Odisha Chief Secretary Anu Garg on 11 November 2026 defended the state government's handling of the devastating Ganjam floods, attributing the disaster to unprecedented rainfall that was 65 per cent higher than what was recorded during the 2013 Cyclone Phailin — pushing back firmly against opposition allegations of a man-made crisis.

What the rainfall data shows

Patrapur recorded 546 mm of rainfall in a single day, preceded by 89 mm on the first day and followed by 173 mm on the third, bringing the three-day cumulative total to 808 mm. Several other rainfall monitoring stations in the region also breached their previous records, logging more than 300 mm each. Garg noted a critical distinction from Phailin: while that cyclone delivered heavy rainfall within a single day, the recent event involved three consecutive days of intense precipitation — a compounding factor that overwhelmed drainage systems across the district.

Role of reservoir operations

Addressing questions over dam management — a central point of opposition criticism — the Chief Secretary explained that the combined catchment area of the Rushikulya and Bahuda rivers spans approximately 9,800 sq km. Of this, only around 880 sq km, or roughly 10 per cent, drains into reservoirs. The remaining 90 per cent flows directly into the rivers and lies beyond any dam-based control. Engineers, she said, followed established protocols, conducting continuous assessments before releasing water. Reservoir releases during the event were described as being at 60 to 65 per cent of capacity, with additional water diverted through irrigation canals — the same approach adopted during Cyclone Phailin.

River discharge versus dam discharge

At Purushottampur, river discharge peaked at 6,907 cumecs, which Garg described as double the river's carrying capacity. By contrast, dam-related discharge stood at just 746 cumecs — a figure the Chief Secretary cited to counter claims that reservoir releases were the primary driver of flooding. 'We have to understand that there was unprecedented rainfall. Even so, the required amount of water was released from the dams, and everything that needed to be done was done. Despite these measures, the crisis happened,' Garg stated.

Central team assessment and relief timeline

A Central team led by a Joint Secretary, with members drawn from the Ministry of Jal Shakti, visited the flood-affected areas shortly after the disaster. Following its on-ground assessment, the team conveyed to state officials that the situation was caused by unprecedented rainfall — lending institutional backing to the state's position. On relief, Garg said the administration's primary objective had been to prevent loss of life, and that no casualties had occurred. Power restoration is targeted within three days and water supply within two days, with relief operations for affected residents being expedited.

Opposition criticism and what comes next

The opposition had characterised the Ganjam floods as a man-made disaster, implying mismanagement of dams and reservoirs. The state government's detailed technical briefing appears aimed at shifting the narrative toward the scale of the natural event itself. This comes amid a broader pattern across India where flood-season dam operations have repeatedly drawn political fire — highlighting the need for clearer, real-time public communication protocols during such events. With essential services restoration underway and a Central team assessment already on record, attention is likely to shift toward long-term flood mitigation planning for the Rushikulya-Bahuda basin.