Karnataka has been battling the River Mhadei water diversion issue with a powerful moral argument of an urgent need to provide drinking water to the drought-prone districts of northern Karnataka. Through the Kalasa-Bhandura project, the State has repeatedly sought to divert water from the Mhadei basin into the Malaprabha reservoir, arguing that it will serve as a lifeline for urban centres such as Hubballi-Dharwad and surrounding rural areas “facing chronic water shortages.”
But data from the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti’s first census of Major and Medium Irrigation (MMI) Projects debunks that narrative. The figures point to the fact that Karnataka’s major water infrastructure is largely used for agriculture, and only marginally for drinking and industrial needs. That raises a crucial question. Is drinking water really the principal objective behind Karnataka’s demand for additional water, or has the language of drinking-water security been used to expand agricultural supplies? The Jal Shakti Ministry’s census covered 108 major and medium irrigation projects in Karnataka (53 major and 55 medium). The numbers reveal that 96.4 per cent of water is utilised for irrigation while only 3.6 per cent is used for drinking and industrial purposes. Also, it also reveals that major and medium irrigation projects use nearly 27 times more water for agriculture than for drinking and industrial purposes combined. Furthermore, 83 of the 108 projects are devoted exclusively to irrigation. Lastly, 102 of the 108 projects rely on conventional flood irrigation. Only six use drip irrigation, while two use sprinklers.
The scale of the imbalance is as clear as daylight. Karnataka’s major and medium irrigation system is, by design and operation, overwhelmingly agricultural. This means that the water crisis in northern Karnataka is not simply a question of inadequate supply, but a question of how existing water is allocated.
The water stress in districts such as Belagavi, Dharwad, Gadag and Bagalkot cannot be separated from what is happening within the Malaprabha basin itself. For decades, the region has supported water-intensive cash crops, particularly sugarcane. That has placed enormous pressure on already limited surface-water resources, including reservoirs such as Navilu Teertha, while groundwater reserves have also come under increasing strain. Strangely, Karnataka never focused on managing existing supplies efficiently.
Instead of making a decisive shift towards demand management, Karnataka has been consistently fighting for inter-basin diversion. The Kalasa-Bhandura diversion revolves around drinking-water needs. That plan carries obvious legal and political weight, particularly when the State is seeking regulatory approvals or defending its position before water-dispute authorities. The difficulty is what happens after that water enters the Malaprabha system, a basin from which over 96 per cent of water goes for irrigation.
Goa’s opposition before the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court has focused heavily on the ecological sensitivity of the Mandovi-Mhadei basin. The Mhadei is a rain-fed river system originating in the Western Ghats and supports a highly diverse ecosystem, including protected areas such as the Bhimgad and Mahadayi wildlife sanctuaries. Its seasonal flows are not simply a matter of water quantity; they help maintain the ecological balance of the river and its downstream estuary.
The Mhadei dispute is presented as a straightforward conflict between a water-starved Karnataka and a downstream Goa seeking to protect its river. The reality appears clearer with the Jal Shakti census data. The distinction between a drinking-water project and a broader agricultural water strategy deserves closer scrutiny.
