The core of DK Shivakumar’s argument is that Mekedatu should not be viewed simply as a Karnataka project, because he says the reservoir would largely help regulate Cauvery flows reaching Tamil Nadu.
Shivakumar’s argument
At the India Today Roundtable, Karnataka CM DK Shivakumar said he had made this case directly to Tamil Nadu CM Vijay during the recent Southern Zonal Council meeting.
His main claims were:
Around 95% of the water stored at Mekedatu would ultimately flow to Tamil Nadu, according to Shivakumar.
Karnataka would not be able to use the stored water for irrigation.
Bengaluru's drinking-water allocation would be around 10 TMC.
The project would allow Karnataka to store excess Cauvery water during periods of heavy inflow, rather than allowing that water to flow downstream into the sea.
Karnataka says the project would provide about 4.75 TMC of drinking water to Bengaluru and surrounding areas and generate 400 MW of electricity.
Shivakumar therefore described Mekedatu as being in Tamil Nadu's interest as well as Bengaluru's, rather than as a project designed primarily to benefit Karnataka's farmers.
Why Tamil Nadu objects
Tamil Nadu's concern is fundamentally about control over the timing and availability of Cauvery water.
Even if Karnataka does not ultimately consume most of the stored water, a reservoir gives the upstream state greater ability to regulate when water is released downstream. Tamil Nadu has consequently argued that Mekedatu could affect its legally protected Cauvery allocation.
That makes the dispute more complicated than simply asking where the water eventually goes.
Shivakumar's position on the Supreme Court order
Shivakumar also sought to reassure Tamil Nadu that Karnataka would respect the existing legal framework.
He said Karnataka would honour the Supreme Court-directed 177.25 TMC annual allocation to Tamil Nadu in a normal year, while maintaining that Karnataka has its own legitimate drinking-water requirements.
His broader pitch is that the two states should try to resolve the dispute through political dialogue rather than repeated litigation.
The bigger political challenge
Mekedatu is particularly sensitive because it combines three issues:
Bengaluru's water security + Karnataka's control over a Cauvery reservoir + Tamil Nadu's downstream water rights.
Shivakumar's "95% benefits Tamil Nadu" argument is therefore politically useful for Karnataka, but it doesn't automatically address Tamil Nadu's principal concern: who controls the stored water and how that control could affect downstream flows.
A useful next step would be to compare Karnataka's 95% claim with Tamil Nadu's objections and the actual Supreme Court/Cauvery Water Management Authority framework, because that gets to the substance of whether Mekedatu really changes Tamil Nadu's water position.
