HYDERABAD: Jaideep Gupta, senior advocate representing Andhra Pradesh, resumed his final arguments on Wednesday before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal, supporting the diversion of river waters outside the river basin.
He said Telangana’s claim that, under the Further Terms of Reference (FToR), the tribunal could reallocate the 811 tmcft of water allocated by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-I (KWDT-I) on a clean slate was untenable. Ignoring the KWDT-I award was unreasonable, as any fresh award would be binding on Telangana, he pointed out.
Referring to Section 2(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act (APRA), 2014, Gupta said the existing law continued to apply to successor states unless amended or repealed. An award of a tribunal has the force of a court order and is binding on the states concerned; therefore, the KWDT-I award is binding on both successor states. He also cited Section 104 of the APRA in support of his argument.
Gupta stated that Telangana had pleaded that outside-basin diversions should not be permitted. However, he pointed out that both the Narmada and Cauvery awards had allowed such diversions. The findings of the Narmada award were similar to those of KWDT-I, and even a non-riparian state had been allocated water under the Narmada award.
He further noted that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) had allocated water to the Grand Anicut, even though 45,000 acres of the total command area of 3.01 lakh acres lay outside the basin. Although Karnataka had objected to this outside-basin diversion, the CWDT rejected the objection and allowed the allocation.
Gupta also pointed out that while the CWDT had initially disallowed Kerala from using water for outside-basin purposes, and had denied drinking water to Bengaluru on the ground that parts of the city lay outside the basin, the Supreme Court later permitted the allocation of water for Bengaluru’s drinking water needs.
‘Outside-basin allocation to drought-prone areas permitted’
Where an area is drought-prone and in need of water, allocation should be allowed even if it lies outside the basin, Gupta argued.
He noted that KWDT-I had allocated water to the Krishna delta, even though a major portion of the command area technically lay outside the basin. He said that while some regions of the country had surplus water, others were water-deficient, and it was in this context that inter-basin water transfers were being planned by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA). In this connection, he pointed out that the 75 per cent dependable yield and per capita water availability in the Pennar basin were significantly lower compared to other basins.
During the arguments, Gupta said Telangana, as a successor state, could not claim exemption from the prior agreements of the erstwhile combined state and was bound by them under the APRA. He added that AP’s geographical advantage for paddy cultivation could not be ignored to support Telangana’s claims for additional water.
He argued that the country needed to evolve a comprehensive approach for inter-basin water transfers under a National Perspective Plan, as such transfers were important in the national interest.
Gupta stated that gravity-flow irrigation facilitated easier utilisation of water south of the Krishna river, while lift irrigation schemes were required on the northern side, in Telangana. Since gravity-flow systems were preferable to power-intensive lift schemes, outside-basin diversions were justified, he said.
He further submitted that irrigation development in outside-basin areas of the Andhra region had benefited the state’s overall economy, including the Telangana region. He also stated that neither the Helsinki Rules nor the Berlin Rules prohibited outside-basin diversions.
Although Telangana was not a party before the Godavari and Krishna Water Disputes Tribunals, the awards passed by these tribunals were binding on it, and existing uses could not be disturbed, Gupta concluded.