The latest report submitted to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) shifts the focus in the Markanda river pollution case from industrial discharge to a more basic urban infrastructure failure: untreated domestic sewage. Himachal Pradesh has told the tribunal that approximately 11.6 million litres per day (MLD) of effluent flows from Sirmaur district into neighbouring Haryana, with sewage from homes, eateries, hotels and other commercial establishments identified as the predominant pollution source.
The finding matters because it places the problem within the everyday systems that connect settlement growth, sewer networks, drains and wastewater treatment. The revised action plan, submitted by Sirmaur deputy commissioner Priyanka Verma on behalf of the state chief secretary, identifies incomplete sewer connectivity and inadequate interception and treatment arrangements as the main reasons wastewater is reaching the Markanda river system.
The case is therefore not only about whether industrial units are complying with discharge standards. It is also about whether a growing urban and commercial area has built the basic collection and treatment network required to prevent sewage from entering an open drain and then crossing a state boundary.
### Markanda river pollution and the Jattanwala drain
The Jattanwala Nallah is identified in the action plan as a central pollution pathway from Kala Amb. The drain carries an estimated 5.6 MLD of wastewater at its exit point in Himachal Pradesh. It receives discharge from residential areas, roadside eateries, hotels and other commercial establishments, along with some industrial effluent, before the flow moves towards Haryana.
Monitoring results cited in the report, particularly elevated faecal coliform levels, indicate that untreated domestic sewage is the main component of the pollution load in the drain. Faecal coliform levels are an important indicator of contamination associated with human or animal waste. In this case, the results support the state’s position that the dominant pollution source is sewage rather than untreated industrial discharge.
The scale of the flow shows the administrative difficulty involved. Wastewater generated in Kala Amb does not remain a local drainage issue. Once it enters the Jattanwala Nallah and moves downstream, the consequences are shared by Haryana, where the Markanda continues for approximately 125 km after entering the state near Ogli in Kala Amb. The river originates at Jogiban village in Nahan tehsil and flows for about 22 km in Himachal Pradesh before crossing into Haryana.
This geography makes the pollution dispute an inter-state governance problem. The source of the wastewater, the infrastructure needed to intercept it and the communities experiencing downstream effects are not located within a single administrative unit.
### The sewer network is incomplete despite reported progress
Himachal Pradesh has stated that about 85% of sewer connectivity in Kala Amb has been completed. However, the remaining gap includes areas where household connections are needed to ensure that sewage reaches the treatment system instead of entering open drains.
In one identified area, only 55 of 443 proposed household connections had been released. The balance is targeted for completion by December 31, 2026. This difference between network completion and actual household connection is significant. A treatment plant cannot address wastewater that is not connected to the collection system, and a sewer network does not prevent pollution if households and establishments remain linked to drains rather than treatment infrastructure.
The action plan also identifies a dispute over operation and maintenance costs as an obstacle to connecting domestic sewage to the treatment system. The district administration said funds had been sought through communications issued in 2023 and May 2026. A stakeholder meeting was held on May 16 to discuss cost-sharing and operational arrangements.
This reveals an institutional issue behind the pollution figures. Building sewer lines and a sewage treatment plant is only one part of wastewater management. The system also requires an agreed arrangement for paying recurring operating costs, maintaining connections and ensuring that sewage continues to be conveyed and treated after construction work is completed.
### Treatment capacity cannot compensate for missing links
The Kala Amb sewage treatment plant has a capacity of 1.7 MLD, while the Jattanwala Nallah carries an estimated 5.6 MLD of wastewater at its exit point in Himachal Pradesh. The figures do not, by themselves, establish the plant’s full operating status or the precise portion of wastewater intended for treatment. They do, however, show why interception and connectivity are central to the action plan.
The Jal Shakti Vibhag has been tasked with completing sewer connectivity, intercepting wastewater entering the Jattanwala Nallah and diverting it to the treatment system by December 31. The deadline combines three separate requirements: extending the collection network, preventing sewage from entering the drain and ensuring that the intercepted flow reaches treatment.
The structure of the plan also explains why pollution control cannot be measured only by treatment-plant capacity. A plant may have installed capacity, but its public-health and environmental value depends on whether wastewater is collected, conveyed, treated and monitored through the entire chain. A break at any stage can leave the receiving water body exposed.
The report maintains that industrial units make a limited contribution to the Jattanwala drain’s pollution load and that no major untreated industrial discharge was observed. Ruchira Papers, identified as a highly polluting industry, generates around 8 MLD of wastewater, recycles approximately 4 MLD and discharges about 4 MLD after treatment. Its consent allows the discharge of up to 4 MLD of treated effluent, which the report says is monitored online and complies with prescribed standards.
These details do not remove the need for industrial oversight. They do, however, distinguish between a regulated industrial discharge and a diffuse sewage problem generated across households and commercial premises. The latter is harder to attribute to one operator and requires coordinated municipal, departmental and household-level action.
### Waste dumping adds a second layer of pollution
The revised plan also identifies solid and plastic waste dumped along the drain. This material obstructs the flow, contributes to stagnation and creates secondary pollution. Authorities have installed waste collection centres at identified locations and initiated door-to-door collection and transportation arrangements.
This indicates that the Jattanwala problem involves both wastewater and solid-waste systems. Even if sewage interception improves, plastic and other dumped waste can obstruct drains and reduce the effectiveness of pollution-control measures. Conversely, regular waste collection alone cannot resolve contamination caused by untreated sewage.
The plan’s proposed phytoremediation measures have also faced resistance from local residents who claim possession of the land as common land. Following a joint inspection in July, authorities recommended involving panchayat representatives and revenue officials to resolve the dispute and identify suitable sites.
The land issue illustrates another implementation constraint. Measures intended to restore or protect a drain require access to land, agreement over ownership or possession, and cooperation among environmental, revenue and local-government authorities. Without that coordination, even relatively low-cost ecological interventions can remain stalled.
### What the NGT case reveals about urban wastewater governance
The NGT’s May order found that the earlier action plan did not specify the number of drains and discharge points or provide clear commencement and completion dates. The revised plan responds to those shortcomings by identifying the Jattanwala Nallah, setting out specific infrastructure tasks and giving a completion target for the remaining sewer connections and interception work.
The tribunal proceedings began after a 2022 letter petition by Dharamvir, a resident of Naraingarh in Haryana’s Ambala district. The petition alleged that industrial units in Kala Amb were discharging polluted water into the Markanda and causing serious disease among downstream villagers and cattle. The state’s revised account presents a different diagnosis, identifying domestic sewage as the predominant source while reporting limited industrial contribution and compliance by the identified major industrial unit.
The change in emphasis is important for how responsibility is assigned. If pollution is treated primarily as an industrial-compliance issue, enforcement will focus on factory outfalls and consent conditions. If monitoring indicates that domestic sewage is the principal load, the response must also involve sewer connectivity, drain interception, treatment capacity, solid-waste collection, operation and maintenance financing, and land coordination.
The evidence supplied in the action plan does not establish that the pollution problem has been solved. It records partial sewer connectivity, a substantial flow through the Jattanwala Nallah, unresolved operating-cost arrangements, waste dumping and a land dispute affecting restoration measures. It also sets a future deadline for completing key interventions.
The next significant test is whether the authorities can convert the revised plan into a functioning wastewater chain before December 31, 2026: connecting the remaining households, intercepting the drain, diverting the flow to treatment and maintaining the system over time. Until those steps are completed and their results are demonstrated, the Markanda case will remain a measure of whether inter-state river protection can be delivered through everyday urban infrastructure rather than only through tribunal orders.
