BRS govt. never asked for water allocation to PRLIS even after spending ₹27,000 crore: Uttam

The recent allegation by 'Uttam' regarding the Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) in Telangana brings to light critical issues concerning inter-state water management, project implementation, and governmental accountability in India. Despite an reported expenditure of ₹27,000 crore on PRLIS by the previous BRS government, the core accusation is that formal water allocation for the scheme was never secured. This situation, if true, represents a significant governance lapse with far-reaching implications.

**Background Context:**

Telangana, a relatively new state formed in 2014, has historically faced water scarcity, particularly in its southern districts. The Krishna River, a major peninsular river, serves as a lifeline for millions across Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Post-bifurcation, water sharing from the Krishna River became a contentious issue between Andhra Pradesh and the newly formed Telangana. The Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) was conceived as a crucial project to address the chronic drought conditions in Mahabubnagar, Rangareddy, and Nalgonda districts, aiming to provide irrigation to 12.3 lakh acres and drinking water to several habitations. The project involved lifting water from the Srisailam reservoir on the Krishna River, requiring substantial infrastructure and, critically, a formal allocation of water from the river basin.

**What Happened (as per allegation):**

According to the current allegations, the BRS government proceeded with the construction of PRLIS, incurring a massive expenditure of approximately ₹27,000 crore. However, the fundamental step of securing a legitimate and formal allocation of water from the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) or through a tribunal mechanism was allegedly overlooked or failed. Without a sanctioned allocation, the project, even if physically complete, risks remaining a 'white elephant' – a costly infrastructure without its primary resource. This implies a significant disconnect between project execution and the necessary regulatory and inter-state agreements for water utilization.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Telangana Government (Previous BRS, Current Congress):** The BRS government initiated and substantially funded the project. The current Congress government is now investigating the alleged lapses. Their responsibility includes prudent financial management, effective project execution, and securing necessary legal and administrative clearances.

2. **Andhra Pradesh Government:** As a co-riparian state, Andhra Pradesh has a direct stake in Krishna water sharing and has historically raised objections to Telangana's new projects, fearing impacts on its own allocations.

3. **Krishna River Management Board (KRMB):** Established under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the KRMB is a statutory body tasked with regulating the water sharing and management of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Any new project or significant water drawl requires its approval and allocation.

4. **Central Government:** Through the Ministry of Jal Shakti, the Central Government plays a crucial role in mediating inter-state water disputes, establishing river boards and tribunals (under Article 262), and ensuring compliance with national water policies.

5. **Farmers and Citizens of Telangana:** They are the ultimate beneficiaries of the project and are directly impacted by its success or failure. Their livelihoods and access to drinking water depend on the project's operationalization.

6. **Taxpayers:** The ₹27,000 crore expenditure represents public funds, making taxpayers key stakeholders who bear the financial burden.

**Why This Matters for India:**

This issue underscores several critical challenges facing India. Firstly, it highlights the perennial problem of **inter-state water disputes**, particularly over major river basins like the Krishna. These disputes often become politically charged, hindering development and fostering regional animosity. Secondly, it raises serious questions about **governance, administrative accountability, and project management** in large public infrastructure schemes. The alleged failure to secure water allocation despite massive expenditure points to potential financial mismanagement, lack of foresight, or political expediency overriding sound planning. This can lead to significant wastage of public funds, delay in achieving developmental goals, and erosion of public trust. Economically, such stalled projects directly impact agricultural output, rural incomes, and overall regional development. Socially, it perpetuates water scarcity issues for millions, impacting health, hygiene, and economic opportunities.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions:**

Inter-state water disputes are enshrined in India's federal structure. **Article 262 of the Constitution** empowers Parliament to legislate for the adjudication of disputes relating to the waters of inter-State rivers or river valleys. Pursuant to this, the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956**, was enacted, enabling the Central Government to set up tribunals for such disputes. The Krishna River has a long history of disputes, leading to the formation of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I in 1969 and KWDT-II in 2004), which allocated water shares among the basin states. Post-2014, the **Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act** specifically mandated the KRMB to manage water sharing between the successor states. The legislative power over 'water' is primarily with the states (Entry 17, State List, Seventh Schedule), but 'regulation and development of inter-State rivers' falls under the Union List (Entry 56, Union List), allowing central intervention.

**Future Implications:**

The immediate future could see political wrangling between the current and previous state governments, potentially leading to investigations into the alleged financial irregularities. From a project standpoint, the Telangana government will likely have to vigorously pursue formal water allocation from the KRMB, possibly involving negotiations with Andhra Pradesh and intervention by the Central Government. This could lead to further delays in the project's operationalization, potentially escalating costs. The resolution might require a review by the existing KWDT-II or even the constitution of a new tribunal. This case serves as a crucial lesson for future large-scale infrastructure projects, emphasizing the need for comprehensive planning, meticulous regulatory compliance, and inter-state coordination to prevent wastage of resources and ensure timely delivery of benefits to the populace.