Stop AP from taking up the PNLP project: Uttam to Centre

Inter-state water disputes are a recurring feature in India's federal landscape, often intensifying due to increasing demand for water, climate change impacts, and political considerations. The recent plea by Telangana's Irrigation Minister, N. Uttam Kumar Reddy, to the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS) to halt Andhra Pradesh's Pothireddypadu Lift Project (PNLP) while seeking clearance for Telangana's Palamuru Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) is a classic example of such a dispute, rooted deeply in the history of the Krishna River basin and the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

The genesis of this particular conflict lies in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which led to the creation of Telangana as a separate state. While the Act aimed to facilitate a smooth transition, it also created new challenges regarding the equitable distribution and management of shared resources, particularly water from the Krishna and Godavari rivers. Prior to bifurcation, the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh was a major beneficiary of the Krishna River waters, allocated through various awards of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT). The KWDT-I award (1973) and the subsequent KWDT-II award (2010, extended in 2013) determined the shares of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. Post-2014, the allocation for the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh had to be further bifurcated between the new states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, a process that has been fraught with disagreements.

What happened is a direct consequence of this unresolved allocation. Telangana alleges that Andhra Pradesh's PNLP, a project designed to lift water from the Srisailam reservoir on the Krishna River, encroaches upon Telangana's rightful share of water. The project aims to divert water to drought-prone Rayalaseema districts of Andhra Pradesh. Telangana's objection stems from the belief that PNLP's expanded capacity and operation would reduce the water available for its own projects, including the crucial Palamuru Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS). PRLIS is designed to provide irrigation and drinking water to drought-prone districts of Mahabubnagar, Rangareddy, and Nalgonda, utilizing 45 tmc ft of water from the Krishna River. Telangana argues that its projects are within its allocated share and are essential for the socio-economic development of its region, while AP's projects are either unapproved or exceed its rightful share, especially in deficit years.

The key stakeholders in this ongoing saga include the Telangana Government, represented by its Minister N. Uttam Kumar Reddy, which is advocating for its state's water rights and project clearances. The Andhra Pradesh Government, on the other hand, is pushing for its PNLP to address the needs of its own regions. The Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), headed by its Secretary V.L. Kantha Rao in this instance, plays a crucial role as the central nodal agency responsible for resolving inter-state water disputes and approving major irrigation projects. The Krishna River Management Board (KRMB), constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, is another vital stakeholder, tasked with the administration, regulation, and maintenance of projects on the Krishna River and ensuring equitable water sharing between the two states. However, KRMB's effectiveness is often hampered by the lack of full cooperation from both states and sometimes by ambiguities in its jurisdiction.

This dispute holds significant implications for India. Firstly, it underscores the persistent challenges to cooperative federalism, where states must collaborate on shared resources but often find themselves in adversarial positions. Such conflicts can strain Centre-State relations and inter-state harmony. Economically, water is the lifeblood of agriculture, and stalled or disputed projects can severely impact agricultural productivity, rural livelihoods, and food security in both states. Politically, water disputes are potent electoral issues, influencing public sentiment and election outcomes. The resolution, or lack thereof, sets a precedent for how other inter-state resource disputes might be handled, potentially impacting national integration and development. Moreover, with climate change exacerbating water scarcity, efficient and equitable water management becomes even more critical for India's long-term sustainability.

From a constitutional perspective, these disputes are primarily governed by **Article 262** of the Indian Constitution, which empowers Parliament to legislate for the adjudication of any dispute relating to the waters of inter-state rivers. Pursuant to this, Parliament enacted the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956**, which provides for the establishment of tribunals to adjudicate such disputes. While "water" generally falls under **Entry 17 of the State List (List II, Seventh Schedule)**, the Union has overriding power concerning the regulation and development of inter-state rivers under **Entry 56 of the Union List (List I, Seventh Schedule)**. The **Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014**, specifically mandated the establishment of the KRMB to manage the Krishna River waters. The ongoing dispute highlights the limitations of existing legal and institutional frameworks in achieving swift and amicable resolutions.

Looking ahead, the future implications are multi-faceted. The MoJS may need to intervene more decisively, potentially referring the matter to an existing or new tribunal if negotiations fail. The KRMB's role might need strengthening with clearer powers and enforcement mechanisms. Both states might need to re-evaluate their water demands and projects in light of a basin-wide perspective and climate change realities. Ultimately, a long-term, sustainable solution would require a shift from conflict to cooperation, perhaps guided by a robust National Water Policy that prioritizes integrated water resource management and equitable distribution, ensuring the developmental aspirations of all regions are met without infringing upon the rights of others. The resolution of such disputes is not merely about water, but about the health of India's federal structure and its ability to manage vital resources for collective prosperity.