The Mhadei River, often called the lifeline of North Goa, is not just a waterbody—it is the cultural, ecological, and economic artery of an entire region. Its forests shelter endangered species, its springs feed wildlife sanctuaries, and its waters sustain farming and drinking water supply for thousands.
So, when a scientific report from the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) suggests that Karnataka’s proposed diversion of water from Kalasa and Bhandura tributaries will have only a “minor” or “localized” impact on the Mhadei ecosystem, it is not surprising that Goans have reacted with outrage and suspicion.
The controversial study, published in the Journal of Earth System Science, models rainfall and runoff data to simulate the diversion of 1.72 tmc from Kalasa and 2.18 tmc from Bhandura. According to the researchers, the impact on the Mandovi estuary—the downstream confluence in Goa—will be minimal. However, this conclusion, drawn from mathematical simulation and modeling, stands on shaky ground when weighed against the lived reality of Goa’s geography and biodiversity.
The report is now under public scrutiny not just for its findings, but for the context and motive behind its creation.
Questions are being raised about whether the study was funded by the Karnataka government or influenced to support its case before environmental clearance authorities.
If Karnataka indeed paid for the report—directly or indirectly—then its credibility is severely compromised.
A scientific analysis commissioned by a party with a vested interest in a project should have been subjected to rigorous independent peer review and field validation, especially when the stakes are this high.
Three scientists from NIO who co-authored the study now find themselves at the center of a storm. It is imperative that they explain their methodology and answer a few fundamental questions:
How many times did they visit the Mhadei basin? Did they physically assess the biodiversity of the Mandovi, the springs, or the interlinked wildlife habitats within the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary? Were local ecological dynamics, including seasonal variations, forest hydrology, and aquifer recharge patterns, taken into account?
Without such on-ground studies, their models are not just incomplete—they may be dangerously misleading.
Goa’s concern is not limited to the volume of water being diverted; it is about the cascade of ecological consequences such a move would trigger. The Kalasa and Bhandura streams are not just tributaries—they are integral to the complex ecological web that supports the sanctuary and nearby settlements.
Diverting water upstream may seem inconsequential on paper, but the loss of even a small amount of perennial flow can alter soil moisture, affect forest health, reduce base flow to rivers during lean seasons, and ultimately disrupt the fragile balance that sustains biodiversity in the Western Ghats, a UNESCO-recognized hotspot.
Moreover, the report’s timing raises eyebrows. Karnataka has been aggressively pushing for clearance of the Kalasa-Bandura dam project, and this “scientific” endorsement appears conveniently aligned with their lobbying efforts. In such a scenario, even the most accurate models cannot escape the shadow of doubt unless they are backed by transparent data, impartial funding, and inclusive consultation with all stakeholders—especially those from Goa.
Goa must demand that any scientific assessment of the Mhadei be conducted by independent bodies with no affiliation to either state.
The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) must mandate a cumulative impact assessment—not just of water flow, but of forest loss, tribal displacement, biodiversity loss, and changes to local climate patterns.
Most importantly, Goan scientists, activists, and communities must have a seat at the table. Mhadei is not just a river—it is our heritage, our lifeline, and our future.
Scientific models have their place. They can enhance understanding, simulate scenarios, and aid decision-making. But when it comes to environmental justice, ground-truthing and ecological sensitivity cannot be replaced by equations.
The Mhadei cannot be saved on spreadsheets. It must be protected in the forests, in the springs, in the hearts of Goans—and in the courts of truth.
