A debacle of lake governance

Bengaluru has an impressive network of water tanks, which in the past played the role of water storage, rainwater harvesting, irrigation, etc. Currently not the city’s main source of water, they still hold cultural and ecological importance for the city.

They continue to act as places within urban settings that people visit for recreational purposes and were also considered sacred due to the presence of local deities or keredevathes associated with the lake.

Due to their cultural link, lakes were considered imperative to local livelihoods.

This link extended to conservation of ecological balance, as some inscriptions warning against exploitation of such resources show.

Scholars like Harini Nagendra have arguedthat such a cultural link with lakes in cities is eroding, and consequently local livelihoods are no longer intrinsically connected with ecological wellbeing and guardianship of the lake.

In a time of climate change, besides the loss of lakes’ cooling function, we are also witnessing the impact on surrounding green cover, urban flooding, and rapid groundwater depletion. Neglecting the health of lakes is also causing the death of aquatic life. 

The Karnataka government and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), shoulder responsibility for maintenance of public infrastructure within Bengaluru.

However, the lack of a descriptive governance structure has led to the current state of lakes. A further blow to lake governance structure in the city came through the ‘Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (KTCDA) and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2018’.  

This amendment repealed the Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act, 2014, to transfer all tanks located within the limits of municipal corporations, including the BBMP, to the control of the Minor Irrigation and Groundwater Development Department. 

Recipe for disaster

The 2018 amendment brought in loopholes into the law. The amendment to Section 12 of the Tank Act removed the term “houses” from the principal Act, thus allowing the buffer zone exception for houses, i.e., houses can now be built within 30 metres of a lake, which wasn’t allowed pre-2018 amendment.

This could mean that apartment complexes could be constructed within the buffer zone.

This is despite several Karnataka High Court judgements calling for demolition of houses encroaching on lake bed areas in the city.

The recent Bengaluru floods confirmed that one of the main reasons for the floods was encroachment of lakes and their conversion into residential areas. In this backdrop, allowing this exception to housing is dangerous not just for conserving blue spaces but also flood resistance in the city. 

The amendment has also led to further fragmentation of an already fragmented lake governance structure. Currently, all lakes are under the KTCDA, which falls under the Minor Irrigation department.

All ‘custodians’ of lakes, including Urban Local Bodies such as the BBMP, report to the KTCDA. This arrangement violates the 74th Amendment of the Constitution, which was enacted to make ULBs responsible for their cities and the resources therein.

Undermining the role of a ULB and reducing its role to a mere custodian under the state government strikes against the purpose of decentralised governance of commons within a city. A ULB is a constitutional authority whereas the KTCDA is a statutory body; making a ULB answerable to a statutory body is unconstitutional. 

According to the information available on the BBMP lakes wing website, there are multiple other authorities that are responsible for different lakes in the city. They are the Karnataka Forest Department, the Bengaluru Development Authority and the Lake Development Authority.

There are two prominent problems to be noted. First, the management of lakes even within the territorial limits of the BBMP is being vested in other authorities and parastatals not concerned with local governance.

Second, this deeply fragmented structure leads to lack of coordination and lack of a standard governance philosophy across different entities. This leads to destructive competition and blame games.

For example, recently, in the case of Hebbala and Nagawara lakes, the BBMP had refused to take custody from the Forest Department citing documentation issues.

The case of Hebbala and Nagawara lakes also shows how a lack of a standard definition of an urban lake is causing rifts within governance. Both the previous Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014, and the current Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act define a lake as any inland water body documented as per the revenue records.

However, this definition is inadequate as it does not assign responsibility of lakes based on their territorial jurisdiction. In order to resolve this confusion, any lake within an urban area -- that is, any area within the territorial jurisdiction of a municipality -- should be the ULB’s responsibility.

The way forward

What we need, instead of the current structure, is an empowered ULB with a dedicated lake wing that has experts who understand the ecology of lake maintenance.

The BBMP recently announced that every lake under its jurisdiction would have a nodal officer appointed for its upkeep. While it is an imperative step, giving additional responsibilities to nodal officers does not necessarily translate into good governance.

Moreover, given that nodal officers would only be responsible for BBMP-maintained lakes, other lakes will lose out on the same benefit.

We need an informed approach to lake governance, where  local governance systems adopt principles of ecology and conservation into governance itself, as opposed to regulatory bodies at the state level imposing them.

We must empower local governments to take responsibility; only then can we hold them accountable.

BBMP’s lake wing needs technical officers that understand the ecology of a lake and approach it with ecocentrism, especially given lakes’ importance in cooling the city and reducing the impact of climate change. Bengaluru, as a city, takes pride in the number of lakes it has.

They can protect us from some of the effects of climate change as long as we protect them. 

(The writers are Research Fellows at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Karnataka)