Tamil Nadu pleased over panel order on Mekedatu
The proposed project falls within Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and the inter-State boundary of TN is located at a distance of 3.90 km.
CHENNAI: In a shot in the arm for Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami who has been waging a war against the neighbouring Karnataka’s move to construct the Mekedatu balancing reservoir cum drinking water project across the Cauvery, the expert appraisal committee (EAC) of the Union Environment Ministry on river valley and hydroelectric projects has declined to grant terms of reference (ToR) to Karnataka for its Mekedatu project. The panel expressed the opinion that Tamil Nadu and Karnataka should work out “an amicable solution on the latter's request for an environment study for the Rs 9,000 crore dam project.”
“As there are a couple of representations received from Tamil Nadu government requesting not to grant Terms of Reference to the present proposal, the committee opined that an amicable solution be arrived at between the two states and put up for reconsideration for grant of ToR,” the committee said in its meeting held in the national capital on July 19.
The chairman of the reconstituted EAC Dr. S. K. Jain of the Union Environment, Forest and Climate Change, had presided over the meeting.
The 11-member panel, which sought additional information and clarification from Karnataka government, including detailed study for an alternative site, however, did not recommend granting fresh ToR / scooping clearance for the proposal.
The proposed project falls within Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and the inter-State boundary of TN is located at a distance of 3.90 km. The total catchment of Cauvery at Mekedatu dam site is 34,273 km2 and a total of 4,996 hectare area at FRL 440 m will be submerged due to this project, of which 2,925.5 hectare is Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and 1,869.50 hectare is reserve forest. Karnataka is yet to submit an application for diversion of forest and wildlife land. Five villages come under the submergence area.
While doing the study on the Analysis of Alternatives, the EAC found that there is no consideration of alternative site and rather two options at one location of different dam height have been considered.
"It requires to be revisited and the best alternative be decided after a detailed study," the committee said.