Why do the two sides differ on water allocation?

This topic came about as I was going through this call to stop paying for government services in Telangana by the convenor of the JAC. (All this will do is cripple the local economy with potential to lay off local jobs in govt and semi-govt corporations. There will also be confusion amongst the populace, iam sure some private sector providers of govt services will also suffer as they do not have the deep financial pockets to provide services.) 

The hindu "Kodandaram said that much injustice was done to Mahabubnagar district in allocation and utilisation of Krishna River. Though Bachawat tribunal allocated 15.90 TMC ft of water to Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (RDS) that was constructed across Thungabhadra River to benefit Mahabubnagar district but only 5 tmcft of water was being flown into the ayacut of the district, he deplored."

Is this true? Why did this happen? Another source says:  

"Professor Jayashankar’s statement is an outrageous distortion. He must know that Bachawat, after extensive study, awarded water to each state based on the “protection of existing uses” principle. As a result, existing projects on Krishna and Godavari are protected. Based on this principle, despite having a smaller catchment area, Bachawat allocated a larger share of Krishna River water to the Andhra Pradesh State."
http://www.myteluguroots.com/chapter_19_12.html

(Professor Jayashankar does state Bachawat allocations were per state and it was prerogative of state to suballocate these waters http://www.telangana.org/Papers/Article10.pdf)

It is clear that the TRS says when determining water allocation catchment area as  its principal critereon. (So I guess Bachawat never mentioned allocation to specific projects? So where is JAC Convenor Kondaram getting his facts linking to Bachawat to said injustice?)

"Detailing on the injustice meted out to the people of Telangana region, the TRS chief said, "If the catchment area is taken as the principal critereon for allocation of water among different regions in the state, Telangana region should get 68.5 pc of the 811 tmc".

So the conflict seems to be between two principles. "Water allocation by Catchment area" vs "Existing uses principles".

Are either of these principles correct? With India hurtling towards a market economy, these old fashioned ideas of water allocation by a powerful tribunal needs to be discarded.

The real debate, should be about truth and the truth in a market economy is based on profit, margins, capital costs for irrigation, operation costs (such as electricty pmuping costs via lift irrigation). 

However, the debate itslef is so superficial to be dumb (or populist). In any other part of the world where wealth has been generated by capitalist principles, we wouldn't even be discussing these two outdated socialist principles for allocation of resources.

This is a reminder that it is not just lack of infrastructure that is holding the Indian Economy back. A lack of proper debate is also holding us back. EU and US struggle to implement market principles to the rural community... however at least there is robust debate on showing the wastefulness of rural subsidies.

Lift and Power Consumption

Outlook has an interesting article on this here.

"Interestingly, of the 27 lakh pumpsets being given free power, only about 7 lakh are in the coastal region. The rest are in the dry zones of Rayalaseema and Telangana. Analysts believe that if YSR is to counter the statehood issue in Telangana through the development carrot, nothing can be more crucial than free agricultural power. Farmers in this region have grown so used to not paying electricity bills, it is simply imperative for YSR to reassure them that they needn't do so if he continues to be CM. It is another matter that the subsidies will reflect badly in the balance-sheet."

Says Shabbir: "Our annual spend on extra power is a small state's budget."

One wonders why the Andra+Seema politicians don't agitate for a seperate state as per early 70's.

Lok Satta on Telangana

If there is one issue defining the Telangana movement, it is water or more appropriately irrigation.

This is the only argument for the rural constituency, and JP has got a good position on it.

JP's position, as per his website is many viable lift agriculture projects have been completed in T. He further states that any irrigation project costing 2 Lakh per acre and upto 50,000 Ruppees per year electricity costs in irrigation per acre is unviable. [Link]

He has not said no to T and has been called as a traitor by populist AP politicians and supporters, he has not said yes to T and has been crucified as a T drohi by some populist T politicians and supporters.

His position is there is a bigger reform required and is supportive of whatever eventuates.

I agree with him, the same energy needs to be spent to go further..complete dissolution of state power to districts. India is too big to manage even at state levels. Bad Governance is the result. Telangana won't necessarily solve this,

Lets ditch Dr. Ambedkar's failed constitution.

I think Lok Satta would have, could have done more for T than even the populist, popular party leaders we have to day..