Two unsafe sources and a boiling-only plan
Two sources serve Pipri, a village of 1,900 people in eastern Vidarbha. A 12-metre dug well near a cattle shed and 60 household soak pits has nitrate of 78 mg/L and faecal coliforms present. A 65-metre borewell has fluoride of 2.1 mg/L and nitrate of 12 mg/L. The anganwadi reports that several children have mottled teeth, and two infants were treated for bluish skin after drinking well water. The Gram Panchayat has decided to 'boil all drinking water' and to connect the dug well to the new piped scheme because it is closer. A tanker delivers 8,000 litres on alternate days in summer. No source has been tested in the last 14 months. BIS 10500 limits: nitrate 45 mg/L; fluoride 1.0 mg/L acceptable and 1.5 mg/L permissible; E. coli absent in 100 mL.
1. Interpret the two laboratory results against BIS 10500 and assess the Gram Panchayat's boiling plan.
Read the worked answer
Dug well: nitrate at 78 mg/L is above the 45 mg/L limit, and faecal coliforms mean the water is microbiologically unsafe. Borewell: fluoride at 2.1 mg/L is above the 1.5 mg/L permissible limit, though nitrate is acceptable. Neither source is safe as it stands, and they fail for different reasons. The infants' bluish skin is consistent with nitrate-related methaemoglobinaemia; the mottled teeth are consistent with excess fluoride. Boiling is the wrong single solution: it kills bacteria but concentrates nitrate and fluoride because water evaporates. It would make the chemical problem worse. The plan to connect the dug well to the piped scheme would spread a nitrate and bacteriological problem to every household. The tanker is also unverified and should not be treated as safe without testing.
2. Design a safe drinking-water plan for the village, including treatment and interim measures.
Read the worked answer
Use a source-and-treatment train rather than one source:
- Protect the dug well: seal the top, divert cattle-shed runoff, upgrade the soak pits, and stop using it for infants until nitrate falls.
- For microbial safety, chlorinate or use UV/filtration after a clear-water source is secured, and test free residual chlorine.
- For fluoride, blend the borewell water with a low-fluoride source such as harvested rainwater, or use activated alumina or reverse osmosis defluoridation. Do not discharge RO reject water into the same aquifer.
- For nitrate, the practical options are a new low-nitrate source, blending, or RO/ion exchange; there is no simple household fix.
- Provide a safe public standpost and tanker water in the interim, with separate storage for drinking.
- Label sources with colour codes and test quarterly.
3. What monitoring and communication steps would make the plan work?
Read the worked answer
The first step is a water-safety plan with clear roles, not more testing alone. The Gram Panchayat should notify results at the anganwadi, school and Gram Sabha in Marathi, using pictures for non-readers. ASHA and anganwadi workers should explain that boiling helps with microbes but not with fluoride or nitrate. The village water and sanitation committee should keep a source register, a chlorination log and a complaint book. Test each source quarterly for pH, nitrate, fluoride and E. coli, and immediately after any change in taste or colour. If the borewell remains above 1.5 mg/L fluoride, supply children under five with low-fluoride water at the anganwadi. Tanker water must also be tested, because an unverified tanker is not a water-safety solution.