I have not followed the intricate debate about the Melamchi Project besides what's written in the KTM Post and Nepalnews.com. Unfortunately, those are newspapers and only report facts rather than provide detailed analysis. It is obvious that Ktm desperately needs water. What was Prithivi Narayan Shah thinking when he fell in love with "Nepal"? People say he was far-sighted and his "Dibya Upadesh" seems to validate that claim but obviously he didn't anticipate that the population of Ktm was going to explode over the next 3 centuries and Bagmanti & Bishnumati water won't be enough to sustain the demand. The current supply meets only 1/3rd of 270 million demand. Melamchi's 170 million liters would alleviate the shortage but again 50 years hence the problem will arise. To me Melachmi was a no brainer. Given the geographical location of Ktm, bringing water was going to be expensive. Somebody has to pay for it and pay a premium to say someone living in Pokhara. But the question was who? To me the obvious answer is you pay for what you consume. Of course there are ethical issues surrounding given that water is a necessity not a a luxury but that could be solved through appropriate policies such as subsidy/rebate to low-income households and asking rich folks in Ktm with banglows and gardens to pay super-premium prices. It seems that the opposition to Melamchi centered around couple of issues, 1) Mis-management. The original cost of the project was around $460 million, later reduced to $350 and that raised eye-brows. This is probably the MOST valid point. Given the history of governance, it is very hard to trust Nepalese politicians and officials without proper checks and balances. Civil societies (NOT NGOs because they have vested interest) could play a role. 2) Debt burden to the government. Supposedly 65% of the cost was loans that future generations of Nepalese had to pay back. Again a valid point given Point (1). But I won't be too worried. There is a tendency to forgive debt every 15-20 years :) 3) Giving Severn Trent monopoly over water supply in Kathmandu instead of local businesses. I think, Severn Trent should have been required to partner with a local business. We should always give local businesses a role because Severn could simply leave the country, which give it a lot of leverage. 4) Secrecy. Supposedly, ADB withheld important environment and cost impact reports. This is not a valid point. In the process of development some people are going to suffer but they have to be adequately compensated. Remember, the road-building that’s happening at rapid pace throughout the country has destroyed farmlands and villages and none of the farmer/villages have been adequate compensated. Every country has “Eminent domain” laws that look at public interest and Nepal should too (of course, with proper checks & balances) 5) NGOs wanted alternatives to Melamchi such as rain water harvest. This is the most ridiculous point. Shows that NGOs have vested interest in keeping Nepal undeveloped so that they can perpetually "help the country develop".