HYDERABAD: Even as the Telangana government decided to use 50 per cent of Krishna water (405.5 tmcft) from this year, and withdraw the petition in the Supreme Court for fresh allocation of Krishna waters between the sibling States, the Andhra Pradesh government contended that the KWDT-1 allocations to various projects cannot be modified or nullified.
With this, the water controversy between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have become more complicated. AP stated that the project-wise allocations made by the Bachawat Tribunal is final and cannot be disturbed.
Officials from Telangana stated that the government declared that it will use 50 per cent Krishna waters from this year onwards only to check AP’s efforts to get rights over Krishna waters for the projects illegally constructed in the Rayalaseema region.
TS has no storage capacity across the Krishna, the officials admitted, and added that they would use the additional water for power generation. "We will use our share of water when the new projects are completed across Krishna. AP should not claim rights over additional Krishna waters for the projects constructed outside the river basin," TS officials pointed out.
They recalled that the then Chief Secretary wrote a letter to the Union Ministry for 50 per cent of share in Krishna waters in July, 2018 itself. "Our demand is not new. We want our rightful share of Krishna waters," Telangana government officials said.
Andhra says no to review
Meanwhile, the AP Water Resources Department Secretary, in a letter to the Ministry of Jal Shakti on Saturday, said that the provisions of KWDT-1 inherently contain the equitable principle of “ipso jure continuity of ter ritories and treaties.”
Thus, TS cannot seek a review of the decision of KWDT-1 under the guise of alleged historical injustice and the same cannot form part of the water dispute under Section 2 (c) of the ISRWD Act. Consider AP’s views before taking any decision on the complaint of TS under Section 3, the AP official requested the Union Ministry.
"Erstwhile AP had taken a collective decision, as per the Constitution. None of these allegations in the complaint of TS could be a subject matter of dispute as erstwhile AP does not exist today. It will not be fair today for a portion of the territory which has become a new State to make any such allegation. Such allegations against the non-existent entity cannot form a basis for any reference under Section 3 of the Act," the AP official said in the letter.