bifurcated in 2014, and there may have been additional flow of resources from the
Centre to cope with the bifurcation.
Figure 7 presents the disaggregated view of the Centre’s contributions in the
respective water budgets of the states. For the same year, the contributions vary
with the sizes of the states. For smaller states like Punjab, Kerala and Assam, these
are significant—15%, 18% and 23%, respectively. For larger states, these are really
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
%share expenditure on WRM/Total Budget of the State
2015-16
Fig. 6 States and their WRM budgets (2015–16 Actual Expenditure). Source State Governments’
detailed demands for grants (department-wise) (2017a, b, c, d, e, f, g)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Andhra
Pradesh
Assam
Karnataka
Kerala
Maharashtra
Punjab
Tamil Nadu
Centre's aid
State's own resources
EAP (externally-aided projects)
Fig. 7 States’ water budget dependency (2015–16 Actuals). Source State Governments’ detailed
demands for grants (department-wise) (2017a, b, c, d, e, f, g)
178
S. Chokkakula and P. Prajapati