“Fining apartment owners for faulty sewage treatment plants is unjust”

As per environmental jurisprudence, the polluter has to pay. But apartment STPs (sewage treatment plants) are usually set up and approved by five different players. So who's the real polluter when an STP is defective?

The Honourable National Green Tribunal (NGT) of India, constituted under the NGT Act of 2010, bases all its directions and judgements on three basic tenets:

  • Sustainable development
  • Precautionary principle
  • Polluter pays

These tenets are considered the bedrock of jurisprudence in cases relating to the environment. I have absolutely no quarrel with any of these guiding principles. I have a question, however, on how the Hon. NGT defines and decides who the real polluter is, in case of dysfunctional sewage treatment plants (STPs) in apartments. Based on NGT’s directions, the State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has been issuing notices to apartments for running apparently-faulty STPs, and asking them to pay lakhs as environmental compensation.

It goes without saying that the source of pollution – the real polluter, the culprit if you will – is the STP itself. This is a no-brainer. Then the question is, who is responsible and to be made accountable for a defective, defunct STP.

Let us, therefore, delve deeper into the antecedents of the STP – the janam kundli of this poor thing.

Who sets up the STP?

The STP is first conceived by a less-than competent plumbing consultant, who is appointed by an architect. The architect would have been roped in by the developer to only get the necessary environmental clearances from government agencies. Quality, performance or longevity of the STP are not of prime concern here.

The plumbing consultant gets the STP design from his favoured vendor, with whom he shares a cosy relationship. And the final link in giving birth to the polluting STP – the midwife – is the government agency which  approves the defective technology, design and engineering of the STP.

Therefore, in the chain of events leading to a polluting STP, the following players have crucial role:

  1. The plumbing consultant who designed the STP in collaboration with his favoured vendor
  2. The vendor who in turn foists a mediocre STP on the plumbing consultant
  3. The architect who appointed them both without background verification or due diligence
  4. The builder who appointed the architect without verification or due diligence as well
  5. The government agency which approves the faulty STP scheme

What chance does the STP have in the hands of these parties with widely varying interests and agenda?

Please note that all the parties above have made money during this process – the consultant and architect his fees, the STP vendor his price; the builder who recovers his price from innocent buyers; the government agency that charges hefty fees for issuing CFE (Consent for Establishment) for the STP. In addition, BWSSB (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board) levies high pro-rata charges for giving sanitary connections to apartments, though the latter are not allowed to discharge into the city’s sewerage network.

At the very end of this chain is the common citizen, who has paid a huge sum to buy his apartment. He’s now left holding the baby – the polluting STP.

NGT must hold real polluters responsible

This is not a one-time affair that the five agencies (mentioned earlier) may be pardoned, citing lack of knowledge, education or experience. It happens repeatedly, with the same set of players. They don’t want to learn from past mistakes and continue to foist defective STPs.

Clearly, these agencies, who have made money out of STPs, are the real polluters, and must be held accountable for defective STPs. I believe I am fairly well-qualified to propound my views on this subject, having been nominated a ‘subject expert on wastewater management’ in the Monitoring Cell constituted by the KSPCB under Hon. NGT’s directions.

These five agencies certainly cannot claim to be innocent bystanders because their STPs have failed repeatedly. In fact, as per the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, KSPCB would have legal liability for dysfunctional STPs.

Hon. NGT must hold these agencies as the prime polluters and recover environmental compensation from them. NGT must also apply the first principle of natural justice the Doctrine of Bias (no man should be judge in his own case) — so that innocent citizens are not held to ransom. KSPCB is one of the culpable entities, hence it should not be the agency that decides who the polluter is and who has to pay environmental compensation.

It is unfair, unjust and simply a miscarriage of natural justice if the last person in the chain – the innocent common citizen – is held responsible and branded a polluter. He is only a victim of his circumstances. He has paid his hard-earned money to these agencies and is quite simply at the receiving end of poor and deficient service.

Comments:

  1. Doesitmatter says:

    Most of the apt owners have paid BWSSB Kaveri water charges. Yet they are forced to install multiple STPs in their complex. What happens to the crores of money collected? Does the builder pocket it or the civic authorities?? Even 35 years down the line many places who paid in full have no such facilities!!

  2. TS MAHESWARAN says:

    Any STP from Ganges to Bangalore, public or apartment owned, is a big blot on our engineers, architects , designers, builders and government agencies. But who cares as long as money is made…the hapless end customer wrings hands and spend more.
    Can we have a code of discipline and an honest enforcer…pipe dream ??

  3. Anil Kalgi says:

    Please ask basic questions
    1) NGT order to fine the apartment who are not party to the petition is it not violations of fundamental rights
    2) KSPCB fine under which provision of law?
    3) KSPCB can only proscecute and court may fine
    4) apartment owners are occupaiers they are not violators (STP officially not transferred to RWA)
    6) in karantaka no RWA is position take control as they are not juristic person
    5) project manager or CFO holder need to be fined and or proscecuted but notice to occupiers is not law supported

    Every RWA should take this advantage of this notice and make builders and promoters responsible and legally ask for conveyance of title of land and assets to own such notices

    Anil Kalgi
    9448822238

  4. K G Das says:

    Let the government manage all our sevage warter and run STPs wherever they want.we are redy to pay Rs.50000/ every month or 6,00,000/ a year.when they can manage all templs why can’t this.with my experience as a manager in an appartment for 6 yeras,it is highly impossible to manage builder made STPs.and get clear water.first collect water certificates from all the seevage plalnts run by govt if it comply with KSPCB norms,then they can levy penalty on us.STP in appartment is big headache and major component of our expenses.BWSSB has simply disconnected the UGD line in almost all appartments in Bangalore and leaving treated water to S W Drains will make entire Bangalore a sewage city,Let NGT take note of their rules.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Similar Story

Chennai’s water woes worsen as reservoirs dry up and groundwater levels decline

Of the 51 revenue blocks in Chennai where groundwater is extracted, 46 are over-exploited. How is the government addressing this problem?

The devastation that hit the coastal parts of Tamil Nadu and Chennai during the December 2023 floods still haunts the people affected here. Just five months later, the city is already staring at a potential water shortage. Reservoirs serve as the main source of water supply to Chennai residents. However, Veeranam Lake reached dead storage on February 28th due to a lack of inflow from the Mettur dam. As of the lake storage report of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) on May 27th, the reservoirs currently hold only 42.28% of their total capacity. The CMWSSB proposes…

Similar Story

For home-buyers in Bengaluru, a checklist to assess water security

Here is a comprehensive list of the critical questions to ask about water systems and availability, when buying a home in Bengaluru.

Sneha (name changed) decided to buy a flat in a gated community in Bengaluru this year. She was worried about the availability and sufficiency of water supply. She ticked off her checklist by asking one question to the builder: “How many borewells are there?” But could she have done more to assess water security in her new home? “Beyond that one question on borewells, no one could ask anything more,” she says, adding: “It is hypothetical, whether these borewells would supply the required water. Everyone felt that the use of tankers was inevitable. And that eventually the government would solve…