URBAN CRISIS IN INDIA:
NEW INITIATIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES
By
P.G.Dhar Chakrabarti
Urban India in Crisis
India no longer lives in villages. At the dawn of the new millennium, 305 million Indians lived
in its nearly 3700 towns and cities, in sharp contrast to only 60 millions in 1947 when the
country became Independent. During the last fifty years the population of India has grown two
and half times, but Urban India has grown by nearly five times. In absolute terms, India's urban
population is second largest in the world after China, and is almost twice the combined urban
population of France, Germany and United Kingdom.
Yet in relative terms India is still one of the less urbanised among the developing countries,
with less than 30% of its population living in urban areas, as compared to 80 % in Brazil, 45 %
in Egypt and even 35 % in neighbouring Pakistan. But the scenario is changing fast.
While the rate of growth of population in the country is declining (from 2.16% in 1991 to % in
1999) urban population is growing at a faster rate (from 3.1% in 1991 to 3.6% in 1999) and the
demographers believe that it may grow even faster in the coming years. The urban population
is estimated to swell to 410 million in 2011, 550 million in 2021 and 800 million in 2041 when
it will surpass that of China. At that point urban India will be larger than the total population of
the whole of Europe.
There has not been adequate appreciation of this explosive situation at the national and
international level. Certain disconcerting features of India‟s urban experience need to be
focused to highlight the implications on the sustainability of the growth.
First, there has been large imbalance and disparities in the spatial patterns of urbanisation in
terms of both inter-region and size-class distribution. While the western States of Maharastra -
Goa - Gujrat have reached an urbanisation level of nearly 40%, the eastern States of Orissa and
Bihar are far lagging behind at 13%. This has been both a cause and a consequence of
inter-regional migration. Surplus labour force from the relatively impoverished regions are
crowding the growing urban centres in search of employment and the process will continue
unabated unless employment opportunities are created in the rural areas of backward States. It
is interesting to note that 39.9% of urban growth in India has been induced by migration from
the rural areas and much of it has been dictated more by the absence of opportunities in rural
areas than by the presence of such opportunities in the urban areas. Instead of contributing to
the urban growth such this has only impoverished the urban areas. Therefore sustainability of
urban growth in the Indian context is very strongly related to the development of rural areas,
especially in the backward pockets.
1
The imbalance in the size- class distribution of cities is another factor, which is contributing to
the abnormal growth of bigger cities many of which are on the verge of break down while
smaller cities are lacking in the adequate impetus for growth. Intra city migration from smaller
to bigger cities is continuing along with the migration from the rural to the urban areas. The
Government scheme of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) does
not seem to have been able to reverse this trend. The following table will indicate the growth
pattern of cities in India.
Y Classes of Indian Cities All
E Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI Classes
A I, 00,000 50,000 - 20,000 - 10,000 5,000 - 5,000
R + 99,000 49,999 -19,999 -9,999
1
9 27.5 Ml 6.1 ml 9.7 ml 8.4 ml 8.0 Ml 1.9 ml 61.6 m
5 (44.6%) (10.0%) 15.7%) (13.6%) (13.0%) (3.1%) 100%
1
1
9 139.1 ml 23.4 ml 28.1 ml 16.6 ml 5.5 ml 0.6 ml 213.3
9 (65.2%) (11.0%) (13.1%) (7.8 %) (2.6%) (0.3%) 100%
1
The percentage share of population living in Class I cities in India has sharply increased from
44.6% in 1951 to 65.2% in 1991, but it has declined in all other types, except in Class II towns
which has remained more or less the same. Again within the Class I cities, the share of
population in Metropolitan (million plus) and Mega Cities (ten million plus) have been
disproportionately higher. About one-third of urban India is already living in metropolitan
cities and the share is expected to go up to 60% in another two decades. Out of the total increase
in the country's urban population of 58 million between 1981 and 1991, 44 million were added
to Class I cities alone out of which 28 million additions took place in metropolitan cities. The
number of metropolitan cities in the country has grown from 1 in 1901 to 5 in 1951 to 23 in
1991 and it is estimated that it will further go up to 40 by 2001, 52 by 2011 and 75 by 2021.
Similarly the number of India‟s Mega Cities shall double from three at present (Calcutta,
Mumbai and Delhi) to six by the year 2021 (new additions will be Chennai, Bangalore and
Hyderabad) when India will have the largest concentration of Mega Cities anywhere in the
world.
The unplanned and uncontrolled growth of large cities has had negative effects on urban
dwellers and their environment. The provision of infrastructure facilities and services, required
to support large concentration of population, is lagging far behind the pace of urbanisation. As
a consequence the urban environment, particularly in large cities, is deteriorating rapidly. All
the cities and towns are facing serious shortage of power, water, sewerage, developed land,
housing, transportation, communication and other facilities.
The imperfections in the land and housing markets and exorbitant increases in land prices and
rates have virtually left the urban poor with no alternative except seeking informal solution to
their housing problems leading to mushrooming of slums. About one third of the urban
2
dwellers are living below poverty line under sub human conditions in the slums, which do not
have the basic minimum facilities of drinking water, sanitation, medical care and public
hygiene. The disparities in the living conditions between slums and other areas are a potential
cause of crime and social unrest in the large cities, which are no longer considered safe haven.
Although as per official statistics 85% of urban population has been provided with safe
drinking water facilities, the average water availability is less than 4 hours per day and in some
of the critical areas water is supplied only for one hour on the alternate days. Many people are
forced to access water from unsafe sources, which have led to widespread waterborne diseases
like diarrhoea, hepatitis, roundworm etc, which are having a telling effect on public health and
hygiene. A recent study has indicated that about 30.5 million Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALY) are lost each year due to poor quality of drinking water and absence of sanitation
facilities. The financial loss in terms of productivity has been quantified at Rs 360 billion (US
$ 9 Billion) annually.
Only 49% of the population in the cities have sanitation facilities and the rest use either dry
latrines or defecate in the open. Out of 3700 towns in the country only 72 have partial
sewerage facilities and 17 have some form of primary treatment facilities before final disposal.
About 39 million tonnes of solid waste is generated in the urban areas every day and not more
than 60% is collected daily, leading to accumulation and decomposition of waste in public
places with all the adverse effects it has on public health. There is no arrangement of processing
of waste except in a few cities where composting is done in a limited scale.
City road space per passenger car unit (PCU) is consistently on the decline in all the cities.
Traffic congestion is assuming critical dimensions in many metropolitan cities due to massive
increase in the number of personalised vehicles, inadequate road space and lack of public
transport. The result is extreme congestion on the roads, ever slowing speeds, increasing
accident rate, fuel wastage and environmental pollution. Air pollution related health problems
are reaching disconcerting proportion in some of the cities.
Unless a massive investment is made to significantly improve the urban infrastructure and
living conditions most of the cities in India are heading for a major crisis. The Ninth Plan
Working Group has estimated the investment requirement for housing in urban areas at Rs.528
billion in the five years. The India Infrastructure Report, 1996 estimates the annual investment
need for urban water supply, sanitation and roads at about Rs 280 billion for the next ten years.
The Central Public Health Engineering (CPHEEO) has estimated the requirement of Rs.1729
billion for 100 percent coverage of the urban population under safe water supply and sanitation
services. Estimates by Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) indicate that the
amount required for urban transport infrastructure investment in cities with population 100,000
or more during the next 20 years would be of the order of Rs.2070 billion. As against this, the
combined investment of Central, State and Local authorities from budgetary as well as
institutional sources (both domestic and foreign) on housing - water supply - sanitation –
transport is around Rs 80 billion annually, i.e., less than 10% of the requirement. This sums up
the colossal urban problem of India. With each passing day the problem assumes more critical
dimension.
Sustainable Cities : Philosophy and Context
3
What would a sustainable city mean in the context of this urban crisis, which has brought the
large cities on the verge of breaking point?
Oxford English Dictionary has defined sustainable as “the ability to be maintained at a certain
rate or level”. Therefore there is no fixed standard of sustainability, which would vary
according to the context in which it is defined. The standard of sustainability would differ
country to country according to the level of development. Environmentalists have given a more
neutral and stringent standard of sustainability as “conservation of an ecological balance by
avoiding depletion of natural resources”. In the urban context this would mean the resources of
pure air, water, soil, the flora, the fauna and the like.
The environmental perspective of sustainability is both too large and too narrow. Large in the
sense that it goes back to the purity of nature and sets a standard which may make almost
three-fourth of human settlements as unsustainable. Narrow in the sense that it leaves out the
humanity and the complex of issues, which have locked human development into the stage in
which it is. Since human development has not followed a uniform standard it is futile and
unrealistic to set a uniform standard of sustainability of cities irrespective of the level of
development.
Probably a more pragmatic and realistic way of looking a sustainable city is the one, which can
maintain the physical, human and environmental standard which it has consciously set for itself
and which has the capacity, resources and capability to achieve it. This calls for sustainability
of governance and of sustainability of resources without which sustainable city is only a
slogan.
Cities of India are facing the accumulation of past neglect when both the governance and
resource issues were relegated to the background, when the affairs of the city were not left to
the citizens but to the extraneous forces of party politics and of bureaucratic interference, when
State control and proliferation of parastatal agencies marginalized the role of city governments,
when cheap populist measures overshadowed sound financial considerations, when a kind of
urban laissez faire prevailed over discipline and control, when a culture of subsidy and
concession were allowed to rule over cost effectiveness, when responsible and capable urban
leadership were not allowed to develop, when capacity development of urban managers were
not thought of. Urban crisis in India is an accumulation of years of managerial crisis of the
urban local bodies. A sustainable city can be built not on the largesse of provincial or state
governments or assistance from the donor countries, but on the initiative of the local citizens, of
the involvement and commitment of the local community, of the vision and understanding of
the local leaders, of the capacity and capability of local managers.
All these are the essential ingredients of successful local self-government, but unfortunately,
despite India‟s strong and vibrant democracy at the provincial and national level, city level
democracy was not allowed to flourish. City governments were treated more as an appendage
of provincial government than as government on their own right. This is somewhat ironical
since the institutional machinery of city governments was set up in the country as early as the
middle of nineteenth century and some of the great national leaders in the pre independence
days had their apprenticeship of leadership in the city governments.
Initiatives for Urban Reform
4
The first model of city government in India was set up by the British. The considerations were
two fold, to allow the „natives‟ to rule over their own local affairs as a strategy to absorb dissent
and to allow only a limited autonomy for maintaining “control” over the larger policy issues.
The statutes governing the city governments underwent change after the independence, but the
“control” on the urban local bodies continued. The provincial governments were given
overriding powers to sanction municipal budget, to approve municipal taxation, to take away
municipal functions, to set up parastatal organisations to deal with such functions, and even to
suspend and dissolve municipal governments for an indefinite period. The result, the city
governments lost their importance and initiative and became an appendage of the state
governments. The party politics at the state level were transferred at the city level and city level
consensus on the major issues were not allowed to develop. In short, the citizens remained
alienated from their governance.
The first major initiative to reform urban governance was taken in 1992 when the Constitution
of India was amended (74th Amendment) to incorporate certain revolutionary changes in the
organisation, powers, functions and jurisdictions of the urban local bodies. First, for the first
time, the city governments were given a constitutional status and released from the shackles of
provincial governments. The Constitution of India formally recognised the City Government as
the third tier of Government below the State and Central Governments.
Second, the overriding powers of State Governments to suspend or dissolve City Governments
were done away with. If at all City Government has to be dissolved, fresh election must be held
and a new elected body must be in place within a period of six months from the date of
dissolution. Therefore the era of prolonged suspension of civic bodies came to an end.
Third, the Constitution provided that apart from the city level Councillors, Wardens shall also
be elected by the citizens at the ward level and Ward Committees shall be set up to have closer
interaction with the citizens so that involvement of the community at the grass root level with
the city governance is institutionalised.
Fourth, the Constitution defined the powers of the civic bodies and appended a separate
Schedule, which enlisted the functions, which will rest on the civic bodies. These are:
Urban planning including town planning
Regulation of land use and construction of buildings
Planning of social and economic development
Roads and bridges
Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes
Public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management
Fire services
Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects
Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society including the handicapped and
the mentally retarded
Slum improvement and up gradation
Urban poverty alleviation
Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks, gardens, playgrounds
Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects
Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths
5
Public amenities including street lighting, parking lots, bus stand and public
convenience
Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries
Fifth, the Constitution stipulated that every State shall by a statute assign to the City
Governments such taxes, duties, tolls which will be levied, collected and appropriated by them
and further, to ensure that the City Governments are not discriminated in the allocation of
resources, the Constitution further provided that every State shall constitute a State Finance
Commission to decide the resources that will devolve from the State to the City Governments
so as to enable them to discharge effectively the functions entrusted to them.
All these are revolutionary changes, which will serve to revitalise the City Governments in the
long run, but the pace of implementation of the reforms has been so abysmally slow and tardy
that the impact of the changes are yet to be felt. Although elections to all the urban local bodies,
except in two States have been held, most of the State Governments have either enacted a set of
new Municipal laws or amended the existing laws to bring them in conformity with the
constitutional changes and reports of many of the State Finance Commissions have also been,
considerable confusions still persist with regard to the functions and jurisdictions of the City
Governments. A host of parastatal bodies set up in each State to deal with important functions
like water supply, sewerage, urban planning, housing etc have not been brought under the
jurisdiction of the civic bodies. Similarly, the line departments of the State Government
continue to deal with many functions, which have been assigned to the Cities. On the financial
side, there has not been much devolution of resources primarily because there has not been
much devolution of functions and responsibilities. Therefore the amendment to the
Constitution notwithstanding, a syndrome of maintenance of status quo is still prevailing
largely due to the consideration that parastatal bodies have their own statutory character and
expertise, which civic bodies do not have. Yet no significant effort has been made for the
capacity building of the civic bodies.
The urban reform agenda, in terms of taxation and financial reform, institutional reform,
unbundling of services, privatisation, etc which should have followed the constitutional
changes have either not taken place at all in most of the cities or initiated only at a slow pace in
a few cities. The result is continuance of poor urban governance in most of the cities.
There was considerable scope for mopping up sizeable resources from the cities through
reforms in the system of property tax assessment and collection, and rationalisation of utility
charges, but there is no incentive for the city government to take such unpopular measures,
since most of the utilities are managed by the State and managed so inefficiently that it will take
a lot of courage to break the coterie of vested interests that run them. The will and vision to do
so is not forthcoming.
A truncated urban government cannot be expected to push the reform agenda and transform
the cities into self-sustainable units of governance. What is possibly required is a reform in the
reform process before it is too late. If the push does not come from the top it will bound to come
from the bottom.
6
Sustainable Technology
Despite the constraints of poor urban governance, there has been some headway for the
adoption and propagation of a few innovative, low cost and environmentally sustainable
technologies for solving some of the pressing urban problems of the country. This has been
made possible due to the efforts made by a few individuals and organisations and by the
financial grants from the Government and soft credit from the financial institutions. But the
spread of these technologies have been severely restricted due to the poor urban governance, an
inefficient delivery system for reaching out the incentives and non-involvement of civil society
in any meaningful manner for creation of the awareness of the benefits and efficacy of these
technologies. Three major initiatives taken in this regard are the techniques of low cost
sanitation, low cost housing and rainwater harvesting.
Low Cost Sanitation
The low cost sanitation movement has taken some inroads in India not only to provide an
affordable solution to the problem of open defecation in the cities but also to do away with the
demeaning practice of manual scavenging of human excreta, which have been carried out
hereditarily by lowly placed social caste. Mahatma had started his political career with a
campaign to liberate the scavengers, but it was not until 1993 that manual scavenging was
declared illegal by an Act of Parliament and since then the Government of India have taken up
a massive programme of conversion of dry latrines into pour-flush latrines in the urban areas
and rehabilitation of the scavengers.
The pour-flush latrine consists of a) a squatting pan of special design, b) a trap with a 20 mm
water seal to prevent the emission of foul smell and fly/mosquito nuisance, c) two leaching pits
which retain solid matter and allow liquid to leach and gases to disperse into the ground, and d)
an interconnecting system between pits and trap. The excreta are carried into subsurface leach
pits through pipes or covered drains and one pit is used at a time. The liquid infiltrates into the
soil through the holes in the pit lining. The gases also disperse into the soil, and therefore the
provision of a vent pipe for its outlet is not necessary. When the one pit is full, the excreta are
diverted automatically to the second pit. The filled chamber can be conveniently emptied after
a rest period of one and a half years, during which pathogens are activated and the organic
matter decomposed. Thus the two pits can be used alternatively and continuously.
A five user pour-flush latrine costs as low as Rs 4,500 (equivalent to US $ 10), while a ten-user
unit shall cost Rs. 8000.
The pour-flush water seal latrines are low in cost but involve high technology. They comprise a
collection, transmission, and treatment system all rolled into one on-site facility, which is
hygienic, safe and satisfactory. In addition, the technology is internally and externally
upgradeable, meaning thereby that the toilet interiors can be upgraded to accommodate
improved systems such as the incremental flush. Furthermore, the system has potential for
external connection to sewers in the future, if enhanced water supply levels and sewerage can
be afforded.
Since 1989-90, the Government of India has been supporting the low cost sanitation
technology under a centrally sponsored scheme of Liberation of Scavengers, with a mix of
subsidy and soft loan, which varies in scale according to the paying capacity of the user:
7
User Category Subsidy Loan User Contribution
Economically Weaker Sections 45% 50% 5%
Low Income Group 25% 60% 15%
High Income group Nil 75% 25%
The programme has been taken up on a “whole town basis” so that the problem is solved for
the town once for all and the scavengers do not return to their original occupation.
Simultaneously, a massive programme of rehabilitation of scavengers has been taken up to
train them to pursue alternate vocation and support them with soft credit for setting up micro
enterprises.
In most of the towns the survey and identification of dry latrines, location and design of pour
flush latrines and supervision of construction have been entrusted to the engineering wing of
the civic bodies. NGOs, CVOs and self help groups have been involved in a few cities, but
more as agencies of execution rather as partners or stakeholders of the programme. This has not
helped the growth of NGO movement but only encouraged the emergence of fake
organisations that have mostly been working as surrogate contractors under the guise of
voluntary organisations.
During the last decade since the scheme was taken up nine hundred thousand low cost
sanitation units have been constructed in the country, and thirty thousand scavengers liberated
from the inhuman practice of manual scavenging of excreta. But this does not mean that the
problem has been solved. There are still sixty three hundred thousand more dry latrines, which
are yet to be converted into pour-flush latrines, and until these take place the problem of
manual scavenging shall persist despite the legal restrictions on the employment of scavengers.
Here again, the problem is one of both resources and management. It is estimated that a subsidy
of Rs 6300 million and soft credit of Rs 2520 million shall be required to convert all the dry
latrines. As against this, the Government provides an annual allocation of Rs 270 million as
subsidy and Rs 1080 million as loan. The irony is that even this meagre amount is not fully
utilised, and an accumulated unspent subsidy of Rs 1000 million has reportedly accrued till the
end of the financial year 1999-2000. This definitely points to the abysmal poor capacity of the
urban local bodies and low involvement of civil society for the implementation of such socially
relevant and environmentally sustainable revolutionary schemes.
Low Cost Housing
8
The Building Centre movement of India for the promotion of low cost housing technology is
another example of how technology can intervene into the problem of low resources. High land
prices and cost of construction have driven many urban poor to seek refuge in the proliferating
urban slums, which dangerously lack the basic amenities of sanitation, drinking water,
drainage etc. It is estimated that about 100 million city dwellers live in the slums. While at
many places where the slums have in existence for many years the emphasis has been to take up
in situ development works to provide the basic amenities, at most other places alternate land
has been allotted by the city agencies at a subsidized rate for the resettlement of the slum
dwellers. Government of India has set a target of construction of seven hundred thousand
additional houses every year for the economically weaker sections and low-income groups in
the urban areas.
Lot of research input has gone into the development of low cost construction and design
technology so that the cost of shelter can be cut down and the poor people can afford to own a
shelter of their own. The thrust of this initiative has been to recycle various industrial,
agricultural and domestic wastes for development of new building materials, which are
affordable, sustainable, and environment friendly. Some of these new materials that have been
developed are :
Waste Materials Building Materials
Industrial Waste
1. Fly and bottom ash from thermal power plants Bricks
2. Cement factory waste Asbestos
3. Basalt, slate and laterite stone waste Blast furnace slag
4. Coal washery waste Copper/ferroalloy slag
5. Gypsum mine waste Iron tailings
6. Limestone waste/lime sludge Low grade aggregates
7. Mica scrap Phospogypsum
8. Red mud/bauxite waste Steel making slags
Agricultural Waste
1. Rice husk, jute stalk, bagasse Insulation boards, panels,
Roofing sheets
Domestic Waste
1. Used paper, boards, cartoons, plastic bags Fence posts, roofing sheet
These new materials are not only energy efficient and environment friendly, these are highly
cost effective as well. Compared to the conventional building materials these have price
preference of 25 to 30 per cent and energy efficiency factor of 15 to 20 per cent not only in the
manufacturing process but also in the end uses.
In order to stimulate the increased production of low cost building materials the Government of
India have extended a package of fiscal incentives such as total exemption of excise duty on the
production of low cost building materials and components at the Building Centres, 25%
9
exemption of such duty in the organized industrial sector, reduction in the custom duty on the
import of equipment, machinery and capital goods required for the production of building
materials using flyash and phosphogypsum , total exemption of excise duty on the doors,
windows etc made from aluminum, steel, plastics and other materials which substitute the use
of wood so that the pressure on precious forest products can be reduced.
Considerable research work has also gone into the development of small machines for
production of building materials at a small scale. An autonomous organization called Building
Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) was set up with the responsibility of
coordinating the research efforts in this direction. The Council has developed a number of
machines, which have become quite popular with the users. These are RCC doors and window
frames making machine, stabilized mud-blocks making machine, sand-lime-fly ash bricks
making machine, clay-fly ash bricks making machine, red-mud jute polymer door shutter
making machine, coal stoker system for conventional brick kiln, finger jointing and shaping
machine for plantation timber, corrugated roofing sheets making machine based on bamboo
etc.
Innovative building designs, such as interlocked cluster housing, organized common spaces,
incremental house design etc have been introduced to effect economy in the ground coverage,
reduction in the cost of construction, while at the same time bringing in better aesthetics in low
income group housing.
Recognizing the propagation and extension of new cost-effective and energy efficient building
technologies at the grass root level as a difficult area requiring an innovative approach, a
scheme for setting up a national network of Building Centers was launched in 1988-89. So far
400 Building Centers have been set up in the district towns in the country. These Centers are
promoting cost-effective building materials based on locally available raw materials and
wastes by providing variety of services which include dissemination and demonstration of cost
effective technologies, training of artisans, entrepreneurs and small contractors, counseling to
householders, and production of low cost materials and components to meet local needs of
housing construction. A number of Centers are also undertaking production of new building
materials and components. Encouraged with the results of the efforts by the Centers,
Government of India has now decided to establish such Centers in rural areas in every district
of the country. Many of the artisans trained in the Building Centers have set up their Production
Units to cater to the local needs.
But despite all these initiatives it cannot be said that low cost housing technology has replaced
the conventional technology for construction of poor man‟s dwellings. Out of the total housing
stock of economically weaker sections that were constructed during last one decade not even
10% would have adopted the new technology and materials.
Rain Water Harvesting
Excessive extraction of ground water and limited open area for recharge in some of the cities in
India have resulted in sharp decline in the water table, which is manifested in failure in of tube
wells, deterioration in ground water quality, saline water ingress etc. The problem has become
acute in some of the cities, especially during summer, when potable water has to be carried
from distant sources at a heavy cost and harsh water ration has to be introduced. Water strife
and riots have become regular features in some of the towns of western and southern India
10
during the summer months. In Rajkot the police has been asked to supervise the distribution of
water supply to avoid violence and clashes amongst the residents.
In the National Capital Territory of Delhi only 2.8 million cubic meters of water can be
supplied per day for domestic use against the demand of 4.88 mcm. The available surface water
from the river Yamuna is grossly insufficient and therefore heavy reliance is placed on the
ground water. Unplanned withdrawal of ground water has resulted in fall in water level and
deterioration in quality of ground water at many places. Ironically Delhi receives around 600
mm rainfall during monsoons but most of it is drained into the river with little recharge to the
sub-surface since most of the surface is either occupied by buildings or roads.
The Central Ground Water Board, in collaboration with Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
had taken up Experimental Artificial Recharge Studies (EARS) and based on the results of the
experiment an extremely viable and sustainable technology of recharging the ground water is
now available to augment the availability of water in deficit areas. This technology has reached
a take off stage and already a few water deficit cities have operationalised schemes for
application of the technology.
The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority has made Roof Top Rain Water Harvesting
(RTRWH) mandatory for all institutional and public buildings to augment subsurface storage.
More and more private building owners in deficit pockets are also adopting this technology.
The technology is simple, affordable and can be adopted at the neighborhood or even building
level. The roof top rainwater can be channelised into abandoned dug well or abandoned or
running hand pump. Alternatively recharge pit, shaft or trench with appropriate specifications
can be dug at a corner of the house or a group of houses. It has been found that ground water
recharge from houses of 100 sqm of rooftop in average monsoon condition will be 55000 liters
in one year, which is sufficient for a period of four months for a family of five members. This is
a simple and innovative technology, which is very relevant in the context of cities of the
developing countries, which do not have either adequate resources for mega schemes or the
sources for assured water supply to its citizens. This technology is yet to be adopted on a large
scale in our cities. As yet there is no central scheme or incentive for propagation of this
technology.
All these three technologies are cost effective and sustainable in the Indian context, but despite
sizeable Government support with financial incentives the technologies have not been adopted
at a very large scale in the urban areas. This is only a pointer to the poor urban governance and
poor capacity of urban delivery system to implement such innovative technologies and focuses
the centrality of urban reform for building capacity for city governance. Without sustainable
urban governance cities can never have sustainable resource base for sustainable development
and the promise of the new technologies shall remain unfulfilled.
References :
1. Urban India in Crisis, ed by Kulwant Singh & Florian Steinberg, New Delhi, 1996
2. State of India‟s Urbanization, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, 1988
11
3. Report of National Commission of Urbanization, New Delhi, 1988
4. Technical Guidance on Twin Pit Pour Flush Latrines, UNDP, 1992
5. Guidelines for Sanitation Schemes, HUDCO Technical Circular No. 177, 1988
6. Rooftop Rain Water Harvesting for Augmenting Ground Water Storage, Central
Ground Water Board, 1998
7. Low Cost Building Materials and Technology, BMTPC, 1996.
12