Irrigation expert wants TS, AP to look at the bigger picture

‘Both the States should work for cancellation of additional allocation of 254 tmc ft made to Maharashtra and Karnataka’

Amid concerns expressed over Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal’s (KWDT-II) decision to confine redistribution of water between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, irrigation experts are suggesting that the two Telugu States should work for cancellation of additional allocation of 254 tmc ft made to Maharashtra and Karnataka by the tribunal.

They apprehend that once the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal’s award becomes operational, the upper riparian States would build up the necessary infrastructure to utilise the 254 tmc ft allocated to them. This would, in turn, have a significant impact on the inflows into Srisailam and other reservoirs, particularly during the lean season.

“The erstwhile united State has no doubt been awarded an additional 190 tmc ft by the tribunal.

What is the use of the additional allocation if water is not available in the river. In contrast, the two upper riparian States enjoy availability of water (or 100 per cent dependability).

They can plan and utilise it as they like whereas the two lower riparian States, TS and AP, will have to depend on the releases from the upper reaches,” irrigation expert and UN consultant T. Hanumantha Rao told The Hindu .

Mr. Hanumantha Rao said the situation during the current year itself is reflective of the state of things to come in future.

In spite of being a good monsoon year, the Srisailam project received inflows of around 250 tmc ft during the current year whereas it should get an assured 447 tmc ft at 75 per cent dependability in the normal course.

“Given the probability of good monsoon estimated once in four years, the two Telugu States will face acute shortage of water during the dry years once the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal’s award becomes operational as the upper States are sure to build up necessary infrastructure to hold the water allocated to them,” he said.

He lamented that the arguments so far, including those presented before the tribunal by the two States, were largely centred on micro issues like project-specific allocations.

“They are not looking at the main issue. The argument that the entire river basin should be taken as one hydrological unit should take precedence so that redistribution of water is made between the four States,” he said.