Kalasa-Banduri: Goa oppn parties seek withdrawal

The Opposition parties in Goa have reminded Chief Minister Pramod Sawant of his promise to get the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to withdraw its letter giving nod to the Kalasa-Banduri water diversion project.

They said that it could be the letter by the MoEF in October, which gave a green nod to the Rs 841 crore water diversion project at Kalasa-Bhandura across the Mahadayi river (Mhadei in Goa), which may have tipped the mood in favour of the BJP, at the expense of Goa, during the byelections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

“Now that @moefcc letter dated October 17 has paid off, will we at least now get justice for #Mhadei with above letter getting rescinded?
Or will the clearance get further strengthened and confirmed signalling the death knell for #Mhadei & #Goa? No more excuses now,” Goa Forward Party president and Opposition MLA Vijai Sardesai tweeted.

Political parties across the board, including the ruling BJP, have accused the MoEF of playing foul with Goa’s interests by giving a go-ahead to the Kalasa-Banduri project, which the state government, in a communication to the central ministry, has said, would cause “ecological devastation” in Goa.

Upon pressure from social and political outfits here, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar has said that the letter, issued to the Karnataka government, was an oversight and has repeatedly asked for time to take a relook at the issue.

Mahadayi river is considered as a lifeline in the northern parts of the coastal state. It originates in Karnataka and joins the Arabian Sea in Panaji in Goa, while briefly flowing through the territory of Maharashtra.

Last year, the Mahadayi interstate waster dispute Tribunal for nearly two decades over sharing of water from the Mahadayi river, in its award had allotted 13.42 tmcft (including 3.9 tmcft for diversion into the depleted Malaprabha river basin) from the Mahadayi river basin to Karnataka. Maharashtra has been allotted 1.33 tmcft.

Both governments have appealed to the Supreme Court against the provisions of the award.