Water Act 2024 Criticized for Prioritizing Corporate Interests Over Conservation

On February 5, 2024, the Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav, introduced an amendment to the 1974 Water Act (Prevention and Control of Pollution) and cleared both houses of Parliament within 72 hours. He said,

“It will not only give impetus to the industries but also make progress towards environmental protection,” while moving the bill to the Upper House.

As per experts, amendments to the 50-year-old Act were necessary to reflect the country’s ever-changing social, economic, and environmental realities. But the latest introduced changes weren’t exactly what was expected. Several experts argue that the new legislation weakens the original act and is counterintuitive. Primarily, the new Bill decriminalises several violations concerning Sections 41 to 45 A, 47 and 48 and instead imposes soft penalties ranging from Rs 10,000 to 15 Lakhs. The amendment will initially apply to Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and the Union territories, with the provision that other states “may pass resolutions to extend its applicability to their states.” i.e. other states are either free to adopt or reject it. 

Despite the presence of stringent penalties of the original Act, it failed to address the issue of pollution and contamination of freshwater resources in the country. Hence, an amendment was necessary. 

The Need To Change the 1974 Water Act

The 1974 Water Act, the pioneering legislation to protect the country’s water resources, was implemented to “maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water in the country". It also laid the foundation for the institutional framework of establishing a Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). These institutions monitor and prevent contamination of public water resources like rivers from sewage and industrial effluents.

According to CPCB, 46% of the 603 rivers in the country remained polluted in 2022. Tamil Nadu’s Cooum River and Gujarat’s Sabarmati River are the top two polluted rivers in the nation. The pollution is largely attributed to untreated domestic sewage and industrial effluents.

In the original Water Act, industrial plants were required to obtain consent from State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) to establish industries. It had imprisonment provisions along with levies for several violations, with jail terms between one and a half years and six years. The Act was last amended in 1988, which brought stringent penalties like an increase in fines and imprisonment under Section 41 of the Water Act. Not many cases were registered under these acts.

Even with the strict criminal proceedings,

“There have been few success stories under the Water Act over the last 50 years and significant changes to its provisions were undoubtedly required. But the changes we have received are the opposite of what was needed,” said water expert Himanshu Thakkar to Down To Earth.

An RTI reply to the Down to Earth revealed that no penalties have been collected under the Water Act in Kerala from 2020–2022. This finding mirrors the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, in which no cases have been filed under the Water Act from 2020–2022, in the state. 

“As per the National Crime Records Bureau’s 2022 reports, only 78 criminal cases were recorded under the Act. Most states did not register even a single case,” said Environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta to Down To Earth.

The 2024 amendment failed to incorporate provisions and address the challenges to deter any further degradation of water resources, wrote Pandurang Hegde, a farmer and environmental activist, to the Deccan Herald.

“For important legislation, the government has hastily constructed and passed the amendment. It is important that before the government makes any changes, they need to justify, conduct an analysis and then propose these changes in a public domain and in a public discussion forum, which has not happened,” said Dipendra Kapoor, the Water Head of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), regarding amendment to the existing 1974 Water Act.

“Draconian” Legislation

The legislation’s amendment of the original Water Act of 1974, gives greater control to the central government than state boards, threatening the autonomy of the states. Hence, civil society organisations and opposition parties, including DMK, RSP, Congress, and TMC, oppose it, calling it “draconian”. They argued that this is intended to override the powers of states and pave the way for corporations to get away from their environmental repercussions. On the other hand, several BJP members of Parliament and political parties called it a move forward.

The chairman of an SPCB will be nominated by the state government, as per the new act. But the central government will prescribe the manner of nomination and the terms and conditions of service of the chairman. The bill also allows the central government to appoint adjudication officers to determine penalties under the Water Pollution Act, a power which the state governments earlier vested. The central government, in consultation with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), may also choose to exempt certain categories of industrial plants to ease the business process. Under the amended legislation, the roles of also CPCB and SPCB have become blurred. Dipendra Kapoor explains that 

“The Act covers both CPCB and SPCB, whose roles are primarily different. CPCB, as a central body, sets up standards and periodically monitors and combines water bodies' status. Whereas SPCB is in charge of enforcement,. Their roles were demarcated. But now their roles are mixed up.”

Studies by the Delhi-based non-profit CSE and think tank Centre for Policy Research show that SPCB's lack of personnel and resources affects the board’s functioning.

“The amended act does nothing to improve the CPCB’s role and functioning. Rather, it does a lot to change the power and authority of the SPCB. The SPCB's powers and capacity are very limited and are ineffective in their supervision and ensuring the standards are complied, with because of undercapacity and corruption issues. Instead of addressing this shortcoming of the SPCB, the CPCB has taken up the role of putting in officers to determine penalties, and the central government can also accept certain industries for approval.” added Dipendra Kapoor.

To conclude

Many environmental activists and lawyers argue the rationale of the new legislation to “weed out the fear of imprisonment” is greenwashed versions of their former selves. It raises concerns that introducing fines instead of criminal proceedings against polluters who have resources at their disposal, could potentially become an excuse to pollute. The central government’s Water Act 2024 is a missed opportunity for potential transformative legislation as it failed to put the environment at the centre. Raising concerns about the state of enforcement and monitoring by the Pollution Control Boards (PCB). 

Follow Ground Report for Environmental News From India. Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, Koo App, Instagram, Whatsapp and YouTube. Write us on [email protected] and subscribe our free newsletter. 

Don’t forget to check out our climate glossary, it helps in learning difficult environmental terms in simple language.