Kaleshwaram report raises questions, critics respond with facts

The PC Ghose Commission’s report on Kaleshwaram is being countered with facts, highlighting discrepancies in hydrology, DPR timing, project loans, and execution methods as used by former governments

Hyderabad: The PC Ghose Commission appears to have summarised in its report the arguments put forth by detractors of former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao.

Here’s how:

---

The Commission Report says: If there is no water availability at Tummidi Hatti, there is no water availability at Medigadda also. The Central Water Commission’s hydrology report says, if the barrage is not constructed at Tummidi Hatti, it should not be done at Medigadda also..

Fact: Telangana society will not forget the argument of KCR’s detractors that water availability at Tummidi Hatti and Medigadda is the same. A lot of effort was made through PowerPoint presentations by the detractors to confuse the people, and unfortunately, the Commission also repeats the same by saying that the barrage should not be constructed at Medigadda since it is not possible at Tummidi Hatti. Does this mean that the Commission did not examine all available documents properly?

The Commission has surprisingly ignored the fact that there is a difference in water availability at both places. The Central Water Commission had confirmed this technical fact. The CWC has said that of the 165 tmc water available at Tummidi Hatti, the share of Maharashtra will be about 63 tmc. However, even after considering the needs of the upper riparian states, the water availability at Medigadda is 283.4 tmc. It is a known fact that Pranahita waters join the river after Tummidi Hatti. This shows that the Commission has not even examined the reports of the CWC.

The Commission Report says: The administrative sanctions for barrage construction were given in 2016. But the DPR was submitted to the CWC in 2018.

Fact: The Commission ignored the fact that this has happened in respect of any irrigation project, like in the case of Telugu Ganga in the undivided state and many other projects. Generally, tenders are called online estimation, and then DPRs are prepared. These projects are taken up with the State government’s funds. The KCR government, to provide water to farmers on a war footing, had taken up the work quickly.

Earlier experiences show that any project in Telangana took nearly two to three decades for completion. But the KCR government took up barrage construction works on a war footing and then prepared the DPR. Earlier, Congress governments used to take almost a decade to finalise the projects, another decade for administration sanctions, with the delay extending in a similar fashion for the launching of works. How can these decisions to provide irrigation water within three years be found faulted with? The Commission has completely ignored the fact that the CWC had approved the DPR in 2018 without raising any objections.

The Commission Report says: The contract works were not given in a turnkey method but awarded in a lump sum method

Fact: There is no regulation or rule that works have to be allotted on a turnkey basis in irrigation projects. The earlier Congress government took up projects under Jala Yagnam under the e-procurement method. The same Pranahita-Chevella project was taken up in EPC mode, and even before the barrage construction took place, thousands of crores were paid to contractors as mobilisation advance. There were serious allegations of the then powers that were taking commissions from these mobilisation advances. However, the KCR government reposed confidence in Telangana engineers and in their capabilities, and instead of handing over designs and estimates to contractors, engineers were asked to do the work. And then tenders were called. This is the discretionary power of the government. How can this be branded as corruption?

The Commission Report says: Loans were raised through the Kaleshwaram irrigation project corporation, with the government standing as guarantor and imposed a burden on the State budget.

Fact: The Ghose Commission appears to have the same mindset as that of Congress. The Commission report talks about the burden on the State exchequer with loans raised for Kaleshwaram. If this were true, many State governments and also the Central government raised loans of lakhs of crores. The Revanth Reddy government raised loans of lakhs of crores but did not take up even a single project. The KCR government raised loans to construct projects and to provide infrastructure. The loans raised on Kaleshwaram were considered as investments. That is why even if water is not impounded at the three barrages by Revanth Reddy, the other reservoirs of the Kaleshwaram project, like Anantha Sagar, Kondapochamma Sagar, and Mallanna Sagar, are providing water to the agriculture sector.

The Commission Report says: The time for the contract was extended only to benefit contracting agencies.

Fact: The Ghose Commission makes a weird statement that the KCR government colluded with contracting agencies in the construction of the three barrages. But on the other hand, the Congress government alleges it was only due to pressure from KCR and Harish Rao to complete the works quickly that led to the sinking of the piers. However, the Commission alleges that the agencies were given extended deadlines. What is the truth in this?

If completion of the project within three and a half years is construed as collusion with the contractors, what about the Srisailam tunnel, which the Congress started in 2008 and the construction deadline was extended at least a dozen times. Construction of the Sriram Sagar project continued for over four decades. The Congress government, which provided mobilisation advances for Jala Yagnam projects, extended the contract deadline several times.

Does this mean, as per the Ghose Commission, that Congress colluded with the contractors?