Who is responsible for Bengaluru’s lakes when the lake conservation institutions are being destroyed?
By Vikas S R
At Hulimavu, the recent lake breach amplified the confusion about which agency actually manages the lakes of Bengaluru. Over the years the Karnataka state government created, re-created and destroyed institutions to govern the lakes. The question that still persists among citizens and government is, what is the best way to govern the lakes and who has to be responsible for it? As per 74th Constitutional Amendment, it is the role of the ward committees as well as the Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to oversee the lakes. However, the capacity of the local government is still a major issue, hence the parastatal agencies are formed.
The history goes back to 1993 when the state government formed the Lakshman Rao committee for recommendations to protect the lakes. The committee recommended that community participation is a key to revive the lakes. The government, however, neglected the recommendations until 2002. Bangalore’s software boom of the early 2000s, made the government to create a Lake Development Authority (LDA) to protect and oversee water bodies that different public agencies managed. Though legally constituted, it was not given the necessary statutory powers. Though the state government gave an undertaking in the court that they would form a representative people’s authority for conservation and management of lakes without any discussion with the stakeholders, the government went ahead and formed a parastatal organisation. The mere existence of this institution for fifteen years without any powers made no significant efforts to restore and protect the lakes.
In 2011, the high-court-appointed Justice N.K. Patil committee laid out an action plan for the preservation of the lakes to create a new nodal agency. As a result in 2016, the Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority(KLCDA) was established with statutory powers. This regulatory authority was considered as a major step towards conserving lakes as it had the power to seize property that affects water bodies, remove encroachments and even levy penalties. With all statutory powers, it appeared all-powerful but actually, it was weak. It had 15 full-time employees while the sanctioned strength is 96. It seems like intentionally this institution was kept weak. Chief executive officer of the KLCDA, said the authority can do wonders if the staff strength is increased.
Again in 2018, through the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (KDATCDA) Act, the rights to manage and regulate the lakes was handed over to the minor irrigation department stating that it is necessary to have well-trained professional engineers to take care of lakes. However, the minor irrigation department is composed of engineers, not environmentalists. It can build tank bunds and weirs but do they have the expertise to tackle wastewater and sewage. Those are challenges that call for ecologists and wetland specialists. Handing over the city’s lakes to the Minor Irrigation Department will take the focus away from rejuvenation and conservation of the water bodies. With KLCDA, there was a focus on the ecological sustainability of lake ecosystems. But the Minor Irrigation Department has a different orientation of water for agriculture and drinking purposes. Handling over urban lakes to the department will be an issue.
Another sore point is that the new set-up under the KTCDA will also take away the participative management of lakes. The KTCDA Act applies to all municipal lakes throughout the state. The amendment now has effectively erased this differentiation and brought all lakes in the State under the KTCDA moving away from the concept of decentralisation.
In June 2019, the Karnataka High Court asked the state government to appoint the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), a CSIR lab, to study the condition of lakes in Bengaluru and suggest measures for their restoration. We are yet to see what would be the future of Bangalore’s lakes. The question that arises is, would it have been more sensible and practical to empower the KLCDA rather than transfer its powers to another department? Isn’t improving an institution better than transferring powers elsewhere?
