Section 89 extends the terms of reference of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal for project-wise specific allocations where they had not already been made and for an operational protocol for release during deficit flows. It also says project-specific awards already made by a tribunal by the appointed day remain binding on the successor States. A river board and a tribunal perform different functions: one administers notified projects under the Act, while the tribunal adjudicates specified inter-state water disputes under its governing law.

The phrase “deficit flow” matters. A normal-year release rule may not work when river inflow is far below expectation. An operational protocol clarifies how a shortfall is handled project by project. For an exam, do not claim that Section 89 automatically assigns a fixed new percentage to AP or Telangana; the section states the tribunal's task. Distinguish a statutory reference, the tribunal's actual award and its later implementation. The map can show upstream and downstream locations, but the legally binding amount comes from adjudication and agreements.

Worked example: A coaching chart treats a Krishna tribunal figure as today's observed river flow. Tribunal allocation, basin inflow and daily release are different quantities. Section 89 addresses the tribunal's remit; operational data come from dated board and irrigation reports. In a numerical question, note unit, water year and whether the number is allocation, demand, storage or discharge before computing a comparison.

Active recall: What two tasks does Section 89 add? Why is the tribunal not the same as KRMB?