Analysis
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In the earlier chapter, we have discussed about the present existing water supply system in City. In this chapter the future demands are predicted to plan for the future water supply system. The projections are made up to the year 2021.
5.2. FUTURE PROJECTIONS
The population data, for all the municipalities is not available for the year 2001. Therefore for projection purposes, population data of the year 1991 is taken into account.
5.2.1. POPULATION PROJECTION
| Sl. No. | Name of the Municipality | Population |
| | | 1991 | 2001 |
2011 |
2021 |
| 1 | M.C.H limits | 3.021 | 4.103 | 5.359 | 6.465 |
| 2 | Enroute villages | 0.194 | 0.267 | 0.326 | 0.375 |
| 3 | Surrounding Nine Municipalities |
| a) | L.B.Nagar | 0.155 | 0.29 | 0.394 | 0.49 |
| b) | Rajendranagar | 0.084 | 0.15 | 0.218 | 0.305 |
| c) | Serilingampally | 0.073 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.335 |
| d) | Kukatpally | 0.185 | 0.31 | 0.42 | 0.535 |
| e) | Alwal | 0.066 | 0.101 | 0.136 | 0.175 |
| f) | Qutbullapur | 0.105 | 0.164 | 0.196 | 0.23 |
| g) | Kapra | 0.088 | 0.155 | 0.206 | 0.26 |
| h) | Uppal Kalan | 0.075 | 0.134 | 0.194 | 0.265 |
| I) | Malkajgiri | 0.126 | 0.2 | 0.276 | 0.36 |
| j) | Osmania University | 0.01 | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| k) | Secunderabad Cantonment | 0.167 | 0.184 | 0.197 | 0.208 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 4.349 | 6.22 | 8.166 | 10.018 |
Table 5.1. FUTURE POPULATION FOR MCH, 9 MUNICIPALITIES, & THE
ENROUTE VILLAGES
Future Water Demand
| | 2001 | 2011 |
| NET WATER DEMAND (mgd) |
| MCH |
135 | 176 |
Table 5.2. FUTURE WATER DEMAND UP TO THE YEAR 2011
5.3. BASIN LEVEL ANALYSIS: At this level, the study will be about the available alternative sources of water supply.
5.3.1. EXISTING SOURCES OF WATER
| Storage Capacity | Existing Sources |
| 25 | Osman Sagar |
| 15 | Himayat Sagar |
| 45 | Manjira Phase |
| 60 | Singur |
| 145mgd | Total |
Table 5.3 SOURCES FOR WATER SUPPLY
The present supply of water is far less than the present water demand, which further has to be doubled in the coming next twenty years. Selecting a water source involves with political and inter state issues. Therefore not much can be done by a planner in selecting the sources of water other than planning for optimal utilization of the available sources.
| Proposed Sources | Storage Capacity | Year |
| Krishna water Phase-I | 117 mcm | 2003 |
| Krishna water Phase-II | 117 mcm | 2011 |
| Krishna water Phase-III | 117 mcm | 2021 |
| The Godavari scheme | 296 mcm | 2021 |
| Total | 600 mcm (1202mld/232mgd) |
Table 5.4. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF WATER AND THEIR STORAGE CAPACITIES
5.4. MACRO LEVEL OPTIONS: Alternative source of water
The Krishna Water Supply Project
Project Estimate: Rs. 2,600 Crores
This source is identified at 135Kms from Hyderabad.
The Godavari Scheme
Project Estimate: Rs. 1,600 Crores
This source is identified at 85Kms from Hyderabad.
5.5. CITY LEVEL ANALYSIS
At this level, the study will be about various issues of treatment plants, and the water reservoirs.
5.5.1. RESERVOIRS
Megacity Project:
A megacity project with hudco assistance costing Rs.138.60crs for water supply & sewerage improvement in MCH limits & surrounding 9 municipalities. In this project three clear water reservoirs of 21ML capacity in MCH limits & 15 additional storage reservoirs & sumps of 34ML capacity in surrounding 9 municipalities have been taken up & completed. Water supply feeder & trunk distribution mains to a length of 34kms in MCH limits &118kms in surrounding 9 municipalities added.
- Presently there are 118 reservoir at avg. capacity of 3.77ML & 4Master balance reservoir of total capacity 27ML purposed in megacity project in the MCH area ,Which are sufficient for the present & future population(2011).
| Total 145 MGD (AVAILABILITY) |
| | Water supply Coverage (%) |
Per capita supply Lpcd |
Total allocation MGD |
% |
| MCH Area |
96 | 110 | 99.81 | 65.65 |
Table 5.5 WATER SUPPLY QUANTITY ALLOCATION
Fig.5.1 COVERAGE AND NON-COVERAGE AREA
96% Of MCH area is cover by water supply network, 4% of MCH area is covered ,that are the slum areas and new colonies.
5.5.2. TREATMENT PLANTS: (Treatment capacities)
| Existing treatment plants |
Capacities |
| Asifnagar WTP | 122.6 Mld |
| Miralam WTP | 90.0 Mld |
| Rajampet WTP | 82.0 Mld |
| Kalabgur WTP | 150.0 Mld |
| Peddapur WTP1 | 137.8 Mld |
| Peddapur WTP2 | 137.8 Mld |
| Total | 720.2 Mld |
Table 5.6. EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS AND THEIR TREATMENT CAPACITIES
Present water supply is 750 Mld where as the combined treatment capacities of all the treatment plants is only 720.2 Mld
Aging of the treatment plants:
| Name of the Treatment Plant | Year of Commissioning |
Asifnagar WTP
1. Paterson Plant
2. Candy Plant
3. Pneumatic Plant
|
1921
1964
1974
|
| Miralam WTP | 1927 |
| Rajampet WTP | 1965 |
| Kalabgur WTP | 1981 |
| Peddapur WTP1 & WTP2 | 1990 & 1996 |
Table 5.7. YEAR OF COMMISSIONING OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS
Presently the treatment plants are working with an average efficiency of 65%. This is mainly due to the aging of the equipment at treatment plants. Therefore, replacements and repairs of the existing equipment will meet the present demand for treatment.
Location of Treatment Plants:
| Treatment Plant | Distance from City |
| Asif Nagar WTP | 3 Km |
| Miralam WTP | 10 Km |
| Rajampet WTP | 5 Km |
| Kalabgur WTP | 1Km |
| Peddapur WTP1 | 26 Km |
| Peddapur WTP2 | 26 Km |
Table 5.8. DISTANCE OF TREATMENT PLANTS FROM THE CITY
- The quality of water received from Rajampet, Asif Nagar, and Kalabgur to the city is good and there are no complaints regarding the quality of water.
- Therefore the proposed location of new treatment pants should be within a range of 10 km from the city to avoid contamination of treated water from the treatment plant to the city.
- Ideally, the raw water should be brought from the sources to the city and treated in the treatment plants located close to the city.
5.6.DIVISION WISE ANALYSIS: At this level, the study will be about various issues of present water supply (supply, demand, and lpcd) in each division.
| Division Wise Distribution of Water in MCH Area |
| Divisions | Water Supply MGD | Tot Population | Pop % | Tot demand | Present lpcd |
| Division I | 11 | 345000 | 8.40 | 10.245 | 145.518 |
| Division II | 17 | 1025000 | 24.96 | 30.438 | 75.695 |
| Division III | 9.81 | 619000 | 15.07 | 18.382 | 72.330 |
| Division IV | 11 | 328000 | 7.99 | 9.740 | 153.060 |
| Division V | 14 | 577000 | 14.05 | 17.134 | 110.738 |
| Division VI | 27 | 643000 | 15.66 | 19.094 | 191.645 |
| Division VII | 10 | 570000 | 13.88 | 16.926 | 80.070 |
| Total | 99.81 | 4107000 | | | 110.916 |
Table 5.9. DIVISION WISE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER SUPPLY
Total water supply to MCH area is 99.81 mgd, over all Lpcd=110.9.
From table 5.9 we can see Division II,III and VII as least lpcd, where as overall lpcd in MCH limits is 110.9.
Demand Vs Supply:
From the table 5.8 clear that division VI and I as more water supply and less demand. Where as rest of divisions as more demand and less water supply. We can see variation in demand and supply in each division from the map 5.2.
Distribution of water supply by HMWSSB is not equally distributed (i.e.supply is not equal to the demand, variation in the lpcd) to all the division.