When the floodwaters began to recede from Upper Assam in July 2026, the immediate policy response understandably focused on rainfall, flooding, relief and damaged infrastructure. But the scale of the disaster raises a broader governance question:

Did environmental and land-use decisions made long before the rainfall contribute to the vulnerability of downstream communities?

The rainfall was exceptional. According to the Assam Chief Minister, Charaideo district received 436% above-normal rainfall, while Sivasagar recorded 134% excess rainfall. In neighboring Nagaland, the India Meteorological Department reported 137 mm of rainfall in Mon district, while the Nagaland State Disaster Management Authority reported landslides, flash floods and mudslides across several districts.

These facts establish the immediate trigger. They do not, however, explain the entire flood-risk equation.

Flood risk is shaped not only by the intensity of rainfall but also by the condition of the landscape receiving that rainfall. This distinction is important for public policy because disaster management cannot begin and end with emergency response. It must also address the environmental conditions that determine how severely extreme rainfall translates into downstream flooding.

{Read also: “Democracy for Sale?”, by Neamat Nojumi}

From Rainfall Management to Watershed Governance

The Dikhow River illustrates this policy challenge. It originates in the hills of Nagaland before flowing into Assam’s Sivasagar district and eventually joining the Brahmaputra. The river therefore connects two administrative jurisdictions within a single hydrological system.

A functioning watershed can absorb, store, and gradually release rainfall. A degraded watershed can increase surface runoff, erosion, and sediment transport. Forest loss, excavation, mining, and other forms of land disturbance can therefore alter the environmental conditions under which downstream flood events occur.

This creates a fundamental governance problem: administrative boundaries do not correspond to watershed boundaries.

A decision made upstream can produce environmental consequences downstream, while the communities bearing those consequences may have little influence over the decisions that created the underlying risk. That is why flood policy in the Assam-Nagaland region should move beyond a narrow focus on rainfall and embankments toward integrated watershed-risk governance.

A man searches for belongings amid the remains of his house, washed away by flash floods owing to heavy rain at a village in Assam’s Sivasagar district on July 26, 2026 | AFP

The Regulatory Question

Scientific studies cited in the broader debate on Nagaland’s mining landscape have documented environmental impacts associated with coal mining, including deforestation, soil erosion, degradation of agricultural land, acid mine drainage, water contamination, biodiversity loss, and increased sedimentation.

Research by Tzudir and Srikanth has linked the expansion of coal mining in Mokokchung district to changes in traditional land use, contamination of water sources, reduced agricultural productivity, and ecological stress on local communities. Other research has examined potential relationships between mining-related environmental change and local climatic conditions. At the same time, studies of cobblestone mining have documented landscape alteration, soil instability, sediment-laden runoff, and biodiversity impacts.

These findings do not establish that coal mining caused the July 2026 floods.

They do, however, establish a legitimate policy question: whether existing environmental regulation adequately accounts for the cumulative effect of land-use change on watershed resilience and downstream disaster risk.

That question becomes particularly important given the findings of the 2020–21 Public Accounts Committee report, which stated that 44 of 49 identified coal-mining units in Nagaland were operating without authorization from the Nagaland Pollution Control Board.

If environmental regulations exist but substantial non-compliance persists, the issue is no longer simply one of environmental degradation. It becomes a question of regulatory capacity, enforcement, institutional accountability, and governance design.

The Missing Policy Instrument

One of the weaknesses in conventional environmental governance is the tendency to evaluate projects individually.

A mining operation may be assessed on its own environmental footprint. A road may be assessed separately. A quarry, settlement expansion, or other land-use change may undergo its own regulatory process.

But watersheds do not experience these interventions individually.

The cumulative consequences of multiple projects can include forest fragmentation, slope instability, increased runoff, erosion and sedimentation. These effects may interact with one another and become particularly significant during extreme rainfall.

Environmental policy therefore needs to move beyond project-by-project approval toward cumulative environmental and watershed-impact assessment.

For ecologically fragile hill catchments, regulatory authorities should be able to evaluate not simply whether an individual activity is permissible, but whether the combined level of disturbance within a watershed remains compatible with ecological resilience and downstream disaster-risk objectives.

A Shared Watershed Requires Shared Governance

The Assam-Nagaland border presents another institutional challenge.

The hills and plains form one interconnected hydrological system, but environmental regulation, land-use decisions, mining oversight, and disaster management remain largely organized around state boundaries. This fragmentation creates a policy gap.

If upstream land-use decisions can affect downstream flood vulnerability, then downstream states need mechanisms to participate in assessing risks associated with major environmental changes in shared catchments.

This does not require one state to assume control over another state’s development decisions. It requires institutional mechanisms for cooperation where environmental consequences cross administrative boundaries.

Such mechanisms could include:

• joint Assam-Nagaland watershed monitoring;
• shared databases on land-use change, mining activity and forest loss;
• coordinated monitoring of sedimentation and river health;
• joint assessment of landslide and slope-instability risks;
• regular exchange of environmental and disaster-risk data;
• coordinated catchment-level disaster-risk assessments; and
• clearly defined responsibilities for responding to identified environmental risks.

Without such mechanisms, each institution can technically fulfil its own mandate while the larger watershed remains inadequately governed.

India continues to face significant deforestation pressures, particularly in ecologically sensitive and tribal-dominated regions. Photographs by Kumar Sambhav Shrivastava/CSE

Seismic Vulnerability Makes the Governance Challenge More Urgent

The Assam–Nagaland hill ranges also lie within Seismic Zone V, an area of high tectonic vulnerability. The terrain is steep, fractured and naturally susceptible to landslides.

This means land-use policy cannot treat mining, deforestation and excavation merely as questions of resource extraction or local environmental impact.

In fragile terrain, slope disturbance can interact with extreme rainfall and geological instability. The appropriate policy response is therefore not necessarily to prohibit all development, but to require risk-sensitive development planning.

Environmental clearance, mining regulation, infrastructure planning and disaster-risk reduction should be based on the same underlying understanding of landscape vulnerability.

At present, these functions are often institutionally separated.

The result can be a governance system in which one agency approves an activity, another monitors environmental compliance, another manages disasters and another responds to the resulting emergency, without a single institution being responsible for assessing the cumulative risk created by all of these decisions together.

From Disaster Response to Disaster-Risk Prevention

India has developed substantial capacity for disaster response, relief and recovery. But increasingly extreme rainfall events require a stronger emphasis on prevention.

A flood policy focused primarily on rainfall forecasts, evacuation, relief packages and reconstruction addresses the consequences of risk. A resilience-oriented policy must also address the conditions that amplify risk before the event occurs.

Future flood-risk assessments in the Assam-Nagaland region should therefore incorporate, alongside rainfall data:

1. upstream land-use change;
2. deforestation and forest degradation;
3. mining and quarrying activity;
4. slope instability;
5. sediment generation and river deposition;
6. catchment-level hydrology;
7. changes in drainage patterns; and
8. cumulative environmental disturbance.

This would allow policymakers to distinguish between the hazard- such as extreme rainfall- and the vulnerability and exposure that determine how severely that hazard affects communities.

Such an approach would also improve public investment decisions. Rebuilding embankments or damaged roads after every major flood may be necessary, but repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure without addressing upstream drivers of vulnerability risks institutionalizing a cycle of damage and reconstruction.

What Should Policy Change?

The July 2026 floods provide an opportunity to reconsider how environmental governance and disaster management are connected.

At minimum, five policy reforms deserve consideration.

First, establish watershed-level risk assessment.
Flood assessments should examine entire catchments rather than treating downstream flood zones independently from their upstream landscapes.

Second, strengthen cumulative-impact regulation.
Environmental approvals should consider the combined effects of mining, deforestation, infrastructure, and other land-use changes within environmentally sensitive watersheds.

Third, strengthen enforcement.
Where mining or other environmentally significant activities operate without required authorization, regulatory agencies need sufficient monitoring capacity, enforcement powers, and institutional accountability to ensure compliance.

Fourth, institutionalize inter-state coordination.
Assam and Nagaland should develop mechanisms for joint monitoring and risk assessment in shared river catchments, particularly where upstream environmental changes have potential downstream consequences.

Fifth, integrate environmental governance with disaster-risk reduction.
Environmental degradation should not be treated as a separate policy domain from flood management. Where landscape changes can increase vulnerability to extreme rainfall, environmental regulation becomes part of disaster prevention.

Development and Accountability

None of this requires an argument against development.

Nagaland’s communities have legitimate economic needs, and natural resources can contribute to livelihoods and regional development. The policy question is whether development decisions adequately account for their full environmental and social costs.

The central issue is therefore not whether mining or infrastructure development should automatically be stopped.

It is whether the regulatory system is capable of answering three basic questions:

What environmental risks does a development activity create?

Who bears those risks?

Who is responsible for managing them when they cross administrative boundaries?

These questions become particularly important when the economic benefits of an activity are concentrated in one location while environmental costs may be distributed across an entire watershed.

Downstream communities should not be treated as externalities in upstream development decisions.

A Different Model of Flood Governance

The July 2026 floods should therefore be viewed not only as a disaster-management challenge but also as a test of environmental governance.

No serious scientific assessment should attribute the flood itself to coal mining. The rainfall was real, exceptional, and the immediate trigger. But the possibility that decades of land-use change, mining, deforestation and inadequate environmental oversight may have increased downstream vulnerability is a question that warrants systematic scientific investigation.

That investigation should not begin with a predetermined conclusion.

It should begin with data.

Governments should commission watershed-scale hydrological assessments capable of examining relationships between rainfall, land-use change, forest cover, mining activity, sediment loads, slope instability and downstream river behavior. Satellite observations should be integrated with field monitoring, hydrological modelling and environmental-compliance data.

The objective should be to determine where evidence exists, where evidence is insufficient and what policy interventions are justified by the findings.

That is the appropriate role of science in public policy.

The Governance Lesson

Every major flood eventually produces the same policy cycle: assess the damage, announce relief, repair infrastructure and prepare for the next event.

The harder question is whether governments are also examining why the same communities remain vulnerable to the next extreme event.

If upstream landscapes are changing, environmental regulation is weak, and watershed-level coordination is limited, disaster response alone cannot resolve the underlying risk.

The policy challenge is therefore to move from reactive disaster management to preventive watershed governance.

That means treating forests, rivers, slopes, mines, infrastructure, and downstream settlements as parts of one interconnected system rather than as separate administrative problems. The Assam-Nagaland watershed does not recognize state boundaries. Public policy must recognize that reality too.

The flood, therefore, did not begin with the rain. And preventing the next disaster cannot begin with relief alone.

It must begin with the way governments regulate, monitor, and manage the landscape long before the next extreme rainfall event occurs.

{Read also: “Poison Beneath Our Feet,” by Janmoni Das}