The controversy over the proposed Mekedatu water project

News: Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are heading for a political confrontation over the Mekedatu drinking water project across river Cauvery, proposed by the former.

Within days of Tamil Nadu Assembly’s resolution against the project, Karnataka’s legislative assembly is set to counter it with a resolution seeking the project’s early implementation and clearances from the Centre.

Furthermore, with Cauvery being an emotive issue that binds people in the Cauvery basin districts in Old Mysore region, Mekedatu is likely to impact election results.

About Mekedatu project

Originally mooted in 1948, Mekedatu (which translates as Goat’s crossing) is a drinking water cum power generation project across river Cauvery.

Karnataka gave the project shape after the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was notified in February 2013 allocating the riparian states their shares.

The ₹9,000 crore balancing reservoir at Mekedatu on the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border will involve submergence of nearly 5,100 hectares of forest in Cauvery wildlife sanctuary hosting rich flora and fauna.

What is the current status of the project?

The project is now before the Cauvery Water Management Authority. The Authority is exploring the possibility of having an exclusive discussion on the project, when the matter is sub judice.

Tamil Nadu has written to the Centre to withdraw the permission given to prepare the detailed project report (DPR). It has also filed a petition before the Supreme Court, explaining its objections against the project.

The Centre and Karnataka have also filed counter affidavits.

How will it benefit Karnataka?

Along with the 5th stage of the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme, the water from Mekedatu is projected to meet the water requirement of Bengaluru for the next 30 years. Currently, more than 30% of Bengaluru is dependent on borewell water.

Besides, there are also plans to generate 400 MW of power. The revenue earned from power generation is expected to compensate the Govt its investment on the project within a few years.

Karnataka argues that the reservoir will also help to ensure monthly flow stipulated in the award for Tamil Nadu, rather than harm the neighbouring State’s interest in any way.

What are the arguments by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu?

Karnataka

– Karnataka says that there is no case for Tamil Nadu after its share of 177.75 tmc ft. of water is ensured at the inter-State border gauging centre at Biligundlu.

– Also, the project falls inside the jurisdictional limit of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu’s permission is not needed.

– The State also argues that since there is no stay in any court for the project, Karnataka can go ahead.

– On utilising the surplus water, Karnataka says that any allocation in this sphere should be done after hydrology studies to ascertain the quantum of excess water available in the basin.

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu feels that Karnataka, through the project, will impound and divert flows from “uncontrolled catchments” to itself.

As the upper riparian State, K’tka has adequate infrastructure even now to address the water needs of Bengaluru. Hence, there’s no need for the Mekedatu project, according to Tamil Nadu.

Mekedatu also does not find mention in the Tribunal’s final order or the Supreme Court judgement.

Besides, given the unpleasant experiences that it has had with Karnataka in securing its share of the Cauvery water, as per the monthly schedule of water release, Tamil Nadu is skeptical of its assurances.

Source: This post is based on the article “The controversy over the proposed Mekedatu water project” published in The Hindu on 24th Mar 22.