As foam builds up in Yamuna, questions raised over how work was allotted

The planned work was an anti-foam operation near Kalindi Kunj on the Yamuna. A tanker, machinery, safety jackets, equipment and a colourful tent were prepared at the site. The operation was intended to apply a defoaming solution to visible white foam, which the article links with a high concentration of pollutants.

The timing became controversial because documents showed four tenders were scheduled to open on October 21 and 22. Yet workers said the camp had been set up five days earlier. The Aam Aadmi Party also alleged that equipment was being installed three days before bids opened and that the process favoured a pre-determined contractor.

The contractor named in the report was ICON Instruments Company. Its workers and equipment were present, but the chemicals had not arrived during the visit. DJB said the infrastructure belonged to its existing stock, while the tender for the work was still worth Rs 80 lakh plus applicable taxes.

A public tender is a government process that invites eligible contractors to submit competing bids for a project. The bids are opened at a stated time, then assessed under the tender’s rules. This process is meant to create a fair comparison and help protect public money.

In this case, documents said four tenders for defoaming were to be opened on October 21 and 22. However, workers said the site camp had been established five days earlier, and AAP alleged that equipment was being set up three days before the bids opened. That sequence made the process appear unusual.

The article does not establish that the tender was illegally fixed. It reports allegations that the process favoured a “pre-determined contractor”, while DJB said the infrastructure belonged to its own stock. The concern is that apparent early action could weaken confidence in equal competition, even if the work itself had not fully begun.

The Delhi Jal Board, or DJB, is the government body managing the defoaming work described in the report. Its assistant chemist, Sandeep Verma, said DJB runs a defoaming campaign every year and already had the equipment in its stock. DJB issued the tender for the operation.

ICON Instruments Company was identified as the contractor connected with the work. The company declined to comment on the controversy and directed questions to DJB officials, saying the work was being handled by them. Equipment and machinery were present at the site, although the defoaming chemicals had not yet arrived.

The Aam Aadmi Party acted as the political challenger in the dispute. It alleged that the tender process was designed to favour a “pre-determined contractor” and that setup began before bids opened. The article reports these allegations but does not independently prove them. The disagreement therefore centres on procurement timing and transparency.

The Delhi Jal Board said it had issued a tender worth Rs 80 lakh, plus applicable taxes, for the defoaming work. This is the only specific public-money figure given in the article. The report does not state the final winning bid or whether the full amount had already been paid.

The tender relates to the anti-foam operation near Kalindi Kunj. The planned activity involved a tanker, machinery, safety jackets, a tent, other equipment and a defoaming solution. During the visit, the chemicals had not yet arrived, while equipment and a DJB tanker were already on site.

The amount should not automatically be read as the cost of removing every form of river pollution. The article separately records plastic, polythene, puja material, idols, clothes and other waste along the bank. It gives no itemised split for chemicals, labour, transport or equipment. It also does not say that the tender includes sewage control or waste removal.

The article describes the white foam as an indicator of a high concentration of pollutants. It was building up in the river channel near Kalindi Kunj, where a defoaming solution was expected to cut through it. The foam therefore made the river’s pollution visibly apparent.

In general, polluted water can foam when detergents, industrial chemicals and decomposing organic matter reduce surface tension and trap air. Movement in the water then gathers bubbles into persistent white foam. This mechanism is established environmental science, but the article does not identify which precise pollutant or mixture caused the Yamuna foam at this location.

The site visit also found plastic, polythene and other waste along the riverbank, along with discarded puja material, idols, clothes and garbage. The chemicals were not yet present during the visit. Removing foam can change its appearance, but the article does not say that the treatment removes the pollutants creating it.

Visible foam is only one sign of a polluted river. If chemicals disperse or suppress the foam while polluted water, sewage, plastic and organic waste continue entering the Yamuna, the underlying contamination can remain. The river may look better temporarily without becoming cleaner.

The article records foam in the channel and plastic, polythene, discarded puja material, idols, clothes and other garbage along the bank. It does not specifically mention sewage entering the river, so that part of the question goes beyond the report. In general, untreated pollution can continue affecting water quality and create fresh foam when conditions allow.

The immediate operation could therefore address the visible symptom, not necessarily its source. The article does not state what happened after the chemicals were applied. Longer-term results would depend on controlling pollution inputs and removing waste as well as treating the foam. Without such action, the visual problem could recur, but this implication is based on established environmental understanding.

DJB assistant chemist Sandeep Verma said the board has carried out defoaming since 2022 and conducts a campaign every year. He said the work was successfully carried out in 2023 as well. Although the ghat was not previously on the designated list, DJB also conducted a campaign there last year.

The repeated campaigns show that visible foam has remained a recurring issue at the river. The article does not identify one confirmed source responsible for it. During the visit, however, TOI saw plastic, polythene, puja material, idols, clothes and other garbage along the bank. White foam was also visible in the water.

Long-term prevention would normally focus on stopping pollutants before they reach the river, improving waste collection and treatment, and preventing dumping. These measures are established environmental approaches, but the article does not say that DJB has announced them here. Its described action remains a yearly defoaming campaign, supported by existing equipment and a new tender.