Introduction

Water insecurity is becoming a chronic urban challenge, manifesting as inequitable access to potable water, contamination, erratic rainfall patterns, recurrent floods and droughts, and worsening salinity. The projection that 68 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas by 2050^[1] has further added to the challenge, as infrastructural and spatial planning often fall behind the rapid scale of urbanisation.^[2]

Globally, rapid urban transformations are provoking anxiety about water resources in cities. An analysis of 12 megacities^[a] found that their current water demand outstrips supply by 5.27 billion m3/year, which could grow considerably by 2035.^[5] In India, the urban population is projected to cross 675 million by 2035, with over 70 million new residents expected in cities by 2045.^[6] This growth is further weakening the already stressed basic services infrastructure, including water.

Water infrastructure in Indian cities, especially piped water networks, sewage systems, and stormwater drains, is often outdated, fragmented, or non-existent in informal settlements. These gaps are compounded by the commodification of water resources and dependence on tankers and private borewells; bottled water services fill the vacuum created by inadequate public provisioning. Also, rural landscapes provide critical ecosystem services to cities, including the water that must be sourced from distant, predominantly rural catchments. As urban centres expand their water footprints into these regions, it becomes essential to manage rural–urban interdependencies with care, ensuring that urban development does not undermine the ecological integrity of rural areas or compromise local water availability. While the government has launched schemes to expand supply, such as the Jal Jeevan Mission,^[7] the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT),^[8] and Smart Cities Mission, demand-side management, ecosystem-based approaches, and localised water conservation remain in the margins.

In this scenario, urban water bodies, including lakes, ponds, tanks, wetlands, and stepwells, offer a powerful but underutilised solution. These blue infrastructures are natural recharge zones, flood buffers, microclimate regulators, and cultural spaces that have been historically central to Indian urban hydrology. India’s first-of-its-kind 2023 Waterbody Census counted over 2.4 million water bodies, of which only 2.9 percent are in urban areas, highlighting the resource scarcity in cities that do not otherwise have access to perennial river systems.^[9] Yet, decades of neglect, pollution, and land use changes have degraded them.^[10] Many water bodies have been encroached upon, converted into dumping grounds, or turned into cesspools. Others have been ‘revived’ through cosmetic beautification, often destroying their ecological and hydrological functions.

These issues intersect with the larger discourse on the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental.^[11] Scholars have often characterised sustainability as having three essential dimensions of economy, society, and the environment, or the “triple bottom line”.^[12] Drawing from the conceptual lineage of economic trilemmas, such as Dani Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma,^[13] which argues that deep economic integration, national sovereignty, and democratic politics cannot all coexist; environmental governance scholars like Arun Agrawal,^[14] Jesse Ribot,^[15] and Anne Larson^[16] have identified that ecological sustainability, democratic decentralisation, and equity or social justice are often mutually incompatible under current governance regimes, especially in the Global South.

Many lake rejuvenation projects in India^[b] result in partial or superficial solutions such as fenced parks, jogging tracks, or desilting, while ignoring deeper structural issues like catchment protection, upstream waste control, or inclusive governance. This approach raises a critical question: can urban water body rejuvenation balance ecological sustainability, economic development, and distributive justice, or is it an irreconcilable trilemma? This paper argues that the current paradigm of water body management in India is fragmented and proposes a shift towards regenerative urbanism, where water bodies are treated not as static amenities or real estate assets, but as living, multifunctional ecosystems embedded in urban metabolism and community life.

The State of Urban Water Bodies in India

Urban areas accounted for less than 70,000 (2.9 percent) of India’s 2.4 million water bodies enumerated in the first water body census report under the Ministry of Jal Shakti in 2023. Among these urban water bodies, 83.7 percent are ‘in use’. The remaining 16.3 percent are non-functional: they have dried up, been concretised, or damaged beyond repair due to siltation, salinity, and the rampant dumping of effluents. A majority of the ‘in use’ water bodies are reportedly used in fish culture, followed by irrigation, drinking and domestic purposes and for groundwater recharge.^[17]

Figure 1: Types of Water Bodies, Distribution by State

Source:  Water Body Census Report^[18]

The proportional distribution of different types of water bodies across urban India indicates that ponds dominate in most northern and eastern states like Bihar, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh. At the same time, tanks are more prevalent in southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana (Figure 1). In many of these states, ponds constitute over 75 percent of the total water bodies. Schemes, tanks, and dams show moderate presence in states like Karnataka and Rajasthan, whereas reservoirs are more visible in states like Rajasthan and Tripura. Tanks include shallow water units, which are usually larger than ponds and are created by constructing earthen or masonry barricades, which receive water either from tubewells or rain. Schemes include water conservation schemes.

The above data shows the regional variations in the types of water bodies that are shaped by local geography, climate, and traditional water management practices.

Figure 2: Status of Water Bodies, by State

Source: Water Body Census Report^[19]

At the national level, about 84 percent of water bodies are 'in use', with urban spaces (21.08 percent) having a relatively higher proportion of ‘not in use’ water bodies than rural areas (16.13 percent). The state/UT-wise distribution of ‘in use’ and ‘not in use’ water bodies in this regard is presented in Figure 2. Delhi, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Karnataka have some of the highest ‘not in use’ share of urban water bodies, reflecting both the pressures of urbanisation as well as neglect.

Figure 3: Uses of ‘In Use’ Urban Water Bodies, by State

Source: Water Body Census Report^[20]

Figure 3 presents the various functions of ‘in use’ water bodies across urban areas. Pisciculture, with a 41.58 percent share, reflects its significant contribution to livelihood generation through fish farming in eastern and northeastern India, mainly in Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Odisha, Tripura, and West Bengal. In Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, and Sikkim, water is mostly utilised for domestic consumption. In contrast, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand use their urban water bodies mainly for groundwater recharge. West Bengal marks a critical industrial usage of urban water bodies.

Figure 4: Reasons for Urban Water bodies ‘Not in Use’, by State

Source: Water Body Census Report^[21]

Figure 4 illustrates the primary causes behind urban water bodies becoming non-functional. In nearly all states, a large share of ‘not in use’ water bodies are grouped under ‘Others’, indicating potential gaps or lack of categorisation in reporting. The drying up of urban water bodies is a major concern in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu, reflecting climate stress, poor recharge, or encroachment on inflow channels. While siltation is prominent in Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and Bihar, a substantial number of urban water bodies have been destroyed beyond repair in Manipur, Kerala, and Meghalaya. A combination of environmental degradation and anthropogenic pressures has led to the abandonment of urban water bodies. Sadly, such aggregated estimates for ‘not in use’ water bodies only provide state-level scenarios, making the distinction of such causal patterns within metro cities difficult.

The rapid expansion of built-up areas has led to the dramatic loss of wetland areas. For example, Bengaluru’s open water surfaces shrank from 64km² in 1965 to 55km² in 2018.^[22] Despite the well-documented criticality of the East Kolkata Wetlands (EKW) for urban water security and ecosystem services, they have similarly shrunk between 2009 and 2019 due to conversion for urban settlements and infrastructure.^[23] Many lakes in Ahmedabad are also facing degradation and pollution, reducing the overall area of water bodies along four prominent lakes, including Vastrapur, Memnagar, Thaltej, and Sola, by almost 46 percent.^[24]

Many cities have reconstructed some lakes using ornamental plants, damaging the natural vegetation, while many other lakes are polluted due to the rampant dumping of chemicals, plastics, and sewage.^[25] In Jammu and Kashmir, the Wular Lake’s wetland area shrunk by 45 percent between 1911 and 2007 owing to encroachment on the lake fringes, soil erosion, siltation, sewage disposal, and weed infestation. Additionally, the bunds and embankments constructed around the lake in the 1950s to prevent flooding added to further sedimentation in the lake body, resulting in sand bars.^[26]

Figure 5: The Encroached Area of the Velachery Lake in Chennai

Source: Imrana Banu, et.al (2024)^[27]

Historically spanning over 250 acres, Chennai’s Velachery Lake has lost over 80 percent of its area (shown in yellow in Figure 5) due to residential and industrial development. Consequently, the lake−once a natural catchment for rainwater−now causes severe monsoon flooding in the city.^[28] These case studies and data are not isolated incidents. They represent a pattern of widespread degradation and functional decline of urban water bodies through encroachment, pollution, siltation, or poor maintenance. They not only reflect governance and planning failures but also a deeper undervaluation of their ecological and hydrological roles.

How much does a city lose economically, ecologically, and socially when an urban water body is drained, encroached, or polluted beyond repair? Can urban planning be deemed sustainable if it continues to view water bodies from a land value perspective rather than a vital ecological infrastructure? Indian cities are witnessing the cascading effects of the loss of urban wetlands vis-à-vis the increased risks of urban flooding, water stress, loss of biodiversity, and deterioration of local microclimates. There is an urgent need to recognise, measure, and invest in the ecosystem services provided by urban water bodies.

Valuing the Ecosystem Services of Urban Water Bodies

Urban water bodies are dynamic ecosystems that provide a range of ecosystem services, which are crucial for maintaining urban ecological balance, mitigating water crises, and enhancing city resilience in the face of climate change. These services are classified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)^[29] into four categories:

1. Provisioning Services: Products obtained directly from the ecosystem, including food, freshwater, fuelwood, fibre, and biochemicals
2. Regulating Services: Benefits accrued by managing and maintaining ecosystems through climate and disease regulation, water purification, and other environmental services
3. Cultural Services: Non-material ecosystem benefits, including spiritual and religious beliefs, aesthetic benefits, and links to culture and heritage
4. Supporting Services: These underpin all other ecosystem services by maintaining the processes necessary for their production, including critical functions like nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production (photosynthesis), and habitat provision for native and migratory species

The valuation of ecosystem services is crucial as it makes the contributions of natural ecosystems, like wetlands, to human well-being and economic sustainability visible and accounted for. Assigning economic value to these services ensures their appreciation in monetary terms and their integration into development planning and cost-benefit analyses.^[30] The absence of such valuation has historically contributed to the under-appreciation of environmental capital for human well-being. The 416.2-hectare peri-urban Kunigal wetlands in Karnataka, with a water storage capacity of 532.2 MCFT, carry out a wide range of ecological and socio-economic functions,^[31] including water for agriculture and domestic use, fish breeding, groundwater recharge, flood control, and wastewater purification. The wetlands also provide a habitat for 63 species of resident and migratory birds. An ecosystem service valuation of Kunigal Lake assessed provisioning services (agriculture, domestic water, fishery, fodder) and regulating services (water purification, carbon sequestration, micro-climate regulation). The study also estimated the potential value of the area’s yet untapped tourism, as shown in the table below.

Table 1: The Ecosystem Services of the Kunigal Lake

Ecosystem Service	Value (in INR million)	Classification	Percentage
Domestic water use	25.56	Provisioning	2.96
Water for agriculture	11.8	Provisioning	1.37
Fishery	8.6	Provisioning	1.00
Fodder	1.4	Provisioning	0.16
Water purification	81.21	Regulating	9.41
Carbon Sequestration	749.26	Regulating	67.41
Micro-Climate Regulation	152.61	Regulating	17.69
Total Value of Existing Ecosystem Services	1030.45
Potential Tourism Benefit	159.37 (with 137.26 million as potential revenue)	Cultural

Source: Ghosh (2020)^[32]

Similarly, Table 2 reveals that the total economic value of the Ukkadam Big Lake’s ecosystem services in Coimbatore city is estimated to be INR 107.96 lakh. Spread over 129 hectares with an average depth of 5.82 metres, and covering 136 hectares of cultivable area,^[33] the lake provides cultural services, including recreational services, as its significant use value. Its accessibility to the city, amenities geared towards families, walking trails, boating opportunities, and the lake’s picturesque surroundings further enhance its value proposition.

Table 2: The Ecosystem Services of the Ukkadam Big Lake

Values		Particulars	Value (in INR per year)	Percentage
Use Values	Direct Use Values	Fishing Activity	6,25,484	5.79
		Lotus Collection	-
		Grazing	1,76,076	1.63
		Washing Activity	-
		Others	86,400	0.80
	Recreational Values	Recreational Values	75,85,398	70.26
Non-Use Values		Number of Households (Nos)	2,371	21.51
		Average WTP (INR/year)	979.63
Total Economic Value			10,796,060	100

Source: Sravanakumar, et.al (2023)^[34]

Urban water bodies provide a multi-layered suite of ecosystem services vital for resilient and sustainable cities. The evaluation of their ecosystem services is the foundation of their protection and rational utilisation.^[35] Wetlands cover approximately 7-9 million km² globally, accounting for about 4-6 percent of the Earth’s land surface. Yet, they remain one of the least prioritised in conservation efforts. In both developed and developing countries, urban wetlands are disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the continental United States (US) has lost nearly 50 percent of its wetlands. At the same time, parts of Europe, Australia, Canada, and Asia have recorded even faster rates of decline.^[36] Studies have found that urbanisation is severely threatening the EKW, which is a critical ecological system supporting biodiversity, flood mitigation, and livelihoods in the Kolkata metropolitan region. Between 2000 and 2020, water bodies in the EKW shrank by 17.85 percent, whereas the built-up areas surged from 1.32 km² to 26.10 km² and the vegetation cover fell by 22.2 percent.^[37]

Limited ecological literacy in planning, fragmented institutions, and poor top-down decision-making exacerbate this imbalance. To maximise their enormous economic and socio-cultural value, it is imperative to recognise and integrate the full range of ecosystem services into urban policy and design. This can be done by, among others, creating hydro-ecological baselines before rejuvenation projects, ensuring inclusive access to provisioning services, and maintaining biodiversity-supporting habitats. With Indian cities increasingly facing the vagaries of climate uncertainty, water stress, and growing inequality, water bodies must be treated not just as infrastructure, but as living commons that are multifunctional, inclusive, and ecologically dynamic.

The Case for Urban Water Body Rejuvenation

Flood mitigation is among the most critical functions of urban water bodies and wetlands. They absorb and detain excess stormwater during heavy rains, reducing surface runoff, buffering low-lying neighbourhoods from flash floods, and helping the stabilisation of natural drainage systems.^[38] Since these urban water bodies lie along the troughs of the urban contours, storm water accumulates in low-lying areas following the natural drainage path. With widespread loss and encroachment of such water bodies and natural drainage paths, many Indian cities, including Chennai and Mumbai, have witnessed disastrous urban floods in recent years.^[39] In Hyderabad, two artificial stormwater tanks of 4 million litres and 2 million litres capacity are being built in the premises of the Civil Aviation Research Organisation to prevent flooding at the Begumpet airport.^[40]

Maintaining the groundwater table by facilitating percolation of rain and surface water and replenishing the aquifers is an equally important role of urban water bodies. This is especially valuable where over-extraction and impermeable surfaces have depleted urban aquifers, threatening water security. For example, rapid urbanisation, loss of open spaces, and the encroachment on lakes and wetlands have drastically reduced Bengaluru’s natural recharge zones.^[41] The city has lost 65 lakes since 1965.^[42] Studies have shown that nearly 79 percent of Bengaluru’s water bodies disappeared between 1973 and 2016, while built-up areas increased from 8 percent to over 73 percent, leading to a significant decline in the city’s recharge capacity.^[43]

The city’s water table has also declined to 300 m from 28 m, and 400-500 m in intensely urbanised areas, such as Whitefield, over a period of 20 years.^[44] In 2014, the water crisis in Bengaluru escalated to the point where the Karnataka government had to declare it a public emergency and began regulating borewell drilling, urging citizens to harvest rainwater and reuse greywater.^[45] Bengaluru exemplifies how the erosion of ecosystem services tied to water bodies severely undermines groundwater sustainability and severs the city’s historical hydrological logic, making urban resilience heavily dependent on their restoration.

Urban water bodies also regulate microclimate by moderating ambient temperatures through evapotranspiration. They reduce the urban heat island (UHI) effect, especially in dense city cores with low tree cover and high concrete density. For instance, research on Bengaluru has shown that the disappearance of urban lakes over the past two decades has resulted in a 1.5 °C increase in temperature.^[46] Wetlands and lakes filter pollutants, sediments, and nutrients naturally. This makes them vital for water purification. For example, the East Kolkata Wetland is considered the natural kidneys of the Kolkata metropolitan region as it treats over 900 million litres of wastewater daily while supporting robust local agricultural and fishery economies.^[47] Urban water bodies with wetland fringes and minimal human interference are biodiversity hotspots, providing breeding grounds for fish, amphibians, migratory birds, and aquatic plants.^[48] Yet, urbanisation has ruptured these ecological corridors and destroyed habitats through the concretisation of lake boundaries, random desilting without environmental assessments, and monocultural planting.

Thus, urban water bodies contribute to climate resilience by absorbing the surface runoff from excess rainwater, supporting biodiversity corridors, and facilitating carbon sequestration in wetland vegetation and sediments. In this sense, lakes and wetlands act as urban “climate infrastructures” that are resilient, adaptive, and multifunctional, providing low-cost mitigation and adaptation benefits.^[49]

Historically, urban water bodies were sources of water for domestic use, irrigation of peri-urban agriculture, and fishing. Even today, these water bodies support many informal economies. In Delhi’s Bhalswa Lake, communities use lake water for vegetable farming and informal water supply through tankers.^[50] However, these functions are rarely considered during rejuvenation planning, which often focuses on recreation and tourism rather than sustenance and livelihoods.

This erasure reflects a deeper policy bias where provisioning services for the poor are devalued, while recreational or aesthetic services for the middle and upper classes are prioritised. As a result, lake rejuvenation sometimes becomes a tool of accumulation by dispossession,^[51] where livelihoods are lost under the guise of development or beautification. Instead, the water bodies could be viewed from the lens of urban water commons and shared heritage of decentralised urban water governance. Many urban water bodies already hold deep cultural and historical significance as public commons and sites of religious rituals, like the Pushkar lake in Rajasthan.^[52] They are the civilisational heritage of urban India, threading across identity, memory, and public commons.

Competing Paradigms in Water Body Rejuvenation

While rejuvenating urban water bodies, competing paradigms emerge about what cities should prioritise and for whom, what functions are preserved or erased, and how equity, ecology, and urban sustainability can be meaningfully integrated into planning and governance. The eco-centric paradigm prioritises restoration of natural hydrology, biodiversity support, catchment-linkages, and community access. Projects undertaken with this approach view lakes as ecological commons that require adaptive management and participatory governance. The rejuvenation of Bengaluru’s Jakkur Lake, focused on maintaining the feeder channels, fostering biodiversity, integrating a wastewater treatment plant for nutrient cycling, and encouraging community stewardship, is an example of this approach.^[53]

On the contrary, the anthropocentric approach views lakes as urban amenities for beautification, tourism, and real estate value. Projects with this approach focus on surface beautification instead of catchment integrity or hydrological function through the construction of bunds, fences, concrete walkways, fountains, lights, and commercial kiosks. The Kankaria Lakefront (Ahmedabad) project and Hussain Sagar Lake (Hyderabad) project, where hard infrastructure has replaced the ecological edges of the lakes−curtailing access for informal users−is an exemplification of this approach.^[54],[55] The resulting trade-offs often compromise long-term environmental health and water security for short-term economic gains.

Such rejuvenation projects often neglect the feeder channels and catchments that bring water into the lakes. Construction or encroachments block inlets, making lakes hydrologically isolated, depending on artificial filling through borewells or tankers. Development-oriented lakefronts prioritising real estate values prioritise open, manicured spaces over habitat complexity. In such transformations, shorelines are replaced with granite pavements, the removal of aquatic vegetation, and the levelling of edge habitats for walking paths. This results in ecological simplification with a reduction in the richness of species, food webs, and ecosystem functionality. The rejuvenation of Hyderabad’s Neknampur Lake, for instance, adopted an ecological restoration approach by using floating treatment wetlands and retaining native vegetation, thereby restoring the habitats of bird species and amphibians.^[56] In contrast, the Durgam Cheruvu Lake, developed as a tourism zone, saw a decline in biodiversity despite increased visitor footfall and lake beautification infrastructure.^[57]

Such rejuvenation projects often lead to the privatisation and commodification of lakes. From an access and control point of view, fencing around the lake, levying of entry fees, and commercial zonation exclude the informal users (fisherfolk, washer communities, urban farmers, and street vendors) who have historically depended on these commons for livelihoods and domestic water needs. The lake then becomes an exclusive recreational space for the middle- and upper-class residents. Beautification is often also a poor substitute for ecological regeneration, particularly when surface aesthetics are prioritised over sediment health, biotic diversity, or hydrological connectivity. Furthermore, such projects are often top-down- and contractor-driven, with little transparency or post-project ecological monitoring.

Policy and Institutional Landscape

In 1982, India became a party to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an intergovernmental treaty providing a framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and sensitive use of wetlands and their resources. India designated 45 wetlands under the List of Wetlands of International Importance.^[58] At the national level, the National Water Policy (2012) emphasises water conservation, sustainable use, and local governance, and discusses traditional rainwater harvesting structures and water bodies. However, it lacks explicit focus on urban water bodies. Urban water supply continues to be viewed through the lens of centralised piped water infrastructure, rather than integrated hydrological systems that include lakes, ponds, and wetlands.

The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2017, notified under the Environment Protection Act 1986, prohibit activities like encroachments, waste dumping, and conversion for non-wetland uses in wetlands. However, since the rules exclude artificial water bodies and urban lakes created for water supply, a majority of urban water bodies are left outside their purview. The Ministry of Jal Shakti released the First Water Body Census in 2023. This was a landmark step towards quantifying the number, ownership, and usage patterns of water bodies across India. As per the waterbody census data, nearly 56 percent of the urban water bodies were privately owned, which raises serious concerns over community access, governance, and public stewardship.^[59]

The conservation, management and restoration of lakes, tanks and other water bodies have also been the focus of several other policies. Some of the impactful central and state schemes are:

1. Mission Amrit Sarovar: Launched in 2022 by the Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and departments including land resources, drinking water and sanitation, and water resources, the mission’s objective was to construct or rejuvenate at least 75 ponds or water bodies in each district. Out of the 109,733 water bodies identified under this scheme, 66 percent have been built or rejuvenated, with Uttar Pradesh constructing/rejuvenating the highest number of Amrit Sarovars.^[60]
2. AMRUT 2.0: Launched in 2021, AMRUT 2.0, among other interventions, promotes a circular economy of water through the development of city water balance plans focusing on the recycling or reuse of treated sewage, rejuvenation of water bodies and water conservation. By 2022, 20 lakes had been rejuvenated under AMRUT 2.0, with Shimla achieving the largest number.
3. Jal Shakti Abhiyan: With a motto of “Catch the Rain: Where it Falls, When it Falls”, the Jal Shakti Abhiyan (2019) aimed to promote water conservation and water resource management in 1,592 blocks in India’s 256 water-stressed districts.^[61] While the programme promoted desilting, check dams, and the rejuvenation of traditional water bodies, its orientation remained largely rural. Urban interventions were limited by a lack of integration with municipal land use planning and wastewater management.^[62]

Additionally, the Prime Minister proposed Mission LiFE at COP26, which envisioned an India-led global mass movement nudging individual and collective action to protect and preserve the environment.^[63] Promoting recharge of rural water bodies through the Amrit Sarovar Scheme is one of the action points under this scheme.^[64]

The institutional architecture for waterbody governance in India is fragmented. Revenue Departments have the ownership of lakes and tanks as common land and treat them as static assets. Although the Urban Local Bodies are responsible for stormwater management and sanitation, they lack authority over land use or environmental clearance. The Pollution Control Boards are responsible for monitoring water quality, but not the integrity of the catchment or its hydrological functions. Urban Development Authorities and Municipal Corporations often prioritise infrastructure, housing, or real estate over ecosystem protection. Such fragmentation has led to policy incoherence. For instance, while one department may sanction desilting and bund strengthening, another may approve land conversion of the lake buffer for housing or road widening.

Also, City Master Plans rarely include hydrological networks, lake catchments, or feeder channels in zoning and land use planning. Consequently, upstream encroachments, the blockage of inlets/outlets, and the sealing of lake beds occur despite restoration efforts downstream. In many cities, lakes were rejuvenated as isolated entities with recreational components, even as their catchments were converted into roads or built-up areas, rendering them hydrologically dysfunctional. Despite national policies promoting community participation and decentralised governance (e.g., the 74^th Constitutional Amendment,^[65] Atal Bhujal Yojana), urban waterbody governance remains top-down. Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), local NGOs, and slum communities are rarely consulted during planning, and are often excluded from post-restoration access, undermining long-term stewardship.

The policy and institutional landscape for urban waterbody management in India remains fragmented, underdeveloped, and often at odds with ecological and social realities. While several national and subnational policies address water, wetlands, urban planning, and environmental protection, they fail to comprehensively or coherently integrate urban water bodies as central to climate resilience and water security. The multiplicity of actors from ULBs, state pollution boards, revenue departments, urban development authorities, and environmental ministries further lead to jurisdictional overlaps and implementation paralysis.

Reframing the Debate Towards Synergies, Not Trade-offs

Various global and Indian case studies demonstrate that ecological rejuvenation can coexist with enhanced public use, tourism, and real estate value by respecting hydrological and ecological principles. Some case studies synergising ecology and urban vitality are:

1. The Cheonggyecheon Stream, Seoul: From Concrete to Green Infrastructure

The Cheonggyecheon project involved removing a highway that had buried a stream under concrete is one of the most cited global examples of urban waterbody revitalisation. The stream was exposed to sunlight by demolishing concrete roads and highways above it, naturalised, and turned into a pedestrian-friendly greenway that runs through downtown Seoul. As a result of the restoration, the urban heat island effect was reduced by 3-5°C, aquatic species were revived, and the air quality also improved. It also sparked urban renewal, and the land values adjacent to the stream increased, attracting investments worth over US$2.5 billion.^[66] This project exemplifies how green-blue infrastructure can simultaneously support ecology, mobility, and economic growth.

2. The Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park, Singapore: Ecological Urbanism

The Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park project in Singapore reimagined a concrete stormwater canal as a naturalised river with soft edges, riparian vegetation, and integrated floodplains. This is also a part of the ‘Sponge City’ model, where stormwater is managed through increased infiltration, detention, storage, treatment, and drainage. The project demonstrates a combination of ecological restoration with recreational use, public safety, and flood resilience. As a result, it was found that the flood carrying capacity had increased by 40 percent as there was a substantial increase in the number of park visitors.^[67] The restored ecosystem now supports an enhanced biodiversity, dragonflies, birds, and fish species, within a dense urban setting. This case demonstrates how multifunctional design can deliver both ecological and social benefits in tandem.

3. The Puttenahalli Lake, Bengaluru: A community-led model

The Puttenahalli Lake rejuvenation project in Bengaluru showcases a community-led model where ecological restoration led to improved water quality, bird diversity, and active public space use, without compromising accessibility or aesthetic appeal.^[68] The neighbourhood community came together to form the Puttenahalli Neighbourhood Lake Improvement Trust (PNLIT) and took the responsibility of ecologically restoring the lake with the support of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

These examples demonstrate that the binary between ecology and development is not inevitable. It depends on the perception towards the environment−in this case, the urban water bodies−and the way they are embedded in the development paradigm. The key lies in process orientation and governance efficiency. From these case examples, it is also seen that when lake rejuvenation is rooted in ecological assessments, stakeholder dialogue, and long-term hydrological planning, there is a possibility for development outcomes to align with sustainability goals.

Therefore, in urban planning, the framing of the urban lakes must move beyond viewing them as static green zones or beautification projects, and instead, they are to be embraced as dynamic blue-green infrastructures essential for climate adaptation, water security, and urban well-being. This would require hydrological assessments and catchment mapping before project design; the integration of Lake Management Plans (LMPs) into city master plans and zoning; the protection of urban commons and informal rights through participatory governance; designing nature-based solutions (NbS) that enhance both ecological function and human use, and creating ecological performance metrics like biodiversity counts, recharge volumes, and pollution loads to monitor success beyond footfall or revenue.

Community participation is a keystone for the sustainability, inclusivity, and ecological fidelity of lake rejuvenation efforts. Community involvement brings local knowledge about historical inflows, catchments, seasonal variations, and biodiversity. It enables social accountability and post-project maintenance, and ensures equity by including informal users such as washer communities, fisherfolk, and urban farmers. Community participation fosters stewardship and long-term care through a sense of ownership.

The rejuvenation of the Kaikondrahalli Lake serves as a benchmark for participatory lake restoration. Led by the MAPSAS Trust, a citizen group formed by nearby residents and supported by Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds from Wipro and guidance from the Bengaluru municipal corporation, the project evaded over-beautification and instead, emphasised ecological integrity.^[69] It preserved native vegetation, buffer zones, and bird habitats, while enabling informal user access by fencing the lake periphery. Similarly, the ecological revival of the Neknampur Lake by the Dhruvansh, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), exemplifies innovation under constraints. The group used floating treatment wetlands (FTWs) made from recycled materials to treat polluted water, planted native flora, and created bird habitats.^[70] Similarly, the rejuvenation of the Annapurna Lake in Indore deployed innovative NbS, such as floating wetlands, aerators, and beneficial microbial cultures.^[71]

Conclusion

As India’s cities confront intensifying water insecurity, climate variability, and urban ecological degradation, urban water bodies must be reimagined as regenerative systems for the future. The current paradigm, dominated by fragmented governance, beautification-led interventions, and infrastructural fixes, must be replaced with an approach rooted in ecological restoration, hydrological logic, social inclusion, and climate resilience.

The sustainable rejuvenation of urban water bodies requires a fundamental shift from reductionist planning to a holistic, systems-based approach that recognises water bodies as vital socio-ecological commons. Fragmented and short-term interventions that prioritise aesthetics or real estate value often sever hydrological linkages, marginalise customary users, and erode ecological integrity. In contrast, a regenerative paradigm envisions water bodies as dynamic infrastructures that support biodiversity and diverse urban communities while evolving with the changing climate. As essential components of blue-green infrastructure, urban water bodies play a crucial role in flood mitigation, groundwater recharge, temperature regulation, and habitat connectivity. This approach places hydrological connectivity, ecological functionality, equitable access, and participatory governance at its core while reintegrating water bodies into the metabolic flow of the city.

Moving forward, the key strategies for strengthening urban water management include the protection, demarcation, restoration, and recharge of traditional water bodies, along with their functional components such as drains, catchments, and aquifers. Urban water planning must increasingly prioritise demand management, guided by the principles of reducing, recycling, and reusing water across both supply and wastewater systems, and thereby embedding circularity in urban design. Smart water distribution systems, supported by sensors, are essential for promoting equitable allocation and also identifying distribution losses. In addition to this, urban local bodies should collaborate closely with mohalla samitis, building their capacity and enhancing their role in community-led water governance. Finally, effective governance would require the participation of all stakeholders, including urban local bodies, communities, regulators, and sectoral agencies, to create a resilient framework for managing urban water systems.

The regeneration of India’s urban waterscapes must not be relegated to a technocratic exercise or a beautification agenda. It must be reframed as a moral, ecological, and developmental imperative in a way that reclaims water bodies as living systems, safeguards environmental justice, and lays the foundation for inclusive, climate-resilient urban futures. 

---

Soma Sarkar is Associate Fellow, Urban Studies Programme, Observer Research Foundation.

---

All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.

Endnotes

• Urbanisation
• Water
• India
• climate resilient cities in india
• urban water bodies
• urban water bodies degradation
• urban water bodies in india
• urban water security
• urban waterscapes
• urbanization in india
• water footprints
• water infrastructure in indian cities
• water scarcity in india

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.