CHENNAI: Resisting the proposed Kovalam-Mahabalipuram reservoir project for which Chief Minister M K Stalin had laid the foundation stone earlier this week, eight grama panchayats, namely Kovalam, Thiruvidanthai, Nemmeli, Krishnan Karanai, Pattipulam, Saluvankuppam, Mamallapuram and Kokkilimedu, have decided to pass formal resolutions opposing the project in the grama sabhas on January 26.
The decision was taken during a preliminary meeting held on Wednesday evening at Kovalam, where fishermen gathered in large numbers, discussed the likely impact of the project on livelihoods, wetlands and coastal ecology.
According to fishermen leader K Saravanan, the panchayats will record their objections in writing and forward the resolutions to the state government and the Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNCZMA), urging them to withdraw the project proposal in its current form.
The reservoir, proposed by the Water Resources Department (WRD) as a drinking water storage structure for the southern parts of Chennai, is planned in the Kovalam sub-basin and is expected to come up over around 4,300 acres of coastal wetlands, including marshes and former salt pans. It is designed to store 1.655 TMC of freshwater and supply 170 MLD to southern Chennai and fast-growing peri-urban areas.
However, local bodies and fishing communities say the project threatens to disrupt traditional livelihood and permanently alter the fragile brackish-water ecosystem. Representatives of 16 fishing villages, from Kanathur Reddikuppam to Kokkilimedu, have already submitted a formal objection to the government, warning that the reservoir would destroy their customary fishing grounds, locally known as “Paadu rights”, and undermine the spirit of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification.
Among their key concerns is the proposed diversion of the Buckingham Canal, which they argue plays a crucial role in natural drainage and the region’s hydrological connection with the sea. They fear that any alteration could worsen monsoon flooding, damage backwaters and salt marshes, and affect fish breeding habitats.
The fishing villages have also challenged the CRZ clearance granted by the state authority, alleging misrepresentation of fishing grounds as “vacant land” and failure to map traditional fishing zones as required under CRZ provisions.