Mangaluru: When the state's parched interiors are crying for water, shouldn't the water-rich coast rush to help?
Water resource expert Prof. S.G. Mayya agrees but poses a question: What if the coastal districts do not have the water being projected by Yettinahole proponents?
Speaking to Deccan Chronicle, Prof. Mayya, who was present at the controversial Yettinahole meeting called by the CM last week, is annoyed that the go-ahead has been given for the project overruling objections of experts.
“The water crisis in the coast hardly matters to them, nor are they concerned about the effect of the project on the Western Ghats and on monsoon rain,” he said.
Prof (Dr) S.G. Mayya, former Dean (Planning and Development) and professor of Water resource Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NIT-K) is a busy man even after his retirement. He has done a detailed study about Yettinahole project and has always propagated that the availability of water is much less than projected and that the project would damage the Western Ghats.
A person who does not identify with any political party, Mayya wants to stop the Yettinahole project and is also opposed to the Netravathi diversion project. He is one of the important resource persons for the activists of Dakshina Kannada district who have approached the National Green Tribunal. Despite his wife being hospitalised, Prof. Mayya spared his precious times to attend meetings related to Yettinahole.
Excerpts from an interview:
You attended the meeting convened by the Chief Minister. Who invited you?
I was invited by the CM to attend the meeting on December 26. The invitation was delivered to me by registered post.
Did the CMO send the agenda and accordingly, you prepared the technical details?
There was no agenda mentioned in the invitation. It was stated that the meeting had been arranged to discuss Yethinahole project. However, the technical drawbacks in the DPR were presented in the meeting.
Can you explain what exactly happened inside?
A KNNL official gave a presentation, though it was objected to by people of the coastal region who attended the meeting, since the same presentation has been heard on many occasions. Mr Ganesh Karnik (MLC) from the coastal district asked questions relating to water availability from the project and the meaning of the dependable flow. He also asked for documentary proof for their claims but KNNL officials couldn’t give any copy.
Subsequently, when I was asked to present our objections to the project, I raised issues relating to National Water Policy, EIA, Water Problems of the coastal region, water estimation, misleading information, surplus/ excess flow, violation of the provisions of various government acts and sustainability of Western Ghats. However there was no satisfactory reply from KNNL officials.
Meanwhile Congress MLAs and MLCs intervened to support the government stand. Unfortunately, these elected represents from the coastal region instead of supporting the stand of the people of this region were more interested in pleasing the Chief Minister to protect their political career. Their behaviour has made us to suspect whether the meeting was an official meeting or their party meeting. The meeting ended with a declaration by the CM that the government would not stop the project.
Did the government explain its stand?
It is very clear that the government is least interested in the success of the project. It believes that whatever was explained by their officials is final. It is not open to any criticism of the DPR or the project. It is not ready to listen to details of the water crisis in the coast. It is not concerned about the long-term effect of the project on the Western Ghats and on monsoon rainfall. It is bent upon going ahead with the project.
Did you study the DPR of Yettinahole project? What are the glaring mistakes?
The glaring mistake is in the estimation of water yield! It is estimated using unreliable, insufficient and highly exaggerated rainfall data.Though it is supposed to be a drinking water project, it exhaustively discusses irrigation benefits. Further water is given for purposes other than drinking. A major water diversion project should not have kept the river basin people/ stakeholders in the dark. It is an Integrated / Multipurpose Project, hence, an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) should have been done. The question arises whether one can spend such a huge amount of tax payers’ money on a project when there is no guarantee of water supply? Can we afford to damage the Western Ghats for such a project? The project is proposed in the Netravathi river basin but doesn’t speak of water problems of the basin.
Tell us what your study on Yettinahole project says?
The water availability is exaggerated by more than 200 percent. There will be irreparable damage to the Western Ghats. The long-term effect on the Ghats will affect rainfall in the region which will in turn reduce water flow of west and east flowing rivers.
Do you think people of Kolar and Chikkballapur would get water?
No. People of Kolar and Chhikkaballapur have the last preference in the project. Since the water is proposed to be transported in an open canal passing through agricultural fields, even if the project yields 24 Tmc of water, it is very unlikely that people of Kolar and Chikkaballapur would get any benefit.
Did you have a chance to go through Paramashivaiah report. If so, what does it say?
It is a scheme to divert 90.73 TMC of water from Netravathi River basin through the garland canal system in Netravathi Basin. It is further supported by 27 reservoirs in the Western Ghats region. The scheme is supposed to provide water to Chikkamagalur, Hassan Tumakuru, Mandya, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Kolar districts and also Bengaluru city.
In spite of the NGT order, the govt seems to have gone ahead with the felling of trees.
This is arrogance. The lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers!
Is there an alternative?
Yes. First of all the objective of the project is to be defined- whether it is only a drinking water project or water needs to be delivered for other purposes also. Further, Karnataka is known for water tanks. If all the existing tanks are rejuvenated by desilting and reclaiming the lost water spread, drinking water needs can be met. Water demands for irrigation and drinking should be separated.
Do you see any similarity between Yettinahole project and the steel flyover project proposed in Bengaluru?
It is a fancy nowadays, going for expensive projects. It will certainly help politicians, officials, contractors, but not the real stakeholders!
