Warnings Ignored and Mumbai’s Flood Crisis Intensifies

As Mumbai marks the 19th anniversary of the devastating July 26 deluge, it finds itself grappling with what has become the second wettest July on record. The city has faced extensive waterlogging, severe flooding, and significant disruptions to both train services and road traffic. These recurrent issues have once again ignited protests and social media outrage.

The persistent flooding has been attributed to a combination of factors record rainfall, climate change, and inadequate drainage maintenance. Despite these explanations, the city’s struggle with floods has continued unabated since the catastrophic event of 2005, which claimed 1,094 lives following 944.2 mm of rainfall. Following the 2005 disaster, numerous reports and recommendations have been generated. One notable report, from the committee investigating the 26th July deluge, advocated for the rejuvenation of rivers, removal of encroachments, and the establishment of “no development buffer zones” around them. Yet, these recommendations have largely remained unimplemented.

Further action came via a public interest litigation by Vanashakti and Jalbiradari, which prompted the Supreme Court to commission a study by experts from NEERI and IIT-B. The 2018 review by this committee revealed that many critical recommendations from the Chitale committee had not been acted upon. Despite having collected comprehensive data on rainfall, river cross-sections, and tidal patterns, essential flood-risk zone maps were never created. The review highlighted several shortcomings in the measures taken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).

While the BMC did widen and deepen the Mithi River, it failed to establish the recommended no-development zones or buffer zones. Encroachments along the river continued unabated, obstructing the flow and causing significant siltation downstream. The construction of retaining walls along the Mithi River disregarded crucial environmental and hydrological considerations, reflecting an “arrogance of power over nature,” as noted by the committee. Additionally, the high concrete walls disrupted the river’s ecological balance with its surrounding floodplains, wetlands, and vegetation.