Stress is a big word. But many water boards have been concerned for a few months now about a new course that the cabinet, supported by a majority in the House of Representatives, seems to be taking in spatial policy.
Also read
The KNMI’s ‘climate barcode’ shows how the Netherlands is steadily warming
The Netherlands “is increasingly reaching the limits of the water and soil system,” wrote the then Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management, Mark Harbers (VVD), more than two years ago. “By allowing water and soil to guide spatial planning, we can continue to live and work in the Netherlands in a different and erratic climate in the future. In a safe environment, with healthy soil, sufficient and clean water.” That principle sounded like music to the ears of many water board members and climate experts.
But Harbers’ successor Barry Madlener (PVV) has a different approach. The principle has “unintentionally become all-determining” and is seen as an “obstacle” to spatial planning, especially when building the necessary housing. “That is not what we stand for,” Madlener recently wrote to the House. “We want to focus on what can and should be done, based on the knowledge we have of our water and soil system in a changing climate. We want to look for solutions that unite the different interests instead of separating them, through as much multifunctional use of space and creative solutions as possible. That is why the government now uses the term ‘take into account’.”
Municipalities are ‘rigid’
It was Minister Mona Keijzer (Public Housing and Spatial Planning, BBB) who was the first to question the concept of “steering” in Parliament. Others followed. One of the proponents of the new approach is VVD MP Peter de Groot. “Of course it is sometimes wise not to build in certain places. But I have signals that water boards operate rigidly and that municipalities adopt a rigid attitude. Construction is not permitted in certain places. There is even a map from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management that shows restrictions for parts of Flevoland, which could mean that we would not be able to build housing in one of the safest polders. While a lot is possible with technical solutions. As long as you make good agreements. In some cases the plans will then become too expensive, but that is another matter.”
It would be a shame if this cabinet were to actually abandon the relatively new spatial policy, because the fact that water and soil are ‘guiding’ is not a ‘dogma’ but a ‘principle’, says Kees Jan de Vet, dike manager of the Brabantse Delta water board. “We are not a countervailing force in housing construction. Many homes need to be built. But there are areas, outside the dikes for example, where it is better not to build. We want to discuss this. That works well too. In Brabant we sit at the table with the province and municipalities about future housing construction locations. After research, which we call crash tests, several locations have already been eliminated due to water and soil. Alternatives have been sought and found.”
Is new policy symbolic?
The biggest political critic of the new policy is MP Geert Gabriëls (GroenLinks-PvdA). “I don’t understand why this policy change has been made,” he said. “Is it just symbolic or is there more to it? How can this government argue that policy is in danger of becoming too decisive, when reports indicate that the Netherlands must make system choices because of climate change? That’s one no brainer? This government does not take the future into account.”
Gabriëls points out soil subsidence and foundation damage, more frequent periods of drought and heavy rainfall such as in South Limburg more than three years ago, and the dangers of salinization and sinking groundwater. “Especially at this time we must avoid building houses that will turn out to be in the wrong place in fifty years’ time and become unsaleable.”
Many water boards are now taking a conciliatory tone. Things won’t go that fast, they hope, provided they are listened to. Perhaps, many say, there is a “semantic debate.” The discussion is “politically polarized,” says Toon van der Klugt, dike manager of the Schieland and Krimpenerwaard water board until early 2025. “It is suggested here and there that water boards would like to be in charge of spatial planning. That is out of the question. What we want is that we are asked for expert advice in a timely manner, for the public interest, and that something is done with that advice. We have a reasonable story. It is sometimes pretended that housing construction is closed because we are obstructing it. That’s not right. I dare say that not a single project in the Netherlands has come to a standstill because the water boards are blocking it.”
The water board previously went to the Council of State due to a conflict with the municipality of Zuidplas. It wants to build eight thousand homes in a deep polder, but according to the water board there is “insufficient certainty” that a new village at this “complex location” will have a “sustainably good and climate-proof design and therefore a good living environment” for the next hundred years or more. ” will be. Van der Klugt: “We did not say that the municipality would not be allowed to build. We just disagree about safeguarding the conditions in the zoning plan. We don’t block anything, we just say: use your common sense, don’t wave away our objections, because you will very much regret it.” The cabinet recently appointed former top civil servant and former Delta Commissioner Wim Kuijken as an ‘independent advisor’.
New construction is ‘safer than ever’
Engineer and publicist Ties Rijcken is concerned about the fact that water and soil are no longer ‘guiding’ in spatial planning. Rijcken: “It is evident that water and soil are important. But too often it is stated that the limits of the system have been reached, as if there is a moment when you have to say that we are suddenly no longer safe. There is a gray area between safe and not safe and it is about a balance between respecting the properties of an area and manipulating them by people to live and work there. What the water world often wants is to close down its own views on safety with legal rules. What I miss is the attention to the room for negotiations between the wishes of builders and the requirements of water safety and climate change.”
Water boards should not exaggerate the importance of safety in new homes, Rijcken believes. “It is said that we cannot build outside the dike and not in deep parts of deep polders. That could lead to disaster. But we’ve been building in those areas for centuries. And the homes we are building now are much safer than those old homes ever were.”
And there is something else bothering Rijcken, namely that water boards impose conditions on builders and future home owners, while in his opinion water boards themselves must also contribute to a safe and sustainable environment. “Isn’t that what they are for? For example, water boards say that if you build tens of thousands of homes in the Utrecht Rijnenburg polder, the builders must ensure that they store the rainwater themselves. You could just as easily argue that the water board should take care of this. Won’t the residents of Rijnenburg also pay water board tax for that?”
Digging up Coolsingel?
Dike director Toon van der Klugt of the Schieland and Krimpenerwaard water board wants to respond to the latter accusation. “If people want to change a piece of meadow by creating a village or an industrial estate on it, then it is not for our own convenience that we say that those people have to compensate or pay for the consequences for water management themselves. They must ensure that the soil is climate-proof. That is a sound principle. Because if we do that, we will have to levy more taxes on people who have nothing to do with that village or that industrial estate.”
What the entire population will have to pay for, according to Van der Klugt, is making the existing environment more climate-proof. “How can we make the densely built-up Randstad more climate-proof? That is a huge task,” he says. “We cannot simply demolish the existing cities. We cannot dig up Rotterdam’s Coolsingel to store water. Let us all bear the costs of everything we have to do about it.”
Also read
Too much sand and too much water: Marc and Marjo have to get off – or even turn around – too often in the dunes