable it
would be to them if the government introduced the reuse of treated wastewater for a
range of purposes (see Table 8.19).
The results of the study showed that recycled wastewater was highly acceptable for
recreation; moderately so for agriculture; surprisingly acceptable for bathing and
swimming, but really unacceptable for home consumption in cooking and for
drinking. These results were found consistent with the previous research findings
(ARCWIS, 2002), the percentages of participants who found a specific use of treated
wastewater acceptable or highly acceptable decreased as the use moved closer to
human contact. It should be noted that Perth has a reputation for being water scarce
and much of the water used for public recreation are drawn from ground water
aquifers. So it could be assumed that consumers there are more sensitive to price and
quantity considerations than elsewhere.
Table 8.19 Acceptability of different uses of treated wastewater
Use of treated wastewater Acceptable
or highly
acceptable
%
Unacceptable
or highly
unacceptable
%
Mean
Watering public parks** 97.8 1.1 4.80
Home toilet flushing 98.9 1.1 4.80
Watering public playgrounds 95.7 1.1 4.72
Watering home lawns/gardens* 95.6 2.2 4.70
Watering golf courses 96.7 2.2 4.77
Irrigating dairy pastures* 84.3 6.5 4.42
Irrigating fruit and vegetables* 88.0 8.7 4.34
Washing your clothes 78.5 12.0 4.02
Showering and bathing at home 57.6 27.2 3.45
Filling public swimming pools 52.1 27.2 3.34
Cooking at home* 43.5 30.4 3.09
Drinking 31.5 45.7 2.68
*Significantly different at p<0.01 **Significantly different at p<0.05
Source: Po et al (2005)
196
A series of attitudinal statements were created to measure people‘s attitudes towards
the environment and water reuse in general. Respondents were required to rate how
much they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a five point scale (see Table
8.20). .
From the results presented in Table 8.20, it may be concluded that people strongly
agree that it‘s their responsibility to conserve the environment for future generations
and therefore by recycling water and taking other water conservation measures they
would be helping this cause. The results also show that people strongly disagree with
the statements – they would never use recycled water and they have the right to use
unlimited water. While these results show that people are not completely averse to
using recycled wastewater, it may be interesting to see some of the cases in Australia
where communities have completely rejected recycling schemes.
197
Table 8.20 Mean agreement/disagreement with each statement (1=strongly
disagree to 5=strongly agree)
Attitudinal statements Frequency
(N=161)
I think it is too hard to get most people to use recycled water 2.81
Water experts should have control over the kind of water community is supplied with 3.55
I would rather ―go without‖ than do something that wastes water 3.55
All water should cost the same, even if it comes from different sources 3.08
I believe water recycling is essential to help manage future water shortages 4.50
I have the responsibility to help with Perth‘s water future 4.47
I would never use recycled water even in times of water shortages 1.58
It would be too difficult for me to use recycled water at home 1.89
I contribute to any water shortages in Perth 3.40
Water recycling is not appropriate for managing Perth‘s water future 1.71
I feel personally obligated to do whatever I can to save water 4.38
The government is partly responsible for any water shortages in Perth 4.02
I feel good when I do things to help environment 4.39
Water is a valuable resource that should be re-used 4.63
It is my right to have fresh water supplied to my home 3.94
It would be very easy for me to use recycled water in my home 3.78
People have a right to unlimited use of water 1.81
I intend to use recycled water in the future 4.10
People should take responsibility for the environment around them 4.50
Consumers have the right to know fruits and vegetables they are buying have been
irrigated with treated wastewater
3.41
The community as a whole has the responsibility to help with Perth‘s water future 4.52
I could never use recycled water 1.55
I feel a moral obligation to protect the natural environment 4.42
I would only be prepared to recycled water in times of water shortages 2.01
Every household should be free to choose their source of water supply (e.g.
groundwater, surface water, recycled water)
2.75
The government as a whole has the responsibility to help with Perth‘s water future 4.53
I believe the protection of natural environment is vital for future generations 4.65
Fruits and vegetables irrigated with recycled water should be labelled 3.17
Technology will always find a way to provide water we need 2.82
Most people who are close to me support the use of recycled water 3.70
Source: Po et al (2005)
198
2. Indirect potable recycling in Perth
The second case study Po et al (2005) assessed a wastewater reuse scheme which
involved infiltrating highly treated wastewater into a Perth drinking water aquifer.
This is known as a Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme. A survey questionnaire was
sent out in November 2004 to a sample of 400 people in the Perth metropolitan area.
A statistical significance level of 0.01 was used throughout the analysis.
The respondents were briefed on the Managed Aquifer Recharge reuse scheme and
were asked if they would drink water from the scheme. Less than one third of
respondents (31.3 per cent) stated an unconditional intention to drink the water, 51
per cent had reservations about drinking the water and 17.8 per cent stated they
would not drink the water at all. Respondents were further asked to provide reasons
for their answers. The 30 per cent of respondents who were willing to drink water
from the Managed Aquifer Recharge scheme generally felt that Perth needed to have
alternative water supply options. They also trusted the authorities to do the right
thing, and trusted that the treatment standards would be high enough. Those
respondents who felt unsure about drinking the water thought about the safety of
using it. Reasons relating to safety included if it was treated properly, as long as it is
safe to use, and need assurance that it is safe. The respondents who were unwilling to
drink the water did not like the idea of using recycled wastewater. They preferred
other water sources.
199
3. Horticultural irrigation in Melbourne – customer acceptability of wastewater
irrigated produce and farmers’ willingness to pay for recycled wastewater
In a third case study by Po et al (2005) the Department of Primary Industries in
Victoria investigated the factors that governed Melbourne community‘s decisions to
buy vegetables grown with recycled class A wastewater from the Western Treatment
Plant at Werribee. The recycled wastewater is used to irrigate vegetables such as
celery, lettuce, onions, cabbages, broccoli, and cauliflower. Vegetables from the
Werribee district are mostly sold in Melbourne and are also distributed across the
country. A total of 400 respondents were questioned including 191 (47.8 per cent)
males and 209 (52.3 per cent) females. A statistical significance level of 0.01 was
used throughout the analysis.
Respondents were asked whether they had heard about the scheme before the survey.
Forty-three percent of respondents answered yes, about half of them said no (50.8 per
cent) and 6.3 per cent were unsure. Respondents were then asked whether they would
buy vegetables that had been grown in Werribee with recycled wastewater. About
one-third of respondents (35 per cent) said they would buy the vegetables without
hesitation. More than half of respondents (55.5 per cent) were unsure and 9.5 per
cent said that they would definitely not buy the vegetables. In Table 8.21 the main
reasons stated by respondents who said they would buy the vegetables are reported.
Most did not see any problem with it or supported the use of recycled water.
Table 8.21 Reasons for intention to buy vegetables from Werribee
Reasons Percentage
(N=139)
Don‘t see any problems with it 48.2
Support the use of recycled wastewater 32.1
Would not know the difference anyway 10.2
Has been used overseas for years 6.6
Have seen the good quality 5.8
Source: Po et al (2005). Study led by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
200
In Table 8.22 the main reasons stated by respondents who said they were not sure
whether they would buy the vegetables are reported. To most it is a question of
safety and assurance. People don‘t want to consume a good they are uncertain about.
That is possibly why over 70 per cent of those who would not do it suggested that
they would consume vegetables if they felt that the water was treated properly.
The main reasons stated by respondents who were unsure about buying vegetables
from Werribee are reported in Table 8.23. About 60 per cent of the respondents were
concerned that the wastewater might have harmful chemicals with adverse impacts
on health and another 16 per cent of them needed more information to make up their
mind to use the wastewater even after treatment to class A. .
Table 8.22 Reasons for being unsure about intention to buy vegetables from
Werribee
Reasons Percentage
(N=223)
Would only buy if water treated properly 71.3
If the safety of such use is guaranteed 22.9
Support the use of recycled wastewater 9.0
Need more information 5.8
Concerned about the use of wastewater 4.5
Source: Po et al (2005). Study led by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
Table 8.23 Reasons for no intention to buy vegetables from Werribee
Reasons Percentage
(N=35)
Concerned about the use of wastewater (e.g.
chemicals used, health concerns)
60.5
Need more information 16.2
Not from Werribee 8.1
It‘s a disgusting thought 8.1
Source: Po et al (2005). Study led by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
201
All respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they thought Melbourne
would benefit from the Werribee scheme (see Table 8.24). It is interesting to see that
in spite of their inhibitions about the use of wastewater irrigated products, about 56
percent thought it would greatly benefit Melbourne. It is possible that, this response
is due to the fact that Melbourne has been constantly subjected to water restrictions
due to drought and people perceive the recycling as an environment friendly
alternative for farmers.
Respondents generally thought Melbourne would benefit from the scheme and those
who thought the scheme would be of benefit were asked unprompted to specify these
benefits (see Table 8.25).
Table 8.24 Benefit of the scheme to Melbourne
Percentage (%) Mean
(N=399) 1 No benefit at all 2 3 Some benefit 4 5 Great benefit
2.8 2.3 26.3 12.1 56.5 4.17
Source: Po et al (2005). Study led by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
Table 8.25 Perceived benefits of recycled water use in Werribee for Melbourne
Reasons Percentage
(N=384)
Saving precious water source 81.4
Help to cope with water shortage 14.2
Benefit the environment 13.1
Using recycled water 5.4
Financial rewards 5.2
Cheaper vegetables 2.3
Source: Po et al (2005). Study led by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.
202
The majority of respondents thought that the scheme would help Melbourne to save
precious water resources and help to cope with water shortage. After considering all
the benefits and risks of using recycled wastewater to grow vegetables, respondents
were asked to choose a statement which they most strongly agreed with. The
majority of respondents (73.9 per cent) indicated that they thought the benefits of the
scheme outweighed the risks. Less than 10 per cent thought the risks outweighed the
benefits and the rest were indifferent.
Po et al (2005) concluded from the results of the two case studies that acceptability
decreases as the use moves closer to human contact, which is in line with the past
studies on wastewater reuse. The study further found that the acceptability of water
reuse was dependent upon the type of water being reused (people are more accepting
of reusing treated stormwater and greywater than of wastewater) and the fairness of a
reuse scheme. Public agencies such as the Health Department and Water
Corporation, CSIRO and university scientists were found to be the most trusted to
manage recycled water programs in Western Australia and to provide information on
recycled water. Private companies were generally not trusted by people to manage or
provide information about reuse.
4. Toowoomba wastewater recycling proposal
Toowoomba, a city in south-east Queensland suffered from chronic water shortages
due to drought and long-term, below-average rainfalls. Plans to introduce schemes to
recycle sewage into drinking water supplies to help the community overcome this
chronic shortage were made. Toowoomba was to become the first city in Australia
where recycled wastewater would be used for drinking. The plan was to set up $A68
million wastewater treatment plant to top up potable water supplies at Cooby Dam.
But recycling effluent for drinking was a highly sensitive issue for the community.
Despite advocates of the proposal saying recycled wastewater will be so pure it could
be used for hospital purposes such as kidney dialysis, a group of concerned citizens
collected more than 10,000 signatures for a petition opposing the project. In a
referendum, 60 per cent of residents voted 'no' to the proposal to draw 25 per cent of
203
the city's water from recycled effluent. While the verdict on using recycled
wastewater for potable use has been clear, it is important to understand the different
stakeholders‘ views and the politics behind it. These views are expressed on the ABC
(News online. 30th
July, 2006.) where:
o The Mayor of Toowoomba, Di Thorley, said that the case for water recycling
in Australia has been dealt a severe blow as a result of poll in Toowoomba.
o Property developer and 'no' campaigner Clive Berghofer said that vote shows
residents are not stupid and the council should get on with finding a real
solution to the water crisis.
o Clean Up Australia chairman Ian Kiernan claimed recycling water is the only
safe and reliable way of shoring up water supplies and said that a fear
campaign operated in the town prior to the referendum that included a lot of
misinformation and a greater public education is needed.
o The Local Government Association of Queensland executive director Greg
Hallam said the debate about recycled water is far from over, despite the
outcome and agreed that recycling effluent remains an option, because of the
need to quickly find solutions to the water crisis.
Although there are differing views, researchers and health authorities say it's possible
to recycle water to the relevant standard for whatever use the water is required, be it
irrigation, horticulture, agriculture, household use - or drinking water (Malkovic.
2006). Since Toowoomba, a number of wastewater recycling projects have been
successfully introduced (see Appendix II) for agriculture, industry, amenity irrigation
and residential non-potable use. But since then, no attempts have been made to
recycle wastewater for potable use. In a recent press release (Premier of Victoria. 26th
June 2009) on the upgrade of the Eastern Treatment Plant in Melbourne, Water
Minister Tim Holding said water authorities had identified potential uses for up to 40
GL of Class A recycled water from the treatment plant and also clearly stated, ―We
have ruled out the option of drinking recycled water.‖
204
5. Farmers’ willingness to pay for recycled wastewater
The Virginia pipeline Scheme, north of Adelaide initially faced significant customer
resistance to paying the full cost of recycled water and government equity effectively
subsidized those that pioneered shifts in water use (Kularatne et al. 2005). As the
customer confidence in the scheme increased, the pricing structure for the water has
been altered to reflect the true cost of providing the resource to the customer.
According to the ESC, (2009) Melbourne Water supplies bulk recycled water of
Class A quality to Southern Rural Water from its Western Treatment Plant which is
used in the Werribee Irrigation District at a subsidised price. The ESC is concerned
that the current agreement between Melbourne Water and Southern Rural Water does
not cover the full cost of providing the service. While the current pricing principles
for recycled water suggest that prices should be set such that the full cost of
providing the service is recovered where possible, the ESC is concerned that full cost
recovery could cause substantial adverse impacts on irrigators.
Melbourne Water‘s intention is to adopt two prices for recycled water. These are the
price for supply of recycled water volumes of less than the contracted maximum
volume of 11,100 ML per year, or greater than that. The price for lower contract
volumes is currently a subsidised price as it contributes to the Government‘s 20 per
cent recycling target. Southern Rural Water has advised Melbourne Water that
irrigators in the Werribee have neither the willingness nor the ability to pay full cost
recovery for this recycled water. The willingness to pay is reduced by the ongoing
high salinity of the recycled water, which customers had an expectation would be
reduced to 1,000 EC by July 2009. However, Melbourne Water‘s concern is that
further treatment of the recycled water to the preferred salinity level (of 1,000 EC or
less) would increase the cost of recycled water to approximately $A3,000/ML. This
would make using class A recycled water financially unviable for the irrigators.
Also, the irrigators have not committed to continuing to take recycled water if other
sources become available. This clearly shows that farmers are only using recycled
wastewater because they have no other option and there is no real commitment to
205
continue which makes it very difficult for Melbourne Water to make huge
investments into further treatment of class A wastewater to reduce the salinity levels.
Reflecting these concerns Melbourne Water intends to maintain the subsidised price
until June 2011. By then the results from an ongoing investigation into the problems
should be known. Melbourne Water considers that the bulk recycled water price will
need to increase by over 100 per cent to be fully cost reflective and therefore a
transition path could help manage customer impacts, while improving the pricing
signals in relation to cost and resource use (ESC. 2009). In other words, Melbourne
Water holds the belief that the problems of prices not reflecting costs are associated
with the volumes of water recycled and that they can be solved by making use of
economies of scale.
The price for above contract volumes (i.e. above 11,100ML/year) are also currently
subsidised for 2008-09. The prices are the same as for the within contract volumes.
Melbourne Water has indicated that in 2009-10 and 2010-11 it would like to
investigate the possibility of making the price for above contract volumes more cost
reflective (ESC. 2009). According to Kularatne et al. (2005), farmer‘s confidence in
production yield and quality, income security, and contractual supply chain issues
may be more important than the potential for windfall gains or high marginal returns.
Incentives in the form of pricing, education and training mechanisms are important
introductory measures that assist with promotion of user confidence and may be this
is what is essential to ensure full cost recovery of class A recycled wastewater from
the Werribee farmers.
8.4 Summary
From the results presented above, it is clear that costs of treatment of wastewater
play an important role in the overall wastewater management scenario. In case of
Hyderabad, it can be concluded that currently there is a need for huge investments in
sewerage networks and sewage treatment plants. Also, the HMWSSB needs to
recover its operation and maintenance costs to ensure the smooth running of the
206
sewage treatment plants. But, most cost recovery plans that exist are not put into
operation. The contingent valuation survey conducted in Hyderabad further reveals
that 100 per cent cost recovery for wastewater treatment is not possible in the current
stage of development. However, a phased increase in water tariffs may be effective
in future provided the HMWSSSB improves its performance levels. Also, it was
found that while people realise the importance of protecting the environment from
wastewater pollution, they are also very much conscious of the cost. From the results
of the logistic regression analysis it can be concluded that the variable ―household
income‖, has a positive influence on the willingness to pay for wastewater treatment
which further confirms that the logic that of the EKC holds for wastewater pollution.
Melbourne is ahead of Hyderabad in its wastewater management and currently treats
100 per cent of the wastewater generated and recycles 28 per cent of the treated
wastewater. It would appear that the costs of recycling constrain the extent to which
it is undertaken. Environmental protection would appear to be a priority amongst
consumers, however the evidence of the acceptability of products produced from
wastewater would appear to me mixed. For Melbourne, the costs of recycling are
judged on the environmental objectives Melbourne Water wants to achieve. The cost
of recycling wastewater for substituting potable water was found to be less expensive
than desalination, but, still more than other options. Thus, it can be concluded that
the cost of using recycled wastewater to reduce nitrogen discharge into Port Philip
Bay and reducing GHG emissions can be reduced by treating wastewater to lower
levels and using the by product in agriculture. However, this has implications for
salinity problems in irrigated areas. Furthermore, it was found that recovering the full
costs of treatment from the farmers may not be possible. Previous studies (Po et al.
2005; Hurlimann et al. 2005; Kularatne et al. 2005; Bruvold. 1988; ARCWIS. 2002;
and Sydney Water. 1999) have shown that the acceptability of recycled wastewater
decreases as the use moves closer to human contact. While, scarcity of water is
assumed to trigger the demand for recycled water, according to Kularatne et al.
(2005) the presence or absence of water is only one dimension of the problem and
wastewater recycling is influenced by a number of other factors like – the volume of
water available relative to existing supply, the timing of availability, the consistency
207
and quality of supply and the desire of suitably skilled and knowledgeable people to
invest. In addition to this Kularatne et al. (2005) presented a number of social aspects
that influence the primary producers‘/landholders‘ decision to accept wastewater
recycling which include: landholder‘s aspirations for their properties; landholder‘s
capacity to change; landholder‘s willingness to use recycled water; and landholder‘s
economic considerations.
So, while consumers may be willing to accept wastewater irrigated products, the
farmers had neither the ability nor the willingness-to-pay for the full cost of supply
of treated wastewater. However, this situation might change in the long run for
Melbourne as was seen in the case of Adelaide, Virginia pipeline scheme. These are
the problems that developed countries like Australia have to face if they decide to
promote more recycling projects and they are the ones India will have to think about
as they consider how to configure their sewerage treatment networks and plants.
208
209
Chapter 9
Decision Analysis: A Decision Support Tool for
Wastewater Treatment and Recycling
9.1 Introduction
For a policy maker contemplating the problem of what to do with wastewater,
amongst the many decisions that need to be made, are:
Should wastewater be treated or not?
If the wastewater is treated, to what quality level should it be treated?
Should the treated wastewater be recycled or not?
If the treated wastewater is to be recycled, what is the objective one wants to
achieve through recycling?
A decision tree can be used to answer each of these questions. The basis for selecting
a particular option is the option with the highest pay-off. The pay-off in the present
study is the net product utility derived by using certain quantities of wastewater in a
particular sector. The ordered steps that need to be followed to construct the decision
tree are:
1. Draw decision tree with all possible outcomes included;
2. Compute the value of a certain outcome and the probabilities of determining
the consequence of the choice;
3. Calculate the tree values by working from the outcomes back to the initial
choice set; and
4. Calculate the values of the uncertain outcome nodes by multiplying the value
of the outcomes by their probability (i.e., Expected Values).
In this Chapter the results of the decision analysis conducted on settings in
Melbourne and Hyderabad are presented. This analysis combines the information
presented earlier in this study in an attempt to provide decision makers with a tool
that will allow them to make decisions about the complex and long term future of
wastewater treatment and recycle. As such, the material presented in this Chapter can
210
be thought of, as not only a summary and a discourse on the material presented
earlier, but also as the place where the divergent strands needed to make decisions in
complex systems are brought together.
In undertaking this task it should be remembered that the aim is to construct a tool
that can be used over a wide range of economic settings, from a developing country
establishing its sewerage networks and treatment plants through to a more developed
one where these things are established and extensions to the activities are being
contemplated. In other words, a single decision tool that decision makers can use
when in a developing country situation and which can then still be used as they
become developed, is required. This is the case because decisions need to be made
about the current state of wastewater infrastructure that will have an effect well into
the future. In constructing the analysis, first the elements from Hyderabad are
detailed and then elements from Melbourne are presented. Ultimately these two are
combined into a single analysis. An outline of the techniques employed to construct
the Decision Analysis were presented in Chapter 4.
9.2 Decision Analysis in a Developing Country -The
Case of Hyderabad
In most developing countries, the wastewater generated is often only partially
collected due to an inadequate centralized sewerage network. What is collected is
generally disposed of into a river or into the sea with minimum or no treatment. This
is the case in Hyderabad.
In Hyderabad, approximately 850 ML/day of wastewater is collected through a
centralized wastewater system and disposed into the Musi River, with no prior
treatment. There are two treatment plants currently operating in the city. One has the
capacity to treat 113 ML/day to primary level and does not function very effectively
and hence is not considered in this analysis. The other is a very small treatment plant
with a sewage treatment capacity of only 20 ML/day and treats wastewater to
211
secondary level and disposes into a lake. Again, this is also not considered for this
analysis. From the Musi River, all the wastewater is used by farmers in the
downstream for irrigation of leafy green vegetables (like spinach, coriander,
amaranthus etc), fodder grass (mainly Para grass) and rice. Under the Musi river
conservation project, four new sewage treatment plants are being constructed which
have the capacity to treat about 592 ML/day of wastewater to secondary level by end
of 2010 (see Section 7.2.2 of Chapter 7).
Wastewater generated from the city could either be treated, or discharged into the
river untreated as it is now. If wastewater is discharged into the river untreated, it
will be used by farmers in the downstream area for irrigation and end up back in the
river treated by the process of its use. If HMWSSB decides to treat wastewater, it
could treat wastewater to either:
primary level and release into river which is then used for irrigation;
secondary level and release into river which could then be used for irrigation
of amenities like parks and avenue trees and for agriculture; or
tertiary level and part of it then recycled for industry and amenities
The probability that wastewater will be treated is assumed to be 0.7, as four new
Sewerage Treatment Plants will soon be completed on the Musi River and once
completed will have the capacity to treat wastewater to secondary level (see Chapter
7 for details of the project). The probability that wastewater will not be treated is
equal to 0.3 (i.e. 1 minus 0.7). The probability that wastewater will be treated to
secondary level is more than 50 per cent, as the new Sewerage Treatment Plants have
the capacity to treat up to secondary level, Hence a probability of 0.6 has been
assigned to this option. The probability that wastewater will be treated to tertiary
level is much less than 50 per cent as the HMWSSB does not have the required
infrastructure or future plans for so fine a treatment level. If the costs of treatment to
tertiary level are assumed to be high, a probability of 0.1 can be assigned to it. Since
the only other option left is treating wastewater to primary level, probability of 0.3 is
assigned to it.
212
Mekala. (2006) estimated the proportion of land irrigated with wastewater cultivated
with leafy greens, fodder and rice is in the proportion of 2:5:3. Therefore, weights of
0.2, 0.5 and 0.3 are assigned to the production of these crops, respectively. Once the
wastewater is treated to secondary level, its potential to be used for amenity
irrigation is small and hence a probability of 0.2 can be assigned to it and a
probability of 0.8 is accordingly assigned to agricultural use, as it has the capacity to
use all the wastewater available. Once the wastewater is treated to tertiary level, it
has the potential to be recycled for industry, agriculture and amenities. Households
have not been considered for recycling wastewater in Hyderabad at this point as this
requires a very high level of treatment and a third pipeline for cost effective transfer
which are both very expensive processes. However, Hyderabad might someday reach
this stage, but for now it is not considered as an option for analysis.
The results of the contingent valuation survey (reported in Chapter 8) revealed that
less than 30 per cent of the respondents (from household sector) were willing to pay
for treatment of wastewater to tertiary level. In addition, there are no such examples
in India where wastewater has been successfully recycled for households. Thus, a
probability of 0.8 is assigned to industrial use of tertiary treated wastewater. This is
considered reasonable as it is a very expensive option and only the industrial
customers would be willing to pay for it. Furthermore, tertiary treated wastewater has
been successfully sold to the industrial sector in Chennai and Bangalore. A
probability of 0.2 is assigned to amenity use of tertiary treated wastewater as there
might be a small percentage of sports companies who might be willing to buy this
water for the irrigation of their turf.
213
9.3 Decision Analysis in a Developed Country -The
case of Melbourne
In most developed countries all wastewater generated is systematically collected and
treated to appropriate levels for safe disposal into a river or sea. For the current
research, Melbourne has been taken as a case study to represent a developed country
situation.
In 2007-08, approximately 290,023 ML of wastewater was treated in Melbourne, of
which 95 per cent was treated to secondary level and the remainder to tertiary level.
Melbourne Water had a target to recycle 20 per cent of its wastewater by 2010.
Continuous droughts and depleting water reserves have improved the uptake of
wastewater recycling projects. While, recycling has been given a high priority, no
clear objectives have been set beyond the already stated levels (of using 20 per cent).
It was argued in Chapter 8 that the allocative efficiency of recycled water can be
increased by setting and prioritizing clear objectives. The key objectives chosen for
this analysis are to use recycled wastewater to save potable water supplies; reduce
nitrogen discharge into natural water bodies and to reduce Green House Gas
emissions. For Melbourne, the alternatives that are chosen are - should wastewater be
recycled and if it is to be recycled, which objectives should one prioritize? Currently
28 per cent11
(2007-08) of all wastewater treated in Melbourne is recycled and hence
a weight of 0.28 is given to the option of recycling and a weight of 0.72 is given to
wastewater treated and disposed of into Port Philip Bay.
If the objective is to save potable water, (see Figure 8.4) recycled water should be
allocated to sectors which currently use potable water. They are to the amenities
sector, households and industry. Considering the current urban allocation of water
(62 per cent to households, 23 per cent to industrial and commercial sector and 5 per
11
In the earlier paragraph, it is stated that only 5% of all wastewater is treated to tertiary level and
95% to secondary level. Whereas Melbourne recycled 28 per cent of its total treated water. Its clear
that only part of this 28 per cent was tertiary treated which was used for agriculture, household and
industry and the rest was only secondary treated and used in on-site processes of the treatment plants
and for beneficial environmental allocation. The details of actual quantities are in Table 7.8
214
cent to parks and for fighting fires) (ABS, 2001), the weights of 0.7, 0.25 and 0.05
has been assigned to households, industry and amenities, respectively.
If the objective is to reduce nitrogen discharge into the bay, then recycled water
should be allocated to agriculture and amenities only. Currently, Werribee Irrigation
District and Eastern Irrigation Scheme, both use class A recycled water for vegetable
cultivation and a smaller quantity of class B and class C water for the irrigation of
other crops. The exact amount of class A, B and C wastewater recycled for
agriculture is not known, but it is quite well known that the major portion of recycled
water is class A and is used for vegetable production. Therefore, a weight of 0.9 is
assigned to class A and weights of 0.05 and 0.05 are assigned to class B and C
wastewater, respectively. In the case of amenities, since a number of golf and race
courses in Melbourne are using class A recycled water, a weight of 0.9 is assigned to
it and the other two classes – class B used for irrigation of sports lawns and class C
used for irrigation of parks, an equal weight of 0.05 for each.
If the objective is to reduce GHG emissions, then recycled water should be allocated
to agriculture and amenities which can safely use wastewater treated to lower quality
levels, or that which could be safely disposed to the sea after minimum required
treatment. Since agriculture has the highest potential to use recycled water, it is
assumed that more than 50 per cent of it will use class B and class C treated water.
Therefore, a weight of 0.6 is assigned to it. The other two options - treat and dispose
and use for amenity irrigation has been assigned equal weight of 0.2 each.
215
Figure 9.1 Decision analysis tree
216
9.4 Constructing the Analysis and Populating the
Model
After all the options and alternatives have been listed and the probabilities/weights
are assigned, the Expected Values of each alternative are presented as a completed
decision tree (see Figure 9.1). To ascribe values to each option requires knowledge of
the value generated by water in different sectors (see Table 9.1). Figure 9.2 presents
the value generated per KL of water used in each sector which are used for
calculating the Expected values of each option for the current analysis. The Expected
Values of each option are calculated by multiplying the value generated by each KL
of water in a sector with the total amount of wastewater available for use. However,
this value cannot directly be used for the analysis as it is necessary to account for the
adverse impacts or decrease in the value/pay off due to quality (salinity, nutrients, e-
coli, and other pollutants) of the recycled water. Therefore some approximations
have been made as to the extent of reduction of value for each level of treatment of
wastewater. These adjustments are presented in Table 9.2.
.
Table 9.1 Value generated by water in each sector
Hyderabad1
Rs./KL Melbourne $A/KL
Household 10 Household2 3-50
Manufacturing 50 Manufacturing2 84.7
Parks 3 Service sector3 2.3-1100
Leafy vegetables 22 Parks/recreation/sports4 10-55
Fodder grass 25 Golf courses5 22
Rice 0.05 Vegetables3 1.76
Vine yards6 2
Grazing6 1.47
Source: 1Hellegers, P and Davidson, B. 2009
2Water Account, Australia 2000-2001. ABS. 2004
3Australians consume more than 1 million lit of fresh water per person per year. ABS. 2000.5.3
4Morison, J and Matheson, L. 2008.
5Australian Golf Industry Council (AGIC). 2009
6The influence of lifestyles on environmental pressure. Year Book Australia. ABS. 2002
217
Figure 9.2 Decision analysis tree with value generated in each sector per KL of water used
218
Table 9.2 Cost of treatment and approximations on percentage value reduced
Hyderabad Cost of
treatment
(Rs/KL)
Per cent
reduced
Melbourne Cost of
treatment
($A/KL)
Per cent
reduced
Untreated 0 50 Untreated - -
Primary 0.2-0.5 40 Class C 0.25-0.30 30
Secondary 1.40-6.40 20 Class B 0.35-1.4 20
Tertiary 9.0-12.0 10 Class A 1.5-3 10
In case of Hyderabad, where untreated wastewater is used, previous studies
(Davidson and Hellegers. 2009) show that the yields of farmers using wastewater
were 50 per cent lower than the farmers using normal water due to high nutrient
levels. Therefore, the value generated by untreated wastewater is reduced by 50 per
cent for this analysis. The quality of primary treated water is not much different from
that of the untreated water in terms of salinity and other dissolved pollutants and
hence a conservative 40 per cent reduction in value has been assumed. The
secondary treated water is much better in quality than the primary treated wastewater
(see Table 7.1) in terms of pollutants and hence a 20 per cent reduction in value is
assumed. Tertiary treated water is the highest quality water and very much similar in
quality to normal water expect salinity levels and hence a 10 per cent reduction in
value has been assumed.
In the case of Melbourne, the recycled water uses in different sectors and its quality
is strictly monitored and regulated by EPA. Un-treated wastewater is not used for
any purpose in Melbourne. Class A is tertiary treated wastewater and a once only 10
per cent reduction in value is assumed due to its salinity factor. Class B and C are
secondary treated wastewater with pathogen reduction and hence a 20 and 30 per
cent reduction, respectively, in values has been assumed for the current analysis.
It is important to note that, the assumptions regarding the percentage reduction in
value might be higher or lower depending on the crops irrigated, soil conditions, type
and extent of use. However, the key point is that there will be a decrease in overall
219
value derived from use of wastewater and this needs to be factored in if accurate
results are to be obtained.
For the current decision analysis, the transportation cost (of taking water from the
treatment plant to the place where it is used) is not included. The cost of
transportation of water can be minimal or significant depending upon the sector
where treated water is used and the elevation and distance it is transported. In case of
agriculture, if the existing irrigation canals are used and if they it is gravity fed
system, no extra costs need to be added to the overall cost of supplying recycled
water. However, if wastewater needs to be reticulated through a pipeline and if it
needs to be pumped upstream, then the costs could be significant. This is the case
when water has to be recycled for households or industry. In some cases, water is
delivered in water tankers and in this case the costs can also be significant.
It would appear that very little information has been published on the costs of
transporting water (Gruen. 2000). From informal interviews with recycled water
supply companies (Peter Everist, General Manager, Earth Tech. Personal
Communication. October 2008) it is clear that cost information on transporting water
is commercially sensitive and cannot be revealed. The few articles that discuss water
transport costs refer back to Kally (1993). According to Gruen (2000) a 78 km
pipeline from Turkey to Cyprus with a capacity of 75 GL a year would deliver water
at $US0.25 to 0.34/KL According to Kally, the horizontal transport alone would cost
$US0.16/KL, while effectively lifting the water by 300 m (the sea between Turkey
and Cyprus is at least 1000 m deep) would raise the price to $US0.34/KL. Uche et al.
(2003) report the costs of transporting water from the Ebro to Barcelona and
Southern Spain, with pipes over 900 km long, transporting 1000 GL of water costs
$US0.36/KL. According to Hahnemann (2002) for the Central Arizona Project,
which takes 1800 GL per year from the Colorado river to Phoenix and Tucson
covering a horizontal distance of 550km and a vertical distance of 750m, the
marginal cost is only $US0.05/KL whereas Kally suggests that this would cost
$US0.74/KL. Further, Zhou and Tol (2004) present transportation costs for
desalinated water to various cities (see Table 9.3). They found that not many of the
220
countries mentioned could afford desalination. While the treatment cost of
desalination water itself is very high compared to the conventional surface water
sources for these countries, the cost of transportation makes it even more
unaffordable. Zhou and Tol (2004) conclude that transporting water horizontally is
relatively cheap whilst the main cost is lifting it. In extreme cases of water shortages,
the cities like Tripoli and Bangkok may consider desalination, where the
transportation costs are minimum.
Table 9.3 Cost of desalinated water to several cities
City, Country
Distance
(km)
Elevation
(mts)
Transport
(USc/KL)
Desalination
(USc/KL)*
Total
(USc/KL)
Beijing, China 135 100 13 100 113
Delhi, India 1050 500 90 100 190
Bangkok, Thailand 30 100 7 100 107
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 350 750 69 100 169
Harare, Zimbabwe 430 1500 104 100 204
Crateus, Brazil 240 350 33 100 133
Ramallah, Palestina 40 1000 54 100 154
Sana, Yemen 135 2500 138 100 238
Mexico City, Mexico 225 2500 144 100 244
Zaragoza, Spain 163 500 36 100 136
Phoenix, USA 280 320 34 100 134
Tripoli, Libya 0 0 0 100 100
*The cost of desalination per KL has been assumed to be constant considering the same technology,
power and labour costs across the countries
Source: Zhou and Tol. 2004
221
In the case of Hyderabad, no extra transportation costs are incurred in case of
agricultural reuse, as the water is channelled from the river and is gravity fed.
Secondary treated wastewater is delivered for irrigation of parks and avenue trees
through water tanks in Hyderabad. Currently, no recycled water is used for industry
or household. Treated wastewater can be delivered to households and industries and
factories for reuse by water tankers or through a third pipe reticulation system (it is
known as the third system, as the first is the mains water supply and the second is the
wastewater disposal system).
For Melbourne, the existing irrigation water canals are used to deliver recycled water
to irrigators in the Werribee Irrigation District. Hence, there are no extra
transportation costs involved, whereas for the Eastern Irrigation Scheme, a 60 km
pipeline network constructed by Earthtech at a cost of $A19 million is used to supply
class A recycled water to farmers (Peter Everist, General Manager, Earth Tech.
Personal Communication. October 2008). For household and industrial supply, a
third reticulation system is required. Yarra Valley Water and South East Water sell
class B and class C recycled water from their treatment plants, supplied by water
tankers. The costs of distributing wastewater by tanker are very high (see Table 9.4)
and in Figure 9.3 the different areas where the wastewater tanker services are
available is presented.
Table 9.4 Cost of wastewater delivery to customer by different water companies
Organisation Type of
water
Distance
(km radius)
Cost
($A/KL)
South East Water
(for 22 to 25 KL)
Class A 0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
13
16
19
22
25
South East Water
(for a minimum of
10 KL)
Groundwater 0-20
20-50
50-80
25
32
40
222
Figure 9.3 Areas in and around Melbourne with tankering facilities of recycled
water and bore water
Source: City West Water. 2008
For the current analysis, only treatment costs have been taken into consideration in
calculating Expected Value of each option. The total amount of wastewater available
for use for Hyderabad is 850 ML/day (see Section 4.7.1 for details) and for
Melbourne it is 795 ML/day (see Table 7.5). In most cases, not all of this would be
available for reuse or recycling, due to system losses and costs involved in treatment
and transfer. Peter Scott, Melbourne Water Science and Technology Manager, agreed
that commercial recycling of all water was improbable and expensive, especially in
Melbourne, which was not especially dry (Melbourne Water. 1999).
It should be noted that the value generated from a kilolitre of water in a sector may
not be uniform and might even vary greatly. For the current analysis, the minimum
value generated from the use of wastewater in a particular sector is used in the
analysis. The assumption is that it is better to take a conservative approach to valuing
223
benefits as governments tend to subsidise such activities and distort the flow of
resources.
9.5 Choosing the Best Alternative
With varying values generated for each sector, under different situations, a number
of scenarios can be generated and displayed in the decision tree at the same time. The
best option may vary in each case studied. The scenarios presented in this Section are
used to highlight the use of decision analysis approach and to show that it is a useful
decision support tool for allocation of wastewater among different sectors. In
essence, it should be noted that in this analysis, the impacts of different approaches
to treating, reusing and recycling wastewater to different levels on costs, benefits,
quantities and qualities is shown. Decision analysis does not reveal which option is
best, but it does provide policy makers with the range of choices from which they
can choose the option that appeals to their set of criteria, over the long term.
Given the assumptions and data presented above, the Expected Values of different
options for handling wastewater in Hyderabad and Melbourne have been calculated.
In Tables 9.5 and 9.6 the values or pay-offs generated from different options for
Hyderabad and Melbourne, respectively, are presented. In Figure 9.3 the Expected
Values of different options for the current situation in Hyderabad and Melbourne are
combined to provide policy makers with an assessment of what is needed to plan a
system from the collection of wastewater through to its recycled disposal.
9.5.1 The analysis
In Section 4.5 an explanation of how to calculate the Expected Values of each option
on a decision tree was presented. The Expected Value is a weighted average. In order
to calculate the Expected Value of treating wastewater to tertiary level in Hyderabad,
the following procedure is undertaken:
224
The tertiary treated wastewater is recycled in industry and for amenity irrigation. The
value generated by using water in industry is at least Rs.50/KL and in amenities is
Rs.3/KL (see Table 9.2). These are gross values, so the cost of treatment which is
equal to Rs.9/KL to treat to tertiary level (see Table 9.3), has to be deducted from it.
Then, this net value is multiplied by the amount of wastewater available for use,
which is 850,000 KL/day (see column 8 in Table 9.5). However, since it is tertiary
treated wastewater, 10 per cent of its value is again reduced (see column 10 of Table
9.5). The final figure of Rs.31.37 million/day for industry and a negative value of
Rs.4.08 million/day (see column 11 of Table 9.5) for amenity irrigation use of
tertiary treated wastewater was obtained. Once these values derived (see Figure 9.4)
they are multiplied by their probability weights and summed together to derive a total
expected value of Rs.24.27 million/day from using tertiary treated wastewater for
industry and amenities in Hyderabad. Since not all wastewater available is treated to
tertiary level, this value is further multiplied by its probability weight and summed
with the other two options of treating and using wastewater to primary and secondary
levels. Thus, the expected value of the option of treating and recycling wastewater is
equal to Rs.7.10/per day. The overall Expected Value of making a decision whether
to treat or not to treat wastewater for Hyderabad is valued at Rs.9.2 million/day.
Similarly the Expected Values for each option for Melbourne is calculated and
presented in Figure 9.4.
225
Table 9.5 Net Value generated for each sector in Hyderabad
Sector 1 2 3** 4** 5
(1- 3)
6
(1–4)
8
(5 x 850000)
9
(5 x 850000)
10 (100-10) x 8 (100-10) x 9
Gross Value
per water
used (Rs/KL)
Water
Quality
Minimum
cost of
treatment of
wastewater to
water quality
level in
column 2
(Rs/KL) (a)
Maximum
cost of
treatment of
wastewater
to water
quality level
in column 2
(Rs/KL) (b)
Net
Value
(Rs/KL)
(a)
Net
Value
(Rs/KL)
(b)
Value
generated at
850000
KL/day
available for
recycle (a)
Value
generated at
850000
KL/day
available for
recycle (b)
Value
deducted to
account for
losses due to
different
levels of
treatment
(%)
Value*
generated at
850000
KL/day
available for
recycle (a)
Value*
generated at
850000
KL/day
available for
recycle (b)
Parks 3 Secondary 1.4 6.4 1.6 -3.4 1360000 -2890000 20 1088000 -2312000
Leafy Vege 22 Secondary 1.4 6.4 20.6 15.6 17510000 13260000 20 14008000 10608000
Fodder grass 25 Secondary 1.4 6.4 23.6 18.6 20060000 15810000 20 16048000 12648000
Rice 0.05 Secondary 1.4 6.4 -1.35 -6.35 -1147500 -5397500 20 -918000 -4318000
Leafy Vege 22 Primary 0.2 0.5 21.8 21.5 18530000 18275000 40 11118000 10965000
Fodder grass 25 Primary 0.2 0.5 24.8 24.5 21080000 20825000 40 12648000 12495000
Rice 0.05 Primary 0.2 0.5 -0.15 -0.45 -127500 -382500 40 -76500 -229500
Parks 3 Tertiary 9 12 -6 -9 -5100000 -7650000 20 -4080000 -6120000
Manufacturing 50 Tertiary 9 12 41 38 34850000 32300000 10 31365000 29070000
Leafy Vege 22 Untreated 0 0 22 22 18700000 18700000 50 9350000 9350000
Fodder grass 25 Untreated 0 0 25 25 21250000 21250000 50 10625000 10625000
Rice 0.05 Untreated 0 0 0.05 0.05 42500 42500 50 21250 21250
*Transportation costs from the treatment plant to the point of use not included
**The cost of treatment of wastewater varies widely depending on the size of the treatment plant, scale of operation, type of technology used, level of pollutant, labour
costs and source of energy used..
226
Table 9.6 Net Value generated for each sector in Melbourne
Sector 1 2 3** 4** 5
(1- 3)
6
(1–4)
8
(5 x 794583)
9
(5 x 794583)
10 (100-10) x 8 (100-10) x 9
Melbourne Gross
Value
per water
used
($A/KL)
Water
Quality
Minimum cost
of treatment of
wastewater to
water quality
level in column
2 ($A/KL) (a)
Maximum cost
of treatment of
wastewater to
water quality
level in column 2
($A/KL) (b)
Net
Value
($A/KL)
(a)
Net
Value
($A/KL)
(b)
Value
generated at
794583
KL/day
available for
recycle (a)
Value
generated at
794583
KL/day
available for
recycle (b)
Value deducted
to account for
losses due to
different levels
of treatment (%)
Value*
generated at
794583
KL/day
available for
recycle (a)
Value*
generated at
794583
KL/day
available for
recycle (b)
Golf cours/Amenity 22 Class A 1.5 3 20.5 19 16288952 15097077 10 14660056.4 13587369
Household (min) 3 Class A 1.5 3 1.5 0 1191875 0 10 1072687.05 0
Manufacturing 84.7 Class A 1.5 3 83.2 81.7 66109306 64917431 10 59498375 58425688
Vegetables 1.76 Class A 1.5 3 0.26 -1.24 206591.6 -985282.92 10 185932.422 -886755
Vine yards 2 Class B 0.35 1.4 1.65 0.6 1311062 476749.8 20 1048849.56 381399.8
grazing 1.47 Class C 0.25 0.3 1.22 1.17 969391.3 929662.11 30 678573.882 650763.5
Golf courses 22 Class A 1.5 3 20.5 19 16288952 15097077 10 14660056.4 13587369
Parks / recreation
areas/Sports (min)
10
Class B
0.35 1.4 9.65 8.6 7667726 6833413.8
20 6134180.76 5466731
Parks / recreation
areas/Sports (min)
10
Class C
0.25 0.3 9.75 9.7 7747184 7707455.1
30 5423028.98 5395219
Min Treatment and
disposal
0
0 0
0
Vine yards 2 Class B 0.35 1.4 1.65 0.6 1311062 476749.8 20 1048849.56 381399.8
grazing 1.47 Class C 0.25 0.3 1.22 1.17 969391.3 929662.11 30 678573.882 650763.5
Parks / recreation
areas/Sports (min)
10
Class B
0.35 1.4 9.65 8.6 7667726 6833413.8
20 6134180.76 5466731
Parks / recreation
areas/Sports (min)
10
Class C
0.25 0.3 9.75 9.7 7747184 7707455.1
30 5423028.98 5395219
*Transportation costs from the treatment plant to the point of use not included. **The cost of treatment of wastewater varies widely depending on the size of the
treatment plant, scale of operation, type of technology used, level of pollutant and source of energy used..
227
Figure 9.4 Decision analysis tree for Hyderabad and Melbourne with the Expected Values of each option
228
9.5.2 Results and conclusions of the analysis
In Hyderabad it would appear that the highest value (of Rs.24.3million/day, is
generated when wastewater is treated to tertiary level and recycled for industries and
amenities (see Figure 9.4). The least valuable option (Rs.2.1 million/day) is for the
non-treatment of wastewater, which is what is currently occurring. It is important to
note that the differences in values generated for options - wastewater treated to
secondary level (Rs.8.6 million/day) and primary level (Rs.8.5 million/day) is very
small and the extra money spent on treating the wastewater to secondary level may
not be justified.
In the analysis, the transportation costs have not been considered. If they were, the
values would change significantly. In the case of existing low energy options, (e.g. if
a river is used to transport the water to the point of use), there may not be any
additional transportation costs. However, if the tertiary treated water is used for
industry or amenities, there would be significant costs involved in obtaining tankers
or laying out a second pipeline which would reduce the overall value of the option.
Such an action would change the relativities between all options of treating
wastewater to secondary level and the disposal into river might become more
valuable. While, the reduction in overall values generated due to the quality of
wastewater may to some extent take into account the environmental impacts of
recycling, this area might benefit from further research.
In the case of Melbourne, recycled water generates the highest value
($A16.35million/day) when the objective is to save or replace potable water and is
therefore used for amenities, households and industry. There is a considerable
difference in the Expected Values of the three objectives – save potable water
($A16.35 million/day); reduce nitrogen discharge ($A2.75 million/day); and reduce
GHG emissions ($A2.19 million/day). The Expected Value of the decision to recycle
wastewater is $A4.04 million per day. The Expected Value of the decision to simply
dispose of it into Port Philip Bay is zero. However, this value may even be negative
if the environmental impacts are taken into consideration. Since exact data on the
229
environmental costs are not available, it is taken as zero for the current analysis. The
overall Expected Value of making a decision whether to recycle the treated
wastewater or to dispose it into the bay is valued at $1.13 million/day.
However, the values generated from each of the options are quite significant and it is
the subject of much speculation why such large values are generated by recycling. If
it was so valuable why have these projects not been undertaken before. Thus, there is
a need to go one step further in the analysis and calculate the net values generated by
using a KL of recycled wastewater. These results are presented in Tables 9.7 and 9.8.
230
Table 9.7 Net value of use of wastewater use in different sectors for Hyderabad
Transportation cost not included Transportation
cost not included
Transportation cost included
Level of treatment before
reuse
Total value
generated
(Rs.
million/day)
Value generated
per KL
(Rs /KL)
Probability of
allocation of total
amount of
available
wastewater to a
sector
Value generated
per KL after
multiplying with
their probabilities
(Rs /KL)
Value generated
per KL *
(Rs /KL)
Value generated
per KL **
(Rs /KL)
Primary 8.5 10 0.3 3 0 -3
Secondary 8.6 10.11 0.6 6.07 3.07 0.07
Tertiary 24.27 28.55 0.1 2.85 -0.15 -3.15
Overall value of recycling 7.1 8.35 0.7 5.84 2.84 -0.16
Untreated*** 2.1 2.47 0.3 0.74 - -
*Assuming recycled wastewater is transported through a separate pipeline at the cost of Rs. 3/KL within a radius of 30 km
**Assuming recycled wastewater is transported through a tanker at the cost of Rs. 6/KL within a radius of 30 km
*** Untreated wastewater is generally left into the river and is gravity fed into the adjacent fields for irrigation
231
Table 9.8 Net value of use of wastewater use in different sectors for Melbourne
Transportation cost not
included
Transportation
cost not included
Transportation cost included
Objective Total value
generated*
($A
million/day)
Value
generated
per KL*
($A /KL)
Probability of
allocation of total
amount of available
wastewater to a
sector
Value generated
per KL after
multiplying with
their probabilities*
($A /KL)
Value generated per
KL *
($A /KL)
Value generated per
KL **
($A /KL)
Save potable water 16.35 20.56 0.4 8.22 6.72 -4.78
Reduce Nitrogen discharge 2.75 3.45 0.4 1.38 -0.12 -11.62
Reduce GHG emissions 2.19 2.75 0.2 0.55 -0.95 -12.45
Overall value of recycling 4.04 5.08 0.28 1.42 -0.08 -11.58
*Assuming recycled wastewater is transported through a pipeline at the cost of $A1.50/KL within a radius of 30 km
**Assuming recycled wastewater is transported through a tanker at the cost of $A13/KL within a radius of 30 km
232
From the results of values generated per KL after taking into account the
probabilities of recycled water being allocated to each sector, the values generated
per KL for both Hyderabad and Melbourne are quite low. For Hyderabad, the net
value generated from use of untreated, primary, secondary and tertiary treated
wastewater are Rs.0.74/KL, Rs.3.00/KL, Rs.6.07/KL and Rs.2.85/KL, respectively.
If one deducts the cost of transportation of water to the point of use which could vary
widely from Rs.2 to Rs.35/KL/km, all these values generated per KL will be
negative.
Similarly in case of Melbourne, the net values generated from fulfilling the
objectives of saving potable water, reducing nitrogen discharge and reducing GHG
emissions, are $A8.22/KL, $A1.38/KL and $A0.55/KL, respectively. If the cost of
transportation of water to the point of use (which could vary widely from $A0.30 to
$A 2.00/KL/km) is deducted, all these values generated per KL will be negative,
except in case where wastewater is treated to tertiary level and allocated to industry
and household use to fulfil the objective to save potable water.
Water Minister Tim Holding in a recent speech (quoted in The Premier of Victoria.
26 June 2009) said, ―The Government rejected two large-scale recycled water
projects after the business case found they did not deliver value for money for
Melbourne water users. Building these large recycled water projects would have a
significant additional impact on Melbourne household water bills, which is not
appropriate in the current economic climate‖
9.6 Summary
The decision support tool presented in this Chapter is based on the knowledge,
understanding, analysis and results presented in all the previous Chapters of this
research. The decisions and motivations behind the treatment and recycling of
wastewater are highly complex and a detailed understanding of each is needed before
a conclusion and a potentially costly policy decision can be made. The intention and
motive in presenting this tool is to reveal how complicated the decision is on treating
233
and recycling wastewater and to show how the decision analysis assists in the
assessment of all the factors involved.
It is important to note that the values presented in this section might change if
transportation costs are included, the weights and probabilities of the objectives and
sectors change depending on a community choice or policy prerogative and
environmental and other social costs are included. In the case of agriculture, where
wastewater is recycled for high value crops like vegetables, and where existing
irrigation infrastructure (which is gravity fed) is used, the Expected Value generated
will be higher. In case of a choice between whether to recycle or not to recycle
wastewater, it is clear that the Expected Value of recycling wastewater is four times
higher than not recycling it. It is also quite possible that if for all the externalities are
accounted for then all the values that are positive, might well become negative
resulting in every option costing more than the benefits derived. With further
analysis (reported in Section 9.5.2) it is evident that while the values generated from
the total use of wastewater generated from a city seem quite high, after considering
the probabilities of allocating the wastewater to each sector, the per KL values are
quite low and the costs of transportation of this wastewater to the point of use are
deducted, most of these values become negative.
However, considering the fact that water which is the basic necessity for survival and
determines the extent of economic development of a region and quality of life for a
community, it is very difficult to put a dollar value on it and make decisions based on
its level of profitability. It could be argued that most governments are still willing to
invest in these recycling projects since they consider it their duty and a social
obligation towards its people to ensure that the basic necessities are fulfilled.
Therefore, in order to fulfil this social obligation what governments need to do is to
look for options which minimise the social losses. The decision analysis tool
presented in this Chapter contributes to this process. In the analysis it is suggested
that different options for treatment and recycling and costs involved and depending
on a community‘s priority and available resources, the option with the least social
cost can be chosen to be implemented.
234
235
Chapter 10
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Work
Policy makers and planners have suggested that treated wastewater could be used to
fill the gap between the increasing demand and the decreasing supplies for fresh
water in growing cities. However, to turn wastewater from a liability to a resource
requires considerable effort, planning and institutional support, some changes in the
attitudes of people towards it and continuous research to improve efficiencies and to
cut the costs. It is in this field that the current research makes its contribution.
The objectives in this study were to discover the factors that constrain and motivate
policy makers in cities at different stages of economic development, to make
decisions with regard to wastewater treatment and recycling. It was expected that the
policy makers will react to each of these concerns in a different manner, depending
on the stage of development they find themselves in. Thus, given that presumably
cities are moving from a low stage of economic development to a higher one, an
objective pursued in this study is to provide policy makers with a way of thinking
about wastewater treatment and reuse requirements that will meet their future needs.
The key objectives investigated in this study were to assess the:
degree to which wastewater treatment is undertaken is dependent on the stage of
economic development in the region it is being contemplated;
extent of water scarcity that will drive improvements in water treatment in
developing regions and water reuse in developed regions;
needs of the institutions responsible for wastewater in developing countries and
in developed countries to deal with comprehensive collection and treatment and
recycling;
cost constrains imposed on institutions to collect and treat wastewater in
developing countries and its recycling in developed countries; and
extent to which treatment and safe recycling of wastewater is driven by
environmental considerations in both developing and developed countries.
236
It should be noted that if wastewater is to be treated, reused and recycled, it needs to
be done to a level that satisfies the health and safety standards of the society in which
it is conducted. As a considerable amount of research has been undertaken on the
health aspects of wastewater treatment, these issues were not investigated in this
study, but were assumed to occur. What has been suggested in this study is that a
comprehensive framework is needed to obtain a holistic view of the wastewater
systems across different economic development levels. This comprehensive
framework is presented in Figure 10.1.
Initially, it was argued that the degree to which wastewater treatment was undertaken
and recycled is to some extent explained by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
According to one research (Bhattacharya. 2008) (see Section 5.4.1 in Chapter 5), the
per capita income of India would cross the turning point on the EKC by 2011 and
this is when it is expected that all urban wastewater generated would be treated to the
appropriate levels before disposal or recycled. Whereas, in countries like Australia
whose per capita income has crossed the turning point on EKC, all its wastewater is
treated to appropriate levels. Further, Australia‘s income levels are so high that it is
contemplating recycling wastewater.
In this research it was concluded that the key factors (in addition to the increase in
per capita incomes of the country), which have a significant role in wastewater
management and will determine wastewater treatment and recycling are the extent of
water scarcity of the region, the institutional performance and ability to absorb the
externalities, the cost of treatment and recycling and environmental concerns. Unless
these four factors are sufficiently addressed, wastewater treatment and recycling in
developing countries will not occur even after a city or a country crosses the turning
point on the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
237
Figure 10.1 Research framework for wastewater treatment and recycling
Factors
Methods
Issues
EKC conceptual framework
Hyderabad
-Supply & Demand
concern
-Population growth high
-Poor infrastructure
-Low cost recovery
-Inadequate funding
-Poor monitoring
-Political interference
high
-High and constraints
development
-Recycling cheaper than
new sources of water
-WTP for treatment is
low
-Environmental
protection is low priority
-Not willing to pay for
environmental services
Institutional setting Law, Policy, Administration &
Performance
Cost constraints Costs of treatment & recycling,
Cost of alternatives & WTP
Turning Point Improvement in water
quality: As income
grows, the demand for
clean rivers ensures
treatment of wastewater
and improved
environment quality
Water Pollution:
Increasing income
initially increase
wastewater
production causing
water pollution
Developing countries Developed countries
[Hyderabad case] [Melbourne case]
Wastewater Generation Collection Treatment Recycling
En
vir
on
men
tal
Deg
rad
atio
n
Per Capita GDP
Water scarcity Pop growth
Supply-Demand gap
Melbourne
-Supply & Demand
concern
-Population growth high
-Excellent infrastructure
-Full cost recovery
-Adequate funding
-Highly monitored
-Political interference
low
-High but does not
constraint development
-Recycling costs
comparable to alternative
-WTP for agricultural
recycling low
-Environmental
protection is high priority
-Willing to pay for
environmental services
-Mixed reactions to
recycling
Decision Analysis Approach
A tool for resource allocation
Environmental
considerations Social acceptability
238
10.1 Main Findings and Conclusions
The two contrasting cities of Hyderabad in India (representing a developing country
scenario) and Melbourne in Australia (representing a developed country scenario)
were assessed to establish and demonstrate the importance of these factors. It was
found that:
Both Hyderabad and Melbourne suffered from a physical scarcity of water
which certainly creates a demand for more water and is a potential market for
wastewater.
A detailed analysis of the institutional settings in Hyderabad and Melbourne
reveal why wastewater treatment in Hyderabad does not happen and why in
Melbourne all of its wastewater is not only treated but also recycled. The
poor infrastructure, low cost recovery, inadequate government funding
support, poor monitoring of water pollution and high level of political
interference in the water and wastewater management of Hyderabad have
resulted in its current desperate state. Whereas, excellent infrastructure, full
cost recovery, adequate government funding support, strict monitoring of
water pollution and facilitating political environment has helped Melbourne
develop its world class management of the water and wastewater services.
Efficiency of institutional performance determines the extent of treatment and
recycling of wastewater.
In Hyderabad the costs of treatment were perceived to be high and the
willingness to pay for the treatment of wastewater was low. This makes it
difficult to recover the full cost of wastewater treatment. In the case of
Melbourne as well, the costs of treating wastewater are high, but are not
considered a constraining factor. Melbourne Water attempts and in many
cases does recover its full costs of treatment. The cost of wastewater
treatment plays an important role in determining to what extent wastewater
will be treated and the cost of recycling has to be comparable with alternate
sources of water to be acceptable to users.
In Hyderabad, while people realise the importance of protecting environment
from wastewater pollution, they are also very cost conscious. In Melbourne,
the protection of environment is given a high priority and recycling is seen as
239
an environmentally friendly strategy. However, social experiments have
shown that the acceptability of recycled wastewater decreases as the use
moves closer to human contact. Also, while consumers were willing to accept
wastewater irrigated products, the farmers had neither the ability nor the
willingness to pay for the full cost of supply of treated wastewater in
Melbourne. These are the problems that developed countries like Australia
face as they decide to promote more and more recycling projects.
Finally, based on the knowledge, understanding, analysis and results presented in all
the previous chapters of this research, a decision support tool was designed and
presented in Chapter 9 to assist policy makers with the choices they face. This tool
orders the decisions into a manageable format. It takes into consideration, the
decisions and motivations behind the treatment and recycling of wastewater. The
decision tool presented shows the logic and issues to consider and should be used as
a guiding tool for the actual decision.
10.2 Limitations
The main limitations in this research were related to data. The problems related to
data were different for both Hyderabad and Melbourne. In Hyderabad, much of the
data about water and wastewater which should have been otherwise available in the
public domain was not available. There was no concrete data available on the
proportion of domestic wastewater, commercial wastewater and industrial
wastewater entering the central sewerage network and finally into the Musi River
and the extent of contamination caused by each of these sources. Some of the data,
such as the current cost of treatment and of transportation of water, actual costs of
maintenance of sewer lines for Hyderabad etc, would have further improved the
accuracy of the results of the decision analysis tool. As these were not available
approximations had to be made from secondary data available for other cities. Also,
since the HMWSSB faces tremendous political pressures and people are critical of
their performance, the officials were not forthcoming in giving out any data and
information. Again, this problem was dealt through very brief informal interviews
240
with the officials of HMWSSB and largely through collection of secondary data from
previous publications and primary data.
In case of Melbourne, most of the data and information was available online.
However, it was not possible to obtain detailed data on the actual current costs of
treatment of wastewater to different classes (A, B, C and D) and the data related to
the cost of transportation of recycled wastewater from the treatment plants to the
actual point of use. This data was considered to be commercially sensitive. Hence, it
was not possible to undertake a cost effectiveness analysis of using recycled
wastewater, a task that should be the subject of further research.
10.3 Recommendations for Further Research
A number of research gaps in the areas of wastewater treatment, reuse and recycling,
have been identified by previous studies (see Section 2.6). The current research has
identified some additional areas which might benefit from further research. These
include:
o The costs of pollution control and monitoring need to be investigated and
incorporated into the decision making framework specified in Chapter 9, as
they are crucial to the quality outcomes of wastewater treatment.
o In the contingent valuation survey it was found that by increasing awareness
about the benefits of pollution control, there is a higher probability to increase
the willingness to pay of people towards wastewater treatment. Further
research is needed in this area to determine the extent of such awareness
programmes required and the marginal costs in bringing about that change in
attitude.
o In the decision analysis (see Chapter 9), the actual value generated from use
of wastewater in each sector has been reduced to account for the
environmental impacts of recycling. A methodology is needed to calculate the
actual costs to the environment of recycling (those due to salinity, along with
the social, health related and other environmental costs or benefits) that were
beyond the scope of this study.
241
The overriding aim in this study was to suggest that treating, reusing and recycling
wastewater is a complex activity involving a complex system of interacting forces all
of which could either compliment or contradict one another. Previous studies on
wastewater management have only looked at individual factors and usually
concentrated on either a developed country situation or a developing country
situation. They tend to study the technical, environmental, health or social issues, not
those of an institutional nature. Further, given the complexity of issue they dealt with
only one aspect of wastewater management, like treatment or reuse or recycling. In
this research a holistic approach has been undertaken, where a comprehensive
framework for understanding wastewater management across different development
stages was analysed. It can be concluded that wastewater research might benefit
further from more such comprehensive studies as the problems faced by policy
makers can not be viewed in isolation. Furthermore, the activities of policy makers
can not be separated from those who have the most to gain from improving the
system, they are the people they serve.
242
243
References
AATSE. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. 2004.
Water Recycling in Australia. Study Director and Author: Dr. John Radcliffe,
Victoria.
ABC News online. 2004. Werribee farmers get government water deal. News
retrieved as on January 9, 2004
ABC News online. 2006. Toowoomba vote a blow for recycling. Posted on 30th
July
2006. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1700575.htm
ABM. Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 2009. Climate statistics for Australian
locations. Website accessed as on 25 May 2009.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_086071.shtml.
Ablett, J., A.Baijal., E.Beinhocker., A.Bose., D.Farrell., U.Gersch., E.Greenberg.,
and S.Gupta. 2007. The ‗Bird of Gold‘: The Rise of India‘s Consumer Market,
May 2007. Report by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).
ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2008. Regional Population Growth, Australia,
2006-07. Issue released at 11:30 am (Canberra time) 31/03/2008.
http://www.abs.gov.au Website accessed as on 25 May 2009.
ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2005. Annual Report 2005-06.
ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Water Account Australia. Report no.
4610.0. Latest issue released 11.30 am (Canberra Time) 28 November 2006.
Commonwealth of Australia www.abs.gov.au.
ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1998. Zoos, parks and gardens industry, 1996-
1997. Canberra.
244
ACEVO. Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organizations. 2008. Full
Cost Recovery. An online web publication accessed as on 23 July 2008.
http://www.fullcostrecovery.org.uk/main/index.php?content=home
ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005. Economics Policy Strategy. Research into access to
recycled water and impediments to recycled water investment. Report prepared
for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
on behalf of the Natural Resource Policy and Programs Committee. June 2005: 1-
82.
Agodzo, S. K., F.Huibers., F.Chenini., J.B.Van Lier., and A.Duran. 2003. Use of
Wastewater in irrigated agriculture. Country studies from Bolivia, Ghana and
Tunisia, Vol. 2 (Ghana). WUR, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Allen Consulting Group. 2004. Enhancing 5 Star home energy standards in Victoria:
a benefit-cost analysis of prospective water efficiency, rainwater tank and solar
hot water heating regulations. Report to the Sustainable Energy Authority of
Victoria.
Allison, L., J.Tierney., K.Lundy., S.Mackay., Y.Tchen., and P.Wong. 2002. The
value of water: inquiry into Australia‘s management of urban water. Report of the
Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and Arts
Reference Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, ACT.
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/water/report
Alston, L.J. 1996. Empirical work in institutional economics: An overview. In Lee J
Alston, Thrainn Eggertsson and Douglass C North (eds), Empirical studies in
institutional change, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Aldous, D. 2005. Education and training opportunities for turf management in
Australia. Acta Horticulturae, No.672: 71-77.
245
Amarnath, A. 2008. Is the Indian budget 2008-09 the onset for green budgets in
India? Economics research and analytics team e-publication. Accessed Sept
2008. www.frost.com/prod/servlet/cif-econ-insight.pag?docid=129500065
Anderson, J., A.Adin., J.Crook., C.Davis., R.Hultquist., B.Jimenez-Cisneros.,
W.Kennedy., B.Sheikh., and B.Van der Merwe. 2001. Climbing the ladder: a step
by step approach to international guidelines for water recycling. Water Science
and Technology 43(10), pp 1-8.
Angyal, A. 1941. Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 36, pp 393-412.
ANZECC, ARMCANZ, NHMRC. 2000a. Guidelines for Sewerage Systems:
reclaimed water. Paper No. 14. Australia and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand. National Water Quality
Management Strategy.
ANZECC, ARMCANZ, NHMRC. 2000b. Guidelines for Sewerage Systems:
effluent management. Paper No. 11. Australia and New Zealand Environment
and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand. National Water Quality
Management Strategy.
Apted, S., P.Berry., C.Short., V.Topp., K.Mazur., and T.Van Mellor. 2006.
International competitiveness of Australian vegetables production sector. ABARE
eReport 06.5, Canberra, April.
ARCWIS (Australian Research Centre for Water in Society). 2002. Perth domestic
water use study Household appliance ownership and Community attitudinal
analysis. 1999-2000. Sydney: CSIRO Urban Water Programme.
246
ARRIS Pty Ltd. 2004. Quality Assurance Programs and Growing Crops with
Recycled Water. Brochure funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd.
Asano, T., F.L.Burton., H.L.Leverenz., R.Tsuchihashi., and G.Tchobanoglous. 2007.
Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications. Metcalf & Eddy /
AECOM. Mc Graw Hill, 1-1570.
Bandaragoda, D.J., and G.R.Firdousi. 1992. Institutional factors affecting irrigation
performance in Pakistan: Research and policy priorities. IIMI Country Paper -
Pakistan No. 4. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management
Institute.
Bandaragoda, D.J. 2000. A framework for institutional analysis for water resources
management in a river basin context. Working Paper 5. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute.
Bhattacharya, S. 2008. Is India tunneling through an EKC? A project led by The
Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and sponsored by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests.
Bhattarai, M. 2004. Irrigation Kuznets Curve, governance and dynamics of irrigation
development: A global cross-country analysis from 1972 to 1991. IWMI
Research Report 78, Colombo , Sri Lanka , pp 47.
Boland, A. 2005. The use of recycled water in Australian horticulture. Keynote
address at Irrigation 2005 – Irrigation Association of Australia Conference,
Townsville.
Bradford, A., R.Brook., and C.S.Hunshal. 2003. Wastewater irrigation in Hubli–
Dharwad, India: Implications for health and livelihoods. Environment and
Urbanization 15(2): 157-170.
247
Bratt, C. 1999. The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling
behavior. Environment and behavior, 31 (5), 630-656.
Brown, R., A.S.Kahr., and C.Peterson. 1974. Decision Analysis: An overview. Series
in quantitative methods for decision making. Book published by Holt, Rinehart
and Winston Inc, pp1-86.
Bruvold, W. 1988. Public opinion on water reuse options. Journal WPCF 60(1), pp
45-49.
Buechler, S., G.D.Mekala., and L.Raschid-Sally. 2002. Livelihoods and wastewater
irrigated agriculture along the Musi River in Hyderabad City, Andhra Pradesh,
India. Urban Agriculture Magazine 8, pp 14-17
Buechler, S., and G.D.Mekala. 2003. Household food security and wastewater-
dependent livelihood activities along the Musi River in Andhra Pradesh, India.
Report used as an input for review and publication of the second volume on
guidelines for wastewater use for agriculture, Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization.
Buechler, S., and G.D.Mekala. 2003a. Wastewater as a source of multiple
livelihoods? A study of a rural area near Hyderabad City, Andhra Pradesh, India.
In Rema Devi and Naved Ahsan (Eds.). Water and Wastewater: Developing
Country Perspectives. London, U.K.: International Water Association, pp 939-
948.
Buechler, S., and G.D.Mekala. 2005. Local Responses to Water Resource
Degradation: Farmer Innovations in a Rapidly Urbanising Area in India. The
Journal of Environment and Development, 14(4), pp 410-438.
248
Buechler, S., G.D.Mekala and B.Keraita. 2006. Wastewater use for urban and Peri-
urban Agriculture. In Rene van Veenhuizen edited book Cities Farming for the
Future, Urban Agriculture for Green and Productive Cities. Published by RUAF
Foundation, IDRC and IIRR, pp 243-276
Buechler, S., and G.D.Mekala. 2008. Highlighting the User in Wastewater Research:
Gender, Caste and Class in the Study of Wastewater-dependent Livelihoods in
Hyderabad, India. In: Ahmed, S.; Gautam, S. R.; Zwarteveen, M. (eds.),
Engendering Integrated Water Management in South Asia: Policy, Practice and
Institutions. New Delhi: Sage Press.
Bureau of Meteorology. 2006. Annual Report 2006-07. Published by Bureau of
Meteorology, Australian Government.
www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/reports/ar06-07/index.shtml
Caseley, J. 2003. Blocked drains and open minds: multiple accountability
relationships and improved service delivery performance in an Indian city. IDS
Working Paper 211. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, England,
December 2003: 1-45
Chalmers, P.E., R.Williams., and P.E.Everest. 2002. ‗Supercharged‘, Civil
Engineering, January 2002.
Chattopadhyay, K. 2004. Jalabhumir Kolkata – a fact-finding observation of East
Calcutta Wetlands. Kolkata.
CIA. Central Intelligence Agency. 2008. India population growth rate. The World
Factbook. http://www.indexmundi.com/india/population_growth_rate.html .
Accessed 20 January 2009.
Cox, S. 2004. Alternative Water Sources: The Pimpana – Coomera Scheme, Water
31(3), May 2004.
249
Connellan, G. 2007. Australia's Water Use Efficiencies: Agriculture, Golf,
Sportsfield, Parks & Recreaction. Paper presented to Proceedings of the 23rd
Australian Turfgrass Conference and Trade Exhibition, 24-26th July: 38-45,
Cairns.
Connon, H. 2008. Country at a crossroads. Money Observer. E-publication.
www.iii.co.uk/articles/articledisplay.jsp?article_id=9935631§ion=Markets
CPCB. Central Pollution Control Board. 1995. Status of Water supply and
wastewater generation, collection, treatment and disposal in metro cities (1994-
95). Status report by CPCB.
CPCB. Central Pollution Control Board. 1998. Water Quality Status of Yamuna
River.
CSIRO and Melbourne Water. 2005. Melbourne Water climate change study:
Implications of potential climate change for Melbourne‘s Water Resources.
CSIRO. 1999.Environmental impact assessment and review of effluent disposal
options for Eastern Treatment Plant. EMS final report. CSIRO Environmental
projects office, pp 1-80.
Davidson, B., and H.Malano. 2005. Key considerations in applying microeconomics
theory to water quality issues, Water International, 30 (2), pp 147-55.
Davis, J., and S.Tanka. 2005. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board. Discussion Paper for Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government: 1-20.
Davis, J., A.Gosh., P.Martin., S.Taimur., S.Tankha., B.Zia., and G.Prunier. 2001.
Good governance the water and sanitation sector: experience from South Asia.
250
Unpublished report, UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, South
Asia Regional Office.
Davey, A., P.Miller., and F.Knops. 2005. Australia‘s Largest Ultra-Filtration
Reclaimed Water Plant, Water 32(2), March 2005.
D‘Angelo Report. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Water
Resources. Public Information Outreach Programs (Special Publication,
Salvatore D‘Angelo, Chairperson). Publishers: Water Environment Federation &
American Waterworks Association.
DSE. Department of Sustainability and Environment. 2009. How Much Water Do
You Use? viewed 26 February 2009. http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au
DSE. Department of Sustainability and Environment. 2008. Augmentation of the
Melbourne Water Supply System: Analysis of potential system behaviour. Paper
published by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne,
August 2008.
DSE. Department of Sustainability and Environment. 2008a. Our Water Our Future:
The Next Stage of the Government's Water Plan, Victorian Government
Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, 2007, p. 18.; Dr Ian
McPhail Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Submission, no. 105,
15 November 2008, pp 6.
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2007a. Our Water Our Future: The
Next Stage of the Government‘s Water Plan, State Government of Victoria,
Melbourne.
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2006. Sustainable Water Strategy
Central Region: Action to 2055, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
251
DSE. Department of Sustainability and Environment. 2005. Vision for Werribee
Plains: major water recycling projects, west of Melbourne. Working Draft
Discussion Paper, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004, Our Water Our Future:
Securing Our Water Future Together, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Environment and Heritage. 1996. Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-
97. www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/budget/budget96/statement
Dasgupta, S., B.Laplante., H.Wang., and D.Wheeler. 2002. Confronting the
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 16 (1)1, pp
147–168.
DIPNR. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. 2004.
Meeting the challenges, Securing Sydney‘s water future. The Metropolitan Water
Plan.
Doyle, P.T., and F.Johnson. 2005. Complexity of increasing water use efficiency on
irrigated dairy farms. Proceedings of Dairy Industry Association of Australia
Conference.
Drechsel, P., U.Blumenthal., and B.Keraita. 2002. Balancing health and livelihoods,
adjusting wastewater irrigation guidelines for resource-poor countries. UA
Magazine No. 8.
Eddy. D. M. 2000. Effective Clinical Practice. Journal of American Medical
Association 3(5), pp 253-255.
Egan, C. 2008. History of Melbourne‘s water restrictions. News article published and
accessed on 26th
October 2008, The Age. www.theage.com.au/environment/a-
growing-problem-prompts-fake-solution-20081025-58on.html?page=3
252
Ensink, J., T.Mahmood., W.Van der Hoek., L.Raschid-Sally., and F.Amerasinghe.
2004. A nationwide assessment of wastewater use in Pakistan: an obscure
activity or a vitally important one? Water Policy 6, pp 1-10.
EPA. Environment Protection Agency. 2009. Accessed in March 2009.
www.epa.vic.gov.au/water/reuse/default.asp
EPA. Environment Protection Agency. 2003. Guidelines for Environment
Management: Use of Reclaimed water. Publication 464.2. ISBN 0 7306 7622 6.
EPA, Victoria, June 2003. Available at
http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce9
0001cbb5/64c2a15969d75e184a2569a00025de63/$FILE/464.2.pdf
Ernst & Young. 2006. The PGA Report: An Independent Study into the size of the
Australian Golf Economy. The Professional Golfers Association of Australia. A
study conducted in August 2006.
ESD. 1991. Final Report – Agriculture, Ecologically Sustainable Working Groups.
AGPS, Canberra. ACT ESD 1991. Contact the Department of Environment and
Heritage at www.deh.gov.au
ESC. Essential Services Commission. 2009. Metropolitan Melbourne Water Price
Review 2008-09 — Water Plans Issues Paper, December.
ESC. Essential Services Commission. 2008. Performance of Urban Water and
Sewerage Businesses 2006-07, April 2008.
Evans, B., G.Hutton and L.Haller. 2004. Closing the sanitation gap – the case for
better public funding of sanitation and Hygiene. Paper prepared for round table
on sustainable development, 9-10 March 2004. OECD, Paris.
253
Fam, D., E.Mosley., A.Lopes., L.Mathieson., J.Morison., and G.Connellan. 2008.
Irrigation of Urban Green Spaces: a review of the Environmental, Social and
Economic benefits. CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 04/08.
Faruqui N., C.Scott., and L.Raschid-Sally. 2004. Confronting the Realities of
Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Lessons learnt and Recommendations.
In: Scott, C. A.; Faruqui, N. I.; Raschid-Sally, L. (eds.). Wastewater Use in
Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting the livelihood and Environmental realities.
IWMI/ IDRC-CRDI/CABI, Wallingford, UK.
Feeny, D. 1993. The demand for and supply of institutional arrangements, in Vincent
Ostram, David Feeny, Hartmut Picht (eds), Rethinking institutional analysis and
development: Issues, Alternatives and Choices, San Francisco: Institute for
Contemporary Studies Press, pp 159-209.
Frewer, L.J., C.Howard., and R.Shepard. 1998. Understanding public attitude to
technology. Journal of Risk Research: 221-235.
Freebairn, J. 2003. Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Water. The Australian
Economic Review 36(2), pp 203-212.
Freebairn, J. 1967. ‗Grading as a market innovation‘ Review of Marketing and
Agricultural Economics, 35(3), pp 137-62.
Gagliardo, P. 2003. Use of Reclaimed Water for Industrial Applications. Paper
presented at the Ozwater 2003 Convention and Exhibition, Perth, Australia.
George, B. A., H.M.Malano., A.R.Khan., A.Gaur., and B.Davidson. 2008. Urban
water supply strategies for Hyderabad, India – Future scenarios. Environ
Modeling and Assessment. DOI 10.1007/s10666-008-9170-6: Springer in Press.
254
George, B. A., T.Biggs., H.M.Malano., A.Gaur., and B.Davidson. 2006. Assessment
of water resources in the Musi Catchment. Proceedings of 2nd International
Conference on Hydrology and Watershed Management, 1, pp 408–421.
GOI. Government of India. 1995. Private sector participation in irrigation and multi-
purpose projects. Report of the high level committee, New Delhi: Ministry of
Water Resources.
GOI. Government of India. 2006. Press releases from the Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation. www.mospi.nic.in/mospi_press_releases.htm.
Grace, J. K., & Srinivas, T. 2002. Resource flows and land use in Hyderabad Urban
Agglomeration (1970–2000) to monitor society–nature interaction for
sustainability.
Griffith, G.R. 1973. Sydney meat marketing margins – an econometric analysis.
Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, 32(3), pp 223-39.
Grossman, G.M., A.B.Kruger. 1995. Economic growth and environment. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 110, pp 353–377.
Grossman, G.M. and A.B.Krueger. 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North
American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 3914, NBER, Cambridge MA.
Gruen, G.E. 2000. Turkish waters: source of regional conflict or catalyst for peace?
Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 123, pp 565-579.
Guagnano, G. A. 2001. Altruism and market-like behavior: An analysis of
willingness to pay for recycled paper products. Population and Environment, 22
(4), 425-438.
255
Guagnano, G. A., Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. 1994. Willingness to pay for public
goods: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science, 5 (6), 411-415.
Hamilton, A.J., A.Boland., D.Stevens., J.Kelly., J.Radcliffe., A.Ziehrl., P.Dillon.,
and B.Paulin. 2005. Position of Australian horticultural industry with respect to
the use of reclaimed water. Agricultural Water Management 71, pp 181-209.
Hahnemann, W.M. 2002. The Central Arizona Project. Working paper No.937,
Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of California at
Berkeley.
Hellegers, P and B. Davidson. 2009. A method to determine the disaggregated
economic value of water used in agriculture. Unpublished paper.
Hanks, P., T.Long., L.Urdang., and G.Wilkes., (eds.). 1979. Collins Dictionary of the
English Language. An extensive coverage of contemporary international and
Australian English, Collins, Sydney.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. 1991. Recycling as altruistic behaviour. Normative
and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling
program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220.
Howe, C., R.Jones., S.Maheepala., and B.Rhodes. 2005. Melbourne Water Climate
Change Study – Implications of Potential Climate Change for Melbourne‘s Water
Resources, CSIRO and Melbourne Water Corporation.
HMWSSB. Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2008a.
www.hyderabadwater.gov.in/
HMWSSB. Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2008. Presentation
on water distribution management of Hyderabad city.
www.keastwardwater.org/FTP/Hyderabad.pdf
256
HMWSSB. Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2007. Water
sources and storages. www.hyderabadwater.gov.in/
HMWSSB. Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2003. Water and
Wastewater Management in Hyderabad. Presentation to the partners by the
Managing Director of HMWSSB on the current status of functioning of the
Board. http://hywamis.birla-global.com/Bilder2/Presentation%20HMWSSB.pdf
HUDA. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. 2003: ―A Plan for Sustainable
Development: Hyderabad 2020‖. Draft Master Plan for Hyderabad Metropolitan
area, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad.
HUDA. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. 2005. City Development Plan
Framework and Process. Hyderabad City Development Plan. Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).
Hussain, I., L.Raschid-Sally., M.A.Hanjra., F.Marikar., and W.Van der Hoek. 2001.
A framework for analyzing socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of
wastewater use in agriculture in developing countries. IWMI Working Paper 26,
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
Hurlimann, A., J.McKay., and G.Geursen. 2005. Pricing of drinking water vs
recycled water: fairness and satisfaction. Water, March 2005, pp.30–34.
IBEF. India Brand Equity Foundation. 2005. Indian States Economy and Business:
Andhra Pradesh. An IBEF publication. August, 2005, pp 1-32
www.ibef.org/download/Andhra_Pradesh.pdf
INR News. 2007. Twenty five projects cleared under JNNURM for Andhra Pradesh.
INR News, 01 March 2007, New Delhi.
257
www.inrnews.com/realestateproperty/india/andhra_pradesh/25_projects_cleared_
under_jnnu.html
International Monetary Fund. 2009. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009.
www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=49&pr.y
=11&sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=534&s
=NGDPD,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC,LP&grp=0&a=#cs4
Iyer, R. 2007. Towards Water Wisdom: Limits, Justice, Harmony. Sage Publications
India Pvt Ltd, pp 271.
Iyer, N.K., S.Kulkarni., and V.Rangavaswamy. 2007. Economy, population, and
urban spawl: A comparative study of Bangalore and Hyderabad, India using
remote sensing and GIS. A paper presented in the PRIPODE workshop, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Jeffrey, A.F and A.K. Rose. 2002. ―Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting
out the causality. NBER Working Papers 9201, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc.
Jellinek, S., D.Milverton., G.A.Martinez., and K.Schrader. 2006. Water Utility
Subsidies Benefit The ‗Haves‘, Not The ‗Have Nots‘. World Bank Report
No:2006/317/ESSD. http://web.worldbank.org
Jia, J., G.W.Fischer., and J.S.Dyer. 1993. Attribute Weighting Methods and Decision
Quality in the Presence of Response Error: A Simulation Study. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making. May 1993.
Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennet, J., Richards, D., & Solaimani, S. 2001.
Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences
within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133-155.
258
JNNURM. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. 2005. Chapter II:
Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. City Development Plan. Government of India.
www.ghmc.gov.in/cdp/chapters%202.pdf
Kaercher, J.D., M.Po., B.E.Nancarrow. 2003. Water Recycling Community
Discussion Meeting I (unpublished manuscript). Perth: ARCWIS (Australian
Research Centre for Water in Society).
Kally, E. 1993. Water and Peace – Water Resources and the Arab-Israeli Peace
Process. Praeger, Westport.
Kennedy, L. 2006. Decentralisation and Urban Governance in Hyderabad. Assessing
the role of different actors in the city. Governance and Policy Spaces (GAPS)
Project. GAPS Series Working Paper: 8. Centre for Economic and Social Studies,
Hyderabad, India, pp 35. www.ghmc.gov.in/cdp/chapter%206.pdf
Kenway, S.J., A.Priestley., S.Cook., S.Seo., M.Inman., A.Gregory and M.Hall. 2008.
Energy use in the provision and consumption of urban water in Australia and
New Zealand. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.
Kenway, S.J., A.Priestley., and J.M.McMahon. 2007. Water, Wastewater, Energy
and Greenhouse Gasses in Australia's Major Urban Systems. Water reuse and
recycling: Reuse 2007. Khan, S. J., (eds)., Stuez, R. M. and Anderson, J. M.
Sydney, Australia, University of New South Wales, UNSW Publishing &
Printing Services.
Ker, P. 2008. Holding hails state wide water savings. The Age news article published
and accessed on 8 January 2008.
www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/holding-hails-statewide-water-
savings/2008/01/07/1199554571400.html
259
Kruskal, W. 1960. Some Remarks on Wild Observations. Technometrics paper. The
University of Chicago. www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/out.htm
Kularatne, D., D.Ridley., C.Cameron. 2005. Assumptions Associated with using
Recycled Water for Primary Industries. Discussion Paper. Department of Primary
Industries. 1-31.
Lazarova, V., and A.Bahri Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture, landscapes and
turf grass. 2005. CRC Press: 1-408.
Leonard, A. 2006. How the world works: outsourcing pollution. E-publication posted
22nd
August 2006. www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/08/22/kuznets/index.html.
Accessed as on 22 May 2009.
Liebenthal, A. 2002. Promoting Environmental Sustainability in Development: An
Evaluation of the World Bank Performance, Washington D, The World Bank, pp
1-15.
Livingstone, A. 2009. Labour in the Queensland horticulture industry. 2009 Federal
wage case, Growcom submission as on 20 March 2009.
74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:ZgOQAO5Rgw8J:www.growcom.com.au/_uplo
ads/241239Growcom_AFPC_Submission_2009.DOC+vegetable+production+au
stralia+employment+rate&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk
Lovering, J., K.O‘Shanassy, K.Johnson, R.Yurisichand., and B.Meehan. 2006. Water
Supply Demand Strategy for Melbourne 2006-2055. Strategy Paper prepared by
WaterSmart working group members which is updated every five year and
reported through annual report of Melbourne water utilities.
Madhumathi, D.S. 2002. BWSSB treatment plants set to go on stream — Bangalore
units to get cheap recycled water. The HINDU group of publications. Financial
daily, sat, 17 August 2002.
260
www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/08/17/stories/2002081702021700.htm
Maher, M., Cooper, S. and Nichols, P. 1999. Australian river restoration and
management criteria for the legislative framework for the twenty-first century,
based on an analysis of Australia and international experience. LWRRDC
Occasional Paper No. Report to LWRRDC: Brisbane. 02/00.
Maller C., M.Townsend., P.Brown., and L.St Leger. 2002. Healthy Parks, Healthy
People: Health benefits of contact with nature in a park context – A review of
current literature. Deakin University, Parks Victoria. Melbourne, Australia.
www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/mhphp/pv1.pdf
Malkovic, T. 2006. Nova. Making every drop count. Nova Online science news,
Australian Academy of Science. Posted August 2006.
http://www.science.org.au/nova/095/095key.htm
Mantovani, P., T.Asano., A.Chang., and D.A.Okun. 2001. Management practices for
non-potable water reuse. Project 97-IRM-6, Water Environment Research
Foundation, Alexandria VA.
Mara, D.; Cairncross, S. 1989. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater and
Excreta in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
Marks, J., N.Cromer., F.Howard., D.Oemcke., and M.Zadoroznyj. 2002. Community
experience and perceptions of water reuse. Paper presented at the Enviro 2002
Convention and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia.
Marsalek, J., K.Schaefer., K.Excall., L.Brannen., and B.Aidun. 2002. Water Reuse
and Recycling. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg,
261
Manitoba. CCME Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series. Report No.
3, pp 1-39.
Marsden Jacob Associates. 2006. Securing Australia‘s Urban Water Supplies. A
discussion paper prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
in November 2006.
Martyn, H., V.Kaeding., and C.Heidenreich. 2005. Desalination Options for Salinity
Management in the Northern Adelaide Plains, Water 32(3), pp 1-34.
Massuel, S., George, B.A., Gaur, A., & Nune, R. 2007. Groundwater modelling for
sustainable water resources management in the Musi Catchment, India.
MODSIM–2007, Christchurch, Dec 10–14.
McPhail, I. 2008. Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Submission, no.
105, 15 November 2008, pp 1-6.
McGuckian, R. 2002. Consequences of current and proposed water reform on
Australian Horticulture. Preliminary draft report, commissioned by Horticulture
Australia, October. Contact Horticulture Australia at www.horticulture.com.au .
MCH. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 2003. City development strategy –
Hyderabad: Strategic action plan and city assistance. Draft report for Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad, India.
Mekala, G.D. 2006. Multi-stakeholder Processes for safe use of wastewater and
sustainable urban, peri-urban agriculture – A case study of Hyderabad, India.
Powerpoint presentation at the UN Habitat third World Urban Forum June 19-23,
2006, Vancouver, Canada.
Mekala, G.D., B.Davidson and A.M.Boland. 2007. Multiple uses of wastewater: A
methodology for cost-effective recycling. In Khan, S. J.; Stuetz R.M.; Anderson,
262
J.M. (co-eds) Water Reuse and Recycling, UNSW Publishing & Printing
Services, Sydney, Australia, pp 335-343.
Melbourne Water. 2009. Recycling water for a greener future.
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_recycling/recycling_water_fo
r_a_greener_future/recycling_water_for_a_greener_future.asp?bhcp=1
Melbourne Water. 1999. Total recycling gains EPA support. The Source. Issue 3
August 1999.
Melbourne Water. 1998. Exploring community attitudes to water conservation and
effluent reuse. A consultancy report prepared by Open Mind Group. St. Kilda,
Victoria.
Merrey, D.J. 1993. Institutional contexts for managing irrigated agriculture. In The
institutional framework for irrigation, 1996, ed. C. Abernethy, 7–22.
Proceedings of a Workshop held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1-5 November 1993.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.
Moran, A. 2008. Water supply options for Melbourne: An examination of new water
supply sources for Melbourne and other urban areas in Victoria. Occasional
paper by Institute of Public Affairs, revised in August 2008.
Morison. J., and L.Matheson. 2008. Scoping study – economic value of irrigation in
urban green open space. Horticulture Australia Project No. HG06157.
www.irrigationfutures.org.au
Muir, R. 2006. The economics of recycling. Power point presentation at the Water
Recycling and Infrastructure Summit on 06 December 2006. Sydney. Synergies
Economic Consulting.
263
Mitchell, R.C and R.T.Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The
Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for Future. Washington DC.
Mitchell, G.V., A.Taylor., T.Fletcher and A.Deletic. 2005. Stormwater Reuse—
Potable Water Substitution for Melbourne, December 2005. ISWR Report 05/12.
Institute for Sustainable Water Resources Monash University.
National Water Policy. 2002. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India,
New Delhi.
Nadebaum, P.R., F.Pamminger., and L.Moore. 2004. A Third Pipe Recycled Water
Scheme: Business Risk Considerations, Water 31(3), May 2004.
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental
behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 34, 740-756.
North, D.C., and R.P.Thomas. 1973. The rise of the western world: A new economic
history, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional change, and Economic performance,
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ogoshi, M., Y.Suzuki., and T.Asano. 2001. Water reuse in Japan. Water Science and
Technology 43(10): 17-23.
Osterhus, T. L. 1997. Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do
they work? Journal of Marketing, 61, 16-29.
Pannell, D. J., G.R.Marshall., N.Barr., A.Curtis., and F.Vanclay., R.Wilkinson. 2005.
Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural
landholders. Unpublished manuscript submitted to Aust. Jour. Exp. Agric.
Accessed at http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dp0502.htm
264
Panayotou, T. 2000. Economic growth and the environment. Centre for Environment
Development. Working Paper No 56. Harvard, USA: Centre for International
Development, Harvard University.
Panayotou, T. 1997. Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a
black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2, pp
465–484.
Parish, R.M. 1967. Price levelling and averaging. The Farm Economist, 11(5), pp
187-98.
Parliament of Victoria, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. 2009.
Inquiry into Melbourne‘s Future Water Supply. Parliamentary Paper No 174,
June 2009, pp 1-366.
Pescod, M.B. 1992. Wastewater Treatment and Uses in Agriculture. FAO Paper 47.
Perry, C.J., D.Seckler., and M.Rock. 1998. Water as an Economic Good: A Solution,
or a Problem. IIMI’s Research Report 14, May 1998.
Phillips, C., and G.Thompson. 2001. What is cost-effectiveness? Hayward Medical
Communications. Aventis House. 1(3), pp 1-6.
Po, M., J.Kaercher., B.E.Nancarrow. 2004. Australian Water Conservation and
Reuse Research Program: Literature review of factors influencing public
perceptions of water reuse. Australian Water Association. April 2004, pp 1-27.
Po, M., B.E.Nancarrow., Z.Leviston., N.B.Porter., G.J.Syme., and J.D.Kaercher.
2005. Predicting community behaviour in relation to wastewater reuse: what
drives decisions to accept or reject? Report to Land and Water Australia as part
265
of VP14 Milestone 5, Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship.
CSIRO Land and Water : Perth, pp 1-129.
Porter, C. 2005. Singapore Technotour, Water 32(3), May 2005.
Power, N. 2007. Water Security for SEQ Sports Fields. Presentation February 2007,
Power Horticultural Services, Nundah, Qld.
PMSEIC. Prime Minister‘s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. 2003.
Recycling Water for Our Cities. Paper prepared by an independent working
group for PMSEIC. 28 November 2003, pp 1-45.
Radcliffe, J. 2003. An overview of water recycling in Australia - results of a recent
ATSE study. In: Proceedings of Water Recycling Australia: Second National
Conference, Brisbane, 1-3 September 2003 (CD-ROM).
Radcliffe, J. 2004. Water recycling in Australia. Australian Academy of
Technological Sciences and Engineering, Parkville, Melbourne.
Raghavendra, S. 2006. Re-examining the ‗low water tariff‘ hypothesis: lessons from
Hyderabad, India. Urban Water Journal 3(4), pp 235-247.
Raghupati, U and V.Foster. 2002. Water Tariffs and Subsidies in South Asia: A
Scorecard for India. Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank: Washington.
Ramachandraiah, C., and S.Prasad. 2004. Impact of urban growth on water bodies:
The case of Hyderabad. Working Paper No. 60. CESS, Hyderabad.
Raschid-Sally, L., T.Doan Doan., and S.Abayawardana. 2004. National Assessments
on Wastewater Use in Agriculture an Emerging Typology: The Vietnam Case
Study. In: Scott, C. A.; Faruqui, N. I.; Raschid-Sally, L. (eds.), Wastewater use in
266
irrigated agriculture: Confronting the livelihood and Environmental realities.
IWMI/IDRC-CRDI/CABI, Wallingford, UK.
ReWater. 2009. Cleaner recycled water increases climate risk. Newsletter, Winter
2009, pg 16.
Richmond, A., E.Zencey., and C.J.Cleveland. 2007. Environmental kuznets curve.
In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland, Washington, D.C.:
Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the
Environment.
Roder, L. 2009. Water recycling target for Melbourne. Melbourne Water. ReWater
Newsletter Autumn 2009, pp 1-12.
Rozin, P., and A.Fallon.. 1987. A Perspective on disgust. Psychological Reports 94,
pp 23-41.
Rijsberman, F. 2004. Sanitation and Access to clean water. In Bjorn Lomborg (eds.),
Global Crises, Global Solution. Copenhagen Consensus 2004, pp 498-527.
Ruttan, V.W. 1999. Induced institutional innovation, paper presented in a conference
on Induced Technology Change and the Environment, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenberg, Austria.
Saleth, R.M., and A.Dinar. 1997. Satisfying urban thirst: Water supply augmentation
and pricing policy in Hyderabad, India. World Bank Technical Paper No. 395.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Saleth, R.M. 1999. Irrigation Privatization in India: options, framework and
experiences, Economic and Political Weekly, 34 (26), pp 86-92.
267
Saleth, R.M and A.Dinar. 1999. Water challenge and institutional response: cross-
country perspective. World Bank policy research working paper no. 2045,
Washington DC: World Bank.
Saleth, R.M and A.Dinar. 2004. The Institutional Economics of Water: A cross-
country analysis of institutions ad performance. The World Bank/Edward Elgar
Publications,UK and USA, pp 1-398.
Sawhney, A. 2004. The New Face of Environmental Management in India. Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 075461915X.
Sampath, A., B.Kedarnath., C.Ramanujam., H.Haidery., R.Rao., R.Arunachalam.,
S.Govindaraju., V.Thirumalavan., and V.Jeet. 2003. Water Privatization and
Implications in India. Association of India‘s Development, Austin, TX, USA, pp
1-19.
Scott, C., N.Faruqui., and L.Raschid-Sally. 2004. Wastewater Use in Irrigated
Agriculture: Management Challenges in Developing Countries. In: Scott, C.A.,
N.Faruqui., and L.Raschid-Sally (eds.). Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture:
Confronting the livelihood and Environmental realities. IWMI/IDRC-
CRDI/CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 1-10
Scott, C.A., J.Zarazúa., and G.Levine. 2000. Urban-Wastewater Reuse for Crop
Production in the Water-short Guanajuato River Basin, Mexico. IWMI Research
Report 41. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. 1981. A normative decision-making model of
altruism. In Rushton, J. P. & Sorrentino, R. M. (eds.): Altruism and helping
behavior. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89-211.
268
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Fran_k,
M. 2005. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and
conservation behaviour. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457-475.
Segerfeldt, F. 2005. Water for Sale: How business and the market can resolve the
world’s water crisis. Cato Institute. Washington D.C, pp 1-144.
SEAWUN. South East Asian Water Utilities Network. 2004. Reaching Full Cost
Recovery. An online web publication accessed as on 23 July 2008.
www.seawun.org/Programs/CostRecovery/tabid/76/ctl/Details/mid/408/ItemID/4
0/Default.aspx
Shafik, N., and S.Bandhopadhya. 1992. Economic growth and environmental quality:
Time series and cross-section evidence. Working Paper for the World
Development Report 1992, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Shukla, R.K., S.K.Dwivedi., A.Sharma and S. Jain. 2004. The Great Indian Middle
Class: Results from the NCAER Market information Survey of Households.
National Council of Applied Economic Research (in association with Business
Standard).
Silva-Ochoa, P., and C.A.Scott. 2004. Treatment Plant Effects on Wastewater
Irrigation Benefits: Revisiting a Case Study in the Guanajuanto River Basin,
Mexico. In: Scott, C. A.; Faruqui, N. I.; Raschid-Sally, L. (eds.). Wastewater use
in irrigated agriculture: Confronting the livelihood and environmental realities.
IWMI/IDRC-CRDI/CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 145-152.
Sinden, J.A., and D.J.Thampapillai. 1995. Introduction to Benefit-Cost Analysis.
Longman Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, pp 1-262.
269
South East QLD Recycled Water Task Force. 2003. South East QLD Recycled Water
Task Force Report (unpublished). www.sd.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/docs-
in/ppp/SEQ_Recycled_Water_Taskforce_Report.pdf
Sreedevi, N. 2005. Finances of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Paper
presented at the Workshop ―Actors, Policies and Urban Governance in
Hyderabad‖. ASCI-CME, Hyderabad, 20th
September, 2005.
Strauss, M., and U.Blumenthal. 1990. Human Waste Use in Agriculture and
Aquaculture: Utilization Practices and Health Perspectives. IRCWD Report
09/90. International Reference Center for Waste Disposal (IRCWD).
Duebendorf, Germany.
State government of Victoria. 2002. Energy and greenhouse management toolkit
developed by Victorian Government in partnership with EPA Victoria and the
Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria and funded through the Victorian
Greenhouse Strategy. Module 3. June 2002, pp 1-20 www.greenhouse.vic.gov.au
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. 1999. A Value-Belief-
Norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6, 81-95.
Speers, A. 2008. A carbon overview for the water industry. PowerPoint presentation
at the Australian Water Association workshop titled ―Carbon Pollution Reduction
and the Water Industry,‖ held on 11th
November 2008 in Melbourne.
Swiss Business Hub India & Heinz Habegger., Baleco AG., and Thun. 2004. Market
Report: Opportunities for Environmental Technology in India. Focus on Water,
Air and Hazardous Waste. Swiss Business Hub India, 2004.
Swinton, B. 2005. Membrane technology. Water 36–41.
270
Sydney Water. 1999. Community views on recycled water. Sydney: The Age. 2008.
Melbourne boosts waste water recycling. News article online. Accessed as on 27
Feb 2008. http://news.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-boosts-waste-water-
recycling-20080227-1v99.html
Tan, K.S., and B.Rhodes. 2008. ‗Implications of the 1997-2006 drought on water
resources planning for Melbourne‘. Paper presented to Water Down Under 2008,
Adelaide, 15-17 Apr.
The Age. 2008. Melbourne boosts waste water recycling. Accessed 27 Feb, 2008
http://news.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-boosts-waste-water-recycling-
20080227-1v99.html
The Economist. 2003. France‘s battle for reform: is it a turning point? The
Economist, 28 June.
The Economist. 2003a. Priceless: a survey of water. The Economist, 19 July.
The Hindu. 2008. Legal notices to defaulters: HMWSSB. National Newspaper, Feb
14, 2008. www.hindu.com/2008/02/14/stories/2008021459180300.htm
The Hindu. 2008. HMWSSB launches SMS facility to lodge complaints. The Hindu,
National Newspaper, July 09, 2008.
www.thehindu.com/2008/07/09/stories/2008070959030300.htm
The Hindu. 2007. HMWSSB launches enterprise re-engineering process. National
Newspaper, Feb 22, 2007.
www.thehindu.com/2006/04/08/stories/2006040818550400.htm
271
The Hindu. 2007. Greater Hyderabad compounds HMWSSB water woes. The Hindu,
National Newspaper, Apr 05, 2007.
www.hindu.com/2007/04/05/stories/2007040523670400.htm
The Hindu. 2007. Water pressure on HMWSSB. The HINDU, National Newspaper,
Aug 14, 2007. www.thehindu.com/2007/08/14/stories/2007081459520300.htm
The Hindu. 2006. HMWSSB move to sell recycled water for industrial purpose. The
Hindu, National Newspaper, Apr 08, 2006.
www.thehindu.com/2006/04/08/stories/2006040818550400.htm
The Hindu. 2004. HMWSSB promise on water a sham: Congress candidate. National
Newspaper, Feb 14, 2004.
www.hinduonnet.com/2004/03/30/stories/2004033012840300.htm
The Premier of Victoria. 2009. Buissiness case finds recycled water projects too
expensive. Online publication 26 June 2009. www.premier.vic.gov.au/minister-
for-water/business-case-finds-recycled-water-projects-too-expensive.html
Tierney, J. 2009. Use Energy, get rich and save the planet. New York edition, 21st
April 2009.
Torras, M and J.K.Boyce. 1998. Income, inequality and pollution: A reassessment of
the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 25 (2): 147–160.
Tisdell, J., J.Ward., and T.Grudzinski. 2002. The development of water reform in
Australia. Technical Report, 02/5, May 2002. Cooperative Research Centre for
Catchment Hydrology (unpublished).
272
Tyler, T. R., Orwin, R., & Schurer, L. 1982. Defensive denial and high cost of
prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3 (4), 267-281.
UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. 1998. Global Human
Development Report 1998. Oxford University Press, New York.
Uche, J. 2001. Hybrid desalting systems for avoiding water shortage in Spain.
Desalination, 138, 329-334.
Van Rooijen, D., H.Turral., and T.W.Biggs. 2005. Sponge city: water balance of
mega-city water use and wastewater use in Hyderabad, India. Irrigation and
Drainage, 54, S81–S91. doi:10.1002/ird.188.
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. 2007. Water Ways: enquiry into
reform of the metropolitan retail water sector produced.
www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/WATERDRAFTREPORT/$F
ile/WATER%20DRAFT%20REPORT.pdf Accessed in January 2009.
Victorian Government. 2002. Melbourne 2030 – Planning for Sustainable Growth.
Vincent, J.R. 1997. Testing for Environment Kuznets Curves within a developing
country. Environment and Development Economics, 2: 417–431.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. 1992. Predicting recycling behaviour from global and
specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (20), 1580-1607.
Walker, T. 2003. Kwinana Water Reclamation Plant. Water 30(5), August 2003.
Water Corporation. 2005. Perth‘s seawater desalination plant. Last accessed: 8
August 2005.
273
http://www.watercorporation.com.au/docs/desal_faq.pdf
Whittington, D. 2003. Municipal water pricing and tariff design: a reform agenda for
South Asia. Water Policy. 5(1):61 – 76.
Williamson, O.E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets,
Rational Contracting, New York: Free Press.
Williamson, O.E. 1994. Institutions and economic organization: the governance
perspective. Annual bank conference on development economics, Washington,
DC: World Bank.
WHO (World Health Organization) and UNICEF (United Nations International
Children‘s Fund). 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000
Report. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and
Sanitation, New York.
Winrock International India. 2007. Urban Wastewater: Livelihoods, Health and
Environmental Impacts in India. Research report submitted to International
Water Management Institute.
WSAA, Water Services Association of Australia and NWC, National Water
Commission. 2009. National Performance Report 2007-08: Urban water utilities.
Published by NWC, Canberra, ACT, Australia on March 2009.
WSAA. Water Services Association of Australia. 2005. Testing Water-Urban water
in our growing cities-the risks, challenges, innovation and planning. Position
Paper No.01, October 2005. Published by Water Services Association of
Australia (WSAA), pp 1-30. http://www.wsaa.asn.au
Winpenny, J. 1994. Managing Water as an Economic Resource. Routledge
Publications, pp 133.
274
World Bank. 1998. Urban water supply and sanitation: India – water resources
management sector review. World Bank, South Asian Region: New Delhi.
Yandle, B., M.Vijayaraghavan., and M.Bhattarai. 2002. Environmental Kuznets
Curve: A primer. Research Study No 1: Montana, USA: Political Economy
Research Center (PERC).
Yasmeen, A. 2006. New layouts to have dual water supply system. The Hindu
newspaper dated 25 July. 2008.
Young, M., and J.McColl. 2008. Yucky business: Paying for what we put down the
drain. Droplet No 14.
YUVA, Mumbai. 2005. National Assessment of Wastewater Generation and
Utilization: A Case of India. Unpublished.
Zhou, Y., and R.S.J.Tol. 2004. Implications of desalination for water resources in
China – an economic perspective. Working Paper FNU-41, pp 1-16. Accessed as
on 25 April 2009. www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-
papers/DesalinationFNU41_revised.pdf.
275
Appendices
276
277
Appendix I
Questionnaire for the Contingent Valuation Survey12
Survey Instrument to Assess Peoples’ Opinion on Water Quality in Rivers and
Their Willingness to Prevent Pollution in Musi River in Hyderabad City
Respondent’s Name & Address
Mr / Ms ____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Date of Interview: ______________________
SECTION A: RESPONDENT PROFILE (Please circle your answer)
1. Age < 18
1. 19 – 35
2. 36 – 50
3. 51 – 65
4. > 65
2. Sex Male
1. Female
3. Education level
1. None
2. Primary level (1 – 5 years)
3. Secondary level (6th
– 10th
standard)
4. Senior Secondary (11 – 12th
std)
5. Degree (Bachelors)
6. Masters
7. Tertiary (PhD)
4. Caste affiliation
1. Scheduled Caste
2. Scheduled Tribe
3. Backward Caste
4. Other Caste
5. No. of years you lived in Hyderabad = _______________Years
12
A CD has been attached at the end of this thesis which contains the data of the Contingent
Valuation Survey (2008).
This survey is to assess what is the worth of clean water in our rivers in general and Musi River (in
particular) for the residents of Hyderabad city. It is part of a doctoral research conducted by
Mekala Gayathri Devi who is currently doing her internship with the International Water
Management Institute. Most of the questions in this survey are related to your opinions and
attitudes. There are no right or wrong answers. This interview is confidential and your name will
never be associated with your answers.
278
SECTION B: POLLUTION OF WATER BODIES AND ITS IMPORTANCE
TO URBANITES (Please circle your answer)
6. Here is a list of issues, which are of concern to the urban taxpayers. For each,
please tell me whether you feel the amount of money we as a nation are spending is
too much, too little or just about the right amount on the following issues:
Too
much
Right
amoun
t
Too
little
Don‘t
know
Refuse
d
a. Reducing air pollution 1 2 3 4 5
b. Fighting crime 1 2 3 4 5
c. Reducing water pollution 1
Go to
Q 7
2
Go to
Q 9
3
Go to
Q 8
4
Go to
Q 9
5
Go to
Q 9
7. You said we are spending too much on reducing water pollution. Do you think
we should be spending
1. Great deal less
2. A little less
3. Don‘t know
4. Refused
8. You said we are spending too little on reducing water pollution. Do you think
we should be spending
1. Great deal more
2. A little more
3. Don‘t know
4. Refused
9. Which statement do you agree with most in the below 3 statements (1,2,3)?
1. Protecting environment is very important regardless of cost.
2. Protecting environment is important while holding the current costs.
279
3. We have made enough progress on cleaning environment. We should cut down
the costs.
4. Don‘t know
5. Refused
10. Some national goals are more important to people than others. How important to
you is controlling pollution in our rivers and lakes?
1. Very Important (Go to Q 11 else skip to Q12)
2. Important
3. Somewhat Important
4. Not Important
5. Don‘t know
11. You said controlling pollution in our rivers and lakes is ―very important‖ to you.
Would you say it is one of your
1. Very Top Priority
2. Top Priority
3. Important
4. Somewhat Lesser Importance
5. Don‘t know
12. Following is a list of different sources of water pollution in our rivers. Rank the
two sources (1, 2), which you feel probably, cause most water pollution in the
nation?
Cause Rank (1 & 2)
1. Domestic sewage from households / residential areas
2. Sewage water from hospitals, hotels, garages, laundry,
beauty saloons, butcher shops and other commercial
complexes
3. Industrial effluents
4. Run off from roads and highways
5. Seepage from garbage dumps
6. Runoff from agriculture
280
13. There are various reasons why some people might value water quality in their
rivers. Please rank two of these reasons for reducing water pollution in Musi
River in Hyderabad city, which are most important to you personally?
Reasons for river pollution Rank (1 &
2)
1. I (my household) pollute the Musi River by discharging our domestic
wastewater into the river and hence feel responsible to clean it as well.
2. I (my household) would like to have clean water in the river to avoid the
problems of bad odour, mosquito problems & pollution of our ground water
3. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi river so that we
could go swimming, boating & fishing
4. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi river so that we
could go picknicking, bird watching / stay in a vacation cottage near the river.
5. I (my household) would like to have clean water in Musi River so that we
could use it for irrigation and get better yields.
6. I (my household) get satisfaction from knowing that the water in the river is
clean.
SECTION C: WATER QUALITY VALUATION FOR MUSI RIVER
In this section I‘m going to ask you how much in real Indian Rupees is it worth to
you to reach three different water quality levels in Musi River in Hyderabad city. See
the Water quality cards and the Payment Card for information.
14. Would it be worth anything to you / household to achieve water quality level C
where water in Musi river in Hyderabad city is clean enough for boating?
1. Yes (Go to Q 15)
2. No (Go to Q 16)
3. Don‘t know
4. Refused
281
15. What would be the most you are willing to pay as sewage cess per year to clean
the water in Musi River in Hyderabad city and bring it to boatable quality (Level
C)?
Rs _______________ Enter amount here
000 Zero or Nothing
998 Don‘t know
999 Refused
16. If your answer is no, kindly give your reason.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__
17. Would it be worth anything more to you / your household to achieve Level B
where water in Musi river in Hyderabad city is clean enough for most types of
fish to live in?
1. Yes (Go to Q 18)
2. No (Skip to Q 19)
3. Don‘t know
4. Refused
18. What would be the most you are willing to pay each year to achieve Level B?
Rs _______________ Enter amount here
000 Zero or Nothing
998 Don‘t know
999 Refused
282
19. If your answer is no, kindly give your reason
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________
20. Lastly, would it be worth anything more to you (or your household) to achieve
Level A, where the water in Musi river in Hyderabad city is clean enough to
swim in it?
1. Yes (Ask Q 21)
2. No (Skip to Q 22)
3. Don‘t know
4. Refused
21. What would be the most you would be willing to pay each year to achieve Level
A?
Rs _______________ Enter amount here
000 Zero or Nothing
998 Don‘t know
999 Refused
22. If your answer is no, kindly give your reason.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
23. Which category best describes your total household income earned in 2007
before taxes?
A 1 < 110,000
B 2 110,001 To 150, 000
C 3 150,001 To 200,000
D 4 200,001 To 300,000
283
E 5 300,001 To 400,000
F 6 400,001 To 500,000
G 7 500,001 To 600,000
H 8 600,001 To 700,000
I 9 700,001 To 800,000
J 10 800,001 To 900,000
K 11 900,001 To 10,00,000
L 12 10,00,001 and over
13 Don‘t know
14 Refused
24. How much of the household income do you earn?
1. 100 %
2. 75 - 100 %
3. 50 – 75 %
4. 25 - 50 %
5. 0 - 25 %
6. Don‘t know
7. Refused
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION
284
CARD 1 - WATER QUALITY
LEVEL ―D‖ - Water is so polluted that it has oil, chemicals, raw sewage
and other trash;
- It has no plant or animal life;
- Smells bad and contact with it is harmful to human health
Note: A number of small rivers in India passing through he
cities are of this quality. Musi River water is of D level
quality. See the pictures.
LEVEL ―C‖ - Water is of boatable quality.
- Water is of a quality such that if you happen to fall into
it for a short time while boating or sailing its not harmful
to you.
LEVEL ―B‖ - Water is of fishable quality.
- Though some fish can live in boatable quality of water,
it is only at this level that most types of fishes can
survive
LEVEL ―A‖ - Water is of swimmable quality.
CURRENT SCENARIO OF MUSI RIVER IN HYDERABAD:
Musi River water is of D level quality. Please see the pictures.
Currently 95 per cent of sewage water entering Musi from Hyderabad is
untreated.
The quality of the water in the river can be improved by cleaning / treating all
the sewage (domestic and industrial) water entering the river in a Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Sewage treatment is possible if you (as a citizen and polluter of water) are
willing to pay a higher sewerage cess in your water bill to treat the sewage to
appropriate levels.
Currently you pay 35 per cent of your water charges (About Rs 30 per month)
as sewerage cess. However, this is not enough to cover the treatment costs of
sewage to desired levels.
285
Best Possible
Water Quality
Worst Possible
Water Quality
A
B
C
D
Water Quality Ladder
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
DRINKABLE
SWIMMABLE
BOATABLE
FISHABLE
286
Water quality criterion
Designated-Best-Use Criteria
Drinking Water Source
without
conventional treatment but
after disinfection
(Drinkable quality)
Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
shall be 50 or less
pH between 6.5 and 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen 6mg/l or more
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C
2mg/l or less
Drinking water source after
conventional treatment and
disinfection
[Drinkable quality after
treatment]
Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
shall be 5000 or less pH between 6 to 9
Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C
3mg/l or less
Outdoor bathing (Organised)
(level A)
[Swimmable quality]
Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
shall be 500 or less pH between 6.5 and 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20°C
3mg/l or less
Propagation of Wild life and
Fisheries (level B)
[Fishable quality]
pH between 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen
4mg/l or more
Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less
Irrigation, Industrial
Cooling, Controlled Waste
disposal (level C)
[Boatable quality]
pH between 6.0 to 8.5
Electrical Conductivity at 25°C Max.2250
micro mhos/cm
Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26
Boron Max. 2mg/l
Source: Central Pollution Control Board. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Water/waterqualitycriteria.html
287
Card 2 - Payment Card
Sewer cess @
Monthly water
bill
Monthly sewer
cess Annual sewer cess
0.35 90 31.50 378*
0.40 90 36.00 432
0.45 90 40.50 486
0.50 90 45.00 540
0.55 90 49.50 594
0.60 90 54.00 648
0.65 90 58.50 702
0.70 90 63.00 756
0.75 90 67.50 810
0.80 90 72.00 864
0.85 90 76.50 918
0.90 90 81.00 972
0.95 90 85.50 1026
1.00 90 90.00 1080
1.05 90 94.50 1134
1.10 90 99.00 1188
1.15 90 103.50 1242
1.20 90 108.00 1296
1.25 90 112.50 1350
1.30 90 117.00 1404
1.35 90 121.50 1458
1.40 90 126.00 1512
1.45 90 130.50 1566
1.50 90 135.00 1620
1.55 90 139.50 1674
1.60 90 144.00 1728
1.65 90 148.50 1782
1.70 90 153.00 1836
1.75 90 157.50 1890
1.80 90 162.00 1944
1.85 90 166.50 1998
1.90 90 171.00 2052
1.95 90 175.50 2106
2.00 90 180.00 2160
2.05 90 184.50 2214
2.10 90 189.00 2268
2.15 90 193.50 2322
2.20 90 198.00 2376
2.25 90 202.50 2430
2.30 90 207.00 2484
2.35 90 211.50 2538
2.40 90 216.00 2592
2.45 90 220.50 2646
2.50 90 225.00 2700
2.55 91 232.05 2784.6
*Current amount paid towards sewerage services
288
Table A. Results of the Analysis of Variance
Source d.f s.s m.s v.r. F pr.
Idnum 1 5955734 5955734 11.45 < 0.001
hhincome 12 18652009 1554334 2.99 < 0.001
Residual 260 135253195 520205
Total 273 159860938 585571
Source d.f s.s m.s v.r. F pr.
Pollution
control
3 8359058. 2786353. 4.97 0.002
Residual 270 151501879. 561118
Total 273 159860938
289
Appendix II
Wastewater Recycling Projects in different Sectors across Australia and other countries
Table A. Wastewater recycling projects in Australia Agriculture\horticulture Industry Household Urban\recreation
Queensland
• A number of proposals for recycling water
from the coastal areas to inland agricultural
users have been investigated in recent years.
– One project proposed the recycling of all of
Brisbane‘s wastewater to vegetable growers in
the Lockyer Valley and cotton and cereal
growers in the Darling Downs.
South Australia
South Australia‘s Virginia Irrigation scheme is
currently the largest recycled water scheme in
the Southern Hemisphere supplying 6,000 ha of
irrigated crops with up to 110 ml/day of Class
A water.
– This public/private partnership filters
effluent from Adelaide‘s Bolivar
treatment plant and distributes it via a
Queensland
In Queensland, effluent from
Brisbane‘s Luggage Point WWTP
is used for industrial purposes
following further treatment in a
dual micro-filtration process.
–Another project investigation
involved the recycling of water
from Toowoomba‘s Wetalla
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to
the Millmerran power station
New South Wales
• Industrial reuse includes the
Water Reclamation Plant
supplying recycled water to the
Eraring Power Station on the NSW
Queensland
• The Springfield residential development
between Brisbane and Ipswich was one of the
early dual pipe water recycling projects
commenced in the State and will serve an
ultimate population of 60,000 people (AATSE
2004).
• Gold Coast Water has developed an
ambitious water resources and water recycling
initiative known as the Pimpama-Coomera
Water Future Project (Cox 2004).
– This project will ultimately serve 150,000
additional residential populations with
integrated dual pipe reticulation systems and
smart sewers which could reduce the
importation of drinking water to the area by
up to 85%.
Western Australia
Effluent from Perth‘s Subiaco
WWTP is being utilized for the
irrigation of community parks,
gardens and golf courses.
Australian Capital Territory
• ACTEW AGL has initiated a
number of recycled water
schemes utilizing high quality
effluent from the STPs serving
Canberra (AATSE 2004).
• Tertiary treated effluent from
Australia‘s largest inland
treatment plant at Lower
Molonglo provides water from
a range of users including golf
290
network of over 100 km of pipelines
throughout the Northern Adelaide
plains.
– Aquifer Storage and Recovery has
been pioneered on this project along
with salinity management options
(Martyn et al. 2005).
Further south the privately funded Willunga
Basin scheme utilizes effluent from the
Christies Beach Willunga Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) for the irrigation of
vineyards in the McLaren Vale region.
central coast.
• Investigations are underway for a
supply to the steel industry in the
Wollongong area.
• Regional and country councils in
NSW are also making a significant
contribution to recycling including
the extensive system being
developed in the Shoalhaven area.
New South Wales
• New South Wales pioneered large-scale dual
pipe residential use of recycled water with the
Rouse Hill project, currently serving in excess
of 12,000 properties. Water recycling and
reuse of storm water are both practiced on the
Homebush Bay facilities developed in
conjunction with the Sydney Olympic Games
(AATSE 2004).
• The New South Wales Government is
currently investigating significant use of
recycled water in the new development areas
of Southwest and Northwest Sydney as a part
of its Metropolitan Strategy (DIPNR 2004).
courses and vineyards with
excess flows discharged as an
environmental flow to the river
system (AATSE 2004).
Tasmania
• Despite the relatively high rainfall
experienced in Tasmania, the use of recycled
water from treatment plants discharging to
waterways is increasing. Projects at Brighton
and the Coal River Valley in the drier southern
areas of the State will utilize effluent from
urban plants for irrigated horticulture,
Western Australia
• In Western Australia, the
Kwinana Water Reclamation Plant
located in the industrial belt south
of Perth utilizes dual membrane
technology to recycle 6 GL/year of
water from the nearby Woodman
Point WWTP to large water using
Victoria
• The Aurora residential development in
Melbourne‘s northern growth corridor will
supply 8,500 lots with recycled water via a
dual pipe system from an on-site treatment
plant (Nadebaum et al. 2004).
Northern Territory
• In the Northern Territory a
number of water recycling
projects have been developed
utilizing effluent from
Darwin‘s treatment plants for
golf course irrigation and other
uses.
291
viticulture and turf growing.
Victoria
• In Victoria the Eastern Irrigation scheme
supplies 5 GL of Class A water per year to 50
agricultural and horticultural customers east of
Melbourne‘s Eastern Treatment Plant. Effluent
from the plant is further treated in a privately
operated 30 ml/d ultrafiltration recycled water
plant (Davey et al. 2005).
• Effluent from the Western Treatment Plant is
disinfected with UV and chlorinated before
being pumped at 80 ml/d to the supply system
serving vegetable growers in the Werribee
Irrigation District.
Australian Capital Territory
The Southwell Park recycled water treatment
plant pioneered Australian treatment
technology in a sewer mining application
providing high quality water for irrigation
purposes.
industrial customers. The treatment
plant, the largest of its kind in
Australia, will also process
industrial waste with excess
effluent being discharged to the
ocean at a more sustainable
location (Walker 2003).
• The substitution of recycled
water for potable water, currently
used by industry, will make a
significant contribution to
preserving Perth‘s drinking water
resources.
Victoria
• The Eastern Pipeline Scheme,
currently under investigation will
supply large quantities of water for
power station use in the Latrobe
Valley, in conjunction with the
Gippsland Water Factory project.
• Similar opportunities have
been developed in Alice
Springs where sports grounds
and open spaces are utilizing
―fit for purpose‖ alternatives to
drinking water.
Source: If not stated otherwise the source for this information is ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005.
292
Table B. International water recycling experiences Agriculture\horticulture Industry Potable/drinking Environment
Middle East
• The Middle East is one of the world‘s most water-
stressed regions with deteriorating quality and
dwindling water supplies.
• Not surprisingly, technology rich countries such as
Israel have spent considerable resources on
maximizing the recycling of wastewater, particularly
for agricultural purposes.
• Water recycling is believed to be in excess of 70%.
• This trend will continue with the political imperative
of increasing self-sufficiency of water resources, in
which recycled water plays an important role.
Europe
• There are currently more than 200 water reuse
projects operating in Europe, the majority of which
operate in the coastline and islands of the semi-arid
Southern regions.
• In Southern Europe reclaimed water is used
predominantly for agricultural purposes, while in
Northern Europe it is used predominantly for urban,
environmental and industrial applications.
Singapore
• Much more recently the
NEWater project in Singapore
has received a lot of
international attention.
• Effluent from five WWTPs
is treated to potable quality to
supplement the other sources
of water supply to the country.
• A small proportion of the
water is actually consumed for
drinking (1 – 2.5%) with the
majority used in high quality
industrial processes.
• A feature of this project is
the high international profile it
has received and the high rate
of acceptance by
Singaporeans, as a result of
the comprehensive community
consultation and evaluation
Africa
• In Namibia, the residents of
the capital, Windhoek, were
the first to experiment with the
recycling of water for potable
use in 1969.
• The treatment processes have
been progressively improved
over the years and this source
of drinking water still plays an
important role in
supplementing limited surface
and groundwater supplies in
this low rainfall area of Africa
(AATSE 2004).
California
• California, with its similar climate to
Australia, is at the forefront of water
recycling in the Americas.
• The Orange County Water and
Sanitation Districts were responsible
for Water Factory 21 developed in
1976 as one of the first plants to
produce recycled water.
• Faced with reducing surface water
resources and the need to protect
groundwater aquifer from saltwater
intrusions; the Groundwater
Replenishment
System is being developed to replace
the original water factory with a much
larger treatment facility, constructed
in stages to an ultimate capacity of
265 ml/d
(Chalmers et al. 2002).
• The system utilizes ―state-of-the-
293
• In recognition of the need for sustainable water
management processes, the European Union adopted
the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000. The
directive is a long-term strategy, focusing on the
promotion of an integrated approach to water
resources management.
programs adopted.
• A tour of the impressive
NEWater Visitor Centre is
becoming a common place for
representatives of the
Australasian and international
water industry (Porter 2005).
art‖ treatment processes to treat
wastewater for pumping to
groundwater spreading basins and
seawater intrusion barrier injection
wells.
Source: If not stated otherwise in the Table the source for this information is ACIL Tasman Pty Ltd. 2005.
294
Appendix III
Per Capita Gross Domestic Product and Population Growth of India and Australia
Table A. Per capita GDP and population growth for India and Australia (1980-2014)
PPPPC PPPPC NGDPDPC NGDPDPC NGDPD NGDPD PPPGDP PPPGDP Population LP
Year India Australia India Australia India Australia India Australia India Australia
1980 391.615 9,819.53 255.03 10,900.22 176.624 160.494 271.217 144.582 692.562 14.724
1981 445.68 11,011.68 266.763 12,410.14 189.022 185.657 315.798 164.736 708.577 14.96
1982 482.12 11,491.55 269.61 12,104.74 195.434 184.095 349.477 174.77 724.877 15.209
1983 520.582 11,723.63 284.925 11,443.19 211.26 176.403 385.989 180.726 741.457 15.416
1984 553.596 12,787.43 279.566 12,434.45 212 194.029 419.802 199.537 758.318 15.604
1985 587.202 13,742.82 283.579 10,871.02 219.901 171.94 455.347 217.361 775.451 15.816
1986 616.499 14,134.84 305.311 11,118.93 242.06 178.441 488.78 226.842 792.832 16.048
1987 646.868 14,927.26 329.615 12,893.54 267.136 210.137 524.254 243.282 810.449 16.298
1988 710.179 15,789.38 353.876 16,090.53 293.121 266.715 588.252 261.723 828.315 16.576
1989 773.457 16,860.74 344.921 17,955.07 291.958 302.486 654.69 284.05 846.447 16.847
1990 833.99 17,539.06 362.76 18,590.68 313.731 317.722 721.271 299.75 864.844 17.09
1991 862.987 17,695.32 315.264 18,467.29 278.533 319.721 762.442 306.356 883.492 17.313
1992 902.306 18,268.03 311.342 17,878.01 280.933 313.19 814.18 320.022 902.332 17.518
1993 948.831 19,222.79 298.125 17,212.23 274.651 304.593 874.12 340.173 921.261 17.696
1994 1,008.38 20,399.15 331.659 19,410.91 311.813 347.146 948.036 364.82 940.162 17.884
1995 1,083.01 21,281.14 369.115 20,506.46 353.964 371.247 1,038.55 385.272 958.953 18.104
1996 1,164.32 22,322.70 373.159 22,747.50 364.802 417.176 1,138.24 409.385 977.605 18.339
1997 1,215.36 23,341.71 409.864 22,544.38 408.27 418.048 1,210.63 432.833 996.111 18.543
1998 1,278.75 24,531.22 405.677 19,904.41 411.546 373.029 1,297.25 459.74 1,014.47 18.741
1999 1,362.52 25,684.95 425.531 21,205.27 439.433 401.998 1,407.03 486.922 1,032.67 18.957
2000 1,446.19 26,819.04 439.617 20,323.74 461.913 389.956 1,519.53 514.582 1,050.72 19.187
2001 1,512.68 27,664.29 442.68 18,931.60 473.044 368.123 1,616.43 537.929 1,068.59 19.445
2002 1,583.01 28,987.01 455.683 20,976.78 495.008 412.914 1,719.62 570.59 1,086.30 19.684
295
2003 1,699.97 30,110.81 519.223 26,484.89 573.153 527.76 1,876.54 600.013 1,103.87 19.927
2004 1,869.27 31,562.18 596.971 31,769.26 669.407 640.573 2,096.09 636.398 1,121.34 20.163
2005 2,070.52 32,910.11 688.701 34,900.74 784.252 713.262 2,357.79 672.58 1,138.74 20.437
2006 2,311.85 34,424.24 756.678 36,413.36 874.771 755.21 2,672.66 713.956 1,156.07 20.74
2007 2,556.64 36,214.86 939.524 43,199.04 1,102.35 909.743 2,999.73 762.661 1,173.31 21.059
2008 2,762.27 37,298.73 1,016.16 47,400.43 1,209.69 1,010.70 3,288.35 795.305 1,190.45 21.323
2009 2,872.97 36,642.23 981.984 34,974.43 1,185.73 755.066 3,469.06 791.073 1,207.48 21.589
2010 3,005.25 36,583.39 1,007.89 34,048.51 1,234.04 744.265 3,679.58 799.675 1,224.38 21.859
2011 3,187.27 37,039.90 1,066.14 34,138.59 1,323.24 755.562 3,955.87 819.774 1,241.15 22.132
2012 3,433.49 38,175.81 1,145.78 34,816.25 1,441.12 780.192 4,318.52 855.476 1,257.76 22.409
2013 3,729.55 39,559.12 1,241.55 35,550.60 1,582.12 806.606 4,752.61 897.555 1,274.31 22.689
2014 4,056.08 41,060.04 1,347.70 37,118.39 1,739.98 852.705 5,236.71 943.255 1,291.08 22.973
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009
PPPPC: Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP (Current International Dollars)
NGDPDPC: Gross domestic product per capita, current prices (U.S. Dollars)
NGDPD: Gross domestic product, current prices (USD Billions)
PPPGDP: Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (Current International Dollars
Billions)
LP: Population (Millions)
296
Figure A. Per capita GDP (PPP) for India and Australia
Per Capita GDP
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
Year
Cu
rren
t In
tern
ati
on
al
Do
llar
PPPPC - India
PPPPC - Australia
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009
Note: PPPPC is Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP (Current International Dollars)
297
Figure B. Per capita GDP (current prices) for India and Australia
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Year
US
D NGDPDPC - India
NGDPDPC - Australia
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009
Note: NGDPDPC is Gross domestic product per capita, current prices (U.S. Dollars)
298
Figure C: Population for India and Australia
Population
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
Year
Mil
lio
n p
ers
on
s
Pop - India
Pop - Australia
Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009
299
Appendix IV
Water Drawn from Different Sources for Hyderabad
(1981-2005) (ML/day)
Mon/Yr
Kris
hna
Osman
Sagar
Himayath
Sagar
Man jira Supply
Ph I Ph II Ph III Ph IV Total
Dec-81 0 113.49 90.79 68.09 0 0 45.40 317.78
Jan-83 0 113.49 90.79 72.63 90.79 0 0 367.72
Jan-85 0 113.49 99.87 72.63 122.57 0 0 408.57
Dec-87 0 45.40 36.31 68.09 0 0 0 149.81
Feb-88 0 9.08 36.31 68.09 77.17 0 0 190.67
Sep-88 0 36.32 45.39 68.09 81.71 0 0 231.52
Sep-91 0 127.12 99.87 68.09 113.49 0 0 408.57
Sep-92 0 113.49 90.79 68.09 136.19 90.79 0 499.37
Apr-93 0 54.47 72.63 68.09 136.19 90.79 0 422.19
Apr-94 0 4.54 13.62 68.09 136.19 108.95 0 331.40
Jan-95 0 22.70 9.08 68.09 136.19 113.49 68.09 417.65
Sep-95 0 22.70 9.08 68.09 113.49 90.79 68.09 372.26
Oct-97 0 68.10 113.49 68.09 136.19 136.19 136.19 658.26
May-98 0 90.79 22.69 0 0 0 317.78 431.27
Aug-98 0 90.79 22.69 0 0 0 385.87 499.37
Sep-98 0 113.49 68.09 0 0 0 408.57 590.16
Dec-99 0 113.49 68.09 68.10 136.19 136.19 136.19 658.26
Apr-02 0 113.49 68.09 68.10 136.19 163.42 163.42 712.73
Apr-02 0 113.49 68.09 68.10 136.19 154.34 154.34 694.57
Jan-03 0 77.17 77.17 68.10 136.19 154.34 154.34 667.34
Jan-03 0 122.57 81.71 68.10 136.19 163.42 163.42 735.43
Feb-03 0 0 54.47 68.10 136.19 154.34 154.34 567.46
Feb-03 0 54.48 54.47 68.10 136.19 154.34 154.34 621.94
Apr-03 0 0 63.55 68.10 136.19 149.81 149.81 567.46
Jun-03 0 0 63.55 68.10 136.19 158.88 158.88 585.62
Aug-03 0 0 0 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 544.76
Jan-04 0 40.86 40.85 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 626.48
Apr-04 0 59.02 59.01 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 662.80
May-04 102.14 86.26 63.55 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 796.72
Nov-04 181.59 45.40 0 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 771.75
Nov-04 153.21 77.17 63.55 68.10 136.19 170.23 170.23 838.71
Jan-05 249.68 36.31 0 0 0 0 453.97 739.97
Feb-05 263.30 40.85 0 68.10 136.19 124.84 170.23 803.53
Mar-05 299.62 40.85 0 68.10 136.19 136.19 136.19 817.15
Mar-05 263.30 40.85 0 68.10 113.49 124.84 170.23 780.83
May-05 372.25 36.31 0 68.10 90.79 136.19 136.19 839.84
Jun-05 408.57 0 0 0 0 0 431.27 839.84
Jul-05 417.65 0 0 0 0 0 385.87 803.53
Jul-05 417.65 0 0 0 0 0 363.17 780.83
Aug-05 417.65 0 0 0 0 0 422.19 839.84
Source: Source: http://www.hyderabadwater.gov.in/wworks/UI/soruce_info.aspx llllllllllllllllllllllll
300
Appendix V
Quality of Water in River Musi
Table A. Results of monthly water samples collected from Nov 2005 to July 2006
Sample locations Mean Total
nitrogen
mg/L
Mean
BOD
mg/L
Mean EC
µs/Cm Mean
DO
mg/L
A (Amberpet) 35.78 151.55 1367 0.122
B (Peerzadiguda) 32.9 98.22 1636 0.162
BC (between B &
Gowrelli) 34.35 62.55 1636 0.318
D (Pillaipally) 30.97 40.55 1705 2.9
E (Battugudam) 18.325 27 1753 3.722
Source: Dr Robert Simmons & team (IWMI) as part of a BMZ project & reproduced here with
permission.
Table B. Quality of the water in river Musi at various points along the river as it
passes through Hyderabad. 2001 Location Parameters
pH DO TSS TDS BOD COD Oil &
Grease
Coli*
Nagole Bridge 6.90 Nil 105 1102 112 219 6.9 2.9
Musoorambagh 6.86 Nil 203 962 97 156 7.10 3.1
Chadarghat Br 6.80 Nil 213 930 105 187 6.8 2.8
Imliban Station 6.74 Nil 220 970 74 143 7.2 4.00
Puranapul 7.20 0.8 172 808 86 174 6.7 2.70
Attapur Bridgel 7.22 2.0 68 740 65 139 6.5 1.80
Bapughat 7.42 2.1 76 620 46 87 3.92 1.60
Nagole Bridge 6.96 Nil 172 1080 124 246 5.16 3.5
Musoorambagh 6.72 Nil 192 970 78 132 7.3 3.20
Chadarghat Br 6.80 Nil 192 944 94 143 7.2 4.20
Imliban Station 6.84 Nil 178 908 83 136 8.1 4.00
Puranapul 7.18 0.7 109 818 78 153 6.8 2.40
Attapur Bridgel 7.20 1.3 67 762 45 109 6.4 3.10
Bapughat Sangam 7.36 1.7 72 820 41 98 5.4 2.90
Nagole Bridge 6.96 Nil 172 1077 98 176 5.7 2.8
Musoorambagh 6.80 Nil 187 928 112 218 7.4 3.1
Chadarghat Bridge 6.92 Nil 169 910 82 134 6.88 3.8
Imliban Station 6.96 Nil 190 942 67 118 8.00 3.4
Puranapul 7.24 0.6 80 821 74 164 4.72 2.7
Attapur Bridgel 7.01 0.8 60 770 90 172 3.78 2.1
Bapughat 7.42 0.7 72 793 38 79 4.12 2.3
*Feacal coliforms (100ml x10 5 )
Samples tested: November 2001.
Note: (Composite Samples (1-14) Grab Samples (15-21))
Source: Project report prepared by MWH India Private Limited on the Musi River Conservation
Project. Volume 1, January 2002
301
Table C. Quality of the water in river Musi along the river as it passes through
Hyderabad ((mg/l)) Location TK
N
Free
Ammonia
NH3
Dissolved
Phosphate
Sul
pha
tes
Percent
Sodium
(Mg, Na,
K)
Chlorides
Sulph
ides
Nagole Bridge 14 7 8.20 145 86.40 160 0.20
Moosarambagh 13 8 9.00 128 87.20 175 0.20
Chadarghat Br 12 6 7.52 118 88.10 128 0.30
Imliban Station 11 6 6.88 92 84.40 135 0.20
Puranapul 12 7 6.70 109 85.10 140 0.20
Attapur Bridgel 13 8 6.42 112 86.10 90 0.20
Bapughat 10 4 3.98 87 84.10 90 0.20
Nagole Bridge 11 7 7.80 142 86.50 160 0.20
Musoorambagh 14 8 8.78 108 84.80 175 0.20
Chadarghat Bridg 12 7 6.90 112 86.40 140 0.20
Imliban Station 13 8 7.12 128 85.40 138 0.10
Puranapul 10 6 4.88 76 84.10 130 <0.10
Attapur Bridg 14 7 6.20 130 85.70 100 0.10
Bapughat Sangam 8 3 4.29 81 84.00 115 <0.10
Nagole Bridge 7 4 4.17 72 86.20 105 <0.10
Musoorambagh 8 5 5.82 120 85.40 110 0.1
Chadarghat Bridg 12 6 6.60 118 84.70 120 0.20
Imliban Station 14 7 5.96 119 82.60 125 0.20
Puranapul 13 7 5.68 98 84.20 100 <0.10
Attapur Bridgel 11 8 4.80 121 86.40 120 <0.10
Bapughat 12 6 4.72 118 86.420 120 <0.10
Samples tested: November 2001.
Note: (Composite Samples (1-14) Grab Samples (15-21))
Source: Project report prepared by MWH India Private Limited on the Musi River Conservation
Project. Volume 1, January 2002
302
Appendix VI
Administrative Structure and Financial Health of
HMWSSB
Figure A. Organizational chart of HMWSSB
Managing Director
Director
(Technical)
Director
(Projects)
Director
(Finance)
Director
(Personnel)
Chief General Manager
General Manager
Deputy General Manager
Manager Water Supply
& Sewerage (O&M)
Consumer
Functional Interaction
DIVISION
SUB DIVISION
SECTION
303
Table A. The composition of the board members of HMWSSB
The Board
Hon`ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chairman
Hon`ble Minister for Municipal Administration & Urban
development Vice Chairman
Chairman A.P Pollution Control Board Ex-Officio Director
Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Govt. of A.P Ex-Officio Director
Principal Secretary, Municipal Admin & Urban Devt Govt. of A.P Ex-Officio Director
Secretary Finance (IF) Govt. of A.P Ex-Officio Director
Special Officer & Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad Ex-Officio Director
Director, Health, Govt. of A.P Ex-Officio Director
Director (Technical ), HMWSSB Director
Director (Finance), HMWSSB Director
Managing Director, HMWSSB Managing Director
Functional duties and responsibilities of the each Director are:
Executive Director: He is supervisory Officer for O&M Circle-I and for
implementation of works and distribution of water supply in the Old City area and
streamlining water supply situation, Revenue Collection etc. Besides, he is also
supervisory officer for Water Quality Management, Revenue Monitoring, quality,
Control Works, Vigilance, Estate Management and Legal cases.
Director (Technical): He is in-charge of the works related to proper distribution of
water supply and maintenance of water supply and sewerage infrastructure of the
entire distribution system for entire twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad
including surrounding municipalities.
Engineer-in-Chief & Director (Projects): He is incharge for the complete
execution, testing and commissioning of Krishna Drinking Water Supply Project,
NRCP works, Mega city Project. In addition to above he is also incharge for the
preparatory work for Godavari project, Nakkawagu Projects for water swapping and
for planning future projects. In order to execute these works, he is assisted by two
Chief General Managers (E) and (4) General Managers (E) and Dy. General
Managers (E).
Director (Personnel & Works): He is in-charge of all the administrative matters
relating to all the officers and staff of entire Board which includes providing security
personnel, Plantation cell staff, Police personnel and providing Medical aid to all the
officers and staff through Board dispensary. In addition to the regular functions of
administration he is in-charge for imparting training to the officers and Staff through
staff training college established and running under the control of Principal. Besides
304
he is also in-charge to counter the remarks and criticism made through the press by
way of issuing rejoinders with the assistance of Public Relation Officer, replies to
Government on LAQ setc.. He is also in-charge to negotiate and finalise the demands
made by the recognized union from time to time. In order to discharge these
functions successfully he is assisted by the General Manager (P&A) with (3) Dy.
General Managers (P&A) and subordinate staff. Besides he is also incharge for the
works under Sewerage Master Plan, Co-ordination with the MCH for road-
restoration, Metro Customer Care and Single Window Cell.
Table B. Revenues and expenditures, HMWSSB (31 March 2006)
Income (Rs. 00,000s) Expenditures (Rs.
00,000s)
Water charges 19644 Operations 21837
Sewerage charges 3465 Staff 8500
New connection
charges
5434 Administration 2115
Interest - Depreciation 3129
Other income 241 Finance charges 3987
Total 28784 Total 39569
Less: Expenses
capitalized
1106
Less: GOAP grants 6010
Total 32452
Net worth
Contributions from GOAP:
Toward net value of assets 14,439.92
In cash by way of grants-in-aid 12,2227
Toward improvement reserve 3.13
Less: (Expenditures-Income) (2296)
Total 134964
Breakdown:
Fixed assets 167482
Investments (Shares of AP Gas Power Corp) 2610
Cash, debts owed 196257
Liabilities (Loans from GoAP, LIC, HUDCO, other Banks and Bonds for
Krishna Project)
(61293)
Source: HMWSSB. 2007
305
Appendix VII
Citizens Charter of HMWSSB
The aim and purpose of this charter of HMWSSB is to confirm publicly, the service
assurance given to the customers, who pay their bills regularly, for water and
sanitation services from the Board; to confirm the standards that the Board has set for
itself, with regard to providing services to its customers; and to state the customers‘
obligations. This Charter is not a legal document for enforcement against neither the
Board nor the customers.
This Charter comes into effect from January 26, 2000.
The HMWSSB provides the following services to its customers.
a) Supply of potable drinking water.
b) Sewage collection and disposal.
Release of new water supply and sewerage connection
The Deputy General Manager, Single Window Cell, HMWSSB, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad, 500004 exclusively deals with sanction of new connections. The
application form will cost a nominal fee of Rs.10.00 available at all Cash Collection
Counters and at Single Window Cell (SWC). The filled in application forms will be
accepted only at the Board office During office hours on all working days after
preliminary scrutiny at SWC by issuing a receipt on the spot by SWC. A process fee
will be collected for applications of domestic and non-domestic categories.
Sanction
The Board (SWC) will take a minimum of 15 working days and a maximum of 30
working days to sanction or reject the application, from the date of receipt. The
Board will communicate sanction or rejection within 15 working days thereafter.
Customer can contact SWC at Head Office of the Board at Khairatabad, any time
(during working hours) after expiry of 30 working days. In the event of failure to
issue sanction order or a formal rejection letter after 30 working days and on
personal visit of the customer to the Single Window Cell (SWC) will pay an amount
of Rs. 20 /- (Rupees twenty only) as a token of its commitment to the customer.
Customer will be given a fresh date (not more than 15 days hence) and if the
customer dos not get any response on his subsequent visit to the SWC, he/she will
again be paid Rs. 20/ - and the Managing Director/ Director Technical, of the Board
will personally meet such customers to explain the reasons for delay. If the stated
amount is not deposited within 30 days of sanction order, the order becomes invalid.
A fresh application will be made for process and the process fee paid earlier will be
forfeited.
306
Payment of Fees
All payments will be accepted at SWC of Board‘s Head Office, Khairatabad on all
working days during office hours by Demand Draft / Cheque / Cash in Board‘s
Khairatabad Bank Account or Board Office (SWC) in full only and no installments
will be allowed. Acknowledged and receipts will be issued at the SWC.
Release of water supply connection
Individual water supply connection will be released within 30 (thirty) working days
from the date of payment of connection fee in full. The connection fee includes
boring, tapping of distribution main, supply and laying of necessary pipe including
supply and fixing of meter chamber, gate valve, prescribed water meter etc. The
Board is responsible for obtaining the MCH road cutting permission, including all
civil works connected with the laying of service connection up to customers premises
including fixing water meter. The customers are requested not to pay or engage any
plumber / contractor for the aforesaid work. The customers are advised to have a
sump of adequate capacity close to meter. The meter chamber shall be located only
within 2 meters from the boundary, inside the premises. All the materials required
like communication pipes, compression fittings, gate valve, meter and meter chamber
for giving service connection from the tapping point up to the customer premises
including the meter will be supplied by the Board. The customers should not engage
the services of any employee of the Board for taking the connection.
Release of sewerage connection
The customer shall construct sewer manhole with silt catch pit within the premises
before the Board gives the sewerage connection. The Board shall connect sewer line
from internal sewer manhole of the customer‘s premises to the main sewer line.
Water supply
Quantity : Assures a minimum of 250 litres/connection/day.
Quality: Assures to provide potable water.
Residual Chlorine to be maintained in the water supplied
Minimum --- 0.25 ppm
Maximum --- 1.00 ppm
Timing: Adhere to the notified timings. Any change will be informed in advance.
Planned interruptions will be informed within 24 hours of advance notice. Any
unplanned delay will be informed at least 2 hours in advance.
Duration of Supply: Assured one-hour minimum supply on a supply day.
307
Contingency Plan: In case of disruption in regular piped water supply, Contingency
Plan will be implemented as per the area in which the supplies are disturbed. Details
can be perused at the concerned Section Office of the Board.
Billing services
First bill will be issued within a maximum of three months after the release of
connection. All subsequent/regular bills shall be issued presently on a bi-monthly
basis for domestic category and on monthly basis for all other categories. Payment of
water and sewerage cess in cash, Cheque and Demand Drafts, will be accepted at any
of the e-Seva centres and at the designated Cash Collection Counters of the Board.
Receipts will be issued for all payments at the Cash Collection Counters.
Disconnection of water supply and sewerage connection will be carried out with a
notice of 7 days after the due date.
Complaints
The categories of complaints include no water supply, leakage in distribution main
and service connection, suspected water pollution, low pressure, chockages, missing
manhole cover, sewage overflows, repairing or replacement of meters, dispute on
bills, change in category of consumption etc. Under the Citizen‘s Charter, minimum
and maximum time have been fixed in terms of days for attending to all the above
such categories of complaints from the time of receipt and the same is as follows:
Customer service standards of HMWSSB
Nature of complaint Redressal time (days)
Standard Maximum
Water Supply
No water for x days 3* 4
Low water pressure 3* 4
Polluted water supply 3* 4
Water leakage 2 3
Erratic timings of water supply 2 3
Change in category of consumption 7 10
Change of line requested 7 5
Sewerage
Sewerage overflow on the road 2 3
Chokage at the customer premises 0.3 1
Replacement of missing manhole cover 1 2
Private septic tank cleaning 7 15
Metering and Billing
Excess bill and verification 7 10
Non-receipt of water bill 7 10
Cleaning and Maintenance of meters 7 10
Domestic meter repairs and replacement 7 15
Meter repairs other than domestic 1.5 7
Request services
Tanker requested for additional supply in Board‘s supply area 1 2
Others (Complaints relating to borewells, PSPs, illegal connections) 1 7
* Customer will be supplied with 250 lits per connection per day if the supply is not restored in two
consecutive supply days. Source: HMWSSB Citizen‘s Charter
308
However, the customer will be supplied 250 liters per connection per day if the
supply is not restored in 2 consecutive supply days. The Board only will give
customers who do not have any arrears this facility. This facility is only for
complaints registered with 1916. The tankers will be arranged up to the nearest
accessible place and from there the customer has to take the water.
Metro Customer Care: All complaints of the customers shall be registered through
MCC Ph: 1916 only round-the-clock.
Communication: The board will adopt such channels of communication as are faster
to inform the customers in shorter time.
Courtesy and Helpfulness
All employees of HMWSSB are committed to customer service. The following
officers may be contacted in case of necessity.
Chief General Manager (E), O&M Circle I, Goshamahal. 24608988
General Manager (E), O&M Division I, Goshamahal. 24601331
General Manager (E), O&M Division II, Goshamahal. 24603184
General Manager (E), O&M Division III, Goshamahal. 24602274
Chief General Manager (E), O&M Circle III, Goshamahal. 24744647
General Manager (E), O&M Division IV, RedHills. 23391646
General Manager (E), O&M Division V, Narayanaguda. 55519001
General Manager (E), O&M Division X, Amberpet. 27408918
Chief General Manager (E), O&M Circle II, S. R. Nagar. 23714963
General Manager (E), O&M Divn VI, S. R. Nagar. 23701222
General Manager (E), O&M Divn VII, Marredpally. 27801318
General Manager (E), O&M Divn IX,Control Room. 27903730
Customers’ obligations
Customers should pay water bills promptly.
Customers should protect and maintain water meter in good condition. Tampering of
water meter is an offence punishable under HMWSSB Act.
Customers should not use any Booster Pumps to draw more water. It causes serious
inconvenience to others. It is a serious offence.
309
Customers may inform the Metro Customer Care on phone 1916 about any illegal
installation of pumps by others.
Customers may inform the MCC on phone 1916 about any illegal connections.
Customers may inform the MCC on phone 1916, if any sewer line chokage or water
leakage is noticed on the roads.
Customers should educate all their family members not to throw domestic waste in
their toilets. This will choke sewer lines.
Customers should advise the public not to dump building materials like sand, stone
etc., near sewer manholes, which may enter sewer line and cause chockage.
Customers should not open sewer manhole covers to let off the rainwater, as this will
choke the sewer lines, which are not designed to carry rainwater.
Customer should insist, on any HMWSSB employee, visiting his premises, to show
his identity card so as to avoid cheating.
Customers to avoid pit taps, as they are a major source of pollution.
Customers should conserve water, as it is a precious resource. They must use taps
and other appliances that minimize wastage and lead to saving of water at every
point of consumption.
Customer is expected to make necessary arrangements for rooftop collection of
rainwater. Assistance can be had from Ground Water Department and HMWSSB.
Customer, as the ultimate beneficiary of all public assets, must bestow personal
interest in protecting and promoting their use. Any wilful misuse must evoke
customer‘s concern prompting action.
Suggestions
We invite your suggestions for improving our service to customers. Please send them
to CGM, MCC, Progressive Towers, 6th
Floor, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 500004.
Glossary
Citizen : A person who resides in Hyderabad Metropolitan Areas as defined in the
HMWSSB Act 15 of 1989 (Section 2(f))
Charter: A document of Assurance.
Citizen‘s Charter: A document of Service Assurance given to the customer by the
service provider.
310
Citizen‘s Charter of HMWSSB: The Citizen‘s charter introduced by HMWSSB on
26-01-2000 subject to alteration, as and when effected.
Board: The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board constituted
under Section 3 of the Act 15 of 1989.
Customer : A Resident/Welfare Association/Society/Organization receiving water
supply & sewerage facilities from HMWSSB Board and who has proof of paying for
the same.
Regular Customer: A customer of HMWSS Board who has not more than 2
consecutive bills in arrears.
Stated Amount means the amount indicated in the sanction order of connection for
Water Supply or Sewerage or both or any other charges for services provided.
311
Appendix VIII
Projects of HMWSSB
Table A. Projects on hand for HMWSSB (as in July 2008)
Sl.
No. Name of the Project
Cost
(Rs. in
Crores)
STATUS
A Water Sector
1 Pipeline Project from Sahebnagar to Prashasan
Nagar
94.93 98%
completed
2 Pipeline Project from L.B.Nagar to Marredpally 81.20 65%
completed
3 Building Additional Storage Reservoirs on North of
Musi – 50.5 ML at 7 locations
29.81 20%
completed
4 Building Additional Storage Reservoirs on South of
Musi – 49.50 ML at 7 locations
33.55 15%
completed
5 Providing flow & level measures and SCADA
System for all reservoirs and bulk supply mains in
HMWSSB
9.90 Tender
Stage
6 Krishna Drinking Water Supply Project Phase-II* 817.62 85%
completed
Sub-Total 1067.01
B Sewer Sector:
7 Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Sewerage
System in Old City area on South of Musi (in Zone –
1 in catchments S1 to S6, S12 and S14)
148.81 Tender
Stage
8 Rehabilitation and Strengthening of Sewerage
System in Old City area on South of Musi (in Zone –
2 in catchments S7 to S11, S13 and S15)
250.00 DPR
approved
on 17-8-
07 by GoI
Sub-Total 398.81
TOTAL 1465.82
312
Table B. Projects on Hand for HMWSSB other than JNNURM as in July 2008.
Sl.
No. Name of the Project
Cost
(INR in
Millions)
Status
1 Abatement of Pollution of River Musi at
Hyderabad under NRCP* Assistance (NRCD
Project)
3390.8 63%
completed
2 Strengthening and Improvement for the Sewerage
System in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad
Area
1500.0 68%
completed
TOTAL 4890.80
*National River Conservation Directorate
Table C. Projects in pipeline for HMWSSB under JNNURM (2007-08):
Sl.
No. Name of the Project Sector
Cost
(Rs. 000,000)
Present
Status
1 Providing inlet & outlet mains to the
proposed additional storage water
reservoirs for distribution of water in the
identified zones of North & South of
Musi river under MCH limits
Water
Supply
1300.00
DPRs
Under
appraisal
with
JNNURM,
GoI
2 Comprehensive Energy Audit for
Pumping Stations under distribution
network of HMWSSB
Water
Supply
330.00
3 Implementation of Sewerage Master Plan
in Serilingampally Municipality
Sewerage 2000.00
4 Laying of Trunk Mains from Master
Balancing Reservoir to Service
Reservoirs (Augmentation of
Transmission Network Supplying Water
to Primary Service Reservoirs)
Water
Supply
1780.00
DPR under
submission
to
JNNURM,
GoI 5 Rehabilitation And Strengthening
(upsizing) of Sewerage System in Zone-
IV on North of Musi in MCH Area
Sewerage 250.00
TOTAL 791.00
313
Appendix IX
Discussion quoted from the paper on HMWSSB by
Davis and Tanka. 2005
A review of the Board‘s balance sheets suggests that the HMWSSB is making slow
progress toward financial self-sufficiency. In 2001, user fees and new connection
charges combined did not cover even operations and maintenance (O&M) and staff
costs. In fact, between 1989 and 2002 tariffs were only raised twice, by 17 per cent in
1993 and by 25 per cent in 1997. During this same period, however, inflation in India
averaged 8.5 per cent per annum. In early 2002, the Board finally won approval for a
sizeable (64 per cent) increase in tariffs. User fees are now expected to cover O&M
costs, but not depreciation, system rehabilitation or new investments. Each year the
government of Andhra Pradesh provides support in terms of grants-in-aid to the
Board. For accounting purposes, these grants are treated as contributions either to the
HMWSSB‘s capital base or to operating expenses. The Board has also recently re-
structured its tariffs for water and sewerage service. Differential pricing for
industrial, commercial, and residential customers has been eliminated. Instead, an
increasing block tariff is designed to allow cross-subsidy of domestic customers by
commercial and industrial enterprises that use larger volumes of water. It is unclear
how these tariff revisions will affect the relative burden of cost-recovery among
different user groups. Historically, domestic customers have used more than 60 per
cent of the water provided by the Board, but generated only about 30 per cent of the
Board‘s revenues.
Tariffs have been kept low in response to pressure from elected officials who view
water as a social good that should be provided at low or no cost to residents,
particularly the poor. In reality, it is low tariffs that restrict the Board‘s ability to
expand its infrastructure to low-income settlements where poor residents live.
Middle- and upper-class households with individual piped water connections benefit
from this subsidized service, while poor households are often forced to rely on public
stand-posts or on water vendors. Another reason that the Managing Director‘s
requests for tariff increases have been rejected by the Chief Minister and the Board
of Directors—despite strong World Bank support for tariff reform—is the high level
of unaccounted for water in Hyderabad‘s system. Estimates range from 40-55 per
cent of supply, with roughly 40 per cent thought to be physical losses and 60 per cent
administrative losses. Before many political officials will support tariff increases and
investments in new supply, they insist that the Board improve the management of the
resources they already control. ―If they reduce the level of non-revenue water, they
will automatically get a substantial increase in their revenues,‖ notes one member of
the Board of Directors who has repeatedly opposed water tariff increases. ―The
customer should not have to pay for the HMWSSB‘s inefficiency.‖ A former
Managing Director noted, however, that the infrastructure the Board inherited from
the Public Health Engineering Department in 1989 was in poor condition, especially
in the older parts of the city. Rehabilitating the network such that a substantial
reduction in unaccounted for water is achieved will require a sizeable investment.
314
Further, Hyderabad‘s politicians obstruct efforts to dismantle illegal connections and
to disconnect households who have not paid their water bills. Board staff who
attempt to enforce such penalties often find themselves transferred to a ―penalty
post‖ in an undesirable department. In some cases, local leaders have even organized
residents to confront and threaten Board staff attempting to enforce disconnection
rules. Given the Board‘s difficulty both in setting reasonable tariffs and enforcing
payment from users, it is not surprising that its service levels have been declining
over the past several years.
315
Appendix X
Role of Organisations in wastewater management of
Hyderabad
1. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (appcb.ap.nic.in/aboutus/vision.htm)
The Andhra Pradesh State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution
was constituted in January 1976, after the State Legislature adopted the Water Act.
The Board was later entrusted with additional responsibility of the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, (1981), and changed its name to the APPCB. The key
activities of APPCB are to:
make, vary or revoke any order for the prevention, control or abatement of
discharges of waste into streams or wells;
plan a comprehensive program for the prevention, control or abatement of
pollution of streams and wells in the State;
advise the State Government on any matter concerning water pollution;
disseminate information relating to water pollution;
inspect sewage or trade effluents, works and plants for the treatment of sewage
and trade effluents and to review plans;
lay down, modify or annul effluent standards for the sewage and trade effluents
and for the quality of receiving waters;
evolve methods of utilization of sewage and suitable trade effluents in
agriculture; and
lay down standards of treatment of sewage and trade effluents to be discharged
into any particular stream taking into account the minimum fair weather dilution
available in that stream and the tolerance limits of pollution permissible in the
water of the stream, after the discharge of such effluents.
2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (http://www.ghmc.gov.in/)
The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was a local body established under
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (1955). However, on 16 April 2007, Andhra
Pradesh State Government issued a notification to merge the 12 municipalities
surrounding Hyderabad with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The new 625
km2 metropolis is called the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC),
which will have a population of 6.7 million (The Hindu. 5th
April 2007b). The key
functions of the GHMC which are relevant for the current study are:
Approving the building plans, subdivision of plots and regularization of the
structures within its jurisdiction.
Collection of the property tax from all the properties in its jurisdiction. Annual
property tax is calculated as 3.5 X Total Plinth Area in Sq ft X monthly rental
value per Sq ft in INR
316
Carry out engineering works in the various localities of Hyderabad and
Secunderabad for the betterment of facilities and quality of life of the citizens.
The Engineering works may involve construction of roads, under drains and
sewerage drains.
3. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (http://www.hudahyd.org/)
The metropolitan area of Hyderabad was notified under the Andhra Pradesh Urban
(Dev.) Act (1975) and termed as "Development Area". In order to plan for this
composite area, the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 2nd October 1975, formed
the "Hyderabad Urban Development Authority" (HUDA). HUDA's jurisdiction
extends over an area of 1348 km2 covering the entire district of Hyderabad and parts
of Ranga Reddy and Medak destricts. It includes 173 km2 under Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation area. Its key functions are - preparation and revision of
Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans; to regulate and control the development
through statutory plans and other measures; to undertake various developmental
projects; and to coordinate with other public agencies concerned with provisions of
urban infrastructure, services and amenities. HUDA has prepared two master plans
and 20 Zonal Development plans for this area of which one master plan and 18 Zonal
Development plans are already notified by law and in force. The Organization has a
well equipped multi-functional group representing various branches of urban
planning and development. HUDA's fund include its own revenues viz.,
Development charges, processing fees, sale receipts on disposal of developed plots
and built up houses, rents, etc, besides the annual grants and special grants for
specific purposes from the state and central Governments, loans, debentures, etc. The
Accountant General of Andhra Pradesh State has been the Auditing Authority of the
Annual Accounts of HUDA and the accounts of the Authority are upto date. Under
the Green Hyderabad Environment Programme aided by Government of
Netherlands, HUDA identified some of the key polluted lakes in the city and restored
them through construction of sewerage treatment plants (STP). Also, under the Save
Musi Project, HUDA plays a key role and in future can play an important role in the
maintenance of the Sewage Treatment Plants along the Musi river.
4. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC)
(www.apiicltd.com)
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) was
incorporated on 26th September, 1973 with Authorised Capital of INR 200 million
and paid up capital of Rs.163.3 million. APIIC is a wholly owned Undertaking of
Government of Andhra Pradesh. It has so far acquired 32,932 acres of land spread
over 270 Industrial Areas., Autonagars, Commercial Complexes, Housing
Complexes etc. With the advent of economic liberalization the Corporation has
reoriented itself to the changing needs of economy and assumed the role of
facilitator. To its credit the Corporation has developed Hi-Tech city with a private
promoter. The Corporation has to its credit the execution of civil works for various
Government Departments. The Corporation is the Nodal Agency for Government
Sponsored scheme like Growth Centres, Export Promotion Industrial Parks,
Integrated Infrastructure Development Centres. The Industrial Areas are equipped
317
with approved layouts, internal roads, water supply and power supply. The
Corporation has also encouraged setting up Common Effluent Treatment Plants at
Jeedimetla and Patancheru and also Total Solid Disposal Facility near Jeedimetla.
5. International Water Management Institute (http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/)
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is one of the CGIAR research
institutes which undertake research on various water related issues in the developing
countries. IWMI has significant research accomplishments on the risks and benefits
of wastewater irrigation in Hyderabad and other developing countries and continues
to explore the rural-urban interface, and interventions that can help ensure the safe
and productive use of wastewater and the sustainability of high input peri-urban
systems, which emphasizes on making wastewater, an asset through appropriate
treatment and other management practices. IWMI recommends practical policy and
management options and interventions aimed at health risk mitigation of wastewater
irrigation. It plays a key role in informing and engaging policymakers and health
practitioners of the realities of wastewater irrigation in urban and peri-urban settings
and related health, environment and livelihood implications.
6. Forum for a Better Hyderabad (www.hyderabadgreens.org/)
Forum for a Better Hyderabad was formed under the banner of ―Hyderabad Bachao‖
(Save Hyderabad), when some of the non-government organizations and citizens,
concerned about environmental and developmental issues in and around Hyderabad
city, came together on 24th June 2000. It is an advocacy body for sustainable urban
development which mobilizes public opinion on various urban environmental issues
and brings to the attention of the concerned authorities and makes systematic efforts
to convince the authorities and also approaches the Courts of Law if necessary.
Forum for a Better Hyderabad initiated "Save Musi River Campaign". Forum
organized several awareness programs by involving the concerned government
department and NGOs who have a concern towards the environment. In this regard
Forum submitted representations to the principal secretary MA & UD to the concern
departments for necessary action to save Musi River.
318
Appendix XI
Wastewater Recycling Projects in Melbourne
Other than some small sewage treatment plants, 92 per cent of Melbourne‘s
wastewater is treated in the Western Treatment Plant (52 per cent) and the Eastern
Treatment Plant (40per cent) and most recycling projects are concentrated around
these areas.
1. Water recycling initiatives – Eastern region
The Eastern Treatment Plant began selling recycled water in the 1970s. In 2004/05,
some 35 customers along the plant‘s 56-kilometre outfall pipeline were transferred to
South East Water for retail water services where they bought more than 1,389 ML of
recycled water for use in agriculture, horticulture and vineyards, or to irrigate golf
courses and sporting fields.
Earth Tech, a private company in collaboration with Melbourne Water operates the
Eastern Irrigation Scheme. Earth Tech sources Class C recycled water from the
Eastern Treatment Plant and treats it further to Class A standard. It delivers 5 GL of
class A quality recycled water to the Cranbourne-Five Ways area for the irrigation of
market gardens, golf courses and a racetrack. It also supplies this class A water to
South East Water which retails it to 1850 residential customers in the Sandhurst
development and to two golf courses in Carrum Downs. Table 6.4 presents the
volumes recycled from ETP over the years. It is interesting to see from this Table
that ETP actually plans to reduce its amount of recycled water by 2010, whereas the
recent Parliamentary report recommends that it increase its recycled water Volumes.
Table A. Recycling Volumes at the ETP 2005-06 ML 2006-07 ML 2007-08 ML 2010
Target
Onsite recycling
for process use
14067 13054 13255 13800
Eastern Irrigation
Scheme
5174 8296 6577 5000
South East Outfall 1458 2128 1304 1700
Total 20699 23478 21136 20500
Source: Parliamentary Committee Report. June 2009.
Melbourne Water and South East Water are investigating the potential for major
water recycling schemes for irrigation of the recreational areas in the Sandbelt region
(broadly covers the Bayside and Kingston council zones as well as parts of Monash,
Casey and Greater Dandenong). The proliferation of golf courses, council reserves,
horticultural businesses, residential developments and industrial areas in the region
present potential market for recycled water. Melbourne water in collaboration with
South East Water, EPA Victoria and other key stakeholders is looking for potential
opportunities for new recycled water schemes, especially where the use of recycled
water displaces the use of other water resources in the Frankston and Mornington
Peninsula regions. Target sites include recreational reserves, golf courses, orchards
319
and vineyards in the Moorooduc area, and high-value vegetable crops in the Boneo
irrigation area.
2. Water recycling initiatives – Western region
Melbourne Water upgraded the Western Treatment Plant to produce class A standard
recycled water for distribution to a number of water recycling schemes in the nearby
Werribee region. Melbourne Water is also currently involved in a Salt Reduction
Program with City West Water and other stakeholders, investigating options to
reduce salt in recycled water, including a possible Salt Reduction Plant.
The Western Treatment Plant used 37 GL of Class C recycled water onsite to irrigate
pastures in 2007-08. In January 2005 the Western Treatment Plant began supplying 3
GL of Class A recycled water to the Werribee Irrigation District Project through the
Southern Rural Water to over 100 farmers in the Werribee South area. This volume
increased to 3.5 GL in 2007-08 and there is a target to increase it to 8.5 GL by 2010.
The Werribee Tourist Precinct includes the Werribee Park Golf Club and the
National Equestrian Centre, historic Werribee Mansion, State Rose Garden,
Shadowfax Winery and Victoria‘s Open Range Zoo. It received 340 ML of recycled
water through a 6 km pipeline from the Western Treatment Plant in 2007-08.
Melbourne Water in collaboration with City West Water supplied 190 ML of
recycled water to the Werribee Technology Precinct from the WTP in 2007-08.
Table 6.5 presents a detailed account of the volume and quality of recycled water use
in different sectors.
As part of the future plans to expand recycling in the western region, Melbourne
Water is working with City West Water, other water authorities and Government
departments, to transport recycled water in a dual reticulation scheme to the City of
Wyndham for new residential developments.
Table B. Water recycled from the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee 2007-08 Customers and uses Vol
supplied
(ML)
Class Retailer Contributes
to 20%
target*
On-site salinity management & irrigation of
stock pastures for grazing and crops for
primary production
27840 C n/a No
On-site Conservation: management of
conservation lagoons, biodiversity values of
Ramsar wetlands
15930 C n/a Yes
Off-site standpipe customers: for commercial
businesses and local community
160 A CW W Yes
Off-site MacKillop College: gardens, sports
fields and recreation areas since 2006
30 A CW W Yes
Off-site: Werribee Technology Precinct –
industrial purposes, irrigation and wash
down. The Hopper‘s Crossing pumping
Station uses 100 ML/year to lubricate and
cool eight large pumps (upgraded 2007)
90 A CW W Yes
Off-site: Werribee Tourist Precinct 200 A SRW Yes
Off-site: Werribee Irrigation District – 180
market gardens accounting for 82% of the
area and pasture production accounting for
12520 A SRW Yes
320
15%
Total 56770
*Water recycling in the Yarra Valley Water & South East Water regions also contributes to this target.
Source: Roder, Melbourne Water. 2009.
3. Other water recycling initiatives
Melbourne Water is working with Government, industry and community partners to
develop a range of future opportunities for water recycling schemes in greater
Melbourne. In future at least 1% of the wastewater flows are expected to be used to
irrigate parkland and community recreation areas including Melbourne Zoo, Royal
Park, Princes Park, Melbourne University open space and the Fitzroy Gardens.
Melbourne Water is investigating opportunities for aquifer storage and recovery and,
if appropriate, will use the findings to develop strategies to store recycled water
underground to benefit the environment and/or for future use. The retail water
companies – City West Water, South East Water and Yarra Valley Water have plans
to promote household grey water recycling to save precious potable water. In June
2004, the Victorian Government released Our Water Our Future, a plan that outlines
the Government‘s approach to water resources in Victoria, including recycled water.
It is available at www.dse.vic.gov.au