The City of Venice & The City of Modling HMWSSB-Evolution - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the city of venice the city of modling hmwssb evolution
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The City of Venice & The City of Modling HMWSSB-Evolution - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 18, 2024 208 likes •758 views

Briefing on the functioning of HMWS&SB To Our Partners from The City of Venice & The City of Modling HMWSSB-Evolution Water Works Department, Municipal Corporation of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Water Supply Sewerage 1987

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Briefing

  • n

the functioning of HMWS&SB

To

Our Partners from

The City of Venice & The City of Modling

slide-2
SLIDE 2

HMWSSB-Evolution

Water Works Department,

  • Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Sewerage

Water Supply

Hyder abad Metr

  • politan

Water Supply and Sewer age Boar d

1987 Transferred with staff

Constituted on 1 Nov 1989 under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act 1989

1 November 1989

slide-3
SLIDE 3

HMWSSB

Goals

– Access to Water Supply

  • To provide access to safe and adequate drinking

water to 100% of the projected population of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Area.

– Access to Sewerage

  • 100% coverage
  • 100% sewerage treatment to 30 BOD
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Access Modes of WS

100 100 56 21 49 85 19 39 32 8 25 50 19 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

N.America Europe L.America Africa Asia Hyderabad

HouseHold Conns Other Access No Access

Global Water supply and Sanitation Coverage Report 2000, WHO

slide-5
SLIDE 5

HMWSSB

Hyderabad Population projections (in Millions)

2.774 4.349 5.533 8.191 10.153 2 4 6 8 10 12 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021

3.16% per Annum Census TCE Projections The Decadal Growth rate as per 2001 census for Hyderabad city is 13.8% whereas it is 72% for LB Nagar and 112% for Qutbullapur

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Osman Sagar (1920) 123 mld Himayat Sagar (1927) 82 mld Manjira Phase-II (1981) 136 mld Manjira Phase-I (1965) 68 mld Manjira Phase-III (1991) 163 mld Manjira Phase-IV (1993) 163 mld

Water Supply Sources

123 mld 123 mld 204 mld 204 mld 272 mld 272 mld 409 mld 409 mld 572 mld 572 mld 735 mld – 114 lpcd 735 mld – 114 lpcd

Now 0 mld Himayat Sagar 54 mld

604 mld – 87 lpcd 604 mld – 87 lpcd

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Demand and Supply Immediate

HMWSSB

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MGD

PresentCapacity 153 162 162 162 162 162 GroundWater 25 25 25 25 25 25 Demand 230 240 250 260 275 290 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

slide-8
SLIDE 8

HMWSSB

Demand and Supply

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

MGD

PresentSupply 153 162 162 162 162 GroundWater 25 25 25 25 25 Demand 230 290 328 360 400 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Supply Mix

HMWSSB

145 Total Water Drawn 48 33.2% Unaccounted Water(Break-up for 17 MGD

yet to be Calculated)

97 100% Total 22 23% Non-domestic 29 30% Domestic - Bulk 40 40% Domestic - Individual 7 7% Free Water (6600) MGD %

slide-10
SLIDE 10

HMWSSB

Unaccounted For Water

Revenue Losses Physical Losses 145 100.0% Water Drawn 43 29.7% Total 48 33.2% Total 5 3.5% Total non revenue water in the 3 municipalities taken over 15 10.2% 8 5.5% Distribution Losses 20 14.0% Transmission Losses MCH MGD % Details

Break-up for 145 MGD only

slide-11
SLIDE 11

UFW-Asian Cities

HMWSSB

Hyderabad is one of the very few cities which has reliable UFW accounting. UFW figures in many other cases are estimates. In some cases are only estimated physical losses, without real reconciliation of water drawn and billed Mandalay, Lee, PhnomPenh, Honoi, Rarotonga Above 60% Dhaka, Jakarta, Khatmandu, Nuku, Biankek, suva, Bandung, Ulaanbatav, Apis 50%-60% Lahore, Manila, Calcutta, 40%-50% Karchi, Ulssah, Hochiminh, Seol, Colombo, Kulalumpur, Hongkong, Bangkok, Faislabad, Devao, Vientine, Chittagong, Chaingmai, Thimpu, Chonburi, Honaira, Cebu 30%-40% Johar Bahru, Delhi, Taipei, Medan, Penang, PortVila 20%-30% Shanghai, Mumbai, Chennai, Mali, Tianjin, Almaty, Tashkent 10%-20% Singapore, Beijing 5% - 10% Cities UFW %

slide-12
SLIDE 12

HMWSSB

Allocation of Singoor Water

8.35 6.96 4.61 5.02

1.00

4.06 5 10 15 20 25 30 TMC

Evaporation Balance TwinCities WS Nizamsagar Ghanpur Siltation Losses

Balance Water 60 MGD Maximum utilisation for irrigation 6.6 TMC in 1997 against allocation of 12.41 TMC

slide-13
SLIDE 13

! " # $ &' () * $+ , ' - ! . (! (&# " , ( /. # ) # //* , * ($# " 1 2 + / 3 . (2 &* $+ 4. /# 2 5(2 ! ($- $, 6 *

/# ,
  • (3
3 * . &, /. # ) $ /#,- (3 54. .
  • $,
4! /#,* ($ ' 7/- . # 8# / 2
  • ,
. (! (" * , # $ ) # ,
  • .
&4! ! " 7 # $/ &- ) - . # + - 8(# . /

5- $, . # " /- &* + $ 5- " "

9 : 6 9 6 1 1 1 9 : 6 9 6 1 1 1

Phase III Phase IV

COMPONENT – I MAP

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Access to poor – slum improvement project

HMWSSB

  • Government approved a project to provide

drinking water and sewerage network in slums at a cost of Rs 54 Crores to be implemented in 2 years

  • 596 works executed at a cost of Rs 30.75 crores
  • 228 Slums were provided with Water Supply

and 322 slums with improved sewerage network

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Sewerage Network

822 Kms 1087 Kms Laterals (300 mm diameter and below) 3 423 Kms 572 Kms Trunk Sewers, Main Sewers, Branch Sewers (above 300 mm diameter) 2 1323 113 +20 Sewage Treatment Plant (MLD) 1 Required as per Master Plan Existing Facilities S.No

Approximate Cost Rs 4000 Crores

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar

K&S Main K&S Main Duplicate K&S Main Duplicate K&S Main

Existing Sewer Mains

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar

Sewer Main completed last

Duplicate A - Main Duplicate A - Main

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Picket Drain Picket Drain Industrial effluents through Kukatpally Drain Industrial effluents through Kukatpally Drain Yousufguda Drain Yousufguda Drain Banjara Drain Banjara Drain Balkapur Drain Balkapur Drain

Sources of Pollution

Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar

slide-19
SLIDE 19

STP

Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar

Diversion

  • f sewage

and effluents into the Sewer Mains

slide-20
SLIDE 20

STP

Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar

Diversion

  • f sewage

and effluents into the Sewer Mains

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Aeration Tank Inlet Units Settling Tank Flow Indicator

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Hussain Sagar STP in Action

slide-23
SLIDE 23

HMWSSB

The Krishna Water

  • Cabinet Approval vide G.O.Ms No 559.

M.A Dated 23rd November 2001

  • Approved method of funding

– GOAPs Contribution

  • Rs 300 Crores

– Term loans/Bonds

  • Rs 700 Crores
  • Project implementation period 2½ years

– Now crashed to 1½ years – Expected to be completed by March 2004

slide-24
SLIDE 24

" ( 5 # , * ( $ !" # $ ; . * & ' $ # ) # , - . & 4 !!" 7 !. ( ☺- 5 ,

' 7 / - . # 8 # / 2 - , . ( !( " * , # $ ) # , - . & 4 !!" 7 = & - )

  • . # + -

8 ( # . /

" ( 5 # , * ( $ !" # $ ( 3 !. ( ☺- 5 , # . - #

C E N T R A L D E S I G N C E L L D A T E O F F I R S T D R A W N D A T E O F C U R R E N T U P D A T I O N H Y D E R A B A D M E T R O P O L I T A N W A T E R S U P P L Y A N D S E W E R A G E B O A R D 1 6
  • 4
  • 2
1 1
  • 1
1
  • 2

> & " 8 5 # & & ( 4 . 5 - ?

Sunikesula

Head 405.5 Mts

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Status

  • Pipeline works
  • Tenders received
  • 25% to 29% less (Saving Rs.110 Crores)
  • Works to commence shortly
  • Water Treatment Plant
  • Tenders received
  • -20.16% for part 1 & +11.9% for part 2 (saving 4.6 crores)
  • Enroute Reservoirs
  • Tenders received
  • +2% for 1 and -8.25% to 12.81% for others (saving 2.12 crores)
  • Pumping Equipment
  • Tenders due
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Abatement of Pollution to river Musi

HMWSSB

  • Assistance under NRCAP
  • Detailed Project Report –Rs.344 Crores
  • 70% assistance from GOI
  • Balance from beneficiaries
  • Sewerage cess to be enhanced to meet

O&M cost

slide-27
SLIDE 27

SALIENT FEATURES OF CONSERVATION OF RIVER MUSI PROJECT.

  • I nterception and Diversion of dry weather flow from the existing 18

storm water drains joining River Musi in the city area on either side.

  • I nterception and Diversion structures with screens and grid

chambers.

  • Conveying mains of 33 Kms., to transmit the DWF from the I &D

works to the proposed STPs.

  • Sewage Treatment Plants at 5 places to treat expected flows by

2005 of 592 Mld.

Amberet

  • 339 Mld

Jiaguda

  • 21 Mld

Nagole

  • 172 Mld

Nallacheruvu

  • 30 Mld

Nandimusalaiguda

  • 30 Mld

Total

  • 592 Mld
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Rain Water Harvesting

HMWSSB

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Past Performance

25.13 35.25 43.60 53.79 59.63 64.46 80.56 106.24 110.59 120.10 125.00 127.30

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

  • Rs. Crores

Debt Service Depreciation Chemicals Opns & Mtce Staff Power Revenue

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Financial Projections

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Year

  • Rs. Crores

DebtService Depreciation Maintenance Staff Power Sales

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Non-domestic Tariffs in Metros

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

  • Rs. per KL
  • Rs. Per KL

60 40 35 25 Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Hyderabad

Chennai and Mumbai have large captive non-domestic consumptions

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Domestic Slab Rates in Metros

20 40 60 80 100 120

  • Rs. per Month

Rs per Mth 100 90 90 50 30 AP Mun Corpns Hyderabad Bangalore Chennai Mumbai

Chennai : Additional 7% water & sew tax on annual rental value

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Domestic Tariff - Metros

25.00 36.00 25.00 Above 200 25.00 30.00 10.00 50-200 25.00 12.00 10.00 30-50 25.00 12.00 6.00 25-30 15.00 8.00 6.00 15-25 10.00 6.00 6.00 10-15 2.50 6.00 6.00 0-10 50 90 90 Minimum Chennai Bangalore Hyderabad

Slab (KLPM)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Board Total

20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000 160,000,000 180,000,000 200,000,000 Apr-99 Jun-99 Aug-99 Oct-99 Dec-99 Feb-00 Apr-00 Jun-00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Dec-00 Feb-01 Apr-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Oct-01 Dec-01 Feb-02 Apr-02 Jun-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Dec-02 Feb-03 Collections in the Month(Rs)

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Board Total

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Apr-99 Jun-99 Aug-99 Oct-99 Dec-99 Feb-00 Apr-00 Jun-00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Dec-00 Feb-01 Apr-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Oct-01 Dec-01 Feb-02 Apr-02 Jun-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Dec-02 Feb-03 No of People paying(No)

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Customer Care Initiatives

HMWSSB

  • Citizen’s Charter
  • MCC 1916
  • SWC
  • Revenue MIS
  • Lok Adalat
  • MSTC
  • Monitoring Indicators
slide-37
SLIDE 37

Complaint wise Redressal Efficiency

From 01-02-1999 to 04-03-2003

  • 93.2%
  • 83.3%
  • 74.6%
  • 65.9%
  • 64.3%
  • 63.1%
  • 59.2%
  • 58.9%
  • 58.2%
  • 56.1%
  • 53.4%
  • Septic Tank Clearing
  • Changing of line requested
  • Cleaning & Maintenance of meters
  • Meter repairs & Replacements
  • Change of category of consumption
  • Sewerage overflows on the road
  • No water for ‘X’ days
  • Low water Pressure
  • Others
  • Non-receipt of water bill
  • Water Leakage
slide-38
SLIDE 38

Division wise Redressal Efficiency

From 01-02-1999 to 04-03-2003

  • 38.2%
  • 28.6%
  • 53.0%
  • 62.7%
  • 41.4%
  • 59.7%
  • 54.5%
  • 35.4%
  • 38.6%
  • Division 1
  • Division 2
  • Division 3
  • Division 4
  • Division 5
  • Division 6
  • Division 7
  • Division 9
  • Division 10
slide-39
SLIDE 39

Analysis of Top 10 complaints

From 01-02-1999 to 04-03-2003

No water for x days 17.76% Replacement of missing manhole 1.08% Sewerage overflows

  • n the road

36.00% non-receipt of water bill 0.30% erratic timing of water supply 0.25% water leakage 4.98% Chokage customer premises 29.99% Others 1.61% polluted water supply 3.37% low water pressure 4.66%

These constitute about 99.29 % of 2,95,447 complaints from 2/99 till 04.03.03

slide-40
SLIDE 40

No Water for 'X'days 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 01/02/1999 01/04/1999 01/06/1999 01/08/1999 01/10/1999 01/12/1999 01/02/2000 01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/08/2000 01/10/2000 01/12/2000 01/02/2001 01/04/2001 01/06/2001 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/12/2001 01/02/2002 01/04/2002 01/06/2002 01/08/2002 01/10/2002 01/12/2002 01/02/2003

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Low Water Pressure 10 20 30 40 50 60 01/02/1999 01/04/1999 01/06/1999 01/08/1999 01/10/1999 01/12/1999 01/02/2000 01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/08/2000 01/10/2000 01/12/2000 01/02/2001 01/04/2001 01/06/2001 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/12/2001 01/02/2002 01/04/2002 01/06/2002 01/08/2002 01/10/2002 01/12/2002 01/02/2003

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Sewerage overflows on the Road 50 100 150 200 250 300 01/02/1999 01/04/1999 01/06/1999 01/08/1999 01/10/1999 01/12/1999 01/02/2000 01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/08/2000 01/10/2000 01/12/2000 01/02/2001 01/04/2001 01/06/2001 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/12/2001 01/02/2002 01/04/2002 01/06/2002 01/08/2002 01/10/2002 01/12/2002 01/02/2003

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Chokage Customer Premises 50 100 150 200 250 01/02/1999 01/04/1999 01/06/1999 01/08/1999 01/10/1999 01/12/1999 01/02/2000 01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/08/2000 01/10/2000 01/12/2000 01/02/2001 01/04/2001 01/06/2001 01/08/2001 01/10/2001 01/12/2001 01/02/2002 01/04/2002 01/06/2002 01/08/2002 01/10/2002 01/12/2002 01/02/2003

slide-44
SLIDE 44

GE cases in Fever Hospital- Trend Reversed 500 1000 1500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

1995 328 577 657 595 722 1079 1299 1030 596 636 416 418 1996 396 546 882 878 1269 1407 1159 866 617 471 342 325 1997 312 361 607 571 692 669 758 684 511 448 363 355 1998 391 501 684 982 1366 872 933 1053 834 750 435 322 1999 327 381 495 630 1008 607 493 344 236 235 233 195 2000 236 285 439 432 512 678 867 294 151 123 93 75 2001 66 67 74 67 76 82 111 94 82 119 61 64 2002 49 17 12 4 10 3 1 2003 Jan Feb Mar Apl May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Never Paid Connections

34.15 lakhs 5% incentive 6.83 Crores 17,401 Converted 36.54 Crores 43,489 Total Amount Number

slide-46
SLIDE 46

GOAL

HMWSSB

Target March 2004 January 2003 2 0.07 8 Alternative Indicator is:

  • No. of GE cases per

Lakh population per month

Difficult for assessment on a regular basis

DALY (Disability Affected Life Years) Ensure Public Health by provision of safe drinking water and safe sanitary conditions Baseline 2000-01 Indicators Goal

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Outcomes

Coverage & UFW Workings

HMWSSB

Target 500 666 1102

  • 7. Complaints per Lakh

Connections March 2004 January 2003 16% 18% 19%

  • 6. Physical Losses

134 MGD 133MGD 117 MGD

  • 5. Quantity Supplied

162 MGD 162 MGD 145 MGD

  • 4. Capacity

4.20 Lakhs 4.03 Lakhs 3.40 Lakhs

  • 3. Number of domestic

Connections 81% 85% 75%

  • 2. Population covered
  • Alt. day

2 hours

  • Alt. day

2 hours

  • Alt. day

2 hours

  • 1. Frequency of supply
  • 1. Increase

access to piped water supply Baseline 2000-01 Indicators Outcomes

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Outcomes

HMWSSB

Target

100 81 170

  • 3. Pollution complaints per

lakh conns per month

March 2004 January 2003

350 228 NA

  • 2. Number of slums covered

fully 15 6.2 2.5

  • 1. NSDP connections (from

01-04-1999) in ‘000

  • 3. Increase

access to poor

99% 99% 98%

  • 2. % of Safe samples tested

2 0.07 8

  • 1. Number of GE cases per

Lakh Population Per Month

  • 2. Better

quality of Drinking Water Supplied Baseline 2000-01 Indicators Outcomes

  • 1. 90% coverage of a slum is considered as full coverage
  • 2. Accurate details of coverage of slums are being worked out
slide-49
SLIDE 49

Outcomes

HMWSSB

Target 750 1307 1476

  • 5. Complaints per lakh

connections per month 60% 54% 50%

  • 4. Population coverage

(%)

283 MLD 20 MLD 20 MLD (b) Upto 30 BOD

March 2004

January 2003

3.20 Lakhs 3.15 Lakhs 2.70 Lakhs

  • 3. Number of sewerage

connections 283 MLD 133 MLD 133 MLD

  • 2. Quantity Treated

NIL 113 MLD 113 MLD (a) Primary Treatment

283 MLD 133 MLD 133 MLD

  • 1. Treatment Capacity
  • 4. Increase

environment al sanitation through sewerage collection, treatment and disposal system Baseline 2000-01 Indicators Outcomes

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Outcomes

HMWSSB

Target

13.6 13.57 9.0 3 Demand (Rs. Crores PM)

March 2004 January 2003

Rs.8.28 Rs.12.50

  • Rs. 8.3
  • 7. Realisation per KL (* )

Rs.11.51 Rs.12.50 Rs.11.22

  • 6. Cost per KL of water

billed 13.0 12.27 7.4

  • 4. Collections (Rs. Crores

PM) 10% 16% 17%

  • 2. Unaccounted for water

(Revenue Losses) 3% 5% 5%

  • 1. Nonrevenue (accounted

for ) water

5. Financial Self sufficienc y & Provision

  • f

services at economic cost Base line 2000-01 Indicators Outcome s

* Appropriate tariff revision needed

slide-51
SLIDE 51

HMWSSB

PPP

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Public Private Partnership

HMWSSB

  • Water treatment plant,
  • Sewerage treatment plants –2 Nos,
  • Water Tankers
  • Johannesburg experiment
  • Bangalore proposals
  • Kukatpally initiative
  • Concession proposal
  • GDANSK model
slide-53
SLIDE 53

HMWSSB

Thank you