Chennai Floods: How Indian Cities Can Handle Floods Better

On December 2, Tamil Nadu capital Chennai received a cumulative rainfall of 345 mm, the highest rainfall received in over a century. The floods have led to the death of more than 250 people and displacement of about half a million so far. Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa estimates that the state has incurred losses of about Rs 8,481 crore due to the floods. Between 1998 and 2011, the annual spending on flood control in India was merely Rs 1,534 crore. This is even lower than the estimated cost of Rs 1, 807 crore because of annual damage to public utilities, houses and crops.

The disaster that follows is often blamed on unmitigated construction activity, poor infrastructure and factors beyond human control. Though floods are natural disasters, there are predictable ways in which cities can handle floods.

• A popular view is that unrestrained construction activity in Chennai is one of the primary reasons why floods lead to deaths. But, the fact is that this has more to do with construction in areas, which are not well-served with infrastructure and construction. In some cases, this has also to do with infrastructure being built in areas that are more prone to floods.

• The floods also led to the closure of the Chennai airport. As many experts pointed out, the airport is on the flood basin of the Cooum River, which is hindered by informal settlements in areas where the river runs dry and garbage dump. The garbage dump in Chennai is estimated to be spread over 200 acres. Garbage and rubble also block the Buckingham Canal, which was built to act as drainage. There are no effective storm water drains in Chennai. 

• During the Mumbai floods in 2005, much of the disaster was attributed to high floor space index (FSI). However, the real reason was that the government allowed real estate developers to buy higher FSI for a premium in areas where infrastructure was not developed. If higher FSI were allowed in areas with proper infrastructure, the quantum of the disaster could have been limited. Chennai also faces the same problem.

• It is, for instance, argued that high-rises are built in low-lying lands and marshlands. But, if higher FSI were allowed in the heart of the city, real estate developers and private firms would have had no incentive to build high-rises in marshlands or low-lying lands. As cities like Chennai and Mumbai are vastly productive relative to other parts of India, urban local authorities can plough back the FSI fee to build better infrastructure in areas where they allow high-rises.

• Encroachment on public infrastructure is another reason that intensified the disaster caused by floods. Many homeless households in Chennai encroach public infrastructure like drainage and canals. The encroachers on Otteri Nullah and Captain Cotton Canal, could have caused blockage of the flow of water. But, it is not just the encroachers. Infrastructure built by the government was poorly planned, too. The bypass that links NH-4 and NH-45 blocks the flow of Otteri Canal. Urban planning in India, many experts point out, ignore the existence of water bodies. Such encroachment of public infrastructure in Indian cities often leads to loss of millions of dollars. The cost of encroachment is often higher than the cost of building superior infrastructure, according to certain estimates of World Bank researchers.

• Indian cities are not well equipped to handle floods. Chennai, for instance, has 99 per cent sewage coverage, while it is 52 per cent in Delhi and 42 per cent in Mumbai. Yet, major reservoirs and canals were overflowing, with sewage being mixed with rain water. Contamination of water being one of the major causes of premature death in India, local authorities should see this as a matter of great importance.