When inter-State politics met policy shortcuts

A single statement by Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy in the State Assembly has ignited a major political controversy in Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Reddy’s claim that Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu halted the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Scheme (RLIS) at his request has transformed what was originally a technical and environmental project into a potent symbol of alleged political capitulation, regional betrayal, and inter-State manoeuvring over Krishna river waters. Former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy has seized upon the reported remark to attack Mr. Naidu, accusing him of “selling out Rayalaseema” for vested interests.

From Telangana’s perspective, the statement burnishes Mr. Revanth Reddy’s image as a leader capable of protecting his State’s water interests. From Andhra Pradesh’s vantage point, however, it has reopened an old wound, reinforcing a long-standing fear that Rayalaseema remains a negotiable terrain in inter-State politics.

This controversy cannot be dismissed as a mere political escalation of what was otherwise a technical disagreement over environmental clearances, statutory norms, or tribunal procedures. At its core lies a deliberate silence by the political leaderships of both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on binding legal constraints they find inconvenient. What is now framed as political rhetoric risks overshadowing the real and persistent issue of water scarcity in Rayalaseema.

Crucially, both governments have chosen to keep under the carpet Government Order No. 69, issued during the undivided Andhra Pradesh regime, as well as the explicit provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Act leaves no room for selective memory: all Government Orders issued by successive governments of the combined State are binding on both Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

GO 69 clearly restricts water drawal below the minimum draw down level (MDDL) of the Srisailam reservoir exclusively for drinking water purposes. Despite this, both States have pursued ambitious lift irrigation projects — RLIS in Andhra Pradesh and the Palamuru–Rangareddy Lift Irrigation Scheme (PRLIS) in Telangana — pushing against these legal constraints while publicly accusing each other of impropriety. By design, both projects violate the provisions of GO 69 and the Reorganisation Act, revealing a shared pattern of selective compliance that erodes inter-State trust and political accountability.

The PRLIS in Telangana lifts water at around the 800-foot level of the Srisailam reservoir to benefit drought-prone districts such as Mahabubnagar and Rangareddy, while the RLIS proposes drawal at about the 840-foot level. At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: who lifts how much water, from where, and under what legal sanction?

The RLIS, conceived in 2020 at a projected cost of ₹3,825 crore, was designed to ensure drinking water supply for Rayalaseema and supplement irrigation for approximately 9.6 lakh acres through existing systems such as the Telugu Ganga Project (TGP), Srisailam Right Branch Canal (SRBC), and Galeru–Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS). The scheme envisaged lifting water from the Srisailam reservoir foreshore when levels fall below plus 854 feet.

Despite its ambitious objectives, the project advanced at breakneck speed without securing mandatory environmental clearances— a gamble exposed in July 2021 when the National Green Tribunal halted construction. By then, ₹883 crore had already been spent, largely through loans from agencies such as the Rural Electrification Corporation, generating interest liabilities without delivering tangible benefits.

Official records of the Andhra Pradesh government contradict claims that the RLIS has been abandoned. Government Order No. 44, issued in July 2025, lists all pending irrigation projects in the State, detailing their financial and physical progress. While the order acknowledges delays, funding constraints, and prioritisation challenges, it does not indicate that the RLIS has been shelved. GO 44 thus sharpens the dilemma: if the project is viable and legally permissible, it must be regularised and completed; if not, a clear and transparent public decision is warranted. The present “halfway house” approach — allowing the project to languish without resolution — neither addresses water scarcity nor ensures fiscal accountability.

Critics argue that the RLIS offers little or no benefit to Kurnool and Anantapur, the most drought-hit districts of Rayalaseema, as there is minimal likelihood of water reaching these areas. They contend that the project primarily benefits Nellore district and, to a limited extent, Chittoor district.

The RLIS case presents two defensible policy choices. The first is for the Andhra Pradesh government to secure all statutory, environmental, and inter-State clearances and complete the project. This would safeguard the substantial investment already made through interest-bearing loans, prevent waste of public funds, and deliver tangible benefits to farmers and residents.

The second option is to prioritise the completion of long-pending, legally sanctioned irrigation projects in Rayalaseema. Several such projects—initiated decades ago under the TGP (1983–84), SRBC (1981), and GNSS (1989–90)—already possess statutory approvals, conform to basin norms, and require far lower incremental investment than large lift schemes. Prioritising these assured projects would ease water stress without triggering fresh inter-State disputes or legal complications. These works are closer to completion, less contentious, and capable of significantly improving drought resilience.

What is politically and administratively untenable is the continuation of the present ambiguity. Maintaining an expensive, debt-funded project in regulatory limbo while deferring completion of assured irrigation works imposes avoidable fiscal costs and prolongs water scarcity. Rayalaseema’s water crisis is not merely hydrological; it is a manifestation of policy paralysis, political caution, and disregard for binding legal norms. Each day of delay deepens liabilities, erodes public trust, and prolongs the suffering of drought-prone communities.

The RLIS episode underscores the dangers of subordinating law, regulatory compliance, and sustainable planning to political optics or engineering ambition. The choice before Andhra Pradesh is stark: either ensure completion with legality and accountability or perpetuate a cycle of delay, inefficiency, and political theatre. Rayalaseema’s water security will ultimately depend not on rhetoric, but on policy clarity and administrative courage.

Published – January 27, 2026 12:28 am IST