Telangana government has requested the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) to include the components of Jurala project placed in Schedule 1 and 2 (ongoing) to Schedule 3 (completed/operational) of the gazette notification issued on the purview of the river board on July 15 this year stating they were included in 1 and 2 due to the deliberate actions of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government.
In a letter addressed to Chairman of the KRMB M.P. Singh, Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation-General) of Telangana C. Muralidhar explained to the former that Jurala and the lift irrigation projects based on them — Nettempadu and Bhima were included in Schedule 1 and 2 although they were solely serving Telangana and have nothing to do with A.P.
He further explained that the erstwhile Hyderabad (State) government had proposed three projects — Bhima. Tungabhadra Left Canal and Upper Krishna — to serve the needs of combined Mahabubnagar by utilising 174.3 tmc ft water with gravity. However, after formation of A.P. in 1956, the projects were shelved by it denying water to the drought-prone area and necessitated lift schemes later.
Although Jurala project stage-one with 23 tmc ft (gravity) and stage-two with 28.8 tmc ft (lift) were proposed to give water to Mahabubnagar after the 1969 movement for statehood to Telangana, the then A.P. government had submitted to Bachawat Tribunal in 1973 to give preference to the projects serving the A.P. areas. As a result, Jurala project was constructed with a storage capacity of 11 tmc ft from the initially proposed 30 tmc ft.
Later, instead of gravity scheme Bhima lift was taken up with surplus water in addition to some assured water given under the Left Canal of Jurala. Similarly, Nettempadu was taken up on the right side of the project also with surplus water. He brought to the KRMB Chairman’s notice that Telangana had been pleading before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal (KWDT-II) for allocation of assured water to all projects proposed by Telangana to undo the injustice heaped on it from the beginning in the matter of river water allocation.
Mr. Muralidhar stated that the ongoing Nettempadu lift scheme originating from Jurala was being shown as two components. In fact, Nettempadu was not enhanced to utilise an additional 3.4 tmc ft from the original scope of the project and the Telangana government had earmarked the water to meet the ayacut needs and it needs to included in Schedule 3 instead of Schedule 1 and 2.
