Beyond Water: How household-level insights can transform flood governance in North Bihar

The floods that struck North Bihar in 2024 were far from an isolated event. They form part of a recurring cycle that continues to shape daily life in the region. Yet, significant gaps remain in how flood impacts are measured and how this data informs policy. A household-level flood loss assessment conducted by Megh Pyne Abhiyan, supported by Tata Trusts, following the second phase of the 2024 floods, offers critical insights for flood governance in Bihar and other flood-prone regions.

In late September 2024, episodes of exceptionally heavy rainfall across North Bihar and neighboring regions of Nepal triggered embankment breaches, elevated river levels, and severe drainage congestion along major rivers, including the Gandak, Bagmati, Kosi, and Mahananda. Phase 2 of the floods caused extensive damage, bringing the total number of flood-affected districts in 2024 to 27.The assessment focused on 2,290 households across 134 wards in 21 panchayats of seven districts in North Bihar.

By combining household surveys with participatory flood mapping, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and spatial analysis, the study revealed how flood impacts varied across locations, flood types, and social groups—a level of granularity rarely captured in conventional damage assessments.

Across the surveyed households, total reported economic losses reached approximately Rs 126.3 crore. Land damage accounted for nearly half of this total, making it the single largest component, followed by housing repair and reconstruction costs. Housing damage was particularly widespread, affecting almost two thousand households. Losses of everyday household items—kitchenware, groceries, furniture, and sanitation materials—as well as agricultural losses were common, although their monetary share was comparatively smaller.

The average loss per household was estimated at Rs 5.51 lakh, with a median loss of Rs 2.11 lakh. This gap reflects a small number of households experiencing extremely high losses, while a much larger group faced moderate but disruptive damage. Flood typology played a key role in shaping outcomes: breach-induced flooding caused the highest aggregate losses, while flash floods between embankments produced very high losses for fewer households.

Spatial patterns also challenge prevailing assumptions. Fifty-eight percent of surveyed households were located in rural areas, including zones between and outside river embankments.

Despite flood protection structures, these areas were poorly protected during Phase 2 of the 2024 floods. This underscores an important policy concern: structural measures such as embankments may safeguard some areas but often redistribute flood risk rather than eliminate it.Inequality emerged as another critical insight. Households belonging to the general category reported higher monetary losses, while Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe households reported lower absolute losses. Yet smaller financial losses do not imply lower vulnerability.

For households with limited resources, even modest damage can be difficult to absorb—a phenomenon described in the assessment as the “assessment-based vulnerability paradox,” where monetary figures alone fail to capture the depth of hardship.The social costs of flooding became evident in household coping strategies. Most households reported reducing food consumption, relying on stored grains, borrowing from relatives or neighbours, or depending on remittances. Displacement was widespread, and distress asset sales—mortgaging jewellery, livestock, or land—were common.

Access to insurance was extremely limited, with most households unaware of or unable to use flood-related insurance schemes.The assessment also highlighted gaps in institutional response. While disaster management systems were activated in several areas, households reported short warning periods, uneven relief distribution, and limited involvement of local self-government institutions.

At the same time, communities demonstrated a strong understanding of flood dynamics and proposed practical solutions: deployment of boats, raised and flood-resilient housing, dedicated cattle shelters, community-managed water and sanitation systems, grain banks, flood-tolerant crops, mobile health and veterinary services, and locally operated early warning systems.

The policy implications are clear: flood governance must move beyond simply counting damaged houses and crops. It must recognise differentiated vulnerability, invest in preparedness, and incorporate household-level evidence and local knowledge into planning and compensation frameworks. Household-level assessments provide exactly this kind of evidence, showing how floods redistribute risk, deepen inequality, and shape recovery pathways.

For North Bihar, where flooding is recurrent and climate variability is increasing, the message is unmistakable: flood policy must shift from managing water alone to managing vulnerability. Without grounding decisions in household realities, future floods will continue to overwhelm systems, remaining entirely predictable to those who live with them.Megh Pyne Abhiyan is a public charitable trust working in water-stressed regions of eastern India, primarily Bihar and Jharkhand, and intermittently in West Bengal.

Eklavya Prasad is Managing Trustee, Megh Pyne Abhiyan; views are personal