Karnataka has formally pushed back against Maharashtra's proposed plan to divert 40 TMC feet of floodwater from the Krishna river to the Bhima river, with Vijayapura District In-charge Minister M.B. Patil warning on 2 November 2026 that the project could seriously harm Karnataka's water rights. The objection centres on both the legal validity of the proposal and its potential impact on the Almatti reservoir and downstream states.

What Maharashtra's Plan Involves

According to Minister Patil, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis spoke publicly about the project at a media conclave in Mumbai on 9 October 2026. A video clip of Fadnavis' remarks was played at Patil's press conference in Vijayapura. The plan proposes diverting floodwater from the Krishna river near Mahabaleshwar to the Ujjani reservoir on the Bhima river, with the water intended to serve two districts in Marathwada and parts of Sangli and Solapur districts in Maharashtra.

The Maharashtra government reportedly sanctioned ₹24 crore in July 2026 to prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR), with preparations also underway for a geological survey along a route of roughly 84 km. The DPR is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, and the estimated total project cost is approximately ₹19,000 crore.

Karnataka's Legal Objections

Patil questioned how Maharashtra could proceed with the project given that the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-II (KWDT-II) award has not yet been officially notified in the Gazette. He noted that the same tribunal had previously rejected a Maharashtra proposal to transfer around 35 TMC feet of water from the Upper Krishna sub-basin (K-1) to the Bhima sub-basin (K-5), citing risks to water flows and utilisation in the Upper Krishna sub-basin.

Patil also pointed to Clause XVI of the KWDT-II award, which states that a competent authority or tribunal may review or revise water-sharing arrangements only after 31 May 2050. He argued that building permanent infrastructure now — in a manner that could pre-empt future redistribution of surplus water — undermines the legal framework governing Krishna river sharing among basin states.

The tribunal had allocated 2,130 TMC feet of water at 75 per cent dependability. Of an additional 448 TMC feet at 65 per cent dependability, Maharashtra was allocated 81 TMC feet, Karnataka 173 TMC feet, and undivided Andhra Pradesh 194 TMC feet.

World Bank Funding Under Scrutiny

Patil raised pointed questions about Maharashtra's reported use of World Bank financial assistance for the project. He noted that the Centre had repeatedly returned Karnataka's own DPR for Phase-3 of the Upper Krishna Project on the grounds that the KWDT-II award remains ungazetted. He demanded that the Union government clarify whether it had approved Maharashtra's project, whether required clearances had been granted, and how World Bank funding could be secured without Union government guidance in such circumstances.

All-Party Meeting and Karnataka's Response

Minister Patil announced that an all-party meeting would soon be convened under the leadership of Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar to deliberate on the issue. 'We will rise above party lines on matters concerning the interests of the state and take steps to protect Karnataka's interests,' Patil said at the press conference.

He warned that the proposed diversion could alter flows in the Upper Krishna sub-basin, affect inflows into the Almatti reservoir, and have adverse implications for water availability across downstream states. He urged both the Maharashtra and Union governments to provide a comprehensive clarification on the project's legal validity, approvals, and financing arrangements.

Broader Implications

This is not the first time interstate river-water disputes have strained relations between Karnataka and Maharashtra; similar tensions have previously surfaced over the Mahadayi and Cauvery rivers. Notably, the Centre's own standard — that ungazetted KWDT-II awards bar Karnataka's infrastructure plans — is now being cited against Maharashtra's project, surfacing a contradiction that could become a flashpoint in Union-state relations. The outcome of the demanded Centre clarification will likely shape how aggressively Karnataka pursues the matter before the tribunal or courts.