Policy Preferences about Managed Aquifer Recharge for Securing Sustainable Water Supply to Chennai City, India

Abstract

The objective of this study is to bring out the policy changes with respect to managed aquifer recharge (focusing on infiltration ponds), which in the view of relevant stakeholders may ease the problem of groundwater depletion in the context of Chennai City; Tamil Nadu; India. Groundwater is needed for the drinking water security of Chennai and overexploitation has resulted in depletion and seawater intrusion. Current policies at the municipal; state and national level all support recharge of groundwater and rainwater harvesting to counter groundwater depletion. However, despite such favorable policies, the legal framework and the administrative praxis do not support systematic approaches towards managed aquifer recharge in the periphery of Chennai. The present study confirms this, considering the mandates of governmental key-actors and a survey of the preferences and motives of stakeholder representatives. There are about 25 stakeholder groups with interests in groundwater issues, but they lack a common vision. For example, conflicting interest of stakeholders may hinder implementation of certain types of managed aquifer recharge methods. To overcome this problem, most stakeholders support the idea to

Stakeholder Views, Financing and Policy Implications for Reuse of Wastewater for Irrigation: A Case from Hyderabad, India

“…Their interest is directly linked to the mandate. At the national level these are (see [27,40] for their mandates and interests).…”

“…The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board is expected to provide 100% treatment of the city's wastewater before it is discharged into the Musi River (legal issues: [27]). As shown above, only about 50% of the wastewater is partially treated at secondary level and an augmentation of the capacity to 100% through construction of new wastewater treatment plants may not be realistic given the urban growth and population increases.…”

Muddy Waters: Refining the Way forward for the “Sustainability Science” of Socio-Hydrogeology

“…While detailed stakeholder analyses can be costly, they are also extremely valuable; a professionally facilitated process that begins with a carefully conducted stakeholder network analysis can help ensure that all interests are adequately met and that those affected by future groundwater policy have the opportunity to decide who will govern groundwater use. For example, in contrast to surface water (or hydrological) stakeholder network analysis, which frequently identifies engineers and water managers as the 'key actors' [39], hydrogeologically associated stakeholders tend to include residents and water user groups as key considerations [40]. This is one of the key differences between surface and groundwater users; for well owners, their supply is entirely personal and is typically not governed by an overarching management facility.…”

“…This is one of the key differences between surface and groundwater users; for well owners, their supply is entirely personal and is typically not governed by an overarching management facility. As such, well owners are often the most valuable stakeholder in assessing quality and guiding policy and, therefore, should form a key component of 'integrated water resource management (IWRM)' planning [10,40]; an increasingly deployed approach to managing the water cycle in both high [41] and low-income countries [42]. However, groundwater is still frequently under-represented in water management plans, including IWRM and indeed, often added only as an afterthought [40].…”

Assessments of seasonal groundwater recharge and discharge using environmental stable isotopes at Lower Muda River Basin, Malaysia

“…Recent years have seen a growing trend in water consumption which corresponded to the continuous economic development (Dalin et al 2017). Overexploitation of groundwater resources has led to water depletion, declining of groundwater levels, and deterioration of water quality (Custodio 2002;Blasch and Bryson 2007;Kumar 2007;Brunner et al 2014;Unsal et al 2014;TamezMeléndez et al 2016). All those conditions are the threats to reliable water supplies and economic development.…”