Georgia drought on my mind

The American Southeast has been baking and shriveling through drought conditions not seen for at least a century. With much larger populations and more land devoted to agriculture and timber, the demands on water supplies have grown proportionately.

Now northern Georgia is facing what may someday be regarded as "classic drought adaptation." What Georgians do over the next year may provide a model of how to (or how not to) change habits, choices and perhaps a regional economy to deal with a radically different definition of "normal."

Today's New York Times story, "Drought-Stricken South Facing Tough Choices," describes " an emergency so serious that some cities are just months away from running out of water."

Officials in the central North Carolina town of Siler City estimate that without rain, they are 80 days from draining the Lower Rocky River Reservoir, which supplies water for the town’s 8,200 people.

In the Atlanta metropolitan area, which has more than four million people, worst-case analyses show that the city’s main source of water, Lake Lanier, could be drained dry in 90 to 121 days.

Typical of our culture of denial, many people are now asking how things could have gotten so bad with no warning or efforts to prepare for it. The Georgia state climatologist called drought "the Rodney Dangerfield of natural disasters." It doesn't get the respect and attention of hurricanes and floods until it reaches extreme conditions where radical conservation measures are demanded.

Local businesses are suffering, especially those that attract customers to what were once lakeside locations.

The lake keeps sinking further and further away from the Little River Bar and Grill, costing the owner a quarter of his customers. As a result, he was forced to layoff four employees on Monday -- and that may not be the end.

"We're trying to hold on to everybody we can," said Ridley. "But you can only pay payroll for so long and continue to operate. So I guess there will be more layoffs down the road."

The Chairman of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce is calling for state legislators to enact a new water plan, including creation of more reservoirs. Those won't solve the current problems, though. There are no wet periods in the winter forecast to offer relief.

Meanwhile, the University of Georgia has created a Drought Website to report on emergency conservation measures, the status of agriculture and condition like the rising number of mosquitos and the accompanying threat of West Nile disease.

A science teacher simplifies your risk management decision

Leave it to a guy who teaches science, probably to high schoolers, to clarify the risk assessment process for taking action on global warming, or as he posits the threat, "climate destabilization." If you've been reading my blog for while, you'll have noticed that I've tried to frame climate adaptation in much the same way, but this guy nails it.


How It All Ends - Watch more free videos

Obama gets it right

Barak Obama is the first - and so far only - to set the bar for capping carbon emissions where it needs to be. We'll see if any of the other viable candidates (Clinton and Edwards) can match it. Gristmill's David Roberts blogs it here. Joe Romm blogs it here. Obama's campaign description of it is here.

Sea Level Rise in a Countywide Plan

In a previous article I questioned whether my home county of Marin was looking closely enough at the impacts of sea level rise on the local built environment including homes, businesses and transportation routes. After having read through the latest draft of our new Countywide Plan, I feel a bit more at ease. I'm not sure if I had much to do with the incorporation of these statements, having grilled one of the county planners about the department's consideration of this elephant under the carpet, but at least the Plan acknowledges the looming danger. It does not, though, make any definitive declarations of zoning changes or plans for levee development. Such changes, when sea level rise is regarded as a conceptual future risk, would no doubt create a political firestorm with business owners, homeowners and Marin's lucrative real estate industry.

Again, I'll go on record to say that nothing in the Plan acknowledges the potential of amplifying feedbacks to speed up sea level rise beyond one meter by the year 2100. The next iteration of the Plan will surely include a reassessment. So here are a few excerpts from the Countywide Plan that other county governments might be interested in seeing:

The Role of Science
Achieving and maintaining sustainability requires keeping up with science. At times, land use and other public policy decisions operate within an institutional framework that does not reflect current scientific information. This is understandable as cutting edge science is always on the move. For example, the multiple causes and effects of climate change, described below, are now well established and current land use decision-making needs to reflect the link between fossil fuel consumption and sea level rise. Keeping up with science is an underlying principle of this Plan. Towards that end, employing evidencebased strategies combined with up-to-date scientific knowledge will provide sound guidelines for taking care of the land, our communities, and the generations that will follow us.
***
Are threats from environmental hazards increasing?
Many structures lie in hazardous areas, and land for new development may be even more hazardprone. With most easily buildable land already developed, construction increasingly is being proposed on the remaining marginal lots with difficult access and steep hillsides which are subject to slope instability and are vulnerable to rapid changes in fire behavior. Bluff erosion is threatening coastal homes built when bluff edges seemed safely distant. Vegetation that can fuel fires has increased because
natural fires have been suppressed, and residential development continues to encroach on wildlands. Proliferation of impermeable surfaces, alteration of natural drainage patterns, and the effects of climate change have increased the frequency and severity of flood events, and estimates indicate that sea level could rise as much as 36 inches by 2100. Maps 2-9 through 2-15 are utilized by the County in reviewing land use activities proposed in areas with hazard potential.
***
EH-3.3 Monitor Environmental Change. Consider cumulative impacts to hydrological conditions, including alterations in drainage patterns and the potential for a rise in sea level, when processing development applications in watersheds with floodin or inundation potential.

With increases in sea level due to global warming, flooding is predicted to increase in the future. Locating development in flood-prone areas can expose structures to damage and create risks for inhabitants in the immediate and surrounding areas.
***
EH-3.k Anticipate Sea Level Rise. Work with the U.S. Geological Survey, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and other monitoring agencies to track bay and ocean levels; utilize estimates for mean sea level rise to map potential areas subject to future inundation (including by updating information about watershed channel conditions and levee elevations); and amend the Development Code to incorporate construction standards consistent with the policies of BCDS’s Bay Plan for any areas subject to increased flooding from a rise in sea level.
EH-3.l Limit Seawall Barriers. Limit repair, replacement, or construction of coastal sea walls and erosion barriers consistent with Local Coastal Program requirements, and as demonstrated to be necessary to protect persons and properties from rising sea level.

EH-3.n Plan for Sea Level Rise. Consider sea level rise in future countywide and community plan efforts. Consider revising Marin County Development Code standards for new construction and substantial remodels to limit building or require elevated buildings and infrastructure or other applicable mitigations in areas that may be threatened by future sea level rise as shown on maps released by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in February 2007.
EH-3.o Seek Levee Assistance. Pursue funding for levee reconstruction in those areas threatened by sea level rise, including but not limited to Santa Venetia.

Transition Towns - localized sustainability

One of the smartest things a community can do to prepare for the impacts of climate change is to strengthen its local systems for:

• disseminating current information
• dealing with emergency situations
• developing sustainable energy, food and water resources
• being as self sufficient as possible

This may sound radical today, when practically every community is reliant on food, goods, water, fuel and power brought in from long distances, but the onset of climate change puts these dependencies on a razor's edge. Extreme weather, rising seas and skyrocketing oil prices are likely to isolate your city, your town, your community and make all of the above abs0lutely necessary.

There's a budding movement afoot in England called Transition Towns. Its founder, an Irishman named Rob Hopkins, is now leading a process called Transition Town Totnes, which he describes as "the UK's first town exploring how to prepare for a carbon constrained, energy lean world."

Transition towns prepare themselves for the day when fuels for transportation become so expensive that imported goods will be unaffordable and local goods and services will have to take their place. A town that has gone through such a transition will grow most of its own food, produce its own essential goods, even use its own currency in order to retain local prosperity. It
will "power down," which is learning to live with less power, and generating power on a hyperlocal level. This adaptation is what Hopkins calls "resilience" - the ability to withstand the shocks that will come with climate change and unaffordable oil.

Transition towns will invest today in teaching their residents the skills required to grow their own food, compost their organic wastes, produce goods that require minimal energy to recycle, and build infrastructure such as greenhouses that will strengthen their sustainability. In Totnes, citizens are conducting "oil vulnerability audits," where business leaders examine the impact of rising oil prices on their as-usual practices. "How will you be impacted when oil is $80/barrel? $100/barrel? $120/barrel? Land is being allocated for planting "food forests" including nut and fruit trees that serve the double purposes of absorbing carbon and providing food.

The town of Willits, in Mendocino County, California, is embarking on a similar path to that of Totnes, UK. Willits Economic LocaLization (WELL) states its mission as:

To foster the creation of a local, sustainable economy in the Willits area by partnering with other organizations to watch for opportunities and vulnerabilities, incubate and coordinate projects and facilitate dialogue, action and education within our community.

Like Transition Towns, it is based on an alliance of community leaders who meet regularly and cover the various aspects required to attain local self-sufficiency and reduce dependency on oil. Here in Marin County, the citizens of West Marin ("over the hill" from the much more developed towns of east Marin) are on a simliar path, with the town of Fairfax providing the best example of a sustainable movement.

Good article on flood control

Inland flooding is a natural process in most areas of the world, but human settlement and construction along with attempts to out-engineer Nature have complicated the situation. This article was written about a location in India, but refers to the recent flooding experiences in England, France and Belgium as examples of the consequences of building along river banks.

Flood control requires an integrated understanding of hydrology and ecology of the Valvonti river basin. Controlling such floods in future needs joint monitoring and management of Valvonti’s inter-state catchments. There are natural and man-made reasons for the recent flash floods. Natural reasons may include higher rainfall intensity, bottlenecks in the silted streams feeding the tributaries and truncation of the normal flow channels. Man-made reasons could be several but the systematic destruction of the steep slopes of the Virdi hills by plantation owners in the catchment area of Valvonti is a major cause. The floods might have lasted for a few hours but the intensity and consequent damages were far greater this time than in the past. In Keri, Sattari such flash floods were experienced for the first time in 60 years, so the people were caught by surprise, especially as they took place in the night. The government thinks that longer, taller and stronger RCC embankments will control the floods. But these are of limited use if the flood water carries a heavy sediment load and acquires a higher momentum downstream. Embankments which fragment the natural flood plain could actually cause more havoc in the downstream areas.

More Questions About Insurance

Three years ago, a year before Katrina, Florida got the wake-up call that began a transformation in the way homes there are insured against catastrophe.

On the Insurance Journal site, Cecil Pearce, vice president of the Southeast region for the American Insurance Association, put it this way:

Hurricane Andrew, with $15 billion in insured losses -- threw Florida's property insurance market into chaos, many carriers discovered they had miscalculated their exposure to large weather-related losses.

Many homeowners faced higher rates and fewer options for coverage. Insurers tried to spread their risk over larger areas with less hurricane exposure. Pearce describes “A severe imbalance between the need for insurance and the industry's capacity to provide it.”

But Andrew did not slow the settling of Hurricane Alley and no laws were passed to limit such exposure. After all, Florida’s coastline is its main attraction for new residents and the travel industry. So now insurance is provided as a shared risk between insurance companies, the state and the homeowner. This is not, however, a comprehensive answer to the risk of storm damage and destruction. Another Andrew – given the continued build-up along the coast – could still bankrupt all of the provisional insurance sources.

For everyone whose home is at risk now or may be in the future due to the impacts of climate change, following the thinking of insurance providers is key for several reasons:

• They are experts in risk assessment. On the ground, that’s what we all wonder – “What are the odds that I’m going to be affected by the forecasted impacts?”
• People pay insurers so that they can recover or rebuild lost property due to catastrophe. Policy holders trust that they’re covered in case Nature clobbers their homes with wind, fire, flood or earthquake. Insurers, though, are constantly re-evaluating the risks associated with that coverage.
• Policy holders may not be covered as well as they think. Those re-evaluations are leading to cancellation of policies in many locations where the risk is seen as too great for continued coverage.
• We all need to know how to respond to the new reality where our locations disqualify us from insurance coverage or when high deductibles and premiums force us to make the choice of whether or not to pay for policies.

Government at both the state and federal levels understands that any region where insurance coverage for expected catastrophe is denied or is unaffordable to the residents is a ticking time bomb. We have the aftermath of Katrina to look at as an example.

Assuming that you can afford the insurance for your most likely disaster, you’d follow the advice of someone like Liz Pullium Weston in this column on MSN’s MoneyCentral page. Read it and you’ll see that unless you can afford to put plenty of money away in your own insurance reserve, there are no guarantees that your coverage will replace your losses.

This is where FEMA would be expected to step in. I know; hold your laughter. But more effective federal support for disaster insurance is being discussed in Congress, which brings up a moral question.

As the New York Times opened its lead editorial yesterday:

There is impeccable logic to the argument that taxpayers should not be made to pay for the risks incurred by people who choose to live along a hurricane-prone coast or atop a major geological fault.

It then noted that 50 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of a coast, and thus are vulnerable directly or indirectly to the damage of hurricanes and sea level rise. At some point, as climate change advances and shows itself, many of those residents may no longer be able to buy or afford insurance.

Since Hurricane Katrina — which caused a record $50 billion in insured losses — private insurers have jacked up premiums as much as they can and, when barred from raising prices, dropped coverage of riskier homes.

Many of these companies, which have turned denying valid claims into an art form, deserve little sympathy and certainly no government subsidies. Still, taxpayers would end up picking up the tab through federal disaster relief if millions of homeowners lost their insurance or decided to drop it due to high premiums.

If, as the editorial continues, the reality remains that we all stand to pay for uninsured losses one way or another, it seems that insurance companies may be let off the hook and relieved of their own risk. That would seem to also relieve them of the responsibility to deliver objective risk assessment - the single most valuable product of their expertise.