Status of water quality in India – Reports by the Central Pollution Control Board for 2007, 2008

and 2009 (6)Introduction

Water pollution is a serious problem in India as almost 70 per cent of its surface water resources and a growing percentage of its groundwater reserves are contaminated by biological, toxic, organic, and inorganic pollutants.

In many cases, these sources have been rendered unsafe for human consumption as well as for other activities, such as irrigation and industrial needs. This shows that: degraded water quality can contribute to water scarcity as it limits its availability for both human use and for the ecosystem.

In 1995, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) identified severely polluted stretches on 18 major rivers in India. Not surprisingly, a majority of these stretches were found in and around large urban areas. The high incidence of severe contamination near urban areas indicates that the industrial and domestic sectors’ contribution to water pollution is much higher than their relative importance implied in the Indian economy. Agricultural activities also contribute in terms of overall impact on water quality. Besides a rapidly depleting groundwater table in different parts, the country faces another major problem on the water front—groundwater contamination—a problem which as 19 states, including Delhi. Geogenic contaminants, including salinity, iron, fluoride, and arsenic have affected groundwater in over 200 districts spread across 19 states.

Water as an environmental resource is regenerative in the sense that it could absorb pollution loads up to certain levels without affecting its quality. In fact there could be a problem of water pollution only if the pollution loads exceed the natural regenerative capacity of a water resource. The control of water pollution is therefore to reduce the pollution loads from anthropogenic activities to the natural regenerative capacity of the resource. The benefits of the preservation of water quality are manifold. Not only can abatement of water pollution provide marketable benefits, such as reduced water borne diseases, savings in the cost of supplying water for household, industrial and agricultural uses, control of land degradation, and development of fisheries, it can also generate non-marketable benefits like improved environmental amenities, aquatic life, and biodiversity.

Extent of Water Pollution in India

The level of water pollution in the country can be gauged by the status of water quality around India. The water quality monitoring results carried out by CPCB particularly with respect to the indicator of oxygen consuming substances (biochemical oxygen demand, BOD) and the indicator of pathogenic bacteria (total coliform and faecal coliform) show that there is gradual degradation in water quality (CPCB 2009).

This post presents reports on the status of water quality in India by the Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. These reports present the outputs of water quality monitoring done under the project on Monitoring of Indian Aquatic Resources (MINARS). This helps in evaluating the nature and extent of pollution control required, and effectiveness of pollution control measures already in existence. It also helps in drawing the water quality trends and prioritising pollution control efforts.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has established a network of monitoring stations on rivers across the country. The monitoring has been performed with following main objectives in mind –

For rational planning of pollution control strategies and their prioritisation; To assess nature and extent of pollution control needed in different water

bodies or their part; To evaluate effectiveness of pollution control measures already is existence; To evaluate water quality trend over a period of time; To assess assimilative capacity of a water body thereby reducing cost on

pollution control; To understand the environmental fate of different pollutants; To assess the fitness of water for different uses.

The reports are comprehensive accounts of the state of surface and ground water resources in India. The water samples are analysed for 9 core parameters and 19 general parameters. The monitoring agencies have also analysed the trace metals at few locations. In the present report data on core parameters is incorporated for interpretation and drawing of conclusion based on primary water quality criteria. However, this means that the occurence of 'trace metals' such as Arsenic are not reported. This is a shortcoming in an otherwise comprehensive report as Arsenic and Fluoride poisoning are serious concerns that affect thousands today.

Approach to Water Quality Management

The water quality management in India is performed under the provision of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The basic objective of this Act is to maintain and restore the wholesomeness of national aquatic resources by prevention and control of pollution. The Act does not define the level of wholesomeness to be maintained or restored in different water bodies of the country. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has tried to define the wholesomeness in terms of protection of human uses, and thus, taken human uses of water as base for identification of water quality objectives for different water bodies in the country.

It was considered ambitious to maintain or restore all natural water body at pristine level. Planning pollution control activities to attain such a goal is bound

to be deterrent to developmental activities and cost prohibitive. Since the natural water bodies have got to be used for various competing as well as conflicting demands, the objective is aimed at restoring and/or maintaining natural water bodies or their parts to such a quality as needed for their best uses.

Thus, a concept of “designated best use” (DBU) was developed. According to this concept, out of several uses a water body is put to, the use which demands highest quality of water is termed as “designated best use”, and accordingly the water body is designated. Primary water quality criteria for different uses have been identified.

Use based classification of surface waters in India

Designated-Best-Use Class of water Criteria

Class Of Water

Criteria

Drinking Water Source without conventional treatment but after disinfection

A A 1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 50 or less 2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5 3. Dissolved Oxygen 6mg/l or more 4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days

Outdoor bathing (Organised)

B 1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 500 or less 2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5 3. Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more 4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20o C 3mg/l or less

Drinking water source after conventional treatment and disinfection

C 1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml shall be 5000 or less 2. pH between 6 to 9 3. Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more 4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20o C 3mg/l or less

Propagation of Wild life and Fisheries

D 1. pH between 6.5 to 8.5 2. Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more 3. Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less

Irrigation, Industrial Cooling, Controlled Waste disposal

E 1. pH between 6.0 to 8.5 2. Electrical Conductivity at 25oC micro hos/cm Max. 2250 3. Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26 4. Boron Max. 2mg/l

Biochemical oxygen demand   or   B.O.D   is the amount of   dissolved oxygen   needed by aerobic biological

organisms in a body of water to break down organic material present in a given water sample at certain

temperature over a specific time period. The term also refers to a chemical procedure for determining this

amount. This is not a precise quantitative test, although it is widely used as an indication of the organic quality of water. [1]   The BOD value is most commonly expressed in milligrams of oxygen consumed per

litre of sample during 5 days of incubation at 20 °C and is often used as a robust surrogate of the degree

of organic   pollution of water .

Dissolved Oxygen: The stream system both produces and consumes oxygen. It gains oxygen from the atmosphere and from plants as a result of photosynthesis. Running water, because of its churning, dissolves more oxygen than still water, such as that in a reservoir behind a dam. Respiration by aquatic animals, decomposition, and various chemical reactions consume  

Coliform Bacteria :They are defined as rod-shaped   Gram-negative   non- spore forming   bacteria which can ferment   lactose   with the production of acid and gas when incubated at 35-37°C. [1]   Coliforms can be found

in the aquatic environment, in soil and on vegetation; they are universally present in large numbers in the

feces of warm-blooded animals. While coliforms themselves are not normally causes of serious illness,

they are easy to culture and their presence is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms of fecal

origin may be present. Fecal pathogens include bacteria, viruses, or protozoa and many multicellular

parasites.

The entire water resources of the country were classified according to their designated best uses and a “Water Use Map” was prepared. For identification of the water bodies or their parts where water quality is at variance with water quality criteria, it was felt important to measure water quality of that water body or its part.

It would help in preparation of “Water Quality Map” of India. The idea was to superimpose “Water Quality Map” on “Water Use Map” to identify the water bodies or their parts, which are in need of improvement (restoration). Subsequently through a wide network of water quality monitoring, water quality data are acquired. A large number of water bodies were identified as polluted stretches for taking appropriate measures to restore their water quality. Today almost all policies and programmes on water quality management are based on this concept including the Ganga Action Plan and National River Action Plans.

Water Quality Trend in India 2009

The water quality monitoring results obtained during 1995 to 2009 indicate that the organic and bacterial contamination are continued to be critical in water bodies.

This is mainly due to discharge of domestic wastewater mostly in untreated form from the urban centers of the country.

The municipal corporations at large are not able to treat increasing load of municipal sewage flowing into water bodies without treatment.

The receiving water bodies also do not have adequate water for dilution. Therefore, the oxygen demand and bacterial pollution is increasing day by day.

The water quality monitoring results were analysed with respect to indicator of oxygen consuming substances (Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand) and indicator of pathogenic bacteria (Total coliform and Faecal coliform). The result of such analysis shows that There is gradual degradation in water quality. The number of observations having

BOD and Coliform density has increased during 1995 to 2009. The water quality status for the period 1995 to 2009 in terms of number of observations having values of parameters in different ranges.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The numbers of observed BOD values less than 3 mg/l were between 57-69% during year 1995 to 2009. The maximum value of 69% was observed during 2007. It was observed that there was a gradual decrease in number of observations having BOD < 3.

The number of observed BOD values ranges from 3-6 mg/l was between 17-28% during year 1995 to 2009, the maximum value of 28% was observed in the year 1998. It was observed that the number of observations remain unchanged and followed static trend in percentage of observations having BOD between 3-6 mg/l.

The numbers of observed BOD value> 6 mg/l were between 13 and 19% during year 1995-2009 and the maximum value of 19% was observed in the year 2001, 2002 & 2009. It was observed that there was a gradual decrease and in 2009 the percentage observation was 17 % having BOD >6.

The worrying aspect of this trend is the high percentage (19 per cent) of sampling stations exhibiting unacceptable levels of BOD, which might either mean that the discharge sources are not complying with the standards or even after their compliance their high quantum of discharge contributes to elevated levels of contaminants. However, the status of water quality cannot be adequately assessed through monitoring of basic parameters in the current inadequate number of sampling stations

Another aspect of water pollution in India is inadequate infrastructure, comprising of monitoring stations and frequency of monitoring for monitoring pollution. Monitoring is conducted by CPCB at 1,700 stations, under a global environment monitoring system (GEMS) and Monitoring of Indian National Aquatic Resources (MINARS) programmes (CPCB 2009). here is an urgent need to increase the number of monitoring stations from their current number, which translate as one station per 1,935 km 2 to levels found in developed nations for effective monitoring. For example, in the state of Arkansas in the US there are monitoring stations per 356 km. CPCB (2009) also reports the frequency of monitoring in the country. It is observed that 32 per cent of the stations have frequency of monitoring on a monthly basis, 28.82 per cent on a half-yearly basis, and 38.64 per cent on a quarterly basis. This indicates the need for not only increasing the number of monitoring stations but also the frequency of monitoring. The water quality monitoring results obtained by CPCB during 1995 to 2009 indicate

that organic and bacterial contamination was critical in the water bodies. The main cause for such contamination is discharge of domestic and industrial wastewater in water bodies mostly in an untreated form from urban centers.

Total Coliform (TC)

The numbers of observed TC values < 500 MPN/100 ml were between 44-63% during 1995-2009. The highest percentage of observations was observed as 63% in year 1999 which decreases to 49% during 2009. The numbers of observed TC values ranges from 500-5000 were between 28-37% during year 1995-2009 the maximum value of 37% was observed in 1997 and this % was decreased to 36% in 2009.

The numbers of observed TC values > 5000 were between 9-24% during year 1995-2009. Minimum value of 9% was observed during the year 1999. The maximum value of 24% was observed in the year 2006. During 2009 it was observed as 15% indicating decreasing trend.

Faecal Coliform (FC) The numbers of observed FC values <500 MPN/100 ml was between 48-70% during year 1995-2009. The maximum value of 70% was observed in the year 2009. The numbers of observed FC values ranges from 500-5000 MPN/100 ml was between 22-35% during year 1995 to 2009. The maximum value of 35% was observed in the year 1999, which decreases to 20% in the year 2009.

The numbers of observed FC values > 5000 MPN/100 ml was between 7-21% during year 1995-2009. The maximum value of 21% was observed in 2006, which decreases to 10% in the year 2009.

Effects of Water Pollution

Lack of water, sanitation, and hygiene results in the loss of 0.4 million lives while air pollution contributes to the death of 0.52 million people annually in India (WHO 2007).

Environmental factors contribute to 60 years of ill-health per 1,000 population in India compared to 54 in Russia, 37 in Brazil, and 34 in China. The socio-economic costs of water pollution are extremely high: 1.5 million children under 5 years die each year due to water related diseases, 200 million person days of work are lost each year, and the country loses about Rs 366 billion each year due to water related diseases.

McKenzie and Ray (2004) also observe similar effects of water pollution; however, the magnitude of the effect was modest. The study shows that India loses 90 million days a year due to water borne diseases with production losses and treatment costs worth Rs 6 billion. Poor water quality, sanitation, and

hygiene result in the loss of 30.5 million disabilities adjusted life years (DALY) in India.

Groundwater resources in vast tracts of India are contaminated with fluoride and arsenic. Fluoride problems exist in 150 districts in 17 states in the country with Orissa and Rajasthan being the most severely affected. High concentration of fluoride in drinking water causes fluorosis resulting in weak bones, weak teeth, and anaemia. the presence of arsenic, a poison and a carcinogen, in the groundwater of the Gangetic delta causes health risks to 35–70 million people in West Bengal, Bihar, and Bangladesh. Murty and Kumar (2004) estimated the cost of industrial water pollution abatement and found that these costs account for about 2.5 per cent of industrial GDP in India. Parikh (2004) shows that the cost of avoidance is much lower than damage costs

According to one estimate (Parikh 2004), India lost about Rs 366 billions, which account for about 3.95 per cent of the GDP, due to ill effects of water pollution and poor sanitation facilities in 1995. If India had made efforts for mitigating these effects in terms of providing better sanitation facilities and doing abatement of water pollution the required resources had ranged between 1.73 to 2.2 per cent of GDP. It may however, be emphasized that these damage costs do not fully reflect the loss in social welfare. These estimates only suggest that the abatement of pollution is socially desirable and economically justified.

Regulation of Water Pollution

Environmental policies are designed to alter the behaviour of economic agents, either individuals or group of individuals, in such a manner that the environmental externalities generated during the course of individual actions are internalized. Policy responses can be classified into two categories: formal and informal. A legislative response requires policy responses mandated by the state. These policy responses may originate from the government to achieve the given objective of maximizing social welfare or from society itself, as it feels the heat of externalities and exerts pressure on governments to bring out legislations to control externalities. Actions by the state to control externalities without public pressures can be put into the category of formal regulations and actions that emerge in response to civil society pressures to control individual

behaviour in social interest are classified as informal regulations. environmental regulations do not remain confined within the preview of governments in modern economic structures because firms are not individually governed units, they have to depend on markets to get investment capital and to sell their products. Markets also help in altering individual behaviour in a socially desirable manner. In India we find both formal and informal regulations in the area of environmental externalities.

Formal Regulations

Historically, there have been policy responses for prevention and control of environmental degradation in the country since the 1970s. The environmental policy in recent times has recognized the importance of the role of incentive based policy instruments in controlling and preventing environmental pollution. Formal regulations may be classified into two categories. State intervenes in the form of legislations and policies, and public investments for environmental cleaning activities, such as the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) and the Yamuna Action Plan.

Laws for Controlling Water Pollution in India

The acts that directly concern water pollution in India are the Water Act (1974), the Water Cess Act (1977 and 1988), and the Environment (Protection) Act or EPA (1986). While the first two are foundational legislations in the context of water pollution in the country, EPA is designed to fill the gaps still remaining in the legal framework for the control of industrial pollution. The act related to water cess is more of a revenue-generating legislation than a measure to restrict the consumption of water by industrial units.

Pollution control boards at the central and state levels are empowered to revent, control, and abate water pollution, and to advise governments on matters pertaining to such pollution. CPCB is to coordinate the activities of the state boards. Note that these laws have mainly remained confined to controlling industrial water pollution. CPCB has also prepared a list of polluting industries in India. The acts also specify that industrial units have to provide, on demand, all information regarding their effluent and treatment methods. These laws however, do not cover the regulation of water pollution originating from the household and agriculture sectors.

Fiscal Instruments for Pollution Control in India

The government’s approach towards prevention of pollution has been mostly through legislation-based command and control measures while natural resource management has been largely carried out through programmes supported by allocations from central (for example, programmes of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources, and the Ministry of Agriculture, etc.) and state budgets. The use of fiscal instruments (other than the expenditure policy) in the environmental policy has been limited, even though the need to employ economic and fiscal policy instruments for the control of pollution and management of natural resources has gained recognition since the 1990s .

A task force was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in 1995 to evaluate the scope for market based instruments (MBIs) for industrial pollution abatement (Government of India 1997). The task force recommended:

Explicit incorporation of MBIs in pollution control laws,

greater reliance on economic penalties in the short and medium term, and completely replacing criminal penalties by MBIs in the long run.

It also recommended modifying the existing water cess to make it a genuine effl uent-based tax based on pollution load rather than the amount of water consumed,

As also abolishing tax concessions on installation of pollution control equipment. It recognized the need for systematic data collection to estimate marginal

abatement costs and the regulatory burden and called for the introduction of additional MBIs.

The actual use of fiscal incentives in the country has, however, been rather limited. These take the form of tax concessions for the adoption of pollution control equipment. Tax incentives are usually specified for identified abatement technologies and activities, not providing dynamic incentives for technological innovation and diff usion.

Also, since most of these are endof-the-pipe treatment technologies, these incentives do not promote more efficient use of resources.

There are some provisions for the use of levies, cess, fines, and penalties, etc. for polluters, but their implementation and effectiveness needs strengthening..

Although it is widely known that command and control measures do not provide necessary incentives to polluters for the choice of least cost methods of pollution control, the Government of India has so far resorted only to such measures for controlling industrial pollution in India.

On the other hand, fiscal instruments, such as pollution taxes or marketable pollution permits though also coercive, provide incentives to factories for adopting least cost pollution abatement technologies.

Ironically, there have been no serious attempts in India to use such instruments for the abatement of industrial pollution. The current water cess, whose objective is to raise revenue to pollution control boards, is very nominal (Rs 0.015 to 0.07 per kilolitre [Kl]).

Some of the recent research studies on water pollution abatement in India conclude that:

The rate of pollution tax on industrial water use should be several times higher than the prevailing rate of water cess if we want to realize the prescribed water quality sandards in the country.

One study carried out in 1989 (Gupta et al. 1989) estimated the cost of treatment per a Kl of residual water at 1987–9 prices at Rs 3.60 for the paper and pulp industry, at Rs 2.61 for oil refineries, Rs 2.21 for chemicals, and Rs 1.64 for sugar.

Another study (Mehta et al. 1994) carried out in 1994 estimated the marginal cost of abatement for the reduction of 100 mg of bio oxygen demand in the residual water for the paper and pulp industry at Re 0.38 at 1991–2 prices.

Yet another study published in 1999 (Murty et al. 1999) found that the pollution tax per 100 mg reduction of COD by the Indian manufacturing

industry for realizing the standard of 250 mg per litre of residual water was Re 0.32 at 1995–6 prices.

MoEF also commissioned several case studies to examine issues relating to economic instruments for pollution abatement. These studies estimated abatement costs of pollutants and recorded wide variations cross different industries.

The studies pointed out the inefficiency of the current legislation, which requires all polluters to meet the same discharge standards, and called for the introduction of economic instruments for cost effective pollution control.

They emphasized the need for regulators to allocate their monitoring resources more efficiently by targeting industries characterized by relatively high discharges and low costs of pollution abatement.

These studies also observed that taxes and incentives based on efficiency instruments better align pollution control agencies with polluters than the command and control regime.

Some studies give some information about the rate of tax to be levied on industries for making them comply with the prescribed water standards. Mehta et al. (1994) considered an abatement cost function for an effluent treatment plant in paper and pulp units in India, and concluded that marginal batement costs of relatively high cost producers should serve as the basis for setting charges/taxes so as to ensure that producers find it cheaper to abate than to pollute.

They recommended four options for experimenting by policymakers: (i) abatement charges with the government undertaking cleaning up, (ii) abatement charges with cleaning-up contracted out based on competitive

bidding, (iii) a tax proportional to excess pollution on firms violating standards and

subsidies for those going beyond the prescribed abatement standards, and (iv) a private permit trading system. The water polluting firms in Indian

industry are supposed to meet the standards set for pollutants (35mg/l for BOD, 250mg/l for COD, and 100mg/l for SSP) by the Central Pollution Control Board.

A survey of a sample of water polluting industries in India shows that most of the firms have effluent treatment plants and in addition some firms are using process changes in production and input choices to achieve effluent standards. However, there is a large variation in the degree of compliance among the firms measured in terms of ratio of standard to effluent quality. The laxity of formal environmental regulations by the government and the use of command and control instruments could be regarded as factors responsible for large variations in complying with pollution standards by firms.

Using this data, Murty and Kumar (2004) provide estimates of taxes on one tonne of BOD, COD, and SS as Rs 20,157, Rs 48,826, and Rs 21,444 respectively. Informal Regulation and People’s Participation Economic

instruments and command and controls are instruments of formal regulation. The designing and implementation of these instruments involves a topdown or a centralized approach. The success of these instruments in controlling pollution depends upon the quality of governance and its ability to incur high transaction costs. A bottom-up or decentralized regulation involving civic society and local communities and with a very limited role of the government could save transaction costs and get rid of political and bureaucratic corruption.

This approach draws theoretical support from the Coase Theorem (Coase 1960). The Coase Theorem states that the optimal level of pollution control could be realized through the bargaining between the polluters and the affected parties, given the initial property rights to either of the parties in the absence of transaction costs. Even with positive transaction costs, the bargaining could result in the reduction of externality though not to the optimum level.

Recent empirical experiences show that the bargaining between the communities and polluters helped in reducing the water pollution when the government had been protecting the property rights to the environmental resource to the people

The management of environmental resources can no longer be taken as the responsibility of a single institution like a market or the government . The now well-known limitations of either the market or the government in managing the environment have paved the way for a mixture of institutions.

Market agents, consumers, producers, and stockholders have incentives for controlling pollution. Consumers regulate the market for pollution intensive commodities by expressing preferences for green products or commodities produced using cleaner technologies.

Investors also have incentives to invest in industries using cleaner technologies. Higher level of observed pollution in a firm is an indication to the investors that the firm uses inefficient technology resulting in the loss of profits. Profit losses may occur because of reduced demand for its products by green consumers, increased costs due to higher penalties imposed by the government for non-compliance with pollution standards, and the settlement of compensation to victims.

In this case there may be a downward revaluation of the firm’s stocks in the capital market. On the other hand, a good environmental performance by a firm may result in an upward evaluation of its stocks.

Some recent studies have shown that stock markets in both developed and eveloping countries react to the environmental performance of firms. Also studies about firms’ behaviour with respect to environment performance related changes in stock prices show that firms react to such changes by reducing pollution loads.

Recent studies about this phenomenon in some developing countries like India Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Philippines show that stock prices are even more volatile to news about the environmental performance of firms. The average gain in stock prices due to good news about environmental performance is found to be 20 per cent in these countries.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974

The objective of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain/restore wholesomeness of water. It establishes both a Central Pollution Control Board, and State Pollution Control Boards to monitor and enforce the regulations. The Boards composition, terms and conditions of service of members are defined in Sections 3-12.

The Board advises the government on any matter concerning the prevention and control of water pollution. It coordinates the activities and provides technical assistance and guidance. This policy sets the standards and penalties for non-compliance for polluting bodies.

The Government has power to restrict any unit, and to take samples of effluents and get them analysed in Central or State laboratories. Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act is punishable with imprisonment, fine or with both.

The Central Board may perform all or any of the following functions, namely,-

Advise the Central Government on any matter concerning the prevention and control of water pollution; co-ordinate the activities of the State Boards and resolve disputes among them;

Provide technical assistance and guidance to the State Boards, carry out and sponsor investigations and research relating to problems of water pollution and prevention, control or abatement of water pollution;

Plan and organise the training of persons engaged or to be engaged in programmes for the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution on such terms and conditions as the Central Board may specify;

Organise through mass media a comprehensive programme regarding the prevention and control of water pollution;

Collect, compile and publish technical and statistical data relating to water pollution and the measures devised for its effective prevention and control.

Prepare manuals, codes or guides relating to treatment and disposal of sewage and trade effluents and disseminate information connected therewith;

Lay down, modify or annul, in consultation with the State Government concerned, the standards for a stream or well;

Plan and execute a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control or abatement of water pollution;

Perform such other functions as may be prescribed.

India -- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (selected sections) in Laws South Asia Water Pollution

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (selected provisions)

2. Definitions.-

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. -

(dd) "outlet" includes any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent or any other holding arrangement which causes, or is likely to cause, pollution;

(e) "pollution" means such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water or such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may or is likely to, create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organisms;

(f) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government;

(g) "sewage effluent" means effluent from any sewerage system or sewage disposal works and includes sullage from open drains;

(gg) "sewer" means any conduit pipe or channel, open or closed, carrying sewage or trade effluent;

(j) "stream" includes - (i) river; (ii) water course (whether flowing or for the time being dry); (iii) inland water (whether natural or artificial); (iv) sub-terranean waters; (v) sea or tidal waters to such extent or, as the case may be, to such point as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

(k) "trade effluent" includes any liquid, gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any industry; operation or process or treatment and disposal system other than domestic sewage. ….

24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, -

(a) no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any stream or well or sewer or on land; or

(b) no person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequence.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under sub-section (1), by reason only of having done or caused to be done any of the following acts, namely :-

(a) constructing, improving or maintaining in or across or on the bank or bed of any stream any building, bridge, weir, dam, sluice, dock, pier, drain or sewer or other permanent works which he has a right to construct, improve or maintain;

(b) depositing any materials on the bank or in the bed of any stream for the purpose of reclaiming land or for supporting, repairing or protecting the bank or bed of such stream provided such materials are not capable of polluting such stream;

(c) putting into any stream any sand or gravel or other natural deposit which has flowed from or been deposited by the current of such stream;

(d) causing or permitting, with the consent of the State Board, the deposit accumulated in a well, pond or reservoir to enter into any stream.

(3) The State Government may, after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the State Board, exempt, by notification in the Official Gazette, any person from the operation of sub-section (1) subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification and any condition so specified may by a like notification be altered, varied or amended.

25. Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, -

(a) establish or take any steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, which is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land (such discharge being hereafter in this section referred to as discharge of sewage); or (b) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of sewage; or (c) being to make any new discharge of sewage :

Provided that a person in the process of taking any steps to establish any industry, operation or process immediately before the commencement of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988, for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent, within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application. …

(5) Where, without the consent of the State Board, any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, is established, or any steps for such establishment have been taken or a new or altered

outlet is brought into use for the discharge of sewage or a new discharge of sewage is made, the State Board may serve on the person who has established or taken steps to establish any industry, operation or process, or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto, or using the outlet, or making the discharge, as the case may be, notice imposing any such conditions as it might have imposed on an application for its consent in respect of such establishment, such other or discharge.

(6) Every State Board shall maintain a register containing particulars of the conditions imposed under this section and so much of the register as relates to any outlet, or to any effluent, from any land or premises shall be open to inspection at all reasonable hours by any person interested in or affected by such outlet, land or premises, as the case may be, or by any person authorised by him in this behalf and the conditions so contained in such register shall be conclusive proof that the consent was granted subject to such conditions.

(7) The consent referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless given or refused earlier be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry of period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf complete in all respects to the State Board.

26. Provisions regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent. -

Where immediately before the commencement of this Act any person was discharging any sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land the provisions of section 25 shall, so far as may apply in relation to such person as they apply in relation to the person referred to in that section subject to the modification that the application for consent to be made under sub-section (2) of that section shall be made on or before such date as may be specified by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the Official Gazette. …

43. Penalty for contravention of provisions of section 24. -

Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 24 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine.

44. Penalty for contravention of section 25 or section 26. -

Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 25 or section 26 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and with fine. …

47. Offences by companies. -

(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offences and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if the proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation : For the purposes of this section -

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) "director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.

48. Offences by government departments. -

Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head of the Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Water constitutes an important and integral part of our environment. Water is a

colourless, odourless, and transparent liquid substance. These are the qualities of water but are lost when water becomes polluted and contaminated. As a result, it becomes unfit for use. In other words, although water is an important and essential element of human life, it is useful only when not contaminated and injurious to public and animal health, and aquatic life.

Salient features of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is an appropriate step for the management of water pollution; the maintenance or restoration of wholesomeness of water; the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforementioned, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution; conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith.

The Act deals with a particular type of pollution and presents an integrated approach to tackle the problem. It is an important legislative measure which has been enacted to implement the decision taken in the United Nation’s Conference on Human Environment held in June 1972 at Stockholm.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has 64 Sections and has been divided into eight chapters relating to i) Preliminary, ii) Central and State Boards for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, iii) Joint Boards, iv) Powers and Functions of Boards, v) Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, vi) Funds, Accounts and Audit, vii) Penalties and Procedures, and viii) Miscellaneous.

The Act provides for the creation of the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards. It authorises the establishment of the Joint Boards. The main function of the Central Board, under Section 16(1) of the Act, is to promote cleanliness of streams and wells in the States. Section 16(2) provides certain functions in the nature of advice, planning, co-ordination, publications, education and programmes for preventing, controlling and abating water pollution.

The State Boards (under Section 17) of the Act are expected not only to plan comprehensive programmes for the prevention and control of water pollution in the State but also to inspect sewage or trade effluents, works and plants for their treatment, to lay down standards for such effluents, their treatment and for the quality of receiving waters, and to make orders for waste disposal and the like.

Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, power to give “directions” is conferred on-

- The Central Government (which can give directions to the Central Boards),- The Central Board (which can give directions to the State Boards),

- The State Government (which can give directions to State Boards).- In case of conflict between directions given by the Central Government, that matter shall be   referred to the Central Government for decision. If the Central Board’s directions are not   complied with by the - State Board, the Central Board can order the former to perform the   functions of the latter for a specified period.

The Act provides that the State Government in consultation with the State Board is empowered to declare any area or areas within the jurisdiction of the concerned State as “Water Pollution Prevention and Control Area”.

Apart from the general powers of the State Boards (Section 17), a State Board has statutory powers to obtain information (Section 20), to take samples of effluents and have them analysed (Sections 21-22) and enter and inspect premises and vessels (Section 23). Violation is punishable under Section 40.

The Act prohibits every person from knowingly doing certain acts which cause water pollution. Most important is the prohibition against causing or permitting the entry into any stream or well or sewer or on land of-

- any poisonous matter,- any noxious matter,- any polluting matter a per standards laid by State Board,- any other matter tending to impede the proper flow of water of a stream “in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or its consequences”.Violation is punishable under Section 43 of the Act.

The Act prohibits the following acts, if committed without the previous consent of the State Board:

- establishment of any industry etc. or any treatment and disposal system likely to lead to   discharge of sewage,- bringing into use any new discharge or sewage, or- beginning to make any new discharge or sewage.

The Act lays down the circumstances in which such consent may be granted. Orders refusing consent are, under Section 28, appealable to the prescribed appellate authority. They can also be revised by the State Government under Section 29 of the Act.

The Act provides for the appeal by any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under Section 25 (Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges), Section 26 (Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent), Section 27 (Refusal or withdrawal of consent by the State Board) may within thirty

days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, refer an appeal to such an authority or appellate authority as the State Government may think fit to constitute.

The Act provides that the State Government may at any time, either of its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case where an order has been made by the State Board under Section 25 (Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges), Section 26 (Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent), or Section 27 (Refusal or withdrawal of consent by the State Board) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may think fit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter to the appealing person.

The Act provides that where the consent of the Board is subject to the condition of execution of work and the person to whom such conditional consent is given fails to execute the works, the State Board can get those works executed at his costs.

The Act imposes on the person concerned, an obligation to inform the State Board where owing to any accident etc, there is any discharge of person poisonous, noxious or polluting matter. Failure to do so is punishable under Section 45a, which is the residuary penal provision.

By Section 32, the State Board is empowered to take emergency measures if it appears to them that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter is present in any stream or well or on, even due to any accident or other unforeseen act or event, and if the Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to take immediate action, it may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, carry out such operations as it may consider necessary.

The Act provides that, where it is apprehended by a Board that the water in any stream or well is likely to be polluted by reason of the disposal or likely disposal of any matter in such stream or well or in any sewer, or on any land, or otherwise, the Board may make an application to a Court, not inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class, for restraining the person who is likely to cause such pollution from so causing.

Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (subject to directions of the Central Government), a Board can, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under the Act, issue directions. Breach of such directions is punishable under Section 41.

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is of considerable importance in practice. It provides for penalties and punishments for non-compliance of the directions given by the State Board, for certain acts and for contravention of provisions of the Act. The punishment under the Act may- be imprisonment for a term varying from three months to seven years and / with- a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues after the conviction for the first such failure.- If the failure continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years and with fine.

The Act provides for enhanced penalty if any person who has been convicted of any offence under Section 24 (Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc.) or Section 25 (Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges) or Section 26 (Provision regarding existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent) is again found guilty of an offence involving a contravention of the same provision, he shall, on the second and on every subsequent conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one and half years but which may extend to six years and with fine. No cognisance shall be taken of any conviction made more than two years before the commission of the offence which is being punished.

The Act provides penalty, for the contravention / failure of compliance of any order or direction given under certain provisions of this Act, for which no penalty has been elsewhere provided in this Act, of an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or both and in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure.

Under the Act, when an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person at the time the offence was committed who was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of, the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. But the person held guilty proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such an offence, in such situation he is not liable for punishment provided under the Act. When an offence under this Act is committed by the company with the consent or connivance or

commission of such offence is attributable to the neglect of any director, manager, officer, secretary or any other officer of the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

When an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. But if the Head of the Department proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, he will not be liable for punishment.

Under the Act, Court shall take cognisance of any offence under this Act only on the complaint made by- a Board or any other officer authorised in this behalf by it, or- any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Board of officer authorised as aforesaid,And no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

Notwithstanding any thing contained in Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall be lawful for any Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class to pass a sentence of imprisonment for term exceeding two years or of fine exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of an offence punishable under this Act.

Under the Act, members, officers and servants of Board shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code while acting or purporting to act in pursuance, of any of the provisions of this Act (45 of 1860) and the rules made there under.

The Act bars Civil Courts from exercising their jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an appellate authority constituted under this Act is empowered by under this Act to determine, and no injunction can be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

   |