The Union Government  recently sanctioned Rs. 360 crore for the clean-ing up of Chennai’s waterways. This was based on an estimation submitted by the city’s Corporation for which funds have been allotted from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNURRM). The estimate, in turn, is based on a study by consultants who have recommended desilting North Chennai’s waterways in particular, constructing micro-and macro-drains and building concrete walls. The sanction was hailed as a major victory for the State by the powers-that-be,  who now want still more funds to clean up the Cooum. But the question is, how effective or timely will be the deployment of funds towards actual work on the ground. The State has seen numerous projects being launched for cleaning up the city’s waterways and almost all of them have ended up nowhere. How will the new project be different? Past history does not promise hope.

Cooum River (southside) behind Madras University Building. (Picture courtesy: D.H. Rao)

The first time an attempt was made to clean up the waterways was in the 1970s when boating was planned on the Cooum. Some of the piers and jetties built for this can still be seen along the river. This was abandoned when there was a change of government. In 1988, Severn Trent International, a UK based consulting group, was brought in, aided by a grant from the United Kingdom, to study the situation. The thrust of this group’s recommendations was that there were 206 points of untreated sewage discharge into the Cooum River. The report divided the main contributors into various types – public buildings, private institutions, slums, etc. and suggested methods by which the discharge of effluents and sewage could be stopped. The report was shelved.

Fresh attempts for getting funds were made from 1996 and the State Government also announced that it was taking steps to resolve procedural tangles which were proving impediments in the solving of the waterways’ problems. This resulted in the Union Environment and Forests Ministry sanctioning Rs. 500 crore under the National Rivers Conservation Program­me to Metrowater in 2000. ­Labelled the Chennai City ­Waterways Improvement Project (CCWIP), the grant was for preventing of discharge of sewage into the Cooum and Adyar Rivers. Metrowater announced that it would begin tendering processes in early 2001 and that an additional Rs. 300 crore would be needed for which negotiations were on with HUDCO. The main activity was the laying of drains to intercept existing sewage lines and enhancing the capacity of the pumping stations and sewage treatment plants. The work was expected to be completed in four years. But usage of funds was tardy and as late as 2002 only Rs. 90 crore had been utilised. This was criticised by the Central Ministry which had given the sanction originally. By 2005, Rs. 330 crore had been utilised and Metrowater announced that untreated sewage was no longer being discharged into the rivers, but this was debated hotly by environmentalists and several suffering citizens.

Adyar River (northside), Greenways Road, MRTS station. (Picture courtesy: D.H. Rao)

In the meanwhile, several agencies, including Anna and Madras Universities, got together and came up with a set of recommendations for cleaning up the rivers, all of which were almost identical to those of the Severn Trent suggestions. The only difference was that cost estimates had gone up.

In 2001, a combined effort was made by several of the 18 agencies that reportedly control the fates of Chennai’s waterways. The Chennai City River Conservation Project (CCRCP) was launched with much fanfare with a total outlay of Rs. 1200 crore, of which the CCWIP was also a part. The PWD, the CMDA, the Slum Clearance Board and Chennai Corporation were other partners in this. A public interest petition filed in December 2008 by an association of engineers against the government has termed the entire project an eyewash. Claiming that it was only complete on paper, the petitioner has alleged that the implementation deviated considerably from the plan and that it was a total failure. However, a redeeming plus is that about half the city now does have stormwater drains that do not connect to the rivers and that Metrowater discourages direct connection of sewage lines to the rivers. But during rains, when the roads flood, manhole covers are opened and the quickest means to drain water are sought, thereby bringing to nought all the carefully thought out plans. Metro­water, however, concedes that water is still polluted and blames encroachments from Elephant Gate to Tiruvanmiyur for this. The PWD, after spending Rs. 250 crore, now blames the delay in removal of hutments for the non-implementation of its part of the work. At the end of it all, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has said that no ecology survives in these waters, thanks to the pollution in them.
In addition to the above schemes, there have been several smaller grants for periodic desilting of the waterways. These have been for smaller stretches and their effect on completion has been negligible. Almost Rs. 2 crore is spent each year on these exercises. Buck­ing­ham Canal, which was more or less forgotten thanks to the MRTS going right through stretch of it, received attention once again in 2002 and again in 2008 when its nationalisation was announced with plans to spend Rs. 500 crore in making it navigable once more.

With so many schemes and so much of funds, why do the city’s rivers remain exactly as they were?

According to P.M. Belliappa, retired civil servant and an environmental consultant, the principal problem is the lack of a centralised agency to handle the city’s rivers. He feels that a central river authority on the lines of the Thames River Authority would have the necessary teeth to take on the multiple issues facing the rivers and their survival. He envisages an autonomous body with a professional as the Chairman. Other members would represent the principal stakeholders in the rivers’ well-being. The Authority must be mandated to plan and implement improvement schemes for all three waterways in the city.

Policy guidelines must be laid down and the Authority must meet the Chief Minister of the State and the Mayor of the city at least once in six months to review progress and also weed out procedural problems. The organi­­sation must be given the freedom to manage its finances, with due accountability. This can include the freedom to look at sources for funds as well. The body must include in its scope the maintenance of the waterways, their water quality and their immediate environment. All this requires political will and the necessity to take unpopular decisions, the first of which may be relocation of the slums along the riversides.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? But with 18 and more agencies involved in what is loosely termed as river improvement, it is very unlikely that our rivers are going to see better days.