Eco-nomics: Facing similar flood threat, two counties respond
Published 1:30 am Saturday, August 9, 2025
By Paul Roberts / For The Herald
Last week the Herald published an editorial highlighting Snohomish County’s climate resiliency planning effort (“Building climate resiliency with or without the EPA,” The Herald, Aug. 2) The plan evaluates six key impacts of climate vulnerability: extreme heat, storms, flooding, sea level rise, wildfires and reduced snowpack. It will make recommendations addressing: planning for climate impacts, response and recovery, collaboration among local governments, investments in infrastructure, and protection and restoration of natural systems.
The plan, expected to be completed by the end of the year, is a much-needed adaptation strategy designed to “identify and address climate related challenges” and “inform disaster preparedness, recovery, adaptation, and mitigation plans.”
By contrast, the deadly July 4 flooding in Kerr County, Texas provides valuable lessons for adaptation and emergency management strategies.
A tale of two counties, the events in Kerr County can inform Snohomish County’s efforts.
Kerr County is known as “Flash Flood Alley.” The Guadalupe River has a long history of flash floods and it has been called “the most dangerous river valley in the United States.” However, this event was unusual even for Kerr County. Chris Stubbing, executive director of the Texas Floodplain Management Association said: “Mother Nature set a new standard.”
A lot of attention has been focused on the perceived slow response of the National Weather Service, including the departure of Paul Yura, the meteorologist in charge of warning coordination. Mr. Yura took an unplanned early retirement in response to DOGE budget cuts and was not replaced. But one must travel upstream in time to get the rest of the story.
The Associated Press reported federal regulators repeatedly granted appeals to revise flood maps, including removing Camp Mystic buildings not out of danger but off the 100-year flood maps in 2013 and again in 2019 and 2020. This allowed building expansion into the dangerous flood plain. The revised maps included the buildings devastated by the flood where at least 27 campers and counselors died.
Kerr County voters chose not to implement flood warning systems, deciding they were too costly. Local ballot measures to install such systems were defeated. Local cell phone service is unreliable and was ineffective as a warning system.
Local experts said the July 4 flood was far more severe than a 100-year event envisioned by FEMA maps. In the absence of a warning system, flood waters moved quickly in the middle of the night, catching many off guard.
Like Kerr County, Snohomish County’s flood risks are among the highest in the nation, though flash floods are rare. That’s where the similarity ends.
Snohomish County has an outstanding record prohibiting building in flood plains, developing early warning and evacuation measures, building resilient infrastructure, protecting natural systems such as wetlands, and coordinating responses with emergency management. This work is not limited to floods. It also includes wildfires and other disasters. The climate resiliency planning effort is the next step in adaptation planning, building on the body of work already in place.
Lessons from Kerr County are relevant and timely. Some key take-aways include:
• Nature has new standards for extreme events. Climate change is supersizing disasters such as heat, floods, and fires; a new abnormal. Statistical frameworks used to measure frequency and intensity of disasters are no longer reliable predictors of future risks, protecting property or designing new infrastructure. New frameworks and strategies are needed.
• The cavalry is not coming. The federal government — FEMA, NOAA, NWS, EPA — is in retreat. They are shifting responsibilities to local and state governments.
• Mother nature does not have a poker face. Every disaster — heat, fire and floods — has warning signs. It is critical to identify them early and act on the data and information.
• New standards for risk management and liability will reflect changing climate data and events. Insurance companies and courts are taking notice.
Integrating emergency management with operational departments is critical for climate adaptation and resiliency. Disaster response relies on communication and evacuation plans. Snohomish County is already building this into the Resiliency Plan, including emergency management, public works, surface water management, health and other departments.
Adaptation is expensive, but not as expensive as disaster recovery. With the federal government in retreat, local governments and local communities will need to look at new sources of funding for planning, emergency management, infrastructure, and disaster response. Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act is one potential source of funding.
Snohomish County’s Climate Resiliency Plan is an excellent next step in developing local mitigation strategies for climate change. The public is well served by this work.
Paul Roberts is retired and lives in Everett. His career spans five decades in infrastructure, economics and environmental policy including former Chair of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board and advising Washington cities on climate change.
Eco-nomics
“Eco-nomics” is a series of articles exploring issues at the intersection of climate change and economics. Climate change (global warming) is caused by greenhouse gas emissions — carbon dioxide and methane chiefly — generated by human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels and agricultural practices. Global warming poses an existential threat to the planet. Successfully responding to this threat requires urgent actions — clear plans and actionable strategies — to rapidly reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate-influenced events.
The Eco-nomics series focuses on mitigation and adaptation strategies viewed through the twin perspectives of science and economics. Find links to the series thus far at tinyurl.com/HeraldEco-nomics.
