Sediment Budget and Riverbank Erosion on a Braided Reach
A 40 km braided reach of a major river has migrated eastward by an average of 120 m per year over the last decade, destroying about 900 ha of farmland and displacing 3,000 households. Upstream, a dam 200 km away traps an estimated 60% of the sediment that once reached the reach. Local communities report that the river bed has deepened and that char (island) land appears and disappears within a few seasons. A proposal to build a 25 km concrete revetment on the east bank is under review. Cost is high, and the reach is known to be seismically and tectonically active with subsidence.
1. Analyse how upstream sediment trapping interacts with bank erosion in this reach.
Read the worked answer
The dam changes the sediment budget, and the reach adjusts.
Reduced sediment supply: with 60% of sediment trapped, the reach receives less bed material. A river with excess transport capacity relative to supply tends to erode its bed and banks to pick up material - this matches the reported bed deepening.
Bed deepening and bank instability: a deeper channel increases bank height and steepens the bank face, making it more prone to collapse. It also changes the angle at which flow hits the bank.
Braiding and char dynamics: reduced sediment supply can make bars less stable - they build and erode faster, which matches the rapid appearance and disappearance of char land. Fewer stable bars mean flow is less divided, so more energy is concentrated against the banks.
Migration: a braided reach naturally shifts, but the observed 120 m/year is high. Sediment starvation plus a tectonically subsiding, active setting amplifies lateral migration because banks are weaker and base level is falling relative to the channel.
Conclusion: the dam is not the sole cause, but it has shifted the reach from a balanced to a sediment-deficit state, making the banks more vulnerable and the char land more transient.
2. Evaluate the 25 km concrete revetment against alternatives, and recommend a decision.
Read the worked answer
Revetment case for: it directly protects the east bank where 900 ha and 3,000 households are at risk; hard protection is proven where the alignment is stable.
Revetment case against:
- A 25 km continuous wall is very costly and may be technically infeasible on a subsiding, tectonically active, eroding bank where foundation conditions change along the reach.
- Hard protection on one bank transfers erosive energy downstream or to the opposite bank, creating a new displacement problem.
- In a sediment-deficit, deepening channel, a wall may be undercut as the bed lowers.
Alternatives:
- Selective protection: protect only the high-value, high-density settlements and critical infrastructure (say 8–10 km), using revetment plus groynes, leaving low-value land to natural migration.
- Soft measures: bank stabilisation with vetiver and local vegetation, plus flood-resistant housing, early warning, and planned relocation with compensation.
- Address the cause: negotiate sediment release or sediment bypass at the dam, and restrict sand mining in the reach.
Recommendation: do not build a continuous 25 km wall. Adopt selective hard protection at the most vulnerable settlements, combine it with soft stabilisation and a managed relocation programme, and pursue sediment management upstream. This protects the most people per unit cost while avoiding downstream harm.