account on Mumbai 2005 flood
Answers
Answered by
3
Mumbai Flood 2005
The unprecedented rainfall in Mumbai resulted in a near complete inundation of the
city as flood waters rose to engulf the first floor of most buildings. The population exposed to
this natural disaster was about 13 million, with a density of about 28,000 persons per square
kilometer. Both flash flooding and river flooding contributed to the damage. Drainage
infrastructure was incapable of accommodating the volume of runoff water resulting in failure
of the sanitary sewer system. The Mithi and other rivers overflowed as discharge exceeded
capacity. The resulting floods cut off rail and road systems. Residents reported having to
spend the night stranded in cars or wading home through the high water. More than 100,000
residential and commercial buildings reported damage, along with 30,000 vehicles (Gupta,
2007).
The flood produced an estimated $1 billion (US) in damage. The business economy
was especially hard hit; the airport was closed for two days, trading on the stock exchange was
suspended for a day, and many areas of the city remained flooded and were without power for
more than a week. Slum dwellers were especially hard hit as poor drainage and infrastructure
hindered receding water. Residents were left with no choice but to live in their flooded
dwellings. Areas reported no clean drinking water for up to a week after the flood
(Anonymous, 2005; Kewalramani, 2006).
The floods impacted the health of the Mumbai population in several ways. Total
deaths in the city were over 400 with over 3000 serious illnesses also reported. Drowning was
the number one cause of death followed by landslides and stampedes due to false rumors of an
approaching tsunami. Three years after the disaster a complete accounting of the victims
remains problematic (IANS, 2008). The lack of clean drinking water led to outbreaks of
diseases such as hepatitis, fever, conjunctivitis, gastrointestinal illness, and nose and throat
infections. Increased cases of malaria and leptospirosis (contacted by wading through water
infected by animal waste) were also reported (Government of Maharashtra, 2005).
Bhagat et al. (2006) examined the flood from an urban planning perspective and
concluded that land-use decisions and a lack of coordinated planning were responsible for the
flooding. Of the six major natural drainage systems of the area, four of them are over 40
percent built up. The rivers themselves are often clogged with garbage due to inadequate waste
management. Open gutters in the suburban area of Mumbai carry both storm water and
sewage. After the flood these became slow-draining cesspools which contributed to the disease
outbreak. Government agencies with legislatively mandated responsibilities share planning
authority but lack effective coordination. Thus India’s most populous city has no integrated
urban planning system and agencies are free to blame other agencies after a disaster.
the #RIHAAN
hope this will help you.
The unprecedented rainfall in Mumbai resulted in a near complete inundation of the
city as flood waters rose to engulf the first floor of most buildings. The population exposed to
this natural disaster was about 13 million, with a density of about 28,000 persons per square
kilometer. Both flash flooding and river flooding contributed to the damage. Drainage
infrastructure was incapable of accommodating the volume of runoff water resulting in failure
of the sanitary sewer system. The Mithi and other rivers overflowed as discharge exceeded
capacity. The resulting floods cut off rail and road systems. Residents reported having to
spend the night stranded in cars or wading home through the high water. More than 100,000
residential and commercial buildings reported damage, along with 30,000 vehicles (Gupta,
2007).
The flood produced an estimated $1 billion (US) in damage. The business economy
was especially hard hit; the airport was closed for two days, trading on the stock exchange was
suspended for a day, and many areas of the city remained flooded and were without power for
more than a week. Slum dwellers were especially hard hit as poor drainage and infrastructure
hindered receding water. Residents were left with no choice but to live in their flooded
dwellings. Areas reported no clean drinking water for up to a week after the flood
(Anonymous, 2005; Kewalramani, 2006).
The floods impacted the health of the Mumbai population in several ways. Total
deaths in the city were over 400 with over 3000 serious illnesses also reported. Drowning was
the number one cause of death followed by landslides and stampedes due to false rumors of an
approaching tsunami. Three years after the disaster a complete accounting of the victims
remains problematic (IANS, 2008). The lack of clean drinking water led to outbreaks of
diseases such as hepatitis, fever, conjunctivitis, gastrointestinal illness, and nose and throat
infections. Increased cases of malaria and leptospirosis (contacted by wading through water
infected by animal waste) were also reported (Government of Maharashtra, 2005).
Bhagat et al. (2006) examined the flood from an urban planning perspective and
concluded that land-use decisions and a lack of coordinated planning were responsible for the
flooding. Of the six major natural drainage systems of the area, four of them are over 40
percent built up. The rivers themselves are often clogged with garbage due to inadequate waste
management. Open gutters in the suburban area of Mumbai carry both storm water and
sewage. After the flood these became slow-draining cesspools which contributed to the disease
outbreak. Government agencies with legislatively mandated responsibilities share planning
authority but lack effective coordination. Thus India’s most populous city has no integrated
urban planning system and agencies are free to blame other agencies after a disaster.
the #RIHAAN
hope this will help you.
Similar questions