See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331047727

River Ganga pollution: Causes and failed management plans (Correspondence

on Dwivedi et al. 2018. Ganga water pollution: A potential health threat to
inhabitants of Ganga basin. En...

Article  in  Environment International · February 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.033

CITATIONS READS

16 10,207

2 authors:

Meenakshi Chaudhary Tony Robert Walker

Dalhousie University Dalhousie University
6 PUBLICATIONS   336 CITATIONS    325 PUBLICATIONS   7,545 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marine Plastic Pollution View project

Sydney Tar Ponds Remediation Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tony Robert Walker on 13 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environment International xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environment International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

F
OO
Correspondence

River Ganga pollution: Causes and failed management plans (correspondence on

Dwivedi et al. 2018. Ganga water pollution: A potential health threat to inhabitants of
Ganga basin. Environment International 117, 327–338)

PR
Meenakshi Chaudhary, Tony R. Walker⁎⁠
School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada

ARTICLE INFO

D
Handling Editor: Robert Letcher
TE
1. Introduction clear Himalayan river Ganga now has become a cesspool (Nagpure et
al., 2015). Pollution in the river Ganga consists of both inorganic and
This correspondence continues to build on the recent article pub- organic contaminants derived from municipal sewage, industrial efflu-
lished in Environment International by Dwivedi et al. (2018), who identi- ents, agricultural runoff and religious practices. For decades the Gov-
fied threats to human health in the Ganga basin, by reviewing historical ernment of India (GOI) has attempted different strategies to clean-up
plans developed for cleaning the river Ganga. Specifically, this corre- the Ganga such as the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) and established the Na-
EC

spondence focuses on the leather tanning industries in Kanpur and pro- tional Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA), but with limited success
vides recommendations for reducing continued Ganga river pollution af- (Chaudhary and Walker, 2018).
ter reviewing the plethora of historical clean-up plans.
Ganga is the sacred, historic and most important river in North India. 2. Sources of pollution
It is the lifeline and identity of 44% of India's population (Chaudhary et
al., 2017). It originates from Gangotri glacier in Uttarakhand and passes Among all the sources of pollution, municipal sewage and indus-
RR

through five states Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, Jharkhand,
and West Bengal. The Ganga is admired in Hindu culture as having the
ability to spiritually cleanse and purify the soul, thus banks of the river
are used for funerals (Naskar, 2014). The river is reputed to have an-
timicrobial and medicinal properties (Nautiyal, 2009). It covers over
12,500 km2⁠ of northern India before discharging into the Bay of Ben-
CO
trial effluents are the major contributors in the plight of the Ganga
(Dwivedi et al., 2018). Almost 75% of pollution in the river is due to
untreated discharge of sewage wastewater from rapidly-growing urban
settlements along the river (Das, 2011). Ganga flows through 29 large
cities (populations > 1 million) which dump their domestic and sewage
effluent wastewater into the river. Approximately 8250 million l per day

gal. The drainage basin of Ganga is approximately 8,61,404 km2⁠ , which
is ranked 15th largest in Asia and 29th in the world covers 26% of In-
dia with major historic cities located along the banks, such as Haridwar,
Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi and Kolkata (Joshi et al., 2009).
Despite providing sustenance for half a billion people, the river
Ganga remains one of the most polluted rivers in the world. Due to
rapid industrialization and anthropogenic activities the once crystal-
UN
(MLD) of wastewater is generated from towns in the Ganga basin, yet
treatment facilities can only treat 3500 MLD and roughly 2550 MLD of
this waste is discharged directly into the Ganga (CPCB, 2014). Discharge
of untreated sewage has resulted in poor water quality (i.e., pH, elec-
trical conductivity, biological oxygen demand [BOD], chemical oxygen
demand [COD], dissolved oxygen) in the river. The Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) reported microbial counts were higher than per-

missible limits in drinking (50 MPN/100 mL) and bathing water (500
MPN/100 mL) (CPCB, 2009).

⁎ Corresponding author.
Email address: trwalker@dal.ca (T.R. Walker)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.033
Available online xxx
0160-4120/ © 2019.
M. Chaudhary, T.R. Walker Environment International xxx (2019) xxx-xxx

Despite spending several million rupees under different clean-up
plans there has been little improvement in the condition of the river.
A survey conducted by CPCB in 2016, found that most sewage treat-
ment plants (STPs) in Kanpur fail to comply with environmental regu-
lations (CPCB, 2016a). Furthermore, discharge of untreated sewage to
Ganga has increased by an order of magnitude since 1985 (Dwivedi et
dustries in India by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change (MoEFCC, 2017). One of the worst examples of tannery pollu-
tion is from the Unnao and Jajmau industrial area of Kanpur city in
the state of UP (Katiyar, 2011). There are around 264 tanneries in the
Jajmau region alone (Singh, 2001b). Wastewater discharge from these
tanneries is between 5.8 and 8.8 MLD. Industrial effluent from leather

F
al., 2018). Other sources of pollution in the Ganga include countless in- tanneries discharges high concentrations of metals, especially chromium
dustries located along the banks of Ganga. Around 764 grossly pollut- (Cr) which is used by 90% of the industries as a tanning agent. Exposure
ing industries discharge BOD loads of 100 kg/d and/or handle hazards to Cr is associated with many chronic diseases like dermatitis, ulcers,

waste in UP, including distilleries, sugar mills, synthetic rubber factory,
pesticides factories, textiles, electro-processing industries and tanneries
(CPCB, 2016b). Furthermore, religious activities such as mass bathing,
idol immersion and disposal of flowers and garlands from temples along
the Ganga also degrade water quality (Sarkar, 2013; Rani et al., 2014;
Dwivedi et al., 2018). In addition to these point sources, polluted trib-
utaries of the Ganga (i.e., Yamuna, Kali, Ramganga, Damodar, Gomti,
Ghaghra and Son) also exacerbate existing pollution loads in the river
OO
growth retardation, kidney damage and liver cancer. In studies con-
ducted around tanning industries of Jajmau and Unnao, concentrations
of Cr, cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg) and Zinc (Zn) in sediments (Table
2) were much higher than sediment quality guidelines used by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) (2018). Highly
toxic metals like Cr and Hg are two and six folds higher, respectively
than recommended limits (Beg and Ali, 2008). Different studies also re-
ported that surface water from Kanpur is unsuitable for drinking (Table

(Mishra, 2010; Mishra et al., 2015). These tributaries transport contam-
inants such as metals from different point and non-point sources (Paul,
2017). Among these rivers, Yamuna is the most contaminated tributary
of Ganga. There are nearly 359 industries, which directly or indirectly
discharge their effluent in Yamuna which further exacerbates pollution
loads in the Ganga (Singh, 2001a; Mishra, 2010). Metal concentrations
in water and sediments of these tributaries were measured above pre-
PR
3). Concentrations of Cr (390.80–541.20 μg/L) were much higher than
permissible limits for drinking water guidelines of the World health or-
ganization (WHO) (100 μg/L) and United States Environment Protection
Agency (USEPA) (10 μg/L) (WHO, 2014; USEPA, 2018).
Presence of high concentrations of metals in water poses risks to hu-
man and aquatic life (Chaudhary et al., 2017; Hoffman et al., 2017;
Roach and Walker, 2017; Feijoo and Walker, 2018). Aquatic ecology

D
scribed water and sediment quality guidelines by different international of Ganga has been adversely impacted because of high levels of BOD
agencies (Table 1). and COD. Priyadarshani (2009) reported that many fish species are fac-
ing extinction due to high levels of organochlorides and metals in their
3. Tanning industries in Kanpur tissues. Pesticides and herbicides through agricultural runoff accumu-
TE
late in fish tissue and effect the metabolic and reproductive functions of
The leather tanning industries in Kanpur are among the main con- fishes. Significant accumulation of DDT (60–3700 μg/kg) was reported
tributors to pollution in the river and are listed as “Red category” in

Table 1
Minimum and maximum metal concentrations in water (μg/L) and sediment (μg/g) from tributaries of river Ganga, India.
EC

Water Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn Reference

Kali 60–80 60–90 NA 130–190 24,710–29,710 Mishra et al. (2015)

Ramganga 0.3–12.9 NA NA 2.4–9.6 NA Khan et al. (2017)
Yamuna NA NA 12,090–23,310 12,010–19,360 69,860–89,320 Kumar et al. (2017)
Gomti 0.1–0.5 1.5–68.8 1.3–43.3 15.8–27.6 14.4–29.8 Singh et al. (2005)
RR

Ghaghra 1–57 ND-10 10–47 1–29 2–42 Singh et al. (2016)

Son ND-3 1.7–3.8 NA 1–17 ND Ahirwar et al. (2015)
Damodar ND-1.3 NA 0.65–12.49 0.5–6.51 2.31–26.32 Bhattacharyay et al. (2005)
Guidelines
WHO permissible drinking water guidelines 3 50 2000 10 3000 WHO (2014)
USEPA 5 10 1300 NA NA USEPA (2018)
Sediment
Yamuna 0.5–11.8 163–817 40–829 22–253 110–1472 Singh (2001a)
CO

Gomti 0.70–7.90 6.10–20.59 3.74–35.68 21.25–92.15 15.72–99.35 Singh et al. (2005)

Damodar NA 15.0–86.8 11.4–124.6 NA 30.5–134.7 Singh et al. (1999)
15.8–27.6
Guidelines
ISQG 0.6 37.3 35.7 35 12.3 CCME (2018)
PEL 3.5 90 197 91.3 31.5

Note: Bold values represent metal concentrations above WHO and USEPA drinking water guidelines and probable effect limits (PELs) sediment quality guidelines; Italics represent values
UN

above interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQGs); NA = no data available; ND = not detected.

Table 2
Minimum and maximum sediment metal concentrations (μg/g) in river Ganga from study sites in Kanpur, India.

Study site As Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Reference

Kanpur (Jajmau) 0.25 2.50–6.00 5.0–250.0 7.0–17.0 85–254 2.5 23–70 Beg and Ali (2008)
Kanpur (Jajmau) 0.30–0.66 4–12 110–178 38–68 1.0–3.1 5.0–12 65–96 Bhatnagar et al. (2013)
Kanpur NA 2.3–4.1 2.4–3.9 3.20–4.52 NA 0.5–2.3 NA Madhulekha (2016) as cited by Paul (2017)
Kanpur (Unnao) NA 0.1–9.8 79–34,019 44–408 NA 37–646 50–4000 Ansari et al. (1999)
Guidelines
ISQG 5.9 0.6 37.3 35.7 0.17 35 12.3 CCME (2018)
PEL 17.0 3.5 90 197 0.486 91.3 31.5

Note: Bold values represent metal concentrations above probable effect limits (PELs); Italics represent values above interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQGs); NA = no data available.

2
M. Chaudhary, T.R. Walker
Table 3
Minimum, maximum and mean metal concentrations in water (μg/L) from study sites in Kanpur, India.
Study site Cd Cr
Kanpur NA ND-390.8
Kanpur (Jajmau and Unnao) NA 9.3–541.2
Kanpur 35
–
Guidelines
WHO permissible drinking water guidelines 3 50
USEPA 5 10
Note: ND = not detected; NA = no data available.
in the body of fishes from the river by Senthilkumar et al. (1999). Con-
sumption of these contaminated fishes and shellfishes also pose risk to
human health in the downstream region of Ganga where fishing is im-
portant part of economy Dwivedi et al. (2018). These contaminants not
only pollute the river but also seep into soil and groundwater, thus af-
fecting agricultural crops in the area. Ganga water quality evaluated by
the National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP) and Indian Council of
Medical Research (ICMR) revealed that traces of metals, especially Hg,
in Ganga water were higher than maximum permissible limits provided
by WHO (1990) (Dwivedi et al., 2018).
4. Management and mitigation plans for river Ganga
D
4.1. Ganga action plan (GAP)
For over 40 years, the GOI has developed different management
TE
plans and projects but has had little success to date. To mitigate in-
creasing pollution, the first pollution abatement plan (i.e., the GAP) was
launched by GOI in 1985 after the comprehensive survey by CPCB. The
ambitioush objective of GAP in 1985, was to improve water quality
to an acceptable level by preventing pollution from reaching the river
(e.g., pollution source control). But in 1987, objectives were modified
EC
to restoring river water quality to the less stringent class B “Bathing
Class” standards (NRCD, 2009). Studies conducted by CPCB indicated
that most pollution in the river is derived from municipal waste and in-
dustrial effluent. Thus, priority was shifted to interception and diversion
of wastewater and its treatment in STP (IIT-Consortium, 2011). A large
portion of the initial budget (nearly 89%) was spent on treatment of ur-
RR
ban sewage. These schemes were implemented in 25 Class-I towns (with
populations > 100,000) in three states under GAP I. As GAP I addressed
only a part of the Ganga pollution problem, GAP II was launched in
stages between 1993 and 1996 in 56 towns covering five states. Despite
efforts of GAP, water quality continued to deteriorate. According to an
audit review of GAP by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), it has
CO
met only 39% of its primary target of sewage treatment based on perfor-
mance reported by participating States. There are several inadequacies
in different levels of GAP I which limits success of this project.
GAP only focused on sewage and effluent discharge from major
cities and towns along the river and failed to use an integrated river
basin management system approach (Ostrom, 2009). Class A drink-
ing water standards should be established rather than class B bathing
UN
standards, as people use river water directly for drinking. This pro-
gram also lacked in public participation. GAP adopted the Upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket technology, introduced by Dutch Develop-
ment aid but authorities did not carry out any comparative assessment
of sewage treatment technologies on the criteria of suitability or effi-
ciency (IIT-Consortium, 2011). Also, activated sludge processes adapted
by GAP were not capable of removing bacterial contamination (Menon,
1988). This plan failed in controlling industrial pollution as only 45% of
industries installed effluent treatment plants (ETPs) during the GAP, of
which 18% failed to meet prescribed standards. Furthermore, there was
3
Environment International xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
Cu Pb Zn Reference
0.6–52.1 4.3–57.5 0.1–49.49 Garg et al. (1992)
6.6–52.9 NA 36.3–2105.1 Gowd and Reddy (2010)
116 45 339 Singh et al. (2015)
F
2000 10 3000 WHO (2014)
1300 NA NA USEPA (2018)
OO
a lack of a regulatory enforcement and oversight to monitor construc-
tion, operation, and discharge from ETPs.
4.2. National Ganga River Basin Authority
PR
In 2009, GOI building on lessons from the past failure in GAP took a
more comprehensive, basin-wide and multi-sectoral approach and con-
stituted the NGRBA under Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection
Act, 1986). The NGRBA is a planning, financing, monitoring and coor-
dinating body of the center and state government. In 2010, the Ministry
of Environment and Forests gave the responsibility of preparing a Ganga
River Basin Management Plan (GRBMP) to a consortium of seven Indian
Institute of Technology (IITs) to make monitoring plan for a long-term
commitment (IIT-Consortium, 2015). The main aim of NGRBA was to
ensure effective pollution abatement and conservation of river by adopt-
ing a well-planned approach of river basin management plan. NGRBA
has been dissolved in 2016 and is now called the National Council for
Rejuvenation, Protection, and Management of River Ganga.
4.3. Namami Gange Mission (NGM)
In 2014, GOI announced one of its most ambitious plans called Na-
mami Ganges Mission (NGM), also known as the “Namami Gange”, for
cleaning up Ganga with a budget of more than $3 billion USD. The ob-
jective is to improve the quality of river Ganga with continuous and un-
polluted flow while maintaining its ecological and geological integrity
by 2020. To achieve long-term goals, programmes in NGM are based
on recommendations of GRBMP. Furthermore, implementation of NGM
is divided into Entry-Level Activities (for immediate visible impact),
Medium-Term Activities (to be implemented within five years of time-
frame) and Long-Term Activities (to be implemented within 10 years)
(Ministry of Water Resources, 2016).
The main activities proposed under NGM are: 1) construction of
sewage treatment plants with increased capacity; 2) riverfront devel-
opment programs for construction, modernization, and renovation of
crematories; 3) biodiversity conservation and afforestation along river
banks; 4) public awareness program; and 5) industrial effluent monitor-
ing through installation of real-time water quality monitoring stations.
In addition, public-private program model for the development of com-
mon effluent treatment plants (CETPs) and zero liquid discharge policy
from grossly polluting industries has also been adopted to control indus-
trial pollution (Ministry of Water Resources, 2016).
4.4. International agencies involved in the cleaning of Ganga
During the last 10 years, many international agencies have supported
India financially and technically to address the problem of water pol-
lution in Ganga. GOI has signed a loan agreement with World Bank in
2011 to provide a financial and technical support of $1 billion USD.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is also supporting one
project on Ganga (Ministry of Water Resources, 2016). GOI is also
adopting international river cleaning experience for pollution abate
M. Chaudhary, T.R. Walker
ment. In 2016, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and
Ganga Rejuvenation signed a three-year agreement with German Inter-
national Cooperation (GIC) to use their river basin management strate-
gies used for cleaning the Rhine and Danube rivers (The Hindu, 2016).
The National Mission for Clean Ganga also signed a three-year agree-
ment with International Water Management Institute in 2015 for con-
ducting research on areas of pollution abatement, resource recovery and
reuse which will help in finding effective wastewater treatment options
(IWMI, 2015).
5. Recommended solutions
With no improvement in the condition of the Ganga, there is an ur-
gent need to review all management programs undertaken so far. In a
recent report on performance audit of “Namami Gange” by CAG of In-
dia, it was found that there are some serious shortfalls in this program.
It has been documented that the National Mission for Clean Ganga does
not have a river basin management plan even after years of NGRBA
notification. Total coliform levels in all cities of UP, Bihar and West
Bengal were 3343 times higher than prescribed limits during 2016–17
(CAG, 2017). The World Bank, which is currently funding many pro-
jects in Namami Gange in its latest “Implementation Status and Results
Report” of May 2018, declared that project objectives and implementa-
tion is “Moderately unsatisfactory”. Even the National Green Tribunal,
D
Supreme Court of India and state governments have also questioned the
Ganga cleaning efforts (SANDRP, 2018). In a survey conducted by CPCB
(2016a, 2016b), all CETPs in Kanpur Jajmau area were reported to be
inefficient in treating effluents from tanneries. Also, there is a lack of
TE
data from Kanpur which affects monitoring of the entire area. Metals
such as Hg continue to be underreported even though several studies re-
ported elevated Hg concentrations in water and sediments in the Kanpur
industrial area (Beg and Ali, 2008; Bhatnagar et al., 2013).
Several programs and plans implemented by the Government of In-
EC
dia since 1989 have had limited success. Seeing the plight of the river,
it is evident that relevant authorities have learned little from their past
failures. There is urgent need to reassess all programs implemented so
far and there is also a need for good governance (SANDRP, 2018). Pro-
grams for pollution abatement should be more transparent, accountable
and participatory at every level. Furthermore, considering increases in
urban settlements along the river, Government urgently needs to de-
RR
velop an effective national urban water policy. Performance of tanning
industries can be improved by upgrades to obsolete technology. Sev-
eral innovative technologies have been adopted globally to combat pol-
lution generated through tanneries. According to report “Chrome Man-
agement in the Tanyard” by United Nations Industrial Development
Organisations (2002) by using a technique like direct recycling—which
CO
uses the same Cr bath for both the initial tanning and subsequent re-tan-
ning stage—can reduce Cr levels in wastewater by 21% (UNIDO, 2002).
Additionally, to limit industrial pollution source control and enforce-
ment is required at known pollution point sources. State and federal
government agencies need to implement the ‘polluter pays’ principle
and get tougher on non-compliant industries to safeguard the future
of the holy Ganga. Furthermore, there is a need of periodical monitor-
UN
ing and evaluation mechanism for monitoring performance of tanning
industries of the area. Consistencies in sampling locations are also re-
quired to measure effectiveness and efficiency of different programs.
The recent decision by the National Mission for Clean Ganga to conduct
Lidar mapping of 2525 km of the river is one positive step towards mon-
itoring of pollution which will help accurately delineate pollution and
provide a more focused approach for future clean-up plans (Del, 2018).
To achieve success with clean-up of the Ganga, plans should also
focus on effective implementation of all monitoring program activities.
4
Environment International xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
For example, it is recommended that current and future clean-ups fo-
cus on source control using effective tools such as CETPs, enforcement,
regulation and even long-term socioeconomic shifts in future indus-
trial development that utilize clean or green technology. For sediments
along the Ganga, specifically in Kanpur, it is recommended that the
most severely impacted sediments use a tiered approach for remedia-
F
tion (Walker et al., 2015; Hoffman et al., 2017). Also, future clean-up
programs should learn from challenges experienced elsewhere, like the
remediation of heavily contaminated Hudson River superfund site in
OO
the US (Michaels and Oko, 2017). High priority areas identified us-
ing ecological risk assessment and human health risk assessment tech-
niques should then be treated to effectively immobilize sediments us-
ing capping, dredging, in-situ (solidification and stabilization, activated
charcoal amendments) or ex-situ (sediment washing) remediation treat-
ments (Walker, 2014). As recontamination still poses potential risk, then
long-term cultural shifts in human behaviour and interaction with the
river needs to change. Respect for the sacred river Ganga is required by
PR
everyone. Take care of Ganga and she will take care of you?
Acknowledgement
No funding was required for this correspondence article.
References
Ahirwar, M.K., Gupta, G.S., Kirar, N., Ahirwar, P., 2015. Study of heavy metal pollution
from effluent of orient paper mill, Amalai, (Shahdol), MP. Int. J. Innov. Res. Dev. 4,
28e38.
Ansari, A.A., Singh, I.B., Tobschall, H.J., 1999. Status of anthropogenically induced metal
pollution in the Kanpur-Unnao industrial region of the Ganga Plain, India. Environ.
Geol. 38 (1), 25–33.
Beg, K.R., Ali, S., 2008. Chemical contaminants and toxicity of Ganga river sediment from
up and down stream area at Kanpur. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 4 (4), 362.
Bhatnagar, M.K., Raviraj, S., Sanjay, G., Prachi, B., 2013. Study of tannery effluents and
its effects on sediments of river Ganga in special reference to heavy metals at Jajmau,
Kanpur, India. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 8 (1), 56.
Bhattacharyay, G., Sadhu, A.K., Mazumdar, A.K., Chaudhuri, P.K., 2005. Antennal defor-
mities of chironomid larvae and their use in biomonitoring of heavy metal pollutants
in the river Damodar of West Bengal, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 108, 67e84.
CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General of India), 2017. Performance Audit “Rejuve-
nation of River Ganga”. Retrieved from https://cag.gov.in/sites/default/files/audit_
report_files/Report_No.39_of_2017_-_Performance_Audit_on_Ministry_of_Water_
Resources%2C_River_Development_%26_Ganga_Rejuvenation_Union_Government.pdf.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment), 2018. Canadian Sediment Quality
Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Retrieved from https://www.elaw.org/
system/files/sediment_summary_table.pdf.
Chaudhary, M., Walker, T.R., 2018. RE: A remedy at last for the ailing Ganges? - Pollution
in the river Ganga is not new, but is there any way to save the holy river?. In: Sci-
ence e-Letter, Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/412/
tab-e-letters.
Chaudhary, M., Mishra, S., Kumar, A., 2017. Estimation of water pollution and probability
of health risk due to imbalanced nutrients in River Ganga, India. Intl. J. River Basin
Manage. 15 (1), 53–60.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2009. Ganga water quality trends. In: Monitoring
of Indian Aquatic Resources, Retrieved from http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2014. Status of Sewage Treatment Plants in
Ganga Basin. Retrieved from http://www.cpcb.nic.in/newitems/8.pdf.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2016a. A Report on Ganga Matters. Retrieved
from http://cpcb.nic.in/cpcbold/Report_on_Ganga_Matter_of_Uttarakhand_and_
Uttar%20Pradesh.pdf.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2016b. Bulletin Vol-I. Retrieved from http://
cpcb.nic.in/openpdffile.
php?id=TGF0ZXN0RmlsZS9MYXRlc3RfMTIzX1NVTU1BUllfQk9PS19GUy5wZGY.
Das, S., 2011. Cleaning of the Ganga. J. Geol. Soc. India 78 (2), 124.
Del, L.B., 2018. Indian Scientists' Race to Map Ganges River in 3D. Retrieved from https:
//www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05872-w.
Dwivedi, S., Mishra, S., Tripathi, R.D., 2018. Ganga water pollution: a potential health
threat to inhabitants of Ganga basin. Environ. Int. 117, 327–338.
Feijoo, M.D.A., Walker, T.R., 2018. Correspondence to the editor re: artisanal and
small-scale gold mining impacts in Madre de Dios, Peru: management and mitigation
strategies. Environ. Int. 111, 133–134.
Garg, N., Mathur, N., Modak, D.P., Singh, K.P., Murthy, R.C., Ahmed, S., Chandra, S.V.,
Ray, P.K., 1992. Trace metals trend analysis in river Ganges in Kanpur. Environ. Int.
80, 297–305.
Gowd, S.S., Reddy, M.R., 2010. Heavy metal contamination of surface water at Jajmau
(Kanpur) and Unnao industrial areas of the Ganga Plain, Uttar Pradesh, India. In: 20th
Annual Goldschmidt Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. p. A986, (June).
M. Chaudhary, T.R. Walker
Hoffman, E., Lyons, J., Boxall, J., Robertson, C., Lake, C.B., Walker, T.R., 2017. Spatiotem-
poral assessment (quarter century) of pulp mill metal(loid) contaminated sediment to
inform remediation decisions. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (6), 257.
IIT-Consortium, 2011. SWOT analysis of Ganga action plan. Indian Institutes of Tech-
nology. In: Retrieved from. http://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/50_006GEN.
pdf.
IIT-Consortium, 2015. Ganga River Basin Management Plan. Indian Institute of Tech-
nology. Retrieved from http://52.7.188.233/sites/default/files/GRBMP-MPD_March_
2015.pdf.
IWMI (International Water Management Institute), 2015. Cleaning the Ganges. Retrieved
from http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/2015/02/cleaning-the-ganges/.
Joshi, D.M., Kumar, A., Agrawal, N., 2009. Assessment of the irrigation water quality of
river Ganga in Haridwar District. Rasayan J. Chem. 2 (2), 285–292.
Katiyar, S., 2011. Impact of tannery effluent with special reference to seasonal variation
on physicochemical characteristics of river water at Kanpur (UP), India. J. Anal. Tox-
icol. 1, 115.
Khan, M.Y., Gani, K.Y., Chakrapani, G.J., 2017. Spatial and temporal variations of physic-
ochemical and heavy metal pollution in Ramganga river-a tributary of river Ganges,
India. Environ. Earth Sci. 76 (5), 231.
Kumar, R., Gupta, A.K., Tripathi, R.M., Chattree, A., 2017. Monitoring heavy metals conta-
mination in Yamuna river for its toxicity level in water, sediments and fish. J. Environ.
Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 5, 113e118.
Madhulekha, S.A., 2016. Evaluation of water quality in river Ganga due to contaminant of
heavy metals, Kanpur, India. Int. J. Innov. Trends Eng. 20.
Menon, U., 1988. Technology and development aid: the case of Ganga action plan. Eco.
Political Wkly. 23, 1693–1701.
Michaels, R.A., Oko, U.M., 2017. Excessive PCBs in the Hudson River: attributable to
incompleteness of dredging, or to seven years of dredging?. Environ. Claims J. 29 (2),
115–140.
Ministry of Water Resources, 2016. River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation. Re-
trieved from http://nmcg.nic.in/NamamiGanga.aspx.
D
Mishra, A.K., 2010. A river about to die- Yamuna. J. Water Res. Prot. 2, 489e500.
Mishra, S., Kumar, A., Yadav, S., Singhal, M.K., 2015. Assessment of heavy metal contam-
ination in Kali river, Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 7, 1016e1020.
MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change), 2017. Retrieved from
http://envfor.nic.in/legis/ucp/ucpsch8.html.
TE
Nagpure, N.S., Srivastava, R., Kumar, R., Dabas, A., Kushwaha, B., Kumar, P., 2015. As-
sessment of pollution of river Ganges by tannery effluents using genotoxicity biomark-
ers in murrel fish, Channa punctatus (Bloch). Indian J. Exp. Biol. 53, 476–483.
Naskar, S., 2014. The River Where Swimming Lessons can be a Health Hazard. Retrieved
from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28112403.
Nautiyal, C.S., 2009. Self-purificatory Ganga water facilitates death of pathogenic Es-
cherichia coli O157: H7. Curr. Microbiol. 58 (1), 25–29.
NRCD, 2009. The Status Paper on Ganga Action Plan. National River Conservation Direc-
EC
torate, Ministry of Environments and Forests, Government of India, Retrieved from
http://www.moef.nic.in/sites/default/files/Status%20Paper%20-Ganga_2.pdf.
Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
system. Science. 325, 419–422.
Paul, D., 2017. Research on heavy metal pollution of river Ganga: a review. Ann. Agrar.
Sci. 15 (2), 278–286.
Priyadarshani, N., 2009. Ganga river pollution in India-a brief report. In: American Chron-
icle, 8 Sept. 2009, Retrieved from http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/
RR
109078.
Protection Act, 1986. Central Government Act. Section 3 in The Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162712998/.
CO
UN
View publication stats
Environment International xxx (2019) xxx-xxx
Rani, N., Vajpayee, P., Bhatti, S., Singh, S., Shanker, R., Gupta, K.C., 2014. Quantification
of Salmonella typhi in water and sediments by molecular–beacon based qPCR. Eco-
toxicol. Environ. Saf. 108, 58–64.
Roach, B., Walker, T.R., 2017. Aquatic monitoring programs conducted during environ-
mental impact assessments in Canada: preliminary assessment before and after weak-
ened environmental regulation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (3), 109.
SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People), 2018. Is There Hope From
National Mission for Clean Ganga? Listen to Official. Retrieved from https://sandrp.
F
in/2018/09/05/
is-there-hope-fromnational-mission-for-clean-ganga-listen-to-official-agencies/.
Sarkar, R., 2013. Study on the impact of idol immersion on water quality of river Ganga
at Ranighat, Chandernagore (WB). Int. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 3 (3), 24–29.
OO
Senthilkumar, K., Kannan, K., Sinha, R.K., Tanabe, S., Giesy, J.P., 1999. Bioaccumula-
tion profiles of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and organochlorine pesticides in
Ganges River dolphins. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 1511–1520.
Singh, M., 2001. Heavy metal pollution in freshly deposited sediments of the Yamuna river
(the Ganges river tributary): a case study from Delhi and Agra urban centres India.
Environ. Geol. 40, 664e671.
Singh, R.P., 2001. Effect of wastewater disposal and extent of industrial pollution in and
around Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 60 (1), 31–35.
Singh, A.K., Hasnain, S.P., Banerjee, D.K., 1999. Grain size and geochemical partitioning
PR
of heavy metals in sediments of the Damodar river a tributary of the lower Ganga,
India. Environ. Geol. 39, 90e98.
Singh, V.K., Singh, K.P., Mohan, D., 2005. Status of heavy metals in water and bed sed-
iments of river Gomti a tributary of the Ganga river, India. Environ. Monit. Assess.
105, 43e67.
Singh, P.K., Sharma, J.L., Singh, S.K., 2015. Determination of important heavy and tran-
sition metals in the surface water of the river Ganges by ion chromatography. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. 5 (5), 1022.
Singh, H., Raghuvanshi, D., Pandey, R., Yadav, A., Tripathi, B., Kumar, P., Shukla, D.N.,
2016. Assessment of seven heavy metals in water of the river Ghaghara, a major trib-
utary of the Ganga in northern India. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 7, 34e45.
The Hindu, 2016. India, Germany Join Hands to Clean the Ganga. Retrieved from http:
//www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/
India-Germany-join-hands-to-clean-the-Ganga/article14236279.ece.
UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organisations), 2002. Chrome Manage-
ment in the Tanyard. Retrieved from https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/
2009-05/Chrome_management_in_the_tanyard_0.pdf.
USEPA (United Nation Environmental Protection Agency), 2018. National Primary drink-
ing Water Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/
ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations.
Walker, T.R., 2014. Environmental effects monitoring in Sydney harbour during remedia-
tion of one of Canada's Most polluted sites: a review and lessons learned. Remediat. J.
24, 103–117.
Walker, T.R., Willis, R., Leroy, M., MacLean, B., Appleton, R., McMillan, S., Wambolt, N.,
Gray, T., Smith, M., 2015. Ecological risk assessment of sediments in Sydney harbour,
Nova Scotia, Canada. Soil Sediment Contam. 24 (5), 471–493.
WHO (World Health Organization), 1990. Environmental Health Criteria 101: Methylmer-
cury. World Health Organization, Geneva, Retrieved from http://www.
americanchronicle.com/articles/view/109078.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2014. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, fourth
edition, Retrieved from pps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44584/
9789241548151_eng.pdf?sequence=1.