Veena Srinivasan
Priyanka Jamwal
Bejoy K. Thomas
Meghana Eswar
T. Md. Zuhail
Published by Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. March 2013.
ISBN 10: 81-902338-6-6
ISBN 13: 978-81-902338-6-6
Citation: Lele, S., V. Srinivasan, P. Jamwal, B. K. Thomas, M. Eswar and T. Md. Zuhail.
2013. Water management in Arkavathy basin: A situation analysis. Environment and
Development Discussion Paper No.1. Bengaluru: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology
and the Environment.
Sharachchandra Lele
Veena Srinivasan
Priyanka Jamwal
Bejoy K. Thomas
Meghana Eswar
T. Md. Zuhail
1
INTRODUCTION
1
Based on a village layer digitised from Census 2001 district census handbook, and corrected using the latest city/town boundaries.
06
Prominent places
Arkavathy catchment
Taluk boundary
Lakes
Major streams 0 5 10 20
BBMP boundary
Kilometres
Figure 2: The Arkavathy catchment with major features (Data source: GSI toposheets, ASTER DEM imagery.
Map prepared by ATREE Ecoinformatics Lab)
several smaller streams before it eventually meets the The Arkavathy River feeds a series of cascading tanks
Cauvery (see Figure 2). Of these, the catchments of the and two major water reservoirs (Hesaraghatta and
Kumudavathy and Suvarnamukhi are largely rural and Chamrajasagar) that were once major sources of water
the Kumudavathy flows only during the wet season. On to Bengaluru city. Of these, the Hesaraghatta tank is
the other hand, the Vrishabhavathy stream runs through mostly dry, and no longer overflows downstream. The
Bengaluru and peri-urban areas, and is now a perennial Chamrajasagar reservoir at Thippagondanahalli (and
but highly polluted river, as it acts as a drain for domestic commonly known as TG Halli reservoir), located at the
and industrial wastewater. confluence of the Arkavathy and Kumudavathy rivers,
still receives some inflow, mostly from the Kumudavathy,
07
Land Use
Barren
Built-up
Crop land
Forest
Plantation
Protected area
Scrub forest
Other
Water body 0 5 10 20
Uninterpreted
Kilometres
Figure 3: Arkavathy sub-basin land use map for 2003 (Data source: KSRSAC. Map prepared by ATREE Ecoinformatics Lab)
but flows have been steadily declining. The reservoir Bengaluru’s water supply from the Cauvery Stages 1–4
currently supplies about 30 million litres per day (MLD) to is drawn from the Cauvery upstream of this sangam.
Bengaluru, which is far lower than the design capacity of
In terms of hydrogeology, most of the Arkavathy sub-
148 MLD (http://bwssb.org/water-supply-sources/). The
Manchanbele dam further downstream on the Arkavathy basin is underlain by hard-rock that consists of gneisses
receives additional water from the eastern part of the and granites. The shallow aquifer consists of the highly
catchment and serves Magadi town and, occasionally, weathered zone extending to about 20 m BGL. The
Ramanagara town. fractured zone, extending from 20–50 m, contains joints
and cracks, some of which are well-connected to each
The Vrishabhavathy, a tributary of the Arkavathy, flows into
the Byramangala tank, the water from which, in spite of other and can function as conduits. Yields drop off greatly
being polluted, is used for irrigation. The Vrishabhavathy beyond 60 m. At deeper levels, there are a few joints and
meets the Arkavathy before Kanakapura town. Near fractures that have been enlarged by dissolution and can
Kanakapura and further downstream, the pollutant-laden extend to considerable depths. The Geological Society of
Arkavathy gets diluted to some extent by other streams, India estimates that 96% of the yield comes from the top
yet remains highly polluted when it joins the Cauvery. 60 m (Grönwall 2008).
08
The land use map for the sub-basin in 2003 shows that responsible for enforcement of laws and various
cropland and plantations accounted for over half of the government programmes, sometimes with inconsistent
sub-basin area, with about 7% being built-up (Figure 3). mandates. Our current understanding of water governance
While we expect the urban area to have grown since 2003 in the Arkavathy sub-basin with respect to the four
(perhaps even doubled), agriculture and plantations still objectives identified above is summarised in Table 1.
cover a significant portion of the land area.
As seen in the table, the main distribution of
responsibilities is along geographical lines: BWSSB
1.2 is primarily responsible for all aspects of water
Institutional context management in Bengaluru, Karnataka Urban Water
Supply and Drainage Board (KUWSDB) along with
The institutional context of water management in the
the respective municipalities in the small towns, and
Arkavathy sub-basin is quite complex. A number of
the Gram Panchayats (GP) with the help of specific
agencies deal with different aspects of water management
programmes such as National Rural Drinking Water
in different regions, with significant overlap in some
Programme (NRDWP) in the rural areas. Pollution control
cases and significant gaps in others. They are collectively
rests with Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Industry BWSSB, KUWSDB, CMC, but largely Self and private supply
self and private supply self and private supply
Agriculture — — —
Macro-scale Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Supreme Court, CRA, state government, CWC*, WRDO*
1.3
Roadmap to this document
In this document, we present this situation analysis by
describing the nature of the ‘problem’ in the Arkavathy
sub-basin. We define the problem by identifying four broad
objectives of water resources management.
1. To ensure that sufficient quantity of safe, affordable
water is supplied to domestic, commercial/industrial/
institutional (CII) and agricultural users, as well as left
for ecological and environmental purposes.
2. To ensure equitable allocation of water within similar
users and fair allocation between different users.
3. To maintain sustainability and resilience of water
resources by regulating overdraft.
4. To maintain quality of water in water bodies to sustain
public health and environmental amenities.
2
SUFFICIENCY OF
SAFE, AFFORDABLE
WATER SUPPLY
2
This is not to treat current levels of agricultural and industrial activity as sacrosanct, but to use it as one possible level to define sufficiency.
11
*estimated
** http://www.kanakapuratown.gov.in/ws § http://www.ramanagaracity.gov.in/ws
^ http://www.doddaballapurcity.gov.in/ws Additional information: Feedback Ventures a, b, c
One of the few city-wide estimates of groundwater Table 3: Estimating total per capita water use in Bengaluru
extracted from private wells (D’Souza and Nagendra 2011; in 2001
Suresh 2001) based on a borewell census estimated
groundwater abstraction in Bengaluru to be: Water sources Amount
1. Private, domestic and industry – 500 MLD. Cauvery supply in 2001 600 MLD
2. Government agencies for domestic use – 33 MLD. Arkavathy (TG Halli) supply in 2001 110 MLD
3. Private abstraction for the water tanker market – 39 MLD. Less losses 42% (Sinclair Knight Merz
and EGIS Consulting Australia, 2001)
Thus, total groundwater abstraction for Bengaluru was
estimated by Suresh (2001) to be 572 MLD in 2001, Total surface water delivery 412 MLD
an amount that exceeded surface water-based utility Total groundwater pumped 570 MLD
supply to the city in that year! In other words, more than
Total consumption 982 MLD
half of Bengaluru’s water demand was met from local
groundwater, with most of it coming from households’ Less Commercial, Industrial, 245 MLD
own borewells and about 6% from the tanker market. Institutional (CII) consumption (20%)
These figures are consistent with estimates by DMG Total use per capita (dividing above 140 LPCD*
(2011), which estimates groundwater extraction within by 5.6 million residents in 2001)
Bengaluru at 590 MLD. They are also broadly consistent
with the pattern emerging from the single ward study *LPCD = MLD delivered/Population
conducted in 2004 (Raju et al. 2008). This study reported
that 97% of households surveyed were dependent
at least partially on groundwater – only 52% used sharply in the last decade. Furthermore, as mentioned
borewells while 45% depended on both piped supply earlier, these average numbers obscure inequities across
and borewells for their water. socio-economic strata. Preliminary field visits suggest that
However, there remains considerable dispute over these the situation in the smaller towns is somewhat worse,
figures. BWSSB and KUWSDB estimate groundwater especially in Nelamangala and Doddaballapur.
extraction in Bengaluru to be much lower. For instance, Estimating the level of scarcity faced by commercial and
a consultancy report conducted on behalf of BWSSB industrial users is more complicated, not only because
estimates groundwater extraction to be as low as 20% of there is no simple norm but also because the data are
total consumption in 1997/98 (Sinclair Knight Merz and weaker: we do not know the number and types of users
EGIS Consulting Australia, 2001). In the case of the four within this category. However, it is well-known that
smaller towns, there are no estimates available for private many commercial and industrial units receive little or
groundwater extraction. no water at all from BWSSB and have been waiting to be
connected for years, and are completely dependent on
2.1.3 groundwater (own or purchased). Although water accounts
Summary of urban water scarcity for a small percentage of the costs for these businesses,
Based on the above estimations of public and private it nevertheless represents a critical input. If water supply
supplies (adopting Suresh’s estimates for the latter as the were to be disrupted, the facilities would have to be shut
generous estimate of self-supply), total water available down. By this criterion, many commercial businesses in
to urban users within Bengaluru for the year 2001 was and around Bengaluru can be described as facing some
approximately as shown in Table 3. water scarcity. It is also reasonable to assume that some
fraction of these users, as domestic users, face more
This figure of per capita consumption for Bengaluru scarcity during the summer months.
is somewhat below the Central Public Health and
Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) 2.2
consumption norm of 150 LPCD for large metropolitan
Rural domestic use
areas with underground sewerage systems (Mathur et
al. 2007), suggesting that Bengaluru was slightly water We tried to understand the level of availability/scarcity
scarce even after groundwater extraction is considered. in rural areas using two publicly available datasets that
Though more recent numbers are not available, we expect covered most of the rural portions of this sub-basin. (All
that overall the situation has either stayed the same or other studies were at a much smaller scale.) The Ministry
worsened since 2001. This is because, although more of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India
Cauvery water is being delivered to Bengaluru, local (MDWS) has been implementing the National Rural
sources have dried up and the population has grown Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP). This project has
13
Arkavathy catchment
Village boundary
Taluk boundary
Average LPCD
5–9.9
10–39.9
40–67
No data 0 5 10 20
Kilometres
Figure 4: Water supply levels (LPCD) in rural Arkavathy sub-basin (Data source: NRDWP: http://indiawater.gov.in/
imisreports/nrdwpmain.aspx. Map prepared by ATREE Ecoinformatics Lab.)
estimated the quantity supplied in each village, which we delivered (R. P. Mallick, Pers. Comm 2012), nor do they
have mapped (Figure 4). This suggests that most of the account for non-functional wells/pumps or transit losses.
watershed is in the 10–40 LPCD range, which is below the These two corrections operate in opposite directions:
Government of Karnataka (55 LPCD) norm for rural areas. accounting for self-supply increases the estimate, whereas
The map also suggests that some villages in the north- accounting for actual government delivery lowers the
eastern and south-western portions face lesser scarcity NRDWP estimate. On the whole, this dataset suggests a
compared to other parts. situation of scarcity for most rural settlements, especially
for households that do not have access to private wells.
However, these figures do not present a true picture of Another dataset that is publicly available is A Survey of
water scarcity for several reasons. First, they only relate Household Water and Sanitation (ASHWAS), a household
to GP water supply schemes and do not include water survey of rural households across Karnataka (ashwas.
households may obtain from their own borewells, open indiawaterportal.org; see also (Arghyam 2009). We obtained
wells or other sources. Second, they are most likely to be data for Bangalore Rural and Ramanagara districts (800
based on installed capacity, not reflecting actual water households) and examined the pattern in the quantitative
14
estimates of water use (total number of pots consumed for the seasonal variation and year-to-year variation in water
all end-uses in the household). These data suggest a much availability. However, except for certain pockets, it is hard
higher level of water consumption: 96–183 LPCD (assuming to conclude that the availability of water for agriculture
1 pot = 12 litres). No clear pattern could be distinguished has declined as compared to the past.
across the region, partly because the sample covered only
a few Gram Panchayats. 2.4
Our own field observations are somewhat at variance Environmental amenities
with the NRDWP data, which suggest that water scarcity is An important ‘use’ of water, particularly in urban areas,
very patchy. On the whole, our observations suggest that is aesthetic and habitat for aquatic biodiversity. The
the northern portion of the sub-basin experiences less Lake Development Authority recognises that surface
rainfall and higher levels of groundwater depletion, and water bodies3 play a key function in making urban
consequently would be facing more scarcity than villages living pleasant4, as well as a habitat to support unique
in the southern portion. The depth-to-groundwater map ecosystems that are valued by urban dwellers. For
produced by the Department of Mines and Geology (DMG) instance, bird watchers reportedly outnumber other types
also suggests that groundwater is more easily available in of users in urban Agara Lake (D’Souza and Nagendra
the south. In short, no clear conclusions on rural domestic 2011). Lake rejuvenation efforts also tout potential flood
water scarcity emerged from our analysis of secondary mitigation benefits if storm water can be channelled into
data and published literature. lakes and also the vital hydrological role in recharging
groundwater in its lower command areas.
2.3
It is clear that the number of lakes in Bengaluru is
Irrigation use dwindling and many are drying up, even as the total
Irrigation is a major use of water in the Arkavathy sub- number of ‘lakes’ is increasing as Bengaluru expands
basin; particularly in rural areas. Agriculture remains the and swallows up erstwhile irrigation tanks. Overall, one
mainstay of rural livelihoods in the Arkavathy sub-basin, may state broadly that water availability for environmental
even though this is changing. As mentioned earlier, more amenities (most valued in urban areas) is declining. The
than half of the land in the sub-basin is under agriculture reasons for this are complex. Some of this is the result of
and plantations. From our field visits, we found that conscious conversion of land use (such as the building
groundwater is the primary source of irrigation water in of the National Games village). However, conversion is
most areas, although some areas such as Doddaballapur often facilitated by the drying up of the tanks, and the
taluka have a large number of minor irrigation tanks. reasons for this are a combination of choking of inlets and
pumping of groundwater.
We were unable to find reliable estimates for agricultural
water ‘scarcity’ in Arkavathy sub-basin as there were It must also be noted that not all environmental functions
no studies on peri-urban agriculture. In the northern are necessarily compatible with each other. Recreational
Arkavathy sub-basin, many irrigation tanks have dried up activities such as boating or bird-watching require
and the water table has dropped below 500 ft. in places. full lakes, but if lakes are to provide recharge or flood
Here, people reported a shift towards urban land uses and control, they need to be porous or stay empty for most
plantation crops – driven in part by water scarcity and in of the time. There is as yet limited understanding of the
part by industrialisation, urbanisation, changing labour inflows and storage in such bodies, and of the trade-offs
availability, etc. In the southern portion of the sub-basin, between different uses in the Arkavathy sub-basin.
water is more plentiful but much of it of is of poor quality,
Similarly, streams and rivers provide habitat
as it comes from the polluted Vrishabhavathy. Here,
for aquatic organisms, and if they dry up or get polluted,
farmers reported a gradual shift towards mulberry, fodder
this habitat will decline. From that perspective, the
and other cash crops.
flowing water available for environmental aesthetic and
Thus, on the one hand, although the land under agriculture biodiversity purposes in the Arkavathy sub-basin has
is decreasing, cropping patterns are intensifying and declined sharply; the highly polluted Vrishabhavathy
shifting from cereals to cash crops. On the other hand, completely violates all norms and it is impossible for most
drip irrigation is also becoming widespread. The net effect organisms to survive in it. However, given the absence of
of these trends on user satisfaction or and satisfaction of information on the extent of such amenity use, it is hard
demand is not well-studied. Also not well-understood is to make an assessment of who the winners and losers are
3
Strictly speaking, none of the surface water bodies in the basin qualify as ‘lakes’ because they are all man-made water bodies, i.e., irrigation tanks
created by constructing embankments across streams.
4
http://parisaramahiti.kar.nic.in/role.html
15
and whether the conversion of irrigation tanks to urban interest rate payments and accumulated debts. The study
amenity lakes counterbalances the decline in any sense. showed that groundwater depletion impacted both farm
productivity and income status of households. Households
2.5 coped with groundwater depletion using a variety of
Affordability of water supply strategies including
If scarcity is determined not just by LPCD, but also by 1. Diversification of income sources away from water-
the cost of obtaining the water, what can one say about dependent, agricultural livelihoods;
this (economic) scarcity in the Arkavathy sub-basin? 2. Drilling deeper bore wells; and
This can be looked at in different ways. For a household,
3. Borrowing to cover the increasing cost of irrigation
affordability might mean what water at the LPCD norm
(Anantha and Raju 2010).
costs vis-à-vis an average household budget. For
agriculture and industry, it may mean whether the cost Thus, the overall situation today does not represent a
of water makes those activities unprofitable. picture of acute economic scarcity or non-affordability,
although BWSSB, the biggest urban water provider in
Domestic water is supplied at a base rate of
the sub-basin, clearly charges much higher water rates
Rs. 6–9/kL for the first 25 kL per domestic connection
compared to many other cities. However, there are
per month, which equals the LPCD norm (assuming a
pockets of physical scarcity (where LPCD falls below the
5-person household). This amounts to Rs. 150/month/
norms), overlaid with pockets of economic scarcity, where
household. This is the highest among most towns in
households are completely dependent on private sources.
southern India (McKenzie and Ray 2009), but is justified
by BWSSB on grounds of the higher cost of pumping water
from the Cauvery. Further, given the income levels in 2.6
Bengaluru, Rs. 150 does not appear to be a huge fraction of Institutional analysis of water scarcity
an average household’s monthly budget. Our analysis of the available literature clearly suggests that
However, those who do not have BWSSB connections, there are pockets in both urban and, especially, rural areas
or have inadequate city supply , have to either pump where domestic water scarcity is significant. Moreover, a
from own borewells, or pay tankers a much higher rate. number of households face seasonal shortages. Yet, partly
In extreme cases, if a household depends only on tanker because of the continued availability of Cauvery water,
supplies, its cost of water could be ~ Rs. 1,000 per month. and partly because the government has invested heavily in
Here, a study by Raju et al. (2008) argues that multiplicity setting up borewell-based rural water supply infrastructure
of borewells in the same small locality means a ‘higher (without addressing the issue of long-term sustainability),
than necessary’ cost of water supply, since each individual it may be fair to say that the vast majority of domestic
user is investing in a borewell and pump when there could users do not experience acute scarcity. Economic scarcity
have been a single common borewell. While no concrete is felt by some commercial and industrial users, and by
information is available for small towns, we believe the domestic users who do not have access to city supply or
trend is similar there. functioning borewells. Some agricultural water scarcity
exists in the Kumudavathy and parts of Doddaballapur
In the agricultural sector, impacts of irrigation water
taluka; but aquatic ecosystem needs are clearly not being
scarcity induced by groundwater depletion in hard rock
met, especially in streams and lakes that are drying up or
areas of Karnataka (Anantha and Raju 2010) include
getting polluted.
increased expenditure on deepening wells, increasing
pump capacity, frequent replacement of pumps The socio-institutional causes of this pattern of scarcity are
malfunctioning due to voltage fluctuations, etc. In areas complex and unclear. Clearly, rural users wield much less
suffering from water scarcity, multiple cropping was not In political power as compared to the residents of Bengaluru,
the agricultural sector, impacts of irrigation water scarcity which is the capital of the state, endowed with an agency
induced by groundwater depletion in hard rock areas of exclusively mandated to supply water and sewerage
Karnataka (Anantha and Raju 2010) include increased services (BWSSB) and with the power to appropriate
expenditure on deepening wells, increasing pump water from as far as 100 km away. At the same time, the
capacity, frequent replacement of pumps malfunctioning decisions taken by BWSSB, such as forfeiting budgetary
due to voltage fluctuations, etc. In areas suffering from support from the state government and procuring water
water scarcity, multiple cropping was not possible. from so far away, result in high water supply costs that
Moreover, low economies of scale inhibited the use of have to be recovered from the consumer, resulting in
new technologies, limiting both crop yields and gains in economic scarcity for some or deprivation of connections
water use efficiency (Anantha and Raju 2010). Farmers did for others. BWSSB has also launched some measures
not get the expected returns from their investments due towards rainwater harvesting, but it is unclear what (if any)
to high rates of well failure. They were saddled with high effects it has achieved.
16
The delicate politicised nature of the negotiations reductions in tank irrigation are being compensated
between BWSSB and peri-urban areas (and within these by borewells and by shifts to drip irrigation. Thus,
areas) is illustrated by a set of case studies of Tataguni, the role of water scarcity (and quality, as the later
Doddakallasandra, and Konanakunte villages described by sections will show) in influencing agricultural
Raju et al. (2004). In Tataguni, an overhead tank, pipelines cropping shifts (as compared to other factors such
and private house connections were laid using funds as urbanisation) needs to be understood.
from the Zilla Panchayat. BWSSB refused to undertake
3. Little is known about the commercial and industrial
responsibility for Operation and Maintenance of the
use of water, and whether such activities are being
piped network which was poorly constructed. The Gram
seriously affected by the physical or economic
Panchayat was assigned the responsibility of collecting
scarcity of water.
the money and maintaining the pipes, but at the time
of the study, the households were not paying the Gram
Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat was not paying BWSSB.
Despite years of talks between the Gram Panchayat and
BWSSB, the actual water supply arrangement remains
informal. BWSSB provides 50,000 litres of water to the
village informally due to political pressure, but no formal
contract is in place. BWSSB staff operate the connecting
valves to the village at their own convenience. Wealthier
households closer to the tank (mostly upper caste) receive
water and enjoy effective 24/7 supply by collecting
water in underground sumps, while those at the tail-end
of the piped system, where the Scheduled Caste colony
is located, do not receive water. Residents must walk
considerable distances to access water from a public tap
(Raju et al. 2004).
As far as managing scarcity for environmental amenities
and irrigation users is concerned, the existing agencies
do not appear to be empowered to manage scarcity.
While the Lake Development Authority has been created
to rehabilitate and look after lakes in Bengaluru, it is
not clear that it has any jurisdiction over the sources of
inflow or the authority to regulate groundwater pumping
that might be causing reduced inflows. Similarly, the
Minor Irrigation Department is unable to regulate
pumping that may be reducing inflows into irrigation
tanks, and has limited capacity to influence land use
change and water diversion upstream.
2.7
Water scarcity: Key knowledge gaps
1. The spatial pattern and extent of domestic water
scarcity is still quite unclear. In rural areas, the
NRDWP data reflect only installed capacities and do
not include self-supply, not to mention, seasonal
variation. While overall scarcity in Bengaluru is not
so high, pockets of scarcity are not clearly identified
and the understanding of scarcity is much weaker for
small towns.5
2. In the case of agriculture, it is not yet clear to what
extent farmers are facing borewell failures and
5
The gap in the understanding of water use in Bengaluru is being filled to a large extent by the ongoing BUMP research project (http://www.urbanmetabolism.in/
bump/index.php).
17
3
FAIRNESS OF
ALLOCATION ACROSS
USES/USERS
6
Economists suggest using the marginal economic benefit per unit of water (Rs/kL) to measure whether water is being ‘optimally’ allocated. In this approach,
water should be allocated to those uses which have the highest marginal benefit, till the marginal benefits are equalized across all uses. However, among other
problems, this approach has serious equity implications: poorer people may have a lower willingness-to-pay for water because of a lower budget, and certain uses
(such as industrial use) may show a higher marginal benefit, but this may not reflect a societal prioritization of the uses water should be put to.
18
priority; commercial users may not get permission to drill Hesarghatta and TG Halli reservoirs has been repeatedly
in areas where their use might affect domestic users. flagged (ISRO and IN-RIMT 2000). The same is true of
However, at this point, neither have rules been notified smaller water bodies such as irrigation tanks, where there
under the Act, nor have the enforcement mechanisms is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, including our
been finalised. Borewell registration is not linked to any own field observations, that these tanks are drying up and
other service that a government can withhold (such as upstream pumping or watershed development may be
land title or an electricity connection). Some spacing contributors to this phenomenon. Systematic investigation
norms are supposed to be in place, but field observations of this issue remains to be carried out.
suggest that these norms are not being enforced. Tensions
between domestic users and agricultural users are 3.3
apparent in rural areas, but the response seems to be to Between socio-economic groups or locations
dig deeper borewells, i.e., transforming the inter-user issue within the domestic sector
into an inter-generational issue.
How does water get allocated across different users within
In the case of surface water bodies such as reservoirs, a sector? There are three separate issues here:
we see evidence of shift in users and management first, whether the pipes are laid and users can access
objectives over time. For instance, as Bengaluru has them; second, whether there is water in those pipes
expanded, a number of irrigation tanks have become part and users can afford to pay for it; third, whether the users
of an urban or peri-urban development where surface can make private arrangements to cope with unreliability,
irrigation is no longer relevant or viable. Over time, which is in turn affected by proximity and availability
these tanks have been converted into ‘lakes’ and their of the source and ability to pay (Mohan Prabhu,
management has been gradually handed over to the Lake Pers. Comm. 2012).
Development Authority or (in the smaller towns) to the
Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMCs). While this can Infrastructure access: Differences in access to
be seen as a conscious recognition of shifting needs, it is infrastructure determine who receives piped supply and
unclear how the needs of certain underprivileged users who does not. Public fountains (taps) were once the main
source of water for the urban poor, and accounted for
such as fisherfolk are taken into consideration in the shift
almost 34% of the total consumption in 1998. These
(D’Souza and Nagendra 2011).
unmetered connections, largely used by the urban
poor, are usually in a state of disrepair due to stolen/
3.2 damaged taps and broken platforms. Bengaluru Municipal
Between upstream and downstream reaches Corporation used to pay BWSSB at the rate of Rs. 2,400
Upstream users inherently have an advantage in any per public fountain per year with BWSSB incurring a
watershed, which may play out in various ways. In a large further loss of about Rs. 60,000 per fountain (TARU 1998).
river basin such as the Cauvery, upstream users can build The AusAID project, public fountain survey estimated that
dams and reduce flows available to downstream users. these public fountains were in fact extremely inefficient;
In a smaller basin or mill-watershed, upstream small much of the water was lost in wastage or leaks.
impoundments (such as check dams and nullah bunds Since 2002, BWSSB has gradually phased out public
constructed under watershed development programmes) standpipes to reduce unaccounted for water (UfW)
may reduce inflows into reservoirs downstream, a and make consumers pay for water using a progressive
possibility suggested from a study in northern Karnataka tariff structure. BWSSB has made tremendous strides
and which has been a bone of contention between in improving access to private connections through the
the Minor Irrigation Department and the Watershed creation of the Social Development Unit. There has been
Development Department in Karnataka (observed the relaxation of the eligibility criterion to obtain private
by the first author). water connections (Connors 2005) and moves to improve
On the one hand, upstream pumping of groundwater and participation of local residents in local infrastructure
upstream rooftop water harvesting may reduce runoffs planning processes. However, problems persist in
and hence streamflow. At the same time, upstream users peri-urban areas yet to be connected to the piped mains.
also have water requirements that need to be met. Thus, Moreover, political interference has led to reinstallation
of some public fountains.
determining what constitutes fair allocation between
upstream and downstream users is very difficult. Again, Moreover, to our knowledge, no equivalent Social
we resort to examining this question with reference to Development Unit exists in the Class II towns. Likewise in
the recent past. The question of upstream-downstream rural areas, the location of the public standpipe or pipes
water allocation has not received much attention within may effectively exclude marginalised communities living
the Arkavathy basin, although the possibility of upstream on the periphery of the village, who must walk a much
pumping or diversions resulting in declining inflows into greater distance to get water.
19
Water supply differences: Recent pro-poor efforts by poor are affected because borewell-based hand pumps,
BWSSB have greatly improved affordability of water within which require a shallow water table, dry up first.
Bengaluru. Slum dwellers now get water at a monthly tariff
of Rs. 48 for the first 8 kL of water, a sum affordable by 3.4
a large proportion of slum dwellers, who otherwise used Knowledge gaps
to pay much more to private vendors (Grönwall 2008).
Although BWSSB has made major strides in improving 1. At a conceptual level, there is little debate and clarity
access to water in slums, these efforts have been largely on what constitutes fair or unfair allocation across
limited to expanding metered private connections in sectors, or between upstream and downstream users.
slums. The recent Excreta Matters Report from Centre There is no formal system of water rights, and the
for Science and Environment (CSE) clearly demonstrates National Water Policy gives priority to domestic needs
that distribution of water remains highly inequitable (CSE without clarifying what agriculture or industry might
2012) with some areas receiving much more water than be entitled to. Thus, the development of a water rights
others in LPCD terms. The Bangalore Urban Metabolism structure is in itself a major need at this juncture.
Project7 suggests that LPCD delivered varies by as much as 2. The lack of knowledge about the relationship
50 and 290 LPCD across wards. Infrastructure disparities, between upstream groundwater pumping and
wasteful behaviour on the part of consumers, and political changing inflows into tanks or rivers downstream
interference, all contribute to disparities in the quantities remains a major knowledge gap.
delivered. Some neighbourhoods receive too much while
3. To what extent agricultural or industrial pumping is
others get very little and these inequities are ‘hard-wired’
affecting domestic water availability (both in rural
into the infrastructure.
and urban areas) is quite unclear. Equally unclear
The location and size of trunk mains and valves often is whether and why some industrial pockets are
favour wealthier paying customers. However, even within receiving Cauvery water while surrounding dwellings
slum communities, there are significant disparities arising are not.
from political interference in operating valves (BWSSB,
4. There are no studies that evaluate trade-offs
Pers. Comm. 2012). Households with illegal connections
between the direct use and aesthetic functions
and public taps located in a favourable zone (close to
of urban water bodies.
a pumping station) have an advantage but also lack the
incentive to conserve. They leave their taps open and ‘use 5. The absence of disaggregated information on water
up’ all the water even as others do not get water. supply within villages and city wards means that there
is limited understanding (beyond individual case
Private coping: Apart from differences in the way
studies) of the extent of variation in water availability
infrastructure is developed and operated, poor
to domestic users.
communities use less water because they have less
ability to invest in private water infrastructure. Wealthier
consumers typically have in-house piped connections.
Moreover, they can install sumps, overhead tanks, and
water purifiers which enable them to store and treat water
and thus overcome the unreliable intermittent supply.
These private coping investments allow such consumers
to convert their piped supply to an effective 24/7, high
quality supply and thus capture a greater fraction of the
supply. In contrast, slum dwellers must collect water from
public taps during the hours it is available. Even slum
dwellers who have private connections can typically only
afford a rudimentary tap outside their houses; and in most
cases water is supplied only once or twice a fortnight
and the pressure is very low (Grönwall 2008). Poorer
consumers must thus wait for water, and carry it back.
If supply is infrequent, in dry years, these differences
may be exaggerated as poorer households have less
ability to dig deeper wells, store water or purchase water
from tankers when public supply is curtailed. Often the
7
http://www.urbanmetabolism.in/bump/
20
4
SUSTAINABILITY
AND RESILIENCE
OF SUPPLY
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
questions.
Year
8
There is also the question of resilience against floods, but we have not looked at that aspect here.
21
In response to the findings of the ISRO study, some was passed in 2011.12 A Groundwater Authority has been
measures have been put in place to halt and reverse the constituted under this Act, but its rules are yet to be
decline of TG Halli reservoir. A 2003 notification9 by the notified. To date, the Authority has met only once and
government aims to create a protection zone of 10 km its monitoring and implementation mechanisms have not
around TG Halli reservoir and implement measures to been finalised. Indiscriminate digging of borewells and
prevent impediments to the flow of water along Arkavathy pumping of groundwater continue unabated.
River. The notification also divides the area into four zones
A glimmer of hope arises from the few voluntary efforts
specifying regulated activities and the agencies in charge
at the community level. These have managed to set
of regulation. The agencies include BWSSB, Bangalore
norms where formal legislations and institutions failed.
Development Authority, Nelamangala Planning Authority,
For instance, when the community in Doddatumkuru
Department of Urban Development and Directorate of
village off Doddaballapur road found that groundwater
Municipal Administration. There is no information on how
levels were decreasing, they decided to voluntarily
well these measures have been implemented. However,
terminate private water connections and instead set up
it is clear that despite these measures, TG Halli reservoir
common pipes in the village centre (field observation,
remains filled far below capacity.
6 June 2012).
In addition, there have been several civil society
Energy/fiscal unsustainability: The argument against
initiatives aiming at river rejuvenation, including some
increasing pumping from the Cauvery is partly
led by NGOs, prominently SVARAJ, and some in the form
environmental (energy consumption) and partly fiscal
of network of interest/issue-based groups such as the
(cost). However, as yet, there is limited acceptance
Save Arkavathy Campaign and Arkavathy Kumudavathy
of the environmental or scarce resource argument.
Punarchetana Samithi.
It appears that ‘Bengaluru’s domestic water need’ is
They have been instrumental in influencing government an argument that trumps everything, even though in
decisions on Arkavathy rejuvenation. Consequently, reality a significant amount of Cauvery water is used
the state government recently launched an Arkavathy for non-domestic purposes (gardening, government
Rejuvenation Initiative in which Rs. 22.43 crore has institutions and even commercial establishments). The
been sanctioned to revive the Arkavathy, to address the fiscal argument has also been highlighted, and analysts
requirements of Bengaluru, as well as provide for the have argued for more decentralised solutions that would
irrigation needs of farmers.10 Details of this initiative harvest rainwater and store it in lakes (CSE 2012; Suresh
are still emerging. The current focus appears to be on 2001). However, the political power of a state capital
de-silting, redirecting wastewater away from tank, and might make it impervious to fiscal constraints as well.
clearing encroachments in the inlets and outlets of
Limits to water imports: The Cauvery Water Disputes
water bodies.11 The activities undertaken as part of this
Tribunal award: The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
initiative do not directly address wider problems of
(CWDT) has determined the utilisable waters of the
upstream groundwater depletion, or plantations; so, it is
Cauvery to be 740 TMC in a normal year, on the basis
thus not clear how effective this initiative will be.
of 50% dependability (CWDT 2007). The water is
Groundwater depletion: Observers of the Bengaluru apportioned as follows: 270 TMC to Karnataka and
water situation, such as S. Vishwanath, note that “there 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu, 30 TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC
is no institutional ‘owner’ or ‘manager’ of Bengaluru’s to Pondicherry. The tribunal also allows a small quantity
groundwater”. The Citizens’ Seventh Report on the State of water (14 TMC) for environmental protection and
of India’s Environment by CSE (2012) that surveyed ‘inevitable escapages (sic) into the sea’. The allocation
water supply and sewage management across 71 cities in is to be enforced in 10-day intervals based on readings
India, including Bengaluru, affirms this point. The central at specified measurement points. At present, Bengaluru’s
and state groundwater boards do not play a major role share of the Cauvery is capped at 14.52 TMC, with the
in a city’s water supply; in fact, there is a tendency for assumption that 80% of this will come back to the
water utilities to ignore private groundwater abstraction Cauvery as return flow (CWDT 2007: Volume V, Page 102).
altogether. In addition to ecological unsustainability
There are therefore several concerns and grey areas.
of groundwater overdraft, Raju et al. (2008) point out
that there is also huge fiscal inefficiency involved in all First, Bengaluru may hit the limit of this allocation very
houses installing their own borewells and pumpsets soon: Cauvery Stages 1–4 withdraw 11 TMC; the newly
rather than having (say) ward-level community borewells proposed Cauvery Stage IV – Phase 2, would bring the
and pumps. The Karnataka Groundwater Regulation Act withdrawal to 17 TMC, which is well over what is allowed.
9
http://www.npa.in/not31.htm (accessed on 18 October 2012)
10
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore /article3541875.ece (accessed on 18 October 2012)
11
http://www.dnaindia.com/Bangalore /report_arkavathy-rejuvenation-work-will-begin-in-may_1520112 (accessed on 31 October 2012)
12
http://khanija.kar.ncode.in/DCPublication/Karnataka%20Ground%20Water%20Act%202011_English.pdf
23
Second, although the Tribunal’s Report has upheld the become more and more pressing as increased climatic
principle that drinking water must get priority over fluctuations create more frequent or more intense
other beneficial uses of the Cauvery water, it is not droughts. In 2012, even minimum releases to Tamil Nadu
clear how this principle is to be enforced once the meant significant irrigation cutbacks for Mandya district
water is abstracted. farmers, who then directed some of their ire at Bengaluru
and BWSSB, because Bengaluru’s allocation did not
Third, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award is
change. We are not aware of any contingency plans by
unclear on how shortages will be shared in drought
BWSSB for a situation where Bengaluru’s allocation of
years. The CWDT specifies that should the yield of the
Cauvery water is also (say) proportionately reduced in a
river be less in a distress year, the allocated shares are
drought year.
to be ‘proportionately reduced’ among the four riparian
parties. Apart from unclear implementation of this
concept at the inter-state level, there is a question of
4.6
how distress sharing is to be implemented within the Knowledge gaps
state. For instance, farmers in Mandya have agitated 1. The causes of declining flows in the Arkavathy and
this year to express that the releases to Tamil Nadu TG Halli are yet to be fully understood. There is no
should come out of Bengaluru’s share. The same is true scientific consensus on which of the alternative
of sharing between Bengaluru and other towns such as explanations is dominant.
Kanakapura and Ramanagara that already draw from
2. The sustainability of groundwater extraction in
Bengaluru’s share: as they grow, they will demand more
Bengaluru and elsewhere in the sub-basin has not
water and enter into conflict with Bengaluru residents.
been understood, beyond the obvious observation of
Fourth, there is no control on the quality of water that is dropping groundwater levels. It is not clear whether
being returned to the Cauvery from Bengaluru (primarily and how much water is being pumped from the
through the Vrishabhavathy), nor is there really any shallow aquifer versus the deeper aquifer, what the
monitoring of whether 80% is going back. Moreover, connectivity between these two (or more) aquifers is,
current return flow includes water pumped from deep and therefore what the recharge rate of the deeper
groundwater aquifers and used in homes. If this pumping aquifer is or whether borewells are simply ‘mining’
is unsustainable, and a sustainability norm is eventually millennia-old aquifers.
enforced, the return flow would reduce.
3. Several uncertainties and ambiguities remain in
Finally, the interactions between surface and the CWDT Award that require greater analysis and
groundwater have been treated in an inconsistent clarification.
manner in the CWDT award. The CWDT explicitly
recognises the groundwater-surface water link only in
the context of the Cauvery delta, where it notes ’as the
groundwater in the delta area is replenished by releases
from the Mettur, it cannot be considered to be an
independent source of irrigation or an alternative means
of irrigation’ (CWDT: Volume III, Chapter 3). However, the
tribunal does not appear to consider the possibility of
upstream groundwater extraction affecting stream flows.
Indeed, groundwater use elsewhere in the basin is not
considered at all. The apportioning formula is applied to
each year’s yield, as measured by net flows at specified
river gauging stations. However, in fact, groundwater
pumping and utilisation in the river basin is continuously
increasing, which should result in continuous declines in
the surface flows even with no change in rainfall. If the
CWDT factors this into the apportionment, the allocation
to Bengaluru may decline further (as Bengaluru will be
seen to have already used up some of its share through
groundwater pumping).
Resilience to drought years: There is no systematised
plan for drought years. The CWDT has also not clearly
stated how allocations will change in drought years.
However, the events of 2012 suggest that this issue will
24
5
WATER QUALITY
ISSUES IN THE
ARKAVATHY
SUB-BASIN
pH 6.5–8.5
Irrigation use EC < 2250 µmhos/cm
SAR < 26, FC < 1000 MPN/100 mL
Free from toxic heavy metals
pH 6.0–8.5
Industrial use EC < 2250 µmhos/cm
SAR < 26
stages, thereby meeting drinking water standards when as high as 319 mg/L were observed in the groundwater
it enters the city supply system (BWSSB 2009). However, samples collected downstream of Byramangala tank
it may get biologically re-contaminated by leaks, build- (Singh et al. 2009).
up of organisms inside pipes that are only intermittently
supplying water, or storage in underground sumps that The ASHWAS survey (ashwas.indiawaterportal.org)
have not been regularly cleaned. On the other hand, included measurement of nitrate levels in hand pump
groundwater-based supply faces chances of both and bore-well water samples from Ramanagara and
chemical and biological contamination. We therefore Bangalore Rural districts. These data are summarised
discuss chemical quality for groundwater supply/users in Table 5. Nitrate levels in all the water samples from
only, and biological quality for both types of water Bangalore Rural district were below the permissible
supply situations. value; whereas in Ramanagara district, the nitrate levels
in hand pump water and borewell water exceeded
5.1.1 permissible limits. This is consistent with the results of
Chemical quality the NRDWP data mentioned above.
Table 4: Groundwater nitrate levels in taluka While heavy use of fertilisers in agriculture is the
major source of nitrate contamination, its presence in
groundwater may come about due to either recharge of
Taluka Nitrates (mg/L)
groundwater by irrigation runoff/return flows/irrigation
Permissible limit – 45 mg/L
tanks containing such runoff. However, it is also possible
Anekal 4–94 that some nitrate contamination comes from sewage
leaking from soak-pits or sewage lines into the
Bangalore North 7.3–153 groundwater.
Bangalore South 20–176 Heavy metals (Permissible limit – Cr6+: 0.05 mg/L and
Doddaballapur 1–168 Al3+: 0.03 mg/L): Various monitoring studies have been
conducted to assess the heavy metal content in the
Kanakapura 0.88–235
groundwater in and around Bengaluru. Singh et al. (2010)
Magadi 5–124 conducted a groundwater quality monitoring study to
7–140 assess the impact of industrialisation on groundwater
Nelamangala
aquifer in Bangalore Urban district, collecting and analysing
Ramanagara 1–113 groundwater samples for heavy metals.
Comparison between presence, abundance and
frequencies of trace elements in groundwater samples
To get a more detailed picture, we have plotted the
was in the order of Fe (0.084) > Zn (0.072) > Mn (0.068)
results of the water quality survey conducted by the
> Pb (0.045) >Cu (0.041) > Cr (0.035) > Ni (0.033) > Cd
National Rural Drinking Water Programme in the map in
(0.021). The TDS, Pb, Fe, Mn and Cd concentrations in
Figure 7. It shows that villages located in Ramanagara,
groundwater samples were beyond the permissible
Magadi, Nelamangala and Doddaballapur taluka are
limits prescribed by World Health Organization (WHO).
affected by nitrate pollution (upstream and midstream
section of watershed). It also shows a cluster of villages Two studies (Ramesh et al. 2012; Shashirekha 2009)
located downstream of Byramangala tank being monitored the level of pollution in groundwater of the
affected by nitrate pollution, which is not surprising, Peenya industrial area in the northern Arkavathy basin.
given that this tank is situated on the highly polluted The studies found Cr6+ levels of 16.1 mg/L and 33 mg/L
Vrishabhavathy River. In another study also, nitrate levels in groundwater samples, respectively. High levels of Al3+
26
Arkavathy catchment
Village boundary
Taluk boundary
Lakes
Streams
Nitrates presence
0 5 10 20
Yes
No Kilometres
No data
Figure 7: Locations of higher-than-permissible nitrate levels in drinking water supply in rural parts of Arkavathy
sub-basin (Data source: NRDWP. Map prepared by ATREE Ecoinformatics Lab)
Anekal 0–364 — —
5.1.3
* Qualitative monitoring (presence/absence FC test)
Domestic water quality hotspots
by ASHWAS (ashwas.indiawaterportal.org)
ND = No data available The above findings about the water quality hotspots are
summarised in Table 7.
The studies cite the following reasons for presence of
Table 7: Domestic water quality hotspots in the Arkavathy
FCs in groundwater:
sub-basin
Groundwater recharge by contaminated lake water
Taluka Contaminant concentration (mg/L)
Lack of proper sanitation facilities
Nitrates Heavy metals Faecal
Non-point sources of pollution (open defecation)
Cr6+/Al3+ coliforms
Piped water supply: A recent study conducted by Centre Anekal 4–94 ND 0–364
for Sustainable Development (CSD 2012) found that the
Bangalore North 7.3–153 Cr = 16–32
6+
0–88
quality of groundwater and surface water in Bangalore
urban area is not fit for human consumption. Despite water Bangalore South 20–176 Cr = 16–32
6+
0–88
treatment, the level of FCs in piped water samples exceeds Doddaballapur 1–168 Al = 35
3+
0–300
permissible levels in Bangalore Urban district (Figure 8). 0.88–235 ND Present
Kanakapura
The following reasons have been cited for poor biological Nelamangala 7–140 ND ND
quality of piped supply. Ramanagara 1–113 ND Present
5.2
Irrigation water quality
According to irrigation water quality standards, high
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) ratio in irrigation water
negatively impacts soil fertility (SAR>26). In addition,
28
presence of heavy metals and FCs is known to have Villagers in Veerapur village, located downstream of
significant health impacts. The farmers in the upstream Doddaballapur town, experienced poor water quality in
of Arkavathy sub-basin depend entirely on groundwater the irrigation tank due to wastewater discharges from
to meet their irrigation demands. However, the farmers the textile industries located upstream of the tank. The
in the downstream of Byramangala tank use both surface irrigation water quality hotspots in Arkavathy sub-basin
water (from Byramangala tank) and shallow groundwater are summarised in Table 9.
to meet their irrigation demand. According to available
literature, groundwater quality in the Arkavathy sub-basin Table 9: Irrigation water quality hotspots
largely meets the prescribed irrigation water quality
standards. So, we focus here on the quality of surface Taluka Concentration* (mg/L)
water used for irrigation.
Heavy metals Faecal coliforms
Faecal coliforms : Monitoring studies conducted in the
Doddaballapur ND Yes *
Arkavathy sub-basin indicates the presence of FCs in water
samples both from Byramangala tank and Arkavathy River Kanakapura 0.03–0.04 0–5000
downstream of Kanakapura town (CPCB 2012; Prakash Ramanagara ND Yes *
and Somashekar 2006; Singh et al. 2009). According
to CPCB guidelines, if the water is used for restricted Permissible limit Cr6+(0.008 mg/L) 1000 MPN/100 mL
irrigation, FC levels should not be greater than 100,000
ND – No data available
MPN/100 mL and, if used for unrestricted irrigation,
* Information gathered during preliminary field visit
FC levels should not be greater than 1,000 MPN/100 mL.
FC levels greater than 1,000 MPN/100 mL in Arkavathy
River indicates that the water is not suitable for
unrestricted irrigation (CPCB 2012) and thereby poses 5.3
risk to public health. Discharge of treated and untreated Aquatic life and ecosystem services
domestic wastewater into the Vrishabhavathy was
Aquatic life typically occurs in two kinds of water
identified as the main reason of faecal contamination.
bodies: flowing rivers and lakes/reservoirs. In the
Heavy metals: Heavy metals in surface water enter the Arkavathy sub-basin, the Arkavathy itself, although once
food chain through irrigation, thereby causing a risk to a perennial river, now flows primarily during monsoon
public health. In addition, continued exposure to heavy season in many reaches, till it is augmented by the
metals, especially chromium could result in allergic Vrishabhavathy and Suvarnamukhi. On the other hand,
dermatitis (skin reactions). A water quality guideline for the Vrishabhavathy has become fully perennial because
Cr6+ of 0.008 mg/L in irrigation water is recommended for it carries the ‘return flow’ of Cauvery water in the form of
the protection of agricultural crop species (CCME 1999). Bengaluru’s effluents. As a result, it is a highly polluted
Table 8 summarises the levels of heavy metals detected water body, as shown by several studies. The water
in the water samples from Vrishabhavathy river, Bellandur quality of Vrishabhavathy River, upstream of the Peenya
lake and groundwater samples in Vrishabhavathy Valley. Industrial estate is good, classified as Category A (CPCB)
The heavy metal levels in surface water (Vrishabhavathy with maximum DO levels of 7 mg/L. As the river flows
river, lakes) as well as in the groundwater samples through the city, its DO levels fall to 0 mg/L (Ahipathy
exceeded the irrigation water quality standards, thereby and Puttaiah 2006). The authors reported high BOD (37
posing greater health risk to public. to 737 mg/L) and COD (125 to 1451 mg/L) values along
Vrishabhavathy River. The river water quality in the Poor water quality in the sub-basin has also been shown
midstream and downstream reaches belongs to Category to have adverse health impacts on the urban population.
E and is unable to support any form of aquatic life. A study (Ahipathy and Puttaiah 2007) was conducted
on the impacts of toxicity of Vrishabhavathy river water
On the other hand, the Suvarnamukhi and Doddahalla
and sediments on growth of crops and vegetables such
tributaries contribute much cleaner water to the Arkavathy,
as French beans. The analysis (summarised in Table 8)
as they flow through rural areas. No studies are available
showed that the heavy metal content in plant leaves
on the exact level of water quality in these tributaries.
and beans were above detectable limits, but less
Nevertheless, after these tributaries join the Arkavathy,
than permissible limits and therefore safe for human
the pollution from the Vrishabhavathy gets diluted
consumption at the time of the study (Ahipathy and
(also because most of it is trapped in the Byramangala
Puttaiah 2007). However, a similar study on Bellandur
reservoir), but again it is not clear what the water quality
Lake, found that the vegetables, fodder, etc. irrigated by
is, south of Kanakapura town. In short, while aquatic
lake water contaminated with industrial and domestic
life is drastically curtailed in the Arkavathy (western
pollution contained heavy metals that exceeded
arm) because of water scarcity, and destroyed by heavy
permissible levels. Heavy metals such as Fe, Zn and Cd
pollution in the Vrishabhavathy, some aquatic life exists
levels were also detected in cow’s milk from the impacted
in areas downstream of Kanakapura town.
area (Lokeshwari and Chandrappa 2006).
In the case of standing water bodies, i.e., irrigation
In the absence of controls, however, the quantitative
tanks and urban lakes, several studies show that the
estimates of impact may be somewhat unreliable, but that
latter (primarily those within Bengaluru city) have
there is a negative impact is incontrovertible.
been contaminated by sewage. Consequently, aquatic
and bird/reptile life forms have surely been affected,
although no studies seem to exist on the extent of impact 5.5
of such pollution. Institutional analysis and individual
coping responses
5.4 In this section, we discuss responses of formal institutions
Health and economic impacts and individuals to water quality problems.
of poor water quality Formal responses: The KSPCB is the main agency
It would be natural to assume that the extensive water responsible for maintaining environmental water
quality problems documented above have led to significant quality. However, part of the pollution problem stems
health, economic and social impacts. However, these linkages from lacunae in institutional jurisdictions. We identify
are poorly documented or understood. three: first, KPSCB can only enforce effluent quality
standards if a manufacturing unit is registered with it or
One of the few epidemiological studies in Bengaluru
the unit comes to KSPCB’s notice in some way. Second,
(Jadhav and Gopinath 2010) points to the complexities
KSPCB’s powers over public water utilities are limited.
of linking water quality to health, due to other
It can only enforce effluent water quality released from
complicating factors. But rigorous epidemiological
wastewater treatment plants; but cannot easily address
studies, particularly in rural areas, seem to be completely
dumping of untreated sewage due to inadequate
absent. However, two hotspots were clearly identifiable
infrastructure. Third, KSPCB’s focus has tended to be
from field visits: areas downstream of Doddaballapur
on surface water. Groundwater studies have been done
town and Byramangala reservoir. Additionally, one study
for specific neighbourhoods, but groundwater is not
of water pollution in the Byramangala command area
systematically monitored.
(Nagaraj and Chandrashekar 2005) suggests significant
impacts. First, crop yields are reported to be much lower For registered units, KSPCB staff sample effluents and
than earlier (62% less for paddy and 47% for sugarcane), can order the plant shut if pollution levels are exceeded.
the paddy straw is not palatable, and the rice fetches Typically, a unit needs to get registered with KSPCB to get
a 20% lower price. Second, farm workers exposed to an electricity connection. Often industries will approach
direct contact with the polluted water reported several them for clearance certificate, at the time of regularisation.
health problems, including dermatitis, skin rashes and If the industry has a zoning violation (e.g., they have
gastrointestinal problems. Women were doubly affected existed for 20 years, informally in a zone which is
as they had to (on average) walk for 1.5 km and spend residential or has recently become residential), KSPCB can
2 hours fetching potable water. Third, since the livestock force them to relocate to an industrial park, which would
consumed contaminated water, the quality of milk then have a better effluent treatment facility. The problem
declined – consumers complained of odour and quick is that some units never trigger the ‘power connection
spoiling. Bullocks, cows and buffaloes reportedly suffered clearance’. In the instance of cottage industries, which
from dehydration, skin irritation and oedema. do not require a separate power connection, the case
30
6
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
Acknowledgements
References
Ahipathy, M. V. and E. T. Puttaiah. 2006. Ecological governance in Bengaluru’s public water sector. Environment
characteristics of Vrishabhavathy River in Bengaluru (India). and Urbanization 17 (1): 201-217.
Environmental Geology 49: 1217-1222.
CPCB. 2012. CPCB Water quality criteria. New Delhi: Central
Ahipathy, M. V. and E. T. Puttaiah. 2007. Toxicity of Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and
Vrishabhavathy river water and sediment to the growth of Forests, Government of India. http://cpcb.nic.in/Water_
Phaseolus vulgaris (french beans). Journal of Applied Sciences Quality_Criteria.php. Accessed on 13 February, 2013.
and Environmental Management 11 (1): 17-26.
CSD. 2012. Environment report card of Bangalore. Bengaluru:
Anantha, H. and K. V. Raju. 2010. Groundwater depletion Centre for Sustainable Development. Also available at
and coping strategies of farming communities in hard rock http://www.csdindia.in/images/downloads/ERC-Report.pdf
areas of southern peninsular India. Asia-Pacific Development
CSE. 2012. Excreta Matters. New Delhi: Centre for Science
Journal 17 (2): 119-144.
and Environment.
Arghyam. 2009. ASHWAS: A Survey of Household Water and
CWDT. 2007. The report of the Cauvery water disputes
Sanitation. Study report. Bengaluru: Arghyam Trust. Also
tribunal: Volumes I to V. New Delhi: Cauvery Water Disputes
available at http://ashwas.indiawaterportal.org/downloads/
Tribunal, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.
state/report.pdf
Also available at http://wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?subsublinki
BCCI-K. 2011. Karnataka climate change action plan. Report d=376&langid=1&sslid=393
submitted to GoK. Bengaluru: Bangalore Climate Change
D’Souza, R. and H. Nagendra. 2011. Changes in public
Initiative – Karnataka. Also available at http://www.cstep.in/
commons as a consequence of urbanization: The Agara
node/260
Lake in Bangalore, India. Environmental Management 47
Anonymous. 2009. Domestic water quality. A Bangalore (5): 840-850.
Water Supply and Sewerage Board presentation. http://
DMG. 2011. Groundwater hydrology and groundwater
www.slideshare.net/sanban14/bangalores-water-supply-
quality in and around Bangalore city. Bengaluru: Department
situation-bwssb. Accessed on 1 March 2013.
of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka. Also
CCME. 1999. Canadian environmental quality guidelines. available at http://www.indiawaterportal.org/taxonomy/9/
Hull, QC, Canada: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Department-of-Mines-and-Geology-(Government-of-
Environment. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/. Accessed on 30 Karnataka)
October 2012.
Dominic, D. 2002. The Arkavati sub basin in Karnataka:
Connors, G. 2005. When utilities muddle through: Pro-poor Industrial pollution versus rural livelihood systems. In:
34
Water conflicts in India: A million revolts in the making. Working paper 07-01. Also available at http://www.niua.
(eds. K. J. Joy, Suhas Paranjape, Biksham Gujja, Vinod Goud org/Publications/working_papers/N&S%20working%20
and Shruti Vispute ). Pp. 171-175. New Delhi: Routledge. paper.pdf
Feedback Ventures. 2009a. Capital investment plan: McKenzie, D. and I. Ray. 2009. Urban water supply
Kanakapura TMC. Karnataka Municipal Reforms Project. in India: Status, reform options and possible lessons. Water
Bengaluru: Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Policy 11 (4): 442-460.
and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC). Also available
Murthy, S. D. 2011. Status of ground water management
at http://www.kuidfc.com/WEBSITE/WebPage.nsf/
in Bangalore. In: Bengaluru – Water problems of the fastest
f37b2300a8f98a4d65256e2a002623ee/c4c04105e5f9d6
growing city of India (ed. Anonymous). Pp. 104-116.
a3652576b800427047/$FILE/Kanakapura.pdf
Bengaluru: Geological Society of India.
Feedback Ventures. 2009b. Infrastructure development
Nagaraj, N. and H. Chandrashekar. 2005. Designing
and investment plan in Nelamangala town. Bengaluru:
methodologies for evaluation of economic and environmental
Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance
implications of groundwater depletion and quality
Corporation (KUIDFC). Also available at http://www.kuidfc.
degradation effects: A study in Karnataka peninsular India
com/website/webpage.nsf/b6c681c02f07751f65256e93
water institutions and sustainable use. Environmental
001f37f0/703550d3af90f7ac6525785a0034699a/$FILE/
Economics Research Committtee Working Paper Series
Nelamangala.pdf
WIS-4. Also available at http://coe.mse.ac.in/eercrep/
fullrep/wis/WIS_FR_Nagaraj.pdf
Feedback Ventures. 2009c. Social and environmental
assessment of the underground drainage system in Prakash, K. L. and R. K. Somashekar. 2006. Groundwater
Doddaballapur town. Bengaluru: Karnataka Urban quality assessment of Anekal taluk, Bangalore Urban district.
Infrastructure Development and Finance Indian Journal of Environmental Biology 27 (4): 633-637.
Corporation (KUIDFC). Also available at Raju, K. V., S. Manasi and N. Latha. 2008. Emerging ground
http://www.kuidfc.com/WEBSITE/WebPage.nsf/ water crisis in urban areas – A case study of Ward No. 39,
f37b2300a8f98a4d65256e2a002623ee/c13c534f08546a Bangalore City. Bengaluru: Institute for Social and Economic
56652578c30023ccb4/$FILE/Doddaballapur%20SEA%20 Change Working Paper 196.
report.pdf
Raju, K. V., Veerashekarappa, S. Manasi and K. Rajeev. 2004.
GoK. 2002. Karnataka state water policy. Bengaluru: Rural water supply in Karnataka: Moving towards organised
Government of Karnataka. http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/ complexity. An ecological-governance approach. Institute for
state_water_policy-2002.htm. Accessed on March 1 2013. Social and Economic Change.
Grönwall, J. T. 2008. Access to water: rights, obligations Ramesh, A., B. S. Nagendra Prakash, P. V. Sivapullaiaih and
and the Bengaluru situation. Thesis. Linköping, Sweden: A. S. Sadhashivaiah. 2012. Assessment of groundwater
Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping quality in designated Peenya industrial area and estate,
University. Also available at http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=ur Bengaluru, India – A case study. International Journal of
n:nbn:se:liu:diva-11686 Environmental Protection 2 (6): 21-25.
ISRO and IN-RIMT. 2000. Reduced inflow into Shankar, B. S., N. Balasubramanya and M. T. Maruthesha
Tippagondanahalli Reservoir (TGR): A remote sensing based Reddy. 2008. Hydrochemical assessment of the pollutants
evaluation. Technical report for Bangalore Metropolitan in groundwaters of Vrishabhavathi valley basin in Bengaluru
Region Development Authority. Bengaluru: ISRO/ IN-RIMT. (India). Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 50
Jadhav, J. and D. Gopinath. 2010. Bacteriological quality of (2): 97-102.
water and water-borne diseases in Bengaluru. Australasian Shashirekha. 2009. Water quality studies in Arkavathy basin.
Medical Journal 3 (12): 803-807. In: Proceedings of action plan workshop for rejuvenation
Lokeshwari, H. and T. G. Chandrappa. 2006. Impact of heavy and sustenance of Arkavathi river basin held at Bengaluru.
metal contamination of Bellandur lake on soil and cultivated Organized by Global Academy of Technology and
vegetation. Current Science 91 (5): 622-627. Geological Society of India. Also available at http://www.
indiawaterportal.org/node/9988
Mathur, M. P., R. Chandra, S. Singh and B. Chattopadhyay.
2007. Norms and standards of municipal basic services Sinclair Knight Merz and EGIS Consulting Australia. 2001.
in India. New Delhi: National Institute of Urban Affairs Greater Bangalore water resources study Part 2: Assessment
35
www.atree.org