Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal Hearing: Concerns aired over operational protocols

Anil Kumar Goyal, a hydrology expert, faced intense questioning from a senior advocate, C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing Telangana regarding the success rates of water-dependent projects.

Hyderabad: The ongoing cross-examination of Anil Kumar Goyal, a hydrology expert, before the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal hearing the water sharing disputes between Telangana and AP, revealed key insights into the complexities surrounding water allocations and reservoir management between the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Goyal is a private consultant, formerly with the Central Water Commission and his affidavit with a suggestive operational protocol was filed by AP. It aimed at optimizing water utilization from key reservoirs such as Srisailam and Nagarjuna sagar projects. He faced intense questioning from a senior advocate, C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing Telangana regarding the success rates of water-dependent projects. During the cross-examination, Goyal acknowledged that one of the objectives of the proposed protocol was to improve the success rate of water projects in the region.

---

However, when pressed about specific figures and success rates, particularly the utilization of water earmarked for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as per the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal Award (KWDT-I), Goyal admitted that while his affidavit included data on protected utilization, he had not specifically calculated the utilization rates for projects located on tributaries. A key point of contention arose when Vaidyanathan asked Goyal whether he had applied his mind to the success rates of projects in Telangana, for which 137.05 TMC had been earmarked for Minor Irrigation and tributaries.

He also admitted that he had not conducted a detailed analysis of the success rates, stating, “I have not carried out such an analysis,” sparking concerns over the comprehensiveness of the suggested Operational Protocol.

The tribunal also examined discrepancies in water-sharing calculations. When questioned about the proportional sharing of water between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Goyal clarified that his protocol was not focused on the allocation issue but rather on setting a hierarchy of priorities for water usage. However, the tribunal was not convinced by his explanations regarding evaporation losses in reservoirs, with Vaidyanathan suggesting that Goyal’s calculations, in certain tables of his affidavit, may have overlooked critical factors such as the actual physical quantities of water available after evaporation.

Further scrutiny arose over the modernization of the Kurnool-Cuddapah Canal (KDS) Project, where Goyal confirmed that although the 1995 modernization report proposed a reduction in water usage to 132.9 TMC, the final approval stood at 155.40 TMC, with a portion to be contributed from groundwater sources.

Vaidyanathan argued that with advancements in technology and agricultural practices, the requirement might be further reduced.

The hearing also touched upon the controversial Pattiseema Lift Irrigation Scheme, where investments exceeding Rs. 1300 crore have been made. Although Goyal acknowledged that future water diversion from this scheme might not be necessary once the Polavaram Project becomes operational, he refrained from commenting on the specifics of the Pattiseema investments.