You are on page 1of 63

1 of 63

REVIEW OF KRISHNA WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL-2 FINAL REPORT
N. Sasidhar
Synopsis: The water use allocations from the Krishna River to the three riparian states Maharashtra, Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh by earlier Justice Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT1) and the recent Justice Brijesh Kumar tribunal
(KWDT2) are analyzed in this study. The sustainable productivity and ecology on the Krishna river basin area located
in last riparian state AP would suffer in unrecoverable way if the KWDT2 water use allocations are accepted or
implemented. The water use allocations by KWDT1 which is 83% of total water availability in the river is already
close to the optimum limit. Rest of water in the river is serving the purpose of annual environmental and salt export
requirements. This study brings out total 38 issues involving legal, policy, scientific and implementation aspects which
are not adhered by KWDT2 while permitting additional water use allocations to the states.

Important role of a downstream state in a river basin:
It is presumed many times without much thought that downstream state is demanding unnecessary share of water from
the upstream river basin states. But we should understand the contribution of a downstream state in correct
perspective.
Before the rain water collects in the river, it picks up many salts in dissolved form from the soil on which it flows or
percolates. The nature and quantity of total dissolved salts (TDS) depends on the chemical weathering rate of rocks,
industrial activity, mining activity, anthropogenic activity, ground water usage, surface water usage, the extent of
acidity in the rain water, etc in a particular area.
Also the rain fall pattern in Krishna river basin is not uniform throughout the year. Most of the rain takes place in four
months of south west monsoon period. Most of the flood water is generated due to very high rain fall in Western
Ghats which are part of uplands in Krishna river basin. The Western Ghats occupy only 9.5% of basin area but

2 of 63

contribute 57% of total inflows to the river. Frequently the monsoon floods take place in the entire stretch of main
river course causing huge property loss and human fatalities & sufferings.
If we imagine a state constructing a tall dam across the river to prevent its water passage to the downstream state, the
water reservoir created behind the dam is similar to the land locked Dead Sea in Israel or Caspian Sea in Russia/Iran
or Sambhar lake in Rajasthan state. Since there is no outlet to the sea from the lake, nearly 20,000 square km land gets
submerged in case of Krishna River. The water flowing in to the lake from the river will get evaporated accumulating
dissolved salts in the lake water. Gradually, the lake water turns unfit for agriculture, human and cattle use due to its
high TDS or salinity. In other words, a downstream state is helping the upstream states by providing passage to the
Sea for its flood water and also exporting the salts carried from its river basin. This is at the cost of the downstream
state suffering from floods in its territory. It is also avoiding the potential submergence of upstream state area and
possible ecological damage by the presence of a saline water lake in its territory. Internationally it is an acceptable
practice that 35 to 40% of the inflows from the upstream state is spared to the downstream state depending on the river
water quality. Most of the dissolved salt load in Krishna river water is originating from the weathering of basalt rocks
in Deccan plateau area of Karnataka (K) and Maharashtra (MR). Even the downstream state cannot utilize all the
water available from the river because 100% utilization of water without leaving in to the Sea will accumulate salts in
its soil & ground water which will gradually make the soil unfit for agriculture. Also both river and ground waters will
be unfit for human & cattle consumption. This will lead to catastrophic environmental disaster over a period of time
reducing sustainable productivity of soil. So it is must to release adequate quantity of water in to the sea to maintain
the river water TDS in acceptable limits. Rejecting the dissolved salts from the river basin to the sea is called “salt
export”. These factors are to be considered while making river water allocation for use among the river basin states.
Already the monsoon period TDS of Krishna river water upstream of Prakasam Barrage near Vijayawada is 450 mg/L
which is highest among Indian major rivers. The peak TDS is nearly 700 mg/L during summer months whereas safe
drinking water limit is 500 mg/L. During the decade 1998-2007, out of 2402 TMC annual average yield (page 303 of
KWDT-2) in the river, 510 TMC on an average per year was discharged to the Sea which is only 21% of total yield.

3 of 63

This water use in the river basin is excluding the ground water use which is of the order of 700 TMC. The average
discharge to the sea is only 16.5% of the total yield in the river basin considering ground water irrigation use also.
Unplanned water utilization in Murray - Darling River basin in Australia has enhanced the salinity /TDS of river water
beyond safe limits which is affecting the long term sustainable productivity of the river basin. The long term average
quantity of water let to the Sea has reduced to 15% of total water yield in the river increasing the river water salinity to
unacceptable levels. So Murray - Darling Basin Authority is established to take up remedial action plan for recovering
the damage occurred to the sustainable productivity of the river basin. Water quality and salinity management is made
part of this plan. It has stipulated that water TDS limit of 500 mg/L should not exceed 95% of the duration in a year. It
has stipulated to curtail existing irrigation use/entitlement to enhance the water required for salt export.
The present Krishna River water use entitlements given to the riparian states is 2130 TMC out of 2578 TMC average
yearly flow which is nearly 83%. With less water discharging to the Sea, salts would accumulate in the river basin‟s
low lands reducing its fertility. Further use of water in the river basin will affect long term sustainable productivity of
the river basin particularly in downstream state Andhra Pradesh (AP). The average yearly salt export requirement is
nearly 12 million tons in Krishna basin area up to Prakasam barrage. At least 850 TMC (24 billion cubic meters) water
is required for the purpose of salt export either to the sea or to outside the river basin area to maintain salt content
below 500 mg/l in the river water. Presently nearly 400 TMC Krishna water is diverted outside the basin area in AP.
This diverted water is also serving the purpose of salt export from Krishna river basin.
Krishna water dispute tribunal (KWDT-1) award:
This award which is presently under implementation has considered all the aspects of river water sharing among the
Krishna river basin states MR, K & AP.
When water usage is contemplated for irrigation schemes, the availability of water should not be less than 3 years out
of four years period (i.e. success rate of 75% or better). Generally good rainfall takes place in two out of three years

4 of 63

and the rain fed agriculture output in a good rain fall year is not bad compared to that of canal irrigation in the same
area. It is true that any irrigation project becomes highly uneconomical for its marginal incremental agricultural
production if irrigation water is supplied twice in three years or once in two years. Based on this minimum water use
reliability, the 75% dependable yield in the river is considered by KWDT-1. The water required from the river basin is
decided as 2130 TMC (2060 TMC plus additional regeneration flows of 70 TMC) for use by the riparian states at
minimum success rate of 75%. KWDT-1 has stipulated (clause V of the final order) that the states shall not use in any
water year more than 2130 TMC as permanent allocations. KWDT-1 has clearly defined (clause VII) the term „water
use‟ stating that the water diverted from a reservoir for a state‟s use in any water year shall be reckoned as use in that
water year and mere creation of water storage in any water year in a reservoir is not water use in that water year other
than its evaporation loss. This interpretation is also given by Supreme Court (page 131 of KWDT-2 report) when AP
went to Supreme Court on Almatti dam height issue.
From the clauses V & VII, it is very clear that water allocation is not done subject to water availability in the river on
yearly basis. It has permitted to use water every year at 100% success rate by using stored water from the reservoirs as
carry over storage. The water available above 2130 TMC yield during the excess water yield years can be stored as
carry over storage to meet the shortages during deficit water yield years. Thus KWDT-1 has allocated water to the
extent of 2130 TMC out of average yield in the river alleviating the vagaries of monsoon / nature.
KWDT-1 has also stipulated (clause VIII) that the right to use the water allocations will not lapse in case of non
utilization without any time limit. It is also stipulated (clause XIV) that the allocations made by it shall not be changed
by future tribunal if a project / utilization is already undertaken for development. All the projects for which water
allocation were made by KWDT-1 are undertaken and utilizing the water allocation at 75% success rate or more but
not yet completed by achieving 100% success rate.
KWDT-1 headed by Justice Bhachawat has judiciously and aptly allocated the river water among the riparian states on
equitable basis at 2130 TMC (100% success rate) out of average yield in the river and left the rest of water (nearly 448

5 of 63

TMC other than 400 TMC approximately transferred outside the basin area in AP up to Prakasam barrage) for the salt
export to the Sea and for the long term sustainable river basin productivity and its ecology.
KWDT-2 final award:
KWDT-2 was formed in the year 2004 on the request of basin states to resolve various demands/complaints. KWDT-2
headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar has given its final report/decision recently in the month of November, 2013. It has
assessed the average yield (at 58% dependable yield) in the river as 2578 TMC, 50% dependable yield as 2626 TMC,
65% dependable yield as 2293 TMC and 75% dependable yield as 2173 TMC. The unallocated water available is 43
TMC at 75% yield and 448 TMC on an average after deducting the 2130 TMC allocation by earlier KWDT-1. All the
water available up to 2578 tmc is allotted to riparian states. Maharashtra got 666 tmc, Karnataka got 907 tmc and
Andhra Pradesh got 1005.
The additional allocations made from 2131 to 2293 TMC (46 TMC to MR, 68 TMC to K, 49 TMC to AP and total
163 TMC) and 2294 to 2578 TMC (35 TMC to MR, 105 TMC to K, 145 TMC to AP and total 285 TMC) among the
states are not on proportional water availability basis in these water availability ranges but blocks wise. The block
wise allotment leads to inequitable allocation at different dependability among the states. MR will get water allocation
at 75% dependability followed by K at 70% dependability and AP at 65% for the water allocations between
dependability 2131 & 2293 TMC. MR will get water allocation at 65% dependability followed by K at 60%
dependability and AP at 58% for the water allocations between dependability 2294 & 2578 TMC. Also AP will suffer
without effecting K & MR up to 145 TMC, if the actual average river water flow is less than assessed 2578 TMC by
KWDT-2. If the water use allocations are made in proportion to water availability, the burden is shared among all the
states on equitable basis. This anomaly should be rectified by envisaging proportional allotment in each allocation
range from 0 to 2578 TMC.
The average yearly water available for environmental flows and the salt export has been reduced by KWDT-II to 171
tmc (including 16 tmc minimum continuous environmental flows) from 448 tmc giving 277 tmc additional allocations

6 of 63

to the states for their beneficial use. On average, 93.33% of the total water available in the river is allocated for water
uses by the states. There is no mention or discussion on mean annual environmental flow requirement and the salt
export water needs which have been taking place time immemorial and have been considered not essential needs by
the tribunal disregarding the sustainable productivity and the ecology of the river basin particularly in the tail end
areas.
KWDT-2 has not applied broad vision to address all the issues of a river basin. It went on quoting / referring earlier
KWDT-1 discussions without trying to understand the changes that have taken place in last 35 years after the KWDT-
1 award. Unrestricted ground water usage is permitted by KWDT–1. Ground water exploitation has increased many
folds in last 35 years. KWDT-2 has not deliberated how the ever increasing ground water use is diminishing the
inflows in the river and the river water quality. It has not bothered to address the problem of frequent floods by using
the substantial storage capacity created in the river basin. The floods can be moderated in the river basin with the help
of available live storage capacity (1750 TMC) by releasing uniform flows during monsoon months in to the
downstream river. It has also not examined to enhance/optimize the hydro power generation in the river basin by
maintaining uniform water flow during monsoon months. Presently, the initial flows are used to fill the upstream
reservoirs and subsequently downstream reservoirs get filled with the flood water. The excess water overflows all the
dams during floods in few days without being used for hydro electricity generation. If water is uniformly allowed to
flow downstream from upstream reservoirs during monsoon season, the surplus/flood water can be fully put to use for
hydro power generation enhancing electricity generation by 100%. Krishna river basin is noted for its hydro electric
stations/potential with nearly 340 meters head put to use for power generation. Another 140 meters head could be put
to use for power generation in future. It is fruitful by thinking how to derive productivity from the available flood
water with the existing infrastructure during good monsoon years rather than fighting for water which is in short
supply during bad monsoon years.
KWDT-1 and KWDT-2 reports: http://www.irrigation.ap.gov.in/kwdtaward.html

7 of 63

http://www.scribd.com/doc/66801452/Interstate-River-Water-Disputes-Act “Interstate river water disputes act - 1956
and its legal provisions”
The following are the issues which have not been adhered by KWDT2 in its final Krishna river water allocations
which are violations of constitutional rights of states (s.no. 17 of States list, Seventh Schedule of Indian constitution),
central government policy on river water, Supreme Court earlier interpretations on KWDT1, valid interstate
agreements, and international practice of equitable water distribution and Interstate river water disputes act – 1956.
1. Whether the KWDT1 water use allocations are out of the mean annual availability in the Krishna river.
As per clauses V & VII of final order of KWDT-1, a state can fully use its allocated water in any water year (in case
of deficit water year also) with the help of carry over storage facility. A state can create carryover storage during the
years when water availability in the river is in excess of 2130 thousand million cubic feet (tmc) to use in the water
year when water availability in the river is less than 2130 TMC. Thus KWDT-1 allocated water use from the river up
to 2060 tmc (plus regeneration flows) at 100% success rate out of average yield in the river and not subject to water
availability in a 75% dependable year. In clause VII of the final order, KWDT1 stipulated that mere creation of water
storage across a stream in Krishna river basin is not water use in that water year and water use from such reservoir
shall be accounted in the water year during which water diversion has taken place from the reservoir. This fact is
recorded (page 125 of the report) by KWDT2 quoting Supreme Court interpretation that there is no restriction up to
mass allocation of water in a year.
Supreme Court [(page 24) State of Andhra Pradesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 April, 2000 on Almatti dam
dispute] gave interpretation of clause VII of KWDT1 final order stating that storage shall not of itself be reckoned as
depletion of the water of the stream except to the extent of the losses of water from evaporation and other natural
causes from such reservoir. The water diverted from such reservoir for its own use, however, has to be reckoned as use
by that State in the water year.
Clause III of the KWDT1 final order talks about water availability at 2060 tmc plus return flows for distribution
among the states which is equal to 75% dependable flow of the Krishna river at Vijayawada. It does not convey that
the total water use allocations in a water year is limited by total water availability in the river in that year during a

8 of 63

deficit water year. KWDT permitted (clause V of the final order) to use water allocation up to permitted limit in any
water year (i.e. any water year can be deficit year or excess water year). It is not possible to fully utilize water use
allocations in a deficit year as provided in clause V if the water use is limited to the river water flows available in a
water year. Also clause VII permits to store water in excess years and use in deficit years for meeting the water use
allocation limit. Thus KWDT1 does not limit water uses subject to water availability in a water year. KWDT1 has not
allowed any assistance from the upstream states to share the water shortage faced by AP in deficit years. The deficit
faced by AP or any other state has to be overcome by creating carryover storages to store the water in the excess water
years only.
The Krishna basin yearly water data is shown in descending order in the graph given in the next page. During the
excess water availability years, AP or any state can store the water in carryover storage reservoirs and use during the
deficit years. The mean annual availability of 2130 tmc is equal to 2660 tmc dependability (46% dependability) which
is the safe selection for meeting the deficit below 2130 tmc availability. The rest of waters (448 tmc mean annual) are
unallocated by the KWDT1 and serving as environmental flows and salt export water in the basin. The unallocated
water by KWDT1 is the water available in a 46% dependable year after 2130 tmc water use allocations. Strictly
speaking, there is no clear cut demarcation of eligible carryover storage water and the unallocated water by the
KWDT1as shown in the graph. The demarcation up to 2660 tmc (46%) availability is the possible best way of using
the reliable waters available above 2130 tmc with minimum carryover storage capacity. However establishing huge
capacity carryover capacity is not economically feasible to cover the total deficit in all years particularly when two or
three deficit water years occur continuously. 2660 tmc at 46% dependability is approximately required dependability
to meet KWDT1 allocations if its full water use allocations are to be realized.
In page 325 of KWDT2 draft report, KWDT2 stated that the gross storage capacity of Andhra Pradesh is 805.84 tmc
and live storage 555.84 tmc which includes 150 tmc carryover as part of its live storage capacity. There is 250 tmc
dead storage mainly in Srisailam (MDDL 834 feet) and Nagarjunasagar reservoirs in AP most of which is free from
siltation and occasionally more than 150 tmc of this dead storage capacity is also used to meet large deficits in a water
year (page 271 of KWDT2 further report). With these carryover storages, AP is able to compensate its deficit from 77
tmc to 47 tmc average by 38% as shown in Table B with the help of 300 tmc carryover capacity. Utilization of 764
tmc at 100% success rate is equal to 94% of the permitted 811 tmc use in all years. Remaining 47 tmc can be

9 of 63

harnessed by new carryover storages. There is no restriction for construction of additional storages in AP by KWDT1
or KWDT2 awards. When these storages are constructed, they will serve multipurpose for meeting carryover storage
needs, pumped storage hydroelectric powers stations, lift irrigation schemes and for facilitating the water transfer from
Godavari river.
From the stipulations of clauses V and VII of KWDT1final order and its Supreme Court interpretation available
already, it is clear that permitted water use allocations in a water year by KWDT1are from mean annual flows
available in the river and not limited by water availability in a water year. Also AP is capable of covering the deficit
faced with the help of available carryover storage. Also clause VII(B) of KWDT1final order states that failure of any
state to make use of any portion of the water allocated to it during any water year shall not constitute forfeiture or
abandonment of its share of water in any consequent water year.
KWDT2 (clauses III to X of the final order) permitting Karnataka and MR to use water at 65% and average yield
above 2130 tmc availability is denying the first right of storing water in carryover storages by AP till all its carryover
storage is replenished for subsequent use in deficit years up to the permitted water use allocation (811 tmc) by
KWDT1. Section 4(1) of ISRWD act (amendment 2002) says that any dispute settled by a tribunal before the
commencement of the ISRWD act (amendment 2002) shall not be reopened. Clause XIV of the final order of KWDT1
states while reviewing the KWDT1 order by new tribunal, such review shall not as far as possible disturb any
utilization that might have been undertaken by any state within the limits of the allocation made to it.
Quoted references: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/744969/ Supreme Court order on Almatti dam height.
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1885876/ Supreme Court judgment on surplus water use by Andhra Pradesh.


10 of 63





11 of 63

TABLE - A: Water allocations as per KWDT1 and KWDT2
s.no Water
Year
Total water
availability
Yearly
flows in
descending
order
Depen
dability
water
availability
less than
2130 tmc in
a year
Yearly water use
allocations by
KWDT1 &
KWDT2#
Water
inflows in
ascending
order
Cumulative
water
inflows in
ascending
order
Average
yearly flow
(tmc) in
ascending
order
Surplus water
available after
KWDT-I
allotment.
1 61-62 3760 4193.72 2.13% 2562 1239.45 1239.45 1239.45
2 62-63 3079 3760 4.26% 2562 1252.68 2492.13 1246.065
3 63-64 2757 3624.04 6.38% 2562 1511.53 4003.66 1334.55333
4 64-65 3397 3519.36 8.51% 2562 1649.21 5652.87 1413.2175
5 65-66 2074 3397 10.64% -56 2130 1836.04 7488.91 1497.782
6 66-67 1957 3318.24 12.77% -173 2130 1839.65 9328.56 1554.76
7 67-68 2538 3238.71 14.89% 2522 1841.81 11170.37 1595.76714
8 68-69 2136 3230.91 17.02% 2136 1867.54 13037.91 1629.73875
9 69-70 2685 3186.66 19.15% 2562 1934.43 14972.34 1663.59333
10 70-71 2745 3185.01 21.28% 2562 1957 16929.34 1692.934
11 71-72 2231 3079 23.40% 2228 2074 19003.34 1727.57636
12 72-73 1511.53 2967.2 25.53% -618.47 2130 2136 21139.34 1761.61167
13 73-74 2801.89 2919.13 27.66% 2562 2185.69 23325.03 1794.23308
14 74-75 2654.66 2916.67 29.79% 2562 2193.63 25518.66 1822.76143
15 75-76 4193.72 2851.04 31.91% 2562 2201.96 27720.62 1848.04133
16 76-77 2595.45 2809.52 34.04% 2562 2231 29951.62 1871.97625
17 77-78 2588.82 2801.89 36.17% 2562 2283.37 32234.99 1896.17588
18 78-79 3519.36 2757 38.30% 2562 2305.56 34540.55 1918.91944
19 79-80 2724.43 2745 40.43% 2562 2489.85 37030.4 1948.96842
20 80-81 2809.52 2724.43 42.55% 2562 2538 39568.4 1978.42
21 81-82 2851.04 2685 44.68% 2562 2588.82 42157.22 2007.48667
22 82-83 2283.37 2654.66 46.81% 2273.37 2595.45 44752.67 2034.21227
23 83-84 3185.01 2628.35 48.94% 2562 2602.11 47354.78 2058.90348
24 84-85 2193.63 2624.23 51.06% 2190.63 2624.23 49979.01 2082.45875
25 85-86 1839.65 2602.11 53.19% -290.35 2130 2628.35 52607.36 2104.2944
s.no Water
Year
Total water
availability
Yearly
flows in
Depen
dability
water
availability
Yearly water
allocation on
Water
inflows in
Cumulative
water
Average
yearly flow
Surplus water
available after

12 of 63

descending
order
less than
2130 tmc in
a year
permanent basis
by KWDT1 & 2#
ascending
order
inflows in
ascending
order
(tmc) in
ascending
order
KWDT-I
allotment.
26 86-87 1841.81 2595.45 55.32% -288.19 2130 2654.66 55262.02 2125.46231
27 87-88 1649.21 2588.82 57.45% -480.79 2130 2685 57947.02 2146.18593 436.96
28 88-89 2967.2 2538 59.57% 2562 2724.43 60671.45 2166.8375 594.43
29 89-90 2602.11 2489.85 61.70% 2562 2745 63416.45 2186.77414 615
30 90-91 2919.13 2305.56 63.83% 2562 2757 66173.45 2205.78167 627
31 91-92 2916.67 2283.37 65.96% 2562 2801.89 68975.34 2225.01097 671.89
32 92-93 2201.96 2231 68.09% 2198.96 2809.52 71784.86 2243.27688 679.52
33 93-94 2624.23 2201.96 70.21% 2562 2851.04 74635.9 2261.69394 721.04
34 94-95 3318.24 2193.63 72.34% 2562 2916.67 77552.57 2280.95794 786.67
35 95-96 1867.54 2185.69 74.47% -262.46 2130 2919.13 80471.7 2299.19143 789.13
36 96-97 2628.35 2136 76.60% 2562 2967.2 83438.9 2317.74722 837.2
37 97-98 2489.85 2074 78.72% 2130 3079 86517.9 2338.32162 949
38 98-99 3238.71 1957 80.85% 2562 3185.01 89702.91 2360.60289 1055.01
39 99-00 2305.56 1934.43 82.98% 2289.56 3186.66 92889.57 2381.78385 1056.66
40 00-01 2185.69 1867.54 85.11% 2182.69 3230.91 96120.48 2403.012 1100.91
41 01-02 1836.04 1841.81 87.23% -293.96 2130 3238.71 99359.19 2423.39488 1108.71
42 02-03 1239.45 1839.65 89.36% -890.55 2130 3318.24 102677.43 2444.70071 1188.24
43 03-04 1252.68 1836.04 91.49% -877.32 2130 3397 106074.43 2466.84721 1267
44 04-05 1934.43 1649.21 93.62% -195.57 2130 3519.36 109593.79 2490.76795 1389.36
45 05-06 3624.04 1511.53 95.74% 2562 3624.04 113217.83 2515.95178 1494.04
46 06-07 3186.66 1252.68 97.87% 2562 3760 116977.83 2542.9963 1630
47 07-08 3230.91 1239.45 100% 2562 4193.72 121171.55 2578.11809 2063.72
Total: 121171.6 121171.6 -4426.7 113099 121171.55 21061.49
Average: 2578.118 Average yearly deficit -94.184 @2406.36 Unallocated average by KWDT1 448.11681
# after deducting minimum environmental flows (maximum 16 tmc): All flows are in thousand million cubic feet (tmc).
The inflows data considered by KWDT2 (page 303 of the draft report) for 47 years period from 1961 to 2007 are used. 2660 tmc dependable yield is
required to match the 2130 tmc average allocations by KWDT1: 2660 tmc yield is equal to 46 % dependability for the inflows data.
@ The remaining yearly water left to flow to sea is only 171 tmc average after the 2407 tmc total allocations by KWDT1 and KWDT2 together

13 of 63

Table B: Reduction in deficit in Andhra Pradesh with 300 tmc carryover storage availability.
Water
Year
Total water
availability
Water
availability
less than
2130 TMC
in a year
Yearly
water
allocation
on
permanent
basis
Water use in
Maharashtra
water use or
availability
in Karnataka
Water
availability
in Andhra
Pradesh.
Deficit in
Karnataka
Deficit in
Andhra
Pradesh
Deficit with
300 tmc
carryover
storage
availability
in Andhra
Pradesh
61-62 3760 2130 585 734 2441
62-63 3079 2130 585 734 1760
63-64 2757 2130 585 734 1438
64-65 3397 2130 585 734 2078
65-66 2074 56 2130 585 734 755 56.00 0.00
66-67 1957 173 2130 585 734 638 173.00 0.00
67-68 2538 2130 585 734 1219
68-69 2136 2130 585 734 817
69-70 2685 2130 585 734 1366
70-71 2745 2130 585 734 1426
71-72 2231 2130 585 734 912
72-73 1511.53 618.47 2130 585 *633 293.53 101 517.47 217.47
73-74 2801.89 2130 585 734 1482.89
74-75 2654.66 2130 585 734 1335.66
75-76 4193.72 2130 585 734 2874.72
76-77 2595.45 2130 585 734 1276.45
77-78 2588.82 2130 585 734 1269.82
78-79 3519.36 2130 585 734 2200.36
79-80 2724.43 2130 585 734 1405.43
80-81 2809.52 2130 585 734 1490.52
81-82 2851.04 2130 585 734 1532.04
82-83 2283.37 2130 585 734 964.37
83-84 3185.01 2130 585 734 1866.01
84-85 2193.63 2130 585 734 874.63

14 of 63

85-86 1839.65 290.35 2130 585 734 520.65 290.35 0.00
86-87 1841.81 288.19 2130 585 734 522.81 288.19 278.54
87-88 1649.21 480.79 2130 585 *634 430.21 100 380.79 380.79
88-89 2967.2 2130 585 734 1648.2
89-90 2602.11 2130 585 734 1283.11
90-91 2919.13 2130 585 734 1600.13
91-92 2916.67 2130 585 734 1597.67
92-93 2201.96 2130 585 734 882.96
93-94 2624.23 2130 585 734 1305.23
94-95 3318.24 2130 585 734 1999.24
95-96 1867.54 262.46 2130 585 734 548.54 262.46 0.00
96-97 2628.35 2130 585 734 1309.35
97-98 2489.85 2130 585 734 1170.85
98-99 3238.71 2130 585 734 1919.71
99-00 2305.56 2130 585 734 986.56
00-01 2185.69 2130 585 734 866.69
01-02 1836.04 293.96 2130 585 734 517.04 293.96 0.00
02-03 1239.45 890.55 2130 585 *386 268.45 347 542.55 536.51
03-04 1252.68 877.32 2130 585 *472 195.68 261 615.32 615.32
04-05 1934.43 195.57 2130 585 734 615.43 195.57 195.57
05-06 3624.04 2130 585 734 2305.04
06-07 3186.66 2130 585 734 1867.66
07-08 3230.91 2130 585 734 1911.91
Total: 121171.6 4426.66 100110 811 3615.66 2224.20
Average: 2578.118 94.1843 17.26 76.93 47.32
deficit covered by carryover storage: 29.61
* data taken from table in pages 397 to 399 of KWDT2 draft report after increasing MR water consumption by 25 tmc to 585 tmc.
All flows are in tmc (ft):
The inflows data considered by KWDT2 (page 303 of the draft report) for 47 years period from 1961 to 2007 are used.
The average deficits in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are 17.26 tmc and 76.93 tmc respectively
Total deficit below 2130 tmc dependability is 94.18 tmc per year on average for meeting 2130 tmc allocations in all years.
Deficit in AP with 300 tmc carryover storage has reduced by 29.61 tmc from 76.93 tmc to 47.32 tmc


15 of 63


2. What is the allowed success rate of water use allocations by KWDT1 as per Clause V of the final order?
Success rate is 100% when the water use is 100% of the allocated water in all years or every year. As explained in
Issue no 1, KWDT1 has not imposed restrictions in realizing the water use allocations of the states in any manner.
There is no restriction imposed by KWDT1 for using up to100% success rate in a project or in a river sub basin or in a
state in any water year. It has also made provision (clause VII of the KWDT1 final order) to achieve its feasibility
with the help of carry over storages.
3. Was there any limitation on the carry over storage in any state by KWDT1
There is no restriction placed on the storage capacity whether annual or carryover storage of any state. However, the
extent of the losses of water from evaporation and other natural causes from such reservoirs in a water year should be
accounted as water use which shall not exceed the total water use allocation in Clause V of the final order.
Supreme Court earlier clarified [State Of Andhra Pradesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 April, 2000 on Almatti
dispute (page 9)] that Tribunal has not put any restriction on the storage by each State and according to Clause VII of
the final order of KWDT1 the storage of water by each State would not be considered as use of water by the State
concerned.
As there is no provision to share the deficit in a water year among the states, carryover storage is the only means to
achieve full utilization of KWDT1allocations particularly for AP. AP has to store more water as carryover storage
during the excess water years over its annual storage needs to recoup the water not available in the form of inevitable
wastage and the deficit faced during 25% deficit water years. MR does not need any carryover storage whereas
Karnataka may create to recoup the marginally less shortage in fewer (9%) deficit water years.
4. What was the purposes/utility of 150 tmc identified carry over storage in AP by KWDT1.
KWDT1 (page 120 of Vol 4) has allowed Andhra Pradesh to store water in the Srisailam Dam to the extent and in the
manner it would be feasible for it to do so and to utilise the water impounded in the storage in any manner it deems
proper and in lieu thereof no deduction has been made from the 75 per cent dependable flow on account of the

16 of 63

inevitable waste to the sea of a part of the flow between Nagarjunasagar Dam and Vijayawada. Thus the dependable
flow for distribution is enhanced.
It helps AP to store the water available in 75% excess water years and use in rest of 25% deficit water years (page 452
of vol 2 of KWDT1) to achieve its water allocation limit (800 tmc plus eligible return flows)
It also helps AP as annual storage to utilize the unallocated water going waste till the KWDT1 award is reviewed. The
liberty of using unallocated water available in excess water years is given to AP as per clause Vc of the KWDT1 final
order.
It helps to store excess water available in previous water year for meeting the initial season irrigation needs in next
water year as sufficient inflows in AP do not take place particularly from upstream states due to the reservoirs
filling/impoundment in Karnataka and MR.
It enhances the hydro electricity generation drastically at these two dams
It helps in moderating the floods in AP
It is to be brought to the notice that the storage capacity of Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar reservoirs or any other
reservoir in AP cannot be restricted by the tribunals as long as they are not affecting the interests of other basin states
as per section 3 of ISRWD act. A water dispute does not arise as per section 3 for settlement by the tribunal.
5. Whether enhanced inevitable water wastage in AP take place at 65% and 58% dependability. How much of the
150 tmc carryover storage is required to mitigate inevitable water wastage in AP in 58% dependable year?
AP estimated (page 545 of Vol 2 of KWDT1) that nearly 44.1 tmc (70% of 63.2 tmc) in a 75% dependable year is the
inevitable water wastage. From page no 303 of KWDT2 draft report, during the years, the wastage of water to the sea
in the years 2001 to 2004 was ranging from 111 tmc to 12 tmc. In all these four water years the total yield in the river
is far below 2130 tmc (not exceeding 1934 tmc) and water utilization in AP is below its allocation 811 tmc. Still 12 to
111 tmc water have gone to the sea as inevitable wastage. So there is fair possibility that nearly 70% of the 58%
dependable water yield from the catchment area lying below Nagarjunasagar can go waste to sea even after
construction of Pulichintala reservoir (37 tmc storage). This catchment area below Pulichintala is nearly 12000 square

17 of 63

km basin area occupying 5.3% of total Krishna basin area with a good rain fall (90 cm mean annual) in AP. Krishna
delta and this catchment are in same climatic zone which receive wide spread rains simultaneously. Thus when there is
no water requirement due to rains in Krishna delta, this catchment area also receive fair amount of rains and the river
flood flows to the Sea as waste due to inadequate storage in Prakasam barrage reservoir. Water is required to be
supplied to the fields from the canal only when the crops need water for their evaporo-transpiration during dry and
sunny weather. Crops consume very less water when the weather is damp and cloudy during the rains / rainy season.
This is applicable to any irrigation system and water needs in rainy season is nearly 25% of hot dry season and
irrigation canals are not fed at full capacity during rainy season. It is not that canals should be fully fed when there is
flood water availability in Prakasam barrage pond as observed by KWDT2 (Pages 369 to 389 of KWDT2 further
report). Water is to be used only whenever required by the crops. This situation is peculiar in the last terminal
Prakasam barrage because when water is not used from this barrage it goes waste to the sea. When this wastage in a
deficit water year takes place there is no chance of using excess water released downstream from Pulichintala or
Nagarjunasagar.
In case of upstream states, when the water is not used/stored by them it is available in AP for use or storage. So they
can rely on later flows to suit their water use pattern. Whereas this advantage is not available to AP because there is no
water allocation for annual environmental flows out of 75% dependable water (2130 tmc) and incase water could not
be used/stored by AP when it is available, it goes to Sea as waste.
More over the water availability below 58% (2578 tmc) dependability often take place more than two years at a
stretch from the river water yield data given in pages 302 & 303 of draft KWDT2 (chart 5) report. From the above it
can be concluded safely that 150 tmc carry over available in Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar reservoirs is fully required
for compensating the inevitable water wastage up to 58% dependable year.
6. Whether water going waste to sea in a water year is accounted in AP water use by KWDT2 due to inevitable
water wastage or AP is unable to store/ use the water available at 65% and 58% dependability due to lack of
sufficient storage capacity in the river basin.
KWDT2 final order (clause IXA 2 & 4) says that Karnataka and MR shall not use water under second instance till AP
had used 811 tmc under the first instance or 811 tmc water use is established in AP by the upstream states after

18 of 63

considering 369 tmc as 75% dependable yield generated in AP area. 369 tmc water generations in AP includes the
inevitable waste water going to sea. Thus water going waste to sea up to 75% dependable yield is considered as part of
AP‟s water allocations. However, the inevitable wastage taking place above 75 % dependable (above 369 tmc yield in
AP) yield is not to be accounted as water use by AP.
KWDT1 (page 120 of Vol 4) has allowed Andhra Pradesh to store water in the Srisailam Dam to the extent and in the
manner it would be feasible for it to do so and to utilise the water impounded in the storage in any manner it deems
proper and in lieu thereof no deduction has been made from the 75 per cent dependable flow on account of the
inevitable waste to the sea of a part of the flow between Nagarjunasagar Dam and Vijayawada. It does not mean the
wasted water to the sea is accounted under water use of AP.
Any inevitable wastage is not part of water use by AP as per clause VII of KWDT1final order which says water use
shall be reckoned when water is diverted or lifted from the river / stream or reservoir. Supreme Court [(page 25) State
of Andhra Pradesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 April, 2000 on Almatti dam dispute] gave interpretation of
clause VII of KWDT1 final order stating water flowing downstream of a barrage / dam is not water use even after
using for power generation.
KWDT2 final order (clause IXA 2 ii a) stipulating entire water generated in AP area of 369 tmc to be considered as
water use in AP in a 75% dependable year is against clause VII of KWDT1 final order. Water availability and water
uses are not equal. If any water going waste to the Sea and natural losses (evaporation and seepage from rivers and
streams) which are not due to manmade activities such as impounding water in reservoirs and other works, diverting
or lifting water from streams/reservoirs/storage, is not water use. Clause IXA 2 ii a of KWDT2 final order is reopening
the settled issue by KWDT1 under section 4(1) of ISRWD act and shall be made void and not applicable.
7. Is carryover storage to be considered as water use in KWDT1
In clause VII of the final order, KWDT1 stipulated that mere creation of water storage across a stream in Krishna river
basin is not water use in that water year and water use from such reservoir shall be accounted in the water year during
which water diversion has taken place from the reservoir. Carryover storage is a means (mechanism) for using water
and itself is not water use.

19 of 63

Supreme Court earlier clarified [State Of Andhra Pradesh vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 25 April, 2000 on Almatti
dispute in Supreme court (page 9)] that KWDT1 tribunal has not put any restriction on the storage by each State and
according to Clause VII of the final order of KWDT1 the storage of water by each State would not be considered as
use of water by the State concerned.
8. Whether 150 tmc carryover storage identified in AP by KWDT1 can be treated as water use by KWDT2
contrary to clause VII of the final order of KWDT1
KWDT2 treating 150 tmc carryover storage which was indentified previously by KWDT1 in AP, as water use is
against the definitions of water use given in clause VII of the KWDT1final order. This carry over storage is primarily
serving to compensate the inevitable water wastage taking place in AP up to 75% dependable yield (up to 2060 tmc
plus eligible return flows).
Section 3 ISRWD act does not permit tribunals to interfere with the rights (s.no 17 of the States list, Seventh schedule)
of a state as long as a water dispute has not arisen with other state/s affecting their interests. AP is free to use the water
available in its area in the manner it likes without affecting the water use rights of other states which are water use
allocations allowed by KWDT1 and KWDT2.

9. Was there any limitation on the carry over storage or annual storage in any state by KWDT2?
KWDT2 (pages 695 & 696 draft report) stated that in case construction of such a carryover storage causes any legal
and vital injury of substantial nature to the lower riparian state, which cannot be compensated or which may result in
more damage and harm than the benefit which may accrue by having a carryover storage in the upper riparian State,
there may be an impediment in the way of an upper riparian State to construct a carryover storage.
It is also clear from above that there is no restriction for construction of carry over storage reservoirs in last riparian
state Andhra Pradesh as they are not affecting upstream state interests except when submergence is taking place in
upstream states.

20 of 63

10. What is the difference between annual storage and carryover storage in water use point of view? How they
enable water use at different success rates.
KWDT1 (page 500 of Vol 2) clarified annual storage refers to storage from the period of surplus to the next period of
shortage in the same irrigation year. Over year storage is storage from high-years for use in low years.
KWDT2 (page 327 of draft report) considered annual water use from an annual storage is close to 1.4 times of its
storage capacity in Krishna basin subject to adequate water availability. However water use from carryover storage is
less than its storage capacity after deducting the evaporation and seepage losses from the time of its creation to actual
use. The maximum annual utility of carryover storage is 0.5 times of its storage when excess and deficit water years
take place alternatively.
The differentiation between annual storage and carryover storage is from the perspective how the storage is put to
water use once the storage is established which is also subject to water availability. Otherwise both are physically
water storages and interchangeably used subject to water needs and adequate water availability. The water available in
a reservoir can be partly annual storage and partly carryover storage.
11. Is the 150 tmc carryover storage identified by KWDT1 is treated at par in enhancing its utility in water use with
respect to new storages created or being created in Karnataka and MR. What was the intent of KWDT1 (page
120 of Vol 4) declaring this carry over storage available in Srisailam reservoir is not temporary structure.
KWDT1 intention could be to upgrade its water use utility from carryover to annual storage subject to water
availability and definitely not to reduce its utility by saying it is not temporary structure. KWDT1 allocated 3 tmc
towards enhanced evaporation loss for keeping carry over storage in Nagarjunasagar reservoir (page 115 of Vol 4 of
KWDT1) and 33 tmc (out of 811 tmc allocations to AP) evaporation loss towards maintaining carry over storage in
Srisailam reservoir (page 120 of Vol 4 of KWDT1). When a carryover storage is created from the excess water
available (in excess of 2130 tmc) and stored (not used) throughout a water year, the evaporation losses from the
reservoir would be accounted in AP entitlement in that water year. KWDT1 (page 120 of volume 4) clearly gave this
justification for allocating additional water to AP towards evaporation losses out of 2060 tmc allocations. When the

21 of 63

water available in the carry over storage is actually used (excluding the evaporation losses in that water year which is
already accounted in 811tmc) during a deficit water year, the water use is accounted in that water year but in no case
shall exceed the limit of water use (811 tmc) as per Clause V of final order (page 7of volume 4, KWDT1). This clearly
indicates that KWDT1 has knowingly accounted the consequent annual water use (evaporation losses in every water
year) requirements on permanent basis while allowing the carry over storage as provided in clause VII of the final
order subject to water use limit imposed in clause V.
KWDT2 has not upgraded its utility at par with the new/later storages in Karnataka and Maharashtra. These new
storages are considered as annual storages at 1.4 times utility (page 327 of KWDT2 draft report) for making fresh
water use allocations by KWDT2 whereas the utility of 150 tmc carry over storage is reduced further with the
provision to fill the storage at 58% dependability from 75% dependability. There is no reason for discriminating an
existing storage in according its full utility when later built and future built storages would be utilized in a better way
in other states.
12. Whether the KWDT2 allocation of 150 tmc carryover storage to AP is duplicate / repeated water use allocation.
Clause Vc of KWDT1 final order permits AP to use up to 800 tmc plus eligible return flows in any water year as
permanent allocations similar to water allocations permitted to Karnataka and Maharashtra. AP has to use these water
allocations by constructing carryover storages to store the excess water available in 75% years to meet shortfall in
river inflows in 25% deficit years. This is applicable to other states (Karnataka) also. It is beyond doubt that water
allocations are given to the states out of the mean annual flows up to 2060 tmc plus total eligible return flows in clause
V of the KWDT1 final order. Supreme Court interpreted that there is no restriction up to mass allocation in a year
(page 125 of KWDT2 draft report).
KWDT1 made 2060 tmc allocations to the states out of the assessed 2394 tmc mean annual water flows (page 80, 88
& 98 of Vol 3) available in the river based on 78 years water gauging data from the year 1895 to 1973. In addition
KWDT1 (page 50 of Vol 4) prognosticated 70 tmc additional water availability in the form of return flows which are
also allocated to the states based on the actual water utilization criteria given in clause V of its final order. The

22 of 63

approximate water allocations are 2130 tmc out of 2464 tmc (2394 + 70) annual mean water availability subject to
finalization of return flows as stated in clause V of the KWDT1 final order.
Clause VII of KWDT1 final order clearly says any storage whether carryover or annual is not water use. This is also
acknowledged in KWDT2 (clause IX-A 4) final order to give different intent for limited purpose. These water
allocations are 30 tmc at 65% dependability and 120 tmc at average dependability towards carry over storage to AP.
The 150 tmc identified carryover storage in AP by KWDT1 is a means (not water use) to use its water allocations fully
from the mean annual inflows in the river to overcome the non-availability of water and inevitable water wastage in
deficit years. Strictly speaking the total allocations given to states is up to 2428 tmc (2578-150) dependability only
with additional water use allocation of 38 tmc (1005-811-150-6) to AP.
Thus the allocations to AP in the form of carry over storage by KWDT2 is reopening the issue which is already settled
by KWDT1 and Supreme Court. Carryover storage is not a water use to make water use allocations by KWDT2.
13 Whether the return flows (70 tmc) assessed by KWDT2 are in line with the criteria given in Clauses V A/B/C iv
and V D final order of the KWDT1
Water use allocations of 2060 tmc are made by KWDT1 from the water available in a 75% dependable year. In
addition to 2060 tmc water, KWDT1 allowed further use of water from the regeneration flows available @ 10% of
water use achieved in Krishna basin area from the projects each using 3 tmc or more between the year 1968-69 to
1992-93. Clauses V A/B/C iv and V D of the final order of KWDT1 clearly bring out how the entitled use from
regeneration flows are to be calculated.
Clause IX-A 1a of KWDT2 final order indicated 25 tmc, 34 tmc and 11 tmc (total 70 tmc) for Maharashtra, Karnataka
and AP respectively as additional water use allocations from regeneration flows over and above allocations made by
KWDT1 from the 2060 tmc. In the entire draft and further reports of KWDT2, It is not explained how these figures
are arrived based on the criteria given in KWDT1 final order. From the partial data available in pages 288, 293 and
303 of the KWDT2 draft report, the water use entitlement from the regeneration flows are very high by Karnataka and
Maharashtra and very less by AP.

23 of 63

Thus it seems KWDT2 blindly adopted the prognosticated regeneration water use entitlements given in KWDT1
report (page 50 Vol 4) without following the procedure stipulated in the KWDT1final order.
Most of the water used from Prakasam barrage is in Krishna basin area though the return flows from this irrigated area
in to Krishna river has no reuse other than meeting environmental flows downstream of Prakasam barrage. As per
clause V and XVI C of the KWDT1 final order, this water used in the Krishna basin area downstream of Prakasam
barrage is eligible for additional water use by AP in the form of return flows.
This issue should be treated as reopening the issues settled in KWDT1 by KWDT2 putting AP at disadvantage.
14 Whether the water use of 163 tmc under second instance as per clause IX-A-2 of the final order of KWDT2 is
allowed only after replenishing the carryover storages in AP which was earlier used in a deficit water year/s for
meeting the shortfall in water availability to enable AP in meeting the 811 tmc water use allocations under
clauses Vc and VII of KWDT1final order.
KWDT2 (clause IX-A 2 of final order) stipulates that second instance of 163 tmc water allocations would commence
once AP had utilized 811 tmc in a water year. The carryover storage available (not limited to 150 tmc) in AP is a
means to use its water allocations fully from the mean annual water inflows in the river for overcoming the water
shortage in deficit water years and the inevitable water wastage to sea. Till now, the available excess storage capacity
is used as annual storage frequently since KWDT1 (clause Vc of the final order) has given AP liberty to use all the
remaining water in the river. After the implementation of KWDT2 award, AP in addition to using 800 tmc plus
eligible return flows, is entitled (has first right) to replenish the carryover storage which got depleted after using in
earlier deficit water year/s (when inflows are below 2060 plus eligible return flows) in the immediately available
surplus water year/s (when inflows are above 2060 plus eligible return flows). Karnataka and MR shall not start the
water use under second instance (clause IX-A 2 of KWDT2 final order) before fulfilling KWDT1 water allocations to
AP as stated above. Otherwise AP would be deprived of 77 tmc mean annual water allocations earlier given by
KWDT1 (refer to table A & B) during deficit water years
During the proceedings of KWDT1, Karnataka (In page 84 of Vol 4 ) sought clarification from the tribunal stating
that the liberty given to Andhra Pradesh to use the remaining water in excess of allocations made to it under Clause

24 of 63

V(C) is limited to the existing carryover capacity as found by this Tribunal to meet the deficiency in deficit years.
KWDT1 clarified that there is no ground for limiting the use of the remaining water by Andhra Pradesh to its existing
carry-over capacity. If the remaining water is not used by Andhra Pradesh, it will be wasted to the sea. Thus KWDT1
did not accept the contention of Karnataka that the water impounded in carry over storage is not out of the water
allocations on permanent basis but out of the unallocated excess water for which AP is given liberty to use till the
further review by the authority.
KWDT2 is not empowered by ISRWD act [section 4(1)] to reopen the settled issues by earlier tribunal. Also it (clause
IX-A 2 of KWDT2 final order) is not in conformity with clause XIV (A) of KWDT1 final order as it amounts to
disturbing (altering priority) the water utilization already undertaken by Andhra Pradesh. The second instance of water
allocations by Karnataka and MR shall start once all the carryover storage which got earlier depleted in a deficit year
is filled up in succeeding excess water year/s with 2130 tmc and above dependability.
15 Whether the water use of 30 tmc carryover by AP under second instance as per clause IX-A-2 of the final order
of KWDT2 is inconsistent with clause IX-A 4.
Clause IX-A 4 states that notwithstanding the provision in Clause VII of the Decision of KWDT-I, for the purpose of
paragraphs IX-A 1 to 3 above only, the expression “use” would mean the water used or diverted plus the amount of
water stored by any State at any point of time in a water year so as to be available in a storage for utilization to achieve
its allocation in that water year. Clause X 3 (a) allocated to Andhra Pradesh 30tmc at 65% dependability water use for
carry over in Sirisailam and Nagarjunasagar projects in K-7 sub-basin. Clause IX-A 3 states that water allocations at
third instance, not more than 285 TMC shall be used by the three States only after AP has utilized 860 tmc water.
The 860 tmc water uses under first and second instances in AP include 30 tmc water use for carryover storage.
Carryover storage is not for the use in the same year but for future year/s use /diversion. Carryover storage created in a
water year cannot be counted as water use as per Clause IX-A 4 because it is not going to be used in the same year.
Third instance water uses cannot be started without completing the second instance water uses as per Clause IX-A 3.
Total water use allocations are in three instances and each instance is further in three parts to be used in a cascading
way one after the other state (i.e MR first, Karnataka next and last AP). The sequential water use methodology
terminates with Karnataka using its water use allocations at 65% dependability due to the inconsistence created by

25 of 63

Clause IX-A 4. Karnataka and MR cannot use water in third instance as the creation of carry over storage by AP is not
water use.
Also Clause IX-A is not stipulating to prevent Karnataka and MR creating carry over storages in a water year.
KWDT2 (pages 695 & 696 draft report) permit upstream states to create carry over storage and Clause X 3 (b) gives
exclusive liberty to AP for using all remaining water above 2578 tmc availability in a year. The only window left for
creating carryover storage by Karnataka and MR is when water availability is less than 2130 tmc in a water year
which is highly detrimental to AP interests which would cause serious water disputes regularly. The inconsistency
created by Clause IX-A of the KWDT2 final order shall be resolved before its implementation.
16 What comprises of remaining water in clauses V C and VII of the final order of KWDT1
Remaining water means as per clause V (C) of the final order:
This is water available in Krishna River / Andhra Pradesh in a water year after deducting the actual water utilizations
and adjusting for any carryover storage build up/depletion by Maharashtra and Karnataka subject to the limit of water
use allowed in the final order of KWDT1. These are sum of
1. Unutilized water from the water use allocations to Maharashtra as per clause V (A) including return flows but
excluding water stored as carry over storage in a water year in Maharashtra to meet the deficiency in future
water years and ground water use in Maharashtra as per clause II
2. Unutilized water from the water use allocations to Karnataka as per clause II and V (B) including return flows
but excluding water stored as carry over storage in a water year in Karnataka to meet the deficiency in future
water years and ground water use in Karnataka as per clause II
3. Actual water use out of allocations on permanent basis to Andhra Pradesh as per clause V (C) including return
flows but excluding water use from carry over storages.
4. Excess water used in Andhra Pradesh over and above permanent allocation as per clause V (C) including return
flows.

26 of 63

5. Water stored as carry over storage in a water year in Andhra Pradesh to meet the deficiency in future water
years. This is not limited to the identified carry over storage to the extent of 150 tmc by KWDT1 for meeting
also inevitable water wastage below the catchment area of Nagarjunasagar Dam.
6. Ground water use in Andhra Pradesh as per clauses II
7. Any water overflowing the Prakasam barrage if any

17 Whether the allocations in Tungabhadra basin is from mean annual flows of Tungabhadra river.
Clause IX (B) (i) of the KWDT1 final order Karnataka shall not use in any water year in Tungabhadra basin (K-8)
more than 295 tmc plus 7.5% of the total entitlement of return flows by Karnataka in total Krishna river basin.
Including the prognosticated return flows of 25.5 tmc, the permitted total water use works out to 320.5 tmc.
However clause IX E (c) of the final order restricts the total water use in K-8 basin to 320 tmc in any case.
Karnataka is permitted to use 320 tmc in any water year which can be an excess water or a deficit water year.
Similarly AP shall not use more than 127 tmc from K-8 sub basin in any water year.
The water uses in Karnataka and AP are not subject to limit of water availability in 75% dependability of K-8
basin. Clause VII provides feasibility to store water in carryover storages in excess water years for use in deficit
water years. Tungabhadra reservoir is also specifically indicated [clause IX E (c)] to be used as carryover reservoir
when there is availability of excess water in a water year.
Thus all the water use allocations from various sub basins and to various projects are (clauses IX and X) out of the
mean annual flows available in the sub basins.
18 Whether additional allocations made by KWDT2 to Karnataka at 65% dependability of Krishna basin (not of
TB basin) in the upstream of TB dam, reduce the success rate of the earlier water allocations of AP in TB basin
by KWDT1.
Clause IX (B) (i) of the KWDT1 final order states that Karnataka shall not use in any water year in Tungabhadra
basin (K-8) more than 295 tmc plus 7.5% of the total entitlement of return flows by Karnataka in total Krishna
river basin. Including the prognosticated return flows of 25.5 tmc, the permitted total water use works out to 320.5

27 of 63

tmc. However clause IX E (c) of the final order restricts the total water use in K-8 basin to 320 tmc in any case.
Karnataka is permitted to use 320 tmc in any water year which can be excess or a deficit water year. Similarly AP
shall not use more than 127 tmc from K-8 sub basin in any water year. Thus the total permitted allocations in K-8
basin are 447 tmc in any water year. KWDT2 has permitted additional water use of 40 tmc (36 tmc to Karnataka
& 4 tmc to AP) from K-8 basin in a 65% dependable year of Krishna basin.
The yearly water inflows data (refer Table C) is provided for K-8 and K-9 basins in page 537 (column 13) of
KWDT2 draft report which gives the K-8 basin yields as 460 tmc, 497 tmc and 552 tmc at 75%, 65% and average
yields respectively at Bawapuram gauging station which is located in the downstream of Sunkesula barrage.
Sunkesula barrage is the terminal barrage on Tungabhadra river before joining main Krishna river. After
considering the additional allocations by KWDT2, the residual flow at Bawapuram is 13 tmc (460-447), 10 tmc
(497-487) and 70 tmc (552-477) at 75%, 65% and average yields respectively. Since the 65% dependable yield of
Krishna basin instead of 65% dependable yield of K-8 basin is considered for using 40 tmc additional allocations
by KWDT2, it can happen that 2130 tmc total yield in Krishna basin in a water year can happen but not 460 tmc
(75%) yield in K-8 basin. Since water flow (10 tmc) available is marginal, AP may not realize its KWDT1
allocations (127 tmc) fully but Karnataka would be eligible to utilize the additional allocation (36 tmc) permitted
by KWDT2. It is well familiar that Tungabhadra basin is more prone to erratic rains compared to total Krishna
basin and AP could not utilize its earlier KWDT1 allocation at the permitted success rate due to Karnataka using
more water in the upstream area.


28 of 63

Table C: Yearly water flow data of K8 & K9 basins (Tungabhadra river)
S.
No
Water
years
water availability
in total Krishna
Basin
Yearly flows in
descending order in
total Krishna basin
Total water
availability in
K8 & 9 basins
Yearly flows in
descending
order
Total water
availability in K8
basin
Yearly flows in
descending
order
Dependability
1 65-66 2074 4193.72 576.176 1044.466 495.979 882 2.33%
2 66-67 1957 3624.04 513.405 937.277 433.207 838 4.65%
3 67-68 2538 3519.36 562.774 835.873 482.576 776 6.98%
4 68-69 2136 3318.24 614.459 825.599 534.262 748 9.30%
5 69-70 2685 3238.71 633.513 805.728 553.316 745 11.63%
6 70-71 2745 3230.91 744.998 797.649 664.801 721 13.95%
7 71-72 2231 3186.66 550.893 757.283 470.696 688 16.28%
8 72-73 1511.53 3185.01 537.488 748.511 457.29 664 18.60%
9 73-74 2801.89 2967.2 717.263 744.998 620.813 638 20.93%
10 74-75 2654.66 2919.13 716.684 717.263 616.749 620 23.26%
11 75-76 4193.72 2916.67 1044.466 716.684 882.127 616 25.58%
12 76-77 2595.45 2851.04 469.042 684.724 402.126 604 27.91%
13 77-78 2588.82 2809.52 649.499 676.572 546.157 602 30.23%
14 78-79 3519.36 2801.89 937.277 663.191 838.213 601 32.56%
15 79-80 2724.43 2745 652.92 661.193 568.697 584 34.88%
16 80-81 2809.52 2724.43 825.599 660.794 748.349 577 37.21%
17 81-82 2851.04 2685 748.511 652.92 638.273 576 39.53%
18 82-83 2283.37 2654.66 684.724 649.499 602.747 571 41.86%
19 83-84 3185.01 2628.35 660.794 643.85 584.497 571 44.19%
20 84-85 2193.63 2624.23 598.125 633.513 533.758 568 46.51%
21 85-86 1839.65 2602.11 472.223 628.005 418.831 563 48.84%
22 86-87 1841.81 2595.45 534.86 625.865 458.947 553 51.16%
23 87-88 1649.21 2588.82 456.688 617.215 381.097 546 53.49%
24 88-89 2967.2 2538 575.395 614.459 497.115 538 55.81%
25 89-90 2602.11 2489.85 547.13 613.086 465.9 534 58.14%
26 90-91 2919.13 2305.56 625.865 598.125 571.518 533 60.47%
27 91-92 2916.67 2283.37 663.191 576.482 601.683 522 62.79%
28 92-93 2201.96 2231 797.649 576.176 721.642 497 65.12%
29 93-94 2624.23 2201.96 676.572 575.395 604.348 495 67.44%
30 94-95 3318.24 2193.63 805.728 562.774 745.544 482 69.77%
31 95-96 1867.54 2185.69 477.178 550.893 418.328 470 72.09%

29 of 63

32 96-97 2628.35 2136 617.215 547.13 522.805 465 74.42%
33 97-98 2489.85 2074 613.086 537.488 571.532 458 76.74%
34 98-99 3238.71 1957 757.283 534.86 688.051 457 79.07%
35 99-00 2305.56 1934.43 628.005 513.405 563.542 433 81.40%
36 00-01 2185.69 1867.54 661.193 506.006 576.003 431 83.72%
37 01-02 1836.04 1841.81 506.006 477.178 431.595 418 86.05%
38 02-03 1239.45 1839.65 315.532 472.223 288.559 418 88.37%
39 03-04 1252.68 1836.04 278.883 469.042 253.954 402 90.70%
40 04-05 1934.43 1649.21 425.57 456.688 398.093 398 93.02%
41 05-06 3624.04 1511.53 643.85 425.57 577.242 381 95.35%
42 06-07 3186.66 1252.68 576.482 315.532 538.298 288 97.67%
43 07-08 3230.91 1239.45 835.873 278.883 776.301 253 100.00%
Total flow (tmc) 26930.07 23745.56
Average annual yield (tmc) 626.28 552.2223
75% dependable flow (tmc) 542 460
Total water allocations at 75% dependability (tmc) 501.5 447
Data taken from page 537 of KWDT2 draft report

30 of 63

19 Whether additional allocations made to Karnataka at 65% dependability in TB basin would impair the adequate
salt export water and lead to basin closure at Sunkesula barrage.
From the yearly water inflows data is given for K-8 and Vedavati (K-9) basins together in page 537 (column 11) of
KWDT2 draft report, the mean annual yield is 626 tmc at Bawapuram gauging station which is located in the
downstream of Sunkesula barrage. Sunkesula barrage is the terminal barrage on Tungabhadra river before joining
main Krishna river. The permitted total water uses in any water year by KWDT1 are 447 tmc (320 to Karnataka
+127 to AP) in K-8 basin and 54.5 tmc (42 to Karnataka +12.5 to AP) in K-9 basin. The total permitted water use
in both basins is 501.5 tmc (447 +54.5) in any water year. After meeting 501.5 tmc, 124.5 tmc (626-501.5) would
join Krishna river from the Bawapuram gauging station. The total water utilization is 80% (501.5 /626) leaving
20% water to join the downstream Krishna river. Out of the water uses by AP, nearly 55 tmc water is exported/
transferred to adjacent Penna river basin irrigation needs. Thus nearly 179.5 tmc (124.4 +55) water is serving for
salt export needs. The water salinity / alkalinity will increase to 3.5 times (626/179.5) at the tail end near Sunkesula
barrage with the available outflows taking place in this basin. The observed average salinity at Bawapuram
gauging station is of the order of 615 ppm in the year 2008 & 09 which is not safe for drinking purpose and not
recommended for agriculture use.
KWDT2 has permitted additional 40 tmc for inside the basin water use at 65% dependability which is nearly equal
to 30 tmc average use at 100% success rate. The average salt export water from the basin would further reduce to
149.5 tmc (179.5-30) after the additional water use. The water salinity would go up in the water available at
Sunkesula barrage to 740 ppm by 20% (179.5/149.5). 40 tmc water is under use in KC canal which draws water
from Sunkesula barrage in AP near Bawapuram gauging station. When the water salinity increases the irrigation
water requirement in the existing command area would also go up for increasing drainage water from the field to
limit soil water salinity/alkalinity best suitable to the crops. Otherwise the crop yield diminishes drastically due to
high soil water salinity/alkalinity. When irrigation water salinity is high, the agriculture water use goes up in the
existing command area. Thus 4 tmc KWDT2 (clause X 3 of the final order) additional water allocation to AP at
65% dependability is totally not adequate. It would have been beneficial for the sustainable productivity and
ecology of the Tungabhadra basin if the additional water use allocations (40 tmc) by KWDT2 are made for

31 of 63

utilization outside the basin area with intent not to enhance the prevailing high water salinity at tail end area of this
basin.
From the above, the prevailing river water quality/salinity in lower reaches of TB basin is exceeding the
recommended parameters and further water use allocations inside the basin would constrain the salt export from
the basin area.
Quoted reference:
http://www.cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/for_website_KCC_hyd_Publishing%20inf.on%20CWC%20Web%20site.p
df Water quality data at CWC Bawapuram guaging station in Tungabhadra basin.
20 Whether additional allocations made to Karnataka at 65% dependability in Tungabhadra basin would diminish
the available water quality/salinity increasing additional water use in the earlier allocations in AP by KWDT1
Earlier it has been explained that water TDS would go up by 20% from 615 ppm to 740 ppm if 40 tmc additional
water use is permitted at 65% dependability. Let us consider that a particular crop can grow healthily at root zone
water / soil salinity /alkalinity of 1500 ppm and its evapo-transpiration requirement is 100 units of water. When
615 ppm salinity irrigation water is supplied to the crop, the total crop water requirement is 170 units (100 units
evapo-transpiration and 70 units drainage water) to maintain 1500 ppm salinity in root zone water / soil.
If 740 ppm salinity/alkalinity water is used for the same crop, the total crop water requirement is 197 units (100
units evapo-transpiration and 97 units drainage water) to maintain 1500 ppm salinity in root zone water / soil. Thus
in this case there is 16% more water requirement to the crop if the salinity increases by 20% in irrigation water.
Though the drainage water / regeneration water available for downstream use has increased from 70 units to 97
units this water is having high salinity (1500 ppm) whose suitability for further use is nil. This high saline water is
to be left to the sea for maintaining salt balance (i.e. salts not to accumulate in soil/ground water) in the river basin
When water salinity/alkalinity is increasing due to upstream uses, the downstream users need to use more water
than earlier in their existing irrigated area. Thus existing /protected water allocations are to be enhanced for
compensating the increase in salinity. The terminal irrigation project in Tungabhadra basin is KC canal drawing 40
tmc water from Sunkesula barrage. Since the salinity/alkalinity of water is increasing due to upstream uses, the

32 of 63

water requirement for KC canal irrigation would go up at least by 16% as explained above. So nearly 6.4 tmc water
is the additional requirement of KC irrigation system for using higher salinity water. Similarly, the Rajolibanda
diversion scheme water needs (16 tmc) would increase by nearly 10% (1.6tmc). The additional allotment of 4 tmc
to AP by KWDT2 in Tungabhadra basin is not even adequate (50% less) to compensate additional water needs in
existing command area. This point was also acknowledged by KWDT1 (page 616 of Vol 2) saying that AP is
entitled equal share when more water is available in the river since the water available for irrigation in AP is likely
to be somewhat of inferior quality than the rain water. This aspect has become major concern when KWDT2
wanted to allocate 93.33% of 2578 tmc mean annual water available in the river. It would enhance the water
salinity/alkalinity by nearly six times in the irrigation water available in AP from Tungabhdra basin.
Quoted reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali_soils Alkali Soils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_Sodium_Carbonate_Index Residual sodium Carbonate index.
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/umatilla/mf/sites/default/files/pnw597-e.pdf Managing Irrigation Water
Quality
21 Whether the new storages are required to use the fresh water allocations in TB basin.
The major storages in the TB basin are Tungabhadra reservoir and Bhadra reservoir. The total storage in TB (K-8)
basin is not exceeding 160 tmc and the total water use allocations by KWDT2 are 356 tmc and 131 tmc to
Karnataka and AP respectively totaling to 487 tmc. The water use and the storage ratio is 3.07 which is more than
two times the norm (1.4) followed by KWDT2 (page 327 of KWDT2 draft report). TB reservoir is having nearly
100 tmc live storage and water use allocations (refer clause IX E of the KWDT1 final order) served by this
reservoir is 230 tmc by KWDT1 and another 42.9 tmc is to used from the water generated in K-8 basin without any
appreciable storage capacity for RDS left bank canal (15.9 – 7 = 8.9 tmc), KC canal (40 – 10 = 30 tmc) and RDS
right bank canal (4 tmc).


33 of 63

In the absence of adequate storage capacity, it is not possible to use the flowing water in the river after the month
of October as the flow available in the river is very less to meet the water needs. Also water would overflow the
last barrage on the river and join the main Krishna river during floods even in a below average monsoon years due
to lack of adequate storages in K-8 basin. As per clause VII of the KWDT1 final order, water overflowing on the
barrage is not water use unless it is diverted /lifted from the river / stream and used for beneficial uses (clause VI of
the KWDT1 final order).

Clause IX A of the KWDT2 final order states that the water allocations in the second instance shall not start till the
KWDT1 allocations are met. It is not possible in TB basin the storage plus the achieved water use at any instant
would be in excess of the total project wise (230 tmc) water allocations by KWDT1 from TB reservoir. Nearly 130
tmc (230-100) water should have been diverted which is not the realistic scenario, for the beneficial uses in the
active monsoon months. Karnataka shall construct new storages on main TB river or divert water from Almatti or
Narayanpur reservoir to use the water allocations permitted by KWDT2 in TB basin.

22 Whether the additional allocations by KWDT2 are against equitable distribution doctrine at the cost of
reasonable mean annual environmental flows and salt export needs in AP.
The doctrine of equitable water distribution or Helsinki water rules were adopted by International Law Association
in 1966 to settle the disputes between two or more countries sharing an international river basin. The applicable
portions for water allocations is given below.
CHAPTER 2. EQUITABLE UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS OF AN INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE
BASIN
Article IV
Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the
waters of an international drainage basin.
Article V

34 of 63

I. What is a reasonable and equitable share within the meaning of article IV to be determined in the light of all the
relevant factors in each particular case.
II. Relevant factors which are to be considered include, but are not limited to:
1. The geography of the basin, including in particular the extent of the drainage area in the territory of each basin
state;
2. The hydrology of the basin, including in particular the contribution of water by each basin state;
3. The climate affecting the basin;
4. The past utilization of the waters of the basin, including in particular existing utilization;
5. The economic and social needs of each basin state;
6. The population dependent on the waters of the basin in each basin state;
7. The comparative costs of alternative means of satisfying the economic and social needs of each basin state;
8. The availability of other resources;
9. The avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilization of waters of the basin;
10. The practicability of compensation to one or more of the co-basin states as a means of adjusting conflicts
among uses; and
11. The degree to which the needs of a basin state may be satisfied, without causing substantial injury to a co-basin
State.
Article VI
A use or category of uses is not entitled to any inherent preference over any other use or category of uses.

35 of 63

Article VIII
1. An existing reasonable use may continue in operation unless the factors justifying its continuance are
outweighed by other factors leading to the conclusion that it be modified or terminated so as to accommodate a
competing incompatible use. Mean annual environmental flows and salt export water needs are existing uses
which cannot be diminished further.
2. (a) A use that is in fact operational is deemed to have been an existing use from the time of the initiation of
construction directly related to the use or, where such construction is not required, the undertaking of comparable
acts of actual implementation.
(b) Such a use continues to be an existing use until such time as it is discontinued with the intention that it be
abandoned.
3. A use will not be deemed an existing use if at the time of becoming operational it is incompatible with an
already existing reasonable use. The fresh allocations of KWDT2 are incompatible to the existing reasonable uses
which are mean annual environmental flows and salt export water needs.
CHAPTER 3. POLLUTION
Article IX
As used in this chapter, the term "water pollution" refers to any detrimental change resulting from human conduct
in the natural composition, content, or quality of the waters of an international drainage basin.
Article X
1. Consistent with the principle of equitable utilization of the waters of an international drainage basin, a State:
(a) Must prevent any new form of water pollution or any increase in the degree of existing water pollution in an
international drainage basin which would cause substantial injury in the territory of a co-basin State;

36 of 63

(b) Should take all reasonable measures to abate existing water pollution in an international drainage basin to such
an extent that no substantial damage is caused in the territory of a co basin State.
2. The rule stated in paragraph 1 of this article applies to water pollution originating:
(a) Within a territory of the State, or
(b) Outside the territory of the State, if it is caused by the State's conduct.
Article XI
1. In the case of a violation of the rule stated in paragraph 1 (a) of article X of this chapter, the State responsible
shall be required to cease the wrongful conduct and compensate the injured co-basin State for the injury that has
been caused to it.
2. In a case falling under the rule stated in paragraph 1 (b) of article X, if a State fails to take reasonable measures,
it shall be required promptly to enter into negotiations with the injured State with a view towards reaching a
settlement equitable under the circumstances.
References:
http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/educational_tools/course_modules/reference_document
s/internationalregionconventions/helsinkirules.pdf “The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International
Rivers”
KWDT1 (In page 304 of Vol1) stated that in the absence of legislation, agreement, award or decree, the Tribunal
has to decide the dispute in such a way as will recognize the equal rights of the contending States and at the same
time establish justice between them. Equal right does not mean an equal division of the water. It means an
equitable apportionment of the benefits of the river, each unit getting a fair share.

37 of 63

Equitable water apportionment is applicable only when there is no applicable Indian national stipulations and GoI
water policies. KWDT2 has applied principles of equitable water distribution partly (Article V, Section II, sub
sections 1 to 6) only without giving any regard to the remaining aspects in Chapters 2 & 3.
Article V, Section II, sub sections 8 and 11: When KWDT2 is contemplating to allocate nearly 93% of river water
(refer Table A), it should have explored the possibility of alternate river water resources available in Krishna basin
states. Also it has not explored the alternate electricity resources to divert water use from hydro electricity
generation to thermal power generation. It has also not examined the effects of 93% of total water use on river
water quality in the tail end area for causing substantial injury to a co basin state.
Reasonable mean annual environmental flows and the salt export water requirements are existing reasonable uses.
Article VIII 3 says that a use will not be deemed an existing use if at the time of becoming operational it is
incompatible with an already existing reasonable use (refer page 326 of Vol 1 of KWDT1). Thus KWDT2
permitting additional water use by the states at the cost of mean annual environmental flows and the salt export
water requirements is not equitable water distribution.
Article IX provides definition of “water pollution" which is any detrimental change resulting from human conduct
in the natural composition, content or quality of the waters of an international drainage basin. Causing detrimental
change to water quality is part of water pollution. Article X 1 says that consistent with the principle of equitable
utilization of the waters of an international drainage basin, a State must prevent any new form of water pollution or
any increase in the degree of existing water pollution in an international drainage basin which would cause
substantial injury in the territory of a co-basin State and should take all reasonable measures to abate existing water
pollution in an international drainage basin to such an extent that no substantial damage is caused in the territory of
a co basin state. Thus increase in water salinity/alkalinity or causing inferior water quality is not permitted under
equitable water distribution.
KWDT2 allocated 93.33% (171tmc remaining out of 2578 tmc mean annual) of water available in the river without
applying equitable water distribution principles causing detrimental water quality/salinity/ alkalinity, insufficient
environmental flows and inadequate salt export water in tail end co basin state

38 of 63

23 What are the various water transfer / export projects to Krishna basin from other river basins under operation
and being implemented. How this additional water transfer would increase the salt load and the water
salinity/alkalinity in Krishna basin.
Nearly 75 tmc Godavari water is exported to Krishna basin under Pochampadu (stage I & II), Singoor & Manjira
water supply schemes to Hyderabad city and Devadula lift irrigation project (phase 1). There are many projects
taken up by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which are under construction to import water to Krishna basin from
west flowing and Godavari rivers. These are Netravati water export to Vedavati sub basin in Karnataka, Mandovi
water export to Malaprabha sub basin in Karnataka, Sharavathi river water export to Tungabhadra sub basin in
Karnataka, Godavari water export from Pranahita to Krishna basin in AP, Godavari water export from Devadula
(Phase 2 &3) to Krishna basin in AP, Godavari water export from Dummugudem to Krishna basin in AP,
Godavari water export from Polavaram reservoir to Krishna basin in AP etc which will enhance the salt load in
Krishna basin.
24 Whether adequate water buffer is available to accommodate the increase in ground water use, un accountable
water uses, non beneficial water uses in Karnataka and Maharashtra in the light of KWDT2 stipulation in its
final order in clause XVI stating that review or revision shall not as far as possible disturb any utilization that
may have been undertaken by any State within the limits of allocation made to it.
KWDT2 and KWDT1 has allocated 2407 tmc mean average water available in the river leaving 171 tmc on
average to go to the sea (refer Table A). 171 tmc is only 6.66% of average annual water yield (2578 tmc) in the
river. Out of 2578 tmc mean annual water availability in the river, 1480 tmc on average (at100% success rate) is
allocated to Karnataka and Maharashtra states (refer Table A). Let us try to understand what would be the true
picture if any of the following variations take place in future.
If upstream states use in excess by 10% of their allocation: The water joining the sea would reduce to meager 23
tmc enhancing the salinity/alkalinity of water unfit for all uses including agriculture. The traditional bulk crops
such as rice, sugar cane, vegetables, etc cannot use the high saline/alkaline water available from Krishna River and
the ground water. The river water would not reach the sea in at least 95% of the water years. Also the adequate

39 of 63

water availability in AP would reduce to around 25% dependability. The excessive water use by upstream states
can take place not only in agriculture but also in ever increasing inevitable needs in domestic and industrial sectors.
If the ground water use / non beneficial water use increases by further 150 tmc in the river basin: The excess
water use can also take place from non beneficial water use such as evaporo transpiration from improved natural
vegetation in open lands, expansion of dry land cropping, supplementary irrigation in dry land cropping, expansion
of forests, improved greenery in urban areas, rain water inundation of barren areas by contour bunding for ground
water charging, ground water use, etc. KWDT1 identified ground water use in the river basin as a non beneficial
use which is not accounted in water allocations. It is well known fact that ground water if not exploited in lift
irrigation, would contribute base flows to the river. The water joining the sea would reduce to meager 21 tmc on
average enhancing the salinity of water unfit for any use. The river water would not reach the sea in most of the
water years. Thus future non beneficial water uses in upstream states would curtail the environmental flows down
stream of Prakasam barrage which is an existing non beneficial water use taking place since ages.
If there is an error of 10% in estimating the average water availability by KWDT2: The water joining the sea
would reduce to negligible expect during severe floods. The salinity of water would be unfit for any use. Also the
adequate water availability in AP would reduce to 10% dependably. The average water availability in the last ten
water years period (1998 to 2007) of KWDT2 water years series is 2402 tmc which is already less by 176 tmc to
the average yield of 2578 tmc. Earlier KWDT1 assessed the mean annual flow availability of 2464 tmc only which
is 2394 tmc plus return flows (approximately 70 tmc).
There is fair scope of reduced water availability in AP as explained above. The stipulation of KWDT2 (clause
XVI) is unjustified and harmful to AP interests.
Quoted references:
River basin development phases and implications of closure http://www.vl-
irrigation.org/cms/fileadmin/content/zfb/1998_02/keller_keller_davids_1998_river_basin_development_phases_im
plications_closure.pdf

40 of 63

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub083/RR83.pdf “Spatial variation in
water supply and demand across river basins of India”
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB121/RR121.pdf Shifting Waterscapes:
Explaining Basin Closure in the Lower Krishna River basin
Closing of the Krishna basin: Irrigation, Stream flow depletion and macro scale hydrology:
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/RR111.pdf
Basin closure of Krishna river in south India
http://www.iwra.org/congress/2008/resource/authors/abs491_article.pdf
http://www.ncscm.org/rramesh/publications/1993.pdf Salt load transport in South Indian rivers.
http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/04/01/000009265_3980722171346/Rend
ered/PDF/multi0page.pdf/ The New Era of Water Resources Management: From "Dry" to “Wet" Water Savings

25 Whether adequate water buffer is available to cope up the future needs due to climate change, pollutants
additions due to increase in basin population density and per capita water pollution in the light of KWDT2
stipulation in its final order in clause XVI stating that review or revision shall not as far as possible disturb any
utilization that may have been undertaken by any State within the limits of allocation made to it.
If there is 5% reduction in average rain fall due to climate change or global warming: Global warming would
enhance the evapo transpiration and evaporation from the vegetation and land area consuming more water. The
mean annual water availability in the river will also decrease at least by 20% causing inadequate water availability
to AP perennially. In this case, the river would be blocked permanently to connect to the sea and the availability of
water in AP to the extent of water allotment is uncertain in all years.
12% reduction in the long-term average rain fall in Krishna basin during the years 2001 to 2004 has caused
unprecedented drought and water shortage in AP. This situation is not particularly unusual in the Krishna Basin.

41 of 63

Such level of rainfall has been recorded with 30% probability of occurrence over the last 100 years and seven
droughts of 3 years or more have been recorded over the last century (refer Table B). Despite this relatively low
rainfall deficit, the basin water balance has been dramatically affected due to upstream states water utilization (both
beneficial and non beneficial/ ground water use). If this situation is further aggravated by regular decrease in the
rainfall /water inflows due to climate change, the situation would totally endanger the ecology and sustainable
productivity of Krishna river basin in AP.
Refer http://www.iwra.org/congress/2008/resource/authors/abs491_article.pdf “Basin closure of Krishna river in
south India”
Enhanced anthropogenic use of water soluble inorganic salts in the river basin: The estimated annual average salt
load in the river basin is approximately 12 million tons (i.e. 164 ppm TDS in 2578 tmc water). The dissolved salts
would naturally add to the river water mainly from the chemical weathering of rocks in the earth/soil when in
contact with water. The Krishna basin predominantly occupies Deccan plateau area of Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Deccan plateau is formed from volcanic eruptions depositing thick seems of basalt rocks in the Plateau lands. The
basalt rock is highly prone to chemical weathering and river water flowing from these rock sediments contains high
dissolved salts. Thus the natural salt load in the river basin is comparatively high.
The salt export water requirement to sea will increase beyond 850 tmc due to Godavari and west flowing river
water imports in to Krishna basin whereas the available / unallocated water by KWDT1 is only 448 tmc which will
increase the water salinity in excess of 945 ppm. If the salt load in the Krishna basin area increases further by two
million tons due to increasing population density, per capita human consumptions, industrial activity, mining
activity, etc the water salinity would go up in excess of 1110 ppm by 17%. Presently the average salinity of
Krishna river water at Prakasam barrage is 450 ppm which is below the 500 ppm safe limit. After the KWDT2
additional water allocations (276 tmc out of 448 tmc), the water available for salt export would reduce to 171 tmc
which would further enhance the water salinity to 2900 ppm which is unacceptable for any use.
Particularly, the increase in sodium content in river / irrigation water from the anthropogenic use of Sodium salts
would increase the residual sodium carbonate (RSC index/alkalinity) beyond the permissible limits. Moderate

42 of 63

RSC values in the irrigation water would turn deep clay soils (with low permeability) extensively spreading in
Krishna delta and Nagarjuna Sagar command areas in to barren alkali soils in a decade.
Refer Colarado river water sharing between USA and Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Water_Disputes_Tribunal and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali_soils and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_Sodium_Carbonate_Index
Effect of air pollution on river water salinity: If the atmospheric air pollution is high due to industrial activity and
automobile emissions, the rain water becomes more acidic when it scrubs the polluted air during rainfall. The
acidic rain water reacts with soil and releases the water soluble salts such as sulphates, bicarbonates, chlorides, etc.
Thus air pollution enhances the salinity of river water by increasing soil leaching.
All the above factors contributing to reduced river inflows and high water salinity are certain possibility in future.
At present there is not enough cushion (proposed 171 tmc water on average) in the Krishna river to absorb these
factors. Thus AP would be facing severe problems from the additional water use allocations to Karnataka and
Maharashtra. Karnataka and Maharashtra would not suffer from these problems in their river basin area and also
benefit immensely by KWDT2 allocations. KWDT1 allocations itself are 83% of total river water availability. The
sustainable productivity of the river basin and conservation of river ecology would be in peril if further water
utilization is contemplated above KWDT1 allocations.
The river water salinity problems are well recognized in all the river basins throughout the world when attempts are
made to harness the water above 75% of the total availability. These are Murray Darling river in Australia,
Colorado river in USA, Sind River in Pakistan, Nile River in Egypt, etc.
Section 4(1) of ISRWD act (amendment 2002) says that any dispute settled by a tribunal before the
commencement of the ISRWD act (amendment 2002) shall not be reopened. As a corollary of this stipulation any
issue settled/water use allocations by the tribunal after this 2002 amendment (ex: KWDT2 order) can be reopened
by a later tribunal/reviewing authority. KWDT2 (clause XVI) is unjustified and harmful to AP interests and its
water use allocations are in excess of sustainable productivity and ecology of the river basin. The water use
allocations definitely would be curtailed in future.

43 of 63

26 Whether earlier water allocations to AP by KWDT1 need to be enhanced due to availability of more saline
water for its use after KWDT2 allocations to Karnataka and MR.
The salt export water available after KWDT1 allocations are 361 tmc (refer to page 409, Vol 2 of KWDT1 report)
used in AP outside the Krishna basin and the 448 tmc left unallocated out of the 2578 tmc mean annual flows
assessed by KWDT2. The outside the basin approximate water uses in AP are TB high level canal (22 tmc), KC
canal (35 tmc), Srisailam right bank canal (11 tmc return flows), NS right canal (109 tmc), Guntur channel (4 tmc)
and Krishna delta (180 tmc. Most of this irrigated area comes in Krishna basin as indicated in Krishna basin map
appended to KWDT2 draft report but located downstream of the last terminal barrage) The mean annual salt export
water available is 809 tmc (361+448) or 22900 million cubic meters as per KWDT1 allocations. The average salt
load in the river is 11.7 million tons in a year. The salinity of water after KWDT1 permitted water uses in
Nagarjunasagar and Prakasam barrage is 524 ppm (12000x 1000/22900).
The unallocated water is reduced to 171 tmc (refer table A) from 448 tmc mean annual by KWDT2.The additional
water allocations by KWDT2 is 277 tmc leaving 171 tmc mean annual water left unallocated. Out of 277 tmc, 25
tmc (Telugu Ganga) and 15 tmc (Chennai water supply) are identified for outside the basin use. Thus the salt
export water available under KWDT2 is 572 tmc (171+25+15+361) or 15780 million cubic meters. The salinity of
water with KWDT2 water allocations in Nagarjunasagar and Prakasam barrage is 741 ppm
Let us consider that a particular crop can grow healthily at root zone water / soil salinity /alkalinity of 1500 ppm
and its evapo-transpiration requirement is 100 units of water. When 524 ppm salinity irrigation water is supplied to
the crop, the total crop water requirement is 154 units (100 units evapo-transpiration and 54 units drainage water)
to maintain 1500 ppm salinity in root zone water / soil.
If 741 ppm salinity/alkalinity water is used for the same crop, the total crop water requirement is 179 units (100
units evapo-transpiration and 99 units drainage water) to maintain 1500 ppm salinity in root zone water / soil. Thus
in this case there is 29% more water requirement to the crop if the salinity increases by 41% in irrigation water.
Though the drainage water / regeneration water available for downstream use has increased from 54 units to 99
units this water is having high salinity (1500 ppm) whose suitability for further use is nil. This high saline water is
to be left to the sea for maintaining salt balance (i.e. salts not to accumulate in soil/ground water) in the river basin.

44 of 63

The water use allocations by KWDT1 from Nagarjunasagar and Prakasam barrages are nearly 460 tmc mean
annual. So the water requirement would go up by 133 tmc due to water salinity increase where as the additional
water allocations to AP are only 38 tmc mean annual. The additional water allocations are not even adequate to
meet the additional irrigation water needs in existing/protected command area using KWDT1 allocations.
When water salinity/alkalinity is increasing due to upstream uses, the downstream users need to use more water
than earlier in their existing irrigated area. Thus existing /protected water allocations are to be enhanced for
compensating the increase in salinity. This point was also acknowledged by KWDT1 (page 616 of Vol 2) saying
that AP is entitled equal share when more water is available in the river since the water available for irrigation in
AP is likely to be somewhat of inferior quality than the rain water. This aspect has become major concern when
KWDT2 wanted to allocate 93.33% of 2578 tmc mean annual water available in the river. It would enhance the
water salinity/alkalinity by nearly 4 times in the irrigation water available in AP compared to Karnataka and MR.
Already coastal area farmers are incurring additional cost in the form of green mulching, organic manure, tilling
the fields to fine loose soil, chemical additives, more urea application, enhanced field drainage, etc to leach the
field soil for reducing alkalinity and salinity problems. Also substantial field time is lost in these efforts which are
equal to a short duration crop. Due to additional water allocations to Karnataka and MR by KWDT2, GoAP may
be forced by farmers in future to treat the canal water at canal heads with chemical additives like Gypsum to make
suitable for irrigation needs.
References:
http://www.cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/for_website_KCC_hyd_Publishing%20inf.on%20CWC%20Web%20site.p
df Water quality data at CWC Vijayawada gauging station in Krishna basin.
http://protosh2o.act.be/VIRTUELE_BIB/Werken_in_het_Water/IWB-
Integraal_WaterBeheer/W_IWB_E33_Integrated_water.pdf Integrated Water Resource Systems: Theory and
Policy Implications by Andrew Keller, Jack Keller and David Seckler
http://www.ncscm.org/rramesh/publications/1993.pdf Salt load transport in South Indian rivers.

45 of 63

http://dspace.library.iitb.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10054/1531/1/5806.pdf Chemical weathering in the Krishna Basin
and Western Ghats of the Deccan Traps, India: Rates of basalt weathering and their controls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Water_Disputes_Tribunal Colarado river water sharing between USA and
Mexico
27 Whether AP was allocated more water by KWDT1 based on prior appropriation against the equitable
distribution of water among the riparian states.
The total water availability in Krishna basin is 2578 tmc mean annual and the contribution of AP is nearly 450 tmc
mean annual out of this total water. The mean annual salt load in the Krishna basin water is nearly 11.7 million
tons. Most of the salt load is from the weathering of basalt rock formations in Deccan plateau area of Karnataka
and Maharashtra to the extent of 11 million tons approximately and the rest 0.7 million tons is generated in AP
area. The water contributed by Karnataka and Maharashtra is 2128 tmc mean annual at 182 ppm salinity out of
which 1319 tmc mean annual is allowed for their water uses which is 62% of the water generated in Karnataka and
Maharashtra. 112 tmc at 182 ppm salinity is diverted to Arabian Sea for hydropower generation by MR. This water
going to Arabian sea consists of 0.6 million tons salt load. The rest of water 2016 tmc at 182 ppm salinity is put to
use for irrigation and other uses. Nearly 78 tmc is used by AP from Tungabhadra reservoir which receives all the
water from Karnataka area out of which nearly 31 tmc is outside the basin use in Penna river basin.
Nearly 731 tmc mean annual river water containing 10.4 million tons salt load is flowing from the upstream states
in to AP. The salinity of this water is 502 ppm. Due to high water alkalinity / salinity water inflows from upstream
states in to Srisailam reservoir, algal blooms are normal phenomenon except during floods. Algal blooms are
indication of high alkalinity and salinity in unacceptable manner in the water. Till recently, the upstream states
have not fully utilized the allocations by KWDT1 (page 303 of KWDT2, Chart no 5) and alkalinity/salinity issue
has not turned out in to major concern. The water available (731 tmc mean annual at 502 ppm salinity) from
upstream states has no utility in AP as it is containing unacceptable salinity for inside the basin use. In Murray
darling basin of Australia, the basin authority has stipulated that 500 ppm salinity on average daily basis in the
river up to merger with Sea shall not exceed 95% duration in a year.

46 of 63

450 tmc at 55 ppm salinity (0.7 million tons salt load) water available in Krishna basin of AP is first used with 403
tmc utility inside the Krishna basin area and the rest 47 tmc at 525 ppm salinity is used for meeting environmental
flows to the sea. AP unable to utilize the 731 tmc high salinity water from Karnataka inside the basin is diverting
330 tmc for outside the basin use and rest of water 401 tmc is used as environmental flows to the Sea. Out of 1259
tmc (78+731+450) total available water in AP, 811 tmc (450 inside basin use & 361 outside basin use) is used in
AP. Rest of the water 448 tmc (1259-811) would go to sea as mean annual environmental flows with 47 tmc
contribution from AP.
330 tmc high saline water flowing from upstream states is diverted to other river basins for use in AP. If this water
(330 tmc) should not be diverted outside the basin instead to be used inside the basin, the salinity of 448 tmc
environmental flows will enhance to 819 ppm. As explained above, unusable high salinity water which has no
utility further for inside basin use is flowing from upstream states in to AP.
Upstream states are using low salinity and reliable/ highly dependable water available from high rainfall western
ghats area with near 100% success rate. Most of this water available in AP from Karnataka and MR is in the form
of unregulated flood water when there are heavy rains in upstream states after all the upstream state reservoirs are
full. The upstream states are using AP area for flushing the unwanted flood waters generated in their Krishna basin
area. Once in a five years period, peak floods from the upstream states in the Krishna river are causing massive
property damage and human sufferings in AP.
As per sections 2 & 3 of ISRWD act, an upstream state has no claim on the water resources available in a
downstream state since a water dispute could not be established as the utilization of the water in a downstream
state is no way affecting their existing interests. Distribution of water resources available in upstream states
excluding lowest riparian state (where the river is joining the Sea) among all basin states is only in the purview of
ISRWD act. Thus MR has no claim on water resources of Karnataka and AP in Krishna basin. Karnataka has no
claim on AP water resources in Krishna basin. While distributing upstream state waters, environmental flows and
water quality requirements in the river basin shall be considered to arrive at the allowable water uses in the basin
states.

47 of 63

It is totally unfair to claim by Karnataka and Maharashtra that equitable distribution of water resources in Krishna
basin is not given to them by KWDT1 and undeservingly more water allocations are given to AP on prior
appropriation criteria. More over AP suffered heavily in KWDT1 allocations by denying access to base flows
(constant flows available in ten months of a year) available in Krishna basin which AP had been using in
Rajolibanda diversion scheme, KC canal and Krishna delta without the support of water stored in upstream
reservoirs (refer page 322 of volume 1 of KWDT1). Also sufficient base flows as part of environmental flows used
to take place before the KWDT1 water use allocations. AP state and its people contributed (directly or indirectly)
more than a trillion rupees at present cost to construct Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar reservoirs without much
financial help from central government to mitigate loss of Krishna river base flows to upstream states.
KWDT2 has further carried away by the unjustified claims of upstream state claims permitted nearly 161 tmc mean
annual additional Krishna river water without adhering to equitable water distribution criteria in totality, applicable
laws in India, water policies of GoI and existing agreements on Krishna river water sharing. Instead of recovering
the loss of base flows of the Krishna river in its territory, AP would suffer from the KWDT2 water allocations
further unrecoverable damage to its sustainable productivity of its territory and ecology of Krishna river by getting
meager inflows from upstream states with unacceptable water quality in the form of unregulated flood water.
References: http://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/archived/Guide-to-proposed-BP-vol2-0-12.pdf Pages
306 & 311, Guide to the proposed Basin Plan, Volume 2, Murray–Darling Basin Authority
River basin development phases and implications of closure http://www.vl-
irrigation.org/cms/fileadmin/content/zfb/1998_02/keller_keller_davids_1998_river_basin_development_phases_im
plications_closure.pdf
Shifting Waterscapes: Explaining Basin Closure in the Lower Krishna River basin
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB121/RR121.pdf
Closing of the Krishna basin: Irrigation, Stream flow depletion and macro scale hydrology:
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/RR111.pdf

48 of 63

Basin closure of Krishna river in south India
http://www.iwra.org/congress/2008/resource/authors/abs491_article.pdf
http://www.ncscm.org/rramesh/publications/1993.pdf Salt load transport in South Indian rivers.
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub083/RR83.pdf “Spatial variation in
water supply and demand across river basins of India”
http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/04/01/000009265_3980722171346/Rend
ered/PDF/multi0page.pdf/ The New Era of Water Resources Management: From "Dry" to “Wet” Water Savings

28 Whether KWDT2 allocations to specific projects (RBDC-RC, TG and 150tmc carryover storage) is not the duty of
the tribunal as it is no way connected with water use/control/regulation in a state as long as it is not affecting other
states.
Section 3 & 4 clearly defines what is water dispute between Interstate river basin / river valley states. A water
dispute arises or likely to arise when the interest of a state are affected or likely to affect prejudicially with the
actions of another state. The duty of the tribunal formed under section 4 of the act is to adjudicate water disputes
only. It is not the responsibility of the tribunal to allocate water to specific project as long as it is not affecting the
interest of any other basin state.
The water allocations to the AP projects Rajolibanda right bank canal, Teluguganga and 150 tmc carryover storage
located in the last riparian state is not affecting interests of any other riparian state. Planning, execution and
distribution of water resources is constitutional right of a state government under s.no.17 of state list in seventh
Schedule of the constitution. Water dispute tribunal has no powers to interfere with the right of state government
and water allocations to above projects are to be withdrawn instead 179 tmc enblock water allocations are to be
given to AP state by the tribunal.

49 of 63

29 Whether specifying further review after the year 2050 by KWDT2 is denying the right of states to raise water
disputes as and when they are likely to crop up as per Section 3 of ISRWD act.
Sections 3 & 4 of ISRWD act says that whenever a water dispute has risen or likely to rise with another state
affecting or likely to affect its interests, the state can approach the central government to settle the dispute. The
central government shall constitute a tribunal for adjudication within one year of such request if the dispute is not
settled by negotiations.
KWDT2 (clause XVI of the final order) stipulates that its order may be reviewed or revised at any time after 31
May 2050 which is nearly 36 years period. Meanwhile, many water disputes will come up and needs to be waiting
for adjudication till June 2050 denying right given to states to refer the disputes to a tribunal if settlement could not
be arrived by negotiations between them.
In Godavari tribunal order (1980) and Cauvery tribunal order (2007) which are the recent tribunal orders published
in the gazette of GoI are not stipulating time period for constituting a new tribunal in line with Sections 3 & 4 of
the ISRWD act. It is against the ISRWD act to stipulate time limit for a new tribunal by KWDT2 and clause XVI
of KWDT2 final order shall be revised.
30 Whether it is the duty of the tribunal to adjudicate and investigate all the issues as per section 4, 5 and 9 (2) of
ISRWD act
Any tribunal shall resolve all the disputes among the states without causing new disputes out of its decision. The
tribunal shall visualize or show interest in the consequences of implementing its order. As explained earlier, the
water quality/salinity would become unacceptable after implementation of KWDT2 water allocations affecting the
sustainable productivity and ecology of the river basin in last riparian state (Andhra Pradesh) due to inadequate
environmental flows and salt export water flows from upstream states.
Articles 4 & 5 of ISRWD act stipulate that the tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also investigate the matters
refereed to it. The primary responsibility of giving valid/correct decision without arising new disputes out of the
decision of the tribunal lies on tribunal not on the disputing states. Article 9 (2) allows tribunals to carry out or
permit to be carried out such survey and investigation as may be considered necessary for the adjudication of the

50 of 63

water dispute. There is no list of specific matters refereed to the KWDT2 tribunal by the GoI and
reviewing/revising the water allocations, river basin sustainable productivity and ecology, adequate environmental
flows, adequate salt export water needs, climate change effects, etc become matters to be settled by the tribunal
along with specific disputes raised by the states.
KWDT2 is peculiar unlike earlier tribunals. It is constituted to allocate remaining unallocated water in the Krishna
river after the implementation of its earlier tribunal KWDT1. KWDT1 has already allocated 83% of the water in
the river for use by the riparian states. There is very limited scope to find unallocated water in the river without
compromising tangible and intangible existing water uses/purposes. The tribunal shall investigate all the aspects of
a river basin including which are available in public domain. Detailed multidisciplinary investigations/studies by
professional experts are required to reach final decision on further water allocations.
Tribunal shall also deliver its order without interfering with the rights of states (s.no. 17 of States list, Seventh
Schedule of Indian constitution) and central government policy on river water. The tribunal order shall also comply
with Supreme Court earlier interpretations on KWDT1, valid agreements by the states, etc. It is not reasonable that
tribunal takes nearly ten years long duration spending huge amount of government funds and fails to understand
the subject or conduct detailed investigation to resolve all aspects of a river basin while permitting additional water
use rights.
31 Whether KWDT2 permitting additional water exclusively for power generation is equitable distribution of
water in a river basin where total water availability is short of preferred water uses.
MR has been already permitted by KWDT1 (clause X of the final order) to divert 111 tmc average water in a water
year for hydropower generation exclusively by transferring Krishna river water to Arabian Sea. KWDT1
progressively reduced the water use in Koyna hydro electric project from 97 tmc to 67.5 tmc to make available
additional water as irrigation projects under construction at that time start using water fully. KWDT1 (clause X 3
of the final order) also stipulated that no additional water shall be diverted from the Krishna river basin other than
specific permissions [clause X(1)] given for Koyna hydroelectric project and Tata hydel works [clause X(2)]. It is
also not mentioned in its report that the restrictions imposed on water diversion outside the Krishna basin by
Maharashtra is subject of review by the new tribunal. Wherever review is required on any issue, KWDT1 clearly

51 of 63

stated in its report that particular issue/s shall be reviewed by the new tribunal. Moreover, the restrictions placed in
clause X of the final order were not changed in the Scheme-B proposed by KWDT1 when more water use
allocations are made up in excess of 2130 tmc.
Section 5 of Water policy 2002 of GOI states that Drinking water and irrigation needs should get priority over
hydro power and industrial use while allocating the water resources. Section 21 of Water policy 2002 stipulates
water sharing / distribution amongst the basin states outside the interstate river basin shall also be given
consideration in water scarcity basins (ex: Penna, Gundlakamma and other coastal rivers in Andhra Pradesh).
In the year 2012, Water policy 2012 is adopted by GoI which gives top most priority to drinking, ecological and
environmental water requirements (sections 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3) in a river basin with integrated water resources
development for optimizing water use (not maximization) in a river basin.
From the above KWDT2 reopened the settled issue by KWDT1 which is not permitted under section 4(1) of
ISRWD act and allocated 25 tmc water at 65% dependability (clause X1b of KWDT2 final order) exclusively for
hydroelectricity generation out of the existing inadequate environmental and ecological needs. Also irrigation
demands inside the basin and outside basin are not given weightage over hydro power generation needs by
KWDT2 which is against water policy adopted by GoI for implementation.
References: http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/nwp20025617515534.pdf Water policy 2002,
http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/NWP2012Eng6495132651.pdf Water policy 2012,
32 Whether KWDT2 additional allocations complying with „Water policy 2012‟ in ensuring water quality,
environmental flows in the river basin.
Water policy 2012 adopted by GoI which gives top most priority to drinking, ecological and environmental water
requirements (sections 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3) in a river basin with integrated water resources development for optimizing
water use (not maximization) in a river basin.
Water policy 2012, Section 3.3 adopted by GoI for implementation stipulates as given below:

52 of 63

Section 3.3: Ecological needs of the river should be determined, through scientific study, recognizing that the
natural river flows are characterized by low or no flows, small floods (freshets), large floods, etc., and should
accommodate developmental needs. A portion of river flows should be kept aside to meet ecological needs
ensuring that the low and high flow releases are proportional to the natural flow regime, including base flow
contribution in the low flow season through regulated ground water use.
KWDT1 (page 228 of Vol 1), stated that it may be necessary to limit the use of ground water to prevent diminution
of the water supply downstream in view of close connection between the surface and ground water resources of a
river basin. There is tenfold increase in ground water use in Krishna basin after KWDT1 award. More area is
irrigated by ground water than by surface water in the Krishna basin. The rivers/ streams are turning in to influent
rivers (depleting / sinking stream) from effluent rivers. In influent rivers, water infiltrates to the ground recharging
the local ground water rather receive ground water as base flows.

KWDT2 has not given preference to environmental & ecological requirements which have been accorded top
priority by the GoI water policy 2012. It is of the unscientific impression that 100% water use can be achieved by
curtailing the total environmental flows and ecological needs except meager minimum environmental flows of 16
tmc at 65% dependability which is less than 1% of total water yield in the river. There is no environmental &
ecological flows in the river for 35% of years below 65% dependability and more over these flows would be
provided by the states in the later part of the monsoon season when it is clear that the river inflows are near about
65% dependability by which time few months duration lapses in a water year (June to next May). If sufficient
environmental flows are ensured, these waters also generate substantial hydro electricity in the existing power
stations.
Reference: http://nrlp.iwmi.org/PDocs/DReports/Phase_01/14.%20Environmental%20water%20demand%20-
%20Smakhtin%20et%20al.pdf An Assessment of Environmental Flow Requirements of Indian River Basins.
33 Whether constitution of KBD-IB with review committee by KWDT2 is against Section 2, 3 & 4 of ISRWD act.
Thus Scheme B which is better than scheme A with provisions to share the deficiency and surplus waters in a
predetermined manner could not be implemented due to legal constraints and lack of unanimous agreement among
the riparian states on the powers to be conferred to the Krishna Valley Authority. KWDT1 (page 52 of Vol 4 of

53 of 63

KWDT1) stated that it is unwise and impractical to impose an administrative authority by a judicial decree by the
tribunal without the unanimous consent and approval of the parties. KWDT1 tribunal has stated that it has no
power to abolish the Tungabhadra Board. The best method of creating an administrative authority for regulating
the distribution of the waters of an inter-State river and river valley including the waters available for use from
inter-State projects (Tungabhadra project) is by agreement between the interested States or by a law made by
Parliament.
From the above statements of the KWDT1, It is clear that Scheme B water sharing mechanism which was
agreeable to all states but could not be imposed by the tribunal as the tribunal was not empowered to establish the
implementation authority in the absence of the unanimous consent and approval of the parties. Subsequently final
order of Scheme A was published in the gazette in 1976 by GoI and Scheme A was made binding on the riparian
states.

The ISRWD act was amended in the year 1980 by adding subsection 6(A) to section 6. This amendment identified
central government to frame a scheme or schemes with provisions made for all matters necessary to give effect to
the decision of a tribunal. Subsection 6A3 says that the Authority created by the central government, shall have
capacity to enter in to contracts, sue and to be sued and do all such acts as may be necessary for the proper exercise
and discharge of its jurisdiction , powers and functions. Thus the established authority for giving effect to the
decision of the tribunal scheme to be created is fully empowered. Subsection 6A7 stipulated that every scheme and
every regulation as soon as it is made, shall be laid before each House of Parliament and is subject to the approval
or modifications or annulment by both Houses.
Recent Cauvery tribunal in the year 2007, has not constituted the empowered authority for the implementation of
the tribunal decision. Later Supreme Court interfered and directed to establish authority/committee to implement
the Cauvery tribunal decision. GoI established the interim committee till its scheme and regulations are subject to
approval by both houses of Parliament. Similarly, interim implementation committee was made on the direction of
Supreme Court for implementation of agreement between AP and MR for sharing the waters of Godavati river in
the upstream of Pochampadu dam subject to approval by the both Houses of Parliament.


54 of 63

Only both Houses of parliament are empowered to implement a scheme along with its regulations. Neither central
government nor the tribunal is empowered to do so. When this amendment was not applicable before the year 1980
itself, KWDT1 expressed its inability to form by its decision implementation authority and it is very clear after the
ISRWD act (amendment 1980) that only parliament is empowered to finalize a scheme and its regulations to
implement decision of a tribunal.
KWDT2 (clause XVIII of the final order) framed KWD-IB scheme (Annexure 1of KWDT2 final order) for
implementation with addition of clause 14A (as amendment in its further report) providing a Review Committee on
the decisions of the KWD-IB. The single man review committee is headed by the Minister for Water Resources,
Govt. of India and the decision of the Review Committee on the review petition, if any, shall be final and binding
on all the parties.
There would be many fresh water disputes such as importing other river waters in to Krishna basin, water quality
problems, lack of sufficient environmental flows, climate change related problems, implementation of water
policies of GoI, etc which are not addressed by KWDT1 and KWDT2. Sections 3 & 4 of ISRWD act says that
whenever a water dispute has risen or likely to rise with another state affecting or likely to affect its interests, the
state can approach the central government to settle the dispute. The central government shall constitute a tribunal
for adjudication within one year of such request if the dispute is not settled by negotiations. The rights given to
states for seeking adjudication under Section 3 &4 of ISRWD act is curtailed by making the one man review
committee headed by the Minister for Water Resources decision as final and also there is no time stipulation for
delivering the decision of the Review committee. More over the person occupying Minister for Water Resources
position must have allegiance to any ruling party in Krishna basin states or belong to a Krishna basin states as
elected member whose decisions can be biased / favoring a state/s. Also, decision of the one man review committee
is final means the states are denied opportunity to go to Supreme Court for interpretation of the tribunal order and
seeking damages for not implementing the tribunal order.
KWDT2 stipulated that the KWD-IB shall be constituted by GoI as early as possible. The central and state
governments shall nominate the Board members within three months from the publication of KWDT2 decision. As
the implementation authority proposed by earlier KWDT1 is associated with Scheme-B of water sharing only and
Scheme-B was turned down by the KWDT1 in the absence of agreement among the parties and by law made by

55 of 63

Parliament, KWDT2 has not come up with any alternative proposal in case the proposal of KBD-IB as proposed by
KWDT2 is not finally accepted in totality by the both Houses of the Parliament after publishing in the gazette of
GoI and formation of interim KBD-IB, The three tier water use allocations made by KWDT2 cannot be
implemented without daily monitoring of KBD-IB. Once KBD-IB becomes ineffective by not getting Parliament
sanction, the upstream states would be free to use any amount of water without remorse to downstream state water
rights. It is essential to take Parliament sanction of KWD-IB scheme before publishing KWDT2 decision in the
Gazette of GoI to avoid future problems particularly of downstream state AP. Only Supreme Court should have the
final right to judge the correctness of KWD-IB decisions (not the one man review committee headed by the
minister of water resources) and interpret the KWDT1 and KWDT2 awards.
It is very much needed to constitute implementation board (KWDT1-IB) to implement the KWDT1 (Bachawat
award) to know the actual water usage by the riparian states as an interim measure till the validity of KBD-IB as
proposed by KWDT2 is decided. This would prevent upstream states from using excess water and help AP in
reducing the water scarcity in 25% of the deficit water years.
34 Whether Karnataka & MR are entitled for 35 tmc Krishna water in lieu of Godavari water transfer from
Polavaram project after CWC clearance of the project.
An agreement dated 4 August 1978 (part of Godavari tribunal report) was reached between Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka regarding sharing of unallocated/surplus water available in Krishna river in lieu of Godavari river water
transfer/export to Krishna River.
a) Subject to the clearance of Polavaram Project by the Central Water Commission for FRL/MWL plus 150 ft. the
state of Andhra Pradesh agrees that a quantity of 80 TMC at 75 per cent dependability of Godavari waters from
Polavaram project can be diverted into Krishna river above Vijayawada Anicut displacing the discharges from
Nagarjunasagar Project for Krishna Delta, thus enabling the use of the said 80 TMC for projects upstream of
Nagarjunasagar.
b) The States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka agree that the said quantity of 80 TMC shall be shared in the
proportion of Andhra Pradesh 45 TMC, Karnataka and Maharashtra together 35 TMC.

56 of 63

c) Andhra Pradesh agrees to submit the Polavaram project report to Central Water Commission within three
months of reaching an over-all agreement on Godavari waters among the five party States.
d) Andhra Pradesh agrees to bear the cost of diversion fully.
e) Maharashtra and Karnataka are at liberty to utilise their share of 35 TMC mentioned in sub-para 7(b) above
from the date of clearance of the Polavaram project by Central Water Commission with FRL/MWL of plus 150
ft., irrespective of the actual diversion taking place.
f) It is also agreed that if the diversion at 75 per cent dependability as stated in clause (a) above exceeds the said
quantity of 80 TMC due to diversion of Godavari waters from the proposed Polavaram Project into Krishna
river, further diminishing the releases from Nagarjunasagar Project, such excess quantity shall also be shared
between the three States in the same proportion as in sub-clause (b) above.
Later on 29 January 1979, Karnataka informed Andhra Pradesh that out of the 35 tmc water available in lieu of 80
tmc Godavari water transfer from Polavaram dam to Prakasam barrage, the share of Karnataka is 21 tmc and that
of Maharashtra is 14 tmc.
As per above agreement, the sharing of Krishna River water in lieu of Godavari water transfer to Prakasam
barrage, can be made in to three parts as given below:
Before the completion of Polavaram Project: Karnataka and Maharashtra are entitled to use 35 tmc Krishna river
water from the date of clearance of Polavaram project by Central Water commission (CWC) without the
requirement of Polavaram to Prakasam barrage water transfer not commissioned / established. It clearly indicates
that Andhra Pradesh agreed for the use of 35 tmc unallocated water of Krishna river available at 75% dependability
by Karnataka and Maharashtra. Andhra Pradesh would bear the cost of the water diversion fully. Polavaram project
was cleared by technical advisory committee of CWC on 20 January 2009 with FRL 150 ft MSL. (Refer
http://wrmin.nic.in/printmain3.asp?sslid=899&subsublinkid=865&langid=1 Polavaram clearance by CWC)
Karnataka and Maharashtra are entitled to 35 tmc water use from the Krishna river out of 75% dependability.
After the completion of Polavaram Project: Karnataka and Maharashtra would continue to get 35 tmc irrespective
of actual water diversion up to 80 tmc at 75% dependability total diversion from the Polavaram Project to
Prakasam barrage.

57 of 63

After the completion of Polavaram Project and total diversion is exceeding 80 tmc: When the total water diversion
is exceeding 80 tmc at 75% dependability, the additional water shall be shared in the same proportion 45:21:14 by
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra respectively.
In clause V of the final order of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT), GWDT has not taken the
cognizance of the agreements not related to Godavari river and Godavari river basin. Also Karnataka being totally
upper riparian state in Godavari basin situated in the upstream of Pochampadu dam site has no water use rights of
Godavari river water available from the Godavari basin located downstream of the Pochampadu dam site. Also
Maharashtra has no Godavari water use rights below proposed Inchampally dam in Andhra Pradesh which is
located upstream of the Polavaram dam on Godavari river. The final order of GWDT permits all the states to
export Godavari water outside the river basin.
In lieu of Godavari river transfer from Polavaram to Prakasam barrage by Andhra Pradesh, it is clear from the
above agreements that all the three riparian states agreed that Karnataka and Maharashtra are entitled to use 21 and
14 tmc respectively out of the unallocated Krishna river water available at 75% dependability which are available
over and above the KWDT1 allocations (2060 tmc + return flows).
As per section 3 of Interstate River Water Dispute, there is no water dispute among the riparian states as long as
one /more state‟s interest are not affected by the actions of a riparian state/s. Andhra Pradesh being the lower most
riparian state, its action by diverting the water of Godavari river in to Krishna river totally in its territory is no way
affecting the interests of upstream states Karnataka and Maharashtra. Thus it does not arise in to water dispute as
per Section 3 of ISRWD act.
Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal final report www.irrigation.ap.gov.in/GWDTAward.pdf
35 Whether the water allocations for Chennai drinking water supply is out of the KWDT1 bulk water allocations to
the riparian states
An agreement dated 28 October, 1977 was made by all the riparian states of Krishna river to make available 5 tmc
each in a water year for Chennai drinking water supply. Tamilnadu is not a riparian state of the Krishna basin. Thus
another 15 tmc at 100% at 100% success rate / dependability out of average water available in the Krishna river is

58 of 63

allocated to Tamilnadu state by the agreement of all the riparian states in Krishna basin. The riparian states
together are empowered to enter in to agreement as per clause XVII of KWDT1 final order specifically or
otherwise also. In the agreement it is not stated that the 15 tmc water use allocation to Tamilnadu is out of the
KWDT1 water use allocations by the riparian states. KWDT2 to suit its water allocation criteria for the unallocated
water assumed that the 15 tmc water use allocation to Tamilnadu is out of the bulk allocations made by KWDT1
earlier. It has not explained how this water use alteration can be achieved /adjusted and which project should bear
the reduction in the existing water uses in each state or it has not compensated the same by its fresh water
allocations. Thus KWDT2 water use allocations are violating the existing agreement entered by all the riparian
states which is against the section 2 of ISRWD act.

36 What are the Krishna water allocations already made prior to the KWDT2 allocations including water
allocations out of water transfer from Polavaram project and 15 tmc allocations for Chennai drinking water
supply to Tamilnadu by valid agreements.
In 1976, KWDT1 made 2060 tmc allocations to the states out of the assessed 2394 tmc mean annual water flows
available in the river based on 78 years water gauging data from the year 1995 to 1973. In addition KWDT1
estimated 70 tmc additional water availability in the form of return flows which are also allocated to the states
based on the actual water utilization criteria in the clause V of its final order. The approximate water allocations are
2130 tmc out of 2464 tmc (2394 + 70) annual mean water availability. Later in 1977, all the states agreed to spare
15 tmc Krishna river water to Taminadu for meeting Chennai drinking water requirements. The 15 tmc allocation
to Tamilnadu is not from the KWDT1 water use allocations but from the unallocated water in the Krishna river. On
4 August 1978, all the three states further agreed that Karnataka & Maharashtra can use additional 35 tmc Krishna
water in lieu of augmentation of water flows at Prakasam barrage in Krishna basin from Polavaram dam on
Godavari river. This agreement will be in force from the date of Polavaram project clearance by Central Water
Commission. Thus the total committed water allocations are nearly 2180 tmc (2060 + 70 + 15+35) out of mean
annual water availability 2464 tmc which is 88.5% of the total water availability.
Additionally, nearly 75 tmc Godavari water is exported to Krishna basin under Pochampadu (stage I & II), Singoor
& Manjira water supply schemes to Hyderabad city and Devadula lift irrigation project. There are many projects

59 of 63

taken up by Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which are under construction to import water to Krishna basin from
west flowing and Godavari rivers. These are Netravati water export to Vedavati sub basin in Karnataka, Mandovi
water export to Malaprabha sub basin in Karnataka, Sharavathi river water export to Tungabhadra sub basin in
Karnataka, Godavari water export from Pranahita to Krishna basin in AP, Godavari water export from Devadula
(Phase 2 &3) to Krishna basin in AP, Godavari water export from Dummugudem to Krishna basin in AP, etc
which will enhance the salt load in Krishna basin. Also KWDT1 permitted 112 tmc fresh rain water (175 ppm
TDS) to transfer to Arabian sea for hydroelectricity generation from Krishna river basin without being used for
irrigation purpose.
Out of the 2180 tmc allocations, 376 tmc (350+11+15) is used outside the Krishna basin. The unallocated water is
only 284 tmc (2464-2180) whereas the salt export water requirement is 472 tmc (848-376) and mean annual
environmental flow requirement is 451 tmc (18.3%) for 2464 tmc total flow. It is required to release 472 tmc water
on mean annual basis to limit the TDS / salinity to 500 ppm and maintain moderately polluted (C class) river
ecology for the sustainable productivity and ecology of the river basin. Thus the cardinal responsibility of KWDT2
should have been to find out the unallocated water which can be allocated further to the states without reducing
water needed for salt export and environmental flows. Already the available environmental flow is deficit by 167
tmc (451-284) which are to be enhanced by transferring Godavari water from Polavaram to Prakasam barrage
during monsoon season.
KWDT2 has not taken cognizance of these existing water use allocations under the agreements entered by the
states and failed to implement the valid agreement which is violation of Section 2 & 3 of ISRWD act.

37 Whether every state has alternate water resources not to constrain environmental flows.
The unallocated water by KWDT1 is only 448 tmc which is just adequate for the salt export requirements and for
the sustainable environmental / ecological requirements of Krishna River. Every state should explore the
possibilities of using adjacent river basins of Krishna River utilizing the latest technology.


60 of 63

Maharashtra should stop diverting Krishna river water to Arabian Sea for power generation exclusively. This water
(112 tmc allocation by KWDT1) shall be used for its additional irrigation, domestic and industrial requirements.
However MR can use the existing Koyna and Tata hydropower stations in reversible turbine mode to generate
peaking power without any water consumption. These power stations are more than 35 years old, which are fully
depreciated assets. It is not reasonable that water is solely utilized for power generation while downstream states
are contemplating lift irrigation projects with high pumping heads (up to 200 meters).

The water availability in west flowing rivers in Karnataka is nearly 2000 TMC, which is 57% of total river water
yield in the state. (Refer http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/irri_in_kar.htm Irrigation in Karnataka) All the additional
water requirements in Krishna basin of Karnataka would be met if 25% of this reliable water were diverted to
adjoining Krishna basin. There are many sites / existing reservoirs located on medium rivers in Karnataka part of
Western Ghats from where water can be pumped in to adjoining Krishna basin with moderate lifts (less than 100
meters). To meet the additional irrigation water requirement in Krishna and Tungabhadra basins of Karnataka, the
state need to augment water availability in Krishna basin by transferring from westward flowing rivers at the cost
of hydropower generation. Water can be transferred to Krishna basin from west flowing medium rivers by gravity
also envisaging lengthy tunnels across Western Ghats in Karnataka.

Andhra Pradesh needs to transfer Godavari river water by pumping in to adjoining Krishna basin for its additional
irrigation requirements. AP would be losing hydropower generation in the existing/ongoing hydroelectric stations
at Nagarjuna Sagar, Srisailam, Jurala, Lower Jurala and Pulichintala by using Godavari water in place of Krishna
water.

There is abundant water availability in AP, Karnataka and MR if the available water in adjoining river basins such
as Godavari in AP and west flowing medium rivers in Karnataka are harnessed for irrigation requirements.
Presently Karnataka and MR are using the available surface water resources in Western Ghats (Krishna in MR and
west flowing medium rivers in Karnataka) for power generation. AP can meet most of its additional irrigation
water requirements by harnessing water from Godavari River. Similarly, Karnataka can meet most of its additional
irrigation water requirements in Krishna basin by transferring from west flowing medium rivers. MR also can

61 of 63

divert the water usage from hydropower generation to its additional irrigation requirements by stopping transfer of
Krishna river water to Arabian Sea / west flowing rivers.

When a riparian state wants to create additional irrigation potential, it is required to redefine its priorities in using
the available water resources from hydropower generation to irrigation. Each state would be losing partly its
hydropower generation in existing hydropower stations and also would incur additional pumping power
consumption by transferring water from adjoining rivers to Krishna basin. There is sufficient water in the Krishna
river riparian states for meeting all the requirements fully. Each state shall be allowed to create additional irrigation
potential depending on the technical feasibility of interlinking the rivers. Instead of trying to maximize its
allotment from the available Krishna river basin water, every state needs to cooperate in utilizing available water
resources infrastructure to maximize benefits such as flood control, irrigation, river water salinity/ alkalinity
control, sustainable environmental water requirements of the river, salt export water needs and run off hydro
power. A perfect river water sharing accord could be achieved where the state boundaries would not deprive water
to any area for its requirements. Only technical and economical factors can be the reasons for not creating
irrigation facility.

38 What would be final recourse ultimately by AP if all the legal attempts are futile?
In case the real problem in using 93.33% river water is not understood by the judiciary & law makers and the
adequate preventive corrective steps are not taken by allowing KWDT2 award for implementation, the real
problem would surface later in the form of unacceptable water quality and erratic river flows. Then AP would be
forced unilaterally to construct dams located close to the Karnataka boarder across Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers
submerging vast area in Karnataka such that peak flood water collected in these massive carryover reservoirs
would serve to moderate the salinity/alkalinity of the available river water from upstream states. AP will not heed
upstream state‟s protests anymore. Already, Punjab state repudiated Ravi Beas water dispute tribunal order and AP
will also be forced to do the same when the sustainable productivity and ecology if its area is affected drastically
by the upstream states unjustified water uses from the Krishna river.

62 of 63



Recommendations:
Already the water utilization in Krishna river basin is touching the maximum limit constraining the salt export to the
Sea. Detailed study shall be conducted by experts to decide the minimum water needed for the salt export to the sea
and the required water quality to be maintained. We should learn from the bad experience of Australia in over
exploiting the waters of Murray-Darling River. Krishna Basin Authority similar to Murray-Darling Basin Authority
shall be constituted by the Government of India rejecting archaic river water allocations by the KWDT-2. Krishna
Basin Authority should be headed by a panel of experts representing environment, irrigation, agriculture, ground
water, geology, health, ecology, etc to protect the river basin area for its long term sustainable productivity and
ecology. Krishna River is the first major Indian River where water utilization has reached more than 80% of average
water availability. The proposed Krishna Basin Authority should be constituted in such a way that it will become an
exemplary precedent for the sustainable productivity and ecology of all river basins of India
References:
http://www.kgbo-cwc.ap.nic.in/About%20Basins/Krishna.pdf Map of Krishna River basin.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58796178/Krishna-River-Water-Sharing-Accord “Krishna River Water Sharing Accord”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58796049/BLUE-PRINT-FOR-GODAVARI-RIVER-WATER-UTILIZATION-IN-
ANDHRA-PRADESH “Blue Print for Godavari River Water Utilization in Andhra Pradesh”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58796396/Krishna-River-Water-Harnessing Are Pumped Storage Schemes beneficial for
harnessing the Krishna River Water Further?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58789365/Srisailam-HPS “Optimisation of power generation from Srisailam
Hydroelectric Power Station”

63 of 63

River basin development phases and implications of closure http://www.vl-
irrigation.org/cms/fileadmin/content/zfb/1998_02/keller_keller_davids_1998_river_basin_development_phases_impli
cations_closure.pdf
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/pub083/RR83.pdf “Spatial variation in water
supply and demand across river basins of India”
Shifting Waterscapes: Explaining Basin Closure in the Lower Krishna River basin
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/PUB121/RR121.pdf
Closing of the Krishna basin: Irrigation, Stream flow depletion and macro scale hydrology:
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/iwmi_research_reports/pdf/pub111/rr111.pdf
Basin closure of Krishna river in south India http://www.iwra.org/congress/2008/resource/authors/abs491_article.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58795771/Godavari-Water-Dispute-Tribunal-Report "Godavari river water sharing
accord"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Water_Disputes_Tribunal Krishna water disputes tribunal.
----------------------------------
This paper was first written in February, 2011 as “Review on KWDT2 draft report” and subsequently revised /
updated as “Review on KWDT2 final report”.