State highlights inconsistency in AP’s claims on water requirement

Telangana has once again brought it to the notice of the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal hearing the case of Krishna water sharing between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh the AP's inconsistency in its presentation of facts related to gross water requirement for cultivation of paddy in the Krishna Basin areas.

Senior counsel for Telangana C.S. Vaidynathan centred his arguments on the requirement of water for raising paddy crop in the Krishna Basin areas during the continued cross-examination of AP's witness P.V. Satyanarayana, a senior agriculture scientist, as part of the ongoing hearing before the tribunal in New Delhi on Friday.

He highlighted the inconsistency in the deposition of AP's witness particularly with regard to requirement of water for puddling in paddy cultivation.

The AP's witness admitted to the fact that long term puddling, the soil tillage process with the help of water wherein the land is prepared for sowing or transplantation or the process of soil compacting for minimising the percolation or infiltration losses, would result in formation of a hard pan in the sub-surface of the heavy soils. He, howeve , sought to verify and get back when asked about the formation of higher bulk density (soil pan) in silty-loam, silty-clay loam and silty-clay soils.

Later, he stated that long-term puddling in such soils would have low levels of soil compaction compared to soils with higher clay content or heavy soils. He also sought to verify when asked that it would hardly take three years for formation of hard pan in lands with fine sandy loam.

The Telangana's counsel quizzed the AP's witness on this aspect to bring it out to the tribunal's notice the lesser water requirement for paddy cultivation in the Krishna Basin areas of AP having such types of soils, officials of the Irrigation Department present at the hearing stated.

Mr. Satyanarayana, however, admitted before the tribunal that hard pans are characterised by high bulk density, penetration resistance, low porosity and water permeability.

Further, he stated that he did not adopt the puddling water requirement estimated on a site specific basis in the Nagarjunasagar project modernisation report of 2009 as the requirement referred in the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning (NBSS&LUP) manual were more apt. Meanwhile, the tribunal posted the next hearing from April 25 to 27.