1. Pesticide residues in bottled water
0 Comments
Feb 15, 2003 | From the print edition
Packaged drinking water or natural mineral water is everywhere. It is now available in
pouches, cups, bottles and bulky transparent jars. It is sipped in clubs, malls and fitness
centres; glugged after a walk, jog or trek; sold on railway platforms and bus terminals, or
pressed through car windows during traffic jams. Stashed in paan-shops, vendor stalls,
department stores and supermarkets, bottled water has made its way into offices, restaurants,
hotels and cinemas. Turns out that bottled water, the fastest growing segment in the beverage
industry, actually contains deadly pesticide residues. Here's the whole toxic truth
-- There was a time in the recently liberalised past when people didn't
quite know how to refer to a new product called drinking water. They would say 'bottled
water' and 'mineral water' to freely refer to one or the other kind of water, perhaps meaning
the same one. It used to be confusing. People were not used to drinking water that had to be
bought. People were getting used to paying money to drink water. Paying more money for
their water than they did for milk everyday.
Now India is wholeheartedly disinvesting...er, further liberalising. Now, people don't say
'bottled water' or 'mineral water'. These distinctions have become superfluous. Now, people
simply ask for 'water'.
Actually technical terms for 2 hotly-selling products - the difference lies in product
specifications - manufactured by the private sector, packaged drinking water (pdw) is nothing
but ordinary water treated to meet certain quality standards, and packaged natural mineral
water (pnmw)is that which is bottled at the source without any treatment. Clean spring water,
in other words. Now, these terms have become completely fused, incorporated, into people's
vocabulary and lives.
Packaged drinking water or natural mineral water are everywhere. They are available in
pouches, cups, bottles and bulky transparent jars. They are sipped in clubs, malls and fitness
centres; glugged after a walk, jog or trek; hunted for in railway stations and bus termini, or
hurled in a traffic jam. People pick bottled waters from paan-shops, vendor stalls, department
stores and supermarkets. Office architecture includes them, and ice-cream parlours, cafes,
restaurants and hotels and cinemas always keep a stock.

2. How then should one react if told that this bottled water, supposedly cleaned for
consumption, could contain deadly pesticide residues? One should react with disbelief and
horror. Well, go ahead and do exactly that. For bottled water does contain pesticide residues.
All kinds of bottled water, whether national (like Bisleri), or multinational (like Kinley). In
most, the pesticide residues are above what would be acceptable limits.
Are citizens being fooled into thinking that their bottled water, sold by companies as the
healthy and hygenic drink, is pure and drinkable?
34 bottles
Between July and December 2002, the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (pml) of the New
Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (cse) analysed 17 different brands of pdw
and pnmw commonly sold in areas that fall within the national capital region of Delhi. The
pml randomly bought two bottles of each of these brands from colonies and shopping areas
such as Mayur Vihar, Defence Colony, Khan Market, ina Market, Green Park, Lodhi Road
and Mathura Road in New Delhi, and from adjoining areas such as Noida, Ghaziabad and
Meerut (in Uttar Pradesh state) and Gurgaon (in Haryana state).
The 34 bottles of pwd/pnmw so collected included a host of not-so-popular brands - Volga,
Prime, Paras among others - and also the top five brands in the packaged water segment of
the beverage market: Bisleri, manufactured by the Parle group; Bailley, also manufactured by
Parle; Pure Life, a Nestle product; Aquafina, by Pepsico; and Kinley, from Coca Cola. Care
was taken to ensure that no two bottles of the same brand were bought from the same area.
Minscot, a brand popular brand in adjoining Gurgoan was also included, as was Aquaplus,
sold mainly at railway stations. Once the 34 'samples' were procured, the pml began its
analysis. The samples were tested to see if they contained pesticides. The tests were for two
kinds of pesticides: organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides. The pml tested the
samples for 12 organochlorines, and 8 organophosphorus pesticides - covering the spectrum
of pesticides most used in India.
Testing method
The pml tested the 34 samples with a widely and internationa-lly used methodology,
approved by the United States Environment Protection Agency (usepa) for pesticide detection
in drinking water. chlorpyrifos: It is one of the most widely applied insecticides in homes or
restaurants, against cockroaches or termites.
Chlorpyrifos was detected in 28 out of the 34 samples. This extremely toxic chemical was
found in quantities exceeding the maximum permissible limits by huge margins - on an
average of all samples, it exceeded the eec standard by 49 times. For instance, in No 1
McDowell - I (0.037 mg/l) it was 370 times more than the eec permissible limit for a
particular pesticide. Bisleri (109 times), Kinley of Coca Cola (109 times) and Aquafina of
Pepsi was 23 times higher than the eec permissible limit for an individual pesticide.
Chlorphyrifos is a suspected neuroteratogen - an agent that causes malformations in foetuses.
The tests detected residues of other pesticides as well. Organochlorines such as ddd and dde both the result of the metabolic conversion of ddt - in 1 and 10 samples respectively; bendosulphan, a broad spectrum insecticide, in 3 samples, and organophosphorus Dimethoate
in 1 sample.

3. How the brands fared
What the pml test found was:
• Packaged natural mineral water brands Evian (imported from France) and Himalayan and
Catch, manufactured in relatively clean and less pesticide consuming Himachal Pradesh,
were the top three brands in terms of total pesticide content. But even then, only in Evian did
the lab find nothing. Himalayan and Catch had respectively 1 and 3 pesticide residues above
the eec standards.
• The top seller, Bisleri, was the third worst brand out of the total of 17 brands checked - its
concentration levels were 79 times higher than the levels stipulated according to drinking
water eec limits for total pesticides
• Its competitor, Kinley, had concentration levels 14.6 times higher than the maximum
residue standards
• The prize went to Aquaplus - manufactured in Burari area of northwest Delhi and most
favoured by the Indian Railways. This brand was the lethal cocktail - crossing the maximum
pesticide limit by 104 times
• The story is not healthy: on an average, in all the samples of all the 17 brands, the total
pesticides were found to be 36.4 times higher than the stipulated levels.
The test of the cse laboratory clearly revealed that each sample contained multiple residues of
pesticides. In other words, each bottle of clean water was also a cocktail of tiny amounts of
organochlorine and organophos--phorus pesticides. A potently disturbing result. A patently
horrific find.
A few questions
0 Comments
Feb 15, 2003 | From the print edition
-- Why are there pesticide
residues in bottled water? This isn't an isolated query. It condenses 3-4 lines of questioning:

4. • What kind of water do companies use as raw material?
• Companies are supposed to 'treat' the raw water, clean it up. If so, then what kind of cleanup is this, in which pesticide residues are found in the 'finished product'?
• Companies are supposed to adhere to strict quality specifications. They can sell their
product only if it is certified.If so, then what kind of quality standards exist, that allow
pesticide residues in bottled water? What kind of regulation certifies a cocktail of chemicals
as saleable to the public? To be sold as water for health?
• Why are people in the middle of a condition that can only be called death by ignorance?
What kind of water?
Once the results were in, the pml decided to check the quality of the water being used by the
manufacturers as their raw material. This would help the pml understand what the quality of
the raw water was and how different it was from the quality of the final bottled product. pml
resource persons went to plants - located in and around Delhi - to collect water from within
the plant premises. They were not allowed to inspect the Aquaplus, Bailley, Hello and Kinley
plants.
There is no regulation that the bottled water industry must be located in 'clean' zones.
Currently, manufacturing plants are located in the dirtiest industrial estates, or rear up in the
midst of agricultural fields. For instance Volga, manufactured by Sai Durga Aqua Minerals,
was located in Udyog Kunj Dasna Industrial area of Ghaziabad, bang in the middle of dirty
industries and pesticide-drenched fields.
Most companies use borewells to pump out water from the ground (even plant managers who
didn't let the pml resource persons in were forthcoming with this information). The borewell
depths vary: 24-27 metres(m) for the Bisleri plant at Karampura, New Delhi; for Aquaplus,
61 m. The Minscot plant at Sector 18, Gurgaon bores a little deeper than Aqualpus: 70 m.
Even deeper are the borewells of the Paras plant in Okhla Phase I, New Delhi and the Prime
plant in Noida (76 m), while the Bailley plant in Ghaziabad plumbs water from 152 m below
the ground. The plants also draw exorbitant amounts of groundwater: 10,000 to 30,000 litres
per hour.
Some raw water samples collected from the plants revealed the presence of organochlorines
such as endosulphan and dieldrin, and organophosphorous pesticides such as dimethoate and
methyl parathion. Interestingly, all the source water samples threw up lindane, ddt and
malathion and chlorpyrifos. In other words, the source water poison profile matched the
bottled water poison profile.
The correlation is truly amazing (see graph: Perfect unison). It clearly shows the source of the
pesticide residues is the polluted groundwater used to manufacture the bottled water.
What kind of clean-up?
The graph also clearly shows that the pesticide quantities in the bottled water, the 'finished
product', are less than in the raw water. But they are still there! How?
All bottled water plants work towards a single goal: purify the raw water. Different
companies use a range of purification methods. To remove microorganisms, two techniques

5. are common: chemical disinfection and uv light (irradiation). Disinfectants such as chlorine
(most common), chloramines, ozone and chlorine dioxide bump off pathogens in raw water.
uv light irradiated into the water is effective against various kinds of bacteria and virus.
These plants use what is called membrane technology. Essentially, this involves filtering the
water by using membranes with ultra-small pores. Microfiltration removes most of the fine
suspended solids and almost all bacteria and protozoa. Ultrafiltration can block even viruses.
While nanofiltration can remove insecticides and herbicides, it is costly and rarely used.
Reverse osmosis membranes are even more effective. Yet another process companies use is
activated charcoal adsorption; it is effective in removing organic pesticides, but not heavy
metals.
According to the investigations done by the pml, it was found that plants manufacturing
Minscot, Volga, Bailley, Prime and Aquaplus combine chemical and filtration techniques.
The Bisleri and Paras plants emphasise only the latter. To remove pesticides, plants use the
reverse osmosis and granular activated charcoal methods.
Surprisingly, these methods are the recommended technologies to rid raw water of pesticides.
Why then did the pml find pesticide residues? There can be only two answers. Either the
manufacturers do not use the treatment process effecti-vely, or only a part of the raw water is
treated. Possibly, the entire raw water is not subjected to reverse osmosis, or only a part of it
is and then mixed with pretreated water. It seems logical. There are standards for mineral
content in water but if all the water is passed through reverse osmosis, then the minerals
would also get removed. Therefore, to meet the mineral content specified by the Bureau of
Indian Standards (bis) for packaged drinking water, it is possible that a bypass stream of
filtered raw water is mixed in the end of the process. In one company visited by pml, the
manufacturer treated the entire water through all processes, including reverse osmosis and
then remineralised by adding metered quantities of minerals at the end. Obviously, the
samples of this comp--any fared much better in terms of pesticide residues.
In any case, it is obvious that manufacturers are sitting back and letting the public bankroll
them. It is equally obvious that the making of bottled water is a badly regulated process.
What kind of standards?
Whether it is packaged drinking water, or packaged natural mineral water, the bottled water a
consumer picks up to drink is supposed to be a quality product. All quality products have
specifications; in other words, norms or standards that have to be met and that ensure the
consumer's money is well spent.
So far as the bottled water industry is concerned, there are a lot of checks in place. Any
manufacturer who wishes to produce bottled water has to pass through a licensing procedure.
His/her infrastructure facilities are assessed. There must be in-house testing laboratories to
conduct on-site tests: daily bacteriological analysis, the ability to check the physical and
chemical properties of the water being processed for bottling, or any factor that could
compromise the nature of the product (total dissolved solids, ph, turbidity, conductivity or
colour). Licenses are granted only if the infrastructure is satisfactory. Surprise inspections
monitor performance; samples drawn from both factory and market are tested for quality
control.

6. The bis operates a product certification scheme that enables manufacturers to use the
Standard Mark (popularly called the isi mark) under the bis Act, 1986. Initially, the scheme
was voluntary in nature, aimed at providing third party assurance to customers. Then on
September 29, 2000 the Union ministry of health and family welfare - reacting belatedly to
the boom in the packaged water segment of the beverages market - issued a notification (no
759 (e)) amending the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954 (pfa). Effective from
March 29, 2001 - even more belated - the bis certification mark became mandatory for
packaged drinking water and packaged natural mineral water. There now exist separate
standards for both: respectively, is 14543:1998 and is 13428:1998. These lay down the
parameters to be tested for and adhered to, and ensure quality.
The manufacturer is required by the bis norms for packaged natural mineral water (is13428)
and packaged drinking water (is14543) to meet the required standards for physical, chemical
and toxic as well as radioactive residues.
In both the standards, the parameter for pesticide residues is an ambiguous phrase that says
that "pesticide residues as covered under the relevant rule of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 shall be 'below detectable limits' when tested in accordance with
relevant methods." The 18th edition of the pfa, published in 2002, also says that pesticides
should be "below detectable limits".
Here is the catch. The question is: what is the equipment specified to test for the pesticide
residues? If the method used is not very sensitive it will not find pesticides in the water. This
is precisely what great Indian regulation does. It asks for tests to be conducted using a gc with
packed column, rather than a gc with capillary column, the latter more sensitive and easily
able to detect residues.
In other words, there is no need to look for quantifiable amounts of pesticide residues. What
is a "detectable limit"? What is the "limit" at which a pesticide residue qualifies as
"detectable", or "below"? What magical machine, or scientific procedure, can come up with a
non-quantifiable judgment?
For instance, in the standard methodology given by usepa, the gc column is clearly
recommended but also, there is a limit for each pesticide and for the allowable total pesticide
residue. What if individual pesticides are detected? Will that not show up in the total
pesticides calculation? 0.0109 is more than zero, right? 0.0007 is also more than zero? Or
0.0009?
It is for this reason that the pml test did not use the bis standards as the norm. It deliberately
preferred to use European norms. Directive 80/778/eec lays down quantified norms,
maximum admissible concentration for pesticides "per substance" and "sum of compounds",
or for individual as well as total pesticides. This way, a test can produce definite results. The
pml also used the usepa method to carry out the tests. Why? Because it was not interested in
finding pesticides "below detectable limits" according to "relevant methods". The pml gave
itself a simpler task: were there, or weren't there, pesticide residues in bottled water? If there,
then how much? It wanted, one way or the other, a definite result.

7. MILK
Adulterated milk is what Indians are drinking
70 per cent milk samples collected across the country by food safety authority did not
conform to standards
The results of a first-of-its-kind survey on milk by the Food Safety and Standards Authority
of India (FSSAI) reveal something startling—most Indians are consuming detergents and
other contaminants through milk.
The National Survey on Milk Adulteration 2011, a snap shot survey, was conducted to check
the contaminants in milk, especially liquid milk, throughout the country. The study found that
due to lack of hygiene and sanitation in milk handling and packaging, detergents (used during
cleaning operations) are not washed properly and find their way into the milk. Other
contaminants like urea, starch, glucose, formalin along with detergent are used as adulterants.
These adulterants are used to increase the thickness and viscosity of the milk as well as to
preserve it for a longer period. The study notes that the consumption of milk with detergents
in hazardous to health. About eight per cent samples were found to have detergents.
Goa, Puducherry pass with flying colours
Water turns out to be the most common adulterant in milk. It reduces the nutritional value of
milk. If contaminated, water poses a health risk to consumers. Samples were collected from
28 states and five union territories. The worst performers were Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Odisha,
West Bengal, Mizoram, Jharkhand and Daman & Diu, where non-conformity with food
safety standards was 100 per cent. The most common reason given for non conformity is the
difference between demand and supply of milk. in order to meet the demand, the suppliers
usually adulterate the milk and increase the quantity. Samples from Goa and Puducherry were
100 per cent compliant.
There are nearly 70 per cent samples which have not conformed to the standards set for milk.
The problems were more pronounced in the milk sold loose as compared to the packaged
milk. Samples collected from rural areas fared better with only 30 per cent non-compliance
as compared to urban centres.
Of the total non-compliant samples, the highest, nearly 46 per cent, belonged to the category
of low Solid Not Fat (SNF) and this was due to dilution of milk with water. The higher the

8. SNF, the better the quality of milk. The other parameter for milk was the presence of
skimmed milk powder, which was present in nearly 548 samples, out of which 477 samples
contained glucose. A total of 1791 samples were tested.
Apart from fat, SNF, skimmed milk powder and glucose, the survey was also looking for the
presence of neutralisers, acidity, hydrogen peroxide, sugar, starch, urea, salt, detergent,
formalin and vegetable salt. Studies show that adulterants like salt, detergents and glucose
add to the thickness and viscosity of the milk, while starch prevents curdling of milk.
These adulterants are hazardous and cause irreversible damage to the organs. The Indian
Council of Medical Research in an earlier report had mentioned that detergents in milk
caused food poisoning and gastrointestinal complications; The other synthetic compounds
cause impairments, heart problems, cancer and even death. The immediate effect of drinking
adulterated milk with urea, caustic soda and formalin is gastroenteritis but the long term
effects are known to be far more serious.
FSSAI has asked all its state and union territories enforcement divisions to strengthen checks
on milk producers to ensure they are complying with the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Water, most common adulterant
Water turned out to be the most common adulterant in milk. It reduces the nutritional
value of milk. If contaminated (with pesticides, heavy metals), water poses a health
risk to consumers
Of the total non-compliant samples, the highest, nearly 46 per cent, belonged to the
category of low Solid Not Fat (SNF) and this was due to dilution of milk with water
About eight per cent samples were found to have detergents
Skimmed milk powder was present in nearly 548 samples, out of which 477 samples
contained glucose
Nashik
NASHIK: The Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) will remove silt from rivers and
reservoirs with the help of robotic machines and is in the process of acquiring two such
machines for the purpose.
The machines will be operated and maintained by a private agency for a period of three years.
Apart from the water reservoirs, the Godavari, Nasardi and Waldevi rivers will also be
cleaned by the same contractor.
An engineer from the NMC's mechanical department said, "The private agency will provide
the robotic reservoir cleaning system and will look after its operation and maintenance for Rs
2.74 crore. The contract period will be for three years and the rivers and reservoirs will be
cleaned with the help of this equipment."
A senior NMC official said that it will mostly be used for cleaning nullahs and river beds.
"There are such robotic cleaners in Pune. These mechanized cleaners will simplify our work.
We are in the process of procuring these machines from reputed contractors and authorized
dealers and manufacturers. Godavari, Nasardi and Waldevi rivers and the nullahs will soon
be cleaned with the help of these cleaners," the official said. He added that all the garbage,

9. hyacinth and silt from the rivers would be cleaned this way, thus reducing the need for
manual cleaning.
The official added that as the monsoon was over and the summer would approach in the next
few months, the water levels in water bodies would go down. "As there is no free flow of
water in rivers and reservoirs, it is necessary to clean the river at the earliest. The robotic
cleaners will come in handy now and that is why we are taking it up on priority," the official
said.
Observing that reservation of water for drinking purposes in urban areas was affecting the
agricultural potential of the areas under Nashik and Ahmednagar districts, the superintendent
engineer of the Nashik's Command Areas Development Authority, water resource department, M K
Pokale said that time has come to maintain the sanctity of irrigation dams. In a conversation with
Abhilash Botekar, he suggested that the local authorities should look for alternative sources of water
for urban areas. Excerpts:
When dams have been built for storing water for the public, why is there a hue and cry over
drinking water?
It is a common belief that the dams are constructed for storing water for drinking purposes for urban
areas. But that is not the case. Dams were constructed for increasing the irrigational capacity in the
country at a time when the cities actually flourished on the banks of rivers. All the 23 medium and
big dams in Nashik and Ahmednagar districts are for irrigation purposes, with Bhandaradara, Darna
and Nilwande dams built for rain-shadow regions of Ahmednagar districts, and the remaining for
Nashik. Considering today's demand for drinking water in urban areas, most of which is turned into
polluted water unfit to be re-used for agriculture purpose, it is a tremendous loss to the
establishment of the irrigation dams.
Are there dams reserved exclusively for drinking water?
No. The priority has always been to create dams for irrigation purpose. The water released during
rotation was used to fill up minor irrigation tanks, wells and ponds on the way and the same water
was drawn for drinking purpose as well. However, because of urbanisation, there is tremendous load
on water reservation for drinking. While we have some dams exclusively reserved for Mumbai's
drinking water purpose, there are no such dams in Nashik, Ahmednagar or even in Auranagabad.
The dams are heavily dependent on rainfall. Kikvi dam is the only dam that was being proposed to be
reserved only for non-irrigational purposes, but the lack of funds has stalled the project. While
compensation for the land and construction has been worked out, unless more funds are released,
the work is not going to move ahead.
How much water is reserved for drinking purpose?
It should be kept in mind that 615 million cubic feet (mcft) of water from the Gangapur complex -

10. Gangapur, Gautami Godavari and Kashyapi rivers - is reserved for drinking purpose for the Nashik
Municipal Corporation (NMC) and surrounding areas. On an average, the drinking water quota
consumes nearly 35% of the installed capacity of the dams in Nashik and Ahmednagar districts and
since this water is drawn from the irrigation quota, water reserved under irrigation is shrinking.
Is this affecting the agricultural productivity of the region?
Yes. Obviously, increase in reservation for non-irrigational purpose is reducing the water for
irrigation, which in turn, is affecting the agricultural productivity of the region. Though there are
instances where more land is being brought under irrigation, it is not directly under irrigation
facilities but by way of drawing water from wells or underground - which is again limited because of
the depleting underground water level.
Why does Nashik have too many dams?
Nashik has the maximum number of dams in the state - minor, medium and large. They have been
constructed to tap water in every possible area, which is helping the water distribution system in the
region, allowing irrigation and drinking water to the areas in the three districts - Nashik and
Ahmednagar on priority and Aurangabad to some extent. Both Nashik and Ahmednagar districts
under the CADA are water-stressed and depend heavily on rainfall. The region gets average
monsoon rainfall between 400mm and 6,000mm. Nine out of 15 talukas of Nashik district and all the
14 talukas of Ahmednagar (which has vast area)are drought-prone. Besides, these areas have
witnessed the maximum urbanisation and hence the water needs exceed far more than that in other
areas.
Where does the region draw water from?
The Nashik region draws water from four basins - Krishna, Godavari, Tapi and the west-flowing
rivers. As much as 50% of the Nashik district (15,530 sq km) gets water from the Godavari basin
while the Tapi basin fulfills the water requirement of 36% of the district and the remaining 14% of
water comes from the west-flowing rivers, including Daman Ganga and Par. Similarly, Ahmednagar
district (17,034 sq km) gets 64% of water from the Godavari river and 36% from the Krishna river.
What are the major challenges in providing water to farmers during off season?
The major challenge is water thefts. There are numerous farmers who have laid pipelines
clandestinely over several kilometres that source water from the bed of the canals. This is not a new
phenomenon, but the amount of water stolen during the last year's (March 2013) rotation from
Palkhed complex, comprising three major dams, only brought to the fore the magnanimity of the
theft. This forced the water resource department (WRD) to carryout a special exercise of plucking
out pipelines installed in the bed of the canals. Nearly 1,000 such illegal connections were plucked
out. This menace is unique only to Nashik district; in Ahmednagar, there are very few such incidents.
What are the measures to tackle water theft?

11. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive master plan to curb theft during rotation. We can only
create awareness about water conservation, using traditional methods of irrigation and water
measurements, among other things. In order to curb the nuisance, the department has decided to
set up strict vigilance on the division basis and to install water meters to know the exact amount of
water supplied, among other measures.
What are the measures to improve water usage among farmers?
The water users' associations - groups of farmers - take over the operations and maintenance of the
water distribution system from the WRD. It is the best and most democratic manner in which water
can be managed efficiently. We are trying to bring in more number of farmers along the canals into
this group to help maintain and minimize losses. These activities have also helped farmers opt for
drips and sprinklers for irrigation purpose that further reduce water intake as well as lower the
usage of fertilizers and pesticides. It is a win-win situation for farmers.
How is the issue of water audit being taken up?
With the equitable water distribution under the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority,
Nashik and Ahmednagar regions are under tremendous pressure to release water for Jayakwadi
dam, which is very big. This means that it will further affect the water stored in the dams upstream
of the Godavari and as such, the urban areas lying upstream are going to be affected whenever such
situations arise. Though there are a number of public interests litigations admitted in various high
courts and the Supreme Court, it is time that water conservation tops priority in every area - rural or
urban, agricultural or non-agricultural. This has further laid stress on recycling of water for all
purposes, which has to be taken up by the respective agencies
NASHIK: The industrial use of water from dams in Nashik and Ahmednagar districts has registered a
sharp decline in 2012-13, the superintendent engineer of the water resource department (WRD),
Nashik informed.
"The industry has used only 50% of the water reserved for its use from the various dams while the
use of water for drinking purpose exceeded the quota by 42%," superintendent engineer, Command
Area Development Authority (CADA), Nashik M K Pokale said.
A total of 17,915.30 million cubic feet (mcft) of water from Godavari and Tapi Basin, which includes
Gangapur Complex, Darna Complex in Godavari Basin and several dams in Tapi Basin, was reserved
in reservoirs for non-irrigational purposes. There are 19 major and medium dams in the complex
besides 20 minor dams and the water for non-irrigation purposes is reserved only in major and
medium dams.
In 2012-13, water reserved for drinking purpose was 14,649.63 mcft, while that for industrial
purpose was 4,371.06 mcft, totalling up to 19,020.7 mcft for non-irrigational purposes.
Against the reservations, the water consumption in the district stood at 20,960 mcft, i.e. 145% of the

12. water reserved, while the water consumed for the industrial purpose was 2,205.6 mcft resulting in
only 50% of the reservation. Altogether the water consumption was 123% of the reservation for
non-irrigational purposes, the officer said.
"The reservation of water is announced during the annual meetings held in October, considering the
15{+t}{+h} of the month as the cut-off date when rainy season concludes, keeping in mind the
demands of water registered by various local self-governing bodies, villages and the industries organised and unorganised. The demand is calculated and the rotations planned in a manner that
the water is released throughout the year in a phased manner ensuring enough water for every
entity," Pokale said.
At the end of the season, i.e. July 31 - the time when monsoon is active everywhere - the amount of
water released is accounted.
The assessment for 2012-13 done on July 31 clearly showed that the industrial use of water had
dropped sharply. "The reasons for the decline are very clear - while the industries had registered
their demands, they never filed requests for releasing their quota of water for some reason.
However, the WRD was committed to give them their quota of water as and when the demand
arose," Pokale added.
The Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation (MIDC), however, refuted not utilizing the
water reserved for industrial purpose. "In the industries under the MIDC, 98% of the water reserved
was exhausted. But the same cannot be said about the industries under the MIDC limits," an
engineer with MIDC said.
The water released for drinking purpose, however, exceeded the quota by 42% and hence the
overall use of water for non-irrigation purpose rose by 20%.