BACHAWAT TRIBUNAL ON GODAVARI UNDER KRISHNA BASIN REPORT-1973
CHAPTER VII Diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna River (Issue VI)
Introduction to Historical Develpoment of Irrigation schemes:
Before 1855 Krishna basin had agriculture under numerous tanks and small diversion works like anicuts. After 1855 upto 1928 1) Krishna delta canal system 2) KC Canal, 3) Mula-Mutta canal systems, 4) Nira Left and Right canal systems and 5) Vanivilas Sagar are constructed. Between 1918 to 1930 Tatas constructed hydro-power works by westward direction of Krishna water. During British rule minor water disputes on Tungabhadra waters were settled in 1892 and 1933.
Under India Act 1935 water became exclusively a provincial subject and water disputes were settled under its provisions. In 1944 there were agreements that settled disputes on Tungabhadra waters and so Tungabhadra project, Rajolibanda, Bhadra reservoir and Tunga Anicuts were constructed. In 1950 Indian constitution came into force and an interstate conference in July 1951 at New Delhi prepared an agreement on Krishna water sharing among 4 riparian states of Bombay, Hyderabad, Mysore and Madras and it settled the water disputes. But still there were complaints and Parliament enacted the inter-state water disputes Act, 1956 to resolve the problems. Central Government referred the water disputes to the Bachawat Tribunal in April 1969 on the sharing of Krishna waters under the Chairmanship of RS Bachawat Judge of the Supreme Court. The following chapter VII on Godavari Water Diversion into Krishna river is extracted from the Tribunal report. Abbreviations are under Vol-III(Page-3).
Pleadings of the BASIN STATES.—In their statements of case both Maharashtra (1) and Mysore(2) prayed for a direction that the waters of the river Godavari be diverted to the Krishna. Maharashtra contended that this diversion would help to meet, partly or fully, the shortage of waters in the Krishna. Since this water shortage had been created by over-appropriations by Andhra Pradesh with evident assistance of the Centre, it was the responsibility of the Andhra Pradesh Government to take up this work of diversion at its own cost and meet its water requirement from its share of the Godavari waters which would come to Andhra Pradesh on equitable apportionment by the Tribunal. Mysore contended that if Andhra Pradesh should require waters in excess of its legitimate share to irrigate vast areas for raising a second or even a third crop, it was open to that State to divert waters from the Godavari, since the Godavari had plentiful waters for such diversion. The necessity for the diversion would appear from the report of the Krishna Godavari Commission and the statement of the Union Minister for Irrigation and Power in the Lok Sabha on the 23rd March, 1963. Andhra Pradesh opposed the diversion and contended (3) that the dispute was not a "water dispute" within the purview of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act. Andhra Pradesh contended that it was for Andhra Pradesh to consider whether it should augment its supplies in the Krishna by diversion of its share of the Godavari waters if its share of the Krishna waters fell short of its commitments and that this
matter did not concern the other two States.
Issue.—The following issue ( Issue VI) was raised.—
"Is it possible to divert waters from the river Godavari to the river Krishna ? Should such diversion be made and, if so, when, by whom, in what manner and at whose cost ? Is the Tribunal competent to adjudicate on these questions ?"
Order of the Tribunal.—On April 19, 1971, the Tribunal passed an Order in terms of the following agreed minutes filed by Counsels for the States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa :—
"(1) Parties have agreed that each of the States concerned will be at liberty to divert any part of the share of the Godavari waters allocated to it by the Godavari Tribunal from the Godavari basin to any other basin.
(2) In view of the pleadings and the statements of the States concerned, none of the States asks for a mandatory order for diversion of the Godavari waters into the Krishna basin.
(3) All the other contentions of the parties are reserved and will be decided in the Krishna case.
(4) The Krishna case will be decided separately from the Godavari case.
(5) The States of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa are ordered to be discharged from the record of this case and will no longer be parties to this case.
(6) The States of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa will bear and pay their own costs."
Clause 1 of the above order was amended by an order passed in terms of agreed minutes filed by the parties on the 27th July, 1971. The amended clause 1 is as follows :—
"Parties have agreed that each of the States concerned will be at liberty to divert any part of the share of the Godavari waters which may be allocated to it by the Godavari Tribunal from the Godavari basin to any other basin." Similar orders were passed in the Godavari case.
Effect of Orders of the Tribunal.—In view of the above orders, the State of Andhra Pradesh is free to divert its share of the Godavari waters to the Krishna river, but it cannot be compelled to do so. It is still necessary to consider whether the possibility of the diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna or the absence of such diversion affects the equitable share of the parties in the Krishna waters.
Topo-sheet study.—The upper reaches of the Godavari Valley are lower than the corresponding
reaches of the Krishna Valley. It is, therefore, not possible to divert, by flow, any waters from the upper reaches of the Godavari into the upper reaches of the Krishna.
The highest suitable point on the Godavari is near Pochampad from where its waters can be dropped into the Nagarjunasagar reservoir on the Krishna. In the lower reaches, there are possibilities of diverting the Godavari waters by a link canal from the Godavari near Albaka to Pulichintala on the Krishna and a link canal from the Godavari at Polavaram to Vijayawada.
Earlier Proposal.—The Ramapadasagar Project of 1951 contemplated diversion of the Godavari
waters by the Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal. The Khosla Committee discussed the possibility of the diversion.
Krishna Godavari Commission.—In 1961, the Krishna Godavari Commission was asked to report on the feasibility of diverting any surplus supplies in the Godavari to the Krishna indicating the quantity to be diverted and the cost involved. After examining this question, the Commission recommended that the shortage in the Krishna basin could be made up partly by the transfer of
such surplus supplies from the lower Godavari area as could be utilised in the Krishna basin by the following two link canals :—
(a) A link canal from the Godavari at Polavaram to Vijayawada at a cost of about Rs. 40 crores. This link canal would transfer about 211 T. M. Cft. of water to the Krishna.
(b) A link canal from the Godavari near Albaka or Singaraddy to Pulichintala on the Krishna at a cost of about Rs. 40 crores. This link canal would transfer about 95 T. M. Cft. of water to the Krishna.
The Commission considered that it should be possible, on the basis of the information contained in their report as well as field reconnaissance and some preliminary surveys to be carried out, to prepare a preliminary project report in about 6 months and establish the feasibility or otherwise and the scope of the proposed diversions from the Godavari to the Krishna. (6)
Later investigations.—As a result of the recommendations of the Krishna Godavari Commission, the work of investigating the diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna was entrusted to the Central Water and Power Commission and two Circles were opened, one for investigating the diversion links and the other for measuring discharges at some key stations on the Krishna and Godavari rivers. The Government of India set up the Godavari Krishna Technical Committee to review the progress of work in the two Circles and give suitable guidance to them. The feasibility of the link canals was discussed in four meetings of the Godavari Krishna Technical Committee between 1963 and 1966 and in inter-State meetings held in August and October 1967. No agreement on the subject was reached between the concerned States.
Godavari-Pulichintala link canal.—The Krishna Godavari Commission considered that it might be possible to divert 95 T. M. C. of the Godavari waters annually from this link canal. However, it is no longer contended by Maharashtra and Mysore that this link canal is technically feasible. Accordingly, we are not called upon to consider the possibility of diversion by this link canal.
Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal.—This link canal formed part of the Ramapadasagar Project which was later abandoned. The Polavaram Barrage scheme proposed by Andhra Pradesh consists of a barrage at Polavaram on the Godavari and two canals. The right bank canal of this scheme would run up to Vijayawada. At the first meeting of the Godavari Krishna Technical Committee, all members agreed that Polavaram would be the best site for the link canal and that since the Polavaram barrage as well as the Vijayawada barrage would have no storage of their own, it would be necessary to have a storage site on the Godavari river upstream of Polavaram to provide the necessary storage for meeting the requirements of both the Godavari and Krishna Delta canals.At the second meeting of the Committee it was decided that the base study for the link canal would be made on the basis that the link canal would take off by a diversion structure from near about Polavaram and would get regulated supplies from a storage higher up or releases from a number of projects high up.
At the second, third and fourth meetings of the Committee and at inter-State meetings held in August and October 1967 several storage sites on the Godavari were discussed, but no agreement was reached. Maharashtra has stated that storages at Inchampalli and Ippur [Polavaram]at the requisite level are not permissible in view of the extensive submergence of areas in Maharashtra and MadhyaPradesh
At the second, third and fourth meetings of the Committee and at inter-State meetings held in August and October 1967 several storage sites on the Godavari were discussed, but no agreement was reached. Maharashtra has stated that storages at Inchampalli and Ippur [Polavaram]at the requisite level are not permissible in view of the extensive submergence of areas in Maharashtra and MadhyaPradesh
and that except the Bhopalpatnam and Watra Badruk Projects no other storage for meeting the reasonable irrigation needs of Andhra Pradesh is feasible.(10) This statement is not disputed by Mysore.
Revised Maharashtra Scheme.—In its final statement regarding the Godavari diversion, Maharashtra proposes that for meeting the needs of the Krishna Delta, 146 T. M. C. of the Godavari waters may be diverted by the Polavaram-Vijayawada Link canal from the run of the river supplies and regulated releases of 171 T. M. C. from the Bhopalpatnam storage and 182 T. M. C. from the Watra Badruk storage. The Bhopalpatnam storage on the Indravati river would be a joint project of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and the Watra Badruk storage on the Pranhita river would be a joint project of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. One of the two storages is necessary and sufficient for the diversion scheme. Sufficient surplus supply from Andhra Pradesh's share in the Godavari waters after meeting its reasonable requirements will be available for diversion to the Krishna. The right bank canal of the Polavaram barrage scheme with suitable modifications can serve as the Polavaram-Vijayawada link canal. Mysore generally generally supports this proposal. Andhra Pradesh opposes the proposal.
Proposals for Bhopalpatnam and Watra Badruk projects.—
Before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh proposed Bhopalpatnam Project Stages I and II as a joint project of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra(l4). The note on the Project stated that the proposal was based on topo-sheets and that field investigations were being undertaken. Maharashtra supported the proposal(15) The Project would submerge large areas in the territories of both Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Before the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh proposed the Watra Badruk (Pranhita) Project and stated that it would be for the mutual benefit of Maharashtra and Andhra States if the project was taken up as a joint venture. Andhra Pradesh stated that detailed investigation of the scheme was in progress.
The project would submerge large areas in the territories of both Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Maharashtra supported the proposal. There is no material before the Tribunal to show that the field investigations have been completed. No joint project report of either the Bhopalpatnam Project or the Watra Badruk Project has been filed before the Tribunal.
After the project reports are prepared, joint cost-benefit schemes will have to be finalised and it will be then for the States to consider whether any of the joint projects is feasible or advantageous. It is not possible at this stage to say that Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh will enter into an agreement for the undertaking of the joint Bhopalpatnam Project or that Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra will enter into an agreement for the undertaking of the joint Watra Badruk Project. In the absence of an agreement, there cannot be a joint project or storage either at Bhopalpatnam or Watra Badruk. One of the two storages is necessary and essential for
the diversion scheme proposed by Maharashtra. On the present materials it is not possible to say with certainty that either of the two storages will be available in the near future.
Possibility of Godavari diversion and equitable apportionment of the Krishna waters.—It may be that sooner or later either the Bhopalpatnam Project or the Watra Badruk Project may materialise and in that event the scheme for diversion Of the Godavari waters to the Krishna river for meeting a part of the requirements of the Krishna Delta Canals can be carded out. But the remote possibility of diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna is not a sufficient ground now for cutting down the allocation of an equitable share of the Krishna waters to Andhra Pradesh for meeting its needs.
Maharashtra argument regarding equities.—Maharashtraargues that in view of the statement of the Union Minister for Irrigation and Power in the Lok Sabha on the 23rd March, 1963 and other statements of the Union Government regarding diversion of the Godavari waters into the Krishna, equities have arisen in favour of Maharashtra and Mysore and that if the diversion of the Godavari waters to the Krishna does not materialise, the allocations for Nagarjunasagar and Srisailam Project of Andhra Pradesh should be suitably cut down and modified. We are unable to accept this contention for the following reasons :—
In his Lok Sabha speech on the 23rd March, 63,(18) the Union Minister for Irrigation & Power said that Nagarjunasagar Stage it could be cleared only after investigations on Godavari supplies would be completed.
He did not say that in the absence of the Godavari diversion the sanctioned Nagarjunasagar Project (Stage I) would be modified. Nagarjunasagar Project was undertaken in 1955 and its sanction was not dependent on the availability of supplies from the Godavari.
The Union Minister stated that Srisailam Project should be suitably modified after taking into account the requirement of 264 T. M. C. for Nagarjunasagar Project, the possibility of diversion of the Godavari waters and inflows between Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar. Suitable action was taken on this statement. On March 26, 1964, Srisailam Project was sanctioned by the Planning Commission. (10) The sanction was on the basis of ultimate water release of 180 T. M. C. from Srisailam.
The preliminary sanction letter of June 7, 1963 and the letter and note of Planning Commission dated July 5, 1963 (20) pointed out that even on the assumption that the Godavari diversion would materialise, it could be safely assumed that the minimum release for power generation from Srisailam would be 180 T. M. C. annually. If there is no diversion of the Godavari waters into the Krishna, it will be necessary to release more than 180 T. M. C. annually from Srisailam to meet the requirements of Nagarjunasagar Project and Krishna Delta Canals. The sanctioned Srisailam Project is not dependent or conditioned on the availability of additional supplies in the Krishna from the Godavari diversion.
On March 23, 1963, the Union Minister also stated that pending final allocation of waters, Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh should withdraw respectively 400 T.M.C., 600 TMC and 800 T.M.C. of supplies from the Krishna. At a meeting between the representatives of Maharashtra and Union Governments on April 22, 1963(21). Shri S. B. Chavan, Minister of Irrigation &Power, Government of Maharashtra said that it was not clear on what basis the withdrawals had been allowed. Shri Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, Union Minister for Irrigation and Power stated that the withdrawals indicated by him were only estimates and were not in any way final allocations. Shri M. R. Sachdev, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power stated that sizeable surpluses would be available for further allocation to Maharashtra and Mysore as a result of diversion of the surplus waters of the Godavari to the Krishna but the quantum would be known after the investigations would be completed.
Shri C. L. Handa, Member, Central Water and Power Commission stated that additional supplies would be available as a result of diversion of the surplus waters of the Godavari estimated at 300 T. M. C. by the Gulhati Commission, and from regeneration or salvage of irrigation flows ; but he could not say how much of the additional supply would be available to Maharashtra. Shri O. V.Alagesan, Minister of State, Irrigation & Power said that 300 T. M. C. as a result of the Godavari diversion and 300 T. M. C. as a result of regeneration or salvage i.e. in all 600 T.M.C. would be available and the allocations had been made on that basis. Shri Handa stated that the surpluses on account of regeneration and salvage could not be quantified. Shri B. Y. Barve, Minister of Finance, Government of Maharashtra stated that, according to Maharashtra, hardly any further supplies in addition to the withdrawals of 400, 600 and 800 T. M. C. indicated in the Union Minister's statement would be available for allocation from the Krishna. No definite assurance was given to Maharashtra by the Union Government that investigations regarding the Godavari diversion had been completed and such diversion was technically feasible, or that any portion of the additional supplies in the Krishna from the diversion would be available to Maharashtra, nor did Maharashtra act upon such an assurance. No representative of Andhra Pradesh was present at the meeting. Our attention was not drawn to any other statement of the Union Government in this connection.
Andhra Pradesh made no representations concerning Godavari diversion for which it can be saddled with any equities in favour of Maharashtra and Mysore. The States of Maharashtra and Mysore submitted that in the event of diversion of the waters of the river Godavari to the river Krishna, there should be a self-executing order providing for equitable distribution of such waters.
Alternatively, they submitted that in the event of augmentation of the water of the river Krishna by the diversion of the waters of the_ Godavari, the Ganga or any other river, liberty should be reserved to them to claim the benefits of the diverted waters. The State of Andhra Pradesh strongly disputed these claims. The question whether the States of Maharashtra and Mysore should be given any share in the "diverted waters will require examination if and when the waters of the river Godavari or any other river are diverted into the river Krishna. We are providing for review of our final order after the 31st May, 2000. We are inclined to think that all the States should be at liberty to urge their respective contentions before the reviewing authority after the 31st May, 2000 and not earlier. Accordingly, we proposeto pass the following order :—
"In the event of the augmentation of the waters of the river Krishna by the diversion of the waters of any other river, no State shall be debarred from claiming before the aforesaid reviewing authority or tribunal that it is entitled to greater share in the waters of the river Krishna on account of such augmentation nor shall any State be debarred from disputing such claim".
Issue VI is answered accordingly.
(1) MRK I pp. 204,213-222, 225 (2) MYK I pp. 55-57, 65. (3) APK VII pp. 8-9.
(4) Ramapadasagar Project Report 1951 Vol. I, pp. 14, 17, 20, Vol II, Index Map. 4
(5) Report of the Technical Committee for optimum utilization of the Krishna and Godavari Waters 1953, pp. 73-76, 101-103
(6) Krishna Godavari Commission Report, pp. 2, 290-294, 320-321.
(7) MRK I p. 217; MRDK II pp. 79-83. (8) MRDK II p. 85. (9) MRDK II pp. 83-113.
(10) SP II, p. 10. (11) SP I1, pp. 2-39. (12) SP II, pp. 40-47 (13) SP II, pp. 48-63
(14) Notes on Bhopalpatnam Project I and II, MPPG XI. Similar proposal was made before the Krishna Godavari Commission, see KGCR Ann. XV p. 241.
(15) MRPG XXXVIII p. 193, MRG II pp. 78-81; MRK I p. 220.
(16) Note on Pranhita Project APPG XI pp. 23-24. Separate projects on the Pranhita river near Watra Badruk were proposed by Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra before the Krishna Godavari Commission, see KGCR Ann. XV pp. 139-141, 505-507.
(17) MRG II, pp. 82-85; MRK I, p. 220. (18) MYDK I pp. 156-171. (19) MRK II, p. 310.
(20) APDK VIII, pp. 1-5; MYDK II, p. 320. (21) MRK II, pp. 205-218.
Note: According to Chapter-II on references and subsequent proceedings the tribunal stated thus “on 19-4-1971 all the parties jointly stated that none of the states would asked for a mandatory order for such diversion (of Godavari waters into Krishna river). Thereafter Madhya Pradesh and Orissa were not interested in the Krishna case among the original parties to the dispute including Andhra Pradesh, Maharahstra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and hence Madhya Pradesh and Orissa were discharged from the records of the Krishna case.
Under Para 91 the Bachawat tribunal that they have decided to enforce the agreements made by the basin states on sharing of Godavari waters except on one point of controversy between the parties pertaining to Polavaram project. This controversy relates to FRL and MWL of the dam which was first conceived under the Rampada sagar project which consisted of a concrete dam with a hydro-power station with 150 MW power generation. AP State filed in June 1970 before the tribunal a report of Polavaram barrage scheme with FRL of the barrage at 145ft and minimum pond level at +45ft. with FSL of left Bank canal at +137ft and +138ft. for right canal. AP State submitted in May 1978 another report called Polavaram project with head works consisting of an earth-cum-rock-fill dam for spillway design flood of 36 lakh cusecs with FRL of reservoir at +45.72m. Maharashtra and Karnataka started agitating for utilization of more Krishna water by diverting Godavari water into Krishna and so on 4-8-1978 Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh entered into an unusual agreement stating that subjective clearance of Polavaram project by CWC for FRL/MWL at 150ft. AP State agrees to divert 80 TMC into Krishna so that Karnataka and Maharashtra can get additional 35 TMC from Krishna waters and that AP State will submit project report to CWC within 3 months of the agreement among the 5 basin states subject to the condition that AP State will bear the full costs of diversion. Ultimately under para 122 CWC can clear the project either with FRL/MWL of 150ft or for such other height as may be sanctioned by the CWC.
When Karnataka stated that FRL/MWL +150ft for Polavaram is not a condition precedent for diversion of 80 TMC of Godavari water into Krishna, AP condemned this act and warned on 26-10-1979 that there can be no question of diversion of Godavari water into Krishna unless Polavaram project is cleared for +150ft and asked the tribunal to allow a level of 150ft. subject to such safeguards as a tribunal may prescribe so as to give effective to all the agreements without determent to any of the parties. It means CWC is empowered to fix FRL at 150ft or even less as considered practicable.
When Karnataka stated that FRL/MWL +150ft for Polavaram is not a condition precedent for diversion of 80 TMC of Godavari water into Krishna, AP condemned this act and warned on 26-10-1979 that there can be no question of diversion of Godavari water into Krishna unless Polavaram project is cleared for +150ft and asked the tribunal to allow a level of 150ft. subject to such safeguards as a tribunal may prescribe so as to give effective to all the agreements without determent to any of the parties. It means CWC is empowered to fix FRL at 150ft or even less as considered practicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment