Water board elections crash course

On 20 March, we can go to the polls again, both for Provincial Councils and Water Boards. However, few people know exactly what Water Boards are and what to look out for in the upcoming elections. The Pact Committee (Political Amsterdam Committee Team) was also faced with these questions and therefore went to the ‘Water Board Show’ on 12 March’ at Pakhuis de Zwijger. What do the Water Boards do, why is it important to vote and for whom?

Water boards are ancient institutions; the first water board in the Netherlands was established in 1255 and still exists today. The Netherlands has 21 water boards and most of Amsterdam (but not the whole city!) falls under Waterschap Amstel Gooi & Vecht (AGV). Water boards have four tasks, namely (1) protection against water, (2) enough water for everyone, (3) clean water and (4) tackling climate problems. Petra van Dam, professor of water board history, explained in the Waterschapshow how this set of tasks relates to the way of governance. Originally, Water Boards were only concerned with the quantity of water; they protected our low-lying land using dykes and they regulated the water level. Landowners paid taxes, which were calculated per unit area. These same landowners were represented in the administration through so-called ‘quality seats’. This changed in 1970 with the introduction of the Surface Waters Pollution Act (WVO). This act gave water boards an additional task, namely water quality. Since then, Water Boards have been responsible for treating household wastewater and households also pay Water Board tax. In line with the well-known principle of ‘no taxation without representation’, all citizens have since also been entitled to vote for the Water Boards. However, the old system has not been completely overturned; large landowners still have ‘guaranteed seats’ (formerly quality seats) on the board.

This brings us to the current administrative division of Water Boards. Water boards have a dyke grave, a general board and an executive board. The dike reeve, for AGV currently Gerard van den Top, is similar to the mayor of a municipality. He is appointed for six years by the king and is the chairman of both the general and executive boards. The general board, around which the upcoming elections revolve, is similar to the municipal council. It is responsible for taking decisions and controlling the executive board. The general board consists of 30 seats, 23 of which are up for election. For this, 12 are on the electoral list, both national and local parties. The other seven are the secured seats, which are occupied by representatives of nature managers (1 seat), farmers (3 seats) and companies (3 seats). Finally, there is the executive board, which is similar to the aldermen in a municipality. The executive board is elected by the general board and, together with the dike reeve, is responsible for the day-to-day business.

Now that the Water Boards are clear, the question remains why it is important to vote for them. After all, isn't everyone against floods and for clean water? However, water boards are constantly making political choices, on a variety of issues. Take, for example, the height of water levels, which at first seems a rather technical matter. Professor of aquatic ecology Leon Lamers spoke about this on the Waterschapshow and also wrote an opinion piece about it in the NRC. The Netherlands consists largely of peat soil, a swampy soil type. To make agriculture and other land uses possible, people (through the Water Boards) have long been lowering water levels. While this has made large parts of the Netherlands accessible to human development, it has also had adverse consequences. The soil is subsiding, buildings and infrastructure are subsiding, carbon stored as peat for centuries is entering the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas and the Netherlands is sinking even further below sea level. In response to subsidence, agriculture, among others, wants a further lowering of water levels, which in turn reinforces the above developments. Although lowering water levels is not the only factor influencing subsidence - climate change and building also play a role, for example - it is a very important element. Water boards are responsible for regulating the level of water levels. Generally, agriculture-minded parties like the CDA (and the secured agricultural seats) want to lower the water level, while greener parties want to maintain or even raise it. This is therefore a political choice with (major) consequences for people and nature.

Another political issue within the Water Board concerns the scope of sustainable ambitions. In recent decades, tackling climate problems has increasingly emerged as a new task for Water Boards. From their responsibility for dykes, they are involved in climate adaptation anyway, but Water Boards are also concerned with mitigation (= counteracting climate change). They can become a forerunner in the circular economy and energy transition, for example by generating heat from wastewater, producing biogas or recycling waste products in water treatment plants. The question is to what extent Water Boards should engage in such matters: should they focus on their original tasks -quality and quantity of water- and perform them as sustainably as possible, or should they become a driver of the sustainable transition? And can the Water Board tax be increased for that? Opinions differ on this. For instance, the PvdD prefers to see the Water Board as a ‘raw materials factory’ in the circular economy and Water Natuurlijk sees circularity and energy transition as ‘top priorities’. The Greens argue that sustainable investments made now will pay off in the long term. The VVD wants to carry out the current core tasks as sustainably as possible and also wants to invest proactively in green, but only in clearly profitable projects. The Labour Party also wants to continue to focus on sustainability, but without raising taxes. One reason for this is that Water Board taxes are not income-related, because Water Boards are not allowed to play income politics. A tax increase is therefore disproportionately heavy on low incomes. In that context, the Socialist Water Board Association argues that the Water Board does not need to be a green front-runner.

The height of water levels and the Water Board's sustainable ambitions are just two examples of political choices being made in the Water Board. Examples of other issues are biodiversity, micro-pollutions and rain-proofing of cities. They are all important issues, about the future of nature and climate in our country. So your vote on 20 March is definitely about something. But who can you actually vote for? Twelve parties are taking part in the upcoming Water Board elections, namely the VVD, PvdA, Water Natuurlijk, PvdD, CDA, Greens, 50PLUS, Socialist Water Board Association, Forum Sustainable Effective Water Board, Republican Political Party, QUEER and CU. So both national and local parties are participating, but it is noteworthy that GroenLinks and D66 are not standing for election. Parties relatively close to GroenLinks are the Labour Party, the PvdD, Water Natuurlijk and the Greens. Since the PvdA and the PvdD are relatively well known, I will discuss here what I consider to be relevant but unknown parties: Water Natuurlijk and the Greens.

Water Natuurlijk (WN) is a Water Authority party founded by nature, recreation and environmental organisations. Although it is an independent party, it is officially backed by GroenLinks and D66, who are not eligible for election themselves. The Greens is also an eco-friendly party that values nature and climate. The party is a bottom-up organisation affiliated to Code Orange (provincial level), to the Pirate Party (national level) and to the Greens (European Parliament). Both Water Naturally and the Greens value nature, environment and climate. For example, both parties want to work for more biodiversity, for an energy-neutral Water Board by 2023, for filtering medicines and for sustainable water levels. On the websites of both the Greens and Water Natuurlijk, there are no explicit differences between the two parties. Some notable differences are:

• Water Naturally is a bigger party than the Greens. In the current general council, Water Natuurlijk has four seats and the Greens one.
• Water Natuurlijk is currently in the coalition (with VVD, CDA and Ongebouwd, guaranteed seats from agriculture), while the Greens are in opposition.
• My personal impression is that Water Naturally is more willing to cooperate with (progressive) farmers and business, while the Greens take a somewhat more radical course.

In short, the Water Boards have a very important role in our small, low-lying and wet country. They make important political choices about the future of nature, safety, climate and health. On 20 March, we have the chance to make our voices heard on those political choices, an opportunity we should not miss. To continue the sound of the climate march, I call for a sustainable vote in the Water Board elections, on Water Natuurlijk or the Greens. I myself go for Water Natuurlijk, what do you do?

Political Amsterdam Commission Team,

Isha Groot