New report identifies how impacts of climate change to water supplies & waterways will affect U.S. cities - In record year for storms and drought, provides a resource for cities nationwide preparing for sea level rise, increased rain, flooding, drought and drinking water impacts

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110727.asp
As the nation grapples with a record year for storms, drought and weather-related devastation, a new report released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council reveals climate change is leaving American cities open to a range of water-related vulnerabilities – from drought to sea level rise and increased rainfall – regardless of region or size. The report looks at how communities facing these new extremes are trying to protect their water supplies and waterways.

“This report makes clear that some of the first, most profound and far-reaching impacts of climate change are water-related, affecting the water we drink, fish, and swim in,” said Michelle Mehta, an attorney for NRDC’s Water Program and a principal author of the report. “In the future, we can expect increased violent storms, drought and rising seas, so communities nationwide, regardless of size, should get plans up and running to reduce their unique vulnerabilities and prepare for impacts.”

The report, “Thirsty for Answers: Preparing for the Water-related Impacts of Climate Change in American Cities,” found that climate change will impact water supplies and waterways in communities across the country, with geography often determining the specific effects. For the first time, this peer-reviewed report has compiled the results of more than 75 scientific studies, data generated by government agencies, and information gathered by other nonprofit organizations to analyze how the impacts of climate change on water supplies and waterways could affect 12 target cities: Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Homer, Alaska; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida, and the Florida Keys; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Norfolk, Virginia; Phoenix, Arizona; Wan Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington and St. Louis, Missouri.

The report provides a snapshot of projected climate change impacts in regions across the country: Rising sea levels threaten vital infrastructure and saltwater intrusion to freshwater supplies in cities on the East, West and Gulf Coasts. Severe storms in the Midwest and East Coast are likely to become more intense and more frequent, causing floods and erosion, and threatening drinking water quality. In the West, a combination of increased temperatures, decreased precipitation and less snowpack contributes to a future shortage of water supply for people and aquatic life. More specifically scientific studies reveal a range of possible impacts under various carbon emission scenarios:

• Rising Seas: Coastal cities examined in the report, such as Miami, Norfolk, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle are threatened by flooding and storm surges due to rising sea levels. For example, data show the very existence of the Florida Keys is at stake, with 38 percent at risk of inundation in the most optimistic scenario. Conservative projections also suggests the California coast could see a 12- to 18-inch rise in sea levels and the coastline of Seattle a 3-to 22-inch rise relative to levels recorded in 2000.
  
  Saltwater intrusion also could become more common in coastal communities as a result of this sea level rise, threatening freshwater supplies, according to data compiled. In New York City, for example, saltwater is expected to journey farther up the Hudson and Delaware Rivers during high tides, two of the region’s major sources for freshwater supply. Also, the salinity problem already facing California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is likely to increase, threatening the quality and reliability of the freshwater supply used by millions of Californians for drinking water as well as the region’s heavy agriculture industry.
  
  
•  Increased Storms and Flooding: Research finds the Midwest is expected to experience more frequent and intense storms, contributing to the type of recent heavy flooding along the Mississippi River. The frequency of very heavy rainfall in Chicago, for example, is expected to increase by 50 percent in the next 30 years, which without infrastructural improvements is likely to increase the number of combined sewer overflows (CSO) that send untreated sewage and storm water into the Chicago River and Lake Michigan.
  
  Increased rainfall along the Atlantic is predicted to cause significant flooding as a result of tropical storms and nor’easters. In New York City, 100-year floods could occur every 30 to 55 years by 2050. Such flooding increases the risk of damage to vital low-lying infrastructure in New York, as well as critical naval and civilian ports in Norfolk. Heavier rainfall in the Midwest is likely to cause increased stream flows due in part to saturated soils, threatening levees in cities like St. Louis.  
  

• A Drier West: The report describes rising temperatures, less rainfall and decreased snowpack in the U.S. West. As a result, without proper management, water supplies could be seriously threatened in regions such as Los Angeles, Seattle and Phoenix. Slight temperature changes could cause irregular stream flow patterns and lead to unseasonal snowpack melt outside of the dry season when the runoff is most needed, the data revealed. For example, the loss of spring snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range is highly likely, and a worst case scenario estimates stream flows in Southern California decreasing by as much as 41 percent.
  
  Warmer air also could cause precipitation to fall as rain in areas where it traditionally has fallen as snow, such as in watersheds that supply the populations of Seattle and Phoenix, causing decreases and even disappearance of snowpack. Such a scenario would pose serious challenges for local water supply managers, particularly during the summer months, as they attempt to balance human demand for water with needs for water supplies for hydroelectricity and wildlife habitats.
  
  
• Decreased Water Quality: Data cited in the report point to the many negative effects rising carbon dioxide concentrations are having on water quality. For example, higher dissolved carbon dioxide concentrations, warmer water, and increased runoff could cause increased occurrences of harmful algal blooms in the Chesapeake Bay and around Seattle. The blooms can result in fish kills and cause shellfish to become contaminated with potent natural toxins, causing illness in humans who consume them.

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and warmer waters are detrimental to the health of the coral reefs off the coast of Miami and the Florida Keys, and acidification of the waters in Puget Sound near Seattle threatens shellfish, a vital contributor to the local economy.

The compiled local data are cause for concern, and the report describes various steps these cities are taking to become more resilient to the effects of climate change, providing examples of steps that communities across the country should consider.
...
The complete report is available online from NRDC at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/thirstyforanswers.asp.

...
More frequent flooding episodes associated with storm events, exacerbated by sea level rise, would adversely affect major transportation arteries, including highways and rail and air transportation, and the viability of waterfront structures.... Increased flooding would also affect streets, basements, sewer systems,  communications equipment, and electrical support facilities such as relays, wiring, and switches associated with fiber-optic cable. In total, by 2070 the greater New York City metro area is projected to have $1.7  trillion to $2.1 trillion in property at risk from coastal flooding due to storm surges and damage from high  winds.
...
If current growth and land use practices remain unchanged while relative sea levels rise 3.3 feet (1 meter) by the end of the century, a 100-year storm surge could cost the city of  Boston about $36 billion (in year 2000 dollars) in damages to residential, commercial, and industrial structures and in emergency response costs. Homes built in the area’s 100-and 500-year floodplains could see flood damage of $7,000 to $18,000 each. Over the course of the 21st century, river flooding could affect twice as many properties at twice the overall cost of past floods.
...
Miami is no stranger to severe weather, particularly hurricanes: Hurricane Andrew caused $26.5 billion in damage in 1992, and Hurricane Wilma caused more than $1 billion in damage in 2005.
...
To counter the impacts of beach erosion, sand renourishment may have to occur more frequently. However, this labor-intensive process comes at a price: Between 1976 and 1981, a beach renourishment project that  replenished a 10-mile stretch of beach to a width of about 100 feet cost $64 million.
...
Greater Miami currently has more than $400 billion in property value at risk from coastal flooding, and that value could rise to $3.5 trillion by 2070.
...
Sea level rise (estimates for the region are 3 to 5 feet, or 0.9 to 1.5 meters, by 21003) delivers a one-two punch to the Keys, owing to their low elevation (an average of 4 to 7 feet, or 1.2 to 2.1 meters, above current sea level) and their high water-to-land ratio (any point on land is within 4 miles of water). Estimates of the potential loss of land area in the Keys range from 38 percent (at a value of $11 billion) to 92 percent ($35 billion).
...
Rising seas will likely wipe out a significant portion of the coastal wetlands in the Mississippi River Deltaic  Plain, where wetland loss rates are already among the highest in the world. Mississippi River flood-protection levees, some in place since the 18th century, rob the surrounding wetlands of replenishing seasonal sediments that would help counteract natural and man-made subsidence and erosion. Additional human activities such as the dredging of ship channels, oil and gas production, and the siting of industrial facilities exacerbate wetland loss. Wetland vegetation thrives in shallow waters but cannot survive as water depth and salinity increase. Wetlands without vegetation lose their ability to damp the energy of storm surges and waves, thus increasing the likelihood of flooding further inland in places—like metropolitan New Orleans—that have historically depended on these wetlands for protection.

Without inputs of sediment, an additional 3,900 to 5,200 square miles of wetlands will be under water by the end of the 21st century. If the impacts of relative sea level rise on wetlands are not checked, metropolitan New Orleans could eventually sit on land almost completely surrounded by the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico.  Loss of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands not only would be a loss of natural flood protection but would impact the vast array of plants and animals that they support, many of which are tied to economic activity including fishing, timber, agriculture, tourism, and recreation. The combined value of infrastructure and biological productivity associated with Louisiana’s wetlands exceeds $100 billion.
...
The Pacific Institute report also details facilities and property at risk from a 100-year flood with a 55-inch sea level rise in San Francisco.... The current replacement value of buildings and contents vulnerable to a 100-year flood in counties in the San Francisco Bay Area is $31 billion; with a 55-inch rise in sea level that figure more than doubles, to $64 billion.
 ...
In the Bay Area counties, a total of more than 640 miles of new levees, raised levees, or seawalls, at a cost of almost $5.3 billion (in 2000 dollars), would be needed to protect against flooding in the event of a 55-inch rise in sea level. Maintaining these additional structures would require annual expenses on the order of a tenth of the capital cost. While armoring the coastline would save lives and property, it disrupts natural processes that are also of value.
...
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) www.NRDC.org
Press Release dated July 26, 2011 (pre Irene)

Losing Ground - Washing Away the Fields of Iowa

http://www.ewg.org/losingground/report

Executive Summary
Across wide swaths of Iowa and other Corn Belt states, the rich, dark soil that made this region the nation’s breadbasket is being swept away at rates many times higher than official estimates.

That is the disturbing picture revealed by scientists tracking soil erosion in Iowa after every storm that hits the state and producing an unprecedented degree of precision in soil erosion estimates. The Environmental Working Group corroborated the scientists’ findings with aerial surveys that produced striking visual evidence of the damage.

In April 2010, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) released data estimating the rate of soil erosion on agricultural land in the United States. On the surface, the data from the 2007 National Resources Inventory (NRI) were reassuring. Erosion in Iowa averaged 5.2 tons per acre per year, only slightly higher than the allegedly “sustainable” rate of five tons per acre per year for most Iowa soils — the amount that can supposedly be lost each year without reducing agricultural productivity. Across the entire Corn Belt, erosion averaged only 3.9 tons per acre per year, according to the NRCS data.

There is compelling evidence, however, that soil erosion and runoff from cropland is far worse than these estimates suggest. Indeed, it appears that the nation is losing ground in the decades-old fight to gain control over this most fundamental and damaging environmental problem in agriculture.

In some places in Iowa, recent storms have triggered soil losses that were 12 times greater than the federal government’s average for the state, stripping up to 64 tons of soil per acre from the land, according to researchers using the new techniques. In contrast to the reassuring statewide averages, the researchers’ data indicate that farmland in 440 Iowa townships encompassing more than 10 million acres eroded faster in 2007 than the “sustainable” rate. In 220 townships totaling 6 million acres, the rate of soil loss was twice the “sustainable” level.

The aerial survey conducted by EWG in the spring of 2010 indicated that soil erosion and runoff are likely far worse than even the ISU numbers suggest, because researchers’ current models do not account for the effect of widespread “ephemeral gullies.” During heavy rains, these gullies reappear rapidly where farmers have tilled and planted over natural depressions in the land and form “pipelines” that swiftly carry away the water the earth cannot absorb.

The ISU data and EWG’s survey reinforce long-standing doubts about the very system used to describe the so-called “sustainable” level of erosion — how much soil loss the land can tolerate before it loses its ability to sustain a healthy crop. These “T values” are gauzy estimates at best, and there is substantial and growing evidence that they greatly overstate the ability of cropland to remain fertile in the face of the ravages of soil erosion and water runoff, especially at a time when a warming climate is producing ever more frequent severe storms. For lack of a better alternative, however, this report’s discussion does use T values as a point of reference.

The runoff from vulnerable farmland not only washes away soil – the fertile legacy of thousands of years of geological processes — but also carries with it a potent cargo of fertilizers, pesticides and manure that flows into local creeks and streams and eventually into the Mississippi River. Ultimately it ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, generating the notorious dead zone — a zone of depleted oxygen that suffocates marine life when it forms each year.

The accelerating soil loss is being driven by federal farm policies that encourage and subsidize sowing commodity crops on even the most fragile terrain, as well as by intense rainstorms that occur with increasing frequency as Earth’s climate warms. The recent history of severe springtime flooding across the Midwest is but the most immediate consequence of this trend, but the impact on the region’s agriculture and environment will be the greater and more lasting disaster.

Meanwhile, efforts to curb soil erosion, many of them launched under a 1985 law that temporarily produced a 40 percent reduction in erosion and runoff from the most vulnerable cropland, have faltered badly. The backsliding began in 1996 when Congress made an abortive attempt to phase out the farm subsidy program, along with its soil conservation requirements. In the end, lawmakers instead returned to plowing billions into farmers’ hands through ad hoc disaster payments, ultimately restoring the earlier farm subsidy program with a vengeance by 2002.
...

EWG’s findings are an urgent reminder that the Corn Belt’s carpet of immensely fertile soil, a resource that accumulated over millions of years before European settlers introduced organized agriculture, is not inexhaustible. From the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to the barren moonscapes of today’s Haiti and Madagascar, history is littered with evidence that what nature has provided, unwise practices and policies can rapidly squander.

Today, the soil erosion problem in Iowa and nearby states is nowhere near the scale of those historic calamities, but the data show that the situation is getting worse. Chronically underfunded voluntary conservation programs are failing to blunt the damage caused by federal policies that push farmers to plant crops fencerow to fencerow. Between 1997 and 2009, the government paid Iowa farmers $2.76 billion to put conservation practices in place. It paid out six times as much — $16.8 billion — in income, production and insurance subsidies that encouraged maximum-intensity planting, not conservation. Across the Corn Belt, the gap was even greater — $7.0 billion for conservation and $51.2 billion for income, production and insurance subsidies.
...
The $18.9 billion spent to subsidize expansion of the corn ethanol industry, along with misguided federal mandates to produce increasing amounts of ethanol, further increase the pressure to intensify production.

To turn this situation around, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) must step up enforcement of the groundbreaking 1985 farm bill provision — called conservation compliance — that required producers to take action to conserve soil in order to stay eligible for billions in farm subsidies. USDA must increase its annual inspections to determine whether producers are maintaining the required soil conservation practices and also make full use of its authority to impose graduated penalties on farmers who fail to keep the required practices in place.

In addition, EWG believes that Congress must:
* Reopen and revise all the legacy conservation compliance soil conservation plans approved and applied before July 3, 1996, requiring that they reduce erosion to a truly “sustainable” level and prevent ephemeral gully erosion on highly erodible cropland.
* Require treatment and/or prevention of ephemeral gully erosion on all agricultural land — not just highly erodible land — owned by producers or landlords receiving income, production, insurance or conservation subsidies.
* Require vegetative buffer zones at least 35 feet wide between row crops and all lakes, rivers, and smaller streams.
* Require all producers participating in existing or new crop and revenue insurance programs to meet conservation compliance standards.
* Ensure that farmers who convert native prairie or rangeland to row crops are not eligible to receive income, production, insurance or conservation subsidies on those acres.
* Adequately fund the USDA technical staff — out of funds provided for programs covered by compliance provisions — needed to plan and implement the required conservation practices and to conduct annual inspections to certify that those practices are in place.

By Craig Cox, Andrew Hug and Nils Bruzelius
Also see a New York Times www.NYTimes.com editorial based on the study at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu2.html

Weathering the Storm: Measuring Household Willingness-to-Pay for Risk-Reduction in Post-Katrina New Orleans

http://tinyurl.com/6gvqv75

Abstract: The city of New Orleans suffered extensive damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Katrina overwhelmed the natural and built environment, inundating the city. As rebuilding proceeds, decisions on investment in protective measures will include the choice of lines of defense and the storm severity that design criteria should meet. An exhaustive list of protective measures has been studied in planning documents such as the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Technical Report (2009), with public comment solicited in town hall meetings. In this study we employ a different approach to examine public sentiment towards the selection and investment in protective measures. Our study utilizes a stated choice experiment with a stratified sample to investigate individuals’ willingness-to-pay for rebuilding New Orleans’ man-made storm defenses, restoring natural storm protection, and improving evacuation options through a modernized transportation system. We target residents of the New Orleans metropolitan area as well as other US citizens. Our results indicate that individuals are willing-to-pay for increased storm protection for New Orleans, but the allocation of these resources differs among residents of the New Orleans metro area and other US citizens.

...
Results suggest that levee flood protection designed to withstand a category 5 storm is the most salient rebuilding feature. New Orleans metro area residents are willing to pay (WTP) $301 per household for category 5 levee protection, while the average U.S. household is willing to pay more, an estimated $509. We speculate that this difference could reflect higher average income for the U.S. population relative to New Orleans residents, assuming flood protection is a normal good. Results of the combined model
indicate an average willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $449 per U.S. household for upgrading New Orleans levee system to withstand a Category 5 storm.


Surprisingly, WTP for coastal restoration was not statistically significant for the New Orleans or U.S. samples, but the combined model indicates an overall average economic value of $103 per household. We find evidence of significant variability in the utility attributable to coastal restoration across the U.S. and combined samples. A latent class model reveals that individuals that view coastal restoration as an important part of rebuilding New Orleans and have higher income are willing to pay $214 for coastal restoration, while those that do not see coastal restoration as important and have lower income are not willing to pay.
New Orleans metro area residents are willing to pay an estimated $137 per household for modernized transportation in the New Orleans metro area, while the average U.S. household is not willing to pay for this. Again, the latent class model reveals some differences in economic value across groups, with higher income U.S. households that view coastal restoration as important harboring a negative WTP for improvements in transportation. We speculate that this reflects a concern that improved infrastructure will encourage additional development in hazard prone areas like New Orleans. Nonetheless, results of the combined model indicate an average WTP of $103 per U.S. household for modernizing New Orleans’ transportation infrastructure.

by Craig Landry 1, Paul Hindsley 2, Okmyung Bin 1, Jamie B. Kruse 1, John C. Whitehead  3 and Kenneth Wilson
1. East Carolina University - Department of Economics
2. Eckerd College
3. Appalachian State University - Department of Economics
Southern Economic Journal via Southern Economic Association http://www.southerneconomic.org/

Volume 77, Issue 4; 2011; Pages 991-1013

http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0918.pdf

Keywords: storm surge mitigation, conjoint analysis, willingness to pay, Hurricane Katrina, flood control, stated choice, rebuilding New Orleans, recovery

WeatherBill: Is it the Riskiest Startup Ever?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/greentechmedia-all-content/~3/XuwQYxpDLoc/

WeatherBill says it will use probability to ensure farmers against the unexpected.

The question now is which side--certainty or chaos--will win.

The company, which received a $42 million injection from Google Ventures, Khosla Ventures, NEA and others today, has produced a product called Total Weather Insurance. In a nutshell, it exploits the magic of probabalistic computing, the underlying technology of Google and other search engines, to predict weather patterns and help farmers plan accordingly.

The company's algorithms continually examine streams of incoming weather data, past history, local conditions and other factors to devise a personalized insurance policy for a farmer. Then if the farmer experiences unusual amounts of rain or snow, or a lengthy drought, WeatherBill pays the claim automatically. (Last year we predicted Google would shift its green investments toward technologies that took advantage of its expertise in probability.). Founders David Friedberg and Siraj Khaliq came from Google.

The company charges $15 to $75 per acre per policy. Here's an example of how it might work. Let's say a farmer buys drought coverage for $10 an acre for the month of July. The farmer under this policy mighht get $100 per acre if rainfall is 2.31 inches less than normal, and $50 an acre if it is 1.15 inches less than normal. Premiums are calculated on the likelihood of loss.
...
Farmers might be able to hedge their losses against the weather, but it could become difficult for WeatherBill in some situations to properly value risks or even pay off claims. Expectations, exclusions, exceptions--an entire cultural dynamic for this type of service to be developed for it to succeed as well. Does this have to be regulated, state-by-state, by the Department of Insurance, or can it be classified as a different type of transaction?

It's a great idea, but Mother Nature sometimes plays with a stacked deck.

by Michael Kanellos
www.GreenTechMedia.com
February 28, 2011