|
Why is rain a tragedy for
cities?
A few days ago, most of India reeled under drought. Cities thirsted for
water. Karnataka’s chief minister S M Krishna — seeing water supply in his
software capital reduced to once in three days — announced desperate measures,
such as prayer. The entire country seemed to await the first emancipatory
raindrop.
Now it has rained. Now the same cities are full of it.
Flooded, life disrupted. Dirty and unhealthy, as rainwater mixed with sewage
water flows through crowded urban habitats. Rain has literally become a curse.
But the real tragedy is that in a few months, once the rains and the
waterlogging are far behind, these same cities will be thirsting again. Once
again, their water greed will make them poach for water in surrounding rural
areas.
Today, our flatulent cities get their water supply from further
and further away — Delhi gets Ganga water from the Tehri dam; Bangalore is
building the Cauvery IV project to pump in water from 100 kilometres away; water
for Chennai will traverse 200 kilometres, from the Krishna river; Hyderabad will
bring its water from Manjira. I could go sickeningly on and on. But the point is
that the urban-industrial sector’s demand for water is growing by leaps and
bounds. Yet, this sector does little to augment its water resources; it does
even less to minimise its water use, or conserve water. Worse, because of the
abysmal lack of sewage and waste treatment facilities, it degrades scarce water
further. Even after all this, its water greed remains unslaked.
Groundwater levels are declining precipitously in urban areas as people
bore deeper in search of the water that municipalities cannot supply. So when it
does not rain, the city cries. And when it does rain, still it cries. What a
tragedy.
It is a tragedy because this continuous cycle of deprivation and
disruption is completely unneccesary. We can do so much more. The water
imperative is that cities must begin to value their rainfall endowment. This
means implementing rainwater harvesting in each house and colony. But it also
means relearning about the hundreds of lakes, tanks and ponds that built, indeed
nourished, cities. Almost every city had a treasure of water harvesting
structures, which provided it with a flood cushion and allowed it to recharge
its groundwater reserves. But today’s urban planners cannot see beyond land.
Where there is water, there should be land, is their money-spinning philosophy.
So it is that waterbodies in cities today are a shame to our traditional
imagination — encroached, full of sewage, garbage or just filled up and
built-over. The cities forgot they need water. They forgot their own
lifeline.
Take urban lakes, a city’s vital sponges. Every city gave its
land for rain. Bangalore in the early 1960s had 262 lakes; now only 10 hold
water. The Ahmedabad collector — on directions from the high court — listed 137
lakes in the city but also said that over 65 had been already built-over. In
Delhi, 508 waterbodies were identified — again, on court orders — but are not
protected.
I find that the hue and cry about water harvesting and
rejuvenating lakes still remains a chimera. Urban planners simply don’t know how
important these two activities are. They simply refuse to believe that both are
perfectly possible. They flirt with the idea, but then do not even begun to
integrate the city’s water needs with its rainwater wealth.
There are
also other problems. Firstly, builders and architects today have simply never
been taught the many other ways of holding water, that exist outside the syllabi
they conned as students. They have been trained to see water as waste and to
build systems that dispose it off as fast as possible. Of course, given the
sheer mess of urban India, even the stormwater drains have become conduits for
sewage, or get choked with garbage or in many cases just don’t get built. An
entire generation of Indians will have to be retrained. It is crucial that
future architects and planners understand water once again. Our society cannot
let go of its own wisdom so easily.
Specially when other countries are
profiting from it. In Germany, city authorities have learnt and are using our
knowledge. To save investing in stormwater drains, they provide incentives to
households to harvest and recharge rainwater. The city charges tax based on the
calculation of the paved area and the water-runoff coefficient. If rainwater
harvesting is done and the load on the city’s stormwater drainage is reduced,
the burden of tax on the house-owner is reduced accordingly. But this demands
governance capacities, something we desperately lack.
Secondly, the
business of land is far more powerful than the business of water storage. In
spite of all the efforts of civil society groups to use the strategy of judicial
intervention, the movement to protect and revive lakes is facing an uphill
battle. The administrative framework for managing a waterbody just does not
exist in our cities anymore.
Even if such a framework did come up, it
wouldn’t be enough. The city will now have to learn to minimise its water use
and work on conservation and reuse. Politicians and planners believe that water
is God’s gift to their election promises. People must now begin to believe it is
something they can gift to themselves. We are all mindless about wasting water;
now, let’s get mindful of retaining it. Then, the modern-day urban tragedy
called timely rain will receive a popular denouement.
— Sunita
Narain
첫댓글 제가 해볼께요~