The Arkavathi is one of the Polluted River Stretches identified within the Cauvery Basin in Karnataka. This dashboard takes a closer look at the Arkavathi PRS, the catchment that influences it and the different sources of pollution that need to be addressed for the river to recover.
We bring together the Action Plan, Monthly Progress Reports, monitoring data and spatial information to see what is being addressed, what has changed and where there may still be gaps.
The Arkavathi Polluted River Stretch Today
The Arkavathi is currently identified as a ~109 km Priority I Polluted River Stretch, extending from Hesaraghatta Reservoir to downstream of Kanakapura Town. Priority I represents the highest BOD-based pollution category, with BOD levels above 30 mg/L.
Please note that PRS priority is based on BOD, an indicator of organic pollution, and does not represent an assessment of the river’s overall water quality.
What has Changed?
Since 2018, the identified polluted stretch has increased from 64.6 km to approximately 109 km, while its classification has worsened from
Priority III to Priority I.
Action plan for restoration
Following directions of the National Green Tribunal in OA No. 673/2018, Action Plans were prepared for the restoration of identified Polluted River Stretches by the respective state pollution control boards. The objective was to restore these stretches to bathing water quality, including BOD below 3 mg/L.
For the Arkavathi, the 2019 Action Plan was prepared by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
“Every polluted river reflects a governance gap. Every restored river reflects collective resolve.”
— Dr. K. Jaiprakash, Chairman, Technical Committee for studies on Arkavathi Basin, 2025
With this as the larger context, we built the dashboard around a specific question.
The question we are asking
Are all potential pollution contributors within the Arkavathi Polluted River Stretch (PRS) catchment being addressed through the Action Plan and Monthly Progress Reports?
Start Exploring the Dashboard – Click on Explore the Polluted Stretch in the right corner.
Explore the layers on the left including towns, Gram Panchayats, industrial areas, treatment infrastructure, waterbodies and monitoring points. Your selections appear on the spatial map in the centre. The panel on the right brings the data assessment and insights.
Our assessment examines both the 2019 Action Plan and the progress subsequently reported through the Monthly Progress Reports, bringing them into their spatial context to understand what has been addressed and where gaps or further interventions may remain.
What does a closer look reveal?
The dashboard brings together a lot of information. The examples below show how it can be used to look more closely at what is being reported and what may be missing.
We take a closer look at one Urban Local Body, one industrial area and Gram Panchayats to see what the reporting tells us, where gaps remain and what questions the dashboard can help us ask.
Urban Local Body | Ramanagara
Ramanagara illustrates some of the persistent gaps that emerge when the Action Plan and Monthly Progress Reports are examined together.
Sewage collection remains incomplete
The 2019 Action Plan envisaged 100% underground drainage, sewage collection and treatment. In August 2025, however, 11 drains were still reported as awaiting connection, with “No Work Progress” against a completion timeline of December 2021. The reported 4 MLD sewage gap has persisted for more than four years.
Sludge from Septic tanks not mentioned
Around 4 MLD of sewage is reported to be managed through septic tanks and soak pits, but no Faecal Sludge Treatment Plant (FSTP) is reported. Faecal sludge is the waste that accumulates in septic tanks and other on-site sanitation systems and needs to be safely collected and treated. Faecal sludge, septage and FSTPs were also not addressed in the 2019 Action Plan.
STP compliance needs greater clarity
The Ramanagara STP was reported as non-complying in August 2025, while the April 2026 annexure reports it as complying. The reports reviewed do not explain this change or provide the parameter-level information needed to understand what changed.
Solid waste processing gap persists
Ramanagara reports 40 TPD of solid waste generation, with only 15 TPD processed. The processed quantity remains unchanged across the MPR editions reviewed.
Industrial Area | Bidadi Industrial Area
Bidadi Industrial Area highlights the need for more granular, location-specific reporting to understand whether different waste streams are being safely managed and where they ultimately go.
CETP progress is unclear
The 2019 Action Plan proposed a 50 KLD CETP for Bidadi, with a 24-month timeline for site identification and commissioning by KIADB. No subsequent commissioning or progress status could be found in the MPRs reviewed through June 2025.
Hazardous waste lacks Bidadi-level traceability
The MPRs report around 4,033 MTPA of hazardous waste from 97 industries at the stretch level, but do not provide Bidadi-specific information. More granular reporting is needed to establish how much hazardous waste originates from Bidadi, how it is managed and its final treatment or disposal destination.
Other waste streams remain unclear
Bidadi-specific information on solid waste, sewage and treated-water reuse could not be established from the Action Plan or MPRs reviewed.
The larger gap of traceability persists
Industrial area level reporting that identifies waste generated, treatment arrangements, quantities treated or transported and final destinations would make it possible to assess whether pollution sources within the PRS catchment are being comprehensively addressed.
Gram Panchayats | A gap in the restoration picture
The Arkavathi Basin includes 258 Gram Panchayats but there is no reporting on what action is being taken at the Gram Panchayat level.
Rural pollution sources remain unaccounted for
Neither the 2019 Action Plan nor the MPRs reviewed provide Gram Panchayat-level information on sewage, faecal sludge, solid waste or water-quality responsibilities. This makes it difficult to understand how pollution from rural areas is being identified and addressed, especially in the densely populated peri-urban Gram Panchayats.
A significant accountability gap
Without Gram Panchayat-level reporting, there is no clear trail connecting waste generated to how it is managed to where it is treated or disposed.
First, this problem needs to be acknowledged
The photo below showing waste dumped along the Vrishabhavathi River at Thagachaguppe Bridge is a visible reminder that pollution sources are not limited to towns and industrial areas. Rural waste and wastewater need to be recognised as part of the restoration challenge, accounted for in the reporting and addressed through clear responsibilities and interventions.
Solid Waste and waste water in the Vrishabhavathi River at Thagachaguppe Bridge, Kumbalgodu Gram Panchayat
Taking this forward
We hope to bring these findings together in a submission to the Central Monitoring Committee overseeing the restoration of Polluted River Stretches. The intention is to share the gaps we are seeing, seek clarity where reporting is incomplete and ask how these issues can be addressed as part of the ongoing restoration effort. The submission will be uploaded here once it is ready.
A Continuing Effort
We see this dashboard as a work in progress. As new progress reports, data and information from the ground become available, we hope to keep adding to it and tracking what is actually changing. We also hope to engage with government agencies working on the Arkavathi, share what we are learning and understand how this evidence can support the restoration effort. Over time, we hope this becomes a useful way for both citizens and government to see what is changing, what is not and where more attention is needed.
Have something to add?
If you spot a gap, have additional information or have feedback on the dashboard, please write to us at connect@forrivers.life We hope to keep improving this as more information becomes available.
