Mekedatu Dam Project is once again in the headlines Supreme Court approving on 13 November 2025 For evaluation of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Central Water Commission (CWC).
The project proponent – the Karnataka government – aims to store 67.16 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water by building a ₹9,000 crore balancing reservoir at Mekedatu (which means ‘goat’s jump’ in Kannada), about 100 km from Bengaluru. The project will also have a 400 megawatt (MW) hydropower component. Karnataka was sanctioned an additional 4.75 TMC of water in the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment on the Cauvery dispute.
logic
Karnataka’s case before the court was that the state intended to “use only the water allotted to it in accordance with the award of the CWDT (Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal), as modified by this court.” The upper riparian state also argued that it was “entirely within its rights” to use the water allocated to its share in the river. in the best possible wayEven after the construction of Mekedatu Dam, there will be no impact on the uncontrolled flow of water towards Tamil Nadu and Union Territory Puducherry,
Claiming that Karnataka does not have the right to build a dam at Mekedatu, Tamil Nadu said that if the proposed dam was allowed, “its right to uncontrolled flow of water will be adversely affected.” By building dams, “Karnataka is, In factTo do something which would amount to an amendment to the award passed by the CWDT, as amended by this Court,” according to the lower riparian state.
After hearing both the parties, the Supreme Court clarified that Karnataka will be bound to release water as directed by the CWMA, which will be measured by the CWC at the measurement point of Biligundulu. It also says, “Each State is free to use the water allotted to its quota in the manner that is in the best interests of the State. No other State has the right to interfere in decisions regarding the management and use of the water allotted to a particular State unless the water allotted to that State is reduced by such Act.”
‘Revised’ DPR
It is in this backdrop that the Karnataka government has decided to give a new lease of life to the project by planning to submit a “revised” DPR to the central authorities soon. If one looks at the history of the Cauvery dispute, the Mekedatu project has come up several times during inter-state talks as well as negotiations between all the Cauvery basin-states, including Kerala and Puducherry.
Overview of materials available with The Hindu Archives The last 75 years show how the project was lively discussed. As early as February 1950, this newspaper reported that an understanding had been reached between the two governments and that Karnataka, then known as Mysore, just as Tamil Nadu was then known as Madras, had “secured” the second state’s approval for power generation and the first state had received a revised draft agreement from the second state. In 1950, the project, initially envisaged to generate 15 MW and eventually 35–40 MW, was estimated to cost ₹5 crore, of which the initial phase would cost ₹3.5 crore.
Kamaraj period
Between 1962 and 1964 detailed investigations were carried out for the establishment of two dams and two power houses near Hogenakkal at a total cost of ₹80 crore, which could produce 800 MW of electricity. The plan included the construction of a 470 ft high dam and a large power station at Rasimaanal, 15 km upstream (also in Tamil Nadu).
In 1967 S. Nijalingappa (left) and K. Kamaraj (right) Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
Talking about the investigation work, former chief engineer of the now defunct Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, R. Sengottaiyan, who was in-charge of hydropower projects, reminded this correspondent of the 1990s that in February 1963, the chief ministers of the two states, K. Kamaraj and S. Nijalingappa had planned to visit the site of the proposed Hogenakkal hydro-electric project amid hopes that the foundation stone would also be laid then. However, the trip was postponed at the last minute and it never became possible, the former engineer said.
committee
When the irrigation ministers of the two states – HM Chennabasappa and PU Shanmugam – met at the picturesque location of Hogenakkal on June 5, 1974, an agreement was reached that officials of both the states would independently investigate and also hold mutual consultations to carry out detailed feasibility studies of the power projects, according to a report published in 1974. The Hindu Next day.
PU Shanmugam (left) and HM Chennabasappa (right). Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
In November 1980, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka R. Gundu Rao told during a press conference that his government had constituted a nine-member committee to prepare a feasibility report on the Mekedatu project, which envisaged power generation of about 1,000 MW, according to a report in this newspaper on November 12, 1980.
A year later, he claimed that the expert panel had concluded that the Mekadatu Hydroelectric Project was more suitable for construction than the Hogenakkal project proposed by Tamil Nadu. However, in February 1987, the then Industry and Power Minister JH Patel adopted a cordial attitude towards Tamil Nadu when he said that his state had suggested to both the Center and Tamil Nadu that the Mekedatu and Hogenakkal projects be taken up as joint projects without bringing it into the Cauvery water dispute, but received no response from both the governments. Patel, who was a minister in the Ramakrishna Hegde-led Janata government, informed the Assembly that his state had sought the Centre’s approval for Mekedatu.
R Gundu Rao Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
During August 1996 – January 1997, when the two states held five rounds of talks to resolve the main Cauvery dispute in the light of the Supreme Court’s suggestion, the Mekedatu Dam project came into focus. According to a news report filed by veteran Karnataka journalist PA Ramaiah, published in this daily on October 27, 1996, the Center was keen to consider the Mekedatu project as its own. The cost could be ₹2,000 crore and the power – about 950 MW – could be shared by all four riparian states. Mekedatu was not being considered as an alternative to the Hogenakkal project of Tamil Nadu.
Karunanidhi period
Two weeks after the fifth and final round of talks held in Chennai on January 5, 1997, M. Karunanidhi, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, told reporters that it was the Mekedatu project that stood in the way of reaching an agreement on Cauvery water sharing between the two states. But his Karnataka counterpart Patel, on his return to Bengaluru on the day he led his state’s talks with Tamil Nadu, told reporters that the reason behind the failure of the talks was that Tamil Nadu had demanded a higher percentage of the river water share.
JH Patel (left) and M. Karunanidhi (right) in 1997. Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
When PR Kumaramangalam was the Union Energy Minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime during 1998–2000, he attempted to revive the Mekedatu and Hogenakkal projects as components of a larger hydropower scheme through the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC), which included power plants at Shivasamudram and Rasimanal. With an aim to meet the total demand of 1,150 megawatt (MW), the Cauvery Hydro Power Project (CHPP) envisages setting up four plants at Shivasamudram (270 MW) and Mekadatu (400 MW) in Karnataka and Rasimanal (360 MW) and Hogenakkal (120 MW) in Tamil Nadu.
PR Kumaramangalam in 1999 Photo Courtesy: The Hindu Archives
Initiated in 1999, discussions continued over the years at various levels with the Center playing the role of facilitator. In August 2008, Union Minister of State for Power and Commerce and Industry Jairam Ramesh, emerging from an almost hour-long meeting with Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi at the Secretariat, explained the rationale behind pursuing the “elusive” project. He pointed out that the cost of power through CHPP would be ₹2.5 to ₹3 per unit, when the state was purchasing power at the rate of ₹7.5 to ₹8 per unit. Ultimately, the talks broke down after a round of talks in Chennai in August 2009. Citing one reason or the other, the basin states could not reach any consensus.
Jairam Ramesh in 2008 Photo Courtesy: Nagara Gopal
Over the past 10 years, particularly after the final award by the Tribunal in 2007, the approach of the upper riparian state has been to present the Mekedatu Project as a project that seeks to implement the final award, as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018. Furthermore, the project aims to address the drinking water supply needs of Bengaluru, a point of which has been accepted by the Court.
Tamil Nadu’s stance has been that the authority and the CWC should not consider its neighbour’s petition for Mekedatu, given the upper coastal state’s “track record” in implementing tribunal awards. But, following the Court’s approval to examine the revised DPR, which is expected to be submitted by Karnataka in the coming months, the fight over Mekedatu is likely to intensify.
