Introduction
I grew up in Delhi and completed my primary education from late 1950s to early 1960s. Being in a Railway Colony, because of the job of my father, I was introduced to flush toilets quite early. Yet, in those times, even in Delhi, the practice of dry latrines was common. In rural areas or maybe even in peri urban areas, open defecation remained a constant practice. Even till late eighties and early nineties, it was common to see slum dwellers by the side of railway tracks. We faced this nuisance in the back lanes of our railway quarters which though protected by a seven feet high boundary wall were either broken into or even scaled through the wall to defecate by the owners of the unauthorised dairy owners across the road on the other side of boundary wall who were persistent despite being chased away. How I wish the Sulabh movement, which introduced a twin pit pour flush system had started at that time. I recollect that in my Class three book, it was advised by the writer to those defecating in open to do the business in a small pit and cover it up with soil to avoid nuisance odour and facilitate the night soil converting into manure. This rudimentary unsophisticated advice or twin pit solution of Sulabh, which caught up in the 1980s might appear unsophisticated yet might have been much less harmful to the rivers than the sinful disposal of untreated sewage into them by the Municipalities and Jal Boards, which had polluted most of the rivers in India.
The Pollution Crisis in Indian Rivers
India’s rivers, particularly the Yamuna and Ganga and their tributaries, are severely polluted, posing a significant threat to both the environment and public health. The primary indicators of river health, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels, paint a grim picture.
For example, In the Yamuna River, BOD levels have been found to exceed the safe limit of 3 mg/l, reaching as high as 70 mg/l in certain stretches. This condition has not had significant change since decades while hundreds of thousands of Rupees have been sunken into them.
Let us revisit what has been done:
Ganga Action Plan (GAP): Launched in 1986, this program aimed to clean up the Ganga. However, it faced numerous challenges, including inadequate infrastructure, lack of enforcement, and financial mismanagement. The river remains heavily polluted despite decades of effort and substantial financial investment .
Yamuna Action Plan (YAP): Initiated in 1993, YAP focused on reducing pollution in the Yamuna. However, the river’s condition has continued to deteriorate, with untreated sewage and industrial effluents being major contributors to its pollution .
Namami Gange Program: Launched in 2014, this ambitious project aimed to rejuvenate the Ganga with a budget of $3 billion. While there have been some improvements in certain areas, overall pollution levels remain high, and the program has been criticized for slow progress and inefficiency .
Speaking about river Yamuna, In 2006, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) initially proposed laying 150 kilometres of sewers to intercept minor drains, but by 2007, this plan was revised down to 115 kilometres. The interceptor sewer system was designed to capture sewage currently flowing into stormwater drains, with the aim of enhancing the overall quality of the river. The project was divided into six packages, slated for completion by March 31, 2020. However, it has encountered significant delays and garnered severe criticism from independent bodies like the Centre for Science and Environment.
Critics have pointed to several flaws in the project, including an unrealistic assessment of sewage flows that failed to account for groundwater supply, a hardware-centric approach that overlooked holistic solutions, and a lack of integration in addressing the linkages between water, sewage, and pollution. These shortcomings led to the project being stalled by the National Green Tribunal in 2020.
In response to the Tribunal’s intervention, the DJB was directed to devise a time-bound plan to tap into 134 drains from slum areas that were not covered by the Interceptor Sewer Project, as these colonies were authorized settlements. Additionally, a report by the project consultant, EIL, revealed that 204 drains within the Interceptor Sewer Project covered areas were not included in the original plan for trapping sewage.
These revelations cast doubt on the Interceptor Sewer Project’s ability to achieve its objective of restoring the Yamuna to a state free from pollution and foul odour. This also shows that a pure hardware-centric approach, despite looking attractive, is unlikely to yield results.
Like Yamuna, the Ganga River too, despite various cleanup efforts, continues to suffer from high BOD levels, especially in areas like Kanpur and Varanasi, indicating severe organic pollution.
It is noted that in heavily polluted sections of the Yamuna, DO levels often drop to zero, unable to support most aquatic life. Similar concerns are present in the Ganga, where DO levels fluctuate significantly, often falling below the safe threshold, particularly downstream of major urban centres.
Continuous inadequacy of these solutions to meet the basic requirement of restoring these rivers to the bathing level quality, lead me to ponder, why shouldn’t we invest more in trying to do away with the root cause of this: The flushing toilets!
The Case for Phasing Out Flush Toilets
Given the ongoing pollution crisis, it’s time to reconsider our reliance on traditional flush toilets. The earliest evidence of flushing toilets is evidenced in the Excavations in Mohenjo-Daro which revealed private bathrooms and toilets within residential homes. These toilets were often located on the upper floors and were connected to covered drains. These toilets were simple pits, but they had a flush system of sorts. Water was used to clean the toilets, and the waste was carried away through a sophisticated drainage system. The waste was flushed through vertical chutes or pipes into covered street drains made of baked bricks. Mohenjo-Daro’s drainage system was highly advanced for its time, featuring a network of covered drains that ran alongside the streets, efficiently removing waste from the city and reducing public health risks.
The flushing toilet, as we understand it today, was invented by Sir John Harington, an English courtier and godson of Queen Elizabeth I. Harington’s design, created in 1596, was described in his book “A New Discourse of a Stale Subject, Called the Metamorphosis of Ajax.” This early version included a flush valve to release water from a tank to flush waste into a bowl and then into a cesspit. However, Harington’s invention did not catch on widely during his lifetime. The modern flushing toilet, with the more familiar siphoning mechanism, was developed much later. In the 1770s, Alexander Cumming, a Scottish watchmaker, patented the S-trap, a design that used water to seal the outlet of the bowl, preventing sewer gases from entering the building. This innovation was a significant improvement and formed the basis for modern flush toilets. One start wondering, hasn’t this technology, latest version of which was developed more than 250 years ago outlived its life? Why should we stick to a technology that wastes an essential resource like ‘water’-the elixir of life!
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been at the forefront of developing innovative sanitation solutions, including waterless toilets, as part of their Reinvent the Toilet Challenge. These initiatives could provide a sustainable alternative to our current system, which heavily contributes to river pollution.
Known Possible Alternatives in Waterless Toilets
Samsung Collaboration:
The Gates Foundation’s collaboration with Samsung has led to a prototype that processes human waste into ashes and purified water. This toilet uses heat treatment and bioprocessing technologies to eliminate pathogens and reduce waste volume significantly.
Nano Membrane Toilet:
Developed in partnership with Cranfield University, this toilet converts waste into energy and clean water, providing an eco-friendly solution to sanitation.
Solar-Powered Toilets:
The California Institute of Technology has created a solar-powered toilet that generates hydrogen and electricity from human waste, showcasing the potential for innovative, sustainable sanitation solutions.
Despite these advancements, widespread deployment faces challenges such as cost reduction, scalability, and cultural acceptance. Ongoing research and pilot projects aim to overcome these barriers and ensure effective implementation in the regions that need them most.
Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges:
Infrastructure: Existing sewage systems rely on flush toilets, requiring significant changes to transition to waterless options.
Behavioural Shift: People are accustomed to flush toilets; changing habits and educating the public would be essential.
Maintenance: Waterless toilets need regular upkeep, including waste removal and ensuring proper functioning.
Odor Control: Managing odours without water-based flushing can be challenging.
Opportunities:
Water Conservation: Waterless toilets save water, especially in water-scarce regions.
Eco-Friendly: They reduce water pollution and energy use.
Innovation: Advances in composting and incinerating toilets offer sustainable alternatives.
Health Benefits: Properly designed waterless toilets can improve sanitation in underserved areas.
Phasing out flush toilets requires careful planning, education, and investment, but it could lead to more sustainable sanitation practices.
Environmental and Social Benefits
Reduced Water Pollution:
Waterless toilets eliminate the need for water-based flushing, reducing sewage discharge into rivers.
Preventing untreated sewage from entering water bodies can improve water quality and protect aquatic ecosystems.
Behavioral Shift:
Political support is crucial to drive behavioural change. Public awareness campaigns can educate people about the benefits of waterless toilets.
Incentives or subsidies for adopting waterless systems could encourage widespread adoption.
Infrastructure Investment:
Governments need to invest in alternative sanitation infrastructure, such as composting toilets and incinerators.
Local communities must be involved in planning and implementation to ensure success.
Innovative Sanitation Solutions
Container-Based Toilets (CBTs):
Use sealed containers to collect waste, which can be serviced regularly to ensure safe removal without odour issues.
Composting Toilets:
Break down waste into compost through natural processes, requiring minimal water and proper ventilation to prevent odours.
Incinerating Toilets:
Burn waste into ash using electricity or gas, with minimal odor, suitable for urban apartments.
Vacuum Toilets:
Use air pressure to transport waste to a central collection point, saving water and fitting in small bathrooms.
Decentralized Sewage Treatment:
Small-scale treatment plants handle urban sewage locally, reducing the load on centralized sewage networks.
The Way Forward
Encourage Research
The International bodies like UNICEF, WHO, Various foundations and Governments should make efforts to speed up applied research, take up pilot projects, carry out process monitoring of pilot projects and document findings, conclusions and recommendations in a time bound manner.
Pour Flush Twin Pit Latrines for Rural Areas
Continue with the Por Flush, twin latrines in the rural areas as these would be most viable hygienic solutions for these. My experience shows that educating people, particularly, more affluent rural class to stick to pour flush system with a rural pan and also to discourage use of detergent in toilets is a challenge and requires sufficient and repeated investment of time by the project implementers.
Stakeholder Engagement in Sanitation Projects
Based on my extensive experience in implementing similar projects, a demand-driven participatory approach has proven effective, particularly in the construction of pour-flush twin pit latrines. This method involves engaging various stakeholders such as local communities, NGOs, and private sector partners in the transition process. The success of these projects highlights the potential for scaling up these solutions, supported by the active collaboration and participation of all involved parties.
Collaboration for Effectiveness and Acceptance: Engaging stakeholders enhances the effectiveness and acceptance of new sanitation solutions. When local communities are involved in the planning and implementation phases, they are more likely to take ownership of the project, ensuring its sustainability. NGOs bring valuable on-ground insights and expertise, while private sector partners can offer technical and financial support, fostering innovation and efficiency.
Challenges in Scaling Up Other Solutions: Despite the success in scaling up pour-flush twin pit latrines, there remains a significant challenge in finding credible and extensive experience to inspire confidence in scaling up other types of sanitation solutions, such as waterless toilets or decentralized sewage treatment systems. The lack of large-scale, proven models makes stakeholders hesitant to fully commit to these alternatives.
Pilot Projects as a Starting Point: To address this gap, it is crucial to initiate pilot projects. These projects serve as testing grounds for new solutions, allowing for the evaluation of their effectiveness, feasibility, and scalability. By documenting the outcomes and learning from these pilots, stakeholders can build a body of evidence that supports broader implementation.
In summary, stakeholder engagement is pivotal in the successful implementation and scaling up of sanitation projects. While we have ample experience and success with pour-flush twin pit latrines, the journey towards adopting other innovative sanitation solutions requires starting with well-planned pilot projects. These pilots will help gather the necessary data and confidence to scale up, ultimately contributing to sustainable sanitation improvements.
This structured approach ensures that new sanitation solutions are not only effective but also widely accepted and sustainable in the long run.
Conclusion
The traditional flush toilets, while revolutionary in their time, are increasingly unsustainable given the challenges posed by population growth, water scarcity, and pollution. A radical shift toward sustainable sanitation is overdue. Political commitment, public awareness, and strategic planning are key to successfully phasing out flush toilets and promoting waterless alternatives for cleaner rivers. By reimagining sanitation, embracing decentralized approaches, and fostering a circular economy, we can protect our rivers, conserve water, and promote public health.
Let’s prioritize solutions that balance hygiene, water conservation, and environmental impact to create a healthier and more sustainable future.
Inspire Positivity 