A PROJECT REPORT

On
SOURCES AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION IN INDIA
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree
Of
Master of Technology
In
ENVIORMNMENAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

Submitted By:
DHARMENDRA PATTANAYAK
(University Regd. No- 1707346009)

Under the Guidance of

Prof. BHAGYARATHI PRADHAN

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & ENGINEERING

ADARSHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ANGUL- 759122.

(Approved by AICTE, Govt. Of India & affiliated to BPUT, Govt. of Odisha)

 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that, the work presented in this dissertation is original and has been done
under the guidance of Prof. BHAGYARATHI PRADHAN, Department of Environmental
Science & Engineering, Aadarsha College of Engineering, Angul. I further declare that the
work reported herein does not form part of any other dissertation on the basis of the award
to the candidate of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship of any other institution.

Angul
Date:01.07.2021 DHARMENDRA PATTANAYAK
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and deep sense of

gratitude to my guide Prof. BHAGYARATHI PRADHAN, Department of
Environmental Science & Engineering, Aadarsha College of Engineering, Angul,
who motivated me by his valuable discussions, suggestions and persistent guidance
throughout my project work.

My special thanks to all my M. Tech Sirs, my lovable parents for their

enduring blessing, caring and prayers all through my work. I extend my words of
thanks to all my relatives and well wishers who supported me by their constant
encouragement.
 CONTENTS

Chapters Page no.

1. Introduction 1

2. Sources of water pollution 3

 Point Sources 3
 Non Point Sources 4
 Industrial wastes 5
 Agro-chemical Wastes 6
 Thermal pollution 7
 Acid rain pollution 7
 Radioactive wastes 8

3. Extent of water pollution in India 10

4. Effects of water pollution 13

5. Regulation of water pollution 27

6 Control of water pollution 32

7. Conclusion 51

8. Closing Thoughts 55
 WATER POLLUTION - SOURCES, EFFECTS AND CONTROL
in INDIA.

Introduction:

Water is one of the renewable resources essential for sustaining all forms of life,
food production, economic development, and for general well being. It is impossible to substitute
for most of its uses, difficult to de pollute, expensive to transport, and it is truly a unique gift to
mankind from nature. Water is also one of the most manageable natural resources as it is capable
of diversion, transport, storage, and recycling. 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.

All these properties impart to water its great utility for human beings. The surface water and
groundwater resources of the country play a major role in agriculture, hydropower
generation, livestock production, industrial activities, forestry, fisheries, navigation,
recreational activities etc. The freshwater ecosystems of the world comprise only about
0.5% of the earth’s surface and have a volume of 2.84x105 Km 3. Rivers constitute an
insignificant amount (0.1%) of the land surface. Only 0.01% of the waters of the earth
occur in river channels. In spite of these low quantities, running waters are of enormous
significance. India receives annual precipitation of about 4000 km 3, including snowfall. Out of
this, monsoon rainfall is of the order of 3000 km 3. Rainfall in India is dependent on the south-
west and north-east monsoons, on shallow cyclonic depressions and disturbances and on local
storms.
Most of it takes place under the influence of south-west monsoon between June
and September except in Tamil Nadu, where it is under the influence of north-east monsoon
during October and November. India is gifted with river system comprising more than
20 major rivers with several tributaries. Many of these rivers are perennial and some of them
are seasonal. Although India occupies only 3.29 million km 2 geographical area, constituting
2.4% of the world’s land area, it supports over 15% of the world’s population. The population
of India as on 1st March 2001 stood at 1,027,015,247 persons. Thus, India supports about
1/6th of world population, 1/50 th of world’s land and
1/25th of world’s water resources (Water Management Forum, 2003).
 In the last few decades, there has been a tremendous increase in the demand for
freshwater due to rapid growth of population and the accelerated pace of industrialization.
Human health is threatened by most of the agricultural development activities particularly
in relation to excessive application of fertilizers and unsanitary conditions. Anthropogenic
activities related to extensive urbanization, agricultural practices, industrialization, and
population expansion have led to water quality deterioration in many parts of the world. In
addition, deficient water resources have increasingly restrained water pollution control and
water quality improvement. Water pollution has been a research focus for government and
scientists. Therefore, protecting river water quality is extremely urgent because of serious water
pollution and global scarcity of water resources.

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 domes- tic 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 has affected as many as 19 states, including Delhi.
Geo- genic 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 anthropo-
genic 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.

Using available data and case studies, this chapter aims to provide an overview of the
extent, impacts, and control of water pollution in India. It also tries to identify the theoretical and
policy issues involved in the abatement and avoidance of water pollution in India.
Sources of water pollution:

Water pollution can occur from two sources.

1. Point source and

2. Non-point source

1). Point sources of pollution are those which have direct identifiable source. Example
includes pipe attached to a factory, oil spill from a tanker, effluents coming out from
industries. Point sources of pollution include wastewater effluent (both municipal and
industrial) and storm sewer discharge and affect mostly the area near it. Whereas non-point
sources of pollution are those which arrive from different sources of origin and number of
ways by which contaminants enter into groundwater or surface water and arrive in the
environment from different non identifiable sources. Examples are runoff from agricultural
fields, urban waste etc. Sometimes pollution that enters the environment in one place has an
effect hundreds or even thousands of miles away. This is known as transboundary pollution.
One example is the radioactive waste that travels through the oceans from nuclear
reprocessing plants to nearby countries. Water pollutants may be:

i) Organic water pollutant.

ii) Inorganic water pollutant.

1. Organic water pollutants: They comprise of insecticides and herbicides, organ halides
and other forms of chemicals; bacteria from sewage and livestock’s farming; food
processing wastes; pathogens; volatile organic compounds etc.

2. Inorganic water pollutants: They may arise from heavy metals from acid mine drainage;
silt from surface run-off, logging, slash and burning practices and land filling; fertilizers
from agricultural run-off which include nitrates and phosphates etc. and chemical waste
from industrial effluents.
Table 1. Characteristics of point and nonpoint sources of chemical inputs to receiving
waters:

Point Sources Nonpoint Sources

- Wastewater effluent (municipal and - Runoff from agriculture (including

industrial) return flow from irrigated agriculture)

- Runoff and leachate from waste disposal sites - Runoff from pasture and range

- Runoff and infiltration from animal feedlots - Urban runoff unsewered and sewered areas

- Runoff from mines, oil fields, unsewered with a population <100,000

industrial sites - Septic tank leachate and runoff from failed

- Storm sewer outfalls from cities with a septic systems

population >100,000 - Runoff from construction sites

- Overflows of combined storm and sanitary - Runoff from abandoned mines

sewers - Atmospheric deposition over a water surface

- Runoff from construction sites >2 ha - Activities on land that generate contaminants,

such as logging, wetland conversion,

construction, and development of land or

waterways
Some of the important sources of water pollution are discussed below:

Urbanization:

Urbanization generally leads to higher phosphorus concentrations in urban catchments.

Increasing imperviousness, increased runoff from urbanized surfaces, and increased municipal

and industrial discharges all result in increased loadings of nutrients to urban streams. This

makes urbanization second only to agriculture as the major cause of stream impairment.

Sewage and other Oxygen Demanding Wastes:

Management of solid waste is not successful due to huge volumes of organic and non-
biodegradable wastes generated daily. As a consequence, garbage in most parts of India is
unscientifically disposed and ultimately leads to increase in the pollutant load of surface and
groundwater courses. Sewage can be a fertilizer as it releases important nutrients to the
environment such as nitrogen and phosphorus which plants and animals need for growth. Chemical
fertilizers used by farmers also add nutrients to the soil, which drain into rivers and seas and add
to the fertilizing effect of the sewage. Together, sewage and fertilizers can cause a massive increase
in the growth of algae or plankton that facilitate huge areas of oceans, lakes, or rivers creating a
condition known as algal bloom thereby reducing the dissolved oxygen content of water and killing
other forms of life like fish.

Industrial Wastes:
Many of the industries are situated along the banks of river such as steel and paper industries
for their requirement of huge amounts of water in manufacturing processes and finally their wastes
containing acids, alkalies, dyes and other chemicals are dumped and poured down into rivers as
effluents. Chemical industries concerning with manufacture of Aluminum release large amount
of fluoride through their emissions to air and effluents to water bodies. Fertilizer industries
generate huge amount of ammonia whereas steel plants generate cyanide. Chromium salts are
used in industrial process for the production of sodium dichromate and other compounds containing
chromium. All such discharges finally arrive at water bodies in the form of effluents affecting
human health and the organism living the
Agro- Chemical Wastes:
In the agricultural sector, water and electricity for irrigation are subsidized for
political reasons. This leads to wasteful flood irrigation rather than adoption of more optimal
practices such as sprinkler and drip irrigation. Cropping patterns and farming practices also
do not necessarily encourage the judicious use of water. There are losses of water due to
breaches and seepage resulting in water logging and salinity. Agro- chemical wastes include
fertilizers, pesticides which may be herbicides and insecticides widely used in crop fields to
enhance productivity. Improper disposal of pesticides from field farms and agricultural
activities contributes a lot of pollutants to water bodies and soils. Some of the pesticides are:
DDT, Aldrin, Diel Drin, Malathion, Hexachloro Benzene etc. Pesticides reach water bodies
through surface runoff from agricultural fields, drifting from spraying, washing down of
precipitation and direct dusting and spraying of pesticides in low lying areas polluting the water
quality. Most of them are non-biodegradable and persistent in the environment for long period of
time. These chemicals may reach human through food chain leading bio-magnification.

Nutrient Enrichment:

The sources of nutrients in surface water can be divided broadly into natural and
anthropogenic types. Contribution to pollution by natural source is low due to balance
established by the natural system between the production and consumption of nutrients over the
course of time. Anthropogenic sources of contaminants are contributed from agriculture,
domestic and industrial wastes. Nutrient concentrations in streams and rivers have been strongly
correlated with human land use and disturbance gradients. Both N and P enrichment have links
with the agricultural and urban land uses in the watershed. Fluxes of total N in temperate-zone
nrivers surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean are highly correlated with net anthropogenic input
of N in their watersheds. Total N and nitrate fluxes and concentrations in rivers are also
correlated with human population density. Nitrogen fertilization is the main source of N in
streams and rivers. Similarly, nutrient enrichment of aquatic systems from anthropogenic
sources includes point and nonpoint sources. In contrast to point

sources of nutrients that are relatively easy to monitor and regulate, nonpoint sources such as
livestock, crop fertilizers, and urban runoff exhibit more spatial and temporal variability.
Following strong regulation of point source inputs in response to the Clean Water Act,
nutrients from nonpoint sources are now the major source of water pollution in the United States.
Thermal Pollution:
Changes in water temperature adversely affect water quality and aquatic biota. Majority
of the thermal pollution in water is caused due to human activities. Some of the important sources
of thermal pollution are nuclear power and electric power plants, petroleum refineries, steel
melting factories, coal fire power plant, boiler from industries which release large amount
of heat to the water bodies leading to change in the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the receiving water bodies. High temperature declines the oxygen content of
water; disturbs the reproductive cycles, respiratory and digestive rates and other physiological
changes causing difficulties for the aquatic life.

Oil Spillage:
Oil discharge into the surface of sea by way of accident or leakage from cargo tankers
carrying petrol, diesel and their derivatives pollute sea water to a great extent. Exploration
of oil from offshore also lead to oil pollution in water. The residual oil spreads over the water
surface forming a thin layer of water-in-oil emulsion.

The disruption of sediments:

Construction of dams for hydroelectric power or water reservoirs can reduce the sediment
flow affecting adversely the formation of beaches, increases coastal erosion and reduces the
flow of nutrients from rivers into seas (potentially reducing coastal fish stocks). Increased sediment
flow can also create a problem. During construction work, soil, rock, and other fine powders
sometimes enter nearby rivers in large quantities, causing water to become turbid (muddy or
silted). The extra sediment can block the gills of fish causing them suffocation.
Acid rain pollution:
Water pollution that alters a plant’s surrounding pH level, such as due to acid rain, can harm
or kill the plant. Atmospheric Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emitted from natural and
human-made sources like volcanic activity and burning fossil fuels\interact with atmospheric
chemicals, including hydrogen and oxygen, to form sulfuric and nitric acids in the air. These acids
fall down to earth through precipitation in the form of rain or snow. Once acid rain reaches the
ground, it flows into waterways that carry its acidic compounds into water bodies. Acid rain that
collects in aquatic environments lowers water pH levels and affects the aquatic biota.

Radioactive waste:

Radioactive pollution is caused by the presence of radioactive materials in water. They are
classified as small doses which temporary stimulate the metabolism and large doses which
gradually damage the organism causing genetic mutation. Source may be from radioactive
sediment, waters used in nuclear atomic plants, radioactive minerals exploitation, nuclear
power plants and use of radioisotopes in medical and research purposes.

Introduction of Alien species:

In some parts of the world, alien species also known as invasive species are a major problem
of water pollution. Outside their normal environment, they have no natural predators, so they
rapidly spread and dominate the animals or plants that thrive there. Common examples of alien
species include zebra mussels in the Great Lakes of the USA, which were carried there from
Europe by ballast water (waste water flushed from ships). The Mediterranean Sea has been
invaded by a kind of alien algae called Caulerpa taxifolia. In the Black Sea, an alien jellyfish called
Mnemiopsis leidyi reduced fish stocks by 90 percent after arriving in ballast water. In San Francisco
Bay, Asian clams called Potamocorbula amurensis, also introduced by ballast water, have
dramatically altered the ecosystem.

Climate Change:

Global warming has also an impact on water resources through enhanced evaporation,
geographical changes in precipitation intensity, duration and frequency (together affecting the
average runoff), soil moisture, and the frequency and severity of droughts and floods. Future
projections using climate models pointed out that there will be an increase in the monsoon
rainfall in most parts of India, with increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Relatively
small climatic changes can have huge impact on water resources, particularly in arid and semi- arid
regions such as North-West India. This will have impacts on agriculture, drinking water, and on
generation of hydroelectric power, resulting in limited water supply and land degradation.
Apart from monsoon rains, India uses perennial rivers which originate in the Hindukush and
Himalayan ranges and depend on glacial melt-waters. Since the

melting season coincides with the summer monsoon season, any intensification of the monsoon is
likely to contribute to flood disasters in the Himalayan catchment. Rising temperatures will also
contribute to a rise in the snowline, reducing the capacity of these natural reservoirs, and increasing
the risk of flash flood during the wet season. Increase in temperatures can lead to increased
eutrophication in wetlands and fresh water supplies (CPCB Report, 2013).
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). During 1995–2009, the number of observed
sample with BOD values less than 3 mg/l were between 57–69 per cent; in 2007 the observed
samples were 69 per cent. Similarly, during this period of 15 years between 17–28 per cent of the
samples observed BOD value between 3-6 mg/l and the maximum number of samples in this category
were observed in 1998. It was observed that the number of observations remained unchanged
and followed a static trend in percentage of observations having BOD between 3–6 mg/l.
The number of observed BOD value > 6 mg/l was between 13 and 19 per cent during 1995–2009,
and the maximum value of 19 per cent was observed in 2001, 2002, and 2009. It was observed that
there was a gradual decrease in the BOD levels and in 2009, 17 per cent had BOD value >
6 mg/1. 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). There 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 2 (Rajaram and
Das 2008). 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. Secondly the receiving water bodies also do not have adequate
water flow for dilution. Therefore, the oxygen demand and bacterial pollution is increasing.
 Household borne effluents contribute a substantial proportion of water pollution
in India. Untreated efflu- ents from households pollute surface and groundwater sources. Local
governments (city corporations, mu- nicipalities, and panchayats) have the responsibility of water
supply and sanitation and are supposed to treat the effluents as per national water pollution standards
or minimal national standards (MINAS) However, about 70 per cent of the effluents are not treated and
disposed off into the environmental media untreated. Table 19.1 provides the summary statistics of
wastewater generation and treatment in India in 2008. This table shows that cities, which have a
population of more than one lakh (Class-I), treat only about 32 per cent of the wastewater generated.
Note that out of the total effluent treatment capacity of 11554 MLD in the country, about 70 per
cent (8040 MLD) has been created in 35 metropoli- tan cities. Metropolitan cities treat about 52 per
cent of their wastewater. Delhi and Mumbai account for about 69 per cent of the treatment capacity of
metropolitan cities. This indicates that smaller towns and cities have very little wastewater treatment
capacity. Meanwhile, only 3.15 per cent of the rural population has access to sanitation services
and 115 million homes have no access to toilets of any type. CPCB provides source-specific pollution
standards for industries with respect to pollution concentration of major water pollutants: (BOD),
chemical oxygen de- mand (COD) suspended solids (SS), and pH. CPCB launched a water pollution
control programme in 1992 for industries. It identified 1,551 large and medium industries, and
gave a time schedule to these industries for compliance with prescribed standards. It was found that
many of these industries have effluent treatment plants (ETPs) but despite these they did not
comply with prescribed pollution standards. In the industrial sector only 59 per cent of the
large and medium in- dustries had adequate effluent treatment in 1995. There are 0.32
million small-scale industrial units in India and due to the presence of scale economies in water
pollution reduction, it is uneconomical for these units to have ETPs of their own (Murty et al.
1999). These small-scale units contribute almost 40 per cent of the industrial water pollution in
India. However, small-scale units located in many industrial estates in India have gone for common
effluent treatment plants (CETPs).

Agricultural run-offs affect groundwater and surface water sources as they contain
pesticide and fertilizer residues. Fertilizers have an indirect adverse impact on water resources.
Indeed, by increasing the nutritional content of water courses, fertilizers allow organisms to
proliferate. These organisms may be disease vectors or algae. The proliferation of algae may slow the
flow in water courses, thus increasing the proliferation of organisms and sedimentation. WHO
has defined a permissible limit of concentration of nitrates of 45 mg/ L of NO 3, which is also accepted
by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). In the agricultural sector, fertilizer use increased
from 7.7 MT in 1984 to 13.4 MT in 1996 and pesticide use increased from 24 MT in 1971 to 85
MT in 1995. It has been observed that in states, such as Haryana, the NO 3 concentration has exceeded
the permissible limits.
Effects of Water Pollution:

It’s true that, water pollution and health effects go hand in hand, and the results are never good.
The effect of water pollution on health is always a negative one, and the chances of getting sick from
drinking contaminated water are very high. But don’t worry. There’s something you can do to keep
yourself and your family safe: get educated about water pollution.

Water pollution health effects range from mild to very severe, and it’s always a good idea to
familiarize yourself with all the possibilities when you’re concerned about the quality of your drinking
water. In this article, you’ll be provided with a general run-down of the relationship between water
contamination and your health, and you’ll also be introduced to the ten most common causes of water
contamination you’re likely to encounter.

From there, you’ll learn about the health effect of water pollution no matter what kind of
contamination you might be dealing with. You’ll be better able to recognize issues as they arise, and
you’ll know when something going on with you or your loved ones physically might be related to
water contamination.

Water Pollution and Health:

You might be surprised to find out just how large-scale of a problem the effects of water pollution
on humans really are. It’s no secret that water is the most abundant substance on the planet, or that the
Earth is made up of much more water than it is land. Human beings are the same. We are largely made
up of water, and we require it in order to survive. Therefore, the effect of water pollution on human
life is usually staggering, and when humans are unable to drink fresh, clean water for long periods of
time, the chance of disease and even death grows very high, very fast.

Unfortunately, sources of fresh water continue to be damaged and destroyed, which means that the
water pollution effect on humans grows ever greater. There are many different causes of water
pollution, but as humans continue to interact with fresh water supplies around the world, that pollution
only increases. Groundwater, which is a very important but often overlooked source of fresh water,
can become just as easily contaminated as surface water. Both must be protected in order to cut back
on the risk of disease, illness, and death associated with consuming and using contaminated water.
1. Pesticides:

Pesticides are one of the most well-known potential pollutants of both water and soil. However, the
potential for pollution from pesticides reaches much further than you might think. Although it’s
common to hear of pesticides contaminating food, there is a lot of damage to be done from the use of
these chemical products in large areas.

Where does it come from ??

Pesticides are used just about everywhere in cities in order to try to keep grass and other plants
growing well. They can be used on residential lawns, on golf courses, and of course, on farms.
Unfortunately, when they are used often, rainfall can lead to runoff that can, in turn, allow these
chemicals to seep into the soil and pollute groundwater. Sometimes they can even run directly into
surface water supplies.

How can it affect your health?

Depending on the type of chemicals present in a given pesticide and the level at which the water
supply is polluted, this can cause damage ranging from allergic reactions on skin to inflammation of
the bowels and digestive system. In some instances, it can lead to death caused by the failure of the
central nervous system, or to cardiac arrest.

2. Nutrients:

It might seem a little strange to blame nutrients for potential water pollution, but it’s not that unlikely.
Although certain types of nutrients in small quantities are necessary in water, and they can even help
improve human life and well-being, when these nutrients are present in larger quantities, they can be
dangerous or even deadly.

Where does it come from?

Agriculture is one of the leading causes of nutrient overabundance in water supplies. Fertilizer and
pesticides both cause this problem, especially in areas where runoff is present and groundwater
contamination is high. Livestock waste can also contribute to nutrient pollution through runoff.

How can it affect your health?

Depending on the type of nutrients that are too abundant in any given water supply, human beings can
suffer anything from digestive upset to death. Younger children are at a greater risk from this type of
contamination, as their bodies are still developing and are more susceptible to dramatic changes in the
nutrients required for survival.
3. Sewage and Septic Systems:

Unsurprisingly, sewage and septic systems contribute a lot to the potential water contamination
in cities, rural areas and more. Although sewers and septic systems are designed to help remove human
waste from these areas, the potential for contamination remains very high and there are many issues
that can arise from the frequent use of these important waste disposal systems.

Where does it come from?

Sewers and septic systems are present just about everywhere human life is. In the United States,
cities are usually on sewer systems while more rural communities rely on septic systems to move
waste away from the places where people live. Although these are

generally good methods of removing waste, sometimes they can fall into disrepair or be installed
incorrectly or in poor locations. When this happens, human waste can seep into the soil nearby and
cause groundwater contamination.

How can it affect your health?

Human waste in your water supply can lead to terrible illnesses such as hepatitis and dysentery. It can
also cause bacteria like E. coli to grow much more prominently in your water source. Any disease you
can get from water contaminated in this way is potentially very deadly, especially to young children
and to the elderly.

4. Arsenic:

Arsenic is a well-known pollutant that is also widely known as a poison. Consuming arsenic is deadly
in even small amounts for human beings as well as for animals. This pollutant can also cause problems
if it comes into contact with your skin, and it is damaging to plant and fish life as well.

Where does it come from?

Arsenic is present naturally in some water supplies. However, when this happens, treatments are
usually conducted in order to remove this poisonous substance from the water. Arsenic occurs when
water passes through rocks that contain trace amounts of it in their makeup. It can also come from
fertilizers and other treatments used in agriculture as well as in various industries. When it rains,
arsenic is carried via runoff away from these places and leaches into the groundwater.

How can it affect your health?

In moderate amounts, too much arsenic in your water can cause abdominal upset including bloating,
cramping, and inflammation of the digestive system. In higher amounts, arsenic can be poisonous and
lead to organ failure as well as vomiting blood, blood in feces and urine, and very painful convulsions.
If you use water contaminated with arsenic but don’t drink it, it can cause welts or lesions on your
skin.

5. Lead:

You have probably heard of the possibility of lead poisoning from substances such as old paint that
was used before the medical field discovered this potential threat, but did you know you can also get
lead poisoning from your water? In some places throughout the United States as well as in other
countries, lead is very present in water and can cause a lot of harm.

Where does it come from?

Although newer homes built in recent years have been paying close attention to the presence of lead
in household items, older homes aren’t so lucky. Many times, homes built some decades ago contain
lead paint, lead pipes, and even lead fittings around electrical and water work throughout the building.
When it rains, runoff from lead-painted homes can seep into the groundwater and contaminate it. If
you live in a home with lead pipes, you are drinking leaded water every day.

How can it affect your health?

If you consume or use water contaminated with lead, you can get lead poisoning. This is more common
in children than in adults, and it takes place over time, as lead amounts in the body build up from
overexposure. Lead in water may cause headaches and nausea, as well as high blood pressure, memory
and confusion problems, anemia, and trouble with the kidneys. In some cases, it can lead to death.

6. Fluoride:

Fluoride is one of the many chemicals that can be found both naturally in water and added in by city
water companies throughout the United States. It’s very common to have some fluoride in your water,
and in small amounts, it’s good for your teeth and bones. However, too much fluoride can be damaging
or even deadly.

Where does it come from?

Fluoride comes naturally from water that passes through rocks containing trace amounts of this
substance. However, in city water supplies, fluoride is added in synthetically in order to help
strengthen bones and teeth. Fluoride amounts in water supplies should be carefully monitored at all
times, but unfortunately, they often aren’t, and this can lead to too much of this otherwise important
mineral in your water source.

How can it affect your health?

Too much fluoride over a long period of time can cause damage to the bones, and may actually weaken
them as well as the teeth. It can also cause bowel upset, inflammation of the joints, and even potential
kidney damage. There are some studies that say fluoride can affect the neurological development of
children, but these haven’t been significantly explored enough to know for sure whether or not this is
accurate. However, kidney and skeletal issues are very real when exposed to too much fluoride.

7. Bacteria:

Bacteria can be present in water no matter what. Even the most well-treated water supply is bound to
have some traces of bacteria present, and even the most natural of water from a remote mountain
spring is the same. However, when dangerous bacteria are present in a water supply, the chance of
human illness becomes much higher.

Where does it come from?

Bacteria come from just about everywhere. They can even grow on their own in water when the
conditions are right. Warm water that is comfortably hot but not quite boiling is the most likely culprit
for growing bacteria. However, any time debris is present in a water supply, the chance for bacteria
doubles. If something dies in water, the decay from that death can create excessive, huge numbers of
bacteria.

How can it affect your health?

Bacteria is what makes human beings sick in many instances. You can catch many types of diseases
from bacteria, ranging from simple colds to E. coli and salmonella. The latter of these two are potential
infectors when you drink contaminated water. City water should always be treated to reduce the risk
of E. coli and other, similar bacteria, but unfortunately, it is often present in groundwater.

8. Nitrates:

If you have ever set up a home fish tank, you have probably learned a little bit about being concerned
with nitrates. However, did you know that a nitrate count that is too high can also be damaging to the
health of human beings, and especially children? Nitrates might not cross your mind as often as
bacteria and other contaminants, but they’re still a very real problem you should be on the lookout for.

Where does it come from?

Nitrates are a natural type of waste that comes from humans as well as animals. When farmers use
natural fertilizers and compost regularly without taking care to prevent runoff from their crops, this
can lead to nitrates seeping into groundwater and contaminating it at the source. Nitrates can also be
an unfortunate side effect related to a septic system and sewage pollution problem as well.

How can it affect your health?

Nitrates are potentially harmful to all human beings, but especially so for young children. Babies who
are exposed to too many nitrates in their water can come down with blue baby syndrome, which means
that their bloodstream is unable to move oxygen as it should. This is, in effect, a type of poisoning that
can lead to death and serious, permanent damage without being treated very quickly.

9. Acidification:

Acidification itself isn’t necessarily a pollutant, but it is the result of a lot of pollutants being present
in water for too long and making it virtually unusable by human beings. When water has become
acidified, contaminated water supplies may be found for miles from the center source of the problem.
This is a very big issue that affects not only human health but also other aspects of the world around
you significantly.

Where does it come from?

Acidification is a problem that affects surface water. It happens most frequently near nuclear power
plants and places where the potential for contamination directly in the surface water is very high. It
can be caused by quite a few different materials entering into water supplies, but it almost always has
to do with industrial runoff from plants and companies in the area.

How can it affect your health?

Acidification makes water turn acid, which upsets the pH balance of the water completely. This means
that fish, birds, insects and plants that usually live in that particular source of water will be unable to
sustain life any longer. In turn, humans who interact with the water are more prone to receiving burns,
welts, and other skin problems simply from being out in the water too long. Acidification also leads
to acid rain, which can be very damaging to human health as well as property.

10. Salt:

Did you know that water can even become contaminated with too much salt? Of course, salt water
itself is not a polluted source of water, but it is completely unpalatable by human beings. Fresh water
supplies that are exposed to too much salt become seriously damaged and are unable to continue being
used in very severe instances.

Where does it come from?

Salt in the water supply can come from just about anywhere. However, one of the most common causes
of frequent, high amounts of salt in water is from the use of road and sidewalk salt on icy surfaces
during the winter months. When these products are used in abundance to help melt ice and snow, the
runoff from those melted frozen solids carries the salt into the soil surrounding the roads. From there,
the groundwater becomes contaminated easily.
How can it affect your health?

Although too much salt in your water is not deadly, it can cause a lot of health problems, especially if
you have high cholesterol, diabetes, or any other condition that requires you to watch your sodium
intake. In this way, salt pollution in water can be indirectly responsible for sickness and even death in
some rare cases.

Water Safety Tips :

Now that you’ve learned about the water pollution effect on human health and the different
causes that can lead to contamination, it’s time to familiarize yourself with a few water safety tips.
Keep these tips in mind for learning how to handle water pollution and its effects on human health,
and you’ll be well on your way to better water safety in no time.

 Check your local Consumer Confidence Report to find out about the water quality in your area.
This report is required to be available to the public and it can provide you with valuable
information about potential issues with your water supply.
 If you are not on city water, purchase a home testing kit for your water or send samples away
to be tested by professionals. This is the best way to find out if there are even trace amounts of
contaminants in your water.
 If you notice a strange taste or smell from your water that hasn’t been there before, get in touch
with the authorities right away. If you are on city water, call the water company to check it out.
If you’re not, perform another water test immediately.
 Always follow any boil water advisories set out for your area.
 If you believe you have consumed contaminated water, get to a health clinic right away. Going
to your regular doctor or a walk-in clinic should be fine, but if you have severe symptoms,
consider going to the ER instead. In some instances, you’ll need antibiotics or injections to
fight off potential illness from contaminated water.
 Even if you aren’t showing any signs of illness but believe you’ve consumed polluted water,
go to the doctor to be checked out as soon as possible.

Conclusion:
 Now that you’ve learned all about the relationship between water contamination and your
health as well as the effects of water pollution on human beings, it’s time to pay close attention to the
possible risk of water pollution in the world around you. There are many terrible potential effects
of water pollution on people as well as animals and the environment, and the first step toward
reducing these possible outcomes is to fight back against water pollution so it doesn’t occur in the first
place.
Learning more about the effects of water pollution on man is a great place to get started, but
remember there is so much more you can do to cut back on the potential for contamination of the water
in your area. Always be sure to responsibly dispose of waste from your home, and try not to use
chemical treatments on your yard if possible. Get more involved by reaching out to industries and
corporations in your area to talk to them about clean water practices.

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 (Parikh 2004).

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 anemia. 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 (Table 19.2). According to one estimate (Parikh 2004), India lost about Rs 366 billion, which
account for about3.95 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 behavior of economical agents, either
individuals or group of individuals, in such a manner that the environmental externalities generated
during the course of individual actions are internalized. As shown in Figure 19.3 policy responses can
be classified into two categories: formal and informal. A legislative response requires policy re-
sponsor 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
behavior 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 behavior 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 control- ling
and preventing environmental pollution. Formal regulations may be classified into two categories
(Figure 19.4). 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.
Effects of water pollution:

Polluted water has effects on both human and aquatic life.

1. Effect of water pollution on human health

Chemicals in water that affect human health: Some of the chemicals affecting human health are
the presence of heavy metals such as Fluoride, Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, Mercury,
petrochemicals, chlorinated solvents, pesticides and nitrates. Fluoride in water is essential for
protection against dental carries and weakening of the bones. Concentration below 0.5 mg/l
causes dental carries and mottling of teeth but exposure to higher levels above 0.5 mg/l for 5-6 years
may lead to adverse effect on human health leading to a condition called fluorosis. Arsenic is a very
toxic chemical that reaches the water naturally or from wastewater of tanneries, ceramic industry,
chemical factories and from insecticides such as lead arsenate, effluents from fertilizers factories
and from fumes coming out from burning of coal and petroleum. Arsenic is highly dangerous
for human health causing respiratory cancer, arsenic skin lesion from contaminated drinking
water in some districts of West Bengal. Long exposure leads to bladder and lungs cancer. Lead
is contaminated in the drinking water source from pipes, fitting, solder, household plumbing systems.
In the human beings, it affects the blood, central nervous system and the kidneys. Child and
pregnant women are mostly prone to lead exposure. Mercury is used in industries such as smelters,
manufactures of batteries, thermometers, pesticides, fungicides etc. The best known example of
Mercury pollution in the oceans took place in 1938 when a Japanese factory discharged a significant
amount of mercury into Minamata Bay, by contaminating the fish stocks there. It took several years
to show its effects. By that time, many local people had eaten the fish and around 2000 were
poisoned,hundreds of people were left dead and disabled (Akio, 1992) and the cause for death was
named as “Minamata disease” due to consumption of fish containing methyl mercury. It causes
chromosomal aberrations and neurological damages to human. Mercury shows biological
magnification in aquatic ecosystems. Cadmium reaches human body through food crop from
soil irrigated by affected effluents. Fribergetal. (1974) noted that long term consumption of
rice from affected fields by the people living in areas contaminated by cadmium in regions of
Japan, resulted into many renal diseases like “itai-itai disease”, nephritis and nephrosis.
Water borne disease:
Microorganisms play a major role in water quality and the microorganisms that
are concerned with water borne diseases are Salmonella sp., Shigella sp., Escherichia coli and
Vibrio cholera (Adetunde and Glover, 2010). All these cause typhoid fever, diarrhoea, dysentery,
gastroenteritis and cholera. The most dangerous form of water pollution occurs when faces
enter the water supply. Many diseases are perpetuated by the faecal-oral route of transmission
in which the pathogens are shed only in human faces (Adetunde and Glover, 2010). Presence
of facial coliforms of E. coli is used as an indicator for the presence of any of these water borne
pathogens (Adetunde and Glover, 2010). Larry (2006) suggested that ground water contamination
is the leading worldwide cause of deaths and diseases, and that it accounts for the deaths of
more than 14,000 people daily, and the majority of them being children under 5 years old. In
recent years, the widespread reports of pollutants in groundwater have increased public concern
about the quality of groundwater. Children are generally more vulnerable to intestinal
pathogens and it has been reported that about 1.1 million children die every year due to
diarrheal diseases.

2. Effect of water pollution on plants

The following are the effects of water pollution on plants:

i. Effects of acid deposition: Many of the gases from acid, aerosols and other acidic
substances released into the atmosphere from industrial or domestic sources of combustion
from fossil fuels finally fall down to ground and reach the water bodies along with run-off
rainwater from polluted soil surfaces thereby causing acidification of water bodies by
lowering its pH .In many countries chemical substances like sulphates, nitrates an d
chloride have been reported to make water bodies such as lakes, river and ponds acidic.
ii. Nutrient deficiency in aquatic ecosystem: Population of decomposing microorganisms like
bacteria and fungi decline in acidified water which in turn reduces the rate
of decomposition of organic matter affecting the nutrient cycling. The critical pH for most
of the aquatic species is 6.0. The diversity of species decline below this pH whereas
the number and abundance of acid tolerant species increases. Proliferation of
filamentous algae rapidly forms a thick mat at the initial phase of the acidification of water.
Diatoms and green algae disappear below pH 5.8.
Cladophora is highly acid tolerant species and is abundant in acidic freshwater bodies. Macrophytes
are generally absent in acidic water as their roots are generally affected in such water
resulting in poor plant growth. Potamogeton pectinalis is found in acidified water. It is
observed that plants with deep roots and rhizomes are less affected while plants with short
root systems are severely affected in acidic water.
iii. Effects of organic matter deposition: Organic matter from dead and decaying materials of plants
and animals is deposited directly from sewage discharges and washed along with rainwater into
water bodies causing increase in decomposers / microbes such as aerobic and anaerobic
bacteria. Rapid decomposition of organic matter increase nutrient availability in water
favouring the luxuriant growth of planktonic green and blue-green algal bloom. In addition
many of the macrophytes like Salvinia, Azolla, Eicchhornia etc. grow rapidly causing
reduced penetration of light into deeper layer of water body with gradual decline of the
submerged flora.This condition results in reducing the dissolved Oxygen and increase in the
biological oxygen demand (B.O.D). The B.O.D of unpolluted fresh water is usually below
1mg/l while that of organic matter polluted water is more than
400 mg/l.
iv. Effects of detergent deposition: Detergents from domestic and industrial uses wash down into
water bodies causing serious effects on plants. Detergents contain high phosphates which
results in phosphate-enrichment of water. Phosphates enter the plants through roots or surface
absorption causing retarded growth of plants, elongation of roots, carbon dioxide fixation,
photosynthesis, cation uptake, pollen germination and growth of pollen tubes, destruction of
chlorophylls and cell membranes and denaturation of proteins causing enzyme inhibition
in various metabolic processes.

v. Effects of agricultural chemicals: Chemicals from fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides,

herbicides etc. applied to crops in excess are washed away with rainwater as runoff, then
enter into soil and finally arrive at the water bodies. Chemicals from fertilizers result in
eutrophication by enrichments of nutrients. Ammonium from fertilizers is acidic in nature
causing acidification of water. Similarly pesticides, herbicides and insecticides also cause
change in pH of the water bodies. Most common effect of these substances is the reduction
in photosynthetic rate. Some may uncouple oxidative phosphorylation or inhibit nitrate
reductase enzyme. The uptake and bioaccumulation capacities of these substances are great in
macrophytic plants due to their low solubility in water.

vi. Effects of industrial wastes: Effluents from industries contain various organic and
inorganic waste products. Fly ash form thick floating cover over the water thereby reducing
 the penetration of light into deeper layers of water bodies. Fly ash increases the alkalinity of
water and cause reduced uptake of essential bases leading to death of aquatic plants. Liquid
organic effluents change the pH of water and the specific toxicity effects on the aquatic
plants vary depending on their chemical composition. There may be synergistic,
additive or antagonistic interactions between metals with respect to their effects on
plants however these effects are reduced in hard and buffered freshwater bodies.
vii. Effects of silt deposition: Deposition of silt in water bodies occurs as a result of erosion
carrying silt laden water and due to flood. It increases the turbidity of water and reduces light
penetration in deep water causing decline in abundance of submerged plants. Siltation
inhibits the growth of aquatic plants. Abundance of phytoplankton is affected due to reduction
in surface exchange of gases and nutrients. Plants that are tolerant to turbidity are abundant
followed by those that are intermediate and the least tolerant species. Plants such as
Polygonum, Sagittaria etc. are found to grow in dominance.
viii. Effects of oil spillage: Oil pollution due to spillage of oil tankers and storage containers
prevents oxygenation of water and depletes the oxygen content of the water body by
reducing light transmission inhibiting the growth of planktons and photosynthesis in
macrophytes.
ix. Effects of thermal pollution: The release of heated water into water bodies from the
thermal power plants has an adverse effect on the aquatic life. It reduces the activity of aerobic
decomposers due to oxygen depletion because of high temperature. With decreased organic
matter decomposition the availability of nutrients in the water bodies is jeopardised. Aquatic
plants show reduced photosynthesis rate due to inhibition of enzyme activity with increased
temperature. Primary productivity and diversity of aquatic plant species decline because of
increased temperature of water bodies as a result of thermal pollution.

x. Effect of nutrient enrichment: Nutrient enrichment in aquatic water bodies leads to

eutrophication which is a process whereby water bodies receive excess inorganic
nutrients, especially N and P, stimulating excessive growth of plants and algae.
Eutrophication can happen naturally in the course of normal succession of some
freshwater ecosystems. However, when the nutrient enrichment is due to the activities of
humans, it is referred to as “cultural eutrophication”, where the rate of nutrient
enrichment is greatly intensified. Eutrophication was recognized as a pollution problem in

North American lakes and reservoirs in the mid 20 th century (Rohde, 1969). Plants must take
in nutrients from the surrounding environment in order to grow. Nitrogen and phosphorous,
 in particular, encourage growth because they stimulate photosynthesis. This is why they are
common ingredients in plant fertilizers. When agricultural runoff pollutes waterways with
nitrogen and phosphorous rich fertilizers, the nutrient-enriched waters
often paves way to algal bloom leading to eutrophication. The result is oxygen depletion
and dying of fishes due to suffocation.
xi. Phytotoxicity effects on plants: When chemical pollutants build up in aquatic or terrestrial
environments, plants can absorb these chemicals through their roots. Phytotoxicity occurs
when toxic chemicals poison plants. The symptoms of phytotoxicity on plants include
poor growth, dying seedlings and dead spots on leaves. For example, mercury poisoning
which many people associate with fish can also affect aquatic plants, as mercury
compounds build up in plant roots and bodies result in bioaccumulation. As animals feed
on polluted food the increasing levels of mercury is built up through food chain.

Control of Water Pollution:

The key challenges to better management of the water quality in India comprise of temporal
and spatial variation of rainfall, uneven geographic distribution of surface water resources,
persistent droughts, overuse of ground water and contamination, drainage and salinisation a nd
water quality problems due to treated, partially treated and untreated wastewater from urban
settlements, industrial establishments and runoff from irrigation sector besides poor management of
municipal solid waste and animal dung in rural areas (CPCB Report, 2013). Some of the
control measures are given below:
1. The Ganga Action Plan and the National River Action Plan are being implemented for
addressing the task of trapping, diversion and treatment of municipal wastewater.

2. In most parts of the country, waste water from domestic sources is hardly treated, due to
inadequate sanitation facilities. This waste water, containing highly organic pollutant
load, finds its way into surface and groundwater courses near the vicinity of human
habitation from where further water is drawn for use. Considerable investments should be
done to install the treatment systems.

3. With rapid industrialization and urbanization, the water requirement for energy and
industrial use is estimated to rise to about 18 per cent (191 bcm) of the total requirements in
2025 (CPCB Report, 2013). Poor environmental management systems, especially in
industries such as thermal power stations, chemicals, metals and minerals, leather
processing and sugar mills, have led to discharge of highly toxic and organic wastewater. This
has resulted in pollution of the surface and groundwater sources from which water is also
drawn for irrigation and domestic purpose. The enforcement of regulations regarding
discharge of industrial wastewater and limits to extraction of groundwater needs to be
considerably strengthened, while more incentives are required for promoting waste water
reuse and recycling.

4. For the agricultural sector, water and electricity for irrigation are subsidized for political
reasons. This leads to wasteful flood irrigation rather than adoption of more optimal
practices such as sprinkler and drip irrigation. Optimized irrigation, cropping patterns and
farming practices should be encouragde for judicious use of water.

5. The water quality management in India is accomplished under the provision of Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 that was amended in 1988. The basic
 objective of this Act is to maintain and restore the wholesomeness of national aquatic
resources by prevention and control of pollution. The Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act was enacted in 1977, to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on
water consumed by persons operating and carrying on certain types of industrial
activities.

6. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has established a network of monitoring
stations on aquatic resources across the country. The water quality monitoring and its
management are governed at state/union territory level in India. The network covers 28 states

and 6 Union Territories (CPCB Report, 2013). Water quality monitoring is therefore an
imperative prerequisite in order to assess the extent of maintenance and restoration of water
bodies.

7. There should be ban on washing of clothes and laundry alongside the river bank.

8. Industries should install Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to control the pollution at source.

9. All towns and cities must have Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) that clean up the
sewage effluents.

10. Improper use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides in farming should be stopped and
organic methods of farming should be adoped. Cropping practices in riparian zone should be
banned to protect the riparian vegetation growing there.

11. Religious practices that pollute river water by dumping colourful paints of idols
containing harmful synthetic chemicals should be stopped.

12. Rain water harvesting should be practiced to prevent the depletion of water table.

13. Making people aware of the problem is the first step to prevent water pollution. Hence,
importance of water and pollution prevention measures should be a part of awareness and
education programme.

14. Polluter pays principle should be adopted so that the polluters will be the first people to
suffer by way of paying the cost for the pollution. Ultimately, the polluter pays principle
 should be designed to prevent people from polluting and making them behave in an
environmentally responsible manner.

15. As riparian vegetation helps in making the river water clean because of the multiple
functions, to prevent people from felling and clearing down of riparian forest zones for road
construction, agricultural practices, recreational and tourism , sand mining, quarrying and clay
mining etc. community should play a regulatory role.

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 pre- vent, 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
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. The legislative framework followed in India for the regulation of water
pollution is summarized in Table 19.3.

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
 Water Regulation Framework in India:

Sl.no. Polluting sources Effect on ecosystem Specific standards Current

status

1 Domestic sewage from Organic pollution of MINAS Out of 26,500 mld

of sewage from Class-I and cities rivers, eutrophication cities
and Class-II towns treatment capacity of lakes, spread of exists only
for about 7,000 mld (26%). water borne diseases Out of 271 STPs
inspected by CPCB only
150 (55%) were complying with MINAS

2 Industrial effluents Organic and inorganic MINAS No comprehensive

statistics on compliance charges) pollution, toxic (industry specific) exists as it is dealt mainly
by SPCBs chemicals in food chai Widespread damage of ecosystem around industrial areas is well
documented by CPCB

3 Industrial and Organic and inorganic No standards/ No comprehensive study as stored

hazardous mines run-off pollution, toxic legislation waste, mine spoils, etc. contribute
large
chemicals in food quantum of contaminants which pollute chain
surface and groundwater

Agricultural run-off Fertilizers leading to No standards/ Nation wide studies

have not been eutrophication pesticides legislation conducted, apart from regular news
articles in the food chain on pesticides in water and food items

Water Pollution in India:

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 (Datt et al. 2004).
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 effluent-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 diffusion. Also, since most of these are end- of-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 standards 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 reduc- tion 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 across 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 studies1 give some information about the rate of tax to be levied on industries for
making them comply with the prescribed water standard Metatalk. (1994) considered an abatement
cost function for an effluent treatment plant in paper and pulp units in India, and concluded that
marginal abatement 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 sup- posed 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 survey2 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 for- mal 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 tone 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 top- down or a centralized
approach. The success of these instruments in controlling pollution depends upon the quality of
governance and its ability to incur high trans- action costs. A bottom-up or decentralized
regulation involving civic society and local communities and with a very limited role of the
government could save trans- action costs and get rid of political and bureaucraticcorruption.
This approach draws theoretical support from the Coase Theorem (Coase 1960). The Coase
Theorem states that the optimal level of pollution con- trol 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 com- munities and polluters helped in reducing the water
pollution when the government had been protecting the property rights to the environmental
resource to the people (Murty et al. 1999; Paragal and Wheeler
1996; World Bank 1999).

The management of environmental resources can no longer be taken as the responsibility

of a single institution like a market or the government (Murty 2008). 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 (Murty 2008).

Some recent studies have shown that stock markets in both developed and developing
countries react to the environmental performance of firms. Also studies about firms’ behavior
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 (Gupta and Goldar 2005), 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.

There is now evidence about a number of industries in the developing countries complying
with environ- mental standards even in the absence of formal regulations by the government.
One interesting example is the success story of PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper (IKPP) in
Indonesia (World Bank 1999). IKPP is the largest and the cleanest paper producing company
in Indonesia. A clean up started in some of its mills in the 1990s with pressures from local
communities. Local villagers claimed damages from the mills with the help of local NGOs.
Indonesia’s national pollution control agency, BAPEDAL, mediated an agreement in which IKPP
acceded to the villagers’ demands. Fur- ther, the need for going to western bond markets for
financing the expansion of IKPP to meet the growing export demand, made the company go in
for cleaner technologies. The good performance of the company in pollution management has
resulted in an increase in its stock value in comparison to Jakarta’s composite stock index describes
the structure of informal environmental regulations in India.
 Take for example pollution abatement by small-scale enterprises located in
industrial estates in India. Use of command and control instruments by the government in an
environment of non-availability of economically viable technological options for pollution
abatement has been causing considerable hardships to small-scale enterprises. The government
managed public sector has been the fountainhead of industrial development. But the
government has not made any sincere efforts to promote economically viable pollution
abatement technologies for small-scale enterprises via R&D in the public sector. The presence
of scale economies in pollution abatement, especially in water pollution abatement, has
compounded problems for industrial estates.In such a situation, it is not economical for the
small-scale enterprises to have their own individual effluent treatment plants to comply with the
command and control regulation. Collective action involving all the relevant parties for
water pollution abatement (factories, affected parties, and the government) is now seen as an
institutional alternative for dealing with the problem of water pollution abatement in industrial
estates, especially in India (Murty et al. 1999). Collective action in industrial water pollution
abatement is meant to bring about necessary institutional changes that are compatible with the
choice of cost saving technologies. For example, a CETP can be adopted if necessary legislation
is in place to define the property rights of the factories and the affected parties. A CETP
for an industrial estate confers the benefits of saving in costs to the factories and the reduction in
damages to affected parties. There are many incentives for polluters, affected parties, and the
government for promoting collective action in industrial water pollution abatement Historical
developments leading to the adoption of CETP technologies by some of the industrial estates
are clear evidence of the success of collection action approach. In this case collection action
involves facto- ries (polluters), people affected from pollution, NGOs, and government (see Murty
and Prasad cited in Murty et al. 1999). There are three processes involved in the collective action
for control of water pollution in an industrial estate. These are: (i) collective action of
affected parties; (ii) collective action of factories, and (iii) the bargaining between a coalition
of affected people and a coalition of factories. Collective action by affected people is possible if
the damages from pollution are substantive enough to justify the transaction costs of coalition
and bargaining. Factories in an industrial estate have to take recourse to pollution abatement
methods taking into account possible collective action by the affected people.
The available pollution abatement technologies may provide small factories a broad
spectrum of technological choices out of which the common effluent treatment plant may be the
least cost technology. Therefore, collective action by facto- ries can be technology driven.
Finally, the bargaining between a coalition of affected people and a coalition of factories produces
the end result of collective action that is the realization of prescribed environmental standards.
Murty et al. (1999) reported the results of a survey of a number of industrial estates and an all-India
survey of large-scale water polluting factories providing evidence of local community pressure
resulting in the industries complying with standards. A number of agencies, such as local
communities, elected representatives (members of Parliament, state assemblies, and municipal
com- mittees), industries, NGOs, and the government are found to be involved in the processes
leading to the establishment of common effluent treatment plants in industrial estates. There are
also several examples of physical threats, and public litigation cases against factories for claiming
damages from pollution by the local people resulting in the big factories complying with the
standards. Take, for example, the Pattancheru industrial estate in Andhra Pradesh. Local
opposition to the pollution started in 1986 when about 3,000 villagers marched to the Chief
Minister’s office after suffering large-scale crop losses and health damages due to contamination
of groundwater and the pollution of nearby river. In 1989, about 5,000 people held a demonstration
before the state assembly, demanding an end to industrial pollution. In the same years farmers
blocked the highway running through Pattancheru for two days. The villagers also filed court cases
by jointly sharing the cost with contributions of Rs 200 per household. This legal action through the
collective effort of the people ultimately forced the factories in the industrial estate to have a
CETP for complying with water pollution standards. Similar experiences are reported from many
other industrial estates in the region.

Informal regulation by local communities is resulting in factories complying with standards as

explained by the examples given earlier. The amount of influence that the local communities exert
on factories to undertake pollution depends, among other factors, upon their affluence, the degree
of political organization, education, and environmental awareness. Pargal and Wheeler (1996)
found a negative relationship between BOD load in a factory effluent and per capita income and
educational levels of local communities in a sample of 243 factories in Indonesia. Similarly,
Murty and Prasad (1999) found a negative relationship between the BOD effluent -influent
ratio and a relative index of development of local community, and the political activity of
the local community measured in terms of percentage of votes polled in the recent elections to
the Indian Parliament.

Collective action constitutes costs to factories, the government, and affected parties. Factories
incur the cost of abatement to meet standards. The effected people incur the cost of public
litigation cases and the cost of organizing themselves as a society. The govern- ment incurs the cost
of financial incentives provided to the factories.We now discuss a method of estimating cost to
factories is given with a case study.

Given a threat of closure or legal action by an association of affected people, small -

scale industries in an industrial estate are made to reduce pollution to meet prescribed standards.
The industries have a choice between the following technologies for meeting the standards: (i) in
house treatment, (ii) CETP, and (iii) a mix of both. Given the scale economies in water pollu - tion
abatement, in house treatment is not economical for small-scale enterprises. A survey of pollution
abate- ment practices of isolated industries (Murty et al. 1999) shows that the capital cost of an
effluent treatment. plant for meeting water pollution standards for small- scale enterprises is almost
equal to the capital cost of the main plant. Therefore, industries may prefer to go for a CETP,
which is possible only if they are located as a cluster in an industrial estate. They can have a CETP
only if there is a contract among the factories about (i) sharing capital and the operating costs, (ii)
the prices charged for treating the pollutants, and (iii) the quality of influent accepted by CETP.
 Industrial estates normally contain heterogeneous factories belonging to different industries
with varying pollution loads and concentrations. As the members of the CETP, the member
factories are required to sup- ply wastewater of a standard quality, therefore, some of the
factories may have to do some ‘in house treat- ment’ of their wastewater to bring the water
pollution concentration at the agreed level before standing to the CETP for effluents treatment.
Therefore, the cost of water pollution abatement in an industrial estate may also consist of in
house treatment costs and the cost of CETP.

In this model, government regulators have still a role to play. But their role is not creating and
enforcing environmental standards. It is merely a catalytic role of providing information
about the environmental programs designed and available cleaner technologies, and providing
some financial incentives to local communities. Therefore, this new model constitutes a regulatory
triangle consisting of the local community, the market, and the government.

Economic Instruments and Institutions:

The discussion so far indicates that choices for policy responses will involve some mix of
regulatory and mar- ket-based instruments, but this policy analysis must be done with respect to
specific problems that need to be solved. Based on an analysis of the application of incentive
based policies in other countries, Table 19.4 provides an inventory of economic instruments
avail- able and the targets that they are supposed to address.

The first three policy options are suited for municipalities’ to reduce water pollution and
the remaining policy options are better suited for reducing industrial water affluent. To address
the problem of urban waste- water treatment for better handling of organic wastes coupled with
chronic revenue shortages for such investments, introduction of wastewater user fees could be a
strong consideration. Similarly, as a potential corollary to enhanced revenues from higher
service fees (and possible partial privatization), considering increased government subsidies
for wastewater treatment system development—common in many countries—is also deemed to
merit a careful analysis. Groundwater contamination has been observed from leaking septic fields
and the dumping of waste from cesspits into canals. It was considered timely for the
government to explore providing technical assistance and possibly subsidized sanitation
technologies to municipalities to encourage small-scale environmentally acceptable way of
disposing off household sewage in areas unlikely to be served by sewage treatment plants.

For reducing industrial water pollution, the government is providing tax rebates on the
use and implementation of pollution reduction equipment.This is analogous to the subsidization
of water-saving technologies. Note that the reduction of tariffs on the import of pollution control
equipment could create incentives for increased pollution abatement and higher quality domestic
production of environmental technologies. Similarly, various voluntary agreement options,
such as enhanced self-monitoring of effluent discharges by industry, hold promise for
introducing positive new

relationships between the government and individual enterprises, municipalities, industry

associations, com- munity groups, and/or other entities to encourage a less polluting behavior. The
Indian experience shows that most of the action for reducing pollution is the result of public interest
litigation (PIL) cases filed by various organizations in courts. Therefore, public environmental
information disclosure can be an important tool for addressing the environmental problems in India.
Greater disclosure of environmental information—perhaps starting with public dissemination of
data from Environmental Impact Assessments and ambient environ- mental quality data collected
by various agencies—can be used to hold those damaging the environment more accountable to the
public and their financiers.

Effluent discharge tax or fees and tradable effluent discharge permits are
the most popular incentive based policy options for reducing industrial pollution. Fees for
industrial effluent discharge help in raising revenues and encourage the polluters to reduce
pollution. Similarly, maximum discharges could be established for various types of discharges and
tradable permits allocated among dischargers to lower compliance costs for achieving specified
goals.

At present the country is considering the implementation of economic instruments for

reducing air pollution, both domestic and global. The country is looking at avenues of controlling
air pollution to reduce pollution through schemes like renewable energy certificates (RECs) and
perform, achieve, and trade (PAT). Pilot schemes are also being conducted for pollutants like
Sulphur dioxide (SO 2) and nitrogen oxide (NO x). The implementation of these schemes requires
the setting up of meaningful emission caps and allocating permits; establishing an accurate
monitoring mechanism; establishing the appropriate baseline based on the data that is currently
available; identifying the appropriate institutional framework to manage the mechanism; and
creating a legal framework necessary to manage emission of pollutant through market
mechanism. However, unlike air pollution tradable permit schemes, water affluent trading programs
require spatial distribution of non-uniformly mixed pollution. Though theoretically this issue has
been addressed in literature, establishing trading ratios that vary by each potential trading partner
pair is difficult in practice.

Significant institutional adjustments are required that will take time to address and,
therefore, warrant immediate attention. Within MoEF and pollution control boards, there
appears to be an acute shortage of professionals with training in resource and environ- mental
economics required for conducting a further analysis of economic instruments. Further,
information is needed on the availability of staff in the context of a broader needs analysis for
institutional strengthening. The same constraints and needs would seem to apply to other
government agencies with water

management responsibilities. In the meantime, consideration should be given to creating capacity

for economic analysis within the MoEF and pollution control boards, perhaps by adding an
environmental and resource economics section. This section could also be tasked with coordinating
the needs assessment and even be drawn upon to help with in house training, where warranted. A
second set of institutional adjustments is needed to build a stronger working network of
agencies responsible for water management within the country. If acceptable, it would seem
appropriate for MoEF and the pollution control boards to take the lead. With MoEF remaining
as the lead authority in the water pollution sector, much stronger outreach to and engagement of
related ministries and their associate bodies is needed if the recommendations relating to
specific economic instruments identified as promising are to be acted upon in the interest of
improving water resource management in the country.

Policy Implications:

Measuring water pollution, estimating benefits from reduced pollution, and

designing regulatory instruments for environmental improvements require inter disciplinary
approaches. Detailed studies are needed to establish relationships between pollution at sources and
ambient pollution of surface water bodies and ground- water resources. Some useful work on
river quality modelling has been already going on in India but many more studies are needed for
identifying the changes in water quality due to anthropogenic activities. Data of physical accounts
of environmental changes are needed for the valuation of environmental services and the design
of environmental policy instruments.

Environmental valuation is central for natural re- source management. It is required for
designing an environmental policy and environmental accounting for estimating a green GDP.
Environmental value could be measured either as cost of abatement of environmental changes or
the value that the households place on these changes. There are already a few studies about benefits
and costs of water pollution abatement in India but many more detailed studies are needed.
 There is an urgent need of increasing the number of monitoring stations in India to levels
found in developed nations for effective monitoring. Moreover, presently the scope of
monitoring is limited to conventional compounds (such as BOD, total suspended solids, faucal
coli form, and oil and grease), which needs to be expanded to non-conventional pollutants, such
as ammonia, chlorine, and iron also which have hazardous health impacts. Effective regulation
requires that the monitoring responsibilities should be devolved to the states and further down to local
bodies.
An effective industrial water pollution regulation policy requires the use of a
combination of regulatory instruments consisting of economic instruments of pollution taxes and
marketable permits, informal regulation by local communities, and direct public investments for
environmental improvements. India still uses command and control regulatory instruments for water
pollution abatement resulting in some big industries having effluent treatment plants and
many industrial estates housing small-scale industries having common effluent treatment plants.
However, their effectiveness in reducing water pollution is unclear. The top-down regulatory
approach, in which the government plays a central role, has become ineffective in India because of
high monitoring and enforcement costs and the quality of the regulator or the government. Some
recent developments in India show that informal or voluntary regulation by local communities
has resulted in some big industries complying with safe pollution standards.

In India, municipalities have the treatment capacity only for about 30 per cent
of the wastewater generated in urban areas. This evidently indicates a gloomy picture of sewage
treatment, which is the main source of pollution of rivers and lakes. To improve the water quality
of rivers and lakes, there is an urgent need to in- crease the sewage treatment capacity and its
optimum utilization. Moreover, as recognized by CPCB (2008), operations and maintenance of
existing plants and sew- age pumping stations is also very poor. Municipalities lack financial
resources and skilled manpower capacity and as a result the existing treatment capacity remains
underutilized in a number of cities. Municipal authorities should realize the problem of pollution
of water bodies and pay attention to their liability to set up sewage treatment plants in cities
and towns to prevent this pollution. Conditioning intergovernmental fiscal transfers from state
governments to local bodies on the basis of wastewater treated could be an effective instrument
for strengthening the financial position of municipalities (Kumar and Managi 2010). It will not
only strengthen the financial position of local governments but also help in addressing the
problem of domestic water pollution.

India should give emphasis on developing a 100 per cent treatment capacity
up to the secondary level of treatment (CPCB 2008). Treated water can be used for irrigation
purposes and for recharging replenishing groundwater. Industries should be encouraged to re-
use treated municipal wastewater. Revenue obtained from the sale of treated wastewater for
irrigation and industrial purposes could be used to supplement sew- age treatment costs.
 Note also that though India has defined wastewater discharge standards for the
domestic and industrial sectors, there are no discharge standards for the pollution emanating
from agriculture. Agriculture is the source of non-point water pollution and agricultural water
pollution is linked, among other things, to the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Therefore,
corrections in fertilizer and pesticide and electricity pricing policies could be an instrument for
addressing the non-point water pollution in India.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Committee on Watershed Management began this study with the hypothesis that a watershed
perspective is the best framework for integrating social, ecological, and economic aspects of water
and water-related management issues. In this analysis, we found some cases where our hypothesis
was true, and some where it was not. We also identified ways the watershed approach could be
improved in its application. We confirmed that uncertainty associated with a watershed perspective
was least at small scales and in relatively simple systems and greatest at large scales and in
complex systems. Overall, the committee finds that the philosophy of watershed management is
sound but there still is significant uncertainty associated with how to implement it, particularly in
large watersheds. There is a real need to motivate changes in institutional behaviour to make
watershed approaches more effective, and for continued research targeted to fulfil the promise of
watershed management.

This chapter summarizes the committee's analysis of how to improve the nation's
implementation of watershed management, including some important general principles that place
watershed management in a broad context, comments on reauthorization of the Clean Water Act,
and recommendations for various agencies and others involved in watershed-related activities.

Successful Watershed Management:

It is not possible, or necessarily desirable, to restore the nation's waters and watersheds to
completely natural conditions to provide healthful water resources. But there is a need to stabilize,
enhance, and restore to some degree our aquatic and riparian ecosystems—that is, to achieve more
''normative" ecological conditions. Normative conditions occur where more natural discharge
regimes predominate and where aquatic and riparian habitats are present in sufficient quantity,
quality, and diversity to sustain food webs dominated by native species (Graf, 1996; Stanford,
1997; Stanford et al., 1996). Normative does not imply pristine conditions. Rather, the goal is to
normalize key ecosystem attributes and processes to the extent that goals relating to water quality
and quantity, fish production, biodiversity, and other watershed goods and services are met and
sustained.

Successful watershed management strives for a better balance between ecosystem and
watershed integrity and provision of human social and economic goals. Stanford (1997) discussed
several general objectives that can be managed within a watershed context which can help the
nation achieve more normative watershed conditions:
 Reduce pollution sources by developing watershed water quality standards, such as using the
concept of total maximum daily loads to control nonpoint source pollutants. Federal, state, and
local laws provide water quality standards that safeguard drinking water, but they do not
necessarily protect ecosystems or watershed integrity. One example is the drinking water standards
for nitrate and nitrogen, which were designed to prevent methanol-global anaemia in infants (blue
baby syndrome), but which in many cases allow dissolved nitrogen levels high enough to cause
excessive algae growths in streams and lakes.

Protect and enhance riparian zones with ecologically sound management practices such as
buffer zones. The vegetation that grows along the edges of waterways, especially wetland
vegetation and floodplain vegetation, provides critically important borders that buffer lakes and
streams against upland pollution and streambank erosion. These riparian zones provide ecological
functions, support native plants and animals, and can increase property values. Yet there are
tremendous differences among the riparian protection requirements for different types of land use
(NRC, 1996). Forested headwaters often receive far greater protection than urban or agricultural
floodplain areas. Controls and incentives for riparian conservation practices are needed to prevent
overgrazing, excessive logging, road building, invasions of exotic plants, and encroachment of
urban and industrial development in important buffer areas.

Recognize in law and regulations that ground and surface waters interact. Connections between
ground and surface waters are poorly appreciated, especially in legal frameworks. Yet many
aquifers are constantly exchanging water with streams and rivers. In floodplains and riparian zones,
ground water that upwells from alluvial aquifers can produce a diverse array of habitat types.

Recognize in land management activities that rivers need room to roam, and their floodplains are
inherently subject to flooding. Floodplains act as storage sites for floodwaters, and the ability of
floodplains to store and moderate high flows is strongly influenced by the width of the floodplain,
the development of an overflow channel system, and the condition of riparian vegetation. Lateral
change in the channel—meandering—is an essential feature of streams in alluvial valleys, yet we
have systematically attempted to straighten and confine rivers in an attempt to increase water
conveyance, confine flows, and protect property. Recent large floods, however, serve to remind us
that dams and levees have limits and cannot contain increasingly large floods that occur at least in
part as a result of watershed and floodplain alterations.

Recognize that dams change rivers and their ecosystems, but some of the negative consequences of
dams can be mitigated through operational strategies that create more normative discharge and
temperature regimes. Dams can alter seasonal availability and temperature of water extensively,
reducing stream productivity and diversity. Large, erratic base flows create a dead zone along the
river margin where plants and animals are either washed away or desiccated and reduce near-shore
shallow water habitat that is crucial for juvenile fishes and emerging insects. Simply establishing
minimum flows as mitigation for lost habitat or extirpated species is insufficient to maintain the
physical and biological integrity of rivers. Periodic flushing flows are needed to scour river
bottoms, build gravel bars, replenish woody debris, and also minimize proliferation of nonnative
biota. It is also important to reduce the erratic nature of base flows associated with daily
hydropower operations and irrigation withdrawals. Restoration of more natural discharge regimes
in regulated rivers and lakes is one of the most pressing needs in maintaining normative watershed
conditions.

Conserve and promote native species by creating native biota reserves, restoring and reconnecting
critical habitats, and minimizing conditions that favor invasions of nonnative species. Native biota
can serve as sentinels of ecological change and reductions in the abundance of native species can
indicate degradation. Watershed planning can incorporate steps to protect and even restore habitat,
including designating reserves for remaining intact assemblages of native plants and animals
(Moyle and Yoshiyama, 1994; Sedell et al., 1994) and is especially suited for mobile organisms
that require a network of interconnected habitats.

Promote best management practices for upland and riparian land uses as a means of
controlling pollution, but recognize that the best practices for one watershed in one region of the
country may differ from other watersheds in other regions. Many agencies and organizations,
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have implemented a variety of forestry, grazing, and
agricultural initiatives to limit water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Rigorous scientific
evaluation of best management practices is required, however, before they are widely accepted in
place of legal standards.

Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act:

Implementation of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) has had profound impacts on state and
federal regulatory programs related to water quality and on funding for construction of treatment
plants, planning, research, and training. After more than 25 years of activities under the Act, the
nation's most polluted waters have experienced substantial improvements in quality. But legislation
that was appropriate more than two decades ago does not necessarily address today's needs. In spite
of attempts within the CWA framework to address nonpoint pollution concerns, much less progress
has been made in controlling nonpoint pollution than in controlling point sources and it is widely
agreed that nonpoint sources now account for the great majority of degraded surface waters
(Patrick, 1992; Brezonik and Cooper, 1994; Postel et al., 1996). And although the CWA has done
much to stem the trend of declining conditions in the nation's surface waters, much remains to be
done to restore their quality and integrity.

When the CWA was first passed, the driving issues were related primarily to human health and
human use of surface waters, thus explaining the goal to make all waters "fishable and
swimmable," and the pollutants of concern were those typically found in municipal and industrial
wastewater (organic matter, suspended solids, microbial pathogens, nutrients). In contrast, the
driving forces today are broader—ecosystem health, integrated management of water quality—and
the pollutants of concern have expanded to include synthetic organic compounds and selected
heavy metals which may be toxic to aquatic organisms as well as people. The primary sources of
the contaminants have changed, with more impacts now from urban and agricultural runoff and
atmospheric transport (Brezonik and Cooper, 1994). Congress and the President are faced with the
difficult task of reauthorizing the Clean Water Act so it better meets today's needs. The
reauthorization process provides an important opportunity to address the nation's need for
improved water management.

There appears to be a developing consensus that many problems caused by the past fragmented
approach to water resource management might be better addressed from a watershed perspective.
For instance, a revised CWA might help solve some problems caused by the fragmented approach
of water managers dealing independently, and under separate legal authorities, with surface water,
ground water, wastewater, and drinking water, with too little recognition of the interrelationships.
For instance, under the precepts of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states must identify
pollution-impaired streams and develop plans to reduce pollutant loads. This approach relies on
setting total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for individual water bodies that account for both point
and nonpoint sources of pollutants. When a waterbody exceeds its TMDL, however, water
managers have traditionally targeted point sources for pollutant reduction because of the ease with
which these sources can be monitored and manipulated. Nonpoint sources, on the other hand, are
dispersed and diffuse and so are more challenging to manage.

Fragmented consideration of ecological, economic, and social concerns in water resource

management has not served the nation well in either science or management. Research sometimes
is focused on single issues or disciplines when a broader context might led to very different
conclusions. This causes managers who rely on the science to address problems piecemeal. Too
often, decision makers see themselves forced to make "either/or" trade-offs between economic
vitality and environmental quality rather than striking a balance. Lack of integrated thinking
produces single-problem solutions where a balance of objectives might have been pursued.

The shortcomings of the existing Clean Water Act, and the advantages offered by a watershed
approach to achieve some water related goals, should be addressed during the reauthorization of the
Act. This committee, and many other people in the scientific and management communities,
believes that the Clean Water Act should explicitly recognize that:

 Components of the landscape are connected, and that surface water, ground water, and
drinking water are directly related resources that must be managed together rather than
separately. Water is most effectively managed using an integrated approach, including
consolidation of authority in watersheds where possible.
 Clean water is a function not only of natural processes, but also of responsible social
behavior by citizens and integrated and coordinated management by government agencies.
Management of waters and closely related resources requires understanding that the human
 dimension, including economic and social processes, are components of the overall system
that should be accounted for in research, planning, and management.

There is considerable support for making a watershed approach a critical aspect of the Clean Water
Act, as evidenced, for instance, by many policies and guidance documents already in place under
the Environmental Protection Agency, such as the Administration's recent Clean Water Action Plan
(1998). A reauthorized Clean Water Act should provide for partnerships between federal agencies
with water and watershed management responsibilities and the National Science Foundation in
developing priorities and funding scientific research related to watersheds, especially research
emphasizing the integration of ecological, economic, and social concerns. One goal of the Clean
Water Act should be to encourage ecological restoration: the Act should be a visionary statement
that gives national emphasis to the conservation and enhancement of watersheds because of the
many important functions and values they provide, and it should give authority to the relevant
agencies for implementing that goal.

Conclusions:

In addition to the previous suggestions to guide reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, the
Committee on Watershed Management offers the following conclusions concerning other
mechanisms to steer the nation toward improved strategies for watershed management. These
conclusions address basic guiding philosophy (1 and 2), management processes (3 to 8), research
(9 to 12), and support functions (13 to 15).

1. Watersheds as geographic areas are optimal organizing units for dealing with the
management of water and closely related resources, but the natural boundaries of
watersheds rarely coincide with political jurisdictions and thus they are less useful for
political, institutional, and funding purposes. Initiatives and organizations directed at
watershed management should be flexible to reflect the reality of these situations.

2. Specific watershed problems must be approached in distinctive ways, and determining the
appropriate scale for the resolution of any problem is an essential first step. Both the
structure of watershed management organizations and the nature of the activities undertaken
should be matched to the scale of the watershed. The range of stakeholders varies with scale
and must be clearly defined so that the costs and benefits associated with any plan are fully
taken into account. Watershed approaches are easiest to implement at the local level; they
can be most difficult to implement at large scales where the political, institutional, and
funding decision making grows especially complex.

3. Risk and uncertainty are parts of the natural as well as institutional settings for watershed
management, and they can limit the effectiveness of applying the watershed approach. One
 important need for advancing watershed management is to develop practical procedures for
considering risk and uncertainty in real world decision making. Scientists and managers
should strive to educate the public by specifically outlining potential uncertainty so that
expectations of research and decision making are reasonable.

4. Watershed management plans should be viewed as the starting point and not the end
product of a management cycle. The cycle should include formulation of a problem
statement, identification of an agreed-upon set of goals, identification of the scope of
activities appropriate to the issue in question, negotiated action steps, implementation,
feedback, evaluation, and appropriate adjustments made as a result of lessons learned

Scientific and technical peer review of watershed improvement activities conducted by qualified
independent professionals can provide objective evaluations of their impact. Scientific or technical
review groups can help design and evaluate monitoring programs and help prioritize locations for
intensive study. Such groups also can inform policymakers about the relative uncertainty associated
with implementing management alternatives

5. For too long, agencies have viewed their polices and projects in isolation. In their normal
course of work, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency should examine the
watershed-wide implications of their policies, programs, rules, and permitting processes to
take into account the regional and downstream ecological, social, and economic
consequences of their actions, rather than using a limited project-by-project approach.

6. The Committee was impressed with the information-gathering aspects of the Western Water
Policy Review Advisory Commission. This kind of regionally based analysis of watershed
resources provides a comprehensive evaluation of the current management of American
watersheds and guidance for the future, and should be duplicated for other regions as a
means of gathering information and evaluating the potential of the watershed approach
7. Watershed management seeks to develop careful, long-term solutions to problems and
provide sustainable access to resources and thus it benefits the nation. The President and
Congress should consider establishing some stable mechanism to fund the federal
contribution to watershed management partnerships, such as a revenue sharing strategy or
trust fund. This funding should be available to state, regional, and local organizations for
research, planning, implementation, and ongoing peer evaluation of watershed initiatives.

8. Because water is a strategic national resource and sustainable use of water resources is a
national priority, watershed management decisions must be based on the best possible
 science. More research is needed to provide the data, knowledge, and technology necessary
to support effective watershed management, especially work focused on integrating social,
economic, and ecological elements. There is a special need for research and monitoring that
is long-term and integrated across scales and timeframes, as well as for specific problem-
solving research and theory and model development One specific step to greatly improve
scientific understanding of watersheds is for Congress to increase funding for the National
Science Foundation in areas that can improve understanding of the human dimensions of
watersheds. Moreover, new problems and challenges such as human alteration of
watersheds, volatile world economies, and global climate change will require new and
innovative centers of research excellence in watershed science and management, and more
effective technology transfer and leadership, at scales ranging from local to regional.
9. Although our understanding of fundamental physical, biological, economic, and social
processes needs improvement, an even greater need is improved understanding of how all
these components operate together within watersheds. Watershed researchers should
emphasize the integration of environmental, economic, and social perspectives, with more
attention to the linkages and what they imply for management and overcoming barriers to
implementation. Science and policy must function together for watershed management to
be successful, so there also must be more attention to the role of politics in decisionmaking.

10. Process-oriented research is research that extends beyond description and measurement; it
addresses structure, function, and the how and why of the processes operating within a
watershed. Process-oriented research is particularly valuable because it leads to enhanced
predictive capabilities, better understanding of cause-effect relationships, and a firmer
foundation for planning and management. The National Science Foundation, Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other
federal agencies involved in process-oriented watershed research should reorient their
efforts to close critical information gaps that hamper effective implementation of watershed
management. Important gaps include:

 linkages among watershed components (rivers, wetlands, ground water, atmosphere,

floodplains, upland areas);
 integration across disciplines (especially biophysical and social sciences);
 feedback among processes operating at different spatial and temporal scales;
 inexpensive, useful indicators of watershed conditions and quantitative methods to evaluate
land use and watershed management practices;

 advanced watershed simulation models (especially models that link natural and social
attributes) that are useful to and can be operated by managers who are not scientific experts;
and understanding of risk and uncertainty in the decision making process.
12. A solid scientific foundation of basic and applied research is needed to provide the data,
information, and tools necessary for effective implementation of watershed management
activities. Federal resource management agencies should form partnerships with the National
Science Foundation in jointly funded research, with agencies identifying critical areas needing
investigation and NSF ensuring high quality, peer reviewed work in both short-term and long-
term projects. Agencies might include the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
Tennessee Valley Authority. Universities and nongovernmental organizations can be key
partners in this process.

13. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), as the organization charged with
primary responsibility for establishing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI),
should assume a leadership role in establishing a capability for collecting spatial data on
watersheds by creating national data standards, designating a central clearinghouse, and
maintaining a single national watershed database. Other federal agencies should be
encouraged to coordinate efforts and electronically link related databases. In particular:
o The USGS should, in accordance with the NSDI initiative, continue to develop the
Watershed Data Clearinghouse to provide a detailed catalog service of watershed
data with support for links to databases on the Internet. The clearinghouse site can
provide data searches by watershed and enable users to directly download the digital
data sets. When necessary, the USGS should also act as a digital data repository of
last resort for watershed information that will no longer be stored and/or served by
the original data owner.
o The FGDC should actively promote and coordinate a spatial data standard that
defines the digital representation of watershed features, accuracy requirements, and
the graphical representation of these features supported in a variety of system
formats. Features to be defined include wildlife habitats, environmentally sensitive
areas, and special use areas. The standard also should provide a convention for
related data tables and define the minimum data to be kept about the feature.

14. States should establish and maintain state-wide databases in a GIS format, available to
local watershed managers through the Internet. These databases should contain
ecological, social, and economic data with spatial attributes organized and presented
according to watersheds of convenient size within each state. Data collection efforts
provide baseline information for increased scientific understanding of watershed
processes, for analyses and interpretation of problems and causes, for assessing the status
of watershed resources and detecting and predicting trends, and for decision making in
watershed management. Stream gagging and monitoring network design should
emphasize adequate temporal resolution, sampling of storm events, measurement of
appropriate ancillary hydrological and biogeochemical data (e.g., meteorological data
with hydrological data or biological surveys with water quality parameters), and should
use the highest possible quality of sampling and analysis. It is increasingly expensive to
maintain data collection and monitoring efforts. As the USGS, NOAA, and other federal
 and nonfederal organizations engaged in collecting watershed data evaluate their
monitoring sites, they should prioritize the remaining sites to ensure continuation of sites
that are most effective in helping managers understand water quality trends. Particular
emphasis should go to maintaining sites with exceptionally long-term records. In some
instances, monitoring sites should be retained to provide adequate geographic
representation and geographic areas with dense coverage might lose some sites without
loss of data. Sampling schemes should be designed to answer specific questions about the
status and trends of watershed resources rather than simply collect broad-based data.
Bottom of Form Effective watershed management requires integration of theory, data,
simulation models, and expert judgment to solve practical problems and provide a
scientific basis for decision making at the watershed scale.
15. The engineering and scientific communities should develop better, more user-friendly
decision support systems to help decision makers understand and evaluate alternative
approaches. These improved approaches should help decision makers understand and
convey the concepts of risk and uncertainty. A decision support system (DSS) is a suite of
computer programs with components consisting of databases, simulation models,
decision models, and user interfaces that assist a decision maker in evaluating the
economic and environmental impacts of competing watershed management alternatives.
The technical challenges in developing DSS technology for watershed management
include linking models for all of the components of an extremely complex system to
estimate the effect of management alternatives on all of the criteria of interest.

Closing Thoughts:

This report began with the hypothesis that watersheds are the most appropriate way to
integrate ecological, economic, and social approaches to resource management. The
hypothesis was confirmed in many cases, but with several important limitations.

 variability of the human and natural ecosystem prevents a single standardized approach,
 external connections expand watershed boundaries into problem-sheds,
 there is a local to national continuum of scales, each with a different behavior pattern,
 there are numerous social, economic, and political barriers to effective watershed
management,

 science has provided inadequate support for and ineffective connection to policy, the
effectiveness of management is rarely measured or evaluated,
 societal values continually change, changing the objectives of management, and
 financial considerations are a major limiting factor.

Differing levels of government have varying financial, technical, and political capabilities with
respect to watershed management. The scale of the organizational capabilities and responsibilities
must match the scale of the problem. Although some caution is necessary to avoid taking these
observations too strictly, the committee offers the following thoughts about the relative roles of
federal, state, local, and regional levels of decision making in a watershed approach context:

 Local organizations are best positioned to take primary responsibility for staffing, planning,
and implementing projects, and, in particular, for facilitating citizen involvement.

 State governments are best positioned to facilitate coordination, research, and technical
assistance; to ensure application of standards and water use regulations; to conduct
evaluation of projects; and in some cases to provide financial support to local governments,
either with their own funds or funds dispensed to states by the federal government.

 The federal government and its agencies are best positioned to take primary responsibility
for watershed management affecting the interstate scale, as well as for supporting research,
providing technical assistance, and providing financial support to state and local entities.
The federal role should include designing incentives to encourage state and local initiatives,
conducting evaluations where appropriate, and representing national interests in watershed
discussions.


Two recurrent themes appeared throughout the committee's deliberations. First, one
overarching lesson from the nation's long history of interest in watershed management is that "one
size does not fit all." Watersheds in the United States reflect tremendous diversity of climatic
conditions, geology, soils, and other factors that influence water flow, flora, and fauna. There is
equally great variation in historical experiences, cultural expression, institutional arrangements,
laws, policies, and attitudes. No single model could fit with all the existing governmental
arrangements found at the state and local levels, and it would be a mistake to impose a standard
model from the federal level.

Second, fragmentation of responsibility and lack of clarity about how to resolve disputes caused by
conflicting missions among federal agencies inhibits the success of the watershed approach. For
example, during the course of this study the committee identified 22 federal agencies that deal with
the hydrologic cycle, although often with dramatically different perspectives. To the public, these
con-

fusing and sometimes conflicting approaches to water management are baffling. There is no one
consistent voice for the water resource.

As an intellectual and organizational tool, watershed-scale management can be useful in many

circumstances, especially for managing biological and geophysical resources and especially for
local and some regional applications. The value of watershed management as a means for truly
integrated efforts to achieve a balance of ecological, economic, and social goals remains a
hypothesis that has not yet been completely proven. But flexible application of watershed
principles can improve the joint efforts of researchers, managers, decision makers, and citizens in
their search for a sustainable economy and a quality environment.