HYDERABAD: The Telangana government informed the Ministry of Jal Shakti that the Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project (PBLP) is against the Bachawat Tribunal Award. In a letter to the secretary of Jal Shakti, Telangana Irrigation principal secretary Rahul Bojja said on Thursday: “The present proposal of PBLP diverting Godavari Water to other Basins via Krishna Basin without supplementing water to Krishna Basin areas contravenes KWDT-I Award”.
The Telangana government sent its comments on the pre-feasibility report (PFR) on Andhra Pradesh’s PBLP. The main purpose of this diversion project is to stabilise the existing projects in the Pennar basin spanning the Rayalaseema region, and western parts of Prakasam and Nellore districts that depend on inflows into Srisailam reservoir on the flood based project. Stabilisation to above projects is considered at 50% of its water requirements.
New Irrigation potential is about three lakh hectares including taking up Nagarjunasagar Project (NSP) Phase-II, new command between Bollapalle reservoir and Banakacherla Regulator, Orvakallu Lift Irrigation Scheme (for western parts of Kurnool district), Gandikota LIS, Gandikota-CBR Lifts 1 to 6, Somasila high level canal LIS Ph-1, GNSS lifts and Badvel lifts on Telugu Ganga Project (TGP). The share of the new ayacut is 60 tmcft.
The stabilisation ayacut of 9.14 lakh hectares and as well as the contemplated ayacut of three lakh hectares do not come under Godavari river basin and it entirely covers the regions of Krishna/Pennar basin which needs to be relooked, the Telangana letter said. As per the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award (GWDTA), there is no clause for allocating the floodwater among the basin States.
Further, a large-scale diversion of water to the outside basin from Krishna basin by Andhra Pradesh resulted in making it a deficit basin, it said.
AP’s PBLP proposal is in violation of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, GWDTA, Polavaram Project Authority (PPA) and EC and infringing water rights of Telangana besides also creating adverse back water and cascading submergence effects by way of congestion and stagnation/blockage of local streams on either side of River Godavari due to flash floods, the letter said.
Telangana raised the adverse impacts of Polavaram Irrigation Project (PIP) due to the construction of PBLP and felt that it would endanger ecological balance of Godavari river and asked the Centre to set aside the PFR of PBLP. Prevent AP from taking up any further action with regard to PBLP, which will infringe the water rights of Telangana.
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIONS OF TELANGANA
As per the AP Reorganisation Act (APRA), all new projects must be appraised by the respective River Management Board, followed by the Central Water Commission (CWC), and then approved by the Apex Council. AP has bypassed this process in formulating the Polavaram Backwater Lift Project (PBLP), violating statutory procedures.
Section 90(1) of APRA declares Polavaram Irrigation Project (PIP) a National Project, and section 90(3) provides deemed consent from Telangana. However, since PBLP significantly alters the parameters of PIP cleared by the 95th TAC (2009) and affects the GWDT Award (1980) operations, Telangana’s consent is required.
PBLP infringes upon Telangana’s water rights and disregards the binding GWDT Award, which mandates consent from Telangana for any changes. AP’s justification based on being the lowest riparian state is inaccurate, as floodwater is not allocated under GWDT.
The Polavaram Project Authority (PPA), which ensures adherence to TAC approvals, must authorise any new construction or expansion. The PPA must also seek environmental clearance. Since PBLP draws water from Polavaram’s foreshore, these steps are mandatory.
The project’s sanctioned utilisation is 449.78 tmcft at 75% dependability. AP now proposes an additional diversion of 200 tmcft, totalling around 650 tmcft, which could breach inter-state agreements and alter the 1980 operational protocol involving Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha.
Telangana asserts that AP’s claim of compliance with GWDT and Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal (KWDT) Awards are incorrect, as the scale and implications of PBLP necessitate a detailed review and fresh approvals.