Water Quality Management in Sri Lanka
Current situation and issues

Gemunu Herath
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Peradeniya

Presentation Overview• Water Quality Standards and Regulations• Water Quality Monitoring at Public Water Bodies• Quality Status at of Public Water Bodies• Pollution Sources• Management Issues

Environmental Regulations SL
National Environmental Act (1980) : This act Established theCentral Environmental Authority with necessary powers to theprotection and management of the environment
With this:• Regulations for environmental protection;– Wastewater discharge standards (CEA)– Environmental Protection License Scheme for industries• Regulation for Air Quality– Vehicle exhaust emission, air emission standards– Ambient Air Quality guidelines (CEA/SLSI)• Noise Quality guidelines• Waste Management guidelines and• EIA guidelines
are issued

Regulations related to Water quality
Several water quality related standards is published in SriLanka by the several agencies
Water Quality Standards:• Drinking water quality standards. (SLSI)• Bottled water standards (SLSI)• Proposed ambient water quality standards.(CEA/SLSI)* SLSI‐ Sri Lanka Standards InstituteEffluent Standards:• Wastewater discharge standards (CEA)– Industry effluents into open environment– Effluent releases into centralized treatment facilities(No standards for on‐site systems – Legal action only under polluting
the environment)

Ambient Water Quality Guidelines• No legal base for the proposed ambient water quality
guidelines in Sri Lanka• It is only a proposed guideline by the Sri Lanka Standard
Institute (SLSI)• This proposed guideline specify conditions for ;– Bathing use,
– Drinking Source Water with Simple Treatment,– Drinking Source Water with Conventional Treatment and– Irrigation and Aquaculture use and– Recreational use.

• The proposed SLS guideline is comparable to EuropeanGuidelines• However, plans are afloat to introduce a more suitableambient water quality guidelines soon

Proposed Guidelines – Example parameters
Parameter

UnitBathing
Water

Raw waterfor Drinking

Agriculture
Water-100-

6.0-9.0

6.0-9.0

6.0-8.5

ColourPt units.

pH-Conductivity

dS/m--0.7

Nitrates

mg/l

555Total phosphate

mg/l

0.70.70.7

BOD5mg/l

455Total coliform

MPN/100 ml,(*P=95%)

1000

5000

1000

Fecal coli form

MPN/100 ml,(*P=95%)

50--Aluminium

mg/l

-

0.2

5.0

Water resources related institutional framework
Water related issues in Sri Lanka managed or regulated by;• Central Environmental Authority (CEA) under the Ministry ofEnvironment ‐ responsible for preventing inland waterpollution• National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWS&DB) ‐responsible for potable water supply and domestic seweragetreatment and management in the country.
• Dept. of Irrigation ‐ for irrigation water supply andmanagement• Water Resources Board ‐ for groundwater management• Mahaweli Development Authority ‐ for Managing specificwater resources diversion and development projects.
• Board of Investment – industrial wastewater treatment

Water Quality Monitoring• Presently no fixed government programs to regularly
monitor quality of waters in water bodies
However the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) isempowered to;– force industries to monitor industry effluents– Stipulate water quality monitoring conditions under EIA
regulations for major development projects• But, recent health issues such as the spreading of theChronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Aetiology (CKDu),
agencies now focus more on water quality monitoringand management;

Water Quality Monitoring• Public water bodies are monitored by different interest
groups to:– Ascertain changes in water quality (source water for drinking)– identify water quality problems– gather information for pollution assessment and prevention• Public water bodies in Sri Lanka are monitored by:– Research organizations– National Water Supply and Drainage Board– Central Environmental Authority– Irrigation Department and– Private parties

Public Water Bodies in Sri Lanka• Rivers (103 river basins)• Two major Rivers– River Mahaweli– River Kelani• Impounded reservoirs– Hydropower reservoirs– Multipurpose reservoirs– Man‐made irrigation tanks• Manmade irrigationcanals• Groundwater

Quality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 1. Water Quality Around Kandy• Kandy 2nd Largest city
• Hilly area
• Population:– Residential 150,000/d– Floating 350,000/d– Area 2,645 ha (26.45 km2)

Mahaweli• Rely on onsite septic tanksoakage pit systems• Main Water bodies;– Mahaweli River– Kandy Lake
– Meda‐Ela urban canal– Groundwater
Objective: To establish a set of baseline data

Kandy Lake
Urban CanalCase Study 1. Water Quality (2014 – NWSDB‐UoP)
Sampling
Sampling
Location
Location
Groundwater
Groundwater
Farm
Land
Farm LandSW Dump
Dump Area
AreaSW
City
City
Surface Water
Water
Surface
Lake Water
Water
Lake
Urban Canal
Canal
Urban
River Water
Water
River

TDS
TDS
mg/L
mg/L

E.coliE.coli
cfu/100ml
cfu/100ml

COD
COD
mg/L
mg/L

TSS
TSS
mg/L
mg/L

BOD5
BOD5mg/L
mg/L

PO43-3PO
4mg/L
mg/L

NO-3NO
3mg/L
mg/L

160‐172160‐172
270-296270-296
80-10580-10522‐40
22‐40
10-79010-790
4-680
4-680

10‐13
10‐13
12‐20
12‐20
16‐20
16‐20

140‐155
140‐155
13-93
13-93
6‐58
6‐58

‐‐
‐‐
‐‐

0.3‐0.6
0.3‐0.6
0.2‐0.5
0.2‐0.5
0.2‐0.4
0.2‐0.4

0.3‐0.5
0.3‐0.5
3.1‐6.2
3.1‐6.2
0.3‐7.4
0.3‐7.4

110‐155 10‐1600
10‐1600
110‐155
32‐184 230‐1400
230‐1400
32‐18429‐3156‐164
6‐164
29‐3152‐34
2‐34
12‐13012‐130
3‐34
3‐34

32‐98
32‐98
32‐18432‐18473‐44073‐4402.4‐11.9 0.05‐0.12
0.05‐0.12
0.8‐20
1.2 0.8‐20
2.4‐11.9
3‐61
0.08‐1.67 0.4‐1.3
0.4‐1.3
3‐61
0.08‐1.67
1.3‐3.3 0.2‐0.91
0.2‐0.91 1.9‐14
1.9‐14
1.3‐3.3• Urban canal is a waste stream• Surface water bodies eutropic• High coliform found in all sources indicate both surface waterand groundwater contaminated by fecal waste

Quality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 2. Boralesgamuwa Lake (2010 – UoP)
• Urban Lake sub‐urban
area of Colombo• Catchment Area 350 ha• Length 210 m, depth 6m
Volume 165,000 m3• Supply water to paddy(110ha)• Pollution Sources:– Garbage dumping,– Release treated sewage,– Release septic tank andsewage effluents,– canal draining whichcollect waste from urban
dwellings– Industrial discharges

Objective: Access the status of water quality

Case Study 2. Boralesgamuwa Lake
Parameter

1

Location

CEA guideline for(Mean values; April to July 2012)

Inland surface water23

45678

Category 2* Category 3*

EC mS/cm

0.21 0.36
0.36 0.19
0.19 0.20
0.20 0.25
0.25 0.32
0.32 0.19
0.190.210.190.19****

Turbidity NTU

99.5 92.8
92.8 31.8
31.8 83.8
83.8 152
152 151
151 88.5
88.5
99.5

82.5
82.5

5.00

**

**

50

0-16,000
0-16,000

Fecal Coli. (pfu/100ml)

DO mg/l5.55 5.33
5.33 4.10
4.10 3.85
3.85 6.60
6.60 2.95
2.95 6.27
6.27
5.55

5.30
5.30

6.00

5.00

Temp ºC

28.9 28.6
28.6 27.7
27.7 28.6
28.6 29.1
29.1 28.9
28.9 28.7
28.7
28.9

29.3
29.3

**

**

COD mg/l

35.5 22.5
22.5 14.7
14.7 35.7
35.7 38.7
38.7 112
112 32.3
32.3
35.5

33.7
33.7

15.00

20.00

BOD5 mg/l

6.75 5.50
5.50 5.75
5.75 5.25
5.25 3.25
3.25 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
6.75

3.50
3.50

3.00

4.00

Nitrate (as N) mg/l

0.29 0.86
0.86 3.73
3.73 0.68
0.68 0.48
0.48 0.70
0.70 1.45
1.45
0.29

0.54
0.54

5.00

5.00

Phosphate (as P)

0.04 0.06
0.06 0.12
0.12 0.05
0.05 0.04
0.04 0.52
0.52 0.06
0.06
0.04

0.06
0.06

**

**

*Category 2 - for drinking water with simple treatment* Category 3 - for Bathing** - not available

Quality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 3. Maha – Oya Basin (2010‐11, CEA‐UoP)• “Mahaoya” which
originates at around 1000mMSL• Total catchment 1528 km2
and length 130 km.
• Average annual runoff
1,485 MCM
• Flows through urban areas
tea, paddy, rubber, coconut
plantations and industrialzones• Collect waste streams fromurban, industrial andagricultural areas
Objective: Access the status of water quality and develop a water quality index

Case Study 3. Maha – Oya Basin Water Quality

Up stream to Down Stream

Location
Location Turbidity
Turbidity DO
DO COD
COD Chloride
Chloride(NTU)(NTU) (mg/l)(mg/l) (mg/l)(mg/l) (mg/l)(mg/l)

CrCr(mg/l)(mg/l)

PbPb(mg/l)(mg/l)

Fecal
FecalColi.
Coli.
(/100ml)(/100ml)

11

8‐63
8‐63

5‐8
5‐8

5‐25
5‐25 23‐2200
23‐2200 <0.01‐0.02<0.01‐0.02 0.01‐0.04
0.01‐0.04

700‐16000
700‐16000

2233‐68
33‐68

6‐8
6‐8

6‐22
6‐22

7‐22
7‐22

<0.01‐0.05<0.01‐0.05 0.01‐0.02
0.01‐0.02

70‐9000
70‐900033

18‐5018‐50

7‐87‐84‐30
4‐30

7‐22
7‐22

<0.01‐0.04<0.01‐0.04 0.01‐0.03
0.01‐0.03

70‐1700
70‐1700

44

22‐75
22‐75

7‐8.3
7‐8.3 2‐10
2‐10

5‐22
5‐22

<0.01‐0.02<0.01‐0.02 0.01‐0.03
0.01‐0.03

80‐1300
80‐1300

55

29‐90
29‐90

7‐8.3
7‐8.3 2‐11
2‐11

5‐22
5‐22

<0.01‐0.06<0.01‐0.06 0.01‐0.04
0.01‐0.04

170‐2400
170‐2400

66

18‐90
18‐90

7‐8.5
7‐8.5 3‐17
3‐17

5‐17
5‐17

<0.01‐0.05<0.01‐0.05 0.01‐0.05
0.01‐0.05

170‐800
170‐800

77

14‐96
14‐965.4‐8.5
5.4‐8.5 4‐17
4‐17

5‐17
5‐17

<0.01‐0.03<0.01‐0.03 0.01‐0.05
0.01‐0.05

230‐9000
230‐9000

88

10‐93
10‐93

5.7‐8
5.7‐8 4‐244‐24

5‐17
5‐17

<0.01‐0.04<0.01‐0.04 0.01‐0.06
0.01‐0.06

110‐3000
110‐3000

COD, Fecal Coliform, Chloride (down stream) and heavy metal major concerns
Domestic and Industrial waste discharges is believed to me the main cause

Case Study 3. Maha – Oya Basin Water Quality Index
80687060

747266

63

6860

53

WQI50
4030
20
10012345678Sampling Location
Ecological Condition
Colour code

Excellent
BlueGoodGreenFair
Poor
Yellow Orange

Very poor
RedQuality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 4. Water Quality index Mahaweli(2008‐09 NWS&DB ‐ UoP)

Pogolla (2008)

WQI Ecological
Value Condition
Poor
55.88

Polgolla (2009)

45.42

Poor

Katugastota (2008)

48.54

Poor

Katugastota (2009)

49.23

Poor

Meewathura (2008)

64.38

Poor

Meewathura (2009)

59.53

Poor

Peradeniya (2008)

51.16

Poor

Peradeniya (2009)

54.45

Poor

Raw water intake

Objective: Monitor source water quality and develop a water quality index

Quality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 4. Water Quality Minipe Irrigation
Canal (2012‐13 Irrigation Dept ‐ UoP)

Minipe CanalSurrounding irrigation Anicuts and Tanks
Objective: Access irrigation water quality and identify possible pollution sources

Case Study 4. Water Quality Minipe Irrigation Canaland Surrounding Reservoirs• Monitoring made for: Colour , Temperature, Turbidity, pH,Conductivity, Fluoride, Total hardness, Manganese, Nitrates(NO3 ‐N), Total phosphate (PO4‐P), BOD5, Suspended Solids,
Total and coliform, Aluminum (Al)• Period: from August 2012 to February 2013
• Major issues;– Suspended matter, Color, Nitrate, Phosphate, Aluminumand Coliform• Contributed Through;– Non‐point soil erosion, agricultural and surface runoff
and domestic waste discharges

Case Study 4. Water Quality Minipe Irrigation CanalFecal Coliform/ 100ml

6000

Color / (PtCo)

100
80
60
40

May
LB 1 July
LB 2
October
LB 4
LB 5

5000
4000
3000
2000

20

1000

00
LB1

LB2

LB3
May

LB4June

LB5

July LB6108642

LB 2

LB 3

LB 4

LB 5

LB 6906030

LB 26000 LB 5MayOctober

June
JulyDecember

LB 3
LB 6

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

AugustOctober

December

LB 1

LB 2

LB 3

LB 4

LB 5

LB 6

AugustOctober

DecemberMonthMonth
LB81

LB 2

LB 3

LB74

LB 5

LB 6

Phosphate/ (mg/l)

Total Coliform / 100ml

LB 1
LB 4

LB 1120

August7000

121500Location

Nitrate/ (mg/l)

180

June
LB 3
AugustDecember
LB 6Suspende solids/ (mg/l)

12065432100May

June

May
July0June
July
AugustAugustOctober December

MonthMonth

OctoberMay

December

June

JulyMonthCase Study 4. Water Quality Minipe Surrounding
Reservoirs
140

July80AugustJuly

August0.6

October60

October

December

0.440

December

201800

May1600

June

1400

July60 1200

August1000

October

800

December

Fecal Coliform/ 100ml

June

0.8
100

80

40
20

400

00 200
EAAA

EA

AA

PRS

MTS

PRS
Location MTS

1.6

Location

1.4

4500

1.2
10.8
0.6
0.4
0.20EA

AA

PRS

July

AugustOctober
DecemberKE
10June94000

July83500

August3000

October

2500

December

2000

MTS

Location
PRSAA

KEMTS

KELocation
MayJuneJune

July6JulyAugust5

AugustOctober

4October3

December

7210001

December0KEEA

PRS

May

1500

500
MTS0AA

EAMay

Location

June0 EA

KENitrate/ (mg/l)

0May

600

0.2

Total Coliform / 100ml

Color //mg/l)(PtCo)
Aluminium

June

Suspende solids/ (mg/l)

May

120

Flouride/ (mg/l)

100

May

1EA

AA

PRS

MTS

Location

AAKE

PRS

MTS

Location

KEQuality Status at of Public Water Bodies
Case Study 5. Ground Water Quality Vavuniya

Measurements:
Fluoride, Nitrate, Hardness and Fecal ColiformDistance between Cesspit and water well23

Sampling points of the selected study area

Case Study 5. Ground Water Quality Vavuniya(UoP 2009)2R
2 values (a measure of contamination level)
R values (a measure of contamination level)
Total Hardness
Fecal coliform
Name of GN division
Fluoride
Nitrate TotalHardness
Fecal coliform
Name of GN division
Fluoride
NitrateVairavapuliyankulam
9.02%
33.73%
48.16%
82.49%
Vairavapuliyankulam
48.16%
9.02%
33.73%
82.49%
Vavuniya Town
29.44%
39.65%
66.15%
51.82%
Vavuniya Town
29.44%
39.65%
66.15%51.82%
Rambaikkulam
34.60%
10.32%
43.28%
62.57%
Rambaikkulam
34.60%
10.32%
43.28%
62.57%
Moontrumuripu
18.29%
12.7%
71.92%
48.93%
Moontrumuripu
71.92%
48.93%
18.29%
12.7%
Pandarikkulam
20.83%
7.81%
0.00%
83.33%
Pandarikkulam
20.83%
7.81%
0.00%
83.33%
Patanichipuliyankulam 100%
0.00%
100%
100%
Patanichipuliyankulam
100%
0.00%
100%
100%
Velikkulam
0.00%
75.0%
75.00%
75.00%
Velikkulam
75.0%
75.00%
75.00%
0.00%
Vavuniya North
5.06%
0.71%
50.95%
85.23%
Vavuniya North
5.06%
50.95%
0.71%
85.23%
Thandikkulam
7.03%
56.81%
47.28%
62.42%
Thandikkulam
56.81%
7.03%
47.28%
62.42%

Objective: Access groundwater status and contamination

Case Study 5. Ground Water Quality Vavuniya

Distance between toilet pit and well vs Fecal Coliform countSummary – Water Quality Monitoring• Various agencies conduct water quality monitoring onlyto address issues related to their own interest and work;– Central environmental Authority (CEA): regulated industrial
discharges– National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWS&DB):
monitor drinking water sources– Irrigation Department (ID): monitor irrigation water quality– Research Organizations: study water quality issues

But No coordinated Effort share data and information

Summary – Water Quality Issues• Water Quality Monitoring case studies presented show
the main pollution sources (in the order of significance):
1. Domestic Sewage
2. Industrial Activities
3. Agriculture practices

 Both through point and no‐point sources

Current Setbacks:
Domestic Wastewater Treatment• Less than 5% of the population is covered by central
wastewater treatment facilities• In most areas groundwater table is shallow andirrespective of this condition;– Majority of urban dwelling use on‐site septic – soak awaysystems to dispose toilet waste– Rural areas use cesspits to dispose toilet waste• Gray water treatment is not compulsory except at
few highly urbanized areas• Solidwaste mostly dumped at open sites• No discharge standards for on‐site domestic WW• Lack of a water policy

Recent Initiatives to Improve water Pollution• Construction of centralized treatment facilities toprocess domestic wastewater given high priority– around 10 systems under construction of alreadycommissioned (Colombo, Mt. Lavinia, Kandy, Bandarawela,Hikkaduwa,Jaffna,….)– Around another 20 systems in planning and design stage(Puttalum, Chilaw, Kataragama, Ambilipitiya, Kanthankudi…….)• Revise the wastewater discharge standards (2015)• Introduce an appropriate ambient water quality
standards• Plans to monitoring the water quality at majorwater bodies in Sri Lanka (CEA).

Thank youCase Study 3. Maha – Oya Basin Water Quality Index
Index
Value

EcologicalCondition

GradeColour code

95 - 100

ExcellentABlue

All measurements are within
objectives virtually all of the time

80 - 94

GoodB

Green

Conditions rarely depart from naturalor desirable levels

65 - 79

Fair

CYellow

Conditions sometimes depart fromnatural or desirable levels

45 - 64

Poor

D

OrangeConditions often depart from naturalor desirable levels

00 - 44

Very poor

ERed

Description

Conditions usually depart from naturalor desirable levels

Issues: lack of a water management policy• Legal responsibilities for water resources management
and pollution control are scattered and vested in several
different agencies operating at local, regional or nationallevel,.
• Overall, there is no rational system of water allocation
which is further compounded by the confusion that hasarisen due to the large number of government agencies
active in the sphere.
• Result: inefficient water use within the irrigation, power
generation, domestic and industrial sectors• There have been many initiatives for policy development
in respect of water resources in recent years.
– Preparation of the strategic Framework and Action plan for
Comprehensive water Resources Management– Setting up a Water law and policy Advisory Programme.