State in a fix over use of surplus Krishna waters

By M.Madan Mohan

HUBLI, JUNE 18. In respect of sharing the Krishna waters Karnataka appears to be groping in the dark in contrast to Andhra Pradesh, which is planning the use of the surplus water, pending determination of the share of each of the three riparian States involved. This is evident in Karnataka's fudging of the two main issues of executing unapproved projects and seeking the constitution of a fresh tribunal for determining the share of surplus waters. It is clear, any possibility of using of surplus water can only be determined by a new tribunal, as and when it is constituted, as this alone will put an end to the bickerings between the two States on the issue.

The present dilemma is typical of what the State has been experiencing over the years whenever the problem pertaining to the use of waters of the Krishna basin has arisen. Karnataka has always been rebuffed in its efforts for one reason or the other. Its inability to put across its claim for a legitimate share of the Krishna waters, coupled with lack of sufficient political clout at the Centre, has proved to be its Achilles heel. Andhra Pradesh is executing unapproved projects, designed to utilise over 300 tmcft. of water, is by not a recent happening. What is noteworthy is that while Andhra Pradesh has started making advance plans for the use of surplus water, Karnataka has been struggling to utilise the water allocated to it under Scheme "A," and it has failed to meet the deadline of May 2000, stipulated by the Bachawat Tribunal.

The first attempt to tackle the apportionment of surplus water was made by the Bachawat Tribunal under its "Scheme B," but it could not be notified because of opposition from Andhra Pradesh.

Karnataka (with Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde then as Chief Minister) was gullible enough to be a party to the move by Andhra Pradesh to construct a canal to carry 15 tmc.ft of water, which the three riparian States had agreed to give for meeting the drinking water needs of Chennai (the Telugu-Ganga project). What Karnataka obviously missed noticing then and failed to prevent later on was that the Telugu-Ganga project was built for a larger capacity than for the quantum of the water it was supposed to carry to Chennai. This is one of the unapproved projects to which Karnataka has now taken objection to.

At the political level, the initiative to get this contentious problem sorted out through mutual discussion among the chief ministers of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, was taken by the late Veerendra Patil who became the Chief Minister for the second time in 1989. The rationale of his approach was that the states need not wait for the expiry of the deadline for a review of their share under the Bachawat Tribunal Award, but they could settle the issue in advance so that each one could confidently plan the utilisation of one's own share of water without apprehension.

The unceremonious exit of Mr. Veerendra Patil brought an abrupt end to the initiative. None of his successors pursued the matter. Andhra Pradesh was a reluctant participant in the talks even then.

Karnataka could not derive any political advantage during the regime of Mr. Deve Gowda (as Chief Minister) in making Andhra Pradesh relent on this issue. The committee of four chief ministers of the United Front that was thrust on Karnataka to look into the complaint of Andhra Pradesh about the height of the Alamatti Dam, proved to be a millstone around its neck. Karnataka then chose to seek legal remedy and approached the Supreme Court. Karnataka's contention that "liberty to use surplus water" under the Bachawat Award did not enjoin Andhra Pradesh to construct permanent reservoirs was upheld, but no relief in the form of an injunction was obtained.

The judgment of the Supreme Court came in April last, and by the end of May, the deadline fixed for utilising water under Scheme "A" (after which a review could be held, as enjoined by the Bachawat Tribunal), was over. Andhra Pradesh merrily went ahead with the projects taking advantage of the vacuum in the absence of a Tribunal. Karnataka, however, refrained from pressing for the appointment of a new tribunal to go into the question as suggested by the Supreme Court as the Union Government had informed the court that it would set up a tribunal if any of the riparian States approached it.

On the unabated execution of unapproved projects by Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka did not make any immediate move, lest it would jeopardise its chances of getting clearance for Phase II of Stage I of the Upper Krishna Project, which was crucial for the State to raise the height of the Alamatti Dam to 519.6 metres, which the Supreme Court cleared in December last.

A complaint made to the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee in the month of January, evoked a laconic reply from Mr. Arjun Charan Sethi, Union Minister for Water Resources, who merely said that three of the projects -- the Sri Sailam Right Bank Project, the Pulichintala Diversion Project and the Bhima Lift Irrigation Project -- were not "planned against surplus" and two others -- the Telugu Ganga Project and the Srisailam Left Bank Project -- "had not been cleared and were yet unapproved."

For a considerable time, the Karnataka Government pondered over the options available to seek a legal remedy, either in the form of a contempt of court case, or through a regular petition. Finally, the contempt of court move was given up in view of the limited opportunity the complainant would have before the Supreme Court, and it opted for filing a regular petition.

No one in Karnataka at the moment, is sure, as to what will happen if Karnataka is not able to get relief it is aspiring for and if it is asked to approach a tribunal for any redressal of grievances. Karnataka has not yet decided on approaching the Union Government for constituting a tribunal. No one is able to hazard any guess on what Karnataka should do if political, legal and other remedies fail?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Six killed as mini lorry falls into roadside ditch
Next     : Where chief ministers fear to tread