Chapter 3

Implementation
 Chapter 3: Implementation

3.1 Formulation of Project Proposals/Detailed Estimates

Rule 164 of West Bengal Financial Rules (Volume-I & II) stipulates that before
execution of any work, a Detailed Estimate is prepared and approved by the
competent authority. Technical viability as well as cost of the work is assessed
through the Estimates. Test check of 105 estimates of works (comprising of
145 selected tenders) other than FMP works relating to eight divisions revealed
the following deficiencies:
3.1.1 Source of data not mentioned in the estimates
As per Indian Standard No. 14262:1995 of Planning and Design of Revetment,
silt factor and river velocity data were required to be considered for designing
the embankment protection and anti-bank erosion works. This also required to
assess the weight and size of stone boulders to be used in the work as well as to
calculate the required thickness of the protection work.
It was observed that source and age of data on silt factor and river velocity
were not mentioned in 52 estimates prepared by seven test checked Divisions18.
Further, in 39 estimates of five test-checked Divisions19 prepared during the
years 2013-18 where the source of the silt factor data was mentioned as River
Research Institute under I&WD, the data taken into consideration was even
upto 30 years old.
Strength and design of protection work is to be based on the silt factor and river
velocity data, which vary from time to time. Therefore, updated data should
have been considered instead of historical data. Thus, consideration of old data
may undermine design of the embankment.
3.1.2 Inconsistency in approval process of Estimates
I&WD did not prescribe any criteria regarding timelines for approval of
estimates. Audit observed that time taken for completion of the approval
process of estimates from Sub-division level to Chief Engineer level ranged
from 103 to 863 days in case of 21 estimates prepared in five test checked
Divisions20. On the other hand, however, in case of 26 estimates prepared by
five Divisions21, the entire approval process was completed within one month
and, in case of three estimates prepared by two Divisions22, approvals from
three different levels (from Division to CE office) were obtained in a single day.
The exemplary promptness shown in these three estimates did not, however,

18
Malda Irrigation Division, Mahananda Embankment Division, Coochbehar Irrigation
Division, Canals Division, Hooghly Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division and
Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
19
Coochbehar Irrigation Division, Canals Division, Hooghly Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri
Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
20
Howrah Irrigation Division, Malda Irrigation Division, Mahananda Embankment Division,
Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
21
Mahananda Embankment Division, Canals Division, Hooghly Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri
Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
22
Howrah Irrigation Division and Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division.

15
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

help in quick execution. Only one work was completed within the scheduled
date of completion, another work was completed with a delay of 54 days and
the remaining work was on-going as of May 2018 even after the scheduled date
of completion in April 2018.
Thus, irrespective of the time taken in approval process, there were delays in
execution of works under Flood Control Programme.
3.2 Execution of Projects
I&WD executed (1) embankment protection, (2) anti-river erosion, (3) drainage
improvement works for flood control during the years 2013-18. It also
included two major projects namely Kandi Master Plan (KMP) and Kaliaghai-
Kapaleswari-Baghai (KKB) under Flood Management Programme (FMP) with
shared funding by the Centre and the State. As per Para 4.2 of the “Revised
guidelines for providing Central Assistance to State Governments for the
Schemes/Proposals of Flood Control and River Management Works under FMP
(2007-12)”, Central and State share was to be in the ratio of 75:25. The DPRs of
both KMP23 and KKB24 were stated to have been prepared as per the guidelines
of GFCC/CWC and relevant IS codes.
3.2.1 Kandi Master Plan
An area of about 510 sq. km.25 in Murshidabad district is critically prone to
perpetual flooding and drainage congestion and remains totally cut-off for
several days at a time during floods. Most of the embankments, constructed
decades ago, are in dilapidated condition. I&WD prepared (June 2012) the
Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Kandi Master Plan to ameliorate the
flood situation. The project primarily comprised of structural measures like :
(i) raising/strengthening of a total of 223 km embankments of five different
rivers26,
(ii) protection work of different river embankments of a total length of
38.72 km,
(iii) resuscitation of four khals27,
(iv) renovation of 57 existing sluices,
(v) creation of additional capacity of waterways by renovating 12 existing
rail/road bridges and culverts and
(vi) construction of three double lane River Bridges.
Investment clearance of ` 438.94 crore was accorded by the erstwhile Planning
Commission, GoI in June 2012 under Flood Management Programme (FMP)
with target date of completion by March 2017.

23
Page 7 of Chapter 7 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in Kandi
and other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.
24
Page IV-16, X-2, X-10, XI-8 and XIII-1 of Final Report Volume-I and Page 2 of Supplementary
Volume-II (Revised) of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage Basin.
25
Consisting of entire Bharatpur-I, parts of Khargram, Burwan and Kandi blocks.
26
Mayurakshi, Bele, Dwarka, Kuye-Babla and Kana Mayurakshi.
27
Small drainage channels namely Jibanti Khal, Jhumjhum Khali Khal, Banki Khal and Swarup
Khali Khal.

16
 Chapter 3: Implementation

First instalment of the Central Fund was released in March 2014. Approval of
State Planning Board was accorded in May 2014. Administrative Approval was
given by I&WD to Chief Engineer (North) in December 2014 and the project
work commenced in January 2015. As per the approved DPR, the project was
to be completed by March 2017, but it was executed in different phases and
only six out of 12 phases were completed as on March 2018. I&WD proposed
(October 2017) to complete the project by March 2019, which was yet to be
approved by GoI (December 2018).

Figure 3.1 : Index Map of Kandi Basin Project

3.2.1.1  Financial arrangements

Against the approved project cost of ` 438.94 crore, an amount of ` 209.32 crore
(Central Share ` 24.98 crore and State Share ` 184.34 crore) was released and
spent during the years 2013-18.
Out of the total amount spent on this project so far, GoI has contributed only
` 24.98 crore (12 per cent) instead of ` 157 crore (75 per cent), mainly due to
delay in submission of UCs by the State Government.
3.2.1.2  Physical progress
As on 31 March 2018, physical progress of the project was as depicted in the
Table 3.1.

17
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

Table 3.1: Physical progress of the Kandi Master Plan (KMP)

Sl. Components Provision Executed as on Progress in
No. as per DPR March 2018 percentage
1 Raising and Strengthening of 223 km Completed: 130 km 58
embankment
Ongoing: 64 km
2 Embankment protection work 38.72 km 32.71 km completed 84
3 Resuscitation of drainage 40.50 km Completed: 24.90 km 61
channels (four khals)
Ongoing: 6 km
4 Renovation of existing sluices 57 nos. 47 nos. 82
5 Creation of additional 635 m Nil Nil
waterway by renovating 12
existing rail/road bridges and
culverts
6 Construction of double lane 3 nos. Ongoing: 3 nos 80
river bridge
(Source: Divisional records)

3.2.1.3  Defective Detailed Project Report

Scrutiny of execution of the project works under 12 different phases revealed
following defects in the approved Detailed Project Report (DPR), as discussed
below:
Schematic diagram of embankment protection work is shown in figure below:

Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL)

Figure 3.2: Cross section of river embankment

Non-execution of embankment protection work28 in vulnerable stretches

DPR29 of the KMP stipulated that protection work should be provided only
in those reaches where the embankment is within 50 m of the existing bank
line. Accordingly, provision for embankment protection work for a length of
38.72 km. was provided in the DPR for the entire KMP. During preparation of
28
Boulder pitching with launching apron (Figure-3.2).
29
Page 3 and 4, Chapter 8 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in
Kandi and other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.

18
 Chapter 3: Implementation

estimates in 2015-16, I&WD noticed that rivers Mayurakshi and Kuye-Babla

under KMP came very close (within 50 m) of their embankments in several
reaches where protection work was urgently required. Protection work was,
however, not undertaken for those reaches as the same was not included in
the DPR though actually required. Thus, the embankment protection work was
not executed as per the present condition of the rivers, leaving those portions
vulnerable to erosion.
In reply, I&WD stated (October 2018) that all the vulnerable reaches under
KMP had been covered/protected as on date.
It was, however, noted in the estimates of Left Bank of river Mayurakshi
(23.59 km to 39.30 km) and Right Bank of river Kuye-Babla (14.00 km to
29.00 km) under KMP that provision of protection for such vulnerable reaches
was not incorporated though required as the same was not included in the
original DPR of KMP. Thus, estimates were incomplete and did not account for
the dynamic ground realities.
3.2.1.4  Deviations from approved DPR
Scrutiny of execution of the project works under 12 different phases revealed
following deviations from the approved Detailed Project Report (DPR), as
detailed below:
(a)  Required Country Side Slope as per DPR not provided
In the DPR30 of KMP, the country side slope was considered 3H:1V or as
required to cover the Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL)31 for which 277.38 ha
land was to be acquired at a cost of ` 96.47 crore. The Embankment Manual,
CW&PC, 1960 also stipulates that the slope of the embankment should not be
steeper than 3H:1V, for embankment higher than 4.5 m.
It was noticed that the country side slope of embankment of entire KMP was
restricted to 2H:1V without any berm32, though height of embankment was more
than 4.5 m. Additional land acquisition was required in country side to make
the slope 3H: 1V with execution of required berm. The slope was restricted due
to non-acquisition of land.
Thus, by constructing embankments with countryside slope of 2H:1V, it was not
possible to cover the HGL for the entire reach, making embankments vulnerable
to seepage in those reaches.
In reply I&WD stated that by constructing the embankment slope 2H:1V
sufficient cover of HGL was provided.

30
Page 48, Chapter 5 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in Kandi and
other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.
31
A line of 4H:1V (for clayey soil) from High Flood Level (HFL) to the country side indicates the
line of seepage through the embankments.
32
A horizontal shelf built into the embankment to strengthen its stability or to catch and arrest
slide material.

19
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

Figure 3.3:  Schematic design of a river embankment

The cross sectional drawing of the embankment attached with the DPR of
Phase II of KMP, however, reflected that it was not possible to cover the HGL
for the entire length of the embankment with the actually executed slope of
2H:1V. Also, the reply was in contradiction to the guidelines for preparation of
DPR for flood management projects, 2018.
(b)  Height of embankment constructed less than the actual requirement
In the DPR33 of KMP, minimum free board34 of 1.80 m on river Mayurakshi having
design discharge more than 3000 cumecs and 1.50 m on rivers Dwarka, Kuye and
Babla having design discharge less than 3000 cumecs was provided. Accordingly,
height of embankments proposed to be constructed was to cover the free boards.
It was observed that as against the free board of 1.50 m on the Kuye and Babla
rivers, the height of embankment was short by 0.91m to 1.41 m in the stretches
between 3.60 kmp and 6.00 kmp under Phase-IV and 20.30 kmp and 20.60 kmp
under Phase-IX.
Thus, construction of embankments under Phase-IV and IX at a cost of
` 21.76 crore (upto March 2018) was still vulnerable to overflow during floods
as the embankments constructed were below the height of the proposed free
boards at different locations.
In reply, I&WD stated that during test check of audit the work was in progress
and as on date the construction of embankment has been completed with the
required free board.
The reply is not based on facts as the audit observation was made as per the
level books35 submitted with the final bills of the works. Thus, constructed
embankment was neither as per approved DPR nor according to the GFCC
guidelines relating to Design of Embankments.
(c)  Non-creation of additional waterway
The existing bridges and culverts over the canals were hindering the smooth
flow of canal water and creating upstream impounding of water specially during
rainy season. As such, the work was taken up for reconstruction/renovation of
bridges to clear the hindrances to the flow of water. Hence, a provision for
33
Page 48, Chapter 5 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in Kandi and
other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.
34
Additional height of embankment provided over HFL to protect overtopping even with the
intense wave wash or any other unexpected rise in water level (Figure-3.3).
35
Book containing cross section-wise graphical representation of pre and post level of earth work.

20
 Chapter 3: Implementation

creation of additional waterway width of 635.58 m by renovating 12 existing

bridges and culverts at a cost of ` 25.42 crore was made in the DPR for proper
drainage of the basin water. National Commission on Floods had recommended
(1976) that closer coordination amongst concerned agencies like the Railways,
National Highways etc., was needed to ensure that structures like bridges, roads
and railways do not cause flood problems.
Although the work of KMP commenced in January 2015, such linear waterways
could not be provided by re-construction/renovation of the existing bridges as
I&WD failed to co-ordinate with the concerned Departments (Railway and
PWD) for necessary approvals to commence such works. Without providing the
linear waterway, the draining of the entire basin water would not be possible.
This would lead to water logging and stagnation of flood water. In reply, I&WD
stated that it had already persuaded concerned Railway and PWD authorities
several times. The fact, however, remains that the matter is yet to be resolved
even after a lapse of more than three years.
(d)  Non-execution of embankment
Provision was made in the DPR36 of KMP for raising and strengthening of
embankments from 0.00 km to 14.00 km of right bank of river Kuye. The
raising and strengthening of embankment from 3.00 km to 14.00 km was,
however, only considered. There was no existing right bank embankment from
0.00 km to 3.00 km and construction of embankment was not taken up due to
non-acquisition of required land. Owing to non-construction of embankment
from 0.00 to 3.00 km, safety of the three km stretch was compromised and
protection of agricultural land of that area could not be ensured.
In reply, I&WD stated that raising and strengthening work for the initial reach
of 0.00 km to 3.00 km was not considered as it flows through high land. It was
noted, however, that the DPR of KMP had made the provision considering the
actual site condition.
(e)  Execution of less thickness of boulder pitching work
As per DPR37, Dwarka right embankment from Indradangapara to Barpari sluice
for a length of about 17 km was to be protected with 60 cm thick boulder pitching
over Geo-synthetic filter. As against the planned length of 17 km and thickness
of 60 cm, provision for 45 cm thick boulder pitching over Geo-synthetic filter
for a length of only 13.27 km between Indradangapara and Barpari sluice was
made at a total estimated cost of ` 28.89 crore under Phase-II and III.

Figure 3.4:  Diagram of location of Boulder pitching and Geo-synthetic filter

36
Page 21, Chapter 9 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in Kandi and
other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.
37
Page 26, Chapter 7 of DPR for Improvement of embankment and ancillary works in Kandi and
other adjoining areas of district of Murshidabad.

21
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

Thus, due to execution of inadequate thickness of the boulder pitching, the

length of 13.27 km of embankment remained vulnerable to erosion even after
incurring expenditure of ` 20.84 crore (upto March 2018). Further, boulder
pitching for the remaining length of 3.73 km was yet to be initiated for
execution.
In all these cases, deviations from the approved DPRs were noticed because
of which risk of the infirmities adversely impacting the arrangements of flood
management cannot be ruled out.

3.2.1.5 
Non-compliance to Indian Standards Code and GFCC/
Technical Expert Committee recommendations
(a)  Non-execution of sand cushion layer38
Para 3.7 of the IS Code 14262:1995 provided 150 mm thick sand layer over
the filter fabric to prevent mechanical rupture of the fabric by revetment stones.
Therefore, a cushion of 100-150 mm of locally available river bed materials/
sand was to be provided over Geo-textile filter.39
Boulder revetment work with Geo-textile filter for 25.11 km embankments of
rivers Mayurakshi, Bele and Dwarka were taken up under Phase-II and III of
KMP after May 2016. Sand layer over Geo-textile filter as recommended in IS
code was, however, not included in the DPR and hence not executed. While
conducting monitoring visit in May 2016, GFCC also observed that during
boulder revetment works40 on slope of embankment non-laying of sand cushion
layer, may lead to puncture of the filter.
Therefore, non-execution of sand cushion layer compromised the quality of
works executed at a cost of ` 21.81 crore upto March 2018 and may also lead to
failure of the protection work on the embankments.
Accepting the audit observation, I&WD stated that there were some difficulties
in bearing the extra expenditure within the tender provision. Extra care had,
however, been taken during execution of works to minimise the possibility of
puncture of Geo-textile filter.
(b)  Non-execution of sausage crate41 in step
As per 5th Technical Expert Committee meeting of I&WD, GoWB on
implementation of river bank erosion in February 2015, in the reaches where
there is no scope to set back the bank line, the required slope is to be generated
by dumping boulder in crates over sand filled bags. GFCC also recommended
(May 2016) that in case of steeper slope towards river side, where there was
land constraint, sausage crate had to be provided i.e. at Sundarpur, Bhatkhanda
or places where necessary over the right bank of Dwarka and left bank of river
Bele.

38
A sand layer over Geo-textile filter.
39
A filter layer made with Geo-jute laid over the earthen embankment in protection work with
boulder pitching to protect the erosion of earthen embankment by river water.
40
Sloping structures with boulders placed on embankment.
41
Wire net filled with boulders, used for embankment protection.

22
 Chapter 3: Implementation

Figure 3.5 : Image of Boulder Pitching in sausage crate

Figure 3.6 : Image of Loose Boulder Pitching

It was observed from the estimates and contractor’s bills that the protection
work of right bank of river Dwarka and left bank of river Bele were taken up
under Phase-II and III of KMP respectively with the provision of loose boulder
pitching in the estimates. Provision for boulder pitching in sausage crate was
not made in DPR and the work was being executed with loose boulder pitching
as on March 2018. As a result, stability of the steeper river side slopes over the
right bank of Dwarka and left bank of river Bele was not ensured, endangering
the stability of the embankments.
In reply, I&WD stated that boulder pitching in sausage crate was provided in
those locations after approving the excess-savings statements. No such document
in support of execution of such item was, however, produced to Audit.
(c)  Avoidable extra expenditure in embankment protection work
IS code 14262:1995 on Planning and Design of Revetment and Handbook of
Central Water Commission (CWC), GoI, on Flood Protection, Anti-Erosion and
River Training Works-2012 stipulates that the width of the launching apron42

42
A launching apron is a flexible stone cover placed on the bed of the river which settles into
the scouring area as scouring takes place and covers the base and side of the scour hole,
preventing it from developing further scouring.

23
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

depends upon the scour43 depth below High Flood Level (HFL). Average
thickness of launching apron should be 1.5 times of the thickness of boulder
pitching.
It was observed that the average thickness of launching apron was provided
1.88 times of the thickness of boulder pitching (0.45 m) in the estimates instead
of 1.5 times and executed subsequently for 18.14 km embankment protection
works on the rivers of Dwarka and Bele under Phase-II and Phase-III of
KMP. Thus, due to execution of excess thickness of launching apron, extra
expenditure of ` 3.53 crore was incurred by I&WD which could have been
avoided.
In reply, I&WD stated that considering the criteria laid down in clause 5.6.2 of
Indian Standard 10751:1994 (design of Guide banks), such thickness was
provided for launching apron. The fact, however, is that this code is applicable
for designing Guide banks44 and not for embankment protection.
Thus, the intended benefits of the KMP project could not be assured only
by the raising and strengthening of embankments of different rivers,
without creating additional waterways by renovating the existing bridges
and culverts. The already executed improvement works of different
embankments were also not in conformity with the approved DPR or
guidelines of GFCC.
The inundation maps below show the comparison between the water available in
the catchment area of KMP and the floods that had taken place in the catchment
area in the years 2011 (before the commencement of the project), 2015 and
2017.
Flood Report of 2017 reflects that all the four blocks (Bharatpur-I, Khargram,
Burwan and Kandi) included under KMP were inundated by flood water in
July 2017. The flood protection measures taken by I&WD may, therefore, not
have been adequate.

Figure 3.7: Inundation map of Kandi Basin Figure 3.8: Inundation map of Kandi Basin
on 16.08.2011 in dry season

43
‘Scouring’ is the name given to the removal of the bed or bank of a water course by the action
of flowing.
44
Guide Bank is defined as the site of a barrage to guide the river flow through the confined
waterway without causing damage to the structure and its approaches.

24
 Chapter 3: Implementation

Figure 3.9: Inundation map of Kandi Basin Figure 3.10: Inundation map of Kandi
on 07.08.2015 Basin during 23-25.08.2016
I&WD stated that though the blocks were inundated, the extent of inundation
was less compared to previous years.
3.2.2 Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Project
The entire KKB (Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai) basin covers an area of
2145 sq. km. spread over the districts of Paschim and Purba Midnapore. The
southern portion of the basin, having low lying terrain, historically suffers from
flood and tidal inundation.
The project primarily comprised of structural measures like:
(i) Excavation/re-sectioning of a total of 186 km embankments of five rivers/
tributaries45,
(ii) Realignment of the flood protective embankments of Kaliaghai,
Kapaleswari and Baghai and construction of embankments as per standard
specification,
(iii) Construction of Rubber dam type regulator on river Kaliaghai at Chabukia
downstream of outfall of Kapaleswari,
(iv) Construction of three bridges across river Chandia at Sridharpur, Ejmali
Chak and Chandipur etc.

Figure 3.11 : Index Map of KKB Drainage Basin Project

45
Kaliaghai, Kapaleswari, Baghai, Deuli, Chandia and Kalimandap, Amrakhali.

25
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

The KKB Drainage Scheme was initiated to provide relief to seven flood prone
blocks in Paschim and Purba Medinipur districts. The scheme was envisaged to
benefit a total area of 621 sq. km. with population of four lakh.
Investment clearance of ` 650.38 crore for KKB project was accorded by the
Planning Commission, GoI in March 2010 with target date of completion by
March 2015. The project was included under FMP with a funding ratio of
75:25  (Central:State) in July 2010. The project was commenced in March
2011 and ` 347.78 crore (Central Share ` 165.73 crore and State Share
` 182.05 crore) was released against which expenditure of ` 340.24 crore was
incurred up to March 2018. Release of Central Share was 36.46 per cent46 less
as the project could not be completed within the stipulated time. Meanwhile,
the State Government released funds in anticipation of receipt of Central fund.
I&WD proposed (August 2017) to complete the project by March 2019 which
was yet to be approved by GoI. The project was still (December 2018) ongoing.
The project could not be completed within stipulated period mainly due to delay
in land acquisition. Only 35 per cent of the estimated land was acquired up to
March 2018. The main rivers were excavated with reduced design bed width
due to non-availability of required land. The length of the rivers/channels were
resuscitated only on the available Government land (i.e. river course) and to
the extent of land acquired for the purpose. Besides, resuscitation works were
executed in khals not in the original scope of the DPR.
Physical progress under different components of KKB is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Physical progress of different components of the KKB project
Sl. No. Name of the Unit Estimated Completed upto Progress in
Component quantity March 2018 Percentage
1. Land Acquisition Ha 500.00 173 35
2. Resuscitation of main Km 141.00 128.85 91
rivers
3. Resuscitation of small Km 170.00 170.46 100
drainage channels
4. Earth work Lakh 484.47 414.12 85
Cum
5. Concrete work Cum 6000.37 5490.00 91
(Source: Divisional records)

3.2.2.1  Land acquisition

Clause-4.6 of the FMP Guidelines (2009) stipulates that while submitting a
new proposal, the State Government should ensure acquisition of land required
under the scheme and submit a certificate to this effect. Failing this, no fund
would be released to the State Government.
Approximately 500 ha of land was targeted for acquisition by I&WD involving
223 mouzas in seven blocks for the project. While obtaining techno-economical
clearance, I&WD replied to MoWR (GoI) that only small stretch of land would
need to be acquired for this project which would not be a problem as the local
affected people were urging for the project.

46
` 165.73 crore against ` 260.84 crore (75 percent of ` 347.78 crore).

26
 Chapter 3: Implementation

I&WD published (December 2010) a notification for acquisition of land on

emergency basis so that the land acquisition could be made before the monsoon
period of 2011 for timely completion of the project. It was, however, observed
that I&WD did not initiate any land acquisition proposal prior to May 2011.
Against the target of 500 ha, only 173 ha of land (35 per cent) was acquired till
March 2018. It was observed that the resuscitation of rivers through excavation
and/or widening of bed width were made only within available land. As a result,
design bed width47 as per DPR had to be compromised.
As I&WD failed to acquire requisite land the bed width of rivers stipulated in
the DPRs for smooth drainage of flood waters could not be achieved.
3.2.2.2  Execution of the project
(a)  Non-completion of works due to defective DPR
Para-195 of Irrigation Code of I&WD stipulates that preliminary investigations
should be conducted and feasibility assessed before undertaking a project. In the
DPR48 of the project, entire stretch of 63 km49 of the Kaliaghai river was included for
re-excavation work50, i.e., construction of cross bund (required for dry excavation)
for de-siltation. Accordingly, NITs were invited (during March 2012 to December
2015) for the entire stretch at an estimated cost of ` 236.37 crore. During execution,
however, it was reported by the implementing agency that dry excavation was not
feasible in a 500 m stretch as it was at the confluence point of river Kaliaghai with
river Haldi, which ultimately discharges water to the Bay of Bengal.
It was observed that the river was excavated for a length of 62.50 km at a cost of
` 206.04 crore leaving 500 m from 62.50 km to 63 km un-excavated.
Non-excavation of silt at the confluence point at downstream would hinder
smooth drainage of water from the excavated upstream portion of the river
and would lead to siltation at upstream again. GFCC in its monitoring visit
(September 2017) also witnessed siltation at upstream reaches and confluence
point. In reply, the concerned Division stated (March 2018) that the siltation
was due to non-completion of the remaining 500 m.
Thus, expenditure of ` 206.04 crore incurred on resuscitation of the river in the
upstream remained ineffective due to defective DPR as no feasibility study was
conducted before taking up of the work.
(b)  Selective implementation of DPR
•  Existence of Fishing Barriers in rivers
As per DPR51 of the project, about 150 families of the KKB basin used to catch
fish using fishing barriers52 with nylon net across the rivers. Such structures

47
Horizontal width of river bed.
48
Page 3, Chapter VIII of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage
Basin (Final Report-Volume I).
49
From Poktapol (46 km) to Dheubhanga (109 km) i.e. 63 km was included for re-sectioning
work in the DPR.
50
Excavation for de-siltation.
51
Page 2, Chapter VIII of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage
Basin (Final Report-Volume I).
52
Barriers with polythene sheets in flowing rivers for fishing.

27
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

reduce the velocity of river flow as well as augment silt deposition. Therefore,
the DPR proposed for removal of fishing barriers across main rivers.

Figure 3.12: Fishing nets across river Kaliaghai at ch 39.00 km

During joint inspection (April 2018), however, existence of numerous fishing

barriers were noticed in all the major rivers, i.e., Kaliaghai, Kapaleswari and
Baghai.
In reply, test checked Divisions related with the project stated (April 2018) that
they had no data regarding the numbers and ownership of such fishing barriers
and there was also no plan for eviction of such structures. It was also observed
that there was no monitoring mechanism to control placing of fishing nets across
the rivers.
This indicated that the actual implementation of the project by I&WD was in
variance with that of DPR. Continued existence of such structures may lead
to reduced discharge of rivers and augmentation of silt deposition, thereby
exacerbating floods.
•  Removal of Brick Manufacturing Units
In the DPR53 of KKB Project, removal of brick or tile manufacturing units
from river embankments was identified as one of the absolutely unavoidable
measures for meaningful flood management. Indiscriminate cutting of land
and lifting of sand from the river bed leads to several hydro morphological
changes in the river channel. Provision of ` 50 lakh was made in the DPR
for rehabilitation of these units. It was observed (March to May 2018) that no
rehabilitation programme was carried out by I&WD. During joint inspection
(March to May 2018) of seven spots, six brick manufacturing units were noticed
on the embankments54 of Kaliaghai river.

53
Page 2, 3 and 6, Chapter XI of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai
Drainage Basin (Final Report-Volume I).
54
Haorar Khea (at Ch. 55.00 km of River Kaliaghai), at Ch.42.70 km of River Kaliaghai,
Chabukia (at Ch.49.20 km of River Kaliaghai).

28
 Chapter 3: Implementation

Figure 3.13: Brick Kilns alongside river Kaliaghai at ch. 42.70 km

Thus, I&WD failed to achieve the targets set in the DPR for removal of
brick units. Existence of such manufacturing units hampered effective flood
management.
(c)  Non-compliance with approved DPR
•  Design Bed Width not achieved
The resuscitation work of rivers and khals55 under KKB was taken up to
increase their carrying capacity by widening and removing silted soil up to the
depth as specified in the DPR56 to deal with the problem of frequent floods.
It was observed that the design bed width as envisaged in the approved DPR
could not be achieved as requisite land was not acquired. I&WD could acquire
only 35 per cent of the estimated land up to March 2018. Design bed width
was compromised in several cases due to non-availability of adequate land as
shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: River stretches where design bed width was compromised
Name of the River with chainage Effected stretch Bed width as per Executed Bed
(km) (km) DPR (m) width (m)
Kaliaghai
15 50 to 70 35
(0.00 to 15.00)
Kaliaghai
19 80 to 140 50
(15.00 to 34.00)
Kapaleswari
4.50 40 to 45 30 to 44
(2.00 to 6.50)
Deuli
9.487 40 15
(0.00 to 9.487)
Kaliaghai
15.20 135 to 160 50 to 110
(34.00 to 49.20)
Baghai
8.10 45 to 50 18 to 22
(15.60 to 7.50)
(Source: Divisional records)

55
Khal means a narrow water channel.
56
Page 14 and 15, Table 10.4B, 10.4C, 10.4D of Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage
Basin Scheme – Gradient Statement.

29
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

The executing Divisions replied that resuscitation of rivers was carried out
only on available Government land (river course) as the required land was not
acquired. Due to non-resuscitation of rivers up to the design bed width specified
in the DPR, the problem of frequent flooding and drainage congestion in the
basin remained unresolved.
•  Construction of Rubber Dam yet to be taken up
In the DPR57 of KKB Project, non-monsoon tidal ingress was identified as one
of the major causes of faster siltation of the river beds. Accordingly, it was
planned to construct a regulator structure58 having one-way flow system at the
confluence of river Kapaleswari with river Kaliaghai. Provision for construction
of the regulating structure on river Kaliaghai was also made to store upstream
water for irrigation purposes during non-monsoon period. In order to construct
the regulating structure over river Kaliaghai, a cost effective Rubber Dam was
incorporated (2010) in the DPR59 with a stipulation to complete the work within
three years of commencement, i.e., by 2012-13.
I&WD, however, failed to construct the regulator at the designated site. Scrutiny
of related records revealed that revised target was set by I&WD to complete
the same by March 2019. I&WD was still (December 2018) in the process
of preparation of modified Expression of Interest (EoI) for this work. On the
issue of revised expected date of completion, the Department stated (January
2019) that due to complexity of technical know-how, no positive response was
received from bidders in the past.

Figure 3.14:  Image of a typical Rubber Dam

It was also observed from the report prepared by the concerned Divisional
office that even after resuscitation of river Kaliaghai at a cost of ` 201.79 crore,
huge amount of silt was carried and deposited in the upstream of the river
during high-tide. The existence of heavy siltation in the portion already
re-excavated in upstream of Kaliaghai river was also witnessed during the
joint inspection of site (April 2018). As a result, due to non-construction of
the regulator, siltation due to tidal ingress could not be prevented in the re-
excavated areas and the carrying capacity of the river was reduced. The aim
57
Page 3, Chapter VIII of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage
Basin (Final Report-Volume I).
58
Structure which regulates water flow.
59
Page 2, Supplementary Volume II (Revised) of Master Plan and DPR for Kaliaghai-
Kapaleswari-Baghai Drainage Basin.

30
 Chapter 3: Implementation

of storing upstream water for irrigation purposes during non-monsoon period

was also not achieved.
(d)  Violation of conditions of DPRs/agreement/WBFR
The Planning Commission in the investment clearance of the scheme imposed
conditions (March 2010)60 that various components under the project shall be
designed and executed as per various relevant Indian Standards and designs
vetted by GFCC. Para 5.13 of the FMP guidelines also stipulates that the State
Governments should ensure that the works are executed in a well-planned
manner and completed within the scheduled period. The project was, however,
still in progress and deviations of following conditions/guidelines was also
noticed.
•  Execution beyond the scope of the DPR
While giving Investment Clearance, Planning Commission recommended that
the State Government should restrict the expenditure within approved cost and
no additional expenditure would be permitted unless revised estimates were
approved. Besides, designs of all works were to be vetted by the GFCC.
Audit, however, observed that total 40 works61 were executed on public demand
beyond the scope of the DPR at an expenditure of ` 41.94 crore. Designs of these
new works were also not vetted by GFCC. Execution of works not included in
the DPR without vetting by the competent authority was not permissible. Thus,
execution of these works led to unauthorised expenditure from project outlay.
In reply, I&WD admitted that some works had been executed beyond the scope
of the DPR due to demand of the local public. I&WD, however, remained silent
about non-vetting of the design by the GFCC.
• Extension of time on grounds other than those mentioned in the tender
clause
As per conditions of contract, time extension beyond stipulated period could be
allowed only on grounds of unavoidable hindrance62 as specified in the tender.
It was seen that in three test checked Divisions63 under KKB, out of 87 test
checked works, 79 works (90.8 per cent) valuing ` 268.67 crore got delayed for
periods ranging from nine to 2113 days (nearly six years). Records relating to
extension of time were not made available in 51 works. In remaining 28 works,
it was observed that time-extension was allowed in eight works on the grounds64
other than those mentioned in the tender.
Thus, granting of extension beyond stipulated time and for reasons not specified
in the tender conditions resulted in delay in completion of project works.
•  Execution of work without Technical Sanction
Rule-164 of West Bengal Financial Rules provides that technical sanction from
the competent authority must be obtained before commencement of any work.
60
No. 12(1)/25/2010-WR dated 9 March 2010.
61
Resuscitation of 31 Khals, construction of five bridges and improvement of four roads works.
62
Non receipt of departmental materials, land, injunction, public interference.
63
East Medinipur Division, Kaliaghai-Kapaleswari-Baghai Basin Project Division, Contai
Irrigation Division.
64
Labour problem, Boro cultivation, crisis of machinery, monsoon.

31
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

It was observed that during 2012-13 to 2016-17, four works65 were executed at
a cost of ` 8.68 crore without obtaining technical sanction from the competent
authority and was also not vetted by the GFCC as per stipulation. Violation of
provisions of WBFR not only rendered the execution of works unauthorised
but also led to a risk that the works did not adhere to the prescribed technical
standards.
In reply, I&WD stated that all works were duly sanctioned by the competent
authority as per departmental norms. Reply of I&WD was, however, not specific
to the four cases pointed out by Audit.
(e) 
Non-compliance of recommendation of the Independent Agency
engaged by I&WD
Clause 5.8 of FMP Guidelines (2009) required performance evaluation of the
project by independent professional agencies having expertise in related field.
Accordingly, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur was nominated
by I&WD for performance evaluation of the project. IIT Kharagpur in its
report recommended (April 2014) that proper maintenance of the channels be
undertaken once in a year to maintain its geometry, otherwise problem may
reappear due to siltation. GFCC in the Monitoring Report of January 2018 also
recommended for periodical maintenance of the channels to assure the safety of
the excavated channels.

Figure 3.15: Heavy siltation observed at Ch.55.00 km (approx) of River Kaliaghai

It was observed that 266.03 km of excavation works were completed in different
rivers/khals during March 2011 to May 2018. The concerned Divisions, however,
stated that no maintenance work was ever carried out on any of those channels.
In its reply, the Department stated the project was still ongoing and for cleaning
the bed siltation periodically, the Department needs to observe the situation
for at least four to five years as it involves huge amount of funds. The fact
remains that the excavation of canals commenced from 2011 and eight years
has already elapsed without any maintenance works. Thus, non-compliance
65
(1) Resuscitation by excavation of Debi Khal from ch.0.00 km to ch.3.30 km, (2) Improvement
of riding quality of Narghat - Gokhuri Road from 0.00 km to 11.00 km, (3) Urgent maintenance
and repair of Tyaparpara More to Singlai More Sluice for a length of 6100 m, (4) Urgent
maintenance and repair of Bhagabanpur More to Goalapukur for a length of 6000 m.

32
 Chapter 3: Implementation

of recommendations of Independent Agency/GFCC made the previous efforts

in respect of excavation of rivers/ channels ineffective. During joint site visits
(March to May 2018), heavy siltation in different rivers/khals66 was also noticed.
Encroachment of embankments hampered essential maintenance and repair
work. The IIT Kharagpur recommended (in its report of 2012-13 and 2015-16)
that unauthorised encroachment should be strictly avoided. From the records of
the Division it was noticed that there were encroachments on 955 structures67
at different locations68 on the embankments hampering the maintenance and
repair works. The Divisional Officer requested (September 2017) the District
Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur for removal of those encroachments, but
without any positive result. During 31 joint site visits (March to May 2018),
seven number encroachments were noticed at different locations of rivers/khals.

Figure 3.16: Encroachment over Abhoy Giri Khal

Thus, commencement of the project without ensuring land, grossly hampered
execution of works leading to delay in completion of the project. Rivers/khals
were not widened/excavated upto design bed width, which implied that with the
limited carrying capacity, they would not be able to control frequent flooding
in the areas. Inclusion of non-feasible items, non-construction of regulator at
the confluence of river Kapaleswari and Kaliaghai and non-maintenance of
already resuscitated rivers/khals caused heavy siltation affecting the overall
drainage system of the project.

66
Chabukia (at Ch.49.35 km of River Kaliaghai), Haorar Khea (at Ch.55.00 km of River
Kaliaghai), Dheubhanga (at Ch.62.50 km of River Kaliaghai), Chandibenia (at Ch.22.00 km of
River Chandia), Asnan Ghat (at Ch.24.00 km of River Chandia), Dheubhanga (at Ch.6.80 km of
Moyna New Cut Channel), at Ch.42.70 km of River Kaliaghai and outfall of river Kapaleswari,
Chabukia at Ch.49.20 km of River Kaliaghai, Birjiban (at Ch.2.00 km of Kapaleswari).
67
House, shops, cattle sheds, clubs, primary school, machine sheds, party offices, etc.
68
River Kapaleswari left embankment (2.00 kmp to 14.70 kmp), Kalimondop Khal left
embankment (0.142 kmp to 0.950 kmp, 2.00 kmp to 2.50 kmp, 5.40 kmp to 6.60 kmp),
Kalimondop Khal right embankment (4.60 kmp to 6.80 kmp), Kalimondop Khal both left and
right at Mohanbazar, River Kaliaghai (13 kmp to 34 kmp), Ganapatkhal, Banskona khal and
Amrakhali khal.

33
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

The Annual Flood Report of 2017 of I&WD reflected that all the seven blocks69
included under KKB were inundated in 2017. The flood protection measures
taken by I&WD may, therefore, not have been adequate.
3.2.3 
Implementation of other Embankment protection and
anti-river erosion works
Apart from the two FMP projects as discussed above, I&WD executed
embankment protection as well as anti-erosion of river bank works under State
Plan, Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF), Common Border Rivers
Fund, One Time Additional Central Assistance (OTACA) etc. In eight test
checked Divisions70 (other than project Divisions of KKB and KMP), 145 out
of 357 tenders having estimated cost more than ` one crore each, which were
executed during 2013-14 to 2017-18 under flood control measures, were selected
for detailed examination.
Scrutiny of selected embankment protection and anti-erosion works revealed
the following deviations which would have an adverse impact on the flood
control measures:
3.2.3.1 Work done without obtaining clearance from the Forest
Department
As per Forest Conservation Act, 1980, clearance from Forest Department is
required for construction of embankment on forest land. Alipurduar Irrigation
Division took up (December 2016) the work of ‘Extension of Subhasini
embankment along the left bank of river Torsa’ at a cost of ` 5.78 crore without
obtaining forest clearance. Subsequently, the work was proposed for termination
by the Chief Engineer, I&WD in April 2018 due to objection raised by the
Forest Department for not obtaining clearance; no reply was received from the
Department in this regard.
Thus, commencement of work without obtaining forest clearance made the partially
executed work worth ` 0.70 crore (only earth work without protection) wasteful.
3.2.3.2  Required thickness of graded filter not provided in the revetment
Para 3.7 of IS code-14262:1995 as well as Para 4.5.4 of CWC Guidelines-
2012 stipulate that graded filter of size 150 mm to 300 mm thickness should be
provided below the revetment71 to prevent water from removing the underlying
soil of embankments through voids in the boulder pitching.
It was noticed that in 28 estimates prepared by three test checked Divisions72
valuing ` 61.83 crore, provision for only 100 mm thick filter layer of shingles
under the slope pitching was made and executed in violation of the existing
norms. Thus, construction of embankments with less thickness of filter layer
made them vulnerable to erosion.
69
Narayangar, Datan-I, Sabong, Pingla, Bhagabanpur-I, Patashpur-I and Moyna.
70
Howrah Irrigation Division, Malda Irrigation Division, Mahananda Embankment Division,
Coochbehar Irrigation Division, Canals Division, Hooghly Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri
Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
71
Embankment protection work with boulders placed along the slope of the embankments.
72
Coochbehar Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation
Division.

34
 Chapter 3: Implementation

In reply, I&WD stated that 100 mm thickness shingles filter is normally provided
where discharge is less than 4500 cumec73.
The reply was, however, not in consonance with the fact that neither the IS code
nor the CWC guidelines recommend graded filter layer of 100 mm thickness.
3.2.3.3  Non-execution of sand cushion layer in embankment
Para 3.7 of Indian Standards code-14262:1995 stipulates that a 150 mm thick
sand cushion layer should be provided over the filter fabric to prevent mechanical
rupture of the fabric by revetment stones.
Mahananda Embankment Division executed nine embankment protection and
anti-erosion works valuing ` 58.36 crore where boulder pitching on top and
slope was executed over Geo-textile filter. It was, however, observed that laying
of sand cushion was not envisaged in the estimates and works were executed
without providing such layer.
As a result, possibility of rupture of filter layer and failure of the protection
works could not be ruled out. In reply, the concerned Division stated (June
2018) that in future sand cushion layer will be included in this type of work.
3.2.3.4  Delay in execution of works
Clause-2 of standard tender agreement stipulates that time is the essence of
the contract. NIT clause further stipulates that time extension may be granted
only on the ground of non-receipt of departmental materials, land injunction or
public interference, etc.
It was observed that completion of 42 works taken up by the six test checked
Divisions74 were delayed by nearly four months to four years. Further, scrutiny
revealed that time extension was granted by the competent authority on grounds
other than those specified in the contract agreements in all cases. This resulted
in delay in achievement of the intended benefits from the projects. Moreover,
delay in execution of works kept the river embankments in vulnerable condition.
3.2.3.5 Use of lower specification Galvanised Iron wires in boulder
crates for construction of embankment
Para 3.6 of Indian Standard 14262:1995 on Planning and Design of Revetment
stipulates that Galvanised Iron (GI) wire of minimum four mm diameter should
be used for crates in revetment in the area where velocity of river is high. It
was observed that in five test checked Divisions75 crated boulder with GI wire
of less than four mm diameter (ø) was used in all 48 test checked embankment
protection/anti-erosion works valuing ` 219.79 crore during 2013-18 in violation
of the norms. The works remained vulnerable due to use of below specification
GI wire for boulder crates in embankment and anti-erosion works. During joint
site visit (April 2018) of left bank of river Mahananda in Adampur Block of
Malda District it was also noticed that the crates used in protection works were
in broken condition.
73
Cubic metre per second.
74
Howrah Irrigation Division, Malda Irrigation Division, Mahananda Embankment Division,
Hooghly Irrigation Division, Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.
75
Malda Irrigation Division, Mahananda Embankment Division, Coochbehar Irrigation
Division, Jalpaiguri Irrigation Division and Alipurduar Irrigation Division.

35
Performance Audit of Implementation of Flood Control Measures in West Bengal

Figure 3.17: Damaged revetment constructed with below specification GI wire

3.2.3.6  Avoidable extra expenditure

(a) Para 5.6 of IS Code 14262:1995 on Planning and Design of Revetment and
Para- 4.9.4 of Guidelines of Central Water Commission (CWC), GoI, on
Flood Protection, Anti Erosion and River Training Works-2012 stipulate
that the thickness of launching apron be 1.5 times the thickness of pitching.
Test checked Malda Irrigation Division, however, executed 10 embankment
protection/anti-river erosion works where the thickness of stone boulder
in launching apron was provided 33 to 56 per cent more than the actual
requirement. Thus, execution of excess thickness of apron resulted in extra
expenditure of ` 10.44 crore which could have been avoided.
In reply, I&WD stated that as the works were executed in restricted zone of
border area having rare scope of maintenance, such excess thickness was
provided.
No such justification was, however, provided in the DPR. Besides, the
reply appears to be an afterthought.
(b) IRC-SP-72-2007, the guidelines for the design of Flexible Pavements for
low volume rural roads do not recommend laying of any bituminous base
course for rural road/village road of low traffic intensity. It was observed
that 50 to 75 mm Bituminous Macadam (BM) was provided on three
roads76 over earthen embankment by three test checked Divisions77 where
the roads were either of village road category or the traffic intensity was
very low. Execution of unnecessary BM layer resulted in extra expenditure
of ` 2.10 crore, which could have been avoided.
Flood protection measures taken up by the Divisions were not as per prescribed
standards. It was also observed from the Annual Flood Reports of I&WD
that, in 2017, the area under flood inundation of the State was more than that
in the last four years, despite the flood control measures.
76
Malior embankment 0.00 to 10.00 kmp, Improvement of inspection road of distributary 5 of
DBMC, bituminous inspection path at Bibigunj and Jhar Singhersar embankment.
77
Mahananda Embankment Division, Mayurakshi North Canal Division and Jalpaiguri
Irrigation Division.

36