Back in April 2019, as Kerala was heading into the Lok Sabha polls, an amicus curiae report on the 2018 Kerala floods rocked the LDF government. The Kerala High Court had appointed senior advocate Jacob P. Alex as amicus curiae after examining 15 petitions seeking a judicial probe into the causes of the floods, which resulted in the deaths of over 400 people and caused extensive material damage.
In his report, Adv. Alex noted that, alongside extremely heavy rainfall, the impact of the floods appeared to have been aggravated by various factors, including man-made ones. “None of the 79 dams in Kerala were operated or used for the purpose of flood control/moderation; no effective flood control zone was maintained; reservoir storage remained high even in the first week of August; there was sudden release of water from all dams; reservoir storage capacity had reduced due to siltation; there was no integrated operation of dams based on scientifically identified rule curves; and there was an absence of proper flood warning systems,” the report noted. It recommended a more detailed inquiry headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court.
Adv. Alex also suggested that the inquiry committee should preferably consist of a reputed hydrologist, experts in dam management, engineers and other specialists.
The report, which suggested dam mismanagement as one of the contributing factors to the floods, angered the government. Notably, this had also been a key allegation raised by the opposition in the aftermath of the disaster. Then, the electricity minister, M.M. Mani, accused the amicus curiae of playing politics, while Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said the report had been leaked with elections approaching.
Now, as Kerala votes, the LDF once again faced allegations that man-made factors, including issues in dam management, contributed to the 2018 floods.
Congress leader and Muvattupuzha UDF candidate Mathew Kuzhalnadan has reignited these allegations by sharing an audio clip allegedly featuring Minister K. Krishnankutty. In the clip, Krishnankutty is purportedly heard saying that Mathew T. Thomas—his party colleague and then water resources minister—played a role in delaying the opening of the Thottappally spillway, which is crucial for flood control in Kerala. The recording claims that the delay was intended to prevent downstream sand deposits from being washed away, thereby benefiting a private contractor. It further alleges that Mathew T. Thomas made crores from the deal.
Interestingly, the LDF appears to be responding to these fresh allegations in much the same way—and with a similar pattern of defence—as it did to the amicus curiae report. THE WEEK examines this defence and explores whether there are uncharted areas that remain insufficiently probed in the context of the Kerala floods.
Grey areas
After the amicus curiae report came out, the government stood on its stance that there was no dam mismanagement and approached the High Court to reject the findings. In an affidavit submitted to the High Court, the government noted that, except for the finding that the reason for the deluge was the extremely heavy rainfall between August 15 and August 17, all other causes were on the basis of assumptions not supported by scientific data.
Referring to the study on the floods by the Central Water Commission that came out with supportive data, the government took a position that no further inquiry was required in the matter. The government also referred to a study by K.P. Sudheer of IIT-Madras to back its position. Meanwhile, the government rejected the study by Vimal Mishra of IIT Gandhinagar—‘Kerala Flood of 2018: The combined impact of extreme rainfall and reservoir’, citing it was an article that was rejected in peer review. The study was under review for the journal Hydrology and Earth Sciences (HESS).
THE WEEK spoke to Mishra, asking him about the situations under which this study was not accepted. “Peer review is open to all, and at that time, there was a very strong opinion that dams did not play any role in the flooding. However, the issue remains debatable and somewhat controversial even now,” he said. Mishra notes that the central argument from the government side, and from those involved in that study, came in another paper published in Current Science [the study by Sudheer K.P and others], which was widely appreciated by the government at the time.
“Their argument was that even if the dams had been empty, the flood intensity would not have been reduced significantly—hence, dams did not play any role. But that is not entirely correct. Think about it: a full dam versus an empty dam. If a dam is relatively empty, you can release water gradually and still have storage capacity. But if the dam is already full, then you are forced to suddenly release large volumes of water to protect the structure. That makes a significant difference. Our earlier paper was not accepted, and I am aware of the reasons. However, the findings have since been widely cited, and we have published multiple studies highlighting the role dams play in flooding across the country. One of our recent studies clearly shows that whether dams are near full capacity or not makes a major difference—not just in whether floods occur, but also in their intensity.”
Mishra told THE WEEK that the challenge has been that when an issue becomes controversial, even a fair or evidence-based opinion may not carry much weight if there is a strong opposing narrative.
“Regarding peer review—yes, there were several critical comments. We had submitted the paper very soon after the flood event. The floods occurred around August, and we submitted the paper within about a month. Reviewers questioned the quality of the data—whether it was observed data, how reliable it was, and so on. Those concerns are understandable, given how early the study was. That said, we have now published a much more comprehensive and mature study. It covers hundreds of dams across India and clearly shows that when dams are over 90% full, that significantly influences downstream flood conditions,” he said.
“This is especially important because we still lack robust inflow forecasting systems. So, if there is sudden heavy rainfall and the dam is already near capacity, the gates have to be opened regardless of the downstream impact. We have demonstrated this through a peer-reviewed study that goes beyond Kerala and looks at multiple flood events across different states.”
Interestingly, even the study by the IIT Madras—which the government cited to support its position—had noted that dams and reservoirs in the Periyar River basin were not designed for flood control purposes but for hydropower/irrigation, and therefore the operation policy has been to maintain the reservoir level close to FRL throughout the monsoon season to ensure maximum power generation. Nevertheless, the study also took the position that the probability of extreme rainfall—like what was experienced in August 2018—was very small (only 0.6 per cent), and therefore any planned operation could not have helped in mitigating floods of such magnitude, as the reservoir design and/or operation might not have considered such a design.
Notably, as the current audio controversy surfaced, LDF leaders, including Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, reverted to their earlier defence—that “experts had already concluded the Kerala floods were not man-made” and that the rest were mere political allegations. Nevertheless, questions remain as to whether there has been selective—or cherry-picking—use of scientific studies for political convenience.
Former Janata Dal (S) leader R.S. Prabhat, who was alongside Kuzhalnadan when the audio was released, alleged on April 8 that K.P. Sudheer, who led the IIT Madras study, was subsequently appointed as the executive vice president of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology, and Environment (KSCSTE) and as ex officio principal secretary to the government of Kerala.
There is a case for an inquiry into the matter to address these allegations, which, if left unanswered, risk suggesting the politicisation of appointments in prestigious scientific institutions.
Old assertions, new allegations
The audio clip released by Kuzhalnadan suggests that the government delayed opening the Thottappally spillway to prevent sand deposits from being washed away, thereby benefiting private contractors. It also alleges that similar measures were taken at the Maniyar project and the Peringalkuthu dam.
In its affidavit, the KSEB had admitted that “most reservoir systems in Kerala swelled during the first heavy spell in the third week of July itself, and water levels in several major reservoirs began rising above normal levels.” Meanwhile, the dam safety authority had noted that “several dams have reduced storage capacity as a result of silting.” The Central Water Commission, too, has maintained that handling sediments is a major challenge in reservoir operations and that sedimentation leads to a “loss of active storage volume.”
Significantly, the amicus curiae had observed that reduced storage capacity of reservoirs in Kerala due to siltation and sedimentation may have contributed to the aggravation of the flood event and identified this as a crucial aspect warranting detailed inquiry. However, the amicus report did not result in any probe that went into such details.
In the wake of the fresh allegations raised by Kuzhalnadan, several questions arise. Did the government machinery consciously take decisions that reduced active storage capacity, thereby worsening the flood situation in August? What are the roles that the government officials at various levels played? Did corruption in the system aggravate the flood situation in the state?
Notably, the authenticity of the alleged audio released by the opposition itself must come under scrutiny. The allegations should not remain a mere political flashpoint ahead of the polls—the public deserves clarity on the full truth behind the devastating floods that reshaped the state.