A char village on the Brahmaputra decides whether to move
A char village in Dibrugarh district has 240 households. In the last 10 years the Brahmaputra’s main channel has shifted 600 m east, and three floods have submerged the village for 4–9 days each. The school and tube wells stand on the highest part, 1.8 m above low-water level; the 1998 flood reached 2.4 m above low-water level. There is no embankment. The government offers land 5 km away on the south bank, but it is 2.5 km from the river, has no grazing land, and is 3 km from the nearest market. Villagers earn from jute, vegetables, cattle and fishing. Some want to move; others want to raise the village platform by 1 m and stay. A student must evaluate both options using flood history, livelihood and cost.
1. Assess the safety of raising the platform by 1 m, using the flood heights.
Read the worked answer
The present high point is 1.8 m above low-water level. Raising it by 1 m gives 2.8 m. The 1998 flood reached 2.4 m, so the new platform would be 0.4 m above that flood. That is a very small freeboard. A flood 0.5 m higher than 1998 would overtop it. The platform also does not protect fields, cattle sheds or access paths, and borrowing earth to raise it may create pits that weaken the island edge. It could be a useful short-term measure for houses and the school, but it is not safe for all 240 households unless the platform is much higher, with an evacuation route and raised tube wells. The 4–9 day submergence shows that even a small overtopping would cut the village off.
2. Compare the two options for livelihoods. Which would you recommend, and why?
Read the worked answer
Staying supports jute, vegetables, cattle and fishing because the village is next to the river and has grazing land. Moving 5 km away gives safety but takes away the grazing and adds 2.5 km to the river and 3 km to the market; that raises costs for fishing, jute retting and selling produce. However, repeated 4–9 day floods destroy crops and endanger lives. My recommendation is a phased plan: raise and strengthen the highest platform for the most vulnerable households, build a raised evacuation path and a flood shelter, and keep the fields and grazing on the char. Full relocation should be offered to households that have already lost land to erosion, not imposed on all. If the channel is still shifting east at 60 m per year, relocation will eventually be unavoidable.
3. What additional information would you need before advising the village?
Read the worked answer
I would need: (i) the flood return periods and the highest recorded flood, not just 1998; (ii) the rate of bank erosion and whether the 600 m shift is continuing; (iii) whether an embankment is planned, because that changes the risk; (iv) land titles and ownership at the new site, and whether the offered land is fertile and safe from erosion; (v) the cost of raising the platform, including earth source and labour; (vi) social factors such as community ties, schools and access to health care; (vii) whether the new site has water supply and drainage. Without these, the choice would be based on only flood depth and distance, which is not enough for a decision affecting 240 households.