IMPROVING URBAN WATERWAYS IN EMERGING COUNTRIES: AN ACTION PLAN FOR MADRAS

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONVOL. 35, NO.4 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AUGUST 1999

IMPROVING URBAN WATERWAYS IN EMERGING COUNTRIES:AN ACTION PLAN FOR MADRAS'

Bruce Ferguson and David Horse field2

ABSTRACT: Typically, infrastructure agencies build massive waterprojects to serve expanding populations in emerging country cities,but collect and treat only a fraction of the resulting wastewater.This effluent often overwhelms existing sewerage systems and foulswaterways. Cleaning urban waterways requires large investmentsover long terms and the political will to make and sustain them.This challenge — difficult in advanced countries — becomes dauntingwith the scarce resources and weak institutions typical of emergingcountries. This paper presents a framework to structure such astrategy, and applies it to Madras, India. It consists of three parts:(1) setting a vision through a participatory process; (2) macroinvestments mainly in wastewater treatment that use least-costmethods; and (3) micro investments in small projects that involvelocal people and galvanize public support. The macro investment,$350 million for Madras, appears very large, but averages out to$66 per capita, far below the $1,000-$2,000 typical of advancedcountry cities. Micro pmjects to be undertaken by Non-Governmen-tal Organizations (NGOs) included an independent wastewatermonitoring program, sanitary upgrading of slums along waterwaysbanks, a cattle waste demonstration project, and an industrial pol-lution survey. Together, a macro/micro strategy promises the fund-ing and political will to achieve a balanced vision of waterwaysquality.(KEY TERMS: water quality; decision making; water policy; emerg-ing countries; waste/sewage treatment; urban hydrology; regula-tion.)

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, city dwellers and infrastructure sup-ply agencies have viewed urban waterways as ahighly convenient dump that carries wastes of alltypes out of the area. Cleaning up rivers, lakes,canals, bays, and oceans near cities is a recent con-cern, both in emerging and industrialized countries.Serious environmental actions began to protect urbanwaterways in the United States and other advanced

countries only a little more than four decades ago. Awide range of measures at the local, state, and nation-al level have achieved great progress.

Scarce funding and weak institutions have madecleaning urban waterways in emerging countries amuch tougher challenge. India is an example. India'sconcern began with efforts to clean the Ganges in thelate 1980s. Household wastewater causes most of thepollution of urban rivers in India. Indian cities typi-cally treat little of their sewage. Of India's 3,119towns and cities, a mere eight have full sewage dis-posal and treatment facilities and another 209 havepartial facilities. Even when treatment occurs, it oftenfalls short of official standards. Not surprisingly,international comparisons show that Indian rivershave strikingly high levels of biological oxygendemand (BOD) and coliform counts (Kingsley et al.,,1994), sometimes approaching that of raw sewage.

This paper presents and applies an analytic frame-work for developing an action plan to improve thequality of water bodies in emerging country cities.We then apply this method to Madras, India.

The analysis and action plan reflect the prospectsfor waterways improvement in many emerging coun-try cities. Typically, waterways conditions are poor,and will worsen without strategic action. Infrastruc-ture agencies build massive water projects to serveexpanding populations, but treat only a small fractionof the resulting wastewater, often less than 10 per-cent (Kingsley et al., 1994). Increased flows ofwastewater overwhelm existing sewerage systemsand contaminate local rivers, canals, and lakes.Often, the main organized motivation for waterwaysimprovement comes from environmental NGOs,which operate on small budgets. But effective

'Paper No. 97147 of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until April 1, 2000.2Respectively, Inter-American Development Bank, 1300 New York Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20577; and Independent Consulting Engi-

neer, 13554 North Lakewood Drive, Mequon, Wisconsin 53092 (E-Mail/Ferguson: brucefliadb.org).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 923 JAWRA

Ferguson and Horsefield

solutions for better wastewater collection and treat-ment in large cities require immense investmentsover long terms. In this context, strategic action musttarget a feasible goal (such as removing the stench,and safe boating, rather than swimming), rely on thelowest cost effective methods, occur in stages (over 30or more years), generate the political will necessaryfor this long-term commitment (through micro pro-jects operated by NGOs that involve the public), andstrengthen the infrastructure agency in charge.

ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK

The method consists of developing a vision forwaterways improvement, and a strategy for macroand micro improvements to carry out this vision.Macro improvements are massive investments mainlyin wastewater collection and treatment by infrastruc-ture supply agencies, typically with substantial out-side funding. Micro improvements involve citizens inmany small projects that result in some improvementto waterways and, more importantly, generate theawareness and political will necessary to sustain themassive funding required for macro improvements.This method bears some resemblance to other envi-ronmental assessment methods used in emergingcountries (Leitmann, 1994) in focusing on both techni-cal and political/participatory aspects. However, it issubstantially quicker than many and tailored towaterways quality.

Setting a Vision

Developing a vision depends on the images andhopes that residents hold for their waterways. Muchof the contamination of urban waterways in India hasoccurred only very recently, in the last 20 to 40 years,with massive urbanization. Some local residents, par-ticularly older ones who once swam in these bodies ofwater, may hold a vision of returning these water-ways to their prior condition. However, the greatincrease in the discharge of wastewater and diversionof much of the river water for other uses make thisvision extremely expensive and, often, impractical.Nevertheless, other less ambitious and costly imagesare possible, including water quality sufficient forfishing and boating, and for removing the stench ofwaterways.

The means to a vision requires participation by abroad range of organizations and people. Town meet-ings, workshops, and other public forums are somealternatives.

Macro Projects — Type and Extent of WastewaterTreatment

Municipal wastewater typically contributes 80 to90 percent of pollutant loads to waterways in emerg-ing country cities, including those of India. Hence,urban waterway quality depends mainly on the extentand efficiency of wastewater collection, treatment,and disposal.

Wastewater treatment removes pollutants such asBiological Oxygen Demand (BOD), bacteria, and sus-pended solids through mechanical (often called "pre-liminary" or "primary") and biological (often called"secondary") treatment processes and disinfection.Primary treatment removes grit, floating materials,and settleable suspended solids (SS) through skim-ming, screening, and sedimentation. Secondary treat-ment removes soluble organic substances. Althoughrare in emerging countries, tertiary treatment may berequired to achieve higher BOD and SS levels andremove substances little affected by primary and sec-ondary treatment, including phosphorus, nitrogen,heavy metals and certain chlorinated hydrocarbons.The type, extent, and seasonal flow of wastewatertreatment are key factors and, hence, govern deci-sions in the design of a system.

Type. Two broad categories of treatment exist."Conventional systems" include sedimentation, acti-vated sludge, trickling filters, and rotating biologicalcontactors (Water Environment !ederation, 1992)."Non-conventional systems," including a variety ofland-based or pond systems, are much less used.

Conventional biological treatment systems, partic-ularly activated sludge, have become the systemsused for secondary treatment in most cities inadvanced countries. Such treatment systems canachieve consistently high levels of treatment thatmeet rigorous environmental standards. They needrelatively little land, but highly skilled personnel arerequired for design, construction, and, particularly,operation and maintenance. Activated sludge systemsare energy intensive, and their capital and operationand maintenance costs are high.

The high cost and demanding requirements foroperation and maintenance of conventional biologicaltreatment systems make such systems less suited foremerging country cities. However, no straightforwardlow-cost alternatives exist.

A number of "non-conventional" or natural wastew-ater treatment processes sometimes may prove suit-able for cities in emerging countries depending on thephysical and institutional context. Of these, land-based or pond systems have the lowest costs and are,arguably, the best adapted. Land based systems are

JAWRA 924 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

Improving Urban Waterways in Emerging Countries: An Action Plan for Madras

generally low tech and make use of relatively largeland areas for performing their pollution reductionfunctions. Land-based or pond systems may providean appropriate option where large amounts of landarea are available, electrical energy is in short orerratic supply, and where government has little or noexperience in the operation of Sewage TreatmentPlants (STPs). In contrast, conventional systems con-fine treatment processes to small areas. However, anumber of dangers and drawbacks substantially limitthe use of pond systems. In particular, the large landareas that they require usually preclude this optionfor major cities.

Extent. Treating wastewater to high standards(secondary and, especially, tertiary levels) is anextremely expensive task. For example, the incremen-tal cost to treat wastewater (per kilogram of BODremoved) to tertiary levels (5 to 10 mg\l BOD in theeffluent) is about three times the cost to treat thewastewater to secondary levels (20 to 30 mg\l).

Sewage can also be intercepted and conveyeddownstream of an urban area. Large rivers with rapidflow have a high self-cleaning capacity. Such riverscan absorb and clean considerable untreated sewage.Alternatively, discharging sufficiently downstreamfrom a city can reduce the degree of treatmentrequired.

Also, sewage treatment may or not involve sepa-rate disinfection. Many forms of sewage treatment donot remove substantial amounts of pathogenic bacte-ria and viruses. Separate disinfection by chlorine orsolar radiation greatly reduces these disease-produc-ing organisms.

Cities can intelligently deal with waterways quali-ty by choosing the type and extent of wastewatertreatment. For example, the cost of constructing andoperating a primary treatment plant is about halfthat for an activated sludge plant. A low-income cityon a large river, which describes many Indian urbanagglomerations, might logically choose to give prima-ry treatment to its wastewater, and then convey thetreated sewage downstream for disposal. A fast-grow-ing, major metropolis with small, relatively stagnantbodies of water, might well choose higher levels ofsewage treatment. As we shall see, Madras resemblesthis second case.

Seasonal Flows. Sewage flows differ radically inmany emerging country cities depending on the sea-son. Sewage flows in monsoon season in India (fromJuly to September), for example, may be 50 to 100times those in the dry season. Cities must choose thelevel of sewage flow to be intercepted and size theircollection, treatment, and disposal systems according-ly.

illustrative Model. Figure 1 presents an illustra-tive model of factors critical to the decisions for themacro investments necessary to deal with wastewaterand improve waterway quality. The Y-axis shows dif-ferent possible visions for waterway: bathing, fishingand boating, and removing stench. The X-axis givesdifferent approaches to dealing with sewage includ-ing: (1) intercepting only, without treatment; (2) inter-cepting and treating; and (3) intercepting, treating,and disinfecting. These three approaches can be sizedto dry weather conditions, or to wet-weather condi-tions.

The points on the graph illustrate the relative costsof these different options. (Note: they are not to scaleand do not indicate absolute cost.) For example, thelowest cost strategy is for intercepting only dryweather sewage flows to carry them away fromurbanized areas and thereby remove the stench fromthe waterways. The highest cost strategy includes notonly dry weather flow interception but also the con-veying, storing, and treating of wet-weather flows suf-ficient to achieve water quality for bathing at alltimes of the year. A wide range of options lie betweenthese two extreme strategies.

Micro Projects to Develop Political Will

Sustained and effective environmental improve-ments, worldwide, have required strong public aware-ness and support for two reasons. First, involvinglarge numbers of people in clean-up activities cansometimes result in greatly improved environmentalconditions. Primary garbage collection is one example.Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO s) in somecities in South and Southeast Asia (including Madras)and Latin America have succeeded in organizing localpeople to bag and sort their garbage, and to paymicro-enterprises to pick up this refuse. Second, andmost important, public awareness and involvementcan generate the continuing political climate and com-munity leadership necessary to sustain on-goingmacro investments.

Hence, effective urban waterway improvement pur-sues two tracks. First, macro investments must targetthe major pollutant loads, particularly municipalsewage. Infrastructure agencies, government (nation-al, state, and local), international donors, and nation-al financial institutions and capital markets are thelikely funders and participants in these macroimprovements. Second, micro investments thatinvolve the public, complement the clean-up of macroimprovements, and generate the political will for themacro investments are essential. Box 1 lists typicalmacro and micro investments in a developing countrycontext.



Figure 1. Conceptual Facility Options for Macro-Level Projects.

IMPROVING THE URBANWATERWAYS OF MADRAS

The urban development and institutions of Madrasset the context for a waterways improvement effort.Both the number of people and population densitystress waterway quality. The population of MadrasCity has grown by more than a factor of six in thiscentury, from 553,000 in 1901 to 3,276,000 in 1981and to an estimated 4 million in 1991. The bulk ofthis growth has taken place since 1950. Poverty andlack of sanitation aggravate the pollution problemscaused by population growth. Available evidence indi-cates that about 30 percent of Madras households livein slums, squatter settlements and on pavements, oneof the highest proportions of major metropolitan areasof India. Many of these areas lack proper sanitationfacilities and lie along the waterways. The per-capitaincome in Madras is among the lowest for majormetropolitan cities for both slum and non-slumdwellers.

The quality of urban waterways is closely linked tothe overall water supply of the city. Madras currentlysuffers from an acute water shortage (Srinivasan,1991). Its major source of water is rain-fed reservoirsthat get most of their supply during the September to

December monsoons. These reservoirs yield about 200million liters per day (MLPD). Six well fields thatyield about 120 MLPD supplement these reservoirs.Miscellaneous other sources bring the current totalsafe yield to about 330 MLPD.

Metro Water — the water and sanitation companyof Madras — has focused almost exclusively on supply-ing water for the growing population and economy(Srinivasan, 1991). The water supply for Madras willgreatly expand over the next few years because of theKrishna River Project. Involving two states (TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh), the first phase of thisproject will bring an additional 230 million liters perday of water to the current supply of 330 MLPD bythe year 2011. Two additional phases will bring anextra 230 MLPD each by this date. The total projectwater supply is 1,020 MLPD. Assuming all threephases are implemented, they will greatly relieve thewater shortage, although they will still fall short ofentirely solving the long-term problem.

This increase in water usage should require a sub-stantial investment in the sewage collection andtreatment system of Madras. Roughly 70 percent ofthe projected water supply of 1,020 MLPD ends up aswastewater — that is, 714 MLPD. Using this figure,the current sewage treatment capacity of 183 MLPD


Bathing —

Fishingand —

Boating

No Stink — —

C0(I)>C

EE00

II

C)CU)cC.)C

.

Intercept Intercept intercept,Only and

TreatTreat,

andDisinlect

ConveyOnly

Dry Weather Capacity

ConveyandTreat

Wet Weather Capacity

Convey,Store,

andTreat


is about a quarter of the sewage to be generated in2011. However, little planning and no new contractsappear underway to increase the capacity of thesewage treatment system. Existing treatment plantsfall short of handling the current sewage flows andhave far less capacity than needed to handle theseanticipated flows. In effect, projects dump largeamounts of water into the Madras area largely with-out handling the resulting wastewater. This situationdeserves to be called a "crisis." The Madras Metropoli-tan Water Supply and Sewerage Board ("MetroWater") is at its crux.

Key Institutions

Improvement of the waterways of Madras — as inmost Indian cities — presents some complex manageri-al challenges. Many organizations are involved inprinciple or in fact in influencing water quality in therivers and canals of Madras. The main ones are MetroWater, local government, and an umbrella environ-mental NGO, while others play a more minor role. Ofthese, Metro Water by far has the greatest impact onwaterways quality.

Metro Water. Metro Water has responsibility forthe planning, design, finance, implementation, andoperation and maintenance of the water supply andsewage systems for the Madras Metropolitan area.Formed in 1978, Metro Water is under the adminis-trative control of the Department of MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply of the state ofTamil Nadu. Metro Water is one of the more efficientand entrepreneurial water/sanitation providers inIndia. It also is at the forefront of reforms to improveoperating efficiency in India, particularly privatiza-tion.

Other aspects of Metro Water's operation appearless promising for the quality of urban waterways ofMadras. Foremost is this agency's focus on potablewater, and relative neglect of sanitation. Metro Waterhas also neglected sanitation and waterway quality inits own operations and maintenance. The agency hasallowed many of its 110 pumping station operators todischarge raw sewage directly into waterways, ratherthan pump it to treatment plants. Finally, the costrecovery of Metro Water has declined steadily.

Supporting Metro Water in meeting these chal-lenges represents one of the best means for improvingthe quality of Madras' waterways.

Madras Municipal Corporation. Local govern-ment retains two functions important to urban water-way quality. First, it continues to have responsibilityfor solid waste management. Second, the Municipal

Corporation is supposed to construct and maintainstorm drains.

In general, however, this local government, asmany in India, has seen its revenues and politicallegitimacy as well as its powers and resources erodedespite a recent Act to stimulate decentralization inIndia (Jha, 1993). As is common elsewhere in India,the state government has suspended elections formayor and city council ("corporators") since 1973. Noelections have occurred since 1970. An appointed com-missioner from the Indian Administrative Service hasadministered the Municipal Corporation. These prob-lems have cut the fiscal and political links with localpeople. The Corporation has little incentive to beresponsive. Not surprisingly, its record in solid wastemanagement and construction and maintenance ofstorm water drains is poor.

In this vacuum, the activities of NGOs representthe most important channel of citizen influence ongovernment decisions, including the improvement ofMadras' urban waterways.

Exnora International and WAMP. Exnora Inter-national ("Exnora") is the main environmental NGOin Madras, and has focused on the urban environ-ment. Its activities have gained the organization areputation throughout India. The organization hasgrown dramatically due to its ability to get people toparticipate through a chain of self-help groups(Waterways Monitoring Program, 1994, 1995).

The organization first directed its attention tocleaning up garbage in Madras. Exnora volunteersencourage blocks of households — roughly 100 to 150families — to form "Civic Exnoras." Households thencontribute 10 rupees a month to pay the Rs. 700 wageof a "street beautifier" to pick up their garbage with athree-wheel cart. Civic Exnoras now cover one-thirdof Madras. They have emerged in other areas aroundTamil Nadu, and recently in other states. More than1,000 Civic Exnoras exist.

Exnora has extended its self-help methods to moni-tor and clean up Madras' urban waterways. The Citi-zen's Waterways Monitoring Program (WAMP)started in December 1991 as a coalition of committedindividuals and voluntary organizations with Exnoraat its head. WAMP works with both governmentaland non-governmental polluters that discharge intothe river (Waterways Monitoring Program, 1994,1995). Because of Exnora leadership, WAMP is able tointercede constructively with government leaders,the heads of Metro Water, and the Municipal Corpora-tion. WAMP also works well with the poor. WAMPhas organized the youth of slum areas to conductvisual surveys along the Cooum River, Adyar River,and the Buckingham Canal to produce detailed mapsof pollution sources. Although the project has a visual



monitoring program, WAMP still lacks a systematic,scientific means of measuring river water and effluentquality on a regular, on-going basis.

In short, Exnora is adept at micro, community-based waterway improvements. However, to improvewater quality, Exnora must also find levers to influ-ence key organizations, particularly Metro Water, inorder to promote macro improvements as well.

Madras Waterways and Visions for TheirImprovement

Two small river estuaries running West to Eastdivide Madras — the Cooum River and the AdyarRiver. Two other urban waterways exist in Madras —the Buckingham Canal and the Otteri Nullah. Thesefour waterways inter-connect (see Figure 1). Partlybecause of diversion of much of their water for agri-cultural and urban uses to reservoirs, none of theseurban waterways now flows throughout the year.Except during the monsoon season from October toDecember, these urban waterways are stagnant andfed largely by treated and untreated sewage. BODlevels and other pollution indicators are comparableto those of untreated sewage (Appasamy, 1989).

The Cooum River flows generally eastward throughthe key residential and commercial parts of the city.The watershed of the Cooum nourished the early com-mercial and residential growth of Madras City, andretains special importance as the main river in thecity. From 1967 to 1972, the state government under-took a major improvement scheme, which includedchanneling, excavation and lining of the central chan-nel, and construction of boat jetties and other ameni-ties. These efforts failed mainly because stategovernment neglected to target the pollution enteringthe river. Little appears to have changed since then.The main problem, pollution, has grown much worse.After the Buckingham Canal, the Cooum is the mostpolluted of Madras' waterways. The main contributoris the Koyambedu STP, which discharges 34 millionliters per day of wastewater into this river causingaccumulation of sludge on the river bed. During thedry weather season, the sludge banks are exposed.

The course of the Adyar River runs 40 kilometersfrom its catchment area, west to east throughMadras. Similar to the Cooum, much of its flow hasbeen diverted. The Nesappakaam STP and severalhundred industrial establishments discharge wastesdirectly into this river, and are the other main sourceof its pollution. Nonetheless, the Adyar is less pollut-ed than the Cooum River, the Buckingham Canal, andthe Otteri Nullah. The estuary of the Adyar stillattracts a wide variety of birds.

The Buckingham Canal is a salt water canal run-ning from north to south 420 kilometers, excavated in1806 through strips of land and shallow back water.The Canal was used actively for navigation untilcyclone damage in 1966 and 1976 first curtailed andthen ended this practice. The Buckingham Canalintersects both the Cooum and the Adyar on theirway to the coast. The Buckingham Canal is the mostpolluted waterway in Madras, having extraordinarylevels of BOD — as high as 1,170 mg/liter. Septic con-ditions prevail in much of this waterway.

The Otteri Nullah is the surplus drainage course ofa number of small reservoirs. The total length of theriver is about 12 kilometers with a catchment area of38.40 square kilometers. An STP and 80 sullage out-lets contribute to the heavy pollution load of thiswaterway.

Land use along waterways frequently has a directimpact on the quality of waterways since it is easy todischarge waste directly into them. A recent study ofsegments of the rivers found 30 major outlets dis-charging into the Cooum River and 27 major outletsdischarging into the Adyar River. In addition, manyslum dwellers use the waterways as toilets and sew-ers. Madras slums tend to be concentrated along thewaterways because this land is, typically, public. Arecent study estimated that 35,450 families — roughly145,000 people — have put up residences along thefour waterways and most discharge directly into theserivers and canals.

A town meeting in Madras attended by a widerange of local residents and organizations helped todefine an overall vision for waterways improvement.Overall, the town meeting resulted in a continuum ofvisions, implying markedly different costs. Older resi-dents of Madras remember boating and swimming inthe Cooum, the Adyar, and even the BuckinghamCanal, and would like measures that return thesewaterways to those conditions. The vision some holdof these waterways, returning to the point whereswimming and fishing is again safe, dates to a differ-ent time before the massive diversion of their water,urbanization, and the heavy pollution of these rivers,and implies great cost. Other residents would likethese waterways cleaned to conditions where boatingis agreeable. Those content with the most modestchange aimed to remove the stench and beauti1' thebanks.

An appropriate vision for these waterways shouldbe sufficient to generate public enthusiasm butnot so costly that it lies out of reach. The least ambi-tious vision — removing the stench — is, perhaps, notsufficient to galvanize public support, while themost radical — return to safe swimming — is verycostly. Hence, this Action Plan targets an intermedi-ate vision — water quality sufficient for fishing and


Legend

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

.— Direction of Flow



MADRAS CITY

Madras CityBoundary

CommercialDistrict

BENGAL

Figure 2. Madras City, Waterways, and Sewage Treatment Plants.


boating in the Cooum and Adyar Rivers, and naviga-tion in the Buckingham Canal.

The assessment of water quality and sanitationrepresents the technical foundation of the ActionPlan.

Waterways Quality and Sanitation TechnicalAssessment

The extent and effectiveness of wastewater treat-ment underlies the pollution of Madras' waterways.The sanitation system of Madras city consists of thefollowing components: (a) four wastewater treatmentplants (Nesapakkam, Koyambedum, Kodungaiyur,and Perungudi); (b) about 110 sewage pumping sta-tions; Cc) several thousand kilometers of sanitary sew-ers; (d) storm drains covering about 110 squarekilometers of Madras city; (e) the four principalwaterways; (f) solid waste collection and disposal;and (g) public toilets.

Visits to these plants and review of the technicalinformation available (Stanley Associates Ltd., 1994;Vedamuthu, et al., undated) show that the STPs cre-ate a number of problems for waterway quality. Noneof the plants have provision for effluent disinfection.The plants receive raw sewage with strengths rangingfrom 1.5 to three times those normally found in high-income countries. The raw sanitary sewage in Madrascontains extraordinary amounts of grit, hay, and fiber— a substantial portion of which comes from dungfrom the 60,000 cattle that roam Madras (and otherIndian cities) — which often overwhelm the degrittingfacilities and lead to malfunction in following processunits.

The Nesapakkam STP is an example of these prob-lem. It has a designed treatment capacity of 23.5 mil-lion liters per day (MLPD). However, flows reportedlyincrease to as much as 92 MLPD in wet weather. Theinformation that Metro Water reports on STPs,including Nesapakkam, sometimes appears unreli-able. An inspection of this facility showed that all theprocess units of this plant appeared to function, butnot well. Although Metro Water states that all unitsof this plant function as intended, operating staffrefused to visit an important process unit, the sludgedigesters, because of snakes in the overgrown under-brush surrounding these digesters. Considerablematerial had also built up on scraper arms, bafflesand weirs in other process units, indicating that thetanks and equipment received unsatisfactory mainte-nance. BOD5 concentrations are recorded on a dailybasis in the plant's laboratory. But a review for theprevious three months showed highly improbable reg-ularity. The recorded readings narrowly ranged from40 to 45 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in the effluent and

300 to 340 mg/i in the influent for virtually every dayduring the entire period. Should these records beaccurate, this plant would still have been failing toachieve the target BOD5 concentration of 30 mgi inthe effluent. Thus, the basic information affectingwaterways quality such as the functioning of its treat-ment plants appears questionable.

Other elements of the Madras sanitation systemalso present challenges. The system's designers choseto deal with the extremely flat topography of the areaby building a very large number of sewage pumpingstations — 110 altogether — to convey sewage flows tothe treatment plants. Even in the best circumstances,this large number represents an operation and main-tenance nightmare. The operators of these sewagepumping stations sometimes save on electricitythrough by-passing them (i.e., channeling untreatedsewage directly into waterways rather than pumpingit to the STP).

Technical reports (Stanley Associates, 1994) joinedwith visual inspection confirm that the sanitary sewersystem of Madras fails to receive effective routineinspection, cleaning, rehabilitation and maintenance.Clogged sewers are common because of excessiveloads of grit, organic solids and solid wastes dumpedinto them. Most sewer lines have minimum gradescaused, in part, by the flat topography and the long-established practice of laying sewers to depths of nomore than 6.5 meters to avoid excessive ground waterintrusion into the sewers. With the pipe and pipe jointsystems now readily available, however, this restric-tion no longer makes sense.

Storm drains now serve about two-thirds of thecity. An estimated 500 interconnections exist betweenthe sanitary sewer system and storm drains. Thus,although sanitary drains and storm drains have beenconstructed as separate systems, they function as acombined system during the rainy season. As a result,mixed sewage and storm water spills onto streets andyards and into waterways during wet weather peri-ods.

The sewerage system also has no means for dealingwith industrial pollution. Although largely undocu-mented, considerable discharges appear to flow froma large industrial complex on the northern edge of thecity into the Kodungaiyur STP. Industrial processesgenerate a variety of wastewater pollutants often dif-ficult to treat that may interfere with biological pro-cesses. Fluctuations in flow, temperature, compositioncan join to create a complex wastewater managementproblem unique to each industrial facility (Babbit andBaumann, 1958; Water Pollution Control Federation,1981). Alternatives for industrial pollution includeplant controls and recovery of materials, pretreat-ment prior to discharge to other facilities, land appli-cation, and municipal treatment plants. The first step



in Madras is to document the extent of this problem.In summary, the sewerage system fails to work as

designed in many ways. However, even if the currentsewerage system were working properly, four seriousproblems would continue to undermine waterwaysquality.

Foremost is the partial sewerage system coverageand limited treatment capacity lack. The seweragesystem will treat only a fraction of wastewater result-ing from increased water supply by 2010, and alreadyfalls substantially short. In addition, the seweragesystem fails to cover roughly 15 percent of the popula-tion of Madras City, consisting largely of informal set-tlements, many of which lie along the banks of thefour waterways and discharge directly into them.Sewerage is also virtually absent in the fast growingareas outside the city —the "Outer Urban Area."

Second, even the modest share of wastewater thatreceives treatment lacks disinfection. Three of thefour sewage treatment plants are activated sludge — asystem that removes BOD, suspended solids, andsome other contaminants, but requires separate disin-fection. As no separate disinfection occurs, the treatedeffluent of these plants has astronomical bacteriallevels — in the hundreds of thousands and millions per100 milliliter, compared to a standard of 1,000-2,000per ml. in developed countries.

Third, informal garbage dumps and animal drop-pings along river banks, in streets, and in yards con-tribute significantly to contamination of thewaterways. Garbage enters the waterways either byflushing of land surfaces during monsoon rains or bydirect deposition. Solid waste collection disposal fallsshort of that typical for a city of the size and impor-tance of Madras. In particular, two unsanitary land-fills now serving the city are at or near capacity.

Fourth, sludge deposits from many years ofunchecked discharges from all sources reside in thewaterways along with construction debris, and wouldcontinue to impact water quality independent of cur-rent discharges.

As a result, the four principal urban waterwaysnow exercise mainly a sanitation function. They serveas the primary receptors for all the wastewater andmuch of the solid waste now generated in Madras.

ACTION PLAN

The process of setting a vision and the assessmentof urban development, of local institutions, and of thetechnical aspects of water and sanitation result in anumber of key findings for action in Madras. Thefindings reflect conditions in many large cities inemerging countries:

An action plan is critical and timely for Madras.The conditions of its urban waterways are poor, andwill worsen if no action is taken because of populationgrowth and the great quantities of water from pro-jects soon to be commissioned. Current sewage treat-ment capacity will cover less than one-third of thewastewater generated in 2011.

The action plan must focus on water quality(Vedamuthu et al., undated). Expanding and reform-ing sewage treatment, intercepting wastewater flowsinto rivers and canals, and extending sewers to newareas are the key macro investments necessary toreduce pollution of the waterways of Madras. Activat-ed sludge appears a suitable sewage treatment pro-cess for this metropolis for a number of reasons. Thearea's economic importance and fast-growing, largepopulation justifies the cost of such treatment ifcarefully designed. Activated sludge is also the cur-rent system for three of Madras' four existing SewageTreatment Plants (STP). Thus, Metro Water hasalready made a considerable investment in theseplants and the know-how to operate them. Waterquality would be further enhanced by separating thestorm and sewerage systems and by sizing these sys-tems to eliminate the wet weather overflow of thesesystems. However, the cost would be high, addingtens of millions to the capital cost. From this andother studies (Madras Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority, 1994), it appears that the limited resourcesavailable are best spent in achieving acceptable waterquality during the nine months of the year withoutmonsoons. Fewer overflows and less mixing would belikely to occur during the wet season also with astrengthened sanitary system in place.

The poor water quality of Madras' waterways andthe mismatch between water supply and sewagetreatment has developed over decades, and cannot bereversed overnight. Credible sewerage solutions forMadras, as for any major city, require a long-termcommitment and continuing massive investmentscommensurate with this urban area's importance asthe fourth largest metropolis in India. Hence, such anAction Plan is an important first stage. The time hori-zon for its recommendations for micro investments isfive years. The need for macro investments should bere-assessed in five to ten years.

The main motivation for waterways clean-up hasrecently come from NGOs — particularly Exnora andWAMP — and their involvement of the community.Hence, strongly supporting these NGOs is critical forfurther progress. However, these NGOs mustgo beyond the micro improvements, at which theyhave become adept, to influence the key organizationscontrolling macro improvements, particularly MetroWater. A systematic, independent water quality moni-toring program can offer an important lever for such



influence. Citizen-based monitoring is particularlyimportant given the lack of local elections for the lasttwenty years and lack of public accountability. A sec-ond lever is the development and promotion of anaction plan such as that proposed in this section forwaterways improvement.

Action must also target the technical, institutional,and financial capacity of Metro Water. This state com-pany is generating the dramatic increases in watersupply and the sewerage largely responsible for pollu-tion of the waterways. Hence, it is critically impor-tant.

Macro Improvements

Table 1 lists these macro improvements and theircomponents. It also breaks down the operation andmaintenance, and capital cost. Figure 3 displays thelocation of these first-stage macro improvements.

Taking each of the macro investments in turn:

Rehabilitate Existing Wastewater TreatmentPlant. This component includes the replacement andrehabilitation of structures and equipment in the fourexisting STPs over the five-year time horizon, includ-ing cleaning out the aeration tanks, settling basins,and digesters.

Increase Capacity of Existing WastewaterTreatment Plants. The current STPs are near or attheir effective capacity. Given population growth andthe increase in water supply from the Krishna projectin the next five years, additional capacity of 50 per-cent is necessary simply to keep pace.

Extend Sanitary Sewers to Unsewered Popu-lation of Madras City. One-tenth of the populationof Madras City, about 400,000 people, are unsewered.Extending sanitary sewers requires connections tohomes, buildings, and pumping stations, as necessary.

Construct Sanitary Sewers for Existing Popu-lated Areas in the Outside Urban Area. Two mil-lion people are unsewered outside Madras City, andalso should receive sewer extensions.

Construct Intercepting Sewers Along Bothof the Banks of the Cooum, the BuckinghamCanal, Portions of the Adyar River, and Partsof the Otteri Nullah. This measure intercepts sani-tary sewage now reaching the Cooum River, the Buck-ingham Canal, and the Adyar River from homes,buildings, and industries, and carry them to STPs.In the absence of an intercepting sewer, flowsgo through local sewers and pump stations before

2. Increase Capacity of ExistingWastewater Treatment Plants

- Nesapakkam from 23.5 MLPDto35MLPD

— Koyambedu from 34 MLPD to51MLPD

— Perungudi from 45 MLPD to68MLPD

— Kodungaiyur from 80 MLPDto 240 MLPD

3. Extend Sanitary Sewers to 0.5Unsewered Population ofMadras City

4. Construct Sanitary Sewers for 2.5Existing Populated Areas in theOuter Urban Area

5. Construct Intercepting Sewers 1.0Along Both of the Banks of theCooum River

6. Dredge Cooum River 25

7. Construct Intercepting Sewer 0.25Along the North and SouthBuckingham Canal

8. Construct Intercepting Sewer 0.25Along Portions of the Adyar River

9. Construct Intercepting Sewer 0.25Along the Otteri Nullah

10. Construct New Sanitary Landfill 0.50for Madras City

11. Technical Assistance 12

— Institutional Strengtheningfor Sanitation and SolidWaste

— Feasibility Studies and FinalDesigns

12. Program Management

— Five-YearDuration for FirstStage Project

— Manage and Coordinate allTechnical Functions


TABLE 1. Macro Improvements (millions of U.S. dollars).

Annual Capitalo & M ImprovementCost Cost

1. Rehabilitate Four Existing 0.75Wastewater Treatment Plants

1.0

1.8

2.4

4.8

12

10

13

30

44

19

95

37

8

9

7

20

TOTAL COSTS 16 351

MADRAS CITY

RECOMMENDED FIRST STAGEMACRO IMPROVEMENTS

FOR MADRASSHOWN IN BOXES

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

Increase STP Capacity

— Direction of Flow



Madras City

CommercialDistrict

BENGAL

Figure 3. Recommended First-Stage Macro Improvements.


reaching treatment plants, which often bypass thisraw sewage into the waterways. Currently, substan-tial time, effort, and energy gets spent lifting thesesewage flows repeatedly, at many pump stations withlittle effect. The proposed intercepting sewers pick upand channel these flows by gravity to the treatmentplant, to which they are then lifted by one pump sta-tion.

Dredge Cooum River. The Department of PublicWorks of the state of Tamil Nadu has made a proposalto remove the extensive sludge and silt deposits in thelower part of the Cooum River in Madras City. Thefigure noted is their proposed cost.

Construct New Sanitary Landfill for MadrasCity. Providing for the proper and safe disposal ofsolid waste is a high priority in Madras. Currently,two highly unsanitary landfills exist. The new sani-tary landfill should have controlled access, dailycover, and leachate control.

Program Management. A program managementunit should be created to coordinate the technicalfunctions of the first-stage macro improvements,including contracts, quality of work, costs, schedules,designs, and construction.

The estimated total capital amount — US $351 mil-lion — is a large absolute sum, but modest for sanita-tion improvements to a major metropolis, as discussedfurther in the conclusion to this article. The annualoperation and maintenance cost — US $16 million — is,perhaps, a greater challenge to finance.

Micro Improvements

Table 2 displays the recommended micro improve-ments:

Establish an Independent Wastewater Moni-toring Program. Various entities in Madras havemonitoring equipment (including Metro Water, thePollution Control Board, and private firms). However,a systematic independent monitoring program has anumber of important advantages. It can increase theaccountability of public and private organizationsthat should be involved in waterways improvement,such as Metro Water, the Municipal Corporation, andindustries. Currently, these entities hide the littleinformation they gather related to waterways quality.Independent monitoring can also increase confidencein the results, which can be widely disseminated toinform the public and increase transparency. Exerciseof this function would also help make the monitoring

entity such as WAMP or Exnora an important playerin the decisions on the macro investments necessaryfor substantial waterways quality improvement, thusgiving a representative of the broader public somevoice in decision-making.

ImprovementCost(US $)

1. Establishment of an Independent WastewaterMonitoring Program

$13,350

2. Analysis, Publication, and InformationDissemination on Waterways Quality

$15,000

3. Sanitary Upgrading of Slums Along RiverBanks

$100,000

4. Cattle Waste Demonstration Project $6,670

5. Assist Public Agencies in ProjectOperation and Implementation

$16,670

6. Greenbelt and Walkways Along Bank $16,670

7. Survey Health-Care Providers, Households,and Industrial Users of Water

$10,000

TOTAL COST $178,360

Analysis, Publication, and Information Dis-semination on Waterways Quality. Once more sys-tematic data becomes available, means must exist todisseminate this information to the public. Publicmeetings can be held. The results of the public meet-ings can be the basis for press conferences and pub-lished in newspapers. Organizations dedicated tocleaning up the waterways such as Exnora andWAMP can expand the scope and circulation of theirnewsletters. The total for this activity in Table 2finances one public meeting per month, publication ofthe results of the public meeting in a local newspaperonce per month, and strengthening of a newsletter.

Sanitary Upgrading of Slums Along RiverBanks. Roughly 150 informal settlements exist alongthe waterways of Madras, containing roughly 40,000households. Slum upgrading is ultimately the respon-sibility of government entities such as the TamilNadu Slum and Housing Boards. However, NGOssuch as Exnora and WAMP can catalyze small sanita-tion projects involving water quality, such as the self-help laying of sewers. Since local people provide thelabor, the only cost is the materials. The figure inTable 2 is that of the materials and supervision for

TABLE 2. Micro Improvements (U.S. dollars).



laying such lines in 50 of these 150 slums over fiveyears.

Demonstration Cattle Waste Program. One cowresults produces waste in amount, fibrousness andBOD of 12 humans. Hence, the 60,000 herd in Madrasstresses the sewer system as much as another city afifth the size of greater Madras. Hence the importanceof a pilot project to demonstrate how a cattle yard canbe organized properly so as not to disrupt the sewersystem. Part of this project involves using cattlewaste to produce methane for household cooking andlighting. Part would demonstrate how the slurry canbe used and/or sold as fertilizer.

Assist Public Agencies in Project Operationand Implementation. Government cannot do every-thing by itself, and should have NGOs and privatecompanies as'partners. Although the concept of suchpublic-private partnerships is new to India, NGOs inMadras such as Exnora and WAMP already assistpublic entities, particularly Metro Water and theMunicipal Corporation, in various ways. These meansinclude orienting pump station operators on doingtheir job to minimize pollution of waterways, gettinghouseholds connected to the sewers, and public educa-tion on sanitation. Also, Exnora and WAMP supportpublic agencies in neighborhood meetings and thepolitical process when appropriate (for example, whenneighborhood opposition threatens to derail the use ofa key piece of land for a needed facility, such as apumping station). This micro project finances similarassistance of Exnora and affiliated Madras NGOs topublic agencies for five years.

Greenbelt and Walkways Along Banks. In thecontext of a larger program to improve water quality,beautification such, as greenbelts and walkways alongriver banks is useful.

Survey Health-Care Providers, Households,and Industrial Users of Water. Three surveys couldgather critical information on waterways pollutionand the health effects. A survey of health-careproviders could collect information on water-bornedisease. Similar data could be collected by a house-hold survey. Of particular importance is a survey ofindustrial users of water collects data on their waterneeds, and the cost of getting water to their plantsand treating it. This industrial water supply andwastewater survey should form one basis for a strate-gy to address industrial pollution. Based on thesethree surveys, WAMP could roughly quantify thesecosts of pollution and introduce new strategic optionsinto the local civic dialogue.

Cost. The cost of these six micro improvementstotals U.S. $178,360, a minuscule amount relative tomacro capital expenditures.

CONCLUSION

Waterways improvement in Madras and otheremerging country cities is a difficult challenge. A con-trast between potable water and sewerage — the keyto waterways improvement — places this challenge inperspective. Infrastructure supply agencies and politi-cians face immense pressures to provide safe drinkingwater. Of all public goods and services, local peopleare apt to pay for water, albeit still at rates short ofrecovering the total cost of capital and of operationand maintenance in most emerging countries. Never-theless, water infrastructure enjoys the highest prior-ity and can, in principle, recover a substantial portionof its costs.

In comparison, wastewater has seemed a secondaryproblem, particularly if it can be channeled awayfrom population centers. The result of such diversion— converting urban rivers, lakes, and canals largelyinto sewage channels — seems unfortunate but sec-ondary to many local decision-makers. Yet the water-ways of major cities represent important aestheticand economic resources as they develop. What wouldbe the impact on Washington, D.C., if the Potomacstunk badly or on Paris if the Seine bubbled fromdecomposing sludge deposits or were biologicallydead? As emerging country cities extend water andother basic services to the great bulk of their people,sanitation in general, and waterways improvement,in particular, have a chance of becoming a priority.But firmly placing waterways improvement on thelocal agenda depends fundamentally on managing thelarge cost involved and generating the political will tobear it. The action plan for Madras illustrates howthis can be done.

The estimated total capital amount for Madrasaction plan — U.S. $351 million — is a large absolutesum, but modest for sanitation improvements to amajor metropolis. It represents only U.S. $66 percapita for the current population of the metropolitanarea of Madras (5.3 million), and U.S. $36 per capitafor the projected 2011 population (roughly 9.6million). In contrast, major sewage treatment andcollection programs in the U.S. such as those of Chica-go and Boston not uncommonly cost U.S. $1,000 to2,000 per person. The action plan would achieve thisrelatively low per capita investment by adopting abalanced vision for waterways quality (for safe sea-sonal fishing and boating rather than swimming),expanding existing plants rather than building new



plants, treating sewage to primary and secondaryrather than tertiary levels, and sizing the system fordry season conditions that prevail three-fourths of theyear rather than for the monsoons.

The estimated average annual operation and main-tenance cost — U.S. $16 million — is, perhaps, agreater challenge to finance. Coming up with thissum each year out of current revenues, the normalprocedure, is difficult. The key to raising this sum andservicing the debt on the capital investment lies inorganizational reforms of the infrastructure agency.In the case of Madras, the water and sanitation com-pany appears an excellent candidate for such institu-tional strengthening. Key factors contributing to theprospects for financial and economic feasibilityaddressed by the institutional development compo-nent of the Action Plan include: (1) cost recovery fromhousehold beneficiaries, commerce, and industry;(2) streamlining staff and operational efficiency; and(3) internalizing the positive externalities from sani-tation and waterways clean-up in the form of grantsfrom state and central government and marketing theby-products of treatment (treated wastewater, sludge,methane etc.) to industry and agriculture.

Creation of a national framework can encouragesuch reforms at the local level. For example, Colom-bia's "Basic Services Law" of 1994 ("Ley de ServiciosPublicos Domiciliarios"): (a) requires that local servicecompanies adopt business accounting and manage-ment practices, including self-financing of capitalinvestments; (b) sets deadlines for conversion ofurban service providers into public-, mixed-, or pri-vate-sector enterprises; and (c) establishes commis-sions to regulate each service. Such institutionalreforms underlie success in making the macro invest-ments necessary for improving waterways quality(Ferguson, 1996).

In comparison, the estimated cost of the microimprovements is trivial, less than U.S. $180,000. Yetthis small investment can make a pivotal contributionto generating the political will required for the mas-sive capital investments necessary for waterways.Decision-making on major infrastructure investmentsin most emerging country cities such as Madras tendsto exclude rather than include the public. In Madras,Metro Water and other infrastructure agencies do lit-tle to make critical information on their plans and onlocal sewerage and waterways conditions available.The micro investments help open local decision-mak-ing to publiô influence by involving local people andNGOs, generating and analyzing information, andadvocating for citizens with government agencies.

At present, the only conduit for exercising publicinfluence on sewerage and waterways decision-mak-ing in Madras is a local environmental NGO. NGOs inemerging countries often have the ability to catalyze

and work with the public, but they lack the knowl-edge necessary to be credible to infrastructure supplyagencies and central government funders. However,some interesting precedents exist in India for equip-ping NGOs for a broader role. In Varanasi, for exam-ple, an NGO has developed links with the civilengineering program of a local university to acquirethe expertise necessary to evaluate and influence thesewerage plans of national and local governmentagencies in the interests of waterways improvement.In addition to involving the public, the micro invest-ments help equip a key environmental NGO inMadras for this broader role.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is based on work conducted by the authors for theUnited States Agency for International Development on behalf ofAbt Associates, Bethesda, Maryland.

LITERATURE CITED

Appasamy, Paul P., 1989. Managing Pollution in the Waterways ofMadras City: An Initial Assessment. Madras Institute of Devel-opment Studies, Working Paper No. 88.

Babbit, Harold E. and E. R. Baumann, 1958. Sewerage and SewageTreatment (Eighth Edition).

Ferguson, Bruce, 1996. Urban Management for EnvironmentalQuality in South America. Third World Planning Review 18(2),Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, England.

Jha, Gangadhar, 1993. The Seventy-Fourth Constitution Amend-ment and the Empowerment of Municipal Government — A Cri-tique. Madras, India.

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Bruce W. Ferguson, Blair T. Bower, andStephen R. Dice, 1994. Managing Urban Environmental Qualityin Asia. Prepared by The World Bank, Technical Paper Number220, Asia Technical Department Series, Washington, D.C.

Leitmann, Josef, 1994. Rapid Urban Environmental Assessment.Vols. 1 and 2, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, 1994. StormwaterDrainage Master Plan for Madras City and Prefeasibility Studyfor Madras Metropolitan Area. Madras, India.

Stanley Associates, Ltd., 1994. Tamil Nadu Environmental Moni-toring and Pollution Control. Report TA No. 1366-IND.

Srinivasan, S., 1991. Water Supply and Sanitation for Madras: The2011 Context. In: Policy Imperatives: An Agenda for Action,Madras-2011. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Vol-ume III, Research Papers.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. The Cost Digest: CostSummaries of Selected Environmental Control Technologies,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Envi-ronmental Engineering and Technology, EPA-600/8-84-010.,Washington, D.C.

Vedamuthu, Ranee, K. Natarajan, and M. Sriman Narayan (undat-ed). Purification of Water Courses in Madras City. Madras,India.

Water Environment Federation, 1992. Design of Municipal Waste-water Treatment Plants, Water Environment Federation Manu-al of Practice No. 8. Washington, D.C.



Water Pollution Control Federation, 1981. Pretreatment of Indus-trial Wastes — Manual of Practice No. FD-3. Task Force on Pre-treatment, Washington, D.C.

Waterways Monitoring Program (WAMP), 1994, 1995. WAMPNews, Citizen's Waterways Monitoring Program, Newsletters.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES AsSocIATION 937 JAWRA

Documents

IMPROVING URBAN WATERWAYS IN EMERGING COUNTRIES: AN ACTION PLAN FOR MADRAS