Prof. dr. Co Verdaas has been the government commissioner for the National Delta Program for a year. One of his key responsibilities is to establish the Delta Program and to oversee its implementation. In the Delta Program, the government outlines how to protect the Netherlands against flooding, to ensure enough fresh water and to work towards a water-robust spatial planning, now and in the future.
The world of water is full of contradictions. We like to think we have complete control over the water system, yet we struggle with it. At times we face an abundance of water, while at other times, we deal with shortages. We’re accustomed to having clean drinking water, but at the same time, we have surface water with poor quality. Where do the biggest challenges lie in your view?
‘We need to prepare ourselves to sustainably face all those challenges. Today’s extremes are the new normal of the future. For centuries, we’ve been able to solve these challenges with technology—the Dutch water sector is a world champion in that. But we are reaching the boundaries of what technology alone can solve. We will always need technology, but we can no longer solely rely on it. To stay ahead of future disasters, we must do things differently. Not because we haven’t done well, but because it no longer provides all answers. This idea has become gradually widely accepted, also within the water sector.’
In the Delta Program 2025, one of your recommendations to the Cabinet is to give more space to water. You emphasize that water is increasingly a spatial issue. Spatial planning can be based on various principles. Which principles should underlie the spatial development of the Netherlands, and what role does water play in this?
‘I was educated as a spatial planner using the layer approach, which explicitly considers the subsurface and the spatial developments on it. What is now referred to as Water and Soil as Guiding Principles in the water sector, is an insight we’ve actually had for quite some time. However, we didn’t always have to consider it, because we could solve it with technology. As we are hitting the limits of the system, it is essential to seriously consider the water and soil system, and the changing climate of the future, when spatially developing the Netherlands. This requires balancing interests and making difficult choices. My role is to highlight the pros and cons of those choices, a task I believe also belongs to science. There is no objective truth about how we should spatially develop the Netherlands—that’s a political decision. And I’m glad it is,. Politics is the heart of our democracy.’
You just referred to the parliamentary letter Water and Soil as Guiding Principles. With this letter, the previous cabinet sent a clear message: water and soil interests must play a guiding role in spatial planning. How is the current cabinet looking at this letter?
‘The motto of this cabinet, ‘see what is possible’, is a solid foundation to begin with. I’m glad that Water and Soil as Guiding Principles has been placed on the agenda. The current cabinet is committed to it, as outlined in the coalition agreement and mentioned in recent debates by the ministers of Infrastructure and Water and of Housing and Spatial Development. While the wording may vary slightly, the ultimate goal is the same: we must take care of future generations.’
Since the publication of this letter, there have been heated discussions. Some argue that water and soil interests are given too much weight. Others believe that water is finally receiving the attention in spatial planning that it has always deserved. How do you listen to this debate?
‘We are taking a difficult turn together. That inevitably sparks discussions. However, the bottom line is that we need to move forward with the future climate in mind. We must do our best to prevent the misery that may arise when we do not adequately consider the future climate. This thinking is also grounded in financial and economic rationales. It is economically wise to anticipate the future climate. Therefore, we also need to find the right words to communicate with banks, investors and insurers.’
Do the demand of a million new homes and the idea of Water and Soil as Guiding Principles hinder one another?
‘A third of the Netherlands lies below sea level, and two-thirds is at risk of flooding. New houses will be built all over the country, on high sandy soils and in polders in the west. It is crucial that we think carefully about how we build them. If we build in a deep polder and a heavy rainstorm hits, we need to have enough space for water. It’s too easy to say we won’t build in the low-lying parts of the Netherlands. That would effectively halt all further development in the Randstad. We need thoughtful spatial planning to make sure that if heavy rain happens, it doesn’t immediately lead to disasters.’
There’s also discussion about the legal translation of the letter, such as regulating buildings to be constructed climate adaptive. Do you believe that having a legal framework is essential for effectively integrating this letter into spatial development plans?
‘At the moment, there’s an important dialogue happening between central and decentral governments. On one side, water boards, provinces, and municipalities are drafting their own policies and regulations. On the other, there’s an appeal to tackle the issues on a national level. We need to think about what is beneficial, also in terms of regulatory pressure, providing clear guidance, and creating a fair playing field for the market. We’re currently figuring out what can be best organized nationally and what can be left to decentral decision-making. We are in the midst of this puzzle.’
There is much discussion about the role of water boards in area development. What do you believe their role should be?
‘I’ve always advocated for a key role for water boards in spatial development, and I continue to do so today. My message is simple: water boards must be part of the solution. It’s also in their best interest to maintain a robust and sustainable water system and to facilitate this—which also involves making necessary investments. Ultimately, the role they play is also a political choice made by the water board’s governing body. A valuable discussion to have, is whether lawmakers should expand the mandate of water boards to provide them with more opportunities for action.’
Creating more space for water sounds great, but much land is privately owned. Property rights are legally well protected. The deprivation or regulation of private property can be justified in the interest of the public good. How do you see the relationship between the public interest and individual property rights?
‘The public interest requires us to balance various societal needs, which results in spatial interventions. While deprivation or regulation of private property should be seen as the last resort, it’s inevitable that spatial interventions will eventually impact individual property rights. Almost every inch of land in this country has been developed, so individual property rights will be affected. However, it is crucial that the government is transparent and manages these situations appropriately.’
The Advisory Body on Waterlogging and High Water Levels recommended exploring the implementation of a mandatory water label for properties to raise awareness of water issues related to extreme rainfall and flooding during the buying and selling of properties. The banks ING, ABN Amro, and Rabobank have given a somewhat similar advice. What do you think of such a label?
‘I’m a strong advocate for full transparency when it comes to the risks we face from heat, water, foundation problems, and drought, especially in the context of a changing climate. However, I’m not sure if we should jump straight to labeling these risks. There are many complexities involved, and such labels could unintentionally lead to devaluation of properties, which could cause a lot of problems. The consequences of such labels are not known, or at least, not yet. For now, let’s concentrate on sharing information as transparently as possible. Fortunately, this is becoming increasingly easier, with various apps and websites offering detailed information about the physical environment you are in. If we reach a point where we’re confident that this information can be effectively translated into a label—potentially linked to insurance needs and preferences—then that’s a conversation worth having. It’s also encouraging to see banks actively engaging with these issues, and that there is growing awareness around them.’
How do you assess the current costs of climate adaptation?
‘There is a price tag to climate adaptation. However, if we don’t invest now, costs will only keep rising. We’re being asked to invest in a future that’s inherently uncertain, yet I see a lot of movement. For example, banks are stepping up, saying that if the risks become too significant, we won’t finance it anymore. We’ve long approached water issues from a substantive perspective. That’s important, because that’s where it all begins. But ultimately, economic factors will also come into play, compelling us to act responsibly. We’re facing the reality, and in that sense, we don’t have a choice. We need to invest upfront. Of course, that always requires careful consideration and a dose of common sense.’
‘Ultimately, we need collective action. The world is constantly changing, and adapting to these changes is something we’ve always done. There’s nothing new about that. However, this time, the pace of change is faster and is more uncertain. That said, we’ve always adjusted to new circumstances, and we’ll continue doing that. With common sense and goodwill, I believe we can make significant progress. Ten years ago, this conversation was held in small circles. Now, it’s a broad societal discussion. That gives me confidence that in another ten years, we’ll have achieved much more!’
