Performance audit of water pollution in India – A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India

The issue was examined by CAG because various stakeholders working in the field of environment flagged water pollution as the most important environmental issue that concerns us. 

The audit was conducted through document analysis, collection of responses to questionnaires, physical collection and testing of samples. The results of audit, both at the Central level and the State level, were taken into account for arriving at audit conclusions.

The review was undertaken to ascertain whether:

• Inventory of water sources has been prepared and whether the overall status of quality of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater has been adequately assessed in India;
• Risks of polluted water to health of living organisms and the impact on environment have been adequately assessed;
• Adequate policies, legislations and programmes have been formulated and effective institutions been put into place for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water;
• Programmes for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water have been planned, implemented and monitored efficiently and effectively;
• Funds were utlised in an efficient and economic manner to further the aim of reduction of water pollution;
• Adequate mechanisms have been put in place by the government to sustain measures to tackle water pollution; and
• Programmes for the control of pollution had succeeded in reducing pollution levels in ground water and surface water and restoring water quality.

Overall conclusion

The audit examination extended to 140 projects across 24 polluted stretches of rivers, 22 lakes and 116 blocks across 25 States of India. All the findings, discussed in Chapter 2 to 8, lead CAG to conclude the following against the objectives set out for the study:

• Inventory of water sources has not been prepared and the overall status of quality of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater has not been adequately assessed in India;
• Risks of polluted water to health of living organisms and the impact on environment have been not been adequately assessed;
• Adequate policies, legislations and programmes have not been formulated and effective institutions have not been put into place for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water;
• Programmes for pollution prevention, treatment and restoration of polluted water in rivers, lakes and ground water have not been planned, implemented and monitored efficiently and effectively;
• Funds were not utlised in an efficient and economic manner to further the aim of reduction of water pollution;
• Adequate mechanisms have not been put in place by the government to sustain measures to tackle water pollution; and
• Programmes for the control of pollution have not succeeded in reducing pollution levels in ground water and surface water and restoring water quality.

Recommendations

• Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)/States, in the policy on water pollution, need to specifically take into account prevention and control of water pollution as well as ecological restoration of degraded water bodies.
• MoEF/Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) should initiate steps, along with Ministry of Water Resources and all the States to draw up a comprehensive inventory of all rivers, lakes and ground water sources in India. It should also undertake a survey to list all the keystone species associated with each river and lake in India. This should also be placed in the public domain.
• MoEF/CPCB should intensify its efforts in developing biological indicators which would shed light on whether the functional integrity of aquatic ecosystems are safeguarded.
• MoEF should take into account the basin approach while planning for reduction of pollution of all rivers and lakes in the country.
• With respect to lakes, all three attributes of the lake, i.e., the basin, the water body and the command area need to be conserved instead of the present focus of NLCP on the water body only.
• MoEF needs to establish enforceable water quality standards for lakes, rivers and ground water that would help protect human and ecosystem health. Penalties need to be levied for violations of water quality standards. Further, MoEF, in conjunction with Ministry of Agriculture, needs to develop standards for pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus etc., which arise from agricultural practices, use of pesticides and fertilisers as pollution from agricultural sources is one of the biggest non-point source of pollution.
• The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission is already funding sewerage projects in some of the same States where funds are being provided by MoEF for the same purpose. It needs to focus on projects which seek to regenerate and conserve the river instead of those which focus largely on treatment of sewage. MoEF/States should conceive programmes which address different sources of pollution flowing into rivers, lakes and ground water with focus being not only on prevention of pollution but also conservation and ecological restoration of our water bodies.
• Right now, there are multiple agencies involved in river and lake conservation, right from planning to implementation and monitoring. There is a need to consolidate all these functions under an umbrella agency for better coordination and accountability.
• In conjunction with the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), MoEF and the State should plan drainage for the city as a whole instead of piecemeal approval of random STPs and I&Ds. Further, funding for these projects should come from MoUD as the implementing agencies work under the control of MoUD. MoEF should be involved in the design stage and in monitoring the treated effluents if they are being discharged into the river.
• MoEF/States need to ensure that projects for source control of all kind of pollutants entering the lakes is included in projects for conservation and restoration of lakes, especially sewage and agriculture runoff which leads to nutrient over-loading of the lake.
• MoEF should ensure that all lakes facing encroachment and resultant filling up are included in NLCP. Further, all State governments should declare bio-conservation zones around lakes so that encroachment of shoreline is prevented.
• The Water Quality Assessment Authority at the central level and the Water Quality Review Committee in the States should be revitalized and strengthened so that it can act as a cross-sectoral nodal body for water pollution issues.
• States should involve citizens in proposing and monitoring programmes to control pollution of rivers and lakes. This will help in mobilizing support in civil society for the proposed projects and thus the projects will face less resistance from local people. Citizens Monitoring Committee and Local Level Lake Monitoring Committees need to be constituted to provide feedback for more effective implementation.
• MoEF/CPCB, in conjunction with the States, should conduct a city-wise assessment of the levels of pollution in our rivers and lakes. They should also evaluate the success of projects undertaken under NRCP in terms of pre-defined indicators developed by MoEF/CPCB. Such impact assessment should be done in a continuous manner so that data is generated to judge whether the programme is meeting its stated objectives.

MoEF’s response

The MoEF in May 2011 constituted a Committee to consider the recommendations/observations made in the report by Audit and prepared a roadmap for implementation of recommendations/observations accepted. The Committee consists of representatives of CPCB and representatives from Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Urban Development and a representative of CAG. The Committee proposed, inter alia, a time-bound action plan to address capacity issues related to sewage treatment, an amendment to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to link penalties for contravention of the Act, strengthening of Water Quality Assessment Authority and constitution of a State-level Monitoring Committee.

Download the report here -