VIJAYAWADA: The Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project (PBLP), announced by Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu in 2024 during his second term, has sparked intense debate.
Aimed at transforming the State’s water landscape, the project seeks to divert 200 TMC of Godavari floodwater from the Polavaram Dam to the Banakacherla Regulator or Srisailam Right Main Canal.
However, the proposal has been returned by the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), amid legal, environmental, and interstate concerns. Telangana’s objections and criticism from water resource experts, who call the project “beyond logic,” have further fuelled the controversy.
The PBLP is a bold initiative to combat water scarcity in Andhra Pradesh, particularly in the drought-prone Rayalaseema region. Spanning 2,40,604 hectares across eight districts, including East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna and Rayalaseema, it involves expanding the Polavaram Right Main Canal’s capacity from 17,500 to 38,000 cusecs, and the Thatipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme’s canal from 1,400 to 10,000 cusecs.
A new reservoir at Bollapalli in Guntur district, supported by lift stations at Harischandrapuram, Lingapuram, Vyyandana, Gangireddypalem, and Nakirekallu, will channel water to Banakacherla and Veligonda reservoirs through a 19.5-km tunnel in the Nallamala forest.
The project aims to irrigate 3 lakh hectares of new ayacut, stabilise 9.14 lakh hectares of existing ayacut, provide drinking water to 80 lakh people, allocate 20 TMC for industrial use, and generate 400 MW of hydropower.
Costing an estimated Rs 81,900 crore, it requires Rs 54,000 acres of land, and 4,000 MW of power, with Naidu seeking Central funding to address financial challenges.
Reasons for project rejection
The EAC, under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, rejected the PBLP proposal due to significant legal and environmental issues. Telangana claimed the project violates the 1980 Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) Award, which requires consultation with co-basin States like Telangana, Chhattisgarh and Odisha.
The EAC has highlighted unresolved submergence concerns in Odisha and Chhattisgarh tied to the Polavaram project, which are still under judicial review. The Central Water Commission’s 2018 report, stating no surplus water at Polavaram at 75% dependability, contradicted Andhra Pradesh’s floodwater diversion claims. The EAC has instructed AP to resolve interstate disputes, and secure CWC clearance before resubmitting it.
AP-TG political squabble
The PBLP has triggered a heated political clash between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Naidu insists the project uses only surplus Godavari floodwater—2,000–3,000 TMC annually flowing into the sea—without impacting Telangana’s allocated share.
Water Resources Minister Nimmala Ramanaidu, in a recent press conference, stressed the project’s focus on aiding Rayalaseema, dismissing Telangana’s objections as politically driven. He asserted AP’s rights as a lower riparian State to use surplus water.
Telangana Irrigation Minister N Uttam Kumar Reddy has argued that the PBLP breaches the GWDT Award and the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, by altering Polavaram’s operational schedule sans consultation.
He warned of submergence risks in Telangana districts, including Bhadrachalam, and criticised AP for bypassing environmental clearances and creating a Special Purpose Vehicle to expedite the project. Telangana has repeatedly objected to the Centre since November 2024, demanding that the project’s financial support be denied. Political analysts see Naidu’s move as an attempt to deflect criticism that he hasn’t done enough for Rayalaseema, his native region.
Expert opinions
Water resources analyst T Lakshmi Narayana told TNIE that legal hurdles surrounding the Polavaram project make the PBLP clearance nearly impossible. He criticised the lack of clarity on Godavari’s surplus water and the government’s dismissal of alternative proposals from irrigation experts.
Agriculture economist A Bhavani Prasad warned that the project threatens Vijayawada with flooding, as the Prakasam Barrage’s capacity is inadequate for the proposed water transfer. He emphasised that floodwater diversion requires a separate mechanism, not the existing canal system, to avoid disastrous consequences.