Introduction
Water is not just a natural resource — it is a lifeline that shapes agriculture, industry, and human survival. In India, where rivers sustain millions of lives, water-sharing disputes between states are not uncommon. One such long-standing conflict is the Krishna River water dispute, involving the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh.
This inter-state disagreement has persisted for decades, driven by geographical complexities, legal ambiguities, and political sensitivities. Understanding the Krishna dispute requires a look into its history, tribunal decisions, recent developments, and the implications it holds for cooperative federalism and sustainable water management.
Introduction to the Krishna River
The Krishna River, the fourth largest in India, originates in Maharashtra’s Western Ghats and flows through Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh before emptying into the Bay of Bengal. The river spans over 1,400 kilometers and its basin is spread across seven states, but the major stakeholders in the water-sharing dispute are:
These states have long competed over water allocations, claiming their rightful share for irrigation, drinking water, and hydropower.
Background of the Dispute
The Krishna River water-sharing conflict dates back to the post-independence era, when states began developing irrigation projects. To resolve emerging conflicts, the Central Government set up a tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal I (KWDT-I) – 1969
The total allocation of 2,060 TMC was meant to be valid for 25 years. However, disputes resurfaced due to increasing demands and the emergence of new projects.
Post-Bifurcation Complexity: Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
The creation of Telangana in 2014 further complicated the issue. Andhra Pradesh was divided, but no clear formula was established for dividing water shares between Telangana and residual Andhra Pradesh.
Telangana argued that it is the rightful successor to projects and allocations within its geography and demanded a fresh reassessment. This disagreement between two states sharing the same river within the same basin intensified legal and political tensions.
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II (KWDT-II) – 2004
To address increasing claims and interstate rivalry, the government constituted a second Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal in 2004, led by Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Key Recommendations (2010):
This allocation assumed 2,578 TMC as the available yield, and considered project-specific demands.
However, the tribunal award faced criticism:
Litigation followed, and the final verdict has been delayed due to legal and political challenges.
Recent Developments and Flashpoints
Disputes Over Project Execution
Over the years, several major and minor irrigation projects have intensified the dispute:
These projects became symbols of state pride and political power, with each claiming constitutional or riparian rights.
Telangana’s Legal Battle
Post bifurcation, Telangana approached the Supreme Court demanding:
The Supreme Court, in 2021, encouraged states to resolve the issue through negotiation. While all four states participated in multiple rounds of talks, no conclusive resolution was achieved.
Union Government’s Stand
The Union Government has attempted to mediate and facilitate meetings but has not enforced any binding mechanism. It insists that disputes must be settled legally or mutually among states.
In 2021, the Centre issued a notification bringing irrigation projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers under the control of the Krishna and Godavari River Management Boards, which drew criticism from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
Key Issues at the Core of the Dispute
1. Riparian Rights
Upper riparian states (Maharashtra and Karnataka) argue for their right to develop and use water before it flows downstream. Lower riparian states (AP and Telangana) insist on equitable and historical usage rights.
2. Data Transparency
There is lack of real-time data sharing on reservoir storage, water release, and usage. This breeds mistrust among states.
3. Tribunal Delays
Tribunals take decades to give awards, and even then, implementation is slow or resisted. This reflects the inefficiency of India’s inter-state water dispute mechanisms.
4. Political Interference
Water disputes often become election issues, with regional parties using them to consolidate votes. This politicization delays rational and legal solutions.
Impact of the Dispute
The Way Forward: Sustainable and Cooperative Resolution
1. Constitutional and Legal Reform
Strengthen the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, introduce time-bound verdicts, and empower river management boards.
2. Scientific Assessment
Use updated hydrological data, climate models, and modern tools to reassess water availability and needs.
3. Technological Integration
Adopt smart irrigation, water recycling, and cropping pattern reforms to reduce dependency on river water.
4. Transparent Governance
Establish joint water-sharing dashboards, real-time data portals, and inclusive decision-making bodies involving all states.
5. Political Will and Dialogue
Water disputes cannot be resolved only in courts. There must be genuine political dialogue between states, supported by the Union Government as a neutral mediator.
Conclusion
The Krishna River Water Dispute is a classic example of how natural resources, when not managed collaboratively, can become a source of tension rather than prosperity. While the river flows naturally across boundaries, human-made lines and political egos continue to block its fair utilization.
India must embrace a culture of water cooperation, where science, law, and empathy guide decisions, not regionalism or rivalry. Only then can the Krishna River become a source of unity, not division.
References
