Deprived of our share, says Vaidyanathan to Krishna Tribunal

Hyderabad: Commencing his arguments on Tuesday before the Krishna Tribunal headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, C.S. Vaidyanathan, senior counsel representing the TS government, submitted that upper riparian states have raised serious questions with regard to the enforcement of Section 89 of AP Reorganisation Act with the intention of enjoying the allocation enbloc instead of project-wise.

While it is argued that the Section will limit to the two successor states, Mr Vaidyanathan drew the attention of the Tribunal to the Reorganisation Act, specifically to the Objects and Reasons to meet the democratic aspirations of the people of the state in harnessing the water resources and other provisions from Section 84 to 88 relating to one set of provisions for regulation of water resources.

Senior counsel submitted that Section 90, traceable to Entry 56 of the List encompassing Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, AP and TS. Section 91 also is traceable to Article 262 of the Constitution involving Karnataka, AP and TS in Tungabhadra matters. Thus, these Sections are standalone provisions and not limited to successor states, as argued by upper riparian states.

Similarly, Section 89 is also a standalone provision referred by the Parliament to make project-wise specific allocations and determination of an operational protocol in the event of deficit flows.

Mr Vaidyanathan submitted that although TS is a new state, each of the basin states has equal right for consideration of equitable allocation. He contended that the arguments put forth by the other two upper riparian states are unjust and unreasonable as the said two states have abused the en-bloc allocations.

He submitted that only 12.80  per cent of allocations were earmarked to TS, though 20 per cent of cultivable land of the entire basin exists in the state.
Mr Vaidyanathan drew the attention of the Tribunal to the protection made by Krishna Tribunal-1; asserting that out of 1,693 tmc ft of projection— 82 per cent of the 2,060 tmc ft, only 260 tmc ft was earmarked to TS, whereas 351 TMC was protected for AP and 120 tmc ft for Maharashtra towards westward diversion for power generation without any consideration for the drought-prone and fluoride-affected in-basin areas of TS.

While dealing with the interpretation of Section 89, Mr Vaidyanathan submitted that the term of KWDT-II was extended with two new terms of reference in addition to the references originally made by the Centre to the Krishna Tribunal-II for equitable apportionment of river Krishna waters.

Thus, the scope of  the Tribunal is widened encompassing all the four states— to make project-wise specific allocation and determination of an operational protocol in the event of deficit flows.

Clarifying on the matter of whether the KWDT-II attained finality or not, senior counsel submitted that the decision of KWDT-II has not attained finality due to the fact that it was not published in the official gazette in terms of Section 6 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. 

He submitted that the allocations made by KWDT-I & II do not attain finality unless project-specific allocations are determined as mandated by Parliament.
Counsel submitted that Karnataka and Maharashtra have constructed a number of projects and increased the storage of the projects not considered by the KWDT-I as worth consideration.