A wave of civic activism has emerged in Bengaluru following the state government’s draft proposal to reduce buffer zones around lakes and drains. Citizens, environmental groups, and experts have raised strong objections, warning that shrinking these protective zones could undermine the city’s ecological resilience and exacerbate flooding risks.
Under the proposed amendments, buffer zones previously mandated for lakes and stormwater drains would be significantly reclassified. Under these changes, buffer areas could be reduced to as little as 5–15 metres for tertiary drains, and buffer norms around lakes would vary based on size—some shrinking to as low as 0 metres in small water bodies.
Opponents argue that such reductions conflict with judicial rulings and long-standing policies. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken suo motu notice of the changes, seeking responses from government agencies over the buffer revisions. Activists also point out that the Karnataka cabinet’s amendment to the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (KTCDA) Act, 2025 already moved buffer norms from 30 metres to a range of 3–24 metres depending on lake size—an act many view as driven by real estate interests.
Critics highlight multiple risks associated with buffer reduction, including increased pollution, reduced groundwater recharge, habitat loss, and more frequent flooding. They urge the government to reconsider its approach and strengthen buffer protections instead. A citizens’ group that submitted a memorandum to the Urban Development Department emphasized the ecological, legal, and social dangers posed by the proposed changes.
The debate over buffer zone reductions in Bengaluru has now become a flashpoint for urban planning, environmental conservation, and real estate policy. As legal scrutiny increases and public response mounts, all eyes remain on how the government will address the contesting priorities of development and ecological stability.
Also Read : Karnataka High Court Overturns RERA’s Retroactive Delay Fee in Landmark Ruling
