The Centre’s clarification in Parliament last week on the implementation of the Mekedatu project has come as a setback to Karnataka. Especially as the Union Jal Shakti minister, Gajendra Singh Shekhawat had iterated that the state needs to get approval from the Cauvery Water Management Authority, in addition to the union ministry of environment, before going ahead with its ambitious plan.

As the project is proposed to be set up along an inter-state river basin, he added, the Interstate River Water Disputes Act “mandates permission from all lower riparian states and stakeholders.” Karnataka has all along been arguing that the proposed Rs 9,000 crore balancing reservoir project, using surplus Cauvery waters , is aimed at meeting the drinking water needs of Bengaluru, and not for irrigation. Accordingly, it does not need Tamil Nadu’s permission.

To that extent, the Centre’s stand has upset Karnataka’s plans. In fact, with a capacity to store 67 tmcft of water, Karnataka aims to use 4.75tmc ft of water to meet the drinking water needs of the IT capital, besides setting up a 400mw hydel power station. The additional storage, it claims, would come in useful to both the states in times of distress. Karnataka has also claimed that it would not be violating the 2018 Supreme Court verdict on the sharing of Cauvery waters with Tamil Nadu; nor, for that matter, did it need to consult its neighbour for implementing the Mekedatu scheme.

Of late, Karnataka has seemed to be in a hurry to execute the project, believing that it would not have any problem in getting the DPR cleared. Witness, for example, what Karnataka chief minister Basavaraj Bommai told newsmen last week during his visit to Delhi: “We have also submitted the DPR to the Jal Shakti minister recently. I have confidence that it will be approved by the Union government and the project will be taken up shortly thereafter.” Tamil Nadu, however, is convinced that the storage of 67 tmcft of water in the Mekedatu dam would hinder the free flow of surplus water to it, besides harming its farmers’ interests.

Not surprisingly, its application questioning the project is pending before the Supreme Court. This apart, chief minister M K Stalin has also been building pressure on the Union government, going by the recent interaction of his officials and MPs with the Jal Shakti minister. Incidentally, the Mekedatu project was first mooted by the Congress government under Siddaramiah in 2013 but did not get the required momentum.

It was only after former chief minister B S Yedyurappa wrote to his counterpart, M K Stalin early this year about the project and the consequent objections by the latter that it suddenly hit the headlines again. Now, the two states are engaged in a bitter war over the project, akin to reigniting the decades-old fight between the two states on sharing of the Cauvery waters, a dispute that the Supreme Court finally settled in 2018. In fact, ever since the project was mooted by Karnataka, politicians and farmers from the neighbouring state have been holding protests against it.

Tamil Nadu has been arguing that the construction of the reservoir ”would result in impounding of the flows in the intermediate catchment below the Krishnaraja Sagar and Kabini reservoirs, and Billigundulu in the common border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.” Significantly, in its 2018 verdict, the apex court had allocated Karnataka 284 thousand million cubic (tmc) feet of water, with Tamil Nadu getting 404.25, Kerala 30 and Puducherry seven. In other words, the court improved on the share that the Cauvery Water Disputes’ Tribunal had allocated earlier to Karnataka by 14.75 tmc ft while reducing that of Tamil Nadu.

There was no change in the allocation that was given by the CWDT to Puducherry and Kerala. The court had deemed it appropriate to award additional quantities to Karnataka, including 10 tmc (on account of ground water availability in Tamil Nadu) and 4.75 tmc for meeting Bengaluru’s drinking water needs. The verdict also led to the Centre setting up the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC), accordingly. Incidentally, Puducherry too has opposed the Mekedatu project, maintaining that the flow of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu and consequently to Karaikal, an enclave of the union territory, would be hit if the dam is constructed.

Meanwhile, as the two states fight over the need or otherwise of setting up the controversial project, the green brigade in Karnataka fears that the balancing reservoir would have a serious impact on the environment. In fact, conservationists find it difficult to understand why Karnataka is seeking to rush through the project without first getting the all-important clearances. This includes the one from the environment ministry, especially as large tracts of forest land would be submerged.

Of equal importance is the absence of public consultation by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. This has puzzled experts who believe that the rush has much to do with political expediency, irrespective of the Mekedatu project’s perceived benefits to the two states. The green brigade is also intrigued as to why important issues like submergence and diversion of forest land and the Environment Impact Assessment study have not been addressed till now.

Especially, when it comes to a project as big as the Mekedatu dam, which impacts the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary significantly. The project, it is feared, would lead to the submergence of 5100 ha of CWS area, including 227 ha of revenue land. Besides, it would impact the Bannerghatta National Park and the Chamrajanagar forest which could inevitably lead to man-animal conflict. The submergence of forest land would cut off wildlife and elephant migratory routes.

The species that could also be affected include the giant squirrels, honey badgers, Deccan Mahseer fish and otters. This apart, the dam would lead to the axing of over 10,000 trees, if not more. Above all, it would displace tribal villages in the area besides affecting major waterfalls like Hoganekal and Gaganachukki -Barachuki. While the eco activists realise the importance of meeting the drinking water needs of the fast growing IT capital, they feel it would help if Karnataka looks for alternatives instead of seeking to play havoc with the environment.

Irrigation experts, however, feel that instead of political engagement with its neighbour, Karnataka should make a strong case before the apex court and the CWMA, to ensure that the Mekedatu project becomes a reality and the people of Bengaluru get much-needed drinking water.

(The writer is The Statesman’s Bengaluru-based Special Representative)