Anomalies and contradictions
PLASTICS are not specifically mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Pollution Control) Cess Act, but they should be regarded as covered because they are both a chemical and a petrochemical. Rubber, too, is not mentioned, but it is both a chemical and a vegetable product (natural rubber). Pesticides, fertilisers and pharmaceuticals are chemicals, but they are named separately.
By far, the largest quantity of water is used for irrigation and much of it is applied wastefully. Moreover, water for irrigation is used in a consumptive manner -- large quantities are lost through evapotranspiration -- whereas water used for domestic or industrial purposes largely returns to water bodies as wastewater. Thus, if the water cess is to foster an understanding of the true value of water and the need to conserve it, irrigation should be brought within the scope of the levy.
If the rationale is to prevent the polluting use of water, the cess should be levied on effluent quantity or pollution loads. This would bring into its ambit water containing pesticides and fertilisers used in agriculture and the water from rural communities with pathogenic loads arising out of sanitary use, bathing, cleaning of clothes and utensils and animal husbandry.
If the key criteria for levying the cess are practicality and cost-effectiveness of cess collection (which means overlooking small users of water), why should we leave out large abstractions for irrigation while roping in small-scale industrial users?
The present provisions in the water cess act, it is clear, fail to satisfy any rational criteria and only encourage arbitrations.