Report probes ecological risks in Karnataka’s proposed Mahadayi river diversion project

A detailed independent study titled “Bhandura Nala (Mahadayi Diversion)”, prepared by a group of committed environmentalists from Karnataka and Goa, has strongly questioned the ecological and social viability of Karnataka government’s ambitious plan to divert water from the Mahadayi river basin (locally known as Mhadei in Goa) through the Bhandura Nala tunnel project.

The report, which has been widely circulated among civil society organisations and policymakers, warns of irreversible damage to the fragile Western Ghats ecosystem and raises the spectre of large-scale desertification in the region if such high-impact linear projects are allowed without rigorous scrutiny.

Renowned power and climate policy analyst Shankar Sharma, while forwarding the report to concerned citizens and organisations, described it as “a comprehensive and credible critique of the project proposal” that also discusses multiple viable alternatives to meet Karnataka’s stated water needs without resorting to ecologically destructive diversion.

In his strongly worded appeal, Sharma stated:

“This analysis provides a credible set of points to seriously ponder over for the entire society in view of the potential threats, such as desertification of the lands in and around the Western Ghats.”

He further highlighted the broader implications for peninsular India, noting that the Western Ghats are officially recognised by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (EF&CC) as “the water fountain of peninsular India”, being the origin of 37 east-flowing rivers and 3 major west-flowing rivers.

The Mahadayi diversion has remained a flashpoint between Karnataka and Goa for over two decades, with Goa consistently opposing any diversion on the grounds that it would devastate the biodiversity-rich Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and downstream ecosystems. The new independent report strengthens Goa’s position by documenting technical flaws, inadequate environmental impact assessments, and feasible non-diversion alternatives that Karnataka has allegedly ignored.

Sharma warned that the Bhandura Nala project is only one among nearly 50 high-impact linear projects already identified in Karnataka alone that cut through the Western Ghats, with dozens more planned or under implementation in Maharashtra, Kerala, and Goa. He termed the cumulative assault a “very serious issue for the entire peninsular India” and urged civil society organisations (CSOs) across the region to break their silence.

“The people of peninsular India, especially the concerned CSOs, cannot afford to be indifferent/silent on this specific project as well as other high impact project proposals in the Western Ghats,” Sharma wrote.  

“Let us do all that is feasible to effectively address the associated threats/costs to the larger society.”

Environmentalists associated with the report argue that diversion projects in the Western Ghats not only threaten endemic flora and fauna but also jeopardise the hydrological stability of the entire peninsula by disrupting the delicate rainfall catchment and recharge functions of this global biodiversity hotspot.

As the decades-old Mahadayi water dispute awaits final adjudication before the Supreme Court-appointed tribunal, the release of this independent technical critique is likely to intensify public and legal scrutiny of Karnataka’s diversion plans and reignite demands for a cumulative impact assessment of all linear projects in the Western Ghats.