Resource Recovery and Reuse Series - Issue 8

RESOURCE RECOVERY & REUSE SERIES 8
Recycling and Reuse of Treated Wastewater in

8 Urban India
A Proposed Advisory and Guidance Document

About the Resource Recovery and Reuse Series
Resource Recovery and Reuse (RRR) is a subprogram of the CGIAR Research

Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) dedicated to applied research on
the safe recovery of water, nutrients and energy from domestic and agro-industrial waste
streams. This subprogram aims to create impact through different lines of action research,
including (i) developing and testing scalable RRR business models, (ii) assessing and
mitigating risks from RRR for public health and the environment, (iii) supporting public and
private entities with innovative approaches for the safe reuse of wastewater and organic
waste, and (iv) improving rural-urban linkages and resource allocations while minimizing
the negative urban footprint on the peri-urban environment. This sub-program works
closely with the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations
University (UNU), and many national and international partners across the globe. The RRR
series of documents present summaries and reviews of the sub-program’s research and
resulting application guidelines, targeting development experts and others in the research
for development continuum.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Science with a human face

Recycling and Reuse of Treated Wastewater

in Urban India
A Proposed Advisory and Guidance Document

The authors
The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) is a multi-donor World Bank. Water and Sanitation Program (WSP);
partnership, part of the World Bank Group’s Water Global International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2016.
Practice, supporting poor people in obtaining affordable, Recycling and reuse of treated wastewater in urban India:
safe and sustainable access to water and sanitation A proposed advisory and guidance document. Colombo,
services. WSP works directly with client governments at Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
the local and national level in 25 countries through regional CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems
offices in Africa, East and South Asia, Latin America and (WLE). 57p. (Resource Recovery and Reuse Series 8). doi:
the Caribbean, and Washington DC. The program places a 10.5337/2016.203
strong focus on capacity building by forming partnerships
with academia, civil society organizations, donors, ISSN 2478-0510
governments, media, private sector and others. e-ISSN 2478-0529
ISBN 978-92-9090-834-0
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is
a non-profit, scientific research organization focusing / wastewater treatment / water reuse / recycling / sewage
on the sustainable use of water and land resources in / urban areas / urban development / policy making /
developing countries. It is headquartered in Colombo, Sri wastewater irrigation / water resources / water supply
Lanka, with regional offices across Asia and Africa. IWMI / freshwater / water demand / groundwater irrigation /
works in partnership with governments, civil society and pumping / sanitation / pollution / economic value / cost
the private sector to develop scalable agricultural water recovery / agriculture / nutrients / industrial uses / fertilizers
management solutions that have a real impact on poverty / greenhouse gases / energy consumption / farm income /
reduction, food security and ecosystem health. IWMI is farmers / India /
a member of CGIAR, a global research partnership for a
food-secure future. Copyright © 2016, CGIAR Research Program on Water,
Land and Ecosystems, International Water Management
Institute (IWMI).
Unless otherwise noted, you are free to copy, duplicate or

reproduce, and distribute, display, or transmit any part of
this paper or portions thereof without permission, and to
make translations, adaptations or other derivative works
under the following conditions:
ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed but not in any

way that suggests endorsement by WLE or the author(s).
NON-COMMERCIAL. This work may not be used for

commercial purposes.
SHARE ALIKE. If this work is altered, transformed, or built

upon, the resulting work must be distributed only under the
same or similar Creative Commons license to this one.
Front cover photograph: Woman working on a farm in Tamil

Nadu, India (photo: Hamish John Appleby/IWMI).
Designer: W. D. A. S. Manike
ii
Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................iv
List of Boxes ....................................................................................................................................................v
List of Appendixes ..........................................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... viii
Advisory and Guidance – Notes for Policy Makers.......................................................................................1
Purpose and Scope..........................................................................................................................................4
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................4
Water Demands by Sectors and the Demand–Supply Gap..............................................................................4
The Growing Urban Sanitation Challenge........................................................................................................6
Recycled Wastewater – an Alternative Water Resource...................................................................................6
Regulatory and Policy Guidance on Wastewater Recycling and Reuse............................................................6
Technological Options and Treatment Levels...................................................................................................7
Economic and Financial Benefits of Wastewater Recycling and Reuse...................................................10
Recycled Wastewater – an Additional, Reliable and Cost Effective Source of Water.......................................11
Wastewater Recycling – Offsetting the Need for Additional Sources of Water..........................................11
Recycled Wastewater – an Affordable and Assured Source of Water for Industries..................................11
Wastewater Recycling to Meet Agricultural Water Demand......................................................................12
Wastewater Recycling in New Urban Growth Areas – Planned Reuse for
Non-potable Requirements.....................................................................................................13
Sale of Recycled Water – a Source of Revenue for Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).............................................13
Valuing the Nutrients Present in Wastewater..................................................................................................14
Economic Value of the Nutrient Load in Wastewater................................................................................14
Reduction in Fertilizer Use on Account of Wastewater Irrigation...............................................................14
Increase in Overall Farm Income Due to Wastewater Irrigation.................................................................14
Reduction in Ground Water Pumping Due to Wastewater Irrigation...............................................................16
iii
Reduction in Energy Requirements Due to Reduced Water Pumping for Irrigation...................................16
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from Use of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation...............................................16
Way Forward ...............................................................................................................................................16
Initiatives at the State Level...........................................................................................................................17
Initiatives at the Utility Level...........................................................................................................................18
References ...............................................................................................................................................20
Appendixes.....................................................................................................................................................22
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cost of supplying water to industries in selected Indian cities...............................................................5
Figure 2. Balancing treatment with recycled wastewater use..............................................................................9
Figure 3. Unit capital cost of treatment for different types of wastewater treatment...........................................10
Figure 4. Financial and economic analysis of wastewater recycling solutions....................................................11
Figure 5. Cost and energy requirements versus P recovery for different recovery options..................................15
Figure A1.1 Current and projected water demands in India...............................................................................22
Figure A3.1. Cost of inadequate sanitation (billion INR).....................................................................................26
Figure A3.2. Sanitation, treatment and access to water in India........................................................................27
Figure A7.1. Water deficit till 2031, accounting for technical losses...................................................................33
Figure A8.1. Revenue comparison for WW recycling and the distant surface water option for
Hyderabad.............................................................................................................................36
Figure A11.1. A generic example of the multiple-barrier approach for consumption-related risks
along the food chain as applied in wastewater irrigation..........................................................45
List of Tables
Table 1. Industrial tariff levied for freshwater in various states/cities...................................................................12
Table 2. Comparison of ground water irrigation and wastewater irrigation potential for different
crop season...........................................................................................................................16
Table A1.1. Water consumption in the industrial sector in India ....................................................................... 23
iv
Table A2.1. Indian city water source..................................................................................................................24
Table A4.1. Classification of water reuse applications .......................................................................................28
Table A7.1. Total water demand estimates for Hyderabad till 2031...................................................................33
Table A7.2. Water supply situation and wastewater availability for recycling and reuse......................................34
Table A9.1. List of major industrial clusters in India............................................................................................38
Table A9.2. Wastewater generation and potential for industrial reuse................................................................39
Table A9.3. Potential for industrial reuse in Indian states and UTs......................................................................39
Table A10.1. Water quality guidelines for various reuse applications..................................................................40
Table A10.2. Examples of different kinds of hazards associated with municipal wastewater which
are of concern in reuse applications........................................................................................41
Table A10.3. Examples of indicator organisms for human pathogens in wastewater..........................................42
Table A10.4. Removal levels of microorganisms (in log reductions) and chemicals (in %) using
treatment options...................................................................................................................43
Table A10.5. Health-protection control measures and associated pathogen reductions....................................44
Table A13.1. Incremental benefits delivered due to wastewater irrigation in selected cities................................47
List of Boxes
Box 1. Cities sourcing water from distant/expensive sources..............................................................................5
Box 2. The basics of wastewater recycling.........................................................................................................7
Box 3. On-site, decentralized and off-site wastewater treatment systems...........................................................8
Box 4. Decentralized sewage treatment and recycling of water in Auroville, Pondicherry.....................................8
Box 5. Benefits of wastewater recycling to industries........................................................................................12
Box 6. Constraints on financial sustainability of wastewater recycling for agricultural reuse...............................13
Box 7. Phosphorus recovery from wastewater..................................................................................................15
Box A8.1. Bangalore........................................................................................................................................35
Box A8.2. Water supply situation in Chennai.....................................................................................................37
v
List of Appendixes
Appendix 1. Current and Projected Water Demands in India.............................................................................22
Appendix 2. Cities Sourcing Water from Distant Sources..................................................................................24
Appendix 3. Economic Costs of Inadequate Sanitation.....................................................................................26
Appendix 4. International Guiding Frameworks for Wastewater Recycling and Reuse.......................................28
Appendix 5. Implementation Arrangement for Management of Wastewater Treatment Facilities........................29
Appendix 6. International Experience on Wastewater Recycling........................................................................31
Appendix 7. Hyderabad: The Supply-Demand Gap and Using Wastewater Recycling to Meet
the Deficit...............................................................................................................................33
Appendix 8. Comparison of Financial Implications of Options to Augment Water Supply in Cities.....................35
Appendix 9. Potential for Industrial Reuse in India.............................................................................................38
Appendix 10. Health Considerations When Using Recycled and Treated Wastewater.......................................40
Appendix 11. Safe Use of Wastewater for Irrigation without Sufficient Conventional Treatment.........................45
Appendix 12. Examples of Sale of Treated Wastewater to Industries.................................................................46
Appendix 13. Review of Incremental Benefits Delivered Due to Wastewater Irrigation.......................................47
vi
Acknowledgements
The Task Team Leader for supervising the development of to ensure safe water reuse and designed several components
this Advisory Note was Joseph Ravi Kumar. The research of the suggested advisory. IWMI also contributed to the
and drafting team comprised Rajiv Raman and Shubhra discussion on nutrient recovery from wastewater along with
Jain. other inputs throughout the document.
The drafting team appreciates the support provided by The team further appreciates the insights and critique
the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering provided by our reviewers. Reviewers included Rajesh
Organization, Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi, and is Balasubramanian - World Bank, Manzoor Qadir - United
grateful for the data and support provided by the cities of Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and
Hyderabad (HMWSSB), Chennai (CMWSSB) and Bangalore Health (UNU-INWEH), Isabel Blackett - Water and Sanitation
(BWSSB). Program (WSP), Payden and David Sutherland - World
Health Organization (WHO), Somnath Sen - Indian Institute
The team appreciates inputs and advice received from the for Human Settlements (iihs), as well as officials from the
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), especially Ministry of Urban Development.
Dr. Priyanie Amerasinghe, Dr. Pay Drechsel and Krishna
Rao. Researchers from IWMI provided valuable inputs on the Responsibility for any errors or omissions rests with the
health implications of wastewater recycling and approaches drafting team.
vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASP Activated Sludge Process
BCM Billion Cubic Meters
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BWSSB Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CGWB Central Ground Water Board
CMWSSB Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sanitation Board
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization
EPA Environmental Protection Act
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FYP Five Year Plan
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GoI Government of India
HH household
HMWSSB Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sanitation Board
HPEC High Powered Expert Committee
JDA Jaipur Development Authority
JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
kL kilo liter (equivalent to 1 m3)
lpcd liters per capita per day
MGI McKinsey Global Institute
MLD Million liters per day
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MoUD Ministry of Urban Development
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
MWh Mega Watt-hour
NPV Net Present Value
NRCP National River Conservation Plan
NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PC Planning Commission
PPP Public-Private Partnership
RSC Residual Sodium Carbonate
RWH Rain Water Harvest
SAR Sodium Absorption Ratio
SLB Service Level Benchmarking
SPCB State Pollution Control Board
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UASBR Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor
UF Ultra-filtration
ULB Urban Local Body
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UT Union Territory
VGF Viability Gap Funding
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water and Sanitation Program
WSSB Water Supply and Sewerage Board
WWI Wastewater Irrigation
viii
Recycling and reuse of treated wastewater in urban India
Advisory and Guidance – Notes for

Policy Makers
Urban India faces significant challenges in terms of availability Water supply and sanitation infrastructure in urban
of adequate water supply and sanitation infrastructure. India: Urban India is growing rapidly and this poses
Water supply in most cities and towns is often insufficient significant challenges for urban infrastructure and services
to meet the growing demand for water by all economic like water supply, sanitation, solid waste management,
sectors. Wastewater generated in urban India is often wastewater collection and treatment, and drainage.
discharged in the open leading to unhygienic conditions Inadequate sanitation resulting in poor hygienic practices
and environmental pollution. Wastewater treatment and leads to huge economic and social losses for the country.
management, whether on site, decentralized or off site, are WSP (2011) estimated that the total annual economic impact
part of the full sanitation cycle and influence public health of inadequate sanitation in India amounted to a loss of INR
and the environment; it is very important to recognize that 2.4 trillion (USD 53.8 billion) in 2006, which was equivalent to
both central government and state governments must work about 6.4% of India’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006.
together to tackle this issue. Recycling and reuse of treated These losses and economic impacts are disproportionately
wastewater are an important part of the sanitation cycle and borne by the poorer sections of the society due to the lower
critical in an environment of decreasing freshwater availability levels of access to improved sanitation and water supply
and increasing costs for delivering acceptable quality water and relatively more densely populated living conditions.
supply to cities for multiple uses. Recycling and reuse of
treated wastewater reinforce the economic benefits arising Collection, treatment and reuse of municipal wastewater
from the public good of achieving the total sanitation cycle. provides an opportunity for not only environmental
rehabilitation, but also meeting the increasing water needs
This note on wastewater recycling and reuse in urban India of different economic sectors. In addition to recycled
focuses on identifying the economic benefits (and in some wastewater becoming an additional and valuable water
cases the financial benefits too) of wastewater recycling from source, there are opportunities to recover nutrients and
the perspective of public spending. The note also provides energy from wastewater. It is estimated that if 80% of urban
supporting information on the evolution and current practices wastewater could be collected and treated by 2030, there
of wastewater recycling internationally and the international would be a total volume of around 17 billion m3 (BCM) per
and national regulatory and policy frameworks that guide year; an increase of around 400% in the volume of available
wastewater recycling. In the latter context, the document treated wastewater. This 17 BCM of treated wastewater
presents possible strategies for city and state planners and resource, if captured, treated safely and recycled, is
policy makers to initiate the discourse on wastewater recycling equivalent to almost 75% of the projected industrial demand
and reuse in the local milieu for planned forward movement. in 2025 (MoWR 2006) and almost a quarter of the total
projected drinking water requirements in the country.
This document also targets the sanitation situation and the
role of wastewater recycling in the larger cities in India (Class Policy and guidance on wastewater recycling: The concept
I and II cities and towns with populations above 50,000) of wastewater recycling and reuse and the need to include
and focuses on recycling at the end of sewerage systems the same in all water supply and wastewater management
after treatment at sewage treatment plants. Smaller towns programs is recognized by most policy frameworks and
would need to assess the suitability of other wastewater institutions in India. While policy and guiding frameworks
management options which may be more feasible and in India recognize the need for wastewater recycling, little
economically viable. has been done in terms of detailed guidance on treatment
1
standards, types of reuse applications, design and O&M providing a reliable source of water for agriculture.
considerations for the management of wastewater recycling Several countries use treated wastewater to varying
projects and tariff structures for the sale of recycled water degrees to meet agricultural water demand. The
for various applications. However there are national and practice of using treated or untreated wastewater for
international guiding frameworks for wastewater recycling agriculture has also been historically prevalent in India;
and reuse for various applications including the guidance however, there is a need to understand the economic,
provided in the recently revised and updated Manual on environmental, social and health implications of using
Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems (CPHEEO 2013), untreated wastewater and mitigating any deleterious
the WHO’s guidelines, first published in 1989 and revised in effects from its use. In coastal areas, reclaimed
2006 and the USEPA (2012) water reuse guidelines. wastewater (discharged to the sea) is an additional
resource to meet irrigation demand, and in upstream
Selection of technology: The choice of technology to treat locations, use of reclaimed water in agriculture frees up
and recycle domestic wastewater has to be guided by freshwater for domestic and industrial consumption.
the physical constraints as well as the intended use of the In India, the urban wastewater generated (estimated
treated wastewater. Treating wastewater to a quality beyond currently at about 38,000 million liters a day [MLD])
that required for its safe use for a particular application will would provide 14 BCM1 of irrigation water, which could
burden the service provider with higher capital costs and safely irrigate (if treated) an area ranging between 1
higher O&M costs, with not enough revenue realization in the and 3 million hectares (ha), depending on the type
absence of demand for this high quality water. Various studies of crop cultivated and its irrigation requirement. This
have demonstrated that the cost of treating wastewater wastewater irrigation (WWI) potential (taken at 2 million
increases rapidly when advanced treatment systems, such ha) is 44% of the major and medium potential created
as membrane ultra-filtration (UF) and reverse osmosis are and nearly three times the surface water-based minor
included. Such systems should be incorporated into the irrigation potential created in the 10th five year plan
sewage treatment plant (STP) design only after careful and (FYP). This is also significant when considering our
detailed assessment of the local recycled water demand national circumstances as 70% of India’s population
and cost recovery mechanisms. Given the significant impact relies on agriculture for sustenance and agriculture,
of the chosen treatment technology on the overall cost of and is heavily reliant on rain-fed irrigation in large parts
the project, at both the construction stage and throughout of the country.
the operational life of an STP, it is important to consider all
funding and revenue options when planning and designing B. Source of revenue for utilities
the wastewater treatment facility. Utilities, with well-functioning STPs, are in a position
to sell the treated effluent to industrial customers
Benefits of wastewater recycling: Many cities in India depending on the need and availability of other water
encourage wastewater recycling but, with few exceptions, sources. Utilities may charge these industrial customers
there are no clear incentives or mandate from the respective for this recycled wastewater based on the required level
metropolitan administrations for wastewater recycling. of treatment provided and quality of wastewater. Being
There is a natural advantage to wastewater recycling, and industrial customers, it is possible to charge these
this note discusses this in detail. Some of the key benefits of customers the actual cost incurred for the treatment
wastewater recycling are summarized below. and provision of water, allowing the utility to recover a
significant share of O&M costs. Revenue from sale of
A. Recycled wastewater: an additional source of water secondary treated wastewater can cover the O&M costs
1. Recycled wastewater and its allocation to industrial of STPs. It is desirable therefore, that cities, whenever
customers frees up freshwater hitherto used, which possible, should promote the use and sale of recycled
could be reallocated to other users with greater net wastewater to industrial customers, even making this
benefits. This option is less expensive compared to practice mandatory through changes in state/local
other options to augment existing water supplies from regulations. By 2030, treated wastewater from Class I
distant water sources or expensive treatment such as and II cities2 has the potential to meet about a quarter of
desalination. the current industrial water demand (17 BCM including
2. Use of treated wastewater can provide industries with the water demand for energy production in the country).
a reliable source of water supply, and in most cases, a
supply that is cheaper than freshwater. This can result C. Nutrient recycling through wastewater recycling
in significant cost savings for industrial enterprises In addition to being a water resource, wastewater also
given that the water tariffs for industrial use are steep contains valuable nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and
and rising consistently. potassium [NPK], among others), which aid in crop growth
3. Recycled wastewater also plays an important role in and could reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers in India
1
BCM – billion cubic meters (1,000 million cubic meters).
2
Class I cities are cities with populations above 100,000; Class II cities are cities with populations between 50,000 and 100,000.
2
by up to 40% (Minhas 2002; Silva and Scott 2002; Kaur et ensure financial viability, follow water allocation rules and
al. 2012). Wastewater, a valuable source of plant nutrients, support peri-urban agriculture. The predominant options for
needs to be viewed as an economic resource by the recycling of treated wastewater include reuse by industries or
planning authorities at national, state and local levels. reuse in agriculture. While the benefits of both these options
are substantial, the cost recovery of the O&M costs of the
1. Several studies have estimated the daily nutrient STP through these two recycling options is very different.
potential in wastewater in the range of 0.054-0.073 While revenue generated from industrial reuse is adequate
tonnes MLD-1 (adapted from Minhas 2002; Silva and to meet the O&M expenses, agricultural reuse generates
Scott 2002; CPCB 2009a; WII 2006). Thus, the total negligible revenue for utilities. It may be desirable to promote
wastewater generated from Class I and II cities in industrial reuse in all cities in a state, however this reuse
India has an estimated nutrient load of about 2,500 may be limited by the availability of industrial customers in
tonnes day-1. At an estimated nutrient value of INR the vicinity.
8,000 tonne-1 (USD 1653) of nutrients (CPCB 2009a
estimate), this indicates a potential value of about In the Indian context, the practice of recycling wastewater
INR 500 MLD-1 (USD 10.334) of wastewater or about is just emerging for the industrial sector, however the use
INR 19.5 million (USD 0.4 million5) daily for the total of untreated or partially treated wastewater for agriculture
amount of wastewater being generated in Class I and is quite common (Amerasinghe et al. 2013). Given this
II cities in the country at present. common practice, regulatory authorities need assistance on
2. Analysis presented in various studies (WII 2006; how to move from informal to formal reuse as the alternative
Londhe et al. 2004; Amerasinghe et al. 2013) also would be to ban informal reuse which would be a challenge
suggests a 30% increase in annual farm income to given the large number of dependent livelihoods. If the
farmers utilizing treated and untreated wastewater source water for treatment is municipal wastewater, and
for irrigation compared to freshwater. The increase in the treatment is inadequate, it would have serious health
farm income is a result of an increase in yield, multiple impacts especially diarrhea and helminth infections.
cropping seasons and lower fertilizer requirement.
This advisory highlights the growing demand for water
D. Reduction in ground water pumping requirement: from the domestic (household), industrial and agriculture
1. The use of treated wastewater for irrigation also has sectors, the limits of available freshwater resources and
potential to reduce ground water irrigation, and hence the potentially increasing costs of supplying freshwater in
pumping and the associated energy requirement and urban areas, over the period up to 2030. The potential for
associated costs. wastewater recycling and reuse exists for various end uses
2. Conservation of energy as a result of using wastewater in the domestic, industrial and agriculture sectors. There
for irrigation has a concomitant benefit of reducing are various national and international guidelines on water
harmful greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that quality for the safe use of treated wastewater depending on
would have been generated during the production its intended use. While the benefits of wastewater recycling
of an equivalent amount of electricity. These GHG and reuse may be known to the different stakeholders, city
emissions can be avoided through adoption of governments and water utilities face operational obstacles
wastewater irrigation which reduces ground water owing to the overlapping remits of institutions such as
pumping requirements. public health and engineering departments, departments of
3. Estimates in this advisory suggest that the avoided agriculture, departments of industries, state pollution control
ground water pumping due to wastewater irrigation boards and so forth that are mandated to manage water
has the potential to reduce about 1.75 million MWh of in its different uses. This needs to be addressed through
electricity, which is equivalent to reducing about 1.5 coordinated efforts at the national, state and city levels of
million tonnes of CO2e (tCO2) GHG emissions. administration. Reforms will be required to a) promote the
collection and treatment of domestic wastewater and b)
While treated wastewater presents potential economic and promote the recycling and use of treated wastewater in a
environmental benefits to consumers (industrial, agricultural), safe manner. This will require a diverse set of reforms to be
city governments and states–an assured and reliable implemented at national, state and city levels to address
water supply, the nutrients present in the wastewater, and the policy and regulatory gaps for the safe use of treated
avoided costs of ground water pumping – utilities and state/ wastewater, provide a framework to ensure rapid scaling
city governments will need to develop more sustainable up in use of treated wastewater for different economic
business models. These models should aim at different user activities and finally allow the urban local bodies (ULBs) to
categories – industry, agriculture, institutions/commercial operate in a manner that will be financially sustainable in
establishments–which in collaboration with partner agencies the long term.
3
2009 exchange rate INR 48.42 = USD 1. Source for all rates in the report http://www.oanda.com/currency/average.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
3
Purpose and Scope feasibility of treating wastewater to desired quality levels

at competitive costs. The increasing costs of augmenting
Water supply and sanitation is a state subject6 constitutionally, water supply from distant sources or via desalinization seem
and the states are vested with the responsibility for planning, to suggest that the time has come to examine reuse and
implementation and operation of water supply and sanitation recycling of treated wastewater as a potential option and
projects. Wastewater treatment and management, whether view wastewater as a key asset of any ‘circular economy’,
on site, decentralized or offsite, are part of the full sanitation not just in view of water availability but also nutrient and
cycle and influence public health and environment; it is energy recovery.
very important to recognize that both national government
and state governments must work together to tackle this
problem. Recycling and reuse of treated wastewater is Water Demands by Sectors and the
an important part of the sanitation cycle and critical in an Demand—Supply Gap
environment of decreasing availability of freshwater and The existing utilizable water resources in India, estimated at
increasing costs of delivering acceptable quality water about 1,123 BCM, were historically expected to be sufficient
supply to cities for multiple uses. to meet both the existing water demand of about 800 BCM
(in 2010, Ministry of Water Resources [MoWR] estimates)
Recycling and reuse of treated wastewater reinforces the as well as the projected demand in 2025 of 1,093 BCM.
economic benefits arising from the public good of achieving The Planning Commission in the 12th FYP, however, refers to
the total cycle of sanitation. This document focuses on more recent calculations on projected water demand in the
identifying these economic benefits (and in some cases country, based on more realistic estimates of the amount of
the financial benefits too) of wastewater recycling from the water lost to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration, which
perspective of public spending. It also provides supporting are less reassuring. The 12th FYP notes that “2030 Water
information on the evolution and current practices of Resources Group (2009) estimates that if the current pattern
wastewater recycling internationally and the international of water demand in the Country continues, about half of the
and national regulatory and policy frameworks guiding demand for water will be unmet by 2030”. This projection
the practice of wastewater recycling. In the latter context, has to be considered optimistic as it does not capture
the document presents possible strategies for city and regional or temporal variation in supply and demand.
state planners and policy makers to initiate the discourse Appendix 1 discusses the current and projected sector-wise
on wastewater recycling and reuse in the local milieu for water demands in more detail.
planned forward movement.
India’s Second National Communication to the United Nations
It is important to note that this note targets the sanitation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
situation and the role of wastewater recycling in the larger (MoEF 2012) notes that “Indian society is an agrarian society
cities in India (Class I and II cities and towns with populations with 70% of the population almost completely dependent on
above 50,000). The discussion therefore is focused on agriculture, even though the share of agriculture in the gross
recycling at the end of sewerage systems after treatment domestic product (GDP) has been continuously declining.
at sewage treatment plants, which are economically viable Spatially, it is the most widespread economic pursuit, claiming
options for the larger cities targeted in this note. A variety more than 40% of the country’s total area”. It is to be noted
of other wastewater management options may be more however that despite the huge amount of water supply
feasible and economically viable in smaller towns. diverted and planned to be diverted to meet current and
future agricultural needs (discussed in detail in Appendix 1)
more than 50% of Indian agriculture relies solely on rainfall for
irrigation. Analysis of rainfall in five-year periods (corresponding
Introduction to the country’s five-year planning process) over the period
The increased demand for drinking water from urban centers, 1998-2002 indicates a decreasing trend of mean rainfall and
increase in demand for water by other economic sectors, higher variability of rainfall in each successive plan periods
climate variability and its implications on the availability of water (PC 2011). The period 2008-2011 had rainfall below 95% of
resources combined with continued pollution of freshwater the long-term average, compared to earlier reporting over a
sources due to inadequate collection and treatment of the 15-year period. This variability in quantity, time and duration
return flows, is a statement of challenge and also a window of rainfall impacts agricultural output and places the farmer at
of opportunity, i.e., to use the municipal wastewater7 risk. India’s Planning Commission reiterates this reality, noting
generated in urban centers for productive use. Technological that poverty is highest in regions, states and districts where a
advances over the last two decades have demonstrated the larger share of agriculture is rain-fed; the 100 poorest districts
6
States subjects are subjects defined and enlisted under List II of the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India, which form the exclusive domain of each one of the state governments within
India.
7
Municipal wastewater may be defined as “waste (mostly liquid) originating from a community; may be composed of domestic wastewaters and/or industrial discharges”. It is major source of
water pollution in India, particularly in and around large urban centers (CPCB 2009b).
4
in the country are almost entirely located in rain-fed areas concern for many cities in India, with many such cities being
(PC 2011). forced to source water from distant or expensive water
sources (see Box 1).
The availability of water and concerns over estimated
demand supply gaps may be exacerbated by climate These challenges translate into a higher cost for providing
variability and its impact on the availability of water resources water for various uses in these cities. Figure 1 illustrates the
both spatially and temporally. Competing water demands increasing cost of supplying water to industries in selected
and limited availability of freshwater are already a cause for cities in India.
BOX 1. Cities sourcing water from distant/expensive sources.
Chennai: Sources water from Lake Veeranam, 235 km from the city; it has now installed desalination plants (200 MLD in operation), with
high cost in producing good-quality water.
Bangalore: Sources water from the Cauvery River 95 km from the city, requiring pumping at 1,000 m elevation.
Hyderabad: Sources water from the Krishna River, 130 km from the city, requiring expensive multi-stage pumping.
Bhopal/Indore: Source water from the Narmada River, pumping water over more than 30 km.
Agra: Sources water from the Yamuna River which requires extensive treatment.
Details of other cities sourcing water from distance sources or through expensive treatment are provided in Appendix 2.
FIGURE 1. Cost of supplying water to industries in selected Indian cities.
45
Chennai
40
35
Cost of Water (INR / kL)
30 Hyderabad
Bangalore
25
Delhi
20
15
10
0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
5
The Growing Urban Sanitation Considering that the most of the water consumed is used for
Challenge non-potable needs, whether in industry, for agriculture, or for
Urban India is also growing rapidly and this poses significant non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, bathing, washing
challenges for the provision of urban infrastructure and etc. by domestic users, there is tremendous potential to
services like water, sanitation, solid waste management reuse water by providing varying levels of treatment.
and drainage. While 87% of the country’s urban population
has access to household or community sanitation, the An indication of the scale of the opportunity in urban
collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater is a cause wastewater recycling in India is discussed below:
for concern. Only one-third of all households are covered by
sewer networks, with 47% of households relying on on-site A total of 723 of India’s cities and towns, with populations
sanitation systems. The low coverage is also compounded by of 50,000 and above, generate about 38,000 MLD of
the grossly insufficient treatment capacities in urban centers. wastewater (CPCB 2009a). In these towns, existing
According to the assessment made by the Central Pollution wastewater treatment capacities amount to only 31%
Control Board (CPCB) on the status of wastewater generation of the wastewater generated. At least 67% of the
and treatment in Class I cities and Class II towns during 2009, wastewater generated from Class I cities and more than
about 38,255 MLD of wastewater were generated in Class 90% of wastewater generated from Class II cities in India
I cities and Class II towns in India (housing more than 70% is not treated and is therefore a cause of environmental
of the urban population). The wastewater treatment capacity pollution and unavailable for beneficial and safe reuse
developed so far is only 11,788 MLD accounting for about of wastewater. With current population growth (1.7%
31% of total wastewater generated in these two classes of per annum) and the current rate of urbanization (3% per
urban centers. The existing treatment plants are not utilized decade), the urban population is expected to increase by
at full capacity and operate at about 72% utilization (CPCB more than 50% from 377 million in 2011 to 590 million
2009a). Consequently more than 75% of the wastewater by 2030 (MGI 2010), with a proportionate increase in the
generated in Class I and II urban towns and cities is volume of urban wastewater, to nearly 60,000 MLD.
discharged on land or in various water bodies without any If 80% of urban wastewater could be treated by 2030,
treatment, resulting in large-scale environmental pollution and there would be a total volume of around 17 billion BCM
creating a health hazard for the general public. The discharge per year; an increase of around 400% in the volume of
of untreated or partially treated wastewater on land or surface available treated wastewater!
water bodies is a major source of pollution, contaminating This additional 17 BCM of treated wastewater resource,
80% of the country’s surface water (CPCB 2007b). if captured, treated safely and recycled, is equivalent to
almost 75% of the projected industrial demand in 2025
Inadequate sanitation resulting in poor hygienic practices (MoWR 2006) and almost a quarter of the total projected
leads to huge economic and social losses for the country. drinking water requirement in the country.
WSP (2011) estimated that the total annual economic impact
of inadequate sanitation in India amounted to a loss of INR
2.4 trillion (USD 53.8 billion) in 2006, which was equivalent to Regulatory and Policy Guidance on
about 6.4 percent of India’s GDP in 2006, and is discussed Wastewater Recycling and Reuse
further Appendix 3. These losses and economic impacts are The concept of wastewater recycling and reuse and
disproportionately borne by the poorer sections of society due the need to include the same in all water supply and
to the lower levels of access to improved sanitation and water wastewater management programs is recognized by most
supply and relatively more densely populated living conditions. policy frameworks and institutions in India, as summarized
below:
1. The Planning Commission (as part of the water and
Recycled Wastewater – an waste management strategy in the 12th five year plan).
Alternative Water Resource 2. The Ministry of Urban Development (as part of the
Treatment and reuse of municipal wastewater provides National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) (http://
an opportunity for not only environmental rehabilitation, moud.gov.in/NUSPpolicy), the National Mission on
but also meeting the increasing water needs of different Sustainable Habitat (http://moud.gov.in/NMSH) and
economic sectors. The Planning Commission, GoI, also the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) framework
recognizes the need to recycle wastewater, and deems (http://moud.gov.in/servicelevel).
it a critical component of any sustainable solution for water 3. The Ministry of Water Resources (as part of the
and wastewater management in India. It observes that “we National Water Policy, 2012 (http://www.wrmin.nic.
must begin to learn that we will have to reuse every drop in/index1.asp?linkid=201&langid=1), the National
of our sewage (see Box 2). It is even technically possible Water Mission under the National Action Plan on
to turn it into drinking water but at the very least we should Climate Change, and the draft National Water
plan to recycle and reuse it in our gardens, in our industries Framework Law (http://www.wrmin.nic.in/index1.
or use it (after treatment) to rejuvenate natural water bodies”. asp?linkid=220&langid=1)).
6
BOX 2. The basics of wastewater recycling.
Water recycling is reusing treated wastewater for beneficial purposes such as agricultural and landscape irrigation,
industrial processes, domestic potable and non-potable reuse, and replenishing a ground water basin (ground water
recharge). Wastewater treatment can be tailored to meet the water quality requirements of planned reuse and can meet
the water need in a very competitive cost structure.
Water reuse accomplishes three fundamental functions:
More water is made available for beneficial purposes;

Untreated effluent is kept out of streams, lakes, etc., reducing the pollution of surface and ground water; and
Protection of public health if compliance with safety measures is addressed.
Recycled water has many applications and can be used to fulfil most water needs, subject to the level of treatment
given to the wastewater.
4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (as part of Other international guiding frameworks for wastewater
the National Environment Policy 2006 (http://envfor. recycling and reuse include the WHO international
nic.in/sites/default/files/introduction-nep2006e.pdf)). guidelines on wastewater recycling in agriculture and
aquaculture and recommendations for wastewater
While policy and guiding frameworks in India recognize treatment and crop restrictions. These guidelines,
the need for wastewater recycling, there has been little in first published in 1989 and revised in 2006, are also a
terms of detailed guidance on the treatment standards, commonly cited guiding framework for reuse. Others
types of reuse applications, design and O&M considerations include the USEPA (2012) water reuse guidelines and the
for management of wastewater recycling projects and reuse standards developed by selected states in the USA,
tariff structures for sale of recycled wastewater for various such as California, which were among some of the first
applications. Such projects, while being undertaken by authorities to develop reuse standards and regulations to
various states and cities in India, are largely structured guide the application of treated wastewater for different
individually and developed in isolation at the local level. purposes. Appendix 4 presents a summary of some of
these guidelines/standards.
The Ministry of Urban Development has been addressing
this issue and recently developed specific guidelines for the
recycling and reuse of wastewater. While this ministry has Technological Options and
issued various advisories in recent years covering various Treatment Levels
aspects of urban sanitation including wastewater recycling, Treatment technologies for wastewater can be categorized
detailed guidance has formally been included for the first time based on the location where treatment is provided and the
in the recently revised and updated Manual on Sewerage type of treatment provided. The location of the treatment
and Sewage Treatment Systems (2013) (CPHEEO 2013). system will make the management system either an on-
These guidelines take a lead in specifying for the first time site system, decentralized system or an off-site system
the water quality guidelines for treated water based on its requiring extensive underground sewerage to carry
intended use, along with identifying best practices and wastewater to the off-site treatment facility. Each of these
examples of other recycling and reuse programs both in systems has different geographical, demographical and
India and internationally. financial conditions.
7
The Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment matter lowering the bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Systems (2013) discusses in detail the different types of of the wastewater. Tertiary treatment provides the most
treatment technologies suitable under different conditions, advanced level of treatment, reducing BOD and the total
including decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. dissolved solids (TDS) levels to very low levels and can also
The manual provides details on the design considerations effective in removing dissolved impurities and nutrients such
and operating requirements for a variety of technologies as nitrogen and phosphorus that may be present in the
which will be suitable for different urban agglomerations. water. The type of advanced treatment (nutrient removal/
The WSP had also published a compendium of reverse osmosis/advanced disinfection) will depend on
wastewater treatment technologies specifically suited the type of reuse application, and is usually significantly
to the urban context (WSP 2008), which provides guidance capital-intensive along with high O&M costs compared
on the suitability of different options under different to conventional secondary treatment alone. Of particular
geographical, demographical and physical contexts. interest are anaerobic treatment systems with still lower
energy demands (Libhaber and Orozco-Jaramillo 2013).
The other significant classification criterion is the type
of treatment provided – primary treatment, secondary The choice of treatment technology has to be guided by the
treatment or tertiary treatment. Primary treatment essentially physical constraints (as discussed in Box 3) combined with
consists of removing the suspended solids present in the the intended use of the treated water (see Box 4). Figure 2
wastewater through physical sedimentation or coarse illustrates this concept, demonstrating the link between the
screening methods. Secondary treatment involves some levels of treatment, intended use of treated water, cost of
form of biological treatment which removes the organic treatment and extent of cost recovery.8 Choosing to provide a
BOX 3. On-site, decentralized and off-site wastewater treatment systems.
Sanitation systems may be:
On site, retaining wastes in the vicinity of the toilet in a pit, septic tank or vault.
Off site, removing wastes from the vicinity of the toilet for disposal elsewhere.
Hybrid, retaining solids close to the latrine but removing liquids for off-site disposal elsewhere.
Wastewater and fecal sludge require treatment before they are used either as an input to agriculture or returned to the
environment. Waste collection and treatment systems may serve anything from a residential area of a few hundred
houses to large urban areas. Hybrid and off-site systems require provision for transporting wastewater from the toilet via
a system of sewers to the treatment facility.
Recycling and reuse of wastewater in hybrid or off-site systems should ideally occur after stabilization of pathogenic
organisms and removal of toxic chemicals/metals present in the wastewater to avoid negative health impacts on farmers,
handlers and consumers of the produce irrigated with such water.
BOX 4. Decentralized sewage treatment and recycling of water in Auroville, Pondicherry.
The Sangamam Housing Project (CPCB 2008), implemented on the outskirts of Auroville (12 km north of Pondicherry
and 150 km south of Chennai) has been very effective in implementing decentralized wastewater treatment and
recycling the treated wastewater, along with implementing rain water harvesting, to reduce the demand for potable
freshwater. The sewage treatment system consists of an anaerobic up flow reactor as a primary treatment and a Root
Zone Treatment system as a secondary treatment system followed by maturation ponds.
As assessment conducted by CPCB in 2008 concluded that demand for freshwater declined from 221 liters per capita
per day (lpcd) before commissioning the recycling system to about 101 lpcd after commissioning of the recycling
system, a 45% reduction in freshwater consumption. The savings resulted from using treated wastewater for
activities such as toilet flushing, gardening etc.
8
Cost recovery is intended as an indication of the potential for revenue generation to cover the O&M costs of treatment.
8
FIGURE 2. Balancing treatment with recycled wastewater use.
Direct
t Potable or
os High Quality
dC
an Process
ts
m en Indirect
e RO & Disinfection
uir Potable Reuse
R eq
logy Industrial Non- N&P Control
o
c hn Potable Reuse
Te
Restricted Tertiary membrance
Urban Reuse Filtration
very
Tertiary Filtration co
Irrigation s t re
g co
in
Secondary
reas
Treatment Inc
level of treatment which treats water to a quality beyond that (activated sludge process treatment) to advanced treatment
required for its safe use for a particular application will burden (membrane systems, nutrient removal etc.).
the service provider with higher capital costs and higher O&M
costs, with not enough revenue realization in the absence of Given the significant implications of the chosen treatment
demand for this high quality water (Murray and Buckley 2010). technology on the overall cost of the project, at both the
construction stage and throughout the operational life of
An analysis by CPCB (CPCB 2007a; Kaur et al. 2012) an STP, it is important to consider all funding and revenue
estimated the typical treatment costs (both capital and options when planning and designing the wastewater
O&M expenses) associated with different levels of treatment treatment facility. Utilities may choose to treat water to
provided to wastewater. The analysis estimated that the the regulatory standards and provide it to industrial and
cost of treating wastewater escalates rapidly when other customers who may further treat it through advanced
advanced treatment systems, such as membrane levels of treatment based on their needs. Alternatively, if
ultra-filtration (UF) and reverse osmosis are included. high grade treated water is a popular requirement in the
The annual treatment cost (including annualized capital region and the utility is able to charge appropriately for its
cost and O&M expenses) increase from about INR 34/kL provision, the cost of advanced treatment can be passed
(USD 0.649) for conventional secondary treatment to about on to customers.
INR 52/kL (USD 0.9710) when UF is added, which further
increases to INR 73/kL (USD 1.3711) when the water is also The choice should be based on sound financial assessment of
treated using a reverse osmosis module. the investment required, the appetite for treated wastewater
in the region, and customer profiles and their willingness
Analysis by WSP (2014) (Figure 312)on capital costs of to pay for the treated water. Some implementation options
different treatment technologies also indicates more adopted by different cities, including accessing central
than two-fold escalation in the unit cost or treatment or state government program funds and public-private
when switching from conventional secondary treatment partnership, are presented in Appendix 5.
9
2012 exchange rate INR 53.46 = USD 1
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
9
FIGURE 3. Unit capital cost of treatment for different types of wastewater treatment.
Capital Cost v/s Capacity for Conventional ASP Plants

and Advanced Treatment Plants
40
35
Cost per MLD (Million INR/MLD)
30
25
20
15
10
-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Capacity (MLD)
ASP Data ASP with Nitrification and Denitrification UASB Data
Source: WSP 2014.
Economic and irrigation. Reduction in the use of energy also reduces GHGs,
which are typically produced during the production and
Financial Benefits combustion of fuel and energy. There are also opportunities
to tap into carbon credits as an additional revenue stream
of Wastewater as and when the carbon market becomes viable and subject
Recycling and Reuse to demand and supply constraints. Figure 4 illustrates the
financial and economic cost benefit concepts related to
Recycled water can provide an additional and valuable recycling and reuse of wastewater. It is apparent that while
source of water. This resource also presents opportunities the financial costs of wastewater recycling and reuse may
to recover nutrients and energy from wastewater. The outweigh the pure financial returns, it makes immense
recovery of phosphorus and potassium is particularly economic sense to mainstream this practice owing to the
attractive because India imports most of its phosphorus and considerable environmental, social and health benefits
all of its potassium needs to meet demand. Use of recycled generated. The various financial and economic benefits of
wastewater for irrigation can help to circumvent ground wastewater recycling are discussed in more detail in the
water pumping and hence reduce energy requirements for following sections.
10
FIGURE 4. Financial and economic analysis of wastewater recycling solutions.
$ $
Financial analysis Economic analysis
Benefit of increased
prosperity and resilient
communities
Social costs
Benefit of protected public
Environmental costs health and ecosystems
Distribution costs Distribution costs Benefit of improved water

quality and flows
Storage costs Storage costs
Benefit of cost savings
Sales Revenue (new supply)
Retrofit costs (water, nutrients, Retrofit costs
sludge, energy, Benefit of cost savings
Treatment costs carbon) Treatment costs (disposal)
Costs Revenue Costs Benefits

Source: Hanjra et al. 2014 based on GWI 2010.
Recycled Wastewater – an to meet the water demand-supply gap in these cities.

Additional, Reliable and Cost Appendix 8 presents the findings from a study undertaken
Effective Source of Water to assess the impact of various water supply augmentation
Treated wastewater has an important role to play in options (including wastewater recycling to offset demand)
providing a reliable source of water to meet industrial and on municipal finances and operational revenues. The study
agricultural water requirements. Several countries have found that wastewater recycling to offset freshwater demand
adopted recycling and reuse of wastewater to varying from industries can be a viable alternative to augmenting
degrees and for a range of activities. Appendix 6 discusses freshwater sources to meet the steadily increasing demand
the extent of wastewater recycling in various countries in these cities.
and the evolution of such programs. Most countries
with successful wastewater recycling programs follow a The study also highlights that wastewater recycling
systematic approach, leading to the development of targeted for non-potable uses could start making
their recycling and reuse programs. Water scarcity that economic sense to cities and ULBs when they are able
threatens human society or the survival of natural systems to estimate non-potable demand and meet it through
is the inherent driver in all countries that necessitates the investments in dual-piping (with or without consumer
development of such a program. participation). Current consumer databases with water
supply and sewerage boards (WSSBs) do not seem
Wastewater recycling can meet different water requirements, to have this information, and this poses a significant
i.e., in industries, for irrigation in agriculture and also within challenge when planning for such schemes. Appendix
urban areas for horticultural/municipal needs. Two significant 9 presents a broad estimation of state-wise wastewater
users of recycled wastewater are industries and agriculture, recycling potential industrial consumers.
as discussed below.
Recycled Wastewater – an Affordable and

Wastewater Recycling – Offsetting the Need for Assured Source of Water for Industries
Additional Sources of Water Industrial water requirement constitutes almost 10% of all
Use of treated wastewater for industrial applications frees non-irrigation water demand in the country, and is expected
up freshwater which can be used by water utilities to to increase to almost 17% by 2050. Industrial reuse of
increase coverage and meet domestic water requirements. wastewater presents many benefits to both utilities and the
Appendixes 7 and 8 present findings from a study industrial customers. The revised Manual (2013) identifies
undertaken for the cities of Hyderabad, Bangalore and several important industrial applications where treated
Chennai to assess the impact of recycling wastewater wastewater may be used instead of using freshwater.
11
Water reuse can result in significant cost savings for the use are high and rising consistently, as illustrated in
industrial enterprises given that water tariffs for industrial Table 1.
TABLE 1. Industrial tariff levied for freshwater in various states/cities.
State/city Industrial water tariff (INR kL-1) industrial water tariff (in USD13 kL-1)
West Bengal 12-15 0.19 – 0.23
Uttar Pradesh 10-35 0.16 – 0.55
Madhya Pradesh 24 0.38
Punjab 7.60 0.12
Jharkhand 9.90 0.16
Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai 60 0.94
Use of treated wastewater can provide industries with of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL)
a reliable source of water supply, and in most cases, a in Tamil Nadu and Mahagenco in Maharashtra, two
supply that is cheaper than procuring freshwater. This industries using recycled wastewater to meet their
is illustrated in Box 5 which presents the examples water demand.
BOX 5. Benefits of wastewater recycling to industries.
The CPCL plant in Chennai encountered acute water shortage and scarcity of supply in the wake of severe water
shortages in the city. The plant had to rely on expensive tanker-supplied water. During a 20-year period, the cost
of water also increased seven-fold as demand increased. The plant was also forced to occasionally halt operations
due to lack of water resulting in business and revenue losses for the company. Recognizing that water supply from
the water utility was not only unreliable but also uneconomical, the industry set up a wastewater recycling plant
to treat partially treated wastewater from the water utility. The cost of recycled wastewater to the industry worked
out at INR 45/KL (USD 0.7014) compared to INR 60/KL (USD 0.7015) for the water purchased from the water utility.
Besides being economically attractive, this amount (of partially treated wastewater supplied) was also able to meet
the industry’s current and future water needs.
The case of Mahagenco in Maharashtra is similar. In 2008 the company needed an additional 130 MLD water
supply for expansion of its 1,980 MW Koradi Thermal Power Station (TPS). No municipal or command area projects
could accommodate this need. Mahagenco decided to reuse the treated wastewater from the city of Nagpur to supply
Koradi TPS and to secure this source took responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of the sewage
treatment plant. The treatment and provision of water through this arrangement will cost Mahagenco about INR 3.4
m-3 (USD 0.0516), which would have been significantly higher if the company had decided to source freshwater from
another municipal or irrigation command project (about INR 9.6 m-3 (USD 0.1517) for recent projects). The project is
currently under construction and details of the cost sharing and revenue arrangements are discussed in Appendix 5.
Wastewater Recycling to Meet Agricultural also arrived at similar estimates (1.1 million ha) on the
Water Demand additional area that can be brought under direct and
In India, the urban wastewater generated (estimated indirect irrigation using wastewater generated in Class
currently at about 38,000 MLD in Class I and II cities), -I and Class-II cities and towns. While this quantum (14
if treated and channeled to meet agricultural irrigation BCM based on 2009 wastewater generation estimates)
requirements, would provide 14 BCM18 of irrigation water, might not seem significant compared to the total irrigation
which could potentially irrigate an area ranging between water demand in 2025 (910 BCM according to MoWR
1 to 3 million hectares (ha).19 Amerasinghe et al. (2013) estimates), its significance should be viewed in relation
13
2015 exchange rate INR 64.03 = USD1.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Billion cubic meters (1,000 million cubic meters).
19
Depending on the type of crop cultivated and its irrigation requirement.
12
to the national efforts to increase area under irrigation minor irrigation potential created in the 10th plan (see
during recent five-year plan (FYP) periods. During the 10th Box 6). This is significant when considering our national
FYP period, the major and medium irrigation potential circumstances as 70% of India’s population relies on
created was 4.59 million ha, while the surface water-fed agriculture for sustenance and agriculture, and in turn,
minor irrigation potential developed was 0.71 million ha is heavily reliant on rain-fed irrigation in large parts of the
(MoWR 2011). The wastewater irrigation (WWI) potential country. This reliance on rainfall for irrigation presents
(~2 million ha) is 44% of the major and medium potential risks to farmers (i.e., crop failure) and therefore to the
created and nearly three times the surface water-based country in the context of food shortages.
BOX 6. Constraints on financial sustainability of wastewater recycling for agricultural

reuse.
The 13th Finance Commission recommended charging INR 1,175 (USD 24.2720 ) in major irrigation command areas
and INR 588 (USD 12.1421) in minor irrigation command areas for one hectare of irrigated land to cover the O&M
expenditure of irrigation projects. While this is a significant increase from the irrigation fees charged in the past, this
works out to only 10-25 paise KL-1 (USD 0.002-0.00522), depending on crop and water use assumptions. The cost of
treating wastewater is significantly higher in comparison.
While revenue generated from industrial reuse is adequate to meet the O&M expenses, agricultural reuse generates
negligible revenue for utilities. It may be desirable to promote industrial reuse in all cities in a state, however this is
limited by the availability of industrial customers in the vicinity.
Source: ThFC 2009
Currently it is estimated that India has a cultivated area of source of water in most areas in Rajasthan, with 90% of
more than 40,000 ha irrigated with untreated wastewater rural and 80% of urban water supply schemes based on
(World Bank 2010). Historically, the use of treated or untreated its exploitation. The state is experiencing progressive
wastewater has been common in India; however there is a deterioration in the yield and quality of ground water to meet
need to understand the economic, environmental, social and increasing demands. Of the 243 blocks in the state, 172
health implications of the use of untreated wastewater and belong to the ‘overexploited’ category (2011 assessment),
mitigating any deleterious side-effects from its use. which is a stark increase from the overexploited blocks in
1984, which stood at just 41. Jaipur has therefore embarked
Using untreated or partially treated wastewater exposes on a project to treat and reuse the wastewater generated
farmers and crop consumers to potential health risks. Ideally in the city for use in industries, as well as for non-potable
wastewater should be treated before using it for irrigation; domestic applications such as flushing (through a dual piping
health and risk aspects, along with international guidelines for system in all new urban growth areas under development).
treatment are discussed in detail in Appendix 10. While 100% The projects are under development and detailed project
treatment is absolutely desirable, in reality, large parts of the reports for the scheme are in preparation.
country already use untreated or partially treated wastewater
for irrigation. A practical solution in the short term under such
circumstances is to follow the generally accepted multibarrier Sale of Recycled Water – a Source
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) of Revenue for Urban Local Bodies
approach, discussed in more detail in Appendix 11. (ULBs)
Utilities, when operating well-managed STPs, are in a position
to sell the treated effluent to industrial customers depending
Wastewater Recycling in New Urban Growth on the need for and availability of other water sources. Utilities
Areas – Planned Reuse for Non-potable may charge industrial customers for supplying recycled
Requirements wastewater based on the treatment provided and quality of
Recycling and reuse of wastewater is also being planned wastewater. Experience from Chennai demonstrates that
as an integral component of the urban water and sanitation treated wastewater is being sold to industries at INR 8-11
projects being developed in new urban areas in some cities KL-1 (USD 0.13 - 0.1823), and the resulting revenue generated
such as Jaipur, Rajasthan. Ground water is the predominant through this sale is adequate to cover the O&M costs of the
20
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
13
treatment plants (WSP 2014). Being industrial customers, it When valuing the nutrients present in wastewater, it is
is possible to charge them the actual cost incurred for the important to also consider other constituents which
treatment and provision of water, allowing the utility to recover may impact suitability when reusing treated or untreated
a significant share of its O&M costs. wastewater in agriculture. The high salinity of wastewater is
of particular concern, as there may be short- to long-term
While several utilities supply treated wastewater to different effects on the salinity of soils and river water receiving treated
industrial users, the reuse and sale of treated wastewater is largely wastewater. The impact on agricultural produce will depend
anecdotal throughout the country. Appendix 12 briefly discusses on the exact nature of wastewater and the salinity thresholds
some initiatives taken by various ULBs towards wastewater of the crop being cultivated (McCartney et al. 2008).
recycling and sale of treated wastewater (IIR 2013; GWI 2010).
Reduction in Fertilizer Use on Account of

Valuing the Nutrients Present in Wastewater Irrigation
Wastewater The availability of affordable fertilizer is critical to the
Wastewater contains valuable nutrients (NPK), which may performance of the agriculture sector in India, which
either be recovered as a resource or recycled when treated is heavily dependent on government subsidies on
wastewater is reused for irrigation or other applications. agricultural fertilizers. Indian soils are generally deficient
When using treated wastewater for irrigation, these nutrients in both K and P. Therefore the country has to depend
aid crop growth and could reduce the need for synthetic upon imports (100% potash and around 90% phosphate)
fertilizers in India by up to 40% (Minhas 2002; Silva and Scott for meeting these fertilizer needs. Urea (a source of N)
2002; Kaur et al. 2012). While farmers in India rarely pay any is the only fertilizer which is produced in India and can
significant amount for the provision or use of this resource, meet a significant share (about 80%) of the indigenous
it is important to understand its economic benefits. This requirement. The fertilizer subsidy burden for the central
section attempt to quantify the nutrient value in wastewater. government in 2012-2013 was about INR 700 billion
In doing so, it is to be borne in mind that these benefits may (USD 13.36 billion27), which is expected to double by the
often be implicit and beyond those physically realized in the end of the 12th FYP in 2016-2017.
field. Nevertheless, wastewater is a valuable source of plant
nutrients and needs to be viewed as an economic resource Use of treated wastewater and sludge for agriculture has
by the planning authorities at national, state and local levels. the potential to reduce reliance on fertilizer by about 40% in
areas irrigated with treated wastewater due to its inherent
nutrient content. Based on current wastewater generation,
Economic Value of the Nutrient Load in irrigation potential estimated for wastewater in India and
Wastewater the associated potential to reduce fertilizer consumption
In its review of wastewater generated in the coastal cities in India, in wastewater irrigated areas, it can be estimated that
the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB 2009a) estimated the annual fertilizer subsidy could be reduced by about
a nutrient load of 347.56 tonnes day-1 in about 6,400 MLD of INR 1.3 billion. (USD 243 million28).29
wastewater generated from these cities daily (the treatment
capacity against this is about 3,050 MLD, which is about 47%
of the total wastewater generation). Several other studies have Increase in Overall Farm Income Due to
also estimated the nutrient potential in wastewater which ranges Wastewater Irrigation
from 0.054 to 0.073 tonnes MLD-1 (adapted from Minhas 2002; Analysis presented in various studies (WII 2006; Londhe
Silva and Scott 2002; CPCB 2009b; WII 2006). Thus, the total et al. 2004; Amerasinghe et al. 2013) suggests increased
wastewater generated from Class I and II cities in India has an economic benefits for farmers engaged in cultivation with
estimated nutrient load of about 2,500 tonnes per day (see Box treated and untreated wastewater compared to freshwater,
7). At an estimated nutrient value of INR 8,000 tonne-1 (USD due to increase in yields, lower fertilizer requirement and
16524) of nutrients (CPCB 2009b estimate), this translates into a improved quality of yield resulting in higher prices for the
theoretical monetary value of about INR 500 MLD-1 (USD 10.3325) produce. Appendix 13 presents more information on
of wastewater or about INR 19.5 million (USD 0.4 million26) daily the incremental benefits accruing to farmers engaged in
for the total amount of wastewater being generated by Class I cultivation in various cities across India using wastewater
and II cities in the country at present. compared to freshwater.
24
2009 exchange rate INR 48.42 = USD 1.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
28
Ibid.
29
This estimate is based on average fertilizer consumption of 156 kg ha-1 in freshwater irrigated areas in India, the irrigation potential created from using treated wastewater of 2 million ha and
40% savings in fertilizer use in areas irrigated with treated wastewater.
14
BOX 7. Phosphorus recovery from wastewater.
A wastewater treatment process offers several choices for P recovery which include the sludge-free wastewater, the
sludge liquid, the sludge itself and the incinerated sludge ash, each with a different P concentration and recovery
potential–but also costs. Technology plays a significant role for P recovery from wastewater as there are various options
with very different costs and efficiencies. Crystallization processes based on the liquid phase from sludge dewatering, as
also promoted by the Canadian company Ostara and the Japanese Phosnix process (Group 1 in Figure 5), are cost, and
energy wise, the commonly preferred options to date, while processes building on P recovery from sludge ash (Group 2
in Figure 5) are slightly more expensive but have a significantly more favorable P recovery capability. Options to recover
P from sludge (Group 3 in Figure 5) can extract similar amounts of P to those based on incineration, but the additional
energy demand and costs make them less attractive at the moment (Morf and Koch 2009).
FIGURE 5. Cost and energy requirements versus P recovery for different recovery options.
Source: Otoo and Drechsel 2016 after Morf and Koch 2009.
Note: The plotted costs here refer to Swiss conditions and include personal, operation, raw material, energy and interest payments. The energy requirements
consider gas, electricity, external (e.g. thermal) power, and the energy needed to produce the required raw materials, which are mostly chemicals. The P recovery
refers to the total amount entering the wastewater treatment plant (Otoo and Drechsel 2016).
On average, use of untreated/treated wastewater for year-1 (USD 34331) or about 30% over the baseline levels
agriculture enables an increase in the farmer’s earnings by (using freshwater alone).
INR 17,000 ha-1 (USD 34330) year-1 on account of water
availability and reduced fertilizer use. This is an increase of Comparisons of wastewater and freshwater farming however
about 30% in the farmer’s income compared to when the require caution as biophysical factors, crop varieties and farming
farmer uses freshwater alone. Given the average landholding practices might differ between the wastewater farmers and the
size in India of about 1 ha, channeling the entire amount of control group. Even where both groups are found in the same
treated wastewater towards agriculture (irrespective of up- village, using the same crops, wastewater farmers will use fertile
or downstream) has the potential to support 2 million farmers loamy soils along the polluted river, while freshwater farmers access
and increase their annual farm earnings by INR 17,000 ha-1 ground water but only have poor sandy soils (Drechsel et al. 2014).
30
31
Ibid.
15
Reduction in Ground Water Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from Use of Treated

Pumping Due to Wastewater Wastewater for Irrigation
Irrigation Conservation of energy as a result of using wastewater for
More than 60% of the country’s irrigation requirements are irrigation has the concomitant benefit of reducing harmful
met by ground water (IDFC 2011), which requires energy- GHG emissions that would have been generated during the
intensive ground water pumping. Table 2 illustrates the production of an equivalent amount of electricity using fossil
potential to reduce ground water irrigation, and hence fuels. These GHG emissions can be avoided through adoption
pumping, if the entire amount of wastewater generated in of wastewater irrigation which reduces ground water pumping
urban areas can be channeled towards irrigation in ground requirements, as discussed in the preceding section.
water-irrigated areas.
Òur estimate suggests that avoided ground water pumping
due to wastewater irrigation has the potential to reduce about
TABLE 2. Comparison of ground water irrigation 1.75 million MWh of electricity annually, which is equivalent
and wastewater irrigation potential for to reducing about 1.5 million tonnes of CO2e (tCO2) GHG
different crop season. emissions. There is significant scope to create additional
income streams for treatment plant operators through the
Irrigation type Irrigated area/potential Clean Development Mechanism as recently proposed for
for irrigation China (GTZ 2009).
Net area irrigated by ground water 39 Mha

Potential through WWI32 1-2 Mha Way Forward
Potential that can be met through This advisory highlights the growing demand for water
WWI (%) ~5% from the domestic (household), industrial and agriculture
sectors, the limits of available freshwater resources and the
potentially increasing costs of supplying freshwater in urban
areas, over the period up to 2030. There is potential for
Reduction in Energy Requirements Due to wastewater recycling and reuse in the domestic, industrial
Reduced Water Pumping for Irrigation and agriculture sectors. There are various national and
The energy required for ground water irrigation is usually international guidelines on water quality for the safe use
sourced through grid electricity (subsidized significantly by of treated wastewater depending on its intended purpose.
state governments) or by using diesel pump sets, and either While the benefits of wastewater recycling and reuse may
of these options requires a significant financial expenditure be known to different stakeholders, city governments and
for the individual farmer or for the state. Also, the increasing water utilities face operational constraints owing to the
use of ground water has led to the depletion of ground water overlapping remits of institutions mandated to manage
tables and allied problems in many parts of the country. water in its different uses. This needs to be addressed
through coordinated efforts at national, state and city
As evident from Table 2, the use of treated wastewater for levels of administration. The central government envisions
irrigation has the potential to reduce ground water requirements the following roles for reforms in promoting wastewater
in these areas and hence leads to a reduction in associated recycling:
energy use. With the availability of a continuous supply of 1. Support interministerial coordination — MoEF,
wastewater, reliance on ground water extraction could be MoUD, MoA, MoH&FW, MoF, MoWR, DIPP – for
reduced. There are currently about 18 million electricity- guidance on a regulatory framework for water
powered pump sets reported in use (BEE 2011). Considering resource management. Water resources need to be
the substitution potential of wastewater irrigation and assuming managed at the basin level and across urban and
a reduction of pumping use by at least a third of the current rural domains for more efficient and equitable use.
use in these wastewater-irrigated areas, the savings in grid Current models of allocation followed within river
electricity supply requirements would be significant and are basins and states focus on freshwater allocation.
estimated to save (the state government and the electricity The initiatives taken up in states like Maharashtra
utility) about INR 6 billion (USD 128 million33) annually.34 such as the setting up of a water resource regulatory
32
Calculated based on average annual irrigation requirements of 700 mm.
33
34
This is a conservative estimate of savings due to the decreased energy demand and based on assumptions of at least 3% of ground water irrigation being substituted by wastewater
irrigation; 30% reduction in energy use by a similar proportion of pump sets (rated on average at 5 horsepower); 20% transmission and distribution losses for the energy supplier; and a cost
to serve of INR 3.5 kWh-1.
16
authority and its throughput, indicate an evolving Awards, recognition schemes, support for other
strategy towards water resource allocation, as more urban development aspects such as water
information on water resources and quality and end resource planning, lake rejuvenation, etc. if SLB on
use is being assimilated for regulatory oversight. wastewater recycling and reuse is achieved; and
The amount of water made available to the basin Incentives for users (especially commercial and
resource system through wastewater treatment in institutional users) through a rebate on water
the larger urban centers opens up possibilities35 for supply tariff if a certain share of their total demand
regulatory action on intersectoral swaps that could is met from purchase of recycled wastewater.
aid increased urban entitlements from the river basin. Alternatively, levy a tax/penalty on such users if
2. Interministerial coordination36—MoEF, MoUD, MoA, treated wastewater, available and provisioned by
MoH&FW, MoF, MoWR, DIPP—for guidance on the city, is not being used to meet at least part of
recycled wastewater standards based on intended the water demand.
use. The quality of water required for different end
uses is different and prescribed standards would The following section identifies both the immediate and
aid city planners and water utilities in planning long-term actions that can be implemented by state
and addressing these potential demands, which governments, as well as the approach that may be adopted
otherwise continue to depend on scarce freshwater by the ULB to promote wastewater recycling.
resources or make do with untreated wastewater,
putting the users at risk. The designated end use Initiatives at the State Level
and prescribed standards would also make clear to Some initiatives that may be taken up at the state level to
city planners the optimal choice of technologies for promote recycling and reuse are discussed hereunder.
water treatment as the sale of such treated water
has different revenue-earning potential with different A. Immediate to short-term reforms:
categories of end users (notably industry). 1. Mandate that only treated wastewater will be
3. Prioritize development of recycled wastewater made available to industries for their non-potable
schemes through national programs. The MoUD applications and actively promote this in partnership
has a target of recycling and reuse of 20% of the with industry departments.
wastewater generated, as part of the SLB framework 2. Ensure that all wastewater treatment plants are set
for cities to achieve. The 13th Finance Commission up at a minimum recycle and reuse rate of 20% of the
has put aside a small portion of grants to states for wastewater treated at the plant.
use by local bodies as performance-based grants 3. Development of by-laws for ULBs on wastewater
and linked this to successful reporting on current reuse. Fifty of the 63 mission cities under the
and targeted service-level benchmarks, among a set Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission
of eight other compliance conditions (ThFC 2009). (JNNURM) have instituted by-laws for Rain Water
While this move laid some focus on development Harvest (RWH) and wastewater reuse. However,
and reporting on service levels, wastewater recycling implementation/enforcement is reportedly tardy.
and reuse are only two of the several benchmarks While some of the ULBs have notified the by-laws
included in the SLB framework. Specific focus on making the separation of grey water and its reuse
developing wastewater recycling projects is required mandatory for larger premises (plot area greater
in central government programs and schemes. than a prescribed threshold) and large consumers
4. A review of progress achieved to date on the creation (water consumption per day greater than the
and management of sewerage infrastructure could prescribed threshold), some have brought all new
possibly indicate the next levels of achievement that properties under the ambit and specified that
need to be targeted and in designing incentives for existing properties will be notified in due time.
cities to reach them. Monitoring and enforcement are required preliminary
5. Incentives for wastewater recycling and reuse – cities steps and remain weak to date. Also, cities need
and users. This could include: to make related improvements gradually through
Additional funds for states or cities achieving identification of water consumptive end uses within
predefined targets on recycling of treated city environs, developing the by-law to bring about
wastewater; targeted reduction in freshwater use. The municipal
Including the recycling of wastewater and a detailed administration/urban development department will
plan to achieve this a prerequisite to facilitate any need to assist the movement of cities to a better
central government funds under new schemes; information base on water demands and use within
35
The MWRRA (cf Bulk Water Tariff Order 2013016) had to necessarily intervene and assist the cities in enabling reuse. “WRD, in all their agreements with domestic water user entities, should
take note of this circular and permit the ULB to recycle and reuse upto 20% of the total sewage for the purposes envisaged in the GR of UDD without insisting for its release after treatment
into a natural water courses provided there are no prior irrigation or other commitments downstream.”
36
The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ministry of Water Resources, Department for Industrial
Promotion and Policy and Ministry of Finance.
17
the city environs, estimating potential consumers of also provide the opportunity to examine the
wastewater use and preparing action plans for an possibility of other allocative methods/principles
outcome-based movement towards more efficient like ‘swap’, where the ULB/water board can
use of existing water flows within the city. be provided with additional allocation of water
i. Enact and enforce by-laws for reuse of recycled upstream equivalent to the excess volume
wastewater, making treated wastewater the only (and quality) that the urban center delivers
source for all non-potable applications in industries. downstream after treatment and meeting other
ii. Mandate that ULBs, over a predefined timeframe, prior commitments.
make treated water available at specific locations 2. Preparation of state-specific recycled wastewater
within the city/town for use by large non-potable standards based on intended use. This would require
water users. inputs from multiple departments and institutions
iii. Enact and enforce by-laws requiring all new and should be guided by the industry/manufacturing
developments to have provision for dual piping and agricultural policies and practices in the state,
that allows reuse of treated water for toilet especially in urban and peri-urban environs. It would
flushing and other non-potable uses. also be guided by any national standards prescribed
4. Revoke or limit the water consent permits for by the appropriate authority and could improve,
withdrawal of ground water/alternate sources of water depending on the local conditions, the social and
for non-potable applications among non-domestic environmental objectives of the state administration.
customers. It is expected that they would be based on
appropriate baseline information on industry water
B. Long-term planning and reforms to promote requirements and agricultural products prevalent in
recycling and reuse of treated wastewater: the state.
1. Identify state-level potential for recycling and reuse of

treated wastewater and initiate appropriate swaps: Initiatives at the Utility Level
a. Creation of an apex body for water resource
planning and management in urban areas. A. Reforms to promote collection and
Alignment of state departments – water treatment of wastewater:
resources/irrigation, municipal administration/
urban development, panchayat raj (local 1. Create a database on consumers, water use
government)/rural development, agriculture and wastewater generation.
– for regional planning, allocation and a) ULBs and water boards report data on water
management of water resources. Some of the supplied and these are underestimates of
states have moved forward with part of the actual water use by designated consumers
agenda through the creation of independent within the supply’s jurisdiction. While a few
regulatory authorities (e.g. Maharashtra) or ULBs and water boards have graduated
through the setting up of apex bodies like the to metering bulk supplies and auditing
Water Resources Department. Most of these transmission infrastructure, metering at the
have focused on sectoral allocation of water, consumption side is limited to only a few
creation of water resource projects and cities. Also, even in metropolitan centers,
tariff fixation for irrigation and special supply industrial consumption of water is rather low
provisions (e.g., for industrial clusters). and seemingly does not reflect actual industrial
b. Integrated planning and direction would provide water requirements. Ground water access and
clarity for the ULB/water boards on the extent use in urban centers is a guesstimate and has
of reclamation/reuse permissible. For instance, tended to assumptions that half the municipal
in cases where there are prior irrigation water requirements are met from ground water
commitments downstream and accounting (take the allocation assumptions in any water
for minimum environmental flows required in tribunal directive).
basin management, the urban center would be b) With these types of data, estimates on water
required to return that predetermined (specific) and wastewater flows within urban environs
amount of treated wastewater into the river. The do not lend themselves to meaningful
volume of treated wastewater in excess of this planning of infrastructure. Such national
commitment is what the ULB/water board can efforts could also contribute to global-,
work on for reclamation/reuse for other uses. regional- and country-level data needs on
c. The introduction of treated wastewater flows wastewater generation, treatment and use
in water resource planning and management as they will be required for the SDGs (Sato et
deliberations at the regional level would al. 2013).
18
c) In urban centers, water supplied for parks and Analyze historical O&M costs of wastewater
other recreation spaces is better accounted for treatment and prepare unit cost estimates
as it is generally conveyed through tankers and for treated wastewater, accounting for
managed by the ULB/water board. energy charges and projecting possible
increases.
2. Planning for treatment and recycling/reuse of Examine the feasibility and costs of developing
wastewater. From the perspective of wastewater dedicated transmission infrastructure for
treatment, reclamation/reuse, it is essential for the treated wastewater and develop scenarios
water management agency to have more usable for different supply amount and investment
data on water consumption by different end recovery periods.
users, especially users that can be satisfied with
nonpotable water.
With the reforms adopted in the urban sphere B. Reforms to ensure provision of treated
over the last planning period, many of the larger wastewater:
urban centers have updated their property
databases and even made them geographically 1. Identify options for provision of treated
explicit (i.e. GIS-based). For these cities, wastewater
these data could be a useful starting point to Analyze historical quality parameters of treated
locate large residential (apartment complexes wastewater to finalize what treated wastewater
or layouts), industrial and commercial users, products are feasible to supply.
cluster them spatially and build up estimates Probe Department of Industry or industry
of water use based on property size. Other development boards or area development
cities will need to start from scratch in building boards to understand planned infrastructure
a database of industrial/commercial customers investments (next five years), the type of
within their jurisdictions. industries, water requirements for different
Prioritization could be made for industrial estates end uses and the possibility of bulk dual water
or clusters that have arisen in the urban/peri- supply arrangements.
urban area. Start engagement with identified potential
Data from the Department of Industries should consumers within 10 km supply distance of
be accessed and used to estimate water available treatment plants, if consumers are
demands in key industrial sectors within the dispersed spatially OR engaged with identified
urban jurisdiction and possibly its periphery. major water consumers who are located in
These are potential consumers of treated discrete locations (industrial estates, special
wastewater. economic zones, software parks, large
After identification of the potential type of residential layouts).
consumers for treated wastewater – industry, Start with pilot projects centered around a
institutional, commercial – within the urban treatment plant and aimed at offtake of a limited
area, conducting public consultations with portion of the treated wastewater. Scale up after
representatives would help to identify the range review.
of end users and quality requirements. This 2. Keeping O&M costs low. Reduce the costs of
will need to be fine-tuned further with selected recycled wastewater through energy recover/
major water consumers. power generation at the treatment facility, where
Water-use surveys on a sample basis will need possible. Incorporate in future treatment plant
to be carried out to assess: design to ensure improved financial viability.
o Present and projected water use in 3. Enhance by-laws and building rules.
identified industrial, commercial, institutional Supply of treated wastewater would require
(educational campuses) and recreational the construction and alignment of separate
facilities; conveyance systems. Norms for them will need
o Current sources of supply and costs of to be incorporated in ULB by-laws and urban
water; road construction plans. Reuse of dual quality
o Potential opportunities for utilizing reclaimed water would also require suitable access points
water. and storage facilities at receiving properties. The
Prepare an estimate of treated wastewater standards will need to be incorporated in the
production – present and projected. building rules.
19
References
Amerasinghe, P.; Bhardwaj, R.M.; Scott, C.; Jella, K.; Marshall, F. 2013. Urban Kelkar, U.G. 2012b. Wastewater recycle and reuse – Indian experience.
wastewater and agricultural reuse challenges in India. IWMI Research Presentation made at ‘Wastewater Recycle and Reuse: The Need of
Report 147. Colombo: IWMI. 36p. the Hour’ workshop organized by the Ministry of Urban Development,
Amoah, P.; Keraita, B.; Akple, M.; Drechsel, P.; Abaidoo, R.C.; Konradsen, Government of India at New Delhi on April 18, 2012.
F. 2011. Low cost options for health risk reduction where crops are Keraita, B.; Drechsel, P.; Klutse, A.; Cofie, O. 2014. On-farm treatment options for
irrigated with polluted water in West Africa. IWMI Research Report 141. wastewater, greywater and fecal sludge with special reference to West
Colombo: IWMI. Available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/ Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.CGIAR Research Program on Water,
IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB141/RR141.pdf Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 32p
BEE (Bureau of Energy Efficiency). 2011. Mitigation initiatives through agriculture Kumar, V.C. 2013. Presentation on ‘Wastewater status and reuse of water’.
demand side management. Presentation made in August 2011 by Resource Recovery and Reuse: From Research to Implementation.
Sarabjit Singh Saini, Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Power, Inception Workshop, Bangalore, India, April 24, 2013.
Government of India. Londhe, A., J. Talati, L.K. Singh, M. Vilayasseril, S. Dhaunta, B. Rawlley,
CDM (Camp, Dresser & McKee – International). 2005. Hyderabad municipal K.K. Ganapathy and R. P. Mathew. 2004. Urban-Hinterland Water
wastewater recycling project: Draft final report, Camp, Dresser & McKee Transactions: A Scoping Study if Six Class I Indian Cities. Paper
– International. Presented at IWMI-Tata Annual Partners Meeting, Anand, India.
Census of India. 2011. Household amenities and assets. The Office of Registrar Libhaber M.; Orozco-Jaramillo, A. 2013 Sustainable treatment of municipal
General and Census Commissioner, Govt. of India. wastewater. Water21 (October 2013): 25-28.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2007a. Performance evaluation of sewage McCartney, M.; Scott, C.; Ensink, J.; Jiang, B.B.; Biggs, T. 2008. Salinity
treatment plants in India. New Delhi: CPCB, Ministry of Environment and implications of wastewater irrigation in the Musi River catchment in India.
Forests, Govt. of India. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 37(1): 49-59.
CPCB. 2007b. Evaluation of operation and maintenance of sewage treatment MGI (McKinsey Global Institute). 2010. India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive
plants in India-2007. Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/68/2007. cities, sustaining economic growth. April 2010. McKinsey Global
India: CPCB. Institute.
CPCB. 2008. A study of pilot project on decentralized treatment and recycling of Minhas, P.S. 2002. Use of sewage in agriculture: Some experience. Presentation
domestic wastewater - an integrated approach to water management at at workshop on ‘Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting
Sangamam community - a village model in out-skirts of Aoruoville. India: Livelihoods and Environmental Realities’. Hyderabad: IWMI.
Central Pollution Control Board. MoEF. 2012. India Second National Communication to the United Nations
CPCB. 2009a. Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment Framework Convention on Climate Change. New Delhi: MoEF.
in Class-I cities and Class-II towns of India. Control of urban pollution Morf, L.; Koch, M. 2009. Synthesebericht für interessierte Fachpersonen, Zürcher
series: CUPS 70/2009-100. New Delhi: CPCB, Ministry of Environment Klärschlamm-entsorgung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
and Forests, Govt. of India. Ressourcenaspekte. Zurich: Baudirection.
CPCB. 2009b. Comprehensive environmental assessment of industrial clusters. MoWR (Ministry of Water Resources). 2006. Report of the working group on water
New Delhi: CPCB, Ministry of Environment and Forests. resources for the XI Five Year Plan (2007-2012). New Delhi: MoWR.
CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization). MoWR. 2011. Report of the working group on major & medium irrigation and
2013. Manual on sewerage and sewage treatment systems. New Delhi: command area development for the XII Five Year Plan (2012-2017). New
Ministry of Urban Development, CPHEEO. Delhi: MoWR.
Drechsel, P.; Seidu, R. 2011. Cost-effectiveness of options for reducing health Murray, A.; Buckley, C. 2010. Designing reuse-oriented sanitation infrastructure:
risks in areas where food crops are irrigated with wastewater. Water the design for service planning approach. In: Drechsel, P.; Scott, C.A.;
International 36 (4) 535-548. Raschid-Sally, L.; Redwood, M.; Bahri, A. (eds.). Wastewater irrigation
Drechsel, P.; Qadir, M.; Wichelns, D. 2014. Wastewater: an economic asset in an and health: Assessing and mitigation risks in low-income countries. UK:
urbanizing world. Springer. Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI. pp 303-318.
GTZ (German Technical Cooperation Agency). 2009. The Chinese waste water NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Potential for expanding the nation’s
treatment sector. CDM Perspectives in China. Opportunities for German water supply through reuse of municipal wastewater. Washington, D.C.:
know-how and CDM application. Beijing: GTZ. National Research Council.
GWI (Global Water Intelligence). 2010. Municipal water reuse markets. Oxford, Otoo, M.; Drechsel, P. 2016. Resource recovery from waste: business models for
UK: GWI. energy, nutrient and water reuse. Earthscan.
Hanjra, M.A.; Drechsel, P.; Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Otoo, M.; Hernandez, F. 2014. PC (Planning Commission). 2011. Final report of minor irrigation and watershed
Assessing the finance and economics of resource recovery and reuse management for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017). New Delhi:
solutions across scales. In: Drechsel, P.; Qadir, M.; Wichelns, D. 2014. Planning Commission.
Wastewater: an economic asset in an urbanizing world. Springer. PC. 2013. Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017). Faster, more inclusive and
IDFC (Infrastructure Development Finance Company). 2011. India Infrastructure sustainable growth. Volume I. India: Planning Commission (Government
Report. Water: Policy and Performance for Sustainable Development. of India).
Oxford University Press. New Delhi Raman, R. 2009. Economic valuation of wastewater – An urban perspective.
IIR (India Infrastructure Research). 2013. Sewage Treatment Market Presentation made at ‘Round Table on Public Private Partnerships for
Kaur, R.; Wani, S.P.; Singh, A.K.; Lal, K. 2012. Wastewater production, treatment Improved Sanitation’ workshop organized by the Ministry of Urban
and use in India. New Delhi: Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Development at Bangalore, June 3, 2009.
Research Institute. Sato, T., Qadir, M., Yamamoto, S., and Zahoor, A. 2013. Global, regional and
Kelkar, U.G. 2012a. Wastewater recycle and reuse – technology evolution and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and
costs. Presentation made at ‘Wastewater Recycle and Reuse: The Need use. Agricultural Water Management 130 1-13. Elsevier. B. V.
of the Hour’ workshop organized by the Ministry of Urban Development, Sharma, A. 2013. Mahagenco - Nagpur Municipal Corporation waste water
Government of India at New Delhi on April 18, 2012. Available at reuse project at Nagpur: water supply for (3x660 MW) Koradi TPS.
http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ uwss/wwrr.htm. Accessed Presentation at MoUD workshop on wastewater recycling, New Delhi.
November 28, 2013.
20
Silva, P.; Scot, C. 2002. What are the wastewater treatment plant effects WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of
on wastewater irrigation benefits? Presentation at workshop on wastewater, greywater and excreta in agriculture and aquaculture.
‘Wastewater Use in Irrigated Agriculture: Confronting Livelihoods and Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Environmental Realities’. Hyderabad: IWMI. WHO. 2010. Second information kit: The guidelines for the safe use of wastewater,
ThFC (Thirteenth Finance Commission). 2009. Volume 1: Report. Thirteenth excreta and greywater in agriculture and aquaculture. Geneva: WHO-
Finance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. FAO-IDRC-IWMI. Available at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_
UN-Water. 2011. Industrial wastewater reclamation technology for urban irrigation. health/wastewater/human_waste/en/.
Presented by Piet DuPisani, Head of the Water and Wastewater WII (Winrock International). 2006. Urban wastewater: Livelihoods, health and
Department of the City of Windhoek. Water in the Green Economy environmental impacts in India. New Delhi: Winrock International.
in Practice: Towards Rio+20. UN-Water International Conference, WSP (Water and Sanitation Program). 2008. Technology options for urban
Zaragoza, Spain. October 3-5, 2011. sanitation in India. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Guidelines WSP. 2011. Economic Impact of Inadequate Sanitation in India. New Delhi: Water
for water reuse. Washington, DC: USEPA, Cincinnati, OH: Office of and Sanitation Program
Research and Development.
WSP. 2014. Cost of wastewater treatment recovery in sewerage and sewage
World Bank. 2010. Improving wastewater use in agriculture: An emerging priority. treatment. New Delhi: Water and Sanitation Program.
The World Bank.
21
Appendixes
Appendix 1. Current and Projected Water Demands in India

The dominant demand driver in the future will continue to to almost 9% of the total demand by 2050. The current
be the agriculture sector in India, the current share of which (2010 requirement) and projected water demands (2025
was about 85% of total water demand in 2010, expected and 2050 estimates) for various sectors (CPCB 2009b; PC
to become about 74% by 2050. The demand from the 2013) are presented in Figure A1.137 Table A1.1 identifies
industrial sector is expected to triple in the same period, the most water-intensive industrial sectors in India and
with demand for water in the energy sector (currently at presents their water consumption and wastewater
less than 1% of total water demand) anticipated to increase generation (IDFC 2011).
FIGURE A1.1. Current and projected water demands in India.
Sector Wise Water Demand - MoWR Projections

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2010 2025 2050
Irrigation 688 910 1072
Drinking Water 56 73 102
Energy 5 15 130
Industry 12 23 63
Others 52 72 80
37
Figure A1.1 is based on MoWR estimates, which differ slightly from estimates prepared by the National Council for Integrated Water Resource and Development (NCIWRD). NCIWRD data are
lower than those presented here and developed by the Standing Subcommittee of the Ministry of Water Resources (PC 2013).
22
tABLE A1.1. Water consumption in the industrial sector in India.
Industrial Sector Annual wastewater Annual consumption Proportion of total

discharge (million (million cubic meters) water consumed in
cubic meters) industry (per cent)
Thermal power plants 27,000.9 35,157.4 87.87

Engineering 1551.3 2019.9 5.05
Pulp and paper 695.7 905.8 2.26
Textiles 637.3 829.8 2.07
Steel 396.8 516.6 1.29
Sugar 149.7 194.9 0.49
Fertilizer 56.4 73.5 0.18
Others 241.3 314.2 0.78
Total 30,729.2 40,012 100
Source: IDFC 2011
23
24
Appendix 2. Cities Sourcing Water from Distant Sources
In India, cities get their water from significant distances. Table A2.1 provides the distances for different cities.
TABLE A2.1. Indian City water source.
City Traditional source Distance from Subsequent source Distance from Current/future source Distance from
city (km) city (km) city (km)
Agra River Yamuna Within the city River Yamuna Within the city Mathura-Vrindavan water supply 400
s cheme
Rajkot Barrages on River Aji 11 Bhadar Dam 65 River Narmada water from Malia 400
(River Bhadar) canal
Delhi Stepwells Within the city Tehri Dam >300 Renuka Dam 325
(River Ganga)
Chennai Redhills and Poondi lakes 50-70 Veeranam lake 235
Jodhpur Stepwells and lakes Within the city Indira Gandhi Canal 205
Aurangabad Shallow wells Within the city Nath Sagar Dam 42 Nandur Madhmeshwar Dam 185
(River Godavari)
Dewas Stepwells Within the city River Shipra 12 River Narmada 168
Bhilwara Meja Dam 11 Ground water from the bed 9 Bisalpur Dam 138
of the River Banas (River Chambal)
Tumkur Maidala tank Within the city Bugudanahalli Reservoir 8 Hebbaka Tank 133
Hemavati Tank
Mathura Ground water Within the city Ground water and River Nearby Upper Ganga Canal 130
(shallow wells) Yamuna
Mumbai Prior to 1870, shallow wells Within the city Bhatsa Tank 100-110 Middle Vaitarna 120
Upper Vaitarna, Tulsi,
Vihar Lakes
Hyderabad River Musi and Hussain Within the city Osman Sagar Lake 15 Manjira, Singur IV and 59-80
Sagar Lake Himayat Sagar Lake 9.6 Nagarjuna Sagar Dam 116
Solapur Hipparaga Lake Nearby city River Bhima and Ujani Dam 27
110
Bengaluru River Arkavathi 25 River Cauvery 100
Jhansi Shallow, open wells Within the city Matatila Dam on the 45 Rajghat Dam on the River Betwa 95
Riiver Betwa
Surat Borewells and ranney wells Within the city River Tapi 90 River Tapi 5
(Ukai Dam)
Gurgaon Ground water Within the city Ground water and 69 Yamnuna Canal
(shallow wells) Yamnuna Canal (through pipeline) 70
Indore Yashwant Sagar Dam and 8-12 River Narmada 70
Bilwali Tank
(Continued)
tABLE A2.1. Indian City water source. (c0ntinued)
City Traditional source Distance from Subsequent source Distance from Current/future source Distance from
city (km) city (km) city (km)
Bhopal Upper and Lower Lakes Within the city Kolar Dam 44 River Narmada 55
Thane Shallow and open wells Within the city Bhatsa Dam 58 Temghar Dam 26
Hubli-Dharwad Shallow wells Within the city Neera Sagar Lake and 30 Malaprabha Reservoir 30/55
Malaprabha Reservoir 55
Udaipur Stepwells and lakes Within the city Jaisamand Lake 50 Mansi, Wakal and Dewas Dam 42-45
Baramati Left bank canal from
River Neera Near the city Ujani Dam 50
(River Bhima)
Thiruvananthapuram Aruvikkara Dam across 16 Peppara Dam 45
River Karamana (River Karamana)
Nagpur River Kannan 20
Gorewada Lake 10 Pench Dam 45 Mundali Dam 40
Bhubaneswar River Kuakhai and Daya 2-3 River Mahanadi 30
Dhanbad Shallow open wells Within the city Topchanhi lake 20 Maithan Dam across the 35
River Damodar 22 River Barakar
Gwalior Shallow open wells Within the city Tighara Dam 27

Srinagar Shallow wells and Dal Lake Within the city River Doodhganga 15 Sind nullah (tributary of the 25
Harvan Tarn 21 River Jhelum)
Ujjain River Kshipra Within the city River Gambir 22
Dehradun Open wells and springs Within the city Ground water, springs 8-10 Dam on River Song 20
and canals
Ranchi Shallow wells Within the city Kanke and Rukka Dams 7-20
and Dhurva Reservoir
Aizwal Springs and rooftop Within the city Tlwang River 18
rainwater
Jaipur Ramgarh Lake 27 Ground water Within the city Bisalpur Dam 12
Pune Open wells and shallow Within the city Khadakwasla Dam 12
borewells
Mussoorie Springwater from Jinisi 6-7 down the valley Springwater from Jinisi 6-7 down the valley Hardy Falls 10-12
and Bhilar and Bhilar
Uttarkashi River Assi Ganga 8 Kohri Ghad 11 Basunga spring 5
Kanpur River Ganga (shallow wells) Within the city River Ganga (shallow wells) Within the city Luv-Kush Barrage 10
(River Ganga)
Hazaribagh Hazaribagh Lake 3 Chharwa Dam 8
Srikakulam Shallow open wells Within the city River Nagavali 5
25
Appendix 3. Economic Costs of Inadequate Sanitation

A WSP study (2010) estimated the economic impacts 4. Tourism impacts (loss of tourism revenues,
of inadequate sanitation at INR 2.46 trillion (USD 53.13 gastrointestinal illnesses among tourists).
billion38) in 2006 which is equivalent to 6.4% of the country’s
GDP. The economic costs of inadequate sanitation (in Health accounted for a significant portion (72%) of the losses
relation to the management of human excreta (and related and poor sanitation was attributed to 768,000 deaths, or
hygiene practices), in both the rural and urban areas of India, a tenth of all the deaths in the country; 710,000 children
may arise from: under 5 died from diarrhoea and malnutrition induced by
1. Public health-related impacts (resulting from inadequate sanitation. Among children under five, inadequate
premature mortality, cost of healthcare incurred sanitation causes more than 30 percent of all deaths. Time
in treating diseases resulting from inadequate loss on account of illness or patient care was estimated at
sanitation, productivity losses due to absenteeism); 10 million years in 2006 alone with 90% of the time loss
2. Domestic water-related impacts (cost for household attributed to diarrhoea and diarrhoea-induced illness. This
treatment of water, use of bottled water, piped significantly affects children’s attendance at schools. Urban
water, hauling clean water from longer distances); households bear the highest per capita economic cost on
3. Access time impacts (additional time needed for account of poor sanitation at INR 1,702 (USD 37.6839). It
accessing facilities outside the household, cost of should be highlighted that while the poor are hurt most by
school absence time due to inadequate toilets for poor sanitation, even relatively affluent households are not
girls and work-absence time due to inadequate spared the consequences of poor sanitation and hygiene
toilets for working women); and (see Figures A3.140 and A3.241).
FIGURE A3.1. Cost of inadequate sanitation (billion INR).
Tourism related,
INR 12, 0%
Access related,
INR 487, 20%
Water related,
INR 192, 8%
Health related
INR 1,746, 72%
38
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
26
The study also computed the economic gains from dignity and security, and cleaner neighborhoods. Some
improvements in sanitation. These benefits will stem from treatment options also offer agricultural benefits. While it
saved lives, lower incidence of disease and related costs, is not possible to avoid all the impacts when designing
lower environmental pollution, lower cost of water treatment appropriate interventions, it is possible to considerably
and use; in turn this will result in improved tourism, mitigate the impacts that India suffers, as presented in the
time-savings from better access, greater user comfort, figure below.
FIGURE A3.2. Sanitation, Treatment and Access to Water in India
1.94% of GDP
bacteriological
Water free from
contamination
Safe confinement and disposal of fecal matter ` 733
1.77% of GDP
668
Improved access to safe quality water `
3.38% of GDP
Improved hygiene behavior ` 1,279
Sanitation + hygiene
interventions
2.78% of GDP
Improved access to toilets ` 1,052
3.91% of GDP
Sanitation + hygiene ` 1,476
` 1,600
`0
` 400
` 800
` 1,200
Source: WSP 2011
Improvements in sanitation and hygiene can result in gains gain INR 1,331 (USD 29.2443)) and prevent 338 million cases
of INR 1.48 trillion (USD 33 billion42) (3.9% GDP; per capita of disease and 350,000 deaths.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
27
Appendix 4. International Guiding Frameworks for Wastewater Recycling

and Reuse
USEPA Guidelines for Water Reuse: These guidelines Excreta and Grey Water’ (WHO 2006). These guidelines
provide a detailed framework for the planning and are concerned with the health implications of using
regulation of water reuse projects based on the different wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture applications
standards used across the USA. The prescribed water and aim to protect the health of farmers (and their
quality considerations are based on the type of intended families), local communities and product consumers.
use (as described in Table A4.1). For each reuse The 2006 guidelines moved away from traditional water
application, the guidelines specify the extent of treatment quality thresholds to provide options also for low- and
required, the quality standards, the monitoring parameters middle-income countries for step-wise achievement
and frequency of monitoring, setback distances for potable of so-called health-based targets which describe the
water supply wells and additional commentary. The allowed exposure of the farmer or consumer. The revised
guidelines also specify the degree and type of restriction guidelines promote a multibarrier approach to minimize
required for a particular use based on the detailed water the risk and allow greater flexibility in reuse, depending
quality considerations. See http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/ for example on the type of crop being irrigated and
PDF/P100FS7K.pdf looking at viral, bacterial and protozoan pathogens and
helminth eggs. The revised 2006 guidelines also evaluate
WHO Guidelines, 2006: WHO initially published the use of excreta and treated faecal sludge when used
Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in agriculture or aquaculture. The four volumes of the
in Agriculture and Aquaculture in 1989 and later revised 2006 edition are available at http://www.who.int/water_
this to ‘Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/.
TABLE A4.1. Classification of water reuse applications.
Category of reuse Description
Urban Reuse Unrestricted The use of reclaimed water for nonpotable applications in municipal settings
where public access is not restricted
Restricted The use of reclaimed water for nonpotable applications in municipal settings
where public access is controlled or restricted by physical or institutional
barriers, such as fencing, advisory signage, or temporal access restriction
Agricultural Food Crops The use of reclaimed water to irrigate food crops that are intended for human
Reuse consumption
Processed Food The use of reclaimed water to irrigate crops that are either processed before
Crops and Non-food human consumption or not consumed by humans
Crops
Impoundments Unrestricted The use of reclaimed water in an impoundment in which no limitations are
imposed on body-contact water recreation activities
Restricted The use of reclaimed water in an impoundment where body contact is

restricted
Environmental Reuse The use of reclaimed water to create, enhance, sustain, or augment water
bodies including wetlands, aquatic habitats, or stream flow
Industrial Reuse The use of reclaimed water in industrial applications and facilities, power
production, and extraction of fossil fuels
Groundwater Recharge - The use of reclaimed water to recharge acquifers that are not used as a
Nonpotable Reuse potable water source
Potable Reuse IPR Augmentation of a drinking water source (surface or groundwater) with
reclaimed water followed by an environmental buffer that precedes normal
drinking water treatment
DPR The introduction of reclaimed water (with or without retention in an

engineered storage buffer) directly into a water treatment plant, either
collocated or remote from the advanced wastewater treatment system
Source: USEPA 2012
28
Appendix 5. Implementation Arrangement for Management of Wastewater

Treatment Facilities
A. Accessing Program Funds by CMWSSB. Koyambedu New STP Zone III (60 MLD) is
managed by Enviro Control Associates with a budget of INR
The traditional approach adopted by urban local bodies 14 crore (107) (USD 2.2 million45) for O&M.
(ULBs)/water boards/utilities in India to finance the construction
of STPs is through program grants from the national/state B. Public-Private Partnerships
government, grants or subsidies from the state government
or a combination thereof and charge for the supply of treated A utility may choose to manage the wastewater through
wastewater to meet the O&M expenses of the plant. The different arrangements. The obvious and most frequently
effectiveness of this strategy to recover the cost of O&M relies chosen option (in cities where wastewater treatment is
on the customer’s willingness to pay for the treated wastewater, being provided) is to treat the wastewater collected from
which is implicitly higher when the water is supplied to industrial its service area to the standards required according to
customers, but will depend on the specific treatment and applicable regulations (the minimum requiring treatment
water grade requirements of these customers. Some cities levels to be consistent with conventional secondary
also strive towards keeping O&M efficient (and hence lowering treatment plants). However, utilities may also consider
costs) through third-party O&M management contracts. The arrangements involving public-private partnership
water boards/utilities in the cities of Chennai and Bangalore (PPPs) models whereby some or the entire burden of
have effectively used this model to construct, operate and constructing and operating the treatment plant becomes
manage their treatment facilities, as discussed below. the responsibility of the private operator, with different
forms of revenue and cost sharing depending on the
As of August, 2013 Bangalore has had sewerage specific circumstances of the city/PPP partner. Some
treatment infrastructure capable of treating 721 examples of PPP arrangements in the sanitation sector
MLD of wastewater. This includes 73 MLD of tertiary being implemented in Indian cities are as follows:
treatment capacity and the balance being secondary
treatment. Additional facilities for treating 339 MLD are Nagpur: The City of Nagpur (Nagpur Municipal Corporation
proposed under the centrally-sponsored JNNURM and (NMC)) has entered into an MoU with the Maharashtra
National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) schemes. In Power Generation Company Limited (Mahagenco), a
the current treatment infrastructure, most of the older public sector company, for “Construction and Operating
treatment plants were funded through grants under Agreement of Treatment and Transmission Facilities for
the NRCP, mega city schemes and from the state Reclaimed Water Usage”, whereby NMC will provide 110
government. Apart from this, OECF funds and state MLD of untreated, raw sewage to Mahagenco at the rate of
government investments in the Cauvery Water Supply INR 15 crore/year (USD 2.8 million46), will allocate land at no
Scheme Stage IV, Phase I helped in the setting up of additional cost to the company and pass on to the central
part of the secondary treatment facilities. Seventy MLD capital a grant of INR 90 crore (50% of project cost) (USD
of the tertiary treatment facilities have become available 16.8 million47) received under JNNURM to Mahagenco for
through funding for the Bangalore Water Supply and project construction. Mahagenco in turn will be responsible
Sewerage Board (BWSSB) under the Indo-French for the construction, operation and maintenance of the
protocol. Bangalore is supplying treated wastewater STP according to the requirements, including provision
from the tertiary plants to existing industries, newly of the remaining 50% of the project capital requirement
formed industry clusters and establishments like the (Sharma 2013).
international airport. Two small-scale (1.5 MLD) tertiary
plants have also been set up to raise public awareness Tuticorin: The City of Tuticorin or Thoothukudi is a rapidly
on the benefits of wastewater recycling and reuse. expanding industrial town and a commercial hub for
industrial import and export. The Thoothukudi Municipal
At present the sewage generated in Chennai is being treated Corporation (TMC) is responsible for providing water and
in nine treatment plants: total capacity is 486 MLD. The sanitation services to a population of 3,76,439 (Census of
O&M for several of the plants is conducted through third India 2011). Before the corporation began its current project
party contracts. The Koyambedu STP Zone III (34 MLD) is for the construction of a 24 MLD wastewater treatment
run by CMWSSB with maintenance provided by Detech. plant, facilities for water treatment were almost nonexistent
Human resource and management expenses amount to in the city. TMC approached the Commissionerate of
INR 1 lakh per month (USD 1,56144). Repairs are borne Municipal Administration (CMA) to help undertake the
44
45
Ibid.
46
47
Ibid.
29
project and the CMA, through a Transaction Advisor Panchganga River. The Maharashtra Pollution Control
(CRISIL Risk and Infrastructure Solution Ltd), structured Board (MPCB) issued notice and filed a criminal case
the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on a DBFOT against Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (KMC) for not
basis. The project is being implemented on a PPP basis controlling the quality of sewage discharged into the
for a concession period of 30 years (including two years of river. While KMC had envisaged and designed two STPs
construction), with the TMC responsible for providing land of 76 MLD and 17 MLD capacity each, the corporation’s
for construction and supply of sewage free of cost at the finances did not permit KMC to implement these projects
inlet. The concessionaire is free to sell the treated water to through available revenue surplus. The city decided
industrial units with a tariff structure of his choice during the to use Viability Gap Funding (VGF) and explore a PPP
concession period. The bidding parameter selected was a model for implementation of these projects. The 76 MLD
grant quoted for the project. project availed NCRD grants (70%) and the 17 MLD
project availed grants under the state MSJNMA scheme
The developer selected for the project offered a negative (50%) and secured the balance funds through private
grant to TMC, which was feasible given the prevalence of developers.
saline water in the city limits, drinking water being procured
from long distances and high demand for industrial water The developers were obligated to construct, operate and
with industries purchasing water from private suppliers at maintain the STPs according to state water quality norms,
INR 65-70/ KL (USD 1.07 – 1.1548). while having the right to sell treated water and sludge
over a 15-year concession period. KMC was responsible
The project will benefit all stakeholders, ensuring that for providing land free of cost, providing right of way for
untreated sewage is not discharged into the sea, thereby laying pipelines, assisting in obtaining necessary approvals,
controlling water pollution resulting from rampant dumping providing a predefined contribution on the project cost
of untreated sewage and providing industries access to a and transporting wastewater generated in the city to the
reliable alternate source of water. identified pumping stations. The payments to be made by
KMC included fixed and variable charges (for electricity
Kolhapur: The city was faced with sanitation challenges and consumable cost depending upon the amount of
due to partial/untreated sewage being dumped into the wastewater treated).
48
30
Appendix 6. International Experience on Wastewater Recycling

Several countries have adopted the recycling and reuse treated wastewater is used primarily for irrigation, given
of wastewater to varying degrees and for a range of the increasing competition for water between agriculture
activities, including meeting agricultural water demand. and other sectors. In developing countries, wastewater
Arid parts of the USA, Israel, Mexico, China, Spain, treatment is limited, as investments in treatment facilities
Namibia, Australia and several Middle Eastern countries have not kept pace with persistent increases in population
are recycling their wastewater as irrigation water. China, and the consequent increases in wastewater volume in
India, Mexico and Chile each has a cultivated area of more many countries. Thus, much of the wastewater generated
than 40,000 ha that is irrigated with untreated wastewater is not treated, and much of the untreated wastewater is
(World Bank 2010). The revised and updated Manual used for irrigation in dry areas by small-scale farmers
on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013 with little ability to optimize the volume or quality of the
also discusses countries reusing treated wastewater for wastewater they receive (Sato et al. 2013).
different applications, including for agricultural, industrial
and commercial applications. Israel started to perform massive water reuse in irrigation
in the 1970s, for cotton production. Many lessons have been
Countries such as Israel, Singapore and the coastal states learned since those years, and many types of crops are
of the USA all began their extensive reuse programs to presently irrigated with reclaimed water. Today, more than
mitigate their water scarcity challenges. The programs all 70% of Israel’s sewage is reused in agricultural irrigation and
began with the development of policy/regulations for the treated wastewater is seen as an integral part of the water
recycling of wastewater, followed by detailed guidelines resources of the country.
prescribing the quality of treated water required for various
uses. Policy formulation led to the implementation of pilot Widespread uptake of wastewater irrigation in Israel is
programs and R&D activities to test the suitability of different a combination of resource scarcity experienced in the
technologies for treatment and impact of use of the treated country as well as policy and technology thrusts provided
water for various applications. Extensive public awareness, by the government and research institutions.
outreach and awareness/educational campaigns were also
initiated to gain public support and acceptability for the use Some key policy interventions have been:
of treated and recycled wastewater.
• Wastewater irrigation was included in the National
The culmination of all these policy, institutional, R&D and Policy on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
testing efforts is the flourishing wastewater recycling Development (SARD);
programs in these countries. The most significant benefit • The Ministry of Environment works in collaboration
realized in countries with the propagation of such programs with the Ministry of Agriculture for the long-term
is the creation of an alternate, reliable source of water strategies for sustainable agriculture;
supply for meeting appropriate uses, at cost that is less • Formation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (Inbar),
than the cost of producing an equal quantity of freshwater which developed regulations on water quality; and
from alternative sources. Countries using treated water for • Mandatory requirements for farmers to acquire
agriculture also value the environmental benefit created by permits for irrigation with effluent water.
avoiding the inflow of excess nutrients present in wastewater
into surface water bodies resulting in environmental pollution Policy interventions were supported by intensive research
and eutrophication. Still others, such as the city of Windhoek, and development efforts, with focused water sector
Namibia, have realized economic benefits from recycling planning, and studies on the short- and long-term effects of
wastewater aiming at an increase in land value from €2,500- wastewater irrigation on crops and the environment. Israel
20,000 ha-1 due to water availability and creation of jobs and also created a government extension service focused on
higher incomes (UN-Water 2011). transferring knowledge from research to the farmer and
identifying farmers’ problems and bringing them to research
Wastewater treatment and use and/or disposal in the training courses.
humid regions of developed countries, such as the eastern
part of North America, northern Europe and Japan are Australia: A country faced with unpredictable floods and
motivated by stringent effluent discharge regulations droughts, Australia has embarked upon an aggressive
and public preferences regarding environmental quality. wastewater recycling program, especially for reuse of
Treated wastewater is also used for irrigation, but this treated water in agriculture. The program is led by policy
end use is not substantial in humid areas. The situation action at both state and national levels, supplemented
is different in the arid and semi-arid areas of developed with guidance on recycling contained in the National
countries, such as western North America, Australia, Guidelines for Water Recycling and Reuse. The
parts of the Middle East and southern Europe, where guidelines prescribe quality standards for recycled water
31
depending on the type of reuse, and outline best practices reclaimed wastewater for different purposes. The US
and key considerations. While agricultural reuse is the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has also
most ubiquitous form of reuse practiced in Australia, heavy prescribed Guidelines for Reuse, which were most
manufacturing with water-intensive industrial customers has recently revised in 2012.
also entered into agreements with water providers for the
purchase of recycled water. Earlier reuse projects such as Singapore: The NEWater recycling and reuse program
Rose Hills in Sydney are now entering into forward selling of the Government of Singapore is a manifestation of the
contracts with other customers. country’s limitations vis-à-vis availability of freshwater and
its desire to become self-sufficient in terms of water supply
USA: Various states in the USA are at the forefront of in the next few decades. Officially declared a ‘water poor’
wastewater recycling, largely owing to the limited availability state by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
of freshwater supplies and the water demand-supply gap in Nations (FAO), Singapore relies on freshwater imports from
the region. Almost 90% of all reuse in the USA occurs in just Malaysia (about 30% of total demand), and the remainder
four states: Arizona, California, Florida and Texas. California through rainfall and more than a dozen reservoirs located
and Florida continue to be the two largest users of recycled throughout the state.
(reclaimed) water. While the largest use for recycled water in
California is for agricultural use and for natural systems, To end reliance on international imports of freshwater,
Florida consumes more than 50% of all recycled water the government-owned Public Utilities Board began its
used just for urban reuse (landscape irrigation, golf NEWater program with the establishment of four recycling/
courses). Both states also use reclaimed water for industrial reuse plants which supply water primarily to meet
reuse and ground water recharge. industrial water need as well as for indirect potable
reuse to augment supply reserves in the city’s reservoirs.
Different states started wastewater recycling for The government has also initiated public awareness and
different purposes and have developed state- education campaigns to ensure the acceptability of its
specific reuse standards to support the reuse of NEWater program.
32
Appendix 7. Hyderabad: The Supply-Demand Gap and Using Wastewater

Recycling to Meet the Deficit
Current water supply situation: The total water supply continue to have real deficits in the future as
currently taken in by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water depicted in Figure A7.1. This would be higher if the
Supply and Sanitation Board (HMWSSB) is 1,135 MLD. It commercial losses component of the NRW is not
is estimated that 34% of the current supply is nonrevenue addressed.
water (NRW), (18% is accounted as technical loss) and thus
only a net supply of 931 MLD is managed against a demand Current sanitation situation: In 2006, the total
of about 1,325 MLD (using the trend line for 2006), i.e. wastewater generation from Hyderabad was
there is a deficit of about 400 MLD or 34%. The estimated estimated at 850 MLD, out of which 133 MLD (16%)
demand for domestic use and industrial use over the next receives treatment, and the rest is discharged
20 years is presented in Table A7.1. into Musi River untreated. To clean the Musi River,
HMWSSB implemented the Musi River Conservation
Using the projected demand and supply estimates Project under the National River Conservation
(up to 2031), it is observed that HMWSSB will Directorate (NRCD).
TABLE A7.1. Total water demand estimates for Hyderabad till 2031.
Sector 2001 2011 2021 2031
Domestic (MLD) 862.65 1,376.85 1,538.03 1,772.16

Nondomestic/commercial (MLD) n.a. 80.38 120.57 141.37
Industrial (assumed constant) (MLD) 275 275 275 275
Total demand (MLD) 1,137.65 1,732.23 1,933.6 2,188.53
Source: CDM 2005.
FIGURE A7.1. Water deficit till 2031, accounting for technical losses.
2500
2188
2000 1933
1833
1732
1603 1603
1500 1435
Quantity (MLD)
1325
1267
1000 931
585
465
500 394 398
330
0
2006 2011 2016 2021 2031
Total demand Net supply Deficit
33
The design treatment capacities and the projected future This appears to be a more sustainable approach compared
sewage flow rates to these plants indicate wastewater flow to the present attempts by water utilities to draw freshwater
figures as provided in Table A7.2. from distance sources to meet the growing demands in the
cities. Besides requiring considerable resources, the system
From Table A7.2, it is clear that more than 500 MLD of may also require pumping (to lift the water) and the sources are
secondary-treated wastewater will be available from the either drying up due to overexploitation or are overallocated
2011 which could be treated and/or reused in industries, due to political and economic forces. Closing the gap between
freeing up freshwater hitherto supplied to augment the water demand and supply for any city administration is a challenge
supply and meet the water supply demand. and wastewater recycling and reuse is a promising solution.
TABLE A7.2. Water supply situation and wastewater availability for recycling and reuse.
Year Water demand Total supply Wastewater inflow Wastewater available

(MLD) (MLD) to STPsa (MLD) for recycling and reuseb (MLD)
2011 1,732 1,545 1,004 534
2016 1,833 1,750 1,138 665
2031 2,188 1,955 1,271 795
Source: CDM 2005.
a
65% of supply;
b
After deducting 2% for STP loss and 450 MLD towards ‘right of access’ (to meet the objective of the NRCD), all the treated wastewater cannot be reused.
Therefore, a portion of the treated wastewater will be discharged into the Musi River to maintain river flow and the ‘right of access’ of downstream farmers (source:
http://www.soulhyd.org/hussain_sagar/CHAP07.pdf).
34
Appendix 8. Comparison of Financial Implications of Options to Augment

Water Supply in Cities
In order to examine and quantify the benefits of Implications of Water Supply Augmentation in
wastewater recycling and reuse to water utilities, Hyderabad and Bangalore
WSP undertook a study to compare the impact on the
operating revenues of select water utilities as a result of Key features related to water supply and
augmenting water supply. This analysis was undertaken wastewater treatment in Bangalore are presented
for the cities of Hyderabad, Bangalore and Chennai. in Box A8.1.
BOX A8.1. Bangalore.
Bangalore has a tertiary level treatment capacity of 73 MLD spread across four of the 14 STPs. The V. Valley tertiary
stage was built to supply water to the Bidadi power plant. However, it is now serving different industries for non-potable
reuse. The cost of production is between INR 10-12 m-3 (USD 0.17 – 0.2149) and the treated effluent is sold at INR
15 m-3 (USD 0.2650) for plant side supply and at INR 25 m-3 (USD 0.4351) (Kumar 2013) for supply piped to consumer
premises (with the pipe-laying cost borne by the consumer). The Yelhanka treatment plant is the second biggest
tertiary level treatment plant in Bangalore, with a tertiary treatment capacity of 10 MLD and an actual flow of 5.2 MLD. It
currently supplies wastewater to the city’s international airport, Rail Wheel Factory and other industries. Finally, Cubbon
Park and Lalbagh tertiary treatment plants are the smallest plants with capacity of 1.5 MLD and serve the respective
parks. According to BWSSB officials the monthly revenue generated by the four treatment plants is about INR 4 million
(USD 68,44652).
The utilities could augment existing water supplies through HMWSSB, while the utility continues to incur operational
two means: losses under both supply augmentation scenarios (assuming
that all other operational considerations remain the same
(a) Transporting water from a distant surface water (tariff, distribution and revenue collection efficiencies), the
source using multistage pumping or desalination operational revenue loss when augmenting the city’s water
and other expensive treatment options, and supply with recycled wastewater is 40% of the losses
(b) Wastewater recycling and reuse because supply of incurred when augmenting with freshwater from distant
treated wastewater for non-potable applications to sources. While the utility continues to remain loss-making
industries frees up the stock of water available with under both options on account of inefficiencies in the system
the utility, enabling augmentation of water supply to (leakages, tariffs and revenue collection), the projected
the city. losses could be brought down significantly if the wastewater
recycling option was exercised by a factor of 2.5 (see Figure
The results of the study clearly bring out the benefits of A8.153), compared to the option of developing the distant
recycling treated wastewater for the utility. In the case of water source and pumping water to the city.
49
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
35
FIGURE A8.1. Revenue comparison for WW recycling and the distant surface water option for
Hyderabad.
Net Revenue from Additional Water Rs. (in Milllions)
Total Revenue: WW Reuse
Total Revenue (new source)
-5,000 -4,000 -3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0
Net Revenue
Source: Raman (2009).
A similar analysis of the BWSSB was undertaken which Industry, it would have reduced the deficit by 70%, owing to
presents comparable findings. The study compared the the high realization from industry for potable water. However,
investment required for augmenting water supply by 200 MLD this would have been possible only with assured industrial off-
(through the Cauvery Water Supply System Stage IV, Phase take at such rates.
II was carried out through 2006-2014) and the alternate
option of WWRR targeted at industries for swap. BWSSB In both Bangalore and Hyderabad (more so the former),
incurred an operational deficit of about INR 2,500 million the WSSB needs to increase the share of industrial or
(USD 46.76 million54) on an annual operating expenditure of nondomestic consumption in its consumer portfolio. For
about INR 9,500 million (USD 177 million55) in FY 2012-13. Bangalore, of the total water supplied/billed (~600 MLD),
If we consider capital investments for both options as being industry accounts for less than 20 MLD, while nondomestic
financed by loans, the operating deficit of BWSSB under the (partially and fully) absorbs about 125 MLD. WWRR targeted
Cauvery Stage IV scheme would have increased slightly more for non-potable uses would start making economic sense
than 4 times the current deficit owing largely to the interest to WSSBs when they are able to estimate non-potable
burden and the continuing deficit realization from unit water demand and meet it through investments in dual-piping
supplied. In comparison, the WWRR-to-industries option (with or without consumer participation). Current consumer
would have reduced the deficit by 15%. If the additional water databases with the WSSBs do not seem to have this
obtained from the Cauvery had been somehow channeled to information.
54
55
Ibid.
36
Implication of Water Supply Augmentation in recycling and supply to industry for swap. While the
Chennai Desal option required a capital investment that implied an
annual payout of INR 2,357 million (USD 44.1 million58),
In 2010, the CMWSSB was supplying about 637 MLD of the corresponding burden with the WWR option was
water to various categories of consumers. The supply only INR 421 million (USD 7.88 million59) – an 82%
increased to 827 MLD in 2012 owing to generation from the reduction. Since the Desal option was executed through
desalination plant and additional flows in that year from the a DBOOT contract and CMWSSB had negligible capital
surface water sources. In 2010 before the desalination option investment, operational revenues were compared for
was activated, CMWSSB reported operational surplus of the two options taking only the operational revenue and
INR 169 million (USD 3.7 million56) on an expenditure of INR expenditure into account. The high cost of Desal water
3,753 million (USD 82.1 million57) (Box A8.2). (INR 48.66 KL-1 (USD 0.9160)) resulted in the CMWSSB
reporting operating deficits by FY 2012. Comparison of
An analysis was carried out to assess the implications the two options indicated that the WWR-and-swap option
of water augmentation options on utility operational would have decreased the operating deficit by half and
performance with consideration of two alternate options also lessened significantly – by 40% - the gap-funding
for ensuring a reliable and an augmented supply (100 provided by the Government of Tamil Nadu (GoTN) to
MLD) of water for Chennai. The options considered were the utility, which stood at INR 1,380 million (USD 25.81
(1) seawater desalination (Desal) and (2) wastewater million61) in FY 2012.
BOX A8.2. Water Supply situation in Chennai.
In Chennai’s case, the CMWSSB sources water from surface and ground water sources for the drinking water
requirements of the CMA. The surface water sources receive water during the northeast monsoon (normally from
October to December) and thus have variable quantities; this dependency on the monsoon places Chennai’s
requirements at risk. Acute water scarcity and failure of the monsoon in 2003 necessitated the search for a sustainable
and secure source of water supply. The CMWSSB thus opted for seawater desalinization to augment the reliable
and assured source of water for Chennai. This was initiated at Minjur for 100 MLD capacity on a design, build, own,
operate and transfer basis (DBOOT). The augmented supply of water through the desalinization project became
operational in FY 2012.
56
57
Ibid.
58
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
37
Appendix 9. Potential for Industrial Reuse in India

Wastewater recycling is beneficial both for utility and across various industrial clusters in India identified a
industrial customers to offset at least a part of their total of 88 industrial clusters spread across 21 states.
industrial water needs, depending on processed water The complete list of these industrial clusters is included
quality considerations. Industrial customers are in a position as Table A9.1. A rapid assessment of the wastewater
to adequately pay for the use of treated wastewater. It is generated in the cities within these 88 industrial
desirable that cities, whenever possible, should promote the clusters reveals that it may be possible to recycle for
use and sale of recycled wastewater to industrial customers, industrial reuse about one-third of the total wastewater
even making this practice mandatory through changes in generated across all Class I and Class II towns in India,
state/local regulations. as summarized in Table A9.2. Recycled wastewater from
Class I and II cities has the potential to meet about a
An MoEF and CPCB assessment (CPCB 2009b) quarter of the total current industrial water demand (17
undertaken to assess the status of environmental pollution BCM including demand for energy).
TABLE A9.1. List of major industrial clusters in India.
Citya State City State
Agra Uttar Pradesh Kala Amb Himachal Pradesh

Ahmedabad Gujarat Kanpur Uttar Pradesh
Aligarh Uttar Pradesh Kathedan Andhra Pradesh
Angul Talcher Orissa Korba Chhattisgarh
Ankleshwar Gujarat Kukatpalli Andhra Pradesh
Asansole West Bengal Ludhiana Punjab
Aurangabad Maharashtra Manali Tamil Nadu
Bada Jamtara Jharkhand Mandi Gobind Garh Punjab
Baddi Himachal Pradesh Mangalore Karnataka
Batala Punjab Mathura Uttar Pradesh
Bhadravati Karnataka Meerut Uttar Pradesh
Bhavnagar Gujarat Mettur Tamilnadu
Bhillai- Durg Chhattisgarh Moradabad Uttar Pradesh
Bhiwadi Rajasthan Nagda Madhya Pradesh
Bidar Karnataka Nashik Maharashtra
Bulandsahar-Khurza Uttar Pradesh Navi Mumbai Maharashtra
Burnihat Assam Nazafgarh drain basin including Delhi
Anand Parvet, Naraina, Okhla,
Wazirpur
Chandrapur Maharashtra Noida Uttar Pradesh
Chembur Maharashtra Pali Rajasthan
Coimbatore Tamil Nadu Panipat Haryana
Greater Cochin Kerala Paradeep Orissa
Cuddalore Tamil Nadu Parwanoo Himachal Pradesh
Dewas Madhya Pradesh Patancheru- Andhra pradesh
Dhanbad Jharkhand Pimpari-Chinchwad Maharashtra
Digboi Assam Pinia Karnataka
Dombivalli Maharashtra Pitampur Madhya Pradesh
Durgapur West Bengal Raichur Karnataka
Erode Tamil Nadu Raipur Chhatisgarh
Faridabad Haryana Rajkot Gujarat
Ferozabad Uttar Pradesh Ramgarh Jharkhand
Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Saraikela Jharkhand
Gwalior Madhya Pradesh Singhbhum, West Bihar
Hajipur Bihar Singrauli Uttar Pradesh
(Continued)
38
TABLE A9.1. List of major industrial clusters in India. (Continued)
Citya State City State
Haldia West Bengal Surat Gujarat

Haridwar Uttarakhand Tarapur Maharashtra
Howrah West Bengal Tirupur Tamil Nadu
Indore Madhya Pradesh Udhamsingh Nagar Uttarakhand
Ib Valley Orissa Vadodara Gujarat
Jaipur Rajasthan Vapi Gujarat
Jalandhar Punjab Varansi-Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh
Jamshedpur Jharkhand Vatva Gujarat
Jharsuguda Orissa Vellore North Arcot Tamil Nadu
Jodhpur Rajasthan Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh
Junagarh Gujarat Vishakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh
a
Source: CPCB 2009b
TABLE A9.2. Wastewater generation and potential for industrial reuse.
Wastewater generated in the state (in Class I and II Cities) (MLD) 39,500
Potential for industrial reuse (MLD) 14,260
Industrial reuse potential as a percentage of total wastewater generation 36%
States can also be categorized based on the potential for industrial reuse in the state, as presented in Table A9.3.
TABLE A9.3. Potential for industrial reuse in Indian states and UTs.
Potential for industrial States Quantity of

wastewater recycling62 wastewater (MLD)
Nil/negligible Andaman & Nicobar Islands; Arunachal Pradesh; Assam; Bihar; Negligible
Chandigarh; Dadra & Nagar Haveli; Daman & Diu; Goa; Jammu &
Kashmir; Lakshadweep; Manipur; Mizoram; Meghalaya;
Nagaland; Pondicherry; Sikkim; Tripura
5-20% Andhra Pradesh; Himachal Pradesh; Karnataka; Kerala; 1,050

Orissa; Tamil Nadu; Uttarakhand; West Bengal
20-30% Haryana; Madhya Pradesh 590
30-50% Jharkhand; Maharashtra; Punjab; Rajasthan; Uttar Pradesh 8,000
>50% Chhattisgarh; Gujarat; NCT of Delhi 4,600
62
As a percent of total WW generated in the state. Potential for wastewater has been estimated based on the 88 industrial clusters identified by CPCB/MoEF (CPCB 2009b) and assuming that
the entire quantity of wastewater generated in the cities identified in the industrial cluster can be recycled for industrial reuse. The wastewater generation from cities has been estimated based
on the population (Census of India 2011) and the average per capita water supplied in the State (CPCB 2009a).
39
Appendix 10. Health Considerations When Using Recycled and Treated

Wastewater
The potential health risks of water reuse by any stakeholder Buckley 2010; NRC 2012). In the Indian context, recycled
exposed to the water or a product produced with it, depends and treated wastewater use are emerging, especially in the
on the one hand on the degree of exposure, and on the industrial sector, while in agriculture the use of untreated
other hand on the adequacy, effectiveness and reliability or partially treated water remains common (Amerasinghe
of the treatment processes adopted. Non-potable use of et al. 2013). Given the widespread nature of the practice,
treated wastewater is a common phenomenon in many regulatory authorities need assistance on how to move from
countries, and usually takes place under stringent regulatory informal to formal reuse as the alternative would be to ban
conditions (WHO 2006; USEPA 2012). As the goal of informal reuse which would be a challenge given the large
wastewater treatment is to protect public and environmental number of dependent livelihoods.
health, the same applies to water reuse, however, while not
discouraging its practice and value especially under water- Table A10.1. gives an overview of water quality standards
constrained conditions. Based on the planned reuse, such for different reuse applications as used in the USA (USEPA
as for agriculture (food and nonfood crops), industry, aquifer 2012). These standards are based on the capacity to have
recharge etc., the needed treatment levels and reuse- wastewater treatment plants in place where needed, which
specific health guidelines should be targeted (Murray and is not yet the case in India.
TABLE A10.1. Water quality guidelines for various reuse applications.
pH BOD Turbidity TSS Fecal coliform Residual

(mg L-1) (NTU) (mg L-1) (100 mL-1) Cl2(mg L-1)
Urban reuse Unrestricted 6.0-9.0 ≤10 ≤2 - No 1

detectable
Restricted 6.0-9.0 ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1
Agricultural reuse Food crops 6.0-9.0 ≤10 ≤2 - No 1

detectable
Processed food/
nonfood crops 6.0-9.0 ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1
Impoundments Unrestricted 6.0-9.0 ≤10 ≤2 - No 1

detectable
Restricted - ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1
Environmental reuse Environmental - ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1

reuse

Industrial reuse Once, through - ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1
cooling
Recirculating - ≤30 - 30 ≤200 1
cooling towers
Ground water Non-potable reuse Site-specific and use-dependent

recharge
Indirect potable 6.5-8.5 Meet drinking ≤2 ≤2 TOC of No 1
use – aquifer drinking water waste-water detectable
recharge, standards origin water
augmentation of
surface reservoirs
Source: Adapted from USEPA 2012.
40
The agents that can cause health hazards when presented in Table A10.2, and can be used as a guide
treatment coverage is low and untreated municipal to indicate the health hazard in the event the treatment
wastewater comes in contact with water users are is not satisfactory.
TABLE A10.2. Examples of different kinds of hazards associated with municipal wastewater which
are of concern in reuse applications.
Hazard Exposure route Relative importance
Excreta-related pathogens
Bacteria (for example E. coli, Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella spp. Shigella spp.) Contact; consumption Low–high
Helminths (parasitic worms)
• Soil-transmitted (Ascaris, hookworms, Taenia spp.) Contact; consumption Low–high
• Schistosoma spp. Contact Nil–high
Protozoa (Giardia intestinalis, Cryptosporidium,
Entamoeba spp.) Contact; consumption Low–medium
Viruses (for example hepatitis A virus, hepatitis E virus,

adenovirus, rotavirus, norovirus) Contact; consumption Low–high
Skin irritants and infections Contact Medium–high
Vector-borne pathogens (Filaria spp., Japanese encephalitis

virus, Plasmodium spp.) Vector contact Nil–medium
Chemicals
Heavy metals (for example arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury) Consumption Generally low
Halogenated hydrocarbons (dioxins, furans, PCBs) Consumption Low
Pesticides, biocides and herbicides (aldrin, DDT) Contact; consumption Low
Pharmaceuticals and metabolites (antibacterials, oral contraceptives, Consumption Low

veterinary and human antibiotics, analgesics)
Personal care products (triclosan, fragrances, pigments) Consumption Low
Source: Adapted from WHO 2006.
41
If the source water for treatment is municipal wastewater, helminthic infections. In this case, studies suggest proxy
and the treatment is inadequate, the most common health indicators that can be easily used for testing the treated
consideration should be for diarrhoeal diseases and water for hazard agents (Table A10.3).
TABLE A10.3. Examples of indicator organisms for human pathogens in wastewater.
Human pathogens Indicator organisms Comments
Bacteria:
Shigella, enterotoxigenic E. coli, E. coli, thermotolerant coliforms, Used for more than 100 years as a
Campylobacter, Vibrio cholerae (cholera) intestina enterococci model for pathogenic bacteria.
Behavior under environmental conditions
reflects enteric pathogens, but not
environmental bacteria
Viruses:
Adenovirus, rotavirus,
enteroviruses, Hepatitis A virus, norovirus Bacteriophages – somatic coliphages Bacteriophages are viruses that
or F-RNA coliphages infect bacteria, are considered to be
nonpathogenic to humans and can be
readily cultured and enumerated in the
laboratory.
Protozoa:
Cryptosporidium oocysts, Giardia cysts Clostridium perfringens Spore-forming bacterium, that is highly
resistant to environmental conditions.
Useful model for Cryptosporidium
oocysts and Giardia cysts.
Helminths:
Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris Ascaris ova Ascaris and some other helminth ova
trichiura ova (e.g., Trichuris, Taenia) can be measured
directly. Viability of ova can be determined.
Source: Adapted from WHO 2006.
Treatment options for the deactivation and/or removal treatment where possible but can also independently
of pathogens from source water through treatment minimize health risks especially for consumers at
processes are summarized in Table A10.4, while Table the end of the food chain, while farmers can best be
A10.5 shows additional barriers presented by WHO protected through appropriate protective clothing and
(2010) which should be combined with conventional hygiene.
42
TABLE A10.4. Removal levels of microorganisms (in log reductions) and chemicals (in %) using
treatment options.
Secondary Media Membrene Aquifer UV Advanced

treatment filtration filtration storage Ozonation disinfection oxidation Chlorination
Indicator E. coli (for bacteria) 1-3 0-1 4->6 1-5 2-6 2->6 >6 2->6
microorganisms Clostridium perfringens 0.5-1 0-1 >6 N/A 0-0.5 N/A N/A 1-2
(in log reductions) Phage (virus) 0.5-2.5 1-4 2->6 1-4 2-6 3->6 >6 0 - 2 . 5
Pathogenic Enteric bacteria 1-3 0-1 >6 1-5 2-6 2->6 >6 2->6
microorganisms Enteric viruses 0.5-1 0.5-3 2->6 1-4 3-6 1->6 >6 1-3
(in log reductions) Giardia lamblia 0.5-2.5 1-3 >6 3-4 2-4 3->6 >6 0.5-1.5
Cryptosporidium 0.5-1 1.5-2.5 4->6 1-3.5 1-2 3->6 >6 0-0.5
parvum
Helminths 0-2 2-3 >6 1.5->3 N/A N/A N/A 0-1
Organic B(a)p* nd nd >80 nd >80 - - >80

chemicals Antibiotics 10-50 <20 50->95 50-90 >95 20->80 50-80 >80
(in %) Pharmaceuticals nd <20 50->95 10-50 50-80 <20 50-80 20-50
Hormones, steroid >90 <20 50->95 >90 >95 >80 >80 >80
Source: Multiple sources reviewed and reported by USEPA 2012.

Note: * benzo(a)pyrene
The 2006 revision of the WHO guidelines adopted an the food chain or till the point of exposure. This new
approach which moves the control point from, in many approach offers authorities more options for reducing
countries unachievable, water quality standards to a risks especially where conventional water treatment is still
health-based target expressed in Disability Adjusted limited. Table A10.5 shows the possible log reductions
Life Years (DALY). The guidelines translate the health- through different treatment and other risk reduction
based target into a performance target of 6-7 log units’ options which can be used in combination (multi-barrier
pathogen reduction which should be achieved along approach).
43
TABLE A10.5. Health-protection control measures and associated pathogen reductions.
Control measure Pathogen reduction Notes

(log units)

A. Wastewater treatment 6-7 Pathogen reduction depends on type and degree of treatment selected.
B. On-farm options
Crop restriction (i.e., no food 6-7 Depends on (a) effectiveness of local enforcement of crop restriction,
crops eaten uncooked) and (b) comparative profit margin of the alternative crop(s).
On-farm treatment:
(a) Three-tank system 1-2 One pond is being filled by the farmer, one is settling and the settled water
from the third is being used for irrigation.
(b) Simple sedimentation 0.5-1 Sedimentation for ~18 hours.
(c) Simple filtration 1-3 Value depends on filtration system used.
Method of wastewater application:

(a) Furrow irrigation 1-2 Crop density and yield may be reduced.
(b) Low-cost drip irrigation 2-4 2-log unit reduction for low-growing crops, and 4-log unit reduction for high-
growing crops.
(c) Reduction of splashing 1-2 Farmers trained to reduce splashing when watering cans used (splashing
adds contaminated soil particles on to crop surfaces which can be minimized).
Pathogen die-off (cessation) 0.5-2 Die-off between last irrigation and harvest (value depends on climate, crop
per day type, etc.).
C. Postharvest options at local markets

Overnight storage in baskets 0-1 Selling produce after overnight storage in baskets (rather than overnight
storage in sacks or selling fresh produce without overnight storage).
Produce preparation prior to sale 1-2 (a) Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruit with clean water.
2-3 (b) Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruit with running tap water.
1-3 (c) Removing the outer leaves on cabbages, lettuces, etc.
D. In-kitchen produce preparation options

Produce disinfection 2-3 Washing salad crops, vegetables and fruit with an appropriate
disinfectant solution and rinsing with clean water.
Produce peeling 2 Fruits, root crops.
Produce cooking 5-6 Option depends on local diet and preference for cooked food.
Source: WHO 2010.
44
Appendix 11. Safe Use of Wastewater for Irrigation without Sufficient

Conventional Treatment
In India, treatment capacity exists for less than a third et al. (2011) (see Figure A11.1) and Keraita et al. (2014)
of the 38,000 MLD of wastewater generated. Of this and used in FAO Farmer Field School Manuals and recent
capacity, 40% fails to meet environmental protection WHO updates to its 2006 guidelines (http://www.who.
standards and is discharged into water bodies. Due to its int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/human_waste/
perennial nature, wastewater has been used by farmers en/). Farmer training institutes can incorporate these
for irrigating their land exposing farmers and consumers recommended practices in their curriculum to support
of the crop potentially to health risks. A solution is to farmers where wastewater treatment capacities are still
follow the generally accepted HACCP approach, i.e. under construction. Compared to conventional treatment,
introducing a multi-barrier approach which adds safe on- introducing a multi low-cost barrier approach can have a
and off-farm practices as recommended by WHO (2006) high-cost affectiveness of USD 20-80 per averted DALY63
to any existing treatment. There are various options with a return on investment of USD 4.9 per dollar invested
verified under high pollution situations in Africa by Amoah (Drechsel and Seidu 2011).
FIGURE A11.1. A generic example of the multiple-barrier approach for consumption-related risks
along the food chain as applied in wastewater irrigation.
Wastewater Farmer/ Traders/ Street food

Consumer
generation Producer Retailers kitchens
Awareness
Safe Hygienic Safe food creation
Wastewater
irrigation
Irrigation Handling
handling washing and to create
treatment
Practices
practices Practices
practices preparation demand for
safe produce
Facilitating behavior
behaviourchange
changevia
viaeducation,
education,
market and
& non
nonmarket
-market incentives,
incentives,and
and
regular inspections
Source: Amoah et al. 2011.
63
The DALY is a measure of overall disease burden, expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability or early death. It is a metric which is independent of the type of the disease
allowing cross-disease comparisons.
45
Appendix 12. Examples of Sale of Treated Wastewater to Industries

Delhi supplies treated sewage to industrial establishments The Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) is
like power plants, industrial areas and hospitals. In 2004, also involved in the supply of treated wastewater
the Delhi government denied Pragati Power Corporation to industrial units in the Pandesara Industrial
Limited (PPCL) freshwater linkage to operate its 330 MW Estate. The treated wastewater is supplied from
gas–based power plant. However, the Delhi government the Bamroli STP. The SMC is also developing a 40
gave an option to PPCL to operate two of the DJB’s 20 MLD tertiary treatment plant at Bamroli on a PPP
MLD STPs to meet its water requirement. The treated basis. The plant is being developed by city–based
water is sourced from the Rithala STP, Sen Nursing Home Enviro Control Associates. The project, which was
Nallah STP and Delhi Gate Nallah STP. The O&M of the expected to be scheduled for commissioning in 2013,
services is undertaken by Degremont Limited. The current is expected to bring down the cost of procuring
O&M cost incurred by PPCL stands at about INR 4 kL-1 freshwater from the current level of INR 22 kL -1
(USD 0.07564) (IIR 2013). The Delhi Jal Board (DJB) has (USD 0.41 69) for industrial use (Kelkar 2012a,b).
also evaluated technologies to retrofit the existing 113
MLD portion of the Okhla sewage treatment plant (STP) In addition, cities like Hyderabad, Nagpur and Pimpri–
for recycling and reuse of wastewater for nonpotable Chinchwad are also undertaking initiatives to promote
applications in the nearby industrial units. It has identified the use of treated wastewater. Hyderabad is planning to
prospective end users of treated sewage. These include implement a project to recycle wastewater at its three
the Okhla industrial area, upcoming townships, and major STPs (Amberpet, Nagole and Nallacheruvu) and
cooling water for NTPC’s power plant in Badarpur (Kelkar supply it to industries. Recently, the Japan International
2012a, 2012b). Cooperation Agency (JICA) gave its approval for
providing financial assistance to the project. HMWSSB
The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board charges INR 1 kL -1 (USD 0.019 70) for treated water
(BWSSB) is one of the few agencies involved in tertiary available for reuse. 71
treatment of wastewater and supplying the same to
nearby industries/plants. Currently, four of the seven STPs The Gurgaon District Authority has made it mandatory
undertake tertiary treatment. The average cost of tertiary for all construction firms to use treated wastewater from its
treatment comes to about INR 10–15 kL-1 (USD 0.19 – 0.2865) STPs for construction and other nonpotable purposes. The
(IIR 2013). Notably, Bengaluru charges INR 60 kL-1 (USD Authority has started supplying tertiary treated wastewater
1.1266) for freshwater to be used for industrial purposes. from two STPs – Behrampur (15 MLD) and Dhanwapur (25
The treated sewage from the 180 MLD Vrishabhavathi MLD) at a rate of INR 4 kL-1 (USD 0.06272).
Valley treatment plant is supplied to a number of industries
and is expected to supply treated sewage water to the The Jaipur Municipal Corporation has implemented an
upcoming Bidadi power plant. Further, treated wastewater Asian Development Bank (ADB)–funded STP in Delawas.
from the 10 MLD Yelahanka Tertiary treatment plant is The treated wastewater from the 62.5 MLD STP is
being supplied to Bengaluru International Airport, Bharath supplied to nearby small–scale industrial units and for
Electronic Limited, Indian Tobacco Company, Rail Wheel irrigation purposes. Also, the sludge generated is used
Factory and Indian Air Force. Further, BWSSB has initiated as manure for agriculture and nursery purposes. The STP
a scheme on the Integrated Water Resource Management was commissioned in September 2006.
Reuse of Wastewater from Vrishabhavathi Valley (V Valley).
It consists of a 135 MLD reuse process scheme to be Chandigarh municipality charges INR 500 acre-1 (USD
undertaken in four phases. The landed cost of high quality 7.8173) for supplying treated wastewater to be used for
treated water from V Valley to River Arkavathy will be INR agricultural irrigation and charges INR 50 kanal-1 (USD
12 Kl-1 1 (USD 0.2267).68 0.7874) (500 yards2) month-1 for irrigation of green spaces.75

64
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Source: http://bwssb.org/sewage-treatment-5/
69
70
Ibid.
71
Source: http://sulabhenvis.nic.in/LatestNewsArchieve.aspx?Id=2870&Year=2012; Kelkar (2012).
72
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Source: http://chandigarh.gov.in/cmp2031/physical-infra.pdf
46
Appendix 13. Review of Incremental Benefits Delivered Due to Wastewater

Irrigation
Table A13.1 summarizes the incremental benefits reported as accruing to farmers engaged in cultivation using wastewater,
compared to freshwater.
TABLE A13.1. Incremental benefits delivered due to wastewater irrigation in selected cities.
City Crop cultivated Increase in Decrease Increase in Average annual

yield (%) in fertilizer pesticide incremental
consumption consumption benefit**
(%) (%) (INR ha-1)76
Indore Wheat (Rabi)/ 30-40% 50% Almost double 36,752

vegetables
(summer)

Nagpur Wheat (Rabi)/
vegetables
(summer) 30-40% 33% Almost double 26,951

Jaipur Wheat (Rabi)/ 30-40% 50% Almost double 37,790
vegetables
(summer)
Bangalore Rice (Rabi),

Sapota and flowers
(summer) 30-40% 100% Almost double 33,849
Ahmedabad* Rice and wheat

(Rabi) - - - -14,640
Delhi Okra 67% 60% Increased by 50% 8,500
Kanpur Paddy and wheat Reported 6,166 (paddy)

decrease in yield - - 954 (wheat)
Source: Adapted from Amerasinghe et al. 2013; WII 2006; Londhe et al. 2004.
Notes: * This decrease in net benefit in Ahmedabad is believed to be due to higher levels of pollution in Ahmedabad as compared to other cities. The study also
reported that continued application of partial/untreated wastewater affects soil fertility increasing fertilizer and pesticide consumption. Thus farmers engaged in
wastewater irrigation were spending more on fertilizers and pesticides, compared to farmers practicing freshwater irrigation.
** This incorporates the impact of increased yield, change in fertilizer and pesticide use, wherever reported.
76
47
Photo: Neil Palmer/CIAT
CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems

The CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) combines the resources of
11 CGIAR centers, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and numerous
national, regional and international partners to provide an integrated approach to natural resource
management research. WLE promotes a new approach to sustainable intensification in which a healthy
functioning ecosystem is seen as a prerequisite to agricultural development, resilience of food systems
and human well-being. This program is led by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and
is supported by CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future.
Resource Recovery and Reuse (RRR) is a subprogram of WLE dedicated to applied research on the
safe recovery of water, nutrients and energy from domestic and agro-industrial waste streams. This
subprogram aims to create impact through different lines of action research, including (i) developing and
testing scalable RRR business models, (ii) assessing and mitigating risks from RRR for public health and
the environment, (iii) supporting public and private entities with innovative approaches for the safe reuse
of wastewater and organic waste, and (iv) improving rural-urban linkages and resource allocations while
minimizing the negative urban footprint on the peri-urban environment. This sub-program works closely
with the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations University (UNU), and many
national and international partners across the globe. The RRR series of documents present summaries
and reviews of the sub-program’s research and resulting application guidelines, targeting development
experts and others in the research for development continuum.
CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems

International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
127 Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatta
Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
ISSN 2478-0510
Email: [email protected]
Website: wle.cgiar.org e-ISSN 2478-0529
Agriculture and Ecosystems Blog: wle.cgiar.org/blogs ISBN 978-92-9090-834-0
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Science with a human face

Resource Recovery and Reuse Series - Issue 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource Recovery and Reuse Series - Issue 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resource Recovery and Reuse Series - Issue 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESOURCE RECOVERY & REUSE SERIES 8

Recycling and Reuse of Treated Wastewater in

A Proposed Advisory and Guidance Document

Resource Recovery and Reuse (RRR) is a subprogram of the CGIAR Research

Science with a human face

Recycling and Reuse of Treated Wastewater

A Proposed Advisory and Guidance Document

Unless otherwise noted, you are free to copy, duplicate or

ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed but not in any

NON-COMMERCIAL. This work may not be used for

SHARE ALIKE. If this work is altered, transformed, or built

Front cover photograph: Woman working on a farm in Tamil

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................iv

List of Boxes ....................................................................................................................................................v

List of Appendixes ..........................................................................................................................................vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... viii

Advisory and Guidance – Notes for Policy Makers.......................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope..........................................................................................................................................4

Water Demands by Sectors and the Demand–Supply Gap..............................................................................4

The Growing Urban Sanitation Challenge........................................................................................................6

Recycled Wastewater – an Alternative Water Resource...................................................................................6

Regulatory and Policy Guidance on Wastewater Recycling and Reuse............................................................6

Technological Options and Treatment Levels...................................................................................................7

Economic and Financial Benefits of Wastewater Recycling and Reuse...................................................10

Recycled Wastewater – an Additional, Reliable and Cost Effective Source of Water.......................................11

Wastewater Recycling – Offsetting the Need for Additional Sources of Water..........................................11

Recycled Wastewater – an Affordable and Assured Source of Water for Industries..................................11

Wastewater Recycling to Meet Agricultural Water Demand......................................................................12

Wastewater Recycling in New Urban Growth Areas – Planned Reuse for

Valuing the Nutrients Present in Wastewater..................................................................................................14

Economic Value of the Nutrient Load in Wastewater................................................................................14

Reduction in Fertilizer Use on Account of Wastewater Irrigation...............................................................14

Increase in Overall Farm Income Due to Wastewater Irrigation.................................................................14

Reduction in Ground Water Pumping Due to Wastewater Irrigation...............................................................16

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from Use of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation...............................................16

Way Forward ...............................................................................................................................................16

Initiatives at the State Level...........................................................................................................................17

Initiatives at the Utility Level...........................................................................................................................18

Figure 2. Balancing treatment with recycled wastewater use..............................................................................9

Figure 4. Financial and economic analysis of wastewater recycling solutions....................................................11

Figure A1.1 Current and projected water demands in India...............................................................................22

Figure A3.1. Cost of inadequate sanitation (billion INR).....................................................................................26

Figure A3.2. Sanitation, treatment and access to water in India........................................................................27

along the food chain as applied in wastewater irrigation..........................................................45

Table A1.1. Water consumption in the industrial sector in India ....................................................................... 23

Table A4.1. Classification of water reuse applications .......................................................................................28

Table A9.1. List of major industrial clusters in India............................................................................................38

Table A9.2. Wastewater generation and potential for industrial reuse................................................................39

Table A10.1. Water quality guidelines for various reuse applications..................................................................40

are of concern in reuse applications........................................................................................41

Table A10.3. Examples of indicator organisms for human pathogens in wastewater..........................................42

Table A10.5. Health-protection control measures and associated pathogen reductions....................................44

Box 2. The basics of wastewater recycling.........................................................................................................7

Box 3. On-site, decentralized and off-site wastewater treatment systems...........................................................8

Box 4. Decentralized sewage treatment and recycling of water in Auroville, Pondicherry.....................................8

Box 5. Benefits of wastewater recycling to industries........................................................................................12

Box 6. Constraints on financial sustainability of wastewater recycling for agricultural reuse...............................13

Box 7. Phosphorus recovery from wastewater..................................................................................................15

Box A8.1. Bangalore........................................................................................................................................35

Box A8.2. Water supply situation in Chennai.....................................................................................................37

More water is made available for beneficial purposes;