Dam you!

Man said it to the river, and dammed it.

In so doing, did he or did he not damn(pardon the swear word) himself?

A flowing river was made into lakes. Agricultural lands, man's dwellings, forests, flora and fauna were inundated and lost. The regular supply of silt that the river provided oh so generously to the land it flooded was stopped. Instead this silt deposited itself in the river bed, making it go shallow over the years and causing the extra cost 0f desilting. Man grew confident of the mighty walls of the dam, and hence occasional wall breakages and subsequent flash floods took him so much by surprise that he lost much.

In return, he got electricity (mind you, not all dams can yield electricity), an assurance that he will get water for agriculture all the year round in just the right amount.

Imagine now, a scenario without dams.

The average villager knew well the level to which river water was likely to reach. Cleverly, he prepared himself for it - by collecting his stuff and moving up to higher up areas referred to as 'Gadhs' (You may still here about gadhs and even get to see them in several villages of North Bihar). The river would come, spread its silt on his agricultural fields, and in its own time, recede. The farmers would return, and enjoy a decent harvest sans fertilizers.

North Bihar gets flooded every year, notwithstanding the amount of rainfall. This is because of the millions of gallons of water that flows down the Himalayas every monsoon. Every year we hear of at least one river that has broken its embankment and caused floods. Every year we hear of villages plunged into misery.

Have embankments really helped? Would it have been better to provide for maintenance of level-markers to indicate which level a river is likely to reach during an average flood and prepare more 'gadhs' than embankments?