Brijesh panel’s partiality towards Karnataka

Indian rainfall is seasonal, highly variable, and cyclic in nature, which reflects in river flows. Under such scenarios, probability estimates play an important role in agricultural and water resources planning, including building water storage facilities. The choice of data defines the quality of probability estimates. In river water data time series, biased choice of subset leads to misleading probability estimates that result in biased distribution of water among the riparian states.

Justice Brijesh Kumar Tribunal built the Krishna River Water Award, using a subset of better rainfall period, a biased choice. The Tribunal distributed water at three probability levels among the three riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and AP at 75%, 65% and 58% [the Mean] respectively, using probability curve built by plotting the lowest to the highest values using 47 years data set, a subset of 114 years data series. They are 2,130, 2,293 and 2,578 TMCFT.

On the probability curve built using 114 years data set, for these three water limits the probability levels changed as 75% (fixed), 55% and 41.5% respectively. That means as far as the award is concerned, 2,578 TMCFT of water is available in 58% of the years but in reality it is available to AP in 41.5% of the years only, as 114 years data series cover both better and poor rainfall periods. Similarly, 2,293TMCFT of water is available to AP in 55% of the years only in reality but not in 65% of the years. It is also a fact that in 25% of the years AP will get less than 800 TMCFT of water; and on an average less than half of this only is locally available in AP.

To meet the deficit, though the Tribunal allocated 150 TMCFT of carryover water, it will be available only after the upper riparian states use their allocations. Same is also the case in deficit 25% of the years. Also, under less than 25% probability levels on probability curves, a large part of water enters into the sea as the water holding capacity of Prakasham Barrage is very low. This is more so in cyclonic activity periods.

For example, 13 & 12 TMCFT of water entered the sea during 2002-03 & 2003-2004 with 1,239 and 1,252 TMCFT of water availability; and 1,273 & 944 TMCFT of water entered the sea during 2005-06 & 2006-2007 with 3,624 & 3,186 TMCFT of water availability. The tribunal allocated extra water to Karnataka on fictitious grounds. They include around 40 TMCFT of water to three illegal projects from Tungabhadra river; and 230 TMCFT of water to Almatti Dam from Krishna-Bhima River.

These are direct allocations but they create indirect allocations by 25% of 270 [= 230 + 40] TMCFT of water through seepage into the ground [creates groundwater] and through evaporation loss to the atmosphere by increasing the water spread area. Thus, the Tribunal allocated around 337.5 TMCFT of water to Karnataka on fictitious grounds. Even if 230 are only 130, even then allocation on fictitious grounds is 212.5 TMCFT of water.

The Tribunal justified the former by saying that it is in drought prone zone. Drought prone zones of AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra are part of rain shadow zone of Western Ghats is a continuum. So, the argument of the Tribunal is biased to favour Karnataka only. The Tribunal justified the latter, through mathematical jugglery by showing that AP will be getting on an average 1,530 TMCFT of water.

The Tribunal arrived at this figure by adding 932 TMCFT from Krishna-Bhima Basin estimated using 26 years data series [1981-82 to 2006-07] to 190 TMCFT from Tungabhadra Basin and 350-400 TMCFT locally available in AP. Here the important question is at what probability level AP will be getting 1,530 TMCFT of water? To answer this, we need to add the water allocations to Maharashtra and Karnataka at the mean, namely 1,518 [= 877+641] TMCFT of water [return flows are not included] to 1,530 TMCFT.

This water of 3,018 [= 1530 + 1518] TMCFT is available at 24% and 17.5% probability levels, respectively under the 47 & 114 years data sets. That means AP will get 1,530 TMCFT of water in less than 25% of the years only. All these clearly present the Tribunals bias towards Karnataka at the cost of AP.

By DR S JEEVANANDA REDDY