The 1,000-odd fishermen's families in seven villages of Jambusar taluka do not blame their reality on fate. They just point to the effluent gushing into the estuary of the Mahisagar river, near the Gulf of Cambay, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in blatant violation of the Union Environment Ministry's Coastal Regulation Zone, which dictates that effluents must be discharged in deep sea.

The Cambay channel is one arm of the continent's largest effluent disposal project. Now 16 years old, it ``takes care'' of the waste generated by more than 155 large and medium-scale industries near Vadodara city.

``The effluent stinks like kerosene. If we can't bear it, how can the fish?'', questions Punjak Vaghri. As a result, they say, the fish are straying further and further away from the shore; theones that don't, die. ``The fish have re-located five km into the sea'', says Ramji Desai, another fisherman.

``Gone are the days when paplet and boi were available by the thousands'', says septuagenarian Bhikhabhai Gevabhai of Nishalwalu Faliu in Sarod village. ``Our young people have never seen a big fish. Now we only get jhinga and bumla.''

In Kavi, Malpar, Kamboi, Neja, Dehgam, the story is repeated again and again. The first casualty has been their eating habits. ``If we eat fish -- as we used to earlier -- what will we sell?'', asks Arjun Waghri. ``From 2.5 kg, our catch has come down to a kg.''

Though the fishermen hold the effluent channel responsible for their woes -- and are backed by environmentalists like N M Bhatt of SOCLEEN and Rohit Prajapati of the Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, who agree that effluent does affect fish -- Gujarat Pollution Control Board regional officer N L Kansagara stonewalls enquiries by maintaining the Effluent Channel Project ``carried outthe necessary surveys before releasing the effluent''.

ECP Project Manager Jitendra Rindhani reciprocates by pointing out that it has the consent of the GPCB. Questioned why CRZ norms are not being followed, he says, ``That is why one of the three channels releases effluent at a considerable distance from the shore''.

But why not all three? Rindhani has no answer. But he insists that the shore has not been damaged, the quantity of fish has not come down and claims that fish can survive in 100 per cent concentration of effluent.

Bhatt, however, maintains, ``Fish cannot survive if the dissolved oxygen is less than 4 parts per million.'' He suggests that the shoreline be studied periodically for solid data.

That is exactly what Avenesh Sharma, then of the Department of Zoology, M S University, did for his doctoral thesis, submitted in 1995. Titled `Environmental Impact Assessment along the Effluent Channel from Vadodara to Jambusar and at its confluence with Mahi Estuary at the Gulf ofCambay, with special reference to heavy metals', the study shows how effluent has affected fish and fishing activity in the region.

In 1991, when he began his study, he says, the flat fish (Synaptura) was a common sight in the waters. But it was never seen after 1993. As if that was not damning enough, Sharma says laboratory tests on fish between 1991 and 1993 revealed fish caught in the disposal site to have higher metal content than those captured further downstream.