A.P. rejects Telangana’s demand for 50:50 sharing of Krishna waters

The recent rejection by Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) of Telangana's demand for a 50:50 sharing of Krishna River waters brings to the forefront the persistent and complex challenges of inter-state water disputes in India. This particular conflict, deeply rooted in the bifurcation of the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh in 2014, underscores critical issues of federalism, resource allocation, and sustainable development. **Background Context and What Happened:** Before 2014, the Krishna River water allocations for the region were determined by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II (KWDT-II), headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, which gave its final award in 2010. This award allocated specific quantities to the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh. Post-bifurcation, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, mandated that the existing water allocations would continue, but also called for the constitution of the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) to regulate the water sharing between the successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. However, a clear, definitive allocation between A.P. and Telangana from the erstwhile undivided A.P.'s share was not explicitly laid out, leading to ongoing disputes. Telangana has consistently argued that its regions (primarily the erstwhile Telangana region) were historically neglected in water allocation and project development within undivided A.P., leading to significant underdevelopment. Therefore, it demands a fresh, equitable 50:50 division of the Krishna waters, considering its geographical area, population, and irrigation needs. Andhra Pradesh, on the other hand, rejects this symmetrical division, asserting that its existing projects and established usage patterns, particularly for irrigation in drought-prone regions, are based on historical allocations. A key point of contention in this latest development is A.P.'s stance that the diversion of surplus water from its ambitious Polavaram Multipurpose Project, located on the Godavari River, will not adversely affect upper riparian states (including Telangana, as it refers to the broader basin context). This implies A.P. seeks to utilize Godavari waters through Polavaram to meet some of its needs, thereby potentially reducing its demand on Krishna waters, but this does not directly address the Krishna allocation dispute itself. A.P. has urged the Central Water Commission (CWC) to intervene and issue clear water allocation guidelines, highlighting the need for a neutral, expert assessment. **Key Stakeholders Involved:** 1. **Andhra Pradesh:** As a lower riparian state in the Krishna basin (after Telangana), A.P. relies heavily on Krishna waters for its agricultural economy, particularly in districts like Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra. Its argument centers on established rights, ongoing projects, and the needs of its populace. 2. **Telangana:** As an upper riparian state post-bifurcation, Telangana asserts its right to an equitable share, arguing that its agricultural and drinking water needs were historically marginalized. It seeks a re-evaluation of the KWDT-II award in the context of the new state. 3. **Central Water Commission (CWC):** A premier technical organization in the field of water resources, CWC provides technical advice and guidance to the Union and State Governments. Its role here is to potentially offer expert recommendations for allocation guidelines. 4. **Krishna River Management Board (KRMB):** Established under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the KRMB is tasked with regulating the supply of water from the common reservoirs to A.P. and Telangana. Its inability to definitively resolve the sharing ratio highlights the need for higher-level intervention. 5. **Union Government (Ministry of Jal Shakti):** Holds the ultimate authority to constitute tribunals under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and facilitate resolutions. **Significance for India and Constitutional Provisions:** This dispute holds immense significance for India, touching upon several critical aspects. Firstly, it's a stark reminder of the challenges in **cooperative federalism**. While states are autonomous, resource sharing, especially water, often becomes a flashpoint, testing the spirit of federal cooperation. Secondly, **water security** is paramount for India's largely agrarian economy. Unresolved water disputes hinder agricultural productivity, impact livelihoods, and can escalate into social unrest and political instability. The economic development of both states, including industrial growth and urban water supply, is inextricably linked to a stable water allocation. Constitutionally, **Article 262** empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution, or control of waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley. Furthermore, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint. Pursuant to Article 262, Parliament enacted the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956**, which provides for the constitution of a Tribunal for the adjudication of such disputes. Water is primarily a State subject (Entry 17, List II, Seventh Schedule), but the Union can regulate and develop inter-state rivers if declared expedient in the public interest (Entry 56, List I, Seventh Schedule). The **Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014**, specifically addressed the water resources management post-bifurcation, including the establishment of the KRMB and GRMB. **Future Implications:** The immediate future likely involves continued negotiations, potentially under the aegis of the KRMB or the Ministry of Jal Shakti. If no amicable settlement is reached, the Union Government might be compelled to refer the matter to a new or existing Water Disputes Tribunal for a fresh adjudication of Krishna waters between A.P. and Telangana, specifically from the undivided A.P.'s share. This could be a lengthy process, delaying critical irrigation projects and exacerbating tensions. A long-term solution requires not just a legal framework but also a spirit of cooperation, data sharing, and a comprehensive basin-wide approach to water management, considering the increasing impacts of climate change on water availability.