A Rs 75-crore project intended to replenish 18 lakes around Bengaluru with treated wastewater is nearing completion, but the remaining pipe connections have exposed a larger weakness in the city’s lake-management system: supplying water to a lake cannot restore it if sewage continues to enter the same water body.
The Minor Irrigation Department began the project two years ago and says most of the work is complete. Four pipe connections are still pending at locations including Byappanahalli and Mandur near Kithaganur in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency. According to Manunath, an executive engineer with the department, the remaining work could be completed within a few days if local residents cooperate with the laying of the pipelines.
That qualification is important. The delay is not being presented as a technical or financial failure alone. It also reflects the difficulty of laying urban infrastructure through settled neighbourhoods, where construction can encounter resistance from residents and where several agencies may have overlapping responsibilities for roads, drains, sewerage and water bodies.
The project’s stated purpose is to send treated wastewater to lakes that do not have enough water. Lake activist Balaji Rathotham said this could support flora and fauna and help raise the groundwater table. His comments point to the intended chain of benefits: wastewater treated through an urban utility system would be redirected to lakes, the additional water would support ecological functions, and the lakes could contribute to local groundwater recharge.
But that chain depends on water quality and source control. Rathotham specifically called for dirty water to be drained from Kithaganur Lake before it is refilled with treated wastewater. He said sewage is currently flowing into the lake and that its water quality is poor. This means the project is not simply a matter of adding water. It also requires the authorities to prevent untreated flows from undoing the effect of the treated supply.
The report identifies Kittanur, Kithaganur, Bidarahalli, Byappanahalli, Cheemasandra, Nimbekaipura, Gundur, Doddagubbi, Yarappanahalli, Chikkagubbi, Kannuru, Manduru, Jyothipura Cross, Jyothipura, Selankunte and Andrahalli among the lakes intended to receive treated wastewater. It refers to the programme as covering 18 lakes, although the published list contains 16 names, leaving the exact final inventory to be confirmed through departmental records.
This distinction matters because lake projects are often discussed as individual rejuvenation works, even when their performance depends on a much wider drainage and sewerage network. A pipeline may deliver treated wastewater to a lake, but the lake remains vulnerable if stormwater drains carry sewage, if sewage lines are incomplete or if unauthorised connections continue to discharge into the water body.
Lake activists quoted in the report said they had repeatedly urged the authorities, particularly the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board, to construct diversion channels to stop sewage from entering lakes. Their demand shifts attention from the visible end point—the lake—to the catchment and drainage systems that determine what reaches it.
The institutional division is clear in the account. The Minor Irrigation Department is implementing the treated-wastewater project, while BWSSB engineers are being asked to address sewage flows and diversion channels. Residents and activists, meanwhile, are raising concerns about the condition of individual lakes and the maintenance of stormwater drains. The project therefore sits at the intersection of at least three functions: water supply and wastewater management, lake and minor irrigation administration, and local drainage maintenance.
The source also records a broader complaint from lake activists: authorities spend substantial sums rejuvenating lakes but fail to maintain them. That criticism is not limited to the pending four pipe connections. It concerns the gap between capital works and routine operations. Construction can create a diversion channel, pipeline or lake-edge facility, but the system continues to perform only if those assets are inspected, maintained and protected from new sewage inflows.
Narayana Swamy P, a resident of Seegehalli, said sewage was flowing into Yele Mallappa Shetty Lake, Seegehalli Lake, Vengaiah Lake and Gangashetty Lake. He argued that the lakes should receive treated water only after BWSSB engineers fix the sewage problem. His position highlights a sequencing issue: filling a polluted lake before controlling the source of pollution may improve water levels without resolving water quality.
The project’s geography adds another layer. The lakes are located in and around Bengaluru’s expanding eastern areas, including neighbourhoods connected to Mahadevapura and Kithaganur. These areas combine urban growth, residential development and established water bodies. As the built-up environment changes, the drains and channels feeding lakes also carry the consequences of that growth. The condition of a lake can therefore reflect not only rainfall or water availability, but also the performance of the surrounding urban infrastructure.
The reported project also illustrates why treated wastewater is being considered for urban lakes. The lakes named in the report do not have enough water, while the city is simultaneously dealing with sewage that requires treatment and disposal. Redirecting treated wastewater can connect these two problems, but only if the treatment quality is appropriate, pipelines reach the intended lakes and untreated sewage is kept separate from the receiving water body.
The source does not provide the treatment standards, the volume of wastewater to be supplied, the capacity of the pipelines, the number or location of treatment plants, or a monitoring framework for testing lake water after filling. It also does not state the identity of the agency responsible for long-term operation of the completed connections. Those details are important for assessing whether the project is a one-time replenishment exercise or part of a sustained lake-management system.
The pending connections are consequently more than a narrow construction update. They are the most visible unfinished part of a project whose effectiveness will depend on less visible administrative work: coordination between departments, protection of drainage channels, prevention of sewage inflows and regular maintenance. Completion of the pipe joints may mark the end of the construction phase, but it cannot by itself establish that the lakes will remain healthy.
There is also a difference between filling a lake and restoring a lake. The first concerns water quantity. The second includes water quality, inflow management, ecological condition, catchment protection and maintenance. The comments from the engineer, activists and resident in the report collectively show that Bengaluru’s current challenge includes both. The Minor Irrigation Department is focused on completing the treated-water connections, while local stakeholders are asking for sewage control to be treated as an essential condition of success.
For the city, the immediate milestone is the completion of the four remaining pipeline connections, subject to local cooperation. The more consequential test will be whether the agencies can prevent sewage from entering the receiving lakes and maintain the stormwater drains that carry rainwater into them. Until those issues are addressed, the project’s ability to improve groundwater conditions and lake ecology will remain dependent on infrastructure beyond the pipeline itself.
