KOSI FLOODS 2008 : BIHAR
DESCRIPTION
The massive Kosi floods of 18 August 2008, caused by an extensive
breach in the Kosi River, resulted in unprecedented loss of lives,
livelihoods, infrastructure and property in north-eastern Bihar. Although
floods have been a recurring feature in Bihar, these floods were not
usual. The Kosi River, coming from Nepal in the north, burst its
embankments, causing the river to change course, affecting areas of
Bihar that had not experienced such floods for at least half a century.
The floods caused widespread devastation and displaced more than one
million people, in the five districts of Supaul, Madhepura, Araria,
Saharsa and Purnia, with the first three districts being most severely
affected. Overall, about three million people in 1,000 villages of 35
blocks were affected. Provision of relief for flood victims has been
satisfactory, including the setting up of relief camps primarily by the
Government; however, apart from loss of shelter and property, the
floods also have long term implications for the affected villages, and the
fear that vast areas of agricultural land may become infertile for years.
Intensity of Damage: Lands Submerged
Crops, infrastructure and other assets were extensively damaged by the
floods, and villages remained waterlogged for an average period of
nearly two months (53 days). The highest and lowest duration of
standing water in homestead areas was three months and 10 days,
respectively. For agricultural land, water logging persisted even longer,
for an average of nearly three months, and up to a maximum of four
months. Roads were the worst hit; in many villages the earthern road
was completely washed away. Where the roads survived, standing water
remained for an average of two months. In close to two out of three
villages surveyed, more than 75 percent of the living area was affected.
Nine in 10 villages had at least 50 percent of agricultural land affected,
while in seven out of 10 villages, more than 75 percent of croplands
suffered devastation.
EFFECTS
Damage to Village Infrastructure
The severe floods extensively damaged physical infrastructure such as
roads, electricity lines, embankments, bridges and culverts, and
telecommunications, hindering efficient relief
work and access to basic services. Villages with non concrete roads
were most affected, with six out of seven concrete roads being seriously
damaged or washed away. About 40 percent of semi-concrete roads also
experienced severe damage.
Electricity supply was damaged, as electric poles were uprooted or wires
disconnected by the heavy flow of water. Before the floods, nearly two-
thirds of the 40 villages had electricity connections, which fell sharply,
after the floods by about half (from 25 to 12 villages). Similarly, the
number of households with electricity connections declined by nearly
half (115 households before the floods, 62 households afterwards).
Damage to Irrigation Systems
The floods severely damaged irrigation systems, which were highly
dependent on tubewells. About 75 percent of tubewells were severely or
completely damaged, and in many cases repair proved difficult;
similarly, about 77 percent of canals were severely or completely
damaged .This will involve huge expenditures for repair. The survey
also found that around two thirds of diesel pump sets were severely or
completely damaged and one third were partially damaged.
Damage to Drinking Water Sources and Sanitation
Flooding caused major deterioration in the quality of households’ health
environment, destroying or damaging toilet facilities and reducing
people’s access to safe water. 27
Livelihood and Employment Losses
Loss of agricultural implements was reported bya large number of
households. Although most households were poor, even medium and
large farmers found their livelihoods affected by such losses. Overall,
about 27 percent of households reported losing agricultural implements
.Total loss of agriculturalimplements would be about Rs.75 crores (US$
16million).
Estimated losses
(Rs. crores)
Value of houses lost 880
Value of foodgrain lost 400
Value of livestock lost 390
Value of domestic items lost 155
Value of agricultural implements lost 75
Value of other losses (crops, trees) 60
COPING MECHANISMS ADOPTED
Shelter
• Temporary arrangements
• Staying on the premises of panchayat office or any other
public place
• Sharing other villagers shelters
Access to Food
• Food and cash relief
• Ate one meal a day
• Half-fed at each meal
• Compromise on food items
• Borrowed foodgrains from others because Government
relief inadequate
• Ate two meals a day
• Did not serve some family members, including
children
• Fasted
Access to Water and Sanitation
• Used chlorine tablets supplied by NGOs
• Drank contaminated water
• Drank less water each day
• Drank boiled water (very rare)
• Defecated in open places
• Defecated in others’ toilets
Access to Health and Education
• Attended medical facilities, if existing
• Visited traditional healers in the vicinity
• Took patients to nearby blocks/towns if it was an
emergency
• Abstained from seeking health support
Livelihoods
• Migrated
• Took credit at very high interest rates
• Leased land
• Accepted relief assistance
RELIEF MEASURES
Households adopted several short term coping mechanisms, including
finding temporary shelter, selling assets, withdrawing children from
school and engaging them in work (if any), reducing food portions,
using stored foodgrains, and resorting to drinking contaminated water.
Short term migration, particularly to sites outside Bihar, proved a key
coping mechanism. Other coping mechanisms included dependence on
support, including food and cash relief to buy food, chlorine tablets to
purify drinking water, utilizing existing medical facilities, and relief for
restoring livelihoods.
Key long term recovery strategies identified by affected people included
Government support for rebuilding their houses, through Indira Awaas
Yojana (IAY) provision of land to the landless for house construction
and of loans at cheap interest rates/compensation for house damage;
continuation of short term Government assistance (food or cash);
creation of employment; and provision of food at a subsidized price
through the public distribution system (PDS). Also suggested were
repair of nonfunctional tubewells and the installation of adequate
numbers of tubewells with appropriate depth; provision of more health
care facilities in villages; connecting schools with high-quality roads;
provision of midday meals to school children; and reconstruction or
renovation of schools, irrigation and electricity systems, embankments,
roads and bridges.
In particular, cultivators suggested the provision of subsidies and
moratoriums on payment of debt;effective steps for land improvement
through National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(NREGS);Government construction/repair of irrigation systems; supply
of fertilizers and pesticides at subsidizedrates; free distribution of diesel-
pump sets; compensation for lost crops, shelter and assets; provision
ofcrop insurance; and waiver of loans for flood-affected farmers. Among
labour and artisan households,suggested strategies included
reconstruction of destroyed/damaged houses; provision of
subsidizedloans for establishing small enterprises or shops;
encouragement of activities such as piggery, animal
husbandry and poultry; life insurance for the poor and landless as well as
for people with disabilities;encouragement of income generating
activities; and extensive, effective implementation of [Link]
women, suggested strategies included implementation of NREGS on a
large scale; provision of debtrelief and credit at low interest rates;
provision of training for micro enterprises; and the formation ofSelf-
Help Groups (SHGs).
