July, 12 2017, 10:00am EDT

Published Study Identifies When Hundreds of Coastal Communities Will Face Inundation, Possible Retreat
Meeting Paris Agreement Goals Could Spare Many Communities from This Fate
WASHINGTON
More than 90 U.S. communities already face chronic inundation from rising seas caused by climate change, and the number could jump to nearly 170 communities in less than 20 years and as many as 670 by the end of the century, according to a study by analysts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published in the peer-reviewed journal Elementa today. The analysis is the first to look at the entire coastline of the lower 48 states and identify communities that will experience flooding so extensive and disruptive that it will require either expensive investments to fortify against rising seas or residents and businesses to prepare to abandon areas they call home. The analysis projects when communities can expect to see this degree of flooding and which cities and towns might avoid such flooding if the long-term temperature goals of the Paris climate agreement are achieved.
The study was published on the same day a 2,200 square mile iceberg--one of the largest ever recorded and nearly the size of Delaware--broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica, highlighting how quickly the planet is warming.
The analysis defines a threshold above which flooding becomes unmanageable for people's daily lives. The threshold--10 percent or more of a community's usable, non-wetland area is flooded at least 26 times per year or the equivalent of a flood every other week--was determined after consulting technical experts and residents of communities currently experiencing disruptive flooding. Once a community--delineated by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions--crosses this threshold, it is considered "chronically inundated." To put it in perspective, Miami Beach--widely considered a poster child for rising seas--has not yet reached the 10 percent threshold set in this analysis, but is already facing tough, costly choices.
"Some 90 communities, mostly in Louisiana and Maryland where the land is also sinking, are already facing chronic inundation from sea level rise," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and a report author. "As global temperature increases sea level rise, several hundred coastal communities are looking at the same kind of chronic flooding around the middle of the century--from beach vacation destinations like the Jersey Shore and the Gulf Coast of Florida to larger cities, including Boston, Galveston, Savannah and Fort Lauderdale. By late century, four of the five boroughs of New York City (excluding the Bronx) would be chronically inundated. We hope this analysis provides a wake-up call to coastal communities--and us as a nation--so we can see this coming and have time to prepare."
The UCS study assessed three sea level rise scenarios: The "low scenario" assumes carbon emissions decline steeply, sea level rise is driven primarily by ocean warming with very little ice loss, and warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius--in line with the primary goal of the Paris Agreement. The "intermediate scenario" projects carbon emissions peaking around mid-century and about 4 feet of sea level rise globally, with ice melting at a moderate rate that increases over time. In the "high scenario," emissions rise through the end of the century and ice melts faster to yield about 6.5 feet of sea level rise. Recent studies suggest the high scenario is increasingly plausible due to accelerating ice sheet loss. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released a substantially higher scenario.
The UCS analysis found:
- By 2035, about 170 communities--roughly twice as many as today--will face chronic flooding and possible retreat from affected areas under the intermediate or high sea level rise scenarios, with more than 100 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded.
- By 2060, about 270 communities will face chronic flooding and possible retreat from affected areas with intermediate sea level rise. This number jumps to 360 under the high scenario. About 40 percent of chronically inundated communities in either scenario would see at least half of their land flooded.
- By 2100, about 490 communities--including roughly 40 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts--will face chronic flooding and possible retreat with intermediate sea level rise, with nearly 300 seeing at least a quarter of their land chronically flooded. The number of communities jumps to about 670--including roughly 60 percent of all oceanfront communities on the East and Gulf Coasts--under the high scenario.
- Many communities that never reach the 10 percent threshold of chronic inundation this century--such as Annapolis, Md. and Long Beach, Calif.--are nevertheless expected to see chronic flooding of important areas and infrastructure.
The chronically inundated communities in 2035--mainly on the Jersey Shore, mainland side of North Carolina's Pamlico Sound, southern Louisiana, and Maryland's Eastern Shore--are mostly clustered together in places already experiencing regular tidal flooding, or neighboring such places. By 2060, entirely new stretches of coastline become chronically inundated under both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios, including the greater Boston area and northern New Jersey, as well as additional communities along the northern coast of Texas, and Louisiana and Florida's Gulf Coasts.
"By 2060, hundreds of U.S. coastal communities--cities and towns of all kinds--face chronic inundation," said Kristy Dahl, a report author and climate scientist consultant to UCS. "In Texas, for example, bigger cities and industrial centers like Galveston and Sabine Pass become chronically inundated by mid-century. So do many tourist destinations, such as Sanibel and Captiva Islands in Florida, Hilton Head in South Carolina, Ocean City in Maryland, and more than a dozen towns along the Jersey Shore."
Chronic flooding becomes a problem for many major cities in the coming decades, but at the end of the century with the high scenario, that number tops 50 communities--both big cities and large county subdivisions--with populations over 100,000, including Boston, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, and four of the five boroughs of New York City. Residents in these cities will need to grapple with the question of whether to adapt or relocate. And while the West Coast was previously able to escape mostly unscathed, by 2100 the San Francisco Bay and greater Los Angeles areas join the ranks of the chronically inundated.
The communities that will be affected have three basic strategies to cope with rising seas: defend, accommodate and retreat. Some East and Gulf Coast communities are already employing defensive and accommodation measures such as seawalls, tide gates, levees, elevated homes and large-scale pumping systems. Efforts to accommodate or keep out water may stall the inundation projected by this analysis, but often at great cost and for a limited time. That means hundreds of communities along the coasts, from Maine to the state of Washington, will be forced to make difficult choices about how much to invest in flooded areas versus when to retreat from them. Likewise, residents in affected areas will be forced to decide their tipping point for remaining at home or relocating.
"By making sound decisions soon, communities can prepare for chronic inundation in the time they have," said Shana Udvardy, report author and climate preparedness specialist at UCS. "This could help them avoid serious losses not only of homes, schools, businesses, and other infrastructure, but also of regional history, sense of place, local culture, and the community's way of life."
The analysis also highlights that some Americans will be harder hit than others. By using a previously published index of socioeconomic vulnerability, the study identified that nearly 60 communities facing chronic inundation in the next 20 years are also contending with social and economic challenges that may leave them with fewer resources to plan or adapt, and thus exposed to disproportionate harms. While equitable solutions to chronic inundation will require inclusion of all voices, people of color and low-income people are too often excluded from decisions affecting their neighborhoods and communities, and face significant hurdles accessing federal and state programs, as well as funding.
The analysis makes a number of policy recommendations to help coastal communities at risk of chronic inundation, including phasing out policies that encourage risky coastal development, and bolstering existing policies or enacting new ones that would bring about investments to make communities more resilient to sea level rise. But it's achieving the long- term temperature goals established in the Paris Agreement and limiting global ice loss that could have the greatest effect. Holding warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century could spare between roughly 200 and 380 U.S. coastal communities, including nearly 50 major U.S. cities and many more cities worldwide, from chronic flooding and possible retreat, depending on the amount of sea level rise.
"Meeting the long term goals of the Paris Agreement would offer coastal communities facing chronic flooding their best chance to limit the harms of sea level rise," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at UCS. "Despite President Trump's attempts to undermine near-term federal action on climate change, other countries as well as U.S. states, cities, businesses and citizens are showing firm resolve to fulfill the promise of Paris. They understand that if we fail to limit warming, we're committing a great many people to a future of flooding and inundation, and the hard choices and significant costs that come with it."
To view the report PDF, click here.
The Elementa journal article can be found by clicking here.
To view a spreadsheet that sorts the chronically inundated communities by state, click here. To see the communities sorted by year, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The various tabs allow you to explore the amount of land area flooded, and the communities that are affected by the rising seas--including the ones that may have fewer resources to cope with chronic inundation, and ones that could avoid such flooding if the Paris Agreement's temperature goals were achieved. By scrolling, you will see buttons for each time frame examined in the report for both the intermediate and high sea level rise scenarios. As you zoom in, the maps become more detailed. You can also click on a specific community for more details about it.
For state-specific fact sheets, community case studies, Spanish language materials, blogs and a video, click here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
'Authoritarianism in Action': Trump Orders DOJ Probe of Democratic Donation Platform ActBlue
Rep. Jamie Raskin called Trump's memorandum "the kind of edict you'd expect from a power-mad dictator in a Banana Republic."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday launched his latest attack on political opponents by directing the Justice Department to investigate ActBlue, a critical fundraising platform for Democrats and progressive organizations.
The order came in the form of a memorandum that the president signed shortly before heading to his Virginia golf course for a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser for MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC that has been accused of receiving illegal straw-donor contributions.
In his memorandum, Trump raised "concerns" about straw donations—when a donor makes a contribution through another person or entity—and directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees, and to take all appropriate actions to enforce the law."
Trump's memorandum cites a recent report from House Republicans accusing ActBlue of "a lack of commitment to stopping fraud." ActBlue and House Democrats rejected the GOP findings at the time, calling the document "less of a report and more of a desperate effort to change the subject."
"This president, with his approval ratings underwater and sinking like a stone, is desperately seeking to undermine his political opposition by cutting off their access to funding."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that Trump's broadside against ActBlue marks a similar attempt to divert attention from the president's own corruption.
"Donald Trump pocketed millions of dollars in unlawful payments from foreign governments during his first term, his administration shut down a probe into whether his campaign received an illegal and urgent $10 million bribe from Egypt, and foreign nationals are spending millions on Trump-owned cryptocurrencies right now in apparent hopes of buying their way out of federal criminal investigations through undisclosed payments," Raskin said in a statement.
"The Trump administration has also systematically dismantled crime-fighting efforts at the Department of Justice aimed at foreign corruption of our politics and actually announced its indifference to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," he continued. "So it's rich indeed for Americans to read now that Trump has launched a big initiative to 'crack down on foreign influence' in American politics with one purpose—crippling the fundraising platform of his political opponents."
"Today's presidential decree targeting the campaign infrastructure of the Democratic Party with precisely zero evidence of wrongdoing is the kind of edict you'd expect from a power-mad dictator in a Banana Republic. This president, with his approval ratings underwater and sinking like a stone, is desperately seeking to undermine his political opposition by cutting off their access to funding."
Since its inception in 2004, ActBlue has raised nearly $17 billion through its platform, and it is widely used by Democratic candidates and progressive groups, including organizations critical of the Democratic leadership such as Justice Democrats. (Common Dreams is among the organizations that use ActBlue to process donations.)
According to ActBlue, nearly 15 million Democratic donors have saved their payment information on the platform.
In a statement, ActBlue said that "today's escalation by the White House is blatantly unlawful and needs to be seen for what it is: Donald Trump's latest front in his campaign to stamp out all political, electoral, and ideological opposition."
"ActBlue will immediately pursue all legal avenues to protect and defend itself," the organization added.
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, called Trump's investigation order "authoritarianism in action." In a joint statement, Martin and the heads of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Association said that "Trump's memorandum targeting ActBlue is designed to undermine democratic participation—and it's no wonder why."
"He knows Americans are already fed up with his chaotic agenda that is driving the economy off a cliff, so he's trying to block lawful grassroots donations from supporters giving just $5 or $10 to candidates who oppose him while further empowering the corrupt billionaires who already control his administration," the Democratic leaders said. "As Democrats, we're unified in standing with the millions of Americans who are fighting back against Trump's dangerous abuses of power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Signs Executive Order to Advance 'Deeply Dangerous' Deep-Sea Mining
"The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it," one campaigner warned.
Apr 24, 2025
Amid global calls for a ban on deep-sea mining to protect marine ecosystems, U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to advance the risky practice and "restore American dominance in offshore critical minerals and resources."
"The broad order avoids a direct confrontation with the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority and seeks essentially to jump-start the mining of U.S. waters as part of a push to offset China's sweeping control of the critical minerals industry," notedReuters, which had previewed the measure aimed at attaining nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements.
"The International Seabed Authority—created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not ratified—has for years been considering standards for deep-sea mining in international waters, although it has yet to formalize them due to unresolved differences over acceptable levels of dust, noise, and other factors from the practice," the agency reported.
Trump's order directs Cabinet members including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick—whose department oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—to expedite the permit process and work on various related reports.
"Authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
Deep-sea mining is opposed by over 30 countries as well as academics and advocacy groups worldwide. Among them is Greenpeace USA, whose campaigner Arlo Hemphill said Thursday that "authorizing deep-sea mining outside international law is like lighting a match in a room full of dynamite—it threatens ecosystems, global cooperation, and U.S. credibility all at once."
"We condemn this administration's attempt to launch this destructive industry on the high seas in the Pacific by bypassing the United Nations process," Hemphill declared. "This is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry."
"But this executive order is not the start of deep-sea mining. Everywhere governments have tried to start deep-sea mining, they have failed. This will be no different," he added. "We call on the international community to stand against this unacceptable undermining of international cooperation by agreeing to a global moratorium on deep-sea mining. The United States government has no right to unilaterally allow an industry to destroy the common heritage of humankind, and rip up the deep sea for the profit of a few corporations."
No exaggeration, deep sea mining could cause the massive collapse of the entire deep sea ecosystem and food chain. This is an existential risk to every person on this planet. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/c...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) April 24, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Ocean Conservancy vice president for external affairs Jeff Watters also blasted the move, saying that "this executive order flies in the face of NOAA's mission. NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it."
"Areas of the U.S. seafloor where test mining took place over 50 years ago still haven't fully recovered," Watters pointed out. "The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn't restricted to the ocean floor: It will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it. Evidence tells us that areas targeted for deep-sea mining often overlap with important fisheries, raising serious concerns about the impacts on the country's $321 billion fishing industry."
He highlighted that "NOAA is already being threatened by this administration's unprecedented cuts. NOAA is the eyes and ears for our water and air. NOAA provides Americans with accessible and accurate weather forecasts; it tracks hurricanes and tsunamis; it responds to oil spills; it keeps seafood on the table; and so much more. Forcing the agency to carry out deep-sea mining permitting while these essential services are slashed will only harm our ocean and our country."
"It's not just our country this executive order would harm: This action has far-reaching implications beyond the U.S.," Watters added, warning that by unilaterally allowing deep-sea mining, "the administration is opening a door for other countries to do the same—and all of us, and the ocean we all depend on, will be worse off for it."
As The New York Timesreported:
The executive order could pave the way for the Metals Company, a prominent seabed mining company, to receive an expedited permit from NOAA to actively mine for the first time. The publicly traded company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, disclosed in March that it would ask the Trump administration through a U.S. subsidiary for approval to mine in international waters. The company has already spent more than $500 million doing exploratory work.
"We have a boat that's production-ready," said Gerard Barron, the company's chief executive, in an interview on Thursday. "We have a means of processing the materials in an allied friendly partner nation. We're just missing the permit to allow us to begin."
In response to the late March disclosure—which came during International Seabed Authority negotiations—Louisa Casson, senior campaigner for Greenpeace International, said that "this is another of the Metals Company's pathetic ploys and an insult to multilateralism. It shows that a moratorium on deep-sea mining is more urgently needed than ever. It also proves that the company's CEO Gerard Barron's plans never focused on solutions for the climate catastrophe."
"The Metals Company is desperate and now is encouraging a breach of customary international law by announcing their intent to mine the international seabed through the United States' Deep-Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act," the camapigner asserted. "This comes after the Metals Company has spent years exerting immense pressure on the International Seabed Authority to try and force governments to allow mining in the international seabed—the common heritage of humankind."
Casson stressed that "states, civil society, scientists, companies, and Indigenous communities continue to resist these efforts. Having tried and failed to pressure the international community to meet their demands, this reckless announcement is a slap in the face to international cooperation."
Less than a week later, the Norwegian deep-sea mining company Loke Marine Minerals declared bankruptcy—which Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a campaigner for Greenpeace Nordic, noted came "on the same day that we shut down a deep-sea mining conference in Bergen."
The Norwegian government in December halted plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the Arctic Ocean, which Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, had called "a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and... a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Doctors Without Borders Says Trump Aid Cuts 'Are a Human-Made Disaster' for Millions
"We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
Apr 24, 2025
As the Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, dramatically slashes U.S. humanitarian assistance, the international medical charity Doctors Without Borders warned Thursday that the cuts are already "having devastating consequences for people who rely upon aid" across the Global South.
"The U.S. has long been the leading supporter of global health and humanitarian programs, responsible for around 40% of all related funding," Doctors Without Borders, known by its French acronym MSF, said in a statement. "These U.S. investments have helped improve the health and well-being of communities around the globe—and totaled less than 1% of the annual federal budget."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts."
However, with the Trump administration slashing funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts by 90%, including for programs that fed and provided healthcare for millions of people and fought diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, MSF USA CEO Avril Benoît said there will be "more preventable deaths and untold suffering around the world."
"These sudden cuts by the Trump administration are a human-made disaster for the millions of people struggling to survive amid wars, disease outbreaks, and other emergencies," Benoît warned. "We are an emergency response organization, but we have never seen anything like this massive disruption to global health and humanitarian programs."
"The risks are catastrophic, especially since people who rely on foreign assistance are already among the most vulnerable in the world," she added.
Although MSF received no U.S. government funding, the group noted that "we work closely with other health and humanitarian organizations to deliver vital services, and many of our activities involve programs that have been disrupted due to funding cuts."
"It will be much more difficult and costly to provide care when so many ministries of health have been affected globally and there are fewer community partners overall," the group said. "We will also be facing fewer places to refer patients for specialized services, as well as shortages and stockouts due to hamstrung supply chains."
"It's shocking to see the U.S. abandon its leadership role in advancing global health and humanitarian efforts," Benoît said. "U.S. assistance has been a lifeline for millions of people... We urge the administration and Congress to maintain commitments to support critical global health and humanitarian aid."
The MSF warning comes after the United Nations World Food Program said earlier this month that the Trump cuts to lifesaving aid programs "could amount to a death sentence for millions of people facing extreme hunger and starvation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular