Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Indian railways to mine data?

I read yesterday that Railway minister Suresh Prabu met Google (or should I say Alphabet) officials to discuss the possibility of unearthing the enormous potential form the data of close to 8 billion people who use the Indian railway's service. Before you raise your eyebrow, the value of 8 billion passenger per day is supposedly due to people taking multiple trips a day. Oh boy that is more than the population of world.

It could indeed be a game changer for Indian railways, which is currently reeling under huge economic stress. Poor policy in past like introduction of train in routes based on political reasons and not based on economic considerations, ticket price not linked to railway's operational cost, and indiscriminate tariff for fright transport leading to drop in market share have lead to this situation. It would take years before the railways are financially healthy, because it is not possible to change such a big organisation in short span of time. However, the sear size could now be a big revenue generator for Indian railways. However it is still not clear what they plan to do. Also data privacy will be a big concern. In this age of data, if the Indian railways and Google (err.. Alphabet) team up to develop a viable possibility, it would indeed provide the much needed cushion for Indian railways to fund the optimistic modernization plan.              

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Sanitation problem faced in India and how can it be improved

[Re-posting my submission for a task in mygov.in.]

Introduction:
Over 600 million Indians have no access to toilets. The proportion is worse in rural India – where 68% of rural households don’t have their own toilets. This is the state of the country even after the government spends Rs. 7000 crores a year. Also, 60% of approved funds from the Government’s campaign have already been used, reports Deloitte, in its 2013 study titled ‘A market led, evidence based, approach to rural sanitation’.  The three main reason for this are as pointed in an article in The Alternative website are:
1) The poor cannot afford them: The subsidy amount under NBA, covers only part of the cost of toilets, and most households, particularly the poorest are still unable to afford the cost of construction and maintenance of individual toilets. The limited subsidy amount has also led to poor construction, leaving toilets unusable.  The per–toilet subsidy is currently around Rs. 4600 under NBA.
2. If they do get built, they quickly become unusable: The superstructure of a toilet does not require skilled masonry but the leach pit does. The Ministry of Rural Development reports that 78 million toilets were constructed under the TSC until March 2011, but the Census (2011) shows only 51 million households as owning working toilets. Toilet designs also need to be modified for flood prone or drier areas.
3. Men are the decision makers, while women face issues: In most households, men are the decision makers but women face inconvenience due to lack of toilets. People also rarely see the link between open defecation and ill-health, unless they have been subjected to a personal health crisis in the family that can be directly linked to toilets.
Gramalaya has been constructing toilets in rural India for over 2 and a half decades now and lists the following conditions as factors to be taken into account for toilets to become household and community-friendly:
• Affordability
• Space in the home
• Geographical conditions – soil/water table etc
• Cultural habits
• Availability of water/scarcity of water
• Availability of skilled or semi skilled manpower
Toilet models in India
The rural environment in India is complex, and there are a variety of models available for constructing and funding these toilets – and some of these models work better in some places than others – depending on region, implementing agencies, availability of credit etc.
Worldwide, there are several models that have shown success. In India, there are two:
1)      The government led subsidy model: Here the government subsidises toilet construction. The subsidy model has had limited success because of the partial subsidy, and because people do not see it as a priority.
2)      Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS): CLTS works primarily by raising awareness that as long as even a minority continues to defecate in the open everyone is at risk of disease. The CLTS also creates village-level water sanitation committees, with volunteers who generate awareness about the health hazards of open defecation. CLTS is an example of how rejecting the subsidy model has actually worked, and focuses instead on persuasion and reward. CLTS has shown remarkable progress in certain Indian states. For example, Haryana : Census 2001 data shows that 71% of households had no toilets, but by Census 2011, this number had fallen to  36%. Haryana and Himachal Pradesh show similar leaps in toilet construction and are great examples of the success of CLTS model which was implemented in all districts of these states.
Also, Monitor Deloitte recently brought out a white paper on rural sanitation in India, bringing out two potential models for toilet construction. Both models require a central player or ‘market maker’ to conduct market-building activities to get the models started. Organisations such as NGOs, microfinance institution (MFIs) and cement companies can play this role, while the Government has a key role in facilitating the development of the sanitation market.
1)      DIY (Do It Yourself) model: Here the customer collects all the construction material from suppliers, and supervises or involves himself in the construction. This model has the benefit of customization and potential cost savings though it is time-consuming. It is also the familiar way of building private and home toilets.
2)      TSP (Turnkey Solution Provider) model: Here an entrepreneur sells a toilet as a product, and delivers the chosen product at the promised price. The TSP model provides toilets of a fixed quality as construction is done by specialists.
An article in The Alternative website suggested ten models that may be suitable for India:
1. Plinth level toilet with temporary superstructure
2. Toilet only model with hollow bricks
3. Toilet attached bathroom (w/ hollow bricks and no roof)
4. Toilet only model (w/ concrete rings pit and roof)
5. Twin pit – Pour flush latrine
6. ECO-SAN toilets
7. Bio-gas linked toilets
8. Child friendly toilets
9. School sanitary complex
10. Anganwadi Toilets
The details of each of these are given in this article: http://www.thealternative.in/business/10-toilet-designs-for-rural-india/
Some of the other prominent toilets that can be well suited for India are:
1)      Bio – Toilets:  Invented & Certified by DRDO & endorsed by the Government of India, these toilets ensure 100% Sludge – Free Disposal of Human Waste and Eliminates need for Manual Scavenging.  They decompose Solid Waste into Water & Bio Gas making them Eco-Friendly. They are 100% Hazard Free and 100% Maintenance Free. They can play a critical role in Preventable Healthcare as the Bio Toilet eliminates disease causing pathogens completely! More details are given in the following links: http://www.wockhardtfoundation.org/pro-bio-toilet.aspx 
2)      Self-flushing hi-tech toilets:  Toilets that gives the user an automated entry at the drop of a coin and flush itself at arrival and exit, is going to debut in Navi Mumbai. Such hi-tech toilets are already there in Delhi and Kerala. Such toilets can be very useful in urban scenario, railway stations, bust terminus etc.  More details are given here: http://indiasanitationportal.org/18677
3)      Sulabh Toilets: These are toilets developed by Sulabh International Social Service Organisation as part of their efforts to eradicate the practice of Manual Scavenging. More details are given their website: http://www.sulabhinternational.org/content/advantages-sulabh-toilets
4)      Otji dry toilets: This system has been used in Namibia where water is scarce. Such system could be useful in dry places of India. The detailed working principle are given in this website                             http://www.otjitoilet.org/toilet/toilet.htm#how it works  
Water.org, Co-founded by Gary White and Matt Damon, is a nonprofit organization that has analysed and given a detailed solution for this problem. Their detailed solution is described in the below link:   http://water.org/solutions/  
Clean Team is another organisation that works on this problem. Their mode is given here http://www.cleanteamtoilets.com/our-model/
A World Bank funded Sanitation marketing program has shown progress in making more people use toilets and helping the poor. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/08/in-bangladesh-sanitation-marketing-helps-make-toilets-more-available-and-affordable
The World Toilet organisation’s Sanishop model is explained here: http://worldtoilet.org/what-we-do-sanishop.html

Gramalaya has been implementing  various  toilet models for over 25 years in South India, depending on the geographic area, water availability and costs. http://www.gramalaya.in/pdf/appropriateLowcost_toilet_technology.pdf

Actionable policy measures for river restoration

[Re-publishing my submission for a task in mygov.in.]

Introduction
Many countries have good policies, that have helped them in preserving/restoring their water resources. I have analysed the government policy of some of the countries and listed the significant part of their law that might be helpful in cleaning, restoring and preserving the water resources of our nation. 
The EU water framework directive is highly impressive policy and it would be great if we can work on similar policy. It combines different water laws in Europe and developed a single    comprehensive framework.  It is more suitable for India as the framework talks about how a river flowing through different countries can be maintained, which is similar to river flowing through different states in India. I have also included some of the important sections of Clean water Act of USA, Water law of China and River Law of Japan. Also I have included two important policy implemented in the City of Columbus towards maintaining water resources in good health.

The second Part of this report talks about importance of research in this field. Even though the Water Act of India, 1974 (Section 17 – d) talks about need to encourage research (Full text:  “To encourage, conduct and participate in investigations and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention, control r abatement of water pollution.”), we see that not enough importance is given to research compared to other countries. This section talks about the important area of research and brief summary of some of the research reports. A proper understanding of river restoration science is a pre-requisite for a successful implementation of restoration project and developing sound policies.


1)      Taking cue from other countries – strong legislations

European Union - EU water framework directive
In order to preserve the water resources, the EU launched a comprehensive water policy that took care of all water resources and contained all aspects of water under this one policy. The policy was named EU water framework directive and was adopted on 23–Oct–2010. The main outline of this policy is the following:
·         expanding the scope of water protection to all waters, surface waters and groundwater
·         achieving "good status" for all waters by a set deadline
·         Coordinated efforts - First of all, the objectives are established for the river basin. Then an analysis of human impact is conducted so as to determine how far from the objective each body of water is. At this point, the effect on the problems of each body of water of full implementation of all existing legislation is considered. If the existing legislation solves the problem, well and good, and the objective of the framework Directive is attained. However, if it does not, the Member State must identify exactly why, and design whatever additional measures are needed to satisfy all the objectives established. These might include stricter controls on polluting emissions from industry and agriculture, or urban waste water sources, say. This should ensure full co-ordination.  
·         Water management based on river basins - The best model for a single system of water management is management by river basin - the natural geographical and hydrological unit - instead of according to administrative or political boundaries. 
·         "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards - Historically, there has been a dichotomy in approach to pollution control at European level, with some controls concentrating on what is achievable at source, through the application of technology; and some dealing with the needs of the receiving environment in the form of quality objectives. Each approach has potential flaws. Source controls alone can allow a cumulative pollution load which is severely detrimental to the environment, where there is a concentration of pollution sources. And quality standards can underestimate the effect of a particular substance on the ecosystem, due to the limitations in scientific knowledge regarding dose-response relationships and the mechanics of transport within the environment.  
For this reason, a consensus has developed that both are needed in practice - a combined approach. The Water Framework Directive formalises this. It does so as follows. On the source side, it requires that as part of the basic measures to be taken in the river basin, all existing technology-driven source-based controls must be implemented as a first step. But over and above this, it also sets out a framework for developing further such controls. The framework comprises the development of a list of priority substances for action at EU level, prioritised on the basis of risk; and then the design of the most cost-effective set of measures to achieve load reduction of those substances, taking into account both product and process sources.  
On the effects side, it co-ordinates all the environmental objectives in existing legislation, and provides a new overall objective of good status for all waters, and requires that where the measures taken on the source side are not sufficient to achieve these objectives, additional ones are required.  
·         Getting the prices right - The need to conserve adequate supplies of a resource for which demand is continuously increasing is also one of the drivers behind what is arguably one of the Directive’s most important innovations - the introduction of pricing. Adequate water pricing acts as an incentive for the sustainable use of water resources and thus helps to achieve the environmental objectives under the Directive.
Member States will be required to ensure that the price charged to water consumers - such as for the abstraction and distribution of fresh water and the collection and treatment of waste water - reflects the true costs. Whereas this principle has a long tradition in some countries, this is currently not the case in others. However, derogations will be possible, e.g. in less-favoured areas or to provide basic services at an affordable price.  
·         Getting the citizen involved more closely - There are two main reasons for an extension of public participation. The first is that the decisions on the most appropriate measures to achieve the objectives in the river basin management plan will involve balancing the interests of various groups. The economic analysis requirement is intended to provide a rational basis for this, but it is essential that the process is open to the scrutiny of those who will be affected.  
The second reason concerns enforceability. The greater the transparency in the establishment of objectives, the imposition of measures, and the reporting of standards, the greater the care Member States will take to implement the legislation in good faith, and the greater the power of the citizens to influence the direction of environmental protection, whether through consultation or, if disagreement persists, through the complaints procedures and the courts. 
·         Streamlining legislation - One advantage of the framework directive approach, in its own way a significant one, is that it will rationalise the Community's water legislation by replacing seven of the "first wave" directives: those on surface water and is two related directives on measurement methods and sampling frequencies and exchanges of information on fresh water quality; the fish water, shellfish water, and groundwater directives; and the directive on dangerous substances discharges. The operative provisions of these directives will be taken over in the framework directive, allowing them to be repealed.  

United States of America – Clean water act
The Clean Water Act of 1972 made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. The main objective of this act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. The main provisions of this act are:
·      Title I (Research and Related Programs) - Title I includes a Declaration of Goals and Policy and various grant authorizations for research programs and pollution control programs.
·      Title II (Grants for Construction of Treatment Works) - To assist municipalities in creating or expanding sewage treatment plants, also known as publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Title II established a system of construction grants.
·      Title III (Standards and enforcement) – Stringent standards are set and hefty fines for defaulters help in enforcement of this law  
·      Title IV (Permits and licenses) –  Some of the highlights of this title are:
a.       State certification of compliance
States are required to certify that discharges authorized by federal permits will not violate the state's water quality standards
b.      POTW Biosolids Management Program
To manage the sludge generated by POTW, Water Quality Act of 1987 created a program. The Act instructed EPA to develop guidelines for usage and disposal of sewage sludge or biosolids. The EPA regulations: (1) Identify uses for sewage sludge, including disposal; (2) Specify factors to be taken into account in determining the measures and practices applicable to each such use or disposal (including publication of information on costs); and (3) Identify concentrations of pollutants which interfere with each such use or disposal. EPA created an Intra-Agency Sludge Task Force to aid in developing comprehensive sludge regulations that are designed to do the following: (1) Conduct a multimedia examination of sewage sludge management, focusing on sewage sludge generated by POTWs; and (2) develop a cohesive Agency policy on sewage sludge management, designed to guide the Agency in implementing sewage sludge regulatory and management programs 

Water Law of the People's Republic of China
This law was passed in 2002 to conserve water resources and enforce justified use of water resources.  A separate chapter has been dedicated toward to conservation of water bodies. Some of the important articles, with this regard, are:
·         Article 30 When working out plans for development and utilization of water resources and for distribution of water resources, the administrative departments for water resources under the people's governments at or above the county level, the river basin authorities and the other departments concerned shall pay attention to maintaining a proper flow of rivers and keeping the lakes, reservoirs and groundwater at a proper water level in order to maintain the natural purification capability of the water body.
·         Article 31 Any unit or individual engaged in activities concerning water, such as development, utilization, conservation and protection of water resources and prevention and control of water disasters, shall follow the approved plans. Where a unit or individual that acts against the plans and thus causes the lowering of the use functions of the rivers or lakes, overexploitation of groundwater, sinking of land surface or pollution of water bodies shall bear the responsibility of bringing such phenomenon under control.  Where dredging or draining of water, necessitated by mining construction of underground project, results in the lowering of groundwater level, drying up of water sources or subsidence of ground, the unit that launches the mining or the construction project shall take remedial measures, and where losses are caused to other people's lives and production, it shall compensate for the losses in accordance with law.
·         Article 34 Construction of any outlet for sewage discharge in the protection zones of drinking water sources is prohibited. Construction, reconstruction or expansion of a sewage discharge outlet along rivers or lakes shall be subject to permission by the administrative department for water resources or the river basin authority that has jurisdiction over the matter, and the administrative department for environmental protection shall be responsible for examination of the written report on the impact of the construction project on the environment before giving approval.
·         Article 35 Where a construction project occupies water sources for agricultural irrigation or irrigation and drainage facilities, or has an adverse effect on the original water for irrigation and sources for water supply, the unit that launches the project shall take the necessary remedial measures. Where losses are caused, it shall compensate for the losses in accordance with law.
·         Article 36 In areas where groundwater is overexploited, the local people's governments at or above the county level shall take measures to keep exploitation of groundwater under strict control. In areas where groundwater was overexploited to a serious extent, certain areas may, upon approval by the people's governments of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the Central Government, be defined as areas where exploitation of groundwater is prohibited or restricted. Exploitation of groundwater in coastal areas shall undergo scientific demonstration, and measures shall be taken to prevent sinking of land surface and encroachment by seawater.
·         Article 37 No one may throw away or pile up objects or plant forest trees or high stalk crops in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, canals or channels, which block the passage of flood water. No one may, in areas under river course control, put up buildings or structures that block the passage of flood water, or engage in activities that adversely affect the stability of the river condition or endanger the safety of the river embankment or other activities that block the passage of flood water through the river course.
·         Article 40 Reclaiming parts of a lake for use as farmland is prohibited. The parts already reclaimed shall be restored as parts of the lake in a planned way according to the flood control standard formulated by the State. Reclaiming parts of a river course for use as farmland is prohibited. Where it is really necessary to do that, the matter shall be subject to scientific demonstration and to permission by the administrative department for water resources under the people's government of a province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government or by the administrative department for water resources under the State Council, before it is submitted to the people's government at the corresponding level for approval.
Environment impact assessment Act of China: This required to analyze, estimate and assess the environment impacts possibly caused by planned or constructed projects, and to propose countermeasure to prevent or alleviate adverse environment impacts.

Dong Zheren, Sun Dongya, Zhang Jing, Zhao Jinyong, Zhai Zhengli, Progress of River Restoration in China, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing

The River Law, Japan
The purpose of this Law is to contribute to land conservation and the development of the country, and thereby maintain public security and promote public welfare, by administering rivers comprehensively to prevent occurrence of damage due to floods, high tides, etc., utilize rivers properly, and maintain the normal functions of the river water by maintaining and conserving the fluvial environment. Some of the important sections of this law related to river protection are:
·         Permission for Land Occupancy (Article 24) Any person who intends to occupy land within a river zone shall obtain the permission of the river administrator as may be provided for in detail by Ministry of Construction Ordinance
·         Prohibition, Restrictions and Permission for Act Likely to Hinder River Administration (Article 29): Unless provided for in any of the articles from 23 through the preceding article, acts which are likely to hinder river administration by affecting the course, cleanliness, discharge, width, depth, etc., of the water of a river may be prohibited or restricted, or obtaining permission of the river administrator for such acts may be made obligatory, by Government Ordinance.
Government Ordinance Article 16-4 (Prohibition of acts likely to hinder river administration)
 No person may not do any of the following acts without good reason:
 (1) Causing damage to a river;
 (2) Dumping earth and stone (including sand; hereafter the same), or trash, excremental matter, bird and animal corpses or any other filth or wastes on land within a river zone (excluding land within a high standard levee special zone), excluding acts done in the normal conduct of agriculture, forestry or fishery practiced in a river zone;
 (3) Bringing into the following areas automobiles or other things specified by the river administrator:
(a) Land in a river zone that the river administrator specifically designates in order to protect river administration facilities
(b) Land in a river zone that the river administrator specifically designates in order to conserve plant and animal habitats
(4) Any person who intends to do any of the acts listed below, excluding acts necessary for daily living, acts generally practiced for agriculture or fishery and acts designated by the river administrator as being acts necessary for business, etc., shall obtain the permission of the river administrator in accordance with the Ministry of Construction Ordinance.
(a) Washing objects to which soil, filth, dyes or other matter that may contaminate the flowing water of a river is attached on land within a river zone;
(b)  Accumulating or installing earth, stone, logs, bamboos or other objects on land within a river zone
·         Maintenance of the Existing Function of a River (Article 44): In the case where the condition of a river changes as a result of the construction of a dam and the former functions of the river are diminished during a flood, the person who constructed the dam must establish facilities necessary to maintain the said functions in accordance with the directions of the river administrator, or adopt alternative measures.
Other Laws in Japan to protect river:
The Environment Impact Assessment Law (1999): This required to analyze, estimate and assess the environment impacts possibly caused by planned or constructed projects, and to propose countermeasure to prevent or alleviate adverse environment impacts.
The Specified Non-profit Activity Promotion Law (the NPO Law) (1998): This supports NGO activities for nature restoration.
The Nature Restoration Promotion Law (2003): This law calls for a sound scientific underpinning of restoration projects and it has stimulated countless restoration projects throughout the country. 

2)      Important initiatives taken by city of Columbus to reduce pollution
A series of steps as part of project clean river are being taken by city of Columbus to maintain the water sources in the city and nearby area, clean.
Significant initiatives are:
·         City water runoff and sewer water are planned to be treated by green infrastructure. Green infrastructure is an engineered solution that mimics nature and filters pollutants that otherwise would be washed directly into the streams.
·         Fats, oils and grease control: A leading cause of sewer blockages across the U.S. is the accumulation of fats, oils and grease (FOG) in the sanitary sewers. The greasy waste enters the sewers through connections from homes, food service establishments, and industrial wastewater dischargers. The proposed project requires all food service establishments to develop and implement a Best Management Plan (BMP) to handle grease wastes. The rule applies to all licensed food service operations or licensed retail food establishments that produce, or may produce, grease-containing wastewater discharged to the city’s sewers. Historically, BMPs have been required only after a food service establishment has been identified as a grease blockage source. The proposed rule will be a proactive rather than a reactive approach. The BMPs work well:  since 2001, 76 food establishments have been placed on a program; only four have required follow-up enforcement for repeat blockages


Focusing on research
3)      Need to give more attention towards Research. Some of the important areas related to river restoration are:  
a.       Intertidal and Shallow Habitat Restoration 
b.      Tidal Wetland Restoration  
c.       Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration 
d.      Shoreline Restoration 
e.      Tributary Restoration (fish passage and dam removal)  

Source: Miller, Daniel E., 2013. Hudson River Estuary Habitat Restoration Plan, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program. http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5082.html

4)      Rive restoration – Scientific insight
Even though huge money is spent, lot of legislative and legal measures have been taken on river restoration throughout the world, many of the rivers continue to deteriorate [1]. The main reason for this is, lack of (1) the inclusion of a solid conceptual model of river ecosystems, (2) a clearly articulated understanding of ecosystem processes, (3) recognition of the multiple, interacting temporal and spatial scales of river response, and (4) long-term monitoring of success or failure in meeting project objectives following completion [2-4]. Wohl  et al. propose two strategy that could be useful in river restoration: First, restoration of process is also more likely to address the causes of river ecosystem degradation, whereas restoration toward a fixed endpoint addresses only symptoms. Second, because physical, chemical, and biological processes interconnect in complex ways across watersheds and across timescales from seconds to centuries, the authors hypothesize that all restoration projects are far more likely to be successful if undertaken in the context of entire watersheds[2].
A river has an ability to absorb disturbances. There is the limit to the level of disturbance the river can absorb and people have modelled this using probabilistic technique.  The main goal of the restorers is to analyse this dynamic nature of the river and the expected level of human disturbances. Using this, a plan is to be created to restore the river to a state which can sustain this level of disturbances.
There is lot of uncertainty in river restoration knowledge and in the capability to predict how a restoration effort will translate into ecological responses. Understanding the uncertainties is a key to success of a river restoration project.
River restoration is a multi-disciplinary subject and integrating people from all these scientific discipline poses a huge challenge. This problem arises from mismatches in language, conceptual frameworks, scales of operation, research methods, and historical underpinnings of the disciplines involved in river science, management and restoration [2]  

A number of authors have describe the scientific approach of river restoration, some of which are listed in UK river restoration websitehttp://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_nrri.php 
Project advices and reports in river restoration efforts are provided in the UK river restoration (following link):  http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_projects_advice_reports.php

References:
[1] Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu (1999), Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Island, Washington, D. C.
[2](Main Source) Ellen Wohl, Paul L. Angermeier, Brian Bledsoe, G. Mathias Kondolf, Larry MacDonnell, David M. Merritt, Margaret A. Palmer, N. LeRoy Poff and David Tarboton, River restoration, Water Resources Research Volume 41, Issue 10, October 2005
[3]Pedroli, B., G. de Blust, K. van Looy, and S. van Rooij (2002), Setting targets in strategies for river restoration, Landscape Ecol.17, suppl. 1, 5–18.
[4] Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, and the National River Restoration Science Synthesis Working Group (2005), Restoration of U.S. rivers: A national synthesis, Science308, 636–637.

5)      Lessons from past
·         Controlling a river’s flow will damage the river ecosystem and may pose a danger of flooding. Channel reconfiguration and hard engineering method should be used as last option. The effects of building dam and levees are discussed later, in detail.
·          Before a river restoration project is started, time should be spent for pre-monitoring.
·         A clear, achievable plan should be set before implementing the project.
·         Citizen participation is important and greatly increases the chance of success of the project.
·         The key to success of the river restoration project is making the project adaptive. This is because, there are many uncertainties in restoration effort and the river restoration should adapt based on the results of initial work.
·         Planting trees/restoring the original vegetation along the river banks will result in reduction in water temperature, which will make the environment more conducive for fishes. Trees also regulate the effect of soil erosion.   
Source: Margaret Palmer, J. David Allan, Judy Meyer and Emily S Bernhardt, River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts, Restoration Ecology, Volume 15, Issue 3, pages 472–481, September 2007
  
6)      Effects of building levees & dams
Artificial levees are manmade structures that built along the banks of the river to protect the surrounding region during flooding. Large levees as high as 30 - 50 feet have been built in the US and the Netherlands. However, building levees without proper planning has lead to flooding and large scale destruction like Mississippi river (1927), the Netherlands (1953), river Rhine (1995), New Orleans (2005), Danube (2006).
After the 1953 & 1995 flooding, the engineers from the Netherlands developed a way to avoid levee breaches. They found that, even by raising the levee height, the weakest point eventually gave away and levee breach occurred. Finally, they decided to set aside a land for flooding i.e. to make room for the river. A suitable area is designated to be used for flooding in case there is chance of levee breach. Using a stronger textile to anchor the levees and by better monitoring the levees with latest technology such disaster can be avoided.
The dams have also found to disturb the natural ecosystem of the river. In many countries, dams have been removed to return the lost glory of the river (eg. Duero river, Spain; Loire river, France; Elwha river, US; White Salmon River, US). Elwha river project is the largest dam removal project till date. After these dams were built, many species of aquatic lives were lost but with the removal of these dams, signs of returning of these species have been observed.
Building ill-advised projects in river disturbs the river ecosystem.  Also restoring greenery and trees along the river side is important step to restore river ecosystem.  Promoting and implementing Fish Passage, Dam Removal and Culvert Right-Sizing can also be considered to reduce the ill-effects of the manmade structures.  For more details http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5082.html
The effects of removing/lowering small dams and the best practice to be followed are outlined in the following document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/weir-removal-lowering-and-modification-a-review-of-best-practice


Re-developing Varanasi Ghats

[Re-posting my submission for a task in mygov.in. This report proposes ways to redevelop Varanasi ghats]

1)      Cleaning Ganga River: The first step for re-developing Ghats is to clean the river water. Even if the Ghats are designed with the facilities of international airport, if the river water is not clean, it would just be waste of resources and energy.  I have included detailed reports about how to clean the river and how to control the pollution, under other tasks in ‘Clean Ganga’ group.
The main source of pollution in Ganga in Varanasi is Municipal wastes.  The following link show how wastewater and sewer is treated in London before it let into Thames River. Similar or better model can be implemented in Varanasi.

2)      Creations of dedicated side channel for ghats:
Since the Ghats are a major tourist / pilgrimage centre, many people arrive here and hence will automatically lead to pollution. To protect the main river from pollution, the river along the Ghats should be separated from main river. Creation of side channel has been outlined in Hudson River restoration project, New York State, because of multiple benefits. The region along the banks should be made into a side channel, which will be separated from the main river by a properly designed barrier. Care must be taken to design the barrier so that it does not cause any negative impact on the river ecology. Preferably this side channel can end after the Kashi railway yard region where an artificial wetland can be created. Wetlands are the least expensive and natural way to clean river water. Wetlands have found to clean the river water as much as 99% of input water. Such results have been found in The New River cleaning project, USA. Also there are lot of farmlands in this region, which can use the purified water for irrigating purposes. (This conclusion was made based on analysis of satellite image of this area, as this region beyond the Kashi railway yard, along the river Ganga, appears to be comparatively less populated. The exact design should change based on of actual condition). If the water is found to be not suitable for irrigation, this water can be dedicated for non-potable usage like industrial use. Side channel also has lower water velocity therefore water booms can be installed at strategic position (before entering the wetlands) to collect floating wastes, which should be daily cleared, as done in Singapore River. Also the inlet of the side channel should be fixed with water booms to prevent the floating objects from entering the main channel.
Also these side channels are less exposed to high-energy water of main channel. Thus this side channel can act as moderate velocity, high-biodiversity refuge for variety of aquatic species.
The sides of the barrier that separate the main and side channel can be made ecologically favourable to support the growth of aquatic plant life, as discussed in next section.
Also, links for some of the methods that can be used to treat the side channel water are listed below:
   
3)      Redesigning the Ghats:
Once the river has been cleaned and the side channel created, the Ghats should be re-developed to make it look better, include safety features and should be nature-friendly. The Ghats have been built almost continuously along the river banks thereby containing the river by concrete banks, replacing the natural vegetation. These concrete steps of Ghats would not allow any plants to grow and hence don’t support the growth of fishes and other living creatures. Lack of living creature makes the river “lifeless”.
Instead of these concrete banks, the banks can be designed as combination of mud banks, piles of rubble and concrete steps. Mud banks and rubbles help to capture sediment that provides a rich habitat for invertebrates and molluscs that are food for many other species. In areas where it is impossible to remove the concrete completely, putting sediment behind wooden panels along the walls has been found to give good results. This essentially turns what would have been a horizontal mud bank on the river floor into a vertical one.  Such techniques have been utilised in restoration of River Thames in UK.
The Ghats also lack important features such as railing along the steps, railing to restrict and assist people who enter the water, proper pathway to separate people who are leaving the Ghats and who are entering the Ghats, toilets etc. Such facilities will make Ghats a friendly place for pilgrimage people (many of whom are old!) and also attract tourists.
The Ghats should also be covered with CCTV coverage to ensure security and safety.
  
4)      Framing strict rules and imposing it:  
Once the Ghats are made better, the next aim is to make sure it remains better. Strict rules should be framed and imposed to maintain cleanliness and create an ecologically healthy environment. Some of the areas in which strict rules should be framed and imposed are:
a)      Rules for cleanliness: Littering and spitting should be prohibited. Violators should be seriously punished.    
b)      Rules on bathing activity in river: Bathing in river is a religious practice and hence cannot be banned. However using soaps and shampoos should be banned.
c)       Rules on washing clothes: Washing clothes in river using soaps and detergents should be prohibited.
d)       Rules on letting animals into the river: Bringing animals such as cows and buffalos into river to bathe them should be prohibited.
e)      Rules for disposing dead bodies
f)       Rules for restricting the items that are let in water: Many articles are let in the river for religious and other purposes. Only item that do not contaminate the river should be allowed.
g)      Rules for prohibiting use of river banks as toilets.    
h)      Rules for controlling pollution from boats. 

More that framing the rules, the success is determined by how effectively the rules are imposed.

Top ten Issues/challenges faced by Ganga

[Re-posting my submission for a task in mygov.in. This article lists the top ten issues damaging the river Ganaga]

1)      Untreated waste generated from city/town is let into the Ganga River
2)      Industrial wastes are let into the river water
3)      Dead bodies are dumped into the river
4)      People living near the banks, use the river as a toilet
5)      Agricultural activities near the river lead to contamination with pesticides/fertilizers. 
6)      Tourist/local people use the river as a place to dump their garbage
7)       Soaps, shampoos and detergent are mixed with the water when people take bath or wash their cloths.
8)      Animals are brought and washed in the river
9)      Many articles such as “diya” (which contains oil) are let into river waters for religious reasons. Such practices should be controlled.  

10)   Because of commercialization, much of the Ganga River has lost its true ecology. Ex: Encroachment into river, clearing natural vegetation and building an artificial banks (made of concrete) etc.   Steps should be taken to restore the river’s natural ecology.     

Roadmap for inclusive Ganga restoration effort

[Re-posting my submission for a task in mygov.in. This article describes the steps that are needed to be taken for successful and inclusive restoration of Ganga river.]  

The following are logical steps to restore the river Ganga:
1)      We must stop causing any more damage to the river. The first step is to find out, what are the sources of pollution in river Ganga and conrol them. The data for this should be already available. If not, the data should be obtained and compiled, as soon as possible.  The source of pollution should be classified as municipal wastes, Medium-and-Large-scale industrial waste, Small-and-Micro scale industrial waste, and waste from people near the banks. The following action should be taken to with respect to each of the groups:
i)                    Municipal waste: These are wastes that include sewage water and water from storm-water drains from cities/towns/villages on the bank of the river. The first thing that can be done is to start a process of setting up treating facility for these sewers and allowing only the treated water into the river. This should be done by the local government. This could be first step as the points at which the sewers enter the river are known. The following link describes how sewage water is treated London before releasing it into Thames river: http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cycles/accessible/sewage_treatment.html 
Regarding the wastes from storm-water, different methods are available to reduce the build up of storm-water during the rainy season. Methods termed as “Green infrastructure” such as Rainwater harvesting, Downpour disconnect and Permeable pavements, Low impact development etc. are common ways to do reduce the storm-water build up. This are more suited for urban scenario. The local municipalities or the corporation should encourage people to adopt these technologies at their home, offices etc. In public locality/buildings the government should implement these, as soon as possible. A suitable deadline should be set before which, all buildings must adopt such green infrastructure.  The details of the green infrastructure are given in the following link: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm     
ii)                   Medium and Large scale industrial waste: Immediate action should be taken against medium and large scale industry that generate waste and dispose them in the river. They should be given a short but justified period of time, within which they should start treating the waste they generate.
iii)                 Small and Micro scale industrial waste: Small and micro scale industry may not have the capacity to process the waste they generate. However, it must not be an excuse for polluting the environment. The government should support them to undertake a technology upgrade or setting up treatment plants and set a deadline for them to comply. Similar industries which are close to each other can work together to set up a common treatment plant. Steps should be taken to control pollution and relocate some of the industries, as adopted by the Singapore government to clean the Singapore river (http://apfed-db.iges.or.jp/dtlbpp.php?no=23)
iv)                 Waste from people near the river banks: These are wastes that are generated from Varanasi Ghats, run-offs from farmlands, people who use river as toilets. Regarding improving Varanasi Ghats, I have submitted a comprehensive document in the other task of this group. The wastes from farmlands and human wastes are complex scenarios which cannot be solved by simple steps.  These problems are addressed in    

2)      The next step is to restore the river. Restoration doesn’t just mean making the water appear clear. A successful restoration will bring back original state of river. Operations such as removing polluted sediments by dredging, removal of invasive species, restoration of side channels, performing environmental assessment on existing structures across the river and preserving existing (unaffected) region of the river etc are some of them. Also, for successful restoration, the process should be adaptive with respect to the initial results. The following are some of the steps that need to be taken.  
i)                    Analyse the situation: The first and important step that has to be taken is to analyse the present situation. The government can take the help of student and experts from educational and research institutions to carry out this task.
ii)                   Prepare a plan: Once in-depth knowledge of the present situation is obtained, the river can be classified based on amount of pollution and ecological damage. A proper plan should be developed, taking into account all stake holders concerns. The plan must lay down achievable goals and define an image of river system that we need reach. The guiding image should describe the dynamic, ecologically healthy river that could exist at a given site. This image may be influenced by irrevocable changes to catchment hydrology and geomorphology, by permanent infrastructure on the floodplain and banks, or by introduced non-native species that cannot be removed. The restoration goal should be to move the river towards the least degraded and most ecologically dynamic state possible, given the regional context. An ecologically dynamic state is also resilient to external perturbations.  Some of the steps could be:
a)      Removing polluted sediments: Some region of the river may be heavily polluted by nearby industries or other human activities. In such region, it may be easier to remove the polluted sediments compared to cleaning them. However, care must be taken to avoid damage to natural ecosystem of the river, while dredging.
b)      Removal of invasive species:  Benefits from invasive species control include maintained or increase biodiversity, increased productivity and restoration of native communities.
c)       Restoration of side channels: In addition to the primary function of providing refuge from high energy environment of main channel for fishes and wildlife, side channel could provide act as recreational spot for people who are enjoying the river experience. If side channel are restored, this region should not be used for transportation.  This side channel will also provide safe and enhances natural experience for passive recreational activities.  
d)      Performing environmental assessment on existing and future structures across the river: Environmental assessment of existence structures should be conducted and ill-advised projects that are found to cause damage to the environment should be removed.  NGOs should work with the experts and government officials to perform the assessments. The following article available online, describes the role of NGOs in working on successful river restoration projects.  http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/CEF_SpecialReport.2.pdf .
This task could also recommend suitable sites for Fish Passage, Dam Removal and Culvert Right-Sizing.  
e)      Preserving existing, unaffected structures: The cost of preserving existing structures is very less compared to restoring a damaged environment.   Such regions which are unaffected from environmental damage, should be identified and immediate action should be taken to protect them.
iii)                 The river is measurably enhanced: Ecologically successful restoration will induce measurable changes in physicochemical and biological components of the target river or stream that move towards the agreed upon guiding image. Re-establishment of an extirpated fish population, improved water clarity and quality, and establishment of a seasonally inundated meadow following dam removal are readily identified signs of ecological recovery. Such endpoints may take time, and the components being measured will usually have trajectories of different shapes and rates because they differ in their responses to the intervention. An increase in variability may be a signal of successful restoration because natural systems are inherently variable. However, demonstrating improvement may require evaluation of the variability of the restored river's components with respect to pre-restoration conditions, an undisturbed or less degraded river, or from a process-based understanding of the component dynamics.
iv)                 The resilience of river is increased: Ecosystems are subject to changing conditions because of temporal variations in both natural factors and human activities. Ecologically successful river restoration creates hydrological, geomorphological and ecological conditions that allow the restored river to be a resilient self-sustainable system, one that has the capacity for recovery from rapid change and stress.
v)                  No lasting harm is done:  Restoration is an intervention that causes impacts to the system, which may be extreme (e.g. channel reconfigurations). Even in such situations, an ecologically successful restoration minimizes the long-term impacts to the river. For example, a channel modification project should minimize loss of native vegetation during in-river reconstruction activity, and should avoid the fish spawning season for construction work. Indeed, removal of any native riparian vegetation should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, restoration should be planned so that it does not degrade other restoration activities being carried out in the vicinity.
vi)                Completing the post-assessment of the project: Ecological success in a restoration project cannot be declared in the absence of clear project objectives from the start and subsequent evaluation of their achievement.     

[Source:  1) http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/hrerestplan0713.pdf  
2) M.A. PALMER, E.S. BERNHARDT, J. D. ALLAN, P.S. LAKE, G. ALEXANDER, S. BROOKS, J. CARR, S. CLAYTON, C. N. DAHM, J. FOLLSTAD SHAH, D. L. GALAT, S. G. LOSS, P. GOODWIN, D.D. HART, B. HASSETT, R. JENKINSON, G.M. KONDOLF, R. LAVE, J.L. MEYER, T.K. O'DONNELL, L. PAGANO, E. SUDDUTH,  Standards for ecologically successful river restoration, Journal of Applied Ecology Volume 42, Issue 2, pages 208–217, April 2005