The Kabini is one of the rivers with an identified Polluted River Stretch within the Cauvery Basin in Karnataka.This dashboard takes a closer look at the Kabini 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 Kabini Polluted River Stretch Today
A ~104.3 km stretch of the Kabini, extending from Saragur village downstream to the water-supply intake point of T. Narasipura town is currently identified as a Priority V Polluted River Stretch. Priority V is the lowest BOD-based pollution category, with BOD levels between 3.1–6 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 12.2 km to approximately ~104.3 km, while its classification has improved from Priority IV to Priority V.
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 Kabini, 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 Kabini Polluted River Stretch (PRS) catchment being addressed through the Action Plan and Monthly Progress Reports?
As the identified Polluted River Stretch has extended further along the Kabini, we look at whether the settlements and potential pollution sources influencing this longer stretch are being taken into account in its restoration.
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 information from the Action Plan, Monthly Progress Reports and other publicly available sources. The examples below highlight some of the questions and gaps that emerge when these are looked at together.
In the case of the Kabini, the Action Plan and earlier Monthly Progress Reports were prepared around a shorter Polluted River Stretch and identified potential pollution sources influencing that stretch. The identified PRS has since extended further along the river. This raises an important question: has the restoration picture expanded with it?
We bring below a few insights. We are working on a detailed report of the findings for the Kabini Polluted River Stretch which will be published seperately.
Urban Local Bodies | What has been accounted for?
Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) govern more densely populated towns and cities, where sewage and solid waste generation is concentrated. They are therefore important potential pollution contributors to account for when assessing the restoration efforts of a Polluted River Stretch.
Of 12 ULBs identified, only 1 appears in the Monthly Progress Reports (MPR)
The wider Kabini PRS catchment includes 12 Urban Local Bodies: Sargur (TP), Nanjangud (CMC), T. Narasipura (TMC), H.D. Kote (TMC), Kadakola (TP), Srirampura (TP), Mysuru (City Corporation – Partial), Bogadi (TP), Rammanahalli (TP), Hootagalli (CMC), Gundlupet (TMC) and Hunsur (CMC).
Except for Nanjangud, waste streams from the other ULBs do not appear to be reflected in the Monthly Progress Reports, particularly in the more recent MPRs following CPCB’s 2025 Polluted River Stretches report.
TP – Town Panchayat |
TMC – Town Municipal Council |
CMC – City Municipal Council
Industrial Effluent| Can zero discharge mean no pollution risk?
Treated effluent | Land application cannot be assumed to mean zero pollution risk
The Action Plan states that treated industrial effluent is reused on land within industry premises.
For industries such as pharmaceuticals, distilleries and other chemical-intensive units, compliance with routine parameters such as BOD, COD, TSS and pH does not necessarily tell us whether process-specific contaminants remain in the treated effluent.
Treated effluent used for irrigation therefore cannot simply be assumed to pose zero pollution risk.
Information on what the treated effluent contains, how much is applied and where, and the quality of surrounding soil and groundwater is important to assess this risk.
This information does not appear to be available in the public domain.
Industrial effluent | Limited public information behind reported compliance
The August 2025 MPR reports 38 water-polluting industries generating 9.03 MLD of effluent, with 38 ETPs having a combined capacity of 9.43 MLD. All are reported as compliant. However, the MPR does not provide the names and locations of these industries or individual information on effluent generation, ETP performance and treated effluent quality.
Publicly available OCEMS data could help provide some of this evidence. Data for some 17-category industries in the catchment appears to be live.
However, for Jubilant Pharmova Limited in the Nanjangud KIADB Industrial Area, the OCEMS portal lists an effluent monitoring station and BOD, COD, TSS, pH and outlet flow as monitored parameters, but no monitoring data was available for the one-year period reviewed.
More detailed reporting at the individual industry level, supported by publicly available monitoring data, is needed to understand what lies behind the reported compliance in the action plan and the MPRs.
OCEMS Dashboard of Jubilant Pharmova Limited reviewed on September 2026.
OCEMS Dashboard showing the connected parameters as on Sep 03, 2026
OCEMS dashboard showing no data availability for 1 year as on Sep 03, 2026.
Gram Panchayats| Missing in the PRS reporting
Peri-urban areas | Rapidly growing areas under Gram Panchayats remain outside PRS reporting
Areas around Mysuru are rapidly urbanising, but many continue to be administered as Gram Panchayats.
The sewage and solid waste generated by these growing peri-urban settlements do not appear to be accounted for in the PRS reporting.
The Arkavathi has shown how poorly managed sewage and solid waste from rapidly urbanising peri-urban areas can become an important source of river pollution.
For the Kabini, its important to look at these potential pollution sources and put appropriate sewage and solid waste management systems in place before the problem becomes much harder to address.
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 Kabini, 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.
