Pranahita project all tangled up

With so many doubts cropping up in the minds of common people and experts alike, the Telangana State government should come out with a white paper on the project, to clear apprehensions about its viability, clearances from Central agencies, objections from upper riparian States, escalating costs (it may cross Rs 50,000 crore as against original estimate of about Rs 17,000 crore), availability of real quantum of water, fragmentation of the project, and finally, if the Centre will really accord national status to the project, at all. Today, the project is dragged into a big controversy. Everybody except the engineers are speaking technical and other issues of the project

About 40 years back, on 6-10-1975), a meeting was held between Jalagam Vengala Rao, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and S B Chavan, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, to finalise three interstate projects on River Pranahita – Lendi Project; Lower Penganga Project; and Pranahita Project.

Issues relating to Lendi and Lower Penganga, which are very small projects, were sorted out. Pranahita project needed further clarification and settlement. Thereafter, a series of meetings were held between two State governments. The Government of AP in 2004 decided to take up Pranahita project and allotted the work of survey and preparation of detailed project report (DPR) to Water and Power Consultancy services (WAPCOS). After survey, WAPCOS submitted the DPR.

The salient features of DPR are:

1. About 160 tmcft of water can be lifted during the monsoon period from July to September from Pranahita at Tummidihatti village in Adilabad district.

2. There is no need of any dam or barrage construction. From natural water pool at Tummidihatti village, 160 tmcft of flood water can be lifted during floods (Run of the river scheme: Chapter V, Vol. I of DPR)

3. The survey report further stated that the upper riparian states like Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have not fully utilized the potential of river. Once that is done, the availability of water in Pranahita may reduce.

The water should be lifted to height of 480 meters to reach Chevella through 20 lift points requiring 2527 MW of power. An amount of Rs 17,875 crores is required to complete the project.

Cost estimation & escalation

Based on the said DPR, the Government of AP gave an administrative sanction vide GOMs. No. 124, I & CAD department dated 16-5-2007. Inter alia the GO says the project will provide irrigation to 12.2 lakh acres. It will provide 40 tmcft for drinking water and 17 tmcft for industrial use around Hyderabad. The cost of the project as per 2007 rates was assessed at Rs 17,875 crore.

After about seven months, vide GO 238 dated 17-12-2007, the cost of the project was increased to Rs 38,500 crore, a jump of 220%. The reasons attributed for the cost increase are: The WAPCOS did not prepare the estimates properly; some areas in Nirmal and Mudhole are included for irrigation. Again in the year 201, the cost of the project was further increased to Rs 40,300 crore. It is not known what the cost of the project is today.

Money spent, sans permissions

For any project on an inter-state river, permissions from as many as 18 agencies of the Government of India are required. As of now, many ministries of Government of India are yet to give their clearances. Without even obtaining these clearances, the State government has spent about Rs 9,328 crores (Rs 8,815 crore as on 31-3-2015 and Rs 513 crore in the first quarter of 2015-16).

National project status

Right from 2007, the State government had been stating that the project would be taken up as a national project. The Union Ministry of Water Resources has well laid-out guidelines to take up a project as a national project. Pranahita project doesn’t fit into these guidelines; as such, it may not be possible for the Centre to accord national project status to it. Here it is not out of place to mention that since independence, AP has not got a single project as a national project except Polavaram as a concession for bi-furcating the State.

During the General Elections of 2009, the ruling party gave a good publicity in Telangana area about Pranahita project. Whenever Ponnala Lakshmaiah, the then Minister for Major Irrigation, went to Delhi, after his return he used to call press meet and say that the GOI had agreed to accord a national status to Pranahita. After two three such statements, people never took his statements seriously.

Board formed, but no meetings

At the height of Telangana movement, the then Chief Minister, N Kiran Kumar Reddy, held a meeting with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra , Pruthvi Raj Chavan, on 5-5-2012 and an Interstate Board for investigation, survey and preparation of project report was constituted.

The Board chairman would be Chief Ministers of AP and Maharashtra (by rotation) and as many as 15 Principal Secretaries and HODs. To assist the Board a standing committee of 14 officers and coordinating committee of 8 other officers was constituted. After the constitution of this jumbo board, no meetings were held nor were there any decisions taken, it just remained on paper.

Maharashtra raises objections

Again on 17-2-2015, a high-level delegation headed by the Chief Minister of Telangana State, K Chandrashekar Rao, went to Mumbai and held discussions on Pranahita Project. After this meeting, it was clear that the Government of Maharashtra is not agreeable to construction of a barrage on River Pranahita as it submerges large chunks of lands in their State. Then came the news that the site of the project would be shifted to Kaleshwaram.

Some people are expressing that if the project site is shifted, Adilabad district will be denied irrigation water. At present, the district has a maximum number of project; some are old projects like Sadarmaat, Kadem, Satnala and some are new projects like Peddavagu, Komaram Bheemu, Neelwai, Ralevagu, Gollavagu, Lendi, Suddavagu etc. As such, a lot of potential has already been created and if these projects are properly utilised, a lot of area comes under irrigation.

Following issues need clarification

1. The survey report of WAPCOS says that there is no need of a barrage. Now the Government of Telangana is planning a barrage with 152 meters height, to which the Government of Maharashtra has objections.

2. By the time we get clearances from all the ministries of GOI, it may take some more time and by that time the cost of the project may cross Rs 50,000 crore.

3. The Government of India has certain norms for giving national status to irrigation projects. Pranahita project does not fit into the said norms. When the Government of Telangana knows that it may not be possible to get a national status to Pranahita project, than where from Rs 50,000 crore will be mobilised to complete the project?

4. The benefit cost analysis shows it is not a cost-effective project. About Rs 5 lakh will be the cost to irrigate an acre of land.

5. The recurring cost, mostly power bill, will be about Rs 15,000 per acre per annum. Who will bear it - the farmer or the government?

6. About 2,525 MW of power is required, where is the source for such huge requirement?

7. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests states that 3,331 ha of land is required for compensatory afforestation. As of now, only 2,028 ha is identified and 1,303 ha is still to be identified for the CA. He further stated that the GOI has yet to give Stage –I clearance; as such there is no clarity on the matter. Stage II clearance may take a long time.

8. Total availability of water from Pranahita project is 160 tmcft, out of which 57 tmcft (40+17) is earmarked for drinking and industries. The balance is 103 tmcft and at the rate of 1 tmcft to irrigate 10,000 acres, the project can irrigate just 10.3 lakh acres, and not 16 lakh acres as projected by the government.

9. As per the WAPCOS report, once Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh start using the water flowing in their area, the availability of 160 tmcft in Pranahita is doubtful.

10. Total amount spent up to 31-3-2015 on this project is Rs 9,328 crore. Again an amount of Rs 1,515 crore is provided in the budget during 2015-16. When the project site is proposed to be shifted or constructed into two or three smaller projects, then spending further amounts on the project needs justification.

11. The work was divided into 28 packages. Major works were proposed on the tail end of the canal in Ranga Reddy district. For example packages 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 amounting to Rs 5,982 crore were taken up around Chevella. The work should have started from beginning to end instead of spreading all over the places. There appears to be lack of planning.

12. For these 28 packages, an amount of Rs 1,485 crore was given as mobilisation advance to contractors a few years back. An amount of Rs 567 crore is still to be recovered.

Forum for Good Governance is not against the project, but the way it is being handled creates a doubt that it may become a drain on the state coffers. Today, the project is dragged into a big controversy. Everybody except the engineers are speaking technical subjects viz., the height of the dam, shifting the project site, dividing the project into two, so on and so forth. Now, time has come for the engineers to open their mouths.

Keeping all these factors in view, Forum for Good Governance requests the Government of Telangana to publish a white paper covering the issues raised by us, so that people have clear idea about the project. We have requested the Chief Engineer of Pranahita project for a white paper. He expressed that he has no authority to publish the white paper. We have addressed the government also for a white paper so far there is no response. (The writer is Secretary, Forum for Good Governance)

By M Padmanabha Reddy