The undivided Andhra Pradesh approached the Supreme Court challenging the Justice Brijesh Kumar Tribunal changing the dependability (sure yearly river water yields in the number of years—75 or 65— of 100) from 75% to 65% and not on the basis of allocation to A.P. and Telangana, said interstate irrigation experts reacting to the decision of the Karnataka and Maharashtra Chief Ministers on Tuesday.
The irrigation experts of the State found fault with the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal’s assessment of yields on the basis of 65% dependability spread over a shorter period of last 47 years compared to the Bachawat Tribunal’s 75% dependability spread over a longer period of 78 years.
There was also the question of surplus water to consider for the tail end State to be considered.
A retired interstate irrigation engineer told The Hindu that undivided AP filed a Special leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court on August 28, 2011, itself.
Reference petitions
All the three States — AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra — and the Central government filed reference petitions before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal on the same day.
On September 16, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an order staying the publication of the tribunal order and the order of the Bachawat Tribunal Award should continue to be in force.
On February 24, 2014, Karnataka filed a SLP in the Supreme Court. Maharashtra filed an interlocutory Application (IA) to notify the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal Award in 2014 itself.
Several developments occurred along with bifurcation, but in a hearing on May 5, 2015, several SLPs filed in the Supreme Court came up for hearing, and it tagged all of them. According to the parameters of water allocation, the quantum was higher for the tail end States which do not receive water during drought years.
After bifurcation, Telangana has lost the status of being a tail end state, experts said. Under these circumstances, A.P. and Telangana have asked that the allocations for all four States be reassessed. It would not be fair on part of the upper riparian States to tell the tail end States to share whatever was available.
This was against the international water conventions and natural justice, experts said.