1 / 35

DRINKING PURIFIED WATER OUR RIGHT

DRINKING PURIFIED WATER OUR RIGHT. AND WE SHOULD NOT TO PAY FOR THIS. SUBMITTED BY SARGAM KHULLAR IX-A. SAVE WATER FOR OUR FUTURE. SADDA HAQ EITHE RAKH. THIS IS OUR RIGHT AND WE WANT IN NOW. PURIFICATION OF WATER. WATER SHOULD BE PURIFIED.

ursa
Download Presentation

DRINKING PURIFIED WATER OUR RIGHT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRINKING PURIFIED WATER OUR RIGHT AND WE SHOULD NOT TO PAY FOR THIS .......... SUBMITTED BY SARGAM KHULLAR IX-A

  2. SAVE WATER FOR OUR FUTURE......

  3. SADDA HAQ EITHE RAKH THIS IS OUR RIGHT AND WE WANT IN NOW

  4. PURIFICATION OF WATER

  5. WATER SHOULD BE PURIFIED Water purification is the process of removing undesirable chemicals, biological contaminants, suspended solids and gases from contaminated water. The goal is to produce water fit for a specific purpose. Most water is purified for human consumption (drinking water), but water purification may also be designed for a variety of other purposes, including meeting the requirements of medical, pharmacological, chemical and industrial applications. In general the methods used include physical processes such as filtration,sedimentation, and distillation, biological processes such as slow sand filters or biologically active carbon, chemical processes such asflocculation and chlorination and the use of electromagnetic radiation such as ultraviolet light.

  6. SOURCES OF WATER

  7. Groundwater: The water emerging from some deep ground water may have fallen as rain many tens, hundreds, or thousands of years ago. Soil and rock layers naturally filter the ground water to a high degree of clarity and often it does not require additional treatment other than adding chlorine or chloramines as secondary disinfectants. Such water may emerge as springs, artesian springs, or may be extracted from boreholes or wells. Deep ground water is generally of very high bacteriological quality (i.e., pathogenic bacteria or the pathogenic protozoa are typically absent), but the water may be rich in dissolved solids, especially carbonates and sulfates of calcium andmagnesium. Depending on the strata through which the water has flowed, other ions may also be present including chloride, and bicarbonate. There may be a requirement to reduce the iron or manganese content of this water to make it acceptable for drinking, cooking, and laundry use. Primary disinfection may also be required. Where groundwater recharge is practised (a process in which river water is injected into an aquifer to store the water in times of plenty so that it is available in times of drought), the groundwater may require additional treatment depending on applicable state and federal regulations

  8. Upland lakes and reservoirs: Typically located in the headwaters of river systems, upland reservoirs are usually sited above any human habitation and may be surrounded by a protective zone to restrict the opportunities for contamination. Bacteria and pathogen levels are usually low, but some bacteria, protozoa or algae will be present. Where uplands are forested or peaty, humic acids can colour the water. Many upland sources have low pH which ruire adjustment

  9. Rivers, canals and low land reservoirs: Low land surface waters will have a significant bacterial load and may also contain algae, suspended solids and a variety of dissolved constituents. Atmospheric water generation is a new technology that can provide high quality drinking water by extracting water from the air by cooling the air and thus condensing water vapor. Rainwater harvesting or fog collection which collects water from the atmosphere can be used especially in areas with significant dry seasons and in areas which experience fog even when there is little rain. Desalination of seawater by distillation or reverse osmosis. Surface Water: Freshwater bodies that are open to the atmosphere and are not designated as groundwater are classified in the USA for regulatory and water purification purposes as surface water.

  10. PURIFIED WATER IS DISEASE FREE AND HEALTHY AND OUR BASIC NEED

  11. DRINKING PURIFIED WATER IS OUR BASIC NEED

  12. PRIVATIZATION OF WATER Water privatization is used here as a shorthand for private sector participation in the provision of water services and sanitation (the sale of water resources themselves is covered in the article on water trading). Private sector participation in water supply and sanitation is controversial. Proponents of private sector participation argue that it has led to improvements in the efficiency and service quality of utilities. It is argued that it has increased investment and has contributed to expanded access. They cite Manila, Guayaquil in Ecuador, Bucharest, several cities in Colombia and Morocco, as well as Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal as success stories.[1][2][3] Critics however, contend that private sector participation led to tariff increases and has turned a public good into a private good. Many believe that the privatization of water is incompatible with ensuring the international humanright to water. Aborted privatizations in Cochamamba, Bolivia, and Dar es-Salaam, Tanzania, as well as privately managed water systems in Jakarta and Berlin are highlighted as failures

  13. Water privatization in Buenos Aires, Argentina and in England is cited by both supporters and opponents, each emphasizing different aspects of these cases. Statistical studies comparing public and private utilities show little difference in performance between them. Even the figures about how many people receive water from the private sector are controversial: One source claims that 909 million people were served by "private players" in 2011 globally, up from 681 million people in 2007. This figure includes people served by publicly owned companies that have merely sourced out the financing, construction and operation of part of their assets, such as water or wastewater treatment plants, to the private sector.[13] The World Bank estimated the urban population directly served by private water operators in developing countries to be much lower at 170 million in 2007.[1] Among them only about 15 million people, all living in Chile, are served by privately owned utilities. The remainder are served by privately managed, but publicly owned companies under concession, lease and management contracts.

  14. IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION The evidence concerning the impact of water privatization is mixed. Often proponents and opponents of water privatization emphasize those examples, studies, methods and indicators that support their respective point of view. As with any empirical study, results are influenced by the methods used. For example, some studies simply compare the situation before privatization to the situation after privatization. More sophisticated studies try to compare the changes in privately managed utilities to those of publicly managed utilities that operate under similar conditions during the same period. The second group of studies often use econometric techniques. The results also depend on the choice of the indicator used to measure impact: One common indicator is the increase in access to water supply and sewerage. Other indicators are changes in tariffs, investments, water-borne diseases or indicators for service quality (e.g. continuity of supply or drinking water quality) and efficiency (e.g. water losses or labor productivity).

  15. IMPACT ON ACCESS A before-after comparative study by the World Bank analyzes how access, quality of service, operational efficiency and tariffs have evolved under 65 public-private partnerships for urban water utilities in developing countries. The study estimates that "PPP projects have provided access to piped water for more than 24 million people in developing countries since 1990". Interestingly and unlike it was expected by proponents of privatization, private operators contributed little in terms of financing, which was provided to a large extent by tariff revenues and development aid.[1] A study that compared changes under PPPs to changes that occurred in publicly managed utilities during the same period in Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil found that access to water supply and sanitation increased both for utilities under private and under public management to the same extent. The study concludes that "private sector participation, per se, may not have been responsible for those improvements"

  16. Others have argued that privatization is often associated with increase in tariffs – which reduces the accessibility of the resource for poor households. Often, water privatization can hinder the accessibility of water. When for-profit companies invest in the water system, the desire to make returns on the investment can create a top-heavy distribution system. In this scenario, the desire to supply poor districts decreases because the poor are unable to pay the tariffs, however small they may be. On the opposite end of the spectrum, investments are made to improve accessibility in richer districts where the people can pay the tariffs. In this manner, the water company's need to make adequate returns is met by supplying water only to those who can pay. However, water supply privatization may in some cases lead to expansion of services to low-income districts. The urban poor who have no official access to water may have a relatively high willingness to pay because they may suffer from even higher tariffs typically charged by informal water vendors.

  17. IMPACT ON HEALTH A study of water privatization's impact on health, as measured by child mortality, found that between 1991–1997 in Argentina child mortality fell 8 percent more in cities that had privatized their water and sewer services compared to those that remained under public or cooperative management. The effect was largest in poorest areas (26 percent difference in reduction). The main reason was a greater expansion of access to water in cities with privatized utilities. This increase was concentrated in poorer areas that did not receive services before private sector participation was introduced.

  18. PROFITABILITY An empirical study of 34 concession in nine Latin American countries during the 1990s, including 10 water concessions in 5 countries (3 in Argentina, 1 in Bolivia, 1 in Brazil, 3 in Chile and 2 in Colombia), has estimated the profitability of concessions compared to the cost of capital of private companies. According to the study, contrary to public perception, the financial returns of private infrastructure concessions have been modest. The average annual return on capital employed was 7 percent. For a number of concessions the returns have been below the cost of capital. On average telecommunications and energy concessions have fared much better than water concessions. Seven out of 10 water concessions had negative rates of return and two concessions had returns that were lower than the cost of capital of the private companies

  19. Nonetheless, private water companies do not exist for the benefit of the public. Rather, private water companies exist solely for profit. For that matter, tariffs must serve two purposes. Firstly, they must be able to maintain the system. Secondly, they must repay the dividends of the water companies shareholders. It is the latter use that tends to concern the opponents of privatization most since the public's money is not being fully used to maintain the water system itself.

  20. PRIVATE COMPANIES

  21. PROVIDE PURE WATER

  22. PURIFIED WATER PROVIDE BY GOVERNMENT IN INDIA

  23. Drinking water supply and sanitation in India continue to be inadequate, despite longstanding efforts by the various levels of government and communities at improving coverage. The level of investment in water and sanitation, albeit low by international standards, has increased during the 2000s. Access has also increased significantly. For example, in 1980 rural sanitation coverage was estimated at 1% and reached 21% in 2008]. Also, the share of Indians with access to improved sources of water has increased significantly from 72% in 1990 to 88% in 2008. At the same time, local government institutions in charge of operating and maintaining the infrastructure are seen as weak and lack the financial resources to carry out their functions. In addition, no major city in India is known to have a continuous water supply and an estimated 72% of Indians still lack access to improved sanitation facilities.

  24. A number of innovative approaches to improve water supply and sanitation have been tested in India, in particular in the early 2000s. These include demand-driven approaches in rural water supply since 1999, community-led total sanitation, a public-private partnerships to improve the continuity of urban water supply in Karnataka, and the use of micro-credit to women in order to improve access to water.

  25. INDIA IS A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY BUT POVERTY LINE OF INDIA NOT GET PURE WATER ....

  26. PURE WATER IS SUPPLIED TO THE RICH PEOPLE BUT NOT TO POORS REGULARLY....

  27. AT END I WANT TO SAY THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEED TO JOIN THEIR

  28. HANDS WITH MNC FOR THE SAKE OF NATION....

  29. water is a best gift of god

  30. THANKYOU DHANYAWAD.... MEANS THANKYOU

More Related