In view of the massive Bhotekoshi flash flood and the immense suffering caused by the loss of life and property, a country like Nepal, situated in such a precarious position, has been compelled to ask itself a difficult question. Can Nepal afford to rebuild everything there, in the same place and in the same way, while carrying the same risks?
As an ordinary citizen, I cannot help but feel that this disaster may be nature’s warning to Nepal—a message urging us to rethink how we develop settlements, build infrastructure and use our enormous water resources.
The fact that this idea does not come from an expert or planner should not, in itself, be a reason to dismiss it. The value of an idea should ultimately be judged by its logic, merit and feasibility, rather than by the identity of the person proposing it. This proposal therefore deserves serious study and open public debate, with Nepal’s long-term national interest at the centre.
The central idea is straightforward: if a scientifically suitable mega dam and reservoir can be constructed in the disaster-affected area, a single multipurpose project could potentially generate enormous amounts of hydroelectricity. At the same time, regulated water flow could provide significant benefits in irrigation, flood control, drinking-water supply, fisheries and tourism.
If such a system is found to be technically, environmentally and socially feasible, Nepal could explore whether modern technology can reduce the risks posed by sudden glacial-lake outbursts. Water from such lakes could potentially be monitored and, where appropriate and safe, released in a controlled manner to regulate and augment the flow into the proposed project.
In other words, rather than viewing water solely as a source of risk, Nepal could explore whether some of that risk can be managed while turning an enormous natural resource into a national asset.
Developed countries have been building and operating large dams for decades and have derived substantial benefits from hydropower and regulated water management. Their experience also demonstrates that such projects involve considerable technical, environmental and social challenges.
Today, however, Nepal has access to far more advanced technology, engineering expertise, monitoring systems and risk-management tools than were available when many of the world’s major dams were first conceived. If scientific assessment concludes that the disaster-affected area should no longer be used to rebuild the same settlements and infrastructure, then Nepal must seriously examine whether a large reservoir and dam could provide a more resilient long-term alternative.
Unlike some countries where major dam projects have displaced enormous populations and had to contend with the immense forces of very large rivers, Nepal faces a different set of circumstances in certain locations. If the required relocation is minimal or manageable and the geological, seismic, hydrological and engineering conditions are favourable, the country may have an opportunity to think differently about how it develops its water resources.
What Nepal needs now is political courage, coupled with a willingness to examine solutions beyond conventional approaches.
If developed countries have historically extracted enormous amounts of natural resources and contributed significantly to global climate change, while countries such as Nepal are now facing some of its harshest consequences, why should Nepal hesitate to raise this issue on the international stage?
Nepal should seek international climate finance, loss-and-damage support and adaptation funding—and, where justified, argue that such resources should contribute to transformative, climate-resilient infrastructure and water-resource projects.
We should not be afraid to speak openly about the losses we are suffering. The more hesitant we are to articulate our interests, the greater the risk that those interests will remain unheard. A country must be able to speak clearly and confidently about what it needs.
If climate change has contributed to the increasing risks Nepal faces, then Nepal should have the courage to demand meaningful international support to build infrastructure capable of managing those risks. Such a demand would not necessarily be unreasonable or out of place. We simply need the courage to make it.
If Nepal fails to embrace bold thinking now, it may become increasingly difficult to imagine major hydropower projects in the country. If concerns over glacial-lake outbursts continue to grow, not only will new projects face greater challenges, but existing projects may also remain exposed to significant risks.
Insurance companies and financial institutions will inevitably pay greater attention to the location and climate-related risks of major infrastructure projects when deciding whether to insure or finance them. Similarly, if rebuilding the same settlements and infrastructure in the same vulnerable locations is no longer a sensible option, Nepal must look seriously at alternatives.
One such alternative could be a large, multipurpose reservoir protected by a properly designed mega dam—but only after rigorous scientific, environmental, geological, seismic and engineering studies establish that such a project is feasible, sustainable and safe.
The proposal, therefore, should not be understood as an argument for building a mega dam at any cost. It is an argument for asking whether Nepal can use this moment to reconsider its approach to disaster risk, water management and infrastructure development at a much larger scale.
So, the question before Nepal is clear:
Will we have the courage to explore whether a mega dam can turn water-related risks into national opportunities—or will we continue building small, risky “water mills” and remain satisfied with fragmented benefits?
A government with a two-thirds majority has a rare opportunity to think boldly, study this proposal seriously and make a decision based on the larger national interest.
Nepal does not necessarily need to rebuild exactly what nature has just destroyed. Perhaps this is the moment to rebuild smarter.
