23.prefea Lake Cons

DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE CONSERVATION
PROJECTS, KARNATAKA
Final Pre feasibility Report
Submitted to
Infrastructure Development
Department
Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited

Infra House, 39, 5th Cross, 8th Main, RMV Extension, Sadashivnagar, Bangalore – 560080
Ph: 91 – 80 – 23613014 / 15; Fax: 91 – 80 – 23613016
Foreword
Lakes are an inherent part of the ecosystem. Lakes have traditionally served the function of
meeting water requirements of the populace for drinking, household uses like washing, for
agriculture, fishing and also for religious and cultural purposes. Apart from these functions,
which involve direct use of the lake water, lakes are also known to recharge ground water,
channelize water flow to prevent water logging and flooding. Lakes are also host to a wide
variety of flora and fauna, especially birds.
The need to initiate efforts to restore, conserve, manage and maintain the lakes as a valuable
part of the whole ecosystem could no longer be ignored. Government of Karnataka realizes
that if the lakes are not conserved without loss of time, the restoration costs later will not only
reach phenomenal heights, but will more importantly cause a permanent ecological damage.
This may lead to scarcity in potable water, cause heat islands in the cities and affect bio-
diversity in cities as well as villages.
With this background Government of Karnataka intends to develop and conserve the lakes in
Karnataka. There are 36,000 lakes in Karnataka. The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department owns 33,000 small lakes, and the rest are under the jurisdiction of the Minor
Irrigation Department. The Government of Karnataka intends to explore the possibility to
work in close partnership with the private sector in protection, conservation and sustainable
management of lakes.
This study has been conducted to assess the feasibility of conserving the lakes at identified
locations (identification based on pre-defined parameters) in Karnataka and the possibility of
taking up the conservation of identified lakes on a PPP model. The Government of Karnataka
may consider providing funds through the viability gap funding (if required) for the
implementation of the project.
Lake Conservation, Karnataka 2

Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 8
1. Project Background .........................................................................................8

1.1 Key Issues leading to degradation of lakes .........................................................8
1.2 Need for Conservation ..................................................................................... 10
1.3 Approach & Methodology ............................................................................... 10
SECTOR PROFILE .............................................................................................. 12
2. Overview on Lake Conservation ................................................................... 12

2.1 Overview of lakes in Karnataka ....................................................................... 13
2.2 Impact of urbanization on lakes ....................................................................... 14
PROJECT CONCEPT .......................................................................................... 17
3. About the project ........................................................................................... 17

3.1 Intervention required at Macro or City Level ................................................... 18
3.2 Intervention required at micro or individual lake Level .................................... 19
MARKET ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 26
4. Industry outlook ............................................................................................ 26

4.1 SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................... 27
STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................ 29
5. Legal Framework .......................................................................................... 29

5.1 Initiatives by the Central Government .............................................................. 29
5.2 Initiative of the State Government ................................................................... 31
5.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 32
ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACT OF LAKE RESTORATION.................. 33
6. Environment Impacts .................................................................................... 33

6.1 Economic Impact of lake conservation ............................................................. 33
6.2 Social Impact of lake conservation ................................................................... 33
PROJECT FINANCIALS...................................................................................... 35
7. Project cost components ................................................................................ 35

7.1 Overview of Project Financials ........................................................................ 35
7.2 Assumptions for calculating project cost .......................................................... 35

7.3 Cost Estimation ............................................................................................... 36
7.4 Estimation of Footfalls..................................................................................... 37
7.5 Revenue Model................................................................................................ 37
7.6 Viability Assessment ....................................................................................... 38
7.7 Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................ 39
7.8 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 40
OPERATING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 41
8. Institutional Framework (Organization & Operational Strategy) .............. 41

8.1 Risks involved and mitigation measures........................................................... 42
ANNEXURE 1 List of major lakes in karnataka .................................................... 44
ANNEXURE 2 Details of prioritized lakes ............................................................ 45
ANNEXURE 3 Details of steps required in lake conservation .............................. 46
ANNEXURE 4 District wise number of lakes and tanks in karnataka ................... 50
ANNEXURE 5 Scope of work for conservation of lake (30 acres) ....................... 51
ANNEXURE 6 NLCP guidelines for selection of lake for conservation ................ 52
ANNEXURE 7 List of stakeholders contacted ...................................................... 55
ANNEXURE 8 Current initiatives in lake conservation by the stakeholders ......... 56
ANNEXURE 9 Lake front development case studies ........................................... 57
ANNEXURE 10 Case study: privatization of bangalore lakes .............................. 62
ANNEXURE 11 Statement of concern and protest against privatization of lakes/tanks

in bengaluru ......................................................................................................... 68
ANNEXURE 12 Quotation from arpan associates mumbai for equipments for setting
up a theme park ................................................................................................... 72
ANNEXURE 13 Earlier lake conservation projects on ppp in bangalore .............. 73

List of Figures
Figure 1: District wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka ..................................................8

Figure 2: Extinct Lakes in Bangalore.................................................................................9
Figure 3: Methodology adopted for lake conservation ..................................................... 11
Figure 4: Climatic zones in Karnataka. ............................................................................ 12
Figure 5: Effect of urbanization on ground water............................................................. 12
Figure 6: % wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka ......................................................... 13
Figure 7: % wise size of lakes in Karnataka..................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Eutrophication in lakes ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Chain or Cascade system of lakes prevent flooding .......................................... 16
Figure 10: Prioritization of lakes ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Approach towards lake conservation .............................................................. 18
Figure 12: Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga .......................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore ....................................................................... 21
Figure 14: Components of lake conservation ................................................................... 22
Figure 15: Possible development options for lake ............................................................ 23
Figure 16: Steps involved in individual lake conservation ............................................... 25
Figure 17: Lake Conservation brings in aesthetic value for the city ................................. 34
Figure 18: Lakes are home to many aquatic animals and plants ....................................... 34
Figure 19: Project Financials ........................................................................................... 35
Figure 20: Institutional Framework ................................................................................. 41

List of Tables
Table 1: Sources of pollution in lakes ................................................................................9

Table 2: Eutrophication and its effects............................................................................. 14
Table 3: List of identified lakes for conservation ............................................................. 19
Table 4: Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga ............................................................................. 20
Table 5: Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore .......................................................................... 21
Table 6: Agencies involved in lake conservation ............................................................. 26
Table 7: Financial Assumptions ...................................................................................... 36
Table 8: Estimated project cost for conservation of lake (50 acres approximately)........... 36
Table 9: Estimated project cost for Lake Front Development (2 acres approximately) ..... 37
Table 10: Average Footfalls for Lake front development ................................................. 37
Table 11: Revenue streams in the first year for the developer .......................................... 38
Table 12: Operations and Maintenance expenses ............................................................. 39
Table 13: Scenario Analysis ............................................................................................ 39
Table 14: Likely risks and mitigation measures in lake conservation under PPP .............. 42

Abbreviations
BMRDA Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPR Common Property Resources
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
ESG Environment Support Group
GIS Geographical Information System
IDC Interest During Construction
LDA Lake Development Authority
MOEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NEP National Environment Policy (2004)
NGO Non-Government organization
NLCP National Lake Conservation Plan
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PCB Pollution Control Board
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PPP Public Private Partnership
PWD Public Works Department
WTP Water Treatment Plant

Introduction
1. Project Background
Tanks and lakes play an important role in helping irrigation as well as recharging ground
water in the surrounding areas. Lakes are an inherent part of the society in Indian culture and
serve a variety of purposes. There are totally 36,568 inland water bodies in Karnataka. Out
of these 33,364 tanks fall under the control of the State Zilla Panchayats and are used mainly
for the purpose of irrigation.
Figure 1: District wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka
1.1 Key Issues leading to degradation of lakes
Keys issues leading to the degradation of lakes are:
Anthropogenic stress: Many lakes and ponds of Karnataka have been lost in the
process of various anthropogenic activities and population pressures leading to
unplanned urbanization and expansion. Rest of the surviving lakes are reduced to
cesspools due to direct discharge of industrial effluents and unregulated dumping of
solid wastes.

Figure 2: Extinct Lakes in Bangalore
Table 1: Sources of pollution in lakes
Source Type of problem

Point Sources
Power plants Combustion of fossil fuels emit nitrogen products into the
atmosphere, which are carried down by rainfall and other
processes, causing eutrophication in water bodies
Sewage Treatment Plants Treatment process releases oxides of nitrogen and
phosphorous in effluents, which drain into water bodies
Industrial Plants Industrial processes release nitrogen and phosphorous
products in effluents, which drain into water bodies
Non-Point Sources
Agriculture Farming practices, including use of fertilizers rich in nitrogen
and phosphorous, deposit increased amounts of these nutrients
in the soil. Run-off from these farms cause eutrophication in
water bodies.
Sewage Direct discharge of sewage from domestic sources, not

connected to treatment plants, will eventually make its way
into water bodies
Deficiency in proper management: The number of lakes has been gradually

decreasing because some of the tanks have been converted into residential localities
and some have been used by State Departments for public purposes like bus stands,
stadiums and residential layouts etc. Most of the live Lakes have silted up due to faulty
land management in the catchments and indiscriminate mud lifting from the lake beds
consequently their water impounding capacity has been reduced considerably apart

from rendering the water turbid. Conflict of interests among various land & water use
sectors and their failure to evolve common strategy. Paucity of overall understanding
of the nature and benefits of lakes in economic and ecological terms.
Social composition of land ownership: Increasing population and growing economies

leading to unplanned development and greater pressures on land resources. Lakes are
often seen as main targets for development particularly in urban area due to pressure
of human activities like, urbanization, industrialization etc. As a result of these activities
most of the urban lakes are getting degraded beyond the point of recovery.
Spread of well irrigation: As the population increases, the demand for water continues
to increase. Bore wells are dug indiscriminately. If the rainwater-harvesting is not done
to recharge ground water the colossal investment in bore wells is simply washed away.
Lack of governmental commitment: Insufficient cohesive academic research centered

on wetland in understanding the importance and essence of conservation and
management, owing to financial constraints and lack of infrastructure and required
expertise. Also the change in the institution mechanism and their weakening over the
years is an issue.
Lack of data bank: Census of lakes and identification and assessment of their problems
both in the urban and rural areas is not available. Lack of access to scientific data and
scientific norms for restricting building activity around the lakes.
1.2 Need for Conservation
Infrastructure Development Department (IDD), Government of Karnataka realizes that Lakes

being major sources of accessible fresh water require well planned, sustainable and scientific
efforts to prevent their degradation. It as an imperative to restore and conserve lakes and
IDD intends to explore the possibility to work in close partnership with the private sector in
protection, conservation and sustainable management of lakes.
With this background this feasibility study has been conducted to analyze the various
scenarios to take up the conservation under the PPP model.
1.3 Approach & Methodology
The methodology adopted for the feasibility study is as follows:

Existing Status of lakes in Stakeholders involved
Karnataka
Initiatives/ schemes by the
Need for revival Government Agencies

Studies on lakes w.r.t.
Revival of lakes in identified locations • Development of lakes
• Design requirements and guidelines • Management of developed

lakes
• Project Cost
International Case studies
on lake conservation
PPP in Lake Conservation
Figure 3: Methodology adopted for lake conservation
The goals for conservation of lakes have to be tailored to individual regions, specific to the
problems of degradation and based on the level of dependence. This requires reconstruction
of the physical conditions; chemical adjustment of both the soil and water; biological
manipulation, reintroduction of native flora and fauna, etc.
The interpretation of existing trends and scenarios in the process of conservation of lakes as
presented in this report is based on interactions with limited key players namely government
stakeholders, developers involved in similar projects and personnel involved in the field work.
Hence, they are indicative of the situations prevalent at the time of conducting the study.
The study is based on market information, whether from public and private sources, and it has
been ensured to the best of its ability, the correctness and the validity of the same, by cross
checking from various sources.

Sector Profile
2. Overview on Lake Conservation
Groundwater is the major source of
drinking water in Karnataka and in
rural areas. Groundwater levels
are fast declining in the state with
34 taluks considered as critical due
to over exploitation. Factors such
as population pressure, discharge
of effluents and addition of
agricultural chemicals into water
bodies have contributed to
deterioration of water quality,
depletion of water levels and
unhygienic sanitation.
In the dry central and southern

India that fall in the rain shadow
region, the lakes store rainwater
and ensure supply for domestic use
and for agriculture. They also help
in recharging groundwater. In cities
enjoying perennial river sources
and high rainfall the lakes serve as
flood cushions, act as a resource
recovery area, releasing nitrogen,
inactivating phosphates, removing
toxins and treating wastewater.
Figure 4: Climatic zones in Karnataka.
Apart from the water supply, lakes

are home to many aquatic animals
and plants, source of minerals,
source of recreation and aesthetic
enjoyment.
Figure 5: Effect of urbanization on ground water.

2.1 Overview of lakes in Karnataka
Karnataka state is endowed with numerous rivers, lakes, and streams, and has a coastline of
about 320 km. Spatial extent of the state is 1,92,204 sq km (5.35% of the country's total
geographical area) with a population of 52 million. The occurrence and distribution of rainfall
in the state is highly erratic. It is estimated that nearly 75% of the state’s area is drought
prone, and the rain fall has coefficient of variation of variability of more than 30%, which
leaves the state exposed to the risk of drought.
Karnataka has more than 36,508 big and small tanks. In the Malnad region – Shimoga, parts
of Dakshina Kannada and Uttara Kannada, tanks are generally small and a great number
only harvest rain. They are not supported by channels which divert stream water. Malnad’s
tank accounts for nearly 25% of the total tanks of the state.
25% 15%
Northern Plateau
Southern Plateau
Malnad
60%
Figure 6: % wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka
In the Northern Plateau – Dharwar, Belgaum, Bijapur, Bellary, Raichur, Gulbarga and Bidar,
tanks are very few and account for only 15% of the total tanks of the state.
10% 2%
38% less than 4ha
4-20ha
20-200ha
>200
50%
Figure 7: % wise size of lakes in Karnataka
In the southern plateau - Chitradurga, Tumkur, parts of Chikmagalur, Hassan, Kodagu, Mysore,
Mandya, Bangalore and Kolar there are numerous tanks and they account to 60% of the total
tanks of the state.

2.2 Impact of urbanization on lakes
The rapid urbanization has the following impact on the lakes:
Eutrophication: Industrial effluents, run-off from agricultural fields, refuse and sewage,
domestic wastes like food remnants, soaps, detergents and sewage are dumped into lakes
which break down and release nutrients in the lake. Microscopic organisms ingest these
nutrients and survive on them. Following ingestion of carbonic elements, carbon dioxide is
released, while some of the elements are converted into nitrates and phosphates. This is
called oxidizing and uses up a lot of dissolved oxygen. The depleted levels of dissolved
oxygen in water lead to a situation where other aquatic life-forms cannot survive. This
process is called eutrophication.
Figure 8: Eutrophication in lakes
The effect of eutrophication and the benefits of reducing eutrophication are provided in
the table below:
Table 2: Eutrophication and its effects
Effect of eutrophication Benefits of reducing How benefits can be

eutrophication measured
Increased taste and odor • Lower costs of treating • Treatment cost savings
problems in water supply water • Increased consumption
• Consumers happier of water and
• Less need for substitute differential between
water (e.g., bottled water) prices of substitutes
and municipal supply

Reduced visual and tactile • Happier nearby residents • Increased value of
qualities of water body • Increased development properties
around water body • Increased
• Increased recreation development of land
• More diverse biota • Increased
expenditures on
recreation
• Prices for different
species caught
• Public WTP for
improved ecosystem
Increased possibility of toxins in • Increased commercial and • Increased number and

water recreational fishing value of fish caught
• More diverse biota • Public WTP for
• Increased water contact improved ecosystem
• Increased
expenditures on
recreation
Loss of water depth, surface • Reduced need for • Avoided costs for
area, and storage capacity alternative water supplies dredging and
• Values of shoreline property substitute water
preserved supplies
• Continued viability of • Avoided losses in
fisheries property values
• Continued viability of • Value of fish catches,
recreation which would not have
taken place
• Recreational
expenditures which
would have been lost
• Public WTP for
existence of lake,
apart from use values
Siltation: Water flowing into a lake brings silt. Increased deforestation loosens the top
soil, which finds its way into lakes. Some of the silt is washed out when the lake overflows.
However, the outflow of silt does not always match the inflow and the silt settles at the
bottom of the lake.

Flooding: Traditionally tanks were
made in chain or cascade system
so that no water was wasted. In
this method of construction, the
tanks are mostly constructed on
connected system of streams. The
naturally undulating terrain of
Karnataka, with its hills and
valleys, lends itself perfectly to
the development of lakes that can
capture and store rainwater. Each
valley at the ridge top gives birth
to small streams which cascade
down to form major stream
systems.
Figure 9: Chain or Cascade system of lakes prevent flooding
These streams between ridges and valleys are used to create man-made lakes by
damming the streams at appropriate places. Each of these lakes harvest rain water from
its catchments and the surplus flows downstream spilling into the next lake in the chain.
During monsoons, the surplus water from the upstream lake flows down into the next lake
in the chain and from there further down. This connectivity did not allow an overflow of
water out of the lake into the surrounding area as the additional quantity of seasonal
water is transferred to other lakes. The system hence serves as excellent flood controller.
Supported by a network of storm water drains, these lakes thus trap and store rainwater
and are suppose to serve as the means of rainwater harvesting for agriculture, drinking
and washing thereby meeting one-third of the total demand of the city.
With the growth of the urbanization, small lakes and tank beds have vanished because of
encroachment and construction activities. This has resulted in storm-water drains reducing to
gutters of insufficient capacity, leading to flooding during monsoon. Dumping of MSW in
the drains compounds the problems, leading to blockages. To control floods, it is important
to remove silt and widen these storm water drains to maintain the chain flow or cascade
system and avoid water from stagnating at one point.
In this scenario it is crucial to preserve and maintain lakes and tanks for improving the quality
of ground water, fulfilling irrigation needs and preserving creating a healthy environment.

Project Concept
3. About the project
Lake development has several advantages such as fast Construction, little displacement, small
investments and benefits are quickly realised. Unfortunately there is no scope for constructing
new lakes in three regions of the State - the coastal belt, Malnad and Southern Plateau. In
Northern Plateau there is some possibility of finding new sites for lakes but the history of lake
construction in the region indicates that their role is limited. In southern half of the state, the
construction of additional lakes would only reduce flows to the lower lakes. Hence new
investments on lakes can be made only on restoration and conservation of existing lakes.
The identification of lakes has been done on the certain defined parameters which are
detailed out in the subsequent sections. While the causes of degradation of lakes are many, in
view of the limited resources available, it is not possible to take up all degraded lakes for
conservation. It is, therefore, necessary to prioritize lakes along with the catchments, where
conservation needs to be taken up first.
It is important to give priority to revive those lakes that would have lost without any form of
intervention. A framework can be developed categorizing by the level of interventions
required for prioritization as follows:
PRIORITY 1
Lakes that recover without any intervention
PRIORITY 2
Lakes that can be restored close to their former condition to serve their earlier functions
considering cost involved, technical review of the restoration plan etc based on the
goals and objectives set
PRIORITY 3
Lakes that cannot be restored to any agreeable degree viably
Figure 10: Prioritization of lakes
This report targets at selecting important degraded lakes in Karnataka which can be taken up
for conservation.

The conservation of lakes needs to be dealt on the following two levels:
Conservation of lakes
Macro or City Level Micro or individual lake level
Improvement of urban drainage Investigation for Lake

system: rejuvenation
i. Construction/remodeling/rehabili Design of engineering
tation of storm water drains and measures
road side drains; i. Source control or
ii. Removing silting; watershed/catchment
iii. Constructing retaining walls; treatment,
iv. Laying of beds; ii. In-lake treatment,
v. Green area development iii. Details and cost estimation
Beautification of lake
Public participation
Role of regulatory bodies
Figure 11: Approach towards lake conservation
3.1 Intervention required at Macro or City Level
Urban drainage has a direct impact on the City's image, citizens' life, and health. If the system
does not work properly, it leads to environmental hazards. Improving the urban drainage
system requires not only capital infusion, but also ongoing funding for operation and
maintenance. A single point obstruction in a storm-water drain would have a cascading overall
impact. The steps involved in upgrading storm water drainage include:
Constructing roadside drains;

Extension of the storm water drain network into surrounding municipal council areas;
Clearing all encroachments that come in the way of the storm water drain network in
the city;
Aligning the drain network and checking blockage and overflowing of drains;
Reviewing existing storm water drains, ensuring connectivity of primary, secondary and
tertiary drains;
Redesigning for current load conditions along with building barriers between roads
and open drains at crossings;
Citizen awareness is therefore a critical issue, and citizens and NGOs can play a key part in
monitoring development in the region to ensure that drainage is not obstructed, and dumping
of debris and MSW in drains does not occur.

3.2 Intervention required at micro or individual lake Level
The intervention required at the micro level shall be in two phases:
Phase I: Selection of lake
The short-listing of lakes is based on the following factors:
Location of the lake (lakes located in urban areas and degraded and given priority)
Lakes with tourism potential
Source of water supply (lakes which serve as source for drinking water supply or
irrigation to the surrounding areas are given priority)
National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP) guidelines which capture hydrological, scientific
and administrative criteria for the selection of lake to be taken up for conservation. (the
guidelines are enclosed as Annexure 6)
Based on the above factors the following lakes have been identified for conservation.
The details of the major lakes in Karnataka and lakes identified for conservation are
furnished in Annexure 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 3: List of identified lakes for conservation
S.No Name of Lake Name of City District

1 Kolar Ammani Kere, Kolar Kolar Kolar
2 Kamalapura Lake, Kamalapura, Bellary District
3 Shanti Sagara Davengere Davengere
4 Konanhalli Lake, Mandya Mandya
5 Siddapura Tank, Chitradurga Chitradurga
6 Hoskote Lake, Hoskote Hoskote
7 Amani Hirikere, , Hole Narsipura Chamarajnagar
8 Gopashetty Koppa Shimoga Shimoga
9 Chikka Begur Lake Bangalore Bangalore
From the above short-listed list, following are the two lakes selected for First phase of
Lake Conservation.
1. Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga:

Shimoga is situated on the banks of Tunga River in the central region of Karnataka.
Shimoga district has a bird century where around 191 varieties of birds are found.
The city does not have major lakes and the existing lakes need to be restored.
Gopashetty Koppa is one such lake in Shimoga. The stakeholders have expressed the
need and urgency for revival of this lake. The details of the lake are as given below:

Table 4: Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga
SNo. Item Details

1 Name of the Lake Gopashetty Koppa
2 Location Shimoga
3 Area 29 acres approx.
4 Irrigation source Yes
5 Source of drinking Water Yes
6 Tourism Potential
7 Qualification under NLCP
Figure 12: Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga
2. Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore: Most of the lakes or "tanks" in the Bangalore region
were constructed in the Sixteenth century by damming the natural valley systems by
constructing bunds. The lakes in the city have been largely encroached for urban
infrastructure and as result; in the heart of the city only 17 good lakes exist as
against 51 healthy lakes in 1985. Many lakes in Bangalore needs conservation and
Chikka Begur lake is one of them.
The details of the lake are as given below.

Table 5: Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore
SNo. Item Details

1 Name of the Lake Chikka Begur Kere
2 Location Bangalore
3 Area 29.74 acres
4 Irrigation source
5 Source of drinking Water
6 Tourism Potential
7 Qualification under NLCP
Figure 13: Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore
Phase II: Steps involved in individual lake conservation
Under the PPP policy, the private partners can be involved in the conservation of lakes
and allowed to operate recreational facilities in return for conserving and maintaining
the lake. For the purpose of conservation, the private partner shall be responsible for
desilting, dredging, landscaping, foreshore and island development, creation of tree
parks, rock gardens, walkways, jogging paths, cycling tracks, fountains, children park
area, electrification for illumination etc. Apart from this the private partner can be
allowed to construct boat jetty, sports fishing, bird watching, Butterfly Park, boating, eco
friendly water sports, eco friendly restaurants etc to generate revenues to make the

project financially viable. Two such examples are Kankaria Lake (Ahmedabad) and
Ranchi Lake. The details of the same are provided in Annexure-8.
Once the lake is prioritized, the structure under which the lake has to be taken up under
the PPP framework needs to be finalized. The lake conservation shall have two
important components which shall influence the project cost, the revenue model and
viability of the project to be taken up under a PPP model.
Components of Conservation of lakes
I. Conservation of water body II. Lake front development
Investigation for Lake rejuvenation Boating facilities

Design of engineering measures Rentable stalls
Beautification of lake Theme park with joy rides
Restaurant
Kids play area
Figure 14: Components of lake conservation
Component I of lake conservation involves cleaning and maintaining of the water body
with minor beautification works like jogging track, seating, development of park etc.
Component I creates a public facility which might not generate enough revenue to make
the project financially viable for a private partner to invest.
Component II consists of revenue generating activities which if combined with Component I

might make the project lucrative for a private partner to invest.
The viability of the project will depend on:
The project structure (component I i.e lake development or a combination of component I

and II i.e. lake development along with lake from development). It is important to ascertain
the project cost, the funding pattern and the revenues expected from the project.
Availability of grant since the initial development cost as well as maintenance cost is high
in lake conservation projects)
Base on these factors the project can be taken up in the following manner:

Conservation of lakes
Total Project taken up under NLCP Project taken up under NLCP

Investment by where the 70:30 sharing of where the 70:30 sharing of
the Private the project cost between the the project cost between the
Player Central and the State Central Government and the
Government Private Partner
Development of lake
Investment borne by private

player for lake front development
Development of Lake Front
Figure 15: Possible development options for lake
For developing this project, we may get 70% of the total project cost from central
government as a grant. This grant is given if the project is qualified under the NLCP
guidelines. So, the project can be considered in the following six scenarios.
Scenario 1(Lake development without grant): In this scenario, it is assumed that the private
partner may not get any grant from the State Government or the Central Government and
the total investment for the lake conservation (Component I) has to be borne by the private
partner.
Scenario 2 (Lake and lake front development without grant): In this scenario, it is assumed
that the private partner may not get any grant from the State Government or the Central
Government and the total investment for the lake conservation as well as the lake front
development (Component I as well as II) has to be borne by the private partner.
Scenario 3 (Lake Development with grant under NLCP): In this scenario, it is assumed that
the private partner may get grant under the National Lake Conservation Programme
(NLCP) which shall be about 70% of the cost involved for lake development (Component I)
from the Central Government and 30% from the Government of Karnataka.
Scenario 4 (Lake Development with grant under NLCP and lake front development by
Private Player): In this scenario, it is assumed that the private partner may get grant under
the National Lake Conservation Programme (NLCP) which shall be about 70% of the cost
involved for lake development (Component I) from the Central Government and 30% from

the Government of Karnataka and the total investment for the lake front development
(Component II) has to be borne by the private partner.
Scenario 5 (Lake development with partial grant under NLCP (70% from the Central
Government) and 30% from the Private Player): In this scenario, it is assumed that the
private partner may get grant under the National Lake Conservation Programme (NLCP)
which shall be about 70% of the cost involved for lake development (Component I) from
the Central Government and the balance 30% of the State Government share has to be
borne by the private player.
Scenario 6 (Lake development with partial grant under NLCP (70% from the Central
Government) and 30% from the Private player as well as Lake Front Development by the
Private Player): In this scenario, it is assumed that the private partner may get grant under
the National Lake Conservation Programme (NLCP) which shall be about 70% of the cost
involved for lake development (Component I) from the Central Government and the
balance 30% of the State Government share has to be borne by the private player. Also
the total investment for the lake front development (Component II) has to be borne by the
private partner.
Subsequent to the finalization of project structure, it is required to get Detailed Project

Reports for implementation. The details for Component II are variable and design based.
The details for Component I shall be based on the surveys including water quality and
biodiversity of the lake. For the purpose of Component I, the detailed project report shall
include the following five broad heads as furnished in the figure below. The detailed
description of each step is given in Annexure 3.

• Water quality analysis
1. Investigation Studies • Inflow characteristics
• Contours and surroundings
• Augorbore test
• Weather Data
• Sedimentation analysis
• Socio-economic study of the surroundings.
• Assessment of Flora/fauna
• Watershed/catchment treatment
2A. Design of Engineering
• Provision of silt traps
Measures
• Improvement of inlet points
• Wetland treatment
2B. In-Lake Treatment • Dredging and de-silting

• Shoreline treatment
• Declare lake area as protected

• Community toilets
3. Shoreline Management • Sewage Treatment Plant
• Solid Waste Management
• Fencing
• Peripheral Roads and Green Belts
• Electrification
• Promote Eco-Tourism
• Water Boat Jetty
• Administrative Office, Security Chamber,
Food Court, Children’s Park
4. People’s Participation • Active participation from local

community, citizen groups, conservation
organizations, NGOs, and media
• Inter-Agency Regulatory Body- LDA,

5. Role of Regulatory Pollution Control Board, Forest Dept.
City Corp., Development Autority
Bodies
• Evolve effective wetland programs
Figure 16: Steps involved in individual lake conservation

Market Assessment
4. Industry outlook
The stakeholders involve in the process of lake conservation look capital investment, long term
operation and maintenance and risking sharing mechanism with the private player. A private
player is expected to design, engineer, finance, construct, operate, maintain and transfer the
developed lake after a specified period. The major stakeholders involved in the process of
lake conservation are:
Table 6: Agencies involved in lake conservation
Agencies Description
Lake Development Authority This is a society created by the Karnataka Govt.
in 2002 for the conservation of lakes in
Karnataka. They keep an inventory of the inland
wetlands of Karnataka.
BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara The BBMP has developed 2 lakes and is currently
Palike) developing another 7 lakes in Bangalore.
Forest Department, MoEF This department is in charge of 114 lakes in
Bangalore.
BDA (Bangalore Development Authority) The BDA has restored 2 lakes and is in the process
of restoring 12 more lakes in Bangalore.
State Government As lakes belong to the community at large, state
governments have a large role in this field.
Central Government The central government launched the NLCP in
2001.
City Municipal Councils The municipal councils of different cities across
Karnataka are also responsible for maintaining
lakes.
Citizens The public in general, is the user of the water for
irrigation, consumption or entertainment.
Environmental Groups Environmental groups are a representative of the

surrounding flora and fauna, which is important to
maintain the ecological balance.
Similarly private players expect the project to be commercially viable for them to built,
operate and maintain over a period of time. The PPP in lake conservation leads to positive
output if used along with awareness and legal enforcement. The market players who can be
involved in the process are:
Developers: Private partner can bring in activities such as boating facilities, jogging track,
children’s park, theme park, water parks, and nature walks etc. around the lake which
would attract people from not only the nearby areas but also tourists from other distant
places. This would help in accruing revenue all the year round.
Corporate Offices: By rejuvenating a lake, a private company could acquire the goodwill
of the people in the surrounding areas. Rejuvenating a lake is one of the corporate social
responsibilities that a private company can undertake.

Hoteliers: Some lakes without too large a socio-economic influence on the people nearby
can be given for development of resorts or hotels around the area. This would help in
producing revenue for the private partner as well as ensure the maintenance of the lake.
Private partner can introduce the concept of floating hotels or boat tourism in lakes bigger
in scale (200 hac and above).
Welfare Associations: Annual lake festival, sound and light show and other public
gatherings can be conducted. A lake an ideal location for holding environmental
conferences and other environment or nature related symposiums.
These market players can be involved in the conservation of lake within a defined legal
framework and restricted activities.
4.1 SWOT Analysis
The SWOT analysis for taking up lake conservation under a PPP framework is as follows:
STRENGTHS WEAKNESS
• Private Partners are involved for • Involvement of Private Partners leads

the conservation of lakes where to commercialization of public /
operations and maintenance natural assets.
capital investment and commercial • The concern of amusement with
Risk can be shared or transferred construction of theme parks,
entirely on to the private partner. entertainment venues and shopping
• Can help in promoting new malls tend to have a negative impact
concepts, designs and efficiencies on urban biodiversity and exclude
in lake conservation. the under privileged.
• Can maximize service to citizens at • Fencing of common public property
an affordable price with optimal like tanks will adversely affect access
use of government Funds. of poor urban and peri-urban
populations who depend on these
commons for washing, bathing
themselves and their cattle; to extract
fodder; fishing; irrigation, recreation,
etc.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
• Private partner can bring in • The creation of a hotel and

activities such as boating facilities, commercial complex in an area that is
jogging track, children’s park, exclusively meant to be retained as
theme park, water parks, and an ecological habitat and public
nature walks etc. around the lake commons leads to land use violation.
which would help in accruing
revenue all the year round.
• The act of handing over the lake
development under a PPP model
• A developed lake is an ideal encroaches and rejects a variety of
location for holding environmental customary rights of local communities
conferences and probably even and fishing communities in terms of
other environment or nature their free access and utilization of the
related symposiums. water body.
• By rejuvenating a lake, a private • Concept is susceptible to legal
company could acquire the violation as, as per the directives of
goodwill of the people in the the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
surrounding areas. which held in a recent judgment
• Rejuvenating a lake is one of the directly relating to management of
corporate social responsibilities tanks (in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi
that a private company can vs. State of A.P. & Ors, Appeal (civil)
undertake. 1251 of 2006) that tanks and lakes
are community property and cannot
• Developing small bird parks, be traded away at all.
butterfly parks, a variety of flower
beds not only maintains the flora • The manner in which these ancient
and fauna of the area but would tanks are being ‘rehabilitated and
also add to the scenic beauty of developed’ kills the biodiversity,
the lake and would further reduces the biological productivity
enhance the attractiveness of the and water holding capacity of these
lake. tanks.
• Some lakes without too large a

socio-economic influence on the
people nearby can be given for
development of resorts or hotels
around the area. This would help in
producing revenue for the private
partner as well as ensure the
maintenance of the lake.
• Annual lake festival, sound and
light show and other public
gatherings can be conducted.
• Private partner can introduce the
concept of floating hotels or boat
tourism in lakes bigger in scale
(200 hac and above).

Statutory and Legal framework
5. Legal Framework
India has Policies, Acts, Rules and Laws in the Water Resources, Environment, Forest,
Agriculture, Fisheries and Social sectors, directly or indirectly related to lake management.
The Indian Constitution provides, in clear and unambiguous terms, for the State's commitment
to protect the environment. Article 48-A of the directive principles states, "The State shall
endeavor to protect and improve environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of
the country". Under Article 51-A (g), it is the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to
protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures”. The Constitution empowers Panchayats and
Urban local bodies with functions and responsibilities, as relevant to Lakes Environment.
5.1 Initiatives by the Central Government
Several acts and notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF)
provide the legal framework for protection of lakes and reservoirs (wetlands). These deal
with environmental protection, pollution control, specific natural resources protection acts,
hazardous waste management and the National Environment Tribunal.
Constitutional Provision and applicable legislations
Protection of environment and improvement were explicitly incorporated into the

Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act of 1976. Article 48A of
the directive principles of state policy declares: “the State shall endeavour to protect
and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country”. ‘Fundamental Duties’ as envisaged in Article 51A (g), imposes a similar
responsibility on every citizen ‘to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The above Act, 1974 suggest that only State Governments can enact water pollution
legislation. Article 252 empowers Parliament to enact laws on state subjects for two or
more states, where the State Legislatures have consented to such legislation. Under this
Act, the State Boards were vested with the regulatory authority and were empowered
to establish and enforce effluent standards for factories discharging pollutants into
bodies of water. A Central Board performs the same functions for union territories and
coordinates activities among the states.
The PCBs established under the Water Act, control sewage and industrial effluent
discharges in the water bodies by approving, rejecting or conditioning applications for
consent to discharge.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act of 1977
The main object of this Act is to meet the expenses of the Central and State water
boards. Economic incentives are provided for control of pollution by differential levy
of tax structure. The local authorities and certain designated industries are required to

pay a cess for water consumption. The revenues accruing thus are in turn used for
implementation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1977. The
Central Government, after making deductions for collection expenses, pays the Central
board and the States such sums as it deems necessary to enforce the provisions of The
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. On the installation of effluent
treatment equipment and meeting the applicable norms the polluter is entitled to get a
rebate of 25% on applicable cess.
The Indian Forest Act of 1927
This Act is a consolidation of Indian Forest Act of 1878 and its amendments, with minor
changes it has been enacted in pre-independent India. This Act mainly deals with four
categories of forests, viz., reserved forests, village forests, protected forests and non-
government (private) forests. The said Act applies to the lakes which come under any
of the above mentioned four categories of forest.
The Forest (Conservation) Act Of 1980
The Central Government has enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to prevent
rapid deforestation and environmental degradation. According to this Act, before a
State Government “de-reserves” a reserved forest, uses forest land for non-forest
purposes, assigns forest land to a private person or corporation, or clears forest land
for the purpose of reforestation, it has to take the approval of the Central
Government. The Central Government is assisted by an advisory committee constituted
under this Act. The said Act applies to the lake which comes under the reserve forest.
National Lake Conservation Plan
Ministry of Environment and Forests has been implementing the National Lake
Conservation Plan (NLCP) since 2001 for conservation and management of polluted
and degraded lakes in urban and semi-urban areas. The major objectives of NLCP
include encouraging and assisting State Governments for sustainable management and
conservation of lakes. Lakes being major sources of accessible fresh water require well
planned, sustainable and scientific efforts to prevent their degradation and ultimate
death. The main objectives of the National Lake Conservation Plan are:
• Prevention of pollution from point and non-point sources.
• Treatment of Catchment area.
• Desilting and weed control.
• Research & Development studies on floral and faunal activities and related
ecological aspects.
• Other activities depending on the lake specific conditions such as
integrated development approach, including interface with human
populations.
The funding pattern under National Lake Conservation Plan was revised to 70:30 costs
sharing between Central and the State Government with effect from January, 2002. In
view of a large number of proposals being received from various States, the scope of
NLCP has been enlarged during the Tenth Plan Period by including the rural lakes in
the programme along with urban lakes. The funding pattern is same for the year
2007- 2008.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA)
According to EPA, "Environment" includes water, air and land and the inter-
relationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings,
other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property;
Section 3 of the EPA states, that Central Government shall have the power to take all
such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
improving the quality of the environment and preventing controlling and abating
environmental pollution.
National Environment Policy, 2004
The National Environment Policy (NEP, 2004) is a response to the national commitment
to a clean environment, mandated in the Constitution in Articles 48A and 51 A (g),
strengthened by judicial interpretation of Article 21. The Objective of NEP 2004 is:
• Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources:
• Intra-generational Equity: Livelihood Security for the Poor:
5.2 Initiative of the State Government
Appreciating the urgency and enormity of the task for the integrated development of lakes,
the Department of Environment and Ecology proposed the constitution of the lake Development
Authority. The Lake Development Authority was created vide Government Order No.
FEE/12/ENG/02, Bangalore, Dated. 10th July 2002. It is a registered society under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1959 and a non-profit organization working solely for
the regeneration and conservation of lakes within BMRDA jurisdiction.
However, from 30.04.2003 the Lake Development Authority's jurisdiction has been extended
over the lakes in city municipal corporations in the State as well as lakes in the city
Municipalities which are the main sources for drinking water. The Lake Development Authority
is responsible for:
• Restoring lakes and facilitating restoration of depleting ground water table.

• Diverting/treating sewage to generate alternative; sources of raw water and prevent
contamination of underground aquifers from wastewater.
• Environment impact Assessment studies.
• Environmental Planning and GIS Mapping of lakes and surrounding areas.
• Improving and creating habitat for water birds and wild plants.
• Reducing sullage and non-point water impacts.
• Improving urban sanitation and health conditions especially for the weaker sections
living close to the lakes.
• Impounding run-off water to ensure recharge of ground water aquifers and revival of
borewells.
• Monitoring and management of water quality and lake ecology.
• Utilizing the lakes for the purpose of education and tourism.
• Community participation and public awareness programmes for lakes conservation.

It also has the governing council which has the powers to:
• Frame regulations, byelaws
• Enter into agreements with public or private bodies to further objectives
• Accept endowments grants etc
• Establish and spell out membership of committees, task forces
• Appoint advisory board and other such special committees
• To invite experts to meetings of governing council
Apart from this, the Memorandum of Association of LDA also provides for the creation of an
Empowered Committee of the Lake Development Authority. The functions and powers of the
Empowered Committee are:
• Seeking funds for the regeneration/development/maintenance of lakes

• Grant Approval for the Detailed Project Reports to be submitted to Ministry of
Environment and Forests under the Lake Conservation Plan
• Grant approvals for the works to be taken up by following due process under the
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999
• Powers to constitute any sub-committee/s for the above purposes.
Since its inception the Authority has drawn up the plans for the conservation of various lakes in
the State includes Bangalore city. This has resulted in obtaining Government of India grant for,
Nagawara Lake (Rs.5.19 crores). Vengaiahnakere (Rs.2.55 crores), Bellandur lake
(Rs.5.5.crores), Kottegere Lake, Belgaum (Rs.5.640 crores), Lalbagh (Rs. 1.66 crores) and
Bhishma lake, Gagag (Rs.2.50 crores). The proposals sent to Government of India for the 10th
Five-year plan is for about Rs.252 crores. The Authority has also taken up preparation of
database of lakes in and around Bangalore after physical verification of lakes and update
about the lakes, including the water quality monitoring and encroachment thereon.
5.3 Conclusion
Conservation of lakes under a Public Private Partnership is not envisaged directly under any
of the enactments and policies, however few lakes were undertaken under private
participation and it was alleged by the public that it is commercialization of the lakes which
would serve the interest of the private parties and not the public at large. Thus conservation of
lakes under a PPP framework has not received the desired response and public acceptance in
Karnataka mainly because of its commercial nature. The process was adopted by Lake
Development Authority which received a lot of opposition for the public. A number of civic
organizations, environmental organizations, naturalists and birdwatchers, were alarmed and
perturbed at the manner in which the numerous tanks and wetlands, essentially a common
property, were being handed over for commercial and developments activities to private
parties by the Government. A copy of letter submitted by an environmental organization
(ESG) to the Chief Minister regarding their concern on the privatization of lakes is provided in
Annexure. Conservation of lakes under private participation could be undertaken by framing
a suitable guidelines and policies for private participation which is not purely commercial in
nature and the guidelines should provide for environmental protection, ecological sensitivity
issues, abatement of pollution and more so ever conservation of lakes for the public purpose
by the private parties.

Environmental & Social impact of lake restoration
6. Environment Impacts
Effective, long-term lake conservation plan is a complex undertaking that must deal with
sociology as well as biology. The decision to restore or protect a particular lake has to be
based on a thorough study of the lake, its watershed, and the commitment of time and money
necessary for long-term management. Each lake is unique, and each management process is as
complex as the concerns it addresses. But the ecological, social, and economic benefits of a
well-managed lake can span generations. For these reasons, the actual value of a lake
conservation project can’t be calculated.
A lake and its adjacent wetlands provide habitat for fishes and other wildlife.
6.1 Economic Impact of lake conservation
The economic impact of lake conservation is:
The visual quality of the communities built around the lake is highly dependent on the
condition of the water body and the lakeshore. The natural beauty of the lake is part of
the quality of life for lakeshore property owners and the entire community. The quality of
a lake directly affects community property values and, therefore, the local tax base.
A properly managed lake provides recreational opportunities for the citizens and mode of
revenue for the Government for maintaining the lake.
6.2 Social Impact of lake conservation
Lakes have been part of the historical as well as social landscape of Bangalore for many
centuries now. Villages have clustered around many of these water bodies and depended on
them for meeting all water related needs, from household uses to livelihood uses. Though this
aspect of lakes has changed due to urbanization, there still exist many people as well as
communities residing around these lakes, who depend on them. Lakes continue to exist as
Common Property Resources1.
The social impacts of lake conservation are:
Climate: Lakes are cooling agents and are essential to the urban microclimate. The cool
air if allowed to flow unrestricted into the surrounding urban development creates a stress
free soothing environment for the citizens in the adjacent localities.
1
Common Property Resources are broadly defined as those (non - exclusive) resources in which a group of
people have co - equal user rights. Membership in the group of co-owners is typically conferred by membership
in some other group, generally a group whose central purpose is not the use or administration of the resources
(per se), such as a village, a tribe etc. CPRs perform several functions. They contribute to people's employment,
income generation and asset accumulation (directly or through complementing the private resource based
activities). Contributions of CPRs can be through physical products, income/employment gains, and larger social,
ecological gain.

Figure 17: Lake Conservation brings in aesthetic value for the city
Recreational facilities: Entertainment activities along the urban lakefronts if promoted, can
serve as a revenue generating measure. The lakes can form a part of urban aesthetics and
visual links can be established by avoiding barriers like walls and high bunds along the
lake.
Encroachments: Some areas of the lakefront are inaccessible and get inhabited by slums
and other unauthorized usage. Such activities can be avoided by giving free access to the
public with well-landscaped terraced spaces along the lakefront.
Rainwater harvesting and bio diversity: lakes assist in Rainwater harvesting and
protection of biological resource, enhancement of water quality and watershed
management.
Figure 18: Lakes are home to many aquatic animals and plants

Project Financials
7. Project cost components
This chapter includes estimation of project cost, revenues and operational expenses for the
various scenarios explained in chapter 3. It also includes project feasibility analysis under
different financing scenarios.
7.1 Overview of Project Financials
The major cost centers and revenue centers for the project are identified and shown in the
chart below.
Project Financials
Cost Centers Revenue Centers
1. Civil Works
2. Electrical Works General Revenues from
3. Landscaping Revenues Lake Front
4. Miscellaneous Works Development
1. Boating 1. Entry Fees

2. Rent from stall 2. Ticket for Theme Park
3. Rent from Advertising 3. Rent for Costumes and
Space locker
4. Parking 4. Rent from Restaurant
5. Summer camp
Figure 19: Project Financials
7.2 Assumptions for calculating project cost
The extent of lakes in Karnataka varies between 10 acres to 500 acres and above. A
general financial model is prepared for lake spread to an extent of 30 acres. For preparing
financial model of any other lake which has different spread from this, the values of costs
and revenues in the model have to be adjusted accordingly.
The micro and macro assumptions used to prepare financial model are listed below.

Table 7: Financial Assumptions
Spread of lake 30 Acres

Construction period 1 Year
Contingency cost 2% of hard cost
Financing charges 0.5% of hard cost
Operating expenses 10% of Initial cost
Lease period 30 years
7.3 Cost Estimation
The scope of work to be done in any lake conservation project has been mentioned in
annexure 1. The project cost components, derived from the scope of work, are mentioned
below. The total project cost is estimated to be Rs 527 Lakhs.
Table 8: Estimated project cost for conservation of lake (50 acres approximately)
S.No. Components Cost (Rs. Lakhs)

A Civil Works
Desilting 139.6
Compound Wall 1.3
Chain Link Fencing 49.2
Culverts and Waste Weir 14.5
Jogging Track 2.9
B Electrical works 11.9
C Landscaping 24.6
D Miscellaneous works
Water Boat Jetty 1.4
Parking 2.3
Gazebo/Shelter (10 of 375 sqm each) 10.6
Fountain 6.2
food kiosks (10 of 10 sqm each) 1.5
D Pre-operative/Other Expenses
(5% of hard cost) 13.3
Total Hard Cost 279.1
Contingency Cost (2% of the hard cost) 5.6
Financing Charges (0.5% of the hard cost) 1.4
IDC 14.7
Total Project Cost 300.8
The lake conservation project can be taken with or without developing Lake Front. The
feasibility of the Lake Front Development is dependent on the availability of land around the
lake. It is assumed that a parcel of 2 acres is available next to the lake for the development
of various facilities like jogging track, park, water-world etc. The cost of Lake Front
Development will be as follows:

Table 9: Estimated project cost for Lake Front Development (2 acres approximately)
No Particulars Rs. (Lakh)

1 Cost of Developing Lake Front2 200
2 O&M expenses (at 10% of initial cost) 20
The cost of Developing Lake Front is arrived from construction cost of similar Lake Front
Development work in India.
7.4 Estimation of Footfalls
The footfalls in weekdays and weekends will vary a lot. Average number of people visiting
the lake front is arrived at as shown below.
Table 10: Average Footfalls for Lake front development
Key assumptions in calculating footfalls

No of persons visiting per day in weekdays 100
Total weekdays in a year 261
No of persons visiting per day in weekends 1000
Total weekends in a year 104
Average persons visiting per day 357.1
Footfalls rounded off to 350
7.5 Revenue Model
Various case studies and surveys indicate that people are willing to pay, if facilities such as
green relaxation areas, garden, jogging track, walkways, boating are provided.
As shown in the Project Financials, The revenue streams are assumed for two scenarios:
Revenues from lake rejuvenation: These revenues will be coming irrespective of the lake
front development.
Revenues from lake front development: These revenues will be specific to the lake front
development. If lake front is not developed, we will not get these revenues
2
The cost estimation of Lake Front Development is derived from quotation received from a private player and
the same is attached as annexure 12.

The revenues from each component are shown below with all relevant assumptions. It is clear
from below table that major part of the revenues comes from lake front development.
Table 11: Revenue streams in the first year for the developer
A Revenues from lake rejuvenation

Sr. Revenue Source Amount (Rs.) Unit Assumption Total (Rs. Lakh)
No.
1 Boating 20 Per Person Average 350 persons 5.11
visit lake per day, 20
% of them go for
boating
2 Space Rent for 20 per sqft 10 stalls for 500 sqft 12.00
food stalls and per month each
entertainment
kiosks
3 Advertising 15 Per sqft 700 sqft space 1.30
Space Rent per month available for
advertisement
4 Parking Car – Rs.5 per vehicle 40 cars (per day) 1.50
two-wheeler- 100 2-wheelers (per
Rs. 2 day)
Total Revenues without lake front development 19.91
B Revenues from lake front development

1 Entry fees 20 Per person Assuming 350 persons 25.55
visit park per day
2 Fees to go to 150 Per person Assuming 50 % of 95.8

theme park and persons visiting for
rides park go for this
3 Costumes+ Locker 30 Per person Assuming 50% of the 7.66
Fees persons coming for
rides go for it
4 Restaurant rent 35 Per sqft Restaurant space is 3.36
per month 800 sqft
5 Summer Camp 1500 Per person For 60 days, 4 no of 6.00
Program for for 15 batch per day
swimming days
Total Revenues 158.2
7.6 Viability Assessment
To cover the operational and maintenance costs from project revenues is one of the prime
reasons for giving this project under PPP model.

The operations and maintenance cost would depend on the facilities built, the required level
of O&M activities, and also the demands of the users as to the level of services. However, at
the feasibility stage, based on the analysis carried out, the O&M cost components shall be
estimated as follows.
Table 12: Operations and Maintenance expenses

S No. Component Cost (in Rs. Lakhs)
1 Desilting 7.0
2 Culverts and Waste Weir 1.4
3 Jogging Track 0.3
4 Electrical works 1.2
5 Landscaping 2.5
Total O&M expenses without lake front development 12.4
Escalation in O&M Expenses 3%
O&M expenses of Lake front Development 20.0
Total O&M expenses with Lake Front Development 32.4
7.7 Scenario Analysis
The results under all above scenarios are listed in the below table.
Table 13: Scenario Analysis
Scenario Analysis
With partial NLCP grant &
Without any grant With grant under NLCP partial private partner’s
investment
(70% of lake development
(70% of lake development cost
cost by Central Government
by Central Government, 30% by
(Total investment made by and 30% by Private Player.
State Government and cost of
Private player) Cost of Lake front
Lake front development by
development by Private
Private Player)
Player)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Only Lake Lake + Lake Only Lake Lake + Lake Only Lake Lake + Lake
Development front Development front Development front
Development Development Development
Negative IRR. IRR =15 % Negative IRR. IRR=15 % Negative IRR. IRR=15 %
Project is Project is Project is

Revenues are Revenues are O&M
financially financially financially
not sufficient not sufficient expenses are
viable for the viable for the viable for the
to cover O&M to cover O&M higher than
Private Player Private Player to Private Player
expenses expenses revenues
to invest invest to invest

Private Player
Operational Operational Operational
can pay to Private Player Private Player
grant of Rs. grant of Rs. grant of Rs.
the can pay to the can pay to the
65 lakh 37 lakh 45 lakh
Government Government Government
required required required
Negative Negative grant Negative
annually to annually to annually to
grant of Rs. of Rs. 50 lakh grant of Rs. 40
get target IRR get target IRR get target IRR
20 lakh annually lakh annually
of 15% of 15% of 15%
annually
The advantage of taking up the development of lake under a PPP framework as per scenario
2, 4 and 6 can be advantageous in the long term since Government will not have to pay for
O&M expenses. The O&M expenses (which are substantial in lake development) shall be
borne by the Private Player. These expenses are around Rs. 12.4 lakh a year.
7.8 Recommendations
As per the revenue projections, major part of revenues comes from facilities created under
Lake Front Development. If Lake Front is not developed along with Lake Conservation, the
project revenues will be very low.
Projections made for operational expenses for the project show that revenues generated
from the lake rejuvenation may not be sufficient to cover the operational cost of the lake.
The development of Lake Front is critical to make the project financially viable for the
private player. In the absence of lake front development, the operational grant might
have to be provided by the Government to make project financially viable.
If Lake Front is developed, there will be no need for any initial or operational grant.

Operating framework
8. Institutional Framework (Organization & Operational Strategy)
The framework on O&M shall also depend on the mode of implementation and the decision on
involvement of the private player into the project either at the implementation level or at the
long term O&M level. Irrespective of the selected project structure, the developed and
rejuvenated lake needs continuous O&M immediately post completion of the development. The
overall framework shall be as follows:
Stakeholder (Government Agency) gives the project to the private player on a 30

years lease contract
Provide Assistance for approvals/

clearances/ grants in any
With NLCP Grant Private Player Without NLCP Grant
Funding for
lake Funding for lake front Funding for lake
rejuvenation development rejuvenation
I. Lake Rejuvenation II. Lake front development
Investigation for Lake rejuvenation Boating facilities

Design of engineering measures Rentable stalls
Beautification of lake Theme park with joy
rides
Restaurant
Kids play area
Design, Built, Operate, Maintain and Transfer Basis
Figure 20: Institutional Framework

Lake rejuvenation essentially requires an integrated approach for operation and maintenance,
not only in the spread of water sheet but also in the catchments, the key feeder channels,
comprehensive solid waste management, underground drainage and road maintenance etc.
The Private Contractor would need to enter into a lease contract for a period of 30 years and
take up the activities involved in lake rejuvenation within one year of signing of the contract.
The private player shall continue its obligation to carry out the O&M works which shall include
de-silting every 2-3 years, annual de-weeding and other maintenance works. The options for
going ahead with this contract (the Contractor could be given the first right of refusal for this
contract) would need to be studied and finalized at the Bid stage.
Based on this factor, the bid parameter would need to be finalized and specified in the RFP
document.
The private Contractor would be given the freedom of choosing the technology appropriate
for undertaking the Project.
The Government agency would monitor the works of the Private player or would engage the
services of an Independent Technical Auditor (ITA) for supervision and monitoring of works.
Some of the key O&M activities include:
• Clearing solid waste and garbage (including rags, papers etc.) reaching the tank
through the channels or from the visitors or illegal dumping.
• Regular monitoring of the water coming through the feeder channels, catchment and
tank water.
• Maintenance of plants and garden area including putting the water system into work.
• Regular disinfection of the lake and surroundings including spraying of fungicides for
bio remedial measures.
• Daily sweeping and cleaning.
• Regular maintenance of the play equipment, lighting etc.
• Surveillance and security from vandalism and other illegal activity.
8.1 Risks involved and mitigation measures
The possible risks perceived if taking up the project under PPP and mitigation measures for
the same is given below:
Table 14: Likely risks and mitigation measures in lake conservation under PPP
Type of Risk Description Mitigation Measures

Financing The capital expenditure would The Government could consider
Capex be incurred by the Contractor giving the Contractor payments
during the construction phase, under a NLCP or viability gap
while revenues would accrue funding.
only during the O&M phase of
the project.
The tariffs that are being currently
charged may need to be
Opex The revenues that would accrue reviewed and rationalized.
by way of entry fee/ tariffs/
user charges may be insufficient

Type of Risk Description Mitigation Measures
to meet operating expenses.
Operation & O&M cost escalation The Contractor is expected to
Maintenance factor in cost escalations arising
out of operation & maintenance
activities over the tenure of the
contract, while submitting his
financial bid or a price escalation
clause could be included in the
contract.
Force Majeure Natural disaster These risks would need to be

Manmade disaster shared appropriately by
Declared war Staeholders and the private
Riots Contractor.
Terrorism attack
Labour strike
Legal Breach of Contract by Appropriate termination payments
Government would need to be worked out.
Premature termination by The SPV would need to make

Government payments to the Contractor in this
case.

Annexure 1
List of Major Lakes in Karnataka
1 Agara tank (Yelandur cluster) 42 Karigala kere
2 Amanakatte 43 Kenchana kere
3 Amani Hirikere, Hole Narsipura 44 Kesthur lake (Yelandur cluster)
4 Arakere 45 Kolar Ammanikere
5 Attivery Bird Sanctuary 46 Konanhalli Lake, Mandya
6 Badane kere 47 Koppa
7 Bannur Heggere 48 Kothagere kere
8 Belikere 49 Krishnarajasagar dam
9 Bellandur 50 Kukkarahalli tank
10 Bethamangala tank 51 Kunigal Chikkakere
11 Byramangala reservoir 52 Kunigal doddakere
12 Chikka Hoskote 53 Kunthur lake (Yelandur cluster)
13 Chikkaballi 54 Lingambudhi tank
14 Chikkajala tank 55 Maddur kere (Deshalli)
15 Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore 56 Maddur tank (Yelandur cluster)
16 Dalavay tank 57 Magadi tank
17 Daroji tank 58 Malagi Dharma dam
18 Doddajala tank 59 Mansalapura tank
19 Duggatti tank (Yelandur cluster) 60 Maralur Ammanikere
20 Gende Hosalli 61 Marehallikere
21 Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga 62 Mullur tank (Yellandur cluster)
22 Gudavi Bird Sanctuary 63 Nagavalli tank
23 Hebbur Ammanikere 64 Narasambudi tank
24 Heche tank 65 Neregal tank
25 Heggari (Haveri) tank 66 Rampura tank
26 Hennagara tank 67 Ravanduru kere
27 Hirekere tank (Yelandur cluster) 68 Salagaon tank
28 Hoskote lake 69 Samunder talab
29 Irsawadi tank (Yelandur cluster) 70 Shanti Sagara, Davengere
30 Isloor village tank 71 Shidlaghatta Ammanikere
31 Jigni tank 72 Shimsha river stretch
32 Kabini river 73 Siddapura Tank, Chitradurga
33 Kaggaladu Chikkakere 74 Sulekere
34 Kaggalipura kere 75 Tailur tank
35 Kaggalladu Dodda kere 76 Tumkur Ammanikere
36 Kalambellan tank 77 Uranganahalli tank
37 Kalkere tank 78 Vartur tank
38 Kallur lake (Yelandur cluster) 79 Yelandur tank (Yelandur cluster)
39 Kamalapura Lake, Kamalapura, Bellary 80 Yelibechali tank
40 Kamasamudram kere 81 Yellamallappa
41 Karanji tank 82 Yeriyru tank (Yelandur cluster)

Annexure 2
Details of prioritized lakes
1. Kolar Ammani Kere, Kolar
2. Kamalapura Lake, Kamalapura, Bellary District
3. Shanti Sagara, Davengere
4. Konanhalli Lake, Mandya
5. Siddapura Tank, Chitradurga
6. Hoskote Lake, Hoskote
7. Amani Hirikere, Hole Narsipura, Chamarajnagar District
8. Gopashetty Koppa, Shimoga
9. Chikka Begur Lake, Bangalore

Annexure 3
Details of steps required in lake conservation
Step 1: Investigations for Lake Rejuvenation
i. Water quality analysis

Before starting with the framing of strategies for rejuvenation, the first step is
to analyze the present situation of water quality at the following locations in
the lake:
• Inlets of lake
• Body or center of lake
• Outlet of lake
• Effluent/sewage entry points
Based on this information, steps are taken for sewage diversion/pollutants,
design/size of wetland, requirement of aerators etc.
ii. Inflow characteristics

The inflow characteristics of water into the lake is required for calculating the
depth of de-silting, height of the bund, full tank level, waste weir level etc. the
inflow of lake is measured through:
• Storm water drains
• Catchment area of lake
• Type of drainage
• Type of catchment.
• Maximum flood discharge
iii. Contours and surroundings

Investigation for actual contours and its surroundings by total station survey is
important for the following information:
• Area of the lake
• Present levels
• Characteristics of bund
iv. Augorbore test

This is necessary to estimate the quantity of silt to be removed and also to
analyze silt.
v. Weather Data
Information like rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, humidity etc is
important to gauge the inflow into the lake.
vi. Sedimentation analysis

This is necessary to calculate the percolation of lake, to design silt trap and
also to quantify the silt.
vii. Socio-economic study of the surroundings.

This is done to analyze the impact of industries, slums and other misuse which
can affect lake. It is also necessary for the provision of facilities like toilets,
jogging tracks, Immersion tanks, boat jetties etc.
viii. Assessment of Flora/fauna

It is necessary to investigate the status of aquaculture, species of fishes, aquatic
life, birds etc.
Step 2A: Design of engineering measures
i. Watershed/catchment treatment
This may involve the following steps:

• Widening of storm water drains
• Trimming of slope
• Trimming of storm water drains
• Rectifying slopes
• Cleaning up of drains
ii. Provision of silt traps
This may involve the following steps:

• Design of various types of silt traps
• Sizes of silt traps
• Estimate Screen Barrier their type, height and width.
iii. Improvement of inlet points
This may involve diversion of sewage/ effluents or diversion of dry weather

flow.
iv. Wetland treatment
This may involve:

• Bund design for wetland
• Screen Barriers over bund
• Aerators (mechanical)
• Plantations in the area.
Step 2B: In lake treatment
This has involved several palliative measures to remove eutrophication and

improve quality of lake water; the components of which are:
i. Dredging and de-silting
This is widely adopted and considered essential in all lakes and tanks. The
steps may involve:

• Improvement to bund: widening, strengthening, and pitching to bund up to
full tank level or above 0.5m level.
• Turfing above full tank level.
• Murrum casing on bund to avoid slipping of soil
ii. Shoreline treatment

Treatment may involve:
• Increase in height of the shores
• Pitching
• Turfing
• Sluice improvement
• Design of overflow sections
• Design of waste water wier based on maximum flood discharge
• De-weeding/hyacinth control or removal (biological, chemical,
mechanical and manual measures, bio- composting)
• Bio-remediation (Clean up with bio-products - natural bacteria
breakdown, and aerators to churn the lakes.
• Introduction of composite fish culture/larvivorous fish species to control
mosquitoes
Step 3: Shoreline management

Shoreline management can be achieved in urban lakes by:
• Banning construction activity to specific heights above the periphery of the
lake.
• Declaring the lake periphery as protected areas or wild life sanctuaries
• Providing community toilets around periphery to prevent pollution from
human wastes.
• Provision of sewage treatment plant either secondary or tertiary.
• Introducing Solid waste management measures.
• Demarcating lake boundaries with fencing around the lake periphery, in
many lakes.
• Creating Peripheral roads and green belts.
• Provision of electricity and lighting around the lake.
• Undertaking Eco tourism facilities which can convert lakes into great tourist
centres.

• By imposing restrictions and guidelines on Idol immersions and designing
immersion ponds.
• Provision of Boat Jetties
• Provision of security guard chamber, administrative office, ticket counters,
food courts, aquariums, pebble banks, children park area etc.
Step 4: Peoples’participation
Lake management, restoration or conservation requires an integrated, broad

based inter-agency \ partnership all working towards a common goal
involving the educational institutions, forest department, Development
Authorities, City Corporations, Irrigation department, Public Works Department
(PWD) and Pollution Control Board. The active participation of local community,
conservation organizations, NGOs, and citizens groups with active support from
the media at all levels of planning, executing and monitoring is required for
implementation of measures to meet the set goals. This is an effective
management method in which the Non-Governmental organizations have acted
as great catalysts. The initiative of the government to form Adopt a Lake policy
is a major step for the involvement of public and private sector in the revival
and management of lakes. Several organizations, both Government, Non-
Government and at Community levels, can be participants in lake restoration.
Step5: Role of Regulatory Bodies
An interagency regulatory body comprising personnel from departments

involved in urban planning (Development Authorities, City Corporations, etc.),
resource management (Forest department, Fisheries, Horticulture, Agriculture,
etc.),and regulatory bodies such as Pollution Control Board (PCB), Lake
development Authority (LDA),local citizen groups, research organizations and
NGOs would help in evolving effective wetland programs covering significant
components of the watershed, that need coordinated effort from all agencies
and organizations involved in programs affecting the health of wetland
ecosystems directly or indirectly.

Annexure 4
District wise number of lakes and tanks in Karnataka
No of Lakes in each district

1 Bidar 86
2 Gulbarga 507
3 Bijapur 125
4 Bagalkot 73
5 Belgaum 811
6 Raichur 450
7 Dharwad
8 Gadag 3080
9 Koppal 213
10 Uttar K'taka 3270
11 Haveri 1438
12 Bellary 233
13 Shimoga 4890
14 Chitradurga 371
15 Davengere
16 Udupi 247
17 Chikmaglur 2866
18 Tumkur 1998
19 Kolar 4263
20 Hassan 5599
21 Dakshin K'taka 432
22 Kodagu 1146
23 Mandya 965
24 Bangalore 2076
25 Mysore
26 Chamrajanagar 1369
TOTAL 36508

Annexure 5
Scope of Work for Conservation of Lake (30 Acres)
SNo. Components Remarks

1 De-silting Removing of silt upto maximum water level
2 Compound Wall Construction of Compound wall around the lake to prevent
encroachment
3 Chain Link Fencing Fencing of the lake to define its perimeter
4 Water Boat Jetty • Building of boating facilities
• Construction of dock pier
5 Electrical works • Cabling
• Electrification
• Lighting
6 Landscaping • Pathways
• Grass turfing
• Planting of various trees, shrubs, flowering plants etc.
7 Toilet Construction 2 toilet blocks (each being a twin unit for ladies and gents)
8 Jogging Track Jogging Track of width 3m all around the lake
9 Gazebo/Shelter 10 Gazebos for shelter
10 Fountain 4 fountains
11 Culverts and Waste Weir For regulating water flow and storage during rains

Annexure 6
NLCP Guidelines for selection of lake for conservation
The selection criteria for lakes for conservation according to the National Lake Conservation
Plan (NLCP) guidelines are as follows:
Hydrological Criteria: The lake water body is perennial i.e. it holds a certain volume
of water at all times, even in the lean season of the year. Physical parameters of the
lake are:-
i. Lake size > 10 Ha (Exception: lakes larger than 3 Ha having socio cultural or
religious importance)
ii. Lake depth (maximum depth) > 3 m
Scientific Criteria: The lake is either justifiably prioritized by the State Government or
if the water body is highly degraded and cannot be put to its traditional use primarily
because of the reasons as indicated below:
i. Discharge of domestic and industrial waste water into the lake such as:
• Dumping of municipal solid waste
• Other non point sources of pollution
• Flow of heavy silt loads from the lake catchment.
ii. Incorrect land use leading to heavy soil erosion and sediment transport into the
lake resulting in nutrient enrichment of lake (Nitrate & Phosphate) signifying
eutrophication.
iii. The lake water body is degraded and not meeting the desired standards. In
the absence of specific water quality criteria developed in respect of lakes,
for the present Designated Best Use criteria for surface waters for bathing
quality as given by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) shall be the target
for lake water quality table below.
DESIGNATED BEST USE CLASS OF CRITERIA CRITERIA

1 Drinking Water Source A 1. Total Coliforms OrganismMPN/100ml
without conventional shall be 50 or less
treatment but after 2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5
disinfection 3. Dissolved Oxygen 6mg/l or more
4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20
degree C 2mg/l or less
2 Outdoor bathing B 1. Fecal Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml

(Organised) shall be 2500 (max permissible), or 1000
(desirable)
2. pH between 6.5 and 8.5
3. Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more
4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days 20
C 3mg/l or less
3 Drinking water source C 1. Total Coliforms Organism MPN/ 100ml

after conventional shall be 5000 or less
treatment and 2. pH between 6 to 9

disinfection 3. Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
4. Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days
20oC 3mg/l or less
4 Propagation of Wild life D 1. pH between 6.5 to 8.5

and Fisheries 2. Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
3. Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less
5 Irrigation, Industrial E 1. pH between 6.0 to 8.5

Cooling, Controlled 2. Electrical Conductivity at 25 C micro
Waste disposal mhos/cm Max.2250
3. Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26
4. Boron Max. 2mg/l
Administrative Criteria: The lake if getting degraded/eutrophied, is an important

source of drinking water supply, domestic use, recreational use, provide other goods &
services, may be proposed under NLCP, when:
i. There is a high degree of demand from public forum/local stakeholders for its
conservation and if the forum/stakeholders give their commitment to bear
10% out of State share in the project cost.
ii. Lake is categorised as a ‘unique fresh water ecosystems.’
Other Conditions: Following are some of the other relevant conditions considered to
be a pre-requisite, based on site specific requirements, for preparation of the
proposal:
i. While outlining the lake water use, the details regarding stakeholders involved
and impact of lake degradation on each of these are to be provided. The
lake rejuvenation proposal may consider the stakeholder demands through a
public hearing at site and their involvement in operation & maintenance.
ii. Increasing the lake depth through de-siltation does have an impact on its flora
and fauna and may lead to destruction of habitat for migratory birds. De-
siltation component in the proposals must be supported by bathymetry of the
lake as per the standard methodology and its planning and execution to be
carried out scientifically under expert guidance.
iii. The cost towards ‘Lake Front Development’ activities under the proposal may
be restricted to 25% of the project cost.
iv. Engineering works in respect of bund may be minimized with naturalization of
bund as a preferred option. The cost towards shaping/strengthening including
slope revetment, provision for construction of retaining wall, if any etc. should
not exceed 10-15% of the total project cost. Stone revetment along the inner
slope of the earthen bund, to be resorted to in cases where strengthening of
burnt required. As far as possible naturalisation of slops by providing suitable
vegetation with proper selection of species, be resorted to.
v. The lake shores to be naturalized as far as possible by planting macrophytes
on the lake slope rather than providing hard stone pitching.
vi. The water quality monitoring plan should include sampling and analysis of
lake water as per standard methods (refer para 9.0) by appointing an
independent agency having a laboratory accredited by Ministry of

Environment & Forests or National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Calibration of Laboratories (NABL) with Lake Development Authority of the
State as the nodal agency. In case, there is known source of industrial pollution
to the lake or agricultural run-off from the lake catchment, heavy metals and
total Pesticides monitoring may also be included. The conservation plan should
ensure that the water quality after implementation of the project is restored to
the criteria for Designated Best Use classification for B Class waters.
vii. All lake conservation measures lead to incidental ground water recharge
depending upon the soil strata. However, the objective should not be charging
the bore wells.
viii. The State Governments may prepare comprehensive plan for environmental
awareness and public participation which would suite site specific requirements
and also depicting the values and functions of the water bodies.
ix. While planning the project and deciding the restoration measures, the states
may consider for recycle and reuse of sewage and also the introduction of
eco-friendly activities to minimize degradative impacts on the water body.

Annexure 7
List of Stakeholders Contacted
S.No. Agency Visited No. of Contact Person

Visits
1 Lake Development Authority LDA 4 Mr. Vedanth, CEO
Mr. Singh, Chief
Conservator
2 City Manager’s Association of CMAK 1 B S Gopala Rao,
Karnataka Research Associate
3 Forest Department, Aranya 1 Mr. Srivastav, DFO
Bhavan
4 Karnataka State Remote KSRSAC 1 Director
Sensing Applications Center
5 Jala Samavardhane Yojana JSYS 1 Mr. Manjunath, MIS
Sangha Department
6 Karnataka Urban KUIDFC 1 Dr. J.V.Nandana Kumar,
Infrastructure Development & DGM
Finance Corporation
7 Shimoga Urban Development SUDA 1 Mr. Ghatke, AEE
Authority

Annexure 8
Current initiatives in lake conservation by the stakeholders

Annexure 9
Lake Front Development Case Studies
Case Study on Lake Development in India
Kankaria Lake:
Kankaria is the biggest lake of the city of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. With an

approximate circumference of 1.4 miles (2.3 km), it represents the regale history of
Ahmedabad.
Kankaria Lake has approximate circumference of 1.4 miles (2.3 km). it was developed
in 2006-07 by Government of Gujarat at an approximate cost of Rs. 36 Crore.
The lake conservation project was not restricted to only cleaning, de-silting and other
lake related activities, but it also included lake front development activities. In this project
facilities like Toy Train, Indoor Stadium, Laser show etc are also developed. The lake front
includes Jogging Track, Aquarium, Zoo, Park called Nagina wadi, Amusement Park called
Balwatika. The new stadium will hold two basket ball courts, a skating rink, a planetarium, e-
library, multipurpose hall, a gymnasium, aerobics hall, store-rooms, a stage and different
rooms for table tennis, snooker and other indoor games.

The lighting and special effects on the walkway and sumptuous food of the restaurants in the
central garden make the lake a worthwhile place to visit or spend an evening.
The Lake and Lake Front are totally covered and the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation has decided to charge Rs. 10 for entry ticket.

The major revenues sources and other financials are listed in the table below.
Particulars Rs. Lakh

Project cost 3600
O&M expenses 73
Revenues
Entry ticket 156.4
Train 39.1
Bal Vatika 140.8
Zoo 58.7
Aquarium 35.2
Naginavadi 27.4
Boating 11.7
Rent from shops and others 73.0
Auditorium 18.0
Parking 25.6
Total revenues 585.84
O&M expenses (% of revenues) 10%
Operating profit (% of revenues) 90%
Annual escalation in revenues 5%
IRR of the project 11%
The development is made in such manner that there are many facilities created which
serve as revenue centre and the project cost can be covered over a period of time.

Case Study on Lake Development Abroad
Jurong lake, Singapore
Jurong Lake is a freshwater lake and reservoir located in the western region of
Singapore. The lake serves as a reservoir contributing to the water supply of the country.
The lake is surrounded by parkland, which serves as a recreational ground for nearby
residents in Jurong East and Jurong West New Towns. A landscaped sanctuary called
Jurong Lake Park exists around the perimeter of the lake. 2.8 kilometer water
promenade along Jurong Lake Park allows residents to participate in water sports.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority has prepared a master plan in 2008 to

transform the area around Jurong Lake to a unique lakeside destination for business and
leisure. A new district will be created, named, Jurong Lake District which consists of two
precincts, Jurong Gateway and Lakeside.

The main features of this plan are as below.
Some 750,000 square metres of land will be set aside at Jurong Gateway for offices,
hotels, food and beverage, and entertainment uses.
1,000 new private apartments will also be built at Jurong Gateway.
The new district will be served by three MRT stations and two major expressways.
The sense of greenery will be heightened with new landscaped open spaces and park
connectors at the street-level and skyrise greenery in buildings.
New Science Centre will be built next to Chinese Garden MRT Station
A Lakeside village will be developed
Chinese Garden and Japanese Garden will be enhanced.
An integrated network of pedestrian walkways between buildings and public facilities will
be created.

Annexure 10
Case Study: Privatization of Bangalore Lakes
(Copy of statement of concern on privatization of lakes, ESG enclosed)
The following lakes were leased out to private parties; the Hebbal Lake to E.I.H, the
Nagavara Lake to Lumbini Gardens and the Venkanayakere to ParC Ltd out of which the
first two were initially allotted. In May 2006, LDA leased out the Hebbal Lake, one of the
largest lakes in Bangalore, to East India Hotels (the Oberoi group) for a period of 15
years for an annual lease amount of Rs. 72,10,000 (about US$ 1.44 million) and an
annual escalation of 1.5% in the amount and an Investment of Rs.16,75,00,000 (about
US$0.34 million) with a security deposit of 1.5% (Rs.25,12,500 – about US$0,50million)
under the Public-Private Partnership policy. The Nagavara Lake was leased to Lumbini
Gardens Pvt Ltd in April 2005 for a period of 15 years for an annual lease amount of
Rs.4023, 000 (about US $0.80 million) with an annual escalation of 1.5 % of this amount
every year for the 15–year lease period and with Investment of Rs.7,01,00,000 (about
US$ 14.02 million) with a security deposit of 2% of this amount (Rs.14,20,000 – about
US$0.284million).
As per the lease agreement, the above referred agencies were to carry out the development
and maintenance of the lakes by:
• Setting up water treatment plant

• Deweeding the lake
• Controlling of storm water entry by building check dams
• Do landscaping, build a rose garden and also a rock garden
• Build jogging tracks and erect fountains
• Put up 4.5 m (14.8 ft) high Buddha statue.
• Develop an artificial beach as an amusement activity
• Develop water sport activities such as aqua karting, water scooter rides and
paragliding
• Set up food courts, restaurants, including a floating restaurant
IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION
The social damage caused due to privatization, as reported by a researcher, are:
• There is dichotomy in the functions allocated by the vesting of powers with LDA
to maintain only the water body and some part of the shore line while the
shore and lands adjoining the lakes, which also play an important role in the
overall maintenance and health of lakes, are with district bodies. This state of
affairs creates a complex situation of not addressing the lake as a continuum
with land.

• The lakes are being developed as stand alone water bodies without a linkage
to other lakes
• Land use regulations are violated as the private developers of the two lakes
have not sought permission for change in land use from the Bangalore
Development Authority for converting the Nagavara and Hebbal Lakes for
commercial use; a case of non compliance of the law.
• Fauna dependent on the lake, like birds, fish and others are disturbed by the
excess and disturbing human activity
• Conversion of the lakes and their surrounding areas into exclusive resorts, with
entry fee access to the lake areas. The private developers are in the real
estate/hospitality business with profit motive
• Violation of land use regulations by the private organizations while
implementing the scheme
• Proposed construction of a 223–room Hotel at the side of Hebbal Lake is
indication that private developer has taken the lease purely for commercial
and business purposes. Such a development would exclude access to the lake
for the general public.
• Lakes are Common Property Resources, in which a group of people have co–
user rights. The impact of the privatization scheme would, therefore, need to
be addressed legally
• The socio–economic impacts or apprehensions of the people such as fishermen
dependent on the lake for livelihood is that there could be restrictions on their
fishing rights and washer–men (dhobis) also have similar apprehensions.
LDA’S CONTENTION
The Lake Development Authority contends that the organization is not adequately staffed
and that they do not have the finances for maintaining lakes on an ongoing basis. Hence,
the alternative is leasing out lakes to private parties.
PUBLIC INTEREST L ITIGATION (PIL)
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in 2008 by an Environmental Support
Group (a Trust) and a public spirited individual of Bangalore in the High Court of
Karnataka citing 16 respondents with the Lake Development Authority (LDA) as the
second main respondent and the favoured respondents (at serial number 14,15 and 16)
namely M/s Biota Natural Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd, M/s Lumbini Gardens Ltd., and M/s E. I. H.
Limited, in respect of the ongoing privatisation of lakes/tanks in Bangalore. The PIL
contends that:
• Actions taken by the respondents are against settled legal norms in respect of
Management and conservation of such ecologically sensitive water bodies (also
wildlife habitats) and which support a variety of customary and traditional
rights

• Water bodies are located in prime areas of the city and beneficiaries of
privatization of these are largely hoteliers and builders, as it is not an
environmentally progressive purpose but more a manipulation of the policy
with profit motive
• The constitution of the Lake Development Authority (Respondent) expressly

prohibits privatizing these public water bodies against the wider public interest
PIL has sought redress from the Honorable High Court by way of issue of writ or order in
the nature of Mandamus repealing the ‘Lease Deeds’ executed by Respondent (the LDA)
in favour of the beneficiary respondents (to whom the lakes were leased – Respondents
14, 15 and 16) and requested the Court to direct the Government of Karnataka (as first
Respondent) to ensure full compliance with the law and policies relating to protection and
conservation of lakes/tanks/wetlands.
The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday, 4th November, 2009 directed the Lake
Development Authority (LDA) not to enter into fresh agreements enabling private parties
to own lakes. A division of the HC bench, comprising Chief Justice PD Dinakaran and
Justice VG Sabhapathi, took the State government to task, observing that the government
was trying to commercialise lakes by handing them over to the private parties.
The bench also ridiculed government bodies by saying that the LDA is working like an
agency and not an authority. From one side it is behaving like an agency for the
government and from the other side for the private parties. It also mentioned that the LDA
went ahead with the commercialisation ignoring the objections from the Forest Department
and the Karanataka State Pollution Control Board. At the same time the government was
also criticised for its laid back attitude towards the case.
"If the government was serious enough in performing its duties towards the maintenance
of the lakes then there would have been no need to create the LDA and then further make
way for privatisation," said the justices. The bench further mentioned that there are many
talented officials in the government who possess tremendous knowledge about preserving
lakes, but their talent has not been effectively utilised. Hence, such officials are selling
their talent to private parties, the bench noted.
The High court bench observed that, "The government is making all efforts to prevent
citizens from enjoying natural beauty. The Court cannot be a mute spectator to such a
development. There can be no development at the cost of the nature. If allowed to act as
per its whims and fancies, the government will soon privatise Cubbon Park and Lal Bagh,"
The High court bench concluded by saying that the government was not serious and
undertook all the supposed development as just eyewash to the public. It asked the
government to give powers to the tourism department to take up lake development and
stop LDA from entering any fresh agreement or commercialisation activities.

From the above case law it could be observed that, there was lack of proper monitoring
mechanism and conservation methods, which resulted in unwarranted litigation. Public private
participation could be rendered feasible by placing suitable mechanism for monitoring,
maintenance and conservation of lake.

105, East End B Main Road, Jayanagar 9th Block East, Bengaluru 560069.INDIA
Tel: 91-80-22441977/26531339 Fax: 91-80-26534364
Email: esg@esgindia.org or esg@bgl.vsnl.net.in Web: www.esgindia.org
To,
Shri. H. D. Kumaraswamy
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bengaluru 560001
17th September 2007
Subject: “Statement of Concern” regarding the Illegal Privatisation of lakes in Bengaluru
Respected Sir,
In the recent month it has come to the shocking notice of the public that the Lake
Development Authority (LDA) of Bengaluru has undertaken a scheme to privatise lakes in
Bengaluru under the guise of maintaining them. The LDA in its Memorandum of Association was
entrusted with the mandate of ensuring the “protection, conservation, restoration, regeneration
and integrated development of lakes”. In the case of the Hebbal and the Nagavara lakes we
find that the LDA has leased out these lakes to private companies (such as the Oberois and
Lumbini, respectively) for a period of fifteen years (extendable by 10 more) allowing them to
develop these water bodies into commercial centres.
The Public Trust Doctrine, which is applicable here, recognises that the State and its
instrumentalities as trustees have a duty to preserve and protect natural resources such as
rivers, lakes and forests, open spaces and other common property resources. This doctrine has
been widely recognised and upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgements. The move of
LDA to effectively privatise and commercialise lakes, which in Bengaluru have great socio-
economic and ecological value, is in direct violation of all such Supreme Court decisions.
Historically the lake system in Bengaluru was created to ensure water supply to its denizens,
yet over a period of time these lakes have grown to have greater value by providing
livelihood, recreation and supporting a wide variety of flora and fauna. As we have
witnessed through the A. T. Ramaswamy Joint House Committee reports extremely thorough
enquiry into the encroachment of government lands in Bengaluru, wetlands are already being
threatened into non-existence through illegal conversion into residential layouts or commercial
centres. We fear that the acceptance of such privatisation of our lakes will result in the large
scale commercialisation of open/public spaces in Bengaluru, and eventually in its total loss as
viable water bodies. The case for protecting these water bodies from any form of built
activity around it cannot be overstated, considering the widespread flooding Bengaluru has
been suffering in recent weeks, a situation that has become typical for every monsoon.
We request your kind intervention in the form of an enquiry by the Joint House Committee on
Encroachment of Govt. Lands in Bengaluru City/Urban District in this regard to ensure that the
land of commons is not further pilfered to meet private gains. We are also attaching a more
detailed “Statement of Concern” that has been signed and supported by many from
Bengaluru and elsewhere. We do hope you will consider our request as you see fit in

protecting the last of the open spaces within the urban conglomerate of Bengaluru and keep it
accessible to the public at large.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Leo F. Saldanha Bhargavi S. Rao

(On behalf of the those who have endorsed the Statement of Concern)

Annexure 11
Statement of Concern and Protest against Privatization of
Lakes/Tanks in Bengaluru
23.08.07, Bengaluru
The undersigned, who represent a variety of civic organisations, environmental organisations,

naturalists and birdwatchers, are alarmed and perturbed at the arbitrary and adhoc manner
in which the numerous tanks and wetlands, essentially a common property, of Bengaluru, are
being handed over for commercial and developments activities to private parties by the
Government of Karnataka.
The Hebbal and Nagavara tanks, in particular, have been in the news lately as a vigilant
media and citizens’ protest have brought to the fore the ill-conceived Private Public
Partnership (PPP) policies of, ironically, the Lake Development Authority (LDA). LDA was
constituted and entrusted with the task of conservation and preservation of tanks – and not to
engage in activities that constitute the commercial development of these critical wetlands and
water bodies. Despite widespread protests, several more tanks are slated to be handed over
to private parties by the LDA in blatant violation of Supreme Court decisions, against the law
of the land and without any concern and consideration to wider public resistance to such
privatisation in the management of our common resources.
Hebbal and Nagawara tanks are amongst the most important wetland habitats for resident
and migratory waterfowl and have been part of an international effort to monitor waterfowl
populations over the past two decades.
This is indeed a cause for serious concern.
We protest such a takeover of our common resources by the private corporate sector for
commercial gain and we demand the immediate cancellation of these agreements. We also
request the Joint Legislature Committee on Encroachments in Bengaluru Urban District headed
by Shri. A. T. Ramaswamy, MLA, to initiate an enquiry into this matter with due dispatch.
Legal violations
Firstly, LDAs actions go against the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which held
in a recent judgment directly relating to management of tanks (in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi
vs.State of A.P. & Ors, Appeal (civil) 1251 of 2006) that tanks and lakes are community
property and cannot be traded away at all. A relevant extract from the judgment is
reproduced at some length to highlight the emphasis laid down by the Hon’ble Court in
ensuring tanks remained within the public commons:
“[our legal system] includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence.
The state is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for
public use and enjoyment. The state as a trustee is under the legal duty to protect
the natural resources. [Para 22]
The Supreme Court of California, in the case of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of
Alpine Country, 33 Cal.419 also known as the Mono Lake case summed up the substance of
the doctrine. The Court said: Thus the public trust is more than an affirmation of state power to

use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect
the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands., surrendering the
right only in those rare cases when the abandonment of the right is consistent with the
purposes of the trust. This is an articulation of the doctrine from the angle of the affirmative
duties of the State with regard to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle, the doctrine
does not exactly prohibit the alienation of the property held as a public trust. However, when
the state holds a resource that is freely available for the use of the public, it provides for a
high degree of judicial scrutiny upon any action of the Government, no matter how
consistent with the existing legislations, that attempts to restrict such free use.” (emphasis
supplied)
In handing over the tank to the East India Hotels, LDA is in direct contravention with the letter
and spirit of this judgment. In addition it violates a variety of local laws and customary rights,
especially those relating to the absolute role of the State in control and management of minor
irrigation tanks. The LDA’s agreement with the Oberois (East India Hotels – EIH Ltd) and
Lumbini also contravenes the recommendations of the Lakshman Rao Committee Report on the
management of tanks – accepted by an order of the Government of Karnataka.
Land Use Violations:
The Hebbal Tank PPP agreement between LDA and EIH Ltd fundamentally violates the land
use planning norms per the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Bengaluru Development
Authority. This is because the custodian of Karnataka’s lakes has allowed for the creation of a
hotel and commercial complex in an area that is exclusively meant to be retained as an
ecological habitat and public commons.
It is obvious that the LDA is contravening its own mandate of protection and conservation of
urban wetlands and different agencies within the government are working at cross purposes
at the cost of the cities ecological and water security.
The PPP in its present form as conceived by the LDA is also highly questionable on counts of
social justice, ecological effectiveness or economical cost-benefit analysis.
Social unjust and morally untenable
This LDAs act of handing over Hebbal Tank, and earlier Nagawara Tank, also seriously
encroaches and rejects a variety of customary rights of local communities and fishing
communities in terms of their free access and utilisation of the water body.
The PPP pays scant regard for the survival and livelihood needs of the urban poor and is
exclusivist in its approach. Fencing of common public property like tanks for the well heeled
of society will adversely affect access of poor urban and peri-urban populations who depend
on these commons for washing, bathing themselves and their cattle; to extract fodder; fishing;
irrigation, recreation, etc.
Anxiety of amusement
In a city already bursting at its seams with ever increasing number of theme parks,
entertainment venues and shopping malls, the serene and natural open spaces in and around
these water bodies are being ‘developed’ by making them into a veritable amusement parks.
The anxiety of amusement is proving to be a death knell for urban biodiversity and excludes
the under privileged.

Ecological Suicide
The manner in which these ancient tanks are being ‘rehabilitated and developed’ shows a
complete lack of understanding of the ecological structure of these man-made tanks. All the
good work done by the Karnataka Forest Department on tank protection is being undone by
the civil engineers hired as technical consultants to these projects by the private hospitality
industry/investors. Efforts are underway by the Oberois in the case of Hebbal Tank to
convert a seasonal dynamic and productive ecosystem into a permanent manicured round-the-
year ‘sterile’ concrete pond. Such ham-handed ‘beautification’ drives by private developers
or in some cases by government agencies are killing the biodiversity, reducing the biological
productivity and water holding capacity of these tanks. This amounts to a virtual eco-suicide
for a city already under severe pressure from rampant urbanization.
Doubtful cost-benefit analysis
The government has often cited lack of monetary resources as the reason behind seeking
private investment in the management of public resources. At the same time the LDA (as
reported in some newspapers) contradicts this by stating that there is no lack of funding, only
that private parties are better capable of stopping encroachments and ‘keeping away slum
dwellers’. Shockingly such statements amount to statutory agencies abandoning their due role
in protecting public resources and are a reason, by itself, to question the credentials of the
officials who have made such statements and initiate action against them in accordance with
law.
Equally shocking is the fact that LDA has not at all explained why the Indo-Norwegian
Environment Program (INEP) tank conservation effort of Rs. 2.7 crores at Hebbal and Nagvara
were considered inadequate and ineffective. Especially given that the INEP programme was
chaired by no less an authority than the Development Commissioner of Karnataka, and the
funding secured for rehabilitation on the basis of a bilateral agreement between the
Governments of India, Norway and Karnataka. The Karnataka Dept. of Ecology and
Environment and INEP claim the project of rehabilitating these lands was successful – marked
even by a visit to Hebbal in 2004 by the Norwegian Envoy to India – while LDA which works
under the very same department makes the claim that the INEP project was a failure. We
believe this is a fit case for the Accountant General of Karnataka to investigate into the claims
and counter-claims made by these related departments.
Oberois’s claims:
Media scrutiny and citizen protests against the privatisation of Hebbal Tank has been reason
enough for the Oberoi group to roll back the proposal of a floating restaurant - ostensibly for
social and environmental reasons! What is not revealed by the Oberois, however, is that
entire water spread and shoreline of Hebbal Tank will be transformed into a commercially
developed area. How did the LDA even approve of such a project in the very first place?
Obviously short term commercial gains for a few are being traded for the long term
ecological and water security of the larger public. It only goes to show how vulnerable these
urban wetlands are in the context of the present policies of management.
Issues like water and environmental security are far too important to be held hostage to ill-
informed public official or be at the mercy of largesse and kindness of a benevolent CEO of a
private firm.

What lessons has LDA learnt from this episode and what do they intend to do as a larger
policy on tank management? How does the Government of Karnataka plan to integrate tank
management into the larger water and ecological security policy for the city of Bengaluru.
Obviously the PPP if not put under the public scanner and thoroughly critiqued is capable of
doing more damage than good.
Appeal
We appeal to the Government of Karnataka to put an immediate end to the PPP model of
privatising public commons. We urge the Government to order a thorough review of the
existing projects under the scheme and to take serious note of this flawed policy on urban
wetland management.
As concerned residents of Bengaluru we cannot allow the government to abdicate its duties of
protecting, conserving and managing our common property resources for larger public good
by handing over complete control and ownership to private and corporate groups for the
benefit of an exclusive few.
A thorough review and audit of agencies mandated to protect tanks like the LDA, Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Karnataka Forest Department, Bengaluru Development
Authority and others should be done to protect the interests of the wide public and the
ecological and water security of everyone – rich or poor.
We demand a more socially just, ecologically sensible and economically viable management
plans for the precious few surviving tanks of Bengaluru.

Annexure 12
Quotation from Arpan Associates Mumbai for equipments
for setting up a theme park

Annexure 13
Earlier Lake Conservation projects on PPP in Bangalore
The following Paragraphs are taken from the report “IMPACT OF PRIVATISATION OF LAKES
IN BANGALORE” compiled by Mr.Rohan S D'Souza and published on the website of “Centre
for Education and Documentation”.
List of lakes ear marked to be developed under this scheme has been changed from time to
time. The initial list consisted of 7 lakes, which later was modified to 11, and then to 36 and
now the latest figure that is being portrayed is 60 lakes 31. Given the above TOR for the
DOT scheme, three lakes have already been leased out to private parties. The Nagavara
Lake has been leased out to Lumbini Gardens, Hebbal Lake to E.I.H and the Venkanayakere
to ParC Ltd. The researcher has in his possession, the agreements entered into for two of these
three lakes, Nagavara and Hebbal. The highlights of these are as follows:
Nagavara Lake: (Area around 150 acres)
Leased to Lumbini Gardens Pvt Ltd w.e.f 29th April 2005 for a period of 15 years for an
annual lease amount of Rs.40, 23,000/- with an annual escalation of 1.5 % of this amount
every year for the 15-year lese period. Investment of Rs.7,01,00,000 with a security deposit
of 2% of this amount, i.e., Rs.14,20,000/-
As part of the development and maintenance of the lake, the agency, will set up water
treatment plant, de weed the lake, control entry of storm water by building check dams.
As part of the beautification/decoration activities, the agency will do landscaping, build a
rose garden as well as a rock garden, build jogging tracks, erect fountains, put up a 4.5
meter high Buddha statue.
As part of the amusement activities, an artificial beach will be developed, various water sport
activities like aqua karting, water scooter rides, paragliding etc will be allowed.
Food courts, restaurants, including a floating restaurant will be set up.
Hebbal Lake: (Area around 85 acres)
Leased to E.I.H Ltd w.e.f 19th May 2006 for a period of 15 years for an annual lease amount
of Rs.72,10,000/- with an annual escalation of 1.5 % this amount every year for the 15-year
lese period. Investment of Rs.16,75,00,000/- with a security deposit of 1.5% of this amount
,i.e., Rs.25,12,500/-
As part of the development and maintenance of the lake, the agency, will set up a sewage
treatment plant, de silt and de weed the lake, control entry of storm water by building check
dams, catchment area improvement will be done.
As part of the beautification/decoration activities, the agency will build an eco friendly
children's park.
Parking bay, Rescue watchtowers, Arch bridges, View points will be created.
As part of the amusement/recreation activities, various water sport activities like aqua scooter,
bumper boat, electric boat rides etc will be allowed.
An open-air restaurant, floating restaurant and a curio shop will be set up.

23.prefea Lake Cons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23.prefea Lake Cons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

23.prefea Lake Cons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE CONSERVATION

Final Pre feasibility Report

Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 2

1. Project Background .........................................................................................8

SECTOR PROFILE .............................................................................................. 12

2. Overview on Lake Conservation ................................................................... 12

PROJECT CONCEPT .......................................................................................... 17

3. About the project ........................................................................................... 17

MARKET ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 26

4. Industry outlook ............................................................................................ 26

STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................ 29

5. Legal Framework .......................................................................................... 29

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACT OF LAKE RESTORATION.................. 33

6. Environment Impacts .................................................................................... 33

7. Project cost components ................................................................................ 35

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 3

OPERATING FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 41

8. Institutional Framework (Organization & Operational Strategy) .............. 41

ANNEXURE 1 List of major lakes in karnataka .................................................... 44

ANNEXURE 2 Details of prioritized lakes ............................................................ 45

ANNEXURE 3 Details of steps required in lake conservation .............................. 46

ANNEXURE 4 District wise number of lakes and tanks in karnataka ................... 50

ANNEXURE 5 Scope of work for conservation of lake (30 acres) ....................... 51

ANNEXURE 6 NLCP guidelines for selection of lake for conservation ................ 52

ANNEXURE 7 List of stakeholders contacted ...................................................... 55

ANNEXURE 8 Current initiatives in lake conservation by the stakeholders ......... 56

ANNEXURE 9 Lake front development case studies ........................................... 57

ANNEXURE 10 Case study: privatization of bangalore lakes .............................. 62

ANNEXURE 11 Statement of concern and protest against privatization of lakes/tanks

ANNEXURE 13 Earlier lake conservation projects on ppp in bangalore .............. 73

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 4

Figure 1: District wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka ..................................................8

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 5

Table 1: Sources of pollution in lakes ................................................................................9

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 6

BMRDA Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 7

Figure 1: District wise distribution of lakes in Karnataka

1.1 Key Issues leading to degradation of lakes

Keys issues leading to the degradation of lakes are:

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 8

Table 1: Sources of pollution in lakes

Source Type of problem

Sewage Direct discharge of sewage from domestic sources, not

Deficiency in proper management: The number of lakes has been gradually

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 9

Social composition of land ownership: Increasing population and growing economies

Lack of governmental commitment: Insufficient cohesive academic research centered

1.2 Need for Conservation

Infrastructure Development Department (IDD), Government of Karnataka realizes that Lakes

1.3 Approach & Methodology

The methodology adopted for the feasibility study is as follows:

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 10

Revival of lakes in identified locations • Development of lakes

• Design requirements and guidelines • Management of developed

PPP in Lake Conservation

Figure 3: Methodology adopted for lake conservation

Lake Conservation, Karnataka 11