Opinion | Foresight will certainly not lock the country down

‘Part of the water world’ wants to use the momentum of flooding and storms in recent weeks to give soil and water absolute priority over other interests such as ‘housing, energy supply, transport infrastructure, nature’. Ties Rijcken and Friso de Zeeuw state this in an opinion piece NRC (2/1). They therefore want to provide “a strong counter-voice” before it is too late and the country is further locked down.

With their argument, Rijcken and De Zeeuw responded to an article of ours in which we state that the nature of the soil and the water system should be more leading in spatial planning to prevent major problems. We referred to a letter to Parliament in which Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management (IenM) Mark Harbers and IenM State Secretary Vivianne Heijnen set out crystal-clear choices at the end of 2022, based on principles such as “not passing on to future generations”, or on “other areas or functions”. We argued for the proposals in the letter to be legally anchored, otherwise there is a good chance that construction will continue at locations that are no longer suitable for this purpose.

Rijcken and De Zeeuw suggest that our story is about the interests of a water world that must be balanced with the interests of residents and users. But that is a fallacy – as if heat waves and downpours are interests of meteorologists. Rijcken and De Zeeuw twist our arguments. The behavior and management of soil and water systems, and the effects of climate change, determine what is possible when it comes to their use. Ignoring this will inevitably lead to problems.

Take Arnhem for example: the adjustments to the river there, intended for the combination of river drainage with homes in floodplains, do not take into account the changing statistics on high water. And that these statistics are changing became painfully clear in 2021 when a completely unpredictable and catastrophic extreme high tide occurred in the Meuse basin. Moreover, these rapidly changing statistics lead to outdated safety standards, which the Council of State had to rely on in the Arnhem case and which Rijcken and De Zeeuw ignore.

This conflict between functions is ubiquitous: the high water in recent weeks is not only due to climate change, but also because large parts of nature in the catchment area of ​​the Dutch rivers had to make way for buildings and transport infrastructure over the past century, causing the water to spread much collects more quickly in the rivers. This problem does not disappear when the interests of housing, transport infrastructure and agriculture are ‘balanced’ with the alleged interests of soil and water.

Intensification

Rijcken and De Zeeuw borrowed the frame of ‘the Netherlands on lockdown’ from the nitrogen crisis and the housing crisis. The nitrogen crisis, like the climate crisis, arose because for decades, private interests pursued an intensification of agriculture, industry and transport on a soil and water system that is unsuitable for that intensity. This means that the long-term public interests of water quality and environmental policy have been violated on a large scale this is only going to get worse with the proposed technological solutions. Similarly, the housing market has been deliberately privatized for the short-term interests of the market. The landlord levy and the purchase of rental properties led to the major shortage of affordable houses after just a decade.

It is therefore precisely the short-term interests and freedom in spatial planning that ensure that the Netherlands avoids existential crises, because anyone who, for example, now starts building in the floodplains or a deep polder can then hinder plans for a much larger area for decades. And fallacies such as those applied by Rijcken and De Zeeuw shut down the public debate about this. With their confidence in technology and smart ‘function combinations’ as solutions to complex problems, they in fact argue that tackling ongoing land subsidence due to historical water management and the climate crisis is not urgent. The opposite is true, as evidenced by the many broken records in weather and water extremes, and the damage to crops, nature and infrastructure.

It is precisely the freedom in spatial planning that ensures that the Netherlands will avoid existential crises

There is an urgent need to formulate national objectives and make future-proof choices in line with substantiated knowledge of the functioning of soil and water systems, the forecasts for climate deterioration, and with built-in flexibility to deal with any nasty surprises. Space must be reserved for this so that short-term interests do not lock down the country and problems are not passed on.

What we need for this are region-specific scenarios, which the regions can use under national direction with all stakeholders to create integrated, democratically supported plans for the long term. Just like the successful Room for the River, but on a large scale. Facing the facts and now coming up with truly well-thought-out plans from which to choose is in everyone’s interest. For current and future generations.

To share





Email the editor