What is the dispute over the Mekedatu dam project? | Explained

The story so far: On November 18, the Karnataka government decided that it would submit a “revised” Detailed Project Report (DPR) to the Center for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir across the inter-state Cauvery River. Five days earlier, the Supreme Court termed Tamil Nadu’s application against Karnataka’s proposed project as “premature”. This development has paved the way for the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Central Water Commission (CWC) to examine the upper riparian state’s proposal.

How has Tamil Nadu responded?

While the opposition in Tamil Nadu has blamed the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government for the Supreme Court ruling, the lower riparian state’s Water Resources Minister Durai Murugan refuted reports that the Court had allowed the construction of the dam and asserted that his government would oppose any attempt by Karnataka to go ahead with the project. Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar termed the Court’s order as ‘justice to the state’.

What are the main features of the project?

Karnataka plans to build a ₹9,000-crore balancing reservoir at Mekedatu, about 100 km from Bengaluru, to impound 67.16 billion cubic feet (TMC) of water. It will also have a 400 MW hydro component. The project will flood approximately 4,996 hectares of land, including approximately 4,800 hectares of forest and nature reserves. It is expected to help Karnataka utilize an additional 4.75 TMC of water allocated by the Supreme Court in its February 2018 ruling on the Cauvery dispute to meet Bengaluru’s growing drinking water needs. Although the project was mooted as early as 1948, it only gained momentum in recent years, when the capital of the upper riparian state faced severe water shortages in the summer.

Why is the project controversial?

The history of the Cauvery division dispute has led to a serious trust deficit between Tamil Nadu and Karanataka. The grievances of the lower riparian state against the upper riparian state are increasing as the latter’s record in releasing water during the first four months of the water year (June to May) is considered far from satisfactory. This is why Tamil Nadu fears that the project, if materialized, could lead to Karnataka storing excessive amounts of water and releasing it at its discretion. However, Mr Shivakumar claims that the project, to be implemented in Karnataka and from the state’s own resources, would help his state supply water to Tamil Nadu, as per the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, “even during bad rainy years.”

How important is the project?

According to information provided by Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in March 2024, during the acute water shortage in Bengaluru, the city requires 2,600 million liters per day (MLD) while the available volume was 2,100 MLD, leaving a deficit of 500 MLD. The Cauvery River meets the demand of 1,450 MLD, of which 650 MLD comes from groundwater. It is expected that the population of Bengaluru, which now stands at 13 million, will reach 20 million within six years; then the city needs 4,000 MLD. It is against this backdrop that Mr. Shivakumar justified the early implementation of the Mekedatu project. But the Supreme Court awarded Bengaluru only TMC 4.75 per year (equivalent to about MLD 370).

However, there are also other ways to tackle the water problem. TV Ramachandra, senior academician at the Center for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, has said that the city receives 700-850 mm of rainfall annually, which in turn yields about 15 TMC (about 1,160 MLD), apart from the reuse of treated wastewater which is likely to yield about 16 TMC (1,240 MLD) annually.

How does the Center view this issue?

In January 2019, Karnataka submitted the DPR to the CWC, which in turn had forwarded it to the CWMA. When it had sought approval from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the terms of reference for conducting the environmental impact assessment study, the ministry’s expert appraisal committee concluded in July 2019 that considering the inter-state issues, an “amicable solution” is needed between the two states. On February 1, 2024, after “detailed deliberation,” the CWMA decided to refer the project back to the CWC.

Now the Authority and the CWC can provide the two states with a platform for discussion, and if possible, agreement on the project.