By: Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
The simple act of turning on a tap for a glass of water is underpinned by a fundamental social contract. We, the citizens of J&K, pay our taxes and water bills. In return, the state, through its various departments, is obligated to provide us with a basic necessity: safe, potable water. This is not a luxury but a right, integral to the Right to Life. Yet, for a growing number of households across India, including those in areas like Hyderpora, Srinagar, this contract feels broken. The sight of a Reverse Osmosis (RO) filter, caked thick with mud and sediment just months after installation, is more than just a maintenance headache; it is a stark, visible symbol of a deeper, invisible crisis in our public water supply system.
Your experience is one shared by millions. The investment in an RO system is a significant private expenditure made out of compulsion, not choice. It is a personal line of defence against a public failing. But this defence is imperfect and raises alarming questions. The technician holding up that filthy filter forces a visceral reaction: If this is what is being caught, what were we drinking before? And more terrifyingly, if the visible impurities are so pronounced, what about the invisible threats—the dissolved salts (Total Dissolved Solids or TDS), the bacteria, the viruses, the fungal spores, and the parasitic cysts that no naked eye can see?
An RO system, when perfectly maintained, is a powerful tool. Its core technology, a semi-permeable membrane, is designed to remove over 90-95% of dissolved solids and the vast majority of microbiological contaminants. This is why it has become the benchmark for home purification. However, its effectiveness is also its Achilles’ heel. These systems are not designed to be the primary filter for heavily silted water. The excessive sediment load clogs the pre-filters rapidly, drastically reduces the membrane’s lifespan, and compromises its ability to remove those very invisible threats it was designed for. This forces the consumer into a cycle of expensive, more frequent maintenance than the manufacturer recommends. The dilemma you face—”when water is muddy, we have to boil it again”—is a testament to this failure. You are essentially performing a double filtration for water that should be safe at source: first with your own RO, and then by boiling, a primitive but necessary safeguard against biological contamination that a overwhelmed RO might let through.
This brings us to the core, agonizing question: In this scenario, who is truly responsible for ensuring the water we drink is safe?
The answer, unequivocally, lies with the public authorities. The concerned water supply department is the legally and morally mandated entity. Their responsibility begins at the source—be it a river, lake, or aquifer—and extends through the treatment process (coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection) and, crucially, through the entire distribution network right up to the tap in your home. They are the guardians of public health, duty-bound to adhere to the safety standards set by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS IS 10500:2012), which meticulously defines acceptable limits for physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
The “assurance” we seek is not a vague promise. It must be a transparent, verifiable process. This assurance comes in the form of:
1. Robust Infrastructure: Modern, well-maintained treatment plants that can handle the source water’s variability, and a distribution network of sealed, non-corrosive pipes that prevent the ingress of contaminants, which is a likely cause of the mud and sediments you see.
2. Rigorous and Continuous Testing: Regular water quality testing at multiple points in the network—not just at the treatment plant—with the results made publicly available. Data is the foundation of trust.
3. Accountability and Transparency: A clear line of accountability. Citizens must know which department or official is responsible for the quality of water in their locality. Public health engineering departments must proactively communicate issues, scheduled maintenance, and any potential breaches in water quality.
The current reality, however, is that the burden of safety has been privatized. The individual homeowner has become the de facto quality control manager, bearing the financial and mental stress of ensuring their family’s water is safe. The RO technician has, ironically, become the most visible inspector of our public water system, his serviced filter a damning report card.
So, what can be done? The concerned departments must step up and provide the reassurance citizens desperately need. This requires:
A Public Communication Campaign: Clearly outlining the steps taken to ensure water safety, the challenges faced, and the standards they are working to meet.
· Investing in the Last Mile: A focused effort to replace aging, leaking pipelines that introduce contaminants post-treatment.
· Public Data Platforms: Publishing easy-to-understand water quality data for different zones online, allowing citizens to see for themselves.
Citizens, too, have a role. Resident Welfare Associations can collectively demand accountability and testing reports. Individuals can insist on understanding the source of their water and the treatment it undergoes.
The glass of water you drink should not be a source of anxiety. The sight of a mud-filled filter is not just your problem; it is a symptom of a systemic failure. The right to safe water is non-negotiable. It is time for the concerned departments to reclaim their responsibility, to fix the pipes and the processes, and to provide citizens with the only assurance that truly matters: the confidence that the water flowing from their tap is, and will always be, safe to drink. The assurance must move from the private RO technician’s diagnosis to a public guarantee.
The columnist is a public health expert and a writer.