A river records what a city chooses to release into it. For Dhaka, the Buriganga records more than wastewater. It records the consequences of growth without adequate environmental management. The river has long supported transport, trade and settlement. It also receives untreated sewage, industrial effluent, municipal waste and pollutants carried through drains and canals. The results should not be understood only as a problem of river pollution, but also as a question of how the city manages public health, infrastructure, land, industry and inequality.
Research on water pollution in Dhaka shows that the Buriganga is affected by both point and non-point sources. Sluice gates along the flood protection embankment, city drains, Dholai Khal and the Pagla Sewage Treatment Plant form part of the pollution pathway. Domestic wastewater, industrial discharge, clinical waste and encroachment add to the burden.
The problem is therefore systemic. Not only does waste reach the river. Parts of the city have been allowed to discharge their environmental costs into a shared water body. The pollution has direct implications for public health. The river contains high levels of organic pollutants, chemicals and heavy metals. Oxygen in parts of the river is far below the level to support aquatic life. Biochemical and chemical oxygen demands are above acceptable standards in several locations. These are technical indicators, but their implications are practical. Polluted water can contribute to waterborne disease, contaminate groundwater, damage aquatic ecosystems and affect the food chain. Heavy metals such as chromium and lead pose longer-term risks to human health.
The burden is not distributed evenly. Communities living close to drains, canals and riverbanks are more likely to experience the smell, contamination and health risks associated with polluted water. Low-income residents often face the greatest exposure while having the least influence over the industrial, institutional and infrastructure decisions that produce the pollution. This is why it should not be treated only as an environmental asset in decline, but as part of the city’s public health infrastructure.
A city’s waste system is shaped by decisions made long before pollution becomes visible. Industrial areas are approved, drains are connected, settlements expand, treatment capacity is underprovided, riverbanks are occupied, and storm-water channels begin carrying sewage. Each decision may appear manageable in isolation, but together they create a river system that receives more pollution than it can absorb.
The Buriganga illustrates this cumulative failure. Domestic sewage enters the river through drains and earthen channels. Industrial wastewater from leather, textile, chemical and other activities contributes toxic substances. Clinical waste adds another layer of risk where disposal systems are weak. Encroachment narrows the river and reduces its capacity to function as a living water system. The issue is not only contamination. It is the loss of the river’s ability to recover.
Under natural conditions, a river can dilute and process some waste. But that capacity is limited. When pollution loads remain high, and when dry-season flows are low, the river becomes increasingly unable to perform its ecological function. At that point, pollution becomes the normal condition.
The Buriganga’s condition also reflects a governance problem. Several institutions share responsibility for water quality, sewerage, drainage, industry, land, navigation, public health, and environmental enforcement. Yet the river experiences these decisions as one system. A drain carrying wastewater does not distinguish between municipal, industrial and household sources. A khal does not separate land-use planning from sanitation. A riverbank does not separate encroachment from ecological loss. The city may be governed sector by sector, but pollution moves through connected pathways. This makes fragmented action insufficient.
Cleaning campaigns may remove visible waste for a short period. Eviction drives may recover parts of the riverbank. Relocation of industries may reduce one source of contamination. But without source control, treatment, monitoring and enforcement, pollution will reappear through other routes.
The relevant policy question is therefore broader than how to clean the river. It is how to stop the city from continuously polluting it. The priority is to control industrial effluent and sewage before they enter the river system. Industries should be required to treat wastewater properly, and compliance monitored through credible and regular inspections. Polluting discharges should carry enforceable penalties. The connection between sanitary sewage and storm-water drainage also needs to be addressed. Drains designed to carry rainwater should not become permanent channels for untreated sewage. Where low-income settlements lack sanitation services, public toilets and decentralised wastewater management may reduce direct discharge into canals and rivers. Medical waste requires separate attention. Hazardous and infectious materials should not enter ordinary municipal disposal streams. Safe treatment and disposal systems are necessary not only for hospitals and clinics, but also for the neighbourhoods downstream of them.
Riverbank protection should also be treated as part of pollution control. Encroachment, dumping and unregulated activities along the Buriganga reduce the river’s physical and ecological capacity. Clear demarcation, regular monitoring and maintenance of river edges are needed if recovery is to be more than a temporary exercise. The Buriganga cannot be restored by engineering alone. Treatment plants, drains and enforcement are essential, but the city also needs to change how it values rivers within urban development.
Rivers should not be treated as leftover spaces behind buildings, markets and workshops. They are part of the city’s environmental infrastructure. They support drainage, mobility, ecology, public space, climate resilience and health. Losing them imposes costs that are eventually paid through disease, flooding, degraded land, lost biodiversity and reduced urban liveability. Dhaka’s planning authorities should therefore treat river protection as a development condition, not an afterthought. Industrial approval, land-use change, housing expansion and infrastructure projects should be assessed for their effects on wastewater generation, drainage pathways and river quality.
Monitoring also matters. Regular data on water quality, pollutant loads, discharge points and ecological conditions should guide enforcement and investment. Without measurement, river management becomes reactive. With measurement, it can become preventive.
The Buriganga’s condition says something about the relationship between Dhaka and its residents. A city that allows its river to become a channel of untreated waste also exposes its people to avoidable risks. It asks the public to live with consequences that should have been managed through planning, regulation and investment. This is why the river is not only an environmental concern. It is a social concern.
Clean water, safe sanitation and healthy waterways are not luxuries. They are basic conditions of urban life. When these systems fail, the impact falls on health, dignity, livelihoods and the everyday experience of the city.
The Buriganga once helped make Dhaka possible. Its future now depends on whether Dhaka is willing to treat the river as essential infrastructure rather than a convenient outlet for waste. The choice is not between development and river protection. The choice is between development that transfers its costs to people and ecosystems, and development that accounts for those costs before damage becomes irreversible.
Dhaka’s poisoned river is therefore not just an environmental story. It is the story of how the city treats its people.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is an urban researcher and CEO of City Analytics & AI
