Banakacherla Project Sparks Andhra-Telangana Water Dispute

The Banakacherla project has reignited tensions between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over river water sharing. This ambitious scheme aims to link the Godavari and Krishna river basins to address drought in Andhra’s Rayalaseema region. Andhra Pradesh’s government seeks rapid construction, but Telangana strongly opposes the plan citing legal and environmental concerns. The project’s future remains uncertain after the Central Environmental Expert Committee withheld clearance in mid-2025.

Overview of the Banakacherla Project

The Banakacherla project intends to divert about 2000 Thousand Million Cubic Feet (tmc ft) of Godavari floodwaters, which currently flow into the Bay of Bengal, to the Krishna basin. Water will be transferred from the Polavaram Dam through canals, lift irrigation schemes, and tunnels under the Nallamala forests to reservoirs in Rayalaseema. The project aims to alleviate drought by enhancing irrigation in Kadapa and Kurnool districts. Estimated costs exceed ₹80,000 crore, with land and forest acquisition required.

Andhra Pradesh’s Position

Andhra Pradesh argues the project utilises surplus Godavari water that is otherwise wasted in the sea. The state claims compliance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and asserts rights to surplus water as per the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) and Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) awards. Andhra’s leadership contends that the project is essential for Rayalaseema’s water security and requests Telangana and the Centre to support the utilisation of floodwaters.

Telangana’s Opposition

Telangana disputes Andhra’s claims, arguing the project violates the AP Reorganisation Act and threatens Telangana’s water security. Telangana states it was allocated 968 tmc ft of Godavari water, while Andhra received 500 tmc ft, excluding surplus water. Telangana leaders accuse Andhra and the Godavari River Management Board of proceeding without proper clearances or impact studies. They warn the project could reduce Telangana’s water availability and harm ecological balance.

Environmental and Legal Concerns

Experts show potential adverse impacts of the project. Increasing canal capacity may disrupt natural river flows, causing salinity intrusion, reduced sediment supply, and harm to agriculture and fisheries in downstream deltas. Tunnelling through the Nallamala forests risks damaging wildlife habitats and endangered species while affecting indigenous communities. Alternative water management methods like groundwater recharge and micro-irrigation remain underutilised. The project also faces complex legal challenges regarding inter-state water sharing.

Current Status and Regulatory Response

Recently, the Central Environmental Expert Committee withheld environmental clearance for the Banakacherla project. The committee cited unresolved issues including compliance with the 1980 GWDT verdict, environmental impact assessment, and inter-state water-sharing concerns. Andhra Pradesh was asked to revise the proposal and consult the Central Water Commission before resubmission. The project remains stalled amid ongoing disputes and environmental scrutiny.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Point out the challenges of inter-state river water disputes in India with suitable examples of the Godavari and Krishna rivers.
2. Critically analyse the environmental impacts of large inter-basin water transfer projects in India and their implications for local ecosystems and communities.
3. Estimate the role of tribunals like the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal in resolving river water conflicts and suggest improvements.
4. Underline the importance of sustainable water management practices such as groundwater recharge and micro-irrigation in drought-prone regions like Rayalaseema.

Answer Hints:

1. Point out the challenges of inter-state river water disputes in India with suitable examples of the Godavari and Krishna rivers.

1. Conflicting claims over water allocation between upstream and downstream states create tensions (e.g., Andhra Pradesh vs Telangana over Godavari and Krishna waters).
2. Legal ambiguities and interpretation differences in tribunal awards and reorganisation acts complicate dispute resolution.
3. Surplus water usage and definition disputes, as seen in Andhra’s claim to surplus Godavari floodwaters and Telangana’s opposition.
4. Environmental and social impacts often ignored, leading to resistance from affected states and communities.
5. Delays in project approvals due to inter-state disagreements stall development and exacerbate water scarcity.
6. Need for robust institutional mechanisms and clear inter-state coordination remains a persistent challenge.

2. Critically analyse the environmental impacts of large inter-basin water transfer projects in India and their implications for local ecosystems and communities.

1. Alteration of natural river flow regimes reduces freshwater inflows, causing salinity intrusion in downstream deltas.
2. Reduced sediment and nutrient transport diminishes soil fertility, impacting agriculture and fisheries.
3. Tunnelling and infrastructure development threaten forest ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and endangered species (e.g., Nallamala forests).
4. Disruption of groundwater flow and soil stability affects local biodiversity and indigenous communities dependent on forests.
5. Large-scale projects often cause displacement, loss of livelihoods, and social unrest among local populations.
6. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) may be inadequate or ignored, leading to long-term ecological damage.

3. Estimate the role of tribunals like the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal and Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal in resolving river water conflicts and suggest improvements.

1. Tribunals provide legal frameworks to allocate water among disputing states based on historical usage and equitable principles.
2. They help reduce conflicts by formalising water shares and adjudicating disputes (e.g., KWDT’s division of Krishna waters).
3. However, tribunal awards sometimes lack clarity on surplus water and changing hydrological realities post-bifurcation.
4. Tribunals often face delays, limited enforcement powers, and challenges in adapting to new demands or climate change impacts.
5. Improvement suggestions – periodic review of awards, inclusion of environmental and social considerations, and stronger institutional mechanisms for implementation and monitoring.
6. Enhanced transparency, stakeholder consultations, and integration with national water policies can improve tribunal effectiveness.

4. Underline the importance of sustainable water management practices such as groundwater recharge and micro-irrigation in drought-prone regions like Rayalaseema.

1. Sustainable practices reduce dependency on large inter-basin transfers and mitigate water scarcity in drought-prone areas.
2. Groundwater recharge replenishes aquifers, ensuring long-term water availability and resilience against droughts.
3. Micro-irrigation (drip, sprinkler) improves water use efficiency, reducing wastage and enhancing crop yields.
4. Rainwater harvesting captures and stores local rainfall, supplementing irrigation needs and reducing runoff.
5. These methods are cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and socially inclusive compared to mega projects.
6. Comprehensive adoption can reduce ecological damage, support livelihoods, and promote water security in regions like Rayalaseema.