Centre says no to Karnataka’s Yettinahole project over landslide risk
Centre halts forest clearance for Yettinahole canal citing illegal work, landslide threats, and severe ecological damage in Western Ghats.
PTI
-
Inspectors found deep vertical cuts up to 18 metres, partially lined slopes vulnerable to landslides, and 42.3 lakh cubic metres of excavated debris dumped over 210 acres of forest (PTI)
New Delhi, 9 Nov
The Centre has withheld ex-post facto forest clearance for the gravity canal of Karnataka’s Yettinahole drinking water project after officials found extensive unauthorised construction, illegal dumping inside forests and heightened risks to the Western Ghats’ ecology.
According to minutes of the Environment Ministry’s Advisory Committee meeting on 27 October, Phase I of the project has already triggered major landslides and heavy soil erosion without demonstrating its promised drinking-water delivery. The committee said this record made rigorous scrutiny essential before allowing any further diversion of forest land.
Karnataka’s revised proposal seeks diversion of 111 hectares of forest in Hassan and Tumkur, down from 173 hectares. However, around 10.13 km of the canal has already been constructed without approval, violating the Forest Conservation Act. An FIR was filed against a Visvesvaraya Jala Nigam Ltd engineer, but satellite images show most violations occurred after the case was registered in 2019. The panel has directed penal action under Sections 3A/3B.
Inspectors found deep vertical cuts up to 18 metres, partially lined slopes vulnerable to landslides, and 42.3 lakh cubic metres of excavated debris dumped over 210 acres of forest.
The committee rejected the state’s earlier request to use 103 hectares of forest as dumping sites, insisting on non-forest land and removal of dumped muck.
The canal passes through Marashettihalli Reserve Forest, requiring the felling of thousands of valuable trees. Officials warned that the 28–60 metre-wide, 18 metre-deep canal could trap elephants and other wildlife unless properly fenced and fitted with crossings. Villagers have also complained of blasting damage without compensation.
The panel said no further forest diversion can be considered until full compliance with earlier conditions, stressing that financial costs cannot justify environmental violations. It asked the state to examine alternatives such as tunnels or cut-and-cover designs to reduce forest loss.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




