Among other concerns, water rights activists and members of the intelligentsia allege that the ₹80,000 crore project may have been designed solely to benefit contractors.
Published Aug 01, 2025 | 8:27 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 01, 2025 | 8:27 PM
Andhra Pradesh government expects to complete the Banakacherla project by 2027.
Synopsis: The Andhra Pradesh government’s ambitious Banakacherla project, long opposed by neighbouring Telangana, has now also drawn strong opposition from civil society and activists within Andhra itself, with critics raising concerns over its exorbitant cost, lack of transparency, and the potential risk to the state’s existing water entitlements.
The controversial Godavari–Banakacherla project, proposed by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP)-led National Democratic Alliance government in Nandyal district of Andhra Pradesh, is facing strong opposition not only from Telangana but also from within Andhra Pradesh itself.
Also known as the Polavaram–Banakacherla Link Project, the Andhra Pradesh government’s ambitious initiative seeks to transfer “surplus” Godavari river waters through the Krishna river basin to the Penna basin. The project’s primary objective is to irrigate the drought-prone Rayalaseema region and provide drinking water.
The plan involves the construction of reservoirs at Bollapalli in Palnadu district and Banakacherla in Nandyal district. It also includes expanding canal capacities, implementing lift irrigation systems, and building tunnels through the Nallamala forest.
Despite its projected benefits, the project has drawn considerable opposition not only from the Telangana government and its principal opposition party, the Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS), but also from intellectuals and sections of civil society within Andhra Pradesh itself.
Critics, including water rights activists and members of the intelligentsia, have raised concerns that the ₹80,000 crore project could be designed solely to benefit contractors. They also fear that transferring water from the Godavari to the Krishna could undermine Andhra Pradesh’s entitlement to its existing share of Krishna river water.
Retired IPS officer and former Vijayawada Police Commissioner AB Venkateswara Rao, who currently represents the think tank Alochanaparuka Vedika, warned that the project could lead to Andhra Pradesh forfeiting its rights to Krishna river water, as it involves transferring water from the Godavari to the Krishna basin.
Alochanaparuka Vedika is a forum of retired officials and irrigation experts that critiques government policies on water management and infrastructure.
Venkateswara Rao pointed out that the cost of the project, which could rise to ₹1.5 lakh crore by the time of completion, would become a massive burden for future generations without offering any meaningful benefits to the state.
He also alleged that the silence of the opposition in the state over the project might have to do with the fact that it was originally conceived during the YSRCP regime.
“Megha Engineering promoter Krishna Reddy approached the then Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and proposed the project. The former chief minister, without considering whether it would be useful to AP or not, had the DPR prepared. Now Chandrababu Naidu has taken up the same project,” he told South First.
Venkateswara Rao further criticised the Andhra Pradesh government for pursuing the project without transparency, particularly in its planning and execution phases, raising serious doubts about its intent and viability.
He also suspects that Telangana’s strong opposition to the project is a strategic move to justify seeking a proportionate increase in its water allocation from the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal.
As part of the strategy, he believes Telangana may claim from Krishna river the same volume of Godavari water that Andhra Pradesh proposes to divert into the Krishna basin.
“This is the inner meaning of Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s opposition to Banakacherla,” Rao told South First.
Thus, he demanded a public debate on the issue and called for the release of project-related documents. On behalf of Alochanaparuka Vedika, he also co-signed letters to the Chief Minister, urging protection of Andhra Pradesh’s water rights. His apprehensions include the possibility that the project could undermine the state’s current Krishna water allocations.
Former Andhra Pradesh Minister Vadde Sobhanadreeswara Rao, who also served as a former MP from Vijayawada, echoed similar concerns.
He warned that the project could weaken Andhra Pradesh’s legal claim over 200 TMCFT of Krishna river water, particularly since the planned diversion involves routing Godavari water through the Krishna basin to reach the Penna basin via Banakacherla.
He cautioned that this approach might damage Andhra Pradesh’s legal standing, especially in light of earlier tribunal awards such as the 1973 Bachawat Tribunal. He also expressed concern that Telangana’s arguments before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal could further reduce Andhra Pradesh’s entitlements.
Water rights activist Akkineni Bhavani Prasad also questioned the need for the Banakacherla project at this stage. He argued that the state government should prioritise completing and operationalising existing irrigation schemes in Rayalaseema before taking up new projects.
“The entire initiative reeks of a design to benefit contractors,” he told South First.
In spite of the mounting opposition, the TDP appears determined to push forward with the Banakacherla project.
IT and Human Resources Minister Nara Lokesh on Thursday, 31 July, questioned Telangana’s objections to using surplus waters that would otherwise flow unused into the Bay of Bengal. He argued that diverting such waters to the drought-prone Rayalaseema region should not be seen as controversial.
Taking aim at the previous BRS government, Lokesh pointed out that despite constructing the Kaleshwaram project without obtaining the required approvals, the same government now criticises Banakacherla for lacking clearances.
“Banakacherla is proposed in Andhra Pradesh. We are not taking Telangana’s water. We are not stealing anyone’s water,” he said while addressing the media in Amaravati.
In response, BRS leader and former Irrigation Minister T Harish Rao hit back on Friday, 1 August, alleging that Andhra Pradesh is attempting to appropriate Godavari waters that rightfully belong to Telangana, under the guise of utilising surplus flows.
He accused the Andhra Pradesh government of fast-tracking the project while Telangana’s chief minister remained a silent spectator, suggesting a tacit understanding between the two chief ministers.
Harish Rao contended that the notion of surplus waters is a myth, arguing that if such water genuinely existed, Central agencies would not have rejected the Banakacherla proposal on that basis. He challenged Lokesh to disclose the actual volume of surplus water and explain how allocations between the two states were determined.
He further insisted that the Kaleshwaram project had secured all necessary approvals and accused Lokesh of spreading misinformation. He also reminded Lokesh that Chandrababu Naidu had previously written several letters to the Centre seeking to halt Telangana’s irrigation projects.
At the heart of the dispute between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is the definition and use of “surplus” waters that flow unused into the Bay of Bengal.
Surplus waters refer to flows above the 75 percent dependable yield, typically available only during high-rainfall years. These are not guaranteed annually and can be considered for use only after satisfying assured allocations.
Assured waters refer to dependable river flows, measured at 75 percent reliability, used for planning consistent irrigation and drinking water projects.
The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) award of 1980 defined assured waters as the reliable flow available after accounting for all existing and planned projects as of 6 October 1975. These allocations are binding on all basin states.
Floodwaters, in contrast, are high-volume, short-duration flows during the monsoon months (June to October) that often exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure.
These are not formally allocated under the GWDT. The widely circulated claim that 3,000 TMC ft of floodwaters go waste annually is disputed. Irrigation expert Sriram Vedire has noted that much of the claimed volume may include unused assured waters, and that there is no formal or technical definition for “flood waters”.
According to the Central Water Commission (CWC), the actual unutilised runoff into the Bay of Bengal is estimated at about 1,138 TMC ft per year, far lower than the often-cited figures.
Under the 1980 GWDT award, a total of 3,396.9 TMCFT of assured water was allocated among seven basin states: Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka. Undivided Andhra Pradesh received 1,499.9 TMC ft, which was later divided between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation in 2014.
Telangana was allotted 968 TMCFT of assured Godavari waters. This allocation supports major projects like the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Scheme, designed to utilise 140 TMCFT but currently underperforming due to incomplete canal networks, as well as various drinking water and irrigation projects. However, the state currently utilises only 400–500 TMCFT annually due to infrastructure limitations.
Telangana’s primary concern is to protect its assured allocation and prevent encroachment by Andhra Pradesh projects like the Banakacherla. Andhra Pradesh, on the other hand, argues that as a tail-end state, it has the right to utilise surplus or floodwaters. It claims that diverting 200 TMCFT over the 105 flood days (about 2 TMCFT per day) will not affect the assured allocations of other states.
Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has proposed a model of mutual benefit, suggesting that Andhra Pradesh could use 200 TMCFT while Telangana could draw 100–200 TMCFT from surplus flows.
However, Telangana remains sceptical. It maintains that such diversions threaten its water entitlements and violate provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The state has also warned that it may approach the Supreme Court if the Centre fails to intervene.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
