Introduction
For decades, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been locked in a water war over the river Cauvery. Why? It is mainly because of the geographical location of the river — the Cauvery river and its tributaries originate in Karnataka and flow into Tamil Nadu — which leads to both the states engaging in a verbal battle over its ownership. Further, the Cauvery river is essentially the only source of water for most farmers in Tamil Nadu. With Karnataka tapping this water using dams to generate electricity and an adequate water supply, many regions in Tamil Nadu have been facing issues such as dried-up riverbeds during summer and flooding during monsoon to the release of a large amount of water from dams in Karnataka.
In 2019, the Government of Karnataka submitted a report to the Central Government requesting approval to construct a reservoir at Mekedatu situated in the Ramanagara district, about 90 km away from Bengaluru and 4 km ahead of the border with Tamil Nadu.
The Project aimed to ensure an adequate drinking water supply for Bengaluru which is facing a huge water shortage. Proposed to come up at the confluence of Cauvery with its tributary Arkavathi, the dam is expected to have a capacity of about 66 thousand million cubic feet of water (TMC), and would also generate 400 MW of hydroelectric power when it becomes operational. Further explaining the need for this Project, Institution of Engineers-India-State Chairman M. Lakshamana explained that the KRS, Hemavathi, Kabini, and Harangi dams have a combined storage of 113.75 TMC, which does not match with Karnataka’s share of Cauvery water, which happens to be 284.75 TMC. Since these dams are unable to store the allocated share, the water ends up flowing into the Bay of Bengal. Therefore, a detailed project report on the Mekedatu Project was prepared and sent to the CWC for clearance.
Former Karnataka Chief Minister B. S. Yediyurappa, wrote to his Tamil Nadu counterpart, M. K. Stalin, seeking the state’s cooperation concerning this Project. With Tamil Nadu having long been opposed to the Project, B. S. Yediyurappa sought to assure Stalin that their share of water will be released as agreed and only the excess water will be utilized through the dam and that it would be in the interest of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu if the Tamil Nadu Government, in the right spirit, would not oppose the implementation. [1]
Tamil Nadu’s Opposition to the Project
The Tamil Nadu Government’s plea before the Supreme Court makes their stand clear which is to “restrain the State of Karnataka from proceeding with the construction of two reservoirs at Mekedatu across the river Cauvery, or any other new projects across the river Cauvery in Karnataka which is not contemplated and/or permitted in the final decision of the Tribunal.” [2]
While asking for Karnataka to maintain the current situation, it reiterated the objections that were raised by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palaniswami with Prime minister Narendra Modi. The state expressed its views that the proposed reservoir would affect the natural flow of the river Cauvery and nullify the final adjudication of the centuries-long Cauvery river dispute through the formation of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
Tamil Nadu further argued that Cauvery was already a deficit basin and the construction of this Project, or any other project for that matter, would drastically affect the lower riparian state in which the farmers are solely dependent on the river water to irrigate their fields in getting their due share of waters as per the Final Order of the Tribunal as modified by the Court. [3]
Karnataka’s Response to the Protests On the other hand, Karnataka has stated that the extra drawing of water will not, in any way, affect the mandatory allocation of water to Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The current Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai also declared that there would be no compromise on the Mekedatu issue. He blamed Tamil Nadu for using it to play politics, and said, “Whichever party they may be from, they are opposing it for the sake of politics.” [4]
Karnataka continues to claim that this Project will help them to solve Bengaluru’s water crisis. The Congress party in Karnataka, earlier in January, began its 10-day ‘Padayatra’ in support of the construction of the Mekedatu Project across the Cauvery river; however, the march came to an abrupt end on the fifth day at the Ramanagara district in light of the surge in COVID-19 cases across the state.
Impact on the Environment Stepping aside from the political and communal aspects of this Project, there is also significant imbalance and damage caused to the ecosystem surrounding this area.
Mekedatu is a scenic site where the river Cauvery facilitates the creation of a complex riverine forest. The Mekedatu Project, once implemented, could be an environmental disaster. The Karnataka officials confirmed that this Project, which can pump 4.5 TMC of drinking water to Bengaluru and Kanakapura, will lead to the submergence of 7,862.64 acres of the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and 4619.63 acres of the adjoining reserve forests including Bannerghatta National Park and the Chamarajanagar forest. Though an expert committee that reviewed the Project had advised the state government to abandon it and look for alternatives given the huge cost to the environment, Karnataka is still hopeful of winning the Union Government’s approval for going ahead with it. [5]
Conclusion While Karnataka cannot be denied its due share of the Cauvery river, the question remains if the Karnataka Government could explore more environment-friendly solutions to quench Bengaluru’s needs, instead of the conventional way of building dams and reservoirs.
As it stands, Karnataka remains adamant in its stance of support for the construction of the Project, reiterating its benefits for water security in Bengaluru, while simultaneously assuring Tamil Nadu that their share of water will remain untouched.
However, only time will tell if this Project is a long-term solution to the growing water crisis faced by a growing population in Bengaluru, or not.
Article by: S L Nithyananda Rao
Comments