Urban Flooding in Sri Lanka: A Call for Sustainable Development

Introduction

Sri Lanka faces an urban crisis that is both immediate and systemic. Flooding in cities and urban areas continues to cause destruction, displace thousands, and take lives. The 2024-2025 floods were not merely a natural disaster; they exposed the structural inadequacies in urban planning, infrastructure development, and environmental management. Despite decades of investment in engineered solutions, floods are recurring with greater intensity and frequency. The crisis reflects a development model that prioritizes construction, visual modernity, and short-term economic gains over environmental sustainability, hydrological balance, and climate resilience. This is a warning that decisions taken over decades are now manifesting in very real, tangible consequences.

Urban flooding is not a new phenomenon in Sri Lanka. Historical rainfall data and documented flood events show that the country has long been vulnerable to extreme weather. Monsoon seasons have always brought heavy rains, and low-lying regions have historically faced inundation. However, the scale of recent flood events is unprecedented. Urbanization, unplanned land use, and the replacement of natural water management systems with impervious surfaces have magnified flood risks. Today, major urban centers such as Colombo, Kandy, Kurunegala, and Gampaha experience floods not only during monsoons but increasingly during intense, short-duration rainfall events.

The JICA Wastewater Project: A Case Study in Incomplete Implementation

A notable attempt to manage urban water challenges was the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) wastewater management project in Kandy. Funded at Rs. 22 billion and implemented in the mid-2000s, the project aimed to improve wastewater collection and treatment for 9,000 households. The objective was to prevent untreated sewage from flowing into Kandy Lake and the Mahaweli River and to improve public health outcomes.

Image Courtesy: The Island

The project achieved only a third of its intended household connections, with just 3,000 households benefiting. Several systemic issues contributed to this outcome. Pipeline construction remained incomplete, funding proved insufficient, households were reluctant to connect due to perceived costs, and inadequate water supply compromised sewage treatment operations. The environmental consequences of this incomplete implementation remain apparent today. Kandy Lake continues to receive polluted runoff, while the Meda Ela canal is regularly clogged with polythene, plastic waste, and debris from upstream urban areas. Illegal constructions along riverbanks further complicate flood management. This case demonstrates that infrastructure projects implemented without integration into broader urban planning, community engagement, and environmental enforcement are prone to failure.

Lessons from International Experience

Urban flooding is not a challenge confined to developing nations. Even cities with sophisticated infrastructure and substantial financial resources struggle to cope when extreme weather exceeds design expectations. The September 2021 remnants of Hurricane Ida in New York City provide a sobering example. Central Park recorded 3.47 inches of rainfall in a single hour, far surpassing the city's sewer system design capacity of 1.75 inches per hour. Flooding killed eleven people in basement apartments, damaged over 33,500 buildings, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage. The subway system, a critical urban transport network, sustained tens of millions in damage. Across the broader Northeast United States, at least 44 people died.

Similarly, Germany and Belgium faced unprecedented floods in July 2021. Rainfall totals exceeding 400 millimeters over two to three days overwhelmed advanced flood defenses, particularly in the Ahr River valley. Hundreds lost their lives, towns were inundated, and damage totaled billions of euros. These events highlight several critical lessons. Historical rainfall data is inadequate for contemporary infrastructure design. Urbanization with impervious surfaces accelerates runoff everywhere. Climate change is shifting the probability distribution of extreme weather, making events once considered rare increasingly common. Finally, even wealthy nations with advanced technical expertise struggle to manage floods in an era of climate change.

Sri Lanka cannot ignore these global lessons. The difference is not engineering capacity or financial resources but the alignment of urban development with environmental and hydrological realities.

Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts of Flooding

Flooding in Sri Lanka has severe and multifaceted consequences. Direct economic losses include destruction of homes, damage to infrastructure, and disruption of businesses. In 2017, floods destroyed 1,411 houses, partially damaged 11,946, killed 210 people, and affected over 676,000 individuals. The 2024-2025 floods caused comparable or greater damage. More than 2,600 houses were partially damaged and 107 destroyed, with thousands of people displaced. Reconstruction consumes resources that could otherwise be invested in healthcare, education, and preventive measures.

Image Courtesy: Shuttershock

Agricultural areas suffer profoundly. Crops are destroyed, topsoil is washed away, and agricultural productivity declines. Given that substantial food production occurs in low-lying, flood-prone areas, repeated inundation threatens food security and rural livelihoods. Water-borne diseases such as leptospirosis, bacterial infections, and parasitic diseases increase after floods. Mosquito breeding rises in stagnant water, contributing to outbreaks of dengue fever and other vector-borne diseases. Mental health impacts, including trauma, anxiety, and depression, affect survivors long after the floodwaters recede. Vulnerable populations, including low-income households, the elderly, and residents of informal settlements, are disproportionately affected.

Floods also harm ecosystems. Water pollution from industrial effluents, sewage, and agricultural chemicals increases during flooding, reducing water quality in rivers, streams, and lakes. Kandy Lake remains a stark example of severe water quality deterioration due in part to inadequate wastewater management. Wetlands, historically essential for water retention and filtration, have been eliminated or degraded, reducing natural flood mitigation capacity. Stream and river ecosystems face altered flow regimes, habitat loss, and biodiversity reduction, all exacerbated by urbanization and infrastructure encroachment.

Construction over Sustainability

Sri Lanka’s urban development model has prioritized visible construction over sustainability. Road widening, high-rise buildings, and commercial expansion are framed as markers of modernity and economic activity. However, these interventions reduce natural water retention and increase runoff. Mixed-use neighborhoods with green spaces have been replaced by concentrated development, further amplifying flood risk.

Urban expansion has proceeded rapidly. In Kurunegala, urban areas increased by over 50 percent between 2007 and 2022. Colombo has expanded at an average of 13.4 square kilometers per year between 1997 and 2019. Vegetation cover has declined and agricultural lands have shrunk, further reducing infiltration capacity. Water bodies may have increased slightly, often representing artificial reservoirs or ponds rather than natural ecosystems capable of flood mitigation.

Image Courtesy: Reuters

The legacy of incomplete infrastructure further worsens the problem. Projects such as the KMTTD have faced delays, while the JICA wastewater initiative reached only a fraction of its target. The Metro Colombo Urban Development Project, despite billions in investment and multiple completed sub-projects, failed to achieve its objectives. Twenty-three projects worth Rs. 56 billion have been halted due to institutional and coordination failures. This pattern illustrates that financial investment alone cannot ensure flood resilience when planning is fragmented and uncoordinated.

Fragmented Planning and Lack of Integrated Wastershed Management

A fundamental weakness in urban flood management is the lack of integrated watershed-scale planning. Roads, housing, water supply, and drainage systems are often developed independently, without assessing how rainfall moves through urban basins. Roads may be widened without corresponding drainage improvements, housing developments approved without analyzing runoff impacts, and drainage systems built without integration with land use.

Responsibility for planning and environmental management is spread across multiple agencies including the Urban Development Authority, local authorities, the Department of Irrigation, and the Central Environmental Authority. Coordination is weak, resulting in fragmented decision-making. Historical studies, including the 2001 JICA stormwater drainage assessment for Colombo, identified the absence of authorized land-use plans as a key constraint. Despite decades, retention areas remain vulnerable to encroachment and wetlands continue to be degraded.

Climate Adaptation Deficits in Infrastructure Design

Urban infrastructure in Sri Lanka is designed based on historical rainfall rather than projected future conditions. The MCUDP, for example, used historical data to design for a 50-year rainfall event of 476.5 millimeters. Yet rainfall intensity has already increased by 20-30 percent, and projections indicate further increases due to climate change. This reliance on historical baselines results in infrastructure that will become inadequate before reaching its expected lifespan.

International best practices now emphasize climate-adaptive design and the integration of green infrastructure. Rain gardens, bioswales, permeable pavements, and restored wetlands provide multiple benefits including flood mitigation, water quality improvement, urban cooling, and habitat provision. Sri Lankan development has largely prioritized engineered drainage solutions over nature-based approaches, leaving urban areas increasingly vulnerable to both flooding and water pollution.

Reorienting Development Toward Sustainability

Addressing urban flooding requires a fundamental shift in development priorities. Protecting and restoring natural hydrological systems is essential. Wetlands must be preserved and restored, riverbanks protected by law, and encroachment removed. The Mahaweli River, its tributaries, and other urban streams require comprehensive rehabilitation. Upper catchments, including forests such as Hanthana and Udawatta Kele, provide water retention and infiltration services and must be conserved and expanded.

Infrastructure design must incorporate climate adaptation. Drainage systems should be sized for projected extreme rainfall and include redundancy. Urban land-use planning must be watershed-based, specifying permissible development areas and protecting critical ecosystems. Legal authority and enforcement are essential to prevent encroachment on retention areas, riparian zones, and wetlands.

Institutional reform is also required. Fragmented authority must be coordinated or consolidated to enable basin-scale flood management. Local authorities require technical capacity, training, and resources. Community engagement is crucial to reduce waste disposal in drains and canals, complementing government enforcement.

Green infrastructure should complement engineered systems. Urban development must integrate rain gardens, bioswales, permeable pavements, and restored wetlands. Development standards and building codes must require these features in new construction. These measures can reduce flood peaks, improve water quality, support urban cooling, and enhance habitat provision.

The Fundamental Choice

Sri Lanka faces a choice between two competing development visions. The first continues the current trajectory, prioritizing construction while treating environmental management and drainage as secondary concerns. This approach perpetuates recurring floods, environmental degradation, and diminishing returns on investment. The second vision integrates human settlements with natural systems. It respects hydrological limits, restores wetlands and forests, incorporates climate-adaptive infrastructure, coordinates development across agencies, and aligns land-use planning with environmental and drainage systems. This vision prioritizes long-term resilience over short-term economic gains.

Image Courtesy: DW

Global experience underscores the limits of engineering alone. Even wealthy, technologically advanced nations suffer catastrophic floods when urban development is misaligned with environmental and hydrological realities. Sri Lanka cannot rely on concrete drains or pumping stations alone. Without fundamental change, floods will increase in frequency and intensity, imposing rising economic and social costs. The 2024-2025 floods are a warning and an opportunity. They reveal the consequences of past development decisions and the urgent need for sustainable urban planning.

The Path to Resilience

Resilience is both feasible and economically justified. Sri Lanka has the technical expertise, financial resources, and institutional frameworks necessary for reform. Success requires political will to prioritize environmental sustainability and climate adaptation over short-term gains. Wetlands, rivers, and forests must be restored and protected. Infrastructure must be designed for projected climate extremes. Agencies must coordinate effectively, and communities must adopt sustainable waste management practices. Green infrastructure must complement engineered systems.

The floods are ultimately a reflection of choices made by society and government. The nation must decide whether to continue investing in a development model that guarantees recurring disaster or to adopt a sustainable urban planning model that integrates human settlements with natural systems. How these warnings are addressed will determine whether Sri Lankan cities become increasingly uninhabitable or evolve into resilient urban environments that accommodate human needs while preserving the environment.

Conclusion

The crisis of urban flooding in Sri Lanka is not a failure of knowledge or engineering capacity but a failure of development vision. Infrastructure investment alone is insufficient when it ignores environmental sustainability, climate change, and hydrological balance. The floods of 2024-2025, and those before them, demonstrate the consequences of misaligned development. Protecting wetlands, restoring rivers, conserving forests, designing climate-adaptive infrastructure, coordinating agencies, engaging communities, and incorporating green infrastructure are all essential to reducing flood risk.

Sri Lanka has the expertise and resources necessary to implement these reforms. The question is whether political and institutional leadership will prioritize long-term resilience over short-term construction activity. Urban flooding is not merely a natural event; it is a reflection of choices made over decades. The nation’s response will shape the urban landscape and the well-being of its citizens for generations. Heeding the warnings now can create cities that are resilient, livable, and sustainable. Ignoring them will continue a cycle of recurring disaster.