PANAJI
Karnataka’s claim of undertaking the Kalasa-Bhandura project to “meet the drinking requirements” once again stands exposed with noted environmentalist Rajendra Kerkar claiming that Detailed Project Report (DPR) has been hastily approved by the Centre.
The poll-bound State on Tuesday furnished a copy of the DPR to Goa, a day after the Supreme Court directed to furnish copies of the DPR and their alleged approvals within one week.
Kerkar pointed out the data by the Karnataka government mentioning the water yield available at the Kalasa was 3.4 tmc ft and the Bhandura 1.11 tmc ft. The activist argued that the 4.45 tmc ft availability is highly exaggerated as the actual yield calculated by the National Water Development Agency is only 2.08 tmc ft.
“The drinking water needs of Hubli-Dharwad can be easily accommodated by a marginal reduction in irrigation needs of Malaprabha sub-basin or through diversion from other west flowing rivers exclusively in Karnataka such as Kali, Bedti Rivers, considering that the water after hydel-power generation flows into the Arabian Sea,” Kerkar explained.
He alleged that dams and diversion of the Kalasa-Bhandura along with the Surla and Haltara nallas were hastily approved despite special leave petitions filed by Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka are pending before the Supreme Court in addition to other petitions pending before Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal.
As far as the total drainage areas and the length in the Malaprabha is concerned, Kerkar further explained that a tributary of the Krishna river originating from Kankumbi is bigger than the Mhadei river.
“The Mhadei/ Mandovi is the only river that provides the drinking water for almost 43 per cent of Goa's population and it also helps in sustaining its fragile environment, economy, and trouble-free functioning of Goa's waterways and the harbour. Karnataka has so far not prepared any Master Plan for utilization of the Mhadei water within the basin, rather focussing continuously on implementing plans of consumptive use of the Mhadei Water for intra- basin purpose,” he added.
The 226-page DPR justifies the need to undertake the project stating it is one of several alternatives thought of to augment and supply drinking water to Hubli-Dharwad twin cities, Kundagol town and en route villages. The counterparts claimed that Malaprabha River is not drained enough by its catchment and the proposal considers diverting water from the tributaries of River Mahadayi like Kalasa Nala, Haltara Nala and Surla Nala etc which are close by.
“The requirement has been assessed considering the growth for the next 40 years and also requirement for other needs which are essential is assessed details…” it said while refusing to elaborate on “other needs” in its DPR proposal.
Kerkar slammed Karnataka for repeatedly claiming water to meet the drinking water needs while making no efforts to enhance the efficiency of agricultural water use by reducing evaporation, measuring deliveries and selecting crops that make sense for the particular environment. “Studies have shown that conservation and system improvements can reduce irrigation water needs by as much as 40 percent,” he added.
