Tamil Nadu Assembly Passes Unanimous Resolution Opposing Karnataka’s Mekedatu Drinking‑Water Reservoir Project

Overview The Mekedatu dam project has re‑emerged as a flashpoint between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu . The Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Karnataka government’s plan to build a drinking water‑cum‑balancing reservoir at Mekedatu . Key Developments The resolution was triggered by Karnataka’s preparation to submit a revised DPR for the Mekedatu scheme. The Supreme Court recently dismissed Tamil Nadu’s petition to review a November 2025 decision, calling the challenge “premature”. The proposed reservoir will store 67.16 thousand million cubic feet (TMC ft) of water, cost about ₹9,000 crore , and include a 400 MW hydro‑power component, but no irrigation provision. The project is located roughly 100 km from Bengaluru, Karnataka’s capital. Important Facts Project Scope: Drinking water supply and flow‑balancing; hydro‑electric generation (400 MW); no irrigation. Financial Outlay: Estimated at ₹9,000 crore, reflecting large capital investment. Water Volume: 67.16 TMC ft, a substantial share of Cauvery’s annual flow. Legal Status: Supreme Court has not stayed the project; it merely termed Tamil Nadu’s challenge premature. Political Reaction: Unanimous opposition from Tamil Nadu Assembly, signalling strong state‑level resistance. UPSC Relevance Inter‑state river disputes are a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Economy/Environment). The Mekedatu case illustrates how water‑resource projects trigger legal battles, political negotiations, and concerns over equitable allocation. Aspirants should study the constitutional provisions (Article 262, Inter‑State Water Disputes Act), the role of the Supreme Court , and the impact of large‑scale infrastructure on regional development and environmental sustainability. Way Forward Both states are likely to pursue diplomatic talks under the central government’s mediation mechanism. A revised DPR could incorporate environmental safeguards and a transparent water‑sharing formula. Continued monitoring by the Supreme Court and possible involvement of the Cauvery Water Management Authority may help avert escalation.