Rahul Somvanshi
New reports of suspected chromium-waste dumping on farmland in Kanpur Nagar are emerging against the backdrop of a much older contamination crisis across Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat and Fatehpur. The latest allegations concern Purwameer village, where residents told Down To Earth that dumpers have arrived at night and left greenish material on fields.
The residents do not know which companies the vehicles came from, and Karmactive has not seen a chain-of-custody laboratory result identifying the particular material shown in the report. But the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, according to Down To Earth, formed a five-member committee to investigate after complaints from Purwameer and nearby areas. The board’s regional officer told the outlet that waste found on the fields had been removed and sent to a disposal facility; residents said dumping continued.
A longstanding chromium legacy
The local allegations are not occurring in a vacuum. The Kanpur region has a documented history of chromium-bearing industrial waste, including basic chrome sulphate used in leather tanning. UPPCB shut several units in Kanpur Dehat in 2005 for hazardous-waste violations. In 2009, the board told the Central Pollution Control Board that chromium waste had been dumped in and around Khan Chandpur for years.
Official investigations subsequently expanded the reported scale of the legacy waste. By 2021, UPPCB had put the quantity at 89,526 tonnes and identified 11 units in connection with the Rania-area waste issue. Removal began in late 2022. An NGT monitoring report cited by Down To Earth said treatment, storage and disposal facilities had received that quantity by November 2023, though post-stabilisation analysis remained outstanding for some material.
The environmental concern is not simply the colour of soil or water. Chromium exists in several chemical forms. Hexavalent chromium, or chromium(VI), is particularly hazardous and can move through soil into groundwater. Its presence, concentration and chemical form need laboratory analysis; a photograph or visible residue alone cannot establish them.
Water, soil and health evidence
There is already documented evidence of wider contamination in the region. A 2024 study cited by Down To Earth reported chromium concentrations in surface and groundwater around the old waste dump that exceeded 40 milligrams per litre. India’s drinking-water standard for chromium is 0.05 milligrams per litre. The study also reported high total chromium concentrations in soil and waste samples.
Health concerns have reached the National Green Tribunal. An action-taken report submitted to the tribunal in February 2026 said results had been received for 233 blood samples collected in three districts. It reported chromium above the permissible limit in 215 samples, with some samples also exceeding limits for mercury or lead. That finding does not by itself identify a source for each person’s exposure or prove that every health complaint in the area was caused by chromium. It does, however, support the need for systematic investigation.
AIIMS Delhi raised concerns about earlier testing systems, including inconsistent identification of samples, and recommended a more structured survey. The NGT subsequently approved funding for a cluster-based study and mapping exercise involving Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat and Fatehpur. The planned work includes testing surface water, groundwater, soil, industrial effluent and ambient air, as well as mapping contamination zones.
What the new allegations require
The Purwameer allegations raise urgent questions that only a transparent investigation can answer: What exactly was deposited? Which vehicle or generator was responsible? Were samples taken before the waste was removed? Did the material enter soil or groundwater? And have residents been given safe water, health screening and the results of any testing?
Authorities should publish the committee’s sampling plan, laboratory methods, results and enforcement action. If chromium-bearing waste was illegally deposited on farmland, identifying the responsible parties and preventing further dumping are as important as cleaning a visible site. If the substance was misidentified, that too needs to be established through public evidence rather than assumption.
For residents, the immediate issue is practical: water that appears discoloured, sedimented or otherwise suspect should be tested through an accredited laboratory or the relevant public-health and pollution-control authorities. It should not be assumed safe because a site has been cleared.
This article is informed by a Down To Earth on-the-ground/citizen report by Vivek Mishra, including local testimony from Purwameer. The report is used as evidence of the residents’ accounts and of the issue requiring investigation; it does not by itself establish the identity of a responsible company or the chemical composition of every deposit.
