The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has been at the forefront of environmental regulation, often stepping in to fill gaps in governance and pushing for more stringent standards to protect the environment. One such instance is its controversial approach to sewage management and the uniform standards it imposed for sewage treatment plants (STPs) across the country.
The controversy began with a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MOEF&CC), which was challenged in NGT through the case of Nitin Shankar Deshpande vs. Government of India & Others. The petitioner argued that the deteriorating condition of India’s water bodies was a significant challenge, exacerbated by the government's STP standards notification. NGT took cognisance of reports from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and other sources that pointed to worsening status of water bodies.
<p>The NGT, in response, directed the CPCB to constitute a committee of technical experts from reputed institutions like NEERI, IIT Kanpur/Roorkee and CPCB itself, to recommend the effluent standards for STPs. This committee, while composed of experts from reputable institutions, faced criticism due to its lack of direct experience in wastewater management and project implementation. The committee was tasked with recommending "practicable" standards, considering the economic implications, despite the existence of technological solutions for treating wastewater to potable standards for decades.</p>
The committee's recommendations included varying standards for different classes of cities, with stricter standards for larger cities. It highlighted the increased capital and operational expenditures required to comply with these standards, estimating a 20-30% increase in costs. However, the committee also noted that the actual tendered costs in India for setting up STPs often exceeded these estimates, particularly for plants meeting secondary treatment standards.
<p>The expert committee submitted its report. recommending different discharge standards based on the population size of cities. It suggested stricter standards for mega cities (above 1 crore) and metropolitan cities (above 20 lakhs), emphasising that these cities would benefit the most from stricter standards due to the potential for reuse of treated water.</p>
The committee also acknowledged that river flows had significantly reduced since the promulgation of discharge standards in 1986, affecting the dilution capacity of rivers. However, there was no evidence to support the need to reduce the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) value from 30 to 10 mg/l.
After receiving the recommendation of the expert committee in 2019, the NGT revisited the findings and noted the committee’s recommendation for different standards depending on the population size of the cities. The NGT, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the report, particularly its lack of scientific logic or database to justify different standards for different types of cities. The tribunal observed that the citizens in mega- and metropolitan cities would benefit from better discharge standards without any valid reason for such distinctions.
<p>As a result, the NGT overruled the recommendations of the expert committee and instructed MOEF&CC to notify uniform standards for municipal discharge across the country, regardless of city size or rural/urban classification. The NGT’s decision, while well-intentioned in its aim to improve water quality, was met with significant criticism due to its legal, technical, and procedural shortcomings.</p>
The NGT's order suffers from various legal infirmities and technical deficiencies. Legally, the NGT’s directives to the MOEF&CC to issue a notification on discharge standards was in non-conformity with established judicial and legislative principles. The Environment Pollution Act (EPA), and its rules clearly vest the power to lay down a process of fixing standards of air and water discharge with the central government, not the judiciary.
<p>The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasised that courts cannot interpret statutory provisions beyond their plain meaning, and the NGT's directive to impose uniform standards across the country appears to overstep its jurisdiction.</p>
Technically, the NGT's insistence on uniform standards failed to account for the principle of dilution, which has been central to water pollution regulation globally. Smaller towns with lower pollution load and locations with deep marine outfalls naturally have less environmental impact compared to larger cities. By ignoring these distinctions, the NGT's order imposes unnecessary financial burdens on small and medium towns, which may lack the resources to meet these stringent standards.
<p>Furthermore, the NGT's decision disregards the practical challenges of implementing tertiary treatment standards. Even in developed countries like the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has refrained from imposing tertiary standards universally due to the enormous financial burden it would impose. Upgrading systems to tertiary treatment levels would require billions of dollars in capital and operational expenditures, a challenge that is even more daunting for resource-constrained towns in India.</p>
One of the major flaws in the NGT’s order and expert committee report is its failure to adequately consider the economic impact of its recommendations. The expert committee estimated a 20 to 30 % increase in capital and in operational costs for complying with stricter standards, but this estimate does not capture the full picture. The NGT ignored the expert committee's finding that tenders for less stringent STPs were often awarded at higher costs. The report suggests that the open tender mechanism may not be reliable for pricing STPs.
<p>The actual costs of setting tertiary treatment plants are significantly higher, with capital expenditures estimated at Rs. 3 crores per MLD and operational costs at Rs. 70 lakhs per MLD annually. Also, the cost of setting up a secondary effluent standard STP is about Rs. 1.6 crore per MLD in India, while the operational cost is about Rs. 40 Lakh per annum. This represents an 80% increase in both capital and operational costs compared to secondary treatment plants. Many Indian plants operate at secondary standards, and upgrading them to tertiary level costs around Rs. 1 crore per MLD.</p>
The financial implications of the NGT order are staggering. India currently has approximately 36,000 MLD STP capacity, and upgrading 80% of this capacity to tertiary standards would require an immediate budgetary allocation of around Rs. 28,000 crores. The annual operational expenditure for maintaining these upgraded STPs would jump to at least Rs. 20,000 crores. With urban India expected to generate 83,500 MLD of wastewater by 2035, the capital outlay required over the next decade could reach Rs. 250,000 crores, with annual operational costs soaring to Rs. 60,000 crores. These figures do not even include the costs of laying sewage pipes and pumping stations, which could double the financial burden.
The expert committee recommended setting phosphorus limits only for ponds and lakes, recognising that phosphates are the primary limiting factor for eutrophication in freshwater systems. However, the NGT's blanket approach to setting standards for nitrogen and phosphorus across all water bodies ignores the fact that developed countries target phosphorus removal specifically for freshwater systems. For instance, Switzerland banned phosphates in detergents in 1986, and several U.S. states, the European Union, and China have regulated phosphate use in detergents.
While the expert committee recommended strict norms for nitrogen and phosphorus to prevent eutrophication in water bodies, the rationale for these standards is debatable. Eutrophication is influenced by various factors, including temperature, flow speed, and microbial activity, not just nutrient levels. Moreover, eutrophication is less likely to occur in rivers with moderate flow speeds.
<p>India also came up with a labelling system of ECOMARK. However, in the absence of similar regulations in India, any effort to prevent eutrophication by imposing stringent discharge standards will be both expensive and ineffective.</p>
The treatment of wastewater to remove nitrogen and phosphorous also needs to be analysed from the lens of reuse and sustainability. Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients for crop growth, and farmers in developing countries have long used untreated or partially treated wastewater for irrigation. Israel, a global leader in wastewater reuse, utilises about 90% of its treated wastewater for agriculture, adopting more lenient standards for nitrogen and phosphorus in treated water. This approach not only reduces farmers' reliance on chemical fertilisers but also mitigates groundwater depletion.
The expert committee recognised that each STP should be viewed as a source of water for reuse in an era of water stress and climate change. However, the NGT’s insistence on removing nitrogen and phosphorus to meet stringent standards reduces the potential for reuse in agriculture, which could be a more cost-effective and sustainable solution. Developing a distribution system for disinfected treated water containing these nutrients for farming would likely be cheaper and more beneficial than removing them entirely.
Going forward, it is crucial for policymakers to balance environmental goals with practical considerations. This includes recognising the limitations of smaller towns, the financial constraints of implementing tertiary treatment, and the sustainability potential of wastewater reuse. A more nuanced approach, drawing from global best practices and informed by local conditions, is essential for achieving long-term environmental and economic sustainability in India's wastewater management efforts.
Harsh Vardhan is the Chief Executive Officer of CDD India.
This is the fourth of a five-part series of articles on ‘Wastewater management and its evolution’. Please find the first, second and third articles from the series below: