For those interested in learning more from a variety of experts on local and regional climate issues, the Mayors’ Climate Protection Committee is hosting an Edmonds Climate Action Speaker Series at 6 p.m. on three Wednesdays: Oct. 2, Oct. 16 and Oct. 30 at the Edmonds Waterfront Center – each covering different aspects of the issues. Click here for details.
Climate change hazards present a dire fiscal dilemma for coastal city governments like ours. Edmonds’ exposure – especially to flooding – is not just a longer-term liability from sea level rise but a present and ongoing danger due to magnifiers of a warming ocean: king tides combined with storm surges and heavier rainfalls. Experts agree that infrastructure, property and people in coastal communities are at increasing climate-exacerbated risk from flooding, with more frequency and more intensity. We already got a taste of this in 2022 with the flooding event impacting from the waterfront to the Dayton Street/104 intersection and adjacent areas like Harbor Square.
However, the city’s current budget constraints are real. It’s a difficult time to think about investing in the future when current city services are under such financial pressure. That’s why Edmonds volunteers working on climate issues are exploring grants to take action on preparedness without City money.
Why the urgency? Because every dollar not spent soon on climate adaptation and resilience will cost the city at least $4 to $13 later according to the most credible studies, when flooding reoccurs here as it inevitably will. So even if we can’t invest at this moment, we can deepen our understanding of the economic consequences of lack of preparedness, the human and environmental consequences, and what can be done for protection.
It is in that spirit that I share some of the findings on those consequences based on research I’ve surveyed on behalf of the Edmonds Climate Advisory Board and the Mayors’ Climate Protection Committee. Some excerpts on the economics of climate adaptation and flood preparedness follow.
– The United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, after hearings on flooding in the U.S., has completed its report, concluding: “On average every dollar invested in flood protection can save $5-$8 in damages with some estimates showing that projects protecting water and waste treatment plants can produce $31 in returns per $1 invested.”
– Flooding raises the cost of emergency services, due to infrastructural obstacles or damage, disruption of health care delivery, power outages and water contamination.
– Flooding decreases property values, which in turn decreases property tax revenue. A study by the First Street Foundation showed that homes that haven’t flooded but are situated where even just 20% of nearby roads experience flooding have lost $8.14 per square foot in property value.
– Recurring flooding can make property uninsurable, further decreasing its value.
– Flooding reduces local consumer spending, impacting sales tax revenue.
– Flooding often causes local governments to take on more debt, not only to finance recovery but also to compensate for lost tax revenues. Further financing is also often required by having to increase taxes on local residents, extending well past the recovery period.
– Consequently, flood events can also negatively impact any city’s municipal bond ratings.
– Based on FEMA’s analysis of flooding events in the US over a two-year period, local unemployment rose by an average of 3.4%.
– Most economic impact analyses do not even include displacement costs for residents, businesses, and city government property.
– A Washington State Department of Ecology analysis found that in Washington, flood cleanup costs three times more than prevention, before adding the cost of post-event economic impacts.
– Those post-event economic impacts often actually cost more than cleanup and recovery. A new Climate Resilience Report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce modeled 25 climate events and found a 6:1 return on investment in damages and cleanup prevention and a 7:1 return in reducing adverse economic impacts, for an aggregate savings of $13 for every $1 invested.
As in any city, Edmonds residents don’t all agree on the importance of climate change and adapting to the increasing hazards it represents. But hopefully we can agree that we want to protect our property, our businesses, our beautiful waterfront, our tourism revenue, and ensure that the city has an adequate tax base to cost-effectively provide the services we all expect. Action on flooding preparedness in no way suggests ignoring other climate hazards such as heat domes (like we had in 2021) that are especially hard on residents in the heat islands of the Highway 99 corridor and on seniors city-wide. But although climate resilience can’t be just about flooding, we do have more control over flood preparedness than other climate hazards like more wildfire smoke, pollution and extreme heat.
It’s tempting to think that some of the higher estimates of the cost of delaying adaptation and resilience investments are hype, directed at galvanizing more aggressive climate action than is necessary. The greater likelihood is that these analyses are understated, as they exclude other impacts that are not quantifiable. We can’t put a cost on nature loss or human stress, suffering, and productivity impacts. And even though different studies show different levels of return on these investments, all the studies agree that there are very few uses of capital with such a big payoff regardless of the exact dollar amount.
So, what to do? In the near term, we will continue to pursue climate adaptation grants that don’t require city funds and could jumpstart adaptation planning. Then, given the staggering costs over time of inaction, when the city’s budget situation improves it will be responsible fiscal policy to make resilience planning and cost-effective strategies a priority. Meanwhile, yesterday is not too soon to be thinking through the issues.
— By Steven Cristol
Steven Cristol lives and works in Edmonds, serves on the Mayors’ Climate Protection Committee, and is an ex officio board member of the Edmonds Climate Advisory Board.
Seems we spend a lot of money on electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, charging stations. But little on what we need to do to adapt. The article talks about return on investment strange we get little to no return from things listed above but that is where the money is being spent and a lot of return on adapting but spend very little on it. Didn’t we upgrade a pump system to stop the flooding at that location but it is still inadequate to handle the the storm water events? Guess it is back to the drawing board on that one.
“Because every dollar not spent soon on climate adaptation and resilience will cost the city, at least $4 to $13 later according to the most credible studies” Could you name this study, which specifically mentions Edmonds, and send a link. Is this based on a scientific peer-reviewed study, or was it the work of pseudo-religious leaders or environmental grifters skilled in the art of hustling money?
Most of the pseudo- religious leaders work for the GOP and are climate change deniers. But please tell us what environmentalists are taking in the dough you claim, and let us know how much. Or do you refer to those of us who are indeed concerned with pollution, deforestation, plastics in everything, global climate- linked hunger and poverty, rising seas, depletion of fisheries, etc.?
I prefer using the source of reputable scientists like UW Professor Cliff Mass.
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/09/if-you-care-about-environment-and-worry.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
By the way he’s a declared Democrat.
As Professor Mass points out hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in this state in the name of environmentalism with little to show except the rationalization of misinformation. Nathaniel if your opinion is based on your own credentials as compared to professor Masses I’d like to hear about them.
Your question was a good and interesting one, and one worth asking. But you undermine it by sliding off in the last of sentence of your original post into pure partisan rhetoric. The links you gave are also good – but can’t we avoid mud-slinging?
Mr. Brown, I humbly submit that you cannot, with a straight face, accuse others of “partisan rhetoric” when you lead with: “Most of the pseudo- religious leaders work for the GOP and are climate change deniers.”
Brian asked some straightforward questions, the answer to which would be very helpful, no matter who you vote for.
Building off of data from FEMA, Washington State provides a map of flood risks:
https://gis.ecology.wa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7779e901b22340f8892c8dcb1181a677
According to the mapping, in spite of our steep hillsides, the significant Edmonds risk is around the waterfront and Harbor Square: everything west of the railroad tracks from Edmonds’s southern border up to the Brackett’s Landing jetty; 104 from where Alder would run into 104 up to the bottom half of the ferry parking area; all of Harbour square, the train station; the back half of the Cascadia Art Museum; the Ebb Tide; the Waterfront Center; half of the ferry loading pier; the western half of the Unocal property; and the new port administration building (ironic) . The entire marina has a high risk of flooding: as long as the boats are not lifted into the roof, they should be fine because the piers rise and fall. Some humor from nature: Edmonds Underwater Sports on Railroad ave. would be under water. Top Pot would stay dry (yay!).
This is the 100-year flooding that is expected every 30 years these days: https://environment.princeton.edu/news/100-year-floods-will-happen-every-one-to-30-years-according-to-new-coastal-flood-prediction-maps/
Part of the map’s confidence in the rest of Edmonds may be because this is a map of flood risk and does not include landslides.
To learn more, attend the flooding talk at the Waterfront center on Weds (Oct 2) at 6PM.
Thanks for the information. The Princeton study was not localized for Edmonds, more a general statement of coastal flood predictions and I would suggest some might be politicized study or other location specific. Taking that out of the predictions, it’s more like 1% annual chance of flooding may be equaled or exceeded in any given year (100 year flood). In any case, what a wonderful argument that there should be no development at the Unocal property.
Brian,
Yes, the flooding is an excellent argument for Unocal property to remain undeveloped. As is the documented seismic hazard zone at the waterfront, extending from Harbor Square through Salish Crossing to a point just beyond where Sunset Ave walkway meets Caspers St. And, if that isn’t enough, there’s the tsunami risk in the event of an earthquake.
Can’t imagine how any additional housing at the waterfront could be insured, given those multiple risks.
So it seems the question becomes where to spend the money, if indeed money is available? Do we plug the leaks by adapting or turn off the tap of climate change? It seems we need to do both. But you can’t just plug the leaks because the warmer the air the more moisture it holds and the more rain that can fall. That means any adapting can be overrun by ever increasing floodwaters. Look at what just happened in North Carolina. Biblical rainfall. No amount of adapting can stop that. But we do have a choice to bring down emissions and not let the temperatures rise any further. So we have to do both, and at present we are doing very little of each. The climate deniers here are not helping. They are stopping people pitching in to do whatever we can.
Jim, Converting from gas to electric is aimed at reducing the trigger for climate change – namely increased levels of green house gases in the atmosphere. This is different from money spent on adaptation which is an investment in dealing with the inevitable impact of climate change. It’s not an either or proposition: we need to do both – reduce the risk and adapt to manage the risk that remains.
Brian, climate change and its impacts are not localized. These are global problems to which we all contribute and which we can all be impacted by. As a coastal community, sea level rise is a concern for Edmonds and we should hope that our residents, administration and council are properly informed on the risks and possible mitigations so that they can take appropriate action. Emphasis on appropriate.
I was just reading this morning about the impact on Asheville NC which was widely perceived to be a city that was safe from severe climate related impacts: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/hurricane-helene-asheville-climate-change-nowhere-safe. The reality is that nowhere is safe under the current circumstances and it is incumbent on local governments to carefully weigh the potential risks and determine what responses to take to mitigate the worst of the risks.
Niall, are you were a climatologist? Maybe you could give some of your credentials. As I like to say, consider the source. Meantime I reference University of Washington’s Dr. Cliff Mass who clearly states that there’s a lot of misinformation being spread by the media and inappropriate mitigations.
I am not and frankly I don’t need to be. There is a strong consensus among global climate scientists that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity and that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take steps to mitigate the impact of our changing climate which we are already seeing in the increased level of wildfires, increased number and magnitude of hurricanes, significant changes to rainfall and snowfall patterns and increasingly extreme temperatures around the world. Even professor Mass doesn’t refute this. He might take issue with the pace of change or the appropriate steps to take in the face of what is happening but he doesn’t deny the reality of climate change.
Appreciate the conversation. Although Mass currently states that the wildfires have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Also his argument is actually warm Pacific Oceans will increase moisture to the benefit of the Pacific Northwest especially Eastern Washington.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are still going up despite all the money we have spent to bring it down my opinion is the money would be better spent on adapting. Yes we do need to move away from fossil fuels but it seems that is where we are putting most of our eggs and getting very little egg salad. Adapting is much more pragmatic reduced emissions will come over time as fossil fuels become more scarce. Today we have the weather to deal with and no money because we are spending most of it trying to stop something we can’t.
Thanks for mentioning Asheville NC, Niall. My sister and brother-in-law retired there, and we’ve visited~ an idyllic small city, like Edmonds might be if we were a freestanding city, not adjacent to a metropolitan center. The wind and flood damage is heartbreaking, and tragic for the 30 who perished in Buncombe county. Here’s the best first-hand account from Asheville~
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4909548-asheville-floods-helene/
Thankfully my family is OK. Their power and water are back on. There’s a cell tower working where they can go find a signal. But ATMs are still down so it’s cash only at the few stores that have re-opened. Long lines at gas stations, when they have gas. Cleanup will take weeks, total recovery will take years.
Let this be a wakeup call for each of us. Get prepared! I hope Edmonds’ emergency preparedness program will be renewed (previous mayor fired the program manager).
I’m glad to hear that your family are OK Roger. My daughter and her family live in Kentucky and make frequent trips to Asheville for vacation. They were scheduled to go there again this weekend but obviously that won’t be happening.
Thank you Steven for your thoughtful article regarding climate issues which we are already facing, but will be facing even more serioiusly in the near futurre. Although it is correct that preparing for the consequences of climate change are expensive, sister cities near us are making significant progress by applying for and securing grants from outside agencies since they are in financial straits, as Edmonds is. They have acknowledged that taking action now is financially astute since the longer they wait, the more expensive it gets. I look forward to the time when Edmonds takes your advice and seriously addresses the climate crisis, using some of the same resources of our nearby cities.
The oceans have been rising since the end of the last ice age. They have been rising about 1 foot per century since 1855. The use of satellites to measure the height of the oceans began in 1992. In the approximately 33 years (I/3 of a century) since then, the oceans have risen by about 4.25 inches. Multiplying this by 3 equals approximately 12 inches per century, which confirms the existing data of 1 foot per century. (see: Steven E. Koonin,” Unsettled” Chapter 8, Ben Bella Books, 2021)
Also, if we want to control climate change we need to do two things: stop sending coal to China, the largest world source of greenhouse gas emission and, develop nuclear power the safest, cleanest form of dependable energy.