THE STATES

A fight over river waters

RAVI SHARMA
in the Krishna and Pennar river basins

Andhra Pradesh objects to Karnataka constructing the Paragodu barrage on a tributary of the Krishna river, but Karnataka denies violating any inter-State water-sharing agreement.

RAVI SHARMA

The site of the Paragodu barrage on the Chitravathi river.

CONTROVERSY over the sharing of river waters has erupted yet again, this time between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh over a clutch of irrigation and drinking water projects in the Pennar basin and the Tungabhadra sub basin that Karnataka is constructing. Andhra Pradesh claims that these projects, including the Paragodu barrage and the Upper Tunga Projects (UTP), are built in violation of inter-State agreements. Karnataka hit back by raising objections about eight projects that Andhra Pradesh has either completed or taken up allegedly without approval. These include the Telugu Ganga project, the Srisailam left and right bank canals, the Bheema lift irrigation project, and the projects at Pulichintala, Veligonda, Handriniva and Galerunagari.

Karnataka petitioned the Centre that its objections to these projects should also be discussed at the June 27 meeting of irrigation officials of the two States called by the Central Water Commission (CWC). But irrespective of the outcome of the meeting, it may once again be left to the Supreme Court or a tribunal to arbitrate on the vexed issues. On June 16, S.K. Das, ex-officio Additional Secretary and Technical Member of the CWC, visited the Paragodu barrage site and held discussions with Irrigation Department officials of the two States. He is expected to submit a report to the Water Resources Minister at the "earliest".

Irrigation experts said a meeting called to discuss the sharing of inter-State waters without the presence of an involved party, Maharashtra, could provide no legally binding solution. They also pointed out that all the three riparian States - Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh - had called on the Centre to constitute a tribunal, and Karnataka even filed an application last September seeking the constitution of a tribunal. Under the latest amendment to the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the Centre has to constitute the tribunal within one year of an application being filed. According to irrigation officials and politicians from Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh's accusations are political in nature. Said H.N. Nanje Gowda, irrigation expert and former Karnataka Minister: "(Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu) Naidu has adopted a well-thought-out strategy to prevent Karnataka from going ahead with projects that have been cleared. He first makes an issue of a non-issue and vice versa, then approaches the Central government, which is politically indebted to him, to take decisions that are favourable to Andhra Pradesh. Every one of our cleared projects is being stalled."

Nanje Gowda cites Andhra Pradesh's objection to the Paragodu barrage. It has no irrigation component, he says, and is meant exclusively to supply drinking water to Bagepalli and Gudibanda towns and 88 villages lying between them, all in Karnataka's Kolar district. Yet Chandrababu Naidu objects to it, he says. The project entails building a small run-of-the-river overflow barrage across the Chitravathi river that is dry for most of the year, at Paragodu village, 90 km from Bangalore.

The 900-metre-long bund, comprising an 86-metre concrete ogee weir and 814 metre of earthenware, will facilitate the storage of 0.137 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) of water spread over 250 acres (100 hectares) of land. After evaporation and percolation losses and dead storage are taken into account, there will be around 0.1 tmc ft of water available for drinking purpose. The height of the barrage ranges from 14 m for its length in the river course to around 6 m in other places. It is so designed that the excess water spills out and flows downstream to Andhra Pradesh. The capacity of the barrage has been calculated by taking the average consumption to be 70 lpcd (litres per capita per day) in the towns and 55 lpcd in the rural areas.

In 1988 Karnataka toyed with the idea of constructing a minor irrigation project at Paragodu with a storage capacity of 0.137 tmc ft and the ability to irrigate 500 acres (200 ha) in Bagepalli taluk, but gave it up because of the realisation that it could turn controversial. The drinking water supply project, keeping in mind the guidelines of the National Water Policy to accord top priority to drinking water schemes, was thought of in 2001.

"It is only coincidental that the size of the barrage remains the same. We have worked out the requirements keeping in mind the population growth in the area over the next 50 years using the guidelines set by the National Public Health Environment and Engineering Organisation. Instead of irrigating 500 acres of land the project is designed to provide drinking water to a population of 1.8 lakhs," said B. Srinivasa Reddy, Managing Director of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, which is undertaking the project at an estimated cost of Rs.966.18 lakhs. "When the project itself was inaugurated by (Karnataka) Chief Minister S.M. Krishna in April, two months after final clearances were received, where is the question that we started work before the clearances came?" he asked.

Srinivasa Reddy allayed Andhra Pradesh's fears that the project would be used for irrigation. "There will be no canal systems, sluice gates, and no one can draw the water en route for irrigation," he said. Irrigation officials said that while the independent catchment area for the Paragodu project was 24.67 square miles (around 63 sq km), the region - a further 240 square miles (around 615 sq km) - below the barrage, right up to Bokapatna around 50 km downstream, would serve as the catchment for Andhra Pradesh. So Andhra Pradesh would still get water. They claimed that during a meeting of engineers from Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, convened under the chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, CWC, in Hyderabad in October 2001 to discuss the construction of two minor irrigation projects by Andhra Pradesh, the Chairman noted after an explanation from the Karnataka side that Andhra Pradesh may not object to the Paragodu anicut (reservoir). "So why are they objecting now?" the officials asked.

Providing drinking water to the people of the drought-prone region is a promise that has been hanging fire for over two decades. (Rainfall is around 40 cm per annum in the whole of Kolar district and is mainly in `flashes'.) The highly depleted water level (down to around 250 metres in some places) has resulted in a high content of fluoride - ranging from 1.6 to 2.8 mg per litre - in the ground water. According to N. Sampangi, Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Bagepalli, nearly 25,000 people living in 300 villages in his constituency suffer from problems associated with high fluoride intake, including severe joint pain and discoloured and falling teeth.

N.V. Hanumantha, a teacher at the Gudibanda Junior College, has been trying to educate the public and the government on the fluoride problem. Said he: "The problem has been severe for a decade. Most of the people know about the problem but are forced to drink the water. Water from borewells up to 250 feet (85 metres) is okay, but almost all the old wells have dried up." K.N. Jaganath, whose family has lived in Gudibanda for generations, said that he and his family drank borewell water ever since the open-well dried up. "Within six months of consuming the water I started getting severe joint pain and my teeth turned dark brown," he said.

THE situation is similar in many villages in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh, just across the Karnataka border, about 20 km from Paragodu. That is why people in the region expressed surprise that Andhra Pradesh was raising a bogey over a scheme that would not only alleviate the drinking water problem, but possibly raise the water table in areas in Andhra Pradesh as well. With the project site being sandy, said experts, the barrage would not be watertight and would allow for seepage downstream, benefiting Andhra Pradesh. According to geologists who mapped the project site, both the lineaments, or weaknesses in the rock structure, at Paragodu lead onto Andhra Pradesh, and will result in rainwater stored in the barrage, especially its earthen portion, seeping below and recharging the water table in Andhra Pradesh. Curiously, there are no gauging systems along the stream's course to measure the quantum of water flowing into Andhra Pradesh.

Although it is a fact that once the barrage is ready Andhra Pradesh will receive a quantum of water that is lower by 0.137 tmc ft, Karnataka contends that it is well within its rights to go ahead with the project. Said Karnataka Water Resources Minister H.K. Patil: "It is certainly not in violation of either the 1892 or 1933 agreement (between the Mysore and Madras States). No consent is needed to take up drinking water projects on the southern side of the Chellur-Bagepalli Road."

Karnataka has questioned the validity of the 1892 agreement entered into by grossly unequal States. An irrigation official said, "The 1892 rules placed some restrictions on Karnataka - Schedule A of the Appendix mentions 15 main streams (including the Chitravathi) on which Karnataka cannot build any projects. But Schedule B states that if there is a loss of storage in the existing tanks due to silting, we can take up projects to substitute for the extent of loss, even for irrigation purposes. Also, under Rule 1(3) of the 1933 agreement, no concurrence from the lower riparian State is required for drinking water schemes."

The official went on: "When Andhra Pradesh illegally diverted Krishna water (via the Telugu Ganga) to Tirupati town we could have objected but we did not. Again, when Andhra Pradesh illegally diverted water from the Reddihalli tank in Karnataka's portion of the Pennar basin to its Rolla tank in the Krishna basin, we did object. But Andhra Pradesh filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that it was duty bound to supply drinking water to its people. Why can't we do the same?"

The official also pointed to the present status of the Pennar basin vis-a-vis the time of formulating the 1892 rules: "Because of restrictions Karnataka has brought no new water into the basin, but Andhra Pradesh has brought additional water from the high-level Tungabhadra canal, the Kurnool-Cuddapah canal, the Telugu Ganga and the Srisailam Right Bank canal. When that is the case what is wrong in a small drinking water project."

Andhra Pradesh has also stated that it will file a petition in the Supreme Court to stop Karnataka from going ahead with the UTP. It maintains that the UTP will enable Karnataka to utilise more than its share in the Tunga sub basin, thereby seriously affecting the flow into its own projects downstream.

The Tunga is a major tributary of the Krishna, and the UTP, which is a constituent of the Tungabhadra sub basin projects, is aimed at irrigating nearly two lakh acres (80,000 ha) in the partially drought-prone districts of Haveri, Shimoga and Davangere. The Rs.1,052-crore UTP came about after Karnataka redefined the Gajanur anicut in Shimoga district, built in 1956. Initial plans to build a storage dam were dropped because of problems with land submersion.

The run-of-the-river dam, which will store 1.7 tmc ft of water, is being built 100 metres downstream from the existing anicut and will retain the features of the old reservoir. Expected to be ready in 2005, it will store 1.7 tmc ft of water, while planned utilisation in the network of canals leading out of the dam, 110 km of which is ready, is 12.24 tmc ft. (The old reservoir had a utilisation of 11.5 tmc ft).

Karnataka's contention is that its allocation to the UTP is well within its bulk allotment of 320 tmc ft for the Tungabhadra sub basin under the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and that it has the freedom to allocate water to various individual projects. Approvals for the project have taken nearly 10 years, with the final one coming in February. Irrigation engineers repudiate Andhra Pradesh's claims that Karnataka is entitled to only 306 tmc ft of water. "We are entitled to 295 tmc ft plus 10 per cent regeneration flows. It was initially 7.5 per cent but after we sought clarifications from the Tribunal, pointing out that usage had gone up, it was increased to 10 per cent. Thereby it totalled 324.4 tmc ft, but with the ceiling being 320 tmc ft this is what we will eventually use," they said. This could take a few more years since the UTP's canals and the downstream Singtalur Lift Irrigation scheme are not ready.

The engineers also defend lower inflows to some of Andhra Pradesh's projects downstream of the Krishna basin, pointing out that under Scheme A of the Tribunal's Award there was no distress clause. In other words, in a bad year, if the upper riparian State, be it Maharashtra or Karnataka, held back its share and nothing flowed, the lower riparian State could not raise Cain.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail