Cyclists ride in flood water after a thunderstorm in Zwolle, Netherlands, in July, 2023.NICKELAS KOK/AFP/Getty Images
For centuries the Dutch mastered the science of keeping water at bay. They became so adept that about one-quarter of the country lies below sea level, protected by dikes and pumps. But climate change is forcing a change in strategy and the country known for reclaiming land from the water is giving some of it back.
The shift is one that Canada should be watching keenly. As this country grapples with the effects of a changing climate – two of the worst wildfire seasons on record happened in the last three years – a difficult discussion needs to start about whether people can no longer live in the riskiest areas. Nature cannot be held back indefinitely.
The shift in the Netherlands came after two bouts of flooding in the 1990s. The worst was when rivers in the south overflowed in 1995 because of heavy rain upstream, forcing 250,000 people to flee. There were few fatalities, but the crisis was a red flag. With climate change likely to bring heavier rains even as it raises sea levels, making it harder to pump out low-lying areas, not all parts of the country could be protected. Bigger dikes alone could not safeguard residents.
This was a hard reality for the Dutch, whose identity is so tied up in water control that the need to work together collaboratively is an ethos that permeates society and contributes to a consensus approach to politics. But, ever pragmatic, they drew up a multi-decade plan of attack.
The “Room for the river” program included dozens of projects, making the homes of four million people more safe. Central to the plan was an acknowledgment that agricultural land would have to be given up. Some farms were consolidated on newly built mounds while others, most controversially, were removed.
At one spot, southeast of Rotterdam, the outer dikes were removed and the remaining walls lowered. About 40 kilometres of new creeks were dug, connecting the rivers Waal and Maas. When the rivers are at high tide and swollen by meltwater or rainflow, they can overflow their banks harmlessly. The rest of the time the land – measuring about 45 square kilometres – is a nature reserve.
A resident of this area who got to keep her home told CNN that her enjoyment of the new setting is tarnished by having seen her neighbour evicted. “On the other hand, I’m very proud of what we achieved in this region,” she said. “And that we can also be an example, that it’s possible.”
It’s an example Canada needs to follow. This will be a difficult process. No one likes to be told they must move. But rebuilding in disaster-prone areas makes no sense.
There’s even Canadian precedent for this sort of decision. After Hurricane Hazel hit the Toronto area in 1954, killing 81 people, government banned new homes in river floodplains and bought and demolished existing homes. The Humber and Don rivers still overflow their banks periodically, but that water is now an inconvenience instead of a threat to life.
Similarly, retreating from areas at high risk of fire would allow them to burn without putting people at risk.
In depth: What survivors learned from Canada’s worst wildfires
The insurance industry is already seized with the risk of climate change; substantial areas of North America could lose coverage because the threat of damage is too high. A property deemed uninsurable will lose much of its value, wreaking financial devastation on its owner.
Better to acknowledge the looming risk and manage retreat before it hits. There are several ways the government could do so.
Leaders could replicate the approach toward outports taken by Newfoundland and Labrador. Residents there vote on whether to leave and are given money to resettle elsewhere.
Politicians could take a more active approach and encourage people to leave communities designated for retreat by making clear that no public money would be available to rebuild. That sounds harsh – even at odds with the idea of a society – but it also avoids the serious problem of moral hazard. If people know the cost of their mistakes will be paid by others, they are less inclined to avoid those errors.
In the most extreme cases, government could expropriate land. Picking the communities will be a traumatic conversation. No one wants to feel that their home is in the crosshairs. But the reality is that these homes already have a target on them.
The destructive power of nature is coming. As the Dutch understand, the only uncertainty is not knowing when disaster will hit.