Opinion - News Analysis   

Monitoring minimal

The Government's regulatory system is inadequate, says Anjali Malhotra.

STATE GOVERNMENTS are responsible for ensuring safe drinking water in our taps but individual tapping of groundwater — a common practice even in urban areas — is far from safe as there is no system in place for regular monitoring.

Even though aquifers are located all over the country, the Central Pollution Control Board — entrusted with the task of monitoring water quality under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — has barely 24 stations countrywide, with an additional 181 stations operated by the State Pollution Control Boards.

And while the Central Ground Water Board with a network of 15,163 locations also monitors the quality of groundwater, its parameters do not include bacteriological and pesticide contaminants, both of which are included in the Bureau of Indian Standards and the World Health Organisation standards for drinking water.

While there are standards for bottled water and drinking water, there are no standards for ground water. Since it is treated as a source, rather than a direct supply, which it is commonly used as, the BIS has not set any standards for it.

"Controlling the quality of groundwater is beyond our scope. According to us, all groundwater must be treated to ensure that it meets the standards of drinking water,'' says S.S. Sethi, Director and head of Water Sources Department, BIS.

The 24 stations under the CPCB, classified as "problem areas" on the basis of major industrial activity, have been tested only twice since they were identified in 1995. "It is not possible to do such monitoring on a regular basis,'' says a CPCB official.

And some of the 181 stations, established sometime in 1999-2000, are not even fully operational yet, sources say. The Government agencies, as usual play the "blame-game." While the CPCB maintains that the Central Ground Water Authority, structurally the same as the CGWB, is the "custodian of ground water," the CGWA argues that pollution is the concern of the former. The CGWA — which draws on the large network of the CGWB — has over 15,163 locations that are monitored four times a year. In addition, there are 30,000 locations under the State Departments that are monitored every six months. "They have a larger network so there is a need for coordination. We should pool our resources. The technical know-how can be given by us while the monitoring can be carried out by them," says the former chairperson, CPCB, Dilip Biswas.

The Water Quality Assessment Authority, aimed at facilitating coordination was created two years ago but is yet to become effective. And while the monitoring situation continues to be bleak, the prevention mechanism appears to be failing as well.

"Industries are meant to dispose of the waste through effluent treatment plants but most do not. Poor system of transportation of sewage and creation of cesspools is another problem with urban areas. And finally, we have been advocating for bio-pesticides but the Ministry of Agriculture is not happy with that suggestion,'' says the CPCB Additional Director, R.C. Trivedi.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• How safe is our water?
• Monitoring minimal
• Prevention the better cure

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu