the city of venice the city of modling hmwssb evolution
play

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

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


  1. Briefing on the functioning of HMWS&SB To Our Partners from The City of Venice & The City of Modling

  2. HMWSSB-Evolution Water Works Department, Municipal Corporation of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Water Supply Sewerage 1987 Transferred with staff Constituted on 1 Nov 1989 under the Hyderabad 1 November 1989 Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act Hyder abad Metr opolitan 1989 Water Supply and Sewer age Boar d

  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

  4. Access Modes of WS 100% 0 0 0 0 7 19 90% 8 25 80% 50 70% 19 32 60% 100 100 50% 85 40% 39 30% 56 49 20% 10% 21 0% N.America Europe L.America Africa Asia Hyderabad HouseHold Conns Other Access No Access Global Water supply and Sanitation Coverage Report 2000, WHO

  5. HMWSSB Hyderabad Population projections (in Millions) 12 10.153 10 8.191 3.16% per Annum 8 5.533 6 TCE Projections 4.349 4 Census 2.774 2 0 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 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

  6. Manjira Phase-III (1991) 163 mld Water Supply Sources Manjira Phase-I (1965) 604 mld – 87 lpcd 735 mld – 114 lpcd 123 mld 572 mld 409 mld 272 mld 204 mld 604 mld – 87 lpcd 735 mld – 114 lpcd 572 mld 409 mld 272 mld 204 mld 123 mld 68 mld Manjira Phase-II (1981) Manjira 136 mld Phase-IV (1993) 163 mld Osman Sagar (1920) Now 0 mld 123 mld Himayat Sagar (1927) Himayat Sagar 82 mld 54 mld

  7. HMWSSB Demand and Supply Immediate 350 300 250 200 MGD 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 PresentCapacity 153 162 162 162 162 162 GroundWater 25 25 25 25 25 25 Demand 230 240 250 260 275 290

  8. HMWSSB Demand and Supply 450 400 350 300 MGD 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 PresentSupply 153 162 162 162 162 25 25 25 25 25 GroundWater Demand 230 290 328 360 400

  9. Supply Mix HMWSSB % MGD Free Water (6600) 7% 7 Domestic - Individual 40% 40 Domestic - Bulk 30% 29 Non-domestic 23% 22 Total 100% 97 Unaccounted 33.2% 48 Water (Break-up for 17 MGD yet to be Calculated) Total Water Drawn 145

  10. HMWSSB Unaccounted For Water Details % MGD Transmission Losses 14.0% 20 Physical Losses 5.5% 8 MCH Distribution Losses Revenue Losses 10.2% 15 Total 29.7% 43 Total non revenue water in the 3 3.5% 5 municipalities taken over Total 33.2% 48 Water Drawn 100.0% 145 Break-up for 145 MGD only

  11. UFW-Asian Cities HMWSSB UFW % Cities 5% - 10% Singapore, Beijing 10%-20% Shanghai, Mumbai, Chennai, Mali, Tianjin, Almaty, Tashkent 20%-30% Johar Bahru, Delhi, Taipei, Medan, Penang, PortVila 30%-40% Karchi, Ulssah, Hochiminh, Seol, Colombo, Kulalumpur, Hongkong, Bangkok, Faislabad, Devao, Vientine, Chittagong, Chaingmai, Thimpu, Chonburi, Honaira, Cebu 40%-50% Lahore, Manila, Calcutta, 50%-60% Dhaka, Jakarta, Khatmandu, Nuku, Biankek, suva, Bandung, Ulaanbatav, Apis Above 60% Mandalay, Lee, PhnomPenh, Honoi, Rarotonga 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

  12. HMWSSB Allocation of Singoor Water 30 Balance Water 5.02 Evaporation 60 MGD 25 4.61 Balance 20 Maximum utilisation for TwinCities WS 6.96 irrigation 15 6.6 TMC in 1997 Nizamsagar against allocation of 10 8.35 12.41 TMC Ghanpur 5 4.06 Siltation Losses 1.00 0 TMC

  13. 5(2 ! ($- $, 6 * ! " # $ &' () * $+ , ' - ! . (! (&# " , ( /. # ) # //* , * ($# " 0 1 2 + / 3 . (2 &* $+ 4. /# 2 COMPONENT – I MAP Phase III Phase IV 4! /#,* ($ 9 : 6 9 0 6 0 1 1 1 /#,- (3 54. . - $, /# , - (3 3 * . &, /. # ) $ 9 : 6 9 0 6 0 1 1 1 5- $, . # " /- &* + $ 5- " " ' 7/- . # 8# / 2 - , . (! (" * , # $ ) # , - . &4! ! " 7 # $/ &- ) - . # + - 8(# . /

  14. Access to poor – HMWSSB slum improvement project • 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

  15. Sewerage Network S.No Facilities Existing Required as per Master Plan 1 Sewage Treatment Plant (MLD) 113 +20 1323 2 Trunk Sewers, Main Sewers, 572 Kms 423 Kms Branch Sewers (above 300 mm diameter) 3 Laterals (300 mm diameter and 1087 Kms 822 Kms below) Approximate Cost Rs 4000 Crores

  16. Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar K&S Main K&S Main Existing Sewer Duplicate Mains Duplicate K&S Main K&S Main

  17. Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar Sewer Main completed last Duplicate Duplicate A - Main A - Main

  18. Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar Industrial Industrial Picket Picket effluents effluents Drain Drain Sources of through through Pollution Kukatpally Kukatpally Drain Drain Yousufguda Drain Yousufguda Drain Banjara Drain Banjara Drain Balkapur Drain Balkapur Drain

  19. STP Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar of sewage Diversion effluents into the Sewer Mains and

  20. STP Hussain Sagar Hussain Sagar of sewage Diversion effluents into the Sewer Mains and

  21. Aeration Tank Inlet Units Settling Tank Flow Indicator

  22. Hussain Sagar STP in Action

  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

  24. ' 7 / - . # 8 # / 2 - , . ( !( " * , # $ ) # , - . & 4 !!" 7 = & - ) - . # + - 8 ( # . / Head 405.5 Mts " ( 5 # , * ( $ !" # $ ( 3 !. ( ☺- 5 , # . - # Sunikesula " ( 5 # , * ( $ !" # $ D A T E O F C U R R E N T U P D A T I O N 1 6 - 0 4 - 2 0 0 1 D A T E O F F I R S T D R A W N 1 0 - 1 1 - 2 0 0 0 C E N T R A L D E S I G N C E L L ; . * & ' $ # ) # , - . & 4 !!" 7 !. ( ☺- 5 , > & " 8 5 # & & ( 4 . 5 - ? 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

  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

  26. Abatement of Pollution to HMWSSB river Musi • 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

  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

  28. HMWSSB Rain Water Harvesting

  29. Past Performance 200 Debt Service 180 Depreciation Chemicals 160 Opns & Mtce 140 Staff 120.10 125.00 127.30 Power 106.24 110.59 120 Rs. Crores Revenue 100 80.56 80 64.46 59.63 53.79 60 43.60 35.25 40 25.13 20 0 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02

  30. Financial Projections 450 400 350 300 DebtService Rs. Crores 250 Depreciation Maintenance Staff 200 Power Sales 150 100 50 0 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Year

  31. Non-domestic Tariffs in Metros 70 60 50 Rs. per KL 40 30 20 10 0 Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Hyderabad 60 40 35 25 Rs. Per KL Chennai and Mumbai have large captive non-domestic consumptions

  32. Domestic Slab Rates in Metros 120 100 Rs. per Month 80 60 40 20 0 AP Mun Hyderabad Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Corpns Rs per Mth 100 90 90 50 30 Chennai : Additional 7% water & sew tax on annual rental value

  33. Domestic Tariff - Metros Slab (KLPM) Hyderabad Bangalore Chennai Minimum 90 90 50 0-10 6.00 6.00 2.50 10-15 6.00 6.00 10.00 15-25 6.00 8.00 15.00 25-30 6.00 12.00 25.00 30-50 10.00 12.00 25.00 50-200 10.00 30.00 25.00 Above 200 25.00 36.00 25.00

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend