As floods keep happening, are the right problems being fixed?

FOR families who have repeatedly watched floodwaters enter their homes, another announcement about drainage improvements may offer little comfort. What matters is whether their homes will be safer when the next heavy downpour arrives.

But are we solving the problems behind recurring floods or merely repairing the damage they leave behind?

Recent commentaries in The Star have raised important concerns. Brian Martin's “The deluge that never ends” (Nov 6) examined persistent flooding despite substantial investments in mitigation systems. Datuk Ir Lawrence Low urged a more holistic approach in "Holistic approach needed as long-term solution to recurrent floods in Selangor" (Nov 8), while Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye proposed improvements to drainage, maintenance and preparedness in "Flood mitigation systems in KL need an overhaul" (Nov 9).

Their recommendations deserve attention. But another question remains: Why do familiar problems persist despite repeated interventions, and how can we tell whether our solutions are working?

Think of the Titanic. Only a small part of the iceberg was visible above the water; the greater mass lay beneath.

Flooding presents a similar challenge. We see overflowing drains, submerged roads and damaged homes. These visible events demand immediate action.

Beneath them are patterns: the same neighbourhoods flooding repeatedly, improvements proving insufficient and disruption returning after every storm.

Deeper still are structures shaping those patterns: land development, drainage capacity, maintenance arrangements and responsibilities divided among agencies.

At the bottom lie assumptions: that upgrading one drain will solve a neighbourhood’s problem, or that completing a project means the problem has been solved.

This is the Iceberg Model in systems thinking. It invites us to move from events to patterns, from patterns to underlying structures, and finally to the assumptions guiding decisions.

A flooded road may be a symptom rather than the whole problem. Unless we look beneath the surface, we risk treating the same symptoms repeatedly.

Consider the collapse of a bridge along Jalan Kubu Gajah in Sungai Buloh, Selangor on Nov 4. Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Amirudin Shari identified the older bridge’s narrow structure as a restriction to water flow despite the river being widened. Heavy rainfall and rising water levels were also reported.

A full explanation requires technical assessment, but the incident raises a useful question: What happens when one part of a network is improved while another restriction remains? A wider river may carry more water, but a bottleneck nearby can undermine the intended benefit. Floodwater does not recognise construction packages or administrative boundaries.

How can we investigate what lies beneath? The Five Whys offers a simple starting point. Suppose a neighbourhood floods repeatedly. Why? Perhaps drains cannot discharge water quickly enough. Why? There may be a downstream restriction. Why has it become problematic? Runoff from surrounding developments may have increased. Why was that not accommodated? Perhaps cumulative impacts were overlooked. Why might that happen? Could planning, construction and maintenance responsibilities be fragmented?

These are illustrative questions, not findings about any particular flood. Actual causes require engineering assessments, rainfall records and local evidence. Flooding may involve several interacting factors, so asking why should open an investigation, not force a single convenient answer. Fixing what failed is not always the same as fixing why it failed.

Now imagine four flood mitigation projects within one catchment. A river is widened, roadside drains upgraded, a retention pond built and a culvert improved. Each finishes on time, within budget and according to specifications. Yet, residents still experience flooding because a downstream restriction remains. How can four successful projects produce one disappointing outcome?

The distinction is between delivering infrastructure and realising benefits. A retention pond is an output; fewer flooded homes are a benefit. A widened river is an output; safer journeys and less disruption are benefits.

The success of a project cannot be judged solely by completed works, expenditure or deadlines. The purpose of public investment is to create value for the people it serves.

This suggests a practical change in how we assess flood mitigation. Rather than reviewing projects only in isolation, examine whether their combined effects protect the wider catchment.

A catchment-level benefits review could bring drainage authorities, councils, developers and infrastructure owners together to identify bottlenecks, examine how completed works interact and clarify responsibility for unresolved risks, particularly where responsibilities cross organisational boundaries. It might also reveal whether an intervention has shifted flooding elsewhere.

We should compare flood depth, duration, affected households and recovery times before and after improvements, accounting for rainfall intensity and the protection level each scheme was designed to provide.

No infrastructure can prevent every flood, especially during extreme weather. But public reporting should tell residents more than how much was spent or how many projects were completed. Are their homes and journeys actually safer?

Selangor's proposed review of development approvals in Puncak Alam, as reported in StarMetro, "Selangor MB: All projects in Puncak Alam to be halted pending flood mitigation works" (The Star, Nov 6), offers an opportunity to examine wider relationships between development and drainage.

Meanwhile, maintenance, temporary storage, early warnings and safe access remain essential. Responding to emergencies matters; recognising patterns matters, too. Lasting improvement also requires changing the conditions that keep producing the problem.

When floodwaters recede, we should ask not only what needs repairing but also what the event revealed about the wider system. Have we understood the underlying causes? Have our interventions delivered the protection promised?

We cannot solve recurring floods by repeatedly fixing what we see while ignoring what lies beneath. After all, floods do not judge our projects by their budgets or completion dates. The real test comes when the next heavy downpour arrives.

IR PROF TS DR JEFFREY YAP

Faculty of Engineering and Science

Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR)