Bengaluru’s groundwater crisis is spreading across the city even as its dependence on the Cauvery water system comes under renewed pressure. A joint study by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), Indian Institute of Science, Central Ground Water Board and Karnataka Groundwater Directorate has classified 60 wards and 110 villages as “critical” for 2026, indicating heavy dependence on groundwater and a high risk of severe depletion.
The finding changes the way Bengaluru’s water problem must be understood. It is not only a question of whether the city can secure more water from the Cauvery. It is also a question of whether the city’s expanding neighbourhoods, buildings and public institutions can continue drawing from an underground reserve that is being placed under stress across both established residential areas and rapidly developing zones.
The wards identified as critical are spread across different parts of Bengaluru. The list includes areas such as Muneswara Nagar, Manorayanapalya, Mallasandra, Kempegowda Agrahara, Vrishabhavathi, Hosakerehalli, Vishwanath Nagenahalli, Konanakunte, Moodalapalya, Neelasandra, T Dasarahalli, Chikkalasandra, Yeshwanthpur, Mahalakshmipuram, Puttenahalli, Nandini Layout, Kammannahalli and Vijayanagar.
It also covers Bapujinagar, Bagalagunte, Laggere, Kaval Byrasandra, CV Raman Nagar, Jarakabandehalli, Hongasandra, Manganahalli, Katriguppe, Yelachenahalli, Hosahalli, Doddabommasandra, Srinagar, Kaveripura, Hegganahalli, Ejipura, Nagarabhavi, Vignananagar, Hebbal and Thanisandra. Other named areas include Shankaramatha, Lingarajapuram, Gurappanapalya, Kadugondanahalli, Rajagopalnagar, Maruthi Mandir, Mattikere, Kodigehalli, Hampinagar, Nayandahalli, Dayanandanagar, Binnipete, Kamakshipalya, Vidyapeetha, Radhakrishna Temple, Siddapura and Doddabidarakallu.
The geographic spread is significant. Groundwater stress is not being described as a problem limited to the city’s outer edge, where new construction and incomplete water networks often create dependence on borewells. The critical list also includes mature neighbourhoods and dense urban districts. That suggests a citywide water-management challenge in which groundwater is functioning as a parallel supply system for households, institutions and businesses, rather than simply as a temporary source in underserved areas.
The study’s warning coincides with concerns over Bengaluru’s main drinking-water reservoirs. According to Greater Bengaluru Development Minister Krishna Byregowda, the storage in the Krishna Raja Sagar reservoir was reported at 31.46 TMC, compared with 48.82 TMC during the corresponding period last year. The difference is 17.36 TMC. Kabini had 18.46 TMC, marginally higher than the 18.09 TMC recorded during the corresponding period last year.
These figures do not establish that a citywide shortage is inevitable, but they show why the city’s water administration is watching both surface and groundwater supplies. BWSSB requires at least 2.13 TMC every month to meet Bengaluru’s drinking-water needs. The board has requested the Cauvery Irrigation Corporation to prioritise and reserve the required quantity from the KRS and Kabini reservoirs.
The institutional arrangement reveals the complexity of Bengaluru’s water security. The city’s immediate drinking-water requirement is managed through BWSSB, while reservoir releases involve the Cauvery water system and the irrigation administration. Groundwater assessment and regulation involve the Central Ground Water Board and the Karnataka Groundwater Directorate. The study itself brings these bodies together with IISc, showing that the city’s water challenge cannot be managed by a single agency or through one source of supply.
The response under preparation combines emergency supply expansion with attempts to restore local recharge. BWSSB is planning new borewells in water-stressed areas and expanding groundwater-recharge measures. Recharge pits are being constructed and connected to rooftop rainwater-harvesting systems. In Rajajinagar and surrounding areas, recharge pits are being developed in government schools, colleges, BBMP hospitals, government offices and parks.
This approach reflects an important distinction between extracting groundwater and replenishing it. New borewells can provide additional access in places where the piped network is insufficient or groundwater has already become a routine source. They do not, by themselves, address the depletion identified by the study. Recharge pits and rooftop harvesting are intended to direct rainwater into the ground, but their effectiveness depends on construction quality, maintenance, local soil and geology, and whether buildings actually retain and use the systems required of them.
Rainwater harvesting has been mandatory in Bengaluru since 2011. The stated penalty for violations is equivalent to 50 per cent of the monthly water bill for the first three months, followed by a 100 per cent penalty. The continued need to strengthen rooftop harvesting and recharge infrastructure indicates that having a rule is not the same as ensuring compliance or producing measurable recharge across the city.
The enforcement challenge extends to how water is used after it reaches buildings. BWSSB is encouraging high-rise buildings, commercial establishments and buildings under construction to use treated water wherever possible. Washing vehicles with drinking water has been prohibited, and penalties are being imposed through water bills for pressure washing within building premises or outside properties. Blue Force teams have also been deployed to identify and disconnect illegal water connections.
These measures place buildings at the centre of the water system. High-rises and commercial premises are not only consumers; they can also determine whether rainwater is harvested, whether treated wastewater substitutes for drinking water and whether local recharge infrastructure is maintained. In a city where the critical wards include both dense residential pockets and developing areas, building-level compliance becomes part of municipal water security rather than a narrow regulatory issue.
For areas where groundwater has already been depleted, BWSSB is arranging additional Cauvery water supplies. The board is also relying on its Sanchaari Cauvery initiative, launched in May 2025, through which residents can request Cauvery drinking-water tankers through an app at prescribed rates. Tankers can provide a short-term service to households without reliable supply, but the initiative also shows how the city manages gaps between formal network capacity and neighbourhood-level demand.
The underlying evidence points to a dual vulnerability. Bengaluru depends on an external surface-water system for its main drinking-water supply, while many areas also rely heavily on groundwater. When reservoir storage is under pressure, groundwater becomes more important. When groundwater levels decline, demand for the piped network, tankers and other supplementary arrangements increases. Each system therefore carries part of the burden when the other is stressed.
The monthly requirement of 2.13 TMC gives the administration a clear operational benchmark for drinking-water planning. The KRS storage figure, however, is not a complete measure of the water available to residents because supply also involves Kabini, reservoir management and the allocation decisions of the relevant authorities. Similarly, the identification of 60 critical wards signals risk but does not, in the supplied study summary, provide ward-wise groundwater levels, extraction rates or the projected timeline of depletion for each location.
That missing granularity matters for urban planning. A ward classified as critical may require a different response depending on whether the main problem is dependence on private borewells, inadequate piped supply, high-rise demand, weak rainwater-harvesting compliance or the condition of local recharge areas. The supplied material establishes the spread of risk and the measures being prepared, but it does not establish which intervention will be sufficient in each ward.
The city’s larger water question is therefore institutional as much as hydrological. Securing more Cauvery water may help meet immediate demand, but it does not remove the need to monitor groundwater extraction, enforce building requirements, protect recharge spaces and coordinate water planning across municipal, irrigation and groundwater agencies. The study’s ward-level warning makes that coordination more urgent because the risk is distributed across the urban fabric.
Bengaluru’s water security will now be measured through several linked milestones: whether the required monthly supply is reserved from KRS and Kabini, whether new borewells are installed in stressed areas without deepening long-term depletion, whether recharge pits and rooftop systems function as intended, and whether restrictions on drinking-water misuse and illegal connections are enforced. The evidence currently confirms a broad groundwater warning alongside uneven reservoir storage. It does not yet establish the final scale or duration of shortages, making implementation and ward-level monitoring the next critical tests.
