What River Musi actually needs, according to experts
If the State government was committed to the rejuvenation of River Musi, it should first focus on ensuring flow of treated water in the river,” public policy expert Donthi Narasimha Reddy said.
Hyderabad: Is the State government moving in the right direction with the Musi Riverfront development project? Environmentalists, activists and others feel that the Revanth Reddy government is failing to focus on core issues like ensuring flow of treated water in the river, and instead focusing more on cosmetic changes, which might look good but serve no long-lasting purpose.
“River restoration is not just about constructing skyscrapers, bridges or recreation facilities. If the State government was committed to the rejuvenation of River Musi, it should first focus on ensuring flow of treated water in the river,” public policy expert Donthi Narasimha Reddy said.
This apart, the focus was limited to 55 km of the river, while the Musi covers 267 km from Ananthagiri to Nalgonda. If the rejuvenation was confined to one particular stretch, what about the rest of it, he asked, pointing out that prevention of pollution in the river should be accorded top priority over other aspects, failing which the very purpose of rejuvenation would be defeated.
If the murky waters continue to come in from the rest of the river, what was the point in spending such a huge amount to clean or develop just 55 km is what the critics ask.
This is where the project initiated by the previous BRS government comes into focus. Estimated to cost around Rs.16,800 crore, the most crucial part of the project was to treat the water that flows in the nalas before reaching the Musi. The plan was to ensure 100 percent sewage treatment by setting up 31 sewage treatment plans (STPs) with a capacity of 1,200 MLD, at a cost of Rs.3,886 crore. Most of these projects were already operational and the remaining were nearing completion. The BRS government also launched the Strategic Nala Development Programme (SNDP) and had even completed the first phase of the project by implementing 60 projects at a cost of Rs.985 crore. If this original project continued, there would be no need for demolitions, and the Musi would come back to life at a much lesser cost.
Meanwhile, Narasimha Reddy, pointing out that the Congress government has signed an agreement with a consortium to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for River Musi rejuvenation with Rs.141 crore, said the DPR, once prepared, should be placed in public domain to seek suggestions and objections. The parameters considered in preparing the DPR and on what basis it was prepared should also be disclosed to the people, he said.
Forum for Good Governance president M Padmanabha Reddy points out that river rejuvenation was not all about tourism development. Since a few STPs were already constructed to arrest the flow of murky water in the river, more should be constructed if the government actually intends to ensure that fields in Nalgonda do not get polluted with chemical water, he said.
There were many industrial units in Katedan and they release untreated industrial waste into the River. Many units in other areas in the city also adopt similar practices. More than relocation of the poor, the government should lay emphasis on relocating these industrial units to other places, he said.
To top it all, Rs.141 crore was being offered to the consortium to prepare the DPR and at this rate, one could imagine the amount to be required for executing the project.
“Where is the money with the government to take up work? Instead it should focus on improving the health sector and developing roads, which are essential to people other than tourism development on Musi banks,” Padmanabha Reddy said.
Senior Social Scientist with the Telangana Pollution Control Board, WG Prasanna Kumar said though the Musi Riverfront project would be a life-saving exercise, the social impact and livelihood impact on the affected people should be considered. Rehabilitation of the affected people, besides ensuring flow of treated water was crucial, he said.
Stressing on the quality of water in the river, Prasanna Kumar said the biggest advantage for the project was that some treatment plants were set already up and more were to be established at different places.
This would facilitate in ensuring flow of treated water in the river. The water quality has to be monitored regularly and measures initiated accordingly, he added.
