Mr Nagesh Aras, who had attended the 5th Nov workshop, added the following comments (amongst others) to those posted by me on the 4th Nov (scroll above to check):

The notification relies on an old policy of "zero discharge policy", which has been thoroughly debunked.

This policy is not being complied by the general public, thus making all citizens guilty of violation of EPA..

But KSPCB has been conveniently ignoring this fact.

Now if KSPCB rescinds this policy officially, the city planners will have to lay another pipeline network, because-
(a) the STP discharge cannot go directly to the lakes system due to presence of NP in the effluent.
(b) if BWSSB allows the STP operators to discharge their treated effluent into the raw sewage UGD, the sewage will be diluted so much that it cannot be treated in the BWSSB STPs.

"The Hindu" had in fact published a report on the "Atree" study, as early as in August, the salient points reading as under (click here to read the full text):

Months after the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) made it mandatory for apartment complexes with more than 20 housing units to build a sewage treatment plant (STP) as well as ‘reuse’ the water, a study conducted on a small sample size of installed STPs revealed that not one of them was fully compliant. To be so, 100 per cent of the waste water should have been reused.

- - - The study — 'Decentralised waste water treatment and reuse in Bengaluru: success or failure?' — found that of the 17 STPs sampled, one was not even established though it said otherwise on paper. Six were categorised as having poor compliance and 10 were partially compliant.

As such, as I had mentioned earlier too, all of this was known to the BWSSB and the Environment ministry honchos too. But, for all of that, it's disconcerting that they continued in their authoritarian fashion to threaten prosecution, levy penalties, etc, instead of looking at the problems within, of which there are plenty, as brought out in detail here.  

It's high time the babu's changed their whole outlook.

• favorite 57 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

The BWSSB circular dt 03/03/16 pertaining to the subject is accessible here.

• favorite 73 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Incidentally, going by the contents of the GoK notification dt 19/01/16, accessible here, it becomes amply clear that the CPCB has envisaged providing of captive STP's for residential complexes commissioned only subsequent to the issuance of their notification no A-19014/41/2006-MON/1242 dt 22/05/15, cited in the GoK notification. This has apparently been corroborated by a senior KPSCB official too when the matter was referred to him, though orally.

As such, for complexes already connected to the BWSSB sewage lines well before 22/05/15, the question of providing a captive STP does not arise. If the BWSSB insists, perhaps the matter has to be challenged in the courts.

• favorite 66 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

BWSSB chairman Tushar Giri Nath told TOI that he was helpless since the directives were issued by the environment department.

"When the directives were issued, I sought clarification on whether they were applicable to existing buildings as well.The department said they were, which meant our hands were tied," he added.

For the full text (emphasis added by me) of the report in the ToI, click here.

Perhaps the Environment ministry higher ups could be talked to, failing which the option can only be the approach to the judiciary.

The question of why captive STP's when there's supposed to be a centralised sewage system is another debate, for which perhaps another blog could be started.

• favorite 66 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

In one's own perspective,  -

depending on the facts and circumstances obtainng in a case to case basis, and pending the final outcome of possible steps / action against BWSSB under discussion, the aggrieved, as a class, may have to prudently keep open the option to try and have recourse to the promoters/sellers, to be recompensed if and when that situation arises.

Wiith that in mind, perhaps, it might be equally prudent to get and have the promoters/sellers , and /or its represetaive body being, CREDAI, actively involved,  even at the present stage of  dicussions with the authorities.

Suggestive Feedback Inputs have been shared on Facebook and Linkedin.

Timeline : Venkataraman Swaminathan

• favorite 64 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Apartment-level Wastewater Treatment & Reuse in Bangalore:
Research Dissemination and Discussion Meeting
Organized by
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Date: 5th November 2016
Venue: Raheja Residency Club House, Koramangala
9:30 – 10:00 Registration
10:00 – 10:15 Introducing the workshop and participant self-introduction

SESSION I: Economic, Regulatory and Policy Issues
10:15 – 10:45 Economic and institutional factors
influencing apartment level waste-water
reuse
Dr. Sharachchandra Lele &
Pradeep Kuttuva (ATREE)
10:45 – 11:15
Expert perspectives
Mr. Ramakrishna, Chief Engineer,
BWSSB (tbc)
Mr. Shivalinge Gowda, SEO,
KSPCB (tbc)
Mr. MDN Simha, Retd. Chief
Environmental Officer, KSPCB
11:15 – 11:45 Open Discussion

SESSION II: Technological Issues
11:45 – 12:15 Technological assessment of apartment-level
STPs
Dr. Priyanka Jamwal (ATREE)
12:15 – 12:45 Expert perspectives Dr. Ananth Kodavasal
Mr. Nagesh Aras
12:45 – 13:15 Open Discussion
13:15 – 13:30 SUMMING UP Dr. Sharachchandra Lele

RSVP: Pradeep Kuttuwa (Mob: 94488 72052 / Email: pradeep.kuttuva@gmail.com). The club hall has limited capacity, and therefore, prior registration is a must (except for invitees)

• favorite 70 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

1) On Oct 18, mailed to Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest, Environment and Ecology Department (prsfee@gmail.com) with the subject line - "STP requirement for older apartment complexes"

Sri T M VIJAY BHASKAR, IAS,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Forest, Environment and Ecology Department,
Govt of Karnataka,
Bengaluru

Respected Sir

The BWSSB has issued us a notice in July this year asking us to set up a captive STP before October end, failing which, for November consumption onwards, they will be charging 25% extra on water and sanitary charges. Strangely, however, in their monthly bill, payable on 20th Oct (reading date 5th Oct) itself, they have straightaway doubled the charge.

Now, Sir, going by the contents of the your notification dt 19/01/16, accessible here, it becomes amply clear that the CPCB has envisaged providing of captive STP's for residential complexes commissioned only subsequent to the issuance of their notification no A-19014/41/2006-MON/1242 dt 22/05/15. This has been corroborated by a senior KPSCB official too when the matter was referred to him, though orally.

As such, for complexes already connected to the BWSSB sewage lines well before 22/05/15, like ours, the question of providing a captive STP should not arise.

The Times of India has reported, inter alia, as below (emphasis added by me):

BWSSB chairman Tushar Giri Nath told TOI that he was helpless since the directives were issued by the environment department.

"When the directives were issued, I sought clarification on whether they were applicable to existing buildings as well. The department said they were, which meant our hands were tied," he added.

It is in this context that we are now approaching you to review the matter, in accordance with the CPCB notification, and issue necessary clarification to the BWSSB to exempt the complexes that have come up well before 22/05/15 (and connected to the BWSSB sewage lines) from setting up captive STP's.

We would be grateful if you could give us an opportunity to meet you in person, and explain to you our position. With the due date (to pay at double the rate) already upon us, we would be grateful if the meeting could happen as early as possible.

We await to hear from you.

Regards, Muralidhar Rao
 

2) Simultaneously, got the following letter handed over to local BWSSB office, and obtained an acknowledgement:

The Asst Exec Engineer,
SE-3 sub-division, BWSSB,
17th main, 3rd block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru-560034

Dear Sir

Sub: setting up of captive STP's for apartment complexes
Ref: Your letter dt 04/07/16 (our RR No SE323848)

We refer to your above letter instructing us to set up a captive STP, and to use the treated water from the STP for toilet flushing.

Now, Sir, going by the contents of the GoK notification dt 19/01/16, accessible at (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9e1zr7y_gurNF9EX28wZUVIMFU/view ), it becomes amply clear that the CPCB has envisaged providing of captive STP's for residential complexes commissioned only subsequent to the issuance of their notification no A-19014/41/2006-MON/1242 dt 22/05/15. This has been corroborated by a senior KPSCB official when one of our MC members referred the matter to him too.

Our "Occupancy Certificate" was issued in 2004, and with under-ground sewage lines already available in the area, the builder connected up our sewage line to the BWSSB mains, outside our gates, quite as per the approval granted. And, from then on, we have been availing the facility and paying the "sanitary charges" too.

In view of the above, we trust we are not required to act on your letter. Please confirm.

Yours truly,
 

3) Met Mr Vijay Bhaskar on the 19th, following which, I mailed out a letter as below to him:

Dear Mr Vijay Bhaskar

Thank you very much, Sir, for the courtesy extended to me as well as representatives of other residential complexes, when we called on you this morning, as also for agreeing to follow up with:

a) review of the stipulations, in the various notifications issued by you, in connection with setting up of captive STP's (and using the treated water thereof for toilet flushing) from space, cost and other feasibility perspectives, particularly for complexes set up before 19/01/16 (the date of your latest notification issued in this connection);

b) helping to facilitate (jointly with BBMP, BWSSB, KSPCB, etc) the setting up of common STP's for adjoining complexes, as well as neighborhoods, from an overall feasibility point of view;

c) organising a few workshops (alongwith BBMP, BWSSB, KSPCB, etc) to help decide on the appropriate technologies, and capacities, for the de-centralised (local/ captive) STP's;

d) advising BWSSB to put on hold all their plans of levying penalties, in view of all of the above.

On our part, Sir, we would once again wish to reiterate our total support for our common objective of attaining water security for Namma Bengaluru.

Regards, Muralidhar Rao

4) On 20th Oct, mailed out the following letter to Chairman, BWSSB

Sri Tushar Girinath, IAS,
Chairman, BWSSB, Bengaluru

Respected Sir

We received the above referred bill from your SE3 AEE, made out for double the normal billing value.

Now, Sir, subsequent to a letter of 11th July, 2016, addressed to us by the AEE, SE3, asking us to set up our captive STP, there was this news item in all leading newspapers stating that the deadline had been extended to October end.

The specific extract from Times of India of 9th Aug, '16 (full text accessible @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/BWSSB-extends-STP-deadline-till-october-end/articleshow/53615453.cms ) read "The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has extended the deadline for installation of sewage treatment plant (STPs) in domestic and non-domestic buildings till October end".

Relying on the same, we had since been interacting with office bearers of other complexes, similarly placed, and examining the feasibility of setting up captive STP's.

Meanwhile, it was brought to our notice that the CPCB order dt 22/05/15, issued in this connection, envisaged only prospective application. In the light of the same, we had submitted a letter to SE3 AEE yesterday, requesting confirmation that we are not required to act on your letter of 11th July.

Subsequently, along-with a few other housing complex representatives, we met Mr Vijay Bhaskar, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest, Environment and Ecology Department, GoK, yesterday, to appraise him of the iniquity in the whole approach, as also the difficulties in retro-fitting STP's, and connected plumbing, in older complexes. Mr Vijay Bhaskar was quite appreciative of our position, and offered to review the entire matter, as also to recommend to you to withhold the levy of all penalties in this regard.

We trust you have heard from him, and accordingly, issued instructions down the line in your organisation too.
 
In anticipation, we are today making a payment, as per normal value, against the current bill.

Trust in order.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,
Muralidhar Rao


5) Further, on 28th Oct, following a call from our jurisdictional AEE, SE3 sub-dvn, reminding us to pay the penalty, along-with threats of action in case we didn't, we handed over a letter, alongwith the penalty payment (under protest), and obtained an acknowledgement.

Dear Sir

sub:  “Other charges” levied under your bill for Sept (our RR No SE323848)

Ref:  Your bill due on 20/10/16 (meter reading date 5th)

Further to our letter of the 18th instant, requesting for the dropping of the “other charges” (supposedly penalty) included in your above referred bill, we are today making the payment of the “other charges” too, under our ch no 109453 for Rs 71,560/-, drawn on Axis Bank, however “under protest”, keeping in view the points raised by us in our letter of the 18th.

The normal charges had already been paid on the 20th itself.

The matter has been referred to the Addl Chief Secretary, Environment & Forsts, GoK, as also your board Chairman, and if it’s decided to drop the charges, we trust this payment will be adjusted against your next bill.

Thanking you, Yours truly,

• favorite 55 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

All in all, the seminar (refer my post of 4th, scrolling above) was very educative.

From the proceedings of the 1st session on "Economic, Regulatory and Policy Issues", it was obvious that between the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology, both at the Centre ans States, the CPCB and KSPCB, and the BWSSB (the so-called stake-holders; but, according to me, the ones with the least stake, the actual stake-holders being the citizens, but who unfortunately are given a raw deal), they are clueless as to how to go about achieving the admittedly laudable objective of making the best use of the water resources available in nature. This is inspite of a lot of intellectual property already collated by organisations like 'Atree' (as also the many subject experts and consultants, who turned up) on the subject (as well as related subjects), and their having been interacting regularly with the stake-holders at various levels.  

Mr MDN Simha, a former Chief Environmental Officer, KSPCB, went on to read the relevant notification (issued by the KSPCB), sentence by sentence, to show that it very clearly implied only having prospective effect, and expressed surprise as to how, between BWSSB and Environment ministry, they went about interpreting it in their own way giving it retrospective effect.

Mr Ramakrishna, Chief Engineer, BWSSB (tbc), initially went on to talk about the enormous growth of the city, and the limited availability of water in nature, etc etc. When it was pointed out to him that we were all aware of all of that, but what we were questioning was the illogicality of their approach, followed by demand and collection of penalties, on threats of disconnection and even prosecution of association office-bearers, etc, he went on to become defensive, and suggested that we make suitable representations, and that they will be considered. Yes, they better be considered!

The question also arises about the accountability of the stake-holder officials in the way they go about harassing citizens, in total and arbitrary misuse of their powers. It's as if we are all still under British raaj, even as the British PM, the Honourable Ms Theresa May, herself, is in Delhi today to seek India's support to her government's new policies.   

Will our babus' outlook ever change is the moot question. As for the neta's, there's a fair amount of accountability, in that, if they can't bother to listen to the people's voice, the'll find themselves out, in the next elections.

The 2nd session dealt with all the technical aspects relating to STP's, more specifically suited to housing complexes. The sum and substance of it all was that, even at water purchase cost of Rs 80 per KL (current charges by tanker operators), only for complexes having a minimum 120 units, can an STP become economically viable, just taking into account O&M costs. If you include Capex costs, the figure will be much higher. This is apart from other technical aspects, pertaining to availability of land, and even environmental angle itself. As such, let alone the matter of giving retrospective effect, the whole idea of asking housing complexes (different from town-ships) to set up their own STP's, is in itself an illogicality, and it would be best if the stake-holders come together to re-work their approach.

The idea of de-centralised STP's is very much appreciated. But, it has perhaps to be at, say, a ward (or ward cluster) level, and has very much to be the municipalities' responsibility to set them up and manage them. They can most certainly outsource the day to day operations to professional agencies. 

• favorite 53 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Mailed off (followed up with a hard copy by regd post) the following letter to Chairman, BWSSB, yesterday, with the subject line "Request for withdrawal of notice asking for set up of captive STP"

Sri Tushar Girinath, IAS,

Respected Sir

Further to our letter of the 20th October (under the subject line “Other charges” levied under your SE3 AEE bill for Sept; our RR No SE323848), addressed to you in the above connection, and the suggestion made by your Chief Engineer (tbc), Mr Ramakrishna, at the workshop organised by 'Atree', on the 5th Nov, at Raheja Residency, we are hereby requesting you to drop the demand on us for setting up our own captive STP (apart from use of the treated water for toilet flushing). This is in view of the impracticality of the whole exercise, as also the fact that the relevant KSPCB order can have only prospective effect, as became evident from the deliberations at the workshop.

This would also then imply that the 100% penalty charges of Rs 71,560/- collected from us, against our October 20th due bill, be adjusted against the normal charge leviable against our 20th November due bill. We now request that necessary orders be issued down your official line, in conformity with the above, right away, since the bill would be under preparation even as of now.

While on the subject, Sir, we wish to assure you that, as responsible citizens, we are ready to support you in all your efforts at achieving the common objective of making the best possible use of available water. All we are requesting is that the exercise be equitable to all citizens concerned.

We await to hear from you.

Thanking you,
sd/-
Yours truly,
Muralidhar Rao
(member, management committee, Mantri Classic, Koramangala, Bengaluru)

• favorite 50 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

May be of info. value see Post @ecopack

sub. "sewage treatment plants are not working"

(as shared on LInkedin) 

• favorite 95 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Link to-

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apartment-complex-es-bwssb-latest-move-swaminathan-venkataraman?trk=mp-author-card

• favorite 51 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

See the Post of date (supplied new link) @ https://www.facebook.com/swaminathanv3?fref=nf&pnref=story

• favorite 34 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

The write-up and comment @http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/3012-apartments-kspcb-notice-pollution may be found helpful

• favorite 42 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Please refer the Post today @http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/4202-the-apartment-law-you-must-know?utm_source=copy

Any Update on a positive move towards legal recourse !

• favorite 36 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

An op-ed that Dr Sharachchandra Lele and his ATREE team wrote that critically analyses the policy regarding apartment-level STPs was published in Deccan Herald - it can be accessed here.

Dr Lele has through a separate mail mentioned that Deccan Herald unilaterally changed the title of the article, making it sound rather harsh and focused only on BWSSB, when it is actually a broader article.

• favorite 38 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Spelling relief for residents of smaller buildings (20-50 units), the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) has put on hold penalties for failing to install Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs). It has sought clarifications from the government about certain clauses, including whether the rules are applicable for existing properties, as retrospective implementation has met with stiff opposition.

For the full text of the report in The Hindu, click here.

It's obvious now that BWSSB went about the exercise without proper application of mind, in the process, causing the complexes serious dislocations of their finances. As such, while demanding stay of penalty, and adjustment of the penalty collected so far against future bills, perhaps we should also be demanding payment of interest on the amounts advanced, apart from litigation costs.

It should teach them not to go about issuing notifications in such cavalier fashion. 

• favorite 48 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

On-line Petition, addressed the the CM, with the demand "Reverse retrospective implementation of STPs & 300% water tariff hike targeting apartments" started - check here.

Requesting all to endorse same.

• favorite 42 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

When 85 per cent of the city’s existing 2,000 sewage treatment plants (STPs) aren’t functional, why is the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) insisting that the city’s apartment complexes construct more? That is the main contention of environmental consultant Ananth S Kodavasal. He has been assisting a consortium of apartments under the Bangalore Apartment Federation (BAF) in contesting the BWSSB’s rules mandating the implementation of STPs in apartment complexes with flats numbering over 20. After an online petition addressed to the Chief Minister, opposing the mandate on dual pipelines, payment of retrospective tax and hefty penalties, groups of apartments have now come together to file writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka against the mandate.

- - - BAF, however, contends that this move is neither economically nor environmentally feasible, and that the imposition of such hefty penalties are unfair because when the apartments were constructed, they followed all the requisite norms. According to Muralidhar Rao, committee member of Mantri Classic in Koramangala, which, along with 12 other apartments, filed its writ petition in the High Court in December, this will involve an entire redesign of complexes, many of which may not have the requisite space for an STP, while retrofitting the plumbing to implement the reflow of the treated water back into their toilets via dual piping is an impossible task.

- - - When STPs are poorly designed (which is largely the case), they pose a bigger health hazard. With maintenance being expensive and time-consuming, most housing complexes don’t operate them full time, and instead discharge raw sewage out, which pollutes lakes and water bodies. “They become cesspools, attract mosquitoes and emit a foul smell,” he explains.

For the full text (emphasis added by me) of the report in the Bangalore Mirror, click here.

Talking of poor design, and resulting health hazard, reproduced below are the relevant extracts from a mail received by me (in my capacity as one of the movers of the writ petition) from an affected resident who supposedly moved into a newly built apartment complex in Jayanagar:

I am writing this email to you as I am an affected party because of a badly designed STP in an apartment complex at Jayanagar. The builder built the STP after the govt order came but did not have it in their original plan. He has retrofitted in the basement. The smell in the parking lot and the ground apartments of that block is nauseating. Apart from that the motor noise as well for which in a year belt has been changed as it has to run 24×7.

I approached BBMP and they state as the plan was sanctioned before the order it has moved to KPSCB and BWSSB. Both when contacted are not sure who sanctions the location of STP in the above scenario, but agree verbally that being in the basement is not good.

The above not only highlights the hazards resulting out of poor design, but also the lack of accountability on the part of the government agencies involved. In such a scenario, their enforcing retrofitting of STP's in complexes (however big) already served by BWSSB, plainly amounts to acquiescing in BWSSB's abdication of a responsibility entrusted to it. Even in areas not covered by BWSSB currently, it should be the responsibility of the government agencies to enforce BWSSB to extend the services expeditiously, and close down the captive STP's.

Perhaps, the writ petition needs to be furthered along those lines.

• favorite 39 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

wrt the suggestion earlier made, the contents of, - http://swaminathanv208.blogspot.in/2017/04/whom-to-implead-add-as-neceassary-party.html

may be found quite helpful !

• favorite 35 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

Going by the last known Media Report, the KAR Minister-in-charge has since announced that the STP requirement, mindlessly proposed to be thrust upon (date for compliance since extended to December) and grieved about, has been dropped. And, the mandate will apply only propectively.

Any news regarding the present staus, and development, of the writ (PIL)  fi;led in court ?

• favorite 29 Likes
• | login or register to post comments

To ADD:

As shared on Facebook and elsewhere :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/stps-mandatory-for-only-new-residential-apartments-with-20-units-or-more-george/articleshow/59055464.cms

While some doubt has been aired in certain limted circle,- though with no substannce or merit; hence personally do not agree with,- according to own reading and understanding, it is now quite clear that residential apartments constructed pror to february 2016 are exempt from STP mandate. And, that will apply only to 'commercial space' and 'education institutions' .

Anyone concerned, with a different/contrary view,  to share ?

• favorite 27 Likes
• | login or register to post comments