Faecal Sludge Management Report

Cover & Inside Cover: WaterAid/Jon Spaull
A report by
4
Foreword
WaterAid has been promoting Ministry of Urban Development, and various

Urban Sanitation in developing national and international experts on sanitation
during the ‘India WASH Summit – Solutions
countries in recent years. In
for Swachh Bharat’ in early 2015 is also an
the process, Faecal Sludge example of our growing interest in dealing with
Management has been this issue.
increasingly acknowledged
as a major challenge. In this context, WaterAid India initiated a
research study on ‘Urban WASH: An Assessment
Faecal Sludge Management has also been of Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) Policies
identified as a central challenge in achieving and Programmes at the national and select
the vision of an ‘Open Defecation Free’ states level’ in order to have a country-wide
India. Therefore, working on and building perspective on FSM and guide the policy
up solutions to challenges of Faecal Sludge advocacy work on FSM within WaterAid
Management finds a very important place in the India. The study was carried out by WaterAid
overall WaterAid India Urban WASH strategy India with support from its partners ExNoRa
released in the year 2014. Following up on the International with WASHNET in Tamil Nadu and
increased focus on Faecal Sludge management consultants Praxis Institute for Participatory
by WaterAid India, there were a range of Practices, Chennai.
research and urban sanitation policy advocacy
measures initiated in recent times. The I do hope that the assessments and
internationally acclaimed collaboration with recommendations of this study will be useful
the University of Delaware and the invention for policy makers workers and practitioners
and field testing of Eco Vapour Toilets using alike, both within WaterAid India and outside,
vapour permeable membranes in the slums of in marching ahead to achieve the mission of
Kanpur, the field testing and research of the Open Defecation Free India through engaging
DRDO bio-digester toilets in schools of Kanpur and dealing with the complex issues of Faecal
and Puri, and using the Reed bed technology in Sludge Management.
Delhi for the treatment of wastewater are few
such examples. The policy advocacy for Faecal Neeraj Jain
Sludge Management and on-site sanitation Chief Executive
options to reach the unreached in urban India
by bringing together a key ministry namely, the
5
acknowledgements
WaterAid India would like to A special thanks to Mr. V. Ganapathy,
acknowledge and express sincere Mr. M. Veliappan, and Mr. T. Vijay Anand
thanks to the communities and officials for their valuable inputs and support during
from across the Municipalities (namely the study. We would also like to express our
Gudalur, Mannarkudi, Nagerkoil, Pollachi, thanks to Praxis Institute for Participatory
Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, Practices, Chennai for work done in developing
Perambalur, Pudukottai, and Mayavaram) and the research framework, research tools,
Town Panchayats (namely Alwarthirunagari, data analysis and report finalisation. We
Kotagiri, Kunnathur, Needamangalam, acknowledge the technical support of the
Mamallapuram, Perundurai, Keeranur, following WaterAid staff in conceptualising
Manachanallur, Avinashi, Tharangampadi) and undertaking this study: Mr. Remi
where the study was conducted. We would Kaupp (Programme Officer, PSU, WaterAid
also like to express our special thanks to Mr. UK); Mr. Arjen Naafs (Regional Technical
Rajendra Ratnoo, Director of Town Panchayats Advisor, WaterAid UK); Mr. Puneet Srivastava
and other officers from the Directorate of Town (Manager- Urban WASH, WaterAid India); Mr.
Panchayats and Municipal Administration, George Vergese (Ex Programme Coordinator,
Government of Tamil Nadu for their continuous WaterAid India); and Dr. Nidhi Pasi (Research
support, cooperation and keen involvement Coordinator- WASH, WaterAid India), who was
during the entire process. The study was also responsible for the overall coordination of
facilitated by the unstinting support of the team the study. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge
members of ExNoRa International and CSOs the overall guidance and support from Mr.
within WASHNET-TN network during Nitya Jacob, Head of Policy; Mr. Avinash
the fieldwork and data collection. Kumar, Director, Programme and Policy and Mr.
Neeraj Jain, Chief Executive, WaterAid India in
carrying out this study for the benefit of larger
policy discourse on Faecal Sludge Management
(FSM) in India and to the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation for financing and supporting this
study.
6
Faecal Sludge Management
Contents
7 Abbreviations
8 List of Annexures
9 List of Appendices
9 List of Tables
10 List of Figures
11 Executive Summary
32 Chapter 1: Introduction
37 Chapter 2: National Review
54 Chapter 3: State Level Review
55 a. Delhi
60 b. Gujarat
67 c. Madhya Pradesh
72 d. Maharashtra
79 e. Uttar Pradesh
85 f. Tamil Nadu
92 Chapter 4: Analysis of the Field Study conducted in Tamil Nadu
92 4A: Findings from Town Panchayats
112 4B: Findings from Municipalities
136 Chapter 5: Water Contamination and its Health Impact in Tamil Nadu
140 Chapter 6: Conclusion and the Way Forward
155 Annexures and Appendices
7
Abbreviations
AIILSG All India Institute of Local Self-Government 

BSUP Basic Services to the Urban Poor
CEPT Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology 
CO Chief Officer 
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation
CSPs City Sanitation Plans
DC District Committee 
DPR Detailed Project Report
FS Faecal Sludge
FSM Faecal Sludge Management
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
GoM Government of Maharashtra 
GR Government Resolution 
IS Indian Standard
JnNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
MC Municipal Corporation
MCI Municipal Councils
MDWS Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation
MGJWSSP Maharashtra Golden Jubilee Water Supply and Sanitation Programme
MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
MGSM Mahatma Gandhi Swachhata Mission
MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority 
MHUPA Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
MLD Million Litres per Day
MMR Mumbai Metropolitan Region 
MMRDA Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority 
Mn Million 
MoUD Ministry of Urban Development
MPCB Maharashtra Pollution Control Board 
MSNC Maharashtra Sujal Nirmal Campaign 
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MWRRA Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority 
NBA Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan
NCRPB National Capital Region Planning Board
8
NRCD National River Conservation Directorate

NRW Nonrevenue Water
NSSO National Sample Survey Office
NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy
O&M Operations and Maintenance 
ODF Open Defecation Free 
PAS Performance Assessment System (Project)
PHED Public Health Engineering Department
SC Scheduled Caste(s)
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SWM Solid Waste Management
TP Town Panchayat
TPVD Town Planning and Valuation Department 
TSC Total Sanitation Campaign
UDD Urban Development Department 
UGS Underground Sewage
UIDSSMT Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns
ULBs Urban Local Bodies
UMC Urban Management Centre
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WATSAN Water and Sanitation
WSP Water and Sanitation Programme
WSS Water Supply and Sanitation
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WW Wastewater
List of Annexures
156 Tables for Town Panchayats and Municipalities
160 Map of Study Areas
161 Number of Water Sources Contaminated (Faecal Coliform)
162 Important Findings on FSM in ten Town Panchayats and Municipalities

9
List of Appendices
169 Tables for State Review
171 Administrative Profile and Structure of Town Panchayats
174 Administrative Profile and Structure of Municipalities
List of Tables
17 Table 1: Types of Toilet Facilities in Urban Areas
18 Table 2: Overview of the main legal and institutional situation related to FSM in India
39 Table 3: Availability and Type of Latrine Facilities
44 Table 4: Summary of STPs in Class-I cities and Class-II towns in India
45 Table 5: State-wise treatment capacity and capacity utilisation
46 Table 6: Milestones in Sanitation
73 Table 7: Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity
74 Table 8: Key institutions and functional responsibilities for urban sanitation management in
Maharashtra
81 Table 9: Status of sanitation in urban local bodies
93 Table 10: Profile of Town panchayats
94 Table 11: Water Requirement, Wastewater Generation and Faecal Sludge Generation – Town
Panchayats
95 Table 12: Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems – Town Panchayats
97 Table 13: Frequency of Faecal Sludge Collection – Town Panchayats
98 Table 14: Cost for emptying FS per load (in Rupees) – Town Panchayats
99 Table 15: Places of FS Disposal – Town Panchayats
100 Table 16: Issues in FS Collection Systems – Town Panchayats
101 Table 17: Challenges in FS Disposal –Town Panchayats
104 Table 18: Profile of Private Service Providers – Town Panchayats
105 Table 19: Profile of Services Offered by Private Service Providers - Town Panchayats
106 Table 20: Places of FS Disposal and Related Challenges - Town Panchayats
107 Table 21: Support required from the State and Town Panchayats
108 Table 22: Responses to Septic Collection Systems used by Neighbours

109 Table 23: Frequency of cleaning and choice of service provider
111 Table 24: Impact of poor FSM on Community
113 Table 25: Profile of Municipalities
114 Table 26: Water Requirement, Wastewater Generation and Faecal Sludge Generation - Municipalities
115 Table 27: Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems - Municipalities
117 Table 28: Frequency of faecal sludge collection – Municipalities
118 Table 29: Cost for Emptying FS per Load (in Rupees) - Municipalities
119 Table 30: Places of FS Disposal - Municipalities
120 Table 31: Issues in FS Collection Systems - Municipalities
123 Table 32: Challenges in FS Disposal - Municipalities
125 Table 33: Profile of Private Service Providers – Municipalities
126 Table 34: Profile of Services Offered by Private Service Providers - Municipalities
127 Table 35: Places of FS Disposal and Related Challenges - Municipalities
128 Table 36: Support required from State and Municipalities
130 Table 37: Frequency of cleaning and choice of service provider - Municipalities
131 Table 38: Impact of poor FSM on Community - Municipalities
138 Table 39: Faecal Coliform Contamination in Tamil Nadu
139 Table 40: Details of cases and deaths due to ADD/Cholera in Tamil Nadu
List of Figures
13 Figure 1: Routes of Faecal Sludge Generation
15 Figure 2: Types of Latrine facilities - India
42 Figure 3: Sewerage generation and treatment capacities in Class-1 and Class-II cities
94 Figure 4: Types of Latrine facilities in Town Panchayats
115 Figure 5: Types of Latrine Facilities in Municipalities

11
Executive Summary
The Swachh Bharat Mission – Urban is the most recent effort of the
Government to improve urban sanitation. Pegged at about ` 63,000
crore over five years, this aims at providing sanitation facilities to city
dwellers. Urban sanitation was not a priority until the early 1990s. And
it was not until the inception of the National Urban Sanitation Policy
(NUSP) in 20081, that urban sanitation was allotted focused attention at
the national level. The ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’, launched on 2 October,
2014, aims to ensure access to sanitation facilities (including toilets,
solid and liquid waste disposal systems, and village cleanliness) and
safe and adequate drinking water supply to every person by 2019.
1 National Urban Sanitation Policy, 2008, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
Available at http://indiagovernance.gov.in/files/NUSP.pdf
12
dump it in drains, waterways, open land

and agricultural fields.
One the major challenges
in urban sanitation is the Faecal Sludge (FS) comprises
collection, treatment and varying concentrations of
disposal or reuse of Faecal settleable or settled solids
Sludge. Adequate facilities as well as other non-faecal
and services for collection, matter that is collected from
transportation, treatment on-site sanitation systems,
and disposal of faecal such as latrines, non-sewered
sludge do not exist in most public toilets, septic tanks
Indian cities and towns. and aqua privies. Faecal
sludge from septic tanks
Most of the on-site sanitation systems (OSS)
are emptied manually in the absence of
is specifically termed as
suitable facilities. Ideally, a septic tank septage.
system should be cleaned every one and
half to three years as per the Central Public Although there are some differences,
Health and Environmental Engineering sewage sludge is, to some extent,
Organisation (CPHEEO) guidelines2. comparable with faecal sludge and night
However, ignorance of maintenance and soil. This means that the technologies
operational conditions often results in that are in use for treatment, resource
accumulation of organic sludge, reduction recovery and reuse of sewage sludge may
in effective volume and hydraulic be appropriate for faecal sludge treatment
overloading, which ultimately causes as well.
system failure and the release of partially
treated or untreated septage from the This study on ‘Urban WASH: An
septic tank. Private operators often do not Assessment of Faecal Sludge Management
transport and dispose of septage far away (FSM) Policies and Programmes at
from human settlements. Instead, they the National and Select States Level’
2 CPHEEO’s latest Manual on Sewage and Sewage treatment Part A- Engineering says that minimum acceptable design interval
between successive manual desludging could be one-an-a-half years, with a flexibility of provision of up to 3 years of storage
volume in urban years (Chapter 9, p. 8). Report available at http://cpheeo.nic.in/Sewerage.aspx. The MoUD Advisory note on
urban septage management (2013) gives the desludging frequency as once every two to three years, or when the tank
becomes one third full (p. 17)
13
Executive Summary
Figure 1 - Routes of Faecal Sludge Generation

Source: www.eai.in/ref/ae/wte/typ/clas/fecal_sludge.html
attempts to understand and assess panchayats in rural areas. The NUSP

the existing policies and identify key instated a framework for cities to prepare
challenges and gaps while offering concrete City Sanitation Plans under the scheme of
recommendations to overcoming this acute State Sanitation Strategy. Urban Sanitation
national problem. awards and ratings were also introduced
based on the benchmarking of sanitation
Provisioning of sanitation facilities in services. Centrally sponsored schemes
the country primarily rests with local such as Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
government bodies – municipalities or Renewal Mission (JnNURM), Urban
corporations in urban areas (called the Infrastructure Development Scheme for
Urban Local Bodies or ULBs) and gram Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT),
14
Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) lakh toilets dispose faeces directly into
and Rajiv Awas Yojna etc. provide funds drains, 2 lakh latrines are serviced by
for creation of sanitation assets like humans (illegally) and 1.8 lakh latrines
individual toilets, community toilet blocks are serviced by animals. Finally, about
and wastewater disposal and treatment 18.6 per cent urban households still do not
facilities at the city level. have access to individual toilets – about
6 per cent use public/community toilets
and 12.6 per cent suffer the indignity of
open defecation. According to a USAID
The findings of the Census (United States Agency for International
of India 2011 indicate Development) study (2010), by 2017 the
number of urban households with toilets
that only 32.7 per cent connected to septic tanks will increase to
of urban households are 148 million. Therefore, on-site pit latrines
connected to a piped and septic tanks account for a substantial
proportion of toilets in urban India – 48 per
sewer system whereas cent of urban Indian households depend on
38.2 per cent dispose on-site facilities, and this proportion is still
their wastes into septic increasing.3
tanks and about 7 per cent We can witness disparity in sanitation

into pit latrines, underlining standards and outreach of services
the predominance of on- between the urban poor and other city
dwellers. A comparative analysis of
site arrangements – and access to sanitation facilities to the people
it is not clear how the living in urban areas and those in urban
waste is further disposed slums is presented in Figure 24.
by the majority of these The data in Figure 2 shows that the urban
installations. poor who live mostly in the slums (notified
and non-notified) have lesser access to
Further, about 50 lakh pit latrines are sanitation as compared to other urban
insanitary (have no slabs or are open pits); dwellers. Inequality also exists in latrine
13 lakh are service latrines – of which 9 coverage between the notified and non-
3 Advisory Note on Septage Management in India, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2013
4 Housing Stock, Amenities & Assets In Slums - CENSUS 2011

15
Executive Summary
Urban Slum
Type of Latrine HHs (in %) HHs (in %)
1 Latrine within the premises 81.4 66.0
a Water Closet 72.6 57.7
b Pit Latrine 7.1 6.2
c Other Latrine 1.7 2.2
2 No latrine within the premises 18.6 34.0
a Public Latrine 6.0 15.1
b Open 12.6 18.9
Figure 2 - Types of Latrine facilities - India
Source - Housing stock, amenities & assets in slums - Census 2011
notified slums in India. As per NSSO data-

20125, at the all-India level, 31 per cent
of slums had no latrine facility, the figure Presently, septic tanks
being 42 per cent for non-notified and 16
per cent for notified slums6.
and pit latrines along
with open defecation
The different types of toilet facilities are major contributors to
available in urban areas, according to
Census 2011, are presented in Table 1.
groundwater and surface
water pollution in many
Discharge of untreated sewage in water cities in the country.
courses - both surface and groundwater
- may be responsible for polluting about
three-fourth of surface water resources7.
5 NSSO data, 69th Round, 2012

6 While these numbers differentiate between latrines and septic tanks, many septic tanks are in reality similar to pit latrines,
and have leaking sides and open bottoms. Many septic tanks, even for public toilets and commercial entities, are inaccessible
for desludging and maintenance
7 Advisory Note on Septage Management in India, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India
9 lakh
toilets dispose
faeces directly
into drains
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
17
Executive Summary
Household by Type No. of Urban % of Total Urban

of Latrine Facility Households Households
Q1 Total number of urban households 7,88,65,937 100.0
Q2 Latrine facility within the premises 6,41,62,119 81.4
Q3 Water Closet 5,72,35,228 72.6
Q4 Piped sewer system 2,57,75,247 32.7
Q5 Septic tank 3,00,87,437 38.2
Q6 Other systems 13,72,544 1.7
Q7 Pit latrine 55,97,143 7.1
Q8 With slab/ ventilated improved pit 50,66,323 6.4
Q9 Without slab/ open pit 5,30,820 0.7
Q10 Other latrines 13,29,748 1.7
Q11 Night soil disposed into open drain 9,42,643 1.2
Q12 Night soil removed by humans 2,08,323 0.3
Q13 Night soil serviced by animals 1,78,782 0.2
Q14 No latrine within the premises 1,47,03,818 18.6
Q15 Public latrines 47,43,807 6.0
Q16 Open 99,60,011 12.6
Table 1 - Types of Toilet Facilities in Urban Areas

Source - Figures at a Glance, Census of India 2011
Faecal Sludge Management (FSM), which class–I cities and class-II towns in India.
has largely been overlooked in the past, There is a large gap between generation
needs immediate attention in order to and treatment of wastewater in India.
address the huge gap that currently exists Nearly 39 per cent of the existing Sewage
between sewerage infrastructure and the Treatment Plants (STPs) do not conform
sewage generated in the cities of India. Out to the general standards prescribed under
of about 38000 million litres per day (MLD) the Environmental (Protection) Rules for
of sewage generated, treatment capacity discharge into streams as per the Central
exists for only about 12000 million litres Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) survey
per day (32 per cent) in all metropolitan, report.
18
In a number of cities, the existing treatment volume of septage that is disposed in

capacity remains underutilised while surface water and groundwater, it can
untreated sewage is discharged into water be stated that the extent of surface water
sources in the same city8. From the huge pollution may be up to 80 per cent in India.
Issue india
Main Characteristics
FSM under WSS or solid waste? Seems to be under solid waste
Centralised or decentralised
Decentralised responsibility
responsibility?
Overarching framework
Main legislation Municipal Waste (Handling and Management) Rules (2000)
Main responsible ministry Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD)
Other involved ministries/ entities Central Pollution Control Boards and State Pollution Control Boards
Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation

Main regulator
(under MoUD)
Urban Local Bodies (state governments provide technical and

Main responsibility for implementation
policy support)
Involved utility Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Water Supply and Sewerage Boards
National Urban Sanitation Policy, Draft Policy Paper on Septage

Policy development
Management in India
Plans for improvement City Sanitation Plans, City Development Plans
Delhi Cleanliness and Sanitation by-law (mostly solid waste)

Local regulation
Delhi Jal Board Act (1998)
State Urban Development Departments, Public Health Engineering

Local responsible agencies
Departments,Urban Local Bodies
8 Section 3.2 Page 9-45 of Status of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment In Class -I Cities & Class-II Towns of
India, Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/70/2009-10, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India.
19
Executive Summary
Regulation at Household level
1983 National Building Code of India - Part IX Plumbing Services,

Building codes and designs of
Drainage and Sanitation. 1985 Code of practice for the design of
on-site facilities
septic tanks
Enforcement of building codes Unclear
Draft guideline on septage generation, emptying and quality

Discharge by households
(developed by CSE for Ministry of Urban Development – May 2011)
Emptying frequencies Every one and a half years to three years - CPHEEO
Enforcement of emptying frequencies State Pollution Control Boards
Regulation of Emptying Practice
Who is allowed to operate? Anybody
No licence for desludging needed

Permits and licences
Vehicles licences not needed when using tractors
Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry

Manual scavenging
Latrines (Prohibition) Act 1993
Safe emptying practice Non-existent
Mechanical emptiers mention harassment by police and the

Dumping and disposal environmental departments for illegal dumping, in spite of the fact
that there are no designated dumping places
Enforcement dumping and disposal Non-existent
Fair pricing/ tariff setting None
Investigation and/or response to public

None
complaints
Regulation of treatment and re-use practices
Who is allowed to operate, regulate,

permits, discharge, funding of No information available
treatment
Table 2 - Overview of the main legal and institutional situation related to FSM in India
Source - Regional Synthesis Report Asia: FSM Landscape Analysis & Business Model Assessment,
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011
20
Total and faecal coliform, which indicate

the presence of pathogens in water are also
The rivers Yamuna,
a major concern. Coliform must be below Ganga, Gomati, Ghaghara,
104 MPN/100 ml and preferably absent Chambal, Mahi and Vardha
from water for it to be considered safe
for general human use, and for irrigation
are amongst the most
where coliform may cause a disease coliform-polluted water
outbreak from contaminated water in bodies in India.
It was in this context, that WaterAid India,
in association with its partners ExNoRa
and WASHNET-TN, and Praxis Institute for
Participatory Practices, Chennai conducted
In India, this review of the policies and programmes

on Faecal Sludge Management at the
the extent of surface national and state levels, along with a
research study on the practices on FSM in
water pollution the state of Tamil Nadu.
may be up to
80 per cent The key objectives of the study were:
1. To document and assess

the existing Faecal Sludge
Management practices of ten
agriculture9. Between 1994 and 2004, 33 town panchayats and ten
per cent of the total 45,000 km length of municipalities from ten districts
rivers was found to be polluted with more of Tamil Nadu.
than 500 MPN/100 ML of faecal coliform.
About 56 per cent observations found Total 2. To create a comprehensive,
Coliform and 41 per cent observations quantitative database on FSM for
found Faecal Coliform more than MPN these towns and municipalities of
500/100 ml10. Tamil Nadu.
9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution_in_India#cite_ref-7
10 Bhardwaj RM (Scientist C), Water Quality Monitoring in India – and Constraints,(paper) Central Pollution Board, and
Government of India. P 7
21
Executive Summary
3. To study the impact of poor

Faecal Sludge Management on
Quantitative and qualitative
drinking water in select small tools were prepared to
towns of Tamil Nadu. conduct the field study in
4. To conduct a desk review of the
ten municipalities and ten
Urban WASH policies at the town panchayats in Tamil
national level to understand the Nadu. These sample municipalities
dynamics between central and and town panchayats were selected by
state programmes. WaterAid and ExNoRa in consultation with
Praxis to represent the diverse geographical
locations of Tamil Nadu, while
An extensive desk review considering the presence of WASHNET-
TN partners across the districts. However,
was carried out to capture a modification was later made in the list
the status of Faecal of town panchayats, based on a request
Sludge Management from the Directorate of Town Panchayats,
Chennai.
policies, programmes and
institutional frameworks After consultations with WaterAid and
of implementation at ExNoRa-Tamil Nadu, Praxis developed a set
of five schedules to elicit information from
the national level and in various stakeholders. These were translated
six states namely Delhi, into the local language, Tamil, for better
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, communication and understanding:
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh 1. Fact sheet

2. Schedule for management
and Tamil Nadu. 3. Tools for sanitation workers
4. Schedule for private service
providers
5. Schedule for community groups
22
per the CPCB data of 201312, the sewerage

generated in Delhi is 3800 MLD, while
Delhi the installed STP capacity is 2330 MLD.
The percentage of available capacity is
In Delhi, out of 3.26 million urban 61. Delhi does not have a State Sanitation
households, only 2.9 million were found to Strategy. The one currently being used is
have toilet facilities within the premises of Master Plan 2021 and Master Plan 2031
their house. According to data from Census has been submitted.
2011, about 3 per cent of households
defecate in open spaces, while 21 per cent
do not have toilets within the premises.
However, NSSO 201211 estimates that 67
per cent households have exclusive toilets Gujarat
(not sharing with other households) in the
premises, 99 per cent of which are reported In Gujarat, As part of MGSM, the ‘Nirmal
as having access to improved source Gujarat Sauchalay Yojana’ has been
latrines. launched, in which subsidies for toilet
construction are provided. As per the
The river Yamuna bears Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) -
the brunt of indiscriminate Performance Assessment System (PAS) data

for 2011-12, a majority of the households
discharge of untreated depend on septic tanks and soak pits13.
wastewater and is heavily Only 62 cities out of 167 have some extent
polluted by domestic and of sewerage network and a similar number,

67, or around 40 per cent of Urban Local
industrial wastewater. Bodies (ULBs) in Gujarat, have access to
some underground sewerage network.
As the Yamuna flows through Delhi, the Although each of the seven municipal
Najafgarh and 18 other major drains corporations have sewerage networks,
empty into it, making its water quality many smaller ULBs also have underground
heavily degraded and unfit even for sewerage networks.
animal consumption and irrigation. As
11 Key Indicators for Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition in India - NSS, 69th Round,
July 2012- December 2012, NSSO, Government of India.
12 Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants under NRCD, August 2013, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India
13 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Faecal Sludge Management for Municipalities in Gujarat (Draft), Urban Management
Centre, Under PAS programme, CEPT University, Ahmadabad, India (undated document)
The States
23
Delhi does not have a

at a glance
State Sanitation Strategy
Delhi
2.9 out of 3.26 million
At present, the average quantity
urban households have of sewage treated is a mere 50%
toilet facilities within the
premises of their house Uttar Pradesh
Only six out of 63
Just 7 per cent ULBs have
Sewage Treatment Facilities
towns are partially
covered with a
Gujarat sewerage system
Around 40 per cent
of Urban Local Bodies 76% urban households have the
(ULBs) have access to facility of being connected to either
a closed or an open drain
some underground
sewerage network Madhya Pradesh
Four towns have
Only 2 per cent of slum households achieved open
are networked to sewer systems
defecation free status
Maharashtra
65% wastewater 76% urban households have the
facility of being connected to either
is being disposed a closed or an open drain
without any Tamil Nadu

treatment
45.7% of the state’s
population resorts to
open defecation
24
are a total of nine STPs using different

Where sewerage systems technologies. The installed capacity of
are absent, there are open sewage treatment plants is 168.4 MLD
drains that carry sullage and the actual utilisation is 123.7 MLD.
The state has initiated the Integrated
and greywater. Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP)14 in
consonance with the Government of India’s
There is a shortage, though, of sewage National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP)
treatment facilities: just 7 per cent or 12 2008. Under the IUSP, several activities
ULBs in Gujarat have such facilities. 74 per have been initiated. City Sanitation Plans
cent of urban properties have individual (CSP) have been prepared for 37 towns, and
toilets out of which 53 per cent properties CSP for 24 more towns is underway. The
are connected to a sewer network and 28 Sanitation Vision 2025 has been prepared
per cent of properties are dependent on on- for the state.
site sanitary disposal systems.
Four towns of Madhya

Pradesh have achieved
Madhya Pradesh open defecation free status
and ten more towns are on
Of the urban households in the state of the verge of achieving the
Madhya Pradesh, 76 per cent have the same.
facility of being connected to either a
closed or an open drain for wastewater
disposal. In the internal survey done
by MoUD, only 14 ULBs have sewerage
Maharashtra
network and of these, only Indore has
more than 70 per cent coverage. The state In Maharashtra, the Government developed
has 25 class-I cities with a population the ‘Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan’ in 2008, a
of 10,795,000 and sewage generation of reform-oriented approach to managing
1248.72 MLD while treatment capacity water supply and sanitation services
exists for only 186.1 MLD. It has 23 class-II in urban areas. The urban sanitation
towns with a population of 1,745,050 and coverage is 94 per cent, and 53 per cent
sewage generation of 130.9 MLD. There of households in the state have latrine
14 Madhya Pradesh – Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme Guidelines, 2009, International Environmental Law Research Centre. Available at
ielrc.org/content/e0925.pdf
25
Executive Summary
facilities within the premises – higher than quantity has been much less at 33 per cent.
the national average of 46.3 per cent. Out In the Uttar Pradesh sub-region, only six
of 252 ULBs in Maharashtra, only 31 ULBs out of 63 towns are partially covered with
have an underground sewerage network a sewerage system. There are 24 STPs.
with different types of household coverage Nine of them are under construction with
connections. Only 15 ULBs have secondary a capacity of 72.30 MLD. At present, the
STPs and the average wastewater treatment sewage treatment capacity is 779.6 MLD
capacity of the state is 35 per cent. This but the actual sewage treated is 585.8 MLD,
means that the remaining 65 per cent making the average quantity of sewage
wastewater is being disposed without any treated a mere 52 per cent.
treatment. Maharashtra has six sewage
treatment plants. The installed capacity The Uttar Pradesh Urban Sanitation
of the plants amounts to 284 MLD but the Policy, 2010 identified the following key
actual utilisation is 124.2 MLD15. Only 2 sanitation issues in the state:
per cent of slum households are networked
to sewer systems. There is no formal policy lack of awareness and low
for urban sanitation in Maharashtra,
but the state follows the approaches priority to sanitation and its
advocated in the NUSP. linkages with public health;
social and occupational
hazards faced by sanitation
Uttar Pradesh workers; fragmented
institutional roles and
According to Census 2011 estimates, 70.3 responsibilities; lack of
per cent of households in Uttar Pradesh an integrated citywide
have toilets. The sewage generation in NCR sanitation approach;
urban is 4,528 MLD. NCR has 64 STPs of
3,349 MLD design capacity and the sewage serving the unserved and
treated is 2,248 MLD. Therefore, the sewage the poor; lack of facilities in
treated is 50 per cent of sewage generation. slums and lack of demand
The increase in sewage treatment capacity
during the decade 2001-11 has been 53 per responsiveness.
cent whereas the increase in treated sewage
15 Performance evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants in India under NRCD-2013

57 % of
households
in Tamil Nadu
have no toilet
facility
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
27
Executive Summary
One of the stated goals of the policy is and municipalities with necessary
safe disposal of human excreta and liquid financial assistance under various schemes
waste. Three related goals mentioned like TNUDP-III, Urban Infrastructure
are: functioning of sewerage networks and Governance (UIG/JnNURM), Urban
and ensuring connection of households; Infrastructure Development Scheme for
promoting recycling and reuse of treated Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT/
water; and promoting proper disposal and JnNURM), and KfW grants. Detailed
treatment of sludge. project reports have been prepared for
117 municipalities at an estimated cost
of Rs.7,100 crore. At present, UGSS
schemes have been taken up in four town
Tamil Nadu panchayats and Detailed Project Reports for
the remaining 525 town panchayats have
been prepared at a cost of Rs.12,904 crore
In Tamil Nadu, 45.7 under the 12th Five Year Plan.
per cent of the state’s

The field study of the ten town
population resorts to panchayats revealed the following:
open defecation due to
the absence of proper • Lack of an underground sewerage
system in town panchayats.
sanitation facilities.
• Septic tanks are the most used
The National Family Health Survey, 2005- system of septage collection.
06 (NFHS 3) states that 57 per cent of
households in Tamil Nadu have no toilet • Lack of adequate equipment
facility. The proportion of notified and non- for desludging.
notified slums with no latrine facility is
• Lack of data on quantity of
significantly higher for Tamil Nadu; 27 per
faecal sludge emptied.
cent and 40 per cent respectively. The state
has formulated two strategies in the urban • Infrequent cleaning of septic
sanitation sector - coverage of all towns tanks at the household level.
by Under Ground Sewerage System (UGSS)
and total elimination of open defecation • Non-adherence to the operative
by 201516. There are plans to implement guidelines as prescribed in
UGSS in a phased manner in corporations standards for septage management.
16 Open Defecation Free, Workshop Series 2/RD & DP/2013; State Planning Commission, July 2013
28
• No treatment plants at the • Most of the municipalities

town panchayat level. expressed insufficiency in emptying
equipment and transport facilities.
• Lack of clarity at the town
panchayat level regarding • Frequency of faecal sludge
their role in FSM. collection from individual
households varies from
• The role of private service two to ten years.
providers is recognized by the
town panchayat management. • The most commonly reported
problems with septic tank usage
• Private players use modern are: lack of proper construction,
equipment. However, they lack overflow and opening during the
formal training in desludging rainy season, water pollution,
and none of them reported a high cost of cleaning and gas
treating sludge before disposal. formation during cleaning.
• There is a negative impact on • In the case of leach pits, poor

health and social harmony at the maintenance, connection by
community level due to poor FSM. users to drainage, lack of proper
construction and water pollution
were reported as issues.
The field study of the ten
municipalities revealed the • Like in other parts of Tamil
following: Nadu, faecal sludge is disposed
in agricultural land, outskirts
• Most of the domestic and municipal dump yards.
water requirement is met
by municipalities. • Except Mannarkudi, all
municipalities have private
• None of the municipalities service providers for addressing
have a full-fledged UGSS while faecal sludge management. Most
three have partial coverage. of them reported using modern
equipment and safety measures.
• The majority of individual
households use septic tanks in • Among the challenges faced by
municipalities, and one-tenth of private players is the absence
households use public toilets. of proper places for disposal,
opposition from public,
29
Executive Summary
harassment by government Of the 14 districts covered under the

officials and police while carrying study, it was found that excepting two
out the task during the day. (Nagappattinam and Tiruvarur), the
groundwater of 12 districts (Chennai,
• Regarding the demand for services Coimbatore, Erode, Kanchipuram,
from private service providers Kanyakumari, Namakkal, Nilgiris,
in faecal sludge management, Pudukkottai, Thirunelveli, Tiruvallur,
some said that the scope is Tiruchirappalli and Tuticorin) had a high
narrowing due to increase in the nitrate content.
number of service providers and
expansion of UGSS coverage while Faecal coliform contamination was found
others said that there is a good in the water samples in a majority of the
scope for more private players districts. However, statistics show that
as the Urban Local Bodies are deaths due to waterborne diseases such
not providing such services. as Acute Diarrhoeal Diseases (ADD) and
Cholera have come down drastically.
• Regarding support required from
the government, private service
providers stated that they should
The study identified the following
be allotted specific land for
as key challenges to undertaking
disposing faecal sludge. Public
sound FSM in India:
awareness on emptying at regular
intervals and public support for
• Lack of adequate/effective
daytime collection needs to be
policy framework.
increased. They also required
help in establishing treatment • Lack of explicit state sanitation
units and acquiring bank loans strategies and city sanitation
and subsidies for their business. plans on safe disposal of faecal
sludge; fragmented policy
• Communities stated that health
frameworks without direction on
problems and social disharmony
septage management and weak
exist due to poor FSM.
enforcement by the state agencies.
WaterAid/Poulomi Basu
The village is 120 years old and is in a
bad state – the roads are bad and there
are open drains. The community leader’s
son fell in the drain when he went to the
toilet. All the dirty water went into his
mouth. Another child had to save him.
Kajal Gautam,
Nihura Basti, Kanpur
Poor Management of sanitation, sanitation solutions were found

Urban Sanitation to be supply driven rather than demand-
responsive. Manual scavenging was found
It was found that the physical to be widespread though prohibited by the
infrastructure to treat faecal sludge is law.
grossly inadequate. On-site sanitation is
not accorded priority. There is a limited
use of mechanised desludging practices. A Institutional and Legislative
distinct preference for centralised advanced Challenges
engineering solutions exists rather than
for appropriate decentralised septage Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) were found
management. There is low prioritisation to have insufficient knowledge regarding
and lack of awareness on the part of the FSM. There is no delineation of roles
public and government agencies regarding and responsibilities and the roles and
safe disposal. Inadequate attention has responsibilities of state agencies for water,
been paid to poor people’s access to safe sanitation, and public health were found to
31
Executive Summary
be unclear, overlapping and inadequately • Comprehensive national

coordinated. There is a lack of clarity guidelines for Faecal Sludge
on the support of state agencies to ULBs Management stipulating a
in implementing their city sanitation regulatory and monitoring
plans. Exclusion of peri-urban and slum framework should be prepared
areas from the legal framework; limited and finalised by the Ministry of
awareness among stakeholders including Urban Development (MoUD) with
policymakers, government officials, civil stakeholder participation and
society and the common man; and lack disseminated to all the states.
of skilled human resources were further
identified as challenges. • Provisions should be made to
integrate FSM into City Sanitation
Plans and City Development Plans.
Funding Capital and
• Training and exposure to
Operational Costs
good practices in FSM should
be provided to policymakers
Most ULBs have very limited institutional,
and stakeholders.
financial and staff capacity to improve
sanitation provision and septage • Sewage/ Septage treatment
management. There is inadequate public facilities should be constructed.
funding for septage management and a
dependence on external assistance, which • The use of Bio solid manure in
results in a lack of commitment, ownership agriculture should be encouraged.
and poor municipal revenue generation.
• Private Sector Participation
in FSM should be promoted
Recommendations by incentivising.
• FSM awareness campaigns

In conclusion, the study offers the
and communication should be
following recommendations in the hope
developed and delivered for
that these could prove instrumental in
enhanced participation by citizens.
improving the Faecal Sludge Management
scenario in India: • Local research institutions should
be engaged to develop innovative
and cost effective solutions for
different aspects of FSM.
32
1
Introduction
Background and Scope The data gathered by the 2011 Census indicates
that nearly 17 million urban households (more than 20 per cent of the
total 79 million urban households) lack adequate sanitation17 with 18.6
per cent of urban households having no latrines18. According to the report
of the CPCB 2009, the estimated sewage generation from class-I cities and
class-II towns is 38254.82 million litres per day (MLD), out of which only
11787.38 MLD (31 per cent) is being treated19. The remaining is disposed
into water bodies without any treatment due to which three-fourths of
surface water resources are polluted. The MoUD conducted a rating of
class-I cities on sanitation related parameters in 2009-1020. Out of 423
17 Septage Management in Urban India, Advisory Note, 2013, National Urban Sanitation Programme, Ministry of Urban Development, Government
of India. P 4
18 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General & Commissioner, India. Available at: http://
censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
Status of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment In Class -I Cities & Class-II Towns of India, Control of Urban Pollution Series:
19 CUPS/70/2009-10, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. P 46
20 Rating of Cities, 2010, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India
33
Introduction
cities, only four were in the ‘blue’ category

scoring more than 66 points out of 100.
No city achieved the distinction of being Under the NUSP, 100 per
a ‘green’ city i.e. a city scoring more than cent of human excreta
90 out of 100. Census 2011 findings show
that 30 million urban households (38 per
and liquid waste from all
cent) have septic tanks21. USAID 2010 sanitation facilities
estimates that by 2017, about 148 million including septic tanks,
urban residents will have septic tanks22.
Although the number of septic tanks will
must be disposed of in
grow steeply in the next few years, there is a safe manner . To achieve this 24
no separate policy or regulation for septage larger goal, it stresses on treatment of

management in India at present. The septage from on-site installations in urban
Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment locations. However the safe disposal
published in 1993 by the MoUD23 provides in terms of collection, transportation,
guidelines on construction of septic recycling and reuse is still a challenge for
tanks, but lacks guidelines on septage many municipalities and town panchayats.
management.
Tamil Nadu, a highly urbanised state,
Most of the states lack guidelines or also tops the country for open defecation
regulations for septage management. in urban areas as the state’s share of
Septage disposal is neither connected households practicing open defecation
by a sewage system nor managed by any is 35.7 per cent of the total urban
treatment plant. Every day blackwater from households25. Most of the current focus of
on-site sanitation is emptied into water the government is on addressing the issue
bodies, open spaces and agricultural fields of open defecation but their focus, research
without being monitored or regulated. and investment in FSM is very limited.
Septage from on-site sanitation is worse Within a decade, FSM will be one of the
than open defecation, as the levels of biggest challenges for rural and urban
pathogens and micro-organisms are higher areas and this study will suggest a possible
in blackwater.
21 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General & Commissioner, India. Available at: http://
censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
22 A rapid assessment of septage management in Asia, 2010, USAID. P 34
23 Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment, 2012, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) and Ministry
of Urban Development. Available at http://moud.gov.in/manual_sewage. An updated version of the manual launched in November 2013 is
available at http://cpheeo.nic.in/Sewerage.aspx.
24 National Urban Sanitation Policy, 2008, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India .Available at http://indiagovernance.gov.in/files/
NUSP.pdf
25 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General and Commissioner, India. From the Table: Type of
latrine facility - new additions in 2011. Available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
34
way forward in FSM for small towns in

Tamil Nadu.
An extensive desk review
has been carried out
In this context, this study on the policies to capture the status of
and programmes on Faecal Sludge
Management (FSM) at the national and
septage management,
state level was carried out. policies, programmes and
institutional frameworks
The key objectives of the study
were:
of implementation at
the national level and in
1. To document and assess the six states namely Delhi,
existing faecal sludge management
practices of ten town panchayats
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
and ten municipalities from Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh
ten districts of Tamil Nadu. and Tamil Nadu.
2. To create a comprehensive,
A field study was also carried out in ten
quantitative database on
municipalities and ten town panchayats in
FSM for these towns and
Tamil Nadu.
municipalities of Tamil Nadu.
After extensive review of the literature,

3. To study the impact of poor
quantitative and qualitative tools were
faecal sludge management
prepared to conduct the field study in
on drinking water in selected
the ten municipalities and ten town
small towns of Tamil Nadu.
panchayats. These sample municipalities
4. To conduct a desk review of and town panchayats were selected by
the urban WASH policies at the WaterAid and ExNoRa in consultation with
national level to understand Praxis. They were selected to represent the
the dynamics between central various geographical locations of Tamil
and state programmes. Nadu, while considering the presence of
WASHNET-TN partners across the districts.
However, a modification was made in the
list of town panchayats later, based on
a request from the Directorate of Town
Panchayats, Chennai.
35
Introduction
The town panchayats and municipalities A one-day training workshop for 20

covered under the study were: researchers from WASHNET-TN was
organised by WaterAid in Erode on 17
Town Panchayats Municipalities November 2014. Dr. K. Moulasha and
Stanley Joseph from the Praxis Institute for
1 Alwarthirunagari Gudalur Participatory Practices, Chennai, facilitated
2 Kotagiri Mannarkudi the training workshop in Tamil.
3 Kunnathur Nagerkoil
All the municipalities and town panchayats
4 Needamangalam Pollachi
were requested by the Directorate of
5 Mamallapuram Sankarankovil Town Panchayats to provide support and
6 Perundurai Thiruchengodu cooperation for the study in January and
February 2015. Data collection began
7 Keeranur Tiruvallur
in a phased manner in January and was
8 Manachanallur Perambalur

completed in February 2015.
9 Avinashi Pudukottai
Quality checks were done after scrutinising
10 Tharangampadi Mayavaram
the filled in tools. Based on these,
clarifications were asked for.
After consultations with WaterAid and

Limitations of the study:
ExNoRa-Tamil Nadu, Praxis developed a set
• There were gaps in the data
of five schedules to elicit information from
collected due to the limited
various stakeholders:
experience of the researchers.
1. Fact sheet
2. Schedule for management • Even after repeated
3. Tools for sanitation workers clarifications, the complete
4. Schedule for private service providers data could not be elicited.
5. Schedule for community groups
All the tools were translated into the • The field analysis had to be
local language Tamil to enhance the done with limited data.
understanding of the researchers.
Pre-testing of the tools was done in

Tiruchirapalli and Chennai. Based on these
findings, modifications were made in the
final tools.
36
Organisation of the report
The report is divided into five chapters:
Chapter 1 Briefly describes the study, its objectives and methodology.
Chapter 2 Presents the desk review of sanitation policies with special focus on faecal sludge
management with reference to the national level.
Chapter 3 Presents the desk review of sanitation policies with reference to six states (Delhi,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu).
Chapter 4 Divided into two sections, it describes the survey findings from town
panchayats and municipalities in Tamil Nadu. The findings from the town panchayats and
municipalities are presented as follows:
• Statistics and information on areas covered, domestic water supply, wastewater generation.
• Management view on the issues and challenges associated with on-site sanitation
and the role of private service providers in septage collection. In relevant places,
responses of sanitation workers are presented along with those of the management.
• Responses of private service providers on service delivery. The issues

and challenges associated with FSM have also been presented.
• Community views on current practices of septage services

and issues associated with poor FSM.
Chapter 5
Discusses water contamination and its impact on health.
Chapter 6
Summarises the findings and recommendations.
37
2
National Review
Faecal Sludge Management Context in India

Septage management is a part of sanitation and has a great influence on
public health and environment. It is very important to recognise that both
the national government and state governments must work together to
tackle this problem. The 2011 Census of India has indicated that nearly
17 million urban households lack access to adequate sanitation26.
According to Census 2011, 31 per cent of India’s population lives in

urban areas27. The current UN 2014 estimate is that 410 million people
are living in urban areas, with an expected addition of 173 million by
203028. Data shows that India’s cities are not only increasing in number;
26 Septage Management in Urban India, Advisory Note, 2013, National Urban Sanitation Programme, Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India. P 4
27 Provisional Population Total, India, Rural-Urban Distribution, Census of India 2011,Registrar General & Commissioner, India
28 World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division (2014). (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).
38
they are also expanding, and so are the or are simply open pits), 9.5 lakh toilets
slums within them, as 7 million people29 dispose of faeces directly into drains,
continue to migrate to urban India every 2.4 lakh toilets are (illegally) serviced by
year with most of them finding their way to humans and 1.8 lakh latrines are serviced
slums within and on the fringes of cities. by animals. A very high 18.6 per cent of
The growing urban population of India urban households do not have access to
presents a vast challenge in the area of individual toilets. Of these, 6 per cent use
sanitation, as it needs proper maintenance public or community toilets and 12.6 per
in order to provide a healthy atmosphere. cent have to resort to open defecation.
Data on open defecation indicates
On-site sanitation vulnerability, particularly for women and
prevalence girls who experience a loss of dignity or are
There is some form of sanitation facility for exposed to abuse and harassment while
the 81.4 per cent urban households30 while defecating in the open.
NSS 2012 had a higher estimate at 89.6 per
cent31. However if we get into the depth of Septic tank dependence
this data, it can be seen that the poor who in India
live in the slums (notified and non-notified) According to the World Bank (2006), the
have much lesser access to sanitation. number of septic tanks has grown over
Though the data may be contentious the last few decades as households invest
as there are no correct estimates on the in private sanitation. It estimates that by
number of slums and squatter settlements 2017, 260 million urban residents will
that there are in the towns, the MoUD states have sewered connections, 148 million will
that in the non-notified slums, 51 per cent use septic tanks, and 78 million will use
households do not have access to toilets32. pit latrines.33 Therefore, on-site pit latrines
Where sanitation access (Table 3) is and septic tanks account for a substantial
available, only a few households (32.7 per proportion of toilets in urban India – about
cent) use toilets that are connected to the 45 per cent of urban Indian households
underground sewerage network. Of urban depend on on-site facilities (Refer to Table
households with pit latrines, 5.5 lakh 1)34, and this proportion is increasing.
are insanitary (as in, they have no slabs While these numbers differentiate between
29 Population Census of India, 2011, Ministry of Home Affairs

30 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General & Commissioner, India
31 Key Indicators of Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition in India, NSS 69th Round, 2013
32 In Deep Shit, Right to Sanitation Campaign in India, 2013
33 World Bank. “India Water and Sanitation: Bridging the Gap between Infrastructure and Service.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Jan.
2006 (hereinafter World Bank, 2006).
34 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General& Commissioner, India. From the Table: Type of
latrine facility - new additions in 2011.
39
Without slab/open
Night soil serviced
Night soil serviced
Public Latrines
Other systems
improved pit
Piped Sewer
Septic tank
by humans
by animals
open drain
With slab/
Night soil-
ventilated
System
Open
pit
India 32.7 38.2 1.7 6.4 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.2 6 12.6
Delhi 60.5 24.7 0.9 1.5 0.2 2.1 0 0 7.1 3
Uttar Pradesh 28.3 46.9 2 2.4 0.5 1.3 1.4 0.3 2.1 14.8
Madhya Pradesh 20.2 50.1 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 3.3 22.5
Gujarat 60.4 24.2 0.5 2 0.1 0.3 0 0 3.6 8.7
Maharashtra 37.8 28.6 0.9 2.2 0.2 1.2 0 0.3 21 7.7
Tamil Nadu 27.4 37.9 1.1 6.6 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.2 8.6 16.2
Table 3 - Availability and Type of Latrine Facilities (All figures in %)

Source - Census of India, 2011
latrines and septic tanks, many septic tanks construction, centralised sewerage systems
are in reality similar to latrines, and have and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).
leaking sides and open bottoms. Many While India is beginning to address septage
septic tanks, even for public toilets and following the NUSP, no local governments
commercial entities, are inaccessible for have yet provided public collection or
desludging and maintenance.35 treatment services.
Wastewater generation and Data shows that a major part of urban

treatment capacity India is yet to be provided with sewer
The Government of India has prioritised systems and people are mainly dependent
water supply far above sanitation, therefore on conventional individual septic tanks.
the national budget allocates more funds The findings of Census 2011 show that
for rural water supply than for sanitation. 30 million urban households (38 percent)
Within the funds available for sanitation, have septic tanks and it is estimated that
the government has focused on toilet by 2017, about 148 million urban residents
35 A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia: Policies and Practices in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
and Vietnam, 2010, USAID
40
these cases, the untreated wastewater

either sinks into the ground as a potential
pollutant of groundwater or is discharged
into the natural drainage system, causing
pollution in downstream areas.
Data shows that between 33,000 and
80
40,000 million litres of wastewater is
% generated every day from class-I cities
Almost (cities with population >100,000) and
of the water class-II towns (population 50,000 -
supplied for 100,000)39 40. This is enough to irrigate 9

million hectares but only about 30 per cent
domestic use is collected and treatment capacity exists
comes back as for less than 20 per cent. The remainder
wastewater reaches water bodies untreated, leading to

highly polluted surface water resources41 -
an alarming 70 per cent of India’s surface
water is now polluted and contaminated
by biological, toxic, organic, and
inorganic pollutants42. It is estimated
that 75-80 per cent of water pollution by
volume is from domestic sewerage.43
will have septic tanks36. Studies have
estimated that almost 80 per cent of the
water supplied for domestic use comes A large number of the cities/towns either
back as wastewater 37 38. There are 302 do not have any sewerage system or
class-I cities and 467 class-II towns with the sewerage system is overloaded or
no sewage treatment facilities. In most of defunct. Even where sewers exist, they
36 A rapid assessment of septage management in Asia, 2010, USAID

37 Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants under NRCD, August 2013, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India
38 Status of Water Supply, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas, Research Studies Series No. 88, June 2005, Sponsored by
CPHEEO and Ministry of Urban Development, National Institute of Urban Affairs
39 Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance of Sewage Treatment Plants in India, 2007, CPCB
40 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/Around-80-of-sewage-in-Indian-cities-flows-into-water-systems/
articleshow/18804660.cms
41 Septage Management in Urban India, Advisory Note, 2013, National Urban Sanitation Policy, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of
India
42 Murthy and Kumar, 2011. Water pollution in India - an economic appraisal. In India Infrastructure Report 2011. P 285.
43 Water policy and performance for sustainable development. Infrastructure Development Finance Company. Oxford University press.Status of
Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment in Class-I Cities & Class-II Towns of India, CPCB, 2009
41
National Review
Only 160 out of nearly

8,000 towns have both
sewerage systems and
a sewage treatment
plant, and only 13 per
cent of piped sewerage
is currently treated.
In 2011, By 2017, about

30 mn
148 mn
urban urban residents will have
households
had septic septic tanks, which is a 400% jump
tanks
often leak or overflow, releasing their Among the cities where there are sewerage
contents to storm water or other surface networks, much of the waste fails to reach
drains or percolate into the soil to reach wastewater treatment plants.45 In this
groundwater. Thus, pollutants get context, communities generally depend on
retained on land to percolate, leach or get private service providers – small companies
washed off into streams or groundwater. or individuals – to clean septic tanks and
Further, treatment capacity is highly latrines on an emergency basis. Municipal
uneven, with 40 per cent of India’s total sanitation workers commonly double as
treatment capacity located in just two cleaners as well. Though a few companies
cities — Delhi and Mumbai.44 use gully suckers or vacuum cleaning
44 Central Pollution Control Board. Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in Class-I cities and Class-II towns of India.
Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/70 /2009–10). Delhi, India: CPCB, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India; 2009.
45 Banerjee S, Narain S, Pandey P, 2012. Excreta matters: how urban India is soaking up water, polluting rivers, and drowning in its own excreta.
Centre for Science and the Environment, New Delhi.
42

39.3 20.5 21.4 29.2 32.5
Treatment to Waste Water
81.1 80.0 91.6 80.0 79.4

Waste Water to Water Supply
Waste Water Vs
Treatment (%)
Class I Cities 1978 1988 1995 2006 2009
Mission Litres
per Day
Water Supply
8,638
7,007
2,756
15,190
12,148
2,495
Water Waste
20,607
18,882
4,037
Treatment
29,782
23,826
6,955
44,769
35,558
11,554
pumps in larger cities; most informal, Status of STPs in India

individual service providers empty tanks According to the CBCB 2005 report on the
manually, without safety precautions or status of sewage treatment in India, there
the necessary permits. Sanitation workers were 269 sewage treatment plants (STPs) in
and companies dispose of the waste at Class-I cities (211), Class-II towns (31) and
remote locations, in landfills (if available), other smaller towns (27)47. Most of these
or sell it directly to farmers or fish farms were developed under various ‘river action
as fertilizer. The NUSP estimates that plans’, which were floated from 1978-79
the wastewater of 48 per cent to 82 per onwards and are located in 5 per cent of
cent of urban households in India is not the cities/ towns along the banks of major
disposed of safely.46 rivers48. Of these, 186, 24 and 21 STPs are
operational and 25, 7 and 6 were under
construction in Class-I cities, Class-II towns
and other smaller towns, respectively (refer
Table 4). Thus, in all there were 269 STPs,
46 World Bank. “India Water and Sanitation: Bridging the Gap between Infrastructure and Service.” Jan. 2006, Washington, D.C.: World Bank
47 Status of sewage treatment in India. Central Pollution Control Board, November 2005.
48 CPCB. 2005a. Parivesh Sewage Pollution – News Letter. Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India,
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi 110 032 http://cpcbenvis.nic.in/newsletter/sewagepollution/contentsewagepoll- 0205.htm
43
National Review
5.5 2.1 3.8 3.7 12.0 Treatment to Waste Water
80.0 78.9 85.2 80.0 81.1 Waste Water to Water Supply
Waste Water Vs
Treatment (%)
Class II Cities 1978 1988 1995 2006 2009
Mission Litres
per Day
Water Supply
Water Waste
1,622
1,280
27
1,533
1,226
67
Treatment
1,936
1,650
62
3,035
2,428
89
3,325
2,697
324
Figure 3 - Sewerage generation and treatment capacities in Class-1 and Class-II cities
Source - Calculations based on CPCB reports (1978, 1988, 2006, 2009) 49
including 231 operational and 38 under is highest in Delhi followed by Gujarat,

construction50. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Tamil
Nadu and lowest in Maharashtra.
A recent evaluation of STPs revealed that
the actual treatment capacity utilisation It is found that sludge removal, treatment
is only 66 per cent of its total capacity as and handling have been widely neglected
per Table 551. Although the total utilisable due to improper design, bad maintenance
capacity at the national level is pegged at and lack of technical capacity. Many remain
66 per cent, there is a huge difference in closed most of the time52 53. The majority
the percentage of utilised capacity within of state governments / implementing
the states under this study. The utilisation agencies are not able to provide sufficient
49 Also refer to Overview of urban sanitation, Presentation by Pavan Kumar Ankinapalli, Consultant, Ministry of Housing and Poverty Alleviation,
Government of India; India Urban Conference, 17-20 November, 2011, Mysore, Karnataka
50 Ibid
Forests, Government of India.
52 CPCB. 2007. Advance methods for treatment of textile industry effluents, Resource Recycling Series: RERES/&/2007. Central Pollution Control
Board, India.
53 Kaur R, Wani SP, Singh AK and Lal K. 2012. Wastewater production, treatment and use in India. Country Report - India, UNW –AIS, 2nd
Regional Workshop for South, West and Central Asia, May-2012, New Delhi.
44

Smaller
Class I cities Class II cities Total
Towns
Existing 211 31 27 269
Operational 186 24 21 231
Under-construction 38 7 6 38
Table 4 - Summary of STPs in Class-I cities and Class-II towns in India

Source - Status of Sewerage Treatment in India, 2005, Central Pollution Control Board
and regular funds for operation and In the post-independence scenario, the
maintenance (O&M) of STPs resulting in government has failed to manage urban
their unsatisfactory performance. The growth because of continuing reliance
evaluation concluded that O&M of STPs on inappropriate urban planning ideas.
depend on uninterrupted energy supply, This has led to the growth of an unplanned
skilled manpower and preventive and urban population and to the growth of
regular maintenance. slums in the formally planned areas of
cities and also in the peri-urban areas. The
Policy framework Planning Commission’s Five Year Plans
There are existing policies for regulating have also highlighted the lack of attention
wastewater management that are based by planners, governments and policy
on certain environmental laws, policies makers to problems of urbanisation.
and legal provisions. These include
Constitutional Provisions on sanitation
and water pollution; National Environment
Policy, 2006; National Sanitation Policy, Sanitation
2008; Hazardous Wastes (Management and was not prioritised
Handling) Rules, 1989; Municipalities Act;
District Municipalities Act etc. For planned,
until the early 1990s
strategic, safe and sustainable use of and became an
wastewater, there seems to be a need for important policy
policy decisions.
concern only
around 2008
45
National Review
Installed Actual Utilised % No. of

Capacity (MLD) capacity (MLD) Utilisation STPs
Delhi 20 20 100 2
Uttar Pradesh 168.4 123.7 73 9
284 124.2 44 6
Madhya Pradesh
232 226 97 2
Gujarat
798.94 394 49 18
Maharashtra
779.6 585.8 75 24
Tamil Nadu
4716.33 3126.42 66 152
Table 5 - State-wise treatment capacity and capacity utilisation

Source - Performance evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants by CPCB, 2013, p 15
An analysis of India’s sanitation policies variety of implementation models, as well

and programmes thus far, shows that as a confusing allocation of roles and
their implementation has been purely responsibilities between state and local
government-led, infrastructure-centred, agencies, which sometimes leave large gaps
supply driven and subsidy-based. India’s in implementation. The 2006 World Bank
approach towards sanitation has been report on the WSS sector55 in India notes,
purely programmatic without a holistic “In urban [water supply and sanitation]
overview. there is often an unhealthy overlap between
policymaking, regulation, financing,
Institutional framework ownership of infrastructure, and operation
The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of service within State agencies responsible
of 199254 reformed the urban sector by for the two sub-sectors.” Another challenge
transferring responsibility for domestic, facing the sanitation sector is the
industrial, and commercial water supply disconnect between WSS initiatives and the
and sewerage (WSS) from state agencies, public health and education sectors. The
such as Departments of Public Health NUSP aims to address the lack of systematic
Engineering and State Water Boards, policies by calling on cities to develop
to ULBs. This transfer has resulted in a integrated sanitation strategies; however,
54 The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) reforms.

55 World Bank. “India Water and Sanitation: Bridging the Gap between Infrastructure and Service.” Jan. 2006. Washington, D.C.: World Bank
1951 Water supply and sanitation is part of first Five Year Plan.
1980-81 Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS) for urban areas is launched to
convert dry toilets to pour-flush.
1986 Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) is launched to help increase the
coverage of household toilets in rural areas from 1 per cent in 1981 (Census 1981)
to 22 per cent in 2001 (Census 2001) and 32.7 per cent in 2011 (Census 2011).
1987 National Water Policy is drafted recognising water as a basic right.
1993 74th Constitutional Amendment – recognises the constitutional powers and

functions of Urban Local Bodies.
1999 CRSP, revamped as Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), is launched in 559 rural
districts in India.
2000 The National Health Policy recognises the link between sanitation and health.
2000-01 Valmiki - Ambedkar Awas Yojana includes sanitation as part of housing.
2002 10th Five Year Plan places significant emphasis on Urban Water Supply and
Sanitation.
2005 JnNURM is launched, includes provision to develop basic services for the urban
poor.
2008 National Urban Sanitation Policy is launched. Service Level Benchmark framework
is launched.
2010 MoUD undertakes national rating of 423 cities on sanitation performance and
introduces the ‘Clean City Award’.
2012 Rajiv Awas Yojana aiming to create slum-free cities is launched.

2012 TSC is revamped as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) - aimed to accelerate sanitation
coverage in rural areas to achieve the vision of ‘Nirmal’ Bharat by 2022 with all
village panchayats in the country attaining ‘Nirmal’ status.
2013 Advisory note on Septage Management in Urban India, MOUD and NUSP,
January 2013 - providing the strategies and guidelines for national level septage
management.
2014 NBA is further revamped as Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA). It aims to ensure access
to sanitation facilities (including toilets, solid and liquid waste disposal systems
and village cleanliness) and safe and adequate drinking water supply to every
person by 2019, three years ahead of the deadline set by NBA.
Table 6 - Milestones in Sanitation

47
National Review
the existing bureaucracy surrounding for the overall policy, planning, funding
the WSS sector is a key challenge to and coordination of programmes on rural
implementing new practices such as drinking water and sanitation in the
septage management. country. MDWS provides financial and
technical support in sanitation to all the
Institutional structure for states and union territories, while the
sanitation sector56 respective state governments are vested
The responsibility for provision of with the responsibility of implementing the
sanitation facilities in the country primarily programme in their respective regions. In
rests with local government bodies – addition, the CPCB and the State Pollution
municipalities or corporations in urban Control Boards (SPCBs) look into the
areas and gram panchayats in rural areas. establishment and violation of norms for
The state and central governments act as solid and liquid waste management, which
facilitators. In the central government, the are the main responsibility of ULBs in
Planning Commission, through the Five urban areas and the district administration
Year Plans, guides investment in the sector in rural areas.
by allocating funds for strategic priorities.
The Ministry of Urban Development Role of Urban Local Bodies
(MoUD) and Ministry of Housing and Urban (ULBs) under NUSP
Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) are the According to the NUSP, ULBs are supposed
nodal agencies for formulation of policies, to examine laws and rules with respect
strategies and guidelines. They assist the to the sanitation responsibilities of
states by providing financial assistance for households and of the ULB itself; and then
the development of urban water supply and to call upon the ‘Task Force’ to make rules
sanitation schemes in cities and towns. The explicit regarding:
Central Public Health and Environmental 1. Safe sanitary arrangements at unit
Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO)57 is the level (household, establishment).
technical arm of the Ministry and assists
2. Designs and systems for safe collection.
in preparing policy guidelines, technical
manuals, etc. 3. Norms for transport/conveyance.
4. Treatment and final disposal.58

The Ministry of Drinking Water and
Sanitation (MDWS) is the nodal agency
56 India, Country Paper on Sanitation, 2013 , SACOSAN – V 2013

57 Please refer to the website http://cpheeo.nic.in/, for details and for access to the manuals on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment (Report available
at http://cpheeo.nic.in/Sewerage.aspx.)
58 NUSP 2008. Available at http://indiagovernance.gov.in/files/NUSP.pdf
48
These should be consistent with the

CPHEEO and with Environment Acts.59
In turn, the Sanitation Task Force60 is

charged with the responsibility of assigning
various duties to the ULB. Ultimately, the
ULB is to have “overall responsibility for
city-wide sanitation”, including:
An alarming
70 %
1. Management of functions,
funds and functionaries.
2. Planning and financing. of India’s surface

3. Asset creation.
water is now polluted
& contaminated by
4. Operations and management
biological, toxic,
(O&M) arrangements for all
sanitation facilities and systems organic &
-including transportation and up to inorganic
final treatment and waste disposal.
pollutants
5. Establishing of tariffs and revenue
collections for sustainable O&M.
6. Enhancing access and setting

up of designated O&M
arrangements for the urban poor
and unserved populations.
safe disposal of on-site
7. Adopting environmental, public septage), and infrastructure and
health, processes (including service delivery standards.
59 The reality is often different, with systemic and capacity weaknesses, aggravated by lack of incentivisation and resources, leading to
situations of unmanaged and uncontrolled dumping of septic tank waste. Refer to the MoUD advisory note on septage management in urban
India, p 11-12.
60 NUSP 2008: 19
49
National Review
Key challenges in septage on sanitation, particularly on safe disposal.

management in India Access of the poor to safe sanitation
is not accorded attention. Sanitation
When talking about sanitation, there is solutions continue to remain supply-driven
a need to go beyond just construction of rather than demand-responsive. Manual
toilets. FSM has been called the missing scavenging is still widespread though
and ignored component of the sanitation prohibited by law62 63.
sector. The following are the key challenges
of the sector: Fragmented policy framework
and weak enforcement: Inadequate
State Sanitation Strategies: policies; piecemeal implementation; no
Currently, the State Sanitation Strategy comprehensive laws on urban sanitation;
extends to eleven states (Himachal most cities have not yet developed
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, policies to regulate septage management;
Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar the existence of a multitude of legal
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, instruments like pollution control law
Odisha and Bihar). To date, most cities enacted by the central government and
have not yet developed policies to regulate municipal laws; laws governing parastatal
septage management, and ULBs are not bodies; public health laws and building
very knowledgeable about this issue.61 and sanitation by-laws enacted at the state
or local levels. Lack of knowledge in ULBs;
Urban Sanitation: No physical no delineation of roles and responsibilities;
infrastructure is available to treat septage. agency roles and responsibilities for water,
There is limited use of mechanised sanitation, and public health are often
desludging. On-site sanitation is not unclear, overlap and are inadequately
accorded priority. There is a preference for coordinated; lack of clarity in the role
centralised advanced engineering solutions of state agencies to support ULBs in
rather than septage management. Most implementing their city sanitation plans
cities and states lack data and policies and absence of state policy on this;
addressing on-site sanitation systems. insensitive planning towards the sanitation
There is low prioritisation and awareness requirements of the ever growing urban
at the level of public and government poor; exclusion of peri-urban and slum
agencies. There is a lack of explicit policies areas from the legal framework.
61 http://www.sswm.info/content/state-sanitation-strategy
62 A rapid assessment of septage management in Asia, 2010, USAID
63 Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Published in Gazette of India
50
The development of physical
infrastructure is only one component
of a functioning septage management
programme. It depends equally upon
sustained public sector commitment and
funding, effective policies, appropriate
implementation, and compliance
enforcement.
Funding capital and operational
costs: Inadequate public funding for
septage management and dependence
Inadequate human and on external assistance translates to lack
institutional capacity: Limited of commitment and ownership; low
awareness of stakeholders including wastewater tariffs and inadequate O&M
policymakers, government officials, civil funding. Despite the unprecedented
society and the common man; lack of growth in urban population and demand
skilled human resources; inadequate for services, municipal revenue generation
regulation and/or partnership with private has not increased due to limited property
service providers; insufficient wastewater tax collection and low user fees for public
planning; most ULBs have very limited services. As a result, most ULBs depend
institutional, financial, and staff capacity on the availability of state grants and the
to improve sanitation provision and implementation priorities of state agencies,
septage management. often becoming trapped in a cycle of
inadequate service provision, inadequate
revenues, and inability to improve services.
51
National Review
Institutional issues: Shortage of facilities has preceded policy, India’s

government finances; inefficiency of focus on policy development allows cities
ULB-run systems; paucity of qualified to develop integrated strategies that
and experienced human resources and maximise the efficacy of the future physical
finances; administrative issues such as infrastructure. These are very positive
frequent transfer of trained staff. steps, although the lack of existing local
and state policy and management practices
and the lack of physical infrastructure to
Recommendations and way treat septage, pose significant challenges
forward for India as it begins to address the critical
issue of on-site sanitation.
The development of physical
infrastructure is only one component
of a functioning septage management Specific recommendations
programme. It depends equally upon for improving septage
sustained public sector commitment and management at a national
funding, effective policies, appropriate level
implementation, and compliance
enforcement. Historically, the Government Develop national guidelines on
of India has focused its wastewater septage management:
investments on centralised sewerage and To support the implementation of the NUSP,
treatment. However, the 2008 National the Ministry of Urban Development can
Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) changed create an advisory board that will develop
the country’s approach to urban sanitation. operative guidelines. These guidelines
According to the NUSP, local governments can provide a starting point for state and
are to be responsible for behavioural local agencies who can further adapt the
change, total sanitation, 100 per cent safe model guidelines and manuals to their
waste disposal, and for enforcing the end of own contexts. Guidelines for septage
manual scavenging, in addition to sewerage management could include provisions
development. on the involvement of private service
providers, health and safety standards,
The NUSP tasks state governments with types of septage treatment technologies,
drafting state urban sanitation policies, and standards for effluent and treated
which in turn require cities to develop septage discharge or reuse.
city sanitation strategies. Unlike other
countries where the construction of
52
Complete state urban sanitation resources, managing septage collection

strategies and streamline support and treatment to promote agricultural
for ULBs: productivity or reduce agricultural
Already, 11 states have drafted their runoff, creating centres of waste recycling
urban sanitation strategies; the remaining to promote new jobs, or developing
states must develop and complete theirs. constructed wetland treatment systems
MoUD can assist lagging states to develop to create new recreational spaces and
these strategies, potentially with the wildlife habitats. Selecting strategies that
assistance of international organisations. resolve multiple problems and produce
In developing the strategy for urban multiple benefits can build public support
sanitation in each state, it is critical that for projects and promote programme
these state plans not only create sanitation sustainability.
cells, as directed by the NUSP, but also
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Provide trainings and exposure to
WSS Board and Public Health Engineering policymakers and operators:
Department (PHED), which possess most Having never had to address on-site
of the technical expertise in the state. In sanitation before, many ULBs lack the
addition to providing technical assistance technical knowledge or even the vision of
and implementation monitoring, state how to develop adequate collection and
sanitation cells should draft guidelines for treatment programmes. States should use
local by-laws on sanitation. exposure visits, workshops, technical
trainings, and twinning partnerships for
Integrate septage management into policymakers and wastewater operators in
environmental planning: order to raise awareness and capacity. To
Since NUSP charges ULBs to first survey this end, states can look to MoUD, donor
the sanitation condition and then develop agencies and research or other training
a comprehensive sanitation strategy before institutions for funding and technical
constructing facilities, cities in India assistance. Exposure visits and trainings
have an opportunity to integrate septage can involve regional peers who have
treatment with other environmental successfully provided septage management
initiatives. This could include jointly through a variety of modalities.
managing solid waste and septage
collection and treatment, holistically
addressing water and treated wastewater
53
National Review
Construct septage treatment Develop public promotion

facilities: campaigns:
There are a variety of treatment Once treatment facilities have been
technologies that will render septage constructed, cities/towns will want to
safe to reuse and dispose; these can be educate households on the value and
constructed in plantations, farms, landfills, importance of regular desludging. To
and sewage treatment plants. As part of develop a public promotion programme,
their baseline sanitation survey process, cities/towns can first survey household
cities should determine the quality of attitudes and concerns towards sanitation
collected septage, and whether it can meet and septic tanks, which will in turn help
international standards for reuse. If the to identify target audiences and tailor-
treated septage can be reused, the facilities make key messages. Cities/towns can then
can be designed to generate profitable conduct the campaign, evaluate attitudes
fertilizers, possibly in tandem with solid post-campaign, and further refine future
waste composting. promotion campaigns.
Engage existing private service Engage local research institutions

providers in public-private in developing septage treatment
partnerships: facilities:
For many years, private collectors have As the nutrient and pollutant composition
been providing desludging services when of septage varies by climate and culture,
public agencies fail to do so. There are cities/towns in India will need to conduct
also many examples of private septage research to determine the efficacy of
collectors who do not dispose of septage different treatment systems, opportunities
in treatment facilities because they were for improvement, possibilities of reuse
not adequately consulted or engaged in and recycling, and new treatment
the facility’s siting and design process. technologies, such as those that combine
By involving private septage collectors, solid and human waste composting.
community-based organisations (CBOs), Engaging engineering schools in this
and sanitation workers early in the process will also help to integrate on-site
planning process for new septage collection sanitation management and treatment
policies and treatment facilities, ULBs into the curriculum and produce future
can help develop new local business professionals who are able and committed
opportunities, build future compliance, to solving this critical issue of national
and ensure that new facilities will be used. importance.
54
3
State Level Review
This chapter critically reviews the sanitation policies of six states (Delhi,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu)
with focus on septage management.
55
State Level Review : Delhi
Urban
sanitation (not sharing with other households) in
context in the premises and out of these, 99 per cent
are reported as having access to improved
Delhi source latrines67.
According to Census 2011, the total Among the slum

population of Delhi is 1.7 crore with population, about 95 per
the overall population density of Delhi cent do not have latrines
increasing from 9340 persons per sq.km
in 2001 to 11,320 in 201164. Of the total at home and they either
3.4 million households, 98 per cent are in access a public toilet or
urban areas. Of these, 3 per cent do not resort to open defecation 68
.
have toilet facilities. Of the households
with any form of sanitation facilities, 60.5
per cent are connected to the piped sewer Wastewater generation and
system and 24.7 per cent have septic treatment
tanks65. The river Yamuna bears the brunt of an
indiscriminate discharge of untreated
As per the Census 2011 data, out of 3.26 wastewater, making it heavily polluted
million urban households, only 2.9 million with domestic and industrial wastewater.
have toilet facilities within the premises of After the convergence of the Najafgarh and
their house. About 3 per cent of households 18 other major drains, its water quality
defecate in open spaces while 21 per cent becomes heavily degraded and is unfit even
do not have toilets within the premises66. for animal consumption and irrigation69.
NSS 2012 estimates show that 67 per
cent of households have exclusive toilets
64 Statistical Abstract of Delhi, 2014

latrine facility- new additions in 2011. Available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
66 Ibid
67 ‘Exclusive use of latrine’ means household’s latrine facility was for its exclusive use (not sharing with other households) ‘improved source’ of
latrine’ includes sources such as ‘flush/pour-flush to piped sewer system/septic tank/pit latrine’, ‘ventilated improved pit latrine’, ‘pit latrine
with slab’ and ‘compositing toilet’.
68 NSS 69th Round, 2013 Key Indicators of Urban Slums in India, July 2012-December 2012.
69 Water Supply and Sanitation, Chapter 13, Economic Survey 2012-13, Planning Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
56
Water supply Waste water sewer networks. Including peripheral and

internal sewers, the sewer network in
Delhi is about 7,000 km long.
Among the metropolitan cities, Delhi has

87% 61% the highest capacity of sewage treatment
Waste water Treatment (2330 MLD) which is 29 per cent of the
capacity total treatment capacity of metropolitan
cities72. Some of the plants are old and
According to CPCB (2009), Delhi requires therefore less efficient. Hence installed
4346 MLD for domestic use, of which 87 capacity is not fully utilised. As per the
per cent turns out to be wastewater but CPCB data of 2013, the sewerage generated
Delhi has the capacity to treat only 61 per is 3800 MLD. The percentage of available
cent of the total wastewater70. capacity is 61. Apart from the fact that
some STPs are old and therefore inefficient,
The Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is responsible it is seen that the sewer network has gaps.
for treatment of domestic sewage in the This leads to a situation where there are
National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi STPs but no sewerage sent to them for
and is also the executing agency entrusted treatment. This is another reason for
with the construction and maintenance underutilisation of STPs.
of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP),
Wastewater Pumping Stations (WWPS),
sewage networks and associated structures.
The DJB has 34 WWTPs at 21 locations The Master Plan 2021 73
in the NCT and WWPSs equipped to treat also notes that the planned
594.92 million gallons per day (MGD)
of sewage with a capacity utilisation of
reuse of treated wastewater
around 57 per cent71. It currently takes is miniscule. The treated
wastewater from New Delhi Municipal wastewater is largely put
Council (NDMC) and Delhi Cantonment
Board (DCB) areas, both of which are
back into drains where it
responsible for the provision of local gets polluted again before
70 Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in Class-I cities and Class-II towns of India. Control of Urban Pollution Series:
CUPS/70 /2009–10). Delhi, India: Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India
71 Sewerage Master Plan for Delhi - Final Report, 2014, Delhi Jal Board. P. 14. Available at http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/DOIT_DJB/
djb/our+services1/suggestion+for+draft+sewage+master+plan+2031
72 CPCB Report (2013). Performance evaluation report on sewage treatment plants in India. August 2013. Also refer to Status of Sewerage and
Sewage Treatment Plant in Delhi, Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/2003-2004, Central Pollution Control Board, August 2004
73 Master Plan 2021. Delhi Development Authority. Chapter 9. Available at https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/mar15/01.%20MPD-2021_
Chapters%201-19_%20JANUARY%202015_040215.pdf
57
State Level Review : Delhi
flowing into the river Institutional framework:

This includes schemes providing water
Yamuna, which receives 70 supply and sewerage facilities, anti-
per cent of its waste from its flood works, storm water drainage, and
22km flow through urban desilting of nullahs and sewers in Delhi.
The Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is entrusted
Delhi. with the responsibility of production and
distribution of water and treatment and
For sewage management, Delhi is divided
disposal of sewage in Delhi. It provides
into six major drainage zones, namely
water in bulk to NDMC and the Cantonment
Keshopur, Okhla, Ritala, Shahdara,
Board for redistribution in their respective
Coronation Pillar and Outer Delhi. The
areas. Similarly, the sewerage is received
first five zones are majorly sewered with
in bulk from these two authorities for
some unsewered colonies. The sixth zone
final conveyance and disposal by Delhi Jal
is predominantly unsewered. Only about
Board. In the areas under the jurisdiction of
50 per cent of the population is covered by
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the
sewerage network and sewage generated
DJB is responsible for distribution of water
from the remaining population goes
and collection and disposal of sewage.
through a number of surface drains into
NDMC implements water supply, sewerage,
river Yamuna.
anti-flood work and covering of nullah
schemes in its area.
The sewage lines are either settled or silted
up and need desilting for conveyance of
Policies and programmes of
raw sewage from colonies up to pumping
the state:
stations and further to WWTPs. As a result,
The National Urban Sanitation Policy
less sewage reaches the WWTPs and hence
(NUSP) of 2008 recognises that sanitation
they are underutilised. Commonly, sewage
is a state subject which is further devolved
that is to go through settled or collapsed
to cities under the 74th Constitutional
sewers is diverted into storm water drains
Amendment. This is a comprehensive
and eventually into the Yamuna. In the
policy framework for urban sanitation.
case of the remaining 50 per cent of the
Although the basic concepts and principles
population living in non-planned sections
of sanitation management remain quite
of the city74 (unauthorized colonies,
similar all over the country, a number of
clusters and rural villages) not having
factors influence the processes, which are
sewerage connections, the raw sewage
physiological, climatic, socio-economic
finally reaches the Yamuna.
74 Are PPPs here to stay. Centre for Science and Environment. Available at http://www.cseindia.org/node/3875
58
and institutional in nature at the state cities. It directs the states to prepare a City
and city level. Therefore, NUSP directs Development Plan (CDP) in order to be
the states to prepare their own individual considered for funding.75 Under JnNURM,
sanitation plans for cities (City Sanitation 11.5 per cent of the capital investment
Plans) to best suit their situations. State is to be made for sewerage. The CDP for
level steering committees and urban Delhi prepared under JnNURM suggests
departments direct the Urban Local the following strategies for sewerage
Bodies (ULBs) to undertake the final management:
implementation of sanitation management
at the local level. 1. Extension and upgradation of
the sewage network to intercept
Delhi does not have a State Sanitation sewage (abatement of pollution).
Strategy. However, the Delhi Development
2. Provision of sewer networks in
Authority (DDA) has been coming out
unsewered areas; augmentation
with a series of Master Plans since 1962.
of sewage treatment capacity.
The one currently applicable is Master
Plan 2021 and Master Plan 2031 has
been submitted (June 2014). One of the The 12th Five Year Plan specifically
focal points of Plan 2021 relating to the mentions higher standards of treatment for
environment was the rejuvenation of river wastewater for all non-potable purposes.
Yamuna through a number of measures Organisational restructuring of Delhi
including ensuring adequate flow in the Jal Board and promotion of the public-
river by release of water by riparian states, private partnership (PPP) approach to
refurbishment of trunk sewers, treatment improve the management of water and
of drains, installing sewers in unsewered sewerage is stressed. A project for laying
areas, treatment of industrial effluent, of interceptor sewers along three major
recycling of treated effluent and removal of drains i.e. Najafgarh drain, Supplementary
coliforms at STPs. drain and Shahdara drain has been started.
Implementation of this project is expected
Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal to ensure discharge of only treated
Mission (JnNURM) is a national initiative wastewater and control pollution in the
to support infrastructure development in river Yamuna.76 77
75 USAID 2010. A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia: Policies and Practices in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam.
76 WaterAid India and Delhi Slum Dwellers Federation (2005). Profiling ‘Informal City’ of Delhi, Policies, Norms, Institutions & Scope of
Intervention.
77 Planning Commission (2011). Faster, sustainbale and more inclusive growth: An Approach to 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17)
59
A badly maintained sanitation block.
Both blocks are in desperate need of
repair and renovation. The toilets are not
connected to a water supply, and they
do not have an outlet for the waste, so
drainage is a big issue here. People don’t
have an option or an alternative to using
these awful sanitation blocks. • Setting up of development policies and
schemes for sewerage management.
• Monitoring and supervising the

The funding for water and sanitation construction, management and
has increased under the 12th Five Year development of the sewerage system.
Plan. However, the funding is focused
• Administration of technique
on building urban infrastructure such as
and training to staff on sewer
expanding sewerage networks and new
operation and maintenance.
sewage treatment plants.
• Research and developing of
Based on the timeframe, the Sewerage sewerage techniques.
Master Plan for Delhi - 203178 suggests
• Coordinating the structure, construction
some short term and long term plans.
and management of sewers in
These include:
situations of multi-municipalities.
• Expansion of sewerage network. • Promoting measures for conservation,

recycling and reuse of water.
78 Sewerage Master Plan for Delhi - Final Report, 2014, Delhi Jal Board, (AECOM-WAPCOS). Available at http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/
connect/DOIT_DJB/djb/our+services1/suggestion+for+draft+sewage+master+plan+2031
60
(PAS) data for 2011-12, a majority of

Urban the households in Gujarat depend on
sanitation septic tanks and soak pits for wastewater
context in
treatment80 81. Only 62 cities out of 167
Gujarat have some extent of sewerage network and

67, or around 40 per cent of ULBs, have
access to some underground sewerage
Gujarat is the 10th most populous state network. Although each of the seven
with 5 per cent of the total population of municipal corporations have sewerage
the country. According to the 2011 Census, networks, many smaller ULBs also have
the state’s population is 60 million. Gujarat underground sewerage networks. In
is one of the fastest growing urbanised the absence of sewerage systems, there
states, with 42.6 per cent of its population are open drains that carry sullage and
residing in urban areas. The state has greywater. There is a shortage, though, of
187 ULBs comprising eight municipal sewage treatment facilities: just 7 per cent
corporations, 159 nagar palikas and 20 or 12 ULBs in Gujarat have such facilities82
notified areas. 83
.
The 2011 Census found that 87 per cent Wastewater generation and
of the total urban households have latrine treatment:
facilities within the premises while other The state has 28 class-I cities (2008) with
households do not. Nearly half (60.4 per domestic water use of 2,101 MLD, of which,
cent) of them have sewer connections, 24.2 80 per cent turned out to be sewage water.
per cent had toilets connected to septic Of the total sewage water generated, nearly
tanks, 8.7 per cent defecate in the open half of the wastewater (47 per cent) was
while 3.6 per cent had access to public treated84. In the case of class-II cities, with
latrines79. the requirement of 285 MLD, 80 per cent
was generated as wastewater but no data
As per the Service Level Benchmarking is available on its treatment. This shows
(SLB) - Performance Assessment System that a significant volume of wastewater
79 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India-2011, Registrar General and Commissioner, India. From the Table: Type of
80 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Faecal Sludge Management for Municipalities in Gujarat (Draft), Urban Management Centre, Under PAS
programme, CEPT University, Ahmadabad, India (undated document)
81 Performance Benchmarking of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Gujarat (Data Book 2008-09) Part -1, April 2011, CEPT University,
Ahmedabad, India
82 For additional details and reading on state and city profiles, please refer to Annual Performance Assessment Report of Urban Water Supply and
Sanitation – Gujarat, Data book 1 & 2, Full Report (2009-13), 2014, CEPT University, and Ahmedabad, India.
83 TARU (2008), Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puruskar Awarded Panchayat, Final Report, Volume 1, (Prepared for UNICEF).
84 Of the1680.92 MLD wastewater generated, only 782.5 MLD is treated.
61
State Level Review : Gujarat
is not subjected to any treatment and is and functional STPs, sludge is emptied
ultimately discharged into surface water in manholes or transported to STPs and
bodies leading to deterioration of water treated along with the sewage conveyed
quality. through the underground network85.
The Urban Management Centre (UMC) 2. In Gujarat, an average of 47 per cent

monitored and assessed the performance of properties are connected to on-
of all 167 cities in Gujarat over the last five site wastewater disposal systems.
years. The important findings of the study The highest dependence on on-site
pertinent to FSM are: sanitation systems is in Class-D cities.
Overall, there is a higher dependence
1. L
ike in other cities of India, faecal on septic tanks and soak pits in
sludge management has been a municipalities than in municipal
neglected area in ULBs of Gujarat corporations. Three-fourth of urban
as well. The sector has not received properties have individual toilets, out
any attention because of poor of which 53 per cent are connected to
understanding of O&M requirements, sewer networks and 28 per cent are
lack of guidance, inadequate resources dependent on on-site sanitary disposal
and skills, shortage of manpower systems86.
and finance. Currently, out of the 167
ULBs, 105 do not have any underground 3. Some 40 cities do not have sewerage
drainage system and only 62 have a systems and are not reported to have
partial sewer system. Most cities from septage management services. The
the Saurashtra region do not have any septic tank/soak pit cleaning is serviced
underground drainage system and by private sector operators in these
are dependent on on-site sanitation cities. As many as 77 per cent cities have
systems. The toilets are connected reported having sucking machines for
to septic tanks/pits and the sullage/ emptying septic tanks. A few cities also
effluent is often discharged into use private sucking machines which
roadside storm water drains which are licensed by the ULBs for service
are covered or open. Faecal sludge provision. Presence of equipment with
generated in small cities often ends up various classes of ULBs shows that 56
in garbage dumps, storm water drains, per cent cities have reported having
water bodies or is used for agriculture. at least one sucking machine, while
In cities that have sewerage network ten cities have reported three or more
85 Study of FSM Practices in Municipalities of Gujarat, PAS-UMC 2014. Prepared by Urban Management Centre under the PAS project, 2014
86 Ibid p 10.
In most of the
cities, field visits
have revealed that
the sludge is either
disposed in a nullah,
water body, open field,
dumping yard or sold
to farmers
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
63
machines. There is a wide variation Most households get their systems cleaned
in adequacy with the equipment through private players who do not have
across cities. This leads to many of proper gear and equipment. No city has a
the households resorting to privatised functional septage treatment facility and
emptying services, which may lead to septage removed from septic tanks and
dumping the sludge in open drains or pits is often disposed at the dumping yard,
open areas, posing considerable health open plots or in some cases, in agricultural
and environmental risks. The workers farms. None of the ULBs have carried out
are also at risk as they mostly work any awareness campaign to inform and
without adequate protective gear and educate households regarding proper
equipment87. operation and maintenance of on-site
sewage systems89.
Another issue that the UMC team has
observed is that the septic tanks/single pits The performance audit of the Total
are often built in huge sizes to avoid having Sanitation Campaign by CAG90 reveals
to clean them often. Four cities in the state that Information, Education and
have septage treatment facilities. In most of Communication (IEC) activities to spread
the cities, field visits have revealed that the awareness among public were not carried
sludge is either disposed in a nullah, water out properly as the targets set in the annual
body, open field, dumping yard or sold to action plan were not accomplished. The
farmers88. achievement of targets for individual
household latrines (IHHL) have been
Site studies revealed that in inflated as the progress reports were

generated on the basis of funds released
all the cities, management rather than on actual construction of
of on-site sanitation toilets. As per the latest baseline survey
systems is a neglected area. (October 2013), the sanitation coverage

in the state was only 46 per cent. This
There is evidence of manual was much lower than reported. Toilets
scavenging in all cities. constructed at the cost of Rs.2.80 crore
could not be put to use due to the inferior
quality of the structure or non-construction
of the soak pit91.
88 Ibid, p 12
90 Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on local bodies. For the year ended in March 2013. Government of Gujarat.
Report No.5 of 2014.
91 Ibid
64
Institutional framework: standards, amenities and creating a

The urban water and sanitation programme congenial environment in the urban areas
in Gujarat is implemented through the of Gujarat for people to live in and work.
following institutions:
Gujarat Urban Development
Gujarat Water Supply and Corporation (GUDC): GUDC is
Sewerage Board (GWSSB): positioned to facilitate urban development
Established to ensure sustainable water by assisting the state government and
supply and sanitation services in the existing agencies in formulation of policy,
rural areas of Gujarat, GWSSB aims institutional capacity building, funding
to accomplish the basic health and and project implementation. It also assists
hygiene levels leading to socio-economic the state government in the preparation of
development, communal harmony and policy and strategy for urban development
peace in society. Its functions include the infrastructure provision; preparation of
planning and implementation of drinking guidelines for private sector participation
water supply and sanitation policies; in urban development; maintaining
annual and Five Year programmes; an updated information database on
coordinating and reviewing all water urban development; assessing the need
supply and sanitation programmes with and form of Government Guarantee to
the Government of India; formulating ULBs required for raising funds from the
and recovering water charges; deciding market; assisting the state government in
and implementing the water supply and formulation, appraisal, implementation
sanitation service standards; operating and monitoring of urban projects funded
and maintaining these standards and from multilateral sources; channelising
implementing schemes to develop human additional grant/tax-sharing between
resources for the effective implementation the state and the ULBs (as recommended
of programmes. by the State Finance Commission) based
on criteria to be decided (e.g. reforms in
Gujarat Urban Development accounting systems, revenue collection
Mission (GUDM): The Government of efficiency etc., undertaken by the ULB) and
Gujarat constituted GUDM and designated in implementing urban reforms as an agent
it as a nodal agency for Jawaharlal of the state government.
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
(JnNURM). The objective of the GUDM Gujarat Municipal Finance
is to support urban renewal and urban Board (GMFB): The Gujarat Municipal
infrastructure development in the given Finance Board was established under the
timeframe for attaining better living Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Act, 1979
65
to provide grants and loans for basic and include infrastructure facilities in urban
infrastructure facilities through various poor localities, sanitised and healthy
development schemes for ULBs. environments and affordable ownership
dwellings for all, leading towards slum-free
Policies and programmes of the towns. 20 per cent of grants from the Urban
state: Development Department (UDD) and 20 per
Over the past five years, Gujarat has cent of the income of all ULBs is used to
attempted to consolidate various urban focus on the poor. Rs.13,000 crore has been
and UWSS schemes and programmes under allocated to GSY over five years93.
umbrella programmes such as:
Nirmal Gujarat Programme (NGP): Swarna Jayanti Mukhya Mantri Shaheri
Launched in 2007; the Government of Vikas Yojana (SJMMSVY): It was launched
Gujarat celebrated that year as ‘Nirmal in 2009 to overcome pressure on urban
Gujarat Year’ covering all ULBs. Its mission centres, as well as to support and sustain
is ‘a holistic, integrated thrust to ensure the Urban 2005 vision and achieve
clean land, clean water and air, generating administrative and fiscal reforms in all
an overall cultural awareness with people’s ULBs. Its salient features include: reform-
participation and empowering women linked schemes, incorporating and
to ensure improved productivity in the consolidation of various existing schemes,
state’. It covers low-cost sanitation, solid an overall outlay of Rs.7,000 crore over
waste management, potable drinking three years, focus on towns and cities other
water, cleansing of streets, drains, clean than JnNURM cities, focus on urban poor
city initiatives, incentive grants against and urban green94.
collection of “Safai Kar”, and an energy
audit scheme92. Mahatma Gandhi Swachhata
Mission (MGSM)95: Integrated with
Garib Samruddhi Yojana (GSY): ‘Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’, MGSM was
Launched in 2007, GSY is a result- launched in 2014 to achieve an open
oriented action plan to integrate the urban defecation free, zero waste community, a
poor in the mainstream development dust free and green Gujarat. Encouraging
process. Its focus is on multiple results: sustainable sanitation facilities through
permanent employment, health, education, awareness creation and health education,
housing, roads, power and other services giving inspiration to communities and
to the urban poor. The main objectives panchayati raj institutions, focusing
92 Financing and Monitoring Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in Gujarat, CEPT University, 2011, p 32.
93 Financing and Monitoring Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in Gujarat, CEPT University, 2011
94 Ibid
95 Liquid Waste Management. http://www.mgsm-gujarat.in/Projects/limited-waster-management-program-3
66
on solid and liquid waste in urban and • PPP for successful project
rural areas for complete cleanliness and implementation through exploring
developing environmental sanitation the scope for reuse of waste in the
systems arranged by the community are agricultural and industrial sectors
the main objectives of the project. The and also identifying potential buyers
following have been outlined as outcomes and selling in the open market.
of municipal solid waste and liquid waste
management of the programme:
• Development of waste management As part of MGSM, the ‘Nirmal Gujarat
infrastructure for the implementation Sauchalay Yojana’ was launched. Under
of solid and liquid waste management this scheme, all families in urban areas
practices will provide important (BPL/APL) who do not have toilet facilities
support for management of are being provided toilets with a unit cost
waste for the next 30 years. of Rs.6000/- in the beginning. Financial
assistance for individual toilets has been
• Improvement in environment
increased to Rs.8000/-, enabling ULBs to
and health condition of ULBs
sanction toilet units to eligible families
through integration of all essential
and reducing the number of toilet-less
parameters of waste management,
families.
condition of cities and towns.
• Symbiotic relationship between Challenges in septage management:

urban and rural areas: In the Lack of state policy/guidelines and
proposed waste management technological support to ULBs is a major
practices, waste has been planned constraint for the state of Gujarat. Like
to be reused as compost or organic any other state, managing operations
fertilizers and for irrigation purposes. and maintenance of sewerage, pumping,
septage emptying and treatment are major
• Ensure financial viability for
concerns. Other concerns are inability to
ULBs through the PPP mode
find land for septage management, lack of
of waste management.
awareness generation to understand the
• Addressing the challenges of climate link between poor sanitation and public
change and accruing the CDM benefits: health, inadequate institutional capacity of
A scientific approach to solid and ULBs, inadequate funding to ULBs and the
liquid waste management leads to inability of ULBs to recover operation and
reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) maintenance costs through fees and local
emissions, and hence helps in curbing taxes.
the challenges of climate change.
67
State Level Review : Madhya Pradesh
Urban
sanitation According to the 2011
context in Census, 74.2 per cent of
Madhya Pradesh urban households have
latrine facilities within
the premises while other
Madhya Pradesh is the second largest state
with 6 per cent of the total population of
households do not . Nearly 98
the country. According to the 2011 Census, half (50.1 per cent) of these
the state’s population is 72.59 million. The have toilets connected to
377 cities and towns of Madhya Pradesh
accommodate 27.5 per cent of its total
septic tanks and a fifth have
population. The 377 ULBs comprise 14 sewer connections; 22.5
municipal corporations, 100 municipal per cent resort to open
councils and 263 nagar parishads. Having
a large urban sector, it faces a number
defecation while 3.3 per
of challenges coupled to a high level of cent have access to public
planned investment in urban infrastructure latrines . 99
and reforms under various government and

donor funded initiatives96 97. None of the cities are fully covered by the
sewerage system. The larger cities are
The status with regard to sanitation in the partially covered by a sewerage network
state is poor as many households do not but the wastewater is not treated before
have access to toilet facilities and resort to being released in a river. Bhopal and
open defecation. Besides, there are no safe Indore corporations are in the process of
waste disposal and management systems in establishing wastewater treatment plants.
place. This unhealthy environment affects In the absence of a sewerage network,
mostly the women and children. the liquid waste from the households
The state government and the ULBs have is transported through open drains.
been implementing programmes without Rainwater and poor maintenance often
policy guidelines and without much leads to choking and flooding of drains. Of
progress. the urban households in the state, 76 per
96 http://www.mpurban.gov.in/Urban_Scenario.asp
97 Water Sector Reforms and their Implications in Madhya Pradesh, Paper Presented by Rehmat and Gaurav Dwivedi, Session 16, International
Conference on Water Resources Policy in South Asia, December 17-20, 2008, Colombo, Sri Lanka
98 Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General and Commissioner, India. From the Table:
Availability and Type of latrine facility- Urban. Available at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
68
Class I Cities Class II Cities
15% 7%
80% Treatment 80% Treatment
Waste water capacity Waste water capacity
cent have the facility of being connected into surface water bodies leading to
to either a closed or an open drain for deterioration of water quality. According
wastewater disposal. In the internal to the report of CPCB (2013) that evaluated
survey done by the Ministry of Urban the performance of sewage treatment
Development, only 14 ULBs have sewerage plants under National River Conservation
network coverage and of these, only Indore Directorate (NRCD), for the metropolitan
has more than 70 per cent coverage100. cities of Madhya Pradesh, there are only
nine STPs using different technologies.
Wastewater generation and The installed capacity of sewage treatment
treatment: plants is 168.4 MLD and the actual
The state has 25 class-I cities (2008), with utilisation is 123.7 MLD101.
the domestic water use of 1,561 MLD,
of which, 80 per cent turns into sewage Policies and programmes of the
(1,248.8 MLD). Of the total sewage water state:
generated, only 15 per cent is treated. The state has a large number of
Corresponding figures for 23 class-II programmes which are externally funded or
cities are 164 MLD, 80 per cent and 7 per centrally sponsored and state funded like
cent. It shows that a significant volume JnNURM, Project Uday102 and Project Uthan
of wastewater is not subjected to any etc., which focus on urban infrastructure103.
treatment and is ultimately discharged
100 Water and Sanitation: State Series, 2012, Madhya Pradesh: Slow and Steady Wins the Race, Health of the Urban Poor Programme, Population
Foundation of India
Forests, Government of India. Refer to p 6, 7, 9 and 15. More additional reading, please also refer to Water and Sanitation in Urban Areas of
Madhya Pradesh, WaterAid India, 2006
102 For details please refer to http://projectuday.nic.in/WAC.htm
103 Water and Sanitation: State Series, 2012, Madhya Pradesh: Slow and Steady Wins the Race, Health of the Urban Poor Programme, Population
Foundation of India
69
Project Uday (Urban Water integrated development of infrastructure

Supply and Environmental services in the cities covered, securing
Improvement Project)104 : effective linkages between asset creation
The project aims at promoting sustainable and asset management so that the
growth and reducing poverty in the infrastructure-related services created
project cities of Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore in the cities are not only maintained
and Jabalpur. One of the components of efficiently but also become self-sustaining
this project is sewerage and sanitation over time.
improvement and expansion. The sewerage
component is proposed for high-density Madhya Pradesh Urban
city centre areas where on-site or local Services for the Poor (MPUSP):
wastewater treatment is not appropriate Operational since 2006, MPUSP aims to
due to insufficient space. Sewage augment the capacity of select ULBs to
treatment will use low- maintenance waste deliver better services to the poor. Key
stabilisation ponds. In lower density areas, project components include:
on-site sanitation will continue to be used, 1. helping cities and the state
with the Project supplying equipment for government to bring about reform,
emptying septic tanks. Sewerage schemes
2. improving the ways in which
are included for all project cities. In all
ULBs and their staff work
cities, community sanitation blocks will be
provided for urban poor settlements where 3. developing community capacity to
on-plot latrines are not possible.105 improve their access to services like
safe drinking water and sanitation. The
Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission programme initially focused on four
(JnNURM) and Urban Infrastructure ULBs (Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore and
Development Scheme for Small and Jabalpur) but ten more ULBs have been
Medium Towns (UIDSSMT): Launched recently added for intervention.106
by the Government of India in 2005,
four cities (Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur and
Ujjain) are covered under JnNURM and
the remaining towns are covered under
UIDSSMT. These programmes aim at
104 For the latest project details, please refer to Urban Water Supply & Environmental Improvement in Madhya Pradesh - Quarterly Progress Report
(QPR17), December 2009, Project Management Unit, Project UDAY, Government of Madhya Pradesh, January 2010
105 For project Uday updates please refer to quarterly progress reports at http://projectuday.nic.in/Report.htm
106 http://www.mpurban.gov.in/Urban Services For The Poor Programme (MPUSP)
70
Water related diseases are high in the
urban areas of Madhya Pradesh due to
lack of technology to treat the load of
sewage flowing into the water bodies.
Integrated Urban Sanitation Mukhyamantri Shahari Swachhata

Programme (IUSP): This was initiated Mission (MSSM): This was initiated
in the year 2009 with the primary objective in the year 2012. A provision of prize
of making at least four to five towns open money has also been made to encourage
defecation free (OFD). The programme is participation and incentivise the ULBs.
being implemented through convergence
with the Government of India’s Integrated
Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS) and Institutional framework:
public private partnership (PPP) mode An institutional framework basically
(Sulabh and community participation consists of two aspects: (a) facilitation
model) for CTs. This programme also and advocacy framework and (b)
focuses on Information, Education, implementation framework. The former has
Communication (IEC) and awareness the following committees:
generation and construction of community
toilets and individual toilets based on 1. The state level coordination and
targets. monitoring committee: This committee
seeks to review, monitor and evaluate
the programme from time to time. It
71
will also provide feedback and strategic • Septage management remains

direction to improve the quality of a neglected component in
programme implementation. urban sanitation.
2. District level urban sanitation • Lack of financial sustainability

committee: This committee is forces municipalities and ULBs
empowered to approve the City to depend entirely on the water
Sanitation Plans, review the progress of sanitation tariff which excludes
sanitation activities, provide guidance faecal sludge management.
and issue necessary guidelines and
• WASH sector financing that reaches the
instructions to meet the targets set
urban poor is much less than required.
under the programme. The committee
Most of the support is meant for urban
includes representatives from NGOs.
infrastructure, which excludes the poor.
3. City level sanitation committee:
• The community toilets created lack
This committee directly supports
sufficient manpower. Municipalities
and facilitates preparation and
are unable to operate and maintain
implementation of the City
these, resulting in disuse.
Sanitation Plan. It includes
representation from NGOs, business • Lack of community participation in
associations, associations of sanitary urban sanitation programmes.
workers, subject experts etc.
• Water intensive sanitation
technologies put an enormous
The state level urban sanitation cell and stress on water resources.
the city level sanitation cell comprise
• Lack of technology to treat the load of
the implementation framework. The
sewage flowing into the water bodies.
implementation begins with comprehensive
Water-related diseases are high in the
IEC (Information, Education and
urban areas of Madhya Pradesh.
Communication), awareness generation,
capacity building and training activities at • The Master Plan for development of
two levels - for ULB officials and thereafter the city does not focus on developing
for the stakeholders. the Master Plan for sanitation of the
city. It only details the norms that
Challenges: are applicable but does not identify
• Policies on WATSAN are not possible sites for waste disposal,
updated and do not address sites for treatment plants etc.
the urban challenges.

72
cent had to resort to open defecation and

Urban 21 per cent had access to public latrines109.
sanitation
context in
Across the state most sanitation facilities
Maharashtra are on-site. The larger share of districts

do not have sewerage networks and most
households utilise septic tanks, with
some sharing (NSSO 2012). 53 per cent
Maharashtra is India’s second most of households in the state have latrine
populous state, holding 9.28 per cent facilities within the premises – higher
of the total population: 112.37 million than the national average of 46.3 per
(Census 2011). It is a highly urbanised cent110. Out of 252 ULBs in Maharashtra,
state, with more than 50.08 per cent living only 31 ULBs have an underground
in urban areas107. There are around 254 sewerage network with different types of
urban local bodies in the state. Of these, household coverage connections. Only
26 are municipal corporations, 18 are 2 per cent of slum households within
class-A municipal councils, 142 are class-B Maharashtra are networked to sewer
municipal councils and 63 are class-C systems.
municipal councils; 4 are nagar panchayats
(notified area councils)108. Wastewater generation and
treatment
According to the 2011 Census, 71 per cent The state has 50 class-I cities (2008), with
of the total urban households have latrine the domestic water use of 12,483 MLD; of
facilities within the premises while other which, 80 per cent is generated as sewage
households do not. 67.3 per cent of these water. Of the total sewage water generated,
are water closets, 2.4 per cent pit latrines, only 42 per cent is treated. Corresponding
1.6 per cent others while 28.7 per cent do figures for 34 class-II cities are 164 MLD,
not have latrines. Regarding the type of 80 per cent and 14 per cent. It shows that
toilets, more than one-third (37.8 per cent) a significant volume of wastewater is not
of them had sewer connections, 28.6 per subjected to any treatment and is ultimately
cent were connected to septic tanks, 7.7 per discharged into surface water bodies
107 Monitoring Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in Maharashtra - A Paper. Performance Assessment System. CEPT University. April 2013
108 Performance Benchmarking of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in Maharashtra: Data Book (2008-09) Part 1 & 2: City Profiles (Municipal
Corporations), CEPT University, April 2011.
Availability and Type of latrine facility- Urban and Table: Type of latrine facility- new additions in 2011. Available at: http://censusindia.gov.
in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
110 http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-588-households-in-maharashtra-have-tv-sets-1663098)
73
State Level Review : Maharashtra
% of ULBs with % of ULBs % of WW STP

sewer network with STP Treated Capacity
State (248) 13(31) 6(15) 39 37
MC (23) 57(13) 39 (9) 40 40
MCI (225) 6(14) 3 (6) 38 45
Table 7 - Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity (Figures in parenthesis indicate

number of ULBs)
Source - Performance evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants by CPCB, 2013, p 15
MC- Municipal Corporation; MCI- Municipal Councils
leading to deterioration of water quality. Institutional framework

Recent data111 (refer to Table 7) reflects the The institutional framework for managing
above finding that the state does not have sanitation in urban Maharashtra is
adequate sewage treatment capacity. analysed as per the broad functional
responsibilities of: (a) policy making;
Only 15 ULBs have secondary STPs and (b) service provision; and (c) regulation/
the average state wastewater treatment oversight. The key institutions at the
capacity is only 35 per cent. This means state level dealing with urban sanitation
that the remaining 65 per cent wastewater related aspects are the Urban Development
is being disposed of without any Department (UDD), Water Supply
treatment112. Maharashtra has 6 sewage and Sanitation Department (WSSD),
treatment plants with the capacity of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
treating 284 MLD but the actual utilisation (MPCB), Town Planning and Valuation
is only 43.5 per cent113. Department (TPVD), MHADA, MMRDA and
Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory
Authority (MWRRA). The ULB is the only
key city level institution.
111 AIILSG (2011). Urban Water and Sanitation in Maharashtra - A Report, June 2011, All India Institute of Local Self Government, Mumbai, PAS
Project, CEPT University. P 84.
112 Murty JVR (2013), Faecal Sludge and Sullage Management in Urban Maharashtra: Analysis of Institutional Arrangements and Regulations, A
study prepared for PAS project, CEPT University; available at www.pas.org.in
113 Performance evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants in India under NRCD-2013
74
Policy making Service provision Regulation/oversight
1. Detailed guidelines of staffing 1. Detailed guidelines of staffing

UDD 2. Hiring staff in ULBs and transfers 2. Hiring staff in ULBs and transfers
3. Budget allocation 3. Budget allocation
State urban sanitation policy and 1. Approval of CSPs prepared by

WSSD
guidelines cities
2. Approval of schemes taken up
under Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan funds of
GoM
Advise state on pollution related Monitoring of surface water quality

MPCB
standards or policies and seeking polluting cities to take
appropriate actions
1. Development of regional
MTPVD 1. Approve city development plans
development plans
2. Develop city development 2. Approval of town planning
schemes
plans, on request of cities
1. Implement low-cost
MHADA housing projects for the poor
2. Implement slum
improvement projects
under state grants and
National Slum Development
Programme (NSDP)
Table 8 - Key institutions and functional responsibilities for urban sanitation

management in Maharashtra
Institutional roles
• A host of institutions are involved • The state Municipal Acts place most of
in management of sanitation and the responsibilities of management of
sullage activities with varying roles. the full chain of sanitation and sullage
While most state level institutions with ULBs. However, provision and
are responsible for policy setting, management of treatment facilities are
oversight and monitoring, ULBs are not obligatory for the ULB. This needs
responsible for actual implementation. to be corrected through appropriate
amendments to the Municipal Acts.
75
• ULBs have the dual role of service open defecation free (ODF) cities, the
provision for public services state has designed a few programmes and
(construction of drains, sewerage guidelines since 2008, as described below:
systems, community/public latrines,
maintenance of treatment systems
etc.) and also regulation of activities of (A) Maharashtra Sujal Nirmal
households (construction of household Campaign (2008):
latrines, service connections, etc.). The programme outlines financial packages
There is no institution that is clearly available to different tiers of cities
charged with regulation of the service (especially those that are not covered under
provision of ULBs. One of the state level JnNURM and UIDSSMT grants) and the
institutions, that is, the UDD, WSSD reform conditions for availing the package.
and/or MPCB, could be charged with Sanitation components of this programme
this responsibility. It is advisable to are detailed below:
have one institution clearly mandated
with the task of oversight of all the Management of sewerage and sullage:
sanitation and sullage management Preparing action plans for connecting all
activities carried out by ULBs and/ the properties in the city with the sewerage/
or other organisations. The recently drainage/sullage system; improving or
initiated Service Level Benchmarking augmenting the existing sewerage system;
(SLB) exercise would be a good reusing wastewater by decentralised
tool for this oversight function. processes of wastewater treatment;
levying and collecting appropriate sullage/
• Three key departments within ULBs –
sewerage tax.
that is, Town Planning, Public Works
and Sanitation departments – are
Toilet management: Conducting surveys
vested with the powers to implement
to find the availability of individual and
various provisions of the Municipal Acts
community/public toilets in the city;
and building by-laws. Lack of technical
repairing/rehabilitating community/
staff hampers effective implementation
public toilets in the city; planning and
of their mandated duties.
constructing additional community/public
toilets as required, with a focus on toilets
Policies and Programmes: for women; preparing action plans, based
There is no formal policy for urban on surveys, to improve the facilities of
sanitation in Maharashtra, but the state individual/public toilets in the city and to
follows the approaches advocated in the make provisions for sufficient funds for the
NUSP. To promote the aim of achieving same; preparing proposals for individual/
76
public toilets for weaker sections and and seek funding from the state. The state
submitting them to the state government plans to use the funds made available by
under the Central Government’s the Government of India under the low-
programme; and encouraging participation cost sanitation schemes, besides their own
of private organisations/non-governmental funds.
organisations for operation and
maintenance and/or construction of new (D) Standards to be followed
public toilets. for public latrines:
In May 2008, the WSSD issued guidelines
(B) Guidelines for (vide GR dated 12 May, 2008) for technical
universalisation of UWSS specifications for constructing public
services in cities: toilets by ULBs114. The GR clarified that
The government designed and issued cities should follow standards prescribed
guidelines to cities on planning and by the National Building Code, 2005. The
implementation of measures to achieve GR also clarifies that the development
universalisation of UWSS services on June rules for A Class Municipal Councils
19, 2010. This covered both water supply have been amended incorporating these
and sanitation related aspects. specifications.
(C) Maharashtra Golden (E) Recycling of Wastewater:

Jubilee WSS Programme: The Urban Development Department,
The programme was announced through Government of Maharashtra, issued a GR
a government resolution on June 25, (dated October 15, 2010)115 encouraging
2010 to cover the special categories cities to develop plans to recycle and
(SCs and OBCs) by providing household reuse at least 20 per cent of wastewater
facilities and public facilities as feasible. being generated. Such wastewater could
Under this, house connections for water be used for: (a) agricultural purposes;
supply at Rs.4,000 per family and low- (b) non-drinking water related uses; and
cost household toilets at Rs.12,000 per (c) industrial use. However, the GR does
family were provided. Further, cities were not provide any other specifications or
encouraged to undertake special surveys regulations on the subject.
to gather information on the condition of
these special category families and develop
plans to cover them all, as appropriate,
114 Murthy, JVR, May 2013, Faecal Sludge and Sullage Management in Urban Maharashtra - Analysis of Institutional Arrangement and Regulations,
(Organized by PAS Project, CEPT University. P 9)
115 Ibid
77

WaterAid/Jon Spaull
In Maharashtra, policies and regulations

that govern slums’ sanitation issues do
not encourage building of individual
household latrines; slum dwellers are,
instead, dependent on community
facilities built by ULBs and or other
development authorities through various
government schemes.
Regulations management in non-networked cities.

Both sullage management and night soil Detailed guidelines are available from IS
management involve five key stages: (a) codes and CPHEEO manuals. Most of these
user interface - construction of latrines, are incorporated in city level development
bathrooms, kitchens in premises; (b) regulations, excepting treatment options.
collection/containment - construction
of septic tanks for confinement of night While regulations are strong on treatment
soil and drains for sullage disposal; of effluent coming out of septic tanks, there
(c) conveyance of septage/sullage for are no regulations that mandate cities to
treatment; (d) treatment; and (e) disposal treat all the sludge and sullage coming
and reuse. out of septic tanks and drains. This is the
weakest link in the management chain.
Regulations are well laid out for activities Policies and regulations that govern
under user interface and collection slums’ sanitation issues do not encourage
sections. Septic tanks are an important building of individual household latrines;
element of on-site sanitation and sullage slum dwellers are, instead, dependent on
78
community facilities built by ULBs and Recommendations:

or other development authorities through
various government schemes. This is a • Developing policies that address
very critical issue for Maharashtra as specific septage management.
about 36 per cent of its urban residents
• Bringing collection, treatment and
dwell in slums and have limited access to
disposal of faecal sludge under the
good sanitation facilities. Such a situation
mandatory functions of ULBs.
negatively impacts the health, dignity and
overall quality of living of slum residents. • Encouraging cities to include
There is a case for special policies for septage management activities
addressing the sanitation issues in the in City Sanitation Plans.
slums of Maharashtra.
• Need to explore ways of
funding capacity, systems and
Challenges:
equipment at ULB level.
Access and equity: In order to eliminate • Faecal sludge management guidelines

open defecation and ensure universal could be developed for ULBs and
access to adequate sanitation for the urban staff/consultants could be trained.
poor and slum population, appropriate
• Strengthening the systems of
policy changes are needed. Lack of space to
sludge collection and disposal
build own toilets and lack of affordability
and monitoring the same through
to meet the toilet cost need to be addressed
appropriate mechanisms.
with budget allocations for partial subsidy.
• Designing and implementing
Wastewater management: Strengthening citizen awareness drives on
the mechanisms for treatment of the importance of having and
wastewater and faecal sludge collection, maintaining proper septic tanks.
conveyance and treatment; exploring the
• Developing guidelines for
scope for reuse of treated water and sludge
providing residents of slums with
will be major challenges.
decent sanitation facilities.
Financing governance: This involves

strengthening institutional capacity at the
local level and regulations to implement
FSM effectively; financing options and
mechanisms.
79
State Level Review : Uttar Pradesh
Urban amenities like water and sanitation. This

sanitation is likely to rise further but the service
context in
providers are unable to keep pace with this
Uttar Pradesh increasing demand. Inadequate sanitation

services leading to open defecation, on
one hand, and the poor management
Uttar Pradesh (UP) has a large population of sanitation services, on the other, are
and a high population growth rate. the most critical aspects of urban living
According to the 2011 Census, Uttar which lead to environmental and public
Pradesh has a population of 199 million. health complications. The poor and the
The urban population of Uttar Pradesh slum dwellers are the worst sufferers
comprises around 22.27 per cent of the due to lack of access to sanitation. They
state’s population and has been growing cannot construct their own toilets because
rapidly (Census 2011). UP has 634 ULBs, of various reasons, ranging from the
including 14 municipalities, 193 municipal unauthorised nature of their tenancy to
councils and 427 town panchayats. It is lack of space or financial constraints.
the responsibility of the ULBs to cater to
drinking water supply and other basic The poor sanitation situation in Uttar
civic amenities; roads, streets, drainage, Pradesh was highlighted in a policy
sanitation; waste disposal, sewerage document set within the context of the
systems, etc. National Urban Sanitation Policy of 2008.
The document observed that low priority
The status of urban sanitation shows that had been given to sanitation owing to a
83 per cent households in Uttar Pradesh lack of understanding about its linkages to
have toilets within the premises. Regarding public health. The document also identified
the type of toilets, the majority (46.9 per fragmented institutional roles and lack of
cent) have toilets connected to septic coordination in dealing with the issue, as
tanks and 28.3 per cent of households are well as insufficient consideration of the
connected to the piped sewer system116. perspective of the user in tackling issues of
sanitation117. Both sewerage and sanitation
With increasing urbanisation, there has in urban areas of Uttar Pradesh are grossly
been an increasing demand for basic inadequate. As a matter of fact, no town in
117 Uttar Pradesh Sanitation Policy, 2010. Available at http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/Uttar%20Pradesh%20
Urban%20Sanitation%20Policy_%20%28JNNURM%29_2010_.pdf
80
Both sewerage and

sanitation in urban
areas of Uttar Pradesh
are grossly inadequate.
As a matter of fact, no
town in the state at
present has been able
to ensure sewerage
facilities for all the
sources
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
81
Sewer Reach (in %)
Without % of houses
Partial
sewerage with toilets
Municipal Corporations (11) 100 25.7
Nagar Palika Parishads (194) 18 82 35.3
Nagar Panchayats (418) 2 98 44.9
Total (623) 55 (9%) 568 (91%)
Table 9 - Status of sanitation in urban local bodies

Source - Uttar Pradesh Urban Policy, 2010 (p 7)
the state at present has been able to ensure sizeable population lives in slums, with
sewerage facilities for all the sources. Even little access to any sanitation and sewerage
the largest municipal corporations have a facilities. As a consequence, many areas
huge backlog, both in terms of percentage of the city “depend on septic tanks”;
and absolute figures. This results in a very but in the absence of effective septage
low proportion of population covered management systems, tanks often overflow
by sewerage in the state. In the case of into drains and contaminate low-lying
nagar panchayats, more than half of the areas. To compound this, there is almost
population is not covered under proper no management of the solid waste that the
municipal sewerage systems. Of the total city generates, which means that this also
623 urban local bodies, 91 per cent did not causes pollution of the rivers and clogging
have sewerage while 9 per cent had only of drains. In fact, with the current sewage
partial coverage. Out of 51 towns having a treatment capacity, only 25 per cent of the
population of more than one lakh, 14 did generated waste can be treated, leaving 75
not have a sewerage system at all118. per cent to be discharged into waterways
without treatment119. Meanwhile in the
The scale of the septage management state capital, Lucknow, a survey found
challenge is considerable in Uttar Pradesh. an absence of a working waste disposal
Many cities remain unsewered and a system, with 95 per cent of the city’s
118 Ibid p 7.
119 Narain S and Pandey P. Excreta Matters: How urban India is soaking up water, polluting rivers and drowning in its own waste. Centre for Science
and Environment, 2012.
82
population not segregating the municipal many of which have set high targets.
solid waste. The study also showed that 40
per cent of the city does not have a properly The following are some of the policies
functioning sewerage system120. which have significance for sanitation in
Uttar Pradesh. Although they attend to a
Wastewater generation and range of different aspects of sanitation,
treatment they do not include a state-specific policy
Recent data (CPCB, 2013) shows that of the on faecal sludge management:
4,406 MLD of domestic water requirement
• Uttar Pradesh Urban Housing
of 61 class-I towns, 80 per cent is generated
Policy: It was developed in 1995
as wastewater and only 35 per cent of the
under the Department of Housing
total wastewater is treated. Corresponding
& Urban Planning, Government of
percentages for Class-II towns are 432
Uttar Pradesh. Under the ambit of
MLD, 80 per cent and 4 per cent. The
environmental conservation, there
sewage generation in NCR urban is 4,528
are objectives around the collection of
MLD. NCR has 64 STPs of 3,349 MLD
solid waste, its disposal and drainage.
design capacity and the sewage treated is
2,248 MLD. Therefore, the sewage treated • Uttar Pradesh State Water Policy:
is 50 per cent of sewage generation. The Adopted in 1999 under the
increase in sewage treatment capacity irrigation department, its concerns
during the decade 2001-11 has been 53 include the protection of water
per cent whereas the increase in treated against pollution and safeguards
sewage quantity has been much less at against water-related hazards.
33 per cent121.
• Uttar Pradesh Women Policy: This was
instituted in 2006 by the Department
Policies with implications for
of Women Welfare. It states that efforts
sanitation in Uttar Pradesh
should be made to construct community
WATSAN in UP was given some priority
toilets in villages, and separate
only in the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12),
toilet blocks for girls in schools.
including the aim to make the state open
defecation free by 2012122. Quite evidently • Uttar Pradesh Urban Sanitation
this has not happened. Nonetheless, there Policy: Adopted in 2010 by the
is a cluster of state level policies that aim to Directorate of Local Bodies, this
improve sanitation conditions in the state, policy identified the following key
120 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/40-city-areas-still-dont-have-proper-sewerage-system/articleshow/7530799.cms
121 PHED Haryana, Rajasthan Sub-Regional Plan 2021, UP Sub-Regional Plan 2021 and Delhi Jal Board, page 131.
122 Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, Expansion and Exclusion: A Briefing Paper on Related Policies on WASH (2012), Health of the Urban
Poor Programme, Population Foundation of India
83
sanitation issues in the state - lack Institutional framework

of awareness and low priority to In Uttar Pradesh, JnNURM, which
sanitation and its linkages with public incorporates the sub-mission for urban
health; social and occupational infrastructure and development (including
hazards faced by sanitation workers; sanitation and waste management) is
fragmented institutional roles and implemented by the Directorate of Urban
responsibilities; lack of an integrated Local Bodies (which has authority for the
citywide sanitation approach; serving UIG and UIDSSMT schemes); and State
the unserved and the poor; lack of Urban Infrastructure Development Agency
facilities in slums and lack of demand (SUIDA) implements the Basic Services for
responsiveness. One of the stated Urban Poor and the Integrated Housing and
goals of the policy is safe disposal Slum Development Programmes.
of human excreta and liquid waste.
Three related goals are mentioned - The Jal Nigam executes the water supply
functioning of sewerage networks and and sewerage projects. Both state
ensuring connection of households; level nodal agencies have Programme
promoting recycling and reuse of Management Units to monitor and manage
treated water; and promoting proper the mission’s work. The Uttar Pradesh
disposal and treatment of sludge. Jal Nigam came into being in 1975 with
the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and
Sewerage Act that was also passed in
Schemes on sanitation
the same year. The aim of creating this
In addition to the above policies, UP
corporation was to develop and regulate
also has the responsibility to commit to
water supply and sewerage services. The
certain central schemes on sanitation,
Jal Nigam is involved in water supply
such as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA). A
and sewage disposal services including
demand driven CLTS campaign to end open
necessary preparatory work and financing;
defecation in India, NBA aims to establish
development of state plans with respect
open defecation free areas through
to water supply, sewerage and drainage;
behaviour change in the first instance.
establishment of standards; and review of
It incentivises families by offering them
technical and economic aspects of water
Rs.10,000 to build a toilet. Funding for
supply to local bodies which have entered
NBA is shared between the centre and the
into an agreement with it. The Jal Nigam
states, with the centre contributing 80 per
also has the responsibility for a process of
cent and the states contributing 20 per
reviewing these different aspects of water
cent.
84
supply and sewerage in the state

as a whole123. Challenges
The sewage treatment plants that exist
ULB level institutional arrangement are not operated at their optimum level
In Uttar Pradesh, although the because of various reasons like insufficient
responsibility for provision of water and wastewater flow, erratic power supply and
wastewater services had been entrusted high costs, etc.
to the urban local bodies even prior to the
74th amendment, the state government • Low priority is given to sanitation
has continued to play a major role in the because of lack of awareness regarding
provision of these services, mainly because its linkages to public health.
ULBs lack the institutional capability.
• Fragmented institutional roles
So far, Uttar Pradesh’s attempts at urban
and responsibilities.
reforms have been predominantly on the
basis of the 74th amendment and have • Lack of an integrated approach
focused on boosting the stability of local to deal with the problem.
self-government and creation of democratic
• Lack of consideration to the
institutions at the grassroot level. Direct
user perspective in dealing
reform attempts to improve service
with sanitation issues125.
provision in particular sectors have been
limited. The major challenges facing the • Lack of awareness amongst
water sector are: weak local body finances, citizens about safe sanitation.
poor cost recovery and excessive control by
• Lack of appropriate planning for
state.
total sanitation outcomes.
Private sector service providers • Inadequate capacities within ULBs to

NUSP emphasises the role of private players plan and manage total sanitation.
in addressing sanitation issues. However,
• Weak understanding of
evidence shows that private institutions
technology options.
and NGOs are sparingly involved in
sanitation; their role is restricted to solid • Weak accountability of
waste management (SWM) and running a service providers.
few ‘Pay and Use’ toilets124.
• Lack of proper regulation.
123 http://www.upjn.org/services.aspx
124 Urban Sanitation Policy - Uttar Pradesh, 2010
125 http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/uttar-pradesh-urban-sanitation-policy-jawaharlal-nehru-national-urban-renewal-mission-Uttar
Pradesh Urban Sanitation Policy - Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission - Government of India (2010)
85
State Level Review : Tamil Nadu
Urban toilet index126, Chennai ranked No. 1 in

sanitation access to toilet facilities, followed by
context in Kanyakumari, Coimbatore, Thiruvallur and
Tamil Nadu
Kanchipuram districts. Ariyalur district
came last. On the drinking water front,
the drinking water supplied to households
Tamil Nadu occupies about 4 per cent of in Ramanathapuram district, followed by
the country’s geographical area and houses Dharmapuri, Perambalur, Pudukkottai and
6.04 per cent of the population but the Thiruvarur, is of very poor quality.
available water resources are only 3 per
cent of that of the country. The national The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
decadal growth rate was 17.64 per cent and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) has
and the growth rate between 2001 and been playing a crucial role in delivery
2011 for Tamil Nadu stood at 15.5 per of protected water supply and sewerage
cent. The total population of Tamil Nadu is services to the Chennai Metropolitan Area.
72,147,030 (Census 2011), 48.4 per cent of In the case of urban local bodies, other
which, live in urban regions. The state has than Chennai Metropolitan Area, the
12 corporations, 124 municipalities and Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage
528 town panchayats. The Census presents Board (TWAD Board) has been responsible
a grim picture of sanitation in Tamil Nadu for water supply and sanitation. The
as 45.7 per cent of the state’s population municipal corporations and special grade
resorts to open defecation due to the municipalities are also empowered to take
absence of proper sanitation facilities. In up water supply schemes on their own.
2006, the Total Sanitation Scheme was
introduced but it failed to change the In the 11th Five Year Plan, an amount of
practice of open defecation. Rs.7,555 crore was allocated for the water
supply and sanitation sector. Out of this,
The environmental sanitation index 40 per cent has been allocated for rural
of Tamil Nadu confirmed that Chennai water supply, 43 per cent for urban water
and Kanyakumari districts ranked supply and sanitation and 17 per cent
first and second whereas districts like for sewerage. Provision of drinking water
Dharmapuri, Ariyalur and Perambalur supply has been ensured to all habitations,
stayed at the bottom. According to the though a small proportion of them are only
partially covered.
126 Environmental Sanitation Index for the State of Tamil Nadu, India. International Research Journal of Environment Sciences Vol. 3(5), 54-59,
May (2014) – page 56
86
Policy context of the ULBs to keep the cities/towns clean

The Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) and green. Due to rapid urbanisation
renamed as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and change in the lifestyle, there is a
(NBA) of Government of India is a considerable increase in the quantity
major programme for rural sanitation. of waste as well as variations in the
Underground Sewerage Systems (UGSS) characteristics of waste. The collection,
under JnNURM is a major scheme for urban transportation, treatment and disposal
sanitation. The state has formulated two of waste pose a major challenge to the
strategies in the urban sanitation sector ULBs. The ULBs have taken efforts to
for coverage of all towns by UGSS and total make improvements in the Solid Waste
elimination of open defecation by 2015127. Management services in accordance with
the ‘Municipal Solid Waste (Management &
Tamil Nadu is one of the few states that has Handling) Rules, 2000’.
come out with a comprehensive programme
for providing a sewerage network in The state has formulated two major
Chennai city and all district headquarters schemes for urban infrastructure
with sustainable financing and user development - the Chennai Mega City
charges for sewerage connections. The Development Mission (CMCDM) for Chennai
successful model that involved financing of and suburban areas and the Integrated
sewerage projects through a combination of Urban Development Mission (IUDM) for
user deposits, loans and government grants all other corporations, municipalities
with user charges to manage debt servicing and town panchayats, to supplement the
and O&M is being adapted to provide available funds under various schemes.
sewerage schemes across the state. Under these missions, existing schemes
are dovetailed to improve the standards
At present, 99 per cent of the core areas of basic infrastructure including sewerage
of Chennai city have been covered with and sanitation, storm water drains and
sewerage facilities. CMWSSB manages over solid waste management in an integrated
6,10,000 sewer connections and maintains manner. The additional resources
a network of 2,600km of sewer lines and provided under the Chennai Mega City
180 pumping stations. A number of new Development Mission and the Integrated
projects are being implemented in the Urban Development Mission have given the
newly added extended areas. much needed thrust to the development
of basic amenities in urban areas and
Municipal Solid Waste Management also stimulated economic growth through
(MSWM) is one of the essential services planned urbanisation.
127 Water and Sanitation, 12th Five Year Plan, State Planning Commission of Tamil Nadu
87
Faecal Sludge Management State Level Review : Tamil Nadu
Due to rapid
urbanisation and
change in the lifestyle,
there is a considerable
increase in the quantity
of waste as well as
variations in the
characteristics of waste
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
88
Focus on appropriate training Envisioning an open defecation free

As per the 12th Five Year Plan, all Tamil Nadu by 2015
stakeholders are to be given an orientation Tamil Nadu 2023 aims at providing the best
on various aspects of sanitation and the infrastructure services in India in terms of
conditions under which different toilet universal access to water and sanitation.
models work efficiently. One of the main The government has directed all district
reasons for the poor functioning of toilets collectors to adopt a multi-pronged strategy
in rural areas is the lack of adequate to ensure the goal of an open defecation
knowledge about the technological options free Tamil Nadu by 2015128 and organise all
available for different terrain conditions. stakeholders into a mass movement to root
Because of this, only a particular type of out this practice129.
model is constructed instead of the model
that is suitable for the soil and area. This National Project on Biogas Development:
results in the failure of the toilet, ultimately This is a 100 per cent Centrally Sponsored
making it defunct. Scheme envisaging a subsidy of Rs.8000/-
for all categories and Rs.10,000/- in the
UGSS in ULBs hilly areas for the installation of biogas
It has been planned to implement UGSS in plants. The subsidy for toilet linked biogas
a phased manner in the corporations and plants is Rs.9000/-. For the year 2012–13,
municipalities with necessary financial the physical target for installation of
assistance under various schemes like biogas plants was 1000 and so far 710
TNUDP-III, Urban Infrastructure and biogas plants have been completed. Out
Governance (UIG/JnNURM), Urban of these, 24 are toilet linked biogas plants
Infrastructure Development Scheme for constructed in 7 districts viz. Kanchipuram
Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT/ (4), Kanyakumari (3), Karur (6), Theni
JnNURM), and KfW grants. Detailed (1), Tiruchirapalli (1), Tirunelveli (7) and
project reports have been prepared for Tiruppur (2).
117 municipalities at an estimated
cost of Rs.7,100 crore and for three Sewerage schemes
corporations (Tiruchirappalli, Coimbatore In Tamil Nadu, though underground
and Thoothukudi) at an estimated cost of sewerage (UGS) is available in 21 urban
Rs.1,570 crore by the Tamil Nadu Water local bodies, including Chennai, the
Supply and Drainage Board. capacity of Sewage Treatment Plants (STP)
remains underutilised in all other places.
128 Ibid
129 http://www.tnrd.gov.in/schemes/cen_nba_13.html (accessed on 15 March 2015)
89
In Chennai, the capacity utilisation is (NTADCL). Out of these 41 ULBs, UGSS

77 per cent, and in some other areas like have so far been completed in 20 ULBs
Namakkal, it is less than 20 percent. The with limited coverage. Another 22 UGSS
government has acknowledged in its order schemes have been announced in 2012-13
that many of the tanks are not designed under which work is in progress in Ariyalur,
properly. Perambalur and Tiruchirapalli to extend
UGSS to under-served areas and core areas
In Tamil Nadu, excluding the Chennai of Nagercoil.
Corporation, there were 23 towns with
a population of more than one lakh. Of According to Vision 2023, underground
these, only eight towns, namely Madurai, sewerage schemes and wastewater
Tiruchirapalli, Coimbatore, Tirunelveli, treatment plants across urban local bodies
Tiruvottiyur, Kanchipuram, Thoothukkudi, are given priority by the Tamil Nadu state
and Kumbakonam were provided with government. Funds are being allocated
sewerage schemes with partial coverage. from loans and grants from World Bank
Apart from this, sewerage systems are in and NRCP. In 41 cities underground sewers
existence in eight other towns namely are being constructed. Challenges in the
Uthagamandalam, Chidambaram, implementation of sewerage schemes
Mannargudi, Periyakulam, Palani, include unprecedented delays in realisation
Thirumangalam, Sattur and Labbikudikadu of such schemes, leading to escalation of
where too the coverage is only partial130. costs. Most projects have ended up being
only partially completed. Besides, a number
The implementation of UGSS in the of commercial establishments and homes
erstwhile Chennai Corporation is complete. are being developed without considering
Out of the 42 ULBs, only few towns the basic infrastructure like laying sewers
have sewerage systems and others are etc. due to the rapid urban growth. Those
in the proposal stage. With respect to who construct new homes and apartments,
other municipalities and corporations, offices etc. also have septic tanks/sewers
implementation of the UGS scheme is but do not always follow the standards.
underway in 41 ULBs with financial
assistance from the Government of
India, World Bank assisted TNUDP-III,
German Bank assisted KfW, National River
Conservation Plan (NRCP) and New Tirupur
Area Development Corporation Limited
130 Urban Ground Sewerage Schemes http://www.twadboard.gov.in/twad/urban_sewerage.aspx (accessed on 15 March 2015)

90
Institutions and the effective implementation of septage

implementation capacity policy. There are no known formal private
treatment facilities, per se, although private
Municipal administration departments: collectors often bring septage to nearby
Also called State Urban Development farms for composting.
Agencies131, these state level departments
are responsible for implementing urban Funding sources
development, and therefore have a major Cities depend largely on the national
role in the development of WSS services. and state governments for sanitation
Typically, these departments delegate and wastewater funding. Despite the
WSS responsibilities to state level Public unprecedented growth in urban population
Health Engineering Departments (PHEDs), and demand for services, municipal
State WSS Boards, city level WSS boards revenue generation has not increased due
and ULBs. These departments regulate to limited property tax collection and low
revenues, provide budgets, and fund user fees for public services. As a result,
disbursements to state level agencies and most ULBs depend on the availability
provide technical support to ULBs. of state grants and the implementation
priorities of state agencies, often becoming
Urban Local Bodies (ULBs): trapped in a cycle of inadequate service
By constitutional mandate, ULBs are provision, inadequate revenues, and
responsible for their wastewater discharge, inability to improve services. The past focus
collection and treatment. In some smaller on centralised sewerage systems drained
cities, ULBs do provide these services. available funding sources and created
However, since most ULBs are critically an immense backlog of undeveloped
understaffed and most staff members have and inadequate septage management
inadequate training, larger cities usually infrastructure.
depend on WSS Boards and PHEDs to
provide these services on their behalf. Key challenges
• Lack of physical infrastructure
Private Service providers: Only private to treat septage in the state.
operators currently provide septage
services in the state. Operators are • Even though more than 80 per
individual truck operators or small cent of households depend on
companies with tanker trucks. They are on-site sanitation, it has not
not monitored or regulated regarding been given priority like solid
waste management (SWM).
131 USAID 2010. A Rapid Assessment of Septage Management in Asia: Policies and Practices in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Country Assessment-India, p 38.
91
• Coverage of centralised • Agency roles and responsibilities

sewers (UGSS) is increasing for water, sanitation, and public
in municipalities but has not health are often unclear, overlap
extended to town panchayats. and are inadequately coordinated.
• Tamil Nadu state government • National sanitation policy

has a separate policy on requires state and local
septage management since governments to develop integrated
September 2014. sanitation policies, including
septage management.
• Various challenges exist towards
implementation of policy such as • The Tamil Nadu government
data concerning on-site sanitation has developed policy guidelines
systems in ULBs, rectification of on septage management to
problematic on-site systems and strengthen and regulate faecal
regulation of private providers. sludge management.
• No ULBs in Tamil Nadu have the • Government initiative to include

physical capacity to safely collect, faecal sludge management as part
transport and treat IHHL septage. of the state sanitation strategy
and city sanitation plan.
• Funding support for ULBs to
develop septage management • Involvement of various
infrastructure. stakeholders is critical for
the progress of septage
• Manual scavenging (prohibited management. Stakeholders
by law) has reduced but include the government, private
still exists in few places. providers, NGOs, research
organisations, companies,
• Most ULBs have very limited
technology providers, community
institutional, financial, and
collectives and households.
staff capacity to improve
sanitation provision and
septage management.
92
4a
Analysis of the Field Study conducted
in Tamil Nadu
4a: Findings from town panchayats
Profile of town panchayats:
Data collated through fact sheets is presented in this section. WASHNET-
TN researchers collected the following information from available
personnel - Executive officers/ Executive engineers/ Sanitary officers/
Sanitary Inspectors:
Table 10 provides the basic details of the town panchayats (TPs) covered
under this study. The area of town panchayats ranges between 3 sq km
(Needamangalam) and 30 sq km (Kotagiri). The number of wards in town
panchayats vary according to the size of the area and its population.
Kotagiri, which is the largest in size, has 21 wards with 10,114 households
while Needamangalam is the smallest with 15 wards and 3,015 households.
Data on the presence of slums reveals that there are 70 slums in ten TPs, of
which 31 are notified and 39 are non-notified slums.
93
Tamil Nadu : Field Study Analysis
Area covered Number of Number of

Town Panchayats (in sq. km) wards households covered Population
Alwarthirunagari 10 15 3405 9876
Kotagiri 30.93 21 10114 30643
Kunnathur 7.12 15 2724 8751
Needamangalam 2.68 15 3015 9335
Mamallapuram 12.28 15 5079 15969
Perundurai 23.39 15 7932 24930
Keeranur 16.39 15 4760 12086
Manachanallur 10.38 18 7896 26747
Avinashi 11.65 18 9591 28868
Tharangampadi 13.06 18 5474 23123
Table 10 - Profile of Town panchayats
Water requirement, wastewater Data provided on wastewater generation

generation and fecal sludge indicates that, of the total domestic water
generation use, 78 per cent is generated as wastewater
Details collected from TPs on domestic which is closer to the CPHEEO estimation.
water requirement and quantity of Data on the quantity of faecal sludge
wastewater generation (Table 11) show generated indicates that 18 per cent faecal
that domestic water requirements range sludge was generated out of the wastewater.
between 0.67 MLD (Needamangalam) and
2.02 MLD (Avinashi), with the average
being 1.47 MLD. Types of faecal sludge collection
systems
Across all town panchayats, 94 per cent of Data on the types of faecal sludge
the domestic water supply requirement is collection systems (Table 12) in households
met by the panchayats themselves. In the across town panchayats indicates that
case of three TPs (Manachanallur, Avinashi use of septic tanks is most prevalent,
and Tharangampadi), the complete followed by soak pits. Data reveals that the
domestic water requirement is met by the use of public toilets is relatively more in
town panchayat.
94
Total Quantity of
Water water Quantity of faecal sludge
requirement supplied wastewater generated
Town Panchayats (MLD) (MLD) generated (MLD) (MLD)
Alwarthirunagari 0.89 0.71 0.57 0.11
Kotagiri 2.50 2.00 1.60 0.32
Kunnathur 0.80 1.00 0.80 0.16
Needamangalam 0.67 0.70 0.56 0.12
Mamallapuram 1.12 1.24 0.99 0.20
Perundurai 1.75 1.75 1.39 0.28
Keeranur 1.08 0.94 0.75 0.15
Manachanallur 1.87 1.87 1.49 0.30
Avinashi 2.02 2.02 1.62 0.32
Tharangampadi 1.96 1.62 1.29 0.26
Table 11 - Water Requirement, Wastewater Generation and Faecal Sludge Generation –

Town Panchayats
Perundurai (28 per cent), Needamangalam 51%

(21 per cent) and Mamallapuram (20 per IHHL Septic Tank
cent). However, open defecation is still in

practice in all the town panchayats except
in Perundurai. One-third of the households
in Mamallapuram defecate in open spaces
and the corresponding percentages for
Keeranur, Kotagiri, Needamangalam 20%
and Alwarthirunagari are 27 per cent, Soak Pit
25 per cent, 17 per cent and 16 per cent
respectively. 13%
Public Toilets
Overall, there is no underground sewerage 15%

Open Defecation
system in any of the TPs. Of all households,
around 51 per cent use septic tanks, 1%
Others
roughly 20 per cent use soak pits, 13 per
cent use public toilets and around 15 per Figure 4 - Types of Latrine
cent of people defecate in open spaces. facilities in Town Panchayats
95
IHHL Open
Town Panchayat Septic Tank Soak Pit Public Toilets Defecation Others
Alwarthirunagari 72% 0% 12% 16% 0%
Kotagiri 55% 10% 10% 25% 0%
Kunnathur 20% 60% 5% 10% 5%
Needamangalam 32% 30% 21% 17% 0%
Mamallapuram 46% 0% 20% 34% 0%
Perundurai 49% 18% 28% 0% 5%
Keeranur 48% 21% 4% 27% 0%
Manachanallur 50% 26% 15% 9% 0%
Avinashi 85% 13% 0% 2% 0%
Table 12 - Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems – Town Panchayats
Usage of equipment in septage a tanker lorry with a capacity of 6000 litres

management and safety equipment such as hand gloves
An attempt has been made to understand and hose pipes. Similarly, only sanitary
how well the TPs are equipped with modern workers from Keeranur TP mentioned
equipment/machinery to handle septage. It that their town panchayat office has basic
was found that except in Tharangampadi, safety equipment and one tanker lorry with
none of the remaining nine TPs reported a capacity of 6000 litres, while sanitary
having any equipment. According to the workers from Alwarthirunagari reported
management of Tharangampadi TP, they having safety equipment.
have a suction-cum-jetting machine and
vacuum emptier. Quantity of faecal sludge emptied
Data on the quantity of faecal sludge
Responses from sanitary workers were emptied everyday shows that no
found to be more detailed than those from information is available for three TPs
the management of TPs. For example, (Mamallapuram, Kunnathur and Avinashi);
sanitary workers from Tharangampadi sanitary workers from Perundurai and
confirmed the management’s version on management from Keeranur also could
emptying equipment and also provided not provide any information on this.
additional information on the presence of Complete information is available only
96
from Tharangampadi town panchayat. panchayats were asked about the frequency
Therefore, in the absence of complete and of FS collection from individual houses. No
reliable data, interpretations need to be information was available from Avinashi
drawn carefully. (Annexure 1, Table 1). and Kunnathur and among those who
responded, the responses of management
In the case of individual toilets, responses and sanitary workers were not similar even
from the management and sanitary within the same town panchayat, which
workers were found to be the same for reflects the lack of clarity and the limited
three TPs (Alwarthirunagari, Kotagiri and role played by the ULBs.
Tharangampadi). The quantity of faecal
sludge collected from individual homes Data on frequency of emptying for different
(7 responses), ranges from as low as 120 collection systems (Table 13) reported by
litres as reported by Tharangampadi eight town panchayats132 indicates that
to about 10,000 litres as reported by most households prefer to empty their
Manachanallur. septic tanks once in 10 to 20 years as
reported by sanitary workers while majority
of the management (except Perundurai
The quantity of faecal sludge and Kotagiri) reported a higher frequency
collected from group houses ranges from of once in one to five years. It is clear from
200 to 2,000 litres (5 responses) and from the data that most households clean their
private places ranges from 1,000 to 10,000 septic tanks after long periods. This shows
litres (5 responses). Fewer responses were that desludging is not in accordance with
given on the quantity of faecal sludge the prescribed standards of operative
collected from public and community guidelines for septage management for
toilets with sanitary workers and urban and rural local bodies in Tamil Nadu,
management of one TP (Tharangampadi) 2013.
reporting varying quantities of faecal
sludge collected. A similar pattern of lower frequency was
reported by sanitary workers for group
houses (5-20 years) while the management
Frequency of faecal sludge reported 1-10 years frequency of cleaning.
collection Expectedly, public toilets and community
Irrespective of the role of ULBs in faecal toilets are reported to be cleaned more
sludge collection, both the management frequently (less than two years) although
and sanitation workers from all town variations in the responses remain.
132 1. Alwarthirunagari, 2. Kotagiri, 3. Needamangalam, 4. Mamallapuram, 5. Perundurai, 6. Manachanallur, 7. Tharangampadi and 8. Keeranur
97
Needamangalam
Alwarthirunagari
Tharangampadi
Mamallapuram
Manachanallur
Respondents
Perundurai
Keeranur
Kotagiri
Types
SW 15-20 yrs 15 yrs 5-6 yrs 15-20 yrs 10 yrs 10 yrs 10 yrs
Individual
homes
Mgt 2-3 yrs 15 yrs 1 yrs 3 yrs 10 yrs 5 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs
SW 15-20 yrs 10 yrs 5 yrs 15-20 yrs 5 to 6 10 yrs 10 yrs

Group
houses Mgt 10 yrs 1 yr 4 yrs 6 yrs 1 yr 1 yr
Private SW 5-6 months 2-3 yrs 2 yrs 2 yrs

(business
centres/
Mgt 10 yrs 5-6 months 2-3 yrs 1 yr 2 yrs 1 yr
markets)
SW 3 yrs 1 yr Once a year 1 yr

Public
toilets
Mgt 1 yr 10 yrs 6 months 3 months 1 yr 2 yrs 15 days 2 yrs
SW 3 yrs 1 yr Once a year 1 yr

Community
toilets
Mgt 1 yr 2 yrs 2 yrs
Table 13 - Frequency of Faecal Sludge Collection – Town Panchayats

SW- Sanitary workers; Mgt- Management
Cost for emptying (Tharangampadi). The corresponding

To understand the cost of emptying charges by management vary between
faecal sludge, both the management and Rs.800 (Keeranur) and Rs.10,000
sanitation workers across town panchayats (Alwarthirunagari).
were asked about their approximate fee.
Data (Table 14) shows that no uniform It is found that responses of sanitation
pattern exists and the amount specified by workers varied in three town panchayats
management and sanitation workers also (Needamangalam, Mamallapuram and
varies. Tharangampadi) and were similar in two
(Kotagiri and Keeranur). The fee quoted
To empty a septic tank, the cost per load by management is higher than that of
charged by sanitation workers varies sanitation workers in Needamangalam
from Rs.800 (Keeranur) to Rs.2,000 and Mamallapuram. Similarly, cost of
98
emptying the ‘soak pit’, ranges from Rs.800 According to the management and
to Rs.2,000 per load. It is surprising to sanitation workers, fixing the cost for
see that management from Keeranur emptying faecal sludge is based on various
and Tharangampadi reported the cost of factors such as distance travelled, input
manual scavenging (by private workers) to cost (fuel and labour charge) and tank size.
be Rs.500 per load.
Needamangalam
Alwarthirunagari
Tharangampadi
Mamallapuram
Manachanallur
Respondents
Perundurai
Keeranur
Kotagiri
Types
5000 -
SW 900-1,000 1,300 800 2000
15000
Septic tank
2000- 5000 - 1,800-
Mgt 2,000 Rs.2.00/ltr 800 1200 800
10000 15000 2,000
SW Rs.3.00/ltr 900 800 1000

Soak Pit
Mgt 2000-3000 5000- 15000 Rs.2.00/ltr 800 800
SW
Manual
Emptying
Mgt 800 500
Table 14 - Cost for emptying FS per load (in Rupees) – Town Panchayats
Treatment and disposal of faecal Table 15 (Places of FS disposal) reveals

sludge that most often, multiple sites are reported
As mentioned earlier, there is no for disposing faecal sludge – ‘outskirts’
Underground Sewerage System (UGSS) and ‘agricultural land’ (possibly to be used
and Septage Treatment Plants (STPs) in as manure) – are the commonly reported
any of the town panchayats. Therefore, disposal sites followed closely by the
no question on treatment of faecal sludge municipal disposal yard. Both sanitation
arises. workers and management of Mamallapuram
panchayat reported disposal of faecal
99
sludge in the riverbed, while the sanitation workers of Needamangalam

management of Manachanallur and the reported disposal in riverbeds.
Garbage Agricultural
Town Panchayats Manholes Dumps Drains Outskirts Lands River Beds
Alwarthirunagari Yes Yes
Kotagiri Yes Yes Yes
Kunnathur Yes Yes
Needamangalam Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mamallapuram Yes Yes Yes Yes
Perundurai Yes
Keeranur Yes Yes Yes Yes
Manachanallur Yes Yes Yes
Avinashi Yes
Tharangampadi Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 15 - Places of FS Disposal – Town Panchayats

Issues in FS collection systems The most commonly reported problem

Information on problems associated with with soak pit/leach pits is the ‘lack of
collection of faecal sludge was sought from desludging at regular intervals’, secondly
management and sanitation workers on ‘poor construction’, followed by ‘improper
three different types of collection systems desludging’. Similarly, for septic tanks, the
viz, septic tanks, soak/leach pits and pit most common problem was ‘bad odour/gas
latrines. Responses of management from formation’ followed by ‘overflow during
five133 town panchayats and sanitation monsoon’, which causes problems in the
workers from six134 town panchayats are neighbourhood. Higher cost for emptying
outlined in Table 16. the septic tank and pit latrines is also
mentioned as a problem by two town
panchayats.
100
Soak pit /
Issues leach pit Septic tank Pit latrines
Poor designing
(no regard to soil or water table, not 2 2
plastering the wall of tank, outlet to drain)
Lack of treatment of faecal sludge 1 1
Let out into drainage 2 1
Lack of desludging at regular intervals 4 2 2
Bad odour/ gas formation 1 4 2
Overflow during monsoon 1 3
Higher cost 2 2
Table 16 - Issues in FS Collection Systems – Town Panchayats
Issues in faecal sludge management Tharangampadi) stated ‘lack of technology

Sanitary workers from eight town which leads to manual efforts’ and ‘low
panchayats did not report any issue frequency of emptying the septic tanks’ as
in their town panchayats as they are issues. Similarly, sanitation workers from
not directly involved in faecal sludge four town panchayats (Needamangalam,
management. However, sanitary Mamallapuram, Keeranur and
workers from Alwarthirunagari and Tharangampadi) shared that ‘hardening
Needamangalam mentioned three issues: of sludge due to irregular and improper
1. lack of community toilets which led emptying of septic tanks, ground water
to open defecation; 2. lack of outreach pollution due to poorly designed septic
programmes on sanitation which resulted tanks, lack of air compressor machines
in poor awareness among general public; and poor drainage’ were issues relevant to
and 3. direct connection of the household them.
drainage to the river. On issues associated with the present
emptying process, of the three responses
On the specific question of problems from management, one (Perundurai)
faced with the current collection system, reported that faecal sludge cannot
management from four town panchayats be completely removed because of
(Kotagiri, Perundurai, Keeranur and ‘hardening’ and two others (Keeranur and
101
Town Areas affected by poor Challenges in

Panchayats FS collection systems disposing FS
Direct discharge of septage into drains

Alwarthirunagari (Ward Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,9) No vehicle and place for disposal
Lack of Dual Pit system, lack of awareness in

Kotagiri constructing well designed septic tanks, soak/
leach pit systems
Mela Rajaveethi (Behind Government

Needamangalam Hospital)
Ward no. 10 in Meenavakuppam & Ward During the septic tank cleaning there are no
Mamallapuram no. 9 in Annaikatti transport facilities, lack of proper disposal
Open defecation in Panickam palayam

Perundurai due to absence of public toilets
Service charges to private workers, lack

Keeranur Bus stand & Market of maintenance by households and non-
availability of workers when needed
Service charges to private workers, lack

Tharangampadi Bus stand of maintenance by households and non-
availability of workers when needed
Table 17 - Challenges in FS Disposal –Town Panchayats
Tharangampadi) mentioned ‘lack of safety disposal, none of the management and

materials’ as issues. Sanitary workers from sanitation workers from any of the town
Keeranur and Tharangampadi mentioned panchayats answered as they were not
‘lack of modern equipment’ as issues directly involved in treatment of faecal
associated with the present emptying sludge.
process.
On issues with a designated place of
On issues with the current transportation disposal, out of the three responding
system, only the Kotagiri management managements, one (Perundurai) said
said difficulty in reaching hilly areas was there is no specific place allotted for
an issue and of the two sanitary worker disposal, while two others (Keeranur and
respondents, one (Perundurai) said that Tharangampadi) reported ‘air pollution,
the entire sludge could not be collected and ‘water contamination and mosquitoes’
transported while the other pointed out as issues associated with the place of
that collection at night as an issue. disposal.
On issues with treatment of FS before
102
Challenges in faecal sludge disposal With regard to FS emptying equipment

TP managements were asked about the available with private service providers,
areas affected by poor FS collection management of six town panchayats
and issues with current FS disposal. No (Alwarthirunagari, Kotagiri, Kunnatur,
information was available from Kunnathur, Perundurai, Keeranur and Manachanallur)
Manachanallur and Avinashi. Responses reported having sufficient equipment
show that the majority (six TPs) have areas such as air compressors, hose pipes
affected by poor FS collection (Table 17). and vacuum pumps. In addition to the
Among the areas affected, areas closer equipment, manual methods are also used
to public spaces such as markets, bus in two town panchayats (Keeranur and
stands and government hospitals are most Tharangampadi).
affected. The challenges faced in disposal
of FS (5 responses) ranged from lack of According to management from six town
transport (2); lack of awareness/poor panchayats (Alwarthirunagari, Kotagiri,
maintenance by households (3), service Kunnatur, Perundurai, Keeranur and
charges to private workers (2) and non- Tharangampadi), private service providers
availability of workers. Mamallapuram own sufficient vehicles for transport.
responded that Buckingham canal is
affected due to FS disposal. According to management, none of the
private service providers treat faecal sludge
Management view on private before disposal. Only in Kunnathur TP,
player functioning disposal from public toilets is done in the
According to TP management, private municipal solid waste yard, while the rest
service providers play a crucial role in dispose in ‘outskirts’ and other public
faecal sludge management across all spaces. A detailed list of places where FS is
town panchayats (Annexure 1, Table 2). disposed is given in Annexure 1 Table 2.
The number of private service providers
ranges from one to six. Cost for emptying All the management responses
faecal sludge is generally fixed per trip acknowledged that private service providers
based on septic tank size, distance have scope in faecal sludge management
and quantity collected. All seven TPs as most of the urban local bodies are not
(Kotagiri, Kunnatur, Mamallapuram, equipped to do so due to various reasons.
Perundurai, Keeranur, Manachanallur and Limitations in the institutional capacities
Tharangampadi) reported sufficient human of ULBs has resulted in the creation of
resources with private players operating in demand for private service providers.
their panchayats.
103

WaterAid/Jon Spaull
The most commonly reported problem

with soak pit/leach pits is the ‘lack
of desludging at regular intervals’,
secondly ‘poor construction’, followed
by ‘improper desludging’. Similarly, for
septic tanks, the most common problem
was ‘bad odour/gas formation’ followed
by ‘overflow during monsoon’, which
causes problems in the neighbourhood.
Analysis of responses of private

service providers The fee charged is on average about
Private players across the ten TPs have Rs.2,000 per trip. Almost all responding
been in operation for two to twenty years. private players reported between one to
On reasons for starting this service, four ten service calls a month. Two (Keeranur
(Alwarthirunagari, Kotagiri, Keeranur and Tharangampadi) private players
and Tharangampadi) of the ten service reported having applied for licenses. The
providers reported this to be their prices reported by the private players in
traditional/caste-based work. One private the data and descriptive sections of the
player (Perundurai) undertook this for interview schedule are in the same range.
commercial reasons, two (Alwarthirunagari Regarding training in equipment usage,
and Manachanallur) because of poverty and only the respondent from Avinashi reported
two (Kunnatur and Needamangalam) stated attending a training programme.
that they started this since no one was
offering this service in the municipality.
104
Tanker Quantity of
No. of capacity No. of clients FS collected Status of
Town Panchayats No. of PP workers (litres) (In a month) (litres) license
Alwarthirunagari 10 3 DNA 6 5,000 No
Kotagiri 1 8 6000 4 2,000 No
Kunnathur 1 3 8000 4 24,000 No
Needamangalam 5 3 1500 2 1,500 No
Mamallapuram 1 3 5000 6 50,000 No
Perundurai 1 12 6000 12,000 No
Keeranur 2 20 6000 2 4,000 Applied
Manachanallur 1 DNA 4000 1 8,000 No
Avinashi 1 DNA 5000 1 to 10 5000 DNA
Tharangampadi 2 DNA 6000 2 4,000 Applied
Table 18 - Profile of Private Service Providers – Town Panchayats

DNA - Data not available
Use of modern equipment predominantly use masks and hand gloves.

Nine (except Tharangampadi) private Two (Keeranur and Tharangampadi) do not
service providers reported using modern use any safety equipment.
equipment for removing faecal sludge
and using other supporting equipment Treatment and place of disposal
such as shovels, ropes and rods in None of the private players provide
varying combinations. None of them information on treating FS before
have undergone any formal training for disposal, implying that the disposal is
using the equipment. Two (Kunnathur direct and without treatment. With regard
and Mamallapuram) players report being to disposal, eight responded that they
trained by the vehicle company at the time throw faecal sludge in multiple places –
of purchase. agricultural land (4); municipal dumping
yard (3), own land (1) and riverbed (1).
With regard to safety equipment, workers In fact, lack of proper disposal areas is
from seven of the service providers acknowledged as a key problem by four of
105
Fee for
Operating emptying
Town Panchayats Since (Rs.) per trip Equipment for emptying Use of safety measures
Air compressor, Plumbing

Alwarthirunagari 6 yrs 1000 - 5000 Mask for nose and gloves for hand
with motor
Motor System (Sucking &

Kotagiri 15 yrs 10000- 15000
disposing out)
Gloves, masks & boots
Kunnathur 12 yrs 2000- 5000 High Air compressor vehicle Mask and hand gloves
Needamangalam 2 yrs 2000* Plumbing with motor Mask and gloves
Mamallapuram 8 yrs Max 800 Vacuum pressure Data not available
Perundurai 12 yrs 1.50-2.00/lit Vacuum plumbing Mask, gloves and oxygen cylinders
Keeranur 15 yrs 700 Machines Not using any
Manachanallur 20 yrs 1800-2500 Air Compressor Pipe
Avinashi 15 yrs 1500 -1800 Machines Shovel
Tharangampadi 15 yrs 200 Contract labour Not using any
Table 19 - Profile of Services Offered by Private Service Providers – Town Panchayats

* Rs.500 will be charged for additional trip
the private players. Some, in fact, report private service providers do not discharge
vigilantism by the public and corruption into water bodies while the private player
by the state actors for personal gains. from Needamangalam stated that the
The other commonly reported problems water was getting contaminated due to
are the lack of workers (3), lack of proper greywater discharge and not due to faecal
vehicles (3) and the cost of maintenance of sludge. One (Perundurai) private player
vehicles (2). Health effects of faecal sludge who disposed faecal sludge in agricultural
collection and disposal is mentioned by land, did acknowledge the chances of water
one player. contamination if faecal sludge is directly
disposed in fields.
Regarding the issue of water
contamination, of the four (Kotagiri,
Needamangalam, Mamallapuram and
Perundurai) respondents, three said there
is no drinking water contamination as
106
Town Challenges faced by

Panchayats Place of disposal Private Service Providers in FSM
There was no proper place to dispose.

Some do not have vehicles with air compressor.
Open place of waste land. After disposal There is a restriction from public. When FS is
Alwarthirunagari they sprinkle phenol and soap water on taken for disposal, the septic tank vehicle has
the sludge. been followed by the police and other officials.
They create problems and we have to give them
money.
Own Land (we collect the faecal sludge

Kotagiri and dispose in Banana and other fields for Lack of labourers and places for disposal.
use as manure)
Faecal sludge from public toilets is There is no proper place for disposal during the
disposed in the municipal solid waste monsoon. When the FS is taken for disposal,
Kunnathur yard. The households’ FS is disposed in the septic tank vehicle has been followed by
the agricultural lands of the vehicle owner. the police and the general public.
Agricultural lands and in open spaces near There is no proper place to dispose.
Needamangalam drainage. After disposal, phenol and soap No proper vehicle.
water is sprinkled on the sludge
Mamallapuram Town panchayat garbage dump yard Underground construction
Perundurai Agricultural lands Gas formation during cleaning
High cost for vehicle maintenance, workers,

Keeranur wages
No. of lorries, underground network has

Manachanallur Cauvery riverbed come in the cities.
Agricultural fields, town panchayat

Avinashi garbage dumps Health, Liver affects
High cost for vehicle maintenance,

Tharangampadi workers, wages
Table 20 - Places of FS Disposal and Related Challenges - Town Panchayats
Support needed from the proper dumping yard for FS (4); land and
government vehicles (with subsidy) (3); a vehicle per
Of the ten private players, just one se for collection of FS (2); licensing and
(Manachanallur) did not want any regulation of the same (2); and need for
assistance from the state and one (Kotagiri) generating public awareness (1).
did not respond. The remaining eight
suggested multiple avenues for assistance
from the government including: land or
107
Town Panchayats Support required from state and town panchayats
1. Provision of vehicle for FS.

Alwarthirunagari 2. The government and public should not place restrictions on daytime collection of FS.
3. Government should allocate 10 acres for the disposal of FS.
Kunnathur Government should issue licences to private service providers to ensure quality services.
Needamangalam Provision of vehicle for FS.
1. Proper place to be allotted.

Mamallapuram 2. Licences system to be regulated.
3. Loans arranged for buying the vehicles.
Perundurai Proper disposal yard required.
Keeranur Provision of loans with subsidy.
Manachanallur Do not need support.
Avinashi Place for disposal to be alloted.
Tharangampadi Provision of loans with subsidy.
Table 21 - Support required from the State and Town Panchayats
Analysis of community groups’

responses On the type of septic collection tanks
Findings from the focus group discussions largely used by neighbourhood
with ten community groups are presented communities, eight groups reported
here. Four group discussions were neighbourhoods using septic tanks, three
conducted with women groups and the rest groups reported using leach/pit latrines,
were with mixed groups. and one group (Mamallapuram) reported
neighbours using public defecation
Talking about the type of septic collection facilities.
used by households, respondents in nine
groups reported having septic tanks in Reactions to the current faecal collection
their households; members in four groups system used by the neighbours were sought
reported use of pit latrines by lesser from groups. Their reaction was a mixed
percentage of households and one group one and the reasons are presented in
(Needamangalam) reported resorting to Table 22.
open defecation.
108
Reasons for happiness Reasons for unhappiness
Septic Tank
• Septic tank is a support to us to store our sludge. • Expenses are high.

• We are happy to move away from soak pits and are • The overflow is discharged into drainage directly,
not required to carry out frequent desludging. which leads to misunderstandings between
neighbours. About 15 per cent community people
• Modern technology from service providers for
are connected with drainage, rivers and ponds in
cleaning is useful.
Needamangalam.
• We are happy with the availability of septic tank,
• Pollution, environmental problems are key concerns.
toilet and possibility of drainage.
• Breeding of mosquitoes and its health impact is the
• Septic tank is easy to operate and safe.
main issue.
• Lack of toilets.
• In the rainy season, overflow from septic tank is very
high. About 15 per cent community people resort to
open defecation (Alwarthirunagari).
• As drainage is connected to a pond, ponds became
unusable and cause groundwater pollution. Some
community people resort to open defecation
(Needamangalam).
Soak pit/ leach pit
• Leach pit does not fill up quickly and hence easy • Discharge cannot be stored for a long time, hence
removal. we need to put soak pits or discharge into drainage,
which causes environmental pollution. 15 per cent
community people are connected with drainage,
rivers and ponds (Alwarthirunagari).
• Bad smell is a problem along with the fact that
soaking is not proper during rainy season. Also,
desludging is expensive.
Septic tank and Soak pit
• Bad smell is an acute problem along with the fact

that soak pit and septic tank are not proper during
rainy season. Also desludging is expensive.
Open defecation
• Absence of public toilets lead to open defecation

in common places near rivers and drainage
(Alwarthirunagari).
• Absence of public toilets in bus stand cause
passengers to go for public urination
Table 22 - Responses to Septic Collection Systems used by Neighbours

109
How often do you Whom do you Reasons for

Town empty the generally approach service provider
Panchayats septic tank? for emptying? choice
Once in 15 to 20 Such services are not available in

Alwarthirunagari years
Private
town panchayat.
Such services are not available in

Kotagiri Once in 5 years Private
town panchayat.
Once in 15 to 20 Such services are not available in

Kunnathur years
Private
the town panchayat.
No such services are available in

Needamangalam Once in 5 years Private
town panchayat.
Mamallapuram Once in 4 to 6 years No services in town panchayat.
Good service, punctuality, easy to

approach, good technology and
Perundurai Once in 8 to 10 years Private
lack of sanitation workers available
in TP.
Formal system, fair cost, easy to

no information is
Keeranur available
Municipal contact and other drainage work
possible.
Machine not available in town

Private and manual panchayat, cost was high
Manachanallur Once in 3 years
scavenging and septic tank cleaning was
necessary.
Respond whenever we call, good

Avinashi Once in 5 years Private service, empty tank with utmost
care and use new technology.
Formal system, fair cost, easy to

Tharangampadi Once in 5-8 years Municipal contact, drainage work possible
and useful for tax matters.
Table 23 - Frequency of cleaning and choice of service provider
Factors contributing to acceptance of misunderstandings with neighbours due to

septic tanks included: availability of the bad odours it generates.
cleaning service, ease of operation, its
ability to store sludge and non-requirement Frequency of cleaning and choice
of frequent desludging. The recurring of service provider
problem with septic tanks is that overflow The major reason for overflow of septic
is discharged into drains or ponds, tanks and leach pits seems to be infrequent
which creates groundwater pollution and cleaning. It was reported that cleaning is
110
undertaken once in five years in Kotagiri, such as ‘open area’, ‘outskirts’, ‘riverbeds’
Needamangalam and Avinashi; every 8-10 and ‘drainage’.
years in Perundurai and between 15-20
years in Kunnathur and Alwarthirunagari. Health, environmental and social
In Manchanallur, emptying of septic tanks impact of poor FSM
is between 1-3 years while no information
is available for Keeranur. Community responses
Choice of service providers show overlapping of
Six of the ten TP community groups health, environmental
use private services for cleaning, one and social impacts. The
community group reports using private and
manual scavenging (Manchanallur) and community perception of
two other groups report municipal services health impact indicates that
(Keeranur and Tharangampadi), while no they are aware of health
data is available for Mamallapuram.
problems such as cholera,
Among the reasons for seeking private malaria (due to mosquito
players for septic tank cleaning are lack breeding), skin allergies,
of town panchayat services (4); while one
group from Perundurai said that lack of and waterborne diseases
response from municipal workers made arising out of poor faecal
them turn towards private players who sludge management.
offered good service, were punctual,
approachable and used modern technology.
Lack of equipment with the municipality in Similarly, regarding environmental
Manachanallur turned community groups problems, most of the community groups
towards private services and also urgency reported awareness of poor faecal sludge
to get septic tanks cleaned made them avail management causing groundwater
manual scavenging services. contamination and water pollution (eight
groups), seven groups mentioned bad
Most of the community groups are not odour emanating from faecal sludge
aware of where the faecal sludge is polluting the air and six groups stated soil
disposed. Two groups (Mamallapuram and pollution (24).
Manachanallur) provided generic answers
111
Town
Panchayats Health impact Environmental impact Social impact
Air, water and land

Alwarthirunagari Fever, Skin diseases
pollution
Spread various Bad odour & spread Misunderstanding among

Kotagiri diseases diseases neighbours
Kunnathur Fever, Skin diseases Air, water pollution Quarrels among neighbours
Needamangalam Fever, Skin diseases Air, soil, water pollution
Mamallapuram Groundwater pollution Quarrels among neighbours
Cholera, malaria,
Groundwater and soil Quarrels among neighbours &
Perundurai skin allergy,
contamination diseases spread
waterborne diseases
Malaria, Bad odour, Groundwater

Health, hygiene, productivity and
Keeranur mosquitoes, fever contamination affecting
children’s health
and filariasis soil fertility
Health problems and

Manachanallur bad smell
Water and air pollution Quarrels among neighbours
Headache, vomiting Quarrels among neighbours,

Avinashi and malaria
Air pollution
mental stress and expenses
Groundwater
Malaria,
contamination affecting
Tharangampadi mosquitoes, fever
soil erosion, air pollution
and filariasis
and bad smell
Table 24 - Impact of poor FSM on Community
In the case of social impact, quarrels and

misunderstandings among neighbours were
commonly reported by the majority of the
community groups.
112
4b
Findings from Municipalities
The area of a municipality ranges from 10 sq. km to 50 sq. km. Most

municipalities range from 20 to 35 sq. km and are divided into wards.
Each municipality has a minimum of 21 and a maximum of 52 wards.
The total number of households in a municipality ranges from 11,000
to 64,000. Gudalur municipality has less households and Nagerkoil has
more. The population in a municipality ranges between 49,000 to
2,24,000. Perambalur and Gudalur have a population of around 50,000
but Nagerkoil municipality has a population of around 2,24,000. There
are 211 slums in nine municipalities. Out of this 211, 144 are notified
and 67 are non-notified slums.
113
Tamil Nadu : Findings from Municipalities
Area covered Number of Number of

Municipalities under (in sq. km) wards households covered Population
Gudalur 49.1 52 64,094 2,24,329
Mannarkudi 13.87 36 26,433 90,124
Nagerkoil 21.37 30 19,475 57,315
Pollachi 25.2 33 27,165 96,431
Sankarankovil 10.75 27 14,054 54,416
Thiruchengodu 20.59 21 12,732 49,648
Tiruvallur 21.95 42 40,365 1,56,318
Perambalur 11.26 36 25,907 90,675
Pudukottai 49.1 52 64,094 2,24,329
Mayavaram 13.87 36 26,433 90,124
Table 25 - Profile of Municipalities
Water requirement, wastewater Data provided on

generation and faecal sludge
generation wastewater generation
Details collected from municipalities on indicates that, of the total
domestic water requirement and quantity domestic water use, 69
of wastewater generation (Table 26) shows
that domestic water requirement ranges
per cent is generated as
between 3.90 MLD (Perambalur) and 26.90 wastewater which is lesser
MLD (Nagerkoil), with the average of 9.60 than CPHEEO estimation.
MLD.
Data on quantity of faecal
Regarding domestic water supply, across sludge generated indicates
all municipalities, 88 per cent of the that 19 per cent faecal
requirement is met by the municipalities
themselves. In case of Mannarkudi and
sludge was generated out
Pollachi, the complete domestic water of the wastewater.
requirement is met by the municipality.
114
Water Total water Quantity of Quantity of

requirement supplied wastewater faecal sludge
Municipalities (MLD) (MLD) generated (MLD) generated (MLD)
Gudalur 4.70 4.50 3.60 0.72
Mannarkudi 6.03 6.03 4.82 0.97
Nagerkoil 26.90 21.00 16.80 3.36
Pollachi 9.00 9.00 7.20 1.44
Sankarankovil 5.16 5.44 4.35 0.87
Thiruchengodu 10.00 9.64 7.71 1.54
Tiruvallur 7.35 5.00 4.00 0.80
Perambalur 3.90 3.20 2.40 0.48
Pudukottai 14.00 13.50 10.80 2.16
Mayavaram 9.00 7.80 6.24 1.25
Table 26 - Water Requirement, Wastewater Generation and Faecal Sludge Generation -

Municipalities
Types of faecal sludge Around 56 per cent of individual

collection systems households use septic tanks in
Data on types of faecal sludge collection municipalities. Around 14 per cent of
systems (Table 27) in households across individual households use soak pits.
municipalities indicate that septic tanks Around 10 per cent of households are
are the most prevalent, followed by public connected to the underground drainage
toilets. Data reveals that the use of public system in municipalities. Around 12 per
toilets is relatively more in Mayavaram (22 cent of households use public toilets (septic
per cent) and Sankarankovil (17 per cent). tank) in municipalities. Around 1 per cent
However, soak pits are still being used in of people defecate in the open. Around 7
Mannarkudi (55 per cent) and Tiruvallur per cent of households let the wastewater
(34 per cent). Only in Tiruvallur, 10 per go into drainage and open places.
cent of households defecate in open spaces.
115
IHHL Soak Public Sewer Open

Municipalities Septic Tank Pit Toilets Network Defecation Others
Gudalur 65% 11% 7% 0% 0% 17%
Mannarkudi 15% 55% 15% 10% 0% 5%
Nagerkoil 65% 15% 15% 0% 0% 5%
Pollachi 86% 0% 11% 0% 0% 3%
Sankarankovil 80% 0% 17% 0% 0% 3%
Thiruchengodu 70% 10% 15% 0% 0% 5%
Tiruvallur 42% 34% 4% 0% 10% 10%
Perambalur 16% 0% 0% 78% 0% 6%
Mayavaram 70% 0% 22% 0% 0% 8%
Table 27 - Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems - Municipalities
Use of equipment in septage

56% management
IHHL Septic Tank
According to sanitary workers from
Mayavaram, cess pool machine, suction-
cum- jetting machine and vacuum emptier,
safety equipment and tanker lorries (8,000
litres) are available. Perambalur and
Thiruchengodu have suction-cum-jetting
machines and vacuum emptier and tanker
14% lorries. Pudukottai has only a suction-cum-
Soak Pit
jetting machine. Regarding equipment, all
12% of them felt that their municipalities had
Public Toilets
the required number of vacuum emptiers as
10%
Sewer Network compared to other equipment.
1% Open Defecation Safety equipment is reportedly available
7% Others in Thiruchengodu, whereas data from
Tiruvallur, Gudalur, Pudukottai and
Figure 5 - Types of Latrine Mayavaram shows that the available safety
facilities in Municipalities
equipment is insufficient.
116
Regarding tanker facility, three places: management claims once in 6

municipalities (Sankarankovil, Tiruvallur months to once in 5 years and sanitary
and Pudukottai) have 6,000 litres capacity workers claim 2 to 6 years. Public toilets
and two (Mannarkudi and Thiruchengodu) are reported to be cleaned between every
have 4,000 litres capacity while Mayavaram 6 months to 4 years with three responses
has a tanker facility of 8000 litres. Except between management and sanitation
Thiruchengodu, all felt that the capacity of workers (Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu
their tankers was insufficient. and Pudukottai) agreeing and varying in
three cases (Gudalur, Mannarkudi and
Mayavaram).
Quantity of faecal sledge emptied
Available data shows that there is no clarity
among sanitary workers about the quantity Cost for emptying
of faecal sludge emptied. The management In none of the municipalities, manual
also has limited information, but that emptying was undertaken. Fee for emptying
is mainly about individual households as reported by management varies between
(Annexure 1 Table 3). Rs.600 to Rs.2,500 per visit, while sanitary
workers (SW) report a price range between
Rs.600 to Rs.5,000 per visit. One SW group
Frequency of faecal sludge in Gudalur indicated a per-litre fee of Rs.7-
collection 15. Responses of SW and management
Frequency of FS collection (except in match in the six municipalities of
the case of Perambalur) from individual Mannarkudi, Nagerkoil, Pollachi,
homes varies from once in 2-10 years Sankarankovil, Tiruvallur and Pudukottai,
as reported by management and once while they vary in Gudalur and Mayavaram
in 1-10 years as reported (Refer to (Refer to Table 29).
Table 28) by sanitary workers. In
five municipalities (Mannarkudi, With regard to soak pit cleaning fee,
Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu, Pudukottai it ranges between Rs.600 - 1,500 and
and Mayavaram), the response varies responses between management and
quite widely between management and sanitary workers match in Tiruvallur,
sanitation workers. Frequency of faecal Pudukottai and Mayavaram. Leach pit
sludge collection from group houses varies cleaning fee reported by two managements
from once in every 6 months to once in ranged from Rs.600 - 700.
2-3 years. There are varied responses
on faecal sludge collection from private
117
Thiruchengodu
Sankarankovil
Respondents
Mannarkudi
Mayavaram
Pudukottai
Nagerkoil
Tiruvallur
Pollachi
Types Gudalur
Once in Once in Once in Once in Once in Once in Once in 5 Once in Once in

Mgt
Individual 5-10 years 6 years 5 years 7-10 years 8 years 4 years years 2 years 2 years
homes Once in Once in Once in 1-6 Once in Once in Once in
SW
5-10 years 5 years years 1-5 years 5 years 5 years
Once in Once in 3 Once in Once in
Mgt
Group 6 months months 6 months 6 months
houses SW
Once in Once in Once in
2-3 years 6 months 6 months
Once in Once in Once in Once in Once in Once in
Mgt
2-3 months 4 -5 months 3 months 3 months 6 months 6 month
Private
Once in Once in Once in Once in
SW
3-4 months 5-6 months 2 months 2 months
Once in Every Every Every Once in Once in Every Once in

Mgt 6 months
Public 2 months month month month 4 months 2 months month 2 months
toilets Once in Every Every Once in Every Every
SW
6 months month month 4 months month month
Once in Once in Every Every
Mgt
Community 3 months 2 months month month
toilets Once in 1-2 Once in Every Every
SW
months 2 months month month
Mgt
Temporary
toilets Every Every
SW
month month
Table 28 - Frequency of faecal sludge collection – Municipalities

Managements of two municipalities In Mannarkudi, where the amount is fixed,

(Thiruchengodu and Tiruvallur) report management offered a detailed response:
fixing the fee based on distance, load, and “The private service providers had been
work involved. In two municipalities – collecting a high fee (Rs.5,000 - 10,000) for
Pudukottai and Mayavaram, management emptying the septic tank. A resolution was
reports fee being fixed by workers passed in the municipality to reverse this
while sanitation workers of the same and a vehicle was purchased. The purpose
municipalities say it is fixed by the private is to discourage use of private service
players. Tiruvallur management reports providers and render services to the people
fee being fixed every year by them and SW at a lower fee of Rs.1,000 for emptying the
report that it is based on load and distance. tank”.
118
Thiruchengodu
Sankarankovil
Respondents
Mannarkudi
Mayavaram
Pudukottai
Nagerkoil
Tiruvallur
Pollachi
Gudalur
Types
700-
2,000- 5,000- 1,500- 2,000- 1,200
Mgt 1,000 1,500 600 1,500
5,000 7,000 2,000 2,500 (HH 350,
CT 700)
Septic tank
Up to
700
15,000 1,500 per
SW 1,000 5,000 2,500 1,500 (HH 350, 600 700
(per litre tank
CT 700)
7-15)
Mgt 1,000 700 600 1,500

Soak Pit
SW 700 600 1,500
Mgt 600 700
Leach Pit 700-

2,000- 5,000- 1,500- 2,000- 1,200
SW 1,000 1,500 600 1,500
5,000 7,000 2,000 2,500 (HH 350,
CT 700)
Table 29 - Cost for Emptying FS per Load (in Rupees) - Municipalities

SW- Sanitary workers; Mgt- Management; CT- Community Toilet
Treatment and disposal of faecal 360,000 litre of sludge is collected, while

sludge Perambalur reports 1.82 MLD (grey and
Two managements (Mannarkudi and black water).
Perambalur) and three sanitation worker
groups (Mannarkudi, Perambalur and The municipal solid waste site is the
Mayavaram) report treating FS before most frequently used dumping yard
disposal but offer no description. for faecal sludge disposal followed by
Responses by the Mannarkudi municipality agricultural land and outskirts. The other
suggest that they do not treat but have options reported include the lake bed in
a compost yard. As regards the quantity Perambalur as reported by the management
of FS collected, Tiruvallur reports that and the river belt in Gudalur as reported by
119
Garbage Agricultural River

Town Panchayats Manholes STPs Dump Drains Outskirts Lands Beds
Gudalur Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mannarkudi Yes Yes
Nagerkoil Yes
Pollachi Yes Yes
Sankarankovil Yes Yes Yes
Thiruchengodu Yes Yes
Tiruvallur Yes
Perambalur Yes Yes
Pudukottai Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mayavaram Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 30 - Places of FS Disposal - Municipalities
sanitation workers. Mannarkudi sanitation The most commonly reported problems are
workers reported disposing in a compost with septic tank usage, stated by the six
yard. In Tiruvallur, both management managements (Gudalur, Sankarankovil,
and sanitation workers reported using Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and
the dedicated STP site constructed since Mayavaram) and sanitary workers from
January 2015 for municipal lorries only. Nagerkoil and Thiruchengodu as follows
- lack of proper construction (4), overflow
Issues in FS collection systems and opening during rainy season (4), water
Information on problems associated with pollution (2), cost of cleaning (2), and gas
collection of faecal sludge was sought on formation during cleaning (2).
three different types of technology – septic
tanks, soak / leach pit, ECOSAN/ twin pit The answers by five managements
latrine and centralised sewer systems. Only (Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu,
few municipal managements and sanitary Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and Mayavaram)
workers responded to this question (31). to questions on issues with soak/leach
120
Soak pit / Septic Sewer

leach pit tank System
Connecting to drainage 2 1
Lack of proper construction method 1 4 2
Poor maintenance 4
Water pollution 1 2
Lack of sewerage connection 1
Overflow / opening during rainy season 4
Cost 2 2
Gas formation 2 2
Machinery 1
Table 31 - Issues in FS Collection Systems - Municipalities
pits include – poor maintenance of the drainage and connection to water bodies
system, connection by users to drainage, as an important issue. One sanitary worker
lack of proper construction methods group mentioned throwing of faecal matter
and water pollution. Pudukottai and in plastic bags as a problem.
Mayavaram sanitary workers reported that
soak pits need to be regularly cleaned. On the specific question of problems
Cost and gas formation were reported faced with current faecal sludge collection
mostly in centralised sewer systems by technology, the managements of
the managements of Pudukottai and Mannarkudi, Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur,
Mayavaram. Pudukottai, Mayavaram and the sanitation
workers from Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and
Issues in faecal sludge management Mayavaram responded. Neighbourhood
In general, lack of community toilets, open issues due to overflow (1); poor machinery
defecation, lack of outreach programmes (1), low levels of mechanisation (2),
on sanitation, direct connection of drainage manual cleaning by Pudukottai and
to the river are important issues. Another Mayavaram, narrow access to reach
group stressed the lack of connection to collection points (3), low frequency of
Lack of community
toilets, open defecation,
lack of outreach
programmes on
sanitation, direct
connection of drainage
to the river are
important issues
in Faecal Sludge
Management
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
122
service (4), water contamination (5), of mosquitoes (2), drain connecting to

mosquitoes (6), health issues (7) and drinking water connection (1), disposal
drainage were the commonly reported during rainy season (1), inconvenient
problems. time of disposal (1) and objection by
neighbours. Other issues mentioned by
On issues associated with the emptying sanitary workers from Nagerkoil include
process, both management and sanitation extensive health issues. They also reported
workers from Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, that open defecation is taking place on the
Pudukottai and Mayavaram and sanitation drainage.
workers from Gudalur responded. Problems
mentioned were – lack of public support
(1), non-availability of vacuum emptier Issues with faecal sludge collection
/ proper machines (3), lack of safety facilities
equipment (2), absence of healthcare Seven municipal managements (Gudalur,
after emptying (2) and non-availability of Mannarkudi, Nagerkoil, Thiruchengodu,
workers and clubbing orders (1). Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and Mayavaram),
reported on the places affected by poor
On issues with treatment of FS FS collection. Main issues include: lack
before disposal, four managements of awareness (3), water directed to storm
(Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, Pudukottai, water drainage (2), lack of vehicles (1),
Mayavaram) and SW from Gudalur, lack of place for disposal (1), design issues
Thiruchengodu, Pudukottai and of the septic tanks (1) and lack of public
Mayavaram responded. The problems toilets (1).
mentioned include lack of awareness
among the public, lack of public support Social problems arising out of poor
(2), absence of low cost technology (1), gas collection and maintenance were:
formation (2), no proper place of disposal frequent complaints (1), problems
(1), bad odour/smell (2), delay (2) and among neighbours (2), less use of
mosquitoes (2). sanitary facilities (2) as reported by five
municipalities – Gudalur, Mannarkudi,
With regard to issues with the place of Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and Mayavaram.
disposal, three municipal managements Environmental issues reported by four
(Tiruvallur, Pudukkottai and Mayavaram) municipality managements – Gudalur,
and three sanitary worker groups (Gudalur, Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and Mayavaram -
Thiruchengodu and Tiruvallur) reported include water pollution (2), breeding of
- lack of treatment units (2), air pollution mosquitoes (2), various infections (2) and
(2), water contamination (2), growth bad smell/odour (2). Health issues reported
123
Town Areas affected by poor Challenges in

Panchayats FS collection systems disposing FS
Lack of place for disposal, cost of desludging,

Gudalur No data improper design of tanks, no underground
facility, water pollution and social issues.
Arisikadai santhu, Azad Street, Masthan

Mannarkudi Street and the Market area No data
Thiruchengodu Naripallam & Sanarpalayam No data
Perumbakkam, area near the Kakkalur

Tiruvallur lake No low cost technology for safe disposal.
Poor maintenance by households, worker

Soil pollution & salinity of water, major
Pudukottai parts of municipality non-availability when needed and high service
charges to private providers.
Poor maintenance by households, worker

Soil pollution & salinity of water, major
Mayavaram parts of municipality non-availability when needed and high service
charges to private providers.
Table 32 - Challenges in FS Disposal – Municipalities

No information available from Nagerkoil, Pollachi, Sankarankovil and Perambalur
by the four municipalities of Mannarkudi, Management view on private player

Sankarankovil, Pudukottai and Mayavaram functioning
include waterborne diseases, fever, It is clear from the Annexure 1 Table
filariasis and malaria, each reported twice. 4 that Mannarkudi municipality does
not engage private players, Pollachi
Challenges in faecal sludge disposal offers no information and Perambalur
Municipality managements were asked has underground sewerage connection.
about the areas affected by poor FSM Gudalur, Nagerkoil, Pudukottai have five
and issues with faecal sludge disposal. private players each, Tiruvallur has four,
Details of areas affected by poor FSM and and Thiruchengodu and Mayavaram have
challenges faced in disposal are given in two and one respectively.
Table 32 above.
In Sankarankovil, vehicles are hired
from neighbouring municipalities. All
five players in Pudukottai and one in
Mayavaram have licenses.
124
In Nagerkoil, Sankarankovil, Analysis of responses of private

Thiruchengodu and Tiruvallur, the fee for service providers
emptying FS is based on factors such as Private players across the ten
tank size, labour cost, distance travelled municipalities have been in operation for
and quantity of sludge. In Pudukottai and 3 to 21 years as reported by six players.
Mayavaram, it is decided by households Mannarkudi municipality has no private
and workers. operators. On reasons for starting this
service, five of the nine service providers
The rate charged in Gudalur for public are basically continuing with the
toilets is Rs.2,000 and between Rs.5,000 traditional profession of the family, three
– Rs.10,000 for households. Six players took advantage of the demand-
municipalities of Gudalur, Sankarankovil, supply mismatch and one started with a
Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, Pudukottai service motive. Tanker capacity reported
and Mayavaram reported having sufficient by the nine players varies between 500
human resources. litres to 10,000 litres with Pollachi private
operators reporting more than one vehicle.
Six municipalities of Gudalur, Nagerkoil, The number of service calls varies from
Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur two per day to about 15 - 20 per month.
and Mayavaram reported having sufficient One player from Pollachi has applied for a
equipment while seven municipalities license (they also pay union membership
reported having enough vehicles. With fees) and another from Tiruvallur mentions
regard to equipment used for emptying having Regional Transport Officer (RTO)
faecal sludge, six municipalities use air permission.
compressors, Thiruchengodu uses a suction
machine with diesel engine. Importantly,
in the two municipalities of Pudukottai
and Mayavaram, manual emptying is also
reported.
Regarding treatment of faecal sludge, none

of the municipalities reported treating the
faecal sludge before disposal.
125
No.of Quantity of
Private Tanker FS collected
service No. of capacity (litres) Status of
Municipalities providers workers (litres) No. of clients Per month license
3 - 4 calls per
Gudalur 1 5 5,000 15,000 -20,000
month
Mannarkudi 0
Nagerkoil 9 4 5,000 2 calls per day 5,000-10,000
3,000 -
Pollachi 3 7 2-4 calls per day 49,000
6,000
2 - 3 clients per
Sankarankovil 1 3 4,000 48,000
month
3 - 4 calls per
Thiruchengodu 2 3 2,500 7,500
month
Tiruvallur 1 2 10,000 2 calls per day 30,000 RTO permission
15 - 20 calls per
Perambalur 2 5 4,000 12,000
month
Pudukottai 3 No data 6,000 2-3 calls per day 4,000
4 calls per per

Mayavaram 1 3 500 500
month
Table 33 - Profile of Private Service Providers – Municipalities
Use of modern equipment and being trained by service providers (besides

safety measures learning from parents) while the Pollachi
Regarding the use of equipment in private player reports receiving training,
emptying and the use of safety measures by although details are not available. However,
the service providers, responses show that only in Tiruvallur, private players report
eight of the nine private service providers receiving training from the municipality.
used suction machines / air compressors
for removing FS and some used other With regard to safety equipment, mask/
supporting equipment such as shovels, handkerchief and gloves and other safety
ropes and rods in varying combinations. equipment are reported to be used by seven
of the nine service providers, while two
Thiruchengodu also reports manual players from Pudukottai and Mayavaram
procedures. Importantly, in Gudalur and do not provide any information.
Sankarankovil, private players report
126
Fee for
emptying
Municipalities (Rs.) per trip Equipment for emptying Use of safety measures
Public toilets
2,000 per trip, High Air Compressor, Iron rod, 200ft
Hand gloves, mask,
Gudalur HH toilets hose, return compressor, clamp and
crow bar, spade
2,000-3,000 per washer tube
trip
Mannarkudi No data No data No data
Septic tank
3,000-5,000; Air compressor, Plumbing with motor, Handkerchief for nose and
Nagerkoil Soak pit Iron rod, hose, clamp and washer tube gloves for legs & hands
6,000-7,000
Motor, Crowbar, shovel, shoe,

Septic Tank jumper hammer, PVC hand pipe for Gloves, hard cloth, soap,
Pollachi 1,300 to 1,800 sucking, washer and clamp, shovel, shoes, mask, helmet
hoe
Septic Tank Air compressor, Iron rod, hose,

Sankarankovil 2,000 to 2,500 gloves, clamp and washer tube
Masks and gloves
Septic Tank
Thiruchengodu 2,000 - 2,200
Machinery & Manual Mask, Boots, Gloves
Diesel engine with foot valve, if

necessary vacuum emptier hired Mask, gloves, First Aid box
Tiruvallur (Rs.3,000); Crow bar, spade, knife, (mostly they are not used)
rope, tool box (spanners)
Septic Tank
Perambalur 2,000/ 2,500 to Air compressor, motor, tube Masks and gloves
5,000
Septic Tank
Pudukottai 300/load
Suction cum jetting machine No data
Motor and hose pipe;

Mayavaram 770 to 1,500 Tank (500 lts), Plastic pipe, No data
Motor, Three-wheeled vehicle
Table 34 - Profile of Services Offered by Private Service Providers – Municipalities
Treatment and place of disposal

Three private players from Mannarkudi, With regard to place of FS disposal, nine
Perambalur and Mayavaram report players commonly indicated the following
existence of partial facilities for treating FS sites -– agricultural land (6); garbage dump
before disposal. In Mannarkudi, a concrete and drainage (4); municipal dumping
based settler is used while Perambalur and yard (2), outskirts (4), coconut grove (1),
Mayavaram report a partially commissioned wasteland (1), forest land (1) and riverbed
underground network. (1).
127
Municipalities Place of disposal Challenges faced
Public toilet FS is disposed in the There is no proper place to dispose and we are
municipal solid waste yard. The followed by auto drivers and officials to prevent
Gudalur household FS is disposed in agricultural us from disposing in public spaces. Also, there
lands. is restriction from the Forest department.
Mannarkudi
There is no proper place to dispose and there

Municipal solid waste garbage dump (1/2 are restrictions from public. When FS is taken to
Nagerkoil km from the municipality). dispose, the septic tank vehicle is followed by
the police.
Pollachi Agricultural lands, Coconut groves.
Outskirts, but if collection is in dry There is no proper place to dispose, no proper

Sankarankovil season, then FS is disposed in agricultural vehicle.
lands.
Lack of support from government, disposal is at

Thiruchengodu Garbage dumps and drains. night time.
1. Most of the households are constructing

soak pits. Hence, the frequency of desludging
of the tank is not high and water drains in the
Agricultural land, open land in the land, as a result, sludge becomes hard. 2.
Tiruvallur outskirts and major drainage. Due to low rate, they could not use vacuum
emptier. 3. No specified place for disposal. 4.
Competition in local area. 5. We cannot dispose
in other service provider areas.
Perambalur Wasteland, forest land and riverbed.
Garbage dumps, drains, outskirts and High cost of vehicle maintenance, workers,
Pudukottai agricultural land. wages.
Garbage dumps, drains, outskirts, High cost of vehicle maintenance, workers,

Mayavaram agricultural land. wages etc.
Table 35 - Places of FS Disposal and Related Challenges – Municipalities
Among the challenges faced by private prevents use of vacuum emptier (1), lack of
players is the lack of proper place of proper vehicle (1) and lack of support from
disposal which is reported by four players, the government (1).
along with harassment by public, officials
and police, forcing some to dump in the On the scope of private providers in FS
night. Other issues related to disposal management, Perambalur reported less
included higher cost of workers, vehicles service requirement for private players
and wages (2), business competition (1), (as underground sewerage networks are
hardening of sludge due to soak pit which in place). Players from Pudukottai and
128
Mayavaram report good scope for more and public toilets make use of the drainage
private players, while Gudalur players canal as septic tank. Further, during the
reported limited scope by stating the rainy season, household septic tanks are
following: “Private commercial buildings connected to the sewer with the support of
are connected to drains. The municipality motor pumps which is an issue”.
has given permission to dispose the faecal
sludge in the STP. Due to improper design Support needed from the
of septic tanks and soak pits, the overflow government
of septic tanks is discharged into drains, Of the nine private players, just one did not
the desludging period is high, and hence want any assistance from the state. From
the scope is limited”. the remaining eight, multiple suggestions
were offered - land or proper dumping yard
Drinking water contamination for FS (3); support from municipality (2),
On the issue of water contamination, three public awareness and support for day time
players say there is no contamination collection (2), provision of vehicle for FS
(Gudalur, Pollachi and Tiruvallur). collection (1), treatment unit (1), bank
Sankarankovil private players describe the loan and subsidy for their business (1), and
problem in detail – “Few household toilets need for workers (1).
Municipalities Support required from State & municipalities
Allotment of proper place to dispose FS and municipality’s permission to dispose the sludge in STP
Gudalur
at Ooty. Need license from the government to carry out our activities.
Mannarkudi No data
Provision of vehicle for FS collection. Government and public should support the collection of FS
Nagerkoil
during the day time. Need license from Government.
Pollachi Need place of disposal.
Sankarankovil Allotment of proper place to dispose the sludge. Need license from the government.
Thiruchengodu No data
Tiruvallur Area allocation or treatment unit of FS.
Perambalur Municipality support and bank loan.
Pudukottai Loan with subsidy.
Mayavaram Permanent workers.
Table 36 - Support required from State and Municipalities

129
Analysis of community group Frequency of cleaning and choice of

responses service provider
This section deals with the community In five municipalities, desludging is done
views on various aspects of faecal sludge between two and five years, in three
management practices in their localities, municipalities it takes ‘more than five
such as frequency of cleaning, choice of years’ and between seven to 20 years in
service providers and their perception of two others. In six municipalities, services
health, environmental and social impacts of private players are sought – in two
of poor FSM. municipalities because of lack of municipal
services and in two others due to quality of
In total, ten group discussions were service.
conducted across the municipalities chosen
for study. In Pudukottai and Mayavaram, In Mannarkudi, Tiruvallur, Pudukottai and
discussions were held with women groups Mayavaram, municipal services are sought,
and the rest were mixed groups. which are found to be low cost and fair,
besides other reasons. On the frequency
On the issue of type of septic collection of cleaning, Tiruvallur community groups
used by the respondents’ households, responded in detail – “There are three
the majority of members from all ten different categories of development - old
groups reported having septic tanks; town, rural and new development area.
some members from five groups (Gudalur, Overflow of septic tanks is discharged
Mannarkudi, Nagerkoil, Pollachi, and into drainage and so the desludging
Sankarankovil) reported having pit latrines period is around ten years. Rural areas
while one group in Perambalur reported completely depend on soak pits, which
sewer connection and a few members from are cleaned of sludge in seven to ten
Gudalur reported open defecation. years. The newly developed area is in
the lake area, where no drainage facility
On the type of septic collection mostly exists and in this place due to the high
used by the neighbourhood, eight groups water table, desludging takes place
reported neighbours using septic tanks, almost every rainy season”.
seven reported using leach/pit latrines, five
groups reported neighbours using public
defecation facilities (Gudalur, Mannarkudi,
Nagerkoil, Sankarankovil, Perambalur) and
four groups from Gudalur, Mannarkudi,
Nagerkoil and Sankarankovil reported their
neighbours using ‘sewer connection’.
130
Choice of Problems due to leakage/

Service overflow/non-emptying of
Municipalities Frequency Provider Reasons septic tank
Jaundice, skin disease,

No such service available
Gudalur 5+ years Pvt
from municipality.
fever and breeding of
mosquitoes.
Low cost, private players

Mannarkudi 2 - 4 years Muni
not allowed.
No data
Bad smell, mosquitoes,

No such service available
Nagerkoil 5+ years Pvt
from municipality.
storage of sludge in
drainage.
Pollachi 7 - 10 years Pvt No data No data
Sankarankovil 8 - 20 years Pvt No data No data
Quick service using

During monsoon, sewage
Thiruchengodu 5+ years Pvt machines; manual - low
water flows into the house.
cost, dry and clean.
Overflow of septic tanks

Tiruvallur 5 years Muni Less fees. is an issue in the newly
developed area.
Good service, low cost and

Perambalur 1 - 3 years Pvt
need for cleaning.
Poor sanitation.
Formal system, fair cost,

other drainage work
Pudukottai 5 years Muni
possible and contacts with
No data
government.
Once in 5
Mayavaram years
Muni Good service, fair cost. No data
Table 37 - Frequency of cleaning and choice of service provider - Municipalities

Pvt- Private; Muni- Municipality
Health, environmental and social available to municipalities indicates that

impacts of poor FSM the faecal waste management is often the
Septic tanks/latrine pits need to be emptied responsibility of residents themselves.
periodically and data shows that this is not In this context, in Tamil Nadu, delay in
happening due to various reasons such as emptying, irresponsible disposal of faecal
lack of awareness among the public, poor sludge by private service providers resulted
design of septic tanks preventing emptying in various issues. Many others are likely
and non-availability of affordable emptying to opt for the easiest means of disposal
services. The lack of state resources by dumping the sludge into nearby open
drains and rivers. This has significant
131
Health Social
Municipalities impact Environmental impact impact
Contamination
causes waterborne
diseases, River and well water Right to fresh water is
Gudalur sleeplessness contamination, lack of violated, social disharmony,
because of bad access to safe water. right to health at stake.
odour, illness of
children.
Drinking water is
Children falling sick contaminated, pond water
Mannarkudi (Malaria, Dengue and becomes polluted, FS Social disharmony.
Jaundice) disposed on the roadside
without any drainage.
Nagerkoil Fever, skin diseases Air pollution, land pollution. No data
Pollachi No data No data No data
Sankarankovil No data No data No data
Skin problems,
Thiruchengodu Asphyxia
Bad smell, mosquitoes. No data
Fever, Jaundice,
Tiruvallur Dysentery, Cholera Water pollution, bad smell. Social disharmony.
and Typhoid
Perambalur No data Environmental pollution. No data
Groundwater
Poor standard of living,
contamination, air
health of self and children,
Pudukottai No data pollution, foul odour and
personal hygiene and
contamination of water
productivity affected.
supply.
Groundwater
Poor standard of living,
Filariasis, contamination, air
health of self and children,
Mayavaram mosquitoes cause pollution, smell and
personal hygiene and
fever and malaria contamination of water
productivity affected.
supply.
Table 38 - Impact of poor FSM on Community - Municipalities
public health and environmental Therefore, an attempt has been made to

consequences with the whole community understand the community view on the
potentially being exposed to untreated health, environmental and social impacts
human waste. of poor faecal sludge management (38).
132
Environmental
pollution, which is
reported by eight of the
ten municipalities in
Tamil Nadu, include
air, land and water
pollution, especially
pollution of water
bodies and
groundwater, which
denies them access to
WaterAid/Dieter Telemans
safe water
133
All community groups reported being SWOT analysis of faecal sludge

aware of the health and environmental management in Tamil Nadu
impacts of poor faecal sludge management.
Multiple health issues were reported by six An attempt has been made to analyse and
community groups. These included skin understand the ongoing faecal sludge
problems, malaria, cholera, typhoid and management in Tamil Nadu. The SWOT
sickness among children. Environmental analysis gave the opportunity to evolve
pollution, which is reported by eight of a strategy to tackle the weaknesses and
the ten municipalities, include air, land threats at ULB level.
and water pollution, especially pollution
of water bodies and groundwater, which
denies them access to safe water. Social
impacts mentioned by five municipalities
include social disharmony, violations of
right to health, polluted water and lack of
hygiene which affects the overall quality of
life.
S
1. Municipal Solid Waste Collection Services provided by ULBs mobilised public trust and
support in favour of ULBs, which can be capitalised for beginning FSM services.
2. Affordable septic tank emptying fees by municipalities.

Strengths
3. Nominal FS disposal fee charged by septage treatment plants.
4. Presence of equipment, facilities and human resources.
5. Scope for integrating Septage Treatment Plants into Resource Recovery Park.
6. Experience in implementation of sanitation programmes.
7. Municipal service providers have designated land for disposal.
W
1. Lack of political commitment and lack of budget allocation.
2. Lack of coordination between local bodies and private service providers.
3. Public enterprises have low operational and financial capacity in Urban Local Bodies.
Weaknesses
4. Government officials from ULBs are not aware of health risks from poor FSM.
134
5. FS treatment plants are too distant from the collection areas, which
prevent private service providers from using them.
6. Unsafe handling and dumping of FS by public and private service providers.
7. Only few private service providers have designated land for disposal.
8. No treatment of faecal sludge before disposal by private providers.
9. Inadequate internal financial resources.
10. Lack of awareness on FSM among the officials of local bodies/ government.
11. Inadequate localised disposal and treatment facilities.
12. Inefficiency of existing treatment facilities.
13. Lack of affordable and environmentally viable modern technology.
14. Inefficiency and lack of trained personnel for FSM.
15. Lack of emptying equipment and facilities.
16. Lack of government will and/or capacity to control and

enforce regulations against illegal dumping.
17. Lack of political will to promote use of treated sewage.
18. Lack of suitable incentives and sanctioning

procedures for private service providers.
19. Large number of insanitary toilets/ poorly constructed septic tanks.
20. Lack of skilled personnel for the construction of properly designed septic tanks.
21. Lack of awareness among government officials and private service providers on the
scope for ‘increased cost recovery’ and potential ‘nutrient and energy reuse from FS’.
O
1. Scope for collaboration between municipal and private operators in FSM.
2. Scope for evolving as a business model.
3. Increasing demand for paid emptying services by the public.

Opportunities
4. Public acceptance for legal services more than illegal services.
5. Scope for demand for bio-solids.

135
T
1. Many private service providers dispose faecal sludge without treatment.
2. Lack of knowledge and support from central government agencies for FSM.
3. Illegal dumping in service areas.

Threats
4. FS treatment capacity is not enough for service areas.
5. Stigma attached to faecal sludge management among the public.
6. Unwillingness of public to allow the construction of STPs in their neighbourhood.
7. Unsafe handling and dumping of FS by public and private service providers.
8. Septic tanks/pits difficult to access.
9. Inappropriate emptying equipment (size and performance for complete

sludge removal). (size and performance for complete sludge removal).
10. Lack of public and farmers’ involvement in promotion and marketing of bio-solids.
11. Non-existent or insufficient involvement of stakeholders (owners and

users of sanitation facilities, farmers, private entrepreneurs).
12. Non-availability of land for the construction of STPs.
13. Non-cooperation from public to construct STPs.
14. Septic tanks are not connected to soak pits or drains and are oversized or under sized.
15. Suffer from irregular cleaning due to lack of awareness.

136
5
Water Contamination and its Health
Impact in Tamil Nadu
This chapter deals with water contamination and its impact on the health
of people, based on the information available from various secondary
sources.
Water quality and health in Tamil Nadu

It is generally assumed that groundwater is safe (free from pathogenic
bacteria), it does not contain harmful constituents, it is free from
suspended matter because the rainwater, which is the primary source
of groundwater, has moved through the soil and vadose (unsaturated)
zone before meeting the groundwater. It gets cleaned and purified due to
a number of physical, chemical and biological activities and processes
such as oxidation and reduction, adsorption, precipitation etc. The
belief that groundwater is safe is not true under all circumstances. The
unscientific disposal of human and animal waste is found to be the main
anthropogenic activity that has led to the contamination of groundwater
137
Tamil Nadu : Water Contamination & its Health Impact
with microorganisms, nitrates, potassium The soil regularly receives refuse and
etc.135. organic matter in the form of human and
animal waste, sewage, manure, compost,
Contamination of drinking water sources sewage from pans, septic tanks, pit latrines,
by sewage can occur from raw sewage barnyard wastes, and irrigation by sewage
overflow, septic tanks, leaking sewer lines, etc. All these release pathogens into the
land application of sludge and partially environment. Graveyards may abound in
treated wastewater. Sewage itself is a clostridium tetani, which causes tetanus in
complex mixture and can contain various man and animal. Cattle graves may abound
types of contaminants. The greatest in bacillus anthrax, which cause anthrax,
threats posed to water resources arise an acutely infectious disease in man and
from contamination by bacteria, nitrates, animal. Clostridium botulinum, a strictly
metals, trace quantities of toxic materials, anaerobic bacillus, has been found to be
and salts. Seepage overflow into drinking present in cultivated soils and offal dumps
water sources can cause disease from the (waste of carcasses, slaughter house waste),
ingestion of microorganisms such as E coli, which are potent reservoirs of botulism
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Hepatitis A, and germs.
helminths136.
The main sewage sources contaminating
Composition and sources of sewage the groundwater are: raw sewage overflows,
Human and animal excreta (faeces, dung, septic tanks, poor placement of septic
urine, etc.) contain a variety of pollutants; leach fields and leakage from sewer lines.
inorganic, organic and microbiological, High nitrate contaminations found in
which can affect groundwater quality groundwater in several urbanised localities
adversely. Human and animal waste loaded in Tamil Nadu are likely to be attributed to
with microbiological pollutants may these sources137.
contain four types of pathogens (disease
causing bacteria) like eggs of helminths As per the BIS Standard for drinking water,
(worms), protozoa, bacteria and viruses. the maximum desirable limit of nitrate
Human faecal matter on an average concentration in ground water is 45 mg/l
contains 109 bacteria/gram (not all of them with no relaxation. Though nitrate is
pathogenic) and in the case of an infected considered relatively non-toxic, a high
person, faecal matter may contain as many nitrate concentration in drinking water is
as 106 viruses/gram. an environmental health concern arising
135 Contamination of Ground Water by Sewage, CGWB, 2011

136 Ibid
137 Ibid
138

% of Faecal Coliform
Contamination
from increased risks of Methemoglobinemia
particularly to infants. Adults can tolerate Nilgiris 0.19%
higher concentrations. The specified limits
Pudukottai 0.12%
are not to be exceeded in public water supply.
Thiruvarur 4.96%
If the limit is exceeded, water is considered to
be unfit for human consumption. Nagapattinam 1.06%
Tirupur 0.04%
Water testing conducted in Tamil Nadu found
Erode 1.77%
localised occurrence of nitrate (>45mg/l) in
groundwater in many districts. Of the 14 Tiruchirappalli 1.11%
districts covered under the study, with the Kanchipuram 0.02%
exception of two districts (Nagappattinam
Tiruvallur 6.70%
and Tiruvarur), the groundwater of the
remaining 12 districts (Chennai, Coimbatore,
Erode, Kanchipuram, Kanyakumari,
Table 39 - Faecal Coliform Contamination
Namakkal, Nilgiris, Pudukkottai, in Tamil Nadu
Thirunelveli, Tiruvallur, Tiruchirappalli and
Tuticorin) was found to have a high nitrate Source: Pollution Database for Tamil Nadu; Environmental
Information System, April 2014, ENVIS Centre, Department
content138.
of Environment, Government of Tamil Nadu, Page 51
Level of faecal coliforms in Tamil

Nadu river water sources major factors affecting the microbiological
The occurrence of coliforms in surface water quality of surface waters in India are
has been used as an indicator of faecal discharges from sewage, open defecation
contamination, signalling the possible and runoff from informal settlements. Water
presence of faecal pathogens such as contaminated with faecal matter has the
Salmonella and Shigella. This is due, in part, capability to pose serious health risks for
to the observed correlation between elevated fish consumers and swimmers. Indicator
bacterial counts in water and the rate of organisms are commonly used to assess the
occurrence of gastrointestinal symptoms or microbiological quality of surface waters and
diseases. faecal coliforms (FC) are the most commonly
used bacterial indicator of faecal pollution in
Rivers provide the main water resources India.
for domestic, industrial and agricultural
purposes. Studies (Sivaraja and Nagarajan Total coliforms (TC) comprise bacterial
2014; Environmental Information System, species of faecal origin as well as other
Government of Tamil Nadu) found that the bacterial groups. The coliforms are indicative
138 Pollution Data Base: Tamil Nadu 2014; Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, GOI
139
Tamil Nadu : Water Contamination & its Health Impact
Acute Diarrhoeal Diseases Cholera
Year Cases Deaths Fatality Rate Cases Deaths Fatality Rate
1997 78025 520 0.67 2261 2 0.09
1998 77677 368 0.47 1807 0 0
1999 74583 266 0.36 1807 1 0.06
2000 64130 195 0.3 1328 1 0.05
2001 59511 159 0.27 1110 1 0.09
2002 69889 199 0.28 1591 3 0.19
2003 58784 66 0.11 390 1 0.26
2004 77333 119 0.15 1500 2 0.13
2005 70465 65 0.09 777 1 0.13
2006 52555 22 0.04 152 1 0.66
2007 37556 19 0.05 212 0 0
2008 57463 62 0.11 994 0 0
2009 87207 21 0.02 826 0 0
2010 60314 45 0.07 932 1 0.1
2011 206669 24 0.01 580 0 0
2012 198317 17 0.01 516 0 0
2013 179560 24 0.17 145 0 0

2014 176795 6 0.05 18 0 0
Table 40 - Details of cases and deaths due to ADD/Cholera in Tamil Nadu

Source: http://www.tnhealth.org/dph/dphdb.php
of the general hygiene quality of the water Waterborne diseases

and potential risk of infectious diseases Several hundred people have been
from water. High FC and TC counts in affected in the state, by diseases caused by
water are usually manifested in the form of consumption of unsafe and contaminated
diarrhoea and sometimes by fever and other water. Contaminated water can cause Acute
secondary complications139. In the districts Diarrhoeal Diseases (ADD) and Cholera. The
covered under this study, no faecal coliform above Table 40 provides details of cases and
contamination was found in the water sample deaths due to ADD/Cholera in Tamil Nadu
from five districts (Coimbatore, Thoothukudi, which clearly shows that the fatality rate due
Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari and Namakkal). to ADD and Cholera has been coming down
drastically.
139 Sivaraja R and Nagarajan K. (2014), Levels of Indicator Microorganisms (Total and Faecal Coliforms) in surface waters of rivers Cauvery and
Bhavani for circuitously predicting the pollution load and pathogenic risks, International Journal of PharmTech Research, Vol.6, No.2, pp 455-
461, April-June 2014
140
6
Conclusion and Way Forward
While looking at the national picture of FSM, the following is evident:
There is some form of toilet facility for the 81.4 per cent urban
households140 while the NSS141 estimation was found to be higher at 89.6
per cent. However if we get into the depth of this data, it can be seen that
the poor who live in the slums (notified and non-notified) have lesser
access to sanitation. As per NSSO data-2012, at the all-India level, 31 per
cent of slums had no latrine facility, the figure being 42 per cent for non-
notified and 16 per cent for notified slums142.
Where sanitation access is available, only a few households (32.7 per

cent) use toilets that are connected with the underground sewerage
141 Key Indicators for Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition in India - NSS, 69th Round, July 2012- December 2012, NSSO,
Government of India.
142 NSSO data , 69th Round, 2012
141
network. A very high 18.6 per cent of and operational conditions often results
urban households do not have access to in accumulation of organic sludge,
individual toilets, of which 6 per cent use reduction in effective volume and hydraulic
public or community toilets and 12.6 per overloading, which ultimately causes
cent have to resort to open defecation. On- system failure and the release of partially
site pit latrines and septic tanks account treated or untreated septage from the
for a substantial proportion of toilets in septic tank. Private operators often do
urban India – 48 per cent of urban Indian not transport and dispose of septage far
households depend on on-site facilities away from human settlements. Instead,
143
, and this proportion is increasing. they dump it in drains, waterways, open
While these numbers differentiate between land, and agricultural fields. Data shows
latrines and septic tanks, many septic tanks that 33,000 and 40,000144 million litres
are in reality similar to pit latrines, and of wastewater is generated every day
have leaking sides and open bottoms. Many from class-I cities (cities with population
septic tanks, even for public toilets and >100,000) and class-II towns (population
commercial entities, are inaccessible for 50,000 - 100,000) respectively. This is
desludging and maintenance. enough to irrigate nine million hectares,
but only about 30 per cent is collected
The adequate facilities and treatment capacity exists for less than
20 per cent. The remainder reaches water
and services for collection, bodies untreated, leading to highly polluted
transportation, treatment surface water resources. According to the
and disposal of urban Ministry of Urban Development (2013),

an alarming 70 per cent of India’s surface
domestic septage do not water is now polluted145. It is estimated
exist in Indian cities. that 75–80 per cent of water pollution
Most on-site sanitation systems (OSS) by volume is from domestic sewerage146.
are emptied manually in the absence of Untreated sewage flowing into water
suitable facilities. Ideally, a septic tank bodies has almost doubled from around
system should be desludged every two to 12,000 million litres per day to 24,000
five years. But ignorance of maintenance million litres per day in Class-I and II towns
144 Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance of Sewage Treatment Plants in India, 2007, CPCB. And http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/
environment/pollution/Around-80-of-sewage-in-Indian-cities-flows-into-water-systems/articleshow/18804660.cms
145 Murthy and Kumar 2011. Water pollution in India - an economic appraisal. p 285. In IDFC (2011). India Infrastructure Report 2011. Water-
Policy and performance for sustainable development. Infrastructure Development Finance Company. Oxford University press.
146 Status of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment in Class-I Cities & Class-II Towns of India, CPCB, 2009
142
between 1991 and 2008147. According to drinking water supply to every person by
the CPCB 2005 report148, there were 269 2019. The responsibility for provision of
sewage treatment plants (STPs) with 211 in sanitation facilities in the country primarily
Class-I cities, 31 in Class-II towns and 27 in rests with local government bodies –
other smaller towns. municipalities or corporations in urban
areas and gram panchayats in rural areas.
At the policy level, sanitation was not
prioritised until the early 1990s and In Delhi, out of 3.26 million urban
became an important policy concern households, only 2.9 million have toilet
only around 2008. It was not until facilities within the premises of their
the inception of the National Urban house. As per Census 2011 data, about 3
Sanitation Policy (NUSP) in 2008, that per cent of households defecate in open
urban sanitation was allotted focused spaces, while 21 per cent do not have
attention at the national level. The NUSP toilets within the premises. However, NSS
instated a framework for cities to prepare 2012 estimates that 67 per cent households
City Sanitation Plans under the scheme of a have exclusive toilets (not sharing with
State Sanitation Strategy. Urban Sanitation other households) in their premises, 99 per
awards and ratings were also introduced cent of which are reported as having access
based on the benchmarking of sanitation to improved source latrines. The river
services. Centrally sponsored schemes Yamuna bears the brunt of indiscriminate
such as JnNURM, Urban Infrastructure discharge of untreated wastewater and is
Development Scheme for Small and heavily polluted by domestic and industrial
Medium Towns (UIDSSMT), Rajiv Awas wastewater. As the Yamuna flows through
Yojna, etc. provide funds for creation of Delhi, the Najafgarh and 18 other major
sanitation assets like individual toilets, drains empty into it, making its water
community toilet blocks, wastewater quality heavily degraded and unfit even
disposal and treatment facilities at the for animal consumption and irrigation. As
city level. The ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’, per the CPCB data of 2013, the sewerage
launched on 2 October 2014, marks the generated in Delhi is 3800MLD, while the
beginning of the largest programme on installed STP capacity is 2330MLD. The
sanitation by the Government in India. percentage of available capacity is 61 per
The programme aims to ensure access to cent. Delhi does not have a State Sanitation
sanitation facilities (including toilets, solid Strategy. The one currently being used is
and liquid waste disposal systems, and Master Plan 2021 and Master Plan 2031
village cleanliness) and safe and adequate has been submitted.
147 Kantawala Deepak, 2013, Management of Sewage, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, March 2013
148 Status of sewage treatment in India. Central Pollution Control Board, November 2005
143
SBM launched on 2
October 2014, marks
the beginning of the
largest programme
on sanitation by the
GoI. The programme
aims to ensure access
to sanitation facilities
and safe and adequate
drinking water supply
WaterAid/Jon Spaull
to every person by
2019
144
In Gujarat, as per the Service Level being connected to either a closed or an

Benchmarking (SLB) - Performance open drain for wastewater disposal. In the
Assessment System (PAS) data for 2011- internal survey done by the Ministry of
12, a majority of the households depend Urban Development (MoUD), only 14 ULBs
on septic tanks and soak pits. Only 62 have sewerage network and of these, only
cities out of 167 have some extent of Indore has more than 70 per cent coverage.
sewerage network and a similar number, The state has 25 class-I cities with a
67, or around 40 per cent of ULBs in population of 10,795,000 (2008) and
Gujarat, have access to some underground sewage generation of 1248.72 MLD while
sewerage network. Although each of treatment capacity is only 186.1 MLD. It
the seven municipal corporations have has 23 class-II towns with a population
sewerage networks, many smaller ULBs of 1,745,050 and sewage generation of
also have underground sewerage networks. 130.9 MLD. There are a total of nine STPs
In the absence of sewerage systems, there using different technologies. The installed
are open drains that carry sullage and capacity of sewage treatment plants is
greywater. There is a shortage, though, 168.4 MLD and the actual utilisation is
of sewage treatment facilities: just 7 per 123.7 MLD. The state has initiated the
cent or 12 ULBs in Gujarat have such Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme
facilities. Even though 74 per cent of (IUSP) in consonance with the Government
urban properties have individual toilets, of India’s National Urban Sanitation Policy,
only 53 per cent properties are connected 2008. Under the IUSP, the following have
to a sewer network and 28 per cent of been initiated:
properties are dependent on on-site a) City Sanitation Plans (CSP) have
sanitary disposal systems. The Mahatma been prepared for 37 towns. CSP for
Gandhi Swachhata Mission (MGSM) which 24 more towns is underway.
is integrated with ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’
b) Sanitation Vision 2025 was
was launched in 2014 to achieve an open
prepared for the state.
defecation free, zero waste community,
a dust free and green Gujarat. As part of c) A District Head Scheme is in
MGSM, ‘Nirmal Gujarat Sauchalay Yojana’ place and demand-driven sanitation
has been launched in which subsidies for requirements are mandated from
toilet construction are provided. ULBs 149.
d) Four towns of Madhya Pradesh
Of the urban households in Madhya have achieved an open defecation free
Pradesh, 76 per cent have the facility of status and ten more towns are on the
verge of achieving the same.
149 Sanitation - Integrated Urban Sanitation Programme (IUSP), HUDCO Best Practices Award, 2013-14, Urban Administration and Development
Department & City Managers Association, Government of Madhya Pradesh
145
In Maharashtra, the urban sanitation during the decade 2001-11 has been 53 per
coverage is 94 per cent and 53 per cent cent whereas the increase in treated sewage
of households in the state have latrine quantity has been much less at 33 per
facilities within the premises – higher than cent. In the Uttar Pradesh sub-region, only
the national average of 46.3 per cent. Out six out of 63 towns are partially covered
of 252 ULBs in Maharashtra, only 31 ULBs with a sewerage system. There 24 STPs.
have an underground sewerage network Nine of them are under construction with
with different types of household coverage a capacity of 72.30. At present, the sewage
connections. Only 15 ULBs have secondary treatment capacity is 779.6 MLD but the
STPs and the average wastewater treatment actual sewage treated is 585.8 MLD and the
capacity of the state is 35 per cent. This average quantity of sewage treated is 52 per
means that the remaining 65 per cent cent.
wastewater is being disposed of without
any treatment. Maharashtra has six septage The Uttar Pradesh Urban Sanitation
treatment plants. The installed capacity Policy, 2010 identified the following key
of the plants amounts to 168.4 MLD and sanitation issues in the state:
the actual utilisation is 123.7MLD. Only
2 per cent of slum households within • Low priority to sanitation and
Maharashtra are networked to sewer lack of awareness about its
systems. There is no formal policy for urban linkages with public health.
sanitation in Maharashtra, but the state
• Social and occupational hazards
follows the approaches advocated in the
faced by sanitation workers.
NUSP. The Government of Maharashtra
developed the ‘Sujal Nirmal Abhiyan’ • Fragmented institutional roles
in 2008, a reform-oriented approach to and responsibilities.
managing water supply and sanitation
• Lack of an integrated city-
services in urban areas.
wide sanitation approach.
According to Census 2011 estimates, 70.3 • Serving the unserved and the poor.
per cent of households in Uttar Pradesh
• Lack of facilities in slums.
have toilets. The sewage generation in NCR
urban is 4,528 MLD. NCR has 64 STPs of • Lack of demand responsiveness.
3,349 MLD design capacity and the sewage
treated is 2,248 MLD. Therefore, the sewage One of the stated goals of the policy is
treated is 50 per cent of sewage generation. safe disposal of human excreta and liquid
The increase in sewage treatment capacity waste. Three related goals mentioned
146
In Tamil Nadu, 45.7 per cent of the
state’s population resorts to open
defecation due to the absence of proper
sanitation facilities. The National Family
Health Survey, 2005-06 states that 57
per cent of households in Tamil Nadu
have no toilet facility.
are: functioning of sewerage networks Tamil Nadu; 27 per cent and 40 per cent
and ensuring connection of households; respectively. These slums towns are neither
promoting recycling and reuse of treated connected with a sewage system nor do
water; and promoting proper disposal and they have any septage treatment plants.
treatment of sludge. The state has formulated two strategies
in the urban sanitation sector – coverage
In Tamil Nadu, 45.7 per cent of the state’s of all towns by Under Ground Sewerage
population resorts to open defecation Systems (UGSS) and total elimination
due to the absence of proper sanitation of open defecation by 2015. There are
facilities. The National Family Health plans to implement UGSS in a phased
Survey, 2005-06 (NFHS 3) states that 57 manner in corporations and municipalities
per cent of households in Tamil Nadu with necessary financial assistance
have no toilet facility. The proportion of under various schemes like TNUDP-III,
notified and non-notified slums with no Urban Infrastructure and Governance
latrine facility is significantly higher for (UIG/JnNURM), Urban Infrastructure
147
Development Scheme for Small and recognised by the town

Medium Towns (UIDSSMT/JnNURM), and panchayat management.
KfW grants. Detailed project reports have
• Use of modern equipment by private
been prepared for 117 municipalities at
players. However, they lack formal
an estimated cost of Rs.7,100 crore. At
training in desludging and none of them
present, UGSS schemes have been taken
reported treating sludge before disposal.
up in four town panchayats and detailed
project reports for the remaining 525 town
panchayats have been prepared at a cost of
The field study among the ten
Rs.12,904 crore under the 12th Five Year
municipalities revealed the following:
Plan.
• Most of the domestic water requirement

The field study of the ten town
is met by municipalities.
panchayats revealed the following:
• None of the municipalities
• Lack of an underground sewerage have a full-fledged UGSS while
system in town panchayats. three have partial coverage.
• Septic tanks as the most used • The majority of individual

system of septage collection. households use septic tanks in
municipalities, and one-tenth of
• Lack of adequate equipment
households use public toilets.
for desludging.
• Most of the municipalities expressed
• Lack of data on quantity of
insufficiency in emptying equipment
faecal sludge emptied.
and transport facilities.
• Infrequent cleaning of septic
• Frequency of faecal sludge collection
tanks at the household level.
from individual households
• Non-adherence to the operative varies from two to ten years.
guidelines as prescribed in standards
• The most commonly reported problems
for septage management.
with septic tank usage are: lack of
• No treatment plant at town proper construction, overflow and
panchayat level. opening during rainy season, water
pollution, and cost of cleaning and
• Lack of clarity at the town panchayat
gas formation during cleaning.
level regarding their role in FSM.
• In the case of leach pits; poor
• Role of private service providers
148
maintenance, connection by users to land for disposing faecal sludge. Further,

drainage, lack of proper construction public awareness on emptying at regular
and water pollution are reported issues. intervals and public support for day time
collection needs to be increased. They also
required help in establishing treatment
Like in other parts of Tamil Nadu, faecal
units and acquiring bank loans and
sludge is disposed in agricultural land,
subsidies for their business.
outskirts, municipal dump yards. Except
Mannarkudi, all municipalities have
Communities stated that health problems
private service providers for addressing
and social disharmony exist due to poor
faecal sludge management. Most of them
FSM.
reported using modern equipment and
safety measures.
Regarding the water quality, of the 14
districts covered under the study, with the
Among the challenges faced by private
exception of two districts (Nagappattinam
players is the absence of proper places
and Tiruvarur), the groundwater of 12
for disposal, opposition from public,
districts was found to have a high nitrate
harassment by government officials and
content. These are Chennai, Coimbatore,
police while carrying out the task during
Erode, Kanchipuram, Kanyakumari,
the day.
Namakkal, Nilgiris, Pudukkottai,
Thirunelveli, Thiruvallur, Tiruchirappalli
Regarding the demand for services from
and Tuticorin.
private service providers in faecal sludge
management, some said that the scope is
Presence of faecal coliform in river water
narrowing due to increase in the number of
sources shows that, of the districts
service providers and expansion of UGSS
covered under the study, faecal coliform
coverage while others said that there is a
contamination was found in the water
good scope for more private players as the
sample in a majority of the districts.
urban local bodies are not providing such
However, statistics show that deaths due
services.
to waterborne diseases such as Acute
Diarrhoeal Diseases (ADD) and Cholera
Asked about support required from the
have come down drastically.
government, private service providers
stated that they should be allotted specific
149
The following are the key of state agencies to ULBs in implementing

challenges to FSM in India: their city sanitation plans; Exclusion of
peri-urban and slum areas from the legal
Lack of adequate/effective policy framework; limited awareness among
framework: stakeholders including policymakers,
Lack of explicit state sanitation strategies government officials, civil society and
on safe disposal of faecal sludge; the common man; lack of skilled human
fragmented policy frameworks without resources.
direction on septage management; weak
enforcement by the state agencies. Funding capital and operational
costs:
Poor management of urban Most ULBs have very limited institutional,
sanitation: financial and staff capacity to improve
No physical infrastructure to treat septage; sanitation provision and septage
limited use of mechanised desludging management; inadequate public funding
practices; on-site sanitation not accorded for septage management and dependence
priority; preference for centralised on external assistance, which reflects lack
advanced engineering solutions rather than of commitment and ownership and poor
decentralised septage management; low municipal revenue generation.
prioritisation and lack of awareness of the
public and government agencies regarding The development of physical infrastructure
safe disposal; inadequate attention paid is only one component of a functioning
to poor people’s access to safe sanitation; septage management programme. It
supply driven rather than demand- depends equally upon sustained public
responsive sanitation solutions; and sector commitment and funding, effective
manual scavenging found to be widespread policies, appropriate implementation, and
though prohibited by law. compliance enforcement. Historically,
the Government of India has focused its
Institutional and legislative wastewater investments on centralised
challenges: sewerage and treatment. However, the
Lack of knowledge in ULBs; no delineation 2008 National Urban Sanitation Policy
of roles and responsibilities; the roles and (NUSP) changed the country’s approach to
responsibilities of state agencies for water, urban sanitation. According to the NUSP,
sanitation, and public health are often local governments are to be responsible for
unclear, overlap and are inadequately behavioural change, total sanitation, 100
coordinated; lack of clarity on the support
150
per cent safe waste disposal, and enforcing Recommendations for

the end of manual scavenging, in addition Improving Septage
to sewerage development. Management at a National
Level
The NUSP tasks state governments with
drafting state urban sanitation policies, Develop national guidelines on
which in turn require cities to develop septage management:
city sanitation strategies. Unlike other To support the implementation of the NUSP,
countries where the construction of the Ministry of Urban Development can
facilities has preceded policy, India’s create an advisory board that will develop
focus on policy development allows operative guidelines. These guidelines
cities to develop integrated strategies can provide a starting point for state and
that maximise the efficacy of the future local agencies who can further adapt the
physical infrastructure. These are model guidelines and manuals to their
very positive steps, although the lack own contexts. Guidelines for septage
of existing local and state policy and management could include provisions
management practices and the lack of on the involvement of private service
physical infrastructure to treat septage, providers, health and safety standards,
pose significant challenges for India as it types of septage treatment technologies,
begins to address the critical and standards for effluent and treated
issue of on-site sanitation. septage discharge or reuse.
Guidelines on technological
options:
Policy guidelines should address different
technological options, which can address
different types of residences e.g., individual
households, small clusters, large clusters
etc. Further, guidelines should specify the
type of machinery recommended in order
to do away with manual handling of faecal
sludge.
151
A spot where people practice open
defecation as there are no toilets.
Gopalpur Mushari, Bihar, India
Complete state urban sanitation WSS Board and Public Health Engineering
strategies and streamline support Department (PHED), which possess most
for ULBs: of the technical expertise in the state. In
Already ten states have drafted their addition to providing technical assistance
urban sanitation strategies; the remaining and implementation monitoring, state
18 states must develop and complete sanitation cells should draft guidelines for
theirs. The Ministry of Urban Development local by-laws on sanitation.
can assist lagging states in developing
these strategies, potentially with the Integrate septage management into
assistance of international organisations. environmental planning:
In developing the strategy for urban Since NUSP charges ULBs to first survey
sanitation in each state, it is critical that the sanitation condition and then develop
these state plans not only create sanitation a comprehensive sanitation strategy before
cells, as directed by the NUSP, but also constructing facilities, cities in India
clarify the roles and responsibilities of the have an opportunity to integrate septage
152
treatment with other environmental Develop public promotion

initiatives. This could include jointly campaigns:
managing solid waste and septage Once treatment facilities have been
collection and treatment, holistically constructed, cities/towns will want to
addressing water and treated wastewater educate households on the value and
resources, managing septage collection importance of regular desludging. To
and treatment to promote agricultural develop a public promotion programme,
productivity or reduce agricultural cities/towns could first survey household
runoff, creating centres of waste recycling attitudes and concerns towards sanitation
to promote new jobs, or developing and septic tanks, which will in turn help
constructed wetland treatment systems to identify target audiences and tailor-make
create new recreational spaces and wildlife key messages. Cities/towns could then
habitats. Selecting strategies that resolve conduct the campaign, evaluate attitudes
multiple problems and produce multiple post-campaign, and further refine future
benefits could build public support promotion campaigns.
for projects and promote programme
sustainability. Engage local research institutions
in developing septage treatment
Construct septage treatment facilities:
facilities: As the nutrient and pollutant composition
There are a variety of treatment of septage varies by climate and culture,
technologies that will render septage cities/towns in India will need to conduct
safe to reuse and dispose. These can be research to determine the efficacy of
constructed in plantations, farms, landfills, different treatment systems, opportunities
and sewage treatment plants. As part of for improvement, possibilities of reuse
their baseline sanitation survey process, and recycling, and new treatment
cities should determine the quality of technologies, such as those that combine
collected septage, and whether it can meet solid and human waste composting.
international standards for reuse. If the Engaging engineering schools in this
treated septage can be reused, the facilities process will also help to integrate on-site
can be designed to generate profitable sanitation management and treatment
fertilizers, possibly in tandem with solid into the curriculum and produce future
waste composting. professionals who are able and committed
to solving this critical issue of national
importance.
153
Recommendations for Promotion of Biosolid Manure:

Improving Septage Appropriate IEC materials need to be
Management at the State developed to increase awareness among
Level farmers regarding biosolids and its uses
in farming. Further, capacity building
Provide trainings and exposure to needs to be organised for farmers on the
policymakers and operators: opportunities and constraints in using
Having never had to address on-site biosolids produced in FS treatment.
sanitation before, many ULBs lack the
technical knowledge or even the vision of States can facilitate exemplary marketing
how to develop adequate collection and models for biosolids and also facilitate
treatment programmes. States should use networking between farmers and
exposure visits, workshops, technical stakeholders in FSM. The stigma associated
trainings, and twinning partnerships for with biosolid manure among the general
policymakers and wastewater operators public needs to be addressed to create a
in order to raise awareness and capacity. demand for agricultural produce using
To this end, states can look to the MoUD, biosolid manure. Central and state
donor agencies and research or other governments need to evolve the financial
training institutions for funding and mechanism in order to support biosolid
technical assistance. Exposure visits manufacturers.
and trainings could involve regional
peers who have successfully provided
septage management through a variety of
modalities.
Promotion of Ecosan Toilets:

Ecosan toilets are a sustainable sanitation
solution for all geographical areas. At
this time of deteriorating ecosystems
and increasing demand for water, these
toilets might provide a viable option.
However, appropriate guidelines need to be
developed to promote these toilets.
154
Recommendations for Public promotion campaigns:

Improving Septage Urban local bodies need to take steps to
Management at a ULB Level increase community awareness on the
importance of septic tank design. The
Engage existing private service existing poorly designed septic tanks also
providers in public-private need to be improved. State governments
partnerships: need to provide subsidies to BPL (below
For many years, private collectors have poverty line) households for reconstruction
been providing desludging services when or replacement of poorly designed septic
public agencies failed to do so. There are tanks. Awareness needs to be created
also many examples of private septage among the public regarding the frequency
collectors who do not dispose of septage of desludging septic tanks, FS treatment
in treatment facilities because they were and disposal. ULBs need to fix the rate for
not adequately consulted or engaged in desludging/emptying septic tank services
the facility’s siting and design process. by public and private service providers to
By involving private septage collectors, motivate the public to utilise their services.
community-based organisations (CBOs),
and sanitation workers early in the Service providers’ promotion
planning process for new septage collection campaign:
policies and treatment facilities, ULBs Awareness needs to be created among
can help develop new local business private service providers and septage
opportunities, build future compliance, transport vehicle drivers regarding unsafe
and ensure that the new facilities will be handling of faecal sludge, the negative
used. environmental impact of improper disposal
and the importance of treatment before
Enforcement of the National disposal.
Building Code:
State governments are required to ensure Decentralisation of STPs:
that ULBs enforce strict adherence to the Decentralisation of septage treatment by
National Building Code of India (NBC, constructing STPs at the town panchayat
2005). The NBC guidelines for septic level will encourage private service
tank design, construction, installation, providers to treat and dispose effluents
operation and maintenance must be from septage tanks at nearby locations.
followed if newly submitted individual and ULBs need to identify and allocate land for
group housing plans are to be approved. septage management.
155
Annexures
and
Appendices
156 Annexure 1
Tables for Town Panchayats and Municipalities
Needamangalam
Alwarthirunagari
Tharangampadi
Manachanallur
Respondents
Perundurai
Keeranur
Kotagiri
Types
SW 2,000 1,000 3,600 - 120 120

Individual
homes
Mgt 2,000 1,000 - 5,000 - 10,000 120
SW 2,000 1,500 - - 200 - 200

Group
houses
Mgt 1,500 - 2,500 - - 200
Private SW 2,000 - - 1,000 - 1,000

(business
centres/
markets) Mgt 2,500 - 1,000 - 10,000 1,000
SW 500 - - 200 - 200

Public
toilets
Mgt - - - 1,000 10,000 200
SW - - - 150 - 150
Community
toilets
Mgt - - - 2,500 - - 250
Table 1 - Quantity of faecal sludge emptied by TP by source (per day in litres)
SW Sanitary workers ; Mgt Management

157
Sufficiency
Treatment
Human Emptying Emptying before Place of
Town Panchayats resources equipment Vehicles Equipment disposal disposal
Outskirts (on the way to

Thiruchendure15km away;
Air
Alwarthirunagari (6) DNA Yes Yes No Amman puram 20km away;
compressor
Kayampuli 25km away from
Alwarthirunagari
Motor, In the land of private

Hose Pipes, service providers and
Kotagiri (4) Yes Yes Yes Bleaching No others (Banana plantation
Powder and and other fields for use as
Soap water manure)
In the agricultural lands of

Air
the vehicle owner and other
Kunnathur (1) Yes Yes Yes Compressor, No
farmers, located 3kms from
Hose Pipe
the town area.
In a barren land between

Needamangalam (5) DNA DNA DNA DNA No
Kovilvenni and Ammapettai
Air Riverbeds, Outskirts & on

Mamallapuram (2) Yes No No No
Compressor the way to outskirts
Vacuum
Perundurai (3) Yes Yes Yes No Agricultural land
Pump
Air In the municipal garbage

Keeranur (2) Yes No Yes Compressor, No yard & private lands of
Hose Pipe private service providers
Manachanallur Yes Yes DNA Hose Pipes No Outskirts
Avinashi DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA DNA
Air Marshland by municipal

Tharangampadi (2) Yes No Yes Compressor, No sources. Private lands by
Hose Pipe private service providers
Table 2 - Management view on the role of private service providers (Town Panchayats)
DNA Data Not Available

158 Annexure 1
Thiruchengodu
Sankarankovil
Respondents
Mannarkudi
Mayavaram
Perambalur
Nagerkoil
Pollachi
Per Day Gudalur
Mgt 6,00,000 7,000 35,000 6,000 8,000 2,00,000*

Individual
homes
SW 9,000 5,000 155
Mgt
Group
houses
SW 250
Private Mgt 1,000 9,500

(business
centres/
markets) SW 500
Mgt 19,350 1,000 1,000

Public
toilets
SW 5,000
Mgt 1,500
Community
toilets
SW 300
Temporary
Mgt
Toilets
Table 3 - Quantity of faecal sludge emptied by Municipalities by source (per day in litres)
(Pudukottai and Tiruvallur not included as there is no information collected)

*(grey and black water data)
159
Sufficiency
Treatment
Human Emptying Emptying before Place of
resources equipment Vehicles Equipment disposal disposal
Public toilet - municipal

solid waste (garbage
dumps) at Thettukkal
High Air
Gudalur Yes Yes Yes No (Uthagamandalam
Compressor
municipality) garbage
dumps, Kanthal STP site &
agricultural lands
Mannarkudi DNA DNA DNA No
Municipal garbage dump -

Air
Nagerkoil Yes Yes Yes No 1/2 km from the Nagerkoil
Compressor
municipality
Pollachi Yes Yes Yes No
Air
Sankarankovil Yes Yes Yes No
Compressor
Machine
Thiruchengodu Yes Yes Yes & Air No Kottapalli & Sanarpalayam
Compressor
Suction with Open places, agricultural

Tiruvallur Yes Yes Yes No
diesel engine land, huge drainage
UDG
Perambalur DNA DNA DNA NA
Connection
Municipal garbage dumps

Compressor,
by municipal sources,
Pudukottai Yes Yes Yes Hose Pipes, No
Private lands by private
Manual
service providers
Compressor
Soap and Forest and
Mayavaram Yes Yes Yes Hose Pipes,
Kerosene Wasteland
Manual
Table 4 - Management view on the role of private service providers (Municipalities)
DNA Data Not Available; NA Not Applicable

160 Annexure 2
Map of study areas
Annexure 3 161
Number of Water Sources Contaminated (Faecal Coliform)
Source: Pollution database for Tamil Nadu (Water Pollution), April 2014
162 Annexure 4
Important findings on FSM

• Regarding frequency of faecal sludge
in ten town panchayats and
collection, no information is available
municipalities:
from two town panchayats (Avinashi
and Kunnathur) and among those who
Issues in FSM management:
responded, responses of management
and sanitary workers are not similar
• Data on domestic water requirement
even within the same town panchayat,
and quantity of wastewater
which reflects the lack of clarity and
generation shows that domestic water
limited roles played by the ULBs.
requirement ranges between 0.67
MLD (Needamangalam) and 2.02 MLD • Frequency of emptying for different
(Avinashi), with the average of 1.47 collection systems reported by eight
MLD. Data provided on wastewater town panchayats indicates that most
generation indicates that, of the total households prefer to empty their septic
domestic water use, 78 per cent is tanks, once in 10 years to 20 years as
generated as wastewater which is reported by sanitary workers while
closer to CPHEEO estimation. Data on majority of the management (except
quantity of faecal sludge generated, Perundurai and Kotagiri) reported
indicates 18 per cent faecal sludge higher frequency from 1 year to 5 years.
is generated out of the wastewater. It is clear from the data that most of
the households clean their septic tanks
• Overall, there is no underground
after long periods for various reasons
sewerage system in any of the TPs.
which shows that desludging is not
Of all households, around 51 per
in accordance with the prescribed
cent use septic tanks, around 20 per
standards of operative guidelines for
cent use soak pits, 13 per cent use
septage management for urban and
public toilets and around 15 per cent
rural local bodies in Tamil Nadu, 2013.
of people defecate in open spaces.
• Data shows that no uniform pattern
• It was found that except in
exists in case of cost for emptying
Tharangampadi and Keeranur, the
septage and the amount specified
other eight TPs do not have any
by management and sanitation
equipment for septage emptying.
workers also varies. In case emptying
• Lack of clarity on the data regarding septic tank, cost per load mentioned
quantity of faecal sludge emptied. by sanitation workers, varies from
Complete data is available only Rs.800 (Keeranur) to Rs.2,000
for Tharangampadi TP. (Tharangampadi). Corresponding
163
information from management and pit latrines is also mentioned as

varies between Rs.800 (Keeranur) a problem by two town panchayats.
and Rs.10,000 (Alwarthirunagari).
• Regarding issues faced with the
The cost of emptying the ‘soak pit’,
current collection system: Management
ranges from Rs.800 to Rs.2,000 per
from four town panchayats
load. Managements from Keeranur
(Kotagiri, Perundurai, Keeranur
and Tharangampadi report cost of
and Tharangampadi) stated ‘lack of
manual scavenging by private workers
technology which leads to manual
at Rs.500 per load. According to the
efforts’, ‘low frequency of emptying
management and sanitation workers,
the septic tanks’ as issues. Similarly,
fixing the cost for emptying faecal
sanitation workers from four town
sludge is based on various factors such
panchayats (Needamangalam,
as distance travelled, input cost (fuel
Mamallapuram, Keeranur and
and labour charge) and tank size.
Tharangampadi) shared that ‘hardening
• As mentioned earlier, there is no of sludge due to irregular and improper
Underground Sewerage System emptying of septic tanks, ground
(UGSS) and Septage Treatment water pollution due to poor design
Plants (STPs) in any of the town of septic tank, lack of air compressor
panchayats. Therefore no question machine and poor drainage’ were
on treatment of faecal sludge arises. issues relevant to their places.
• Multiple sites are reported for disposing • On issues associated with the present
faecal sludge – ‘outskirts’ and emptying process, of three responses
‘agricultural land’ is the commonly from management, the following
reported disposal site followed were mentioned: faecal sludge cannot
closely by municipal disposal yard. be completely removed because of
hardening and lack of safety materials.
• Most commonly reported problems
Sanitary workers mentioned lack of
with soak pit/ leach pit is ‘lack of
modern equipment as issues associated
desludging at regular intervals’, ‘poor
with the present emptying process.
construction’, followed by ‘improper
desludging’. Similarly, for septic • TP managements were asked about
tanks, the most common problem was the issues with current FS disposal.
‘bad odour/gas formation’ followed Common challenges for disposal
by ‘overflow during monsoon’, which ranged from lack of transport; lack
causes problems in the neighbourhood. of awareness / poor maintenance by
Higher cost for emptying the septic tank households; service charges to private
164
workers and non-availability of workers. None of them have undergone any

formal training for using equipment.
• It has to be mentioned that the role
Two players (Kunnathur and
of town panchayats in FSM is not
Mamallapuram) reported being trained
well defined. So there were poor
by the vehicle company at the time of
responses from the town panchayats.
purchase. None of the private players
provide information on treating FS
Roles and issues of private service before disposal, implying that the
providers sludge is disposed without treatment.
• According to the managements, private With regard to the place of disposal,
service providers play a crucial role eight responded that they throw faecal
in faecal sludge management across sludge in multiple places – agricultural
all town panchayats. The number land (4); municipal dumping yard (3),
of private service providers ranges own land (1) and riverbed (1). Multiple
from one to six and most of them suggestions were offered regarding the
did not have a licence to operate. support they require from the state:
land or proper dumping yard for FS;
• Cost for emptying faecal sludge
land and vehicles (with subsidy) or
is generally fixed per trip, based
vehicle for collection of FS; licensing
on septic tank size, distance and
and regulation of the same and need
quantity collected. All seven TPs
for generating public awareness.
(Kotagiri, Kunnatur, Mamallapuram,
Perundurai, Keeranur, Manachanallur
and Tharangampadi) reported Community responses on FSM
sufficient human resources with • The communities responded regarding
private players operating in their the type of septic collection used by
panchayats. The fee charged ranges the households. Respondents in nine
from Rs.2,000 to Rs.12,000 per groups reported having septic tanks
trip. Almost all responding private in their households; members in four
players reported between one to groups reported use of pit/ latrine by
ten service calls in a month lesser percentage of households and
one group reported open defecation.
• Nine (except Tharangampadi) private
service providers reported using • According to the communities, the
modern equipment for removing faecal major reason for overflow of septic
sludge and using other supporting tanks and leach pits seems to be
equipment such as shovels, ropes infrequent cleaning. It was reported
and rods in varying combinations. that these are cleaned once in five
165
years in Kotagiri, Needamangalam (7) especially odour is a common issue

and Avinashi; once in 8-10 years in among community groups. Eight of
Perundurai and between 15-20 years the ten community groups reported
in Kunnathur and Alwarthirunagari. water pollution, and six groups
In Manachanallur, emptying of septic reported degradation of soil fertility.
tanks is between 1-3 years while no Quarrels and misunderstanding among
information is available for Keeranur. neighbours is the most commonly
reported social impact of poor FSM.
• Six of the ten TP community groups
used private services for cleaning,
one community group reported using
Important findings on FSM in ten
private and manual scavenging
municipalities:
(Manachanallur) and two other groups
reported municipal services (Keeranur
Responses from Management and Sanitary
and Tharangampadi), while no data
Workers
is available for Mamallapuram.
• Details from municipalities on domestic
• Chief among the reasons for seeking water requirement and quantity of
private players for septic tank cleaning wastewater generation shows that
is the lack of services offered by the domestic water requirement ranges
town panchayat (4). One group from between 3.90 MLD (Perambalur)
Perundurai said that lack of response and 26.90 MLD (Nagerkoil), with
from municipal workers made them the average of 9.60 MLD. 88 per
turn towards private players who cent of water requirement is met by
offered good service, were punctual, municipalities and 19 per cent of faecal
approachable and used modern sludge is generated out of wastewater.
technology. Lack of equipment with
• None of the municipalities has
municipality in Manachanallur led
full-fledged UGSS. Of the three
community groups towards private
municipalities with partial coverage,
services and also the urgency to get
Perambalur municipality has relatively
septic tanks cleaned made them
higher coverage as compared to
avail manual scavenging services.
Mayavaram and Mannarkudi.
• Fever (5), skin diseases (3), malaria
• It was found that 56 per cent of
(4) are the commonly reported health
individual households use septic
issues arising out of poor faecal
tanks in municipalities, 14 per cent
sludge management. Among the
of individual households use soak
environmental impacts, air pollution
pits, and 10 per cent of households
166
are connected to the underground • Municipal dumping yard is most

drainage system in municipalities. frequently used for disposing faecal
sludge, followed by agricultural land
• It was found the 12 per cent of
and outskirts. At Mannarkudi, faecal
the households use public toilets,
sludge is disposed in the compost
7 per cent of the households
yard while in Thiruvallur, faecal
resort to open defecation.
sludge is disposed in the STP.
• In case of desludging equipment,
• Most commonly reported problems with
Mayavaram reported to be better
septic tank usage are: lack of proper
equipped and other municipalities
construction, overflow and opening
expressed insufficiency in
during rainy season, water pollution,
equipment and tanker lorries.
cost of cleaning and gas formation
• Complete information on sewerage during cleaning. In case of leach pits;
collection is not reported across poor maintenance, connection by users
municipalities. Household waste to drainage, lack of proper construction,
collection is the most frequently water pollution were reported as issues.
collected data. However, the
• In case of faecal sludge collection;
frequency is not available.
overflow, poor machinery, low levels
• Frequency of FS collection from of mechanisation, manual cleaning by
individual households varies from private service providers, less frequency
2-10 years as reported by management of emptying and water contamination
and 1-10 years as reported by were reported as problems.
sanitary workers; whereas public
• On issues associated with emptying
toilets are reported to be cleaned
process – lack of public awareness
between 6 months to 4 years.
about emptying, lack of equipment,
• In none of the municipalities, lack of safety equipment and
manual emptying was undertaken. lack of health care after emptying
are stated as problems.
• According to management, fee for
emptying varies between Rs.600 to • None of the municipalities, except
Rs.2,500 per load, while sanitary Thiruvallur, has facilities for treatment
workers reported a price range of faecal sludge. Absence of low cost
between Rs.600 – Rs.5,000 per technology and proper place for
visit. Soak pit cleaning fee ranges disposal were also stated as the major
between Rs.600 - 1,500. issues associated with non-treatment.
167
• On issues with place of disposal – like - agricultural land, garbage dump

in other parts of Tamil Nadu, faecal and drainage, municipal dumping
sludge is disposed in agricultural land, yard, outskirts, coconut grove,
outskirts, municipal dump yards. wasteland, forest land and riverbed.
• Infrequent collection and poor • Among the challenges faced by private

maintenance of toilets resulted in players is the absence of proper place
social problems among the neighbours for disposal, opposition from public,
and also resulted in environmental harassment by government officials
issues such as groundwater pollution and police while carrying out the task
and breeding of mosquitoes. during daytime. Other issues mentioned
included higher cost of labour, high
investment for vehicles and increasing
Responses of private service providers
business competition. Another major
• Except Mannarkudi, all municipalities
issue reported is hardening of sludge
have private service providers
due to infrequent emptying of soak
for addressing faecal sludge
pit/septic tank, which force them to
management. Most of them do not
involve manual effort many times.
have a license to operate. The number
of service calls varies from two per • On the scope of private service
day to about 15-20 per month. providers in faecal sludge management,
there is a mixed reaction from the
• Most of the private providers
respondents. Some said that there is
reported using modern equipment
a mismatch in demand and supply of
such as suction machines / air
services, as there is a steady increase
compressors for removing sludge.
in the number of service providers
• With regard to safety equipment, and also the increasing coverage of
seven of the nine service providers urban areas under UGSS, while a few
reported using safety equipment such said that there is good scope for more
as mask/handkerchief and gloves. private players as the urban local
bodies are not providing such services.
• Regarding treatment, only three private
players (Mannarkudi, Perambalur • Regarding the support required from
and Mayavaram) reported existence the government, private service
of partial facilities for treating faecal providers stated that they should be
sludge before disposal. With regard allotted specific land for disposing
to place of disposal of faecal sludge, faecal sludge. Further, public awareness
the commonly indicated sites are on emptying at regular intervals and
168
public support for day time collection

needs to be increased. Support was
also required for establishing treatment
units, and acquiring bank loans
and subsidies for their business.
Community group responses

• On the type of septic collection used by
the households, all of them reported
having septic tanks; followed by
pit/ latrine (5 groups). People from
Perambalur reported using sewer
connections while Gudalur group
stated defecating in open spaces.
• In five municipalities, desludging

is done between two to five years,
three municipalities mentioned
‘more than five years’.
• Six of the ten community groups

preferred private providers due to
easy availability, accessibility and
quality of services as compared to that
of government services. The major
reason for opting for services from
four municipalities was ‘low cost’ as
compared to private service providers.
• All ten community groups

reported awareness of health and
environmental impacts of poor
faecal sludge management.
Appendix 1 169
Tables for State Level Review
Percentage of households having
% of Water Other
Urban HH closet Pit latrine latrines No toilets
Delhi 97.5 87 2 2 10
Uttar Pradesh 22.3 77 3 3 17
Madhya Pradesh 27.6 72 2 1 26
Gujarat 42.6 85 2 0 12
Maharashtra 45.2 67 2 2 29
Tamil Nadu 48.4 67 7 2 25
Table 1 - Availability and Type of Toilet Facilities in Urban Households

Source- Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General & Commissioner, India. Available
at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
Uttar Madhya Tamil

India Delhi Pradesh Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra Nadu
Piped sewer system 32.7 60.5 28.3 20.2 60.4 37.8 27.4
Septic tank 38.2 24.7 46.9 50.1 24.2 28.6 37.9
Other systems 1,7 0.9 2 1.2 0.5 0.9 1.1
With slab/ ventilated

6.4 1.5 2.4 1.2 2 2.2 6.6
improved pit
Without slab 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3
Night soil - open drain 1.2 2.1 1.3 0.8 0.3 1.2 1.5
Night soil - serviced

0.3 0 1.4 0.1 0 0 0.2
by humans
Night soil - serviced

0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0 0.3 0.2
by animals
Public latrines 6 7.1 2.1 3.3 3.6 21 8.6
Open 12.6 3 14.8 22.5 8.7 7.7 16.2
Table 2 - Type of Toilet Facilities - New Additions in Urban Households

Source- Houses and Household Amenities, Latrine Facility, Census of India - 2011, Registrar General & Commissioner, India. Available
at: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Data_sheet/India/Latrine.pdf
170
Class-1 Total % Sewage % Sewage treated

Class-1 Water Supply generation to to total sewage
Cities (MLD) total water generated
Delhi 1 4346 87% 61%
Gujarat 28 2101.18 80% 47%
Madhya Pradesh 25 1560.91 80% 15%
Maharashtra 50 12482.87 80% 42%
Tamil Nadu 42 1346.54 80% 31%
Uttar Pradesh 61 4406.25 80% 35%
Table 3 - Water supply, wastewater generation and sewage treated: Class-1 Cities
Source- Status of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment In Class -I Cities & Class-II Towns of India, Control of Urban
Pollution Series: CUPS/70/2009-10, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. p: 4-5
Class-2 Total % Sewage % Sewage treated

Class-2 Water Supply generation to to total sewage
Towns (MLD) total water generated
Delhi 0 NA NA NA
Gujarat 31 284.46 80% 0%
Madhya Pradesh 23 163.64 80% 7%
Maharashtra 34 267.18 80% 14%
Tamil Nadu 42 230.86 80% 16%
Uttar Pradesh 46 432.19 80% 4%
Table 4 - Water supply, wastewater generation and sewage treated: Class-2 Towns
Source- Status of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation and Treatment In Class -I Cities & Class-II Towns of India, Control of Urban
Pollution Series: CUPS/70/2009-10, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. p. 7
Installed Actual utilised

capacity (MLD) capacity (MLD) % Utilised No. of STPs
Delhi 20 20 100 2
Gujarat 232 226 97 2
Madhya Pradesh 168.4 123.7 73 9
Maharashtra 284 124.2 44 6
Tamil Nadu 798.94 394 49 18
Uttar Pradesh 779.6 585.8 75 24
Table 5 - Performance evaluation of sewage treatment plants under NRCD

Source- Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants under NRCD, August 2013, Central Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. p. 15
Appendix 2 171
Administrative profile and Administrative structure of Town Panchayats
Executive
Engineer /
Municipal Sanitary
Engineer/ Officer / Sanitation
Executive Asst. Sanitary Sanitary workers Sanitation workers
Officer Engineer Inspector Supervisor (permanent) (contractual)
Alwarthirunagari Yes No No Yes 12 3
Kotagiri Yes Yes Yes Yes 30 40
Kunnathur Yes No No Yes 10 10
Needamangalam Yes No No Yes 11 16
Mamallapuram Yes Yes Yes No 17 45
Perundurai Yes No No DNA 21 52
Keeranur Yes No No Yes 2 0
Manachanallur Yes Yes Yes DNA 30 40
Avinashi Yes Yes No Yes 28 30
Tharangampadi Yes Yes Yes No 19 16

172 Appendix 2
Role in Faecal Sludge Management
Chairman Executive officer
The Chairman does not have any specific • Supervising the sanitary activities,
role in FSM. However, he is involved in: identifying the household needs
of public health and making
• Assessments done and
decisions on purchases of sanitary
discussions with the committee
material below Rs.10,000/-.
members to take decisions.
• Creating awareness on FSM among
• Approval of government
community and workers, planning
schemes although the budget
and implementation of schemes.
allocation is done by the state.
• Policy making at ULB level,

deciding and approval Engineer / Assistant Engineer
through Council.
• Providing technical support,
preparing estimates for
• Approval authority based on
the required need.
council recommendation for any
activity from general fund.
• Developing project designs, and
authority to prepare detailed
• To collect the requirement of basic
project reports for various
amenities (Garbage cleaning,
schemes and their execution.
public toilet maintenance, water
source, electricity, footpaths
• Planning, implementing and
etc.) from councillors/ward
monitoring engineering works and
members and forward this
maintenance of infrastructure.
to the Executive officer and
monitoring the activities.
• Organising meetings, reviewing

progress, planning, passing
resolutions and schemes.
Appendix 2 173
Sanitary Officer Sanitation workers

• Checking the sanitation • Cleaning the drainage, road,
conditions in the villages. garbage, public toilets, collection
of household waste.
• In charge of maintaining the
procured material, vehicles • Clearing blockages in the
etc., for sanitation work. public or community toilets.
• Looking after FSM works of • Referring private service providers

manpower and equipment. to the public who demand
septic tank emptying services.
Sanitary Inspector
• Supervising the day-to-day work
of sanitary workers (cleaning and
desludging the public toilets)
and stock taking of equipment.
• Identifying the needs and

problems of the sanitary workers
and bringing them to the notice
of the Executive Officer.
• Checking the sanitation conditions

in the villages and ensuring
all public toilets and open
defecation areas are kept clean.
174 Appendix 3
Administrative profile and structure of municipalities
Sanitary
Officer / Sanitation Sanitation
Executive Municipal Sanitary Sanitary Workers Workers
Officer Engineer Inspector Supervisor (permanent) (contractual)
Gudalur Y Y N Y 27 17
Mannarkudi Y Y Y Y 95 40
Nagerkoil N Y Y Y 312 0
Pollachi Y Y Y Y 136 9
Sankarankovil N Y Y Y 90 74
Thiruchengodu N Y Y Y 166 60
Tiruvallur Y Y Y Y 69 43
Perambalur Y Y Y Y 44 121
Pudukottai Y Y Y Y 256 102
Mayavaram Y Y Y Y 174 60
Appendix 3 175
Role of Municipality in FSM
There is no specific role for Municipal authorities in the case of FSM. However,
they have defined roles in the case of underground drainage, and construction and
maintenance of public and community toilets
Municipal Chairman for construction of public

toilets and buildings under
Municipal Chairman does not have
government schemes.
any specific role in FSM. Generally he/
she performs administrative roles • Preparing detailed project
such as chairing the planning, budget reports and execution of work.
and review meetings on schemes
allotted by the state government. • Procurements and implementation.
Municipal Commissioner
Sanitary Officer
Municipal Commissioner does not have
• To check the sanitation
any specific role in FSM. He/she performs
conditions in the villages.
routine administrative duties such as:
• Authority of maintaining the
• Execution activities based
procured material, vehicle
on approved budget.
etc., for all sanitation work.
• Implementation of mechanisms.
• Looking after FSM works for
• Management of finance, human manpower and equipment.
resource and infrastructure.
• In the absence of sanitary
Municipal Engineer officer, senior sanitary inspector
is authorised to maintain the
• Planning, implementing and
procured material, vehicle etc.
monitoring engineering works and
related to sanitation work.
maintenance of infrastructure.
• Authority of field execution of
• Planning and budget preparation
desludging and maintenance
of the infrastructure.
176
• Material and human Sanitation Workers

resource management.
• Cleaning the drainage, road,
garbage, public toilet, collection
of household waste.
Sanitary Inspector
• Clearing any blockages in the
• Supervises the sanitary workers
public or community toilets.
and makes field visits to see the
progress of sanitation work.
• Referring private service
providers to the public who
• Takes stock of equipment, and
enquire and ask for desludging.
brings the needs and problems
of sanitary workers to the notice
• Desludging of the septic tanks
of the Executive Officer.
in municipality area.
• Supervises cleaning and

• Collection and disposal
desludging the public toilet.
of faecal sludge.
• Checks the sanitation

conditions in the villages.
• Execution of day-to-
day cleaning work.
• To ensure all public toilet and open

defecation areas are kept clean.
• Inspection and supervisory

role of field execution.
• Planning and monitoring

of implementation.
177
Notes
179
Notes
WaterAid’s mission is to transform the
lives of the poorest and most marginalised
people by improving access to safe water,
sanitation and hygiene
WaterAid in India Country Office

403-408, CNI Bhawan 16, Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi 110001
Tel: +91-11-46084400
www.wateraidindia.in

Faecal Sludge Management Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faecal Sludge Management Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faecal Sludge Management Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cover & Inside Cover: WaterAid/Jon Spaull

WaterAid has been promoting Ministry of Urban Development, and various

WaterAid India would like to A special thanks to Mr. V. Ganapathy,

Gudalur, Mannarkudi, Nagerkoil, Pollachi, thanks to Praxis Institute for Participatory

Sankarankovil, Thiruchengodu, Tiruvallur, Practices, Chennai for work done in developing

Town Panchayats (namely Alwarthirunagari, data analysis and report finalisation. We

Kotagiri, Kunnathur, Needamangalam, acknowledge the technical support of the

Mamallapuram, Perundurai, Keeranur, following WaterAid staff in conceptualising

Manachanallur, Avinashi, Tharangampadi) and undertaking this study: Mr. Remi

Panchayats and Municipal Administration, George Vergese (Ex Programme Coordinator,

Faecal Sludge Management

AIILSG All India Institute of Local Self-Government

Faecal Sludge Management

NRCD National River Conservation Directorate

160 Map of Study Areas

161 Number of Water Sources Contaminated (Faecal Coliform)

162 Important Findings on FSM in ten Town Panchayats and Municipalities

171 Administrative Profile and Structure of Town Panchayats

174 Administrative Profile and Structure of Municipalities

39 Table 3: Availability and Type of Latrine Facilities

44 Table 4: Summary of STPs in Class-I cities and Class-II towns in India

45 Table 5: State-wise treatment capacity and capacity utilisation

46 Table 6: Milestones in Sanitation

73 Table 7: Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity

81 Table 9: Status of sanitation in urban local bodies

93 Table 10: Profile of Town panchayats

95 Table 12: Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems – Town Panchayats

97 Table 13: Frequency of Faecal Sludge Collection – Town Panchayats

99 Table 15: Places of FS Disposal – Town Panchayats

100 Table 16: Issues in FS Collection Systems – Town Panchayats

101 Table 17: Challenges in FS Disposal –Town Panchayats

104 Table 18: Profile of Private Service Providers – Town Panchayats

108 Table 22: Responses to Septic Collection Systems used by Neighbours

111 Table 24: Impact of poor FSM on Community

113 Table 25: Profile of Municipalities

115 Table 27: Types of Faecal Sludge Collection Systems - Municipalities

117 Table 28: Frequency of faecal sludge collection – Municipalities

119 Table 30: Places of FS Disposal - Municipalities

120 Table 31: Issues in FS Collection Systems - Municipalities

123 Table 32: Challenges in FS Disposal - Municipalities

125 Table 33: Profile of Private Service Providers – Municipalities

127 Table 35: Places of FS Disposal and Related Challenges - Municipalities

128 Table 36: Support required from State and Municipalities

131 Table 38: Impact of poor FSM on Community - Municipalities

138 Table 39: Faecal Coliform Contamination in Tamil Nadu

13 Figure 1: Routes of Faecal Sludge Generation

15 Figure 2: Types of Latrine facilities - India

94 Figure 4: Types of Latrine facilities in Town Panchayats

115 Figure 5: Types of Latrine Facilities in Municipalities

Faecal Sludge Management

dump it in drains, waterways, open land

Figure 1 - Routes of Faecal Sludge Generation

attempts to understand and assess panchayats in rural areas. The NUSP

Faecal Sludge Management

tanks and about 7 per cent We can witness disparity in sanitation

4 Housing Stock, Amenities & Assets In Slums - CENSUS 2011

1 Latrine within the premises 81.4 66.0

a Water Closet 72.6 57.7

b Pit Latrine 7.1 6.2

AIILSG All India Institute of Local Self-Government 