By Pratigyan Das
Recently, as Cyclone Arnab and heavy rains battered Odisha, the coastal state was hit by yet another round of flooding. This came barely weeks after its fifth spell of flooding in less than two months, when more than one lakh people across 27 blocks in Balasore, Mayurbhanj and Jajpur were affected in early September.
Also Read
The state responded along familiar lines: evacuations, rescue operations, relief and the restoration of roads and communications.
However, the recurring floods raise a larger question: Is Odisha getting better at responding to floods or at preventing them?
Odisha’s disaster-management story is one of India’s most significant governance successes. Since the 1999 Super Cyclone, which claimed thousands of lives, the state has built robust early-warning systems, evacuation protocols, cyclone shelters and institutional capacity, dramatically reducing deaths during major cyclones.
But a look at the record over the past few years reveals a paradox: while the coastal state has managed to respond effectively to cyclones, it has not succeeded in reducing repeated exposure to floods.
The numbers say it all. In 2022, floods affected 24.7 lakh people across 7,472 villages. Four years on, the disruption remains substantial. The 2026 floods affected more than 18 lakh people across 22 districts. There remains a persistent gap in structural flood-risk reduction.
The losses are economic. For a farmer, a flood wipes out an entire crop cycle. For a fisherman, damaged equipment means weeks without income. A small shopkeeper or a daily-wage worker can lose months of savings through spoiled inventory or lost earnings during prolonged disruptions.
These losses become a major economic shock when calculated across thousands of households and businesses.
The state’s disaster-management policy, therefore, needs rethinking, with greater emphasis on flood management that makes floods not only less deadly but also less economically destructive.
Damage assessments should move beyond casualty management to loss management by asking questions such as: How many working days and how much farm income were lost? How severely were supply chains affected? How long did households take to recover their incomes?
The state must publish an annual ‘Flood Economic Loss Account’ that records not only damage to houses and crops but also losses of farm and wage income; damage to infrastructure; disruptions to markets and transport; industrial losses; and interruptions to school and health services.
Secondly, a data-based framework for tracking economic recovery should be established. It should measure how quickly road connectivity is restored after floodwaters recede, how soon electricity supply to businesses resumes, when markets reopen and how long it takes for household incomes to return to pre-disaster levels. In short, the key question is whether people have regained their ability to earn.
Thirdly, policymakers need to ask why certain assets continue to be damaged by the same hazards. If a road is repeatedly washed away, rebuilding it in the same way does not constitute resilience. The state must move from repairing damage to reducing vulnerability. Every major reconstruction project should examine why an asset failed and how similar failures can be prevented. This could mean building stronger bridges, raising roads or installing flood-resistant power systems.
Disaster preparedness must be viewed as an investment, as a flood-resilient road protects trade, better drainage boosts urban productivity, and a resilient warehouse safeguards agricultural output.
Fourthly, wetlands, mangroves, forests and natural drainage systems must be incorporated into disaster planning. They can absorb water, reduce flood intensity and protect communities and productive assets.
Lastly, crop losses can force farmers to borrow money. Therefore, the state must ensure that every district maintains a disaster balance sheet documenting hazards, exposure, damage, income loss, recovery time and the investment needed to build resilience. Such a database would change the way governments allocate funds.
The recent floods should be seen not merely as another extreme-weather event but as a warning about the economic consequences of repeated shocks.
