The Waters of Discord, Legal Amnesia and Political Expediency in the Krishna River Dispute

The Waters of Discord, Legal Amnesia and Political Expediency in the Krishna River Dispute

The perennial conflict over the waters of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana has entered a new, explosive phase, one that lays bare the profound dysfunction at the heart of India’s inter-state water governance. The controversy ignited by Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s claim—that his Andhra Pradesh counterpart, N. Chandrababu Naidu, halted the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Scheme (RLIS) at his behest—is far more than a routine political spat. As G.V.R. Subba Rao’s incisive analysis reveals, this episode is a symptomatic crisis. It showcases how political rhetoric and short-term expediency have systematically supplanted the rule of law, transparent policy, and cooperative federalism, leaving critical water security projects mired in controversy, legal jeopardy, and colossal financial waste. At its core, the RLIS-PRLIS (Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme) imbroglio is not merely a technical disagreement but a deliberate, bipartisan act of legal amnesia by both state governments, who have chosen to ignore binding agreements for political gain, thereby perpetuating a cycle of distrust and endangering the livelihoods of millions in a drought-prone region.

The genesis of the current firestorm lies in a statement that weaponized back-channel politics. CM Revanth Reddy’s assertion in the Telangana Assembly served a clear political purpose: to burnish his image as a fierce defender of his state’s interests, capable of bending a rival chief minister to his will. For the opposition in Andhra Pradesh, notably Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, it provided a potent narrative of betrayal—that CM Naidu had “sold out Rayalaseema,” the arid, historically disadvantaged region of Andhra, for nebulous political calculations. This framing successfully transformed a complex infrastructure project, burdened by legal and environmental infirmities, into a simplistic tale of regional treason. However, as Subba Rao argues, to view this only as political theatre is to miss the deeper, more systemic scandal that both governments are complicit in hiding.

The scandal is the deliberate and mutual silence on binding legal constraints. Central to this are two pillars of law that have been conveniently “kept under the carpet”:

1. Government Order No. 69 of the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh, which explicitly restricts drawing water from below the Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) of the Srisailam reservoir exclusively for drinking water purposes.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which unequivocally states that all government orders issued by the combined state remain binding on both successor states.

It is against these clear legal boundaries that the ambitions of both states must be judged. The Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Scheme (RLIS) in Andhra Pradesh and the Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) in Telangana are mirror-image projects. Both are massive lift irrigation schemes designed to draw water from the Srisailam reservoir at levels (around 840 ft for RLIS, 800 ft for PRLIS) that fall below or challenge the MDDL restrictions. Their stated aim—to provide irrigation to the parched districts of Rayalaseema and Mahabubnagar/Rangareddy, respectively—is undeniably noble. Yet, their foundational legality is deeply suspect. By proposing to use water drawn from below MDDL for irrigation, both projects appear to be in direct contravention of GO 69’s strict “drinking water only” mandate.

This creates a stunning paradox: while the political leadership of both states publicly accuses the other of hydrological aggression and impropriety, they are both quietly pursuing projects that flout the same foundational law. This is not a case of one state being lawful and the other a transgressor; it is a case of collusive non-compliance. The public discourse is filled with accusations of “water theft” and “illegal projects,” yet neither government acknowledges that its own flagship scheme operates in a similar legal grey area. This shared hypocrisy erodes any possibility of trust or good-faith negotiation. It reduces inter-state water dialogue to a blame game, where the real adversary is not the neighboring state, but the inconvenient rule of law itself.

The trajectory of the RLIS itself is a textbook study in policy shortcuts and administrative hubris. Conceived in 2020 with a projected cost of ₹3,825 crore, the project was rushed forward with “breakneck speed.” This haste came at the expense of due process. Crucially, the Andhra Pradesh government began construction without securing mandatory environmental clearances—a glaring omission that exposed the project, and the public exchequer, to severe risk. That risk materialized in July 2021 when the National Green Tribunal (NGT) halted construction. By then, a staggering ₹883 crore, largely financed through loans, had already been spent on unfinished and now-idle infrastructure. This represents a catastrophic failure of governance: public funds were committed and debt incurred for a project that lacked the most basic statutory approvals.

The political controversy over whether the project is “halted” or “shelved” further obscures this financial and legal quagmire. While CM Revanth Reddy claims credit for stopping it, Andhra Pradesh’s own GO 44 of July 2025, listing pending irrigation projects, does not indicate the RLIS has been formally abandoned. This ambiguity serves political masters on all sides but does a grave disservice to the public. It leaves the project in a limbo where interest accrues on wasted loans, infrastructure decays, and farmers’ hopes are cynically manipulated during election cycles, with no clear path forward.

Subba Rao presents two starkly different, yet defensible, policy choices for Andhra Pradesh, choices that apply broadly to inter-state water disputes across India:

Path 1: The Path of Legal Legitimacy and Completion. This would require the Andhra Pradesh government to transparently and diligently secure all missing statutory, environmental, and crucially, inter-state clearances. This path would involve:

• Engaging sincerely with Telangana and the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) to negotiate a mutually acceptable, legally sound water-sharing arrangement that either amends GO 69 through consensus or finds a new allocation formula.

• Undergoing a rigorous, transparent environmental impact assessment and securing clearances from the NGT and other bodies.

• Making a compelling case for the project’s necessity within the framework of the Reorganisation Act and any applicable tribunal awards (like the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal).
  This route is arduous and politically risky, as it requires conceding that the initial approach was flawed. However, it would protect the massive public investment already made, deliver promised benefits, and establish a precedent for rule-based development.

Path 2: The Path of Pragmatic Realignment and Prudent Investment. This would involve the state government making a sober assessment that the legal and political battles over RLIS are insurmountable or too costly. It would then formally shelve the project, absorb the losses as a painful lesson in poor planning, and redirect resources and political capital towards completing long-pending, legally uncontested irrigation projects in Rayalaseema. Numerous smaller projects, tank rejuvenation initiatives, and canal networks, which do not violate inter-state agreements, could be accelerated to provide tangible, if less grandiose, water security. This path prioritizes certainty and timely delivery over engineering ambition.

The current impasse, where neither path is chosen, is the worst possible outcome. It represents a state of permanent political theatre, where the project is neither killed nor revived, but kept on life support as a rhetorical tool to attack opponents and rally regional sentiment. This “cycle of delay, inefficiency, and political theatre” ultimately sacrifices Rayalaseema’s water security at the altar of political posturing.

The broader lesson from the Krishna dispute is a sobering one for Indian federalism. It demonstrates how political incentives are perversely aligned against cooperative compliance. A chief minister gains more immediate popular acclaim by appearing to “fight” for the state’s water, even through legally dubious means, than by engaging in the slow, unglamorous work of building consensus and adhering to complex agreements. The institutional mechanisms for enforcement—like the KRMB—remain toothless, lacking the authority or political backing to enforce decisions.

Resolving this requires a fundamental shift. First, legal clarity must be forced to the forefront. The Central government and the Supreme Court must insist on strict adherence to the Reorganisation Act and existing tribunal awards, making it politically costly for states to ignore them. Second, transparency must replace opacity. All data on reservoir levels, water drawals, and project clearances must be in the public domain in real-time, reducing the space for manipulative rhetoric. Third, financial accountability must be enforced. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) should rigorously audit projects like RLIS and PRLIS, highlighting the cost of bypassing due process and holding administrations accountable for wasteful expenditure.

The waters of the Krishna should be a source of sustenance, not strife. For the people of Rayalaseema and Telangana’s drought-prone districts, the endless political maneuvering over RLIS and PRLIS is a cruel distraction from their very real thirst. As Subba Rao concludes, their security will depend not on rhetoric, but on “policy clarity and administrative courage.” It is time for leadership in both Hyderabad and Amaravati to look beyond the next headline or election, confront the legal realities they have long ignored, and choose a path—any legitimate path—that actually delivers water, not just words.

Q&A: The Legal and Political Crisis of the Krishna River Dispute

Q1: What is the core legal issue that both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are accused of ignoring in the RLIS-PRLIS dispute?
A1: The core legal issue is the deliberate disregard for Government Order No. 69 and the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. GO 69, issued during the united Andhra period, restricts drawing water from below the Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) of the Srisailam reservoir exclusively for drinking water purposes. The Reorganisation Act makes all such GOs binding on both successor states. Both the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Scheme (RLIS) and the Palamuru-Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) plan to lift water from levels around or below the MDDL for irrigation, putting them in potential violation of this binding legal constraint. Both governments have chosen to keep this inconvenient law “under the carpet.”

Q2: Why is the controversy over CM Revanth Reddy’s statement about halting the RLIS seen as a distraction from a deeper governance failure?
A2: The political controversy over who halted the project distracts from the project’s own fundamental legal and procedural failures. The RLIS was rushed into construction without securing mandatory environmental clearances, leading the National Green Tribunal to halt it after ₹883 crore had already been spent. The debate about political deals obscures this core issue of administrative hubris, poor planning, and the wasteful expenditure of public funds on a legally infirm project. It shifts focus from accountability for governance lapses to sensational claims of political betrayal.

Q3: What are the two “defensible policy choices” for Andhra Pradesh regarding the RLIS, as outlined in the analysis?
A3:

• Choice 1 (Legitimacy & Completion): Secure all missing statutory, environmental, and inter-state clearances transparently. This involves honest negotiation with Telangana and the KRMB, potentially amending agreements, to complete the project lawfully and recoup the massive investment already made.

• Choice 2 (Pragmatic Realignment): Formally shelve the RLIS, absorb the financial loss as a lesson, and redirect resources and effort to complete smaller, legally uncontested irrigation and water conservation projects in Rayalaseema that can deliver water security without sparking legal battles.

Q4: How does the RLIS-PRLIS conflict exemplify a crisis in India’s inter-state water governance and federalism?
A4: The conflict exemplifies a crisis where political expediency systematically overrides the rule of law and cooperative federalism. Both states are engaging in a “blame game” while simultaneously violating the same foundational legal agreement (GO 69). This reveals a perverse incentive structure where leaders gain more from appearing to be fierce defenders in a conflict (even through illegal means) than from engaging in the difficult, consensus-based work of lawful resource sharing. It shows the weakness of dispute-resolution bodies like the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and highlights how water, a critical resource, becomes a tool for political mobilization rather than a subject of rational, sustainable management.

Q5: What broader systemic changes are suggested to prevent such disputes and ensure better water governance?
A5: Systemic changes needed include:

• Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms: Empowering river management boards (like the KRMB) with real-time monitoring authority and enforcement powers, backed by the Central government and judiciary.

• Ultra-Transparency: Mandating real-time, public sharing of all data on reservoir levels, water drawals, and project clearances to reduce rhetoric and enable evidence-based discourse.

• Financial Accountability: Rigorous audits by bodies like the CAG on projects that bypass statutory norms, to highlight the cost of poor planning and hold governments accountable for wasteful spending.

• Depoliticizing Water Governance: Creating independent, technical expert committees to guide water allocation and project approval, insulating decisions from short-term political cycles and encouraging a focus on long-term sustainability and legal compliance.