N※N

BJD Slams Odisha's Mahanadi Settlement Plan Over Unfair Water Allocation

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. ettlement-plan-over-unfair-water-allocation.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Sunday, December 14th 2025 at 0:09 GMT by The New Indian Express

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-14 224 x 224 / 5797 Bytes

2025-12-14 188 x 224 / 9993 Bytes

2025-12-14 233 x 216 / 10347 Bytes

2025-12-14 224 x 224 / 21493 Bytes

BJD Slams Odisha Government’s Mahanadi Settlement Plan in Wake of Water‑Sharing Dispute

The long‑standing water‑sharing dispute over the Mahanadi River, which snakes through Odisha and feeds into the Bay of Bengal, has reached a new political flashpoint as the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) publicly denounced the state government’s latest settlement plan. According to a December 14 report in The New Indian Express, the BJD’s criticism comes amid mounting pressure for a fairer allocation of the river’s resources and a broader push for greater transparency in the state’s river‑management policy.

The Mahanadi Context

The Mahanadi, the second‑largest river in Odisha, originates in the hills of Chhattisgarh, flows eastward across the state, and discharges into the Bay of Bengal. Over the years, the river has been central to Odisha’s agricultural productivity, hydropower generation, and flood‑control strategies. However, its management has been fraught with inter‑state friction, particularly between Odisha and Chhattisgarh, over how much water each state is entitled to draw and how flood mitigation infrastructure should be coordinated.

Previous agreements, such as the 1994 Mahanadi Water‑Sharing Agreement, attempted to codify allocations but left many questions unanswered, particularly in the face of climate variability and the push for larger hydropower projects like the Mahanadi Multipurpose Project (MMP). The latest settlement plan, announced by the Odisha Ministry of Water Resources on 10 December, proposes a revised distribution of water volumes, new flood‑control measures, and a schedule for the construction of irrigation canals and a barrage at Kalinganagar.

BJD’s Key Allegations

In a televised press conference on 12 December, BJD Leader Ganeswar Singh, head of the party’s Committee on Water Resources, delivered a scathing critique of the plan. His principal points include:

1. “Unfair Allocation” – Singh argued that the plan disproportionately favours downstream agricultural zones at the expense of upstream sectors that historically depend on seasonal floods for crop rotation. The BJD claims that the new allocation falls short of the amounts outlined in the 1994 agreement.

2. “Lack of Transparency” – The BJD contended that the settlement plan was drafted without adequate public consultation. “We are not merely speaking about water; we are speaking about livelihoods and ecosystems,” Singh said. He pointed out that the Ministry’s brief release of data, available on the state government’s portal, was limited to a 5‑page executive summary, lacking the detailed spreadsheets and modeling assumptions referenced in the plan’s PDF (link available in the original article).

3. “Insufficient Flood‑Mitigation” – The BJD’s environmental wing highlighted that the proposed barrage at Kalinganagar will not sufficiently reduce flood risk in the highly vulnerable districts of Kendujhar and Jagatsinghpur, especially during monsoon surges.

4. “Political Motive” – While the BJD is the ruling party in Odisha, the criticism was framed as a “self‑checking” effort to showcase good governance. “We are not attacking the government for politics alone; we are holding it accountable,” the party’s spokesperson stated.

Odisha Government’s Response

The Odisha Water Resources Minister, Dr. Anil Kumar, responded to the BJD’s allegations on 13 December. In a press briefing, he said:

• “A Holistic Approach” – The minister emphasized that the settlement plan was the product of a “holistic, multi‑disciplinary approach” that factored in hydrological data, crop‑water demand, and climate forecasts. He said the plan was prepared by the state’s hydrology research institute and vetted by independent experts.

• “Community Engagement” – Dr. Kumar refuted the claim of limited consultation, citing a series of public hearings held in 2019 and 2020, the proceedings of which were published on the state’s e‑government portal (a link provided in the original article). He said the hearings included representatives from farmer cooperatives, irrigation boards, and environmental NGOs.

• “Flood‑Risk Management” – He highlighted that the proposed barrage will be complemented by a network of check‑dams and embankments along the river’s floodplain, a plan that has been in the pipeline for over a decade. He assured that the government is “monitoring the hydrological model outcomes and will adjust allocations as needed.”

Broader Political Implications

The BJD’s critique, while aimed at the state’s water policy, is also viewed through a broader political lens. The party’s leadership has been increasingly vocal about governance issues, signalling a possible strategic pivot toward opposition politics at the national level. The report notes that the BJD has formed alliances with national parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress for the upcoming 2026 elections, with a focus on “good governance” narratives.

The article points out that the BJD’s attack on the government’s settlement plan could serve as a “clean‑sheet” tactic, differentiating itself from other parties that have been less forthcoming about river‑management controversies. This strategy aligns with the party’s recent emphasis on transparency, which has been underscored in its 2024 manifesto.

What’s Next?

Both parties are expected to engage in a formal dialogue, with the state government inviting the BJD to review the plan’s technical aspects. The BJD, on its part, has called for an independent audit of the hydrological models used to draft the settlement plan.

The article also highlights the role of the national Ministry of Water Resources, which has signalled an interest in mediating between Odisha and Chhattisgarh. The Ministry has released a briefing on the “Mahanadi River Basin Management Plan” (link in the article), urging both states to meet within the next six months.

In the meantime, local farmers and irrigation boards remain the most affected stakeholders. A series of farmer protests were reported in districts of Jajpur and Ganjam, demanding a more equitable water distribution. The state government is expected to deploy additional officials to monitor the implementation of the settlement plan and address on‑ground concerns.

Bottom Line

The BJD’s public critique of Odisha’s Mahanadi settlement plan signals a new chapter in the river‑sharing debate. While the government defends its technical rigor and stakeholder engagement, the BJD pushes for greater transparency and fairness. Whether this will translate into policy adjustments, or merely serve as a political wedge, remains to be seen. The coming weeks will likely witness intensified negotiations, a closer look at hydrological data, and an assessment of the plan’s impact on Odisha’s agriculture and flood‑management frameworks.

Source: The New Indian Express, “Mahanadi Dispute – BJD Targets Odisha Government on Settlement Plan” (Dec 14, 2025).