Karnataka Congress defends Mekedatu project, says SC has settled legal position
The Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee has defended the proposed Mekedatu drinking water project, asserting that the Supreme Court has already settled the legal position on the matter and that the reservoir would not alter Karnataka's obligation to release water to Tamil Nadu.
The response comes after actor Chethan Ahimsa wrote to Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, raising environmental concerns about the project. Congress vice-president S.A. Hussain, in a statement, said Bengaluru's drinking water shortfall of 500 million litres per day is a documented fact and not speculative.
“Every large infrastructure project carries an environmental cost. The question before policy makers is not whether there is any impact but whether that impact is proportionate to the public benefit and can be responsibly mitigated,” Hussain said, adding that roughly 5,000 hectares of forest land would be submerged under the project.
He drew comparisons with other major irrigation and drinking water projects, pointing out the submergence of about 10,000 hectares of forests in the Sardar Sarovar project, 40,000 hectares in the Narmada Sagar project, and over 75,000 acres of cultivated land and several thousand acres of forest in the Polavaram project.
“We are not asking Karnataka to choose between environmental protection and drinking water security. Responsible public policy must achieve both,” Hussain said, while welcoming an independent and transparent technical review of the sanctuary's biodiversity, including the grizzled giant squirrel population. He added that water security and environmental protection need not be opposing commitments.
The Mekedatu project, proposed on the Cauvery river in Ramanagara district, aims to supply drinking water to Bengaluru city and nearby areas. The project has been a point of contention between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, with Tamil Nadu opposing it on the grounds that it would affect the flow of water downstream. Karnataka has maintained that the project is only for drinking water purposes and will not affect its commitments under the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award and subsequent Supreme Court orders.
Environmentalists and civil society groups have expressed concerns about the impact on forest land and wildlife, particularly the endangered grizzled giant squirrel in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. They have urged a comprehensive environmental impact assessment before any further steps are taken.
The project is still awaiting approval from the central government and various regulatory bodies. Meanwhile, the political debate over its necessity and environmental costs continues, with the Congress party seeking to balance development needs with ecological preservation.
