Telangana, AP pitch for four way allocation

​New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh and the Telangana governments here on Saturday argued in favour of reallocation of Krishna waters ‘four-way’ among the States involved in the dispute and not just between the two Telugu States.

When arguments came up at the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal here on Saturday, senior counsels representing Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Vaidyanathan and A K Ganguly respectively, maintained their stand that the tribunal must hear the arguments as a dispute among all the four States and must not isolate the two Telugu States.

When the tribunal asked them to justify their argument, Vaidyanathan said it was wrong to argue that the river waters dispute should be heard from the view point of AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 (Section 89) as there was nothing in the Act that said so.

The tribunal adjourned the hearing to August 16 (up to 18) when AP would continue its arguments in similar lines. Earlier, continuing his argument, Vaidyanathan countered the Maharashtra and Karnataka arguments line of defence that the redistribution should be done only between the two States out of the 1005 tmc ft water allotted to the united AP claiming the present water levels were insufficient.

The claim of the upper riparian States that they had the right to utilise the surplus waters was untenable, he said. The dispute was a recurrent problem and even the Parliament only had the power to make suggestions and could not intervene in any other way.

The only agency entitled to make water allocation was the tribunal and there should be an administrative machinery to look after water allocation, releases and maintenance, Vaidyanathan maintained adding that such a machinery should have the ultimate power to deal with all issues involved in water distribution.

At this juncture the tribunal intervened to ask whether there was any need at all to consider the four-way redistribution or reallocation as even project-wise allocation was completed in 1976 and such a question of redistribution never arose afterwards.

Vaidyanathan countered the view and said over the years, Telangana irrigation and drinking water needs had increased. Almatti project in Karnataka was not meant only to serve the interests of Karnataka but also to cater to the needs of Telangana and AP. Whatever project-wise allocations had been made before the appointment day were final and, as for the rest, it should be taken up now, he argued.

Later continuing AP arguments, Ganguly said the Parliament had not intended to confine the dispute under Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act to just AP and Telangana, otherwise it would have made a specific mention of it. The crux of the problem was not redistribution of water between the Telugu States but one of reallocation of water and hence it had come under the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Justifying the same further, he said precisely for the reason, the previous verdict of the tribunal had not come into force. When States like Punjab, MP and Bihar had been bifurcated, a special provision was made for establishing an exclusive machinery to look after all related issues which was absent in the AP Reorganisation Act and hence project-wise allocation should be done afresh and an operation protocol be established, he argued.

The tribunal decided to hear the arguments of Karnataka and Maharashtra in August and then accept the rejoinders of the Telugu States.