KCR never conceded Godavari waters to Andhra Pradesh, says irrigation expert Sridhar Deshpande

Retired irrigation expert Sridhar Rao Deshpande dismisses claims that KCR conceded Godavari water to Andhra Pradesh. In an interview, he clarifies there was no such proposal in 2016 and blames political opposition from AP’s leadership for stalling cooperation

Hyderabad: Categorically dismissing the narrative put forth by the Congress government that K Chandrashekhar Rao, as the first Chief Minister of Telangana, conceded Godavari waters to Andhra Pradesh for the Godavari–Banakacherla link project, Sridhar Rao Deshpande — former Advisor to the CM (Irrigation) and retired senior engineer — said such claims were baseless and untrue.

In an interview with ‘Telangana Today’, Deshpande, who has decades of experience in water resource management, clarified misconceptions surrounding KCR’s irrigation vision, the AP government’s proposed Godavari–Banakacherla link, and the broader context of inter-State water sharing.

---

There’s a narrative that Chandrashekhar Rao conceded Godavari waters to Andhra Pradesh for the Godavari–Banakacherla link. How true is this claim?

Deshpande: The claim is entirely baseless. During the first Apex Council meeting in 2016, chaired by Union Minister for Water Resources and attended by Chief Ministers of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, there was no discussion or proposal regarding the Godavari–Banakacherla link. The concept itself didn’t exist at that time.

Chandrashekhar Rao’s focus was on utilising Godavari’s untapped flows — which average around 3,000 TMC annually — that go waste into the Bay of Bengal. He advocated for amicable discussions to harness this precious resource for the benefit of both Telugu States. Any suggestion that he conceded water to Andhra Pradesh is a distortion of facts.

Can you elaborate on KCR’s approach to the Godavari waters?

Deshpande: KCR had an in-depth understanding of Godavari’s flows and its tributaries, supported by 50 years of Central Water Commission (CWC) gauge readings. It is well known among experts, including KCR, that over 3,000 TMC of Godavari water remains unutilised each year. He considered this a colossal loss, particularly for a water-scarce region. His vision was to tap these flows through well-planned projects like the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme, ensuring Telangana’s water security while promoting equitable sharing with Andhra Pradesh. He emphasised cooperation, not confrontation, at forums like the Apex Council.

How does Godavari river’s potential compare to Krishna river’s situation?

Deshpande: The Krishna river basin presents a stark contrast. The combined water requirement of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh far exceeds Krishna’s available flows, which are barely over 1,000 TMC. This makes Krishna a highly contested resource. In contrast, Godavari’s surplus offers a golden opportunity. KCR’s approach was pragmatic — prioritise untapped Godavari flows to reduce dependency on Krishna, thereby avoiding inter-State disputes while addressing Telangana’s water needs.

Why didn’t this vision translate into a cooperative agreement with Andhra Pradesh?

Deshpande: The major roadblock was the confrontational stance of then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu. He opposed every major irrigation project taken up by Telangana, including Palamuru–Rangareddy and Kaleshwaram. He went as far as submitting written objections. This obstructive attitude left little room for constructive dialogue. It’s ironic that those who are now peddling the narrative of KCR conceding water to AP are ignoring the well-documented resistance from Naidu at the time.

What are the implications of this unutilised Godavari water for Telangana and the region?

Deshpande: The annual loss of 3,000 TMC of Godavari water is nothing short of a tragedy for a water-starved region. For Telangana, tapping this flow could revolutionise agriculture, provide safe drinking water, and support industrial growth. A cooperative approach between both States could have ensured long-term, sustainable development. Unfortunately, political rivalries and narrow interests derailed such prospects. KCR’s vision was to turn this waste into wealth, but it required mutual trust — which was sorely missing.