It seems odd for the Chief Minister of Goa to set terms for demarcating buffer zones in another state. Why should Laxmikant Parsekar stress about the wildlife sanctuaries
in the neighbouring state of Karnataka? In a letter dispatched to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Parsekar pointed out that Karnataka should
keep a buffer zone of 10 km around the Mhadei wildlife sanctuary. The letter stated that though the State government, in response to a Supreme Court order and a notification issued by the MoEF had set the buffer zone at one km, Karnataka is yet to do so. The letter points out that in the case of the Mhadei sanctuary no buffer zone had been demarcated in Karnataka. One would understand the greens getting all uppity about
the buffer zone in Karnataka, but not the Goa government. It is difficult to understand how a government that doesn’t mind
granting permission for a liquor unit in a coconut grove can
suddenly become a protector of the environment, that too in
Karnataka. However, if one factors
in the ongoing hearing before the
Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal
and Goa’s desperate need to prevent
diversion of water from the river,
it begins to make sense.
Goa is in the midst of a legal battle
with Karnataka, which has gone
ahead with construction of canals
to transfer 7 TMC of water from the Mhadei river to the Malaprabha
basin. Karnataka recently renewed its request for an
interim order allowing it to diver the water. Karnataka has also
raised objection to the presence of Atmaram Nadkarni, who
continues to represent Goa even though he was elevated to
the post of additional solicitor general at the Centre. The letter
written by Parsekar is in defence of the continuance of Nadkarni
as representative of the State government, for which the
Centre has granted permission. The buffer zone issue was added
to probably put Karnataka on the defensive.
Firstly, why is Karnataka so worried about Nadkarni representing
Goa before the Tribunal? He has been doing so since
2012 so it makes sense for him to continue since he is familiar
with the case. It is in Karnataka’s interest to bring the hearings
to a quick close and a change in lawyers at this advanced stage
would only result in more delay.
One cannot fault the State government for using every legal
weapon to halt diversion of water, but there is one worrying
question. If Goa has a one km buffer zone why demand a 10
km zone for Karnataka? There is a hope that if the MoEF notifies
a larger buffer zone it would jeopardise the construction
work for diversion of water and automatically resolve the issue
in Goa’s favour. Sharing of river water is a complex legal
process and no matter what Goa demands this process will
continue until it reaches its logical conclusion. Goa will have
to continue to fight, but also prepare for the worst, which is,
sharing of excess water.
