Groundwater Pollution, and the Law That Reaches an Aquifer

Natural, and it matters legally. Arsenic in the Ganga and Brahmaputra basins and fluoride across large parts of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana occur geogenically. There is no polluter. The Water Act reaches nobody, and the answer is a public health answer, not a regulatory one.

And over-extraction. Excessive pumping draws in saline water along the coast and concentrates whatever contaminants are present. It is not "pollution" caused by a discharge at all, and the pollution statutes do not reach it.

The effects

On health. Fluorosis, arsenicosis, methaemoglobinaemia from nitrate in infants, and the whole range of effects of heavy metals and organic solvents. The exposure is chronic and low-dose, which is exactly the kind causation is hardest to prove for.

On agriculture. Saline or contaminated irrigation water ruins soil structure and yields, and at Bichhri the wells and the crops went together.

On property. Land over a contaminated aquifer is unsaleable and unusable, and it is a loss to the owner, which is why the Contaminated Sites Rules 2025 make the transferee the responsible person.

And on the remedy. Because the exposure is diffuse and the source often unidentifiable, the ordinary tort of negligence fails on causation, which is precisely the reason the Supreme Court gave in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action for applying absolute liability: the persons harmed are not in a position to isolate the process that caused the harm.

The statutory framework

There is no Groundwater Act. The framework is assembled from five places and an answer should set them out in that order.

One, the Water Act 1974, and it reaches further than students expect.

• Section 2(j) defines "stream" to include sub-terranean waters. So an aquifer is a stream for the purposes of the Act.
• Section 24 prohibits knowingly causing or permitting poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter, directly or indirectly, a stream or well or sewer or on land. Seepage from an unlined pit is a discharge, and it is one made indirectly, which the section expressly covers.
• Section 2(dd), "outlet", includes any holding arrangement which causes or is likely to cause pollution, so the pit itself may be an outlet.
• Section 25 requires consent for a discharge onto land as well as into water.
• And section 43 now penalises the contravention, in the States that have adopted the 2024 Act.

Two, the hazardous waste rules. Chromium sludge, spent solvent and the residues of a treatment plant are hazardous waste if listed, and the rules answer them where the Water Act cannot: rule 6 authorisation, rule 8 storage limited to ninety days, rule 19 the seven-copy manifest, and rule 23 liability for all damages. Because the sludge on the ground is not a discharge into water, the Water Act has nothing to say about the heap; the waste rules do.

Three, the Environment (Protection) Act. Section 2(a) makes land part of the environment and names the inter-relationship between land, water and living creatures, which is exactly what a contaminated aquifer is; section 7 prohibits the discharge of an environmental pollutant in excess of the standards; section 8 governs the handling of a hazardous substance; and section 5 permits a direction closing the operation or cutting its utilities.

Four, and this is new, the Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules 2025. They are the first Indian rules addressed to land and water already contaminated: identification by the local body on a public complaint, assessment against screening and response levels including limits for groundwater, remediation by a reference organisation, the transferee as the responsible person, a Centre-State funding ratio for the orphan site, and environmental compensation credited to the Environmental Relief Fund.

Five, the courts. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action applied absolute liability to a polluter of soil and groundwater and held that the polluter pays principle covers the cost of restoring the medium; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum put the onus on the developer to show his activity is benign; and section 15(1)(c) of the National Green Tribunal Act now permits an order for restitution of the environment.

Where the framework fails

Name the gaps, because a question asking you to "examine the statutory framework" is asking for this half.

There is no regulator of extraction. Groundwater is a State subject and its extraction is governed, where at all, by State legislation and by the Central Ground Water Authority under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Over-extraction, which causes salinity ingress and concentrates contaminants, is not "pollution" under any of the pollution statutes.

Diffuse agricultural sources are unreachable. Nitrate from a district's fertiliser has no point source, no occupier and no outlet, and neither the Water Act nor the waste rules can touch it.

Geogenic contamination has no polluter. Arsenic and fluoride are outside a regime built on the polluter pays principle altogether.

Monitoring is thin. The framework depends on knowing that an aquifer is contaminated, and the discovery mechanism in the 2025 Rules is a complaint from the public to a local body, which is to say that the system waits for somebody to notice.

And the orphan site problem is structural. Where the polluter has dissolved, the public pays in the rule 8 ratio, and by the time an aquifer's contamination surfaces, that is often the position.

A worked example

A chemical unit at Ambernath disposed of spent solvent in unlined pits from 1998 to 2011 and closed in 2014. In 2026 a housing society's borewells smell of solvent, and the land was bought in 2019 by a developer.

Is there a discharge into a stream? Yes. Sub-terranean water is a stream under section 2(j), and section 24 covers a discharge made indirectly. But the unit closed in 2014, and the 2024 penalty regime is not retrospective.

The sludge in the pits. Hazardous waste rules: it needed an authorisation, could be stored for ninety days, and its liability provision in rule 23 binds the occupier.

Who is the responsible person now? The Contaminated Sites Rules 2025, rule 5(3): where the site was transferred, the transferee is the responsible person. The developer who bought it in 2019 is liable for the remediation, whatever it knew.

How is the site identified? Rule 4: the society complains to the local body, which lists it as a suspected contaminated site; the State Board makes a preliminary assessment within ninety days against the screening level, then a detailed assessment within three months against the response level.

Who pays if the developer is insolvent? An orphan site under rule 8(7): the Centre pays sixty per cent and the State forty.

And the residents' own claim? An application to the National Green Tribunal under section 14 read with section 15, within five years of the cause first arising, for compensation and restitution of the environment, relying on absolute liability as applied in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action.

Could the developer have protected itself? Only by environmental due diligence before buying, or by voluntary remediation under rule 12 of the 2025 Rules, which is available for a site not yet listed or under investigation.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the Water Act misses groundwater. Sub-terranean waters are a stream, and an indirect discharge is covered.

It does not mean every contamination has a polluter. Arsenic and fluoride are geogenic, and the polluter pays principle has nothing to work on.

It does not mean over-extraction is pollution. It is not, under these Acts, though its effects resemble it.

It does not mean the buyer of land is safe. Rule 5(3) of the 2025 Rules makes the transferee the responsible person.

Quick revision

• Four properties: invisible, moves slowly, cannot practically be cleaned, and it is the drinking water. Hence groundwater is the medium where the precautionary principle is the only workable policy.
• Causes: unlined pits and ponds, sludge on open ground, leaking tanks, landfill leachate, nitrate and pesticide, sanitation, and, with no polluter, geogenic arsenic and fluoride; plus over-extraction, which the pollution statutes do not reach.
• Effects: fluorosis, arsenicosis, nitrate in infants, heavy metals; ruined soil and crops; unsaleable land; and causation that defeats negligence, which is why absolute liability was applied.
• The framework, five places: Water Act (s.2(j) sub-terranean waters, s.24 directly or indirectly, s.2(dd) holding arrangement, s.25 consent, s.43 penalty); the hazardous waste rules for the sludge; the EPA (s.2(a) land and inter-relationships, ss.7, 8 and 5); the Contaminated Sites Rules 2025; and the courts, absolute liability and polluter pays in Bichhri, the onus in Vellore, restitution in s.15(1)(c) NGT Act.
• The gaps: extraction is unregulated by these Acts; diffuse agricultural sources are unreachable; geogenic contamination has no polluter; monitoring waits for a complaint; and the orphan site leaves the public paying.

Test yourself

1. Why is groundwater harder to protect than surface water? Because of four properties. It is invisible, so contamination is discovered only when somebody drills or a well begins to taste wrong, typically years after it began. It moves very slowly, often a few metres a year, so the polluter may have closed or dissolved before the plume reaches the well it ruins. It cannot practically be cleaned, since an aquifer does not flush itself and remediation means pumping and treating or containing over years, at a cost assessed at ₹37.385 crore for one village at Bichhri. And it is the drinking water of a very large part of India, taken from wells and borewells with no treatment. The consequence is that a regime built on standards, sampling and penalties comes too late, and groundwater is the medium in which the precautionary principle is the only workable policy.

2. How does the Water Act reach an aquifer? Through four provisions read together. Section 2(j) defines "stream" to include sub-terranean waters, so an aquifer is a stream for the purposes of the Act. Section 24 prohibits knowingly causing or permitting poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter, directly or indirectly, any stream or well or sewer or on land, so seepage from an unlined pit is a discharge and the word "indirectly" covers it. Section 2(dd) defines "outlet" to include any holding arrangement which causes or is likely to cause pollution, so the pit itself may be an outlet requiring consent. And section 25 requires the previous consent of the State Board for a discharge on land as well as into water, with section 43 penalising a contravention where the 2024 Amendment Act applies.

3. Where does the Water Act stop, and what takes over? It stops at the sludge. Section 24 addresses matter entering a stream or land; it says nothing about a heap of hazardous residue standing on a factory's own yard, which is the ordinary origin of aquifer contamination. That is governed by the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules 2016, which require an authorisation under rule 6, limit storage to ninety days under rule 8, require movement on a seven-copy manifest under rule 19, and impose liability for all damages under rule 23. The Environment (Protection) Act supplies the rest, since section 2(a) makes land part of the environment and names the inter-relationship between land, water and living creatures, section 7 prohibits a discharge in excess of standards, section 8 governs the handling of hazardous substances and section 5 permits a closure direction.

4. What do the Contaminated Sites Rules 2025 add, and who becomes liable? They are the first Indian rules addressed to land and water already contaminated rather than to waste about to be generated. A local body or District Administration lists a suspected contaminated site, on its own information or a public complaint; the State Board makes a preliminary assessment within ninety days against the screening level and, if that is exceeded, a detailed assessment within three months against the response level, both of which are fixed for groundwater as well as soil in Schedule I; a remediation plan is prepared and executed through a reference organisation; and environmental compensation is credited to the Environmental Relief Fund. As to liability, rule 5(3) provides that where the site has been transferred by the person causing the contamination to another, the State Board shall determine the responsible person to be the transferee, so the buyer of the land is liable; and where no responsible person can be traced the site is an orphan site and the cost falls on the Centre and the State in the rule 8 ratio.

5. Name the gaps in the framework. Extraction is not addressed: over-pumping draws in saline water and concentrates contaminants, but it is not a discharge and none of the pollution statutes reaches it, groundwater being a State subject regulated, where at all, by State legislation and by the Central Ground Water Authority under section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Diffuse agricultural sources such as nitrate from a district's fertiliser have no point source, no occupier and no outlet, so nothing in the Water Act or the waste rules can touch them. Geogenic contamination, notably arsenic in the Ganga and Brahmaputra basins and fluoride across large parts of western and southern India, has no polluter at all, so a regime built on the polluter pays principle has nothing to operate on. Monitoring is thin, and the discovery mechanism in the 2025 Rules is in substance a complaint from the public. And the orphan site problem is structural, because contamination usually surfaces long after the enterprise that caused it has gone.