CITY SANITATION PLAN FOR DEWAS

January 2011 Draft City Sanitation Plan

Prepared by: In association with: Alchemy Urban Systems (P) Ltd. Consortium for DEWATS Dissemination (CDD Society)

Prepared for: DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (DMC)

CITY SANITATION PLAN FOR DEWAS Draft City Sanitation Plan January 2011 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government

FIRE (D) Project Team Lee Baker

S K Tasgaonkar Hitesh Vaidya

i

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………………….…. ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………… 1

1.1 Background ……………………………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 The National Urban Sanitation Policy …………………………………………………... 1 1.3 Objectives of the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) ……………………... 2 1.4 National Rating Scheme for Sanitation ……………………………………………….… 2 1.5 Objectives of the City Sanitation Plan in Dewas …………….………………………….. 4 1.6 Overview of the Scope of Work……………………………………….……………….. 4 1.7 Progress Update ………………………………………………………………..………. 5 1.8 Contents of the Interim Report …………………………………………………..……… 6 1.9 Acknowledgements ..…………………………………………………………………….. 7

CHAPTER 2. APPROACH TO UNDERTAKING SITUATION ANALYSIS…………………..…. 8

2.1 Preparation of Detailed Base Map …………………………………………………… 10

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey ………………………………………………………………….10

2.3 Land Use and Infrastructure Survey ……………………………………………………. 10

2.4 Household Survey by DMC ……………………………………………………………. 11

2.5 Slum Surveys …………………………………………………………………………... 11

2.6 Disaggregating Population ………………………………………………………….… 12

2.7 Assessment of Demand and Supply …………………………………………………… 13

CHAPTER 3. AN INTRODUCTION TO DEWAS …………………………………………….. 15

3.1 Location and Key Characteristics ………………………………………………………. 15

3.2 Physical Characteristics ……………………………………………………………….... 16

3.2.1 Topography …………………………………………………………………… 16

3.2.2 Climate ……………………………………………………………………….... 16

3.2.3 Rainfall ………………………………………………………………………… 16

3.3 Demography and Growth Patterns …………………………………………………… 17

CHAPTER 4. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS ………………………….…. 18

4.1 Objectives of Projecting Population …………………………………………………... 18

4.2 Population Projections and the Tradeoff Between Infrastructure Adequacy ……………18 and Cost

4.3 Limitations of Demographic Data for Dewas ………………………………………….. 19

4.4 Population Growth in Dewas from 1961 to 2001 ……………………………………. 20

4.5 Projections Used in Other Studies …………………………………………………….. 20

4.6 Estimation of Current Population (2010) ……………………………………………… 22

4.6.1 2011 population by projection ………………………………………………. 22

4.6.2 Current population estimate from land use survey …………………………… 22

4.7 Population Projection for 2011 to 2041 ……………………………………………… 23

4.8 Ward-wise Distribution of Future Population ………………………………………..... 24

4.9 Limitations of Population Projection at City and Ward Levels ……………………….. 28

4.9.1 Factors that can affect city level population and its spatial distribution …….... 28

4.9.2 Illustrative list of situations that can alter population dynamics ………………. 29

4.10 Projections of Water Demand and Sewerage Generation …………………………… 30

ii

CHAPTER 5. SANITATION SITUATION ANALYSIS …………………………………..…… 34

5.1 Situation Assessment from the Four Surveys …………………………………………... 34

5.1.1 The objective and scope of surveys …...……………………………………… 34

5.1.2 Sanitation status as per three surveys ………………………………………… 35

5.1.3 Hygiene behavior of households as per the detailed slum survey …………… 40

5.2 Short Note on Review of Project Report on Sewerage Project of Dewas …………….. 40

5.2.1 Existing sewerage (Ref. – Chapter 2) ……………..……………..…………… 40

5.2.2 Projection of population (Ref. – Chapter 5) ……………..……………..……... 40

5.2.3 Design considerations ……………..……………..……………..…………….. 41

5.2.4 Coverage of the project ……………..……………..……………..………….. 41

5.2.5 Sewage pumping stations ……………..……………..……………..………… 42

5.2.6 Sewage treatment plants ……………..……………..……………..…………. 42

5.2.7 Manholes ……………..……………..……………..……………..…………… 43

5.2.8 Drawings ……………..……………..……………..……………..……………. 43

5.2.9 Estimates ……………..……………..……………..……………..…………….. 43

5.3 Comments on the MSW Management Plan ……………..……………..………………. 43

5.3.1 Objectives of the plan ……………..……………..……………..…………….. 43

5.3.2 Baseline description ……………..……………..……………..……………….. 44

5.3.3 Nature of the recommendation ……………..……………..………………….. 45

5.3.4 Financial aspects ……………..……………..……………..……………..…… 48

5.4 Sanitation Situation Compiled with Respect to NUSP Indicators ……………..……….. 49

CHAPTER 6. INSTITUTION CAPACITY & FINANCE ………………………………………. 61

6.1 City Governance ……………..……………..……………..……………..……………. 61

6.2 Existing Institutional Structure ……………..……………..……………..……………… 61

6.3 Allocation of Roles and Responsibilities ……………..……………..…………….……. 63

6.4 Capacity Assessment ……………..……………..……………..……………..……..…. 64

6.4.1 Human resource and office infrastructure ……………..…………………..…. 64

6.4.2 Sanitation service equipment ……………...……………..………………..….. 65

6.5 Brief Assessment of Municipal Finances ……………..……………..…………….……. 65

6.5.1 Dewas Municipal Corporation: receipts ……………..……………..…………. 65

6.5.2 Dewas Municipal Corporation: expenditure ……………..…………………… 71

6.5.3 Dewas Municipal Corporation: surplus/deficit ……………..……………….… 72

6.5.4 DMC financial issues/concerns ……………..……………..……………….…... 73

CHAPTER 7. STRATEGY AND APPROACH TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CITY ………..….. 75 SANITATION PLAN

7.1 Introduction ……………..……………..……………..……………..………………….. 75

7.2 Approach to Project Design ……………..……………..……………..……………..… 75

7.2.1 Time horizon ……………..……………..……………..……………..………… 75

7.3 Approach to Provide Safe Access to Sanitation ……………..……………..…………. 76

7.3.1 Eradication of open defecation ……………..……………..………………..… 76

7.3.2 Options for toilets ……………..……………..……………..…………………. 76

7.4 Approach to Disposal of Household Waste Water ……………..…………………….. 76

7.4.1 Possible options ……………..……………..……………..…………………….. 76

7.4.2 Evaluation of options ……………..……………..……………..………………. 77

7.5 Approach to Waste Water Disposal at Community Level ……………..……………… 77

iii

7.5.1 Options ……………..……………..……………..……………..………………. 77

7.5.2 Evaluation of options ……………..……………..……………..…………...….. 77

7.6 Approach to Waste Water Treatment and Reuse ……………..……………..……….. 77

7.6.1 Standards of treatment ……………..……………..……………..……………. 77

7.6.2 Options for treatment ……………..……………..……………..………….…. 77

7.6.3 Evaluation ……………………………………………………………………... 78

7.6.4 Reuse of treated effluent ……………………………………………………… 78

7.7 Approach to Storm Water Disposal ……………..……………..……………..……… 78

7.7.1 Current situation ……………..……………..……………..…………………… 78

7.8 Approach to Collection, Disposal and Treatment of Solid Waste …………………….. 78

7.9 Strategy of Implementation of Sanitation Plan ……………..……………..………...… 79

7.9.1 Institutional arrangements ……………..……………..……………..…………. 79

7.9.2 Mapping key stakeholders for CSP implementation in Dewas ……………….. 80

7.9.3 Strategic communications with the staff of the DMC ……………..……………. 80

7.9.4 Approach for community awareness and participation ……………..………… 80

7.9.5 Institutionalizing community-government interactions ……………..………...…. 80

7.9.6 Community participation at city scale ……………..……………..………….... 81

7.10 Financing the City Sanitation Plan ……………..……………..……………..…………. 81

CHAPTER 8. WASTE WATER SYSTEMS ……………………………………….………..….. 82

8.1 Sanitation Components……………..….……………..……………..………………….. 82

8.2 Existing Coverage by Toilets……………..……………..……………..……………..… 82

8.2.1 Household toilets……………..……………..……………..…………………… 82

8.2.2 Public toilets …………………………………………………………………… 82

8.2.3 Open defecation ……………………………………………………………… 82

8.3 Estimation of Demand for New Household Toilets ………………………………………83

8.3.1 Households with no toilets ……………..……………..……………..………… 83

8.3.2 Options ………………………………………………………………………. 83

8.3.3 Choice ………………………………………………………………………... 84

8.3.4 Estimate of quantity …………………………………………………………... 84

8.4 Sanitation Arrangements for Floating Population …………………………………….. 85

8.4.1 Need ………………………………………………………………………….. 85

8.4.2 Estimate of public toilets for floating population ……………………………… 85

8.4.3 Estimate of community toilets in slums …………………………………….…… 86

8.5 Options for Disposal of Waste Water at Household Level ……………………………. 87

8.5.1 Fully on-site sanitation – system description …………………………………… 87

8.5.2 Small-bore sewerage – system description …………………………………… 89

8.5.3 Centralized or decentralized sewerage system description ……………………90

8.5.4 Combined system description …………………………………………………. 91

8.5.5 Evaluation of options of waste water disposal ………………………………. 92

8.6 Integration of Existing Sewerage Facilities in Dewas ………………………………..… 93

8.6.1 Existing sewerage …………………………………………………………….. 93

8.6.2 Approach to utilization of existing sewerage facilities …………..…………… 95

8.6.3 Coverage of existing sewerage and demand for new sewerage in ……..……. 95

these wards

8.7 Decentralized and Centralized Waste Water Disposal Systems …………..…………. 96

8.7.1 Decentralized systems …………..………………………..…………………… 96

iv

8.7.2 Centralized systems …………..………………………..……………………… 96

8.7.3 Choice of decentralized and centralized systems …………..………………... 96

8.7.4 Options for decentralized systems …………..………………………..……… 99

8.8 Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems (DEWATS) ……………………………99

8.8.1 Treatment systems …………..………………………..…………………..….. 99

8.8.2 Quality of treatment …………..………………………..…………………… 99

8.9 Centralized Treatment Systems …………..………………………..…………………. 100

8.9.1 Basic unit operations …………..………………………..…………………... 100 8.9.2 Commonly used options …………..………………………..…………………. 100

8.9.3 Evaluation of options …………..………………………..……………………. 100

8.9.4 Choice for Dewas …...…………..………………………..…………………... 101 8.10 Layout of Decentralized Waste Water Disposal Systems ……………………………. 101

8.10.1 Time horizon for design………..………………………..…………………… 101

8.10.2 Broad features of decentralized waste water systems ..……………………. 102

8.11 Layout of Centralized Waste Water Disposal Systems ……………………………… 102

8.11.1 Time horizon for design ………..………………………..…………………... 102 8.11.2 Broad features of centralized waste water systems ……..…………………. 102

8.12 Existing Situation …………………………………………………………………….. 103

8.12.1 Climate and rainfall …………..………………………..………………….... 103 8.12.2 Natural drains …………..………………………..………………………… 104

8.12.3 Secondary and tertiary drains ………………………..……………………. 104

8.12.4 Flooding …………………………………………………………………….. 104

8.13 Improvements in Storm Water Drainage System ……………………………………. 104

8.13.1 Roadside drains …………..………………………..……………………….. 104 8.13.2 Primary drains …………..………………………..………………………… 104

8.13.3 Design approach …………..………………………..……………………… 105

8.14 Waste Water from Industries ……………………………………………………….. 105

8.14.1 Industries in Dewas …………..………………………..…………………...... 105 8.14.2 Water supply and waste water disposal ..…………………..………………. 105

8.15 Waste Water from other Public Institutions ………………………………………….. 106

8.16 Impact on Environment ………………………………………………………………... 106

8.17 Project Components and Costs ……………………………………………………….. 106

8.17.1 Proposals for investment …………..………………………..………………….106

8.17.2 Operation and maintenance……..………………………..…………………. 107

CHAPTER 9. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ………………………………….………..... 109

9.1 Floating Population ……………..….……………..……………..…………………….. 109

9.2 Un-served and Under-served Areas …….……………..……………..…………….... 109

9.3 Quantity of Solid Waste …………………………………………………………….. 109

9.3.1 Waste estimates ….………..……………..……………..…………………… 109

9.3.2 Peak loads …………………………………………………………………… 110

9.3.3 Sources of bulk generation ……………………………………………………110

9.4 Waste Characteristics ………………………………………………………………… 110

9.5 Available Equipment …………………………………………………………..…….. 110

9.6 Primary Collection in Residential Areas ……………………………………………… 111

9.7 Primary Collection in Commercial Areas …………………………………………….. 111

9.8 Secondary Storage …………………………………………………………………. 112

v

9.9 Waste Lifting ………………………………………………………………………… 112

9.10 Institutional Issues ……………..….……………..……………..……………………... 112

9.10.1 Organizational strength …………………..……………..…………………… 112

9.10.2 Functional incompatibility ……………………………….…………………… 112

9.10.3 Lack of community engagement ……………………………………………… 113

9.10.4 Split responsibility …………………..……………..………………………… 113

9.10.5 Lack of monitoring system ……………………………….…………………… 113

9.10.6 Interaction with civil society ……………………………………………….… 113

9.11 The Overriding Paradigm …………………………………………………………… 113

9.12 Service Levels ……………………………………………………………………….. 114

9.13 Projected Waste Quantities …………………………………………………………. 116

9.14 Integrated Solid Waste Management System ….……………..……………………... 117

9.14.1 Primary storage …………………..……………..…………………………... 117

9.14.2 Primary collection and secondary storage …………….….………………… 118

9.14.3 Street sweeping and drain sweeping …………………..…………………… 121

9.15 Secondary Collection and Transport ………………………………………………… 121

9.15.1 Features …………………..……………..…………………………………… 121

9.15.2 Transfer station and long haul ………………………….…………………… 121

9.16 Waste Treatment …………………………………………………………………….. 123

9.17 Waste Disposal ………………………………………………………………………. 127

9.18 Primary Collection ……………………………………………………………………. 128

9.18.1 Primary storage ……………………………………………….……………. 128

9.18.2 Home composting .………………..……………..…………………………... 128

9.18.3 Primary collection …………….….…………………………………………. 128

9.19 Secondary Storage …………………..…………………………………………….. 129

9.20 Secondary Transport ……………………………………………………………….. 133

9.21 Treatment Plant ……………………………………………………………………… 134

9.22 Sanitary Landfill …………………………………………………………………….. 135

9.23 Capital Investment …………………………………………………………………… 137

9.24 Operation and Maintenance Cost ……………………………………………………. 142

9.25 Current Practices ……………………………………………………………………… 143

9.26 Septage Management System ……………………………………………………….. 144

9.26.1 Treatment and safe disposal of septage ……………………………………. 144

9.26.2 User charges ………………………………………………………………… 144

9.26.3 Options for septage treatment ……………………………………………… 144

9.26.4 Septage disposal options …………………………………………………… 145

CHAPTER 10. BROAD STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ……………….………..….. 146

10.1 Time Horizon for Implementing City Sanitation Plan .……………..………………….. 146

10.2 Phasing of Capital Investment Plan ……………………………………………………147

10.3 Financial Plan for Implementation of City Sanitation Plan ……………………………. 149

10.4 Implementation of Toilets …………………………………………………………….. 152

10.5 Safe Collection, Disposal and Treatment of Liquid Waste …………………………… 153

10.6 Safe Disposal of Storm Water Drainage and Waste Water from Industries ……… 153

and Institutions

10.7 Implementation Strategy for SWM …………………………………………………. 154

10.8 Formation of Sanitation Committees …………………………………………………. 155

vi

10.8.1 City level sanitation committee ….………....……………..……………………156

10.8.2 City sanitation cell …………………………………………………………… 156

10.9 Strategy for Communication and Participation ……………………………………… 156

10.9.1 Strategic communication with the staff of DMC ……………………………… 156

10.9.2 Community awareness and participation …………………………………….. 156

10.9.3 Institutionalizing community-government interaction …………………………. 157

10.9.4 Community participation at city scale ………………………………………. 158

10.9.5 Communication with stakeholders …………………………………………… 158

10.9.6 Management information system …………………………………………… 158

10.9.7 Training of corporate and officials ………………………………………… 158

10.9.8 Participatory monitoring …………………………………………………… 159

10.10 Journey So Far …………………………………………………………………….. 159

10.11 Next Steps …………………………………………………………………………. 159

ANNEXURE: 1 THE APPROACH & METHODOLOGY ………………………………….…… 161

ANNEXURE: 2 ALCHEMY LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY …………………. 166 QUESTIONNAIRE

ANNEXURE: 3 LAND USE CODES & SPACE UTILIZATION FACTORS …………………….…169

ANNEXURE: 4 ASSUMPTIONS – WATER CONSUMPTION FOR VARIOUS ………………….171 LAND USE CATEGORIES

ANNEXURE: 5 ASSUMPTIONS – SOLID WASTE PER CAPITA FOR VARIOUS ………………172 LAND USE CATEGORIES

ANNEXURE: 6 DEWAS CLEANLINESS SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY DMC IN 2008 ……….… 173

ANNEXURE: 7 RECONNAISANCE SURVEY ON SANITATION CARRIED OUT ……………. 184 OUT BY USAID IN 2010

ANNEXURE: 8 LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY CARRIED OUT ………………. 193 BY ALCHEMY IN 2010

ANNEXURE: 9 DETAILED SURVEY IN 10 SLUMS OF THE CITY BY ALCHEMY …………….. 210 ANNEXURE: 10 COVERAGE AND NEW DEMAND OF SEWERAGE IN WARDS …………….. 214 PARTIALLY SEWERED ANNEXURE: 11 RESULTS OF SURVEY OF WARDS FOR DEFINING OPTIONS …………….. 215 OF WASTE WATER DISPOSAL ANNEXURE: 12 RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SLUMS FOR OPTIONS FOR WASTE …………….. 222 WATER DISPOSAL ANNEXURE: 13 PROPOSAL OF DECENTRALIZED AND CENTRALIZED WASTE ……….…… 224 WATER SYSTEMS ANNEXURE: 14 BROAD DETAILS OF WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ……………….. 226 (DECENTRALIZED AND CENTRALIZED) ANNEXURE: 15 PROJECTION OF DEMAND OF ROADSIDE DRAINS ………………..……. 228 ANNEXURE: 16 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ………………………………….……. 229

vii

ANNEXURE: 17 DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN – CAPEX ………………………………. 233 ANNEXURE: 18 DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN – O&M …………………………………. 234 ANNEXURE: 19 DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS …….. 235 ANNEXURE: 20 DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN – FINANCIAL MODEL …………………. 236

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Points scored by Dewas in the NUSP rating study ………………………..…………..… 2

Table 2 Progress update …………………………..……………………………………....…….. 5

Table 3 Layers in the preparation of base map …………………………..……………………. 10

Table 4 Population projections – tradeoff between infrastructure adequacy and cost ………… 18

Table 5 Population growth trends as per Census ……………………………………………….. 20

Table 6 Population projections used in different studies …………………………………………21

Table 7 Population projections for 2011 using standard methods ………………………………22

Table 8 Ward-wise break-up of population from land use survey …………………………… 22

Table 9 Population projections by statistical methods based on 2011 ………………………… 23 population derived from land use survey

Table 10 Population projections by CAGR method based on 2011 population ………………… 23 derived from land use survey

Table 11 Ward-wise growth potential table for the next three decades ………………………. 25

Table 12 Growth rates based on growth potential for the next three decades ………………… 27

Table 13 Projected ward level population 2011 to 2041 ……………………………………… 27

Table 14 Factors that influence population growth trends ……………………………………… 28

Table 15 Summary of projected city level infrastructure demand ……………………………… 30

Table 16 Projected ward level infrastructure demand for 2011, 2021, 2031 and 2041 ……… 31

Table 17 Guidelines for preparation of city sanitation plan from national rating ……………… 75 scheme for sanitation

Table 18 Effluent standards for domestic sewage ………………………………………………. 77

Table 19 Estimate of households with no toilets………………………………………………….. 83

Table 20 Comparison of different types of toilets ……………………………………………… 84

Table 21 Estimate of public toilets ……………………………………………………….……… 86

Table 22 Requirement of community toilets in slums ……………………………………………. 86

Table 23 Evaluation of waste water disposal options …………………………………………. 92

Table 24 Existing sewerage infrastructure ………………………………………………….…. 94

Table 25 Coverage and new demand for sewerage in wards partially sewered ……………… 96

Table 26 Proposal of decentralized and centralized waste water systems ……………………. 98

Table 27 Summary of decentralized sewerage systems ………………………………………. 102

viii

Table 28 Summary of centralized sewerage systems ……………………………………………103

Table 29 Natural drains in Dewas………………………………………………………………. 104

Table 30 Sanitation components ……………………………………………………………….. 106

Table 31 Broad estimate of operation and maintenance costs …………………………………. 107

Table 32 MSW trip loads to the dump site …………………………………………………….. 109

Table 33 Equipment available with DMC for MSW management …………………………….. 111

Table 34 Strength of MSW workforce at DMC………………………………………………… 112

Table 35 Solid waste management service levels in Dewas …………………………………… 114

Table 36 Projected population and waste loads for the DMC area ………………...……..…. 116

Table 37 Requirements for primary collection and home composting ………………………….. 131

Table 38 Metal container (4.5 ton capacity) requirements for secondary storage at CWDs …. 132

Table 39 Dumper placer fleet requirements in year 2011 …………………………………….. 133

Table 40 Preliminary SLF capacity calculations ……………………………………………….. 136

Table 41 Equipment for primary collection and transport of MSW …………………………… 138

Table 42 Cost eastimates for compost plant ………………………………………………….. 141

Table 43 Cost estimates for sanitary landfill ………………...……..……………………….… 141

Table 44 Summary of CAPEX for MSW management in Dewas ……………………………… 142

Table 45 Approximate estimates of operation and maintenance costs of the MSW………….. 143 management system in Dewas

Table 46 Options for septage treatment and disposal ………………………………………… 144

Table 47 Summary of proposals of phased implementation plan ……………………………… 148

Table 48 Summary of questions and responses in Dewas cleanliness survey, 2008 ………….… 173

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Survey blocks (green line) and land use blocks (red line) …………………………..… 11

Figure 2 Location of Dewas City in Madhya Pradesh and map showing Dewas ……………….. 15 Municipal Corporation boundary

Figure 3 Land cover and water bodies …………………………………………………………. 16

Figure 4 Growth directions in the city …………………………………………………………… 17

ix

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

BNP Bank Note Press

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate

CSP City Sanitation Plan

CDD Consortium for DEWATS Dissemination Society

CDP City Development Plan

DEWATS Decentralized Waste Water Treatment System1

DFID Department for International Development

DMC Dewas Municipal Corporation

DPR Detailed Project Report

FIRE (D) Financial Institutions Reform and Expansion (Debt)

GOI Government of India

GOMP Government of Madhya Pradesh

IUSP Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme

MOUD Ministry of Urban Development

MPUSP Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PPP Public Private Partnership

QOL Quality of Life

SWM Solid Waste Management

TOR Terms of Reference

UK United Kingdom

ULB Urban Local Body

USAID United States Agency for International Development

1 DEWATS TM is a trademark owned by the Bremen Overseas Research and Development Agency (BORDA).

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), Government of India (GoI), announced the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) in December 2008. The NUSP seeks to address the gap in sanitation infrastructure and move Indian cities towards ‘Total Sanitation’ through a ‘systems driven’ approach. As part of the policy implementation, the Government of Madhya Pradesh has initiated the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP) for the State. As directed by the policy, cities are to prepare ‘City Sanitation Plans’, which should address all aspects of city sanitation.

USAID FIRE (D) project has been providing technical assistance to Dewas Municipal Corporation in partnership with the Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor (MPUSP) programme (a partnership between the Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with the objective of delivering sustainable access to effective services by the urban poor. USAID FIRE (D) project has now extended the scope of its technical assistance to include preparation of a City Sanitation Plan for Dewas city.

An Inception Report was submitted in the month of June with preliminary impressions of the sanitation status in the city based on stakeholder consultations and site visits. The Interim Report, Situation Analysis, which includes a detailed assessment of the sanitation status based on intensive field surveys carried out by the consulting team and a reconnaissance survey conducted by USAID FIRE (D), was submitted and discussed with Dewas city stakeholders in November 2010. The Draft City Sanitation Plan, presented here, comprises strategic proposals in line with GoI’s NSUP to provide: (1) safe access to household sanitation; (2) disposal of household waste water; (3) waste water disposal at the community level; (4) waste water treatment and reuse; (5) storm water disposal; (6) collection, disposal and treatment of solid waste; (7) implementation plan for sanitation; and (8) financing plan for CSP.

1.2 The National Urban Sanitation Policy

The overall goal of the National Urban Sanitation policy is to transform the status of sanitation in Indian towns and cities.

The specific goals are:

Awareness generation and behavior change

Achieving open defecation free cities

Integrated citywide sanitation:

o Reorienting institutions and mainstreaming sanitation

o Sanitary and safe disposal

o Proper operation and maintenance of all sanitary installations.

Government of India recognizes that sanitation is a state subject and on-ground implementation and sustenance of public health and environmental outcomes require strong city level institutions and stakeholders. Each state and city, respectively, needs to formulate its own sanitation strategy in overall conformity with the national policy.

In conformity with the National Urban Sanitation Policy, the Government of Madhya Pradesh has formulated the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme for the State. The city of Dewas now seeks to prepare its City Sanitation Plan with the support of the USAID FIRE (D) project.

2

1.3 Objectives of the Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP)

The main objective of the GoMP Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme is to develop citywide sanitation plans and implement them by integrating all aspects of sanitation in an effective way. Dewas city, one of the 30 pilot cities in Madhya Pradesh, is to prepare a City Sanitation Plan. The programme implementation strategy is based on the following principles:

Develop sanitation facilities in the urban areas with special emphasis on slums, through active participation of the communities, especially women.

Eradicate the practice of open defecation in the city by providing household toilets, community toilets and public toilets.

Safe disposal of human excreta, solid and liquid waste, including institutionalizing and provisioning the implementation of policy guidelines of Government of India on Management of Municipal Solid Waste and Management of Biomedical Waste.

Improve the ‘quality of life’ of sanitation workers.

Engage civil societies and communities (women in particular) in awareness generation, hygiene education, creation of sanitation infrastructure and its maintenance.

Strengthen institutional setup and build the capacity of municipal staff for effective programme implementation and meeting the challenges of technology and management.

Encourage Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) to ensure generation of funds and sustainable programme implementation.

Ensure inter-departmental coordination and integration of various relevant projects/schemes/programmes for their optimum use and outcome.

1.4 National Rating Scheme for Sanitation

In order to rapidly promote sanitation in urban areas of the country (as provided for in the National Urban Sanitation Policy and Goals, 2008), and to recognize excellent performance in this area, the Government of India has instituted an annual rating and award scheme for cities. The award (Nirmal Shahar Puraskar) is based on the premise that improved public health and environmental standards are two key outcomes that cities must seek to ensure for their citizens. In doing so, governments in states and urban areas will need to plan and implement holistic citywide sanitation plans, thereby putting in place processes that help achieve outputs pertaining to safe collection, confinement and disposal (including conveyance, treatment, and/or reuse without adverse impacts on the environment in and around the cities).

The first rating of cities with regard to their performance in sanitation improvements, based on a set of objective indicators of outputs, processes and outcomes, was carried out in 2010 to set the baseline ranking. Cities are expected to undertake an objective self-assessment from time to time. Dewas ranked 336 out of 423 with 26.78 points and falls in the red category in the baseline survey. The NUSP document on ratings states that those in the red category are “Cities on the brink of public health and environmental ‘emergency’ and needing immediate remedial action.”

The following table shows the break-up of points scored by Dewas for each indicator.

TABLE 1 POINTS SCORED BY DEWAS IN THE NUSP RATING STUDY

No INDICATORS Points* Score given to Dewas

1 OUTPUT RELATED 50 A No open defecation i. Access and use of toilets by urban poor and other un-served

households (including slums) 4 0.00

3

No INDICATORS Points* Score given to Dewas

- Individual and community sanitation facilities

ii. Access and use of toilets for floating and institutional populations

- Adequate public sanitation facilities

4 0.97

iii. No open defecation visible 4 2.00iv. Eliminate manual scavenging and provide personnel protection

equipment to sanitary workers 4 4.00

B Proportion of total human excreta generation that is safely collected (6 points for 100%)

6 2.00

C Proportion of total black waste water generation that is treated and safely disposed off (6 points for 100%)

6 0.00

D Proportion of total gray waste water generation that is treated and safely disposed off (3 points for 100%)

3 0.00

E Proportion of treated water that is recycled and reused for non-potable applications

3 0.00

E Proportion of total storm water and drainage that is efficiently and safely managed (3 points for 100%)

3 3.00

F Proportion of total solid waste generation that is regularly collected (4 points for 100%)

4 0.75

G Proportion of total solid waste generation that is treated and safely disposed off (4 points for 100%)

4 0.00

H City wastes cause no adverse impacts on surrounding areas outside city limits (5 points for 100%)

5 0.00

TOTAL FOR OUTPUT RELATED 12.72

2 PROCESS RELATED** 30

A M&E systems are in place to track incidences of open defecation

4 0.00

B All sewerage systems in the city are working properly and there is no ex-filtration (not applicable for cities without sewerage systems)

5 0.00

C Septage/sludge is regularly cleaned, safely transported and disposed after treatment, from on-site systems in the city (maximum 10 marks for cities without sewerage systems)

5 6.00

D Underground and surface drainage systems are functioning and are well maintained

4 2.00

E Solid waste management (collection and treatment) systems are efficient (and are in conformity with the MSW Rules, 2003)

5 1.17

F There is clear institutional responsibility assigned; and there are documented operational systems in practice for B/C to E above

4 0.00

G Sanctions for deviance on part of polluters and institutions is clearly laid out and followed in practice

3 0.00

TOTAL 9.173 OUTCOME RELATED 20 A Improved quality of drinking water in city compared to baseline 7 4.9B Improved water quality in water bodies in and around city

compared to baseline

7 0.00

C Reduction in water-borne disease incidence amongst city population compared to baseline

6 0.00

4

No INDICATORS Points* Score given to Dewas

TOTAL 4.90GRAND TOTAL 26.78

* The results for the above indicators will be reviewed every two to three years. Over time, more stringent indicators, e.g. no-urination or spitting in open/public spaces, etc., will be introduced as indicators. The weights accorded to each category and specific indicators will also be reviewed.

** In this context, bigger cities may consider instituting good practice systems that comply with ISO (International Standards Organization) and/or BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) process systems. Section 5.4 of this report provides a systematic assessment of the sanitation situation in Dewas against the NUSP Rating of Cities 2010 indicators. The draft CSP will propose remedial actions for ameliorating many of these deficiencies.

1.5 Objectives of the City Sanitation Plan in Dewas

The City Sanitation Plan is being prepared after carrying out a situation analysis and after a structured consultation with stakeholders. The Plan will attempt to achieve the following objectives:

To adopt locally suitable methods, technology and materials, and provide necessary facilitation support to Dewas Municipal Corporation.

To encourage community and private participation and define their role in creation and maintenance of sanitation infrastructure, thereby ensuring a sense of ownership.

To ensure coordination between various departments working in the field of water supply and sanitation, such as departments of health, education, public health and engineering, industry, environment, transport, pollution control board, etc.

To ensure an optimum use of funds allocated by the 12th and 13th Finance Commissions for solid waste management and other sanitation-related projects.

To coordinate various externally aided projects for their optimum results.

To promote novel ideas in mobilization of funds, including reforms in tax regime, public private partnerships, exploring the private market, user charges, beneficiary contribution, etc.

1.6 Overview of the Scope of Work The following are the broad tasks included in the scope of work; the current status is also mentioned:

Task 1 - Formation of City-level Implementation Committee/Cell

A city-level committee consisting of government and private sector stakeholders is to be formed for the purpose of overseeing preparation and implementation of the City Sanitation Plan. It has been decided that the city technical advisory group already constituted for the preparation of a CDP under JNNURM may be involved as the implementation committee for the sanitation plan.

Task 2 - Conduct 1st Consultation

A first level consultation is envisaged to orient the city stakeholders on the objectives of the IUSP and NUSP, and on the process and methodology of preparing the City Sanitation Plan. This has been carried out in the form of individual meetings with key stakeholders in DMC at the start of this project.

Task 3 - Reconnaissance Survey (to be carried out by a separate team of FIRE (D)-sponsored consultants).

5

A detailed reconnaissance survey has been conducted by a separate team appointed by USAID FIRE (D). This survey includes information on the following, which has been reviewed and used as part of the situation analysis:

o Field Survey of Public Latrines in Wards and Slums

o Field Survey of Surface Drains

o Field Survey of Solid Waste Arrangements

o Sample Survey of Industries

o Sample Survey of Public Institutions (Health & Education)

o Testing of Quality of Water and Waste Water.

Task 4 - Preparation of Situation Analysis

A ward-wise and slum-wise situation analysis report has been prepared after assessing existing secondary data, outputs of the reconnaissance survey, and additional surveys conducted as part of this assignment. The situational analysis report, presented here, details out existing household sanitation arrangements, public sanitary conveniences, waste water disposal, solid waste management and water supply. It highlights the deficiencies in sanitation facilities, which particularly affect women and the urban poor. The analysis also projects the future demand for sanitation services.

Task 5 - Conduct 2nd Consultation

A second consultation workshop will be held with the city implementation cell to present the findings of the situation analysis for feedback and suggestions

Task 6 - Preparation of Draft City Sanitation Plan

A draft city sanitation plan will be prepared incorporating assessment of strategies and technology options for safe collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of both solid and liquid wastes in the city. The analysis of options will include costs of capital investment, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation.

Task 7 - Preparation of Implementation Plan

A strategic implementation plan (short-, medium- and long-term) and an immediate action plan (1-3 years) that will include a multi-year financial plan for implementing the City Sanitation Plan in a time-bound manner will be prepared.

Task 8 - Conduct 3rd Consultation

The draft City Sanitation Plan and implementation plan will be presented to the city-level implementation committee/cell. The recommendations of the committee and other stakeholders will be documented for their incorporation into the final version of the City Sanitation Plan.

Task 9 - Final City Sanitation Plan

The final version of the City Sanitation Plan will be prepared after appropriately addressing all comments and suggestions of the 3rd consultation meeting of the city-level sanitation committee/cell.

1.7 Progress Update

TABLE 2 PROGRESS UPDATE

No. Task Date Remarks

1 First consultation & reconnaissance survey

30th April 2010 Meetings were held with city stakeholders and FIRE (D) team. A quick reconnaissance of the city was also carried out.

6

2 Detailed reconnaissance survey

10th May 2010 All major routes of the city were covered to understand growth patterns and extent of development. The old city areas were also covered.

3 Orientation of field staff for land use survey

11th May and 12th May 2010

Team of about 6 people oriented and sent for land use survey.

4 Land use survey of the city

10th June 2010 Rapid land use survey completed. The preparation of base map on GIS and data entry of building attributes from the survey were also completed.

5 Sample slum survey

25th June 2010 Qualitative information captured in about 10 sample slums in various locations in the city.

6 Review of DPRs 5th July 2010 Preliminary technical review carried out. 7 Review of

municipal finances and institutional structure

21st June 2010 Preliminary review of the municipal finances of the last 5 years carried out and included in the report.

8 Demand supply gap assessment

15th July 2010 Draft included in Situation Analysis report.

9 Situation Analysis report

July-November 2010

Several iterations of draft prepared and reviewed by FIRE (D) team and submitted to DMC.

10 Draft City Sanitation Plan

January 2011 Draft finalized and circulated to Dewas city, state and center stakeholders for review and comment.

1.8 Contents of the Interim Report

Chapter 1 and 2 provide the background and the methodology for carrying out the situation analysis. The overall methodology of the assignment is included in ANNEXURE: 1.

Chapter 3 presents an overview of the city of Dewas.

Chapter 4 provides detailed population projections based on various approaches and the assumptions for the projections considered for this assignment. This includes the distribution of projected population across different wards in the city.

Chapter 5 provides the framework within which the situation analysis was carried out at various scales – city level, ward level and neighborhood level2, including focus areas like slums. This includes an assessment of the institutional providers of infrastructure and analysis of the demand supply gap.

Chapter 6 includes an assessment of institutional capacity and municipal finance.

Chapter 7 gives broad strategies for addressing issues related to sanitation in the city.

Chapter 8 considers options and provides a comprehensive plan and cost estimates for the disposal of human excreta, liquid wastes, and storm water.

Chapter 9 analyzes appropriate and relevant options for integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management and develops approximate cost estimates.

2 A homogenous land use and built typology block is considered a neighborhood. The purpose of defining a neighborhood is to explore technology or management options for infrastructure service provision.

7

Chapter 10 provides a strategic implementation plan [short-, medium-, and long-term and an immediate action plan (1-3 years)], which includes institutional arrangements and a multi-year financial plan for implementing the City Sanitation Plan.

1.9 Acknowledgements The description and analysis of the sanitation situation in Dewas is based on the following three surveys:

(1) Dewas Cleanliness Survey, Dewas Municipal Corporation, 2008.

(2) Reconnaissance Survey, Acute Consulting Services, USAID FIRE (D), 2010.

(3) Rapid Land Use Survey, Alchemy Urban Systems (P) Ltd., USAID FIRE (D), 2010.

The text of Chapters 1 through 6 has been prepared largely by Alchemy Urban Systems (P) Ltd., while Chapters 7 through 10, which are based on the previous chapters’ description and analysis of the sanitation situation, have been developed in a collaborative effort by the USAID FIRE (D) team, in association with outside consultants Acute Consulting Services, rapid ground surveys to support analysis of sanitation options; Shikha Shukla, social development specialist; Asit Nema, solid waste management; and Abhijit Bhaumik, financial planning.

FIRE (D) wishes to place on record its deep appreciation for the efforts put in by these organizations and individuals in the process of preparing the City Sanitation Plan.

8

CHAPTER 2. APPROACH TO UNDERTAKING SITUATION ANALYSIS

This chapter explains the approach to the situation analysis. The output of the situation analysis using data from various sources appears in subsequent Chapters 3 through 6.

The analysis of sanitation situation for Dewas city includes an assessment of how much waste is generated in the city and how the waste is handled. The extent of waste water and solid waste generated gives the ‘demand for sanitation infrastructure’. The amount of sewage and solid waste collected, transported, treated and disposed of safely gives the ‘extent of supply of sanitation infrastructure’.

It is understood that, as of now, supply systems are weak and inadequate and there is a huge deficiency gap. In addition to understanding the overall demand/supply mismatch, it becomes important to assess the spatial distribution of the mismatch. This assessment will enable the formulation of appropriate strategies, both at the micro and macro levels.

Demand Estimation at City Level

Demand Estimation for Slums

9

Supply Assessment

Gap Assessment

The assessment of demand and supply and the resulting mismatch has been carried out at city level, ward level, slum level and neighborhood level3. Assessment of the demand/supply gap at the disaggregate level can be done only if population figures can be disaggregated. This will require a spatial database and field assessments. This has been carried out by preparation of a detailed base map on GIS platform (as elaborated in Section 2.1) and a land use and infrastructure survey covering the entire geographical area of Dewas Municipal Corporation (refer Section 2.3). In addition, a survey of selected slums was carried out to get a qualitative understanding on access to sanitation in slums. Existing systems and deficiencies have been captured from the reconnaissance survey conducted by USAID FIRE (D), the infrastructure survey and consultations with DMC engineers.

3 A homogenous land use and built typology block is considered a neighborhood. In the context of this project, it is understood that the purpose of defining a neighborhood is to explore technology or management options for infrastructure service provision. To illustrate, it may be easier to organize waste segregation, or reuse of treated waste water, in one of the DDA colonies with more or less homogenous built typology and socio-economic status. If the area cannot be connected to the central system, alternate technologies or solutions can be explored at this level.

10

2.1 Preparation of Detailed Base Map

A detailed base map was prepared for the city of Dewas using archived satellite images (0.6 m. resolution images from the Quick Bird satellite were interpreted online). Available maps were used to add layers of information to the base map. The base map contains the following layers of information on GIS.

TABLE 3 LAYERS IN THE PREPARATION OF BASE MAP

No. Layer Remarks Data Type Attribute1 Building footprints Existing foot prints have been

updated Polygon ID, area

2 All roads Existing roads have been updated

Centerline & polygon

Name, length, width, type

3 Railway line Line Name, type4 Water bodies and

drains Natural drains have been digitized from satellite data up to where they join River Kshipra

Polygon Name, area

5 Open spaces Have been verified and updated

Polygon Type of open space, area

6 Land marks Point Name7 Administrative

boundaries Municipal Corporation, ward (new ward boundaries), zones, development authority, etc.

Polygon Name, area, Census data

9 Proposed and existing water supply infrastructure

These have been transferred from CAD drawing provided by client

Lines, points ID, sizes and other available data

10 Location of public toilets, septic tanks, solid waste bins, solid waste dumps, sewage cess pools, sewered areas

These have been transferred from CAD drawing provided by client

Point data Name, ID, ward no., area, etc.

11 Spot levels These have been transferred from Water Supply DPR CAD drawing provided by client

Point data Name, ID, elevation

13 Sewerage proposals from DPR

Sewer lines Diameter Name, ID

2.2 Reconnaissance Survey

The outputs of the reconnaissance survey carried out by the USAID FIRE (D) have been used extensively in the qualitative assessment of demand and supply. The data, wherever possible, has also been attached to the GIS base map.

A summary of the reconnaissance survey output has been included in Section 5.1.

2.3 Land Use and Infrastructure Survey

A detailed land use and infrastructure survey has been carried out by Alchemy Urban Systems (P) Ltd. with the following objectives:

(1) To assess the existing land use pattern, built-up density4 in different areas and the urban form (primarily observation based).

4 ‘Built-up density’ refers to the quantum of built-up area or floor space per unit of land. This is usually measured using indices like Floor Space Index (FSI) or Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

11

(2) To gather information on facilities available for sanitation (questionnaire based).

(3) To provide a basis for estimating the current population at a disaggregate (sub-ward) level.

(4) To obtain a sound understanding of the nature of development in a very detailed manner and thus provide insights for anticipating future growth patterns.

The city was divided into several survey blocks5 based on identifiable road boundaries and ward boundaries. Each survey block was assigned a distinct code. In the beginning a ground survey was conducted in each survey block to identify building blocks6 with homogenous use and built typology. New developments and changes were also marked on the map.

After the ground survey, the surveyors marked the boundaries of homogeneous built typologies as one building block on the base map provided to them. The building blocks have been marked in such a way that they don’t overlap each other and have common boundaries. Effectively the entire area of Dewas falls under one or the other building block. Once the marking was done, each building block was numbered.

FIGURE 1 SURVEY BLOCKS (GREEN LINE) & LAND USE BLOCKS (RED LINE)

Once the marking of building blocks was done, the land use typology, number of floors and building condition for each building block were marked. The approximate size of typical dwelling units in the block, ground coverage and occupancy rate7 of each building block were also assessed. This information was collected through a questionnaire provided to the surveyors.

Apart from this, for each building block, information regarding existing sanitation facilities was also collected. Data regarding open spaces and water bodies falling within each survey block was also collected through visual observation. All the information was transferred to the GIS database.

A summary of the land use and infrastructure survey output has been included in Section ANNEXURE: 8. Refer ANNEXURE: 2 for questionnaires for land use and infrastructure survey.

2.4 Household Survey by DMC

The Dewas Municipal Corporation also carried out a household survey of nearly 24,000 households. The data available online on GoMP’s website was downloaded and analyzed. The output gives a general overview of the sanitation situation in the city.

A summary of the DMC Cleanliness Survey is included in Section ANNEXURE: 6.

2.5 Slum Surveys

During the land use and infrastructure survey, a separate questionnaire was prepared and used to capture information about slums. In each slum, a focus group discussion was held to collect information that relates to the slum as a whole. All the slum settlements in DMC were covered in the survey.

In addition to the reconnaissance survey and the land use and infrastructure survey, which included all the slums of Dewas, a detailed assessment of about 10 slums was conducted to substantiate our 5 A survey block is defined as area surrounded by major roads on all sides. 6 A ‘building block’, for the purpose of the survey, is taken as a contiguous area with buildings having similar characteristics in terms of their height and bulk, quality of construction, and nature of use. 7 Occupancy rate is the percentage of dwelling units that are occupied.

12

understanding on access to sanitation for the urban poor, including issues such as the need for awareness generation. Slums from both inner-city wards and peripheral areas were chosen for the study. The output from these assessments gives qualitative insights concerning the sanitation situation in slums as well as indications on plausible strategies.

A summary of the slum survey output has been included in Section ANNEXURE: 9.

2.6 Disaggregating Population

In order to come up with sanitation strategies, it is useful to know population at a disaggregate level (sub-ward level), particularly if decentralized (neighborhood level/campus level/etc.) sanitation solutions need to be developed. Census data is available only up to ward level. Therefore, Alchemy has developed an empirical method to estimate, approximately, the population at micro level. This method is explained below.

The method developed by Alchemy uses a detailed assessment of built-up area in a city as a useful proxy to estimate the current population as well as to provide indications on trends of development and population growth.

The built-up areas of a city, which comprise homes, work places, shops, schools, etc., give insights into how many people live in, work in and visit different locations. (For example, 3,000 sq. ft. of space in a high-end residential colony may house 4 people and in a slum a similar built-up area may house 50 people). The methodology rests on understanding real estate spaces and the way the city functions. (A 100,000 sq. ft. mall may attract 25,000 people and a 100,000 sq. ft. open ground may attract more than a lakh of people on a festival day.) The accuracy of this method rests on accuracy of observation and questioning on three key parameters:

1. Occupancy rate – how much of the built area in a location is occupied?

2. Size of a single unit – in a complex of apartments, it is necessary to know the average size of one residential unit and, in a shopping complex, the average size of one shop.

3. Utilization of space – household size/jobs per shop/visitors in a day/etc.

The following are the steps adopted in carrying out population disaggregation:

o A ground survey of the city is conducted to assess the various land use and built typology combinations in the city. To illustrate, residential areas alone may present five or six categories – HIG bungalows, HIG apartments, MIG/LIG apartments, MIG row houses, slums, village like developments, etc.

o A detailed base map is prepared for the city. Then blocks, bounded by roads on all sides, are defined. A detailed land use and infrastructure survey of the city is carried out. Here trained surveyors traverse around a block and capture the land use, number of floors, and building condition in that block. Having differentiated between various land uses in the block, the surveyors now undertake household surveys or unit surveys (in the case of non-residential land use) to determine the status of infrastructure. In addition to the infrastructure status, the surveyors enquire about the level of occupancy, unit size and family size in each land use block. (In the case of non-residential uses, say a shop, questions pertain to number of visitors and jobs.)

o The number of residents in an area is calculated using the built-up area8, the household size and the occupancy rate in that location or in similar locations. To illustrate, it is possible to delineate the following land use typologies9 in a high

8 Built-up area is the area of buildings obtained from the satellite image interpretation multiplied by the average number of floors in the area. 9 This is not an exhaustive list.

13

income area in a large Indian city as follows and estimate the residents, jobs and visitors therein.

No Land Use Category Possible Unit Area (sq. ft.)

No. of Floors

Jobs Residents Visitors

1 Residential HIG bungalows

2,500 to 3,000 2 2 4 2 per week

2 Residential HIG bungalows converted to multiple dwelling units

1,200 to 1,500 3 1 4 2 per week

4 Institutional School 6,000 3 50 5005 Open space Garden NIL 4 3006 Commercial Big shops 650 2.5 3 90

o The space utilized by residents, workers and visitors in each of the above typologies would vary. This is captured in a factor that has been termed as space utilization factor (SUF) and used to determine the number of jobs, residents and visitors in the city. (Refer to ANNEXURE: 1 for details on SUF.)

o Before utilizing the built-up area, standard deductions are carried out to account for walls, common spaces, stairwells, etc.

o Additionally, deductions based on the occupancy rate, exclusive to the location, are also applied. Net livable area is thus derived and used for calculation of population.

o The residential population is then calibrated using Census figures through an iterative process of altering the standard deductions, occupancy rate and the space utilization factor for each land use sub-category. In case Census figures are too obsolete to be used, this iterative process may not give desired results.

In the case of Dewas, initial iterations generated population figures which seemed to be on the higher side. These figures were discussed with professionals who know the city well. It emerged that the occupancy rates of built-up areas were lower than assumed earlier. The occupancy rates were modified, the SUF values were re-calibrated and further iterations were carried out to bring the estimates of current population more in line with the general understanding of decadal growth trends in the city.

2.7 Assessment of Demand and Supply

The assessment of demand and supply for sanitation has been carried out both for the current scenario and for projected population up to 2041. In the current scenario, this report documents the actual sanitation situation in the following ways:

1. Factual information concerning various aspects of sanitation, as emerging from the surveys mentioned in Sections 2.2 to 2.5, is summarized and presented in Sections ANNEXURE: 6 to ANNEXURE: 9. This information is then compiled with respect to the NUSP indicators and conclusions are drawn in Section 5.4.

2. The above information is used to create ward-wise and slum-wise profiles for the whole city, which is presented in Volume II, a separate document. The information from surveys is also supplemented with demand estimates for waste water management and solid waste management generated from population projections.

14

3. The demand for waste water management in the current situation is estimated on the basis of 135 lpcd supply at consumer end, which is likely to be realized after the ongoing JNNURM UIDSSMT water supply augmentation project is fully implemented and commissioned.

4. The assessment of supply (available sanitation facilities) has been done on a quantitative as well as qualitative basis. For example, the approximate quantitative shortage of toilet seats in slums is considered. In addition, the known preference for individual toilet vs. community toilet, as emerging from the various surveys, is also considered. Then a judgment is made as to what can be considered the demand/supply gap. To take another example, a neighborhood may have a local sewer network leading to a septic tank. If the sewer network is broken and dysfunctional, then a judgment can be made as to whether it is possible to quantify the extent to which the existing system caters to the demand.

15

CHAPTER 3. AN INTRODUCTION TO DEWAS

3.1 Location and Key Characteristics

FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF DEWAS CITY IN MADHYA PRADESH AND MAP SHOWING DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BOUNDARY

Dewas is an ancient town situated on the Malwa Plateau in the state of Madhya Pradesh. It is at a distance of 153 km. from Bhopal, the capital city, and 35 km. from Indore. Dewas had a population of 2.31 lakhs as per the Census 2001, with about 43,987 households. The population of Dewas grew at about 40% during the 1991-2001 decade. About 48% of the population (about 111,491 people) live in slums10.

The total area under the jurisdiction of the Dewas Municipal Corporation is 100 sq. km., out of which about 45 sq. km. is actually developed. The city is bifurcated by the Agra Bombay highway (NH 3) and the Ratlam-Indore railway line, along a northeast, southwest axis. The Ujjain highway is an important road that runs along a northwest, southeast axis.

About seven different drainage channels drain into the Kshipra River to the south of the city. The Chamunda Mataki Tekri is an important temple for the region. The major economic driver is the industries situated in the southwest part of the city. These include manufacturing and processing of textiles, chemicals, agro-produce and others. The Bank Note Press, a central government organization for printing Indian currency, is also located in Dewas.

10 In the Dewas context, declared slums include village settlements on the periphery, where slum-like conditions prevail.

16

3.2 Physical Characteristics

3.2.1 Topography

The town is located on the Dewas Plateau, a part of the Malwa Plateau. Apart from the Chamunda Hill located in the heart of the town, the terrain is flat. Lakander, Chhoti Kali-Sindh and Kshipra Rivers drain the Dewas Plateau. The topography of the town drains naturally in three directions–northwest, northeast and southwest–resulting in two ridge lines, which divide the area into three different basins. The developed area of the town is situated on the southern slope of Chamunda Hill. The town thus has general drainage on the southern side.

FIGURE 3 LAND COVER AND WATER BODIES

3.2.2 Climate

The Dewas region has a moderate climate with high temperatures during summer. The mean maximum temperature ranges from 30° C to 45° C and the mean minimum from 12° C to 18° C. The hottest months are April to June and the coolest December to February.

3.2.3 Rainfall

The normal rainfall in the area is around 1,380 mm. and maximum rainfall is observed from July to August. June and October receive intermittent rains.

17

3.3 Demography and Growth Patterns

There are 45 electoral wards in the municipal area, which covers about 100 sq. km.

FIGURE 4 GROWTH DIRECTIONS IN THE CITY

In the period from 1971 to 2001, Dewas witnessed high population growth of the municipal area due to various factors. However, the growth rate seems to have stabilized, probably due to the fact that there is no major economic driver and also the inadequacy of infrastructure. Moreover, it is in close proximity to Indore, which is the business capital of Madhya Pradesh and offers greater opportunities than Dewas. One of the more important issues, which contributes to the reduction in growth rate, is the paucity of water. However, this scenario may change, when the new water supply scheme is commissioned and proves successful.

The city is growing northwest towards Ujjain and southwest towards Indore as indicated by the arrows and circles in the adjoining map.

The city has about 2.75 lakh people today.

A detailed analysis of population growth and spatial distribution of population within the city are presented in Chapter 4.

CHART 1 TRENDS IN POPULATION GROWTH RATE

51,54534,577 83,465 164,360 231,670

18

CHAPTER 4. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS

4.1 Objectives of Projecting Population

In the context of the City Sanitation Plan, population estimation and projection are being carried out with the following objectives:

To obtain a realistic estimate of the total current population in the city and the spatial distribution of the same through empirical methods.

To take informed strategic decisions on provision of sanitation infrastructure and services for the city as a whole and for different parts of the city.

In taking strategic decisions, to strive for a reasonable balance between the risks of adequacy and viability in the future.

4.2 Population Projections and the Tradeoff Between Infrastructure Adequacy and Cost

The following table attempts to capture the strategic dimension of the tradeoff between infrastructure adequacy and cost. The table assumes that actual population growth is the only volatile variable and all other variables are stable.

TABLE 4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS – TRADEOFF BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE ADEQUACY AND COST

No Approach to population projection and infrastructure provision

Actual population growth

Impact on infrastructure adequacy, cost and credibility of decision makers

1 Conservative Low growth rates Low levels of infrastructure

provision Low capital investment Development needs to be

effectively “regulated” and “controlled”

Low growth rate (as projected)

Infrastructure adequate Cost under control Credit for good planning

High growth rate (higher than projected)

Infrastructure inadequate Ad hoc capital investments O&M costs out of control Criticism for poor planning

2 Liberal High growth rates High levels of infrastructure

provision High capital investment Development can be

“promoted” actively

Low growth rate(lower than projected)

Infrastructure has excess capacity

Low off-take Cost recovery difficult Criticism for excess expenditure

High growth rate(as projected)

Infrastructure adequate Cost under control Credit for good planning

3 Conservative on population projection, liberal on infrastructure planning Low growth rates High levels of infrastructure

provision High capital investment Development can be

“promoted” actively

Low growth rate (as projected)

Infrastructure has excess capacity

Low off-take Cost recovery difficult Criticism for excess expenditure

High growth rate (higher than projected)

Infrastructure adequate Cost under control Credit for visionary planning

19

No Approach to population projection and infrastructure provision

Actual population growth

Impact on infrastructure adequacy, cost and credibility of decision makers

4 Liberal on population projection, conservative on infrastructure planning High growth rates Low levels of infrastructure

provision Low capital investment Development needs to be

effectively “regulated”

Low growth rate(lower than projected)

Infrastructure adequate Cost under control

High growth rate(as projected)

Infrastructure inadequate Ad hoc capital investments

required for capacity augmentation

O&M costs out of control Criticism for poor planning

5 Liberal on population projection, phased infrastructure planning High growth rates Phased infrastructure provision

in modules Controlled capital investment Development can be promoted

in tandem with infrastructure provision:

o Infrastructure provision can be used to encourage contiguous and compact urban development

Low growth rate(lower than projected)

Infrastructure adequate Cost controlled through

phasing: o Later phases of

implementation held in abeyance

Credit for good planning High growth rate(as projected)

Infrastructure adequate Capital cost controlled through

phased investment O&M costs also under control Credit for good planning

4.3 Limitations of Demographic Data for Dewas

In the post-independence period, Dewas’s growth rates have fluctuated widely. In 1961, Dewas municipality had a population of 34,577. The Government of India’s industrialization initiatives in backward regions resulted in a high influx of population, especially between 1971-81 (61.93%) and 1981-91 (96.93%). In the year 1965 the area of Dewas Municipality was 17.35 sq. km. and in the year 1983, when it became a municipal corporation, the jurisdiction was extended to cover 100.22 sq. km. (Source: Dewas Development Plan 2011, prepared in 2001 by the Town Planning Department.)

The ‘National Urban Database Indicators’ document on Dewas city states that the area of municipal jurisdiction has increased from 90.82 sq. km. to 100.22 sq. km. between 2001 and 2004 and the total population is 231,672 as per the Census 2001. It is unclear as to when the change in area actually happened. When the 2001 Development Plan area and the current jurisdiction maps are compared, it is seen that Rajoda Village in the southeastern part of the city has been excluded and wards 44 and 45 (including Nagda Village) have been added and ward boundaries have also been redefined in the recent maps. Time series population data on the entire area under DMC is not available and inconsistent ward boundaries make it very difficult to analyze the available data in a time series.

20

4.4 Population Growth in Dewas from 1961 to 2001

TABLE 5 POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS AS PER CENSUS

No. Year Population Growth Rate % 1 1961 34,577 2 1971 51,545 49 3 1981 83,465 62 4 1991 164,364 97 5 2001 231,672 41

4.5 Projections Used in Other Studies

A few studies have been carried out for Dewas city to date that include population projections, such as land use planning (Development Plan), as well as for infrastructure planning (DPRs for water supply, sewerage and solid waste management). As evident from the table below, the projections vary widely.

21

TABLE 6 POPULATION PROJECTIONS USED IN DIFFERENT STUDIES

Water Supply DPR Sewerage DPR Solid Waste DPR Development Plan

Method Population Method Population Method Population Method Population

2010 Mean of Arithmetic and Incremental Increase Methods

265,000 Graphical Method

- Method of calculation is not specified in the DPR

- Method not specified

-

2011 - - 310,000 400,000

2020 - - - -

2021 - - 420,000

2025 325,000 - - -

2030 - 605,000 - -

2036 - 785,000 - -

2040 410,000 - - -

22

4.6 Estimation of Current Population (2010)

The last available official population figures for Dewas are those from the Census 2001. The field surveys for the Census 2011 have been completed in Dewas and the population figures are currently being finalized. As such these figures have not been officially announced.

4.6.1 2011 population by projection

As an initial exercise, the population for 2011 was projected from the Census figures for the period 1961 to 2001 using standard statistical methods mentioned in table 6. The results are tabulated below.

TABLE 7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 2011 USING STANDARD METHODS

Projection Method Projected Population for 2011

Arithmetic Progression 280,946 Geometrical Progression 368,202 Incremental Increase 306,786 Power (Graphical) 241,468 Exponential 395,721 Natural Increase (with zero net migration) 271,258 Average of the above 310,730

4.6.2 Current population estimate from land use survey

As described previously in Sections 2.3 and 2.6, a land use and infrastructure survey was carried out in Dewas as part of this study. One of the purposes of this survey is to estimate the current population at disaggregate (sub-ward) level. Initial iterations using this methodology generated population figures, which seemed to be on the higher side. These figures were discussed with professionals who know the city well. It emerged that the occupancy rates of built-up areas were lower than assumed earlier. Further iterations were carried out to bring the estimates of current population more in line with the general understanding of recent growth trends in the city. The total population for 2010 derived from this iterative process is 275,903.

TABLE 8: WARD-WISE BREAK UP OF POPULATION FROM LAND USE SURVEY

Ward No. Population 2010 from Land Use Survey

Ward No. Population 2010 from Land Use Survey

1 5,193 24 4,229 2 10,983 25 4,570 3 3,799 26 5,286 4 6,043 27 4,604 5 5,713 28 4,818 6 8,560 29 7,075 7 13,190 30 4,435 8 5,912 31 5,111 9 8,167 32 4,796 10 7,538 33 4,245 11 5,296 34 3,687 12 11,496 35 3,046 13 7,239 36 3,959 14 5,240 37 5,223 15 6,045 38 6,467 16 8,258 39 4,036 17 10,701 40 5,679 18 4,903 41 6,003 19 10,591 42 7,833

23

20 5,262 43 4,964 21 5,535 44 4,997 22 6,087 45 4,859 23 4,230 Total 275,903

4.7 Population Projection for 2011 to 2041

Taking the population in 2010 as 275,903, the CAGR from 2001 (population 231,672) to 2010 works out to 1.9604%. Using this CAGR, the population for 2011 was projected as 281,312. The population for 2011 is calculated to bring the projections in line with the Census years.

Subsequently, the population for 2021, 2031 and 2041 was projected using the standard statistical methods as shown in the table below.

TABLE 9: POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY STATISTICAL METHODS BASED ON 2011 POPULATION DERIVED FROM LAND USE SURVEY

No. Year Arithmetic Progression Method

Geometrical Progression Method

Incremental Increase Method

Power (Graphical) Method

Exponential Log Method

1 2011 281,312 281,312 281,312 281,312 281,312 281,3122 2021 330,659 394,105 354,456 307,568 511,241 275,0993 2031 380,006 552,122 451,398 362,721 797,707 293,3284 2041 429,353 773,497 572,138 419,524 1,244,689 309,408 The above figures were reviewed and it was felt that it will be realistic to expect the growth rate in Dewas to stabilize at about 2% CAGR for the forthcoming decade (2011-2021) and witness a marginal increase to 2.25% CAGR for the next two decades (2021-2031 and 2031-2041). Opining that population growth is likely to have slowed over the past decade and with no significant new development foreseen for Dewas to trigger an acceleration in population growth in the coming decades, these assumptions appear to reflect reality. The projected population thus derived is presented in the table below.

TABLE 10 POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY CAGR METHOD BASED ON 2011 POPULATION DERIVED FROM LAND USE SURVEY

YEAR CAGR Population YEAR CAGR Population YEAR CAGR Population

2011 281,312 2021 342,917 2031 428,374

2012 2% 286,938 2022 2.25% 350,633 2032 2.25% 438,012

2013 2% 292,677 2023 2.25% 358,522 2033 2.25% 447,867

2014 2% 298,530 2024 2.25% 366,589 2034 2.25% 457,944

2015 2% 304,501 2025 2.25% 374,837 2035 2.25% 468,248

2016 2% 310,591 2026 2.25% 383,271 2036 2.25% 478,784

2017 2% 316,803 2027 2.25% 391,895 2037 2.25% 489,556

2018 2% 323,139 2028 2.25% 400,712 2038 2.25% 500,571

2019 2% 329,602 2029 2.25% 409,728 2039 2.25% 511,834

2020 2% 336,194 2030 2.25% 418,947 2040 2.25% 523,350

2021 2% 342,917 2031 2.25% 428,374 2041 2.25% 535,126

In summary: Year Population 2011 281,312 2021 342,917 2031 428,374 2041 535,126

24

4.8 Ward-wise Distribution of Future Population

Ward level distribution of the projected population has been carried out by varying growth rates of wards based on their projected development potential. Inner city wards are saturated and only major changes in building and zoning regulations will spur growth and development of these wards. Considering no such changes, growth rates may increase with increasing distance from the city center.

The wards of the city have been divided into four types – core area, inner ring, outer ring and peripheral wards. Each of the 45 wards is assigned a growth rate based on its projected potential to grow in the coming decades. Some assumptions are made on the urban development potential of the city to decide ward-wise growth rates. Based on the growth potential of each ward, the projected population is distributed.

45

44

14

1

4

2

15

5

42

11

12

38

43

3

7

17

29

6

13

9

19

8

10

39

26

20

16

21

18

22

41 40

25

2430

32

28

33

27

34 313736

23

35

Kshipra River

Ward 1.shpCoreInner RingOuter RingPeriphery

Railwayroads.shpWards.shp

Dewas_waterbodies.shpKshipra River

N

EW

S

Considering the present development trends and the anticipated future growth, the expected growth potential for the 45 wards in the next three decades has been calibrated. The projected ward-wise growth potential table for the next three decades is given below.

25

TABLE 11 WARD-WISE GROWTH POTENTIAL TABLE FOR THE NEXT THREE DECADES

Ward No. Growth Potential 2011-21 Growth Potential 2021-31 Growth Potential 2031-411 Low Low Medium2 High High High3 Low Low Low4 Low Low Low5 Medium High Medium6 High High Medium7 High High Medium8 High Medium Low9 High Medium Low10 High Medium Low11 Low Medium Medium12 High Medium Low13 High High High14 Low Low Medium15 Medium High High16 Medium High Low17 High Medium Low18 Medium High Medium19 High Medium Low20 Medium Low Low21 Medium Low Low22 Medium Low Low23 Medium Low Low24 Low Low Low25 Medium Low Low26 Medium Low Low27 Low Low Low28 Low Low Low29 Low Low Low30 Low Low Low31 Medium Low Low

26

32 Medium Low Low33 Medium Low Low34 Low Low Low35 Low Low Low36 Low Low Low37 Medium Low Low38 High High High39 Medium Medium Medium40 Medium Low Low41 High Low Low42 Low Medium Medium43 Low Low Medium44 Low Low Low45 Low Low Low The following are map representations based on the above table.

Growth Potential 2011 to 2021 Growth Potential 2021 to 2031

Growth Potential 2031 TO 2041

27

To calibrate growth rate across wards, it was first assumed that the high growth potential wards would grow 50% faster than the medium potential wards and the low potential wards half as fast. Based on the above assumption, the growth rates for the three types of wards were derived through an iterative process, such that the total population for the decadal years from 2021 to 2041 matched with the total projected population. The decadal growth, thus derived for wards with different growth potentials, is given in table 12 and the ward level population projected for the following three decades in table 13.

TABLE 12 GROWTH RATES BASED ON GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR THE NEXT THREE DECADES

Growth Potential Weightage Decadal Growth Rates

2011-2021 2021-2031 2031-2041Low 0.5x 10.5 13.7 16.5Medium 1.0x 21.0 27.5 33.0High 1.5x 31.5 41.2 49.5 x 21.0315 27.4895 32.967

TABLE 13 PROJECTED WARD LEVEL POPULATION 2011 TO 2041

Ward No.

Population

2011 2021 2031 2041

1 5,295 5,852 6,656 8,850

2 11,198 14,731 20,805 31,094

3 3,873 4,281 4,869 5,672 4 6,161 6,809 7,745 9,022

5 5,825 7,050 9,957 13,240

6 8,728 11,481 16,215 21,561 7 13,449 17,691 24,986 33,223

8 6,028 7,930 10,109 11,776

9 8,327 10,954 13,965 16,267

10 7,686 10,110 12,890 15,014

11 5,400 5,968 7,608 10,116

12 11,721 15,419 19,658 22,898 13 7,381 9,709 13,713 20,494

14 5,343 5,905 6,716 8,930

15 6,164 7,460 10,536 15,746

16 8,420 10,191 14,393 16,765

17 10,911 14,353 18,298 21,315

18 4,999 6,051 8,545 11,363 19 10,799 14,205 18,110 21,095

20 5,365 6,494 7,386 8,604

21 5,644 6,830 7,769 9,050

22 6,206 7,512 8,544 9,952

23 4,313 5,220 5,937 6,916

24 4,312 4,765 5,420 6,314 25 4,660 5,640 6,415 7,472

26 5,390 6,523 7,420 8,643

27 4,694 5,188 5,901 6,874

28 4,912 5,429 6,175 7,193

29 7,214 7,972 9,068 10,563

30 4,522 4,997 5,684 6,621 31 5,211 6,307 7,174 8,357

32 4,890 5,918 6,732 7,842

33 4,328 5,239 5,959 6,941

34 3,759 4,155 4,726 5,505

35 3,106 3,432 3,904 4,548

28

Ward No.

Population

2011 2021 2031 2041

36 4,037 4,461 5,074 5,911 37 5,325 6,445 7,331 8,540

38 6,594 8,674 12,251 18,309

39 4,115 4,981 6,350 8,443

40 5,790 7,008 7,971 9,285

41 6,121 8,052 9,158 10,668

42 7,987 8,826 11,253 14,962 43 5,061 5,594 6,362 8,460

44 5,095 5,631 6,405 7,460

45 4,954 5,475 6,228 7,254 Total 281,312 342,917 428,374 535,126

4.9 Limitations of Population Projection at City and Ward Levels

While the CSP team has spared no effort in examining the dynamics of population at city and ward level in Dewas, it must be placed on record that population projection is not an exact science. There are serious limitations of data availability in the Indian context. Therefore, the projections made are based on many assumptions.

4.9.1 Factors that can affect city level population and its spatial distribution

Change in population in an area over time primarily consists of two components:

1. Natural change due to birth and death; the net change is total births minus total deaths. 2. Migration. The net change is total in-migration minus total out-migration. In any city, in-

migration and out-migration happen simultaneously and continuously. The net migration is usually captured in the Census figures. In fast growing cities and their surrounding regions, migration phenomena can change rapidly in very short periods of time.

When the population of cities is measured periodically, one of the factors that results in changes, other than the above two factors, is change in the delineation of the geographical jurisdiction for which the population is being measured. The statistical methods used for population projections serve only one purpose – to capture a trend. The actual trend could be influenced by any of several factors as explained in the table below.

TABLE 14 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS No. Factor Impact on Population Case of Dewas 1 Fertility rates Higher the birth rate, higher the

growth rate Nothing exceptional anticipated in Dewas

2 Mortality rate Higher the death rate, lower the growth rate

Nothing exceptional anticipated in Dewas

3 Change in boundaries

Inclusion of new areas within the city boundaries usually results in a higher population for the city and vice versa

Please see Section 4.3 on “Limitations of demographic data for Dewas”

4 Economic development

Economic growth brings in-migration and vice versa

While there is no conclusive and reliable quantitative evidence for the relation

29

No. Factor Impact on Population Case of Dewas 5 Quality of life

(QOL) Quality of life is a resultant of many different factors. However, in the Indian context, availability of water, roads, power, education & health facilities and sanitation (in that order usually) are critical determinants of the perceived quality of life. All other factors remaining the same, when QOL improves, in-migration increases and when QOL deteriorates, in-migration decreases and out-migration increases.

between economy, quality of life and population in Dewas, the following observations are important: During 1961-71 and 1971-81, it

appears that new economic activities resulted in in-migration.

During 1981-91, it appears that a significant portion of the population increase is due to inclusion of new areas within municipal boundaries. However, it may be noted that even during this period, in-migration seems to have been significant.

During 1991-2001, 15% of total growth of 41% was contributed by net migration (in-migration minus out-migration).

Quality of life is a critical issue in Dewas. Of the many determinants of QOL, availability of water and sanitation is one of the most important. If the water and sanitation situation should improve significantly, in-migration to Dewas can rapidly increase.

6 Real estate market operations

This factor is often overlooked. Large-scale real estate developments such as new townships, which have the required scale to implement their own infrastructure solutions effectively, can attract new population. It can be argued that this does not put a load on municipal systems. However, experience shows that eventually the load comes on the municipal system.

In the case of Dewas, no such activity is happening within municipal boundaries. However, such developments are coming up on the Indore-Dewas road. It is quite likely that Dewas eventually will start functioning as a part of the metropolitan region of Indore, particularly if there is significant economic growth in Indore.

7 Government actions

Illustrative examples: Changes in policies that affect

location of industries – for example, providing incentives for industries in small towns – can increase in-migration.

Investments made by government for development or even for administrative purposes – for example, setting up a logistics hub – can increase in-migration.

Change of jurisdiction – for example, delineation of a metropolitan area with a development agenda – can promote in-migration.

There are no such major initiatives on the horizon for Dewas, to the best of the CSP team’s knowledge.

4.9.2 Illustrative list of situations that can alter population dynamics

Situation ImpactWater supply and social infrastructure in Dewas improve substantially

People who currently stay at Indore and work in Dewas will shift to Dewas

The bus system in Indore is extended to Dewas and quality of life improves in Dewas

Dewas will become a suburb of Indore. More people will live in Dewas and work in Indore

Major residential townships come up along the Indore-Dewas road, creating a critical mass of urban population

Dewas will start being treated as an extension of Indore and the town itself will see population growth

30

4.10 Projections of Water Demand and Sewage Generation

As per recommendations of Section 2.2.8.3 of the CPHEEO Manual, ward level water demand and sewage generation has been projected considering 135 lpcd for residential and non-residential requirements. This figure includes retail, non-domestic consumption such as commercial development, but does not include non-residential bulk consumers like large-scale industries, industrial estates, large institutions, etc. It also doesn't include UFW (Unaccounted For Water). It is assumed that end of pipe consumption is 135 lpcd. Eighty percent of this quantity is taken as sewage generation. Solid waste generation is taken as 450 gm. per capita as prescribed by CPHEEO.

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CITY LEVEL INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND 2011 2021 2031 2041

Population 281,312 342,917 428,374 535,126

Water Demand at Consumer End (MLD) 37.98 46.29 57.83 72.24

Sewage Generation (MLD) 30.38 37.04 46.26 57.79

Solid Waste Generation (Metric Tonne) 126.59 154.31 192.77 240.81

31

TABLE 16: PROJECTED WARD LEVEL INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND FOR 2011, 2021, 2031 AND 2041

Ward No.

2011 2021 2031 2041

Popln. 2011

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2021

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2031

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2041

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

1 5,295 0.71 0.57 2.38 5,852 0.79 0.63 2.63 6,656 0.90 0.72 3.00 8,850 1.19 0.96 3.98

2 11,198 1.51 1.21 5.04 14,731 1.99 1.59 6.63 20,805 2.81 2.25 9.36 31,094

4.20 3.36 13.99

3 3,873 0.52 0.42 1.74 4,281 0.58 0.46 1.93 4,869 0.66 0.53 2.19 5,672 0.77 0.61 2.55

4 6,161 0.83 0.67 2.77 6,809 0.92 0.74 3.06 7,745 1.05 0.84 3.49 9,022 1.22 0.97 4.06

5 5,825 0.79 0.63 2.62 7,050 0.95 0.76 3.17 9,957 1.34 1.08 4.48 13,240

1.79 1.43 5.96

6 8,728 1.18 0.94 3.93 11,481 1.55 1.24 5.17 16,215 2.19 1.75 7.3021,56

1 2.91 2.33 9.70

7 13,449 1.82 1.45 6.05 17,691 2.39 1.91 7.96 24,986 3.37 2.70 11.2433,22

34.49 3.59 14.95

8 6,028 0.81 0.65 2.71 7,930 1.07 0.86 3.57 10,109 1.36 1.09 4.5511,77

61.59 1.27 5.30

9 8,327 1.12 0.90 3.75 10,954 1.48 1.18 4.93 13,965 1.89 1.51 6.28 16,267

2.20 1.76 7.32

10 7,686 1.04 0.83 3.46 10,110 1.36 1.09 4.55 12,890 1.74 1.39 5.8015,01

42.03 1.62 6.76

11 5,400 0.73 0.58 2.43 5,968 0.81 0.64 2.69 7,608 1.03 0.82 3.4210,11

61.37 1.09 4.55

12 11,721 1.58 1.27 5.27 15,419 2.08 1.67 6.94 19,658 2.65 2.12 8.85 22,898

3.09 2.47 10.30

13 7,381 1.00 0.80 3.32 9,709 1.31 1.05 4.37 13,713 1.85 1.48 6.1720,49

4 2.77 2.21 9.22

14 5,343 0.72 0.58 2.40 5,905 0.80 0.64 2.66 6,716 0.91 0.73 3.02 8,930 1.21 0.96 4.02

15 6,164 0.83 0.67 2.77 7,460 1.01 0.81 3.36 10,536 1.42 1.14 4.7415,74

62.13 1.70 7.09

16 8,420 1.14 0.91 3.79 10,191 1.38 1.10 4.59 14,393 1.94 1.55 6.4816,76

52.26 1.81 7.54

17 10,911 1.47 1.18 4.91 14,353 1.94 1.55 6.46 18,298 2.47 1.98 8.23 21,315

2.88 2.30 9.59

18 4,999 0.67 0.54 2.25 6,051 0.82 0.65 2.72 8,545 1.15 0.92 3.85 11,36 1.53 1.23 5.11

32

Ward No.

2011 2021 2031 2041

Popln. 2011

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2021

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2031

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2041

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

3

19 10,799 1.46 1.17 4.86 14,205 1.92 1.53 6.39 18,110 2.44 1.96 8.1521,09

5 2.85 2.28 9.49

20 5,365 0.72 0.58 2.41 6,494 0.88 0.70 2.92 7,386 1.00 0.80 3.32 8,604 1.16 0.93 3.87

21 5,644 0.76 0.61 2.54 6,830 0.92 0.74 3.07 7,769 1.05 0.84 3.50 9,050 1.22 0.98 4.07

22 6,206 0.84 0.67 2.79 7,512 1.01 0.81 3.38 8,544 1.15 0.92 3.84 9,952 1.34 1.07 4.48

23 4,313 0.58 0.47 1.94 5,220 0.70 0.56 2.35 5,937 0.80 0.64 2.67 6,916 0.93 0.75 3.11

24 4,312 0.58 0.47 1.94 4,765 0.64 0.51 2.14 5,420 0.73 0.59 2.44 6,314 0.85 0.68 2.84

25 4,660 0.63 0.50 2.10 5,640 0.76 0.61 2.54 6,415 0.87 0.69 2.89 7,472 1.01 0.81 3.36

26 5,390 0.73 0.58 2.43 6,523 0.88 0.70 2.94 7,420 1.00 0.80 3.34 8,643 1.17 0.93 3.89

27 4,694 0.63 0.51 2.11 5,188 0.70 0.56 2.33 5,901 0.80 0.64 2.66 6,874 0.93 0.74 3.09

28 4,912 0.66 0.53 2.21 5,429 0.73 0.59 2.44 6,175 0.83 0.67 2.78 7,193 0.97 0.78 3.24

29 7,214 0.97 0.78 3.25 7,972 1.08 0.86 3.59 9,068 1.22 0.98 4.0810,56

3 1.43 1.14 4.75

30 4,522 0.61 0.49 2.03 4,997 0.67 0.54 2.25 5,684 0.77 0.61 2.56 6,621 0.89 0.72 2.98

31 5,211 0.70 0.56 2.35 6,307 0.85 0.68 2.84 7,174 0.97 0.77 3.23 8,357 1.13 0.90 3.76

32 4,890 0.66 0.53 2.20 5,918 0.80 0.64 2.66 6,732 0.91 0.73 3.03 7,842 1.06 0.85 3.53

33 4,328 0.58 0.47 1.95 5,239 0.71 0.57 2.36 5,959 0.80 0.64 2.68 6,941 0.94 0.75 3.12

34 3,759 0.51 0.41 1.69 4,155 0.56 0.45 1.87 4,726 0.64 0.51 2.13 5,505 0.74 0.59 2.48

35 3,106 0.42 0.34 1.40 3,432 0.46 0.37 1.54 3,904 0.53 0.42 1.76 4,548 0.61 0.49 2.05

36 4,037 0.54 0.44 1.82 4,461 0.60 0.48 2.01 5,074 0.69 0.55 2.28 5,911 0.80 0.64 2.66

37 5,325 0.72 0.58 2.40 6,445 0.87 0.70 2.90 7,331 0.99 0.79 3.30 8,540 1.15 0.92 3.84

38 6,594 0.89 0.71 2.97 8,674 1.17 0.94 3.90 12,251 1.65 1.32 5.51 18,309

2.47 1.98 8.24

39 4,115 0.56 0.44 1.85 4,981 0.67 0.54 2.24 6,350 0.86 0.69 2.86 8,443 1.14 0.91 3.80

40 5,790 0.78 0.63 2.61 7,008 0.95 0.76 3.15 7,971 1.08 0.86 3.59 9,285 1.25 1.00 4.18

41 6,121 0.83 0.66 2.75 8,052 1.09 0.87 3.62 9,158 1.24 0.99 4.12 10,66 1.44 1.15 4.80

33

Ward No.

2011 2021 2031 2041

Popln. 2011

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2021

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2031

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

Popln. 2041

Water Dem. (MLD)

Sewage Gen. (MLD)

Solid Waste Gen. (Metric Tonne)

8

42 7,987 1.08 0.86 3.59 8,826 1.19 0.95 3.97 11,253 1.52 1.22 5.0614,96

2 2.02 1.62 6.73

43 5,061 0.68 0.55 2.28 5,594 0.76 0.60 2.52 6,362 0.86 0.69 2.86 8,460 1.14 0.91 3.81

44 5,095 0.69 0.55 2.29 5,631 0.76 0.61 2.53 6,405 0.86 0.69 2.88 7,460 1.01 0.81 3.36

45 4,954 0.67 0.54 2.23 5,475 0.74 0.59 2.46 6,228 0.84 0.67 2.80 7,254 0.98 0.78 3.26

281,312 37.98 30.38 126.59 342,917 46.29 37.04 154.31 428,374 57.83 46.26 192.77535,1

26 72.24 57.79 240.81

34

CHAPTER 5. SANITATION SITUATION ANALYSIS

The following section provides a summary description of the status of sanitation in Dewas, as emerging from the following surveys:

1. Dewas Cleanliness Survey, DMC, 2008 2. Reconnaissance Survey (on sanitation), USAID FIRE (D), 2010 3. Land Use and Infrastructure Survey in Non-slum Areas, Alchemy, 2010, and Land Use and

Infrastructure Survey in Slum Areas, Alchemy, 2010.

In addition to the above, a detailed study of 10 slums in Dewas was carried out by Alchemy to understand qualitative aspects of sanitation in slums.

This is followed by reviews of the DPR for Sewerage and the DPR for Solid Waste Management. Subsequently, the observations from all the reviews are compared with the NUSP rating indicators.

5.1 Situation Assessment from the Four Surveys

5.1.1 The objective and scope of surveys

5.1.1.1 CLEANLINESS SURVEY BY DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

The Dewas Municipal Corporation conducted a household survey to assess the status of sanitation and cleanliness in the city of Dewas in 2008. The data captured included status of household sanitation, willingness to pay for construction and operation and maintenance of community toilets, status of solid waste management, etc.

The compiled survey data for each ward was downloaded from www.mpurban.gov.in of the ‘Urban Administration and Development Department’ from the ‘Nagrika Sarvekshan 2008’. The survey data for wards 3, 20, 26 and 39 were not available online. A total of 23,708 households have been surveyed from the entire city. (For details refer ANNEXURE: 6.)

5.1.1.2 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY BY USAID FIRE (D) IN 2010

A reconnaissance survey was carried out by USAID FIRE (D) to collect specific primary data of the sanitation situation in the city through a rapid field survey. The survey included extensive data on the following components (for details refer ANNEXURE: 7):

Public Latrines in Wards and Slums

Surface Drains

Solid Waste Arrangements

Sample Survey of Industries

Sample Survey of Public Institutions (Health & Education)

Testing of Quality of Water and Waste Water.

Observation and interview-based surveys were carried out to capture the above-mentioned data. In addition interviews were carried out in select public offices, institutions, industries and hospitals.

35

5.1.1.3 LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS ASSESSMENT BY ALCHEMY

Alchemy conducted a land use and infrastructure survey for the city of Dewas. The objective was to develop a thorough understanding of the development patterns and the status of sanitation in different parts of the city.

The whole city was divided into survey blocks of approximately 0.5 to 1 sq. km. (average size). For areas with sparse development, larger blocks were delineated and for areas with denser development, smaller blocks were delineated.

An observation checklist was prepared to capture land use and development related information. Two questionnaires were developed to capture infrastructure status – one for slums and one for all other uses. (For details refer ANNEXURE: 8.)

5.1.1.4 DETAILED SLUM SURVEY BY ALCHEMY

A detailed study of 10 slums in Dewas was carried out to understand qualitative aspects of sanitation in slums. A questionnaire was designed to include information on civic amenities, health, infrastructure, constraints and problems for slum residents and behavior patterns with respect to health and hygiene (for details refer ANNEXURE: 9). A door-to-door sample survey was conducted, which covered 414 households. The methods for achieving the objectives of the survey included the following steps:

Rapid Participatory Appraisal of the whole community including children and women

Baseline surveys of selected samples to obtain an overview of demographic characteristics of the slum

Focused group discussions.

5.1.2 Sanitation status as per three surveys

The DMC Survey, Reconnaissance Survey, and Alchemy’s Land Use and Infrastructure Survey have been used to present the sanitation status of the city.

5.1.2.1 ACCESS TO WATER

The surveys reveal that 78% of the residential population (excluding slums) and 64% of non-residential areas (excluding industries) have individual sources of water supply.

It was identified that the primary source of water supply in the residential areas is from the DMC.

The surveys further captured that in the residential areas 15% of households are dependent on bore wells and for 32% the primary supply comes from hand pumps. In the non-residential areas, people also substantially (52%) depend on municipal piped supply, while 42% have bore wells and 4% depend on Nagar Nigam tankers.

In the slums, 53% of the population have individual sources of supply, while 27% rely on community sources alone, and the remaining 20% use both. An assessment of primary water sources reveals that 44% of the slum population rely on hand pumps, 5% on bore wells, 4% on bottled water and 47% on piped municipal supply. Augmentation of household supply is primarily through municipal tankers and community hand pumps.

5.1.2.2 ACCESS TO INDIVIDUAL TOILETS

The surveys indicate that about 89% of the households surveyed have access to household toilets and 11% do not have access to toilets.

The ward-wise distribution shows that the lack of toilets is predominant in wards 1-3, 11-17 and 43-45.

36

In the non-residential areas (excluding industries) 17% of the people use free community toilets and about 2% use paid community toilets. Seventy-seven percent have individual toilets within their campuses.

In the slums, only 29% of the population access individual toilets alone. Four percent have individual toilets, but also access community toilets.

Open defecation is very high in the slums. It was further observed that even members of households with access to individual toilets still resort to open defecation (37%). This condition is particularly high in the slums in wards 1, 11, 43 and 44. Slums in wards 13 and 16 resort to open defecation alone.

5.1.2.3 ACCESS TO PUBLIC TOILETS

The surveys indicate that 18 of the 45 wards have public toilets. About 22% of the respondents have said that they have access to public toilet facilities (either toilets or urinals) in their neighborhood. Seventy-eight percent do not have access to public toilet facilities.

Access to Public Toilets No. of Wards

Yes 18

No 27

Of the wards that have public toilets, three have less than five WC seats, seven have five to nine seats, six have 10 to 15 seats and two have more than 15 seats. The incidence of open defecation exists in seven wards and on a smaller scale in another 22 wards.

No. of Wards No. of WC Seats

3 ≤ 5

7 5-9

6 10-15

2 ≥ 15

Seventy slums do not have public toilets. The remaining 11 have them. Eight of the slums that have public toilets have five or more toilet seats. The rest have less than five.

Seventeen percent of the population in slums is willing to contribute to construction of public toilets and 22% are willing to contribute to maintenance of public toilets.

5.1.2.4 WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

The surveys reveal that 32 of the 45 wards have no sewer line, 10 wards have 50% or less area sewered, one ward has 60% area sewered, and only two wards have 100% of their area sewered.

No. of Wards Area Sewered (%)

32 0

10 ≤ 50

1 60

2 100

37

The surveys indicate that four out of the 13 wards with sewer lines have no treatment systems, eight have community septic tanks, and only one ward has a sewage treatment plant (ward 3-BNP area).

Three out of the 13 wards with sewer lines dispose of the effluent in nearby nallas, three wards in open drains, and the disposal pattern could not be observed in seven wards.

The waste water from 40% of the residential population (excluding slums) is disposed through the existing sewer networks; 25% use septic tanks of which only 1% has been cleaned in the last 5 years, and 26% of the population dispose the untreated effluent directly into open drains.

In the non-residential areas (excluding industries), 51% of the waste water generated is disposed into the open drains. About 31% have septic tanks but less than 1% has been cleaned in the last five years.

In the slums, 61% of the population indicated the lack of any disposal system and, hence, the waste water is left untreated in the open. Twenty-nine percent indicated that they conveyed it to the open drains. To summarize, 80% of the waste water from the slums goes directly into nallas and eventually into the river.

The status of sewage disposal in the special areas surveyed is as follows:

In all the education institutions surveyed, septic tanks are used to treat waste water. The treated effluent is disposed “into the outside gutter or drain”.

Seven out of 10 hospitals surveyed have ETPs and septic tanks and the other three have only septic tanks. All of them dispose the treated effluent “into the outside gutter or drain”.

Both the public institutions surveyed have septic tanks, one of which is damaged. The effluent in both cases is disposed “into the outside gutter or drain”.

The surveys reveal that about 57% of the slum population is willing to pay Rs.3,000 as beneficiary contribution for construction of household toilets.

5.1.2.5 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

The surveys indicate that 24 out of the 45 wards have no community bins and the rest have at least one bin.

At least 10 wards have more than 10 unauthorized garbage dumps; it was observed that ward 19 has as many as 36 unauthorized dumps.

About 4% of the respondents dispose the solid waste in the drains, about 54% in the open, about 1% is collected by a nominated agency or scheduled collection system, and 41% of the respondents dispose their solid waste in the waste containers.

The ward-wise distribution indicates that about a third of the municipal wards have waste containers accessible and the rest don’t.

Door-to-door collection, the preferred method, seems to be insignificant from the respondents’ view. In 20 wards, the garbage is collected daily and in 19 wards garbage is collected ‘irregularly’ or ‘very irregularly’.

Only three slums have community bins. There are many unauthorized garbage dumps in these slums.

The status of solid waste disposal in the special areas surveyed is as follows:

In all the education institutions solid waste is collected in bins and either burnt or buried in a pit. In two of the six institutions, the solid waste is dumped on the nearby road.

38

In three out of the 10 hospitals surveyed solid waste is dumped nearby and collected by DMC and in one case it is put in a DMC bin and then collected by DMC. In five cases, DMC directly collects the solid waste and in one case it is either burnt or collected by DMC.

In the public institutions, one recycles some waste and the rest is burnt. The other institution dumps the waste nearby, which is collected by DMC.

Only 43% of the residential population and 42% of the non-residential population state a willingness to pay for door-to-door collection of solid waste. This incidence is highest in wards 24 to 30 and parts of wards 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16 & 17.

In the slums, 73% of the solid waste generated is disposed in the open. Only 2% is disposed in municipal bins. Sixteen percent of the solid waste is burnt.

5.1.2.6 BIO-MEDICAL WASTES

According to the reconnaissance survey, eight out of the 10 hospitals surveyed hand over bio-medical waste to a private collector every alternate day. One hospital reported the system of daily collection. One of the hospitals did not respond to the collection query, but mentioned that their in-house incinerator is dysfunctional. The bio-medical waste collected from the other hospitals is then taken to Hoswin Incinerator Pvt. Ltd. in Indore (appointed by Pollution Control Board).

5.1.2.7 INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT & DOMESTIC WASTE WATER

The surveys captured that the waste water technology and treatment systems vary from industry to industry. Twelve industries were surveyed. Three of them have ETPs and STPs for effluent treatment. Six have only ETPs and two have no system. One of the industries has a solar evaporation plant. The Ranbaxy pharmaceutical industry has an activated sludge plant and a thermal evaporation system. Some of the byproducts are used in the plant’s gardens. One factory has a solar evaporation plant for treatment of effluent.

No. of Industries Treatment System Adopted

3 ETP and STP

6 ETP

2 No System

1 Solar evaporation plant

5.1.2.8 INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE

In most cases, the solid waste is sent to the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) constructed at Pithampur in Dhar District by M/s. M.P. Waste Management Facility (a group of M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd., Hyderabad) on BOOT basis. Some industries like Ranbaxy have captive incinerator plants. Steel rejects are sold to “authorized recyclers”.

5.1.2.9 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

There are seven major nallas flowing through the city. All of them are stable and no flooding is reported. In all the seven nallas the course has been mentioned as “natural and requires training”. These drainage channels pass through 26 wards. Of the wards that have nallas, only in five are they in objectionable condition. Status of roadside surface drains is as follows:

39

Sr. No.

Category of Wards Surface Drains Coverage as % of Road Length

Built-up Kutcha

Coverage Construction Coverage

1. Wards in core area (21 to 37)

50% Rectangular in masonry or stone slabs

40%

2. Wards outside core area (2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43).

28% -do- 31%

3. Wards on periphery 14% -do- 34%

5.1.2.10 WATER QUALITY

The Reconnaissance Survey tested the quality of water and waste water samples. The TDS11 levels in the bore wells were two to three times higher than the acceptable limits and the B.Coli12 levels were 15 times higher than acceptable limits.

A summary of other results is as follows:

Sr. No.

Samples Parameters of Quality

Permissible Limit

Actual Results Remarks

1 Bore well (5 samples)

Total hardness as CaCO3

300 mg/l 247 to 1,220 mg/l

Ground water is brackish in test due to high TDS; two samples show biological pollution

Dissolved solids 500 mg/l 494 to 2440 mg/l

Alkalinity 200 mg/l 196 to 512 mg/l

MPN count of B Coli

10 in 100 ml sample

Nil and 160

2 Waste water (5 samples)

Taste Acceptable Objectionable Waste water flow in nallas is not fit for discharge into public water bodies in accordance with CPHEEO Standards

Odour No offensive odour

Disagreeable

COD 250 mg/l 618 to 1,190 mg/l

BOD 30 mg/l 155 to 275 mg/l

MPN of B Coli 10/100ml > 1,000

11The dissolved minerals in water are commonly referred to as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The TDS content of any water sample is expressed in milligrams/litre (mg/l) or in parts per million (ppm). The standard that applies to India is the BIS 10500-1991 standard. The BIS standard says that the maximum desirable TDS is 500 mg/l and the maximum permissible level in the absence of a better source of water is 2,000 mg/l. 12Balantidium coli is a parasitic species known to be pathogenic to humans and to cause dysentery-like symptoms and, in acute cases, diarrhea. Its occurrence is common where water sources may be contaminated with swine or human feces. The maximum permissible limit is 10 mg/l.

40

5.1.3 Hygiene behavior of households as per the Detailed Slum Survey

The detailed survey conducted in the 10 slums has also been used to assess hygiene behavior related issues. The following are some of findings in the surveyed slums:

21% of women do not wash hands before preparation of food.

13% of respondents did not wash hands even after defecation. Hands are not normally cleaned with soap, but mostly with soil or ash.

30% of respondents do not use chappals/footwear and do not change clothes daily.

50% of respondents reported that they dispose of their children’s excreta safely, wrapped in paper or plastic, while the rest said they throw it in nearby a nallah or drains.

More than 40% of women defecate in the open and use less a than 2 litres of water for cleaning.

During the menstrual cycle, women use cloth. They are not aware of sanitary napkins and those, who are aware, cannot afford them. The same cloth is used for 2-3 months and then is burnt or thrown in a garbage dump. Women did not know about UTI or other reproductive health related issues.

5.2 Short Note on Review of Project Report on Sewerage Project of Dewas

This note provides a quick review of the Detailed Project Report on Dewas Sewerage Project, prepared by Vastushilpi Projects & Consultants Pvt Ltd., Bhopal, in October 2010.

5.2.1 Existing sewerage (Ref. – Chapter 2)

(a) Proposal in DPR

It is stated that no sewerage exists in the city as on date.

(b) Comment

This is not true. Colonies developed by Dewas Development Authority have been provided partially in 13 wards with local sewer network and septic tanks in most of the cases.

5.2.2 Projection of population (Ref. – Chapter 5)

(a) Projections in DPR

The projected figures are:

Phase 1 in year 2025 – 325,000

Phase 2 in year 2040 – 410,000.

(b) Comment

Latest Census figures are not yet published. However, there is a possibility that the population in year 2010 may be close to 275,000. Following projections have been done previously in chapter 4 in the Situation Analysis report of City Sanitation Plan (CSP):

In year 2021 – 342,917

In year 2031 – 428,374

In year 2041 – 535,126.

It appears that the projected population of 410,000 may be reached much before year 2040.

41

5.2.3 Design considerations

5.2.3.1 QUANTITY OF SEWAGE

(a) Proposal in DPR (Ref. – Page ii of Volume 1)

Sewerage is proposed to be designed for a sewage flow of 108 LPCD (which is 80 % of water supply rate of 135 LPCD). Provision for ground water infiltration is done at 250 LPD per manhole. Accordingly. three STPs of total capacity of 53 MLD (in year 2040) are proposed.

(b) Comment

Reconnaissance Survey done for the CSP shows that the ground water is deep in Dewas. Need for a special provision of ground water infiltration needs a re-look.

5.2.3.2 PEAK FACTOR

(a) Proposal in DPR (Ref. – Page ii in Project Report)

Peak factor of 2.25 is stated to be used in the design for a design population up to 50,000.

(b) Comment

The hydraulic designs appear to have been done by using a software. In the absence of an explanation about the input data and the output results, it is not possible to say

how the total flow is calculated, what is meant by design capacity, whether the design capacity is for full flow condition or at 0.8 depth, and how the adequacy of the capacity is inferred. As stated in sub-section 4.4 below, since the flows adopted for each zone and sub-zone have not been explained anywhere in the report, the accuracy of the design cannot be checked.

Slopes provided in some initial sections are very steep (eg., section MH-7 to MH-8 in sub-zone III-A; slope is 0.127 m/m; i.e., 12.7 in 100 and velocity is 2.08 m/sec). This results in sewers going deeper. An alternative of flatter slope and compensating for lower velocity by providing a flushing arrangement may eventually prove to be more desirable.

5.2.3.3 DEPTH OF SEWAGE FLOW IN SEWERS

(a) Provision in DPR (Ref. – page 17 of project report)

In section 6 (E) on page 17, it is stated that the sewers will be designed to run not more than 80% full and the values of v/V, q/Q and d/D will be worked out.

(b) Comment

This has not been done. Hydraulic properties of actual discharge (q), actual velocity (v) and actual depth of sewage flow in the sewer (d) need to be given for each link of the sewer.

5.2.3.4 DISTRIBUTION OF SEWAGE FLOW IN ZONES AND SUB-ZONES

It is not clear, from any section in the report, how the figure for sewage flow in each zone and sub-zone has been arrived at. It is necessary to work out the population in each zone and sub-zone first, and then work out the quantity of sewage flow. There is no mention as to why 13 MLD in Zone 1 (Shajapur Road), 10 MLD in Zone 2 (Mendhaki Road) and 30 MLD in Zone 3 (Indore Road) were selected.

5.2.4 Coverage of the project

(a) Proposed Scope of the Project

42

As seen from the following map showing the project proposals, wards 1, 3(p), 4, 5(p), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(p), 38(p), 39(p), 40(p), 42(p), 43(p), 44 and 45 have been excluded.

06

44

SEWER ZONE-1

SEWER ZONE -2

SEWER ZONE-3

PROPOSED STP

Layout of Sewerage Scheme Superimposed on Ward Map

(b) Comment

Since these wards are not covered in the scope of the sewer network, it is necessary to exclude the population and equivalent sewage flow from the design of sewers and treatment plant capacity. Also, arrangements required in the areas left out from the sewerage scheme need to be stated.

5.2.5 Sewage pumping stations

(a) Proposals

No pumping stations appear to have been proposed in any of the three zones, though sewers are going as deep as 5.34 m, 6.24 m and 9.18 m below ground in zones 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

(b) Comment

Pumping of sewage is unavoidable and needs to be provided.

5.2.6 Sewage treatment plants

(a) Proposals

Three STPs are proposed, 13 MLD for Zone 1, 10 MLD for Zone 2 and 30 MLD for Zone 3. Sequential Batch Reactor process is proposed for all three.

43

(b) Comment

There is no mention of actual design parameters used and how the sizes of the various units are arrived at. For all three STPs, an arbitrary ground level of 100.00 m. is assumed. This is not correct. It is necessary to link these levels with the ground levels adopted for the sewer network. The possibility of this being a patented process and the sophistication proposed in the plant may cause problems in O&M. The cost of the treatment process appears very high, about Rs. 95.95 lakhs per MLD. Also, the O&M cost has not been indicated, but is likely to be much higher than that for simpler systems like stabilization ponds or aerated lagoons, which appear to be more suited to Dewas.

5.2.7 Manholes

(a) The tiny size of house chambers of 180 x150 mm. appears wrong.

(b) The 1,500 mm. diameter circular chambers of 2.65 m. depth are proposed uniformly in sewer lines of all diameters. Diameters normally vary with the diameter of sewers and depth of manhole. Also, there is no provision for the additional depth beyond 4.25 m. in the estimate.

(c) Drop manholes required in the network are not proposed.

5.2.8 Drawings

Following drawings need to be prepared:

(a) Longitudinal profiles of sewer lines to show length, diameters, manholes, all invert levels, slopes, etc.

(b) Drawings of manholes and other appurtenances.

5.2.9 Estimates

Following discrepancies are noted:

(a) Item of excavation in soil and rock is for a lift of 1.50 m. only, though the actual depth of sewer lines is much more (in some cases more than 9 m.).

(b) Strata considered for estimate is 70% soil, 20% soft rock and 10% hard rock. Actually clay soil is expected to be met for a considerable depth.

(c) Estimate does not provide an item for shoring and strutting required in soil. (d) Item of bailing of water in trenches during excavation and construction of sewer lines is not

provided. (e) Estimate of sewer lines provides for RCC NP2 class pipes uniformly for all diameters and

for entire length. This is not safe and so not correct. Structural design of sewers and bedding needs to be done.

(f) It is desirable to include the measurement sheets of individual estimates. (g) Ventilator shafts are required to be provided in the sewer line. (h) How escalation at 51% is determined is not clear.

5.3 Comments on the MSW Management Plan

The DMC commissioned M/s Eco-Pro Environmental Services for preparation of a ‘Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan’ (date not mentioned). Among others, the Plan proposes acquisition of equipment and development of a compost plant and a sanitary landfill site at a cost of Rs. 9.42 crore. In this regard, this section provides a summary of salient features of the proposed Plan along with a critical review in terms of appropriateness, relevance, practicability, etc., considering cumulative countrywide experience in the MSW domain.

5.3.1 Objectives of the plan

The MSW Management Plan states that it is prepared for the achievement of, among others, the following objectives:

44

o To devise cost effective system for primary collection. o To devise an efficient system of daily cleaning of streets and public places. o To devise a system to eliminate indiscriminate disposal of garbage. o To promote processing of waste for:

deriving fertilizer

reducing waste loads going to landfill

generating income

helping agriculture production. o To ensure safe disposal of waste.

The objective on processing of waste appears to follow the conventional approach as enunciated in numerous policy documents of the Gov’t. of India. However, countrywide experience over the last two decades with numerous MSW treatment plants indicates that this objective is fraught with a number of inherent and external risk factors.

5.3.2 Baseline description

The Plan estimates 2011 and 2021 population at 3.1 lakh and 4.2 lakh, respectively. However, it does not provide the basis of calculation. These estimates are at significant variance with those adopted in the Situation Analysis report (chapter 4).

The current level of generation of mixed MSW is estimated to be of the order of 60 MT/d. However, supporting calculations are not provided. Likewise, the Plan does not make an attempt to project waste quantity for future years, which would ideally be the basis for determining capacity of the collection, transport, treatment and disposal system.

The estimated quantity of waste generation as per the Plan at 60 MT/d is at significant variance with that of the Situation Analysis report, which assesses it to be around 127 MT/d for the year 2011.

The Plan clearly acknowledges DMC’s inability to devise a system for MSW management, whether it is related to domestic, commercial, industrial or institutional sources. According to the Plan, most of the population and agencies from other sectors do not practice segregation and storage of waste at source. Further, the city has not instituted door-to-door collection service and community waste storage depots are inadequate. As a result of these factors, street sweeping is the only method of primary collection across the city. Evidently, infrastructure and systems for collection of waste are grossly inadequate, which are reflected in the form of extensive and indiscriminate disposal along streets, in drains, on open grounds, etc.

The Plan arbitrarily states that the life of the existing 10 ha. dump site is 20 years. However, it does not provide supporting calculations to this effect. It is understood that the mixed waste is currently disposed in an indiscriminate and unscientific manner, which has potential to adversely affect the environment and public health.

Waste characteristics that are provided in the Plan do not offer a degree of confidence. For instance, the moisture analysis data do not carry any significance, while the fractional and ultimate analysis data do not add up to 100% (instead only 91.94%), do not include the inert fraction and are without any reference to source, locations, method, period and duration of sampling, etc.

On the whole, the Plan does not provide a critical problem analysis nor attempt to identify or prioritize key issues to be addressed in the short-, medium- or long-term. A set of concerns on the nature of recommendations and the measures proposed for strengthening of MSW management services are brought out in the paragraphs that follow.

45

5.3.3 Nature of the recommendations

The Plan/DPR appears to follow the stated premise of the ‘Manual on MSW Management’ of the MoUD. It has adopted almost all this Manual’s recommendation without any regard to the ground conditions and the cumulative experience of the last one decade from across the country. For instance, while on the one hand the level of awareness and concern of the residents of Dewas towards solid waste management in particular and public health in general appears to be extremely low, the Plan assumes that the people will agree to and comply with the guidelines for source segregation in the short-term.

5.3.3.1 SEGREGATION OF WASTE AT SOURCE

With regard to segregation of domestic waste at source, the Plan appears to adopt the paradigm of ‘saving national resources’ through recycling whatever can be recycled and ‘saving cost and efforts to dispose of such waste’. It assumes that residents will form the habit of sincerely segregating waste day-in-and-day-out and cooperate with the ULB. This recommendation does not appear to recognize, among others, that: (a) the general low level of education and awareness among the urban citizens; (b) sheer lack of awareness towards the environment and public health; (c) maidservant being the key player in the supply chain who typically has little education; and (d) limitations of collection and transport infrastructure/logistics, etc.

The Plan assumes that civil society, NGOs and business associations will extend their support and provide inputs on a sustained basis on this issue. However, it is observed on numerous instances that without commensurate tangible benefits, such bodies lose interest in a short span of time. The Plan fails to recognize this basic trait and appears to make several vague and impracticable recommendations.

5.3.3.2 PRIMARY STORAGE AND COLLECTION

With regard to primary collection, the Plan does not specify which of the following paradigms it attempts to follow:

o ‘Bin-less city’ through extensive total coverage under a ‘door-to-door collection’ service in all wards and all household categories.

o Extensive coverage through a network of conveniently placed community waste depots across the city.

o A mixed system comprising ‘door-to-door collection’ in selected wards/localities and a network of conveniently placed community waste depots.

Some of the other aspects to be noted are as follows:

o The Plan assumes regular municipal sweepers to be engaged in primary ‘door-to-door collection service, which is normally not the case as the latter are generally mandated (according to the job description/service rules) to carry out only street sweeping and drain cleaning.

o Under the ‘door-to-door collection’ service, the Plan does not specify percent of population to be covered through manually pulled cycle rickshaws versus motorized rickshaws.

o For the market areas, while it proposes installation of close body containers, it does not specify their capacity, material specification, spacing, frequency of lifting, etc.

o For street vendors the Plan makes a good suggestion of providing a bin or a holding bag for storage of waste.

46

o For food waste coming from marriage and community halls, the suggestion of promotion of ‘on-site biodigesters’ does not appear to take into account space and logistics constraints, O&M issues, the potential of odour nuisance, etc. and is again based on arbitrary or idealistic considerations.

o For dairy farm waste management, the Plan makes an appropriate recommendation of shifting/relocating farmers to the outskirts of the city.

o On the whole, the Plan assumes a high degree of compliance, cooperation and participation on the part of civil society, market associations, shops and establishments, institutions, etc. without taking into account the high level of different individual perceptions, awareness, concerns and willingness, etc.

5.3.3.3 AVAILABILITY OF SWM SERVICE

The Plan appropriately recommends solid waste management service to be available on all days, including weekends and public holidays. This recommendation takes into account the threat to public health from poor waste management in urban areas and, therefore, rightly considers SWM to be an essential service.

With regard to street sweepings and brush/dry leaves, etc., the Plan recommends prevention of burning of waste – a practice typically adopted by municipal workers. However, it also recommends on-site composting of dry leaves, which is assumed to take place rapidly and under supervision of some authorized agency. This recommendation again appears to be idealistic and impracticable in several respects, e.g., (a) typical lack of availability of space and a committed O&M agency; and (b) extra long time taken in bio-degradation of long-fibre biomass and accordingly large holding space requirement, etc.

5.3.3.4 TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE

The Plan does not provide an analysis of the distances involved in secondary collection and transport of waste to the treatment and disposal (T&D) site, but vaguely recommends planning for effective routing of the vehicles. It does not provide for the feasibility or otherwise of a transfer station. The unrealistic nature of the recommendations is evident from the proposal of providing one vehicle for collection of ‘hotel and restaurant’ waste, while there are 465 such small and medium establishments across the city (ref. 3.7.8). Under section 3.7.11, it is noted that the Plan suggests unloading at a ‘transfer station nearby’, but this element does not form a component of the proposed scheme in the latter part of the report.

5.3.3.5 ANALYSIS OF T&D OPTIONS

The Plan provides a brief overview of available treatment and disposal options, e.g., composting, vermi-composting, sanitary landfill, incineration and power generation from either pallets or bio-methanation. With respect to a sanitary landfill, the Plan adopts the conventional approach of considering it as the last step where only the rejects should be allowed. This argument is based on the premise that land for waste disposal is very scarce. However, this is not necessarily true in Dewas. As per the Plan, the option of incineration is not deemed to be suitable for Indian waste due to, among others, low fuel value of MSW, high capital and operating costs, etc. On the other hand, the Plan considers the option(s) of fuel pallets and bio-methanation as ‘successful’/proven and, thereby, does not appear to recognize or be aware of several such large-scale projects, which have failed over the last one decade.

47

Finally, the Plan recommends composting of all bio-degradable waste either by ‘aerobic microbial composting’ technology or by ‘vermi-composting’. It holistically suggests decentralized application of the latter technology, from the point of view of reducing cost of transportation. This recommendation does not appear to recognize the multitude of constraints typically experienced in urban areas with regard to this preposition, e.g., (a) lack of space; (b) high price of land in urban areas; (c) lack of a committed agency to take the O&M responsibility; (d) potential of odour nuisance and eventual protest and vandalism by residents in the neighborhood; (e) lack of commensurate incentives for the O&M agency, e.g. financial support from the ULB or adequate revenue from sale of compost thus produced, etc.; and (f) high vulnerability of the earthworms to climatic factors, process parameters and predators, and thereby their high mortality rate, etc.

The Plan’s chapter 4 on T&D options does not provide an analysis of the waste generation loads with respect to the capacity of 75 MT/day determined for the treatment plant. Neither does it specify the level of rejects that would be required to be sent for land filling over the various phases/years of operation.

The Plan considers an unconventional technology of composting in 3 m deep pits, rather than the conventional system of windrows on a concrete platform. Under the former system, the waste mass cannot be mixed/turned for aeration and, therefore, would essentially remain ‘anaerobic’, leading to very adverse odour nuisance potential. Further, by providing pits, rather than a concrete platform, the system does not appear to have any built-in safeguard to prevent leachate percolation into the ground.

The Plan does not provide a description of the baseline setting at the proposed site for the compost plant and the SLF. Typically environmental and social issues attain critical importance in MSW projects and are required to be addressed adequately and appropriately during system design. These will comprise, among others: (a) buffer zone; (b) odour control measures; (c) leachate collection from compost platform and the landfill; (d) appropriate measured for leachate treatment; (d) bottom liner and cover layer specifications for the landfill; and (e) landfill gas collection and its safe disposal, etc.

While dealing with the subject of the landfill, the Plan does not provide clear guidelines on construction specifications with respect to the boundary conditions (geological, hydrogeological and drainage) that exist at the identified site. Instead, it lists insignificant issues pertaining to, among others, approach road, drinking water and toilet facilities for workers, etc. Further, instead of providing clear calculations on land area requirements in line with the projected waste loads for different years/phases of the LSF, the Plan strangely seems to have mixed up the issue with the subject of SLF operations.

The Plan is found to recommend four distinct landfills, 12 m and 8 m wide, separated by roads. Irrespective of the size of the landfill, this is a rather unconventional approach involving wastage of land, which is now allocated to the above-referred roads. Instead, the SLF must be planned and designed as a single continuous system with distinct annual phases, which are separated by temporary embankments.

The Plan does not provide preliminary design calculations for the volume of leachate to be handled nor does it specify the strategy to by adopted for its treatment and disposal. Further, calculations on the requirement for daily cover material, etc. are missing.

The Plan does not provide an estimate of, among others: (a) the quantity of compost that will be produced; (b) the rejects that will remain after treatment and will be required to be disposed in the SLF; and (c) the cover material that will be required on a daily basis.

48

On the subject of final closure of SLF, the Plan appears to take a rather unconventional approach by recommending a 30 cm thick layer of soil or construction waste as the covering layer. This is technically inappropriate, as rainwater can infiltrate and cause excess leachate generation as well as failure of the landfill. Ideally, an SLF must adhere to the minimum specifications laid out in the Manual on MSW Management, 2000.

5.3.3.6 PLAN SUGGESTIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING

On the subject of institutional strengthening, the Plan does not recognize the fundamental incompatibility between the skill set and expertise of a health officer and the functional job requirements for steering solid waste management operations of a typical urban centre. The former with traditional training in clinical and public health domains is not suitable for managing operations involving: (a) planning of logistics for material movement, manpower and machinery; (b) technology; (c) commercial aspects; and (d) community participation and communication, etc.

For city level administration, while the Plan suggests a ‘SWM Department’ to be responsible for all solid waste management-related functions, it does not distinguish this new department from the existing ‘Health and Sanitation Department’ nor does it address the previously-described incongruity solely through transferring the function to the ‘Engineering/Public Works Department’.

The Plan does not provide an analysis of the existing institutional arrangements, but straight away makes recommendations on decentralization of administration. It is not clear what level of decentralization may be possible for a city with a small population base of under 300,000.

The set of recommendations on ward-level administration, in terms of formation of community- based organizations and creating awareness and forging partnerships for community participation, are very relevant and need to be implemented. However, the Plan does not appear to have carried out an evaluation of the in-house capacity of the DMC in these domains and, thereby, measures for organization strengthening are not found.

The Plan appropriately recommends outsourcing a set of MSW services to the private sector/ NGOs, etc. However, it does not elaborate on this proposal’s financial liability on the DMC.

The recommended management information system is exhaustive, idealistic and drawn straight from the ‘Manual on MSW Management’, 2000.

5.3.3.7 PUBLIC AWARENESS

The Plan attempts to promote the holistic 3R paradigm of reduce, reuse and recycle through public awareness. It lists a number of options that can be explored. However, the description appears to be drawn from the Manual on MSW Management and lacks a specific, tailored strategy for DMC to implement.

The Plan does not provide an estimate of annual costs that will be required for creation of public awareness on a sustained basis. Ironically, it suggests an unrealistic and unsustainable option of availing services of local advertising and social marketing agencies free of cost or at no-profit as a public service.

5.3.4 Financial aspects

While the Plan recommends a review of existing rates of taxes and user charges vis-à-vis the current cost of operations, it does not provide an analysis of the two and the resultant surplus or deficit, if any. The generic set of recommendations appears to come straight from the ‘Manual on MSW Management’, 2000.

49

Finally, the Plan does not provide a financial feasibility analysis of the proposed investment, the sources of funds, contribution from user charges, etc. Interestingly, due to possible oversight, the Plan excludes an estimate of the revenue generated from sale of compost, which is OK, as this assumption is uncertain and not significant due to quality concerns.

Some of the other financial issues with respect to the proposed infrastructure are as follows:

o The Plan does not provide a basis for the quantity of equipment, containers and vehicles that are proposed to be procured. These estimates need to be validated, verified and, if required, revised.

o The quantity of some of the equipment, etc. listed under the ‘Requirement’ column in the table on page 71 of the Plan does not match with those given in the exhibit on page 71 of the Alchemy report, particularly: (a) closed auto rickshaws; and (b) wheelbarrow carts.

o Operating cost estimates for primary collection of MSW, its transport, treatment and disposal in to the SLF are missing.

o The cost estimate for the compost plant seems to have left out the heavy earthmoving equipment, which is invariably required for movement of waste from one section to another and from there to the SLF.

o The cost estimates for leachate treatment and disposal are also not found in the Plan.

o Cost estimates for closure of various phases of the SLF are missing. Likewise, the estimates for post-closure monitoring are not found.

5.4 Sanitation Situation Compiled with Respect to NUSP Indicators

The Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, expects that the City Sanitation Plan should address all the indicators used in the report rating of cities 2010. The expectation is that the CSP will propose measures that will lead to an improved rating in future. To fulfill this expectation, it is necessary that Dewas city’s sanitation situation be reviewed specifically against these indicators.

Earlier in this chapter, all the information, emerging from the studies carried out as part of this situation analysis exercise and those carried out earlier, has been summarized systematically. In this section, these observations and conclusions are compiled against the NUSP indicators. It may be noted that the results of all the studies used in this chapter don’t necessarily agree with each other, particularly when it comes to ward level or slum level information. Therefore, the CSP consultants have exercised their judgment in drawing conclusions that can be corroborated by multiple sources or those that emerge very strongly from one source.

The following table gives a city level view. The ward level and slum level views are presented in Volume II of the Situation Analysis.

The table gives the list of indicators as used by the NUSP rating in rows. For each indicator, the maximum points that can be scored are given, followed by the points scored by Dewas in the rating for 2010. The next three columns give conclusions drawn from the three main surveys–DMC’s Cleanliness Survey 2008, USAID FIRE (D)’s Reconnaissance Survey 2010 and Alchemy’s Land use and Infrastructure Survey 2010. The following column captures the conclusions on present sanitation status, summarized from the three surveys. In the conclusions column, the insights from the review of the DPRs for sewerage and solid waste management have also been factored in at appropriate places. The last column explains very briefly the benchmarks or parameters used by MoUD for carrying out the rating. These points have been extracted from the TOR provided by MoUD to the consultants, who carried out the rating.

50

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

1 OUTPUT -RELATED

50

A No open defecation sub-total

16 Access to individual or community toilets is within walking distance for 100% of properties in service area.

i. Access and use of toilets by urban poor and other un-served households (including slums) – individual and community sanitation facilities

4 0.00 Slums/urban poor have not been covered separately.

11% of the total respondents (12% of those who have individual toilets) do not use a toilet all the time.

Another 11% of the respondents do not have toilets at home. The mode by which they relieve themselves is unclear.

Availability of individual toilets in slums has not been captured.

Only 11 out of 81 slums have public toilets.

Incidence of open defecation was seen in 7 wards and on a smaller scale in 22 wards.

In the slums only 29% of the population use individual toilets exclusively. 4% have individual toilets but also access community toilets.

27% of the slum dwellers resort to open defecation.

In addition, 40% of the slum dwellers who have access to toilets (individual or community) resort some time to open defecation. It may be noted that more than 50% of the slums have reported dependence on non-municipal sources of water.

Open defecation is a major issue especially in slums. Some of the reasons for open defecation, especially where there is access to toilets could be as follows:

Inadequate individual toilets are available or their usability is limited by the availability of water supply

People are unaware of the health risks caused by open defecation. This is corroborated by the detailed assessments carried out by Alchemy in 10 slums

Community toilets are inadequate or dysfunctional

Family sizes in slums are large and individual toilets are inadequate.

There is a clear case for (a)

The focus is on proportion of the population in the settlement actually practicing open defecation, i.e. irrespective of whether the toilets are at household level, community level or public.

51

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

ensuring that all households have individual toilets with water connection; and (b) ensuring adequate provision of public toilets even in areas where people have individual household toilets and revamp the existing community facilities to ensure serviceability.

Awareness generation about health risks related to open defecation has to be given high priority.

ii. Access and use of toilets for floating and institutional populations – adequate public sanitation facilities

4 0.97 Survey does not cover floating and institutional population.

Survey does not cover floating and institutional population.

19% of the people in non-residential areas use public toilets. 4% defecate in the open. The remaining 77 % use individual toilets.

The following points are noteworthy with respect to specific locations of public toilets:

In Mata Ki Tekri during festivals mobile toilets are installed but the numbers are insufficient.

While there is limited access to public toilets at the Bus Station

Separate strategies are required for public toilets:

During festivals at the temple (Mata Ki Tekri ) and such other large scale public events.

For regular use in locations with high floating populations such as the Dewas Main Market, Railway Station.

No. of working public toilets (functional and working) especially in high ‘through-put’ areas such as:

a) Main Bus Station

b) Main Railway Station

c) Main Market area

d) Main Business District.

52

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

and RailwayStation, the Main Market has a severe problem.

iii. No open defecation visible

4 2.00 Worst affected wards with respect to open defecation are 1, 11, 13, 14, 24, 42.

Worst affected wards with respect to open defecation are 1, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 35.

Worst affected wards with respect to open defecation are 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, 27, 42, 43, 44.

Open defecation is observed in nearly 31% of the total no. of wards in Dewas, which is a grave situation.

Steps are required towards (a) ensuring that all households have access to individual toilets with water supply; (b) supplementary provision of newer efficient community toilets in the worst affected wards; (c) overhaul of existing dysfunctional public/private toilets; (d) conduct of public awareness programs discouraging open defecation; and (e) encourage community-based sanitation programs.

Open defecation observed especially near and around railway line alignments.

iv. Eliminate manual scavenging and provide personnel protection equipment to sanitary workers

4 4.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Organized manual scavenging has not been observed.

DMC does not have proper equipment for de-sludging septic tanks and for clearing choked sewer lines.

Policy and regulatory framework measures need to be implemented to ensure the use of personnel protection equipment by sanitary workers. Public awareness campaigns and training sessions are needed to educate sanitary workers on the health and occupational hazards of dealing with sewage.

Manual scavenging is any contact with human excreta for purpose of manual cleaning or disposal, even if this is not being loaded on the head.

B Proportion of 6 2.00 76% of the 11 wards are 25% of sewage in Drawings of locations of Collection efficiency of

53

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

total human excreta generation that is safely collected (6 points for 100%)

respondents who have toilets in the house use individual toilets with/without water and with/without septic tank.

partially sewered and 2 are 100% sewered. 8 wards have access to community septic tanks.

residential areas and 31% in non-residential areas reach septic tanks.

40% of the residential waste water and 7% of the non-residential waste water is collected in a sewer.

existing sewer lines are difficult to obtain. The sewerage DPR states incorrectly that there is no existing sewerage system.

A techno-economic design has to be proposed to integrate the existing sewer lines with the proposed sewerage system.

If existing sewer lines are defunct, innovative rehabilitation technologies should be investigated to achieve cost efficiency.

sewerage network (100% benchmark value) does not include on-site arrangements that safely confine, treat or dispose of fecal matter. In the CSP exercise, account must be taken of what happens to the total quantum of human excreta, i.e. not just confined to/collected by the existing sewerage system.

C Proportion of total black waste water generation that is treated and safely disposed off (6 points for 100%)

6 0.00 Not covered as part of survey.

1 ward has a sewerage treatment plant (BNP). 4 wards have community septic tanks and 4 wards have other septic tanks.

In 4 wards absence of systems is reported and in 31 other wards no system is reported.

Actual quantity of black water treated not reported.

Systems of sewage disposal have been captured. 25% of sewage in residential areas and 31% in non-residential areas reach septic tanks.

Ward 3 (BNP) has a sewerage treatment system and treats roughly 1.4% of the city’s sewage.

Actual quantity of black water treated not reported.

Only one (1) ward is serviced by a treatment facility and safe disposal mechanism accounting for a mere 1.4% of the total sewage generated in the service area.

Strategies are needed that integrate decentralized and centralized treatment systems to cover the entire city in a sustainable manner.

100% of samples collected at sewage treatment plant outlets need to pass the quality test as laid down by Gov’t. of India agencies for secondary treatment.

D Proportion of total grey waste water generation that is treated

3 0.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Not included in the survey as a separate component.

Not covered as part of survey as a separate component.

On-site reclamation and re-use of grey water may be integrated in the waste water system to ensure better

The proportion of the waste water that is treated in a treatment facility and then

54

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

and safely disposed of (3 points for 100%)

practices and sustainability of the systems.

disposed into the environment after meeting secondary treatment standards.

E Proportion of treated waste water that is recycled and reused for non-potable applications

3 0.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Some industries reuse treated water from their own campuses.

Nil. All effluent (treated and untreated) eventually reaches nallas.

Incentive-based approach may be considered. Awareness programs may be devised to educate the residents on the benefits of recycle and reuse of waste water and advocate the 3R principle (reduce, recycle, reuse).

There is a distinct possibility of locating an STP in the southwest part of the city and supplying treated waste water to the large industrial area located there. Feasibility to be examined.

20% re-use and re-cycling.

F Proportion of total storm water and drainage that is efficiently and safely managed (3 points for 100%)

3 3.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Surface drains as % of road length is on average 28% to 30% in the wards (built drains).

Efficiency of existing storm water drains is difficult to assess.

Not covered as part of survey.

Major water logging not reported during infrastructure survey.

Dewas has a network of natural drains that can be effectively used. Storm water drains need to be laid along the streets and connected to the natural drainage system.

Storm water drainage network coverage benchmark 100% -computed as total length of primary, secondary and tertiary drains (covered, trained and pucca) as a proportion of total length of road network (more than 3.5 m wide). Outcome of storm water drainage measured by number of instances of water logging/flooding

55

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

reported across the city in a year.

G Proportion of total solid waste generation that is regularly collected (4 points for 100%)

4 0.75 41% of the respondents dispose of solid waste in municipal bins and 1% have door-to-door collection.

Indiscriminate dumping of solid waste is reported in wards 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19 to 24, 28 to 30, 32, 36, 43 to 45.

24 out of 45 wards have no community bins and solid waste is cleared daily in only 20 wards.

Unauthorized garbage dumps are most prevalent in wards 7, 17, 19, 20, 29.

13% of solid waste from residential areas is disposed in municipal bins and another 7% is collected through door-to-door collection. The percentages are 10% and 2% in non-residential areas, respectively.

Most poorly served wards are 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 20, 29, 31, 42.

Nearly 50% of the wards are poorly serviced with respect to solid waste, which is a very low level of service.

Community Involvement has to be encouraged to achieve successful implementation of the collection system. Low-income groups can be involved in the collection, and women groups can be created and involved in the program at the community level. Awareness campaigns are required to advise people on the adverse health and socio-economic impact of unscientific waste management practices.

Benchmark 100% of waste generated (excluding waste processed or recycled at generation point) is collected by ULB or its authorized service providers (monthly tonnage calculated).

H Proportion of total solid waste generation that is treated and safely disposed of (4 points for 100%)

4 0.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Domestic waste is dumped at the landfill site in Shankargadh. No treatment is done.

The system proposed in the DPR for SWM has inadequacies that need to be rectified before implementation.

Policy reforms and extensive planning has to be implemented to achieve a sustainable system.

100% of waste collected by ULB or its authorized service providers and disposed at landfills designed, built, operated and maintained as per standards laid down by GoI agencies (including treatment of leachate).

I City wastes cause no adverse

5 0.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Solid waste is indiscriminately dumped and eventually

56

No Indicators Points* Score Given to Dewas

DMC Survey Reconnaissance Survey

Alchemy’s Survey Conclusions on Present Sanitation Status

MoUD Benchmark or Parameter for Rating

impacts on surrounding areas outside city limits (5 points for 100%)

reaches nallas and the river.

The existing dump site is on the periphery of the city, which still retains a rural character. The dump site causes considerable pollution in the surrounding area.

TOTAL 12.72

2 PROCESS-RELATED**

30

A M&E systems are in place to track incidences of open defecation

4 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

DMC has no systems in place for monitoring open defecation.

The possibility of creating M&E systems involving the community may be explored.

Monthly collection of data on OD practices from each ward.

B All sewerage systems in the city are working properly and there is no ex-filtration (not applicable for cities without sewerage systems)

5 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Of the 13 partially sewered wards, slightly more than half appear not to be polluting the surrounding area nor nearby bore wells and are in OK condition, although some do not have septic tanks.

Cesspools have been observed in many places.

Field observation indicate that existing sewer lines in DDA colonies are broken in a number of places, releasing sewage into open drains. In some such locations, cesspools form creating risk of contamination in drinking water lines.

57

C Septage/sludge is regularly cleaned, safely transported and disposed after treatment, from on-site systems in the city (maximum 10 marks for cities without sewerage systems)

5 6.00 Not covered as part of survey.

Not covered as part of survey.

Less than 1% of the people in residential areas with septic tanks had them cleaned in the last 5 years.

No septage management systems in place; community participation is poor.

Calls for policy reforms to encourage and mandate people to ensure best management practices.

D Underground and surface drainage systems are functioning and are well maintained

4 2.00 Willingness to pay for sanitation in less than 25% of HHs.

In none of the 13 partially sewered wards is there a monthly sewerage charge.

Willingness to pay for toilets and sewerage systems is less than 30%.

Currently there is no system inplace for effective cost recovery. At present the willingness to pay is quite low. A combined approach of improving service provision and raising awareness on the need to charge for the service is required.

100% cost recovery and 100% collection efficiency for sewerage charges.

58

E Solid waste management (collection and treatment) systems are efficient (and are in conformity with the MSW Rules, 2003)

5 1.17 Majority of HHs dispose of waste in open with less disposing in municipal waste containers; most report waste clearance once or twice a day; willingness-to-pay for garbage removal not part of survey.

Ward-wise mix of HH or Municipal Corporation collection with irregular clearance; many wards full of scattered plastic bags, paper or other garbage.

Bulk of solid waste disposed in open and municipal bins with partial clearance by Municipal Corporation; minimal door-to-door collection; higher proportion of disposal in open and less clearance by Municipal Corporation in slums; willingness-to-pay for garbage removal is close to 45%.

High percentage of HHs dispose of waste in open with less disposing in municipal bins; clearance by Municipal Corporation varies, but generally irregular; waste is nuisance in most wards; no sanitary landfill. Currently there is no system in place for effectivecost recovery. At present the willingness to pay is quite low. A combined approach of improvingservice provision and raising awareness on the need to chargefor the service is required.

100% for daily door-step collection; 100% segregated wastes on arrival at disposal/treatment facilities; 80% recycling of wastes; and 100% operational cost recovery.

59

F There is clear institutional responsibility assigned; and there are documented operational systems in practice for b)/c) to e) above

4 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

While a basic organizational structure exists, there are large gaps in terms of system design and standard operating procedures. There is very little documentation for the workflow.

G Sanctions for deviance on part of polluters and institutions is clearly laid out and followed in practice

3 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

There is no strong system for punitive measures for violation of norms.

TOTAL 9.17

3 OUTCOME -RELATED

20

A Improved quality of drinking water in city compared to baseline

7 4.9 Not covered in survey.

Ground water is brackish in test due to high TDS; two samples show biological pollution.

Not covered in survey.

Drinking water quality not routinely tested.

Use potable water quality standards set out by GoI agencies.

B Improved water quality in water bodies in and around city compared to baseline

7 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Waste water flow in nallas is not fit for discharge in public water bodies.

Water quality tests carried out near industrial areas show high pollutant level.

Observations during field visits indicate that all water bodies, including natural drains and ponds, are neglected and polluted.

Strategies need to be formulated for preventing the pollution of natural drainage systems and for reviving polluted drains by integrating them into a planned storm water drainage system (which do not carry sewage).

Use water body quality standards set out by GoI agencies.

60

C Reduction in water-borne disease incidence amongst city population compared to baseline

6 0.00 Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

Not covered in survey.

Time series morbidity data is not readily available. One of the first steps required is to put in place a system for collecting location-specific morbidity data from hospitals and clinics.

Incidence of diarrhoeal diseases reported for the city over the last three years.

TOTAL 4.90

GRAND TOTAL 26.78

61

CHAPTER 6. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY & FINANCE

6.1 City Governance

The Dewas Municipal Corporation (DMC) is in charge of municipal functions and provision of municipal services in the city, including water supply, sanitation, street lighting, solid waste management, etc. The functioning of Dewas Municipal Corporation is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and amendments made thereafter. The DMC functions under the Mayor in Council system with an elected body headed by the Mayor. The executive wing of the DMC, headed by the Municipal Commissioner, looks after the day-to-day functioning of the Corporation.

6.2 Existing Institutional Structure

Dewas Municipal Corporation has nine departments, out of which the departments responsible for providing sanitation services are the Health and Sanitation Department and Public Works Department.

The Health and Sanitation Department, headed by the Health Officer, looks after solid waste management and sanitation issues, such as collecting and disposing of solid waste, sweeping streets and cleaning public toilets. It also operates and maintains the necessary sanitation equipment.

The Public Works Department is responsible for providing infrastructure and services for collection of waste water and treatment and is headed by an Executive Engineer/City Engineer.

The following organogram has been drawn based on discussions with the Salary Department of DMC and subsequent verification from each department.

62

ORGANOGRAM

Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner

Revenue DepartmentHealth and Sanitation Department

Fire Department Accounts DepartmentProperty Tax Department PWD Department Public Relation Department

Office Superintendent

Executive Engineer

Assistant Engineer

Sub Engineer

Time Keeper

Labour

Health Officer

Sanitary Inspector

Darogah / Sanitary Supervisor

Jemadaar

Labour / Sweeper

Fire Officer

Karmachari / Driver

Revenue Officer

Revenue Inspector

Revenue Sub Inspector

Mohari

Revenue Officer

Revenue Inspector

Revenue Sub Inspector

Mohari

Account Officer

Accountant

Upper Division clerk (UDC)

Lower Division Clerk

(LDC)

Office Superintendent

Jemadaar

Clerk

Public Relation Officer

Light Department

Assistant Engineer

Inspector

Lineman

Wireman

63

6.3 Allocation of Roles and Responsibili t ies

The Health and Sanitation Department is headed by the Health Officer. A Health/Sanitary Inspector is appointed under the Health Officer, who looks after the day-to-day functioning of the department. The Inspector also goes on inspection rounds. The Health and Sanitation Department has 196 permanent posts of Safai Karmacharis, including 45 ward supervisors and four special supervisors for areas like Bus Stand, Mata Ki Tekdi, Graveyard, and one for overall solid waste management. There are three Safai Karmacharis for septic tanks.

The Public Works Department is responsible for providing infrastructure and services for collection of waste water and treatment and is headed by an Executive Engineer/ City Engineer under whom an Assistant Engineer takes care of day-to-day responsibilities. The Health and Sanitation Department has 31 labourers.

64

6.4 Capacity Assessment

6.4.1 Human resource & office infrastructure

The human resource requirements have been drawn based on suggestions from the City Engineer. These may vary once the technology options as well as the implementation and management strategies are finalized in the CSP.

Health and Sanitation Department

No. Organization/ Department

Human Resources

Required Sanctioned Posts

Filled Posts

Vacant Posts Position Qualification

1 Sanitation Health Officer MBBS 1 1 -

2 Sanitation Sanitary/Health Inspector

12th + Diploma in Sanitation Inspection

5 3 2

3 Sanitation Derogah/ Sanitary Supervisors

8th Pass 7Permanent

5 Permanent 45 In-charge (sweepers)

2

4 Sanitation Jemadaar 5th Pass 3 3 -

5 Sanitation Cleaning Workers

5th Pass 196Permanent

158 Permanent 442 Daily Wagers

-

6 Sanitation Bhistis 5th Pass

7 Sanitation Cleaners 5th Pass

Public Works Department

No. Organization/ Department

Human Resources

Required Sanctioned Posts

Filled Posts

Vacant Posts Position Qualification

1 PWD Executive Engineering

BE. Civil Engineering

4 2 2

2 PWD Assistant Engineering

BE. Civil Engineering

3 3 -

3 PWD Sub Engineer Diploma in Civil Engineering

7 7 -

4 PWD Time Keeper 12th Pass 2 2 -

5 PWD Labourers 5th Pass 31 28 3

65

6.4.2 Sanitation service equipment

Available and required infrastructure is described based on discussions with the City Engineer and pertain to current systems and functions in sanitation service provision. These will change based on the proposals of the CSP.

No. Organization/ Department

Item Required Nos. Available Nos.

1 Health and Sanitation Waste bins 4.0 cu. mt. capacity 90 90

2 Health and Sanitation Waste bins 1.5 cu. mt. capacity 400 400

3 Health and Sanitation J.C.B. machine 2 1

4 Health and Sanitation Eicher/Mazda/Tata truck 709/dumper

6 6

5 Health and Sanitation Dumper placer truck 3 3

6 Health and Sanitation Gully vacuum emptier 2 1

7 Health and Sanitation Doser equipment (Hitachi mini) 1 1

8 Health and Sanitation Tractor with hydraulic trolley (covered)

6 6

9 Health and Sanitation Closed auto rickshaw 20 20

10 Health and Sanitation Barrow wheel cart 600 360

11 Health and Sanitation Containerized hand cart 250 0

12 Health and Sanitation Belcha, tagari, brooms, etc. Lump sum Lump sum

13 Health and Sanitation Miscellaneous Lump Sum Lump Sum

Belcha 500/yr. 0

Tagari 600/yr. 0

Brooms 2,000/yr. Few

Mask, gloves, long shoes, fluorescent jackets

600 0

6.5 Brief Assessment of Municipal Finances

6.5.1 Dewas Municipal Corporation: Receipts

Dewas Municipal Corporation’s (DMC) total annual receipts have increased appreciably over the last four years from Rs.13.57 crs. in 2004-05 to Rs.38.38 crs. in 2009-10, achieving a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.12%. This growth is a mix of a CAGR of 17.8% in DMC’s Own-source Receipts and over a 30% CAGR in Grants & Assigned Receipts.

66

DMC : Total Receipts

13.60 14.90

27.60 27.70

54.30

38.40

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

in R

s. C

rs.

DMC’s total receipts comprise Own-source Receipts of about Rs.8.4 crs., accounting for about 22% of total receipts in 2009-10; Compensation received from the State Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP) accounted for about 28.2% of total receipts in 2009-10. The balance of about 49.8% of total receipts is accounted for by Grants and Assigned Receipts from GoMP and GoI.

DMC's Own Source Revenue

Compensation from GoMP

Grants & Assigned Receipts

6.5.1.1 OWN-SOURCE RECEIPTS

While DMC’s Own-source Receipts accounted for 22% of the Corporation’s total receipts in 2009-10, this figure has increased from 16.2% (Rs.4.5 crs.) in 2004-05 to 21.8% in 2006-07 to 25.5% in 2007-08, and then dropped to 15.8% in 2008-09.

67

Own Source Receipt

4.54.9

6.03

7.06

8.6 8.4

0

12

3

45

6

7

89

10

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

6.5.1.1.1 PROPERTY TAX

Property Tax Receipts have shown significant buoyancy in Dewas till 2008-09 reaching a total receipt of Rs.5.53 crs., but deceased significantly in 2009-10 to only Rs.3.81 crs.

Between 2004-05 and 2006-07, Property Tax Receipts witnessed a CAGR of 25.13%, and between 2004-05 and 2008-09, Property Tax witnessed a CAGR of 25.90%. However, if one takes the entire six-year period under analysis between 2004-05 and 2009-10, then DMC’s actual Property Tax collections witnessed a CAGR of only 11.55%.

DMC's Property Tax Receipt

2.2

3.13.5

4.5

5.5

3.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

This growth in Property Tax Receipts between 2004-05 and 2008-09 has been attributed to the following steps taken by DMC:

A complete survey of all properties and vacant plots in Dewas, undertaken in 2006-07, resulted in an increase in Property Tax Demand from 27,800 properties to about 48,000 registered properties in 2007-08. These 48,000 properties include residential, commercial and industrial properties. Further, this figure also includes properties in slums, which are registered with DMC, even though they may be exempt from paying property tax, but may be paying the Consolidated Tax (street lighting, fire & street sweeping).

Significantly, aggressive collection drives for both arrears in 2007-08 and 2008-09, as well as current demand, including offering concessions for early payment (in the months of April &

68

May of the current financial year). This may also have resulted in reduced collection from arrears in 2009-10.

Resolving the dispute with industries in Dewas regarding payment and rate of Property Tax from industrial units.

An increase in the Education Cess component of Property Tax from 0.5% of Assessable Rateable Value (ARV) to 2% of ARV.

The Property Tax Department of DMC has divided the town into four zones for purposes of Property Tax assessment and collection. For each property in each zone, DMC has a pre-specified rate, based on its location and nature of property, i.e., vacant plot, residential or commercial building. These rates have not been revised since 1997 (other than the increase in the Education Cess component, as mentioned above).

DMC believes that it now covers close to 95% of the total properties within the ambit of DMC. Therefore, future growth in Property Tax collections could come from the following:

Increase in collection efficiency–Collections against current demand is equal to about 60-65%. Improvement in this efficiency could result in greater receipt of Property Tax. In 2008-09, 52% of total Property Tax Receipts were from collection against arrears (while only 48% of total receipt was from collection against current demand), down from 60% in 2006-07.

Increase in ARVs – As the real estate values in the town grow, so will the ARV. However, in light of the current depressed state of the real estate market, growth in Property Tax Receipts, due to this reason, may have to wait for some time.

Growth in assessed properties – Dewas’s proximity to Indore and the growth of Indore towards Dewas bodes well for property development in Dewas (towards Indore). However, as mentioned above, the real estate market would need to witness some buoyancy for this growth to become effective and reflect in higher Property Tax demand for DMC.

In summary, Property Tax accounted for close to 65% of DMC’s Own-source Revenues (in 2007-08 and 2008-09, although it decreased to about 45% in 2009-10). Further increase in Property Tax demand and collections from a sheer increase in the number of assessed properties is likely to be limited, as also collections from arrears, as has been witnessed in 2009-10. Therefore, the focus on efficiency of operations and collections of the Property Tax becomes an inevitable priority for the Corporation.

6.5.1.1.2 WATER TAX & CONNECTION CHARGES

Receipts from Water Tax and Connection Charges increased between 2004-05 and 2006-07, and decreased over the succeeding three years, between 2007-08 and 2009-10. In fact, total receipts in 2009-10 of Rs.70 lakhs are lower than total receipts in 2004-05 of Rs.1.06 crs. Receipts from current demand of Water Tax & Connection Charges have, in fact, grown, though modestly, between 2004-05 and 2009-10, whereas the recent decease in overall receipts has largely been attributed to a reduction in receipts from arrears of Water Tax and Connection Charges.

69

Water Tax & Connection Charges

10694.8

111 107

83.6

70.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Lak

hs

DMC has about 25,000 water connections and charges a water tax of Rs.50 per month per household. At 100% collection, this should result in receipts of Rs.1.50 crs. However, against this, the collection against current demand in 2007-08 was only Rs.64 lakhs. That figure further decreased to Rs.52.5 lakhs in 2009-10. In 2009-10, only Rs.12.2 lakhs came in as collections against arrears and the balance Rs.5.4 lakhs was received in 2009-10 against new Connection Charges, adding up to the total receipt of Rs.70.1 lakhs in 2009-10, from Water Tax & Connection Charges, as shown in the table above.

Given the current poor situation of water supply, DMC has no locus-standi to introduce user charges for water. However, DMC proposes to increase Water Tax to Rs.200 per household per month after the completion of the Kshipra Water project, enabling the Corporation to provide at least 70 lpcd. This increased water tax has been committed by DMC to HUDCO, as part of the Rs.20 crs. loan agreement with HUDCO.

Moreover, once DMC begins to provide water supply from the Kshipra project, the Corporation should also be able to increase the total number of connections to 50,000 (i.e., this would result in about 100% of the households being connected, as per current population estimates). DMC proposes to charge connection charges of Rs.3,000 per residential connection and Rs.5,000 per commercial connection.

In case DMC is successful in both the above initiatives, i.e., in increasing Water Tax to Rs.200 per month per connection and taking total connections to 50,000, then this would result in total demand for Water Tax going up to Rs.12 crs. per annum. Once DMC supplies 70 lpcd or more on a sustained basis, its ability to collect Water Tax would also improve significantly, say to 75-80%. This would imply a Water Tax receipt of about Rs.10 crs., against a total demand of Rs.12 crs.

DMC also plans to install meters on all its connections and charge Water Tax based on consumption. It proposes to charge Water Tax at Rs.13-14 per kl. and supply about 15 kl. per household per month. Fifteen kl. per household per month implies a 100 lpcd supply (assuming an average household size of 5 members). This would also result in a monthly tax of about Rs.200 per connection.

Of course, an increase in Water Tax collection to say, Rs.10 crs. per annum, up from the current (2009-10) total annual collection of Rs.65 lakhs (without Connection Charges), would also be accompanied with higher operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses of the “new” water supply project. The current estimate of this O&M expense is about Rs.5 crs. per annum.

Assuming all of the above comes into effect, the incremental net surplus to the DMC financials because of Water Tax could be about Rs.5 crs. per annum.

70

6.5.1.1.3 RENTALS FROM DMC PROPERTIES

Rentals from DMC Properties have seen a substantial increase over the last two years of 2008-09 and 2009-10. Rentals from DMC Properties increased from Rs.16.65 lakhs in 2007-08, accounting for 0.6% of DMC’s total receipts, to Rs.94.23 lakhs in 2009-10, accounting for 2.45% of DMC’s total receipts.

For the period under consideration, i.e., between 2004-05 and 2009-10, Rentals from DMC Properties witnessed a CAGR of 31.24%.

6.5.1.2 RECEIPTS FROM GOVT. OF MADHYA PRADESH

Receipts from GoMP largely comprise compensation to DMC against abolition of DMC’s erstwhile sources of revenue. These include:

Octroi – receipts of Rs.7.7 crs. in 2009-10, representing a CAGR of 22.9% over the 2004-10 period.

Passenger Tax – receipts of Rs.2.02 crs. in 2009-10, with a CAGR of 19.18% over the last six-year period.

Stamp Duty – receipts of Rs.1.02 crs. in 2009-10, with a CAGR of about 21.88% between 2004 and 2010.

The above three sources of receipts accounted for 28.2% of DMC’s total receipts in 2009-10, down from 37.8% in 2006-07, but up from 23.55% in 2006-07.

Receipts from GoMP witnessed a CAGR of over 22% between 2004-05 and 2009-10, compared to a CAGR of only 13.43% in DMC’s Own-source Receipts in the same period (thereby, DMC’s Own-source & compensation from GoMP together witnessed a CAGR of about 17.8%).

6.5.1.3 GRANTS & ASSIGNED RECEIPTS

Grants & Assigned Receipts accounted for almost 50% of DMC’s total receipts in 2009-10. However, the corresponding figure in 2004-05 was 37.4%. It remained at the same level in 2005-06 and then went up to 40.26% in 2006-07. It increased to its highest level in 2008-09 of 59.6%, driven by a Rs.13.1 crs. grant from UIDSSMT. So, while DMC’s total receipts have increased at a healthy rate of 23.12% (CAGR between 2004-05 and 2009-10), Grants & Assigned Receipts have increased at a significantly higher rate, i.e, at a CAGR of 30.4%.

However, if one were to look at the period between 2004-05 and 2008-09, then Grants & Assigned Receipts witnessed a CAGR of a phenomenal 58.92%. The decease in 2009-10 brought the six-year CAGR down to a more reasonable 30.4%.

Grants & Assigned Receipts

5.07 5.57

11.114.1

32.4

19.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

71

Grants & Assigned Receipts comprise the following three broad areas:

Receipts from State Finance Commissions.

Receipts from GoMP – mix of consolidated grants and project or utilization specific grants.

Grants from Govt. of India for specific projects (under specific programs), like IHSDP or

UIDSSMT.

The huge increase in Grants & Assigned Receipts in 2006-07 and 2007-08 was largely due to a significant increase in receipts from State Finance Commissions – General and the 12th Finance Commission, whereas the increase in 2008-09 was due to the UIDSSMT grant.

6.5.2 Dewas Municipal Corporation: Expenditure

The total expenditure of DMC in 2009-10 was Rs.41.19 crs., up from Rs.12.18 crs. in 2004-05. Total expenditure has grown steadily over this six-year period. It increased by 25.1% in 2005-06 over 2004-05; by 38.3% in 2006-07; by 31.9% in 2007-08 over 2006-07; by 54.81% in 2008-09 over 2007-08; and decreased by 4.24% in 2009-10 over 2008-09, resulting in a CAGR of 27.6%.

DMC : Total Expenditure

12.1815.23

21.06

27.78

43.01 41.19

0.00

5.0010.00

15.00

20.0025.00

30.00

35.00

40.0045.00

50.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

DMC’s increase in total expenditure is largely driven by an increase in capital expenditure (capex) between 2004-05 and 2009-10. The total expenditure less capex, i.e., the expenditure on operations of DMC increased from Rs.9.49 crs. in 2004-05 to Rs.15.2 crs. in 2007-08, and then jumped to Rs.25.29 crs. in 2008-09 and finally to Rs.28.85 crs. in 2009-10, i.e., a CAGR of only 24.90%, compared to a CAGR of 35.68% in capex in the same period.

Therefore, it appears that DMC controlled its operational expenditure and oriented incremental receipts towards capex between 2004-05 and 2007-08 (though, of course, in this period DMC’s receipts from Grants and Assigned Receipts with a pre-specified capex usage also increased substantially). However, the operational expenditure increased substantially in 2008-09 by 66% over 2007-08, probably due to a relaxation of the previous tight control. Though, this year also saw the highest capex, funded by a significant increase in Grants & Assigned Receipts (UIDSSMT grant).

Non-capex expenditure accounted for a total of about 61.75% of total expenditure (in 2009-10), down from 65.14% in 2006-07. Wages & Salaries accounted for 26.77% of total expenditure and Repair & Maintenance accounted for another 14.6% of total expenditure.

27.6% (CAGR)

72

6.5.3 Dewas Municipal Corporation: Surplus/Deficit

DMC’s total annual surplus/deficit over the last four years has fluctuated widely. DMC had a surplus of Rs.1.39 crs. in 2004-05, a deficit of Rs.0.34 crs. in 2005-06, a surplus of Rs.6.49 crs. in 2006-07, back to a deficit of Rs.0.06 crs. in 2007-08, to a surplus of Rs.11.30 crs. in 2008-09, and finally a deficit of Rs.2.80 crs. in 2009-10.

DMC : Total Surplus / deficit

139.00

-33.64

648.60

-5.62

1130.86

-280.12-400.00

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Lac

s

This fluctuation in DMC’s overall financial position has largely been affected by its capex for the year. If one examines the funds available for capex, i.e., Operating Surplus/Deficit, defined as the difference between DMC’s total income less Grants Received for Capital Projects and DMC’s total expenditure less Capital Expenditure, plus the Grants Received for Capital Projects, one finds it showing a CAGR of 18.54% between 2004-05 and 2009-10, thereby enabling DMC to undertake significant capital expenditure for projects (as depicted below).

DMC : Funds available for Capex

4.07 3.57

12.05 12.53

29.02

9.53

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

The capex incurred by DMC has increased significantly from Rs.2.68 crs. in 2004-05 to Rs.12.33

crs. in 2009-10, resulting in a CAGR of 35.7%.

DMC: Total Surplus/Deficit

DMC: Funds Available for Capex

73

DMC - Capital Expenditure

0.00

2.004.00

6.00

8.0010.00

12.00

14.00

16.0018.00

20.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Crs

.

Therefore, as can be seen from the two graphs above, DMC has undertaken a total capital expenditure of about Rs.54.80 crs. between 2004-05 and 2009-10, against total funds of Rs.70.77 crs. being available for Capital Expenditure in this period.

However, DMC’s growing capex has largely been funded by Grants & Assigned Receipts from Gov’t. of India and GoMP and is not funded from surplus generated from its Own-source Receipts or from receipts from GoMP that are compensation against erstwhile revenue sources of DMC, viz., Octroi, Passenger Tax or Stamp Duty, i.e., capex has not been funded from its Operating Surplus, which has been negative in five of the six years under review, as depicted below. In fact, some of DMC’s Operating Deficit has been funded from Grants & Assigned Receipts.

DMC : Operating Surplus

-100.00-200.40

95.64

-160.72

-334.07

-959.09

-1200.00

-1000.00

-800.00

-600.00

-400.00

-200.00

0.00

200.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Rs.

Lac

s

Therefore, unless DMC’s Own-source and GoMP compensation receipts are bolstered significantly, capex would continue to be dependent on Grants Received.

6.5.4 DMC financial issues/concerns

The key issues/concerns with respect to the current financial position of DMC are as follows:

DMC’s Own-source Revenue was only Rs.8.44 crs. in 2009-10, accounting for just about 22% of its total receipts. This implies that all revenue augmentation efforts of DMC would only impact areas that currently comprise 22% of its total receipts. Therefore, DMC needs to undertake significant efforts to not only enhance the current sources of Own-source Revenue, but also explore other areas, as yet untapped, of revenues.

CAGR – 35.7%

74

Further, within its Own-source Revenue, receipts from Property Tax account for about 65%, if you ignore 2009-10. The current coverage of Property Tax is about 48,000 households, which is almost 100% coverage. Therefore, the scope for increasing Property Tax is limited to increasing the number of properties, which, given the current real estate scenario, seems bleak for at least the next couple of years. Further, increasing the ARV of the currently assessed properties would also probably witness limited buoyancy given the national real estate market scenario. Therefore, enhancing Own-source Revenue significantly would require highly innovative thoughts. Though to a certain extent, there is a potential to enhance Property Tax collections by improving collections against current demand from the current levels of 60-65%.

Significant increase in Own-source Revenue from Water Tax is a strong possibility, given the enhanced availability of water in the city after the Kshipra and other water projects are completed. Though some of this increase in Water Tax collections will come from increasing the number of connections, the anticipated increase in Water Tax collections, however, will largely be dependent on enhancing tariff from the current level of Rs.50 per household per month to Rs.200 per month. This would be a critical measure to significantly enhance DMC’s Own-source Revenue.

Dewas has a significant floating population, wherein people work in the industries of Dewas, but live in Indore (less than a 45-minute drive), thereby gaining from economic activity in Dewas, but not contributing to the infrastructure development of the city. Thus, the possibility of identifying “innovative” sources of revenue that would generate significant receipts for DMC and be buoyant over a sustained period of time appears to be rather limited.

DMC’s Operating Surplus, i.e., total Own-source & compensation from GoMP against abolition of Octroi & Passenger Tax and Stamp Duty, less Operating Expenditure, i.e., total expenditure less capex, is negative (or in deficit) in five of the six years under review. Moreover, it would be negative or in deficit if one were to consider the cumulative value of the Operating Surplus. Therefore, DMC funds its entire capex from Grants & Assigned Receipts from Finance Commissions, GoMP or Gov’t. of India schemes, i.e., all development work in Dewas has been restricted to the quantum of Grants & Assigned Receipts it can secure.

An 1986 Order of GoMP prohibiting any further recruitment of staff in municipal corporations of M.P. has resulted in quite a few key positions in revenue generating departments being vacant within DMC (DMC is unable to replace retired staff). So, the staff support available to devise and implement improved systems/mechanisms, as well as new sources of revenue, would be a challenge.

75

CHAPTER 7. STRATEGY AND APPROACH TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CITY SANITATION PLAN

7.1 Introduction

Implementing a City Sanitation Plan (CSP) is a challenging task that will require significant planning, initiative, innovation, prioritization, customization and leadership. Although the DMC will be primarily responsible for implementing the CSP, it will require the concerted efforts of many stakeholders to achieve this goal. Partnership arrangements with relevant government agencies, the private sector, civil society and citizens/households will need to be established and institutionalized for successful implementation of the CSP.

The study of the sanitation situation in Dewas and the projection of demand for various sanitation services will define the level of deficiency in respect of sanitation in Dewas. The National Urban Policy, Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme of GoMP, and the National Rating and Award Scheme for Sanitation for Indian Cities, instituted by Government of India, provide a good framework for defining the steps to be taken for preparing the City Sanitation Plan and its implementation. A broad strategy of preparing the City Sanitation Plan for Dewas and its implementation is discussed in the following sections, with reference to the following issues:

Concept of developing vision and short-term action plan. Deficiency analysis leading to identification of stress areas across the city in respect of various

emerging sanitation issues. Approach to consideration and evaluation of various options. Approach to identifying specific projects and their detailing. Implementation plan.

The guidance provided by the GoI sanitation rating system is useful in defining the specific steps to be followed in preparing and implementing the City Sanitation Plan for Dewas, as shown below.

TABLE 17 – GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF CITY SANITATION PLAN FROM NATIONAL RATING SCHEME FOR SANITATION

Sr. No. Indicators in National Rating Scheme for Sanitation

Guidelines for City Sanitation Plan

1 Output-related Proposals to provide safe access to household sanitation and cover entire population by toilets

Proposals for safe disposal of waste water, storm water and solid waste

Proposal to meet the national standards for safe disposal of liquid and solid wastes

2 Process-related Issues to be addressed in preparing the implementation plan

3 Outcome-related Implementation plan to propose monitoring systems

7.2 Approach to Project Design

7.2.1 Time horizon

It is expected that the required sanitation infrastructure will be created in stages to meet CSP goals in the short- and long-term. The time horizon needs to be defined with some clarity for the purpose of planning and design of the various components of the City Sanitation Plan. Some

76

components like the sewer network need to be sized for a long time horizon, since frequent expansion of the works is not possible and will not be cost effective. On the other hand, facilities like toilets, roadside drains, and solid waste collection and transport works need to be designed only for an immediate future. They can be augmented suitably as and when the demand develops. For this purpose, the following time horizons are suggested for different phases of developing the sanitation plan:

(a) Immediate action: - Year 2011 to 2013

(b) Short-term: - Year 2014 to 2021

(c) Medium-term: - Year 2022 to 2031

(d) Long-term: - Year 2032 to 2041

7.3 Approach to Provide Safe Access to Sanitation

7.3.1 Eradication of open defecation

The Dewas Cleanliness Survey shows that about 11% of households do not have private toilets. Open defecation is common in many wards and slums. Some slum households are reported to resort to open defecation, even though they have their own private toilets. The problem has two facets. Non-availability of household toilets forces some households to follow the practice of defecation in open. There are also ingrained behavioral patterns, mainly due to lack of knowledge and information about the adverse impact of this practice on the public health and cleanliness of the city. The CSP, therefore, needs to adopt a two-pronged approach of: (i) coverage of the entire population by providing sanitary toilets; and (ii) creating awareness and imparting appropriate health education to follow hygienic practices and protect the public health and environment.

7.3.2 Options for toilets

Two options are available. One option is to encourage the people to construct their own private toilets. The second option is to provide public toilets, particularly in areas like slums, where affordability of private toilets may be an issue. The other problem is the floating population in certain wards, which have significant commercial or industrial activity or, like in ward 24, a large number of pilgrims visiting the Mataji Temple. The approach in selecting the appropriate toilet design needs to address the following issues:

Suitability and preference of the beneficiary population. Availability of space within the household for a private toilet and public space for community

toilet. Affordability of the user households. Ease of operation and maintenance. Institutional adequacy for O&M of public toilets. Sustainability of the system.

7.4 Approach to Disposal of Household Waste Water

7.4.1 Possible options

Depending on the availability of space for disposal of waste water within the household premises, the following options may be explored:

On-site disposal through septic tanks and soakage pits or two pit latrines, with other waste water also connected to pits.

Effluent of septic tanks connected to a local small-bore sewerage network, with secondary treatment provided to the waste water collected in the system.

Regular sewer network, in which the toilet water and other waste water from the households will be collected, with full primary and secondary treatment provided at the terminal end.

77

Combination of these three options is possible in different parts of the city, depending on the feasibility.

7.4.2 Evaluation of options

The feasibility of adopting any of the above options depends on the availability of space within the households, density of population allowing for disposal within the vicinity of the respective areas, geological condition for on-site soakage, possibility of contamination of the ground water, acceptability of local population, capital and operating costs, and long-term sustainability. Choice of the mix of these different options will have to be made for each locality, based on these parameters.

7.5 Approach to Waste Water Disposal at Community Level

7.5.1 Options

Waste water collected from the households for off-site disposal can be handled in three ways:

Local decentralized systems. Centralized system (one or more for the city, depending on the configuration). Combination of the two.

7.5.2 Evaluation of options

Major considerations will be based on the city’s existing land use (whether isolated development or core area), density of population, feasibility of finding a suitable local piece of land for treatment and disposal, acceptability to the beneficiary population, and the cost (both capital and operating). Some constraints (like the railway line passing through the city) will affect the layout of the systems. Dewas presents a good opportunity to employ both local decentralized and centralized sewerage systems.

7.6 Approach to Waste Water Treatment and Reuse

7.6.1 Standards of treatment

The degree of treatment depends on the method of disposal of treated sewage. The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, prescribe the following general standards for discharge of effluents, in respect of suspended solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and pH. TABLE 18 – EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR DOMESTIC SEWAGE

Sr. No.

Parameter Standards

Inland Surface Water

Public Sewers Land for Irrigation

1 Suspended solids (mg/l) 100 600 200

2 PH value 5.5-9 5.5-9 5.5-9

3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 days at 20o C)

30 350 100

7.6.2 Options for treatment

The method and degree of treatment depend on the final disposal of the effluent. The normal, widely used sewage treatment method includes pre-treatment for removal of floating and settleable in-organic solids, followed by primary treatment to remove settleable in-organic and organic solids, and secondary biological treatment. A number of options are available for secondary biological treatment. The degree of treatment, which determines the quality of final effluent, depends on the choice of appropriate design parameters. Some of the commonly adopted treatment processes include:

78

Aerobic processes, such as: o Activated sludge process and its modifications. o Waste stabilization ponds. o Aerated lagoons. o Trickling filter. o Rotating biological contactor. o Sequential batch reactor (SBR).

Anaerobic processes, such as up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, followed by some aerobic polishing process.

Anaerobic digester for stabilization of sludge followed by some drying process. 7.6.3 Evaluation

Selection of a suitable treatment process needs to be done by evaluating the possible options on the basis of parameters like efficiency of treatment, energy requirement, land requirement, capital and operating costs, and use of treated effluent.

7.6.4 Reuse of treated effluent There is a good possibility of using the treated effluent for irrigating the city’s agricultural lands. The present source of irrigation for lands around Dewas is deep tube wells. Water needs to be pumped through a lift of 150 to 180 meters. Use of treated sewage for irrigation is a very attractive alternative. Another likely use is for some operations in the industrial areas. One water supply scheme, with Narmada River water as its source, has recently been constructed and commissioned for industries as a PPP project. Source of raw water is about 135 km. away. This water is obviously very expensive. While the treated effluent offers a good alternative, some more treatment in the form of physico-chemical tertiary treatment is necessary to make the effluent safe for use in the industrial areas.

7.7 Approach to Storm Water Disposal

7.7.1 Current situation

The city’s seven well-defined natural streams are able to dispose of storm water without causing major problem of flooding. The problem is more at the local level, since coverage of the city with built-up drains is very poor. Many of the roads either do not have any drains or have only katcha drains. Stagnation of waste water in the drains is a common feature. Indiscriminate dumping of solid waste in the surface drains aggravates the situation. Hence, improvement of secondary and tertiary roadside drains assumes importance in the strategy of improving city sanitation.

7.7.2 Options for storm water disposal

One option is to provide roadside surface drains, similar to the existing built-up drains, based on scientific layout and design. Providing a combined sewer network, which caters for both waste water and storm water, is another option. The size of drains is decided after considering important meteorological parameters like intensity, duration and return period of rainfall. The City Sanitation Plan needs to incorporate solutions to storm water drainage to avoid flooding and stagnation of offensive waste water. The options and sizing of drains need to be evaluated by considering the parameters of efficiency, suitability and cost.

7.8 Approach to Collection, Disposal and Treatment of Solid Waste

It is proposed that DMC adopt an integrated approach for total solid waste management from primary collection to its ultimate disposal, including all the intermediate steps. The CSP will look into both the technical and institutional aspects of appropriate and feasible options for different components of the supply chain from primary collection to the ultimate disposal in a sanitary landfill. DMC will develop an appropriate system for providing full and uniform coverage of the entire city population across all categories of settlements and income groups. The aim is to enable DMC to move toward providing 100% coverage under door-to-door collection service and achieve safe disposal. Broad feasible solutions will be proposed in respect of the following:

79

Primary storage Primary collection and secondary storage:

o Door-to-door collection service. o Community waste depots. o Collection from non-domestic sources.

Street sweeping and drain cleaning. Secondary collection and transport – service delivery options. Waste treatment. Waste disposal.

For the purpose of solid waste management, the following time horizons will be explored: o Immediate-action: 0-6 months o Short-term: 1-2 years o Medium-term: 3-5 years o Long-term: > 5 years.

The most visible components of primary collection, secondary storage and transport will be implemented in the short- to medium-term, whereas a sanitary landfill will be implemented in the medium-term and the component of treatment could be taken up towards the latter part of the medium-term or long-term.

Municipal solid waste management operations will essentially involve 3M – management of material, machinery and manpower. In the overall scheme, manpower plays a very critical role because the bulk of the municipal workers at the lower rung are characterized by low levels of education, awareness, skills, etc. These aspects will be addressed as a part of the Dewas CSP’s institutional strengthening and capacity building component, as follows:

Aligning MSW management with the city’s Engineering Department.

Capacity building in public relations and community management.

Local bylaws for MSW management.

Capacity building of councilors and officials.

Participatory monitoring.

Customized manual on MSW management.

Customized MIS for MSW Management.

7.9 Strategy of Implementation of Sanitation Plan

The following aspects will be detailed as part of the implementation plan of the City Sanitation Plan.

7.9.1 Institutional arrangements

The guidelines prepared for the Integrated Urban Sanitation Program (IUSP) by the Gov’t. of Madhya Pradesh, Urban Administration and Development Department (UADD), recommend formation of committees at the state and city level for facilitating the implementation of CSP. Under these guidelines, a city-level sanitation committee is to be formed for facilitating effective implementation of the CSP. This committee is empowered to bring together various actors in the implementation of the CSP, which will be critical to achieving the vision of an open defecation free city. The sanitation committee is envisaged as an advisory and policy level body, which is supported by a technical committee called the city sanitation cell (CSC), which comprises a group of dedicated technical professionals (specializing in city human excreta and liquid waste management). The Commissioner, DMC, will appoint a suitable officer as the nodal officer for this cell. The CSC will be responsible for managing all technical aspects of implementing the CSP.

80

7.9.2 Mapping key stakeholders for CSP implementation in Dewas

DMC will engage and forge partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders. These stakeholder partnerships will be crucial to address issues/constraints at the local level and to bring about greater synergy in action.

Stakeholders

Program/CSP implementing agencies/committees

Dewas Municipal Corporation – officials and staff City-level sanitation committee City sanitation cell

Civil society Civil society organizations Non-Governmental Organizations

Households/citizens Disaggregated by economic status and current sanitation practices

Elected representatives Councillors, local member of Legislative Assembly

Private sector Industries and their associations

7.9.3 Strategic communications with the staff of the DMC

Being the primary implementers of the City Sanitation Plan, the staff of the DMC will be made fully aware of the plan and the various strategies essential for effective implementation. Further, since the staff is also DMC’s primary interface with the city’s households/citizens, they can also play a strategic role in generating awareness.

7.9.4 Approach for community awareness and participation

In order to ensure smooth implementation of the CSP it will be critical to engage with the city’s citizens/households through a targeted communication program. The primary aim of the communication program would be to create awareness on the need for improved city sanitation (including household level sanitation facilities and mechanisms for safe disposal of waste water), along with enhancing awareness on linkages of sanitation with health, economic productivity and environment. The initial target audience for a community awareness program would be the following segments of the urban population in Dewas:

Households currently practicing open defecation. Households that currently lack individual/private toilets and are using public/community toilets. Households that are currently disposing their waste water in open drains. Households that have septic tanks as a waste water disposal mechanism.

7.9.5. Institutionalizing community-government interactions

DMC will need to institutionalize a platform for advocacy and participatory governance to achieve the objectives of the CSP. Successful models for community-local government interaction such as the Bhagidari-Sanjha Prayas in Delhi, which has been replicated in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, or Janagraha in Bangalore, will be reviewed for replication. Community representatives of various organized groups will meet on a periodic basis to discuss key implementation concerns with follow-up action by the concerned department. A senior officer in DMC will head the ‘Bhagidari for DMC’ cell in DMC and ensure compliance and follow-up action on demands raised in various meetings with the support of the city sanitation cell.

81

7.9.6 Community participation at city scale

Mobilization of citizens at the local level and subsequent activity-planning will be necessary, including significant discussion regarding revision and finalization of key recommendations of the City Sanitation Plan and their subsequent implementation, as well as operational management of issues that come up during project implementation. The community structures created under the Swaran Jyanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) could be utilized to plan and implement community level interventions.

7.10 Financing the City Sanitation Plan

The City Sanitation Plan will require considerable financial resources and a prioritized multi-year capital investment plan. Resources for CSP will be generated from funds earmarked for water and sanitation development within municipal and state government budgets, but will not be limited to these resources alone. Funding for CSP implementation will include funds from the 13th Finance Commission and other center and state schemes for sanitation improvement. In addition to funding of the capital expenses for implementation of the CSP, a regular source of financial resources would also be required to fund the operations & maintenance (O&M) of the various facilities that will be created. In addition to DMC’s budgetary resources, it will be necessary to explore the possibility of levying user charges for some of the proposed services, at least to cover annual O&M expenditure, if not also to fund capital replacement.

82

CHAPTER 8. WASTE WATER SYSTEMS This chapter deals with the disposal of human excreta, liquid waste and storm water.

8.1 Sanitation Components The Dewas CSP needs to include a comprehensive plan for the following: Safe disposal of human excreta and liquid waste at household level. Safe disposal of human excreta and liquid waste at public sanitary conveniences. Safe collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of liquid waste from individual

communities (like wards and slums) and the city. Safe disposal of storm water drainage from communities and city. Safe collection, transport, treatment and disposal of solid waste. Safe collection, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. Management of Human Excreta

8.2 Existing Coverage by Toilets

8.2.1 Household toilets The Dewas Cleanliness Survey, 2008, conducted by Dewas Municipal Corporation, covered 23,708 households. Out of these, 89% (21,098) of households had individual toilets, either with septic tanks, pits, temporary disposal arrangements or directly discharging in roadside drains. This survey did not distinguish between households in slums versus other areas in the wards. The rapid land use survey done by Alchemy shows that 95% of households in non-slum areas and about 33% of households in slums have individual toilets.

8.2.2 Public toilets Public toilets exist in 20 wards. Twenty-five public toilets (with 99 seats) are free use toilets, 14 of them being located in 11 slums. Six toilets (with 87 seats) are pay and use toilets, located in 6 core area wards. DMC’s Cleanliness Survey shows that about 22% of households have access to public toilets.

8.2.3 Open defecation The Dewas Cleanliness Survey shows that about 9% of households surveyed resort to open defecation. The incidence is highest in wards 1, 3, 11-16, 24 and 42. The reconnaissance survey done by FIRE (D) through Acute Consulting Services shows that open defecation is seen in 7 wards on a large scale and in another 22 wards to a lesser extent. The rapid land use survey of Alchemy shows that non-slum areas in 3 wards (7, 22 and 45) and slums in wards 1, 11, 13, 16, 43 and 44 show an incidence of open defecation. Four of these slums are in peripheral wards, while slums in wards 13 and 16 are close to industrial areas. Interestingly, some slum households that have individual toilets also resort to open defecation. Open defecation is thus a major challenge and is not only on account of non-availability of a toilet facility within the household or nearby, but also due to habits and attitude of the residents.

83

8.3 Estimation of Demand for New Household Toilets

8.3.1 Households with no toilets The 2008 Dewas Cleanliness Survey covered 23,708 households. The total number of households in year 2008 was about 48,000. Average population increase between 2001 and 2011 has been estimated at 1.9604% per annum and projected at 2% per annum between 2011 and 2021. It is reasonable to estimate the number of households in year 2011 and thereafter with the same logic and growth rate. As stated above, 11% of households do not have individual toilets. Thus, the number of households, which lack access to household toilets, is estimated as under. TABLE 19 – ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO TOILETS

Year Growth Rate Households Households Lacking Toilets % Number 2008 48,000 11 5,280 2011 1.96% 50,878 11 5,597 2012 2 % 51,896 11 5,709 2013 2 % 52,934 11 5,823 2014 2 % 53,993 11 5,939 2015 2 % 55,073 11 6,058

8.3.2 Options A toilet facility can be provided in one of four possible ways: Individual household toilets, Shared toilets for more than one household (say, 2 to 5 households), Public toilets, or Community toilets. Relative advantages of each are analyzed below.

84

TABLE 20 – COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TOILETS

Sr. No. Parameters Options of Toilets Individual Shared Public or

Community 1 Feasibility of

construction Depends on availability of land

Possibility of land with one of the beneficiaries is better

Depends on availability of public plot

2 Cost Depends on the design, but more for comparable design

Less than individual toilet Least per seat, but may increase with a dedicated water supply

3 Cost sharing By individual Shared by beneficiaries Individual household not burdened

4 Acceptability Maximum, if affordable

Acceptable, if individual toilet not affordable

May be preferred, as no burden of cost

5 Sense of ownership

Maximum Less Does not exist

6 O&M Individual household

Depends on will, capacity and cooperation of beneficiaries

Needs separate organization

7 Sustainability Maximum Depends on will, capacity and cooperation of beneficiaries

Depends on capacity of organization (better, if pay and use type)

8 Desirability Most desirable, ifaffordable

Next choice, if affordability is an issue

Least desirable

9 Suitability Most suitable Suitable in low-income households (like slums)

Should be adopted only when no other option available

8.3.3 Choice

It is desirable to choose an alternative, which is affordable, sustainable and likely to be most used and well maintained. It is recommended to provide individual toilets to most of the households. Where individual households cannot afford, have no suitable land for construction, and are willing to share a facility, shared toilets should be promoted. Surveys also reveal that, in a few cases, households with individual toilets may be defecating in the open. A considerable effort of creating awareness and change in attitude is called for.

8.3.4 Estimate of quantity The total number of households lacking in household toilets is estimated at 5,597, or say 6,000, in year 2011. Most of these households may be from slums. The number of new household toilets is, thus, estimated as 6,000.

85

8.4 Sanitation Arrangements for Floating Population

8.4.1 Need Dewas is the district headquarters. Chamunda Mata Temple attracts many pilgrims, making it a city of religious significance. Industrial activity in the southern part and the Bank Note Press in the north, coupled with a substantial commercial activity in the core wards of the city, attract a large number of visitors and floating population. A survey of the city’s wards was again done, and results shown in the map below to understand the non-domestic commercial and industrial activity centers, which need public conveniences for maintaining sanitation in these wards.

Major Land Use Attracting Floating Population

8.4.2 Estimate of public toilets for floating population The results of the survey are used to estimate the requirement of public toilets in select wards, as below. The number of seats is estimated at an average 100 users per seat assuming that, in some of these establishments, toilets will be available for the floating population.

86

TABLE 21 – ESTIMATE OF PUBLIC TOILETS

Sr. No.

Activity Ward(s) No(s)

Floating Population per Day

No. of Seats Required

Seats of Existing Facility

Additional Seats Required

1 Mataji Temple 24 Approximately 20,000

200 12 public toilets in wards 12, 15, 20, 23, 25, 31, 32 and 42 Total seats - 86

114 2 Bus Stand 32 3 Market Place 33 to 36 4 Commercial

shops along arterial roads like A.B. Road, Ujjain Road, Station Road, etc.

2, 17 to 26, 29 to 31

5 Industrial activity in parts

4, 12, 15, 26, 42

8.4.3 Estimate of community toilets in slums

Open defecation is commonly seen in slums in four peripheral wards 1, 11, 43 and 44, and two wards 13 and 16, which are close to the industrial area. Coverage of households with individual toilets is much less in slums than in non-slum areas. Except in 2 slums, public toilets have not been provided in the slums in these wards. While the emphasis should be to promote household toilets in all areas, including slums, there may be some slum households in these six wards, which may not wish to have their own private toilets. Reasons may be that either they cannot afford one or they find open defecation not as embarrassing as they would have, if their slums were located in the developed parts of the city. It may perhaps be prudent to make some alternative provision for such households. It is proposed to construct public conveniences for, say, about 10% of the population in these slums, to ensure that the practice of open defecation is not encouraged. In other slums, a few households may also not find enough space to construct their own private latrine or may not be able to afford one. A token provision of community toilets for 5% of the population in these slums is also proposed. Efforts to create awareness and motivation should be pursued simultaneously to also achieve full coverage of the slum households with individual toilets. Requirement of community toilets, as an interim measure, is estimated at 1 seat per 50 population, as below. TABLE 22 – REQUIREMENT OF COMMUNITY TOILETS IN SLUMS

Sr. No.

Name of Slum Ward No.

Population of Slum

Population for Community Toilets

Estimate of Seats of Public Toilets

Required Existing Balance Required

A Slums with Open Defecation

At 10%

1 Bilawali 1 2,080 208 4 - 4 2 Jetpura 1 2,276 228 5 - 5

87

3 Mendhaki 11 2,600 260 5 - 5 4 Nandanagar 11 260 26 1 5 - 5 Amona Gaon 13 5,400 540 11 - 11 6 Shantinagar 13 3,900 390 8 - 8 7 Bawadiya 16 6,639 664 13 - 13 8 Idukhan Colony 16 390 39 1 - 1 9 Chuna Khadan 43 1,680 168 3 3 - 10 Balgad Navi

Abadi 43 1,820 182 4 - 4

11 Pal Nagar Anvatpura

44 4,680 468 9 - 9

12 Nagda (P)-Rajivnagar

44 390 39 1 - 1

Total for Slums with Open Defecation

32,115 3,212 65 8 61

B Other Slums 79,376 3,969 (at 5 %)

79 53 26

Total for All Slums

111,491 7,181 144 61 87

Disposal of Waste Water

8.5 Options for Disposal of Waste Water at Household Level Domestic waste water generated at the household level, including the waste from toilets, can be disposed of either on-site or off-site or a combination of both. Possible options are: Fully on-site disposal (septic tanks or soak pits), Local sewer network (small-bore sewerage or decentralized waste water treatment systems), Centralized or decentralized full-scale sewerage systems, or Combined systems.

8.5.1 Fully on-site sanitation – system description Fully on-site sanitation arrangements will involve on-plot treatment and disposal of all domestic waste water. This is achieved by using on-plot sanitation technologies -- septic tank and soak pits -- to receive and treat the entire waste water flow from the household. However, it is recommended that the septage (sludge from septic tanks) is removed and transferred to another location for further treatment and final disposal. Under this option the following arrangements are made.

88

8.5.1.1 SANITATION ARRANGEMENTS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL (a) Septic tank with soak pits In this option, all discharge of domestic waste water resulting from bathing, washing, cooking, cleaning and usage of toilets is treated in the septic tank. The septic tank effluent is disposed in dispersion trenches or soak pits. Septage is periodically cleared and taken away to a common treatment facility. (b) Twin soak pits (leach pits) Wastewater from the latrine is discharged into a soak pit in this option. Waste water from domestic use, such as domestic waste water from bathing, washing, cooking, cleaning, etc. is also disposed into another soak pit. For an uninterrupted and proper functioning, it is recommended to use a set of two pits. (See three sketches of household level disposal arrangements on following page.) (c) Improvements in existing household disposal facilities Existing household sanitation arrangements, which do not have proper disposal, can be improved by:

Construction of soak pits for existing toilets having only septic tanks, and Providing a septic tank with soak pits for latrines, which do not have a proper disposal

arrangement. (d) Public toilets Similar to household toilets, community/public toilets may also be provided with a septic tank-based on-site system with a soak pit or soakage trenches (for effluent disposal). (e) Septage management It will be necessary to set up an efficient septage collection system, operated by either the Municipal Corporation or a private agency. Appropriate regulation and monitoring mechanisms, in respect of septic tanks and septage handling and disposal, need to introduced (see section in Ch. 9 on Septage Management System).

89

MANHOLE

SECTION

PLAN

MANHOLEW.C. PAN

ROAD

TYPICAL SKETCH OF LATRINE CONNECTED TO SEWER

W.C. PAN

PIT

SECTION

PLAN

PIT

PIT

TYPICAL SKETCH OF TWO PIT LATRINE

PLANSECTION

SEPTIC TANK

W.C. PAN

BAFFLE

INLET CHAMBER

PENSTOCKSCUM

TYPICAL SKETCH OF LATRINE CONNECTED TO SEPTIC TANK

BOARD

OUT LET

OUT LET SOAK PIT

SEWER LINE

SOAK PIT

Typical Arrangements of Household Latrine and Disposal Works

8.5.2 Small-bore sewerage – system description

In a small-bore sewerage system, all internal waste water, including the toilet usage water, is diverted to an on-plot septic tank. Households constructing new individual sanitation facilities should be encouraged to construct septic tanks/interception chambers. Some households could continue to use pit latrines. Only their other household waste water (gray water) may be connected to sewers. The septage (sludge from septic tanks) is removed for further treatment and final disposal. A small diameter sewer pipe (< 200 mm) is laid at a flatter gradient to carry the effluent from the septic tanks. Since the sewer pipes do not carry solids, the flatter gradient and smaller

90

diameter are sufficient. The flatter gradient also allows laying of sewer lines at shallower depths, resulting in some cost reduction. Under this option, the following household/public sanitation and waste water treatment and disposal arrangements will be possible: (a) Household sanitation The following arrangements are feasible: Septic tank is connected to small-bore sewerage network: all domestic waste water is partially

treated in the septic tank and the effluent is disposed into the small-bore sewerage network for further treatment and final disposal. Septage is periodically cleared and taken away to a common treatment facility.

Twin pit latrine waste water is disposed into soak pits. Other domestic waste water (resulting from bathing, washing, cooking, cleaning, etc.) is also disposed into soak pits. A minimum of two pits will be necessary to ensure proper, uninterrupted functioning of the system.

(b) Public toilets In the case of public sanitary conveniences, a septic tank-based on-site system is constructed. The septic tank effluent is disposed into a small-bore sewerage network for further treatment and final disposal. (c) Disposal of septage It will be necessary to set up an efficient septage collection system, operated by either the Municipal Corporation or a private agency. Appropriate regulation and monitoring mechanisms, in respect of septic tanks and septage handling and disposal, need to be introduced. (d) Conveyance of septic tank effluent The septic tank effluent is disposed into a network of small-bore sewer pipes for centralized or decentralized treatment and final disposal. (e) Treatment of waste water Effluent from the septic tanks is partially treated, but still is not safe for discharge into public water bodies. Prior to final disposal, the collected waste water should be adequately treated to meet effluent discharge standards.

8.5.3 Centralized or decentralized sewerage system description This alternative includes a proposal for a regular sewerage network (either a local simplified network or an elaborate citywide network) to collect the waste water from the households. The network is normally laid through most of the town. Waste water is collected at different locations in the decentralized systems and is treated before final disposal or reuse. In a centralized system(s), the waste water is collected at a central location(s) for treatment and final disposal or reuse (like land irrigation).

91

Whether a series of decentralized systems is feasible depends on land availability. Otherwise, a centralized treatment plant for the whole (or major) part of the city may be proposed. A detailed topographical and land availability survey will be necessary to determine the feasibility and required number of decentralized waste water treatment plants. In the area covered with a sewerage network, efforts should be made to connect all households to the sewerage network. Even in this alternative, there is a possibility that a few households will still be served by on-site sanitation systems – mainly pit latrines. Under this option, the following household/public sanitation and waste water treatment and disposal arrangements will be possible: (a) Household sanitation arrangement The entire domestic waste water discharge of a household is disposed into the sewerage

network, or The entire domestic waste water (including bathing, washing, kitchen and latrine) of those

households, who chose not to connect to the sewer network, is disposed directly into household soak pits. A minimum of two pits will be necessary to ensure proper, uninterrupted functioning of the system.

(b) Public sanitary conveniences Public sanitary conveniences will be directly connected to the nearest sewer line of the network.

8.5.4 Combined system description Under this option, a combination of all options is promoted, assuming that all households have access to improved sanitation facilities and human excreta and community liquid wastes are treated and safely disposed. The combination includes both on-site sanitation arrangements (septic tanks with soak pits and twin pit latrines, as described in section 8.5.1) and off-site sanitation systems (small-bore sewerage systems or regular sewerage with centralized or decentralized wastewater treatment systems, as described in sections 8.5.2 and 8.5.3 above). Under this option, the following arrangements are envisaged for household/public sanitation and waste water treatment and disposal arrangements. (a) Household sanitation.

The following options are available: Septic tank with soak pits receives the entire household waste water discharge resulting from

bathing, washing, cooking, cleaning and latrine usage, etc. and provides a partial treatment. The septic tank effluent is disposed either into the small-bore sewer network or into a soak pit. Septage is periodically cleared and taken away to a common treatment facility.

Sewerage network receives all the household waste water and conveys it to the centralized or decentralized treatment plant(s).

Some households continue to use twin soak pits for all domestic waste water (including bathing, washing, kitchen and latrine). A minimum of two pits will be necessary to ensure proper, uninterrupted functioning of the system. In areas where a sewer network of some sort is provided, this option may not be encouraged.

92

(b) Public conveniences In the case of public sanitary conveniences, waste water discharge is disposed into the sewerage network for further treatment and final disposal, in areas where some sewer network is provided. In areas, which will not have a sewer network nearby, the waste water is discharged into a septic tank with soak pits. (c) Disposal of septage For households served by an on-site sanitation system, i.e., septic tanks, it is necessary to set up an efficient septage collection system that can be operated by the Municipal Corporation or a private agency. Appropriate regulation and monitoring mechanisms need to be set up to ensure that septic tanks are properly built, that septage is cleared regularly, and safely treated and disposed. The septage can be treated at a separate septage treatment facility, in the form of sludge drying beds of sand filters for dewatering/sun drying. (d) Waste water conveyance and treatment Domestic waste water, disposed into the sewerage network, is transported to the waste water treatment site(s) for treatment and final disposal. Treatment will meet the disposal standards.

8.5.5 Evaluation of options of waste water disposal Four options for disposal of domestic waste water, discussed above, are evaluated on various parameters for the purpose of recommending options for different areas of Dewas city. TABLE 23 – EVALUATION OF WASTE WATER DISPOSAL OPTIONS

Sr. No.

Parameters Waste Water Disposal Systems

On-site Disposal (A)

Local Small-bore System (B)

Sewerage(C)

Combined System (D)

1 Public investment

Least Low Highest High

2 Ease of implementation

Can be achieved faster; depends on user response

Easy and fast

Most difficult

Easier than (C)

3 Ease of O&M Easy, as user responsible

Easy, as less complex, but multiple schemes

Most difficult and expensive

Easier than (C)

4 Use of existing household facility

Maximum Maximum Septic tanks will be

More use than in (C)

93

redundant5 Septage

management Separate system required

Separate system required

Not for household septage

Required to some extent

6 Land availability

Problem in core city and developed area

Problem in core city and developed area

Land for pumping stations and treatment plant

Choice as per land availability feasible

7 Impact on ground water

Maximum Less than (A)

Least Much less

8 Willingness to connect and pay

Not applicable, as it is own initiative

Less More, as household does not need a septic tank

Depends on type of disposal

8 Suitability Suitable in small isolated areas; not suitable in large urban places, like Dewas as standalone solution

Suitable in isolated and peripheral areas, but not suitable for integration in central sewerage

Suitable in core and developed areas

Suitable depending on land use

8.6 Integration of Existing Sewerage Facilities in Dewas

Some areas in Dewas city have been developed by the Dewas Development Authority (DDA). DDA has also provided the infrastructure for water supply, sewerage (with local treatment plants in the form of septic tanks), internal roads and drains. The feasibility of utilization of the sewerage systems in these areas and their integration in the proposals of the City Sanitation Plan need to be studied.

8.6.1 Existing sewerage The DDA-developed sewerage systems consist of local sewer networks, connected to septic tanks in most cases. Details collected in the reconnaissance survey are summarized below.

94

TABLE 24 – EXISTING SEWERAGE INFRASTRUCTURE

Sr. No.

Wards with Sewerage (No.)

Coverage (%)

Treatment Disposal of Effluent

Condition

Sewers Septic Tanks1. 2 50% Community septic

tank Effluent not seen

Good Good

2. 3 100% Sewerage treatment plant

Effluent not seen

Good Good

3. 6 10% Community septic tank

Effluent not seen

Good Good

4. 8 60% Community septic tank

Effluent not seen

Good Good

5. 9 30% Community septic tank

Effluent not seen

Good Good

6. 10 30% Community septic tank

In open drains

Not good, but usable

Good

7. 12 20% Community septic tank

In open drains

Not good, but usable

Good

8 16 10% Community septic tank in Dhancha Bhavan; no septic tank in Sun City

Effluent not seen

Not good, but usable

Top slab of septic tank collapsed; no flow seen in Dhancha Bhavan and no septic tank in Sun City

9 17 20% No treatment To nalla Sewer line on both sides of road, good

--

10 18 100% No treatment To nalla Sewer line on both sides of road, good

--

11 19 35% No treatment To nalla Sewer line on both sides of road, good

--

95

12 20 20% No treatment in Chamunda Complex; only septic tank in Mahavirnagar

To gutter in Chamunda Complex; in Panshilnagar and Mahavirnagar no effluent seen

Good Good

13 42 10% Community septic tank

Effluent not seen

Good Good

8.6.2 Approach to utilization of existing sewerage facilities

The existing sewerage networks in the above-mentioned wards in Dewas city are currently in use. The capacity and current status are not known. One view is that, since a new sewerage project is being planned for the city, it may be desirable to discard the existing network and plan a new one. At the same time, it is known that the network is in use and serving households in carrying away waste water to the disposal site. Rather than discarding the network straight way, it may be prudent to use it for some more time (say, up to year 2021) before it is discarded and a new network is planned for this area in the medium-term (year 2022-31). Disposal of waste water conveyed through the existing sewer network is done in community septic tanks fully in 9 wards and partly in one ward, and in a sewage treatment plant in one ward. In 2 wards, raw sewage is discharged in nallas. The performance of the septic tanks is not known. Also, the effluent of the septic tanks is still offensive, unless it is treated further. Since the quantity of the effluent from each septic tank is large, it cannot be handled by soakage pits for a long time. The effluent will eventually percolate to the surface and create unsanitary conditions. It will, therefore, be desirable to provide a suitable secondary treatment to the effluent, using a suitable technology (like DEWATS). In three wards, where the raw sewage is discharged into open drains, it will be necessary to introduce suitable small capacity treatment plants (like DEWATS). The approach recommended for those areas that have a sewer network will be to: (a) continue to use the existing network up to year 2021, (b) provide secondary treatment to the septic tank effluent in 10 wards (9 fully and 1 partly), (c) provide new small sewage treatment plants in three wards (2 fully and 1 partly), and (d) connect the network to the new city network, if feasible, as an alternative to the local

treatment facility.

8.6.3 Coverage of existing sewerage and demand for new sewerage in these wards The population covered by the existing sewer network in each of these 13 wards and the balance population to be provided with a new network are shown in Annexure 10 and are summarized in the following table.

96

TABLE 25 – COVERAGE AND NEW DEMAND FOR SEWERAGE IN WARDS PARTIALLY SEWERED

Sr. No.

Wards (Nos.)

Classification of Population

Present Coverage

Projected Population

2011 2021 2031 2041 2, 3, 6, 8,

9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 42

Total 106,042 135,026 176,586 218,386 Sewered 10% to

100% 34,785 34,785 34,785 34,785

Balance 71,257 100,241 141,801 183,601

8.7 Decentralized and Centralized Waste Water Disposal Systems The study of the existing land use in Dewas city shows that some core areas of the city are densely populated. These areas are best suited to centralized disposal systems. There are many DDA areas, however, which are contiguous to the core city, but still can be dealt with separately. There are many wards in the outer ring and the periphery of the town, which are sparsely populated in the form of isolated settlements. Solutions to these different types of development can be site-specific and different. Possible options are discussed below.

8.7.1 Decentralized systems Decentralized systems are feasible and desirable in areas that are isolated and have space to accommodate small multiple waste water treatment plants and disposal systems. Since these systems are localized small systems, they will be economical and simpler for operation and maintenance. It may be also possible to form local committees or co-operative societies, which may take up the O&M of these plants. A substantial community mobilization effort, of course, will be necessary. If this is not feasible and achievable, the alternative is to outsource the O&M to a private party. A third alternative is for the Municipal Corporation to take over this responsibility.

8.7.2 Centralized systems In areas like the core city wards, density of population is high, open plots are not likely to be available, and people may not accept multiple treatment and disposal systems within the vicinity. Hence, localized dispersed systems may not be feasible. A centralized system, which collects the waste water from a large city area through a sewer network and conveys it to a central, large-size treatment plant and disposal system, may become imperative. Such a system will be more expensive than the decentralized systems for the same area, but may be better for unitary control over its O&M. The responsibility will be taken over by Municipal Corporation and participation of the beneficiary population will be limited.

8.7.3 Choice of decentralized and centralized systems The choice between decentralized vs. centralized systems mainly depends on feasibility in terms of availability of land for decentralized systems, their acceptability to the people and cost (both

97

capital and O&M). A quick survey1 of all the wards and slums was done to determine the feasibility of these two alternatives. Data collected in this survey is documented in Annexures 11 and 12. The choice of centralized and decentralized systems is made on the basis of the above considerations in each of the wards. Dewas’s wards are divided into three categories, namely (a) wards where decentralized systems are feasible and desirable, (b) wards where decentralized systems are feasible, but due to their nearness to the likely central sewer network, it will be economical to connect them to the centralized system, and (c) wards which will need a centralized system, since decentralized systems are not feasible. Ward 3, which is fully occupied by Bank Note Press and has its own system, is not included in the analysis. Details are shown in the map and table below and described in Annexure 13 and are summarized below.

1 A quick land use survey was again undertaken, with the specific purpose of collecting information required for identifying areas suitable for decentralized and centralized disposal systems and other information required for proposals of public toilets, probable ground strata and water table.

98

Recommended Decentralized and Centralized Systems

TABLE 26 – PROPOSAL OF DECENTRALIZED AND CENTRALIZED WASTE WATER SYSTEMS

Wards Population Waste Water Flow (MLD) 2011 2021 2031 2041 2011 2021 2031 2041Decentralized Systems

Group A: wards 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 14(P), 43 to 45

51,689 60,110 75,167 99,996 5.582 6.492 8.118 10.800

Total – Decentralized

51,689 60,110 75,167 99,996 5.582 6.492 8.118 10.800

Centralized Systems

Group B: wards 6 to 10, 12, 13, 14(P), 15 to 20, 38 to 42.

143,208 182,494 239,103 302,718 15.466 19.709 25.823 32.694

Group C: wards 21 to 37

82,523 96,033 109,233 127,244 8.912 10.372 11.797 13.742

Total – Centralized

225,731 278,527 348,336 429,962 24.378 30.081 37.620 46.436

99

8.7.4 Options for decentralized systems

Two options for localized decentralized waste water disposal systems are possible: (a) Small-bore sewerage networks (described in section 8.5.2 above), and (b) Regular sewerage system network (envisaged in 8.5.3 above). In the first option of small-bore sewerage system, it is expected that all the households have their toilets connected to either twin soakage pits or septic tanks/interception chambers. Only the effluent from the septic tanks is collected in the sewer network for further secondary treatment. In the second option, the raw sewage is collected in the sewer network and full (primary and secondary) treatment is imparted to the sewage. In the areas covered by such a decentralized system, all the households may not have constructed their own toilets. Eventually when they decide to install toilets, they may be reluctant to go in for septic tanks and may prefer to connect their toilets and other waste water directly to the nearest sewer line. Some existing households may not have constructed septic tanks and may be currently discharging the toilet waste directly into open drains. In such situations, a small-bore sewerage system will not work. The situation described above may prevail in all the wards and slums in Dewas, where a decentralized system may be feasible. Regular decentralized sewerage systems, with full sewage treatment, are therefore recommended.

8.8 Decentralized Waste Water Treatment Systems (DEWATS) Decentralized waste water treatment systems (DEWATS) technology has been developed and promoted by BORDA (Bremen Overseas Research and Development Association). The system provides treatment for waste water from both domestic and industrial sources, especially from small and isolated areas. The capacity ranges from 1 to 500 cum per day. It works without electrical energy, guarantees permanent and continuous operation, with occasional fluctuation in effluent quality, and is best suited where skilled and responsible operation and maintenance cannot be guaranteed.

8.8.1 Treatment systems DEWATS is based on four treatment systems: Sedimentation and primary treatment in sedimentation ponds, septic tanks or imhoff

tanks(septic tanks being more familiar in cities like Dewas). Secondary anaerobic treatment in fixed bed filters or baffled septic tanks (baffled reactors). Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in constructed wetlands (subsurface

flow filters). Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in ponds. Combination of primary treatment (a) with any of the other systems at (b), (c) or (d) is done in accordance with the quality of the waste water influent and desired effluent quality.

100

8.8.2 Quality of treatment Septic tanks result in a treatment quality of about 25-50%, anaerobic filters and baffled septic tanks about 70-90%, and a constructed wetland and pond system about 70-95%.

8.9 Centralized Treatment Systems

8.9.1 Basic unit operations Sewage treatment plants have, basically, three stages of treatment: Pre-treatment for removal of large floating, suspended and settleable inorganic solids in

screens and grit removal chambers. Primary treatment for removal of organic and inorganic settleable solids. Secondary biological treatment for conversion of organic matter into settleable bio-floc and

stable inorganic matter (like in aerobic processes) or into methane gas, carbon dioxide and stable organic residue (as in anaerobic processes).

8.9.2 Commonly used options

Some of the more commonly used options in each of the above basic unit operations are listed below. Sr. No. Unit Operations Treatment Devices1 Screening Bar racks and screens of various

descriptions, with manual or mechanical cleaning options

2 Grit removal Grit chamber, detritor 3 Primary sedimentation Primary sedimentation tank, rectangular

or circular, with sludge removal by hydrostatic means or mechanical devices

4 (a) Aerobic biological suspended growth Process

(i) Activated sludge process and its modifications, (ii) Waste stabilization ponds, (iii) Aerated lagoons

(b) Aerobic biological attached growth Process

(i) Trickling filter, (ii) Rotating biological contactor

5 Anaerobic biological growth process (i) Anaerobic filter, (ii) Fluid bed submerged media anaerobic reactor, (iii) Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, (iv) Anaerobic rotating biological contactor

6 Anaerobic stabilization of organic sludges

Anaerobic digester

8.9.3 Evaluation of options

Suitability of a particular option for a sewage treatment plant will have to be evaluated on the basis of the following parameters:

101

o Efficiency of treatment o Capital cost o Cost of operation and maintenance o Ease of operation and maintenance o Location and acceptability o Availability of suitable land o Feasibility of reuse of treated effluent.

8.9.4 Choice for Dewas

The total area of Dewas is about 100 sq. km. About 45% of the area has been partially or fully developed. The rest of the area is largely dedicated to agricultural. The general slope of the major part of the city is towards the southwest. The sewer network of the major part of the city will drain in this direction, except for a small part in the north, which will drain towards the northwest. There is ample open land in both these directions. Land availability for sewage treatment plants, thus, may not be a significant problem. The choice of a treatment system will largely depend on capital and operating costs, operating ease, and possibility of reuse. Dewas suffers from non-availability of surface water in the vicinity. Most of the agriculture depends on ground water, which is required to be pumped through a lift of 100 to 150 m. Thus, if the sewage treatment plant effluent can be treated to a level suitable for land irrigation, there is likely to be good demand for this effluent. In this case, the treatment level also can be lower, but sufficient for the standards for land application. Another possible reuse is for industrial application, like for cooling water. However, a dedicated water supply system has already been implemented under PPP for the industrial area in Dewas. The use of sewage treatment plant effluent for this purpose appears less feasible, at least as of now. Also the degree of treatment will be higher in this alternative. The most likely use will be for agricultural land irrigation. Stabilization ponds or aerated lagoons offer better alternatives than those other options outlined in the preceding table, due to less energy requirement and easier O&M. They do require a larger piece of land compared to an activated sludge process plant. This may not be a problem in Dewas. Hence, the most feasible options appear to be either a facultative stabilization pond or an aerated lagoon. The final choice of the process will be done at the time of preparing Detailed Project Reports. In decentralized systems, DEWATS technology perhaps will be the best option. Secondary treatment options in the DEWATS will be done for each area according to the site conditions and final disposal options.

8.10 Layout of Decentralized Waste Water Disposal Systems

8.10.1 Time horizon for design The waste water system in each decentralized waste water system will consist of a local sewer network and a treatment plant. As these areas develop and vacant lands around them become occupied, the sewer network will need to be extended. The local treatment plants will also need to be augmented. However, as the vacant lands in between these isolated areas start developing, the concept of decentralized waste water treatment plants may or may not find favor with the local population, as also the Municipal Corporation. Some of the decentralized systems may be discarded and these areas may be connected to the centralized sewerage system. Decentralized systems, therefore, need to be designed to be flexible for accommodating either of the above two

102

development possibilities. The time horizon for design of the decentralized systems is accordingly recommended, as follows: Local sewer network to be designed for a flow estimated in year 2041, so that it can be

smoothly dovetailed into the central sewer network, as and when it becomes necessary. Sewage treatment plants to be designed for a flow estimated in year 2021, so that later they

can be upgraded for higher capacity, or may be discarded and the sewer network connected to the central network, for eventual treatment in the central sewage treatment plant.

As far as possible, the layout of the system needs to be designed so there will be no need for pumping the sewage at any place. There will, however, be a few places where pumping cannot be avoided.

8.10.2 Broad features of decentralized waste water systems

The broad features of decentralized systems are given in Annexure 14. A summary appears below. TABLE 27 – SUMMARY OF DECENTRALIZED SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

Ward Nos.

Length of Sewer Network (km.)

Decentralized Sewage Treatment Plants

Number Capacity (MLD) Group A Wards – 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 14(P), 43 to 45

73 9 or more Total about 6.49 in multiple plants

8.11 Layout of Centralized Waste Water Disposal Systems

8.11.1 Time horizon for design

Each centralized waste water system will consist of a local sewer network, conveyance system (pumping stations and pumping mains), and one or more treatment plants depending on the geographical configuration and availability of suitable pieces of land. Final disposal of treated effluent, either for reuse or for discharge into a public stream, will also be considered. The time horizon for design of the centralized systems is recommended, as below: Sewer network to be designed for a flow estimated in year 2041. Sewage treatment plants to be designed for a flow estimated in year 2031. These will be

augmented to accommodate increased flows in year 2031 onwards. If some of the areas, where decentralized systems are currently proposed, develop to such an extent that they need to be connected to the central network after year 2021, the treatment plants will need to be augmented before year 2031.

8.11.2 Broad features of centralized waste water systems Broad features of centralized systems are given in Annexure 14. A summary of the project components and conceptual layout of the system appear below.

103

Conceptual Layout of Centralized Sewerage System TABLE 28 – SUMMARY OF CENTRALIZED SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

Ward Nos.

Length of Sewer Network (km.)

Pumping Stations Centralized Sewage Treatment Plants

Number Capacity (MLD)6 to 10, 12, 13, 14(P), 15 to 42.

203 km. for lateral and branch sewers; 15 km. for main and intercepting sewers

Intermediate pumping stations, as needed, and terminal pumping stations at each treatment plant

Possibly 2 Total about 38

Disposal of Storm Water

8.12 Existing Situation

8.12.1 Climate and rainfall The Dewas region has a moderate climate with high temperatures during summer. The mean maximum temperature ranges from 30° C to 45° C and the mean minimum from 12° C to 18° C. The hottest months are April to June and the coolest ones are December to February. The normal rainfall in the area is around 1,380 mm. Maximum rainfall is observed from July to September. June and October receive intermittent rains.

104

8.12.2 Natural drains There are seven natural drains in the city, which traverse the wards as noted in Table 29. These drains appear to be largely stable in character, without any visible signs of erosion of banks or changes in the watercourse. TABLE 29 - NATURAL DRAINS IN DEWAS

Sr.No. Nalla Ward Nos.1 Nalla passing through Bilawali Ward 12 Nalla passing across Ujjain Road Wards 29, 27, 7, boundary of 4-5,

6-7, 9-11, 10, 11 and outside of municipal limit 3 Nalla passing across AB Road

near Apex Hospital Through boundary of wards 42-39, 40, 41, boundary of wards 17-18, 19-12, 11-14 to outside of municipal limit

4 Nalla passing across AB Road and northside of Vikasnagar towards the west

Through wards 42, 17, 12 and 14

5 Bawadiya Nalla passing across AB Road

Flows through wards 43, 15, 12, meeting nalla No. 4 near railway line

6 Nalla passing through and on northside of Amona

Ward 15, boundary of wards 12-13, meeting nalla No. 7

7 Nagdhamm Nadi Flows through wards 45, 44, 15, 13 and 14

8.12.3 Secondary and tertiary drains

Built-up drains exist along a few roads. These are constructed with stone masonry or stone slabs. They carry domestic waste water. Coverage is very small. The reconnaissance survey shows that only about 77.30 km. of roads, out of a total length of 273 km., or about 28%, have built-up drains (Ref – Annexure 15). These drains need repairs. Stagnation of waste water is seen at many places due to dumping of solid waste and poor coverage.

8.12.4 Flooding While local stagnation of water is seen at many places, the problem of major flooding is not reported. The primary drains are effective in disposal of storm water efficiently.

8.13 Improvements in Storm Water Drainage System

8.13.1 Roadside drains. As stated above, the present coverage is very poor. New drains need to be constructed along about 195.70 km. of roads, in addition to some repairs to the existing drains.

8.13.2 Primary drains Primary natural drains are largely stable and in good shape. Only some sections, which flow through thickly populated wards and along AB Road, may need some lining to ensure that overflowing and resultant damage are avoided. The approximate length needing streamlining and construction may be about 10 km.

105

8.13.3 Design approach Storm water disposal can be taken care of through either a combined sewer system, which

provides common collection and disposal of domestic waste water (sewage) and storm water, or a separate system, in which storm water will be disposed through a separate collection, conveyance and disposal system. Looking to the rainfall pattern, with rainy days mainly in the period June to October and with other months largely dry, a combined system will prove to be expensive, besides being grossly under-utilized in dry months. The separate storm water disposal system is likely to be the preferred option.

The tertiary and secondary drains, which will discharge into the primary drains, may be in the form of surface drains, with appropriate size and shape and constructed in locally available material or pre-cast sections.

The design of the storm water drains should be done by using appropriate meteorological and hydraulic parameters. The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) supplies data on rainfall pattern, from which it is possible to develop the relationship between the return period, duration of rainfall and intensity of rainfall, and develop charts useful for design of tertiary, secondary and primary drains. IMD also publishes monograms, which provide charts of rainfall intensity and duration for different return periods for the entire country. Suitable design parameters can be generated by using these charts.

Natural drains, which are the primary drains in storm water drainage system, are likely to be adequate for accommodating the storm water generated in Dewas city. But they will need some improvements like training, removal of blockages due to vegetation, lining in certain critical locations, etc. The resultant design needs to identify the improvements, based on field observations.

Disposal of Waste Water from Industries and Institutions

8.14 Waste Water from Industries

8.14.1 Industries in Dewas Major industrial activity in Dewas is concentrated in wards 3 (Bank Note Press) and 15. Some industries are scattered in wards 4, 12, 13, 26 and 42. They comprise engineering, pharmaceutical or other chemical industries.

8.14.2 Water supply and waste water disposal The major industries have their own water sources and waste water collection and treatment plants. Only small, scattered industries, which may be generating small quantities of waste water, will discharge to a municipal sewer. Good control and monitoring by the State Pollution Control Board is necessary to ensure that the waste water being discharged to the municipal drains is safe as per the standards.

106

8.15 Waste Water from Other Public Institutions Other public institutions include educational institutions, hospitals and other institutions like offices, police quarters, agriculture produce markets, etc. The liquid waste generated in these institutions is currently being treated in septic tanks and the effluent disposed in nearby drains. When a new sewerage network is created (both in centralized and decentralized systems), the waste water from these institutions will be discharged into these networks, as the quality of the waste water is acceptable for discharge into a municipal sewer.

8.16 Impact on Environment Ground water is an important drinking water source in Dewas. Deep tube wells, up to a depth of 150-180 m., are drilled both in individual houses and public institutions. A deep cover of black cotton soil or yellow soil exists for a depth of 10-20 m. in most parts of the town. (Ref – Annexure 11.) The impact on ground water quality from waste water flowing along the surface is not likely to be significant, except in areas near to the natural drains, which may result in direct seepage of waste water to the lower aquifers through the outer wall of the tube wells. Eradication of open defecation and safe collection and conveyance of waste water through the sewerage systems will ensure that the waste water does not find direct entry to and contaminate the ground water sources. Indicative Project Proposals

8.17 Project Components and Costs

8.17.1 Proposals for investment Based on the above discussion, an indicative list of the sanitation components and their broad investment costs are presented below. TABLE 30 – SANITATION COMPONENTS

Sr. No.

Component Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)

1 Toilets (a) Household toilets

connected to sewerage No. 6,000 10,000 60,000,000

(b) Public/community toilet seats

No. 114+87=201 50,000 10,050,000

Total of Toilets 70,050,000 2 Decentralized Sewerage

Systems

(a) Sewer network km. 73 1,500,000 109,500,000 (b) Decentralized treatment

Plants MLD 10.8 3,000,000 32,400,000

(c) Pumping stations, where required

Lump-sum 5,000,000

Total of Decentralized Systems

146,900,000

107

3 Central Sewerage Systems (a) Sewer network km. 203 2,500,000 507,500,000 (b) Main and intercepting

sewers km. 15 5,000,000 75,000,000

(c) Pumping system Lump-sum 100,000,000 (d) Sewage treatment plants MLD 38 5,000,000 190,000,000 Total of Central Sewerage

Systems 872,500,000

4 Storm Water Disposal System (a) Secondary and tertiary

roadside drains km. 195.70 1,500,000 293,550,000

(b) Improvement to primary drains

km. 10 5,000,000 50,000,000

Total of Storm Water Disposal System

343,550,000

5 Repairs and Upgrading of

Existing Sanitation Facilities

(a) Public toilets Lump-sum 2,000,000 (b) Existing sewer network Lump-sum 10,000,000 (c) Existing built-up drains Lump-sum 30,000,000 Total of Repairs and

Upgrading 42,000,000

Total Estimated Investment

Cost

1,475,000,000

8.17.2 Operation and maintenance A broad estimate of the cost of operation and maintenance of the (public) sanitation systems appears below. TABLE 31 – BROAD ESTIMATE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Sr. No.

Component Quantity/ Capital Cost (Rs.)

O&M Cost per Annum

Unit Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)1 Toilets (b) Public/community toilet

seats 201 seats Seat 10,000 2,010,000

Total of Toilets 2,010,000

2 Decentralized Sewerage Systems

(a) Sewer network Rs.109,500,000 % 4 4,380,000

108

(b) Decentralized treatment plants

Rs.32,400,000 % 10 3,240,000

(c) Pumping stations, where required

Rs.5,000,000 % 10 500,000

Total of Decentralized Systems

8,120,000

3 Central Sewerage Systems (a) Sewer network Rs.507,500,000 % 4 20,300,000 (b) Main and intercepting

sewers Rs.75,000,000 % 4 3,000,000

(c) Pumping system Rs.100,000,000 % 10 10,000,000 (d) Sewage treatment

plants Rs.190,000,000 % 10 19,000,000

Total of Central Sewerage Systems

52,300,000

4 Storm Water Disposal

System

(a) Secondary and tertiary roadside drains

Rs.293,550,000 % 3 8,806,500

(b) Improvement to primary drains

Rs.50,000,000 % 3 1,500,000

Total of Storm Water Disposal System

10,306,500

5 Repairs and Upgrading of

Existing Sanitation Facilities

(a) Public toilets Rs.2,000,000 % 20 400,000 (b) Existing sewer network Rs.10,000,000 % 10 1,000,000

(c) Existing built-up drains Rs.30,000,000 % 10 3,000,000 Total of Repairs and

Upgrading 4,400,000

Total Estimated O&M Cost

per Annum 77,136,500

O&M Cost as % of Capital Cost

5.33 %

109

CHAPTER 9. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT This chapter provides a quick review of background documents, validates findings from the Dewas CSP Situation Analysis, analyzes appropriate and relevant options for integrated MSW management, and develops a broad implementation plan and approximate cost estimates. Background and Introduction This initial section validates the baseline assessment available in the background documents, with the idea of expanding the understanding of the baseline. The section then identifies key issues, constraints and opportunities for implementation of a robust municipal solid waste management plan. Finally, the section summarizes a set of observations on relevant issues.

9.1 Floating Population On a typical day, the floating population in Dewas is estimated to be around 20,000. However, as a local pilgrimage center, Dewas holds two major annual festivals, which stretch over nine days. As a result of these events, the city experiences spikes in the floating population to almost 250,000 per day, which is almost 85-90% of the estimated permanent resident population for the year 2010/2011.

9.2 Un-served and Underserved Areas Ward 3 comprises almost entirely the Bank Note Press estate, including its residential colony, with a population of about 3,500. DMC does not provide any of the municipal services to this area. Door-to-door collection of solid waste is arranged by the Press administration. However, the collected waste is finally disposed of at the common DMC dump site. There are about 13 rural/semi-urban settlements in the outer ring and peripheral areas of the city. These are essentially rural habitations, which are characterized by a mix of temporary and permanent housing units. Waste, in these areas, is normally disposed in the open or in a loosely designated community waste depots.

9.3 Quantity of Solid Waste

9.3.1 Waste estimates A reliable estimate of the daily waste load is not available as no actual measurements have been carried out in recent years. However, as per the following available information on vehicle trips to the dump site, a present estimate of collection is of the order of 75 MT/d.

TABLE 32: MSW TRIP LOADS TO THE DUMP SITE

Vehicle/Equipment Numbers Trips/d Trip Loads/d Load/Trip (MT)

Aggregate (MT/d)

Trucks 3 3 9 1 9Tractor trolley - DMC 1 2 2 1 2 - BNP 1 2 2 1 2

110

3-wheeler 1 8 8 0.5 44-wheeler 6 2 12 0.75 9Containers 16 1.5 24 2 48TOTAL DAILY AVERAGE COLLECTION 75

Assuming a collection efficiency of 60%, average generation in the city is estimated to be of the order of 125 Mt/d. This represents an average unit generation of about 450 gm/capita/d.

9.3.2 Peak loads Considering a floating population of the order of 250,000 during the two annual events and a corresponding unit waste generation at 300 gm/person/d, the spike load is around 75 MT/d. During such periods DMC’s waste management system would be required to handle total daily waste of the order of around 200 MT/d in the initial years.

9.3.3 Sources of bulk generation There are three vegetable markets and one meat and fish market in Dewas. Waste from these markets is collected at designated community waste depots (CWD), where it is stored in 4.5 cum containers. In absence of a designated slaughterhouse, waste from dispersed, unauthorized slaughtering activity is also disposed of at the same CWDs. Depending on the load, containers are lifted more than once a day. There are number of small and medium size restaurants/eateries spread over the city. Community/marriage halls, temples, etc. are the other bulk sources of biodegradable waste. There are no dairy farms in the city and thus cattle manure does not join the MSW stream. Average aggregate waste loads from bulk sources, which is predominantly biodegradable in nature, is estimated to be of the order of 25-30 MT/d.

9.4 Waste Characteristics Waste segregation does not take place at any stage of its generation and collection. As a result, it is the mixed waste, including road sweepings and drain sludge, which reaches the dump site. DMC has not carried out representative sampling of waste and thus it does not have any reliable data on waste quality. However, a visual inspection reveals that it is characterized by a relatively high fraction of plastic packaging material, dust, silt, sand, sludge from drains, etc.

9.5 Available Equipment A validated list of equipment and vehicles available with the DMC is provided in the table below. It is noted that except for the primary collection vehicles (3- and 4-wheelers) almost all the vehicles have lived their useful economic life and are worn out. The metal containers used for secondary storage at the CWDs are in poor condition due to lack of maintenance and corrosion, etc. It is also noted that DMC has supplied handcarts to its workers for collection of street sweepings, drain silt and scattered waste from informal community disposal points. However, these carts are of low height, which makes them ergonomically difficult to use. Secondly, as they do not have containers, unloading of waste involves multiple handling thereby reducing efficiency of operations.

111

TABLE 33: EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE WITH DMC FOR MSW MANAGEMENT

Equipment Number RemarksMetal containers, 4.5 cum capacity

16 Over 10 years old, mostly in worn out condition

Excavator cum loader 1 A tractor retrofitted with front-end loading and back hoe arrangements; about 5 years old

Trucks 3 Between 7-10 years old; all openDumper placers 2 Over 10 years old, worn out but still in operation Tractors with trolley 1 Same as above; open trolley 3-wheeler primary collection vehicle

1 3 years old; hydraulic tipping; 0.9 MT (1.8 cum) capacity

4-wheeler primary collection vehicle

8 About 1 year old; 4 are covered and 3 uncovered; volume of covered and uncovered vehicles is about 2 and 5 cum, respectively

Wheel barrows 360 Reasonable condition

9.6 Primary Collection in Residential Areas DMC has commenced motorized primary door-to-door collection in selected areas, by deploying one 3-wheeler and eight 4-wheeler vehicles. The vehicles are equipped with sirens and each is manned by a single driver, without an assistant. The vehicles are operated between 7 am to 2 pm. On average, one vehicle is able to cover about 800 households per shift. The residents are required to bring out the waste and place it in the vehicle on their own. A visit to two such localities, viz., Madhuban Colony and Housing Board Colony (Ward 17), shows that the general level of cleanliness was found to be quite high. The residents are found to be comfortable with this arrangement and have been fairly cooperative. It is noted that in the DMC area, the manually drawn cycle rickshaw, as the mode for primary door-to-door collection, is not a favored option. DMC has not been able to introduce user charges in the serviced areas, but the household surveys carried out as part of the Situation Analysis indicate residents would be prepared to pay between Rs.10-20 p.m. Due to a severe shortage of infrastructure, DMC is unable to provide a desirable and uniform level of service in all residential areas. For instance, while Dewas has 48,000 households and motorized collection at 800 hhs./shift, it currently has only nine primary collection vehicles, while its fleet requirement is 60. Similarly, while the number of CWDs is reported to be around 130, DMC has only 16 metal containers of 4.5 cum capacity.

9.7 Primary Collection in Commercial Areas Primary collection in commercial areas is a major challenge due to a variety of factors, like lack of awareness, the timings of street cleaning by municipal workers and not matching with shop openings. Further, many shops and establishments generate putrescible waste throughout the day and in large quantity. Municipal workers have a tendency to collect only about a quarter of the waste generated in their handcarts, while the balance is either disposed into street drains or burnt (mostly the packaging waste).

112

9.8 Secondary Storage Secondary storage at the community waste depots, among others, is the most critical and objectionable feature of the MSW management system in the DMC area. The metal containers are woefully inadequate in numbers and capacity. Against the 130 designated areas for CWDs, DMC owns only 16 metal containers, which are also over 10 years old and worn out. As a result, waste at most of the CWDs is stored on open ground. It is also noted that location of CWDs is a contentious issue due to resistance of the community in the vicinity.

9.9 Waste Lifting Waste lifting is severely constrained due to the limited number of trucks, trolleys, dumper placer vehicles, and front-end loaders. With only one front-end loader serving a large number of CWDs, there is significant capacity constraint in planning logistics in terms of coordinating movement of the trucks. While in market areas, the containers are lifted twice a day, there are several areas on the outskirts which are served only once a week. DMC does not provide a separate service for lifting of dead animals. Instead, this responsibility is also entrusted to the Health and Sanitation Department.

9.10 Institutional Issues

9.10.1 Organizational strength DMC has around 660 workers involved in the MSW management service. Out of these, about 75% are on daily wage and the rest are permanent.

TABLE 34: STRENGTH OF MSW WORKFORCE AT DMC

Worker Category NumberStreet sweeping 300Drain cleaning 300Lifting of waste 30Drivers 30Total 660

The DMC MSW workforce confronts many issues related to discipline, absenteeism, work practices, cooperation with the community, occupation health and safety, etc. The workers do not receive any training or orientation on good/effective and safe working practices, customer service, etc. A number of critical positions in DMC are presently vacant. For instance, the key positions related to SWM function, viz., health officer, assistant health officer and 2 sanitary inspectors are vacant. In addition DMC is managing without an accounts officer, an accountant, a revenue officer and revenue inspectors.

9.10.2 Functional incompatibility Currently DMC’s MSW management operations are managed by a Sanitary Inspector who is working as in-charge Health Officer. Lack of formal training hinders adequate planning for logistics and treatment and disposal arrangements. Similarly, in the absence of a qualified

113

workshop supervisor, the Fire Officer is given the responsibility of workshop operations. Several initiatives are seen to be on an ad hoc basis. For instance, the latest initiative to use proprietary bio-chemicals for rapid biodegradation of waste at the dump site is characterized by lack of critical appraisal and proper system design. Similarly, procurement of vehicles of different makes does not offer comfort for streamlining maintenance and procurement of spare parts.

9.10.3 Lack of community engagement DMC also suffers from limited capacity for community engagement. The Public Relations Officer is primarily involved in ‘press relations’. In the absence of a social worker, DMC is unable to proactively engage with the community for its organization, mobilization and its participation in service delivery, etc., and establish a constructive working relationship with the city’s industries.

9.10.4 Split responsibility Solid waste operations are split among three separate departments, viz., Health & Sanitation, PWD and the Workshop. Weak coordination among the three can at times create various challenges. In the absence of single-point responsibility, issues are often left unaddressed and lapses cannot be attributed to a particular official.

9.10.5 Lack of monitoring system The SWM system does not appear to be geared to meet the emerging challenges. For instance, DMC is characterized by a total absence of an MIS on SWM and formal review of the SWM system at the highest level of the Commissioner takes place only once in 1 or 2 months. Regular reporting on critical system parameters is not practiced and as a result monitoring is weak.

9.10.6 Interaction with civil society Dewas appears to have a fairly well developed civil society structure, consisting of several market associations, associations of senior citizens, retired officers; social organizations such as Rotary and Lions; religion-based bodies, trusts associated with temples, e.g., Chamunda Sewa Sangh, Shiv Shakti Sewa Mandal; separate societies of different communities, etc. However, it appears that DMC has not been able to establish a dialogue with the civil society organizations from the point of view of improving, among others, MSW management-related services. Technical and Service Delivery Options for MSW Management This section defines the overriding paradigm for effective and sustainable citywide municipal solid waste management in Dewas and then identifies a set of appropriate and feasible technical options for different components of the supply chain from primary collection to ultimate disposal in a sanitary landfill.

9.11 The Overriding Paradigm DMC proposes to adopt an integrated approach for total solid waste management from primary collection to its ultimate disposal, including all the intermediate steps. Protection of the environment and the public health is the overriding paradigm for formulation of the plan. In this respect, DMC will strive to collect on a daily basis, among other fractions, the putrefying waste, which endangers

114

public heath and will evolve an appropriate strategy for other fractions of the MSW. DMC will develop an appropriate system for providing full and uniform coverage of the city population across all categories of settlements and income groups. In order to achieve higher collection efficiency and thereby ensure improved aesthetics across the city, DMC will make all necessary and appropriate efforts to introduce a mix of door-to-door collection in residential areas and install containers (community waste storage depots) at convenient spacing in commercial, institutional and industrial areas. Over time DMC will aspire to gradually achieve ‘bin-free’ status for the city by introducing fully-motorized primary collection in all residential and commercial areas alike. With regard to treatment, DMC recognizes the multitude of inherent and external challenges involved in possibly adding value to mixed MSW and would therefore not pursue such options, which are technology and capital intensive. However, it will aspire to and work towards the objective of reducing the volume of waste that is otherwise destined for disposal into a sanitary landfill site.

9.12 Service Levels The aim of the sanitation plan is to enable DMC to move toward providing 100% coverage with door-to-door collection and achieving safe disposal. This ultimate level of service depends on, among others, availability of manpower (trained, motivated and committed), fleet of collection and transport vehicles, secondary storage containers, treatment and disposal facilities, and the resources for sustained operation and maintenance. In this regard, a set of indicators for level of service under different categories are provided in Table 35 below, wherein the primary stage refers to citywide service for waste collection from households, community bins and street sweeping. The secondary stage refers to transport of waste to the treatment and disposal site. Tertiary stage relates to treatment and disposal arrangements. Accordingly, DMC is required to mobilize resources such that the desired level of service is gradually attained over a period of about 4-5 years. For the subsequent years, DMC should develop service levels based on its own experience of the initial years and sustain them over the entire duration of the plan. TABLE 35: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE LEVELS IN DEWAS

Stages and Indicators Level of Service (LoS)/ Unit

Year Remarks

A. Primary stage 2010 2011 2012 2014Area under DTDC service 70% 15% 30% 50% 70% Aim of full coverageArea served through motorized primary door-to-door collection

60% 15% 20% 40% 60% Successfully demonstrated; favored mode with growing coverage

Area served through containers (4.5 cum) at community waste depots

30% 85% 70% 50% 30% Finally only bulk generation sources, markets and slums will be served by CWD

Area served through 10% 0 10% 10% 10% Municipal workers

115

Stages and Indicators Level of Service (LoS)/ Unit

Year Remarks

manual DTDC service operating handcarts for street sweepings do not provide DTDC service

No. of cycle rickshaws in use for primary collection

5 per 1,000 hhs.

0 5 per 1,000 hhs.

No. of vehicles in use for motorized primary door-to-door collection service

1 per 800 hhs.

0.15 1 per 800 hhs. 4-wheelers with raised body, also suitable for transport to the landfill

No. of containers (4.5 cum capacity) at CWDs

2.5 per 1,000 hhs.

0.4 2.5 per 1,000 hhs. Metallic containers in low- income settlements, commercial areas, bulk sources, etc.

Lifting of waste from CWDs

1/d 0.14-1

0.5 0.75 1 Service varies over a wide range; aim to lift at all CWDs at least once a day

Area under daily road sweeping service

100% 50% 70% 100% 100% All designated roads

No. of handcarts in use for collection of street sweepings

2-4/ km. of road

NA 2 3 4 DMC to evolve appropriate service levels in line with the MSW manual

B. Secondary stage Covered containers 100% 0 75% 100% 100% As per the

requirements of MSW Rules, 2000

Transporting vehicles which are covered

100% 0 50% 100% 100%

Combined waste transport capacity

125% 50% 70% 80% 100% Depending on distance to SLF, consider 4-5 trips/day

C. Tertiary stage Daily waste load collection from all sources

100% 60% 70% 85% 100%

Waste receiving treatment

25% 0% 5% 15% 25% Including home composting

Safe disposal in SLF 100% 0 0 0 75% SLF should be ready in 3 years

Waste released into open environment

0% 100%

95% 85% 0

D. Cost recovery Households paying user charges

70% 0% 20% 30% 50% @ Rs.10-20 p.m.

116

Stages and Indicators Level of Service (LoS)/ Unit

Year Remarks

E. Customer service Complaints per year NA DMC to document Complaint turnaround time

24 hrs. 48 24 12 12 DMC to document and monitor

F. Efficiency Staff per MT of waste collected

NA 13 DMC to document, optimize and monitor

Operating cost per MT of waste collected

NA NA DMC to document and monitor

NOTES: NA: not available; SLF: sanitary landfill.

9.13 Projected Waste Quantities In order to achieve and maintain the desired ‘level of service’, DMC will take into account expected growth in population, number of households, geographical area and the quantity of solid waste. From this point of view, projections are presented in Table 36 below to offer guidance in planning for the infrastructure/assets and services (unit waste loads at 0.45 kg/cap/d). As per these projections for the base year 2011, the average quantity of MSW is estimated to be 127 MT/day, which is projected to increase to about 154 MT/day in 2021. The peak loads presented in the last column correspond to spikes in floating population twice in a year during the Navratri festivals and for which the proposed system must have adequate buffer capacity to absorb the shocks.

TABLE 36: PROJECTED POPULATION AND WASTE LOADS FOR THE DMC AREA

Year Population CAGR, %

Population No. of Households

MSW (MT/d)

Peak Load (MT/d)

2011 281,312 56,262 127 202

2012 2 286,938 57,388 129 204

2013 2 292,677 58,535 132 207

2014 2 298,530 59,706 134 209

2015 2 304,501 60,900 137 212

2021 2 342,917 68,583 154 229

2026 2.25 383,271 76,654 172 247

2031 2.25 428,374 85,675 193 268

2036 2.25 478,784 95,757 215 290

2041 2.25 535,126 107,025 241 316

Source: Adapted from CSP Situation Analysis Report.

117

9.14 Integrated Solid Waste Management System The contours of an integrated municipal solid waste management system are presented in the sections that follow. The proposed system covers the entire supply chain of waste material from primary storage to ultimate disposal, interfaced with different sources of generation and the corresponding stakeholders. The system has been developed keeping in consideration the current technical capacity of DMC, its experience from recent initiatives at the city level, experience from across the country, and the ease with which DMC can aspire to achieve higher service levels over a reasonable period of time.

9.14.1 Primary storage With around 50% of Dewas’s population residing in slum-like settlements, the community as a whole is characterized by a rather low level of awareness, and perhaps concern and education, especially towards the environment, aesthetics and public health. It is also recognized that civil society involvement in planning and delivery of municipal services is low. There are few reliable/committed NGOs in the city, which are working in the area of urban development, environmental conservation in general, or solid waste management in particular. Capacity constraints and limitations of the DMC in community mobilization and awareness creation are also well recognized It is proposed that, to start with, DMC will encourage residents and other categories of waste generators to at least store the waste at source in a single bin and, in return, will offer a reliable collection service. (It is noteworthy that DMC has achieved considerable success in recent months on these lines in selected areas where it has introduced motorized primary collection service.) In due course DMC will take up a sustained public awareness campaign and thereby attempt to motivate residents to take up source segregation. However, segregation at the level of households, commercial establishments and institutions is extremely difficult to introduce and sustain over time and space (all the way to the landfill/treatment plant). (a) Home composting In order to address, to a certain extent, the issue of organic food waste, DMC will proactively promote the practice of ‘Home Composting’ among willing households. It will distribute robust composting bins at partial or full subsidy depending on available resources. As a result of this interesting and simple initiative, scaled-up ‘Home Composting’ across the DMC area has the potential to achieve compliance with the MSW Rules, 2000, to a considerable extent. (b) Options for service delivery The options available with DMC for service delivery for promotion of ‘Home Composting’ are to: Create internal capacity by training its Public Relations Officer or employing an experienced

and dedicated social worker (with ‘Master of Social Work’ qualifications) for awareness creation, community organization, promotion and responding to queries of interested residents.

Identify and outsource the activity to a committed, local NGO. Contract a private service provider (PSP), who may also be retained for providing the rest of

the integrated solid waste management services.

118

The ‘Home Composting’ cell will be part of the awareness creation section of the MSW management team. Among others, DMC can set up a compost help line to respond to queries, stock an adequate number of composting bins, and support the development of publicity material.

9.14.2 Primary collection and secondary storage Primary collection of waste from domestic, commercial, industrial and institutional sources and its secondary storage (temporary storage) at community waste depots (CWDs) across Dewas city will require different strategies depending on the layout of respective areas, relative locations of waste generators, average quantities of waste expected from each generator in a particular category, etc. The proposed strategy comprises a mix of motorized primary collection, manual collection through handcarts and individual disposal at community waste depots. The salient features of the system are as follows: (a) Door-to-door collection service The system for door-to-door collection service will comprise the following: 70% of Dewas’s households will be covered by motorized primary collection service

at 1 vehicle per every 800 hhs. This service will be provided primarily in the category I, II and IV localities. Category III and V localities can also be covered provided they are accessible by small collection vehicles.

30% of the households (especially in category III and V localities) will continue to be served through either a combination of handcarts and CWDs (community waste depots) or CWD alone. The service level will be at 1 handcart/200 households and 2.5 containers (of 4.5 cum each) for every 1,000 households.

The fleet of motorized vehicles and containers will have 20% stand-by capacity. For the initial four years the fleet will be augmented annually to achieve the desired service levels within a defined period. Subsequently, capacity will be increased once every five years in line with population growth for maintaining the above-specified service levels.

(b) Community waste depots (CWDs) The use of CWDs will continue to be part of the MSW system, though at a reduced level. It will comprise the following: Category III and V localities, which are covered under door-to-door collection by handcarts,

will also be complemented by a system of community waste depots where closed metallic containers (of 4.5 cum capacity) shall be placed at a spacing of 500 m. This will ensure that a resident/municipal worker will not have to walk more than 250 m., if she/he wants to dispose of waste at a CWD.

The aggregate storage capacity at all the CWD locations will be 2.5 containers (of 4.5 cum capacity)/1,000 households, which includes 100% standby.

All areas covered under motorized primary collection will also have closed containers, but at a higher spacing of 1,000 m.

With increasing efficiency of primary collection, DMC can decide to reduce the number of containers in such areas, gradually moving towards ‘bin-free’ status.

119

Arrangements at all CWDs At all CWD locations, proper access for vehicles will be provided and the containers shall be

placed on specially constructed concrete platforms. All unsightly fixed cement concrete structures, which have been constructed as receptacles for

MSW, will be removed. (c) Collection from non-domestic sources The system for collection of waste from a wide range of non-domestic sources, including bulk generators, will comprise the following: Waste from hotels, restaurants, marriage halls, community halls, etc. will be lifted daily by

deploying a set of separate motorized primary collection vehicles in commercial areas. In mixed land use areas, the same vehicles, which serve households, will also cover commercial establishments.

All waste generators in commercial and industrial areas will be served through a combination of door-to-door collection, as well as conveniently placed closed containers.

All sources characterized by bulk generation of putrefying waste, e.g., vegetable, fruit and flower markets, meat and fish market, temples, gurudwara, etc. will be provided 4.5 cum containers at convenient locations. The number of containers will be determined for each such location, which should be adequate for the estimated peak waste volumes/loads and with 100% standby capacity. Frequency of lifting of these containers will be at least once a day, which may be increased depending on the quantity of waste generated at respective nodes.

From all industries - large and small alike, non-industrial (non-process) waste will be collected through door-to-door service by deploying a separate set of motorized vehicles. In addition, after consultation with the respective industries, at least one closed container will be placed in each unit/establishment.

(d) Replacements Due to expected wear, tear and corrosion, timely replacement is a major feature of a good SWM system. Under the plan for DMC: All equipment and containers to be deployed for primary collection/secondary storage shall

be completely replaced once every five years. All vehicles deployed for motorized primary collection shall be replaced once every seven

years. (e) Service delivery The relevant options for service delivery for primary collection are as follows:

Motorized primary collection system

Option I: Procurement of vehicles by DMC and operation by its own drivers. DMC bears all costs of operations, maintenance and repairs.

120

Option II: Procurement by DMC and leasing out of the entire fleet to three or four private service providers (PSPs at 8-10 wards each):

o All operating costs as well as the total cost of minor repairs not exceeding an agreed

amount (e.g., Rs.1,000 p.m.) will be borne by the PSPs. DMC will be responsible for all major repairs exceeding this amount.

o The PSPs will be paid a fee (expenses + profit) in return for all the services, including all opex, repairs, etc. They will be monitored for the number of trips, manpower deployed, time inputs and the quantity of solid waste lifted daily.

Option III: PSPs (3-4 at 8-10 wards each) invest in vehicle procurement and take care of all

opex for motorized primary collection system:

o DMC assures contracts to PSPs for a minimum period of 3-5 years. o Each PSP takes care of routine operating costs, e.g., fuel, manpower, repairs, maintenance,

etc. o PSP also pays for all major operating costs, e.g., major component replacement, change of

tires, insurance, registration, etc. o If the vehicles are deployed for a full 8-hour shift, they can be used for different

categories of sources, e.g., residential, commercial, etc. o If the vehicles are deployed only for 4 hours, primarily in morning hours to serve

residential areas, then the PSPs can be allowed to supplement their income by taking up other transport work in the market.

o The PSPs will be paid a fee (expenses + profit) in return for all the services, including all opex, repairs, etc. They will be monitored for the number of trips, manpower deployed, time inputs and the quantity of solid waste lifted daily.

Although Option III appears promising, under the given circumstances, however, that prevail at Dewas/DMC, Option I is found to be more feasible. Option II and III face the challenges of contract management, with the potential of lack of transparency and monitoring, lack of accountability, poor service delivery, diversion of available resources, etc.

Manual primary collection DMC procures cycle rickshaws and gives them on annual lease to ‘self help groups’ (SHG). For

the reasons cited above, local contractors shall not be engaged for this service. DMC allocates/appoints SHGs for specific, contiguous localities/wards for door-to-door

collection service. Each SHG will have a designated leader for supervision and monitoring. Each SHG member will operate one cycle rickshaw and cover about 200 households/day. The collected waste will be disposed of in the nearest CWD, where a container will be

installed. Cycle rickshaw pullers are to be paid at least as per the prevailing minimum wages, say

between Rs.2,000-2,500 p.m. The respective contractors/SHG leaders are to be paid an agreed monthly supervision fee or a percentage of total payment due to the rickshaw pullers.

Strict supervision and monitoring of the waste collector and contractors/SHG leaders is required to be done by DMC’s sanitary inspectors and daroga.

121

9.14.3 Street sweeping and drain sweeping Street sweeping and drain cleaning activities will continue to be carried out by the regular workers of the DMC as per the established beats for the existing hierarchy of roads and drains. They will be required to dispose of the collected waste (through a handcart) into the nearest containers, which will be placed along roadsides at the designated CWDs. In order to improve service levels, various measures for personnel management are required to be taken: First and foremost, the municipal workers must be motivated and inspired by the department

head to give better service2. A degree of discipline is required to be ensured. The Municipal Corporation workers need to be offered appropriate incentives in the form of

uniforms, personal protective equipment, annual rewards and recognition, etc. Monitoring and supervision by SI and daroga is essential for higher performance. DMC should also consider community participation in monitoring of this service and seek

feedback from the affected community on a regular (weekly/monthly) basis.

9.15 Secondary Collection and Transport

9.15.1 Features The salient features of the proposed system will be as follows: Waste collected by cycle rickshaws and handcarts will be disposed into the closed containers

to be installed at the designated CWDs. The containers will be lifted at least once a day by a dumper placer vehicle and transported to the transfer station/disposal site.

Depending on distance to the landfill site, waste from areas which are served through motorized primary collection system can be transported either:

o Directly to disposal site, or o It can be transferred into containers installed at strategic locations. These locations

will represent informal transfer points. Likewise, the containers to be installed in areas covered by motorized primary collection

service will also be lifted and transported by the dumper placer vehicles to the transfer station/disposal site. However, in this case, the frequency of lifting can be reduced, depending on waste loads, to either once in two days or twice a week.

At all commercial and institutional areas and all bulk generation locations the containers will be lifted by the dumper placer vehicles in line with the expected waste loads. Accordingly, the frequency of lifting in such areas will have to be kept at more than once a day and ideally twice a day.

The mode of secondary transport will depend on the distance of the transfer station/treatment and disposal facility and economics of vehicle movement.

9.15.2 Transfer station and long haul Dewas has a vast geographical spread of around 100 sq. km. However, most of the population appears to be residing in the core and the inner ring areas, while the outskirts are characterized

2 For instance, in Suryapet, Andhra Pradesh, the Municipal Commissioner organized yoga camps for the city’s sanitation workers, which included, among others, rehabilitation programs to help overcome the problem of alcoholism.

122

by empty spaces and distant rural settlements (now merged within DMC limits). Depending on the location of the treatment and disposal facility, the plan must consider/evaluate the option of providing a transfer station which will help economize the cost of long haul and improve efficiency of operations. If DMC goes ahead with a local SLF at the existing dump site, which is about 7 km. from the core area, a formal transfer station may not be necessary. On the other hand, if DMC is successful in partnering with a regional facility (either with Indore or Ujjain), as suggested in a subsequent section on waste disposal, a transfer station would be indispensable. This aspect will be further elaborated after covering the options for treatment and disposal of MSW. In that respect, depending on waste loads and distances involved, DMC will be required to deploy an adequate number of vehicles for long haul. This will comprise either compactor vehicles with 12-14 MT payload capacity or covered vehicles without compactor but with large storage volume in the range of 14-19 cum. (a) Service delivery options for secondary transport The options available for DMC for secondary transport are as follows: Option I: For secondary transport from CWDs to a transfer station/local SLF, DMC can

continue with the present system of in-house arrangements. However, this is evidently an inefficient system because of the characteristic inherent risks and capacity constraints.

Option II: According to the number of municipal zones (say 3 each with 15 wards), engage a group of local transport contractors for lifting of containers and transporting the waste to the transfer station or the local SLF, as follows:

o DMC should not entrust responsibility for the entire city to a single contractor as

this carries the risk of operations coming to a standstill in the event of differences between the two agencies.

o This option carries the risk of the contract getting usurped by local politicians and municipal corporators themselves and the subsequent issues of under-performance. DMC must avoid this situation.

Option III: DMC could facilitate a group of SHGs with a mix of skilled and unskilled workers

(ideally drawn from families of existing municipal workers) to come forward and take the role of transport contractors. DMC should guarantee a contract for at least 3 years and facilitate capital/loan for procurement of the required number of dumper placer vehicles.

o This option with potential to create micro-entrepreneurs from among the underprivileged stakeholders offers several socio-economic benefits and is found to be more sustainable.

(b) Options for long haul For the long haul component involving transport to a regional disposal facility, DMC must engage a large competent contractor. The available options are:

123

Option I: DMC procures the long haul vehicles and gives on lease to a contractor. The latter is responsible for all operating costs covering fuel, manpower and minor repairs and maintenance. DMC will be responsible for major repairs, replacement of components, insurance, vehicle registration, etc.

Option II: DMC asks PSP to make the required capital investment and in return guarantees a contract for a minimum period of 7 years.

9.16 Waste Treatment

Dewas is characterized by almost 50% population residing in low income/rural-like settlements. As a corollary, there appears to be a fairly high level of poverty. Lower income levels and the socio-economic profile of a contributing population have a direct correlation with the quality of domestic solid waste in terms of its organic, recyclable and combustible contents. This aspect in turn puts a number of limitations on the options that could be considered for treatment of the mixed MSW. (a) The challenge of feedstock composition Besides food and yard waste (the major compostable fractions), typically urban mixed MSW, when it arrives at the treatment plant site, is characterized by a high level of contamination due to the presence of, but not limited to, the following categories of wastes: House and road sweepings: dust, silt, sand, stones/debris, etc. Drain sludge: silt, sand, stones, etc. Small metallic matter: staples and metal pins, rejected blades, razors, etc. Glass and crockery: broken glass bottles, tube lights, bulbs, other glass objects, crockery, spoons, knives, etc. Plastics and rubber: plethora of products made of high density, low density and linear-low

density polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, ABS, styrofoam; multi-layer metal- coated packaging films, etc.; tires, tubes, toys, etc.

Heavy metals: diverse chemicals used in domestic, commercial, institutional sectors, batteries, etc.

Rags/cloth, leather and paper Ceramics and terracotta: tea cups, tea pots, kulhars, other earthen wares/pots, etc. Sharps, needles, bandages used at domestic level Human excreta: baby nappies, excreta from children and sick persons; sanitary napkins, etc. Discarded medicines: antibiotics, etc. E-waste: all type of discarded electronic equipment Household chemicals used for cleaning, washing, disinfecting, etc. Cattle waste, dead animals, slaughterhouse waste Combustion residues: ash, sand and fine earth from poor households and small restaurants,

eateries, etc., which use coal and fire wood as fuel Construction debris and demolition waste Hospital waste Industrial waste. In this context, it is extremely challenging, if not impossible, to ensure that the above categories of waste do not mix with the compostable fraction (biodegradable) produced on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, it is recognized that the composition of the mixed waste keeps changing from day-to-

124

day, according to the season, etc. Because of such extreme diversity and variability, it is extremely difficult to carry out manual or mechanical separation of biodegradable fraction from the rest of the mixed waste with a degree of reliability in terms of potential contaminants. Further, the inert fractions and the rotting organic fraction adversely affect the processing equipment and machinery at a MSW treatment plant. For instance, the former causes severe wear and tear while the latter causes corrosion. These two factors lead to frequent breakdown of the equipment and eventually entail replacement (regular capex) in a much shorter span of time compared to a typical industrial plant. From the point of an end user of compost, e.g., a farmer, the contaminants present in the form of inerts, glass, dust, metal sharps, pathogens, heavy metals, antibiotics, etc. undermine the final quality of compost and make it unsuitable for application on food crops. As a result, compost derived from mixed MSW processing plants either gets low realization or low off-take, undermining its profitability and sustainability. Lastly, it is recognized that the objective of treating mixed municipal solid waste is to reduce its volume and thereby minimize the land requirement for eventual disposal into a sanitary landfill. Mixed MSW, as described in the preceding section, is not equivalent to a reliable quality industrial feedstock and, therefore, whatever method used for its treatment does not lead to value addition in the final product (e.g., compost, biogas, etc.) to such an extent that the investment (both in terms of the capex and opex) can pay for itself. This is evident by the closure of numerous MSW treatment plants across the country during the last 2-3 decades, which can be attributed to not just financial, but a variety of inherent and external systemic factors. In view of the above considerations, it is determined that for a small ULB like Dewas a typical mechanized conventional compost plant would not be a viable proposition either under municipal administration or under a public-private-partnership arrangement. (b) Selective treatment With the objective of reducing waste loads destined for eventual safe disposal, the following multi-dimensional strategy is proposed for the DMC: Centralized composting Only the predominantly biodegradable waste from vegetable markets, meat and fish

markets, hotels and restaurants, and other bulk generators such as temples, marriage halls, etc. will be composted.

Total quantity of this type of waste is not expected to be more than 30 MT/day; it can be processed at a simple composting facility without involving any major plant and equipment, except for material movement and final screening.

As a result, the capital and operating expenditures involved in setting up and running such a facility will be quite low, limiting the potential liability for the DMC.

In this context, it must also be noted that the option of decentralized waste treatment, although it sounds appealing, is not recommended for a variety of reasons, e.g: Problem of land availability and increasing cost of land. Concerns on effective operation and maintenance of smaller facilities.

125

Issue of land use. Concerns on potential odor nuisance, and Resistance from community. ‘Home Composting’: an ultimate decentralized format Home composting represents an ultimate decentralized format for waste treatment. Salient features of the proposed system are as follows: The practice of ‘Home Composting’ will be promoted among the willing households in low-

density high-income habitations in the city, in plotted development areas as well as among the rural households on the outskirts of the city. This represents the ultimate decentralization format and transfers the responsibility for proper O&M of the micro-operation to the concerned individual household.

Because of the small waste quantities involved at the individual household level, a composting bin has the least nuisance potential and represents one of the most effective tools in integrated waste management operations.

DMC will offer appropriate incentive(s) (e.g., one-time rebate in property tax, free or subsidized availability of composting bin, etc.) to the willing households for undertaking the practice of ‘Home Composting’.

Households in rural habitations on the outskirts of the city will also be encouraged to take up composting of cattle manure by providing appropriate incentive(s) for construction of small NADEP reactors in their backyards, common land, etc.

Recycling centre Adopting the 3R paradigm and creating some livelihood generation opportunities will involve the following: DMC will facilitate creation of a recycling centre for potentially reusable and recyclable

waste, e.g., paper, plastic, rubber, demolition waste, etc. This centre will also collect, stock and safely dispose of hazardous waste generated in

households, shops and establishments, institutions, etc. (c) Service delivery A set of relevant service delivery options are available for DMC in the area of waste treatment.

Composting facility The options for O&M of the composting facility are as follows: Option I: DMC sets up and runs the composting facility on its own. However, it may face

difficulties in terms of finding suitable persons among its own low-rung workers, training them, and marketing of the finished compost. As a result, this option is not found to be very suitable.

Option II: Engaging a ‘self help group’ facilitated by DMC and a local NGO to take care of the composting facility as well as to market the compost. Members of the SHG will essentially comprise a mix of semi-skilled and unskilled BPL workers, rag pickers, etc., with a predominance of women, while their leader will be a skilled worker

126

Option III: Engaging a local petty contractor to take care of operation of the plant and marketing of finished compost. DMC must evolve an appropriate financial arrangement such that the operator is reimbursed all operating costs and has incentive to sustain operations.

Home composting

For distribution of composting bins and social marketing of the practice of ‘Home Composting’ among the residents of Dewas, DMC can explore the following options: Engage an external agency (NGO) or appoint a social worker to mobilize existing CBOs

(community based organization) and create new ones, e.g., resident welfare associations at each locality level, etc.

The agency will be responsible for anchoring a sustained campaign on awareness creation and mobilizing community participation for, among others, municipal solid waste management, sanitation and other civic services.

The agency will inform the public about all the initiatives that DMC will be taking to address the problem of MSW and the ways and means through which it will solicit their cooperation.

The agency will carry out social marketing of municipal solid waste management services using the practice of ‘Home Composting’/‘Composting Bins’ as a carrier of broader messages. It will encourage households to adopt this practice through locally improvised containers or it will distribute ‘Composting Bins’ of appropriate design and make on behalf of the DMC.

The agency will also promote NADEP reactors (above ground honeycomb brick chamber) in rural areas for safe stocking and treatment of cattle waste (along with organic domestic waste) into compost.

Recycling centre

Operation of the recycling centre will be handed over to a ‘self help group’ of women/rag pickers, which brings a mix of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. The workers will be trained in sorting of different grades of plastics and packaging material, etc. For regular off-take of the sorted material, the centre will establish channels with potential end users among industrial recyclers/reprocessors. (d) Financing of waste minimization efforts Salient features of the financing arrangements are as follows: DMC will commit to bear all operating costs under annual contracts/MoUs to be entered into

with all the service providers in its endeavor to minimize waste loads through different routes. All revenue from sale proceeds of compost will be credited into DMC’s account. To this effect

the PSP and the DMC will develop a foolproof system of advance payment into a designated bank account.

DMC will provide either full or partial subsidy towards the cost of the ‘Composting Bins’ and the NADEP reactors (for cattle waste treatment among rural households).

DMC will facilitate creation of the recycling centre in terms of land, building construction, essential services, etc., and bear all costs of operation.

127

9.17 Waste Disposal DMC gives highest priority to safeguarding public health and therefore until such time when the treatment operations are commissioned, it will dispose of all mixed MSW into a sanitary landfill site (SLF). The SLF will serve as the bedrock for the entire city waste management system and will offer correspondingly appropriate capacity and life span for long-term safe disposal of the waste under all circumstances and seasons. However, DMC will simultaneously implement all the other necessary measures at the city and community levels for minimizing waste loads destined to the SLF. By adopting this strategy, DMC, over time, will aspire to comply with the MSW Rules, 2000, in terms of organic fraction disposed in the SLF. (a) Options For the development of a robust disposal facility, a set of options available with DMC are as follows: Option I: Construct a sanitary landfill at the existing dump site at Patwari Hamal (survey nr.

1258-1259), which is currently used for open disposal. It is understood that the site is owned by the DMC and therefore this option may represent one of the readily implementable ones. However, considering the current small scale of operation, limited capacity and skill set available within DMC on SLF operation and monitoring, etc., this would be an expensive and challenging option.

o It must be noted that while the DMC claims the site measures 10 hectares, the area available for construction of the SLF may be significantly less. This is because a part of the site falls on a hill, which is currently being mined for construction material.

o There will be issues of removal of the existing waste deposits, diversion of surface runoff from the surrounding hilly terrain, etc.

o A tarred approach road over 500 m. will be necessary and must be appropriately included in the cost estimates.

Option II: Partner with either the Indore or Ujjain Municipal Corporation, each of which is located within a distance of 30-35 km., to jointly develop a regional facility or utilize their existing infrastructure facilities against payment of appropriate tipping fees.

(b) Service delivery Sanitary landfill operation and management (SLOM) involves, on a sustained basis, waste reception, inspection, movement, compaction to a desirable density, provision of daily and intermediate soil covers, cell closures, leachate management (collection, treatment and disposal), landfill gas management (collection and disposal – venting or flaring), runoff control, trash/litter control, maintenance of green belt, routine environmental monitoring of surface and ground water and ambient air quality, etc. These are specialized operations and it is recognized that in a small ULB like DMC the required capacity and capability is typically not available. In view of this, and should the DMC decide to go for a local SLF at its existing dump site, it is recommended that it should engage a qualified and experienced agency, which can deliver the above-mentioned services satisfactorily.

128

In this respect, in order to offer economies of scale, DMC could also consider the option of combining the secondary transport component, as well as operation of a compost facility, with the SLOM, and offer a larger scope of work to a bigger and more competent contractor. System Components This section quantifies the equipment, vehicles and other infrastructure requirements for effective and satisfactory implementation of the integrated municipal solid waste management plan. Overall infrastructure requirements are developed in line with the service levels defined in the previous Section 9.12.

9.18 Primary Collection The paragraphs of this section describe the components for primary collection, which encompass storage and composting at source and the collection system.

9.18.1 Primary storage Taking the concept of ‘polluter pays’, the plan envisages residents, shops and establishments, etc. to procure and install storage bins at their premises on their own. The capacity of such bins may be 15 liters for domestic use and 100 liters for commercial use, etc.

9.18.2 Home composting In order to minimize domestic biodegradable waste loads entering the municipal waste stream, it is proposed to promote home composting through social marketing. Starting with a modest level of 0.25% of households opting for this practice in the fist year, it is expected to rise to 1% per annum towards the end of the plan.

9.18.3 Primary collection This is one of the most challenging components of an effective MSW management system. Vehicles and cycle rickshaws are to be deployed in line with the specified service levels, keeping in view the geographical, topographical and other systemic bottlenecks, if any. It is recommended that only four-wheel vehicles be deployed (as procured recently), which will facilitate transport all the way to the local SLF. In the case of cycle rickshaws, it is recommended to use containerized carts so that it is easier for the worker to unload into a container and thereby avoid multiple handling of waste. (a) Stand by capacity While ideally a standby capacity of 20-30% of the actual fleet requirement is advised, the numbers provided in Table 37 are exclusive of that. DMC can take a decision on this aspect, depending on resource availability.

129

(b) Replacement All vehicles and cycle rickshaws will require replacement approximately every seven years. For instance, all procurements made in 2011 will have to be replaced on or about year 2018, and then again in year 2025, 2032 and 2039, respectively. Those procured in 2012 will require replacement in 2019, 2026, and so on. Plastic containers of cycle rickshaws are to be replaced once every year. Accordingly, provision of financial resources must be made in the municipal budget.

9.19 Secondary Storage All areas, which are not served by primary door-to-door collection service and those where manual service through cycle rickshaws is provided, will require secondary storage. In addition, all commercial areas will also require such storage due to the random generation pattern. To this effect, metallic containers of 4.5 cum capacity with 100% standby are proposed to be installed as receptacles at all the CWDs. As per the service levels defined earlier, the estimated number of containers in different years is provided in Table 38. As per the criteria of gross waste volumes at 0.45 kg/capita/day the requirement in the first year works out to 90 containers. However, it will be noted that 90 containers correspond to only 45 CWDs, while DMC already has about 130 designated CWDs. Therefore, the numbers presented in Table 37 serve only as guidance. DMC will have to make additional provision for: Adequately serving the commercial areas (say 25% extra). Maintaining a norm of spacing at 500 m. between two CWDs (2 containers at each CWD) in

un-served areas or localities served by cycle rickshaws. Providing back-up support in areas served by motorized primary collection at 1 CWD (2

containers)/1,000 m. Aligning with the existing authorized/designated 130 CWDs across the city. In this regard it will be noted, from the third row from the top in Table 38, that the number of containers from the point of view of gross waste volumes declines in the subsequent years. This is a comfort factor, which is attributed to increasing coverage through motorized primary collection service. Nonetheless, to meet the secondary storage demand corresponding to the existing number of designated CWDs, the present requirement is determined to be 260 containers. Thus, it is proposed to stagger the procurement over three years, i.e., 123, 77 and 60, respectively. In due course containers from residential areas, which achieve full door-to-door collection coverage, can be shifted to new residential areas and under-served commercial areas to maintain or augment service levels. (a) Shock loads DMC would need to keep a reserve of containers to cater to the shock loads around the temple during the two festival seasons. Considering 75 MT/d of additional loads during such periods and about 2-3 lifts per day for each container, about 16 containers are required to be kept at the specified site. However, considering a fairly large number of containers being proposed for the city, it is recommended that DMC draw from the existing stock to meet its temporary shock load requirements.

130

(b) Preventing littering In commercial areas, the problem of littering is acute due to the large number of footfalls of floating population, as well as local residents out on shopping. To address this problem, DMC will install 100-liter containers/bins of plastic at convenient spacing, say every 100 m. In each of the first and second years, about 250 such bins will be installed in all major commercial areas, transit points, etc. Additional bins can be installed in the third year depending on local assessment. (c) Replacements Metal containers are subjected to heavy wear and tear and are generally found to require replacement every 5th/6th year. Accordingly, DMC is required to make appropriate budgetary provision. However, the cost can be minimized by ensuring good maintenance, e.g., washing almost every alternate day, anti-corrosion painting once in 6-12 months, etc. On the other hand, the plastic bins proposed for prevention of littering would require frequent replacement, say once after every 3rd year.

131

TABLE 37: REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIMARY COLLECTION AND HOME COMPOSTING

2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Home composting (% hhs./annum) 0% 0.25% 0.50% 0.50% 0.75% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Households opting for home composting 141 287 299 457 686 767 857 958 1,070 Number of home composting kits to be procured/ supplied in the year 141 287 299 457 686 767 857 958 1,070 Area under motorized door-to-door collection service 15% 20% 40% 60% 60% 70% 70% 80% 80% 80% Total number of households 56,262 57,388 59,706 60,900 68,583 76,654 85,675 95,757 107,025 No. of hhs. served by door-to-door collection service 11,252 22,955 35,824 36,540 48,008 53,658 68,540 76,605 85,620 No. of vehicles required (@ 1 per 800 hhs.) Existing 9 14 29 45 46 60 67 86 96 107 Number of vehicles to be procured in the year 5 15 16 1 14 7 19 10 11 Area under manual door-to-door collection service NA 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 20% 20% No. of hhs. served by cycle rickshaws NA 5,626 5,739 5,971 6,090 6,858 7,665 12,851 19,151 21,405 No. of cycle rickshaws required (@ 1 per 200 hhs.) 28 29 30 30 34 38 64 96 107 Number of rickshaws to be procured in the year 28 1 1 0 4 4 26 32 11

Note: 1. Home composting kits to be supplied by DMC to willing households at subsidized rates. 2. Vehicle numbers do not include replacements, which will be due after every 7 years. Adequate provision should/will be made in cost

estimates.

132

TABLE 38: METAL CONTAINER (4.5 CUM CAPACITY) REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY STORAGE AT CWDs

2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Area served through containers (4.5 cum) at CWDs 85% 80% 60% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% No. of hhs. served by containers (i/c those by cycle rickshaws)

45,010 34,433 23,882 24,360 20,575 22,996 17,135 19,151 21,405

No. of containers required (@ 2.5/1,000 hhs.) 90 86 60 61 51 57 43 48 54 No. of containers for commercial areas 17 No. of containers to absorb shock loads during festival season

16

Number of containers to be procured in the year 123 77 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: 1. Existing 16 containers are excluded as they are worn out. 2. The numbers do not include replacements, which will be due after every 7 years. Adequate provision should/will be made in cost estimates.

133

9.20 Secondary Transport This component involves lifting of waste from CWDs, litter bins, etc. and transporting it to the treatment and disposal facility. In view of trying to minimize unduly long distances to the T&D facility, DMC resorts to direct transport through small four-wheelers, which are deployed for primary collection. Thus, a part of the waste, which gets collected through the latter system, will not be required to be handled separately. In line with the above proposal for installation of 4.5 cum containers at CWDs, the secondary transport system will comprise a fleet of 40 dumper placer vehicles, which can lift one container at a time. The strength of the fleet is determined as shown in Table 39 below, and corresponds to the initial year 2011 when about 130 CWD locations (residential and commercial areas) exist. The above assessment is based on the existing number of CWD locations and is independent of the shock loads experienced during the festival seasons. DMC can manage the shock loads with the help of the standby vehicles and by: (a) increasing the number of lifts at specific CWDs near the temple; and (b) reducing the frequency at some of the remotely located under-loaded CWDs. For the subsequent years, as the motorized primary collection coverage is expected to increase, the requirements for dumper placer vehicles will decrease. (One option is to stagger the initial procurement over 2-3 years.) In view of this, procurement of dumper placer vehicles in subsequent years is not proposed. DMC can assess additional requirements, if any, depending on population growth and geographical expansion of the city.

TABLE 39: DUMPER PLACER FLEET REQUIREMENTS IN YEAR 2011

Assumptions Quantity Lifting of containers at CWDs: - Locations with once a day service 75% - Locations with twice a day service 25% Average working hours/d 7.5 Average time per vehicle trip to the T&D facility 1.5 Number of possible trips/vehicle/d 5 System requirements Existing number of CWDs 130 Required number of container lifts/d 163 Number of 4.5 cum container lifts/vehicle 1 Required number of vehicle trips/d 163 Required number of vehicles to operate daily 33 Standby vehicles 20% Total required size of the dumper placer fleet 40

(a) Replacements However, due to wear and tear of the vehicles DMC will have to replace the fleet after about 7 years and provision for this is made in the cost estimates.

134

(b) Workshop DMC already has a small workshop at the Corporation office complex. In view of the proposed procurement of a large number of vehicles for primary collection, secondary transport and other components, it is recommended that the existing facility be upgraded. Except for engine overhaul, the workshop should be able to take care of routine repairs and maintenance. Among others, it must also be provided with a vehicle washing facility, i.e., a ramp, a floor mounted high pressure water jet pump, a waste water holding tank and treatment plant, etc.

9.21 Treatment Plant In line with the paradigms defined above, it is proposed to treat waste only from the bulk generation sources, e.g., vegetable markets, hotels and restaurants, meat and fish market/slaughter house, marriage/community halls, etc. Waste from such sources is predominantly characterized as biodegradable and the aggregate quantity of waste is estimated to be of the order of 30 MT/d. (a) Location From the point of views of logistics, integration with SLF, availability of land, separation from any habitation, etc., it is proposed that the treatment plant be located near the existing dump site. (b) Technology It is proposed to adopt the least risky treatment option of composting of MSW. The plan will be based on an innovative and improved variation of the conventional windrow technology called ‘static aerated pile’ composting. It comprises aeration of windrows through compressed air, which is supplied from below through perforated pipes. This technology variant offers the following advantages: Accelerated composting in 2-3 weeks as compared to 4-5 weeks in conventional windrows

system. Reduced footprint. Doing away with the need for frequent turning of waste piles. Superior process control enabling optimum supply of air and thus economy in operations. Odor control as a result of adequate aeration and provision of ‘bio-filter’ on the outlet. (c) Equipment requirements The plant will require the following equipment: A weigh bridge (common with the SLF).

Compressor/vacuum blower: 1 + 1 standby.

One trommel screen each for 25 mm. and 16 mm.

A vibratory screen of 4 mm.

Conveyor belts.

A weighing machine for small bags.

Other ancillary equipment, e.g.:

135

o Small excavator cum loader, bagging machine, etc. o Process monitoring instruments, e.g., probes for pH, CO2 and temperature

measurement. (d) Area and other infrastructure requirement The system requirements are as follows: Compost platform: 60 m. x 40 m. = 2,400 sq. m. Covered platform: 300 sq. m. Machine shed (with MS structure cover): 300 sq. m. Control room including compressor area: 30 sq. m. Curing shed: 150 sq. m. Compost storage room: 400 sq. m. Leachate holding/treatment tank: 25 sq. m. Office: 30 sq. m. Open space: 100 sq. m. The total area requirement of the plant will be less than 3,700 sq. m.

9.22 Sanitary Landfill While DMC can explore the possibility of a regional facility with either Indore or Ujjain Municipal Corporations, the present plan proposes an option of a local sanitary landfill site as a more practical and acceptable method in line with existing practices. A robust SLF will serve as the ultimate repository of mixed waste and plant rejects, if any, which can withstand all shock loads and seasonal fluctuations, etc. (a) Location

The SLF will be constructed on the same site where currently DMC practices open dumping of MSW. Although DMC claims the dump site has an area of 10 ha., it appears that the readily utilizable area may be less, as a part of the area is on the slope of a hill, which is currently being mined for building material (stone, aggregate, murram, etc.). Further, due to accumulation of waste over the last few years, a part of the valley area is blocked. DMC would have to clear the area of this accumulated waste and then construct the SLF. The accumulated waste can be screened (at the proposed compost plant) to recover fines as compost/covering material and the overs/rejects can be filled back into the SLF. (b) The bottom liner system of the SLF It is noted that the soil at the site comprises gravely red murrum, which prima facie has higher permeability. However, the water table is reported to be as low as 150 m. below ground level and thus groundwater contamination is not an immediate issue. Nonetheless, due to the pervious topsoil layer, appropriate and adequate measures for prevention of leachate percolation would need to be included in the SLF design. To this effect the bottom of the SLF will comprise: A clay liner of 500 mm. A HDPE liner of 1.5 mm. thickness

136

A soil protective layer of 200 mm. A layer of drainage media of 300 mm. (c) Area of the SLF Assuming a 30-year operating life and 30 m. height of the sanitary landfill, the area required for the filling operations is about 8.1 ha. The height of 30 m. is only tentative due to limited area availability, as it is recognized to be rather high and DMC may find it difficult to fill to such an extent. Area computation also considers diversion of about 30 MT/d of organic waste from bulk sources for composting. Preliminary calculations are presented below.

TABLE 40: PRELIMINARY SLF CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

Parameter Unit Quantity Waste load in 2011 MT/d 127 Life Years 30 Waste load in 2041 MT/d 241 Waste diversion for treatment MT/d 30 Total waste generation MT 1,686,300 Total volume of waste Cum 1,983,882 Volume of daily cover Cum 198,388 Volume of liner and cover Cum 247,985 First estimate of SLF volume Cum 2,430,256 Height of the SLF m. 30 Area required for filling Sq. m. 81,009 Active life of the SLF Years 30 Duration of one phase Years 1 Number of phases No. 30 Volume of one phase Cum 81,009 Plan area of one phase Sq. m. 2,700 Number of daily cells No. 365 Plan area of one cell Sq. m. 111

In addition to the above estimate, the facility will require sufficient area for construction of dikes, infrastructure, and, of course, the compost plant as described in the preceding section. This can be assumed to be about 10-15% of the total filling area, i.e., 12,000 sq. m. Thus, the total area requirement is of the order of 93,000 sq. m., or 9.3 ha. (d) Landfill infrastructure Construction of the landfill area and capping of the filled up portion is a continuous process, which is generally carried out on an annual/biannual basis. However, other infrastructure components, as relevant, will need to be created at the outset. Key components and features are listed as follows:

Site fencing: All around the landfill site

Weighbridges: One weighbridge of 20-30 MT capacity (computerized)

Administration office: 10 m. x 10 m. building

Site control office Porta cabin of 3 m. x 5 m.

137

Access road: 7 m. wide road from the highway to the weighbridge and up to the parking area

Arterial road: 3.5 m. road along the periphery of the SLF (can be constructed in phases)

Parking area: For all secondary transport vehicles as well as SFL vehicles

Waste inspection and sampling facility:

Being a small city, this is not required

Equipment workshop and garage: 15 m. x 20 m. Floor mounted high pressure water

jet pump: 1

Temporary holding area: Excavated portion of half phase

Surface water drain: Along the arterial road

Leachate holding tank: 10 m. x 7.7 m. x 2.5 m.

Leachate treatment pond: 15 m. x 10 m. x 2.5 m.

Surface water holding tank: 30 m. x 10 m. x 2.5 m.

Landfill gas disposal: Passive venting Cost Estimates This section provides approximate cost estimates for the equipment, vehicles and other infrastructure requirements of the integrated MSW management plan presented in the preceding section.

9.23 Capital Investment Broad cost estimates for capital expenditure are prepared for the key components described in the preceding sections. These are based on the prevailing rates of equipment and unit rates of construction. Table 41 presents cost estimates for equipment and vehicles required for primary collection and transport of waste. Table 42 presents estimates for a 30 MT/d capacity compost plant, which is based on ‘static aerated pile’ technology. Table 43 presents estimates for a local sanitary landfill site. In all the three estimates, the time horizon is five years, which corresponds to major investments, whereas the subsequent years over the plan time horizon until 2040 will primarily involve incremental procurements or replacements. A summary of investments under different phases of the plan is presented in Table 44. Net present values of capex (considering a discount rate of 10%) for the total plan time horizon and for different phases/periods are as follows: Plan Period Net Present Value (2011)

Rs. Crore For the first 5 years of the plan 11.86

For the 25-year period from the 6th to the 30th year 10.27

Total plan over 30 years 22.13

138

TABLE 41: EQUIPMENT FOR PRIMARY COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT OF MSW

Component Rate (Rs.) Year Total (Rs.)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1 2 3 4 5

A. Primary storage

1. Home compost bins/kits

- Incremental req.

141 287 287 299 457

- Costs of kits 1,000 141,000 287,000 287,000 299,000 457,000 1,471,000

Total A 141,000 287,000 287,000 299,000 457,000 1,471,000

B. Primary collection

1. Litter bins in commercial areas (70 lit.)

- Incremental req.

250 250 50 263 263

- Costs bins 1,500 375,000 375,000 75,000 393,750 393,750 1,612,500

2. Motorized tippers

- Incremental req.

5 15 8 8 1

- Costs of 411,650 2,058,250 6,174,750 3,293,200 3,293,200 411,650 15,231,050

139

Component Rate (Rs.) Year Total (Rs.)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

tippers

3. Containerized cycle rickshaws

- Incremental req.

28 1 - 1 -

- Costs ricks. 7,898 221,154 7,898 - 7,898 -

- Cost of container replacement

528 - 14,780 15,308 15,308 15,836

Sub-total (3) 221,154 22,678 15,308 23,206 15,836 298,181

Total B 2,654,404 6,572,428 3,383,508 3,710,156 821,236 17,141,732

C. Secondary storage at CWDs

1. Metal containers (4.5 cum)

- Incremental req.

123 77 30 30

- Cost of containers

40,698 5,005,854 3,133,746 1,220,940 1,220,940 10,581,480

- Concrete platforms for placement of

20,000 1,230,000 770,000 300,000 300,000 2,600,000

140

Component Rate (Rs.) Year Total (Rs.)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

containers

Total C 6,235,854 3,903,746 1,520,940 1,520,940 13,181,480

D. Secondary transport

1. Dumper placer vehicles

- Incremental req.

30 10

- Costs 882,543 26,476,286 8,825,429 35,301,715

Total D 26,476,286 8,825,429 35,301,715

Grand Total Collection & Transport

35,507,544 19,588,603 5,191,448 5,530,096 1,278,236 67,095,927

141

TABLE 42: COST ESTIMATES FOR COMPOST PLANT

Sr. No.

Component Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.)

Amount (Rs.)

1 Site clearance and land development LS 500,000

2 Boundary wall RM 258 1,500 387,105

3 Static aerated pile compost plant including post processing, admin. building, paved yard, parking, internal roads, weigh bridge, bore well, etc. 20,500,000

4 Plantation LS 500,000

5 ETP LS 500,000

6 Security room LS 150,000

7 Laboratory LS 250,000

8 Gates LS 100,000

Total 22,887,105

Notes: 1. Plant capacity is 30 MT/d and the feedstock will comprise organic waste from bulk

sources. 2. Plant does not include sorting/separation section. 3. Plant is based on ‘static aerated pile’ technology with a bio-filter for odor control.

TABLE 43: COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY LANDFILL

Sl.No. Component Unit Quantity Rate (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)

1 Site clearance and development

LS 1,500,000

2 Site office and utilities LS 400,000

3 Staff quarters LS 500,000

4 Weigh bridge LS 1 740,216

5 Guard room, utilities LS 200,000

6 Approach road m. 400 6,100 2,440,000

7 Internal roads LS 1,500,000

8 Landfill including leachate collection tank (3 phases)

ha. 3 x 0.27 3,497,978 2,833,362

9 Landfill closure (2 phases) ha. 2 x 0.27 2,070,914 1,118,294

10 Tippers, compactors, bulldozers and other earth moving equipments.

LS 22,910,621

11 Leachate treatment plant LS 1 1,500,000

12 Fire fighting engine Nos. Nil

142

13 Chain link/rigid fencing around the landfill

RM 1295 720 932,926

14 Landscaping and plantation LS 750,000

15 Other miscellaneous – water supply, lighting, communication, first aid, laboratory, demarcation, sign boards, etc.

LS 2,000,000

16 Monitoring wells Nos. 5 20,000 100,000

Sub-total 39,425,419

Notes: 1. Construction of SLF is assumed to take place in annual phases @ 0.27 ha./annum and

the investment is assumed to be spread over the entire life of 30 years. 2. Accordingly, capping of the filled phase will be in the following year and the

investment will be spread over the entire life of the SLF. Annual capping cost is estimated to be Rs.5.6 lakh.

3. The above estimate corresponds to only the first five years of the plan period. TABLE 44: SUMMARY OF CAPEX FOR MSW MANAGEMENT IN DEWAS

Component ImmediateAction

Short-term

Medium-term

Long-term Total

Years < 0.5 0.5 - 2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-30 Primary collection and transport

551 120 652 504 1,784 3,611

Workshop 26 - 13 - 25 64 Treatment 229 - 50 100 379 Sanitary landfill 394 313 75 940 1,722 Institutional strengthening and capacity building

13 13

Feasibility studies 21 21 Miscellaneous 5 5 5 15 Total 5 616 748 978 629 2,849 5,825 Note: Values in Rs. lakh.

9.24 Operation and Maintenance Cost The O&M costs will gradually build up as the service levels increase during the first five years of the project. This will be on account of the increase in the number of vehicles, manpower, etc. A maximum expenditure on running the system will occur around the 4th/5th year, when all components are commissioned and working at full capacity utilization. The estimates provided in Table 45 below correspond to that situation and have been derived on a pro-rata basis from estimates for full-scale operation in other cities of similar size. It will be noted that the combined cost of primary collection, street sweeping and secondary transport account for around 80% of the total opex. For the subsequent years, a pro-rata estimate can be worked out corresponding to

143

the quantity of waste generated. It must be noted that the estimate for the compost plant considers a much lower and fixed quantity of waste corresponding to its capacity of 30 MT/d. TABLE 45: APPROXIMATE ESTIMATES OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE MSW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN DEWAS

Sr. No. Project Component Amount(Rs. lakh/annum)

% of Total

A Primary collection 230 30.1%

B Street sweeping and drain cleaning 214 28.0%

C Transport to the T&D facility 162 21.1%

D Treatment 21 2.7%

E Sanitary landfill site 57 7.5%

F Project management establishment 16 2.0%

G Public relations and awareness generation 20 2.7%

H Environmental monitoring 5 0.7%

I Project Engineer 2 0.3%

J Uniforms and PPE 38 4.9%

GRAND TOTAL 764 100.0% Notes: 1. Cost of transfer station and long haul are not considered as feasibility of those

components is yet to be assessed. 2. Cost of street sweeping and drain cleaning is derived by considering about 60% of

the existing sweeper force (660) being deployed for the task with an average monthly salary of Rs.4,500.

3. Public relations and awareness generation is a continuous activity and is accounted accordingly.

4. Cost of Project Engineer corresponds to part-time monitoring inputs for operation of SLF and treatment plant.

Septage Management System This section looks at the broad issues pertaining to septage, i.e., current system of collection, transport, treatment and safe disposal. An analysis of septage characteristics is provided, which links up with a set of conventional options for treatment and safe disposal.

9.25 Current Practices It is recognized that a part of the population of Dewas would continue to use septic tanks as the on-site sanitation solution. The community toilet complexes, public latrines and latrines in institutional and commercial areas, which are not connected to sewerage network, but are served by septic tanks, are among the bulk producers of septage. Besides these, there is a very large number of septic tanks on private properties in areas which are not served by any sewerage network. The system of community septic tanks connected to decentralized simplified sewerage will also generate significant loads of septage. While DMC offers a septage emptying service, it does not have the necessary infrastructure for safe treatment and disposal. In absence of a regulatory system, typically municipal/private tankers dispose of this noxious matter into surface drains/nallas, low lying areas, water bodies, agriculture fields, etc. Evidently the aggregate

144

volume of septage from all septic tanks dispersed across the city represents a major risk to the environment and public health. In addition, there are issues related to availability of safe and appropriate equipment, training of service providers, occupational health and safety of workers, safety during transport, role of private service providers, if any, etc.

9.26 Septage Management System The system for citywide septage collection from all septic tanks – connected either to private, public, community latrines or to decentralized simplified sewerage systems, etc. – can be organized around a group of service providers with vacuum tankers with appropriate regulations. When implemented effectively, this solution will help in ensuring safe collection, transport, treatment and disposal of septage, thereby improving sanitary conditions across the city.

9.26.1 Treatment and safe disposal of septage Treatment and disposal of septage is the most neglected area in the sanitation cycle. There is a need to regulate the current indiscriminate practice on the following lines: The Municipal Corporation will designate a safe location for treatment and disposal of

septage and will arrange to create/construct and operate such treatment facilities and disposal works as may be deemed appropriate and suitable under the given circumstances.

The service provider(s)/operator(s) will be required to deliver/dispose of septage only at such designated sites.

Disposal at any other sites/locations such as in open drains, water bodies, on low lying areas, waste lands, at community waste depots, etc. pose a serious threat to the environment and public health and will be considered unlawful and the operator will be liable to punishment under the provisions of the municipal bylaws.

9.26.2 User charges

In order to sustain operations and provide incentive to private service provider(s) the system must provide for levy of user charges at appropriate stages: Each owner/occupier will be obligated to pay towards the cost of emptying, transport,

treatment and safe disposal of septage removed from his/her property so that the noxious matter is rendered inoffensive.

The Municipal Corporation will determine and specify the user charge as may be deemed suitable from time to time.

9.26.3 Options for septage treatment

The following table provides feasible technology options for septage treatment. TABLE 46: OPTIONS FOR SEPTAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Method Advantages Disadvantages Land application Simple and economical

Recycles organic matter and nutrients into the land Low energy use

Need for a holding facility during monsoon/severe winter Need for relatively large and remote land areas

145

Co-treatment at existing WWTPs

Optimizes capex and opex costsMost plants are capable of handling some septage Centralizes waste treatment operations

Potential for plant upset, if septage addition is not properly controlled Increased residuals handling and disposal requirements

Co-disposal with solid wastes

Offers proper blending of moisture, nutrients and micro-organisms in composting or landfill methane generation Optimizes investments in plants and equipment and the operating costs

Possible contamination of groundwater

Treatment at independent septage treatment plants

Provides regional solution to septage management

High capex and opex costs Requires high skill levels for operations

Source: Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal, USEPA, September 1994.

9.26.4 Septage disposal options Once treated or stabilized, septage should be safely disposed of by one of the following methods: Land application as a soil amendment. Burial in a landfill, or Further treatment and reduction or incineration.

146

CHAPTER 10. BROAD STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

10.1 Time Horizon for Implementing City Sanitation Plan This chapter summarizes the recommendations made in the previous two chapters and the institutional and financial support required to implement the City Sanitation Plan. The chapter focuses on the following strategic technical interventions for successful implementation of the CSP: Safe access to sanitation services

Safe collection, disposal and treatment of household liquid waste

Safe disposal of storm water drainage

Safe collection, transport, treatment and disposal of solid waste. In view of limited resources, it is also prudent to prioritize interventions in terms of the required financial resources. Evidently, high-priority interventions, requiring low or minimal capital investment, are recommended to be taken up in the short-term, while interventions requiring higher capital investment and O&M costs should be taken up in a later, phased manner. This approach is used to also define appropriate time horizons for various components of the City Sanitation Plan, as shown below: (a) Some components, like the sewer network, need to be

designed and sized for a long time horizon, since periodic duplication of the works is not possible at short intervals. However, the network of branch sewers and laterals to be designed during the initial stage will cover only the existing road network. As and when new roads develop, this network will have to be extended in stages. Possibly the main sewers and intercepting sewers may be designed and constructed to accommodate even the future flows from areas, which are developed in stages during the 30-year horizon period.

(b) On the other hand, facilities like toilets, roadside drains, solid waste collection, and transport

works can and should be designed to take care of the present population and incremental population during the initial construction period. Some components, like the pumping stations and treatment plants, can be developed in modular fashion in stages as the demand develops.

(c) The following time horizon is accordingly suggested for implementation of the City Sanitation

Plan.

Plan Plan Period GoalsImmediate Action Plan Years 2011-13 (a) Cover entire population with toilets,

eradicate open defecation, (b) Initiate

147

actions on waste water disposal systems and storm water disposal system, (c) Initiate actions on solid waste collection and transport and construction of compost plant and sanitary landfill.

Short-term Plan Years 2014-21 (a) Complete works of waste water and storm water disposal systems initiated in immediate action plan, (b) Extend network for incremental population, (c) Add toilets for incremental population, (d) Complete actions of solid waste collection and transport and construction of works of compost plant and sanitary landfill initiated in immediate action plan, plus initial annual phases and capping of sanitary landfill.

Medium-term Plan Years 2022-31 (a) Extend network for incremental population, (b) Connect decentralized waste water systems to centralized system, as necessary, (c) Add toilets for incremental population, (d) Annual incremental procurement and replacements for solid waste collection and transport and compost plant, and annual phases and capping of sanitary landfill.

Long-term Plan Years 2032-41 (a) Add sewage treatment plants for year 2041 demand, (b) Extend network for incremental population, (c) Connect remaining decentralized waste water systems to centralized system, as necessary, (d) Add toilets for incremental population, (e) Annual incremental procurement and replacements for solid waste collection and transport and compost plant, and annual phases and capping of sanitary landfill.

10.2 Phasing of Capital Investment Plan

CSP implementation will require substantial financial resources and planning for resource generation. Besides infrastructure costs, DMC will need resources for operation and management, community mobilization and capacity building. Broad estimates of financial requirements for implementing the above activities on a citywide basis are made below. All costs are as per 2010 rates for these tasks. Resources for CSP implementation will be generated from funds earmarked for water and sanitation development within municipal and state government budgets, but will not be limited to these resources alone. The funding for CSP implementation will include funds from the 13th Finance Commission and other center and state schemes for sanitation improvement. In addition to funding of the capital expenses for implementation of the CSP, financial resources

148

would also be required, regularly, to fund the operation & maintenance (O&M) of the various facilities. In addition to DMC’s budgetary resources, it is also proposed to explore the possibility of levying user charges for some of the services, at least to cover annual O&M expenditure, if not also to fund capital replacement. A conceptual investment plan, based on the strategy detailed above, is prepared, with details appearing in Annexure 16 and summary given below. TABLE 47 – SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS OF PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Investment (in Rs.) for Implementation of Dewas CSP Sr. No.

Item Immediate Action Plan

(2011-13)

Short-term Plan (2014-21)

Medium-term Plan (2022-

2031)

Long-term Plan (2032-41)

A Capital Cost 1 Household toilets 60,000,000 6,800,000 9,400,000 11,750,0002 Public/community

toilets 10,050,0002,250,000 3,000,000 4,000,000

3 Decentralized sewerage systems

- 215,900,000 79,500,000 42,000,000

4 Centralized sewerage system

1,000,000,000 280,000,000 222,500,000

5 Storm water disposal system

293,550,000 140,000,000 174,500,000 206,000,000

6 Repairs and up-gradation of existing sanitation works

42,000,000 - - -

Sub-total of A.1 to 6

405,600,000 1,364,950,000 546,400,000 486,250,000

7 Solid waste management

(a) Primary collection and transport

55,100,000 77,200,000 139,600,000 89,200,000

(b) Workshop 2,600,000 1,300,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 (c) Treatment 22,900,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 (d) Sanitary

landfill 70,700,000 54,500,000 47,000,000

(e) Institutional strengthening and capacity building

1,300,000 - - -

(f) Miscellaneous 3,100,000 500,000 - - Sub-total of A.7 62,100,000 172,100,000 205,350,000 142,450,000 Total investment

cost (A) (Items 1 to 7 above)

467,700,000 1,537,550,000 751,750,000

628,700,000

B Average O&M

149

Cost 21,618,480 72,751,835 29,123,120 25,917,1251 Toilets and waste

water disposal (items A.1 to 6 above) at 5.33% of capital cost

21,618,480(21,618,480 +

0.5x72,751,835)=

57,994,397

(57,994,397 + 0.5x29,123,120)

= 72,555,957

(72,555,957+0.5x25,917,125)

=85,514,519

2 Solid waste management

76,400,000 86,041,680 104,087,360 130,025,160

Total O&M Cost for Sanitation

98,018,480 144,036,077 176,643,317 215,539,679

Note: 1. Costs are estimated at current price level. 2. SWM O&M costs are escalated as per increase in population to be served. 3. O&M costs are average annual costs in median years for different plan periods

(namely in year 2012 for immediate action plan, in year 2017 for short-term plan, in year 2026 for medium-term plan, and in year 2036 for long-term plan).

10.3 Financial Plan for Implementation of City Sanitation Plan

This section of the report outlines the annual capital expenditure (capex) required, as well as funds required for operations and maintenance of all aspects of the CSP and the sources for funding both. From the above section (Section 10.2), assuming that capital expenses in each one of the years, in each phase of project implementation, would be equal, and applying an annual inflation factor of 5% for all capital expenditure (from 2012-13 onwards), the following picture emerges for annual capital expenditure for implementation of the CSP. (Please note that while the following table outlines just a few select years, the attached Annexure 17 “Dewas CSP – CAPEX” has the detailed break-up of the capex and also the yearly figures.)

(all figures in Rs. lakh) Capital Expenditure

2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 2023-24 2026-27

Toilets, Waste Water, & Storm Water

1,014.00 1,173.83 2,613.09 3,024.98 980.45 1,135.00

MSW 310.5 286.71 262.12 303.44 225.92 394.86MSW Replacement

- - 75.96 83.46 187.93 436.00

Total 1,324.50 1,460.54 2,951.17 3,411.88 1,394.30 1,965.85 Discussions in Bhopal with State officials suggest that Government of India (GoI) and Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP) are both open to financially support implementation of city sanitation plans. Currently, the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS), under the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), GoI, supports the construction of individual toilets for economically weaker sections of society. The Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) or the newly created Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) supports development of

150

integrated housing and other related urban infrastructure for the poor. Capex for waste water disposal and MSW, within Dewas’s low-income settlements, could be financially supported under the IHSDP/RAY schemes of GoI. However, it is expected that since GoI has supported the development of City Sanitation Plans, under the aegis of the National Urban Sanitation Project, they would evolve a program to financially support implementation of these plans as well. It is envisaged that the scheme would be similar to UIDSSMT, wherein a city like Dewas would receive up to 70% of its total approved capital expenditure (capex) for implementation of its CSP from the GoI scheme and another 20% from GoMP. Thus, Dewas Municipal Corporation would need to finance the balance 10% of the total capex. The financial model for the Dewas CSP has been developed using this assumption, i.e., that Dewas Municipal Corporation would need to fund 10% of the total capex envisaged in the CSP. In addition to the capex, operation & maintenance (O&M) expenses to be incurred annually for the various elements of the CSP are also quite significant. The following table outlines the O&M expenditure required, including a 7% annual inflation for O&M expenses, and the incremental expenditure that would be required to be made by the Dewas Municipal Corporation (DMC), i.e., in addition to the expenditure that DMC is incurring currently, which has also been assumed to increase at 7% per annum from the current levels. (Please note that while the following table outlines just a few years, the attached Annexure 18 “Dewas CSP – O&M” has the yearly figures.)

(all figures in Rs. lakh) O&M Expenditure

2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 2023-24 2026-27

Toilets, Waste Water & Storm Water

54.05 249.25 675.38 1,168.68 1,458.99 1,644.08

MSW 764.00 867.52 920.62 976.96 1,036.76 1,102.92DMC’s Expenses

301.11 368.87 451.88 553.58 678.15 830.77

Incremental O&M Expenses

516.94 747.90 1,144.11 1,592.07 1,817.60 1,916.23

As can be appreciated from the above table, O&M expenditure for waste water disposal and MSW would be a significant burden on DMC’s finances. To assess the status of DMC’s affordability for: (a) funding the capital expenditure for implementing the CSP; and (b) for its O&M, projections of DMC’s financials were undertaken. The same is outlined in the attached Anexure 19 “Dewas Municipal Corporation – Financial Projections”. These financial projections have been based on: (a) financial performance of DMC over the previous six years for which actual financial statements are available, i.e., for the period between 2004-05 and 2009-10; (b) discussions with officials of DMC (for eg., Water Tax and Connection Charges have been based on the fact that the UIDSSMT-funded water supply scheme would be completed in 2011-12, following which, over two years, DMC would increase Water Tax from the current levels to Rs.200 per household per month; and (c) discussions with GoMP officials regarding the assessment of financial support that DMC would receive from the 13th Finance Commission and other State Gov’t. schemes.

151

Based on the above capital expenditure, incremental O&M expenditure, and financial projections of DMC, the following picture emerges (please see attached Annexure 20 “Dewas City Sanitation Plan – Financial Model” for full details. (all figures in Rs. lakh) DMC’s Financials – Projections

2011-12 2014-15 2017-18 2020-21 2023-24 2026-27

DMC’s total receipts*

5,319.93 6,496.98 8,623.72 11,055.60 14,194.89 17,080.27

DMC’s operating expenses**

3,675.39 4,994.72 6,650.82 8,773.88 10,948.02 14,178.00

DMC funds available for capex and incremental. O&M

1,644.53 1,502.26 1,972.90 2,281.72 3,246.88 2,902.27

Incremental O&M expenditure required

516.94 747.90 1,144.11 1,592.07 1,817.60 1,916.23

DMC’s contribution to capex

132.45 146.05 295.12 341.19 139.43 196.59

Funds Available for other Capex

995.15 608.31 533.67 348.46 1,289.84 789.45

* Note: This excludes any scheme-specific receipts of DMC, which would go towards

implementing the specific scheme. ** Note: This includes outflows on interest payments and debt repayment (of the current

outstanding loan of Rs.21 crore from HUDCO). As can be seen from the above table, if DMC were to fund 10% of the total capex required and the O&M for all aspects of waste water disposal and MSW, then the total funds available for any other capital expenditure decreases to an average of about Rs.5.27 crore per annum, in the next 10 years, i.e., between 2011-12 and 2020-21. This includes grants from the 13th Finance Commission to DMC. Discussions with GoMP officials reveal that DMC is likely to receive a total of about Rs.20 crore from the 13th Finance Commission, i.e., about Rs.4 crore per annum The average capital expenditure of Rs.5.27 crore per annum between 2011-12 and 2020-21 does not compare favorably to the average annual capital expenditure incurred by DMC of Rs.10.82 crore over the last six years, i.e., between 2004-05 and 2009-10, or an annual average expenditure of Rs.16.82 crore over the last three years, i.e, in the period 2007-08 to 2009-10. The comparison is even worse if one were to build in the factor of inflation in capital expenditure. It is evident that DMC would need to introduce and charge user fees for waste water disposal and MSW services that it would provide, as outlined in the CSP. Globally, user charges for waste water disposal services are normally based on water charges, i.e., a certain percentage of the

152

water charge. This percentage has typically varied between 50-80% of user water charges. It is proposed that DMC levy a 50% waste water disposal surcharge to the user water charges. However, it is proposed that user charges for waste water disposal be levied with effect from 2013-14, i.e., after Dewas’s citizens have witnessed a significant improvement in waste water disposal services. As regards MSW services, it is proposed that DMC levy a monthly user fee of Rs.30 per household. This fee could vary for users belonging to various economic slabs. For the purposes of the financial model, it has been assumed that the total user charges collected against MSW services would be equivalent to 60% of the users paying Rs.30 per month. Again, it is proposed that these user fees be levied with effect from 2012-13, after clear improvement in services would be evident to Dewas’s citizens. With the above indicated user charges, DMC would generate about Rs.13.5 crore per annum, on average, over the next ten years, i.e., between 2011-12 and 2020-21, increasing to Rs.32.5 crore over the following ten years, i.e., between 2021-22 and 2030-31, for undertaking other capital expenditure programs. This amount is in line with DMC’s average annual capital expenditure of Rs.10.82 over the previoius six years, and is therefore likely to be acceptable to the Corporation. Strategy for Implementation of City Sanitation Plan The following multi-pronged strategy is laid out for implementation of the Dewas City Sanitation Plan over the 30-year time horizon.

10.4 Implementation of Toilets

Toilets for Safe Access to SanitationComponents Approach Interventions Who is ResponsibleHousehold toilets

Individual toilets connected to sewerage, where possible, or individual or community septic tanks Where individual toilets are not possible, small group latrines/shared latrines (1 for 5-10 households) will be provided

New toilets by constructing balance number of household and shared toilets for current residential and floating population Improve/upgrade existing toilets with water services and network connections Add new toilets for incremental population during short-, medium- and long-term plans as population grows

Individual householdDMC can provide incentives through central/state government schemes Self-help groups can be formed to access microfinance

Public toilets Public toilets at commercial market places (1 seat for 100 HHs) and places of pilgrimages connected to sewerage, where possible, or individual or community septic tanks

New toilets with water services and network connections Improve/upgrade existing toilets with water services and network connection

DMC through own sources or through PPP with private sector/ industries/association of shopkeepers, etc.

153

Community toilets

At minimum, one community latrine (1 seat for 50 persons), in each slum for those HHs with space issues or who can’t afford a individual or shared latrine, will be provided with adequate water supply, power and O&M plans

Construct new toilets with water services and network connections Improve/upgrade existing toilets with water services and network connections

DMC with community groups (SHGs, O&M groups,) in each settlement discussing problems and identifying solutions

10.5 Safe Collection, Disposal and Treatment of Liquid Waste

Disposal of Household Waste WaterComponents Approach Interventions Who is ResponsibleCollection, treatment and disposal of household waste water

All the waste water will be collected, treated and disposed as per the norms laid down for safe waste water disposal

On-site disposal through septic tanks and soakage pits or two pit latrines, with other HH waste water also connected to pits Effluent of septic tanks connected to a local small-bore sewerage network, with secondary treatment provided to the waste water collected in the system Regular sewer network, in which the toilet water and other HH waste water will be collected, with full primary and secondary treatment provided at the terminal end Combination of centralized and/or decentralized treatment and final disposal in different parts of the city, depending on the feasibility

DMC with support from community groups (SHGs, O&M groups wherever community-level collection mechanisms are envisaged

10.6 Safe Disposal of Storm Water Drainage and Waste Water from Industries and

Institutions

Disposal of Industrial and Institutional Waste Water Components Approach Interventions Who is ResponsibleCollection and disposal of storm water

Covered or open drains (suitable for easy cleaning), integrated into city’s primary drains

Separate storm water disposal system Start implementation of the work of roadside drains and improvements to the primary drains in the immediate action plan (years 2011-13) with completion in the initial years of short-term plan Upgrade existing drains

DMC with community level advocacy support for maintaining roadside drains in slums

154

Improvements in primary drains Construction of new roadside drains Weekly cleaning of drains, where open, to prevent choking Augment the network, in stages, to cover incremental development of areas in future years, in short-, medium- and long-term plans

Disposal of waste water from Industries and Institutions

Industries and institutions dispose their waste water as per prescribed standards and integrate with city sewers/drains

Monitoring to ensure waste water being discharged in the municipal drains as per the standards of State Pollution Control Board Linking public institutions and educational institutions to centralized or decentralized sewerage network

DMC with support from industries and institutions to ensure they meet the disposal norms for waste water, prescribed by Pollution Control Board

10.7 Implementation Strategy for SWM

Collection, Transport, Treatment and Disposal of MSW Components Approach Interventions Who is

Responsible Primary storage of waste

Encourage residents and waste generators to store waste properly

Store waste at source in a single bin Promote home composting

Residents of DewasLocal NGOs DMC

Primary collection and secondary storage

Mixed strategy for primary collection of waste from domestic, commercial, industrial and institutional sources comprising motorized primary collection, manual collection through handcarts and individual disposal at community waste depots to collect waste

Improve door-to-door collection services Encourage use of community waste depots Strengthen collection from non-domestic sources Timely replacement of equipment and containers Improved service delivery Strengthen street sweeping and drain cleaning

DMC with support from residents, industries and institutions

Secondary collection, transport, treatment and disposal of solid waste

Strengthen collection and transport, treatment and disposal of waste with highest priority to safeguard public health

Primary collection can be transported either directly to disposal site or transferred into containers installed at strategic locations depending on location of landfill site Evaluate option of transfer station depending upon the location of treatment and disposal facility

DMC

155

Multi-dimensional strategy comprising centralized composting, home composting, and recycling center Sanitary landfill till treatment operations are commissioned

Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships

10.8 Formation of Sanitation Committees

With commencement of the activity to formulate the Dewas CSP, the Corporation took the decision that the small, technical advisory group, already constituted for the preparation of the City Development Plan (CDP) for Dewas under JNNURM, would also serve as the implementation vehicle for the City Sanitation Plan. This advisory group, comprising the District Collector, the Dewas mayor and commissioner, the city’s Chief Engineer, and the local head of the Madhya Pradesh Urban Services for the Poor (MPUSP) project, provided excellent oversight and feedback at key stages in the development of the CSP. As the draft of the CSP nears completion, the DMC will retain its leadership role as the principal agency responsible for communicating and implementing the recommendations of the City Sanitation Plan. Further, partnerships with a wider range of key stakeholders will be essential for DMC to reach its goal of ‘Total Sanitation’, which would address all aspects of city sanitation, including the critical first step of an open defecation-free city. This expanded list of stakeholder partnerships will need to include non-government agencies, private sector representatives, civil society groups, etc. for successful and sustainable ‘Total Sanitation’. The city sanitation committee/cell structure recommended by the Government of Madhya Pradesh Integrated Urban Sanitation Program (IUSP) provides an excellent vehicle for expanding the involvement of DMC staff and the community at-large in carrying out the implementation of the CSP.

10.8.1 City level sanitation committee

The guidelines prepared for the implementation of the Integrated Urban Sanitation Program (IUSP) by the Urban Administration and Development Department (UADD), Government of Madhya Pradesh (GoMP), recommend setting up of committees at the state and city level for facilitating the implementation of CSP. Under these guidelines, a city level sanitation committee is to be formed for facilitating effective implementation of the CSP. The committee will be empowered to bring together various local actors in the implementation of the CSP, which will be critical to achieving the vision of an open defecation-free city. IUSP guidelines have proposed the following composition for the city level sanitation committee:

Mayor/President of the ULB Chairperson Members of MIC/PIC Member Women ward member nominated by mayor/president Member Representative of business associations Member Representative of sanitary workers association Member NGO representatives Member Officers from various departments associated with sanitation Member Subject expert(s) – with permission from the Chairperson Member Commissioner/CMO of the ULB Member Secretary

156

10.8.2 City sanitation cell The above-described sanitation committee is envisaged as an advisory and policy level body. The IUSP Guidelines call for it to be supported by a technical body called the city sanitation cell (CSC) comprising a set of dedicated technical professionals (specialized in city human excreta and liquid waste management). The Commissioner, DMC, will appoint a suitable officer as the nodal officer for this cell. The CSC will be responsible on a day-to-day basis for overseeing and managing all technical issues. IUSP recommends the following composition for the city sanitation cell:

Commissioner/CMO of the ULB Chief Assistant Engineer/Sub-engineer Technical Officer Health Officer/Sanitary Inspector Technical OfficerSanitation worker Social Organizer Chief of sanitary workers association Social Expert

10.9 Strategy for Communication and Participation

10.9.1 Strategic communication with the staff of DMC

Being the primary implementers of the City Sanitation Plan, the staff of the DMC must be fully aware of the plan and the various proposed strategies essential for effective implementation. Further, since they are also DMC’s primary interface with the city’s households/citizens, they will play a strategic role in generating awareness among these individuals. Recognizing its own limitations, DMC should take advantage of the strengths for community mobilization available with some of the city’s leading private sector and civil society stakeholders. It must solicit their views and participation in the initial steps of anchoring a campaign on the issues of environmental sanitation, MSW management, public health, aesthetics and quality of life, etc.

10.9.2 Community awareness and participation Successful implementation of the Dewas CSP will require significant inputs in the areas of public relations and community management. It requires community organization, mobilization and regular communication to ensure constructive participation of different stakeholders. In this respect, DMC does not have adequate capacity, especially with regard to MSW activities. It is, therefore, recommended that DMC engage a qualified and experienced social worker (with a master’s degree in social work) with good communication skills to be able to commence a sustained campaign on effective solid waste management across the city. The services of the social worker can also be utilized for engaging the community on a range of other issues. Community organization along the above lines will help DMC in mobilizing for awareness creation and soliciting the community’s participation in the new initiatives. Regular communication through these channels will help in building bridges with the community and increase confidence on both sides. The following table suggests potential tools to address current sanitation practices and the desired behavior changes.

157

Target Audience Current Practices Desired Behavior/ Practices Potential Communication Tools

Slum/low income HHs

Defecation in the openNot using individual toilets even where they exist Not using public/ community toilets

Discontinue open defecation Use individual toilets where they exist Use community toilets Contribute towards O&M costs of facilities Encourage safe hygiene practices

Behavior change communication (BCC) program to motivate households to adopt safe sanitation practices Possible tools: Inter-personal communication Community meetings and FGDs with women’s groups, children, youth Information materials Folk media - dramas/skits in communities

Slum/low income HHs/city population

Using public/community toilets

Construct and use individual toilets Encourage safe hygiene practices

Households currently disposing waste water in open drains

Disposing untreated waste water in open drains

Shifting to on-site management of waste water such as septic tanks, etc. Encourage safe hygiene practices

Households that have septic tanks as a waste water disposal mechanism

Septic tanks not regularly cleaned/de-sludged resulting in waste overflowing into open drains

Regular cleaning of septic tanks Readiness to shift to a community/decentralized waste water management system Readiness to shift to a sewered system Readiness to pay for O & M costs of the system Encourage safe hygiene practices

10.9.3 Institutionalizing community-government interaction

To build community awareness and participation DMC will need to introduce and institutionalize a platform for voice and participatory governance. Successful models for community-local government interaction such as the Bhagidari-Sanjha Prayas in Delhi, which has been replicated in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, or Janagraha in Bangalore, will be reviewed for replication. The members of DMC’s city sanitation cell will meet periodically with representatives of various community groups to discuss key implementation concerns with follow-up action by the concerned department. A senior officer in DMC will head the Dewas ‘Bhagidari to ensure compliance and follow-up action on demands raised in various meetings with the support of the city sanitation cell. DMC will, however, need to expand its community mobilization processes in a phased manner. The purpose will be to strengthen and empower communities, especially women, to engage with local government agencies and participate in planning and implementing sanitation interventions. Consideration should also be given to involving the communities in the process of community contracting, community oversight and O&M. DMC should explore contracting a local development

158

NGO(s) to facilitate the processes for community mobilization, planning and implementation in support of successful Dewas CSP implementation.

10.9.4 Community participation at city scale Implementation of the CSP would require mobilization of citizens at the local level and subsequent activity planning, including significant number of discussions regarding finalization of implementation plans and their revisions, as well as operational management of issues that come up during project implementation. The community structures created under the Swaran Jyanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY) could be utilized to plan and implement community level interventions. After strengthening the civil society structure and in order to ensure a high-level of transparency and, thereby, cooperation, DMC must adopt a system of organizing regular consultations with the stakeholders on issues of, among others, environmental sanitation, MSW management, public health and hygiene, etc. The feedback received from the community during these consultative meetings will help in optimizing resources and improving service levels.

10.9.5 Communication with stakeholders In order to achieve the first goal of the CSP, which is to eradicate the practice of open defecation, a communication program must be organized to address the current practices and behavior of the affected target audience through an appropriate communication/awareness building campaign. The primary aim of this focused communication program should be to create awareness on the need for improved sanitation (including household level sanitation facilities and mechanisms for safe disposal of waste), along with enhancing awareness on linkages of sanitation with health, economic productivity and environment.

10.9.6 Management information system From the point of view of the municipal commissioner and city engineer, a comprehensive and scalable MIS shall be developed which will provide daily, weekly and monthly status of sanitary service delivery and asset condition. The MIS will cover, among others, ward level data and will also have a link with the asset management register. Depending on the ease of operation and resources available for data generation, collation and compilation, the system shall be customized to derive reports on critical aspects and service levels defined earlier. Such regular reports shall enable the municipal commissioner to take appropriate decisions and make measurable improvements over a defined time span. However, in view of the limited capacity at DMC, to start with, only a basic management information system (MIS) may be feasible and that should focus on key management and operational aspects. Accordingly, DMC must develop appropriate data entry forms, record system and log books and train its officials and personnel in relevant functions.

10.9.7 Training of corporators and officials There is a felt need for DMC to take up orientation programs for the benefit of the municipal elected corporators, as well as the officials from all departments, on the following subjects: Effective management of the various sanitation components. Benefits of good systems and risks of mismanagement. Responsibilities of various stakeholders.

159

In this respect, DMC should also either organize study tours to those cities where good work has been carried out in the recent past e.g., Surat, New Bombay, Suryapet, Namakkal, etc. or invite concerned officials to Dewas for sharing their experiences.

10.9.8 Participatory monitoring In order to complement the strengths of the implementing and monitoring departments, DMC must introduce a system of monitoring and inspection by officials from other departments on a rotation basis in different wards of the city. This will ensure higher visibility in the public, and higher transparency, accountability and familiarity with essential services among ULB officials at all levels. As a result of improved feedback generated through this initiative, DMC will be able to improve service levels across the city at least cost. DMC must also work with the community in evolving a participatory monitoring system for waste management services, e.g., in market areas, residential colonies, etc. Representatives of CBOs should be regularly invited for consultation and feedback. Way Forward

10.10 Journey So Far A number of steps, as follows, have been completed since initiation of the City Sanitation Plan for Dewas city: Baseline household sanitation survey, done by DMC, Sanitation Survey (2008).

Detailed reconnaissance survey of wards and slums completed by FIRE (D).

Initial discussions with the officers of Government of Madhya Pradesh and Dewas Municipal Corporation.

Preparation of Situation Analysis Report as a first step of City Sanitation Plan.

10.11 Next Steps This report is the first draft of the City Sanitation Plan. It needs to be taken forward in the following logical steps: Presentation of the Situational Analysis Report and Draft City Sanitation Plan to the

corporators and officers of Dewas Municipal Corporation. Consultation and presentation of the Situation Analysis Report and Draft City Sanitation Plan

to a wider range of key stakeholders, including non-governmental agencies, private sector representatives, civil society groups, etc.

Based on these discussions and the comments received, the proposals of the City Sanitation Plan should be finalized.

City level sanitation committee and city sanitation cell shall be formed. Final selection of citywide sanitation options shall be made. Detailed Project Reports of the initial individual sanitation components shall be prepared and

required sanctions shall be obtained. In conjunction with DPR preparation, financial resources shall be identified and mobilized. Strategy for implementation of individual components shall be finalized and bidding process

shall be initiated.

160

Training workshops for corporators, officers and staff shall be organized to detail out the CSP planning and implementation process.

Gaps in rules/legislation shall be identified and appropriate rules shall be drafted and approved.

Institutional setup shall be put in place and operationalized to ensure sustainable sanitation service delivery.

Monitoring and evaluation systems shall be put in place. Physical components shall be implemented in phases.

161

ANNEXURE: 1. THE APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes the overall approach and methodology for carrying out the assignment.

PART: 1. Key Aspects of the Approach

SECTION 1. Achieving 100% sanitation

The goal of the exercise is to achieve 100% sanitation in the project city. The following are the indicators of 100% sanitation in a city:

Primary Indicators as mandated by National Urban Sanitation Policy:

o Every citizen has access to a toilet & the city is ‘Open Defecation Free’

o All the sewage generated is collected, treated and disposed of safely.

Secondary Indicators

Secondary indicators are optional and are not mandated by the NUSP. However, for an holistic approach to sanitation in a city, it is important that the following indicators are also addressed in city sanitation planning:

o All the solid waste generated is collected, treated and disposed of safely

o All water bodies and drains are preserved and kept clean

o All the storm water drains are kept clean.

Every aspect of the process and infrastructure provision must integrate community participation and must be inclusive. In addition, water and waste water management must be carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner, recycling and reusing the byproducts as far as possible.

SECTION 2. Building local institutions and community participation

The creation of a city sanitation committee and preparation of city sanitation plan are seen as the key services. The city sanitation committee is the institutional structure that will promote the vision of “Total Sanitation” for the project city. It shall ensure the successful implementation of a 100% sanitation campaign, as well as oversee the plan and project formulation, implementation and operations.

SECTION 3. Centralized and decentralized approaches

Most local governments prioritize centralized collection and treatment systems for managing domestic waste water and municipal solid waste. However, as rapid population growth in urban areas exceeds the supply of sanitation services, it has become increasingly evident that such conventional treatment systems are not necessarily the most appropriate solutions at a given point in time for tackling waste water and sewage in developing countries.

The selection of correct technology is one of the key challenges for reaching 100% sanitation access. A certain level and coverage of water and waste water infrastructure already exists in the cities of the country. In that case, it is the goal of the planners and engineers to optimize existing infrastructure and reduce redundancy, but maintain flexibility with user satisfaction as the primary goal.

It is important that a holistic technical approach, which incorporates centralized and decentralized systems, is chosen. A mix of options (including conventional and non-conventional solutions) needs to be examined to address sanitation issues as a whole at a citywide level. The planning approach

162

has to define the project-specific social, cultural, economic, health and environmental priorities, which will influence technology selection and system design. Technologies that promote recycle and reuse of treated waste water should be given due consideration.

PART: 2. Steps in the Methodology

Each of the key services has been broken down into a series of executable tasks as follows. These tasks are not linear and many of the activities will happen in parallel and in an iterative manner.

SECTION 4. First consultation meeting

The first consultation meeting was conducted in Dewas with the city stakeholders and FIRE (D) representatives. In this meeting, the objective scope and methodology of City Sanitation Plan preparation was explained to the city sanitation committee. This meeting proved useful in getting a preliminary understanding of the city and the work that has already been carried out with FIRE (D) assistance.

SECTION 5. Preparation of base map

A detailed base map has been prepared on GIS platform for the city of Dewas. The following layers and attributes have been incorporated.

No. Data/Feature Source

1 All natural and manmade features, including building footprints, roads, water bodies and drainages, etc.

Existing maps and available satellite data

2 All administrative boundaries – Municipal Corporation, census wards, villages, etc.

Existing maps

The following layers of information have been incorporated from the reconnaissance survey conducted by FIRE (D):

Data on slums:

o Type and number of public latrines

o Arrangement of collection of waste (whether in a septic tank or in the sewer network) and the map of sewer network

o Arrangement of water supply, and treatment and disposal of waste

o Method of cleaning and maintenance

o Condition of the works, including nuisance such as odour, accumulation of waste water, overflowing of septic tanks, etc.

Field survey of surface drains

Field survey of solid waste arrangements

Sample survey of industries

Sample survey of public institutions (health & education).

In addition, ward level data generated from the reconnaissance survey have been attached to the ward polygons.

163

SECTION 6. Review of available data

Some of the data provided by FIRE (D) has been reviewed in later sections of this report. The data received from FIRE (D) include:

Notes on City Sanitation Plan, which suggest a structure for the City Sanitation Plan

Household information on sanitation carried out by Dewas Municipal Corporation

Reconnaissance survey of all wards, slums, and a sample of industries and public institutions to collect information on the actual ground situation

Digital geo-referenced topographical maps of nine priority slums

Designs for the extension of the water supply facility and other infrastructure in these nine slums

Project reports for 4 pilot slums.

SECTION 7. Secondary data collection

Other available secondary data has been collected on:

Demographics

Water supply–source, quantity and quality of water supplied

Sanitation – sewerage infrastructure, public toilets, solid waste management.

This data has been mapped and used for analysis of the service delivery levels.

Data on municipal finances

Annual budgets of the last five years and income and expenditure statements (capital and revenue) have been collected from the Municipal Corporation.

SECTION 8. Field surveys and consultations

Additional field surveys and informal consultations have been conducted to strengthen the information provided by USAID FIRE (D) and ULB in the following areas:

Primary and secondary sources of water

Disaggregated water demand

Access to sewerage infrastructure and toilets in slums

Disaggregated sewerage infrastructure demand

Typology of development.

The following has been the methodology to capture the data:

The city is divided into blocks. These blocks have roads on all sides. The blocks are bigger in the case of peripheral areas, where there is less development, and smaller in central areas of the city, where development intensity is higher.

A land use survey is conducted in each of these blocks and the blocks are divided into parcels based on the land use typology. To illustrate: high-end bungalows and MIG flats are differentiated as regards water demand and, therefore, sewage generation is likely to be different.

A questionnaire survey is used in each unique land use typology block to capture data on typical size of a dwelling unit, typical size of a family, predominant water sources, secondary water sources, quality perceptions, mode of sewage disposal, mode of solid waste disposal,

164

etc. In addition, questions are asked in select slums on individual toilets, public toilet seats, their usability, hygiene behavior, etc.

A survey on willingness-to-pay for access to a sewerage system.

SECTION 9. Assessing demand/supply gap & stress levels in a disaggregate manner

All the relevant data collected have been integrated on a GIS platform. The data generated through the field surveys have been added as attributes to the base map (as prepared for the whole city). Based on this data the population is distributed at the level of a block. This is controlled using census population figures projected for 2010. This data is then used to disaggregate water demand, sewage generation and solid waste generation.

With a few exceptions, the city at present does not have a sewerage system. The BNP area has its own sewerage and treatment systems. A few colonies, developed by the Dewas Development Authority, have sewer lines. There is almost no door-to-door collection of solid waste and informal dump sites can be seen all over the city. Therefore, the demand/supply gap alone will not present a good picture of the gravity of the situation. A stress analysis was then be carried out using additional indicators, such as population density, land use, availability of sewage disposal and solid waste management systems, etc.

To illustrate, a high-density slum pocket with no access to toilets, sewerage or solid waste management would present a greater sanitation problem than some other type of residential area. Similarly, a hospital with no sanitation systems would pose a greater threat than a high-end residential area.

SECTION 10. Conduct 2nd consultation

After the assessment of demand/supply situation and the situation analysis, a consultation shall be organised with the city sanitation committee. The findings of the assessment shall be presented and feedback elicited.

SECTION 11. Assessing technology options

Based on the situation analysis an internal workshop will be organized to discuss possible strategies and approaches for solving the observed sanitation issues. Here technology options will be discussed and decided upon by. Based on this discussion, schematic designs will be prepared. The technological options identified will be verified for their feasibility based on the Corporation’s municipal finances and availability of funds.

SECTION 12. Strategies and project formulation

Strategies and solutions shall be prepared for all the un-served areas in the city. In addition, a strategy to address the sanitation needs of future population growth shall also be formulated through project solutions as well as recommendations to policy and legislation.

The strategies shall focus on strengthening existing systems rather than simply proposing unsustainable capital expenditure. Special emphasis shall be given to address issues pertaining to livelihood linkages of the urban poor with the sanitation sector, user charges, etc. to develop strategies that are financially self-sustaining.

SECTION 13. Draft City Sanitation Plan

Based on the situation analysis, strategy formulation and technology selection, a draft City Sanitation Plan shall be prepared for Dewas. This shall include schematic designs, broad cost estimates and an implementation strategy. The draft plan will also include recommendations to the legislative framework and a broad assessment of training and capacity building needs.

165

SECTION 14. Conduct 3rd consultation

The draft CSP, implementation plan and various other recommendations shall be presented to the city sanitation committee and other stakeholders identified by the client.

SECTION 15. Final City Sanitation Plan

The relevant suggestions and recommendations received through the consultation shall be incorporated in finalising the CSP.

166

ANNEXURE: 2. ALCHEMY LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

No. of Floors

If community hall/auditorium, then capacity

167

168

169

ANNEXURE: 3. LAND USE CODES & SPACE UTILIZATION FACTORS

No Land Use Sub-category Code SUF Jobs SUF Res SUF Vis Average Unit Size (sq. m.)

No. of Jobs No. of Residents

No. of Visitors

1 HIG Residential (Posh bungalows)

RA 0.003 0.013 0.000 300 1 4

2 Residential Apartment (HIG) RB 0.006 0.024 0.000 170 1 4

3 Residential + Commercial RC 0.044 0.050 0.222 90 4 4.5 20

4 Row Houses RD 0.010 0.045 0.000 100 1 4.5 0

5 MIG Residential (tenements/ duplex)

RE 0.000 0.056 0.000 90 0 5 0

6 LIG Residential (tenements/apartments or peripheral settlements)

RF 0.000 0.149 0.000 37 0 5.5 0

7 Slums RG 0.000 0.375 0.000 16 0 6

8 Commercial (malls/big shops) CA 0.032 0.000 0.120 250 8 0 30

9 Commercial (small shops) CB 0.100 0.000 1.000 20 2 0 20

10 Markets CC 0.050 0.000 0.125 400 20 0 50

11 Slaughter House CD

12 Auditorium/Cinemas/Commun CE 0.010 0.000 0.200 1000 10 0 200

170

No Land Use Sub-category Code SUF Jobs SUF Res SUF Vis Average Unit Size (sq. m.)

No. of Jobs No. of Residents

No. of Visitors

ity Halls

13 Hotels/Guesthouses/Hostels CF 0.014 0.000 0.100 500 7 50

14 Hospitals/Clinics NA 0.002 0.000 0.017 3000 7 0 50

15 School NB 0.007 0.000 0.200 1000 7 0 200

16 School + Residential NC

17 College ND 0.005 0.000 0.080 2500 12 0 200

18 College +Residential Facilities

NE

19 Offices NF 0.010 0.000 0.005 929 9 0 5

20 Religious NG 0.018 0.000 0.200 500 9 0 100

21 Heritage NH

22 Defense NI

23 Large-scale Industries IA 0.000 0.000 0.000 1165

24 Small-scale Industries IB 0.000 0.000 0.000 80

25 Household Industries IC 0.029 0.149 0.029 35 1 5.2 1

171

ANNEXURE: 4. ASSUMPTIONS – WATER CONSUMPTION FOR VARIOUS LAND USE CATEGORIES

Land Use Sub-category Jobs Residents Visitors

HIG Residential (posh bungalows) Ra 0 110 0

Residential Apartment (HIG) Rb 0 90 0

Residential + Commercial Rc 10 50 0

Row Houses Rd 0 50 0

MIG Residential (tenements/duplex) Re 0 40 0

LIG Residential (tenements/apartments) Rf 0 25 0

Slums Rg 0 20 0

Commercial (malls/big shops) Ca 5 0 1

Commercial (small shops) Cb 5 0 0.5

Markets Cc 5 0 1

Auditorium/Cinemas/Community Halls Ce 4 0 1

Hotels/Guesthouses/Hostels Cf 5 0 90

Hospitals/Clinics Na 10 0 90

Schools Nb 2 0 2

School + Residential Facilities Nc

College Nd 2 0 1

College + Residential Facilities Ne

Offices Nf 2 0 1

Religious Ng 0 0 1

Large-scale Industries Ia 0 0 0

Small-scale Industries Ib 0 0 0

Household Industries Ic 0 0 0

172

ANNEXURE: 5. ASSUMPTIONS – SOLID WASTE PER CAPITA FOR VARIOUS LAND USE CATEGORIES

Land Use Sub-category Jobs Residents Visitors

HIG Residential (posh bungalows) Ra 0 350 0

Residential Apartment (HIG) Rb 0 300 0

Residential + Commercial Rc 0 250 0

Row houses Rd 0 250 0

MIG Residential (tenements/duplex) Re 0 200 0

LIG Residential (tenements/apartments) Rf 0 200 0

Slums Rg 0 150 0

Commercial (malls/big shops) Ca 50 0 75

Commercial (small shops) Cb 30 0 75

Markets Cc 200 0 0

Auditorium/Cinemas/Community Halls Ce 100 0 80

Hotels/Guesthouses/Hostels Cf 150 0 250

Hospitals/Clinics Na 150 0 100

Schools Nb 100 0 100

School + Residential Facilities Nc 100 250 100

College Nd 100 0 100

College + Residential Facilities Ne 100 250 100

Offices Nf 100 0 0

Religious Ng 0 0 0

173

ANNEXURE: 6. DEWAS CLEANLINESS SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY DMC IN 2008

Features of the Survey

The Dewas Municipal Corporation conducted a household survey to assess the status of sanitation and cleanliness in the city of Dewas in 2008.

Survey Data

The ‘Nagrika Sarvekshan 2008’ survey data for each ward, which was compiled by the GoMP Urban Administration and Development Department, was downloaded from www.mpurban.gov.in. The survey data for wards 3, 20, 26 and 39 was not available online. The data for the rest of the wards was downloaded, translated and then analyzed. A summary of the analysis is presented in the following sections. A total of 23,708 households has been surveyed from the entire city. From the data available online, it is not apparent whether a stratified random sample was used or not.

A summary of questions asked and the responses received is given below. Where relevant, the CSP consultants have added remarks concerning the survey design and outputs.

TABLE 48: SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES IN DEWAS CLEANLINESS SURVEY, 2008

Q. No. Question Responses Count

1 Is there toilet facility available in the house?

Yes 21,098

No 2,610

TOTAL 23,708

REMARKS: The survey data available online does not differentiate between slum HHs and non-slum HHs. Therefore, it is not clear to what extent even non-slum HHs have toilets. 2 If Yes, then please describe the

type of service. In the drain 469

Individual toilet with water/without water/with septic tank

15,944

Kutcha toilet 150

Open defecation 2,135

Paid toilet 1,053

Pit toilet 1,309

Public toilet 38

TOTAL 21,098

REMARKS: The response options to this question are not mutually exclusive. For example, an individual toilet can also be a pit toilet or a kutcha toilet. The response options also include ‘open defecation’, which is not a service, as well as ‘public toilet’ and ‘paid toilet’, which are not ‘in the house’. 3 If No, what type of toilet facility do

you want? Community 154

Individual 2,077

Nothing 379

TOTAL 2,610

REMARKS: All the respondents who said ‘open defecation’ in response to previous question (no. 2) are, by design, left out of this question (no. 3). This means that even though 10% of the sample said that they “have a toilet facility” called “open defecation”, the survey does not ask them what sort of toilet they would like to have. 4 Are there community toilets and

urinals in your locality? No 18,388

Yes 5,320

TOTAL 23,708

174

Q. No. Question Responses Count

REMARKS: Here also the question and response would have been more relevant if segregated by slum and non-slum. 5 If not, are you willing to contribute

to construction of such facilities? No 19,721

Yes 3,987

TOTAL 23,708

6 Will you contribute to O & M of these facilities?

No 18,453

Yes 5,255

TOTAL 23,708

7 Where do you dispose of solid waste?

In the drains 1,103

In the open 12,723

Nominated agency/scheduled collection 184

Waste container 9,698

TOTAL 23,708

8 How far is the place where SW is dumped?

100-200 2,326

200-500 2,920

50-100 8,806

5001,000 1,385

Less than 50 8,270

No response 1

TOTAL 23,708

9 Is there a designated place for disposing of garbage?

No 15,740

Yes 7,968

TOTAL 23,708

10 How often is garbage collected by the ULB?

Any time 5,566

Not picked up 1,506

Once in a day 6,177

Once in two days 3,532

Twice in a day 6,926

No response 1

TOTAL 23,708

11 Do you have domestic animals? No 22,296

Yes 1,412

TOTAL 23,708

12 Where do you dispose animal waste?

No response 22,296

In the open 885

Other 25

Outside city 227

Use at home 275

175

Q. No. Question Responses Count

TOTAL 23,708

Sanitation status of the city as per DMC survey

ACCESS TO SANITATION

Household level sanitation About 89% of the households surveyed have access to household toilets and 11% do not. Of the total respondents, only 9% resort to open defecation, 4% use paid public toilets and less than 1% use free public toilets. About 2% defecate in drains, 1% use kutcha toilets and 6% use pit toilets. About 67% use individual toilets. The ward-wise distribution shows that the lack of toilets is mainly in wards 1, 2, 4, 11-17 and 43-45.

The ward-wise distribution of type of service shows that open defecation is highest in wards 1, 3, 11-16, 24, 42 and 44.

Type of toilet

176

Type of toilet preferred

Of the respondents who do not have household toilets, about 80% want individual household toilets, 6% would rather use community toilets and 14% do not want any toilets.

The ward-wise response to this question shows that in wards where the lack of toilets in the house and where open defecation is the highest, individual toilets are preferred.

177

Access to public toilets

About 22% of the respondents said that they have access to public toilet facilities (either toilets or urinals) in their neighborhood. Thus, approximately 78% do not have access to public toilet facilities. While asked if they were willing to contribute to construction of public toilets, only 17% said yes and the rest declined. When asked whether they are willing to contribute to maintenance of public toilets, 22% said yes and the rest declined.

The ward-wise distribution above shows that the lack of public toilets is a problem practically across the city.

The ward-wise distribution of willingness to contribute to construction of public toilets, as well as to their operation and maintenance, shown in the bar charts below, reveals that respondents in wards 16, 17 and 42 have much higher willingness to pay than those in other wards, which are some of the city’s wards with the highest incidence of lack of toilets in the house and open defecation.

178

WASTE WATER DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT

No questions were asked pertaining to the nature of treatment or disposal of waste water.

179

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

Collection and disposal system

About 4% of the respondents dispose of solid waste in the nearby drains, about 54% in the open, about 1% hand it over to a nominated agency or scheduled collection system, and 41% of the respondents dispose of their solid waste in waste containers.

The ward-wise response indicates that about a third of the Corporation’s wards seem to have waste containers accessible and the rest don’t. Door-to-door collection, the preferred method, seems to be insignificant from the respondents’ view.

180

Access to dustbins

About 35% of the respondents said that the dustbin is at a distance of less than 50 feet and 37% responded that it is at a distance of 50 to 100 feet. About 10%, 12% and 6%, respectively, of the respondents said that it is at a distance of 100-200 feet, 200-500 feet and 500-1000 feet.

The ward-wise distribution of distance from dustbin corroborates the picture emerging in the previous question. About a third of the wards have dustbins within easy reach and the rest don’t.

181

Designated location for solid waste disposal 66% of the households responded that there is no designated place for solid waste disposal.

The ward-wise distribution for this response is a bit difficult to corroborate with the picture from the previous question. For example, comparing the results for wards 17 and 38 for the last two questions, the respondents say that the waste container is located at a distance of less than 50 feet, while the same respondents say that there is no designated location for solid waste disposal.

182

Frequency of collection by Corporation

29% of the respondents said that the Municipal Corporation collects waste from their locality twice in a day, 15% said once in two days, and 26% said once in a day. About 24% of the respondents said that there was no fixed time and about 6% said that solid waste was not collected at all.

The ward-wise distribution of garbage collection frequency corroborates the picture emerging from the questions on where people throw solid waste and distance to dustbin. For example, wards 17 and 18 seem to have the best service levels from all three questions.

DISPOSAL OF CATTLE WASTE

About 6% of the respondents said that they have domestic animals. Out of the 6% who have domestic animals, 19% of them use the animal waste at home and the rest either dispose of it in the open or outside the city. From the ward-wise distribution, it emerges that this is an issue only in a few wards – 1, 11, 12, 44 and 45, which are mostly peripheral wards.

183

184

ANNEXURE: 7. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ON SANITATION CARRIED OUT BY USAID FIRE (D) IN 2010

Features of the Survey

USAID FIRE (D) carried out a rapid field reconnaissance survey to collect specific primary data on the sanitation situation in the city. The survey included extensive data on the following components.

S. No. Component Methodology*

1 Public latrines in wards and slums Observation and questionnaire surveys

2 Surface drains Observation surveys

3 Solid waste arrangement Observation surveys

4 Sample survey of industries Individual interviews with 5 sample industries

5 Sample survey of public institutions (health & education)

Individual interviews with 5 sample institutions

6 Testing of quality of water and waste water From actual samples collected in different places in the city

*Methodology as given in the ToR for the reconnaissance survey.

Survey Data

The survey data is provided in the form of reports, including a summary report and reports of individual components. In addition AutoCAD drawings have been provided with locations of slums, public toilets and urinals, sewage cesspools, community septic tanks and sewered areas. The base map used for the drawings also includes ward boundaries, some road networks, and other physical features.

For the purpose of preparation of this summary, key tables used in the reconnaissance survey summary report have been analyzed. In some cases, detailed reports have been used to substantiate an assessment.

185

Sanitation status of Dewas as per reconnaissance survey

ACCESS TO TOILETS

As access to household toilets was studied in the DMC survey, this was not addressed in the reconnaissance survey. Access to public toilets, however, was assessed both at ward level and in the slums.

Wards 18 of the 45 wards have public toilets. Of the wards that have public toilets, 3 have less than 5 WC seats, 7 have 5 to 9 seats, 6 have 10 to 15 seats, and 2 have more than 15 seats. The incidence of open defecation exists mainly in 7 wards and in another 22 wards on a smaller scale.

Incidence of open defecation

Incidence of open defecation

186

Slums

70 slums do not have public toilets. The remaining 11 have them. 8 of the slums that have public toilets have 5 or more toilet seats. The rest have less than 5 toilet seats.

Incidences of open defecation in slums are not included in the study

COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE WATER

Access to water Access to water has not been dealt with as part of the reconnaissance survey.

187

Waste water collection, treatment and disposal Wards

32 wards have no sewer line, 10 wards have 50% or less area sewered, 1 ward has 60% area sewered, and only 2 wards have 100% of their area sewered.

Of the wards, which have sewer lines, 4 have no treatment systems, 8 have community septic tanks, and only 1 ward has a sewage treatment plant (ward 3, BNP area). 3 wards dispose of their effluent in a nearby nalla, 3 wards in an open drain, and in 7 wards the disposal is not seen.

Disposal of effluent Treatment of effluent

188

Slums Availability of sewer lines is not discussed in the slum surveys, since sewerage has not been introduced in the slums so far. An attempt has been made to capture the conditions of septic tanks where public toilets exist. In most cases the surveyors could not make out the condition. In some cases the septic tanks were found to be damaged. Only one is labeled as functional (Choprda Kshetra slum).

Other use categories In all the educational institutions surveyed, septic tanks are used to treat waste water. The

treated effluent is disposed of “in the outside gutter or drain”.

Seven out of 10 hospitals surveyed have ETPs and septic tanks and the other 3 have only septic tanks. All of them dispose of the treated effluent “in outside gutter or drain”.

Both the public institutions surveyed have septic tanks, one of which is damaged. The effluent in both cases is disposed of “in the outside gutter or drain”.

Solid waste management

COLLECTION, DISPOSAL

Wards

24 wards have no community bins and the rest have at least one bin. At least 10 wards have more than 10 unauthorized garbage dumps. One ward (19) has as high as 36 unauthorized dumps. In 20 wards, the garbage is collected daily and in 19 wards garbage is collected ‘irregularly’ or ‘very irregularly’.

189

No. of unauthorized garbage dumps in the ward

Frequency of clearance of garbage

Frequency of clearance

190

Slums Only 3 slums have community bins. There are many unauthorized garbage dumps in these slums.

Sr. No.

Category Community Bins (No.)

Unauthorized Dumps (No.)

Frequency of Clearance

1. Slums in core area -- 14 Daily 2. Outside core area 1 30 Alternate/days 3. Slums on periphery 2 25 Irregular

Other use categories In all the educational institutions, solid waste is collected in bins and either burned or buried in

pits. In 2 of the 6 institutions, the solid waste is dumped on the nearby road.

In 3 out of the 10 hospitals surveyed, solid waste is dumped nearby and is collected by DMC. In one case, it is put in a DMC bin and then collected by DMC. In 5 cases, DMC directly collects the solid waste and in one case it is either burnt or collected by DMC

In the public institutions, one of them recycles some waste and the rest is burnt. The other institution dumps it nearby and this is collected by DMC

Bio-medical wastes

Eight out of the 10 hospitals surveyed hand over bio-medical waste to a private collector every alternate day and, in one, the collection is made daily. One of the hospitals did not respond to the question on collection, but mentioned that their in-house incinerator is dysfunctional. The bio-medical waste collected from the other hospitals is then taken to Hoswin Incinerator Pvt. Ltd. in Indore (appointed by Pollution Control Board).

Industrial wastes

INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT & DOMESTIC WASTE WATER

The technology and treatment systems vary from industry to industry. Twelve industries were surveyed. Two of them have ETPs and STPs for effluent treatment. Six have only ETPs and 2 have no systems. Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company, has an activated sludge plant and a thermal evaporation system. Some of the byproducts are used in the plant’s gardens. One factory has a solar evaporation plant for treatment of effluent.

SOLID WASTE

In most cases the solid waste is sent to the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) constructed at Pithampur in Dhar district by M/s. M.P. Waste Management Facility (a group company of M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd., Hyderabad) on a BOOT basis. Some industries like Ranbaxy have captive incinerator plants. Steel rejects are sold to “authorized recyclers”.

191

Storm water management

Wards

Natural Drains

There are 7 major nallas flowing through the city. All of them are stable and no flooding is experienced. In all the 7 nallas, the course has been mentioned as “natural and requires training”. These drainage channels pass through 26 wards. Of the wards that have nallas, only in 5 are they in objectionable condition.

Roadside surface drains

Sr. No.

Category of Wards Surface Drains Coverage as % of Road Length Built-up KutchaCoverage Construction Coverage

1. Wards in core area (21 to 37) 50% Rectangular in masonry or stone slabs

40%

2. Wards outside core area (2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)

28% -do- 31%

3. Wards on periphery 14% -do- 34%

Slums Sr. No.

Category of Slums Surface DrainsBuilt-up KutchaAverage Coverage

Construction Average coverage

1. Slums in core area 20% Rectangular in masonry or stone slabs or kerb of roadside concrete

15%

2. Slums outside core area 10% -do- 10%3. Slums on periphery 11% -do- 13%

Water quality

Five samples of water and waste water were tested. The TDS1 levels in the bore wells were 2 to 3 times higher than the acceptable limits and the B.Coli2 levels were 15 times higher than acceptable limits. A summary of other results are as follows.

Sr. No.

Samples Parameters of Quality

Permissible Limit

Actual Results Remarks

1Dissolved minerals in water are commonly referred to as total dissolved solids (TDS). The TDS content of water is expressed in milligrams/litre (mg/l) or in parts per million (ppm). The standard that applies to India is BIS 10500-1991 standard. The BIS standard says that the maximum desirable TDS is 500 mg/l and the maximum permissible level in the absence of a better source of water is 2,000 mg/l. 2Balantidium coli is a parasitic species known to be pathogenic to humans and is known to cause dysentery like symptoms and in acute cases diarrhea. Its occurrence is common where water sources may be contaminated with swine or human faces. The maximum permissible limit is 10 mg/l.

Present condition of drain

192

1 Bore well (5 samples)

Total hardness as CaCO3

300 mg/l 247 to 1,220 mg/l

Ground water is brackish in tests due to high TDS; two samples show biological pollution

Dissolved solids 500 mg/l 494 to 2440 mg/l

Alkalinity 200 mg/l 196 to 512 mg/l

MPN count of B Coli

10 in 100 ml sample

Nil and 160

2 Waste water (5 samples)

Taste Acceptable Objectionable Waste water flow in nallas is not fit for discharge in public water bodies

Odour No offensive odour

Disagreeable

COD 250 mg/l 618 to 1,190 mg/l

BOD 30 mg/l 155 to 275 mg/l

MPN of B Coli 10/100ml > 1,000

193

ANNEXURE: 8. LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY ALCHEMY IN 2010

Alchemy conducted a land use and infrastructure survey in the city. The objective was to have a thorough understanding of the development patterns and the status of sanitation in different parts of the city.

Sampling method

A stratified proportionate systematic random sampling method was used for this survey. The details are as follows.

Stratification

The stratification is carried out on a map. This is done by identifying homogenous blocks of development at a sub-ward level. This serves the following purposes:

A homogenous pocket of development will usually have consistent socio-economic characteristics and, therefore, demand characteristics. For example, a housing layout with spacious individual houses will have upper middle class families that consume relatively high amounts of water and generate high amounts of solid waste per capita. In comparison, a slum pocket will have lower-income families that consume less amounts of water and generate low amounts of solid waste. But the problems of sanitation will be more intense in lower-income settlements because of the higher population density.

The physical characteristics of the development, such as space availability, will be consistent and, therefore, conceptualizing sanitation solutions is easier.

The stratification is carried out for the entire municipal area and, therefore, the coverage of the survey is practically 100%. This includes non-residential3 pockets or areas with the exception of the large industrial estates and the BNP area.

Proportion

The delineation of blocks is done in such a way that larger homogenous blocks are identified in areas with lower population density and smaller blocks are delineated in denser areas. While this is done on the basis of visual observation and a preliminary understanding of the city, it has proven to be effective in ensuring that the samples are proportionate. Since each block is homogenous in composition, the extrapolation of data derived from one sample in a block to the block as a whole is reliable.

Representativeness

In the process of choosing a household at a block level for the questionnaire survey, no particular method of random selection has been used, but care has been taken in the training of surveyors to ensure that there are no conscious biases. In the case of slums, the interview take place with a group of people (Focus Group Discussion) to reduce the possibility of misinformation or lack of understanding.

Statistical validity

3 The term “non-residential” refers to uses such as office buildings, shopping complexes, schools, hospitals, etc. If there is an isolated shop in a residential pocket, it is not identified as non-residential. However, if there is a row of shops or a large school or hospital, it is treated as a separate land use block. Such land use blocks also have their requirements of water supply, toilets and sewerage disposal, though varying quite widely in quantities. For example, a clinic or a hotel would require more quantity than say, a grocery shop or an office. The survey attempts to capture the extent to which such areas are served. Please refer ANNEXURE 3. This gives details of the land use classification that has been used. As can be seen, there are a large number of non-residential categories. The survey attempts to capture the number of people who use these buildings.

194

The statistical usefulness of the survey comes from the manner in which each homogenous block has been delineated. The parameters being examined in the survey are most likely to be similar in a homogenous block. Therefore, one questionnaire in each homogenous block yields results that are useful. The method of delineation of land use blocks is described in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Please refer to following section on Survey data for sample size information.

Features of the survey

The following groundwork was carried out:

Preparation of detailed base map – A detailed base map of the city was prepared from satellite imagery and AutoCAD maps of Dewas provided by FIRE (D). The scale and coordinate systems of the satellite data were used to ensure accuracy of map measurements. Detailed notes on preparation of the base map and layers of information included are provided in Section Error! Reference source not found.

Delineation of survey blocks – The whole city was divided into survey blocks of approximately 0.5 to 1 sq. km. (average size). Where development was sparse, larger blocks were delineated and where development was denser, smaller blocks were delineated. The land use and infrastructure surveys were conducted in and around each survey block.

Preparation of observation checklists and infrastructure questionnaires – An observation checklist was prepared to capture land use and development related information. Two questionnaires were developed to capture infrastructure status – one for slums and one for all other uses. In the latter, questions vary based on the use category. Questions were asked in the non-residential areas of the city also. Hence it was not just a household survey. It was a broader city level survey. One questionnaire was filled for each land use type in a survey block.

The data captured in the land use and infrastructure survey and the methodology used are given below.

No. Information Methodology

1 Detailed land use, number of floors, building condition Through field observations

2 Open land and water bodies – condition and whether used or not4

Through field observations

3 Water

Access to water – community/individual sources

Predominant and secondary sources of water

Questionnaire survey

4 Access to toilets and willingness to pay for household toilets in slums

Questionnaire survey

5 Waste water management (in non-slum areas)

Access to toilets

Willingness to pay for sewerage connection

Existing treatment systems

Effluent disposal

Willingness to pay for O & M

Questionnaire survey

4 Open, undeveloped land is separated out as independent land use blocks. For example, there are vast tracts of such land in the urban periphery of Dewas. Public open spaces within the city are also treated as separate land use blocks. In such cases, the survey has examined the condition of the open space.

195

No. Information Methodology

6 Solid waste management (non-slum areas)

Existing system for collection and disposal

Willingness to pay for door-to-door collection

Questionnaire survey

Survey data

Land use blocks are delineated based on homogeneity of land use, built typology and socio-economic category in each survey block. One questionnaire was filled out by interviewing a typical sample for each survey block. The outputs of the survey were then extrapolated to the entire land use block. In other words, it is assumed that characteristics of infrastructure service provision will be uniform across a land use block. The data was entered and attached to the spatial database on GIS. The survey outputs were then assessed based on the calibrated population of that land use block. Details on calibration of population are provided in Section Error! Reference source not found..

The numbers of sample questionnaires filled out in each ward are as follows. Where similar land use sub-categories were found, only one questionnaire was filled out.

Ward No. Non-residential Residential Slums Open Spaces Grand Total

1 1 1

2 17 10 1 1 29

3 1 1

4 10 4 5 4 23

5 5 1 6 1 13

6 3 7 3 13

7 4 15 3 22

8 4 11 1 5 21

9 4 20 1 25

10 6 13 3 22

11 2 2

12 11 14 4 29

13 1 2 3

14 1 5 6

15 5 2 7

16 1 1 2

17 5 18 2 1 26

18 3 15 1 19

19 6 11 5 22

20 9 17 4 30

21 6 17 3 4 30

196

Ward No. Non-residential Residential Slums Open Spaces Grand Total

22 11 22 1 5 39

23 1 11 1 13

24 13 4 1 18

25 5 4 9

26 9 6 1 1 17

27 2 10 2 1 15

28 3 11 6 20

29 11 13 3 27

30 1 2 3 3 9

31 5 7 1 13

32 9 11 20

33 8 22 30

34 6 8 3 17

35 3 15 2 20

36 4 10 1 1 16

37 3 6 3 1 13

38 9 7 3 4 23

39 3 8 2 2 15

40 2 8 3 13

41 5 6 2 2 15

42 4 7 2 13

43 4 2 6

44 3 3

45 1 1

Grand Total 222 372 76 61 731

Limitations of the approach Some variation in characteristics or infrastructure service levels within a land use block could

have been omitted, since only one questionnaire was filled out for each land use sub-category.

The land use sub-categorization is limited to what is observed while moving around a survey block. Some use categories inside the survey block may have been excluded. For instance, a small school building in the middle of a survey block may not have been captured in the survey.

197

Sanitation status of the city as per Alchemy’s survey

The assessment of sanitation status has been segregated for residential areas (excluding slums), non-residential areas (excluding industrial areas5) and slums. A summary is presented below.

ACCESS TO WATER

In this section, the survey summary captures information at two levels for the two categories of residential and non-residential. At the first level, the summary shows whether the water source is individual or community level. At the second level, the summary shows the distribution of primary sources and secondary sources for individual water supply.

Access to water in non-slum areas Seventy-eight percent of the residential population and 64% of non-residential areas have individual sources of water supply. Of those who have individual sources, 46% have municipal supply, 15% are dependent on bore wells, and 32% on hand pumps. In the non-residential areas, 52% depend on municipal supply, 42% have borewells and 4% depend on Nagar Nigam (DMC) tankers.

Residential Non-residential

Sour

ce o

f su

pply

Pred

omin

ant

sou

rce

People in residential areas augment water supply through secondary sources. Bore wells and private tankers are the main sources of secondary supply at 32% and 41%, respectively, in

5 As water supply and sanitation service provision is not part of the DMC’s responsibilities, it has been removed from the assessment.

Sources of water supply - residential

Sources of water supply – non-residential

Primary individual sources of water supply – residential

Primary individual sources of water supply – non-residential

198

residential areas. In non-residential areas, it is private and Nagar Nigam (DMC) tankers at 54% and 25%, respectively.

Seco

ndary

sou

rce

The ward-wise distribution reveals that dependence on (and by inference, reliability of) municipal supply varies widely across wards.

NOTE: Detailed information is also available ward-wise for sources of secondary supply (individual), sources of primary supply (community) and sources of secondary supply (community). As the numbers are insignificant they have not been included here.

Secondary sources of water supply – residential

Secondary sources of water supply – non-residential

Sources of water supply – residential

Primary individual sources of water supply – residential

199

Access to water in slums

In the slums, 53% of the population have individual sources of supply.

Of those who have individual supply, 44% rely on hand pumps and 47% on municipal supply. Augmentation of supply through secondary sources is primarily through municipal tankers and community hand pumps.

Sources of water supply - slums

Primary individual sources of water supply - slums

Common sources of water supply - slums

Sources of water supply - slums

200

The slum population in wards 12, 42 and 43 relies largely on community sources of water supply, which is both municipal piped supply through community taps and community hand pumps.

Primary individual sources of water supply - slums

201

ACCESS TO TOILETS

Access to toilets in non-slum areas

Ninety-five percent of the residential population (excluding slums) have access to individual toilets. About 4% of the homes that have individual toilets still have some members who resort to open defecation. About 1% of the population resort to open defecation and have no access to toilets.

In the non-residential areas 17% of the people use free community toilets and about 2% use paid community toilets. Seventy-seven percent have individual toilets within their premises.

Residential Non-residential

Open defecation is seen primarily in wards 7, 22 and 45 in the non-slum residential areas.

Access to sanitation - residential Access to sanitation – non- residential

Access for sanitation - residential

202

Access to toilets in slums In the slums, 29% of the population have access to individual toilets. Four percent have individual toilets, but also access community toilets. Open defecation is very high in the slums, where even households having individual toilets have some members resorting to open defecation (37%). This condition is particularly high in the slums in wards 1, 11, 43 and 44, which are peripheral wards with rural character. Slums in wards 13 and 16 resort to open defecation as the only means of relieving themselves. These slums are close to industrial areas.

Access for sanitation - slums

Access to sanitation - slums

203

WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

Waste water management in non-slum areas

The waste water from 40%6 of the residential population in non-slum areas is disposed of through existing sewer networks. Twenty-five percent use septic tanks of which only 1% was cleaned in the last 5 years. Twenty-six percent of the people dispose of untreated effluent into open drains.

In the non-residential areas, 51% of the waste water generated is disposed of in open drains. About 31% have septic tanks, but less than 1% was cleaned in the last 5 years.

Residential Non-residential

6 Since slums account for a significant portion of the population, the percentage will be much lower when considered as a proportion of the total residential population in the city (about 20-25% currently).

Sewage disposal mechanism - residential

Sewage disposal mechanism – non-residential

Cleaning of septic tank Cleaning of septic tank

204

Sixty percent of the residential population and 53% of the non-residential respondents are not willing to pay for a sewer connection even if the DMC promises a new centralized sewerage system.

Residential Non-residential

Thirty-nine percent of the residential population and 43% of the non-residential respondents are willing to pay O & M charges of Rs.50 a month.

Sewage disposal mechanism - residential

Willingness to pay Rs. 8,000 for sewer connection

Willingness to pay Rs. 8,000 for sewer connection

Willingness to pay Rs. 8,000 for sewer connection

205

Residential Non-residential

The willingness to pay seems to be higher in the inner city areas than in the peripheral areas.

Waste water management in slums

In the slums, 61% of the population said that there was no system and the waste water is left untreated in the open and another 29% disposed of it in the open drains. So, in all, 80% of the waste water from the slums goes directly into nallas and eventually into the river.

According to Alchemy’s survey, about 57% of the slum population is willing to pay Rs.3,000 as beneficiary contribution for construction of household toilets.

206

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Solid waste management in non-slum areas

In the residential areas, 40% of the solid waste generated is disposed of in the open and only 7% of the waste is collected through door-to-door collection. In the non-residential areas, 43% of the solid waste is burnt.

Sewage disposal mechanism - slums

Willingness to pay Rs. 3,000 for the construction of individual

toilets

Sewage disposal mechanism - slums

Willingness to pay Rs. 3,000 for the construction of individual toilets

207

Residential Non-residential

Willingness to pay for door-to-door collection

Only 43% of the residential population and 42% of the non-residential population are willing to pay for door-to-door collection of solid waste. This willingness is highest in wards 24 to 30 and parts of wards 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 17.

Solid waste disposal mechanism – non-residential

Solid waste disposal mechanism - residential

Solid waste disposal mechanism - residential

208

Residential Non-residential

Willingness to pay Rs.50 per month for solid waste door-to-

door collection

Willingness to pay Rs.50 per month for solid waste door-to-

door collection

Willingness to pay Rs.50 per month for solid waste door-to-door collection

209

Solid waste management in slums

In the slums, 73% of the solid waste generated is disposed of in the open. Only 2% is disposed of in municipal bins. Sixteen percent of the solid waste is burnt.

Solid waste disposal mechanism - slums

Solid waste disposal mechanism - slums

210

ANNEXURE: 9. DETAILED SURVEY IN 10 SLUMS OF THE CITY BY ALCHEMY

Features of the survey

A detailed study of 10 slums in Dewas was carried out to understand qualitative aspects of sanitation in slums. A questionnaire was designed to include information on civic amenities, health, infrastructure, constraints and problems for slum residents and behavior patterns with respect to health and hygiene. A door-to-door sample survey was conducted, which covered 414 households. The methods for achieving the objectives of the survey included the following steps:

Rapid Participatory Appraisal of the whole community, including children and women.

Baseline survey of selected samples to obtain an overview of demographic characteristics of the slum.

Focused group discussions.

211

The following slums were part of the study.

Sr. No. Name of Slum Ward No.

Population Location(outskirts or inner city or peri-urban)

No. of HH as per Reconnaissance

Sample of HH for HH surveys (15% and 20% of total HH)

Particulars

1 Mendaki 11 2,000 Outskirts 400 60 Outskirts 3 slums surveyed; 188 households

2 Birakhedi Indranagar

14 1,900 Outskirts 380 50

3 Jetpura 1 1,750 Outskirts 350 78

4 Indranagar Colony

26 1,100 Inner city slum with kutcha houses 220 42Inner city 7 slums Surveyed households 226 Total households surveyed 414

5 Radhagunj No. 4 30 470 Inner city slum with pucca houses 94 18

6 Ambedkar Nagar 27 950 Inner city slum with pucca and kutcha houses

28

7 Shantipura Basti 41 2,000

Inner city slum with pucca houses 49

8 Todi Mohalla 41 740 Inner city slum with kutcha houses 148 29

9 Berugad, Vishnu Galli

40 1,100 Inner city slum with pucca houses 48

10 Kati Ghati 40 475 Small inner city slum with pucca houses 95 12

212

Survey data

The analysis of the survey data provided quantitative as well as qualitative information on sanitation issues in the slums. A summary of findings is presented in the following section.

Sanitation status in the slums

ACCESS TO WATER

The main source of water supply to the slum communities is bore wells (44%), followed by taps (24%) and tankers (24%). Few households draw water from hand pumps or tube wells.

Frequency of water supply to slums is found as follows:

o Daily – 54%

o Alternate days – 21%

o Weekly – 11%

o Irregular – 14%

Forty percent of households have reported that they purchase water from private owners or from Nagar Nigam (DMC).

Ninety percent of households have reported that the quality and color of supplied water are satisfactory, whereas 10% reported that water is turbid, yellowish and contains suspended particles.

ACCESS TO TOILETS

The surveyed population showed that 51% of households have individual toilets, out of which 93% are connected to septic tanks. Ninety-two percent of households reported that they have individual toilets, which they have constructed with their own money.

For households at Indira Nagar Birakhedi, DMC has provided toilet seats and septic tank for an individual toilet, for which people were expected to build the superstructure. A few households are yet to construct the superstructure as they cannot afford to do so.

Open defecation on average is around 44%, which is alarming. About 50% of the households use the open or fields for defecation, while 20% go outside the settlement, on near streets or near railway tracks. Although the children and male population do not report a particular time for defecation, women folk generally go for defecation early in the morning before sunrise. The women have reported that they feel unsafe and insecure while defecating in the open.

Only about 12% of households use community toilets. About 59% of the households are ready to pay Rs.1,000/per year for usage of these toilets, while the rest want this facility free.

The majority of households showed willingness to construct individual toilets and 58% are willing to pay up to Rs.2,000-Rs.3,000 as beneficiary contribution.

WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

The survey showed that 51% of households have individual toilets, out of which 93% are connected to septic tanks. Sixty-two percent of the toilets have been constructed after 2000, but have never been de-sludged. The de-sludging of septic tanks, where done, was carried out by hiring sanitary workers of DMC at about Rs.400-Rs.500 per toilet.

213

About 24% of households do not have even temporary bathrooms and use a room in their house for bathing. The waste water from bathing and kitchen is connected to outside drains, if available, or is disposed of in the streets, thus polluting the surrounding areas.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Solid waste collection and disposal is as follows:

o Roadside – 49%

o Open grounds – 16%

o Dustbins or dump yards of DMC – 31%.

The frequency of garbage collection from community bins or dump yards is as follows:

o Daily – 15%

o Alternate days – 5%

o Once in week – 11%

o Don’t know – 69%

The interior of most slum communities are kept clean, but the periphery often has garbage heaps. Efforts are seen by community households to keep their lanes and internal roads clean. In communities like Todi Mohalla, an unused well, at the entrance of the community, is used as a garbage dump.

The concern for maintenance of individual household facilities is higher than that for upkeep of public infrastructure.

HYGIENE BEHAVIOR OF HOUSEHOLDS

The following are some of the health and hygiene related issues observed in the surveyed slums:

o 21% of women do not wash their hands before preparation of food.

o 13% of respondents did not wash hands even after defecation. Hands are cleaned, often not with soaps but mostly with soil or ash.

o 30% of respondents do not use chappals/footwear and do not change clothes daily.

o 50% of respondents reported that they dispose of their children’s excreta safely, wrapped in paper or plastic, while the rest said they throw it in a nearby nalla or drain.

o More than 40% of women defecate in the open and use less than 2 liters of water for cleaning.

o During the menstrual cycle, the women normally use cloth. They are not aware of sanitary napkins and those who are cannot afford them. The same cloth is used for 2-3 months and then is burnt or thrown in a garbage dump. Women did not know about UTI or other reproductive health related problems.

214

ANNEXURE: 10. COVERAGE AND NEW DEMAND OF SEWERAGE IN WARDS PARTIALLY SEWERED

Sr. No.

Ward Classification of Population

Present Coverage

Projected Population

2011 2021 2031 2041

1 2 Total 11,198 14,731 20,805 31,094 Sewered 50 5,599 5,599 5,599 5,599 Balance 5,599 9,132 15,206 25,495 2 3 Total 3,873 4,281 4,869 5,672 Sewered 100 3,873 3,873 3,873 3,873 Balance 0 408 996 1,799 3 6 Total 8,728 11,481 16,215 21,561 Sewered 10 873 873 873 873 Balance 7,855 10,608 15,342 20,688 4 8 Total 6,028 7,930 10,109 11,776 Sewered 60 3,617 3,617 3,617 3,617 Balance 2,411 4,313 6,492 8,159 5 9 Total 8,327 10,954 13,965 16,267 Sewered 30 2,498 2,498 2,498 2,498 Balance 5,829 8,456 11,467 13,769 6 10 Total 7,686 10,110 12,980 15,014 Sewered 30 2,306 2,306 2,306 2,306 Balance 5,380 7,804 10,674 12,708 7 12 Total 11,721 15,419 19,658 22,898 Sewered 20 2,344 2,344 2,344 2,344 Balance 9,377 13,075 17,314 20,554 8 16 Total 8,420 10,191 14,393 16,765 Sewered 10 842 842 842 842 Balance 7,578 9,349 13,551 15,923 9 17 Total 10,911 14,353 18,298 21,315 Sewered 20 2,182 2,182 2,182 2,182 Balance 8,729 12,171 16,116 19,133

10 18 Total 4,999 6,051 8,545 11,363 Sewered 100 4,999 4,999 4,999 4,999 Balance 0 1,052 3,546 6,364

11 19 Total 10,799 14,205 18,110 21,095 Sewered 35 3,780 3,780 3,780 3,780 Balance 7,019 10,425 14,330 17,315

12 20 Total 5,365 6,494 7,386 8,604 Sewered 20 1,073 1,073 1,073 1,073 Balance 4,292 5,421 6,313 7,531

13 42 Total 7,987 8,826 11,253 14,962 Sewered 10 799 799 799 799 Balance 7,188 8,027 10,454 14,163 Total

Number Total 106,042 135,026 176,586 218,386

Sewered 34,785 34,785 34,785 34,785

Balance 71,257 100,241 141,801 183,601

215

ANNEXURE: 11. RESULTS OF SURVEY OF WARDS FOR DEFINING OPTIONS OF WASTE WATER DISPOSAL

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

1 Periphery Residential and part agricultural

30% developed in Bilawali and Jetpura

Available in 30% houses

Decentralized, as two isolated slums

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 24 m. 80 to 180 m.

2 Outer ring Residential, part agricultural and commercial along AB Road

80% developed –40% occupied, 40% plot layout and 20% agricultural

Available in 60% houses and plots

Decentralized, as community septic tanks already exist

Available in open spaces of layouts

Soil up to 20 m. 180 m.

3 Inner ring Industrial (Bank Note Press)

Fully occupied Not applicable BNP’s own treatment plant

Not applicable Soil up to 12 m. 140 m.

4 Outer ring Residential, part industrial and part agricultural

30% developed in four slums

Available in 40% houses

Decentralized, as four isolated slums

Available on nalla bank and open fields

Soil up to 12 m. 130 m.

5 Outer ring Residential and part agricultural

20% developed in Nausarabad and Arjun Nagar

Not available Decentralized, as two isolated slums

Available on nalla bank and open fields

Soil up to 12 m. 130 m.

6 Inner ring Residential and part agricultural

85% developed Available in 30%of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 6 m. 160 m.

7 Inner ring Residential and part agricultural

90% developed Available in 50%of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 9 m. 150 m.

216

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

8 Inner ring Residential and part agricultural

95% developed Available in 50% of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing, partly sewered

Available on nallah bank

Soil up to 9 m. 150 m.

9 Inner ring Residential and part agricultural

60% developed Available in 50%of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing, partly sewered

Available on nalla bank and open fields

Soil up to 9 m. 160 m.

10 Inner ring Residential and part agricultural

70% developed Available in 60%of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing, partly sewered

Available on nalla bank and open fields

Soil up to 6 m. 150 m.

11 Outer ring Residential and part agricultural

20% developed in two slums

Available in 20%of houses

Decentralized, as two isolated slums

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 12 m. 160 m.

12 Outer ring Residential and part industrial

30% residential Available in 60%of houses

Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage, fast developing, partly sewered

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 18 m. 130 m.

13 Outer ring Residential, part agricultural

30 % residential in two slums, Amona and Shantinagar- Amona

Not available Desirable to connect to centralized sewerage

Available on nalla bank

Soil up to 18 m. 130 m.

217

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

14 Periphery Residential, part agricultural

10% residential in five slums

Not available Decentralized for Binjana Gaon and Indiranagar Birakhedi; desirable to connect three slums to centralized sewerage

Available on nalla bank and open fields

Soil up to 20 m. 100 m.

15 Outer ring Residential, part agricultural and part industrial

10% residential in two slums Bawadiya(p) and Rasulpur

Available in 10%of houses

Desirable to connect two slums to nearby centralized sewerage

Available on nalla bank.

Soil up to 20 m. 100 m.

16 Inner ring Residential. 70% occupied, 30% plots

Available in 40% of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 140 m.

17 Inner ring Residential and commercial along AB Road

60% occupied, 40% plots

Available in 40%of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 15 m. 150 m.

18 Inner ring Residential and commercial along AB Road

Fully occupied Available in 80%of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage, already sewered

Not available Soil up to 15 m. 150 m.

218

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

19 Inner ring Residential and commercial along AB Road

90% occupied, 10% plots

Available in 80%of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage, already partly sewered

Available along nalla

Soil up to 12 m. 150 m.

20 Core area Residential and commercial along AB Road

Fully occupied Available in 80%of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage, already partly sewered

Not available Soil up to 20 m. 180 m.

21 Inner ring Residential and commercial in Moti Bungalow area

Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 20 m. 180 m.

22 Core area Residential and commercial along Ujjain Road

Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 200 m.

23 Core area Residential and commercial along Ujjain Road, Station Road and AB Road

Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 200 m.

24 Core area Residential, commercial along AB Road and Mataji Temple

Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 13 m. 150 m.

25 Core area Residential, commercial along Station Road

80% residential Available in 20%of houses.

Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 13 m. 150 m.

219

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

26 Inner ring Residential, commercial along Station Road and Industrial Area (Gajara Gears)

Fully occupied Available in 20%of houses

Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 160 m.

27 Inner ring Residential Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 160 m.

28 Inner ring Residential Fully occupied Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 180 m.

29 Inner ring Residential, commercial along AB Road and Police Parade Ground

Fully occupied Available in 20%of houses

Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 180 m.

30 Core area Residential, commercial along AB Road and Police Quarters

Fully occupied (three slums)

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 160 m.

31 Core area Residential and commercial along AB Road

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 210 m.

32 Core area Residential and substantially commercial, Bus Stand

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 18 m. 210 m.

220

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

33 Core area Residential and substantially commercial

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 120 m.

34 Core area Residential and substantially commercial

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 120 m.

35 Core area Residential and substantially commercial

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 120 m.

36 Core area Residential and substantially commercial

Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m. 120 m.

37 Core area Residential Fully occupied

Not available Will have to be connected to centralized sewerage

Not available Soil up to 12 m 120 m.

38 Outer ring Residential and part agricultural

10% occupied (four slums)

Not available Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Available along nalla

Soil up to 10 m. 160 m.

39 Outer ring Residential and part agricultural

20% occupied (six slums)

Not available Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Available along nalla

Soil up to 12 m. 150 m.

221

Ward No.

Location Land Use Extent of Development

Land for On-site Disposal

Choice of Centralized/

Decentralized Systems

Land for Decentralized

Treatment

Ground Strata Ground Water Table

40 Core area Residential and part agricultural

60% occupied (six slums)

Not available Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 12 m. 150 m.

41 Core area Residential and part agricultural

60% occupied (five slums)

Not available Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 10 m. 180 m.

42 Outer ring Residential part agricultural and part industrial

25% occupied;Balgadh area and three slums

Available in 20%of houses

Desirable to connect to nearby centralized sewerage

Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 19 m. 170 m.

43 Outer ring Residential part agricultural and part industrial

30% occupied and two slums

Not available Decentralized, as two isolated slums

Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 12 m. 157 m.

44 Periphery Residential and agricultural

10% occupied

Not available Decentralized. Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 12 m. 157 m.

45 Periphery Residential and agricultural

10% occupied

Not available Decentralized Available along nalla and open fields

Soil up to 12 m 157 m.

222

ANNEXURE: 12. RESULTS OF SURVEY OF SLUMS FOR OPTIONS FOR WASTE WATER DISPOSAL

Sr.

No. Name of Slum Ward

No. Location Land for On-site

Disposal Land for Decentralized

Treatment 1. Bilwali 1 Periphery Available in 30%mm of

houses Available on nalla bank

2. Brahamankheda 4 Outer ring Available in 40% ofhouses

Available on nalla bank and open fields

3. Jetpura 1 Periphery Available in 30% ofhouses.

Available on nalla bank

4. Sant Ravidas Nagar

2 Outer ring Available in 20% of houses.

Available in open spaces of layouts

5. Pandit Dindayal Nagar

4 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank and open fields

6. Kalukhedi 4 Outer ring Available in 40% ofhouses

Available in open fields

7. Naushrabad Colony

5 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank

8. Itava 6 Inner ring Available in 20% ofhouses

Available on nalla bank and open fields

9. Pandit Dindayal Nagar Zuggi

6 Inner ring Not available Available on nalla bank and open fields

10 Rajiv Nagar Zuggi Basti

8 Inner ring Available in 20% ofhouses.

Available on nalla bank

11 Mendki 11 Outer ring Available in 30% ofhouses

Available on nalla bank and open fields

12 Nanda Nagar 11 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank 13 Birakhedi

Indiranagar 14 Periphery Not available Available on nalla bank

and open fields 14 Sarvodaye Nagar 12 Outer ring Not available Available in open fields 15 Shankar Nagar 12 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank 16 Harijan Mohalla,

Vikas Nagar 12 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank

17 Shanti Nagar, Amona

13 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank

18 Amona 13 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank 19 Sanjay Nagar 14 Periphery Not available Available on nalla bank 20 Binjana Gaon 14 Periphery Not available Available on nalla bank

and open fields 21 Binjana Bhatta 14 Periphery Not available Available on nalla bank

and open fields 22 Rasulpur 15 Outer ring Available in 30% of

houses Available on nalla bank

and open fields 23 Bawdiya 16 Inner ring Not available Available on nalla bank 24 Kabitwale Baba

Basti 17 Inner ring Not available Available on nalla bank

25 Navdurga Nagar 17 Inner ring Not available Not available 26 Idukhan Colony 16 Inner ring Not available Available on nallah bank 27 Yaasin Basti 21 Inner ring Not available Not available 28 Sadashiv Nagar

Gali No. 2 22 Core area Not available Not available

29 Sadashiv Nagar Gali No. 3

22 Core area Not available Not available

30 Ambedkar Nagar Basti

27 Inner ring Not available Available on nalla bank

31 Nai Aabadi 23 Core area Not available Available on nalla bank 32 Pashuhaat Basti 21 Inner ring Not available Not available 33 Jabran Colony 21 Inner ring Not available Not available 34 Gajanand Colony 27 Inner ring Not available Not available 35 Indra Nagar

Colony 26 Inner ring Not available Not available

36 Ariena Chetra Bagri Mohallah

30 Core area Not available Available in open land

37 Sant Vinobha Bhave Nagar

30 Core area Not available Not available

38 Balaai Mohallah 38 Outer ring Not available Available in open fields 39 Someshvar Mandir

Ke Samip Basti 21 Inner ring Not available Not available

40 Radhaganj Gali No. 4

30 Core area Not available Not available

223

Sr. No.

Name of Slum Ward No.

Location Land for On-site Disposal

Land for Decentralized Treatment

41 Jabran Colony 24 Core area Not available Not available 42 Bihari Ganj 24 Core area Not available Not available 43 Mataji Road 24 Core area Not available Not available 44 Bhawani Sagar 31 Core area Not available Not available 45 Sutaar Bakhal Gali

No. 1 34 Core area Not available Not available

46 Sutaar Bakhal Gali No. 2

33 Core area Not available Not available

47 Uslaampura 34 Core area Not available Not available 48 Mithi Kundi Gali

Kshetra 34 Core area Not available Not available

49 Bhagatsingh Goyaa

34 Core area Not available Not available

50 Hanuman Baakhal 35 Core area Not available Not available 51 Mirza Baakhal 36 Core area Not available Not available 52 Mosinpura 37 Core area Not available Not available 53 Vaarsi Nagar 38 Outer ring Not available Available on nalla bank

and open fields 54 Revabaag 38 Outer ring Not available Not available 55 Revabaag Nevri

Road Basti 38 Outer ring Not available Not available

56 Pathaan Kuwan 37 Core area Not available Not available 57 Choprda Kshetra 39 Outer ring Not available Not available 58 Bherguard 39 Outer ring Not available Not available 59 Muktimaargh Gali

No. 3 40 Core area Not available Not available

60 Jaibharat Nagar 39 Outer ring Not available Not available 61 Vishnu Gali 39 Outer ring Not available Not available 62 Ganga Bawrdi 39 Outer ring Not available Available in open land 63 Maheshwari Gali 39 Outer ring Not available Not available 64 Khari Bawrdi 40 Core area Not available Not available 65 Muktimargh & Mali

Mohallah 40 Core area Not available Not available

66 Todi Mohallah 41 Core area Not available Not available 67 Parmanand Colony

Mukti Margh 39 Periphery Not available Not available

68 Momintola, Vishnu Gali

40 Core area Not available Not available

69 Kati Ghazi 40 Core area Not available Not available 70 Malhar Road Todi 41 Core area Not available Not available 71 Shantipura Basti 41 Core area Not available Not available 72 Joshipura 41 Core area Not available Not available 73 Shantipura Nai

Colony 41 Core area Not available Not available

74 Shankargardh Malhaar Road Basti

42 Outer ring Not available Available in open land

75 Labour Colony 42 Outer ring Not available Available in open land 76 Shankar Gardh 42 Outer ring Not available Available in open land 77 Chuna Khadaan 43 Outer ring Not available Available in open land 78 Balgardh, Nai

Aabadi 43 Outer ring Not available Available in open land

79 Palnagar, Anvatpura

44 Periphery Available in 20% ofhouses

Available in open field along nalla

80 Rajiv Nagar 14 Periphery Not available Available in open field along nalla

81 Nagda 45 Periphery Available in 20% ofhouses

Available in open field along nalla

224

ANNEXURE: 13. PROPOSAL OF DECENTRALIZED AND CENTRALIZED WASTE WATER SYSTEMS

Wards Population Waste Water Flow (MLD) 2011 2021 2031 2041 2011 2021 2031 2041

A. Wards Suitable for Decentralized Systems 1 5,295 5,852 6,656 8,850 0.572 0.632 0.719 0.9562 11,198 14,731 20,805 31,094 1.209 1.591 2.247 3.3584 6,161 6,809 7,745 9,022 0.665 0.735 0.836 0.9745 5,825 7,050 9,957 13,240 0.629 0.761 1.075 1.430

11 5,400 5,968 7,608 10,116 0.583 0.645 0.822 1.09314(P) 2,700 3,000 3,400 4,500 0.292 0.324 0.367 0.48643 5,061 5,594 6,362 8,460 0.547 0.604 0.687 0.91444 5,095 5,631 6,406 7,460 0.550 0.608 0.692 0.80645 4,954 5,475 6,228 7,254 0.535 0.591 0.673 0.783

Total of A 51,689 60,110 75,167 99,996 5.582 6.492 8.118 10.800

B. Wards Suitable for Decentralized Systems, but Near to Proposed Central Sewer Network

6 8,708 11,481 16,215 21,561 0.940 1.240 1.751 2.3297 13,449 17,691 24,986 33,223 1.452 1.911 2.698 3.5888 6,028 7,930 10,109 11,776 0.651 0.856 1.092 1.2729 8,327 10,954 13,965 16,267 0.899 1.183 1.508 1.757

10 7,686 10,110 12,890 15,014 0.830 1.092 1.392 1.62212 11,721 15,419 19,658 22,898 1.266 1.665 2.123 2.47313 7,381 9,709 13,713 20,494 0.797 1.049 1.481 2.213

14(P) 2,643 2,905 3,316 4,930 0.285 0.314 0.358 0.53215 6,164 7,460 10,536 15,746 0.666 0.806 1.138 1.70116 8,420 10,191 14,393 16,765 0.909 1.101 1.554 1.81117 10,911 14,353 18,298 21,315 1.178 1.550 1.976 2.30218 4,999 6,051 8,545 11,363 0.540 0.654 0.923 1.22719 10,799 14,205 18,110 21,095 1.166 1.534 1.956 2.27820 5,365 6,494 7,386 8,604 0.579 0.701 0.798 0.92938 6,594 8,674 12,251 18,309 0.712 0.937 1.323 1.97739 4,115 4,981 6,350 8,443 0.444 0.538 0.686 0.91240 5,790 7,008 7,971 9,285 0.625 0.757 0.861 1.00341 6,121 8,052 9,158 10,668 0.661 0.870 0.989 1.15242 7,987 8,826 11,253 14,962 0.863 0.953 1.215 1.616

Total of B 143,208 182,494 239,103 302,718 15.466 19.709 25.823 32.694 C. Wards Suitable for Centralized System

21 5,644 6,830 7,769 9,052 0.610 0.738 0.839 0.97822 6,206 7,512 8,544 9,952 0.670 0.811 0.923 1.07523 4,313 5,220 5,937 6,916 0.466 0.564 0.641 0.74724 4,312 4,765 5,420 6,314 0.466 0.515 0.585 0.68225 4,660 5,640 6,415 7,472 0.503 0.609 0.693 0.80726 5,390 6,523 7,420 8,643 0.582 0.704 0.801 0.93327 4,694 5,188 5,901 6,874 0.507 0.560 0.637 0.74228 4,912 5,429 6,175 7,193 0.530 0.586 0.667 0.77729 7,214 7,972 9,068 10,563 0.779 0.861 0.979 1.14130 4,522 4,997 5,684 6,621 0.488 0.540 0.614 0.71531 5,211 6,307 7,174 8,357 0.563 0.681 0.775 0.90332 4,890 5,918 6,732 7,842 0.528 0.639 0.727 0.847

225

Wards Population Waste Water Flow (MLD)

2011 2021 2031 2041 2011 2021 2031 204133 4,328 5,239 5,959 6,941 0.467 0.566 0.644 0.75034 3,759 4,155 4,726 5,505 0.406 0.449 0.510 0.59535 3,106 3,432 3,904 4,548 0.335 0.371 0.422 0.49136 4,037 4,461 5,074 5,911 0.436 0.482 0.548 0.63837 5,325 6,445 7,331 8,540 0.575 0.696 0.792 0.922

Total Of C 82,523 96,033 109,233 127,244 8.912 10.372 11.797 13.742

Total A+B+C 277,420 338,637 423,503 529,958 29.961 36.573 45.738 57.235

226

ANNEXURE: 14. BROAD DETAILS OF WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (DECENTRALIZED AND CENTRALIZED)

A – Decentralized Systems in A Group Wards (Ref. Annexure 13)

Sr. No. Ward No. Approx. Length of

Sewer Network (km.)Sewage Treatment Proposal

2021 Population

Sewage Flow at 108 LPCD

STP Capacity (MLD)

1 1 (2 slums) 6 5,852 0.632 0.65 2 2 (1 slum) 10 14,731 1.591 1.60 3 4 (4 slums) 13 6,809 0.735 0.75 4 5 (1 slum) 6 7,050 0.761 0.75 5 11 (2 slums) 6 5,968 0.645 0.65 6 14(P) (2 slums) 4 3,000 0.324 0.33 7 43 (2 slums) 9 5,594 0.604 0.60 8 44 (2 slums) 9 5,631 0.608 0.60 9 45 (1 slum) 10 5,475 0.591 0.60 Total of A 73 60,110 6.492 6.53

B – Centralized Systems in B Group Wards (where decentralized systems are also Feasible, but centralized systems are economical due to nearness to sewers of central layout) (Ref. Annexure 13)

Sr. No. Ward No. Approx. Length of

Sewer Network (km.)Sewage Treatment Proposal

2031 Population

Sewage Flow at 108 LPCD

STP Capacity (MLD)

1 6 (2 slums) 8 16,215 1.751 2 7 9 24,986 2.698 3 8 (1 slum) 5 10,109 1.092 4 9 3 13,965 1.508 5 10 4 12,890 1.392 6 12 (3 slums) 14 19,658 2.123 7 13 (2 slums) 5 13,713 1.481 8 14(P) (3 slums) 5 3,316 0.358 9 15 (2 slums) 11 10,536 1.138 10 16 (2 slums) 6 14,393 1.554 11 17 (2 slums) 10 18,298 1.976 12 18 4 8,545 0.923 13 19 7 18,110 1.956 14 20 6 7,386 0.798 15 38 (4 slums) 7 12,251 1.323 16 39 (7 slums) 10 6,350 0.686 17 40 (5 slums) 8 7,971 0.861 18 41 (5 slums) 9 9,158 0.989 19 42 (3 slums) 8 11,253 1.215 Total of B 137 239,103 25.823 26.000

227

C – Centralized Systems in C Group Wards (where decentralized systems are not feasible and only centralized systems are required) (Ref. Annexure 13)

Sr. No. Ward No. Approx. Length of

Sewer Network (km.)Sewage Treatment Proposal

2031 Population

Sewage Flow at 108 LPCD

STP Capacity (MLD)

1 21 (3 slums) 6 7,769 0.839 2 22 4 8,544 0.923 3 23 (1 slum) 2 5,937 0.641 4 24 (3 slums) 4 5,420 0.585 5 25 2 6,415 0.693 6 26 (1 slum) 4 7,420 0.801 7 27 (2 slums) 2 5,901 0.637 8 28 3 6,175 0.667 9 29 7 9,068 0.979 10 30 (3 slums) 3 5,684 0.614 11 31 (1 slum) 3 7,174 0.775 12 32 4 6,732 0.727 13 33 (1 slum) 4 5.959 0.644 14 34 (4 slums) 4 4,726 0.510 15 35 (1 slum) 3 3,904 0.422 16 36 (1 slum) 3 5,074 0.548 17 37 (2 slums) 5 7,331 0.792

Total of C 66 109,233 11.797 12.000 Total of Group

B and C 276 348,336 37.620 38.000

Note – Ward 3, which accommodates only Bank Note Press, is not included in any of these three groups, as it has its own system.

228

ANNEXURE: 15. PROJECTION OF DEMAND OF ROADSIDE DRAINS

Ward No. Approx. Length of

Roads (km.) Existing Drains Additional

Drains Required (km.)

Coverage (%) Approx. Length (km.)

1 6 25 1.50 4.50 2 10 35 3.50 6.50 4 13 20 2.60 10.40 5 6 0 0 6 6 8 10 0.80 7.20 7 9 10 0.90 8.10 8 5 40 2 3 9 3 20 0.60 2.40 10 4 20 0.80 3.20 11 6 0 0 6 12 14 0 0 14 13 5 0 0 5 14 9 0 0 9 15 11 10 1.10 9.90 16 6 10 0.60 5.40 17 10 30 3 7 18 4 0 0 4 19 7 30 2.10 4.90 20 6 50 3 3 21 6 60 3.60 2.40 22 4 30 1.20 2.80 23 2 40 0.80 1.20 24 4 40 1.60 2.40 25 2 40 0.80 1.20 26 4 20 0.80 3.20 27 2 0 0 2 28 3 20 0.60 2.40 29 7 30 2.10 4.90 30 3 0 0 3 31 3 80 2.40 0.60 32 4 90 3.60 0.40 33 4 80 3.20 0.80 34 4 90 3.60 0.40 35 3 80 2.40 0.60 36 3 80 2.40 0.60 37 3 80 2.40 0.60 38 7 80 5.60 1.40 39 10 50 5 5 40 8 80 6.40 1.60 41 9 70 6.30 2.70 42 8 0 0 8 43 9 0 0 9 44 9 0 0 9 45 10 0 0 10

Total 273 77.30 195.70

229

ANNEXURE: 16. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Sr. No.

Item Immediate Action Plan

(Year 2011-14)

Short Term Plan (2015-21)

Medium Term Plan (2022-

2031)

Long Term Plan (2032-41)

1 Population 281,312 in 2011

342,917 in 2021

428,374 in 2031

535,126 in 2041

2 Incremental population 61,605 85,457 106,752

3 Household toilets (i) Strategy Make up for the

current deficiency

Add for incremental population

Add for incremental population

Add for incremental population

(ii) Quantity (No.) 3,000 680 940 1,175 (iii) Investment cost

(Rs.) 30,000,000 6,800,000 9,400,000 11,750,000

4 Public toilets (i) Strategy Make up for the

current deficiency

Add for incremental population

Add for incremental population

Add for incremental population

(ii) Quantity (Seats) 240 45 60 80 (iii) Investment cost

(Rs.) 12,000,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 4,000,000

5 Decentralized

sewerage

(a) Sewer network (i) Strategy Add for current

road network plus additional development

Add for incremental development

Add for incremental development

(ii) Quantity (km.) 73 + 16 21 28 (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 133,500,000 31,500,000 42,000,000 (b) Decentralized

treatment plants

(i) Strategy Add for 2021 population

Add for incremental population up to year 2041 or connect to central system

(ii) Quantity (MLD) 10.80 6 - (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 32,400,000 18,000,000 -

(c) Pumping stations (i) Strategy Add for 2021

population Add for incremental population up to year 2041

-

(ii) Quantity Lump-sum Lump-sum -

230

Sr. No.

Item Immediate Action Plan

(Year 2011-14)

Short Term Plan (2015-21)

Medium Term Plan (2022-

2031)

Long Term Plan (2032-41)

(iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 50,000,000 30,000,000 - Total investment cost

for decentralized systems

- 215,900,000 79,500,000 42,000,000

6 Centralized sewerage

(a) Sewer network (i) Strategy Add for current

plus incremental road length

Add for incremental road length

Add for incremental road length

(ii) Quantity (km.) 203 + 45 62 77 (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 620,000,000 155,000,000 192,500,000 (b) Main and

intercepting sewers

(i) Strategy Add for current plus incremental population

Add for incremental population

Add for incremental population

(ii) Quantity (km.) 15 + 3 5 6 (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 90,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 (c) Pumping system (i) Strategy Add for year

2031 population

Add for year 2041 population

-

(ii) Quantity Lump-sum Lump-sum (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 100,000,000 50,000,000 - (d) Treatment plants (i) Strategy Add for year

2031 population

Add for year 2041 population

(ii) Quantity (MLD) 38 10 (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 190,000,000 50,000,000 - Total investment cost

for centralized sewerage systems

1000,000,000 280,000,000 222,500,000

7 Storm water disposal (a) Secondary and

tertiary drains

(i) Strategy Make up for the current deficiency

Add for incremental areas

Add for incremental areas

Add for incremental areas

(ii) Quantity (km.) 195.70 60 83 104

231

Sr. No.

Item Immediate Action Plan

(Year 2011-14)

Short Term Plan (2015-21)

Medium Term Plan (2022-

2031)

Long Term Plan (2032-41)

(iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 293,550,000 90,000,000 124,500,000 156,000,000

(b) Primary drains (i) Strategy Make up for the

current deficiency

Add for incremental areas

Add for incremental areas

(ii) Quantity (km.) 10 10 10 (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 50,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 Total investment cost

for storm water disposal

293,550,000 140,000,000 174,500,000 206,000,000

8 Repairs and up-

gradation of existing sanitation works

(a) Public toilets (i) Strategy Make up for the

current deficiency

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

(ii) Quantity Lump-sum (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 2,000,000 (b) Existing sewer

network

(i) Strategy Make up for the current deficiency

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

(ii) Quantity Lump-sum (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 10,000,000 (c) Existing built-up

drains

(i) Strategy Make up for the current deficiency

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

If O&M improves, no capital investment will be required

(ii) Quantity Lump-sum (iii) Investment cost (Rs.) 30,000,000 - - -

232

Sr. No.

Item Immediate Action Plan

(Year 2011-14)

Short Term Plan (2015-21)

Medium Term Plan (2022-

2031)

Long Term Plan (2032-41)

Total investment cost for repairs and up-grading

42,000,000 - - -

Total investment cost

for sanitation works (Rs.) (3 to 8)

377,550,000 1,364,950,000 546,400,000 486,250,000

ANNEXURE: 17. DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN - CAPEX

Dewas City Sanitation Plan

(all figures in Rs. lacs)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-311 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Capex Inflation (Annual) 5%

Capital Investment - Waste Water Disposal

Household Toilets 150.00 157.50 165.38 173.64 11.81 12.40 13.02 13.67 14.35 15.07 15.82 15.31 16.08 16.88 17.73 18.61 19.54 20.52 21.54 22.62Public Toilets 25.13 26.38 27.70 29.09 3.91 4.10 4.31 4.52 4.75 4.99 5.24 5.13 5.39 5.66 5.94 6.24 6.55 6.88 7.22 7.58Decentralized Sewerage System 374.90 393.64 413.32 433.99 455.69 478.47 502.40 135.97 142.77 149.91 157.40 165.27 173.54 182.22 191.33 200.89Centralized Sewerage System 1736.44 1823.26 1914.42 2010.14 2110.65 2216.18 2326.99 478.90 502.84 527.98 554.38 582.10 611.20 641.77 673.85 707.55Storm Water Disposal System 733.88 770.57 809.10 849.55 243.10 255.26 268.02 281.42 295.49 310.27 325.78 298.45 313.38 329.05 345.50 362.77 380.91 399.96 419.96 440.95Repairs & Upgradation of Existing Sanitation System 105.00 110.25 115.76 121.55

Total Capex - Waste Water Disposal 1014.00 1064.70 1117.94 1173.83 2370.15 2488.66 2613.09 2743.75 2880.93 3024.98 3176.23 933.76 980.45 1029.47 1080.95 1135.00 1191.75 1251.33 1313.90 1379.59 33964.46

Capital Investment - Solid Waste Management

Primary Collection & Transport 275.50 289.28 44.10 46.31 48.62 166.43 174.75 183.49 192.66 202.29 164.19 172.40 181.02 190.07 199.58 247.25 259.62 272.60 286.23 300.54Workshop 13.00 13.65 3.32 3.48 3.66 3.84 4.03 3.46 3.64 3.82 4.01 4.21Treatment 84.16 88.37 92.78 16.29 17.10 17.96 18.86 19.80 13.86 14.55 15.28 16.04 16.85Sanitary Landfill 144.80 152.03 159.64 79.90 83.89 88.08 92.49 97.11 24.43 25.66 26.94 28.28 29.70 130.28 136.79 143.63 150.81 158.36Institutional Strengthening & Capacity building 6.50 6.50Feasibility Studies 10.50 10.50Miscellaneous 5.00 5.00

Total Capex - Solid Waste Management 310.50 324.93 273.05 286.71 301.04 249.64 262.12 275.23 288.99 303.44 204.91 215.16 225.92 237.21 249.08 394.86 414.60 435.33 457.10 479.95 6189.77

Solid Waste Management - Replacement

Home Compost Bins/Kits 1.80 3.85 4.04 4.42 7.09 4.59 9.82 10.31 11.28 18.10 8.06 17.23 18.09 19.79 31.76Litter Bins in Commercial Areas 4.79 5.03 1.06 5.82 6.11 12.22 12.83 2.69 14.86 15.60 21.44 22.51 4.73 26.08 27.38Motorized Tippers 28.96 91.23 51.09 53.64 7.05 36.96 116.44 105.95 196.83 80.88 122.65 158.52 52.00Containerized Cycle Rickshaws 3.11 0.34 0.23 0.37 0.27 3.97 0.43 3.34 0.71 0.51 4.34 0.71 3.97Containers at Community Waste Depots 67.09 44.10 18.04 18.94 85.62 134.00 77.14 43.12 25.38 114.74 256.71 146.49Dumper Placer Vehicles 372.88 130.46 524.68 183.57

Total Replacement Cost - Solid Waste Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.59 75.96 454.14 250.31 83.46 70.82 115.58 187.93 220.14 710.79 436.00 121.12 264.54 461.80 261.60 3720.79

Total Capex 1324.50 1389.63 1390.99 1460.54 2671.19 2744.88 2951.17 3473.12 3420.23 3411.88 3451.97 1264.51 1394.30 1486.83 2040.81 1965.85 1727.47 1951.21 2232.80 2121.14 43875.02

Financing Plan

Govt of India 70% 927.15 972.74 973.69 1022.38 1869.83 1921.42 2065.82 2431.18 2394.16 2388.32 2416.38 885.16 976.01 1040.78 1428.57 1376.10 1209.23 1365.85 1562.96 1484.80 30712.51Govt of Madhya Pradesh 20% 264.90 277.93 278.20 292.11 534.24 548.98 590.23 694.62 684.05 682.38 690.39 252.90 278.86 297.37 408.16 393.17 345.49 390.24 446.56 424.23 8775.00

Capex to be Financed by Dewas Municipal Corp. 10% 132.45 138.96 139.10 146.05 267.12 274.49 295.12 347.31 342.02 341.19 345.20 126.45 139.43 148.68 204.08 196.59 172.75 195.12 223.28 212.11 4387.50

ANNEXURE: 18. DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN - O&M

Dewas City Sanitation Plan

(all figures in Rs. lacs)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-311 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

O&M Inflation (Annual) 7%

Waste Water Disposal - O&M Exp. 5.33% 54.05 118.55 182.31 249.25 384.42 526.35 675.38 831.86 996.16 1168.68 1349.82 1403.08 1458.99 1517.71 1579.35 1644.08 1712.05 1783.41 1858.35 1937.03

Municipal Solid Waste - O&M Exp. 2% 764.00 833.83 850.51 867.52 884.87 902.56 920.62 939.03 957.81 976.96 996.50 1016.43 1036.76 1057.50 1078.65 1102.92 1127.73 1153.11 1179.05 1205.58

Total O&M Exp. 818.05 952.38 1032.81 1116.77 1269.29 1428.92 1596.00 1770.89 1953.97 2145.64 2346.33 2419.51 2495.76 2575.20 2658.00 2747.00 2839.78 2936.52 3037.40 3142.61

Exp. Currently Being Incurred by DMC on MSW 301.11 322.19 344.74 368.87 394.69 422.32 451.88 483.51 517.36 553.58 592.33 633.79 678.15 725.63 776.42 830.77 888.92 951.15 1017.73 1088.97

Total Incremental O&M Exp. 516.94 630.19 688.07 747.90 874.60 1006.60 1144.11 1287.37 1436.61 1592.07 1754.00 1785.72 1817.60 1849.58 1881.58 1916.23 1950.86 1985.37 2019.67 2053.64

ANNEXURE: 19. DEWAS CITY SANITATION PLAN - FINANCIAL MODEL

Dewas City Sanitation Plan

(all figures in Rs. lacs)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-311 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

DMC Total Receipts 5319.93 5205.93 5810.93 6496.98 7078.35 7918.54 8623.72 9400.71 10257.07 11055.60 12223.81 13167.97 14194.89 15312.03 16527.53 17080.27 18519.94 20087.13 21793.43 23651.46(without scheme specific receipts)

DMC - Operating Exp. (incl. Interest & Debt Repayment) 3675.39 4020.60 4477.20 4994.72 5489.02 6039.01 6650.82 7331.25 8087.85 8773.88 9214.73 10044.05 10948.02 11933.34 13007.34 14178.00 15454.02 16844.88 18360.92 20013.40

DMC - Funds Available for Capex & Incremental 1644.53 1185.33 1333.73 1502.26 1589.33 1879.53 1972.90 2069.45 2169.22 2281.72 3009.09 3123.92 3246.88 3378.70 3520.19 2902.27 3065.92 3242.25 3432.51 3638.06O&M Exp.

Incremental O&M Exp. Required 516.94 630.19 688.07 747.90 874.60 1006.60 1144.11 1287.37 1436.61 1592.07 1754.00 1785.72 1817.60 1849.58 1881.58 1916.23 1950.86 1985.37 2019.67 2053.64

User Charges for Waste Water 50% of water charges 572.05 657.86 756.54 824.63 898.84 979.74 1067.92 1164.03 1257.15 1357.72 1466.34 1583.65 1710.34 1847.17 1994.94 2154.54 2326.90 2513.05

User Charges for MSW 30 Rs. per month per hhd 108.00 110.16 123.60 126.07 141.45 144.28 161.88 165.12 185.27 188.97 212.03 216.27 242.65 247.50 277.70 283.25 317.81 324.17 363.7160% of a total of 50,000 hhds10% incr. every 3rd year2% population increase p.a.

DMC Funds Available for Capex 1127.60 663.13 1327.87 1535.82 1597.34 1839.01 1871.91 1923.70 1965.65 2038.95 2701.21 2907.94 3111.88 3355.42 3596.46 3110.90 3393.25 3729.23 4063.90 4461.18

Waste Water & MSW Capex - DMC's Contribution 132.45 138.96 139.10 146.05 267.12 274.49 295.12 347.31 342.02 341.19 345.20 126.45 139.43 148.68 204.08 196.59 172.75 195.12 223.28 212.11

Funds Available with DMC for other Capex 995.15 524.17 1188.77 1389.77 1330.23 1564.53 1576.79 1576.39 1623.62 1697.76 2356.01 2781.49 2972.45 3206.74 3392.38 2914.32 3220.51 3534.11 3840.62 4249.07

Annexure: 20. DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

DEWAS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

(all figures in Rs.'000) 2010 - 2015 2016 - 2020 2021 - 20312004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 % of Total % of Total CAGR (%) CAGR (%) CAGR (%) CAGR (%) 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31

Receipts 2006-07 2009-10 Receipts

Property Tax 22048.8 30815.4 34524.4 45465.6 55398.3 38082.9 12.53% 9.92% 11.55% Property Tax 11% 9% 8% 42272.0 46921.9 52083.4 57812.5 64171.9 69947.4 76242.6 83104.5 90583.9 98736.4 106635.3 115166.2 124379.5 134329.8 145076.2 156682.3 169216.9 182754.2 197374.6 213164.5 230217.7 Arrears Collection 7841 16800 20751 19861.1 28878.8 14521.2 Arrears Collection Collection against Current Demand 9294.9 10514.2 10987 16405.6 21342.1 23561.7 Collection against Current Demand Consolidated (Street lighting, Fire & Street Sweeping) Tax 4912.9 3501.2 2786.4 9198.9 5177.4 Consolidated (Street Lighting, Fire & Street Sweeping) TaxWater Tax & Connection Charges 10646.1 9482.8 11109.1 10743.6 8360.7 7009.4 4.03% 1.83% -8.02% Water Tax & Connection Charges 15% 9% 8% 8060.8 34269.9 114410.4 131572.0 151307.8 164925.5 179768.8 195948.0 213583.3 232805.8 251430.2 271544.7 293268.2 316729.7 342068.1 369433.5 398988.2 430907.2 465379.8 502610.2 542819.0 Arrears Collection 5138.1 2470.7 3298.4 3562.5 1633.4 1219.7 Arrears Collection Collection against Current Demand 4222.6 5623.9 5842.1 6405.8 5904.1 5251.8 Collection against Current Demand New Conection Fees 1285.4 1388.2 1968.6 775.3 823.2 537.9 New Conection FeesOctroi - Received from State Gov't. 27785.8 31353.3 84700.1 44022 103831.3 77812.9 30.74% 20.27% 22.87% Octroi - Received from State Gov't. 15% 12% 10% 89484.8 102907.6 118343.7 136095.2 156509.5 175290.7 196325.6 219884.6 246270.8 275823.3 303405.6 333746.2 367120.8 403832.9 444216.1 488637.8 537501.5 591251.7 650376.9 715414.5 786956.0Passenger Tax - received from State Govt. 8417.2 8510.8 14155 13330 18252.7 20240.5 5.14% 5.27% 19.18% Passenger Tax - Received from State Gov't. 15% 12% 10% 23276.6 26768.1 30783.3 35400.8 40710.9 45596.2 51067.7 57195.8 64059.4 71746.5 78921.1 86813.2 95494.6 105044.0 115548.4 127103.3 139813.6 153794.9 169174.4 186091.9 204701.1Auditorium Exhibition Tax 10 61.2 125 Auditorium Exhibition TaxAdvertisement Tax 32.4 35.4 413.7 41.4 248.5 266.4 Advertisement Tax 11% 9% 8% 295.7 328.2 364.3 404.4 448.9 489.3 533.3 581.3 633.7 690.7 745.9 805.6 870.1 939.7 1014.8 1096.0 1183.7 1278.4 1380.7 1491.1 1610.4City Development Tax 2029.4 City Development TaxEducation Tax 1363.1 937.5 Education Tax 11% 9% 8% 1040.6 1155.1 1282.2 1423.2 1579.7 1721.9 1876.9 2045.8 2229.9 2430.6 2625.1 2835.1 3061.9 3306.8 3571.4 3857.1 4165.7 4498.9 4858.8 5247.5 5667.3"Samekit" Tax 3414.4 "Samekit" Tax 11% 9% 8% 3790.0 4206.9 4669.6 5183.3 5753.5 6271.3 6835.7 7450.9 8121.5 8852.4 9560.6 10325.5 11151.5 12043.6 13007.1 14047.7 15171.5 16385.2 17696.0 19111.7 20640.6Market Fees 1401.2 1766.5 1696.1 2089 2090 Market FeesFixed Land Rental 516.8 496.8 806.2 420.4 730.9 Fixed Land RentalWarrant Fees 0.015 0.01 0.2 29.9 Warrant Fees"Kanji House" (Cattle House) Receipt 4.7 3.2 1.8 0.3 8.1 "Kanji House" (Cattle House) ReceiptBuilding Approval Fees 748 466.5 723.2 851 777.7 Building Approval FeesDevelopment Charges 3438.2 1171 860.3 817.1 465.8 1191.1 Development Charges 11% 9% 8% 1322.1 1467.6 1629.0 1808.2 2007.1 2187.7 2384.6 2599.2 2833.1 3088.1 3335.2 3602.0 3890.2 4201.4 4537.5 4900.5 5292.5 5715.9 6173.2 6667.0 7200.4Stamp Duty - Received from State Gov't. 3789 4550.3 5368.5 7942.5 11389 10189.9 1.95% 2.65% 21.88% Stamp Duty - Received from State Govt. 15% 12% 10% 11718.4 13476.1 15497.6 17822.2 20495.5 22955.0 25709.6 28794.7 32250.1 36120.1 39732.1 43705.4 48075.9 52883.5 58171.8 63989.0 70387.9 77426.7 85169.4 93686.3 103054.9Rentals from DMC Properties (incl. shops) 2420.4 1761 1991.25 1665.2 6470.8 9422.8 0.72% 2.45% 31.24% Rentals from DMC Properties (incl. shops) 11% 9% 8% 10459.3 11609.8 12886.9 14304.5 15878.0 17307.0 18864.6 20562.4 22413.0 24430.2 26384.6 28495.4 30775.0 33237.0 35896.0 38767.7 41869.1 45218.6 48836.1 52743.0 56962.5Fees from Permission for Sale of Fertilizers, etc. 266 427.5 553.5 768.1 Fees from permission for sale of fertilizers, etc.Registration Fees 368.24 363.9 395.2 476.7 Registration FeesShop License Fees 87.7 75.2 89.8 129.4 1330.1 Shop License FeesComputer Bill Services Charge 65.4 49.4 Computer Bill Services ChargeOther License Fees 370.7 246.3 647 1440.3 852.9 Other License FeesFees for Providing Certified Copies of Documents 4.9 6.1 7.8 12.7 7.7 Fees for Providing Certified Copies of DocumentsRoyalty 1244.3 RoyaltyContractor License Fees 17.5 1.5 Contractor License FeesRight of Occupation Rental 57.3 875.3 1226.7 Right of Occupation RentalAuction Fees of Waste Water 38 Auction Fees of Waste WaterFees & User Charges 20499.9 Fees & User Charges 11% 9% 8% 22754.9 25257.9 28036.3 31120.3 34543.5 37652.4 41041.2 44734.9 48761.0 53149.5 57401.5 61993.6 66953.1 72309.3 78094.0 84341.6 91088.9 98376.0 106246.1 114745.8 123925.4Grant against Penal Charges within DMC Area 119 1037.1 44 Grant against Penal Charges within DMC AreaInterest Income 547.9 315.6 286.3 2224.6 1583 2730.3 Interest Income 5% 3% 2% 2866.8 3010.2 3160.7 3318.7 3484.6 3589.2 3696.8 3807.8 3922.0 4039.6 4120.4 4202.8 4286.9 4372.6 4460.1 4549.3 4640.3 4733.1 4827.7 4924.3 5022.8Tax on Sale of Construction Material 468.7 15.6 97.7 60.8 Tax on Sale of Construction MaterialMiscellaneous 1371 1277.5 4235.9 2076.8 2926.9 834.9 Miscellaneous 11% 9% 8% 926.7 1028.7 1141.8 1267.4 1406.9 1533.5 1671.5 1821.9 1985.9 2164.6 2337.8 2524.8 2726.8 2944.9 3180.5 3435.0 3709.8 4006.6 4327.1 4673.3 5047.1Total Own Source Receipts & Receipts from State Govt. 84937.56 93245.61 164575.45 135939.3 219535.6 192632.9 59.74% 50.18% 17.79% Total Own Source Receipts & Receipts from State Gov't. 22.92% 10.04% 8.97% 218268.8 272408.0 384289.1 437532.7 498297.8 549467.0 606018.9 668531.9 737647.5 814077.9 886635.6 965760.4 1052054.3 1146175.3 1248842.1 1360840.6 1483029.5 1616347.5 1761820.8 1920571.2 2093825.3

Total Own source Receipt 44945.555 48831.21 60351.85 70644.8 86062.6 84389.6 21.91% 21.98% 13.43% Total Own source Receipt

Grant & Assigned Receipt Grant & Assigned ReceiptState Finance Commission - General 28194.7 16852.3 11339.8 13894.4 9823.7 6.12% 2.56% State Finance Commission - General 80000.0 40000.0 40000.0 40000.0 40000.0 40000.0 60000.0 60000.0 60000.0 60000.0 60000.0 90000.0 90000.0 90000.0 90000.0 90000.0 13000.0 13000.0 13000.0 13000.0 13000.012th Finance Commission 50554 69847 86534.7 69861.7 18.35% 18.20% 12th Finance CommissionMadhya Pradesh Local Area Development Fund 2339.1 1890 Madhya Pradesh Local Area Development Fund 5% 3% 2% 1984.5 2083.7 2187.9 2297.3 2412.2 2484.5 2559.1 2635.8 2714.9 2796.4 2852.3 2909.3 2967.5 3026.9 3087.4 3149.2 3212.1 3276.4 3341.9 3408.8 3476.9Grant from State Govt. Grant from State Gov't.Consolidated Facility for Specific Plan 14083.5 21689.3 27223.8 33335.4 47134.8 9.88% 12.28% 27.33% Consolidated Facility for Specific Plan 9% 8% 6% 51376.9 56000.9 61040.9 66534.6 72522.7 78324.6 84590.5 91357.8 98666.4 106559.7 112953.3 119730.5 126914.3 134529.1 142600.9 151157.0 160226.4 169840.0 180030.3 190832.2 202282.1Water Scarcity 1999 1917.1 4500 3605.4 250 -100.00% Water ScarcityMid-day Meal 5317.9 5543.1 Mid-day MealFrom Surcharge 1489.4 From SurchargeRoad Repair & Maintenance 29453.7 6206.9 11530.2 8446.1 6117.8 2.25% 1.59% -26.97% Road Repair & Maintenance MP/MLA Fund 3916.9 1600 3850 MP/MLA FundIHSDP 5200 300 IHSDPPublic Support Scheme 14555.3 6879.5 Public Support SchemeNational Information System 180 National Information SystemStadium Construction/Development 4000 Stadium Construction/DevelopmentU.R.I.F. 2500 4997.5 U.R.I.F.UIDSSMT 2497.5 131332.5 35000 UIDSSMT 130000.0 130000.0Others 57134.4 8688.4 Others 5% 3% 2% 30000.0 31500.0 33075.0 34728.8 36465.2 37559.1 38685.9 39846.5 41041.9 42273.1 43118.6 43981.0 44860.6 45757.8 46673.0 47606.4 48558.6 49529.7 50520.3 51530.7 52561.3Total Grant & Assigned Receipt 50736.2 55718 110926.4 141332.8 323654.4 191239 40.26% 49.82% 30.39% Total Grant & Assigned Receipt 293361.4 259584.6 136303.8 143560.7 151400.1 158368.2 185835.5 193840.1 202423.2 211629.2 218924.2 256620.8 264742.4 273313.8 282361.3 291912.5 224997.1 235646.1 246892.6 258771.7 271320.4

Total Receipt 135673.76 148963.61 275501.85 277272.10 543190.00 383871.90 23.12% Total Receipt 511630.2 531992.6 520593.0 581093.4 649697.9 707835.2 791854.4 862372.0 940070.7 1025707.1 1105559.7 1222381.2 1316796.7 1419489.1 1531203.4 1652753.2 1708026.6 1851993.6 2008713.4 2179342.9 2365145.7

Expenditure Expenditure

General Administration 14479.10 16743.30 29394.40 22348.20 184214.80 254318.40 65.14% 61.75% 32.72% General Administration 13% 11% 9% 287379.8 324739.2 360460.5 407320.3 460272.0 510901.9 567101.1 629482.2 698725.3 775585.1 845387.7 921472.6 1004405.1 1094801.6 1193333.7 1300733.8 1417799.8 1545401.8 1684488.0 1836091.9 2001340.1Exp. for Corporators & Officers 1432.80 1273.80 1417.20 3290.40 2523.70 Exp. for Corporators & OfficersOffice Expenses & Ssalaries for Officers 3609.50 3490.10 3395.30 3484.40 Office Expenses & Salaries for OfficersOffice Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Treasury Dep't. 4312.80 4740.00 4035.10 6103.30 Office Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Treasury Dep't.Office Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Octroi & Border tax Dep't. 1947.10 2181.30 2315.40 2505.40 Office Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Octroi & Border Tax Dep't.Office Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Other Taxes Dep't. 533.70 608.20 693.20 644.80 Office Expenses & Salaries for Staff of Other Taxes Dep't.Wages & Salaries, incl. Bonus, Training, Leave Encashment, etc. 85158.20 110252.10 26.77% Wages & Salaries, incl. Bonus, Training, Leave Encashment, etc.Pension 11529.60 21235.10 392.40 0.10% PensionUniform, etc. 10.30 96.60 111.40 Uniform, etc.Miscellaneous Administrative Exp. 751.00 1866.80 2711.00 3427.20 57908.20 Miscellaneous Administrative ExpPetrol/Diesel for Vehicles & Vehicle Maintenance 725.30 1780.20 1255.40 1248.50 5079.40 Petrol/Diesel for Vehicles & Vehicle MaintenanceVehicle Hiring Charges 46.30 103.00 261.70 Vehicle Hiring ChargesElectricity Charges 30389.60 Electricity ChargesRental Charges 6293.60 Rental ChargesElection Exp. 127.00 2.30 778.80 Election Exp.Stationary Exp. 636.40 427.50 687.50 528.40 1850.20 2524.70 Stationary Exp.Water Charges 22043.60 Water ChargesRepair & Maintenance Charges 31685.00 60156.90 14.61% Repair & Maintenance ChargesExp. on Maintenance of Office Equipment 341.20 264.00 362.80 30.50 Exp. on Maintenance of Office EquipmentComputerisation & e-Governance-related Exp. 597.70 674.00 Computerisation & e-Governance-related Exp.Benefit Offered to Employee Family on His/Her Death 62.30 98.80 22.40 196.90 Benefit Offered to Employee Family on His/Her DeathCost of Collection of Taxes, Fees, incl. Bill Distribution 228.90 Cost of Collection of Taxes, Fees, incl. Bill DistributionFire Brigade 3832.90 5569.40 3801.20 5300.40 Fire BrigadeStreet Lighting 4812.20 5869.40 6759.70 8280.10 2479.00 Street Lighting

Public Health & Facilities Public Health & FacilitiesWater Supply 28775.94 39734.32 59436.83 46101.50 0.00 0.00 Water Supply General Admin. 17006.00 17043.60 24707.30 31328.40 General Admin. Electricity 632.30 1891.10 15545.10 2369.30 Electricity Alum Bleaching 1164.40 714.80 1158.90 2374.60 Alum Bleaching Repair & Maintenance 5943.60 17121.60 7904.70 8203.50 Repair & Maintenance Maintenance of Narmada Line & Payment to Indore MC 4029.64 2963.22 10120.83 1825.70 Maintenance of Narmada Line & Payment to Indore MC Capex 5615.62 15177.71 16443.25 80413.96 9350.00 12325.80 Capex New Works - Water Shortage 4272.10 13541.21 14195.10 13421.00 9350.00 12325.80 New Works - Water Shortage Kshipra "Arvadhan" Scheme 60.60 736.40 448.10 37460.80 Kshipra "Arvadhan" Scheme Rajanal Water Supply Scheme 1282.92 900.10 1004.80 28699.50 Rajanal Water Supply Scheme Construction of Water Tank at Labour Colony & Sump-well at 5 Locations 795.25 832.66 Construction of Water Tank at Labour Colony & Sump-well at 5 Locations

Sanitation 6933.39 6731.35 6702.55 7065.33 0.00 0.00 Sanitation General Admin. 5669.82 5719.11 6138.86 6772.18 General Admin. Others 1263.57 1012.24 563.69 293.15 Others

Public Health 19282.84 22260.31 30837.71 34865.65 0.00 0.00 Public Health General Admin. - Toilets 1540.88 1651.60 4607.25 3604.04 General Admin. - Toilets Street Sweeping/Cleaning & Drain Cleaning 19108.96 14507.95 22456.32 26317.34 11.26% Street Sweeping/Cleaning & Drain Cleaning Solid Waste Management 1147.95 Solid Waste Management Construction of New Drains 1610.47 3123.29 3774.14 3796.32 Construction of New Drains

Market & Abattoir 310.26 329.03 543.60 925.47 0.00 0.00 Market & Abattoir General Admin. 310.26 329.03 378.65 623.42 General Admin. Construction of Markets & Commercial Shops 164.95 302.05 Construction of Markets & Commercial Shops

Kanji House & Community Centre - Construction & Repair 150.70 432.36 101.43 113.01 Kanji House & Community Centre - Construction & RepairTree Plantation, Public Parks, Open Grounds, etc. 924.52 1215.32 941.24 1213.88 Tree Plantation, Public Parks, Open Grounds, etc.Development of Road Crossings 543.29 153.57 Development of Road CrossingsConstruction of Tree-guards, etc. 59.77 215.31 486.94 1471.86 Construction of Tree-guards, etc.Community Welfare Works 673.25 517.60 601.53 542.81 Community Welfare WorksMayor's Fund 48.50 41.50 Mayor's Fund Veterninary Exp. 0.48 0.44 0.48 0.48 Veterninary Exp.

Public Works Public Works General Admin. 5921.34 6605.36 7992.38 8989.52 General Admin. Construction & Repair of Buildings & Mayor/Officer's Residences 790.10 903.73 560.85 2667.38 18846.60 22580.60 0.27% 5.48% Construction & Repair of Buildings & Mayor/Officer's Residences Road - Construction & Repair, incl. Concretization 16533.70 18158.37 24784.53 32090.60 36045.60 30500.00 11.77% 7.40% Road - Construction & Repair, incl. Concretization Other - Works & Repair (Shopping Complexes, Markets, Chamu 2472.57 5008.26 8854.88 6185.80 4769.50 4.20% 1.16% Other - Works & repair (Shopping Complexes, Markets, Chamunda Hill, etc.) Others - Development Works from MP/MLA Funds 132.58 Others - Development Works from MP/MLA Funds

Development & Improvement of Slums Development & Improvement of Slums Land Acquisition 100.00 Land Acquisition Repair of Road by Metalizing (non-concrete) 36.12 43.87 321.77 Repair of Road by Metalizing (non-concrete) Miscellaneous Construction (Street Lighting, Graveyards, etc.) 2074.05 700.94 5545.37 7132.37 131764.80 75746.70 2.63% 18.39% Miscellaneous Construction (Street Lighting, Graveyards, etc.) Singhasth Scheme 4510.50 10.83 Singhasth Scheme

UIDSSMT Scheme 1389.72 649.20 UIDSSMT Scheme12th Finance Commission Developments 6244.35 12th Finance Commission DevelopmentsIHSDP Scheme IHSDP SchemeMid-day Meal 6493.70 Mid-day MealPublic Education 273.46 49.16 128.02 81.00 Public EducationInterest Paid 2650.40 Interest Paid 12% 22800.00 21600.00 20400.00 19200.00 18000.00 16800.00 15600.00 14400.00 13200.00 12000.00Debt Repayment Debt Repayment 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00 20000.00Miscellaneous 3065.79 4084.70 6678.40 4675.97 49881.40 20.00 Miscellaneous

Total Expenditure 121773.56 152327.83 210639.16 277834.18 430103.20 411884.10 27.60% Total Expenditure 287379.79 367539.16 402060.47 447720.33 499471.98 548901.90 603901.10 665082.23 733125.27 808785.05 877387.70 921472.60 1004405.13 1094801.59 1193333.74 1300733.77 1417799.81 1545401.80 1684487.96 1836091.87 2001340.14

Surplus/Deficit 13900.20 -3364.22 64862.69 -562.08 113086.80 -28012.20 Surplus/Deficit

Total Expenditure less Capex 89876.59 104806.90 145642.38 139955.40 209155.50 265951.50 24.23% Total Expenditure less Capex

Funds Available for Capex 45797.17 44156.71 129859.47 137316.71 334034.50 117920.40 20.82% Funds Available for Capex 224250.4 164453.4 118532.5 133373.0 150225.9 158933.3 187953.3 197289.8 206945.5 216922.1 228172.0 300908.6 312391.6 324687.5 337869.7 352019.4 290226.8 306591.8 324225.5 343251.0 363805.6

Capex 31896.98 47520.93 64996.78 137878.79 220947.70 145932.60 35.54% Capex

Operating Surplus -4939.03 -11561.29 18933.07 -4016.10 10380.10 -73318.60 Operating Surplus