They urged the authorities to refuse clearance to the proposed 2,000 MW project, "considering the serious ecological, social, archaeological and cultural impacts".
Published Oct 24, 2025 | 10:33 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 24, 2025 | 10:33 AM
Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project representative image. (MEIL)
Synopsis: Environmentalists expressed concern regarding the need to protect the Western Ghats from destructive activitiesthat disturb the ecosystem of the Sharavathi River for development projects. They said the Union Ministry must ensure that no PSPs are located within legally protected areas or in ecologically, geologically, and otherwise sensitive zones of the Western Ghats.
The National Alliance for Climate and Ecological Justice (NACEJ) and the All-India Rivers Forum of NAPM expressed concern regarding the need to protect the Western Ghats from destructive activities, such as deforestation and tunnelling, that disturb the ecosystem of the Sharavathi River for development projects.
In a letter sent to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, and Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday, 24 October, urged the authorities to refuse clearance to the proposed 2,000 MW Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project (PSP), “considering the serious ecological, social, archaeological and cultural impacts”.
The organisations further urged the chief minister to take cognisance of the people’s struggle, have a dialogue with all stakeholders, explore effective alternatives and initiate urgent measures for effective conservation of the Western Ghats.
They said the Union Ministry must ensure that no PSPs are located within legally protected areas or in ecologically, geologically, and otherwise sensitive zones of the Western Ghats.
The letter noted that PSPs are being planned in Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ), forest areas, and even in wildlife sanctuaries, potentially impacting the environment and livelihoods of local communities.
“The 2000 MW Sharavathi Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project proposed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) on the river Sharavathi is located in an ESZ. The Western Ghats is a biodiversity hotspot recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Though it is home to over 5,000 endemic plant species and 325 endemic animal species, the habitat is severely fragmented by the numerous projects, such as hydropower, power transmission lines, highways and railways, that are already in existence. Further fragmentation of this habitat must not be allowed,” they said.
The activists noted that the proposed project lies within the Sharavathi Valley lion-tailed macaque Wildlife Sanctuary and that fragmentation of its habitat has the risk of causing its extinction of the endangered species endemic to the Western Ghats.
The letter said that, in May 2025, Praneetha Paul, the Deputy Inspector General of Forests, MoEF & CC Regional Office, submitted a report listing numerous reasons for rejecting the project after visiting the area where the work is proposed.
She said the felling of over 15,000 trees would affect the survival of the lion-tailed macaques and that the slope cuts, blasting, drilling and tree felling would make the area vulnerable to landslides. “The project can be disastrous not only to the ecology of the area but also to human habitations in the area,” her report noted.
The officer also stated that the KPCL and the state government have failed to provide full details of the project, adding that the ecological fallout far outweighs the economic benefits that may be accrued by commissioning the project.
The activists claimed that the report was sidelined by S Senthil Kumar, Deputy Director General of Forests, MoEF & CC, who cited the recommendation of the Karnataka wildlife officers to endorse the project.
“We demand that the important recommendations in the Report of the Deputy Inspector General of Forests, MoEF & CC Regional Office, must be duly considered by the central and state governments. There is no need to build new projects in ecologically sensitive sites, especially when other alternatives such as Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), rooftop solar energy systems with decentralised storage, demand side management (including time-of-day tariffs) exist and could be explored, considering all other factors,” the letter read.
They also cited experts’ view that the Sharavathi PSP is not only ecologically unsustainable, but also economically unviable, and power generation through the PSP may end up consuming more power than generating.
“It is quite disturbing that objections by the local communities, citizens and environmentalists haven’t been adequately considered in the recently held ‘public hearing’ in September,” they added.
Earlier, the residents of Gundibail, Marathi Keri, Henni, Hire Henni, and Vadanbail villageshad written to the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah appealing to cancel the proposed Sharavati Pumped Storage Project.
They stated that they had been repeatedly displaced; first due to the construction of the Linganamakki Project in the 1960s (and were moved to Talakalale village), and later displaced for the second time when the Talakalale reservoir was constructed. It would be a gross travesty to displace them for a third time!
Members of the farmers’ organisation Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) and Harisu Sene have also been protesting in Shivamogga, opposing the Project and urged the state government to drop the same in the interest of the Western Ghats and its rich biodiversity.
The activists also noted reports alleging that project-related surveys and even drilling are being carried out in some areas, in violation of due process.
Further, environmentalists pointed out that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Sharavathi PSP has been shoddily done and must be rejected.
A Comprehensive critique of the EIA by Karnataka organisations notes: “The Sharavathi PSP EIA fails not by accident, but by design. It systematically conceals or downplays catastrophic ecological, hydrological, social, and cultural impacts. It makes false factual claims, ignores statutory requirements, and omits critical assessments mandated by the Terms of Reference, the Forest Advisory Committee, and the National Board for Wildlife. Instead of providing a scientific basis for informed decision-making, it reads like a project brochure — prioritising approval over accuracy. We demand that the government drop this project. Since alternatives for peak power management exist, this project is not indispensable. Building such a project in a wildlife sanctuary is unacceptable”.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
