The Mekedatu dam project is back in limelight with the Supreme Court, on November 13, 2025, giving nod for the appraisal of a Detailed Project Report (DPR) by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and by the Central Water Commission (CWC).

The idea of the project proponent – the Karnataka government – is to impound 67.16 thousand million cubic ft (TMC) of water by building a ₹9,000-crore balancing reservoir at Mekedatu (which, in Kannada, means ‘goat’s leap’), about 100 km from Bengaluru. The project will have a 400 MW (megawatt) hydro power component too. In the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment on the Cauvery dispute, Karnataka had been sanctioned an additional 4.75 TMC.

The arguments

It was the case of Karnataka before the court that what the State intended to do was “only utilisation of the water allotted to it, as per the Award of the CWDT [Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal], as modified by this court.” The upper riparian State also argued it was “completely within its right” to utilise the water allotted in its share in the best possible manner. Even after the Mekedatu dam was constructed, the uncontrolled flow of water towards Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry would not be affected.

Asserting Karnataka did not have a right to construct a dam at Mekedatu, Tamil Nadu submitted if the proposed dam was allowed, its right for the “uncontrolled flow of water would be adversely affected.” By constructing a dam, “Karnataka is, in fact, doing something which will amount to the modification of the Award passed by the CWDT, as modified by this court,” according to the lower riparian State.

Hearing both sides, the Supreme Court clarified Karnataka would be bound to release the water, as directed by the CWMA, which would be measured by the CWC at the measuring point of Biligundulu. It also stated “every State is free to utilise water allotted to its quota in the manner it finds to be in the best interest of the State. No other State has a right to interfere with the decision regarding the management and use of water allotted to a particular State unless by such act the water allotted to that State is reduced.”

‘Revised’ DPR

It is against this backdrop that the Karnataka government has decided to give a fresh lease of life to the project by planning to submit a “revised” DPR soon to the Central authorities. If one looks back at the history of the Cauvery dispute, the Mekedatu project cropped up a number of times during inter-State negotiations as well as talks among all the basin-States of the Cauvery which include Kerala and Puducherry.

A perusal of materials available with The Hindu Archives for the past 75 years reveals how the project was animatedly discussed. As early as in February 1950, this newspaper reported that the two governments had come to an understanding and Karnataka, then known as Mysore just as Tamil Nadu was called Madras at that time, had “secured” the nod of the other State for power generation and the former had received a revised draft agreement from the latter. In 1950, the project, envisaging the production of 15 MW initially and 35-40 MW eventually, was estimated to cost ₹5 crore, out of which the initial phase itself would cost ₹3.5 crore.

Kamaraj period

Detailed investigations were conducted between 1962 and 1964 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 power. The scheme involved the construction of a 470 ft. high dam and a big powerhouse at Rasimanal, 15 km upstream (also in Tamil Nadu).

S. Nijalingappa (left) and K. Kamaraj (right) in 1967
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

Speaking of the investigation work, former Chief Engineer of the now-defunct Tamil Nadu Electricity Board R. Sengottaiyan, who was in charge of hydro projects, recalled to this correspondent in the 1990s that in February 1963, Chief Ministers of the two States, K. Kamaraj and S. Nijalingappa, planned to visit the site of the proposed Hogenakkal hydro-electric project amid the expectation that even the foundation stone would be laid then. However, the visit was put off at the last minute and it never materialised, the former engineer recounted.

The committee

When Irrigation Ministers of the two States — H.M. Chennabasappa and P.U. Shanmugam — met at the picturesque spot of Hogenakkal on June 5 in 1974, an understanding was reached that officials of the two States would independently investigate and also hold mutual consultations to make detailed feasibility studies of the power projects, according to a report published by The Hindu the next day.

P.U. Shanmugam (left) and H.M. Chennabasappa (right)
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

In November 1980, the then Karnataka Chief Minister R. Gundu Rao, told during a press conference that his government had set up a nine-member committee to draw up a feasibility report on the Mekedatu project, envisaging power generation of about 1,000 MW, said a report of this newspaper on November 12, 1980.

A year later, he claimed 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 J.H. Patel sounded conciliatory towards Tamil Nadu when he said his State had suggested both to the Centre and Tamil Nadu that the Mekedatu and Hogenakkal projects be taken up as joint projects without bringing in the Cauvery waters dispute but no reply was received from the two governments. Patel, who was a Minister in the Janata government, headed by Ramakrishna Hegde, informed the Assembly that his State had sought the Centre’s clearance for Mekedatu.

R. Gundu Rao
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

During August 1996 – January 1997, when the two States held five rounds of negotiations to settle the core Cauvery dispute in the light of the Supreme Court’s suggestion, the Mekedatu dam project came up for discussion. According to a news report, filed by veteran journalist of Karnataka P.A. Ramaiah, published in this daily on October 27, 1996, the Centre was inclined to take up the Mekedatu project as its own. The cost might be ₹2,000 crores and the power — about 950 MW — could be shared by all the four riparian States. Mekedatu was not being regarded as an alternative to the Hogenakkal project of Tamil Nadu.

Karunanidhi period

Two weeks after the fifth and final round of negotiations held in Chennai on January 5, 1997, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. Karunanidhi told journalists that it was the Mekedatu project that stood in the way of reaching an accord on the sharing of the Cauvery water 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 the reason behind the failure of the talks was that Tamil Nadu has pitched its demand for a higher percentage of the share of the river water.

J.H. Patel (left) and M. Karunanidhi (right) in 1997
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

When P.R. Kumaramangalam was the Union Power Minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime during 1998-2000, he made an effort, through National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC), to revive the Mekedatu and Hogenakkal project as components of a bigger hydro power scheme, that included power plants in Shivasamudram and Rasimanal. Aimed at meeting a total demand of 1,150-megawatt (MW), the Cauvery Hydro Power Project (CHPP) envisaged 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.

P.R. Kumaramangalam in 1999
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

Initiated in 1999, the discussions went on for years at different levels with the Centre acting as the facilitator. In August 2008, Union Minister of State for Power and Commerce and Industry Jairam Ramesh, who emerged from nearly an hour-long meeting with Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi at the Secretariat, explained the rationale behind pursuing the “elusive” project. The cost of power through the CHPP would be ₹2.5 to ₹3 a unit when the States were buying power at a rate of ₹7.5 to ₹8 a unit, he explained. Finally, the talks broke down after one round in Chennai in August 2009. Citing one reason or the other, the basin States did not arrive at any understanding.

Jairam Ramesh in 2008
| Photo Credit:
Nagara Gopal

In the last 10 years, especially after the 2007 final award given by the Tribunal, the upper riparian State’s approach has been to present the Mekedatu project as one that seeks to implement the final award, as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018. Also, the project’s purpose is to address the drinking water supply requirements of Bengaluru, a point of which has been conceded by the Court.

Tamil Nadu’s stand has been that the Authority and the CWC should not entertain its neighbour’s plea for Mekedatu, given the upper riparian State’s “track record” in implementing the awards of the Tribunal. But, after the Court’s approval for the examination of the revised DPR, which is expected to be submitted by Karnataka in the coming months, the battle over Mekedatu is only likely to intensify further.