K'taka's Rs 214 cr water projects fail: Over 30 schemes defunct due to poor planning, maintenance
Bengaluru: At least 32 multi-village water supply schemes across Karnataka, intended to serve over five lakh people, have become dysfunctional, even after Rs 214 crore of taxpayer money was spent.
The failure has been attributed to poor planning, lack of upkeep, open defecation near water sources, and inadequate post-project support, according to a government study cited by Deccan Herald on Thursday.
The study analysed projects implemented between 2000 and 2016 across 13 districts: Bagalkot, Ballari, Belagavi, Bidar, Davangere, Dharwad, Gadag, Kalaburagi, Mysuru, Raichur, Tumakuru, Vijayanagar, and Yadgir.
The defunct schemes are part of a broader set of 437 multi-village drinking water projects implemented across the state at a total cost of Rs 8,456 crore. Of these, 45 schemes, including the 32 examined in the study, have failed to deliver water to the intended beneficiaries.
Despite some schemes being based on "perennial" water sources, including major rivers like Ghataprabha, Malaprabha, Bhima, Krishna, Manjira, Tungabhadra, and Kabini, the projects failed due to factors such as infrastructure damage during road works, mechanical farming activities, floods, and theft of critical assets. Reasons for the failure of other schemes whose water sources were non-perennial are largely similar.
The study also identified institutional failures. In several cases, schemes were abruptly handed over to gram panchayats without the necessary funds for operation and maintenance (O&M). Technical design flaws, inadequate financial planning, and lack of community engagement further contributed to the breakdown of services.
“These reasons bring home the message that it is not sufficient to have a perennial source but a host of other measures are required for the successful operation and maintenance of rural water supply schemes,” the study said.
It also criticised the Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department (RDWSD) for focusing narrowly on infrastructure, while neglecting social, institutional, financial, and governance aspects.
Open defecation along riverbanks has led to widespread public distrust in water quality, the report found. Additionally, there is competition between farmer groups drawing water for irrigation and RDWSD efforts to secure supply for domestic use—particularly in river-based schemes.
The study warned that the state government must learn from these failures, especially as it spending another Rs 18,897 crore on 89 new multi-village water supply schemes.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
